Gender Gaps in the Federal Government: An Examination of Perceived Discrimination and Actual Disparities

Transcription

1 Gender Gaps in the Federal Government: An Examination of Perceived Discrimination and Actual Disparities Jaclyn Piatak, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Ashley Nelson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Prepared for presentation at the Public Management Research Conference June 8 10, 2017, Washington, DC DRAFT Not for citation without authors permission

2 Gender Gaps in the Federal Government: An Examination of Perceived Discrimination and Actual Disparities Abstract Workplaces today are becoming increasingly diverse. Due to a changing workforce and the benefits of diversity, organizations have shifted the focus from non-discrimination to diversity management. Scholars have called on public organizations to lead the way in effective diversity management, but how much progress has been made in the federal government? While gender gaps have narrowed at the federal government level, gender differences persist. Using the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, this study examines how women and minority women feel or perceive discrimination in the workplace and the actual discrepancies in supervisory status. The study found that female and minority female federal government employees were less likely to feel included in the workplace, and that female federal government employees were less likely to hold supervisory status. The federal government has steps to take to be a gender-neutral work environment and a role model for diversity management. 1

3 Today s workforce is becoming increasingly diverse. From multiple generations to multiple cultures in the workplace, where organizations need to adapt to the increasingly diverse and changing workforce. Diversity efforts have evolved from a focus on discrimination and fairness to leveraging the benefits of a diverse workforce. Representative bureaucracy calls for government organizations to reflect the populations they serve. Diversity management takes representation a step further from focusing on recruiting a diverse workforce to creating and managing an inclusive workplace that values all groups and takes advantage of workplace pluralism. As the workforce becomes more diverse, scholars call for public organizations to be leaders in creating inclusive organizations where cultures of all groups not only coexist but thrive (Selden & Selden, 2001). Since the federal government can serve as a leader in modeling effective diversity management, where are federal government agencies in the evolution from non-discrimination to diversity management? This study focuses on gender since the federal government, like most organizations, has faced gender gaps, which have narrowed in recent years, but persist. To assess the federal government s progress in diversity management efforts, we examine both objective and perceptual measures of discrimination and inclusion. There are many examples of using actual or perceived measures in public administration, such as turnover versus turnover intent and objective measures of performance versus self-assessments of organizational performance. Scholars have begun to examine perceptual measures of employees in the workplace, such as perceived career advancement, organizational fairness, diversity management, empowerment, and discrimination (Choi & Rainey, 2010; Kim, 2015; Sabharwal, 2015; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015), but little research pairs subjective measures with objective measures. Examining both 2

4 measures paints a more complete picture of what is happening in an organization, both in terms of representation and feelings of inclusion in the workplace. In addition, we examine the intersectionality of gender and race. People are complex and have multiple identities, where individuals cannot separate their gender and racial identities. Correspondingly, scholars have called for the examination of intersectionality in studies of gender or racial discrimination (Bearfield, 2009; Browne & Misra, 2003). This study answers those calls by examining both the independent influence of gender as well as the influence of being both a female and a minority. Many public administration scholars have examined gender gaps in the federal workforce, examining issues like the wage gap, occupational segregation, agency segregation, the lack of female representation in management positions, and gender differences in perceptual measures of career advancement opportunities (Alkadrey & Tower, 2006, 2011; Bolitzer & Godtland, 2012; Choi, 2011; Guy & Newman, 2004; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006; Lewis, 1988, 1998; Naff & Thomas, 1994; Kelly & Newman, 2001; Meier, Mastracci, & Wilson, 2006; Riccucci, 2009; Sabharwal, 2015; Starks, 2009; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015). We build upon this work to provide an update on how gender and the intersectionality of gender and minority status influence the likelihood of government employees being supervisors. We also extend the growing work on perceptual measures to examine gender differences in feeling included in the workplace. Findings have implications for research and practice in advancing work on gender differences in the workplace and diversity management. The next sections discuss the role of diversity management, present an overview of gender differences in the federal government, lay the foundation for our hypotheses, discuss our methods and results, and conclude with a discussion of the findings and implications. 3

