Beyond Representation: Gender,Authority,and City Managers

Abstract

For the last 50 years, the U.S. government has worked to address the sex pay gap in the workforce. Nevertheless, the pay gap remains persistent across sectors and organizational hierarchies. This study investigates the direct and indirect effects of sex and authority profile on the pay gap of city managers in the United States. The study uses ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis to predict the relationship between a city manager’s sex and authority profile variables as well as the relationship between authority profile variables and a city manager’s annual salary. Our OLS analysis shows that sex (being a male city manager) along with workplace authority variables are all positive and significant predictors of pay. The study also finds that, on average, female city managers earn 73% of what male city managers earn. They also manage 60% of the number of employees and oversee 62% of the annual budget compared with male city managers.

Keywords

city manager pay systems authority representation gender and public personnel administration pay gap

Introduction

As the U.S. struggles with concerns about income disparities and equity issues, it is critical that we continue to explore whether there is equity in authority and pay for people who nominally hold the same position. The U.S. political arena has engaged in intermittent discussions of gender pay disparities for decades. More than 50 years after the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963, pay disparities persist. Women earn 78 cents on the dollar compared with men, and the disparities are even greater for African American and Latina women who earn 64 and 56 cents on the dollar, respectively, compared with Caucasian men (Official Webpage of the White House, n.d.). Congressional action seems less likely after multiple failures to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act with votes in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2015.

This study first explores the extent to which women are represented in the top administrative position in local governments and the extent to which they occupy the city management positions with the highest authority profile compared with men. Second, the study explores whether sex and authority profile explain pay gaps within the study population. This study explores sex-based disparities in representation, pay, and authority profile of top municipal management. We focus on city managers because they are the highest nonelected leaders in local government.

The city manager position was first created in the early 20th century to establish a separation between politics and administration in local governments. As is the case in most senior management positions, women’s representation among city and county managers is substantially lower than that of men. The International City/County Manager’s Association (ICMA) reports that as of 2012, female city managers comprise 19.8% of all city managers in the United States. This study addresses two fundamental issues concerning equity in representation in the public sector. First, the study examines the authority profile of the positions that women occupy compared with men in the domain of municipal government management. The authority profile of a manager includes a municipality’s annual budget, its population (number of residents), and the number of full-time personnel working in the municipal government. Second, building on the literature that relates authority profile to compensation (e.g., see Bygren & Gähler, 2012; McGuire & Reskin, 1993; Wolf & Fligstein, 1979), this study also investigates whether the gender pay gap persists after we control for a manager’s authority profile. Essentially, we explore whether there is a gap in the authority profile for male and female city managers, and whether such a gap explains disparities in pay.

The article first explores the issue of workplace segregation to identify position-level segregation and subsequently issues of authority disparities among men and women in the workforce. Utilizing secondary data compiled from salary surveys in 12 states that publish such surveys, the researchers in this study collected salary and authority data on 1,075 city managers. The study next examines the relationship between sex and authority profile, and then the relationship between pay and authority profile among city managers.

Literature Review

Sex-Based Workplace Segregation

In both the private and public sectors, women remain highly concentrated in lower paying jobs and in female-dominated agencies, occupations, and lower echelon positions (Acker, 2006; Kanter, 1977). Sex-based segregation in the workforce is manifested in three distinct ways. First, agency-level segregation occurs when women are concentrated in certain types of agencies more than others (Alkadry & Tower, 2014; Kim, 2004; Newman, 1994; Stivers, 2002). Second, occupational segregation occurs when women are concentrated in certain occupations—mostly occupations associated with caring and those that are redistributive in nature (Kerr, Miller, & Reid, 2002; Kim, 2004; Newman, 1994; Riccucci & Saidel, 1997). Third, position-level segregation occurs when women are concentrated in lower echelon jobs while they are underrepresented in upper levels of organizations (Alkadry & Tower, 2014; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006; Keiser, Wilkins, Meier, & Holland, 2002). This article focuses on the latter type of segregation and explores sex disparities in the authority profile of positions (i.e., city population, FTEs managed, and amount of budget controlled), as compared with the traditional way of only looking at the hierarchical position (clerk, professional, director, city manager, etc.).

Position segregation, commonly referred to as the “glass ceiling,” denotes the systematic barriers women encounter while progressing into positions of authority. Studying a cross-national sample from seven countries, Wright, Baxter, and Birkelund (1995) explore the gender gap in authority from the perspectives of hierarchy, sanction, and decision making. Even when controlling for numerous variables, they observed that across all countries sex disparities resulted from direct sex discrimination. Similarly, utilizing a cross-national comparison of 26 countries, Yaish and Stier (2009) examine sex inequality in job authority. They too report that even when women reach higher authority positions defined by direct supervision of employees in the public sector, a sex gap in compensation persists.

Prior studies explain that the sex gap in authority partially results from differences in individual human capital investment (McGuire & Reskin, 1993; Mueller, Parcel, & Tanaka, 1989; Smith, 1997, 1999). On the contrary, Mitra (2003) argues that even when job characteristics and human capital variables are taken into account, women still have less opportunity to occupy positions of authority than men. Discussing the impact of sex and ethnicity on workplace authority, Smith (2002) argues that being a woman and from a minority ethnic group exacerbates the obstacles for women to attain positions of authority.

When women are concentrated in lower echelon positions, their salary is understood to be much lower. However, when women break through “the glass ceiling” to attain executive positions, they tend to possess less authority and as a result achieve lower pay than their male counterparts (Bygren & Gähler, 2012; McGuire & Reskin, 1993; Wolf & Fligstein, 1979). Wolf and Fligstein (1979) define workplace authority as “legitimated control over the work process of others” (p. 236). Moreover, it is a problem when women are progressively given opportunities in higher level management positions but systematically face invisible barriers that preclude them from attaining an authority profile (i.e., people supervised and budgets managed) that fully matches the position’s status. Blau and DeVaro (2006) argue that in organizations that have structured salary scales, women holding higher authority positions are significantly concentrated in lower wage ranges than that of their male counterparts. Therefore, one can still argue that sex differences in workplace authority and compensation that were brought to light over three decades ago persist in the workforce dynamics of today. The following section presents a discussion on authority profile and how it contributes to sex differences in compensation.

Gender Differences in Workplace Authority

Despite efforts to close the sex gap on many fronts, studies show that women are still less likely to hold or grow into career positions that exercise authority (Bygren & Gähler, 2012; McGuire & Reskin, 1993; Wolf & Fligstein, 1979). Elliott and Smith (2004) argue that “data analyses at the city, state, national, and cross-national levels continue to document race and gender inequalities in workplace power” (p. 365). Alkadry and Tower (2011) also argue that sex differences in authority in the workforce are persistent and difficult to explain. Workplace authority disparities create an environment of unequal opportunity in income, prestige, and autonomy (Huffman & Cohen, 2004; McGuire & Ruskin, 1993; Smith, 2012). In the United States, although there is more representation of women in managerial-authority positions than in the past, some argue that this representation is often at a much lower level of managerial hierarchies (Baxter & Wright, 2000; Hsieh & Winslow, 2006).

Although many researchers have identified different aspects of authority profiles, all share one or more of the following dimensions: control over organizations’ human resources, financial resources, policy making, and implementation processes (Elliott & Smith, 2004; Fox & Schuhmann, 1999; McGuire & Reskin, 1993; Smith, 2001, 2002; Wolf & Fligstein, 1979; Wright et al., 1995). Wolf and Fligstein (1979) specifically contend that

the essential feature of power in organizations is the ability to control resources: capital, people’s work, and things. Indeed, for most people, being “higher up” means precisely this: the ability to control one’s work and the work process of others (p. 235)

and go on to define workplace authority as “legitimated control over the work process of others” (p. 236). Jacobs (1992) also adds that individuals in management exercise latitude in authority through “including responsibility for hiring, firing, and promoting, controlling budgets, setting goals, and developing, recommending, and monitoring policies and procedures” (p. 287). Hence, Jacobs emphasizes autonomy over personnel and financial management, and autonomy over technical and policy decisions.

Rosenfeld, Van Buren, and Kalleberg (1998) also expand on this definition arguing that sex differences in authority are a function of “differences in the power, privileges, and responsibilities that come with the positions women and men hold” (p. 25). Tomaskovic-Devey (1993) argues that there are two categories of authority: “managerial authority” representing an individual’s ability to make decisions that determine an organization’s output, and “supervisory authority” representing the authoritative ability granted to an individual to supervise and control subordinates working under one’s supervision. Other scholars also mirror and expand on the definition of workplace authority by including human resource management and specifically the right to hire and fire, having direct impact on policy decisions and implementation, and earning the formal authority title as a manager, supervisor, or executive (Bygren & Gähler, 2012; Wright et al., 1995; Zeng, 2011). A common thread among the different definitions of workplace authority is that all definitions have an element of “legitimate control” over an organization’s work process.

Authority profiles have important implications for both one’s effectiveness and personal compensation, making understanding authority an important variable in wage gap studies. In a study of chief procurement officers, Alkadry and Tower (2011) find a positive relationship between authority profile and salary. They conclude that “authority level variables, the amount of money a chief procurements officer controls, and the number of people he or she supervises had a significant and substantial effect on salaries—more than double that of experience” (Alkadry & Tower, 2011, p. 746). Elliott and Smith’s (2004) Multi-City Survey of Urban Inequality (MCSUI) study compares sex and race gaps in workplace authority within the workforces of Atlanta, Boston, and Los Angeles. They report that both sex and race are significant predictors of workplace authority across all three cities. Similarly, Baxter and Wright (2000) find that their study population across multiple countries (the United States, Australia, and Sweden) had significant sex differences in workplace authority.

There are also other studies that look at the relationship between workplace authority and wage disparities. Within the public sector, based on a study of 448 heads of public procurement departments, and 414 supervisors and materials managers, Alkadry (2004) reports a correlation between authority (measured as financial and personnel responsibilities) and salary of the procurement officers. Authority provides legitimate power over subordinates, offers remunerative responsibilities, and disposes rewards and sanctions (Bobbitt, Breinholt, Doctor, & McNaul, 1978; Huffman & Cohen, 2004; Wright et al., 1995). Similarly, compensation is often a reward for responsibilities associated with certain authority levels, such as influences over finance/budget and subordinates (Hopcroft, 1996; Nicolaou-Smokoviti, 2004). Utilizing a sample of Fortune 500 chief purchasing officers, Ogden, Zsidisin, and Hendrick (2002) find that a larger number of subordinates is associated with above average compensation.

Past studies reiterate that head counts of women in management positions speak little about achieving equity (Bagues & Esteve-Volart, 2010; Mansbridge, 2005). Rather, they claim that a true manifestation of the attainment of gender equity is when women exercise comparable authority as their male counterparts and, as a result, benefit from equitable compensation. Hence, this article explores equity in authority profiles as one explanation for pay gaps between female and male city managers, and then explores whether pay gaps persist when we control for authority profile.

