ER59632_C000.indd 1
10/15/2007 6:50:22 AM
SERIES IN APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY Edwin A. Fleishman, George Mason University Jeanette N. Cleveland, Pennsylvania State University Series Editors Gregory Bedny and David Meister The Russian Theory of Activity: Current Applications to Design and Learning
Winston Bennett, David Woehr, and Charles Lance Performance Measurement: Current Perspectives and Future Challenges
Michael T. Brannick, Eduardo Salas, and Carolyn Prince Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Research, and Applications
Jeanette N. Cleveland, Margaret Stockdale, and Kevin R. Murphy Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work
Aaron Cohen Multiple Commitments in the Workplace: An Integrative Approach
Russell Cropanzano Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, Volume 1
Russell Cropanzano Justice in the Workplace: From Theory to Practice, Volume 2
David V. Day, Stephen Zaccaro, Stanley M. Halpin Leader Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow’s Teams and Organizations.
James E. Driskell and Eduardo Salas Stress and Human Performance
Sidney A. Fine and Steven F. Cronshaw Functional Job Analysis: A Foundation for Human Resources Management
Sidney A. Fine and Maury Getkate Benchmark Tasks for Job Analysis: A Guide for Functional Job Analysis (FJA) Scales
J. Kevin Ford, Steve W. J. Kozlowski, Kurt Kraiger, Eduardo Salas, and Mark S. Teachout Improving Training Effectiveness in Work Organizations
Jerald Greenberg Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, Second Edition
ER59632_C000.indd 2
10/15/2007 6:50:23 AM
Uwe E. Kleinbeck, Hans-Henning Quast, Henk Thierry, and Hartmut Häcker Work Motivation
Laura L. Koppes Historical Perspectives in Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Ellen Kossek and Susan Lambert Work and Life Integration: Organizational, Cultural and Individual Perspectives.
Martin I. Kurke and Ellen M. Scrivner Police Psychology into the 21st Century
Joel Lefkowitz Ethics and Values in Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Manuel London Job Feedback: Giving, Seeking, and Using Feedback for Performance Improvement, Second Edition
Manuel London How People Evaluate Others in Organizations
Manuel London Leadership Development: Paths to Self-Insight and Professional Growth
Robert F. Morrison and Jerome Adams Contemporary Career Development Issues
Michael D. Mumford, Garnett Stokes, and William A. Owens Patterns of Life History: The Ecology of Human Individuality
Michael D. Mumford Pathways to Outstanding Leadership: A Comparative Analysis of Charismatic, Ideological and Pragmatic Leaders
Kevin R. Murphy Validity Generalization: A Critical Review
Kevin R. Murphy and Frank E. Saal Psychology in Organizations: Integrating Science and Practice
Kevin Murphy A Critique of Emotional Intelligence: What Are the Problems and How Can They Be Fixed?
Susan E. Murphy and Ronald E. Riggio The Future of Leadership Development
Margaret A. Neal and Leslie Brett Hammer Working Couples Caring for Children and Aging Parents: Effects on Work and Well-Being
ER59632_C000.indd 3
10/15/2007 6:50:23 AM
Steven A.Y. Poelmans Work and Family: An International Research Perspective
Robert E. Ployhart, Benjamin Schneider, and Neal Schmitt Staffing Organizations: Contemporary Practice and Theory, Third Edition
Erich P. Prien, Jeffery S. Schippmann and Kristin O. Prien Individual Assessment: As Practiced in Industry and Consulting
Ned Rosen Teamwork and the Bottom Line: Groups Make a Difference
Heinz Schuler, James L. Farr, and Mike Smith Personnel Selection and Assessment: Individual and Organizational Perspectives
Kenneth S. Shultz and Gary A. Adams Aging and Work in the 21st Century
John W. Senders and Neville P. Moray Human Error: Cause, Prediction, and Reduction
Frank J. Smith Organizational Surveys: The Diagnosis and Betterment of Organizations Through Their Members
Dianna Stone and Eugene F. Stone-Romero The Influence of Culture on Human Resource Processes and Practices
Kecia M. Thomas Diversity Resistance in Organizations
George C. Thornton III and Rose Mueller-Hanson Developing Organizational Simulations: A Guide for Practitioners and Students
George C. Thornton III and Deborah Rupp Assessment Centers in Human Resource Management: Strategies for Prediction, Diagnosis, and Development
Yoav Vardi and Ely Weitz Misbehavior in Organizations: Theory, Research and Management
Patricia Voydanoff Work, Family, and Community
ER59632_C000.indd 4
10/15/2007 6:50:23 AM
ER59632_C000.indd 5
10/15/2007 6:50:24 AM
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Taylor & Francis Group 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Taylor & Francis Group 2 Park Square Milton Park, Abingdon Oxon OX14 4RN
© 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Lawrence Erlbaum Associates is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business Printed in the United States of America on acid‑free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 International Standard Book Number‑13: 978‑0‑8058‑5963‑8 (Softcover) 978‑0‑8058‑5962‑1 (Hardcover) No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging‑in‑Publication Data Diversity resistance in organizations / editor, Kecia M. Thomas. p. cm. ‑‑ (Applied psychology series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN‑13: 978‑0‑8058‑5963‑8 (alk paper) ISBN‑13: 978‑0‑8058‑5962‑1 (alk paper) 1. Diversity in the workplace. 2. Organizational behavior. 3. Psychology, Industrial. I. Thomas, Kecia M. HF5549.5.M5D5723 2008 331.2’153‑‑dc22
2007024308
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
ER59632_Discl.indd 1
10/16/07 3:07:36 PM
This book is dedicated to those who show up for work every day, who do their best, and who attempt to make a positive impact on their institutions and on society, in spite of the resistance they confront
ER59632_C000d.indd 7
10/4/2007 7:03:08 AM
ER59632_C000d.indd 8
10/4/2007 7:03:09 AM
Contents
Series Foreword
xi
Jeanette N. Cleveland and Edwin A. Fleishman Preface
xv
Acknowledgments
xix
The Contributors
xxi
1
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
1
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut 2
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Diversity Training and Learning
23
Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik 3
It Is All in How You View It: Factors Contributing to Perceptions of a Hostile Work Climate
55
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne 4
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
93
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown 5
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
127
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King 6
Traditional Selection Methods as Resistance to Diversity in Organizations
151
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis ix
ER59632_C000toc.indd 9
10/4/2007 7:03:36 AM
7
Contents Dancing with Resistance: Leadership Challenges in Fostering a Culture of Inclusion
175
Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman 8
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
201
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote 9
Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Mixed Messages Regarding Workforce Diversity
221
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson 10
Cycles of Resistance: How Dominants and Subordinants Collude to Undermine Diversity Efforts in Organizations
249
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford 11
Overcoming Resistance: Structures and Attitudes
273
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby 12
Final Reflections: Resisting the Resistors
303
Laura L. Bierema and Kecia M. Thomas Author Index
315
Subject Index
325
ER59632_C000toc.indd 10
10/4/2007 7:03:36 AM
Series Foreword Jeanette N. Cleveland The Pennsylvania State University
Edwin A. Fleishman George Mason University Series Editors
There is a compelling need for innovative approaches to the solution of many pressing problems involving human relationship in today’s society. Such approaches are more likely to be successful when they are based on sound research and applications. This Series in Applied Psychology offers publications that emphasize state-of-the-art research and its applications to important issues of human behavior in a variety of social settings. The objective is to bridge both academic and applied interests. We welcome Professor Thomas’ book to the Applied Psychology Series as it provides an informed, balanced yet frank discussion of U.S. workplace diversity and diversity resistance. As indicated in the preface, the chapters in this book put a name on behaviors and practices that have existed in the workplace for a long time, yet until recently have had no name. Further, the majority of the chapters innovatively link and discuss such emerging constructs as ‘diversity resistance’ and ‘diversity burnout’ with existing psychological and organizational factors such as fear, uncertainty, power, emotions, and organizational change and development. The book editors and authors emphasize that we need to know more about diversity resistance, both in their overt and covert forms. To guide us we can draw on the existing research and practice literature that have both theoretical and empirical depth. This is a groundbreaking book. In the volume’s opening chapter Thomas and Plaut eloquently introduce, define and provide examples of diversity resistance at the individual, interpersonal, organizaxi
ER59632_C000f.indd 11
10/16/2007 7:24:32 AM
xii
Series Foreword
tional and societal levels. Further, a typology of diversity resistance is presented which highlights the complexity of this phenomenon. Drawing from social psychological theories, explanations for both overt and more subtle resistance are presented. Importantly and insightfully, silence in the face of others’ harassment and discrimination is discussed as a form of diversity resistance using Latane and Darley’s (1970) model of helping behavior. A firm foundation is presented in the initial chapter which is elaborated on subsequent chapters using a range of human resource systems and interpersonal context as examples of diversity resistance in organizations. For example, diversity resistance is frequently associated with diversity training programs. Chrobot-Mason and associates identify the most common objections to diversity training yet distinguishes diversity training from other forms of training because it has an emotional component. Further, sources of resistance are presented and three theoretical frameworks are applied in order to understand and address this phenomenon within the training context. As the book highlights, resistance goes beyond that found in diversity training programs. The complexity of diversity resistance is further untangled by the authors in this book using creative discussions of factors contributing to perceptions of hostile work environments (chapter 3) and subtle forms of interpersonal resistance including exclusion, avoidance and social distancing (chapter 5). Each of these chapters draws from sound social psychological theory and organizational research. Further, each identifies individual and organizational factors that promote resistance and strategies for its prevention. Finally, in this section, a broader view of diversity resistance in organizations is presented by discussing it in relation to its extreme forms including physical violence and hate crimes. Diversity resistance occurs at the individual or interpersonal level. Often within the legal and organizational context, it is at the individual or interpersonal level that employees ‘see’ or ‘experience’ daily diversity resistance. However, this individual level of resistance is embedded within a larger and perhaps less ‘visible’ context of resistance; namely, organizational level resistance to diversity. In the second section of the book, selection systems, especially cognitive ability tests and specific leadership styles, are discussed as examples of organizational level resistance. Researchers and practitioners are urged to examine and improve these systems by offering a number of strategies including (as in the selection chapter) expanding the cri-
ER59632_C000f.indd 12
10/16/2007 7:24:32 AM
Series Foreword
xiii
terion and predictor domains. Further, diversity along which resistance can occur is expanding to include the growing Hispanic and Latino population (language and accent diversity) and sexual orientation diversity. Organizational level resistance as reflected in mixed messages communicated by the organization provides one basis for diversity resistance. The cycles of resistance as perpetuated by both dominants and subordinates in collusion are described. Davidson and Proudford shift the level of focus from individual to the joint influence of dominant and less powerful identity groups operate together to maintain the status quo and resist change. Although overt or blatant forms are often discussed, this chapter links such dominant identity group resistance forms as oblivious, lamentation and backlash with the less oft discussed forms of resistance displayed by lower power groups including escalation, resignation and assent. The book concludes with a general set of recommendations for individual and organizational identification, evaluation and strategies for change. The book is appropriate for undergraduate and graduate students in industrial and organizational psychology, human resources management, diversity management, sociology of work, organizational change, and cultural diversity within organizations. It provides a central resource for classes on prejudice and discrimination in organizations, emotions at work, personnel psychology, strategic human resources management, and cultural issues in human resources management. Professionals and practitioners who increasingly interact with diverse employees will find this book essential to their work.
ER59632_C000f.indd 13
10/16/2007 7:24:32 AM
ER59632_C000f.indd 14
10/16/2007 7:24:32 AM
Preface
Diversity Resistance: Manifestations and Solutions As the chapter authors prepared the manuscript for this book, new terms began to emerge in our scholarly community—diversity burnout and diversity fatigue. I personally would hear these terms used by practitioners responsible for diversity initiatives and practices in small and large organizations. Even at meetings of scientific and professional associations, other scholars would express their anxiety about stepping into the diversity arena for fear of how diversity fatigue in organizations would impact their ability to engage in their research. Only one article was identified in the academic literature as addressing these concepts, and this research focused on the experiences of teachers. Tatar and Horenczyk (2003) discuss diversityrelated burnout as reflecting the extent to which teachers’ well-being is affected by daily interactions with a heterogeneous student body. This study of Israeli teachers found that, in addition to teacherrelated background variables, diversity-related burnout was predicted by school diversity and the larger organizational culture of the school. “The highest levels of diversity-related burnout were found among teachers categorized as assimilationalist and who work in schools perceived by them also to be assimilationist” (p. 397). Perhaps for other diversity practitioners, educators, and researchers, diversity fatigue and burnout come more out of working in and with organizations and individuals that are resistant to diversity and which hold onto assimilationist cultures and perspectives. The fatigue and burnout these scholars, teachers, and professionals experience may be in part shaped by the often demoralizing experience of having to work daily through forms of overt and hostile forms of resistance to their values, goals, and their work. Diversity-related xv
ER59632_C000g.indd 15
10/15/2007 6:38:38 AM
xvi
Preface
fatigue and burnout may also be the result of the stress related to constantly having to detect, interpret, and negotiate the more covert and often ambiguous practices and behaviors that frequently make diversity resistance appear, on the surface, as rational, legitimate, and maybe even supportive of diversity when, at its core, it may perpetuate unearned privilege and advantage, and actually reject inclusion. The goal of this book is to initiate a conversation and opportunity for collective learning on how diversity resistance manifests within organizational settings. This conversation among a community of diversity scholars trained largely in social or industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology analyzes diversity resistance in organizations as being subtle as well as overt, and occurring at the level of the individual as well as the organization. The first chapter, “The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace,” by Thomas and Plaut, introduces the topic of diversity resistance and a taxonomy of understanding this form of resistance in organizations. Thomas and Plaut examine the emerging trend of hangmen’s nooses in organizations as a case by which to better understand the multitude of ways in which resistance to diversity manifests. Chrobot-Mason, Hays-Thomas, and Wishik, in “Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Diversity Training and Learning” (chapter 2), examine how resistance can interfere with the learning that is the goal of diversity training, a common diversity practice. Chapter 3, “It Is All in How You View It: Factors Contributing to Perceptions of a Hostile Work Climate” (by Riordan, Lankau, and Wayne), examines the nature of targets’ perceptions and experience of resistant organizational environments. By going beyond legal definitions of hostile environments, these authors are able to expand our understanding of how targets experience resistance. Probst, Estrada, and Brown (chapter 4) turn to more intentional and overt and extreme forms of diversity resistance in their chapter titled, “Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace.” These authors examine these extreme forms of resistance and the various costs associated with their occurrence for individuals and organizations. Hebl, Madera, and King (chapter 5) focus on the experience of diversity resistance as reflecting “Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing.” The social distancing of minority group members by more traditional workers, especially by peers, can create career bar-
ER59632_C000g.indd 16
10/15/2007 6:38:38 AM
Preface
xvii
riers that are difficult to overcome. This chapter will document the ways in which diversity resistance is manifested in interpersonal exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing and identify the impact of this particular form of diversity resistance on career development. Strategies for individuals and organizations confronting this form of diversity resistance are offered. Chapter 6 (McKay and Davis) turns to “Traditional Selection Methods as Resistance to Diversity in Organizations.” This chapter will focus on how HR decisions and systems can embrace or resist diversity. Special attention will be paid to the choice of selection instruments used and their impact upon diversity efforts. This chapter will conclude with recommendations for designing and implementing human resource practices that are diversity friendly and legally defensible. In many ways leaders are ultimately responsible for the climate for diversity and HR practices that support (or resist) diversity values. Wasserman, Gallegos, and Ferdman (chapter 7) discuss leadership challenges related to diversity and resistance in “Dancing with Resistance: Leadership Challenges in Fostering a Culture of Inclusion.” These authors use dance as a metaphor for understanding the constant movement and negotiation needed to create and sustain inclusive organizational cultures. Skillful and reflective leadership is certainly needed as diversity resistance continues to evolve and manifest uniquely for different groups. Chapter 8 (by Harrison, Reynolds-Dobbs, and Roote) presents “Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity,” which examines emerging and very different forms of organizational resistance to sexual minorities and immigrant workers. Avery and Johnson’s chapter, “Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Mixed Messages Regarding Workforce Diversity” (chapter 9), examines how mixed messages related to diversity reflects (and may support) resistance to diversity and impedes progress of diversity initiatives and practices, and give rise to more overtly hostile and offensive actions. Davidson and Proudford’s “Cycles of Resistance: How Dominants and Subordinates Collude to Undermine Diversity Efforts in Organizations” (chapter 10), focuses on how group identity and societal power interact in ways that impedes diversity efforts and inclusion. Sabattini and Crosby’s (chapter 11) “Overcoming Resistance: Structures and Attitudes” examines lessons learned from struggles
ER59632_C000g.indd 17
10/15/2007 6:38:38 AM
xviii
Preface
around gender diversity in order to offer strategies for moving through resistance and embracing diversity as a positive change. Human resource development scholar, Laura Bierema, and I reflect on the chapters presented. Dr. Bierema shares her reaction and considers diversity resistance as resistance to the primary resistors—those of us seeking equity and social justice and who continue to resist the status quo. Our hope is that these chapters will initiate a new conversation and dialogue that makes more visible how diversity is resisted within organizations. Perhaps with greater visibility, resistance can be more effectively challenged, and subsequently become a key organizational attribute that supports learning, creativity, and effectiveness. References Tatar, M., & Horenczyk, G. (2003). Diversity-related burnout among teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 397–408.
ER59632_C000g.indd 18
10/15/2007 6:38:38 AM
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the guidance and support of Anne Duffy and the LEA/Taylor & Francis staff, who supported the development and production of this work. Kendra Freeman provided tremendous staff support and made sure that I kept to my self-imposed deadlines. Drs. Terrie Vescio, Myrtle Bell, Frank Landy, James Outtz, and Orlando Richard served as external reviewers and provided tremendous expertise and insight for this volume as did the series editors, Drs. Jeanette Cleveland and Ed Fleishman. Special appreciation is extended to my Athens family—my current and former doctoral students Dr. Jimmy Davis, Dr. Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, Matthew Harrison, and Brian Roote, who not only provided content, but also support and a willingness to always pursue the next big project! UGA colleagues and HERS Management Institute classmates, Drs. Rosemary Phelps and Juanita Johnson Bailey, have created a wonderful professional and personal network upon which I continue to rely. A special thanks to Dr. Faye Crosby for her initiative and leadership in the development of Nag’s Heart, where I first voiced an interest in editing this volume. Dean Garnett Stokes and Drs. Vicky Plaut and Tina Harris supported and worked with me toward the development of the Center for Research and Engagement in Diversity (RED) while this volume was in development. I appreciate your continuing support of my many professional goals and interests, such as RED. Finally, I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to my family, especially my partner, Darren Rhym, and our children, Chad and Jordan Serena Rhym. You are unconditional in your belief in me and always show it through both your words and your actions. I hope that I always will provide the same for you.
xix
ER59632_C000h.indd 19
10/15/2007 6:39:24 AM
ER59632_C000h.indd 20
10/15/2007 6:39:24 AM
The Contributors
Derek R. Avery is an assistant professor of I/O psychology and management at the University of Houston. His primary research interests include workforce diversity and the antecedents/consequences of fairness perceptions. His doctorate is in industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology from Rice University. Laura L. Bierema is associate professor and program coordinator of adult education in the Department of Lifelong Education, Administration and Policy, University of Georgia. Dr. Bierema holds an Ed.D. from the University of Georgia, a master’s in labor and industrial relations from Michigan State University, and a B.A., also from Michigan State University. Dr. Bierema teaches courses in adult learning, organization development and change, human resource development, and group dynamics. She has published numerous articles and book chapters, and is the author or coauthor of three books. A Cyril O. Houle Scholar in Adult and Continuing Education and a Lilly fellow, she is also the 1998 recipient of the Richard A. Swanson Excellence in Research Award and the Academy of Human Resource Development’s “Cutting Edge” Award for presenting one of the ten best papers each year at the 1997, 2002, and 2004 conferences. Jeremiah W. Brown is a graduate student at Washington State University–Vancouver where he has taught “Introduction to I/O Psychology.” His primary research interests include diversity in organizations and organizational citizenship behaviors. He is scheduled to graduate with his Ph.D. in experimental psychology, with an emphasis in industrial/organizational psychology, in 2008. Donna Chrobot-Mason is an associate professor with the Center for Organizational Leadership at the University of Cincinnati, where she xxi
ER59632_C000i.indd 21
10/16/2007 7:28:21 AM
xxii
The Contributors
is graduate director for the master’s program in labor and employment relations. She teaches and conducts research on organizational diversity, multicultural leadership, and social identity development, and has coauthored five book chapters, presented at nearly 40 conferences on these topics, and published in journals such as the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Group and Organization Management, the International Journal of Conflict Management, and the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. She received her B.A. degree from Miami University and her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Georgia. She is also a member of the leadership collective of Nag’s Heart. Faye Crosby is a feminist social psychologist specializing in issues of social justice. She is a professor of psychology at the University of California–Santa Cruz (UCSC). She is also chair of the Academic Senate, UCSC. Crosby has written, cowritten, edited, or coedited 14 books and over 150 articles and chapters. Crosby is the recipient of numerous awards including the Carolyn Wood Sherif Award (from Division 35 of the American Psychological Association), the Lewin Award (from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues), and an honorary doctorate from Ball State University. Crosby’s most recent single-authored book, published by Yale University Press, sported the intriguing title: Affirmative Action Is Dead; Long Live Affirmative Action. Crosby also writes about and attempts to put into practice good mentoring. She is coeditor of Mentoring Dilemmas. In 2007 Blackwell-Wiley published the multifaceted Sex Discrimination in the Workplace for which Crosby was the senior editor. Crosby was the founder of Nag’s Heart, an organization devoted to replenishment of the feminist spirit. Martin N. Davidson is associate professor of leadership and organizational behavior at the Darden Graduate School of Business, University of Virginia. In his research, teaching and consulting, Dr. Davidson focuses on how leaders can use diversity strategically to create sustainable competitive advantage for firms, both globally and domestically. His research appears in top managerial and academic publications including the Administrative Science Quarterly, Harvard Business Review, Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Journal of Personality, Review of Educational Research, International Journal of
ER59632_C000i.indd 22
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
The Contributors
xxiii
Conflict Management, and Performance Improvement Quarterly. He is the past chair of the gender and diversity in organizations (GDO) division of the Academy of Management. Jimmy Davis is an industrial/organizational psychologist. He re ceived his B.A in psychology from Morehouse College in 2002 and his M.S. and Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of Georgia in 2004 and 2006, respectively. His research focuses on the psychology of workplace diversity with a particular focus on the career and organizational experiences of women and people of color. He is the 2004 recipient of the Fanning Leadership Award of the University of Georgia–Athens (UGA) for leadership among graduate students. He has worked on consulting projects for a number of small and large organizations and agencies such as BellSouth, the UGA Accounts Payable Department, United Parcel Service, the American Cancer Society, the Human Resource Research Organization, and Home Depot. He is a certified 360 Coach. He currently works in human resources for Home Depot and is an adjunct professor of psychology at Morehouse College. Armando X. Estrada is an assistant professor of psychology in the Psychology Department, Washington State University, Vancouver. His primary research focuses on the study of gender and culture in civilian and military organizations, with particular emphasis on the study of harassment, prejudice, and discrimination across cultures. He has conducted studies for several governmental sponsors including the Office of Accession Policy, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), the U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems (PEO-GCS), the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armament Command (TACOM), and the Sweden Department of Defense. His work has been published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Military Psychology, and Psychological Reports. Dr. Estrada is a fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on the Armed Forces and Society, and is a consultant to the Sweden Department of Defense on matters related to women in the military. Dr. Estrada serves as an associate editor for the journal of Military Psychology. Prior to his academic career, Dr. Estrada served in the U.S. Marine Corps.
ER59632_C000i.indd 23
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
xxiv
The Contributors
Bernardo M. Ferdman is a professor in the Marshall Goldsmith School of Management, Alliant International University, in San Diego, California. As a teacher, writer, speaker, and consultant, he specializes in diversity, inclusion, and multiculturalism in organizations, ethnic and cultural identity, Latinos/as in the workplace, cross-cultural communication, and organizational behavior and development. He has served as president of the Interamerican Society of Psychology and chair of the Gender and Diversity in Organizations Division of the Academy of Management. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and a Charter Fellow of the International Academy for Intercultural Research. In 1991, he received the Gordon Allport Intergroup Relations Prize in 1991 from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Plácida V. Gallegos is a social psychologist who has spent her career in academia and organizations working to create healthier, more inclusive cultures where people can thrive and achieve their fullest potential. Plácida has worked extensively with a wide range of corporate clients across the country including manufacturing, insurance, financial, and educational institutions. She provides organizational consulting to companies in the areas of strategic culture change, supervisory and management skills, leadership styles, career development, conflict management, and team building. Dr. Gallegos is also on the faculty at Fielding Graduate University in the Human and Organizational Development Program. She attended Loma Linda University and received her master’s degree in marriage, family, and child counseling in 1981. She conducted research in organizational behavior and enrolled in the social psychology graduate program at the University of California–Riverside where she received her second master’s degree and Ph.D. in 1987. Plácida has written articles and presented at numerous conferences throughout the country on a wide range of topics including organizational and personal development, leadership, diversity, and multiculturalism. Matthew S. Harrison is currently a graduate student in the applied I/ O psychology doctoral program at the University of Georgia. A 2004 graduate of Emory University, where he earned his bachelor of arts in psychology, he received his M.S. from UGA’s applied (I/O) psychology program in December 2005. His research focuses on issues of workplace diversity, with specific past studies that have looked at
ER59632_C000i.indd 24
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
The Contributors
xxv
colorism in the job selection process and current work being done on misperceptions of affirmative action policies and its effects on women and people of color in upper-level management positions. He plans to obtain his Ph.D. from UGA in May 2008. Rosemary Hays-Thomas is a professor of psychology at the University of West Florida, where she has developed a course on workforce diversity, taught extensively in I/O and social psychology, coordinated the master’s program in I/O psychology, and served as department chair. With Michele Wittig, she coedited a Journal of Social Issues on pay equity/comparable worth. Other publications have dealt with organizational justice and applied master’s training in psychology. Currently, she is administrative officer for the Southeastern Psychological Association, editor of The Psychologist-Manager Journal, and president of her university’s faculty union. A licensed psychologist, she is also a fellow of the APA. Mikki Hebl is an associate professor of psychology at Rice University. She received her B.A. at Smith College in 1991, and her Ph.D. at Dartmouth College in 1997. Her research focuses on the workplace discrimination and the barriers stigmatized individuals face in social interactions, the hiring process, business settings, and the medical community. In addition, she addresses ways in which both individuals and organizations might remediate such discrimination. She has been the recipient of eight major teaching awards during her time at Rice University and has published in both social and I/O psychology journals. C. Douglas Johnson is an assistant professor of human resource management at Georgia Gwinett College, teaching courses such as compensation and benefits, staffing, training and development, and diversity management. He has published research in the areas of careers and diversity management, with a special focus on organizational outsiders within (marginalized individuals). He has received awards for his research, teaching, and service. He serves in leadership roles within the Academy of Management Gender and Diversity in Organizations division, as well as the mentoring committee. His doctorate is in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of Georgia.
ER59632_C000i.indd 25
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
xxvi
The Contributors
Eden King is an assistant professor in I/O psychology at George Mason University. After receiving her degree from Rice University in 2006, she began a program of research that seeks to guide the equitable and effective management of diverse organizations. Her research integrates organizational and social psychological theories in conceptualizing social stigma in the context of the contemporary American workplace. Her research interests also include issues related to the work–family interface, emotions, and teams in organizations. Eden’s commitment to psychological research is matched by her dedication to teaching and mentorship. Melenie J. Lankau earned her Ph.D. from the University of Miami; she is an associate professor of management in the Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. Her area of expertise is organizational behavior. She conducts research on mentoring and diversity in the workplace. She serves as a coach in the executive M.B.A. program and as a faculty presenter for leadership seminars organized by the Institute for Leadership Advancement in the Terry College. She is currently on the editorial boards of Journal of Management and Group and Organization Management. She is also a member of the board of the Southern Management Association. Juan M. Madera is a doctoral student in industrial/organizational psychology at Rice University. His research interests include individual and organizational methods to remediate discrimination, selection issues related to diversity, and leadership. He received a B.A. from California State University, Dominguez Hills, and an M.A. from Rice University. Patrick F. McKay is an associate professor in the School of Labor and Industrial Relations at Rutgers University (New Brunswick). He received his Ph.D. in I/O psychology in 1999 from the University of Akron. His research interests include diversity climate and its effects on organizational outcomes, test development and validation, adverse impact of personnel procedures against racial minorities, and minority recruitment and retention. Dr. McKay’s research has been published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management Inquiry, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Business and Psychology, and Public Personnel Management. He serves as an ad hoc reviewer for a number of
ER59632_C000i.indd 26
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
The Contributors
xxvii
publications including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Management, Group & Organization Management, and Human Relations. Prior to embarking on an academic career, he worked as a human resource consultant responsible for test development and validation, test administration, performance appraisal system development, training program implementation, job applicant rating, and litigation support. As a human resource consultant, he developed employment tests for nationally known organizations such as Lucent Technologies, Michelin, Sony Magnetic Products, and General Electric. Victoria C. Plaut is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Georgia and earned her Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University. She is a social and cultural psychologist. She studies the nature, prevalence, and impact of various approaches to racial and ethnic diversity (e.g., colorblindness and multiculturalism). She also studies ways to promote the participation and retention of women and minorities in fields in which they are underrepresented (e.g., computer science). The aim of her research is to dismantle barriers to creating inclusive diverse environments. Tahira M. Probst is an associate professor of I/O psychology in the Department of Psychology, Washington State University–Vancouver. In addition to teaching a course on cultural diversity in organizations, her research interests focus on issues related to workplace diversity, international human resource management, and occupational health psychology. She currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology and the Journal of Business and Psychology. Karen L. Proudford is associate professor of management at the Graves School of Business and Management, Morgan State University, and affiliated faculty at the Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons School of Management. Her research, writing, and consulting interests include group and intergroup dynamics, leadership, diversity, and conflict. She received her B.S. degree in accounting summa cum laude from Florida A&M University, and her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in management from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to beginning her career in aca-
ER59632_C000i.indd 27
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
xxviii
The Contributors
demia, she held positions at Honeywell, Inc., and IBM. Her work has appeared in academic and practitioner journals. She was recently named a Fulbright Senior Specialist Candidate. Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs earned her doctoral degree from the Applied (Industrial /Organizational) Psychology P, University of Georgia. Previously, she earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology with a minor in ethnic studies from the University of California–San Diego in 2002. She received her master of science in applied psychology from the University of Georgia in August. Currently, her research interests include the recruitment and retention of women and ethnic minorities in the workplace, career development and work experiences of women of color, and resistance to diversity initiatives in organizations. Christine M. Riordan is associate dean for external relations in the Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University in Fort Worth. She is also the Luther Henderson University Chair in Leadership and a professor of management. Her research focuses on labor-force diversity issues, leadership development and effectiveness, and career success. She is a frequent speaker to professional and academic audiences on these topics, having delivered more than 100 presentations throughout the United States. She has published articles in a variety of journals, including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Organizational Research Methods, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and many others. She is past president of the Southern Management Association. Brian Roote obtained a bachelor of science from Georgia State University and is now an I/O psychology doctoral student at the University of Georgia. His interests in diversity, appreciation of differences, and inclusion in the workplace led him to work under the guidance of Dr. Kecia Thomas and the Center for Research and Engagement in Diversity. Specifically, the topic of identity has always been of personal interest and continues to inspire his research focus. He is currently looking at differences in ethnic identity and hiring decisions with the dual goals of uncovering inconsistencies and attempting to improve the workplace to one of acceptance for all.
ER59632_C000i.indd 28
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
The Contributors
xxix
Laura Sabattini is a social psychologist and a director of research at Catalyst, a leading U.S. nonprofit research organization that promotes women’s advancement in the workplace. She has extensive expertise in the area of work-life quality, organizational effectiveness, and gender-based stereotyping. At Catalyst, she leads research related to women’s leadership, talent management strategies, and barriers to women’s workplace advancement. She is an active member of the Catalyst Work-Life Issue Specialty Team. She has also consulted organizations and lectured nationally and internationally. She received her B.A. degree in organizational and work psychology from the University of Padua, Italy, and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in social psychology from the University of California–Santa Cruz. Kecia M. Thomas is a professor of I/O psychology at the University of Georgia–Athens (UGA). She serves as senior advisor to the dean of the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, as well as the founding director of the Center for Research and Engagement in Diversity (RED). Her work focuses on understanding systems of privilege and resistance that limit the career development of women, people of color, and gay and lesbian workers, as well as those behaviors and practices that create and sustain hostile climates for diversity and inclusion. She is author of Diversity Dynamics (Wadsworth–Thomson) and over 35 peer-reviewed articles and book chapters. She and Karen Proudford also edited a special issue of the Journal of Career Development on Black women as organizational outsiders within. She has successfully served as a mentor and major professor to 13 Ph.D. candidates who now teach, research, or who engage in practice related to workplace diversity. Her own diversity practice, through RED, has enabled her to contribute to the diversity missions of institutions such as Middle Tennessee State University, BellSouth, Wofford College, the Dallas Independent School District (Texas), Rice University, the American Cancer Society, and the White County School District (Georgia). She is a member of the leadership collective of Nag’s Heart and a graduate of the HERS Management Institute at Wellesley College. She earned a B.A. degree in psychology and Spanish from Bucknell University (Lewisburg, Pennsylvania), and her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in I/O psychology from the Pennsylvania State University (State College, PA). Ilene C. Wasserman is founder and principal of ICW Consulting Group, a strategic organizational consulting firm that specializes in
ER59632_C000i.indd 29
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
xxx
The Contributors
designing and facilitating culture change interventions in organizations that promote the engagement of diversity and organizational learning. She consults to a variety of industries in the corporate and nonprofit arena. She is also an adjunct faculty member of Teachers College at Columbia University where she teaches “Emotional, Social, and Cultural Intelligences,” and at the Haub School of Business where she teaches “Leading Change in Organizations.” In her research and practice, Ilene focuses on relational and discursive processes that foster transformative meaning in the engagement of social, cultural, and positional differences. She received her Ph.D. in human and organizational development from Fielding Graduate University, and is a graduate of the George Warren Brown School of Social Work and the Graduate Institute of Education at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. She is an active member of her community and serves on several community boards and professional organizations. Julie Holiday Wayne is a visiting assistant professor in the Calloway School of Business and Accountancy at Wake Forest University. She earned her Ph.D. in I/O psychology at the University of Georgia. She has published research on sexual harassment, work-family conflict, and workforce diversity in numerous journals including Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Organizational Research Methods, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, and Human Resource Management Review. Heather Wishik of Heather Wishik Consulting is a global organization development consultant, currently based in Massachusetts, who works with business, academic, government, and nongovernmental organizations in the U.S., South America, Asia, Europe, and Africa. Assisting executives to lead their organizations toward strategic approaches to leveraging difference, and to obtain the organizational learning required to do so, are key portions of her practice. She holds a J.D. degree from the University of San Diego and an honors B.A. degree in I/O psychology from the University of South Africa (UNISA), and is currently working on a Ph.D. at UNISA. She speaks and works in English and French, and knows basic conversational Dutch.
ER59632_C000i.indd 30
10/16/2007 7:28:22 AM
1 The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
As we commemorate EEOC’s 35th anniversary this summer, it is sad to note the increase in recent years of the same type of behavior which compelled our nation to act 36 years ago. Ida L. Castro, Chairwoman of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Resistance to diversity is not a new or emerging issue. Every society and culture has confronted resistance to new immigrants, diverse ideologies, and simply different ways of being. The arguments against the abolition of slavery, voting and civil rights (Van Buren, 1996; Dass & Parker, 1999), and continuing debates about domestic partner and immigration legislation suggest that even in the twentyfirst century, the United States still struggles with issues related to race, color, culture, language, and sexual identity. In fact, despite increasing explicit pronouncements of tolerance for diversity, actual accounts of workplace discrimination are on the rise (Wooten & James, 2004). In contrast to the past, instances of resistance are not as vocal nor as transparent, thus making them more difficult to decipher and confront. Our discomfort, anxieties, fears, stereotypes, and anger persist and derail attempts at creating an inclusive society and culture, both inside as well as outside organizational life. The topic of diversity is an enduring and likely permanent issue within organizational life. Common organizational efforts related to diversity within the workplace largely focus on recruitment and retention, and human resource development efforts related to diver
ER59632_C001.indd 1
10/4/2007 7:06:08 AM
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
sity such as training, mentoring, and networks. More systemic efforts that address leadership and organizational development have also been offered. In addition to a growing academic literature related to the issue of workplace diversity, there is an emerging industry targeted toward supporting organizations in their attempts to achieve and sustain diversity and its benefits while also avoiding the potential conflicts that can be related to it. Yet despite the growing interest in diversity and the implementation of various initiatives related to it, costly problems persist. Continuing examples of workplace discrimination, harassment, and class action lawsuits that center on issues of employee difference reflect resistance to diversity at all levels of organizations. The term diversity resistance may immediately bring to mind images of overt, hostile, and intentional forms of one-on-one intimidation and violence targeted to minority group members. This certainly would demonstrate one form of diversity resistance. Yet there are likely many other forms that are more difficult to discern and which might even appear to be standard workplace behavior or practice. The goal of this volume is to shed light on the multiple and complex facets of diversity resistance and better understand its impact on worker and workplace well-being and functioning. Our collective goal is to promote greater conversation and investigation into diversity resistance so that individually and organizationally it can be prevented, or at least better understood and addressed when it does occur. The role of this particular chapter is to introduce the topic of resistance to diversity. In order to accomplish that goal we will begin with a discussion of what we know about resistance in organizations. This more general conversation on resistance will focus on resistance to organizational change. We will then narrow our focus to the topic of resistance to diversity, which in many ways reflects a resistance to this unique form of change in the workplace. Different conceptualizations of diversity resistance will be shared before presenting our typology of diversity resistance. Next we will move to a conversation about the consequences and costs of unattended diversity resistance for individuals and their workplaces. We will conclude by offering social psychological and organizational explanations for diversity resistance and directions for what might be done about it.
ER59632_C001.indd 2
10/4/2007 7:06:08 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
Resistance: An Od Perspective Most of what we know about resistance in organizations is actually tied to organizational change. Resistance to change often is rooted in fears about an uncertain future, the relinquishment of the familiarity of a comfortable present, and perhaps frustration over the lack of control one may experience. When related to organizations, change is often a reflection of a perceived loss of status, power, and influence as well as uncertainty (French & Bell, 1999). Often resistance to change is expressed in worker emotions which may range from anger, fearfulness, and anxiety to mourning one’s perceived loss (French & Bell, 1999). Workers experiencing especially strong and negative emotions related to the impending change in their workplace may even attempt to derail or sabotage change efforts. Organizational scholars have been very proactive in providing guidance to organizations that are undergoing change. These recommendations often center on communication and involvement. At the foundation of these recommendations is the expectation that if employees feel involved in the change and if they frequently receive honest and straightforward communication about the change (rather than hear about it through rumor and innuendo), they will experience less anxiety and less resistance to it. Another strategy is to justify the impending change by communicating and demonstrating that the current system or way of doing things is unsatisfactory and even threatening to the organizations and therefore to workers’ employment. Another means of moving through resistance is to hold workers accountable for learning and adapting to the change forthcoming and allowing persistent resistors to identify other sources of employment. In many ways the growing attention and rates of demographic growth in the workplace is a form of organizational change. The 1988 Hudson Institute report, Workforce 2000 (Johnston & Packer, 1987), was an attempt to communicate to both organizations and to the labor force that there was a major change on the horizon that would not only impact the recruitment and retention of workers, but also the career development and workplace relationships of the employees themselves (Thomas, 2005). Yet the changes brought on by diversity are also unique, especially since these changes have prompted organizations and workers to
ER59632_C001.indd 3
10/4/2007 7:06:08 AM
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
confront the still very taboo topic of race as well as gender, and even sexuality. As Tatum (1999) puts it, there is nothing worse than being called a racist. Expressing discomfort or anxiety therefore about the changing demographics of the labor force has meant that employees could not freely address their diversity related fears and anxiety, nor could organizations openly confront these issues. Americans’ strong individualistic value systems further drive conversations about race and diversity underground or make them taboo (Schofield, 1986). In a society that believes in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, conversations about race, power, and privilege simply seem irrelevant or are just too uncomfortable to pursue.
Diversity Resistance Educators have been on the forefront of discussing and analyzing diversity resistance. The focus of their discussions about resistance has largely been on classroom dynamics and student responses to diverse faculty and course content. For example, Tatum (1992) talks about the emotional responses that students experience in college classes that address issues around race. When these emotional responses such as shame, guilt, or anger are not confronted and addressed, resistance is created. This resistance subsequently interferes with students’ abilities to intellectually understand and master the material that motivated the resistance initially (Tatum, 1992). Helms and colleagues (2003) also talk about resistance to diversity in regards to majority students’ emotional responses to diversity content. In addition to outlining students’ emotional reactions, Helms et al. (2003) also discuss the outcomes of students’ diversity resistance as such as punishment and racial harassment directed to minority faculty. Students punish their instructors by disengaging in diversity courses. Students “turn off” to the class and the instructor through their absenteeism, tardiness, or disruptive and unprofessional behavior, which sadly interferes with their ability to learn the material. Students also engage in the racial harassment of their minority instructors, who often are responsible for diversity courses, by submitting poor evaluations and demoralizing the professionals who are held accountable for these students’ educations (Helms, Malone, Henze, Satiani, Perry, & Warren, 2003).
ER59632_C001.indd 4
10/4/2007 7:06:09 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
Organizational scholars have talked about resistance to diversity and diversity initiatives largely in terms of White male backlash (Solomon, 1991). This backlash has largely focused on the emotional responses of White males who perceive growing interest in diversity as a threat to their career opportunities and development. Within the context of work, these negative emotions are largely driven by feelings that White men are being outnumbered and that other workers, presumably unqualified women and minorities, are taking away their opportunities and jobs (Jacques, 1997). A more recent trend in the organizational literature is to discuss resistance as an organizational paradigm or perspective as it relates to diversity (Dass & Parker, 1999). A resistance perspective is one characterized by a dominant response to diversity that is reactive and which includes denial, avoidance, defiance, and/or manipulation (Dass & Parker, 1999). Two of the three diversity paradigms offered by Thomas and Ely (1996), namely the discrimination and fairness paradigm, and the access and legitimacy paradigm, reflect organizational perspectives about diversity in which underrepresented and historically and socially marginalized workers are discriminated against and expected to assimilate (discrimination and fairness) or only accepted for their expected ability to offer organizations entry into their ethnic communities (access and legitimacy). Both paradigms reflect an organizational inability to perceive and enact diversity as a critical opportunity for employee and organizational learning that could subsequently enhance institutional effectiveness, which is their third paradigm, learning and effectiveness (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Our working definition of diversity resistance is outcome based and therefore it moves beyond focusing on emotions and seeks to understand both the individual and organizational behaviors and practices that impede diversity initiatives and the access and fair treatment of minority (broadly defined) workers in organizations. With that in mind, we define diversity resistance as a range of practices and behaviors within and by organizations that interfere, intentionally or unintentionally, with the use of diversity as an opportunity for learning and effectiveness. At the interpersonal level, diversity resistance can therefore involve the rejection, exclusion, harassment and/or subordination of others based upon differences, as well as more obvious overt, hostile, and intentional actions and hate crimes. At the level of the orga-
ER59632_C001.indd 5
10/4/2007 7:06:09 AM
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
nization, diversity resistance ultimately involves the systemic rejection, exclusion, harassment, and/or subordination of workers from minority groups via organizational policies or practices. Like prejudice, resistance to diversity reflects a continuum (Allport, 1954) of both unintentional and conscious choices that can have deleterious career and well-being consequences for minority workers and for the organizational practices and polices designed to create fair and safe workplaces for them. A Typology of Diversity Resistance in Organizations Figure 1.1 provides a pictorial depiction of the ways in which diversity resistance may manifest in organizations. Two dimensions of diversity resistance are considered that focus on the issues: At what level of the organization is resistance perpetuated, and what is the nature of the resistance? Individual resistance to diversity may reflect instances of overt and conventional prejudice, discrimination, and harassment, as well as more subtle exclusion, avoidance, distancing, and even silence in the face of others’ discrimination and harassment. Organizations engage in policies and practices that resist diversity in overt and obvious ways as well as in ways that are more subtle and covert. Organizational-level forms of diversity resistance limit the opportunities for groups and communities to experience equal employment
Figure 1.1 A taxonomy of diversity resistance in organizations.
ER59632_C001.indd 6
10/4/2007 7:06:09 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
opportunity, gain critical developmental opportunities needed for career development and promotion, and effectively seek recourse when interpersonal forms of diversity resistance are experienced. Overt Cases of Diversity Resistance Cases of overt resistance to diversity are typically easy to identify, and there are frequently institutional or societal policies and regulations in place to deal with them (Friedman & Davis, 2001). Contemporary resistance to diversity is most obvious at the individual level of analysis and frequently includes instances of discrimination and harassment (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html) such as the surprising and increasing rates of “hangmen’s nooses” placed in workplaces in order to intimidate Black workers (EEOC, 2000). This trend began in the late 1990s and reflects a 400% increase in this particular form of racial harassment, an obvious form of diversity resistance (EEOC, 2000). Clearly, these types of personal attacks against minority workers are important to understand, avoid, and remedy, especially given the rise in these attacks. Verbal harassment, sexual harassment, and workplace violence are also frequent forms of resistance to diversity. The presence of workplace nooses not only represents an individual and hostile example of diversity resistance but also represents resistance at organizational levels, depending upon how organizations respond to this racial harassment. Organizational diversity resistance can reflect intentional and overt policies and practices that actively perpetuate the harassment, discrimination, and exclusion of some workers on the basis of their social group membership. The hangmen’s noose example provides ample evidence of ways in which organizations overtly resist diversity. For example, Joseph Banks, a Black employee at Lockheed Martin was verbally harassed by his supervisor and eventually found a noose in his workplace. Other Black employees complained that Lockheed Martin knew of similar events but ignored them or made light of this harassment (Trigaux, 2000). A suit against Southern Company alleged that Black employees were shortchanged in regard to promotion opportunities and compensation. Furthermore, this acceptable tolerance for treatment discrimination in pay and opportunity manifested in a hostile cli-
ER59632_C001.indd 7
10/4/2007 7:06:10 AM
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
mate for diversity that was most visibly manifested in a dozen (some reports suggest more) nooses that were allowed to hang in the organization’s facilities until after the original suit was filed (McDonald, 2003). Likewise Georgia Power, a Southern Company subsidiary, also knew about and tolerated hangmen’s nooses; however, the company did not acknowledge that nooses found in workplaces where Blacks worked were intended to harass or intimidate those workers (Trigaux, 2000). The incidence of nooses at Georgia Power actually continued (and some reports suggest escalated) after Black employees sought class action suit status for racial harassment and the offensive climate that was allowed to persist for Black workers. Illegal selection and promotion practices such as those alleged against Walmart also reflect diversity resistance. At times, individual and organizational behaviors and practices that are “well intentioned” may actually resist diversity (Mio & Awakuni, 2000). These forms of diversity resistance are especially dangerous because the individuals and leadership teams involved are frequently unaware of the harm they inflict on marginalized workers, and it is difficult for them to accept their practices or policies as averse to diversity. Subsequently, subtle and frequently well meaning and good intentioned forms of diversity resistance are rarely changed because those who perpetuate them are rarely motivated to eliminate them (Mio & Awakuni, 2000). Silence, as an individual action and as a cultural norm, is another important subtle manifestation of diversity resistance that rarely gets discussed. Subtle Forms of Diversity Resistance Individual Level. The passive acceptance of others’ discrimination is one frequent form of diversity resistance. Silence in the face of others’ discrimination, harassment, and mistreatment only serves to reinforce the resistance and does nothing to challenge it. Certainly bystanders who witness the placement of nooses in offices, cubicles, and workplaces in many ways are accessories to those acts. Ted Gignilliat, a 20-year White worker at Lockheed Martin had remained silent in the face of Black coworkers’ racial harassment and hangmen’s nooses for several years until an injury revealed to him what mistreatment can feel like for Black workers (Trigaux, 2000). Once he began reporting racist occurrences and the nooses to supervisors, he, too, became a target of harassment. The harassment became so
ER59632_C001.indd 8
10/4/2007 7:06:10 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
bad that eventually he changed his home phone number in order to stop the threats he received (Trigaux, 2000). Other more subtle forms of individual-level diversity resistance often reflect interpersonal discrimination, namely exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing (Lott & Maluso, 1995). For example, Thomas (2005) discusses how social distancing in the workplace denies opportunities for minority career development and mobility. Dominant group workers distance themselves from others who belong to more marginalized groups for many reasons. For example, potential male mentors may distance themselves from women because they fear the perception that the relationship is romantic or that the female protégé may develop romantic feelings. Women may also be distanced if stereotypes are embraced that suggest they are incompetent or have less of a “payback period” due to less work commitment (Cox, 1994) as compared to male protégés. These stereotypes and beliefs frequently create barriers to receiving the career-related benefits of mentoring, especially in industries or work environments that are male dominated. Research by Dreher & Cox (1996) also suggests that there are some very real financial losses that result from not having a White male mentor, specifically. In their study of MBAs, those with a White male mentor had a $7000 salary advantage over those that had no mentor, or a mentor who was a person of color or a woman. That is, financially, having a female mentor or a mentor that was a person of color was equivalent to not having any mentor! Therefore, distancing of White men (especially) from women and members of ethnic minority groups may be particularly harmful both professionally and financially. Organizational forms of diversity resistance can also be covert and passive, for example when organizations engage in secondary victimization (Murphy, 2001). When minority group members have no recourse for the discrimination they confront and when there are no viable alternatives for seeking a resolution to their harassment and discrimination out of fear they will be further victimized, secondary victimization occurs. This experience can eventually lead the victimized to accept (and in some cases rationalize) the prejudice directed toward them (Pharr, 1988). Another more subtle form of organizational resistance to diversity can be explained as ethnic drift (Lefkowitz, 1994). For example, unconscious institutionalized practices of assigning minority newcomers supervisors of their same ethnicity create limited oppor-
ER59632_C001.indd 9
10/4/2007 7:06:10 AM
10
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
tunities for organizational entry and career development for minority workers (James, 2000). The good intention of pairing a new worker and supervisor based upon ethnicity in order to build upon their expected similarities may unintentionally limit the careerrelated opportunities of those new workers and their organizations to accrue the benefits of a new perspective in a variety of organizational units or divisions. A related form of subtle and organizational resistance to diversity is the prevalence of “access and legitimacy” paradigms and belief systems in organizations (Thomas & Ely, 1996). These belief systems encourage surface-level diversity but deny opportunities for deeper level diversity to surface as an opportunity for organizational learning and greater effectiveness. These organizations frequently create opportunities for inclusion, but only in divisions or units that on the surface appear related to minority issues, such as a targeted (minority) marketing campaign. Although marginalized group members may find homes in these organizations, they are pigeon-holed into one function and will frequently end up feeling exploited and used. When they leave the organization, the organization suffers the loss of not having integrated their unique perspective throughout the entire firm (Thomas & Ely, 1996). More covert forms of diversity resistance may also be indirect such as when cultures of intolerance are created that allow other more hostile and overt forms of resistance to be explained away as mere coincidence. During the time in which Georgia Power was accused of racial discrimination and harassment, most visibly through the placement of hangmen’s nooses, the company readily acknowledged at least five instances where nooses were left on company property. However, the company claimed that only one of those nooses was intended to racially harass and intimidate workers. Furthermore, Georgia Power chief David Ratcliffe commented that, “It’s not uncommon for line workers during bad weather to practice tying knots for the purposes of their job (Trigaux, 2000).” How is it that such an obvious reliance on a visible and historic symbol of intolerance and hate can be so easily explained away? What was it about Georgia Power (then) that made it acceptable to explain nooses away as a diversion? Taboos persist, especially when connected to race, that permit the myth of color blindness to become the norm in organizations that ultimately create barriers to inclusiveness, fairness,
ER59632_C001.indd 10
10/4/2007 7:06:10 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
11
and diversity by implicitly excusing intolerance (Thomas, Mack, & Montagliani, 2004). Diversity resistance is a relatively unexplored topic within human resources, yet it has costly implications for organizations that allow it to persist. Workers that experience this resistance incur costs to their ability to gain employment, to their opportunities for career development, and even to their health in the form of work-related stress. The Costly Outcomes of Diversity Resistance One significant outcome of resistance to diversity is conflict. Certainly at the foundation of interpersonal discrimination and hate crimes in organizations is the internal conflict some employees experience between whom they believe should work in their workplace and whom should not. They seek to eliminate this conflict by intimidating minority workers or engaging in otherwise negative behaviors that would motivate minorities to leave. It is relatively easy to see discrimination and harassment as likely outcomes of resistance. It is more difficult to see other forms of conflict that come out of resistance to diversity. Friedman and Davidson (2001) discuss conflict related to diversity as occurring as first-level conflict and second-level conflict. Firstlevel conflict is the actual discrimination and harassment already discussed. Second-level conflict is related to the more covert and hidden forms of resistance that impede organizations’ abilities to effectively resolve first-order conflict. That is, second-level conflict may actually represent conflict about how to address workplace discrimination and harassment, how diversity is defined, and which diversity strategies to pursue. Affirmative action is clearly one of those diversity strategies about which employees may have vastly different opinions that they are hesitant to express due to fear of escalating conflict. Unexpressed sentiments can lead to autistic hostility that derails other diversity efforts (Friedman & Davidson, 2001). Organizational Level Costs Diversity resistance leads to financial, productivity, developmental, and emotional costs. Watson & Hoffman’s (1996) research suggests that managers spend up to 42% of their time related to the resolu-
ER59632_C001.indd 11
10/4/2007 7:06:10 AM
12
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
tion of workplace conflict. There are very significant financial costs related to the settlements and payoffs related to discrimination and harassment suits (Thomas & Davis, 2006). The fees paid to legal teams also represent a significant financial liability. Levine (1998) discusses the costs of conflict as not only financial but also related to productivity, continuity, and the emotions involved. The loss of employee time is reflected in productivity costs. Continuity costs are experienced through employee turnover, absenteeism, and even disengagement. Emotional costs are experienced as a loss of workplace morale and even the sullied image that results when organizations are accused of discrimination suits.
Individual-Level Costs Individual employees also incur the costs of diversity resistance. Certainly overt discrimination and interpersonal discrimination encountered through social distancing, exclusion, and avoidance create glass ceilings for minority employees by denying them access to informal lines of communication, psychosocial support, and developmental opportunities and relationships, as well as financial benefits (Thomas, 2005). For targets of diversity resistance, the psychological costs are experienced as lowered self-esteem, lowered efficacy for one’s role or job, burnout, and stress. The stress of negotiating a hostile work climate is also likely related to significant physical- and health-related costs of diversity resistance such as cardiovascular disease (Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001). These unique stressors for workplace minorities make them especially susceptible to diseases related to stress that are likely stemming from the chronic and everyday nature of workplace discrimination. The risk of interpersonal violence associated with diversity resistance is also a significant safety and health risk. Women of color seem especially at risk for these health-related costs, given their dual minority status that predisposes them to being targets of both racial and sexual harassment (Berdahl & Moore, 2006) and more likely to incur the health-related costs of ongoing discrimination (Mays, Coleman, & Jackson, 1996).
