Beyond Discrimination in The Study of Gender

429104
Caceres-RodriguezAdministration & Society

© 2011 SAGE Publications
AAS45610.1177/0095399711429104
Article
Administration & Society
The Glass Ceiling

45(6) 674–709
© 2011 SAGE Publications
DOI: 10.1177/0095399711429104
Revisited: Moving aas.sagepub.com
Beyond Discrimination
in the Study of Gender in
Public Organizations
Rick Caceres-Rodriguez1,2
Abstract
Gender continues to shape organizational life in profound ways. Theorizing
about gender in public institutions has been scarce. This article is an attempt
to reinsert gender in our research agenda. First, macro-level theories of
gender in organizations are discussed; then, the literature in public adminis-
tration is surveyed. The author contends that the theory of representative
bureaucracy provides a tremendous theoretical platform for understanding
gender’s sociocultural forces as well as normative avenues and prospects
for change. Such an approach will move us beyond description (i.e., lack of
representation) to a better understanding of how gender is deployed and
acquires signification in organizational life.
Keywords
glass ceiling, discrimination, gender, representative bureaucracy
Historically, men and women have occupied divergent positions in organiza-

tions; women often assume subordinate roles. Such a pattern of stratification
1
State University of New York, Albany, USA
2
National Park Service, Washington, DC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Rick Caceres-Rodriguez, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW 12th floor,
Washington, DC 20005, USA.
Email: rcaceres-rodriguez@albany.edu
Caceres-Rodriguez 675
has been metaphorically referred to as a glass ceiling, since 1986 when Carol
Hymowitz and Timothy Schellhardt coined the term to exemplify the barriers
women face climbing to the executive suite (cited in Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Although the metaphor has been commonly used in the corporate world, its
pervasiveness throughout society at large grants it relevance in any bureau-
cratic context, including the public sector. For instance, top slots in govern-
ment are overwhelmingly the realm of men. They occupy most senior
executive positions in the federal government (Dolan, 2004) and state agency
heads (Riccucci & Saidel, 1997), and dominate the municipal managerial
cadre (Miller, Kerr, & Reid, 1999).
In addition, prior to and during the Progressive Era, government posts
were almost completely foreclosed to women and minorities (Stivers, 2002a).
Therefore, besides to women confronting obstacles climbing the organiza-
tional ladder, a more striking and important separation was that between
the public and private spheres (Stivers, 2002b); women were relegated to
the latter. These norms about the role of women in society spurred sex-based
occupational segregation. The work itself then began to be crafted along
overarching societal gender arrangements. However, not only did occupa-
tions become gendered but also the very way in which that gendering process
took place was inherently discriminatory; feminine jobs are less remunerated
and valued, and of lower authority (Stivers, 2002a). Whereas the glass ceiling
hampers women’s upward mobility in organizations, glass doors exclude
them from male-dominated occupations (Zhang, Schmader, & Forbes, 2008)
and, as a result, from higher salaries and greater authority.
Notwithstanding the significance of gender1 in the lives of working women,
progress toward dismantling overt and subtle barriers preventing women’s
advancement in organizations is evident. Legally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
made illegal sex-based discrimination in employment, among other instances,
and created the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Commission as
enforcement body (Kellough, 2006). Administratively, in 1961 President
Kennedy enacted affirmative action programs throughout the federal govern-
ment and its private contractors to increase job opportunities for women and
minorities alike (Kellough, 2006). State governments soon after followed
suit, enacting antidiscrimination laws and affirmative action plans intended
to complement and extend federal provisions at the state and local levels.
However, the extent to which such a progress can be attributed to existing
laws and administrative programs is highly contested, while some
(Guy, 1993; Stivers, 2002b) even question the very notion of progress given
existing inequalities in women’s power, opportunity, and numbers in public
organizations.
676 Administration & Society 45(6)
An overly legalistic approach that does not take into account organizational
practices is shortsighted. Scholarship on representative bureaucracy has
provided a complementary paradigm for the analysis of gender in organiza-
tions. I intend to tackle this intersection by weaving through existing studies
in public administration and sister disciplines. That is, I will analyze to what
extent gender matters in public administration today and what are some of its
future prospects for public institutions. The underlying goal is to foster
research cohesiveness in terms of methods and conceptualizations to deepen
our understanding and further theorizing. The next section introduces the
various theoretical frameworks from which researchers have drawn. I then
proceed to discuss major themes from the literature: the glass ceiling, promo-
tion, performance, and numbers. The last section concludes with prospects
for organizational change and future research.
Macrotheoretical Frameworks
Although the literature in public administration is plentiful at documenting
past and existent inequalities in public organizations, particularly in regard
to women, there has also been important theorizing as to the nature and con-
sequences of such barriers. For instance, the human capital theory, which is
arguably the most popular in the field, suggests that differences in career
development are, to a large extent, explained by differences in educational
attainment, training, ability, experience, hard work, overall effort, and produc-
tivity (Newman, 1993). That is, because women voluntarily decide to invest
less in their human capital, or choose investments with lower rates of return,
their professional achievement is diminished. The human capital theory has
been highly contested because in the public sector women possess equal or
more education than their male counterparts (Guy, 1993), and receive con-
siderably more “outstanding” performance ratings (Lewis, 1997). Thus, even
when individuals invest in human capital equally, the rate of return in author-
ity varies by gender (Smith, 2002). Consequently, another set of theories
brings broader societal as well as organizational elements to light to account
for the limitations of the human capital approach.
The sociopsychological theory has been used to fill in human capital’s
considerable lacunae by including overarching social norms that influence
individual decisions. Although people make decisions (e.g., whether to
matriculate in college), society delimits the boundaries of their reach, thereby
making some choices more likely than others (Newman, 1993). Such
constraints are enacted through sex roles, socialization, and stereotypes
(Newman, 1993). Specifically, people hold differing stereotypes about men
and women that affect their managerial prospects. Men are associated with
the traits that elicit competence in leadership such as aggressiveness, ambi-
tion, dominance, self-confidence, forcefulness, and self-reliance (Eagly &
Carli, 2007). However, women are linked to communal characteristics that
encompass being affectionate, helpful, friendly, kind, sympathetic, sensitive,
gentle, and soft-spoken (Eagly & Carli, 2007). These notions are indeed the
very foundation of stereotypes and sex roles that impede women’s upward
mobility to leadership positions (Eagly & Sczesny, 2008). Furthermore, the
theory argues that women who enter the realm of men face significant contes-
tation about their competence (Cikara & Fiske, 2008) because management is
manly in nature (Stivers, 2002b). This imposes a serious dilemma for women
moving up the hierarchy whose success depends on the extent to which they
can adopt inherently male managerial traits without jeopardizing their
femaleness (Stivers, 2002b). One of the material effects of these sociopsy-
chological schemata is the continuous devaluation of women leaders, for
male leaders are more likely to receive better performance appraisals
regardless of actual achievements (see Eagly & Carli, 2007 for a review of
experiments).
Another axis of the sociopsychological theory, complementary to mental
associations, is sex roles. In patriarchal societies, there are given norms of
women’s proper place in society and organizations alike, as well as a gen-
dered division of labor that makes it hard for women to successfully perform
conflicting roles (Stivers, 2002b). Although more men now undertake house-
work than ever before, women devote 1.7 hr for every hour that men do
(Eagly & Carli, 2007). Moreover, child care responsibilities fall dispropor-
tionately on women’s shoulders, measured by the time they spend with their
children compared with men (Drago, 2009). For working women managing
family responsibilities, their careers are often interrupted, their absentee-
ism increases, and they seek flexible or part-time jobs (Eagly & Carli,
2007). As a result, women accrue less work experience and fewer hours of
employment annually, all of which impede their career advancement and
upward mobility (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Sabattini & Crosby, 2008).
An implication of the sociopsychological theory is that sex roles pervade
organizational life so deeply that they become indiscernible (Meyerson &
Fletcher, 2003). They are deployed and maintained through cultural norms.
Consequently, they are not just constitutive of individual values, beliefs, and
culture but also of their institutionalized forms, for example, organizational
structures. This is one of the roots of organizational gender inequalities.
“Most organizations have been created by and for men and are based on
male experiences” (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2003, p. 231). Similarly,
stereotypes give form to cultural norms through rejection. This is the reason
why organizational conceptualizations of competence and leadership are built
on traits stereotypically associated with men, as mentioned above (Eagly &
Carli, 2007; Fletcher, 2003; Meyerson & Fletcher, 2003). These are, in sum,
stereotypical images of masculinity (Fletcher, 2003). In unison, sex roles,
socialization, and stereotypes are prescriptive; they provide unconscious
assumptions about how the world works or is supposed to work (in German
weltanschauung “worldview”) as well as organizational life.
According to these theories, then, the glass ceiling, although it has struc-
tural consequences, is a sociocultural production. Traditionally, public
organizations have sought to minimize the salience of gender through merit
hiring, strict position classification systems, EEO laws, antidiscrimination
personnel policies, and training. The aim is to create an infrastructure that is
objective and neutral, in which irrelevant factors for personnel decisions are
not taken into account. For example, merit hiring rests on the sole consider-
ation of “qualifications” through a competitive process for hiring decisions.
When EEO applies, applicants with comparable qualifications ought to have
the same probability of being selected for the job, thereby reducing the like-
lihood of biased decisions. These legal controls address processes (e.g.,
rewards, promotion) and behavior (e.g., discrimination, harassment). An
implicit effect may be resocializing employees to buy into the ethos of
neutrality and fairness. Biased organizational processes, however, may
pose a greater challenge for change because of their embeddedness in orga-
nizational life.
Among the intraorganizational practice approaches is the systemic model
that pays particular attention to organizational structures, distribution of
opportunity, power, and the social composition of groups (Newman, 1993).
Under this model, organizations could either mirror broader societal patterns
of stratification or construe their own. However, these processes of resources
and power allocation consistently show a pattern that privilege men. Similar
meso-level theories of discrimination propose that the majority managerial
elite seek to replicate their gender (and racial) identity to maintain their
hegemony by excluding out-group members (Smith, 2002). Over time, this
pattern shapes the organizational structure and culture. A similar conceptu-
alization is Kanter’s (1977) homosocial reproduction. She contends that
because the promotion process is inherently uncertain, managers are incen-
tivized to develop managerial enclaves of people from similar social back-
grounds and demographic characteristics, so that they can maintain their
hegemony (Kanter, 1977; Smith, 2002).
An extension of the systemic model is Kanter’s (1977) tokenism that