5 Role of Diversity Management Diversity management is often seen as a double-edged sword. Thomas (1990) makes the business case for diversity and calls for organizations to take advantage of the many benefits of diversity by focusing on inclusion. Diversity management can be defined as a: process intended to create and maintain a positive work environment where the similarities and differences of individuals are valued, so that all can reach their potential and maximize their contributions to an organization s strategic goals and objectives (GAO, 2005, 1). Effective diversity management can influence organizational costs, resource acquisition, marketing, creativity, problem solving, and system flexibility (Cox, 1991). Despite the numerous benefits of diversity, power imbalances and stereotypes can influence the cohesion of workplaces and groups (Baker & Kelan, 2015). The double-edged sword aspect of diversity management may help explain the conflicting findings on the links between diversity and performance, turnover, and job satisfaction (Andrews et al., 2005; Choi, 2009; Choi & Rainey, 2010; Pitts, 2005, 2009). Meanwhile, discriminatory practices have a negative impact on organizational performance and productivity, which then affects the degree to which an organization s members create an integrated culture with common values (Kim, 2015). According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), people tend to classify themselves and others into social categories, which in turn influences their interactions with others. From this perspective, minority members can potentially face difficulty because of a lack of fit between their identity group membership and others. For example, a female may view herself as out group in an all-male workplace, where she may view her male coworkers as in group members. This highlights the importance of diversity management in promoting inclusion to ensure all employees feel part of the in group. Leadership plays a pivotal role in overcoming 4

6 group conflict, monitoring employee behavior, and facilitating communication (Bell, 2007). For example, Choi and Rainey (2010) found a negative relationship between racial diversity and organizational performance, but found a positive relationship when moderated by diversity management. Effective diversity management can help organizations obtain the benefits of diversity by creating an inclusive workplace culture that prevents and overcomes potential intergroup conflicts. Gender in the Federal Government Representative bureaucracy argues public organizations must represent the people they serve in order to be democratic (Kingsley, 1944; Krislov, 1974). As Selden (1997) states: bureaucratic power to mold public policy can be made more responsive to public interests (and will therefore better serve democratic principles) if the personnel in the bureaucracy reflected the public served (4). The federal government has taken strides to encompass as much of society s population as possible (Dolan, 2004; Hsiech et al., 2006). Representation is a major concern for public agencies, because members of different groups will have different perspectives based on their experience and socialization (Hsiech et al., 2006). However, gender gaps persist in the federal government in pay, occupations, management, and inclusion. The gender pay gap in the federal government has been improving, but still exists. From 1976 to 1986 the gap fell from 40% to 37% (Lewis, 1988) and was narrowed to 27% in 1995, which Lewis (1998) attributes to women and men obtaining more similar levels of education and federal experience. More recent analysis finds the gender pay gap has declined in the federal government but remains with women earning about 28 cents less on the dollar in 1988, 19 cents in 1998, and 11 cents in 2007 (Bolitzer & Godtland, 2012). While differences in education and experience have diminished and no longer serve as explanations, occupations that men and 5

7 women hold are a key contributor to the federal gender wage gap and unequal treatment cannot be ruled out (Bolitzer & Godtland, 2012). Gender discrimination may still impact human capital variables that in turn influence pay (Alkadrey & Tower, 2006). For example, lower amounts of authority granted to women accounted for a 14 percent gender pay gap among procurement officers (Alkadry & Tower, 2011) Occupations within the federal government continue to be gendered. Diversity may be increasing throughout the entire federal government structure, but women are still occupying the stereotypical roles in governmental agencies located in the lower status positions (Guy, 1993; Kim, 2004). The federal government also suffers from agency segregation, where women are traditionally segregated into female type agencies (Alkadry & Tower, 2006). Women have greater representation in redistributive agencies than distributive or regulatory agencies (Guy & Newman, 2004; Kelly & Newman, 2001; Meier, Mastracci, & Wilson, 2006). Women face glass walls where it is almost impossible for them to transfer horizontally to different agencies if those agencies are traditionally male-dominated, in addition to glass ceilings where it is more difficult for women and minorities to travel higher in the federal government (Riccucci, 2009). Women are less likely to hold higher-level positions in the federal government compared to men (Choi, 2011; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006; Naff & Thomas, 1994; Riccucci, 2009; Sabharwal, 2015; Starks, 2009; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015). In 2009, women held only 30 percent of the Senior Executive Service occupations (Grundmann, Wagner, & Rose, 2011). A higher percentage of women receive outstanding ratings at every grade level compared to men, yet they are still located in the lower agencies and positions within the federal government, whereas mainly white males are located in GS 13-15, a higher level pay grade, and senior pay levels (Hsieh & Winslow, 2006). 6

