Abstract
This chapter investigates the impact of representation of historically disadvantaged groups and workforce diversity on organizational performance in South Africa. Multivariate regression analysis is used to analyse longitudinal data from a ten-year panel of national departments. The empirical analysis offers compelling evidence that representative bureaucracies perform better. As these public organizations become increasingly representative by hiring historically disadvantaged persons, especially blacks, their performance improves, controlling for a range of factors.
Earlier iterations of portions of this chapter were published by Cambridge University Press in Fernandez and Lee (2016) and Wiley in Fernandez et al. (2018).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Chapter 9 institutions are a small group of public organizations created under the terms of Chapter 9 of the 1996 Constitution to safeguard democracy. Among them are the Public Protector; South African Human Rights Commission; Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious, and Linguistic Communities; Commission for Gender Equality; Auditor-General; Independent Electoral Commission; and the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa.
- 3.
A total of more than 38,000 individual targets were coded as either achieved, not achieved, or an uncertain outcome.
- 4.
In 2012, the National Treasury issued guidance on standardizing the content of the annual reports. The National Treasury is very specific about the data that must be reported in the sections labeled General Information, Annual Financial Statements, and Human Resource Management, going as far as providing an actual template with the variables, columns/rows, and proper formatting. However, for targets appearing under the “Information on Predetermined Objectives” (of which Programme Performance is a section), the National Treasury states, “Departments should customize the framework and the content to reflect their own specific circumstances” (2012, p. 14).
- 5.
Fewer than ten performance targets relating to representativeness or diversity were found among the more than 38,000 performance targets that were coded for the empirical analysis. Leaving out these performance targets when calculating the dependent variable has no effect on the findings.
- 6.
This is not a measure of service delivery, per se. For departments like Rural Development and Land Affairs, which provide some basic public services, the dependent variable in part captures the organization’s ability to deliver such services, but for others, this measure represents effectiveness at performing other governmental functions like law enforcement (e.g., South African Police Service) or regulation (e.g., Health and Trade and Industry).
- 7.
For a detailed explanation of criteria used to formulate an audit score, see Auditor-General South Africa (2018).
- 8.
The DPME assigns MPAT scores in four broad areas: strategic management, governance and accountability, human resource and systems management, and financial management/supply chain management (DPME 2013). The MPAT score is an ordinal measure with response categories 4 = Department is fully compliant with legal/regulatory requirements and is doing things smartly, 3 = Department is fully compliant with legal/regulatory requirements, 2 = Department is partially compliant with legal/regulatory requirements, and 1 = Department is non-compliant with legal/regulatory requirements.
- 9.
The annual reports do not provide systematic information on the goal setting process or the amount of effort and resources dedicated to different goals.
- 10.
Random measurement error in the dependent variable is also a potential cause for concern. Random measurement error means performance reporting randomly fluctuates upward and downward. Although less of a concern, as the literature suggests a tendency among managers to overestimate their organization’s performance, there is likely to be at least some random measurement error in this study. Like systematic measurement error, random measurement error does not bias the regression estimates of the impact of racial and gender representation on organizational performance (Berry and Feldman 1985; Wooldridge 2010). It may, however, bias the standard errors, thereby reducing the likelihood of finding statistically significant results. Since the analysis produces statistically significant results for both racial and gender representation, there is little reason for concern.
- 11.
Additionally, the dummy variable indicating whether an organization reports performance data that is usefulness and reliable was inserted in Models 1–5. In no case did it achieve statistical significance, nor did doing this affect the coefficients for basic and proportional representation. Since this reduces the sample size considerably, the dummy variable is left out of Models 1–5.
- 12.
Reporting of employees with disabilities was irregular and infrequent during the period of study.
- 13.
Data is not available to measure the racial sub-category for Blacks (Africans, Coloureds, and Indians) acting as department heads.
- 14.
For Chapter 9 institutions, these variables indicate the race and gender of the head of the parliamentary committee to whom the organization reports.
- 15.
Total expenditures and total employees were log transformed due to their highly skewed distributions.
- 16.
In South Africa, a process of corporatization or agentification has been underway, leading to the creation of several hundred public entities (e.g., boards, commissions, corporations, and regulatory agencies) to improve performance and service delivery (Cameron 2009). At the national level, approximately 80% of public entities are classified by the National Treasury as either “national public entities” (Public Finance Management Act, Schedule 3, Part A) or “national government business enterprises” (Public Finance Management Act, Schedule 3, Part B); the remaining ones tend to be larger organizations and classified as “major public entities” (Public Finance Management Act, Schedule 2) (National Treasury 2017). While public entities typically have a parent department that can delegate powers, develop policies, formulate strategic direction, and provide management and operational assistance, they are relatively autonomous in regard to implementation (Public Service Commission 2011). These public entities are not included in the sample.
