1

Women in the City Hall: Gender Dimensions of Managerial Values

Madinah F. Hamidullah, PhD

mfhamidu@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Norma M. Riccucci, PhD

Sanjay K. Pandey, PhD

Rutgers University- Newark

Prepared for the 20th Anniversary Public Management Research Conference, June 2-4,

2011, Syracuse, NY.

2

Women in the City Hall: Gender Dimensions of Managerial Values

Abstract

In examining gender dimensions of managerial values, we account for alternative explanations. Specifically, we expect the organization and the profession to be powerful socializing forces that may have similar or larger influence on managerial values. Early public administration work found that bureaucratic organizations can take participants through a process of socialization where they adopt and internalize the central values of the organization (Denhardt, 1968). Organizational controls such as size, number of employees, department, and tenure with the organization are considered as a set of variables that could influence managerial values. Another competing theory is that of professional socialization being a significant influence on managerial values. In the area of professionalization, studies have found that educational and professional experiences can shape value preferences (Edwards, Nalbandian, and Wedel, 1981). Professional variables like MPA degree, membership in professional organization and a professionalism scale are included as explanatory variables. With the consideration of these professional and organizational factors, we question if gender still plays a part in managerial value importance? The data for this study come from Phase IV of the National Administrative Studies Project. The dataset includes United States senior local government managers in communities with populations over 50,000. These senior managers occupy key positions such as city manager, deputy/assistant city manager, public works director, parks and recreation director, planning director, budgeting and finance director. We use responses to how important specific values are to these managers when making decisions about public services for their departments. We expect that managerial value importance will differ amongst men and women even when controlling for professional and organizational factors. Preliminary findings support this hypothesis. We find men and women differ in value importance when making major decisions.

3

Women in the City Hall: Gender Dimensions of Managerial Values

Introduction

Studies on gender differences in management have been few and far in between in recent

years. Scholars have sought to better understand why gender matters in the area of management

and how those differences can affect organizational outcomes. While there is a plethora of

research examining the differences between women and men leaders in private organizations

(e.g., see Powell and Graves, 2003; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Rosener, 1990),

elected posts (see, Little, Dunn and Deen, 2001 and Dodson and Carroll, 1991) and even in

educational settings (see Rosser 2003), there have been comparatively fewer studies examining

this issue in public sector organizations (see Guy, et. al, 1992).

One issue that scholars have done extensive work on in the arena of gender and outcomes

is that of representative bureaucracy. Some studies have examined the specific roles women

play in organizations (Connell, 2006; Newman, 1994; Stivers, 2002) others have highlighted

ways in which issues of race and gender effect organizational outcomes (Selden, 2006; Hindera,

1993a; Hindera, 1993b; Keiser, Wilkins and Meier, 2002; Meier and Nicholson-Crotty, 2006).

Among the work that has been done in this area the issue of if gender matters is still unanswered.

To what extent gender matters is also explored.

Two theoretical perspectives suggest that local government managers will draw on values

to make decisions about public services in their department. The first suggests that local

government managers will have gender differences in the way they make decisions. Gender

differences will make particular values more important to different sets of managers. An

4

alternative theoretical argument is that organizational and professional values play a key role in

managerial decision making.

The data for this study come from Phase IV of the National Administrative Studies

Project. The dataset includes United States senior local government managers in communities

with populations over 50,000. These senior managers occupy key positions such as city

manager, deputy/assistant city manager, public works director, parks and recreation director,

planning director, budgeting and finance director. We use responses to how important specific

values are to these managers when making decisions about public services for their departments.

We expect that managerial value importance will differ amongst men and women even when

controlling for professional and organizational factors.

In the next section we outline two theoretical perspectives about explaining expected

value differences in local government managers, and examine the literature supporting each of

these positions. Next, we examine and values in organizational and professional positions, and

consider how these values may influence expected differences in ender. Our hypotheses are then

empirically tested, and the implications of their findings for both research and practice are

discussed.

Theories of Managerial Values and Local Government

Values play an import part in the decisions local government managers play. Work by

Edwards, Nalbandian and Wedel (1981) demonstrates that student’s program affiliation (social

welfare, business administration and public administration) accounted for differences in value

preferences. These differences are expected to influence professions they practice and their

professional education. Further research in this area found that professional values influence the

way individuals define and resolve problems (Nalbandian and Edwards, 1983).

5

Gender and Managerial Values

There are four streams of research that inform the question of potential gender

differences in leadership and decision making in government organizations. The first, which has

received considerable attention, is whether there are differences in the manner in which women

compared to men lead or manage private firms. Research shows that women are more

collaborative and less hierarchical than their male counterparts.