8 Although the percentage of women in the federal government is growing and fewer report denial of a job, promotion, or other job benefit based on gender (Grundmann et al., 2011), women still have a less optimistic view than men have regarding the federal government s progress towards gender neutrality in the workplace. Twenty-one percent of women, compared to only 6 percent of men, believe that women are subjected to flagrant discriminatory practices that affect their career advancement (Grundmann, et al., 2011). Similarly, 57 percent of women believe that filing a grievance regarding gender discrimination would hurt their career, compared with only 19 percent of men (Grundmann et al., 2011). From 2006 to 2013, gender differences in perceived career opportunities remained unchanged with women being less satisfied with their career opportunities (Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015). Gender gaps in perceptions of workplace equality and inclusion continue. Despite the many benefits of diversity, the federal government still has a way to go with diversity management to create a truly inclusive workplace environment. Women continue to be paid less than men on average, but this may be the influence of discrimination in obtaining human capital and the result of occupation, agency, and management segregation. Women in the federal government tend to occupy certain types of positions and be in certain types of agencies. Women are also less likely to be represented at higher levels of government agencies and feel like they have opportunities for advancement. While progress has been made, are women less likely to hold supervisory positions, while controlling for other factors? With an increased emphasis on diversity management, do women feel like their workplaces are inclusive? Hypotheses To answer these questions, this study examines both objective and subjective measures of gender disparities among federal government employees. Just as career opportunities can be 7

9 studied in terms of actual and perceptual (Landau & Hammer, 1986; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015) so can inclusion. First, supervisory status is examined by gender to determine whether women are less likely than men to be a supervisor while controlling for other factors. Second, perceptions or feelings of inclusion are examined by gender to determine whether men find workplaces to be more inclusive than their female counterparts. Examining both real and perceived measures of gender disparity paints a more complete picture of the status of diversity management in the federal government. Diversity brings many benefits to organizations, where organizations may strive to have a more diverse management team in order to improve organizational effectiveness (Cox, 1991, 1994). In public administration, representative bureaucracy argues that passive representation, the presence of group members, can lead to active representation, providing a voice for those group members (e.g., Dolan, 2000; Goode & Baldwin, 2005; Meier, 1993; Thompson, 1976; Wilkins & Keiser, 2006). For example, a greater number of females in management positions will be able to promote the interests and values of females in the organization. Although Choi (2013) finds a higher proportion of racial/ethnic minorities and women in management positions has a negative influence on employee job satisfaction, minorities are more satisfied with their jobs when there are higher proportions of minorities in management positions. Baron, Mittman, and Newman (1991) found organizations led by female executives have higher levels of gender integration throughout the organization. Representative organizations tend to be more inclusive (Andrews & Ashworth, 2015). Despite the benefits of diversity and representation, women continue to be underrepresented in management positions in the federal government (Choi, 2011; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006; Naff & Thomas, 1994; Riccucci, 2009; Sabharwal, 2015; Starks, 2009; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015). 8

10 Gender stereotypes are pervasive. For example, in 2010, an organization fired a woman for not being a good fit for a front desk position because she was too tomboyish, where another woman with more feminine characteristics quickly replaced the original employee (Malos, 2015). Gender stereotypes are a barrier to advancement within organizations (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011; Kropf, Willington, & Gerkovich, 2003). According to the role incongruity model, social role theory, and think-manager-think-male frameworks, the stereotypical traits of females do not match the stereotypical traits of leaders, creating a disadvantage for women to advance to leadership positions (Sabharwal, 2015; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015). Managers of both genders view the job of manager as masculine and a better fit for males (Schein, 1975). Women are perceived as communal and nurturant, while men are perceived as assertive and instrumental (Guy, 2011, 303). These stereotypes have repercussions for women in the workplace. The irony is that women who adhere to traditional feminine norms are considered less powerful or valuable; if they exhibit more masculine traits, they are criticized for their harsh demeanor (Guy & Fenley, 2014, 52). Due to gender stereotypes, we hypothesize: H1a: Female employees are less likely to be supervisors. Research finds that race is gendered and gender is racialized, so that race and gender fuse to create unique experiences and opportunities for all individuals involved (Bearfield, 2009; Browne & Misra, 2003). In the federal government, minority employees are more likely to report barriers to promotion and to see their race as a barrier to advancement (U.S. MSPB, 2009). This relates to segmented equality, which occurs when equality exists within a group or category but conditions between groups are not equal (Hsieh & Winslow, 2006). Looking at solely race or gender only tells a part of the story, but by looking at both of them in conjunction with one 9