- 17.
The sample includes the following national departments and Chapter 9 institutions: Civilian Secretariat for Police*; Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; Department of Art and Culture; Department of Basic Education; Department of Communications; Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Department of Correctional Services; Department of Defense; Department of Economic Development; Department of Education; Department of Energy; Department of Environment and Tourism; Department of Environmental Affairs; Department of Foreign Affairs; Department of Government Communication; Department of Health; Department of Higher Education; Department of Home Affairs; Department of Housing; Department of Human Settlements; Department of International Relations and Cooperation; Department of Justice and Constitutional Development; Department of Labour; Department of Land Affairs; Department of Provincial and Local Government; Department of Military Veterans*; Department of Mineral Resources; Department of Minerals and Energy; Department of National Treasury; Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation*; Department of Police; Department of Public Enterprises; Department of Public Service and Administration; Department of Public Works; Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Department of Science and Technology; Department of Social Development; Department of Sport and Recreation; Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services*; Department of Tourism; Department of Trade and Industry; Department of Transport*; Department of Water Affairs; Department of Women and Children; Financial and Fiscal Commission*; Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Department); National Prosecuting Authority*; National School of Government (Department); Presidency (Department); Public Service Commission; Public Protector*; Reserve Bank*; South African Human Rights Commission; and Statistics South Africa. (Organizations marked with an asterisk were dropped from the analysis due to missing data on one or more variables.)
- 18.
See https://www.gov.za.
- 19.
To compute the marginal effects, Model 1 was estimated using a generalized linear model estimator that does not over predict values below 0 and above 1.
- 20.
To compute the marginal effects, Model 4 was estimated using a generalized linear model estimator that does not over predict values below 0 and above 1.
- 21.
Group differences were calculated by pooling all responses from Waves 5 and 6 and performing a difference in means or difference in proportions test. All differences are statistically significant at p < 0.05.
- 22.
The dataset used is an unbalance panel. Some organizations failed to submit an annual report at some point in time and new organizations emerged during the ten-year period of study.
- 23.
Statistics were obtained using the ceweight2 population weight and pweight function in Stata 15. Analysis is based on respondents from industry code 911 (central government activities) and occupation code 112 (senior government leaders).
References
Andersen, L. B., Boesen, A., & Pedersen, L. H. (2016). Performance in public organizations: Clarifying the conceptual space. Public Administration Review, 76, 852–862.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2006). General report of the Auditor-General on audit outcomes for financial year 2005–06. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2007). General report of the auditor-general on the audit outcomes of national and provincial departments, public entities and constitutional institutions for the financial year 2006–2007. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2008). General report of the auditor general on the audit outcomes of departments, constitutional institutions, public entities and other entities for the financial year 2007–2008. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2009). General report on national audit outcomes 2008–2009. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2010). General report on national audit outcomes 2009–2010. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2012). PMFA 2011–2012: Consolidated general report on national and provincial audit outcomes. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2016). PMFA 2016–2017: Consolidated general report on national and provincial audit outcomes. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Auditor-General South Africa. (2018). PMFA 2017–2018: Consolidated general report on national and provincial audit outcomes. Pretoria: Auditor-General South Africa.
Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric analysis of panel data (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Baltagi, B. H., & Wu, P. X. (1999). Unequally spaced panel data regressions with AR(1) disturbances. Econometric Theory, 15, 814–823.
Bearfield, D. A. (2009). Equity at the intersection: Public administration and the study of gender. Public Administration Review, 69, 383–386.
Beinart, W. (1994). Twentieth-century South Africa. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 709–743.
Berry, W. D., & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2006). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84, 517–538.
Blau, P. M. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35, 201–218.
Bohte, J., & Meier, K. J. (2000). Goal displacement: Assessing the motivation for organizational cheating. Public Administration Review, 60, 173–182.
Bommer, W. H., Johnson, J. L., Rich, G. A., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1995). On the interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 48, 587–605.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Concepts and indicators of local authority performance: An evaluation of the statutory frameworks in England and Wales. Public Money and Management, 22, 17–24.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, R. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using Stata (rev. ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Cameron, R. (2009). New Public Management reforms in the South African public service: 1994–2009. Journal of Public Administration, 44, 910–942.
