| Social status as a cultural institution has a remarkable degree of continuing power, even in bureaucratic settings that are formally committed to office, merit and professional norms. Social status originates outside of organizations and has effects society-wide, but it continues to permeate public bureaucracies in subtle and explicit ways. This project extends research on the mobilization of law by examining how social identity and status influence the conceptualization and mobilization of authority in policing and city administration. As more women and racial and ethnic minorities enter government employment, a growing number of public officials confront what may be called a power paradox, a condition in which a person has high official status but lacks traditional social status and in which the mobilization of authority may be especially problematic. For instance, when a Latina police officer stops an older white male for a traffic violation she clearly enjoys official status and legal authority, but the older white male driver may claim higher social status. Results from narratives collected from officials in policing and city administration regarding challenges they faced to their authority indicate that public officials conceptualize and mobilize their authority in fundamentally different ways depending on their social status. Public officials with traditionally high social status describe their authority as coming from their social status and typically respond to challenges to their authority in assertive ways. Public officials with low social status describe experiencing more challenges to their authority than their middle-aged and older white male counterparts. In order to mobilize their authority, or even prove that they have authority, public officials with low social status must highlight their official status and disassociate themselves from their social status. But, doing so, in itself, makes public officials with traditionally low social status seem "rule bound," "bitchy," "inflexible," and the like. These instances represent the paradox of rules---rules and laws serve as powerful resources for public officials, but resources that come with costs. Public officials with traditionally low social status actively avoid explicit discussions of their power paradox or the paradox of rules, even with each other, since acknowledging them would draw additional attention to the problem and make the mobilization of their authority increasingly difficult. The implications for normative theoretical arguments in Public Administration public organizations may be significant. The use of rules by public officials with traditionally low social status shines new light on arguments in favor of streamlining rules or cutting "red tape." Additionally, social status may affect the retention and promotion of racial and ethnic minorities and women in public organizations.;*This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES 0715298. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. |
