Organizational Culture and Social Equity: An Experiential Guide 2022057697, 2022057698, 9781032498119, 9781032498126, 9781003395591

Citation preview

Organizational Culture and Social Equity

Social equity, or the lack of social equity, is practiced in all of our organizations. By focusing on advancing social equity in organizational culture, public and non-profit organizations can create more inclusive operations, correct historical injustices, and fulfill their mission to serve the community. Social equity is often explored as a grand theory, but it is critical for organizations to identify and practice strategies to apply theory into action. Organizational Culture and Social Equity: An Experiential Guide is the first book of its kind to provide the public service-minded reader with an opportunity to practice social equity. The chapters are designed to be both theoretical and practical, helping the reader develop knowledge to analyze social equity efforts in their own organization as well as the tools to act. The contributing chapter authors in this book explore social equity through various dimensions of organizational culture: physical characteristics and general environment; policies, procedures, and structures; socialization; leadership behavior; rewards and recognition; discourse; and learning and performance. Each contributor provides a thorough overview of their respective culture category along with important theories and concepts, definitions, and strategies for practice. The chapter authors then examine social equity in each area of organizational culture through a learning activity, discussion questions, and a call to action. Each chapter further reinforces concepts with a vignette featuring a public administrator who has faced a situation related to that chapter. Organizational Culture and Social Equity is a timely and essential read for all those who wish to study or practice public administration through an equity lens. Stephanie Dolamore is Assistant Professor of Public Administration at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C. She teaches using American Sign Language and English for the bilingual Master of Public Administration program for D/deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students. Her research explores the intersection of social equity, disability justice, and organizational culture in the public sector. Angela Kline is Assistant Professor of Public Administration at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, where she teaches in the Doctorate of Public Administration and Master of Public Administration programs. Her research focuses on non-profit organizations, social equity, mentorship, and women in academia.

“Social equity is a central pillar of public service, but one many have struggled to convert into action—in the classroom and in the field. Building on foundational works, with an innovative design that is both theoretically rich and practically useful, Dolamore and Kline have created a blueprint for teaching our students how to build a more just and equitable public service. Students have been clamoring for more activities associated with social equity and I could not be more excited to use this book in the classroom.” Jessica E. Sowa, University of Delaware, United States “This edited textbook by Dolamore and Kline does what it intends to do – offer theoretical and practical insights to the practice of social equity in public administration and management. Chapter authors provide readers with evidence that debunks existing myths related to the inability of fulfilling equity within organizations. The text acknowledges the challenges of implementing social equity in organizations rooted within systems of oppression while also providing readers with the foundation elements of social equity and offering insights for the future. This textbook is a critical read for those studying and seeking to study and practice public administration through an equity lens.” Tia Sherèe Gaynor, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, United States “This is an excellent book on how to practice social equity and create a more inclusive society. The authors provide rich vignettes, practical steps, and insightful activities to foster social equity and manifest change in government. It has the power to change American society. A must read for faculty and graduate students in public administration, criminal justice, and political science.” Lorenda A. Naylor, College of Public Affairs, University of Baltimore, United States

Organizational Culture and Social Equity

An Experiential Guide

Edited by Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline

Designed cover image: © Getty Images / roni burla First published 2023 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 selection and editorial matter, Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dolamore, Stephanie, editor. | Kline, Angela, editor. Title: Organizational culture and social equity : an experiential guide / edited by Angela Kline and Stephanie Dolamore. Description: First Edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2023. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2022057697 (print) | LCCN 2022057698 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032498119 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032498126 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003395591 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Corporate culture. | Personnel management. | Employee motivation. | Leadership. Classification: LCC HM791 .O74 2023 (print) | LCC HM791 (ebook) | DDC 302.3/5--dc23/eng/20221201 LC record available at https://lccn​.loc​.gov​/2022057697 LC ebook record available at https://lccn​.loc​.gov​/2022057698 ISBN: 978-1-032-49811-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-49812-6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-39559-1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003395591 Typeset in Times New Roman by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents

List of Figures List of Tables List of Contributors Acknowledgments Foreword by Susan Gooden Introduction

vii viii ix xii xiv 1

STEPHANIE DOLAMORE AND ANGELA KLINE

1

Physical Characteristics and General Environment

7

KATHRYN E. WASSEL

2

Policies, Procedures, and Structures

23

SEAN MCCANDLESS

3 Socialization

43

LINDSEY L. EVANS AND MARY STRAWDERMAN

4

Leadership Behavior

57

SHILPA VISWANATH AND MAREN B. TROCHMANN

5

Rewards and Recognition

73

SIMONE MARTIN-HOWARD

6 Discourse ADAM CROFT AND ANTHONY STARKE, JR.

88

vi Contents

7

Learning and Performance

104

SAMANTHA JUNE LARSON AND JACK TIERNEY

8 Conclusion

121

STEPHANIE DOLAMORE

Index

127

Figures

3.1 Continuum of Inclusive and Equitable Organizational Development 51 4.1 Person-Role-System Theoretical Frame for Racial Equity 62 4.2 Racial Equity Traps and Leadership Strategies to Overcome Traps 63 8.1 ALL Triangle for Department of Public Services 124

Tables

0.1 Race and Social Equity Cultural Audit 1.1 The Principles of Universal Design 1.2 Sensory Assessment for Public Service Organizations 3.1 Reflection Questions on Socialization in My Organization 4.1 Selected Styles of Leadership 4.2 Table for Learning Activity 2 6.1 The Dialogue Approach 7.1 Social Equity Metric Examples from Austin, TX 7.2 Social Equity Metric Examples from Fort Collins, CO 7.3 Social Equity Metric Examples from Seattle, WA 7.4 Developing Social Equity Metrics for Cloudton

4 13 16 52 61 68 95 109 111 113 114

Contributors

Adam Croft is a PhD candidate at the University of Colorado Denver and an Assistant Lecturer at the University of Wyoming. His research focuses on the relational aspects of public service, social equity in public administration, and public service lawyering. Croft also serves as the editorial assistant for the Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration (JSEPA). Pronouns: he/him. Stephanie Dolamore, DPA, is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at Gallaudet University. She teaches using American Sign Language and English for the bilingual Master of Public Administration program for D/deaf, hard of hearing, and hearing students. Dolamore’s research explores the intersection of social equity, disability justice, and organizational culture in the public sector. Her work has been published in Public Administration Review, Public Integrity, Journal of Public Affairs Education, and Journal of Public Management and Social Policy. Dolamore identifies as an individual with multiple disabilities and is passionate about ensuring government and nonprofit organizations actively include, and promote justice for, people with disabilities. Pronouns: she/her. Lindsey L. Evans, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration and policy at the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research focuses on public and non-profit policy analysis and program evaluation through a social equity lens. Overarching themes include designing and examining social equity initiatives, and her research has evaluated programs and policies aimed at eliminating disparities in the public and non-profit sectors. Pronouns: she/her. Angela Kline, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at West Chester University, where she teaches in the Doctorate of Public Administration and Master of Public Administration programs. Her research focuses on nonprofit organizations, social equity, mentorship, and women in academia. Kline holds a PhD in Urban Affairs and Public Policy from the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. School of Public Policy and Administration at the University of Delaware. Pronouns: she/her.

x Contributors

Samantha June Larson, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. She also serves as Deputy Director of the Whitburn Center for Governance and Policy Research. Larson is a social equity scholar who examines how public programs and policies can enhance community healing, opportunity, sustainability, and resilience. Her work has been published in professional journals, including Administration & Society, Public Integrity, and the Journal of Public Affairs Education. She currently serves on the Administrative Theory & Praxis Editorial Board and the Midwest Public Affairs Conference Advisory Board. Pronouns: she/her. Simone Martin-Howard, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at LIU-Brooklyn’s School of Business, Public Administration, and Information Sciences. She holds a PhD in Global Affairs from Rutgers University-Newark, as well as a Master of Arts in International Relations and a Master of Public Administration from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Her research focuses on health, crime, and the criminal justice system; maternal and child health; public and non-profit service delivery in vulnerable communities; and health and social equity. Martin-Howard’s research has been published in Public Administration Review, Crime and Delinquency, the Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, the Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, the Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, Criminal Justice Review, and Contemporary Perspectives in Family Research. Pronouns: she/her. Sean McCandless, PhD, works at the University of Illinois Springfield’s School of Public Management & Policy, where he serves as an Assistant Professor and Associate Director of the Doctorate in Public Administration program. His research centers on how accountability for social equity is achieved. With Dr. Mary Guy, he co-edited the book Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions (Melvin & Leigh). With Dr. Susan T. Gooden and Dr. Richard Greggory Johnson III, he co-founded the Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration. Pronouns: he/him. Anthony Starke, Jr., PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Public Administration and Ethnic Studies Faculty Affiliate at the University of Colorado Denver. Starke received his PhD at the University of Nebraska, MPA at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Human Services and Psychology from Old Dominion University. His research covers democracy, identity, citizenship, and social equity, specializing in vulnerable and marginalized populations, public service education, and liberation. Pronouns: he/him. Mary Strawderman, M. Envs., CRA, is a Senior Grant and Contract Administrator in the Division of Sponsored Programs in the Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation at Virginia Commonwealth University. She is also a

Contributors  xi

PhD student in Public Policy and Administration at the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. Her research interests include environmental justice, social equity, and risk perception. Pronouns: she/her. Jack Tierney, MPA, is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. He currently works as a Management Analyst at the Village of Round Lake Beach, IL. Tierney previously served as a Graduate Research Assistant while earning his master’s degree and supported several applied projects, including a cultural audit, citizen survey analysis, and economic development prospectus. He also earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Journalism at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. Pronouns: he/him. Maren B. Trochmann, PhD, is a Supervisory Housing Program Specialist with the federal government. She has taught courses on ethics and human resources management in MPA programs. Her research interests include social equity, public personnel administration, and the nexus between public administration theory and practice. Pronouns: she/her. Shilpa Viswanath, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Management at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY. Her research interests include public sector human resource management, focusing on gender and workplace equity. She also studies comparative public administration with a focus on South Asia. Pronouns: she/her. Kathryn E. Wassel, PhD, is an Assistant Teaching Professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Her research is rooted in the study of institutions, the policy process, and organizational roles in implementation. To date, her work has  focused on these dynamics through the examination of equity measures embedded in public policies, particularly those governing sustainability programs and local food systems. Pronouns: she/her.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to you, our reader. This book is about you and your journey to promote social equity. Thank you for reading this book and doing this work. We are also deeply grateful to our colleagues who contributed to this work as authors. Your dedication and scholarship are an inspiration to us. We hope our readers find your contributions equally meaningful. We want to thank Dr. Susan Gooden for her support of this project and for her persistent commitment to advancing social equity. We are grateful for your leadership, scholarship, and mentorship. We wish to acknowledge Taylor and Francis for granting permission to use material from Dr. Gooden’s Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. There were many students who conducted interviews on behalf of this project, though not all were included in this book. We want to thank students enrolled in DPA 707 Qualitative Research Methods in Fall 2021 in the Doctor of Public Administration program at West Chester University. They helped us talk to public administrators across the country. Their names are listed below: Cory Adams Tamerra Bailey Ryan Beauford Xaverie Biloa Xavier Boatright Nicole Bopp Kara Buckmaster Shane Diller Janet Dutcher Clark Gettinger Deanna Giorno Kari Harris Gwendolyn Harter Mark Jaronczyk Catherine Juliano Kristi Langford

Acknowledgments 

xiii

Christina Lau Greg Mayle Margo McDonough Julie Mesaros Sam Musa Joey Pazzalia Laura Pyott Gerell Robinson Brett Smith Jonathan Sternesky Dan Wilson We want to acknowledge the support from our colleagues at our respective institutions, Gallaudet University and West Chester University. Stephanie wishes to thank Dr. Geoffrey Whitebread and Kelsey Mitchel from Gallaudet University for their support as colleagues and friends. Angela wants to thank Dr. Amanda Olejarski for her guidance and Dr. Kristen Crossney for her support and encouragement. Finally, we offer a special acknowledgment to the new humans born during this project from the editors and authors as well as our partners for support. We owe a debt of gratitude to our children, Joseph, Louis, Peter, Lena, Felix, and Vera, for teaching us about balancing the Four Es of caregiving: Encourage, Empower, Empathy, and Equity. We hope you are proud of our work and find fulfillment in the service of others.

Foreword Susan Gooden

Praxis – many scholars in the field of public administration purport to link theory to practice. Few actually do it. This book, Organizational Culture and Social Equity: An Experiential Guide, edited by Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline, does so exceptionally well. This thoughtfully crafted edited book volume offers students and practitioners a remarkable educational journey into the world of social equity in practice within the bona fide context of organizational culture. The book is grounded in a panoply of characteristics of organizational culture – physical characteristics, policies, procedures, and structures, socialization, leadership behavior, rewards and recognition, discourse, and learning and performance – each introduced with a vignette from a practitioner, which powerfully illuminates the complexity of social equity work. Social equity, as this volume so well demonstrates, does not operate in the theoretical world of academic values, terminology, and normative ideals. The social equity view from the ground level is far less pristine. It exists within a web of organizational systems, inclusive of individual behavior, group dynamics, and deeply entrenched organizational culture. In practice, all social equity initiatives and challenges, no matter how promising or problematic, must navigate actual concrete terrain. Centering each chapter around the compelling voices of practitioners offers significant dimension and depth for both the instructors who adopt this text and those who study it. This book is not intended for the casual engager of social equity ideals and discourse. The well-executed structure requires deliberate engagement as each chapter includes a specific learning activity, discussion questions, and a call to action – by asking “What Can You Do?” The practitioner perspectives are quite varied, not only in terms of the type of organization – social services, criminal justice, transportation, and housing, to name a few – but also in terms of the constellation of elevated practitioner voices. The vignettes are based on senior executives and midlevel staff, those with long tenure at an organization and those who are much more recent, those who are deeply involved in social equity work and those who suddenly find themselves in this space; those who are personally impacted by the work and those who feel less so. Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline have produced a tour de force in this edited volume, designed to prepare students for engaging in the actual world of

Foreword  xv

social equity in action. Their work solidifies that, in the real world, social equity must operate within a complex environment, which is not guided by a linear, stepby-step operating manual. Rather, the implementation of social equity is complex and requires careful attention to vision, strategy, administrative systems, individual employees, day-to-day decision-making, as well as creativity and innovation. Within the US alone, public administrators and their non-profit partners not only undertake social equity work within their unique organizational settings, but they are also impacted by the broader political context of polarization, simultaneous demands from the public for social equity expansion and contraction, a mosaic of legal framework, and the continuous reporting and analysis that occurs within both traditional and social media. Most importantly, this work is embedded in a critical and undeniable historical record of systemic legal injustices. This historical record is particularly troubling because it continues to provide evidentiary manifestation of today’s social inequities that must be concretely addressed. While all of these considerations may operate as a mild nuisance for those who engage social equity from solely a theoretical perspective, these same considerations operate front and center in the applied setting where confronting racial and social equities actually occurs. Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline have thoughtfully assembled chapters from a robust group of authors. The impressive result is their collective ability to bring much-needed illumination and understanding to the indubitable world of social equity work. As one of the practitioner voices captured in this volume eloquently states, “Social equity does not come naturally to us because we have never had to do it before. If you want something you have never had before, you have to do something you have never done before, which can be uncomfortable.” This nervous area of government cannot be avoided or theorized. It requires purposeful action by public servants of today and tomorrow. Within this book, the rubber of social equity meets the road of organizational culture. The chapters in this volume squarely address this challenge. The result is a book that makes visible the heavy lifting of practitioners and the responsibility we have as a field to equip students, faculty, and practitioners with the indispensable tools to successfully undertake this work. This book makes a substantial and critically needed investment in this transformational work. Susan T. Gooden, Ph.D., is dean and professor of the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. She is an internationally recognized expert on social equity. Gooden is an elected fellow of the congressionally chartered National Academy of Public Administration and is past president of the American Society for Public Administration. She is President of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) and began her presidential term in October 2021. Her books include Global Equity in Administration (2020, Routledge); Why Research Methods Matter (2018, Melvin and Leigh); Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government (2014, Routledge); and Cultural Competency for Public Administrators (2012, Routledge).

Introduction Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline

Welcome Social equity. It can feel important and impossible. You might know the term, but not fully understand what you and your organization can do to advance social equity. This book attempts to address the “how” of social equity. We aim to give you the opportunity to practice social equity. The chapters here will help you develop knowledge to analyze social equity efforts in your organization as well as the tools to act. Social equity as a theory is important to learn because it provides a foundation for practice. We call social equity a practice because it requires reflexive and ongoing effort. Social equity is critically important in public administration. As a result, the authors in this book wrestle with questions like, what does social equity actually mean in public service organizations? And more importantly, how do we practice social equity? These are broad questions with rich answers in the following chapters.

What Do You Mean by Social Equity? There are many ways to approach social equity. In a formal way, public administration scholars have defined social equity using explicit words with specific meanings. This book adopts the definition of social equity developed by the National Academy of Public Administration (2020) as the fair, just, and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract, and the fair and equitable distribution of public services, and the implementation of public policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy. Some of the chapters explore more specific areas of social equity, such as racial equity or accessibility, in their discussion. The goal is not to limit your thinking to these issues within social equity alone, but to offer examples to enhance your understanding of the importance of advancing social equity. DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-1

2  Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline

Social equity can also be described through metaphor. Imagine social equity as a tent. Call to your mind a gathering of many, many people. You have been provided one large tent to serve all the people. And as you begin to set up the tent, you see it will require substantial effort to stake the sides of the tent wide enough to cover everyone. For those under the center of the tent, they are unaffected by the effort and coverage at the edges. But those at the edges will only be served if you put in the effort. You have a choice to make: serve everyone with significant effort, or serve some with less effort? This analogy is important because it symbolizes how everyone can benefit from social equity. The metaphor, inspired by McDowell (2015) and detailed in Chordiya et al. (forthcoming), explains that the wider and stronger the tent, the more people can be covered by efforts to advance social equity. People at the edges of the tent represent those with the most oppression (they are only served with great effort). People in the middle of the tent represent individuals with the least oppression (they are served regardless of effort). We have to work hard to dismantle oppression and advance social equity, just as you have to work hard to stretch a tent to its full capacity. But the wider you stake a tent, the stronger the overall structure gets, and the more people can be covered. The same is true for social equity in public service organizations: the more effort and resources you can put into social equity, the greater the social transformation and sustainability of efforts. The organization is stronger from this effort. This book does not come at social equity alone. We have written our text inspired by those who have come before us advancing social equity. To learn about the history of social equity, we recommend revisiting Dr. H. George Frederickson’s Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications, Drs. Norman Johnson and James Svara’s Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration, and Dr. Susan T. Gooden’s Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. These foundational texts provide the historical context for the book you are about to read. Scholars continue to publish work that explores this topic, including Drs. Mary E. Guy and Sean A. McCandless’s Achieving Social Equity. At the time of writing this introduction, the Journal of Social Equity in Public Administration has just been launched. There are also countless peer-reviewed journal publications, webinars, workshops, and conference presentations that explore and unpack social equity. These resources should also be used to provide insight into how social equity, as the fourth pillar of public administration, can be practiced and advanced.

What is Included in this Book? We have designed this book to be theoretical and practical. You will see that the chapters focus on social equity through various dimensions of organizational culture: physical characteristics and general environment; policies, procedures, and structures; socialization; leadership behavior; rewards and recognition; discourse; and learning and performance. These are called culture categories. The

Introduction  3

culture categories used to structure the chapters of this text were adapted from the Race and Social Equity Cultural Audit from Dr. Susan Gooden’s Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. See Table 0.1. Each contributing author provides a background of their respective culture category along with the important theories and concepts, definitions, and strategies for practice. But, most importantly, the authors examine social equity in that area of organizational culture through the learning activity section. This section of each chapter provides the reader with one or more interactive activity to complete. Finally, the chapters also include discussion questions and a call to action. Thinking about your place in this topic is a key step in the learning process. What can you do in your workplace or community to advance equity? How does your organization’s culture advance social equity?

What Else is in this Book? Stories are an important part of learning in public administration. They have real value at developing prosocial skills, like empathy (Dolamore and Edlins, 2018), as well as creating knowledge for decision-making (Hummel, 1991). When it comes to advancing social equity, stories can provide the opportunity to understand a concept on a deeper and more personal level. We include stories in this book to provide another way for social equity to be understood by our readers. Each chapter includes a “From my view” vignette featuring a public administrator who has faced a situation or had to deal with an issue related to that chapter. The administrators featured in the vignettes represent the human side of practicing social equity in organizations. Public administrators are often tasked with doing more with less and handling complex organizational environments. The vignettes demonstrate how public administrators realize theoretical concepts in public and non-profit organizations. We acknowledge these public servants are not perfect, but that is not the point. The goal is to offer a story with opportunities for critical reflection outside of your own experience. For example, in Chapter 4, Dr. Breanca Merritt, the Chief Health Equity and ADA Officer at Indiana Family and Social Service Administration, discusses how she uses a wide view of available government resources to implement policies, and advocate on behalf of the communities that her agency serves. Another vignette example comes from Dr. Janice B. Underwood who served as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s first Chief Diversity Officer. She discusses how diversity, equity, and inclusion need to be baked into the cake like eggs and sugar. Her work with the ONE Virginia plan “baked” equity into the daily operations of organizations within Virginia. The “From my view” vignettes demonstrate that social equity is an ongoing process for organizations. Often, organizations discuss social equity goals or outcomes, but the public administrators featured in these vignettes discuss how they are continually revisiting how to advance equity as a process.

4  Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline Table 0.1 Race and Social Equity Cultural Audit (Adapted from Gooden, 2014) 1. Physical characteristics and general environment Guiding question(s): What do the physical components of the department say about racial equity? What to look for: Wall hangings; symbols and logos; program website; brochures; agency reports. Example gaps: Website contains racially diverse photos but very limited mention of racial equity goals or outcomes in agency reports. 2. Policies, procedures, and structures Guiding question(s): What do the agency’s policies, procedures, and structures say about the importance of racial equity? What to look for: Mission statement; units within the agency where racial equity work occurs; linkage of these units to the agency at large; routinization of racial impact analysis of agency procedures and policies. Example gaps: Units within the agency where racial equity work occurs are marginalized within the agency. The same units receive limited financial resources. Racial impact analysis of agency procedures does not formally occur. 3. Socialization Guiding question(s): What regular behaviors and expectations are in place that affect the culture relative to racial equity? What impact do these have on the clients the agency serves? Is consideration of racial equity a norm or priority within the agency? How are employees socialized to think (or not think) about the racial impact of public services provided? What to look for: Presentation of racial equity data by program area; presentation of racial equity client data through statistics, audit studies, mapping, and interviews/focus groups; clear relationship between racial equity data and agency action; formal and informal agency rules and norms that foster racial equity analysis. Example gaps: Limited presentation of racial equity data. Racial equity analysis not required by the agency. Results from racial equity analysis do not impact actions and practices of agency; data is informational only. 4. Leadership Guiding question(s): What level of priority do agency leaders give to racial equity? How does this impact culture? Are senior leaders who value racial equity respected? What to look for: Articulation of organizational justice values; allocation of personnel and budgetary resources to racial equity work. Example gaps: Priority of racial equity work within the agency is sporadic and varies by leader. No sustained racial equity initiatives over time. No positions or units expressly dedicated to equity/justice work. 5. Rewards and recognition Guiding question(s): How are messages regarding racial equity formally and informally communicated? How is the agency’s history relative to racial equity understood and communicated? Do employees speak up on the importance of racial equity? What to look for: Articulation of organizational justice values; allocation of personnel and budgetary resources to racial equity work. Example gaps: No formal or informal recognition of racial equity-related work. Employees engaging in racial equity work are either forced out or burn out. (Continued )

Introduction  5 Table 0.1 Continued 6. Discourse Guiding question(s): How are reductions in racial inequities acknowledged and rewarded? How does this impact culture? Are racial equity champions recognized and respected? What are the typical circumstances under which racial equity champions exit the organization, and how are they treated when they leave? What to look for: Conversations about racial equity in the provision of public services commonly occur within the organization; organization’s history and commitment to racial equity are displayed; racial equity analysis is a routine component of program evaluation and assessment; conversations about racial equity are progressive in nature; employees can articulate racial equity work with analytical depth. Example gaps: Conversations about racial equity in the provision of services are sporadic. Employees who do discuss areas of racial equity are not generally respected or are viewed as “troublemakers.” Agency’s history and current record in terms of racial equity are largely unknown or not discussed. 7. Learning and performance Guiding question(s): What is the agency’s reputation regarding racial equity? Does the organization demonstrate innovation in racial equity approach? How does the organization’s performance of racial equity work compare to leading governmental organizations that are engaged in this work? What to look for: Organization supports and encourages racial equity analysis; employees are encouraged to seek out and adopt “best practices” in racial equity work; organization routinely receives requests from other agencies about its racial equity work; organization’s racial equity work receives external recognition from peers. Example gaps: Agency not viewed as a leader in racial equity work among peers. Agency’s racial equity performance is not routinely assessed, evaluated, or reported.

These narratives were collected using interviews and historical research with approval from our respective institutional review boards. Some of the narratives were collected by the contributing author(s), and some of the narratives were collected by doctoral students at West Chester University enrolled in DPA 707: Qualitative Research Methods in the Fall 2021 semester. For the student researchers, they were provided an interview protocol and submitted a transcript of the interview. The editors selected interviews that could be used to construct a narrative to best illustrate the content in the respective chapters. For some vignettes, identifying information has been changed and this is noted in the respective piece. For others, the names and organizations are accurate.

So, Why Did You Write this Book? As instructors, we wanted to assemble this textbook because we’re interested in understanding how public administrators in the field make social equity real within their organizations. When we are in the classroom and teaching public

6  Stephanie Dolamore and Angela Kline

administration topics, we are looking for real-world examples and anecdotes that demonstrate the concepts related to social equity. Our goal is to move beyond theory (yes, it’s still important!) into how it is manifested in workplaces every day. Social equity, or the lack of social equity, is practiced in all of our organizations.

What’s Next? Public and non-profit organizations are seeking strategies to advance social equity practically and sustainably. Practitioners are focusing on realizing this social equity imperative from external pressures from members of the community and current events as well as internal pressures to improve organizational operations that align with imperative public values, such as social justice. By focusing on advancing an equitable organizational culture, institutions can improve internal operations, retain public servants committed to fulfilling the organization’s mission, and fundamentally fulfill their mission as public organizations serving the community. Social equity is often explored as a grand theory, but it is critical for organizations to identify and practice strategies to apply theory into action. We invite you to dive in! The following chapters provide opportunities for experiential learning to develop skills in applied social equity. Whether you are using this in a course or learning on your own, now is the time to start your social equity practice.

References Chordiya, R., Dolamore, S., Love, J., Protoentis, A., Borry, E., Stern, B., & Whitebread, G. (forthcoming). Staking the tent at the margins: Expanding and deepening social equity through disability justice in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis. Dolamore, S., & Edlins, M. (2018). Storytelling from public records: Finding empathy in the days following the 2015 unrest in Baltimore City. Public Voices, 15(2), 50–64. Frederickson, H.G. (2010). Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications (1st ed.). Routledge. Gooden, S.T. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Routledge. Guy, M.E., & McCandless, S.A. (2020). Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions. Melvin & Leigh, Publishers. Hummel, R.P. (1991). Stories managers tell: Why they are as valid as science. Public Administration Review, 51(1), 31. Johnson, N.J., & Svara, J.H. (2011). Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration (1st ed.). Routledge. National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). 2020. Foster social equity. Retrieved June 15, 2022 from https://napawash​.org​/grand​-challenges​/foster​-social​-equity#:~​:text​ =Social​%20equity​%E2​%80​%94a​%20key​%20pillar​,a​%20variety​%20of​%20public​ %20contexts.

Chapter 1

Physical Characteristics and General Environment Kathryn E. Wassel

From my View1 By Stephanie Dolamore Hi! Thanks for the opportunity to share my background with you. I’m Max, and I live in Washington DC. I am newly retired. I worked for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for 25 years. Some people call it WMATA, but locals call it the Metro. I loved it. I was a construction engineer and oversaw all kinds of projects for the Metro. Our system in DC is really big. We provide about 200 million rides a year to our customers. We have more than 600 subway cars and more than 1,000 employees. We also oversee buses and bus stations throughout DC and when I left, I think we had 1,500 buses. We also have a program called MetroAccess, which is a paratransit service for people with disabilities. When people think about Metro, they are usually thinking about getting to work on time or going to see friends. You know? They are just focused on getting where they need to go. But my job was to make sure people didn’t think about what was going on around them while they are on the Metro. I helped to update air conditioning and heating systems. I oversaw projects to update platforms, so they were safe and didn’t have cracked concrete. I also helped to update fire safety systems so, if something happened in a tunnel, we knew people could get out of there safely. If I’m being honest, it was a little hard for me to remember that I was a public servant sometimes. I mean, I never interacted with the public but my work did. I always worked with my team and contractors and other organizations in the area. It was easy to just think about what we needed to do to get a project done. But our team always had to work hard to keep in mind that we weren’t doing our work alone. Construction projects always impacts service and that means they impact people. It was important for us to keep that in mind. So, we had to ask questions like: What areas are we shutting down? Are we shutting down the same lines again and again? What neighborhoods does DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-2

8  Kathryn E. Wassel

that impact? You know, no one wants to say it, but if you shut down a line with a lot of white-collar workers you are going to get phone calls. DC has a lot of professionals, and they have time in their workday to call us and complain. But if you shut down the line for blue-collar workers, they just take the bus and get on with life. In the end, it’s our job to not let public complaints drive our projects. Just because a community isn’t complaining loudly doesn’t mean they aren’t impacted. Ultimately, I had the most pride in my job when we finished a big project. Most people taking Metro probably don’t know, but our construction projects take years because we are trying to minimize impact on the community. The passengers only see endless construction and they think we are not being efficient. The reality is we are thinking about them at every turn.

Introduction As a long-recognized, but oft-neglected “fourth pillar” of public administration, equity is understood to be foundational to the way public organizations, and nongovernmental organizations involved in governance, should approach the implementation of public services and policies (Cepiku & Mastrodascio, 2021; Deslatte et al., 2020; Frederickson, 2015; Hannah et al., 2022). However, research often finds that economic priorities and efficiency tend to take precedence (Deslatte et al., 2017; Liao et al., 2019; Stokan et al., 2020) even though equity measures have been shown to have positive spillover effects beyond the target groups (Meier et al., 1999; Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017). But this false perception of a tradeoff between quality of “service for the many” and “accommodations for the few” persists, and its persistence stands in the way of meaningful changes to inequitable systems, structures, and spaces. To give perspective on the importance of equity in physical spaces and environments, this chapter begins by looking at some of the ways equity is operationalized in public administration and policy literature, specifically in regard to sustainability policies and public health. Because of the importance of natural and built environments to sustainability initiatives, scholars and practitioners in this part of the field have brought attention to inequities and their short- and long-term relationships to health outcomes (Bullard, 2018; Bullard et al., 2002; Dixon et al., 2007; Hamilton, 1995; Lindsey et al., 2001). Then you will see how organizations can translate these ideas into physical spaces, making “credible commitments,” for example, through the expenditures needed to make necessary changes and hire staff (Krause, 2011). Finally, you will be presented with ways you can help improve equity in physical spaces around you.

Physical Characteristics and General Environment  9

Definitions and Contexts There are many ways to define environments. Even the term “physical space” can have multiple interpretations, however, this chapter uses rather narrow definitions of both. For the purpose of the discussion here, environments and physical spaces are those an individual experiences with all of their available senses. This does not include online or virtual reality spaces, which deserve equal attention in the ways they shape, and can be shaped, by culture and norms (see Zavattaro, 2021) but are beyond the scope of this chapter. One way to think about how organizations shape physical spaces to be more (or less) equitable is to consider their capacity, in governance arrangements (see Lodge & Wegrich, 2014) and cultural competence (see Fletcher et al., 2019; Gooden & Blessett, 2020). Because equity requires both the inclusion of diverse voices and implementing services and/or policies with fairness, deficiencies in either or both areas will have direct impacts on an organization’s ability to produce equitable outcomes. The literature has provided a helpful way to think about different types of equity measures by categorizing them. The first category includes measures of distributional justice, which are those that strive to provide equal programs and services, as well as equal access to all those governed by policy (Agyeman et al., 2002; Opp & Saunders, 2013). Research has found that in public organizations and governance contexts, increasing the numbers of bureaucrats from traditionally marginalized groups improves distributional equity (Liang et al., 2020), even if this representation is considered “symbolic” (Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017). In the sustainability policy literature, measures of distributional justice are usually included as part of equity in the “three Es,” which stand for environment, equity, and economy. The three Es are meant to provide a foundation for sustainability initiatives much in the way that the pillars of public administration should for the entire field. However, as with the pillars of public administration, equity in the three Es often loses out to economy. In reaction to the way equity has been treated as an afterthought and in an attempt to bring attention to the totality of equity initiatives, it is increasingly being treated as a separate dimension, termed social sustainability because it speaks directly to the inclusion of diverse populations (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017; Liao et al., 2019). The conception of social sustainability is also an important shift because it helps bring the other two dominant categories of equity initiatives, procedural justice and recognition, into sustainability literature. Procedural justice can be summed up as the experiences and perceptions that stakeholders take away from an interaction with a policy, organization, or program. The aim of procedural justice measures is to make public service organization processes, from design to implementation and evaluation, more inclusive and transparent for stakeholders and the larger community (Liao et al., 2019; Agyeman et al., 2016). It is no surprise that the concept of procedural justice is discussed heavily in criminal justice and legal literature (Gau et al., 2012; Mackenzie et al., 2021). However, the core concepts of stakeholder access, influence, and inclusion

10  Kathryn E. Wassel

are key to creating equitable outcomes in any public organization. Put simply: you cannot understand the needs and preferences of those you serve without their input and participation. Since the focus of this chapter is equity in physical spaces, it is important to include a third category of equity measures, recognition, which captures the importance of place and how it is linked to the constructed value of the people who inhabit that place (Agyeman et al., 2016). Recognition is strongly tied to the environmental justice movement with research focused on how norms, institutions, and policies have increased disparities in environmental quality for people from traditionally underrepresented groups. Recognition has also begun to work its way into sustainability and equity studies, with continued evidence of the devastating effects of environmental racism and gentrification (Bullard, 2018; Kern & Kovesi, 2018; Wright et al., 2014). For example, research done over the last 30 years shows that Black neighborhoods were often chosen as the sites for “dirty” development projects like trash incinerators and water treatment facilities, proving that it was no coincidence and that more Black residents are affected by these intentional actions (Hamilton, 1995; Bullard & Johnson, 2000; Bullard, 2018). This and other research efforts, recognition has begun to work its way into sustainability and equity studies, with continued evidence of the devastating effects of environmental racism and gentrification (Bullard, 2018; Kern & Kovesi, 2018; Wright et al., 2014). The thread running through these three conceptions of equity is universal individual agency. In other words, every person has the right to an equal menu of options, not just the same dollar value of services or “improved” outcomes. Under this, the role of public organizations, and those organizations responsible for public policy implementation should be to create programs and administrative policies that maximize agency for all stakeholders. But what does this look like in physical form? In terms of equity in sustainability programs, this could be through the inclusion of penalties or incentives that guide organizations toward equity in implementation. Some examples might include mandates requiring that weatherization programs are available to both renters and homeowners; tasking the organization with making sure information and applications for programs are provided in a variety of accessible formats and languages; or offering financial incentives to non-profit organizations that help farmers market vendors adapt technology for accepting EBT cards and vouchers. And while most of these measures fall under distributional justice, how policymakers and bureaucrats see all neighborhoods (Agyeman et al., 2016; Liao et al., 2020) and how that pairs with distributional justice measures cannot be understated (Kern & Kovesi, 2018). When it comes to equity measures by public organizations, having specific plans, goals, and measurement tools within policies shows those governed by the policy and other stakeholders that policymakers are serious and intend to follow through. In the literature this concept is referred to as credible commitment (Brunner et al., 2012; Forder, 2001; North, 1993). Credible commitment is an especially important idea when it comes to equity in physical space because it often involves advanced planning, budget allocation, and/or maintenance of organizational culture areas reflected in other chapters of this book. Equity measures are

Physical Characteristics and General Environment  11

ripe for being used as symbolic gestures without real action behind them (Krause, 2011). In other words, having a few lines about commitment to equity in an organization’s mission statement does not equal credible commitment. However, showing commitment requires concrete and measurable changes from an organization. For example, allocating budgets and human resource services to hiring representative staff and providing culture competence training to better inform programs shows commitment and action. Or, if the operations team makes infrastructure and building changes that support access to individuals with mobility or sensory differences, it shows commitment and action. Or creating forums to communicate and receive feedback from stakeholders shows commitment and action. All of these examples are also measurable and can be compared with outputs and outcomes, along with stakeholder feedback, to understand the impact. Another important aspect of both creating equitable environments and credible commitments is flexibility. Many organizations and institutions were created in a time when meeting the needs of a predominantly white, male population was the standard. As recognition of the inequities created by continuation and proliferation of this structural racism has grown, so have the calls to dismantle it (Hardeman et al., 2021; Prasad, 2020). Demonstrating a credible commitment to equity also requires recognizing when a population is not being included or supported and making necessary changes to organizational culture and physical environments – another reason stakeholder input is so critical. Brunner et al. (2012) discuss the “tradeoff between valuable commitment and valuable flexibility (p 256).” They argue that credibility cannot be so rigid that it holds public organizations and governments to unreasonably strict or outdated goals. But they also argue public organizations cannot be so flexible that it creates ambivalence among other stakeholders. Physical spaces and environments need to allow for changing populations and cultural norms.

