|
|
|
Book Review
| Margaret Rung, Servants of the State: Managing Diversity and Democracy in the Federal Workforce, 1933–1953, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2002. Pp. 285. $39.95 (ISBN 0-8203-2362-4).
|
| In this well-researched study, Margaret Rung argues that from 1933 to 1953, federal civil service managers negotiated the meanings of democracy and plurality through their hiring practices, discussions of the meanings of merit in the hiring and promotion processes, and in the building of manager/employee relations. In this era of "rapid state expansion" (3), managers shifted from a concept of hiring and promotion based on character and merit to a psychological and sociological-based human relations model. This reflected an attempt to make decisions objectively, in order to open government positions to more African Americans and women. These attempts failed to work on a large scale, however, because conservative managers continued to base their "objective" categories of efficiency and merit on white, middle-class, masculine norms that excluded women and African Americans from top positions. Instead of changing the system to acknowledge structural problems that led to inherent racism and sexism, managers engaged in strategies to portray the workplace as a democratic institution and to define racism and sexism as problems of individuals, rather than of society (196). Rung concludes that civil service offices became the place for contesting meanings of pluralism and democracy, as well as asking important questions about the validity of class, race, and gender in assessing worth (185). |
1
|
|
Rung discusses the ways in which meanings of merit shifted in accordance with administrative policies. As hiring processes became more uniform and included the "scientific" methods of examinations and evaluations, hiring practices shifted to incorporate inherent racial and gender stereotypes. From Section 213 of the Economy Act of 1932, which allowed only one spouse to work for the government (forcing many women to quit), to "counseling" for women in the 1940s and 1950s, to help them deal with the "stress" of moving to the city, women were defined by government officials as less capable of handling managerial positions. Women who spoke up to challenge managerial practices were dubbed "lone wolves" and were criticized for their "masculine" traits. Similarly, African Americans who were too "race-oriented" also found themselves passed over for lucrative jobs and promotions, ostensibly because they failed to be "white enough." In addition, managers often supported segregation in the workplace, because their main goal was to maintain "harmony" and "productivity" in the workplace. Ultimately, loyalty tests, communist scares, and a crackdown on "crackpots" (91)—those whose views conflicted with management—created a culture in which all challenges to promote more democracy within the workplace were controlled by management. |
2
|
|
At the same time that managers maintained traditional constructions of race and gender in order to keep choice positions out of the hands of women and African Americans, they forged a human relations-based work environment that ostensibly promoted democracy and plurality at the workplace. From allowing unions to function on a limited capacity, to asking for employee input on a limited scale, managers created a space in which employees believed they had power, while continuing to maintain their own power. These changes in federal civil service workplaces mirrored the changes going on in the private sector; human relations officers, attempting to "socialize workers to the organization and the objectives of the firm" (79) replaced traditional business paternalism. |
3
|
|
Rung details the ways in which managers handled unionization attempts and the integration of more women and African Americans into the federal workforce. Although she sometimes repeats the same information, Rung clearly shows that while managers believed that pluralism and democratization, as well as diversification of the workforce, was important, the landscape of civil service remained relatively unchanged during this period. While liberal managers did allow unionization, they ensured that unions were just one of the many voices that had input into workplace issues, which undercut union power. Managers hired more women and African Americans, particularly during the labor shortage of World War II, but the definitions of "merit"—who deserved a job or a promotion—remained amorphous, and often managers' deeply-held prejudice against women in supervisory positions and African Americans anywhere but at the lowest levels of service translated into their efficiency and personnel reviews, which were supposed to be objective. Women and African Americans continued to challenge government managers who failed to hire or promote them, but they did not make much headway during this period. |
4
|
|
As Rung suggests, what was happening in federal civil service offices both reflect-ed and reinforced racist and sexist practices in society, particularly when these government positions were visible in localities across the country. Although many liberal managers attempted to change the hiring and promotion processes in their own offices, the failure to create any formal structural change meant that what change occurred was based on individual attempts to create a more diverse, pluralistic, and democratic workforce. Rung's discussion of how "merit" was constructed and contested by managers and employees, as well as how "scientific" evaluations of candidates for hire and promotion were negotiated to include traditional gender and race norms, are particularly interesting. Although Rung briefly mentions that changes occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a chapter on the sweeping changes that occurred during the Kennedy administration would have made the argument about the democratization of the workforce more compelling. Still, this book is a valuable contribution to the growing number of studies on how individuals negotiate with and within the federal government to create change in society. |
5
|
| Megan Taylor Shockley
|
| Clemson University |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|