The USA

Abstract

This chapter focuses on how national culture relates to emotional labor and work attitudes among public service workers in the USA. Discussion explores public management, views of public service, and the influence of national culture as it relates to emotional labor. Survey results show that job satisfaction, burnout, and personal fulfillment are all affected when employees must suppress how they actually feel in order to perform their jobs. This finding suggests that in the USA, public service workers struggle with the incongruity between work responsibilities that require them to emotively pretend when their feelings do not align with the expression they are expected to display, and a national identity where self-expression and individualism are highly valued. Employees are likely to experience emotional exhaustion as a result of the tension between a national culture that values individualism and job duties that prevent authentic emotive expression. Conversely, engaging in authentic emotive expression is rewarding. It has a significant, positive effect on job satisfaction and personal fulfillment.

The cultural context of a nation affects public service delivery and it also affects how public servants view and experience their work. Although regional, ethnic, and religious differences account for variation among different segments of the population, foundational national values serve as a common substrate for all (Hofstede1980). This is why national culture is an important factor if we are to understand public service, how it is performed, its emotive load, and its consequences for those whose careers are dedicated to it. Discussion turns first to a description of the American character, followed by a comparison of how the USA ranks among other nations on dimensions of national culture. After the context has been set, a discussion of the public service context in the USA is provided, along with recent reforms. Then, survey findings of public service workers are presented.

The USA

The history of the USA is one of immigrants seeking a land where personal liberty, freedom, and individual opportunity are valued. In the USA, “as the world’s most prominent example of people composed of immigrants,” there are examples of both assimilation and retention of group identities (Hofstedeetal.2010, 45). As embraced by the US Constitution, the nation is founded on the ideals of individual freedoms, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and opportunity. These values are repeated in the pledge of allegiance to the flag, the national anthem, political rhetoric, and political socialization in early childhood education.

The USA is one of 23 countries and 9 dependent territories in North America, with 80% of the North American landmass belonging to Canada and the USA (Ramos 2018). Bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico and the Gulf of Mexico to the south, the eastern USA is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean and the western USA is bordered by the Pacific Ocean. The northernmost state of the USA (Alaska) borders the shorelines of the Arctic Ocean, the Chukchi Sea, and the Bering Sea. The USA comprises 50 states and several island territories, and as of February 1, 2019, the US Census Bureau estimated the population to be 328,374,269 (2019).

The early days of the USA were heavily influenced by British rule. Declaring its independence from Great Britain in 1776, the USA adopted its constitution in 1787. As one contemplates the founding of the nation, it is noteworthy that the first formal document produced by Americans was entitled the Declaration of Independence. The word “independence” denoted cutting ties with Great Britain but also foretold the cultural emphasis on individual independence. America would soon adopt a Bill of Rights, in the form of ten constitutional amendments, written to ensure individual rights to citizens and to set limits on the power of government.

Those who crafted the Constitution put systems in place that made governing into more of a social contract with citizens than into a power-wielding construction. Implementing checks and balances between the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, and preserving individual rights, meant that government would be slow to act and would be restricted in its powers (Stillman2010). Attitudes opposed to strong government and in favor of citizen-led initiatives meant that public administration was treated as less important than was the establishment of commerce. Not until the industrial revolution of the late 1800s did attention turn to the machinery of governing and what it takes to “run a constitution,” as Woodrow Wilson wrote in 1887. A growing economy, population growth, and migration from farms to cities called for an increase in government services, the necessity for a national income tax, and the organizational infrastructure to administer services.

One of the earliest analyses of the constitutional roots and authority of government comes from the writings of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay who collectively authored what has come to be called “The Federalist Papers,” a collection of 85 essays written between 1787 and 1788 to explain the provisions of the Constitution and to persuade Americans to ratify it (Hamilton et al. 1857/2009). James Madison was a staunch supporter of representative government as critical to a republican form of government, to which he was deeply committed. Alexander Hamilton was an ardent supporter of a strong executive and became Secretary of the Treasury, one of the few departments in the newly formed government. Much of his effort was placed on developing economic structures that remain today, such as a centralized banking system, the US mint, and regulatory, tariff, and taxation policies (Green 2002). Hamilton believed that government was necessary to protect the individual rights of the citizens. His commitment to public administration as fundamental to democracy aligned with his belief that strong institutional structures were necessary to ensure the stability of the government. In order to ensure a thriving economy, Hamilton was also convinced that attention to commerce was essential to the survival of the government. The seeds planted then have grown into what is now ensconced in American political culture as the importance of business, entrepreneurship, and trade. According to Green, “Hamilton’s public administration would bear the distinctive marks of a republic bent on commerce” (Green 2002, 543). These early points of view remain today in the form of restrained government, protection of individual rights (Lucaites 1997), and attention to economic prosperity.

For Hamilton writing in the late 1700s and Woodrow Wilson writing in the late 1800s, public administration was the mechanism whereby political life would be realized. The executive functions necessary to support the loosely knit governing structures were designed to be the true strength of the system. Constitutional federalism intended that no branch of government would be so powerful as to seize power over the other branches. Institutional stability was the key to preserving the nation and sustaining the Constitution. Although each branch of government was intended to have separate authority, the dynamic tension between them was designed to maintain an equilibrium. Through leadership and appointment power, each of the institutions has adapted to shifting political winds with a stability that exceeds expectations of many during those founding days. Fast forward to the twenty-first century, and it is obvious that contemporary American culture continues to reflect the values of the founders.

Measuring National Culture

There is a rich literature on national culture. See, for example, Bond (1988), House et al. (2004), and Hofstedeetal. (2010). Most notable among these is the work by Geert Hofstede. Started in the 1970s, his work began as a values survey of IBM employees and later developed into the Values Survey Modules, a five-dimensional model (Hofstede1980; Hofstedeetal.2010) that substantially contributed to the well-known World Values Survey (WVS) databank established in the early 1980s (Buss 1989; Inglehart et al. 1998; Inglehartand Abramson1994; Hofstedeetal.2010).