Strategies for Fostering Equity with Physical Space First, think about who your stakeholders are and how they experience physical spaces. Before trying to implement changes in your organization, you should take some time to understand who you work for and with. Think about what they might want or need from the physical spaces your organization creates and controls. Keep in mind that because public organizations are tasked with creating public value they are often held to a higher standard when it comes to accessibility and service (Bozeman, 2007). You might ask why you should begin the assessment process yourself rather than reaching out to stakeholders immediately. As a member of a public organization, you will have a level of organizational knowledge that other stakeholders may not. This knowledge could include budget allocations and constraints; organizational history; hierarchy; and the potential for organizational change (Rashman et al., 2009). In addition, this step is critical to identifying your own assumptions while also reducing the burden of creating understanding in the community. Understand that your initial assessment is not a perfect representation of stakeholder needs; it is not meant to be nor can it be without their input. This is

12  Kathryn E. Wassel

an initial step to beginning the conversation. An in-depth exercise, which focuses on individuals with sensory issues, is provided in the “Learning activity” section below. Here are some other possible stakeholder needs: • • • •

Restrooms that are gender neutral, caregiver friendly, accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and/or include adult changing tables; Signs and instructions in a variety of languages, including braille, to support wayfinding around an organization; Space for interpreters and translators during meetings or programs for the public; and Sufficient spacing between furniture, walls, etc. to accommodate size and or mobility differences.

Second, use your assessment to begin a conversation with stakeholders. With the knowledge you gathered in the first step, bring stakeholders to the table. Throughout this book you will find several strategies for providing forums and collecting stakeholders input in the quest to provide more equitable outcomes. Using these strategies to inform the way you approach and address your organization’s physical space will greatly improve your odds of successful outcomes. It will also show your stakeholders that you are making that credible commitment even if you can’t make large structural changes all at once. Finally, implement what you can as soon as you can. As discussed above, showing credible commitment to change involves action. While large-scale changes take time and resources, public organizations can take small, immediate steps to demonstrate responsiveness and commitment. Switching to fragrance-free cleaning solutions or making more space between seats in meeting rooms can be a meaningful place to start.

Future Challenges and Opportunities Looking forward there are several challenges and opportunities on the horizon. We often think of equity in terms of race and gender, but we must expand to think about all the ways people have identities including ability, size, neurodivergence, etc. Beyond these categories as singular identifiers, we also need to understand what the intersectionality of these identities means for stakeholders and the way they interact with physical spaces in our organizations. The good news is that several tools have been developed in the disability, justice, equity, and even architectural literature to help guide organizations through these challenges. While most people in the United States are familiar with the existence of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the building standards it requires, they often represent the bare minimum that can be done to provide more equitable spaces. Resources like the Universal Design provide broader and more meaningful commitments to creating accessible spaces (Null, 2013). See Table 1.1. We acknowledge the advocates who compiled this work,

Physical Characteristics and General Environment  13 Table 1.1 The Principles of Universal Design (Copyright © 1997 NC State University, The Center for Universal Design) Principle

Guidelines

1. Equitable use The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

1a. Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible; equivalent when not. 1b. Avoid segregating or stigmatizing any users. 1c. Provisions for privacy, security, and safety should be equally available to all users. 1d. Make the design appealing to all users. 2a. Provide choice in methods of use. 2b. Accommodate right- or left-handed access and use. 2c. Facilitate the user’s accuracy and precision. 2d. Provide adaptability to the user’s pace. 3a. Eliminate unnecessary complexity. 3b. Be consistent with user expectations and intuition. 3c. Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language skills. 3d. Arrange information consistent with its importance. 3e. Provide effective prompting and feedback during and after task completion. 4a. Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information. 4b. Provide adequate contrast between essential information and its surroundings. 4c. Maximize “legibility” of essential information. 4d. Differentiate elements in ways that can be described (i.e., make it easy to give instructions or directions). 4e. Provide compatibility with a variety of techniques or devices used by people with sensory limitations. 5a. Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors: most used elements, most accessible; hazardous elements eliminated, isolated, or shielded. 5b. Provide warnings of hazards and errors. 5c. Provide fail safe features. 5d. Discourage unconscious action in tasks that require vigilance. (Continued )

2. Flexibility in use The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. 3. Simple and intuitive use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

4. Perceptible information The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.

5. Tolerance for error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

14  Kathryn E. Wassel Table 1.1 Continued Principle

Guidelines

6. Low physical effort The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.

6a. Allow user to maintain a neutral body position. 6b. Use reasonable operating forces. 6c. Minimize repetitive actions. 6d. Minimize sustained physical effort. 7a. Provide a clear line of sight to important elements for any seated or standing user. 7b. Make reach to all components comfortable for any seated or standing user. 7c. Accommodate variations in hand and grip size. 7d. Provide adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal assistance.

7. Size and space for approach and use Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user’s body size, posture, or mobility.

in alphabetical order, include Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir Mullick, Elaine Ostroff, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly Story, and Gregg Vanderheiden. As organizations think about and begin creating and maintaining equitable spaces, they will undoubtedly make mistakes. These mistakes and the ways organizations handle them are important for the organizational learning and change potential that they bring. With the right combination of credible commitment, flexibility, and stakeholder input, these instances will help make the organization stronger and more effective. The other chapters in this book, notably those on leadership and learning, offer important tools for you to ensure your organization can demonstrate a credible commitment to advancing social equity.

Learning Activity This chapter explored the concept of social equity in the physical environment of organizations. The physical environment is typically considered the built environment including elements like ramps, stairs, bathrooms, or workstations. But physical space also includes elements that impact our senses, so the built environment plays a role in sensory exposure for employees and the public. For some individuals, social equity in physical environments requires public service organizations to be active in sensory regulation. It is estimated that 5–16.5% of the general adult population has sensory processing disorder (Miller et al., 2017). Sensory processing disorder (SPD) is a condition when the brain requires extra effort to process, filter, organize, and/or respond to information received from the senses. SPD can vary from person to person, but we offer a simplified example here. If an individual with SPD walks into a busy café, they

Physical Characteristics and General Environment  15

may feel overwhelmed by the noise and respond in a way that may appear disproportional to other not (yet) disabled people the situation. For example, the individual with SPD may leave abruptly, be unable to continue eating or drinking, or experience confusion remembering where they are. SPD can be triggered by one, or all, of the senses. In this learning activity, you will conduct a sensory assessment of a public service organization where you work or volunteer. This can be a government or non-profit organization, but it should be an organization that you have access to visiting spaces inside/outside the building. To complete this activity, do the following: 1. Take 5–10 minutes and develop a summary of the physical space within your organization. This can be a descriptive paragraph, a list of features, or a picture. The goal is for you to think about what you already know about the organization. Be sure to include things that you like and do not like about the inside and outside space of your organization. 2. Take 60 minutes to complete a sensory assessment of your organization. You will use Table 1.2 to complete this step. For each area of the assessment, read the first column for instructions, then fill in your observations. Be sure to make observations in various spaces within and outside the organization. 3. Finally, take an additional 60 minutes to develop a list of recommendations based upon your observations. For some areas, the recommendation may be broad, such as learning more about the sensory category. For other areas, you may have specific recommendations. 4. Finally, draft a one-page, single-space memorandum to the leader(s) of the organization with the outcome of your assessment. You should include a summary of your observations and specific recommendations. The goal of this activity is to help you identify assumptions about how you experience the organization (Step 1) and perform an assessment to help identify how others might experience the same space. In addition, this exercise also helps you understand the role of accessibility within your organization. As we learned in this chapter, social equity in physical spaces requires a credible commitment. If your organization values social equity but the physical space creates barriers for the inclusion of community members, there is work to be done to align the organizational values with the organizational culture. Creating recommendations for this activity is no simple task. For some organizations, a physical space may be donated or acquired out of programmatic necessity. In these cases, making them come into alignment with organizational values of social equity may take years and require significant resources. Still, physical space is often the first area of an organization encountered by the public. The information conveyed in the physical space plays an important role in expressing the work performed by the organization.

Sense of taste: If your organization offers beverages, take a sample. How does the water or other drinks taste? Hot, cold? Flat or fresh?

Sense of touch: As you move around your organization, casually touch various surfaces that have regular contact including chairs, desks, buttons, door handles, rails, and tables. Are any of the surfaces wet, cold, or sticky? Broken, uneven, unclean, or reflective?

Sense of sound: Moving around your organization what types of noises can you hear? Are any loud or soft? Abrupt or consistent?

Observations

Sense of sight: Moving around your organization what do you observe in your line of sight? Are there areas that are excessively cluttered or barren, too old or too new? Are there wayfinding guides for someone new to the space?

Recommendations

Observations

Recommendations

Observations

Recommendations

Observations

Recommendations

Summaries

Sensory category

Table 1.2 Sensory Assessment for Public Service Organizations (Adapted from Sensory Friendly Solutions, 2022)

16  Kathryn E. Wassel

Sense of interoception: Locate one position within the organization and take a seat. From that location, how easily can you identify how to adjust the air temperature, get a drink of water, and go to the bathroom?

Sense of movement: Look at the type of chairs around the organization. What is the variety of options for chairs, such as those that allow for movement (i.e., exercise balls, active movement stools, etc.) and those that do not?

Sense of smell: When moving around the inside and outside of your organization, what types of smells do you encounter? Are any smells unpleasant, antiseptic, persistent, or artificial? Important note: Some smells may come from people who work or visit the organization. This can be a delicate issue to navigate and requires a culturally competent recommendation.

Sense of balance: Moving around the organization, observe the location of chairs for visitors and the layout of workstations. How comfortable and safe are these spaces? Is the space open or cramped? Is furniture secure or broken down?

Recommendations

Observations

Recommendations

Observations

Recommendations

Observations

Recommendations

Observations

Physical Characteristics and General Environment  17

18  Kathryn E. Wassel

We acknowledge that this assignment may appear to assume ability. We recognize some readers may not be able to complete all elements of this activity, especially if they identify as a person with a disability that impacts one of the sensory categories. For these readers, we encourage you to assess the sensory area(s) you that feel most comfortable and confident. You do not need to disclose to others any area(s) you were unable to complete. We also acknowledge that this assignment may appear to suggest there is a normal sensory experience that every organization should have. We recognize and value the diversity of organizational spaces that may look, feel, taste, smell, cultivate movement, and support bodily awareness in a variety of ways. The goal of this activity is for readers to consider if the physical space is meeting the needs of SPD community. We encourage you to be open about the complexity and opportunities at your organization.

Discussion Questions 1. This chapter introduced the concept of “credible commitment” as being important to social equity within physical spaces. How does your organization demonstrate a credible commitment to social equity in physical spaces? Are there any groups left out of the commitment to social equity? Brainstorm how your organization could demonstrate a credible commitment to social equity for these communities. 2. The “From My View” vignette from Chapter 1 features Max from WMATA. In his story, Max said that he doesn’t usually interact with the public because he’s an engineer. How can public administrators connect the mission of serving the public through physical space when serving in technical positions like engineers? 3. Considering the Principles of Universal Design, which principle do you think is most important for your organization? Why? 4. Think about how you feel when you have entered a public organization in the past (e.g., public library, post office, driver’s license center, township building, elementary school). Write down a list of words that you have felt when you were in a public space. Given what you understand now from this chapter, what type of recommendations would you make for this public organization to promote social equity in the physical space?

Call to Action: What Can You Do? Every person experiences physical spaces differently. Yanow (1995) tells us to remember that stakeholders are reading decision-makers’ intentions through the physical spaces they create. This is a powerful statement for policymakers at the government and organizational levels. Even if you are a volunteer or entry-level employee, you can help shape physical spaces to improve equity by being aware of your surroundings.

Physical Characteristics and General Environment  19

Taking time to scan the environment and note inequities is a good first step for any organization member. From there, the changes you can make will depend more on your position in the organization. Those in charge of administrative policies and budgets will have more say in those changes, but those in facilities management and maintenance may have more expertise and say in changes to items and spaces. No matter what kind of power you have in the organization, having the knowledge and knowing how to move forward will help the organization take action. Throughout this chapter, there have been examples of some of the ways to educate yourself and investigate stakeholder needs. Even if you don’t have direct decision-making authority, being a knowledgeable, strong advocate for equity within your organization can be the catalyst for change. Sometimes even letting people know that you are interested in the topic can spur conversations and action. You may even be the first person to bring up the concept of equity in physical spaces within the organization. If you are in this position, do not feel as though you need to be an expert or take on the issue alone. Remember to think of change as an ongoing conversation. This means you commit to learning and acting, in the pursuit of social equity.

Note 1 Names and identifying information have been changed in this narrative.

References Agyeman, J., Bullard, R. D., & Evans, B. (2002). Exploring the Nexus: Bringing together sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space and Polity, 6(1), 77–90. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/13562570220137907 Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L., & Matthews, C. (2016, July 27). Trends and directions in environmental justice: From inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. https://www​ .annualreviews​.org​/doi​/full​/10​.1146​/annurev​-environ​-110615​-090052 Bozeman, B. (2007). Public Values and Public Interest: Counterbalancing Economic Individualism. Georgetown University Press. Brunner, S., Flachsland, C., & Marschinski, R. (2012). Credible commitment in carbon policy. Climate Policy, 12(2), 255–271. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/14693062​.2011​ .582327 Bullard, R. D. (2018). Dumping In Dixie: Race, Class, And Environmental Quality (3rd ed.). Taylor and Francis. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​/9780429495274 Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (2000). Environmental justice: Grassroots activism and its impact on public policy decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 555–578. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/0022​-4537​.00184 Bullard, R. D., Agyeman, J., & Evans, B. (2002). Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World. Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​/9781849771771 Cepiku, D., & Mastrodascio, M. (2021). Equity in public services: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1019–1032. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​ .13402

20  Kathryn E. Wassel Clark, J. K. (2018). Designing public participation: Managing problem settings and social equity. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 362–374. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​ .12872 Deslatte, A., Feiock, R. C., & Wassel, K. (2017). Urban pressures and innovations: Sustainability commitment in the face of fragmentation and inequality. Review of Policy Research, 34(5), 700–724. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/ropr​.12242 Deslatte, A., Hatch, M. E., & Stokan, E. (2020). How can local governments address pandemic inequities? Public Administration Review. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​ .13257 Dixon, J., Omwega, A. M., Friel, S., Burns, C., Donati, K., & Carlisle, R. (2007). The health equity dimensions of urban food systems. Journal of Urban Health, 84(1) Supplement, 118–129. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11524​-007​-9176-4 Eizenberg, E., & Jabareen, Y. (2017). Social sustainability: A new conceptual framework. Sustainability, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi​.org​/10​.3390​/su9010068 Fletcher, M., Burnside, R., & Pink-Harper, S. (2019). Determining the level of cultural competence of college police departments: A study of three different campuses. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 26(1). https://digitalscholarship​.tsu​.edu​/jpmsp​ /vol26​/iss1/6 Forder, J. (2001). The theory of credibility and the reputation-bias of policy. Review of Political Economy, 13(1), 5–25. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/09538250150210559 Frederickson, H. G. (2015). Social Equity and Public Administration: Origins, Developments, and Applications. Routledge. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​ /9781315700748 Gau, J. M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). Examining macro-level impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(4), 333–343. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jcrimjus​.2012​.05​.002 Gooden, S. T. (2017). Social equity and evidence: Insights from local government. Public Administration Review, 77(6), 822–828. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.12851 Gooden, S. T., & Blessett, B. (2020). Cultural competency and social equity in public affairs programs. In The Public Affairs Faculty Manual. Routledge. Hamilton, J. T. (1995). Testing for environmental racism: Prejudice, profits, political power? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 14(1), 107–132. https://doi​.org​ /10​.2307​/3325435 Hannah, A. L., Mallinson, D. J., & Azevedo, L. (2022). Maximizing social equity as a pillar of public administration: An examination of cannabis dispensary licensing in Pennsylvania. Public Administration Review. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.13521 Hardeman, R. R., Hardeman-Jones, S. L., & Medina, E. M. (2021). Fighting for America’s paradise: The struggle against structural racism. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 46(4), 563–575. https://doi​.org​/10​.1215​/03616878​-8970767 Kern, L., & Kovesi, C. (2018). Environmental justice meets the right to stay put: Mobilising against environmental racism, gentrification, and xenophobia in Chicago’s Little Village. Local Environment, 23(9), 952–966. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/13549839​.2018​ .1508204 Krause, R. M. (2011). Symbolic or substantive policy? Measuring the extent of local commitment to climate protection. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(1), 46–62. https://doi​.org​/10​.1068​/c09185

Physical Characteristics and General Environment  21 Liang, J., Park, S., & Zhao, T. (2020). Representative bureaucracy, distributional equity, and environmental justice. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 402–414. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/puar​.13160 Liao, L., Warner, M. E., & Homsy, G. C. (2019). Sustainability’s forgotten third E: What influences local government actions on social equity? Local Environment, 24(12), 1197–1208. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/13549839​.2019​.1683725 Liao, L., Warner, M. E., & Homsy, G. C. (2020). When do plans matter? Journal of the American Planning Association, 86(1), 60–74. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/01944363​.2019​ .1667262 Lindsey, G., Maraj, M., & Kuan, S. (2001). Access, equity, and urban greenways: An exploratory investigation. The Professional Geographer, 53(3), 332–346. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/0033​-0124​.00288 Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2014). The Problem-solving Capacity of the Modern State: Governance Challenges and Administrative Capacities. Oxford University Press. Mackenzie, C., Meyerson, D., & MacDermott, T. (2021). Procedural Justice and Relational Theory: Empirical, Philosophical, and Legal Perspectives. RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group. Meier, K. J., Wrinkle, R. D., & Polinard, J. L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: Addressing the hard question. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1025–1039. https://doi​.org​/10​.2307​/2647552 Miller, L. J., Schoen, S. A., Mulligan, S., & Sullivan, J. (2017). Identification of sensory processing and integration symptom clusters: A preliminary study. Occupational Therapy International, 2017, 2876080. https://doi​.org​/10​.1155​/2017​/2876080 North, D. C. (1993). Institutions and credible commitment. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 149(1), 11–23. Null, R. (2013). Universal Design: Principles and Models. CRC Press. Opp, S. M., & Saunders, K. L. (2013). Pillar talk: Local sustainability initiatives and policies in the United States: Finding evidence of the “Three E’s”: Economic development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Affairs Review, 49(5), 678–717. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/1078087412469344 Prasad, A. (2020). Uché Blackstock: Dismantling structural racism in health care. The Lancet, 396(10252), 659–659. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S0140​-6736(20)31831-6 Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 463–494. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1468​-2370​ .2009​.00257.x Riccucci, N. M., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.12649 Sensory Friendly Solutions. (2022). Sensory Friendly Workstation Checklist. Retrieved October 3, 2022, from https://www​.sensoryfriendly​.net​/sensory​-friendly​-workstation​ -checklist/ Stokan, E., Deslatte, A., & Hatch, M. E. (2020). Exploring the trade-offs local governments make in the pursuit of economic growth and equity. Urban Affairs Review, 1078087420926648. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/1078087420926648

22  Kathryn E. Wassel The Center for Universal Design (1997). The Principles of Universal Design (Version 2.0). Raleigh: North Carolina State University. https://projects​.ncsu​.edu​/ncsu​/design​/cud​/ about​_ud​/udprinciplestext​.htm Wright, R., Ellis, M., Holloway, S. R., & Wong, S. (2014). Patterns of racial diversity and segregation in the United States: 1990–2010. The Professional Geographer, 66(2), 173–182. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/00330124​.2012​.735924 Yanow, D. (1995). Built space as story. Policy Studies Journal, 23(3), 407–422. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/j​.1541​-0072​.1995​.tb00520.x Zavattaro, S. M. (2021). Taking the social justice fight to the cloud: Social media and body positivity. Public Integrity, 23(3), 281–295.

Chapter 2

Policies, Procedures, and Structures Sean McCandless

From my View1 By Julie K. Mesaros Background: The US Department of Labor (US DOL, 2022a) protects the rights of workers and enforces the responsibilities of employers. Its Wage and Hour Division plays a crucial role in enforcing labor laws and investigating complaints related to child labor, minimum wage, overtime pay, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, among others (US DOL, 2022b). For example, the division protects the rights of migrant and immigrant workers in the United States, by employing investigators who focus on job sectors where workers are most vulnerable to labor violations. Investigators educate workers about their rights and employers about their responsibilities under the numerous labor laws intended to protect workers. The Wage and Hour Division also enforces these laws by pursuing back wages and monetary damages to rectify labor violations. Hi, thanks for the opportunity to do this interview. I’m honored. So, I worked in the public and non-profit sectors from 1997 until retiring recently. I was drawn to public service because of my passion for human rights and social justice. In my work over those years, I directly resolved issues of discrimination, social inequity, sexual harassment, and violations of workers’ rights and protections. Of all the positions I held, I felt that my work for the US Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division was the most impactful. In that division, I was an investigator for five years, and then I was a Community Outreach Resources Professional for five and a half years after that. Although federal agencies can feel distant to citizens and like they are in silos, isolated from other agencies, the Department of Labor is responsive to the needs of the people we serve, and we are proactive in coordinating efforts with other federal agencies to help the public in obtaining justice. We are public servants who demonstrate a strong motivation to serve our mission. I was empowered because our department’s leadership put in place DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-3

24  Sean McCandless

fair organizational policies, procedures, and structures. As a result, my colleagues and I were encouraged and empowered to uphold public service values, including integrity, responsiveness, social justice, and dedication. To promote integrity among investigators, we had internal policies and practices like open, frequent communication about our investigations. This was so important. As investigators, we had power to decide how to manage cases, and we primarily worked from home or on the road. This open-door policy made me feel secure in telling my supervisor about what was happening, like how I felt during emotionally difficult cases, and whether I had made any mistakes. I saw all kinds of human rights abuses, such as child labor and human trafficking situations. So, being able to talk about how I felt was reassuring to me. This policy also built trust among staff and fellow agencies, and with the public. Also, as an investigator, I always wanted to act with integrity, especially through procedural fairness, which means that I approached each person and each case using the same rules and processes every time. A prime example was my open and honest communication with the employers that I was investigating. I would tell employers what I found during an investigation, and, in most cases, I would allow them time to comply with the law – for instance, paying employees their due wages under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Often, small business employers did not know the ins and outs of labor law, so I would take time to instruct them and bring them into legal compliance. This meant that, by the end of the case, the employer would be doing everything right for their workers. The Wage and Hour Division was also responsive to the public and our fellow agencies. This was a value that our leadership made possible through internal policies and procedures. I always felt that our mission was to serve the public. Really, to serve every person involved in a case we investigated. Child labor violations were unfortunately common and took priority over other violations. If I was investigating cases involving adult workers, I would have to drop everything when I got a call to go and investigate a child labor complaint. And, if I was investigating a workplace for a general labor violation and I saw a child working there, I immediately investigated the child labor case. I would report safety violations involving anyone, especially children, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is one of our department’s sister agencies. I’m also proud that our office caseworkers actively took complaint calls and efficiently opened cases to help workers. This is a human service that the public may not always get from federal agencies. As for internal policies and procedures that promoted social justice, our agency often investigated cases of immigrant workers who were not paid adequate wages. But, as a rule, I would never ask these workers if they were citizens or if they had legal paperwork. No matter what, a person has the right to be paid according to the law, in terms of minimum wage, overtime pay, and the like. In cases of illegal immigration, workers can be exploited

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  25

by their employers, so I would guarantee worker anonymity throughout the investigation process. Even if I suspected that workers were undocumented, I did not report them to immigration authorities, because our mission was not to pursue immigration violations. Like my colleagues, I went the extra mile to serve immigrant workers who were denied full wages. Our division collaborated with the US State Department to find the workers’ residences once they returned to their home country, so that we could mail the workers the back wages they were due. So, I really believe our division worked with compassion and a sense of duty for all clients we served – workers, employers, and the agencies we collaborated with. These public service values were always a high priority for our leadership team. And, even when politics interfered with our effectiveness, we remained dedicated to enforcing labor laws as they were intended. During my time at the Wage and Hour Division, the Labor Department budget was severely cut, and many investigators were reassigned to office casework. These policies reduced our ability to investigate and complete cases. During one period, the number of investigators decreased from 2,000 to 750 for the whole country. I was sometimes told not to investigate certain employers who had gained political favor from members of Congress. Despite this political opposition, our division’s dedication to its mission did not waver. I and my fellow investigators worked just as hard to serve those who could not defend themselves, especially children and migrant workers.

Introduction Organizations are like living organisms. At a basic level, organisms consume and process nutrients, create outputs, respond to feedback, and live symbiotically within complex environments. Similarly, organizations: (1) consume inputs (raw materials, legal requirements, capital in-flows, community expectations, and more); (2) marshal people, resources, and capacity to use, reshape, and convert inputs to produce outputs (products) that, in turn, produce outcomes (longitudinal consequences); (3) respond in some form to feedback; and (4) do all of this within overlapping environments (historical, constitutional-legal, sociopolitical, economic, and more). To continue with this simile, if cells are the workers and powerhouses of organisms that make life possible, then people make organizations and their work possible (Kulh, 2014; Rosser, 2014; Van de Ven, 2007). People are the most important part of any organization because they get the work done and because organizations ultimately exist to serve people (Guy & Sowa, 2022). These people-centered realities are especially poignant for public service organizations (Battaglio, 2015; Rosenbloom et al., 2008). These organizations have a common, ultimate goal to improve people’s lives (Guy & McCandless, 2020). However, improving public service is impossible (indeed, nonsensical)

26  Sean McCandless

without discerning the so-called “people processes” involved (Guy et al., 2018; Guy & Sowa, 2022). Since the highest goal of public service organizations is to improve people’s lives (Guy & Ely, 2018), agencies need to be designed to do their work and to do it well (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Such work needs goals, methods of meeting goals, and ways to arrange people to get the job done. More directly, organizations need policies, procedures, and structures. These aforementioned dimensions are why it is incumbent on those in public service to face up to an uncomfortable fact that may even make administrators nervous. Public service organizations can be far from “life improving” both in terms of their internal operations and external impacts, especially concerning racial equity (Gooden, 2014). This assertion requires some unpacking. Within organizations, people bring many aspects of themselves to the table, including education, talent, and identity. Identity is particularly crucial to organizations’ work because identities – whether group identifications, beliefs, values, personality, history (personal, family, or community) – affect how people operate in the world and at work. As importantly, people can experience inequities due to bias and discrimination against those identities (Guy & McCandless, 2020; Guy & Sowa, 2022; Ricccuci, 2021), especially concerning race (Rice, 2010). In short, racial prejudice occurs both within public service organizations and through, or as a consequence of, organizations’ work. In the US, these racial inequities persist despite both a host of constitutional and legal advancements targeted at improving equity and the normative and ethical expectations of public service organizations to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) (Berry-James et al., 2021). As Gooden (2014) powerfully notes, to advance public service for all, we need to name (identify), blame (understand and assign responsibility for), and claim (take actionable, meaningful steps to remedy) inequities. As such, this chapter broadly addresses the causes and effects of racial inequities within public service agencies but especially what you – the reader – can do to foster equity. The chapter begins with key definitions and context. Next, strategies for fostering racial equity are discussed followed by future challenges and opportunities. Following this discussion, a case study is presented followed by discussion questions. The chapter ends with calls to action.

Definitions and Contexts To situate the importance of racial equity in terms of policies, procedures, and structures, it is necessary to define several terms and put the discussion in context. Four terms are especially meaningful. First, the work of public service largely occurs within public service organizations. From a constitutional perspective, public services are those mandated that governments create, such as in constitutional provisions like Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution and similar provisions in state constitutions and city charters. Statutory law (those passed by legislatures), case law (rulings by courts), and executive orders (orders issued by chief executives) outline, expand, and shape

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  27

the services governments must provide. In this way, public services are both inter-branch (involving executives, legislatures, and courts) and inter-governmental (involving multiple levels of government) (Kettl, 2020; Miller et al., 2004; Rosenbloom et al., 2008). Public service is also inter-sectoral in that it depends upon the work of other sectors like the non-profit sector and private sector, especially through contracting and philanthropy (Gitterman & Britto, 2021, Lo, 2017). Finally, public administration is a moral endeavor (Rosenbloom et al., 2008) whose highest aim is to advance the public interest and act ethically (Cooper, 2004; Guy & Rubin, 2015; Plant, 2001, 2015). As such, four pillars normatively guide public service, namely that such services should be: (1) efficient (use resources well); (2) effective (achieve goals); (3) economical (cost the “right” amount); (4) and especially socially equitable (fair for all) concerning access to services, processes involved in creating those services, quality of services, and outcomes of those services (Frederickson, 2010; Johnson & Svara, 2015a). Thus, public service is the inter-branch, inter-governmental, and inter-sectoral endeavor to improve people’s lives through offering efficient, effective, economical, and socially equitable services, and public service organizations work in that endeavor. Implied throughout this discussion is how important policies, procedures, and structures are to the work of public service. If public service is the broad goal of public administration, then policies, procedures, and structures become the ever more granular ways of achieving that goal. Policies refer to the broad, general guidelines and written objectives and courses of action of what a public service agency is supposed to do. Organizations often have so-called “informal policies,” or unwritten patterns and expectations (Bolman & Deal, 2017). While important, these policies are not the focus of this chapter. Policies can include mandates from any branch of government, from other levels of government, from other government agencies or agents, and from communities. Policies are codified in terms of law and agencies’ rules and guiding documents (Birkland, 2020). Procedures bring policies to life through following specific, prescribed actions while avoiding proscribed activities. Procedures are the means to carry out policies, and they are how people get the work done through articulating who does what, when they do it, how they do it, and why they do it (Battaglio, 2015; Guy & Sowa, 2022). Finally, structures guide how to put people’s work together, namely to differentiate and integrate work (Bolman & Deal, 2017). There are numerous dimensions to structures, including hierarchies, communication channels (horizontal, vertical, or networked), and how teams are put together. A helpful tool to understand structure is Mintzberg’s Five. Most organizations are structured with: (1) agency leaders at the top; (2) management in the middle; (3) line workers performing most of the work of creating agencies’ output; and both (4) support and (5) technical staff helping the agency function to produce its outputs (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Relatedly, leaders, managers, and followers operate at all structural levels (Northouse, 2022; Van Wart, 2003; Van Wart, 2014a, ​b).

