JPART 20:867886

What Drives the Implementation of Diversity

Management Programs? Evidence from
Public Organizations
David W. Pitts
American University
Alisa K. Hicklin
University of Oklahoma
Daniel P. Hawes
Kent State University
Erin Melton
Texas A&M University
ABSTRACT
As the diversity of the US workforce continues to increase at a rapid pace, public managers
are facing pressure to create organizational cultures that permit employees from different
backgrounds to succeed. A typical managerial response to this diversity has been the
implementation of a formal diversity management program. Although limited empirical
research has considered links between diversity management activity and organizational
performance, very little research has examined the factors that inuence the implementa-
tion of diversity management practices. This article begins with the premise that
organizations develop diversity management programs as a means of responding to
opportunities and challenges in the internal and external environments. In order to
delineate how those environmental phenomena operate, we draw from a specic set of
organization theories to formulate three drivers of diversity management implementation:
environmental uncertainty, environmental favorability, and institutional isomorphism.
We test these drivers empirically using data from public schools, nding that elements
of all three forces inuence diversity management implementation but in different ways
and in varying degrees.
As the diversity of the US workforce continues to increase at a rapid pace, public managers
are facing pressure to create organizational cultures that permit employees from different
backgrounds to succeed. The one-size-ts-all approach to management that was effective
30 years ago is arguably no longer an appropriate strategy for ensuring maximumemployee
performance (Riccucci, 2002). As more women and people of color enter the workforce,
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 9th Public Management Research Conference, Tucson, Arizona,
October 2527, 2007. The authors thank Ed Kellough for helpful comments and suggestions.
Address correspondence to the author at pitts@american.edu.
doi:10.1093/jopart/mup044
Advance Access publication on January 11, 2010
The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, Inc. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
managers must adapt to noteworthy changes, including more emphasis on family and work-
life balance (Bertelli, 2007; Ezra and Deckman, 1996; Saltzstein et al., 2001), different
cultural assumptions about the role of work (Ho, 1987), more emphasis on collective values
and teamwork (Azevedo et al., 2002), and different approaches to communication (Arai
et al., 2001). The impetus for responding to these changes varies. Managers may feel a nor-
mative obligation to accommodate people of different backgrounds (Mosher, 1982; Naff,
2001); they may be under legal obligation to be inclusive (Hicklin, 2007; Kellough and
Rosenbloom, 1992; Selden, 1997) or they may try to use diversity as a strategic means
of augmenting performance (Andrews et al., 2005; Pitts, 2005; Pitts and Jarry, 2007; Wise
and Tschirhart, 2000).
Whatever the motivation, the managerial response to workforce diversity has often
been the initiation of a formal diversity management program (Kellough and Naff,
2004). These programs involve both human resources management and line management
functions as responsibility for managing human capital is increasingly split between the
two (for an overview, see Selden, 2008). Research linking diversity management programs
to work-related outcomes has been scant, and the fewstudies conducted have yielded mixed
results (Cox, 1993; Naff and Kellough, 2003; Pitts, 2009; Sanchez and Brock, 1996). Al-
though there remains much work to be done linking diversity management to key outcomes
for relevant groups, we focus on a different relationship in this article: the factors behind
diversity management implementation. We argue that organizations develop diversity
management programs as a means of responding to environmental opportunities and chal-
lenges. In order to delineate how those environmental phenomena operate, we draw from
a specic set of organization theories to develop three ideas about what drives diversity
management implementation. We then use data from a sample of public school districts to
test the impact of these three factors empirically to understand why some organizations
implement diversity management while others do not.
THE DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCT
Diversity management is an organizational response to workforce diversity and its chal-
lenges and opportunities. Diversity management initiatives typically address the concerns
of historically underrepresented groups, such as people of color and women, but many also
focus on other dimensions of diversity (e.g., age, professional background, religion) that
inuence work-related outcomes (Kellough and Naff, 2004; Pitts, 2006; Riccucci, 2002;
Wise and Tschirhart, 2000). Empirical research shows that the impact of workforce diver-
sity on outcomes can be either positive or negative (for a review, see Jayne and Dipboye,
2004). In some cases, diversity can create opportunities for greater innovation and more
creative solutions to problems (Richard, 2000; Richard et al., 2003; Watson et al., 1993). In
other cases, diversity can create process-oriented problems, such as poor communication,
faulty decision making, and mistrust of other employees (Cunningham, 2005; Swann et al.,
2004; Timmerman, 2000; Watson et al., 1993). The previous work on the effects of in-
creasing diversity suggests that management may be the key to assuring that the organi-
zation will be able to fully benet from bringing underrepresented groups into the
organization. Some organizations have adopted diversity management initiatives as
a way to improve the ability of diverse groups to work together, and limited empirical
research has demonstrated that diversity management can improve outcomes in diverse
organizations (Kalev et al., 2006; Ng and Burke, 2005; Pitts, 2009).
868 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Public organizations have begun to rapidly adopt formal diversity management pro-
grams (Kellough and Naff, 2004). However, diversity management is an ambiguous con-
cept that does not seem to be implemented consistently across organizations. For example,
some organizations may simply repackage their longstanding Afrmative Action/Equal
Employment Opportunity ofces, renaming them Diversity Management as a means of
staying up-to-date on nomenclature (Kellough and Naff, 2004). Although many argue that
Equal Employment issues remain vital to an organization that actively manages diversity,
the movement in the eld has been away from these legalistic responses to diversity and
more toward strategic ones (Riccucci, 2002; S. C. Selden and F. Selden, 2001; Thomas,
1990; Wise and Tschirhart, 2000). In their survey of federal agency, human resource man-
agers Kellough and Naff (2004) found that almost 90% of agencies reported having a di-
versity management program, but the components of these programs varied dramatically.
For empirical researchers, this creates a serious obstacle for creating useful measures of
the diversity management construct. Diversity management is an organizational process
with multiple moving parts that have not been examined very thoroughly by the public
management literature (Kellough and Naff, 2004; Pitts, 2006).
In this article, we rely on Pittss (2006) comprehensive denition of diversity man-
agement as a guiding lens. There is the potential for disagreement about the appropriate
denition of diversity management, but this is a broad conceptualization that seems to cover
most issues relevant to workforce diversity. His model of diversity management includes
three interrelated components: recruitment and outreach, valuing differences, and prag-
matic policies and programs. These components represent the three primary activities
in which an organization engages in order to manage its employee diversity.
