Received: 14 November 2022 Revised: 13 September 2023 Accepted: 13 September 2023

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13750

RESEARCH ARTICLE

‘Feeling out’ the rules: A psychological process theory

of red tape

Randall S. Davis 1 | Sanjay K. Pandey 2

1
College of Business and Analytics, School of
Management and Marketing, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
2
Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public
Administration, The George Washington
University, Washington, DC, USA
Correspondence
Randall S. Davis, College of Business and
Analytics, School of Management and
Marketing, Southern Illinois University, Mail
Code 4629, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA.
Email: rsdavis@siu.edu
Abstract
Over the past 30 years, red tape has emerged as a key concept in public
management. Yet, researchers continue to debate the relative merits of system-
centric versus individual-centric approaches. In this article, we articulate an
individual-centric psychological process theory, a theory that confronts the ‘modu-
larity assumption’ relegating the subjective individual experience as inconsequen-
tial in much red tape research. We theorize that the appraisal mechanism
influences the meaning attached to external compliance demands. Our process
theory advances the claim that experience, emotion, and expectancy influence
one’s perceptions of, and behavioral response to, red tape. Thus, compliance
expectations in rules are informed by other social demands embedded in roles,
identities, and collective interests in ways that influence the perceived legitimacy
of rules and the compliance burdens they impose. The psychological process the-
ory offers a holistic perspective on red tape by treating the subjective individual
experience as consequential for understanding red tape.

Evidence for practice

• Policy makers should recognize that the subjective experience of red tape has
emotional roots.
• Policy makers should recognize the economic cost of a stunted understanding
of the role of psychological processes (and costs) in experiences of red tape.
• Managers should be aware that there are cognitive and behavioral strategies to
mitigate red tape even in the absence of rule changes.
• Organizational leaders should recognize that the behavioral outcomes of red
tape vary according to expressed emotion and the belief that their behavior will
relieve negative emotions.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past 30 years, several scholars have established
red tape as one of the native concepts in public
management, and a cornerstone of public administration
research. Research, however, can approach red tape from
either a system-centric or an individual-centric vantage
(Pandey, 2023; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000). In this article, we
propose a psychological process theory of red tape that
prioritizes the individual’s subjective experience in contrast
to system-centric approaches that emphasize rules as
the unit of analysis (for other individual-level studies
see Ahn & Campbell, 2022; Brewer & Walker, 2010a, 2010b;
Campbell, 2017; Davis, 2013; Davis & Pink-Harper,
2016; Hattke et al., 2020; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000;
Pandey et al., 2017; Walker & Brewer, 2008). Arguably, the
system-centric approach to red tape, which is closely
aligned with the postpositivist worldview, adds value by
offering an explanation that connects a rule’s compliance
demands with organizational resource consumption
(Campbell, 2019; Campbell et al., 2023).
Pandey (2021), however, argues that a significant
amount of red tape research is characterized by the
“modularity assumption, [which] – simply put – is the
idea that cognitive evaluation of bureaucratic red tape is
a simple matter of mechanically fitting the module made
of dysfunction evaluation with the module made of bur-
den evaluation” (p. 261). The modularity assumption
embedded in postpositivist system-centric conceptual
models of red tape discounts the full range of human

Public Admin Rev. 2023;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar © 2023 American Society for Public Administration. 1

2 A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS THEORY OF RED TAPE
subjective experience. This article is motivated by our
desire to challenge the modularity assumption, which
regards human subjective experience as inconsequential,
in red tape research (Ahn & Campbell, 2022;
Pandey, 2021, 2023).1 Alternatively, we propose that
social processes associated with organizational routines
and other non-rule factors influence the subjective experi-
ences that give meaning and shape behavioral responses
to red tape (see Campbell et al., 2023; Davis & Pink-
Harper, 2016; Pandey, 2021). In so doing, we articulate a
psychological process theory that treats compliance bur-
den as subjectively experienced through multiple organi-
zational channels, as contrasted with a simple
adjudication based on resource consumption associated
with rule following.
In proposing this psychological process theory, we
explore two questions. First, how are individual percep-
tions of red tape negotiated during social interactions
with organizations? Second, what is the relationship
between red tape and work motivation? System-centric
research defines red tape as rules that entail compliance
burden in the absence of attaining a functional goal or
objective (Bozeman, 1993, p. 283). Compliance burden, in
Bozeman’s definition, can be objectively evaluated
in terms of organizational resource consumption. Alterna-
tively, Johan Olsen (2006) offers an understanding of rules
as individual-centric concepts challenging the notion that
one can understand compliance burden absent the social
processes that frame human perception:
Rules provide codes of meaning that facili-
tate the interpretation of ambiguous worlds.
They embody collective and individual roles,
identities, rights, obligations, interests, values,
worldviews, and memory and thus constrain
the allocation of attention, standards of eval-
uation, priorities, perceptions, and resources
(p. 9).
Given Olsen’s (2006) understanding of rules as codes
of meaning rooted in social roles and identities, the psy-
chological mechanisms that govern subjective experience
become necessary for examining compliance burden, the
primitive concept2 associated with red tape.
Our theory of red tape is grounded in a constructivist
worldview that prioritizes the individual’s subjective expe-
rience with bureaucratic organization and asserts that vari-
able understandings evolve from these experiences (see
also Pandey, 2021, 2023). We also argue that the appraisal
mechanism frames one’s perceptions of bureaucratic
structure and understanding of how to behave in relation
to the external demands levied by organizations (see
Lazarus, 1999, 2000, 2001). From this vantage, we argue
that formal expectations in rules couple with other social
demands informed by roles, identities, and collective inter-
ests in ways that influence the perceived legitimacy of
rules and the burden they impose (e.g., Blom et al., 2021;
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Brewer & Walker, 2010a, 2010b; Davis, 2013; Walker &
Brewer, 2008).
The rest of the article is structured as follows. In the
first section, we justify the need for a psychological pro-
cess perspective in red tape research by drawing from
the various “images of rules” described by March, Schulz,
and Zhou (2000, p. 11). Second, we describe the psycho-
logical process of appraisal and emotion, as discussed by
Lazarus (1999, 2000, 2001); see also Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Smith, 1988), to detail the
mechanisms through which one generally evaluates
external demands.3 Next, we draw from the extant litera-
ture to situate the primitive concepts associated with red
tape within the more general appraisal process. The third
section argues that individuals’ behaviors are activated by
certain categories of emotions, which have important
implications for rule-related behavior so long as one
expects the behavior will remedy negative emotion
(e.g., Seo et al., 2004; Spector, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2002).
Finally, we conclude with a discussion about how the pro-
posed theory encourages deeper inquiry and advances
understanding the relationships between red tape and
work motivation.
JUSTIFYING A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS
VIEW OF RED TAPE: IMAGES OF RULES
In one of the most comprehensive theoretical and empiri-
cal treatments of rules, March et al. (2000) describe sev-
eral perspectives commonly used to examine rules in
academic literature. One image of rules described by
March et al. (2000) refers to rules as rational efforts to
organize (p. 11–13). Through this lens, researchers exam-
ine rules as intentional attempts to increase the perfor-
mance of an organization that can be objectively
evaluated. Performance increases due to rules, from this
perspective, stem from enhancing coordination among
individuals with shared goals or by binding individuals
with conflicting interests to a set of common compliance
expectations. A significant proportion of research views
red tape as a rule that fails to rationally and cost effec-
tively organize human effort in pursuit of a common goal.
It is not our intent to marginalize this perspective. View-
ing red tape as a failure of organizations to rationally pur-
sue functional goals at minimal cost has significantly
informed our understanding of bureaucracy (e.g., Aucoin,
1990; Bozeman, 1993; Bozeman & Feeney, 2011; also see
Campbell et al., 2023). However, this perspective assumes
that scholarly evaluations of rule functionality fully cap-
ture the individual’s subjective experience. As such, the
social negotiations that influence rule meaning are rele-
gated to the periphery of inquiry.
Another image of rules March et al. (2000) discuss,
which is particularly relevant to a psychological process
view of red tape, views rules as social constructions of
meaning (p. 14–16; see also Olsen, 2006). March et al. (2000)