National culture is a composite of influences, ranging from historical traditions, religions and ethnic customs, economics, and even geography. While many scholars have contributed to the work of describing national culture, two surveys have, arguably, held the limelight: the GLOBE study by House et al. (2004) and the WVS by Hofstedeetal. (2010). The GLOBE study asks participants to respond to how one actually experiences a nation, whereas the WVS uses questions that ask participants to respond to how things should be. This difference in phrasing may account for nuanced differences between the two studies’ findings.

Gender, generational and social class cultures are not often factored into measurements of national culture. Although demographic subcultures almost certainly account for variation within a culture, this level of analysis is difficult to capture and detail when national culture is analyzed in the aggregate. There are, however, clear gender cultures that emerge within national frameworks (Buss 1989) and a similar argument can be made for generational and social class. Subcultures sculpt norms and expectations within the aggregate national norms and they factor heavily in American history, politics, and assumptions about what is “normal.”

The WVS is, nonetheless, a well-respected and useful tool for understanding and evaluating national culture (Hofstedeetal.2010). For the US analysis, scores on six dimensions are most helpful:

• 1. Power Distance Index

• 2. Individualism Index

• 3. Masculinity Index

• 4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index

• 5. Long-Term Orientation Index; and

• 6. Indulgence Versus Restraint Index.

Hofstede et al. score each nation surveyed on each of these dimensions. In terms of categorizing groups of nations, they liken the national culture of the USA with other countries in the global northwest and those of the Anglo world. These kinship countries include Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Austria, Sweden, Great Britain, Finland, Canada, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Iceland, Ireland, and Australia. Discussion of where the USA ranks on each of these dimensions compared to other nations follows.

Power Distance Index

The USA scored 40 on the power distance index, putting it close to the midrange on power distance around the globe (Hofstedeetal.2010, 57–59). This index ranks the degree to which inequality is acknowledged and acted upon in a society. The measure estimates “how far away one is from a feeling of power within a cultural framework” (Hofstedeetal.2010, 55).

The PDI is an interesting measurement for this particular study due to the connection between deference to authority and US norms of equality. Just as one perceives or experiences the expectations of what the emotion culture is in the workplace, there are also subtle understandings of the power distance between subordinates and bosses and what is expected of each.

Individualism Index

The second dimension of national culture is the Individualism Index. Of the six dimensions in total, individualism provides the most useful theoretical framework for understanding the effects of emotional labor for the US public service employee. In collectivist societies, individuals and community are linked in tight cohesive groups where interchange, exchange, and loyalty are essential. The interest of the group outweighs the interest of the individual. Conversely, in those cultures where individualism is emphasized, the focus is on an individual’s independence and self-reliance (Hofstedeetal.2010).

Individualism versus collectivism is reflected, for example, by differences in how personal priorities are set, how careers are determined, how business relationships are structured, and it even extends to decisions about whom to marry (Buss 1989; Hall 1989). The degree of individualism is revealed by one’s selection of pronouns (I versus we), and how one views oneself in relationship to family. In individualist cultures, children and parents distinguish themselves primarily as individuals rather than as members of a unit. Personal identity is stronger and more meaningful than group identity (Hofstedeetal.2010). Individuals are expected to support themselves and make their way in the world independent of others. Additional factors measured for individualism include personal time away from a job, freedom to adopt an individual approach to a job, and work that is personally challenging and fulfilling.

The USA ranks first among all nations on the IDV index (HofstedeHofstedeal.2010, 95–97). The measure estimates “how far away one is from a feeling of power within a cultural framework” (Hofstedeetal.2010, 55). In this case, respondents report a feeling that they are at the foremost center of power. This represents the ideology that everyone deserves equal treatment (universalism), regardless of whom their friends are or what their social status is. Conversely, a collectivist society would think it is natural and ethical to treat one’s friends better than strangers, a construct most often thought of as particularism or exclusionism. In a collectivist society, personal relationships prevail over tasks, whereas in an individualist society, it is not unusual to hear, “this is not personal, it is business” (Hofstedeetal.2010).

Masculinity Index

The third dimension of national culture to consider is masculinity versus femininity, as measured by the Masculinity Index. This index is designed to measure ideas about traditional gender roles. These roles imply generalizations such as men being seen as assertive and achievement oriented while women are seen as more modest, tender, and concerned with quality of life. Cultures are called feminine when emotional gender roles overlap such that both women and men are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with quality of life. Cultures are called masculine when these roles are distinct, such that men are seen as tough and focused on material success while women are supposed to be modest and tender.

The USA ranked nineteenth from the top, denoting a masculinist culture, very close to Australia but a little less masculinist than Great Britain (Hofstedeetal.2010, 141–43). The masculinity pole looks at opportunities for earnings, workplace recognition, workplace advancement, and a personal sense of accomplishment and challenge. The feminine pole looks at factors such as having a good relationship with the chain of command, cooperation with others, living in a desirable community that is conducive to family life, and employment security (Hofstedeetal.2010).

Uncertainty Avoidance Index

Uncertainty avoidance is a continuum that acknowledges how people handle uncertainty. It denotes the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations. Among other manifestations, this feeling is expressed through nervous stress and in a need for predictability. There is comfort in written rules and even unwritten are viewed as better than no rules (Hofstedeetal.2010, 191). Countries with high tolerance for uncertainty are also those that most commonly respect human rights and political differences.

The USA ranked sixty-fourth on this index, putting it slightly above Great Britain and slightly below Australia, above China and about equal with the Philippines (Hofstedeetal.2010, 192–94). This dimension also looks at people’s willingness to openly express frustration in the workplace and show their emotions. Uncertainty avoidance is not the same as risk avoidance. Uncertainty is avoided by a reduction in ambiguity. In the employment setting, ambiguity reduction is achieved by training programs, written policies and procedures, and well understood rules, norms, and processes.

