Printer Friendly



The United States has experienced a rise in diversity-based social conflict in recent years. There is an apparent disconnect between communities of color and the public institutions responsible for administering justice and democracy within American society. Such disconnects, if not addressed, can threaten the legitimacy of democratic government.

In this paper, we first acknowledge the recent increase in racial conflict in the United States. We outline the concept of government legitimacy and the impact of racial conflict on that legitimacy. We then review the logic of representative bureaucracy and its impact on government legitimacy. We hypothesize that the impacts of both passive and active representation are moderated by the lived experience of subordinate groups within government organizations. Building on previous research on emotional labor in public organizations (Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008; Mastracci, Guy, & Newman, 2012), we explore this lived experience through the lens of emotional labor theory and conclude that the positive relationship between representative bureaucracy and government legitimacy is moderated by the emotional labor required from non-dominant group employees, especially in their service interactions with citizens (Guy et al., 2008) and coworkers.


The United States has always had a race problem, beginning with the slavery acknowledged in our Constitution and our Civil War, on through Jim Crow, the 60s civil rights movement, and into current issues such as police treatment of African-Americans and unequal incarceration trends and consequences. There was a belief by some that the election of President Obama in 2008 signaled an end to race discrimination. The reality was that the election highlighted the race conflict that still prevails in the United States (Dawson and Bobo, 2009).

In recent years, conflict between police and Black communities has become a national issue (Agiesta, 2015; Katel, 2016; Nesbit, 2016) while election laws still prevent African-Americans from fully participating in our constitutional system (Weiser, 2014; Graham, Charles, 2015; 2016). Race issues and their impacts have been discussed in many places (e.g. Smedley and Smedley, 2011; Rothenberg, 2016) and we will not enter into a recounting of history and background. While publicized current events enabled by social media does not necessarily mean race issues have become worse, it does mean there has been increasing attention paid to them and their impact on democratic governance.


The Sage Encyclopedia of Governance (2007) entry on legitimacy notes "Legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing regime or system of governance" (518). Normative approaches to the concept discuss what should be sources of legitimacy, while empirical approaches attempt to measure levels of popular acceptance of a regime. "Gaining legitimacy is a need not restricted to liberal democratic regimes, but considered a basic condition of rule because without at least a minimal amount of legitimacy, governing regimes would face deadlock or collapse" (518).

Democratic governments depend on citizen participation, engagement, and the non- coercive consent of the governed. The operationalization of "legitimacy" occurs when citizens voluntarily consent to, and obey, government authority. This legitimacy hinges on and manifests itself in the trust of citizens in the government and its use of power and authority (Mastracci et al., 2012). There is decreasing legitimacy when citizens believe the government is not abiding by the implied social contract between citizens and rulers.

At that point, citizens may ignore or seek to circumvent government authority, rules and laws. As such, legitimacy is influenced by citizen expectations of government (Mastracci et al., 2012). At the extreme end of illegitimacy, they may resist government authority or rebel. Citizen perceptions of the legitimacy of a government are constructed through their interaction with government organizations and officials.


Legitimacy is a function of citizen attitudes toward government. Citizen perceptions of government are shaped, in significant measure, by government actions and engagement with citizens. It is in this interactive space between government agencies and citizens that legitimacy is shaped. The actions of government agencies are undertaken by individual public managers in their role as agency representatives. We propose that government legitimacy is shaped, not only by the interface between government and citizens, but also within the organizational culture and dynamics of public agencies. The attitudes of government officials toward citizens are influenced by their own experiences within the agencies they serve and influence that relationship. We explore this hypothesis through the theoretical lens of representative bureaucracy.


The concept of Representative Bureaucracy was presented by J. Donald Kingsley in his book of the same name in 1944. Kingsley criticized the British civil service for relying primarily on the upper classes for staffing government positions. He argued that "representative bureaucracy" was necessary to integrate the concerns of the majority. Long (1952) and Van Riper (1958) subsequently explored the role of the bureaucracy in governance in the United States. The conclusion was that the government bureaucracy should look like the people it serves in order to be representative.

