draft

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS The 21st century promises a more diverse public workplace in terms of race, ethnicity, cul- ture, gender, age, and disabilities. In light of the shifting composition of public organiza- tions, this article applies three different paradigms of diversity developed to understand pri- vate organizations and analyze practices in and research about public organizations. Building on these paradigms, this article proposes a new process for managing diversity that facilitates the development and promulgation of a multicultural organization. This paradigm of multiculturalism cultivates a climate in which individuals from dominant and nondominant cultures coexist and thrive. Consequently, agencies will be more effective in recruiting and re- taining a diverse workforce, structuring internal processes, and serving clients.

RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Moving Toward a Multicultural Model

SALLY COLEMAN SELDEN Lynchburg College

FRANK SELDEN Piedmont Psychiatric Center, Centra Health

America’s workforce is changing and rapidly growing more diverse. Demographics are being reshaped by three decades of increasing immi- gration, primarily from Asia and Latin America; increased representation of persons with disabilities; and the maturation of the baby boomer gener- ation. These trends changed the composition of the workforce (Booth, 1998). According to a recent report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1998 and 2008, White non-Hispanic males will only compose 30% of new workforce entrants (Fullerton, 1999).1 During this period of time, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans will represent 16.5%, 16.2%, and 8.8%, respectively, of new entrants. The annual growth rate of African Americans in the civilian workforce between 1998

303

ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY, Vol. 33 No. 3, July 2001 303-329 © 2001 Sage Publications

and 2008 is projected to be slightly lower than that of Hispanics and Asian Americans (1.8%, 3.2%, and 3.4%, respectively) (Fullerton, 1999).

Public agencies have already witnessed considerable demographic changes during the past two decades. At the end of fiscal year 1996, the federal government workforce consisted of more than 29% minorities (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1998a). As shown in Table 1, the percentage of minorities holding positions within the executive branch increased between 1984 and 1996, but the percentage of women decreased during this same period. When the figures are broken down by specific racial and ethnic groups, the results indicate that all four minority groups have increased their share of executive branch positions between 1984 and 1996.

Diversity within public agencies has also changed with respect to age and disabilities. The average age of the American worker is expected to continue to rise in the next two decades, with the number of workers between 16 and 24 years old falling by approximately 8%. The average age for full-time permanent federal civilian employees was 45.2 years in 1997, up from 44.3 years the previous year (U.S. Office of Personnel Man- agement, 1998a). Although an aging workforce can have positive effects (e.g., greater experience-based work knowledge), older workers may be less responsive to organizational changes, less mobile, less interested in training, and more prone to frustration by their lack of advancement (Lambs, 1996; USMP, 1993). Out of 32 federal agencies surveyed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in 1991 and 1992, 25 agencies indicated that the average age of their workforces was increasing. How- ever, most agencies had not yet encountered problems associated with an older workforce (USMP, 1993).

According to recent census data, more than 15% of individuals enter- ing the labor market have a disability. Disabilities include cognitive and physical impairments, such as blindness, epilepsy, Human Immunodefi- ciency Virus (HIV), and Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Slack, 1997a). As shown in Table 2, the percentage of persons employed in the executive branch with disabilities increased after the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, which heightened awareness of the rights of persons with disabilities; however, the share of positions held by persons with disabilities declined slightly between 1994 and 1997.2 In March 1998, President Clinton issued an executive order “to increase the employment of adults with disabilities to a rate that is as close as possible to the employment rate of the general adult population.” Because of the increased attention toward workers with disabilities, agencies are being

304 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

challenged to reevaluate their job descriptions, to determine their capacity to provide reasonable accommodations, and to reduce employment barriers.

Workplace environments will change as the demographic characteris- tics of the labor pool evolve (Hutchins & Sigelman, 1981; Kellough, 1990; Kellough & Elliott, 1992; Sigelman & Karnig, 1977). These changes, according to Loden and Loeser (1991), “have far reaching implications for the ways that public . . . institutions are to be led and managed in the future” (p. 21). Because of constrained budgets and growing demands for more efficient government, public organizations have not invested as heavily in diversity programs as their private sector counterparts, even though many public sector organizations are committed to diversity efforts (Chambers & Riccucci, 1997). However, in light of the challenges posed by the projected demographic changes and the legal erosion of affir- mative action programs, scholars and practitioners must understand the diversity research and consider the future direction of diversity efforts within public organizations.

This article reviews policies and research on the representation and diversity of public organizations. The article first briefly reviews the evo- lution of equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action policies in the federal government and then highlights the tenets and per- ceived benefits of representative bureaucracy, a theory often cited as a rationale for diversity. The third section considers the application of three paradigms, based on the practices of private organizations, for under-

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 305

TABLE 1

Executive Branch Employment by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender (in percentages)

1984 1988 1992 1996 1997 1998

African American 15.7 16.6 16.5 16.8 16.7 16.7 Hispanic 4.7 5.4 5.5 5.4 6.2 6.4 Asian American 2.8 3.6 3.8 3.6 4.4 4.5 Native American 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.1 Total minorities 24.9 27.7 27.8 27.7 29.4 29.7 White, non-Hispanic 75.1 72.3 72.2 72.3 40.6 70.3 Men 60.0 58.0 56.6 56.0 50.8 56.0 Women 40.0 42.0 43.4 44.0 44.2 44.0

SOURCE: Adapted from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (1998a).

standing diversity efforts in public agencies. Finally, the article proposes an approach for managing diversity that facilitates the development of a multicultural organization.

EVOLUTION OF EEQ POLICIES3

As we move into the millennium, some public organizations are begin- ning to implement diversity initiatives in an effort to move beyond EEO policies and affirmative action efforts by taking advantage of the expected demographic changes of the labor force and changing legal environment (Chambers & Riccucci, 1997).

The origins of current affirmative action programs date back to EEO efforts aimed at eliminating discrimination (Krislov, 1967; Rosenbloom, 1973, 1977; Rosenbloom & Berry, 1984). Examples of EEO policies’ prohibiting discrimination in federal employment and contracting are found in provisions of the Ramspect Act of 1940 and Executive Order Number 8587 issued by President Roosevelt that year. The following year, Executive Order Number 8802 established the first meaningful adminis- trative mechanism to enforce the law. The Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) was established “to provide for the full and equitable participation of all workers in the defense industries, without discrimina- tion” (Krislov, 1967, p. 30). The FEPC investigated complaints and had the authority to make recommendations to correct problems, but it lacked the power to enforce its recommendations (Rosenbloom, 1977, p. 61). Although subsequent presidents reorganized and renamed the federal pro- gram, the investigation of discrimination remained the primary focus of the effort to overcome discriminatory employment practices.