centers on numerical representation. Tokenism entails three perceptual ten-
dencies: visibility, contrast, and assimilation. Because tokens are signifi-
cantly fewer, they become highly visible, and thus subject to more scrutiny
(Cikara & Fiske, 2008). As Kanter put it, “As individuals of their type repre-
sent a smaller numerical proportion of the overall group, they each poten-
tially capture a larger share of awareness given to that group” (p. 210; italics
from original). Contrast, however, unravels a tendency by majority groups to
exaggerate tokens’ unique characteristics, which also serve to demarcate the
boundaries between the two groups (Kanter, 1977). Women are hardly seen
as “one of the guys” (Stivers, 2002b), excluded from networks that grant
opportunities. Finally, assimilation involves the adoption of stereotypical
ideas about tokens that are hard to dismantle because there is not enough
variation among them to make such generalizations untenable (Kanter, 1977).
As a result, the traits of tokens can be easily fixed, even if distorted, to fit the
generalizations (Kanter, 1977). Therefore, women aspiring to occupy mana-
gerial posts are expected to fit into such preconceived characterizations: a
burden that may not exclude women based on their competence, but rather on
their inability to embrace such managerial persona.
The importance of understanding how organizational practices become
gendered lies in the prospects for policy. For instance, the allocation of power
and resources is often determined based on performance. In the public sector,
performance appraisal systems are used to reward and promote employees.
Therefore, at the extent to which appraisals are free from biases (e.g.,
tokenism), competence determines how opportunities are allocated and
rewards granted. In a meta-analysis of performance appraisals in field stud-
ies, overall, no gender bias was found (Bowen, Swim, & Jacobs, 2000).
However, gender stereotyping was found to have a significant effect, for
women were rated significantly higher on feminine measures and men on
masculine measures, whereas neutral measures were not different.
Interestingly, when raters were all men, males were significantly rated
more highly than women, but in a mixed gender context, women were rated
higher (Bowen et al., 2000). Linking back to sex role socialization (i.e.,
management as manly) and given that managerial posts are overwhelming
male dominated, the performance appraisal system may, perhaps inadver-
tently, continue to replicate a glass ceiling effect.
The theoretical approaches I have discussed thus far are not equally appli-
cable to all types of organizations; indeed, large organizations in the public
sector and those that are constrained by nondiscrimination laws and have
formalized personnel systems tend to offer more opportunities for women
(Smith, 2002). Furthermore, there is another set of theories that is organiza-

tional specific, namely, population ecology, resource dependency, institu-
tionalization, and leadership theory.
Population ecology theory draws from evolutionary biology to argue
that changes in the environment (i.e., diverse society, more highly educated
women entering male-dominated occupations) produce, in turn, organiza-
tional transformations (Baron, Mittman, & Newman, 1991). Accordingly,
organizations that assertively respond to the ever-changing environment and
adapt are expected to show lower degrees of segregation and glass ceiling.
Similarly, organizations recently founded would institutionalize the values of
gender equality of the current generations (Baron et al., 1991). However,
older organizations may also desegregate faster, given, among other things,
pressure from the environment associated with their longevity and due to a
matured meritocratic system (Baron et al., 1991).
The resource dependency theory suggests that organizations that depend
on certain constituencies, that at the same time control essential resources,
are influenced by the values and ideals of such constituents (Baron et al.,
1991). Accordingly, organizations whose constituents support women’s
equal status in society are more likely to make opportunities available with-
out regard to gender. The assumption is that constituents will pressure orga-
nizational leaders to adopt remedial actions. For instance, agencies whose
budget allocations depend on the legislature and/or governor may be per-
suaded, á la quid pro quo, to engage in egalitarian practices. Political bodies
today have more women and minorities than ever before that can exercise
pressure to adjust public bureaucracies to current demographic trends. In the
federal government, for example, Congress has instructed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate and report on women’s repre-
sentation in managerial posts (GAO, 2010) and pay gap (GAO, 2003, 2009).
However, the theory is less robust considering public organizations created
by virtue of states or the federal constitution (Baron et al., 1991), because
constitutional amendments often require extraordinary political maneuvering
and popular vote.
Institutionalization theory argues that occupational segregation still per-
sists in organizations because those highly segregated demonstrate through
the “bottom line” operating efficiency and effectiveness (Baron et al., 1991).
It is not until organizations begin to fail at meeting their goals that constitu-
ents start to question the appropriateness of organizational practices (Baron
et al., 1991). Such a failure triggers questions not only about their technical
objective criteria but also about a myriad of institutional practices and
arrangements including workforce demographic composition. Consequently,
some organizations institute affinity groups (e.g., diversity councils) to increase

motivation and citizenship behavior, or to simply repair past failures, which,
in turn, empowers employees. This could also lead to organizational change
from within (Smith, 2002).
Finally, the leadership theory stresses the importance of top-down organi-
zational change. It suggests that organizations headed by women and younger
executives are more likely to be desegregated, because they respond to differ-
ent social schemata that support women’s full integration (Baron et al., 1991).
Also, state agencies with a significant presence of women are more likely to
be headed by women (Bullard & Wright, 1993). Furthermore, Baron’s et al.
(1991) study of California’s civil service showed that agencies with more
female leaders desegregated 2% faster than otherwise similar organizations,
in support of the leadership theory.
Institutionalization and leadership theory have slightly different implica-
tions for public administration than do population ecology and resource
dependency, as they are more closely related to the demographic composition
of public organizations. From an institutional perspective, gender differences
in policy effectiveness may produce greater opportunities for women. As I
will discuss later, for example, if female math teachers significantly increase
female students’ performance in math (Keiser, Wilkins, Meier, & Holland,
2002), and the presence of women police officers increases the amount of
cases of sexual assault filed in court (Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006), then
gender does matter at meeting the bottom line. However, the way in which it
matters depends on the salience of gender in the policy domain (Meier,
1993b). The danger institutionalization and leadership theory uncover, when
taken too strictly, is that they can further solidify the glass ceiling effect by
attaching women to gender-specific policy arenas or organizations.
Leadership theory also suggests a pattern of interorganizational clustering,
whereby women are granted more opportunities in organizations in line with
feminine traits. In the public sector, there are three organizational mission-
oriented categories that have clearly demarcated gender connotations, namely,
distributive, redistributive, and regulatory (Lowi, 1985; Miller et al., 1999).
The importance of this typology, as we will see later, lies in the contextual-
ization it brings to the theorizing of inequalities in general and glass ceiling
in particular.
These macrotheories are sort of the overarching mechanisms through
which the glass ceiling is deployed and sustained (though not exhaustively).
In public administration, however, we have been more successful at docu-
menting and highlighting its material effects, which is the subject I now
turn to.
Revisiting the Glass Ceiling