The rst of these, recruitment and outreach, considers whether an organization ex-
tends itself to all potential sources of employees. A strategic plan for recruiting from un-
derrepresented groups is a key component of this aspect of diversity management, and
recent research has underscored the importance of recruitment for diversity (Rubaii-Barrett
and Wise, 2007; Selden, 2006). This involves seeking out employees from the labor market
who may not be found through the typical venues. Increasing organizational diversity has
the potential to increase performance, making recruitment a potentially vital step in im-
proving organizational outcomes (Pitts, 2005; Pitts and Jarry, 2007; Wise and Tschirhart,
2000). Organizations with greater staff diversity are more likely to generate innovative
solutions and creative approaches to services (Adler, 2002; Richard, 2000; Richard
et al., 2003).
The second of these processes, valuing differences, is more normative in nature and
considers whether employees and managers appreciate the different cultural assumptions
and biases that employees bring to their work. Previous work argues that multicultural un-
derstanding is imperative for managers who oversee the work of diverse employees, and
such understanding is arguably improved through programs aimed at bridging cultural gaps
(Adler, 2002; Ely and Thomas, 2001; Thomas and Ely, 1996). These programs might take
a number of forms, including diversity training and cultural awareness events. Foldy (2004)
argues that organizational processes aimed at encouraging multicultural learning will lead
to greater benets from existing diversity. Unfortunately, much of the evidence on this
point is anecdotal: Empirical research has not produced much support for the effectiveness
of values-based programs (Cox, 1993; Sanchez and Brock, 1996), and these types of di-
versity training sessions can sometimes promote majority backlash (Riccucci, 1997).
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 869
Although more research is needed before the eld can be condent about the relationship
between values-based diversity training and performance, it remains a key aspect of the
diversity management construct and should be considered in any related empirical research.
Finally, pragmatic programs and policies consist of a strategic set of management
tools that an organization can use to promote employee job satisfaction and performance
(Pitts, 2006). These programs and policies provide an explicit means for underrepresented
or minority employees to work in a culture that is supportive of their needs. Pragmatic
programs and policies typically aim to effectively integrate employees from diverse back-
grounds into the organization, such that diversity is a consideration both pre- and posthire.
Such programs might involve mentoring opportunities for those outside the majority or-
ganizational culture; family friendly programs for those who have children or parents at
home that require care; exible working hours for those who have competing demands and
are unable to work a consistent, 9-to-5 day; and collaborative assignments for those who
work better in groups than individually (Kellough and Naff, 2004; Salzstein et al., 2001).
The list varies by organization, but it reects a strategy on the part of managers to assess
employee needs and create workplace policies that respond to them.
DRIVERS OF DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION
The motivations for engaging in diversity management vary by organization, but we expect
that forces in an organizations environment will be key. Research on organizations has
focused on the central importance of environmental factors since moving toward open sys-
tems theories in the 1950s and 1960s (for a review, see Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). Organ-
izations adapt to their surroundings, and as social, political, and economic environments
shift, managers make decisions about how to alter strategies and processes in response. In
doing so, they adapt to the values of external society (Selznick, 1957). Empirical research
on public organizations has demonstrated that extensively both the external and internal
environments are crucial variables in public management models. In their logic of gover-
nance, Lynn et al. (2001: 17) note that any governance regime, from the local to the in-
ternational, is embedded in a wider social, scal, political, and cultural context. Research
on network management has shown a very consistent relationship between external man-
agement activity and organizational performance (Goerdel, 2006; Meier and OToole,
2001, 2003, 2005). Reforms during the 1990s and early 2000s have arguably increased
the central role of the environment for public organizations as they are marketized and
tasked to compete for the right to offer services (Donahue and Nye, 2002).
Although it is evident that environmental pressures affect management choices, the
specic causal mechanisms are not always clear. In the case of diversity management, there
are a number of environmental forces that could inuence implementation. The purpose of
this article is to isolate three different environmental forces and examine them as drivers of
diversity management implementation. We argue that organizations implement diversity
management programs (a) as a response to environmental uncertainty, (b) as a result of
environmental favorability and resource municence, and/or (c) in order to adapt to en-
vironmental norms and mimic the actions of peer organizations (table 1). Put more simply,
they manage diversity (a) because they have to, (b) because they can, or (c) because ev-
erybody else is. Some organizations may be motivated by more than one of these factors,
and the importance of any given factor is likely to change over time. Although we begin
with a conceptual review of these forces as distinct motivations, our empirical analysis
870 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
permits us to test whether organizations seem to be inuenced by multiple factors at the
same time. In the following sections, we outline these three arguments in the context of
public schools.
Environmental Uncertainty
Environmental uncertainty often encourages organizations to develop strategies for min-
imizing ambiguity. Organizations can either buffer the technical core from unknown
threats, or else they can exploit the changing and uncertain environment as a strategy
for success (OToole and Meier, 1999). In the context of our research, organizations
may implement diversity management as a means of fending off environmental uncer-
tainty. Similar to the actions of a risk-averse individual, organizations try to minimize
the uncertainty in their environment by making decisions that promote stability. Classic
research in contingency theory showed that organizations should structure themselves
in ways that reected the level of uncertainty in the environment (Aldrich and Mindlin,
1978; Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). For example, horizontal organizations
were best for uncertain environments since they permitted fast response to environmental
shifts, whereas vertical organizations were best for certain environments since they pro-
moted efciency (for a review, see Daft, 2008). Contingency theory has expanded beyond
structure to include a number of other management decisions, key among them human
resources policies like diversity management. Perhaps more importantly, research has re-
ned contingency theory to suggest that it is perceptions of the environment that guide
behavior, not necessarily a set of objective environmental conditions that affect all organ-
izations equally (Aldrich and Mindlin, 1978; Galbraith, 1973). Managers make decisions
based on the enacted environment, which means that managers perceptions are more
Table 1
Drivers of Diversity Management Implementation
Driver Example Theoretical Basis Hypothesis
Environmental
uncertainty
School districts implement
diversity management as
a means of buffering against
environmental uncertainty
Contingency theory
(Aldrich and Mindlin,
1978; Lawrence and
Lorsch, 1967)
Organizations in
environments
characterized by
uncertainty are more
likely than others to
adopt diversity
management programs.
Environmental
favorability
School districts implement
diversity management because
they are already performing
well in other areas, have the
funds with which to do so,
and/or have signicant
political support in place
Resource municence
(Dess and Beard, 1983),
capacity (Aldrich, 1979),
contact hypothesis
(Allport, 1954)
Organizations in
resource-rich
environments are more
likely than others to
adopt diversity
management programs.
Institutional
isomorphism
School districts implement
diversity management because
of professional norms or
encouragement from other
actors in the external
environment
Institutional isomorphism
(Ashworth et al., 2009;
DiMaggio and Powell,
1983; Scott, 2003)
Organizations with peers
that have implemented
diversity management
are more likely than
others to adopt it.