In the 1960s, the political climate changed and programs targeting dis- crimination took new shape. Programs introduced during the Kennedy and Johnson administration were confined primarily to three activities:

306 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

TABLE 2

Percentage of Executive Branch Employees With Disabilities

1986 1990 1994 1997

Employees with disabilities 6.6 6.9 7.4 7.2

SOURCE: Adapted from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (1998b).

reviewing patterns of minority and female employment, examining the relationship between job qualifications and actual job requirements, and recruiting efforts to attract women and minority applicants (Krislov, 1967; Rosenbloom, 1973, 1977; Rosenbloom & Berry, 1984). Also, during this time, significant legislative action sought to improve equal opportunity to different groups, including minorities. For example, Section 701b of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declared “that it shall be the policy of the United States to ensure equal employment opportunity for federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national ori- gin, and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy” (quoted in Krislov, 1967, p. 42).

By the 1970s, it was apparent that the existing executive and legislative actions were not sufficient to overcome underrepresentation of minorities in the upper ranks of the public sector (Rosenbloom, 1973). Rosenbloom (1973) described the dissatisfaction with EEO practices at this time and particularly with the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) EEO activities. This discontent increased the pressure to transfer the EEO program to another agency. In addition, “the strategy of using goals and timetables for minority hiring and promotion was being more commonly urged” (p. 245), and several agencies (such as the Army and the Office of Manage- ment and Budget) were determined to use them regardless of the CSC’s policy. The convergence of these factors and the CSC’s desire to preserve and protect its EEO role led to the CSC’s policy statement encouraging the use of goals and timetables (p. 248). The ultimate goal was to bring the level of representation of minorities and women within the agency into parity with the relevant labor pool. Goals and timetables often required that race, ethnicity, and gender be taken into account in employment, col- lege admissions, and contract awards (Kellough, Selden, & Legge, 1997). These race, ethnic, and gender-conscious remedies, or affirmative action programs, have encountered criticism to one degree or another since being introduced.

In the past decade, the split between the two major political parties on this issue has widened, with Democrats typically supportive of such pro- grams and Republicans more often opposed to the use of such measures. The division has led to considerable debate about the future of affirmative action in the media, state legislatures, and classrooms (Kellough et al., 1997). In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 209, which declared that

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 307

neither the State of California nor any of its political subdivisions or agents shall use race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a criterion for either discrimination against, or granting preference to, any individual or group in the operation of the State’s public employment, public education, or public contracting.

In 1997, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case on Propo- sition 209, upholding the prohibition on affirmative action in California. In 1997, similar initiatives were introduced in nine state legislatures, but none were signed into law (Kellough et al., 1997). In 1998, residents of Washington passed Initiative 200, prohibiting affirmative action in public employment, education, and contracting. Riccucci (1997b) predicted that the legal status of affirmative action is “likely to continue to erode as we move into the twenty-first century” (p. 69).

REPRESENTATION BUREAUCRACY: DIVERSITY IN AGENCY COMPOSITION,

PROCESSES, AND OUTCOMES

An original intent of affirmative action in public organizations was to establish a bureaucracy representative of the general population, that is, groups would be represented in government in the same proportion as their composition in the general population. Some scholars have argued that a bureaucracy will be more responsive to public interests (and will therefore better serve democratic principles) if its personnel reflects the public served in characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender (Meier, 1993b; Rourke, 1978, p. 396; Selden, 1997). This idea forms the rationale for the theory of representative bureaucracy. The central tenet of the the- ory of representative bureaucracy is that passive representation, or the extent to which a bureaucracy employs people of diverse social back- grounds, leads to active representation, or the pursuit of policies reflecting the interests and desires of those people (Meier, 1993a; Meier & Stewart, 1992). The argument is premised on the belief that such attributes lead to certain early socialization experiences that in turn give rise to attitudes, values, and beliefs that ultimately help to shape the behavior and decisions of individual bureaucrats (Kranz, 1976; Krislov, 1974; Meier & Nigro, 1976; Rosenbloom & Featherstonhaugh, 1977; Rosenbloom & Kinnard, 1977; Saltzstein, 1979; Selden, 1997; Thompson, 1978). Although agency socialization might mitigate the influence of personal values,

308 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

research has shown that values relating to race and ethnicity are important determinants of a person’s policy decisions (Selden, 1997).

Proponents contend that a bureaucracy that reflects the diversity of the general population implies a symbolic commitment to equal access to power (Gallas, 1985; Meier, 1993b; Mosher, 1968; L. R. Wise, 1990). The symbolic role results from the personal characteristics of distinctive group members and the assumption that because of these characteristics the bureaucracy has prior experiences in common with other members of that group (Guinier, 1994). When members of distinctive groups become pub- lic officials, they become legitimate actors in the political process with the ability to shape public policy. Representative bureaucracy provides a means of fostering equity in the policy process by helping to ensure that all interests are represented in the formulation and implementation of poli- cies and programs (Saltzstein, 1979). Moreover, a recent study offers evi- dence that a representative bureaucracy is more effective, that is, school bureaucracies with more minority teachers produced higher minority and nonminority student test scores (Meier, Wrinkle, & Polinard, 1999).

As stated earlier, representative bureaucracy offers a means of recon- ciling bureaucratic government with democratic values by ensuring that public organizations are responsive to the public through employee repre- sentation and subsequently are more effective (Meier et al., 1999. Over time, public organizations have employed different strategies to achieve a representative bureaucracy. Because of the changing labor force demo- graphics and legal challenges to EEO and affirmative action, scholars and practitioners are shifting their focus to workplace diversity, a voluntary, proactive program aimed at improving organizational effectiveness (Chambers & Riccucci, 1997; Riccucci, 1997a, 1997b). For this shift to be successful, Slack (1997b) argued that “an accompanying shift in organi- zational paradigm must also occur” (p. 75).