ER59632_C001.indd 12
10/4/2007 7:06:10 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
13
Explanations for Diversity Resistance Explanations for Overt Forms of Resistance The persistence of workplace discrimination and harassment, specifically, can be explained by multiple individual difference, cognitive, motivational, and cultural factors. In terms of individual differences, individual hostility (e.g., hostile sexism) and value orientations (e.g., authoritarianism) can drive discrimination. From a more cognitive perspective, stereotypes about certain groups are widely known and can lead to evaluating employees on the basis of category membership rather than individual merit—especially when the target is in the minority or there is a lack of perceived fit between their category and occupation (Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, & Heilman, 1991). Furthermore, when a target disconfirms a stereotype (e.g., a nonnurturing woman leader) she is likely to be subtyped (e.g., “career woman”), leaving the original stereotype intact. Numerous motivational factors also explain the persistence of discrimination. According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), people not only categorize individuals into ingroups and outgroups, but they also confer positive distinctiveness on their own groups because they are motivated to enhance self-esteem, and, therefore, prejudice rises when self-esteem is threatened. Sinclair and Kunda (2000) found that men disparaged a female manager when given negative feedback, but not positive feedback, by her; however, the same difference was not found when the manager was male. Other motivations include competition for resources (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961), maintaining power over subordinate groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), and concern for the ingroup (Lowery, Unzueta, Knowles, & Goff, 2006). Explanations for Subtle Forms of Resistance What currently makes discrimination and harassment more insidious is the fact that in the last few decades, racism and sexism seem to have gone undercover. Whereas explicit forms of prejudice and discrimination have decreased in many settings, implicit, subtle, or covert forms of prejudice persist. For example, modern racists
ER59632_C001.indd 13
10/4/2007 7:06:11 AM
14
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
(McConahay & Hough, 1976) and sexists (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995) express prejudice in a more socially acceptable way than blatant racists and sexists: through support for policies that happen to disadvantage Blacks and women. Aversive racists may even endorse egalitarian values but, because of norms against overt racism, can’t admit their own racial bias and then discriminate when the situation provides them with a seemingly race-neutral excuse (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). For the ambivalent sexist, who adheres to both hostile sexism (negative feelings towards women) and benevolent sexism (affectionate and chivalrous feelings toward women), the latter provides a convenient cover for discriminatory behavior (Glick & Fiske 2001). Finally, implicit racism and sexism, which operate unconsciously, can be present in individuals who aim to be fair, but it can go undetected and therefore unaccompanied by motivation to change (Banaji & Greenwald, 1994). Discriminatory behavior is also reinforced implicitly in cultural products (television shows, advertisements, films, Web sites) that guide our perceptions of people from different groups and affect interracial and inter-gender communication (Orbe & Harris, 2001). Cultural ideologies also shape ways individuals perceive and evaluate minority group members. For example, color blindness, which advocates ignoring difference and treating people as all the same, ironically increases bias toward ethnic minorities (Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004), and protestant work ethic ideology is linked to stronger anti-black attitudes (Katz & Hass, 1988). Cultural norms within organizations can also lead to increased discrimination. The more normatively acceptable it is to harbor prejudice against a certain group, the more willing people are to express it, joke about it, and discriminate against group members (Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brien, 2002). Silence as a Form of Resistance But in this era of increased condemnation of discrimination, why do individuals remain silent in the face of others’ discrimination and harassment? Various social–psychological explanations can help us understand this lack of action, in particular, those associated with Latané and Darley’s (1970) five-step model of helping. First, individuals have to notice that discrimination is occurring. Given that discrimination can occur in subtle or institutionalized ways (not always perpetrated by individuals with explicit intent to harm), this
ER59632_C001.indd 14
10/4/2007 7:06:11 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
15
can be hard to do. If individuals are distracted, or are preoccupied by self-concerns such as getting their jobs done, they may not be fully aware of these behaviors. Second, individuals have to code behaviors as discriminatory, which will fail if they perceive them as “none of their business” or as sufficiently ambiguous to determine whether a transgression took place. (Did he really harass her or was he just mildly flirting?) Even if individuals think an action is wrong, they might fall prey to pluralistic ignorance—misperceiving the social norm and believing that other people (who are also not explicitly expressing any concern) believe the action is more acceptable than they do. Third, individuals have to take personal responsibility. Unfortunately, being in a group can actually decrease the chances of offering help, through a process known as diffusion of responsibility (someone else either has already done something about this or will do something). Fourth, individuals have to decide how to help and feel competent to act. An individual might not feel skilled in addressing a discriminatory behavior and might not realize that a little effort can go a long way (Meyerson & Fletcher, 2000). Fifth, the individual has to act. If there are costs associated with voicing a complaint, silence will prevail. There are tremendous potential costs to labeling someone a racist or a harasser—costs that could involve not only embarrassment but also losing one’s job. Relatedly, people typically don’t like to be the whistle-blower, to rock the boat, or to appear deviant. The pressure of normative, majority influence can compel people to stay silent even when a behavior is unambiguously wrong (Asch, 1955). In addition, individuals engage in self-protective processes. The desire to believe one lives in a meritocracy can lead to making defensive personal attributions for others’ negative outcomes (e.g., blaming the victim). To the extent that individual targets are blamed for transgressions against them and discriminatory behavior is justified and rationalized, change will not occur. Micro Solutions Are there, then, solutions for these issues? Given the socially entrenched, and often implicit and covert nature of some of these processes, changing individual behavior poses a significant challenge. Solutions that have been offered for reducing prejudice and discrimination include intergroup contact (Allport, 1954), coop-
ER59632_C001.indd 15
10/4/2007 7:06:11 AM
16
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
erative learning (Aronson, Stephan, Sikes, Blaney, & Snapp, 1978), perspective-taking (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000), and encouraging a common identity (Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1993). Attempts at changing norms could also yield some success. When people are led to think that their perceptions of minority group members are more stereotypical than are others’ they endorse fewer stereotypes (Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001). Encouraging individuals to be cognizant of their racial, gender, and ideological biases could also help. Efforts can also be made to decrease the tendency for observers of discriminatory action to remain silent. These include encouraging personal accountability so that individuals do not simply believe that someone else is going to intervene, fostering more open communication about people’s true feelings about discriminatory behaviors so that people don’t misperceive social norms, clarifying the simple steps that can be followed for intervening so that individuals can feel competent in reacting to such behavior, and minimizing the personal costs associated with reporting discrimination. Macro Explanations for Resistance Organizations by themselves do not choose to discriminate, harass, nor devalue diversity; individuals engage in those behaviors. Therefore, all of the individual-level explanations offered for diversity resistance apply when attempting to understand organizational behavior, especially that of leaders. Leaders establish the values and in many ways drive the cultures of organizations. They establish the human resources policies and practices that can support or denigrate attempts to create inclusive workplace climates. Therefore, the values and practices of leaders, especially as organizational role models, deserve extra scrutiny in understanding why and how organizations resist diversity. Although organizations are driven by human behaviors and inadequacies, organizations are also microcosms of the larger society. Thomas, Mack, and Motaglinai (2004) suggest that the resistance perpetuated by organizations is simply a reflection of the larger cultural ideologies that resist inclusion and diversity, such as the colorblind ideal, the society as a melting pot, and the meritocracy myth. Each of these ideologies may on their surface appear to support
ER59632_C001.indd 16
10/4/2007 7:06:11 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
17
diversity, but at their foundation each really supports sameness, homogeneity, assimilation, and maintaining the status quo (Plaut, 2002). Wooten & James (2004) suggest that the dominant routines of organizational life prevent organizations from effectively identifying and addressing and rectifying workplace discrimination. Two “routine”-based explanations offered are that: (1) organizations rarely engage in reflective (double-loop) learning, and (2) organizations adopt defensive routines when events occur (like public claims of harassment and discrimination). Organizational leaders rarely look to their existing values and culture to better understand the occurrence of bias and discrimination. Instead, when these events occur, they deny claims, defend the organization (and at times justify the organization), and use the mere existence of EEO as a rationale for why discrimination could not possibly occur (Wooten & James, 2004). In many ways, the mere existence of EEO policies may let organizations off the hook; after all, the principle of fairness is typically one in which there is ample agreement. However, when initiatives and practices to support EEO and fairness are actually put into effect, there may be widespread disagreement (Van Buren, 1996). Van Buren also argues that workers are not resistant to the idea of fairness and EEO, but they “ … are resistant to programs that seek to implement the value of equal employment opportunity (p. 22).” That is, programs that seek to dismantle existing norms that may be disadvantageous to minority and marginalized groups, and those that challenge ways of working together, frequently face resistance. Furthermore, the more underrepresented groups become better represented (thus potentially shifting systems of power), the more resistance occurs, especially if dominant groups begin to feel under siege, threatened, and that the larger culture is under attack (Van Buren, 1996). Like Thomas, Mack, and Montagliani (2004), Van Buren (1996) suggests that managerial resistance to programs that support inclusion in organizations is largely driven by myths. These myths include the belief that discrimination is something of the past, that existing disparities among groups based upon demographic differences is due to differences in merit, that the organization lacks the resources for strong EEO programs, and that these programs do not support the business case for diversity. The prevalence of these myths are striking when you consider them in contrast to the national context
ER59632_C001.indd 17
10/4/2007 7:06:11 AM
18
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
in which multimillion-dollar settlements occur almost weekly for workplaces found guilty of discrimination and harassment. Perhaps the most effective strategy for ridding organizations of diversity resistance is to address it at its multiple levels and in its many varieties. Certainly organizational leaders must accept the charge of better understanding how their work environments may actually reinforce and promote interpersonal discrimination and harassment in its most hostile and subtle forms. Understanding how systems of privilege (Thomas, 1996) create opportunities for some workers and deny opportunities for others is an important lesson that can help leaders better critique existing policies and practices. Like individuals, organizations, namely their leaders, need the motivation to develop in their own diversity consciousness (ChrobotMason & Thomas, 2002). The frequency of settlement and court cases and the significant financial costs incurred (the business case for diversity) do not appear to be motivation enough (Litvin, 2006). References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley. Aronson, E., Stephan, C. W., Sikes, J. N., Blaney, N. T., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35. Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1994). Implicit stereotyping and prejudice. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 55–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 426–436. Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African Americans and high blood pressure: The role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science, 12(3), 225–229. Chrobot-Mason, D. L., & Thomas, K. M. (2002). Minority employees in majority organizations: The intersection of individual and organizational racial identity in the workplace. Human Resource Development Review, 1(3), 323–344. Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kohler. Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 59–378.
ER59632_C001.indd 18
10/4/2007 7:06:12 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
19
Dass, P., & Parker, B. (1999). Strategies for managing human resource diversity: From resistance to learning. Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 68–80. Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 297–308. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] (2000). EEOC Chairwoman responds to surge of workplace noose incidents at NAACP annual convention. Press release (7/13/2000). www.eeoc. gov/press/7-13-00-b.html. Accessed on 10/11/2006. Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science research on trial: The use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049–1060. French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Friedman, R. A., & Davidson, M. N. (2001). Managing diversity and second-order conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(2), 132–153. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Theory and research (pp. 61–90). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). Chi chester, U.K.: Wiley. Gaertner, S. L. Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., Anastasio, P. A., Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and ingroup favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. Helms, J. E., Malone, L. S., Henze, K., Satiani, A., Perry, J., & Warren, A. (2003). First annual diversity challenge: How to survive teaching courses on race and culture. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31(1), 3–11. Jacques, R. (1997). The unbearable Whiteness of being: Reflections of a pale, stale male. In Prasad, P., Mills, A. J., Elmes, M., & Prasad, A. (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ER59632_C001.indd 19
10/4/2007 7:06:12 AM
20
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
James, E. H. (2000). Race-related differences in promotions and support: Underlying effects of human and social capital. Organization Science, 11(5), 493–508. Johnston, W. F., & Packer, A.E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor. Katz, I., & Hass, R. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Lefkowitz, J. (1994). Race as a factor in job placement: serendipitous findings of ethnic drift. Personnel Psychology, 47, 497–514. Litvin, D. R. (2006). Diversity: Making space for a better case. In A. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (75–94). London: Sage. Lott, B., & Maluso, D. (1995). The social psychology of interpersonal discrimination. New York: The Guilford Press. Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Goff, P. A. (2006). Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 961–974. Mays, V. M., Coleman, L. M., & Jackson, J. S. (1996). Perceived race-based discrimination, employment status, and job stress in a national sample of Black women: Implications for health outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(3), 319–329. McConahay, J., & Hough, J. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 23–45. McDonald, R. (2003). EEOC Raps Federal Judge’s Ruling in Race Class. Fulton County Daily Report (June 17, 2003). Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. (Jan–Feb 2000). A modest manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 127–136. Mio, J. S., & Awakuni, G. I. (2000). Resistance to multiculturalism: Issues and interventions. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Orbe, M. P., & Harris, T. M. (2001). Interracial communication: Theory into practice. Stamford, CT: Wadsworth. Pharr, S. (1988). The common elements of oppressions. Homophobia: A weapon of sexism (pp. 53–64). Little Rock, AR: Chardon. Plaut, V. C. (2002). Cultural models of diversity: The psychology of difference and inclusion. In R. Shweder, M. Minow, & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Engaging cultural differences: The multicultural challenge in liberal democracies (pp. 365–395). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
ER59632_C001.indd 20
10/4/2007 7:06:12 AM
The Many Faces of Diversity Resistance in the Workplace
21
Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417–423. Roberson, Q. M., & Stevens, C. K. (2006). Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 379–391. Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences of the colorblind perspective. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. New York: Academic Press. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers’ cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. (2000). Motivated stereotyping of women: She’s fine if she praised me but incompetent if she criticized me. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1329–1342. Solomon, C. M. (1991). Are white males being left out? Personnel Journal, 91(70), 88–92. Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 486–496. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24. Tatum, B. D. (1999). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books. Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, September– October, 79–90. Thomas, K. M. (2005). Diversity Dynamics in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson.
ER59632_C001.indd 21
10/4/2007 7:06:12 AM
22
Kecia M. Thomas and Victoria C. Plaut
Thomas, K. M. (1996). Psychological privilege and ethnocentrism as barriers to cross-cultural adjustment and effective intercultural interactions. Leadership Quarterly: An International Journal of Political, Social and Behavioral Science, 7 [Special Issue: Leadership and Diversity], 217–230. Thomas, K. M., & Davis, J. L. (2006). Best practices in diversity management. In M. Karsten (Ed.), Gender, race, & ethnicity in the workplace: Issues and challenges for today’s organizations, Vol. 3, 69–84. Praeger/Greenwood. Thomas, K. M., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2005). Demographic group based discrimination: Theories and conclusions. In R. Diboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 63–88) [part of the Society for Industrial-Organizational Psychology’s Frontiers Series]. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Thomas, K. M., Mack, D. A., & Montagliani, A. (2004). Challenging diversity myths: A critical analysis of backlash. In P. Stockdale & F. Crosby’s (Eds.), The psychology and management of diversity in organizations (pp. 31–51). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Trigaux, R. (2000). Noose harassment: A growth trend worth reversing. St. Petersburg Times (online). November 19, 2000. www.sptimes.com/ news/. Accessed October 10, 2006. Van Buren, H. J., III (1996). Ending the culture of corporate discrimination. Business and Society Review, 98, 20–23. Watson, C., & Hoffman, R. L. (1996). Managers as negotiators: A test of power status versus gender as predictors of feelings, behavior, and outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 7(1), 63–85. Wooten, L. P., & James, E. H. (2004). When firms fail to learn: The perpetuation of discrimination in the workplace. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13(1), 23–33.
ER59632_C001.indd 22
10/4/2007 7:06:12 AM
2 Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Diversity Training and Learning Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
Resistance can be one of the most difficult aspects of educating about diversity and social justice. Goodman (2001, p. 64)
We agree. The best-planned educational experiences can be disrupted by participant behaviors that are unpredictable, distracting, argumentative, or even threatening. Take, for example, the following account from the third author: A diversity training workshop was held at a U.S. chemical company, and managers and leaders were strongly encouraged to attend. Topics included race, culture, gender, and sexual orientation. During the sexual orientation segment, while a consultant was debriefing the whole group, several participants surrounded a colleague sitting in the back row after he pulled out and opened a large folding knife and began vigorously tapping the blade on his thigh. This chapter addresses resistance to diversity training in U.S. organizations. For purposes of this chapter, diversity training is referred to as a form of diversity learning accomplished through formal classes and workshops, which is the focus of most U.S. research. Diversity learning can also take place outside such settings, including through team- and project-based work experiences, mentoring relationships, and other interactions. Diversity learning, at its best, involves awareness as well as behavior and skill building, and thus implies change. Unfortunately, diversity learning outside of formal 23
ER59632_C002.indd 23
10/16/2007 7:33:43 AM
24 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
training programs has not attracted the attention of researchers. The authors believe that a focus on diversity learning may be an important way to manage or avoid the resistance that formal diversity training can generate. In light of the available research, this chapter focuses primarily on resistance to diversity training, and suggests ways to overcome such resistance via recontextualization and modification of training itself. In the extensive U.S. literature on diversity training, much has been written about the rationale, methods, and desired outcomes of this process. However, it seems that very little has been written about the challenge of dealing with resistance to this training. Diversity training differs from other types of training presented in work environments in at least two important ways. First, employees may not understand its direct relevance to their work and productivity. Second, diversity training, unlike other forms of job-relevant training, has an emotional component that may challenge or threaten participants by addressing deeply held beliefs, values, social identities, or ways of interacting with others. Resistance can be understood as behaviors that are a consequence of fear, anxiety, threat, or discomfort (Goodman, 2001). In a resistant state it is difficult for trainees to be open to new interpretations, alternative views, or material that may challenge their existing perspectives and assumptions. Resistance may manifest as lack of attendance or participation, denial of the need for training, objections to its design or facilitators, confrontational or argumentative behavior, domination of discussion, hostility toward colleagues from different social identity groups, and various forms of backlash including claims of “reverse discrimination.” Although resistance may be based in intergroup prejudice, it may also stem from other factors such as organizational politics, time pressures and other job demands, or reactions to particular trainers or techniques (Jackson, 1999). Resistance should also be distinguished from the “communication styles of some cultural groups … emotional and confrontational … [or] quiet and deferential” (Goodman, 2001, p. 64). We will first present an overview of U.S. diversity training and the most common objections that are offered by its critics. Next, we will review several sources of resistance to diversity training and a variety of strategies for reducing the impact of resistance on the diversity training experience. Our analysis will include three theoretical frames: (a) change and resistance to change (Burke, 2002; Harvey &
ER59632_C002.indd 24
10/16/2007 7:33:43 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
25
Brown, 1988), (b) “systems psychodynamics” as applied to diversity (Alderfer, 1980; Pretorius, 2005; Wells, 1980), and (c) the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Finally, we offer a summary of suggestions and strategies for mitigating resistance to diversity training. Diversity Training in the United States Various surveys in the last decade have estimated that between one third and three quarters of surveyed companies offered diversity training programs (Esen, 2005; Hemphill & Haines, 1997, p. 49; Lynch, 1997, p. 184). These surveys provide a general picture of diversity training in the United States. Training seems more likely in larger companies, and where other diversity-related initiatives are in place (e.g., flex-time, a diversity director, leadership support, and/or management accountability for a diverse workforce). It is often mandatory and usually offered inhouse by organizational staff or external consultants. Training usually lasts one day or less and absorbs only a small portion (10% or less) of the training budget. According to Rynes and Rosen (1995), large proportions of HR professionals identified as “very important” the topics of awareness training, how to get things done with diversity, balancing fairness with special needs, and EEO/AA requirements. Diversity training providers have reported using a variety of methods, many active and experiential, such as handouts and group exercises, lectures and discussion of actual workplace incidents, case studies, self-awareness exercises, videotapes, and role plays (Bendick, Egan, & Lofhjelm, 2001). Most frequent topics were discrimination and stereotyping, welcoming diverse groups, the relation of diversity to productivity, and nondiscriminatory human resources policies, procedures, and requirements. Workplace diversity training is seldom evaluated with any rigor (Ivancevich & Gilbert, 2000; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004; Rynes & Rosen, 1995). In Rynes and Rosen’s survey of SHRM members, less than one third reported any evaluations of attitudes, behaviors, or system change after training. However, most (84%) reported measuring participants’ reactions during training, and typically employees seem to respond favorably. Most were described as “skeptical” or
ER59632_C002.indd 25
10/16/2007 7:33:44 AM
26 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
“hostile” before, “neutral” or “positive” during, and “positive” after training. Providers themselves were more restrained about the success of their programs, with half saying the programs had neutral or mixed success and one third reporting that programs were either “quite” or “extremely successful.” The negative evaluations proclaimed by critics were contradicted by the fact that only 5% said their programs had been “extremely unsuccessful.” Taking a broader perspective, Stephan and Stephan (2005) meta-analyzed a diverse group of interventions targeting intergroup relations in educational institutions as well as recreation and work settings. Despite variation in participants, activities, and measures, they reported that “these programs were generally effective, although the effect size was relatively modest” (p. 439). This suggests that carefully designed and implemented studies of workplace diversity training would, in fact, produce evidence of effectiveness. Criticisms of Current Training. To understand better the reasons for resistance to diversity training, it is instructive to examine some of the major criticisms of this type of intervention. The most vocal critics of diversity training (Caudron, 1993; Hemphill & Haines, 1997; Karp & Sutton, 1993; Lynch, 1997; Mobley & Payne, 1992) have listed many reasons for their contention that diversity training is misguided or has failed. Most of these criticisms can be categorized as:
ER59632_C002.indd 26
1. Content or style of training: Focused on awareness, language, stereotyping, and attitude rather than behavior and skill; lack of action orientation; too emotional, combative, guilt-inducing, and targeted at White males; emphasizing issues of race and gender to the exclusion of other dimensions of difference (such as age, language of origin); including divisive, emotionally damaging, or childish exercises; possibly producing evidence that could later be used against the employer in formal complaints or litigation. 2. Structure and design of training: Too brief, underfunded, and unconnected to an infrastructure of procedures and programs that will lead to change; arousing unfulfilled expectations for change; irrelevant to problems in a particular employment context, and therefore largely useless. 3. Attributes of trainers: Chosen for race or sex rather than experience and skill; unable to manage discussions about sensitive topics; combative and aggressive; promoting personal political agendas. (See Jackson, 1999, for a discussion of “transference resistance” illustrating this point.)
10/16/2007 7:33:44 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
4. Results: Giving nothing more than the appearance of dealing with diversity; increasing rather than decreasing diversity-related complaints, conflict, and litigation.
27
Forms of Resistance to Diversity Training. Resistance to diversity training may manifest itself in a variety of ways. According to Gallagher, Joseph, and Park (2002), resistance may take the form of requests for excessive data, denial of the necessity of training, mental or physical withdrawal, organized objections, complaints about competence of trainers, open conflicts, or passive-aggressive responses to training initiatives. In academic settings, students may be unwilling to engage in learning or may “punish the educator” (Helms, Malone, Henze, Satiani, Perry, & Warren, 2003, p. 4) in ways that could be considered harassment. What follows is an illustration of resistance behaviors composed by the third author, a diversity consultant, based on her experience with the organization described. One business unit of a multinational U.S. corporation created and delivered mandatory diversity training covering dimensions of race, culture, gender, physical ability, age, and sexual orientation. The two-day training was explicitly conceived as awareness training with inclusion of basic behavioral expectations from the company, such as equal and fair treatment, and simple behavioral strategies for effectively working together across difference. There were 50–75 employees at a time in each training program. Most participants seemed receptive during the initial exploration of the business case for diversity. Very little overt resistance arose until the session shifted to a focused discussion of race with use of a video showing present-day racial discrimination in employment and housing. The videotape of a 20/20 episode depicted a matched pair of men, one White and one Black, who were sent out to interview for the same job, try to rent the same apartment, and conduct other life activities. When Whites were asked to comment on the video, their resistance surfaced in the form of resisting acknowledgment that racial discrimination and prejudice still exist in the present and are enacted by White people in settings similar to their organization or their own neighborhoods. The reporters and producers and the particular 20/20 program research project were accused of bias; the city in which the research took place (St. Louis) was said to be atypical, or at least different from the locale in which participants lived. Participants also focused on and positively explained the White perpetrator’s intent so as to deny the presence of racial prejudice. “He didn’t mean it that way,” or “She was only worried that the Black renter didn’t seem sure he could handle an apartment that big alone.” Resistance also surfaced when the training content shifted to sexual orientation, eliciting the most overt and vehement expression of resistance in the two days. In several sessions, a participant walked out of the training after vocally objecting to the topic’s being discussed at all. Some
ER59632_C002.indd 27
10/16/2007 7:33:44 AM
28 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik comments were as follows: “This has nothing to do with work”; “This should not be discussed here”; “I am not going to sit in this room while this is discussed.”
Sources of Resistance to Diversity Training Resistance to Training in General The literature suggests that training in general is often met with resistance, particularly if trainees lack motivation to participate, because they fail to understand how participation in the program may be in their best interest or the organizations’ other reasons (Noe & Wilk, 1993). The training literature has identified a number of variables that may contribute to low motivation. For example, past experience with training (Smith-Jentsch, Jentsch, Payne, & Salas, 1996) and labeling may influence trainees’ motivation to learn. Quiñones (1995) found that participant motivation was negatively impacted simply by labeling a training program as “remedial” rather than “advanced.” Others have argued that characteristics of the work environment itself, such as supervisor support for training and reward systems, play an important role in motivation to learn and ultimately in the transfer of training (Noe & Wilk, 1993; Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995). Applying these ideas to diversity training, organizational members may show resistance because they (a) have had previous negative experiences or have previously formed strong attitudes either about diversity training itself or about employees from diverse backgrounds; (b) perceive the training to be remedial or punitive, and thus may resist attempts to change long held values and beliefs; or (c) work in an environment in which the transfer of diversity related skills and knowledge is not supported. Resistance to Change Secondly, resistance to diversity training may actually be resistance to change. Diversity training can be conceptualized as part of a program of organizational change and development (OD). In this framework, resistance is often understood as a manifestation of anxiety about potential loss of something valuable (Burke, 2002).
ER59632_C002.indd 28
10/16/2007 7:33:44 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
29
Sometimes the loss is of the sense of choice when something (such as diversity training) is imposed. Harvey and Brown (1988) have suggested that the amount of resistance to an intervention is a joint function of the amount of change advocated and the impact it will have on the organization’s culture. This implies that the amount of resistance to diversity training could be minimal or quite substantial, depending upon the expectations people have about its nature and purpose. Several bases for resistance to change are listed by Smither, Houston, and McIntire (1996) based on their review of the OD literature. At the personal or individual level, employees may fail to see a need for training or misunderstand why and how it will proceed. They may fear their current reality will be threatened, or that they will lose status or economic security. Existing social relationships and old routines, norms, and habits may be threatened. The style or content of the organizational intervention may clash with the organization’s culture and way of doing things or may imply that existing power relationships will change. Resistance to change may also result from fear of losing the status quo, intergroup anxiety, and denial of the need for change. Loss of Status Quo Diversity interventions implemented to create additional opportunities for nondominant group members may meet resistance caused by fear of loss experienced by dominant group members. Social dominance theory (Sidanius, 1993) suggests that dominant group members will be resistant to loss of the status quo which affords their group privilege and power. Groups with the most power will be motivated to protect their power and status. To the extent that diversity training programs represent a perceived or real loss of status and power for the dominant group, they will not likely support or contribute to the success of such a program if they see little to gain from it. Intergroup Anxiety Due to strong societal and organizational norms that dictate political correctness, dominant group members and Whites in particular may fear saying or doing the wrong thing either during or after diversity training, such that their behavior would be labeled by others as racist, sexist, culturally oppressive or homophobic. Whites’ avoid-
ER59632_C002.indd 29
10/16/2007 7:33:44 AM
30 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
ant behaviors may be the result not of strong negative affect toward Blacks, but rather feelings of discomfort, uneasiness, and sometimes fear (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). Devine, Evett, and Vasquez-Suson (1996) have argued that intergroup interactions may generate considerable anxiety for individuals who have had limited interaction with members of different demographic groups, and that this anxiety manifests itself in avoidant nonverbal behaviors. The recipient of such avoidant behaviors is unclear whether to attribute such behaviors to prejudice or some other factor. Some researchers have argued that members of socially stigmatized groups live in a chronic state of (attributional) ambiguity with regard to the causes of others’ behavior toward them (Major & Crocker, 1993). Therefore, it can be quite common for nondominant group members to attribute avoidant behaviors from dominant group members as motivated by prejudice and in response, withdraw from the interaction themselves or react negatively toward the dominant group members. Devine et al. (1996) argued that both the dominant and the nondominant group member play a role in this downward spiral of misattribution and expectancy confirmation. This contributes to the failure of intergroup interactions, deepens the anxiety both groups feel toward one another, and in turn negatively affects future intergroup interactions. Therefore, we argue that trainees with limited experience and/or success with intergroup interactions may approach diversity training with a great deal of anxiety and trepidation. Those who have had negative intergroup interactions in the past or have witnessed such negative interactions may be particularly susceptible to training resistance. Dominant group members may withdraw or psychologically disengage from diversity training activities if they are experiencing anxiety and fear being labeled as biased, racist, or sexist. Likewise, nondominant group members may also withdraw or disengage for fear of being perceived as outsiders, activists, or valuing their own group’s agenda over the organization’s mission. Denial of the Need for Change Research on aversive or modern racism and sexism suggests that many Americans believe that racism and sexism are no longer significant societal problems that deserve attention (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; McConahay, 1986; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). Most Americans do not consider themselves to be racist or sexist
ER59632_C002.indd 30
10/16/2007 7:33:44 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
31
because they do not engage in the overt discriminatory behaviors prevalent in the pre-Civil rights era, and because they believe racism and sexism are defined by blatant acts such as segregated drinking fountains. However, scholars have argued that racism and sexism have simply taken on new forms, such that prejudiced behaviors are now much more subtle in nature (Brief, Buttram, Reizenstein, Pugh, Callahan, McCline, & Vaslow, 1997) and that failure to recognize the privilege held by dominant group members may be another form of modern prejudice (McIntosh, 1993; Neville, Roderick, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000). Organizational members who view racism and sexism as societal problems of the past may be resistant to diversity training because they see no need for it. They may perceive that they themselves and their organization are innocent and neither condone nor engage in discriminatory or biased actions. Thus, they see no need to fix something that is not broken. Identity Threat Another potential source of resistance to diversity training is the perception of threat related to social identity, which may be experienced in different ways by dominant and nondominant group members when diversity training focuses on social identity differences. For example, some diversity training programs are intended to facilitate work interactions among diverse groups by minimizing differences, encouraging employees to ignore social identity differences and instead focus on common ground. This “inclusion training” is intended to create a more inclusive workplace where employees feel a stronger identity with the organization or the work itself than with their social identity groups, so that differences based on race, gender, religion, and other dimensions become less salient. Some researchers refer to this as an assimilation model (Cox & Finley-Nickelson, 1991) or a color-blind perspective (Neville et al., 2000). Social psychologists have labeled this approach recategorization or the common ingroup identity model (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993). Loyalty toward subgroups is diminished as a result of creating a common in-group or superordinate identity with the hope that over time, a unified and homogeneous group will emerge (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). A potential problem with this approach is that nondominant group members, particularly those who belong to identity groups that have historically been marginalized, may be threatened by a
ER59632_C002.indd 31
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
32 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
diversity training program that ignores social identity differences and implies that nondominant group members are expected to leave their identity at the door when they come to work. This approach to diversity training fails to acknowledge the importance of social identity differences as well as important differences in power, status, and opportunities (Ely, 1995; Ferdman, 1995; Linnehan & Konrad, 1999). Nondominant group members exposed to this type of diversity training may develop the perception that their identity group is not valued within the organization and thus may experience subgroup identity threat (Hornesy & Hogg, 2000). Dominant group members may also experience identity threat when diversity initiatives emphasize group membership and are perceived to benefit all groups except the dominant group, or make dominant group members feel guilty, blamed, or anxious. Diversity training designed to educate employees about different cultures may involve a didactic approach in which trainees are provided information about various cultures and their group norms regarding values, food, dress, or language. Frequently, dominant groups’ cultural information is not included, as if the dominant groups have no culture. The training may also be intended to make employees more aware of discrimination and bias in the workplace. A potential problem with this approach is that stereotypes may be reinforced and people within the organization may become polarized when social identity groups are made salient. Dominant group members may experience discomfort because as dominants, they may feel they do not have a unique culture to share, or because they cannot relate to experiences of discrimination and bias. White males in particular may feel that their group is being blamed or unfairly singled out as the cause of discrimination and bias (Lynch, 1997; Mobley & Payne, 1992). Therefore, like nondominant group members, dominants may also experience subgroup identity threat in anticipation of, or reaction to, diversity training. In the case study presented earlier, this occurred: Resistance at a level that interrupted or short-circuited learning seemed to be much more likely for multiple dominants—White heterosexual men, for example. With only their multiple dominances addressed, they had no experience in the two days where they could escape being asked to recognize responsibility and power, unearned privilege, and membership in a group which enacts oppression. Although such recognition is critical learning as part of diversity work, putting groups of people into learning where they have no other experience than this is a recipe for
ER59632_C002.indd 32
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
33
resistance. Resistance may have been reduced if all training participants had an opportunity to approach diversity from both a dominant and nondominant lens.
For both dominants and nondominants, having to face the sensitive reality of social identity differences may evoke resistance to full participation. For dominants, diversity training may involve facing one’s own stereotypes and biases and confronting issues of privilege and dominance (Ely, 1995; Jacques, 1997). For nondominants, diversity training may be a painful reminder of their subordinate status within the organization (Davidson & Ferdman, 2002). Nonsupportive Corporate Culture Another potential source of resistance to diversity training involves the corporate culture itself. If there is a weak connection between diversity training and organizational goals and objectives, organizational members will not likely invest time, energy, and commitment in the training. When systems such as the organizational mission, diversity training, and reward structures are misaligned, training participants will not be held accountable for diversity goals and therefore will not be motivated to engage in behaviors that support diversity and bridge differences. Holvino, Ferdman, and MerrillSands (2004) identify many organizational barriers that exist “to the inclusion, advancement, and effectiveness of employees across lines of difference” (p. 251). Inflexible work schedules, pay inequity, benefits that exclude certain groups, and a culture that serves to maintain power imbalances are simply a few of the organizational elements that may contradict the messages provided and skills acquired during diversity training. If the corporate culture fails to support diversity, training participants will likely be resistant to learning even before the training begins, or may quickly disengage from the training once they are exposed to training content that contradicts their corporate culture. The training will likely be perceived as invalid or hypocritical and may be met with cynicism rather than engagement. One of the most common contradictions (see chapter 9, “Mixed Messages”) occurs when managers are sent to diversity training but not held accountable for any diversity-related matters. Jayne and Dipboye (2004) have stressed the importance of accountability for building commitment. Because in many organizations the culture is “what gets measured, gets done,” this lack of measurement or accountability for matters such as hiring, retention, and devel-
ER59632_C002.indd 33
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
34 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
opment of a diverse workforce guarantees that managers will see diversity training as unimportant or countercultural, and may resist learning or resist the behavioral changes intended as outcomes of the learning. Resistance to Diversity Training as a Mode of Individual and Group Level Social Defense Systems psychodynamics may also help to explain why some trainees and/or groups of training participants are resistant to diversity training efforts. Systems psychodynamics integrates psychoanalytic, group dynamics and systems theories (Bion, 1961; Gould, Stapley, & Stein, 2001; Miller, 1993; Wells, 1980). The systems psychodynamic perspective suggests that a combination of explicit acts, covert tactics, political maneuvering, and other behaviors form modes of social defense in groups (Bion, 1961; Gould, Stapley, & Stein, 2001). These social defenses are employed largely unconsciously, by both the individual members and the task groups within an organization, to defend against anxieties, meet unmet emotional needs (Klein, 1959), and resolve conflicts. For example, Bion (1961) described ways a work group may attempt to avoid the anxiety associated with working on whatever is its primary task by enacting what he called “basic assumption behaviors.” These include, among others, dependency, where the group desires a leader to do the work for them or tell them what to do, and pairing, where the group unconsciously designates a pair from among the group to be the group’s salvation and then, when the pair cannot meet the need, expels or attacks the pair. Contemporary system psychodynamics includes in addition, examination of diversity-related phenomena in organizational and work group life (Koortzen & Cilliers, 2002; Pretorius, 2005). For example, in diversity training settings working on racial issues, mostly White groups will often operate, at least for a while, in basic assumption dependency: A person of color will be chosen or used by the group as the primary source of learning while the group refuses to engage White trainers or each other as valuable sources of learning. Dependency is also often enacted at the individual level with statements to persons of color like “Just tell me what to do.” Although anxiety and social defense mechanisms are a dynamic in any group experience, in diversity training they are complicated
ER59632_C002.indd 34
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
35
by core diversity dynamics including salience of multiple social identities, power dynamics associated with historical privilege, and oppression attached to those identities, multiple frames of reference, and “relatedness” (the assumptions about different others that impact how they are seen, heard, interacted with, or avoided) (Koortzen & Cilliers, 2002; Pretorius, 2005). Resistance behaviors in diversity training are thus understood as largely unconscious patterns of social defense operating at both the individual and training group level against inadequately contained anxiety. This may concern, for example, how to participate in the training experience and what the possible consequences of participation may be; feared or unresolved conflict between social identity groups or individuals of difference; and unmet collective and individual emotional needs for things like confidentiality, safety, and certainty. Strategies for Overcoming Resistance to Diversity Training Models for Understanding Resistance and Developing Strategies to Reduce Resistance Theory of Reasoned Action. One successful approach to explaining and predicting attitudes and behavior has been the theory of reasoned action (TRA, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and its derivative, the theory of planned behavior (TPB, Ajzen, 1988). Both theories have recently been applied to the issue of organizational diversity (Linnehan, Chrobot-Mason, & Konrad, in press; Wiethoff, 2004). Both TRA and TPB propose that the immediate determinant of behavior is behavioral intention, which has two antecedents. Attitude toward the act is the person’s positive or negative view of a particular behavior, based on positive or negative expected outcomes. Subjective norm refers to the person’s view of normative pressures from others and willingness to comply with them. TPB adds a third antecedent of perceived behavioral control or the person’s belief about having the resources and opportunities for performing the behavior. To summarize, people are thought to act in most situations as they intend to act, and this intention is based on what they expect will happen as a result, motivation to comply with what they think significant others expect of them, and (in TPB) whether they believe they can perform the behavior.
ER59632_C002.indd 35
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
36 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
Space precludes full consideration of the application of these models, but we suggest that measurement of their variables in a needs assessment might guide the trainer to expect certain types of resistance and to act in ways that would mitigate it. For example, we would expect resistance when potential participants strongly expect diversity training to involve embarrassment, anxiety, conflict, unpleasant work relations, undesired changes in work behavior or demeanor, or other negative outcomes. The introduction to and content of training can be designed to address these expectations. Resistance may also occur when individuals perceive that those whose opinions matter do not expect them to participate, or perhaps expect them to resist or behave disruptively. Accordingly, the strong support of executive level, managerial, and supervisory personnel would be a critical factor, as would be the normative pressures from coworkers. Resistance may stem from the belief that effective participation is not possible, perhaps due to external factors such as ineffective facilitation or lack of time, or internal factors such as lack of skill or information. Trainees may believe that genuine change is not possible, or that resistance and obstructive behavior will be tolerated. On the other hand, we would expect minimal resistance and maximal participation in diversity training when participation is strongly expected to lead to more harmonious interpersonal relations, improved productivity, greater job security, competitive advantage for the organization, social justice, and other positive outcomes. Resistance should be low when participants perceive that others whose opinions are important to them (supervisors, upper management, peers) strongly support their active participation in diversity training, when they believe there is no alternative but to participate cooperatively, or are convinced that they have the resources and opportunities to participate and learn. Diversity Training as Organizational Change. Another understanding of resistance and some means to overcome it can be extrapolated from the OD literature in which commitment to an organizational change initiative is viewed as multifaceted and may be manifested in a variety of ways. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) argued that an individual will be committed to organizational change when the person holds “(a) a desire to provide support for the change based on a belief in its inherent benefits (affective commitment), (b) a recognition that there are costs associated with failure to provide
ER59632_C002.indd 36
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
37
support for the change (continuance commitment), and (c) a sense of obligation to provide support for the change (normative commitment)” (p. 475). In sum, they stated that “employees can feel bound to support a change because they want to, have to, and/or ought to.” Their empirical research findings suggest that affective and normative commitments are likely required to move beyond mere compliance. In the context of diversity training a variety of strategies may be employed to encourage employees not only to comply with the legal and behavioral expectations set by the organization, but actually to desire change and feel a sense of obligation to support the change effort. For example, Burke (2002) has advised negotiation or pointing out the long-term beneficial consequences of the change intervention when resistance stems from a fear of loss of status, power, opportunity, or other valued commodity. For resistance stemming from a sincere conviction that the advocated change is ill-advised, morally wrong, unnecessary, or a violation of one’s beliefs and values, Burke has suggested providing convincing data, facts, and argument through strong attempts at persuasion. Another option used successfully in some organizations has been to engage the resistant level of management in its own research on the need for diversity learning, as shown in this case vignette. Fourteen middle managers in a retail corporation were charged by their departmental leadership with figuring out how to prevent the reoccurrence of a racist incident; how more successfully to orient, develop, and retain an increasingly diverse workforce; and how to increase sales in light of the company’s increasingly diverse customer base. Leaders then asked the 14 to engage in diversity learning and training in order to carry out this charge. Most of the managers were not sure there were issues of differences relevant to the department’s work and therefore resisted their leadership’s charge and diversity-related learning as unnecessary. Their leaders reiterated that they expected the 14, in collaboration with them, to figure out the issues and business opportunities related to differences that were impacting the department, and the leaders made it clear that they believed there were both issues and opportunities. Instead of a training intervention, consultants suggested an internal listening project as a first step. Using three consultant-developed questions, each manager interviewed 4–6 people representing all levels within the department and provided notes to the consultants, who summarized the themes in the interviews as a whole and by level. These data, brought back to the managers, provided strong evidence that there were issues for employees related to differences, and that the employees perceived business opportunities related to differences. The 14 managers’
ER59632_C002.indd 37
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
38 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik resistance disappeared in the face of this evidence that they themselves had gathered; instead, they eagerly requested and engaged in training and other learning processes to enable them to understand and manage the issues and opportunities that had surfaced.
One suggestion we wish to make is a rather simple one: Management should accept resistance as an inevitable part of the process in organizational change initiatives (see chapter 7). Burke (2002) has advised providing reassurance and allowing people time to get used to new ideas and changes. Piderit (2000) has recommended that the first stage in creating organizational change should be widespread conversation, rather than discussion among a select group of managers who then attempt to gain broader employee support for the change effort once it is already underway. Burke (2002) recommended involving employees at all levels in the planning stages of the change initiative. Thus, rather than dismissing employee concerns regarding change and treating employees as barriers to change, organizations would be wise to explore actively the resistance occurring during the change process, use this information to gauge progress toward change, and make necessary adjustments along the way. System Psychodynamics. As explained earlier, system psychodynamics provides a comprehensive approach to understanding diversity training resistance as a group and individual level social defense against anxiety (Coleman & Geller, 1985). An important concept within this approach is personal authority (Miller, 1993). In a group setting, including diversity training, individuals have the opportunity and choice to enact one of several available roles. Choosing to participate or not in a particular way involves exercising a sense of personal authority to do so. When anxiety is highest, the role taken up will most likely be a defensive or resistant one, such as denial that diversity issues exist. Other roles include the “silent non-participant,” “challenger of facilitator expertise,” or “blamer of other groups for their problems.” Such resistance can be expected under the following diversity training conditions:
ER59632_C002.indd 38
1. Large groups: Anxiety about authority and role, and the impacts of unconscious group dynamics on the individual, is strongest in large groups (Miller, 1993). 2. Unclear tasks: Lack of a clear agenda and/or task heightens anxiety and generates resistance such as challenges to facilitator authority (Alderfer, 1980).
10/16/2007 7:33:45 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
3. Inadequate facilitation of “here and how” phenomena: Unless interactions occurring in the present during training are managed competently, and group norms for interaction and conflict are built in, resistant behaviors such as projection and blaming, denial, nonparticipation, and depersonalized “we and they” statements can prevent learning.
39
On the other hand, resistance can be expected to be reduced under certain conditions:
1. Use of small groups: Small group work allows deeper interpersonal interaction, less anxiety about taking up a role, and more safety for learning (May & Cilliers, 2005). 2. Agenda, time, task, and space clarity: Trainees who know when they are going to be doing what, understand the task of each part of the training, and are meeting uninterrupted in an appropriate physical environment will have less anxiety and be more likely to take up learning-related roles rather than resistance-related roles (Alderfer, 1980). 3. Clear interactive norms and ongoing consultative support to the “here and now” experience: Training sessions that include collaboration with trainees to establish norms supportive of constructive interaction and conflict, and skilled facilitation of the “in the moment” interactions, will generate less resistance.
Additional Strategies for Overcoming Resistance Based on our literature review, the theoretical approaches discussed above, and our experience as diversity training facilitators, we recommend a variety of approaches that organizational leaders and diversity trainers may wish to consider to mitigate resistance to diversity training. Foster Training Readiness. Our first suggestion is to create a “pull” toward training rather than a “push” away from training. For trainees who are not ready to face difficult topics such as privilege and dominance, training may be an unproductive endeavor. Likewise, if trainees fail to see the potential benefits of diversity and/or deny the existence of organizational discrimination and bias, they will perceive training as a waste of valuable resources. Thus, an important precursor to diversity training is fostering both individual and organizational readiness for diversity training. We discuss organiza-
ER59632_C002.indd 39
10/16/2007 7:33:46 AM
40 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
tional readiness in the section on organizational support structures below. At the individual level, readiness may be facilitated through cognitive dissonance and perspective-taking (empathic) strategies. Cognitive dissonance may occur when an individual who has renounced prejudice violates his or her own nonprejudiced values. Devine and Monteith (1993) found that when individuals who perceived themselves as nonprejudiced were made aware of discrepancies between their personal standards and their behavior toward minorities, feelings of guilt emerged. This guilt then served as a motivator for such individuals to change their behavior. Rokeach (1973) called this the value confrontation procedure. Training activities and exercises that illuminate such discrepancies may therefore enhance diversity training readiness. Recent research in the field of social psychology suggests that arousing feelings of empathic concern toward another group can reduce prejudice toward members of that group (e.g., Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003). Dovidio et al. (2004) recently found that, in particular, when perspective-taking elicits feelings of injustice, individuals may be motivated to reduce their bias toward any group perceived to be similarly victimized by injustice. These researchers have attempted to invoke perspective-taking with a variety of methods, such as asking individuals to imagine how another person feels or to imagine being in the same situation. For diversity training aimed at reduction of prejudice and bias toward out-group members, it may be necessary to prepare by first acknowledging that everyone holds various stereotypes and biases toward others, then engaging in activities that highlight these potentially unconscious personal and societal stereotypes and biases in a nonthreatening manner. Emphasis should be placed on the process of stereotyping rather than the content of categorical thinking, so as to avoid rehearsing existing stereotypes or learning new ones. Suggesting that few people can escape absorbing some biases and stereotypes, that having them doesn’t make one a bad person, and that there are learning processes that enable management of such internalized biases and prejudices can help invite people to move toward a perceived worthwhile challenge rather than away from a perceived threat. Training Group Composition. Another suggestion is to pay considerable attention to the design of training groups to create the optimal learning environment. For example, Roberson, Kulik, and
ER59632_C002.indd 40
10/16/2007 7:33:46 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
41
Pepper (2003) attempted to address the question of demographic representation in training groups by comparing groups that were homogeneous and heterogeneous with respect to racioethnicity and nationality. In the past, diversity scholars have generally recommended that training groups should be demographically heterogeneous. For example, Kirkland and Regan (1997) advised using mixed-race groups to enhance learning about diversity, and Ellis and Sonnenfeld (1994) advocated diverse composition to avoid the situation where one or two individuals feel they must represent their entire social identity group. Roberson et al. (2003) found little evidence that, in general, training group composition had an effect on cognitive, behavioral, and attitudinal outcome measures. However, training composition interacted with trainees’ prior diversity training experience, such that for trainees with prior diversity training experience, skill-related outcome measures were higher in homogeneous groups. Roberson et al. surmised that a homogeneous training group may provide trainees with security and confidence to develop skills. Therefore, they recommended the use of homogeneous training groups when the organization wants to change on-the-job behavior and trainees have had prior experience with diversity training. However, when the organization is attempting to change attitudes or when trainees have not had prior experience with diversity training, the authors suggested that either heterogeneous or homogeneous group composition may work equally well. We note that U.S. organizations may avoid diversity training in homogeneous groups for legal and political reasons. However, during longer training experiences, splitting into simultaneous homogeneous subgroups for a short time may provide security, confidence, in-group privacy, and support for experimenting with new behavioral skills and/or for expressing previously censored ideas. This may enable deeper learning to take place when the group reassembles as a heterogeneous whole. Positive Intergroup Contact. Allport’s contact hypothesis (1954) has been the dominant frame through which the effects of intergroup contact have been interpreted by social psychologists for the last half-century. Allport proposed that for contact among groups to reduce prejudice, members of the two groups must be of equal status and in pursuit of common goals, their relations must be cooperative, and the contact must be supported by formal authority or law.
ER59632_C002.indd 41
10/16/2007 7:33:46 AM
42 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
According to Pettigrew and Tropp (2005), research has generally supported the importance of these four conditions in the reduction of prejudice after intergroup contact. In their meta-analysis of 515 studies of intergroup contact and prejudice from the 1940s to 2000, they conclude that “these factors … are better thought of as facilitating, rather than essential, conditions” (p. 271). The meta-analysis also showed three other points. First, greater levels of contact were associated with lower levels of prejudice, and this effect generalized from prejudice against individual outgroup members to the outgroup in general. Second, the largest effect sizes occurred when contact involved friendship or when it was structured to include all four of Allport’s conditions. And third, approximately 20–25% of the effect of contact on prejudice reduction appeared to be mediated by the reduction of anxiety. Others have found that intergroup contact has much less effect on the prejudice of participants who believe that intergroup contact is unimportant (Van Dick, Wagner, Pettigrew, Christ, Wolff, Petzel, Castro, & Jackson, 2004). The integrated threat model of Stephan and Stephan (2000) further elaborates the role of intergroup anxiety. Four types of threat are proposed to lead to prejudice against an outgroup: (a) realistic threat to political, economic, or physical power and well being; (b) symbolic threat to value or belief systems; (c) intergroup anxiety or fear about negative outcomes of interaction; and (d) negative stereotypes that imply unpleasant interactions. We suggest that such threats are likely to be associated with resistance to diversity training experiences that are expected to include or lead to intergroup contact. The framework of the integrated threat model may help diversity trainers to anticipate the sorts and sources of anxiety that are likely to arise in particular learning situations. For example, when intergroup threat is expected to be high due to previous negative interactions or unequal status, it would be prudent to engage the groups first in activities that do not arouse anxiety. A combination of early, low-anxiety relationship-building exercises in a short-term, homogeneous subgroup, followed by well-facilitated heterogeneous group work, may reduce threat and thus anxiety and resistance. Framing and Content of Diversity Training. The issue of framing refers to the messages surrounding training (e.g., purpose) and the
ER59632_C002.indd 42
10/16/2007 7:33:46 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
43
aspects of the message that are presented as most salient. Kidder, Lankau, Chrobot-Mason, Mollica, and Friedman (2004) found that framing a diversity program as “diversity management” rather than “affirmative action” resulted in more favorable support of the initiative. Likewise, Richard and Kirby conducted a series of studies in which they demonstrated that diversity programs are viewed more favorably when there is a business justification provided (1997, 1998, 1999). Holladay, Knight, Paige, and Quiñones (2003) examined the influence of the framing of diversity training on participants’ attitudes. They manipulated the focus of training content as broad (including racial, gender, lifestyle, and personality differences) or narrow (racial differences) and manipulated the course title to refer to either “diversity training” or “building human relations.” Holladay et al. (2003) found that no single feature of framing had an impact on pretraining attitudes, but title and focus of course content interacted to have a significant effect on attitudes. Specifically, they found that a frame with a diversity training title and broad focus reduced perceptions of backlash and increased the perception of the likelihood of training transfer. As mentioned previously, although awareness training is quite common and can be an effective strategy to educate employees about cultural differences, unless it is very inclusive in content and process, and very carefully facilitated, there are significant risks to this type of diversity training, including group polarization, backlash, and identity threat. An alternative approach, referred to as multicultural training, may serve to mitigate resistance. Cox (1991) has suggested that a multicultural approach to diversity training attempts to value diversity rather than ignoring or tolerating differences, and views difference as an asset toward accomplishing some common goal. The social psychology literature also provides some suggestions for attempting to bridge differences without losing them. Hornsey and Hogg (2000) have argued that social group identities are inescapable and fundamental to the self-concept and therefore, rather than try to eclipse such identities, it is essential to preserve their integrity while encouraging groups to interact harmoniously (p. 145). This approach has been referred to as the mutual intergroup differentiation model, which advocates the nesting of subgroup identities within a superordinate identity (Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
ER59632_C002.indd 43
10/16/2007 7:33:46 AM
44 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
In the context of diversity training, the mutual intergroup differentiation model may take the form of training that attempts to make participants aware of differences and highlight the unique contributions of such differences within the organization, while at the same time facilitating cross-group interaction and developing commitment toward a superordinate identity. This identity might be the organization or the temporary learning community created by the diversity trainee group (Orange, 1994). Dovidio, Gaertner, and Validzic (1998) have demonstrated that when both a superordinate identity and subgroup identities are made salient, and areas of expertise are equally valued, intergroup bias can be reduced. This approach may be preferable because nondominant group members can maintain their unique identity while both dominants and nondominants can belong and contribute to an inclusive identity, the organization itself. One way to accomplish this is to create a comprehensive, multiphase diversity training program, rather than a half-day workshop as is quite common in today’s workplace. Chrobot-Mason and Quiñones (2001) advocated three stages of learning: awareness, skill-building, and action planning. Based on training theory and practice, they recommend that the organization begin with increasing employees’ knowledge and awareness of diversity issues, laws, and policies; employee differences; and one’s own biases and stereotypes. To this could be added the most current business case for diversity applicable to the trainee’s specific organization and/or function, and skill-building activities for developing collegial relationships across differences. During the skill-building phase, trainees should practice interacting with others in both ordinary and potentially conflictual situations in order to increase their self-efficacy and comfort in interacting with members of diverse groups. The final stage of training development involves action planning at the organizational, work group, and individual level. A comprehensive multicultural approach to differences that includes dominant identities has also been suggested (Gifford, 1996; Wishik, 1994). Thus, White culture(s) are included in work highlighting cultural patterns and differences, heterosexual experiences are included in work on sexual orientation, men’s experiences are included in the work on gender, and able-bodied people’s experiences are included in work on disability.
ER59632_C002.indd 44
10/16/2007 7:33:46 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
45
Training Facilitation. The role of training facilitators is critical to training success and should carefully be considered along with content and process. Underestimation of the necessary facilitation skills has at times led to unnecessary levels of resistance and negative training outcomes. Some organizations have designated all human resource people as diversity trainers; others have asked employees representing women and people of color to become trainers simply because of their membership in such groups (Cross, 2000). It should be clear from the above discussion that diversity training requires facilitators who are able to support learning in the face of trainee anxiety about change, identity, power, conflict, and other matters. Facilitators who have worked deeply on their own biases and prejudices are also more likely to be able to support participants in examining these matters. Creating Organizational Support Structures. Our last recommendation involves creating organizational structures, practices, and policies that support the intended goals of the diversity training initiative. Diversity training should be seen as one part of a comprehensive diversity strategy. This requires a search for ways in which existing organizational processes or policies may undermine or fail to support what is taught in diversity training and the incorporation of new means of fostering inclusion. Ideally, all aspects of the organization’s operation should be aligned with the values and information that are part of the organization’s diversity training activities. There should be opportunities for open discussion of objections and barriers to inclusion. Participants should be informed of the reasons why diversity training is being offered. Leadership clarity about the relationship between organizational results, managerial accountability, and diversity training can ensure that participants know how training is important to their work and to organizational success. In the following case study, the third author describes a highly successful organizational diversity training initiative. The organization depicted in this case study employed many of the strategies discussed throughout the chapter. It is also important to note how the organization and its leaders adopted a comprehensive approach to training (e.g., an entire week at an offsite location) and demonstrated senior leader commitment to the training initiative.
ER59632_C002.indd 45
10/16/2007 7:33:46 AM
46 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik The CEO of a financial services organization decided that his leadership group (the top 200 people) needed to have an in-depth understanding of the major diversity dimensions impacting employees and customers in the domestic U.S. sector of the business. He also felt they needed to learn some relational and leadership skills for working across differences and managing diversity. He sponsored five-day residential offsite Diversity Leadership conferences involving a diagonal slice of the team management in groups of 50–55 employees. Training was not mandatory but senior leaders were strongly encouraged to attend. The company’s training organization managed the registration process to ensure each workshop cohort was at least 20–30% people of color, at least 35–45% women, had a few “out” gay employees, and included employees at all levels from hourly to executive. Participants lived in a hotel conference site and worked all day and into the evenings. During the second year, the CEO himself attended as a full participant, staying at the hotel and learning with 50 members of the organization. On the first day he asked everyone in the room to let him take off his CEO hat so he could be a learner and peer with them, and they obliged. Skills and behavioral learning were embedded; this was not simply awareness and understanding. Learning was not only cognitive; it was also experiential/behavioral, relational and intrapsychic–emotional. After a morning of relationship and norm building, the first afternoon began work about colorism and racism. It included use of a provocative video, discussions within race groups (Whites talked with Whites, Asians with Asians, etc.) and whole group discussions. After separate race cohort conversations, each cohort brought some stories and learnings back into the whole group. The White group was usually asked to speak first. That group had often struggled while alone to respond to the two questions facilitators posed to them: “When do you first remember knowing you were White?” and “What has being White meant in your life?” Yet after a while the Whites always got quite a lot of stories and meanings out, which they then brought back to the whole community. Asked to mirror what they had heard, the people of color often expressed surprise and appreciation for the content they heard from Whites. This helped affirm the Whites’ experience and stories as a valued part of the community’s learning. The groups of color often related to the whole group stories about the meanings of being of their race. Some of these were oppression stories and some were celebration stories. Interethnic differences, tensions and prejudices, and manifestations of colorism within each racial cohort also usually surfaced in stories. Resistance often became apparent during this work and took several forms. One frequent form was to deny unearned privilege. Another was to individuate—that is, to question being grouped into a racial cohort. Another was to deny any present responsibility for ongoing discrimination. To combat this, the facilitators told personal stories to help make unearned privilege visible. Facilitators also presented a framework that showed three behavioral ways in which racial bias is still enacted day to day. The framework also separated the holding of partly unconscious biases and prejudices from being a bad person. These frameworks helped White people relax into looking at themselves and others more realistically. Stories from people of color helped render ongoing discrimination visible.
ER59632_C002.indd 46
10/16/2007 7:33:47 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
47
By the middle of the second day the group began immersion in a tour through varying cultural frames of reference, and disability was covered in the third day, followed by sexual orientation. The facilitator opened the session on sexual orientation by stating that she and the company were not exploring this topic to change or challenge religious or moral values and beliefs. The object of the work was to give participants the skills and behaviors necessary to be good colleagues. One focus of this part was on heterosexual experience in the workplace, so that the privilege of heterosexual workplace visibility became clear. The fourth day and evening were occupied with male/female gender work. The fifth, shortened day, was all about application: how to name and reinforce the behavioral skills that had been learned, what kinds of relationship building and interactions had supported the community’s creation and its learning, and what could be taken back to the workplace and to their lives outside of work. Workgroups, pairs, and individuals made action plans. By the afternoon when the group took its closing steps to end the community, people had a buddy they would be talking with over the weeks that followed, and a personal and work group action plan. In every group, participants were reluctant to leave, to break the energy of the group. After 24 groups, the three consultants who participated in all of the sessions felt that there had perhaps been 2–5 people out of 50–55 in each group who managed to stay disengaged, to hold on to their resistance. These were universally White people, almost always men. The consultants’ conclusion was that, despite all the ways in which multiple dominants were encouraged to learn and in which their stories and experiences along multiple dimensions of diversity were valued, not everyone could overcome their need for self-protection, either organizationally or personally. It seemed clear, however, that most of the people who remained disengaged were in some way in trouble in their jobs and saw someone else in the room who, by work role, was close enough to them to render the conference perhaps an unsafe place to open up. In general, however, the consultants felt that the multicultural approach mixed the dominance and subordinance experiences enough. Such a design led to valuable group learning, in ways that helped minimize resistance from people living primarily out of social identity dominance. This design also helped create enough mutuality and joint engagement so that people living primarily out of social identity subordinance could learn as well, and not just be present to “teach” the dominants.
In this case study we see several themes that have been recommended in this chapter for dealing with resistance to diversity training. There was clear support and participation by top management, and markers of hierarchical status were deemphasized. Participants were diverse along several dimensions of difference. The cooperative learning experiences continued over several days in a pleasant environment aimed at goals that appear to have been collectively valued. The varied activities took place in both homogeneous and heterogeneous group settings; they were designed to produce changes in
ER59632_C002.indd 47
10/16/2007 7:33:47 AM
48 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
awareness, understanding, and skill level, and the work concluded by action planning focused on individual, group, and structural factors. Facilitators were prepared to deal with the varied resistances that surfaced. Conclusion In the framework of the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), described earlier in this chapter, we might conclude that in this case example participants’ attitudes toward the act of participating were likely to be positive or to become so during the training. Subjective norms supported participation; the narrative describes a significant commitment of organizational resources and suggests that persons of power and influence in the organization supported engagement in the activities. In retrospect, it seems that this model can incorporate most of what we are told of this case. The TRA model is most useful when it is applied before the training begins to diagnose attitudinal or normative factors that are likely to support or contradict a desired behavioral intention and behavior, such as full involvement in learning experiences. In the case of diversity training, interview or survey items derived from this model could be used to identify various sources of resistance to diversity training initiatives that might be addressed before training begins. In this sense, the TRA could be used to assess the degree of individual and organizational readiness for diversity training, and to design strategies for anticipating and defusing resistance to both the method and the objectives of diversity training and learning. In the words of Gordon Allport, “It is clear that group retraining cannot be used with people who resist both the method and its objectives” (1954/1979, p. 492). References Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alderfer, C. P. (1980). Consulting to underbounded systems. In C. P. Alderfer & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Advances in experiential social processes (Vol. 2, pp. 267–295). New York: Wiley.
ER59632_C002.indd 48
10/16/2007 7:33:47 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
49
Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Bendick, M., Jr., Egan, M. L., & Lofhjelm, S. M. (2001). Workforce diversity training: From anti-discrimination compliance to organizational development. Human Resource Planning, 24(2), 10–25. Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 554–495). New York: McGraw-Hill. Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Reizenstein, R. M., Pugh, S. D., Callahan, J. D., McCline, R. L., & Vaslow, J. B. (1997). Beyond good intentions: The next steps toward racial equality in the American workplace. The Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 59–72. Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization change: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Caudron, S. (April, 1993). Training can damage diversity efforts. Personnel Journal, 72(4), 51–62. Chrobot-Mason, D., & Quiñones, M. A. (2001). Training for a diverse workplace. In K. Kraiger (Ed.), Creating, implementing, and managing effective training and development (pp. 117–159). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Coleman, A. D., & Geller, M. H. (1985). Group relations reader 2. Jupiter, FL: A. K. Rice Institute. Cox, T., Jr. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 34–47. Cox, T., & Finley-Nickelson, J. (1991). Models of acculturation for intraorganizational cultural diversity. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 8, 90–99. Cross, E.Y. (2000). Managing diversity: The courage to lead. Westport, CT: Quorum. Davidson, M. N., & Ferdman, B. M. (2002). Inclusion and power: reflections on dominance and subordination in organizations. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 40(1) (July 2002). Devine, P. G., Evett, S. R., & Vasquez-Suson, K. A. (1996). Exploring the interpersonal dynamics of intergroup contact. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 423–464). New York: Guilford. Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. (1993). The role of discrepancy-associated affect in prejudice reduction. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 317–344). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
ER59632_C002.indd 49
10/16/2007 7:33:47 AM
50 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice. In J. L. Eberhardt and S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109–120. Dovidio, J. F., Vergert, M. T., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M., Riek, B. M., & Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1537–1549. Ellis, C., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1994). Diverse approaches to managing diversity. Human Resource Management, 33, 79–109. Ely, R. J. (1995). The role of dominant identity and experience in organizational work on diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 161–186). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association. Esen, E. (October, 2005). 2005 Workplace diversity practices: Survey report. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved on November 4, 2005, from http://www.shrm.org/hrresources/surveys_published/2005%20Workplace%20Diversity%20Practices%2 0Survey%2 0 Report.pdf. Ferdman, B. (1995). Cultural identity and diversity in organizations: Bridging the gap between group differences and individual uniqueness. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations (pp. 37–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). Chichester, England: Wiley. Gallagher, C. A., Joseph, L. E., & Park, M. V. (2002). Implementing organizational change. In J. W. Hedge & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), Implementing organizational interventions (pp. 12–42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gifford, C. (1996). Boston Globe, December 31, 1996. Goodman, D. J. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gould, L., Stapley, L.F., & Stein, M., Eds. (2001). The systems psychodynamics of organizations: Integrating the group relations approach, psychoanalytic, and open systems perspectives. London: Karnac.