In an early study, Eagly and Johnson (1990) sought to go beyond the impressionistic

generalizations about gender stereotypes in leadership styles extant at the time. Their study

revealed, for example, that women exhibited a democratic, participative style to leadership

compared to men, who were more autocratic (also see Rosener, 1990). They also found that,

contrary to stereotypic beliefs, there were no differences between men and women regarding

task-oriented behaviors. In a later study, Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt (2001: 794) confirm

that women’s leadership style was more democratic than men’s, “possibly reflecting the special

legitimacy problems that female leaders face if they attempt to take charge in a clear-cut,

traditionally hierarchical manner” (also see, Eagly, Karau, and Makhijani, 2001).

Ridgeway’s (2001) study is interesting because her findings suggest properties of a self-

fulfilling prophecy. She finds that women leaders may be viewed as less influential because of

negative perceptions and stereotypes about women’s abilities to lead. Thus, workers may be less

likely to legitimize women’s leadership or authority, ultimately affecting the ability of women to

lead effectively. Carli’s (2001) results are similar with regard to gender effects on social

influence. She finds that negative stereotypes about women’s abilities and competencies lead to

beliefs that women are less influential overall than men (also see, Heilman, 2001; Cann and

Siegfried, 1990).

6

The second stream of literature informing our study focuses on potential gender

differences among elected officeholders. In an early, classic study, Dodson and Carroll (1991)

found, controlling for such factors as party, ideology, seniority, age, and feminist identification,

that women state legislators prioritized women’s issues more so than their male counterparts

(also see Saint-Germain, 1989). Dodson and Carroll’s (1991: 91) study showed that “Elected

women are working to make the agendas of legislative institutions more responsive to women’s

demands for equal rights…and more reflective of women’s concerns stemming from their roles

as caregivers in the family and in society more generally.”i

A number of additional studies have found that women officeholders have distinctive

leadership skills as well as policy preferences (see Rosenthal, 2001; Little, Dunn and Deen,

2001; Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, 1995). Examining the impact of women in the U.S. Congress,

Swers (2002), for example, finds that women show a greater commitment to women’s issues

compared to men at all stages of the law-making process, from the introduction of bills through

final votes.

In a study of U.S. mayors, Rinehart (1991) compared the leadership styles of women and

men in five large cities. She found significant differences, where women as opposed to men

exhibited qualities of teamwork and collegiality. Rinehart also found that women mayors were

more likely than their male counterparts to focus on women’s issues, and that women attributed

the differences in leadership styles to gender whereas men ascribed them to personality.

Beck (1991) studied whether women serving on local councils in seven suburban towns

across the country exhibited different leadership skills or styles compared to men. She found

that women were more responsive to constituent concerns or demands, were more cooperative

and less likely to engage in “dirty politics” and “backstabbing.” They were also more likely to

7

advocate for such “social” issues as building women’s shelters and community centers and

supporting a measure to redefine family to include unrelated individuals.

Studies on gender differences in educational settings represent a third line of research.

Eagly, Karau, and Johnson (1992), for example, examined gender differences in leadership styles

of public school principals. They found no differences on measures of interpersonal style, but,

unlike Eagly and Johnson’s (1990) study in private organizations discussed earlier, they did find

that women principals scored higher on measures of task-oriented behaviors. They further

found that the leadership styles of women principals were more democratic, while their male

counterparts acted more autocratically (also see Kezar, 2000).

In a study of gender differences in leadership positions at colleges, universities, and

foundations, Astin and Leland (1999) found women leaders were more likely to exhibit

collaborative and nonhierarchical qualities than men, and more likely to empower others,

develop interpersonal relationships, and rely on networks within the organization or community

to accomplish their goals. In a more recent study, Rosser (2003: 77) found that women deans

and directors were viewed as being more effective than their male counterparts because faculty

and administrative staff perceived women deans to: “enhance the quality of education in their

units; engage in research, community, and professional endeavors; promote and support

institutional diversity within their units; and manage personnel and financial resources fairly and

effectively” (also see Rosser, Johnsrud and Heck, 2003).

The fourth stream of research on gender differences examines governments in the context

of leadership and more indirectly representative bureaucracy. At the outset, it is important to

recognize the significant, critical work of Stivers (2002) on the gendered environment of public

administration and public service more broadly. She points to fundamental problems of studying

8

gender differences in public organizational structures that are themselves plagued with gender

biases.ii

Other studies of leadership in the public sector also show that gender does matter (see, for

example, Duerst-Lahti and Johnson, 1992; Guy, 1992; Burn, 1979). One study similar to ours is

Fox and Schuhmann’s (1999), which compared the behavior of women and men city managers.

