Relationships between national forest system employee diversity and beliefs regarding external interest groups

Forest Science

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 258-269

  Halvorsen, Kathleen E ^a  

^a MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Organizational diversity; Organizational environment; Public forests; USDA Forest Service

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRY; MINING; PERSONNEL; TIMBER;

EXTERNAL INTEREST GROUPS; NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM EMPLOYEE DIVERSITY;

FORESTRY;

EID: 0035026937     PISSN: 0015749X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. ARGYRIS, C.R., R. PUTNAM, AND D.M. SMITH. 1990. Action science. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 480 p.
2. BOYLE, B.J., M.A. SHANNON, R.A. ROSE, K. HALVORSEN, AND H.S. ELWAY. 1994. Policies and mythologies in the US Forest Service. Unpubl. Rep. Inst. for Resourc. in Soc., Univ. of Washington.
3. BROWN, G., AND C.C. HARRIS. 1993. The implications of work force diversification in the U.S. Forest Service. Admin. Soc. 25:85-113.
4. BRUNSON, M. W., AND J.J. KENNEDY. 1995. Redefining "multiple use": Agency responses to changing social values. P. 143-158 in A new century for natural resources management, Knight, R.L., and S.F. Bates (eds. ). Island Press, Covelo, CA.
5. BULLIS, C.A., AND J.J. KENNEDY. 1991. Value conflicts and policy interpretation: changes in the case of fisheries and wildlife managers in multiple use agencies. Pol. Stud. J. 19:542-552.
6. BULLIS, C.A., AND P.K. TOMPKINS. 1989. The Forest Ranger revisited: A study of control practices and identification. Comm. Monogr. 56:287-306.
7. CARR, D.S., S.W. SELIN, AND M.A. SCHUETT. 1998. Managing public forests: Understanding the role of collaborative planning. Environ. Manage. 22:767-776.
8. CLARY, D.A. 1986. Timber and the Forest Service. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. 252 p.
9. FRANZOI, S.L. 2000. Social psychology. McGraw Hill, Boston. 615 p.
10. HALL, D.T. B. SCHNEIDER, AND H.T. NYGREN. 1970. Personal factors in organizational identification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 15(2)176-90.
11. HARRIS, C.C., AND G. BROWN. 1994. Constituency bias in a federal resource management agency: A confirmatory analysis. J. Environ. Manage. 42:317-331.
12. HELGESEN, S. 1995. The web of inclusion. Doubleday Press, New York City. 304 p.
13. HIRT, P.W. 1994. A conspiracy of optimism: Management of the National Forests since World War Two. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska. 416 p.
14. KAUFMAN, H. 1960. The forest ranger: A study in administrative behavior. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 259 p.
15. KENNEDY, J.J. 1988. Legislative confrontation of groupthink in US natural resource agencies. Environ. Conserv. 15:123-128.
16. KENNEDY, J.J. 1991. Integrating gender diverse and interdisciplinary professionals into traditional U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service culture. Soc. Natur. Resourc. 4:165-176.
17. MARTIN, J. 1992. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York. 228 p.
18. MCCARTHY, C. 1994. Socialization and policy views of USDA Forest Service planning personnel. Environ. Prof. 16:314-326.
19. MOHAI, P., P. STILLMAN, P. JAKES, AND C. LIGGETT. 1994. Change in the USDA Forest Service: Are we heading in the right direction? USDA Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station, St Paul MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-172.
20. REEVES-ELLINGTON, R. 1995. Organizing for global effectiveness: Ethnicity and organizations. Hum. Org. 54(3):249-262.
21. Riccucci, N. and J. Saidel. 1997. The representativeness of state-level bureaucratic leaders: a missing piece of the representative bureaucracy puzzle. Pub. Admin. Rev. 57:423-431.
22. SABATIER, P., J. LOOMIS, AND C. MCCARTHY. 1996. Policy attitudes and decisions within the Forest Service: Is there a connection? J. For. 94:42-46.
23. SELDEN, S.C., J.L. BRUDNEY, AND J.E. KELLOUOH. 1998. Bureaucracy as a representative institution: Toward a reconciliation of bureaucratic government and democratic theory. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 42:717-745.
24. SELIN, S., AND D. CHAVEZ. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environ. Manage. 19:189-195.
25. SELIN, S.W., M.A. SCHUETT, AND D.S. CARR. 1997. Collaborative planning and the USDA Forest Service: Land manager perspectives. In Proc. of the 1996 Northeastern Recreation Research Symp., Kuentzel, W.F. (ed.). USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-232.
26. SHANNON, M.A. 1990. Building trust: The formation of social contract. P. 229-239 in Community and forestry: Continuities in the sociology of natural resources, Lee, R.G., D.R. Field, and W.R. Burch, Jr. (eds.). Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
27. SHOEMAKER, D.J., W.E. SNIZEK, AND C.D. BRYANT. 1977. Toward a further clarification of Becker's Side-Bet Hypothesis as applied to organizational and occupation commitment. Soc. Forces 56(2):598-603.
28. TIPPLE, T.J., AND J.D. WELLMAN. 1991. Herbert Kaufman's Forest Ranger thirty years later: From simplicity and homogeneity to complexity and diversity. Pub. Admin. Rev. 51:421-28.
29. TRICE, H.M. 1993. Occupational subcultures in the workplace. ILR Press, Ithaca, NY. 287 p.
30. TRICE, H.M., AND J.M. BEYER. 1993. The cultures of work organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 510 p.
31. TWIGHT, B.W., AND W.R. CATTON. 1975. The politics of images: Forest managers vs. recreation publics. Natur. Resour. J. 15:297-306.
32. TWIGHT, B.W., AND F.J. LYDEN. 1988. Multiple use vs. organizational commitment. For. Sci. 34:474-486.
33. TWIGHT, B.W., F.J. LYDEN, AND E.T. TUCHMANN. 1990. Constitutency bias in a federal career system? A study of district rangers of the U.S. Forest Service. Admin. Soc. 22:358-377.
34. USDA FOREST SERVICE, TASK FORCE ON WORK FORCE DIVERSITY. 1991. Toward a multicultural organization. USDA For. Serv., Washington DC.
35. USDA FOREST SERVICE. 1994. Ecosystem management: 1993 Annual report of the Forest Service. USDA For. Serv., Washington, DC.
36. st Century. News Release. USDA For. Serv., Washington, DC.
37. VINING, J., AND A. EBREO. 1991. Are you thinking what I think you are? A study of actual and estimated goal priorities and decision preferences of resource managers, environmentalists, and the public .Soc. Natur. Resour. 4:177-196.