In 1968, Frederick Mosher published the classic Democracy and the Public Service, in which he addressed concepts of passive and active representation. Passive representation is an empirical demographic representation of groups in government bureaucracies. Active representation implies that representatives who are members of non-dominant groups advocate for the interests of those groups.

Early critiques argued that non-dominant group members did not actively represent the group better than dominant-group members, since the non-dominant members had been socialized by their government employment to internalize institutional values (Thompson, 1976). Studies 30 years later showed that active representation was, indeed, taking place (Bradbury and Kellough, 2008, 2010; Meier, 1993) and that Black public managers are more likely than Whites to support governmental behaviors that target interests of the African-American community (Sowa and Selden, 2003). Riccuci, Ryzin and Lavena (2014) found that increased numbers of women in a local domestic violence unit of a police force increased public perceptions of trust, fairness, and job performance of the agency.

A more recent addition to the theory of representative bureaucracy is "symbolic representativeness." This concept suggests that the increasing number of members of non-dominant groups in government will increase perceptions of trust in and the legitimacy of government by citizen members of those groups (Riccucci and Van Ryzin, 2014, 2017).

We propose that both active and symbolic representation are mechanisms that increase non-dominant group support for government (legitimacy) when positively influenced by the lived experience of those representatives within their government agency. We explore this lived experience through the lens of emotional labor theory, which studies the impact of individuals who have to "work" on their emotions to conform with organizational (dominant group) norms.

While traditional streams of research on emotional labor address the emotional work of actors engaging customers in a positive manner, we examine the emotional work of public managers within public organizations to conform with organizational emotion display norms that reflect dominant-group values. Emotional labor theory tends to assume the virtue of organizational norms, in part, by only addressing norms generally accepted to be "good." We theorize that the greater the emotional labor individuals must perform, particularly the most intrapersonally detrimental form of emotional labor, surface acting, the less positive the impact of representative bureaucracy on government legitimacy.


One of the predominant theories of emotion in organizations is that of emotional labor (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011a; Mastracci et al., 2012), which has been defined as "the process of regulating both feelings and expressions for the organizational goals" (Grandey, 2000: 93). Emotional labor is an organization-specific form of emotion regulation in which employees manage their emotion display to conform to normative "display rules" (Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Hochschild, 1983) that implicitly mandate acceptable work-related emotions (Guy et al., 2008).

The emotional labor literature tends to look at emotional labor as a phenomenon in which an employee (such as a service representative) practices emotion regulation (e.g., displaying an emotion distinct from the individual's felt emotion) in order to provide some benefit to the interaction partner (e.g., customer). The decisions of organizational members to cognitively reappraise, suppress, or express an emotion to comport with organizational display norms are acts of both emotion regulation and emotional labor.

Emotional labor is an operationalization of the two primary forms of emotion regulation--emotion expression and emotion suppression--in the workplace (Grandey, 2000; Mastracci et al., 2012). Russell (2003: 147) defines emotion regulation as "attempts to alter the category of emotion in which one finds oneself." Individuals utilize emotion regulation as a means of self-control rooted in "emotional meta-experience." As Russell (2003) observes, "Emotional meta-experience serves to evaluate and therefore regulate oneself with respect to those rules." Emotion regulation presents a challenge for organizational actors, as they are expected to practice it even when experiencing stress and exhaustion (Grandey, 2000, 2003; Toegel, Kilduff, & Anand, 2013).

The concept of emotional labor was initially developed by Hochschild (1979, 1983), who described how employees must sometimes engage in internal "labor" through the expression or suppression of their emotions to accomplish desired ends. Hochschild initially examined flight attendants and how they strive to express positive emotions regardless of the sometimes irritable and demanding behavior of customers. Even when a customer was acting unreasonable, "entitled," or otherwise objectionable, the flight attendant was expected to maintain a positive attitude in order to ensure a calm, seamless, and safe airline trip. Hochschild referred to this effortful emotional control as "emotional labor."

