The Role of Public Workforce Diversity and The Administrative Ecosystem in Advancing Digital Public Service Innovation

Public Management Review
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpxm20
The role of public workforce diversity and the

administrative ecosystem in advancing digital
public service innovation
Luciana Cingolani & Diego Salazar-Morales
To cite this article: Luciana Cingolani & Diego Salazar-Morales (16 Jan 2024): The role of public
workforce diversity and the administrative ecosystem in advancing digital public service
innovation, Public Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2024.2303609
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2303609
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 16 Jan 2024.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 81
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpxm20
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2303609
The role of public workforce diversity and the

administrative ecosystem in advancing digital public
service innovation
a,b a
Luciana Cingolani and Diego Salazar-Morales
a
Hertie School, Berlin, Germany; bInstitute of Public Administration, Leiden University, Leiden,
Netherlands
ABSTRACT
Organizational studies have long built a ‘business case’ for diversity, which today
includes innovation capacity among the benefits of diverse workforces. Diversity’s
impact on innovation has been tested in private firms, yet few systematic studies exist
in public management. We address this challenge using a two-step dynamic panel
data analysis via generalized methods of moment estimation in 36 European coun
tries. The findings confirm that higher public workforce diversity leads to higher public
service innovation. This effect, however, is mediated by the administrative ecosystem,
where greater uniformity in managerial practices makes diversity more salient, an
obstacle to unleash its innovative potential.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 13 April 2023; Accepted 5 January 2024
KEYWORDS Public sector innovation; digital services; diversity management; representative bureaucracies;
social categorization
1. Introduction
In the last decades, studies of innovation have provided valuable new insights on the
role played by group dynamics in the processes of ideation and problem-solving. Work
group diversity, in particular, has acquired a central role as a booster of collective
intelligence (Surowiecki 2004), and as a lever of ingenuity for new discoveries and
inventions (Johansson 2006).
In organizational studies, scholars and practitioners have long argued that diverse
workforces are better at unleashing creativity (Cox and Blake 1991; McLeod, Lobel,
and Cox 1996; Torchia, Calabrò, and Morner 2015), processing information and
complex thinking (Apfelbaum et al. 2014), and ultimately, at innovating (Østergaard,
Timmermans, and Kristinsson 2011; Ozgen, Nijkamp, and Poot 2012). This seemingly
virtuous link between workforce diversity and firms’ achievements has reinforced a so-
called business case for diversity (e.g. Ely and Thomas 2020), where several mechanisms
are thought to be at play. In an overview of these mechanisms, Galinsky et al. (2015)
mentions, for example, the expansion of organizational competitive advantage, a more
CONTACT Luciana Cingolani cingolani@hertie-school.org

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository
by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 L. CINGOLANI AND D. SALAZAR-MORALES
accurate understanding of the environment, better performance in diverse markets,

a greater variety of perspectives for idea-generation, and more complex information
processing.
At the same time, scholars warn against a romanticized idea of how diversity affects
organizational performance. They point at the empirical literature showing that
diversity alone is associated with negative outcomes such as increased turnover and
absenteeism (Avery et al. 2007), higher burnout (Huhtala et al. 2015), increased
conflict (Hur 2013; Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin 1999; Torchia, Calabrò, and Morner
2015) and perceptions of lower organizational performance (Choi and Rainey 2010).
In the public sector, the interest in innovation has grown significantly, but the role
of workforce diversity as a possible driver has been mostly absent. In exploring how the
foundations of modern bureaucracies operate vis-à-vis the accelerations brought by
digitalization and new technologies (e. g. Drechsler and Kattel 2020; Lapuente and
Suzuki 2020), public management literature has instead focussed on the types of public
sector innovation taking place (Hartley, Sørensen, and Torfing 2013), how innovations
diffuse (De Vries et al. 2018), the role of individual innovators (Meijer 2014), or the
barriers to innovation (Cinar, Trott, and Simms 2019). At the same time, scholars
interested in workforce diversity have so far not placed their focus on public innova
tion as an outcome variable. This knowledge gap is problematic on both sides of the
equation: on one hand, as public workforce diversification continues to grow, there is
an increased need to understand how organizational dynamics will evolve1; on the
other, as public sectors face unprecedented pressures to innovate and adapt, it becomes
relevant to test diversity’s theorized contribution to that end.
Our study focuses on digital public service innovation as one fundamental dimen
sion of public sector innovation (Bertot, Estevez, and Janowski 2016; Chen, Walker,
and Sawhney 2020). Because the design and reach of public services is inextricably
connected to the cognitive diversity and needs of different users, we take this dimen
sion as an optimal way to test how workforce diversity shapes innovation. Thus, while
we focus on this specific dimension, we argue that our findings speak to broader
discussions on public sector innovation.
With this in mind, we are interested in the question: what is the role of workforce
diversity in processes of digital public service innovation? We aim to provide a first
thorough empirical test of this relationship, and of the mechanisms that may ‘activate’
diversity’s innovative potential. We do so by analysing a pool of 36 European countries
with different managerial characteristics between 2003 and 2018. Through a dynamic
panel data analysis employing 2-step-generalized methods of moments estimation
(2GMM), we test for the effects of public workforce diversity on the levels of digital
public service innovation, and how such workforce diversity interacts with different
aspects of the administrative ecosystem. Our results largely confirm that increasing the
demographic diversity of the public workforce leads to higher innovation. Yet, we also
discover that some characteristics of the country-level administrative ecosystem such
as bureaucratic professionalism, bureaucratic closedness and New Public Management
practices mediate the effects of diversity on innovation. We find interaction effects in
all three, suggesting that the administrative ecosystem has the power to ‘make diversity
work’ or the opposite, at least for digital service innovation. These non-linearities are
interpreted through the lens of an organizational theory on social group dynamics at
the workplace, where more heterogeneous environments make diversity less salient
and hence better functioning (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan 2004).
PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 3
We make three important contributions. First, we respond to calls for better

understanding the determinants of cross-national variations in public sector innova
tion (e.g. Lapuente and Suzuki 2020; Suzuki and Demircioglu 2019). We also add to the
body of public management literature interested in the effects of workforce diversity
and the organizational ecosystem on aggregate levels of organizational performance
(e.g. Choi and Rainey 2014; Ashikali & Groeneveld 2015). Finally, our conceptual and
empirical approach allows us to help establish a better dialogue between the manage
ment literature on diversity and public administration scholarship interested in
bureaucratic representation (Bradbury and Kellough 2008; Groeneveld and Meier
2022).
The next section briefly reviews the organizational literature on the so-called
business case for diversity, focusing on innovation and digital services. Section 3
explores possible mechanisms linking workforce diversity to public sector innovation
and derives a series of hypotheses on digital public service innovation. Section 4
presents the research strategy, while section 5 reports on the findings. In view of
these findings, section 6 resumes the discussion on public workforce diversity, the
administrative ecosystem, and innovation, while the final section highlights limitations
and offers brief conclusions.
2. Workforce diversity and innovation

2.1 The ‘business case’ for diversity in organization studies
Organizational studies have long examined how workforce diversity affects firms’
performance. With the onset of globalization, management scholars included diversity
as a key driver of organizational success, arguing that internal demographic and
functional workforce heterogeneity represents a competitive advantage (Cox 1994;
Cox and Blake 1991). Several mechanisms have been proposed as the source of this
advantage: mixed teams are thought to have more tolerance to new ideas, a better
understanding of segmented markets, more flexibility to absorb ‘system level’ changes,
a greater range of skills and tools, and better problem-solving abilities (Cox and Blake
1991; Galinsky et al. 2015). Ultimately, this advantage is thought to lead to improved
products, services, and overall financial performance (Cox and Blake 1991; Dickens
1999; Herring 2009).
While the ‘business case’ narrative has been championed by leading voices in
management, testing its propositions on the ground has sparked more intense
exchanges (Ely and Thomas 2020). For example, a study of for-profit organizations
in the US first finds positive effects of gender and race diversity on outcomes such as
sales revenue, market share and number of customers (Herring 2009); but when
replicated through an improved methodology (Stojmenovska, Bol, and Leopold
2017), almost no effect can be observed. A later response (Herring 2017), in turn,
offers an updated empirical analysis that further supports the ‘business case’. Such
findings align, among others, to those of King et al. (2011), Nishii (2013), Levine et al.
(2014) and Gompers and Kovvali (2018).
Other examinations have found more nuanced results. The meta-review by Bell
et al. (2011) reports mixed results in the effect of diversity on team performance, with
small negative effects of race and sex diversity, positive effects of functional back
ground, and no effect of age diversity. In addition, many scholars have raised
important methodological flags related to causal inference and the insufficient

acknowledgement of mediating variables (Ely and Thomas 2020; van Knippenberg,
De Dreu, and Homan 2004).
According to the ‘business case’ narrative, one of the most notable organizational
dividends from workforce diversity is innovation. Drawing on social cognition theories
applied to workgroup dynamics, a stream of literature has assessed the ways in which
diversity impacts innovation. These theories suggest that the cultural, cognitive, and
behavioural diversity brought by multiple demographic backgrounds and life experi
ences expands the range of perspectives and enables deeper and more complex forms
of judgement (Demircioglu, Hameduddin, and Knox 2023; Galinsky et al. 2015).
Empirical studies replicated in different settings and world regions tend to confirm
a positive effect of diversity on innovation. Examples are Østergaard et al. (2011) on
the innovativeness of Danish firms, Hewlett et al. (2013) on the role of leadership
diversity on US firms’ likelihood to capture new markets, the work of Xie et al. (2020)
on the importance of gender diversity for research and development (R&D) teams in
Chinese manufacturing firms, or the positive impact of cultural diversity on team
creativity in the meta-review by Stahl et al. (2010). More nuanced results can be found
in Faems and Subramanian (2013) on Singaporean R&D firms, as well as Hofstra et al.
(2020), who unravel a diversity-innovation paradox, where minority scientists tend to
produce more novel ideas, but these are comparatively less adopted by peers.
2.2 Workforce diversity and innovation in the public sector