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 871
valuable to understanding this process than objective data about environmental stability
and complexity (Duncan, 1972; Weick, 1979). Resource dependence theory would further
predict that managers will make decisions based on the reactions that they anticipate from
important nodes in their network of actors, creating power/dependence relationships that
work to their advantage (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).
In the case of public schools, environmental uncertainty might encourage the adoption
of diversity management as educators struggle to stabilize themselves from environmental
instability and complexity. That uncertainty could arise from a number of sources: chang-
ing student demographics, labor market instability, and changing funding mechanisms are
three key examples. Such uncertainty could reect threats, but it could also reect oppor-
tunities for growth or more benign changes. Ultimately, it does not matter how the uncer-
tainty presents itself but rather the extent to which the manager believes it to exist. The
resulting hypothesized relationship would be that managers who perceived the environment
to be uncertain would be more likely to implement diversity management than those who
did not.
Environmental Favorability and Resource Municence
A second explanation behind diversity management implementation is quite different: The
environment does not require it in the formof uncertainty but rather promotes it through the
municence of resources, time, and intergroup harmony. Organization theorists have long
established that capacity (Aldrich, 1979) and resource municence (Dess and Beard, 1984)
play a large role in determining whether an organization will choose to implement a new
program or policy. Research on organizational suggests that slack resources provide a cli-
mate where programs like diversity management are more likely to prosper (Boyne, 2003;
Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). If resources are plentiful, the rules for adoption become more
relaxed, meaning that potentially contentious programs like diversity management are
more likely to be accepted. Limited research specic to diversity management suggests
that nancial resources are key to implementation success (Pitts, 2007). These resources
may be drawn from both the internal and external environments, the distinction between
which is often vague in public organizations (Rainey, 2003). This is particularly the case in
public school districts, where funding is drawn from a variety of sources at the federal,
state, and local levels.
In addition to nancial resources, time can play a role in creating new programs. For
public school districts, this means whether or not other goals must take priority over di-
versity. School districts that are already performing well on standardized tests, graduating
students, and sending graduates to college have the luxury of creating a diversity manage-
ment program. On the other hand, school districts with high dropout rates and more fun-
damental education problems may have to handle those crises rst. If one assumes that
the amount of time a school district can spend on goals is xed, then it carries that districts
that are already performing well in other areas would be able to devote more attention to
diversity management.
Finally, it is likely that the environment will encourage the development of a diversity
management program if relations between disparate groups are already harmonious. Re-
search shows that this type of harmony in diverse communities is not necessarily the norm.
For example, members of minority communities may hunker down and avoid intermingling
with other minority communities in order to improve their likelihood of survival and
872 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
success (Putnam, 2007). That should change over time as the contact hypothesis suggests
that intergroup harmony improves as the number of out groups increases and contact be-
tween different ethnic groups becomes more frequent (Allport, 1954; Welch and Sigelman,
2000). It is possible that a harmonious environment, marked by signicant out groups
and general inter-group tolerance, will be more likely to implement diversity management
because of a general political will and social desirability.
Institutional Isomorphism
Our third explanation for diversity management implementation is based in institutional
isomorphism, where organizations in the same eld gradually adapt to the same norms
(Aldrich, 1979; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; March and Olsen, 1989). This isomorphism
can take place for a number of reasons, but chief among them for diversity management
would be mimetic and normative forces (Scott, 2003). Mimetic forces might encourage an
organization to change because the change is culturally supported and helps to reduce un-
certainty in the environment. On the other hand, normative forces would encourage an
organization to change out of duty or obligation, with the primary motivation being moral.
These mimetic and normative forces are often very strongDurant (2000) argues that iso-
morphism occurs with public sector reform even when organizations do not completely
understand the reform itself. Some organizations adopt programs simply because they
are perceived as new or innovative, but it is unclear whether they are fully implemented
(Feller, 1981; Perry et al., 1993).
In an examination of isomorphism in English local government, Ashworth et al.
(2009) discuss this process of conformity as having two parts: compliance and conver-
gence. Public organizations may grow to look like one another out of compliance with
a lawor mandate. For example, organizations may be sanctioned on the basis of Afrmative
Action or Equal Employment Opportunity violations, which could spur diversity programs
as a mandated response. On the other hand, organizations can also converge for other
reasons that may not be legal, or even rational, in nature (see also DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). For example, organizations may converge because of shifts in the normative envi-
ronment. It may not be that organizations rationally or strategically create diversity man-
agement programs to address a threat or uncertainty but rather that they implement
them because peer organizations or other external actors seem to think they are socially
necessary.
For diversity management, we believe that this isomorphism is likely to take one of
two paths. It could be that the superintendent learns about diversity management programs
and initiatives through formal education. For example, managers who are more educated
may be more likely to learn about the movement in the eld toward diversity management
programs, which would then inuence their choice to create those programs in their dis-
tricts. It could be that managers who are educated more recently are more likely to be ex-
posed to diversity management since it is a relatively new management tool that may not
have been a key component of older educational programs. However, it may be that di-
versity management is not so much an innovation but rather a program that can result from
normative pressure from ones peers. In this case, one would expect well-networked man-
agers to implement diversity management as a result of pressure from one or more peers in
the network. This convergence is more likely to take place as networking increases since
opportunities for converge increase as the dyads grow in number.
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 873
DATA AND METHODS
We use data from the public education policy setting in order to explore these three drivers
of diversity management implementation. Public education organizations provide an in-
teresting laboratory for investigating diversity management. They are highly profession-
alized with strong norms and values, which makes diversity management more likely to be
implemented there than in policy settings with less professional training and socialization.
Public education organizations tend to be relatively at and invest signicant discretion in
street-level bureaucrats. Given research that demonstrates the signicant inuence that bu-
reaucrat ethnicity can wield on student outcomes (Meier et al., 2000, 2006; Pitts, 2005; Pitts
and Jarry, 2007), diversity management is particularly vital to organizational performance
in public schools.
The data for this analysis are drawn froma 2007 survey of public school district super-
intendents in Texas (see, e.g., Meier and OToole, 2001). The survey was sent to super-
intendents in 1,110 school districts, of whom 757 responded, producing a 68% response
rate. After omitting cases with missing data, we generated 586 useable responses for our
rst model and 596 for our second (see below). Our sample is representative of Texas
school districts as a whole: differences between sample districts and population districts
in demographics, nances, and performance are not statistically signicant.
1
The survey
data are paired with other data on school district characteristics collected in 2007 by the
Texas Education Agency (TEA). We indicate the source for each variable in table 2. The
diversity management survey data are available only for 2007, which limits us to a cross-
sectional research design.
