Race in the Middle: Exploring the Impacts of Managerial Differences on Organizational Performance

Abstract

Public administration studies often fail to address the role of middle management in organizations. On the whole, most scholarship focuses on either top-level or street-level bureaucrats while the saliency of racial identity for management practices is an understudied phenomenon. Bridging the literatures on race in public administration and middle management, we argue that race is a significant component of managerial strategy. Utilizing a large-N dataset of school administrators, this analysis seeks to assess whether differences exist among mid-level managers. Specifically, this study addresses two questions. First, in what ways does middle manager strategy differ by race? Second, if such differences exist, how do they affect organizational performance? Preliminary findings suggest variation in management styles and policy preferences across racial groups. Moreover, race acts as a correlate of administrative and strategy choices, yet the overall impacts of these differential practices are mixed.

Keywords

middle managers race racial identity managerial strategy organizational performance

Introduction

It is widely substantiated in the literature that management matters for public organizations (Cohen et al., 2008; Meier, 2003; Meier & O’Toole, 2002; Moore, 1995). Scholars have consistently assessed management at top levels; yet, ambiguity remains regarding the ways in which middle management matters. Situated in positions to interact with top-level administrators, street-level bureaucrats, and actors in external environments, middle managers are central to public service delivery.

Another understudied phenomenon in public management is the influence of race and racial identity on managerial strategy and organizational performance.¹ Past research has investigated the intersections of race and public administration in two identifiable streams of literature: representative bureaucracy and diversity management. Studies on representative bureaucracy that focus on race consider the ability of shared racial background to facilitate representation and improved public service delivery (Keiser et al., 2002; Meier et al., 1999; Roch et al., 2010; Selden, 1998; Theobald & Haider-Markel, 2009). Diversity management scholarship focuses on the importance of programs and policies that create workplaces where various social identities are appreciated (Pitts et al., 2010; Riccucci, 2002) and how such orientations affect performance (Pitts, 2006, 2009). Despite these evolving areas of inquiry, very few studies focus specifically on minority public managers, their experiences, and how racial minority status in public agencies affects public service performance (Carroll et al., 2019; Molina, 2016, 2018).

As an embedded reality of the nation, race is manifest in social, economic, and political spaces and manifest within government organizations at all levels. Well-documented shortages of racial minorities in management positions have made the systematic study of minority status in public agencies difficult. In 2018, 38% of the federal workforce was comprised of a racial minority group, yet only 22% of Senior Executive Service positions were held by racial minorities (Office of Personnel Management [OPM], 2018). These statistics suggest lack of proportional representation to the public and relegation of minorities to lower positions in the federal bureaucracy. The focus of this analysis is neither a discussion of reasons why numerical representation lacks proportionality nor the ramifications of such discrepancies. Instead, we address the reality that scholarship knows little about how racial identity influences mid-level administrators. Notable studies from the 1970s and 1980s recognized “a minority experience” where public administrators of color strategically juggled pressures from their organizations, communities, and themselves (Henderson, 1979; Herbert, 1974); however, these works predated diversity gains across managerial positions and contemporary reforms in social equity and inclusion as well as societal ebbs and flows in the ways we view, discuss, and are impacted by race and racial identity.

This analysis bridges multiple literatures and contends that race plays a significant role in middle management strategy. Specifically, this study poses two questions. First, in what ways does race impact the strategy choices of middle managers? Second, if race is a factor in managerial decision-making, what are the effects on public service performance? This paper is organized into four sections. First, we review existing scholarship in two key areas: (1) middle management and (2) race and public administration. Second, we sketch our theoretical framework, interwoven with a set of hypothetical expectations. Third, we describe the research design employed to test our claims. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings for the scholarship and practice of public management in an ever-evolving racial context.

The Role of Middle Managers

Middle managers play a crucial role in the administrative process, yet the organizational impact of their positions remains ambiguous (Balogun, 2003; Conway & Monks, 2011). In an empirical assessment of middle managers from various organizations, Floyd and Wooldridge (1992) find that mid-level administrators’ strategic use of upward and downward activities positively influences organizational performance in the following areas: effectiveness in meeting goals, competitive position, return on assets, efficiency of operation, and growth and financial performance (see also Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Dutton et al., 1997; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992). Several decades of research reflect widespread agreement on the complexity of tasks to which middle managers are assigned such as balancing demands from lower-level bureaucrats, top-level managers, and the external environment, but there is no “dominant theoretical approach” (Gatenby et al., 2015, p. 5) on which to base an understanding of middle managers. According to Hannan et al. (2007, p. 7), middle manager “theory fragments” have lacked integration and present middle managers as both help and hindrance, consistently describing these administrators as “linking pins” (Likert, 1961, p. 50) that simultaneously work upwards and downwards at all times.

Middle managers help by translating strategies defined by superiors into actionable tasks for subordinates (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1994). Given their proximity to clientele and staff on the front-lines as well as participation in and oversight of day-to-day operations, middle managers are often more in tune with multiple layers within organizations (Dutton et al., 1997; Huy, 2001). Morgan et al. (1996) extended this perspective to describe middle managers as buffers that mitigate potential problems or concerns among layers of the hierarchy. Their close contact with frontline workers results in important communication mechanisms whereby street-level bureaucrats provide policy and process feedback up the organizational chain. Put simpler, middle managers synthesize information up and simplify commands down.

The influence middle managers wield as change agents is mixed. Pick and Teo (2017) caution scholars to consider how middle managers are uniquely situated to both initiate and be affected by organizational reform. Floyd and Wooldridge (1994) positively portray middle managers able to strategically assist upper level management during change while Huy (2001) illustrates a skilled change agent equipped to successfully market and implement new ideas. On the other hand, middle managers may hinder progress by purposefully resisting organizational adaptation and practice unwillingness to champion reform due to personal interests or to minimize operational risk (Gatenby et al., 2015; Kras et al., 2017).

Minority Managers in Public Organizations

Despite the diversifying of public agencies and slowly increasing numbers of racial minorities at the upper rungs of organizations (Riccucci, 2009), only few studies have gone beyond numerical counts to theorize about the experiences of minority public administrators. Over 40 years ago, Herbert (1974) theorized that minority managers face six demands in relation to the community and their organizations: traditional role expectations, colleague pressures, system demands, community accountability, personal commitment to the community, and personal ambition. Subsequent scholarship has extended this research to investigate the duality of minority status and bureaucratic power (Henderson, 1979; Martinez, 1991; Murray et al., 1997) as well as glass ceilings and invisible barriers (Greenhaus et al., 1990). Murray et al. (1994) revisited Herbert’s contribution and found that minorities cope with conflicting demands by engaging in compromise strategies that reconcile community and institutional obligations.