In the public sector, much less is known about the impacts of workforce diversity
on public sector innovation. A few public management studies interested in the
‘business case’ have looked at how both diversity and diversity management affect
organizational outcomes such as perceptions of work group performance (Choi and
Rainey 2010; Oberfield 2014; Pitts 2009), turnover and affective commitment
(Groeneveld 2011, Ashikali & Groeneveld 2013; Choi 2009), job satisfaction (Choi
2009; Choi and Rainey 2014; Pitts 2009) or fiscal results (Opstrup and Villadsen
2015). At the same time, the literature on antecedents of public sector innovation
has tended to focus on other aspects like administrative structures, learning culture,
or risk-taking attitudes (Anderson, Potočnik, and Zhou 2014; Cinar, Trott, and
Simms 2019; Damanpour 1991, 1996; De Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers 2016;
Walker 2014). On a broader level, the role of cognitive diversity has been acknowl
edged through the importance of networks and outside-of-government collabora
tions in ideation and bias prevention (Demircioglu, Hameduddin, and Knox 2023;
Wegrich 2019). In terms of demographic diversity, an increasing number of works
acknowledge individual-level determinants like age, gender, education and experi
ence for public sector innovation (De Vries, Bekkers, and Tummers 2016;
Demircioglu 2020; Dimand et al. 2022; van Acker, Wynen, and Op de Beeck
2018). The works of Demircioglu (2020) and Dimand et al. (2022) are particularly
comprehensive when measuring the impact of both demographic (gender, race,
age) and acquired (college education, years of experience) traits on innovation
intentions and implementations, but they do not account for team-level diversity.
A partial exception is the work of Han et al. (2021), who study the effect of
workforce diversity on the performance of government-funded research institutes
in South Korea, showing mixed results. This gap in knowledge has been recognized
(Han, Park, and Kwak 2021; Houtgraaf, Kruyen, and van Thiel 2021; van Acker,
Wynen, and Op de Beeck 2018) and invites a deeper empirical examination of
whether the theorized benefits of diversity extend to the case of innovation in the
public sector.
2.3 Digital public service innovation

We are interested in the service dimension of public sector innovation and its digital
modalities (Bertot, Estevez, and Janowski 2016; Chen, Walker, and Sawhney 2020). As
scholars like Dunleavy et al. (2006) and more recently Panagiotopoulos et al. (2019)
highlight, governments have increasingly associated the idea of innovation to the
advancement of internet and the emergence of technology-driven behaviours as a
new channel of government-citizen interactions and public value creation (Fishenden
and Thompson 2013; Panagiotopoulos, Klievink, and Cordella 2019). These transfor
mations are not merely technical; they represent a quasi-paradigm change where new
policy options emerge through service re-integration, needs-based holism and digiti
zation (Margetts 2008). Their management requires adaptations in the form of ‘joined-
up governance’, and a user-based approach with fast feedback cycles, service redesign,
and the incorporation of more diverse preferences (Edelmann and Mergel 2021;
Margetts 2008). This continuous improvement requires an architecture of services
covering multiple stages of eGovernment (Bertot, Estevez, and Janowski 2016) and can
be enhanced through additional technical layers such as big data, artificial intelligence
or augmented reality (Hong, Kim, and Kwon 2022). The informational complexity
involved in service redesign and user-centredness offers a unique opportunity to test
the theorized role of diversity in deploying innovative interactions between govern
ments and citizens.
3. A theory reconciling the mixed effects of workforce diversity on

innovation: the categorization-elaboration model
3.1 Social categorization versus ‘value-in-diversity’
The overall mixed picture presented by the empirical literature on the business case
can be interpreted by the fact that theories of group dynamics are able to explain both
positive and negative links between diversity and collaborative outcomes. For example,
social categorization and ‘value-in-diversity’ theories hold conflicting views in this
respect (Harrison & Klein 2007; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan 2004;
Williams and O’Reilly 1998). The social categorization perspective suggests that
individuals use heuristics to judge similarities and differences between themselves
and others, leading to group categorizations based on salient attributes (gender,
ethnicity, age, nationality, etc.). This categorization distinguishes in-groups from out-
groups, with in-groups generally seen in a more positive light (in-group bias). At the
workplace, in-group bias leads to higher trust between in-groups and less need for
control and accountability. Consequently, homogeneous groups will tend to have
greater predisposition to communicate, collaborate, and invest time in each other,
leading to higher levels of cohesion. The theory predicts that homogeneous groups will
be more committed and more attached to the organization, which ultimately leads to
increased performance. In contrast, workgroup diversity is expected to impair group

cohesion and lead to greater conflict and mistrust (Tajfel and Turner 1979).
To explain the effects of diversity on innovation, however, scholars have tended to
resort to the value-in-diversity approach. This perspective suggests that heterogeneous
teams will have a larger pool of task-relevant resources (knowledge, skills, ability) to
elaborate solutions for the problem at hand, which prompts the group to engage in
a more thorough and thoughtful process (Galinsky et al. 2015; van Knippenberg, De
Dreu, and Homan 2004). Disagreements that emerge during the process do not lead to
paralysis, but rather to ‘creative conflicts’ that are inherent to ideation and instru
mental to managing complexity (Herring 2009). Heterogeneity also means a greater
chance to develop ambidexterity -organizations’ capacity to ‘explore’ and ‘exploit’ at
the same time-, and absorptive capacity -the quick assimilation of new knowledge-,
both recognized determinants of successful innovation (Anderson, Potočnik, and
Zhou 2014; Cohen and Levinthal 1990). Based on the value-in-diversity perspective,
we formulate:
Hypothesis 1: Higher levels of public workforce diversity are associated with higher
overall levels of digital public service innovation.
3.2 The role of the administrative ecosystem

At the same time, scholars have stressed the mediating role of organizational environ
ments in triggering micro-processes of group cooperation or conflict (Ashikali and
Groeneveld 2015; McGrandle 2017). Aspects like administrative structures and prac
tices, for example, are recognized to generate different atmospheres vis-à-vis the
innovation process (Lapuente and Suzuki 2020; Suzuki and Demircioglu 2019).
Along these lines, findings show that greater bureaucratic control in the form of
centralization (e.g. Damanpour 1991; Feeney and DeHart-Davis 2009) or formaliza
tion (Damanpour 1991) tend to hinder innovation and creativity, while decentraliza
tion encourages a more innovative culture (van Thiel and van der Wal 2010; Wynen
et al. 2014).
In our context, differences in the administrative ecosystem are expected to interact
with workforce diversity, encouraging or discouraging certain group dynamics. Van
Knippenberg et al. (2004) have outlined an integrative model (categorization-
elaboration model – CEM) that uses insights from behavioural and cognitive sciences
to reconcile the social categorization and value-in-diversity perspectives when explain
ing innovation. This model has the power to illustrate how micro-processes of inter
action between diversity and the administrative ecosystem unfold, which largely
depend on the extent to which in-group biases act as disruptors of the elaboration
processes leading to ideation and innovation.
In our study, we are interested in three ecosystem aspects of public administrations:
bureaucratic professionalism, bureaucratic closedness and the presence of New Public
Management (NPM) practices.
Following the well-known conceptualization by Nistotskaya et al. (2021) and
Dahlström, Lapuente, and Teorell (2010, 2012), bureaucratic professionalism refers
to the extent to which administrative structures at the country level follow the
principles of meritocratic recruitment and security of tenure. Meritocratic recruitment
is defined as ‘an organizational feature where individual merits – such as education,