Long-Term Orientation Index

Long-Term Orientation is defined as the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards, such as perseverance, thrift, and delaying gratification. Its opposite pole, short-term orientation, stands for virtues related to the past and present, such as respect for tradition, preservation of “face,” and fulfilling social obligations (Hofstedeetal.2010, 239). Several factors contribute to determining a cultures’ long- or short-term orientation, some of which include the length and quality of marriage, the value of family, consumption habits, and managing personal finances. The USA ranked on the low end at 70, slightly above Australia and below the Philippines and Thailand and well below Great Britain, Pakistan, India, China, Taiwan, and South Korea (Hofstedeetal.2010, 255–58). This denotes a short-term orientation to the American culture.

Indulgence Versus Restraint

Indulgence is a measurement of the degree of freedom people have to make choices about how they spend their time and their resources. Its opposite, restraint, rates the degree to which one is bound by social norms and expectations about the use of personal resources and free time. In other words, this dimension captures the degree of freedom one has to engage in leisurely activities as they choose. The definition for this dimension is that indulgence stands for a tendency to allow gratification of basic human desires related to enjoying life and having fun. Its opposite, restraint, reflects a conviction that such gratification needs to be curbed by strict social norms (Hofstedeetal.2010, 281). The USA ranked at 16, making it a relatively indulgent culture, similar to Great Britain and Australia and markedly more indulgent than Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, India, or Pakistan (Hofstedeetal.2010, 282–85).

A Composite Picture of US Culture

National culture dimensions are more revealing when used in comparison, rather than as objective truths. Less of a certainty and more of a weathervane that shows which way the wind is blowing, it provides indicators that are useful for understanding how events are interpreted. If the ratings provided by Hofstedeetal. (2010) are accurate, the USA as a culture prizes individualism above and beyond all other attributes. It falls in the midrange of countries in terms of power distance; it is a masculinist culture moderately uncomfortable with uncertainty and has a short-term orientation and is self-indulgent. The question of interest for this chapter is how do these cultural characteristics affect the work of those engaged in public service delivery? What are the implications for managing the emotive load of the work? Before addressing this directly, discussion turns to a description of the public administration landscape and to American public management.

The Evolution of US Public Administration and Management

Herbert Kaufman describes the contemporary imperatives of American public administration as “representativeness, political neutral competence, and executiveleadership” (1969, 264). Each of these contributes to an understanding of the current work context. The evolution from the nation’s founding to current times is revealing. The early years of the republic were characterized by a strong legislature and a weak executive branch (Kaufman1969/2017). Early public agencies were heavily influenced by legislative guidance as agencies looked to statute and policymakers to establish and institutionalize the bureaucracy. It did not take long for this strong legislative model to develop cracks. Between 1800 and 1900, the young nation’s administrative machinery grew rusty, due to numerous systemic and ethicalfailures (Kaufman1969/2017). By the late 1800s, Woodrow Wilson (1887) wrote that it had become more difficult to “run a constitution” than to craft one. Heralding the separation between politics and administration as a solution to the corruption that was then occurring, movement started in academic circles to advocate for professionally trained administrators. Graduate training programs were soon established.

At the same time that public administration was professionalizing, the twentieth century also saw a notable expansion of the executive branch, both at the federal level and in the states. As more public services were developed to respond to the needs of a rapidly growing nation, the bureaucracy mushroomed. Management theories that emanated from the success of assembly line production processes produced Scientific Management (Taylor1912/2017), time and motion studies, and other industrial era initiatives designed to improve efficiency. The Brownlow Commission was created at the behest of President Franklin Roosevelt, who sought advice on how to develop the executive infrastructure of the White House in such a way that the proliferation of executive agencies could be managed. Fundamental transformation occurred among government employees as merit-based employment systems were instituted throughout the states and Hatch Act provisions protected federal workers from political pressures. As oversight commissions, merit systems, procedural hiring practices, professional training programs, and clarification of duties, roles, and responsibilities evolved, a more professionalized public workforce was set in motion.

As the bureaucracy expanded and professional city managers dotted the urban landscape, citizens groused that government was getting too far removed from their control. Public perceptions of government as non-responsive and monolithic gave rise to complaints that the executive branch, whether at the federal, state, or local level, had lost touch with citizens and public values. Although professional training programs taught that Weberian bureaucracy was the best mechanism for ensuring impartial, efficient, skilled, services, the public became impatient (Weber1922/2017). While traditional views of administration maximized hierarchy and control, it minimized the capacity to make rapid adjustments in processes. Unlike the business environment, which turns quickly as market forces change, governmental infrastructure was cumbersome and unable to accommodate exigencies.

A focus on the structural and hierarchical aspects of administration during the twentieth century is understandable. The government needed infrastructure and this period was heavily focused on establishing organizations that would be capable of delivering services in an accountable fashion. By the latter part of the century, the administrative bureaucracy came to be viewed as one focused on control, rather than on creativity. The paradigm was jolted by initiatives designed to more closely mirror not assembly line production processes but rapidly moving market forces. To trace the evolution of these changes, Stillman (2010) characterizes them as having occurred in four eras. The first is called POSDCORB Orthodoxy (1926–1946), a view of public administration as focusing on economy, efficiency, and the politics-administration dichotomy (White 1955; Stillman2010). This era focused the primary functions of the executive, including planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting. Stillman calls the second era the Social Science Heterodoxy (1947–1989). This era is defined by its focus on interdisciplinary practices, reliance on advances in the social sciences, national and international issues, and institutional effectiveness. See, e.g., Simon (1950) and Waldo (1955). The third era identified by Stillman is Reassertion of Democratic Idealism (1968–1988). This era is defined by a focus on policy, representativeness, fairness, legal oversight, and public integrity (Stillman2010). Finally, Stillman identifies the current era as the fourth in public administration and calls it the Refounding Movement (1989–present). It is defined by a focus on legitimacy, democratic values, and public integrity.