Some empirical studies have grounded their contributions in Herbert’s (1974) theory. Melton et al. (2010) assessed differences between White and minority school superintendents’ network management. They found that Black and Latino superintendents networked less with external actors such as local business leaders and other superintendents and spent more time interacting with principals and teachers, or internal actors, than their White counterparts. The interactive influence of race and choice of network strategy on performance translated to better performance outcomes for schools led by minority superintendents. In like manner, Carroll et al. (2019) drew on Herbert’s thesis to examine how minority superintendents navigate organizational versus community pressures.

While studies on representative bureaucracy have addressed the ways in which shared identity leads to better outcomes, the bulk of this research has focused on street-level bureaucrats and their interactions with co-ethnic constituencies. Watkins-Hayes (2009, p. 304) took a slightly different approach by investigating how race is “deployed as a tool” where minority managers contextually strategize their use of racial identity in bureaucratic settings. When interfacing with clientele, welfare office supervisors practice “racialized professionalism”—deciding how great a factor race should play in their interactions with clientele and other bureaucrats. Molina (2016, p. 798) substantiated this perspective and found that minority managers “channel their representation” to strategically respond to performance pressures. These arguments underscore that race and management are inextricably linked and racial identity plays an integral role in public service delivery.

Revisiting the Role of Race: A Theory of Marginalized Minority Management

Management strategy is described as “managerial responses to constraints and opportunities organizations face” (Meier et al., 2007, p. 358). Most scholarship agrees that strategy is: an essential facet of public management (Meier & O’Toole, 2001; Moore, 1995), critical for harnessing maximum organizational potential (Bryson, 1995), and an antecedent to organizational performance (Melton, 2017). While most of what scholarship describes and explores in strategy research finds its derivations in private sector conceptualizations (Dess & Beard, 1984; Miles et al., 1978), public management scholars have theoretically built upon and empirically tested the application of these approaches across contexts (Andrews et al., 2006; Johanson, 2009; Perry & Rainey, 1988).

In their seminal work, Miles and Snow (1978) contend that organizations adopt one of four strategic stances on the basis of which any number of specific (tactical) decisions are to be approached. Prospectors are organizations that consistently search for new opportunities and regularly test out potential responses to new trends (29). Defender types are more conservative and “devote primary attention to improving the efficiency of existing operations” (29). Analyzers represent a middle category—entities reflecting elements of both the prospector and defender. They are rarely the first to “make a move” but assess environmental trends and practices and quickly adopt ideas that seem promising. Reactors are organizations in which top managers frequently observe change and turbulence in their environments, but lack actual strategy. Reactor organizations “seldom make adjustments of any sort until forced to do so by environmental pressures” (29). In contrast to existing scholarship on strategy at that time, their typology depicted strategy-making as a dynamic, fluid process and offers insights into how organizations might improve their position, decide upon which goals to pursue, and what structure to adopt. When applying the widely substantiated Miles and Snow typology to comparisons of White and minority public managers, existing literature does not provide clear direction on whether race and racial identity would affect the type of strategy employed. This analysis investigates whether the perception of strategy might occur through a racial lens and if so, what the performance implications are of such choices.

While strategy is essential to middle managers, this process is complicated upon considering minority status (Molina, 2018). An entirely different set of expectations for minority managers finds its derivations in racial stereotypes and superiority arguments regarding levels of ability and intelligence. When compared to Whites, differential levels of support, assigned authority and discretion, clientele, and service demands affect minority managers’ strategy choices (Herbert, 1974). Some of the factors that allow White middle managers to take risks and practice innovation act as obstacles for minority middle managers. For example, Greenhaus et al. (1990) argue that minority middle managers perceive they receive less support from top-level managers than do non-minority middle managers and treatment discrimination is at least partially responsible for this effect. Similarly, Kanter (1979) found that minority members are given more routine tasks and non-challenging assignments that reinforce negative opinions of minority contributions to organizations and stunt managerial growth. When consumed with routine tasks, minority managers exercise less discretion than non-minorities (Greenhaus et al., 1990) which excludes minority managers from freely envisioning new initiatives and cultivating leadership abilities causing minorities to lower expectations for themselves (Kanter, 1979). Exclusion from formal organizational processes like mentoring and professional development might be mitigated by the prevalence of information, support, and networking opportunities in informal settings; however, Fernandez (1981) observed that minorities are excluded from informal work groups as well. Minority managers have reported less optimism regarding interpersonal relationships and feel less accepted in their organizations than their White counterparts (Greenhaus et al., 1990).

Like White managers, minority managers seek upward mobility, but system demands (implementing top-level proposals), colleague pressures (proving they belong), traditional role expectations (status quo role assignments), and exclusion from professional networking opportunities (ability to rely on “connections”) are a few of the factors that impede managerial capacity (Herbert, 1974) and translate to marginalization. This logic forms the basis of our first hypothesis: strategy choices will differ based on the race of the mid-level manager.

James (2000) contends that Whites tend to have heightened expectations of and more intensely evaluate the work behaviors of minorities. Not only are work behaviors highly scrutinized, but when vying for managerial and supervisory positions, the formal and human capital credentials of minorities receive more intense scrutiny (Smith, 2005). Opportunities for mentorship are also reduced as potential sponsors or mentors tend to be White and will select protégés similar to themselves in terms of social background and with whom self-identification is easier (Kanter, 1979). Minority group members consistently exposed to unfavorable and unfair treatment might internalize such marginalization and engage in self-limiting, rather than success-promoting, managerial actions (Greenhaus et al., 1990).

Increased scrutiny and pressure suggest minority managers will weigh the consequences of their actions given not only their managerial positions, but their perception as minority managers as well. Strategies are not implemented unless there is some level of confidence, even if minimal, that actions will position their organizations (and themselves) better off than if not taken. We therefore derive our second hypothesis: performance outcomes will differ based on the race of the middle manager.

The Empirical Setting

Empirical testing of our hypotheses requires the ability to compare similar organizations with minority and non-minority intermediate level administrators as well as their specific actions. Our data are drawn from public organizations in an important and frequently occurring public-managerial setting: school districts. Educational systems are an appropriate testing ground due to their inherent variation, but also because of the multi-level, bureaucratic structure wherein decisions are both made and implemented. We employ education data from Texas, a large and diverse state with over 25 million residents. The heterogeneity of the state along many points including, but not limited to race and ethnicity, class, and language allows for great variation as well as generalizability to other states.