Some scholars also argue that addressing the authority gap in the workplace extends beyond the importance of tackling unequal distribution of wages to “prestige, power, autonomy and status” (Bygren & Gähler, 2012, p. 795), and expands into changing employers’ and societal attitudes toward the status of women in the workforce. One of the early studies on sex differences in authority by Wolf and Fligstein (1979) argues that sex differences in authority are in fact less an indication of differences in human capital and more of a manifestation of the employer’s biased behavior. Alkadry and Tower (2011) also argue that, despite increased policy interventions to close gaps in the workforce, women are still well behind in holding higher positions of authority and earning comparable wages as their male counterparts.

This study explores the inconspicuous impact of sex on authority and then whether authority levels impact city manager’s pay. It also tests whether sex is still a factor in pay differences among city managers when we control for authority profile. Scholars repeatedly reveal that women have narrow access to executive positions associated with higher level of responsibilities both in the private and public sectors (Alkadry & Tower, 2011; Mitra, 2003; Wright et al., 1995). Although the number of female managers increased drastically since the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Act instituted reporting requirements for organizations, scholars argue that this spurred an artificial reclassification of women into managerial positions but left them with conservative authority responsibilities (Jacobs, 1992; J. P. Smith & Welch, 1984). Using national-level datasets from three sources (1970 Census Data, 1988 Community Population Survey and U.S. Department of Labor 1989 Employment Earning Data), Jacobs (1992) examines whether the increase in the number of female managers between 1970 and 1988 is real or just an illusion where women are given managerial titles without commensurate pay or supervisory responsibilities. Jacobs concludes that during that period, the pay gap between female and male managers narrowed, but the disparity in authority level remained constant. Based on a sample of 770 cases from a national survey dataset, Hopcroft (1996) finds that despite declines in sex segregation of management, the authority women actually exercise is limited to trivial supervisory tasks and has little significant influence on decision-making authority concerning either subordinates or work policy.

Halaby (1979) conducts comparisons between wages of men and women in similar occupations and finds that differences in hierarchical position explain more than half the compensation gap. Moreover, using a survey of 384 public-sector chief procurement officers, Alkadry and Tower (2011) further compare male and female public-sector chief procurement officers in the same hierarchical position. They report that authority profile, operationalized as the number of subordinates they supervise and the amount of money they administer, is an important factor that predicts a gender gap in compensation.

In the early 1970s, female city managers only accounted for 1% of the total city managers’ population in the United States; this figure increased to 5% by 1989, 12.5% by 2006, 20.1% by 2009, and regressed back to 19.8% in 2012 (International City/County Management Association, n.d.). Previous research on sex differences among city managers mostly focused on the examination of factors that drive women’s representation in city management positions (Aguado & Frederickson, 2012; Beaty & Davis, 2012; Fox & Schuhmann, 2000, 2001). However, there is no evidence that women’s gradual but increasing participation in local government management is translating into an equal participation in positions with the highest authority profiles. This current study investigates this question and additionally investigates whether sex differences in authority profile predict pay differences among male and female city managers.

Women’s Representation in the Public Sector

The sex gap exists across sectors and industries. However, considering the role of the public sector’s interest in reducing workplace discrimination and disparities, it is particularly important to explore the position of the public sector in closing this gap. This section addresses the persistent sex gap in representation in the public sector in the United States. Proponents of representative bureaucracy argue that government institutions must reflect the ideas, concerns, and needs of the society (Krislov, 1974). Fox and Schuhmann (1999) particularly argue that “women city managers are more likely than men city managers to incorporate citizen input and to be concerned with community involvement” (p. 240). However, even when research shows that women bring a unique perspective into public-sector management as in the case argued by Fox and Schuhmann, studies still show that there is a wide gap among men and women who reach higher level of public-sector management positions (Keiser et al., 2002). Scholars also argue that the role that women play in the public sector goes beyond the notion of representation and that “women bring to office different priorities” as well as infer different “policy preferences” than those of men (Aguado & Frederickson, 2012, p. 26). Aguado and Frederickson also argue that in the last few decades, the representation of women in elected offices and nonelected bureaucracies has changed considerably.

Aguado and Frederickson (2012) posit that the probability of women reaching managerial positions in government institutions is partly determined by “gender stereotypes” and “agency structure” (p. 27). Aguado and Frederickson’s (2012) study also shows that women in city management are often picked professionally as “department heads” and “assistant to city managers” (p. 35). Their study also shows that although women build their career within local government institutional hierarchies, the chances of them reaching a city manager’s position are low.

Based on Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) data on state and local institutions, Alkadry and Tower (2013) report that although women make up about 44% of the total workforce population in public agencies, they continue to be concentrated in redistributive agencies where they make up 62.4% of the workforce. Similarly, studies by Kerr et al. (2002) and Kim (2004) also indicate that in the United States, women in the workforce are highly concentrated in redistributive agencies. Alkadry, Nolf, and Condo (2002) find that women in the public sector represent 65.7% of the workforce in redistributive agencies compared with 23.2% and 33% in distributive and regulatory agencies, respectively.

Several studies focus on factors that influence women’s participation in the workforce, and particularly in male-dominated agencies and positions (Kerr et al., 2002; Kim, 2004; Newman, 1994). These studies argue that women are more concentrated than men in lower level positions. Young (1990) also argues that women tend to be more concentrated in part-time, and lower position jobs with lower job security and benefits. Within the context of this particular study, gender differences in city manager’s position, Aguado and Frederickson (2012) argue that “a combination of traditional gender stereotypes, agency structure, and the tenuous nature of city management where long tenures are rare, have kept women from the upper levels of government management” (p. 27). The U.S. Federal Government, Office of Personnel Management (2009) reports that women represent more of the workforce at lower levels than men and less of the workforce at higher levels in the federal government—specifically representing 68% of the workforce in the General Schedule (GS) 1-4 positions at the lowest end of the compensation ladder, 61% of the workforce in the GS 5-8 positions, 47% of the workforce in the GS 9-12 positions, 38% of the workforce in the GS 13-15 positions, and 30% of the workforce in senior executive service positions.

