Women & Politics

ISSN: 0195-7732 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wzwp20

Women in the Executive Branch

Julie Dolan

To cite this article: Julie Dolan (2001) Women in the Executive Branch, Women & Politics, 22:4,
89-104, DOI: 10.1300/J014v22n04_05

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J014v22n04_05

Published online: 14 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 116

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wzwp20

Download by: [Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology] Date: 28 February 2017, At: 07:44
 REVIEW ESSAY

Women in the Executive Branch:

A Review Essay of Their Political Impact and
Career Opportunities
Julie Dolan, Virginia Commonwealth University

INTRODUCTION

Since 1933, when Frances Perkins became the first woman appointed
to a U.S. Cabinet Secretary position, women slowly but surely have in-
creased their numbers in the executive branches of all fifty states and
within the federal government. At the very top of the executive branch, no
woman has ever served as either President or Vice President, and only
eighteen women have ever served as G0vernors.l Far more women have
held executive positions in American cities, as approximately 20% of to-
days sitting mayors are women ( C A W 2000~).Although far from reach-
ing parity with men, women have made their greatest gains in appointed
and career positions at the top of the public sector. Women now constitute
24% of the highest ranks in the federal civil service, the Senior Executive
Service, and average 23% of statewide top officials and administrators
(U.S. Office of Personnel Management 2000; U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission 1998).2
Although women have made great strides in the past few years, most re-
search to date suggests a number of important differences between women
and men serving in executive positions. This essay reviews the existing re-
Women & Politics, Vol. 22(4) 2001
02001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 89
90 WOMEN & POLITICS

search on women in the executive branch of government, focusing on two

themes found most commonly in the literature: whether female represen-
tation leads to political responsiveness for the female citizenry, and how
womens career opportunities compare to those of men in the public sec-
tor. Reviewing the recent literat~re,~ the following research questions of-
ten emerge: (1) Is government qualitatively different when women
assume top posts? Are women responsive to the policy concerns of Amer-
ican women or could men just as adeptly do the job? (2) Do women have
equal opportunities to succeed in the executive branch? Or are they con-
strained by masculine power, glass ceilings, sexual harassment, or occu-
pational segregation? Throughout this review, emphasis is placed on
those women most likely to exercise political influence, those appointed
by either the President or a Governor or those in the elite levels of the ca-
reer service. This is not to suggest that other womens contributions are
less important, but simply a recognition that opportunities to exercise
power and influence are most often found in executive level positions.

GENDER AND POLITICAL IMPACT

In a review essay written ten years ago, Debra Stewart (1990) chal-
lenged scholars to devote greater attention toward determining whether
womens involvement in public administrationin any way alters business
as usual. It is only recently that scholars have taken up the call issued by
Stewart and begun assessing executive womens contributions to public
policy. Some of the most recent scholarship is presented in an edited vol-
ume, covering women in a wide variety of executive branch positions
(First Lady, presidential appointees, White House stafl) (Borrelli and Martin
1997). Among other things, these chapters detail the political influence of
the First Lady (Burrell 1997a; see also Burrell 1997b; OConnor,Nye, and
van Assendelft 1996;van Assendelft and Nye 1998),how female appointees
are treated in nomination and Senate confirmation processes (Borrelli
1997a; see also Borrelli 1997b; Schroedel, Spray, and Snyder 1997), and
how presidential style affects female opportunities to exercise influence in
foreign affairs (McGlen and Sarkees 1997).
Other research scrutinizes whether executive women play an advocacy
role on behalf of American women. Much anecdotal evidence indicates
that female appointees and career administrators do so (Cooper and
Wright 1992; Lamson 1979; Lippman 1997; Schroeder and Snowe 1994).
As presidential appointees, women have utilized their positions to speak
out for and draw attention to problems commonly affecting women in so-
 Julie Dolan 91