knowledge, skills and job-related experience – constitute the main grounds for hiring to
bureaucratic positions’ (Nistotskaya et al. 2021, 2). The opposite is represented by
appointments that are based on political or personal connections. Security of tenure is
defined as ‘the organizational practice in which no arbitrary dismissals take place, and
legal provisions specifying the circumstances and reasons for dismissal from office are
observed in reality’ (Ibid: 3). In that sense, professional bureaucracies stand in contrast
to ‘politicized’ ones, where civil servants are more dependent on the incumbent
political elite for survival and career success.
Through its two components, high bureaucratic professionalism encourages iso
morphic pressures: first, because the uniformity and standardization of recruitment
strategies will likely reduce the levels of ‘acquired diversity’ (e.g. types of work
experience or disciplines) and second, because the protection of tenure will create
more behaviourally autonomous and insulated bureaucracies sharing a greater espirit
de corps.
The CEM model suggests that the extent to which social categorization dynamics
(diversity exerting a negative effect on innovation) will predominate over value-in-
diversity dynamics (diversity exerting a positive effect on innovation) is in part
determined by (a) whether differentiation between in-groups and out-groups is
made cognitively accessible, (b) whether these differences make subjective sense to
group members, and (c) whether categorization results in high intragroup similarity
and high intergroup dissimilarity. It is then expected that when the isomorphic
pressures brought by professionalism are high, more diversity becomes more cogni
tively accessible (that is, differences are readily detectable and individuals socialized
into them), triggering higher in-group bias, more conflict, and lower cooperation.
Alternatively, with the increased heterogeneity brought by lowered isomorphism,
greater diversity is not activated as a source of in-group and out-group differentiation,
enabling positive impacts on information exchange, discussion, and integration of
ideas.
Based on this, we formulate:
Hypothesis 2a: The effect of public workforce diversity on digital public service
innovation will be negative at high levels of bureaucratic professionalism, and positive
at low levels.
Bureaucratic closedness is theoretically and empirically distinct from professional

ism (Dahlström, Lapuente, and Teorell 2010) and is defined by three human
resource management (HRM) characteristics. In closed bureaucracies, (a) new
employees are normally hired to the lowest-level positions and expected to climb
the organizational ladder (with higher-level positions closed to outsiders); (b)
hiring involves formal examinations different from private sector practices; and
(c) HRM regulations are exclusive to the public sector, separate from the country’s
labour code (Nistotskaya et al. 2021, 3). As a result, public servants enjoy low
competition after entry, creating incentives to become long-term public employees.
In contrast, open public administrations will competitively recruit entrants at most
levels, seeking to attract specialized talent from the private sector, and encouraging
cross-sectoral mobility. In that sense, it is believed that diagonal recruitment is
linked to increased entrepreneurship and policy innovation (Teodoro 2009), and
that open bureaucracies will result in greater flexibility (Dahlström, Lapuente, and
Teorell 2012), creativity (Torugsa and Arundel 2016) and innovation (Lapuente and
Suzuki 2020; Suzuki and Demircioglu 2019).
For similar reasons to H2a, we expect the public workforce diversity to bear a non-
linear relation with closedness when contributing to public sector innovation. The
greater permeability and dynamism of open public administrations makes it less likely,
according to the CEM model, for diversity to activate social categorization and in-
group bias. In highly closed public-sector workplaces, in contrast, greater workforce
heterogeneity is more likely to become cognitively accessible and create perceptions of
group dissimilarity (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan 2004).
Considering this, we formulate:
Hypothesis 2b: The effect of public workforce diversity on digital public service innova
tion will be negative at high levels of bureaucratic closedness, and positive at low levels.
Finally, a third ecosystem aspect is the presence of New Public Management practices.
Among other characteristics, NPM practices involve increased managerial autonomy
at the level of the intermediate administrative echelons, allowing managers to exert
results-control and use performance incentives, improving public sector competitive
ness (Verhoest, Verschuere, and Bouckaert 2007). This managerial autonomy and
outcome-based management is theorized to create a stimulating environment
(Wynen et al. 2014), where creativity and innovation are more likely to flourish
(Bassett‐Jones 2005; van Thiel and van der Wal 2010).
In line with the reasoning in H2a and H2b, we expect that in more heterogeneous
and fragmented environments offered by extended NPM practices, greater workforce
diversity will lead to increased innovation. This is because the focus on performance
and the predisposition to embrace change and heterogeneity, make it less likely for
diversity to trigger the negative effects envisaged by social categorization dynamics.
Accordingly, we formulate:
Hypothesis 2c: The effect of public workforce diversity on digital public service
innovation will be positive at high levels of NPM, and negative at low levels.
4. Research strategy
4.1 Estimation model and variable description
To test our hypotheses, we resort to an Arellano-Bond System Two-Step Generalised
Methods of Moments (2GMM) estimation (also see Roodman 2020). This method
offers more efficient estimations for small samples, especially when there are less
observations across time (t = 15), than panels available (n = 36). This is important
because unlike fixed-effects models, the 2GMM approach facilitates the utilization of
lagged dependent variables to capture endogenous effects and reducing the autocorre
lation with error terms, thereby preventing a downward bias in coefficient estimates
(Roodman 2009, 98). Our model is as follows:
eGovt;i ¼ eGovt 1;i þ β0 Ibut;i þ β1 Webert;i þ β2 Xt;i þ μ þ ε
where the dependent variable eGov is an indicator developed by the UN that measures
the degree of development of e-government across the world in a range from 0 to 1.
The index is based on a composite score measuring countries’ development of online
public services, the presence of infrastructure and the level of human capabilities for
the construction of e-government (United Nations 2020). Following the global discus
sion about governments being increasingly shaped by digital technologies featuring
internet-enabled platforms, the eGov index is a valid representation of digital public
service innovation, and -as argued earlier- a critical component of public sector
innovation more generally (Bertot, Estevez, and Janowski 2016; Panagiotopoulos,
Klievink, and Cordella 2019; Fishenden and Thompson 2013). For robustness, how
ever, we also employ the specific eGov component capturing innovation on online
public services (see robustness section).
In our preferred model, the independent variable capturing workforce diversity is
the multidimensional Index of Bureaucratic Underrepresentation (Ibu) (Cingolani
2022, 2023). By construction, the index conveys information on bureaucratic repre
sentation and the overall levels of demographic diversity in the public workforce.2 It
accounts for five different demographic diversity dimensions at the country-level:
gender, ethnicity, age, disability, and nationality. These dimensions are widely con
sidered relevant sources of disadvantage by the literature on social representativeness
in the bureaucracy (Bishu and Kennedy 2020). Following other multidimensional
indices, it factors in both the incidence and depth of the underrepresentation of the
five categories. Higher scores indicate higher aggregate underrepresentation, and zero
indicates that none of the five groups are substantially underrepresented.
Among the explanatory variables, we also include measures on the three adminis
trative ecosystem dimensions, namely professionalism, closedness and NPM practices.
For the first two, we draw on Dahlström et al. (2012), and the QoG expert surveys of
2011, 2014 and 2020 (Nistotskaya et al. 2021). In our case, higher scores reflect higher
degrees of professionalism, and the same with closedness.
For the variable New Public Management (NPM) practices, we follow Suzuki and
Demircioglu (2017) based on two QoG Expert Survey questions: (i) to which extent the
salaries of public sector employees are linked to appraisals in their performance’, and
(ii) to which extent public sector employees strive to be efficient. As the authors posit,
these two dimensions with a Cronbach alpha of .87 indicate consistency in capturing
the dimension of ‘performance’ central to the NPM scholarship.
Among the control variables contained in vector X we include the percentage
of the GDP countries spend in Research and Development (RD) in the public
sector. This indicator comes from the European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS)
and in line with authoritative sources (European Commission 2021), it is
expected to have a substantial positive impact on innovation infrastructure,
human capital formation and state-backed innovation. We also consider the
size of the country’s population, taken as a proxy for the size of the bureau
cracy, in view of recent studies showing that small bureaucracies tend to have
a better adaptive capacity to enforce reforms and deliver policy outputs (Jugl
2019). Finally, we have considered other variables such as the median age of
bureaucrats per country, and the ratio of public servants with tertiary education,
acknowledging the literature that suggests age and education as determinants of
innovation (Demircioglu 2020; Dimand et al. 2022). An overview of our data
can be seen in Table 1:
Table 1. Descriptive statistics (MICE).

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
eGov 576 .689 .13 0 .951
ePublic Services 576 .618 .187 0 1
Year 576 2010.5 4.614 2003 2018
Age 576 43.643 1.896 34.586 49.185
Tertiary education 576 .393 .064 .224 .647
Professionalism 576 5.648 3.042 −2.364 14.216
Closedness 576 5.997 3.746 −3.214 17.775
New Public Management (NPM) 576 3.93 .758 2.204 6.161
Under-representation index (Ibu) 576 .138 .071 .001 .492
Broadband size 576 7.825 5.886 0 32
Research and Development 576 .642 .22 0 1.11
Population size (ln) 575 16.07 1.433 12.576 18.79
In line with the 2GMM estimation, we have considered a lagged version of our
dependent and independent variables as instruments for specification, following the
idea that they are exogenous to the error term (Bellemare, Masaki, and Pepinsky 2017,
950). The reason behind the lagged instrumental variables in the 2GMM method is to
prevent that long-run estimations are biased by individual short-term dynamics. We
have therefore introduced several tests to control for the long-term correlation of
errors with our coefficients in the robustness section below. Finally, in the model above
μ reflects the error term, while ε the fixed effects (for the fixed control effects
estimation).
Our analysis covers the period between 2003 and 2018. Because we employ
multiple sources, our panel is unbalanced. To overcome this limitation, we
resort to the Amelia II software (Honaker et al. 2011). This method introduces
a novel technique of iterative processes of Multiple Imputations via Chained
Equation (MICE), which imputes missing values based on the structural char
acteristics of the observed data. In contrast to deleting incomplete rows or other
imputation techniques, MICE resamples the entire dataset while safeguarding its
distributional structure (Azur et al. 2011). Currently MICE is recognized as
a superior strategy than listwise deletion because: (i) it helps avoid higher
standard errors and restricted statistical power, which (ii) yields results at
a more ‘reasonable level of uncertainty’ (Lall 2016, 8), and (iii) it produces
more efficient inferences avoiding the assumption that missing data follow no
structure and hence that our resulting sample (after potential listwise deletion)
is completely random.
Scholars in various disciplines increasingly recognize the power of MICE. In devel
oping a long-scale examination of comparative political economy papers in major
journals, Lall (2016), for instance, notes that replicating studies following ‘conventional
statistics’ (without MICE) lead to wrong results. Other scholars have also highlighted
the positive role of MICE in handling ‘endemic missing data points’ in educational
research (Pampaka et al. 2016) as well as public health and clinical research (Austin
et al. 2021). In view of this, we choose this technique for our 2GMM and fixed effects
control models (see the Appendix for more details concerning the imputation process
and imputation diagnostics).
4.2 Robustness measures