As mid-level managers on school campuses, principals have myriad responsibilities including bus and lunchroom duty, direction of fire drills, creation and implementation of student discipline policies, and maintenance of parental relationships. Principals oversee faculty and staff and facilitate daily operations; they also network with other district and state education officials to establish and implement academic goals and curriculum. Many principals play a role in resource acquisition and allocation, including human and technological capitals. Principals are held personally and politically responsible for school performance. Their duties lie at the intersection of bureaucratic roles (i.e., leadership of school, management of people, and programs) and political responsibilities (i.e., wielding of external political influence, advocacy for school resources, and adherence to district/state education policies).

To gauge the behavior and strategy preferences of middle managers, this analysis relies on survey data from a sample of Texas school principals. Principals were sent a mail questionnaire² on management styles, goals, and time allocations (1,295 useable responses). The survey instrument included demographic questions, allowing for racial, gender, educational, and experience-based comparisons. The responses represent 16% of the population of Texas principals (8,300) while the racial composition reflects a representative sample (NCES). Non-Whites comprise approximately 25% of all respondents and this percentage changed little over the three-year time period assessed. We combine the responses with 3 years of data (2008–2011) on school performance, resources, and constraints; all non-survey data were obtained from the Texas Education Agency.

Operationalizing Strategy

In like manner to well-cited studies assessing superintendent strategy, we capture the strategy content of school principals by asking about their perspectives aligned to crucial distinguishing features of Miles and Snow (1978) (see Andrews et al., 2006; Boyne & Walker, 2010; Meier et al., 2010; Walker, 2013). These are 4-point Likert scale measures of attitudinal preference. While not perfect, the measures provide reasonable operational meanings for the complex perspectives apparent in managerial behaviors and organizational decision making.

According to Miles and Snow, a prospector is one who seeks opportunities to exploit the environment for organization advantage. To account for this strategy, we use the principal’s agreement with the statement “Our school is always among the first to adopt new ideas and practices.” Defenders focus the organization on its key tasks and seek to be more efficient and effective in those tasks. Such preferences are captured using responses to the statement: “Our school concentrates on making use of what we already know how to do.” Analyzers are depicted as a mix between defenders and prospectors, choosing to adopt ideas when trendy or promising. We therefore use dis-/agreement with “Our school continually adjusts our internal activities and structures in response to stakeholder initiatives and activities” to capture such behaviors. Reactor-type managers change only when necessary as a result of environmental pressure and are tested for using responses to the statement: “our school frequently undergoes change.”³

Responses varied considerably across principals on chosen measures. More than half of the sample (n = 950) tended to agree with being among the first as it relates to innovation. Almost 1,200 (>80% of respondents) principals agreed with concentrating on existing school processes. Approximately 83% of respondents (n = 1,137) agreed with frequent adjustment as a result of stakeholder interests, confirming that external pressures attract attention from schools and school administrations. Interestingly, the sample split almost evenly with respect to frequent change—with 601 principals tending to disagree and 622 tending to agree with this survey item. Preliminary analyses of these data, as shown in Table 1, suggest no substantive differences between these sets of principals indicating the potential of alternative mechanisms not captured by the survey instrument.

Table 1.

Principal Strategy Preferences and Attributes by Race.

Survey item	White principals	Minority principals	t	Significance
Prospector: Our school is always among the first to adopt new ideas and practices.	2.79	2.96	−5.36	0.00
Defender: Our school concentrates on making use of what we already know how to do.	3.05	3.11	−1.46	0.15
Reactor: Our school frequently undergoes change.	2.60	2.58	0.39	0.69
Analyzer: Our school continually adjusts our internal activities and structures in response to stakeholder initiatives and activities.	2.95	3.58	−3.54	0.00
Personal and professional attributes
How many years have you been a principal in any school?	8.246	8.132	0.23	0.40
How many years have you been the principal of this school?	5.106	4.835	0.83	0.20
Before you became a principal, did you have any management experience outside of the field of education?	0.341	0.376	−1.123	0.87
Before you became a principal, did you participate in any district or school training or development program for aspiring school principals?	0.570	0.675	−3.323	0.99

Source. Texas Principals Survey, 2011.

Note. Administered by The Project for Equity, Representation, and Governance.

Performance

The performance of public agencies is intimately linked to management quality (Johansen, 2012; Meier & O’Toole, 2002). Virtually all organizations have multiple goals and are subject to multiple performance indicators—some objectives defined as more important by the political environment than are others. For the time period of investigation, this study incorporates the most salient of all educational performance indicators in Texas: the overall student pass rate on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills. The TAKS is a standardized, criterion-based test that all students in grades 3 through 8 and 11 must take. The grade 11 exam is a high-stakes test, and students must pass it to receive a regular diploma from the state of Texas. TAKS scores are used to rank districts, and it is without question the most visible indicator of performance used to assess the quality of schools. Our measure is the percentage of students in a district who pass all sections of the standardized exam (reading, writing, and math). To place this indicator into context, the average school in this analysis reported a 73% overall pass rate while the majority of schools reported a range between 60% and 85% of students passing.

In this analysis and in educational reality, the performance of schools is modeled to rely on managerial choices, but also an uncontrollable factor of race. If principals of color operate on restricted access to support, mentors, and other necessary resources, what becomes of their schools? We contend that performance is severely circumscribed because minority principals are forced to operate in a marginalized manager capacity.

Controls

Because part of our inquiry assesses public program performance, we include indicators of both task difficulty and program resources. For school districts, neither resources nor constraints are under the subjective control of the districts themselves, and therefore can be considered key parts of the vector of environmentally influenced forces. Fortunately, there is a well-developed literature on educational production functions (Hanushek, 1996; Hedges & Greenwald, 1996). Eight commonly used variables are included in our analysis—three measures of task difficulty (constraints) and five measures of resources.

Schools and school districts vary in how difficult it is to educate students. Some districts have homogeneous student populations from upper middle-class backgrounds and these students are likely to do well in school regardless of what the school does (Burtless, 1996). Other districts with many poor students and highly diverse student bodies will find it more difficult to attain high levels of student achievement because schools might have to make up for less supportive home environments and deal with more complex and varied learning problems (Bohte & Meier, 2000; Jencks & Phillips, 1998). Our three measures of task difficulty are the percentages of students who are Black, Latino, and poor (measured as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch). All three measures should be negatively related to performance.