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
argue that, from this vantage, researchers assess rules in
terms of the social meaning they communicate to
observers. Specifically, rules facilitate interpretations of
bureaucratic structure by documenting political victories
and losses within an organization. Given this conceptualiza-
tion they illustrate that rules
…record who won and who lost, and by that
recording alone they remove the necessity of
renewing the dispute or implementing its
outcome. A rule can be a declaration of vic-
tory even if it is never implemented or even
evoked
(p. 16).
Conceptualizing rules as constructions of meaning
derived from historical records detailing political victories
challenges the traditional definition of red tape in
three ways.
First, given that rules document political winners and
losers, they often reflect the exploitation of legitimate
sources of organizational influence for political ends; in
other words, rules chronicle power imbalances (see also
Mintzberg, 1983, pp. 186–187). As Hattke et al. (2020)
note, rules that reflect power disparities evoke negative
emotional responses for those on the losing end of a
power struggle. Second, although many assert red tape
can only flow from a rule that is enforced, March et al.
(2000) show that rules are imbued with meaning to par-
ticipants even in the absence of implementation. Finally,
while the rational, or cost–benefit, perspective of red tape
requires evaluating a rule in relation to its formally stated
functional object, March and colleagues illustrate that
rules convey meaning beyond their functional object.
Instead, rules often remind parties of earlier failures to
achieve status in an organization. As such, the victors of
political dialogue can rationally assess rules as beneficial
for protecting preferred values, whereas the losers can
conduct an equally valid rational assessment of the rule’s
failure. Given that rules can be conceptualized as social
constructions of meaning, the psychological mechanisms
that influence perception can inform how one evaluates
the burden imposed by demands, as well as how they
come to label rules as red tape. The following
section describes the appraisal process, which is an
empirically validated psychological mechanism that
shapes perception.
RED TAPE AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
PROCESS OF APPRAISAL
Although scholarly interest in red tape has a rich intellectual
history in public administration, a sustained theoretical dis-
cussion of red tape emerged during the 1990s
(e.g., Bozeman, 1993, 2000; Bozeman & Feeney, 2011; Kauf-
man, 1977; Pandey, 1995; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000; Rainey,
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
Pandey, and Bozeman, 1995). Bozeman (1993) offered the
first thorough theoretical treatment, where red tape
referred to a bureaucratic pathology rooted in the over con-
sumption of organizational resources in service of a rule
that fails to achieve a legitimate organizational goal – or at
least a goal valued by a given stakeholder group. Boze-
man’s (1993) initial definition treats the rule as the unit of
analysis, where red tape refers to objectively pathological
rules derived from a rational calculation of rule costs in rela-
tion to benefits (see Campbell, 2019; Pandey, 2021; Pandey
et al., 2017). This approach, however, discounts the role
human experience plays in evaluating compliance
demands. Alternatively, we can treat the individual as the
unit of analysis, where red tape refers to a “negative per-
ceptual assessments of compliance burden imposed by an
organization” (Pandey, 2021, pp. 262). One’s negative per-
ceptual assessment flows from socially constructed expres-
sions of reality derived from contextual information
available to the individual given their organizational role or
vantage point (see also Brewer & Walker, 2010a, 2010b;
Campbell, 2017; Davis, 2013; Davis & Pink-Harper, 2016;
Pandey et al., 2017; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000; Walker &
Brewer, 2008).
A psychological process theory of red tape can rea-
sonably rest on the well-established and empirically vali-
dated appraisal theory of emotion articulated by Richard
(Lazarus, 1966, 1999, 2000, 2001; see also Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Smith, 1988). Lazarus’s (1999,
2000, 2001) theory of appraisal offers a useful starting
point by directing attention away from rationalist
assumptions of objectively determined red tape based on
the ratio of rule cost to rule benefit. Instead, it encourages
scholars to treat red tape as unfavorable emotional
appraisals of externally imposed compliance demands
(see Pandey, 2021). A psychological process theory of red
tape squares with interdisciplinary perspectives that
deploy red tape as an example of appraising external
demands as hindrances to goal attainment (e.g., Dawson
et al., 2016; LePine et al., 2005) and provides a unifying
explanation for empirical evidence that indicates variation
in perceived red tape across individuals (e.g., Blom
et al., 2021; Brewer & Walker, 2010a, 2010b; Davis, 2013;
Davis & Pink-Harper, 2016; Feeney & Bozeman, 2009;
Scott & Pandey, 2005; Walker & Brewer, 2008).
Lazarus (1966) extensively examined one’s response to
external demands as a relational and emotional process,
which he labeled appraisal. One’s appraisal of external
demands can serve as the theoretical foundation for under-
standing a host of work attitudes and behaviors; both favor-
able and unfavorable (Spector, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2002).
Some public administration scholarship examines one’s
interaction with external demands through a relational lens.
For example, Davis et al. (2020) take this approach by argu-
ing that one’s response to work demands is an
Adaptive [emotional] response, moderated
by individual differences, that is a

4 A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS THEORY OF RED TAPE
consequence of [appraising] any action, situ-
ation, or event that places [physical or psy-
chological] demands upon a person (Davis
et al., 2020, p. 408; Matteson & Ivancevich,
1987, p. 10; Lazarus, 1999, 2000, 2001;
Lazarus & Smith, 1988).
We argue that introducing the psychological
mechanism of appraisal as foundational to red tape the-
ory better enables empirical researchers to address
subject-dependent variation in rule perceptions.
Appraisal unfolds in two stages and refers to the
extent to which an individual evaluates whether condi-
tions that affect them are personally harmful (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Smith, 1988, p. 283). The first
stage, termed primary appraisal, requires that the individ-
ual determine the extent to which external demands
imposed upon them threaten their welfare. In this phase,
the individual seeks to make sense of the demands they
confront given situational and contextual cues provided
in the broader social environment. However, appraising a
specific demand, or set of demands, as threatening need
not imply unfavorable emotional responses. Variability in
one’s emotional response to environmental demands
occurs because in the second stage, termed secondary
appraisal, one weighs available coping resources to
address perceived threats. To the extent that one pos-
sesses a sufficient stock of resources to address perceived
threats, the demands levied are assessed as a motivating
challenge to overcome. Alternatively, if one appraises a
given demand, or set of demands as threatening, and
they lack sufficient resources to address the threat, the
demand will evoke unfavorable emotions and hinder
their ability to attain preferred goals.
Behavioral consequences also flow from the emo-
tional byproducts of environmental demands. Spector
and Fox (2002), as well as Spector (2005), persuasively
illustrate that many, if not most, voluntary organizational
behaviors represent a direct response to experienced
emotions at work (see also Seo et al., 2004). While those
who experience positive emotions due to work demands
are more likely to engage in the cluster of behaviors
FIGURE 1 The appraisal process.
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
broadly termed organizational citizenship behaviors
(Organ, 1988; Spector, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2002), those
who experience negative emotions at work appear more
likely to engage in counterproductive behaviors designed
to harm the organization or other individuals
(Spector, 2005; Spector & Fox, 2002). In other words, the
appraisal process indicates that voluntary human behav-
ior occurs in response to emotions evoked by external
demands as opposed to the objective content of
demands themselves. Individuals subsequently engage in
post hoc rationalizations to justify how they acted in
response to experienced emotion (Argyris, 1957;
Katz, 1960; March, 1994; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000;
Perrow, 1986, Ch. 4). This rationalization can manifest as
causal attributions that “blame” external objects for why
one behaved in a specific way (Weiner, 1986).
To this point, we have discussed how the process of
appraisal influences emotion and behavior generally, yet
the connections it elucidates between external demands,
emotions, and behavior can inform how the public
administration research community understands the
complex social and political systems that give meaning to
compliance burden and red tape (see Olsen, 2006;
Perrow, 1986; Scott, 2013). Figure 1 offers a graphical
depiction of the appraisal process.
APPRAISAL AND RED TAPE: ELEMENTS OF
EXPERIENCE, EMOTION, AND EXPECTANCY
Given we seek to articulate a process theory, it is useful to
conceptually detail each stage of the process. Consistent
with Lazarus’s (1966, 1999, 2000, 2001) theory of appraisal
and emotion, we describe how elements of experience,
emotion, and expectancy shape perceptions of red tape
and the behavioral consequences that follow. In sum-
mary, an individual must first experience, or interact with,
the external compliance demands in rules before they
can reasonably determine if compliance demands consti-
tute burdensome red tape. Second, following the experi-
ence with external compliance demands, one exhibits
emotion in response to the compliance demands levied

