Discretionary Authority Coping and Stress in Human Service Organizations

In this paper we analyze coping during public service delivery and stress among workers in human service organizations whose discretion is protected by the authority of their jobs within the police, healthcare psychiatry, and social work. The data come from a survey sent to 990 frontline workers in Sweden. In line with recent neuroscience and psychology research, our findings suggest that the discretionary worker interacts through two families/forms with ways of coping: 1) approaching clients–through instrumental action, bending/breaking rules, using personal resources, or prioritizing motivated clients and 2) avoiding clients–through rationing, routinizing, or aggression. Statistically significant and systematic differences between policy sectors suggest that coping depends on institutionalized moral practices: prioritization and aggression are most common within the police; instrumental action is most common within healthcare; and bending/breaking rules and routinizing are most common within social work. Lower levels of stress are identified in relation to avoidant coping strategies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Human Services Organizations Management Leadership & Governance
Published
2025-10-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2025.2580018
Primary Topic
Workplace Violence and Bullying
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Discretionary Authority Coping and Stress in Human Service Organizations

Andreas Liljegren, Stefan Szücs, Johan M. Berlin, Staffan Höjer
Human Services Organizations Management Leadership & Governance
Workplace Violence and Bullying
article

Discretionary Authority Coping and Stress in Human Service Organizations

Andreas Liljegren, Stefan Szücs, Johan M. Berlin, Staffan Höjer
article en

Abstract

In this paper we analyze coping during public service delivery and stress among workers in human service organizations whose discretion is protected by the authority of their jobs within the police, healthcare psychiatry, and social work. The data come from a survey sent to 990 frontline workers in Sweden. In line with recent neuroscience and psychology research, our findings suggest that the discretionary worker interacts through two families/forms with ways of coping: 1) approaching clients–through instrumental action, bending/breaking rules, using personal resources, or prioritizing motivated clients and 2) avoiding clients–through rationing, routinizing, or aggression. Statistically significant and systematic differences between policy sectors suggest that coping depends on institutionalized moral practices: prioritization and aggression are most common within the police; instrumental action is most common within healthcare; and bending/breaking rules and routinizing are most common within social work. Lower levels of stress are identified in relation to avoidant coping strategies.

Human Services Organizations Management Leadership & GovernanceVol. 50(2)
University West (SE), University of Gothenburg (SE)
Johns Hopkins University, Vetenskapsrådet, Göteborgs Universitet
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
Workplace Violence and Bullying
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.