Representative bureaucracy theory posits that the passive representation of women in leadership positions will lead to active representation of the concerns of women in general. This article attempts to identify whether this theory plays out on boards of nonprofit funding organizations, specifically United Ways across the United States. Using random effects modeling of interrupted time series data covering 15 years, the findings suggest a small yet significant nonlinear effect of women in leadership positions on boards upon the size of funding for women- and girl-serving organizations. This partially supports representative bureaucracy theory, but raises questions as to why there is a negative representational effect past a certain “critical mass” of women.
AbramsD.ThomasJ.HoggM. A. (1990). Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(1), 87–92.
2.
AmorelliM. F.García-SánchezI. M. (2020). Critical mass of female directors, human capital, and stakeholder engagement by corporate social reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 204–221.
ChodorowN. (1974). Family structure and feminine personality. In RosaldoM. Z.LamphereL. (Eds.), Women, culture and society (pp. 43–66). Stanford University Press.
6.
EllemersN.HeuvelH.GilderD.MaassA.BonviniA. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 315–338.
7.
FernandezS.MalatestaD.SmithC. (2012). Race, gender, and government contracting: Different explanations or new prospects for theory?Public Administration Review, 73(1), 109–120.
8.
FredetteC.BernsteinR. S. (2019). Ethno-racial diversity on nonprofit boards: A critical mass perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 931–952.
9.
Garcia-RetameroR.López-ZafraE. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55(1), 51–61.
10.
GittellM.CovingtonS.GrossJ. (1994). The difference gender makes: Women in neighborhood development organizations (Nonprofit Sector Research fund Working Paper Series, The Aspen Institute).
11.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118.
12.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.Jr.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (3rd ed.). Macmillan.
13.
HinderaJ. (1993a). Representative bureaucracy: Further evidence of active representation in EEOC district offices. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 415–429.
14.
HinderaJ. (1993b). Representative bureaucracy: Imprimis evidence of active representation in the EEOC District Office. Social Science Quarterly, 74(March), 95–108.
JoecksJ.PullK.VetterK. (2013). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: What exactly constitutes a “critical mass?.”Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 61–72.
17.
KanterR. (1977). Men and women of the corporation (pp. 206–242). Basic Books.
18.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(03), 553–564.
19.
KennedyB. (2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy—A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration & Society, 46(4), 395–421.
20.
KonradA. M.KramerV.ErkutS. (2008). Critical mass: The impact of three or more women on corporate boards. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 145–164.
LeeY. J. (2019). Scarce as hen’s teeth: Women CEOs in large nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29(4), 601–610.
23.
MeierK. J. (1993). Latinos and representative bureaucracy: Testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3, 393–414.
24.
MeierK. J. (2019). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(1), 39–56.
25.
MeschD.OsiliU.PactorA.AckermanJ.BergdollJ.DaleE. (2016). Giving to women and girls: Who gives and why?Women’s Philanthropy Institute.
26.
MilwardH. B.ProvanK. G. (2000). Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359–380.
27.
MosherF. (1968). Democracy and the public service. Oxford University.
28.
Nicholson-CrottyJ.GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyS. (2011). Bureaucratic representation, distributional equity, and democratic values in the administration of public programs. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 582–596.
29.
OstrowerF. (2007). Nonprofit governance in the United States. Urban Institute.
