How Bureaucratic Representation Affects Public Organizational Performance: A Meta‐Analysis

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Fangda Ding,Jiahuan Lu,Norma M. Riccucci
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13361

Research Article

How Bureaucratic Representation Affects Public Organizational Performance 1003

Norma M. Riccucci is a Board of

Governors Distinguished Professor in the

School of Public Affairs and Administration

at Rutgers University-Newark. Her research

interests are in social equity and public

management.

Email: riccucci@rutgers.edu

Jiahuan Lu is an Associate Professor in the

School of Public Affairs and Administration

at Rutgers University-Newark. His research

interests lie in the area of public and

nonprofit management, with a focus on

government contracting and nonprofit-

government relations.

Email: jiahuan.lu@rutgers.edu

Abstract: The impact of representative bureaucracy on public organizational performance has received a good deal

of attention in public management. However, the literature provides little systematic rationalization about the effects

of the individual constructs of representative bureaucracy on organizational performance. This meta-analysis of 648

effect sizes from 80 quantitative studies, closely examines the conditions under which bureaucratic representation

affects public organizational performance. The research provides evidence on the relationship between different

constructs of representative bureaucracy and organizational performance. This meta-analysis overall advances the

theory of representative bureaucracy from several perspectives. It shows that the effects of representative bureaucracy on

public organizational performance are positive in general, but that these effects are moderated by several contextual

factors. And our finding that the effects of bureaucratic representation on public organizational performance was

shaped by demographics and types of representation, levels of bureaucracy, and performance measurements adds to the

micro-theory behind individual bureaucratic actions.

Evidence for Practice

• Organizations can bolster their performance and productivity when their demographic make-up reflects the

communities they serve.

• Frontline or street-level bureaucrats may more effectively serve their counterparts in the general population

as compared to managers.

• As public service delivery is increasingly client/citizen-oriented, the extent to which citizens perceive they are

being represented is critical in promoting the legitimacy of and coproduction in public service delivery.

As a central topic of public management

research and practice, organizational

performance has been frequently linked to the

issue of representativeness, particularly since the New

Public Management movement (Andrews et al. 2005;

Groeneveld and Van de Walle 2010). Commonly

understood as a bureaucracy representing particular

societal populations as a whole, especially women

or members of different racial or ethnic groups

(Groeneveld and Van de Walle 2010; Meier 1975;

Meier 2019), representative bureaucracy has a close

connection with the organizational performance.

Specifically, representative bureaucracy is ultimately

concerned with democratic outcomes, but it is

the interaction of representative bureaucracy and

organizational performance in terms of democratic

process that produces equity and effectiveness. Those

processes must focus on such democratic values as

fairness and transparency. In this sense performance

management in public organizations includes not only

“effectiveness” but equity as well. (Andersen, Boesen,

and Pedersen 2016; Boyne, Brewer, and Walker

2010; Walker and Andrews 2015). Organizational

performance includes efficiency and effectiveness,

but also incorporates equity and inclusiveness. The

efficiency and effectiveness tend to connote directly

standardized objective measurements as espoused by,

for example, the New Public Management. However,

in order to accommodate to the increasingly

humanized and customized public service provision,

public organizational performance should also be

construed from a political standpoint in terms of

producing democratic processes and outcomes by

including redistributive or even subjective indicators

such as representation and social equity. Walker

and Andrews (2015, p. 104) stress the importance

of democratic processes in the delivery of public

services. They point out that early studies of public

organizational performance were devoted more to

such measures as efficiency and effectiveness. But

today, the governance of public services requires

broader questions that “necessitate the examination

of accountability, civil and human rights and key

questions of probity and corruption alongside

democratic outcomes and participation in the

Fangda Ding

Jiahuan Lu

Norma M. Riccucci

Rutgers University-Newark

Fangda Ding is a doctoral candidate at

School of Public Affairs and Administration,

Rutgers University-Newark. His research

interests encompass public management,

organizational behavior, human resource

management, social equity, and diversity

management.

Email: fd235@rutgers.edu

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 6, pp. 1003–1018. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13361.

How Bureaucratic Representation Affects Public

Organizational Performance: A Meta-Analysis

1004 Public Administration Review • November | Decembe r 2021

democratic process.” These, they argue, are additional process

dimensions of public organizational performance and especially

manifested with the impact of bureaucratic representation (Meier

and Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Riccucci and Meyers, 2004; Julnes

and Holzer 2001).