11 another, intersectionality allows researchers to see segmented equality issues within specific organizations. Today, it is no longer sufficient to look at just an individual s gender or race, because both of those attributes affect an individual s experience. As such, we examine the intersectionality of race and gender to hypothesize: H1b: Minority female employees are less likely to be supervisors. Workplace discrimination is the unfair treatment of workers or applicants based on personal attributes that are irrelevant to job performance. Women continue to face discrimination and harmful workplace conditions. Women are more likely to face workplace bullying (Venetoklis & Kettunen, 2015) and gender is the strongest predictor an individual will be a victim of sexual harassment (Newman, Jackson, & Baker, 2003). The majority of the population view themselves as unprejudiced, yet nearly half of the population admits that someone has been discriminatory towards them (Fevre, Grainger, & Brewer, 2011). According to rational bias theory, individuals who do not necessarily hold prejudice attitudes towards others nonetheless rationally choose to discriminate because of certain conditions in the workplace (Larwood et al. 1984; Trentham & Larwood, 1998). Although the person claims not to be prejudice, they rationally decide that discrimination is justified in a specific situation. By rationally choosing to discriminate, the individual is justifying the act in their eyes, and this commonly stems from human resource policies that knowingly, or unknowingly, promote gender inequality (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). One ideological dilemma employees face is the way in which workers want to simultaneously acknowledge gender discrimination and claim that their workplaces are gender neutral (Kelan, 2009). Effective diversity management is needed to ensure workplaces are gender neutral and inclusive, absent of any policies or produces that could be biased against a certain group. 10

12 While the goal of diversity management is to create an inclusive workplace, research must look deeper to understand individuals feelings of inclusion. The way that individuals view and draw conclusions about their workplace depends on each individual s lens. Diversity management has moved beyond addressing actual occurrences of discrimination to create inclusive environments that take advantage of diverse viewpoints. However, discrimination beliefs in the workplace differ depending on an individual s gender (Feather & Boeckmann, 2007) and gender can influence workplace relations (Hale, 1999). We know little about how gender influences feelings of inclusion, but scholars have begun to examine perceptual measures. Wyen, op de Beeck, and Ruebens (2015) found women perceive fewer career advancement opportunities and greater barriers compared to men. Choi and Rainey (2014) found employees had higher levels of job satisfaction, when federal employees thought their organizations were fair and had effective diversity management. Similarly, Kim (2015) found perceived discrimination has as negative relationship with both job satisfaction and work engagement. Sabharwal (2015) found women in management positions are less likely to face glass cliffs when they have influence over policy decisions, perceive empowerment, and experience organizational equities. Feeling included in the workplace can have repercussions not only for the individual, affecting job satisfaction, but also the organization, as it influences work engagement. Based on social identity theory where women may feel like out group members rather than in group members, we hypothesize: H2a: Female employees feel less included in their workplace. We also examine the intersectionality of race and gender with regards to feelings of inclusion. Feeney and Langer (2015) found women and minorities view gender and race, respectively, as an important factor for career advancement and minorities were more likely to 11

13 view connections as important. The intersection of race and gender may make individuals feel excluded from not one, but two groups. Therefore, we hypothesize: H2b: Minority female employees feel less included in their workplace. Methods This study utilized the 2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) to test the hypotheses. The FEVS is a tool measuring federal government employees perceptions of whether conditions characterizing successful organizations are present within their agencies. The FEVS provides insight into the challenges agency leaders face in ensuring the federal government has an effective civilian workforce. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) annually electronically collects the sample of all full-time, part-time, permanent, and nonseasonal employees throughout the different federal government agencies. To decide which agencies to survey, OPM first sent out an invitation for the survey. The agencies that accepted the invitation were then surveyed. For 2014, 82 agencies were invited to participate, which consists of 37 departments and 45 independent agencies, totaling 97 percent of the Executive Branch. From those agencies, the sample was 392,752 individual responses from 47 departments/agencies with a response rate of 46.8 percent (2014 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey). Two dependent variables are analyzed: inclusion and supervisory status. Supervisory status is operationalized with the survey question What is your supervisory status. The variable is measured as an indicator with a 0 representing non-supervisor status and a 1 representing supervisor status. Overall, 21 percent of the respondents reported being supervisors. For the inclusion variable, this study combined three of the FEVS questions to more accurately encompass perceptions of inclusion. First, the question surrounding prohibited 12