Cameron, R., & Milne, C. (2011). Representative bureaucracy in the South African public service. African Journal of Public Affairs, 4, 18–35.
Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 70, 109–121.
Collins, T., & Moyer, L. (2008). Gender, race, and intersectionality on the federal appellate bench. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 219–227.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 949–969.
Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME). (2015a). MPAT 2012 to 2015: Lessons and support to the public service. Pretoria: DPME.
DPME. (2015b). MPAT national report 2015 assessments. Pretoria: DPME.
DPME. (2012). Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT): Report on results of assessment process for 2011/2012. Pretoria: DPME.
DPME. (2013). MPAT Management Performance Assessment Tool national department score cards 2012/13. Pretoria: DPME.
Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA). (1995). White paper on the transformation of the public service. Pretoria: DPSA.
DPSA. (1998). White paper on affirmative action in the public service. Pretoria: DPSA.
DPSA. (2013). Annual report 2012/2013. Pretoria: DPSA.
DPSA. (2016). Annual report on employment equity in the public service. 2015/2016. Pretoria: DPSA.
Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. Stata Journal, 3, 168–177.
Edigheji, O. (2007). Affirmative action and state capacity in a democratic South Africa. Johannesburg: Centre for Policy Studies.
Fernandez, S., Koma, S., & Lee, H. (2018). Establishing the link between representative bureaucracy and performance: The South African case. Governance, 31, 535–553.
Fernandez, S., & Lee, H. (2016). The transformation of the South African public service: Exploring the impact of racial and gender representation on organisational effectiveness. Journal of Modern African Studies, 54, 91–116.
Frankental, S., & Sichone, O. (2005). South Africa’s diverse peoples: A reference sourcebook. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Franks, P. E. (2014). The crisis of the South African public service. Journal of the Helen Suzman Foundation, 74, 48–56.
Fryer, K., Antony, J., & Ogden, S. (2009). Performance management in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22, 478–498.
Giliomee, H., & Schlemmer, L. (1989). From apartheid to national-building. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Greene, W. H. (2008). Econometric analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Woods, S. A., Sacramento, C. A., & West, M. A. (2013). Getting diversity at work to work: What we know and what we still don’t know. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 123–141.
Habib, A. (2010). The state of the nation and its public service in contemporary South Africa: A critical reflection. Administratio Publica, 18, 2–24.
Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2009). Coethnicity: Diversity and the dilemmas of collective action. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hall, M. (2008). The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity psychological empowerment and managerial performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33, 141–163.
Hall, M. (2011). Do comprehensive performance measurement systems help or hinder managers’ mental model development? Management Accounting Research, 22, 68–83.
Heneman, R. L. (1986). The relationship between supervisory ratings and results-oriented measures of performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 811–826.
Hood, C. (2006). Gaming in targetworld: The targets approach to managing British public services. Public Administration Review, 66, 515–521.
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015.
Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Diversity management: Time for a new approach. Public Personnel Management, 29, 75–92.
Jaunch, H. M. (1998). Affirmative action in Namibia: Redressing the imbalances of the past? Windhoek: New Namibia Books.
Jeffery, A. (2014). BEE: Helping or hurting? Cape Town: Tafelberg.
Johnson, R. W. (2009). South Africa’s brave new world: The beloved country since the end of apartheid. New York: Overlook Press.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599–627.
Kahn, S. B., & Louw, V. (2011). Women’s representativeness in the South African public service. Journal of Public Administration, 46, 669–682.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Keiser, L. R., Wilkins, V. M., Meier, K. J., & Holland, C. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96, 553–564.
Kennedy, B. (2014). Unraveling representative bureaucracy: A systematic analysis of the literature. Administration and Society, 46, 395–421.
Kerr, A., Lam, D., & Wittenberg, M. (2018). Post-apartheid labour market series 1993–2017. Cape Town: DataFirst, University of Cape Town. Accessed https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/434/related_materials.
Ketokivi, M. A., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Perceptual measures of performance: Fact or fiction? Journal of Operations Management, 3, 247–264.
Klug, H. (2010). The constitution of South Africa: A contextual analysis. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Koch, R., & Burke, M. (2008). Managing talent in the South African public service. Public Personnel Management, 37, 457–470.
Kopecky, P. (2011). Political competition and party patronage: Public appointments in Ghana and South Africa. Political Studies, 59, 713–732.
