Commentary: Public Sector Representativeness, Inclusion, and Beyond

• Date: 01 March 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12344
• Published date: 01 March 2015
• Author: Meryl R. Kaynard

Commentary

Meryl R. Kaynard is general counsel

and special counsel for labor/management

relations at Queens College, City University

of New York. She previously served as

head employment and benef‌i ts counsel at

JPMorgan Chase Bank and as director of

diversity at a Fortune 500 law f‌i rm in New

York City. In all of these capacities, she has

championed and led successful diversity

initiatives.

E-mail: meryl.kaynard@qc.cuny.edu

Public Sector Representativeness, Inclusion, and Beyond 289

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 75, Iss. 2, pp. 289–290. © 2015 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12344.

 e authors suggest that the theory that “representa-

tive public service organizations are more likely to pro-

duce improved policy outcomes for citizens in general”

(emphasis added) has already been tested.  erefore,

they focus instead on the impact of representative-

ness within public organizations. To the extent the

study does so (f‌i nding that “representativeness” results

in greater perceptions of employee inclusion) and stops

there, it essentially serves as an employee satisfac-

tion analysis (i.e., “ e 100 Most Inclusive Places to

Work”). Research more f‌i rmly establishing superior

government services as the outcome would provide

a more persuasive reason for employers and public

agencies to strive for representation and inclusion.

Compare, for example, the Catalyst study of Fortune

500 companies in the private sector.1 In that study,

Catalyst found that the representation of women

board directors correlated with measurable strong

f‌i nancial performance of Fortune 500 companies

(demonstrated by return on sales, return on invested

capital, and return on equity for at least three years).

 e study found that companies with sustained high

representation of women board directors signif‌i cantly

outperformed those with sustained low representation.

It may be that “the bottom line” is easier to measure

in the shareholder value of the private sector (and a

“business case” is easier to establish). However, the

authors should consider further research that would

allow them to articulate why “employee satisfaction”

translates into better results in the public sector, or

how a “better result” is to be measured vis-a-vis the

communities these public organizations serve. Such a

study might utilize survey questions that relate to the

impact that “inclusion” or job satisfaction has on the

work of the organization. For instance, the 2013 ver-

sion of the Civil Service People Survey included two

questions as follows: “My organisation inspires me to

do the best in my job” and “My organisation moti-

vates me to help it achieve its objectives.”

Other relevant key issues worth further attention

include consideration of whether the distribution

“Representation and Inclusion in Public Organi-

zations: Evidence from the U.K. Civil Service” by

Rhys Andrews and Rachel Ashworth seeks to answer

the following question: whether having the gender

and minority ethnic composition of the workforce in

public sector organizations mirror the population it

serves (“representativeness”) inf‌l uences the levels of

inclusion, discrimination, and bullying experienced by

employees within these organizations.

Based on a survey of available literature and a statisti-

cal analysis of empirical data drawn from the U.K.

Civil Service People Survey, the authors conclude that

gender and minority ethnic representativeness posi-

tively relates to higher perceptions of inclusion and

to lower levels of personal experience with discrimina-

tion and bullying at work.

Ef‌f orts to quantify the importance and impact of

diversity-related practices in the workplace are to be

applauded because without empirical evidence, it

is dif‌f‌i cult to make the “business case” that is often

an imperative for sustained commitment to such

ef‌f orts. Having championed diversity programs in

both the private and public sectors, it is evident to me

that until such programs are hardwired into busi-

ness practices to achieve certain organizational ends,

changes in economy, management, and priorities may

result in reevaluations of (and reduced commitment

to) diversity-related initiatives. In the face of ever-

evolving priorities, absent a clearly articulated and

substantiated rationale, diversity can suf‌f er.

 at said, a study such as this, relying on perceptions

rather than objective measures, presents its own chal-

lenges. For instance, there is no factual basis to support

the alleged extent to which discrimination and/or bul-

lying actually occurred.  e authors simply explore the

employees’ “sense” of inclusion and self-reported “expe-

riences” with discrimination or bullying.  e strength

of their argument is also somewhat limited by the fact

that the authors can only point to a correlation between

“representativeness” and their f‌i ndings, not causation.

Public Sector Representativeness, Inclusion, and Beyond

Meryl R. Kaynard

Queens College, City University of New York