The Herbert Thesis Revisited: A Critical Commentary

The Herbert Thesis Revisited: A Critical CommentaryAuthor(s): Thomas MartinezSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1997), pp. 363-365Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/977322 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 16:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.127.191 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:41:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/977322?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Communications

The Herbert Thesis Revisited: A CfitI Commentay ThomasMartinez, California State Universit, Bakersfield

Twenty years after Adam W. Herbert 1 offered an insightful analysis of role

demands and pressures experienced and perceived by minority public administrators, Murray, Terry, Washington, and Keller (1994) set out to revisit and test Herbert's thesis. Their stated purpose is to empirically examine: "Whether Herbert's theory was still applicable given the myriad of technological, political, and social changes that have occurred in the United States over the past 20 years. More specifically, we were interested in how minority public administrators view their role in relation to the demands and dilemmas described by Herbert. In other words, have the perceptions of minority public administrators changed over the past 20 years or have they remained relatively the same" (Murray et al., 1994, 410).

For all those interested in the propositions set forth or inferred from Herbert's work, a 20-year retrospective is most wel- come. It should allow us to explore the continued applicability of his work and assess it in light of what we have since learned. However, the study of Murray and his associates contains several weak- nesses that limit a sound reassessment. First, its stated purpose is to revisit Her- bert's thesis to determine whether the perceptions of minority administrators have changed. However, this is misleading because Herbert offers a theoretical discussion not a test. Thus, only the applicability of Herbert's theory, not change, can be test- ed. Second, the methodology and reporting of findings on the most critical area (i.e., the testing of Herbert's role determinants model) includes no tables, no statistical analysis beyond frequency and mean response data on selected items and, through errors of omission, raises more questions than are answered. For example, the representativeness of the sample appears to be assumed, but it is not discussed, despite apparent errors. And, third, because the 51-item survey questionnaire itself is not presented in whole or in part,

readers are largely left to accept that the instrument validly measures and tests Her- bert's model. This is of particular concern given the studs interpretation of findings and its confidence in conclusions. On several points the study appears to misinter- pret Herbert's propositions such that the validity of the instrument for the testing of Herbert's work is left open to question.

Beyond simple criticism of the methodology, the more important question here is, what is missed by this treatment? First, the study may not advance Herbert's work as it does not explore its underpinnings in administrative and/or governmental theory, nor in the other areas of the social sciences necessary for clarifying its value to the study and practice of public administration. Second, it may not advance the application of social science research methodology necessary for the empirical investigation of such critical constructs as role, role expectations, and role conflict as attributed to minority administrators by Herbert.

In the final analysis, the study may over- look the greater value of his work. That is, Herbert's contribution is not the offering of a definitive framework for retesting. Rather, the questions he raises and his framing of the discussion has, over the past 20 years, spurred various theoretical and empirical works. Others have sought to build on his work and its explicit and implicit propositions. In this sense, the study may undervalue his work.

The Role Determinants Model

In 1974 Herbert offered an analysis of the role demands and dilemmas influenc- ing the role behavior of minority administrators. He identifies the conflicting expectations that may be perceived or experienced by minority administrators as they attempt to reconcile: (1) system demands; (2) community accountability; (3) colleague pressures; (4) personal commitment to community; (5) personal ambition; and (6) traditional roles.' While these various role demands are not unique to minority administrators, he argues that, in combination, they are particularly relevant to the conditions in which minority public administrators find themselves.

Validity of the Instrument As noted in the methodology box, the

study does not present tables of findings. In addition, the 51-item instrument that is the basis of the study is not presented in whole or in part. Readers are told only that it was designed explicitly to test Herbert's thesis. Thus, they have no independent basis for critically examining its content and construct validity.

The most glaring error is what might be a misinterpretation of "traditional role." By traditional roles, Herbert refers to the type of jobs and public agency settings in which large numbers of minority administrators find themselves. These traditional roles do not refer to specific sets of role expectations per se, although they do define their context.2 Despite this observation, Murray and his associates apparently seek to partially test for traditional role expectations by the use of survey item 39: "When I experience conflict between my traditional role expectations and those of my organization, my general response is to adopt behavior consistent with the organization." This item may reveal confusion on this element of Herbert's thesis and raises general questions of validity in regards to the instrument and the reliability of responses.3

Advancing Theoretical Underpinnings In his discussion of varying conflicting

role demands perceived or experienced by minority administrators, Herbert argues that, "every minority administrator must consciously or otherwise respond to two basic and difficult questions: (1) What responsibility do I have to minority group peoples? and (2) What role should I attempt to play in making government more responsive to the needs of all people?" (1974, 560). Thus, his work centers on issues of responsiveness and representation within the context of formal public bureaucracies.