Their survey of 524 city and town managers in 1997 revealed that women placed greater

emphasis than men on such factors as budgetary constraints, public opinion, citizen participation,

and city norms, while men on the other hand placed greater emphasis on input from their staff.

Men were also more likely than women to terminate a problem employee.

In fact, studies by Guy, Newman and Mastracci (2008) and Guy and Newman (2004) on

emotional labor demonstrate and reinforce this concern. They argue that women and men are

segregated into separate jobs and occupations, and that the tasks required by women’s work

often requires “emotive work thought natural for women, such as caring, negotiating,

empathizing, smoothing troubled relationships, and working behind the scenes to enable

cooperation” (Guy and Newman, 2004: 289). In effect, women’s work in any capacity,

including as leaders is “invisible and uncompensated.” They go on to say that “Public service

relies heavily on such skills, yet civil service systems, which are designed on the assumptions of

a bygone era, fail to acknowledge and compensate emotional labor” (Guy and Newman, 2004:

289).

Similar to the research discussed earlier illustrating that gender matters in elected

leadership posts, the representative bureaucracy literature shows that gender matters in

nonelected positions in government. Representative bureaucracy seeks in part to determine if

there is a linkage between ascribed characteristics (e.g., gender or race) and policy preferences of

bureaucrats that benefit individuals in the general population with the same characteristics.iii As

9

Meier and Nicholson-Crotty (2006: 851) point out, “active representation focuses almost

exclusively on how representation affects policy making and implementation.”

In one of the first studies involving gender,iv

Other representative bureaucracy studies have also pointed to the importance of gender in

decision making or policy outcomes (see, e.g., Saidel and Loscoco, 2005; Riccucci and Meyers,

2004). Meier and Nicholson-Crotty (2006) examine whether there is a linkage between the

presence of women police officers and the number of sexual assaults reported and arrests made

for such crimes. Based on data collected between 1990 and 1997 from the 60 largest

metropolitan counties across the United States, their study revealed that as the representation of

women police officers rises, so too does the reporting of sexual assaults and the arrest of the

perpetrators.

Keiser, Wilkins, Meier and Holland’s

(2002) examine whether women in the Texas educational system had an impact on the

performance of women students. Their analysis reveals in part that women math teachers are, in

accordance with their hypothesis, positively associated with the math scores of young girls in

grade 8 as well as on their exit exams.

In sum, studies of public and private organizations as well as educational institutions

reveal that there are gender differences in management and leadership styles as well as decision-

making outcomes. Women tend to be more collaborative and democratic and their presence in

organizations has an impact on policy outcomes. While there are considerably more studies

examining theses issues in the private and educational spheres, fewer studies exist on public

sector organizations. The current study seeks to help fill that gap.

Limited work has looked at gender differences in local government. Literature on elected

officials, private managers and public administrators provides some foundation for our analysis.

10

In a study of state legislatures Thomas (1994) found women state legislatures placed high

priorities on the policies that concern women, family and children while mal legislatures were

more focused on business and economic legislation. Female executives have also been found to

have a higher level of intuition about people, different approach to teamwork, greater sensitivity

to subordinates and a different approach to team work (Lunneborg 1990; Billing and Alvesson

1994). In a study of 590 men and women from city government Burns (1979) found gender

differences in the areas of professional ambition, definition of the role of managers and the use

of support networks. Fox and Schuhman found that female city managers are more likely to

have a style of management that relies on citizen input (1999).

Hypothesis

H1 Female public managers will place a higher emphasis on values of equity, long-term

outlook, sense of community and representation.

H2 Male public managers will place a higher emphasis on values of efficiency,

effectiveness, expertise and individual rights.

A Competing Perspective: Organizational and Professional Forces

In examining gender dimensions of managerial values, we account for alternative

explanations. Specifically, we expect the organization and the profession to be powerful

socializing forces that may have similar or larger influence on managerial values. Early public

administration work found that bureaucratic organizations can take participants through a

process of socialization where they adopt and internalize the central values of the organization

(Denhardt, 1968). Organizational controls such as size, number of employees, department, and

tenure with the organization are considered as a set of variables that could influence managerial

values. Another competing theory is that of professional socialization being a significant

11

influence on managerial values. In the area of professionalization, studies have found that

educational and professional experiences can shape value preferences (Edwards, Nalbandian, and

Wedel, 1981). Professional variables like MPA degree, membership in professional organization

and a professionalism scale are included as explanatory variables. With the consideration of

these professional and organizational factors, we question if gender still plays a part in

managerial value importance?