in Public Organizations
Numeric Representation
The literature in public administration has greatly documented women’s
inroads into managerial slots in government. Most studies focus on either a
level of government, that is, federal, state, and local, or on a single state case
study. They also tend to focus on the variation of human capital variables and
across organizations, following Lowi’s (1985) typology mentioned above.
Overall, women have gained significantly more access to previously restricted
ranks. This claim, however, must be taken with certain degree of skepticism
because such progress is not widely spread throughout the United States
equally. Furthermore, gains are predominantly at lower ranks.
In 1910, women comprised only 10% of the federal government work-
force (see Table 1 for a summary), but reached 48% a little over 70 years later
(Guy, 1993). This represented a 380% change over that period of time.
However, this substantial increment is often attributed to the shortage of
labor that came as a result of the World War II and the emergence of war-
related clerical work (Rung, 2002). From 1939 to 1945, an interval of only
6 years, the percentage of women working for the federal government in the
nation’s capital increased by half (Rung, 2002). After 1945, however, women
began to leave the workforce, and it took 33 years for them to reach the pro-
portion they had achieved in 1945 (Guy, 1993). Mani (1999) reported that
from 1975 to 1995, women increased their share by approximately 10%,
from 34% to 43%, whereas men decreased by the same proportion, from 66%
to 56.6%. Moreover, from 1980 to 1987, women’s overall representation
increased, on average, 3.3% in all agencies (Lewis, 1994). Women’s inroads
into the federal government were far from a steady upward trend, as history
has shown multiple social forces influenced the process.
As shown in Figure 1, more recent statistics show that, in white-collar
jobs, women are overrepresented at the lower end of the grade-level distribu-
tion, whereas men are overrepresented at the higher end. Specifically, women
occupy approximately 60% of jobs at the General Schedule (GS-5) level
and begin to decline almost linearly as grade-level increases. At the GS-11
level, men begin to outnumber women and the greater gap is at the Senior
Executive Service (SES) where women represent almost a third of that
group. Overall, women account for about 44% of the federal workforce.
At the state and local levels, in contrast, women have experienced rela-
tively greater achievements in terms of numbers. For instance, in 1989, they
hired more women than men, except for Utah (Guy, 1993). However, studies
Table 1. Summary of Studies on Glass Ceiling and Glass Walls in the Public Sector.
Study author, Years of data Level of

year collection government Population Variables Major findings
Glass ceiling
Guy and Survey, 1989 Alabama Middle- and Career path, • Women were more likely to identify
Duke upper level agency household tasks, child care, and
(1991) managers culture, career children’s health as impediments to their
obstacles, advancement and more likely to work in
family health and human services agencies that
obligations, traditionally pay less than agencies in
mentorship, traditional male-dominated professions.
behavioral • Women are concentrated in 19 of the
styles 37 agencies, whereas men are scattered
throughout 35 agencies.
Guy (1993) EEOC data, Federal, state, New hires, Career • In 1910, there were 10% women working
1982, 1985, local managers development, at the federal government compared with
1990 workplace 48% in 1987.
policies, • In states, 58% of male managers held
personal advanced degrees beyond the bachelor’s
background, degree compared with 76% of women.
mentorship, • About 50% of women in management
family were married, compared with 80% of men.
obligations
(continued)
683
Table 1. (continued)
684
Bullard and ASAP, 1974, State Agency heads State (north • Women in administrative posts: 1964 (2%),
Wright 1978, 1984, vs. south), 1968 (5%), 1974 (4%), 1978 (7%), 1984 (11%),
(1993) 1988 education, 1988 (18%).
family • Agencies with significant presence of women
background, are more likely to be headed by women.
age, agency • No significant difference is seen in the level
type, political of education of men and women. Women
party, have slightly more interagency mobility than
career path, men.
appointment
authority, time
working, and
salaries
Naff (1994) Focus group Federal Middle- and Human capital, • At GS-9, men were promoted at a rate 33%
and survey, upper level relocations, higher than women, and GS-11 men were
1991; OPM, managers time worked, promoted at a rate 40% higher than women.
CPDF, 1974- child care, Similar rates were seen at other levels.
1990. perceived • Five factors emerged as limiting women’s
discrimination advancement: experience, education,
relocations, time devoted to the job, and
children.
• Controlling for education, experience, and
relocation, women have been promoted
3.40 times and men 3.79 times, statistically
significant at p = 001.
(continued)

Lewis (1994) Data from Federal Full-time white- % female, GS-13- • Agencies with heavily female workforce
OPM, 1987 collar workers plus, grade- tended to be less segregated, had smaller
difference, male–female grade gaps, and relied more
segregation heavily on women in upper and middle
index management than did agencies that employed
fewer women.
• An increase in women’s share of overall
employment was not a guarantee of more
upper level female employment, smaller
male–female differences, or less occupational
segregation.
Riccucci and Survey, 1996 State Agency heads Representative • Women accounted for 25.9% of the
Saidel bureaucracy positions.
(1997) measures • Women are overrepresented at the top in
traditional female-dominated agencies.
baseline • Women have a stratified ratio of 0.51; men
measure, have a 1.52 ratio.
stratification
measure, new
aggregate
measure
(continued)
685
686
Mani (1999) Central Federal Full-time white- Dependent • From 1975 to 1995, the proportion of
Personnel collar workers variable: women increased from 34% to 43%; men
Data File promoted or decreased from 66% to 56.6%.
(OPM), not promoted. • Female nonveterans were more likely than
1975-1990 Independent male nonveterans to receive competitive
variables: promotions. At higher grade levels, there is
veteran status, little difference between the two.
gender, grade • In 1995, women received 55.2% of
level, and year promotions.
Glass walls
Newman Survey, n.d. Florida State Representation, • Female SMS executives are employed in
(1993) administrators human capital traditionally defined female-type agencies that
variables, deliver services.
personal • Fewer women than men were married.
background, • Women confront significantly more sexual
career harassment and unwelcome encounters.
advancement,
sexual
harassment
(continued)

Newman Survey, nd Florida State Human capital, • The majority of women (52%) were
(1994) administrators personal concentrated in redistributive agencies; 31%
background, in regulatory and 17% in distributive.
career • Men were concentrated in distributive
advancement, agencies (40%), with 30% in regulatory, and
sexual 30% in redistributive.
harassment • Across agency type there are differences in
respondents’ profile: the majority came from
middle-class backgrounds; 42% of regulatory
employees were middle-class (40% women,
42% men); distributive 48% (60% women,
46% men); redistributive 58% (53% women,
61% men).
Cornwell OPM, 1982, Federal Female, Black, Employment • Women’s share is higher in agencies with a
and 1984, 1986, and Hispanic share and larger proportion of clerical jobs.
Kellough and 1988 employees change, • Agency characteristics (size, new hires, union
(1994) agency type, strength) do not affect the percentage of
union, level of women employed.
employment
(supervisory,
etc.), location
(continued)
687
688
Bowling ASAP, State Agency heads Human capital, • Clustered in agencies associated with
and Wright 1960-1990 organizational female qualities.
(1998) distribution, • In 1994, 36% of agency heads were promoted
career paths, from a subordinate position within the same
activities on agency; 18% were relocated from another
the job agency within the state; 5% were brought
from agencies in other states; and 35% came
from nonstate positions.
Kerr, Miller, EEOC, 1987, State State employees Agency type, • State agencies with distributive and
and Reid 1989, 1991, occupational regulatory policy employ administrative
(2002) 1993, 1995, segregation workforces characterized by high levels of
1997 sex-based occupational segregation.
• Redistributive agencies tend to be gender
balanced.
• Professional workforces in some distributive
and regulatory agencies became significantly
more gender balanced between 1987 and 1997.
Sneed (2007) Michigan Michigan State employees Agency type, • Departments in the distributive function have
Department occupational the highest levels of gender occupational
of Civil segregation segregation compared with the redistributive.
Service’s • Regulatory departments have less segregation
Annual than distributive and financial.
Workforce
Report,
1980-1981 to
2001-2002
Note: EEOC = Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; CPDF = Central Personnel Data File; ASAP = American State Administrators Project; OPM = Office of Per-
sonnel Management; SMS = Senior Management Service. This table does not report every nuance of each study, nor does it suggest that they neatly fall under either glass
ceiling or glass walls. Such distinction facilitates organization, but most studies overlap between the two. Due to space limit, not all studies were included.
Figure 1. Data drawn from the Central Personnel Data File (OPM September
2010, Senior Executive Service data June 2010).
in Alabama and Florida show that women are concentrated at the bottom of
the organizational hierarchy (Guy & Duke, 1991; Guy & Newman, 2004). In
the state of Florida, for example, 56.6% of women occupied the lowest rungs
(Guy & Newman, 2004). This implies that numeric representation does not
necessarily translate into more opportunities. Women’s jobs tend to be dead-
ended in general, with less or no opportunities for advancement (Baron,
Davis-Blake, & Bielby, 1986). To a large extent, once more, these trends
respond to broader societal division of labor and the worthiness attached to
jobs in general. Therefore, given that women have continued to enter public
organizations progressively, have they broken through the glass ceiling as
well?
Looking Through the Glass

