Authors: Gornostaev S. V.
Citation: Gornostaev S. V. Peculiarities of Official Status and Activity as Factors of Official Loyalty. Psychopedagogy in Law Enforcement. No 1(72). 2018. Pp. 95–101. DOI: 10.24411/1999-6241-2018-11017.
Для цитирования: Горностаев С. В. Особенности служебного положения и деятельности как факторы служебной лояльности // Психопедагогика в правоохранительных органах. 2018. № 1(72). С. 95–101. DOI: 10.24411/1999-6241-2018-11017.
Download article: Peculiarities of Official Status and Activity as Factors of Official Loyalty
Abstract
Along with universal factors of arising and functioning of loyalty, there are also specific factors that influence the development of loyalties to the groups operating in particular spheres. The following specific factors of the formation of loyalties in the professional-official sphere are to be considered: the position of an officer in the service hierarchy and the degree of his participation in direct work with citizens and their situations. An empirical study of employees of the penitentiary system of Russia conducted using the author’s method of colour metaphors proved the connection of these factors with the peculiarities of official loyalty. The surveyed employees who work directly with citizens more often have established loyalties in the professional-official sphere. Loyalty groups satisfy a wider range of needs of field officers than those of management staff. Loyalty groups are also more often associated among field officers with the ideals of the public service. It’s explained by the emotive aspect in their official activity and the opportunity to observe its socially significant results. The research also revealed some differences in the structure of official loyalty, motivation of individual loyalties and their connections with the ideals of the public service among the officers of different levels in the service hierarchy. In particular, it has been established that among employees belonging to the category of executive staff all loyalty groups in the service sphere are associated with the ideals of the public service — legality, justice and common welfare. The majority of potential groups of service loyalty are also associated with the ideals of public service for line managerial officers.
Keywords: groups, loyalty, official loyalty, official status, the values of public service, the motives of loyalty, the diagnosis of loyalty.
References:
1. Gornostaev S.V.The basics of the psychological theory of loyalty.Ryazan, 2017.224 p.(In Russ.)
2. Maynard-Moody S., Musheno M.Cops, Teachers, Counselors.Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service.Michigan, 2003.221 p.
3.Brown M.K.Working the street: police discretion and the dilemmas of reform.New York, 1981.xvi, 349 p.
4.Alden S.Discretion on the frontline: The street level bureaucrat in English statutory homelessness services.Social Policy and Society. vol.14.No.1.2015.P.63–77.
5.Oberfield Z.Becoming Bureaucrats: Socialization at the Front Lines of Government Service.Philadelphia, 2014.236 p.
6.McElligott G.Front-Line Workers and Public Policy.Beyond Service: State Workers, Public Policy, and the Prospects for Democratic Administration. University of Toronto Press, 2001.P.188–214.
7.Evans T.Professionals and Discretion in Street-Level Bureaucracy.Understanding Street-Level Bureaucracy.Bristol, Chicago, 2015.P.279–294.
8.Christensen T., Laegreid P.Complexity and Hybrid Public Administration — Theoretical and Empirical Challenges.Public Organization Review. vol.11.No.4.2011.P.407–423.
9.Denhardt R.B., Denhardt J.V.The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering.Public Administration Review. vol.60.No.6.2000.P.549–559.
10.Matheson A.et al.Study on the Political Involvement in Senior Staffing and on the Delineation of Responsibilities Between Ministers and Senior Civil Servants.OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 2007/6, OECD Publishing.doi:10.1787/136274825752
11.Evans P., Rauch J.Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of “Weberian” State Structures on Economic Growth.American Sociological Review. vol.64.No.5.1999.P.748–765.
12.Dunn D.D.Politics and Administration at the Top — Lessons from Down Under.Pittsburgh, 1997.194 p.
13.Miller G.J.Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy.New York, 1992.272 p.
14.Light P.Thickening Government: Federal Hierarchy and the Diffusion of Accountability.Washington, 1995.234 p.
15.Mosher F.C.Democracy and the Public Service.New York, 1968.219 p.
Polidano C., Manning N.Redrawing the Lines: Service Commissions and the Delegation of Personnel Management.Managing the Public Service — Strategies for Improvement Series.London, 1996.102 p.
17.Podkolzina E.A., Balsevich A.A.Economic analysis of governing transactions structures in public sector: case of ministry for economic development of the Russian Federation.Public administration issues.No.2.2009.P.144–163.(In Russ.)
18.Tzvyk V.A.Socio-professional status of the individual and the prestige of the profession.Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research.No.4.2009.Р.44–52.(In Russ.)
19.Lobanova T.N.Motives of job transfers between management levels.Public administration issues.No.4.2013.P.133–144.(In Russ.)
20.Solomin I.L., Chernyshkova M.P., Suvorina N.Yu.Employment of Solomin I.L.colour metaphors method by in the practice of penitentiary psychologists.St.Petersburg, 2012.69 p.(In Russ.)
21.Gornostaev S.V.Colour Metaphors Method as the Means of Diagnosing Officers’ Loyalty.Psychopedagogy in Law Enforcement.No.3(70).2017.P.67–72.(In Russ.)
22.Pestrikov D.V.On the notion of ‘constructive behaviour of employees of the penal system’.Bulletin of the institute: crime, punishment, correction.No.4(36).2016.P.74–78.(In Russ.)
Submitted: 26.09.2017