Kossek, E. E., Lobel, S. A., & Brown, J. (2006). Human resource strategies to manage workforce diversity. In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 53–74). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lee, S., & Hong, J. (2011). Does family-friendly policy matter? Testing its impact on turnover and performance. Public Administration Review, 71, 870–879.
Lee, S., & Whitford, A. B. (2013). Assessing the effects of organizational resources on public agency performance: Evidence from the US federal government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 687–712.
Levin, R. M. (2009). Transforming the public service to support the developmental state. Journal of Public Administration, 44, 943–968.
Lim, H. (2006). Representative bureaucracy: Rethinking substantive effects and active representation. Public Administration Review, 66, 193–204.
Luiz, J. M. (2002). South African state capacity and post-apartheid economic reconstruction. International Journal of Social Economics, 29, 594–614.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: Common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 429–456.
Miller, K. (2005). Public sector reform: Governance in South Africa. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Milne, C. (2009). Affirmative action in South Africa: From targets to empowerment. Journal of Public Administration, 44, 969–990.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Naff, K. C., & Capers, K. J. (2014). The complexity of descriptive representation and bureaucracy: The case of South Africa. International Public Management Journal, 17, 515–539.
National Treasury. (2012). Guide for the preparation of the annual report. Pretoria: Department of Treasury.
National Treasury. (2017). Public institutions listed in PFMA Schedule 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D as at 24 February 2017. Pretoria: Department of Treasury.
Ncholo, P. (2000). Reforming the public service in South Africa: A policy framework. Public Administration and Development, 20, 87–102.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Fernandez, S. (2017). Will more black cops matter? Officer race and police-involved homicides of Black citizens. Public Administration Review, 77, 206–216.
O’Meara, D. (1996). Forty lost years: The apartheid state and the politics of the National Party, 1948–1994. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Moderizing government: The way forward. Paris: OECD.
O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63, 689–699.
O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2011). Public management: Organizations, governance and performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Picard, L. A. (2005). The state of the state: Institutional transformation, capacity and political change in South Africa. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.
Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 615–631.
Public Service Commission (PSC). (2011). Report on the evaluation of the role of agencification in public service delivery in selected sectors. Pretoria: PSC.
Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363–377.
Rainey, H. G. (2014). Understanding and managing public organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco: Wiley.
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 1–32.
Ratuva, S. (2013). Politics of preferential development: Trans-global study of affirmative action and ethnic conflict in Fiji, Malaysia and South Africa. Canberra: Australian National University.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227–238.
Scott, R. W., & Davis, G. F. (2006). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Selden, S. C. (1997). The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a government agency. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 235–251.
Sing, D. (2012). Human resource challenges confronting the senior management service of the South African public service. Public Personnel Management, 41, 379–388.
Singh, B., Winkel, D. E., & Selvarajan, T. T. (2013). Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 242–263.
South African Government. (2019). What are the government clusters and which are they? South African Government Online. https://www.gov.za/faq/guide-government/what-are-government-clusters-and-which-are-they.
Southall, R. (2013). Liberation movements in power: Party and state in Southern Africa. Woodbridge, UK: James Currey.
Statistics South Africa. (2016). Community survey 2016. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
Thompson, L. (1995). A history of South Africa (rev. ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tummala, K. K. (2015). Politics of preference: India, United States, and South Africa. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Van Onselen, G. (2014, October 20). The disintegration of cadre deployment under Zuma. South African Monitor.
Von Holdt, K. (2010). The South African post-apartheid bureaucracy: Inner workings, contradictory rationales and the developmental state. In O. Edigheji (Ed.), Constructing a democratic developmental state in South Africa: Potentials and challenges (pp. 241–260). Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council.
Walker, R. M., & Andrews, R. (2013). Local government management and performance: A review of evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25, 101–133.
Walker, R. M., & Boyne, G. A. (2006). Public management reform and organizational performance: An empirical assessment of the UK Labour government’s public service improvement strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 371–393.
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162.
Welsh, D. (1971). The growth of towns. In M. Wilson & L. Thompson (Eds.), The Oxford history of South Africa: II South Africa 1870–1966 (pp. 172–244). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wenzel, P. (2007). Public-sector transformation in South Africa: Getting the basics right. Progress in Development Studies, 7, 47–64.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2003). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). Boston: MIT.
World Values Survey Association, World Values Survey, Wave 6 (2010–2014). (2018). http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fernandez, S. (2020). Representative Bureaucracy and Performance: Empirical Evidence from South Africa. In: Representative Bureaucracy and Performance. Executive Politics and Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32134-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32134-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32133-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32134-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)