Organizational Involvement and Representative Bureaucracy: Can We Have It Both Ways?

Romzek, Barbara S.; Hendricks, Jennifer S.

doi:10.1017/s0003055400186046

Cited by 56 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The EEOC is one of the few agencies designed to be an active representative, that is, its mission is to fight discrimination against minorities (Romzek and Hendricks 1982). Initially, EEOC employees viewed the inclusion of sex as a protected category as a legislative fluke and focused on race to the exclusion of sex discrimination.…”

Section: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Race, Sex, and Clarence Thomas: Representation Change in the EEOC

Meier¹,

Pennington²,

Eller³

2005

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The theory of representative bureaucracy concerns whether bureaucracy mirrors the origins and values of the population and, if so, whether such representation makes any difference. This article extends Hindera's examination of active bureaucratic representation within the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to determine the effect of introducing new goals (disability discrimination) and priorities (sexual harassment) on the EEOC's representational patterns. Using data from the late 1980s and late 1990s, we find the extent of active representation of African Americans declined. Although the EEOC is now pursuing more cases of sex discrimination, no evidence of active representation exists for women in EEOC district offices.

show abstract

Section: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Race, Sex, and Clarence Thomas: Representation Change in the EEOC

Meier¹,

Pennington²,

Eller³

2005

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7201) and required agencies to measure the representativeness of their workforce and to attempt to correct for underrepresentation (Ingraham and Rosenbloom 1993;Ingraham 1995). Some agencies in the United States have been explicitly designed toward the goal of active representation of certain groups, with the mandate to use discretion in a manner that promotes representation, such as the Department of Veteran's Affairs or the Office for Civil Rights (Romzek and Hendricks 1982). However, the theory of representative bureaucracy maintains that other public agencies, while not designed to be active representatives of certain groups, can transform the passive representation of certain groups into active representation to achieve more representative outcomes (Meier and Stewart 1992;Meier and Bohte 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy

Sowa

Selden

2003

Public Administration Review

324

298

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies of the theory of representative bureaucracy have focused on active representation, whereby administrators in public organizations work to advance the interests of particular groups, achieving policy outcomes that directly address the needs of those groups. The concept of administrative discretion is central to these studies, as an administrator must have the discretion to produce results that reflect the values and beliefs of these groups. While the presence of discretion is often implied in these studies, few have examined it explicitly. Using data from the Farmer's Home Administration, we explore whether administrators who perceive themselves as having more discretion enact policy outcomes that are more representative of minority interests. The results strongly support the conclusion that administrators who perceive themselves as possessing significant discretion and who assume the role of minority representative in their agencies are more likely to enact policy outcomes that favor minority interests.

show abstract

“…4. Public and nonprofit employees can have low levels of commitment because they put more emphasis on serving clients than on identifying themselves with the organization (Romzek and Hendricks 1982). Low commitment may reflect problems, but not necessarily indicate weak levels of work motivation (Rainey 2003).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%