Does the bureaucracy represent the interests of the public or react to the partisan and ideological demands of political principals? This study uses data from the federal workforce reports and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Central Personnel Data File to demonstrate that partisanship and ideology influence the demographic composition of the federal senior executives. The analysis indicates that fluctuation between administrations is largely attributed to presidents nominating and appointing individuals who share similar ideological views. The analysis also suggests that political control by ideologically driven principals has the potential to perpetuate divisiveness over polarizing issues. The partisan and ideological influences that continue to influence access to policy-making positions contribute to the perpetuation of patterned disparities in the representation of interests and undermine government performance.
BrewerG.MarantoR. (2000). Comparing the roles of political appointees and career executives in the U.S. federal executive branch. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 69-87.
2.
CollinsS. (1997). Black corporate executives: The making and breaking of a Black middle class. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
3.
ColvinR.RiccucciN. (2003). Employment nondiscrimination policies: Assessing implementation and measuring effectiveness. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(1), 95-108.
4.
CoxT.BealeR. (1997). Developing competency to manage diversity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
5.
CrumJ. (2008). Serving the public interest. Issues of Merit, 13(2), 2-3.
6.
CrumpackerM.CrumpackerJ. M. (2008). The U.S. federal Senior Executive Service (SES) and gender diversity: Would proposed legislation enhancing the representational diversity of selection panels necessarily increase the number of female appointments to the SES?Public Personnel Management, 37, 417-433.
7.
DiSepioL. (1996). Counting on the Latino vote. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
8.
DiSepioL.delaGarzaR.SetzlerM. (1999). Awash in the mainstream. Boulder, CO: Westview.
9.
DobbsM. (1996). Managing diversity: Lessons from the private sector. Public Personnel Management, 25, 351-367.
10.
DolanJ. (2000a). Influencing policy at the top of the federal bureaucracy: A comparison of career and political senior executives. Public Administration Review, 60, 573-581.
11.
DolanJ. (2000b). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 513-529.
12.
DolanJ. (2004). Gender equity: Illusion or reality for women in the federal executive service?Public Administration Review, 64, 299-308.
13.
FernandezJ.BarrM. (1993). The diversity advantage. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
14.
FineM.JohnsonF. (1990). Cultural diversity in the workplace. Public Personnel Management, 19, 305-319.
15.
GestR.MarantoR. (2000). Gaining practical insights from experience: Reflections on cases of racial discrimination in federal service. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20, 55-67.
16.
GoodeS.BaldwinJ. (2005). Predictors of African American representation in municipal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25, 29-55.
17.
GossR. P. (2004). Symposium on affirmative action: Affirmative action and equality of opportunity. PA Times, 28(7), 3.
18.
GreeneV.SeldenS.BrewerG. (2001). Measuring power and presence: Bureaucratic representation in the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 379-402.
19.
HsiehC.WinslowE. (2006). Gender representation in the federal workforce: A comparison among groups. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 276-294.
20.
KeiserL.WilkinsV.MeierK.HollandC. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
21.
KimC. K. (2003). The effects of a president’s party on federal senior executive employment: An empirical analysis on representative bureaucracy. Administration & Society, 35, 160-183.
22.
KingD. (1995). Separate and unequal: Black Americans and the United States federal government. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
LewisG. B. (1997). Race, sex, and performance ratings in the federal service. Public Administration Review, 57, 479-489.
24.
ManiB. (2001). Gender and the federal senior executive service: Where is the glass ceiling?Public Personnel Management, 26, 545-558.
25.
MarantoR. (2005). A government of strangers: How career executives and political appointees can turn conflict to cooperation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
26.
McDanielR.WallsM. (1997). Diversity as a management strategy for organizations: A view through the lens of chaos and quantum theories. Journal of Management Inquiry, 6, 363-375.
27.
MeierK. J. (1993). Politics and the bureaucracy: Policy-making in the fourth branch of government (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
28.
MosherF. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
29.
NaffK.CrumJ. (2000). The president and representative bureaucracy: Rhetoric and reality. Public Administration Review, 60, 98-110.
30.
NaffK.KelloughJ. E. (2003). Ensuring employment equity: Are federal diversity programs making a difference?International Journal of Public Administration, 26, 1307-1336.
31.
NielsenL.WolfP. (2001). Representative bureaucracy and harder questions: A response to Meier, Wrinkle, and Polinard. Journal of Politics, 63, 598-615.
32.
PitkinH. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33.
PittsD. (2006). Modeling the impact of diversity management. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 245-268.
34.
PowellG.ButterfieldD. (1997). Effect of race on promotions to top management in a federal department. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 112-128.
35.
PowellG.ButterfieldD. (2002). Exploring the influence of decision makers’ race and gender on actual promotions to top management. Personnel Psychology, 55, 398-428.
RiccucciN. M. (2002). Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview.
38.
RiccucciN. M.SeidelJ. (1997). The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucratic puzzle. Public Administration Review, 57, 423-439.
39.
SegalJ.TimponeR.HowardR. (2000). Buyer beware? Presidential influence through Supreme Court appointments. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 557-573.
40.
SeldenS. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
41.
SoniV. (2000). A 21st century reception for diversity in the public sector: A case study. Public Administration Review, 60, 395-408.
42.
StehrS. D. (1997). Top bureaucrats and the distribution of influence in Reagan’s executive branch. Public Administration Review, 57, 75-82.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2001). Senior executive service: Diversity increased in the past decade (GAO-01-377). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
45.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2003). Senior executive service: Enhanced agency efforts needed to improve diversity as the senior corps turns over (GAO-04-123T). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
46.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Human capital: Diversity in the federal SES and the senior levels of the U.S. postal service (GAO-07-838T). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
47.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2008). Human capital: Diversity in the federal SES and senior levels of the U.S. postal service and processes for selecting new executives (GAO-08-609T). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
48.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1992). A question of equity: Women and the glass ceiling in the federal government. Washington, DC: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
WilliamsW. (1993). George Bush and executive branch domestic policy-making competence. Policy Studies Journal, 2, 700-717.
51.
WiseL.TschierhartM. (2000). Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: How useful is diversity research for public sector managers?Public Administration Review, 60, 386-395.