To test for robustness, we have developed a four-step process.1 First, we perform
a common test for panels to identify whether our data presents unexpected variability,
known as random noise. Through the Levin-Lin-Chu test (Levin, Lin, and Chu 2002),
we analyse whether the cross-sections present a random walk threatening statistical
inference. The results of the test presented in Table A1confirm that their unconditional
probability distribution does not change over time, confirming the absence of unex
pected variances. Second, considering that the 2GMM model seeks to control for the
correlation of the instruments with the errors, and later control if those errors are
serially correlated (biasing our coefficients), we resort to AR (2) and the Hansan -J test
(Arellano and Bond 1991, 278). The results of the tests presented in show that none of
our models (at significance level p > .05) present autocorrelation of second order,
indicating that neither the residuals nor the 2GMM instruments are serially correlated
with the error term. This means that our 2GMM specification and the instrumental
variables it employs are robust.
As a third provision, we have employed an additional dependent variable: online
development of public services (United Nations 2020). We test whether innovations
specifically related to the delivery of public digital services might also respond to our
independent and control variables. This measure allows us to isolate the effects of
innovation concretely for public services by excluding other components that are part
of the eGov variable such as infrastructure and human capital (United Nations 2020).
As models 2, 6, 7 and 8 show, results are consistent, which further confirms that our
main model 1 and its interactions 3, 4 and 5 are robust. For the construction of these
models, we have also included a fixed-effects term and time dummies to control
for year-specific impacts in our model. Finally, and as a fourth provision, we have
also included control-fixed effects and time dummies for the models run with the
online public services provision variable. They show consistent results with our pre
ferred 2GMM models.
5. Results
Our results show that countries with lower levels of public workforce diversity tend to
be less innovative, providing support to our hypothesis 1. In practice, as Table 2 shows,
we observe in our results that a 1-point increase in the underrepresentation index (Ibu)
leads to a .-65 reduction in the eGov index. While model 1 shows the effect of
workforce diversity for the entire e-Government advancement, our control model 2
specifies such impact on the development of online public services only, showing
similar results.
With respect to hypothesis 2a, our results show that administrative professionalism
is in both our main and control models negatively associated with innovation, suggest
ing that meritocratic recruitment and tenure security are not directly linked to more
digital innovations in the public sector. Yet, a closer look at this variable based on the
interactions presented in Table 2 (models 5 and 8) shows more nuanced results
(illustrated in Figure 1). Here, the maximum value in our index of professionalism –
all else equal – combined with a rising underrepresentation index might lead to higher
1.
The dataset for analysis, as well as additional robustness checks are available upon request.
Table 2. Effects of public workforce diversity on eGovernment and ePublic services

based on 2-STEP-GMM estimation.
Dependent eGov ePublicServices
Variables Model 1 Model 2

eGovt-1 −0.171**
(0.0649)
ePublic Services t-1 −0.101**
(0.0438)
Under-representation index (Ibu) −0.654*** −0.590***
(0.0502) (0.102)
Closedness 0.00479*** −0.00376*
(0.00115) (0.00218)
New Public Management (NPM) 0.0337*** 0.0792***
(0.00455) (0.0101)
Professionalism −0.0156*** −0.0233***
(0.00188) (0.00332)
Age 0.0279*** 0.0166***
(0.00327) (0.00430)
Tertiary education −0.350*** −0.0973
(0.0586) (0.123)
Research and Development 0.260*** 0.268***
(0.0160) (0.0351)
Broadband size −0.00148 −0.00250*
(0.000949) (0.00142)
Population size −0.0112 −0.0145
(0.00852) (0.0206)
Observations 503 503
Instruments 23 23
Standard errors in parentheses.
***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.1.
Figure 1. Interactions between bureaucratic professionalism and public workforce diversity (model 4).
governmental innovation. However, in contexts where bureaucratic professionalism is

held at the minimum, total governmental innovation (our eGov variable) is substan
tially reduced. These results confirm our hypothesis 2a, which suggests that greater
isomorphic pressures in the form of professionalism may trigger negative group work
dynamics vis-à-vis the innovation process.
In relation to bureaucratic closedness, we observe mixed results in the unmediated
estimations. While model 1 indicates that more closed bureaucracies associate with
greater eGovernment innovations in general, when we consider the alternative depen
dent variable (online services) in model 2, we find that ‘closedness’ has a negative
impact on innovation. However, as we test the interactions hypothesized in 2b
(Table 3), we find consistent results: when interacted with the Ibu index, bureaucratic
closedness leads to more digital service innovation for both dependent variables
(models 3 and 6), confirming our expectations.
To further illustrate this point, Figure 2 shows that at the maximum level of
closedness (all other the same), a decrease in the level of workforce diversity (higher
Ibu) will positively impact digital service innovation. On the contrary, when
Table 3. The effects of bureaucratic professionalism, closedness and NPM on eGov and ePublic services.
Dependent: eGov Dependent: ePublicServices
Variables Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

eGov t-1 −0.0397 −0.0933 −0.185***
(0.0987) (0.0881) (0.0589)
ePublic Services t-1 0.213* 0.0443 −0.0892
(0.116) (0.148) (0.0779)
Ibu*Closedness 0.208* 0.504**
(0.104) (0.222)
Ibu*New Public 0.323** 0.684*
Management (NPM)
(0.141) (0.353)
Ibu*Professionalism −0.586* −2.101**
(0.330) (0.807)
Under-representation index −1.965*** −2.503*** 1.665 −3.746*** −4.302** 7.698**
(Ibu)
(0.620) (0.738) (1.279) (1.327) (2.009) (3.150)
Closedness −0.0271* 0.00415** 0.00621*** −0.0806*** −0.00197 0.000144
(0.0142) (0.00201) (0.00139) (0.0292) (0.00499) (0.00288)
New Public Management 0.0305*** 0.0365*** 0.110** 0.0782*** 0.0965*** 0.350***
(NPM)
(0.00666) (0.00720) (0.0413) (0.0147) (0.0183) (0.102)
Professionalism −0.0119*** −0.0593*** −0.0175*** −0.0128*** −0.115** −0.0283***
(0.00284) (0.0186) (0.00184) (0.00450) (0.0483) (0.00382)
Age 0.0319*** 0.0338*** 0.0265*** 0.0276*** 0.0339*** 0.0105**
(0.00398) (0.00525) (0.00312) (0.00558) (0.0116) (0.00474)
Tertiary Education −0.312*** −0.379*** −0.305*** −0.0655 −0.0895 −0.0838
(0.0987) (0.0916) (0.0738) (0.197) (0.210) (0.160)
Research and Development 0.259*** 0.281*** 0.253*** 0.242*** 0.307*** 0.271***
(0.0269) (0.0233) (0.0188) (0.0568) (0.0629) (0.0344)
Broadband size −0.00275* −0.00255* −0.00146 −0.00756*** −0.00703** −0.00211
(0.00160) (0.00145) (0.000983) (0.00245) (0.00334) (0.00181)
Population size −0.00450 −0.0283* −0.00836 0.0120 −0.0440 −0.00141
(0.0233) (0.0165) (0.00997) (0.0602) (0.0664) (0.0241)
Observations 503 503 503 503 503 503
Number of instruments 23 23 23 23 23 23
Standard errors in parentheses ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.
Figure 2. Interactions between bureaucratic closedness and public workforce diversity (model 3).
Figure 3. Interactions between NPM and workforce diversity (model 4).
considering closedness at the minimum level, lower levels of public workforce diversity
hinder this type of innovation.
With respect to NPM practices, our results are consistent with the literature,
showing that higher levels of NPM tend to lead to more digital public service innova
tion, as seen in both our main and control models 1 and 2. A closer view of the effects
of this variable via interaction with the Ibu index shows similar results, although more
sensitive in model 7, which has as dependent variable the delivery of online services. In
a more nuanced margins plot observation (Figure 3), we also observe NPM’s positive
relationship with eGov innovation can be challenged in contexts of lower workforce