Weuse bothordinaryleast squares (OLS) andorderedprobit regressionwithrobust stan-
dard errors (SEs) to estimate our model. Our dependent variables are both ordinal, which
would typically require the use of an ordered regression method. However, in our case,
the coefcients statistical signicance and magnitude are practically identical in OLS
and ordered probit analyses. Given the relative ease of interpretation gained from OLS,
we discuss those results in the body of the article, but both sets of results appear in table 4.
In the section below, we identify all the variables that we use in the analysis. The
theory on which we base our work does not suggest interactive or curvilinear relationships,
so all these variables are included as additive terms. Many of our variables are drawn from
the same survey, so it is possible that common-source bias limits the strength of our nd-
ings. However, given that we have a reasonable distribution of responses in our data and
recent research has demonstrated that the impacts of common-source bias are typi-
cally minimal, we do not believe that this should create much of an issue for our results
(Crampton and Wagner, 1994; Doty and Glick, 1998; Spector and Brannick, 1995). Finally,
we recognize that endogeneity could affect our ndings. For example, it is possible that
diversity management inuences some of our explanatory variables, such as nonwhite
teachers and harmonious intergroup relations. We do not believe that the impacts are sub-
stantial, given that most of these variables are largely determined by broader environmental
factors. To the extent that diversity management affects teacher race/ethnicity and/or
intergroup relations, those impacts should take place gradually over time. In the immediate
1 t Statistics for difference in means ranged from 0.21 to 1.12 on the eight variables we used to test for the
representativeness of the sample.
874 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
case, we do not have data available to create instrumental variables and use a more ad-
vanced analysis.
VARIABLES
Diversity Management
We use two dependent variables to examine howthese factors inuence the implementation
of particular aspects of diversity management (table 2). To construct those variables, we
used two questions from the superintendent survey. Superintendents were asked to rate the
extent to which they agreed with the two statements: Promoting under-represented groups
to positions of authority is a priority in my district [recruitment and retention],
2
and
Table 2
Variables
Concept Label/Variable Description
Diversity management:
recruitment and retention
Recruitment and retention: Promoting under-represented groups to
positions of authority is a priority in my district (superintendent
survey)
Diversity management:
programs and initiatives
Programs and initiatives: There are special programs in place in my
district to manage diversity among principals, teachers, and staff
(superintendent survey)
Environmental uncertainty Environmental uncertainty: There is a great deal of uncertainty in the
environment in which my district operates (superintendent survey)
Environmental favorability:
resource municence
Revenue per pupil (in thousands of dollars, from TEA)
Environmental favorability:
capacity
1. Student enrollment (in hundreds, from TEA)
2. Superintendent tenure in district (in years, from superintendent
survey)
3. Professional development: How would you rate the quality of
professional development in your district? (superintendent survey)
4. District adopts new ideas: Our district is always among
the rst to adopt new ideas and practices (superintendent survey)
Environmental favorability:
harmonious culture
Harmonious culture: I would characterize relations between diverse
groups in my district as harmonious (superintendent survey)
Institutional isomorphism:
socialization by education
1. Superintendent education (superintendent survey)
2. Superintendent time since degree (number of years since completion
of highest degree, from superintendent survey)
Institutional isomorphism:
socialization by networking
Superintendent networking, which is the composite score of responses
on 10 networking dimensions:Indicate howfrequently you interact
with individuals in the following groups: school board members,
teachers associations, parent groups, local business leaders, other
superintendents, federal education ofcials, state legislators, TEA,
City/County Government, Local police/re departments
(superintendent survey)
Demographic control variables 1. Teacher diversity (by race/ethnicity, from TEA)
2. Student diversity (by race/ethnicity, from TEA)
2 We are unable to disentangle the extent to which responses to this question specically reect recruitment or
retention since the question is worded generally to incorporate both into the same statement.
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 875
There are special programs in place in my district to manage diversity among principals,
teachers, and staff [diversity programs and initiatives]. Responses to all questions ranged
from strongly disagree to strongly agree, using a four-point scale. In the context of our
denition of diversity management, the rst question measures recruitment and outreach
initiatives, whereas the second variable measures the existence of diversity-centered pro-
grams, a broad categorization that encompasses both efforts to promote valuing differences
and efforts that would be categorized as pragmatic programs. Although we are limited in
the availability of data regarding the specic content of these programs,
3
these variables
allow us to tap into whether the district has made efforts to engage in diversity management
more generally.
4
The distribution of responses on the dependent variable was fairly broad, with mean-
ingful percentages at both ends of the scale and the bulk of respondents in the middle. For
our recruitment and retention variable, 9% strongly agreed, 42% agreed, 43% disagreed,
and 6% strongly disagreed. For our diversity programs and initiatives variable, 13%
strongly agreed, 52% agreed, 30% disagreed, and 5% strongly disagreed. There is the po-
tential for bias on these questions since there are typically socially desirable responses
when it comes to questions about diversity. One expects that responses about diversity
management will be articially positive since managers likely believe that they should
be encouraging of underrepresented groups. We do not believe that this should affect
our ndings since we do not think that propensity to provide a socially desirable answer
covaries with any other relevant characteristics of the respondent or organization. If social
desirability were, indeed, driving the responses, we would expect to see considerably more
agree responses than disagree, which does not appear to be the case. For these data, we note
that the diversity programs and initiatives variable is only slightly skewed, whereas the
recruit and retention variable is fairly close to a normal distribution.
5
Environmental Uncertainty
Our rst driver of diversity management speculates that the decision to engage in these
programs may be a function of uncertainty in the environment. We measure this as the
extent to which the superintendent agrees with the statement, There is a great deal of
uncertainty in the environment in which my district operates. Since contingency theorists
argue that managers make decisions on the basis of the enacted environment, perceptions
are much more useful in empirical research than more objective measures of environmental
uncertainty. Responses were distributed across all four categories (strongly disagree, dis-
agree, agree, strongly agree), with a mean value just over 2.
Environmental Favorability
Our second driver links diversity management efforts to factors that would contribute to
a more favorable environment, hypothesizing that organizations engage in diversity
3 Our interest is primarily in exploring the factors that lead to the presence of diversity management practices. Future
research should investigate the factors that lead to different types of diversity management practicesrecruitment/
retention, valuing differences, and the more pragmatic policies and programs.
4 Additionally, these questions do not allowus to tap into the extent to which these programs have been implemented
throughout the district. However, the wording of the questions (programs in place, promoting . . . is a priority)
suggests that these initiatives have already been implemented, at least to some extent.