The importance of Herbert's essay is clarified by placing it within a theoretical framework appropriate for public administration or social science more broadly. For example, since his writing, various authors (Martinez, 1991; Thompson, 1976; and Rehfuss, 1986) have attempted to explain the experiences of minority administrators

Public Administration Review * July/August 1997, Vol. 57, No. 4 363



The study of Murray and his associates includes two major areas of investigation. The first area is the reporting of change and advances made in the hiring of minorities across departments and at the upper ranks of the federal personnel system. Most of this section is straightforward and requires only brief attention. For example, Table 2 is used to present the net change in minority employment rates by grades from 1982-1989. TIle study notes "impressive gains in the number of minority public administrators at the higher levels of nonsocial policy agencies" (1994, 412). However, the study fails to note that the proportion of gains for "all minorities" has been systematically greater at the lower GS levels. Minorities account for 76 percent of change at GS 1- 1, yet represent only 24 percent of change at GS 12 and above (413). This is a critical observation if we are to evaluate the quality of progress being made by minorities.

The second and clearly the most important area of investigation is the methodology anid reporting of findings in regards to the empirical testing of Herberts thesis. This portion of the study raises several concerns. For example, the study presents no tables of findings, reports no statistical analysis beyond discussion of selected frequency data and mean responses, and offers no analysis of variance involving what appear to be important respondent profile variables.

In the methodology section, the study presents a respondent profile, making note of patterns and groupings in regard to age, years in government service, managerial level, alnd level of education (411). Yet these are not reported to have been used as independent variables in the application of any statistical tests. Also, the study reports no gen- der distribution in the respondent profile. This is surprising given the prominence of sex as an independent variable throughout the social science literature. Nor does the study present respondent distribution or analysis of perceptions from those minority administrators in nonsoci policy agencies versus those of respondents serving in more traditional role settings-a central thesis variable in this study. Moreover, throughout discussion of the respondent profile, no direct discussion of the possible representative- ntess of the sample is presented. Yet, conclusions appear to be offered as if findings ae broadly generalizable to all minority public administrators.

The study reports that 160 individuals responded to the survey: it also reports that seven of these respondents identified themselves as white and nine did not identify their race. However, no mention is made of whether the responses of these 16 individuals were excluded from the findings. Thus, one might conclude that as many as 10 percent of the respondents were nonminorities. Yet the study's purpose was to examine the role perceptions of minority public administrators.

Lastly, neither full nor partial tables of findings are presented in the article. Readers are largely limited to the study's interpretation of findings on a few survey items

as described by Herbert within the compet- ing theoretical frameworks of representative versus merit bureaucracies.4

Within the context of representative bureaucracy, Krislov and Rosenbloom (1981) articulate the fundamental paradox implicit in Herbert: "Can a public bureaucracy be made into a representational institution despite such organizational features as hierar- chy, specialization, and formalization?...this question is at once immensely important and perplexing" (21) for all administrators, minority or otherwise. However, Murray and his associates do not clearly relate Herbert's work to any larger social science context or clarify its theoretical importance.5

Advancing Research Methodology Given Herbert's propositions, the ques-

tion arises, how can the role perceptions and actual experiences of minority public administrators be empirically examined? Herbert, and subsequent literature about minority administrators, makes frequent use of the role construct to describe and explain the experiences and perceptions of minority public administrators.6 However, the role construct is often used uncritically or as a general term requiring no examina- tion. The study of Murray and his associates does not examine or elaborate on the role concept, although it prominently cites and draws survey questions from other

works that rigorously apply role analysis methods to the experiences of minority administrators operating in complex bureaucracies.7

Obviously, it is not mandatory that this study rigorously use the language of role analysis. However, interpretation of this empirical study is complicated by uncritical use of key terminology. Without more pre- cise use of the original terms, the methodology necessary to test Herbert's theoretical work will not be advanced.

Conclusion The study of Murray and his associates

offers an excellent opportunity to continue dialogue on an important topic in public administration. Moreover, Herbert's work continues to offer a useful point of depar- ture in the investigation of the role(s) of minority public administrators.

In future studies, analysis of the theoretical underpinnings of Herbert's work should be advanced and its importance to administrative, democratic, or social science theory clarified. Future studies should also work to improve the methodology necessary to empirically investigate the minority administrators' role(s).

The contribution of Herbert's work may reside in both the questions he raises and those that his work inspires. These include: What are the role expectations perceived and experienced by minority administrators? Are these role expectations in conflict? Can they be reconciled? How can these be empirically examined? How can they be theoretically explained? Can they be explained in the context of the ten- sion between representative and merit bureaucracy? If so, what is the relationship between passive and active representation as discussed by Mosher (1968)? Are they related? Are they separable? And, what are the implications of this discussion for administrative and democratic theory in general? That is, can the definition of an effective minority administrator role be instructive to public administrator role analysis in general, such that bureaucracies may become more responsive to all seg- ments of society?

Given today's heightened debate over issues of governmental responsiveness, public-sector diversity, and equal employment opportunity, these issues seem increasingly important.

364 Public Administration Review * July/August 1997, Vol. 57, No. 4



Thomas R. Martinez is Assistant to the President, Past Chair and Professor in the Department of Public Policy & Adminis- tration, California State University, Bakers- field. His Ph.D. in public administration is from the University of Southern Califor- nia (1987). He also holds a masters degree in Mexican American Studies from San Jose State University's Institute for Spanish Speakers in Public Affairs (ISSPA). He has conducted extensive research on and has used representative bureaucracy theory to explain the institutional experiences of Mexican American and other minority public administrators.