While the concentration of women in lower level positions is not unique to public agencies (see Acker, 2006; Kanter, 1977, for examples in private and nonprofit sectors), it does pose a particular threat when one views government as a traditional leader in civil rights advancements. Alkadry and Tower (2014) argue that the concentration of women at lower levels of public agencies can be explained by “organizational,” “personal,” “socio-cultural” as well as “human capital” factors (p. 111). Other studies also argue that, when controlling for human capital, causes for sex gap in women’s representation at higher government positions cannot be explained by gender differences in human capital (Mitra, 2003). Looking at women’s representation in U.S. governments beyond federal levels (state, county, city, townships, and other special districts), U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2009) reports that women are underrepresented in township and city administrations with only 30% and 28% representation, respectively, while they are at or above parity in county, state, and special district governments.

In nonelected local government offices, city managers are at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Leadership positions, especially that of the city manager, remain largely a man’s domain. According to ICMA, in 2012 women represented about 19.8% of all U.S. city managers (https://icma.org/sites/default/files/Gender%20Snapshot.pdf). The same data provided by ICMA also report that the progress in women’s representation in local government management has been slow. Slow progress in women’s representation in city managers’ positions could be a result of self-selection, sex stereotypes, agency structure, and differences in professional training (Aguado & Frederickson, 2012; Hale & Kelly, 1989; Saltzstein, 1986; Stivers, 2002). However, based on the national postsecondary enrollment data, Beaty and Davis (2012) demonstrate that lack of women with professional training can no longer be used as an explanation for having fewer female city managers. They argue,

Women have made indisputable gains in the workforce, largely as a result of increased opportunities in higher education. And yet, the statistics indicate that women continue to cluster near the bottom of organizational hierarchies, experiencing lower earnings, authority, and advancement opportunities than their male counterparts. City management is no exception, and females are severely underrepresented at the “top” of the local government hierarchy. (p. 629)

Increased sex representation in management positions may not necessarily materialize in women gaining comparable opportunities to exercise workplace authority to their male counterparts. This article explores the extent to which sex differences in authority profile result in pay disparity, and investigates authority profile differences from three different dimensions: organization size (measured in terms of number of subordinates), city population, and local government revenue amount (as a proxy to organization budget). Consequently, the study predicts the relationship between sex and the above authority profile variables followed by the relationship between authority profile variables and a city manager’s pay. The following section will discuss the context in which this study is conducted comparing authority and pay gaps among 1,075 male and female city managers from 12 states within the United States.

The Study Population

Local officials often are the “face” of government with the most direct interaction with citizens compared with other levels of government. This study examines the authority and pay profiles of the few women who have achieved the highest nonelected position in local governments. The focus is on the differences in levels of authority among city managers as manifested in the concentration of women in smaller cities, them supervising fewer subordinates and them administering comparably less revenue than their male counterparts. Because we are comparing city managers with city managers, occupation and position segregation variables are held constant for this sample. The article also examines the extent to which the difference in authority profile translates into differences in pay, and the extent to which disparities in pay persist after we control for the authority effect on pay. It is important to note that unlike other classified and nonclassified positions in government, there is usually no set pay scale for city managers. The amount of pay and benefits package are negotiated by the manager with the mayor and/or the local legislative body.

Data and Method

To investigate the indirect effect of sex on salary levels of city managers in the public sector with authority profile serving as an intervening variable, this study utilizes data from multiple databases. First, the authors gathered the information from 12 states that published their city manager salaries in 2012 (see Table 1). Based on the availability of compensation data for city managers, the study uses the data of city-level full-time equivalent employment from the Census Bureau, which reflects one factor of the authority profile—the number of personnel (full-time equivalent employees [FTEs]). Another element of authority profile is the municipal budget. In this study, the proxy of municipal budget is total revenue from fiscal year 2010 to 2011. This information is collected from the Annual Budget Report or Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for municipalities. The key variable, sex of city managers, is determined based on a Google search of city manager bios or other information published on the websites of each municipality. The total sample size of this study is 1,305 city managers. However, because of missing data, the number of observations included in the regression analysis is 1,075. Table 2 provides the summary of the descriptive statistics of the variables.

Table 1.

Number of Reporting Municipalities by State.

States	Municipalities responding
Alabama	11
Arkansas	9
California	445
Mississippi	16
Montana	122
New Hampshire	122
New Jersey	250
North Dakota	10
Ohio	39
Oklahoma	83
South Carolina	65
Washington	122
West Virginia	11
Total	1,305

Table 2.

Group Descriptive Statistics.