Literature in the area of values in public administration dates back to earlier work where

researchers sought to understand the uniqueness of public service work and those that operate

within it (see Mosher 1968; Mosher and Stillman 1977; Rohr 1978). Values are associated with

professional standards and influence decisions. Part of what is explored in this paper is if

professional and organizational controls will override expected differences due to gender.

Organizations serve two purposes in socializing individuals that join them. The organization

indoctrinates the individual and presents them with the basic values that are unique to the

bureaucracy (Denhart 1968). The profession of public administration can be thought of as a

collection of specialized skills, knowledge, behavior and values (Edwards, Nalbandian and

Wedel 1981). It is dangerous to assume that everyone enters the public service with the same set

of values and the profession should fill in that void. Edwards, Nalbandian and Wedel found that

students enrolled in Public Administration (MPA), Social Welfare (MSW), Law (LLB), and

Business (MBA) enter with different espoused value preferences (1981).

For the purposes of this analysis a value is defined as “an enduring organization of beliefs

concerning preferable modes of conduct or end-state of existence along a continuum of relative

importance” (Rockeach, 1973:5). Values are found to vary by profession and because of this

individuals select into particular sectors (Edwards et. al, 1981). Organizations play a key part in

12

making sure values of the individual are consistent with the goals of the organization. A key part

of this is organizational socialization which is scholars have considered as what happens when

administrators adopt behaviors and preferences that are more consistent with the organization

and minimize their own personal influence on their behavior (see Downs, 1967; Gawthrop, 1969;

Meier and Nigro; 1976; Simon; 1957; Thompson, 1976; Weber, 1946). For various reasons

individuals may comply with organizational and professional values. Administrators may place

those values ahead of their personal beliefs in order to increase opportunities for promotion or

further career success. This internalization of organizational beliefs can happen because of peer

pressure or because the individual begins to agree with the dominant organizational view

(Romezek, 1990; Simon, 1957; Thompson, 1976). In an unexpected finding Wilkins and

Williams (2008) find that the presence of black police officers is related to an increase in racial

profiling in the division. Therefore, organizational and professional socialization may strip away

expected gender associations with particular values and replace them with organizational and

professional needs. This papers seeks explain if gender can overcome organizational and

professional norms in public administrators.

Hypothesis

H3 Managerial value importance will differ amongst men and women when controlling

for professional and organizational factors.

Data and Methods

The data used for this project were collected during the fourth phase of the National

Administrative Studies Project (NASP IV). NASP IV is a multi-method study, which includes a

survey instrument distributed to municipal government managers of jurisdictions with a

population of 50,000 or more across the United States. The NASP IV team compiled a list of

13

3,316 potential respondents based on contact information provided by the International

City/County Management Association, which was verified with publicly available information.

All respondents were sent a pre-notification letter through US postal service indicating that they

had been selected to participate in the survey. The letter introduced the study and provided

details on accessing the study website. The voluntary nature of the study was emphasized and

assurance regarding reasonable efforts to safeguard respondent confidentiality was provided. In

order to improve response rate, extensive follow-up efforts were made. These efforts included

multiple modalities of contact such as email, fax, and phone calls. When survey data collection

phase ended 46.4% of potential participants responded to the survey (n=1,538). The 1,538

respondents represented 545 municipalities. The respondents come from 545 different

jurisdictions and their mean age was 51.4 years. In addition to generalist managers such as the

city manager and deputy/assistant city managers, respondents came from a variety of functional

domains in municipal government such as Finance/Budgeting, Public Works, Personnel/Human

Resources, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Community

Development). As expected, majority of the respondents were male (71%), white (86%), highly

educated (more than 60% with graduate degrees), and well compensated (68% with salaries over

$100,000). Most measures used in the study have been tested and validated in earlier studies;

some measures were developed in earlier administrations of NASP and others were written

and/or refined for NASP-IV.

[Insert Figure 1 HERE]

14

Findings

The model is estimated using ordered probit regression. The first set of hypotheses tests

the theory that value importance for local government managers when making decisions will be

influenced by gender. The second set of hypotheses tests the theory that organizational and

professional values my play an important part in these decisions and override expected findings

based on gender. To what extent does empirical evidence support these theories? The results in

Table 1 help to shed some light on this question.