ciety. Appointed as the first woman to head the National Institutes of

Health, Bernadine Healy advocated womens health issues from the be-
ginning of her tenure and proposed a $625 million study at NIH that would
include 150,000 women and study breast cancer, osteoporosis, and heart
disease (Schroeder and Snowe 1994). Two months after taking office as the
first female Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright instructed U.S. diplomats
to make the furtherance of womens rights a central priority of American
foreign policy (Lippman 1997).4
Other research focuses upon executive womens attitudes, reasoning
that these attitudes provide legitimate clues about their likely behavior.
Women who are attentive to womens concerns on paper are expected to
be more responsive to womens policy concerns when opportunity for ac-
tion arises. Numerous studies confirm that female executives are more
feminist, liberal, and Democratic than their male colleagues, and much
like women in the general population (Bullard and Wright 1993; Carroll
1986; Carroll and Geiger-Parker 1983b; Guy and Duke 1992). Susan
Carroll (1987) finds female Republican and Democratic appointees to
governors cabinets are more supportive of childcare, abortion, and the
Equal Rights Amendment than their male colleagues. Havens and Healy
(1991) find women appointees in Connecticut more supportive of abor-
tion rights and family leave policies, and less likely than their male coun-
terparts to agree that family leave policies will hurt business and
government. As senior bureaucrats, women are more likely to support
workplace reforms that disproportionately affect women, such as child
care, affirmative action, pay equity, family leave, job sharing, and flexible
work schedules (Carroll and Geiger-Parker 1983b; Dolan 2000; Hale and
Branch 1992; Hale, Kelly, and Burgess 1989; Hale, Kelly, Burgess, and
Shapiro 1987; Kawar 1989; Kelly and Newman 2001; Naff 1998; Stanley
1989). Thus, the existing attitudinal evidence strongly suggests that women
will be responsive to the distinct concerns and preferences of the female cit-
izenry.
Representative bureaucracy scholars are just beginning to probe whether
the demographic representation of females within public bureaucracies
leads to policy outputs that benefit women as a group (Hindera 1993; Keiser et
al. 2000; Selden 1997). Thus far, the evidence is mixed. When claims of
gender or racial discrimination are filed with the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Commission (EEOC), an investigator must determine ifprimafacie
evidence of employment discrimination exists before proceeding with the
complaint (Hindera 1993). Hindera hypothesizes that district offices with
greater numbers of female personnel will find more gender discrimination
92 WOMEN & POLITICS

complaints worthy of further action, but finds no such relationship. In-

stead, he finds the number of women working within district offices of the
EEOC is actually negatively associated with the number of gender discrimi-
nation charges filed by the office, suggesting an increased female pres-
ence leads to fewer womens complaints being recognized as worthy by
EEOC staff (Hindera 1993). In the Department of Agriculture, Selden
(1997) finds no correlation between the proportion of female county su-
pervisors in Farmers Home Administration ( F a ) district offices and the
proportion of female applicants considered eligible for housing loans par-
celed out by the agency. Through personal interviews, McGlen and
Sarkees (1993) demonstrate how women in senior positions within the
very masculine departments of Defense and State exercise influence, but
they find little evidence of a distinctly female perspective among female
foreign policy elites. On the other hand, Keiser et al. (2000) find that higher
proportions of female educators (teachers, math teachers, and superinten-
dents) in Texas school districts are associated with higher math achieve-
ment scores among female students. Girls score higher on standardized
math exams, Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SATs), and advanced placement
exams when they are enrolled in school districts with higher proportions of
female teachers and superintendents. A few studies at the municipal level
also find that female mayors make government employment more accessible
to women (Riccucci 1986; Saltzstein 1986).
In summary, much anecdotal and attitudinal evidence suggests women in
the executive branch do shape governance to be more responsive to Amer-
ican women. Looking more specifically at policy outputs, only a few stud-
ies demonstrate that womens presence actually results in more
female-friendly outcomes. Since very few studies have been conducted
thus far in this area, the conclusions should be considered tentative until
further research supplements our existing knowledge.

GENDER AND CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

Executive branch employees need access to policymaking positions

to exercise political power, but years of scholarship shows women
underrepresented in top positions and overrepresented in the bottom rungs
of the career service (Cayer and Sigelman 1980; Dometrius 1984; Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission 1998; Kellough 1990; Kranz 1976;
Lewis 1994; McGlen and Sarkees 1993; Meier 1975; Meier and Nigro
1976; Naff 1998; Riccucci and Saidel 1997; Saltzstein 1986; Selden 1997;
 Julie Dolan 93

Sigelman 1976; Stewart 1976). As such, numerous scholars have at-

tempted to determine what factors affect womens access to public sector
positions. Overall, female representation in the public sector appears to be
positively influenced by the percentage of clerical jobs available
(Cornwell and Kellough 1994; Kellough 1990; Lewis 1994; Saltzstein
1986), when the agency mission deals with social services or
redistributive policy issues (Cornwell and Kellough 1994; Kelly and
Newman 2001; Lewis 1994; Miller, Kerr and Reid 1999; Newman 1994,
1995), by various political factors (i.e., greater numbers of women serving
on a city council or as mayor) (Saltzstein 1986; Warner, Steel, and
Lovrich 1989), and by the existence of a formal affirmative action pro-
gram, especially one housed in the office of the chief executive (Saltzstein
1986;Warner, Steel, and Lovrich 1989). Other factors, such as liberal atti-
tudes among personnel directors are also associated with greater female
representation (Saltzstein 1983).
Other work focuses more specifically on identifying the obstacles fe-
males encounter in their attempt to climb public sector career ladders.
Two edited volumes provide a great deal of information about executive
womens experiences in the states. Gender, Bureaucracy, and Democracy
(1989), includes case studies from four states (Utah, California, Texas, and
Arizona) and Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the
State Level (1992) covers six states (Utah, California, Texas, Arizona, Wis-
consin, and Alabama). Both works assess high-ranking womens employ-
ment experiences throughout the states, focusing on their promotion rates,
employment histories, qualifications and credentials, access to mentors,
attitudes about workplace issues, leadership styles, salaries, and experi-
ences with sexual harassment. A number of the findings reported within
these two volumes are confirmed at the local and federal levels, and I
highlight some of the most commonly discussed findings. Both as ap-
pointees and career civil servants, women appear remarkably similar to
their male colleagues. Thus, affirmative action programs do not appear to
place unqualified women in public sector positions. To the contrary, the
men and women who serve have similar educational credentials and quali-
fications (Bullard and Wright 1993; Carroll 1986,1987; Dometrius 1984;
Lynn and Vaden 1979; Mani 1997;Martin 1989,1997). A number of stud-
ies demonstrate that female executives come from more advantaged back-
grounds than do their male colleagues, suggesting women actually need to
be more qualified than comparable men to succeed (Bayes 1989; Bullard
and Wright 1993; Carroll 1986; Carroll and Geiger-Parker 1983a, 1983b;
Guy 1993; Guy and Duke 1992; Hale, Kelly, and Burgess 1989;Kelly and
94 WOMEN & POLITICS