28  Sean McCandless

Still, however well these ideals may seem on paper, a key reality can be jarring. Despite the broad goals of public service and the existence of policies, procedures, and structures to foster DEI, many agencies may not have socially equitable policies, procedures, and structures (Gooden, 2014; Johnson & Svara, 2015a). These inequities exist despite constitutional provisions concerning fairness and expanding legal protections to address workplace discrimination (Gooden, 2014, 2015). Given the centrality of policies, procedures, and structures to public service work, agencies can be replete with inequities both within and through their work. More specifically, inequities are committed toward people with identities targeted for disadvantage creating oppression in any number of ways (Alkadry & Blessett, 2010; Blessett, 2015).2 First, policies can lead to inequities. US law outlines minimum policy requirements concerning fairness in the workplace. For instance, both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution provide broad guarantees that life, liberty, and property (jobs are considered a type of property) cannot be taken without due process and that governments at all levels are mandated to provide equal protection under the law to everyone. Statutory law further outlines these policies. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits intentional discrimination based upon gender. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment concerning race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and protected activities and also established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 expanded the power of the EEOC to investigate, litigate, and redress employment discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 established the right to a jury trial for seeking redress for workplace discrimination. The NO FEAR (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation) Act of 2002 raised requirements for federal agencies to ensure workplaces are free from discrimination and to improve reporting of abuse. Further, workplaces can establish anti-discrimination policies (so long as they are in accordance with law) (Barry & Whitcomb, 2005). These provisions are in tandem with numerous rulings by the court and EEOC addressing and remedying racial discrimination (Guy & McCandless, 2020; McCandless, 2022). Despite these policy protections, racial inequities exist and persist (BonillaSilva, 2021; Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Heckler, 2017; Portillo et al., 2019; Witt, 2006, 2011, 2018). Thus, procedures can also lead to inequities. Hiring procedures provide a potent example. Many government agencies are not racially representative of the populations they serve. A classic example is police departments, which are overwhelmingly white and male, even for cities that are not majority white and male (Headley, 2020; Headley & Wright, 2020). There are many exceptions, of course, but the lack of racial representativeness is a pattern that occurs across levels of government. Additionally, inequities can and do occur through other workplace procedures, whether recruitment, hiring, pay, evaluations, promotions, human capital investment (training, mentorship, and extrinsic and intrinsic supports), grievance reporting, investigations, remediation, discipline, and terminations. In brief, people whose identities have been targeted for disadvantage are

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  29

less likely to be: (1) recruited; (2) hired; (3) paid fairly at the same level as white counterparts; (4) be evaluated transparently; (5) promoted; (6) experience the benefits of being invested in and supported as an employee; and (7) feel they can report grievances, have grievances taken seriously, and/or have grievances remediated; and many more. Typical work procedures often do not sufficiently protect members of historically marginalized groups, including neglecting to offer due process and equal protection. The evidence documenting such inequities is extensive (Riccucci, 2015, 2021). Similarly, structure is implicated in why inequities exist and persist. For one, those whose racial identities are targeted for disadvantage are more often stratified either in lower-level positions, lower pay, or in teams. Relatedly, without structural enforcement of equity, both aggressions and microaggressions occur. For example, unfair racialized expectations affect the amount and type of work someone is expected to perform and the social environment in which they work (Humphrey, 2021a–​c; Riccucci, 2021). Finally, inequities within agencies mirror those committed through agencies’ outputs and these outputs’ effects on communities. Most broadly, agencies are culpable in not treating populations fairly, especially through creating public services that are not equal in terms of access, processes, quality, and outcomes (Johnson & Svara, 2015b, ​c). Populations experiencing the most privilege (those with the highest power and most positive social constructions) will disproportionately experience the benefits of public services; whereas those with the least power and more negative social constructions will experience few positive impacts of public services and even the most punitive policies. Even where exceptions occur, these broad patterns are well documented, making it incumbent upon public service organizations to promote racial equity (Gaynor, 2018; Guy & McCandless, 2020; Ingram et al., 2007; Trochmann, 2021).

Strategies for Fostering Equity with Policies, Procedures, and Structures Despite these policy, procedural, and structural issues, there are several strategies that public service organizations can undertake to promote greater racial equity. These strategies are contingent upon such organizations and people admitting that there is an equity issue and proceeding from there. Many strategies are detailed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2022a, c), the Government Alliance on Race & Equity (2021), and the Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative (2019). This chapter presents an overview. First, changes to policies can yield changes in workplace cultures. One integral way is to ensure that an agency has an enforceable anti-discrimination and anti-racism policy. Regardless of the public service sector, agencies have latitude to create such policies, albeit so long as they do not conflict with extant law. Attorneys can be key players in helping either to craft such policies or to update them, and such a policy should clearly stipulate what the law requires; how professional conduct

30  Sean McCandless

is defined; what employee rights are; where grievances should be filed; and what happens within grievance procedures. In short, policy change can guide an organization toward broad goals. Second, the broad changes mandated by policy “come to life” at the level of procedures, and procedures are enacted through structures. Policies are merely words on paper without the means to implement and enforce policies meaningfully. As such, many strategies for fostering racial equity occur through procedures, and an anti-discrimination and anti-racist policy can benefit from any number of procedural changes outlined below to help make a policy successful. At this point, it is helpful to step back to more closely examine enforcement. Procedural and structural enforcement of policies and accountability go hand in hand. Accountability is a complex notion, but it often means answerability. Answerability refers to how any administrator or any public service agency can be compelled to “answer” (explain and justify) why they acted or did not act a particular way. Answerability also means that administrators and agencies can be rewarded or sanctioned for their actions. Accountability can occur through any number of procedures, whether: (1) in a meeting with a supervisor or with a board of inquiry; (2) performance evaluations and appraisals; (3) legislative or court testimony; and d) community meetings. Accountability procedures depend upon structures in that administrators and public service agencies are legally and hierarchically “answerable” to many entities: (1) legislatures (such as a city council, state legislature, and the US Congress); (2) courts (whether at the local, state, or federal levels); (3) higher-level administrators and oversight bodies (such as supervisors and agency heads and even appointed or elected chief executives like mayors, city managers, governors, and up to the President of the United States); and (4) communities as a whole. If administrators and agencies are found at fault, and/or if performance is not improved, sanctions are possible (Christie, 2015; Dubnick, 2005; Dubnick & Frederickson, 2011a, ​b; Dubnick & Yang, 2011). At the individual level, sanctions include getting disciplined, fined, demoted, moved to another position, put on leave, or even fired. At the organizational level, sanctions could also include fines and court fees but also reduction or reallocation of public funds and even payments to those harmed by agency practice (Battaglio, 2015; Guy & Sowa, 2022; McCandless, 2022). Perhaps the most obvious procedural enforcement mechanism comes through instituting performance measures, whether through regularly assessing individual administrators’ work or adopting metrics that measure how well an organization promotes equity. These metrics can be broadly termed social equity performance measurement (SEPM) (Charbonneau & Riccucci, 2008; Charbonneau et al., 2009; McCandless, 2018), or the collection, analysis, dissemination, and meaningful action concerning equity-related data. For instance, SEPM in public service organizations could include better tracking demographics of who is recruited, hired, promoted, trained, disciplined, invested in, and fired. A related dimension of SEPM concerns regularly surveying employees about their assessments of the state of DEI in the organization. Surveys should be truly anonymous,

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  31

and respondents must be legally protected. Most importantly, agency leaders must give evidence of not only acting upon feedback but also demonstrating success at meeting established equity goals (Battaglio, 2015; Guy & Sowa, 2022). An example of a government-wide SEPM approach is race and social justice initiatives (RSJIs), such as in Seattle, Washington. Seattle’s RSJI centers on assessing changes in policies, procedures, and structures using racial equity scorecards which require documenting: (1) the current state of inequity; (2) who would be affected by a policy, procedural, or structural change; and (3) how a new policy, procedure, or structure would foster equity. Throughout, stakeholder involvement – especially ensuring meaningful seats at the table for all – is essential, especially to define what fairness means in practice and what achieving success in fairness looks like. Another example of strategies for improving racial equity involves improving human resources procedures. For instance, findings from representative bureaucracy studies clearly indicate that equity is better centered in organizations more representative of the communities they serve (Keiser, 2010; Sowa & Selden, 2003). As such, a procedural and structural change for highly homogenous organizations is to attempt to increase diversity at all levels. Yet representative bureaucracy is not a panacea and is a necessary but not sufficient condition for organizational culture change (Headley & Wright, 2020; Headley et al., 2021; Medina & Acevedo, 2021; Wilkins & Williams, 2008). Similarly, both official and unofficial policies and procedures should reinforce the need for civility and respect. Leaders and managers at all levels can and should model expected behaviors, and it is incumbent they ensure that all employees understand legal expectations, workplace norms, and policies. At times, procedures ensuring targeted outreach to historically marginalized populations within an organization are essential. Training on constitutional and legal requirements, workplace norms, civility, communication, conflict resolution, and the need for DEI to advance public service can all help carry these messages. But leaders and managers require training to understand their responsibilities and tactics to promote equity, most critically to be aware of power disparities between groups and work to promote equity in terms of who exercises authority and power. Perhaps most central of all, procedures for reporting, investigating, and remedying equity complaints must occur. Reporting procedures must be easily accessible and trustworthy, especially through rigorously collecting evidence, treating complaints seriously, ensuring protections for those who file complaints, using behavioral modifications and punishments as needed, and establishing a zero-tolerance attitude toward racial inequities (Battaglio, 2015; Guy & Sowa, 2022; Riccucci, 2021). Finally, while the procedural changes listed above occur through structures, it is important to note the following. The most important strategy for structure is to intentionally level boundaries that racially segregate and create racial inequities for workers within organizations. This largely means ensuring that levels and teams within organizations are racially diverse but also that opportunities

32  Sean McCandless

for advancement, pay, human capital investment, and mentorship are truly equal (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Riccucci, 2015, 2021).

Future Challenges and Opportunities There are both challenges and opportunities to the strategies mentioned above. The most pressing challenge is likely that in public service need to admit that racial inequities not only exist but persist and are under-acknowledged (Gooden, 2014). Another challenge is countering several “myths” that undergird public service institutions. One myth is that the US is “post-racial,” namely that it no longer experiences issues with racism, and that the societal ideal is “color blindness” (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Heckler, 2017; Witt, 2018). Yet another myth is that bureaucrats are “neutral” implementers of the law. Bureaucratic neutrality is the notion that bureaucracies are (and should be) unbiased, objective, and non-discriminatory toward all groups, yet historical evidence indicates that bureaucracies have worked to benefit white populations above all others (Portillo et al., 2019; Portillo et al., 2022). Taken together, these myths mean that racial inequities are often not acknowledged or are under-acknowledged, and claims of color-blindness gloss over power disparities, histories, and inequities. These myths give more privilege to those who are already privileged, without addressing marginalization. Yet encouraging opportunities are evident. For one, due to the hard, decadeslong, and often dangerous, work of racial equity pioneers, both conversations about and resources available to promoting equity are more accessible (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022c; Workplace Fairness, 2022). Fostering open, even-playing-field discourses are consequential steps to admitting issues of inequities. For instance, Gooden (2015) has pointed to Seattle’s RSJI as an example of a program that, while not perfect, centers equity throughout its operations and mandates accountability for successes. Much of the success comes from policies that mandate greater equity; procedures that center equity through greater community engagement; SEPM and racial equity scorecards; and structures that promote voice, opportunity, and communication rather than barriers. Further, despite the global COVID-19 pandemic, discussions of equity are more common, and governments at all levels (especially state and local) demonstrate the potential of centering racial justice (Zavattaro & McCandless, 2020).

Learning Activity The following learning activity has two parts. First, read the following case study. Then follow the prompts and answer the questions. Case Study on a Public Service Agencies’ Racial Equity Investigation Imagine that you work for the human resources (HR) department for a state-level agency focusing on education. In the past year, the agency has seen many changes.

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  33

First, a new director, Director Doe, has established a vision of reforming the agency, namely to make it more cutting edge in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, economy, and social equity. The Director’s motto is: I want to show the public the enormous bargain they get by having the agency around. They will get the best customer service, the best service delivery, and will see the agency as the more proficient government agency in the area. Up until the present day, the agency is not racially representative of the community it serves, and all but one of the top administrators identify as white. However, the agency has made strides in recruiting, hiring, and retaining many more employees who identify as Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Color. Second, despite some progress, many former employees assert that the agency does not do enough to make the agency racially representative, and several former employees point to a work culture that marginalizes many racial groups. Past investigations into employee complaints have found that many employees report microaggressions occurring on a regular basis, yet investigations have yielded few results. Doe says, “these instances cannot be proven and are just hearsay. And I have never heard anyone say anything remotely racist.” Doe has also noted in formal communications the importance of agency policies banning discrimination on the basis of race and in more informal comments has said that everyone in the agency should be color-blind lest “the agency get in trouble.” Many employees of all racial backgrounds say Doe is doing too little to address racial inequity. Still, other employees assert Doe is doing too much and that people who assert that microaggressions take place just “don’t have a sense of humor.” Third, the state government has recently mandated that the agency use a new computer system to keep better track of the extensive data collected, analyzed, and reported on by the agency. The goal of the computer system is to improve productivity, file storage, service delivery, and organizational effectiveness in general. The computer system is quite “buggy” with many processing issues, and many employees feel they have not received enough training. Some employees have noticed a pattern that when white employees discuss difficulties, Doe is sympathetic, such as noting, “Yeah, I get it. We’ll work through it. Keep up the good work.” However, when employees who identify as another race, particularly those who identify as Black, note these difficulties, Doe makes off-handed comments like, “Well, we all must show we are competent and worth the taxpayers’ money.” Charges of favoritism abound, and some employees assert that Doe is most favorable to long-standing employees and hostile to newer employees, but that racial inequity has nothing to do with Doe’s comments. In fact, one of the agency’s associate directors was overheard saying, “It all comes down to letting people work here who wouldn’t be allowed to in the old days.” In the agency lunchroom, another employee was overheard stating, “So, he means the Black people are the problem?” Another employee allegedly said to the first employee, “You’re being too sensitive. It’s about competency, not skin color.”

34  Sean McCandless

Fourth, both productivity and agency morale have been on the decline to the point that many community members grumble that the agency is losing their trust. The situation has become so bad that there are even rumors that: (1) a prominent news station is planning to air a series of investigative segments, which could erode public trust even further; and (2) the state legislature might investigate the agency. Many employees feel demotivated. The employee union has charged that the work environment is inequitable in its treatment of long-standing employees, who report feeling targeted by Director Doe, who they feel exhibits favoritism for newer employees. Director Doe has formed an emergency HR task force, of which you are a member, to investigate the causes of these issues and propose viable solutions. You and your team members conducted a series of interviews with agency members to investigate possible causes of the decline in productivity. Below are the central findings from your interviews. There appear to be at least three major groups of opinion about the causes and effects of what is occurring with the agency. The first group argues that the problems faced by the agency stem from Doe and his immediate subordinates. People in this group argue that Doe “plays favorites,” “treats members who have been with the agency the longest as being behind the times and sometimes treats them with disdain,” “seems to have formed a clique with more longstanding agency members who will do whatever Doe says,” and that “Doe and his favorites don’t care about the people we serve and act like they know everything.” They charge that Doe’s supporters do not see how racist attitudes abound in the agency – especially the differential treatment of people expressing frustration with the new computer system and doing little to address clear signs that racism is being masked as “color-blindness” and “competency.” They further charge that performance reviews are simply methods for Director Doe to award favorites and punish those who are not, including passing people up for promotion. In short, these employees feel demotivated, and that while they entered public service to serve the public good, they feel that it is not happening in the agency. The second group argues that Doe and his subordinates are “human like anyone else,” “Just trying to do what is right for the agency,” “only get frustrated when people complain and don’t do their jobs,” and that “any actions have nothing to do with race.” This second group charges that many “cannot take a joke” and that “our thoughts are being policed now.” This group tends to speak glowingly of Director Doe, noting that Doe has shown both great vision and care for them as employees. These employees also express frustration with the new computer system, calling it “junk,” “more bureaucratic nonsense imposed on us,” yet “something we better learn if we don’t want to get fired.” One emblematically noted, “I know Doe can’t do anything [about the computer system]. But I appreciate him empathizing with us.” The third group of employees tend to be quite disengaged with what is occurring. A common sentiment was expressed by one employee: “I just come here to do my job as best I can and then leave. Coworkers are not friends. Why can’t we all get rid of the politics? I want no part in this.”

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  35

Versions of the scenario happen in numerous public service organizations all over the US. Below are two activities to help you consider this scenario. Activity #1 1. Look up summaries of these laws: a. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) b. Civil Rights act of 1991 c. NO FEAR Act of 2002 2. Read the US EEOC’s page “Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices”: https://www​.eeoc​.gov​/prohibited​-employment​-policiespractices 3. Look up at least one workplace law on discrimination in the state in which your university is located. 4. Consult the “Chart of Risk Factors for Harassment and Responsive Strategies” from the US EEOC: https://www​.eeoc​.gov​/chart​-risk​-factors​ -harassment​-and​-responsive​-strategies 5. Discuss which of these policies, procedures, structures, and risk factors appear implicated in the case above, and how. Activity #2 1. Read the EEOC’s Guidance on Race and Color Discrimination, “How to Prevent Race and Color Discrimination”: https://www​.eeoc​.gov​/initiatives​/e​ -race​/best​-practices​-employers​-and​-human​-resourceseeo​-professionals 2. Recommend policy, procedure, or structure changes for the agency above using this guidance and other sources as needed.

Discussion Questions Reflect on your own perceptions of the case summarized in the learning activity. When drawing conclusions, be sure to point to specific pieces of evidence within the case. 1. Do you think bias and discrimination are occurring in the learning activity? Why or why not? 2. What policy, procedural, and/or structural dimensions do you think likely contributed to the workplace issue(s) in the case above, and why? 3. What do you still need to know about the details of this case – especially in terms of existing policies, procedures, and/or structures – that would help you form an assessment? 4. What can you find out about the extent of racial inequities in public service agencies? How might policies, procedures, and/or structures be implicated in the extent of those inequities. 5. Have you ever seen or experienced a similar situation at work? In what ways did policies, procedures, and/or structures affect the causes and effects of the

36  Sean McCandless

situation? Were any solutions suggested and/or implemented, and if so, what policy, procedural, and/or structural changes were proposed?

Call to Action: What Can You Do? To return to a point earlier, remember that Gooden (2014) has noted that we (anyone involved in public service) need to be sure to claim inequities in addition to naming them and blaming them. More specifically, we need to achieve accountability for social equity, which broadly means we work to create fair public services for all (Gooden, 2015). The concepts referenced above, as well as the case study, lead to a key question: What can I do? While what you can do can be contextualized by numerous dimensions – legal requirements, position, and even our own comfort levels – taking part in claiming racial inequities is urgent and can happen in numerous ways. As noted by McCandless and Blessett (2022), we can reflect, act, teach, work, prioritize, and dismantle at both individual and organizational levels. First, individual-level change can help improve racial equity. At this level, reflecting means being aware of our identities as well as privileges, being aware how both affect how we think and behave and vice versa. For one, education and reflexivity on our own identities go hand in hand. Given that social equity is a key dimension of public service ethics, we all must take responsibility to educate ourselves about the causes, effects, and extent of inequities. Doing so means delving deeply into history, including before the official founding of the US Reading perspectives about the causes, effects, and extent of racial inequities is essential, especially through reading works by authors who identify as part of groups targeted for disadvantage. Similarly, we must be aware of and be reflexive concerning our own identities. Second, acting builds upon reflection and means we should apply what we learn to spot and undo unjust attitudes and behaviors within ourselves. Third, teaching means that we are in an ongoing process to improve our knowledge of equity. This process refers to how we should continually teach ourselves about the causes and effects of inequities at all levels. Fourth, working, prioritizing, and dismantling translate these earlier, inwardly focused dimensions into behavior. Taken as a whole, working, prioritizing, and dismantling mean using our position and privilege where we can to point out inequities, especially the ones that occur far from “official” eyes and grievance procedures. While many inequities can and do occur in agencies due to policies, procedures, and structures, so many inequities occur despite protections at those levels. Racial discrimination can become like “unofficial” policy and procedure throughout the structure of an organization if we do nothing to call out such behaviors. Second, we can take action at an organizational level to improve policies, procedures, and structures. As demonstrated throughout this chapter, there are numerous strategies to foster racial equity. Agencies, like people, can reflect, act, teach, and work in ways that mirror processes at the individual level. However, for the purposes of this conversation, prioritizing and dismantling are critical. For one, promising strategies to prioritize racial equity must be taken from the page to real

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  37

life. Such strategies need advocates to champion these causes and to turn these ideas into policies that are enacted through procedures throughout the structure of an organization. At the core of such discussions is using one’s voice to foster meaningful seats at the table. Dismantling follows, which means making sure that policies, procedures, and structures that are meant to achieve equity actually dismantle inequities and foster equity. While this chapter has focused on racial equity, everything noted herein applies to other issues of social equity, including gender equity, LGBTQ+ equity, equity for persons with disabilities, religious equity, and many more (Riccucci, 2021). Inequities related to access, processes, quality, and outcomes are extensively documented for those identifying as women (Bishu, 2020); as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (Hooker, 2020; Naylor, 2020); as people with disabilities (Riccucci & Van Ryzin, 2017; US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022b); and as people from non-Christian religions, especially Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2022d), among many other groups targeted for disadvantage. The full picture of inequity becomes even more striking when considering that identities, experiences, and statuses are intersectional (Blessett, 2018; Columbia Law School, 2017; Crenshaw, 1989; Crenshaw, 1991). Despite significant progress, organizational policies, procedures, and structures can cause many of the same issues as is evident in discussions of racial equity. Still, it is encouraging that the same essential solutions toward fostering racial – fostering accountability mechanisms, changing beliefs and actions at both the individual and organizational levels, and making policies, procedures, and structures more equitable – also work for fostering social equity for numerous historically marginalized groups (Guy & McCandless, 2020; Riccucci, 2021). Public service is ultimately about serving people. Public service organizations’ highest goals are to improve peoples’ lives. Yet these organizations do not exist within vacuums but operate within complex, overlapping legal, historical, socioeconomic, and structural environments. Further, organizations engage in complex procedures to convert inputs to outputs. People are the most important aspects of these processes in that people are organizations’ key assets. Still, policies, procedures, and structures can create, maintain, and exacerbate racism both within and through agencies. These issues, in turn, severely inhibit the ability of such organizations to achieve these major goals. Through identifying causes and effects of inequities and acting meaningfully, diversely, inclusively, and equitably, we are much closer to fulfilling public administration’s lofty goals.

Notes 1 Names and identifying information have been changed in this narrative. 2 Throughout this chapter, the phrase “targeted for disadvantage” is used. This phrasing is used because, as per McCandless and Blessett (2022), social inequities do not simply occur but can often be the result of intentional, deeply rooted biased and discriminatory behaviors, whether by individual administrators, lawmakers, and/or social discourses and processes.

38  Sean McCandless

References Alkadry, M.G., & Blessett, B. (2010). Aloofness or dirty hands? Administrative culpability in the making of the second ghetto. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 32(4), 532–556. Barry, D.D., & Whitcomb, H.R. (2005). Legal Foundations of Public Administration (3rd ed.). New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Battaglio, R. Paul. 2015. Public Human Resource Management: Strategies and Practices in the 21st Century. Los Angeles: CQ Press. Berry-James, R.M., Blessett, B., Emas, R., McCandless, S., Nickels, A.E., Norman-Major, K., & Vinzant, P. (2021). Stepping up to the plate: Making social equity a priority in public administration’s troubled times. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 27(1), 5–15. https://doi​.org​/10​.1080​/15236803​.2020​.1820289 Birkland, T. (2020). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. New York: Routledge. Bishu, S.G. (2020). Gender equity in the workplace. In M.E. Guy & S.A. McCandless (Eds.), Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions (pp. 15–27). Irvine: Melvin & Leigh. Blessett, B. (2015). Disenfranchisement: Historical underpinnings and contemporary manifestations. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 3–50. Blessett, B. (2018). Rethinking the administrative state through an intersectional framework. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(1), 1–5. Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2017). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership (6th ed). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White Supremacy & Racism in the Post-civil Rights Era. Boulder: Lynne Reinner. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism Without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Charbonneau, E., & Riccucci, N.M. (2008). Beyond the usual suspects: An analysis of the performance measurement literature on social equity indicators in policing. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(4), 604–620. Charbonneau, E., Riccucci, N.M., Van Ryzin, G.G., & Holzer, M. (2009). The self-reported use of social equity indicators in urban police departments in the United States and Canada. State and Local Government Review, 41(2), 95–107. Christie, N.V. (2015). Accountability: Multiple accountabilities. In D.A. Bearfield & M.J. Dubnick (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy (3rd ed., pp. 1–5). New York: Routledge. Columbia Law School. (2017, June 8). Kimberlé Crenshaw on intersectionality, more than two decades later. Retrieved from: https://www​.law​.columbia​.edu​/news​/archive​/ kimberle​-crenshaw​-intersectionality​-more​-two​-decades​-later Cooper, T.L. (2004). Big questions in administrative ethics: A need for focused, collaborative effort. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 395–407. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist policies. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1(8), 139–167. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6), 1241–1299. Dubnick, M.J. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance & Management Review, 27, 376–417.

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  39 Dubnick, M.J., & Frederickson, H.G. (Eds.) (2011a). Accountable Governance: Problems and Promises. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Dubnick, M.J., & Frederickson, H.G. (2011b). Public Accountability: Performance Measurement, the Extended State, and the Search for Trust. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration/Kettering Foundation. Dubnick, M.J., & Yang, K. (2011). The pursuit of accountability: Promise, problems, and prospects. In Menzel, D.C., White, H.L. (Eds.), The State of Public Administration: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities (pp. 171–186). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Frederickson, H.G. (2010). Social Equity and Public Administration. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Gaynor, T.S. (2018). Social construction and the criminalization of identity: Statesanctioned oppression and an unethical administration. Public Integrity, 20(4), 358–369. Gitterman, D.P., & Britto, N. (Eds.) (2021). The Intersector: How the Public, Nonprofit, and Private Sectors Can Address America’s Challenges. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Gooden, S.T. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Gooden, S.T. (2015). From equality to social equity. In M.E. Guy & M.M. Rubin (Eds.), Public Administration Evolving: From Foundations to the Future (pp. 209–229). New York: Routledge. Government Alliance on Race & Equity. (2021). Tools and resources. Retrieved from: https://www​.rac​iale​quit​yalliance​.org​/tools​-resources Guy, M.E., & Rubin, M.M. (2015). Public Administration Evolving: From Foundations to the Future. New York: Routledge. Guy, M.E., & Ely, T.L. (2018). Essentials of Public Service: An Introduction to Contemporary Public Administration. Irvine: Melvin & Leigh. Guy, M.E., & McCandless, S.A. (2020). Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions. Irvine: Melvin & Leigh. Guy, M.E., & Sowa, J.E. (2022). Human Resource Essentials for Public Service: People, Process, Performance. Irvine: Melvin & Leigh. Guy, M.E., Newman, M.A., & Mastracci, S.H. (2018). Emotional Labor: Putting the Service in Public Service. New York: Routledge. Headley, A.M. (2020). Race, ethnicity, and social equity in policing. In M.E. Guy and S.A. McCandless (Eds.), Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions (pp. 82–97). Irvine: Melvin and Leigh. Headley, A.M., & Wright, J.E. (2020). Is representation enough? Racial disparities in levels of force and arrests by police. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 1051–1062. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.13225. Headley, A.M., Wright, J.E., & Meier, K.J. (2021), Bureaucracy, democracy, and race: The limits of symbolic representation. Public Administration Review, 81, 1033–1043. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.13358 Heckler, N. (2017). Publicly desired color-blindness: Whiteness as a realized public value. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 39(3), 175–192. Hooker, J. (2020). LGBTQ persons, allies, and the pursuit of social equity. In M.E. Guy and S.A. McCandless (Eds.), Achieving Social Equity: From Problems to Solutions (pp. 28–40). Irvine: Melvin and Leigh. Humphrey, N.M. (2021a). Emotional labor and employee outcomes: A meta-analysis. Public Administration [Online First]. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/padm​.12818.

40  Sean McCandless Humphrey, N.M. (2021b). Emotional labor and professionalism: Finding balance at the local level. State and Local Government Review, 53(3), 260–270. Humphrey, N.M. (2021c). Racialized emotional labor: An unseen burden in the public sector. Administration & Society [OnlineFirst Publication], 1–18. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1177​/00953997211037583 Ingram, H., Schneider, A.L., & DeLeon, P. (2007). Social construction and policy design. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd Ed., pp. 93–126). Boulder: Westview Press. Johnson, N.J., & Svara, J.H. (Eds.) (2015a). Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration. New York: Routledge. Johnson, N.J., & Svara, J.H. (2015b). Social equity in American society and public administration. In N.J. Johnson & J.H. Svara (Eds.), Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration (pp. 3–25). New York: Routledge. Johnson, N.J., & Svara, J.H. (2015c). Toward a more perfect union: Moving forward with social equity. In N.J. Johnson & J.H. Svara (Eds.), Justice for All: Promoting Social Equity in Public Administration (pp. 265–290). New York: Routledge. Keiser, L.R. (2010). Representative bureaucracy. In Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy [Online PDF version]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kettl, D.F. (2020). Politics of the Administrative Process (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CQ Press. Kuhl, S. (2014). Organizations: A Systems Approach. New York: Routledge. Lo, C. (2017). Going from government to governance. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Policy Policy, and Governance. Cham: SpringerLink. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-3​-319​-31816​-5​_3282-1 McCandless, S.A. (2018). Improving community relations: How police strategies to improve accountability for social equity affect citizen perceptions. Public Integrity, 20(4), 370–385. McCandless, S.A. (2022). #MeToo and public administration HR. In P. Shields & N. Elias (Eds.), The Elgar Handbook of Gender in Public Administration (pp. 268–287). Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing. McCandless, S.A., & Blessett, B. (2022). Dismantling racism and white supremacy in public service organizations and society. Administrative Theory & Praxis. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/10841806​.2022​.2043071 Medina, P.S., & Azevedo, L. (2021). Latinx COVID-19 outcomes: Expanding the role of representative bureaucracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(4), 447–461. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1080​/10841806​.2021​.1910411 Miller, M.C., Barnes, J., & Katzmann, R.A. (2004). Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Naylor, L.A. (2020). Social Equity and LGBTQ Rights: Dismantling Discrimination and Expanding Civil Rights (1st ed.). London: Routledge. Northouse, P.G. (2022). Leadership: Theory & Practice (9th ed.). New York: Sage. Plant, J.F. (2001). Codes of ethics. In T.L. Cooper (Ed.), Handbook of Administrative Ethics (pp. 309–334). New York: Marcel Dekker. Plant, J.F. (2015). Seventy-five years of professionalization. In M.E. Guy & M.M. Rubin (Eds.), Public Administration Evolving: From Foundations to the Future (pp. 232–253). New York: Routledge. Portillo, S., Bearfield, D., & Humphrey, N. (2019). The myth of bureaucratic neutrality: Institutionalized inequity in local government hiring. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), 516–531.

Policies, Procedures, and Structures  41 Portillo, S., Humphrey, N., & Bearfield, D.A. (2022). Representative bureaucracy theory and the implicit embrace of whiteness and masculinity. Public Administration Review, 82, 594–597. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.13477 Riccucci, N. (2015). From sameness to differentness. In M.E. Guy & M.M. Rubin (Eds.), Public Administration Evolving: From Foundations to the Future (pp. 192–209). Riccucci, N. (2021). Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Riccucci, N., & Van Ryzin, G.G. (2017). Representative bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30. Rice, M.F. (Ed.) (2010). Diversity and Public Administration: Theory, Issues, and Perspectives (2nd ed.). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Rosenbloom, D., Kravchuk, R., & Clerkin, R. (2008). Public Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector. McGraw-Hill. Rosser, C. (2014). Johann Caspar Bluntschli's organic theory of state and public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 36(1), 95–110. https://doi​.org​/10​.2753​ /ATP1084​-1806360106 Seattle Race and Social Justice Initiative. (2019a). Condensed racial equity toolkit. Retrieved from: https://www​.seattle​.gov​/Documents​/Departments​/RSJI​/Condensed​ %20Racial​%20Equity​%20Toolkit​.pdf Sowa, J.E., & Selden, S.C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active representation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700–710. Trochmann, M. (2021). Identities, intersectionality, and otherness: The social constructions of deservedness in American housing policy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(1), 97–116. United States Department of Labor. (2022a). www​.dol​.gov United States Department of Labor. (2022b). Wage and hour division. www​.dol​.gov​/ agencies​/whd United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022a). Chart of risk factors for harassment and responsive strategies. Retrieved from: https://www​.eeoc​.gov​/chart​ -risk​-factors​-harassment​-and​-responsive​-strategies United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022b). Disability discrimination. Retrieved from: https://www​.eeoc​.gov​/disability​-discrimination United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022c). Employee rights. Retrieved from: https://www​.eeoc​.gov​/employers​/small​-business​/employee​-rights United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022d). Religious discrimination. Retrieved from: https://www​.eeoc​.gov​/religious​-discrimination Van de Ven, A.H. (2007). Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Wart, M. (2003). Public-sector leadership theory: An assessment. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 214–228. Van Wart, M. (2014a). Dynamics of Leadership in Public Service: Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge. Van Wart, M. (2014b). Leadership in Public Organizations: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Wilkins, V.M., & Williams, B.N. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 654–64. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​ .1540​-6210​.2008​.00905​.x.

42  Sean McCandless Witt, M.T. (2006). Notes from the margin: Race, relevance and the making of public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 28(1), 36–68. Witt, M.T. (2011). A noteworthy absence: How and why race and racism is ignored by public administration scholarship. History Compass, 9(7), 549–561. Witt, M.T. (2018). Never post-racial: The persistence of the dual state. Public Integrity, 20(4), 329–343. Workplace Fairness. (2022). Know your rights. Retrieved from: https://www​ .workplacefairness​.org/. Zavattaro, S., & McCandless, S.A. (2020). Editor’s introduction: Our public service manifesto during pandemic. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 42(2), 233–239.

