Hester Paanakker

The frequencies in parenthesis represent how often respondents emphasized (sub) variations of this value (in terms of the skills, knowledge and practices that relate to it) as a key component of street-level craftsmanship *Out of 165 cross perceptions, 5 are missing (1 one policy advisors, 3 on middle managers and 1 on prison officers) The high frequencies for task effectiveness also reveal, for this particular value, a high degree of divergence on value understanding: the different, and heavily clashing, interpretations different groups use to create rigid stereotypes of each other, which alter the meaning of this value. In the mutual perceptions on managers, task effectiveness harbors truly different additional meanings of box ticking, reputation management and organizational paralyses that change the connotation of the value altogether into an exceptionally negative one. The principal focus of managers, whether at policy level, director level, or middle management level, is thought to lie on one of these negative conceptions of task effectiveness, and excessively so, at the direct expense of other values that relate to craftsmanship (see table 4.4). Table 4.4. Comparing how different staff levels view each other Mutual perceptions on street-level craftsmanship: comparing how the different staff levels view each other (N=55)* Policy advisors are believed to value: (N=49) Managing directors are believed to value: (N= 47) Task effectiveness 78% (38) Reintegration 16% (8) Efficiency 16% (8) Security 16% (8) Humanity 6% (3) Task effectiveness 85% (40) Security 26% (12) Humanity 21% (10) Efficiency 15% (7) Reintegration 4% (2) Middle managers are believed to value: (N=46) Prison officers are believed to value: (N=23) Task effectiveness 87% (40) Humanity 43% (20) Security 26% (12) Task effectiveness 65% (15) Security 65% (15) Humanity 65% (15) 110 Chapter 4