PARADIGMS OF DIVERSITY

Based on their research in private sector organizations, Thomas and Ely (1996) identified three theoretical paradigms for understanding diver- sity: discrimination-and-fairness, access-and-legitimacy, and learning- and-effectiveness (see Figure 1). These models are also useful for under- standing public agencies’ approaches to diversity and provide the basis for developing strategies to benefit from a diverse workforce.4

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 309

PARADIGM 1: DISCRIMINATION-AND-FAIRNESS

The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm focuses on whether minori- ties and women are given an equal chance of obtaining employment in public organizations. According to this paradigm, public organizations pursue diversity under the guise of equality and fairness and are concerned primarily with compliance with EEO and affirmative action legal require- ments (Thomas & Ely, 1996). The primary goals of organizations adher- ing to this paradigm are to provide access and equal opportunity in the recruiting and hiring processes. Success is determined by the number of minorities and women holding positions within the agency. According to Thomas and Ely (1996), organizations operating under this premise often

310 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

Environment

Inputs

Internal Processes Outcomes/Outputs

Discrimination- Learning-and Access-and and-fairness effectiveness legitimacy paradigm paradigm paradigm

Multicultural Organization: Valuing-and-Integrating

Legal Environment Changing nature of services & Stakeholder demands demographic labor pool

Internal Dynamics

Innovation Creativity of ideas Decision making Range of perspectives Communication Identification with group Group social integration Perceived discrimination Supervisor’s affect for subordinate Role conflict Turnover

Figure 1: Paradigms of Diversity Within Public Organizations

adopt a “color-blind, gender-blind” ideal, encouraging minorities and women to blend into the culture of the organization.

Because this model focuses on descriptive representation and assimila- tion of persons into the organizational cultures, agencies adhering to this model are not likely to explore how employees’ differences can improve organizational processes and outcomes. Moreover, the discrimination- and-fairness model often puts pressure on employees “to make sure that important differences among them do not count” (Thomas & Ely, 1996, p. 81). This may serve to undermine potential benefits that an organization may experience through improved agency processes and practices. More- over, it may preclude individuals from identifying with their work and agency which, in turn, has been shown to be an important determinant of motivation and satisfaction (Thomas & Ely, 1996).

Relevant Empirical Research

The central question of interest to agencies adopting this model is the extent to which the agency reflects the demographic origins of society. A primary concern, of course, is the determination of which demographic characteristics are most important to public organizations. Kingsley (1944) suggested that socioeconomic class should be the basis for comparing bureaucrats and citizens in England. Krislov (1974) argued, however, that race, ethnicity, and gender were more relevant than class for comparing the composition of the bureaucracy and society in the United States. Over- all, the literature has reached a consensus that race and ethnicity are per- haps the most important demographic characteristics for comparing bureaucratic and public representation in the United States (Cayer & Sigelman, 1980; Dye & Renick, 1981; Herbert, 1974; Kranz, 1976; Krislov, 1974; Meier, 1975, 1993b; Nachmias & Rosenbloom, 1973; Rosenbloom & Featherstonhaugh, 1977; Rosenbloom & Kinnard, 1977; Smith, 1980; Thompson, 1976, 1978).

Scholars also maintain that gender is a critical demographic variable in the American bureaucratic setting (Cayer & Sigelman, 1980; Daley, 1984; Davis & West, 1985; Dye & Renick, 1981; Hale & Kelly, 1989; Kranz, 1976; Krislov, 1974; Meier, 1975, 1993b; Nachmias & Rosenbloom, 1973; Rosenbloom & Kinnard, 1977; Smith, 1980; Thompson, 1978). The movement in the 1980s to make public bureaucracies more gender representative resulted from changing relations between men and women, the changing nature of the economy, and the increased participation of

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 311

women in the labor force (Duerst-Lahti & Johnson, 1992; Guy & Duerst-Lahti, 1992; Guy & Duke, 1992; Hale & Kelly, 1989).

Researchers have examined a number of other demographic factors, such as age, disabilities, and father’s occupation (Daley, 1984; Davis & West, 1985; Meier, 1975; Meier & Nigro, 1976; Smith, 1980). However, in the American context, race, ethnicity, and gender have been considered the most salient characteristics because numerous politically relevant atti- tudes and values are defined along these two dimensions (Meier, 1993b).

Typically, scholars have employed one of the following methods to evaluate the racial, ethnic, and gender representativeness of public bureaucracies:5

• percentage comparison, • representative index, • stratified ratio, • aggregate representation ratio, or • measure of variation (MV).

Each of these advances a somewhat different perspective on representa- tion of minorities and women in public organizations. Table 3 presents a description of each approach. The representative index is unique in that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 uses it as a measure to determine underrepresentation of minorities. Although different techniques have been used to measure female and minority representation, the findings have been relatively consistent. Although minorities and women are broadly represented in local, state, and federal agencies, they are concen- trated in lower level positions and have not advanced as successfully into top-level decision-making positions. One argument often presented is that minorities and women are in the pipeline for promotions. However, many women and minorities have been in the system long enough to advance but have not. This may be due to the fact that “many agencies appeared to be concentrating more on increasing the intake of minorities than on strong programs for advancement of minorities who already are members of the Federal workforce” (U.S. MSPB, 1993, p. 24).

PARADIGM 2: ACCESS-AND-LEGITIMACY

The second lens through which organizations have viewed diversity is access-and-legitimacy (Thomas & Ely, 1996). According to this per-

312 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 313

TABLE 3

Measures of Employment Equality

Method Description

Percentage comparison Percentage of a group within the organization

Representative indexa % of a group within the organization

% of a group within the relevant population

A ratio of 1.0 indicates that the composition of the organization corresponds perfectly with the relevant population.

Stratified ratio % of a group within the upper level of the organization

% of a group within the relevant population

A ratio of 1.0 indicates that the composition of the organization corresponds perfectly with the relevant population.

Aggregate representation ratio % of a group within workforce

% of a group within the relevant population

+ % of a group within upper level appointments

% of a group within the relevant population

A ratio of 1.0 indicates that the composition of the organization corresponds perfectly with the relevant population.

Measure of variation (MV) Σf f

n n f

n

i j

t( ) *

, −1

2

2

where f is the number of individuals of a certain race or ethnicity, i, j, k, . . ., n is the number of racial or ethnic groups considered, and ft is the total number of employees in the agency.

The MV is estimated by dividing the observed number of racial/ethnic differences in an agency by the “maximum number of differences that could occur given the total number of employees in the agency and equal representation of each racial/ethnic group” (Kellough, 1990, p. 558).

The closer the MV score is to 1, the more equally represented are the groups under investigation.

a. This measure has also been referenced as the representative ratio (Sigelman & Karnig, 1976), measure of employment parity (Mladenka, 1991; Saltzstein, 1986), and equal employment opportunity index (W. G. Lewis, 1989).

spective, agencies value diversity because it enables them to provide better access and services to their constituents. This paradigm organizes itself around differentiation. Under this framework, the virtue of diversity is based on the fact that each group can offer knowledge about group members and can better serve their needs because of such knowledge and shared group experiences. For example, in the mid-1950s, the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) responded to allegations that the agency was discriminating against African American borrowers. The FmHA placed African American professionals in several southern states to serve as “‘supervisors-at-large’ to initiate loan applications for blacks in offices where local supervisors were unwilling to do so” (Hadwiger, 1973, p. 51). Agencies with increasing diversity expect that previously underrepre- sented clients will feel more comfortable accessing agency resources and services when they are represented (Thielemann & Stewart, 1996). One reason for this phenomenon is that individuals who share similar individ- ual characteristics may also hold similar values and attitudes, have com- mon experiences, and therefore find the experience of interacting with each other more positive. Thielemann and Stewart (1996, p. 171) found evidence that clients of HIV service delivery agencies have a demand for a representative bureaucracy, particularly among personnel delivering the service directly.