ER59632_C002.indd 50
10/16/2007 7:33:47 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
51
Harvey, D., & Brown, D. (1988). An experimental approach to organization development (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Helms, J. E., Malone, L. T. S., Henze, K., Satiani, A., Perry, J., & Warren, A. (2003). First annual diversity challenge: How to survive teaching courses on race and culture. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31(1), 3–11. Hemphill, H., & Haines, R. (1997). Discrimination, harassment, and the failure of diversity training: What to do now. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–487. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the “contact hypothesis.” In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Holladay, C. L., Knight, J. L., Paige, D. L., & Quiñones, M. A. (2003). The influence of framing on attitudes toward diversity training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(3), 245–263. Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale and F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245–276). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143–156. Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. (2000). Diversity management: Time for a new approach. Public Personnel Management, 29, 75–92. Jackson, L. C. (1999). Ethnocultural resistance to multicultural training: Students and faculty. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5, 27–36. Jacques, R. (1997). The unbearable whiteness of being. Reflections of a pale, stale male. In P. Pushkala and A. J. Mills (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 80–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43, 409–424. Karp, H. B., & Sutton, N. (1993). Where diversity training goes wrong. Training, 30(7), 30–34.
ER59632_C002.indd 51
10/16/2007 7:33:48 AM
52 Donna Chrobot-Mason, Rosemary Hays-Thomas, and Heather Wishik
Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal, and group outcomes. The International Journal of Conflict of Management, 15, 77–102. Kirkland, S. E., & Regan, A. M. (1997). Organizational racial diversity training. In C. E. Thompson and R. T. Carter (Eds.), Racial identity theory: Applications to individual, group, and organizational interventions (pp. 159–175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Klein, M. (1959). Our adult world and its roots in infancy. Human Relations, 12, 291–303. Koortzen, P., & Cilliers, F. (2002). The Psychoanalytic approach to team development. In R. L. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting psychology (pp. 260–284). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Linnehan, F., & Konrad, A. M. (1999). Diluting diversity. Implications for intergroup inequality in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), 399–414. Linnehan, F., Chrobot-Mason, D., & Konrad, A. M. (2006) Diversity attitudes and norms: The role of ethnic identity and relational demography. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 419–442. Lynch, F. R. (1997). The diversity machine: The drive to change the “white male workplace.” New York: Free Press. May, M., & Cilliers, F. (2005). Robben Island: A container for difference. Montana Park, South Africa: ECT Educational Holdings. Major, B., & Crocker, J. (1993). Social stigma: The consequences of attributional ambiguity. In D. Mackie and D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 345–371). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. New York: Academic Press. McIntosh, P. (1993). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. In A. Minas (Ed.), Gender basics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Miller, E. J. (1993). From dependency to autonomy: Studies in organizational change. London: Free Association Books. Mobley, M., & Payne, T. (December, 1992). Backlash!: The challenge to diversity training. Training & Development, 46(12), 45–52. Neville, H. A., Roderick, L. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 59–70.
ER59632_C002.indd 52
10/16/2007 7:33:48 AM
Understanding and Defusing Resistance to Training and Learning
53
Noe, R. A., & Wilk, S. L. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees’ participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 291–302. Orange, R. (1994) The seven principles of community. Unpublished training materials available from the third author. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hyothesis: Its History and Influence. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 262–277). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783–794. Pretorius, M. (2005). South African diversity dynamics. Montana Park, South Africa: ECT Education Holdings. Quiñones, M. A. (1995). Pretraining context effects: Training assignment as feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 226–238. Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1997). African Americans’ reactions to diversity programs: Does procedural justice matter? Journal of Black Psychology, 23(4), 388–397. Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1998). Women recruits’ perceptions of workforce diversity program selection decisions: A procedural justice examination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 183–188. Richard, O. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1999). Organizational justice and the justification of work force diversity programs. Journal of Business and Psychology 14(1), 109–118. Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2003). Using needs assessment to resolve controversies in diversity training design. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 148–174. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free press. Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology, 48, 247–270. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 183–219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Smither, R. D., Houston, J. M., & McIntire, S. D. (1996). Organization development: Strategies for changing environments. New York: Harper Collins. Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Jentsch, F. G., Payne, S. C., & Salas, E. (1996). Can pretraining experiences explain individual differences in learning? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 110–116.
ER59632_C002.indd 53
10/16/2007 7:33:48 AM
54 Donna Chrobot Mason, Rosemary Hays Thomas, and Heather Wishik
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2005). Intergroup relations program evaluation. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 431–446). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214. Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 235–252. Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wolff, C., Petzel, T., Castro, V., & Jackson, J. S. (2004). The role of perceived importance in intergroup contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 211–227. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455–472. Wells, L. (1980). The group-as-a-whole: A systemic socio-analytic perspective on interpersonal and group relations. In C. P. Alderfer & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Advances in Experiential Social Processes (Vol. 2, pp. 165–198). New York: Wiley. Wiethoff, C. (2004). Motivation to learn and diversity training: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 263–278. Wishik, H. R. (1994) The Diversity Leadership Conference. Unpublished training materials available from the author.
ER59632_C002.indd 54
10/16/2007 7:33:48 AM
3 It Is All in How You View It Factors Contributing to Perceptions of a Hostile Work Climate Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
If we are to achieve a richer culture, rich in contrasting values, we must recognize the whole gamut of human potentialities, and so weave a less arbitrary social fabric, one in which each diverse human gift will find a fitting place. Margaret Mead
Organizational environments that are resistant to diversity because they are less inclusive and less welcoming of diverse employees are likely to promote hostile work climates. When such a climate exists, there are high psychological and economic costs to victims and organizations. Hostile work climates negatively affect victims’ career outcomes and work attitudes and lead to turnover, absenteeism, stress, and poor employee performance that impair the competitive advantage of organizations over time (e.g., Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001; Foley & Kidder, 2002; Murrell, Olson, & Frieze, 1995). Additionally, in 2005 alone, organizations spent over $300 million in litigation costs for hostile work environment harassment cases, not including any settlements for the affected individuals (www.eeoc. gov). For the well-being of employees and organizations, executives should understand what constitutes a hostile work climate and how to prevent it. Traditionally, scholars have studied hostile work climates from a legal perspective: what legally constitutes a hostile work environment and what organizations should do to minimize legal action. 55
ER59632_C003.indd 55
10/16/2007 7:39:50 AM
56
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
The law defines a hostile work environment as one in which verbal or physical conduct denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual because of a protected characteristic such as race, sex, religion, or national origin (www.eeoc.gov). Importantly, to reach the level of a legal claim, such behavior must be determined by a reasonable person to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an intimidating work environment or unreasonably interfere with job performance (www.eeoc.gov). Most organizations rely on this legal definition of harassment when implementing harassment policies. Although aspects of the legal definition of hostile environment are vague, and as such often interpreted broadly, there are circumstances in which employees are harassed and experience negative consequences yet their situation would not meet requirements of a legal claim. That is, either they may not be a member of a protected class with legal rights to file a harassment claim, or fact-finders may determine their case does not meet the legal criteria mentioned above. The reality that alleged victims file many more hostile work environment claims annually than either the EEOC or the courts substantiate suggests that individuals more readily perceive a harassing environment than meets the legal definition. Because of targets’ perceptions of harassment, the organization and the individuals still suffer negative consequences. It is important, therefore, to examine factors influencing individuals’ perceptions of a hostile work climate. In this chapter, we examine the nature of individuals’ perceptions of a hostile work climate. We consider hostile work climate from the perspective of the people who experience it (i.e., targets). As elaborated later, we define a hostile work climate as one in which individuals perceive hostility, threat, exclusion, discrimination, and/or malice directed towards them. As presented in the model in Figure 3.1, we outline the factors that contribute to perceptions of a hostile climate for targets. Our model extends previous work in this area in three ways. First, we recognize the interaction of characteristics of the creator of the hostile climate, of the target perceiving the hostile climate, and of the work unit to obtain a greater understanding of why the target might perceive a work climate as hostile. Second, we highlight the role of the organization in fostering a hostile climate. We discuss practices that promote the existence or prevention of hostile work climates. Additionally, organizational resistance to diversity can manifest itself in a
ER59632_C003.indd 56
10/16/2007 7:39:50 AM
Figure 3.1 Antecedents and consequences associated with targets’ perceptions of hostile climate.
ER59632_C003.indd 57
It Is All in How You View It 57
10/16/2007 7:39:50 AM
58
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
hostile climate. Third, we highlight potential individual and organizational outcomes associated with perceptions of a hostile climate. Legal Definition of Hostile Work Environment Although the legal definition of hostile work environment is not the focus of this chapter, a review of the definition serves as a foundation for the model. We first discuss whom the law protects, provide examples of harassing behaviors experienced by members of various protected groups, and discuss the factors a victim must meet to establish a legal claim of hostile environment harassment and what organizations can do to prevent it. Beyond the legalities, however, most of the article elaborates on a hostile work climate as perceived from the perspective of targets. Individuals Legally Protected from Harassment The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted to prevent discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Title VII of this act states that it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based upon one of these five protected classes. Clearly, this law was designed to protect minorities from being discriminated against in hiring and promotion decisions because of their demographic characteristics. In 1971 (Rogers v. EEOC), however, the Fifth Circuit interpreted Title VII to mean that employers must also maintain a work environment free from racial harassment. In the 1976 case of Compston v. Borden, an employee was subjected to verbal abuse because of his Jewish descent, and a federal court ruled that a hostile work environment could be created based upon an employee’s religion when such conduct affects the conditions of employment (Kaminer, 2000). In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which established hostile work environment based upon sex as an actionable claim under Title VII. The Court explained that the law was not limited to economic or tangible discrimination, but also ensured that employees have the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult (Kaminer, 2000). Thus, although the extensive
ER59632_C003.indd 58
10/16/2007 7:39:50 AM
It Is All in How You View It
59
attention to sexual harassment has obscured other types of harassment, Title VII also makes it illegal for an employer to subject an employee to a hostile work environment based upon his or her race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition to these protections under the Civil Rights Act, other federal laws protect employees from experiencing a hostile work environment based upon their age (40 years and over), disability (mental or physical including obesity), or military membership (Volokh, 1997). Further, in some jurisdictions, the scope of law is greater, protecting employees from harassment based upon their sexual orientation, marital status, political affiliation, transsexualism, criminal record, prior psychiatric treatment, occupation, citizenship status, personal appearance, tobacco use outside of work, Appalachian origin, receipt of public assistance, or dishonorable discharge from the military (Volokh, 1997). The Legal Definition of Hostile Work Environment Hostile work environment harassment occurs when an individual in a protected class is subjected to unwelcome verbal or physical conduct that is “sufficiently severe, pervasive, or unreasonable” to alter the conditions of employment (that is, pay, promotion or other opportunities, and the like are affected) or create an abusive or offensive working environment (www.eeoc.gov). Such behavior may be conducted by anyone in the workplace including a supervisor, coworker, or nonemployee (e.g., supplier or customer), and the target can be anyone affected by the behavior, not just the individual to whom the behavior was directed (www.fcc.gov, 2004). Thus, for an individual to make a legal claim of harassment, s/he must (1) be a member of a protected class, (2) demonstrate that s/he was subjected to unwelcome conduct related to his/her class membership, and (3) provide evidence that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment or create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. Examples of Hostile Environment Behaviors Staring in a sexual manner, telling sexual jokes, hanging revealing posters, touching another person in an inappropriate manner, sending sexually suggestive e-mails, or making sexual comments about
ER59632_C003.indd 59
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
60
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
another employee’s looks, clothing, or body parts are all examples of behaviors that might constitute a hostile environment based upon sex (www.fcc.gov, 2004). Recent court cases found that a supervisor showing sexual favoritism to women with whom he had a consensual relationship created a hostile environment for other workers (Miller v. Department of Corrections, Thelen, 2005). Promoting negative stereotypes, using racially derogatory words, making comments about one’s skin color, or having racially insensitive symbols such as hangmen’s nooses or Confederate insignia might lead to a racially hostile work environment (www.fcc.gov, 2004). Cartoons making fun of older people on a bulletin board, e-mails containing distasteful Helen Keller jokes, or a supervisor casually wondering if an employee “still has what it takes to do a job” are other examples of behaviors that might lead to a lawsuit (Brown, 2005). Such comments, symbols, or other actions related to one’s age, disability, religion, or other protected class exemplifies harassment when they are sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment or create an abusive work environment. Employers often want to know whether a given claim of harassment represents illegal discrimination. For example, how many sexual jokes does it take to create a hostile environment? The difficulty in evaluating a particular claim is that the terms “severe,” “pervasive,” and “unreasonable” are vague, and no standard definitions have emerged in the courts (Gettle, 1993). In order to determine when behaviors have reached a sufficiently severe or pervasive level, courts have relied on the concept of “reasonableness” (Thacker & Gohmann, 1993), which means that the severity of the harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the complainant’s position considering all of the same circumstances (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 1998). A single incident such as touching another’s intimate body part may constitute harassment, or an accumulation of less serious incidents over time may be necessary. In evaluating a given incident, one should consider the following questions: Is the behavior serious in terms of the degree of physical or psychological harm? How frequently did it occur? Moreover, for a reasonable person, would it unreasonably interfere with work performance or create a hostile environment? Although the effect on the employee’s psychological well-being is a consideration, there is no single element required to determine that harassment was illegal (Harris v. Forklift, 1993).
ER59632_C003.indd 60
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
It Is All in How You View It
61
Some general patterns have emerged from previous court cases in terms of what courts define hostile environment harassment. In claims based upon religion, national origin, or alienage, a claim is generally not legally actionable if it involves a single episode of profane language, mere rudeness, or an incident that did not bother the plaintiff (Seymour, 2002). If the target does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, then the conduct has not altered the conditions of employment and there is no violation of Title VII (Kaminer, 2000). However, unlike our perceptual definition of hostile work climate, a legal claim is not actionable solely based upon an individual’s perception of a hostile environment. Either the direct target of the behavior or an observer of it must demonstrate that the behavior was unwelcome and sufficiently severe or pervasive for that individual or a reasonable person in similar circumstances to find the environment hostile. The courts have ruled that repeated racial slurs create a hostile work environment, such as when a supervisor used the term “Spic” three times to a Hispanic employee (Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 1998). Courts generally assume such comments are unwelcome and offensive (Seymour, 2002). Unlike racial or religious harassment, targets of sexual harassment must demonstrate that the behavior was unwelcome. In addition, a number of courts have found that inaction on the part of the target is an indication that the harasser’s conduct was welcome (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fisher, 1995). Whereas the law does prohibit behaviors that are severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions, the law does not prohibit simple teasing, isolated incidents of “boorish” behavior (Alfano v. Costello, 2002), or offhand comments that are not extremely serious (www.fcc.gov, 2004). Again, whether a particular incident rises to the level of illegal harassment depends upon the frequency and severity of the behavior, nature of the relationship, degree of harm, and how the courts judge these variables based upon the perspective of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. Definition of Perceived Hostile Work Climate Organizations must understand what constitutes a hostile climate from both a legal and perceptual point of view. Above, we outlined the legal protections of a harassment-free workplace, provided
ER59632_C003.indd 61
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
62
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
example behaviors, and discussed legal requirements. Employees’ perceptions of a hostile climate, however, are not bound by the legal guidelines in that employees may suffer negative consequences even when a law is not violated. Thus, in the following sections, we define perceived hostile climate and elaborate on the factors that contribute to it. A hostile work climate is a form of psychological climate. The term psychological climate refers to individual perceptions of the work environment (James & James, 1989). When members of a group or organization widely share these perceptions, researchers refer to it as the group or organizational climate. Specific types of climates reflect perceptions of different facets of the work environment, such as safety, innovation, and inclusiveness. A perceived hostile climate, therefore, is one in which individuals believe that they are the target of conduct from others in the organization (be it verbal, physical, written, or graphic) that: (1) they perceive as offensive, abusive, hostile, exclusionary, discriminatory, and/or malicious; (2) creates significant negative emotional responses; or (3) otherwise interferes with their individual well-being or job performance. The target, rather than an objective third party, is the one who determines if a hostile climate exists. Organizations should strive to create an inclusive, welcoming work environment for all individuals, regardless of their legally protected status. Individuals not legally protected by law may also experience a hostile climate. For example, federal law does not legally protect gay and lesbian employees from harassment related to their sexual orientation. Yet, they are subject to jokes, symbols, and other behaviors that likely interfere with their work performance and create a hostile climate. Such a climate can negatively affect the work attitudes and behaviors of these individuals and may lead to turnover, absenteeism, and other costly outcomes for organizations As another example, recent research on workplace bullying has indicated that whereas women are more commonly the targets of bullying, men can be targets as well. A recent study (Namie, 2003) indicated that common bullying behaviors include the following: falsely accusing someone of “errors” not actually made; staring, glaring, or being nonverbally intimidating and showing hostility; discounting others’ thoughts or feelings (“Oh, that’s silly”) in meetings; using the “silent treatment” to “ice out” and separate an individual from others; and
ER59632_C003.indd 62
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
It Is All in How You View It
63
starting or failing to stop destructive rumors, among other actions. Although these behaviors may not constitute a legal case of hostile work environment, they can create perceptions of a hostile climate. Further, harassing behaviors that create offensive feelings but do not violate a law can have unseen costs (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995). Minority employees may be subject to subtle discrimination and stigmatization that alter their working conditions. Others in work organizations often exclude stigmatized individuals, such as members of minority groups (e.g., females in a majority male organization), from in-groups and informal networks (Riordan & Gatewood, 2005; chap. 5 this volume). Discrimination can result from the ingroups and out-groups that form as well as the informal friendships and social networks that emerge in an organization (Ibarra, 1995), which influence who has access to information and other resources needed to perform effectively in a job. These actions, which may not rise to the level of illegal discrimination, are real to the employees who experience them, create a hostile climate, and fundamentally influence their workplace experience. Thus, our focus here is on individuals’ perceptions of hostile climates as they are individually experienced and defined. Factors That Influence Perceptions of a Hostile Work Climate Several factors influence targets’ perceptions of a hostile climate: (1) their coworkers’ personal characteristics, attitudes toward diverse others, and actual behaviors in the workplace; (2) social and structural factors associated with the work unit; (3) organizational systems and practices; and (4) characteristics of the targets themselves. We discuss each of these factors next. Coworkers’ Characteristics, Attitudes, and Behaviors The characteristics, beliefs and attitudes, and actual behaviors of coworkers can heavily influence individuals’ perceptions of a hostile climate. We use the term “coworkers” to represent all others with whom an individual interacts with on a regular basis. This includes peers, supervisors, and subordinates.
ER59632_C003.indd 63
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
64
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
Coworkers’ Personal Characteristics. Personal characteristics of coworkers that may contribute to perceptions of a hostile climate include coworkers’ demographic characteristics, personality traits, and experiences and skills associated with understanding diversity. These personal characteristics may contribute to overt behaviors as well as more subtle, unintentional behaviors toward members of underrepresented groups that trigger perceptions of a hostile work climate. Demographic Characteristics. Coworkers who share demographic characteristics such as gender, race, or religion with the quantitative majority of organizational members may not respond positively to individuals in the organization who do not share those same demographic characteristics. The literature on organizational and relational demography has demonstrated that individuals have reactions to being similar or different to others in their work environment. Based on the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), individuals tend to be attracted to similar others and view them as more likable and trustworthy due to the assumption of common experiences and backgrounds (Pfeffer, 1983; Tajfel, 1978). In addition, the theories of social categorization and social identity (Hogg and Terry, 2000; Tajfel and Turner, 1986) propose that individuals define themselves and others along the lines of membership in social categories and will categorize dissimilar others into an out-group. Majority employees then view the demographic dissimilarity of others as a deficiency. This dissimilarity is often the basis for feelings of threat from the out-group members as well as derogation, stereotypes, and polarization directed toward out-group members (Loden & Rosener, 1991; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), all of which may contribute to the perception of a hostile climate. Thomas and Chrobot-Mason (2005) have also associated demographic characteristics with perceived status and power in organizations. Demographic membership in a group with power in an organization can result in privileges that are not afforded to minorities, such as access to networks, information, status, and advancement opportunities (Thomas & Chrobot-Mason, 2005). Historically in the United States, White employees and male employees have dominated the higher ranks in organizations, thereby giving those demographic categories higher status than minority counterparts (Konrad & Gutek, 1987; Ragins, 1997). Gender and race are status
ER59632_C003.indd 64
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
It Is All in How You View It
65
characteristics that lead to perceptions and expectations of ability and competence. Even if minorities possess similar rank and resources for power as their majority counterparts, majority members may perceive them as less competent or influential (Ragins, 1997). Hence, members of majority groups or high status demographic groups may be less likely to affiliate with organizational members in lower status demographic groups, be less receptive to having them in their work groups, or even actively resist organizational initiatives that increase opportunities for minorities to enter those groups and ranks in the organization. In sum, dissimilarity in demographic characteristics to one’s coworkers likely leads to derogation, stereotyping, and polarization. Further, majority group members may avoid members of underrepresented groups. Because of these factors and because majority group members are viewed as having greater status, power, ability, and competence, minority group members may feel stigmatized, devalued, and discriminated against. Thus, we suggest that the demographic characteristics of one’s coworkers, and, particularly, the degree of a target’s dissimilarity to them, positively relate to a target’s perceptions of a hostile climate. Personality. It is important to understand that coworkers’ personality characteristics may contribute to the construction of a hostile climate in that personality differences partially explain why some people are more prejudiced than others. Prejudice is defined as a negative attitude toward a social group (Stephan & Banks, 1999), and the assumption underlying social prejudice is the belief of superiority of one group over another (Herek, 1990). Personality characteristics that scholars have correlated with prejudicial attitudes include intolerance of ambiguity, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, self-monitoring, and the “Big Five” personality traits. Next, we discuss how each characteristic contributes to perceptions of a hostile climate. Tolerance of ambiguity represents an individual’s ability and readiness to accept stimuli and situations that are unfamiliar, complex, or characterized by incomplete information. Individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity experience discomfort with uncertainty and are likely to prejudge stimuli and situations to reach closure and reduce uncertainty. Studies have linked intolerance of ambiguity to greater stereotyping (Friedland, Keinan, & Tytiun, 1999), social
ER59632_C003.indd 65
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
66
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
prejudice, racism, authoritarianism, conservatism, rigidity, and ethnocentrism (Baj-Lindsey, 1998). Individuals who are high on authoritarianism tend to favor traditional values, are submissive to authority figures, are highly ethnocentric, and may act aggressively toward out-groups (Altemeyer, 1998; Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje, & Zakrisson, 2004). Substantial research has found links between authoritarianism and negative attitudes toward out-groups in various cultures and sexist attitudes toward women (Ekehammar et al., 2004; Pek & Leong, 2003). Social dominance orientation refers to the basic desire to have one’s own primary in-group be considered superior to other relevant out-groups (Sidanius, 1993) and affects how readily people engage in negative stereotyping of out-group members, internal and negative attributions for out-group failures, and active discrimination against out-group members (Sidanius, Pratto, & Mitchell, 1994). Research has indicated that social dominance orientation correlates strongly with measures of ethnic prejudice, sexism, negative attitudes toward homosexuals, and generalized prejudice (cf. Ekehammar et al., 2004). Self-monitoring refers to differences in sensitivity to situational norms (Snyder, 1974). High self-monitors are more sensitive to cues available in their social environment and are likely to adapt their responses and attitudes to be consistent with those they perceive as normative of their audiences. Low self-monitors do not pick up cues in their environment and their behavior tends to be less dependent on situational and interpersonal considerations (Klein, Snyder, & Livingston, 2004). Hence, low self-monitors may be more likely to express attitudes or engage in behaviors that are inappropriate with regard to interacting with diverse others while high self-monitors are more likely to sense what is appropriate. The Big Five personality model identifies five higher-order general personality dimensions thought to broadly describe personality differences among individuals: conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, and neuroticism (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Two of these personality factors, agreeableness and openness to experience, are associated with generalized and ethnic prejudice. Agreeableness involves getting along with others in pleasant, satisfying relationships and is associated with being courteous, trusting, good-natured, tolerant, kind, and helpful (Barrick & Mount, 1991; James & Mazerolle, 2002). Individuals who score
ER59632_C003.indd 66
10/16/2007 7:39:51 AM
It Is All in How You View It
67
high on openness to experience are commonly described as imaginative, insightful, curious, inventive, creative, and original (Barrick & Mount, 1991; James & Mazerolle, 2002). Individuals with lower levels of agreeableness and openness are more likely to report generalized and ethnic prejudice (Ekehammar et al., 2004; Jackson & Poulsen, 2005). Coworkers with personality characteristics including low tolerance of ambiguity, self-monitoring, agreeableness, or openness to experience or high authoritarianism or social dominance are more likely to engage in stereotyping, hold prejudicial attitudes, and engage in discriminatory conduct. Even in situations where coworkers with these personality characteristics do not intentionally behave in a prejudicial manner, these characteristics can contribute to a cycle of miscommunication. Minorities may misattribute majority coworkers’ avoidance or demonstration of anxiety during inter-group interactions as prejudice (Thomas & Chrobot-Mason, 2005). Thus, the presence of these personality characteristics in one’s coworkers relates positively to targets’ perceptions of a hostile climate. Skills and Experiences. In addition to demographic and personality characteristics, coworkers may lack critical skills and experiences that enable them to relate well to individuals of under-represented groups in the organization. In order for diverse leader-member relationships to develop into high quality relationships, individuals have to possess the necessary interpersonal skills to work through conflicts and misunderstandings that may emerge due to diversity (Scandura & Lankau, 1996). Conflict management, team-building, and coaching skills should promote positive working relationships. In addition, competence in communication and understanding other cultures should help individuals resist the inclination to stereotype and make attributions regarding other groups. Chrobot-Mason and Ruderman (2004) highlight the importance of multicultural competence and suggest that leaders need to develop this competence in order to respond to the challenges and opportunities of diversity in the workplace. Further, they suggest that leaders should develop greater self-awareness of their biases and attitudes toward diversity, seek feedback from others about their skills in addressing diversity issues, and role model the desired attitudes and behaviors to support diversity efforts.
ER59632_C003.indd 67
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
68
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
Emotional intelligence is another important skill for working effectively with people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds (Goleman, 1998). Self-awareness, self-regulation, selfmotivation, empathy, and social skills are the five components of emotional intelligence. Individuals who do not possess self-knowledge about their own biases cannot control impulses to respond negatively toward out-group members, cannot gauge other people’s feelings or understand different perspectives, and are likely to treat diverse others in ways that contribute to perceptions of a hostile climate. Individuals who report lower self-control are more likely to engage in behavior that is perceived as sexually harassing (Done, 2000), and those who score higher on empathy are less likely to have dysfunctional responses to interpersonal conflict (Fitness & Curtis, 2005). Thus, having coworkers with less emotional intelligence may promote targets’ perceptions of a hostile climate. Finally, coworkers’ prior exposure level to individuals who are different from them may help determine how they respond in the workplace to under-represented groups. For example, individuals who have had little exposure or contact with people from different racial or religious groups or have worked predominantly with others of the same gender or race may have a greater tendency to rely on social categorization processes and use stereotypes. According to the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), common social categorization processes that occur among members of different social groups decrease over time as members attend more to individuating information (Brewer & Brown, 1998). Thus, as individuals interact with members of other identity groups, stereotypes of these other groups occur less frequently. Further, individuals may reduce their feelings of fear and uncertainty and positive feelings towards other identity groups may increase (Linnehan & Konrad, 1999), as long as the quality of the contact is high. Extensive literature supports that positive contact experiences correlate with lower levels of prejudice (Jackson & Poulsen, 2005). Employees who are less comfortable with diversity are more likely to experience negative group processes (e.g., conflict, less communication, less cohesion, less identification) when they perceive themselves to be dissimilar to their coworkers than individuals who are more comfortable with diversity (Riordan, Lankau, & Stewart, 2006). Thus, minority group members are more likely to perceive a hostile climate when their coworkers are lacking in multicultural
ER59632_C003.indd 68
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
It Is All in How You View It
69
competence, have lower emotional intelligence, and have little prior exposure to members of diverse groups. Coworkers’ Beliefs and Attitudes. The second major category of factors that can create a hostile climate is coworkers’ beliefs and attitudes toward under-represented groups. Coworkers’ beliefs about their own identity group might impact their attitudes toward members of dissimilar identity groups. Ethnic identity represents a person’s sense of belonging to an ethnic group and the degree of thinking, perceptions, and behaviors that are influenced by membership in that group (Thomas, Phillips, & Brown, 1998). Research on Whites’ racial identity suggests that low levels of identity development involve acceptance of stereotypes associated with minority groups. As Whites progress toward higher stages of identity development, they begin to question stereotypes, interact more with members of other groups, and eventually realize positive attributes of people outside their reference group when they develop a positive racial identity (Chrobot-Mason, 2004). Hence, White coworkers who have lower levels of White racial identity may be more likely to hold stereotypical beliefs toward minorities. Research suggests that bias and stereotyping are causes of delayed progress for minorities (Larwood, Gutek, & Gattiker, 1984; Larwood, Szwajkowski, & Rose, 1988) and may contribute to perceptions of a hostile work climate. Bias is defined as reactions to people from other groups on the basis of perceived membership in a single human category, ignoring other personal attributes or individuated impressions formed from personal details (Fiske, 2002). Some studies suggest that deficiencies are presumed even when no real differences exist because stereotypes based on historical roles persist (Cox, 1993). Stereotyping generally affects majority group members and as such can create barriers for minorities or result in other actions that create perceptions of a hostile climate. Organizational researchers have widely studied sexism and racism. Sexism consists of hostile affect, negative stereotypes, and the endorsement of traditional gender roles for women (Glick & Fiske, 1997). Racism is a negative attitude toward members of other racial groups due to the belief in the superiority of one’s own racial group. Whereas racist attitudes have been declining over the past 30 years, the construct of modern or aversive racism is receiving increased research attention (Carter, Helms, & Juby, 2004; Ziegert & Hanges,
ER59632_C003.indd 69
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
70
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
2005). This perspective suggests that individuals express egalitarian values and believe they are not racist but unconsciously harbor racist feelings that result in subtle but powerful biases (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998). For example, individuals may believe that minorities can compete equally in the workplace with Whites and perceive strategies used by minorities (e.g., affirmative action and diversity initiatives) to gain access into places as unfair and their gains in social status as undeserved (Awad, Cokley, & Ravitch, 2005). Brief et al. (2000) showed that individuals who scored higher on modern racism were more likely to act on negative racial attitudes by discriminating against minorities in hiring decisions when they perceived that authority figures provided business justification for the decision. Other less studied prejudicial attitudes in the organizational literature can also contribute to under-represented groups’ perceptions of a hostile climate. Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s culture is inherently superior to other cultures. When individuals have an ethnocentric attitude, they tend to define reality according to one set of cultural assumptions and stereotypes and become insensitive to cultural variations among individuals (Connerley & Pedersen, 2005). Heterosexism is a belief system that stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of behavior, relationship, or community (Herek, 1990). Although discrimination against employees who are gay is legal in most workplaces, gay employees may constitute a larger proportion of the workforce than many other minority groups and sexual orientation prejudice may have negative consequences on employee attitudes (Ragins, Cornwell, & Miller, 2003; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Religious prejudice is another form of social prejudice that coworkers may exhibit. Cases of religious harassment involving Muslim employees have increased dramatically since the terrorist acts against the United States on September 11, 2001 (Fair Employment Practices Guidelines, 2005). Individuals can also possess negative attitudes toward individuals with disabilities and serious weight problems. Recently, the courts have ruled that forms of disabilitybased harassment and weight discrimination may be unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Johnson, 1995; Massengill, 2004). Prejudicial attitudes such as sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, and heterosexism can create perceptions of a hostile climate. Coworkers’ Behaviors. The preceding discussion of personal characteristics and attitudes provides a more thorough understanding of
ER59632_C003.indd 70
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
It Is All in How You View It
71
the social–psychological factors that contribute to perceptions of a hostile climate. However, the legal standard for a hostile work environment does not take such factors into consideration; instead, the law focuses on the actions exhibited by coworkers. The following section does not focus on whether the behaviors of coworkers necessarily meet the legal standard of “severe” or “pervasive” to alter the conditions of employment but summarizes the types of behaviors that targets may perceive as hostile or harassing. Coworkers’ use of language that denigrates members of under-represented groups such as disparaging remarks, racial epithets, slurs, jokes and comments that reinforce negative stereotypes, inappropriate nicknames, imitating others’ speech patterns (e.g., an accent or stutter), and use of profanity targeted toward specific individuals can create a hostile climate. This language may be directed toward the target individuals in written or verbal form, shared in e-mail communications, posted on company Web sites, or shared with others in the organization. In El-Hakem v. BJY, Inc., the court found in favor of the plaintiff for race discrimination and hostile work environment because a supervisor persistently referred to an Arabic employee as “Manny” instead of “Mamdough” despite the employee’s continued objections. The court stated that “a group’s ethnic characteristics encompass more than its members’ skin color and physical traits” and “that names are often a proxy for race and ethnicity” (Kraehe, 2005, p. 121). Targets may also perceive coworkers’ nonverbal communication as degrading or inappropriate. Examples include imitating the posture or gait of a disabled worker, staring at people’s body parts (e.g., breasts), touching one’s own body parts inappropriately in front of others, and using vulgar hand gestures or gestures that members of other cultures consider insults. A disproportionate use of criticism or monitoring behaviors toward members of under-represented groups compared to dominant members of the organization may cause perceptions of a hostile climate. Examples may include intercepting employee phone calls, eavesdropping on conversations, physically hovering around individuals as they work, checking their work more than others, openly criticizing individuals, and actively searching for mistakes to try and “catch” poor performance or wrong doing (Massengill, 2004). Another category of behavior that can constitute a hostile climate is malicious actions by coworkers that attempt to interrupt or prevent members of under-represented groups from performing their
ER59632_C003.indd 71
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
72
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
work satisfactorily. In Kaspi v. Fairway Operating Corp., the plaintiff Kaspi alleged that she was subjected to a hostile climate based on her religion and nationality. In addition to overt references to her religion and nationality, coworkers harassed her by not giving her important forms that were faxed to her, not transmitting purchase orders and inventory sheets that she prepared, and taking her keys to the bathroom on a repeated basis (The Daily Record, 2005). In Fox v. GMC, a jury found in favor of Fox with regard to a hostile work environment based on disability. In addition to disparaging remarks, the company’s managers attempted to prevent Fox’s supervisor from making accommodations for his disability and isolated him to work in a hazardous area which was too low for him to work comfortably in (Massengill, 2004). In Davis v. Verizon Wireless, Davis has alleged race-based hostile work environment. Ms. Davis is an African-American woman and claims that her Caucasian supervisor excluded her from meetings, denied her supervisory direction, and undermined her ability to do her job by firing African-American representatives that reported to Davis without consulting her or using a progressive discipline process (Nguyen, 2005). The most blatant behaviors that can create perceptions of a hostile climate are aggressive behaviors that targets perceive as violent or threatening to one’s own personal security. Examples of these behaviors include threatening phone calls, slashing people’s car tires, damaging their personal property or work property, or hanging nooses in their work environment. Also included in this category are retaliatory behaviors for individuals expressing complaints about discrimination, harassment, or hostile work environment. Retaliatory actions can include verbal abuse, physical abuse, demotions, docked pay, and termination. One final category of behaviors that can foster a general perception of a hostile climate is a lack of action by coworkers. Individuals who observe behaviors or receive complaints and choose not to act send a message to members of under-represented groups that a culture of harassment and discrimination is acceptable even if committed by just one individual. Summary. Coworkers’ personal characteristics, beliefs and attitudes, and behaviors can affect the target’s perceptions of a hostile work climate. Specific demographic characteristics, personality traits, skills, and experiences may increase coworkers’ discomfort
ER59632_C003.indd 72
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
It Is All in How You View It
73
with diverse others. In addition, the use of negative stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes toward members of under-represented groups may increase employees’ sense that a work environment is not welcoming or a fair place to work. Finally, the actual behaviors that coworkers engage in and direct toward minorities can threaten and intimidate those members of the organization. It is important to note that we used the term coworkers broadly to apply to all individuals employed by the same organization with whom under-represented members may interact on a regular basis. However, if the coworker is a supervisor or someone in management, a target’s perceptions of a hostile climate may be stronger. Employees are generally subject to management’s authority. Thus, they typically cannot respond in the same way as to a peer or subordinate (e.g., tell them to cease the behavior). Targets may also perceive a manager to be an agent of the organization and, thus, representing the views of the organization. In addition, the courts have found more evidence for a hostile work environment if the actions are conducted by a supervisor than a peer employee (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001). The courts have determined that an employer is liable for a hostile work environment created by nonemployees such as vendors, independent contractors, and even customers if the company was made aware of the harassment and did nothing to stop it (Finerty, 2005). Work Unit Factors Work unit factors can contribute to the creation and/or maintenance of a hostile climate. The positional power of the work unit manager, demography of the work group, and behavioral norms established in the work group may directly impact perceptions of a hostile climate by members of under-represented groups. Positional Power of the Work Unit Manager. Rahim (1989) defines power as “the ability of one party to change or control the behavior, attitudes, opinions, objectives, needs, and values of another party” (p. 545). Positional power includes a manager’s legitimate, coercive, and reward power. Legitimate power is the extent to which subordinates believe the manager has the right to prescribe and control their behavior due to the manager’s authority in his/her position. Reward power is the extent to which subordinates perceive that the
ER59632_C003.indd 73
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
74
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
manager can reward them for desired behavior and coercive power is the extent to which subordinates perceive that the manager can punish them if they do not conform to the manager’s influence attempts (Rahim, Antonioni, & Psenicka, 2001). If the manager is the sole individual or among the individuals engaging in harassing behaviors and the positional power is high for the unit manager, then this situation will likely increase perceptions of a hostile climate. The target may be unlikely to confront the manager due to a sense of vulnerability to negative job-related consequences. However, if the unit manager is not engaging in the harassing behavior, members of under-represented groups may believe that managers with high position power can effectively use their power to end and prevent the behavior of others as opposed to managers with weak position power. If an intervention were not to occur on the part of the manager, the target may perceive the lack of action as evidence of a hostile climate. Demography of the Work Group. It might help to consider two areas when examining the demographic composition of the work group to determine whether there may be heightened potential for perceptions of a hostile climate. The first is the numerical proportion of majority group members and under-represented group members. If an under-represented group member is a “token” in the work unit or several members make up only a small proportion of the workgroup, then it is more likely that they will perceive and experience discrimination (Kanter, 1977; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). The distinctiveness of being a token or member of a small subgroup can result in a negative experience due to unrealistic expectations about competence, stereotypical attributions about performance, and heightened contrast with majority group members. However, as the number of minorities increases in a work group, this change may not necessarily improve the situation as dominant members may perceive a threat to the existing power structure. A vast amount of research has found increasing demographic diversity in work groups associated with reduced social integration and increased conflict (c.f., Lau & Murnighan, 1998; Riordan, Schaffer, & Stewart, 2005). These negative experiences with group members due to demographic composition are likely to heighten perceptions of a hostile climate.
ER59632_C003.indd 74
10/16/2007 7:39:52 AM
It Is All in How You View It
75
The second consideration is the relational demography between the leader and the subordinate (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Within work units that have disproportionate numbers of dominant and under-represented groups, if the leader and subordinate share the same membership such as an Hispanic supervisor and Hispanic subordinate in a dominant Caucasian work unit, perceptions of a hostile climate may be reduced due to positive treatment by the same-group supervisor. Generally speaking, perceptions of a hostile climate will be greatest when one is within the numerical minority within his or her work unit and when s/he is of a different demographic group than his or her supervisor. Behavioral Norms of the Work Group. Norms within a work group influence perceptions of a hostile climate. Particularly, having competitive norms as opposed to cooperative norms likely fosters such perceptions. The literature on bullying suggests that work group norms that emphasize the allocation of rewards, assignments, and resources on a competitive basis may provoke individuals to sabotage the work performance of a colleague to improve his/her own ranking in the group (Salin, 2003). Members of under-represented groups may become targets for this type of behavior. In addition, work groups may have strong norms regarding a code of silence, which is an understanding among group members about not reporting or overlooking improper or unethical behavior. Certainly if there are weak norms about what constitutes ethical and acceptable behavior in a work group or, conversely, strong norms about not reporting violations, there are increased possibilities for individuals to engage in behaviors that targets perceive as hostile or harassing. Organizational Systems and Practices There are several organizational characteristics, such as organizational policies and practices, top management actions, and presence of diversity resistance within the organization, that may impact perceptions of a hostile climate. These factors affect employees’ perceptions because they function to signal, develop, and reinforce the values, norms, and goals of the organization to employees. Thus, in terms of a hostile climate, organizational practices signal, develop,
ER59632_C003.indd 75
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
76
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
and reinforce employees’ perceptions of negative and positive behaviors that the organization and top leadership condone. The Presence and Strength of the Human Resource Policies and Practices. Human resource policies and practices that explicitly address discrimination, harassment, and potentially stigmatized groups, can help offset the creation of a hostile climate. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has recommended actions that employers can take to avoid liability for charges of harassment. The EEOC recommends “affirmatively raising the subject, expressing strong disapproval, developing appropriate sanctions, informing employees of their right to raise and how to raise the issue of harassment under Title VII, and developing methods to sensitize all concerned” (Ledvinka & Scarpello, 1991, p. 76). Such steps involve creating thorough antiharassment policies; having clear and fair complaint procedures; distributing policies to all employees and having employees sign them; providing training defining harassment, informing employees about the complaint procedures, and prohibiting retaliation; responding promptly to complaints; and monitoring the workplace for improper conduct (Brown, 2005). Further, top management actions can signal appropriate behaviors and create norms within the organization (Riordan & Gatewood, 2005), and top management support is an essential condition for anti-discrimination policies to be effective (e.g., Smith, 1991). Most employers equate harassment with sexual harassment, and most antiharassment policies are focused only on sexual harassment. This is a far too limited view. Employers should attempt to remedy their workplaces from all forms of harassment including those based on race, national origin, age, disability, and religion. These forms of harassment should be defined and addressed in company policies and training programs. Employers should also investigate other laws that pertain to them that provide protection to other groups and incorporate these into their policies and programs. For example, Ragins and Cornwell (2001) found that the presence of a nondiscrimination policy that specifically included language about sexual orientation, organizational practices that included gay partners attending company events, and protective legislation for homosexuals all led to decreased discrimination against gay employees. Similarly, Button (2001) found that organizational policies focused on sexual diversity reduce discrimination suffered by gay and lesbian employees.
ER59632_C003.indd 76
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
It Is All in How You View It
77
Top Management Actions. Top management activities can reinforce or stop the devaluation of individuals or groups of individuals. Overall, top management actions signal appropriate or desired characteristics, behaviors, and norms within the organization (e.g., we will not discriminate). Rynes and Rosen (1995) found that top management’s public and open support was associated with both the adoption and success of diversity training programs. Overall, top managers send strong signals to employees about acceptable behaviors through their own behaviors, words, and beliefs. Additionally, top management’s public and private disapproval of inappropriate behaviors and formal or informal reward of appropriate behaviors send strong signals as well. Targets may perceive a top management’s lack of action against inappropriate behaviors, complaints, or evidence of hostile or bullying behavior as silent endorsement of that type of behavior. For example, research found that bullying behavior often occurs in the absence of top management action to prevent it (Namie, 2003). Support for Diversity. The organization’s support for diversity initiatives can also attenuate the differential treatment and devaluation of target groups. An organization’s support for diversity involves the extent to which majority members value efforts to increase minority representation and whether they question the qualifications and abilities of minority members or people who are different from the majority (Button, 2001; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; Ragins & Cornwell, 1999). For example, Kossek and Zonia (1993) found that equal opportunities policies, how individuals and groups view those policies, and access to resources and opportunities in the organization affected support for diversity within the organization. An organization that promotes diversity may signal to others that engaging in differential treatment and devaluation of those who are different is unacceptable. For example, many sales organizations have made a business case that diversity in their work forces is important because there is diversity in the organizations’ target markets. This business case gives a clear message that diversity is a positive addition to and valued in the sales organization. On the other hand, organizational climates that are resistant to diversity, because they are less inclusive and less welcoming of diverse employees, likely promote targets’ perceptions of a hostile climate. Accordingly, diversity resis-
ER59632_C003.indd 77
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
78
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
tance may ultimately cost the organization in terms of harassment costs to both the individual and the organization. Personal Factors as Moderators The coworker characteristics, work unit factors, and organizational systems and practices are possible precipitating processes to the construction of a hostile climate. It is also important to consider that individuals may not be equally vulnerable or resilient to harassment in the workplace and that there may be characteristics of the targets that strengthen the possibility for them to experience a work environment as hostile (Einarsen, 2000). These factors include the personal characteristics and personal history of the target, which may play a moderating role in the relationships between precipitating processes and individuals’ perceptions of a hostile climate. Personal Characteristics of the Target. If the target is under-represented in a work group, then his/her social identity in that group may become more salient due to being in the minority. Negative attitudes and actions against under-represented groups are more likely to lead to strong perceptions of a hostile climate if the target is a member of that under-represented group or even another under-represented group. Theory suggests that members of different minority groups tend to have more positive attitudes and beliefs toward one another due to categorizing themselves in a broader “minority” group or members of similar power-related groups in an organization (less power and lower ranks than majority members) (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Ragins, 1997). For example, women may be more sensitive to negative comments about minorities or disabled employees if they too are under-represented and share lower status positions. Studies also demonstrate that individuals may respond differently depending upon which identities, such as gender, ethnicity, or religious identity, they adopt as part of their social identity. A number of studies have also examined how demographic characteristics affected perceptions of sexual harassment. These studies generally find that men and women as well as members of different racial groups perceive sexual cues and language differently. Women are more likely than men to interpret sexual behavior as sexually harassing and racial groups differ in their interpretation of behavior
ER59632_C003.indd 78
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
It Is All in How You View It
79
based on cultural differences in personal space and low and highcontext communication (Isbell, Swedish, & Gazan, 2005; Li & Wong, 2005). Personality characteristics of the target may also moderate the relationship between coworker characteristics, work unit factors, and organizational systems and practices and individual perceptions of a hostile climate. There is very little research on personality characteristics of individuals who experience a hostile climate. However, the literature on psychological contracts has identified several personality characteristics that may explain which individuals are more likely to perceive specific actions as breaches of psychological contracts. Drawing from this literature one realizes that extraversion, conscientiousness, equity sensitivity, and self-esteem would play a role in determining whether individuals are likely to be more vigilant in monitoring their work environment for signs of unfair treatment or hostility (Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). Individuals who are more extraverted are likely to be more assertive, energetic, and ambitious and will actively seek information that the organization is not denying them opportunities. Individuals who are high on conscientiousness tend to exhibit motivation for achievement and concern for task accomplishment. They will likely pay attention to whether others in their environment are facilitating or hindering their performance. Individuals who are high in equity sensitivity tend to have stronger reactions to inequity and will therefore be more sensitive to attitudes and actions that create inequity. Finally, individuals who have high self-esteem are more confident in their personal worth and abilities and will be less likely to tolerate any behavior in the workplace that threatens their self-esteem (Raja et al., 2004). Hence, for individuals who possess these aforementioned personality characteristics, the precipitating factors will more strongly relate to perceptions of a hostile climate than for individuals who have lower levels of these personality traits. Personal History of the Target. An additional moderating factor is the target’s past history. Individuals who have experienced harassment in prior workplaces may be less trusting and more active in monitoring the current work environment for signs of hostility. Einarsen (2000) suggested that being a prior target of bullying is a moderator in the impact of bullying and harassment at work by making the person more sensitive to the hostility. Also, the psychological contract breach
ER59632_C003.indd 79
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
80
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
and violation literature has found that individuals who experienced contract breach in past employment relationships were more likely to perceive breaches in their current employment relationship (Robinson & Morrison, 2000). So members of under-represented groups who have had personal experiences in work or in their personal lives with prejudice or harassment may be more likely to scrutinize their work environments for indicators of these same behaviors than members who have little to no experience with such behavior.
Outcomes of a Hostile Work Climate There are many costs associated with a hostile climate both for the company and the affected individuals, including those who experienced the harassment and to coworkers who may have observed it.
Costs to Target The research on the impact of discrimination and harassment is expansive. As a result, we do not provide an overview of this work. It is important, however, to recognize that discrimination and harassment can occur in both overt and subtle forms. Recent studies illustrate that while the incidence rate of overt discrimination in the workplace may be lower than in prior years, subtle forms of aversive discrimination are now arising. Although majority members make general statements supporting diversity, minorities may experience more subtle forms of discrimination such as lower quality relationships with coworkers and supervisors, less support provided, and less access to important networks (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998) Research has shown that perceived discrimination and hostility from coworkers, supervisors, and the organization itself negatively relates to important attitudes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job involvement, career satisfaction, perceptions of career prospects; greater work conflict, lower feelings of power and prestige on the job, and lower educational and occupational aspirations (e.g., Ensher et al., 2001; Foley & Kidder, 2002; Gutek, Cohen, & Tsui, 1996; Sanchez & Brock, 1996; Shaffer, Joplin, Bell, Lau, & Oguz, 2000).
ER59632_C003.indd 80
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
It Is All in How You View It
81
Research also indicates that when employees perceive discrimination and hostility they are more likely to leave the organization, lower their performance levels, or spend more time on job-related activities (Ensher et al., 2001; Gutek et al., 1996). Finally, perceptions of hostility and discrimination can also have such effects on symptoms of psychological and physical health, such as depression, stress, health problems, and anger (Finch, Kolody, & Vega, 2000; Moghaddam, Taylor, Ditto, Jacobs, & Bianchi, 2002). For example, in a study of gay and bisexual men, Huebner (2002) found that perceived discrimination related to depressive symptoms and health problems, including suicidal intentions, high blood pressure, and increased doctors’ visits. Costs to Employees Who Witness Harassment Some recent research has also indicated that even if someone is not the direct target of harassment, they can also suffer negative consequences associated with seeing a coworker harassed, such as low job satisfaction and distrust for their employer (Piotrowkski, 1998). Witnessing the discrimination against their peers, they think to themselves, “if you pick on them, when will you pick on me?” It makes everyone feel uncomfortable. Costs to the Organization Poorer mental and physical health, lower job satisfaction, less organizational commitment, and impaired job performance are only some of the direct and indirect costs suffered by target individuals, witnesses to harassment, and the organizations that employee them. In addition, as depicted in Table 3.1, for many companies, the cost of doing business has skyrocketed because of discrimination and hostile work environment lawsuits initiated by both employees and customers. As examples, in 2005, Merrill Lynch & Company had a $2 million sex discrimination settlement awarded to a female employee; Daimler-Chrysler had a $2.8 million racial discrimination settlement for denying car loans to customers based on race; Bloomington and Rosemount School Districts had a $628,000 settlement for age discrimination; and Chicago Botanic Garden had a $95,000 wrong-
ER59632_C003.indd 81
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
ER59632_C003.indd 82
21,545 13,942 25,253 6,453 3,181 12,523 82,897 30,643 15,448 35,094 8,750 4,343 22,152 116,430
1999 26,598 15,792 29,631 8,943 4,512 16,949 102,425
2004 32,836 19,975 35,716 9,952 4,847 24,200
High 1997 1992 1998 2002 2003 1997
High Year 44.1 42.3 39.7 15.5 4 32.6 178.2
1994 81.7 38.6 53.2 19.7 6.7 55.8 255.7
1999 100.8 69 61.6 22.3 11.3 47.7 312.7
2004
High Year 2000 2004 2001 2001 2000 1999
High 109 69 86.5 48.1 20.6 55.8
Annual Monetary Awards—Total (in million dollars)
Note. Does not include monetary benefits awarded through litigation. From U.S. EEOC charge statistics at www.eeoc.gov.
Sex based Age Race National origin Pregnancy Disability Total of categories
1994
Number of Cases Resolved
Table 3.1 Discrimination Cases from U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Data, 1992–2004
82 Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
10/16/2007 7:39:53 AM
It Is All in How You View It
83
ful termination and disability discrimination settlement awarded to an employee with multiple sclerosis (www.lawyersandsettlements. com). The accumulated statistics are startling. According to recent figures provided by the EEOC, the average cost to settle a discrimination lawsuit in America is $297,000, excluding legal costs (CPA Journal). Whereas the obvious costs of legal fees and settlements are quite high for an organization, there are other costs as well. For example, organizations might experience lost business revenues and damage of reputation. Customers who sympathize or identify with an employee who files a lawsuit are likely to take their business elsewhere. If the suit makes its way into local newspapers or into the courtroom, publicity compounds the problems of an appearance of discrimination. A certain percentage of the public will believe the charge even if the court rules in the employer’s favor. The publicity is not good for business in that it may reduce employee engagement and result in a less positive image for recruiting employees (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Giving depositions, attending hearings, and going to court will consume employee and management time. Employees usually bill this time to the employer since they cannot be compelled to volunteer leisure time to help the employer defend against a lawsuit. Time spent in defense preparation is time that is not being used for business productivity. Emotional stress for those involved in defending the organization can also have dramatic effects. The level of stress is high for the duration of the legal proceedings. Physical reactions in the form of fatigue, headaches, and insomnia carry over into the workday. Mental consequences can manifest in the form of irritability and anxiety (Helmich, 2002). Research and Practical Implications This chapter attempts to provide an integrative view of hostile climate. Future research needs to concentrate on expanding its view to include more antecedents of perceptions of hostile climate (e.g., diversity resistance) and their interactions with each other. Additionally, future research should explore other outcomes associated with the hostile climate—for example, those related to the coworker who is not being abused or is not part of the abuse but observes its
ER59632_C003.indd 83
10/16/2007 7:39:54 AM
84
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
being done to others. By expanding the view of hostile climate to include other factors that may contribute both to its existence and employees’ perceptions of it, we can potentially instruct organizations and individuals about the complexity of this issue. Organizations should take proactive steps to eliminate factors that contribute to a hostile work climate. First, organizations should be aware that personal characteristics of coworkers can powerfully influence perceptions of a hostile climate among members of underrepresented groups. As such, organizations should consider selecting for multicultural competence, emotional intelligence, and other characteristics that would promote a positive work climate. Organizations should implement training programs that develop employees’ multicultural competence, educate them about stereotyping and how to reduce its overt and subtle influences, and identify behaviors that lead to perceptions of hostile work climates. Critically, these training programs should expand beyond legal parameters to include broader groups (e.g., gays and lesbians) and behaviors (e.g., bullying) that might foster hostile work climates but not be illegal. Although all employees should participate in training programs, managers are especially important to perceptions of hostile work climates because of their power and influence on behavioral norms. The organization could formally appraise and reward managers based upon their employees’ evaluation of their effectiveness in promoting a pro-diversity work climate. Human resource policies that formally prohibit a hostile work climate, beyond a legally prescribed notion of a hostile work environment, would be valuable. Beyond the presence of policies, top management commitment is critical to avoiding a hostile work climate. Letting inappropriate and abusive behaviors exist within an organization sends the signal that top management condones the presence of a hostile climate for its employees. By addressing these issues proactively, organizations can create climates that are inclusive for all, and ultimately, these climates contribute to individual and organizational well-being. REFERENCES Alfano v. Costello (2d Cir. 2002). 294 F.3d 365. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
ER59632_C003.indd 84
10/16/2007 7:39:54 AM
It Is All in How You View It
85
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47– 92). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Arvey, R. D., & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment: Some methodological problems. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1), Spring 1995. Special issue: Gender stereotyping, sexual harassment, and the law. pp. 39–52. Awad, G. H., Cokley, K., & Ravitch, J. (2005). Attitudes toward affirmative action: A comparison of color-blind versus modern racist attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1384–1399. Baj-Lindsey, C. (1998). The tolerance of ambiguity: An investigation across attitudinal, behavioral/motivational, and perceptual dimensions in pacifist and fundamental samples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Miami Institute of Psychology of the Caribbean Center for Advanced Studies, U.S. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2001). Employment Law for Business, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 554–594). New York: McGraw-Hill. Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97. Brown, A. W. (2005). Employers should consider age and disability harassment in their employment policies. Public Management, 87, 33–35. Button, S. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A crosslevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17–28. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Carter, R. T., Helms, J. E., & Juby, H. L. (2004). The relationship between racism and racial identity for White Americans: A profile analysis. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 2–17. Chrobot-Mason, D., & Ruderman, M. N. (2004). Leadership in a diverse workplace. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 100–121). Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing. Chrobot-Mason, D., & Thomas, K. M. (2002). Minority employees in majority organizations: The intersection of individual and organizational racial identity in the workplace. Human Resource Development Review, 1, 323–344.
ER59632_C003.indd 85
10/16/2007 7:39:54 AM
86
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
Compston v. Borden, Inc. (S.D. Ohio, 1976). 424 F. Supp. 157. Connerley, M. L., & Pedersen, P. B. (2005). Leadership in a diverse and multicultural environment: Developing awareness, knowledge, and skills. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Done, S. R. (2000). Self-control and deviant behavior in organizations: The case of sexually harassing behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Einarsen, S. (2000). Harassment and bullying at work: A review of the Scandinavian approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 379–401. Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463–482. Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1): 53–72. Fair Employment Practices Guidelines (2005, April 1). Muslim claims religious discrimination. Issue 599, 4–5. Federal Communications Commission (2004). Understanding workplace harassment. Retrieved November 17, 2005 at www.fcc.gov/owd/ understanding-harassment.html. Finch, B., Kolody, B., & Vega, W. A. (2000). Perceived discrimination and depression among Mexican-origin adults in California. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 295–313. Finerty, J. (2005). Commentary: Independent contractor physician creates Title VII liability for hospital. Wisconsin Law Journal, November 23, 2005. Fiske, S. T. (2002). What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123–128. Fitness, J., & Curtis, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence and the trait metamood scale: Relationships with empathy, attributional complexity, self-control, and responses to interpersonal conflict. E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Social Section, 1: 50–62. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fisher, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117–138.
ER59632_C003.indd 86
10/16/2007 7:39:54 AM
It Is All in How You View It
87
Foley, S., & Kidder, D. L. (2002). Hispanic law students’ perceptions of discrimination, justice, and career prospects. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24(1): 23–37. Friedland, N., Keinan, G., & Tytiun, T. (1999). The effect of psychological stress and tolerance of ambiguity on stereotypic attributions. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 12, 397–410. Gettle, J. A. (1993). Sexual harassment and the reasonable woman standard: Is it a viable solution? Duquesne Law Review, 31, 841–842. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119–135. Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 76, 82–91. Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. (1996). Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Human Relations, 49(6): 791–813. Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993). 510 U.S. 17. Helmich, E. (2002). How to avoid employee lawsuits. http://www.nfib. com/object/1583681.html. Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316–333. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. Huebner, D. M. (2002). Mental and physical health consequences of perceived discrimination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University. Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673–703. Isbell, L. M., Swedish, K., & Gazan, D. B. (2005). Who says it’s sexual harassment? The effects of gender and likelihood to sexually harass on legal judgments of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 745–772. Jackson, J. W., & Poulsen, J. R. (2005). Contact experiences mediate the relationship between five-factor model personality traits and ethnic prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 667–685. James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2002). Personality in work organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. James, L. A.,& James, L. R. (1989, October). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), pp. 739–751. Johnson, T. (1995). Weight discrimination and hostile work environment: Analysis and implications. Labor Law Journal, 46, 486–491.