Despite the challenges that women face at moving up the ladder, many have
broken through and made it to the top. From 1964 to 1988 the proportion of
women in administrative head positions in state governments incremented
progressively. Specifically, in 1964, they only made up 2% of administrative
heads (see Table 1; Bullard & Wright, 1993). Their proportion incremented
thereafter to 5% in 1968, decreasing to 4% in 1974, but again took an upward
trend in subsequent years: 1978 (7%), 1984 (11%), and 1988 (18%; Bullard
& Wright, 1993). From 1984 to 1988 the increment represented a 63% change.
In 1994, their share increased to 22% (Bowling & Wright, 1998). In the late
1990s, the number had augmented to approximately 26% (Riccucci & Saidel,
1997), and at the turn of the 21st century, they reached nearly 30% of state
administrative heads (Burke, Cho, & Wright, 2008).
In the federal government, the percentage of women occupying senior
executive positions has increased, particularly throughout the 1980s. In 1974,
women made up only 2% of the SES (Naff, 1994). In 1990, almost 20 years
later, the number had increased to 11% (Naff, 1994), and in 2008, they occu-
pied 29.1% of positions in the SES (Harris, 2009). Similarly, those in the GS
13-15 middle management positions increased from 5% in 1974 to 18% in
1990 (Naff, 1994). Today (see Figure 1), that figure has increased to 31%, not
accounting for actual supervisory role. Although women have clearly gained
some access to realms previously occupied almost exclusively by men, focus-
ing on these token successes may obscure underlying inequalities and incor-
rectly lead to the belief that no barriers exist (Schmitt, Spoor, Danaher, &
Branscombe, 2008). Indeed the journey toward the top of the organizational
hierarchy is different for women and men. Individual and organizational vari-
ables are always at play, predetermining the extent of their success.
Organizational Factors
Women’s advancement to managerial positions is influenced by a myriad
of organizational specific characteristics. In the public sector, Lowi’s (1985)
typology served to categorize organizations based on their mission.
Organizations are divided into distributive (e.g., transportation, general services),
regulatory (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], EEO Commission,
Food and Drug Administration), and redistributive (e.g., Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development). Because these agencies hire from
occupational-specific labor markets that are gendered, a reproduction of such
patterns within organizations occurs. For instance, distributive agencies hire,
among others, engineers, technicians, and construction workers: occupations
that are predominantly male dominated. However, redistributive agencies
target social workers, nurses, and clerks, which are traditionally female
jobs. The significance of this interorganizational clustering is that opportu-
nities for career advancement vary accordingly.
At the federal level, the Department of Education and Human Services are
usually found to have low occupational segregation and significantly more
women at the highest rungs (Lewis, 1994). Moreover, these agencies had
smaller male–female grade gaps (Lewis, 1994). This is because these agencies
rely on a heavily female-dominated labor market. Also, the proportion of

clerical jobs may be higher than other agencies, whereby increasing women’s
share (Cornwell & Kellough, 1994).2 Nonetheless, Lewis (1994) noted that
enhanced women representation in overall employment is not synonymous
of more upper level attainment, nor is it an indicator of smaller male–female
grade differences, or less occupational segregation. However, distributive
agencies such as the Department of Transportation (DOT), and NASA were
among the most segregated (Lewis, 1994). Once again, this may be due to the
overarching occupational segregation in society. The labor market from which
they recruit is predominantly male dominated. Further analysis from 1980 to
1987 shows that NASA has demonstrated important progress (Lewis, 1994).
But the EPA showed the greatest progress overall.
In terms of other organizational characteristics at the federal level, surpris-
ingly, Cornwell and Kellough (1994) did not find evidence that associate
agency size, number of new hires, and union strength with women employ-
ment. In the private sector, however, unionization and organizational size
have been associated with men’s greater opportunity for advancement (Baron
et al., 1986), and in the public sector, unionization has been associated with
greater gender segregation (Baron et al., 1991). In government, occupational
characteristics are powerful predictors of segregation. As women continue to
enter male-dominated occupations, segregation and diminished advancement
are expected to reduce. Although demonstrated previously with descriptive
statistics, Cornwell’s and Kellough’s analysis further supported the “time
effect”—all their year coefficients were large, positive, and statistically sig-
nificant at predicting women’s share of federal jobs.
At the state level, interorganizational segregation follows the pattern
above, women executives clustered in redistributive agencies whereas men
in distributive and regulatory. Of all state government executives from the
1960s to the 1990s, the majority were located in agencies often associated
with female qualities such as aging, arts, community affairs, human services,
and library (Bowling & Wright, 1998; Newman, 1993, 1994). These agencies,
at the same time, tend to have a higher proportion of women in their workforce
(Bullard & Wright, 1993; Riccucci & Saidel, 1997) and are less segregated
(Baron et al., 1991; Sneed, 2007). In contrast, distributive agencies have fewer
women employment and are highly segregated (Kerr, Miller, & Reid, 2002;
Sneed, 2007). In Florida, for example, 17% of women were employed in dis-
tributive agencies, compared with 31% in regulatory and 52% in redistribu-
tive agencies (Newman, 1994). Whereas women follow a clear pattern of
interorganizational segregation, men are widespread throughout organiza-
tions (Guy & Duke, 1991). In Florida, they constitute 40% of the workforce
in distributive agencies, 30% in regulatory agencies, and 30% in redistributive

agencies (Newman, 1994). Guy and Duke (1991) also found that women were
predominantly located in 19 of the 37 agencies they studied, whereas men
were predominantly located in 35 out of 37 agencies.
Other organizational factors that are associated with women’s ascension
to managerial posts at the state level are the gender makeup of leaders, orga-
nizational size and age, and pressure from political actors. Agencies with a
higher proportion of women in the workforce are more likely to be headed by
women (Bullard & Wright, 1993). Furthermore, agencies led by women are
more likely to desegregate faster over time (Baron et al., 1991). This pat-
tern appears to support Kanter’s (1977) homosocial reproduction whereby
management replicates the organizational gender composition in which it is
embedded. However, this trend tends to disappear with individual-level data.
In a study of promotions to the SES in a federal agency, there was no evi-
dence of homosocial reproduction because White men did no better than
women, regardless of decision makers’ gender or race (Powell & Butterfield,
2002). Indeed, of all decisions made from 1987 to 1999, all review panels
combined preferred women, including homogeneous panels (Powell &
Butterfield, 2002). Perhaps EEO policies, affirmative action programs, and
leaders’ commitment to diversity are reducing historical homosocial repro-
ductive trends, factors that are rarely or never controlled for in analyses of
aggregate data.3 Also, it could be that women were simply better candidates
than their male counterparts.4
The longevity of organizations, similarly, shows inconsistent results. For
instance, Baron et al. (1991) found that both the oldest and youngest organi-
zations were desegregating faster than those in the middle. A potential expla-
nation is that younger organizations are influenced by contemporary—although
slow—patterns of occupational desegregation. Nowadays more women
obtain degrees in male-dominated fields, possess higher expectations and
career goals, and have demonstrated competency in management. However,
older organizations may be adapting fast because of their proven ability to
adapt to environmental changes (Baron et al., 1991). Organizational ecolo-
gists would have predicted their extinction had they not adapted to new trends
in the occupational demographic makeup, as well as to pressure from politi-
cal bodies with more women than ever before. Furthermore, as organizations
grow older, policies and rules become more formalized and comprehensive
(Downs, 1967). Experience and learning also come with age (Downs, 1967),
so that past cases of discrimination produce more elaborate and effective
nondiscrimination policies. Last, the relationship between younger and
older organizations at desegregating may be the result of the distinctive
environments and structures in which they are embedded (i.e., contingency