Emotional labor is a form of emotion regulation unique to the workplace (Grandey, 2000) in which organizational members, as part and parcel of their work responsibilities, regulate their emotion expression to conform to normative "display rules" (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011; Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Hochschild, 1983; Ekman, 1973). In addition, organizational actors often perform emotional labor to induce or inhibit specific emotions in others (Mastracci et al., 2012).

Examples of emotional labor include a first-level responder suppressing the horror they experience when approaching an extremely injured accident victim (Guy & Lee, 2015), or a doctor acting empathetically toward a patient despite being in a bad mood, or a service representative acting compassionately toward a difficult customer even when they feel angry at what they perceive to be an unreasonable request. Both the doctor and service rep are regulating their emotions by decreasing the expression of negative emotions (the service rep is decreasing the display of anger and the doctor is decreasing the expression of annoyance or irritation) and increasing the display of positive emotions (the service rep is increasing the expression of compassion and the doctor is increasing the display of empathy) toward the express purpose of achieving an organizational goal.

This goal orientation is the most common motivation for using emotion regulation, as the increase of positive emotions and the decrease of negative emotions are widely considered to further organizational goals such as increased customer satisfaction and sales (Sutton & Rafaeli, 1988). In some cases, organizational goals may require the opposite--the decrease of positive emotions and the increase of negative emotions. Such is the case for bill collectors who attempt to act angry or hostile in order to intimidate recalcitrant customers into paying their outstanding debts (Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991). In the public sector, it is also the case for social workers or investigators who attempt to act cool and calm while attempting to obtain vital information from citizens, or for prison guards who try to convey an air of authority (Guy et al., 2008). Anyone who has received extremely good news (such as the signing of a large, much-awaited contract) just before having to deliver bad news (such as the firing of an employee) has most likely experienced this second type of emotion regulation in which positive emotions are depressed while negative emotions (e.g. sadness) are accentuated.

Building on dramaturgical work by Goffman (1959), Hochschild (1983) coined the term "feeling rules" to describe social norms that authorize acceptable emotions by gender (e.g., it is often unacceptable for men to display fear or for women to express aggression). Other scholars have since developed the concept of "display rules" (Ekman, 1973) to emphasize that an emotion does not necessarily have to be initially felt before being expressed (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Anat Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989).

The Three Types of Emotional Labor

Emotion researchers have conceptualized three types of emotional labor: surface acting, deep acting, and genuine emotional labor (for a review, see Humphrey, Ashforth, & Diefendorff, 2015). Surface acting occurs when the organizational actor's felt emotion and displayed emotion are distinct. Surface acting generally takes one of two forms: the employee, leader, or volunteer either feels an emotion that they choose not to express (suppression) or does not feel an emotion and decides to display it anyway ("faking"). Deep acting is a different form of emotional labor from surface acting in that it is performed when the organizational member induces the emotion they wish to express, such that the expressed emotion initially becomes a felt emotion before it is displayed (Ashkanasy & Humphrey, 2011; Hochschild, 1979, 1983).

The third and most recently theorized form of emotional labor is called genuine emotional labor. Emotion scholars have argued that emotional labor can be genuine, such as when an organizational actor truly feels the emotion the organizational display norms oblige them to express. For example, a nurse might naturally feel compassion toward a sick child (e.g., Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993). While genuine emotional labor is authentic, it is still (despite often not being acknowledged, evaluated, or compensated as) work (Mastracci, Newman, & Guy, 2006). The triadic typology of emotional labor into the distinct emotional labor practices of surface acting, deep acting, and genuine emotional labor is supported by a confirmatory factor analysis, which identifies genuine emotional labor as the most widely-utilized organizational practice (Diefendorff, Croyle, & Gosserand, 2005).

Emotional Labor and Government Legitimacy

While emotional labor theory is broad and deep, the vast preponderance of it focuses only on interactions between organizational actors and customers, clients, citizens--in short, external actors. The concept was developed to address the emotional work of actors who are to engage customers in a positive manner, regardless of internal feelings or customer actions. The literature tends to address organizational norms of positive service attitudes towards customers (Grandey, 2000; Humphrey, Ashforth and Diefendorff, 2015; Hulsheger and Schewe, 2011). Ashforth and Humphrey (1993) explicitly state, "The present discussion focuses on the concept of emotional labor, that is, the act of expressing socially desired emotions during service transactions" (pp 88-89).