Gender dummy	n	M	Mean female/male ratio (%)	Median	Median female/male ratio (%)	SD
Annual salary
Male	895	141,450.2	72.6%	130,000	70.0%	69,751.8
Female	246	102,695.1	72.6%	90,795.0	70.0%	69,119.7
Annual total revenue
Male	855	55,397,585.6	61.9%	22,910,994.0	60.0%	1.2
Female	236	34,277,044.9	61.9%	13,451,924.5	60.0%	1.0
Number of FTEs
Male	844	278.7	59.7%	115.5	43.0%	541.7
Female	244	166.5	59.7%	50.0	43.0%	503.4
Population
Male	902	34,943.9	64.7%	16,779.5	41.1%	55,953.7
Female	249	22,613.8	64.7%	6,902.0	41.1%	68,377.9
Median income
Male	884	60,561.6	107.0%	56,370.0	111.0%	16,472.2
Female	244	64,851.9	107.0%	62,521.5	111.0%	16,557.4
Median gross rent
Male	844	1,024.3	102.0%	1,079.0	96.0%	270.9
Female	244	1,049.5	102.0%	1,035.0	96.0%	253.5

Mean Comparison Result

In our final sample, 21.6% were female, which is comparable with the 19.8% female managers reported by the ICMA (see Table 3). On average, male city managers (n = 902) in our sample earn US$141,450 annually while female city managers (n = 249) earn US$102,695, which indicates a salary gap of US$38,733 (significant at the .001 level). In our sample, female city managers make 72.6% of what male city managers make. On average, male city managers (n = 855) oversee a total annual revenue amount of US$55.4 million while female city managers (n = 236) oversee US$34.3 million revenue or US$21.1 million dollars less than the amount of annual revenue overseen by male city managers (significant at the .01 level). Therefore, female city managers oversee 61.9% of the average annual total revenue male city managers oversee. On average, male city managers (n = 884) oversee 278 FTEs versus female city managers (n = 244) who oversee 166 FTEs resulting in female city managers supervising 59.7% of the FTEs supervised by male city managers (significant at the .01 level). Male city managers (n = 902) administer cities with an average population of 34,944 while female city managers administer cities with an average population of 22,614 (significant at the .01 level). Female city managers (n = 244) administer cities with population median income of US$64,851 and male city managers administer cities with population median income of US$60,561.

Table 3.

Data Descriptive Statistics.

Dummy variable	Frequency	%
Sex
Female	249	21.63
Male	902	78.37
Total	1,151	100.00

The descriptive analysis indicates that male city managers tend to be in larger cities as indicated by revenues, number of FTEs, and population (see Table 2). However, male city managers are also managing cities that are less prosperous when assessing median income. Results also support findings from previous studies that argue that there is significant salary gap between men and women in public service (Alkadry & Tower, 2011), and establish a strong basis for examining authority profile as a determinant of salary disparities within the study population. The ANOVA comparison of means also confirms that within the context of local (city) administration, women are significantly underrepresented and have much lower authority profiles than their male counterparts. The significant difference in male and female city manager salary (on average, female city managers earn about 73% of their male counterparts) supports our argument that difference in authority profile manifests in a significant pay gap between male and female city managers in our study. Finally, the mean comparisons for the control variables have mixed results where median income indicates that female city managers tend to administer cities with slightly higher median income, but there is no statistically significant difference in median rents.

Models

This study investigates the direct and indirect effects of sex on authority profile and, as a result, on annual salary of city managers in the United States (see Figure 1). The three hypotheses of the study are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Female city managers have lower workplace authority profiles than male city managers.

Hypothesis 2: Compared with male city managers, female city managers earn lower salaries.

Hypothesis 3: City managers with higher workplace authority profile earn higher salaries than city managers with lower workplace authority profiles.

Figure 1.

Theoretical framework.

This study tests the direct and indirect effects of sex on the pay gap among 1,075 male and female city managers in the United States with workplace authority profile serving as an intervening variable that contributes to the gap. The study uses ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis to predict the relationship first between sex and authority profiles, and next the relationships between workplace authority profile variables and salary, and sex and salaries of city managers. We measure authority profile in terms of total annual revenue administered by the city manager, city population, and the number of FTEs supervised by the city manager. To control for cost of living and income, we include variables that measure population median income and median gross rent.

Models Testing the Relationship Between Sex and Authority

FTEs = β_{0} + β_{1} {Sex}_{i} + β_{2} Median {Income}_{i} + β_{3} Median Gross {Rent}_{i} + ε_{i},

City Population = β_{0} + β_{1} {Sex}_{i} + β_{2} Median {Income}_{i} + β_{3} Median Gross {Rent}_{i} + ε_{i},

Total Annual Revenue = β_{0} + β_{1} {Sex}_{i} + β_{2} Median {Income}_{i} + β_{3} Median Gross {Rent}_{i} + ε_{i} .

Models Testing the Impact on Salary of Sex and Authority

\begin{array}{l} Salary = β_{0} + β_{1} {Sex}_{i} + β_{2} {FTEs}_{i} + β_{3} City {Population}_{i} + β_{4} Total Annual {Revenue}_{i} \\ + β_{5} Median Income + β_{6} Median Gross {Rent}_{i} + ε_{i} . \end{array}

Diagnostic Tests

Prior to conducting our regression analysis, we ran diagnostic tests to check for multicollinearity. While doing so, we found that the two sets of variables—population and city annual revenue, as well as annual gross rent (a measure of cost of living) and annual income (a measure of labor market competitiveness) variables—are highly correlated at .8 level or more. Therefore, to address the problem, we transformed the two variables, population and median income, by taking into account the common effect of annual revenue with population and annual gross rent with median income and only including the residuals (independent effects) of the variables, population and annual revenue.

Second, prior to running our OLS regression model, we checked whether our model fulfills the expected linearity assumption of OLS regression models. To check this, we plotted the relationship of each independent variable with the predicted variable, annual salary. The results show that the variable FTEs and the predicted variable annual salary have a nonlinear relationship. Again, to address this problem, we transformed the variable FTEs by taking into account its log form. After transforming the variable full-time equivalent employees, we find that its relationship with the predicted variable annual salary is corrected to be linear, hence conforming to assumptions of OLS regression models. Finally, we checked for the presence of homogeneity of variances among the error terms in our model. The results of the diagnostic test showed that the error terms in our model did not have homogeneity of variance, hence suffered from heteroscedasticity calling for some measures to increase the robustness of the estimators. Using Stata software, we corrected for the heterogeneity of the variance in the error terms by using robust standard errors.