While the linkage between resources and performance in schools has been controversial and provided mixed conclusions in practice (see Hanushek, 1996; Hedges & Greenwald, 1996), like other organizations, schools with more resources generally fare better (Wenglinsky, 1997). Five measures of resources are included—principals’ years of experience in the school and overall, average teacher salary and years of experience, and enrollment are directly tied to monetary resources. The experience measures capture the human resource capacity necessary to make education processes work. Increases in enrollment should be negatively related to student performance while experience, teacher salary, and per pupil expenditures should positively influence performance.

Does Race Make a Difference in Principal Management Styles?

This analysis investigates two related inquiries: (1) whether principals of color manage differently than Whites and (2) whether distinction in managerial styles affects public school performance. We first present how Black and Latino principals compare to White principals in school strategy choices. Table 1 displays the results of several comparison of means tests and suggests substantive differences between the two groups of administrators.

On average, White principals tended to disagree with an analyzer strategy, or adjusting activities in response to stakeholders (μ = 2.95), compared to principals of color who strongly agreed (μ = 3.58). Principals choose which concerns and challenges of external environments to assuage at what times and in what ways. Balancing stakeholder demands successfully is key to principals’ personal and professional reputations since support from a constellation of actors (e.g., teachers, parents, communities, and non-profits) hangs in the balance.

External stakeholder support provides legitimacy for administrators (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Rourke, 1984; Wamsley & Zald, 1973), and this logic extends further to minority principals in unsupportive school environments. Because principals of color are often hired from communities with large minority populations (Banks, 2007), support and legitimacy are multidimensional phenomena—based not only on shared commitment to or investment in education, but also shared racial and ethnic background. As evidenced nationally and by these data, districts with high percentages of African Americans and Latinos are strongly correlated with increased amounts of eligible minorities in the employment pools from which to select one or more principals of color. Single predictor ordinary least squares regressions show that African American and Latino student populations explain 13% and 22% of the variation in schools with African American and Latino principals, respectively. As Herbert (1974) theorized, pressures and demands on principals of color to advocate for race-specific policies and programs are derived from external support mechanisms. These results indicate that this sample of African American and Latino principals held a significant preference for management approaches that arguably will maintain positive relationships with district members.

Like minority principals, Whites gain support and legitimacy from multiple sources, yet the processes and reasons why support is garnered distinguishes the two sets of school administrators. Preference drives White principals to engage stakeholders of choice—there is no commensurate expectation of interaction with particular actors or constituency groups. Choosing which stakeholder interests to address is a function of managerial expertise, and such choices are not evaluated as rejections of linked fate (Dawson, 2003) or failures in representativeness. Entertaining some stakeholder demands over others is considered standard decision-making for White principals. The saliency of race—and more specifically, minority status—creates a special narrative for minority principals.

Further, African American and Latino principals rely on communities of color to maintain external support during isolating, institutional experiences. Communities of color provide much-needed support, but they also pressure minority principals to “get it right,” particularly for African American and Latino students. Minority principals are expected to strategize in beneficial ways, but never at the expense of co-ethnic populations. Historical disadvantage and lack of opportunity forces minorities to perceive politically powerful co-ethnics as opportunities for upward mobility and advancement. Minority principals are heavily burdened by these expectations as demands become inseparable from technical administrative roles. Support-seeking is a well-established management activity (Boyne, 2002; Moore, 1995) and these findings demonstrate minority status results in the prevalent use of stakeholder-driven strategies.

Principals also differ by race on whether their schools “lead the way” on innovative practices. White and minority principals reported agreement with a prospector stance; however, over half of African American and Latino principals strongly agreed (compared to only 43% of White principals). The adoption and implementation of new ideas involves more than principals, as teachers and support staff are critical to success. However, principals set the tone for their schools, and affirmative responses to this survey item reflect role and responsibility in the adoption and implementation of cutting-edge initiatives.

Results from means comparison tests allow us to only partially reject the null hypothesis that decision-making strategies do not vary by middle manager race (Hypothesis 1). On two of four items, statistically significant differences buttress our argument that race affects strategy choices. Interestingly, principals differ on strategies that require masterful skill in simultaneously managing external environments (stakeholder engagement and innovative practices), but also carefully inside their schools. This substantiates the seminal works of scholars on the relevance of communities of color and the role they play for racial minorities in public management positions (see Herbert, 1974; Henderson, 1979; Martinez, 1991; Murray et al., 1994). Adopting new ideas and responding to stakeholder demands warrants considerable discretion and expertise—reinforcing the importance of ensuring principals of color are provided with ample institutional authority, training, and support as they navigate unpredictable environments.

Because means comparison tests provided mixed results, we further isolated the relationships between race and decision-making to explore whether principals differed on other covariates known to influence management such as previous experience, tenure, and prior training. We found no meaningful differences between principals on these indicators (see Table 1). These data lend no support for arguments that White and principals of color are inherently different. Rather, the findings lend support for our contention that race, minority status, and their effects become important for principals in decision-making processes. It is during these processes that the consequences of structural racism, treatment discrimination, implicit bias, and challenges to authority are apparent. All things considered, White and minority principals manage differently due to their experiences in public school settings.

Do Different Strategies Produce Different Results?

Distinctions in principal strategies beg the question of whether such differences affect school performance. Put another way, are student outcomes influenced by varied experiences of minority and non-minority principals? For this portion of the analysis, we partitioned the data into schools managed by White principals and those managed by principals of color. We utilize ordinary least squares regression with robust standard errors to estimate the following autoregressive equation:

O_{t} = O_{t - 1} + β_{0} + β_{1} (S) {+ X}_{t} (Controls) + ε

(1)

where O is performance, S denotes the strategy employed, X refers to a series of covariates, and ε is the error term.

Regardless of race, practicing a prospector strategy, or being among the first to adopt initiatives, positively affects student performance on state-mandated testing. Positive impacts in the changes to the status quo might reflect institutional capacity⁴ that allows for new initiatives. For example, technologically advanced schools that implement new classroom software (new initiative) might not experience declines in achievement as students are accustomed to computer-based learning. Teachers and students will adjust much more quickly due to prior uses of technology in the classroom. The incorporation of technology in innovative ways renders students better off.