According to Mastracci, Guy, & Newman (2012, p. 117), "the characteristics of the people who perform emotional labor, and how they perform it, are directly relevant to the power, authority, and legitimacy of the state." Yet with the exceptions of a few studies on negative emotion display as a desirable organizational goal (e.g., Rafaeli & Sutton, 1991), most analyses tend to limit their approach to establishing positive attitudes that most everyone believes are ethically good. Discussions tend to locate emotional labor as something an employee does to achieve an organizational norm, often to evoke a desired response from a citizen (Newman, Guy, & Mastracci, 2009). We suggest that there are other interactions and other contexts that require emotional labor, and that there are other norms established by organizations that require emotional labor to achieve.

By only addressing efforts to achieve positive relations with customers, the theory ignores emotional labor undertaken to achieve other organizational norms. It assumes the virtue of organizational norms, in part, by only addressing norms generally accepted to be "good." Moreover, the literature tends to assume that organizational norms are desirable. In the public sector, it often assumes that these norms reinforce public service motivation and vice-versa.

Deep acting, or the internalization of organizational norms, is implicitly construed as desirable. The active representation of non-dominant groups occurs when group members advocate for, or act on behalf of, the interests of their groups. Symbolic representation transpires when the presence of fellow group members in government creates a more positive perception of government in the citizen. Both of these forms of representation can increase the perceived legitimacy of government.

The Effects of Emotional Labor on Public Servants of Color in the United States

Many non-dominant-group organizational members practice emotional labor, or emotion regulation that comports with organizational display norms (Grandey, 2000), merely to sustain their participation and acceptance within the organization, which may lead to stress and burnout. Despite being absent from most performance evaluations and job descriptions (Mastracci, Newman, & Guy, 2006), many public sector jobs require emotional labor (Mastracci, Guy, & Newman, 2012). In fact, emotional labor is a required skill in approximately one-quarter to one-third of all public sector jobs, including 100 percent of all street-level occupations (Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008) and is fundamental to public service and the management of public organizations (Newman et al., 2009). Despite the importance of emotional labor, it goes virtually unrecognized in public service jobs. For example, a study of the appraisal instruments utilized by public agencies in Illinois found that 86 percent of the instruments identified emotional labor at a basic or low level (Mastracci, Newman, & Guy, 2006).

These findings are germane to our analysis, as members of non-dominant social groups in the United States hold a significant proportion of public service jobs (Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008). The social norms of members of non-dominant groups are often distinct from the norms of those of the dominant culture. As the dominant group tends to disproportionately influence the norms of that organization--including which emotions are expressed and when and how they are expressed--non-dominant group members may feel pressured to adopt display norms representative of the dominant group.

This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as code switching, a term hailing from the linguistic theory of switching between languages. Non-dominant group members may resist internalizing dominant cultural norms by pretending or "faking" the expression of norm- consistent emotions when engaged in interaction with dominant group members. This type of emotion display has been identified by emotional labor scholars as surface acting (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2003). In these cases, when non-dominant group members return to their own group they are likely to revert to their own group norms of emotion expression.

In other cases, non-dominant group members may internalize the cognitive processes that are generative of the dominant-group-influenced organizational display norms. In other words, they may choose to cognitively induce the emotions the organizational display rules require them to express. This process has been referred to by emotion scholars as deep acting (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993; Grandey, 2003).

Deep acting is different from surface acting in that it is more effortful and tends to both be generated by and result in the focal individual identifying more strongly with the organization (Humphrey et al., 2015). In fact, "the more individuals identify with their role, the more likely they are to strive to actually feel the emotions they are expected to express--to engage in deep acting" (p. 756). While this role identification is a natural process important to healthy organizational functioning (Humphrey et al., 2015), it simultaneously poses a significant threat to the social identity of a non-dominant group member.

