01683pab a2200181 454500008004000000100002100040245008800061260000900149300001300158362000800171520112100179650001601300700002101316773003301337909001001370999001701380952010401397180718b1998   xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aHindera, John J.  aRepresentative bureaucracy: the theoretical implications of statistical interaction  c1998  ap.655-71  aSep  aThe research extends our knowledge of the relationship between passive representative bureaucracy and active representative bureaucracy (Mosher 1968). We utilize data from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to posit and test a theory of situational thresholds. Our theory is premised on the argument that Meier's (1993b) construct, critical mass, constitutes a particular example of a more general concept, situational threshold (Campbell 1963). We present evidence that three situational thresholds exist in the EEOC bureaucratic environment which determine the nature of the relationship between passive representativeness and active representation: when a critical mass is reached; when a group constitutes a plurality; and when a group constitutes a majority. In toto, these three situational thresholds delineate four distinct social environments in which active representation transpires. Our findings strongly suggest that the relationship between passive representation and active representation is fundamentally different for each type of bureaucratic environment. - Reproduced  aBureaucracy  aYoung, Cheryl D.  aPolitical Research Quarterly  a38892  c38892d38892  00104070aIIPAbIIPAd2018-07-19hVolume no: 51, Issue no: 3pAR39253r2018-07-19w2018-07-19yAR