ER59632_C003.indd 87
10/16/2007 7:39:54 AM
88
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
Kaminer, D. N. (2000). When religious expression creates a hostile work environment: The challenge of balancing competing fundamental rights. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 4, 81–142. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Klein, O., Snyder, M., & Livingston, R. W. (2004). Prejudice on the stage: Self-monitoring and the public expression of group attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 299–314. Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1987). Theory and research on group composition: Applications to the status of women and ethnic minorities. In S. Oskamp & S. Spacapan (Eds.), Interpersonal Processes (pp. 85– 121). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61–81. Kraehe, G. C. (2005, October). Calling Mamdouh “Manny” was race discrimination. HR Magazine. p. 121. Larwood, L., Gutek, B., & Gattiker, U. E. (1984). Perspectives on institutional discrimination and resistance to change. Group and Organization Studies, 9, 333–352. Larwood, L., Szwajkowski, E., & Rose, S. (1988). When discrimination makes “sense”—The rational bias theory of discrimination. In B. A. Gutek, A. H. Stromberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. Lawyers and settlements: Justice for everyone (2005). www.lawyersandsettlements.com Ledvinka, J., & Scarpello, V. G. (1991). Federal regulation of personnel and human resource management (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company Li, S., & Lee-Wong, S. M. (2005). A study on Singaporeans’ perceptions of sexual harassment from a cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 699–717. Linnehan, F., & Konrad, A. M. (1999). Diluting diversity: Implications for intergroup inequality in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 399–414. Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co. (2nd Cir., 1998). 141 F. 3d 434. Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
ER59632_C003.indd 88
10/16/2007 7:39:54 AM
It Is All in How You View It
89
Massengill, D. (2004). Adding insult to injury: Disability-based hostile environment under the ADA. Employee Relations Law Journal, 30, 74–88. Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson (1986). 477 U.S. 57. Moghaddam, F. M., Taylor, D. M., Ditto, B., Jacobs, K., & Bianchi, E. (2002). Psychological distress and perceived discrimination: A study of women from India. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(4): 381–390. Murrell, A., Olson, J., & Frieze, I. (1995). Sexual harassment and gender discrimination: A longitudinal study of women managers. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139–149. Namie, G. (2003). Report on Abusive Workplaces. The Workplace Bullying & Trauma Institute (WBTI). Nguyen, H. (2005). Employment discrimination, retaliation claims against Verizon focus of action in NY federal court. The Daily Record, October 25, 2005, Rochester, NY. Oncale v. Sundowner (1998). 96-568 U.S. Pek, J., & Leong, F. (2003). Sex-related self-concepts, cognitive styles and cultural values of traditionality-modernity as predictors of general and domain-specific sexism. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 31–49. Perry, E. L., Hendricks, W., & Broadbent, E. (2000). An exploration of access and treatment discrimination and job satisfaction among college graduates with and without physical disabilities. Human Relations, 53(7): 923–955. Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 299–357. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Piotrkowski, C. S. (1998). Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among employed White and minority women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 33–43. Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261. Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: Do race and gender matter? Group & Organization Management, 28, 45–74. Rahim, M. A. (1989). Relationships of leader power to compliance and satisfaction with supervision: Evidence from a national sample of managers. Journal of Management, 15, 545–556.
ER59632_C003.indd 89
10/16/2007 7:39:55 AM
90
Christine M. Riordan, Melenie J. Lankau, and Julie Holiday Wayne
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader power, subordinates’ styles of handling conflict, and job performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 191–211. Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 350–367. Riordan, C. M., & Gatewood, R. D. (2005). Stigmatization: The What, the How, the Why. Best Paper Proceedings of the Academy of Management. Riordan, C. M., Lankau, M. J., & Stewart, M. (2006). Assessing the impact of demographic dissimilarity: The importance of personal comfort with diversity and multiple group membership. Presented at the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology annual meeting, Dallas, TX. Riordan, C. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Stewart, M. M. (2005). Relational demography within groups: Through the lens of discrimination. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 37–62). Mahwah, MJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525–546. Rogers v. EEOC (5th Cir. 1971). 454 F.2d 234, 4 EPD 7597. Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology, 48: 247–270. Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying: A review of enabling, motivating and precipitating structures and processes in the work environment. Human Relations, 56, 1213–1232. Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 704–719. Scandura, T. A., & Lankau, M. J. (1996). Developing diverse leaders: A leadermember exchange approach. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 243–263. Seymour, R. T. (2002). Discrimination and hostile work environment claims based upon religion, national origin, and alienage. American Bar Association—American Law Institute. Retrieved November 17, 2005 at www.lieffcabraser.com. Sidanius, J. (1993). The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology: Duke studies in political psychology (pp. 183–219). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
ER59632_C003.indd 90
10/16/2007 7:39:55 AM
It Is All in How You View It
91
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance orientation and differential intergroup social allocation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 151–167. Smith, B. (1991). Diversity with a difference. HR Focus, 68. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526–537. Stephan, W. G., & Banks, J. A. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools. New York: New York Teachers College Press. Tajfel, H. (1978). Interindividual behavior and intergroup behavior. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 27–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Thacker, R. A., & Gohmann, S. F. (1993). Male/female differences in perceptions and effects of hostile environment sexual harassment: “Reasonable” assumptions? Public Personnel Management, 22(3), 461–472. The Daily Record (2005). NY County judge denies summary judgment in discrimination case. December 6, 2005. Rochester, NY. Thelen, J. B. (2005). Sexual favoritism may create hostile work environment. HR Magazine, 50, 122. Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter. Harvard Business Review, 74, 79–90. Thomas, K. M., & Chrobot-Mason, D. (2005). Group-level explanations of workplace discrimination. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 63–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thomas, K. M., Phillips, L. D., & Brown, S. (1998). Redefining race in the workplace: Insights from ethnic identity theory. Journal of Black Psychology, 24, 76–92. Volokh, E. (1997). What speech does “hostile work environment” harassment law restrict?, 85 Geo. L. J. 627. Williams, K.Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140. Ziegert, J., & Hanges, P. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553–562.
ER59632_C003.indd 91
10/16/2007 7:39:55 AM
ER59632_C003.indd 92
10/16/2007 7:39:55 AM
4 Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
We hate some persons because we do not know them, and will not know them because we hate them. Charles Caleb Colton
According to Johnson (2001), diversity resistance is a term that can be used to describe any interference that “precludes the harmonious assimilation of diversity into an organization.” Further, diversity resistance reflects the unconscious behavior of otherwise well-meaning individuals who would not intentionally harm other human beings (Johnson, 2003). These descriptions of diversity resistance may lead one to falsely conclude that such resistance is somewhat innocuous, as if resistance were merely the absence of harmony or an unintended side effect or byproduct. Yet, diversity resistance can be an insidious part of the workplace and indeed, in its most extreme forms, can lead to harassment, violence, and even death for its victims. Whereas hate crimes provide perhaps the most visible (and often shocking) examples of diversity resistance, resistance in the form of harassment and interpersonal violence is also frequently experienced in the workplace. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the various forms of harassment, violence, and hate crimes encountered by minority groups (namely, people of color, immigrants, women, and sexual minorities) within the workplace and to examine the often steep individual and organizational costs associated with these forms of 93
ER59632_C004.indd 93
10/4/2007 7:07:55 AM
94
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
diversity resistance. We also seek to identify individual, organizational, and legal responses to these forms of diversity resistance. We conclude with an exploration of best practices and recommendations for individuals and organizations trying to mitigate and prevent these forms of diversity resistance. Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace: Definitions, Examples, and Prevalence Research definitions of workplace violence have ranged from being narrowly limited to physical assault and homicide (including hate crimes) at one extreme (Kraus, Blander, & McArthur, 1995) to an inclusive approach covering breaches of etiquette, angry glares, and other forms of workplace aggression on the other (Folger & Baron, 1999). Although the more inclusive approach may water down the construct so much as to render it meaningless (e.g., defining the “withholding of information” or “spread of rumors” as violence), it does provide a methodological benefit in that researchers can explore in greater depth the subjective meaning of “violence” for the victim (Renold & Barter, 2003). For the purpose of this chapter, we will primarily examine two manifestations of this construct, namely hate crimes and workplace harassment, as workplace violence examples of diversity resistance. Hate Crimes at Work Perhaps the most visible form of diversity resistance is hate crime. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate crime is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. Because these crimes are motivated by individual bias and prejudice, they are also sometimes referred to as bias crimes. Although the physical damage inflicted during a hate crime may be identical to that of a crime without bias motivation, hate crimes are unique in that they are specifically a result of the individual’s identification with a particular group. Therefore, it is not just a person’s body or property that is targeted, but that person’s very identity and the identity of other individuals who share that common group
ER59632_C004.indd 94
10/4/2007 7:07:55 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
95
membership. As Kelly (1993) notes, “There is the hurt to victims singled out for the most stigmatized aspect of their identities, and there is a collective emotional harm to entire groups who must live with the knowledge that they are vulnerable to random attack.” While the absolute number of hate crimes is quite small compared to the total number of crimes without bias motivation (for example, there were four Blacks murdered in 2003 as a result of a hate crime, compared to 14,408 total murders for the year), they are particularly damaging in that they victimize not just one individual, but every member of an entire group of individuals. Thus, while smaller in number, they may carry more weight in damage (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1999). Given this added dimension of victimization, hate crimes are now tracked by the federal government. Under the authority of the federal 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act (HCSA), the FBI acquires and publishes data each year as part of their annual Uniform Crime Report summarizing crimes that demonstrate evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity (FBI, 2005). Such crimes can include murder, manslaughter, rape, intimidation, arson, destruction, and damage or vandalism of property. In 2004, there were 7,649 reported hate crime incidents involving 9,035 offenses. Racially motivated crimes accounted for over half of all hate crimes (53%), followed by crimes motivated by religious bias (18%), bias against sexual orientation (16%), and bias against ethnicity or national origin (13%). It is notable to consider that while 2004 showed a slight decrease in overall crime reports within the United States, the number of reported hate crimes actually rose. Further, experts widely consider the official FBI Hate Crime Statistics to suffer from significant under-estimation of the true prevalence of hate crime incidents (American Psychological Association Web site; APA, 1998). Although the collection of hate crimes data is a tremendous step forward in society’s efforts to identify and prevent such acts, there are difficulties associated with the current reporting system when investigating hate crimes as a form of diversity resistance in the workplace. Specifically, whereas locations where the hate crimes took place are noted in the FBI database (e.g., private residence, parking lot, street, store), it is not clear if the locations were the victims’ place of work. For instance, 426 hate crimes in 2004 took place in a parking garage or parking lot. Although this may reflect an incident
ER59632_C004.indd 95
10/4/2007 7:07:56 AM
96
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
that occurred in the victim’s workplace parking facility, it could also reflect an incident in a shopping mall parking lot. A related issue concerns the definition of the workplace. As Bulatao and VandenBos (1999) note, “some victims of workplace violence carry their ‘workplaces’ with them” (p. 2). Police officers, mail carriers, plumbers, and home heath care workers are just a few examples of occupations where the “workplace” can be very broadly defined and therefore statistics noting that a crime took place on a public street versus in an office building cannot differentiate the nonworkplace violence from the workplace violence. Finally, the FBI does not track whether the victim knew the perpetrator. Such limitations in the reporting system make it difficult to determine the extent to which hate crimes and other forms of violence occur within the workplace or by coworkers, supervisors, or customers. As a result, although there are many anecdotal examples of hate crimes occurring at work, the actual prevalence of such events is difficult to determine. However, an emerging picture can be found by piecing together what information is available from a variety of sources. Analyses by Bulatao and VandenBos (1999), using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, found that 15.1% of all crime occurred in the workplace, resulting in a rate of approximately 1 crime per 25 workers (primarily robbery-related). Further, although the Department of Labor has concluded that homicide is the third-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States, data also show that minority groups have a higher risk of workplace homicide than majority group members. Although African-Americans and Asian-Americans make up less than 17% of the labor force, they account for 32% of all workplace homicides (BLS, 2006). Additionally, Hoad (1993) concluded that prejudice and bias motivation is one of the most common causes of workplace violence. Finally, Rubenstein (2004) recently reported that of the various targets of bias-motivated crimes (i.e., race, religion, and sexual orientation), African Americans, Jews, and gays are at higher risk for hate crimes than other groups. These disparate pieces of information indicate that while we may not know the exact number of hate crimes that occur at work, we do know that: (1) a significant portion of crime in the U.S. occurs at work, (2) bias is one of the leading drivers of workplace violence, and (3) minorities are disproportionately affected by workplace crime, and in particular victims of homicide, compared to majority group members.
ER59632_C004.indd 96
10/4/2007 7:07:56 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
97
Despite the lack of a comprehensive national effort to collect data on workplace hate crimes, there are unfortunately many examples of such incidents to be found in media accounts and other published works. Table 4.1 presents just two recent headline-grabbing events. Although there are many incidents to choose from, these two were highlighted because they illustrate the wide range of situations in which workplace hate crimes can occur. In the first example, Mr. Singh was attacked by an individual unknown to him while he was on a public street carrying out his work duties. There had been no prior interaction between the perpetrator and victim and no warning that the crime was about to occur. Although the alleged perpetrator who assaulted Mr. Singh was a member of a neo-Nazi group, it is important to point out that less than 5% of all hate crime offenders are members of such organized hate groups (Dunbar, 1997). Rather, the majority of hate crimes are committed by young, otherwise law-abiding individuals. Although alcohol and drug use may be contributing factors in a number of these crimes, the primary determinant appears to be personal prejudice (APA, 1998) and a reaction to the perception that one’s rights and privileges are being threatened by a member of a different group (Byers, 1999). For example, violence can be triggered by being passed over for promotion while a Black coworker gets the position instead. The motivation, therefore, is to send a message to others in that group that this threat to a perceived “right” or “privilege” (i.e., promotion) will not be tolerated. In the Lockheed Martin example, the perpetrator and victims were well known to each other and had a history of negative interactions. This case is noteworthy because it raises the question of individual versus organizational culpability. In their subsequent investigation, Table 4.1 Recent Examples of Hate Crimes at Work Manjit Singh, a postal carrier, was savagely beaten while walking his mail route in Ceres, California. Police believe that he was attacked due to his Indian ethnicity and are prosecuting the act as a hate crime. The primary suspect in the case is a 21-year-old white man with affiliations to a white supremacist organization. Doug Williams, an employee at Lockheed Martin’s Meridian, Mississippi, plant, made overt death threats against Black coworkers for 18 months prior to carrying out those threats. In July 2003, while attending a mandatory ethics and diversity class, Williams opened fire shooting 14 individuals, killing 6 of them. Williams had been quoted months earlier as stating, “You know, one of these days, I’m goin’ to come in here and kill me a bunch of niggers and then I’m goin’ to kill myself.”
ER59632_C004.indd 97
10/4/2007 7:07:56 AM
98
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determined that “Black workers were racially harassed and subjected to a racially hostile work” and that Lockheed Martin, in “failing to take reasonable steps to eliminate such conduct and to remedy their effects discriminated against Black employees because of their race.” Thus, while the acts themselves were committed by a Mr. Williams, the EEOC determined that Lockheed Martin’s response to his earlier threats was “inadequate and permitted the racially charged atmosphere to grow in intensity.” Perhaps most disturbing is that the EEOC also found that the organization’s response following the shootings was inadequate and ineffective at reducing the workplace hostility aimed at African-American employees of Lockheed Martin. Court decisions regarding this case are still pending. However, regardless of eventual court rulings, this case highlights the need for organizations to take proactive positive action to reduce diversity resistance before it can culminate in such severe workplace violence. Recommendations for proactive action are presented later in this chapter. However, we first turn our attention to the problem of workplace harassment targeted at women and minorities. Workplace Harassment The International Labor Organization (ILO) has identified workplace harassment as one of today’s most pressing workplace problems (Di Martino, Gold, & Schaap, 2001). In the United States alone, more than 4 million employees per year may experience workplace harassment (Davenport, Schwartz, & Elliot, 1999), ranging from such behaviors as fist shaking, object throwing, verbal threats or harm, to public humiliation and quid pro quo sexual harassment. An article commemorating the 35th anniversary of the EEOC reflected on discrimination and harassment trends over the past three and one-half decades (EEOC, 2000). It was concluded that most forms of discrimination charges had increased in every decade. Yet, perhaps the most disturbing finding of the EEOC was an increasing level of retaliation against individuals who file complaints with the EEOC, leading to ostracizing, transferring, demoting, or firing the complainant. The EEOC also noted a rising number of egregious discrimination cases, often targeting some of the most vulnerable workers in the U.S.: low wage earners, women, African Americans,
ER59632_C004.indd 98
10/4/2007 7:07:56 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
99
Table 4.2 A Sampling of Egregious Discrimination Cases Filed with the EEOC Twenty lawsuits alleging that Black employees were intimidated and harassed on a daily basis, subjected to the use of racial epithets by coworkers and managers, and threatened with hangman’s nooses on the job were either filed or resolved in 1999 by the EEOC. Twenty-two women—all recent immigrants from Central America who spoke limited English—were employed at a food processing plant. The women were subjected to unwelcome groping and requests for sexual favors by male managers and coworkers for several years. One woman was locked in a freezer by her supervisor after she turned down his request for sexual favors. Two women who were pregnant at the time were demoted and eventually fired when they refused to comply with the sexual advances. Other women were given menial or difficult work assignments in retaliation for rejecting requests for sexual favors by plant managers. Former employees of a North Carolina aviation contractor alleged that one employee raffled off a knife engraved with the Ku Klux Klan insignia. Another employee turned the company uniform hood around to mimic a Ku Klux Klan hood. In another incident, a male employee threatened an African-American woman with rape and beating. Another woman told of an incident where a company official grabbed her in an elevator. Women and African Americans were subjected to other forms of harassment and overt discrimination including being by-passed for promotions, being subjected to racial slurs, sexually inappropriate statements, and graffiti on the bathroom walls Note. Excerpted from: EEOC (2000b). The 2000s: Charting a course for the 21st century; DOL (1996). Reich Announces Settlement of “Egregious” Sexual Racial Discrimination Case against Federal Contractor Department; also releases list of egregious discrimination cases.
and immigrants and their descendants (see Table 4.2 for a sampling of these cases). Racial and Ethnic Harassment. Racial or ethnic harassment is a form of discrimination that can include disparaging jokes, ethnic or racial slurs, offensive or derogatory comments, or other verbal or physical conduct based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin (EEOC, 2001). Such harassment can be employee-on-employee harassment, but can also be manifested in corporate policies. For example, instituting illegal English-only policies targeting Hispanic and Latino workers can be a form of harassment based on a person’s national origin. In EEOC v. Premier Operator Services, Inc. (2000), the court noted that Hispanic employees were “forced to be constantly on guard to avoid uttering their native language, even in
ER59632_C004.indd 99
10/4/2007 7:07:56 AM
100
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
their most private moments in the lunch room or on a break,” and one employee was specifically reprimanded for speaking Spanish to her husband while at lunch in the break room. Many overt forms of harassment (and even violence) were witnessed following the attacks of September 11. In the days and weeks following, hundreds of workplace incidents targeted individuals who were of Middle Eastern or Arab descent or were perceived to be of such descent (Anti-Defamation League, 2001). These workplace incidents included smashed computers, graffiti, assault, and even homicide. Many of these were perpetrated by unknown individuals, but others were committed by coworkers. Such actions can create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment, and interfere with the individual’s work performance. According to the EEOC, harassment complaints are increasing nationwide, and racial harassment charges filed with EEOC have more than doubled over the past decade. Nearly 28,000 new charges were filed against employers for race-based discrimination in 2004 alone (EEOC, 2005). Numbers, however, cannot convey the true workplace environment that some racial and ethnic minorities face as a result of these forms of diversity resistance. In a press release describing the settlement that the EEOC made with the Larson Automotive Group in Tacoma, Washington, for subjecting a class of African‑American employees to persistent racial harassment, a clearer picture of the kinds of behaviors and attitudes that racial minorities face emerges. According to the EEOC (2001), “the owner of the company and other managers allegedly referred to African‑American workers as ‘boy’ and ‘nigger’ on a regular basis. The racially hostile work environment was perpetuated through racially derogatory cartoons, jokes, and slurs that occurred over a prolonged period.” Similar incidents were experienced by Black workers at a Tyson Foods poultry processing plant in Alabama. In 2005, 13 AfricanAmerican employees accused the world’s largest poultry processor of routinely abusing African-Americans and allowing a racist workplace environment to flourish. Signs saying “Whites Only” were allegedly posted on bathroom doors and Black workers were told by the plant manager that the facilities had been closed to them because they were “nasty, dirty, [and] behaved like children” (Buncombe, 2005). Other incidents included a noose being hung in one of the
ER59632_C004.indd 100
10/4/2007 7:07:56 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
101
recreation rooms and a picture of monkeys being posted with the names of Black employees attached. Sexual Harassment. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination involving: unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature ... when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. (EEOC, 1997)
According to some estimates, 50% of all working women will be sexually harassed at some point during their career (Gutek, 1985). Certain organizations are more likely to have higher incidence rates of sexual harassment, just as certain women are more likely to be targets of sexual harassment. Research indicates that organizations with lenient management norms (Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller, 1993), weak or nonexistent sexual harassment policies (HessonMcInnis & Fitzgerald, 1997), and cultures tolerant of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, Hulin, & Drasgow, 1994) are more likely to have higher rates of sexual harassment than organizations with strict policies, severe consequences, and otherwise indicate a culture that is intolerant of harassment. In addition, women working in traditionally male-dominated occupations or in jobs where there are few women are at greater risk of being sexually harassed than those working in a more gender-balanced work setting (Fitzgerald et al., 1994). An example of gender-harassment that occurred in the traditionally male-dominated field of construction can be found in Table 4.3. As can be seen, while there were no unwanted sexual advances or inappropriate physical conduct, this case illustrates the intimidating and negative environment that can be created through verbal conduct such as making or using derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, and jokes. In addition, the use of a derogatory term as an acronym to describe the woman in an insulting manner was particularly degrading. Workplace Heterosexism. Due to the significantly different legal and social environment facing sexual minorities compared to women and racioethnic minorities in today’s work settings, it is important
ER59632_C004.indd 101
10/4/2007 7:07:57 AM
102
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
Table 4.3 A First-Hand Account of Gender Harassment I worked as a concrete finisher for three years. My very first day, I had to work a 12hour day. I was in new boots and developed horrible blisters. I tried to learn as fast as possible. Within the first week of work, I was asked, “How come you’re not home barefoot and pregnant?” I thought of it as a joke and blew it off with a smart ass reply. Later that day, I received a stern lecture about how I needed to realize the hierarchy of the construction world. Apprentices were at the bottom and the only reason women weren’t any lower was because the state mandated women to be on the job. A lot of men were angry because I got jobs. They said it wasn’t fair. The only reason I had a job was because I was a statistic. Of course, it had nothing to do with the fact that I worked hard and picked up the skills fast. Soon the comments began. I would joke and continue to work. The comments eventually got worse. The end of the line came when a coworker said, “It’s not my fault you were born with a deformity because you weren’t born with a dick.” When I complained, he came up to me and explained that it was a joke and I shouldn’t take things so seriously. Later that day, I went to the port-a-potty. Inside in big black ink was “C-U-N-T = Can’t Understand Normal Thinking.” In three weeks, another incident occurred. I was finishing up my grinding, sacking, and patching. Bad luck with the grinders slowed me down. My foreman yells across the walkie-talkie, “Where the fuck is that bitch? What good is it to have a bitch if the bitch ain’t around?” I went to the [union] hall that day. The advice? Don’t sue. I wouldn’t be able to get a job. Two weeks later I was laid off. Note. The above account was provided to the first author by a student in a course the author was teaching on cultural diversity in organizations. The student gave permission to use this account in the hopes that it might help prevent other women from experiencing such events.
to consider the unique experiences of sexual minorities (gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered employees) in the workplace. Although some states, cities, and corporations have extended basic civil rights to sexual minorities, no such federal protection against workplace heterosexism exists. In addition, there is far less social stigma attached to bias and prejudice targeting homosexuals than there is to targeting women or racial minorities (APA, 1998). Thus, sexual minorities face a workplace environment that is not only openly disapproving (Waldo, 1999), but also a work environment where there are few legal protections against harassment and discrimination. Sexual orientation is an “invisible” characteristic of a person’s identity and cannot be perceived via visual identification. With the invisible nature of one’s sexual orientation comes an added stressor for sexual minorities at work in that they are faced with a Catch-22
ER59632_C004.indd 102
10/4/2007 7:07:57 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
103
situation. Sexual minorities can conceal their orientation from their coworkers and supervisors and avoid workplace discrimination, yet they risk psychological and physical strain in doing so (Ellis & Riggle, 1995; Probst & Johns, 2000). Alternatively, they can be open about their identity at work, but also be open to outright discrimination and harassment that may result from revealing their identity. Statistics suggest that the vast majority of sexual minorities choose the former option over the latter, and with good reason. D’Augelli (1992) found that 77% of lesbian and gay undergraduates at a large university campus had been verbally harassed because of their orientation; 27% had been threatened with physical violence, and 3% had been punched, hit, kicked, or beaten. Rubenstein (2004) found that 18 gay people per 100,000 report person-related hate crimes, whereas African Americans and Jews report between 7–8 hate crimes per 100,000. Given these statistics, it is not surprising that the vast majority of sexual minorities choose to conceal their homosexuality at work for fear of reprisals (Digh, 1999).
The High Price of Diversity Resistance: Consequences of Workplace Violence, Harassment, and Hate Crimes The costs of racial, gender, and sexual minority discrimination and harassment can be measured in several ways. One can examine the legal costs to organizations that ensue when employees initiate discrimination lawsuits. Statistics indicates that this is a high cost. Approximately 30,000 cases of racial discrimination are investigated by the EEOC each year, with monetary benefits to plaintiffs exceeding $60 million yearly (EEOC, 2001). These statistics are likely to underestimate the actual cost to the organization because they do not reflect the litigation costs to organizations in defending themselves from such lawsuits. The most important costs of racial, gender, and sexual orientation harassment and violence, however, cannot be easily quantified with simple numbers and statistics. These are the psychological, physical, and job-related outcomes of discrimination and harassment experienced not only by the victim, but also by others in the organization. The damage done to targets of employment discrimination and to unwitting bystanders in the organizations may be more
ER59632_C004.indd 103
10/4/2007 7:07:57 AM
104
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
hidden, but may also be more costly to the overall well-being of the organization. Although individual-, job-, and organization-related costs of diversity resistance can be discussed separately (and often research will address one set of outcomes to the exclusion of the others), it is important to emphasize that they are interrelated. For example, in the first successful sexual harassment class action lawsuit (Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite, 1997), the financial costs to the organization were high with $3.5 million being awarded to 15 women. However, the basis for such high financial compensation was the finding by the court that the victims’ mental health (an individual cost) had been irreparably damaged. Thus, while we discuss individual, job-related, and organizational outcomes of diversity resistance separately below, in reality these outcomes are intricately interrelated. Individual Costs. Whether overt or subtle, the various forms of workplace violence appear to take a heavy toll on the psychological and physical health-related outcomes of targeted employees. For example, Erlich and Larcom (1992) found that race-based verbal and physical harassment on the job was related to higher levels of psychological and physical disorders among targeted racial minorities. Notably, racial minorities who had experienced verbal or physical harassment that was non-race based did not report the same elevated levels of psychological and physical disorders. Victims of sexual harassment at work consistently score poorer on global psychological assessments including the Mental Health Index (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 1997; Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997), Satisfaction with Life Scale (Schneider et al., 1997), and those for depression (Barling, 1999). The impacts of violence and harassment on the mental health of the victims are also evident in more specialized psychological assessments including increased feelings of anxiety, irritability, helplessness, and fear, while lowering self-esteem and self-confidence (Avina & O’Donohue, 2002; Gruber & Bjorn, 1982; Gutek & Koss, 1993). Perhaps the most severe psychological outcome that a victim of diversity resistance can experience is posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Extreme cases of physical abuse or prolonged bullying may be the most likely to lead to PTSD (Giga & Hoel, 2005), but other forms of violence can also induce PTSD symptoms. Avina and O’Donohue (2002) have argued that harassment (specifically sexual harassment) can alone induce sufficient symptoms to meet
ER59632_C004.indd 104
10/4/2007 7:07:57 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
105
the DSM’s criteria for PTSD including severe mental distress, avoidance of the event, and mentally reliving the event. In addition to the psychological costs, victims of harassment, hate crimes, and other forms of violence at work may also experience several physical ailments. Physical forms of violence and hate crimes often produce direct physical outcomes, and in extreme cases, even death. Violence can also create many indirect physical symptoms. The psychological symptoms listed above may lead to psychosomatic disorders such as headaches, problems sleeping, gastrointestinal disturbances, ulcers, and increased blood pressure (Barling, 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 1994; Fitzgerald et al., 1997; Gutek & Koss, 1993; James, 1985). Victims are also vulnerable to maladaptive coping strategies such as increased alcohol consumption (Wislar, Richman, Fendrich, & Flaherty, 2002). In a study examining the causes of “John Henryism” (prolonged, high‑effort coping with difficult psychosocial stressors) among African-Americans, James (1985) found that African-American perceptions of workplace prejudice and discrimination predicted self-reported health problems with high blood pressure—the leading cause of disability and premature death among African-Americans. These above costs to the individual may increase even further depending on how the employee interprets the motivation behind a violent act. The degree to which an act of violence affects the health of the victim appears to be in part based upon the perception of why the act occurred. Victims who attribute the cause of a crime to a bias against a group (such as sexual orientation) exhibit more severe and prolonged symptoms than victims who experienced comparable crimes, but perceived them as motivated by another cause (Erlich & Larcom, 1992; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999). Given this finding and the interconnected nature of the dimensions, it is possible that this effect generalizes to job-related and organizational expenses as well, though this has not yet been empirically established. Job-Related Costs. Violence in the workplace also has implications for the performance provided by employees. Models of workplace violence and harassment (Barling, 1999; Fitzgerald et al., 1994; Fitzgerald et al., 1997) have conceptualized two primary job-related components: work (or task) withdrawal and job withdrawal. Work withdrawal represents a broad domain of behaviors that inhibit an employee’s task completion but occur while the employee remains
ER59632_C004.indd 105
10/4/2007 7:07:57 AM
106
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
a member of the organization. Conversely, job withdrawal occurs when an employee engages in behaviors and cognitions aimed at discontinuing employment at an organization. Job and work withdrawal behaviors may be most likely to occur when they serve to remove the victim from situations in which future violence is likely to occur, though they are not limited to these situations and can occur even if the threat associated with the situation is removed. Employees who engage in work withdrawal behaviors frequently wish to remain members of the organization, thus these behaviors may intentionally be hidden from the organization. Perhaps the most visible forms of work withdrawal are those in which the employee avoids the workplace through absenteeism and tardiness. While at work, employees may avoid job-related tasks while attempting to maintain a positive image with the organization by making excuses to get out of work, neglecting nonevaluated tasks, or using organizational resources for personal benefit without permission (Schneider et al., 1997). Given the direct impact of these behaviors on employee performance, and the difficulty with which these behaviors can be identified, these behaviors are exceptionally problematic and costly to the organization. Job withdrawal includes those behaviors and cognitions that involve leaving the organization, and can impact the financial expenses to the organization in multiple ways. First, employees who engage in job withdrawal may engage in more frequent and overt work withdrawal behaviors, thus further expanding the costs listed above. Second, organizations may be responsible for providing exemployees with severance packages. And third, if an organization wishes to replace the vacated position, it must invest time and money into training a replacement. These problems are further complicated when the impacts of violence on bystander employees and teams are considered. Preliminary research conducted by Glomb et al. (1997) found that for women, working in a group where sexual harassment takes place produces structurally similar results as actually experiencing harassment, and predicted both individual- and job-related outcomes. More recently, the impact of harassment on a team’s effectiveness has been addressed. Raver and Gelfand (2005) found that for men and women, the perception of sexual harassment occurring within a team increases that team’s task and group conflict and decreases cohesion and financial performance. Other research also suggests that there are vari-
ER59632_C004.indd 106
10/4/2007 7:07:58 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
107
ous psychologically related job outcomes that are associated with the experience of violence, harassment, and hate crimes. Research shows that harassment and heterosexism can lead to decreased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and increased turnover intentions (Button, 2001; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). The overall financial expense to an organization from job-related factored impacted by violence can be staggering. Faley, Knapp, Kustis, and Dubois (1999) estimated that in 1988, the effects of sexual harassment on job-related factors alone cost the U.S. Army over $250,000,000. Because this statistic fails to consider other forms of violence such as racial harassment or hate crimes, and does not include individual or organization-wide expenses, it is likely that this estimate dramatically underestimates the cost of diversity resistance. Organization-Wide. Organizational outcomes can include direct costs such as lawsuits or indirect costs such as those associated with increased medical care usage or decrements in reputation. These expenses can result from the general public viewing the organization negatively or from employees within the organization seeking compensation. The most obvious financial expense of workplace violence is litigation. In 2004, the EEOC handled 13,136 sexual harassment cases, for which plaintiffs were awarded over $30 million. Other forms of violence have also become an increasingly problematic for organizations that practice diversity resistance. The number of racial harassment claims filed with the EEOC has shown a continual increase over the past 15 years. Although racial harassment has not received the same attention in the media as sexual harassment, it is no less costly for an organization. In 2005, the EEOC announced a $2,750,000 class action racial harassment settlement on behalf of 12 African-American dockworkers that experienced assaults, threats of physical harm, exposure to racially offensive graffiti, and damage to personal property. Although litigation can result in high costs to an organization, organizational diversity resistance may also result in a negative image with the general public that can in turn create financial consequences. For example, in 2001, due to Exxon Mobil failing to recognize sexual orientation in its antidiscrimination and harassment policies, and not providing domestic partner benefits for homosexual employees, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which represents the larg-
ER59632_C004.indd 107
10/4/2007 7:07:58 AM
108
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
est sexual minority organization in the U.S., initiated a consumer boycott of Exxon Mobil (Cassels, 2001). Such boycotts and resulting negative publicity may not only serve to erode one’s customer base, but may also hinder future organizational efforts to recruit new workers. In our next section, we turn to a discussion of the ways in which individuals, organizations, and the legal system have responded to workplace harassment, violence, and hate crimes. Individual, Organizational, and Legal Responses to Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes Individual Responses Unfortunately, the most frequent response by victims to workplace harassment, violence, and hate crimes is silence. Empirical research consistently demonstrates that hate crimes are less likely than other crimes to be reported to the police (e.g., Berrill & Herek, 1992; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997). Research on hate crimes targeting sexual minorities suggests that as high as 90% of all incidents go unreported (Berrill & Herek, 1992; Herek, 1989). Similar trends are reported in the literature pertaining to both sexual harassment (Lipari & Lancaster, 2003) and ethnic harassment (Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000; Scarville, Button, Edwards, Lancaster, & Elig, 1999). One of the primary reasons for nonreporting is a fear of secondary victimization: being further victimized by the police, coworkers, supervisors, or family members to whom the hate crime or harassment is reported. One study found that 68% of bias-motivated crime victims chose not to report the crime due to concerns about the police, compared to only 18% of nonbias crimes (Herek et al., 2002). Ironically, another reason for not reporting is that the person can identify the perpetrator. In a workplace setting, this reluctance to report an incident may be due to the intense trauma experienced by the victim or the fear of future retaliation by the perpetrator or other organizational members. Research, unfortunately, shows that these fears of retaliation may not be unfounded. For example, evidence suggests that assertive coping strategies actually serve to exacerbate the negative effects of sexual harassment. In other words, women
ER59632_C004.indd 108
10/4/2007 7:07:58 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
109
who respond most assertively to sexual harassment experience even more negative outcomes than women who respond less assertively (Hesson-McInnis & Fitzgerald, 1997). In addition, as noted earlier, the EEOC has found that retaliation claims are increasing in frequency (EEOC, 2000). Organizational Responses Although there are exceptions, the typical organizational response to a hate crime, workplace violence, or harassment is often a reactive one. In other words, an incident occurs and the organization is left to deal with the aftermath of the event and its victims. Such a reactive approach is not entirely without value. For example, should an event lead to a criminal investigation, an organization may need to follow a stringent process to ensure that the rules of evidence are not violated (Byers, 1999). However, a two-pronged approach that emphasizes both prevention and reaction is ideal. While the severity of the diversity resistance may vary from subtle forms of intimidation to more extreme forms of physical violence, the psychological mechanisms underpinning these acts are similar. The fact that the same mechanisms may act across these different forms of diversity resistance allows organizations to develop appropriate responses and interventions that can simultaneously prevent and mitigate many forms of diversity resistance. Probst and Johns (2002) discussed several recommendations for organizational responses, which are reviewed below. Affirmative Action. Many research studies show that being a numerical minority in the workplace is one of the best predictors of stressful outcomes at work. For example, solo status has been shown to lead to extreme evaluations and a higher incidence of stereotyping by majority group members (Gutierres, Saenz, & Green, 1994). These studies suggest that one organizational remedy would be to increase the representation of minorities in the organization by actively recruiting minority group members through programs such as affirmative action. Research has shown that increasing the numbers of minorities into all levels of the organizational hierarchy can have beneficial effects for minority employees by increasing job satisfaction and lowering levels of job-related stress (Ford, 1980).
ER59632_C004.indd 109
10/4/2007 7:07:58 AM
110
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
Diversity Training Programs. Aside from reducing the disproportionate representation of minorities through affirmative action programs, perhaps the most common organizational approach to reducing intergroup conflict, racial discrimination, and harassment is through the use of diversity training programs. Over 50% of U.S. corporations now have a diversity training initiative in place and many of the companies that do not currently have a program plan to implement one shortly (Gordon, 1995). Chapter 2 in this book offers an excellent review of diversity training programs. Recategorization. Perhaps the best approach to facilitating positive intergroup relationships within an organization is based on Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact hypothesis, described by Gaertner and Dovidio (2000). According to Allport (1954), ingroup–outgroup interactions can be facilitated by encouraging common goals for the two groups and by fostering a sense of intergroup interdependence. Changing the categorization from “ingroup” and “outgroup” (e.g., White and Black) to one group that has a common identity (e.g., all members of the same organization) can redirect employees’ cognitive and motivational forces away from ingroup favoritism towards the reduction of bias (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). One possible organizational intervention then, according to Pettigrew and Martin (1987), would be to reorganize jobs, tasks, and workgroup assignments to maximize the interdependence of majority group members and minority employees (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) and emphasize healthier outgroups with which the new common group can compete (e.g., Microsoft employees competing in solidarity against Apple employees). An Inclusive Diversity Policy. Many organizations have adopted inclusive diversity policies stating the value of all organizational members and their commitment to providing a harassment-free workplace with zero-tolerance for negative behaviors. However, an organization’s diversity climate is determined by the perceived effectiveness of diversity policies rather than merely the sheer number, absence, or presence of such policies. Illustrating this point, Bill Therrien, vice president of HR for The Prudential in Newark, New Jersey, says, “Even with our statement of nondiscrimination, people have told me they don’t think this is a safe place. Simply because a corporate office comes out with a policy doesn’t dictate the way the whole organization will be. The fear remains” (Caudron, 1995, p. 52).
ER59632_C004.indd 110
10/4/2007 7:07:58 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
111
Empirical research appears to confirm this anecdotal evidence. In a study of 178 homosexuals from 25 different states within the U.S. (Probst & Johns, 2000), the effectiveness of organizational policies aimed at protecting sexual minorities in reducing the incidence of workplace discrimination and harassment was examined. The consistent finding across all variables was that the sheer number of organizational policies was unrelated to employee outcomes. Rather, it was the perceived effectiveness of the policies that strongly predicted sexual minority employee outcomes. Thus, organizations not only need to develop effective policies of inclusion, but they also need to strongly communicate their support of these policies. Merely having the policies on the books will not do the trick. Although the benefits of an inclusive diversity policy may be high, there are sometimes challenges with implementing such policies. Table 4.4 describes the different experiences that Hewlett Packard and AT&T had after they developed such policies and encountered Table 4.4 HP and AT&T’s Day in Court: Similar Cases, Different Outcomes In 2001, Albert Buonanno, a 2-year employee of AT&T, refused to sign the company’s “certificate of understanding” that required all employees to “fully recognize, respect, and value the differences among all of us,” including differences in religion and sexual orientation. Buonanno said he was willing to pledge not to discriminate against or harass anyone, but that due to his Christian values and religion, he could not in good conscience sign the certificate indicating that he values homosexuality or other religions. After being fired for his refusal to sign the policy, he sued the company for religious discrimination. While the judge did not find evidence of religious discrimination on the part of AT&T, she did note that the company could have accommodated his religious beliefs without “undue hardship” and awarded Mr. Buonanno nearly $150,000 in settlement costs. In a similar case, the plaintiff in Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard (2004) argued that HP violated his religious freedom by denying him the right to post visible antihomosexual biblical quotations above his workstation. HP had begun a company-wide diversity campaign to increase tolerance of racial, age, ethnic, and sexual orientation differences. The plaintiff admitted that his antihomosexual postings were intended to be hurtful and refused to remove them unless HP removed its posters in support of gay HP employees. After a series of meetings with managers, HP fired Peterson for insubordination. In the court’s judgment, there was no evidence that Peterson had been discriminated against due to his religious beliefs. In finding that it would be an undue hardship to require that HP remove its diversity posters to accommodate Peterson’s religious beliefs, the court noted, “an employer need not accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if doing so would result in discrimination against [the employee’s] coworkers or deprive them of other statutory rights.”
ER59632_C004.indd 111
10/4/2007 7:07:59 AM
112
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
employee resistance. Their experiences indicate that organizations must walk a fine line between ensuring the rights of all employees while not infringing upon the rights of others, no matter how much we may disagree with those others. Company policies can regulate employee behaviors but not employee attitudes. A Positive Organizational Diversity Climate. An organization’s climate can be defined as a set of shared perceptions regarding contingencies between individual behavior within organizations and organizational consequences resulting from that behavior (Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980). As a result of these shared perceptions, individual behaviors which lead to negative outcomes for the employee will be avoided, whereas individual behaviors which lead to positive outcomes will be reinforced. In a similar fashion, an organization’s diversity climate reflects shared employee perceptions regarding the anticipated consequences of various forms of workplace harassment and discrimination. In other words, a positive organizational diversity climate will be intolerant of workplace harassment and discrimination, whereas a negative diversity climate will convey to employees that harassment and discrimination are tolerated by the organization. In a study examining sexual harassment, Fitzgerald et al. (1997) found that the organizational tolerance of sexual harassment was the largest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace, accounting for nearly five times the variability in sexual harassment episodes than other common predictors such as job gender context (i.e., the proportion of men to women in the organization). Similarly, Nelson and Probst (2004) found that organizational diversity climate was the best predictor of multiple forms of workplace harassment including: racioethnic harassment, harassment due to sexual orientation, sexual harassment, age harassment, harassment due to physical disability; and workplace discrimination in the form of denied promotions and salary increases due to race, gender, physical disability, or age. Provision of Counseling to Primary and Secondary Victims. Finally, because hate crimes target not just one individual (the primary victim), but rather an entire group of individuals (the secondary victims), it is critical to provide counseling services to individuals directly targeted by hate crimes, violence, or harassment, as well as
ER59632_C004.indd 112
10/4/2007 7:07:59 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
113
coworkers, family members, or other affected members of the targeted group. Professional counseling is particularly important in the case of hate crimes, because research has found that the psychological effects and trauma associated with hate crimes are more severe and longer lasting than those experienced by victims of similar crimes with no bias motivation (Herek et al., 1999).
Legal Responses Clearly, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other major subsequent civil rights legislation have played a critical role in the day-to-day experiences and levels of diversity resistance encountered in the workplace. As a result of these pieces of legislation, it is not only illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, color, disability, or age, but it has also made such discrimination and harassment far less socially acceptable than it was a few decades ago. Nonetheless, not all minority groups are covered by this legislation. Although there have been persistent efforts to pass some form of federal nondiscrimination legislation aimed at protecting sexual minorities, at this point in time, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is not yet law. Given that research indicates that heterosexuals greatly underestimate the level of discrimination sexual minorities experience (Van Den Bergh, 1999), this is perhaps not surprising. However, 84% of voters polled by Newsweek in 1996 and 83% of the general population sampled in 1998 supported equal rights and protection in employment for gays and lesbians in the workplace (Digh, 1999). Therefore, it would appear that there is support for some form of federal protection. Despite the failure to pass a major civil rights bill for sexual minorities, there are encouraging signs. For example, in the fall of 2005, the House of Representatives unexpectedly voted to expand existing hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and disability. While these categories are included in the FBI’s definition of hate crimes and statistics regarding such hate crimes are tracked at the federal level, the federal government does not assist local or state authorities in prosecuting such hate crimes. The current legislation, if proposed and passed by the Senate as well, would give grants to the states to help prosecute these crimes.
ER59632_C004.indd 113
10/4/2007 7:07:59 AM
114
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
Best Practices and Recommendations Growing awareness of the nature and impact of harassment, violence, and hate crimes has prompted organizations to develop strategies to confront these problems. Writers from diverse disciplines have documented various initiatives organizations have taken in response to harassment (Herrschaft & Mills, 2002; Williams, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1999), violence (Kraus et al., 1995; VandenBos & Bulatao, 1999) and hate crimes (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1999; Raggins, 2004). Within the sexual harassment literature, Grundmann and her colleagues (1997) and Bell, Quick, and Cycyota (2002) have proposed that prevention interventions can be conceptualized as primary, secondary, and tertiary. This conceptualization is useful and readily applicable to violence and hate crimes in the workplace. We employ this framework to examine organizational practices related to the prevention of harassment, violence, and hate crimes in the workplace. Framing Organizational Responses to Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes Primary prevention seeks to prevent the emergence new incidents of harassment, violence, and hate crimes by targeting risk factors that influence these behaviors. Examples of this type of prevention may include efforts to increase awareness among employees of the nature and consequences of harassment, violence, and hate crimes; efforts to modify the organizational climate; and efforts to modify demographic context of the work environment (e.g., women, sexual and ethnic minorities) within the organization. Studies have implicated organizational climate as a causal factor underlying harassment (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, & Magley, 1999) and hate crimes (Ragins, 2004) in the workplace. Bell et al. (2002) and Gutek (1997) have proposed that organizations can modify climates by establishing policies and procedures for handling complaints, establishing training programs to ensure understanding and compliance with organizational policies. Although most organizations have developed policies that address various forms harassment (i.e., sexual harassment and racial harassment), few organizations have enacted policies to deal with violence and hate crimes in the workplace. A cursory review of
ER59632_C004.indd 114
10/4/2007 7:07:59 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
115
selected Fortune 500 companies revealed that most organizational policies fail to address violence and hate crimes in the workplace.1 This may not be surprising, given that public attention on these issues was scant until the 1990s when federal and state legislation began to appear. Gutek (1997) suggests that a sexual harassment policy should “(1) take a stand on sexual harassment; (2) make the stance public knowledge; (3) discourage employees from engaging in harassing behaviors; (4) encourage targets of harassment to come forward and inform management; (5) educate people about sexual harassment; (6) provide guidelines for dealing with allegations of harassment; and (7) be able to defend the organization during a legal challenge” (p. 188). Other researchers have also highlighted the role of interpersonal contact with members of sexual minority groups as a causal factor in both (bias motivated) harassment and hate crimes (Ragins, 2004). Ragins (2004) suggests that interpersonal contact with sexual minority employees can have a positive effect on attitudes toward members of these groups. An organization can foster interpersonal contact through the use of employee forums. Employee forums are formally recognized groups organized around some type of group membership. For example, the Coca-Cola Company sponsors employee forums groups so “employees can connect with colleagues who share similar interests and backgrounds … support each other’s personal and professional growth and enhance their individual and collective ability to contribute to the company.”2 Employee forums allow individuals from various demographic groups (e.g., women, ethnic, and sexual minorities) to have a voice within the organization and contribute to the organization’s commitment to inclusion of diversity within the workplace. The presence of these groups also serves to facilitate opportunities to foster interpersonal contact experiences between employees of diverse backgrounds. Secondary prevention seeks to identify and correct preconditions that may lead to the perpetration of harassment, violence, and hate crimes. Examples of this type of prevention may include surveying employees to monitor harassment, violence, and hate crimes in the workplace; developing policies and procedures to curtail harassment, violence, and hate crimes at work; investigating and enforcing organizational regulations whenever a violation occurs. With regard to secondary prevention efforts (i.e., addressing causal and risk factors), Williams et al.’s (1999) implementation and educational practices
ER59632_C004.indd 115
10/4/2007 7:07:59 AM
116
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
have particular relevance for addressing diversity resistance. Implementation practices “refer to formal and informal actions taken to prevent harassment, [violence and hate crimes] from occurring and to enforce company policies against it” (Williams et al., 1999, p. 307). Williams and colleagues (1999) suggest that organizations can promote professional work environments (i.e., organizational climates), foster the integration of women into nontraditional professions, and evaluate training programs and supervisory personnel with regard to enforcement of related policies and procedures. An organization can also examine the process for investigating complaints, applying sanctions and reducing the negative effects of harassment. Extending these practices to hate crimes in the workplace would suggest that the open acceptance and integration of women, ethnical minorities, and sexual minorities into positions throughout the organization may be a viable way to implement an organization’s strategy for diversity. In addition, the assessment of management’s enforcement of related policies and procedures would also be a viable way to ensure that the organization’s strategy is promoted (Bell et al., 2002). Educational practices refer to efforts to train individuals and communicate policies, procedures related to harassment in the workplace. Training can focus on risk factors associated with harassment as well as violence and hate crimes in the workplace. Training can also serve to communicate organizational policies and procedures with regard to how to deal with harassment, violence, and hate crimes in the workplace. The suggested practices imply that organizational efforts to deal with these in the workplace should include assessments of both implementation and educational practices as part of secondary prevention efforts. Organizations have examined implementation efforts in a variety of ways. Verizon’s diversity strategy includes a periodic assessment of employees’ sense of belonging, and it is linked to outcomes like job satisfaction. Verizon also tracks workforce composition in each line of business, as well as hiring and promotion statistics for its workforce. In addition, Verizon also tracks supplier diversity—a measure assessing diversity of supplier base for various products.3 Similar strategies have also been adopted in the public sector. The U.S. Department of Defense has engaged in programmatic action to monitor implementation efforts with regard to various forms of harassment in the military workplace (Lipari & Lancaster, 2003;
ER59632_C004.indd 116
10/4/2007 7:07:59 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
117
Office of the Inspector General, 2000; Scarville, Button, Edwards, Lancaster, & Elig, 1999) as well as programmatic efforts to assess equal opportunity climate within the military (Dansby & Landis, 1996). Tertiary prevention seeks to prevent the relapse of harassment, violence, and hate crimes in the workplace by providing services to perpetrators. Examples of this type of prevention may include providing training on harassment, violence, and hate crimes for perpetrators and providing psychological counseling service to perpetrators. Williams et al. (1999) propose that provision of resources to perpetrators of harassment may include specific measures to increase awareness of harassment, violence, and hate crimes, and counseling and rehabilitation services to deal with conflict emerging from the investigation and resolution of the incident. Provision of resources to perpetrators is perhaps as important as provision of resources to targets/victims. Without any type intervention to address perpetrator concerns, the organization may fail to adequately correct existing problems that may have given rise for the individuals to engage in these forms of diversity resistance.
Summary Analysis of these prevention strategies leads us to recommend that organizations develop comprehensive multipronged efforts that cut across each of these types of prevention efforts. It is worth noting that most organizational efforts focus on primary and secondary interventions. Whenever tertiary prevention efforts are implemented, they are often done after the organization has faced significant legal challenges for failing to adequately protect its employees. Table 4.5 presents a framework of prevention strategies for addressing diversity resistance in the workplace. Our framework includes specific strategies that might be utilized to reduce diversity resistance within each of the prevention levels reviewed. Our strategies are developed from existing research and are explicitly linked to one of the three levels of prevention derived from both Bell et al. (2002) and Grundman et al. (1997). We hope this heuristic framework informs organizational efforts to address diversity resistance in the workplace.
ER59632_C004.indd 117
10/4/2007 7:08:00 AM
118
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
Table 4.5 Framework of Prevention Strategies for Addressing Diversity Resistance in the Workplace Level
Objective
Strategy
Primary
Prevent new instances of harassment, violence, and hate crimes by addressing causal and risk factors associated with diversity resistance.
Secondary
Prevent reoccurrence of harassment, violence, and hate crimes by identifying and correcting existing problems and prevent negative consequences of diversity resistance. Prevent relapse by perpetrator of harassment, violence, and hate crimes by providing services that minimize the occurrence of further harassment.
Develop comprehensive policies and procedures that address inclusive forms of diversity resistance. Establish employee forums for demographic groups within the organization. Establish policies and benchmarks for hiring and promoting qualified members of the organization from diverse backgrounds. Monitor organizational climate with respect to diversity resistance. Educate employees on how to minimize risk factors associated with diversity resistance. Make supervisors/ managers accountable for setting and achieving goals for reducing diversity resistance by including criteria in performance appraisals. Conduct periodic assessments of employee experiences of diversity resistance within the organization. Evaluate training efforts to reduce diversity resistance. Provide counseling for victims of harassment
Tertiary
Facilitate or provide counseling services for perpetrators. Establish and publish a listing of organizational sanctions for perpetrators of harassment, violence, and hate crimes.
Conclusion In this chapter, we described some of the most violent forms of diversity resistance ranging from workplace harassment to hate crimes. As we have documented, these forms of resistance are pervasive and have extremely negative consequences for the victims, other mem-
ER59632_C004.indd 118
10/4/2007 7:08:00 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
119
bers of the victim’s group, other organizational employees, and the effective functioning of the organization itself. Finally, we present common ways in which victims, organization, and the legal community respond to bias-motivated violence at work, and review selected research on organizational strategies and practices related to the prevention of harassment, violence, and hate crimes in the workplace. Although we recognize that these crimes have a long history in the workplace, we hope that our recommendations will assist organizations in eliminating these forms of diversity resistance in the future.
Author Note Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to Tahira M. Probst, Department of Psychology, Washington State University, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Avenue, Vancouver, WA 986869600. Electronic mail should be sent to
[email protected].
End Notes 1. We reviewed policies for the top 20 companies from the Fortune 500 list compiled by Fortune magazine in 2005. 2 http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/diversity_workplace_initiatives.html#employee_fourms; See Ford Motor Company, AT&T, Citigroup, Fannie Mae for additional examples. 3. See Lucent Technologies, McDonald’s Corporation, Coca-Cola Company for related examples.
References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. American Psychological Association (1998). Hate crimes today: An age-old foe in modern dress. Retrieved November 21, 2005 from http://www. apa.org/releases/hate.html. Anti-Defamation League (2001). ADL responds to violence and harassment against Arab Americans and Muslim Americans. Retrieved November 29, 2005 from http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/adl_responds. asp.
ER59632_C004.indd 119
10/4/2007 7:08:00 AM
120
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
Avina, C., & O’Donohue, W. (2002). Sexual harassment and PTSD: Is sexual harassment diagnosable trauma? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 69–75. Barling, J. (1999). The prediction, experience, and consequences of workplace violence. In G. VandenBos & E. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29–49). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Bell, M. P., Quick, J. C., & Cycyota, C. S. (2002). Assessment and prevention of sexual harassment of employees: An applied guide to creating health organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 160–167. Berrill, K., & Herek, G. M. (1992). Primary and secondary victimization in anti-gay hate crimes. In G. Herek & K. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes (pp. 289–305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bulatao, E. Q., & VandenBos, G. R. (1999). Workplace violence: Its scope and the issues. In G. VandenBos & E. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 1–23). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Buncombe, A. (2005, September 16). U.S. poultry giant under fire after segregation scandal is revealed. The Independent, p. 29. Bureau of Justice Assistance (1999). A policymaker’s guide to hate crimes. Office of Justice Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). Injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/home.htm. Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17–28. Byers, B. (1999). Hate crimes in the workplace: Worker-to-worker victimization and policy responses. Security Journal, 12(4), 47–58. Cassels, P. (2001). ExxonMobil officials trade barbs with activists over gay boycott. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from http://www.baywindows. com. Caudron, S. (1995). Open the corporate closet to sexual orientation issues. Personnel Journal, 8, 42–55. Dansby, M. R., & Landis, D. (1996). Intercultural training in the military. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 203–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’ experiences of harassment and fear on a campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 383–395. Davenport, N., Scwhartz, R. D., & Elliot, G. P. (1999). Mobbing: Emotional abuse in the American workplace. Ames, IA: Civil Society Publishing.
ER59632_C004.indd 120
10/4/2007 7:08:00 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
121
Department of Labor (1996). Reich announces settlement of “egregious” sexual racial discrimination case against federal contractor department; Also releases list of egregious discrimination cases. Retrieved November 28, 2005 from http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/opa/ archive/opa96486.htm. Digh, P. (1999, July/August). In and out of the corporate closet. Mosaics, 5(4), 1, 5–7. Di Martino, V., Gold, D., & Schaap, A. (2001). Managing emerging healthrelated problems at work. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Office Press. Dunbar, E. (1997). Hate crime patterns in Los Angeles County: Demographic and behavioral factors of victim impact and reporting of crime. Paper presented at a congressional briefing co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association and the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Washington, D.C. EEOC v. Premier Operator Services Inc., N.D. Tex., No. 3:98-CV-198-BF (September 13, 2000). EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) (1997). Facts about sexual harassment. Retrieved April 6, 2001 from http://www.eeoc. gov/facts/fs‑sex.html. EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) (2000). The 2000s: Charting a course for the 21st century. Retrieved December 1, 2005 from http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/35th/2000s/ index.html. EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) (2001). EEOC settles racial harassment suit against car dealership. Retrieved April 6, 2001 from http://www.eeoc.gov/press/1-31-01.html. EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) (2005). Race-based charges: FY 1992 through FY 2004. Retrieved November 21, 2005 from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/race.html. Ellis, A. L., & Riggle, E. D. B. (1995). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness about one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 75–85. Erlich, H. J., & Larcom, B. E. K. (1992, November). The effects of prejudice and ethnoviolence on workers health. Paper presented at the 2nd American Psychological Association and National Institute for Occupational and Safety Heath Conference on Work, Stress, and Health, Washington, D.C. Faley, R. H., Knapp, D. E., Kustis, G. A., & Dubois, C. L. Z. (1999). Estimating the organizational costs of sexual harassment: The case of the U.S. Army. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 461–484. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2005). Crime in the United States, 2004. Retrieved November 17, 2005 from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/ documents/CIUS2004.pdf.
ER59632_C004.indd 121
10/4/2007 7:08:01 AM
122
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589. Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., & Magley, V. J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A test of an integrated model. Military Psychology, 11, 329–343. Fitzgerald, L. F., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, F. (1994). The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: An integrated model. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 55–73). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to perceived injustice. In G. VandenBos & E. Bulatao (Eds.), Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 51– 85). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Ford, D. L. (1980). Work, job satisfaction, and employee well-being: An exploratory study of minority professionals. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, 26, 70–75. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis. Giga, S. I., & Hoel, H. (2005). Violence and stress at work in financial services. Retrieved December 2, 2005 from: http://www.ilo.org. Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309–328. Gordon, J. (1995). Different from what? Training, 32(5), 25–34. Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1982). Blue-collar blues: The sexual harassment of women autoworkers. Work and Occupations, 9, 271–298. Grundmann, E. O., O’Donohue, W., & Peterson, S. H. (1997). The prevention of sexual harassment. In W. O’ Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, Research, and treatment (pp. 175–184). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gutek, B. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gutek, B. A. (1997). Sexual harassment policy initiatives. W. O’ Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 185– 198). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 28–48.