Other scholars, such as Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, take a somewhat different approach to framing administrative trends. They classify the past into five eras (Shafritzand Hyde2012). The first era represents the early voices and first quarter century of self-aware public administration, a period extending from the 1880s to the 1920s. They classify the second era as the New Deal era and mark it from the 1930s to the 1950s. The third era extends from the 1960s and they call it “From JFK to Civil Service Reform” (Shafritzand Hyde2012). They call the fourth era “From Reagan to Reinvention” and include the 1980s and the 1990s. Finally, Shafritzand Hyde call the current era “Public Administration of the Twenty-First Century.” The contrast between Stillman’s and Shafritzand Hyde’s eras shows that there are different ways of “slicing” the past. Regardless of where dividing lines are drawn, both systems of categorizing eras trace the changing attitudes toward government and its role.

One era that requires more attention is the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. During this time, Supreme Court decisions reflected predominant public opinion regarding fairness and respect for others. The landmark Brown v.Board of Education Supreme Court decision in 1954 ruled that separate schools for African-American children fail to uphold constitutional principles of each person being treated equally. Within a decade, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race and gender. These benchmark events, one judicial and the other legislative, reshaped not only the operations of government but also, processes and procedures in every American community and workplace. The civil rights era represented a significant shift in the role of government, and the role of public administrators, from one of sterile attention to management processes to one of being a change agent to effect social equity and a workforce representative of the population being served. The civil rights era fundamentally reshaped the role of government into an arbiter of equal rights in areas such as employment and labor, workplace safety, housing, elections, criminal justice and corrections, public education, health care, and numerous other areas of governmental regulation and oversight.

Just as the civil rights era ushered in health care for the elderly and the poor, fair housing, and equal access to education, the twenty-first century is marked by the initiatives made possible by information and communication technology. From 411 to 911 call systems to twitter accounts and Facebook pages for agencies, to telecommuting, to instantaneous communication around the globe, these developments are having a substantial influence on how public services are delivered and how the public engages with workers, and vice versa. Similar to the changes wrought by the industrial revolution, the effects are yet to be fully understood. One thing is clear, however, and it is that person-to-person communication, whether face-to-face or voice-to-voice, is becoming more precious because it is becoming more scarce. As tweets, texts, and e-mails enable one-dimensional, printed communication, the engagement that accompanies meaningful person-to-person interaction becomes more valuable. A closer look at the economics of the twentieth century helps to reveal dynamics that explain how and why public administration evolved as it did.

Individualism and the Growth of Wealth

The transition of the US economy from agriculture to urban industrialization shaped the nation’s politics. From the beginnings of the industrial era in 1790 until it came to fruition on the assembly lines of 1900, this era introduced mass industrialization, mechanization, laborers leaving the home each day to work in factories, the rise of labor unions, and the proliferation of professions and scientific developments. The industrial revolution propelled the USA to its position at the center of the global economy. Hofstede writes, “The strong relationship between national wealth and individualism is undeniable, with the arrow of causality directed, as shown earlier, from wealth to individualism” (2010, 134). A significant shift occurred in the USA as a result of the industrial revolution. Not only did manufacturing and extractive industries rapidly expand, but so did the wealth of the nation and its inhabitants. Several administrative and public management philosophies emerged around this time as well.

During the early 1900s, industrial engineers such as Frederick Taylor (1912/2017) introduced “scientific” methods for managing workers. Asserting that there is one best way to ensure efficient production, Taylor’s work emphasized efficiency through process, structure, the “scientific selection of workmen,” and watchful supervision of them. Taylor’s model of efficiency was significant in shaping the way workers were supervised. His views of the role of frontline employees emphasized efficiency and one best way to achieve outcomes. Taylor’s work assumed that through proper application and constant evaluation, production would be greater. He advocated piece rate pay, an early variant of what is now called pay-for-performance. His assumption was that workers were indolent and only motivated by material rewards. Thus, he assumed that piece rate pay was the incentive system that would motivate workers to produce more, an assumption proved wrong by the Hawthorne studies a couple decades later (Mayo1933).

Taylor emphasized four scientific principles as the foundation of scientific management. First, managers must document how to perform each job, enshrining their expert knowledge such that future workers could walk in the doors and achieve the necessary knowledge at an accelerated pace. One can easily see how this belief translated into such things as policy and procedure manuals, measurements, and performance plans.

The second technique necessary for scientific management is the precise selection, training, and promotion of the right employees. These philosophies would later shape such initiatives such as human resource management, hiring processes, training, and advancement practices. Workers were thought of as interchangeable parts, as if they are bolts and screws to be applied in the production process. When workers leave, they are to be replaced by someone with the same skills. Thus, job descriptions specify the required knowledge, skills, and abilities for each job, with no regard for temperament, personality attributes, or interpersonal skills. Administrators were promoted on the basis of technical expertise rather than on other skills, such as their ability to work effectively with others.

The third technique introduced by industrial thinking was the idea that managers had superior knowledge and it was their responsibility to instruct workers in how to do their jobs, supervise them closely, and correct them when they deviate from the protocol. This would ensure that each employee had the necessary information and knowledge to perform at maximum efficiency. This also required hands-on management with methods for accountability. Respect for the skills and knowledge and ability beyond that which is specified in the job description was deemed to be irrelevant.

Finally, Taylor emphasized the importance of specialization, such that there would be separation between engineers who design mechanical parts from the machinists who actually build the parts. By focusing the efforts of an employee on one thing, it was thought that workers would develop their greatest expertise with greatest efficiency. Combined, these four techniques form the basic theory of scientific management.