Social identity hinges on intergroup social comparisons that strive to establish or confirm the favorable distinctiveness of the in-group in relation to the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This search for in-group distinctiveness stems from an underlying need of in-group members for self-esteem that they associate with a positive social identity (Turner, 1984). In addition to self-enhancement, individuals seek positive social identities to reduce subjective uncertainty about their attitudes, perceptions, feelings, behaviors and, ultimately, self-concepts. Uncertainty reduction is a fundamental human motivation as certainty provides meaning to existence and instills the individual with confidence about the behaviors they enact in their social environment (Hogg & Terry, 2000).

Hence, non-dominant group members may feel pressured both internally (as they seek meaningfulness in their roles) and externally (as surface acting tends to be ostensible to others and produce alienation from the group; Ashforth & Humphrey, 1993) to enact deep acting as their primary form of emotional labor until, or if, they at some point authentically feel the emotions the organizational display norms impel them to express (genuine emotional labor).

Disparate Impact of Emotional Labor by Non-Dominant Group Public Managers

In public organizations disproportionately framed by the dominant social group, this very process of deep acting may pose a threat to the social identity of non-dominant group members. A process of dilution of their social identity may ensue as they abandon the emotion-related behaviors of the out-group.

An analysis of the emotional labor of members of non-dominant groups in public organizations must consider how these members must regulate their emotions in order to ensure acceptance within their organizations. In an article on Black professors in the classroom, Harlow (2003) asserts that "Emotional labor and management can be understood as a form of impression management" (p. 349).

The true intentions of an individual are difficult to decipher, as social interaction is driven not only by the desire for honest self-expression, but also the desire to have a particular effect on the audience and to maintain a sense of coherence across social interactions (Goffman, 1959). Impression management is particularly important to individuals as it can lead to increased well- being and belonging (Leary & Kowalski, 1986).

Non-dominant group members may feel a particularly acute pressure to manage the impressions dominant members have of them in order to overcome the stereotyping and faultfinding in the out-group common among in-group members, especially when the in-group represents the dominant culture (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002; Turner, 1984). As Machiavelli (1513: 46; quoted in Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, 2006) stated in his treatise on leadership, "It is not essential that a Prince should have good qualities, but it is essential that he should seem to have them.... Everyone sees what you seem, but few know what you are."

A number of researchers have explored the experiences of non-dominant managers in organizations. Harlow (2003) considers how Black College professors enact emotional labor performances to ensure they are accepted as a legitimate authority in their universities. Evans and Moore (2015) explore how people of color navigate racial ideologies and narratives in order to succeed in white institutional spaces. Durr and Wingfield (2011) explore how Black professional women undergo self-transformation in order to feel welcomed and accepted in the workplace and, consequently, experience performance weariness in both verbal and nonverbal exchanges with their white counterparts.

Emotional Labor and the Loss of Personal Resources among Non-Dominant Group Members

Emotional labor has been well-conceptualized as "a performance art (emphasis theirs) allowing public servants to represent the state" (Guy et al., 2008, p. 81) that, when well executed, goes unnoticed (Guy & Newman, 2004). It is also the case that in public-sector organizations in the United States, emotional labor is often performed by people of color in order to adapt and be accepted in a white-dominated culture. When this emotional labor is enacted through surface acting, it produces more strain and stress on the individual. This stress is likely to reduce their personal resources.

The core principle of conservation of resources (COR) theory, a resource-based conceptualization of stress, is that "individuals strive to obtain, retain, protect, and foster those things that they value.... these valued entities are termed resources" (Hobfoll, 2001: 341). These personal resources include personal characteristic (e.g., self-discipline, self-reflexivity), object (e.g., clothing, an automobile), energy (e.g., purposefulness, motivation), and relational (e.g., social support, intimacy,) resources (see Hobfoll, 2001, p. 342 for a comprehensive list). All personal resources share a common attribute: they "are valued by the individual or ... serve as a means for attainment of these objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies" (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516).