Students of representative bureaucracy also suggest that bureaucracies broadly representative of the general public should produce policy outputs that meet the needs of all citizens (Meier, 1993b). Agencies adhering to this view of diversity tend to emphasize the role of cultural differences in the agency, but they pay little attention to how these differences impact the work that is actually done (Thomas & Ely, 1996). For example, an agency may be concerned with Hispanic representation because it perceives that Hispanic clients will be better served by someone from a similar back- ground. As long as the clients and constituents are represented substan- tively and allegations about service and program inequalities are being reduced, agencies are satisfied.

One potential downside of this perspective, according to Thomas and Ely (1996), is that employees working in organizations operating with this philosophy may sometimes feel exploited and devalued. Because employ- ees were hired with the expectation of meeting the needs of clients in par- ticular areas, they may perceive that opportunities in other parts of the agency are closed to them or that they face dual and conflicting role expec- tations (Selden, 1997; Thomas & Ely, 1996).

314 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

Relevant Empirical Research

Most of the inquiry under this paradigm is concerned with the relation- ship between employment of minorities and women and agency outputs and outcomes affecting these groups. Specifically, research has examined the relationship between demographic representation and disciplinary actions and ability groupings in school systems, charges or complaints of discrimination filed by a regulatory agency, and housing loan eligibility determinations made by a federal agency (Hindera, 1993a, 1993b; Meier, 1993a; Meier & Stewart, 1992; Meier et al., 1999; Selden, 1997).

In the first study linking demographic representation and policy out- comes, Meier and Stewart (1992) found that the increased presence of African American street-level bureaucrats (e.g., school teachers) had a significant effect on policy outcomes favoring African American stu- dents. In a similar approach, Hindera (1993b) focused on African Ameri- cans and women in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He found that as the employment of African Americans in the EEOC increased, discrimination charges filed on behalf of that group also increased. Selden (1997) found that as the employment of African Ameri- cans, Hispanics, and Asians Americans increased in the FmHA, the per- centage of rural housing loan eligibility determinations favoring each group increased.

PARADIGM 3: LEARNING-AND-EFFECTIVENESS

In effect, the third paradigm, learning-and-effectiveness, bridges the two aforementioned paradigms. Agencies adopting this perspective value diversity because it improves internal processes by incorporating the var- ied perspectives and approaches to work that different group members offer an organization (Milliken & Martins, 1996). Agencies operating under this frame seek to integrate, as opposed to assimilate or differenti- ate, diverse individuals within the agency. This model is founded on understanding and valuing the notion that cultural differences exist. Diversity may affect work groups’ ability to “process information, per- ceive and interpret stimuli, and make decisions” (Milliken & Martins, 1996, p. 416). Nemeth (1986) contended that the logic underlying major- ity decisions is superior when consistent counterarguments are made by minority groups. Studies of undergraduate and graduate work groups have shown that diversity affects the number of alternative scenarios consid-

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 315

ered, quality and creativity of ideas, and the extent of cooperation among group members (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; McLeod & Lobel, 1992; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). According to Thomas and Ely (1996), agencies adopting this approach are “tapping diversity’s true ben- efits” (p. 85), which will increase agency effectiveness, lift employee morale, and enhance productivity.

Relevant Empirical Research

Scholars suggest that work group diversity promotes creativity and innovativeness in the quality of ideas, problem solving, and decision mak- ing (McLeod & Lobel, 1992; Rice, 1994). McLeod and Lobel (1992) found that more ethnically diverse groups produced higher quality and more unique ideas in a brainstorming task than did less diverse groups. Despite a growing need for knowledge about the effects of diversity in the daily operations of public organizations, relatively little systematic research has been done to explore how race, ethnicity, and gender have influenced specific internal work processes. One process that has been examined is performance appraisals, but the findings are mixed (G. B. Lewis, 1997; Pulakos, Oppler, White, & Borman, 1989; Sackett & DuBois, 1991). Some research has illustrated that raters generally give higher performance ratings to members of their own race, even after con- trolling for other factors that influence ratings (Sackett & DuBois, 1991). Other scholars have found that race and gender have minimal influence over ratings (Pulakos et al., 1989). A 1996 U.S. MSPB study of federal employees found that Caucasians in professional and administrative jobs receive higher performance ratings than minorities, whereas women received higher ratings, on average, than men. The report suggested (but did not empirically examine) that the differences were attributable to supervisory biases. This proposition was later challenged by Lewis. In addition, research has examined levels of support for different work pro- cesses, including child care, job sharing, flexible work schedules, and pay equity (Hale & Branch, 1992). Hale and Branch (1992, pp. 194-195) found that male and female public sector employees in five states were supportive of child care, job sharing, and flexible work schedules, although women supported them significantly more than men.

Although relatively little research has explored the impact of diversity on internal public sector operations, a number of agencies have adopted diversity training in an effort to take advantage of the perceived benefits (Guy & Newman, 1998). In 1993, the U.S. MSPB found that 20 of the

316 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

32 agencies in its sample indicated that they provided “valuing diversity” training programs. The typical program focused on sensitivity to cultural differences, emphasizing that such differences contribute to the organiza- tion (U.S. MSPB, 1993). Despite efforts to promote diversity, minority employees were as likely to perceive they had been discriminated against in 1996 as they had been in 1992 (U.S. MSPB, 1998, p. 37). Based on data from a survey of 9,710 federal employees in 1996, the U.S. MSPB (1998) found the following:

When asked whether they had been denied a job, promotion, or other job benefit because of their race, 34 percent of the African Americans, 35 per- cent of the Asian Pacific Americans, 23 percent of Hispanics, and 18 per- cent of the Native Americans thought they had been. About 9 percent of the White employees thought they had been discriminated against because of their race. (p. 37)

Moreover, the survey results reveal that a large percentage of minorities perceived that “people of their race or national origin were not treated with respect” (p. 38). Although 88% of federal supervisors surveyed received diversity training and 59% of those individuals perceived that diversity training had improved their leadership, some minority federal employees still believed they were not valued and treated equitably.