Translating these tenets to the work of public administration where judgment and discretion are exercised does not work well. The overall work of the individual public administrator is diminished in favor of productivity, output, and efficiency measures. Couple this with the primacy of individualism as a strongly held cultural value and it is easy to see that industrial methods such as prescribed by Taylor are like putting a square peg in a round hole. While rules that constrain discretion and ensure that public officials deliver services neutrally are worthwhile, the consequence is that reliance on rules, standards and performance measurement, also creates frustration and strain for the public employee. Engaging with citizens and making instant judgments about how to respond to the person in order to elicit the desired response requires emotional labor, an invisible set of performances that are missing from job descriptions and performance goals. The contradiction between the emotive skills required to do the job well and the physical and cognitive skills detailed in the job description result in a mismatch. This problem is exacerbated by New Public Management, a market-based approach to delivering public services.

New Public Administration to New Public Management

On the heels of the civil rights era, the 1970s brought a decade of attention to social equity and public administration’s role in advancing it. The literature was replete with articles advocating an activist role for administrators. Called New Public Administration, the question, “Does this service enhance social equity?” drove consideration of practices and policies that heretofore had given only slight, if any, attention to the subject. Thus, social equity gained a toehold as an additional value among the classical objectives of efficient, economical, and effectively managed public services (Frederickson2002, 295). From this perspective, administrators moved from being neutral administrators to working toward effective, efficient, and equitable management and administration.

New Public Administration soon gave way to New Public Management (NPM), which was a radical departure from public administration of the past. As public opinion turned sour on government’s ability to pivot away from traditions of the past and adapt to changing needs, faith in the market principles of supply and demand and competition blossomed. NPM was framed as a way of doing government’s “business” according to market principles. Services were outsourced to contractors, competitive bidding drove the procurement process, and the theory holding sway was that competition would drive prices down, which would reduce the cost of services. As a result, workforce reductions occurred in agencies while consultants, nonprofits, and businesses contracted to provide services previously provided by in-house staff. As the years rolled by, realization set in that market dynamics often failed to reduce costs and that organizational intelligence was lost as experienced administrators were replaced with contractors who would take their knowledge with them when the contract terminated. By the time Barack Obama left the Presidency in 2016, he had issued an executive order instructing executive agencies to insource rather than outsource services to the degree that was possible. Holdover thinking remains among many, however, and contracted services continue to be relied upon in many areas.

In contrast to reliance on hierarchy and bureaucratic regimens to deliver services, NPM developed from new institutional economics of public choice, transactions cost theory, and principal-agent-theory (Arrow 1963; Niskanen 1971). The principal claim of NPM was that it would provide better public service at lower cost. As if a reversion to the early twentieth century, the focus on efficiency became the predominant value. NPM is linked to four trends: a desire to inhibit government growth, a shift toward privatization and quasi-privatization, the desire to capitalize on information and communication technology, and a more international agenda (Hood 1991). NPM was defined by several doctrines that more often reflect business principles, many of which harken back to scientific management: reliance on benchmarks and outcome measures to ensure accountability; a focus on results with less regard to how they are achieved; faith in the power of competition to keep costs down; and cost cutting.

NPM worked better in theory than in practice (Hoodand Dixon2015). Costs rarely were reduced and service was not better. Enthusiasm for it has paled and an equilibrium has set in whereby insourced services are, in many instances, preferred over outsourced services. The popularity of outcomes measures remains because they serve as a feedback mechanism for determining what is, and is not, working. Decision-making is decentralized to the degree that is possible, but hierarchy remains in place as a control mechanism. Business practices applied to government procurement work in the simplest of domains, such as office supplies, but become problematic when used to guide delivery of human services, such as human services, casework, corrections, emergency medical services, and other services that depend on experienced professionals.

In other words, the whims of fashion have once again given way to dissatisfaction with the latest new idea (Hood1991). NPM proved to be more hype than substance. The focus on lower costs per unit of service without adequate attention to quality of service turned government agencies into a “performance indicator industry” (Hood 1991, 9). The claim that NPM would have universal application—that one size would fit all—proved to be untrue and was naive.

Tracing the progression through the twentieth century shows the deep roots that the business model has on American government, making evident the power of economic principles whether or not a profit is the goal. The profit motive and supply and demand dynamics are deeply ingrained in administrative processes, obscuring the service function that those who deliver public services are responsible for providing. This attention to economic prosperity and wealth likely accounts for the reasonably high national culture scores in both masculinity and power. At the same time, Americans place a high value on the rights of individuals. While these values are dominant in American national culture, they also create crosswinds. America’s capitalism requires inequality, while constitutional values prize equality. The contradiction is omnipresent and it is left to frontline workers to sort out priorities.

Public Values at the Street Level

The degree to which government is able to move its policies into action reflects the degree to which espoused values are actually held as priorities (Krislov 1974/2017). In the American context, this is revealed by the degree to which government actions breathe life into constitutional values. Representativebureaucracy is a starting point for this. To be representative, those delivering public services must look like those being served. This ideal assumes that those who have common life experiences will have preferences similar to those with shared backgrounds (Krislov 1974/2017, 330). Concerns for representative democracy accelerated after the civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century, and opened doors to women, African-Americans, and others in traditionally disadvantaged groups. Public values in the USA require power sharing and representative bureaucracy is the vehicle for achieving this.

Statutory provisions determine the nature of authority and functions of public agencies. These provisions outline, describe, and sanction specific functions. Having said that, organizations have cultures, norms, and expectations that systematically shape their duties, priorities, and processes. As a plethora of classic works have documented (see, e.g., Kaufman1969/2017; Pressmanand Wildavsky1984; Wilson1889), public administration is as much the delivery of democracy as it is a reflection of democracy (Rohr1986; Lipsky1980; Stivers2000; Waldo1968).