Chapter 3

Socialization Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman

From my View: Dr. Janice B. Underwood By Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman Background: In February 2019, following a blackface scandal that shook the Commonwealth of Virginia, Governor Ralph Northam pledged to devote the remaining three years of his term to combating racial inequity (Schneider, 2022). By September 2019, Northam established the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and appointed Dr. Janice Underwood as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s first-cabinet level Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) – the first position of its kind in the United States. As CDO, Dr. Underwood’s primary objective was addressing inequities in formal and informal policies in Virginia state government. In 2020, Virginia legislators signed a historic equity agenda into law, which included making the Chief Diversity Officer position a permanent, cabinet-level position for every future governor’s administration. Specifically, House Bill 394 indicate that the Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, also referred to as the Chief Diversity Officer, shall: 1. Develop a sustainable framework to promote inclusive practices across state government; 2. Implement a measurable, strategic plan to address systemic inequities in state government practices; and 3. Facilitate methods to turn feedback and suggestions from state employees, external stakeholders, and community leaders into concrete equity policy (Virginia General Assembly, 2020). I serve as Virginia’s Chief Diversity Officer, the first position of its kind to exist in Virginia state government. While there have been other similar positions, it remains the only diversity officer position in the nation to sit in a governor’s cabinet at the secretary level. My professional background is in education equity. I believe that the education sector is how we leverage DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-4

44  Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman

this work because no one is born knowing inequity. Inequity is something you learn and are socialized into in American culture. My work began by thinking about the historical antecedents of race and racism that shaped our country’s founding and the wealth that built our nation. We cannot ignore how those historical antecedents manifest themselves today and make possible many forms of oppression across all the dimensions of diversity. Three foundational goals were met during my tenure and are cornerstone accomplishments for Virginia’s first Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These equity accomplishments are foundational to state government and the work of public administration. Through these efforts, we embed equity, so that it is not like icing on the cake, as icing can be scraped off. Diversity, equity, and inclusion need to be baked into the whole cake – like the eggs, milk, sugar, and flour. I often use that analogy because I do not want people to think of this as just added work. Public service is about building this work into the daily operations of organizations. This is truly the beauty of the ONE Virginia Plan and the diversity, equity, and inclusion infrastructure we have created in Virginia. The first goal of this office was to create an inclusive framework upon which inclusive practices can be created and socialized. Our framework is designed to advance inclusive practices across Virginia. The framework shows where the equity gaps are and how to work to address those gaps. The second goal was to create the first-ever statewide strategic plan to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion across over 100 state agencies and other public and private sectors, titled ONE Virginia (see House Bill 1993, Virginia General Assembly, 2021). House Bill 1993 was monumental in that it mandated that every state agency and public institution of higher education create a diversity, equity, and inclusion plan. Never before has a state demanded that each agency have a diversity, equity, and inclusion plan. In addition to the plans, agencies also created Chief Diversity Officers as senior positions to drive the innovation within each agency – something which, in itself, is innovative. The third goal of this office was to create a feedback mechanism to turn suggestions from Virginians into concrete equity policy. When I began as CDO, I received feedback from Virginians at town halls, speaking events, and through emails and phone calls. These are all good ways to hear from community members, but we needed to create a permanent mechanism whereby we could get formalized feedback from marginalized communities. So, we created the Health Equity Working Group and the Equity Leadership Taskforce. These groups were codified with Senate Bill 1296 (Virginia General Assembly, 2021), making them permanent for every future emergency declaration, and they exist during blue-sky days. Historically, when we have had emergencies, we did not have strong relationships with the community. These groups aim to build resilience during non-emergency

Socialization  45

declaration times and galvanize the community engagement outreach to build strong communities ahead of the next emergency. Central to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in Virginia state government is messaging – listening to people, meeting their needs, and clearly articulating our work here. We must talk about the work. We can do great work, but we have got to get it out in the ethos so it can become part of the organizational culture. People need to know about it, and we have to get that message out to people. We do this by meeting people where they are and articulating our goals and achievements, so they understand. Organizational socialization is about working from the top-down and the bottom-up. If we cannot communicate what we are doing and how these core values drive our work in a digestible way, it will be misunderstood and weaponized against us, and the work could be for naught. This is how diversity, equity, and inclusion work are socialized in and across organizations. Social equity does not come naturally to us because we have never had to do it before. If you want something you have never had before, you have to do something you have never done before, which can be uncomfortable. Our responsibility is to provide people with an approachable understanding of equity. Meet people where they are. That is how you socialize this work. I certainly hope those foundational things rooting equity in Virginia state government continue into the next administration. We need some continuity in this work. For that to happen, Virginians need to step up and speak up. They need to voice that diversity, equity, and inclusion are essential issues to Virginians. That is how you socialize this work and build sustainability across administrations. I am so pleased to have been able to lead this work and provide the foundation upon which many, many students will build. I hope people will remember that I have a heart for people and this work, which goes beyond the blackface scandal. This is about serving Virginia and making Virginia a national exemplar of an inclusive state where everyone can live, learn, work, roam, play, and thrive.

Introduction When someone joins an organization, they learn to adapt to the culture of a specific unit, team, or group. The process of learning and adjusting to the values, norms, and expectations is known as organizational socialization (Schein, 1968). This chapter provides an overview of organizational socialization by explaining its fundamental concepts and exploring how it plays out in organizations, particularly through the employee-leader relationship. It investigates the role of socialization in developing an organizational culture that advances social and racial equity through boundary expansion. The chapter also highlights how one state-level initiative accomplished this goal.

46  Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman

Organizational values are the most important factor in understanding the work accomplished by any public-serving organization and understanding race as a nervous area of government (Gooden, 2014). Socialized values help create and maintain an organization’s culture and are communicated in both formal and informal ways throughout the organizational hierarchy (Gooden, 2014). The culture of an organization varies widely from one to the next. Interaction with organizational insiders can help newcomers adjust to an organization’s culture. The way a newcomer engages and understands the cultural expectations and workplace obligations makes up what is known as the psychological contract. Think back to your experiences joining a new work environment, sports team, or class in school. The people who had been a part of those groups for longer periods helped set the tone of what was expected, and what was out of bounds. When something is outside the established boundaries, changes can expand what is acceptable, and organizational socialization is part of that successful process. For example, organizational socialization can help advance social equity in public-serving organizations, but the limits of the psychological contract must be expanded to include social equity activities in providing goods and services. This boundary expansion is more successful when advocated and supported by leaders and integrated into the organization’s culture. This chapter will discuss each of these components in the sections that follow.

Definitions and Contexts The process by which new employees learn and begin to adjust to an organization’s culture is called organizational socialization. Socialization can occur across relationships within organizations. Organizational socialization typically occurs during the onboarding process, which clarifies an individual’s work roles and transmits the organization’s value systems, norms, and expected behavior patterns (Schein, 1968). Newcomers usually learn what behaviors the organization expects of them by reinforcing acceptable behaviors by their supervisors and coworkers (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Through the reinforcement process, leaders and colleagues continually convey, both formally and informally, how things are done within the organization (Gooden, 2014). This ongoing feedback fosters the new employees’ adjustment to an organization’s particular work and social culture (Reichers, 1987). Organizational socialization is a product of both the individual and their situation. This means that not only does the individual adjust to the organization, but they can have an effect on the organization through their social transactions (Reichers, 1987). This is how different groups, divisions, or offices within the same organization create slightly different work cultures and meanings of acceptable values, norms, and behaviors (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Newcomers to these groups are altered by their work environment through these informal, interpersonal exchanges. Individuals also change their work environment through this same process (Schneider & Reichers, 1983).

Socialization  47

Organizations must convey desired attitudes and behaviors during the initial socialization, or onboarding, process because first impressions shape their assumptions (positive and negative) about the organization’s culture. Incorrectly interpreting the work culture could change an employee’s commitment to the organization and possibly affect short- and long-term opportunities in that workplace (KammeyerMueller et al., 2013). Newcomers’ attitudes and assumptions are molded early in the socialization process. Still, the organization’s values may not be fully clarified until the culture of the work environment is understood (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). This is particularly true for racial equity values, which are sometimes included in the orientation process but are, in reality, signaled to the newcomer through the organization’s culture (Gooden, 2014). For example, many state agencies require diversity training as part of the hiring process to educate new staff on human resources policies and procedures. Despite this training requirement, not all organizations are committed to the presence of and consideration for multiple identities and differences (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability, age, socioeconomic status) (Sessler & Bilimoria, 2013). Requiring initial or annual training on diversity does not create inclusive workplaces. Instead, values of diversity, equity, and inclusion need to be baked into an organization’s norms, values, and culture. Socialization also occurs at times other than onboarding. When an employee joins a new team; when there has been a change in organizational priorities; or when significant events happen in society (e.g., Black Lives Matter demonstrations and protests, COVID-19 pandemic, etc.), organizational socialization occurs. Since an employee’s adjustment to an organization’s work culture occurs through informal interactions with supervisors and coworkers, organizational socialization becomes challenging when employees work remotely (Ahuja & Galvin, 2003). Recall that during the COVID-19 pandemic, many organizations shifted to virtual work arrangements for their employees. Some organizations have continued to provide virtual or hybrid work options to staff. This altered work environment impacts organizational socialization. This drastic decrease in social interactions during work hours can cause a misalignment in culture and values between the employee and the organization, resulting in delayed communication (Asatiani et al., 2021). Still, others who were laid off during the pandemic and may have returned to a new workplace had to be re-socialized to a new organization. Organizational leaders must navigate the socialization process effectively, especially during difficult times, to assure that new and long-term employees are or remain well-socialized and committed to the organization’s values. Future research will likely determine the most effective method of socializing remote employees (Saks & Gruman, 2021).

Strategies for Fostering Equity with Socialization In addition to the onboarding period, socialization also occurs during workrelated transitions such as a promotion, lateral move, or transferring to another organization (Ellis et al., 2014). When a newcomer enters an organization, mutual

48  Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman

expectations exist between the individual and the employer. These reciprocal obligations are known as the psychological contract (Schein, 1970). At the most basic level, the psychological contract is the stated and unstated expectations between employer and employee. The expectations are influenced by individual identity, which includes demographic characteristics and the lived experiences of the individual (Headley et al., 2021). How the psychological contract is implemented, how the employer and employee interact, and under what conditions will each evolve over time (Schein, 1970). Promising an increase in salary after working for a period of time can illustrate a component of the psychological contract. The reciprocal obligations between employee and employer must be introduced early during the organizational socialization period because the organizational socialization period is critical in shaping the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1990). The newcomer’s initial experiences change their perceptions of the expected, reciprocal obligations (De Vos et al., 2003). The employer is often the primary instigator of the continual negotiation of the psychological contract (Delobbe et al., 2016). The psychological contract has boundaries defined by expectations (i.e., public boundaries) and reality (i.e., real boundaries). The public boundary includes the agreed-upon work activities. In contrast, the real boundary represents an employee’s actual role, often extending beyond the public boundary (Carroll & Tosi, 1977). For example, an employee may be hired to work 40 hours a week, Monday through Friday. This arrangement may be mutually agreed upon by the employee and employer when the employee enters the organization. This 40-hour workweek is the public boundary. However, working 40 hours a week does not necessarily define the limit of the psychological contract. The employee may work more than 40 hours a week or on weekends. This would be considered outside of the public boundary but within the real boundary of the psychological contract. When an employee engages in activities outside of the public boundary – but within the real boundaries of the psychological contract – it signals that the employee has gone above and beyond expectations (Gooden, 2014). For example, an employee may engage in racial equity activities beyond the real boundaries of the psychological contract by measuring inequality in services provided or by including racial demographic data when reporting on program services. When they engage in this boundary expansion, they become exemplary racial equity activities at the organization (Gooden, 2014). However, racial equity activities that fall within a “nervous area of government” are typically outside the real boundaries of the psychological contract and would be frowned upon by the organization’s leaders (Gooden, 2014). Employees respond to requests and suggestions if they fall within the real boundaries of the psychological contract (Carroll & Tosi, 1977). When working toward a desired value such as racial equity in an organization, the boundaries of the psychological contract need to be expanded to legitimize racial equity activities as a component of an employee’s role. This is accomplished most effectively with leadership support (Gooden, 2014). Leadership can direct new norms, values,

Socialization  49

and expectations to shift organizational expectations and expand the boundary of acceptable norms (Schein, 2015). For example, the Commonwealth of Virginia has committed resources and ongoing support to ONE Virginia, a statewide diversity, equity, and inclusion plan. ONE Virginia was developed by Virginia’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and the Chief Diversity Officer, Dr. Janice Underwood. The ONE Virginia Plan requires that racial equity practices be implemented across all state governments and provides ongoing external support for these activities. Diversity, equity, and inclusion plans like ONE Virginia support a culture shift that gives organizations the motivation and support to standardize more expansive social and racial equity practices – to expand the social and racial equity boundaries of public organizations in Virginia. The boundaries of the psychological contract may change by mutual consent, but supervisory support in establishing role clarity is a requirement of boundary expansion (Nasr & Coyle‐Shapiro, 2019; Carroll & Tosi, 1977). Leadership helps define values and norms, creating organizational culture (Schein, 2015). Leaders can do this when they have policy discretion or external political support. This internal and external support can mitigate the potential negative consequences of operating within “a nervous area of government” (Yun, 2020).

Future Challenges and Opportunities To effectively address racial inequities in providing an organization’s services and goods, social and racial equity must be embedded in an organization’s values and norms (Gooden, 2014). For this to happen, the real boundaries of the psychological contract must be expanded to validate these activities during the organizational socialization process. Boundary expansion requires internal and external support. Organizational leadership and external political support ensure the expansion of boundaries is legitimate. Addressing inequities in services and goods exists in what Gooden refers to as a “nervous area of government,” presenting a challenge for organizational leaders to drive this kind of change without external political support (2014). The ONE Virginia Plan provides a model of embedding social equity in organizational socialization through boundary expansion of the psychological contract. It directs agency leaders to cultivate work environments that foster and leverage diversity and inclusion and implement policies and practices that hold agencies accountable for inclusive excellence. This ambitious plan embeds racial equity into the organizational socialization process through the inclusion and emphasis on the tenets of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the orientation and onboarding programs, agency policies, and cultural expectations throughout the organization. The ONE Virginia Plan also includes strategies that support leadership’s role in social equity boundary expansion. It creates ways to recognize and award leadership in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The plan directs agencies to express a top-down commitment

50  Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman

to social equity in the psychological contract by reinforcing diversity, equity, and inclusion as agency norms, values, and goals (ONE Virginia Plan, 2021). To enact this plan, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion needed the full support of senior leadership, including the governor, agency heads, university presidents, and other senior leaders. It was essential for top leadership in the state to actively communicate the expectations within their organizations to help socialize the diversity, equity, and inclusion framework. The governor and his leadership hosted town halls across the state, from the agency heads to the front-line employees, and communicated these expectations. The message was clearly articulated – diversity, equity, and inclusion became part of the Virginia state government’s culture. In Virginia, the real boundary of permissible activities (Gooden, 2014) was expanded to include social and racial equity as essential functions of state government.

Learning Activity ONE Virginia: Strategic Plan for Inclusive Excellence provides an excellent example to apply organizational socialization concepts to advance social and racial equity. The ONE Virginia Plan “outlines the priorities and goals of state government [to] cultivate and promote a diverse, equitable, and inclusive culture where employees, stakeholders, and residents feel welcomed and empowered” (ONE Virginia, 2021, p. 3). The ONE Virginia Plan (2021) Goals are to: 1. Recruit and retain a diverse workforce; 2. Create and sustain an agency culture that affirms and respects diversity and employs inclusive practices throughout daily operations; 3. Engage the workforce in learning the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the importance of these concepts to achieving their agency mission; 4. Create and sustain an organizational infrastructure to support accountability in achieving equity goals within the agency and the Commonwealth; and 5. Focus community engagement activities on those that provide measurable, direct, equitable, and sustained benefit to all of Virginia’s diverse communities (p. 9). Figure 3.1 outlines the continuum of inclusive and equitable organizational development. The figure shows the stages of an organization as it moves toward inclusion. The first two phases (Stages 1 and 2) are monocultural, meaning the dominant culture is homogenous. Stage 1 is the Excluding phase, where the dominant group power is maintained. Stage 2 is The Club phase, where the dominant groups’ norms, values, and culture are seen as the “right way.” The second two phases (Stages 3 and 4) are nondiscriminatory, meaning people are not mistreated based on group membership. Stage 3 is the Compliance phase, when the organization commits to removing some bias. Still, there is no change in organizational culture. Stage 4 is the Affirming phase, where the organization is committed to

• Engage with DE&I issues only on dominant group members’ terms • “Token placements” must be team players and not raise issues related to organizational culture around sex, genderidentity, race/ethnicity, ability, class, or sexuality

• Efforts to change the profile of the workforce

• Minoritized members are responsible for “not making waves,” offending/ challenging dominant group members

• No change in organizational culture, mission, or structure

• Provides some access to members of previously excluded groups

• Committed to removing some bias

Stage 3 – Compliance

• Employees must assimilate to organizational culture

• Employees are encouraged to be culturally aware and responsive

• Developing a climate that values and leverages diversity

• Actively recruits, retains, and develops members of groups that have been historically denied access and opportunity

• Committed to redesigning and implementing policies and practices to redistribute power, and ensure inclusion, participation, and empowerment of all members

• Beginning to question the limitations of organizational culture, mission, policies, structures, operations, services, and management practices

• Moving beyond nondiscriminating and first-level awareness

Stage 5 – Redefining

• Actively works in larger communities to eliminate opportunity gaps and create inclusive excellence

• Members across all identity groups are full participants in decision-making

• Leaders and the workforce act on organizational commitment to eradicate all forms of bias and inequity within the organization

• Mission, values, operations, and servicesreflect the contributions and interests of a broad diversity of cultural and social identity groups

Stage 6 – Inclusive

Inclusive & Equitable

• Committed to removing historically biased practices and barriers

Stage 4 – Affirming

Nondiscriminatory

Figure 3.1 Continuum of Inclusive and Equitable Organizational Development (Adapted from ONE Virginia Plan, 2021, and Jackson, 2014)

• Unsafe and dangerous environment for minoritized individuals

• Overt discrimination and harassment go unaddressed

• Limited number of token members from other identity groups are allowed in IF they have the right credentials, attitudes, and behaviors

• Dominant culture‘s norms, policies, services, and procedures are seen as the only or “right” way

• Deliberately restricts membership

• Designed to maintain one group’s dominance over others

• Maintains privilege of historically powerful group(s)

Stage 2 – The Club

• Openly maintains dominant group’s power

Stage 1 – Excluding

Monocultural

Socialization  51

52  Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman

eliminating historically discriminatory practices and barriers. The final two phases on the continuum of inclusive and equitable organizational development (Stages 5 and 6) are inclusive and equitable, meaning it is open to everyone, and fairness and justice are the organization’s core values. Stage 5 is the Redefining phase, where efforts are made to develop a climate that values and leverages diversity. Stage 6, the final phase of the continuum, is Inclusion, when the mission, values, operations, and services reflect the contributions and interests of a broad diversity of cultural and social identity groups. The ONE Virginia Plan utilizes the Inclusive Excellence Model (adapted from the Association of American Colleges and Universities) as the infrastructure of goals to guide diversity, equity, and inclusion. The goals serve as the roadmap for organizational units and divisions as they navigate implementing and advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout their policies and practices. Activity 1: Reflect upon the chapter and consider your organization (school or place of employment) and respond to the questions. See Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Reflection Questions on Socialization in My Organization My organization 1. How would you describe your organization’s social and racial equity goals? 2. Which goal from the ONE Virginia Plan is most relevant to the social equity goals of your organization? 3. Describe the different boundaries related to the goal you experience at your organization. 4. What are the real boundaries? 5. What are the public boundaries? 6. What would it take to advance this goal in your organization?

Activity 2: Reflect upon the chapter and identify a public service practitioner to interview to learn more about their organizational socialization experience. 1. Review the ONE Virginia Plan goal above. 2. Select one of the goals listed and interview someone to understand what socialization they received related to that goal. Some interview questions may include: a. (Introductory question) Tell me about your professional background and current position. b. What are the values that guide your work? c. Would you say that [insert selected goal] is something that your organization supports? d. How do you think [insert selected goal] connects to organizational socialization? e. How does your organization reinforce (formally or informally – from supervisors or peers) behavior that supports [insert selected goal]?

Socialization  53



f. How do the leaders in your organization promote [insert selected goal] as an acceptable and legitimate activity? g. What advice can you offer other agency personnel as they work to promote [insert selected goal] in their organizations? h. Is there anything else you would like to add? i. (Closing) Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today and sharing your insights!

Discussion Questions 1. When you think of an organizational plan for inclusive excellence, what is important to you that should be included? Who and which units within your organization (school or place of employment) should be included in an initiative such as this? 2. Identify the barriers that may impede fostering social equity during the organizational socialization process. Would identifying these barriers differ given different backgrounds and rankings of individuals in an organization? 3. How does top-down commitment to social equity foster social equity within an organization? 4. What are some examples of social equity activities that would fall outside of the real boundaries of your role at your organization? What would need to occur for those activities to fall within the real boundaries of your role at your organization? 5. What does the inclusion of social equity elements during the onboarding process signal to the new employee about the organization’s culture? Could the inclusion of social equity elements during the onboarding process change their understanding of their work role and the boundaries of that role? 6. Consider the vignette presented at the beginning of this chapter on Dr. Janice Underwood, Virginia’s first Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer. Identify some strategies she used to expand the real boundaries of state organizations. Are there organizational socialization strategies that you could replicate in your organization (school or place of employment)?

Call to Action: What Can You Do? Organizational socialization is the process of learning and adapting to an organization’s values, norms, and expectations (Schein, 1968). Organizational values are the cornerstone for understanding race, a nervous area of government (Gooden, 2014). This chapter explored how organizational socialization plays out in organizations and the role of socialization in developing a culture that advances social and racial equity through boundary expansion. As you engage in your organization (school or place of employment), consider how organizational socialization is reinforced. Evaluate the types of socialization

54  Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman

you participate in at your organization. What are your organization’s public and real boundaries regarding social and racial equity? Think about your power in reinforcing your teams’ values, norms, and culture. Are there ways to impact social and racial equity through your attitude and actions? Consider your relationship with organizational leaders – are there conversations you can have surrounding these values? How can you foster boundary expansion within your organization to improve social and racial equity? Like a cake needs flour, sugar, and eggs to become a dessert – social equity must be baked into the socialization of an organization to be sustained. Public service practitioners are active players in organizational socialization throughout the sector. They have the power to influence their team’s norms, values, and expectations. They can set the tone to indicate what is permissible and what is out of bounds. Public servants can engage in boundary expansion to ensure social and racial equity values are central to service delivery. If we want social and racial equity to be core values of public sector organizations, we need to bake it into everything we do.

References Ahuja, M. K., & Galvin, J. E. (2003). Socialization in virtual groups. Journal of Management, 29(2), 161–185. Asatiani, A., Hämäläinen, J., Penttinen, E., & Rossi, M. (2021). Constructing continuity across the organisational culture boundary in a highly virtual work environment. Information Systems Journal, 31(1), 62–93. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/isj​.12293 Carroll, S. J., & Tosi, H. L. (1977). Organizational Behavior. St. Clair Press. Commonwealth of Virginia Governor’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. (2021). ONE Virginia plan: Strategic plan for inclusive excellence, state government, 2021– 2025. Commonwealth of Virginia. https://cdn​.ymaws​.com​/www​.goveda​.org​/resource​/ resmgr​/resources​/ONEVirginiaPlan​-StateGov-​_2.​.pdf De Vos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract development during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 537–559. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/job​.205 Delobbe, N., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & De Hoe, R. (2016). A new look at the psychological contract during organizational socialization: The role of newcomers’ obligations at entry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 845–867. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/job​ .2078 Ellis, A. M., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2014). New-employee organizational socialization: Adjusting to new roles, colleagues, and organizations. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization. Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 301–322). The Guilford Press. Gooden, S. T. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Routledge. Headley, A. M., Wright, J. E., & Meier, K. J. (2021). Bureaucracy, democracy, and race: The limits of symbolic representation. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1033–1043. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.13358

Socialization 

55

Jackson, B. W. (2014). Theory and practice of multicultural organizational development. In B. B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organizational development and change: Principle, practices, and perspectives (pp. 175–192). San Francisco: Wiley. Kammeyer‐Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. The Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104–1124. https://doi​.org​/10​.5465​/amj​.2010​ .0791 Nasr, E. A. A., & Coyle‐Shapiro, J. A. (2019). Synergy or substitution? The interactive effects of insiders’ fairness and support and organizational socialization tactics on newcomer role clarity and social integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 758–778. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/job​.2369 Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992), Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45(4), 849–874. https://doi​-org​.proxy​.library​.vcu​.edu​/10​.1111​/j​.1744​-6570​.1992​.tb00971.x Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 278–87. https://psycnet​-apa​-org​.proxy​.library​ .vcu​.edu​/doi​/10​.2307​/258535 Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389–400. https://doi​.org​/10​.1002​/job​.4030110506. Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2021). How do you socialize newcomers during a pandemic? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14(1–2), 217–220. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/ iop​.2021​.44 Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial Management Review, 9(2), 1–15. https://www​.proquest​.com​/scholarly​ -journals​/organizational​-socialization​-profession​/docview​/214192193​/se​-2​?accountid​ =14780 Schein, E. H. (1970). Organizational Psychology. Prentice-Hall. Schein, E. H. (2015). Organizational psychology then and now: Some observations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 1–19. https:// doi​-org​.proxy​.library​.vcu​.edu​/10​.1146​/annurev​-orgpsych​-032414​-111449 Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36(1), 19–39. https://doi​-org​.proxy​.library​.vcu​.edu​/10​.1111​/j​.1744​-6570​ .1983​.tb00500.x Schneider, G. (2022, January 9). A wounded healer: Ralph Northam wraps up term in office, forged by scandal into a governor of lasting consequence. Washington Post. www​.washingtonpost​.com​/dc​-md​-va​/2022​/01​/09​/governor​-northam​-blackface​-scandal​ -legacy/ Sessler, R., & Bilimoria, D. (2013). Diversity perspectives and minority nonprofit board member inclusion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 32(7), 636–653. Underwood, J. B. (2021). Measurement for change, ONE Virginia: Strategic plan for inclusive excellence [Presentation]. Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Governor Ralph Northam. Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond. Virginia General Assembly. (2020). 2020  Session. House Bill 394, Diversity, equity, and inclusion, director of; position created. https://lis​.virginia​.gov​/cgi​-bin​/legp604​.exe​?201​ +sum​+HB394

56  Lindsey L. Evans and Mary Strawderman Virginia General Assembly. (2021a). Special Session I. Senate Bill 1296, Emergency management equity working group; established 2021. https://lis​.virginia​.gov​/cgi​-bin​/ legp604​.exe​?212​+sum​+SB1296 Virginia General Assembly. (2021b). Special Session I. Senate Bill 1993, State agencies and their appointing authorities; diversity, equity, and inclusion strategic plans. https:// lis​.virginia​.gov​/cgi​-bin​/legp604​.exe​?ses​=212​&typ​=bil​&val​=hb1993 Yun, C. (2020). Politics of active representation: The trade-off between organizational role and active representation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 132–154. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/0734371X18792977

Chapter 4

Leadership Behavior Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

From my View: Dr. Breanca Merritt By Maren B. Trochmann and Shilpa Viswanath I took on the role of Chief Health Equity Officer with the state of Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) in January 2021. This is the first time my state’s social welfare agency has had a leadership position focused exclusively on equity. FSSA administers a broad array of social support services for citizens from infants, young children, and families to elderly and/or disabled individuals in long-term care facilities, so equitable delivery of services has far-ranging impacts for many citizens across Indiana. While many state and local government agencies are beginning to focus more explicitly on equity, I quickly came to realize that new high-level leadership positions like mine can feel a bit nebulous. One challenge is that sometimes agency employees bring some understandable skepticism to the idea that one new leadership position will create consequential and lasting changes to the status quo. I have been able to tap into my prior experiences in this new role, marrying my research skills with my community-based work to engage constituents and communities in a meaningful way. Throughout my academic program – a PhD in Health Promotion Science – and my prior professional roles as a policy analyst and research associate, I have always concentrated on equitable policy outcomes. Much of my research looked at reducing disparities and improving outcomes for those who need effective policies to improve their lives. I was focusing on equity before equity was a mainstream concern. I try to tap into several important values that allow me to succeed in this new leadership role: humility, intentionality, and clarity of vision. I have found that government work is highly specialized and complex; FSSA oversees multiple social programs that serve such a diverse population

DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-5

58  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

and set of needs. In this context, humility is essential for a new leader. I may know a lot about equity, but I realize I do not necessarily have the breadth or depth of knowledge about public policy and program specifics that other employees bring to FSSA from their decades on the job. This means an essential part of being a leader is listening deeply and learning constantly. I try to position myself as a partner to those on the front lines who have the professional or lived experience that I do not. As a leader in the agency, I may not always be on the front lines serving citizens, but I do have an opportunity to imbue intentionality in my work directing the agency’s overall vision and actions. I – and other government leaders – bring the 20,000-foot view and an understanding of the resources at FSSA’s disposal. This means I am able to take more time to intentionally think through equitable policy solutions. I hope this brings a clarity of vision that can be communicated to my colleagues, as I work in partnership with them, in our efforts toward equity. Much of my work so far has centered around collaboration inside the organization and with the people FSSA serves. I have focused on leading through forming coalitions. We have built diverse teams of engaged, knowledgeable staff, organizing willing employees into work groups based on their interests and expertise. So far, this has resulted in seven teams taking on tasks as diverse as equity education, race equity, community engagement, and leadership on an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) committee. These groups – this coalition of the willing – allow me to extend the reach of my work. Through these partnerships and committees, I can bridge the divide between high-level leaders and the 4,000 or so employees across FSSA. My hope is that through the skills and values I bring to this role, the agency will experience consequential and sustainable change toward more equitable practices, policies, and outcomes.

Introduction As this book is focused on leading public organizations toward social equity by impacting organizational culture, we start here by examining two aspects of leadership that have been well articulated in the public administration literature: diversity management and inclusive leadership. Diversity management has been understood as a way leadership can systematically plan and commit to recruiting a diverse mix of employees and enable them to reach their full potential in pursuit of organizational goals (Thomas, 1990; Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000). Leaders have opportunities to enact organizational culture that promotes social equity by first ensuring that they recruit and retain a diverse workforce. However, an active leadership approach to diversity management includes more than just recruitment and retention; it extends leadership support within the organization

Leadership Behavior 

59

by implementing policies like mentorship programs to employees from diverse backgrounds (Bozeman & Feeney, 2009). Diversity management is one essential component of leadership toward social equity (Rice, 2004), but this is not enough. It must be paired with inclusive actions to value and uplift those diverse perspectives once they are in an organization (Ashkali et al., 2021). While diversity management and inclusive leadership provide important context for how leadership behavior can promote social equity, Gooden (2014) has articulated a more targeted framework to lead for racial equity in organizations. Gooden asserts, “The role of leadership in redefining racial inequity as a problem is an important step. It moves racial inequity in the distribution of government services from a status quo condition to a solvable problem” (p. 72). Thus, a crucial part of effective leadership centered around concerns of equity motivates employees across a wide spectrum, including those who are already enthusiastic about equity work (e.g., the early adopters), those who are indifferent, and those who actively resist change (Gooden, 2014). This chapter focuses on how leaders in the public sector can influence organizational culture to promote racial equity. Just as Dr. Merritt outlines key values and practices that allow her to focus a large state agency on equity both internally and externally, we guide students through what theories of leadership, scholars, and public sector practitioners have found to be beneficial and essential in doing this work. Specifically, the chapter narrows in on racial equity as one key component of – and precursor to – an equitable organization. Of course, social equity in organizations requires that leaders seek to address not only systemic and institutional racism, but also ableism, sexism, ageism, xenophobia, and other deep-rooted biases and barriers which present significant roadblocks on the path toward racial equity. We choose to focus on racial equity because if leaders and public organizations can address this “nervous area of government” (Gooden, 2014), they will also develop the skills, tools, and affective competencies to tackle other systemic and organizational challenges. Racial equity presents an opportunity for public sector bureaucracies to progress by internalizing and centering the historical racial trauma and lived experiences of its employees from minoritized backgrounds. Additionally, racial equity challenges the traditional diversity and inclusion guidelines, practices, and programs from the 1990s that were simply fitted onto existing bureaucratic structures and workplace cultures in an attempt to recruit and retain employees of color (Hecht, 2020). We begin by outlining key theories of leadership utilized in public administration, narrowing in on racially inclusive leadership. We then turn toward the leadership behavior strategies – and traps – which allow for (or get in the way of) promoting a racially inclusive and equitable organization. We end by evaluating possible future challenges and opportunities for public sector leaders hoping to do this work. Finally, we present a detailed experiential learning opportunity for readers to observe leadership in action, before presenting questions to prompt reflection and engagement and issuing a call to action.

60  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

Definitions and Contexts Leadership can be defined simply as the process of influencing others, either through formal authority, perceived or real power, or messaging; it is a process through which an individual directs a group to work together toward a common goal (Northouse, 2019). Many scholars examine and analyze effective organizational leadership on various levels, including “getting results, leading followers, leading organizations, leading systems, and leading with values” (Van Wart, 2013, p. 554). Still other, more critical, approaches examine aspects of leadership that are tied to identity categories such as gender, cultural diversity, or perceptions of traditional social power. The work of leaders often involves clarifying expectations, setting organizational goals, and outlining how those goals can be achieved (Carroll & Tosi, 1977). In doing this work, leaders influence and shape organizational culture, including how focused the organization is on the values of social equity, promotion of diversity, and organizational inclusion. There are many different theories of and approaches to organizational leadership (Northouse, 2019; Van Wart, 2013), from which a selection is summarized in Table 4.1. All these theories and styles are important, but inclusive leadership is most directly tied to organizational culture. Inclusive leadership results in commitment from leadership to foster inclusion (e.g., incorporating equity and diversity into the organization’s vision or mission statement), employee perceptions that they have an ability to influence organizational decisions, and fair and equal treatment (Sabharwal, 2014). Inclusive leadership fosters feelings of belonging within the organization, while at the same time honoring and uplifting what makes individuals within the organization unique. Inclusive leadership can be measured on multiple dimensions, including (but not limited to): opportunities to discuss and express diverse viewpoints to problem solve; prevention of the formation of negative stereotypes or exclusionary groups; and encouragement to use and learn from diverse ethnic-cultural backgrounds of colleagues (Ashikali et al., 2021). In sum, inclusive leaders promote full participation in organizational processes and outcomes for all employees across differences (Randel et al., 2018). Inclusive leaders do not shy away from “nervous areas of government,” such as discussing and addressing racial equity (Gooden, 2014). Instead, leadership behavior can be the catalyst for an entire organizational and cultural shift toward racial equity. Inclusive leaders examine the racial (and other) inequities that permeate systemic behaviors, practices, norms, and organizational culture on deeper levels. Through this examination and reflection, inclusive leaders create the cultural foundation necessary for a more equitable organization. Not only does this benefit diverse employees within the organization, but it also helps public organizations serve a demographically heterogeneous citizenry. Doing this work, however, is not always easy or straightforward. We present an integrated approach applying a newer theoretical frame and practical strategies that can aid leaders to pursue racial equity in the public sector.