PARADIGM 4: VALUING-AND-INTEGRATING— CREATING A MULTICULTURAL ORGANIZATION

The fourth paradigm, valuing-and-integrating, seeks to build directly on the learning-and-effectiveness paradigm and incorporate aspects of the other two paradigms. This approach encompasses the goals discussed in the three aforementioned paradigms: access, democratization, effective- ness, and service to stakeholders. Because it seeks to create a multicultural climate, it should maximize the benefits associated with the three afore- mentioned paradigms. Specifically, organizations adhering to this para- digm should be more effective in recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce, structuring internal processes, and serving clients.

Although diversity is often discussed at the organizational level, the valuing-and-integrating model proposes that one needs to understand diversity from an individualistic perspective before viewing the aggregate organization. As Simon (1957) noted, “an organization is, after all, a col- lection of people, and what the organization does is done by people” (p. 110). A diversified organization is founded, by its very nature, on the

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 317

fabric of cultures that each person offers and adds to the collective work- ing environment. Thus, this paradigm suggests that an organization’s cul- ture is continually influenced by the individual cultures of its members. Employees will be more involved and committed to their employer when their worldviews are reflected in the organization’s strategy to implement its mission and vision.

Culture, from an individual perspective, consists of “all those things that people have learned to do, believe, value, and enjoy in their history. It is the totality of ideals, beliefs, skills, tools, customs, and institutions into which each member of society is born” (Sue & Sue, 1990, p. 35). The value of multiculturalism to public organizations highlights the impor- tance of viewing culture and cultural differences not simply as demo- graphic representations within an organization. Rather, an individual’s cultural foundation is a complex, dynamic development of sensibilities that impact and refine the ways in which an individual views, perceives, and interacts with his or her environment. The aforementioned paradigms approach multiculturalism with different levels of acknowledgment of individual diversity. For example, the fairness-and-equality paradigm proposes that individuals assume the agency’s cultural identity. Viewing diversity from this perspective presents a paradox. An organization’s treatment of cultural differences reflects the extent to which nondominant cultures remain intact and, subsequently, may contribute to the organiza- tion’s mission, policies, and programs.

Under Paradigm 1, fairness-and-equality, a fundamental tension exists when individuals with ethnic, racial, gender, and cultural backgrounds different from the dominant culture attempt to interface or coexist within the dominant culture’s environment. In essence, these individuals are often faced with the polarity between assimilation and acculturation. Assimilation is the process of integrating oneself within the agency’s cul- ture and, subsequently, assuming the values, beliefs, and attitudes attrib- uted to the agency’s culture. Through assimilation, the individual’s cul- ture of origin is often subordinated and thus compromised in an effort to blend in with the prevailing culture. Although the process of assimilation does not explicitly mandate that an individual lose his or her culture, in reality, as one compromises intrinsic cultural sensibilities, the environ- ment’s majority culture assumes precedent. As a result, the individual’s culture of origin is diluted and homogenized through the process of orga- nizational socialization (Fine, Johnson, & Ryan, 1990).

Alternatively, the process of acculturation challenges the conforming nature of assimilation and the negative consequences of differentiation.

318 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

Acculturation is the process of maintaining one’s cultural background while immersed in an agency’s cultural environment. In spite of immer- sion in a different culture, an individual is expected to maintain his or her values, beliefs, and attitudes that may run counter to the prevailing agency culture. The process of acculturation postulates that nondominant cultures can coexist within an environment of a dominant culture. Furthermore, individuals from nondominant cultures do not tend to experience the over- riding pressure, whether overt or covert, to integrate into the dominant agency culture. In the process of acculturation, cultural backgrounds, experiences, and sensibilities are not checked at the doorstep on entrance into the dominant culture’s environment.

Assimilation and acculturation are processes that individuals experi- ence in ranging degrees as they move from their culture of origin into their working environment. With agreement that assimilation compromises and thus dilutes an individual’s personal values, attitudes, and beliefs, organizations with explicit pretense of valuing cultural diversity should elect to support and foster acculturated environments. The postulations underlying acculturation support cultural coexistence and, in turn, present a more accepting approach to diversity and represent a clear movement toward multicultural understanding and learning. The objective of this paradigm is not to politicize agencies; rather, this paradigm seeks to create public organizations that are more effective, innovative, communicative, and fluid. Through the process of creating a multicultural organization, agencies will encounter numerous barriers (some of which are discussed below) that require attention to create an agency environment that values and benefits from individual differences (Guy & Newman, 1998).

The extent to which it is difficult to implement this paradigm will vary, depending on the existing culture of the public organization (Guy & Newman, 1998). Drawing on previous studies of representative bureau- cracy, we might expect that the nature of an agency’s mission will facili- tate or impede the adoption of this paradigm (Guy, 1994; Hindera, 1993a, 1993b; Newman, 1993). For example, we might hypothesize that redistributive agencies will be more conducive to a multicultural environ- ment because previous research has shown that women are significantly more likely to ascend into top-level positions in agencies with redistributive missions (Newman, 1993). Drawing on similar logic, Romzek and Hendricks (1982) hypothesized that minorities’ goals would be closely aligned with the mission of advocacy agencies and con- sequently minorities working in advocacy agencies would be more involved and committed than minorities working in regulatory agencies.

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 319

Contrary to their expectations, Romzek and Hendricks found that minor- ities had similar experiences across advocacy and regulatory agencies. One possible explanation for the differing results is that goal congruence does not guarantee that an agency’s internal culture values and integrates diverse experiences and perspectives. As suggested in the discussion of the second paradigm, if employees are hired with the expectation of meeting the needs of clients in particular areas, they may exist in a cul- ture that differentiates groups. Consequently, they may perceive that they have fewer opportunities in the agency and feel devalued and dissat- isfied. In such situations, an organization’s culture may mitigate the pos- itive effects of mission and goal congruence that initially attracted the person to the organization (Schein, 1992). Fine et al. (1990) found that “men, women, and minorities do not share a common culture of organi- zation life; rather, each group identifies, defines, and organizes its expe- rience in the organization in unique ways” (p. 317). Because recent research has shown that minorities and nonminorities (as well as women and men) experience different realities in the same workplace, a culture constructed from the perspective of the dominant group, no matter how “open” its intent, might alienate other group members (Fine et al., 1990; Hale, 1999).

Two issues influenced by societal trends that may preclude the creation of a multicultural environment include the importance and value placed on expressiveness and the creation of a climate of trust. The notion of expressiveness brings forth a larger, related issue regarding patterns of communication. The importance placed on verbal communication in Western culture cannot be underestimated. Non-Western cultures differ in their styles of verbal and nonverbal communication, as well as the relative import attributed to each (F. Wise & Miller, 1983).