Newman 2001; Newman 1993, 1994, 1995; Stanley 1989). Janet Martin
(1989, 1997), examining the recruitment patterns for presidential appoint-
ees, also notes that women more often are recruited from the Washington,
D.C. area than are men. Quite possibly, family commitments (or the as-
sumption of) constrain womens mobility more so than mens, such that
women from outside of the nations Capital have a more difficult time re-
locating to Washington, D.C. than do the men who are called to serve. On
the other hand, a number of studies demonstrate that women who have
made it to top jobs are less likely to have traditional family arrangements
than are similarly situated men. They are more likely to remain single and
childless than their male counterparts (Bayes 1989, 1991; Carroll 1987;
Carroll and Geiger-Parker 1983a;, 1983b; Guy 1993;Hale, Kelly, and Bur-
gess 1989; Johnson and Duerst-Lahti 1992; Kelly et al. 1991; McGlen and
Sarkees 1993;Naff and Thomas 1994;Newman 1993,1994,1995; Stanley
1989), suggesting that they have eschewed their genders traditional
roles of wife and mother to focus on their careers (Johnson and
Duerst-Lahti 1992, 67).
Once women arrive in public sector positions, are they equally likely to
progress through the ranks as their male colleagues? Thus far, the evi-
dence is mixed. At managerial and supervisory levels, numerous studies
suggest women have difficulty climbing the career ladder because of glass
ceilings, those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational
bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their or-
ganization (U.S. Department of Labor 1991,l). Along these lines, scholars
report that women are significantly less likely to be promoted from certain
grades than their male colleagues (Baldwin 1996; Lewis 1987; Naff 1994;
Naff and Thomas 1994;U.S. Department of Labor 1991;U.S. Merit Systems
Protection Board 1992). On the other hand, scholars also note that women
are often fast-tracked through the ranks of both state and federal bureau-
cracies, spending fewer years in a position before being promoted than do
their male colleagues (Bayes 1989; Bullard and Wright 1993; Duke 1992;
Hale, Kelly, and Burgess 1989; Kelly et al. 1991; Kelly and Newman 2001;
Lewis 1986a; Newman 1993, 1994, 1995; Stanley 1989). Promotion possi-
bilities generally decline the higher one moves up the career ladder, so it is
possible that womens more rapid advancement through the ranks simply
reflects lower starting positions in the hierarchy.
Even when women do make it to policymaking positions, much re-
search indicates that genders continues to shape their experiences. A num-
ber of feminist scholars argue that our political institutions reflect
masculine norms and concepts of power, often to the detriment of women
 Julie Dolan 95

and feminine perspectives (Duerst-Lahti 1997; Duerst-Lahti and Kelly

1995; Ferguson 1984; King 1995; McGlen and Sarkees 1993; Newman
1994, 1995; Stivers 1993). McGlen and Sarkees (1993) examine female
executives in two of the most masculine federal departments, State and
Defense, and argue that organizational culture essentially limits female
prospects for success. A central theme of Gender Power, Leadership, and
Governance (Duerst-Lahti and Johnson, 1995)is that public organizations
are inherently masculine, such that women in managerial and
policymaking positions are often placed at a disadvantage because they
are perceived as outsiders without legitimate claims to exercise power.
Within this volume, Cheryl King (1995) shows how executive women
adopt masculine leadership traits and are more likely than men to avoid
feminine decision styles (see also Duerst-Lahti and Johnson 1992) while
Rita Mae Kelly (1995) demonstrates that sexual harassment increases for
women as they move up the career ladder, effectively reducing their
power (see also Kelly and Newman 2001; Kelly and Stambaugh 1992;
Newman 1994, 1995). Drawing from Lowis widely utilized three policy
types (distributive, regulatory, and redistributive), other scholars demon-
strate that womens career opportunities vary across agencies, depending
upon what type of policy dominates the agency. In state and local bureau-
cracies, women are most often found in redistributive policy arenas, those
agencies most often centralized and rule-bound providing the fewest op-
portunities to exercise discretion. The highest proportion of male execu-
tives, on the other hand, is found in the relatively more powerful
distributive agencies. Thus, gender affects organizations in ways that also
affect womens opportunities to succeed (Kelly and Newman 2001; Miller,
Kerr, and Reid 1999; Newman 1994,1995; Reid, Kerr, and Miller 2000).
Other scholars report further empirical evidence consistent with such
reasoning, showing that public bureaucracies remain highly sexually seg-
regated with most women and men performing in different types of occu-
pations (Lewis 1992, 1994, 1996; Lewis and Emmert 1986; Lewis and
Nice 1994; Miller, Kerr, and Reid 1999; Reid, Kerr, and Miller 2000). In
all types of public bureaucracies, career civil servants and appointed
women traditionally have been concentrated in human resource positions
or in agencies that deal with traditional womens concerns such as so-
cial services or health (Bullard and Wright 1993; Cayer and Sigelman
1980; Dometrius 1984; Guy and Duerst-Lahti 1992; Kleeman 1987;
Lewis 1992; Lynn and Vaden 1979; Martin 1989,1997; Miller, Kerr, and
Reid 1999; Newman 1993, 1994, 1995; Reid, Kerr, and Miller 2000;
Riccucci and Saidell997; Saltzstein 1976; Stewart 1976).Further, women
96 WOMEN & POLITICS