14 personnel practices because research shows that employees perceptions of discrimination affect key areas of human resource management and development within an organization (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001). Second, if specific agencies have policies and programs promoting diversity, because of the importance of diversity management. Institutional discrimination can be present in HR policies, so looking at the current policies within agencies allows for an inside look into what individuals feel about their workplace (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). Third, whether employees feel their supervisor is committed to agency diversity, deals with the idea of individual discrimination. Perceived supervisor discrimination is a significant predictor of participants level of organizational commitment and overall job satisfaction (Ensher et al., 2001). By combining these three questions into an inclusion variable, the analysis can look at the feeling of inclusion across institutional, managerial, and individual levels. These individual questions were measured on a Likert scale with a one representing strongly disagree and a five representing strongly agree. When the three questions were combined for the inclusion variable, the scale was increased from three to fifteen. At 0.780, the Cronbach s alpha shows that the three variable scales have high internal consistency when measuring the concept of inclusion. This study focuses on gender, and how race affects the influence of gender, using an interaction variable between gender and minority status for one of its independent variables and gender as the other. Gender is a dichotomous variable with a one representing female. Likewise, minority status is dichotomous with a one representing minority. The interaction variable of gender and minority status takes on a one if the respondent is both female and a minority and a zero otherwise. The mean for gender is 0.48, which shows an almost equal representation between male and female respondents. This will help support the findings of this analysis by 13

15 showing the survey is not biased by surveying primarily one gender. The interaction term between gender and race, on the other hand has a mean of 0.19, which means only 19 percent of the respondents are female minority employees. When looking at strictly minority status, the mean is 0.34, which leans towards a more non-minority representation. The control variables are educational attainment, military status, disability status, age, pay grade, and agency. Level of education can play a role in gender representation in the federal workforce. Educational attainment affects both an individual s feelings of discrimination in the workplace and their supervisory status (Hsieh & Winslow, 2006). Level of education is measured by including indicator variables for bachelor s level education and post-bachelor s level education with no higher education as the reference category. The gender wage gap provides support for using pay grade as a control variable. Indicators are included for GS paygrade 7-12 and GS paygrade with other as the reference category. Military status, disability status, and age are control variables in this study because each of those variables is a protected class in anti-discrimination laws. Indicators are included for currently serving, retired from military, and discharged from military with no military experience as the reference category. Disability status is included with an indicator for those with a disability. Indicators for age 40-49, age 50-50, and age older than 60 are also included, where under 40 is the reference. Since organizational characteristics such as agency affect female and minority employment in government (Kim, 2004), this analysis included indicators for each of the 47 agencies. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for each variable in this study, except for agencies. [Insert Table 1 Here] 14

16 Table 2 shows the frequency of each of the three categories: gender, minority status, and the interaction of gender and race in relation to supervisory status. The highest percentage of supervisory status is located with the male respondents and the highest non-supervisory status is located with the female minority respondents, which parallels the hypotheses regarding female and minority female employees and supervisory status. The group with the highest percentage supervisory status was male employees, which accounted for nearly a quarter of the respondents. [Insert Table 2 Here] For H1a and H1b, logistic regression is used because the dependent variable, supervisory status, is a dichotomous variable. For H2a and H2b, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is used because the dependent variable is a scale that can be treated as continuous. Results Table 3 shows the results of the binary logistic regression on supervisory status. As hypothesized (H1a), women are less likely to be supervisors than their male counterparts. The odds of females being supervisors in the federal government are that of males, which means females are 27 percent less likely to be supervisors compared to their male counterparts. While minorities are less likely to be supervisors than non-minorities, the intersectionality between being female and being a minority is not statistically significant. The hypothesis that female minority employees are less likely to be supervisors is not supported (H1b). All of the control variables are statistically significant, except for the military status of currently serving in the interaction model. Those with higher levels of education and higher paygrades are more likely to be supervisors, while those with a disability are less likely to be supervisors. Prior military experience also seems to increase the odds of being a supervisor as 15

17 those who retired from the military or are currently serving are more likely to be supervisors compared to those with no military experience. [Insert Table 3 Here] The OLS regression in Table 4 shows a statistically significant relationship between both gender and the interaction between gender and minority status, with the level of inclusion in the federal government. Both hypotheses are supported (H2a and H2b) as both females and female minorities report lower levels of inclusion in the workplace. Women and non-minority women employees report lower levels of inclusion, which shows that they feel more discrimination or at least feel more likely out group members in the workplace. The results also support the idea that by interacting race and gender, the discrimination felt in the workplace is increased. When race is added to the equation, female employees, who are also minorities, feel even less included in the workplace compared to females in general. All the control variables reported a statistically significant relationship with inclusion in the federal government, except for the variable currently serving in the military. Education increases feelings of inclusion, while age and having a disability decreases feelings of inclusion. For paygrade, individuals in the lower paygrade category had a negative relationship with the level of inclusion in the federal government, but individuals in the higher paygrade category had a positive relationship with the level of inclusion. For military experience, those retired from the military perceive higher levels of inclusion than those with no military experience, while those discharged from the military perceive lower levels of inclusion. [Insert Table 4 Here] 16

