Apologists and the Big Picture

• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X9301300408
• Published date: 01 October 1993
• Author: Antonio Sisneros
• Date: 01 October 1993
• Subject Matter: Articles

COMMENTARY
HISPANICS IN THE SENIOR
EXECUTIVE
SERVICE: REVISITED
Salomon A. Guajardo
Editors Note: The following communica-
with respect to their responses, imply-
tions were written in response to Antonio
ing conditions for Hispanics in the SES
Sisneros’ article, Hispanics in the Senior
have become worse. After reexamin-
Executive Service, which appeared in the
ing Sisneros’ data, this study concludes
Jan-April 1992 issue of ROPPA.
In
his claims are tenuous.
a
recent article, Antonio Sisneros
Sisneros (1992) reached the follow-
concluded that &dquo;minority relations con-
tinued to
ing conclusions:
pose a serious problem in the
1990s.&dquo; This statement was based on
*Hispanic SES members of 1980
the analysis of two surveys on His-
and 1990 were different with respect to
panic Senior Executive Service (SES)
having worked in one department
members. Sisneros suggested Hispanic
throughout their SES tenure, implying
SES’ers of 1980 and 1990 were different
Hispanic SES’ers of 1990 did not expe-
APOLOGISTS AND
THE
BIG PICTURE
Antonio Sisneros
For the sake of collegiality I will as-
the same, indicating no change has
sume
appropriate statistical treatment
occurred over the ten-year period.&dquo;
of data and application of analysis on
Finally, the commentator concludes
the part of the commentator. This as-
with the statement that &dquo; ... race
sumption made, it should be noted
relations have remained the same
since
that the commentator’s own findings
1980.&dquo;
indicate that &dquo;Hispanic SES members
The commentator has reached the
of 1980 and 1990 are similar on the
same
broad conclusion I did -- namely,
most important response items.&dquo; In
that poor race relations within the
addition, the commentator reports,
reaches of SES have remained poor
&dquo;From 1980 to 1990, the proportions of
since 1980.
I maintain that my conten-
Hispanic executives who responded
tion of continuing poor race relations
they experienced organizational norms
is valid, and that this contention is
reflecting no concern for the minority
confirmed, for the 1980-1990 time pe-
community appears to have remained
riod, by the views expressed by a new
79

---

(Apologists continued
...
from page 1)
and different corps of Hispanic SES’ers
descriptive. It is well known that the
(only 29 percent of Hispanics surveyed
error relative to subjective survey re-
in 1980 responded to the 1990 survey)
sponse data is notoriously high. Thus,
also reporting poor race relations in
to make precise inferences through
1990. While apologists for poor race
statistical analysis requires a degree of
relations in the federal workforce at
rigor and response stability which is
the highest circles of government might
questionable at best in surveys gener-
take comfort in the commentator’s
ally, and particularly suspect with the
claims that race relations aren’t as bad
number of cases we are dealing with
as they seem on the face of it, the
here. The test for stability and reliabil-
discerning readers of ROPPA need to
ity of response patterns is best demon-
take a bit of caution in assessing the
strated by replication of the same mea-
bigger issues at stake here. Such
sure over
time rather than by statistical
apologias are disturbing, particularly
analysis of questionable applicability
when
commentators
express academic
given inescapable data limitations.
interest but fail to discuss why conclu-
The intent of the 1990 survey was to
sions about the Hispanic community,
examine persistence and change in at-
Hispanic SES’ers and the nature of
titude among Hispanic SES’ers over a
federal organizational behavior with
ten-year period from 1980 to 1990. I
respect to minority relations are so
reported the fact that 71 percent of the
important to public personnel admin-
1990 survey respondents constituted
istration generally considered.
Hispanic SES’ers who entered the SES
The critique presented is inappro-
after the 1980 Hispanic SES survey was
priate to the issues raised in my article
conducted. This then became the com-
for two basic reasons. First, because of
parison for discussing similarity or
the relatively small numbers of His-
difference between the 1980 Hispanic
panic SES’ers in both 1980 and 1990,
I
SES’er and the 1990 Hispanic SES’er.
explicitly limited my concluding ob-
The assessment of consistency and
servations and generalizations to those
change over time, therefore, becomes a
SES’ers who
responded to the surveys
function of the new corps of Hispanic
(69 percent in 1980 and 52 percent in
SES’er responding to the 1980 instru-
1990). For the purposes of this study,
ment in 1990--rather than a reflection
these groups are considered popula-
of &dquo;corrected responses&dquo; as assumed
tions--making inferential statistics in-
by the commentator.
appropriate. It is important to remind
ROPPA
readers are deserving, how-
the commentator that when
surveying
ever, of a mea culpa for not making it
the total population of Hispanic
clear I was reporting results intended
SES’ers, manageable when the total
to represent only 71 percent of respon-
population is unfortunately so small,
dents entering the SES after 1980. A
inferential statistical hypothesis test-
careful review of responses for these
ing was not employed.
&dquo;new faces&dquo; respondents shows that
The
second reason a primarily meth-
all statements in my work concerning
odological critique of my...