ER59632_C004.indd 122
10/4/2007 7:08:01 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
123
Gutierres, S. E., Saenz, D. S., & Green, B. L. (1994). Job stress and health outcomes among white and Hispanic employees: A test of the personenvironment fit model. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp. 107–126). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279. Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for research and policy. American Psychologist, 44, 948–955. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequalae of hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945–951. Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., Cogan, J. C., & Glunt, E. K. (1997). Hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults: Prevalence, psychological correlates, and methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 195–215. Herrschaft, D., & Mills, K. I. (2002). The state of the workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Americans 2002. Washington, D.C. Human Rights Campaign. Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Sexual harassment: A preliminary test of an integrative model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 877–901. Hoad, C. D. (1993). Violence at work: Perspectives from research among 20 British employers. Security Journal, 4, 64–86. James, S. A. (1985). Psychosocial and environmental factors in Black hypertension. In W. D. Hall, E. Saunders, & N. B. Shulman (Eds.), Hypertension in Blacks: Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment (pp. 132–143). Chicago, IL: Year Book Medical Publications. Lois E. Jenson v Eveleth Taconite Co., N. 97-1147 (8th Circuit Court of Appeals. December 5, 1997). Johnson, M. (2001). Diversity resistance. Retrieved November 21, 2005 from http://www.mediate.com/diversity/editorial1.cfm. Johnson, M. (2003). Diversity resistance (Part III). Retrieved November 21, 2005 from http://www.mediate.com/articles/diversedit3.cfm. Kelly, R. J. (1993). Bias crime: American law enforcement and legal responses. Chicago, IL: Office of International Criminal Justice. Kraus, J. F., Blander, B., & McArthur, D. L. (1995). Incidence, risk factors and prevention strategies for work-related assault injuries: A review of what is known, what needs to be known, and countermeasures for intervention. Annual Review of Public Health, 16, 355–379.
ER59632_C004.indd 123
10/4/2007 7:08:01 AM
124
Tahira M. Probst, Armando X. Estrada, and Jeremiah W. Brown
Lipari, R. N., & Lancaster, A. R. (2003). Armed forces 2002 sexual harassment survey (DMDC Report No. 2003-026). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center. Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory of behavior in organizations. New York: Academic Press. Nelson, N. L., & Probst, T. M. (2004). Multiple minority individuals: Multiplying the risk of workplace harassment and discrimination. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice and discrimination (pp. 193– 217). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Office of the Inspector General (2000). Military environment with respect to the homosexual conduct policy (Report No. D-2000-101). Arlington, VA: Department of Defense. Probst, T. M., & Johns, D. (2000, April). Assessing the effects of organizational policies on the experiences of sexual minorities in the workplace. Paper presented at the 2000 Western Psychological Association, Portland, OR. Probst, T. M., & Johns, D. (2002). Harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In J. C. Thomas & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of mental health in the workplace (pp. 413–436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C. M., & Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 68–83. Ragins, B. R. (2004). Sexual orientation in the workplace: The unique work and career experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual workers. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 23, 35–120. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink Triangles: Antecedents and consequences of heterosexism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261. Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Behond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team process, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 387–400. Renold, E., & Barter, C. (2003). “Hi, I’m Ramon and I run this place”: Challenging the normalization of violence in children’s homes from young people’s perspectives. In E. A. Stanko (Ed.), The meanings of violence (pp. 90–111). London: Routledge. Rubenstein, W. B. (2004). The real story of U.S. hate crime statistics: An empirical analysis. Tulane Law Review, 78, 1213–1246. Sandler, B. R. (1997). Elements of a good policy. In B. R. Sandler & R. J. Shoop (Eds.), Sexual harassment on campus: A guide for administrators, faculty and students (pp. 104–127). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Scarville, J., Button, S. B., Edwards, J. E., Lancaster, A. R., & Elig, T. W. (1999). Armed forces equal opportunity survey (DMDC Report No. 97-027). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
ER59632_C004.indd 124
10/4/2007 7:08:01 AM
Harassment, Violence, and Hate Crimes in the Workplace
125
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401–415. Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. S., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An examination of the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment in multiple contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 3–12. Van Den Bergh, N. (1999). Workplace problems and needs for lesbian and gay male employees: Implications for EAPS. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 15(1), 21–60. Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 218–232. Wislar, J. S., Richman, J. A., Fendrich, M., & Flaherty, J. A. (2002). Sexual harassment, generalized workplace abuse and drinking outcomes: The role of personal vulnerability. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 1071–1088. VandenBos, G., & Bulatao, E. (1999). Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11, 303–328. .
ER59632_C004.indd 125
10/4/2007 7:08:01 AM
ER59632_C004.indd 126
10/4/2007 7:08:01 AM
5 Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
In the end antiblack, antifemale, and all forms of discrimination are equivalent to the same thing—antihumanism. Shirley Chisholm
Despite increases in the representation of men and women from diverse backgrounds in the contemporary American workforce, resistance to such diversity persists. Historically, this resistance has taken the form of overtly negative behaviors and explicit discrimination (e.g., refusal to hire or promote an individual on the basis of group membership). However, more recently, resistance to diversity in organizational contexts has taken a more subtle form involving more covert and interpersonal behaviors (e.g., increased interpersonal distance, decreased eye contact). Thus, resistance to diversity and its manifestation is a problem that has primarily changed from overt and obvious manifestations to more subtle and more complex forms (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002). The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the different ways in which diversity resistance is manifested in interpersonal exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing. We focus on the manifestations, consequences, and strategies for the remediation of discrimination in the context of the workplace. First, we briefly describe the manifestations of discrimination, particularly focusing on interpersonal discrimination. Second, we describe the potential consequences of this form of workplace discrimination for both individuals and 127
ER59632_C005.indd 127
10/4/2007 7:08:23 AM
128
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
organizations. Third, we outline the various strategies that both individuals and organizations may carry out to remediate discrimination in the workplace. Fourth and lastly, we discuss implications and conclusions. Manifestations of Discrimination in the Workplace Discrimination in the workplace recently has been conceptualized as taking two forms, formal discrimination and interpersonal discrimination (Hebl et al., 2002). Formal discrimination involves behaviors that are illegal, overt, and obvious, and include examples such as excluding individuals from employment, advancement, resources, access, or other opportunities. Such examples often provide the basis for high profile organizational discrimination cases. For instance, a former CEO of Shoney’s restaurants discriminated against Black individuals by refusing to hire them for visible positions (e.g., waiters, hosts), instead placing them in low-paying, noncustomer contact positions (cooks; Watkins, 1993). Formal discrimination is similar to what other researchers have referred to as explicit forms of discrimination (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002), which often involve conscious or overt intentions to discriminate. Quite differently, interpersonal discrimination involves the display of behaviors that are legal, more subtle, and often nonverbal in nature. For example, individuals might choose to maintain increased social distance from, reduce interaction times with, or smile less often at stigmatized targets. It is important to note that interpersonal discrimination is sometimes verbal, as an individual might ask fewer questions or give shortened responses to stigmatized job applicants (Hebl et al., 2002). There is typically no course of action to pursue for a victim facing interpersonal discrimination because the behaviors are often ambiguous, legal, and interactional in nature. Interpersonal discrimination is similar to what other researchers have referred to as implicit forms of discrimination (Dovidio et al., 2002), which sometimes involve unconscious intentions to discriminate. There are a number of reasons why research, which we review in the next section, suggests that interpersonal discrimination is becoming more common than formal discrimination. First, laws have been enacted to restrict the display of formal discrimination. For instance, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Civil
ER59632_C005.indd 128
10/4/2007 7:08:23 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
129
Rights Act, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 promote the access, employment, and advancement rights that protected individuals receive. Such laws, however, do not restrict the displays of interpersonal discrimination. That is, interpersonal discrimination remains legal, not sanctioned by law, but is currently outside the parameters of law. Second, organizational policies also have been enacted to further protect the rights of individuals. Legal sanctions do not protect the rights of members of all stigmatized groups (i.e., gay and lesbian individuals, obese individuals); thus, many organizations are extending protected group status to include members of additional groups as well. As a result, many organizations now have zero-tolerance policies for discrimination and/or provide diversity initiatives that ultimately lead to the reduction of formal discrimination. As with legal sanctions, however, organizational policies also are limited in the ways that they restrict interpersonal forms of discrimination. Third, pressures to act in politically correct or socially desirable ways may also reduce the prevalence of formal discrimination, and such attitudes may directly lead individuals to monitor and restrict the formal discrimination that they display (Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005). Many people are likely to express their prejudices only in ways and situations in which their prejudicial motives can go undetected. In a longitudinal analysis, Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) found that self-reported prejudice was lower in 1998–1999 than it was in 1988–1989. Furthermore, White participants do not discriminate against Black relative to White candidates in obvious situations that clearly indicate prejudice (e.g., when credentials of one versus the other are either very strong or very weak) but they do discriminate by recommending the White over the Black candidates (76% versus 45%) when the appropriate decision is more ambiguous (e.g., when both had moderate qualifications). Fourth and finally, the expressions of interpersonal discrimination may be particularly robust because many people simply do not have access to their true attitudes. Work by Dovidio and his colleagues (Dovidio et al., 2001; Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997) has suggested that although explicit, conscious attitudes may have a strong connection to the formal types of behaviors people express (i.e., explicit statements of their attitudes), implicit attitudes are more likely to link up with nonverbal and more interpersonal behaviors. In other words, the expression of negative inter-
ER59632_C005.indd 129
10/4/2007 7:08:24 AM
130
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
personal behaviors may be done unconsciously (see also Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Moreover, even when people are conscious of their behaviors, they may be less successful at monitoring and restricting their more interpersonal and nonverbal behaviors than their conscious and overt behaviors; thus, people may still display residual negativity that manifests itself in interpersonal discrimination (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002). In summary, the manifestation of discrimination may be taking a subtler form due to legislation, organizational policies, genuine attitude change, social pressures, and unconscious mechanisms. Given these explanations for the changing expression of prejudice, it is not surprising that the behavioral manifestation of contemporary resistance to diversity in organizations is taking more subtle and interpersonal forms. We next review empirical studies that have been conducted on this subtle type of resistance to diversity in organizations. Research on Interpersonal Discrimination A number of studies empirically reveal that discrimination is being manifested in more subtle ways. For example, Hebl et al. (2002) examined formal (i.e., hiring measures) and interpersonal (i.e., nonverbal behaviors, amount of conversation) discrimination that both job applicants (either homosexual or assumed heterosexual) perceived from store employers and store employers actually displayed toward the applicants. In particular, 18 confederates entered stores wearing hats labeled with “Gay and Proud” or “Texan and Proud,” but they remained unaware of what labels their hats contained. Store employers did not show signs of formal discrimination: that is, applicants, regardless of the hat they were wearing, were equally likely to be told that there was a job available, receive permission to complete a job application, and actually receive a job callback. However, store employers did engage in significantly more interpersonal discrimination with those wearing the stigmatized versus the nonstigmatized hat. Specifically, employers spoke fewer words to, had shorter interactions with, and were perceived to show more negativity (from the perspectives of both the applicants and independent observers) toward stigmatized than nonstigmatized individuals. The perceived negativity that applicants and observers noted involved employees being more
ER59632_C005.indd 130
10/4/2007 7:08:24 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
131
nervous, hostile, motivated to end the conversation prematurely, and standoffish toward stigmatized than nonstigmatized individuals. This initial study confirms that discrimination, at least in the context that was examined, is manifested through interpersonal behavior, such as displaying less friendliness, interest, and helpfulness, rather than through obvious discriminatory behaviors, such as explicit remarks or refusing to hire the stigmatized applicant. This same pattern of behaviors—the presence of interpersonal discrimination and absence of formal discrimination—has been found in respect to obese targets (see King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary, & Turner, in press). Taken together, these findings suggest that resistance to diversity in organizational contexts takes the form of negative interpersonal behaviors like exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing. Additional research has examined how nonverbal expressions of interpersonal discrimination can hinder women’s performance as leaders. In a study of gender and leadership, Butler and Geis (1990) trained both male and female confederates to become leaders in mixed-sex groups. The men and women used the same scripts and were trained to make the same suggestions, use the same wording, and apply the same tactics in trying to get their respective groups to follow them. When asked, members of the groups said they had nothing against female leadership; yet, their nonverbal behaviors showed a different story. Essentially, female leaders became the targets of nonverbal disapproval—group members (both male and female) frowned at them as they talked, and when the female leaders continued to talk, group members frowned even more. Male leaders were not the targets of the same disapproval; rather, group members greeted their suggestions with smiles and nods. These results suggest that group members were not fully accepting of female leadership but instead of showing this discomfort in an overt way (by stating it aloud or on follow-up questionnaires), they instead displayed it via more covert nonverbal behaviors. Subtle discrimination also has been manifested in faulty memories of how applicants perform in interview paradigms. For instance, Frazer and Wiersma (2001) examined White interviewers’ immediate and longer-term reactions to Black and White applicants. Consistent with the pattern of findings reported by Hebl et al. (2002), the researchers found no evidence of formal discrimination against Black applicants in interviews; that is, they were immediately rec-
ER59632_C005.indd 131
10/4/2007 7:08:24 AM
132
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
ommended for hire in equal proportions to that of White applicants. However, an interesting pattern emerged when interviewers were asked to recall the answers of applicants one week later. Specifically, interviewers recalled the answers given by Black applicants as being less intelligent than those given by White applicants (though their answers were actually identical), illustrating a more subtle form of discrimination. Thus, consistent with the interpersonal discrimination framework, although interviewers were able to avoid formally discriminating in the interview setting itself, more subtle biases could be detected. Interpersonal discrimination can also be manifested in exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing through informal social networks in the workplace. Having expansive informal social networks has been shown to provide assistance, social support, and information about work that is pertinent for work performance (Brass, 1984). As such, networks are central for one’s mobility, promotion, and emergence as leaders. The absence of such networks, however, leads to feelings of isolation (Kanter, 1977) and lack of identification in the workplace (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). Unfortunately, research suggests that minority employees and, in particular, minority managers have fewer intimate network relationships (Ibarra, 1995). The question arises as to why this is the case. We believe that interpersonal discrimination is at least partially to blame for minority managers’ reporting that they face more barriers in relationships with cross-race employees than with same-race employees (Thomas, 1990). Such barriers become even more problematic when one considers that there are few minority managers to begin with; hence, they must often seek relationships with minorities from other departments or institutions to gain helpful social and informational support. In essence, then, minorities may only be receiving half the benefits of mentoring—the psychosocial support, but not the instrumental support, that provides exposure, advocacy, and resources leading to advancement. Additional research demonstrates that manifestations of interpersonal discrimination depend on the context of the interactions. That is, the target of interpersonal discrimination can change the type or nature of interpersonal discrimination. For example, Hebl, Glick, Singletary, and Kazama (2005) investigated behavior toward pregnant women in nontraditional (job applicant) and traditional (store customer) roles. Female confederates, either wearing or not wearing a pregnancy prosthesis, entered retail stores and posed as job appli-
ER59632_C005.indd 132
10/4/2007 7:08:24 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
133
cants or as customers. The results showed no evidence of formal discrimination (e.g., job callbacks for applicants, help for customers), but did show interpersonal discrimination toward “pregnant” women (i.e., the confederates wearing the pregnancy prosthesis). However, the particular interpersonal behaviors depended on the stereotype congruity of the role enacted by the “pregnant” woman. That is, when the confederate was in the role of a pregnant job applicant, employees exhibited more hostile behavior (e.g., rudeness) toward “pregnant” (versus nonpregnant) confederates. Hostile sexism is an antagonistic attitude toward women, encompassing a wide range of negative affect (e.g., antipathy, resentment, anger) toward women (Glick & Fiske, 1996), which is analogous to formal discrimination because both are obvious. Such results suggest people did not perceive “pregnant” women applying for job favorably. However, employees exhibited benevolent behavior (e.g., touching, overfriendliness) toward “pregnant” (versus nonpregnant) confederates in the role of a pregnant store customer. Benevolent sexism involves a chivalrous attitude toward women that feels favorable but they perpetuate gender stereotypes, such as casting women as weak creatures in need of men’s protection (Glick & Fiske, 1996), which can be considered analogous to interpersonal discrimination because both are subtle. Such results suggest that people reinforced “pregnant” women enacting the role of customer by offering them extra help. As a whole, these findings reveal that not only does the context influence the behavioral expressions of discrimination, but the context may also change the type or nature of interpersonal discrimination. Consequences of Interpersonal Discrimination in the Workplace The consequences of interpersonal discrimination for its targets might be considered minor when compared with the effects of more blatant types of discrimination. However, subtle forms of discrimination are not trivial matters and may be just as pernicious in their effects as effects that occur from more overt types of discrimination (Dipboye & Colella, 2005). As Valian (1998) asserts, it is the small molehills of difference that can become mountains of disadvantage for targets over time. In this section, we describe evidence that shows the negative consequences of interpersonal discrimina-
ER59632_C005.indd 133
10/4/2007 7:08:24 AM
134
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
tion in the workplace. These consequences may have adverse effects for both the employees who are targets of the discrimination as well as organizations that allow such discrimination to occur. We will consider the effects of interpersonal discrimination on targets’ jobrelated performance and advancement in the workplace, as well as the consequences for organizations as a whole. Effects on Job-Related Performance Exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing can influence the quality of interactions in the workplace, which may then negatively influence performance. In a seminal study, Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) illustrated the impact that subtle differences in verbal and nonverbal behavior had on applicants by examining an interview context in which White interviewers were interviewing Black or White applicants. Their first experiment revealed that White interviewers spaced themselves farther from, made more speech errors with, and terminated interviews more quickly with Black than White applicants. Moreover, these behavioral differences impacted the performance of the applicants themselves. When participants in their second experiment were subjected to the same behaviors that were directed toward Black applicants from the first experiment, such applicants were more nervous during the interview and ultimately performed worse than those who were not subjected to such behaviors. Thus, interpersonal discriminatory behavior can undermine the performance of those receiving such behaviors. As another example of these effects, Vescio, Gervais, Snyder, and Hoover (2005) examined the effect of patronizing behavior from male leaders on female subordinates’ performance. Patronizing behavior was defined as giving subordinates ample praise while withholding valued resources (e.g., raises and promotions). Therefore, patronizing behavior can be considered subtle discrimination because the act of withholding valued resources is masked with praise. In the first experiment, results showed that male leaders gave ample praise to the female subordinates whom they stereotyped, but gave the same women fewer valued resources than their male counterparts. Moreover, in the second experiment, participants received either valued or devalued positions in combination with either praise or no praise from a male
ER59632_C005.indd 134
10/4/2007 7:08:24 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
135
leader. Women who were treated in patronizing ways (i.e., praised and devalued positions) were angrier and performed poorer on cognitive tasks than women and men in the other conditions. That is, men and women performed similarly in all conditions except for the patronizing condition, in which women performed poorly. Thus, subtleties of patronizing behavior from male leaders can create very significant gender differences in performance. Interpersonal discriminatory behavior can affect the quality of interactions in the workplace. For example, Snyder, Tanke, and Ber scheid (1977) demonstrated the effect of interpersonal discrimination through the emergence of a self-fulfilling prophecy in an interview context. Participants were college men who were given a packet of information about another research participant, which included her photograph. The photograph was of either an attractive woman or of an unattractive woman. The men then interviewed a female confederate over the phone. The results revealed that men who thought they were talking to an attractive woman responded to her in a warmer, more sociable manner than did the men who thought they were talking to an unattractive woman. In a very recent study, Shapiro, King, and Quiñones (2007) also demonstrated the effect of interpersonal discrimination in a performance training context. They set out to examine how the effects of prejudice and discrimination might influence training through the emergence of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Essentially, trainers were led to believe that they were training an obese or an average weight (manipulated through a picture) trainee in a computer task. The trainers noted their expectations of the training interaction and the trainee. Then, they were asked to conduct training. In reality, those that were being trained were naïve participants who simply believed they were being trained at a task and had no knowledge of the weight manipulation. The results first demonstrated that trainers in the obese condition had lower expectations of the training, expected less success from the trainee, and evaluated the trainee and the training more negatively than trainers in the average weight condition. Second, the results demonstrated the insidious effects of low expectations. In particular, trainees in the obese condition evaluated the trainer and the training more negatively, and in certain conditions, even performed worse. Although the interactions were not recorded, we do not believe the results were generated because trainers overtly discriminated against those they believed to be overweight. Rather,
ER59632_C005.indd 135
10/4/2007 7:08:25 AM
136
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
we believe the results occurred because, consistent with the findings of Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid (1977), trainers used different levels of affect, paraverbal behaviors, and word choices to either encourage or discourage the trainees. And importantly, the trainees picked up on these differences, which in turn led to their lowered performance. As a whole, these studies show that interpersonal discrimination has negative implications for targets’ performance. It is certainly more challenging to measure and examine the effects of this type of discrimination, but the studies we reviewed in this section converge in showing that as interpersonal discrimination increases, one can anticipate decreases in performance and other work-related behaviors. Effects on Advancement in the Workplace Exclusion, avoidance, and social distancing can also influence advancement in the workplace. One area in which this may be particularly evident, albeit subtle, is in the distribution of developmental experiences that lead to advancement. In a study designed to examine this possibility, Kazama (2004) measured the developmental experiences that male and female managers had participated in over a five-year period. Results revealed that while male and female managers reported participating in similar levels of such experiences, male managers reported engaging in qualitatively more challenging experiences than did female managers, even after controlling for job, company, and industry tenure. Although it is possible that men may simply be making more out of their experiences than are women, Kazama’s results support the notion that interpersonal discrimination may be at play: Men and women are getting the same amount of experiences but they are qualitatively different. That is, men may be getting more challenging experiences than are women, and it is these challenging experiences that are predictive of individual success and advancement (e.g., Bray & Howard, 1983; McCauley, Ohlott, & Ruderman, 1989; McCauley, Ruderman, Ohlott, & Morrow, 1994). Interpersonal discrimination may also have a negative influence on the form and utility of social networks. For instance, network analyses have shown that minority managers develop psychosocial relationships with other minority employees, but must rely on
ER59632_C005.indd 136
10/4/2007 7:08:25 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
137
White managers for instrumental support (Ibarra, 1995). Similarly, research demonstrates that gay employees are often excluded from social networks that can hinder their advancement (Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996). In particular, Friskopp and Silverstein (1995) found that many gay employees feel the stress of considering the “coming out” process or fear the responses that might occur if they disclose their sexual orientation to coworkers. Many gay employees report feelings of stress, fear, vulnerability to blackmail, and other forms of harassment, as well as discomfort with socializing with other coworkers. Such reservations lead to less networking and lower selfesteem. It is important to note, however, that “coming out” was actually linked with more networking, higher job satisfaction, and higher self-esteem (see also Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Differences in expectations, less informal ties, negative facial expressions, or other more subtle behaviors do have a significant impact on women and minorities’ advancement in the workplace. Such small differences in treatment at the workplace may, over time, accumulate to large disparities. In fact, in a computer simulation study, Martell, Lane, and Emrich (1996) demonstrated that a 1% bias in performance appraisals can subsequently translate into a 15% bias over time. Similarly, interpersonal discrimination may lead to significant disparities for women and minorities. In other words, as noted previously, “molehills” of inequity over time create “mountains” of disparate treatment (Valian, 1998). Unfortunately, the empirical evidence cited here suggests that members of protected groups are not protected from these subtle forms of discrimination or their consequences. Organizational Consequences Lastly, discrimination does not only distress the targets of discrimination, but evidence also shows that it can hurt organizations. For instance, King et al. (2006) found that interpersonal discrimination resulted in negative consequences for organizations. Specifically, obese customers who experienced interpersonal discrimination purchased less than what they had originally intended to purchase, were less likely to return to the store, and were less likely to recommend the store to others than were customers who did not experience such discrimination. In addition, King and colleagues (King,
ER59632_C005.indd 137
10/4/2007 7:08:25 AM
138
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
Hebl, George, & Matusik, 2006) found that the extent to which women perceive their organization maintains an inequitable climate for women was related to decreased job satisfaction, affective commitment, and helping behaviors, and increased job stress and intentions to leave. Therefore, there is the potential of financial costs to organizations in terms of lower sales (King et al., 2006) and possible turnover (King et al., 2006). In sum, there are clear and negative consequences of discrimination for both its targets and their organizations. Interpersonal discrimination may lead to decreased performance as well as inequitable advancement rates. In addition, such discrimination is associated with negative implications for the “bottom-line” of organizations in the form of customer purchasing behaviors, as well as employee job attitudes and behaviors. Remediation Strategies for Individuals and Organizations The pernicious nature of contemporary discrimination and its consequences make it essential to identify and understand strategies that individuals and organizations may carry out to reduce such behaviors. Unfortunately, there has not been a great deal of research examining such strategies. There are at least two notable exceptions to this (King et al., 2006; Singletary & Hebl, 2006) and both of these studies examine strategies that the target (rather than the organization) can adopt. It is important to note that we do not advocate that the burden be placed on the targets, who are victims. Rather, we hope that organizations take the lead in remediating both formal and interpersonal discrimination. That said, there are effective strategies that individuals can adopt to reduce discrimination. We begin by discussing these individual-level strategies in detail and then review some findings that suggest the plausibility of certain organizationallevel strategies in reducing covert forms of discrimination. Individual Strategies for Remediating Interpersonal Discrimination In a recent study (King et al., 2006), researchers conducted a field study that examined the interpersonal discrimination (i.e., interaction length, perceived negativity, smiling) that was displayed by cus-
ER59632_C005.indd 138
10/4/2007 7:08:25 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
139
tomer service personnel toward obese (versus non-obese) shoppers seeking customer service. The authors proposed that interpersonal discrimination on the part of store personnel would be less likely to occur when justifications for expressing prejudice were removed. More specifically, according to the Justification-Suppression Model of the Expression and Experience of Prejudice (JSM; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), individuals are more likely to act on their prejudice and display discriminatory behaviors when they are given a justification for doing so. However, social constraints, values, and expectations may potentially work to remediate the display of discrimination by leading individuals to suppress their prejudice. Following this line of reasoning, King et al. (2006) manipulated high and low justification conditions through the attire of the customer (i.e., wearing unprofessional clothes or casual) in experiment 1 and through the dieting and exercising of the customer (drinking a diet beverage and commenting they exercise or drinking a high-caloric beverage and commenting that they do not exercise) in experiment 2. As predicted, King and colleagues found that when justifications for prejudice were removed, obese shoppers experienced a decrease in interpersonal discrimination: Store personnel smiled at them more and interacted with them for longer periods of time, and independent coders listening to the interactions rated less negativity in the low justification relative to the high justification conditions. The King et al. (2006) study is the first known study that specifically targets the remediation of interpersonal discrimination. In a second study by Singletary and Hebl (2006), the authors examined the potential remediation of interpersonal discrimination by examining three different strategies that gay and lesbian job applicants might adopt. First, they examined the strategy of acknowledgment, or directly referring to one’s stigma during an interaction (Hebl & Kleck, 2002; Hebl & Skorinko, 2005). Acknowledgments may be beneficial if they portray targets as well-adjusted and comfortable (Hebl & Skorinko, 2005), and if they are met by positive reactions from coworkers (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002). Acknowledgment can also reduce thought suppression or other self-regulatory behaviors, which otherwise increase the activation of stereotypic thoughts (Devine, 1998; Macrae, Bodenhousen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994; Monteith, Sherman, & Devine, 1998).
ER59632_C005.indd 139
10/4/2007 7:08:25 AM
140
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
Second, Singletary and Hebl (2006) examined the strategy of compensation, which occurs when individuals try to overcome the perceived discrimination they might receive from others by engaging in compensatory behaviors such as using humor or being overly friendly (Miller, Rothblum, Felicio, & Brand, 1995). Past research on compensatory behaviors suggests that they can be successful in reducing overt discrimination. For example, overweight individuals who anticipate the possibility of discrimination because they are told that they will seen by evaluators act in more socially skilled ways than those who are told that they will not be seen by evaluators (Miller et al., 1995). Extending this research, the authors anticipated that a compensation approach might also reduce subtle forms of discrimination by counterbalancing initially negative reactions. Third, Singletary and Hebl (2006) examined the strategy of individuation, or providing information that distinguishes oneself from the stereotype or stigmatized group (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). In this situation, individuals provided information about themselves that accentuated their unique qualities. Individuation has been shown to be successful in reducing stereotyping because it is presumed that it focuses perceivers’ attention on the target individual rather than on the larger category to which the individual belongs (e.g., race, size; Wilder, 1981). For instance, when children were told to develop distinctive and individuated views of physically disabled children, they were less likely to discriminate against them and were more likely to see them as different from each other (Langer, Bashner, & Chanowitz, 1985). In addition to replicating the original results of the previously described Hebl et al. (2002) “gay and proud” study, which showed the presence of interpersonal discrimination when confederates sought employment, Singletary and Hebl (2006) found that adopting any of the three strategies resulted in a reduction of interpersonal discrimination relative to adopting no strategy. The success of the three strategies was reported by the confederates themselves, observers of the interaction, and independent raters who later listened to audiotapes of the interactions. The strategy that was most uniformly recognized across these three perspectives at reducing interpersonal discrimination was compensation, followed by acknowledgment, and then individuation. But again, it is important to note that all three strategies produced some reduction of discrimination. Such reduction might be further modulated by examining how individual
ER59632_C005.indd 140
10/4/2007 7:08:26 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
141
differences moderate the extent to which one particular strategy is more or less effective. We hope future research might examine the interaction between individual differences, remediation strategies, and situational contexts in an attempt to identify what sort of individuals should optimally use which strategies. The King et al. (in press) and Singletary and Hebl (2006) studies confirm that being the target of interpersonal discrimination is not an immutable condition. There are behaviors that targets can adopt to prevent or ameliorate the negative impact of these more subtle behaviors. Although these initial studies have identified a few of such potential strategies, we certainly believe that there are others that are yet unexamined but may be even more successful at eliminating subtle and covert forms of discrimination. Organizational Strategies for Remediating Interpersonal Discrimination In reviewing potential remediation strategies, we feel—for a number of reasons—it is important that the remediation efforts not rest solely on the targets of discrimination themselves. First, while these strategies have been demonstrated to be successful, such strategies may require self-regulatory resources, which are limited (Baumeister, Muraven, & Tice, 2000; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000) and lead to self-depletion and exhaustion (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005). Over time these strategies may become a burden, or they may not always be feasible. For example, in interacting with other employees, a stigmatized employee might have to engage in compensatory behaviors and at the same time must focus on their work. Engaging in both work tasks and remediation strategies may require too much from cognitive and/or regulatory resources. Second, we believe putting the burden of remediation solely on targets themselves is inherently unjust. Targets should be given support and resources to overcome the negative implications that they face. Accordingly, organizations should work towards reducing resistance to diversity and its manifestation in subtle discrimination in both formal and informal ways. Formal organizational policies influence perceived discrimination and are related to perceptions and outcomes of discrimination (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). That is, to the extent that organizations offer policies that are inclusive of diverse backgrounds and perspec-
ER59632_C005.indd 141
10/4/2007 7:08:26 AM
142
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
tives, diverse employees perceive less discrimination and have more positive attitudes about their jobs (King et al., 2006; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Such policies may include educating employees about micro-inequities, welcoming same-sex partners to company social events, ensuring that the representation of minority group members in management positions is proportionally equivalent, training top management to identify and reduce interpersonal discrimination, or establishing mentoring programs to support the success of diverse individuals. Taken together, preliminary evidence suggests that organizations can help circumvent discrimination by adopting organizational policies that stress the importance of diversity. These policies may impact each component of Schneider’s (1987) attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) model of organizations. For example, past research shows that women and minorities take into account the extent to which organizations have supportive policies and structures when considering job opportunities. For example, Black applicants are attracted to organizations that consciously recruit minorities by including minority employees in their advertisement efforts more than organizations that do not do such advertising (Avery, 2003; Avery, Hernandez, & Hebl, 2004). Similarly, gay employees have more positive work attitudes and are more likely to be “out” in organizations that have gay-supportive policies than in organizations that do not have such supportive policies (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). In the selection process, valid selection procedures can be utilized to reduce both discrimination and resistance to diversity. For example, a large body of research has demonstrated that structuring employment interviews improves their psychometric properties and hinders the emergence of bias, because using predetermined questions for every applicant produces an assessment of job candidates that is less open to interviewer bias (Campion & Palmer, 1997). Not only can structure protect potential targets of discrimination, structure can also protect organizations from litigation. For example, Williamson, Campion, Malos, Roehling, and Campion (1997) linked interview structure and litigation outcomes and found that structure enhances interview reliability and validity. They found that structure is linked to litigation outcomes, because (a) structure increases consistency across candidates, which helps justify business necessity, (b) structure reduces the overall subjectivity and, therefore, potential for bias in the decision-making process, (c) and structure
ER59632_C005.indd 142
10/4/2007 7:08:26 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
143
is likely to enhance perceptions of procedural justice. Thus, structured, objective, and valid procedures for selection are more likely to reduce resistance to diversity than are unstructured procedures. In addition to the aforementioned formal organizational policies, organizations might also utilize informal strategies for reducing resistance to diversity and its manifestation in interpersonal discrimination. For example, increasing intergroup contact through social functions or teamwork can also be another strategy that organizations might adopt to remediate discrimination. Research illustrates the importance of intergroup contact for improving intergroup attitudes (Gaertner, Dovidio, Rust, Nier, Banker, Ward, Mottola, & Houlette, 1999; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000; Shelton & Richeson, 2005). In his seminal work, Allport (1954) proposed the “contact hypothesis,” which suggests that increasing intergroup contact leads to more favorable attitudes and outcomes. In other words, the attitudes of potential stigmatizers will be improved through an increase of intergroup interactions. Testing the contact hypothesis in a comprehensive meta-analysis, Pettigrew and Tropp (2000) found that increased contact was significantly related to decreased prejudice on the part of the stigmatizer. There are, however, important contingencies of intergroup contact that must be noted (Pettigrew, 1998). First, there must be mutual interdependence to accomplish and a common goal. Second, there must also be equal status, where differences are not reinforced. Third, contact should occur in a friendly, informal setting where there can be contact with multiple members of the outgroup. Fourth and last, contact is most likely to reduce prejudice when social norms promote and support equality. Thus, greater inclusion from all levels of organizations would be required for intergroup contact to be successful in reducing discrimination. Increasing contact may not only decrease prejudicial attitudes and beliefs, but may also lead to more informal network ties for women and minorities (Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996; Ibarra, 1995). Interracial contact, for example, can be quite discomforting and threatening for White individuals, because White individuals strive to behave in non-prejudiced ways. As such, they tend to avoid interracial contact (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel, & Kowai-Bell, 2001; Richeson & Trawalter, 2005). Minority members also tend to avoid interracial contact, because they are concerned with how they will be treated (Shelton & Richeson, 2005). It is no surprise then that Black and White employees tend to struggle with forming ties with each other
ER59632_C005.indd 143
10/4/2007 7:08:26 AM
144
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
(Thomas, 1990; Ibarra, 1995). However, Shelton and Richeson (2005) found that as the out-group members become a part of ones’ own ingroup, prejudicial thoughts and interracial anxiety decrease. In other words, as Black and White individuals become friendly, they are more likely to have positive interactions and become less fearful of interacting with other outgroup members. As such, organizations can help minorities and White individuals form ties with each other through informal social functions. By doing so, organizations can proactively remediate against the negative effects of avoidance and social distancing. For example, minorities and women can expand their networks, whereas White individuals lose the fear of mixed interactions. Increasing intergroup contact might also increase mentoring relationships for minority groups, which are associated with increased career satisfaction, salary compensation, and job satisfaction (Chao, 1997; Dreher & Ash, 1990). The research that we have outlined indicates that organizations can play a big role in the manifestations and consequences of discrimination at the workplace. Similarly, we propose that organizations are responsible for taking substantial initiatives in creating an inclusive atmosphere for women, minorities, and other stigmatized individuals. Organizations can adopt organizational formal and informal policies that promote diversity, structure recruitment and selection practices, and increase intergroup interactions at the workplace. Such practices can lead to positive outcomes for women and minority employees, including fair hiring decisions, reduction of anxiety and fear of intergroup contact, and improved network ties for women and minorities. Conclusions and Implications Resistance to diversity is manifested in subtle and complex behaviors that may be even more pernicious than the traditional, overt forms of discrimination typical of the past (Dipboye & Colella, 2005). The motivation for and causes of prejudice are often not due to conscious, malicious intentions, but rather due to unconscious mechanisms (Dovidio et al., 1997; Dovidio et al., 2001; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Hebl & Dovidio, 2005). As such, prejudice may manifest in negative facial expressions (Butler & Geis, 1990), body language (Hebl et al., 2002), and negative interpersonal behaviors and their interpre-
ER59632_C005.indd 144
10/4/2007 7:08:26 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
145
tation (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Hebl et al., 2005; King et al., in press). Thus, avoidance, exclusion, and social distancing may be the hallmarks of resistance to diversity in the contemporary American workplace. These subtle interpersonal behaviors may account for disparities faced by women, minorities, and other stigmatized individuals in the context of work. For example, women and minorities suffer from smaller networks and have fewer mentors at work, therefore creating barriers that can hinder their career development (Ibarra, 1995; Thomas, 1990). As another example, the behavioral manifestations of implicit, unconscious prejudice can lead to a lower selection rate for Black applicants (Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). Such discrimination can also have negative consequences for organizations including the bottom line (King et al., 2006). In addition to the costs of litigation, discrimination can influence customer purchasing behaviors (King et al., 2006) and employee job attitudes and behaviors (King et al., 2006). Given the insidious nature and consequences of interpersonal discrimination, it is imperative that both targets and organizations identify strategies through which to avoid, reduce, or remediate such behaviors. Preliminary evidence suggests that diverse individuals who address their stereotyped identity (King et al., in press), or otherwise compensate for or distinguish themselves from their identity (Singletary & Hebl, 2006), may reduce the interpersonal discrimination that they face. Furthermore, formal and informal organizational policies supporting diverse employees can be successful in attracting, selecting, and retaining a diverse workforce (e.g., Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Thus, diverse individuals and their organizations may be able to develop the tools necessary for reducing resistance to diversity. When managed effectively, diversity can be an asset to organizations. Having a diverse workforce can enhance creativity (McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996), add value to the organization in terms of return on equity, enhance productivity, and provide a competitive advantage over racially homogenous organizations (Richard, 2000). Organizations that promote and value diversity are more likely to attract women, minorities, and other stigmatized individuals, capitalizing on this diverse human capital, and are more likely have lower absenteeism, turnover, and job dissatisfaction in their workforce and attain marketplace value in terms of increased company stock
ER59632_C005.indd 145
10/4/2007 7:08:27 AM
146
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
price (Wright, Ferris, Hiller, & Kroll, 1995). Thus, with the increasing number of women, minorities, and other stigmatized individuals entering the workforce, organizations that proactively take steps to successfully manage a diverse workforce might have a competitive advantage over organizations that do not effectively manage a diverse workforce. In conclusion, understanding the dynamics of how diversity resistance manifests in interactions in the workplace adds to a more comprehensive view of the experiences of women and minority employees. This chapter described how discrimination can manifest in subtle, interpersonal ways, and illustrated that such discrimination can have negative implications for diverse employees and their organizations. Accordingly, we contend that it is critical for researchers and practitioners to work toward an understanding of strategies for proactively combating this covert and pernicious form of resistance to diversity.
References Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: AddisonWesley. Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising: Are differences black and white? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 672–679. Avery, D. R., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2004). Who’s watching the race? Racial salience in recruitment advertising. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 146–161. Baumeister, R. F., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (2000). Ego depletion: A resource model of volition, self-regulation, and controlled processing. Social Cognition, 18, 130–150. Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. M., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253–267. Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the right place: A structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539. Bray, D. W., & Howard, A. (1983). The AT&T longitudinal studies of managers. In K. W. Schaie (Ed.), Longitudinal studies of adult psychological development (pp. 266–312). New York: Guilford Press.
ER59632_C005.indd 146
10/4/2007 7:08:27 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
147
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97. Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48–59. Campion, M. A., & Palmer, D. K. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 50, 655–703. Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15–28. Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446. Dipboye, R., & Colella, A. (2005). Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 319–323. Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. G., & Rudman, L. (Eds.). (2005). On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540. Dreher, A. H., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539–546. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuation processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74. Frazer, R. A., & Wiersma, U. J. (2001). Prejudice versus discrimination in the employment interview: We may hire equally, but our memories harbor prejudice. Human Relations, 54, 173–191. Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1996). Straight jobs, gay lives: Gay and lesbian professionals, the Harvard Business School, and the American workplace. New York: Touchston/Simon & Schuster. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R., & Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of itnergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388–402.
ER59632_C005.indd 147
10/4/2007 7:08:27 AM
148
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: “Coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191–1199. Hebl, M. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Promoting the “social” in the examination of social stigmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 156–182. Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815–825. Hebl, M. R., Glick, P., Singletary, S., & Kazama, S. (2005). Hostile and benevolent behaviors toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Unpublished manuscript, Rice University. Hebl, M. R., & Kleck, R. E. (2002). Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: Effective strategy or liability? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 223–249. Hebl, M. R., & Skorinko, J. L. (2005). Acknowledging one’s physical disability in the interview: Does “when” make a difference? Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 2477–2492. Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673–704. Kazama, S. M. (2004). Manager’s distribution of developmental experiences in the workplace. Doctoral dissertation. Rice University. King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. (2006). Negative consequences of perceived gender discrimination in male-dominated organizations: A field study. Unpublished Manuscript. King, E. B., Shapiro, J., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism of remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 579–593. Langer, E. J., Bashner, R. S., & Chanowitz, B. (1985). Decreasing prejudice by increasing discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 113–120. Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.
ER59632_C005.indd 148
10/4/2007 7:08:27 AM
Exclusion, Avoidance, and Social Distancing
149
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259. McCauley, C. D., Ohlott, P. J., & Ruderman, M. N. (1989). On-the-job development: A conceptual model and preliminary investigation. Journal of Managerial Issues, 1, 142–158. McCauley, C. D., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & Morrow, J. E. (1994). Assessing the developmental components of managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 544–560. McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248–264. Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compensating for stigma: Obese and nonobese women’s reactions to being visible. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1093–1106. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85 Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, M. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261. Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164–177. Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 934–947. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 91–107. Shapiro, J., King, E. B., & Quiñones, M. (2007). Expectations of obese trainees: How stigmatized trainee characteristics influence training effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 239–249. Singletary, S., & Hebl, M. (2006). Remediating interpersonal discrimination: A field study examination. Unpublished manuscript. Rice University. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.
ER59632_C005.indd 149
10/4/2007 7:08:27 AM
150
Mikki Hebl, Juan M. Madera, and Eden King
Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194. Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management, 32, 402–423. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation of patronizing environments: the stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 658–672. Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and intergroup relations. In D. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 213–257). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Employment interview on trial linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900–912. Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effects on stock price evaluation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 272–287. Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109–120. Ziegert, J. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553–562.
ER59632_C005.indd 150
10/4/2007 7:08:28 AM
6 Traditional Selection Methods as Resistance to Diversity in Organizations Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
Society is always engaged in a vast conspiracy to preserve itself—at the expense of the new demands of each new generation. John Haynes Holmes
Over the past decade, most of the growth in the labor force has occurred among minority groups and women (Fullerton & Toossii, 2001). This shift in the labor force will accelerate in the period through 2020 because of the retirement of White baby boomers, and replacement by a much younger and more diverse population. By 2028 there will be 19 million more jobs than workers who are adequately trained to fill them (Business and Higher Education Forum, 2002). Forty percent of those available to take these jobs will be members of minority groups (Business & Higher Education Forum, 2002). Women and older adults are also potentially valuable human resources to cover projected labor shortages (Blumental, Cober, & Doverspike, 2000; Fullerton & Toossii, 2001). Accordingly, efforts to increase diversity in the U.S. workforce have become an important organizational staffing policy (Doverspike, Taylor, Shultz, & McKay, 2000; McKay & Avery, 2005). There are a number of incentives for firms to overcome resistance to workplace diversity. First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2006) received 75,428 discrimination claims in 2005. Losing a discrimination claim can be costly to organizations considering that plaintiffs can receive maximum punitive damages of $300,000 (Civil Rights Act, 1991). Furthermore, negative publicity 151
ER59632_C006.indd 151
10/4/2007 7:08:51 AM
152
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
associated with losing a discrimination claim results in reduced market share (Wright, Ferris, Hiller, & Kroll, 1995). Organizations that have a negative reputation with minority consumers may suffer lost patronage from these groups (Thomas & Ely, 1996). Minority and female job applicants also are unlikely to apply for jobs in firms thought to be discriminatory (Avery & McKay, 2006). In addition, employee turnover is nearly 40% to 50% higher for minorities and women (Griffeth & Hom, 2001), and the cost of employee replacement has been estimated at $10,000 per employee (Puget Sound Business Journal, 1998). Thus, firms stand to benefit from reducing resistance to diversity within their ranks. The link between diversity and organizational performance is predicated on the selection of top diverse talent. It is imperative for firms to use valid selection methods to maximize subsequent organizational performance. Organizations’ goal of maximizing the value of hiring decisions co-exists with their goal of increasing workforce diversity. As we discuss below, the way in which firms utilize selection methods might serve as resistance to acquiring a diverse workforce. In particular, the use of informal selection methods (e.g., unstructured interviews) and cognitive-based testing (i.e., cognitive ability tests) reduces selection rates among minority groups, which threatens workforce diversity goals (Arthur & Doverspike, 2005; McKay & Doverspike, 2001). Similarly, informal methods result in selection biases against women (Cesare, 1996) and older adults (Burke, Finkelstein, & Raju, 1995). The subjectivity of such methods increases the propensity for subtle biases and covert forms of discrimination to enter the selection decision-making process. These biases may serve as barriers to the entry of protected group members into organizations. The basic premise of this paper is that organizations must utilize valid, standardized selection instruments to reduce selection systems as a form of resistance to workforce diversity. In addition, firms should expand the number of predictor constructs measured by selection systems beyond cognitive-based tests. Although cognitive ability tests are one of the strongest overall predictors of job performance (Bobko, Roth, & Potosky, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), their use during selection results in lower selection rates among African-Americans, and to a lesser extent, Hispanics (Roth, BeVier, Bobko, Switzer, & Tyler, 2001). Also, minorities report nega-
ER59632_C006.indd 152
10/4/2007 7:08:52 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
153
tive attitudes toward cognitive-based selection methods, resulting in lower test-taking motivation and tests scores (Chan et al., 1997). Cognitive ability tests appear to reduce selection rates for older adults as well (Hough, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2001). A number of noncognitive, alternative predictor methods such as structured interviews, personality constructs, and biodata have useful predictive validities (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough et al., 2001; McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and result in higher selection rates among racial-ethnic minorities (Bobko et al., 1999; Hough et al., 2001; Huffcutt & Roth, 1998). Using these techniques may increase the likelihood of hiring a qualified, diverse workforce. In addition, we argue that personnel practitioners should include noncognitive constructs, such as personality, in selection systems to complement organizations’ diversity efforts. Extant research has identified the “Big Five” model as a valid, comprehensive classification scheme for personality. The five personality traits comprising this model include emotional stability (i.e., the degree to which one is anxious and nervous), extraversion (i.e., the extent that a person is outgoing, talkative, and assertive), openness to experience (i.e., the degree that an individual is curious, imaginative, and openminded), agreeableness (i.e., the extent that one is warm, trusting, and friendly), and conscientiousness (i.e., the degree that a person is dependable, ambitious, and reliable; McCrae & Costa, 1983). Logically, it follows that people who are emotionally stable, agreeable, and conscientious may be more favorably disposed to working with diverse others and comply with organizational diversity initiatives. To combat resistance to diversity in organizations, firms have instituted diversity management programs aimed at eliminating advancement barriers faced by members of protected groups (i.e., minorities and women). These groups have endured discrimination at work such as pay inequity, poor advancement opportunities, exclusion from key job assignments, social isolation from developmental networks, and generally discriminatory treatment (Foley, Kidder, & Powell, 2002; Hayes, 2000) that impairs their career mobility. Initiatives to address these forms of disadvantage such as mentoring programs and career development programs are put into place to promote the career advancement of these groups. However, to receive full returns on investments in diversity initiatives, orga-
ER59632_C006.indd 153
10/4/2007 7:08:52 AM
154
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
nizations should also design complementary personnel selection systems. Members of protected groups who perceive inequitable opportunity structures in firms are less likely to be hired or retained (McKay & Avery, 2005). Thus, we propose that organizations consider including alternative selection devices, such as personality variables, in selection systems in order to predict employees’ ability and willingness to interact effectively with diverse coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates in support of organizational diversity initiatives. In this chapter we pursue two major objectives. First, the effects of human resource selection on diversity in organizations are discussed. The use of traditional selection techniques such as unstructured selection interviews and cognitive ability tests results in adverse impact against minorities (Huffcutt, Conway, Roth, & Stone, 2001; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), thus reducing their hiring rates in firms. To our knowledge, no study has been devoted to examining the effects of selection systems on resistance to diversity. Second, we make recommendations to firms on selection methods that can be used to increase diversity in organizations. In the following sections, we discuss traditional selection systems and how these perpetuate resistance to the acquisition of diverse workforces. Next, we discuss the need for firms to broaden the criterion and predictor domains (i.e., job performance measures and selection methods, respectively) to select and maintain a diverse workforce. Then, several valid, alternative selection methods that may be useful for reducing resistance to workplace diversity are reviewed. A fourth section highlights the effects of composite selection batteries on adverse impact against protected groups (and older adults, where applicable) and explains how firms can select employees who will be supportive of diversity initiatives. The final section summarizes conclusions to be drawn from the chapter. Traditional Models of Personnel Selection We define traditional selection models as those that use informal methods (i.e., unstructured interviews) or those based on assessment of job applicants’ cognitive and/or psychomotor abilities in order to inform decisions about applicants’ qualifications for available jobs. Each topic is treated in detail below.
ER59632_C006.indd 154
10/4/2007 7:08:52 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
155
Informal Selection Methods A number of studies have surveyed human resources personnel as to the typical selection methods they utilize. Commonly, firms have reported low usage of valid techniques such as cognitive ability tests, structured interviews, and biographical information blanks (i.e., biodata) to select employees (Terpstra & Rozell, 1993, 1997; Wilk & Cappelli, 2003). In addition, only 24% of firms surveyed stated that they conducted validation studies to determine whether scores from selection techniques are related meaningfully to actual job performance (Terpstra & Rozell, 1997). These two characteristics, low use of valid selection techniques and failure to conduct validation studies, by omission, lead us to the conclusion that many selection decisions are based upon equivocal information. Examples of informal selection methods include unstructured interviews, managerial sponsorship (i.e., informal mentoring), and personal discussions among decision makers and recommendations about whom to promote to higher-level positions. Such informality in the selection system, as Heneman and Judge (2006) warned, can result in adverse impact against protected groups during initial selection and in advancement and promotions. The most common informal selection method is the unstructured interview (McDaniel et al., 1994). These interviews typically are not based upon job analyses used to identify important job tasks and the human attributes necessary to perform these duties effectively. Ideally, the identification of tasks and requisite talents informs the development of interview questions designed to assess whether job applicants are qualified to perform the job. Instead, unstructured interviews rely on questions posed arbitrarily by the interviewer, with applicants’ responses used by the interviewer to form a summary judgment of applicants’ fitness for the job. Unstructured interviews exhibit lower validity than their structured counterpart (McDaniel et al., 1994). Several lines of research have shown that failure to standardize interviews (i.e., to make them “structured” as described later) introduces a number of biases that can exclude protected groups from employment consideration. Unstructured interviews are a source of racial bias during the selection process. Aversive or modern racism theory states who aversive racists are individuals who openly support principles of fairness and equal opportunity, while subconsciously harboring an
ER59632_C006.indd 155
10/4/2007 7:08:52 AM
156
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
aversion of minorities (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; McConahay, 1983). In social interactions with minorities, aversively racist Whites exhibit negative nonverbal behaviors such as excessive blinking, poor eye contact, and physical avoidance (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997). Minority participants in these interactions interpret such behavior as discomfort, and further perceive accompanying positive verbal behaviors (e.g., kind words) in tandem with negative nonverbal signals. The result is minorities’ development of mistrust after such interactions due to encountering mixed verbal and nonverbal signals. Importantly, interview research findings suggest that interviewers with unfavorable first impressions of applicants show lower warmth toward them, and assign correspondingly lower interview ratings (Dougherty, Turban, & Callender, 1994; Phillips & Dipboye, 1989). These negative interviewer attitudes and resulting behaviors may undermine minorities’ communication style, rapport with interviews, and ultimately, their interview ratings (DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999). Negative nonverbal behaviors during interviews may signal to applicants that interviewers disfavor them, resulting in reduced interviewee performance and interview ratings (Dougherty et al., 1994; Phillips & Dipboye, 1989). Supporting this reasoning, Huffcutt et al. (2001) found unstructured interviews result in high adverse impact against minorities.1 Ultimately, poor interview scores will eliminate minority job seekers from the applicant pool. Unstructured interviews may introduce gender bias into the selection process as well (Cesare, 1996). Unstructured interviews result in greater adverse impact against women than structured interviews (Huffcutt et al., 2001). Gender bias in interviews is primarily a function of (1) job type bias, with females (as compared to males) receiving lower interview ratings for traditionally masculine (versus feminine) jobs, and (2) physical attractiveness, wherein attractive job applicants receive higher ratings than those considered unattractive (Cesare, 1996); moreover, this tendency is most pronounced for female interviewees (Dipboye, Arvey, & Terpstra, 1977). Age bias also may influence unstructured interview ratings. Prior studies have shown that some employers hold negative stereotypes about older adults in terms of their ability to learn new things and willingness to work long hours (Burke et al., 1995). Failure to base interview ratings on standard, job-related questions increases the likelihood that interviewer biases might influence subsequent inter-
ER59632_C006.indd 156
10/4/2007 7:08:52 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
157
view ratings. Older adult interviewees receive lower interview ratings than their younger counterparts (Avolio, 1982). In addition, more subtle biases inherent in unstructured interviewing may fuel diversity resistance during selection. The similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) holds that people prefer interactions with similar others because of perceived similarity, greater cohesion, and a strong sense of shared experiences. As a result, same-race, same-gender, or same-age interviewers and interviewees may enjoy greater rapport during interviews with favorable effects on interview evaluations. In some support of this reasoning, African-American job applicants rated White interviews as low in competence (Liden & Parsons, 1986), and job seekers in general report more attraction to organizations after interactions with same-race interviewers (Young, Place, Rinehart, Jury, & Baits 1997). Overall, the findings summarized here suggest that the use of unstructured interviews opens the possibility of biases in the selection process. As a typical form of informal selection procedures, the lesson is that use of unstructured interviews, or other nonstandardized means to make selection decisions, exacerbates adverse impact against protected groups and older adults. Cognitive- and Psychomotor-Based Selection Systems A second form of tradition selection methods includes those designed to measure job applicants’ cognitive and/or psychomotor capabilities. Cognitive ability tests provide information about applicants’ reasoning, memory, and mathematical and verbal abilities, whereas psychomotor tests examine capabilities such as speed in responding to stimuli, ability to perform manual tasks with sufficient speed and quality (e.g., typing test), and effectiveness in physically manipulating objects (Heneman & Judge, 2006). Several scholars recently have criticized current models of personnel selection as overly cognitivelyloaded (Goldberg, Zedeck, & Goldberg, 2002; Murphy, 1996). These theorists suggest personnel practitioners overemphasize the measurement of cognitive ability in selection models, and fail to measure other meaningful correlates of job performance (e.g., personality, tacit knowledge, interpersonal skills, decision-making, motivation, etc.). This ability focus is a by-product of current job analytic procedures. Job analyses are commonly designed to extract the important,
ER59632_C006.indd 157
10/4/2007 7:08:52 AM
158
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
required task duties for a position. Because task aspects of performance are best predicted by ability measures (McHenry at al., 1990), ability predictors are emphasized in selection models. A consequence of cognitively-based selection systems is the development of negative applicant attitudes toward resulting selection instruments. In particular, minorities have been shown to perceive paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests as having less face validity (i.e., the perception that test items appear valid for selection purposes), which lowers their motivation to do well on such tests (Chan & Schmitt, 1997; Chan et al., 1997). Surveys of actual job seekers suggest they view cognitive ability tests as one of the least valid (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993) and most unfavorable of all selection techniques (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004). Applicants who perceive selection methods as highly job related report more positive impressions of procedural justice (i.e., fairness of the selection process) and organizational attractiveness, and greater intentions to recommend the company to others and accept job offers (Hausknecht et al., 2004). Similarly, evaluating selection instruments as face valid is related to perceptions of procedural justice, distributive justice (i.e., fairness of selection process outcomes), test-taking motivation, attitudes toward tests, attitudes toward the selection process, and recommendation intentions (Hausknecht et al., 2004). Thus, cognitively-based selection systems pose two forms of resistance to workforce diversity, one through reduced test-taking motivation and test performance, and secondly, through fostering negative sentiments toward the selection process and firms, which lower intentions to accept job offers. Summary Two major forms of selection system resistance to workforce diversity are the use of informal selection methods and cognitive-based assessments. Accordingly, we advise that firms utilize standardized selection systems, with objectively-scored questions/test items that are based upon job analyses, to ensure applicants possess the requisite knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics such as personality (KSAOs) to perform a job effectively. In addition, it is advisable that companies broaden their conceptualizations of job performance to include important noncognitive outcomes such as
ER59632_C006.indd 158
10/4/2007 7:08:53 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
159
pro-social (e.g., helping coworkers, getting along with others) and counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., disciplinary problems, theft). This is especially important as team-based work and managing diverse workers will likely require a mix of knowledge, abilities, and personality characteristics. Broadening the job performance domain, however, would also require extending the range of selection methods beyond those of a cognitive/psychomotor nature. We turn to these two topics in the next sections. Broadening the Criterion Domain Borman and Motowidlo (1993) proposed the criterion domain (i.e., information pertaining to job performance measurement) should be broadened beyond task-related behaviors to include discretionary work behaviors that improve organizational functioning. There are two broad job performance dimensions, namely task and contextual performance. Task performance is defined as “the proficiency with which job incumbents perform activities that are formally recognized as part of their jobs” (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, pg. 73). Contextual performance represents nonrequired tasks performed to help individuals in an organization (e.g., helping a coworker with job-related difficulties, interacting in a friendly manner with organizational members) or aid the organization to run more smoothly (e.g., staying after quitting time to complete job tasks, following organizational rules and procedures, etc.; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Contextual performance can be divided further into the interpersonal facilitation (e.g., helpful, considerate, and cooperative) and job dedication (e.g., effort, initiative, persistence, and selfdiscipline) subdimensions (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Research findings support the distinction between task and contextual performance. Contextual performance predicts job outcomes (e.g., overall performance, rewards, promotions, etc.) beyond task performance (Johnson, 2001; Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000). In addition, selection measures differ in their relationships with task performance and contextual performance. Cognitive ability is significantly correlated with task performance (Hattrup, O’Connell, & Wingate, 1998; Johnson, 2001), whereas personality dimensions such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional
ER59632_C006.indd 159
10/4/2007 7:08:53 AM
160
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
stability predict contextual performance (Hattrup et al., 1998; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Johnson, 2001). In addition, contextual performance receives considerable weight from supervisors in determining their ratings of subordinates’ overall job performance (Johnson, 2001). In sum, to reduce resistance to diversity, practitioners should broaden the criterion domain to include contextual job performance. A willingness to interact and work effectively with diverse others can be conceptualized as contextual performance, given their interpersonal and discretionary nature. An example structured interview question in this regard could ask, “Describe an instance when you had to work with diverse coworkers to complete a work project. Explain how you resolved any disputes that occurred during project completion.” In diverse organizations, it will be important to select employees who are willing and able to work effectively with diverse employees. Given that similarity breeds attraction (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 1998), demographic heterogeneity could potentially increase turnover in diverse organizations (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Firms must attend consciously to staffing organizations with employees who support organizational diversity efforts. Prior research has shown that some Whites react negatively to diversity interventions designed to benefit minorities and women and/or fail to perceive the necessity of such programs (Kossek & Zonia, 1993). Thus, selection systems focused upon reducing diversity resistance should measure personality attributes (e.g., agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability) that are associated with performing positive interpersonal behaviors (e.g., interpersonal facilitation) to increase effectiveness in working with diverse employees. Broadening the Predictor Domain Goldstein et al. (2002) argue the predictor domain should be broadened to include noncognitive predictors of job performance. Cognitive ability accounts for only 25% of job performance prediction, suggesting the need for other selection measures to predict job performance more accurately (Sternberg, Wagner, Williams, & Horvath, 1995). In response, personnel selection researchers have examined the extent that alternative selection measures forecast job performance. A study showed 260 jobs could be reliably distinguished on the basis of personality requirements using the Personality-Related Position
ER59632_C006.indd 160
10/4/2007 7:08:53 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
161
Requirements Form (PPRF), a personality-based, job analysis form (Raymark, Schmit, & Guion, 1997). This suggests that attention to personality attributes in selection systems is warranted in addition to assessment of applicants’ job-relevant abilities. Below, we briefly review literature regarding alternative selection techniques applicable to entry-level and promotional hiring including structured interviews, personality measures, and biodata. We confine our review primarily to meta-analytic studies as summaries of known validity and adverse impact evidence regarding selection instruments across a broad array of jobs. Meta-analyses are studies that culminate existing research investigations to provide an overall summary of research conclusions in a particular area of study (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). During this discussion, we note potential constraints to including these methods in selection systems. Alternative Selection Methods Structured Interviews Structured interviews typically are (1) based on upon job analyses, and (2) have standardized questions, and (3) structured scoring schemes. Interview standardization decreases subjectivity, thus reducing the possibility of bias disfavoring protected groups on interview scores. In support of this reasoning, research shows that high-structure interviews result in lower adverse impact against minorities and women than low-structure interviews (Huffcutt & Roth, 1998; Huffcutt et al., 2001). Structured interviews are better predictors of job performance than unstructured interviews (Huffcutt et al., 2001; McDaniel et al., 1994). Structured interview scores are related substantially with job performance ratings (Bobko et al., 1999). These measures improve the prediction of job performance beyond cognitive ability by 24% (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998); however, structured interviews are not widely used in selection contexts (Terpstra & Rozell, 1997; van der Zee, Bakker, & Bakker, 2002). Recently, Huffcutt et al. (2001) examined the constructs measured by the employment interview and found interviews measure personality tendencies, applied social skills, mental capabilities, and job knowledge. Because of this measurement versatility, structured interviews may be developed to forecast both job applicants’ task
ER59632_C006.indd 161
10/4/2007 7:08:53 AM
162
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
performance (e.g., job knowledge, mental ability), and likelihood of performing contextual job behaviors (e.g., agreeableness, conscientiousness). In this manner, the structured interview can be used to determine applicants’ job-relevant abilities and willingness to interact favorably with diverse employees. Although interviews are related to cognitive ability (Bobko et al., 1999), it is apparent that interviews measure predictor constructs associated with lower adverse impact against minorities and women (e.g., personality, social skills, etc.). Therefore, personnel practitioners should utilize structured interviews as a compromise between predictor validity and workforce diversity concerns. Constraints. Several constraints may limit the use of structured interviews in selection contexts. First, managers perceive structured interviews negatively in terms of recruiting job applicants (van der Zee et al., 2002). Managers cited the reduced control during the interview process as an impediment to selling applicants on the attractiveness of their organizations. Second, because structured interviews are designed based on job analyses, separate interviews must be developed per job. Third, many organizations may be unaware of how well structured interviews predict job performance as few organizations conduct validation studies (Terpstra & Rozell, 1993). Finally, practitioners might lack the expertise to develop and validate structured interviews, and/or lack financial resources to have structured interviews developed externally (Terpstra & Rozell, 1997).