Public organizations must develop their capacities to expand commu- nication accessibility by creating appropriate settings and environments to hear and attend to diverse voices. As Western culture continues to increase its reliance on technological communication, public organiza- tions must ensure that communication settings remain intimate and not isolated, multisensory and not linear. That is, electronic communication systems, such as electronic mail (e-mail), tend to inhibit full expression of thought by effectively severing the visual, nonverbal components of human interaction. Although e-mail is certainly a useful and essential ele- ment of productivity, communication in public organizations should include direct personal contact. Indeed, interpersonal interactions

320 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

underlie virtually every cultural group, dominant and nondominant. Yet as Western culture becomes more technology based, the voices of non- Western cultures may be essentially lost as they remain grounded in the purity of person-to-person connections. Public organizations should real- ize and react to different styles of personal interaction.

Another factor that may potentially undermine the establishment of a multicultural organization is mistrust. American history bears witness to the tangible and enduring experiences of racial and ethnic discrimination, maltreatment, and violence that, in turn, has developed and solidified a pervasive feeling of distrust among minority groups with the majority cul- ture. To survive in this country, many minority groups have developed, out of necessity, behaviors that allow them to gauge potential threats (Stanback & Pearce, 1985). The mistrust experienced by minority groups has a documented historical antecedent (Jones, 1985; Mays, 1985). This distrust of the dominant culture is not necessarily insurmountable. Rather, organizations must understand and, more directly, must respect the authentic foundations of mistrust before they are able to establish trust with individuals from different cultural backgrounds.

An essential dynamic of addressing an individual’s sense of mistrust is the perceived necessity of affiliation. As an individual surrounds himself or herself with others of similar background and life experience, he or she will tend to feel more protected and secure. At its extreme, affiliation can result in segregated groups. More reasonably, organizations can begin to ameliorate feelings of mistrust through promoting opportunities for connectedness. Indeed, as organizations increase the representativeness of leadership and service delivery to consumers/constituents, they will reasonably start to dismantle systems of historic discrimination and mis- treatment that underlie mistrust of the dominant culture. For instance, pro- fessional and collegiate athletics are witnessing the benefits of greater rep- resentativeness in managerial, administrative, and coaching positions. If economic conditions for minority groups improve, representativeness in spectating of athletic events will likely transfer to more diverse consumer groups as well.

Public organizations have the social and political opportunity to utilize the diversity of their employees to foster the active participation and con- tribution of individuals from nondominant cultural backgrounds. A fun- damental element of this process of minority and gender empowerment within organizations is the critical systemic movement from viewing

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 321

diversity as separate and compartmentalized to a context in which diver- sity is valued, utilized, and institutionalized.

Public organizations are faced with the challenge to preserve cultural, racial, ethnic, and gender identities to foster multicultural expression. The process of assimilation may simply lead to a context in which cultural diversity is measured by skin pigmentation, geographic origin, and other extrinsic differentiations from the dominant culture. Instead, the essence of cultural diversity is the array of worldviews developed through individ- uals’ degree of identification with their background. The melting pot the- ory of diversity may be flawed. Inherent in this approach is the myth of color blindness that overlooks an individual’s group membership, thus denying an intimate, critical aspect of his or her identity (Sue & Sue, 1990). This paradigm suggests that public organizations should engage in the process of recognizing and promoting the external measures of diver- sity as secondary to the internally developed social vision that each indi- vidual offers an organization.6

The potential barriers to and dynamics of multicultural understanding are not mysterious (Guy & Newman, 1998). Public organizations will realize their capacities to comprehend, value, and benefit from cultural diversity through their movement toward creating a climate of genuine acceptance of and sincere respect for ethnicity, gender, and other charac- teristics that define individual’s cultural background (Brown & Harris, 1993). Fostering a multicultural environment suggests that an individual’s ethnicity, race, or gender, for example, is not experienced as a necessary evil but rather cherished as an asset to the organization’s diversified cul- ture (Brown & Harris, 1993). In turn, individuals from nondominant cul- tures will be welcomed and encouraged developers and participants in the organization’s mission, policies, programs, and decision-making pro- cesses. Under this paradigm, agencies will position themselves to learn. Meier et al.’s (1999) recent study of Texas school districts suggests that diversity is linked to learning within the classroom. Their research reveals that increasing minority diversity did not “benefit one group of students at the expense of another group” (p. 1037). The benefits, as measured by test scores, accrue to all students within more representative school districts.

Previous externally driven strategies to diversify public organizations may have changed the demographic composition of public organizations, but the extent to which they have altered organizational norms and prac- tices is less clearly understood in the literature. As agencies and their members learn and evolve through multiculturalism, they will

322 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

institutionalize new rules, standards, procedures, and norms in the organi- zation’s culture and collective memory. Individuals of all races, ethnici- ties, and cultures will be welcomed into multicultural organizations by the signals and symbols of the rules.7

CONCLUSION

Managing multiculturalism is a process, not a program, that encour- ages agencies to examine themselves critically and move forward as they learn. As illustrated by the recent U.S. MSPB (1998) survey of federal employees, diversity programs have not eliminated perceptions of dis- crimination and mistreatment of minorities. Moreover, as the labor force changes and the public workforce becomes more diverse, the prevalence of these perceptions may continue to grow. As minority group member- ship and affiliation increase, the dominant culture will slowly but surely lose its strength in numbers, though likely not to the same degree in politi- cal and social influence. With this understanding, public organizations not only have the opportunity to address and meet the needs of a changing constituency, but the social responsibility to be active participants in social change as well. Through exercising social conscience, public orga- nizations can be responsive rather than reactive agents. In turn, their deliv- ery of services will address the important issues and concerns of an evolv- ing social landscape and become more effective. Brown and Harris (1993), for example, found that the U.S. Forest Service’s program was designed to enhance the agency’s overall mission, cost efficiency, and effectiveness by creating “an organizational culture that is receptive and adaptive to changing values and roles” (U.S. Forest Service, 1987, p. 9).

If we accept that diversity is inherently valuable and important regard- less of external measures of increased productivity, then we start to simi- larly accept the positive social modeling that public organizations can develop and impact. The intrinsic benefit to diversity is the resulting natu- ral inclusion and acceptance of worth of individuals. Through commit- ment to diversity, public organizations engage in the more global effort to challenge systems that perpetuate separation and inequality. In this way, public organizations have the capacity to model systems of toleration, understanding, and acceptance.