[Insert TABLE 1 HERE]

Gender

Looking first at gender differences we find support that men and women difference in

values when making decisions for their departments. The hypotheses suggested that women

would be more likely to place higher emphasis on equity, long-term outlook, sense of community

and representation. Where men would hold the values of efficiency, effectiveness, expertise and

individual rights as more important when making decisions. We find a positive statistically

significant relationship (p<.05 or above) that women are differ from men when making major

decisions about their departments even when controlling for professional and organizational

influences. The findings on gender challenge our hypothesis. Women not only differed from

men in the values of equity, long-term outlook, sense of community and representation, they also

were statically different in the areas of efficiency, effectiveness and expertise. Women were

more likely to use all of these values in their decision making process even while controlling for

professional and organization factors. (need to decide what the ending story will be???)

Professional and Organizational

15

There were no significant findings as to an MPA degree having any influence on value

importance when making decisions. This finding failed to support our hypothesis that value

importance will differ between males and females even when controlling for professional and

organizational variables. An interesting finding was that as professional commitment increased

so did the emphasis on values. All values were highly significant and positively related to

professional commitment (p<.01). Professional commitment was a scale of importance of

networks, pride in profession, profession set standards, enthusiasm about profession, respondents

professional association meeting attendance, and importance of professional contacts.

Professional membership was negatively related to effectiveness, sense of community and

expertise (p<.05). It would seem that being a member of a professional association wouldn't

decrease the importance of the value of expertise.

Department affiliation value results are referenced to the omitted groups which are city

managers. Value importance varied among the different departments. Finance and Economic

Development managers were less likely to place higher value on equity (p<.05) when compared

to the omitted groups of city managers. With regards to efficiency Planning and Economic

Development managers were negatively statically significant (p<.01) when compared to the

omitted group of city managers. The value of sense of community placed Personnel and Finance

managers were negatively related to city managers (p<.01). With regards to representation

Economic Development managers were negatively statically significant (p<.01) when compared

to the omitted group of city managers and Parks and Recreation managers were positively related

(p<.01). Deputy Manager, Personnel and Community Development managers placed higher

values on individual rights when compared to city managers (p<.01). (discuss some reasons

16

department differences might happen, these might also be better discussed by department instead

of value)

Conclusion and Implications

In a recent article on gender dimensions, DeHart-Davis, Marlowe, and Pandey (2006:

883) conclude, “Despite our ‘activist’ inclinations, we recognize that the state of knowledge

about the gender dimensions of public service motivation is rudimentary at best.” We can safely

generalize this assertion to gender dimensions of managerial values as well. Although there is

notable scholarship on gendered nature of public administration institutions (e.g. Guy 1992;

Stivers 2000), not much is known about individual values and motives. More specifically, the

relative role of gender -- which can encapsulate a range of significant life experiences and

influences – with respect to other major sources of influence is not well understood. While there

has been a long and venerable tradition emphasizing the role of values in local government

service (see Edwards et al. 1981; Nalbandian and Edwards 1983), traditional explanations have

emphasized the influence of educational, professional, and organizational influences on shaping

managerial values.

While our findings lend credence to such explanations, they also point to the

overwhelming influence of gender on managerial values. Even when we control for a variety of

professional and organizational influences, we find that women score higher on the values of

efficiency, effectiveness, long-term outlook, sense of community, and expertise. Only on respect

for individual rights, there is no significant gender difference. The size of the gender effect on

managerial values is moderately strong with few other influences being as powerful. Overall,

out findings contradict some commonly held beliefs. For example, we find that women score

higher on managerial values of efficiency, effectiveness, and expertise. This is an interesting

17

finding that deserves further scrutiny. Do these findings contradict stereotypical notions about

the gender dimensions of managerial values? Or is it that our study design – relying on cross-

sectional survey – places limits on the nature of inference we can draw. Would the findings have

been different, for example, if instead of asking individuals to report their value preferences, we

assigned choice situations which would allow us to assess the extent to which individuals

approached trade-offs between competing values. Would men, for example, value efficiency

over a long-term perspective?

18

References

Astin, Helen S. and Carole Leland. 1999. Women of Influence, Women of Vision: A Cross-

Generational Study of Leaders and Social Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beck, SusanAbrams. 1991. Rethinking Municipal Governance: Gender Distinctions on Local

Councils. In Debra L. Dodson, Gender and Policymaking: Studies of Women in Office.

New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, 103-113.

Burns, Ruth Ann. (1979). Women in Municipal Management: Choice, Challenge, and Change.

Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers, NJ: Center of the American Women in Politics.

Cann, Arnie, and William D. Siegfried. (1990). Gender Stereotypes and Dimensions of Effective

Leadership Behavior. Sex Roles 23 (7/8): 413–419.

Carli, Linda. L. 2001. Gender and Social Influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4): 726-741.

Carroll, Susan J. 1994. The Politics of Difference: Women Public Officials as Agents of

Change. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 5 (Spring): 11-20.

Connell, Raewyn. 2006. Glass Ceilings or Gendered Institutions? Mapping the Gender

Regimes of Public Sector Worksites. Public Administration Review Nov/Dec.

DeHart-Davis, Leisha, Justin Marlowe, and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2006. Gender Dimensions of

Public Service Motivation. Public Administration Review. 66(6): 873-887.

Denhardt, Robert B. 1968. Bureaucratic Socialization and Organizational Accommodation.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 13 (3): 441-450.

Dodson, Debra L. and Susan J. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State

Legislatures. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics.

Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

19

Duerst-Lahti, Georgia and Cathy Marie Johnson. 1992. Management Styles, Stereotypes, and

Advantages. In Guy, Mary E., ed., Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators

at the State Level. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 125-156.

Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Rita Mae Kelly (eds.). 1995. Gender Power, Leadership, and

Governance Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Eagly, Alice H. and Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt. 2001. The Leadership Styles of Women and

Men. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4): 781- 797.

Eagly, Alice H., and Blair T. Johnson. 1990. Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-analysis.

PsychologicalBulletin, 108 (2): 233–256.

Eagly, Alice H., Steven J. Karau, and Blair T. Johnson. 1992. Gender and Leadership Style

among School Principals: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly,

28(1): 76-102.

Eagly, Alice H., Steven J. Karau, and Mona G. Makhijani. 1995. Gender and the Effectiveness

of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (1): 125-145.

Edwards, Terry J., John Nalbandian, and Kenneth R. Wedel. 1981. Individual Values and

Professional Education: Implications for Practice and Education. Administration &

Society, 13(2): 123-143.

Ferguson, Kathy E. 1984. The Feminist Case against Bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Fox, Richard L. and Robert A. Schuhmann. 1999. Gender and Local Government: A

Comparison of Women and Men City Managers. Public Administration Review 59 (3):

231-242.

20

Gawthrop, Louis C. 1969. Bureaucratic Behavior in the Executive Branch: An Analysis of

Organization Change. New York: Free Press.

Guy, Mary E., Meredith A. Newman and Sharon H. Mastracci. 2008. Emotional Labor: Putting

the Service in Public Service. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Guy, Mary Ellen, and Meredith A. Newman. 2004. Women’s Jobs, Men’s Jobs: Sex

Segregation and Emotional Labor. Public Administration Review, 64 (3): 289-298.

Guy, Mary E. (ed.). 1992. Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the State

Level. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Heilman, Madeline E. 2001. Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent

Women’s Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4): 657–

674.

Hindera, John J. 1993a. Representative Bureaucracy: Imprimis Evidence of Active

Representation in the EEOC District Offices. Social Science Quarterly 74: 95-108.

Hindera, John J. 1993b. Representative Bureaucracy: Further Evidence of Active

Representation in the EOC District Offices. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory 3(4): 415-29.

Keiser, Lael R., Vicky M. Wilkins, and Kenneth J. Meier. 2002. Lipstick and Logarithms:

Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy. American Political

Science Review 96(3): 553-64.

Kezar, Adrianna. 2000. Pluralistic Leadership: Incorporating Diverse Voices. Journal of

Higher Education, 71 (6): 722-743.

Little, Thomas H., Dana Dunn, and Rebecca E. Deen. 2001. A View from the Top. Women &

Politics, 22 (4): 29-50.

21

Meier, Kenneth J. 1993. Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. In

Research in public administration, ed. James Perry, 1-35.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Meier, Kenneth and Lloyd G. Nigro. 1976. Representative Bureaucracy and Policy Preferences:

A Study in the Attitudes of Federal Executives. Public Administration Review 36(4):

458-69.

Meier, Kenneth J. and Jill Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law

enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review 66 (6): 850-860.

Mosher, Frederick C. 1968. Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Mosher, Frederick C. and Richard Stillman. 1977. The Profession in Government:

Introduction. Public Administration Review 37: 631-633.

Nalbandian, John and J. Terry Edwards. 1983. The Values of Public Administrators: A

Comparison with Lawyers, Social Workers, and Business Administrators. Review of

Public Personnel Administration, Fall.

Newman, Meredith A. 1994. Gender and Lowi’s Thesis: Implications for Career Advancement.

Public Administration Review 54(3): 277-84.

Powell, Gary N. and Laura M. Graves. 2003. Women and Men in Management. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 3rd edition.

Riccucci, Norma M. and Marcia Meyers. 2004. Linking passive and active representation: The

case of front-line workers in welfare agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research

and Theory 14 (4): 585-597.

Ridgeway, Cecilia. Gender, Status, and Leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4): 637–655.

22

Rinehart, Sue Tolleson. 1991. Do Women Leaders Make a Difference? Substance, Style and

Perception. In Debra L. Dodson, Gender and Policymaking: Studies of Women in

Office. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, 93-102.

Rohr, John. 1978. Ethics for Bureaucrats. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Rokeach, M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Romzek, Barbara S. 1990. Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties That Bind. Public

Administration Review 50(3): 374-82.

Rosener, Judy B. 1990. Ways Women Lead. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6): 119-125.

Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 2001. Gender Styles in State Legislative Committees. Women &

Politics, 21 (2): 21-45.

Rosser, Vicki J. 2003. Faculty and Staff Members’ Perceptions of Effective Leadership: Are

there Differences between Women and Men Leaders? Equity and Excellence in

Education, 36 (1): 71-81.

Rosser, Vicki J., Linda K. Johnsrud, and Ronald H. Heck. 2003. Academic Deans and

Directors: Assessing their Effectiveness from Individual and Institutional Perspectives.

Journal of Higher Education, 74 (1): 1-25.

Saidel, Judith and Karyn Loscocco. 2005. Agency leaders, gendered institutions, and

representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review 65 (2): 158-171.

Saint-Germain, Michele A. 1989. Does Their Difference Make a Difference? Social Science

Quarterly 70(4): 956–68.

Selden, Sally Coleman, 1997. The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and

Responsiveness in a Government Agency. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

23

Selden, Sally Coleman. 2006. A Solution in search of a Problem? Discrimination, Affirmative

Action, and the New Public Service. Public Administration Review, Nov/Dec.

Simon, Herbert A. 1957. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in

Administrative Organizations. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.

Stivers, Camilla. 2002. Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the

administrative state. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2nd edition.

Stivers, Camilla. 2000. Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public administration in

the progressive era. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Stivers, Camilla. 1995. Settlement Women and Bureau Men: Constructing a Usable Past for

Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 55 (6): 522-529

Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in

Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thompson, Frank J. 1976. Minority Groups in Public Bureaucracies: Are Passive and Active

Representation Linked? Administration & Society, 8 (2): 201-26.

Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited and translated by H. H.

Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilkins, Vicky M. and Brian N. Williams. 2008. Black or Blue: Racial Profiling and

Representative Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68 (4): 654-664.

24

i In a follow up study, Carroll (1992) similarly found that women state legislators are more likely

than men to advocate policies aimed at women’s needs and interests.

ii Also see Stivers (1995; 2000), who examines gender differences in Progressive-era reformers,

whereby men supported improvements in administrative methods and women advocated for the

overall betterment of society.

iii Comparatively, there are more studies examining a potential linkage between active and

passive representativeness for people of color rather than for women.

iv Also see Selden (1997), who found no linkage between passive and active representation for

women.

Variable Measurement

Variable Measurement Figure 1

Variable (Source)

When making major decisions about public services in your department, how important are the following values: (1=of little importance, 6=extremely important)

Dependent Variables Value Efficiency Efficiency (avoidance of waste)

Effectiveness Effectiveness (valid and useful outcomes)

Equity Equity (a just ditribution of resources)

Long Term Outlook Long-term outlook

Sense of Community Sense of Community (common good)

Representation Representation (responsiveness to all residents)

Expertise Professionalism (expertise)

Individual Rights Individual rights (property rights, civil rights)

Many managers make decisions based on their own insights and experience in certain circumstances. At other times, managers rely on professional

standards and best management practices.

Please indicate which of the following most closely mirrors your approach when faced with particulary difficult decisions.

(1=rely primarily on my own insight and expertise, 6= rely primarily on professional standards or best management practices)

Decision Immediate When the need for a decision is identified, and an immediate response is necessary

Minimize Conflict When it is important to minimize conflict

Potential Solutions When it is difficult to differentiate among solutions to a problem

Ethical Dilemma When conforting an ethical dilemma

New Technology When faced with an issue regarding the use of new technology

Impact Career When makinga decision that will impact career

New Problem When encountering an ambigous problem that you have not faced before

Independent Vaiables

Professional Professional Membership Are you a member of a professional society (such as ASPA, ICMA, GFOA, NRPA, APWA, APA, etc)? (0=no, 1=yes)

Income Which of the following categories best describes your income from the organization during the last year: (1=less than $50,000; 5=$150,000)

MPA 1=MPA, 0=other education levels

Professional Networks Important Professional networks are an important source of new ideas (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)

Commitment Pround Profession I am pround to be in my profession

Scale Profession Set Standards I use my profession to help set standards for what I consider good performance for myself

Enthusiastic Profession I am enthusiastic about my profession

Attend Meetings I attend as professional society meetings as possible

Professional Contacts Being in a professional organization has allowed me to make a great number of contacts with others in my profession

Organizational Current Tenure How many years have you worked for this organization?

Current Position How many years have you been in your present organization?

Number of employees Total Number of employees in your organization (Log)

Department 1=city manager, 2=deputy/asst city manager, 3=finance/budgeting, 4=public works, 5=personnel/hr, 6=economic development,

7=parks&recreation, 8=planning, 9=community development (dummy variable for each cateogroy, city manager is dropped from model)

Council Manager Form of government (1=council manager, 0=other forms of government)

Controls Age In what year were you born?

Gender 1=female, 0=male

Race 1=white, 0=non-white

Table 1 Gender Differences and Values

Values Effciency Effectiveness Equity Long-term Outlook Community Representation Expertise Rights

Controls Gender 0.153** 0.263*** 0.150** 0.152** 0.180** 0.210*** 0.226*** 0.039(0.074) (0.078) (0.071) (0.075) (0.075) (0.072) (0.078) (0.072)

Race -0.404*** -0.170* -0.361*** -0.264*** -0.204** -0.426*** -0.057 -0.276***(0.094) (0.097) (0.090) (0.094) (0.094) (0.091) (0.097) (0.092)

Age -0.000 0.010** 0.018*** 0.010** 0.010** 0.005 0.002 0.011**(0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.004) (0.005) (0.004)

Professional MPA -0.046 0.059 -0.056 -0.006 -0.035 -0.016 -0.097 -0.059(0.071) (0.074) (0.068) (0.071) (0.072) (0.069) (0.074) (0.069)

Professional Commitment 0.035*** 0.050*** 0.035*** 0.049*** 0.056*** 0.041*** 0.065*** 0.042***(0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006) (0.006)

ProfessionalMembership -0.200 -0.318** 0.005 -0.154 -0.325** -0.151 -0.308** -0.178(0.130) (0.138) (0.125) (0.131) (0.134) (0.127) (0.137) (0.128)

Organizational Current Tenure 0.004 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.003(0.004) (0.004) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.004)

Deputy Manager -0.033 -0.151 -0.084 -0.030 0.127 0.173 0.136 0.223*(0.117) (0.123) (0.114) (0.118) (0.119) (0.115) (0.120) (0.114)

Finance 0.192 0.005 -0.243** 0.051 -0.415*** -0.123 0.177 -0.031(0.128) (0.134) (0.122) (0.128) (0.127) (0.123) (0.131) (0.123)

Public Works 0.084 0.011 -0.228* -0.029 -0.168 -0.020 0.303** 0.127(0.125) (0.132) (0.121) (0.126) (0.127) (0.122) (0.130) (0.122)

Personnel -0.083 -0.105 -0.252* -0.084 -0.361*** -0.203 0.378** 0.505***(0.137) (0.145) (0.133) (0.138) (0.138) (0.133) (0.147) (0.137)

Economic Development -0.639*** -0.072 -0.650*** -0.075 0.004 -0.310** 0.033 0.027(0.142) (0.151) (0.138) (0.145) (0.147) (0.139) (0.148) (0.139)

Park and Recreation 0.047 -0.179 0.007 -0.013 0.119 0.338*** -0.024 0.113(0.124) (0.130) (0.120) (0.125) (0.127) (0.122) (0.127) (0.120)

planning -0.410*** -0.170 -0.202 0.092 0.101 0.145 0.175 0.147(0.128) (0.136) (0.126) (0.131) (0.133) (0.127) (0.134) (0.126)

Community Development -0.145 -0.043 -0.061 0.220 0.312* 0.296* 0.273 0.346**(0.171) (0.180) (0.167) (0.176) (0.179) (0.170) (0.180) (0.170)

Council-Manager -0.062 0.042 -0.068 0.091 -0.038 -0.044 -0.036 -0.221***(0.077) (0.081) (0.075) (0.078) (0.078) (0.075) (0.081) (0.076)

Number of Emplyees (log) -0.012 -0.026 -0.019 -0.060* -0.065* -0.018 -0.040 -0.046(0.033) (0.035) (0.032) (0.033) (0.034) (0.032) (0.035) (0.032)

Observations 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263 1,263Standard errors in parenthe*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0