5 The p values for normality are .02 and .09, respectively.
876 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
management when it is easiest to do so. We include a series of six variables that capture
different aspects of the larger concept of environmental favorability: four variables that
measure organizational capacity, one variable that measures resources, and one variable
that reects harmonious relationships in the environment.
Four variables measure organizational capacity, which in our case reects both inter-
nal and external factors. One of these variables is drawn from a question that asks super-
intendents to rate the extent to which the school district is often among the rst districts to
adopt new ideas. We also include variables for organizational size (student enrollment) and
managerial tenure in the organization (the number of years that the superintendent has been
employed by the district). Given that the superintendent serves at the pleasure of the school
board, longer tenure often results in a looser rein for implementing new programs like di-
versity management. The last variable is a basic rating of the quality of the professional
development in the district. This variable taps into the concept of slack resources since
districts with large professional development programs are those that are most likely to
have the slack resources necessary to implement a program like diversity management.
We also include a more explicit measure of resources by controlling for nancial
wealth, which we measure as revenue per pupil. Finally, our variable for environmental
harmony captures the extent to which the organization is already diversity friendly. This
variable represents the response to the survey questions: I would characterize relations
between diverse groups in my district as harmonious.
Institutional Isomorphism
Our third driver speculates that the likelihood to implement diversity management pro-
grams will be a function of the norms to which the executive manager is exposed. The
motivations behind isomorphism cannot be measured directed, so we use two proxy meas-
ures that reect key aspects of isomorphism in our policy context. We are particularly in-
terested in the possibility that the education and socialization of managers may be a key
explanatory factor in diversity management as many graduate programs in education have
recently incorporated issues related to diversity management into the curriculum. To ex-
plore the effect of professional norms, we include two variables: whether the superinten-
dent holds a doctorate (a dichotomous variable where 1 represents having a doctorate),
and the time since the superintendent has received the most recent degree (measured in
years). We would anticipate that those with doctorates and those who have completed grad-
uate work more recently would be more likely to hold those norms that would lead the
manager to pursue diversity initiatives.
Finally, we are also interested in exploring whether exposure to other organizations is
positively related to diversity management. Here, we hypothesize that as managers become
more engaged in their environment, including interactions with other districts and local
organizations, they will be more likely to engage in diversity management. Managers
who interact with others in the external environment are more likely to learn about
new ideas and innovations, as well as feel social pressure to implement programs that
are being developed in other districts. Our measure of interaction with other groups is
a composite score that combines the level of activity between the superintendent and
the superintendents network, a measure that has been used in a number of previous studies
(see, e.g., Hicklin, 2004; Meier and OToole, 2001; Fernandez and Pitts, 2007). This mea-
sure includes nine items, representing the level of interaction with other superintendents,
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 877
teachers associations, parent groups, local business leaders, federal education ofcials,
state legislators, TEA, city and county government, and local police and re departments
(Cronbachs alpha: .742).
Control Variables
We include two variables that measure the racial/ethnic diversity of student and teachers.
We use a Blau (1977) index of dissimilarity, which is a common means of measuring var-
iation in a categorical variable. The Blau index ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 represents
perfect homogeneity and 1 represents perfect heterogeneity with an innite number of cat-
egories. In our case, with ve categories, the practical limit is 0.8. For example, a school
district with all African-American students would score a 0 since it would be perfectly
homogeneous. A school district with students evenly distributed among all racial/ethnic
groups would score 0.8. This permits us to gauge the extent to which the environment could
produce diversity-oriented conict. We conjecture that organizations with high student and
teacher diversity will see diversity management as an important and necessary response to
these environment characteristics. Not surprisingly, the average district was more diverse
along student lines than among teachers (table 3).
FINDINGS
Results from our data analysis are presented in Table 4. The rst two columns show results
from our model predicting recruitment and retention, whereas the second two columns
show results from the model for diversity programs and initiatives. Within each, the rst
column of results shows coefcients and SEs from the OLS regression, and the second
shows results from the ordered probit analysis. Given the similarities between the two sets
of results, we discuss the OLS coefcients for ease of interpretation.
Environmental uncertainty appears to be related to programs and initiatives more than
recruitment and retention. Increasing the perceived uncertainty of the environment by one
point on a four-point scale corresponds to a 0.132-point increase in diversity programs and
initiatives, holding constant the other independent variables in the model. This is the equiv-
alent of changing ones response from agree to strongly agree. The largest possible shift
moving from strongly disagree to strongly agree or three pointswould correspond to
a 0.396-point shift in the dependent variable or about half of 1 standard deviation
(SD). This relationship is not substantial, but it is not trivial, either. These results suggest
that organizations in environments marked by uncertainty may be more likely to adopt and/
or implement programs aimed at managing diversity.
The coefcient is statistically signicant in the model for programs and initiatives, but
it is not statistically signicant in the model for recruitment and retention. Uncertainty is,
perhaps, more likely to be important to the decision to create broader, more strategic pro-
grams and initiatives than narrowly tailored recruitment and retention policies. Large-scale
diversity programs and initiatives are more likely than recruitment efforts to garner the
attention of other actors in the environment, which would enhance the school districts
power and potential resource base (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). It is also possible that
school districts are attempting to exploit diversity-related possibilities in the environment.
If organizations view diversity as an environmental issuewhether positive or negative
then creating broad policies and programs may make it able to respond more quickly to the
changes that diversity may introduce.
878 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Recruitment
and retention
2.535 0.732
2. Programs
and initiatives
2.728 0.752 0.287***
3. Teacher
diversity
0.113 0.114 0.196*** 0.084**
4. Student
diversity
0.228 0.114 0.289*** 0.076* 0.256***
5. Environmental
uncertainty
2.077 0.726 0.040 0.050 0.136*** 0.077
6. Harmonious
culture
3.162 0.543 0.003** 0.271*** 20.064* 20.052* 20.263***
7. District adopts
new ideas
2.667 0.653 0.103** 0.232*** 0.084* 20.095 20.047 0.157***
8. Professional
development
3.800 0.765 0.112 0.302*** 0.080* 20.027 20.204*** 0.267*** 0.297***
9. Revenue per
pupil
10.037 3.504 20.061* 20.028 20.042*** 20.078** 20.029 0.068 20.020 20.083*
10. Superintendent
tenure in district
4.853 4.393 0.112 0.128** 20.022 20.028 20.046 0.126* 0.046 0.220*** 0.027
11. Student
enrollment (in
hundreds)
37.454 116.266 0.241*** 0.128*** 0.232*** 0.149*** 0.046 20.031* 0.083** 0.164*** 20.134*** 20.004*
12. Superintendent
education
0.341 0.475 0.162*** 0.044 0.084*** 0.154*** 0.114 20.042 0.037 0.000 20.147** 0.024* 0.240***
13. Superintendent
time since degree
18.665 10.249 20.062 0.064 0.024 20.089 20.012 0.116 20.075* 0.112** 20.022 0.301*** 0.001 20.275***
14. Superintendent
networking
0 0.878 0.147*** 0.162*** 20.004 0.144** 0.023 0.094* 0.049* 0.117** 20.018*** 20.087 0.117** 0.130*** 20.088
Statistical signicance: *p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001.