American government and its actions are imbued with an inherent tension between the rights of individuals and the rights of the collective. In a culture that values power as well as freedoms, it is understandable that those who are not part of the power structure continually clamor for inclusion. It is their birthright. The literature reflects this tension. Normative theorists insist that democratic values are central to the American ideal but there is disagreement over the extent to which the nation actually functions as such. These debates are both current (Lee 2009) and classical (Hamilton et al. 1857/2009).

Administrative actions breathe life into public values. John Rohr (1986) explains that the purpose of the administrative state is to operationalize the Constitution. Rohr argues that public administration is established in the constitutional framework and that documents such as the Brownlow Report, the Federalist Papers, and constitutional case law, establish and support its legitimacy. According to Rohr, “administrators should become active participants rather than feckless pawns in the constitutional struggle” (Rohr1986, 89). Additionally, he states, “Without some sort of principled autonomy, professionalism in Public Administration can never be taken seriously. A purely instrumental profession is no profession at all” (Rohr1986, 89). In other words, his argument is that public administrators have the constitutional right and duty to exercise their discretion to ensure constitutional protections and values.

Rohr’s conceptualization of public administration is that it is normatively grounded, has constitutional authority, and is a legitimate form of citizen sovereignty. Thus, public administrators have an obligation to deliver democracy. According to Rohr (1986), public administrators should view themselves as the people who run the constitution and are public statesmen in their own right. His argument presents interesting and challenging perspectives. It assumes that the constitution allows for, and intends, a sovereign administrative state. From one perspective, the sovereignty of the populace could jeopardize entire systems if the will of the people is unhindered, just as Madison had opined in the Federalist, worrying that the “passions” of the crowd could overrule good policy. On the other hand, Rohr argues that the framers intended government to understand it exists only because the citizenry allows it to exist. To overcome this contradiction, Frank Goodnow and Woodrow Wilson locate sovereignty within institutions of government and not with the people, themselves, once a government was formed (Rohr1986, 85). Rohr reconciles his interpretation with that of Goodnow and Wilson by arguing that public administrators ought to act in accordance with constitutional principles, with the knowledge that they are sovereign individuals responsible for the administration of the constitution. Imbued with this imperative, the contrast between the end goal of public administrators and business executives is obvious. The former is to pursue regime values, and the latter is to pursue profits. In both cases, however, the primacy of power and individualism surface.

Discretion

Popular sovereignty allows one to exercise discretion and administrative discretion occurs in a range of settings with varying consequences. Michael Lipsky (1980) provides an in-depth analysis of discretion in his discussion of how public services are delivered. He focuses on the street level, meaning on those bureaucrats who engage in person-to-person contact with the public. This includes public-school teachers, police officers, emergency rescue workers, caseworkers, zoning officers, healthcare professionals, receptionists in public offices, public transportation drivers, public works engineers, public defenders, and so forth. All of these workers make decisions daily, some of which are constrained by law while others allow for discretion. Use of discretion aligns with a culture of individualism.

Lipsky’s concern is that public service professionals need discretion in order to perform their tasks due to exigencies of individual circumstances and needs. For example, a police officer will encounter two jaywalkers, one crossing the street in the middle of oncoming traffic and another crossing with no traffic in sight. Both are violating the law, but one is endangering both self and others, while the other is endangering no one. Does each deserve the same penalty for failing to cross the street at a designated crossing point? Autonomy and discretion allow the officer to determine how to allocate effort and perform the job. Strict adherence to law requires the officer to issue a penalty regardless of the danger—or lack of it—caused by the transgressor. How the officer reconciles formal job requirements with personal discretion has emotive consequences. The officer can issue a penalty to the jaywalker who endangered both self and oncoming drivers with authenticassertiveness and confidence. But to issue a penalty to the other jaywalker requires wearing a false face, pretending to be assertive and confident in the judgment of wrongdoing by the offender.

The decision by the officer has consequences for how the public view the work of the bureaucracy. In this case, as warranted and protecting safety, versus as mindless rule-following. Street-level bureaucrats are important because “Citizens directly experience government through them, and their actions are the policies provided by government in important respects” (Lipsky1980, xix–xx). Lipsky’s work highlights the quandaries of public service delivery that occur as a result of structural constraints, arguing that it is important to address the tension that street-level bureaucrats face in providing idealized services in less-than-ideal systems.

Street-level bureaucrats develop idiosyncratic processes and strategies for coping with these challenges. Some of this occurs through the approach and attitudes bureaucrats adopt toward rationing of goods and services for specific populations (Schneiderand Ingram1993; Schneideret al.2014). Approval or denial of benefits is one form of rationing. Another form of rationing is spending more or less time on a case, with a client, or on a task: “important” people or tasks get more time, others get less. Another form of rationing is more psychological in nature. It includes reducing staffing so that citizens must wait longer for services, setting restrictive office hours, or requiring completion of lengthy, complex forms or processes that require multiple time-consuming steps.

Lipsky makes the point that employees become less emotionally attached to their work and its meaning when they do not “own” it. In other words, when they have little authority and discretion, they find themselves being more of a robot, fulfilling requirements but not using their personal skills as unique instruments to effect a desired result, whether it is compliance, agreement, or cooperation. This creates emotional dissonance about one’s work and over time, results in alienation. The failure of workers to be able to “express, or need to suppress, their creative and human impulses through work activity” is costly in terms of work productivity and quality and the citizen engagement that results from services well-delivered (Lipsky1980, 75). Work that is de-motivating results in worker burnout and affects service delivery (Abraham1998; Austin et al. 2008; Groth et al. 2009). Multiple studies have demonstrated that emotive dissonance contributes to burnout among public servants (Austin et al. 2008; Bhaveand Glomb2013; Brotheridgeand Grandey2002; Pughetal.2011; Ciarrochi et al. 2002; Grandey2000; Guy and Lee 2015; Guyetal.2008; Hsiehetal.2012; Mikolajczak et al. 2007; Moradi et al. 2011; Prati et al. 2009; Pughetal.2011).