When emotional labor is enacted through deep acting, our analysis suggests that these organizational actors may be abandoning their own cultural emotion display norms to adapt to those elaborated by the dominant social group (e.g., whites). If the individual internalizes the dominant-culture-influenced norms, they may reduce the stress of engaging in that environment; however, when the actor returns to their non-dominant group culture, the stress and strain may be evoked once again, to the extent that the internalized dominant-culture norms contravene those of the non-dominant culture. As suggested in a 1972 report by the Urban Institute, "modern bureaucratic organizations draw people away from their race, ethnic, religious and local ties into the national mainstream" (Fernandez, 1972). Hence, the potential subsequent loss of social identity may also be construed as a reduction of personal resources (as per Hobfoll's [2001]) relational category).


Regardless of the affective tactic utilized by the non-dominant group individual, a conservation of resources theoretical lens (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) suggests that the emotional labor involved may prove detrimental to the psychological resources of group members. Hobfoll (1989, p. 516) defines psychological stress as "a reaction to the environment in which there is (a) the threat of a net loss of resources, (b) the net loss of resources, or (c) a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources." As emotional effort requires energy, it is a resource. If an organizational actor expends this emotional energy but does not gain any concomitant reward, their stress level is likely to increase. Emotional labor may produce both a direct and indirect loss of personal resources: directly, via the allocation of emotional energy to its performance (Hobfoll, 2001); and indirectly, through the increasingly inefficient application of self-regulatory abilities, as these abilities weaken like a muscle from protracted use (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). In both cases, as per conservation of resources theory, the loss of personal resources is likely to produce stress (Grandey et al., 2012).

From a conservation of resources theoretical framework, the connection between emotional labor and burnout is inevitable. The emotional effort required to perform emotional labor is a personal resource, the loss of which induces stress (Hobfoll, 1989). The link between surface acting and both stress and decreased well-being has been well-documented in four meta-analyses (see Humphrey, Ashforth, & Diefendorff, 2015 for a review).

As individuals tend to strive toward maintaining their personal resources (Hobfoll, 1989), non-dominant group members may feel intrapersonal pressure to attempt to avoid both surface acting (which is intrinsically generative of stress; Grandey, Foo, Groth, & Goodwin, 2012) and deep acting (which, as we have suggested above, may lead to a loss of social identity, a vital personal resource). Yet a public job is in itself a personal resource generative of other resources (e.g., status, money for food and rent, etc.). Thus, non-dominant group members are also likely to strive to keep their public jobs, which require surface acting and deep acting. Therefore, it is likely that many non-dominant group members will experience a tension between the performance of, and abstention from, emotional labor, which is likely to produce stress, and hence, as per conservation of resources theory, yet another loss of personal resources.

There may be considerable inequity in that the emotion display that is naturally enacted by dominant-culture members requires supplementary cognitive and affective work by non-dominant group members that likely depletes the personal resources of these non-dominant group members. This depletion of personal resources may inhibit their ability to actively represent their group and may even reduce symbolic representation.

A decrease in active and symbolic representation may lead to a reduction in work engagement associated with the performance of emotional labor. According to an ethnographic study by Kahn (1990) widely considered a solid theoretical foundation for the construct of engagement (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Rich et al., 2010), work engagement is a multidimensional motivational construct associated with an organizational actor's complete investment of their holistic self--which includes the simultaneous investment of their cognitive, affective, and physical energies--into a work role performance (Kahn, 1990). Engaged employees are "physically involved in tasks, whether alone or with others; are cognitively vigilant, focused and attentive; and are emotionally connected to their work and to others in the service of their work" (Rich et al., 2010, p. 619). Engagement measures the level at which individuals "employ and express or withdraw and defend themselves during role performances" (Kahn, 1990: 717).

In public sector jobs, engagement is associated with the opportunity to serve citizens and the inherent value of the job itself (Guy, Newman, & Mastracci, 2008). It is possible that the performance of both surface acting and deep acting by non-dominant group members may, due to the association of each with a loss of personal resources, compel non-dominant group members to disengage cognitively, affectively, and/or physically from their public service roles. In fact, a study of Chinese government employees found that while authentic emotion display (genuine emotional labor) is positively linked to work engagement, pretending to feel an emotion (a form of surface acting) is negatively linked (Lu & Guy, 2014). Another study of public employees across various occupations (including social workers, police dispatchers, and corrections officers) found that employee' faking of their emotions was the most positively related to burnout (Hsieh, Jin, & Guy, 2012). The disengagement of non-dominant group members associated with emotional labor is likely to diminish their active representation of their social group and also, when it is generative of their attrition, their symbolic representation.