theory). As mentioned previously, one of the contingent factors is the gender
makeup of the labor market from which organizations hire. In the absence of
deliberate actions to attract women to specific positions, organizations will
more likely replicate societally gendered occupational patterns.
Finally, size and political pressure have been positively associated with
women’s integration to management. Interestingly, Baron et al. (1991) found
that organizational growth contributes to integration much more than the rate
of promotion does. In the private sector, the usage of open recruitment for
managerial positions has been associated with greater opportunities for
women (Reskin & McBrier, 2000). Accordingly, as organizations grow and
management positions become available, competitive merit-based hiring
from a larger pool of potential candidates may give women a fair chance of
being selected.
Employees with long tenure are bound by contracts and organizational
traditions (Baron et al., 1991) not necessarily in tune with the current broader
societal trends. In the same study of the California civil service, Baron et al.
(1991) found that accountability plays an important role in integration. For
instance, those agencies that were reprimanded by the State Personnel Board
integrated faster than similar agencies. Thus, strict oversight has the poten-
tial to change organizational structures in regard to the ways opportunities
are allocated.
Individual Factors
Along with organizational factors, individual factors have been associated
with women’s advancement in their careers. This set of factors is in part
related to the human capital theory, but includes other elements over which
women have less control such as family background. According to the human
capital theory, upward mobility is a function, among other things, of educa-
tional attainment. However, education has been found to be insignificant for
women in the private sector (Maume, 2004). In the public sector, education
appears to be mediated by a generational effect; although older women have
greater experience, they have less education. In the federal government, Naff
(1994) found that women and men with less than 10 years of work experi-
ence have the same level of educational attainment, whereas women with
more than 10 years of experience have less education than men (Naff, 1994).
Although they may have the experience necessary for managerial positions,
they do not have the academic training. Others, however, have found no differ-
ence in education between men and women at the SES level (Mani, 1997).
At the state level, there is great variation in terms of educational attain-

ment. Overall, among state managers, 58% of men held advanced degrees
beyond the bachelor’s degree compared with 76% of women (Guy, 1993).
This striking difference may not induce greater upward mobility, because the
importance of education does not only reside in the number of years, but
also in the type of degree obtained. Then, even when studies show no differ-
ence in educational attainment, women hold more bachelor’s of arts degrees,
whereas men hold more degrees in engineering and business (Bullard &
Wright, 1993). This difference in discipline may place women in dead-ended
positions and men in those within career ladders. As a matter of fact, Newman
(1994) found that in Florida, those in regulatory (male dominated) agencies
were more qualified. In redistributive agencies, 70% had undergraduate
degrees (73% women, 67% men), 55% had master’s (53% women, 56% men),
and 24% had doctorate degrees (13% women, 33% men; Newman, 1994).
Whereas women have more undergraduate degrees, men obtained more grad-
uate and advanced degrees. In general, managers are nowadays pursuing grad-
uate degrees at a higher rate; 40% of state agency heads had graduate degrees
in 1964, compared with 58% in 1994 (Bowling & Wright, 1998).
Family structure is another important factor that affects men and women
differently. In studies of longitudinal data, having young children significantly
inhibits upward mobility among White women, but it is insignificant for
White men5 (Maume, 2004). Similarly, in the federal government, women
with children advanced the least, whereas men with children the most (Naff,
1994; Naff & Thomas, 1994). The gap between men and women in terms of
promotion rates was diminished for women with no children (Naff, 1994). As
a result, women who have reached the highest echelon in public organizations
are more likely to postpone motherhood or give it up altogether (Guy, 1993;
Guy & Duke, 1991). At the state level, Guy (1993) found that 71% of women
managers had no children, compared with 48% of men. In the federal govern-
ment, 62% of women reported having children living with them, whereas 80%
of men reported so (Naff & Thomas, 1994).
Furthermore, marriage also appears to hold women back in their career
development. More women than men report not having a spouse or being
divorced (Guy, 1993; Naff & Thomas, 1994; Newman, 1993). Specifically, in
1991 at the federal level, 69% of women in management were married com-
pared with 88% of men (Naff & Thomas, 1994). At the state level, the pattern
is similar. In her study of Florida’s senior executives, Newman (1993) found
that 64% of women were married compared with 83% of men. Therefore,
36% of women had never married or were divorced compared with 16% of
men (Newman, 1993). Other studies, however, show a more striking gap. For
instance, in Alabama, 50% of women in management were married com-

pared with 80% of men (Guy, 1993). Women also are more likely to live
alone and be single parents than their male counterparts (Guy & Duke, 1991).
Evidently, it is easier for men to manage work and family responsibilities than
women, particularly those in managerial positions. Others, however, have
argued that “family” has gender-based signals: whereas for men it elicits sta-
bility, for women it is lack of commitment (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Finally, the social location of managers shapes their career choices and
source of opportunities. Women who reach management posts tend to report
higher socioeconomic status, upper-middle or upper class setting (Guy, 1993).
In state government, 29% of women managers are said to have grown up in
the upper-middle or upper class, whereas only 11% of men shared that back-
ground. On the other hand, 59% of men were raised in lower-middle or
lower class settings, compared with 32% of women (Guy, 1993). As Guy
(1993) put it, “While the average men climb the bureaucratic ladder, the aver-
age woman is shut out” (p. 290). Women were also more likely than men to
come from families with management records. For instance, 28% of women
in state management had mothers who occupied managerial positions com-
pared with only 13% of men (Guy, 1993). Likewise, women’s fathers had a
greater managerial record (44%) than men’s (32%; Guy, 1993). Bullard and
Wright (1993) also found that the parents of women in management held more
college degrees than those of their male counterparts.
Moving Up the Ladder

Organizational factors coupled with individual factors predetermine, to a
large extent, women’s ascension to management posts. However, this rela-
tionship remains obscure. On average, women receive fewer promotions than
men. In the federal government, men advanced at a rate 33% higher than
women at the GS-9 level and 40% higher at the GS-11 (Naff, 1994). Even after
controlling for education and grade at entry, women fall behind in promo-
tions. Whereas men have been promoted 3.79 times, women have been pro-
moted 3.40 times, a statistically significant difference (Naff, 1994). Likewise,
among men and women who started their government careers at the same
grade level, women received, on average, 3.15 promotions compared with
3.92 for men (Naff & Thomas, 1994). Although an examination of federal
employees in the GS-13 to GS-15 levels reveals that women were more likely
than men to be promoted, at lower levels there was no such advantage (Mani,
1999). Perhaps women who have proven their competence in management are
then promoted at a higher rate.
Some of the public personnel policies that have been raised as barriers for
women’s advancement in the federal government are veteran’s preferences.
An analysis of the whole federal full-time workforce suggests that nonveter-
ans are promoted at a higher rate than veterans (Mani, 1999). However,
promotions to the SES show that men and veterans tend to be advantaged
compared with their women counterparts prior to 1990 (Mani, 1999). For
instance, in 1975, 71% of ascensions to the SES were veterans, but this
percentage decreased to 50% in 1995 (Mani, 1999). In 1990, however, pro-
motions to the SES were distributed equally between nonveteran women
and veteran and nonveteran men (Mani, 1999). Veterans’ preferences per
se, therefore, seem to play no role at impeding women’s upward mobility.
Individual factors of the kind exposed above may be of greater importance,
particularly in regard to promotions to high-level management.
Mentorship has been another variable often associated with career
advancement. Because there are fewer women in management posts, the kind
of mentorship women may receive does not necessarily address the very
obstacles they face climbing the ladder. Men may have very different experi-
ences throughout the process, and thus may even be unaware of women’s
particular challenges (Guy, 1993). In Naff and Thomas (1994), 77.1% of
women reported having had a mentor compared with 69.1% of men.
Therefore, women were as likely to receive mentorship as men. Although this
may be a positive sign of advancement for women, it also suggests that it is
easier for men to fit in managerial jobs, as if they had the “right stuff” (Stivers,
2002b). On analyses of state-level data, men are more likely to mentor other
men; the same is also true for women (Guy & Duke, 1991). However, more
men benefit from having mentors of the same sex compared with women
(Guy, 1993). Once more, the importance of women receiving mentorship
from other women is that gender-related elements emerge as part of the learn-
ing process.
The journey to the top is, in the worst case scenario, plagued with unex-
pected obstacles. In Florida, 13% of women executives reported having
experienced unwelcomed sexual advances and 21% received requests for
sexual favors (Newman, 1993). Sexual harassment is a tremendous barrier
for women’s advancement given that most perpetrators are their superiors.
When women have female supervisors, they are less likely to be harassed
than when they are supervised by men (Stockdale & Bhattacharya, 2008).
Because of this, and many other factors, women who have risen to the top
tend to have more interagency mobility (Bowling & Wright, 1998; Bullard
& Wright, 1993). In 1994, at the state level, 18% of agency heads relocated
from other agencies within the state, 36% moved up within the same agency,
5% transferred from other states, and 35% had moved from nonstate posi-
tions (Bowling & Wright, 1998).
Finally, performance is another factor that has a direct impact on promo-
tions, especially to high-level management. Because performance is measured
differently by organizations, comparative studies across states are almost
implausible. The few studies that analyze gender differences in performance
focus on the federal government. However, even in the federal government,
agencies have great latitude in the way they conduct performance appraisals.
Therefore, the extent to which comparison among agencies yields valid results
is highly questionable. Despite this caveat, women receive significantly more
outstanding performance ratings than men, controlling for grade level
and agency (Lewis, 1997; Naff, 1994). Furthermore, in 1990 the Office of
Personnel Management highlighted that 40% more women received outstand-
ing ratings (Naff, 1994). Hence, performance, if anything, should put women
at an advantage rather than behind. But experiments show that outstanding
performance from women and minorities is highly scrutinized and evaluated
by tougher standards than similar performance from men or people of higher
status (Foschi, 2000). Thus, even when women outperform men, they may be
subject to stricter standards for promotions.
In conclusion, women in the public sector continue to be underrepresented
in positions of greater authority and prestige. Structural/organizational fac-
tors coupled with individual characteristics have been used to understand
and explain such stratification. Moving further, the theory of representative
bureaucracy provides the foundation toward a normative avenue to address
such inequity in the distribution of power.
The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy

Thinking about gender and its signification in bureaucracies (i.e., glass ceil-
ing) begs the deontological question that rose in the introduction: What are the
prospects for public institutions? A large part of the answer to that question lies
in the promise, as Selden (1997b) anticipated, of representative bureaucracy.
In this section, I will examine the intersection of the concept of glass ceiling
with the literature on representative bureaucracy to highlight the importance
of an actively representative bureaucracy.
The term and initial conceptualization of representative bureaucracy is
attributed to Kingsley (1944), who first observed in the British context that
class-based representation in public organizations would lead to the enactment
of policies that benefit the poor. In the United States, because social class is
less salient (although present) than demographic characteristics (sex, race,
ethnicity, etc.), the theory was proposed accordingly. The underlying assump-
tion, therefore, is that a representative bureaucracy leads to the contestation
of policy options, thereby enhancing administrative responsibility, account-
ability, legitimacy, and, ultimately, trust in public institutions (Meier, 1975,
1993b). The fundamental operating mechanisms with which the interests of
the represented are taken into account are shared values, beliefs, socialization,
sex roles (Meier, 1993b), and other deeply embedded cultural artifacts that are
distinctive to members of certain groups, usually minorities. For instance,
because women share socially inscribed sex roles such as motherhood, this in
turn colors the lenses through which they analyze administrative decisions,
particularly those in which motherhood is salient (e.g., work and family
issues). No one can articulate the material effects of womanhood, its sub-
stance, and its signification—and translate them into meaningful policy and
decision inputs—better than women.
Mosher (1968) astutely observed that implicit in the discussion of repre-
sentative bureaucracy are two normative avenues: passive and active. A pas-
sive representative bureaucracy seeks to achieve public institutions that mirror
the demographic makeup of society (Meier, 1993b). In the literature, it often
takes the form of numeric representation (e.g., Riccucci & Saidel, 1997).
However, active representation involves the conscious or unconscious engage-
ment of bureaucrats in furthering policies on behalf of members of their group
(Meier, 1993b). As Meier (1993b) succinctly put it, “while passive representa-
tion is a characteristic, active representation is a process” (p. 7). The impor-
tance of this distinction is twofold. First, it highlights the role of discretion or
authority as a precondition to active representation, and second, even when
decisions do not directly benefit minorities, the process by which decisions are
made may benefit the group in question (Meier, 1993b). For example, if
women in the public sector have a different managerial style than men (Guy,
1992), as more women continue to occupy top slots in organizations, new
female managers will find it easier to “fit in” their new roles. In this case, the
process of governing, not necessarily policy outcomes, has become more con-
sonant with the socialization, values, and beliefs of the represented.
Furthermore, research has also sought to link passive and active represen-
tation to provide a more refined specification of active representation. For
instance, level of discretion is positively associated with active representa-
tion (Meier & Bohte, 2001). That is, as minority bureaucrats increase the
level of discretion they can exercise, real or perceived (Sowa & Selden,
2003), they also increase their likelihood of adopting an active representative
role. Such adoption may also be contingent on the degree to which they hold
a “minority representative role perception” (Selden, Brudney, & Kellough,
1998, p. 737). Such role perception is the product of personal background,

organizational socialization, the perceived salience of bureaucratic role con-
ceptions in the execution of organizational duties, and perceptions of role
expectations that others in the policy area may hold for bureaucrats (Selden
et al., 1998). Therefore, it is the adherence to this role, not just demographic
characteristics, that triggers active representation. In addition, external actors
in the policy process, such as interest groups, influence bureaucrats’ role per-
ception because they may demand and expect activism (Rosenthal & Bell,
2003). Ambiguity in the policy domain could hinder active representation or
make it indistinguishable from passive (Riccucci & Meyers, 2004). For
example, welfare caseworkers face competing values when deciding between
encouraging women’s self-sufficiency through employment and helping
mothers’ provide for their young children (Riccucci & Meyers, 2004). Thus,
active representation requires goal and policy clarity.
As Meier (1993b) noted, perhaps because gender is profoundly complex
and its embeddedness is like a major social force, its linkage to policy values
is thus similarly complicated. Policies and their underlying values can rarely
be neatly divided into masculine or feminine. As a result, Meier proposed that
the link between passive and active representation lies in the salience of gen-
der in the policy at hand. That is, women seek to further the interests of other
women when gender, including all the elements it encompasses, is at the core
of the policy dispute. The demarcation between passive and active representa-
tion is further blurred if one considers some of the unintended effects of pas-
sive representation, which could arguably fall in an “intermediate” zone. For
instance, the physical presence of minorities may deter nonminorities from
acting on their bias, for formal or informal complaints may follow suit (Lim,
2006). This behavioral restraint, over time, could unleash changes in the val-
ues and beliefs of nonminority bureaucrats; resocialization might take place
(Lim, 2006).
Research on gender and representative bureaucracy is scarce but promis-
ing. The first study linking passive representation with active found that
female math teachers have a significant positive impact on female students’
math scores on standardized tests in high school (Keiser et al., 2002). In the
overall Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores of female students, female
teachers, in general, not just math, have a substantial positive effect (Keiser
et al., 2002). This suggests that female teachers may influence and shape the
aspirations of their female students in particular, thereby resulting in educa-
tional benefits. Furthermore, Keiser et al. (2002) also found that when women
occupy more than 20% of the managerial slots (e.g., school principals, super-
intendents), female students show significant gains in their SAT, American
College Testing (ACT), and advanced placement scores. In this case, it has
been shown that not only those at the street level (Lipsky, 1980), who deliver
the good or service in question, but also managers may enhance such abilities
by encouraging certain behaviors, setting priorities, and enacting policies
(Meier, 1993b). This is important because whereas most teachers are women,
administrators are overwhelmingly men (a glass ceiling effect). In the Texas
school system, from which the data is drawn, 75% of teachers are women,
27% occupy supervisory positions (principals, assistant principal, assistant
superintendent), and 8.4% are superintendent (Keiser et al., 2002). Reducing
the effects of, or eliminating altogether, the glass ceiling will result in posi-
tive education gains for female students.
To further enlighten how passive representation becomes active at the
street level through identification and shared lived experience, Meier and
Nicholson-Crotty (2006) analyzed data on cases of sexual assault from the 60
largest counties in the United States from 1990 to 1997. They found that the
number of women police officers has a direct effect in the number of cases
filed and the number arrests for sexual assault. Because women may empa-
thize with other women victims of rape in a way that men may not, victims
are more likely to disclose such crimes to other women as well as women
police officers to move these cases forward. This is another instance in which
gender is salient in the policy issue. Therefore, the extent to which the signifi-
cance of gender is acknowledged (i.e., by assigning female officers to such
cases) determines or makes a difference in effectiveness.
In positions of leadership, women also seek to advance the interests, and
are concerned about the needs, of other women. In the federal government,
women in the SES are more likely than men to support women’s issues, but
this is moderated by their share of SES positions (Dolan, 2000). Similarly,
positive attitudes toward women in the organization increase (Dolan, 2000),
which could be the effects of resocialization. However, increased women
representation in leadership ranks not only influences attitudes and socializa-
tion but also has a material effect in the allocation of resources. For instance,
Dolan (2002) found that women have different spending priorities than oth-
erwise comparable men. In general, significantly more women in the SES
believe that spending should be increased for child care, welfare programs,
and aid to big cities to name a few. The tendency, however, varies by orga-
nization, which implies that organizational socialization influences, but does
not erase, gender differences (Dolan, 2002).
Other studies on representative bureaucracy have shown similar effects
with other minority statuses. Active representation has been found by Black
school administrators and teachers in Florida (Meier & Stewart, 1992);
Latino school principals and teachers in Florida (Meier, 1993a); Black

