This for That: What EEOC Trends Reveal About Representative Bureaucracy

• Author: Sebawit G. Bishu,Alan H. Kennedy
• Published date: 01 March 2022
• Date: 01 March 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20942811
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X20942811

Review of Public Personnel Administration

2022, Vol. 42(1) 113 –141

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X20942811

journals.sagepub.com/home/rop

Article

This for That: What EEOC

Trends Reveal About

Representative Bureaucracy

Alan H. Kennedy1

and Sebawit G. Bishu1

Abstract

Representative bureaucracy is one of the mechanisms used to achieve representative

democracy. This article assesses how bureaucratic representation affects public

access to administrative remedies, a recourse linked with social equity in public

service organizations. Representative bureaucracy theory is applied to 14 years of

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demographics and outcomes data.

The analysis asks whether passive representation trends parallel trends in active

representation outcomes, using longitudinal workforce, charge, suit, and resolution

data. Results suggest trends in client driven outcomes (charges) were consistent

with passive representation, while organizational outcomes (suits and resolutions)

outpaced disability representation but fell short of racial and gender representation.

The trend analysis findings, which offer timely insights into the effects of human

resource management, suggests organizational priorities and processes affect

representation more than previously thought.

Keywords

EEOC, discrimination, representative bureaucracy, organizational equity

Introduction

Public administrators play an integral role in the pursuit of civil rights in the 21st cen-

tury, but not always as imagined by scholars. Representative bureaucracy theory,

which shares theoretical underpinnings with representative democracy, asserts that

1University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Alan H. Kennedy, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, 1380 Lawrence St, Ste 500,

Denver, CO 80204, USA.

Email: alan.kennedy@ucdenver.edu

942811ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X20942811Review of Public Personnel AdministrationKennedy and Bishu

research-article2020

114 Review of Public Personnel Administration 42(1)

bureaucrats who share social and demographic identities with the public act in ways

that benefit those they serve (Riccucci & van Ryzin, 2016). This article seeks to

observe and assess alignment of trends in bureaucratic representation and organiza-

tional outcomes within the organizational context and broader human resource man-

agement (“HRM”) work of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”). By examining organizational workforce characteristics that could poten-

tially influence bureaucratic outcomes, this article seeks to observe alignment of key

trends. The trend analysis suggests regulatory and organizational factors both influ-

ence organizational outcomes, consistent with Atkins and Wilkins (2013), Meier and

Bohte (2001), and Mosher (1968). This article also offers evidence that representative

bureaucracy is beneficial to the equitable work of government (Hindera, 1993a), as

bureaucratic representation can be a bridge to the pursuit of civil rights by increasing

the public’s access to administrative remedies, a recourse linked with equity. In the

alternative, regulatory and organizational factors may lead to a lack of representation,

which may discourage pursuit of civil rights and reduce access to equitable, adminis-

trative remedies.

The pursuit of civil rights often requires victims of violations to seek redress. A key

arena for seeking redress is the EEOC, the federal agency tasked with handling charges

of workplace discrimination filed by the public. Building on prior studies (Bowling

et al., 2006; Hindera, 1993a, 1993b; Keiser et al., 2002; Meier et al., 2005), this article

assesses alignment of bureaucratic representation with organizational equity outcomes

in the broader HRM context. It distinguishes those cases where decisions in how to

respond to discrimination lie primarily with the client and where critical decisions lie

primarily with the organization (Hirsh, 2008). To do this, the analysis uses EEOC

longitudinal data to compare EEOC workforce demographic trends in charges filed by

the public, an indicator of passive representation, with discrimination suits filed and

resolved by EEOC, an indicator of organizational outcomes. The EEOC is the most

direct arena for bureaucratic redress, so the outcomes of charges filed indicate estab-

lishment of organizational equity (Hindera, 1993a, 1993b; Hirsh, 2008; Meier et al.,

2005).

To shed light on organizational equity in the context of workplace discrimination,

this article examines trend alignment between workforce representation and organiza-

tional outcomes at multiple levels. To do this, we employ three approaches. First, we

explore trends between demographic representation related to race, gender, and dis-

ability at the EEOC agency level, and organizational equity outcomes. Second, we

examine differences in representation at three levels of the organizational hierarchy,

namely executives, managers, and supervisors. Third, we compare trends between

EEOC investigators and attorneys, which we have identified for active representation

potential in the charge resolution process, and discretionary process decisions.

We begin with a review of the theory of bureaucratic representation and ripeness of

the theory within the federal anti-discrimination agency context for exploration of

external and internal factors that prior literature suggests influence passive and active

representation. Following that, a discussion of the EEOC as an appropriate case for

application of the theory of representative bureaucracy is presented. In particular, the