Notes 1. Herbert identified six role determinants: (1)

system demands-that minority administrators conform to formal bureaucratic role requirements; (2) community accountability- demands for responsiveness emanating from the minority communities; (3) colleague pressures-to accept deficit models to explain minority community problems, rather than blaming the system, as a basis for peer acceptance; (4) personal commitment to community-that causes minority administrators to feel a personal obligation to express, represent, and/or advocate minority community inter- ests; (5) personal ambition-which may influ- ence minority administrators to evaluate role behavior decisions within the context of their impact on personal job security and advance- ment within the institution; and (6) to reconcile their role demands while finding themselves in traditional roles, i.e., positions which tend to be in social agencies and/or minority- affairs-oriented settings. These are what Her- bert describes as flak-catching positions that tend to be highly visible but at lower decision- making levels.

2. These traditional roles tend to be in social policy agencies related to minority affairs or in social service settings. These tend to be at the lower administrative ranks with weak decision- making authority, but high in public visibility, i.e. flak-catching (Herbert, 1974, 560-561).

3. As noted earlier, survey items are discussed, but are not presented in the study. I was on the COMPA membership list and received a copy of the survey. This item is presented to illustrate the type of questions it raised. Thus, the instrument may be limited in its ability to

test Herbert's model. 4. Representative bureaucracy as first posed by

Kingsley (1966) is a complex sociopolitical and administrative theory that Meier (1968) describes as drawing on "Jacksonian ideals and Marxian analysis" (540). Thus, Herbert's work may have implications for understanding public bureaucracies beyond the reconciling of role demands of minority public administrators.

5. Representative bureaucracy surely does not provide the only theoretical context in which to discuss conflicting role demands and the experiences of minorities in modern bureaucracies. For example, Chandler (1979) utilizes cultural anthropology theory.

6. For Herbert, role conflict is said to exist because minority administrators are expected to reconcile obligations to institutional or system demands, the expectations of minority communities, and the minority administrator's personal sense of obligation to his community.

7. Murray and his associates use such terms as role expectations, conflict, conflict resolution and conformity, compromise and avoidance behavior, and strategies. These terms, as they appear in the prominently cited work of Mar- tinez (1991), are drawn from the work of Gross, Mason, and McEachern (1958) who developed a critical language and set of inte- grated concepts for the empirical exploration of administrator roles. Yet, in the study of Murray and his associates, the critical usage of these concepts appears to be somewhat lost.

To provide a brief example, the study con- cludes that "most minority administrators selected compromise strategies to resolve the pressures from the dilemmas...and that...public agencies are apparently supportive of such strategies" (416). First, in the language of role analysis, as contained in their referenced work, "role conflict" refers to the perception that one is confronted with incompatible expectations from one or more sources. "Role consensus" refers to actual agreement or dis- agreement between the expectations held by the focal person and those expressed by other role definers. Thus, Murray and his associates surveyed only minority administrators, discussion should report on perceptions of conflicting role demands and not the actual institutional or system demands unless a survey of role consensus is also attempted. Also, role pressures in the literature refers only to role

expectations perceived as illegitimate with those perceived as legitimate constituting role obligations. In discussion of compromise strategies adopted by minority administrators for role conflict resolution, the study offers lit- tle indication as to the extent to which conflicting expectations may be perceived as illegitimate role pressures or legitimate role obligations.

References Chandler, Charles R. (1979). "Traditionalism in a

Modern Setting: A Comparison of Anglo and Mexican American Value Orientations." Human Organization 38(2): 153-159.

Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern (1958). Explorations in Role Anal- ysis: Studies of the School Superintendency Role. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Herbert, Adam W. (1974). "The Minority Administrator: Problems, Prospects, and Chal- lenges." Public Administration Review 34(6): 556-563.

Kingsley, J. Donald (1966). Representative Bureaucracy: An Interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs, OH: The Anti- och Press.

Krislov, Samuel, and David H. Rosenbloom (1981). Representative Bureaucracy and the American Political System. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Martinez, Thomas R. (1991). "The Role of His- panic Public Administrators: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis." American Review of Public Administration 21(1): 33-55.

Meier, Kenneth John (1968). "Representative Bureaucracy: An Empirical Analysis." Ameri- can Political Science Review 69: 526-542.

Mosher, Frederick C. (1968). Democracy and the Public Service. New York: Oxford University Press.

Murray, Sylvester, Larry D. Terry, Charles A. Washington, and Lawrence F. Keller (1994). "The Role Demands and Dilemmas of Minor- ity Public Administrators: The Herbert Thesis Revisited." Public Administration Review 54(5): 409-417.

Rehfuss, John A. (1986). "A Representative Bureaucracy? Women and Minority Execu- tives in California Career Service." Public Administration Review 46(5): 454-460.

Thompson, Frank J. (1976). "Minority Groups in Public Bureaucracies: Are Passive and Active Representation Linked?" Administration &- Society 8(2): 201-227.

Communications 365



Documents

The Herbert Thesis Revisited: A Critical Commentary