Although the interaction between representative bureaucracy and

public organizational performance has been extensively examined,

the conditions under which bureaucratic representation affects

organizational performance have lacked close scrutiny. Indeed,

it may be that the effect of bureaucratic representation is highly

situational or contextual (Andrews, Ashworth, and Meier 2014;

Dolan 2000; Meier 2019; Park 2020; Meier and Wilkins 2002;

Wilkins and Williams 2008). Thus, it is imperative to examine how

certain conditions or circumstances shape the impact of bureaucratic

representation on organizational performance. This research

conducts a meta-analysis to synthesize 80 quantitative studies on the

relationship between representative bureaucracy and organizational

performance with 648 effect sizes. This study finds a significant

and positive association between representative bureaucracy and

public organizational performance. The moderator analysis further

suggests that this positive association is facilitated by the presence

of specific demographic characteristics as well as frontline settings.

The study further finds that the facilitating effects of representative

bureaucracy on public organizational performance is more

significant at the organizational as compared to the individual level.

This meta-analysis overall advances the theory of representative

bureaucracy in several ways. First, demographic salience compared

with other identities increases the legitimacy of representative

bureaucracy and helps promote the positive effects of representative

bureaucracy on public organizational performance. In addition,

the study helps advance the theoretical framework of representative

bureaucracy from active to symbolic representativeness,

finding that active representation and symbolic representation

are equally important approaches to enhancing the effects of

representativeness on performance. Also, compared with their

non-frontline counterparts, street-level bureaucrats are found

to have a greater impact on public organizational performance.

Finally, our findings that the effects of bureaucratic representation

on public organizational performance were lower at the individual

as compared to the organizational level adds to the micro-theory

behind individual bureaucratic actions (see Meier 2019). In sum,

this study adds new knowledge to the theory of and literature

on representative bureaucracy, which has implications for future

research.

Representative Bureaucracy Theory

The theoretical framework of representative bureaucracy has evolved

over time. Initially, the concept of representative bureaucracy

was examined in terms of the descriptive representativeness of

organizations; this was defined as passive representation. Here,

research examined the degree to which the demographics of public

organizations reflected the demographics of the general population

(Meier 1993a; Meier 1993b; Selden 1997). Kenneth Meier was

the first scholar to empirically examine the linkage between

passive and active representation, which asks whether bureaucrats’

social or demographic characteristics correspond with their values

and policy decisions. Additional advancements in representative

bureaucracy theory and research found that the linkage between

passive and active representation was based on a few assumptions:

that bureaucrats have discretionary powers and that organization

socialization enables individuals with the same demographic

backgrounds to share certain values; and as a consequence,

bureaucrats will make policy decisions consistent with their

counterparts in the general population and, indeed, will seek to

maximize the values shared with those demographic groups (Long

1952; Meier 1975; Meier and Morton 2015; Capers 2018; Favero

and Molina 2018; Andrews and Johnston Miller 2013; Mosher

1968; Eulau and Karps 1977).

Symbolic representation further advanced the theoretical framework

of representative bureaucracy. Empirical research here found that

the social origins of bureaucrats can induce certain attitudes or

behaviors on the part of citizens or clients without the bureaucrat

taking any action. For example, Theobald and Haider-Markel

(2009) found that the mere presence of Black police officers will

improve the legitimacy of law enforcement for Black citizens,

suggesting that passive representation by itself can influence

outcomes (also see Riccucci and Van Ryzin 2017; Davis et al. 2011).

Symbolic representation can also occur when citizens or clients

respond favorably to the background or identity of bureaucrats, even

if they do not share demographic characteristics. Gade and Wilkins

(2012), for example, found that veterans receiving vocational

rehabilitation services report significantly higher levels of satisfaction

with the services when their counselors are veterans. Relatively fewer

studies have been conducted on symbolic representation and so, its

potential effects on public organizational performance especially as

compared to active representation, are still in question.

In addition, representative bureaucracy theory presumes that in

the aggregate or at the organizational level, the composition of

the bureaucracy should reflect the clients it serves, thus ensuring

that their voices will be heard and democratic values fulfilled. And

although representation at the individual level is certainly reflected

at the aggregate or organizational level, questions remain regarding

the effects of individual bureaucratic actions on representativeness

and ultimately organizational performance (Andrews et al. 2016;

Meier 2019). As Meier (2019, 41) has pointed out, the aggregate

focus “is theoretically justified by micro theories of representation

that do not require an individual client come into contact with a

specific individual bureaucrat” (also see Meier and Morton 2015).

As noted, apart from outcomes, representative bureaucracy is also

expected to be concerned with the processes of public organizational

performance (Andersen, Boesen, and Pedersen 2016). Compared

with the private sector which attaches great importance to the

cost-effectiveness or monetary value of organizational performance,

public organizations pay much more attention to the quality of

public service delivery (Walker and Andrews 2015). Performance

management in the public sector does focus on program

effectiveness but it also considers process-related criteria which

emanate from traditional democratic values, such as due process,

equity, integrity, and transparency (Moynihan et al. 2011). Since

representation is one core element in democracy, bureaucratic

representation within public organizations to some extent ensures

that democratic processes of organizational performance are taken

into account. A review of the representative bureaucracy literature