We hypothesized that strategies employed by minority principals would differ from those used by Whites given the racialized weighing of consequences during decision-making processes (Hypothesis 2). This expectation is supported as schools with minority principals experience almost double the impact of their White principal colleagues. These results point to the role structure plays in decision calculation, and that when even potentially risky strategies are taken, African American and Latino principals will fare better than their White peers.

Concentrating on what schools already know how to do, or defender stance, is positively associated with TAKS performance for schools led by White principals and statistically insignificant for principals of color. Academic or extracurricular activities successfully implemented in the past might become institutionalized processes because they worked well. Because defenders are likely to focus on low-risk strategies designed to increase the efficiency of existing capabilities (Andrews et al., 2006), we might expect both sets of principals to utilize a defender stance when necessary. The observed differences shown here—that likely fall within the margin of error—support this expectation. In other words, the effect sizes imply that there is not a significant difference between White and minority principals in the impact of their use of defensive stances. This is not surprising given that this strategy best responds to constant bureaucratic and political pressures to perform, do more with less, and maximize existing resources and capabilities.

The reality of the need for stable processes is also captured here. Instructional pedagogies and curricular options implemented effectively to produce passing standardized test scores might be replicated in years to come to satisfy a host of constituents, including political superiors such as the school board and superintendent. As a common-sense strategy, the defender stance allows managers to operate conservatively and focus on strengths.

Models in Table 3 show the implications of adjusting to external preferences and represent analyzer and reactor strategies. How does satisfying external actors’ requests affect standardized test scores? Two plausible explanations exist. First, stakeholders possessive of financial resources might display support by donating funds toward new computer labs, library materials, or classroom improvements. Any or all of these resources might be reflected in student scores on state-mandated tests as well as other indicators of performance including increased college readiness, more students in advanced courses, and improved graduation rates. Second, community stakeholders might facilitate partnership opportunities with organizations such as the Texas Teaching Commission or participate in programs like Chicago’s Community Schools Initiative to combat underperformance in reading, reduce truancy, or advocate for bilingual education.⁵ Recommendations from partner organizations might directly affect student outcomes as schools will adjust accordingly to obtain or maintain support.

The results show that Black and Latino principals who adopt analyzer stances enjoy substantially different impacts from employing stakeholder-driven strategies than White principals. One explanation is grounded in our contention that minority principals will rationalize decisions through a racial lens—evaluating alternatives and consequences for schools and communities of color prior to implementation. Professional and personal obligations to the community render stakeholder responsiveness one of the multiple factors principals deem necessary to success. Principals seeking external approval desire to maintain networks and recognize that external support boosts student performance (Meier & O’Toole, 2001).

Models 3 and 4 in Table 3 evaluate the role of change (reactor strategy). As a common attribute of public organizations, change is difficult because it disrupts the norm and affects people and processes. Additionally, change is sometimes abrupt, leaving principals and schools without time to prepare or gradually explore options. While these data do not measure how principals manage change, we find that “frequently undergoing change” is negligible for performance of schools with White principals. Most detrimental of all relationships assessed here is the result that continual change dramatically reduces student achievement in schools led by Black and Latino principals. This finding urges principals to monitor how change affects their students and schools overall. Recent work by Boyne and Meier (2009) and Melton (2015) suggests that turbulence impacts performance and in this case might stem from curriculum modifications, teacher or staff turnover, enrollment shifts, or changes in resource munificence. Some or all of these sources might depress performance—and all have the potential to occur simultaneously.

While these data reflect substantial heterogeneity across districts on common cross-cutting cleavages like race and socioeconomic status, more research is needed to determine why change does not appear to affect test scores in some schools, but drastically dampens achievement in others. We assert that a lack of autonomy, discretion, and relegation to menial tasks provides no experience from which minority principals might draw upon when coping with (reacting to) change. We further note that administrators of color are often hired by low-performing, under-resourced schools (U.S. Department of Education et al., 2016) making the job of managing change (or preventing it from influencing salient performance indicators) all the more arduous.

To address the potential impacts of context, we perform two additional tests. First, we specify the following equation to model managerial strategy (O) as a function of principal race (R) and key covariates such as principal tenure experience, and school resources (X):

O = + β_{0} + β_{1} (R) + X (Controls) + ε

(2)

This test, along with the previous models, allows us to determine whether managerial behavior differs by race within similar school contexts or if managerial behavior is correlated with school differences. For each of the four managerial strategy choices investigated here, per pupil expenditures, teacher experience and salary, and school demographic composition are not collinear with managerial race differences (see Supplemental Table A1). In other words, contextual indicators do not explain variation in managerial strategy choices, buttressing our results that race impacts school performance in meaningful ways.

Our second test investigates context further by comparing principals’ assessments of the environment. We use survey items to capture the well-supported difficulties often associated with minority-led schools in majority-minority school districts (Horng et al., 2009). Principals were asked their agreement with the following statements: (1) “I would characterize my school’s environment as relatively complex”; (2) “There is a great deal of uncertainty in the environment in which my school operates”; and (3) “My school’s environment – the political, social, and economic factors – is relatively stable.” In every case, the distribution of responses was the same between minority and non-minority principals—that is, the plurality of responses reflected relatively stable school environments with some uncertainty (see Supplemental Figure A2). While these assessments of environment are perceptions, principals’ observations of their environments drive their actions, rendering perceptions a key determinant of managerial strategy.

The commonality among responses for each environmental measure might explain why context—as measured here—is an insignificant predictor of managerial strategy. On the whole, Black, Latino, and White principals perceived their school environments similarly, and as a result potentially engage with their environments in like manner, yet the effects of principal race continue to show an impact over and above school-related factors. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, managerial race matters for school performance in ways that supersede context.

Table 2.

The Effects of Managerial Strategy on Organizational Performance by Race.