Leadership Behavior 

61

Table 4.1 Selected Styles of Leadership Leadership theory

Focus

Key elements

Management theory

Results and outcomes

Transactional leadership theory

Followers

Transformational leadership theory

Organizational change

Collaborative/horizontal leadership theory

Systems and processes

Authentic or servant leadership

Integrity and values

Inclusive leadership

Organizational culture

Organizational leadership must focus on how to utilize human and financial resources to achieve results; good leaders must know how to plan, organize, staff, direct, coordinate, report, and budget (Gulick & Urwick, 1937) Strong leaders provide their employees (followers) the resources and training they need; in return, those employees work to achieve organizational results (House, 1996) Good leaders facilitate change in times of complexity through energetic determination, risk taking, vision, challenges, and encouragement (Javidian & Waldman, 2003) Effective leaders focus on networking and partnering, looking more at processes rather than individuals, lessening the need for formal supervision and management (Crosby & Bryson, 2010; Kerr & Jermier, 1978) Good leaders know themselves, always act with integrity, and lead by their actions, through service and sacrifice (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Greenleaf, 1977) Leaders should focus not just on recruiting, hiring, and training a diverse workforce, but also on creating a fair and equitable organization where all employees are valued and included in decision making (Ashikali et al., 2021)

Strategies for Fostering Equity with Leadership This section introduces a theoretical lens to contemplate strategies for enabling racial equity in the public sector workplace. The theoretical lens is a person-centric leadership theory known as the person-role-system theory that allows leaders to focus on their cultural agendas and cultural anxieties in relation to the cultural agendas and cultural anxieties of their employees, thereby providing the leaders a context through which they view the “reality” of their workplace (White, 2013). The person-role-system theory is a useful tool in the pursuit of racial equity for two reasons: one, it centers the need for a leader’s heightened self-awareness of

62  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

their standpoints, worldviews, core-beliefs, and therefore urges them to confront their professional positionalities and personal prejudices (Grant-Thomas et al., 2014). Two, the person-role-system theory compels leaders to acknowledge that their worldviews and core beliefs shape their leadership behavior and influence the workplace culture they promote (Nazaire, 2020). Hence, the person-role-system lens aids leaders to introspect, resist compromising professional behavior on account of personal prejudices, and be accountable for what they say and do at the workplace. Adapting and expanding from the work of White (2013) for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, we present core components of the person-role-system framework in Figure 4.1. These core components emphasize the work required to be undertaken by a leader in order to disrupt their pre-existing notions of self and their positionalities in relationship to workplace reality; disrupt their boundaries guarding their pre-existing notions of agency and intentions for the organization and team; disrupt their pre-existing authorization of organizational goals and objectives; and ultimately disrupt their individualistic aggression to dominate over organizational values and instead create scope for collective consensus. The person-role-system frame, which amplifies the need for a leader’s selfawareness of their agency, positionality, and intentions, is one necessary precursor to identify racial equity traps and enable strategies for racially just leadership in the public sector. Borrowing from the pioneering work of McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) this chapter adapts the construct of racial equity traps which may be identified in the organization and strategies to overcome these traps. Figure 4.2 presents an overview of racial equity traps and leadership strategies to overcome them which McKenzie and Scheurich (2004) empirically arrive at in their study on equitable leadership in racially diverse schools. We adapt this evidence on traps and strategies to the public sector organization. Furthermore, we contextualize these racial equity traps and strategies within the person-role-system framework to afford public sector leaders a lens for self-examination. Racial equity traps adapted to public sector leadership can be configured as a leader’s individual patterns of thinking and behavior; or an organization’s collective

Displacing a leader’s self-percepons and posionalies of self Displacing a leader’s boundaries of ‘sole agency’ and ‘sole intenon’ Displacing a leader’s authorizaon of organizaonal ulity and design Displacing a leader’s compeve tendency to dominate

Figure 4.1 Person-Role-System Theoretical Frame for Racial Equity (Adapted from White, 2013)

Leadership Behavior 

• Racial Asset View Strategy

• Championing Diversity and Divergence

63

• Racial Equity Audit Strategy

Racial Deficit Trap

Racial Erasure Trap

Avoidance of Allyship

False Beliefs & Behavior Trap • Mentorship in Racial Equity Strategy

Figure 4.2 Racial Equity Traps and Leadership Strategies to Overcome Traps (Adapted from McKenzie and Scheurich, 2004)

patterns of thinking and behavior that trap the possibilities for creating a racially equitable workplace for employees of color (see McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). 1.  Trap of racial deficit and leadership strategy of racial asset approach The trap of racial deficit adapted to public sector leadership consists of leaders, managers and supervisors attributing the lower performance of employees of color to innate race-based or ethnicity-based cultural inadequacies of the employee and the community which they belong. By doing so, leaders overlook the institutional barriers (such as lack of supervisory support for employees of color, lack of access to work-life programs, lack of admission to informal networks and lack of professional mentorship for employees of color) and individual barriers (such as existing childcare and eldercare responsibilities of employees of color that might result in a higher work-life interference, marital status and the absence of a spouse, geographic locale, and longer commute times to work of employees of color) that determine the employee’s performance. Viewing this workplace reality through the lens of the person-role-system framework allows leaders to displace their biased perceptions of racial deficiency of an employee and instead learn to perceive the employee’s socioeconomic and sociocultural backgrounds as an asset to the organization. The racial asset

64  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

approach allows leaders to tap into the unique positionalities of the employee and their lived experiences which can lend diverse perspectives to a team and benefit the organization at large. 2.  Trap of racial erasure and leadership strategy of racial equity audit The trap of racial erasure adapted to public sector leadership consists of leaders, managers and supervisors refusing to acknowledge the race and ethnicity of employees of color and instead measuring their work through a colorblind lens. bell hooks (1992) defined racial erasure as “the sentimental idea … that racism would cease to exist if everyone would just forget about race and just see each other as human beings who are the same” (p. 12). By indulging in racial erasure, leaders believe that workplace culture and workplace practices serve all employees equally irrespective of their race, ethnicity, and gender. However, colorblindness can communicate white complacence and dominance geared at devaluing the sociocultural existence of employees of color; additionally, it can heighten the organizational friction between efforts to achieve equity and the historical and present reality that organizational procedures and outcomes tend to benefit white employees and clients (Heckler, 2017). Viewing this workplace reality through the lens of person-role-system framework allows leaders to displace their colorblind perceptions and instead learn to perceive the value of an employee’s racial and ethnic background as central to the employees’ work identity. The leadership strategy of conducting a racial equity human resource audit includes collecting race disaggregated data in every step of the human resource process to understand how employees of color fare in comparison with their white counterparts, and analyzing why that might be so. Conducting a racial equity human resource audit would include, but not be limited to investigating how human resource workplace policies, such as work-life programs (telework programs, employee assistance programs, childcare programs, health and wellness programs, work schedule flexibilities), benefit employees of color. Similarly, it is important to understand if an employee’s race determines the supervisory support and mentorship they receive. Centering the racial identity of an employee allows leaders to avoid the racial erasure trap and celebrate the exceptional lived experiences and cultures of the employees and the communities they belong to. 3.  Trap of avoidance of allyship and leadership strategy of championing for diversity and divergence The trap of avoidance of allyship adapted to public sector leadership consists of leaders, managers and supervisors in privileged positions not feeling accountable for supporting, protecting, and being allies of employees of color because of the divergent worldviews and beliefs. Diverging positionalities (both personal and professional) and diversity in perspectives between leaders and employees of

Leadership Behavior 

65

color can lead to indifference and complacency on behalf of leaders who don’t feel the need to be responsible for the success of the employees. This trap allows leaders to “slide” without being held accountable to advancing racial equity in the workplace. Encouraging and honoring contradictory values and viewpoints that employees of color might have is a necessary condition to create a “safe” and equitable space for all employees, even those with beliefs that might be contradictory to the dominant organizational beliefs and norms. Viewing this workplace reality through the lens of a person-role-system framework allows leaders to displace their tendency of avoiding allyship, and instead, holding themselves accountable first and foremost for their failure to be committed to the success of employees of color. Championing diversity and divergence in workplace values is essential leadership behavior to foster racial equity. 4.  Trap of false beliefs and behavior and leadership strategy of mentorship in racial equity The trap of false beliefs and behavior adapted to public sector leadership consists of leaders, managers, and supervisors arriving at conclusions drawn from premises that logically do not warrant that conclusion. In other words, it is false reasoning that involves self-deception on behalf of leaders that their attitudes toward employees of color are based on the professional behavior of the employees (McKenzie & Scheurich, 2004). Often, leaders believe that their destructive and negative behaviors (such as microaggression, making racist and disrespectful comments, indulging in stereotyping and derogatory workplace humor) targeted at employees of color are a cause of their unpleasant interactions with the employees. In this case, leaders victimize themselves and blame their bad behavior on the poor interactions with employees. Viewing this workplace reality through the lens of a person-role-system framework allows leaders to displace their false beliefs and behavior toward employees of color by seeking professional training and mentorship. Leaders must unlearn and disrupt their interactions with employees of color by seeking professional counseling, training in tools and techniques of inclusive leadership, and seeking mentorship from effective peers to avoid power struggles with employees. To achieve a racially equitable workplace leaders must lose their authoritarian desire to dominate, and instead uncompromisingly empathize with employees of color and make an effort to truly understand the employee’s positionalities.

Future Challenges and Opportunities There are several existing and future challenges to leading in a way that fosters racial equity and inclusion. These challenges include the emotional labor required for this work, particularly for women and leaders of color, as well as the current and ongoing politicization of racial equity work, including the partisan backlash to concepts like Critical Race Theory (CRT). The first challenge centers around

66  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

emotional labor and associated burnout. Emotional labor – the rules for outward emotional displays that an organization either implicitly or explicitly promotes that may not always align with an employees’ inner emotional experience – is an essential task of public service and leadership; but constant requirements for emotional labor, without attention to the affective skills required, can easily lead to burnout (Guy et al., 2014). Empirical research indicates that women and people of color are often judged more harshly and negatively in positions of leadership or in workplace settings, particularly when biases in organization privilege, Whiteness, or masculinity, is the cultural norm or cultural standard (Humphrey, 2021). Emotional labor is, thus, a racialized and gendered experience that requires more – and often hidden or unrewarded – effort of people of color, women, and other historically marginalized demographic groups. Thus, the work of recruiting, retaining, and promoting a diverse public sector workforce does not end when an organization becomes sufficiently diverse. Retention and inclusivity require a recognition of the implicit bias that marginalized groups may face once they are working in an organization. It requires that public organizations continually recognize the increased emotional burden placed on employees of color and continually seek to improve racial and cultural competency through their leadership behaviors (Humphrey, 2021). A second challenge is the politicization of racial equity work, as seen in the attacks on CRT (Legal Defense Fund [LDF], 2021). CRT is a legal and academic framework that critically examines how systemic racism is embedded in laws, policies, and institutions to uphold racial inequity, and it has been touted as a necessary framework to dismantle inequities in the public sector (Blessett & Gaynor, 2021). Some politicians have begun to attack CRT, using it as a catchall phrase for any education or teaching that examines systemic or structural racism, stating it is not meritocratic and is “unpatriotic” or results in feelings of guilt among white Americans. As of this writing, 25 states have introduced some sort of ban on the teaching of CRT in the public K–12 education system (LDF, 2021). The results of this backlash, particularly if such bans are enacted into law, not only could stymie unrestricted discussion, self-reflection, and critical thinking around an essential element of social equity but could have lasting adverse effects for generations to come, as children grow up denied access to critical information about the historic and ongoing racial injustices that permeate organizations and public policy design in the United States. These legal restrictions could have a longstanding impact on public sector leaders’ ability to address racial bias, systemic injustice, and mobilize employees and the public around the imperatives of social and racial equity. While these challenges are real and pervasive, there is correspondingly hope that public sector organizations are being more attentive to concerns of equity in a post-2020 world. Just as the state of Indiana created Dr. Merritt’s position, many other organizations are thinking critically about how to create new executive positions and empower leaders and teams to focus on equity – both within

Leadership Behavior 

67

their organizations for their employees and teams and for the public they serve. New positions like Dr. Merritt’s represent tangible organizational commitments to equity that put resources, processes, and structures in place that may have sustained impact on people within public and non-profit organizations. Additionally, in April 2022, aided by the Biden–Harris administration’s Executive Order 13985, more than 90 federal agencies released their first-ever Equity Action Plans that lay out concrete organizational strategies and commitments to address the systemic barriers in public policy design and implementation which harm underserved communities. While our chapter takes a micro-perspective on leading for racially equitable organizations, a macro-level change at the federal, state, and local levels of government is needed.

Learning Activity This section outlines an interactive activity, which will allow you to observe leadership behaviors in a setting that piques your interest. In doing so, you will be able to observe leadership in action, reflect upon the leadership theories that are implicitly or explicitly utilized, and critically assess the traps and strategies organizational leaders encounter and implement in practice. First, select a public or non-profit organization of interest to you. You should think critically about the type of public service work and organizational missions that interest you. What is an aspirational role or organization? What is a mission that aligns with your passions and values? Do not be afraid to use connections that you, your school or program, or your professors or peers have personally with an organization in the governmental or non-profit sector. If you are at a loss, you can always explore non-profits here https://www​.guidestar​.org​/NonprofitDirectory​ .aspx. Start with a category in mind that interests you (e.g., arts, culture, and humanities; education and research; environment and animals, health, human services, international, public/societal benefit, or religion) and examine what nonprofits operate in your local area. You may also wish to explore your local or state government websites, examining agencies whose missions speak to you personally. Next, examine that organization’s website and publicly available information. Are there particular leaders in the organization whose professional title, scope of responsibility, and nature of work interest you and relate to social or racial equity? Reach out to that leader – either via your own research or personal/professional connections – and ask if you might be able to observe and shadow them for a day (or at an important public meeting or event, etc.). Be sure you do your research first and get feedback on your initial outreach email from a trusted source, like your instructor or advisor. Be thoughtful and respectful of the fact that these are busy leaders who often must meet many competing demands during their workdays. This step is a real-world skill that will be useful to you in future professional networking as well!

68  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

Depending on the leader’s response, you may be able to arrange to shadow them during a workday. A worksheet to guide your shadowing is included below, but you are also invited to sprinkle in your own questions as you observe. Base these on your research on the organization; the leader you shadow; your career interests; and your knowledge of strategies to enable racial equity gained from this chapter. Take thorough notes during your job shadowing or observation. Remember: if there are lulls in the day or you get an opportunity to connect to the leader one on one, ask thoughtful questions, ask to review policies, procedures, or other documents that articulate the leaderships’ vision in their organization. Be creative, prepared, and ready to engage enthusiastically with this public or nonprofit leader who has graciously offered you some of their time. Activity 1: Leader Job Shadow Observation As you shadow a public or non-profit organizational leader for a day, take notes and make observations. Pay close attention to the leader’s (or leaders’) behavior and assess the ways in which – or extent to which – their actions promote (or impede) racial and social equity. Activity 2: How is Racial Equity Promoted and Centered in Public Sector Leadership? The first column (column I) provides a list of various areas where leadership action can translate racial equity goals into a workplace reality. Students are expected to observe leadership action in each of these functioning areas and fill out the values these leadership actions reflect (column II) and the priority they are given (column III). Additionally, students are encouraged to do a post-observation reflection and identify potential racial equity traps (column IV) and racial equity strategies (column V) in the leadership action they have observed.

Table 4.2 Table for Learning Activity 2 (Adapted from Gooden 2014, p. 63) Observed leadership action

In articulation of organizational justice values In allocation of personnel and budgetary resources In recruiting and retention strategies In sustained workplace initiatives over time In establishing professional positions or workplace units expressly dedicated to promoting racial equity

Value reflected

Priority given

Racial equity traps identified

Racial equity strategies identified

Leadership Behavior 

69

Discussion Questions 1. Which of the leadership theories outlined in Table 4.1 resonates most with you? Why does that theory stand out?​ 2. Think about your own life experiences, worldviews, and positionality. How have those shaped your professional views in the workplace? How might you, as a leader, become more aware of your work in confronting your core beliefs, choices, and perspectives to promote social and racial equity? 3. Think about the racial equity traps outlined in this chapter. Can you name an example where you have witnessed or experienced this trap in practice? How did it play out and what was the response of leaders and others who encountered this trap? 4. Of the strategies to promote racial equity, which of these do you feel may be most impactful and effective to address the trap you identified above? How would you go about implementing that strategy to influence organizational change? (Hint: Think about what you could do in a non-supervisory position or outside of a formal leadership role. Then, also think about how your approach might change if you held an executive or supervisory position within the public organization.) 5. As you reflect upon your experiential learning activity, what observation(s) did you make during the job shadowing experience that most intrigued you? Were there leadership behaviors you witnessed that you might want to emulate (or avoid) in your own current or future public service?

Call to Action: What Can You Do? The composition of the civilian labor force is projected to include a significant increase in Black, Latinx, and Asian workers by 2050. This growth provides the opportunity for not only managing diversity at large but specifically transforming a diverse workplace into a racially equitable one. Public sector human resource scholarship has evolved through the steadfast pursuit of affirmative action to champion equal employment opportunity in the workplace, and ultimately to diversity management in organizations, which includes a leader’s ability to productively harness the varying skillsets of a diverse workforce (Riccucci, 2021). We believe the next iterative aspect on the diversity management continuum is attaining a racially equitable workplace. While diversity management focuses on a leader’s ability to manage, strategize, and harness varying levels of cultural competencies in an organization, managing for racial equity is contingent upon the leader’s ability to recognize racism and discriminatory tendencies in an organization. In this last section of the chapter, we present a call to action for public sector leaders toward attaining a racially equitable workplace. Leaders should work to minimize defensiveness, which often results from individuals’ fear of being “labeled as racist” or “canceled” for saying the wrong thing in this nervous area of government (Gooden, 2014). They can do so by explicitly

70  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann

naming and blaming the root causes of racial inequities and injustice. This means that they are identifying the phenomenon, rather than the person, framing issues in ways that are systemic, historic, and institutional. They can also help employees differentiate between intent and impact, drawing attention to how unintentional behaviors and unconfronted prejudices can reinforce the status quo and maintain inequities. Assessing organizational leadership behavior entails observing both direct and indirect actions of public organization leaders to determine the level of priority they provide to racial equity (Dolamore & Richards, 2020). Direct behaviors are observable actions such as verbal or written support and commitment to racial equity work. For example, do leaders’ organization-wide communications prioritize goals of social and racial equity? Do the organizational goals and individual employees’ performance evaluations prioritize social and racial equity work? Do they physically attend, or lead events focused on racial equity and social justice work? Indirect behaviors are those actions that are less immediate but just as impactful. For instance, do they allocate organizational resources to benefit employees of color? Do their hiring, promotion, and mentorship practices profit employees of color? How do organizational rewards and incentive systems encourage and promote racial equity work? Do they encourage their employees to allocate their professional time and attention toward matters of racial equity? Finally, leadership can be both formal and informal. Even if you are not at present in a designated leadership or supervisory role within your organization, your actions matter. You have an opportunity to influence change, to take a stand for racial and social equity, and to intervene when you see or hear the racial equity traps in your own workplace. You now know the benefits of pursuing diverse and inclusive leadership, and you are equipped with key strategies that you can encourage and implement in your own sphere of influence. You do not have to wait to get an executive-level title behind your name to begin the work of allyship, advocacy, and racially inclusive leadership wherever you find yourself. You can take the knowledge from this chapter and begin to practice, apply, and adopt the leadership behaviors and strategies you have observed in action. This work is not easy, but it is necessary – and you have an opening to play a transformational role in shifting your non-profit or public sector organization toward a social and racial equity mindset by leading from wherever you are.

References Ashikali, T., Groeneveld, S., & Kuipers, B. (2021). The role of inclusive leadership in supporting an inclusive climate in diverse public sector teams. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(3), 497–519. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–38.

Leadership Behavior 

71

Blessett, B., & Gaynor, T. S. (2021). Race, racism and administrative callousness: Using critical race theory for a race-conscious public administration. Public Integrity, 23(5), 455–458. Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2009). Public management mentoring a three-tier model. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 134–157. Carroll, S. J., & Tosi, H. L. (1977). Organizational Behavior. Clair Press. Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadership Quarterly, 21(2), 211–230. Dolamore, S., & Richards, T. N. (2020). Assessing the organizational culture of higher education institutions in an era of# MeToo. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 1133–1137. Gooden, S. T. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Taylor & Francis. Grant-Thomas, Andrew, Ogden, C., & Silva Parker, C. (2014). Using systems thinking to address structural racism, interaction institute for social change. Retrieved from: http://int​e rac​t ion​i nstitute​. org​/ wpcontent​/ uploads​/ 2014​/ 12​/ Facing​- Race​- Handout​ -actual​.pdf Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Paulist Press. Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the Science of Administration. Routledge. Guy, M. E., Newman, M. A., & Mastracci, S. H. (2014). Emotional Labor: Putting the Service in Public Service. Routledge. Hecht, B. (2020). Moving beyond diversity toward racial equity. Harvard Business Review. Heckler, N. (2017). Publicly desired color-blindness: Whiteness as a realized public value. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 39(3), 175–192. hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Cambridge, MA: South End. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. Humphrey, N. M. (2021). Racialized emotional labor: An unseen burden in the public sector. Administration & Society, Online First, 1–18. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​ /00953997211037583. Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Diversity management: Time for a new approach. Public personnel management, 29(1), 75–92. Javidan, M. and Waldman, D.A. (2003), Exploring Charismatic Leadership in the Public Sector: Measurement and Consequences. Public Administration Review, 63(2), 229–242. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22(3), 375–403. Legal Defense Fund. (2021). Critical Race Theory: Frequently asked questions. NAACP. Retrieved from: https://www​.naacpldf​.org​/critical​-race​-theory​-faq/ McKenzie, K. B., & Scheurich, J. J. (2004). Equity traps: A useful construct for preparing leaders in schools that are successful with racially diverse students. Education Administration Quarterly 40(5), 601–632. Nazaire, J. Q. (2020). in Joseph, M. L., & Khare, A. T. (eds.). What works to promote inclusive, equitable mixed-income communities? Retrieved From: https://case​.edu​/ socialwork​/nimc​/sites​/case​.edu​.nimc​/files​/2020​-10​/Nazaire​.WWV_​.PersonRoleSystem​ .2020​.FINAL_​.pdf Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. (8th ed.). Sage.

72  Shilpa Viswanath and Maren B. Trochmann Randel, A. E., Galvin, B. M., Shore, L. M., Ehrhart, K. H., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2018). Inclusive leadership: Realizing positive outcomes through belongingness and being valued for uniqueness. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 190–203. Rice, M. F. (2004). Organizational culture, social equity and diversity: Teaching public administration education in the postmodern era. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10, 143–154. Riccucci, N. M. (2021). Managing Diversity in Public Sector Workforces. Routledge. Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), 197–217. Thomas, R. R. Jr. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68, 107–117. Van Wart, M. (2013). Lessons from leadership theory and the contemporary challenges of leadership. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 553–565. White, K. P. (2013). Person-role-system framework briefing note. Annie E. Casey Foundation, Retrieved from: https://assets​.aecf​.org​/m​/blogdoc​/Per​sonR​oleS​yste​mFra​ mework​-2013​.pdf

Chapter 5

Rewards and Recognition Simone Martin-Howard

From my View1 By Simone Martin-Howard Background: Employee #1 is a Black Correctional Officer who has been employed at Rikers Island for 10 years, immediately after graduating from college. She has a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, and her current position requires someone that was trained in coding with a computer science background. Therefore, Employee #1 believes that she is self-taught regarding her current position, but also attended additional trainings outside of work to further educate herself. Overall, Employee #1 does not feel fulfilled in her job or that she is recognized for good performance. Furthermore, she does not believe that officers receive clear communication from management and while she is able to have an opinion about what is going on in the facility, and therefore has some level of decision-making ability, the commanding officer always makes the final decision. “My primary responsibilities are care, custody, and control. I [previously] worked in a housing area and in that housing area, I worked with about 100 inmates. With the hundred inmates, I basically afforded them breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And prepared them to go either to work, because some have jobs in jail, and also recreation time – when they can go to the yard. As well as medical attention if they have to go see a doctor while incarcerated, and escorting them to those different activities. I have worked at Queens Courts as well, where I would escort justice-involved individuals from a holding pen to the courtroom to see a judge or I would actually sit in a section which is right behind the courtroom. The [inmates] sit behind a courtroom prior to seeing the judge, while other cases are going on, and I will sit there and deal with all their paperwork. When an [inmate] is seen by a judge, there’s a host of paperwork that needs to be done and, basically, I was the person for the Department of Corrections that handles all the paperwork that went from the justice system to the court system and the jail system. DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-6

74  Simone Martin-Howard

“Currently, I work in a unit called the “facility information system,” and in that unit we gather all of the data for all of the officers and the department, as well as different things that the officers may be sick with. In terms of satisfaction, I’m content with my current position because it gives me a lot of flexibility within my lifestyle. I work a Monday through Friday shift, and I work from 8 am to 4 pm daily. And I don’t get stuck [at Rikers Island] for overtime, but it may be two to three hours of overtime as opposed to being stuck in a jail with inmates [like some of my colleagues]. So yes, I’m very content but I’m not happy, and if I had somewhere else to go, I would. If I had better choices, I would [leave Rikers Island] because I hate the way things are run. It’s very poorly managed and the unit that I am in is supposed to be a unit to help officers that are hurt or that are sick. However, due to the state that the department is in, because of the high sick rate of COVID-19, I work in a unit now where officers are being judged more than helped because the department thinks that everyone’s playing games. In other words, administration believes that correction officers don’t want to go to work due to COVID-19. So, I’m in a tough position. “For example, I have officers in my unit that haven’t been to work in a year. I see hospitalizations every day, I had to send an officer out on an EMS2 run because she couldn’t breathe. She contracted COVID-19 at work and has not returned. I see things like that on a daily basis. I also see where I have officers that just don’t want to go to work because they don’t want to work, and they don’t want to be stuck [working longer shifts because of understaffing]. You don’t always know, so you have to treat everybody the same as if they are sick, because you don’t know who’s actually really sick and who actually isn’t. Other than where I’m at right now, there’s no other level for advancement except going up in ranks [to a position as captain or higher]. And I’m not interested in moving up in rank. That will be the only level of advancement, where I am right now. This is going to be as good as it can be as a correction officer. “Regarding recognition, we have staff in our unit that have not been back to work in a year [due to COVID-19] but because they’re not uniformed staff, they don’t have to come to work. Meanwhile, our unit is supposed to have approximately 80 staff members, but only about 15 of us come to work every day. And so, the 15 of us are doing the work of 80 people. And you’re not recognized for it [by management] because they look at you, and they say, well, “technically, you’re supposed to be working in jail, and you’re supposed to feel grateful that you’re working at that assignment.” They [the administration] don’t care about the staff, they care about numbers, they care about the number of people that’s coming to work [staff to justice-involved individual ratio] so that the job can get done. You’re not a person to them. We don’t go by first names; we go by last names only. And if they could call me by my reference number they probably would. They don’t care about the staff; they care about the numbers.

Rewards and Recognition  75

“As it relates to collegiality, we [African American individuals] don’t treat each other good. I feel like other ethnicities take care of one another. As African Americans [or Latinx], we never look out for one another, we’re very selfish and just care about ourselves…Even when we get to the top, we never help one another. Like, I worked with a Hispanic partner and he refused to show me certain things … I feel like African American and Hispanic people don’t want everybody to be good, they just want themselves to be good, but that’s just a personal opinion. In addition, working in an environment that is comprised of mostly women hasn’t been positive. Women are very hormonal. Women come into work upset. My thing is, if I have issues going on at home, I leave it at home when I come into work, I do my work and I go home and deal with my issue. Some people come to work with their issues and they want to treat people nasty and some women could be nasty. So, working with more women is bad. I feel like if I had more male coworkers, I would have a better day.”

Introduction Fostering social and racial equity within different organizations through rewards and recognition is paramount. Across various types of organizations, the significance of social and racial equity has been brought to the forefront in large part by the COVID-19 pandemic and racial tension across the United States. This chapter begins with a brief background on organizational culture; provides four frames readers can utilize to analyze organizations (Bolman & Deal, 2017); and gives rationale for the importance of looking at organizational culture through the rewards and recognition cultural category. This category focuses on: (1) types of performance; (2) rewards offered to employees; (3) formal/informal recognition and internal/external recognition; and (4) measurable vs. less quantifiable rewards. Second, this chapter includes research by Fawcett and colleagues (2008) on the building blocks of a successful work environment juxtaposed with a United States-based example connecting the existence (or lack thereof) of rewards and recognition in one of the US’ largest jails – Rikers Island – through semi-structured interviews3 with 15 Black women correctional officers (COs). While African American representation in corrections is not geographically uniform, at Rikers Island Jail, Black women encompass its largest demographic (Fisher, 2019). Black women comprise 60% of uniformed staff at Rikers Island (NYC Department of Correction Uniform Personnel Demographic Data, 2020). Findings from interviews with this sample of public service professionals provide an example of how rewards and recognition are perceived in a real-world setting. Next, we look at examples of future challenges and opportunities that organizations may face overall. Challenges may arise because public administrators are simply oblivious about the importance of rewarding and recognizing employees

76  Simone Martin-Howard

along with being unaware of the impact that an organization’s culture can have on equitable outcomes. Employee behavior, which can be positively or negatively impacted by managerial reactions as well as the value employee-employer trust has on an organization’s success, is also discussed. Challenges and opportunities are also provided within the context of Rikers Island Jail. Two interactive activities for readers to observe rewards (an analysis of formal documents and managerial-employee communication) and recognition (using qualitative methods to explore statements, management practices, and external recognition related to diversity) practices within an organization are then suggested. Lastly, discussion questions are provided followed by a call to action for readers to consider when examining rewards and recognition practices.

Definitions and Contexts An organization’s culture is defined by its administrative processes, formal and informal relationships within the organization, leadership, structure, and its relevant environments. As explained by Bolman and Deal (2017), organizations can be analyzed using four well-defined frames – structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The structural frame focuses on an organization’s goals, the allocation of responsibilities, the organizational chart, and the hierarchy of authority (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The human resource frame or lens is concerned with people and interrogates the relationships between the individual and the organization, motivation, rewards, recognition, diversity, the informal hierarchy of power and prestige, and job enrichment (Bolman & Deal, 2017). The political frame looks at conflicting viewpoints, the relationship between power and authority, bargaining and negotiation, and scarce resources (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Lastly, the symbolic frame focuses on the organization’s history, core values, symbols, rituals, and subcultures (Bolman & Deal, 2017). To advance an organization’s culture with the value of social equity, all four frames should be considered. Rewards and recognition, however, the focus of this chapter, falls largely under the human resource frame. While anthropologists have studied culture to understand differences among groups for the past century, only recently have organizations considered the association between culture, organizational performance, individual attitudes, and behavior within organizations (Warrick, 2017). Within the field of organizational studies and management, organizational culture “describes the psychology, attitudes, experiences, beliefs, and values (personal and cultural values) of an organization” (Patnaik, 2011, p. 79). The topic of organizational culture can be widely found in the existing literature (Gregory et al., 2009; Homburg & Pflesser, 2000; Schein, 1992) and what Ogbonna and Harris (2006) have deemed the “culture metaphor” is used throughout research on organizational analysis. However, less investigation has focused on cultural analyses through rewards and recognition (Chen, 2010). This is mainly due to the disjointed nature of organizational culture

Rewards and Recognition  77

theory. From a management and functionalist perspective, culture is defined as a variable that can be controlled and which guides the behavior of the majority of employees (Chen, 2010; Smirich, 1983). Yet, the social sciences and interpretivist literature consider culture as “fundamental to the nature of the organization and much more difficult to manage, since it may be both dynamic and pluralistic” (Chen, 2010, p. 191; Smirich, 1983). When conducting a race and social equity cultural audit from the rewards and recognition culture category, public administration practitioners, students, and scholars must look for administrator and employee performance reviews, the types and quantity of rewards offered, and the types of formal and informal recognition within the agency (Gooden, 2014). Historically, rewards have generally been presented in the form of pay and benefits, which are visible; received on a regular and stable schedule; and measurable (Perkins & White, 2008). In more recent years, less quantifiable rewards were introduced to encompass less visible employment rewards, such as recognition, and work satisfaction (Chen, 2010). Fawcett et al. (2008) break down rewards and recognition by first looking at the individual and then at how the individual interacts with co-workers and managers in their workplace. For example, if an individual has a sense of community, this will result in personal benefits such as higher self-confidence and a positive mood. This individual will perceive a sense of belonging with co-workers as well as a mutual respect and will be recognized by top managers for a job well done. When compared to measurable rewards like pay and benefits, it has been argued that less visible rewards improve motivation, establish employee bonds, and create a sense of unity within the organization (Russo et al., 2013). Rewards should focus on employee retention and motivating those employees with high potential (Russo et al., 2013). Furthermore, rewards must emphasize goals, distinct responsibilities, and employees must be provided with outcomes and feedback on an ongoing basis (Hornsby et al., 2002). In addition to feeling valued at work, additional key workplace attributes include “efforts that are recognized, supported, and rewarded” (Fawcett et al., 2008). Within an organization, employee recognition complements rewards. It is estimated that organizations spend approximately one percent of staff payroll and over $46 billion annually worldwide on employee recognition (Garr, 2012). Recognition has been linked to several positive outcomes, to include lower voluntary turnover; increased employee engagement; and higher organizational revenues and profitability (Brun & Dugas, 2008; Garr, 2012; Merino & Privado, 2015). These positive outcomes also continue on an individual basis, as recognition programs also impact performance, job satisfaction, motivation, and morale (Merino & Privado, 2015). Examples of internal recognition activities can include department-based recognition dinners, monetary gifts, or be as simple as thankyou notes (Sowcik et al, 2018). The latter demonstrates that it is not necessary for recognition to be expensive. Recognition can also be validated through ceremonies, enhanced responsibilities, and communicating employees’ original and innovative ideas to upper

78  Simone Martin-Howard

management (Hornsby et al., 1993; Perry-Smith, 2006). Recognition is similarly utilized externally by organizations as a measure of success. Large organizations may compare themselves against others by annual diversity listings such as “DiversityInc’s list of ‘The 50 Best Companies for Diversity’ or Fortune magazine’s ‘Top 50 Companies for Minorities,’” for example (Manoharan et al., 2021, p. 1). The positive link between culture, rewards, and recognition is established in the literature. Fortune’s annual 100 Best Companies to Work For is grounded mainly on anonymous employee surveys regarding workplace culture (Levering, 2016). Receiving external accolades for diversity is associated with strong financial performance and indicates a competitive advantage to both internal and external stakeholders (Cook & Glass, 2014; Richard et al., 2013; Roberson & Park, 2007).