Lipsky argues that how street-level bureaucrats perform their jobs affects how citizens view government. He also claims that the public demand for efficiency results in street-level bureaucrats who adopt routines and practices that influence the outcomes of their efforts. They also adopt practices that allow them to work within the external constraints while balancing their internal struggles in a way that achieves an acceptable balance between public aspirations and requirements of the job or imposed expectations. In other words, workers find a way to achieve congruence between their emotive display and how they actually feel about their work.

In order to ensure fairness and accountability, bureaucratic policies and procedures apply to the collective (target populations) and not specific, individualized circumstances. Lipsky’s research highlights the tensions between individualistand collectivist application of rules and it leads him to advocate for an ideal view of service delivery that would allow street-level bureaucrats to exercise discretion with limited external controls. While street-level bureaucrats do not make the policy and do not make the rules, they are held accountable for the delivery, much of which involves emotional labor, which is a form of work separate from, but analogous to, manual or cognitive labor.

Emotional Labor and Public Service Delivery

Only recently has the subject of emotional labor arisen in the context of public service delivery, although it has been a subject in retail sales and customer service for decades, ever since Arlie Hochschild first applied the term to flight attendants and the behaviors they must don to serve airline passengers (Hochschild1983). Michael Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy in 1980, followed by Steven Maynard-Moody and Michael Musheno’s Cops, Teachers, Counselors in 2003 begged for a deeper understanding of its role in public service delivery. Guyetal. (2008) responded to the call with Emotional Labor: Putting the Service in Public Service. Since that time, an increasing number of studies have been conducted with the goal of understanding the emotive component in public service work (Mastraccietal.2012), how it is performed (Guyand Lee2015), how it relates to job satisfaction (Hsiehetal.2016; Hsiehetal.2012), when it results in burnout (Hsieh 2014), and how it can be taught in the classroom (Mastraccietal.2010).

Emotional labor is required anytime there is person-to-person interaction and the management of emotion is required in order to perform one’s job. The steps involved require the rapid sensing of one’s own emotional state, sensing the emotional state of the other, and then making a judgment about whether an emotive response is necessary and, if so, what kind. It may involve calming oneself, calming the other, exciting the other, expressing how one is feeling, or suppressing how one is feeling and displaying a different emotion. This sequence requires alterations in facial expression, tone of voice, and physical posture. It consumes energy and is done in order to perform the job. In some occupations, emotive expression is scripted. For example, police officers must appear confident, regardless of whether they feel that way. Social workers are to seem supportive, regardless of how they feel. Receptionists who greet citizens as they enter public buildings are to appear and sound friendly, regardless of whether they feel that way. The public information officer is to sound compassionate, confident, and self-assured in announcements of critical events. In other words, emotional labor and public service work go hand in hand.

Display rules are conveyed to employees through a variety of strategies. Professional training programs teach students about proper presentation of self. Through organizational onboarding, new employees are taught about display rules. While performing a job, accomplished co-workers serve as role models. In sum, display rules are understood as part of the emotive “software” downloading that takes place through cultural and institutional influences.

It has been well established that having to suppress how one feels in order to display a different emotion creates emotive dissonance and contributes to burnout in retail settings (Abraham1998; Ashforthand Humphrey1993; Bhaveand Glomb2013; Grandey2003; Mesmer-Magnusetal.2012). Emotive pretending is a type of emotional labor where individuals must display emotions that do not match their true feelings. It is also called surface acting. When public service employees use pretense to display an emotion, we can expect it to have similar deleterious effects.

American norms, institutions, structures, and processes influence the degree to which people are culturally programmed regarding the performance of emotional labor. Individual psychological processes are sculpted by these institutions and norms, rendering emotional labor more theoretically complex than when analyzed apart from the context in which it occurs. This study of American public service workers, then, has both theoretical and practical implications.

The central question of this book is to what degree do culture and context produce a collective programming of emotive response such that ways of responding are subtly shaped by life experiences and social environments (Parsons 2007). Institutional and structural explanations of national culture highlight differences in how emotional labor is performed as well the effects it has on work attitudes. While individuals may experience an infinite array of unique life experiences and social interactions, patterns of responding occur. Over time, patterns and modes of action develop into culture by shaping and influencing ideas and values.

Public service in the USA is a two-way street, with citizens expecting to get effective, responsive service and workers expecting to feel good about their work. Employees’ roles are shaped by institutional characteristics and the type of work they perform. Some employees may feel more emotionally connected to their work than others, and employees may differ in their emotive sensitivity and expressiveness. Additionally, employees differ in their job attitudes and level of investment in their work. Discussion turns to the study of American public service workers and their experiences related to performing emotional labor on their jobs.

The Study

The focus of this chapter is to explore whether the latent variables of emotive capacity, pretending expression, and deep acting exist, and if so, how they relate to job satisfaction, burnout, and personal fulfillment.

Methodology

Surveys were administered to public service workers across the USA. All had work experience at the federal, state, or local levels of government or in nonprofit organizations. Most respondents lived in Denver and Salt Lake City, but others were in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Miami, Kansas City, and elsewhere. Respondents were a convenience sample, completing the survey at the request of researchers who distributed it in workplaces, at professional conferences, through networks of acquaintances, and in graduate public administration classes where midcareer students were enrolled. The survey resulted in 254 respondents.

Emotional Labor Variables

The survey items are shown below. Each was scored on a seven-point scale from Strongly Disagree (1), to Strongly Agree (7).

• Emotive Capacity

  • I am good at expressing how I feel.

  • I am good at getting people to calm down.

  • In my job I am good at dealing with emotional issues.

• Pretending Expression

  • I hide my true feelings so as to appear pleasant at work.

  • In my job I act confident and self-assured regardless of how I actually feel.

  • I wear a “mask” in order to deal with clients/customers in an appropriate way.

• Deep Acting

  • I try to actually experience the emotions that I must show to clients/customers.