DV: Overall TAKS pass rates
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
	Minority principals	White principals	Minority principals	White principals
Our school is always among the first to adopt new ideas and practices. (Prospector)	4.017 (1.274)***	2.108 (0.566)***	—	—
Our school concentrates on what we already know how to do. (Defender)	—	—	2.791 (1.323)**	2.476 (0.646)***
Principal experience	−0.289 (0.120)**	−0.257 (0.075)***	−0.261 (0.119)**	−0.213 (0.073)
Principal tenure	0.535 (0.209)**	0.443 (0.101)***	0.556 (0.208)**	0.387 (0.071)
Teacher experience	0.253 (0.257)	−0.111 (0.136)	0.217 (0.253)	−0.153 (0.135)**
Teacher salary	0.114 (0.023)***	0.084 (0.011)***	0.121 (0.022)***	0.087 (0.011)***
Per pupil expenditures	−0.367 (0.061)***	−0.288 (0.029)***	−0.368 (0.060)***	−0.293 (0.029)***
% Low income students	−0.104 (0.069)*	−0.180 (0.027)***	−0.131 (0.068)*	−0.178 (0.027)***
% Black students	−0.278 (0.081)***	−0.223 (0.037)***	−0.251 (0.081)***	−0.240 (0.036)***
% Latino students	−0.177 (0.068)*	−0.104 (0.024)***	−0.153 (0.066)**	−0.096 (0.023)***
Enrollment	−0.537 (0.203)**	−0.456 (0.094)***	−0.527 (0.201)**	−0.460 (0.094)***
Intercept	42.081 (10.623)***	62.215 (5.104)***	42.263 (10.786)***	59.925 (5.113)***
N	277	874	276	869
R ²	0.31	0.38	0.31	0.39
F	12.38	53.13	11.95	55.07
Standard error	13.71	11.05	13.58	10.83

Sources. Texas Principals Survey, 2011. Administered by The Project for Equity, Representation, and Governance. Academic Excellence Indicator System, 2008 to 2011, Texas Education Agency.

p = .10. **p = .05. ***p = .01. Robust standard errors in parentheses.

Table 3.

The Effects of Managerial Strategy on Organizational Performance by Race.

DV: Overall TAKS pass rates
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
	Minority principals	White principals	Minority principals	White principals
Our school continually adjusts our internal activities and structures in response to stakeholder initiatives and activities. (Analyzer)	2.597 (1.481)*	1.179 (0.667)*	—	—
Our school frequently undergoes change. (Reactor)	—	—	−2.358 (1.256)*	0.548 (0.564)
Principal experience	−0.281 (0.122)**	−0.228 (0.075)***	−0.257 (0.124)**	−0.243 (0.075)**
Principal tenure	0.605 (0.213)***	0.438 (0.101)	0.696 (0.229)**	0.450 (0.101)***
Teacher experience	0.246 (0.262)	−0.161 (0.135)	0.315 (0.261)	−0.134 (0.136)
Teacher salary	0.117 (0.022)***	0.088 (0.011)***	0.111 (0.023)***	0.085 (0.011)***
Per pupil expenditure	−0.362 (0.062)***	−0.277 (0.029)***	−0.354 (0.062)***	0.288 (0.029)***
% Low income students	−0.115 (0.070)*	−0.175 (0.027)***	−0.139 (0.070)*	−0.182 (0.027)***
% Black students	−0.276 (0.082)***	−0.230 (0.037)***	−0.259 (0.082)**	−0.219 (0.037)***
% Latino students	−0.164 (0.068)*	−0.102 (0.024)***	−0.132 (0.068)*	−0.100 (0.024)***
Enrollment	−0.478 (0.206)**	−0.438 (0.095)***	−0.415 (0.206)**	−0.445 (0.095)***
Intercept	46.559 (10.971)***	62.421 (5.251)***	57.636 (10.782)***	66.562 (5.102)***
N	276	871	278	878
R ²	0.30	0.37	0.30	0.37
F	11.26	51.30	11.57	51.20
Standard error	13.95	11.05	13.84	11.11

Sources. Texas Principals Survey, 2011. Administered by The Project for Equity, Representation, and Governance. Academic Excellence Indicator System, 2008-2011, Texas Education Agency.

p = .10. **p = .05. *** p= .01. Robust standard errors in parentheses.

Double for the Trouble?

Our results demonstrate compounded effects: in all but one instance, victories experienced by White principals are more fruitful for minority principals. Why do minority principals in Texas experience an impact distinctive from their White counterparts? Co-ethnic community pressures as well as school marginalization result in disparate managerial experiences and outcomes. This reality cannot be underestimated as the field endeavors to investigate the role racial identity plays in managerial decision-making. Increased scrutiny and unequal distributions of power, autonomy, and discretion force minority principals to cautiously overinvest time and overcompensate efforts for common managerial tasks. Minority principals realize that every success, and perhaps more importantly every failure, will be judged through a racial lens. This lens might be utilized inside their schools by peer administrators, faculty, and staff who question their abilities and managerial capacities. External manifestations of racialization occur as co-ethnic communities assume preferential treatment. Minority principals must balance co-ethnic group preferences with out-group needs while adhering to public service values of equity and fairness.

Conclusion

Public management literature overwhelmingly supports the idea that management matters. Managerial strategy remains a key component of organizational success, yet few studies pay attention to the role of middle management. Even more scant is a treatment of racial identity and minority status and in the ways these intangible phenomena intersect with managerial decision-making and organizational experiences. This analysis seeks to rectify these gaps and contends that race affects strategy choices and key performance outcomes.

We find mixed evidence to support the argument that minority principals manage differently than their non-minority counterparts. To disentangle whether historical disadvantages played a role in these data, we compared common qualifications of education and training. We found no statistically significant difference among African Americans, Latino, and White principals on these indicators, suggesting that Texas principals do not “show up” to their schools inherently different. We argue that processes—beyond the reach of these data—take place once minorities assume principal positions that result in contrasting experiences and performance outcomes. How school environments facilitate marginalization is a black box to be theoretically and empirically unpacked; however, this analysis supports that unequal playing fields prior to obtaining principal positions are less at work in contemporary management than previous works have demonstrated.

We took our logic a step further to investigate how variations in strategy affect performance. Differences between the sets of principals are apparent in three of the four strategies investigated here. In the relationships where statistical support exists, larger impacts are evident for minority principals. The trends alone lead us to question the nuances of the presence of minority principals. What is significant about persons of color in key management roles, especially ones where managerial interaction is both upward and downward? Is that significance attenuated when principals are marginalized in their positions? How might these findings influence diversity efforts nationwide in not only in educational settings, but other similarly situated bureaucracies that lack diversity in levels higher than the street level? Given the sheer effects shown in the analyses, there may be an inherent performance advantage for minority-managed school campuses.

This reconciliation of middle management and racial minority status has its limitations. A nationally representative sample of principals would have been better. Not only would we benefit from increased variation, but the nuances associated with varied social contexts could be accounted for. We make some assumptions about how principals internalize, or better yet, categorize the decisions they make. With unlimited resources, data collection methods including conducting interviews and experiments would better capture the nature of the phenomena we have begun to uncover here.