diversity (higher Ibu), also confirming our hypothesis 2c.
6. Discussion
The role of workforce diversity in processes of innovation has sparked multiple studies
and debates in classic management literature (e.g. Cox and Blake 1991). In public
sector management, the topic deserves attention due to the scarcity of empirical
research, as well as two converging phenomena: the increasing pressure public sectors
face to innovate for problem-solving (Criado, Alcaide-Muñoz, and Liarte 2023), and
the demographic and labour market patterns pointing at a substantially more diverse
public workforce in the decades to come (e.g. Jungmann et al. 2020).
Our findings show that in the overall picture, greater levels of diversity in the public
administrations are associated with greater levels of one specific dimension of public
innovation: digital public services (H1). With this finding, we expect to trigger future
discussions on the configuration of factors that explain cross-country variations in
public sector innovation (Suzuki and Demircioglu 2019), while also expanding the
range of administrative outputs that public sector diversity management research has
traditionally explored (e.g. Choi and Rainey 2010, 2014; Pitts 2009). Our study inter
acts and complements other efforts looking at the importance of diversified knowledge
sources for technical innovation in the public sector (Zambrano-Gutiérrez and
Puppim de Oliveira 2022), and the indirect role of demographic and cognitive diversity
during public sector innovation (Demircioglu, Hameduddin, and Knox 2023; Wegrich
2019).
Yet, diversity does not automatically lead to innovation. Our findings show nuances
in the link between diversity and innovation when we include the interacting role of
the administrative ecosystem. We find three specific traits with fundamental power to
shape how diversity impacts digital service innovation: bureaucratic professionaliza
tion, bureaucratic closedness and the spread of NPM reforms (H 2a, 2b, 2c). On one
side of the spectrum, we find a positive impact of diversity in more open, less
professionalized and more NPM-like public administrations. On the other, the oppo
site: a negative impact of diversity in highly closed, highly professionalized, and less
managerially autonomous public administrations.
These complex interactions contribute to both organizational studies and public
management debates in various ways. In terms of organizational studies, we see these
results as supporting the mechanisms suggested by the classic categorization-
elaboration model (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan 2004), where workforce
diversity is interpreted as less salient against the backdrop of overall heterogenous
organizational ecosystems (in our case less professionalized, more open and with more
mid-level managerial autonomy). The reduced salience of diversity lowers the prob
ability that social categorization dynamics are triggered during processes of collabora
tive ideation. This enables diversity’s potential for virtuous innovation processes and
avoids the conflict-prone dynamics of intergroup biases. Our study suggests the need
to further test and extend the study of social categorization dynamics in processes of
ideation and innovation in the public sector.
On the other hand, the positive impact of team homogeneity on public sector
innovation in contexts of more traditional public administration ecosystems
(more professionalized, more closed, less NPM-like) resonates with recent
discussions in public management. Innovation requires a common reference

framework, intragroup trust and a common psychosocial mindset, which is
supported by demographic similarity, but also likely enhanced by the common
cultural ethos that is present in traditional public administrations. An important
extension of this discussion is whether the positive effect of the congruence in
workforce and ecosystem homogeneity is equally relevant for all types of
innovations, or as some scholars propose, relevant for incremental innovations
(Gullmark 2021) as opposed to ‘big bang’ or creative innovations (Zambrano-
Gutiérrez and Puppim de Oliveira 2022).
In combination, our results confirm the complexity of the role of diversity in
work group dynamics. They warn against narrow explanations of innovation that
place the sole focus on team-level characteristics or environments, and rather
confirm the importance of multiple levels, as well as their interactions (Cinar,
Trott, and Simms 2019). Our findings invite further studies on the nuances of
when and how social categorization is triggered in the public administration,
paying greater attention to what the administrative ecosystem does to individual
and group behaviour. This is an important and commonly overlooked aspect in
theories of representative bureaucracy and diversity management in the public
sector, which have not sufficiently come together in combining micro- and macro-
aspects when explaining public sector outcomes (Groeneveld and Meier 2022;
Meier 2019).
Our research also leaves lessons for practitioners and experts interested in enriching
the ideational capacity of public administrations. It suggests that efforts to make
bureaucracies more diverse should be seconded by a message of openness and fluidity
in the structures and the environment that serve as backdrop to team-level interac
tions. Contrary, perhaps, to traditional narratives on the importance of a uniform
organizational culture and unique norms, our results suggest that the coexistence of
different standards and orderings may enable more innovative contributions from an
increasingly diverse workforce.
7. Concluding remarks
As first of its kind, our study is exploratory and entails limitations. First, we use
a narrow proxy to measure the outcome variable, one that overstresses the recent
attention given to digital public services as one dimension of public sector innovation.
We acknowledge the complexity of the innovation concept, its many types (e.g. Hartley
2005) and its many steps (e.g. Meijer 2014). Another limitation is that while contribut
ing to the gaps in cross-country analyses of the bureaucratic determinants of innova
tion (Suzuki and Demircioglu 2019), we make assumptions about how organization-
level processes aggregate at the country level. Finally, beyond accounting for admin
istrative features that are exclusive of public bureaucracies, we do not discuss in depth
other possible ways in which public innovation differs from private innovation and
that may have an effect on diversity and workforce dynamics.
A future agenda should test the role of public workforce diversity on other aspects
of public sector innovation, aiming to cover the concept’s full complexity. It should
also incorporate a larger number of environmental and organizational factors that we
know shape workforce diversity dynamics, such as leadership, the organizational
climate and culture or decision-making structures, among others.
Notes
1. For an insightful and comprehensive review of the theoretical foundations, causes and con
sequences of public workforce homogeneity/diversity, see Seidemann and Weißmüller (2022).
2. Conceptually, public workforce diversity and bureaucratic representation are distinct concepts,
the first referring to workforce diversity in absolute terms, the second to workforce diversity
relative to societal diversity. As Groeneveld and Meier (2022) point out, their literatures have
mostly remained separate, with few exceptions. It is here believed that this separation has to do
with the predominantly unidimensional approach to representative bureaucracy, where ratios
of social groups have been studied for single groups (typicaly women and African Americans,
see Bishu and Kennedy 2020). In such fragmented context, measures of representative bureau
cracy do not enable interpretations about the overall levels of diversity in the public admin
istration. By construction, and considering how variables behave in the European cases, our
chosen index conveys information on both dimensions. First, its multidimensional nature
portrays a more complete picture of overall workforce diversity, as it focuses on the diminished
presence (underrepresentation) of various groups from the workforce. This is complemented
by the fact that the index is applied to structurally heterogeneous societies (an index assump
tion), leading to a natural correspondence between multidimensional representation and
multidimensional diversity. While this holds in general, there are a few isolated exceptions.
For example, as the number of non-nationals in Poland in 2018 is very low in the original
survey, a low number of non-nationals in the public administration would be taken by the
index as adequate bureaucratic representation but would mean low diversity. These cases are
very few, and do not affect the overall empirical convergence between low diversity and
underrepresentation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Luciana Cingolani http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9350-1450
Diego Salazar-Morales http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3967-1958
References
Anderson, N., K. Potočnik, and J. Zhou. 2014. “Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A
State-Of-The-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework.” Journal of
Management 40 (5): 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128.
Apfelbaum, E. P., K. W. Phillips, and J. A. Richeson. 2014. “Rethinking the Baseline in Diversity
Research: Should We Be Explaining the Effects of Homogeneity?.” Perspectives on Psychological
Science 9:235–244.
Arellano, Manuel, and Stephen Bond. 1991. “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo
Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations.” The Review of Economic Studies 58 (2):
277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968.
Ashikali, T., and S. Groeneveld. 2015. “Diversity Management in Public Organizations and Its Effect
on employees’ Affective Commitment: The Role of Transformational Leadership and the
Inclusiveness of the Organizational Culture.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 35 (2):
146–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13511088.
Austin, P. C., I. R. White, D. S. Lee, and S. van Buuren. 2021. “Missing Data in Clinical Research:
A Tutorial on Multiple Imputation.” Canadian Journal of Cardiology 37 (9): 1322–1331. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cjca.2020.11.010.
Avery, D. R., P. F. McKay, D. C. Wilson, and S. Tonidandel. 2007. “Unequal Attendance: The
Relationships Between Race, Organizational Diversity Cues, and Absenteeism.” Personnel
Psychology 60 (4): 875–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00094.x.
Azur, Melissa J., Elizabeth A. Stuart, Constantine Frangakis, and Philip J. Leaf. 2011. “Multiple
Imputation by Chained Equations: What is It and How Does It Work?” International Journal of
Methods in Psychiatric Research 20 (1): 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.329.
Bassett‐Jones, N. 2005. “The Paradox of Diversity Management, Creativity and Innovation.” Creativity
and Innovation Management 14 (2): 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.00337.x.
Bellemare, M. F., T. Masaki, and T. B. Pepinsky. 2017. “Lagged Explanatory Variables and the
Estimation of Causal Effect.” The Journal of Politics 79 (3): 949–963. https://doi.org/10.1086/
690946.
Bell, S. T., A. J. Villado, M. A. Lukasik, L. Belau, and A. L. Briggs. 2011. “Getting Specific About
Demographic Diversity Variable and Team Performance Relationships: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal
of Management 37 (3): 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001.
Bertot, J., E. Estevez, and T. Janowski. 2016. “Universal and Contextualized Public Services: Digital
Public Service Innovation Framework.” Government Information Quarterly 33 (2): 211–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.004.
Bishu, S. G., and A. R. Kennedy. 2020. “Trends and Gaps: A Meta-Review of Representative
Bureaucracy.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 40 (4): 559–588. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0734371X19830154.
Bradbury, M. D., and J. E. Kellough. 2008. “Representative Bureaucracy: Exploring the Potential for
Active Representation in Local Government.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 18 (4): 697–714. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum033.
Chen, J., R. M. Walker, and M. Sawhney. 2020. “Public Service Innovation: A Typology.” Public
Management Review 22 (11): 1674–1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1645874.
Choi, S. 2009. “Diversity in the US Federal Government: Diversity Management and Employee
Turnover in Federal Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19 (3):
603–630. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun010.
Choi, S., and H. G. Rainey. 2010. “Managing Diversity in US Federal Agencies: Effects of Diversity and
Diversity Management on Employee Perceptions of Organizational Performance.” Public
Administration Review 70 (1): 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02115.x.
Choi, S., and H. G. Rainey. 2014. “Organizational Fairness and Diversity Management in Public
Organizations: Does Fairness Matter in Managing Diversity?” Review of Public Personnel
Administration 34 (4): 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13486489.
Cinar, E., P. Trott, and C. Simms. 2019. “A Systematic Review of Barriers to Public Sector Innovation
Process.” Public Management Review 21 (2): 264–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.
1473477.
Cingolani, L. 2022. “Diversity in the Public Administration: A Multidimensional Index of
Bureaucratic Underrepresentation.” Harvard Dataverse, V1. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/
IEPHLG.
Cingolani, L. 2023. “Representative Bureaucracy and Perceptions of Social Exclusion in Europe:
Evidence from 27 Countries.” Administration & Society 55 (3): 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00953997221137562.
Cohen, W. M., and D. A. Levinthal. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and
Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1): 128–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553.
Cox, T. 1994. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cox, T. H., and S. Blake. 1991. “Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational
competitiveness.” Academy of Management Perspectives 5 (3): 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/
ame.1991.4274465.
Criado, J. I., L. Alcaide-Muñoz, and I. Liarte. 2023. “Two Decades of Public Sector Innovation:
Building an Analytical Framework from a Systematic Literature Review of Types, Strategies,
Conditions, and Results.” Public Management Review 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.
2023.2254310.
Dahlström, C., V. Lapuente, and J. Teorell. 2010. “Dimensions of Bureaucracy. a Cross-National
Dataset on the Structure and Behavior of Public Administration.” The Quality of Government
Institute Working Paper Series 13.
Dahlström, C., V. Lapuente, and J. Teorell. 2012. “Public Administration Around the World.” In Good
Government: The relevance of political science, edited by S. Holmberg, and B. Rothstein, 40–67.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Damanpour, F. 1991. “Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and