8
7
9
Table 4
Regression Results
Recruitment and Retention Programs and Initiatives
OLS
Ordered
Probit OLS
Ordered
Probit
Environmental uncertainty
Environmental uncertainty 0.011
(0.044)
0.028
(0.074)
0.132**
(0.043)
0.223**
(0.072)
Environmental favorability
Harmonious culture 20.015
(0.065)
20.025
(0.109)
0.289**
(0.065)
0.499**
(0.110)
District adopts new ideas 0.073
(0.048)
0.121
(0.081)
0.181**
(0.048)
0.305**
(0.081)
Professional development 0.047
(0.043)
0.072
(0.073)
0.183**
(0.042)
0.302**
(0.069)
Revenue per pupil (thousands) 0.004
(0.010)
0.008
(0.017)
0.003
(0.012)
0.007
(0.020)
Superintendent tenure in district 0.009**
(0.003)
0.016**
(0.005)
0.005
(0.002)
0.008
(0.004)
Student enrollment (hundreds) 0.001**
(0.0002)
0.002**
(0.0006)
0.0006*
(0.0003)
0.001*
(0.0005)
Institutional isomorphism
Superintendent education
(1 5 doctorate)
0.086
(0.065)
0.131
(0.110)
0.041
(0.062)
0.065
(0.101)
Superintendent time since degree
(years)
20.005
(0.003)
20.009
(0.005)
0.003
(0.003)
0.005
(0.005)
Superintendent networking 0.097**
(0.031)
0.163**
(0.152)
0.097**
(0.036)
0.157**
(0.059)
Demographic control variables
Teacher diversity (Blau index) 0.527
(0.413)
0.843
(0.690)
0.030
(0.383)
0.026
(0.631)
Student diversity (Blau index) 1.544**
(0.283)
2.571**
(0.494)
0.507
(0.270)
0.833
(0.446)
Constant 1.667**
(0.282)
0.050
(0.281)

N 586 586 596 596

Adjusted R
2
/pseudo R
2
.174 .088 .205 .104
Cut point 1 20.369 2.669
Cut point 2 1.429 4.084
Cut point 3 2.983 5.819
Note: Robust SEs in parentheses.
Statistical signicance: *p , .05, **p , .01, two-tailed tests.
880 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Findings are mixed for our second potential driver of diversity management, environ-
mental favorability. The harmonious culture variable is statistically signicant for diversity
programs and initiatives but not for recruitment and retention. These results suggest that
school districts where employees value ethnic and cultural differences may be more likely
to use diversity programs and initiatives but no more likely than others to engage in re-
cruitment and retention. This makes sense, given that environments marked by such har-
mony and cultural awareness probably do not suggest a need for strategic recruitment and
retention initiatives. The organization may already be as diverse as it needs to be, given the
diversity present in the target population, making strategic recruitment less important. In
addition, if the environment is harmonious with regard to racial and ethnic differences,
retention is likely not an issue that requires a formal program. These organizations
may choose instead to devote their efforts toward diversity programs and initiatives that
continue that harmony and ensure that differences continue to be valued. This relationship
is one of the strongest substantive ndings across both models: Increasing the harmonious
culture variable by one point corresponds to a 0.289-point shift in diversity programs and
initiatives.
Our results also suggest that organizational capacity may affect broad programs and
initiatives more than recruitment and retention efforts. A one-point increase in the extent to
which the district adopts new ideas corresponds to a 0.181-point increase in diversity pro-
grams and initiatives, and a one-point increase in the quality of professional development
corresponds to a 0.183-point increase in diversity programs and initiatives. These relation-
ships are moderate in scope, but they demonstrate that a solid infrastructure for professional
development and innovation may be important in implementing broad diversity programs
and policies. Both these variables are statistically signicant at the .01 level in the programs
and initiatives model, but neither is signicant in the recruitment and retention model.
Our primary resource municence variable, average revenue per pupil, is not statis-
tically signicant for either recruitment and retention or diversity programs and initiatives.
It does not seem to matter whether organizations have abundant resources for developing
diversity management programs. We considered that this could be the result of a method-
ological issueperhaps revenue per pupil does not measure resource municence as well
as a different measure. However, we are unable to nd any measure of resources that cor-
responded to diversity management in either direction, positive or negative. Multicollinear-
ity does not seem to be an issue as the highest variance ination factor was 1.28. Perhaps
the role of resources is more indirect, and it really affects diversity management through
other factors, such as professional development opportunities or the adoption of innovative
ideas. Ultimately, we believe that resource municence is a factor that should be taken into
account in this line of research, but we do not nd it to be important in this sample of
organizations.
Our nal driver of implementation is a set of isomorphism variables that suggest that
organizations adopt diversity management measures as a means of mimicking the strategies
of other school districts or inuential actors in the environment. This is tested through three
variables: whether the superintendent holds a doctorate, how recently the superintendent
completed his or her highest degree, and the extent to which the superintendent interacts
with a series of external actors. Support for this driver is mixed. Neither of the two edu-
cation variables is statistically signicant. Superintendents who earned doctorates are no
more likely to engage in diversity management than those who earned masters degrees.
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 881
One might expect that well-educated superintendents would be more likely than others to
be exposed to diversity management or that superintendents educated more recently would
be more likely to be exposed to diversity management, but our results do not demonstrate
this to be the case. On the other hand, our results suggest that interaction with actors in the
external environment may lead organizations to engage in diversity management. The co-
efcient for management networking is positive and statistically signicant at the .01 level
for both recruitment and retention strategies and diversity programs and initiatives. The
substantive relationships are roughly the same in both models: a 1 SD increase in network
management corresponds to roughly a 0.1-point increase in diversity management. This
variable incorporates networking with multiple nodes, and some nodes are undoubtedly
more inuential than others. In auxiliary analyses, we tested each node separately. All were
positively related to diversity management implementation, but teacher associations and
local business leaders appeared to be the most inuential across both models. Future re-
search should consider how different actors in the network inuence diversity management
practices.