18 Discussion Although public administration calls for representative bureaucracies, where government reflects the public served, the federal government still has a way to go with diversity management to ensure representation and inclusion. This study finds women are less likely to be supervisors in the federal government than men, but found no significant difference for the intersectionality of female minorities for supervisor status. However, we find both women and minority women employees feel less included in the federal government workforce. This study builds upon research on gender gaps in the federal government that examine gaps in pay, occupations, management, and perceptions. We find gender gaps persist in the management of federal government agencies. In support of prior work (Choi, 2011; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006; Naff & Thomas, 1994; Riccucci, 2009; Sabharwal, 2015; Starks, 2009; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015), women are found less likely to be supervisors compared to men. As the time progresses and efforts are undertaken, research should continue to examine progress in narrowing the gender gaps in the federal government. We extend prior research by not only looking at the influence of gender, but also the intersectionality of gender and race. Scholars have called for intersectionality to be examined (Bearfield, 2009; Browne & Misra, 2003) since people cannot separate their gender identity from their racial identity. Gender is inherently racialized and race is inherently gendered. Interestingly, the influence of the interaction between gender and race on supervisory status in the federal government does not support previous literature. Research focuses on the gender wage gap and how minorities and women, specifically in the federal government, are still lacking in representativeness in higher management positions (e.g., Riccucci, 2009). However, we find that while females and minorities are less likely to be supervisors, no significant results are found for 17

19 female minorities. Looking on the bright side, perhaps female minorities overcome stereotypes that may result in discrimination towards becoming a supervisor. Conversely, perhaps those who are females and minorities are chosen to be supervisors as tokens to represent not only women, but also minorities. Additional research is needed on the intersectionality of race and gender. This study contributes to existing research by examining both a subjective measurement of discrimination and an objective measurement. This study supports prior research that finds gender influences discrimination beliefs (Feather & Boeckmann, 2007) and workplace relations (Hale, 1999). Building upon the growing research on perceptual measures in the workplace (Choi & Rainey, 2010; Kin, 2015; Sabharwal, 2015; Wyen, op de Beeck, & Ruebens, 2015), we find women are more likely to feel discrimination in the workplace, and minority women are more likely to feel even more discrimination compared to women in general. Although women have made gains in overall representation, inequality still exists between women and minorities, which is felt on different levels depending on the social category of the individual (Bearfield, 2009). Not only do gender gaps persist in the likelihood of federal employees being supervisors, but women and minority women also feel less included in the workplace. In terms of social identity theory, women and minority women perceive themselves as out group members rather than in group members. Future research should examine both objective and subjective measures to examine discrimination and inclusion in the workplace. Conclusion The federal government has a long way to go in achieving gender and racial equality within its workforce. Although the number of women and minorities within the federal government may be increasing, that does not mean the occurrences of discrimination and how people feel about discrimination are decreasing. Focusing on the numbers does not show the 18

20 whole picture of what is happening within the organization. This study shows that women, and minority women employees, are still feeling a lack of inclusion within the workplace. Whether this be because of workplace policies or the way individuals treat them, is unclear, but what is clear is that the federal government needs to take another look at diversity management to address both the diversity of their supervisory levels and take into account whether employees feel included in their workplace. The federal government should continue to evolve its diversity efforts from a focus on non-discrimination and representation to diversity management and inclusion. Gender identity is inseparable from other factors that make up an individual, so although women and minorities want to be treated the same way as men and non-minorities in the workplace, no group, or individual, is the same (Acker, 1987). Therefore, jobs should be based on viewpoint neutrality and the individual s work rather than the individual s makeup. The federal government should be gender and race neutral and work on diversity management to promote social equity within its agencies and embrace pluralism in all forms. 19

21 References Acker, S. (1987). Feminist theory and the study of gender and education. International Review of Education, 33(4), Alkadry, M. G., & Tower, L. E. (2011). Covert pay discrimination: How authority predicts pay differences between women and men. Public Administration Review, 71(5), Alkadry, M. G., & Tower, L. E. (2006). Unequal pay: The role of gender. Public Administration Review, 66(6), Andrews, R., & Ashworth, R. (2015). Representation and inclusion in public organizations: Evidence from the UK civil service. Public Administration Review, 75(2), Andrews, R., G.A. Boyne, K.J. Meier, L.J. O Toole, Jr., & R.M. Walker. (2005). Representative Bureaucracy, Organizational Strategy, and Public Service Performance: An Empirical Analysis of English Local Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(2): Baker, D.T. & Kelan, E.K. (2015). Policy and practice of diversity management in the workplace. In J. Syed & M. Özbilgin (Eds.) Managing diversity and inclusion: An international perspective. London: SAGE. Baron, J. N., Mittman, B. S., & Newman, A. E. (1991). Targets of opportunity: Organizational and environmental determinants of gender integration within the California civil service, American Journal of Sociology, Bearfield, D. A. (2009). Equity at the intersection: Public administration and the study of gender. Public Administration Review, 69(3), Bell, M.P. (2007). Diversity in Organizations. Mason, OH: Cengage. Bolitzer, B., & Godtland, E. M. (2012). Understanding the Gender Pay Gap in the Federal Workforce Over the Past 20 Years. American Review of Public Administration, 42(6), Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, Choi, S. (2013). Demographic diversity of managers and employee job satisfaction empirical analysis of the federal case. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), Choi, S. (2011). Diversity and representation in the US federal government: Analysis of the trends of federal employment. Public Personnel Management, 40(1),

22 Choi, S. (2009). Diversity in the US federal government: Diversity management and employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1), Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. Berrett- Koehler Publishers. Cox, T. (1991). The multi-cultural organization. Academy of Management Executive 5: Dolan, J. (2004). Gender equity: Illusion or reality for women in the Federal Executive Service? Public Administration Review, 64(3), Dolan, J. (2000). The senior executive service: Gender, attitudes, and representative bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(3), Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), Feather, N. T., & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender discrimination in the workplace in the context of affirmative action: Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian sample. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 57(1-2), Fevre, R., Grainger, H., & Brewer, R. (2011). Discrimination and unfair treatment in the workplace. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(S2), Goode, S. J., & Baldwin, J. N. (2005). Predictors of African American representation in municipal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(1), Government Accountability Office. (2005). Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and Agency Examples. GAO Grundmann, S. T., Wagner, A. M., & Rose, M. M. (2011). Women in the Federal Government: Ambitions and achievements (Rep.). Retrieved from pplication=acrobat Guy, M. E. (2011). In search of a middle ground: Preachy, screechy, and angry versus soft, sweet, and compliant. Women in public administration: Theory and practice, Guy, M. E. (1993). Three steps forward, two steps backward: The status of women's integration into Public Management. Public Administration Review, 53(4),

23 Guy, M. E., & Fenley, V. M. (2013). Inch by inch: Gender equity since the Civil Rights Act of Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(1), Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (2004). Women's jobs, men's jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3), Hale, M. (1999). He says, she says: Gender and worklife. Public Administration Review, 59(5), Hsieh, C., & Winslow, E. (2006). Gender representation in the federal workforce: A comparison among groups. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(3), Kelan, E. K. (2009). Gender fatigue: The ideological dilemma of gender neutrality and discrimination in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(3), Kelly, R. M., & Newman, M. (2001). The gendered bureaucracy: Agency mission, equality of opportunity, and representative bureaucracies. Women & Politics, 22(3), Kim, C. (2004). Women and minorities in state government agencies. Public Personnel Management, 33(2), Kim, S. (2015). The effect of gender discrimination in organization. International Review of Public Administration, 20(1), Kingsley, J. D. (1944). Representative Bureaucracy. Yellow Springs, Ohio: Antioch Press. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological bulletin, 137(4), 616. Kropf, M. B., Wellington, S., & Gerkovich, P. R. (2003). What's holding women back? Harvard Business Review, 81(6), Krislov, S. (1974). Representative Bureaucracy. Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Landau, J., & Hammer, T. H. (1986). Clerical employees' perceptions of intraorganizational career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), Larwood, L., Gutek, B., & Gattiker, U. E. (1984). Perspectives on institutional discrimination and resistance to change. Group & Organization Management, 9(3), Lewis, G. B. (1988). Progress toward racial and sexual equality in the federal civil service? Public Administration Review,