Moreover, citizen satisfaction in their interactions with public employees tends to be higher when the employee feels capable and comfortable performing emotional labor (Hsieh & Guy, 2009). Hence, if non-dominant group members feel uncomfortable performing emotional labor due to the loss of personal resources it entails, citizen perceptions of government legitimacy may suffer.

Representative bureaucracy acts to support government legitimacy through its active and passive mechanisms. We contend that the active and symbolic potential of representative bureaucracy by non-dominant groups is impacted by the emotional labor they expend. Whether they conform or resist dominant group display norms, their lived experience demands emotional energy that may limit their representation. We contend that this disparity impacts the legitimacy of government.


Agiesta, Jennifer (2015) Race and Reality in America: Five key findings, CNN, November 25, 2015. Accessed 4/12/17 at

Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645-670.

Ashforth, B. E., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional labor in service roles: the influence of identity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 88-115.

Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. (1995). Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. (2011a). A multi-level view of leadership and emotions: Leading with emotional labor. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl- Bien (Eds.), Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 363-377). London: Sage Publications.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Humphrey, R. H. R. (2011b). Current emotion research in organizational behavior. Emotion Review, 3(2), 214-224.

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why Does Affect Matter in Organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 36-59.

Blatter, J. K. (2007) Legitimacy in Bevir, M., Encyclopedia of Governance 518-521 Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bradbury, M. and Kellough, J. E. (2008). Representative bureaucracy: Exploring the potential for active representation in local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4): 697-714.

Bradbury, M. and Kellough, J. E. (2010). Representative Bureaucracy: Assessing the Evidence on Active Representation, The American Review of Public Administration, 41(2), 157-167.

Charles, G. E., & Fuentes-Rohwe, L. (2015). The Voting Rights Act in Winter: The Death of a Superstatute. Iowa Law Review, 100(4), 1389-1439.

Dawson, Michael C., and Lawrence D. Bobo. 2009. One year later and the myth of a post-racial society. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 6(2): 247-249.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Diefendorff, J. M., Croyle, M. H., & Gosserand, R. H. (2005). The dimensionality and antecedents of emotional labor strategies. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 339-357.

Ekman, P. (1973). Cross-cultural studies of facial expression. In Darwin and facial expression: A century of research in review (pp. 169-222).

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161-86.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY.

Graham, D. A. (2016) North Carolina's Deliberate Disenfranchisement of Black Voters A federal appeals court finds the impact of the state's voting law can only be explained by "discriminatory intent." Reuters, JUL 29, 2016. Accessed online 4/17/17 at

Grandey, A. (2000). Emotional regulation in the workplace: A new way to conceptualize emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 95-110.

Grandey, A. (2003). When" the show must go on": Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.

Grandey, A., Foo, S. C., Groth, M., & Goodwin, R. E. (2012). Free to be you and me: A climate of authenticity alleviates burnout from emotional labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(1), 1-14.

Guy, M. E., & Lee, H. J. (2015). How Emotional Intelligence Mediates Emotional Labor in Public Service Jobs. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(3), 261-277.

Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. (2004). Women's jobs, men's jobs: Sex segregation and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 289-298.

Guy, M., Newman, M., & Mastracci, S. (2008). Emotional labor: Putting the service in public service. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-24.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(3), 337-421.

Hochschild, A. R. (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 85(3), 551-575.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: The commercialization of human feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.

Hsieh, C. W., & Guy, M. E. (2009). Performance outcomes: The relationship between managing the "heart" and managing client satisfaction. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29(1), 41-57.

Hsieh, C. W., Jin, M. H., & Guy, M. E. (2012). Consequences of work-related emotions: Analysis of a cross-section of public service workers. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 39-53.

Humphrey, R. H., Ashforth, B. E., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2015). The bright side of emotional labor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 749-769.