We further assume that minority managers are marginalized in their day-to-day organizational environments. This is not to paint a bleak picture of racial dynamics in public agencies, yet it is to portray a realistic understanding of where minority administrators often sit. Even after satisfying necessary requirements to attain supervisory positions, racial minorities find themselves sidelined. Consider a sports metaphor due to the team-oriented nature of public organizations. Ample scholarship demonstrates that racial minorities are invited to spectate, rather than participate in meaningful ways. Our analysis points out that the poisons of racial bias and fear can translate into missed opportunities for public organizations that fail to utilize qualified racial minorities in positions of power.

Finally, for the purposes of analysis, we collapse the variation between Black and Latino principals into one large minority group. While both groups have faced considerable discrimination, marginalization, and relegation to minority status, the two groups have drastically different narratives of social and political incorporation in the United States. There remains a story to be told about the distinct experiences of African American versus Latino pathways to managerial success. In a place like Texas, where Latino populations are sizable, the theory of marginalization might be a non-issue as some districts are completely composed of co-ethnics. On the other hand, in places where great racial heterogeneity exists, Blacks and Latinos might strategically marginalize each other to gain or maintain district power and control. For these reasons, treatments considering the complexity of situational contexts is a worthwhile endeavor.

These findings should be further explored as they echo the over four decades old sentiment that administrators of color are pulled in many directions—in the present case facing pressures from students, parents, education agencies, and themselves, even if only in small part. The assuaging of these many group concerns—especially when they reflect divergent goals, motives, and methods—might be the point when marginalization, in its purest form, becomes a benefit. Minority managers’ abilities might be strengthened as they navigate various pressures in politically savvy ways. In other words, operating at the margins of organizations presents the opportunity for minorities to opt in and out of strategy choices as White managers have always done.

The goal of this analysis was to investigate two understudied, but frequently occurring, realities in public administration and assess their collective impact. As often happens in uncharted territory, we find ourselves with more questions than when we began. Further research is needed to determine the impact of minority status for principals—that is, how is performance affected by the coupling of racial and bureaucratic identities? More generally, this investigation forces scholars to recognize the particular challenges minority managers face and to shed light upon the ways in which minority experiences are distinctive. Given the prevalence of marginalization and exclusion, public management models should be reconceptualized to account for public managers of color and other types of non-majority identities. The richness of varying managerial experiences makes for a more inclusive, contemporary study, and practice of public management.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aas-10.1177_00953997221131774 – Supplemental material for Race in the Middle: Exploring the Impacts of Managerial Differences on Organizational Performance

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aas-10.1177_00953997221131774 for Race in the Middle: Exploring the Impacts of Managerial Differences on Organizational Performance by Erin Melton Robinson, Meredith Walker Anderson and Sadé A. Walker in Administration & Society

Footnotes

Author’s note

Meredith Walker Anderson is now affiliated with United Negro College Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

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 publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Erin Melton Robinson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Erin Melton Robinson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Policy and Administration at Rutgers University—Camden. Her current research investigates the management and performance of public organizations with a specific focus on the experiences and strategy choices of minority public administrators. Articles by Professor Robinson have appeared in the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review, and Social Science Quarterly.

Meredith Walker Anderson is a director of K-12 Research at UNCF’s Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute (FDPRI). She supports the K-12 research endeavors of the advocacy team and FDPRI through design and management of empirical research projects related to K-12 education reform for African American students. Her publications have focused on race, educational inequities, African American community voice in education, and the influence of representation on grouping and tracking outcomes for African American male students.

Sadé A. Walker is a Research Analyst in the Office of Planning, Assessment, and Institutional Research at Prince George’s Community College. Her research interests encompass college readiness and completion, student learning outcomes assessment, and institutional effectiveness.

References

Alwin

D. F.

(1973). Making inferences from attitude-behavior correlations. Sociometry, 36, 253–278.

Andrews

Boyne

G. A.

Walker

R. M.

(2006). Strategy content and organizational performance: An empirical analysis. Public Administration Review, 66, 52–63.

Balogun

(2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14, 69–83.

Banks

C. M.

(2007). Gender and race as factors in educational leadership and administration. In Grogan

(Ed.), The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 299–316). Wiley & Sons.

Bohte

Meier

K. J.

(2000). Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating. Public Administration Review, 60(2), 173–182.

Boyne

G. A.

(2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 97–122.

Boyne

G. A.

Meier

K. J.

(2009). Environmental change, human resources and organizational turnaround. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 835–863.

Boyne

G. A.

Walker

R. M.

(2010). Strategic management and public service performance: The Way Ahead. Public Administration Review, 70, S185–S192.

Burtless

G. T.

(1996). Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success. Brookings Institution Press.

10.

Bryson

J. M.

(1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. Jossey-Bass.

11.

Carroll

Wright

Meier

(2019). Minority public administrators: Managing organizational demands while acting as an advocate. American Review of Public Administration, 49, 810–824.

12.

Chicago Public Schools. (2015). Community schools initiative. Retrieved February 20, 2019, from https://cps.edu/Programs/DistrictInitiatives/Pages/CommunitySchoolsInitiative.aspx

13.

Chung-Herrera

Lankau

(2005). Are we there yet? An assessment of fit between stereotypes of minority managers and the successful-manager prototype. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2029–2056.

14.

Cohen

Eimicke

Heikkila

(2008). The effective public manager: Achieving success in a changing government. Jossey Boss.

15.

Conway

Monks

(2011). Change from below: The role of middle managers in mediating paradoxical change. Human Resource Management Journal, 21, 190–203.

16.

Dawson

(2003). Black visions: The roots of contemporary African-American political ideologies. University of Chicago.

17.

Dess

Beard

(1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73.

18.

Dutton

Ashford

(1993). Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18, 397–428.

19.

Dutton

Ashford

O’Neill

Hayes

Wierba

(1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 407-425.

20.

Fernandez

J. P.

(1981). Racism and sexism in corporate life: Changing values in American business. Lexington Books.

21.

Floyd

S. W.

Wooldridge

(1992). Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 153–167.

22.

Floyd

S. W.

Wooldridge

(1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management’s strategic role. The Academy of Management Executive, 8, 47–57.

23.

Gatenby

Rees

Truss

Alfes

Soane

(2015). Managing change, or changing managers? The role of middle managers in UK public service reform. Public Management Review, 17, 1124–1145.

24.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Parasuraman

Wormley

(1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86.

25.

Hannan

Polos

Carroll

(2007). Logics of organization theory. Princeton University Press.

26.

Hanushek

(1996). School resources and student performance. In Burtless

(Ed.), Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success (pp. 43–73). Brookings Institution.