Personality Dimensions Personality dimensions are valid predictors of job performance. Of these, the conscientiousness dimension of personality predicts performance in nearly all jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Moreover, the addition of conscientiousness to selection systems including cognitive ability increases the prediction of job performance by 18% (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and results in low adverse impact against protected groups (Bobko et al., 1999). Agreeableness, openness to experience, emotional stability, and extraversion also forecast job performance
ER59632_C006.indd 162
10/4/2007 7:08:53 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
163
as well, sometimes to a greater extent than conscientiousness (Tett et al., 1991). In addition to task performance, personality constructs predict contextual performance. Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability all predict interpersonal facilitation (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000) and conscientiousness predicts organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) performance, such has volunteering to complete non-required job tasks (i.e., altruism) and compliance with organizational policies (Hattrup et al., 1998). Conscientiousness and emotional stability are associated with task performance but exhibit stronger relations with contextual performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). Thus, the use of personality variables in selection systems can predict the degree employees will perform discretionary behaviors on the job that increase organizational functioning. The conscientiousness dimension of personality, as measured by personality tests, has been found to predict job performance beyond cognitive ability test scores (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), and result in low adverse impact against Blacks (Bobko, Roth, & Potosky, 1999; Hough et al., 2001), Hispanics (Hough et al., 2001), Asians (Hough et al., 2001), and Native Americans (Hough et al., 2001). Similarly, small average score differences have been found when contrasting gender and age subgroups (Hough et al., 2001). Thus, use of personality measures in selection models can increase the accuracy of selection systems with little adverse impact against minorities, women, and older adults. From the above findings, employees who are high in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability are willing to perform interpersonal facilitation behaviors. Also, these individuals are prone to perform OCBs, while conscientiousness is positively related to task performance. Thus, to design less diversity-resistant selection systems, we feel personnel practitioners should utilize agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability as predictors of interpersonal facilitation and OCB aspects of contextual performance. Job applicants who are highly agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable may be more likely to follow organizational diversity initiatives and, by extension, interact favorably with diverse employees than those who lack these attributes. Agreeable and emotionally stable people get along well with others (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), while those who are conscientious tend to follow organizational policies and directives (Hattrup et al., 1998). Because good organizational
ER59632_C006.indd 163
10/4/2007 7:08:53 AM
164
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
citizens are more likely to comply with organizational rules and regulations than poor citizens (Organ, 1988), they are least likely to resist firm diversity efforts. The use of these personality dimensions, particularly conscientiousness given its validity across jobs, may serve as a less obtrusive measure of compliance with diversity initiatives than racism measures. Notably absent from this discussion is inclusion of attitudes toward diversity as a predictor construct. This exclusion was purposeful because attitudes toward diversity are not established predictors of job performance, whereas personality constructs are. However, agreeable, conscientious, and emotional stable individuals may hold positive attitudes toward diversity relative to their counterparts. Arthur and Doverspike (2005) also proposed the use of personality traits and measures of racism as potential predictors of prodiversity attitudes. Doverspike Arthur, Struchul, and Taylor (2000) suggest the likelihood of a cosmopolitan personality profile composed of a knowledge structure–personality profile that facilitates acceptance of diversity programs. Clearly, further research in this area would be fruitful for identifying selection methods that predict support for diversity. Constraints. Three major constraints exist regarding the use of personality constructs in selection systems. First, job applicants perceive personality tests as one of the poorest selection procedures in terms of job relatedness, second only to biodata (Smither et al., 1993). A second constraint is that practitioners must exercise caution in selecting personality inventories for hiring purposes to ensure such inventories do not contain invasive and/or medically related questions (ADA, 1990; APA, 1992). Third, some theorists have argued that socially desirable responding by applicants reduces the validities of personality constructs (Snell & McDaniel, 1998). Conversely, others have shown respondents vary in response distortion on personality inventories (McFarland & Ryan, 2000), and that the validities of personality measures are unaffected by inflated responses (Barrick & Mount, 1996). In fact, self-enhancement biases have been linked to positive psychological adjustment (McCrae & Costa, 1983).
ER59632_C006.indd 164
10/4/2007 7:08:54 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
165
Biodata Biodata is used to collect information about applicants’ personal history, interests, and accomplishments (Heneman & Judge, 2006). Rightfully, these instruments are identified as a selection method in that they can be used to measure a number of applicant attributes (e.g., cognitive ability, personality, integrity, emotional adjustment, etc.; Hough et al., 2001). Biodata has been shown to predict job performance effectively (Bobko et al., 1999); however, biodata scales increase validity by only 2% when supplementing cognitive ability test scores (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). A number of studies have examined group differences in biodata scores. Blacks received moderately lower average scores than Whites (Bobko et al., 1999; Gandy, Dye, & MacLane, 1994), whereas Hispanic–White score averages differ slightly (Gandy et al., 1994). Small differences in average biodata scores have been reported for gender and age groups (Gandy et al., 1994). From these findings, we surmise biodata scales are highly valid predictors of job performance that may be effective selection procedures for reducing barriers to the employment of older adults and women, and to a lesser extent, Blacks and Hispanics. Constraints. Several constraints may limit the use of biodata in organizations. First, biodata forms are developed using the criterion-keying method (Heneman & Judge, 2006). That is, biodata items are retained only if they discriminate between successful and unsuccessful employees. As such, this discrimination power may be specific to a certain sample of workers, suggesting that biodata validities may not generalize to additional samples. Results from a meta-analytic study provide support for the development of biodata forms with generalizable validities across organizations (Carlson et al., 1999). Nevertheless, it is recommended that biodata forms are validated on subsequent employee groups. Second, the development of biodata forms is time-consuming and requires a high level of technical sophistication (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Many firms may lack HR staff members who are trained sufficiently to construct biodata forms. Third, job applicants reported negative attitudes toward biodata, perceiving them as lacking validity and invasive (Smither et al., 1993). Fourth, prior studies suggest that applicants can distort
ER59632_C006.indd 165
10/4/2007 7:08:54 AM
166
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
responses to biodata items to improve their scores (Schmitt et al., 2003). Useful defenses against response distortion include requiring applicants to elaborate on their biodata answers (Schmitt et al., 2003), warning applicants against faking (Dwight & Donovan, 2003), and including only verifiable items (e.g., education, work history) on biodata forms (Becker & Colquitt, 1992). Summary Table 6.1 presents a summary of our discussion regarding alternative selection methods, available estimates of adverse impact against protected groups (and older adults), and prediction of task and contextual job performance. To maximize prediction of both task and contextual criteria, personnel selection practitioners must utilize job analytic information to develop alternative selection tools that accurately measure constructs related to task and/or contextual performance (e.g., job knowledge, conscientiousness, agreeableness, etc.). From our review, the use of personality testing has the least adverse impact against protected groups, followed in order by structured interviews and biodata. To date, no diversity-related research has been devoted to developing selection systems that reduce resistance to diversity, making this a ripe area of study for diversity scholars. Through such investigation, diversity researchers will be able to provide knowledge upon which practitioners can base the development of inclusive selection batteries. Effects of Composite Selection Batteries on Adverse Impact When designing selection systems to reduce diversity resistance in organizations, practitioners should assess the adverse impact associated with composite selection batteries. Combined usage of high and low adverse impact selection methods may not decrease adverse impact against minorities at low selection ratios (i.e., number of job openings/number of job applicants) typically used in selection contexts (Ryan, Ployhart, & Friedel, 1998). For instance, Bobko et al. (1999) reported that a four-predictor composite including cognitive ability, conscientiousness, structured interview, and biodata measures resulted in high adverse impact against Blacks.
ER59632_C006.indd 166
10/4/2007 7:08:54 AM
ER59632_C006.indd 167
.22b
.30a
rpc
.06d
.13c
dBW
.04d
—
dHW
.04d
—
dAW
.14d
—
dNAW
–.08d
.00c
dFM
–.12d
—
dYA X
TP
X
X
CP
Perceived negatively by managers; costly Socially desirable responding; low face validity Results may be sample-specific; perceived as lacking validity by job applicants
Constraints
.28a .15e .33a .08e — –-.05e X X — Note: rpc= validity coefficient between predictors and overall job performance. The standardized difference statistic (d) reports the mean difference in scores on selection measures in standard deviation units, typically scaled such that positive values indicate a score difference favoring majority groups (i.e., Whites, males, and younger adults; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). dBW = standardized Black–White mean difference, dHW = standardized Hispanic–White mean difference, dAW = standardized Asian–White mean difference, dNAW = standardized Native American–White mean difference, dFM = standardized female–male mean difference, dYA = standardized younger adult–older adult mean difference. TP = task performance, CP = contextual performance. a From “Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance,” by Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D., 1999, Personnel Psychology, 52, 561–589. With permission. b From “Personality and job performance: The big five revisited,” by Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J., 2000. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869– 879. With permission. c From “Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations,” by Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. L., 1998, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 179–189. With permission. d From “Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned,” by Hough, L M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E., 2001, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194. With permission. e From Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in selection and performance prediction, by Gandy, J. A., Dye, D. A., & MacLane, C. N., 1994, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. With permission.
Biodata
Personality(conscientiousness)
Structured interview
Predictors
Table 6.1 Summary of Alternative Predictors of Task and Contextual Performance
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations 167
10/4/2007 7:08:54 AM
168
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
To decrease adverse impact associated with composite selection batteries appreciably, practitioners may need to exclude cognitive ability tests from them. This will result in value loss of the selection system due to decreased validity (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Also, we propose during validation studies, practitioners partition criteria into their task and contextual components. Upon partitioning, alternative selection methods could be weighted based on prior validity evidence linking each predictor to task and/or contextual performance. Then, based upon company goals (e.g., workforce diversity), practitioners should choose whether to weight task performance or contextual performance validities most heavily in making final selection decisions. In terms of selection decision-making, we suggest that practitioners give greater weight to composite selection battery validities for task performance. Task performance is likely to be more important to organizational success than contextual performance; therefore, task performance validity should be given greater consideration in making selection decisions. Nonetheless, usage of the alternative selection methods described above will minimize adverse impact against protected groups, thus reducing selection systems as a form of resistance to workplace diversity. Predictor validities should be of utmost concern to ensure the legal defensibility of selection systems (Uniform Guidelines, 1978). Conclusion We have discussed formulation of a selection system designed to reduce resistance to hiring a diverse workforce. Key to this goal is utilizing standardized selection methods, broadening conceptualization of the job performance domain to include both task and contextual performance elements. In relation, personnel practitioners must look beyond commonly used unstructured interviews and cognitively-loaded, ability predictors of job performance to improve diversity in organizations. To that end, we reviewed a series of alternative selection methods shown to be valid predictors of task and/or contextual aspects of job performance, which reduce adverse impact against protected groups and older adults. In our view, selection methods that predict contextual performance may also measure job applicants’ willingness to interact effectively with diverse employees, and adhere to organizational diversity initiatives.
ER59632_C006.indd 168
10/4/2007 7:08:54 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
169
Most of the alternative selection methods reviewed here are somewhat costly to develop. In addition, a number of personnel selection practitioners may lack the expertise to develop these techniques internally, necessitating potentially expensive employment test development and validation projects. Ultimately, the issue of designing inclusive selection systems centers on companies’ willingness to pay the costs of developing and validating alternative selection techniques with low adverse impact, relative to expenditures associated with employment discrimination suits, lost business, negative organizational image, and employee turnover owing to diversity resistance.
End Note 1. A selection procedure has adverse impact when its usage results in protected group selection rates that are less than 80% of the selection rate of majority applicants. The use of such selection methods will result in fewer job applicants from protected groups being hired when positions are filled in order from the highest to lowest scoring applicants.
References American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611. Americans with Disabilities Act (1990). P.L. 101-336, Statute 327, 26, July. Arthur, W., Jr., & Doverspike, D. (2005). Achieving diversity and reducing discrimination in the workplace through human resource management practices: Implications of research and theory for staffing, training, and rewarding performance. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187. Avolio, B. J. (1982). Age stereotypes in interview evaluation contexts. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3020B (University Microfilms No. 81-29, 504). Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big-five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
ER59632_C006.indd 169
10/4/2007 7:08:55 AM
170
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261–272. Becker, T. E., & Colquitt, A. L. (1992). Potential versus actual faking of a biodata form: An analysis along several dimensions of item type. Personnel Psychology, 45, 389–406. Blumental, A. J., Cober, R. T., & Doverspike, D. (2000). Appreciating differences in work ethic: Comparing techno-saavy Generation Xers to Baby Boomers. Journal of e.Commerce and Psychology, 1, 60–77. Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561–589. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt, W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Raju, N. S. (1995). Age discrimination in simulated employment contexts: An integrative analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 652–663. Business Higher Education Forum (2002). Investing in people: Developing all of America’s talent on campus and in the workplace. Washington D.C. Carlson, K. D., Scullen, S. E., Schmidt, F. L., Rothstein, H., & Erwin, F. (1999). Generalizable biographical data validity can be achieved without multi-organizational development and keying. Personnel Psychology, 52, 731–755. Cesare, S. J. (1996). Subjective judgment and the selection interview: A methodological review. Public Personnel Management, 25, 291–306. Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (1997). Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in situational judgment tests: Subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 143–159. Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R. P., Clause, C. S., & Delbridge, K. (1997). Reactions to cognitive ability tests: The relationships between race, test performance, face validity, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 300–310. Civil Rights Act of 1991. Pub. L. No. 192-1066, 105 Stat (November 21, 1991). DeGroot, T., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1999). Why visual and vocal interview cues can affect interviewers’ judgments and predict job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 986–993.
ER59632_C006.indd 170
10/4/2007 7:08:55 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
171
Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). Sex and physical attractiveness of raters and applicants as determinants of résumé evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288–294. Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., & Callender, J. C. (1994). Confirming first impressions in the employment interview: A field study of interviewer behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 659–665. Doverspike, D., Taylor, M. A., Shultz, K. S., & McKay, P. F. (2000). Responding to the challenge of a changing workforce: Recruiting nontraditional demographic groups. Public Personnel Management, 29, 445–459. Doverspike, D., Arthur, W., Jr., Struchul, A., & Taylor, M. A. (2000, April). The cosmopolitan personality. In D. A. Kravitz (Chair), Individual differences and reactions to affirmative action. Symposium presented at the 15th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 88–102. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). The nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540. Dwight, S. A., & Donovan, J. J. (2003). Do warnings not to fake reduce faking? Human Performance, 16, 1–23. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2006). Charge statistics for FY 1992 through FY 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2006 from http://www. eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html. Foley, S., Kidder, D. L., & Powell, G. N. (2002). The perceived glass ceiling and justice perceptions: An investigation of Hispanic law associates. Journal of Management, 28, 471–496. Fullerton, H. N., Jr., & Toossi, M. (2001). Labor force projections to 2010: Steady growth and changing composition. Monthly Labor Review, 124, 21–38. Gandy, J. A., Dye, D. A., & MacLane, C. N. (1994). Federal government selection: The individual achievement record. In G. S. Stokes, M. D. Mumford, & W. A. Owens (Eds.), Biodata handbook: Theory, research, and use of biographical information in selection and performance prediction. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Goldstein, H. W., Zedeck, S., & Goldstein, I. L. (2002). g: Is this your final answer? Human Performance, 15, 123–142. Hattrup, K., O’Connell, M. S., & Wingate, P. H. (1998). Prediction of multidimensional criteria: Distinguishing task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 11, 305–319.
ER59632_C006.indd 171
10/4/2007 7:08:55 AM
172
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639–683. Heneman, H. G., III., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Staffing organizations (5th edition). Middleton, WI: Mendota House. Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194. Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897–913. Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. L. (1998). Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 179–189. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879. Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61–81. Liden, R. C., & Parsons, C. K. (1986). A field study of job applicant interview perceptions, alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 39, 109–122. McConahay, J. G. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551–558. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 51, 882–888. McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616. McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000). Variance in faking across noncognitive measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 812–821. McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. A., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 335–354. McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2005). Warning! Diversity recruitment could backfire. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 330–336.
ER59632_C006.indd 172
10/4/2007 7:08:55 AM
Traditional Selection Methods in Organizations
173
McKay, P. F., & Doverspike, D. (2001). African-Americans’ test-taking attitudes and their effect on cognitive ability test performance: Implications for public personnel management. Public Personnel Management, 30, 67–75. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 441–452. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Phillips, A. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1989). Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 41–52. Puget Sound Business Journal (1998, August 17). Survey confirms high cost of turnover. Retrieved July 22, 2005 from http://seattle.bizjournals. com/seattle/stories/1998/08/17/focus6.html. Raymark, P. H., Schmit, M. J., & Guion, R. M. (1997). Identifying potentially useful personality constructs for employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 50, 723–736. Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., III, & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297–330. Ryan, A. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Friedel, L. A. (1998). Using personality testing to reduce adverse impact: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 298–307. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., Gillespie, M. A., Ramsay, L. J., & Yoo, T. Y. (2003). Impact of elaboration on socially desirable responding and the validity of biodata measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 979–988. Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49–76. Snell, A. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (1998, April). Faking: Getting data to answer the right questions. Paper presented at the annual conference for the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. Sternberg, R. J., Wagner, R. K., Williams, W. M., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912–927. Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. (1993). The relationship of staffing practices to organizational level measures of performance. Personnel Psychology, 46, 27–48.
ER59632_C006.indd 173
10/4/2007 7:08:56 AM
174
Patrick F. McKay and Jimmy Davis
Terpstra, D. E., & Rozell, E. J. (1997). Why some potentially effective staffing practices are seldom used. Public Personnel Management, 26, 483–495. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742. Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996, September–October). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 79–90. Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A., III (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579. Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedure (1978). Federal Register, 43, 38290–38309. Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531. Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 526–535. Wilk, S. L., & Cappelli, P. (2003). Understanding the determinants of employer use of selection methods. Personnel Psychology, 56, 103–124. Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 272–287. van der Zee, K. I., Bakker, A. B., & Bakker, P. (2002). Why are structured interviews so rarely used in personnel selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 176–184.
ER59632_C006.indd 174
10/4/2007 7:08:56 AM
7 Dancing with Resistance Leadership Challenges in Fostering a Culture of Inclusion Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
An e-mail message using a racial epithet to refer to another employee is exchanged by coworkers. The e-mail is brought to the attention of the HR director, who follows up with a preliminary investigation. The person who sent the e-mail defends himself by saying that he had no idea that the depiction he used carried any racial overtones; he was merely describing the characteristics of the individual. HR informs the leader, who has been explicitly and particularly committed to increasing diversity and fostering inclusion in the organization. As word leaks out, coworkers line up on both sides of the issue—each creating their own version of what happened.
This incident could have occurred in any contemporary organization. One person sends another a comment, a note, or an e-mail, intending to discharge some annoyance or frustration. Each of the people involved—whether directly or peripherally—formulates a narrative to make sense of the incident. For some the incident appears to be simply an interpersonal issue. Others see it as a misunderstanding produced by patterns of behavior rooted in historical relationships among different identity groups, groups to which we have different connections such that some are “my group” and others are “your group” or “their group.” In short, everyone has a story not only about what happened and what it means, but also stories about their own and others’ stories (Wasserman, 2005b). The conflicting narratives that live in organizations in the conversations that people have in the hallways, in the bathrooms, and in “personal” e-mail messages often echo unresolved tension that 175
ER59632_C007.indd 175
10/15/2007 6:35:24 AM
176 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
undermines official commitment to diversity and inclusion by the organization and its leaders. Just the mere mention of diversity in organizations these days can easily evoke a sigh, accompanied by statements from dominant groups such as: “Haven’t we done enough?” “This is not my problem!” or “What do they expect from us?” These comments all can be interpreted by leaders as expressing a sense of helplessness, hopelessness, and exhaustion, and create a response that appears to surrender responsibility and accountability. At the same time we might hear comments from members of typically marginalized groups such as, “Here we go again. Am I going to be expected to bare my soul and expose my vulnerabilities so others can learn from them? I am tired of doing all the work!” How can leaders address behavior and attitudes that, intentionally or not, challenge the commitment to foster an organizational culture that actively values diversity? More importantly, what part do leaders play in creating a meta-narrative—an overarching story—in which all the members of the organization can play an active and meaningful role? As scholar-practitioners who have spent most of the past 20 years focusing on fostering diversity within organizations, we have partnered and consulted with leaders at all levels in public and private organizations about how best to design and implement strategies that maximize the benefits of diversity and foster cultures of inclusion. For us, a culture of inclusion recognizes, respects, values, and utilizes the talents and contributions of all the organization’s people—current and potential—across multiple lines of difference (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002a; Mor-Barak, 2005). In organizations with cultures of inclusion, people of all social identity groups have the opportunity to be present, to have their voices heard and appreciated, and to engage in core activities on behalf of the collective. Holvino, Ferdman, and Merrill-Sands (2004) described it this way: Inclusion in multicultural organizations means that there is equality, justice, and full participation at both the group and individual levels, so that members of different groups not only have equal access to opportunities, decision making, and positions of power, but they are actively sought out because of and with their differences. In a multicultural, inclusive organization, differences of all types become integrated into the fabric of the business, such that they become a necessary part of doing its everyday work. (p. 248, italics in the original)
ER59632_C007.indd 176
10/15/2007 6:35:24 AM
Dancing with Resistance
177
We have seen both progress and resistance to diversity and inclusion efforts. Based on our experience, we suggest that failed change efforts are less about resistance itself and more about the story that is told about it in the inner dialogue of the organization, together with what leaders and members of organizations do with that story. This chapter explores how leaders can engage resistance in support of their activities to champion diversity and inclusion in their organization. Just as fostering diversity starts at the top, so too does engaging resistance. Resistance can take many forms. The success or failure of any change initiative is determined by what leaders do with resistance (Maurer, 1996, 2002). When resistance is ignored or addressed ineffectively, it becomes a negative force that can threaten change. When leaders expect, acknowledge, and embrace resistance, it becomes a powerful instrument for change. In this chapter, we invite leaders to “dance with resistance,” and make it work for them by transforming the energy of the challenges they encounter into sources of creative opportunities. The image of dancing with highlights the dynamic aspects of engaging productively with resistance in the context of a relationship within which skills matter and in which practice improves performance. Essentially, effective leaders must listen to the story behind resistance and engage with it rather than argue about it. As in dancing, where partnering in relationship with the music makes for a better performance, leading resistance requires staying connected even when one’s toes have been stepped on. In dancing, as in inclusive leadership, the joint performance is more important than either partner’s individual needs or movements. Although leaders hold the responsibility to define the music to which the organization is dancing, as well as most often to suggest a particular choreography, the execution of the dance itself involves a performance that requires the whole system. Moreover, the art of coordinating in the process of dancing results in creating something new that would not have been possible by either dance partner alone. We begin by framing the leader’s role in designing and shaping the organizational system and in giving voice to a unified meta-narrative that supports the vision of an inclusive culture. We frame resistance as an expression of the complexities and challenges of diversity and inclusion efforts, rather than as a force to be silenced. Resistance, as such, is framed as an important force to be mined for lessons to be
ER59632_C007.indd 177
10/15/2007 6:35:24 AM
178 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
learned. Building on this, we discuss examples of how leaders can model ways to support diversity and inclusion throughout the organization through the process of “dancing with resistance.” The Role of Leaders The key role of leaders is to shape the system, to articulate a compelling vision that mobilizes groups and individuals, and to create the conditions that make that vision a reality (Oshry, 1995; see also Williams, 2005). Leaders are also responsible for holding and communicating the multiple complexities and challenges of diversity and inclusion in ways that are simple and accessible. As the framers and shapers of organizations, leaders need both to articulate and to represent a new meta-narrative,1 one that conveys a process and structure for engagement. Leaders are responsible to model this form of engagement. What Is Leadership? We view leadership as an activity that is influenced by position, type of performance, and role in the system. This view contrasts with the view of leadership as a set of personality characteristics. Thus, anyone in an organization may show leadership at various times, regardless of formal position. The same person who displays leadership at one time may not at other times. Traditional images of leaders in charge characteristic of the old “command and control” cultures no longer apply unquestionably in today’s complex environments. Contemporary organizations are characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty, and interdependence. Heifetz (1994; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002) proposes a model of leadership that distinguishes between technical problems and adaptive challenges. Technical problems call for appropriate expertise and procedures. Adaptive challenges involve situations in which there is no clear answer and that require experimentation and improvisation. When it comes to issues of diversity and inclusion, adaptive situations and challenges greatly outnumber the technical ones, making it essential that leaders be open to alternative approaches from diverse contributors. Adaptive challenges call for leaders of teams and organizations to create the conditions to mobilize groups and individuals, provide
ER59632_C007.indd 178
10/15/2007 6:35:24 AM
Dancing with Resistance
179
direction, protection, and orientation, manage conflict, and shape norms (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Considering these functions in relationship to leading a diverse workplace and fostering an inclusive culture illuminates differences between technical problems and adaptive challenges. For example, leaders who provide direction for adaptive work on inclusion might emphasize long-term strategic objectives such as ensuring an adequate future labor pool over tactical approaches that respond with a short-term view. Adaptive approaches focus on environmental responsiveness as a key rationale for increasing diversity and inclusion, with competitive advantage as a core component. With regards to managing conflict, technical problems require leaders to find ways to defuse situations and restore calm, perhaps keeping antagonists apart or otherwise emphasizing more expedient communication. Leaders engaged with adaptive challenges, in contrast, reframe conflict as an advantage, as something that expands and deepens how the organization makes sense of issues. Thus, a key leadership competency is skillfully engaging conflict throughout the organization. In many organizations, leaders are quoted in publications or shown in videos talking about appropriate behavior with regards to diversity. In adaptive situations, leaders must go beyond these behaviors on a regular basis to review, challenge, and revise norms to address and alleviate unintended consequences. One example of this would be moving beyond rewarding individual performance to also reward people for working collaboratively as they participate in teams. Because resistance to diversity often takes the form of challenging changes in norms, leaders must help associates understand that modifying norms is not about lowering standards but about expanding the range of options for being successful. Other examples show up in traditionally male occupations such as law enforcement and firefighting. As women have moved into nontraditional jobs, such as police work, some have objected by voicing the concern that women cannot handle the same physical demands as men. Others recognize the unique relational and communication skills women bring that often enable them to deal with challenging situations in different ways than men. A story in this regard was told in an educational session about how a SWAT team was preparing to go into a very explosive domestic situation in which they had to gain access to an apartment where hostages were being held. The female
ER59632_C007.indd 179
10/15/2007 6:35:24 AM
180 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
Table 7.1 Traditional versus Relational Leadership Traditional leadership
Relational leadership
Smooth things over Give marching orders Make decisions
Set courageous expectations Set boundaries and frame the intention Create a process for engagement and decision-making Elicit and facilitate Orient to process Value and pursue diversity
Tell Orient to outcomes Focus on similarity and common ground
officer kept attempting to get the attention of the male officers as they were preparing to break the door down with force. When they finally listened to her, she informed them that she had obtained the key to the door from the apartment manager while they were preparing to force entry. There are many examples of women officers being particularly skilled at de-escalating violent domestic situations by talking with people rather than resorting to the use of deadly force. Similarly, fire departments that aimed to increase their representation of women heard complaints that women would not be able to perform well because they could not lift the same amount of weight as the men. Yet they found that women offered alternative strategies that did not require heavy lifting, saving both the men and women unnecessary injuries. Building a culture of inclusion involves a new set of leadership qualities and skills including flexibility, fluidity, self-awareness and mindfulness, courage, and the capacity to be vulnerable in a powerful way. Table 7.1 focuses on this distinction between leadership qualities that were once seen as critical and relational qualities that emphasize coordinating with others in service of what needs to be accomplished. Although some view a diversity initiative as a training intervention to foster awareness among individuals, sustained change requires structural transformation that shifts the very nature of how people engage with one another. Zane (2002) makes this point in discussing the role of leadership in a major culture change process in a financial institution: Having heard what people … said, he announced … that the scope of the “managing diversity” initiative was about to be altered. … [The] unit of change had … moved from individual change, thoroughly altering
ER59632_C007.indd 180
10/15/2007 6:35:24 AM
Dancing with Resistance
181
group and intergroup relations, to creating an organization that was able to foster the development of all individuals, regardless of rank and department. In addition, he stated that the dimensions of differences to be addressed were no longer limited to race and gender but included sexual orientation, age, and any other demographic characteristic that led to marginalization. … Moreover, he wedded the diversity initiative to the need for structural change and laid out how he expected managers to use their authority. Rather than carrying out the more traditional bureaucratic functions, such as providing oversight and correction or strict gate-keeping around the information flow, managers were to become teachers, coaches, and communicators. The task of senior managers was to help people at all levels to become better problem solvers and risk takers. (p. 348)
Leading a diverse workplace in a way that fosters inclusion requires adaptive and innovative responses at various levels, including individual, group, intergroup, and systemic or organizational. It also requires dealing with particular complexities and challenges, discussed in the following sections. Complexities of Diversity and Creating Inclusive Cultures Creating and maintaining an inclusive culture is a complex and ongoing process that requires continuous self-examination and thoughtful reflection by leaders and all members of the organization. Among the many complexities of diversity, we specifically explore the dynamics of social identities within and across group differences, the contemporary manifestations of prejudice and discrimination, the social and legal environment, and the ongoing process of learning to relate with another who is different. After we outline the complexities of diversity and creating inclusive cultures, we then discuss what it means to be an inclusive leader. Social Identities as Dynamic and Multifaceted. The dynamics of social identity and the way groups identify themselves are multifaceted and are continuously changing. What was true about a group 20 years ago, and what it means to hold a particular identity, may no longer be true. For example, the labels “African American,” “Latino,” “woman,” “White,” and “lesbian” have all changed over time, both for individuals and for groups (Ferdman, 1992, 1995). There are no blanket rules for inclusion that apply to everyone at every time in every circumstance (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002a).
ER59632_C007.indd 181
10/15/2007 6:35:24 AM
182 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
The very process of building inclusion can lead to changes in the way groups behave and see themselves. This can be difficult for members of dominant groups, who must come to terms with a social identity associated with historical oppression and/or power, regardless of whether the individual experiences that association personally. For example, most heterosexuals are not conscious about how they contribute to maintaining a social system that is hostile to and sometimes even dangerous for gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. Yet, fostering inclusion across multiple sexual orientations may require heterosexual members to become more conscious of previously unexplored dynamics ranging from sharing family pictures or talking about personal events to being able to share health benefits and privileged legal status as partners. Although inequities might be perceived as more historic than present for some, part of the leadership challenge is to determine when and how to address current realities and counter challenges, particularly those faced by marginalized groups. Social Identities: Between-Group and Within-Group Issues. A second form of complexity has to do with the fact that there are both between-group and within-group differences (see Ferdman, 1992, 1995). As the issue of difference overall becomes more explicitly addressed in organizations, resistance arises because some individuals do not see themselves as the same as other members of their associated social identity groups. For example, the label African American may be applied to many people who were formerly referred to as Black. However, within this group there is great diversity, including Caribbean-Americans, African immigrants, and second-generation Africans, who consider themselves very different from African Americans who have lived on the mainland of the United States for multiple generations. Latinos are often from a range of countries, cultures, and socioeconomic classes, and have a great deal of withingroup diversity (Ferdman & Gallegos, 2001). Some gay and lesbian employees may be particularly concerned with domestic partner benefits, others are concerned that those who proselytize in the lunchroom may be homophobic, and yet others fear being “outed.” Between-group issues hold their own complexities. In one organization, African Americans and Latinos compete to be the largest minority, while Asians are often considered the “good” minority.
ER59632_C007.indd 182
10/15/2007 6:35:25 AM
Dancing with Resistance
183
These complexities vary by organization, industry, and geographic location as well as other demographics. The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice and Discrimination. A third layer of the complexity is the often subtle and covert nature of contemporary prejudice and discrimination (see, e.g., Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). Overt racist acts, for example, may be less common now than in the past. Yet inclusion requires proactive behavior and processes to subvert less overt behaviors that are not easily marked, especially in the context of contemporary human resource practices and rules. The legal system, especially in the United States, has been more likely to emphasize blatant, overt acts of discrimination, and is less willing to sanction more subtle behaviors. Traditional “ways of doing business” are often associated with such subtleties. For example, masculine notions and approaches typically “baked” into our workplaces can be oppressive for women (see, e.g., Maier, 1999). Similarly, the expectation to engage in proactive self-promotion can be challenging for people from collectivist cultures such as Latinos and Asians for whom humility is highly valued. People can be very open to diversity in terms of numbers, and yet extremely resistant to changing how they work. One of the challenges posed by covert prejudice and discrimination is that they seem to characterize only “bad” people engaging in individual acts. By focusing primarily on overt and blatantly hostile acts of discrimination, the systemic practices, norms, and behaviors that support an oppressive workplace go unchecked. Social and Legal Views. The fourth level of complexity is the social and legal views about the degree to which it is appropriate to explicitly consider and address particular social identities at work. For example, is it legitimate to create support networks based on sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, and/or gender, or are such groupings seen as “special” interests that unfairly and illegitimately divide the organization? What if a group that wants to self-associate is composed of evangelical Christians? Or environmentalists, in the context of an oil-drilling business? People are often confused about when it is appropriate to mark one’s own identities or those of others. The challenge for leaders and nondominant group members is to articu-
ER59632_C007.indd 183
10/15/2007 6:35:25 AM
184 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
late the value these groups provide to their members relative to the value they bring to the organization as a whole. For example, when Latinos have an opportunity to meet together and strengthen their collective voice, they can better support the organization’s efforts to recruit and retain Latino leaders and employees. Moreover, as diversity and inclusion initiatives succeed, and as society changes, identities that were previously hidden and/or not discussed become more salient. For example, many corporations are now dealing with their approach to transgendered employees, a topic that just a few years ago was not on the radar screen of managers. From Achieving Cultural Competence to Developing Relational Eloquence. Much of the current literature talks about achieving cultural competence (e.g., Chrobot-Mason & Ruderman, 2004). Cultural competence is focused on the skill-building of the person. In contrast, relational eloquence (Wasserman, 2005a) is a competence of continuously attending to how one is making sense or coordinating meaning with another or others in the relationship. Creating shared meaning with another who is different from you in significant ways calls on the capacity to stay engaged at a meta-level to the multiple ways in which people interpret a situation or a relationship. The theory of coordinated management of meaning (CMM) (Pearce, 2004) is both a practical theory based on a social constructionist approach to communication and a set of practical tools that help explore and unpack how people in relationships coordinate meaning. The theory is based on the belief that meaning is continuously being construed in the back-and-forth processes in conversations, in our social encounters, and in other kinds of communication events. Rather than communication being the transmission of meaning, communicating is doing something: making meaning. The key concepts of CMM are coordination, coherence, and mystery. The concept of coordinating refers to how we are continuously creating meaning in how we respond to and elicit responses. Coordination may be smooth or dissonant, intentional or unintentional. Coherence and mystery address what we do to manage meaning. We create coherence when we coordinate our narratives. Among the tools within CMM there are four particular models that help reflective people amplify different aspects of our encounters. One, the serpentine model, addresses the boundaries one uses to define the past and future surrounding the episode, be it a few
ER59632_C007.indd 184
10/15/2007 6:35:25 AM
Dancing with Resistance
185
months, a few years, or a hundred years. A second model is referred to as the daisy model, with the petals of the daisy representing the particular voices or influences one uses to interpret or make sense of the episode. We each choose, with more or less self-awareness, what frames of reference we foreground. Another model guides us to explore how meaning is made in the way we tell the story, including the parts of the story that may be untold, unknown, unheard, or even not allowed or available. The fourth model amplifies the level of context we use to make sense of the situation. Often, in conversations or episodes regarding diversity, people do not understand each other due to one interpreting the situation at different levels of context than the other. One might interpret the situation making the self or the individual central, another may be making the group or cultural identity central, and yet another may be understanding it as a history story. One may be punctuating the episode in the present moment while the other’s interpretation accounts for historical patterns that are repeating themselves in the present moment. Our narratives are woven from stories we inherit and create from our experiences. Our stories about ourselves and others are always incomplete and biased, limited by our own perspectives, histories, and purposes. Stories that differ from our own are full of rich possibilities of expanding how we make meaning. Relational eloquence is created when we stay engaged and explore what might seem to be confusing or uncomfortable episodes and create a more expansive and inclusive narrative that holds different versions side-by-side (Wasserman, 2005a). Challenges of Inclusive Leadership These complexities of diversity at work lead to particularly intricate challenges for inclusive leadership. Often diversity is framed as a dilemma to be managed. We frame the overarching challenge to be seeing the opportunity that manifests as resistance and to dance with it in a way that creates a pathway for inclusion. To do so, leaders must demonstrate a certain level of comfort with the discomfort of ambiguity and uncertainty and foster curiosity toward engaging in new conversations. This involves explicitly redefining the boundaries and rules for acceptable behaviors, thus creating the conditions to explore differences. On that basis, leaders can then begin to model
ER59632_C007.indd 185
10/15/2007 6:35:25 AM
186 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
an understanding of and relative comfort with diversity while being authentic as they use their personal experiences strategically. We expand on each of these in the following paragraphs. Explicitly Redefining the Boundaries and Rules for Acceptable Behaviors. To function properly, any organization must be explicit about rules and boundaries. Enhancing inclusion means continuously questioning and adapting those boundaries so they apply and have meaning for everyone (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002b). One source of resistance may have to do with the confusion or disorientation some experience as leaders deal with setting boundaries. Rules, behaviors, and norms are no longer clear and predictable. Behaviors and approaches that were once acceptable are no longer permitted. Finding the appropriate means of doing this requires flexibility, courage, and even vulnerability. Leaders must take these opportunities to expand the conversation and be more explicit about the rationale for certain decisions. In so doing, they can expand the boundaries of what is discussable in a way that facilitates more open conversations and interactions. The form of the conversation itself can support redefining boundaries from fixed and immutable to being constituted in an ongoing process conducted in relationship to core values and principles. Creating the Conditions for Conversations to Explore Differences. Inclusive leaders should encourage and facilitate opportunities for dialogue in their organization, particularly across multiple lines of difference. Yet, oftentimes, leadership depends on directing groups and teams to make decisions and move forward. In the context of diversity, when leaders emphasize one side at the expense of the other, resistance feelings and behavior may follow. Dealing with diversity and creating inclusion requires holding a fine balance of process and task. This calls for skilled leaders to inspire groups and individuals to be appropriately self-reflective while getting the work done. Leaders also need to make a distinction between when they are inviting dialogue and when they are not. Modeling an Understanding of and Relative Comfort with Diversity. Inclusive leaders must model a willingness to explore and engage differences and to learn to work more effectively across those differences. This necessitates a focus on their own development, par-
ER59632_C007.indd 186
10/15/2007 6:35:25 AM
Dancing with Resistance
187
ticularly with regard to intergroup attitudes and behavior, together with a willingness to engage in continuous learning about differences. Related to this, inclusive leaders need to demonstrate qualities that are often not associated with traditional notions of leadership, including flexibility, courage, and vulnerability. The challenge is how to convey these characteristics in ways that will support the diversity initiative and at the same time create a leadership presence. Doing so may require leaders to pursue learning experiences outside the organization to afford them the balance of having a place where they can be vulnerable as they learn, develop, and grow on the one hand and to demonstrate leadership within the organization on the other hand. Ultimately, the ability to model inclusion is enhanced by the capacity to be vulnerable. Being Authentic and Using Personal Experiences Strategically. Any leader is a member of multiple groups. These common bonds create an affinity with members of the organization who share that group identity. Being explicit about membership in a particular group can facilitate connection for some, while distancing others. The challenge for a leader is to be fully himself or herself in a way that fosters the ability of everyone in the group and organization also to be fully themselves (see, e.g., Berg, 2002). Understanding and Reinterpreting Resistance: Narratives and Meta-Narratives of Diversity Most dictionaries define resistance as a force that prevents or interferes with an opposing force. Viewed in this way, resistance is often framed as something to combat or conquer. We offer an alternative way of viewing resistance. By framing it as an expression, as something to be engaged with, and as a form of data to be understood, resistance can provide important information for fostering shared meaning. Maurer (1996) defines resistance as “a force that slows or stops movement” (p. 23). Despite the reference to slowing or stopping, Maurer does not regard resistance as a negative force; rather, he argues that it is a natural and often helpful component of any change process. Because people and organizations strive for stability and seek to avoid possible harm, any focus on change is likely to be accompanied by resistance.
ER59632_C007.indd 187
10/15/2007 6:35:25 AM
188 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
We suggest that resistance communicates a message of complaint that in turn can yield an invitation to responsibility. For example, a leader might respond to the complaint, “We can’t have fun anymore—we are walking on eggshells not to offend anyone” with an invitation to learn how we can have fun while being respectful. The resistance leverages turns in the conversation that could not have been possible without the initiating complaint. The rhythm of the complaint and the response creates what we call the dance with resistance. The key to effective change leadership involves understanding this process and learning how to capitalize on it—first, by recognizing resistance and, second, by working with it appropriately. Indeed, it is more often the reaction to resistance rather than the presence of resistance that is problematic, resulting in failed change efforts. As we discuss in this chapter and as is illustrated in many of the other chapters in this book, this can apply to diversity and inclusion initiatives. Like dancing, working with resistance requires gracefully and skillfully acknowledging, engaging, and moving with the forces and energy of a range of experiences and competencies, differentiated roles, and coordinated actions. Types and Degrees of Resistance The first task of leadership with regard to resistance is to recognize it and understand how it shows up. Maurer (1996) describes resistance as varying in intensity, and identifies three levels of resistance that are often misunderstood. Different types of resistance call for different responses, or coordinated action. In the midst of confusion, leaders might inadvertently pursue inappropriate or inadequate solutions despite their best intentions. Level 1 resistance is the least intense, and is usually based on the change or idea itself. Maurer (1998) refers to this as “Information.” It may derive, for example, from lack of information or exposure to the change, misunderstanding of the change, or disagreement with what is proposed. Level 2 resistance, at a midlevel of intensity, involves deeper and often unspoken issues, and is based on emotional and physiological responses to the change. Issues involved here can include fear of being abandoned or isolated or of losing power, status, or respect; mistrust; fatigue with change, generally; and organi-
ER59632_C007.indd 188
10/15/2007 6:35:25 AM
Dancing with Resistance
189
zational cultures that are bureaucratic or misaligned. According to Maurer, most resistance to organizational change is of this type and intensity. Finally, the most intense resistance, Level 3, involves deeprooted issues that go beyond the particular change at hand. These can be connected to individual or personal issues as well as intergroup differences and animosities. Also, a historical pattern of Level 2 issues can intensify into loss of hope or total lack of confidence and manifest as Level 3 intensity of resistance. In this type of resistance, simply the source of the change may be the reason people are against it, because they view that source as an enemy. In a recent interview (Chesapeake Bay Organization Development Network, 2005), Maurer summarized the concept in this way: I believe there are three levels of resistance. Simply put: I don’t get it. I don’t like it. I don’t like you. Any of those can kill a change. I use these levels as lenses to look at what’s going on. What are the Level 1 information issues that are either helping or hindering work? What are the Level 2 emotional issues—like fear? To what degree do people have trust and confidence in those leading the change (Level 3)? So you see, each level can either work for you as support or against you as resistance. I like to think of each level as a sliding scale. (p. 4)
In attempting to create more inclusive organizations, many leaders mistakenly assume that providing additional information can solve any resistance they encounter. This assumption often results in increasing the resistance as individuals continue to struggle with Level 2 and Level 3 issues, which are particularly likely in diversity initiatives. These more complex forms of resistance are related to deeper emotional reactions such as fear of feeling incompetent or fear of loss of power or control. Simply providing more information will not eliminate these deeply rooted fears. Maurer describes Level 3 resistance as the most difficult to address because it is deeply entrenched and is related to cultural, religious, or racial differences. These often come from long histories of mistrust between groups or significant clashes over values. Obviously, more sophisticated and long-term strategies are called for to begin to address the more complex levels of resistance often connected to diversity and inclusion. In other words, Level 1 tactics rarely have any impact on Level 2 and 3 challenges. In this regard, Friedman and Davidson (2001) describe the dynamics of what they call second-order diversity conflict in contrast with first-order diversity conflict. First-order diversity conflict is the
ER59632_C007.indd 189
10/15/2007 6:35:26 AM
190 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
conflict that arises based on different identities, such as intergroup discrimination. In contrast, second-order diversity conflict is the friction that arises as people react differently to the various approaches taken to address the first-order conflicts (e.g., to reduce discrimination). These authors point out that it is this latter type of conflict that tends to be relatively more hidden and more difficult to address. Moreover, how this second-order conflict is handled will affect the possibility of addressing the first-order conflicts effectively. These different kinds of reactions are typically a manifestation of a breakdown in the coordination of meaning, be it the context one is privileging, the way one is defining the past, present, and desired future of the episode, or perhaps the form and content of the storytelling. Resistance can also be viewed as an enactment of storytelling in the form of complaints. Although some of the narrative is related to long histories of mistrust between groups or significant clashes over values, an important part of the narrative is also related to a desire, fear, or a need for self or team preservation. Kegan and Lahey (2000) posit that there is much to be learned from complaints when they are understood as related to values and deeply held commitments. For example, the complaint quoted earlier, “What more do they expect?” might be an expression of a more deeply held commitment of “doing it right” and being seen as “a champion of social justice.” Like Maurer, Kegan and Lahey warn that the failure to engage and more deeply understand these complaints is the greatest barrier to dialogue and problem solving. Leaders need to listen to the stories being told beyond surface complaints and to address the deeper, underlying issues facing their organizations. Although it may seem easier in the short term to ignore or minimize resistance to their change efforts, in the long run the costs of avoidance far outweigh the benefits. Leaders who are able to understand and then mine the resistance they encounter are in a better position to develop strategies that truly address the needs and hopes of their employees. Organizations continue to cycle back over and over the same issues without addressing or resolving them because the root causes are missed in the analysis. Superficial framing of resistance often leads to superficial strategizing. Noticing resistance creates an opening for the surfacing of more and better options. One way of noticing modes of resistance is to listen to the metaphors being lived in the stories and narratives of diversity.
ER59632_C007.indd 190
10/15/2007 6:35:26 AM
Dancing with Resistance
191
The Meta-Narrative Regarding Resistance and Diversity The concept of meta-narrative draws on Arnett’s idea of a “humble narrative,” which “does not dictate the way to approach a situation, but offers a background set of assumptions agreed upon by enough people to permit it to influence everyday perception and actions” (Arnett & Arneson, 1999, p. 52). It is in the background because it guides the way people communicate rather than constituting the substance of the communication. Arnett and Arneson (1999) observe that in today’s culture, we lack agreement in fundamental areas of values, actions, and behaviors. In the absence of agreement, we make noises of cynicism. Our cynicism is almost like background noise in that we are so used to it we no longer register the sounds. We hear this form of cynicism in many of our clients. A person who feels subject to discrimination or exclusion may exhibit a performance that seems careless and insolent and express deep cynicism about whether change is possible. Yet when invited to be engaged in a way that taps into a source of meaningful contribution to him and to the organization, his performance is brighter and more energized. This demonstrates the importance of people having a story into which they can write themselves. All too often in organizations, we perpetuate cultures in which people seem like the walking dead. They operate as if on automatic, no longer able to recognize the important, the vital, and, in some cases, the sacred. They have lost their connection to being alive—at least for the 8 hours during which they operate within the organization’s walls. The call for a new meta-narrative is a call to breathe life into this resistance. By working to understand the lack of connection and working to engage with those suffering from this passivity, leaders may be able to find ways to energize diversity and inclusion initiatives, even when, paradoxically, these members of the organization initially express skepticism or even opposition to aspects of the initiative. The key is including, to the extent possible, all members of the organization in the process, and finding meta-narratives for engagement that speak to the various constituencies without undermining the effort to build a culture of inclusion (Wasserman, 2005a). Indeed, the only way to do the latter is to maintain ongoing dialogue, even in the face of opposition (Ferdman and Davidson, 2002a,b).
ER59632_C007.indd 191
10/15/2007 6:35:26 AM
192 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
Arnett and Arneson (1999) make a distinction between two modes of engagement, intimacy and civility, and their implications for making meaningful change in the engagement of diversity. They suggest that intimacy—in an age of diversity, change, and difference—keeps the structure of the conversation at the interpersonal, and so makes the issues into personal ones. Civility, they assert, calls for the construction of something that does not yet exist, “an agreed-upon communicative convention about respect for the other and our relational responsibility in an interpersonal relationship” (p. 284). Often, in their search for connection and meaning, people seek something from others. The frame of civility suggests that we are better served seeking what we can make together. We join each other in the thirdperson narrative to make sense of our shared experiences. In the next section, we give examples of typical narratives and discourses of diversity and how these can be listened to in a new way so as to better hear the commitments and possibilities that live in these stories. More specifically, we show how these stories that are often heard as complaints or manifestations of resistance can be mined for opportunities to see the same situation through different lenses. The Narratives/Discourses of Diversity There are many narratives of diversity, each offering a window into the world of competing commitments. We have chosen a few of these to demonstrate how expressions that are often easily interpreted as resistance can instead provide opportunities for jointly creating new, deeper, shared meaning that can better lead to shared commitments. These narratives, expressed as complaints, may sound like the following:
ER59632_C007.indd 192
1. It did not happen on my watch. For some, diversity is seen as an individual and strictly behavioral issue. From this perspective, we often hear statements such as: “Why should I be involved if I personally do not discriminate? I do the right thing!” This complaint can be in reference to the present—for example, the specific team or organization—as well as to the historical framing of discrimination and oppression. This complaint highlights the individual, placing patterns of discrimination and systemic issues in the background. 2. Why can’t we just move on? This voice feels impatience with people who are still telling the story of how historic patterns of discrimination still resonate in the current environment and the current
10/15/2007 6:35:26 AM
Dancing with Resistance
193
discourse. The tension in this conversation is between those who want to tell their story, be heard and understood, and those who want to move on. Paradoxically, the more one side stays with their complaint, the louder the voice of the other becomes (see Ferdman, 1997). 3. We have to do what is best and most efficient for the business. This complaint implies that it is easiest to work with those with whom we are most familiar and usually, most comfortable, to preserve the status quo. The idea of engaging with those with whom we are less familiar and therefore not as comfortable adds a level of complexity and incompetence that is perceived in some way to be bad for business. This complaint suggests that we are compromising standards rather than enhancing the complement of capabilities and views by attending to diversity.
In each of these complaints, there is also embedded a competing commitment. As both Ferdman (1997) and Thomas and Ely (1996; Ely & Thomas, 2001) point out, there is value to be gained from considering the conceptual paradigm from which particular perspectives on or reactions to diversity emanate. Ferdman distinguishes, for example, between individualistic and group perspectives on fairness. In the first, any attention to group memberships in making decisions or allocating resources is viewed as patently unfair. In the latter perspective, not attending to group memberships can result in experiencing unfairness. Thomas and Ely identify three paradigms from which individuals and organizations can approach diversity. From the perspective of the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm, the goal of a diversity initiative should be to reduce invidious distinctions based on group memberships. Thus, as in the individualistic perspective, those taking this view may see any attempt to mark group memberships as unfair or inappropriate. The access-and-legitimacy paradigm views differences as a resource to be exploited. From this perspective, the goal of diversity initiatives should be to make sure that people are able to enter and work in niches where their differences from others would be most useful to the organization. In this perspective, the problem may be viewed as insufficiently attending to other group memberships and intragroup differences. Finally, the learning-andeffectiveness paradigm involves emphasizing the ways in which differences can contribute to mutual learning and growth, both for the members of the organization and the organization as a whole.
ER59632_C007.indd 193
10/15/2007 6:35:26 AM
194 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
When diversity initiatives stem from this view, yet members of the organization understand the goal of diversity from one of the other perspectives, the response may appear as resistance. We suggest that these responses are more informative when viewed as commitments to alternative perspectives or paradigms of diversity. In the first narrative listed above, the commitment is best viewed as emanating from an individualistic perspective on fairness (Ferd man, 1997). The person expressing this complaint is also voicing a value in being someone who does not discriminate, and who is not responsible for the discrimination of others in the past or in the present. Resistance is an expression of commitment to being good, fair, and just. Underlying this commitment might be a competing commitment to security and the status quo. Engaging with that resistance would involve recognizing the value of that perspective while expanding its boundaries, so that the group perspective is no longer seen as mutually exclusive with it. It might also focus on what those expressing the position hope to preserve—for themselves, their group memberships, and the organization—that would, at the same time, support inclusion The second narrative speaks from a desire to be future-focused and move on. One way of engaging this form of resistance would be to identify the different ways various people frame or punctuate the relationships. Also helpful is making explicit the different ways in which people contextualize the present as discussed earlier, from an individual perspective versus a group or cultural lens. Just noting the difference often enables people to honor and include the others’ perspective. The third voice is one that privileges the bottom line and business success. In this narrative, diversity is good as long as it enhances the bottom line. Support for initiatives that link people internally to externally targeted markets are in alignment with this perspective. Complaints in the form of resistance are likely to be voiced when such a connection is not readily apparent as, for example, when an African-American man or a White woman is promoted or brought in from outside to lead the whole organization, including even the divisions that are not explicitly marketing to people of color or White women. The competing commitment is to assuring that the person hired for a particularly position is “competent.” Engaging the resistance would manifest in challenging the notion that diversity means
ER59632_C007.indd 194
10/15/2007 6:35:26 AM
Dancing with Resistance
195
compromising quality, and is in actuality a commitment to widening the breadth of contributions. In each of these narratives, there is a complaint that supports a commitment. In some instances, the commitment is shared. What is needed is a meta-narrative that incorporates competing commitments (which might appear as resistance) so as to support a high performing and inclusive organization. Providing and communicating this meta-narrative is a key role of the leader. Dancing with Resistance Like dancing Salsa, relational eloquence (Wasserman, 2005a), or leading in a way that invites and engages diversity, involves some basic moves. How one moves can show up in many ways in many different configurations. No two people will do it the same way. In this leadership performance, there are certain basics, yet beyond the basics, the dance will vary according to the particular relationship and the form the combined expression will take. This is a new dance. We knew the old rules. With the new dance we might be awkward at first as we learn the new form of rhythm, the new back-and-forth. We might step on some toes while we are learning. We might have moments of caution. Yet the goal is to coordinate with new and different partners toward the expression of relational eloquence (Wasserman, 2005a). The better any one of us is, the better we are. Super-good dancers can make anyone look good in step. This is what we mean by relational responsibility. Relational Responsibility Relational responsibility (McNamee & Gergen, 1999) shifts the focus from the self and the personal to the relationship and the relational. Thought, values, judgments, and conclusions do not originate in one’s mind; rather, they are construed by the “we.” In relationship, our expression of self creates or limits or judges other people’s assertions of identity; it makes space for or interrupts the coordination of different perspectives, which Pearce (1989) calls cosmopolitan communication. We arrive at a view of meaning as embedded within relational scenarios by focusing primarily on the means by which individu-
ER59632_C007.indd 195
10/15/2007 6:35:27 AM
196 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
als’ actions invite or suppress those of the others with whom they interact, and the way in which respondents’ actions determine the implication of the initial action (Gergen, 1994). All that we take to be true of nature and of mind, of self and others, thus finds its origins within relationship (Gergen, 1994), or, in Martin Buber’s (1947/ 1959) terms, “In the beginning is the relation” (p. 22). For Vygotsky (1978), the concept of the autonomous agent is a myth; each of us is constituted by the other, and we cannot deliberate or decide without implicating otherness. For others, such as Shotter (1994), Sampson (1993), and Hermans and Kempen (1993), the individual is dialogically constituted and inseparable from ongoing social process. What gets made or produced emerges from the space between, or the relationship. Thus, leaders who wish to dance with resistance must first understand the ways in which they are interconnected and moving together with those whom they are experiencing as resisting. Mindful Engagement: Generative Dialogue and Presence Scharmer’s (2000) stage-based model of generative dialogue charts the processes of discourse as groups move through four conversational fields (i.e., politeness, talking tough, reflective dialogue, and generative dialogue). Through mindful engagement, we learn to have our thoughts rather than be our thoughts. Generative dialogue practice cultivates an intersubjective space in which awareness and mindfulness can increasingly permeate the conversation. With practice, this begins to create a holding space for conversation that can support a new form of engagement that, although challenging, diminishes risks of being overwhelming or threatening. What makes generative dialogue particularly effective as a developmental holding environment are the practices of suspension and presencing, as well as the capacity to simply be and co-construct meaning from the shared presence of the group. Summary Resistance is an opportunity for leaders to mine as they champion initiatives that engage diversity and foster inclusion in their organization. It is a form of expression, a narrative that expresses concerns,
ER59632_C007.indd 196
10/15/2007 6:35:27 AM
Dancing with Resistance
197
fears, and confusion with regard to mystery and change. Leaders as the shapers of the organization’s culture need to be the voice of a unified meta-narrative that supports a vision of an inclusive culture that embraces the entire organization. The energy that lives in the stories of resistance, transformed into shared narratives, supports a culture of inclusion. Leaders who learn to “dance with resistance” model ways to support diversity and inclusion throughout the organization.