are paid less for the work they do (Bullard and Wright 1993; Cayer and
Sigelman 1980; Duke 1992; Guy 1992, 1993; Hale, Kelly, and Burgess
1989; Kelly et al. 1991; Kelly and Newman 2001; Lewis 1987, 1988,
1998; Newman 1993, 1994, 1995; Stanley 1989), and are less likely to be
found in supervisory positions or supervise fewer employees than do men
(Carroll 1987; Duke 1992; Hale, Kelly, and Burgess 1989; Kelly et al.
1991; Lewis 1986b, 1992; Stanley 1989).

AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As this brief review demonstrates, the literature on women in the exec-

utive branch and their distinct contributions to policy making has certainly
grown since Stewart (1990) advised scholars to take up work in the area,
but offers plenty of opportunities for additional research. Future research
is needed to explore how women go about their jobs, whether they attempt to
incorporate womens perspectives into policymaking decisions, and if
policy outputs differ because of their presence. The evidence in the legis-
lative arena suggests they do, and executive branch research has thus far
lagged behind. Scholars studying women in the executive branch would
be wise to draw from the workof legislative scholars (i.e., Kathlene 1994;
Rosenthal 1997; Thomas 1994), borrowing some of their creative ap-
proaches for assessing womens impact in the fourth branch of govern-
ment. However, much more of legislators behavior is preserved on public
record (votes, floor speeches, committee membership, etc.) than is true for
executive women, making it more difficult to isolate and interpret their
behavior.
Much research has detailed the federal and state governments, while far
less attention has been devoted to women in administrative positions
within municipal government.6 Although many women have served as
mayors, we know very little about whether they act as advocates for the fe-
male citizenry or how they compare to their male colleagues in terms of
attitudes, leadership styles, and the obstacles they have encountered in
their public sector careers. Thus, the arena of municipal government pres-
ents ripe opportunities for investigating the influence, styles, and contribu-
tions of these political elite.
Lastly, additional research should probe the salience of race. We know al-
most nothing about women of color in the executive branch, even though a
number of women of color have served in highly visible posts, at least in the
federal executive (e.g., Hazel OLeazy,Alexis Herman, Aida Alvmz). Certainly
small sample sizes have made it difficult to explore women from different ra-
 Julie Dolan 97

cial backgrounds, but things are changing, providing us with additional op-
portunities to ascertain the political responsiveness and career patterns for
these women. Doing so will provide a much more comprehensive under-
standing of gender in the executive branch.

NOTES
1. This number includes two new female governors elected in 2000: Ruth Ann Minner
(D-DE) and Judy Martz (R-MT) (Gugliotta 2000). For information on the women who have
run for President and Vice President, see the Center for the American Woman and Politics
(1999) and Clift and Brazaitis (2000). For similar information on those who have sought
gubernatorial positions, see the Center for the American Woman and Politics (2000b).
2. The Equal Employment opportunity Commission reports that women comprise 22.6% of
all state officials and administrators in the highest salary brackets. New Hampshire leads
the states with women in 43.8% of top administrative positions and South Dakota ranks
last with 6.9%.
3. Twenty years ago, Mary M. Lepper and Sarah Farrell published a very useful bibliogra-
phy on women in the bureaucracy in the 1980 volume of Women & Politics, l(4): 65-75.
Building on Lepper and Farrell(1980), Debra Stewart (1990) updated and reviewed much of
the early work on women in the executive branch. This essay focuses primarily on research
since Stewarts piece was published, although some duplication is inevitable. Readers are ad-
vised to consult these two earlier pieces for further information.
4. For biographical sketches of numerous fedeml executive women, see Stineman (1980),
Lamson (1979), Center for the American Woman and Politics (1998), and Cooper and
Wright (1992).
5. Although the terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably,feminist scholars
stress the difference between the two. According to Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae
Kelly (1995,6), Sex relates to the biological categories we know as males and females
while Gender is the sex role construction of biological sex, how we take biological dif-
ferences and give them social meaning.
6. Numerous scholars show women are underrepresented at the top rungs of municipal gov-
ernments @bes et al. 1989; Miller, Kerr, and Reid 1999; Reid, Kerr, and Miller 2000;
Riccucci 1986; Saltzstein 1983,1986;Sigelman 1976; Warner, Steel, and Lovrich 1989),but
little research has probed their career histories or perspectives while in office. The Center for
the American Woman and Politics published such a study approximately 15 years ago (Burns,
1986), but its findings should be updated. Studies focusing on female mayors include
McCarty (1986) and Saltzstein (1986).