Sex and Authority Variables

The descriptive statistics and ANOVA comparison of means results indicate for all three authority profile variables, women fall behind their male counterparts. Beyond conducting the ANOVA comparison of means and the descriptive statistics, we also ran three OLS regression analyses that test the relationship between sex and individual authority profile variables in the study (total annual revenue, number of FTEs, and city population). The OLS regression analysis tests the relationship between sex (being a male city manager) and the three authority profile variables in the study. Is there a statistically significant relationship between authority profile variables and being male? Table 4 shows that sex (being a male city manager) is a significant predictor of each authority profile variable in each of the three OLS models. In the first model, OLS regression analysis shows that sex (being a male city manager) is a positive and significant predictor at the .001 level of the authority profile variable: the number of full-time equivalent employees. The second model’s OLS regression analysis shows that sex (being a male city manager) is a positive and significant predictor of the second authority profile variable, city population, at the .05 level. The third model’s OLS regression analysis also shows that sex (being a male city manager) is a positive and significant predictor of the total annual revenue measure of authority profile at the .05 level. In each model, male city managers are expected to have more authority than female city managers.

Table 4.

Sex and Authority Variables.

Authority variable	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Number of FTEs (n = 1,128)		City population (n = 1,128)		Total annual revenue (n = 1,083)
	R² = .12	Adjusted R² = .12	R² = .10	Adjusted R² = .01	R² = .06	Adjusted R² = .06
	Beta	SE	Beta	SE	Beta	SE
Sex (male = 1)	0.667	0.093***	9,951.15	4,135.567**	0.000	8,756,061**
Control variables
Median income	−0.000	0.000***	−1.266	0.176***	−1,828.088	371.088***
Median gross rent	0.001	0.000***	47.808	6.319***	85,520.32	13,561.67***
Constant	2.986	0.194***	−24,222.38	7,572.276***	−0.000	0.000***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Models Testing the Impact on Salary of Sex and Authority

Our model indicates that all predictor and control variables included in the model are significant predictors of a city manager’s annual salary (see Table 5). Most variables are significant predictors at the .001 level or more with only total annual revenue and city population significant at .01 and .005 levels, respectively. All main and control variables except for the variable median income have a positive and linear relationship with the predicted variable annual salary. Conforming to the existing literature, male city managers show increased chances of earning more than their female counterparts. When assessing our key workplace authority profile variables, our analysis finds that salary is higher where city population is larger, number of FTEs is larger (the agency size is larger), and when there is comparably more annual revenue collected by the city.

Table 5.

Impact of Sex and Authority on Salary.

Independent variables	Annual salary (N = 1,075)
	R² = .625	Adjusted R² = .623
	Beta	SE
Major variables
Authority profile
Total annual revenue	0.000	0.000*
Number of FTEs (log)	15,829.89	5.569*
City population (residual)	0.219	0.049*
Sex
Male (yes = 1, no = 0)	22,987.19	3,496.944*
Control variables
Cost of living
Median gross rent	114.595	0.193*
Population income
Median income	−2.454	0.111*
Constant	−78,051.43	7,603.323*

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Discussion

It is important to reiterate at the outset of this discussion the main contribution of this article and highlight the issues it does not address. This study is about the disparity in authority profile between men and women municipal managers, and about the role of the authority profile in predicting a city manager’s salary. The study does not attempt to understand the reasons behind the sex disparity in authority. Many prior studies cited earlier in this article articulate the reasons behind disparities. This article sheds light about the prevalence of the disparities in sex pay of city managers and their authority profile. Future research could explore the reasons behind the disparities, which one could suspect will include experience, education, prior salary, and mobility. It is important to note that studying city managers offers a unique opportunity in terms of how salaries of managers are set. Unlike state, local, federal, and other government positions that typically follow organizational salary scales that offer little variation, City managers’ salaries are more market driven and have more flexibility. Typically, when local governments open a search for a city manager position, a salary range is negotiated between a candidate on one hand and the mayor, commission, or council on the other. This study therefore shows that for reasons beyond the scope of this article, women end up on average in smaller municipalities that have smaller budgets and less employees. Furthermore, female managers make about two thirds the salary of male managers.

Workplace authority profile is one of the critical driving factors associated with an employee’s salary. Studies in the past show this association by arguing that authority profile, as a function of an individual’s scope of workplace responsibilities, does in fact determine an employee’s salary. This study expands on this argument in the context of authority profile of city managers in the United States. In this study, authority profile is measured in terms of the municipality’s population size, the amount of revenue administered by the manager, and the number of FTEs that the manager supervises. Our first set of results shows that male managers are more likely to have higher levels of workplace authority than women.

Our second set of results shows that men and people with increased workplace authority are expected to have higher salaries. Our final model sets to look at the effect of gender on a city manager’s annual salary with workplace authority profile construct variables operating as intervening variables. Hence, we learn from our study that an increase in each of the workplace authority profile variables correlates with an increase in a city manager’s annual salary. Results from this study provide support to prior arguments that a manager’s level of workplace authority profile is a significant determinant of his or her salary. The study also confirms that sex plays a significant role in predicting a city manager’s annual salary even when we control for authority profile. This study also finds that all independent and control variables, except for area median income, have a positive relationship while predicting the dependent variable, annual salary.