and Hispanic, excluding White men and women, bureaucrats in the EEO
Commission (Hindera, 1993a, 1993b); and Black, Hispanic, and Asian
American district county supervisors of the Farmers Home Administration
(Selden, 1997a, 1997b).
In sum, this body of literature suggests that minority bureaucrats have
a substantive positive effect on minority clientele and other bureaucrats (Lim,
2006). Nevertheless, most research has sought to explore extrabureaucratic
(policy outputs) benefits. Increasing the share of women in public institutions
at various levels certainly has significant intrabureaucratic benefits as well,
particularly at dismantling institutionalized barriers. Regulation and stan-
dardization of public personnel systems have been traditionally implemented
to minimize, if not eradicate, the influence of biases. Although long-standing
systems such as merit hiring, classification, EEO, and nondiscrimination
policies have served to reduce biased considerations for decision making,
bureaucratic resocialization is perhaps a more profound resource. If bureau-
crats maximize their values when making discretionary decisions (Meier,
1993b), then rules are considered but are not necessarily decisive. Representation
thus allows for greater scrutiny as to how, why, and under what circum-
stances decisions are made. Furthermore, relying solely on regulatory mecha-
nisms to level the playing field in organizations falsely assumes that the
problem (glass ceiling) is of misbehavior, rather than of a remarkable socio-
cultural force exercised through sex roles’ socialization and stereotypes that
prescribe women’s proper place in organizations (Acker, 1991).
Hence, the role of institutions is of tremendous value, for they provide the
social location within which gendered practices and processes are devel-
oped, adapted, repeated, and transformed (Acker, 1991; Ferguson, 1984;
Game & Pringle, 1984). Gender not only matters insofar as it shapes social
relationships and experience (Chodorow, 1978) but also because it is woven
in the very fabric of bureaucratic institutions (Keiser et al., 2002). Drawing
from a representative bureaucratic approach, it follows then that active rep-
resentation is a resource with which institutions could change the current
gender arrangement. Active representation enables changes in bureaucrats’
cognition through identity construction and resocialization. Such change, in
turn, transforms the social schemata that drive bureaucratic behavior and
decision making. Put differently, the promise of representative bureaucracy
(using Selden, 1997b) is its potential to transform the very way in which
gender acquires meaning and is enacted (e.g., allocation of power) in the
bureaucratic context.
Conclusion
The value of representation for democratic governance is that it enables a
plurivocal policy-making process, thereby enhancing administrative respon-
sibility, accountability, and responsiveness. Although women in the public
sector have increased in number over time, they continue to occupy posi-
tions of lower authority: a glass ceiling effect. Policy makers have histori-
cally addressed bias and discrimination by enacting formal policies and
personnel systems that seek to minimize the influence of partiality (e.g.,
competitive merit hiring, EEO, position classification, and antidiscrimina-
tion laws). However, as the theories above suggest, the glass ceiling is also
the product of unconscious enactment of sex roles and socialization. A
representative bureaucracy may be of greater significance at diminishing
the effects of gender in organizations because women would attempt to
enact policies that make opportunities available to other women, their pres-
ence at various levels in organizations would dissuade males from acting on
their bias, the presence of women in top slots would encourage other
women to seek advancement, men would update their beliefs on women’s
managerial competence, and finally, it would encourage resocialization for
both men and women.
The normative promise of representative bureaucracy for public institu-
tions has important implications for research. Although research on policy
outcomes has shed light on the extrabureaucratic importance of representation
(e.g., to minority clientele, constituents, citizens), intrabureaucratic outcomes
(e.g., to members of the organization) have remained largely unexplored.
Indeed, distinguishing research in terms of extra- and intrabureaucratic effects
would more thoroughly specify theoretical implications and it would add
attention to organizational phenomena (e.g., glass ceiling). Therefore, an
intrabureaucratic research agenda would entail translating the normative
hypotheses of the previous paragraph into empirical questions. That is, to
what extent and through what mechanisms do women engage in active repre-
sentation that benefit other women in public institutions? Furthermore, what
is the net effect of gender-based active representation for organizational cul-
ture, structure, and practices? Such a research endeavor calls for method-
ological improvements. Longitudinal studies on the intrabureaucratic effects
of representative bureaucracy and glass ceiling in general need to be
undertaken. Baron et al. (1991) is an example of intrabureaucratic effects
over time, but it is not drawn explicitly from the theory of representative
bureaucracy.
Additional research approaches are also necessary. It is imperative that we