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
against them. Finally, one develops a behavioral response
to red tape based on the expectancy that certain behav-
iors will relieve the negative emotions associated with red
tape. Examining the development of red tape across
these three conceptual domains can offer researchers
and managers a clearer picture of how red tape develops
and how to address red tape in complex organizations.
Given elements of experience, emotion, and expec-
tancy embedded in the appraisal process, we argue that
red tape is best conceptualized as “negative perceptual
assessments of compliance burden imposed by an orga-
nization” (Pandey, 2021, pp. 262). Thus, red tape is an
unfavorable emotion in response to evaluating external
demands and compliance burdens based on rule-related
information accumulated from multiple sources. One sub-
sequently evaluates external demands embedded in rule
related information based on the totality of social
demands they confront, which are differentially inter-
preted given variable coping resources. Specifically, one
subjectively assigns a perceived threat level to a demand
they confront. Subsequently, based on contextual cues,
espoused values, and available psychological resources,
one responds emotionally based on their capacity to cope
with the perceived threat. As such, compliance expecta-
tions are infused with meaning based on the extent to
which one possesses sufficient resources to offset the per-
ceived degree of threat they impose.
While understanding red tape as part of broader psy-
chological processes has been documented in the public
management literature (see Campbell et al., 2023; Davis &
Pink-Harper, 2016; Pandey, 2021; Pandey & Kingsley, 2000;
Pandey & Welch, 2005; Quratulain & Khan, 2015; Scott &
Pandey, 2005), we seek to offer a perspective to unite these
studies under a common conceptual umbrella. Red tape
research in the vein of experimental and behavioral public
administration, as well as those studies grounded in the
job demands–resources framework, offer empirical
FIGURE 2 A psychological process theory of red tape.
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
foundations that reinforce the utility of a psychological
perspective (e.g., Borst et al., 2019; Campbell, 2017, 2020;
Carrigan et al., 2020; Giauque et al., 2013; Grimmelikhuijsen
et al., 2017; Hattke et al., 2020; Muylaert et al., 2022; Pandey
et al., 2017; Steijn & Van der Voet, 2019). Our intent here is
to draw from the evidence presented in prior research, and
the logic of appraisal articulated above, to expand red tape
research. The framework described hereafter avoids the
implicit assumption that one can understand a solitary rule
in the absence of examining the social relationships
between individuals, external demands, and organizational
context. Figure 2 provides an illustration of the appraisal
process specific to the red tape concepts we develop
below.
Experience: rule-related stimuli, threat
perception, and excess compliance burden
Red tape scholars, even those who favor rationalist
approaches, highlight that red tape cannot exist in the
absence of external demands. Bozeman (1993) conceptu-
alized compliance burden in terms of organizational
resource consumption and implied that compliance bur-
den could be objectively assessed (see also Bozeman &
Feeney, 2011; Zahradnik, 2022). Yet, as March et al. (2000)
illustrate, compliance burden derives meaning from the
organizational context even in the absence of external
enforcement. Given this complexity, recent attempts to
advance red tape measurement often assess perceived
burden (e.g., Borry, 2016; Davis & Stazyk, 2014; Pandey
et al., 2017; Van Loon et al., 2016). These measures treat
compliance burden as an individualized evaluative judg-
ment but also fall prey to the modularity assumption by
avoiding a formal description of the mechanisms that
govern human evaluation (see Pandey, 2021; Pandey
et al., 2017 for similar arguments).

6 A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS THEORY OF RED TAPE
Importantly, individuals must experience rules’ stated
compliance demands before they can evaluate the
degree or character of burden imposed by those
demands. As the model presented in Figure 2 illustrates,
the demands embedded in rules precede one’s emotive
assessment of organizational characteristics. In the broad-
est sense, rules refer to “explicit or implicit norms, regula-
tions, and expectations that regulate the behavior of
individuals” (March et al., 2000, p. 5). Experience describes
one’s interaction with “a stimulus that has resulted in
learning,” where stimulus is “any agent, event, or
situation – internal or external – that elicits a response
from an organism” (American Psychological Association
[APA], 2020a). In the context of rules and red tape, we
argue that experience refers to any encounter with rule-
related stimuli that conveys social information to an actor
from which the actor learns about, and responds to,
behavioral expectations within the organization. Rule-
related stimuli convey information about demands, and
elicit a response, but originate from myriad sources
including, minimally, objective rule text, hierarchy, resolu-
tion of political debate, and other social cues in organiza-
tions (see Davis & Pink-Harper, 2016; DeHart-Davis, 2009,
2017; DeHart-Davis et al., 2015; March et al., 2000;
Mintzberg, 1983). By drawing together the definitions of
rules, experience, and stimulus, we define rule-related
stimuli as external demands levied on an individual in the
form of norms, regulations, and/or expectations embed-
ded in an organization’s structural transmission channels
that elicit a response, where structural transmission chan-
nels include, at least, hierarchy, formalization, centraliza-
tion, organizational politics, social cues, and bureaucratic
routine (see Kaufman, 1960; Kaufmann et al., 2019; March
et al., 2000; Olsen, 2006; Pandey, 2021; Pandey &
Scott, 2002).4
The logic in the psychological process theory, where
experiences are filtered through primary appraisal to
inform perceived threat levels, offers a tool to identify the
subject-dependent boundary between normal and excess
compliance burden. In the traditional system-centric con-
ceptualization, Bozeman (1993) understood compliance
burden as the resources expended during compliance with
external demands. As such, compliance burden was not
inherently negative, so long as the resources spent
achieved organizational purposes. Yet, as research shifted
to an individualized conceptualization, scholars began to
recognize that compliance burden possesses a negative
valence and varies depending on assumed social roles
(e.g., Brewer & Walker, 2010a, 2010b; Coursey &
Pandey, 2007; Davis, 2013; Feeney & Bozeman, 2009;
Moynihan et al., 2012; Van Loon et al., 2016). For example,
Van Loon et al. (2016) illustrate the negative connotation
attached to compliance burden by indicating that, “rules
perceived as red tape entail a compliance burden: the
employee feels burdened in executing the rule because it
requires excessive time or energy, or it is complex or frus-
trating” (p. 664, emphasis is our own).
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The psychological process theory, we propose explic-
itly accounts for the negative valence attached to compli-
ance burden and acknowledges that what constitutes
excess burden varies across individuals. We argue that
excessive compliance burden, in the psychological pro-
cess framework, refers to circumstances where individuals
appraise information regarding behavioral constraints,
demands, and expectations learned from rule-related
stimuli as a direct threat to personal welfare. Alternatively,
if the individual does not appraise rule-related stimuli as
threatening, they will interpret the demands imposed
upon them as normal, rather than excess, burden. In the
next subsection, we turn our attention to those condi-
tions where rule-related stimuli appear threatening to
individuals.
Emotion: perceived red tape and coping
Although emotion and affect did not feature prominently
in early theorizing, Bozeman (1993) introduced the con-
cept of emotion in relation to red tape. Specifically, he
illustrates that, while there had been various conceptuali-
zations in the 20th century, “frustration and vexation”
were commonly associated with the experience of red
tape (Bozeman, 1993, pp. 274–275; see also Van Loon
et al., 2016). As research examining red tape evolved, sev-
eral scholars empirically examined the extent to which
various emotions, including alienation, dissatisfaction,
confusion, and anger, followed one’s experience with red
tape (e.g., DeHart-Davis & Pandey, 2005; Hattke
et al., 2020; Quratulain & Khan, 2015; Steijn & Van der
Voet, 2019). Researchers often situate red tape as an ante-
cedent to emotion based on the assumption that red
tape needlessly compels behaviors, which reinforces
power disparities that favor the organization (e.g., Hattke
et al., 2020). Since most individuals prefer individual
agency and autonomy, they will express anger when con-
fronted with illegitimate demands of subservience (see
Argyris, 1957). Yet, other scholars examining bureaucracy
challenge the assertion that one’s experience of red tape
precedes emotion.
Goodsell (1985) articulates an alternative perspec-
tive that specifies the causal direction between compli-
ance demands, emotion, and red tape. He argues that
red tape represents one’s unfavorable symbolic assess-
ment of bureaucracy derived from a much wider array
of subjectively held feelings (Goodsell, 1985). Goodsell’s
(1985) perspective is consistent with Olsen’s (2006)
understanding of rules and our subject-dependent con-
ceptualization of burden. Goodsell (1985) and Olsen
(2006) directly challenge the conventional wisdom that
red tape is an antecedent to emotion. While others have
argued that emotions follow one’s experience with red
tape, based on the alternative causal explanations of
Goodsell (1985) and Olsen (2006), we argue that red
tape represents a symbolic label for unfavorable