27.

Hedges

L. V.

Greenwald

(1996). Have times changed? The relation between school resources and student performance. In Burtless

(Ed.), Does money matter? The effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success (pp. 74–92). Brookings Institution.

28.

Henderson

(1979). Administration advocacy: Black administrators in urban bureaucracy. R&E Research Associates, Inc.

29.

Herbert

(1974). The minority administrator: Problems, prospects, and challenges. Public Administration Review, 34, 556–563.

30.

Hopkins

Mallette

(2001). Diversity and managerial value commitment: A test of some proposed relationships. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 288–306.

31.

Horng

Kalogrides

Loeb

(2009). Principal preferences and the unequal distribution of principals across schools (Working Paper No. 36). CALDER.

32.

Huy

Q. N.

(2001). In praise of middle managers. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 72–79, 160.

33.

James

E. H.

(2000). Race-related difference in promotions and support: Underlying effects of human capital. Organization Science, 11, 493–508.

34.

Jencks

Phillips

(1998). The Black-White test score gap. The Brookings Institution.

35.

Johansen

M. S.

(2012). The direct and interactive effects of middle manager quality on organizational performance. Administration & Society, 44, 383–411.

36.

Johanson

J. E.

(2009). Strategy formation in public agencies. Public Administration, 87, 872–891.

37.

Kanter

R.M.

(1979). Differential access to opportunity and power. In Alvarez

(Ed.), Discrimination in organizations (pp. 52–68). Jossey-Bass.

38.

Keiser

Wilkins

Meier

Holland

(2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553–564.

39.

Kras

Rudes

Taxman

F. S.

(2017). Managing up and down: Community corrections middle managers’ role conflict and ambiguity during organizational change. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40, 173–187.

40.

Lawrence

P. R.

Lorsch

(1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

41.

Likert

(1961). New patterns of management. McGraw-Hill Book Co.

42.

Martinez

(1991). The role of Hispanic public administrators: A theoretical and empirical analysis. American Review of Public Administration, 21, 33–55.

43.

Meier

K. J.

(2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63, 689–699.

44.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 271–294.

45.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. (2002). Public management organizational performance: The impact of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 629–643.

46.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. Boyne

G. A.

Walker

R. M.

(2007). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 357–377.

47.

Meier

K. J.

O’Toole

L. J.

Jr. Hicklin

(2010). I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain: Public management and performance after a natural disaster. Administration & Society, 41, 979–1003.

48.

Meier

K. J.

Wrinkle

R. D.

Polinard

J. L.

(1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard questions. The Journal of Politics, 61, 1025–1039.

49.

Melton

E. K.

(2015). Testing turbulence: Exploring the determinants of managerial networking. Public Organization Review, 17, 19–37.

50.

Melton

E. K.

(2017). From politics to performance: How perceived support matters for public organizations. International Journal of Public Administration, 40, 989–999.

51.

Melton

E. K.

Walker

(2010). Management strategies and performance: An examination of minority managers in public organizations. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 5, 129–157.

52.

Miles

R. E.

Snow

C. C.

(1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

53.

Miles

R. E.

Snow

C. C.

Meyer

A. D.

Coleman

H. J.

Jr. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review, 3, 546–562.

54.

Molina

A. L.

(2016). A manager is a manager is a manager? Race and managerial impact on organizational performance. Public Organization Review, 16, 39–53.

55.

Molina

A. L.

(2018). Strategic responsiveness and the minority public manager. Public Performance & Management Review, 41, 790–814.

56.

Moore

(1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.

57.

Morgan

Bacon

Bunch

Cameron

Deis

(1996). What middle managers do in local government: Stewardship of the public trust and the limits of reinventing government. Public Administration Review, 56, 359–366.

58.

Morrison

Glinow

(1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 45, 200–208.

59.

Murray

Terry

Keller

Washington

(1997). Minority public administrators: The Herbert thesis and America’s promise. Public Administration Review, 57, 366–369.

60.

Murray

Terry

Washington

Keller

(1994). The role demands and dilemmas of minority public administrators: The Herbert thesis revisited. Public Administration Review, 54, 409–417.

61.

Office of Personnel Management. (2018). Federal workforce data (FedScope). Retrieved March 23, 2019, from https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/

62.

Perry

J. L.

Rainey

H. G.

(1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13, 182–201.

63.

Pick

Teo

(2017). Job satisfaction of public sector middle managers in the process of NPM change. Public Management Review, 19, 705–724.

64.

Pitts

(2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from U.S. Federal Agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328–338.

65.

Pitts

D. W.

(2006). Modeling the impact of diversity management. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 245–268.

66.

Pitts

D. W.

Hicklin

A. K.

Hawes

D. P.

Melton

(2010). What drives the implementation of diversity management programs? Evidence from public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 867–886.

67.

Riccucci

(2002). Race, ethnicity, and diversity management. In Riccucci

(Ed.), Managing diversity in public sector workforces (pp. 35–60). Westview Press.

68.

Riccucci

(2009). The pursuit of social equity in the federal government: A road less traveled. Public Administration Review, 69, 373–382.

69.

Roch

C. H

Pitts

Navarro

(2010). Representative bureaucracy and policy tools: Ethnicity, student discipline, and representation in public schools. Administration and Society, 42, 38–65.

70.

Rourke

F. E.

(1984). Bureaucracy, politics, and public policy. Little Brown and Company.

71.

Selden

S. C.

(1998). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. M.E. Sharpe.

72.

Smith

R. A.

(2005). Do the determinants of promotion differ for White men versus women and minorities? An exploration of intersectionalism through sponsored and contest mobility processes. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 1157–1181.

73.

Theobald

Haider-Markel

D. P.

(2009). Race, bureaucracy, and symbolic representation: Interactions between citizens and police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 409–426.

74.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, & Policy and Program Studies Service. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

75.

Walker

R. M.

(2013). Strategic management and performance in public organizations: findings from the Miles and Snow framework. Public Administration Review, 75, 675–685.

76.

Wamsley

Zald

(1973). The political economy of public organizations. Public Administration Review, 33, 62–73.

77.

Watkins-Hayes

(2009). Race-ing the bootstrap climb: Black and Latino bureaucrats in post-reform welfare. Social Problems, 56, 285–310.

78.

Wenglinsky

(1997). How educational expenditures improve student performance and how they don’t. Educational Testing Service.

79.

Wicker

(1969). Attitude versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues 25(4), 41–78.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB