Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-8p85h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T23:53:27.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Depleted dedication, lowered organisation citizenship behaviours, and illegitimate tasks in police officers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2022

Erich C. Fein
Affiliation:
University of Southern Queensland, School of Psychology and Counselling, 487-535 West Street, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia
Bernard McKenna*
Affiliation:
The University of Queensland Business School, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: b.mckenna@uq.edu.au
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study builds on the relatively limited work examining police officer identity, dedication, and organisation citizenship behaviours (OCB), by connecting illegitimate tasks to these outcomes. From the textual analysis of focus group responses by members of an Australian state police service, a clear social identity of ‘copper’ emerged among constables, and when this copper identity was threatened, the constables' dedication and levels of OCB depleted. The most serious threat to that identity was the need to perform illegitimate tasks based on perceived time-wasting activities. However, a new negative phenomenon, tasks reducing professional discretion, emerged as a third type of illegitimate task. The study also indicates that future studies of police dedication and OCB depletion need to consider the negative socio-political aspects of managerialism.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2022
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Relationships between key constructs.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Leximancer concept map for constables.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Leximancer concept map for sergeants.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Leximancer concept map for cadets.

Figure 4

Table 1. Leximancer-ranked concepts for constables

Figure 5

Table 2. Leximancer-ranked concepts for sergeants

Figure 6

Table 3. Leximancer-ranked concepts for cadets