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
emotions that arise from compliance burden perceived
as a threat.
Conceptualizing red tape as a symbolic label charac-
terizing unfavorable emotions comports with Henry Min-
tzberg’s (1983) view of power in organizations. He argues
that power can be exercised in organizations through the
exploitation of otherwise legitimate systems of authority,
for example through rules. Moreover, the exercise of
political power in organizations is, by definition,
illegitimate because it is not sanctioned by “formal
authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise”
(Mintzberg, 1983, p. 172). Therefore, it stands to reason
that when rules are used as a mechanism to solidify politi-
cal power, the losers of political dialogue will rely on emo-
tion when they characterize the acceptability of
compliance demands. Pandey and Kingsley (2000) suc-
cinctly reinforce these perspectives by suggesting that
emotions may represent a “state of mind likely to influ-
ence perceptions of red tape” (p. 784). We argue that
adopting a psychological process approach to red tape
can resolve this inconsistency (i.e., whether emotions are
defining features, or a consequence, of red tape) by illus-
trating that the primitive concept of compliance burden
is a precursor to emotion, whereas red tape perceptions
are symbolic responses to negative, emotional percep-
tions of compliance burden.
Emotions are complex reactions, characterized by two
dimensions indicating relative degrees of [un]pleasant-
ness and [de]activation, resulting from the appraisal of
specific events or stimuli (e.g., Lazarus & Smith, 1988;
Russell, 1980; Schlosberg, 1952; Welsh et al., 2020). Given
our focus on rules and red tape, we adapt this definition
such that rule-oriented emotions refer to complex reac-
tions, characterized by degrees of [un]pleasantness and
[de]activation, resulting from the appraisal of rule-related
stimuli. The dimension of pleasantness refers to one’s
subjective experience in terms of positive, or favorable,
and negative, or unfavorable, affective states (Seo
et al., 2004; Welsh et al., 2020). The second dimension,
activation, denotes physiological responses to external
demands that prompt action (Seo et al., 2004; Welsh
et al., 2020). Psychologists refer to this characterization of
emotion and affect as the “circumplex model”
(Russell, 1980; Russell & Barrett, 1999), where the poles of
[un]pleasantness and [de]activation can be conceptual-
ized in a two-dimensional circular space akin to a clock.
It is not our intent to oversimplify the circumplex
model, yet it highlights four broad categories of emotion:
pleasant, activating emotions (e.g., excitement); pleasant,
deactivating emotions (e.g., relaxation); unpleasant, deac-
tivating emotions (e.g., depression or boredom); and
unpleasant, activating emotions (e.g., anxiety or anger).
The remainder of this subsection focuses primarily on the
[un]pleasant dimension of emotion, whereas the next
section focuses on the [de]activation dimension. Given
widespread agreement that red tape represents a uni-
formly negative phenomenon, a significant amount of
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
7
red tape literature examines unpleasant emotions (see
DeHart-Davis & Pandey, 2005; Hattke et al., 2020;
Henderson & Borry, 2023; Kaufmann & Tummers, 2017;
Pandey & Kingsley, 2000). However, based on Lazarus’s
(1999, 2000, 2001) logic of appraisal and emotion one
need not assume that rule-related stimuli, no matter how
onerous or demanding, uniformly result in unpleasant
emotion (see also Hattke et al., 2020). The emotions that
flow from engaging with external demands vary depend-
ing on available coping resources (see Döring, 2021; Dör-
ing & Madsen, 2022; Masood & Nisar, 2021; for similar
arguments in the context of administrative burden).
Figure 3 illustrates the circumplex conceptualization of
emotion, and the categories of emotion that come to
symbolize red tape.
Assuming an individual perceives excess burden – or,
in other words, appraises rule-related stimuli as a threat
to personal well-being – emotional outcomes result from
an individual weighing available coping resources against
burden. According to the American Psychological Associa-
tion, coping refers to “the use of cognitive and behavioral
strategies to manage the demands of a situation when
these are appraised as taxing or exceeding one’s
resources or to reduce the negative emotions and conflict
caused by stress” (APA, 2020b). A definition of coping
specific to red tape refers to one’s use of cognitive and
behavioral strategies to manage the demands embedded
in rule-related stimuli when these demands are appraised
as excessively burdensome. Individuals can possess a
multitude of resources, both internal and external, neces-
sary for adapting to the perceived burden resulting from
rule-related stimuli. Dewe, O’Driscoll, and Cooper (2012;
citing Nelson & Simmons, 2003) describe that “[p]ersonal
resources include attributes such as personal values
(e.g., the importance of achievement), personality traits
(e.g., internal locus of control, hardiness, dispositional
optimism, and generalized self-esteem), and other
characteristics, including positive affect” (p. 31). Alterna-
tively, external resources stem from organizational
sources related to the work environment including
autonomy, feedback, and associated work rewards (Dewe
et al., 2012, p. 31).
Acknowledging intraindividual variability in coping
resources means that one’s ability to adapt to perceptions
of excess compliance burden is subject-dependent. Nega-
tive emotional outcomes will result from secondary
appraisal for those with an insufficient stock of coping
resources. This perspective is consistent with research
that emphasizes the subject-dependent nature of red
tape depending on roles, obligations, hierarchical posi-
tions, values, or participation in social groups
(e.g., Brewer & Walker, 2010a, 2010b; Campbell, 2017;
Davis, 2013) because these factors can confer necessary
coping resources. As such, we draw these streams of
research together to argue, in line with Pandey and Kings-
ley (2000), that the unpleasant emotions stemming from
perceived excess compliance burden and insufficient

8 A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS THEORY OF RED TAPE
FIGURE 3 Situating red tape in unpleasant activating and deactivating emotions.
resources define red tape (see also Goodsell, 1985). Pan-
dey (2021) accounts for emotion and appraisal in his defi-
nition of red tape, where red tape refers to “negative
perceptual assessments of compliance burden imposed
by an organization” (p. 262). In the psychological process
theory, red tape takes on meaning due to the attempt by
individuals to symbolically label external demands that
give rise to negative emotional outcomes resulting from
insufficient coping resources. In the next subsection, we
examine the behavioral outcomes likely to flow from the
red tape.
Expectancy: behavioral responses to red tape
Although nearly all red tape research agrees it is uni-
formly negative, scholars examine myriad behavioral out-
comes that flow from perceptions of excess burden
(e.g., Bozeman & Feeney, 2011; Davis & Pink-Harper, 2016;
Feeney & DeHart-Davis, 2009; Hassan et al., 2021;
Quratulain & Khan, 2015; Scott & Pandey, 2000;
Taylor, 2018). However, the behavioral outcomes identi-
fied across studies appear inconsistent. For example,
some evidence indicates that an individual who experi-
ences red tape may respond by engaging in risk averse
behaviors (e.g., Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998; Feeney &
DeHart-Davis, 2009), whereas others illustrate that
rule-breaking behavior may follow one’s encounter with
red tape (e.g., Davis & Pink-Harper, 2016; DeHart-
Davis, 2007; Potipiroon, 2022). Yet, risk aversion and rule-
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
breaking responses appear incompatible in response to
the same stimuli. The psychological process theory can
reconcile seemingly inconsistent behaviors likely to follow
one’s experience with red tape.
We argue that one’s behavioral response to red tape
depends on two interrelated factors, the degree to which
perceived red tape is characterized by unpleasant activat-
ing emotions, and one’s expectancy that a given behavior
will alleviate unpleasant emotions. First, in the previous sec-
tion, we illustrated that although all red tape assessments
are characterized by negative emotion, only a fraction of
those emotions motivate behavior. The activation dimen-
sion refers to the ability of certain emotions to prompt
action (Seo et al., 2004; Welsh et al., 2020). To the extent
that one’s experience with rule-related stimuli invokes acti-
vating emotions, such as anger or frustration, the individual
prepares a behavioral response. Active attempts to thwart
external demands in rule-related stimuli, such as various
forms of rule-breaking behavior or voluntary turnover,
become significantly more likely under these conditions
(Davis & Pink-Harper, 2016; DeHart-Davis, 2007; Giauque
et al., 2019; Potipiroon, 2022). Alternatively, one might
deploy the term red tape to refer to deactivating emotions
resulting from rule-related stimuli, such as boredom or
depression. Under these conditions, the individual is
more likely to express inactive responses, such as risk aver-
sion or withdrawal (e.g., Feeney & DeHart-Davis, 2009;
Quratulain & Khan, 2015). Yet, the [de]activation dimension
of emotions merely prepares an individual for a physical
response to the external demands they confront. When
 15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 9

one translates experiences into actual behavior, they
implicitly evaluate the extent to which they believe a spe-
cific behavior will mitigate unpleasant emotion.
One will exhibit a behavioral response to red tape if
they expect that behavior will relieve the negative emo-
tions that define red tape. The American Psychological
Association defines expectancy as “the internal state
resulting from experience with predictable relationships
between stimuli or between responses and stimuli. … In
motivation theory, it refers to an individual’s belief that
his or her actions can produce a particular outcome”
(APA, 2020c). To craft a red tape-specific definition of
expectancy, we draw together the general and motiva-
tional definitions. With respect to rules and red tape, we
define rule-related expectancies as the internal state
resulting from experience with predicable relationships
between behavioral responses and rule-related stimuli
characterized by one’s subjective belief that his or her
actions will mitigate negative emotions that define red
tape. Like our previous definitions, the concepts of activa-
tion and expectancy reinforce that the behavioral
response to red tape is subjective and value laden.
Broadly speaking, one can frame beliefs about the
connections between responses and stimuli from per-
sonal dispositional proclivities, role-specific social norms,
or a combination of both (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980;
Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Miller & Grush, 1988). We define
personal expectancies related to rules as dispositional
beliefs regarding the relationships between rule-related
stimuli, negative emotions, and behavioral responses.

TABLE 1 Psychological process theory of red tape: definitions.

Elements of
appraisal (see Psychological process theory of red tape definitions
Figure 1) Psychological foundations (see Figure 2)

External demands Experience: a stimulus that has resulted in learning
Stimulus: is any agent event or situation – internal or external
– that elicits a response from an organism
Rules: explicit or implicit norms, regulations, and expectations
that regulate the behavior of individuals
Primary appraisal Threat perception: one’s assessment that a situation is
and threat relevant to their well-being and that the situation inhibits
perception personal goal attainment
Secondary Coping: the use of cognitive and behavioral strategies to
appraisal and manage the demands of a situation when these are
emotional appraised as taxing or exceeding one’s resources or to
outcome reduce the negative emotions and conflict caused by
stress
Resources: personal attributes including values and
personality traits, as well as features of the work
environment including autonomy, feedback, and rewards
that facilitate one’s ability to adapt to perceived threats
Emotion: complex reactions, characterized by two dimensions
indicating relative degrees of [un]pleasantness and [de]
activation, resulting from the appraisal of specific events
or stimuli
Expectancy and Expectancy: the internal state resulting from experience with
behavioral predictable relationships between stimuli or between
outcomes responses and stimuli, and, in motivation theory, an
individual’s belief that his or her actions can produce a
particular outcome
Rule-related stimuli: external demands levied on an individual
in the form of norms, regulations, and/or expectations
embedded in an organization’s structural transmission
channels that elicit a response, where structural
transmission channels include, at least, hierarchy,
formalization, centralization, organizational politics, social
cues, and bureaucratic routine
Burden evaluation: individual appraisal of information
regarding behavioral constraints, demands, and
expectations learned from rule-related stimuli that are
perceived as a direct threat to personal welfare and goal
attainment
Rule-oriented coping: cognitive and behavioral strategies,
which consumes available psychological resources, to
manage the demands embedded in rule-related stimuli
when these demands are appraised as excessively
burdensome
Rule-oriented emotion: complex reactions, characterized by
degrees of [un]pleasantness and [de]activation, resulting
from the appraisal of rule-related stimuli
Red tape: rule-oriented emotion characterized by negative, or
unpleasant, perceptual assessments of compliance
burden imposed by an organization
Rule-related expectancy: internal state resulting from
experience with predicable relationships between
behavioral responses and rule-related stimuli
characterized by one’s subjective belief that his or her
actions will mitigate negative emotions that define red
tape
Individual-specific expectancies (with respect to rules):
dispositional beliefs regarding the relationships between
rule-related stimuli, negative emotions, and behavioral
responses.
Role-specific expectancies (with respect to rules): role-
dependent normative beliefs regarding the relationships
between rule-related stimuli, negative emotion, and
behavioral responses

10
Alternatively, role-specific expectancies related to rules
refer to role-dependent normative beliefs regarding the
relationships between rule-related stimuli, negative emo-
tion, and behavioral responses. Incorporating both per-
sonal and role-specific expectancies addresses empirical
findings that illustrate variation in red tape and outcomes
due to personality characteristics (e.g., DeHart-Davis, 2007;
Kaufmann & Feeney, 2014) and cultural norms embedded
in social roles (e.g., Brewer & Walker, 2010a, 2010b;
Campbell, 2017; Pandey et al., 2007; Walker &
Brewer, 2008). We summarize all psychological concept
and psychological process definitions in Table 1.
CONCLUSION
In this article, we sought to specify a psychological pro-
cess theory of red tape to address two interrelated aims.
Specifically, we engaged with the challenge posed by the
“modularity assumption”, relegating subjective individual
experience as inconsequential, embedded in a significant
amount of red tape research (Pandey, 2021, 2023). We
argued that system-centric theories assume that the
mechanisms connecting one’s subjective organizational
experience to red tape are fully detailed in the conceptual
definition. As such, a significant amount of previous
research asserts that the objective expenditure of organi-
zational resources adequately captures the true nature of
compliance burden.
Much like previous research, we examine compliance
burden as the primitive concept associated with red tape,
but we argued that previous conceptual models are com-
posed of blind spots regarding human subjectivity. Alter-
natively, we relied on Lazarus’s model of appraisal and
emotion to more adequately specify the nature of compli-
ance burden. From this vantage, “excess burden” repre-
sents a subjective, symbolic assessment of externally
imposed compliance demands evolving from reciprocal
social interactions. This subjective assessment represents
more than mere information processing and is inclusive
of the emotive consequences of bureaucratic structure.
Viewing excess burden as evolving from a socially negoti-
ated understandings of external demands, mediated
through the appraisal process, has important scholarly
and practical implications for connecting rules to the
experience of excess burden.
First, from a scholarly perspective, the psychological
process theory we detail here rejects a universal under-
standing of red tape and asserts that social position and
role expectations frame one’s experience of red tape
(Pandey, 2023). To the extent organizations hope to lever-
age compliance demands to shape employee behavior,
the social processes that shape one’s understanding of
red tape is no trivial matter. A solely objective view of red
tape suppresses extended investigation of red tape’s
social causes, which leads to inconsistent findings regard-
ing behavioral consequences.5 For example, how can
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS THEORY OF RED TAPE
increased red tape simultaneously predict risk aversion
and rule violation? A psychological process theory
answers this question by specifying the mechanisms and
social processes that connect emotions and expectancies
to external compliance demands. As such, scholarship is
better equipped to offer recommendations to organiza-
tions addressing the deleterious outcomes of red tape.
Several research propositions flow from the psychological
process theory.
In a technical sense, the model we describe is a com-
plex moderated-mediation model. Our model proposes
that there is a three-stage mediation process where the
processes of primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and
expectancy carry compliance demands to behavior
through threat perception and emotion. Admittedly, the
mediation stages of primary and secondary appraisal may
be difficult to disentangle empirically. That said, it is
important to recognize that complex patterns of media-
tion unfold over time. As such, research could proceed by
presenting individuals with specific compliance demands,
and assessing the extent to which individuals feel that
those expectations threaten personal goal attainment.
Subsequently, after engaging with demands, the respon-
dent’s emotional state can be evaluated. Alternatively,
researchers might seek to assess separate stages of the
appraisal process and examine them independently in
ways where knowledge accumulates over time. Our
model also proposes that each mediation step is moder-
ated by threat assessment, resource availability, and
expectancies about behavior respectively. The categories
of variables that address each of the moderation research
questions in Figure 2 are vast. As examples, researchers
might examine how (a) personality traits encourage varia-
tion in the relationship between compliance demands
and threat assessment, (b) valued resources including
autonomy or supportive leadership change the relation-
ship between threat perception and emotion, or
(c) cognitive biases influence the relationship between
emotion and behavior. The research program that could
flow from this model is extensive and cannot be fully
described in a single article. We hope that future scholars
will take up the call to unpack the relationships we
describe here.
Second, from a practical perspective, a psychological
process theory better informs the relationships between
red tape and employee motivation. Managers who
assume red tape is exclusively derived from objective
considerations may find themselves perplexed about why
rules fail to motivate intended behavioral outcomes. In
response to rule failure, it seems logical for managers to
more forcefully emphasize compliance demands and
strictly punish deviation from those demands. However,
managers who neglect the emotive elements of compli-
ance demands, such as feelings of anger, anxiety, ner-
vousness, depression, or powerlessness, will consistently
preside over underperforming organizations. Moreover,
attempts to remedy performance failures through