End Note 1. By meta-narrative, we mean an overarching story, or one that allows interpreting all the other stories within it. In the case of inclusion, the meta-narrative may include core values or other framing components that provide a framework not only for understanding what inclusion is and how it matters to the organization, but also for ways of being inclusive. 2. The chapter is written in full collaboration. Authorship is listed in reverse alphabetical order.
References Arnett, R. C. (1997). Communication and community in an age of diversity. In J. M. Makau & R. C. Arnett (Eds.), Communication ethics in an age of diversity (pp. 27–47). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois University Press. Arnett, R. C., & Arneson, P. (1999). Dialogic civility in a cynical age: Community, hope, and interpersonal relationships. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Berg, D. N. (2002). Bringing one’s self to work: A Jew reflects. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 397–415. Brief, A. P, Dietz, J., Cohen, R., R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97. Buber, M. (1959). Between man and man. (R. G. Smith, Trans.) Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Original work published 1947. Chesapeake Bay Organization Development Network (2005). CBODN member spotlight: Rick Maurer. Retrieved January 10, 2006 from http://www.cbodn.org/about/interviewrm.html.
ER59632_C007.indd 197
10/15/2007 6:35:27 AM
198 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
Chrobot-Mason, D., & Ruderman, M. N. (2004). Leadership in a diverse workplace. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 100–121). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The moderating effects of work group perspectives on diversity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273. Ferdman, B. M. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic diversity in organizations: Toward integrative models. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 339–384). Amsterdam: North Holland. Ferdman, B. M. (1995). Cultural identity and diversity in organizations: Bridging the gap between group differences and individual uniqueness. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 37–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferdman, B. M. (1997). Values about fairness in the ethnically diverse workplace. [Special Issue: Managing in a global context: Diversity and cross-cultural challenges]. Business and the Contemporary World: An International Journal of Business, Economics, and Social Policy, 9, 191–208. Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. (2002a). A matter of difference-Inclusion: What can I and my organization do about it? The IndustrialOrganizational Psychologist, 39(4), 80–85. Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. (2002b). A matter of difference-Diversity and drawing the line: Are some differences too different? (Or: who’s in, who’s out, and what difference does it make?). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(3), 43–46. Ferdman, B. M., & Gallegos, P. I. (2001). Latinos and racial identity development. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 32–66). New York: New York University Press. Friedman, R. A., & Davidson, M. N. (2001). Managing diversity and second-order conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 132–153. Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ER59632_C007.indd 198
10/15/2007 6:35:27 AM
Dancing with Resistance
199
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997, January–February). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 124–134. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). Imaginal dialogues in the self: Theory and method. Journal of Personality, 61, 206–236. Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245–276). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2000). How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maurer, R. (1996). Beyond the wall of resistance: Unconventional strategies that build support for change. Austin, TX: Bard Books. Maurer, R. (1998). Beyond the wall of resistance. Retrieved January 9, 2006 from http://exploringleadershipcolloq.gsfc.nasa.gov/1998-99/maurer.pdf. Maurer, R. (2002). Building capacity for change sourcebook. Arlington, VA: Maurer & Associates. Mor-Barak, M. E. (2005). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1999). Relational responsibility: Resources for sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oshry, B. (1995). Seeing systems: Unlocking the mysteries of organizational life. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Pearce, W. B. (1989). Communication and the human condition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Pearce, W. B. (2004). The coordinated management of meaning (CMM). In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing communication and culture (pp. 35–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sampson, E. E. (1993). Celebrating the other: A dialogic account of human nature. Boulder, CO: Westview. Scharmer, C. O. (2006, May). Presencing: Learning from the future as it emerges—on the tacit dimension of leading revolutionary change. Paper presented at the Conference of Knowledge and Innovation, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland. Shotter, J. (1994). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage. Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996, September–October). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 79–90.
ER59632_C007.indd 199
10/15/2007 6:35:27 AM
200 Ilene C. Wasserman, Plácida V. Gallegos, and Bernardo M. Ferdman
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society, Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. Wasserman, I. C. (2005a). Appreciative inquiry and diversity: The path to relational eloquence. AI Practitioner. August 2005, 36–43. Available from http://www.aipractioner.com. Wasserman, I. C. (2005b). Discursive processes that foster dialogic moments: Transformation in the engagement of social identity group differences in dialogue (doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(3), 1790B (UMI No. 3168530). Williams, D. (2005). Real leadership: Helping people and their organizations face their toughest challenges. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler. Zane, N. C. (2002). The glass ceiling is the floor my boss walks on: Leadership challenges in managing diversity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 334–354.
ER59632_C007.indd 200
10/15/2007 6:35:27 AM
8 Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
People are pretty much alike. It’s only that our differences are more susceptible to definition than our similarities. Linda Ellerbee
Introduction Most often when individuals think of instances of prejudice or discrimination they think of it at the individual level—where one single person’s beliefs cause them to think, and ultimately act, a certain way towards another group either because of their race, gender, sexuality, religious beliefs, etc. Generally, individuals who have feelings of this nature will attempt to remain disassociated with these “others” at all cost. Frequently, these individuals resist diversity because they feel threatened, and resistance serves a form of protection; it is a way they feel they can protect themselves from harm. This behavior is the traditional individual form of resistance (Cortina & Magley, 2003). These forms of resistance, however, are not reduced to occurring only at the individual level. Organizations, which obviously are composed of people, are also guilty of harboring sentiments of resistance towards underrepresented groups, or those lacking power. And it is within these organizations where individuals must work, that resistance ends up having a much more powerful impact on society as a whole. 201
ER59632_C008.indd 201
10/15/2007 6:36:51 AM
202
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
You may be asking why it is that resistance gains power in places where people work. Well, it is commonly known that most adults spend a great deal of their time during the day and throughout the week at work. Therefore, work environments play a crucial role on the emotional, physical, and psychological well-being of the general populace. Unfortunately, unhealthy and dysfunctional workplaces frequently exist, and serve as breeding grounds for hostility, misconduct, inappropriate practices, and harassment (Bune, 2005). Bune’s claim of the presence of these harmful work environments has been heavily supported the past several years where a number of high-profile corporations have fallen victim to corporate scandals, organizational misconduct, and subsequent major lawsuits. For instance, many are familiar with the 1996 case where the Texaco Oil Company settled an embarrassing multimillion dollar lawsuit regarding racial discrimination against African-American employees (Roberts v. Texaco, Inc., 1997). And most recently, in 2004 a federal court granted class action status to a law suit involving the Wal-Mart Corporation and its discrimination of female employees (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1998–2005). These cases, as well as others not mentioned here, have brought organizational deviance to the forefront of the American media and into the minds of America’s workforce. Above all, however, these cases have illustrated that still today corporations—even those deemed to be Fortune 100 companies—still do not fully endorse or support the principle of a fully diverse workforce. There are a number of ways organizations can illustrate that they are resistors to diversity. Many organizations engage in policies and practices that resist diversity in overt and obvious ways where there may be clear instances of discrimination and harassment, such as the refusal of advancement opportunities to Black (and other minority) workers, despite their being overqualified. Sometimes, organizational forms of resistance manifest in ways that are passive aggressive. For example, when organizations engage in secondary victimization—where minority groups have no recourse for the discrimination they confront (Murphy, 2001). An experience of this nature can eventually lead the victimized to accept their treatment, because they feel that they ultimately have no other choice. There are other organizations that may confront diversity in the exact opposite way—on the surface that is. These organizations may visibly seem to be actively engaged in diversity efforts (i.e.,
ER59632_C008.indd 202
10/15/2007 6:36:51 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
203
diversity training), but are really covertly resisting deeper levels of change related to diversity within their organization. Most often in these cases a mixed message is sent, where leadership perceives itself to be fully committed to diversity, while doing nothing more than maintaining the status quo. The message sent to the employees is that the company is concerned and committed to diversity, but only to a certain extent that may not subsequently afford workers equal opportunities for development and/or promotion regardless of their differences. This chapter will go into further depth regarding these various forms of organizational resistance to diversity. It will highlight cases of retaliation, and discuss the negative climates that are more conducive to having resistance. Additionally, it will go into greater detail regarding cases of secondary victimization, discussed above. And lastly, the chapter will conclude with a discussion of organizational resistance to diversity as it is directed toward new targets in America’s workforce—Latinos and the gay and lesbian workforce. These two groups compile the “newly discriminated against” and often lack access and inclusion, respectively. Their treatment, although new, very much mirrors and mimics the treatment and resistance faced by the other minority groups that came before them. Organizational Forms of Resistance Illegal HR Policies and Practices The most recognizable forms of organizational resistance are those that are reflective of intentional and overt actions. Oftentimes, organizations may actually have policies and practices that actively perpetuate the exclusion of particular workers based on their racial, gender, or some other social group marking/membership. An example of such resistance occurred in 2004 with the popular, trendy, and upscale clothing line tailored for high school- and college-aged students from middle- and upper-class families, when a class action lawsuit was settled that challenged Abercrombie & Fitch’s antidiverse workforce practices. Abercrombie became well-known for its recruitment and advancement procedures that were directly aimed at supporting young, attractive White employees that closely resembled the models appearing in the company’s catalog and other advertise-
ER59632_C008.indd 203
10/15/2007 6:36:51 AM
204
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
ments—thereby restricting the hiring and promoting of individuals from underrepresented groups. The few minorities who were hired were purposely assigned jobs in the back stockroom, where they would be off the sales floor, thus allowing for limited interaction with customers. In one reported incident, five Asian-American workers were fired after a visit from a member of senior management and replaced with a White sales staff (Dermody, 2004). Supporters of Abercrombie argue that Abercrombie’s corporate culture is one that identifies its target customers to be White Americans and should therefore be permitted to hire a staff that resembles its customers. It is illegal, however, for a company to design policies and procedures that favor one race over another. Favoring of race is deemed illegal, because there are few jobs, if any, where race can be deemed a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), which is defined as a characteristic that is necessary to properly perform a job (Williams, 2003). Thus, ultimately Abercrombie was ordered to distribute $40 million to individual class members who charged the company with discrimination. Further, the company paid another $10 million to cover both court fees and to fund the hiring of a new vice president of diversity and 25 recruiters to seek out female and minority applicants (Ganzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 2005). The Abercrombie example is just one of many cases of organizational misconduct centered on workplace discrimination and harassment. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in 2003, over 14,000 cases were reported regarding employees’ complaints of workplace harassment, and over 13,000 were based on race, national origin, and gender alone (http://eeoc. gov/stats/race.html). Although these cases may be at the forefront of the media, rarely does one consider that it takes one organizational member who is brave enough to address unfair policies and procedures, deviant behaviors, or practices in order to implement change in the organization, and essentially help create a better working environment for all employees. Such people are commonly referred to as whistle-blowers—individuals who blow the whistle on hidden and immoral activity that manifests itself in organizations on a dayto-day basis. Whether it be mishandling of money, discrimination of employees, or general harassment, these individuals bring issues to the surface by voicing their opinion, and vocalizing their dissent or dissatisfaction with organizational practices.
ER59632_C008.indd 204
10/15/2007 6:36:51 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
205
Employees who face harassment or discrimination on a regular, daily basis may not choose to “blow the whistle”; instead, they may choose to remain silent and therefore not vocalize their frustration, dissatisfaction, or discontent with current organizational policies. Other individuals in similar situations may choose to do nothing in fear of the repercussions of reporting ill practices, whereas others exit the organization in efforts to escape constant victimization. Although all three options are ways to combat workplace misconduct, reporting organizational wrongdoing is the one option that has the greatest potential to lead to even more abuse, harassment, and victimization. Even though there are laws that are supposed to protect these individuals from retaliation of corporations, in regards to termination, promotion, and other organizational procedures, the harassment of many of these individuals only begins after they have made a formal complaint. Even though the victimized are innocent, they may not always receive sympathy or help, even when it may be desperately needed. Oftentimes, these blameless individuals are devalued, avoided, ignored, and even blamed themselves (Correia, Vala, & Aquiar, 2002). Therefore, in addition to having to deal with a negative situation that originally victimized the individual (primary victimization) (Brickman, Rabinowitz, Karuza, Coates, Cohen, & Kidder, 1982), the person must also deal with being victimized yet again (secondary victimization) (Brickman et al., 1982). Formally, secondary victimization has been defined as a negative social or societal reaction to the victimization, and is experienced as further violation of rights of the individual (Montada, 1994). Much of the literature regarding secondary victimization focuses on a wide variety of situations such as sexual abuse of women (Penfold, 1992), unemployment (Kiselbach, 1997), people with HIV (Seigel, Lune, & Meyer, 1998), cancer victims (Stahly, 1988), battered women (Rosewater, 1993), and crime victims (Orth, 2002). Although secondary victimization literature has not yet been clearly linked to the workplace, it is very relevant to the work environment and occupational literature. When reflecting on our original discussion of how work members are treated after they vocalize or report their dissatisfaction or dissent with a certain practice, policy, or procedure, secondary victimization can help explain how they are treated in the workplace. When an employee speaks out about a discriminatory practice
ER59632_C008.indd 205
10/15/2007 6:36:51 AM
206
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
or policy they face the possibility of being secondarily victimized by their supervisors, colleagues, associates, and friends. People in the organization may view the victim as a “trouble maker” and may choose to isolate themselves from the victim. Coworkers may feel the person is not a team player and exclude them from social and professional activities. Workers and supervisors may also blame the individual for the incident or the downfall of the department or organization, and purposely turn against them in the workplace. Lastly, reports of misconduct may be disregarded and ignored by supervisors, which further victimizes the individual due to the fact that they have suffered from the primary victimization of the misconduct and are victimized again by the lack of response to their initial concerns. Although the aforementioned examples are more covert forms of secondary victimization, there are overt forms such as verbal and physical abuse and/or harassment. Some examples of overt forms of workplace harassment include: yelling, public humiliation, glaring, cursing, withholding needed information and/or resources, assigning unrealistic job demands, and removal of certain job responsibilities (Lewis, Coursol, & Wahl, 2002). Moreover, supervisors and managers can have a great deal of power and control over an employee and their professional career development; thus, they can attempt to literally destroy the employee by sabotaging and tainting their work performance and relationships with other influential leaders in the industry. Therefore, individuals who have been forced to deal with an initial victimization by harassment, discrimination, or workplace mistreatment are then victimized again for the incident. Even though they may not face retaliation from the company itself, the subtle, social, and professional exclusion from coworkers and supervisors is enough for anyone to have an unhealthy and stressful work experience. In fact, secondary victimization may even be as damaging, if not more damaging, than retaliatory behavior. Therefore, all of these examples of secondary victimization could lead to the creation of an even greater hostile and turbulent working environment—particularly for the whistle-blowing employee. Negative Climate for Diversity Secondary victimization can strengthen the hostility of a work environment. Imagine working in an environment where you feel you are
ER59632_C008.indd 206
10/15/2007 6:36:51 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
207
unwanted, unsupported, and everyone is against you. How would you feel about going to work everyday? How could you continue to be productive in a dysfunctional environment? There is nothing worse than to enter a job everyday where the tension is so thick you can cut it with a knife. Considering the workplace is where most adults spend most of their time, the climate in that environment is extremely important to one’s state of mind and work effectiveness. No one likes the idea of being excluded and ostracized in any type of group setting, especially in an environment like the workplace where most people spend the majority of their day. Secondary victimization can create a hostile environment where the working conditions are so unpleasant for the victim that it can be difficult for individuals to do their jobs effectively. This type of environment can cause stress and physical illnesses that can further affect an individuals’ job performance. Also, if managers or supervisors are aware of this victimization, it may be added work for them to try to control the situation and improve working conditions for the victimized employee. Furthermore, a hostile work environment can make other employees uncomfortable to the point that the whole unit becomes unproductive, ineffective, and essentially unsuccessful. Another implication of secondary victimization is that it may prevent people from speaking out and vocalizing their dissent regarding discriminatory practices or procedures. If individuals witness others being harassed and further victimized after reporting workplace misconduct, it may make people apprehensive about vocalizing their concerns for other issues. Why would a person report any type of organizational misconduct after seeing a fellow coworker’s complaints ignored? Why would someone report misconduct in the workplace after seeing a coworker being harassed and victimized on a consistent basis as a result of vocalizing his concerns? Thus, secondary victimization creates anxiety in the workplace, which impacts others who observe the victimization and remain in silence about their feelings and opinions for fear of being recipients of victimization themselves (Bune, 2005). Furthermore, a person who is also being victimized in the workplace can vicariously experience secondary victimization by watching a coworker go through the whole ordeal. Those who are victims, and who witness coworkers being secondarily victimized, are extremely uneasy, nervous, and anxious about reporting their situation. Thus,
ER59632_C008.indd 207
10/15/2007 6:36:51 AM
208
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
witnessing secondary victimization in the workplace deters other people from coming forward and reporting their own victimization. Aside from the emotional impact of secondary victimization, this type of harassment and victimization can have major economic costs for organizations and serious personal and professional costs for the targeted individuals (Lewis et al., 2002). If employees who have already been victimized are victimized again by their coworkers and/or supervisors, they can become unhappy and feel as though the only relief for their victimization is to exit the organization. Although there has not been much research done in the area of secondary victimization and the workplace, considering this type of victimization is related to harassment literature, studies have shown that individuals who have been harassed were less satisfied with their jobs, experienced higher levels of stress, exhibited emotional and physical illnesses, and were more likely to express a desire to leave their positions (Quine, 1999). Furthermore, witnesses of secondary victimization may also be dissatisfied with the work environment and may feel the need to leave a stressful and unpleasant situation. Therefore, since people who are victims probably exhibit low job satisfaction, they probably will leave the organization. Having key people exit positions because of secondary victimization can negatively affect the organization in regards to economic factors (i.e., employee turnover rate). Also, secondary victimization may cost the organization if the victim decides to take legal action in a harassment lawsuit. One example of a costly law settlement is the $2.1 million racial harassment suit involving a nursing home in St. Louis, Missouri. Nine employees with Beverly Enterprises, Inc., claimed that the administrator of the nursing center “pursued a campaign of flagrant harassment against the facility’s predominantly Black workforce during 1993 and 1994” (http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-2-01.html). Additionally, this supervisor required that applications be coded with a smiling face if the applicant were White, a frowning face if the applicant were Black. When employees (both Black and White) refused to follow, or complained about, such egregious procedures, the administrator retaliated by discharging them or forcing them to resign (http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-2-01.html). This case exemplifies the notion that as an employee in the U.S. you are permitted certain rights under the law regarding your employment. These rights include protection from former and cur-
ER59632_C008.indd 208
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
209
rent employers who choose to retaliate against an employee who has alleged organization wrongdoings that are covered under Title VII. Thus, employees should not feel helpless in situations where they feel they are being mistreated or dehumanized. There are numerous channels, depending upon the type of employer, they should consider and possibly take. Emerging Forms of Resistance The composition of the workforce will continue to change due to rigid labor markets and changes in demographics and immigration. In regards to ethnic demographics, with an assumption of a continuation of recent immigration rates, the foreign-born population in America will grow from 19.8 million in 1990 to 31.1.million in 2010, with the majority of immigrants coming from Latin America and Asia (Pitkin & Simmons, 1996). Latinos, for example, accounted for almost half of the national population growth of 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005 (Bernstein, 2006). They are entering the workforce in record numbers, which causes resistance from individuals who are not ready for this change. The workforce also continues to resist gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers. And these individuals may be in the worst predicament of all marginalized groups because, unlike gender and racial/ethnic minorities, they are not protected under Title VII of the Constitution. Thus, their rights and privileges are currently only enforced at the organizational level (and state level, in a few instances), rather than at the national level. Therefore, the potential harassment and exclusion these employees may face is worsened by the fact that oftentimes there are no outlets for retribution to be made. The following section will focus on both of these newly emerging groups in America’s workforce, with emphasis on their current plight and struggle for acceptance. Latinos in the Workforce As the fastest growing minority group in America, Latino Americans have driven racial and ethnic diversity. Where most immigrants came from European countries during the 1950s and 1960s,
ER59632_C008.indd 209
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
210
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
today many immigrants are native-born Mexicans comprising almost half of the immigrant population (Census, 2000; Deavers, Lyons, & Hattiangadi, 1999). The Latino population is projected to grow by 6.1 million between 1990 and 2010, which will account for approximately 53% of the total growth of the foreign-born population (Pitkin & Simmons, 1996). Moreover, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2005 Latinos continue to be the largest minority group in the United States at 42.7 million (Bernstein, 2006). Considering the immigration rates of Latino Americans, it is projected that in the year 2020 Latinos will make up 14% of the American workforce, exceeding African Americans in the labor market, which is projected to remain at 11% (Deavers et al., 1999). With the influx of Latino Americans and the shifting dynamics in America, specifically in the workplace, organizations are faced with many challenges in regards to adapting and changing with this growing population—and with change comes resistance. One major form of resistance towards Latino workers are Englishonly policies. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2000, 18% of Americans over the age of five spoke a language other than English in their homes, and since the Latino population is the fastest growing ethnic minority group in America, the Spanish language is the second largest language spoken by Americans other than English (Census 2000). Between 1990 and 2000 Spanish speakers grew by about 60% and the Spanish language was spoken more than any other language in all regions of America (Census 2000). In response to the growing number of non-English speakers, employers are beginning to establish and enforce English-only policies, In which employees can only speak English during work hours. Since the implementation of these policies, the EEOC has been dealing with 228 charges of English-only type of discrimination cases in the workplace since September 2002, which is an increase of 91 cases since 1996 when the EEOC first began tracking English-only cases (Valenti, 2003). Recently, companies such as the InterContinental Hotel Group’s Holiday Inn Express and LVMH Group’s Sephora USA have faced allegations of discriminatory English-only policies. Whereas Holiday Inn Express settled out of court, Sephora continues to deny the charges (Grow & Sager, 2004). Focusing on the Sephora case, female workers that are suing Sephora feel that Latinos were targeted, considering other employees were allowed to speak their native languages during the work day (Valenti, 2003). Furthermore,
ER59632_C008.indd 210
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
211
Premier Operator Services, Inc., a former telephone long-distance company, recently lost a case against 13 Latino workers who were fired and retaliated against after filing discrimination charges with the EEOC and refusing to sign the restrictive language policy that only allowed workers to speak their native language when assisting non-English-speaking customers (EEOC, 2000). These cases, along with the timing and history of “English-only” policies, suggests that Latino workers are the primary targets of these policies, which further supports the notion that employers are resisting demographic changes, specifically the increase of Latinos in the workplace, by forcing employees to speak only English during their work hours without this restriction’s being a business necessity. Fatalities and injuries among Latino workers have also become a major concern for organizations. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between the years of 1994 and 2003, workplace fatalities among Latino workers have risen more than 27%, whereas overall workplace fatalities dropped nearly 16% (Occupational Hazards, 2005). Due to this alarming rate of fatalities, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) have attempted to revamp some of their existing programs and training, and have begun to create new efforts to hopefully help reduce workplace injury and fatalities among Latino workers. There are many reasons why the Latino population suffers from more workplace injuries and deaths than any other population. Immigrant Latinos are more likely to take high-risk jobs, such as jobs in construction or manufacturing, according to Daniel Morales, spokesperson for the DOL (Brown, 2003). Furthermore, many Latino workers do not know or understand proper safety procedures, according to Hector Escarcega, Bilingual Solutions International (Los Angeles), and faculty member of Region 9 Training Institute of OSHA (Contractor’s Business Management Report, 2005). In some instances, Latinos may not be offered safety training due to the language barriers that exist between workers and supervisors (Schramm, 2003). Thus, one of the most common protections denied immigrant Latino workers is the right to a healthy and safe work environment (www.workplacefairness.org). Many Latino workers are not given the opportunity to properly learn safety rules, which is discriminatory on the part of the employer. Furthermore, immigrant Latino workers may not feel comfortable complaining about not understanding safety procedures for fear of being fired
ER59632_C008.indd 211
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
212
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
from their job. In a study conducted by the Center for Urban Economic Development, investigators found that out of the workers fired because of unverified Social Security numbers, 25% of those employees felt they were fired for complaining about unsafe working conditions (Mehta, Theodore, & Hincape, 2003). Therefore, employers who refuse to modify safety training and information to ensure that it is understandable for non-English speakers are ultimately resisting the changing demographics in the workplace. Another form of resistance is general racial discrimination towards Latino workers. The National Survey of Latinos found that 31% of the approximately 3,000 Latino participants reported that they or someone they knew had suffered job discrimination based on their racial and ethnic background within the past five years (HR Magazine, 2003). Fourteen percent of the participants reported experiencing discrimination in regards to hiring practices and promotions (HR Magazine, 2003). Furthermore, 78% of Latinos surveyed thought bias was a major problem in the workplace, and 82% felt that discrimination in the workplace continues to be a major problem that keeps them from succeeding in organizations. To support these findings, the EEOC recently settled a national origin discrimination lawsuit against the successor of US WEST Communications, Quest Communications International, Inc., based on Latino employees who were denied promotions to management jobs (EEOC, 2006). Although the company denies the allegations, they agreed to settle the suit for $400,000 on behalf of the Latino employees (EEOC, 2006). Thus, organizations continue to resist Latino workers by discriminating against them in the workplace. Furthermore, legal doctrines such as Proposition 187, which denied immigrants healthcare, education, and other benefits in California, reveal people’s opposition towards foreigners, especially Latino immigrants. Proposition 187 passed with 59% majority vote, where two out of three voting White Californians voted for the proposition, exhibiting their sentiments of unease over immigration (Chavez, 1997). After the passage of proposition 187, U.S. Representatives and lawmakers submitted bills in efforts to deal with immigration, and just this past year the Senate passed a new immigration bill that focused on controlling the borders and enforcing the employment regulation in which being an undocumented immigrant is considered a felony (Babington, 2006). Although this new immigration bill is still under consideration, these discrimina-
ER59632_C008.indd 212
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
213
tory laws reveal people’s resistance toward Latinos—particularly in regard to their presence in the workforce in America. SGAO Individuals in the Workforce The inclusion and fair treatment of minority group members remains ubiquitous in today’s society, and yet, specific groups continue to face resistance. The topic of human rights for “same-gender affinity orientation” (SGAO) has gained increased publicity over the past 30 years, and there continues to be a great deal of debate over individuals who are attracted to the same gender for personal and intimate relationships. In the corporate world, the term “affinity orientation” is preferred to “gay,” “lesbian,” or “bisexual” in an attempt to de-emphasize the private sexual lives of individuals and redirect attention to the qualifications and performance of the individual employee (Bennett-Alexander, 1994; Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2005). Recently, transgender individuals, identified as persons who express gender characteristics that do not typically correspond with characteristics traditionally ascribed to his or her gender, have been included in the SGAO group (Human Rights Campaign, 2005). Moreover, as transgendered individuals are gaining protection under affinity orientation laws, they are not experiencing the resistance commonly faced by other minority groups. The topic of human rights has not always been at the top of our nation’s agenda. In the recent past, individuals risked persecution or imprisonment for acting upon their same-gender affinity through behaviors such as attending gay bars or engaging in intimate samegender relationships. Before 1969, if a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person was to resist arrest for these illegalities, he or she could incur physical harm or even death. In June of 1969, patrons of The Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City’s Greenwich Village, demonstrated uncharacteristic resistance resulting in a week of riots and the birth of the gay civil rights movement. Since this historic event, SGAO individuals continue to press for human rights in every aspect of society (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2005; Carter, 2004). Even today, SGAO individuals continue to experience discrimination, persecution, and the negative stigma that much of our society attributes to affinity orientation. Coincidently, while writing about this historic event in American history, the Cable News Network (CNN)
ER59632_C008.indd 213
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
214
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
documented the current SGAO rights movement in Moscow. The broadcast illustrated, in brutal detail, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered activists in Russia displaying uncharacteristic resistance toward shocking physical and verbal violence from local authorities, the Russian police, radical nationalist youth, and conservative religious groups. As the violent and frightening news segment drew to a close, the correspondent stated with hope, “ … at least the issue of gay rights is being debated in Moscow … ” (CNN, 2006). The United States has certainly made tremendous strides in legally supporting SGAO individuals in the workplace, even though Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include explicit protection for SGAO individuals. For instance, there are currently state employment anti-discrimination laws for SGAO individuals in Washington, D. C., California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Illinois, New Mexico, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. It is also important to recognize that city or local ordinances may include protection for SGAO members even if a business operates in a state without statewide anti-discrimination laws. Most recently, at least 532 cities and counties prohibit discrimination in public and/or private employment (HRC, 2006). Furthermore, if an SGAO employee experiences discrimination and resides in a state that does not include specific anti-discrimination laws, he or she, if employed by the state or federal government, may still be able to file suit under either the state or federal equal protection, or the due process of law provisions. Under an equal protection suit, an SGAO employee is required to convince the court that the employer treated him or her differently from other similarly situated employees, for no reason that is justified by law. On the other hand, if the complainant files the suit as a procedural due process case, the accuser would need to demonstrate termination without proper notice or an opportunity to respond prior to the termination (Bennett-Alexander, 1994; Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2005). These laws, which do not purposely protect SGAO individuals, extend basic human rights to all American citizens. An unprecedented campaign promise made by former President Bill Clinton led to a national debate whether to allow SGAO individuals to serve openly in our military ranks. The resulting controversial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy receives frequent criticism because it violates First Amendment rights by prohibiting Ameri-
ER59632_C008.indd 214
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
215
cans from disclosing their same-gender affinity orientation. One of the chapter’s authors recalls his own personal experience in the late 1990s as an enlisted member of the U.S. Navy working in the legal office on the USS INDEPENDENCE (CV-62). While living on this aircraft carrier for three consecutive years, inhabited by 5,000 men, it was clear that most SGAO group members were actually well-protected under the policy; however, it was the opposite-gender affinity orientation (i.e., heterosexual) enlisted men who used the policy as a means to easily exit the military. As military officials became aware of this interesting and somewhat amusing irony, they began to demand convincing evidence from enlisted men claiming to be SGAO group members. In response, some creative sailors asked male friends to send graphic romantic letters from home and still others purchased subscriptions to magazines depicting nude males. On the surface this policy appeared to be helpful for all sailors; however, the drawback was the considerable waste of tax dollars used to fund “witch hunts” against suspected SGAO sailors and the high cost of dismissing trained sailors simply because they claimed to be gay. A recent financial analysis conducted by the Government Accountability Office, after correcting for severe underestimations in a previous audit, reported a total cost of at least $368.8 million spent by the U.S. government to discharge and replace suspected SGAO individuals for breaching the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy from 1994 to 2005 (Blue Ribbon Commission Report, 2006). This considerable waste of tax dollars warrants immediate discussion to reconsider updating federal policy to protect and allow SGAO individuals to serve openly in the military. Although the federal government experiences at best modest progress toward full inclusion, American businesses and educational institutions, on the other hand, are making tremendous strides. Numerous private organizations and educational institutions are implementing laws to protect SGAO individuals from experiencing discrimination. Several national organizations have emerged to assist with these laws, to promote civil rights, and to inspire all Americans to end discrimination against SGAO individuals. One group, Lambda Legal, provides employers with a wealth of information to aid in creating a friendly workplace, implementing a nondiscrimination policy, creating an SGAO resource group, and addressing “safe space” recommendations (Lambda Legal, 2004). Similarly, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) prepared a pamphlet called “The
ER59632_C008.indd 215
10/15/2007 6:36:52 AM
216
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
State of the Workplace” for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. It discusses important issues in the workplace, including a comparative checklist of the standard employer-provided domestic partner health benefits used by HRC to survey Fortune 500 companies (Human Rights Campaign, 2004). With the use of this checklist, HRC recently identified over 100 companies, employing 5.6 million people, which included policies explicitly addressing the fair treatment of SGAO individuals as well as equal healthcare benefits for domestic partners. Due in part to the work of these organizations dedicated to promoting SGAO civil rights and the growing number of laws to protect them, many American business leaders have updated their corporate policies in the absence of explicit federal law. HRC President Joe Solomonese commented on the success of American companies by saying, “Equality now illuminates thousands of factory floors, board rooms, and cubicles across America. Corporate America knows that treating employees fairly is not just the right thing to do, it’s good for the bottom line” (Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2005). Fortunately, the sentiment of HRC President Solomenese is shared by many state, city, and local authorities, educators, and business professionals interested in both promoting civil liberties and the resulting increased profit margins of a content and more productive workforce. The common report of mistreatment and harassment towards SGAO employees in the workplace, however, illustrates that perhaps not all of corporate America knows that treating all employees fairly is “the right thing to do.” Future Implications and Conclusion The importance for organizations to embrace, rather than resist, diversity is becoming a very important issue, given that organizations are becoming increasingly global. Companies like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, and McDonald’s currently enjoy brand names that are recognizable around the world. Thus, global companies are challenged to adopt fair human resource policies that are present in not only their offices in the U.S., but those worldwide as well. Ultimately, it is the company’s responsibility to treat its employees with respect and fairness. However, there is much debate as to the exact type of policy to adopt, which countries’ laws are relevant, or who has the right to
ER59632_C008.indd 216
10/15/2007 6:36:53 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
217
sue. In comparison, the current global debates over environmental standards, tariffs, and trade agreements exemplify the complex and sluggish pace at which all counties are subject when attempting to reach an agreement (World Trade Organization, 2005). We are hopeful that organizations will learn from the past mistakes made by the organizations mentioned in this chapter. Perhaps costly court settlements will encourage organizations to take the initiative to write and implement human resource policies and procedures that protect the rights of all of its employees and encourage proper diversity practices. References Babington, C. (2006, May 26). Senate approves immigration bill. Washington Post.com, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/ article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501548.html. pA01 [accessed on June 3, 2006]. Bennett-Alexander, D. D. (1994). The employment nondiscrimination act: A primer. Paper presented at the Midwest Academy of Legal Studies in Business, March 14, 1996, Chicago, IL. Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2005). Employment law for business (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Bernstein, R. (2006, May 10). Nation’s population one third minority. http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/releases/archives/population/006808. html [accessed on June 2, 2006]. Blue Ribbon Commission Report (2006). Financial analysis of “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: How much does the gay ban cost? Retrieved June 7, 2006, from http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/Publications/2006-FebBlueRibbonFinalRpt.pdf. Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Karuza, J., Coates, D., Cohen, E., & Kidder, L. (1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychology, 37, 368–384. Brown, C. S. (2003). U.S. Labor Department launches Latino safety program. www.diversityinc.com [accessed on August 27, 2003]. Bune, K. (2005). A hostile work climate creates employee victimization. PA Times, p. 5. Cable News Network (2006, May 27). Moscow gay rights rally broken up. Retrieved May 28, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/ europe/05/27 /russia.gayrights.ap/index.html. Carter, D. (2004). Stonewall: The riots that sparked the gay revolution. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
ER59632_C008.indd 217
10/15/2007 6:36:53 AM
218
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
Chavez, L. R. (1997). “Immigration reform and nativism” from Immigrants out!: The new nativism and the anti-immigrant impulse in the United States, New York: New York University Press, pp. 61–77. Contractor’s Business Management Report (2005, August). Safety training strategies for Latino workers. 2005, 8, p. 8. Correia, I., Vala, J., & Aquiar, P. (2002). The effects of belief in a just world and victim’s innocence on secondary victimization, judgments of justice and deservingness. Social Justice Research, 14(3), 327–342. Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247–265. Deavers, K. L., Lyons, M. R., & Hattiangadi, A. U. (1999). A century of progress…a century of change. The American Workplace, 2–103. Dermody, K. (2004, November 18). $40 million payment, detailed plan for diversity in employment discrimination suit against retail giant Abercrombie and Fitch. Comtext News Network. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1998–2005). Wal-Mart gender bias. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://www.lopezhodes.com/wstv/ walmart-consumer.php?id=2. EEOC (2000, September 19). Court speaks: English only rule unlawful; awards EEOC $700,000 for Hispanic workers. http://www.eeoc.gov/ press/9-19-00.html [accessed on June 3, 2006]. EEOC (2006, April 12). EEOC settles lawsuit on behalf of Hispanic employees. http://qqq.eeoc.gov/press/4-13-06.html [accessed on May 19, 2006]. Ganzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (2003–2005). Discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. settled. Retrieved May 10, 2005, from http://afjustice.com. Grow, B., & Sager, I. (2004, September 20). Hispanics learn to cry foul. Business Week, 3900, p. 14. HR Magazine (2003, February). Hispanics see discrimination in the workplace. p. 16. Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2004). State of the workplace for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. [Brochure]. Retrieved May 28, 2006 from http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publications1/State_of_the_Workplace/Workplace0603.pdf. Human Rights Campaign Foundation (2005, September 20). Best and worst companies for gay and transgender employees revealed. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.hrc.org/ Template.cfm?Section=Corporate_Equality Index&CONTENTID= 2\8966&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm.
ER59632_C008.indd 218
10/15/2007 6:36:53 AM
Cases in Organizational Resistance to Diversity
219
Kieselbach, T. (1997). Unemployment, victimization and perceived injustices: Future perspectives for coping with occupational transitions. Social Justice Research, 10, 127–151. Lambda Legal (2004). Creating an LGBT-friendly workplace. Retrieved May 28, 2006 from http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgibin/iowa/documents/record2.html?record=1496. Lewis, J., Coursol, D., & Wahl, K. H. (2002). Addressing issues of workplace harassment: Counseling the targets. Journal of Employment Counseling, 39, 109–116. Mehta, C., Theodore, N., & Hincape, M. (2003, November). Center for Urban Economic Development, Social Security Administration’s NoMatch Letter Program: Implications for Immigration Enforcement and Workers’ Rights. (http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued/npublications/ recent/SSAnomatchreport.pdf) [accessed on June 3, 2006]. Montada, L. (1994). Injustice in harm and loss. Social Justice Research, 7, 5–28. Murphy, B. C. (2001). Anti-gay/lesbian violence in the United States. In D. J. Chrstie, R. V. Wagner, & D. D. Winter’s (Eds.). Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 28–38. Occupational Hazards (2005, August). Latinos fatalities rise. 67, 8, p. 10–10. Orth, U. (2002). Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Social Justice Research, 15(4), 313–325. Penfold, P. S. (1992). Sexual abuse by therapists: Maintaining the conspiracy of silence. Canadian Journal of Mental Health, 11, 5–11. Pitkin, J. R., & Simmons, P. A. (1996). The foreign-born population to 2010: A prospective analysis by country of birth, age, and duration of U.S. residence. Journal of Housing Research, (7) 1–32. Roberts v. Texaco, Incorporated. No. 94 Civ. 2015(CLB) (July 29, 1997). Rosewater, L. B. (1993). Counseling battered women. Journal of Training and Practice in Professional Psychology, 7, 67–80. Schramm, J. (2003, April). Immigration at work. HR Magazine, 48(4), p. 160. Seigel, K., Lune, H., & Meyer, I. H. (1998). Stigma management among gay/ bisexual men with HIV/AIDS. Qualitative Sociology, 21(1), 3–24. Stahly, G. B. (1988). Psychosocial aspects of the stigma of cancer: An overview. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 6, 3–27. Valenti, C. (2003). When the boss says English only. ABC News: AOL News. www.aolsvc.news.aol.com [accessed on December 12, 2003]. Williams, C. (2003). Management (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
ER59632_C008.indd 219
10/15/2007 6:36:53 AM
220
Matthew S. Harrison, Wendy Reynolds-Dobbs, and Brian Roote
World Trade Organization (2001). EEOC settles racial harassment suit with St. Louis nursing home for $1.2 million. Retrieved November 5, 2005 from http://www.eeoc.gov/press/7-2-01.html. World Trade Organization (2005). Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wto.
ER59632_C008.indd 220
10/15/2007 6:36:53 AM
9 Now You See It, Now You Don’t Mixed Messages Regarding Workforce Diversity Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
There is a famous English proverb that reads, “Actions speak louder than words.” Such a proverb would be meaningless if there were perfect alignment between what people say and do. The reality, however, is that there is often discord between (a) what people say they believe, (b) their actions, and (c) their actual beliefs. Take, for instance, a father who routinely advises his daughter that stealing is wrong, yet the father cheats the government each year on his tax return. What are the father’s true sentiments concerning stealing? Is there dissonance between what he is telling his daughter about theft and what he really believes? Why is he telling his daughter one thing, but doing something different altogether? Although these questions are provocative, perhaps the most important question is this: What message is the father sending via this inconsistency? The preceding scenario is an example of a mixed message. Although that situation pertains to parenting dynamics, similar events commonly take place in organizational settings as well (Argyris, 2003; Porter, Lorsch, & Nohria, 2004). For instance, in a classic example of a mixed message, L. Dennis Kozlowski (former chief executive officer of Tyco) recently was caught embezzling millions of dollars from his company after previously having condemned others at Tyco for similar behavior (Maremount, 2005). Furthermore, a study of accounting firms revealed that messages about their cultures sent to insiders were significantly different than those sent to outsiders (Holmes & Marsden, 1996). Organizations also tend to send mixed messages in how they manage diversity (Konrad & Linnehan, 1999; D. Thomas, 2001). Sometimes the formal stances advocated publicly 221
ER59632_C009.indd 221
10/4/2007 7:10:22 AM
222
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
are poorly aligned with the actual management practices utilized internally. In other instances, interpretations of the messages that companies are attempting to convey through their diversity strategies vary considerably from what is intended. Irrespective of the type of mixed message, the results can be damaging in that potential and actual employees and customers may be dissuaded by the mixed messages they receive. The purpose of this chapter is to examine how mixed messages about diversity are manifested. We begin by defining the construct of mixed messages and explaining why they are problematic. Next, we examine how common diversity tactics (e.g., diversity celebrations, affinity groups) and human resource management (HRM) practices (e.g., staffing, promotion) can produce mixed messages about the value of diversity within a firm. To conclude, several suggestions for alleviating mixed messages are discussed in detail. What Are Mixed Messages and Why Are They Important? Through the course of daily operations, a variety of messages are sent and received in organizations. Some of the messages are routine and intended. For instance, each morning could begin with the boss assigning every employee a list of tasks for completion that day. Other messages may be atypical and unintended, such as a boss taking a day off to care for a sick loved one, which could signal to employees that family is more important than work (Spence, 1973). In short, these messages allow organizations to communicate to their employees the values that form the basis of the company’s culture. On occasion, there is discord between messages received by organizational stakeholders (e.g., customers, employees, shareholders). Argyris (2003) satirically described what he coined “skilled incompetence” as the basis for mixed messages in organizations. He claimed that managers often (a) convey ambiguous messages, (b) ignore any inconsistencies, (c) make the ambiguity and inconsistency undiscussable, and (d) make the fact that the mixed message is undiscussable also undiscussable. Although his observation was intended to be lighthearted, it does help to conceptualize mixed messages, which we define as those that are inconsistent with existing knowledge due to their contrast in content or ambiguity.
ER59632_C009.indd 222
10/4/2007 7:10:22 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
223
Whereas “consistent messages are believed, trusted, and respected,” mixed messages are problematic in organizations for a variety of reasons (Boyer & Webb, 1992, p. 40). First, by sending conflicting signals, they often produce role conflict, which tends to generate negative psychological reactions (Schaubroeck, Cotton, & Jennings, 1989). Second, mixed messages can promote feelings of uncertainty, which are related closely to perceptions of fairness, satisfaction, and exit intentions (Lind & van den Bos, 2002; O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994). Third, mixed messages can undermine the cultural values of a company and a leader’s ability to garner support (Cha & Edmondson, 2006). Fourth, if the mixed message pertains to diversity, it may be interpreted as a breach in the psychological contract among minorities, thereby resulting in decreased satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Chrobot-Mason, 2003). Finally, and the most pertinent to the current discussion, mixed messages are indicative of diversity resistance. You cannot have mixed messages unless one of the messages is undermining the importance of diversity. Given the potential impact of mixed messages in organizations, it seems clear that organizations would want to avoid such an occurrence. Unfortunately, the literature suggests that many organizations are doing a poor job of sending clear messages where diversity is concerned. In fact, Donoho (1995) reported 74% of survey respondents believe organizations are merely paying lip service to diversity programs. In the next section, we turn our attention to examining how mixed messages concerning diversity are manifested.
The Manifestation of Mixed Messages Regarding Diversity Few, if any, firms would declare to their stakeholders that they place little to no value on diversity because of concerns about potential backlash affecting profits. Put another way: That’s why you don’t hear companies say things like, “We have a homogenous workforce, and we plan to keep it that way.” On the contrary, many of those firms that end up getting “busted” for the discriminatory or harassing practices of their employees or management continue to publicly “embrace” corporate diversity. (Capowski, 1998, p. 16)
ER59632_C009.indd 223
10/4/2007 7:10:22 AM
224
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
Although firms publicly profess their commitment to diversity, many of their actions send mixed messages to their stakeholders. Falling into this category are several of the tactics that companies use in an effort to demonstrate their commitment to diversity. Though the intentions underlying their use of these tactics may be honorable, the execution is at times questionable, thereby producing mixed messages. Here, we discuss five such tactics: affinity groups, diversity councils, diversity celebrations, mentoring, and institutional colorblindness. Additionally, firms may send mixed messages about their commitment to diversity through their HRM practices. A firm that professes to value diversity, but exhibits White bias in favor of a majority group in its HRM practices is sending mixed messages. Consequently, we discuss the roles of staffing, placement, performance appraisal, compensation, and promotional systems in this context. Diversity Tactics Affinity Groups. We’ve all heard the saying that there is power in numbers. In organizations, minorities may find that their collective power exceeds their power as individuals. Consequently, one tactic gaining popularity in organizations is the use of affinity groups, also referred to as employee network groups (Friedman, 1996). These groups are formed based on membership in a stigmatized group (i.e., female, racial/ethnic minority, GLBT, disabled). Because all members share the particular identity trait, the groups are expected to provide advocacy and psychological support for their members. Conversely, organizations are thought to benefit from affinity groups based on their propensity to build bonds among employees, thereby enhancing morale and decreasing members’ propensity to turnover. A review of the practical literature reveals no shortage of advocates for affinity groups (e.g., Abelsson, 1999). For instance, Fisher (2004) claims that many organizations “sponsor ‘affinity groups’— in-house organizations for women, African Americans, and Hispanics—to give members a sense of solidarity and mutual support” (p. 60). Similarly, Frank Howell (head of diversity at JP Morgan Chase) feels that such groups enhance employees’ perceptions of person– organization fit, assist in career development, and enhance retention (Network groups, 2002). Nonetheless, it should be noted that not all companies are in agreement about the use of the tactic. In
ER59632_C009.indd 224
10/4/2007 7:10:22 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
225
fact, UPS doesn’t have them and their absence from the company is intentional. When asked why not, Lee Soupata, their senior vice president of human resources, stated, “We don’t want to accentuate differences among us” (Fisher, 2004, p. 60). Although empirical research on the effects of these groups is somewhat scarce, there are a few key findings in the literature. For example, Friedman, Kane, and Cornfield (1998) found that, although network groups (i.e., affinity groups) had no effect of perceived discrimination, they did have a positive impact on the career optimism of Black managers. They concluded that much of the positive impact of affinity groups is due to the increased mentoring opportunities that it creates (a topic that we discuss later in greater detail). Subsequently, Friedman and Holtom (2002) found that minority managers in network groups reported significantly lower intentions to turnover than minority managers that were not in network groups. More recently, Friedman and Craig (2004) investigated the motives of minority employees for joining these groups. They found that individuals join for identity support and career enhancement, even though they often anticipate that others in the organization may react negatively to their decision to join. Thus, it appears that affinity groups can have positive effects on the work attitudes of their members. The preceding discussion provokes the following question: If affinity groups generally tend to have positive effects, how can they produce mixed messages about the company’s position on diversity? By creating or promoting network groups, firms are sending at least two conflicting messages. The first, which is positive, is that the company recognizes the diversity among its employees and the need for some types of accommodation of these differences. The second, which is negative, is that the concerns of diverse employees are their own and are not those of the organization as a whole. Friedman (1996) discusses these mixed messages in wondering whether separation (i.e., the formation of an affinity group) can truly help to enhance integration, which usually tends to be an ultimate goal of the affinity group. We concur with his assessment that affinity groups have the potential to be positive vehicles for change, but that they must be integrated within a larger organizational process for managing diversity. Specifically, affinity groups must ensure their purpose is articulated clearly and linked to “adding value” to the organization (Conklin, 2000). Organizations can enhance the impact of affinity groups by having senior level executives involved
ER59632_C009.indd 225
10/4/2007 7:10:22 AM
226
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
as sponsors/mentors to the groups, holding periodic meetings with executives to discuss major concerns and propose solutions to these issues, and making any events sponsored by the affinity groups available to any interested employee. General Electric took this approach with its African-American Forum, which was fully endorsed and advocated by then-CEO Jack Welch (see D. Thomas, 2001, or Friedman & Davidson, 2001, for more on overcoming resistance to these groups). Diversity Councils. Companies often send mixed messages when attempting to demonstrate their commitment to diversity through their organizational structure. One of the more popular approaches appears to be the use of formal diversity councils, which can take one or more of many forms. For instance, some organizations endorse rather informal groups to champion the issues of traditionally underrepresented employees. Others create formal committees charged with ensuring that the company does a good job of acquiring diverse employees, leveraging the assets that they bring, and/or providing general oversight for the direction of the diversity efforts. This practice of forming diversity councils, however, often is managed poorly, thereby leading employees to draw their own conclusions about the authenticity of the organization’s commitment to diversity. Most commonly, diversity councils tend to lack the authority or support from senior leadership to help enact the mission with which they are charged. In other instances, they are seen as the company outsourcing its responsibility to manage diversity or as mere busy-work unlikely to produce real change. Worse yet, it appears that many have no formal mission statement altogether. We begin with a couple of personal anecdotes. In our own experience in university settings, we have served on a number of diversity committees and councils. Although the individuals on these committees almost overwhelmingly are well intentioned, little gets accomplished. There are several reasons for this inactivity. First, these groups often lack a formal charge provided by the institution. Consequently, much of the discussion among the membership centers on what the group can and should be doing. This distracts attention from the members focusing on developing and implementing sound ideas for improving the diversity climate at the institution. Second, even when these groups do have a charge, they often find themselves formally disconnected from the organizational hierar-
ER59632_C009.indd 226
10/4/2007 7:10:23 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
227
chy. Consequently, the group lacks the requisite authority to enact or implement any of the ideas formulated in its meetings. A third point, which is related to the second, is a lack of genuine commitment to the group on the part of senior leadership. Often, the council is unable to garner the attention of, or support from, top management, resulting in the entity feeling marginalized and ultimately becoming ineffective at driving change. Finally, these groups often are formed haphazardly, with little attention paid to who should serve on the committee. Accordingly, the typical council member is of a protected or stigmatized group (e.g., minority, female, disabled, gay/ lesbian/bisexual/transgender [GLBT]) and holds a position in the organization that possesses little power. Such composition makes it increasingly difficult for council members to have their concerns taken seriously by the organization’s power brokers. A cursory review of the practical organizational literature reveals that our observations appear to generalize to contexts other than academic settings. For instance, Verna Ford, the vice president of a prominent diversity consulting firm, recently discussed several of the factors that lead to the success or failure of diversity councils. She stated that, “without the visible and ongoing support and involvement of the most powerful individuals in an organization, no diversity council would see any of its proposals become reality” (Ford, 2001, p. 69–70). Furthermore, she discussed the common mistake of utilizing solely volunteers, instead arguing in favor of a “diagonal slice” approach, which entails strategically appointing individuals from various hierarchical levels and disciplines. Doing so helps ensure both ample representation from various departments within the firm, and sufficient senior leadership to make certain the council’s voice is heard. The net effect of the frequent mismanagement of diversity councils discussed above is often damaging. Rather than coming to see diversity councils as true vehicles for producing organizational change, employees are apt to become cynical about their utility and wonder that if the organization really cared about diversity, why wouldn’t (a) they make diversity everyone’s responsibility instead of forming councils, (b) the councils do more than mere busy-work, (c) there be more support for the councils, and/or (d) someone from senior leadership be appointed to them? Hence, the organization initially may have formed the council to help demonstrate to its employees that
ER59632_C009.indd 227
10/4/2007 7:10:23 AM
228
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
it is concerned about diversity, but the failure to provide the proper backing instead conveys a mixed message. This is not to say that diversity councils should not be pursued or should be abandoned by organizations committed to diversity. Quite the contrary, councils can be effective when implemented properly and adequately supported. One way to ensure that councils send the intended message is to utilize strategy in assembling the council membership (Ford, 2001). For instance, D. Thomas (2004) provides a detailed discussion of how IBM strategically assembled its diversity task forces in the 1990s to mirror the marketplace. The chief executive officer (CEO), Lou Gerstner, made a decision that IBM needed to become more committed to diversity, despite the company’s already solid reputation in this regard. To do so, his senior leadership team formed task forces to advocate for groups such as Black, Hispanic, female, White male, and disabled employees. However, not just any employees were appointed to the task forces. Rather, only members of the particular constituencies possessing executive status were considered. Co-chairs of each task force also were appointed. In order to fill these roles, Ted Childs, IBM’s director of diversity, “recruited high-performing, well-respected senior managers and junior executives who were at least the director level” (D. Thomas, 2004, p. 100). Finally, each task force was appointed an executive sponsor from the company’s worldwide management council (WMC). Collectively, these steps assured that the views of the task forces were taken seriously. Accordingly, the groups produced considerable progress (e.g., increases in executive representation of previously underrepresented groups of up to 370%) and sent a crystal clear message that diversity is important to senior leadership. Similarly, other evidence further suggests that diversity councils can prove efficacious when company executives emphatically support their cause (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). For instance, Matton and Hernandez (2004) studied ten companies to determine the “makes and breaks” of diversity initiatives. Their results indicated one way CEOs can effectively demonstrate their commitment to diversity is to include diversity council participation as part of the development path for senior leadership positions. As we have argued here, they concluded that, “the company’s commitments to these councils create some accountability for sustaining the programs in order to maintain the company’s credibility” (p. 53). To put it succinctly,
ER59632_C009.indd 228
10/4/2007 7:10:23 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
229
providing strategy and support for diversity councils reduces the likelihood of sending mixed messages to employees. Diversity Celebrations. Another tactic firms commonly use to illustrate their commitment to diversity is organizationally sponsored diversity celebrations. Although these can vary considerably, most involve the company dedicating some time and resources to promote awareness of individual differences. For instance, corporate giant Wal-Mart has produced and given away publications honoring Black history during February for each of the last five years. “Multicultural days” also have become common occurrences at many companies. In fact, the U.S. Army and Citibank formally celebrate Hispanic heritage month (McCrea, 2004). Pillsbury offers ethnic cuisine and hosts ethnic specialty events in its cafeteria. Apparently, a number of companies believe these celebrations help send the right message about diversity to their workforces. Despite the growing popularity of this practice, there is reason to believe the messages sent by diversity celebrations are not as unambiguous as companies might hope. Take the aforementioned WalMart. We noted only one of the company’s many annual formal diversity celebrations. These celebrations, however, are taking place as the company is embroiled in a number of potentially damaging lawsuits for allegedly discriminating against current and prospective employees on the basis of sex, race, and physical ability to name a few (Glater, 2005; Hays, 2005; Mitchell, 2005). Although we do not equate claims of discrimination, lawsuits, and settlements with actual discrimination, at a minimum, they suggest the company’s commitment to diversity is less certain than the celebrations would lead one to believe. Further, when organizations promote an inclusive workplace where all employees are respected, then decides to celebrate only certain groups, this can send a mixed message to group members who are not being celebrated. Joplin and Daus (1997) discuss how this type of situation can produce “feuding factions” that exacerbate the challenges of leading diverse organizations (p. 40). For example, if the organization decides to recognize African Americans or Hispanics, but not Asians or the GLBT communities, what message is sent? Perhaps this explains why Frost (1999), in discussing the worst diversity practices utilized by organizations, identified diversity celebrations among the top 10. Specifically, she surmised that,
ER59632_C009.indd 229
10/4/2007 7:10:23 AM
230
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
“although these celebrations are important as components of larger strategic business goals, if they are not a part of a larger strategic plan, over time managers and employees will clearly see the company’s lack of focus, true commitment, and subsequent results” (p. 12). Likewise, we contend that these celebrations can prove useful in enhancing general awareness of differences and potentially boosting morale. Nevertheless, if organizations do not invest in eradicating discriminatory behavior that these celebrations are often intended to mask or alleviate, the result is apt to be a myriad of mixed messages delivered to employees. Mentoring Programs. The popularity of mentoring programs in industrial settings continues to increase. With respect to diversity, organizations often utilize mentoring programs to appeal to minority and female job applicants because such programs are believed to help promote equal opportunity (Avery & McKay, 2006). Mentoring, the pairing of an often younger, less experienced employee (protégé) with an often older, more experienced employee (mentor) to aid in the development of the former, has been shown to result in higher salaries, more promotions, and greater perceptions of career success among former protégés compared to similar individuals that have not had mentors (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004). Recently, however, an important qualification to these findings has emerged, in that the characteristics of the mentor are important determinants of the effectiveness of the mentoring (Judge, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Bretz, 2004; Tonidandel, Avery, & Phillips, 2007). In particular, protégés whose mentors have higher performance histories and perform at higher levels during the mentorship subsequently tend to perform at higher levels themselves relative to former protégés of less successful mentors. Unfortunately, many in corporate America have yet to truly embrace what Ragins (1997) referred to as diversified mentoring. Diversified pairings involve mentors and protégés that are demographically dissimilar (e.g., different race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). Although such relationships can involve some initial difficulty in establishing norms for interaction, there are significant drawbacks to limiting mentoring dyads to demographically similar employees. First, there is a paucity of high-ranking minorities and women in many organizations (Morrison & von Glinow, 1990), as well as members of other marginalized groups. Thus, prospective
ER59632_C009.indd 230
10/4/2007 7:10:23 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
231
protégés belonging to these groups are restricted severely in terms of the availability of suitable mentors. This restriction is complicated further by the fact that the available potential mentors often fail to engage in role modeling (Jandeska & Kraimer, 2005). Second, because members of these groups traditionally were excluded from upper-level positions, current female and minority executives tend to have disproportionately less power than their White male peers in similar positions (Ragins, 1997). Hence, they are less able to sponsor their protégés when it comes to helping them secure plum assignments and promotions. The findings of D. Thomas’ (2001) research on race and mentoring help to further illustrate this point. In a 3-year study of mentoring at three large U.S. corporations, he observed several racial differences in the career trajectories of minority and White employees. One finding that is particularly germane to the present discussion is the importance of having demographically dissimilar mentors for minorities. It is extremely difficult for minorities, or women for that matter, to gain the breadth and depth of contacts needed to reach the executive level without developing diversified relationships. Thus, a well-intentioned mentoring program that fails to provide women and minorities with access to powerful White male mentors creates a powerful mixed message. Specifically, it says opportunity is available to White males, but limited for everyone else. It is also important here for us to recognize the distinction between formal and informal mentoring. Informal mentoring occurs when protégés and mentors naturally gravitate toward one another and form developmental relationships. Formal mentoring is systemically arranged by the organization, pairing mentor and protégé. One reason that organizations develop formal mentoring programs involves the tendency for dominant group members (who hold a disproportionately high share of powerful positions) distancing themselves from minority group members. This distancing results from stereotypes, fear that minority protégés may fail, the potential for the relationship to be misperceived (e.g., male mentor/female protégé), and general apprehension regarding working closely with dissimilar others (D. Thomas, 1993; K. Thomas, Hu, Gewin, Bingham, & Yanchus, 2005). This makes it relatively unlikely that minorities will obtain a White male mentor informally, which has been shown to relate to various career benefits (see Ragins, 1997, for a review). Companies should be aware, however, that these substitutes for naturally occur-
ER59632_C009.indd 231
10/4/2007 7:10:23 AM
232
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
ring informal mentoring often are less effective (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). A better alternative could involve developing an organizational climate wherein the discussion of the obstacles inhibiting the formation of diversified mentoring is less taboo. In fact, greater representation of Blacks at higher organizational levels tends to enhance the tendency of White executives to mentor Black employees (D. Thomas, 1999). Institutional Colorblindness. A final tactic is the institutionalization of the colorblindness perspective (K. Thomas, Mack, & Montagliani, 2003). Organizations embracing this perspective attempt to convince employees to view everyone as being the same, irrespective of background. They design organizational systems and practices aimed at ignoring any demographic differences amongst their personnel. Essentially, the primary objective is to become blind to difference. By emphasizing their commitment to becoming blind to difference, organizations are trying to send the message that they don’t discriminate by race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and so forth. Thomas and Ely (1996) labeled this approach to managing diversity the discrimination and fairness paradigm. Although this paradigm is effective at increasing the representation of traditionally underrepresented groups, it “puts pressure on employees to make sure that important differences among them do not count” (Thomas & Ely, 1996, p. 81). Thus, minority employees often feel pressured to check their identity at the door and surrender part of their identity to conform to the organization’s expectations. Clearly, this approach sends mixed messages to employees. On the one hand, the company is making an effort to obtain workforce heterogeneity, suggesting that diversity is valued. On the other hand, instead of encouraging the expression of differences among the heterogeneous personnel, the company does the opposite and encourages everyone to think and behave the same. In doing so, they are institutionalizing resistance to the diversity they claim to value. Although the aforementioned diversity tactics have the potential to affect organizations positively, Friedman and Davidson (2001) posit that second-order diversity conflict may result from these approaches. In contrast to first-order conflict dealing with discrimination, second-order conflict is usually more subtle, and involves
ER59632_C009.indd 232
10/4/2007 7:10:23 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
233
both dominant and subordinate groups where backlash and resentment occurs from the use of diversity tactics or remedies. This is important to acknowledge, as it affects the behavior of organizational members and sends mixed messages to the workforce. HRM and Mixed Messages As mentioned previously, firms generally tend to make an effort to portray themselves as being at least somewhat concerned about, or committed to, diversity. By sending this message to stakeholders, they are able to avoid costly lawsuits and appeal to a wider spectrum of prospective employees, clients, partners, and customers. It is not enough, however, to merely state that the company is committed to diversity, as stakeholders will look for evidence supporting or refuting such claims. One key source of evidence concerning a firm’s commitment to diversity is the way it manages its human resources. Consequently, firms that do a good job managing diversity in their HRM are sending consistent messages to stakeholders, and tend to be rewarded accordingly, whereas the opposite is true for those that do not (Wright, Ferris, Hiller, & Kroll, 1995). The HRM domain provides a myriad of opportunities for firms to demonstrate or undermine their stated level of commitment to diversity. In this section, we explore several of these sequenced from a prospective employee’s first contact with the firm to the promotional decisions that determine career paths and, to an extent, success. Staffing. Stakeholders often surmise an organization’s commitment to diversity by examining its approach to staffing (Avery & McKay, 2006). Companies perceived as making a concerted effort to attract the interest of all types of job applicants likely are perceived as placing greater value on diversity than those whose effort is ambiguous or lacking. Consistent with this logic, Avery and McKay’s review of the recruitment literature indicated that reactions among diverse job seekers tend to be more favorable when recruitment efforts demonstrate some organizational interest in diversity. Unfortunately, it appears that firms continue to send mixed messages when it comes to their staffing. On the one hand, recruitment materials have become increasingly tailored to attract the interest of diverse audiences by suggesting the organization is committed
ER59632_C009.indd 233
10/4/2007 7:10:24 AM
234
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
to diversity (Avery & McKay, 2006; Cober, Brown, & Levy, 2004). On the other hand, firms continue to engage in hiring discrimination against women (Jawahar & Mattsson, 2005), racial/ethnic minorities (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004), sexual minorities (Weichselbaumer, 2003), older applicants (Gordon & Arvey, 2004), and the disabled (Harcourt, Lam, & Harcourt, 2005). Not only are diverse individuals often the last to be hired, they also are disproportionately likely to be the first to be terminated (Elvira & Zatzick, 2002; King & Johnson, 2003). Clearly, this inconsistency is a mixed message. These mixed messages perceived during staffing may cause individuals to react in a number of ways. For instance, certain types of selection tools are apt to elicit demographic differences in applicant perceptions and subsequent withdrawal rates (Schmit & Ryan, 1997; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2004). According to Schmit and Ryan (1997), some selection practices trigger concerns among minorities about the fairness of the selection procedure, causing them to withdraw from the process. This likely occurs because the heightened fairness concerns (i.e., perceived unfairness) contradict norms of equal opportunity—a mixed message. Those who remain in the selection process and later discover evidence of the firm engaging in discriminatory selection practices also probably respond negatively to this mixed message (McKay & Avery, 2005). In essence, learning of bias post-hire promotes the feeling that they were misled during the hiring process concerning the firm’s commitment to diversity. Anecdotal evidence suggests some organizations, particularly those that are very homogenous, will engage in diversity hiring blitzes to improve their numbers. This tactic sends many mixed messages to existing employees and new hires. First, existing employees may feel slighted if outsiders are hired into executive level positions that they may have aspired to, but consequently are no longer available. This may suggest to them their commitment to the organization and skills are not valued or respected, and may lead to a lack of support for and possible sabotage of the new hire. Second, current minority and female employees may question why they were not being developed if their knowledge, skills, and abilities were insufficient to advance to higher levels within the organization. Alternatively, some employees may see the diversity-hiring blitz as a positive sign of the organization’s commitment to ensuring the presence of diversity at all levels.