  • I work hard to actually feel the emotions that I need to show to clients/customers.

  • I work at developing the feelings inside of me that I need to show to clients/customers.

• Job Satisfaction

  • My job provides career development and promotion opportunities.

  • I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.

  • I feel satisfied with my supervisor.

  • Overall, I am satisfied with my job.

• Burnout

  • I leave work feeling tired and run down.

  • I leave work feeling emotionally exhausted.

  • I feel “used up” at the end of the workday.

• Personal Fulfillment

  • I gain a strong sense of personal fulfillment at my job.

  • I feel like my job is something I want to do rather than something I have to do.

  • My work is a source of personal meaning in my life.

Demographic statistics for the respondents are displayed in Table 20.1. Eighty percent of respondents are under the age 50, 61% are female, and 41% have ten or more years of work experience, and 97% have at least a college degree if not more education.

Table 20.1 Demographic characteristics: USA

Respondents work in a variety of settings, as shown in Table 20.2. The categories are not mutually exclusive, because someone may be in administration and be in health care, for example, so the frequency sums to more than the number of respondents.

Table 20.2 Occupational characteristics: USA

Descriptive statistics for each of the variables are shown in Table 20.3. The mean of each variable is shown, along with its standard deviation. Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal consistency, is shown for each variable. Five of the six coefficients exceed 0.700, with only pretending expression being lower than that. At 0.671, it is high enough to warrant inclusion.

Table 20.3 Descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s alpha: USA

Findings

Survey responses were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Principal component analysis uses orthogonal transformation to convert observations into a set of principal components and explains the variance-covariance structure of a set of variables through linear combinations. As a result, we can interpret the uniqueness of a variable minus its communality. Eigenvalues were used to develop a linear map to measure the distortion induced by the transformation. The PCA procedures confirmed three latent constructs in the items, consistent with previous research (Yang et al. 2018). CFA procedures demonstrated that latent factors had the expected convergent and discriminant validity. Table 20.4 displays the findings and also includes the goodness of fit measurements for the model. The CFI is 0.880, the p-value RMSEA is 0.088, and the SRMR is 0.093. These values are within acceptable ranges for goodness of fit for research of this nature (Schreiber et al. 2006; Liu 2014).

Table 20.4 Structural model results: USA

The relationships between variables reveal interesting findings. While the capacity to experience the emotive content of a job (emotive capacity) has no effect on job satisfaction, or burnout, it has a positive effect on feelings of personal fulfillment. The actual performance of emotional labor in the form of pretending or authenticexpression has statistically significant relationships to most outcome variables. Pretending expression has a significant and negative effect on both job satisfaction and personal fulfillment. This finding suggests that in the USA, public service employees suffer deleterious effects when they must suppress how they actually feel in order to display unfelt emotions. This conclusion is supported by the positive relationship between pretending and burnout.

Conversely, the positive relationship between deep acting, the authenticexpression of emotion, and job satisfaction and fulfillment indicates something quite the opposite. Emotional labor, as long as it allows for the authentic expression of how the worker is feeling, has salutary effects in terms of increasing both job satisfaction and fulfillment.

A path diagram makes it easy to see the relationships. Figure 20.1 displays them. The three independent latent variables are emotive capacity, pretending expression, and deep acting. The three dependent variables are job satisfaction, burnout, and personal fulfillment. Bold arrows denote statistically significant relationships (p ≤ 0.05).

Fig. 20.1

Path diagram for the United States

Discussion

The US sample revealed the presence of latent variables as theorized and results demonstrate the power of a cultural emphasis on individualism. If a national culture of individualism affects public sector employees in such a way that they expect consistency between the emotion they feel and the emotion they display, we should expect to see emotive pretending affecting job satisfaction, burnout, and personal fulfillment. In fact, that is the case. There is a negative relationship between pretending and job satisfaction and between pretending and fulfillment. This is in stark contrast to the positive relationship between the authenticexpression of emotion—deep acting—and job satisfaction and personal fulfillment. And, as expected, there is a positive relationship between emotive pretending and burnout.

The negative effect that emotive pretending has on job satisfaction and personal fulfillment suggests that public service employees in the USA experience deleterious effects when they must display an emotion that is incongruent with what they actually feel. In other words, in the USA, public service employees find personal fulfillment when they can express authentic emotions in the workplace. This leaves little room for emotive dissonance and relegates it to a workplace problem.

Conclusion

Findings such as these deepen our appreciation for the emotive content in public service jobs. They also provide useful insights for how to prepare workers to perform their jobs and to prepare them for the most challenging aspects, which arise when emotive dissonance has to be part of the job. Understanding the effect of emotional labor leads to the potential to develop strategies to assist public sector training programs in capitalizing on the benefits of emotional labor as well as to minimize its downside. As citizen engagement and satisfaction with public services looms ever larger on the horizon of concerns in the USA, awareness of emotional labor and its effect on job outcomes also translates into performance outcomes.

Emotive pretending is a required skill set in most jobs. Findings here show that it increases the likelihood of emotional exhaustion so human resource trainers should be providing training and development opportunities to help employees learn constructive strategies when jobs require them to engage in emotive pretending. Human cooperation and professional interactions are expected societal norms and success in this context requires acting when authenticity is absent. Emotion regulation, which is a form of emotional intelligence, is a skill that has been found to correlate with the ability to withstand or minimize the threat of burnout under such circumstances (Guyand Lee2015; Hülsheger et al. 2013; Kotsou et al. 2011; Mikolajczak et al. 2007). Building this into required knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) for jobs will provide a more accurate picture of the requirements for each job.

A purposeful appreciation for emotional labor will serve to improve work outcomes for both citizens and workers. As individualist as American culture is, these data confirm that engaging with others on the job in a constructive, manner, produces positive job outcomes. Cognizance of the emotive component in public service jobs provides a deeper, richer understanding of the exchange between citizen and state.