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
strategic human resources management initiatives are
likely to bear little fruit. Recruitment strategies in
response to performance failures, for example, will only
be effective so long as new employees are not subject to
the same emotional fate. Admittedly, including emotion
and expectancy in a theory of red tape complicates the
connection between rules and motivation, but it presents
a more realistic picture of the motivating potential of for-
mal compliance demands for managers seeking to ele-
vate performance.
Importantly, it is not our intent to argue in opposition
to eliminating or altering rules. Rules can be dysfunc-
tional, excessively costly, or work at contrary purposes.
However, rules represent more than attempts to rationally
structure an organization. Rules also construct meaning,
in part, as political exercise designed to control behavior
in pursuit of preferred patterns of value allocation (March
et al., 2000; Mintzberg, 1983; Olsen, 2006). As such, sub-
jective character of compliance demands can be indepen-
dent of their objective aims. Given the subjective
dimension of compliance expectations, rules can become
red tape not only because they fail to attain a legitimate
organizational purpose, but also because they reflect the
emotive distress that can arise from interacting with com-
pliance demands. Thus, reducing red tape may be par-
tially achieved through emotion management or
cognitive behavioral therapy as much as rule alteration.
As stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, once reflected, “If
you are distressed by an external thing, the thing itself is
not what troubles you, but only your judgment of it. And
you can wipe this out at a moment’s notice.” While we
acknowledge that future research could more fully specify
the psychological process theory, we believe that assum-
ing subjective judgment is inconsequential for under-
standing compliance burden paints a partial and less
realistic picture of red tape in public organizations.
ENDNOTES
1
We acknowledge that there are multiple concepts in public administra-
tion, including administrative burden and sludge, that take the individ-
ual subjective experience seriously. Distinguishing these concepts
is beyond the scope of this article. Interested readers can review
Pandey’s (2023) extensive discussion of the commonalities and differ-
ences between these concepts (also see Madsen et al., 2022).
2
Leibniz was one of the strongest advocates for the idea of primitive
concepts (Plaisted 2003). Dowding (2016) proposes a maxim for con-
ceptual analysis that invokes primitive as a matter of degree as
contrasted with primitive as the lowest-common denominator constit-
uent concept, “Concepts should be as primitive as possible” (See
Dowding 2016: 191–193 for an exposition of this claim). Drawing on
Dowding’s work, our use of the term primitive concept in conceptual
analysis is based on two stipulations: (i) specifications of complex con-
cepts invoke primitive concepts; and (ii) primitive concepts, as con-
trasted with complex concepts, are closer to empirical or experiential
reality. In the context of red tape scholarship, we specifically draw on
recent conceptual analyses that deploy the term primitive concept
(Pandey, 2021, 2023). For completeness sake, it is worth noting that
similar terms (“primitive element”) have been used in earlier red tape
studies (Pandey & Kingsley, 2000; Pandey & Scott, 2002).
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
11
3
Richard Lazarus was a pioneer in the field of psychology advocating
for the importance of emotion and coping as drivers of behavior.
Beginning in the mid-20th century Lazarus and colleagues (Lazarus,
1966, 1999, 2000, 2001); See also Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus &
Smith, 1988) developed a general theory of appraisal and emotion that
contributed to his reputation as one of the most prominent psycholo-
gists of the 20th century. The general theory of appraisal and emotion
has been adapted to multiple domains of inquiry ranging from work-
place issues and occupational health (Grandey, 2000) to information
management (Gursoy et al., 2019).
4
Notably, the psychological definitions of experience and stimuli are
broad and account for any learning that occurs when responding to
information drawn from “agents, events, or situations”. Our choice
to include some structural transmission channels in our explanation of
rule-related stimuli including social cues, formalization, and bureau-
cratic routine, for example, represents an attempt to account for infor-
mation conveyed through agents, events, and situations. That is not to
say our list of structural transmission channels exhausts all possible
agents, events, and situations. Any organization that conveys informa-
tion to individuals regarding how one ought to behave in response to
legitimate compliance demands constitutes rule-related stimuli. Alter-
natively, information one accumulates from organizations unrelated to
legitimate compliance expectations may be stimuli, but it does not
represent rule-related stimuli.
5
Indeed, Campbell et al.’s (2023) recent meta-review highlights the
importance of alternative research traditions on red tape. They call the
“objective red tape” tradition the “administrative performance”
research tradition and contrast it with the rule quality research tradi-
tion and the behavioral impact research tradition. The rule quality and
behavioral impact research traditions on red tape highlight the
salience of non-objective and non-rule factors and subscribe to a rule
ontology that emphasizes organizational embeddedness of rules and
experiential or perceptual holism (Campbell et al., 2023: 301).
RE FE RE NCE S
Ahn, Yongjin, and Jesse W. Campbell. 2022. “Red Tape, Rule Legitimacy,
and Public Service Motivation: Experimental Evidence from Korean
Citizens.” Administration & Society 54(9): 1651–88.
Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
American Psychological Association. 2020a. “Coping.” APA Dictionary of
Psychology. April 28, 2022. https://dictionary.apa.org/coping.
American Psychological Association. 2020b. “Experience.” APA Dictio-
nary of Psychology. November, 4, 2021. https://dictionary.apa.org/
experience.
American Psychological Association. 2020c. “Stimulus.” APA Dictionary
of Psychology. September, 5, 2021. https://dictionary.apa.org/
stimulus.
Argyris, Chris. 1957. Personality and Organization. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Aucoin, Peter. 1990. “Administrative Reform in Public Management:
Paradigms, Principles, Paradoxes and Pendulums.” Governance: An
International Journal of Policy and Administration 3(2): 115–137.
Blom, Rutger, Rick T. Borst, and Bart Voorn. 2021. “Pathology or Inconve-
nience? A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Red Tape on People and
Organizations.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 41(4):
623–650.
Borry, Erin L. 2016. “A New Measure of Red Tape: Introducing the
Three-Item Red Tape (TIRT) Scale.” International Public Management
Journal 19(4): 573–593.
Borst, Rick T., Peter M. Kruyen, and Christiaan J. Lako. 2019. “Exploring
the Job Demands–Resources Model of Work Engagement. In
Government: Bringing in a Psychological Perspective.” Review of
Public Personnel Administration 39(3): 372–397.
Bozeman, Barry. 1993. “A Theory of Government “Red Tape”.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 3(3): 273–303.