Strategies for Fostering Equity with Rewards and Recognition In addition to the aforementioned examples of rewards and recognition, it is, equally, and some may argue, more important to practice equity within an organization. Fawcett et al (2008) contend that the “building blocks of a winning workplace are job design, empowerment, respect, equity, and collegiality” (p. 427). Individuals feel accomplished if the job is designed appropriately and they are empowered to make certain decisions. At the core of respect, employees need to be recognized by their co-workers, immediate supervisors, and senior-level management (Fawcett et al., 2008). “Equity is manifest via a fair workload, appropriate balance between job demands and family life, rewards that are linked to competent efforts, and equal treatment by supervisors” (Fawcett et al., 2008, p. 428). Lastly, if the work environment is welcoming, individuals look forward to going to work and find enjoyment from these interactions. If these building blocks have been met, managers can focus their time and resources on more difficult tasks. However, there are instances where organizations, administrators, and supervisors fail to create the environment that Fawcett et al (2008) support. The response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, brought long-standing systemic and equity issues to the forefront of one of the United States’ largest jails, Rikers Island in New York City. Rikers Island Correctional Facility in New York City (NYC) is the secondlargest jail system in the United States (Harocopos et al., 2017). Opened in 1932, Rikers was originally used for military training and later converted to a jail. Located on the East River between the boroughs of the Bronx and Queens in NYC, Rikers Island detains thousands of justice-involved individuals with varying levels of offenses, awaiting trial, or fighting their cases. The facility is well-known as a majority-Black organization. Sixty percent of all correctional officers (COs) at Rikers Island are Black (NYC Department of Correction Uniform Personnel Demographic Data, 2020; NYC Demographic of Correction Demographic Report, 2018). Although the majority of COs at Rikers Island Jail are African American

Rewards and Recognition  79

men and women, social and racial inequities still exist. For Black women, in particular, systemic racism and structural inequities have made it difficult to obtain employment that provides a decent standard of living as well as prospects to advance within the organization (Lemke & Brown, 2020). However, “employment as COs provide an opportunity for Black women to reach the level of pay comparable to their White counterparts” (Martin-Howard, 2022, p. 3). The discussion here is based upon data from 15 interviews conducted in May and June of 2021 with Black women COs employed at various facilities at Rikers Island Jail. Adapted from four of the five building blocks (empowerment, respect, equity, and collegiality) by Fawcett et al. (2008), over half of the sample (53%) feel empowered to make decisions at work; 80% do not believe they are respected due to lack of recognition by their co-workers, immediate supervisors, and seniorlevel management; 80% of the sample do not believe that they were treated equitably (unfair workloads, lack of work-life balance) during the COVID-19 pandemic (Martin-Howard, 2022), received unequal treatment by supervisors due to their race (60%); and 53% believe that their work environment is negative and lacks collegiality. For the purpose of anonymity, the officers’ narratives are presented numerically throughout the case study. Participants were asked: Do you think you have decision-making abilities? While the majority (8/15) responded affirmatively, 47% believed that although they can provide an opinion on a situation, ultimately the commanding officer or deputy warden makes the final decision. Recognition is linked to respect (the second building block) and when asked if they are recognized for good performance, 80% of the sample replied “no.” Officer #9 expressed: “No, [I am] not recognized. They never say that you are doing a good job … you’re not doing enough and you don’t feel appreciated.” The third building block for a winning workplace put forth by Fawcett et al. (2008) is equity. The COVID-19 pandemic brought to light inequities within Rikers Island Jail in the spring of 2020. Due to the fast rate at which the virus spread throughout the jail facility, thousands of COs either called out of work or many have not returned to work since the beginning of the pandemic. As a result, those COs who were present were forced to work double and triple shifts, without eating, throughout the pandemic (Mannarino & Rosario, 2021), and were not given personal protective equipment (PPE) (Barr, 2020; Oladeru et al., 2020). Over half of the sample (60%) perceive their treatment as inequitable when compared to the treatment of their white counterparts, due to the political landscape and correctional administration. The officers interviewed do not believe that equity exists regarding promotions within the DOC. Many feel that white COs are given promotions (to cushy positions) after working directly with justice-involved individuals for a short period of time, while Black COs remain in custody positions for years. Black COs explained that white officers are privileged; are able to go home right after their shifts (as opposed to working double and triple shifts); are placed in “better” housing areas, are assigned to special projects; or are transferred to the New York Police Department (NYPD) after a few years. Officer #6 illustrated the high levels of favoritism, which is dependent on the race of the

80  Simone Martin-Howard

DOC administration: “the warden, the chief – whoever is the color of choice at that moment – that’s who they tend to promote and favor and it trickles on down.” Officer #8 also emphasized that the individual privileges afforded to white COs and administrators speak to the power disparities in what is likely permitted and addressed when white individuals are in positions of power. Over half (53%) of the sample do not perceive their work environment as welcoming or friendly, which leads to the fourth building block – collegiality. Women believe that working with a greater proportion of women has not improved their work environments because “females are very hormonal” and “petty, jealous, unprofessional, and catty” (Officer #1). Furthermore, according to officers, the environment is negative because women are unable to separate their personal lives from their professional lives; and they perceive women-women relationships as a power struggle. As previously mentioned, less quantifiable rewards such as work satisfaction fall under the umbrella of unobservable employment rewards. Linked to satisfaction, participants were asked: Do you feel fulfilled in your position? Eighty percent (12/15) do not feel fulfilled. Officer #6 stated: “I feel like I’m ready to quit tomorrow. If my time were not so short, I would leave, I would.” Officer #6 is one of eight participants who have been employed by the DOC for more than ten years while 47% of participants have been employed by the DOC for less than 10 years, therefore, leaving the department would not be advantageous for her. Among the three COs who did feel fulfilled, salary, a tangible reward, was their motivation and main source of contentment. Furthermore, over half of the COs in the sample had no interest in moving up to a supervisory position due to the added responsibilities in that role; the stress and liability they see other supervisors face; and the comfort with their current positions. Although the lack of interest in moving up the career ladder is decidedly individualized, Archbold and Schulz (2008) found that women do not feel supported in entrylevel positions which may have led women in this current study to believe promotions were not within their reach.

Future Challenges and Opportunities Organizations may face certain challenges while attempting to include social and racial equity principles within their culture, however, opportunities also exist. At times, for example, public administrators may be uninformed about the significant effect that culture can have on their organizations and employees (Warrick, 2017). Conversely, they may be cognizant of organizational culture but overwhelmed by the contradictory and far-reaching information available about culture and equity and unaware of the necessary tactics to uphold cultures at their organization (Warrick, 2017). As a result of the inconsistent and extensive information that exists about culture, it can vary considerably within and between organizations. Indeed, public administrators “can bring out the best in people and create excellent environments for people to work in; or they can bring out the worst in people and create dysfunctional environments filled with stress and tension” (Warrick, 2017, p. 396).

Rewards and Recognition  81

It is also important for employees and managers to understand the types of behaviors that are valued and devalued as these facets directly impact organizational culture. People react to behaviors based on if they are valued or rewarded and circumvent those behaviors that are neither recognized nor rewarded (Warrick, 2017). Therefore, opportunities exist for leaders to observe the existing reward system in the organization and distinguish which behaviors are preferred and motivate employees rather than encourage “self-serving actions and discourage teamwork or that going the extra mile goes unnoticed or unrewarded” (Warrick, 2017, p. 398). It is imperative that leaders continuously appraise their reward and performance systems to confirm an alignment with the “desired culture” (Warrick, 2017, p. 399). It is also important for employees to possess high levels of trust in managers, as this will lead to the belief that their inputs will be recognized and rewarded (Abu-Jarad et al., 2010). If trust is low or non-existent, motivations will be diminished (Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Hassan, 2002). When discussing the situation at Rikers Island Jail, specifically, challenges and opportunities do exist. The jail is scheduled to close completely by 2026, by order of the former Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio, who was also the mayor at the time the data was collected. By 2026, the city council vowed to: close Rikers Island; limit the jail population to approximately 3,300 individuals; and replace the city’s four run-down jails (Gonzales, 2019). “This will be done through a combination of bail reform, community-based surveillance, and alternatives-toincarceration” (Martin-Howard, 2022, p. 17). These changes can be viewed as a challenge to the thousands of COs that the DOC employs who will no longer have a position due to downsizing. However, since there are still several years before all of the facilities are closed, the DOC could hire more officers, as recommended by several COs in the case study, to assist those who are working multiple shifts. Administrators and senior-level management must ensure that new officers are recognized and rewarded, feel empowered, respected, receive equitable treatment, and are welcomed into a collegial work environment.

Learning Activity The following are two interactive activities for readers to observe rewards first, and secondly, recognition practices within an organization. Chen (2010) discusses the design and content of visible and less observable reward policies compared with organizational culture. She views formal policies as artifacts, which display an organization’s cultural qualities for all to see. Artifacts are organizational characteristics that can be easily seen, such as facilities, visible awards and recognition, and mission statements, for example (Patnaik, 2011). In other words, artifacts are the most noticeable level of organizational culture and are illustrated in language and symbols (Schein, 1992). After artifacts are examined (Chen, 2010); readers should conduct an equity evaluation, an organizational assessment using the symbolic framework (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Quaid, 1993); analyze reward and culture through perceptions of fairness and equality (Chen, 2010); and interrogate

82  Simone Martin-Howard

unexplained differences between various groups within an organization (Chen, 2010). The first activity below provides a step-by-step guide that readers should follow to observe rewards within an organization: 1. Inspect formal policy documents and formal level of communication between managers and employees on rewards. 2. Analyze accounts on reward decision-making throughout the organization and investigate if any pay differentials exist among employees. 3. Examine an organization’s myths, beliefs, and stories by comparing and contrasting these symbols with rewards. 4. Compare and contrast cultural perceptions of fairness and equality through the views of various groups (managers and employees) who differ by age, gender, ethnicity, and work experiences (public vs. private sector history). To “explore the links between diversity statements, diversity management practices, and external recognition for diversity” (Manoharan et al., 2021, p. 4) suggest a qualitative method. Examples of diversity statements include diversity and inclusion as core values and the organization’s culture. Diversity management practices included a corporate diversity council, diversity training programs, diversity among suppliers, employee networking and monitoring, cultural awareness, support for women, support for LGBT network programs, and same-sex benefits (Manoharan et al., 2021). Here, it is also important to utilize the thematic analysis method which provides thick descriptions of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006) as well as both inductive and deductive methods to guide the data process from bottom-up and top-down approaches, respectively. The second activity below are steps readers can follow to conduct a textual qualitative approach that observes recognition practices within an organization: 1. Conduct secondary site searches (Google) to determine the latest diversity awards or recognition given to organizations in the sample. 2. Evaluate the content of an organization’s diversity statements. 3. Assess the organization’s diversity management practices. 4. Analyze the nature of the link between diversity statements, diversity management practices, and external recognition for diversity.

Discussion Questions Employ the following questions to help understand an organization’s rewards programs and recognition strategies, adapted from Gooden (2014), Sowcik et al. (2018), Bolman and Deal (2017), and Manoharan et al. (2021): 1. What is the purpose of the recognition program within the selected organization?

Rewards and Recognition  83

2. How does the employee recognition program impact employee motivation and performance? 3. Who is being rewarded and how often? 4. How diverse are the social and educational backgrounds and skills of the people in the organization? a. What are their social styles? b. What is the range in ages? 5. What do organizations do to gain external recognition for diversity? 6. What is included in administrator and employee performance reviews? 7. What are the types and quantity of rewards offered? 8. What are the types of formal and informal recognition within the agency?

Call to Action: What Can You Do? The results of the case study at Rikers Island Jail indicate that an organization’s culture plays a large role in the experiences of Black, women COs and their interactions with other minority COs and supervisors. Participants discussed the clear disparities between the posts that they are assigned to versus the positions that their white counterparts are in. Several officers explained that even though the New York City DOC is predominantly composed of underrepresented groups, white officers are not in the jails, have little to no contact with justice-involved individuals, and move quickly on to the NYPD. They stated that job placement within corrections depends on the race of senior administration. This is consistent with research by Collica-Cox and Schulz (2018), which found that within corrections, African American women were not as easily promoted by administration when compared to high levels of promotion first among white men, followed by African American men, and then white women. Participants in this study overwhelmingly believe that they do not receive the support that they need from DOC administration and New York City politicians because they are predominantly composed of underrepresented individuals. Some COs believe that if the DOC was comprised of mostly white officers, similar to the NYPD, they would have better resources and the environment would be more familial. The degree to which a staff member believes there is institutional support tells COs that they are not only appreciated but also recognized as important individuals within the larger bureaucracy (Garland & McCarty, 2006). Lambert et al. (2018) states that administrators should “invest resources in carefully selecting and training correctional supervisors, as it is supervisors who are most likely to hold a vital role in developing and sustaining a collective expectation of professionalism within the organization” (p. 640). Furthermore, as first-line supervisors, it can be argued that captains at the DOC would be the most successful staff members to bolster positive expectations of uniformed officers. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed the spotlight on social and racial equity in public organizations in the United States. For example, inequities between Black and white correctional officers around issues of recognition by co-workers,

84  Simone Martin-Howard

supervisors, and senior management; differences in workload and work-life imbalance; and unequal treatment by supervisors existed at the NYC Department of Corrections before the global pandemic swept through the US in early 2020. However, COVID-19 exacerbated these long-standing inequalities. This case study is one example of the perspectives of Black, female COs on the lack of rewards and recognition within government. More qualitative research is needed to consider the perspectives and experiences of senior staff and administration in correctional facilities in the US who may have very different views on rewards and recognition practices, diversity management strategies, and an organization’s culture. Beyond the field of corrections, readers should complete audits of other publicfacing organizations that employ large percentages of People of Color. As this chapter explains, when conducting a race and social equity cultural audit, readers should first utilize the four frames – structural, human resources, political, and symbolic – put forth by Bolman and Deal (2017). Then, an audit of formal and informal policies should be conducted, followed by an equity evaluation, analyses of any pay differentials or variations in workload, an examination of an organization’s stories juxtaposed with their existing reward system, and a comparison of perceptions of fairness and equality through interviews with public administrators at different levels within the organization. Additional methods include research on the organization’s external recognition for diversity (awards received), an evaluation of an organization’s diversity statements, and an assessment of an organization’s diversity management practices. These steps will aid public and non-profit practitioners, students, and scholars progress outside of an abstract acknowledgment of the inequities that exist in organizations, where the majority of employees identify as People of Color, toward a call to action to improve rewards and recognition practices for everyone.

Notes 1 Names and identifying information have been changed in this narrative. 2 Emergency Medical Services, more commonly known as EMS, is a system that provides emergency medical care. 3 Fifteen Black, women COs at Rikers Island were recruited through word of mouth from the author’s personal and professional contacts followed by snowballing techniques. Qualitative interviewing was utilized in this study to capture the individual’s point of view and obtain rich, thick descriptions of their experiences and perceptions. The questions were designed to provide adequate coverage of the research purpose. The first set of questions asked about participant demographics to include race/ethnicity, age, level of education, marital status, residential zip code, number of years on the job/years of experience, and type of facility (men’s or women’s). Second, participants were asked questions related to career background (previous employment), primary job responsibilities (custody/non-custody position, contact with incarcerated individuals, supervisory/non-supervisory role), and job satisfaction (opportunities for advancement, decision-making abilities, perceptions of sufficient training). Third, all interviewees were asked questions on overall correctional health before COVID-19 (access to healthcare for justice-involved individuals and physical and mental health conditions in the facilities) as well as any changes in job-related activities as a result

Rewards and Recognition  85 of the COVID-19 pandemic (difficult aspects, hours worked, changes in work responsibilities, provision of equipment/implementation of policies, resources to assist with individual physical and mental health, non-job-related challenges, other job-related challenges) and perceptions of conditions for justice-involved individuals during the pandemic. After the recruitment phase, all participants received the informed consent form, audio/video recording consent form, and background sheet on the purpose of the study. Full ethical approval was obtained from Long Island University’s Institutional Review Board. The interviews were conducted via Zoom and lasted between 45 minutes and 1.5 hours. Due to the confidential and sensitive nature of the interviews, the author was the only individual to both interview and transcribe the data. Transcripts were analyzed deductively (through previous research on job satisfaction among jail staff) and inductively. Through an inductive approach, each interview was transcribed and rigorously analyzed through open coding of words that appeared repeatedly in the data, assisted in generating new ideas, and kept the author thoroughly grounded in the data. Additional themes were identified, notes were written on each transcript which informed sub-themes, and a cross-case analysis was completed. While the author primarily coded manually, Dedoose was also used as a secondary method of analysis.

References Abu-Jarad, I. Y., Yusof, N., & Nikbin, D. (2010). A Review Paper on Organizational Culture and Organizational Performance. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1(3), 26–46. Archbold, C. A., & Schulz, D. M. (2008). Making rank: The lingering effects of tokenism on female police officers’ promotion aspirations. Police Quarterly, 11, 50–73. Barr, L. (2020, April 2). Federal prisons facing shortages of resources amid coronavirus outbreak. ABC News. Retrieved February 4, 2022, from https://abcnews​.go​.com​/ Health​/federal​-prisons​-facing​-shortages​-resources​-amid​-coronavirus​-outbreak​/story​?id​ =69920966 Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Brun, J., & Dugas, N. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 716–730. Chen, A. (2010). Culture and compensation—unpicking the intricate relationship between reward and organizational culture. Thunderbird international business review, 52(3), 189–202. Collica-Cox, K., & Schulz, D. M. (2018). Of all the joints, she walks into this one: Career motivations of women corrections executives. The Prison Journal, 98(5), 604–629. Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Do diversity reputation signals increase share value? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(4), 471–491. Fawcett, S. E., Brau, J. C., Rhoads, G. K., Whitlark, D., & Fawcett, A. M. (2008). Spirituality and organizational culture: Cultivating the ABCs of an inspiring workplace. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(4), 420. Fisher, C. (2019). Black Women at Work in Corrections in the Era of Mass Incarceration: Documenting Demographic Changes in the New York City Department of Correction. [Master’s thesis, The City University of New York]. CUNY Academic Works.

86  Simone Martin-Howard Garland, B., & McCarty, W. (2006). Explaining perceptions of administrative support among prison treatment staff: A spotlight on deputy wardens in charge of treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 81–115. Garr, S. (2012, June). The State of Employee Recognition in 2012. Bersin & Associates. https://www​. hr​. com​/ en​? s​= 1Rj0W6IrJIGiTIKO​& t=​/ documentManager​/ sfdoc​. file​ .supply​&fileID​=1355866281308 Gooden, S. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Taylor and Francis. Gonzales, R. (2019). City Council votes to close New York’s notorious Rikers Island jail complex. NPR. Retrieved February 13, 2022, from https://www​.npr​.org​/2019​/10​/17​ /771167909​/new​-york​-to​-close​-citys​-notorious​-rikers​-island​-jailcomplex Gregory, B. T., Harris, S. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Shook, C. L. (2009). Organizational culture and effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62, 673–679. Harocopos, A., Allen, B., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Venters, H., Paone, D., & Macdonald, R. (2017). The Rikers island hot spotters: Exploring the needs of the most frequently incarcerated. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 28(4), 1436–1451. Hassan, A. (2002). Organizational justice as a determinant of organizational commitment and intention to leave. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 7(2), 55–66. Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 449–462. Hornsby, J. S., Naffziger, D. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1993). An Interactive Model of the Corporate Entrepreneurship Process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29–37. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/104225879301700203 Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., & Zahra, S. A. (2002). Middle managers’ perception of the internal environment for corporate entrepreneurship: Assessing a measurement scale. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 253–273. Lambert, E. G., Worley, R., & Vidisha, B. W. (2018). The effects of perceptions of staff– inmate boundary violations and willingness to follow rules upon work stress. Security Journal, 31(2), 618–644. Lemke, M. K., & Brown, K. K. (2020). Syndemic perspectives to guide black maternal health research and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24(9), 1093–1098. Levering, R. (2016, March 3). This year’s best employers have focused on fairness. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune​.com​/2016​/03​/03​/best​-companies​-2016​-intro/ Manoharan, A., Madera, J. M., & Singal, M. (2021). Walking the talk in diversity management: Exploring links between strategic statements, management practices, and external recognition. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 1–10. Mannarino, D., & Rosario, V. (2021, February). OBA president talks ‘unacceptable’ conditions as correction officers forced to work overtime. Pix 11. Retrieved February 4, 2022, from https://pix11​.com​/news​/local​-news​/coba​-presidenttalks​-unacceptable​ -conditions​-as​-correction​-officers​-forced​-to​-work​-overtime/ Martin-Howard, S. (2022). COVID-19’s Impact on Black, Female Correctional Officers and Justice-Involved Individuals at Rikers Island Jail. Crime & Delinquency, 1–24. Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Prediction participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 20,709–734.

Rewards and Recognition  87 Merino, M. A., & Privado, J. (2015). Does employee recognition affect positive psychological functioning and well-being? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, E64–E64. NYC Demographic of Correction. (2018). Demographic Report. https://council​.nyc​.gov​ /budget​/wp​-content​/uploads​/sites​/54​/2018​/10​/Department​-of​-Correction​-Uniform​ -Members​-Demographic​-Report​.pdf Published June 2018. Accessed February 10, 2022. NYC Department of Correction. (2020). Uniform personnel demographic data. https://www1​ .nyc​.gov​/assets​/doc​/downloads​/pdf​/2020​%20DOC​%20STAFF​%20DEMOGRAPHIC​ %20REPORT​.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2022. Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. (2006). Organizational culture in the age of the Internet: An exploratory study. New Technology, Work and Employment, 21(2), 162–175. Oladeru, O. T., Tran, N.-T., Al-Rousan, T., Williams, B., & Zaller, N. (2020). A call to protect patients, correctional staff and healthcare professionals in jails and prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health & Justice, 8(1), 17–17. Patnaik, J. B. (2011). Organizational culture: The key to effective leadership and work motivation. Social Science International, 27(1), 79–94. Perkins, S., & White, G. (2008). Employee Reward: Alternatives, Consequences and Contexts. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 85–101. Quaid, M. (1993). Job evaluation as institutional myth. Journal of Management Studies, 30(2), 22–28. Richard, O. C., Roh, H., & Pieper, J. R. (2013). The link between diversity and equality management practice bundles and racial diversity in the managerial ranks: Does firm size matter? Human Resource Management, 52(2), 215–242. Roberson, Q. M., & Hyeon, J. P. (2007). Examining the link between diversity and firm performance: The effects of diversity reputation and leader racial diversity. Group & Organization Management, 32(5), 548–568. Russo, G. M., Tomei, P. A., Linhares, A. B. J., & Santos, A. M. (2013). Correlation between organizational culture and compensation strategies using Charles Handy’s typology. Performance Improvement (International Society for Performance Improvement), 52(7), 13–21. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass Inc. Smirich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339–358. Sowcik, M., Carter, H., & McKee, V. (2018). Reframing Recognition in Organizations. University of Florida IFAS Extension. Warrick, D. D. (2017). What leaders need to know about organizational culture. Business Horizons, 60(3), 395–404.

Chapter 6

Discourse Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr.

From my View1 By Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr. Following Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 and public outcry around the extrajudicial murder of Elijah McClain in Aurora, Colorado, a number of Colorado’s public defenders offered insight into their role in a criminal justice system they perceive as racist, and their relationship with race and racism generally (Croft, Forthcoming). What became clear during those interviews was that many public defenders are motivated to serve the public because they believe the criminal justice system is fundamentally broken. They see it as their constitutional duty to mitigate the inequity routinely doled out to defendants who identify as poor and/or Black, Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC). What also became clear is that organizational discourse on race matters. Many of these attorneys felt emboldened to pursue equity for their clients in the courtroom because of the degree to which their offices named, blamed, and claimed racist practices (Gooden, 2014). The following vignette, from a Denver area public defender, Ben C. (which is a pseudonym), provides promising insight into the ways in which organizational discourse around race and racism can eventually lead to antiracist practice and allow our organizations to more effectively channel the public service motivations of a generation of practitioners who wish to pursue equity. “Racism is something we talk about, and it’s something we worry about. Obviously, we work in criminal justice and in the United States that means working in a fundamentally racist system. Most of us got into public defense because we wanted to combat that system. But we know we’re not perfect, we know profiling happens in public defense and we know discrimination happens. But our office cares about fighting that. We have workshops at our conferences, workshops about fighting racism and being antiracist. We try to have a dialogue that’s ongoing about racism in our office and the system generally. And it’s always with the understanding that we could be better. DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-7

Discourse 

89

“I’m a white public defender, so I especially have to be mindful that I could always be better. Most of my clients aren’t white, and if I’m not aware and fighting against biases that I might be bringing into practice, then I won’t be the attorney they need me to be. The job demands that we take an honest look at racism, internally and externally, as much as we can. I have to question myself when I’m making decisions on a case. Because the same assumptions of guilt and innocence that take place throughout the system can mess with our own judgments in public defense. “It does feel like something has started to change. Obviously, progress is slow. When I started working in public defense, especially in rural, white offices, conversations about racism never happened. It was like there was this obvious elephant in the room that was the fact that our clients were disproportionately non-white and represented by white attorneys. “If I had to guess, though, I’d say a lot of prosecutor’s offices are still that way. I’m obviously biased but I feel like public defense has led the way when it comes to acknowledging race and racism in criminal justice. Now there’s a whole generation of attorneys in public defense that have read things like The New Jim Crow and that actually care about the issue, but it’s still an unacknowledged part of the criminal justice system to a lot of my colleagues on the other side.”

Introduction Organizations are best understood as a group of people working toward a common goal. Discourse, on the other hand, is a tool used to create and maintain shared understanding among groups of people; it is a method of interpretation shaped by cultural and historical contexts that allows members to organize and accomplish tasks together (Kang, Lessard & Heston, 2017). From the moment people first encounter an organization they are exposed to its discourse and use that information to make sense of the organization’s culture and its behaviors. Discourse is essential to organizational performance because it helps members of a group “make sense of past events or anticipate future actions” (Woodilla, 1998, p. 31). An organization’s discourse exists in written and oral communication, daily practices, and processes (e.g., policies and procedures manuals, memos, emails, newsletters, staff/team meetings, breakroom conversations, etc.). Discourse is both what is said/expressed and what is not. For example, if an organization’s website only features pictures of white people, what is being communicated to or about non-whites? Achieving social equity requires recognition and exploration of the effects of power, privilege, and oppression. Organizational discourse sheds light on group norms, values, and actions, while also offering insight into the intersections of power and privilege. For example, the vignette above illustrates how conversations of race can be a gateway for discussing and exposing systems of oppression,

90  Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr.

power, and privilege to achieve equity within the criminal justice system. Discourse also creates space for naming, blaming, and claiming inequities within society and setting a path for organizational action to promote justice and fairness (Gooden, 2014). As Susan Gooden (2014) puts it, “if race is not discussed by individual public administrators within an agency, analyzing and improving racial equity in the delivery of public services is unlikely to occur” (p. 55). The first step to achieving equity is to engage in effective and equitable organizational discourse. This chapter will prepare public administrators to engage in race-conscious dialogue by providing strategies for navigating organizational discourse and the complex web of personal and institutional factors that produce nervousness. In the next section, the chapter will explore philosophical considerations for comprehending discourse and race in society. The following section covers strategies for fostering race-conscious dialogue within public organizations, these include establishing conversational goals, fostering empathic engagement, encouraging democratic dialogue, and hosting courageous conversations. The third section defines and discusses post-racial sentiments as the great challenge in the future of public organizational discourse. The chapter then shifts its focus toward developing new cognitive skills for assessing and integrating race-conscious dialogue into organizational discourse before finally closing with a call to action for current and future public administrators.

Definitions and Contexts Social constructionism is a sub-field of philosophy which asserts that our understanding of the world we live in is the product of an ongoing process of human interpretation. Social constructionism also serves as the philosophical foundation for understanding the significance of discourse within organizations. The framework tells us that concepts such as race, class, and gender are human-made constructs that evolved over time to have significant meaning in the societies where we live. For instance, on May 17, 1998, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) – the world’s largest organization of anthropologists – adopted its official statement on race. The statement reads in part: Historically research has shown that the idea of race has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them … Race thus evolved as a world view, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior (p. 712–713). The AAA proclamation supports the assertion that race is a fabricated human concept reinforced by a system of privilege and power. The statement has significant implications for public administrators because we work within a complex system of social, economic, and political institutions that distributes benefits

Discourse 

91

and burdens to citizens. Public administrators have a professional commitment to advance the public interest, uphold the Constitution and the Law, promote democratic participation, and strengthen social equity, among other ethical responsibilities (American Society for Public Administration, 2013). Public service does not operate in a vacuum. As its name indicates, these services are open to and shared by lots of people and require a cadre of professionals with various skills working together to ensure processes allow equal access and opportunity and comparable quality of outcomes for everyone. Organizational discourse is key to planning, organizing, directing, and coordinating public services. Organizational discourse reinforces socially constructed knowledge by maintaining boundaries that might otherwise be more fluid and amenable to change (Yanow, 2015). For instance, using the concept of race in administrative practice spawned from late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century pseudoscience that measures blood (i.e., One Drop Rule). This period also featured post-Civil War Reconstruction, Jim Crow segregation, the birth of the eugenics movement, the fight for Women’s Suffrage, and other societal prejudices. Continuing to use race in twenty-firstcentury administrative practices (e.g., forms and documents or performance management) perpetuates the, now proven, misconception that race is a naturally occurring phenomenon and obscures the root causes of racial inequities. Race and racism continue to thrive in the administrative practices and organizational discourse of public institutions. Discourse is the process whereby people negotiate the meaning of things and create shared understanding among members of a group or organization. Robert Asen (1996) explains that  discourse not only creates these socially constructed concepts, but it also generates strategies for thinking and talking about those concepts and how we organize them in relation to other concepts. For example, the structure, frequency, language choices, and accessibility of conversations about (a) problems, (b) solutions, and (c) stakeholders determines the relationship between these three things. This is significant given the ways in which political, social, and economic forces coincide with views and beliefs about minoritized and oppressed groups during the policy design process. Moreover, discourse can create conditions that motivate administrators and organizations to act and distribute resources in ways that are profoundly racialized (Schneider, Ingram & deLeon, 2014; Michener, 2018; Michener, 2019; Pierson, 1993; Soss & Schram, 2007). Gillion’s (2016) theory of discursive governance says that race-conscious discourse from public officials, rather than race-neutral discourse, can shape institutions and societal norms while advancing  policy that improves racial equity. Thus, race-conscious discourse drives deliberative democracy while race-neutral or colorblind discourse stalls it. As Gillion (2016) notes, If words have the power to influence attitudes and perceptions, then the absence of a race-conscious discussion must render the political process uninformed and uncertain about the state of racial equality in America. When left with race-neutral dialogue, citizens are forced to ask about the relevance of

92  Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr.

race-specific programs and policies that attempt to address an issue that is rarely discussed (2016, pp. 9–10). While Gillion’s theory explicitly focuses on elected officials, our bureaucratic agencies must embrace the notion that their discourse, and ability to prompt discourse, has comparable power. Doing so requires recognizing that organizational discourse might be perceived as political and “useful, if not actually necessary, to the moral conduct of government and public administration” (Spicer, 2010, p. 10). Our public service organizations must recognize that race-conscious discourse is necessary for the moral conduct of service provision and encourage and dispense discourse in this area accordingly. Without race-conscious dialogue, an organization’s ability to name, blame, and claim racial inequities is limited. Such efforts fulfill Stivers’s (2008) charge that bureaucracies serve a role in deliberative democracy, creating space for civic engagement and dialogue. It also extends the notion that our public organizations have the authority to institutionalize ideas (constitutive power) and give existence to public perceptions around race and racism (Cook, 2014). Race-conscious dialogue is one example of effective and equitable organizational discourse. For example, contemporary debates about Critical Race Theory are attempting to reframe common conceptions of race and its origin in the United States by de-centering the dominant white viewpoint. If colorblind administrative paradigms are to be overcome in favor of race-conscious dialogue that furthers equitable policy, our bureaucracies must recognize that they can serve as a catalyst for and a source of vital civic discourse on race and racism. This recognition means developing race-conscious discourse as a pervasive organizational practice (McNair, Bensimon & MalcolmPiquex, 2020).

Strategies for Fostering Equity in Organizational Discourse McNair, Bensimon and Malcolm-Piquex (2020) say, “to examine equity effectively, practitioners must understand how racism and a pervasive belief in the hierarchy of human value have shaped our systems, policies, and practices” (p. 6). However, Susan Gooden (2014) claims that public institutions often operate under an illusion that racism no longer exists. She goes on to note that “public administrators and elected officials are largely unequipped to navigate this nervous area of government” (Gooden, 2014, p. xv). Race-conscious dialogue is a type of organizational discourse that mitigates the nervousness often experienced when discussing race in the public sector. Engaging in these dialogues requires sufficient preparation at the individual and group levels; they ought not be entered into haphazardly. Those responsible for facilitating these discussions should commit to establishing conversational goals, fostering empathic engagement, encouraging democratic dialogue, and hosting courageous conversations. Establish conversational goals. Before engaging in race-conscious dialogue, it is essential that administrators establish conversational goals. Woodilla (1998)

Discourse 

93

states, “individuals expect their verbal interactions to accomplish conversational goals and pursue linguistic strategies which vary as a function of the situation, the other participants, and social relations among participants” (p. 36). Setting conversational goals for race-conscious dialogues requires an understanding of racial identity development. Protecting our racial identity is a daily task. White people, for instance, are socialized so that they do not see themselves in racial terms and as a result have uninformed opinions and a simplistic understanding of racism (DiAngelo, 2018). Researchers find that Humans have a propensity for intolerance, and prejudice develops easily from an interaction of three factors: our natural tendency toward ethnocentrism, our lack of meaningful contact with other groups, and our need to categorize and classify people (and things) to help manage “information overload” (Grieger & Ponterotto, 1998, p. 419). From an evolutionary standpoint, prejudice is a survival skill. As mentioned above, the human brain creates information-processing shortcuts to help categorize and classify people and things. Still, the ways we design these shortcuts are informed by information embedded in our familial, organizational, and societal discourses. Starke (2020) found that non-elected, non-appointed federal personnel perpetuated racist and sexist perceptions of the impoverished in U.S. welfare policy discourse. Those same perceptions have a long history of racializing the culture of poverty rather than investigating the sociopolitical and economic structures that led to a correlation between race and poverty. In this instance, it was easier to exploit a shortcut of preconceived notions about People of Color living in poverty, than to engage in policy discussions about why poverty was more prevalent among minoritized groups. Race-conscious dialogue can intervene in these cases. Some initial goals for engaging in race-conscious dialogue should include, but are not limited to, empathic engagement, democratic dialogue, and courageous conversations. Fostering empathic engagement. People, whether in their workforce or residential capacity, are the life force of public administration. For public servants there is little that can be accomplished in isolation; therefore, it is imperative that administrators can engage with a diverse and changing workforce and citizenry. Empathy is an interpersonal tool that helps smooth lines of communication across diverging points of view. Edlins and Dolamore (2018, p. 300) define empathy as “the ability to recognize, understand, and respond to the feelings of another.” Using empathy to engage with others defuses threats posed by a lack of meaningful contact with people unlike ourselves. Mackey, Heckler, and Starke (2020) say, “honest and empathic engagement [sic] recognizes that intersecting identities may have competing needs and interests, which create unique situations that require careful deconstruction and response” (p. 225). Drawing on insights from the scholarly literature, Dolamore (2019, p. 7) identifies four attributes of empathy which can improve interactions within a public service context; they are: (a) see

94  Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr.

the world as others see it; (b) understand another’s current feelings; (c) remain non-judgmental; and (d) communicate understanding of another’s feelings. Interpersonal skills, such as active listening, respect, and authenticity/genuineness are key competencies for establishing empathy with others. Active listening means being present and seeking to understand rather than be understood; respect means acknowledging and affirming the dignity and value of others; and authenticity/genuineness means bringing your whole self into an exchange (Mackey, Heckler & Starke, 2020). Reynolds and Scott (1999) surmise that empathy within a helping relationship is the “ability to communicate an understanding of a client’s world” (p. 363). Empathic engagement for public administrators involved in race-conscious dialogue requires continual self-work to “improve racial literacy, foster emotional intelligence, engage in diversity work, and promote social equity” (Starke, Heckler & Mackey, 2018). It implies situating others as the subject-matter experts of their own lives, acknowledging and affirming an individual’s perceptions and emotions as valid input, and deep engagement with others by listening, asking responsible questions, and sharing. But, most importantly, it means recognizing that race-conscious dialogue involves “real people in a real encounter” (Patterson, 1985, p. 63). Encouraging democratic dialogue. Administrators work in decision-making environments and dialogue represents the decision-making aspect of discourse. Dialogue is a process of genuine interaction through which human beings listen to each other deeply enough to be changed by what they learn. Each makes a serious effort to take others’ concerns into her or his own picture, even when disagreement persists. No participant gives up [their] identity, but each recognizes enough of the other’s valid human claims that [they] will act differently toward the other (Saunders, 1999, p. 22). Dialogue is a method of bringing together divergent perspectives that precede deliberation – i.e., reasoning and argumentation – and result in decision-making. Pruitt and Thomas (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of the scholarly literature and identified five governing principles of the dialogue process: (a) inclusiveness, (b) joint ownership, (c) learning rather than talking, (d) seeing ourselves in others (humanity), and (e) long-term perspectives (sustainability). Table 6.1 details the governing principles, goals, qualities, and behaviors of this approach to dialogue. Democratic dialogue is a specific type of dialogue used to address issues like racism, climate change, and hunger that cannot be adequately and effectively solved by one stakeholder alone (Guhathakurta, 2014). The three Ps of democratic dialogue are (Pruitt & Thomas, 2007, p. 25): • •

Purpose – to address complex social problems; Participants – involving stakeholders that created and/or are affected by the problem; and

Discourse 

•

95

Process – open and inclusive dialogue based on mutual trust and agreement on concrete action.

