Beyond the Rules: The Effect of Outcome Favourability on Red Tape Perceptions

Abstract

The underlying reasoning of much red tape research is that the level of rule burden, in terms of resources expended at implementing and complying with specific rules, is the main driver of red tape perceptions. In this study we challenge this claim and argue that stakeholder red tape perceptions are also affected by the favourability of the outcome. More specifically, if a certain rule or procedure has a positive outcome for a certain stakeholder, then this stakeholder will perceive lower levels of red tape, irrespective of rule burden. Using a survey experiment (n = 81), we show how variations in red tape perceptions are affected in equal measure by rule burden and outcome. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for red tape scholars, in particular the need to further understand the relationships between red tape perceptions and rule procedures and outcomes.

Formalization and consistency heighten organizational rule following: Experimental and survey evidence

“…Using a student sample in the context of a vignette study is in line with the approach taken by, among others, Kaufmann and Feeney (2014), Tummers et al (2016) and Moynihan (2013). While the random assignment of participants ensures that meaningful conclusions can be drawn from a student sample, student samples have also been challenged as being insufficiently representative of 'real' employees.…”

Emotional Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape

“…As suggested by Kaufmann and Feeney (), we evaluated participants' outcome favorability (OF) prior to the experiment. The two items assessed the subjective importance of fraud prevention (OF1) and data protection (OF2) in public services, according to the information in the bureaucracy treatments.…”

“…In contrast, delay bureaucracy, burden bureaucracy, and strong bureaucracy constitute necessary bureaucracy. However, rule dysfunctionality is more complex to evaluate for organization‐external stakeholders than for managers or employees (Kaufmann and Feeney ; Moynihan and Herd ). The point of reference in stakeholder red tape is not a rule's contribution to a legitimate organizational purpose, as in organizational red tape, but instead whether it is congruent with the individual stakeholder's values (Bozeman ).…”

Formal institutions, informal institutions, and red tape: A comparative study

“…We follow a recent stream of literature that conceptualizes red tape as being subjective in nature (e.g., Kaufmann and Feeney , ). For example, Pandey and Kingsley (, p. 782) define organizational red tape as ‘impressions on the part of managers that formalization (in the form of burdensome rules and procedures) is detrimental to the organization’.…”