12
Bozeman, Barry. 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bozeman, Barry, and Mary K. Feeney. 2011. Rules and Red Tape. A Prism
for Public Administration Theory and Research. Armonk, NY: M. E.
Sharpe.
Bozeman, Barry, and Gordon Kingsley. 1998. “Risk Culture in Public and
Private Organizations.” Public Administration Review 58(2): 109–118.
Brewer, Gene A., and Richard M. Walker. 2010a. “Explaining Variation in
Perceptions of Red Tape: A Professionalism-Marketization Model.”
Public Administration 88(2): 418–438.
Brewer, Gene A., and Richard M. Walker. 2010b. “The Impact of Red Tape
on Governmental Performance: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 20(1): 233–257.
Campbell, Jesse W. 2017. “Red Tape and Transformational Leadership:
An Organizational Echelons Perspective.” Journal of Organizational
Change Management 30(1): 76–90.
Campbell, Jesse W. 2019. “Obtrusive, Obstinate and Conspicuous: Red
Tape from A Heideggerian Perspective.” International Journal of
Organizational Analysis. 27(5): 1657–72.
Campbell, Jesse W. 2020. “Red Tape, Rule Burden, and Legitimate
Performance Trade-Offs: Results from a Vignette Experiment.”
Public Performance & Management Review 43(4): 741–765.
Campbell, Jesse W., Sanjay K. Pandey, and Lars Arnesen. 2023.
“The Ontology, Origin, and Impact of Divisive Public Sector
Rules: A Meta-Narrative Review of the Red Tape and Administra-
tive Burden Literatures.” Public Administration Review 83(2):
296–315.
Carrigan, Christopher, Sanjay K. Pandey, and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2020.
“Pursuing Consilience: Using Behavioral Public Administration
to Connect Research on Bureaucratic Red Tape, Administrative
Burden and Regulation.” Public Administration Review 80(1):
46–52.
Coursey, David H., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2007. “Content Domain,
Measurement, and Validity of the Red Tape Construct: A Second-
Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” American Review of Public
Administration 37(3): 342–361.
Davis, Randall S. 2013. “Union Commitment and Stakeholder Red Tape:
How Union Values Shape Perceptions of Organizational Rules.”
Review of Public Personnel Administration 33(4): 365–383.
Davis, Randall S., and Stephanie A. Pink-Harper. 2016. “Connecting
Knowledge of Rule-Breaking and Perceived Red Tape: How Behav-
ioral Attribution Influences Red Tape Perceptions.” Public
Performance & Management Review 40(1): 181–200.
Davis, Randall S., and Edmund C. Stazyk. 2014. “Making Ends Meet: How
Reinvention Reforms Complement Public Service Motivation.” Pub-
lic Administration 92(4): 919–936.
Davis, Randall S., Edmund C. Stazyk, Allysha Kochenour, and Emily
Neuhoff. 2020. “Coping with Conflict: Examining the Influence of
PSM on Perceptions of Workplace Stressors.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 40(3): 405–425.
Dawson, Kevin M., Kimberly E. O’Brien, and Terry A. Beehr. 2016. “The
Role of Hindrance Stressors in the Job Demand–Control–Support
Model of Occupational Stress: A Proposed Theory Revision.” Journal
of Organizational Behavior 37(3): 397–415.
DeHart-Davis, L. 2009. “Green Tape: A Theory of Effective Organizational
Rules.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(2):
361–384.
DeHart-Davis, Leisha. 2007. “The Unbureaucratic Personality.” Public
Administration Review 67(5): 892–903.
DeHart-Davis, Leisha. 2017. Creating Effective Rules in Public Sector Orga-
nizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
DeHart-Davis, Leisha, Randall S. Davis, and Zachary Mohr. 2015. “Green
Tape and Job Satisfaction: Can Organizational Rules Make
Employees Happy?” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 25(3): 849–876.
DeHart-Davis, Leisha, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. “Red Tape and Public
Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers?”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(1): 133–148.
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS THEORY OF RED TAPE
Dewe, Philip J., Michael P. O’Driscoll, and Cary L. Cooper. 2012. “Theories
of Psychological Stress at Work.” In Handbook of Occupational
Health and Wellness, edited by R. J. Gatchel and I. Z. Schultz, 23–38.
New York, NY: Springer.
Döring, Matthias. 2021. “How-to Bureaucracy: A Concept of Citizens’
Administrative Literacy.” Administration & Society 53(8): 1155–77.
Döring, Matthias, and Jonas Krogh Madsen. 2022. “Mitigating Psycholog-
ical Costs—The Role of Citizens’ Administrative Literacy and Social
Capital.” Public Administration Review 82(4): 671–681.
Feeney, Mary K., and Barry Bozeman. 2009. “Stakeholder Red Tape: Com-
paring Perceptions of Public Managers and their Private Consul-
tants.” Public Administration Review 69(4): 710–726.
Feeney, Mary K., and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2009. “Bureaucracy and Public
Employee Behavior: A Case of Local Government.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 29(4): 311–326.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Giauque, David, Simon Anderfuhren-Biget, and Frédéric Varone. 2013.
“Stress Perception in Public Organisations: Expanding the Job
Demands–Job Resources Model by Including Public Service Motiva-
tion.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 33(1): 58–83.
Giauque, David, Simon Anderfuhren-Biget, and Frédéric Varone. 2019.
“Stress and Turnover Intents in International Organizations: Social
Support and Work–Life Balance as Resources.” The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 30(5): 879–901.
Goodsell, Charles. 1985. The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration
Polemic, 2nd ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Grandey, Alicia A. 2000. “Emotional Regulation in the Workplace: A New
Way to Conceptualize Emotional Labor.” Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology 5(1): 95–110.
Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan, Sebastian Jilke, Asmus Leth Olsen, and Lars
Tummers. 2017. “Behavioral Public Administration: Combining
Insights from Public Administration and Psychology.” Public Admin-
istration Review 77(1): 45–56.
Gursoy, Dogan, Oscar Hengxuan Chi, Lu Lu, and Robin Nunkoo. 2019.
“Consumers Acceptance of Artificially Intelligent (AI) Device Use in
Service Delivery.” International Journal of Information Management
49: 157–169.
Hassan, Hemin Ali, Xiaodong Zhang, and Ahmad Bayiz Ahmad. 2021.
“Red Tape and Change-Supportive Intention: An Extension of the
Theory of Planned Behavior.” Leadership & Organization Develop-
ment Journal 42(1): 99–113.
Hattke, Fabian, David Hensel, and Janne Kalucza. 2020. “Emotional
Responses to Bureaucratic Red Tape.” Public Administration Review
80(1): 53–63.
Henderson, Alexander C., and Erin L. Borry. 2023. “The Emotional Bur-
dens of Public Service: Rules, Trust, and Emotional Labour in Emer-
gency Medical Services.” Public Money & Management 43(5): 405–
414. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1831180.
Katz, Daniel. 1960. “The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes.”
Public Opinion Quarterly 24(2): 163–204.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1960. The Forest Ranger: A Study in Administrative
Behavior. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Kaufman, Herbert. 1977. Red Tape: Its Origins, Uses, and Abuses. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Brookings.
Kaufmann, Wesley, Erin L. Borry, and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2019. “More
than Pathological Formalization: Understanding Organizational
Structure and Red Tape.” Public Administration Review 79(2):
236–245.
Kaufmann, Wesley, and Mary K. Feeney. 2014. “Beyond the Rules: The
Effect of Outcome Favourability on Red Tape Perceptions.” Public
Administration 92(1): 178–191.
Kaufmann, Wesley, and Lars Tummers. 2017. “The Negative Effect of Red
Tape on Procedural Satisfaction.” Public Management Review 19(9):
1311–27.
Lazarus, Richard S. 1966. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW
Lazarus, Richard S. 1999. Stress and Emotion: A New Synthesis. London,
UK: Free Association.
Lazarus, Richard S. 2000. “Toward Better Research on Stress and Coping.”
American Psychologist 55: 665–673.
Lazarus, Richard S. 2001. “Relational Meaning and Discrete Emotions.” In
Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, edited by
K. Scherer, A. Schorr, and T. Johnstone, 37–67. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, Richard S., and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and
Coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, Richard S., and Craig A. Smith. 1988. “Knowledge and Appraisal
in the Cognition—Emotion Relationship.” Cognition & Emotion 2(4):
281–300.
LePine, Jeffery A., Nathan P. Podsakoff, and Marcie A. LePine. 2005. “A
Meta-Analytic Test of The Challenge Stressor–Hindrance Stressor
Framework: An Explanation for Inconsistent Relationships Among
Stressors and Performance.” Academy of Management Journal
48(5): 764–775.
Madsen, Jonas K., Kim S. Mikkelsen, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2022.
“Burdens, Sludge, Ordeals, Red Tape, Oh my!: A User’s Guide to the
Study of Frictions.” Public Administration 100(2): 375–393.
March, James G. 1994. A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Hap-
pen. New York, NY: The Free Press.
March, James G., Martin Schulz, and Xueguang Zhou. 2000. The Dynamics
of Rules: Studies of Change in Written Organizational Codes 2000.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Masood, Ayesha, and Muhammad Azfar Nisar. 2021. “Administrative
Capital and Citizens’ Responses to Administrative Burden.” Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 31(1): 56–72.
Matteson, Michael T., and John M. Ivancevich. 1987. Controlling Work
Stress: Effective Human Resource Management Strategies. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Miller, Lynn E., and Joseph E. Grush. 1988. “Improving Predictions in
Expectancy Theory Research: Effects of Personality, Expectancies
and Norms.” Academy of Management Journal 31(1): 107–122.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1983. Power in and Around Organizations. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moynihan, Donald P., Bradley E. Wright, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012.
“Working within Constraints: Can Transformational Leaders Alter
the Experience of Red Tape?” International Public Management
Journal 15(3): 315–336.
Muylaert, Jolien, Adellen Decramer, and Mieke Audenaert. 2022. “How
Leader’s Red Tape Interacts with Employees’ Red Tape from the
Lens of the Job Demands-Resources Model.” Review of Public Per-
sonnel Administration 43: 430–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734371X221087420.
Nelson, Debra L., and Bret L. Simmons. 2003. “Health Psychology and
Work Stress: A more Positive Approach.” In Handbook of Occupa-
tional Psychology, edited by James Campbell Quick and Lois E.
Tetrick, 97–119. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Olsen, Johan P. 2006. “Maybe it Is Time to Rediscover Bureaucracy.” Jour-
nal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1): 1–24.
Organ, Dennis W. 1988. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good
Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pandey, Sanjay K. 1995. Managerial Perceptions of Red Tape. Ph.D. Disser-
tation, Syracuse University.
Pandey, Sanjay K. 2021. “The Psychological Process View of Bureaucratic
Red Tape.” In Research Handbook Human Resource Management in
the Public Sector, edited by Eva Knies and Bram Steijn. Chetlenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Pandey, Sanjay K. 2023. “Elevating Subjective Individual Experience in
Public Policy and Public Administration: Reflections on Red Tape,
Administrative Burden, and Sludge.” Public Administration Review
83: 1072–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13695.
Pandey, Sanjay K., David H. Coursey, and Donald P. Moynihan. 2007.
“Organizational Effectiveness and Bureaucratic Red Tape: A Multi-
method Study.” Public Performance & Management Review 30(3):
398–425.
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
13
Pandey, Sanjay K., and Gorden A. Kingsley. 2000. “Examining Red Tape
in Public and Private Organizations: Alternative Explanations from a
Social Psychological Model.” Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory 10(4): 779–800.
Pandey, Sanjay K., Sheela Pandey, and Greg G. Van Ryzin. 2017.
“Prospects for Experimental Approaches to Research on
Bureaucratic Red Tape.” In Experiments in Public Management
Research: Challenges and Opportunities, edited by O. James, S. Jilke,
and Greg G. Van Ryzin, 219–243. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Pandey, Sanjay K., and Patrick G. Scott. 2002. “Red Tape: A Review and
Assessment of Concepts and Measures.” Journal of Public Adminis-
tration Research and Theory 12(4): 553–580.
Pandey, Sanjay K., and Eric W. Welch. 2005. “Beyond Stereotypes: A
Multistage Model of Managerial Perceptions of Red Tape.”
Administration & Society 37(5): 542–575.
Perrow, Charles. 1986. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd ed.
New York, NY: Random House.
Potipiroon, Wisanupong. 2022. “Rule Formalization, Bureaucratic Red
Tape, and Prosocial Rule Breaking among Street-Level Bureau-
crats: A Citizen-Centered Perspective.” Public Performance & Man-
agement Review 45: 638–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.
2022.2065644.
Quratulain, Samina, and Abdul Karim Khan. 2015. “Red Tape,
Resigned Satisfaction, Public Service Motivation, and Negative
Employee Attitudes and Behaviors: Testing a Model of Moder-
ated Mediation.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 35(4):
307–332.
Rainey, H. G., S. Pandey, and B. Bozeman. (1995). “Research Note: Public
and Private Managers’ Perceptions of Red Tape.” Public Administra-
tion Review 55(6): 567–574. https://doi.org/10.2307/3110348.
Russell, James A. 1980. “A Circumplex Model of Affect.” Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 39(6): 1161–78.
Russell, James A., and Lisa Feldman Barrett. 1999. “Core Affect, Prototypi-
cal Emotional Episodes, and Other Things Called Emotion: Dissect-
ing the Elephant.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
76(5): 805–819.
Schlosberg, Harold. 1952. “The Description of Facial Expressions in Terms
of Two Dimensions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 44(4):
229–237.
Scott, Patrick G., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2000. “The Influence of Red Tape
on Bureaucratic Behavior: An Experimental Simulation.” Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management 19(4): 615–633.
Scott, Patrick G., and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. “Red Tape and Public Ser-
vice Motivation: Findings from A National Survey of Managers in
State Health and Human Services Agencies.” Review of Public Per-
sonnel Administration 25(2): 155–180.
Scott, W. Richard. 2013. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests,
and Identities, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seo, Myeong-Gu, Lisa Feldman Barrett, and Jean M. Bartunek. 2004. “The
Role of Affective Experience in Work Motivation.” Academy of Man-
agement Review 29(3): 423–439.
Spector, Paul E. 2005. “The Stressor Emotion Model of Counterpro-
ductive Work Behavior.” In Counterproductive Work Behavior:
Investigations of Actors and Targets, edited by S. Fox and P. E.
Spector, 151–174. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Spector, Paul E., and Suzy Fox. 2002. “An Emotion-Centered Model of
Voluntary Work Behavior: Some Parallels between Counterproduc-
tive Work Behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behavior.”
Human Resource Management Review 12(2): 269–292.
Steijn, Bram, and Joris Van der Voet. 2019. “Relational Job Characteristics
and Job Satisfaction of Public Sector Employees: When Prosocial
Motivation and Red Tape Collide.” Public Administration 97(1):
64–80.
Taylor, Jeannette. 2018. “Working Extra Hours in the Australian Public
Service: Organizational Drivers and Consequences.” Review of Public
Personnel Administration 38(2): 193–217.

