Women and Men of the States

Public Administrators and the State Level

Mary E. Guy, Kenneth J Meier

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781563240515
• eBook ISBN: 9781315486710
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This text discusses and compares men's and women's career patterns in state government. It is based upon newly conducted original research surveys in six states. From this research, generalisations are made concerning commonalities and differences between men's and women's experiences in public adminstration at the state level. This is a new area of research: while much has been done at the federal level (and there is a federal database to work from) until now little work has been done and little data is available for the states.

1
The Context of Public Management in the States

Mary E. Guy

Middle and upper-level managers who work in state agencies control the programs and services of the states. Because of the large numbers of personnel employed at the state level, coupled with the importance of policies and programs developed and governed by the states, this segment of the workforce constitutes an important part of the public service. This chapter provides an introduction to public management in the states and explains why a focus on women and men in managerial positions is beneficial.

— Editor's Note

Governmental agencies are the hands and feet of important public purposes (DiIulio 1989). How agencies go about implementing those purposes hinges on the people who are responsible for breathing life into policies and programs. In other words, managers matter because management matters. This is especially true at the state level for three reasons: first, state governments function as distinct entities with their own constitutions, laws, elected officials, and independently raised revenues. Second, in the context of American federalism, states remain vigorous administrative machines upon which Congress depends for policy implementation (Derthick 1987). Third, they employ a lot of people. In 1989, state and local governments employed over 3 million people (U.S. EEOC 1990). Of those working in state governments, 33.3 percent of full-time workers were employed in higher education; 14.4 percent were employed in hospitals; 8.2 percent were employed in corrections; 7.7 percent were employed in administration; 6.9 percent were employed in highways; 5.4 percent were employed in public welfare; 4 percent were employed in health; and 20.1 percent were employed in other programs (Governing 1991). This variety of programs and services represent a plethora of policy areas, jobs, skills, and responsibilities.

The responsibilities of public managers in the states are many and the results of their work are far-reaching. It is their responsibility to make sure that education equips a state's citizens with the skills and knowledge necessary to contribute to the economy and to society in general. Likewise, it is the responsibility of public managers to ensure that adequate health care is provided, that correctional systems rehabilitate those incarcerated, that taxes are collected and allocated, that highways and bridges are maintained, and that the work of government is handled as efficiently, effectively, and responsively as possible.

In 1990 the National Commission on the Public Service, more commonly called "The Volcker Commission," issued a report arguing that it is essential that government employ well-trained, experienced executives who are capable of adapting to the demands of a changing society and an interconnected world (National Commission on the Public Service 1990). Although the commission was focusing its recommendations on public service at the federal level, its concerns are equally true at the state level. Innovative management is essential if states are to implement programs and deliver services in a way that maximizes access by citizens, efficiently coordinates services, and stretches resources. Management matters more than any other organizational factor because innovative public managers have a bias toward action. And it is action that makes the difference (Sanger and Levin 1991).

Survey of Managers

So, who are the managers in the states? Who make the difference? This book uses data gathered from surveys conducted in Alabama, Arizona, California, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin to answer these questions. The surveys were conducted to discover the backgrounds of middle and upper-level managers in state agencies, to find how they had achieved their posts, and to learn about the career helps and hindrances they encountered. Their managerial styles were also explored to learn how they view themselves and their work. They were selected according to criteria based on salary levels, duties performed, and personnel grade schedules. (See appendix A for an explanation of the research design and appendix B for a list of the survey questions.)

Because of the different personnel systems in each state, the precise definition of the upper echelon managers varied somewhat from state to state. The six surveys include responses from 1,289 respondents, of whom 870 are men and 419 are women. Because it was important to the researchers to learn whether or how gender affects women and men differently in their managerial careers, results are analyzed by sex of respondents. The chapters in this book are based upon the data from the surveys and identify factors that either unite or differentiate women and men in managerial positions. These factors are then discussed in terms of the normative issues that they raise regarding structures within public agencies that affect the employment of women and men in administrative positions.