continue to move beyond description to provide explanations and causal
links. This would require more qualitative methods such as case studies and
organizational ethnographies. Constructs like culture and socialization,
which are created through social interactions, are better investigated by
interacting with members of the organization. As with most qualitative stud-
ies, generalization would be exchanged for a deeper understanding and abil-
ity to provide meaningful explications.
Although research on representative bureaucracy has contributed with sig-
nificant policy implications, the glass ceiling and other intrabureaucratic
phenomena ought to be examined under this theory. Such an approach
would take us beyond discrimination to a much more profound understanding
of the ways in which gender is enacted and acquires signification in organi-
zational life, including prospects for change.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Mitch Abolafia, Erzsebet Fazekas, and Ellen V. Rubin for helpful com-
ments on previous versions of this manuscript. Of course, errors and omissions are my
sole responsibility.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
Notes
1. I refer to gender and sex interchangeably, although I am fully aware of the differ-
ence for theorizing. The differentiation I would like to make, though, is that sex
is a characteristic, whereas gender a sociocultural process.
2. Cornwell and Kellough also found that the percentage of technical jobs is posi-
tively associated with the proportion of women.
3. It is worth noting that Powell and Butterfield (2002) studied an organization with
seemingly strong support for Equal Employment Opportunity policies. Also,
they do not provide information about organizational policy arena; therefore, it is
impossible to situate the organization according to Lowi’s (1985) typology.
4. Thanks to Ellen V. Rubin for highlighting this point.
5. The coefficient for Black women was positive and significant. This is an impor-
tant instance where gender and race intersect to produce divergent experiences
for women. I do not intend to address race as it is beyond the scope of this article,
but I am fully aware of the significance of race in research on glass ceiling, and
women’s equity in general.
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gen-
der & Society, 4(2), 139-158.
Baron, J. N., Davis-Blake, A., & Bielby, W. T. (1986). The structure of opportunity:
How promotion ladders vary within and among organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 31, 248-273.
Baron, J. N., Mittman, B. S., & Newman, A. E. (1991). Targets of opportunity:
Organizational and environmental determinants of gender integration within the
California civil service, 1975-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1362-1401.
Barreto, M., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. T. (Eds.). (2008). The glass ceiling of
the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association Press.
Bowen, C. C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on
actual job performance of real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 30(10), 2194-2215.
Bowling, C. J., & Wright, D. S. (1998). Change and continuity in state administration:
Administrative leadership across four decades. Public Administration Review, 58,
429-444.
Budig, M. J. (2002). Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: Who rides
the glass escalator? Social Problems, 49, 258-277.
Bullard, A. M., & Wright, D. S. (1993). Circumventing the glass ceiling: Women
executives in American state governments. Public Administration Review, 53,
189-202.
Burke, B. F., Cho, C. L., & Wright, D. S. (2008). Continuity and change in executive
leadership: Insights from the perspectives of state administrators. Public Admin-
istration Review, 68, 29-36.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology
of gender. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. (2008). Warmth, competence, and ambivalent sexism: Vertical
assault and collateral damage. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.),
The glass ceiling of the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality
(pp. 73-96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Cornwell, C., & Kellough, J. E. (1994). Women and minorities in federal govern-
ment agencies: Examining new evidence from panel data. Public Administration
Review, 54, 265-269.
Dolan, J. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative
bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 513-529.
Dolan, J. (2002). Representative bureaucracy in the federal executive: Gender and
spending priorities. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12,
353-375.
Dolan, J. (2004). Gender equity: Illusion or reality for women in the federal executive
service. Public Administration Review, 64, 299-308.
Downs, A. (1967). The life cycle of bureaus. In A. Downs (Ed.), Inside bureaucracy
(pp. 5-23). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Drago, R. (2009). The parenting of infants: A time-use study. Monthly Labor Review
(pp. 33-43).
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women
become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2008). Stereotypes about women, men, and leaders:
Have time changed. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass
ceiling of the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 21-47).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Ferguson, K. (1984). The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Fletcher, J. K. (2003). The greatly exaggerated demise of heroic leadership: Gender,
power, and the myth of the female advantage. In R. J. Ely, E. G. Foldy, M. A.
Scully (Eds.), Reader in gender, work, and organization (pp. 204-210). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and Research. Annual
Review of Sociology, 26, 21-42.
Game, A., & Pringle, R. (1984). Gender at work. London, England: Pluto Press.
Government Accountability Office. (2003). Women’s earnings: Work patterns
partially explain difference between men’s and women’s earnings (Report No.
GAO-04–35). Washington, DC: Author.
Government Accountability Office. (2009). Women’s pay: Converging characteristics
of men and women in the federal workforce help explain the narrowing pay gap
(Report No. GAO-09–621T). Washington, DC: Author.
Government Accountability Office. (2010). Women in management: Analysis of
female’s manager representation, characteristics, and pay (Report No. GAO-
10–892R). Washington, DC: Author.
Guy, M. E. (1992). Women and men of the states: Public administrators at the state
level. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Guy, M. E. (1993). Three steps forward, two steps backward: The status of wom-
en’s integration into public management. Public Administration Review, 53,
285-292.
Guy, M. E., & Duke, L. L. (1991). Career advancement and behavioral style among
Alabama’s public managers: A comparison by sex. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 11, 1-16.
Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation
and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64, 289-298.
Hale, M. M. (1999). He says, she says: Gender and worklife. Public Administration
Review, 59, 410-424.
Harris, G. L. A. (2009). Revisiting affirmative action in leveling the playing field:
Who have been the true beneficiaries anyway? Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 29, 354-372.
Hindera, J. J. (1993a). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active repre-
sentation 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 rep-
resentation in the EEOC district offices. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 95-108.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Kellough, E. J. (2006). Understanding affirmative action: Politics, discrimination,
and the search for justice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Keiser, L. R., Wilkins, V. M., Meier, K. J., & Holland, C. A. (2002). Lipstick and loga-
rithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American
Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
Kerr, B., Miller, W., & Reid, M. (2002). Sex-based occupational segregation in U.S.
state bureaucracies, 1987-97. Public Administration Review, 62, 412-423.
Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch
Press.
Lewis, G. B. (1994). Women, occupations, and federal agencies: Occupational mix
and interagency differences in sexual inequality in federal white-collar employ-
ment. Public Administration Review, 54, 271-276.
Lewis, G. B. (1997). Race, sex, and performance ratings in the federal service. Public
Administration Review, 57, 479-489.
Lim, H. H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and
active representation. Public Administration Review, 66, 193-204.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public
services. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Lowi, T. J. (1985). The state in politics: The relation between policy and administration.
In R. G. Noll (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Mani, B. G. (1997). Gender and the federal senior executive service: Where is the
glass ceiling? Public Personnel Management, 26, 545-558.
Mani, B. G. (1999). Challenges and opportunities for women to advance in the federal civil
service: Veteran’s preferences and promotions. Public Administration Review,
59, 523-534.
Maume, D. J. (2004). Is the glass ceiling a unique form of inequality? Evidence from a
random-effect model of managerial attainment. Work and Occupations, 31, 250-274.
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 The-
ory, 3, 393-414.
Meier, K. J. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition.
Research in Public Administration, 2(1), 1-35.
Meier, K. J., & Bohte, J. (2001). Structure and discretion: Missing links in represen-
tative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11,
455-470.
Meier, K. J., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and
law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66,
850-860.
Meier, K. J., & Stewart, J. (1992). The impact of representative bureaucracies: Edu-
cational systems and public policies. American Review of Public Administration,
22, 157-171.
Meyerson, D. E. & Fletcher, J.K. (2003). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass
ceiling. In R.J. Ely, E.G. Foldy, M.A. Scully (Eds.), Reader in gender, work, and
organization (pp. 230-241). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Miller, W., Kerr, B., & Reid, M. (1999). A national study of gender-based occupa-
tional segregation in municipal bureaucracies: Persistence of glass walls? Public
Mosher, F. C. (1968). Democracy and the public service. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Naff, K. C. (1994). Through the glass ceiling: Prospects for the advancement of
women in the federal civil service. Public Administration Review, 54, 507-514.
Naff, K. C., & Thomas, S. (1994). The glass ceiling revisited: Determinants of federal
job advancement. Policy Studies Review, 13, 249-272.
Newman, M. A. (1993). Career advancement: Does gender make a difference? American
Review of Public Administration, 23, 361-384.
Newman, M. A. (1994). Gender and Lowi’s thesis: Implications for career advance-
ment. Public Administration Review, 54, 277-284.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2002). Exploring the influence of decision makers’
race and gender on actual promotion to top management. Personnel Psychology,
55, 397-428.
Reskin, B. F., & McBrier, D. B. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations’ employ-
ment of male and female managers. American Sociological Review, 65, 210-233.
Riccucci, N. M., & Meyers, M. K. (2004). Linking passive and active representation:
The case of frontline workers in welfare agencies. Journal of Public Administra-
tion Research and Theory, 14, 585-597.
Riccucci, N. M., & Saidel, J. R. (1997). The representativeness of state-level bureau-
cratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public
Rosenthal, C. S., & Bell, L. C. (2003). From passive to active representation: The
case of women congressional staff. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 31, 65-82.
Rung, M. C. (2002). Servants of the state: Managing diversity and democracy in the
federal workforce, 1933-1956. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Sabattini, L., & Crosby, F. (2008). Ceilings and walls: Work-life and family-friendly
policies. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling
of the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 201-223).
Schmitt, M., Spoor, J., Danaher, K., & Branscombe, N. (2008). Rose-colored
glasses: How tokenism and comparisons with the past reduce the visibility of
gender inequality. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass
ceiling of the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 49-71).
Selden, S. C. (1997a). Representative bureaucracy: Examining the linkage between
passive and active representation in the Farmers Home Administration. American
Review of Public Administration, 27, 22-42.
Selden, S. C. (1997b). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and
responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Selden, S. C., Brudney, J. L., & Kellough, J. E. (1998). Bureaucracy as a representative
institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic
theory. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 717-744.
Smith, R. A. (2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: Theory and
research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 509-542.
Sneed, B. G. (2007). Glass walls in state bureaucracies: Examining the difference
departmental function can make. Public Administration Review, 67, 880-891.
Sowa, J. E., & Selden, S. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representa-
tion: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Adminis-
tration Review, 63, 700-710.
Stivers, C. (2002a). Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public administration
in the Progressive Era. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
Stivers, C. (2002b). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the
administrative state. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Stockdale, M., & Bhattacharya, G. (2008). Sexual harassment and the glass ceiling.
In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling of the 21st
century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 171-199). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association Press.
Zhang, S., Schmader, T., & Forbes, C. (2008). The effects of gender stereotypes on
women’s career choice: Opening the glass door. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, &
M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling of the 21st century: Understanding barri-
ers to gender equality (pp. 125-150). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association Press.
Author Biography
Rick Caceres-Rodriguez is a PhD candidate at the Rockefeller College of Public
Affairs & Policy, SUNY-Albany. His research agenda lies at the intersection of public
administration, sociology, and psychology. His current research projects include a
study on the construction of race in organizations. He currently works in the Office
of Human Resources at the National Park Service.

Beyond Discrimination in The Study of Gender

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beyond Discrimination in The Study of Gender

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

429104

Caceres-RodriguezAdministration & Society

The Glass Ceiling

Historically, men and women have occupied divergent positions in organiza-

An extension of the systemic model is Kanter’s (1977) tokenism that

(Smith, 2002). Furthermore, there is another set of theories that is organiza-

some organizations institute affinity groups (e.g., diversity councils) to increase

Revisiting the Glass Ceiling

Study author, Years of data Level of

Study author, Years of data Level of

Study author, Years of data Level of

Study author, Years of data Level of

Looking Through the Glass

rely on a heavily female-dominated labor market. Also, the proportion of

in distributive agencies, 30% in regulatory agencies, and 30% in redistributive

environments and structures in which they are embedded (i.e., contingency

At the state level, there is great variation in terms of educational attain-

instance, in Alabama, 50% of women in management were married com-

Moving Up the Ladder

The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy

1998, p. 737). Such role perception is the product of personal background,

Latino school principals and teachers in Florida (Meier, 1993a); Black

Additional research approaches are also necessary. It is imperative that we

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like