Moderators.” Academy of Management Journal 34 (3): 555–590. https://doi.org/10.2307/256406.
Damanpour, F. 1996. “Bureaucracy and Innovation Revisited: Effects of Contingency Factors,
Industrial Sectors, and Innovation Characteristics.” Journal of High Technology Management
Research 7 (2): 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(96)90002-4.
Demircioglu, M. A. 2020. “The Effects of Organizational and Demographic Context for Innovation
Implementation in Public Organizations.” Public Management Review 22 (12): 1852–1875. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1668467.
Demircioglu, M. A., T. Hameduddin, and C. Knox. 2023. “Innovative Work Behaviors and
Networking Across Government.” International Review of Administrative Sciences 89 (1):
145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211017654.
De Vries, H., V. Bekkers, and L. Tummers. 2016. “Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic
Review and Future Research Agenda.” Public Administration 94 (1): 146–166. https://doi.org/10.
1111/padm.12209.
De Vries, H., L. Tummers, and V. Bekkers. 2018. “The Diffusion and Adoption of Public Sector
Innovations: A Meta-Synthesis of the Literature.” Perspectives on Public Management and
Governance 1 (3): 159–176.
Dickens, L. 1999. “Beyond the Business Case: A Three-Pronged Approach to Equality Action.” Human
Resource Management Journal 9 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1999.tb00185.x.
Dimand, A. M., S. Abutabenjeh, E. Rodriguez-Plesa, M. G. Alkadry, and S. Bruns Ali. 2022. “Human
Capital Drivers of Employee Intent to Innovate: The Case of Public Procurement Professionals.”
Review of Public Personnel Administration 43 (4): 727–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734371X221123294.
Drechsler, W., and R. Kattel. 2020. “Debate: The Developed Civil Servant—Providing Agility and
Stability at the Same Time.” Public Money & Management 40 (8): 549–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09540962.2020.1729522.
Dunleavy, P., H. Margetts, S. Bastow, and J. Tinkler. 2006. “New public management is dead—long
live digital-era governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (3): 467–494.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057.
Edelmann, N., and I. Mergel. 2021. “Co-Production of Digital Public Services in Austrian Public
Administrations.” Administrative Sciences 11 (1): 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010022.
Ely, R. J., and D. A. Thomas. 2020. “Getting Serious About Diversity.” Harvard Business Review 98 (6):
114–122.
European Commission. 2021. European Innovation Scoreboard 2021.
Faems, D., and A. M. Subramanian. 2013. “R&D Manpower and Technological Performance: The
Impact of Demographic and Task-Related Diversity.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1624–1633. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.001.
Feeney, M. K., and L. DeHart-Davis. 2009. “Bureaucracy and Public Employee Behavior: A Case of
Local Government.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 29 (4): 311–326. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0734371X09333201.
Fishenden, J., and M. Thompson. 2013. “Digital Government, Open Architecture, and Innovation:
Why Public Sector IT Will Never Be the Same Again.” Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 23 (4): 977–1004. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus022.
Galinsky, A. D., A. R. Todd, A. C. Homan, K. W. Phillips, E. P. Apfelbaum, S. J. Sasaki, and
W. W. Maddux. 2015. “Maximizing the Gains and Minimizing the Pains of Diversity: A Policy
Perspective.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 (6): 742–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691615598513.
Gompers, P., and S. Kovvali. 2018. “Diversity dividend.” Harvard Business Review 72–77.
Groeneveld, S. 2011. “Diversity and Employee Turnover in the Dutch Public Sector: Does Diversity
Management Make a Difference?” International Journal of Public Sector Management 24 (6):
594–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551111163675.
Groeneveld, S., and K. J. Meier. 2022. “Theorizing Status Distance: Rethinking the Micro Theories of
Representation and Diversity in Public Organizations.” Administration & Society 54 (2): 248–276.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211028825.
Gullmark, P. 2021. “Do All Roads Lead to Innovativeness? A Study of Public Sector organizations’
Innovation Capabilities.” The American Review of Public Administration 51 (7): 509–525. https://
doi.org/10.1177/02750740211010464.
Han, S., S. K. Park, and K. T. Kwak. 2021. “Workforce Composition of Public R&D and Performance:
Evidence from Korean Government-Funded Research Institutes.” Sustainability 13 (7): 3789.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073789.
Harrison, D. A., and K. J. Klein. 2007. “What’s the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation,
Variety, or Disparity in Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 32 (4): 1199–1228.
Hartley, J. 2005. “Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present.” Public Money and
Management 25 (1): 27–34.
Hartley, J., E. Sørensen, and J. Torfing. 2013. “Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to
Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship.” Public Administration Review 73 (6):
821–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12136.
Herring, C. 2009. “Does Diversity Pay?: Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity.” American
Sociological Review 74 (2): 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203.
Herring, C. 2017. “Is Diversity Still a Good Thing?” American Sociological Review 82 (4): 868–877.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417716611.
Hewlett, S. A., M. Marshall, and L. Sherbin. 2013. “How diversity can drive innovation.” Harvard
Business Review 91 (12): 30–30.
Hofstra, B., V. V. Kulkarni, S. Munoz-Najar Galvez, B. He, D. Jurafsky, and D. A. McFarland. 2020.
“The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
117 (17): 9284–9291. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1915378117.
Honaker, J., G. King, and M. Blackwell. 2011. “Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data.” Journal of
Statistical Software 45 (7): 1–47. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i07.
Hong, S., S. H. Kim, and M. Kwon. 2022. “Determinants of Digital Innovation in the Public Sector.”
Government Information Quarterly 39 (4): 101723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101723.
Houtgraaf, G., P. M. Kruyen, and S. van Thiel. 2021. “Public Sector Creativity as the Origin of Public
Sector Innovation: A Taxonomy and Future Research Agenda.” Public Administration 101 (2):
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12778.
Huhtala, M., A. Tolvanen, S. Mauno, and T. Feldt. 2015. “The Associations Between Ethical
Organizational Culture, Burnout, and Engagement: A Multilevel Study.” Journal of Business and
Psychology 30 (2): 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9369-2.
Hur, Y. 2013. “Racial Diversity, is It a Blessing to an Organization? Examining Its Organizational
Consequences in Municipal Police Departments.” International Review of Administrative Sciences
79 (1): 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312467613.
Johansson, F. 2006. Medici Effect: What You Can Learn from Elephants and Epidemics. Harvard
Business Press.
Jugl, Marlene. 2019. “Finding the Golden Mean: Country Size and the Performance of National
Bureaucracies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 29 (1): 118–132. https://
doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy044.
Jungmann, F., J. Wegge, S. C. Liebermann, B. C. Ries, K. H. Schmidt, and D. Truxillo. 2020.
“Improving Team Functioning and Performance in Age-Diverse Teams: Evaluation of
a Leadership Training.” Work, Aging and Retirement 6 (3): 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/
workar/waaa003.
King, E. B., J. F. Dawson, M. A. West, V. L. Gilrane, C. I. Peddie, and L. Bastin. 2011. “Why
Organizational and Community Diversity Matter: Representativeness and the Emergence of
Incivility and Organizational Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 54 (6): 1103–1118.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0016.
Lall, R. 2016. “How Multiple Imputation Makes a Difference.” Political Analysis 24 (4): 414–433.
https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpw020.
Lapuente, V., and K. Suzuki. 2020. “Politicization, Bureaucratic Legalism, and Innovative Attitudes in
the Public Sector.” Public Administration Review 80 (3): 454–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.
13175.
Levine, S. S., E. P. Apfelbaum, M. Bernard, V. L. Bartelt, E. J. Zajac, and D. Stark. 2014. “Ethnic
Diversity Deflates Price Bubbles.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (52):
18524–18529.
Levin, A., C. F. Lin, and C.-S. Chu. 2002. “Unit root in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample
properties.” Journal of Econometric 108 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
Margetts, H. 2008. “Public Management Change and E-Government: The Emergence of Digital-Era
Governance.” In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, edited by A. Chadwick, and P. Howard,
114–127. London: Routledge.
McGrandle, J. 2017. “Understanding Diversity Management in the Public Sector: A Case for
Contingency Theory.” International Journal of Public Administration 40 (6): 526–537.
McLeod, P. L., S. A. Lobel, and T. H. Cox Jr. 1996. “Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups.”
Small Group Research 27 (2): 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272003.
Meier, K. J. 2019. “Theoretical Frontiers in Representative Bureaucracy: New Directions for Research.”
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 2 (1): 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/
gvy004.
Meijer, A. J. 2014. “From Hero-Innovators to Distributed Heroism: An In-Depth Analysis of the Role
of Individuals in Public Sector Innovation.” Public Management Review 16 (2): 199–216. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806575.
Nishii, Lisa H. 2013. “The Benefits of Climate for Inclusion for Gender-Diverse Groups.” Academy of
Management Journal 56 (6): 1754–1774. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823.
Nistotskaya, Marina, Stefan Dahlberg, Carl Dahlström, Aksel Sundström, Sofia Axelsson, Cem Mert
Dalli, and Natalia Alvarado Pachon. 2021. The Quality of Government Expert Survey 2020 Dataset:
Wave III. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute.
Oberfield, Z. W. 2014. “Accounting for Time: Comparing Temporal and Atemporal Analyses of the
Business Case for Diversity Management.” Public Administration Review 74 (6): 777–789. https://
