Side-Effects of Representation: Measuring the Impact of Representative Hiring on Employment Discrimination Complaints
| Date | 01 November 2020 |
| Author | Ashley M. Alteri |
| DOI | 10.1177/0095399720915293 |
| Published date | 01 November 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
Administration & Society
2020, Vol. 52(10) 1562 –1592
Side-Effects of
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Representation:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720915293
DOI: 10.1177/0095399720915293
journals.sagepub.com/home/aas
Measuring the Impact
of Representative
Hiring on Employment
Discrimination
Complaints
Ashley M. Alteri1
Abstract
Since 1978, the government has been implementing programs to combat
the underrepresentation of minorities in federal employment. However,
representative bureaucracy literature has done little to examine the
impact these initiatives are having on the workplace. This article examines
the relationship between changes in representation and discrimination
complaints. Increases in the ratio of minority and female employees
predict an increase in the rates of race and sex-discrimination complaints,
respectively. Increases in the ratio of Black/African American and Asian
employees predict an increase in race-discrimination complaints. However,
the ratio of employees ages 40 or above did not predict changes in age
discrimination.
Keywords
representative bureaucracy, discrimination, human resources, employment,
racial threat, critical mass
1Tennessee State University, Nashville, USA
Corresponding Author:
Ashley M. Alteri, College of Business, Tennessee State University, 330 10th Avenue North,
Suite K445, Nashville, TN 37203, USA.
Email: aalteri@tnstate.edu
Alteri
1563
Introduction
In 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act established the Federal Equal
Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) to combat underrepresentation
of minorities in the U.S. federal government (5 U.S.C. 7201). The FEORP is
focused on increasing the ratio of federal employees in underrepresented
groups to levels greater than or equal to levels in the civilian labor force (U.S.
Office of Personnel Management [U.S. OPM], 2001). This initiative requires
that federal agencies maintain recruitment programs designed to hire under-
represented groups into all occupations and levels. In addition, Presidents
Clinton, Bush, and Obama all signed executive orders to improve the levels
of Hispanics (Executive Order 13171 [2000]) and individuals with disabili-
ties (Executive Order 13078 [1998]; Executive Order 13163 (2000);
Executive Order 13548 (2010); Executive Order 13583 (2011)) within the
federal government. While each of these programs require reporting to
Congress and the President, as well as yearly review of their efforts, to date,
no study has adequately examined how these initiatives have impacted the
federal workforce.
Diversity hiring initiatives within the federal government reflect a long-
standing commitment to representativeness and equality. However, these ini-
tiatives also represent a change to the workforce that is likely to affect the
employee population and organizational environment. These initiatives rep-
resent changes in recruitment funding and focus, changes to reporting
requirements, new recruitment and retention targets, and many new programs
designed to help facilitate these changes. It is natural that changing the com-
position of workforce will affect the organization both positively and nega-
tively. These initiatives also represent a massive effort to institute passive
representation in the federal government. However, representative bureau-
cracy literature has done little to analyze the impact of these initiatives and no
studies have evaluated the impact of federal diversity hiring initiatives nor
the changes in passive representation resulted.
Examining the impact of changes in the levels of passive representation
will allow management and human resources professionals to better respond
to the collateral impact of these changes. This study examines the impact that
passive representation has on the U.S. federal government workplace as mea-
sured by race, gender, and age. Specifically, this study examines the impact
that changes in the levels of representation within different groups have on
discrimination complaints based on race, sex, or age, respectively.
The findings in this study indicate that increased rates of minority
employees are associated with higher rates of race-discrimination com-
plaints, and increased rates of woman are associated with a higher rate of
1564
Administration & Society 52(10)
sex-discrimination complaints. However, the ratio of employees aged 40 or
above is not associated with a change in the rates of age-discrimination com-
plaints. In addition, of the racial categories measured, increases in the ratio
of Black or African American and Asian employees predicted an increase in
the rate of race-based discrimination complaints.
The article begins by providing an overview of the theories of representa-
tive bureaucracy and discrimination. I then describe the three data sources
used to construct the data set for this article, as well as the steps I took to
transform these data into the variables used in the study. I will then review the
research questions, hypotheses, and results for the models examined in this
study. The next section will provide an overview of all of the findings within
the study, and I conclude with a discussion regarding how these findings
contribute to the literature, as well as their practical application and sugges-
tions for future research.
Theoretical Overview
Representative Bureaucracy
The theory of representative bureaucracy maintains that a bureaucracy will
function better if it is representative of the population it serves (Andrews
et al., 2014). There are three commonly accepted forms of representative
bureaucracy: active representation, passive representation, and symbolic rep-
resentation. Active representation occurs when the bureaucrat “press[es] for
the interests and desires of those whom he is presumed to represent, whether
they be the whole people or some segment of the people” (Mosher, 1968, p.
12). In active representation, the bureaucrat “share[s] core attitudes, values,
and beliefs with the social groups” they represent and they act on the basis of
these shared values (Bradbury & Kellough, 2011, p. 158).
Passive representation focuses on the degree to which the bureaucracy
“employs minorities and women in numbers proportionate to their shares of
the population, or at least proportionate to those parts of the population with
qualifications requisite for employment” (Bradbury & Kellough, 2011, p.
158). In contrast with active representation, under passive representation, the
bureaucrat does not engage in any actions on behalf of the groups they are
meant to represent. Finally, under symbolic representation, the presence of a
bureaucrat “works cognitively on the audience of those who belong to a
group that is to be represented” (Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009, p. 410).
Instead of the bureaucrat taking actions on behalf of the represented group,
under symbolic representation, “attitudes and outcomes can change without
any purposeful actions taken by the representatives other than holding a
Alteri
1565
government office or position” (Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009, p. 410).
While active representation may be occurring in some government organiza-
tions and symbolic representation may be possible in some roles, unless the
employee population is homogeneous with respect to a race, gender, age, and
other identity factors, passive representation is occurring in nearly all govern-
ment organizations.
The vast majority of research on representative bureaucracy has focused
on how representativeness affects the group represented. However, the litera-
ture that does address the impact of representation on both represented and
non-represented groups highlights the need for further inquiry into the holis-
tic impact of representation. These studies found that increases in minority
representation produced a positive impact on for not only the minority group
directly represented by the bureaucrat, but for other groups as well (Favero &
Molina, 2018; Meier et al., 1999; Rocha & Hawes, 2009). While increases in
representation may not always produce a positive effect for the non-repre-
sented group, these findings lend support to the argument that representative
bureaucracy has a noticeable impact on the organization as a whole (see also
Lim, 2006; Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006). Examining the impact of rep-
resentation on only the represented groups is insufficient to understand the
theory of representative bureaucracy. Instead, the literature must begin to
examine the relationship between the representation of a particular group, as
well as the groups they both do and do not share racial congruence. This calls
for a holistic approach to studying representative bureaucracy, looking at the
impact of representation on both the represented and unrepresented alike.
The literature on representative bureaucracy has generally focused on the
impact of representation on citizens or clients, rather than its impact on other
bureaucrats. However, there are several notable exceptions that either studies
the impact of representation on organizational outcomes or employees within
the agency. Andrews et al. (2014) explored the impact of representativeness
on a variety of organizational outcomes and found that increasing representa-
tiveness among underrepresented groups in the fire service led to positive
organizational outcomes....
To continue reading
Request your trial