These results suggest that isomorphic factors may not differ between the two com-
ponents of diversity management. There are no differences between the isomorphic forces
that correspond to recruitment and retention strategies and those that correspond to diver-
sity programs and initiatives. Neither education variable is signicant in either model, but
network management is signicant for both and has roughly the same coefcient for both.
Although consistent, these results do not suggest that isomorphismis a primary explanation
behind the implementation of diversity management. Only one of three variables is sig-
nicant, and its substantive signicance is somewhat weak. It is possible that isomorphism
operates through other avenuesperhaps the convergence of norms is not reected by the
education variables that we use as proxy measures in our analysis (Ashworth et al., 2009).
Future research should work to further clarify how isomorphic pressures operate in the
context of diversity.
CONCLUSION
This analysis demonstrates that diversity management springs froma series of complex and
nuanced environmental factors. It is not possible to directly compare the three drivers of
diversity management implementation that we formulate, but we do show varying levels of
support for each. It seems that isomorphic inuences are the least important, but environ-
mental favorability and uncertainty are both relevant predictors. Motivations are different
for recruitment and retention than for diversity programs and initiatives.
Results indicate that organizations appear to be responding to environmental issues.
For example, organizations with high student and teacher diversity are most likely to create
recruitment and retention strategies, which is a good means of directly addressing these
environmental demographics. We also nd that organizations in uncertain environments
are more likely to implement broad diversity programs and initiatives. This should be an
effective approach, insofar as broad and overarching diversity policies may permit the or-
ganization to better adapt to environmental changes. Future research should examine the
impact of the environment more explicitly through a resource dependence lens since it
seems possible that organizations may implement diversity management programs as
a means of gaining legitimacy with actors in the environment who believe that such pro-
grams are important. It is beyond the scope of this article to test the relationship between
882 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
diversity management and performance, but previous research suggests that these actions
may be the best way for organizations to avoid the pitfalls of diversity while taking ad-
vantage of its benets (Pitts, 2009).
Practicing managers might use these results to think about how the environments in
which they operate could affect their implementation of diversity management initiatives.
For example, managers may choose to adopt diversity management if their organization is
similar to those that already have. These results show that organizations that frequently
adopt new ideas and already have strong professional development programs seem more
likely to adopt broad policies on diversity. A harmonious culture with regard to diversity
seems to encourage diversity programs and policies, whereas teacher and student diversity
appear to encourage recruitment and retention programs. To the extent that managers wish
to align themselves with other organizations in their environment, these ndings give them
a glimpse into the relevant factors to consider.
These conclusions must be considered in the context of a few methodological caveats.
Future research should consider ways of expanding upon our approach to include a more
nuanced and comprehensive measurement of diversity management. Our dependent var-
iables reect responses to only two survey questions, and our ndings would be reinforced
by a more complete measure of diversity management implementation or adoption. Several
of our measures are attitudinal, and there is the potential for social desirability bias that
could yield inconclusive results. We are also limited by data from one policy area, which
limits the generalizability of our ndings. These results would be strengthened by similar
ndings in another policy setting or type of organization. Although we believe our results
are robust and meaningful for other education organizations, we cannot claimwith certainty
that they would operate the same for organizations that were less professionalized, more
hierarchical, or more routinized. Our models are able to explain only about one-fth of the
variation in diversity management implementation, indicating that factors that we did not
include in our model could be important inuences. The eld should also work to develop
panel data sets that make it possible to test these relationships as they shift over time since
cross-sectional data are limited in their ability to demonstrate causal relationships. Finally,
the eld would benet from additional qualitative inquiry about diversity management.
Well-executed case studies would improve our ability to make causal assumptions and
complement the quantitative evidence we bring to bear in this article.
Future research should consider how diversity management programs conspire with
the environment to produce particular performance outcomes. If diversity management
is a key moderator between diversity and performance, how might these environmental
motivations affect that relationship? For example, if diversity management is a response
to environmental threat and uncertainty, does it lead to performance gains that are higher
than in scenarios where environmental threats and uncertainty do not exist? The role of the
organizational environment is crucial to appropriately modeling the relationship between
diversity management and organizational performance.
REFERENCES
Adler, N. J. 2002. International dimensions of organizational behavior, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH:
Southwestern College.
Aldrich, H. E. 1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Aldrich, H. E., and S. Mindlin. 1978. Uncertainty and dependence: Two perspectives on environment. In
Organization and environment, ed. L. Karpik, 14970. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 883
Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Andrews, R., G. A. Boyne, K. J. Meier, L. J. OToole, and R. Walker. 2005. Representative bureaucracy,
organizational strategy and public service performance: An empirical analysis of English local
governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:489504.
Arai, M., D. M. Wanca-Thibault, and D. P. Shockley-Zalabak. 2001. Communication theory and training
approaches for multiculturally diverse organizations: Have academics and practitioners missed the
connection? Public Personnel Management 30:445445.
Ashworth, R., G. Boyne, and R. Delbridge. 2009. Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change
and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 19:16587.
Azevedo, A., E. A. Drost, and M. R. Mullen. 2002. Individualism and collectivism: Toward a strategy for
testing measurement equivalence across culturally diverse groups. Cross Cultural Management
9:1929.
Bertelli, A. M. 2007. Determinants of bureaucratic turnover intention: Evidence from the department of
the treasury. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17:23558.
Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
Boyne, G. A. 2003. Sources of public service improvement: Acritical reviewand research agenda. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory 13:36794.
Cox, T. 1993. Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.
Crampton, Suzanne M., and John A. Wagner. 1994. Percept-percept ination in microorganizational
research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 79:6776.
Daft, R. L. 2008. Organization theory and design. Cincinnati, OH: Thomson.
Dess, G. G., and D. W. Beard. 1983. Dimensions of organizational task environment. Administrative
Science Quarterly 29 (1): 5273.
. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 29:52.
DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and col-
lective rationality in organizational elds. American Sociological Review 48:14760.
. 2001. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Donahue, J. D., and J. S. Nye. 2002. Market-based governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Doty, D. Harold., and William H. Glick. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance
really bias results? Organizational Research Methods 1:374406.
Duncan, R. B. 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental un-
certainty. Administrative Science Quarterly 17:31327.
Durant, R. F. 2000. Whither the neoadministrative state? Toward a polity-centered theory of adminis-
trative reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:79109.
Ely, R. J., and D. A. Thomas. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on
work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46:22973.
Ezra, M., and M. Deckman. 1996. Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and child care in
the federal government. Public Administration Review 56:1749.
Feller, I. 1981. Public sector innovation as conspicuous production. Policy Analysis 7 (1): 120.
Fernandez, S., and D. W. Pitts. 2007. Under what conditions do public managers favor and pursue or-
ganizational change? American Review of Public Administration 37:32441.