doi.org/10.1111/puar.12278.
Opstrup, N., and A. R. Villadsen. 2015. “The Right Mix? Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams
and Financial Performance.” Public Administration Review 75 (2): 291–301. https://doi.org/10.
1111/puar.12310.
Østergaard, C. R., B. Timmermans, and K. Kristinsson. 2011. “Does a Different View Create
Something New? The Effect of Employee Diversity on Innovation.” Research Policy 40 (3):
500–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.004.
Ozgen, C., P. Nijkamp, and J. Poot. 2012. “Immigration and Innovation in European
RegionsMigration Impact Assessment.” In P. Nijkamp, J. Poot, and M., Sahin, 261–298.
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, United States: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Pampaka, M., G. Hutcheson, and J. Williams. 2016. “Handling missing data: analysis of a challenging
data set using multiple imputation.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education
39 (1): 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.979146.
Panagiotopoulos, P., B. Klievink, and A. Cordella. 2019. “Public Value Creation in Digital
Government.” Government Information Quarterly 36 (4): 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.
2019.101421.
Pelled, L. H., K. M. Eisenhardt, and K. R. Xin. 1999. “Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work
Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1): 1–28. https://
doi.org/10.2307/2667029.
Pitts, D. 2009. “Diversity Management, Job Satisfaction, and Performance: Evidence from US Federal
Agencies.” Public Administration Review 69 (2): 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.
2008.01977.x.
Roodman, D. 2009. “How to Do Xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata.”
The Stata Journal 9 (1): 86–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900106.
Roodman, D. 2020. XTABOND2: Stata Module to Extend Xtabond Dynamic Panel Data Estimator.
Statistical Software Components.
Seidemann, I., and K. S. Weißmüller. 2022. “Conceptual Foundations of Workforce Homogeneity in
the Public Sector. Insights from a Systematic Review on Causes, Consequences, and Blind Spots.”
Public Management Review 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2084770.
Stahl, G. K., M. L. Maznevski, A. Voigt, and K. Jonsen. 2010. “Unraveling the Effects of Cultural
Diversity in Teams: A Meta-Analysis of Research on Multicultural Work Groups.” Journal of
International Business Studies 41 (4): 690–709. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85.
Stojmenovska, D., T. Bol, and T. Leopold. 2017. “Does Diversity Pay? A Replication of Herring.”
American Sociological Review 82 (4): 857–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417714422.
Surowiecki, J. 2004. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books.
Suzuki, K., and M. A. Demircioglu 2017. Rediscovering Bureaucracy: Bureaucratic Professionalism,
Impartiality, and Innovation. QoG Working Papers, 7.
Suzuki, K., and M. A. Demircioglu. 2019. “The Association Between Administrative Characteristics
and National Level Innovative Activity: Findings from a Cross-National Study.” Public Performance
& Management Review 42 (4): 755–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1519449.
Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Inter Group Conflict.” In The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by W. G. Austin and S. Worchel, 33–47. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Teodoro, M. P. 2009. “Bureaucratic Job Mobility and the Diffusion of Innovations.” American Journal
of Political Science 53 (1): 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00364.x.
Torchia, M., A. Calabrò, and M. Morner. 2015. “Board of directors’ Diversity, Creativity, and
Cognitive Conflict: The Role of Board members’ Interaction.” International Studies of
Management and Organization 45 (1): 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1005992.
Torugsa, N., and A. Arundel. 2016. “Complexity of Innovation in the Public Sector: A
Workgroup-Level Analysis of Related Factors and Outcomes.” Public Management Review
18 (3): 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.984626.
United Nations. 2020. 2020 United Nations E-Government Survey. United Nations, New York.
van Acker, W., J. Wynen, and S. Op de Beeck. 2018. “Illuminating the Gender Divide in Public Sector
Innovation: Evidence from the Australian Public Service.” Public Personnel Management 47 (2):
175–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026017747299.
van Knippenberg, D., C. K. W. De Dreu, and A. C. Homan. 2004. “Work Group Diversity and Group
Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89 (6):
1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.
van Thiel, S., and Z. van der Wal. 2010. “Birds of a Feather? The Effect of Organizational Value
Congruence on the Relationship Between Ministries and Quangos.” Public Organization Review
10 (4): 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-010-0112-9.
Verhoest, K., B. Verschuere, and G. Bouckaert. 2007. “Pressure, Legitimacy, and Innovative Behavior
by Public Organizations.” Governance 20 (3): 469–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.
00367.x.
Walker, R. M. 2014. “Internal and External Antecedents of Process Innovation: A Review and
Extension.” Public Management Review 16 (1): 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.
771698.
Wegrich, K. 2019. “The Blind Spots of Collaborative Innovation.” Public Management Review 21 (1):
12–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1433311.
White, Ian R., Patrick Royston, and Angela M. Wood. 2011. “Multiple Imputation Using Chained
Equations: Issues and Guidance for Practice.” Statistics in Medicine 30 (4): 377–399. https://doi.org/
10.1002/sim.4067.
Williams, K., and C. A. O’Reilly. 1998. “Demography and Diversity: A Review of 40 Years of
Research.” In Research in Organizational Behavior, edited by B. Staw and R. Sutton, 77–140.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wynen, J., K. Verhoest, E. Ongaro, and S. Van Thiel. 2014. “Innovation-oriented culture in the public
sector: Do managerial autonomy and result control lead to innovation?” Public Management
Review 16 (1): 45–66. in Cooperation with the COBRA Network. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14719037.2013.790273.
Xie, L., J. Zhou, Q. Zong, and Q. Lu. 2020. “Gender Diversity in R&D Teams and Innovation
Efficiency: Role of the Innovation Context.” Research Policy 49 (1): 103885. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.respol.2019.103885.
Zambrano-Gutiérrez, J. C., and J. A. Puppim de Oliveira. 2022. “The Dynamics of Sources of
Knowledge on the Nature of Innovation in the Public Sector: Understanding Incremental and
Transformative Innovations in Local Governments.” Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory 32 (4): 656–670. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab053.
Appendix
MICE procedure
For the MICE imputation process, we employ our original dataset as of noted in Table A3. The
program we employ, Amelia II, generates its imputation process based on a general model of patterns
within variables across time, thereby creating a sequence of polynomials regarding the time in our
model (Honaker, King, and Blackwell 2011, 17). In our case, we make the assumption that our model
follows a lineal development by formulating a first order imputation model. As a second provision, for
our imputations, we do not consider any interaction with a cross-sectional unit nor with lags or leads,
as we assume, along with Azur et al. (2011), White, Royston, and Wood (2011) that our model is
predictive – seeking to find best fit for missing values – rather than causal. As an additional step, we
also consider as fixed variables, detached from the imputation process to the unique identifiers, in this
case, the countries under our study (36) and the variable time. Finally, and key to highlight is that we
also introduce logical bounds for the imputation of our data. This means that some of our variables as
shown in Table A3, have values between 0 to 1 and others 0 to ∞, and they are reflected in our
imputation whereby values below or above these boundaries are not allowed – as they are not logically
possible.
We have obtained five imputation possibilities, and we have also conducted various diag
nostics process to inspect them. Figure A1 shows a density analysis which compares the
observed values with the imputed valued obtained via Amelia II. As White, Royston, and
Wood (2011) mention, it is not possible to obtain a ‘very similar overlay’ between both
distributions a priori, yet some overlap between the observed and the imputed values is
expected. In the figure below hence, we notice that for almost all the variables considered
in our model we have obtained mostly overlapping imputations. Yet, for variables such as
‘closedness’ we perceive that the observed bimodal distribution of data converges towards
unimodality and moves it positively shifts the mean towards the right. This could be the case
because in our dataset, as expressed by the QoG Expert Survey index, we count with data
starting 2011 –first expert survey–, hence our imputation shifts the values of the dataset
towards later years to accommodate the data distribution to cover our time spectrum analysis.
To further test for the strength of our imputations, in particular of our QoG variables
(closedness, professionalism and NPM), we resort to the over-imputation technique. This
method permits us to judge the fit of our model by scrutinizing our observed values as if
they were missing and hence re-estimating them based on several imputations via MICE. By
treating our observed values as if they were missing, hence we can build a confidence interval
to graphically observe the region where our imputed value could fall had it been missing. In
our analysis, if value that aligns with the premise that y=x (Honaker, King, and Blackwell
2011), hence we have that our imputations are a robust predictor of our true value and that
the range of imputations run will emulate the distributional structure of our observations.
Colors also indicate the percentage of absent covariates (vector X in our case) in the pattern
of missingness of our imputed variable. In the case of the QoG variables we observe a perfect
alignment showing that confidence intervals in their vast majority cover the y=x line. As well,
notable is that the absent covariates are at the minimum level, hence suggesting our imputa
tions fall withing the expected line of the true observed values.
Table A1. Fixed effects estimation of social underrepresentation in the public work
force on eGovernment and ePublic services.
Dependent eGov ePublicServices
Variables Model 9 Model 10

eGov t-1 −0.0113
(0.0372)
ePublic Services t-1 −0.0353
(0.0316)
Under-representation index (Ibu) −0.507*** −0.378***
(0.0694) (0.127)
Closedness 0.00712*** 0.00221
(0.00154) (0.00290)
New Public Management (NPM) 0.0309*** 0.0726***
(0.00551) (0.0117)
Professionalism −0.00627*** −0.00754*
(0.00226) (0.00394)
Age 0.0155*** 0.00432
(0.00384) (0.00644)
Tertiary Education −0.249*** 0.0466
(0.0623) (0.152)
Research and Development 0.282*** 0.329***
(0.0194) (0.0397)
Broadband size −0.00224** −0.00488**
(0.00103) (0.00183)
Population size 0.00388 −0.0238**
(0.00786) (0.0116)
Constant −21.65*** −40.51***
(3.197) (6.557)
Observations 539 539
R-squared 0.653 0.433
Number of autoreg 36 36
Country FE YES YES
Year FE YES YES
Robust standard errors in parentheses.
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table A2. Fixed effects estimation of Weberiannes and NPM on eGov and ePublic services.
Dependent: eGov Dependent: ePublic Services
Variables Model 11 Model 12 Model 13 Model 14 Model 15 Model 16

EGov t-1 0.0335 0.0296 0.0383
(0.0314) (0.0260) (0.0290)
EPublic Services t-1 0.0134 0.0126 0.0235
(0.0361) (0.0370) (0.0377)
Under-representation index −0.337*** −0.148 0.115 −0.0140 0.206 0.859*
(ibu)
(0.104) (0.0992) (0.318) (0.168) (0.202) (0.465)
Ibu*Closedness −0.0303*** −0.0659***
(0.0108) (0.0180)
Ibu*New Public Management −0.0660*** −0.110***
(NPM)
(0.0156) (0.0297)
Ibu*Professionalism −0.163** −0.326***
(0.0788) (0.117)
Closedness 0.00854*** 0.00431*** 0.00452*** 0.00615 −0.00300 −0.00258
(0.00224) (0.00139) (0.00145) (0.00430) (0.00277) (0.00270)
New Public Management 0.0364*** 0.0355*** 0.0576*** 0.0830*** 0.0818*** 0.126***
(NPM)
(0.00599) (0.00608) (0.0115) (0.0124) (0.0125) (0.0202)
Professionalism −0.0132*** −0.00409 −0.0134*** −0.0208*** −0.00566 −0.0212***
(0.00224) (0.00303) (0.00218) (0.00391) (0.00586) (0.00380)
Age 0.0208*** 0.0201*** 0.0214*** 0.0148** 0.0139** 0.0160***
(0.00360) (0.00312) (0.00365) (0.00586) (0.00531) (0.00586)
Tertiary education −0.338*** −0.333*** −0.323*** −0.132 −0.121 −0.103
(0.0614) (0.0651) (0.0692) (0.138) (0.145) (0.155)
Research and Development 0.271*** 0.267*** 0.268*** 0.307*** 0.298*** 0.299***
(0.0194) (0.0178) (0.0187) (0.0385) (0.0362) (0.0370)
Broadband size −0.000852 −0.000681 −0.00115 −0.00223 −0.00207 −0.00289
(0.00105) (0.00104) (0.00112) (0.00205) (0.00206) (0.00211)
Population size 0.00815 0.0102** 0.00782 −0.0164* −0.0135 −0.0173*
(0.00487) (0.00476) (0.00558) (0.00841) (0.00880) (0.00918)
Constant −0.456*** −0.476*** −0.536*** −0.0842 −0.120 −0.242
(0.146) (0.130) (0.161) (0.270) (0.265) (0.288)
Observations 539 539 539 539 539 539
R-squared 0.616 0.626 0.615 0.383 0.389 0.380
Country FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Year FE YES YES YES YES YES YES
Robust standard errors in parentheses.
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
Table A3. Descriptive statistics (pre-MICE).

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
eGov 324 .682 .144 0 .919
ePublic Services 324 .613 .201 0 1
year 576 2010.5 4.614 2003 2018
Age 338 43.72 1.805 38.712 48.513
Tertiary Education 339 .389 .061 .248 .647
Profesionalism 106 2.974 2.187 −2.364 6.324
Closedness 106 2.975 2.638 −3.214 6.286
New Public Management (NPM) 324 3.923 .799 2.341 5.231
Under-representation index (Ibu) 155 .121 .056 .016 .373
Broadband size 165 11.636 6.404 0 32
Research and Development 170 .614 .241 .18 1.11
Population size (ln) 560 16.044 1.432 12.576 18.79
Figure A 11. Distributional density analysis of observed and imputed data through MICE.

The Role of Public Workforce Diversity and The Administrative Ecosystem in Advancing Digital Public Service Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Public Workforce Diversity and The Administrative Ecosystem in Advancing Digital Public Service Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Management Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpxm20

The role of public workforce diversity and the

Luciana Cingolani & Diego Salazar-Morales

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2303609

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 16 Jan 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The role of public workforce diversity and the

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 13 April 2023; Accepted 5 January 2024

CONTACT Luciana Cingolani cingolani@hertie-school.org

accurate understanding of the environment, better performance in diverse markets,

We make three important contributions. First, we respond to calls for better

2. Workforce diversity and innovation

important methodological flags related to causal inference and the insufficient

2.2 Workforce diversity and innovation in the public sector

2.3 Digital public service innovation

3. A theory reconciling the mixed effects of workforce diversity on

increased performance. In contrast, workgroup diversity is expected to impair group

3.2 The role of the administrative ecosystem

is defined as ‘an organizational feature where individual merits – such as education,

Bureaucratic closedness is theoretically and empirically distinct from professional­

Table 1. Descriptive statistics (MICE).

4.2 Robustness measures

Table 2. Effects of public workforce diversity on eGovernment and ePublic services

Variables Model 1 Model 2

governmental innovation. However, in contexts where bureaucratic professionalism is

Variables Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Figure 3. Interactions between NPM and workforce diversity (model 4).

relationship with eGov innovation can be challenged in contexts of lower workforce

discussions in public management. Innovation requires a common reference

Damanpour, F. 1991. “Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and

Variables Model 9 Model 10

Variables Model 11 Model 12 Model 13 Model 14 Model 15 Model 16

Table A3. Descriptive statistics (pre-MICE).

You might also like

Bureaucratic closedness is theoretically and empirically distinct from professional