In the literature review, we have looked into three different types of sex-based segregation (occupational-, agency-, and position-level segregation) observed in the workforce. Many studies look at the systematic segregation of women from male-dominated organizations, higher positions predominantly held by men or certain occupations such as Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields. This study expands beyond these three descriptions of sex-based segregation by looking at whether women, when reaching higher organizational hierarchies, are able to exercise comparable level of workplace authority and earn comparable salary as their male counterparts. The study concludes that even when women are able to overcome position segregation, they still face the challenge of systematic exclusion from exercising comparable authority to their male counterparts and, as a result, from earning comparable income. Hence, women earn less than their male counterparts. Our study shows that although the number of women in city manager positions in the United States has slowly increased through the years, women tend to be managers in smaller cities and as a result administer cities generating lesser annual revenue. This confirms that even when women reach high levels in the organizational hierarchies in the public sector, holding the highest position of nonelected office in local governments as a city manager, they are yet to position themselves in similar authority and pay levels as their male counterparts.

Conclusion

As women advance in the workplace, one expects to find that women who reach higher levels of office both in the private and public sectors, such as a city manager’s position, have overcome the glass ceiling, and should achieve comparable pay and authority profile as their male counterparts. This article shows that when it comes to the highest nonelected office in municipal management, women managers are still lagging in terms of both the authority profile and pay. In addition, we know from ICMA data that only 19.8% of all municipal managers are female. In all accounts of the major predictor variables of salary—authority profile construct variables—female city managers fall behind their male counterparts. All of the predictor variables of authority profile used in this study are significant predictors of a city manager’s salary. In addition, even when controlling for workplace authority profile, women still earn less than men. This study finds that female city managers earn 27.4% less than male city managers.

The policy implications of this study are twofold. First, beyond EEO policies that call for deliberate efforts to increase women’s representation in the workforce and particularly in the public sector, we believe that findings from this study should prompt policy makers and legislators to pay attention to evolving workplace segregation issues beyond their traditional manifestations. Second, this study calls for policy makers and legislators to devise ways to monitor the direct and indirect effects of sex on women’s true representation in the workforce. The second policy implication discussed here calls for ways beyond counting the number of women in authority positions or the number of women in male-dominated occupations. We argue that simple head counts of women in leadership positions do not reveal the true representation and true exercise of workplace authority of women in their role as city managers. This study calls for a follow-up in-depth investigation of factors that create workplace authority disparities between male and female city managers. In addition, it is likely that the same challenges faced by female city managers are found by women in leadership positions across government. This exploration of how gender and authority impact pay is ripe for application to other arenas such as senior career positions in state and the federal governments. A more nuanced understanding of evolving structural workplace dynamics creates an opportunity to address persistent concerns over disparities.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Mohamad G. Alkadry is a professor and head of department of Public Policy at the University of Connecticut. His research focus on social equity issues, public administration theory and issues of gender, race and ethnic discrimination in public organizations. He is co-author of Women in Public Administration: Barriers, Challenges and Opportunities.

Sebawit G. Bishu is an assistant professor at the University of Colorado, Denver School of Public Affairs (SPA). Her research focuses on issues related to gender and representation in public organizations, equal employment opportunity and diversity in the public sector and social justice and equity issues in urban transformation.

Susannah Bruns Ali is an assistant professor in Florida International University’s Steven J. Green School of International and Public Affairs. Her research focuses on public management, the career paths of public sector employees and citizen participation.

References

Acker

(2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441-464.

Aguado

N. A.

Frederickson

H. G.

(2012). Gender and careers in city management: A case study of the career paths of one department’s MPA graduates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 33, 25-37.

Alkadry

M. G.

(2004). Drivers of compensation of heads of procurement units, supervisors, and materials managers in the public sector. Journal of Public Procurement, 4, 1-21.

Alkadry

M. G.

Nolf

Condo

(2002). Pay equity in West Virginia state government. Public Affairs Reporter, 19(2), 1-6.

Alkadry

M. G.

Tower

L. E.

(2011). Covert pay discrimination: How authority predicts pay differences between women and men. Public Administration Review, 71, 740-750.

Alkadry

M. G.

Tower

L. E.

(2013). Steady and very slow progress: Women in West Virginia State Administration. Public Administration Quarterly, 37, 201-231.

Alkadry

M. G.

Tower

L. E.

(2014). Women in public service: Barriers, challenges and opportunities. M.E. Sharpe.

Bagues

M. F.

Esteve-Volart

(2010). Can gender parity break the glass ceiling? Evidence from a repeated randomized experiment. The Review of Economic Studies, 77, 1301-1328.

Baxter

Wright

E. O.

(2000). The glass ceiling hypothesis: A comparative study of the United States, Sweden, and Australia. Gender & Society, 2, 275-294.

10.

Beaty

Davis

T. J.

(2012). Gender disparity in professional city management: Making the case for enhancing leadership curriculum. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18, 617-632.

11.

Blau

F. D.

DeVaro

(2006). New evidence on gender differences in promotion rates: An empirical analysis of a sample of new hires (Working paper). National Bureau of Economic Research.

12.

Bobbitt

H. R.

Breinholt

R. H.

Doctor

R. H.

McNaul

J. P.

(1978). Organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13.

Bygren

Gähler

(2012). Family formation and men’s and women’s attainment of workplace authority. Social Forces, 90, 795-816.

14.

Elliott

J. R.

Smith

R. A.

(2004). Race, gender, and workplace power. American Sociological Review, 69, 365-386.

15.

Equal Pay Act of 1963, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved 27 January 2015.