Kahn, W. W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Katel, Peter (2016) Racial Conflict: Are U.S. policies discriminatory? CQ Researcher January 8, 2016 26(2), Accessed online 4/12/17 at

Kingsley, J. D. (1944) Representative Bureaucracy: an Interpretation of the British Civil Service. Yellow Springs, OH: Antioch Press.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1986). Impression Management: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(I), 34-47.

Long, N. E. (1952) Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism, The American Political Science Review, 46(3), 808-818.

Lu, X., & Guy, M. E. (2014). How Emotional Labor and Ethical Leadership Affect Job Engagement for Chinese Public Servants. Public Personnel Management, 43(1), 3-24.

Machiavelli, N. (1513). The Prince. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Mastracci, S. H., Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (2012). Emotional labor and crisis response: Working on the razor's edge. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Mastracci, S. H., Newman, M. a, & Guy, M. E. (2006). Appraising emotion work: Determining whether emotional labor is valued in government jobs. American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 123-138.

Mehra, A., Dixon, A., Brass, D., & Robertson, B. (2006). The Social Network Ties of Group Leaders : Implications for Group Performance and Leader Reputation. Organization Science, 17(1), 64-79.

Meier, K. J. (1993). Representative Bureaucracy: A Theoretical and Empirical Exposition. Research in Public Administration vol. 2. edited by James L. Perry. 1-35, New Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Meyer, J. J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

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

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259.

Nesbit, J (2016) America Has a Big Race Problem, US News and World Report March 28, 2016. Accessed online 4/12/17 at

Newman, M. A., Guy, M. E., & Mastracci, S. H. (2009). Beyond cognition: Affective leadership and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 69(1), 6-20.

Newport, F. (2016) Public Opinion Context: Americans, Race and Police, Gallup July 8, 2016 Accessed online 4/17/17 at

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. (1991). Emotional contrast strategies as means of social influence: Lessons from criminal interrogators and bill collectors. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 749-775.

Rafaeli, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in Organizational Behavior.

Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G. and Lavena C. F. (2014) Representative Bureaucracy in Policing: Does It Increase Perceived Legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 537-551.

Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G. (2017). Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction and Democracy, Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21-30.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J., & Crawford, E. (2010). Job Engagement: Antecents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.

Rich, W. C. (1974) Review of Representative Bureaucracy by Samuel Krislov, Political Science Quarterly, 89(4), 868-870.

Roper Center (2015) Black, White, and Blue: Americans' Attitudes on Race and Police Oct 5, 2015. Accessed online 4/12/17 at blue-americans-attitudes-race-police/

Rothenberg, P. S. (2016) Race, Class and Gender in the United States: an Integrated Study, 10th edition, New York: Worth Publishers.

Russell, J. A. (2003). Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110(1), 145-172.

Smedley, A. and Smedley, B (2011). Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview, 4th edition, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sowa, J.E. and Selden, S. C. (2003). Administrative Discretion and Active Representation: An Expansion of the Theory of Representative Bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 700-710.

Sutton, R., & Rafaeli, A. (1988). Untangling the relationship between displayed emotions and organizational sales: The case of convenience stores. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 461-487.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).

Thompson, F. J. (1976) Minority Groups in Public Bureaucracies: Are Passive and Active Representation Linked? Administration and Society, 8(2), 201-226.

Toegel, G., Kilduff, M., & Anand, N. (2013). Emotion helping by managers: An emergent understanding of discrepant role expectations and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 334-357.

Turner, J. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 518-538). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Van Riper, P.P. (1958) The Senior Civil Service and the Career System, Public Administration Review, 18(3), 189-200.

Weiser, W. R. (2014) Voter Suppression: How Bad? (Pretty Bad) The last large-scale push to curb voting access was more than a century ago, after Reconstruction. Until now. American Prospect October 1, 2014. Accessed online April 5/17 at Zimmerman, M., & Zeitz, G. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414-431.



California State University San Bernadino
COPYRIGHT 2018 Southern Public Administration Education Foundation, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Silard, Anthony; Anderson, Jonathan F.
Publication:Public Administration Quarterly
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 22, 2018

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters