In recent decades, representative bureaucracy has been a core area of interest, both in theory and in practice, in public administration. The focus on representative bureaucracy is important because the characteristics of bureaucrats influence the nature, scope, and implementation of public policies. Integrating management literature on men and women in leadership with existing work on representative bureaucracy, this study constructed a new data set examining the distribution of women in leadership in 118 U.S. federal regulatory organizations. We find that women remain underrepresented in federal regulatory agency leadership but not in the same magnitude as in political representation and private organization leadership. Specifically, women are expected to get into leadership positions in organizations working in “feminine” policy areas and where a woman holds the top level of leadership. In addition, the proportion of women in upper-level leadership positions is expected to increase in agencies with a higher likelihood of failure when such agencies are less visible.
AberbachJ. D.RockmanB. A. (2000). In the web of politics: Three decades of the U.S. federal executive. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2.
AshbyJ. S.RyanM. K.HaslamS. A. (2007). Legal work and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to lead problematic cases. William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 13, 775-793.
3.
BaronJ. N.MittmanB. S.NewmanA. E. (1991). Targets of opportunity: Organizational and environmental determinants of gender integration within the California civil service, 1979-1985. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1362-1401.
4.
BendixR. (1949). Higher civil servants in American society. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
5.
BlumT. C.FieldsD. L.GoodmanJ. S. (1994). Organizational-level determinants of women in management. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 241-268.
6.
BowlingC. J.KelleherC. A.JonesJ.WrightD. S. (2006). Cracked ceilings, firmer floors, and weakening walls: Trends and patterns in gender representation among executives leading American state agencies, 1970 to 2000. Public Administration Review, 66, 823-836.
7.
BradburyM.KelloughJ. E. (2011). Representative bureaucracy: Assessing the evidence on active representation. American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 157-167.
BullardA.WrightD. S. (1993). Circumventing the glass ceiling: Women executives in American state governments. Public Administration Review, 53, 189-202.
CronbachL. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analysis recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414-417.
18.
DolanJ. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 513-529.
19.
DudleyS. E. (2004). A regulated day in the life. Regulation, 27(2), 10-11.
20.
FoxR. L.OxleyZ. M. (2003). Gender stereotyping in state executive elections: Candidate selection and success. Journal of Politics, 65, 833-850.
21.
GoodmanJ. S.FieldsD. L.BlumT. C. (2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what kinds of organizations do women make it to the top?Group and organization management, 28, 475-501.
22.
GraboskyP. N.RosenbloomD. H. (1975). Racial and ethnic integration in the federal service. Social Science Quarterly, 56, 71-84.
23.
GuyM. E.NewmanM. A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64, 289-298.
24.
HaleM. M.KellyR. M. (1989). Gender, democracy and representative bureaucracies. In HaleM. M.KellyR. M. (Eds.), Gender, bureaucracy and democracy (pp. 18-40). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
25.
HeilmanM. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.
26.
HillmanA. J.ShropshireC.CannellaA. A.Jr. (2007). Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 941-952.
27.
HinderaJ. J. (1993, March). Representative bureaucracy: Imprimis evidence of active representation in the EEOC district office. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 95-108.
28.
HooblerJ. M.WayneS. J.LemmonG. (2009). Bosses’ perceptions of family-work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 939-957.
29.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993a). The consequences of gender stereotypes for women candidates at different levels and types of office. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 503-525.
30.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993b). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 1395-1413.
31.
HymowitzC.SchellhardtT. D. (1986, March24). The glass ceiling, The Wall Street Journal: A Special Report—The corporate woman, pp. 4-5.
32.
JaccardJ.TurrisiR.WanC. K. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
KahnK. F. (1993). Gender differences in campaign messages: The political advertisements of men and women. Political Research Quarterly, 46, 481-502.
34.
KaplanS.MintonB. (1994). Appointments of outsiders to Japanese boards: Determinants and implications for managers. Journal of Financial Economics, 36, 225-257.
35.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.
36.
KellyD.AmburgeyT. L. (1991). Organizational inertia and momentum: A dynamic model of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 591-612.
37.
KellyR. M.NewmanM. (2001). The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equal opportunity, and representative bureaucracies. Women and Politics, 22(3), 1-32.
38.
KenneyS. (1996). New research on gendered political institutions. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 445-466.
39.
KerwinC. M. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
40.
KerwinC. M.FurlongS. R. (2011). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
41.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
42.
KingsleyJ. D. (1944). Representative bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.
LedermanD.LoayzaN.SoaresR. R. (2001). Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter (Policy Research Working Paper, World Bank, 2708). Washington, DC: World Bank.
45.
LewisG. B.NiceD. (1994). Race, sex, and occupational segregation in state and local governments. American Review of Public Administration, 24, 393-410.
46.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russel Sage.
47.
LowiT. J. (1985). The state in politics: The relation between policy and administration. In NollR. G. (Ed.), Regulatory policy and the social sciences (pp. 67-105). Berkeley: University of California Press.
48.
MartinP. Y. (1992). Gender, interaction, and inequality in organizations. In RidgewayC. L. (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality (pp. 208-231). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
49.
McCaffreyD. P.SmithA. E.Martinez-MoyanoI. J. (2007). Then let’s have a dialogue: Interdependence and negotiation in a cohesive regulatory system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 307-334.
50.
MeierK. J. (1985). Regulation: Politics, bureaucracy, and economics. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
51.
MeierK. J. (1993). Representative bureaucracy: A theoretical and empirical exposition. In PerryJ. (Ed.), Research in public administration (Vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
52.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66, 850-860.
53.
MeierK. J.NigroL. G. (1976). Representative bureaucracy and policy preferences: A study in the attitudes of federal executives. Public Administration Review, 36, 458-469.
54.
MeierK. J.PenningtonM. S.EllerW. S. (2005). Race, sex, and Clarence Thomas: Representation change in the EEOC. Public Administration Review, 65, 171-179.
55.
MeierK. J.SmithK. B. (1994). Representative democracy and representative bureaucracy: Examining top-down and bottom-up linkages. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 790-803.
56.
MosherF. C. (1982). Democracy and the public service (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
NewmanM. A. (1993). Career advancement: Does gender make a difference?American Review of Public Administration, 23, 361-384.
59.
NewmanM. A. (1994). Gender and Lowi’s thesis: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review, 54, 277-284.
60.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
61.
RehfussJ. A. (1986). A representative bureaucracy? Women and minority executives in the California career service. Public Administration Review, 46, 454-460.
62.
ReidM. F.KerrB.MillerW. (2003). Glass walls and glass ceilings: Women’s representation in state and municipal bureaucracies. Westport, CT: Praeger.
63.
RiccucciN. M. (2009). The pursuit of social equity in the federal government: A road less traveled?Public Administration Review, 69, 373-382.
64.
RiccucciN. M.SaidelJ. R. (1997). The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public Administration Review, 57, 423-430.
65.
RipleyR.FranklinG. (1987). Congress, the bureaucracy, and public policy. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.
66.
RosenbloomD. H.FeatherstonhaughJ. C. (1977). Passive and active representation in the federal service: A comparison of blacks and whites. Social Science Quarterly, 57, 873-882.
67.
RosenwasserS. M.RogersR. R.FlingS.Silvers-PickensK.ButemeyerJ. (1987). Attitudes toward women and men in politics: Perceived male and female candidate competencies and participant personality characteristics. Political Psychology, 8, 191-200.
68.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81-90.
69.
RyanM. K.HaslamS. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549-572.
70.
SaidelJ. R.LoscoccoK. (2005). Agency leaders, gendered institutions and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 158-170.
71.
SalancikG. R. (1979). Interorganizational dependence and responsiveness to affirmative action: The case of women and defense contractors. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 375-394.
72.
SaltzsteinG. H. (1979). Representative bureaucracy and bureaucratic responsibility: Problems and prospects. Administration and Society, 10, 465-475.
73.
SaltzsteinG. H. (1986). Mayors and women in municipal jobs. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 140-164.
74.
SanbonmatsuK. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20-34.
75.
ScheinV. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 95-100.
76.
ScheinV. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers.Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340-344.
77.
SeaseD. R.SiconolfiM.HermanR. T.FrankS. E.LohseD.IpG.. . . GasparinoC. (1998). Who’s who and what’swhat on Wall Street. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
SeldenS. C. (1997). Representative bureaucracy: Examining the linkage between passive and active representation in the Farmers Home Administration. American Review of Public Administration, 27(1), 22-42.
80.
StiversC. (1995). Settlement women and bureau men: Constructing a useable past for public administration. Public Administration Review, 55, 522-529.
81.
TaylorP.MorinR.CohnD. V.ClarkA.WangW. (2008). A paradox in public attitudes, men or eomen: Who’s the better leader?Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
ThompsonF. J. (1976). Minority groups in public bureaucracies, are passive and active representation linked?Administration and Society, 8, 201-226.
84.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Current Population Survey, 2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Table 2: Educational Attainment of the Population 25 Years and Over, by Selected Characteristics, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.
85.
WarnerW. L.Jr.Van RiperP. P.MartinN. H.CollinsO. F. (1963). The American Federal Executive. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 87-102.
89.
WilliamsC. L. (1992). The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in “female” professions. Social Problems, 39, 253-267.
90.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