16.

Fox

R. L.

Schuhmann

R. A.

(1999). Gender and local government: A comparison of women and men city managers. Public Administration Review, 59, 231-242.

17.

Fox

R. L.

Schuhmann

R. A.

(2000). Gender and the role of the city manager. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 604-621.

18.

Fox

R. L.

Schuhmann

R. A.

(2001). Mentoring experiences of women city managers: Are women disadvantaged? American Review of Public Administration, 31, 381-392.

19.

Halaby

C. N.

(1979). Job-specific sex differences in organizational reward attainment: Wage discrimination vs. rank segregation. Social Forces, 58, 108-127.

20.

Hale

Kelly

R. M.

(1989). Gender and bureaucracy, and democracy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

21.

Hopcroft

R. L.

(1996). The authority attainment of women: Competitive sector effects. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 55, 163-184.

22.

Hsieh

Winslow

(2006). Gender representation in the federal workforce: A comparison among groups. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 276-294.

23.

Huffman

M. L.

Cohen

P. N.

(2004). Occupational segregation and the gender gap in workplace authority: National versus local labor market. Sociological Forum, 19, 121-147.

24.

International City/County Management Association. (n.d.). Women in leadership positions. Retrieved from https://icma.org/sites/default/files/Gender%20Snapshot.pdf

25.

Jacobs

J. A.

(1992). Women’s entry into management: Trends in earnings, authority, and values among salaried managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 282-301.

26.

Kanter

R. M.

(1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

27.

Keiser

L. R.

Wilkins

V. M.

Meier

K. J.

Holland

C. A.

(2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 96, 553-564.

28.

Kerr

Miller

Reid

(2002). Sex-based occupational segregation in U.S. state bureaucracies, 1987-97. Public Administration Review, 62, 412-423.

29.

Kim

(2004). Women and minorities in state government agencies. Public Personnel Management, 33, 165-180.

30.

Krislov

(1974). Representative bureaucracy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

31.

Mansbridge

(2005). Quota problems: Combating the dangers of essentialism. Politics & Gender, 1, 622-638.

32.

McGuire

G. M.

Reskin

B. F.

(1993). Authority hierarchies at work: The impacts of race and sex. Gender & Society, 7, 487-506.

33.

Mitra

(2003). Access to supervisory jobs and the gender wage gap among professionals. Journal of Economics, 37, 1023-1044.

34.

Mueller

C. W.

Parcel

T. L.

Tanaka

(1989). Particularism in authority outcomes of Black and White supervisors. Social Science Research, 18, 1-20.

35.

Newman

M. A.

(1994). Gender and Lowie’s thesis: Implications for career advancement. Public Administration Review, 54, 277-284.

36.

Nicolaou-Smokoviti

(2004). Business leaders’ work environment and leadership styles. Current Sociology, 52, 407-427.

37.

Official Webpage of the White House. (n.d.). Your right to equal pay: Understand the basics. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/equal-pay

38.

Ogden

J. A.

Zsidisin

G. A.

Hendrick

T. E.

(2002). Factors that influence chief purchasing officer compensation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 37, 30-38.

39.

Paycheck Fairness Act of 2011, S. 797, 112th Congress (2011).

40.

Riccucci

N. M.

Saidel

J. R.

(1997). The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: A missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Public Administration Review, 57, 423-430.

41.

Rosenfeld

R. A.

Van Buren

M. E.

Kalleberg

A. L.

(1998). Gender differences in supervisory authority: Variation among advanced industrialized democracies. Social Sciences Research, 27, 23-49.

42.

Saltzstein

G. H.

(1986). Female mayors and women in municipal jobs. American Journal of Political Science, 30, 140-164.

43.

Smith

J. P.

Welch

(1984). Affirmative action and labor markets. Journal of Labor Economics, 2, 269-302.

44.

Smith

R. A.

(1997). Race, income, and authority at work: A cross-temporal study of changes in the socioeconomic status of Black women and men (1972–1994). Social Problems, 44(1), 701-719.

45.

Smith

R. A.

(1999). Racial differences in access to hierarchical authority: An analysis of change over time, 1972–1994. Sociological Quarterly, 40, 367-395.

46.

Smith

R. A.

(2001). Particularism in control over monetary resources at work: An analysis of racioethnic differences in authority outcomes of black, white, and Latino men. Work and Occupation, 28(4), 447-468.

47.

Smith

R. A.

(2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 509-542.

48.

Smith

R. A.

(2012). Money, benefits, and power: A test of the glass ceiling and glass escalator hypotheses. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639, 149-172.

49.

Stivers

(2002). Gender images in public administration: Legitimacy and the administrative state (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

50.

Tomaskovic-Devey

(1993). Gender & race inequality at work: The sources and consequences of job segregation. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

51.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2009). Data warehouse. Washington, DC.

52.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (2009). Federal equal opportunity recruitment program report to congress 2009. Washington DC.

53.

Wolf

W. C.

Fligstein

N. D.

(1979). Sex and authority in the workplace: The causes of sexual inequality. American Sociological Review, 44, 235-252.

54.

Wright

E. O.

Baxter

Birkelund

G. E.

(1995). The gender gap in workplace authority: A cross-national study. American Sociological Review, 60, 407-435.

55.

Yaish

Stier

(2009). Gender inequality in job authority: A cross-national comparison of 26 countries. Work and Occupations, 36, 343-366.

56.

Young

I. M. T.

(1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

57.

Zeng

(2011). The myth of the glass ceiling: Evidence from a stock-flow analysis of authority attainment. Social Science Research, 40, 312-325.