14
Van Loon, Nina M., Peter L. M. Leisink, Eva Knies, and Gene A. Brewer.
2016. “Red Tape: Developing and Validating A New Job-Centered
Measure.” Public Administration Review. 76(4): 662–673.
Walker, Richard M., and Gene A. Brewer. 2008. “An Organizational Eche-
lon Analysis of the Determinants of Red Tape in Public Organiza-
tions.” Public Administration Review 68(6): 1112–27.
Weiner, Bernard. 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion.
New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Welsh, David T., Michael D. Baer, and Hudson Sessions. 2020. “Hot Pur-
suit: The Affective Consequences of System-Set Versus Self-Set
Goals for Emotional Exhaustion and Citizenship Behavior.” Journal
of Applied Psychology 105(2): 166–185.
Zahradnik, Stefan. 2022. “Red Tape: Redefinition and Reconceptuali-
zation Based on Production Theory.” International Public
Management Journal: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.
2022.2063462.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Randall S. Davis is an Associate Professor at the School
of Management and Marketing, Southern Illinois
University. His research examines concepts related to
15406210, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/puar.13750 by Cochrane Portugal, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
A PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS THEORY OF RED TAPE
public management and human resources including
red tape, goal ambiguity, public service motivation, and
public sector unionization. Email: rsdavis@siu.edu
Sanjay K. Pandey is a Shapiro Professor of Public Pol-
icy and Public Administration at the Trachtenberg
School, The George Washington University. His schol-
arship focuses on public administration and public
policy, dealing with questions central to leading and
managing public organizations. Email: skpandey@
gwu.edu; sanjay.k.pandey@gmail.com
How to cite this article: Davis, Randall S., and
Sanjay K. Pandey. 2023. “‘Feeling Out’ the Rules: A
Psychological Process Theory of Red Tape.” Public
Administration Review 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/
puar.13750