Fernandez, S., and H. G. Rainey. 2006. Managing successful organizational change in the public sector.
Public Administration Review 66:16885.
Foldy, E. G. 2004. Learning from diversity: A theoretical exploration. Public Administration Review
64:52938.
Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Goerdel, H. T. 2006. Taking initiative: Proactive management and organizational performance in net-
worked environments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:35167.
Hatch, M. J., and A. L. Cunliffe. 2006. Organization theory. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Hicklin, A. K. 2004. Network stability: Opportunity or obstacle? Public Organization Review 4:157398.
884 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
. 2007. The effect of race-based admissions in public universities: Debunking the myths about
hopwood and proposition 209. Public Administration Review 67:33140.
Ho, M. K. 1987. Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jayne, M. E. A., and R. L. Dipboye. 2004. Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research
ndings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management 43:40924.
Kalev, A., F. Dobbin, and E. Kelly. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efcacy of
corporate afrmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review 71:589617.
Kellough, J. E. 1990. Integration in the public workplace: Determinants of minority and female em-
ployment in federal agencies. Public Administration Review 50:557.
Kellough, J. E., and K. C. Naff. 2004. Responding to a wake-up call: An examination of federal agency
diversity management programs. Administration Society 36:6290.
Kellough, J. E., and D. H. Rosenbloom. 1992. Representative bureaucracy and the EEOC: Did civil service
reform make a difference? In The promise and paradox of civil service reform, eds. P. W. Ingraham
and D. H. Rosenbloom, 24566. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
Lawrence, P. R., and J. W. Lorsch. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (1): 112.
Lynn, L. E., C. J. Heinrich, and C. J. Hill. 2001. Improving governance. Anewlogic for empirical research.
Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.
March, J. G., and J. P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. The organizational basis of politics. New
York: Free Press.
Meier, K. J. 1975. Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review
69:526.
Meier, K. J., C. Doerer, D. Hawes, A. K. Hicklin, and R. R. Rocha. 2006. The role of management and
representation in improving performance of disadvantaged students: An application of Bum
Phillipss Don Shula Rule. Review of Policy Research 23:1095110.
Meier, K. J., and L. J. OToole, Jr. 2001. Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with
evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
11:27194.
. 2003. Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking.
Public Administration Review 63:68999.
. 2005. Managerial networking: Issues of measurement and research design. Administration and
Society 37:52341.
Meier, K. J., J. L. Polinard, and R. D. Wrinkle. 2000. Bureaucracy and organizational performance:
Causality arguments about public schools. American Journal of Political Science 44:590602.
Mosher, F. C. 1982. Democracy and the public service, 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.
Naff, K. C. 2001. To look like America: Dismantling barriers for women and minorities in government.
New York: Westview.
Naff, K. C., and J. E. Kellough. 2003. Ensuring employment equity: Are federal diversity programs
making a difference? International Journal of Public Administration 26:1307.
Ng, E. S. W., andR. J. Burke. 2005. Personorganizationt andthewar for talent: Does diversitymanagement
make a difference? International Journal of Human Resource Management 16:1195210.
OToole, L. J., Jr., and K. J. Meier. 1999. Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of
structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9:50526.
Perry, J. L., K. L. Kraemer, D. Dunkle, and J. King. 1993. Motivations to innovate in public organizations.
In Public management: The state of the art, ed. B. Bozeman. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pfeffer, J., and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
Pitts, D. W. 2005. Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public
organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:61531.
. 2006. Modeling the impact of diversity management. Review of Public Personnel Administration
26:24568.
. 2007. Implementation of diversity programs in public organizations: Lessons from policy im-
plementation research. International Journal of Public Administration 30:157390.
Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 885
. 2009. Diversity management, job satisfaction, and organizational performance: Evidence from
U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review 69:32838.
Pitts, D. W., and E. M. Jarry. 2007. Ethnic diversity and organizational performance: Assessing diversity
effects at the managerial and street levels. International Public Management Journal 10:23354.
Putnam, R. D. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-rst century. Scandinavian
Political Studies 30:13774.
Rainey, H. G. 2003. Understanding and managing public organizations, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Riccucci, N. M. 1997. Cultural diversity programs to prepare for work force 2000: Whats gone wrong?
Public Personnel Management 26 (1): 3541.
. 2002. Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Richard, O., A. McMillan, K. Chadwick, and S. Dwyer. 2003. Employing an innovation strategy in racially
diverse workforces: Effects on rm performance. Group Organization Management 28:10726.
Richard, O. C. 2000. Racial diversity, business strategy, and rm performance: A resource-based view.
Academy of Management Journal 43:16477.
Rubaii-Barrett, N., and L. R. Wise. 2007. From want ads to web sites: What diversity messages are state
governments projecting? Review of Public Personnel Administration 27:2138.
Salzstein, A. L., Y. Ting, and G. H. Salzstein. 2001. Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact
of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration
Review 61:45267.
Sanchez, J. I., and P. Brock. 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among hispanic employees: Is
diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Journal 39:70419.
Scott, W. R. 2003. Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Selden, S. C. 1997. The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a gov-
ernment agency. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
. 2006. A solution in search of a problem? Discrimination, afrmative action, and the new public
service. Public Administration Review 66:91123.
. 2008. Human capital: Tools and strategies for the public sector. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Selden, S. C., and F. Selden. 2001. Rethinking diversity in public organizations for the 21st century:
Moving toward a multicultural model. Administration Society 33:30329.
Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership and administration. New York: Harper Collins.
Spector, Paul E., and Michael T. Brannick. 1955. The nature and effects of method variance in orga-
nizational research. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, eds. Cary
L. Cooper and Ivan T. Robertson, 24974. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
Swann, W. B., J. T. Polzer, D. C. Seyle, and S. J. Ko. 2004. Finding value in diversity: Verication of
personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review 29:927.
Thomas, D. A., and R. J. Ely. 1996. Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity.
Harvard Business Review 74:7990.
Thomas, R. R. 1990. From afrmative action to afrming diversity. Harvard Business Review 90:1108.
Timmerman, T. A. 2000. Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small
Group Research 31:592606.
Watson, W. E., K. Kumar, and L. K. Michaelsen. 1993. Cultural diversitys impact on interaction process
and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management
Journal 36:590602.
Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Welch, S., and L. Sigelman. 2000. Getting to know you? Latino-Anglo social contact. Social Science
Quarterly 81:67.
Wise, L. R., and M. Tschirhart. 2000. Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: How useful is
diversity research for public-sector managers? Public Administration Review 60:38694.
886 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory
Copyright of Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory is the property of Oxford University Press /
UK and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.