When agencies value diversity and appreciate differences associated with the heritage, characteristics, and values of members of different

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 323

groups, as well as respect the uniqueness of each individual, they will make a serious commitment to workforce diversification. Creating a multicultural organization is about changing the mix of employees to reflect trends in the labor market and democratization, but not politicization, of public service. It is about satisfying constituent demands and meeting the needs of all citizens without making employees from nondominant cultures or groups feel like their primary role in the agency is to serve constituents with apparently similar backgrounds. It is about changing work processes to reflect the diversity and creativity of unique perspectives that exist within an organization and creating a culture that encourages diverse workers to stay and contribute over time (Coleman, 1994; Guy & Newman, 1998).

NOTES

1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has spent considerable time evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of its projects (for a thorough discussion, see Rosenthal, 1999). Although significant improvements have been made in the procedures used to make projections, the accuracy of the predictions did not improve between the late 1960s and mid-1980s (Rosenthal, 1999, p. 34). More recent changes in analytical procedures used to project trends beyond 2000 have not been assessed. Since the 1960s, the average percentage error in projec- tions is around 22% (Rosenthal, 1999). Thus, readers should exercise some caution when relying on these numbers. Moreover, the projections for new entrants are decomposed in cat- egories, such as type of institution, industry, or occupation.

2. Persons with disabilities employed by federal agencies are protected by the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act covered persons employed in state and local governments and most private organizations that employ 15 or more persons (Slack, 1997b).

3. The description of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action highlights only some of the major shifts. For a more comprehensive discussion, see Kellough (1990).

4. The paradigms proposed by Thomas and Ely (1996) are theoretical. In practice, an organization might operate several of these models simultaneously.

5. This study reviews the four most used measures of passive representation. However, other approaches have been used to explore representation. For example, Meier (1975) used the Lorenz Curve and Gini index of concentration to explore representational equality between federal government employment and the general population.

6. A reviewer astutely noted that despite the potential weaknesses of the melting pot the- ory, the approach has its merits because the United States is one of the more successful multi- cultural democracies in the world.

7. This statement builds on a comment made by Johnny Yinger on March 27, 1998.

324 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

REFERENCES

Booth, W. (1998). Diversity and division: American’s new wage of immigration is changing its “melting pot” image. The Washington Post National, Weekly Edition, pp. 6-8.

Brown, G., & Harris, C. C. (1993). The implications of work force diversification in the U.S. Forest Service. Administration & Society, 25, 85-113.

Cayer, N. J., & Sigelman, L. (1980). Minorities and women in state and local government: 1973-1975. Public Administration Review, 40 , 443-450.

Chambers, T., & Riccucci, N. M. (1997). Models of excellence in workplace diversity. In C. Ban & N. Riccucci (Eds.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (pp. 73-90). New York: Longman.

Civil Service Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 310, 7151, 2, a, 1 (1978). Clinton, W. J. (1998). Executive order: Increasing employment of adults with disabilities.

Washington, DC: White House. Executive Order 13078, 63 FR, 13111-13113 (1998). Coleman, T. (1994). Managing diversity: Keeping it in focus. Public Management, 76,

10-16. Cox, T., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on

cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 34, 827-847.

Daley, D. (1984). Political and occupational barriers to the implementation of affirmative action: Administrative, executive, and legislative attitudes toward representative bureau- cracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 4, 4-15.

Davis, C., & West, J. (1985). Implementing public programs: Equal opportunity, affirmative action, and administrative policy options. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 4, 16-30.

Duerst-Lahti, G., & Johnson, C. M. (1992). Management styles, stereotypes, and advan- tages. In M. E. Guy (Ed.), Women and men of the states: Public administrators at the state level (pp. 125-156). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Dye, T., & Renick, J. (1981). Political power and city jobs: Determinants of minority employment. Social Science Quarterly, 62, 475-486.

Fine, M. G., Johnson, F. L., & Ryan, M. S. (1990). Culture diversity in the workplace. Public Personnel Management, 19, 305-319.

Fullerton, H. N., Jr. (1999, November). Labor force projections to 2008: Steady growth and changing composition. Monthly Labor Review, 19-32.

Gallas, N. M. (1985). Representativeness: A new merit principle. Public Personnel Manage- ment, 14, 25-31.

Guinier, L. (1994). The tyranny of the majority: Fundamental fairness in representative democracy. New York: Free Press.

Guy, M. E. (1994). Organizational architecture, gender, and women’s careers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 14, 77-90.

Guy, M. E., & Duerst-Lahti, G. (1992). Agency culture and its effect on managers. In M. E. Guy (Ed.), Women and men of the states: Public administration at the state level (pp. 157-188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Guy, M. E., & Duke, L. L. (1992). Personal and social background as determinants of posi- tion. In M. E. Guy (Ed.), Women and men of the states: Public administration at the state level (pp. 43-60). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 325

Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (1998). Toward diversity in the workplace. In S. E. Condrey (Ed.), Handbook of human resource management in government (pp. 75-92). San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hadwiger, D. F. (1973). Experience of Black Farmers Home Administration local office chiefs. Public Personnel Management, 2, 49-54.

Hale, M. M. (1999). He says, she says: Gender and worklife. Public Administration Review, 59, 410-424.

Hale, M. M., & Branch, M. F. (1992). Policy preferences on workplace reform. In M. E. Guy (Ed.), Women and men of the states: Public administration at the state level (pp. 157- 188). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Hale, M. M., & Kelly, R. M. (1989). Gender, bureaucracy, and democracy. New York: Greenwood.

Herbert, A. W. (1974). The minority administrator: Problems, prospects, and challenges. Public Administration Review, 34, 556-563.

Hindera, J. J. (1993a). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in the EEOC district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 415-429.

Hindera, J. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: Imprimis evidence of active representa- tion in the EEOC district offices. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 95-108.

Hutchins, M., & Sigelman, L. (1981). Black employment in state and local government: A comparative analysis. Social Science Quarterly, 62, 79-87.

Jones, E. E. (1985). Psychotherapy an counseling with Black clients. In P. B. Pedersen (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural counseling and therapy (pp. 173-179). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Kellough, J. E. (1990). Integration in the public workplace: Determinants of minority and female employment in federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 50, 557-566.

Kellough, J. E., & Elliot, E. E. (1992). Demographic and organizational influences on racial/ethnic and gender integration in federal agencies. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 1-11.

Kellough, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Legge, J. (1997). Affirmative action under fire: The current controversy and the potential for state policy retrenchment. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17, 52-74.

Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press. Kranz, H. (1976). The participatory bureaucracy: Women and minorities in a more represen-

tative public service. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Krislov, S. (1967). The Negro in federal employment: The quest for equal opportunity. Min-

neapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Krislov, S. (1974). Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lambs, J. J. (1996). Today’s priorities may not be tomorrow’s: Eyeing future HR concerns.