REFERENCES

Baldwin, J. Norman. 1996. The Promotion Record of the United States Army: Glass
Ceilings in the Officer Corps. Public Administration Review 56(2): 199-206.
Bayes, Jane. 1989. Women in the California Executive Branch of Government. In Gen-
der, Bureaucracy, and Democracy: Careers and Opportunity in the Public Sector,
eds. Mary M. Hale and Rita Mae Kelly. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
98 WOMEN & POLITICS

Bayes, Jane. 1991. Women in Public Administration in the United States. Women &
Politics ll(3): 85-109.
Borrelli, MaryAnne. 1997a. Campaign Promises, Transition Dilemma
ing and Executive Representation. In The Other Elites: Women, Po
in the Executive Branch, eds. MaryAnne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin. Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Borrelli, MaryAnne. 1997b. Gender, Credibility, and Politics: The Senate Nomination
Hearings of Cabinet Secretarties-Designate, 1975 to 1993. Political Research Quar-
terly 50(1): 171-197.
Borrelli, MaryAnne, and Janet M. Martin eds. 1997. The Other Elites: Women, Politics,
and Power in the Executive Branch. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Bullard, AngelaM., and Deil S. Wright. 1993. Circumventingthe Glass Ceiling: Women
Executives in American State Governments. Public Administration Review 53(3):
189-202.
Burns, Ruth Ann, with Lora L. Fong and Susan Fuhrman. 1986. Women in Municipal
Management: Choice, Challenge, and Change. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the
American Woman and Politics.
Burrell, Barbara C. 1997a. The Office of the First Lady and Public Policymaking. In
The Other Elites: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive Branch, eds.
MaryAnne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Burrell, Barbara C. 1997b. Public Opinion, the First Ladyship, and Hillary Rodham
Clinton. New York Garland Publishing.
Carroll, Susan J. 1986. Women Appointed to the Carter Administration: More or Less
Qualified? Polity 18(4): 696-706.
Carroll, Susan J. 1987. Women in State Cabinets: Status and Prospects. The Journal of
State Government 60(5): 204-208.
Carroll, Susan J., and Barbara Geiger-Parker. 1983a. WomenAppointed to the CarterAd-
ministration:A Comparison with Men. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American
Woman and Politics.
Carroll, Susan J., and Barbara Geiger-Parker. 1983b. Women Appointed to State Govern-
ment: A Comparison with All State Appointees. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the
American Woman and Politics.
Cayer, N. Joseph, and Lee Sigelman. 1980. Minorities and Women in State and Local
Government: 1973-1975.Public Administration Review 40(5): 443-450.
Center for the American Woman and Politics. 1998. Women Appointed to Presidential
Cabinets:Fact Sheet. New Brunswick, NJ: National Information Bank on Women in
Public Office, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Center for the American Woman and Politics. 1999. Women Presidential and Vice Presi-
dential Candidates: Fact Sheet. New Brunswick, NJ: National Information Bank on
Women in Public Office, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Center for the American Woman and Politics. 2000a. Statewide Elective Executive
Women: Fact Sheet. New Brunswick, NJ: National Information Bank on Women in
Public Office, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Center for the American Woman and Politics. 2000b. Women Candidatesfor Governor:
Fact Sheet. New Brunswick, NJ: National Information Bank on Women in Public Of-
fice, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
 Julie Dolan 99