Effective democratic dialogue must meet five challenges (Pruitt & Thomas, 2007, p. 15):

1. Dealing with complexity; 2. Coordinating meaning; 3. Producing innovation; 4. Enabling deliberation; and 5. Producing sustainable results.

For instance, combating racism and ethnocentrism – the belief that one culture’s way of perceiving and doing is superior to others – demands conditions that promote inclusive discourse in the decision-making process, and democratic dialogue has the potential to nurture those conditions. Administrators must attend to the process to ensure stakeholders have equal access and opportunity to engage in these discussions. Hosting courageous conversations. Race-conscious dialogue produces nervousness and anxiety, but it is a critical activity for administrators tasked with Table 6.1 The Dialogue Approach (Adapted from Pruitt & Thomas, 2007, p. 49) Governing principles

Goals

Qualities

Behaviors

Inclusiveness

Engage all parts of the system Create the conditions for change on the basis of important issues Foster learning; facilitate deeper understanding Create the sense of safety required for openness Foster commitment to achieving sustainable change

Respectfulness

Inquire to learn

Transparency

Share what you know

Openness

Listen empathetically

Empathy

Reflect back what you are hearing

Authenticity

Explore underlying assumptions – yours and those of others Acknowledge emotions as well as ideas and opinions Adjust course to reflect new knowledge or understanding

Joint ownership

Learning Humanity

Long-term perspective

Patience Flexibility

96  Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr.

promoting social equity. As racism and racial inequity persistent in the United States, our views of race continue to be shaped by cultural stereotypes (Tatum, 2017). Aunno, Kramer, and Lint (2007) define courageous conversations as “dialogues in which participants commit to engage each other with honesty, open-mindedness, and vulnerability; to listen deeply to better understand each other’s perspective; and to sustain the conversation when it gets uncomfortable or diverted” (p. 3). Accordingly, race-conscious dialogue must be data-driven and informed by facts rather than opinions (McNair, Bensimon & MalcolmPiquex, 2020). People are entitled to their own truths, which are shaped by their personal experiences, but race-conscious dialogue should be supported by objective, verifiable facts. It is also important that administrators are prepared to deal with emotion and reason. Heath and Heath (2010) say changing organizational practice involves dealing with reason. This entails attending to tasks such as identifying and building on things that are working, developing specific behavioral objectives, and communicating new goals. Additionally, changing behaviors has an emotive component. Change is hard and can be emotionally taxing. To facilitate change, administrators should also be mindful of making emotional appeals that solicit an emotional response, breaking down desired change so that it does not seem/appear overwhelming, and cultivating a sense of identity and growth mindset. Heath and Heath (2010) also recognize the need for changes to the environment, for which they recommend changing the situation so that it accommodates the newly desired behavioral objectives, revising standard operating procedures so that new behaviors become habitual, and acknowledging and celebrating execution of new behaviors. It can be easier to set new behaviors than to change old ones, especially when that behavior produces nervousness. Race-conscious dialogue demands a lot from its participants. Dismantling the biases of a lifetime of racial identity development is an arduous task. It also entails refashioning old schemas that allow us to process information quickly and make judgments about others. Courageous conversations use reason and logic to correct misinformation, while attending to the emotions like anxiety and nervousness generated from the cognitive dissonance of unlearning bias and prejudice. These are everyday tasks for marginalized groups but having allies in the workplace to help champion and facilitate these changes can help ease the burden for minoritized people. Allies can also serve as empathy brokers between dominant and non-dominant groups because they can relate to the perspectives of both groups.

Future Challenges and Opportunities A study conducted by MTV found that many millennials believe we live in a postracial society (Bouie, 2014). The post-racial, or colorblind, approach asserts that race only becomes an issue when someone introduces it as such, often referred to as “playing the race card.” Additionally, some scholars proclaim that racism is an attitude that people hold, while discrimination is an overt act taking place in the

Discourse 

97

real world and, if all things were considered equal, it is impossible to prove either racism or discrimination (Sowell, 2002). However, the mention of the exception – all things considered equal – supports the notion that all things are not equal. With the many overtly racialized incidents in the recent months and years, public discussions of race and racism have shed light on an opposing view. Gary Younge (2014) writes, And so the perception – on both sides of the Atlantic – takes hold that racism is not a system of discrimination planted by history, nourished by politics and nurtured by economics, in which some groups face endemic disadvantage – it’s about ignorant old people getting caught saying mean things. By privileging these episodes – outrageous as they are – racism is basically reduced to the level of a private, individual indiscretion made public. The scandal becomes not that racism exists but that anyone would be crass enough to articulate it so brazenly (para. 9). The underlying question of our current public discourse pertaining to racism in the post-racial era is: at what point does race play a role in our lived experience? How you answer this question depends on your lexicon, and its accompanying definitions; however, each lexicon is greatly influenced by an undergirding ideological framework. As mentioned above, for many people racism is considered an individual indiscretion, but critical race theorists characterize race as a system of privilege and disadvantage. Sociologist and social theorist Joe Feagin (2006) says, From a systemic racism perspective, U.S. society is an organized racist whole with complex, interconnected, and interdependent social networks, organizations, and institutions that routinely imbed racial oppression. This system has changed somewhat over time in response to pressures within the societal environment (p. 16). Moreover, the American Anthropological Association (1998) has declared that race is a socially constructed phenomenon, one with origins and implications in society. Although it is common to view racism at the individual level, doing so limits our understanding of how race operates in society. Privilege, racism, and white supremacy are best understood as (a) one group having greater access or control over a material or tangible resource, (b) an unconscious prejudice thought, or (c) a conscious act of discrimination. White people, as well as other dominant groups, be it based on gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc., have had the power and privilege of defining the world as we know it, in terms of what is and what is not valued. Of significance is “access to power and privilege is often determined by individuals’ proximity to whiteness, heterosexuality, masculinity, ablebodiedness, middleclassness, etc.” (Davis & Steyn, 2012, p. 30).

98  Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr.

This white racial frame provides an encompassing conceptual and interpretive scheme that shapes and channels assessments of everyday events and encounters with other people. The frame not only explains and interprets the everyday world but also implies or offers actions in line with the frame’s explanatory perspective (Feagin, 2006, p. 26). To compound this atrocity, though many millennials are committed to equality and fairness, they also believe that the best way to rid our society of racism is to stop talking about race (Bouie, 2014). This ostrich method of burying one’s head in the sand until the problem has passed is more detrimental than practical, in that it allows the white racist values to propagate the façade of a post-racial society. “A generation that hates racism but chooses colorblindness is a generation that, through its neglect, comes to perpetuate it” (Bouie, 2014, para 14). Thus, racism is best understood as a state of being rather than an act; it is woven into the cultural fabric and pervades our worldview. Race is not only a human construction, but it is refabricated in our everyday practices and discourse. It is through this process of (re)creation that racism is preserved. The greatest challenge that lies ahead is combating colorblindness and the notion of a post-racial society. Since the publication of the 2014 MTV study of millennials’ views of race and racism in America, the US Government Accountability Office has published numerous reports all of which concluded that minorities in America continue to be disproportionately affected by inequality. Whether we choose to acknowledge racism or bury our heads in the sand, its effects are still prevalent and inequality gaps continue to widen. Reversing this trend means engaging current and future generations in productive raceconscious dialogue.

Learning Activity In Colorado, the Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) provides legal representation in any instance where an ethical conflict of interest exists. Consider the following statement from the OADC website, The OADC is dedicated to zealous, client-centered advocacy rooted in social justice, integrity, and humility. We recognize that we are working within a broken and racist criminal legal system. Public defense advocates play an essential role in challenging bias and disparity within the courtroom, within our offices, and within ourselves. There is a disparate presence of violent policing, over-charging, and harsher sentencing outcomes for Colorado’s people of color and other vulnerable populations. The OADC is unwavering in its support of decarceration, the decriminalization of youth, and equity within the criminal legal system (2022, para. 5).

Discourse 

99

Gooden (2014) calls on public service agencies to name, blame, and claim organizational racism as a means of overcoming institutional nervousness around race and replacing racist practices and policies (Sheppard, Lewicki, and Minton 1992). Naming means identifying any “specific practice or action” that is racially unjust (p. 47). Blaming refers to identifying possible sources of racism in an organization and claiming involves replacing practices that are racially inequitable with practices that are “just and equitable” for all (Gooden, 2014, p. 67). Consider how well the above public organizational discourse from OADC names, blames, and claims issues of racial inequity in criminal justice. Which of the three areas (naming, blaming, and claiming) does the statement handle most appropriately? In what areas does it fall short? If your organization has a comparable statement from its website on racial equity, find it and evaluate it based on the same criteria.  Gooden also notes that organizations often shift the blame for racial inequities beyond their scope to maintain objectivity while avoiding the issue of racism. As Gooden (2014) puts it, “The public organization simultaneously acknowledges the disparity problem while absolving itself of any responsibility to treat it” (p. 66). To what extent does the passage from the OADC website shift the blame beyond its organizational scope for racism in criminal justice? To what extent does it assume blame? How can your organization’s statement prioritize claiming racial inequities without shifting blame beyond its bounds? Try writing an organizational statement on racial inequity in which you use organizational discourse to name, blame, and claim inequitable practices and policies based on the considerations you generated during this exercise.

Discussion Questions 1. How can public service agencies best leverage social media platforms to have meaningful discourse around racial inequity? 2. Why is some organizational discourse on inequity more meaningful than other types of discourse? What role does lived experience play in shaping how organizational discourse on inequity is perceived? 3. How should an organization that has embraced colorblind racism in the past begin both internal and external discourse around race and racism with the end goal of generating more equitable practices and policies? 4. In what ways is organizational discourse often stymied or dominated by whiteness as a realized organizational value?

Call to Action: What Can You Do? We live in a substantially racist society. Whiteness, white racism, white supremacy, and white privilege are consistently and silently reinforced in the discourse of public administration, policy, and management. In our modern “post-racial” society, we have convinced ourselves that race is no longer an omnipresent issue simply because we seldom address it directly. Our vocabulary has been

100  Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr.

altered and in the policy arena we often speak of marginalized populations, urban communities, and other symbolic labels that connote racial groups. These “linguistic distortions disfigure reality,” “ignore how language is being used to make social inequality invisible,” and “are part of the dominant social construction of images that are treated as unproblematic and clear” (Freire, 2014, pp. 20–22). But much of the social terrain of society is significantly racialized. Major institutional and geographical spaces, acceptable societal norms, acceptable societal roles, privileged language forms, preferred sociopolitical thinking, and favored understanding of history are white-generated, white-shaped, white-imposed, and/ or white-authenticated. All people, whether they are defined socially as white or as not white, live largely within a substantially white-determined environment (Feagin, 2006, p. 47). Alexander and Stivers (2010) say, “all that is needed to sustain bias is to fail to examine the roots and patterns of ordinary agency perspectives” (p. 580). Public administration’s failure to adequately address race as a pressing social issue and omnipresent mediator embeds racism into the everyday practices of administrators and institutions. Consequently, race has major implications for citizenship, power, and privilege. Exposing the unconscious assumptions about race has value in terms of the quality of life of those who are adversely affected. Raceconscious dialogue can empower those who are adversely affected by divesting the power to interpret from the privileged and redistributing it to everyone (Mullings, 2000). Like all other aspects of the human condition, administrators and institutions are situated within historical, political, economic, and cultural contexts that influence interpretations of reality and their consequent actions. This includes racial images and messages that unconsciously influence our own racial identity and the attitudes and beliefs we hold about other races (D’Andrea, 1999). Unfortunately, the field’s current solution of incorporating diversity and cultural competence into its managerial research, curriculum, and practices is not entirely sufficient. Primarily because race and culture are not correspondent (Alexander & Stivers, 2010), and the scope of the associated research and activities is not broad enough to accommodate the nuanced and complex characteristics of the external environment. Not addressing race fortifies those racist societal ideologies that then delimit administrative discretion, which could potentially affect positive interactions between public institutions and People of Color (Stivers, 2007). The good news, however, is that our world is in a constant state of renegotiation. The charge for public administrators is to pull our heads out of the sand and help organizations see and understand how our discourse reinforces societal inequities and racial disparities.

Note 1 Names and identifying information have been changed in this narrative.

Discourse 

101

References Alexander, J., & Stivers, C. (2010). An ethic of race for public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 32(4), 578–597. American Anthropological Association. (1998). AAA statement on race. American Anthropologist, 100(3), 712–713. American Society for Public Administration. (2013). Code of ethics. https://www​.aspanet​ .org​/ASPA​/Code​-of​-Ethics​/Code​-of​-Ethics​.aspx​#process Asen, R. (1996). Constructing the objects of our discourse: The welfare wars, the orphanage, and the silenced welfare mom. Political Communication, 13(3), 293–307. Aunno, L. D., Kramer, E., & Lint, S. (2017). Continuing Courageous Conversations. Coralville: The National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice. Bouie, J. (2014, May 16). Why do millennials not understand racism? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www​.slate​.com​/articles​/news​_and​_politics​/politics​/2014​ /05​/ millennials​_ racism​_ and​_ mtv​_ poll​_ young​_ people​_ are​_ confused​_ about​_ bias​ _prejudice​.html Cook, B.J. (2014). Bureaucracy & Self-Government. Johns Hopkins University Press. Croft, A. (Forthcoming). Public defenders as constitutional pariahs, surrogate deviants, and emotional laborers. In S. Zavattaro, J. Sowa, L. Edwards, & A. Henderson (Eds.), Serving in Silence: The Unheard Stories of Essential Public Servants. Alband: SUNY Press. D'Andrea, M. (1999). The evolution and transformation of a White racist: A personal narrative. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(1), 38–41. Davis, D., & Steyn, M. (2012). Teaching social justice: Reframing some common pedagogical assumptions. Perspectives in Education, 30(4), 29–38. DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Boston: Beacon Press. Dolamore, S. (2019). Detecting empathy in public organizations: Creating a more relational public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(1), 58–81. Edlins, M., & Dolamore, S. (2018). Ready to serve the public? The role of empathy in public service education programs. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(3), 300–320. Feagin, J. (2006). Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression. New York: Routledge. Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Gillion, D.Q. (2016). Governing With Words: The Political Dialogue on Race, Public Policy, and Inequality in America. Cambridge University Press. Gooden, S. T. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Grieger, I., & Ponterotto, J. G. (1998). Students’ knowledge of AIDS and their attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 415–422. Guhathakurta, M. (2014). Democratic dialogue. In D. Coghlan, & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research (pp. 243–243). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard. New York: Broadway Books. Kang, M., Lessard, D., & Heston, L. (2017). Introduction to Women, Gender, Sexuality Studies. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

102  Adam Croft and Anthony Starke, Jr. Mackey, J., Heckler, N., & Starke, A. M. (2020). From false empathy to honest engagement: Bridging the gap between cultural diversity and social equity. In Derek Slagle and Adam Williams, Practicum in Public Administration (pp. 217–240). San Diego: Birkdale Publishers. McNair, T. B., Bensimon, E. M., & Malcolm-Piquex, L. (2020). From Equity Talk to Equity Walk: Expanding Practitioner Knowledge for Racial Justice in Higher Education. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass. Michener, J. (2018). Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michener, J. (2019). Policy feedback in a racialized polity. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 423–450. Mullings, L. (2000). Reclaiming culture: The dialectics of identity. In M. Marable (Ed.), Dispatches from the Ebony Tower: Intellectuals Confront the African American Experience (pp. 236–239). New York: Columbia University Press. Patterson, C. H. (1985). The Therapeutic Relationship: Foundations for an Eclectic Psychotherapy. San Francisco: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628. Pruitt, B. & Thomas, P. (2007). Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners, General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. New York: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and United Nations Development Programme. Reynolds, W. J. & Scott, B. (1999). Empathy: A crucial component of the helping relationship. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 6(5), 363–370. Saunders, H. (1999). A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts. New York: Palgrave. Schneider, A. L., Ingram, H. & deLeon, P. (2014). Democratic policy design: Social construction of target populations. In P. Sabatier and C. Wieble (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 105–149). Philadelphia: Westview Press. Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J., & Minton, J. W. (1992). Organizational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. Lexington Books/Macmillan. Soss, J. & Schram, S. F. (2007). A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback. In J. Soss, J.S. Hacker & S. Mettler (Eds.), Remaking America: Democracy and Public Policy in an Age of Inequality (pp. 111–127). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Sowell, T. (2002). Discrimination, economics and culture. In Thernstrom, A. & Thernstrom, S. (Eds.), Beyond the Color Line: New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America (pp. 167–180). Chicago: Hoover Institution Press. Spicer, M.W. (2010). In Defense of Politics in Public Administration. The University of Alabama Press. Starke, A. M. (2020). Poverty, policy, and federal administrative discourse: Are bureaucrats speaking equitable policy designs into existence?. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 1087–1099. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/puar​.13191 Starke, A. M., Heckler, N. & Mackey, J. (2018). Administrative racism: Public administration education and race. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(4), pp. 469–489. Stivers, C. (2007). “So poor and so black”: Hurricane Katrina, public administration, and the issue of race. Public Administration Review, 67(s1),48–56.

Discourse 

103

Stivers, C. (2008). Governance in Dark Times: Practical Philosophy for Public Service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Tatum, B. D. (2017). Why Are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?: And Other Conversations About Race. New York: Basic Books. Woodilla, J. (1998). Workplace conversations: The text of organizing. In David Grant, Tom Keenoy, and Cliff Oswick (Eds.), Discourse and Organization, (pp. 31–50). London: SAGE. Yanow, D. (2015). Constructing “Race” and “Ethnicity” in America: Category-making in Public Policy and Administration. New York: Routledge. Younge, G. (2014, May 18). Racism is far more than old white men using the N-word [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www​.theguardian​.com​/commentisfree​/2014​/may​ /18​/racism​-more​-than​-old​-white​-men​-using​-n​-word

Chapter 7

Learning and Performance Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney

From my View1 By Stephanie Dolamore My name is Nancy, and I have worked for 30 years in social services. My career is dedicated to helping people who are homeless be supported. I have worked for several non-profit organizations, but I have always served the homeless community. My current job is with Pathways to Housing DC, Inc., where I lead our quality assurance efforts. Quality assurance (QA) is the part of program management that checks compliance so the organization can continue to receive funding. At the most basic level, quality assurance is about learning – learning how the organization can perform better. If my organization wants to get a new grant or has to undergo an audit for a current grant, my quality assurance team is involved. We check to make sure the work being doing meets requirement and if a new program is being planned, that we can accomplish the requirements of the funder. For example, our QA team helped improve documentation on contract deliverables in one program that allowed them to grow from serving 20 people a year to serving 600–800 people a year. This was a powerful experience for me because it shows how documentation or paperwork can lead to transforming people’s lives. My work varies from day to day. I attend a lot of meetings to discuss projects and contracts, but I also spend a lot of time at our program locations. I think it is important to for me to see how we serve people in our programs to make the best recommendations possible. Consider this recent issue: one of the grants for our urgent care clinic asked us to start reporting the number of people with disabilities served annually. One member of the QA team suggested we add a question to the registration form about disabilities. But during a visit to the program, the QA team observed that registration forms are rarely completed in full by clients likely due to barriers like literacy. Instead, we retrained and worked with the urgent care staff to integrate a DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-8

Learning and Performance  105

question about accommodations into their intake form completed during the medical appointment to make sure we were collecting accurate information. This relatively minor change to the intake form enabled us to serve our people better. The most important part of my job is not related to me and the choices I make on the quality assurance team. The most important part of my job is about how do I teach my department, and our leadership team, to learn. Quality assurance is about learning how to be a better organization, like doing a better job at collecting data that tells the story we need for funders. Or learning how to improve a process to make it sustainable and more accurate. It requires that individuals make choices to be learners and to ask questions, so we have a culture of growth. It takes a lot of work to build an organizational culture that values learning. But I believe we can help more people when we ask questions and make changes, so it is worth the hard work.

Introduction Mahatma Gandhi, who spearheaded the modern non-violence movement, is credited for the adage, “Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” Prior to his assassination in 1948, Gandhi dedicated his life to eradicating human injustices through political office and protest. Among many feats, he organized mass demonstrations aimed at decolonizing India from British rule, ending poverty, and advancing economic opportunity beyond the caste system class structure. Although Gandhi had a formal education, being born to a prominent family and earning a law degree from the University College London, he was adamant about lifelong learning outside of formal education. In his autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, he describes how learning from hands-on experience shaped his guiding philosophy. It is what allowed him to achieve selfrealization, the fulfillment of his own potential. As we discuss in this chapter, learning is not only critical for individuals like Gandhi. It is equally important for organizations – an organized group of individuals who come together around a common purpose – to realize their full potential. Like individuals, organizations also have values and beliefs (Van der Wal et al., 2008; Schein, 2010; Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). They face challenges; make mistakes; and have an impact on other people’s lives, sometimes for better, other times for worse. Therefore, organizations must be open to learning from their experiences as well. They must be prepared to change course. The failure or refusal to learn inevitably brings adverse consequences, from poor employee performance, to high rates of turnover in an organization, to dissatisfied residents, to widespread civil unrest in a community.

106  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney

In the subsequent sections, we describe the concept of organizational learning and how it is necessary to both accomplish and maintain a high-performing organization. Our primary outcome of interest is improved social equity, defined as: The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract; the fair, just and equitable distribution of public services and implementation of public policy; and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy. (National Academy of Public Administration, 2017) This is important for improving the performance and productivity of local government employees and the quality of life of the people they serve. As Gandhi advocated, the purpose of learning is to find truth. However, learning cannot occur without routinely gathering information to create an accurate picture of the successes of the organization and areas in need of improvement. Measurement is critical in this process. In the pages that follow, we highlight examples of three cities leading the way in the social equity measurement domain: Austin, Texas (TX), Fort Collins, Colorado (CO), and Seattle, Washington (WA). Then, we provide an overview of relevant challenges and opportunities to social equity measurement and learning. Finally, we present a case study activity that builds understanding of how to create a performance dashboard that can be used as a learning and assessment tool to improve decision-making to advance more equitable outcomes.

Definitions and Contexts In public administration, the concept of organizational learning encompasses the ability of a department, agency, or office to identify, address, and monitor problems. Theories in this area are useful to help us understand how organizations gain knowledge; barriers to acquiring new knowledge; and how knowledge impacts organizational outcomes (Levitt & March, 1988; Dodgson, 1993; Schultz, 2017). For instance, some studies have highlighted other organizational factors that increase learning, such as transformational leadership, which “seeks to inspire employees by charismatic speech, motivation, and intellectual stimulation,” (Noruzy, et al., 2013; Imran et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2022). Identification of potential problems requires an organization to assess both past and current conditions. To do so, analysts must use indicators that can demonstrate whether the organization is fairly distributing services or not (Gooden, 2014). A growing number of local governments have compiled multiple indicators to create more robust performance measurement systems. Performance measurement systems give life to an organization’s vision and strategy by providing specific measurable expectations that guide each employee in fulfilling their roles that contribute to its success (Chong, 2013, p. 103). One of the purposes of these datacollecting structures is to demonstrate the results – both positive and negative – of

Learning and Performance  107

government services. More specifically, Behn (2003) proposed eight specific reasons for measuring performance to: evaluate, control, budget, motivate, promote, celebrate, learn, and improve. If measures show that disparities exist across different groups within the communities being served, a learning organization would take action and make targeted improvements to policies, practices, or procedures. This is how it would advance more equitable outcomes. In other words, a learning organization uses performance measurement systems to facilitate data collection. This data collection is used to determine areas of strength and weakness. The learning organization becomes aware of these results and its historical relationship to the community, and it evolves to ensure more equitable policy outcomes. For example, an analysis of 308 US police agencies shows that performance management systems can be effective tools in reducing crime (Pasha, 2018). However, these same systems are also susceptible to abuses of authority; an increased sense of marginalization among historically oppressed communities; and data manipulation. Pasha et al. (2021) found that stat-based systems, such as PerformanceStat and Compstat, reduced crimes, but they significantly increased arrest rates for Black people, especially juveniles, as compared to whites. This disparity resulted from stat-based systems that were programmed around historical trends in highly patrolled communities. These communities were disproportionately located in neighborhoods where historically marginalized people lived and worked. In this situation, a learning organization would address arrest rate disparities by revising practices that lead to higher patrolling of communities of color. They would do so while still addressing the underlying public safety issues. Despite their misgivings, performance measurement systems also have the capacity to monitor how policy and program changes impact social equity over time. Going back to the policing example, imagine that a department revised where the police officers patrolled and how they conducted traffic stops to reduce racial disparities in arrest rates (Paulson, 2020). The department could then review arrest data weeks or months after changes were made. They could compare the metrics over time to assess whether the procedural changes effectively reduced racial disparities in arrest rates. That would be an example of both organizational learning and social equity in action.

Strategies for Fostering Equity Through Performance Measurement To further explain these concepts, examples of cities that have adopted social equity measures to strategically address similar disparities are reviewed in this section. Since the 1990s, many American cities and counties have begun to create performance measurement systems. Data are often publicly available on their websites. These online dashboards include multiple categories and measures, and they are useful in ensuring transparency of the results of government services. However, most systems do not specifically include social equity measures. The

108  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney

following three examples are drawn from cities that have adopted indicators that speak directly to fairness, justice, and equality of opportunity for their residents. City of Austin Strategic Performance Dashboard https://data. austintexas.gov The City of Austin is the capital city of the State of Texas. It has been one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the United States since 2010. Austin is a predominately white city. Its total population of 961,855 shows 69.4% of its residents identifying as white alone; 33.3% as Hispanic or Latino alone; 7.8% as Black or African American alone; and 7.7% as Asian alone (US Census, 2020). The median household income in Austin is $75,752, compared to $67,521 in the United States as a whole. “Imagine Austin” is a notable planning initiative that emerged from an extensive community engagement process in recent years. It led to the development of the Strategic Direction 2023 Comprehensive Plan, that “guides the coming years and outlines imperatives to advance equitable outcomes across Austin” (City of Austin, 2022). This tool directs activities for the next three to five years, aimed at learning where gaps and disparities exist and improving the quality of life and civic participation in the City. Furthermore, it is an outcome-based approach, consisting of six strategic outcome areas: • • • • • •

Economic opportunity and affordability: having economic opportunities and resources that enable a thriving community; Mobility: getting Austin where it wants it to go, when it wants it to get there, safely and cost-effectively; Safety: being safe at home, work and in the community; Health and environment: enjoying a sustainable environment and a healthy life, physically and mentally; Culture and lifelong learning: being enriched by Austin’s unique civic, cultural, ethnic, and learning opportunities; Government that works for all: believing that city government works effectively and collaboratively for all – that it is equitable, ethical, and innovative.

Related indicators provided under each outcome area on the Imagine Austin Dashboard website, and multiple measures are provided under each indicator. To provide an example, Table 7.1 lists some of the measures currently under the “Government That Works for All” outcome area. In addition, the performance measurement system includes measurable targets set by the City of Austin and the actual outcomes based on the most recently available data, which are also shown in Table 7.1. Data is visualized in bar charts and graphics on a City of Austin website readily available to residents. As shown in Table 7.1, each measure also includes the status of the target outcome (e.g., on track, off track, near target, measuring, data

Learning and Performance  109 Table 7.1 Social Equity Metric Examples from Austin, TX Example metric

Target outcome

Actual outcome

Status

City employees who have completed diversity / anti-racism / implicit bias training Percentage of employees who feel that their department values diversity Percentage of employees who report that those in their work group generally behave ethically in the workplace

150

114

Off track

 75%

68%

Near target

 74%

81%

On track

under development, coming soon), an overview of the data, additional analytical insights, and measure details and definition information. This is a critical item to include because it can be utilized to track progress and determine where more interventions are needed. Fort Collins Community Performance Measurement Dashboard https://fortcollins.clearpointstrategy.com Fort Collins, a midsize college town home to Colorado State University, is known as one of the top cities in the US to live and raise a family. Fort Collins has a population of 169,810. Most residents identify racially as white alone (86.3%) followed by Hispanic or Latino alone (12.3%), Asian alone (3.4%), and Black or African American alone (1.5%). The median household income level is $70,528, approximately $3,000 higher than the U.S. median. Fort Collins developed a Community Performance Measurement Dashboard in 2005. The dashboard reinforces the City’s commitment to accountability and continuous improvement (City of Fort Collins, n.d.). Outcomes are determined by the City Council through its budgeting process. Quarterly reports of all indicators are provided to the City Council so the governing body can assess whether positive or negative changes have taken place when compared against historical benchmarks. This initiative led to their awarding of the Certificate of Excellence by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Fort Collins’s dashboard includes seven outcome category areas: • • • •

Neighborhood livability and social health: provide a high-quality built environment, support quality, diverse neighborhoods, and foster the social health of residents; Culture and Recreation: Provide diverse cultural and recreational amenities; Economic health: provide a healthy, sustainable economy, reflecting community values; Environmental health: promote, protect and enhance a healthy and sustainable environment;

110  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney

• • •

Safety: provide a safe place to live, work, learn, and play; Transportation and mobility: provide safe and reliable multi-modal travel to, from and throughout the city; Government performance: exemplify an efficient, innovative, transparent, effective, and collaborative city government.

There are multiple measures under each outcome area. For example, the “Neighborhood Livability and Social Health” category includes six specific measures to assess the degree to which Fort Collins “provides a high-quality built environment, supports quality, diverse neighborhoods, and fosters the social health of residents” (DiMartino, 2022). The measures under this category include Affordable Housing Inventory; Homelessness Data, Chronic Homelessness, and Chronic Homeless Housed; Fort Collins’s Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) compared to western states region HOI; Response Time to Graffiti Removal; Voluntary Code Compliance; and Voluntary Speed Compliance. The dashboard page includes a bar chart of each indicator for each quarter, demonstrating change over time. Like all the other dashboard metrics, the page also provides an analysis of performance on these metrics, a definition of the metrics, an explanation of why this data is important, the degree to which the City of Fort Collins impacts performance on this metric, and benchmark information. Table 7.2 provides a description of a few of the outcome areas, their definitions, and example metrics, the target set by the City, and the actual outcomes based on the most recently available data. Out of the measures tracked by Fort Collins, economic equity can be assessed through the indicators included under “Neighborhood Livability and Social Health” such as the Homelessness Data, Chronic Homelessness, and Chronic Homeless Housed. This metric includes a chart of the total number of people experiencing chronic homelessness, as noted in Table 7.2. A second bar chart shows a “target” outcome as well for these measures. Some measures give a specific target, while the example provided in Table 7.2 notes that the goal is to reduce the total number to be at a lower amount than the previous quarter. This performance measurement system is one tool that provides Fort Collins staff and residents with a clear understanding of the need to address homelessness and the City’s progress toward that goal. Performance Seattle https://performance.seattle.gov Seattle, a city in the Pacific Northwest, is surrounded by water, mountains, and evergreen forests. It is Washington State’s largest city, and home to the headquarters of Microsoft and Amazon. It is also home for 737,015 residents, 64.5% of those residents are white alone, followed by Asian alone (14.9%), Black alone (6.8%), and (6.6%) Hispanic or Latino alone. The median household income in Seattle is $102,500, which was nearly $35,000 higher than the US median in 2020.

Learning and Performance  111 Table 7.2 Social Equity Metric Examples from Fort Collins, CO Outcome area

Definition

Highperforming government

Exemplify an efficient, innovative, transparent, effective, and collaborative city government

Example metric

Target outcome

Actual outcome

Average number 3.10 days 0.80 days of days for Fort Collins to respond to customers who submitted requests for information through Access Fort Collins Neighborhood Provide a highTotal number Total number 666 (an livability and quality built of people of chronic increase social health environment, experiencing homelessness from support chronic less than 647 the quality, diverse homelessness prior quarter quarter neighborhoods, before) and foster the social health of residents Safe Provide a safe Average response 5:15 4:50 community place to live, time to police work, learn, priority 1 calls and play

The City of Seattle’s (2022) Open Data Program was launched in 2010 with key goals in mind, including to: improve public understanding of City operations and other information concerning their communities; generate economic opportunity for individuals and companies that benefit from the knowledge created by Open Data; empower City employees to be more effective, better coordinated internally, able to identify opportunities to better serve the public; and to encourage the development of innovative technology solutions that improve quality of life. Performance Seattle is an online dashboard and one of several data tools that have emerged as part of this broader initiative. It follows three guiding principles: (1) Resident-focused, providing data that matters to residents; (2) Collaborative, working to improve government with citywide data shared across departments; and (3) Innovative, automating data to ensure it is as real-time, accurate, and useful as possible. The City tracks performance across seven priority outcome areas that make up Performance Seattle, including: •

Basic city services: delivering services that are measurable, efficient, collaborative, outcomes-oriented, and resident-focused;

112  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney

• • • • • •

Safe and healthy communities: a holistic approach to safety: integrating health, public safety, and emergency preparedness through relationships and community-building; Affordability and livability: working to increase affordable housing choices, create community spaces, and prevent displacement; Homelessness response: ensure residents are safe, Seattle is clean, and people experiencing a housing crisis have access to critical services and supports; Equity in city contracting: purchasing and contracting through a lens of equity and social responsibility; Environment and climate change: reducing Seattle’s carbon pollution to improve health outcomes, bolster our economy, and protect our natural resources for generations to come; Future of work: providing clear, equitable, and durable pathways to economic security in high-demand industries that reflect the changing economy.

Performance data in each of these areas are presented through a variety of visualizations, including maps, charts, graphs, and infographics. For instance, the “Future of Work” priority area includes data and tracks progress about what the city is doing to address workforce shortages and inequities in employment. The State of Washington estimates 740,000 middle- and high-wage jobs openings in the next five years. To fill these positions, the Seattle City Council approved a “Seattle Promise” program in 2018. This initiative funds two years of higher education for Seattle Public High School students at Seattle Colleges. It is built on a commitment to fostering a diverse and educated workforce, with an emphasis on measuring and reducing racial disparities in educational attainment rates and assisting students who have the greatest financial needs. Specific measures used to evaluate the effectiveness include the number of Seattle Promise applications, enrollment, retention, and program completion at a Seattle college. This is noted in Table 7.3, which offers an overview of three performance outcome areas; their definitions; an example of metrics that fall under each category; the target set by the City; and the actual outcomes at present.​ Performance Seattle also includes a section that describes progress being made. For instance, it is reported that a racial equity analysis was completed in 2019–2020 to develop a set of recommendations to “ensure intentionality regarding efforts to close race-based opportunity gaps in postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and completion” (City of Seattle, 2022). Furthermore, the program became a priority investment area for the Federal Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery (CLFR) fund. Approximately $10.7 million was appropriated from 2021–2023 for expansion and enhancements to the Seattle Promise program. In addition to the cases noted above, several cities have launched social equity initiatives in recent years. For instance, the National League of Cities (2022) has

Learning and Performance  113 Table 7.3 Social Equity Metric Examples from Seattle, WA Outcome area

Definition

Example metric

Future of work

Provide clear, equitable, and durable pathways to economic security in high-demand industries that reflect the changing economy

The number of N/A. 2,100 12th-grade Scholarships Seattle Public are based High School on federal, students who state, and have completed local funding a Seattle Promise scholarship application in 2022, the city’s flagship program to reduce barriers to higher education among Seattle public school students Citywide women$320 M $395 M and minorityowned business purchasing spending in 2021

Equity in city contracting

Purchasing and contracting through a lens of equity and social responsibility Affordability Working to and livability increase affordable housing choices, create community spaces, and prevent displacement

The percentage of Seattle households that are within a tenminute walk of frequent transit services

Target outcome

72%

Actual outcome

71%

created a Repository of City Racial Equity Policies and Decisions that provides several examples and frameworks, including in the areas of data collection and budgeting. Specific local government policy templates are also provided for city ordinances, city council actions, reparations, policing, public health, and housing. Furthermore, the Government Alliance on Racial Equity (GARE) is an association made up of local government members across the country working to achieve racial equity. As of this writing, jurisdictions actively engaging with GARE include 210 cities, 66 counties, 47 states, 29 regional government/special districts, 28 departments/offices, 24 independent organizations, and 5 public corporations. It is promising to see this movement growing larger by the year.

114  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney Table 7.4 Developing Social Equity Metrics for Cloudton #

Priority area

Measure

Definition

Data source

1

Economic opportunity

Percentage of Census tracts that are economically and/or racially segregated

US Census Bureau, American Communities Survey (5yr)

2

Economic opportunity

Census tracts that are not demographically reflective of the City’s demographics are Census tracts of high-opportunity areas that have a high percentage of white residents or a median family income greater than 120%

3

Environment

4

Environment

5

Health

6

Health

7

Housing and homelessness

8

Housing and homelessness

9

Safety

10

Safety

Future Challenges and Opportunities As the number of cities and organizations engaged in social equity work increases, it is also important to note lessons learned through the assessment of current performance measurement systems. For instance, an extensive review of public administration literature has shown that social equity is often sacrificed due to the focus on improving effectiveness and the efficiency of service delivery (Cepiku & Mastrodascio, 2021). This section notes a few of the key challenges and related opportunities in this area for public service professionals. These tips can be helpful in determining future research and practical applications in the area of learning and performance measurement and management.

Learning and Performance  115

First, performance measurement systems sometimes undermine the intentions of public servants who seek to improve areas of social inequity in their communities. There are key lessons regarding the type and scope of data that needs to be collected in order for it to be useful and meaningful. For instance, Gooden and Rissler (2017) share five dimensions within GARE’s approach to developing strategic equity plans that prioritize goals, assessments, and accountability, including: • • • • •

Results: community-level conditions we are aiming to impact; Community indicator: community indicators are the means by which we can measure impact in the community. Community indicators should be disaggregated by race; Outcome: a future state of being resulting from a change at the jurisdiction, department, or program level. Strong outcomes articulate a clear improvement or define how much improvement will take place; Action: they are the specific things your jurisdiction will do to achieve the outcomes; and Performance measure: a quantifiable measure of how well an action is working. Different types of measures include (1) Quantity – how much did we do? (2) Quality – how well did we do it? (3) Impact – is anyone better off? (as cited by Curren et al., 2016, p. 5).

Second, it can be difficult to select the best measures of long-term outcomes with many factors beyond the control of those in charge of the assessment. One strategy to address this challenge hinges on the concept of throughput legitimacy. The goal of this strategy is to prioritize building relationships with community members during the process of developing and collecting performance data (Eckerd et al., 2021). Throughput legitimacy necessitates full community support and compromise to achieve effective public policy implementation over time. It also encompasses a more neighborly, collaborative and engaged approach (Gooden & Rissler, 2017). The effectiveness of throughput legitimacy has been demonstrated in Fairfax County, Virginia in the process of generating an economic development strategic plan among a diverse group of stakeholders, from workforce development groups to pro-business agencies. Eckerd et al. (2021) encouraged participants to compromise on the definition of what successful economic development performance measurements would be. Focus was placed on building an understanding among stakeholders around the competing interests that select one metric over another. Eckerd et al. (2021) noted that this approach led to effective engagement, creating the conditions for cooperation and ongoing learning and assessment. In other words, to build a community-driven approach to public policy, leaders should prioritize building engagement and throughput legitimacy among competing community members with diverse interests. Finding consensus is the key to long-term solutions.

116  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney

Finally, there is an extensive literature that explores politics and use of measurement to reflect and reinforce social power structures. Stakeholders tend to value performance metrics that benefit their goals because they have individual preferences and standards for policy. For instance, Eckerd et al. (2021) describe a project designed to utilize performance measurement to not only improve outcomes, but to recognize that performance data are used in a political environment for two purposes. First, symbolic uses are those that do not serve to improve performance in a direct way but signal to stakeholders that an organization is going about a program in the “right” way. Second, instrumental use relates to the learning that takes place during the process of the evaluation and can serve to foster the negotiations necessary to make the evaluation useful. As they note: On the grand scale of the policy lifecycle, the choice of metrics seems relatively minor. Yet, it might provide an opportunity for … a “small win” that can deepen trust, commitment, and shared understanding and ultimately lead to a more successful policy and a more successful performance management program. We have known for some time that stakeholder buy-in is important for policy to succeed … but yet we still often manage performance from the top-down approach. Our work suggests that collaborating to determine metrics, and enabling those metrics to serve both instrumental and symbolic purposes may enable a small win that can provide lasting performance benefits (p. 16). In other words, collaborating with diverse stakeholders to determine social equity performance metrics has multiple advantages. It enables local governments to symbolically demonstrate transparency and an ethical approach to those in their communities, which builds trust. Furthermore, development of such measures allows public service professionals to learn more about what matters to the stakeholders in their communities, ensuring that they have buy-in and can increase the odds that others will find the assessment to be worth their time.

Learning Activity For this activity, imagine that you are employed as a Management Analyst with the City of Cloudton. The City Council recently passed an equity initiative to evaluate the extent to which racial, socioeconomic, or other disparities exist in how public services are provided to residents. Therefore, the City Manager Aliyah Thomas has asked you to develop a list of 10 equity measures that can be added to its performance dashboard. She would like you to find at least two measures in the following priority areas: • •

Economic opportunity Environment

Learning and Performance  117

• • •

Health Housing and homelessness Safety

In college, you learned about a few cities that have adopted similar initiatives: Austin, Fort Collins, and Seattle. You decide that the following steps will help you accomplish this task: 1. First, review the performance measurement websites of the three other cities that you read about in this chapter. You can access their online dashboards at the sites noted below: a. City of Austin Strategic Performance Dashboard: https://data.austintexas. gov/ b. City of Fort Collins Community Performance Measurement Dashboard: https://fortcollins.clearpointstrategy.com c. Performance Seattle: https://performance.seattle.gov 2. Make a table of at least two equity measures that these cities have adopted in the five priority areas you are researching for Cloudton. You will develop a total of ten equity measures. Use the table format provided. An example of an economic opportunity indicator from the City of Austin Strategic Performance Dashboard is provided to get you started. 3. Develop a list of at least ten other stakeholders that you think should be included in determining the indicators to include in your dashboard for the City. Explain why you think each stakeholder should be invited to the table. For example, would it be worthwhile to include representatives from area schools, non-profits, faith organizations, hospitals, or local businesses? 4. Once you have completed the steps above, write a brief report to share your dashboard with City Manager Thomas and the Cloudton City Council. Provide an overview of the process that you followed to develop your list of indicators for the dashboard. Include any resources (e.g., performance dashboards from other cities) that you referenced for this project. Describe how this list of equity measures can be used to assess performance, monitor changes, learn, and improve on these outcomes in the future.

Discussion Questions 1. Why is organizational learning an important part of advancing social equity? 2. In this chapter, you read about and reviewed performance measurement dashboards adopted by Austin, Fort Collins, and Seattle. List at least one strength and one weakness of each dashboard. For instance, would the dashboards be easy for residents to navigate? Are the measures easy to understand? Are the data sources and year of data collection clear? Is progress being tracked and reported over time? What data points might be missing?

118  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney

3. If you were tasked with developing a list of social equity indicators for the community in which you currently live, what do you think the top three priority areas would be for assessing equitable outcomes? Why did you pick those three areas? 4. One opportunity for improving social equity performance measurement relates to throughput legitimacy, or the process of building relationships and consensus between stakeholders as they work together to select indicators. What may be some of the challenges of this engaged approach to indicator selection by a group, rather than by one individual? What may be some of the benefits? 5. Think of an organization that you have worked for or are familiar with in some other way, such as a volunteer, program participant, etc. What challenges might that organization face in designing performance management systems to advance social equity? Based on what you learned in this chapter, what advice would you offer them to overcome these challenges?

Call to Action: What Can You Do? Returning to Gandhi’s call for lifelong learning, the purpose of this chapter was to demonstrate how organizations must continually acquire knowledge in order to grow and sustain. Performance-based systems can play a large role and facilitate learning to better promote good policy and public service delivery. Yet, many challenges remain. Determining indicators that can be used to assess, monitor, and track progress toward greater social equity, particularly racial equity, is one tangible way that local government leaders can learn, reduce disparities, and make improvements to improve public programs and the quality of life for all residents. Professionals at all levels of government are needed for the social equity performance measurement movement. Frontline workers, such as social workers, police officers, teachers, and others directly serving the public, must understand how to collect and track relevant data. They must have the ability to gather and input data at the individual level, to include demographic, social, and economic characteristics of their clients. Department and program managers must understand the purpose of performance measurement and articulate how the data will be used to strengthen their organizations. And executive-level administrators must be able to review social equity measures to understand where disparities exist so they can facilitate action to alleviate them. This has become increasingly true since 2020 when COVID-19 data illustrated stark racial, economic, and gender disparities. Furthermore, the murder of George Floyd by a police officer in Minneapolis and the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement spurred cities across the country to adopt and strengthen social equity initiatives. Thus, social equity performance measurement is a critical area, and skillset for future public servants to understand, develop, and practice as it increasingly becomes a standard priority area for local governments nationwide.

Learning and Performance  119

Note 1 Names and identifying information have been changed in this narrative.

References Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: A dynamic perspective. Organization Studies, 34(4), 495–514. Cepiku, D., & Mastrodascio, M. (2021). Equity in public services: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1019–1032. Choong, K. K. (2013). Understanding the features of performance measurement system: A literature review. Measuring Business Excellence, 17(4), 102–121. City of Austin. (2022). City of Austin strategic performance dashboard. https://data​ .austintexas​.gov​/stories​/s​/Strategic​-Performance​-Dashboard​/59fp​-raw5/ City of Fort Collins. (n.d.). City of Fort Collins Community Performance Measurement Dashboard. Retrieved September 15, 2021 from https://fortcollins​.clearpointstrategy​ .com/ City of Seattle. (2022). About the open data program. http://www​.seattle​.gov​/tech​/initiatives​ /open​-data​/about​-the​-open​-data​-program City of Seattle. (2022). Performance Seattle. https://performance​.seattle​.gov​/stories​/s​/ Performance​-Seattle​/596j​-asv2/ Curren, R., Nelson, J., Marsh, D., Noor, S., & Liu, N. (2016). Racial equity action plans: A how-to manual. Government Alliance on Race and Equity. http://www.racialequityalliance. org/w​p-con​tent/​uploa​ds/20​16/11​/GARE​​-Raci​​alEqu​​ity​-A​​ction​​-Pla​n​​s​.pdf​ DiMartino, K. (2022). City of Fort Collins Performance Measurement Dashboard. City of Fort Collins. https://fortcollins​.clearpointstrategy​.com/ Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375–394. Eckerd, A., Bulka, L., Nahapetian, E., & Castellow, D. (2021). Strategic planning and performance measurement: Engaging the community to develop performance metrics. Critical Policy Studies, 15(1), 1–20. Gooden, S. T. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Routledge. Gooden, S. T., & Rissler, G. E. (2017). Local government: Social equity “first responders”. State and Local Government Review, 49(1), 37–47. Imran, M. K., Ilyas, M., & Aslam, U. (2016). Organizational learning through transformational leadership. The Learning Organization, 23(4), 232–248. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–338. National Academy of Public Administration. (2017). Social equity in governance. www​ .napawash​.org​/fellows​/standing​-panels​/social​-equity​-in​-governance​.html National League of Cities. (2022). Repository of city racial equity policies and decisions. www​.nlc​.org​/resource​/repository​-of​-city​-racial​-equity​-policies​-and​-decisions/ Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V. M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013). Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: An

120  Samantha June Larson and Jack Tierney empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 64(5), 1073–1085. Pasha, O. (2018). Can performance management best practices help reduce crime? Public Administration Review, 78(2), 217–227. Pasha, O., Kroll, A., & Ash, M. (2021). Assessing the equity and effectiveness of PerformanceStat systems. International Public Management Journal. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1080​/10967494​.2021​.1918300 Paulson, S. (2020, June 19). Why do police do traffic stops? Journalist Malcolm Gladwell on rethinking law enforcement: Whether it’s possible to rebuild trust between police and public remains a key question, says the bestselling author. Wisconsin Public Radio. www​.wpr​.org​/why​-do​-police​-do​-traffic​-stops​-journalist​-malcolm​-gladwell​-rethinking​ -law​-enforcement. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Schulz, M. (2017).Organizational learning. In Joel A.C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. U.S. Census. (2020). QuickFacts. Retrieved March 24, 2022, from https://www​.census​.gov​ /quickfacts​/fact​/table​/austincitytexas​/LND110210 Van der Wal, Z., De Graaf, G., & Lasthuizen, K. (2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465–482. Zhang, H., Yang, L., Walker, R., & Wang, Y. (2022). How to influence the professional discretion of street-level bureaucrats: Transformational leadership, organizational learning, and professionalization strategies in the delivery of social assistance. Public Management Review, 24(2), 208–232.

Chapter 8

Conclusion Stephanie Dolamore

Introduction Staking a tent is an important task. It requires tension across the top and along the sides to ensure stability throughout the entire structure. The stronger and wider the stakes, the more likely it is the people inside the tent can withstand wind, storms, and other natural elements. At the opening of this book, we explained how social equity efforts are like a tent. The wider and stronger the tent, the more people can be covered by efforts to advance social equity (Chordiya et al., forthcoming). This analogy is important because it symbolizes how social equity benefits everyone, but only with targeted efforts to those with the most need as a result of being targeted for disadvantage (see McCandless and Blessett, 2022). People at the edges of the tent symbolize those with the most oppression, and those in the middle of the tent represent people with the least oppression. The people under the center of the tent are always covered, but we have to actively stretch to cover those at the edges. If we refuse or avoid staking our social equity tent as wide as possible, we perpetuate inequality for those with the greatest marginalization. Advancing social equity in public administration is a process that requires a commitment from all areas of an organization. Just as a tent needs to be staked on all corners, public service organizations need social equity efforts from all corners. From leadership to socialization, policies to discourse, the entirety of the organization must be focused on creating an organizational culture committed to social equity. This book has explored seven categories of organizational culture that, when working together, can create transformation within a public service organization at a structural level. Since achieving social equity stems from correcting historical inequities and oppression (Wright, Dolamore, and James, 2022), the path forward rests upon critical transformation (see Friere, 2000). Through public servants with intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systemic awareness (Harro, 2018), our public service organizations can overcome and dismantle oppression, paving the way for social equity and social justice to thrive in our communities.

DOI:  10.4324/9781003395591-9

122  Stephanie Dolamore

Naming, Blaming, Claiming … and Framing Throughout the chapters, the authors have shared the role of naming, blaming, and claiming within their respective areas of organizational culture. Drawing on Gooden (2014) and Sheppard et al. (1992), this book uses the name, blame, and claim framework to offers a path for advancing social equity. Recall that naming involves problem identification (Wright, et al., 2022) and requires a fundamental understanding of how oppression manifests. Blaming involves analysis of the oppression to understand the root cause and how organizational culture exacerbates the inequalities (Wright, et al., 2022). Finally, claiming involves reimagining what is possible and demanding change. The chapters in this book have explored naming, blaming, and claiming social equity within public service organizations. But what role, if any, does self-awareness and community play in social equity work? We assert a fourth area, framing, to this framework. By adding framing, we include the important work to contextualize social change efforts. Framing social equity involves intrapersonal and interpersonal awareness. Framing is important because social transformation requires a foundation of critical self and community awareness (Harro, 2018; Love, 2018). Although advancing social equity in organizational culture involves structural level changes, that work cannot happen without framing who is impacted and why (McCandless and Blessett, 2022). Intrapersonal awareness involves being in tune with personal learning that grows from our involvement in social equity work. As new information is provided to us about social equity work, we experience the unsettling feeling of a shift in worldview. This feeling of being unsettled is akin to waking up (Harro, 2018) and involves cognitive dissonance, a deep feeling of being uncomfortable as the brain works to create understanding. Just as after a long period of sleep, the mind and body can wake up disoriented, the process of waking up to social equity can feel disorienting. We need time to process where we are, how we got there, and why. Intrapersonal awareness, therefore, involves deep thought and reflection within that facilitates the dismantling of old beliefs and assumptions. Beliefs that must be examined include our individual privilege, contributions to oppression, and/or internalize oppression (Harro, 2018). You might ask yourself questions like: How do I benefit, or not, from current policies at work? How did that make me feel? Have I ever implemented unfair workplace policies? How did that make me feel? Have I ever thought I deserved to be treated unfairly? How did that make me feel? Interpersonal awareness, on the other hand, involves creating meaningful connections with others involved in similar work of social transformation. These connections allow us to be held accountable and to provide allyship to those impacted by social equity work. The process of making meaningful connections requires reaching out to build community with people who share our commitment to social transformation. Harro (2018) describes this as “authentic solidarity” (p. 631),

Conclusion  123

or the ability to find people who (1) share our same role in dismantling oppression and (2) stand to benefit from corrected oppression. Finding people who are likeminded about social equity is imperative to reinforcing and dialoguing about social transformation. But it is crucial that our community represents people who share our privilege and those who have more/less privilege than us. Having a diverse community allows us to break down cognitive barriers about differences and see commonalities. This allows for accountability, for us to receive feedback and make changes on personal or organizational levels. Interpersonal awareness also involves coalescing within our communities to build momentum for social change. Having built a community and found commonalities, individuals move from “I” want social change to “WE” want social change. When we work to coalesce, individuals feel their identities grow into a collective, through action and activities, to interrupt oppression achieved through group effort (Harro, 2018). This offers important lessons about the role of working together to achieve social transformation. And most importantly, while individual awareness is important, collective action is how social equity is achieved and sustained.

Final Thoughts on Committing to Social Equity Exploring the role of framing can offer insights into where you are as a social change agent. You may be focusing personal efforts on intrapersonal reflection and building internal awareness of your place in the world. Or you may be in a community that is actively organizing for social transformation. Or you may be in the middle of a social change at your organization. Regardless of where you are right now, you will continue moving through cycles of intra- and interpersonal work as you continue to participate in advancing social equity. The important takeaway from all the chapters in this book, and naming, blaming, claiming, and framing, is to be committed to growth. We are all on a journey to know what our role is in advancing social equity in public administration. These efforts require a continuous commitment to name, blame, claim, and frame social transformation. It also requires that we commit, and recommit, to growing. This process of social transformation is never done, “just as one is never ‘done’ working to end oppression” (Harro, 2018, p. 628). We must draw from deep within ourselves, the energy of our community, and social change victories to keep going. We hope this book offers you a place to find energy and stay committed to social equity.

Learning Activity Charting the LifeCourse Nexus, designed by the University of Missouri – Kansas City (UMKC), is a program designed to help people with developmental disabilities (DD) to have the tools to establish and achieve their self-determined goals and life outcomes (UMKC, 2020a). The vision of the program is that by supporting

124  Stephanie Dolamore

all people, it will simultaneously benefit people with DD and those without DD. The following is the key principle of focusing on all people used by LifeCourse: All people, regardless of age, ability, or family role, are considered in our vision, values, policies, and practices for supporting individuals and families. All families have choices and access to the supports they need. (UMKC, 2020b). To visualize this key principle, one of the tools used in training is the ALL triangle (Community of Practice, 2015). The ALL triangle involves taking a look at an entire community and showing how different policies can impact everyone. In this learning activity, you will design your own ALL triangle for a community that you work in to advance social equity. First, view examples of the ALL triangle by visiting: https://www​.lifecoursetools​.com​/lifecourse​-library​/lifecourse​-framework​/all​-people/ Second, determine a name for the community that best represents where you work to advance social equity. This name may be related to your organization or not. Third, pick a data source to help you describe this community. For some, there are national, state, and local datasets to describe your community. For others, you may need to rely on internal data or collect new data. Finally, identify three or four groups within your community. Try to avoid demographic groups unless those are central to social equity efforts. Instead, try to pick groups that can be addressed by the social equity efforts of your organization. Below is a fictional example of a public service organization trying to create greater pay equity for all employees (Figure 8.1).

Employees making Under $74,999

Employees making $75,000-149,999

Employees making over $150,000

Figure 8.1 ALL Triangle for Department of Public Services

Conclusion  125

Discussion Questions 1. Using the ALL triangle you created above, what area(s) of organizational culture should you prioritize as you undertake to advance social equity? Describe how you can change the area(s) of organizational culture to create change for all. 2. Looking at the ALL triangle, identify where you belong. If the changes described in #1 were implemented, what would that look like for you? In other words, how do you benefit from these social equity efforts? 3. Drawing from the community you looked at in your ALL triangle, what are the current systems of accountability for social equity efforts? In other words, when and how does your organization know that social equity efforts are working?

References Chordiya, R., Dolamore, S., Love, J., Protoentis, A., Borry, E., Stern, B., & Whitebread, G. (forthcoming). Staking the tent at the margins: expanding and deepening social equity through disability justice in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis. Community of Practice. (2015). Issue Brief: Overview of the Life Course Framework. http:// supportstofamilies​.org​/wp​-content​/uploads​/CoP​-Innovations​-Lifecourse​-Overview​ -Issues​-Brief​.pdf Friere, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum. Gooden, S. (2014). Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. New York: Routledge. Harro, B. (2018). The cycle of liberation. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, D. Chase J. Catalano, K. Dejong, H.W. Hackman, L.E. Hopkins, B. Love, M.L. Peters, D. Shlasko, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (4th ed., pp. 627–634). New York: Routledge. Love, B. (2018). Developing a liberatory consciousness. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, D. Chase J. Catalano, K. Dejong, H.W. Hackman, L.E. Hopkins, B. Love, M.L. Peters, D. Shlasko, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (4th ed., pp. 627–634). New York: Routledge. McCandless, S.A. & Blessett, B. (2022). Dismantling racism and white supremacy in public service organizations and society. Administrative Theory & Praxis. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1080​/10841806​.2022​.2043071 Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J., & Minton, J.W. (1992). Organizational Justice: The Search for Fairness in the Workplace. New York: Lexington Books. University of Missouri – Kansas City. (2020a). About Us: Charting the Life Course Nexus. From: https://www​.lifecoursetools​.com​/about​-us​/the​-lifecourse​-nexus/ University of Missouri – Kansas City. (2020b). LifeCourse Framework. From: https://www​ .lifecoursetools​.com​/lifecourse​-library​/lifecourse​-framework/ Wright II, James, Dolamore, S., & Berry-James, R. (2022). What the hell is wrong with America: The truth about racism and justice for all. Journal of Public Management and Social Policy, 29(1), 6–28.

Index

**Page numbers in bold reference tables. accountability 30 active listening 94 ADA see Americans with Disabilities Act ALL triangle 124 American Anthropological Association (AAA) 90 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 12 answerability 30 anti-discrimination policies 28–29 anti-racism policies 29 arrest rates 107 Austin, Texas, social equity measures 108–109 authentic or servant leadership 61 authenticity/genuineness 94 avoidance of allyship 64–65 Black people, arrest rates 107 Black women, correctional officers 78–80 blaming 99, 122–123 boundaries, psychological contracts 48–49 built environment 14 bureaucratic neutrality 32

claiming organizational racism 99, 122–123 Cloudton social equity performance measures 114, 117 collaborative/horizontal leadership theory 61 color blindness 32, 96–98 Colorado: Fort Collins 109–110; Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) 98–99 Community Performance Measurement Dashboard, Fort Collins, CO 109–110 continuum of inclusive and equitable organizational development 51 conversational goals 92–93 correctional officer 73–75, 78–80; racial inequities 83 courageous conversations, hosting 95–96 COVID-19 74, 78–79, 83–84 credible commitment 10–12 criminal justice 88 Critical Race Theory (CRT) 65–66, 92 culture 46–47, 76, 81, 83 culture metaphor 76

case law 26 case studies, public service agencies’ racial equity investigation 32–35 CDO (Chief Diversity Officer) 43 championing for diversity and divergence 64–65 Charting the LifeCourse Nexus 123–124 Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) 43 Chief Health Equity Officer 57 child labor violations 24 Civil Rights Act of 1991 28

data collection 106–107 democratic dialogue 94–95 dialogue: democratic dialogue 94–95; see also discourse dialogue approach 95 disability 7, 12, 18, 37, 104–105, 123–124 discourse 88–91; call to action 99–100; fostering equity 92–96; race-conscious discourse 91–92 discrimination 28 discursive governance 91

128 Index distributional equity 9 distributional justice 9–10 divergence 64–65 diversity 31; championing for 64–65 diversity management 58–59, 82 diversity statements 82 diversity training 47 economic equity, Fort Collins, CO 110 EEOC see Equal Employment Opportunity Commission emotional labor 65–66 empathic engagement 93–94 empathy 93–94 environmental justice 10 environments 9; built environment 14; see also physical spaces Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 28 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 28 Equal Pay Act of 1963 28 equity, fostering: in discourse 92–96; with leadership 61–65; through performance measurement 107–114; with policies, procedures, and structures 29–32; with rewards and recognition 78–80; with socialization 47–49 Equity Action Plans 67 Equity Leadership Taskforce, Virginia 44 equity plans, developing 115 executive orders 26 fairness 28 false beliefs and behavior 65 Family and Social Services Administration (FSSA) 57–58 flexibility 11 Fort Collins, Colorado, Community Performance Measurement Dashboard 109–110 fostering equity: with leadership 61–65; in organizational discourse 92–96; in physical spaces 11–12; with policies, procedures, and structures 29–32; rewards and recognition 78–80; with socialization 47–49; through performance measurement 107–114 framing 122–123 FSSA (Family and Social Services Administration) 57–58

Gandhi, Mahatma 105–106 goals, conversational goals 92–93 Government Alliance on Racial Equity (GARE) 113 Health Equity Working Group, Virginia 44 hiring procedures policies 28 human resource frame 76 human resources procedures 31 identity 26, 93 illegal immigration 24–25 Imagine Austin 108 inclusive leadership 59–61 individual-level change 36 inequities 28–29 informal policies 27 injustice 70; racial injustices 66 integrity 24 interpersonal skills, empathy 94 intrapersonal awareness 122–123 justice: criminal justice 88; distributional justice 9–10; environmental justice 10; procedural justice 9; racial injustices 66; social justice 6, 24, 31 justice-involved individuals 74, 78–79, 83, 84-85n3 leader job shadow observation worksheet 68 leadership 48–49, 60; call to action 69–70; diversity management 58–59; fostering equity 61–65; inclusive leadership 59–60; learning activities 67–69; person-role-system theory 61–62; racial equity traps 62–65; styles of 61 learning 95, 104–107, 118; see also organizational learning; performance measurement systems learning activities 123–124; case study on public service agencies’ racial equity investigation 32–35; leadership 67–69; learning and performance 116–118; ONE Virginia Plan 50–53; public defenders 98–99; rewards and recognition 81–82; sensory processing disorder (SPD) 14–18 learning organizations 106–107 management theory 61 mentorship 65

Index  Merritt, Breanca 57–58, 66–67 Mintzberg’s Five 27–28 myths, racial inequities 32 naming (identifying any specific practice or action that is racially unjust) 99 naming, blaming, and claiming 122–123 NO FEAR (Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation) Act of 2002 28 Northam, Ralph 43 Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) 98–99 ONE Virginia Plan 44–45, 49–53 organizational culture 76–77 organizational discourse see discourse organizational learning 106 organizational socialization 45–47; call to action 53–54; fostering equity 47–49; see also socialization organizational values 46 people, public service organizations 25–26 performance measurement systems 106–107; call to action 118; challenges of 114–116; fostering equity 107–114; learning activities 116–118; see also social equity measures Performance Seattle 111–114 person-role-system theory 61–62, 65 physical spaces 9; fostering equity 11–12; sensory processing disorder (SPD) 14–18; Universal Design 12–14; see also environments playing the race card 96 policies 27; anti-discrimination policies 28; fostering equity 29–32; informal policies 27 political frame 76 politicization of racial equity work 66 post-racial myth 32 post-racial society 96–98 poverty 93 prejudice 93 privilege 97 procedural justice 9 procedures 27–28; fostering equity 31–32; human resources procedures 31; inequities 28 psychological contracts 48; boundaries 48–49

129

public administration 27 public boundary, psychological contracts 48 public defenders 88–89; Office of the Alternate Defense Counsel (OADC) 98–99 public servants, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 7–8 public service 26–27, 91 public service organizations; people processes 25–26; sensory assessments 16–17 quality assurance (QA), social services 104–105 race 90–91, 97–98 race and social equity cultural audit 4–5 race and social justice initiatives (RSJIs) 31 race-conscious discourse 91–93; fostering equity 92–96 race-neutral discourse 91–92 racial asset approach 63–64 racial deficit 63–64 racial equity 26, 59; boundaries 48; call to action 36–37; fostering with policies, procedures, and structures 29–32; leadership see leadership racial equity audits 64 racial equity traps 62–65 racial erasure 64 racial identity 93 racial inequities 28–29; correctional officers 79–80, 83; myths 32 racial injustices 66 racial prejudice 26 racism 88–89, 96–100; naming, blaming, and claiming 99 real boundaries, psychological contracts 48 recognition 10, 76–78; fostering equity 78–80; learning activities 81–82 remote employees, socializing 47 Repository of City Racial Equity Policies and Decisions 113 representative bureaucracy 31 respect 94 rewards 76–77; fostering equity 78–80; learning activities 81–82 Rikers Island 81; fostering equity with rewards and recognition 78–80; see also correctional officers RSJIs see race and social justice initiatives

130 Index Seattle, WA, social equity measures 111–114 sensory processing disorder (SPD), learning activities 14–18 SEPM see social equity performance measurement social constructionism 90 social equity measures 107–108; Austin, Texas 108–109; Fort Collins, Colorado 109–110; Seattle, Washington 111–114; see also performance measurement systems social equity performance measurement (SEPM) 30 social justice 6, 24, 31 social services 104–105 social sustainability 9 socialization: challenges of 49–50; fostering equity 47–49; ONE Virginia Plan 50–53; reflection questions 52; see also organizational socialization socialized values 46 socializing remote employees 47 SPD (sensory processing disorder), learning activities 14–18 stat-based systems 107 statutory law 26, 28 structural frame 76 structures 27–28; fostering equity 29–32; inequities 29 styles of leadership 61

sustainability programs 10 symbolic frame 76 targeted for disadvantage 28–29, 36–37, 37n2 tent metaphor 2, 121 Texas, Austin, social equity measures 108–109 three Es (environment, equity, and economy) 9 throughput legitimacy 115 Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act 28 transactional leadership theory 61 transformational leadership theory 61 trust 24, 81 Underwood, Janice 43–44 Universal Design 12–14 universal individual agency 10 US Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division 23–25 values, organizational values 46 Virginia, ONE Virginia Plan 44–45, 49–53 Wage and Hour Division, US Department of Labor 23–25 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 7–8 white people 93, 97 white racial frame 98 white supremacy 97