24 Lewis, G. B. (1998). Continuing Progress Toward Racial and Gender Pay Equality in the Federal Service An Update. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(2), Malos, S. (2015). Overt stereotype biases and discrimination in the workplace: Why haven't we fixed this by now? Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 27(4), Meier, K. J. (1993). Latinos and representative bureaucracy testing the Thompson and Henderson hypotheses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(4), Meier, K. J., Mastracci, S. H., & Wilson, K. (2006). Gender and emotional labor in public organizations: An empirical examination of the link to performance. Public Administration Review, 66(6), Naff, K. C., & Thomas, S. (1994). The glass ceiling revisited: Determinants of federal job advancement. Review of Policy Research, 13(3 4), Newman, M. A., Jackson, R. A., & Baker, D. D. (2003). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace. Public Administration Review, 63(4), Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence from US federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69(2), Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, Representation, and Performance: Evidence about Race and Ethnicity in Public Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(4): Riccucci, N. M. (2009). The pursuit of social equity in the federal government: A road less traveled? Public Administration Review, 69(3), Sabharwal, M. (2015). From Glass Ceiling to Glass Cliff: Women in Senior Executive Service. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 25(2). Selden, S. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. ME Sharpe. Selden, S. C., & Selden, F. (2001). Rethinking diversity in public organizations for the 21st century moving toward a multicultural model. Administration & Society, 33(3), Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of applied psychology, 60(3), 340. Stamarski, C. S., & Son Hing, L. S. (2015). Gender inequalities in the workplace: The effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers' sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,

25 Starks, G. L. (2009). Minority representation in senior positions in US federal agencies: A paradox of underrepresentation. Public Personnel Management, 38(1), Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations 33, 47. Thomas, R. R. (1990). From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity. Harvard Business Review 68(2): Thompson, F. J. (1976). Minority Groups in Public Bureaucracies Are Passive and Active Representation Linked? Administration & Society, 8(2), Trentham, S., & Larwood, L. (1998). Gender discrimination and the workplace: An examination of rational bias theory. Sex roles, 38(1-2), U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2009). Fair and equitable treatment: Progress made and challenges remaining. Washington, DC: U.S. MSPB. Venetoklis, T., & Kettunen, P. (2015). Workplace Bullying in the Finnish Public Sector Who, Me? Review of Public Personnel Administration, X Wilkins, V. M., & Keiser, L. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), Wynen, J., op de Beeck, S., & Ruebens, S. (2015). The Nexus Between Gender and Perceived Career Opportunities Evidence From the US Federal Government. Public Personnel Management, 44(3),

26 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Variable N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Inclusion Supervisor Female Female X Minority Minority No higher education Bachelor's level education Post-bach level education GS paygrade GS paygrade Paygrade Other Disability Age less than Age Age Age older than No military experience Currently serving Retired from military Discharged from military Note. Agency type is not included 25

27 Table 2 Supervisory Status by Gender and Minority Status Supervisory Status Non-Supervisor Supervisor Total Female 83% 17% 100% Gender Male 76% 24% 100% Minority 82% 18% 100% Minority Status Non-Minority 78% 22% 100% Female Minority 85% 15% 100% Interaction Male Non-Minority 78% 22% 100% 26

28 Table 3 Logit Regression: Supervisory Status by Gender and the Interaction between Gender and Race Model 1 Model 2 Variables B S.E. Exp(B) B S.E. Exp(B) Female X Minority aa Female *** *** Minority Status *** *** Bachelor's level education 0.268*** *** Post-bach level 0.398*** *** GS paygrade *** *** GS paygrade *** *** Disability *** *** Age *** *** Age *** *** Age older than *** *** Currently serving 0.256*** *** Retired from military 0.116*** *** Discharged from military -0.06*** Pseudo R square Note. Excluded categories: education prior to bachelor's degree, no military experience, age less than 40, GS paygrade of other Agency controlled for but left out of table *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<

29 Table 4 OLS Regression: Level of Inclusion by Gender and the Interaction between Gender and Race Model 1 Model 2 Variables B Std. Error t B Std. Error t Female X Minority *** Female *** *** Minority status *** *** Bachelor's level education 0.192*** *** Post-bach level 0.218*** *** GS paygrade *** *** GS paygrade *** *** Disability *** *** Age *** *** Age *** *** Age older than *** *** Currently serving Retired from military 0.417*** *** Discharged from military *** *** R square Note. Excluded categories: education prior to bachelor's degree, no military experience, age less than 40, GS paygrade of other Agency controlled for but left out of table *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<