The Status of Women and Men in State and Local Public Administration

In the business sector of the economy, women have made significant inroads into boardrooms and corporate office-holding over the past few decades, but they still trail far behind men in terms of their overall representation in important posts and in salary attainment (Dreher, Dougherty, and Whitely 1989). An examination of data supplied by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shows a similar finding in state and local government. There is a significant difference in the rate at which women enter managerial positions and the rate at which men enter similar positions in state government.

National data provide a backdrop that enlightens the discussions in the following chapters. These national data collected from all state and local governments show significant disparities between the status of women and the status of men in terms of their employment (U.S. EEOC 1982,1985, 1990). Tables 1.1 through 1.5 display these data.

Table 1.1 indicates that the wage gap between women and men employed full-time in state and local government has increased from 1980 to 1990 and that women are increasingly landing part-time positions and entering the public service in greater numbers than men. A comparison of the median salary for all full-time employees working

Table 1.1 Full-Time Median Salary, Part-Time Employment, and New Hires

	Women	Men	Difference
Median salary ($)
1980	11,414	15,159	-3,745
1985	17,262	22,332	-5,070
1990	20,631	26,070	-5,439
Part-time employment (%)
1980	51.0	49.0	+2.0
1985	53.4	46.6	+6.8
1990	55.3	44.7	+10.6
New hires (%)
1980	50.5	49.5	+1.0
1985	49.0	51.0	-2.0
1990	51.4	48.6	+2.8

for state and local government in the United States in 1980, 1985, and 1990 is telling. While men, on average, made $3,745 more than women in 1980, they made $5,439 more by 1990. Likewise, part-time employment has fallen more and more to women. Of all those who held part-time employment in 1980, there were 2 percent more women than men. After a decade of gradual change, women held 10.6 percent of the part-time jobs. Over the course of the 1980s these numbers show that more doors have opened for women. In 1980, there were 1 percent more women among new hires and by 1990 there were 2.8 percent more women among new hires.

Table 1.2 shows the median salary of full-time employees working in state and local governments according to their type of employment. A comparison of the median salaries of women and men employed full-time in state and local governments is enlightening when job categories are broken down into "officials/administrators," "professionals," and "office/clerical/administrative support." The table shows that the wage gap has increased from 1980 to 1990 for officials/administrators. While men made $5,657 more than women in 1980, they made $7,783 more in 1990. The wage gap did not progress as steadily for either of the other two categories, although it remained ever-present. While male professionals made $4,246 more than women in 1980, they made

Table 1.2 Full-Time Median Salary by Occupation ($)

	Women	Men	Difference
Officials/ administrators
1980	17,493	23,150	-5,657
1985	26,440	33,370	-6,930
1990	32,686	40,469	-7,783
Professionals
1980	15,738	19,984	-4,246
1985	23,306	28,750	-5,444
1990	28,291	33,033	-4,742
Office/clerical/ administrative support
1980	10,429	11,858	-1,429
1985	15,135	17,140	-2,005
1990	18,082	19,672	-1,590

$4,742 more in 1990. While men in clerical positions made $1,429 more than women in 1980, they made $1,590 more than women in 1990.

Table 1.3 shows the median salary of full-time employees in state and local governments in 1980, 1985, and 1990 in the six states that were surveyed for this study. When the wage gap is examined in these six states, the evidence is that it is nowhere close to disappearing. In all states, regardless of geographic region, political context, or comparableworth initiatives, the gap remained. And in all but Al...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• About the Contributors
• Foreword
• Introduction
• 1. The Context of Public Management in the States
• 2. Career Development and Affirmative Action
• 3. Personal and Social Background as Determinants of Position
• 4. Public Work, Private Lives
• 5. Mentoring
• 6. Sexual Harassment in the States
• 7. Management Styles, Stereotypes, and Advantages
• 8. Agency Culture and Its Effect on Managers
• 9. Policy Preferences on Workplace Reform
• 10. Summing Up What We Know
• Appendix A: Questionnaire Development
• Appendix B: Survey Questions
• References
• Index