Personnel Journal, 75, 28-35. Lewis, G. B. (1997). Race, sex, and performance ratings in the federal service. Public

Administration Review, 57, 479-489. Lewis, W. G. (1989). Toward representative bureaucracy: Blacks in city police organization,

1975-1985. Public Administration Review, 49, 257-268. Loden, M., & Loeser, R. H. (1991). Working diversity: Managing the differences. The

Bureaucrat, 20, 21.

326 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

Mays, V. M. (1985). The Black American and psychotherapy: The dilemma. Psychotherapy, 22, 379-388.

McLeod, P. L., & Lobel, S. A. (1992). The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 227-231.

Meier, K. J. (1975). Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review, 69, 526-542.

Meier, K. J. (1993a). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 393-414.

Meier, K. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. Research in Public Administration, 2, 1-35.

Meier, K. J., & Nigro, L. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy references: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36, 458-469.

Meier, K. J., & Stewart, J. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Educational systems and public policies. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 157-171.

Meier, K. J., Wrinkle, R.D., & Polinard, J.L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distri- butional equity: Addressing the hard question. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1025-1039.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-433.

Mladenka, K. R. (1991). Public employee unions, reformism, and Black employment in 1,200 American cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 26, 532-548.

Mosher, F. (1968). Democracy and the public service (1st ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Nachmias, D., & Rosenbloom, D. H. (1973). Measuring bureaucratic representation and integration. Public Administration Review, 33, 590-597.

Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psycho- logical Review, 93, 23-32.

Newman, M. A. (1993). Equal employment opportunity and glass ceilings: A contradiction in terms? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Deakin University.

Pulakos, E. D., Oppler, S. H., White, L. A., & Borman, W. C. (1989). Examination of race and sex effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 770-780.

Riccucci, N. M. (1997a). The legal status of affirmative action: Past development, future prospects. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17, 22-37.

Riccucci, N. M. (1997b). Will affirmative action survive into the twenty-first century? In C. Ban & N. Riccucci (Eds.), Public personnel management: Current concerns, future challenges (pp. 57-72). New York: Longman.

Rice, F. (1994, March). How to make diversity pay. Fortune, 78-83. Romzek, B. S., & Hendricks, J. S. (1982). Organizational involvement and representative

bureaucracy: Can we have it both ways? American Political Science Association, 76, 75-82.

Rosenbloom, D. (1973). The Civil Service Commission’s decision to authorize the use of goals and timetables in the federal equal employment opportunity program. Western Political Quarterly, 26, 236-251.

Rosenbloom, D. (1977). Federal equal employment opportunity: Policies and public per- sonnel administration. New York: Praeger.

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 327

Rosenbloom, D., & Berry, C. R. (1984). The Civil Service Reform Act and EEO: The record to date. In P. Ingraham & C. Ban (Eds.), Legislating bureaucratic change: The Civil Ser- vice Reform Act of 1978 (pp. 181-199). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Rosenbloom, D. H., & Featherstonhaugh, J. G. (1977). Passive and active representation in the federal service: A comparison of Blacks and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 57, 873-882.

Rosenbloom, D. H., & Kinnard, D. (1977). Bureaucratic representation and bureaucratic behavior: An exploratory analysis. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 11, 35-42.

Rosenthal, N. H. (1999, May). The quality of BLS projections: A historical account. Monthly Labor Review, pp. 27-35.

Rourke, F. E. (1978). Bureaucratic power in national politics (3rd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.

Sackett, P. R., & DuBois, C.L.Z. (1991). Rater-ratee race effects on performance evaluation challenging meta-analytic conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 873-877.

Saltzstein, G. H. (1979). Representative bureaucracy and bureaucratic responsibility: Prob- lems and prospects. Administration & Society, 10, 464-475.

Saltzstein, G. H. (1986). Female mayors and women in municipal jobs. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 140-164.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Selden, S. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsive- ness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Sigelman, L., & Karnig, A. K. (1976). Black representation in the American states: A com- parison of bureaucracies and legislatures. American Politics Quarterly, 4 , 237-246.

Sigelman, L., & Karnig, A. K. (1977). Black education and bureaucratic employment. Social Science Quarterly, 57, 858-863.

Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Slack, J. D. (1997b). From affirmative action to full spectrum diversity in the American

workplace. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17, 75-87. Smith, R. (1980). Representative bureaucracy: A research note on demographic representa-

tion in state bureaucracies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1, 1-14. Stanback, M. H., & Pearce, W. B. (1985). Talking to “the man”: Some communication strate-

gies used by members of “subordinate” social groups. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 286-291). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1990). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice. New York: John Wiley.

Thielemann, G., & Stewart, J. (1996). A demand-side perspective on the importance of rep- resentative bureaucracy: AIDS, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Public Admin- istration Review, 56, 168-173.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for manag- ing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79-91.

Thompson, F. J. (1976). Minority groups in public bureaucracies: Are passive and active rep- resentation linked? Administration & Society, 8, 201-226.

Thompson, F. J. (1978). Civil servants and the deprived: Socio-political and occupational explanations of attitudes toward minority hiring. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 325-347.

U.S. Forest Service. (1987). Workforce 1995: Strength through diversity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

328 ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY / July 2001

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1993). Evolving workforce demographics: Federal agency action and reaction. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1996). Fair and equitable treatment: A progress report on minority employment in the federal government. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1998). The changing federal workplace: Employee perspectives. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1998a). The fact book: Executive branch employ- ment by gender & race/national origin, 1984-1996. Retrieved March 6, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/factbook/html/fb-p28.htmA:\ finalpaper.wpd

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (1998b). The fact book: Executive branch employ- ment of workers with disabilities. Retrieved March 7, 1998, from the World Wide Web: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/factbook/html/fb-p34.htm

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on inter- action process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.

Wise, F., & Miller, N. B. (1983). The mental health of American Indian children. In G. J. Powell, J. Yamamoto, A. Romero, & A. Morales (Eds.), The psychosocial development of minority group children (pp. 344-361). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Wise, L. R. (1990). Social equity in civil service systems. Public Administration Review, 50, 567-575.

Sally Coleman Selden is an associate professor of management at Lynchburg Col- lege. Dr. Selden’s fields of interest encompass management and human resource management. She is the author of The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a Government Agency (M. E. Sharp). Her articles have appeared in Administration & Society, American Journal of Political Science, American Review of Public Administration, Review of Public Personnel Adminis- tration, Journal of Public Administration Education, Public Administration Review, and Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Frank Selden is a licensed clinical psychologist with Piedmont Psychiatric Center, Centra Health. His clinical areas of interest include multicultural counseling, trou- bled adolescents, and sports psychology.

Selden, Selden / RETHINKING DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 329