Center for the American Woman and Politics. 2000c. Women in Elective Ofice 2000:
Fact Sheet. New Bmnswick, NJ: National Information Bank on Women in Public Of-
fice, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Clift, Eleanor, and Tom Brazaitis. 2000. Madam President: Shattering the Glass Ceiling.
New York Scribner.
Cooper, Terry L., and N. Dale Wright, eds. 1992. Exemplary Public Administrators:
Character and Leadership in Government. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cornwell, Christopher, and J. Edward Kellough. 1994. Women and Minorities in Fed-
eral Government Agencies: Examining New Evidence from Panel Data. Public Ad-
ministration Review 54(3): 265-276.
Dodson, Debra, ed. 1991. Gender and Policymaking: Studies of Women in Ofice. New
Bmnswick Center for the American Woman and Politics.
Dolan, Julie. 2000. The Senior Executive Service: Gender, Attitudes and Representative
Bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(3):
513-529.
Dometrius, Nelson C. 1984. Minorities and Women Among State Agency Leaders. So-
cial Science Quarterly 65(1): 127-137.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 1997. Reconceiving Theories of Power: Consequences of
Masculinism in the Executive Branch. In The Other Elites: Women, Politics, and
Power in the Executive Branch, eds. MaryAnne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin. Boul-
der: Lynne Rienner.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Rita Mae Kelly, eds. 1995. Gender Power, Leadership, and
Governance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Cathy Marie Johnson. 1992. Management Styles, Stereo-
types, and Advantages. In Women andMen of the States: Public Administrators at the
State Level, ed. Mary E. Guy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Duke, Lois L. 1992. Career Development and Affirmative Action. In Women and Men
of the States: Public Administrators at the State Level, ed. Mary E. Guy. Armonk, NY:
M.E. Sharpe.
Eribes, Richard A,, N. Joseph Cayer, Albert K. Karnig, and Susan Welch. 1989. Women
in Municipal Bureaucracies of the Southwest. In Gender, Bureaucracy, and Democ-
racy: Careers and Opportuniq in the Public Sector, eds. Mary M. Hale and Rita Mae
Kelly. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Ferguson, Kathy. 1984. The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Gugliotta, Guy. 2000. Women Alter Governor Lineup. The Washington Post, November 9,
A47.
Guy, Mary E., ed. 1992.Men and Women of the States: Public Administrators at the State
Level. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Guy, Mary E. 1993. Three Steps Forward, Two Steps Backward: The Status of Womens
Integration into Public Management. Public Administration Review 53(4): 285-292.
Guy, Mary E., and Georgia Duerst-Lahti. 1992. Agency Culture and Its Effects on Man-
agers. In Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the State Level, ed.
Mary E. Guy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
100 WOMEN & POLITICS

Guy, Mary E., and Lois Lovelace Duke. 1992. Personal and Social Backgrounds as De-
terminants of Position. In Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the
State Level, ed. Mary E. Guy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Hale, Mary M., and M. Frances Branch. 1992. Policy Preferences on Workplace Re-
form. In Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the State Level, ed.
Mary E. Guy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Hale, Mary M., and Rita Mae Kelly. 1989. Gender, Bureaucracy, and Democracy.
Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Hale, Mary M., RitaMae Kelly, and Jayne Burgess. 1989. Women in the ArizonaExecu-
tive Branch of Government. In Gender, Bureaucracy, and Democracy: Careers and
Opportuniq in the Public Sector, eds. Mary M. Hale and Rita Mae Kelly. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Hale, Mary M., Rita Mae Kelly, Jayne Burgess, and Rhonda Shapiro. 1987. Women in
the Executive Branch of Government. In Women and the Arizona Political Process,
ed. Rita Mae Kelly. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Havens, Catherine M., and Lynne M. Healy. 1991. Cabinet-Level Appointees in Con-
necticut: Women Making a Difference. In Gender and Policymaking: Studies of
Women in m c e , ed. Debra L. Dodson. New Bmnswick, NJ: Center for the American
Woman and Politics.
Hindera, John J. 1993. RepresentativeBureaucracy: Imprimis Evidence of Active Rep-
resentation in the EEOC District Offices. Social Science Quarterly 74( 1): 95-108.
Johnson, Cathy Marie, and Georgia Duerst-Lahti. 1992. Public Work, Private Lives. In
Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the State Level, ed. Mary E.
Guy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Inter-
action of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates. American Political
Science Review 88(3): 560-576.
Kawar, Amal. 1989. Women in the Utah Executive Branch. In Gender, Bureaucracy,
and Democracy: Careers and Opportunity in the Public Sector, eds. Mary M. Hale and
Rita Mae Kelly. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Keiser, Lael R., Vicky M. Wilkins, Kenneth J. Meier, and Catherine Holland. 2000. Gen-
der, Identity and Representative Bureaucracy: A Neoinstitutional Approach. Paper pre-
sented at the American Political Science Association Meeting, Washington, DC.
Kellough, J. Edward. 1990. Integration in the Public Workplace: Determinants of Mi-
nority and Female Employment in Federal Agencies. Public Administration Review
50(5): 557-566.
Kelly, Rita Mae. 1995. OffensiveMen, Defensive Women: Sexual Harassment, Leader-
ship, and Management. In Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, eds. Geor-
gia Duerst-Lahti and RitaMae Kelly. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Kelly, Rita Mae, and Georgia Duerst-Lahti. 1995. Toward Gender Awareness and Gen-
der Balance in Leadership and Governance. In Gender Power, Leadership, and
 Julie Dolan 101

Governance, eds. Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press.
Kelly, Rita Mae, Mary E. Guy, Jane Bayes, Georgia Duerst-Lahti,Lois L. Duke, Mary M.
Hale, Cathy Johnson, Amal Kawar, and Jeanie R. Stanley. 1991.Public Managers in
the States: A Comparison of Career Advancement by Sex. Public Administration Re-
view 51(5):402-412.
Kelly, Rita Mae, and Meredith A. Newman. 2001.The Gendered Bureaucracy: Agency
Mission, Equality of Opportunity,and RepresentativeBureaucracy. Women & Politics
22(3): 1-33.
Kelly, Rita Mae, and Phoebe Morgan Stambaugh. 1992. Sexual Harassment in the
States. In Women andMen of the States: Public Administrators at the State Level, ed.
Mary E. Guy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Shape.
King, Cheryl Simrell. 1995.Sex-Role Identity and Decision Styles: How Gender Helps
Explain the Paucity of Women at the Top. In Gender Power, Leadership, and Gover-
nance, eds. Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Kleeman, Katherine E. 1987.Women in State Government: Looking Back, Looking
Ahead. Journal of State Government 60(5):199-203.
Lamson, Peggy. 1979.In the Vanguard: Six American Women in Public Life. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Lear, Julia Graham. 1983.Womens Health and Public Policy: 1976-1982. In Women in
Washington:Advocates for Public Policy, ed. Irene Tinker. Beverly Hills, C A Sage
Publications.
Lepper, Mary M. 1974.A Study of Career Structures of Federal Executives: A Focus on
Women. In Women in Politics, ed. Jane Jaquette. New York John Wiley.
Lepper, Mary M., and Sarah Farrell. 1980.Bibliography: Women in Bureaucracy.
Women &Politics l(4):65-75.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1986a.Gender and Promotions: Promotion Chances of White Men
and Women in Federal White-collar Employment. The Journal of Human Resources
21(3):406-419.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1986b.Race, Sex, and Supervisory Authority in Federal White-collar
Employment. Public Administration Review 46(1):25-29.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1987.Changing Patterns of Sexual Discrimination in Federal Em-
ployment. Review of Public Personnel Administration 7(2):1-13.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1988.Progress Toward Racial and Sexual Equality in the Federal
Civil Service? Public Administration Review 48(3):700-706.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1992.Women and Men Toward the Top: Backgrounds, Careers, and
Potential of Federal Middle Managers. Public Personnel Management 21(4):
473-491.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1994.Women, Occupations, and Federal Agencies: Occupational
Mix and Interagency Differences in Sexual Inequality in Federal White-collar Em-
ployment. Public Administration Review 54(3):271-276.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1996.Gender Integration of Occupations in the Federal Civil Service:
Extent and Effects on Male-FemaleEarnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review
49(3):472-483.
102 WOMEN & POLITICS

Lewis, Gregory B. 1998. Continuing Progress Toward Racial and Gender Pay Equality
in the Federal Service. Review of Public Personnel Administration 28(2): 23-37.
Lewis, Gregory B., and Mark A. Emmert. 1986. The Sexual Division of Labor in Federal
Employment. Social Science Quarterly 67( 1): 143-156.
Lewis, Gregory B., and David Nice. 1994. Race, Sex and Occupational Segregation in
State and Local Governments. American Review of Public Administration 24(4):
393-410.
Lippman, Thomas W. 1997. State Department Seeks Gains for Women: Albright is
StressingRights Concerns in Foreign Policy Agenda. The WashingtonPost, March 25,
Al.
Lynn, Naomi B., and Richard E. Vaden. 1979. Toward aNon-Sexist Personnel Opportu-
nity Structure: The Federal Executive Bureaucracy. Public Personnel Management
8(4): 209-215.
Mani, Bonnie G. 1997. Gender and the Federal Senior Executive Service: Where is the
Glass Ceiling? Public Personnel Management 26(4): 545-558.
Martin, Janet M. 1989. The Recruitment of Women to Cabinet and Subcabinet Posts.
Western Political Quarterly 42(1): 161-172.
Martin, Janet M. 1997. Women Who Govern: The Presidents Appointments. In The
Other Elites: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive Branch, eds. MaryAnne
Borrelli and Janet M. Martin. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
McCarty, Kathryn Shane. 1986. Women in Municipal Government. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Leauge of Cities.
McGlen, Nancy E., and Meredith Reid Sarkees. 1991. The Unseen Influence of Women
in the State and Defense Departments. In Gender and Policymaking:Studies of Women
in Ofice, ed. Debra L. Dodson. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American Woman
and Politics.
McGlen, Nancy E., and Meredith Reid Sarkees. 1993. Women in Foreign Policy: The In-
siders. New York Routledge.
McGlen, Nancy E., and Meredith Reid Sarkees. 1997. Style Does Matter: The Impact of
Presidential Leadership on Women in Foreign Policy. In The Other Elites: Women,Poli-
tics, and Power in the Executive Branch, eds. MaryAnne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Meier, Kenneth John. 1975. Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis.
American Political Science Review 69(2): 526-542.
Meier, Kenneth John, and Lloyd G. Nigro. 1976. RepresentativeBureaucracy and Policy
Preferences: A Study in the Attitudes of Federal Executives. Public Administration
Review 36(4): 458-469.
Miller, Will, Brinck Kerr, and Margaret Reid. 1999. A National Study of Gender-Based
Occupational Segregation in Municipal Bureaucracies: Persistence of Glass Walls?
Public Administration Review 59(3): 218-229.
Naff, Katherine C. 1994. Through the Glass Ceiling: Prospects for the Advancement of
Women in the Federal Civil Service. Public AdministrationReview 54(6): 507-514.
 Julie Dolan 103

Naff, Katherine C. 1998. Progress Toward Achieving a Representative Federal Bureau-

cracy: The Impact of Supervisors and their Beliefs. Public Personnel Management
27(2): 135-150.
Naff, Katherine C., and Sue Thomas. 1994. The Glass Ceiling Revisited: Determinants
of Federal Job Advancement. Policy Studies Review 13(3/4): 249-272.
Newman, Meredith Ann. 1993. Career Advancement: Does Gender Make a Differ-
ence? The American Review of Public Administration 23(4): 361-384.
Newman, Meredith Ann. 1994. Gender and Lowis Thesis: Implications for Career Ad-
vancement. Public Administration Review 54(3): 277-284.
Newman, Meredith Ann. 1995. The Gendered Nature of Lowis Typology; or, Who
Would Guess You Could Find Gender Here? In Gender Power, Leadership, and
Governance, eds. Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press.
OConnor, Karen, Bernadette Nye, and Laura van Assendelft. 1996. Wives in the White
House: The Political Influence of First Ladies. Presidential Studies Quarterly 26(3):
835-853.
Pacelle, Richard L., Jr. 1997. A Presidents Legacy: Gender and Appointments to the
Federal Courts. In The Other Elites: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive
Branch, eds. MaryAnne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Reid, Margaret, Brinck Kerr, and William H. Miller. 2000. A Study of the Advancement
of Women in Municipal Government Bureaucracies: Persistence of Glass Ceilings?
Women &Politics 21(1): 35-53.
Riccucci, Norma M.1986. Female and Minority Employment in City Government: The
Role of Unions. Policy Studies Journal 15(1): 3-15.
Riccucci, NormaM., and Judith R. Saidel. 1997. The Representativeness of State-LevelBu-
reaucratic Leaders: A Missing Piece of the Representative Bureaucracy Puzzle. Pub-
lic Administration Review 57(5): 423-430.
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1997. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership Styles in
State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saltzstein, Grace Hall. 1983. Personnel Directors and Female Employment Representa-
tion: A New Addition to Models of Equal Employment Opportunity Policy? Social
Science Quarterly 64(4): 734-746.
Saltzstein, Grace Hall. 1986. Female Mayors and Women in Municipal Jobs. American
Journal of Political Science 30(1): 140-164.
Schroedel, Jean Reith, Sharon Spray, and Bruce D. Snyder. 1997. Diversity and
Politicization of Presidential Appointments: A Case Study of the Achtenberg Nomina-
tion. In The Other Elites: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive Branch, eds.
MaryAnne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Schroeder, Patricia, and Olympia Snowe. 1994. The Politics of Womens Health. In
The American Woman: 1994-95,eds. Cynthia Costello and Anne J. Stone. New York
W.W. Norton.
Selden, Sally Coleman. 1997. The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy:Diversity and
Responsiveness in a Government Agency. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Sigelman, Lee. 1976. The Curious Case of Women in State and Local Government. So-
cial Science Quarterly 56(4): 591-604.
104 WOMEN & POLITICS

Stanley, Jeanie R. 1989. Women in the Texas Executive Branch of Government. In

Gender, Bureaucracy, and Democracy: Careers and Opportuniq in the Public Sector,
eds. Mary M. Hale and Rita Mae Kelly. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Stewart, Debra W. 1976. Women in Top Jobs: An Opportunity for Federal Leadership.
Public Administration Review 36(4): 357-364.
Stewart, Debra W. 1990. Women in Public Administration. In Public Administra-
tion: The State of the Discipline, eds. Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky. Chat-
ham, NJ: Chatham House.
Stineman, Esther. 1980. American Political Women: Contemporary and Historical Pro-
files. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Stivers, Camilla. 1993. Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Ad-
ministrative State. Newbury Park, C A Sage Publications.
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York Oxford University Press.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. A Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1995. Goodfor Business:Making Full Use of the Nations Hu-
man Capital. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1998. Job Patternsfor Minorities and
Women in State and Local Government, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. 1992.A Question of Equity: Women and the Glass
Ceiling in the Federal Government. Washington, DC: U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. 1995. Sexual Harassment in the Federal Work-
place: Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Merit Sys-
tems Protection Board.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 2000. Senior Executive Service by Gender, As of
September 30, 1999. Last updated 1 March 2000. Accessed November 18, 2000.
http://www.opm.gov/ses/chart4.html.
van Assendelft, Laura A,, and Bernadette Nye. 1998. First Ladies in the States: The Mo-
tivations and Political Resources of Governors Spouses. Women & Politics 19(3):
81- 109.
Warner, Rebecca L., Brent S. Steel, and Nicholas P. Lovrich. 1989. Conditions Associ-
ated with the Advent of Representative Bureaucracy: The Case of Women in Po-
licing. Social Science Quarterly 70(3): 562-578.