ER59632_C009.indd 234
10/4/2007 7:10:24 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
235
Another issue is that employees who resist diversity could view the external diversity hires as being incompetent, creating a diversity-hiring stigma similar to affirmative action stigma (Heilman, Block, & Stathatos, 1997). To minimize this concern, organizations may require credentials (e.g., advanced degrees, significantly more years of experience) exceeding what normally is required of the position. This approach, however, could further enhance the resistance, as the new employees possess better credentials than their superiors and peers, which may present a threat to existing employees. Finally, from the perspective of the new hire, the responsibility and authority of the position often is not commensurate with their qualifications, creating an atmosphere where they feel the need to constantly prove their worth. Placement. Although many individuals are hired with a particular position in mind, a number of others are not. Consequently, after hiring applicants, many firms proceed to assign the new employees to specific jobs within the organization. Through their equal opportunity policies, most companies convey to their employees the expectation that this process is unaffected by demographic characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, or physical disability. Rather, assignments presumably are based on the merit of the individual and the compatibility of his or her knowledge, skills, and abilities with the requisite needs of the position. As is the case with selection, however, placement often is biased as well. For instance, Lefkowitz (1994) found that a process of serendipitous drift occurs whereby ethnic enclaves are created within organizations. More recently, Kmec (2005) documented a very similar process of systematic gender segregation taking place in organizations. Such segregation, and the likely accompanying devaluation of the predominantly female and minority units (Cohen & Huffman, 2003; Kmec, 2003), sends a clear message to employees about the worth of diversity within their organization. This message, however, is probably in stark contrast to that signaled by the company’s affirmative action plan, diversity management program, or equal opportunity policy. Another example of this phenomenon occurs with the hiring and placement of chief diversity officers or directors. Some organizations see this role as a “diversity slot” and hire only women and persons of color into the role, sending a message that this is their responsibil-
ER59632_C009.indd 235
10/4/2007 7:10:24 AM
236
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
ity. Others will appoint someone with whom the executive team is comfortable (e.g., an older, majority male employee with company tenure) and feel will not pose a threat. In other cases, the person hired into this role is not given the authority or resources to implement any change. This raises the question of whether the position is merely window dressing to appease certain employees or external constituencies. Similarly, D. Thomas and Ely (1996) discuss what they termed the access and legitimacy paradigm of managing workforce diversity. According to this perspective, demographic diversity is useful to a business because it provides access to, and legitimacy among, similarly diverse customer markets (e.g., Asian workers provide access and legitimacy among prospective Asian clientele). This type of thinking limits the involvement of minority employees to dealing with issues involving, or perceived to involve, their demographic group membership. Thus, a disabled employee is perceived to be able to help the organization access the market of disabled customers and little else, and is placed accordingly. This signals that diversity is not valued for its potential to enhance overall organizational functioning, but rather as a means to expand the company’s market share. Consequently, minority employees become an underutilized resource, producing frustration for them and underperformance for their organizations. Not only might this result in a mixed message, evidence suggests this paradigm is less likely than alternative approaches (i.e., integration and learning) to unlock the potential of workforce diversity (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Performance Appraisal. A third critical HRM component is an organization’s performance appraisal system. Companies must have accurate means of assessing the productivity of their employees in order to provide accurate feedback and make decisions concerning training, promotion, compensation, and termination. With regard to diversity, organizations are bound by law to avoid discriminating on the basis of many demographic category memberships. Accordingly, they often make assurances to their employees that performance appraisals will be free from discrimination. The research literature suggests this is not the case in many organizations (Kraiger & Ford, 1985). For example, Elvira and Town (2001) found that minorities received lower performance ratings than White employees after controlling for worker productivity.
ER59632_C009.indd 236
10/4/2007 7:10:24 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
237
More recently, research has shown evidence of race, ethnic, age, and gender bias in performance appraisal (e.g., Gordon & Arvey, 2004; Smith, DiTomaso, Farris, & Cordero, 2001). Such bias could extend to GLBT employees as well (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). The effect of experiencing, witnessing, or even hearing of such bias in one’s firm sends a message that performance appraisals are not as free from discrimination as employees have been led to believe. These mixed messages are apt to have an unfavorable impact on employee attitudes and behavior intentions (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions). Further, performance on the job could be impacted adversely if employees perceive incongruence between actual performance and subsequent ratings on evaluations. Promotion. Companies use their performance appraisal information to determine, among other things, which employees should be promoted to higher organizational levels. Promotional decisions help shape the careers of employees. They also determine the composition of the firm at upper hierarchical levels. By looking at who gets promoted and who does not, employees and other stakeholders often get a clear sense of how the organization values diversity. There is evidence in the literature demonstrating that employees and prospective employees may use the demographic profile of executives in an organization as a proxy for how much the company values diversity. For instance, Avery (2003) found that organizational diversity was attractive to Black job seekers only when it extended to upper hierarchical levels. In a somewhat similar finding, the more Hispanic law associates there were in a firm, the less likely Hispanic lawyers were to perceive a glass ceiling (Foley, Kidder, and Powell, 2002). Moreover, women in organizations with fewer senior women viewed the attributes required for success in stereotypically masculine terms (Ely, 1995). It seems that firms wherein the executive prototype includes demographics send a clear message that members of some groups are valued more than members of others. As is the case in the previously discussed areas of HRM, promotion decisions often appear to exhibit White male bias as well. Despite increased representation of traditionally underrepresented groups, minorities find it disproportionately difficult to climb the corporate ladder, even in industries where they are the numerical majority (Maume, 1999). For instance, Powell and Butterfield (2002) found
ER59632_C009.indd 237
10/4/2007 7:10:24 AM
238
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
bias against Black and Hispanic males in the promotion process in the federal government. Likewise, James (2000) reported slower career progression (i.e., promotion rates) among Blacks relative to White employees in a Fortune 500 company. Kramer and Lambert (2001) reported evidence of male bias adversely affecting women in the promotion process. These findings are just a few among many indicating that the continual presence of White male bias impacts organizational promotional decisions, thereby sending mixed messages to employees about the value of diversity. Compensation. A popular colloquial saying suggests “put your money where your mouth is.” Essentially, this saying proposes that individuals should invest financially in the things they believe in. As we have mentioned throughout this section, one ideal organizations profess to believe in is diversity. In fact, they are quick to publicize their diversity (Cober et al., 2004) and advertise how much they value it (Avery & McKay, 2006). If firms are putting their money where their mouth is with respect to diversity, it also should be reflected in their expenditures. For instance, more than half of the firms included in one recent study indicated plans to increase their diversity-related expenditures in the coming year (Thaler-Carter, 2001). One such expenditure that speaks volumes about an organization’s commitment to diversity is the salary it pays its employees. More specifically, are employees of all types receiving comparable compensation for comparable work? A review of the compensation literature suggests company practices are sending a definitively different message than their marketing efforts regarding the value placed on diversity. Across 22 countries, there was a considerable gap between male and female earnings in comparable positions (Blau & Kahn, 2003). Also, there is a variety of evidence demonstrating racial/ethnic pay gaps (Green & Ferber, 2005) and earnings discrepancies involving sexual orientation (Blandford, 2003) and disability (Baldwin & Johnson, 1994) issues. Some evidence suggests differences in social networks are at least partially responsible for these discrepancies, continually perpetuating a White male advantage (Seidel, Polzer, & Stewart, 2000). By failing to provide equal compensation for comparable work, firms are sending a clear message that the work of some employees is more valuable than the work of others and that demographics are the basis
ER59632_C009.indd 238
10/4/2007 7:10:24 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
239
for this distinction. Such a message clearly conflicts with the public efforts to convey that diversity is valued. Suggestions for Eliminating Mixed Messages The preceding sections have discussed how firms commonly send mixed messages regarding diversity to their employees and why this occurrence is problematic. In short, diversity tactics and HRM practices sending inconsistent signals can undermine the success of a company’s diversity efforts. Perhaps the simplest way to reduce the occurrence of mixed messages is to increase the transparency of organizational decision-making. By this, we mean organizations should take the time to explain the rationale behind (a) the diversity tactics used and (b) the HRM decisions made. Firms that find it difficult to be transparent in these ways should ask themselves why it is difficult. Is it that there is ambiguity concerning the firm’s stance on diversity? Is it that the firm is trying to portray an image concerning diversity that is not reflective of how its leadership truly feels? No matter the reason for the lack of transparency, understanding why mixed messages continue to be perpetuated in the company is the first step toward reducing them. Beyond increasing the transparency of an organization’s decisions, it would behoove organizations to be more realistic in the images they construct for themselves. Some research (e.g., Cable, Aiman-Smith, Mulvey, & Edwards, 2000) indicates that organizations intentionally distort their images to create more favorable impressions or minimize organizational cognitive dissonance. A few organizations have taken this tendency too far when it comes to diversity. For instance, Conklin (2001) describes how a number of companies have used technology to alter images (e.g., changing White employees to look like minorities or adding minorities where there were none) thereby making themselves appear more diverse than they really are. This lack of realism, however, doubtlessly has negative long-term effects when stakeholders learn of the deception (McKay & Avery, 2005). A third suggestion is for companies to make efforts to be more accommodating towards the differences that accompany employee diversity. Far too many organizations profess colorblindness, seemingly embracing the mantra “We value diversity, but we expect
ER59632_C009.indd 239
10/4/2007 7:10:24 AM
240
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
our employees to assimilate.” This, itself, is a mixed message. If a company truly values diversity, it will make efforts to embrace the differences among its employees. This means making reasonable accommodations for disabled employees and religious minorities. It means making work–family balance a priority. It means seeking to eliminate any forms of institutionalized bias. It means not expecting employees to check their diversity identities at the door. Accommodation is about the embracing, not the masking, of employee individual differences (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Organizations must deal with this diversity paradox. A fourth suggestion involves enhancing the accountability of employees where diversity is concerned. As Giovannini (2004) asserts, “what gets measured gets done” (p. 21). For instance, many companies (often in the wake of lawsuits and settlements) have begun to tie executive compensation to the success of organizational diversity initiatives, holding executives financially accountable for diversity. Unfortunately, however, organizations often don’t collect the data needed to evaluate the success of their leadership in executing diversity initiatives (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). This not only sends a mixed message, but also deters progress. In light of this, it is unsurprising that in a recent survey where employees all over the U.S. were asked whether people in their company were rewarded for what they did concerning diversity, only 23% of responses were favorable (National Urban League, 2005). Thus, a logical extension of the executive policy could entail making all employees accountable for enhancing (not just maintaining) the openness of the company’s diversity climate. Such tactics would alert everyone that diversity should be important to all employees and that the only way to be successful in the company is to be receptive to it. Related to the preceding point is the importance of decentralizing the management of diversity. All too often, diversity becomes a peripheral part of organizational structure and strategy. Rather than integrating diversity into every executive’s job description, many companies instead appoint chief diversity officers. When these positions have the authority to ensure everyone is concerned with diversity, results may be impressive. When this is not the case (and it often is not), the typical employee sees diversity as someone else’s responsibility. This, in turn, means the job of managing organizational diversity is not their own. Marginalizing diversity in this way
ER59632_C009.indd 240
10/4/2007 7:10:25 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
241
undercuts any messages wherein the organization might attempt to express that it is concerned with diversity. Hence, it is critical that organizations convey to all employees that diversity management is central to organizational success and is a component of everyone’s job description. Effective diversity training (which is discussed in detail in chapter 2) also is needed to prevent the continual manifestation of mixed messages. The actions of individual employees often are interpreted as actions of the organization as a whole. Consequently, when one or a few individuals engage in harassment, discriminatory behavior, or another type of action conflicting with the company’s public stance on diversity, it can affect the entire organization. By training employees on the proper types of workplace speech and behavior, and using training to reinforce the company’s commitment to diversity, the number of related mixed messages can be reduced considerably. As Boyer and Webb (1992) indicated in their discussion of the interface between ethics and diversity, effective communication is critical if organizations are to avoid sending mixed messages. Any organizational communication failing to take diversity into account holds the possibility of sending a mixed message. For instance, if corporate advertisements contain no mention of diversity or pictures contain only middle-aged White males, what message does this send about the company’s commitment to diversity? All efforts should be taken to ensure that organizational messages are consistent in recognizing and reinforcing the importance of diversity. Finally, if organizations are to reduce the mixed messages they are sending regarding diversity, they must acknowledge the resistance to diversity that often underlies such messages. Earlier, we stated there cannot be mixed messages unless one of the messages is undermining the importance of diversity. What we have shown throughout this chapter is that organizations often say they are committed to diversity, but their actions suggest otherwise. We cannot help but surmise this incongruence is a result of resistance to diversity. When firms truly value diversity, as opposed to resisting it, their actions (with respect to diversity management) are better aligned with their stated position. By acknowledging and exploring the roots of the resistance to diversity, firms can help position themselves to become more inclusive and send more consistent messages to internal and external stakeholders.
ER59632_C009.indd 241
10/4/2007 7:10:25 AM
242
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
Conclusion In this chapter, we have attempted to show that mixed messages regarding diversity are prevalent in organizations. If left unchecked, these messages have the potential to undermine the success of organizational diversity initiatives, lead to unfavorable workplace attitudes, and even foster turnover intentions and adversely impact performance. In theory, preventing mixed messages is simple: Assemble a workforce truly committed to diversity and make it a part of everything the company does. In practice, this may be much more difficult than it sounds because resistance to diversity often tends to be engrained deeply, remains unchallenged, or is often denied even to exist. Nevertheless, organizations that demonstrate commitment to improving their diversity climates should see a reduction of mixed messages, thereby helping them to capitalize on the highly chronicled prospective benefits of diversity. References Abelsson, M. (1999). Creating an inclusive work environment for gay men and lesbians. Public Relations Tactics, 6(3), 8–9. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136. Argyris, C. (2003). Four steps to chaos. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 140. Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising— Are differences Black and White? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 672–679. Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to recruiting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187. Baldwin, M., & Johnson, W. G. (1994). Labor market discrimination against men with disabilities. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 1–19. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94, 991–1013. Blandford, J. M. (2003). The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56, 622–642.
ER59632_C009.indd 242
10/4/2007 7:10:25 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
243
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2003). Understanding international differences in the gender pay gap. Journal of Labor Economics, 21, 106–144. Boyer, E. P., & Webb, T. G. (1992). Ethics and diversity: A correlation enhanced through corporate communication. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 35, 38–43. Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P. W., & Edwards, J. R. (2000). The sources and accuracy of job applicants’ beliefs about organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1076–1085. Capowski, G. (1998). Can’t see the diversity for all the differences. HR Focus, 75(7), 16. Cha, S. E., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 57–78. Chrobot-Mason, D. L. (2003). Keeping the promise: Psychological contract violations for minority employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 22–45. Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., & Levy, P. E. (2004). Form, content and function: An evaluative methodology for corporate employment web sites. Human Resource Management, 43, 201–218. Cohen, P. N., & Huffman, M. L. (2003). Individuals, jobs, and labor markets: The devaluation of women’s work. American Sociological Review, 68, 443–463. Conklin, W. (2000). Employee resource groups: A foundation of support and change. The Diversity Factor, 9(1), 12–25. Conklin, W. (2001). The illusion of diversity: When ethics, technology, and diversity clash. The Diversity Factor, 9(2): 5–10. Donoho, R. (1995). Where’s the diversity? Successful Meetings, 44(11), 60–64. Elvira, M., & Town, R. (2001). The effects of race and worker productivity on performance evaluations. Industrial Relations, 40, 571–590. Elvira, M. M., & Zatzick, C. D. (2002). Who’s displaced first? The role of race in layoff decisions. Industrial Relations, 41, 329–361. Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589–634. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The moderating effects of work group perspectives on diversity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273. Fisher, A. (2004, November 15). How you can do better on diversity. Fortune, 150(10), 60. Foley, S., Kidder, D. L., & Powell, G. N. (2002). The perceived glass ceiling and justice perceptions: An investigation of Hispanic law associates. Journal of Management, 28, 471–496.
ER59632_C009.indd 243
10/4/2007 7:10:25 AM
244
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
Ford, V. F. (2001). Factors that drive successful diversity councils. Employment Relations Today, 28(1), 67–76. Friedman, R. A. (1996). Defining the scope and logic of minority and female network groups: Can separation enhance integration? In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 307–349). London: JAI Press. Friedman, R. A., & Craig, K. M. (2004). Predicting joining and participating in minority employee network groups. Industrial Relations, 43, 793–816. Friedman, R. A., & Davidson, M. N. (2001). Managing diversity and second-order conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 132–153. Friedman, R. A., & Holtom, B. (2002). The effects of network groups on minority employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Management, 41, 405–411. Friedman, R., Kane, M., & Cornfield, D. B. (1998). Social support and career optimism: Examining the effectiveness of network groups among black managers. Human Relations, 51, 1155–1177. Frost, D. D. (1999). Review worst diversity practices to learn from others’ mistakes. HR Focus, 76(4), 11–12. Giovannini, M. (2004). What gets measured gets done. Journal for Quality & Participation, 27, 21–27. Glater, J. D. (2005, September 14). 2 black truckers sue, accusing Wal-Mart of hiring bias. New York Times, 154(53275), C4. Gordon, R. A., & Arvey, R. D. (2004). Age bias in laboratory and field settings: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 468–492. Green, C., & Ferber, M. (2005). Do detailed work histories help to explain gender and race/ethnic wage differentials? Review of Social Economy, 63, 55–85. Harcourt, M., Lam, H., & Harcourt, S. (2005). Discriminatory practices in hiring: institutional and rational economic perspectives. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16, 2113–2132. Hays, C. L. (2005, February 24). Wal-Mart is found liable in bias against disabled man. New York Times, 154(53135), C3. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Stathatos, P. (1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 603–625. Holmes, S., & Marsden, S. (1996). An exploration of the espoused organizational cultures of public accounting firms. Accounting Horizons, 10(3), 26–53.
ER59632_C009.indd 244
10/4/2007 7:10:25 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
245
James, E. H. (2000). Race-related differences in promotions and support: Underlying effects of human and social capital. Organization Science, 11, 493–508. Jandeska, K. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2005). Women’s perceptions of organizational culture, work attitudes, and role-modeling behaviors. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 461–478. Jawahar, I. M., & Mattsson, J. (2005). Sexism and beautyism effects in selection as a function of self-monitoring level of decision maker. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 563–573. Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for improvement. Human Resource Management, 43, 409–424. Joplin, J. R. W., & Daus, C. S. (1997). Challenges of leading a diverse workforce. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 32–47. Judge, T. A., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Bretz, R. D. (2004). Longitudinal models of sponsorship and career success: A study of industrial-organizational psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 57, 271–303. King, J. E., & Johnson, C. D. (2003). Not so new employment relationships: African American and female downsizing and job insecurity experiences. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 3–28. Kmec, J. A. (2003). Minority job concentration and wages. Social Problems, 50, 38–59. Kmec, J. A. (2005). Setting occupational sex segregation in motion. Work & Occupations, 32, 322–354. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1999). Diluting diversity implications for intergroup inequality in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8, 399–414. Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56–65. Kramer, L. A., & Lambert, S. (2001). Sex-linked bias in chances of being promoted to supervisor. Sociological Perspectives, 44, 111–127. Lefkowitz, J. (1994). Race a factor in job placement: Serendipitous findings of “ethnic drift.” Personnel Psychology, 47, 497–513. Lind, E. A., & van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 181–223. Maremount, M. (2005, June 23). Be very careful what you put in writing— It may add jail time. Wall Street Journal—Eastern Edition, 245(122), B1. Matton, J. N., & Hernandez, C. M. (2004). A new study identifies the “makes and breaks” of diversity initiatives. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 23(4), 47–58.
ER59632_C009.indd 245
10/4/2007 7:10:25 AM
246
Derek R. Avery and C. Douglas Johnson
Maume, D. J. (1999). Glass ceilings and glass escalators: Occupational segregation and race and sex differences in managerial promotion. Work and Occupations, 26, 483–509. McCrea, B. (2004). 2004 Hispanic magazine: Corporate 100. Hispanic, 17(1/2), 16. McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2005). Warning! Minority recruitment could backfire. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 330–336. Mitchell, D. (2005, August 6). The campaign against Wal-Mart. New York Times, 154(53298), C5. Morrison, A., & Von Glinow, M. (1990). Women and minorities in management. American Psychologist, 45, 200–208. National Urban League (2005). Diversity practices that work: The American worker speaks. Retrieved January 9, 2006 from http://www.nul. org/humanresources.html. Network groups focus on diversity (2002, November 19). Personnel Today, 8. O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncertainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 141–155. Porter, M. E., Lorsch, J. W., & Nohria, N. (2004). Seven surprises for new CEOs. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 62–72. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2002). Exploring the influence of decision makers’ race and gender on actual promotions to top management. Personnel Psychology, 55, 397–428. Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244–1261. Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 529–550. Schaubroeck, J., Cotton, J., & Jennings, K. (1989). Antecedents and consequences of role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 35–58. Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. (1997). Applicant withdrawal: The role of test-taking attitudes and racial differences. Personnel Psychology, 50, 855–876. Seidel, M. L., Polzer, J. T., & Stewart, K. J. (2000). Friends in high places: The effects of social networks on discrimination in salary negotiations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 1–24. Smith, D. R., DiTomaso, N., Farris, G. F., & Cordero, R. (2001). Favoritism, bias, and error in performance ratings of scientists and engineers: The effects of power, status, and numbers. Sex Roles, 45, 337–358.
ER59632_C009.indd 246
10/4/2007 7:10:25 AM
Now You See It, Now You Don’t
247
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374. Thaler-Carter, R. E. (2001). Diversify your recruitment advertising. HR Magazine, 46(6), 92–100. Thomas, D. A. (1993). The dynamics of managing racial diversity in developmental relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 169–194. Thomas, D. A. (1999). Beyond the simple demography-power hypothesis: How blacks in power influence White-mentor—black-protégé relationships. In A. Murrell, F. Crosby, & R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 157–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations. Thomas, D. A. (2001). Race matters: The truth about mentoring minorities. Harvard Business Review, 79(4), 98–107. Thomas, D. A. (2004). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 98–108. Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79–90. Thomas, K. M., Hu, C., Gewin, A. G., Bingham, K., & Yanchus, N. (2005). The roles of protégé race, gender, and proactive socialization attempts on peer mentoring. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 540–555. Thomas, K. M., Mack, D. A., & Montagliani, A. (2003). Arguments against diversity: Are they valid? In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 31–51). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Tonidandel, S., Avery, D. R., & Phillips, M. G. (2007). Maximizing returns on mentoring: Factors affecting subsequent protégé performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 89–110. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Importance of perceived personnel selection system fairness determinants: Relations with demographic, personality, and job characteristics. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 12, 172–186. Weichselbaumer, D. (2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics, 10, 629–642. Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 272–287.
ER59632_C009.indd 247
10/4/2007 7:10:26 AM
ER59632_C009.indd 248
10/4/2007 7:10:26 AM
10 Cycles of Resistance How Dominants and Subordinants Collude to Undermine Diversity Efforts in Organizations Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
There are always two parties; the establishment and the movement. Emerson
Introduction The ability of organizations to leverage their diversity is profoundly hampered by resistance inside the organization to formulating, implementing, and institutionalizing changes that would align organizational practice with a strategy to build inclusiveness. We argue that group identity and societal power position combine to drive intergroup dynamics that hinder most diversity initiatives before they can be seriously engaged. In particular, the sources of this diversity resistance are cycles of behavior that dominant and subordinant group members enter into as they attempt to negotiate diversity-related change. We describe patterns of resistance enacted by dominants and subordinants and then discuss how these patterns feed one another to hinder organizations in the pursuit for greater inclusiveness. We also suggest ways in which this resistance may be overcome so that organizations can realize the gains of inclusiveness. Organizations are increasingly feeling the urgency to learn how to build inclusive work cultures. The projections from the Hudson Institute report (Johnston & Packer, 1987) that 249
ER59632_C010.indd 249
10/16/2007 7:42:13 AM
250
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
growth in the U.S. workforce in the 21st century would be dominated by non-White Americans have been replaced by the clear and present reality that workforce growth and effectiveness is impacted by a wide variety of differences and diversities. The differences that matter include not only race and ethnicity in the U.S. but people of all races and ethnicities from outside U.S. borders (Bradberry & Preston, 1992; Hays-Thomas, 2004). The critical differences in contemporary organizations also include gender, age, sexual orientation, able-bodiedness, and more, as well as ways of thinking, interacting, and viewing both the world and the work. Yet the ability of organizations to leverage these differences is profoundly hampered by resistance to formulating, implementing, and institutionalizing changes that would align organizational practices with an inclusiveness strategy. We suggest that the source of this debilitating resistance is complex, dynamic, and often elusive. In this chapter, we argue that group identity and societal power position combine to drive intergroup dynamics that hinder most diversity initiatives before they can be seriously engaged. We also suggest ways in which this resistance may be overcome so that organizations can realize the gains of inclusiveness. Diversity Resistance, Identity Group Membership, and Power For our purposes, we define diversity resistance as the maintenance of a pattern of attitudes and behaviors, enacted by both dominant and subordinant identity group organization members, which supports a status quo of inequitable systems, policies, and intergroup and interpersonal relationships. This status quo of inequity is apparent whenever there is obvious and explicit rejection, exclusion, harassment, and/or subordination of others based upon differences. But the forms in which this inequity manifests can often be subtle. For example, it is exemplified by appraisal systems that explicitly reward extroverted, assertive behavior (and punish reserved behaviors) when those behaviors are not required for job performance, and institutionalize a bias favoring people from cultures with norms for relatively expressive behavior and handicapping those from cultures with norms for relatively reserved cultural norms. At the individual
ER59632_C010.indd 250
10/16/2007 7:42:13 AM
Cycles of Resistance
251
level, the status quo of inequity is in play when male team members constantly tease their female colleagues and do not do so with the same consistency among male team members. Diversity resistance emerges whenever attempts to counter these inequities are initiated and organization members actively or passively work against these attempts. Diversity resistance is distinct from generalized resistance because it both acknowledges the importance of identity groups and positions them within a social power structure. First, identity groups are groups whose “members share some common biological characteristic, have participated in equivalent historical experiences, currently are subjected to similar social forces, and as a result have consonant world views” (Alderfer, 1987, p. 204). People belong to identity groups either as a result of birth—they are born into a gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, family, and age group—or as a result of a group-membership choice (religious affiliation, for example). In either case, people may vary to the degree in which they are psychologically involved with these aspects of their identity, but they belong to that identity group, nonetheless. Although there is a myriad of identity groups within any social context, all groups rarely hold equal status in most societies; some tend to be systematically privileged whereas others are systematically disadvantaged (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Dimensions along which privilege and disadvantage manifest include ease of institutional access (such as job hiring, homeownership, etc.), level of inclusion in mainstream culture, and access to influence in political systems. We label groups in lower power positions “subordinant1 groups” and groups in higher power positions “dominant groups.” These labels are meant to describe dynamics at the group level of analysis, not the individual level of analysis, per se. Therefore, when a woman occupies an executive level position in a predominantly male organization, she may wield substantial power as an individual, however, she would still be a member of a subordinant group. As a female in the organization she is likely to: (1) be in the numerical minority, (2) need to adopt behaviors that allow her to fit in socially with men (e.g., become knowledgeable about topics men tend to care about), and (3) manage the resentments that may arise by virtue of being a powerful woman in a society in which men tend to hold the most powerful positions. Her position in the organizational chart does not shield her completely from needing to negotiate these “group-
ER59632_C010.indd 251
10/16/2007 7:42:13 AM
252
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
based” dynamics. Similarly, when a man is an hourly wage earner working at the lowest levels of the same organization, he may have very little organizational power as an individual. But as a member of his identity-group (male), he benefits in both direct and indirect ways in the organization (Gallagher, 2003; Jensen, 2003; McIntosh, 1988). Diversity resistance is, at its root, a manifestation of tension and felt conflict (Pondy, 1969) and group identity formation of any sort is an inevitable fuel for such tension and conflict. Sherif and his colleagues (1961) and Tajfel (1981) point out that people favor in-group members and, with the addition of some degree of competition, they reject or attack out-group members. When groups are established and stable over time, and they are correlated with differences in power, inter-group conflict can become entrenched. In the U.S., the case of Black–White racial tension is a prime example of entrenched intergroup conflict (Hacker, 1995). These tensions can manifest in overt ways, such as vocal protest and cogent articulation of opposition to diversity initiatives in an organization. Or they can manifest in ways more subtle and hidden, such as social isolation of Blacks within corporate America (Davis & Watson, 1982), inequalities in how performance evaluations are done (Kraiger & Ford, 1985), tokenism (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987), and stereotyping (Gutek & Stevens, 1979). These intergroup conflicts are an essential element driving diversity resistance (Friedman & Davidson, 2001).
The Variety of Diversity Resistances Diversity resistance can take on many forms, and scholars have articulated a number of these more subtle manifestations. Blatant forms of resistance to diversity initiatives—refusal to adopt diversity guidelines, increased mistreatment of colleagues who are different, and mobilized protest of diversity initiatives within the organization—are still quite prevalent in many organizations. But in addition to these overt forms of resistance, more subtle resistances often emerge. These resistances are the result of dominants trying to come to terms with a set of conscious attitudes that reject bias and prejudice and a set of behaviors that suggest the opposite is true. Racism scholars have labeled such phenomena as symbolic or aversive
ER59632_C010.indd 252
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
Cycles of Resistance
253
racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986b; Sears & Henry, 2003), but this dynamic may apply to a variety of dimensions of difference. But even as this understanding of diversity resistance has deepened, the conceptualization of the phenomenon remains constrained because its sources have not been fully explored. Diversity resistance, in its intergroup manifestation, has been thought of as resulting primarily from the reactions of those positions of dominance, or secondarily from subordinants operating within a context of oppression that teaches them to resist changes to the status quo (Glick & Fiske, 2001). We propose that a critical source of resistance is the interaction between dominant and subordinant organization members. Dominants and subordinants collude to resist changes to the inequitable status quo in sometimes counterintuitive ways. We will first describe patterns of resistance enacted by dominants and subordinants and then discuss how these patterns feed one another to hinder organizations in the pursuit for greater inclusiveness. How Dominants Resist Resistance by dominants is the most familiar type of resistance. Various manifestations of dominant resistance are detailed in the literatures on prejudice and bias (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986b; Glick & Fiske, 2001; Major & O’Brien, 2005; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987), discrimination (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1995; Hemphill & Haines, 1998; Stack, 1980), diversity management (Bradberry & Preston, 1992; Dass & Parker, 1999; Prasad, Mills, Elmes, & Prasad, 1997), and diversity training (Karp & Sammour, 2000). With these literatures a backdrop, we parse dominant resistance into three categories: obliviousness, lamentation, and backlash. Obliviousness The experience of dominance has as one of its core components, the capacity to remain oblivious to the social, organizational, and personal consequences of being dominant (Davidson & Wishik, 2002; McIntosh, 1988). We define obliviousness as the tendency of dominants not to perceive the phenomena related to difference ranging from physical attributes (e.g., “I don’t see color”) to difference related dynamics such as discrimination and bias. Dominant obliviousness is not always willful. The experience of being dominant includes the experience of not
ER59632_C010.indd 253
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
254
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
seeing how difference impacts situations and relationships. This obliviousness of dominance and privilege has been explored in the context of race, gender, sexual orientation, and many other dimensions of difference (McIntosh, 1988; Simoni & Walters, 2001). Oblivious responses are characterized, first and foremost, by surprise at the existence of the bias, discrimination, and injustice that fuel the diversity initiative. There is no dearth of evidence in most contexts that discrimination and unfairness exist in human societies. Moreover, it is well documented in news, media, and entertainment that injustice based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and national origin permeates organizations. Thus, surprise responses to such revelations are often (though not always) the result of dominant obliviousness. It is important to note that obliviousness is distinct from feigned ignorance. In other words, dominants who respond from obliviousness are truly surprised and shocked. Dominants who pretend to be surprised—those who know that discrimination and bias exist, but seek to appear innocent—are displaying a kind of passive backlash, which we address below. Obliviousness is different because it is generally unconscious. Behaviorally, obliviousness manifests first as inquiry and testing of the validity of the claims that anything is wrong. Oblivious dominants struggle with the experience of not being familiar with the claims of discrimination and therefore question the credibility of those who make such claims. This questioning is not malicious, but rather an attempt to understand a dynamic for which they see no evidence. Typically, this questioning moves from earnest inquiry to conceding that some of the claim may have merit, but then minimizing the impact of the claim. Inquiry into how widespread the bias might be for people of the particular identity, generalizing the experience of bias to dominants as well as subordinants, and questioning whether information about the bias is current are all examples of this minimizing behavior. Ultimately, this questioning may shift from inquiry to denial. Part of being oblivious is interpreting the data gleaned from questioning in such a way that the dominant can conclude that the bias does not really exist, or certainly not to a degree that any significant action need be taken. Obliviousness is an example of resistance because this process of moving from feeling surprised or shocked to concluding that “it can’t be that bad” permits dominants to reinforce the status quo of inequity.
ER59632_C010.indd 254
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
Cycles of Resistance
255
Lamentation The second type of dominant resistance is lamentation—the act of focusing on feelings of remorse for the discriminations and bias that drive diversity efforts. At first glance, this response seems appropriate. When it is realized that one bears some responsibility for a wrong-doing, it is natural to feel guilty and to be personally affected by the realization. But this remorse for the wrong that victimizes others becomes, paradoxically, a very self-focused experience for the dominant, who is using these feelings of guilt as a form of resistance. In these instances, the excessive, almost obsessive, concern with one’s culpability incapacitates the dominant and prevents him or her from acting effectively to correct the wrong. In this way, lamentation becomes a form of resistance. Interestingly, lamentation often morphs into diversity resistance fostered within groups of dominants. Dominants who experience extreme remorse often react to that negative affect by resolving to change the status quo. They choose to so by confronting other perpetrators of diversity transgressions—fellow dominants. These strident dominants behave as though they have had a religious conversion experience in which they are fervently committed to “converting” their dominant colleagues to value diversity. These well-meaning dominants aggressively confront other dominants with an insistence that all dominants give up privilege unconditionally. Although this approach bullies some dominants into change, often that change is unstable and transient. Paradoxically, this aggressive approach— competitive inclusion, if you will—serves to entrench some dominants in their status quo stance, thus reinforcing resistance. Backlash The most ubiquitous form of dominant resistance is the intentional action by the dominant to thwart any effort to correct the diversity transgressions in the organization. This type of backlash, which may be active or passive, includes overt discriminatory actions and practices undertaken in response to previously identified diversity transgressions (Bradberry & Preston, 1992; Dass & Parker, 1999; Friedman & Davidson, 2001; Kidder, Lankau, Chrobot-Mason, Mollica, & Friedman, 2004).
ER59632_C010.indd 255
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
256
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
Active Backlash. Active backlash is the act by dominants of initiating or continuing discriminatory and harassing practices in response to diversity initiatives. Jennings and Wells (1989) described the source of this kind of backlash as the legitimate impulse that derives from the anxiety of dominants that their position of status will be challenged and ultimately ceded to undeserving subordinants. For example, when an African-American woman earns the position of university professor, a White student may question her qualification to lead a class. The legitimist impulse motivates dominants to defend their status by denigrating subordinants further. Passive Backlash. Passive backlash embodies the same intention to challenge and denigrate the subordinate, but the behaviors are indirect and often subtly undermining. Common instances of passive backlash include the unwillingness to engage in discourse about diversity. This silence can occur at the abstract level; that is, dominants refuse to talk about any aspect of diversity in any open forum. It also occurs at the relational level as dominants refuse to engage with subordinants in any meaningful way. This silence often enhances tension and prevents any possibility of airing grievances and resolving conflict between the dominant and subordinant (Davidson & James, 2006; Devine, Evett, Vasquez-Suson, Sorrentino, & Higgins, 1996). The stream of research on symbolic and aversive racism captures the essence of passive backlash very clearly. Symbolic racism is the combination of strong, individualistic values with mild to moderate antiminority feelings and attitudes (Kinder & Sears, 1981; McConahay & Hough, 1976; Sears & Henry, 2003). Aversive racism represents a subtle form of bias that combines the belief by dominants that they are not biased, contrasted with underlying negative feelings and beliefs about subordinants (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986a). In both cases, dominants are grappling with the contradiction between a positive fair-minded image they hold of themselves and the enactment of biased attitudes and actions toward subordinants, in this case African Americans. Both represent forms of resistance to change in the racial status quo. Dominants will not discriminate directly and openly in ways that can be attributed to racism, but they will discriminate when their behavior can be justified on the basis of some factor other than race (e.g., questionable qualifications for a position).
ER59632_C010.indd 256
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
Cycles of Resistance
257
There are numerous examples of this indirect discriminatory behavior that are not always obvious. For example, the tenacious emphasis on the importance of the business case can paradoxically, be a form of passive backlash. The business case argument is an attempt to create the momentum for change by appealing solely to functional, rational arguments for inclusion while dismissing moral and social structural arguments for change. This is challenging because deep change is rarely achieved solely through logical argument. The capacity to persuade at the level of emotion and personal value is a central tenet of sustainable change management of any kind (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Kotter, 1996). Exclusive focus on the business case at the expense of the moral and structural arguments undermines the diversity change efforts. Related to this over-focus on the business case is the insistence of dominants on engaging diversity at the relational or interpersonal level rather than at the structural level of analysis. Diversity transgressions are framed as problems that have emerged because few people of different identities have clashed. As such, the problem is viewed as small enough in scale to be handled as an isolated situation rather than widespread “outbreak.” And perhaps even more importantly, the framing of the transgression as episodic permits the dominant who is not a part of the episode to avoid analyzing the privilege that he or she accrues by virtue of his or her identity and position. How Subordinants Resist The preponderance of the literature on diversity resistance focuses on dominant resistance, but people in subordinant positions also resist changes to the status quo of inequity in organizations. This notion of subordinant complicity in their own oppression has been explored by a number of scholars and social critics of race and ethnicity (Fanon, 1968; Lipsky, 1987), class and socioeconomic status (Freire, 1970), gender and sexual orientation (Pharr & Raymond, 1988), and colonial experience (Memmi, 1967). For example, Freire (1970) argues that the goal of the oppressed is to liberate themselves and their oppressors, but in the initial stage of their struggle against oppression, the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend to become oppressors themselves. This occurs because their model of “full humanity” has been the oppressor; they have “internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines” for action and
ER59632_C010.indd 257
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
258
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
interaction in the world (p. 31). These dynamics suggest a cause for the diversity resistance behaviors of subordinants that we outline. We parse subordinant resistance behaviors into three classes: escalation, resignation, and assent. Escalation Escalation resistances occur when subordinants persistently push for greater gains from dominants. In this instance, subordinants insist that dominants summarily relinquish their privilege; subordinants insist on “unconditional surrender.” There is no tolerance or empathy for the perspective of dominants. On the surface, this approach appears simply to be a committed and unyielding attempt to create justice in an unjust situation. But this behavior illustrates what Fanon, Freire, and others called “identification with the oppressor” (Fanon, 1968; Freire, 1970). In battling the dominant, the subordinant engages the oppressor on his or her terms and, paradoxically, enacts exactly the kind of dominance that has victimized the subordinant up to that point. Essentially, the subordinant’s escalatory response guarantees that dominant behaviors will continue in the organization; this is the very definition of diversity resistance. Moreover, this kind of escalation often reinforces hard-core resistance among dominants as they become more entrenched in response to their experience of being dominated. A second manifestation of escalation behavior occurs when subordinants engage indiscriminately in localized (and habitual) battles over diversity. For example, when a male colleague tells a sexist joke, the female colleague is outraged and insists that the male colleague be reprimanded, forced to apologize, or dismissed. Oftentimes, the outrage manifests in the intention to defame the perpetrator by labeling him a sexist and undermining professional relationships he may have at work. The female colleague attempts to “get even.” It is critical that we be clear in our analysis here: the female colleague’s demand for redress is not, on its face, an indicator of subordinant resistance; indeed, it could be an appropriate request for addressing the offense. Resistance emerges when subordinants become engulfed in these episodic disputes, expending tremendous amount of energy seeking compensatory responses instead of focusing on the systemic factors that foster the offensive behaviors. To invoke a medical metaphor, subordinants attack the symptoms of the disease rather that its
ER59632_C010.indd 258
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
Cycles of Resistance
259
cause. We label this pattern of responses as resistance because the expenditure of energy on these episodes diverts energy and attention from the organizational causes of the offensive behavior, and hence perpetuates the status quo of inequity. Other forms of subordinant escalation that perpetuate resistance revolve around intragroup behaviors. For example, it is common for different groups of subordinants to compete with one another for resources and/or organizational attention. Hispanic employee network groups might lobby leadership for resources by denigrating the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) group or withholding important political information. In this instance, subordinant individuals and groups once again become diverted from a focus on widespread strategic diversity change. Related to this subordinant competition is the manner in which subordinants mistreat one another in organizations. In larger society, the analog to what we are describing is Freire’s notion of horizontal violence in which members of oppressed groups engage in violent behavior with one another. Although extreme physical violence rarely comes into play in this regard in organizations, more subtle “violences” occur such as ostracizing subordinants who do not properly represent the interests of the group (i.e., the interests of the most active leaders in the subordinant group, usually). Freire notes that “because the oppressor exists within their oppressed comrades, when they attack those comrades [the oppressed] are indirectly attacking the oppressor as well” (Freire, 1970, p. 48). Ultimately, the in-fighting serves to maintain the status quo, thus hindering real diversity change. Resignation A more common subordinant diversity resistance response is resignation. By resignation, subordinants withdraw energy, resources, and psychological optimism from the interaction with the dominant and also from the organization. Subordinants feel that there is no point in continuing to persuade, convince, or combat the dominant. In this way, subordinants’ capacity to contribute to diversity change of any kind diminishes or disappears. Resignation manifests behaviorally in a number of ways. The most obvious indicator is passive disengagement that is communicated through silence and avoidance in the presence of dominants’ attempts to engage. Dominants may
ER59632_C010.indd 259
10/16/2007 7:42:14 AM
260
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
try to engage in any number of ways—some functional, others dysfunctional— but subordinants who are in resignation meet those attempts with silence or, more commonly, with an unwillingness to share any information or reaction with regard to diversity with the dominant. Passive resignation responses such as silence and avoidance are often disconcerting for dominants, prompting them to continue to engage in hostility or to become more hostile. To prevent these reactions, subordinants often engage in active resignation behaviors that appear consonant with dominants’ views, perspectives, and behaviors, but in fact are acts of disengagement by subordinants. This pattern of interaction is ubiquitous in relationships in which there are power disparities (Fanon, 1968). Subordinants intend to disengage, but authentic acts of disengagement such as silence and avoidance stimulate dominants to push for greater engagement. For subordinants to achieve their goal of disengaging, they feign token engagement. This causes the dominant to withdraw, usually feeling a sense of accomplishment in negotiating the interaction with subordinant. Subordinants achieve their objective of ending interaction with the dominant. Behaviors that indicate active resignation are difficult to identify because they look like actual attempts to engage. For example, active resignation can be enacted through false agreement in episodic interpersonal interactions. Subordinants communicate agreement, but having no belief in what has been agreed upon and minimal commitment to following through on the agreement. Another example is the act of endorsing diversity-related initiatives. Subordinants will support a particular initiative—a poorly articulated business case argument, sponsoring a special event, etc.—even as they have doubt that the initiative will make a difference. They do so because they experience no receptivity to ideas they have that might really address systemic issues. Subordinants are seeking to reduce their engagement while also minimizing their interactions with dominants vis a vis diversity. Resignation, in all of its manifestations, is a resistance phenomenon. It is important to highlight it as such because it is tempting to see it solely as a functional response to dominant resistance—and there are numerous instances in which it is just that. But there are also instances in which it serves as a hindrance to diversity change
ER59632_C010.indd 260
10/16/2007 7:42:15 AM
Cycles of Resistance
261
that, if subordinants could manage it differently, could be turned to positive advantage in generating a more inclusive organization.
Assent Assent is a more subtle resistance that is related to active resignation. This resistance results from subordinants’ agreement to enact or engage in diversity-related change efforts. It differs from the active resignation example above because when subordinants assent, they really believe that there is benefit to be gained from engaging in the activity. The intent in assent is not to disengage but to contribute to an effort to build a more inclusive organization. Assent becomes a resistance because subordinants know full well that the activity they support is insufficient to address the critical transgressions, yet they maintain hope that something good will come of it. In essence, they take a leap of faith. As is true for many of the more subtle resistances, the act of assenting is laudable on the face of it. It demonstrates a willingness to engage in action, to be proactive. The challenge is that assent in this case is similar to knowing that an urgent work task must be completed, but becoming distracted by the disorganization on one’s desk, spending the day cleaning it up, and then feeling good that one has accomplished something important. It is great to have a clean workspace, but the task at hand remains undone. In a similar sense, subordinants whose assent fails to deal with known crucial issues and, most importantly, who do not contribute to strategies for addressing those issues in the future add to the resistance component of assent. Things continue to get done, but real change toward inclusion is not forthcoming. Cycles of Resistance among Dominants and Subordinants To think of diversity resistance as limited to dominants and subordinants enacting their respective resistances episodically is to miss what makes diversity resistance so intractable. In a diversity-resistant context, dominants and subordinants engage in mutually reinforc-
ER59632_C010.indd 261
10/16/2007 7:42:15 AM
262
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
ing cycles of resistance. Devine and colleagues argued that both the dominant and the nondominant group members play a role in the downward spiral of misattribution and expectancy confirmation. This contributes to the failure of intergroup interactions, deepens the anxiety both groups feel toward one another, and in turn negatively affects future intergroup interactions (Devine et al., 1996). The fact that interactive dynamics are fueling resistance behavior helps us understand why unidirectional attempts to intervene to counteract resistance are so often ineffective. Figure 10.1 illustrates the variety of cycles of diversity resistance that commonly emerge in organizations. Our model suggests that critical resistance phenomena surface after dominants commit diversity transgressions (indexed with the number 1) and subordinants confront those transgressions (indexed with the number 2). Those transgressions could be discriminatory practices or harassing behaviors perpetrated by dominants. Subordinants, in turn, call attention to those transgressions. These two steps are the prelude for the resistance dynamics we describe. Although it is conceivable that the diversity initiative that we posit, resulting from steps (1) and (2), could emerge in the absence of any transgression, this is a fairly rare occurrence. We focus on the more pervasive situation in which diversity initiatives are crafted to respond to or preempt an imminent legal or competitive threat. From the point of this initial exchange, our model depicts five cycles of resistance that could emerge, taking into account the ways in which dominants and subordinants enact resistance. Each of these five cycles could operate independently; one cycle does not require a second cycle to generate it. However, the cycles can and often do follow each other in sequence. That is, dominants and subordinants could engage in one cycle, break free of it at some point, and then get caught in a second cycle. These cycles are much like eddies in a river, and the challenge is to avoid being swept up into them. And though we index the cycles in sequential fashion, A–E, there is no prescribed sequence for the cycles. A given organization may experience one, two, five, or none of these. In addition, the categories of resistance for dominants and subordinants serve as placeholders within the cycles. Although a dominant backlash may be an essential node in a cycle, the particular manifestation of the backlash may vary.
ER59632_C010.indd 262
10/16/2007 7:42:15 AM
ER59632_C010.indd 263
Subordinant Assent (8)
Dominant Lament (7)
(2)
DIVERSITY TRANSGRESSIONS
SUBORDINANTS CONFRONT
Cycle D
Cycle E
Cycle A
Dominant Obliviousness (3)
Subordinants’ Resignation (4b)
Cycle D
Dominant Backlash (5)
Cycle B
Cycle C
Subordinants Escalate (6a)
Subordinants Escalate (6b)
Cycles of Resistance
Figure 10.1 The resistance cycles.
Cycle D
(1)
COMMIT DIVERSITY TRANSGRESSIONS
DOMINANTS
Subordinants’ Resignation (4a)
263
10/16/2007 7:42:18 AM
264
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
The cycles labeled A and B occur when the subordinant’s confrontation of the transgression is met with dominant obliviousness. In this scenario, it is common for the subordinant to work to convince the dominant of the validity of the transgression. However, the powerful mindset that is fostering the obliviousness is not easily altered and dominant obliviousness persists. In the face of this persistent obliviousness and, ultimately, denial of the transgressions, subordinants connect with dominants to fuel either of two cycles. Cycle A (Boxes 1-2-3-4a-1) occurs when the subordinant is simply worn down by the dominants’ obliviousness and responds with resignation. In this case, the subordinant gives up trying to convince the dominant, and ultimately the status quo of inequity returns as the dominant continues to engage cluelessly in diversity transgressions. Interestingly, this cycle is, in fact, the enactment of the very power dynamic that is being challenged by the diversity initiative: the dominant exerts his or her worldview and the subordinant ultimately concedes that the dominants’ worldview is ascendant. However, the subordinant does not always offer resignation in the face of obliviousness. The alternative is for the subordinant to react to the dominant in an increasingly confrontational way. In Cycle B (Boxes 3-6a-3), the subordinant essentially escalates the conflictual nature of the interaction by reinforcing the validity of the transgression. The subordinant will often become more agitated, impatient, and angry with the dominant. In this particular cycle, that agitation is met with increasing befuddlement by the dominant, and the two parties engage in this frustrating back and forth ad nauseum. But subordinant escalation is not always met with increased obviousness; sometimes it triggers dominant anger and backlash. Cycle C (Boxes 5-6b-5) captures this escalation process. Here, the continued competitive, aggressive interaction prevents the dominant and subordinant from identifying any common ground from which they can begin to negotiate solutions to the status quo. Rather, they remain invested in determining which side has the greater logical and moral footing (Friedman & Davidson, 2001). The dominant backlash feeds into yet a fourth cycle, labeled D (Boxes 1-2-5-4b-1), in which the response to the subordinants’ confronting of the diversity transgression is immediate backlash. As we have already described, this backlash can fuel competitive escalation. But it may also be met with subordinant resignation to the
ER59632_C010.indd 264
10/16/2007 7:42:18 AM
Cycles of Resistance
265
dominant. This quality of resignation may differ from the subordinant resignation in response to obliviousness in that resignation in response to backlash is a clear backing down to the dominant, usually accompanied by a feeling of inadequacy, sadness, apprehension, or fear. In contrast, when subordinants resign themselves to dominant obliviousness, the associated feelings include frustration and discouragement, but often do not include the self-esteem-battering emotions present here. When the subordinant resigns in response to backlash, the dominant has effectively re-established the status quo of inequity because there ceases to be a challenge to that particular dominant view of the world. The fifth cycle of resistance, Cycle E (Boxes 1-2-7-8-1), is built around the dominant response of lamentation. In this case, the dominants’ excessive need to absolve him or herself of the guilt of dominance is met with receptiveness on the part of the subordinant. This is not surprising as the dominant is clearly motivated to change the status quo and may even be proactive in generating ideas for change. But in this cycle, the change the dominant is willing to make rarely impacts the actual inequities that need to be redressed. The dominant makes gestures toward change, but stops short of engaging real change. But subordinants accede to the change because they are seduced by the will to do something, even if the action is insufficient to generate real change. Hence, dominants and subordinants partake in “Diversity Day” and speaker events on a regular basis that, when done well, enhance positive affect among both dominants and subordinants, but do not actually change anything of substance. So when a White male organization member consistently refuses to diversify his team by recruiting and hiring team employees of color, he is seen as resisting the organization’s efforts to increase racial and ethnic diversity. However, the same attribution tends not to accrue to the team leader of color who does the same. His behavior would not commonly be framed as being resistant to diversity. To some extent, he receives a “free pass” in this instance when it comes to diversity resistance because he embodies racial and ethnic diversity and hence could not possibly resist it. Breaking through the Resistance Cycles These cycles of resistance, though counterproductive and often noxious, pervade most organizations seeking to build truly inclu-
ER59632_C010.indd 265
10/16/2007 7:42:18 AM
266
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
sive cultures. They are seductive because they reinforce habits that dominants and subordinants cultivate over a lifetime of negotiating power dynamics in their lives. The habitual nature of these behaviors also makes it extremely challenging to break these counterproductive cycles. However, there are a number of capabilities which, if capitalized upon, can allow dominant and subordinant organization members to forge a meaningful alliance through which they address and eliminate inequity in the organization. The most important element for shattering these cycles is what we label external shock. External shocks are events and actions that upset the status quo of inequity by confronting dominants and subordinants with the profound costs of that status quo. External shocks loosen long-held assumptions and beliefs and open people to new data, to rethinking assumptions (Argyris, 1993; Lewin, 1951). Examples of external shocks would be new statements from leaders of organizational values and beliefs in diversity; clearly articulated organizational legal requirements regarding diversity; rediscovered memory of parents’ beliefs regarding diversity; and explicit observations of inequity (e.g., could include dominants unfairly getting resources and subordinants unfairly blocked from resources). Although external shocks provide the stimulus for the breaking of the cycles, individual capabilities are needed to capitalize upon the shock. Whether one is dominant or subordinant, gaining awareness of the existence of the cycles is a powerful ability. The often unconscious nature of the cycles makes them especially difficult to identify. The first step with regard to the resistance cycles is to assume that they could be in play in any organizational situation in which the challenges of diversity and inclusion are engaged. Beyond this initial mindset, surfacing them requires a set of relational skills that emphasize the importance of dominants and subordinants engaging one another in frank and authentic ways (Davidson & James, 2006; Ely, Meyerson, & Davidson, 2006). Ely, Meyerson, and Davidson (2006) have identified five key principles effective for building relationships between dominants and subordinants that would help them work together to surface and dissipate any resistance cycles—pausing, connecting, self-questioning, soliciting genuine support, and shifting one’s mindset. The usefulness of these capabilities is predicated on the assumption that when we enter into interactions from a stance of anger or defensiveness,
ER59632_C010.indd 266
10/16/2007 7:42:18 AM
Cycles of Resistance
267
we are likely to deepen the fissures in the relationship. This in turn entrenches cycles of resistance. The alternative is to adopt the intention to learn, to step out of the need to be right. A learning orientation motivates us to seek to understand—rather than to judge—the other person. Such understanding can help us connect with the other’s humanity, which can provide further impetus for breaking the cycles. “Pausing” is the act of responding to threats to one’s identity with reflection first, rather than habitual reaction. For example, when a dominant is confronted with the presence of diversity transgressions, that person could enact obliviousness by immediately questioning, justifying, and denying, or he or she could refrain from any action and just attend to the agitation being felt. Pausing allows for a person to identify the emotional reactions and consider how he or she may wish to act. Pausing is an effective intervention at any point in any of the five resistance cycles. It is a capability that can be called upon as frequently as needed and serves to short circuit the cycle, at least temporarily. “Connecting” is the act of refocusing goals on larger objectives and thereby creating common ground on which to establish collaboration with the other. The act of connecting runs counter to the tendency to be self-focused in the midst of these cycles. That both the dominant and subordinant actors become self-focused in these resistance cycles is paradoxical, especially as we define the cycles as phenomena that mutually engage the two parties. But, in fact, the cycles persist because the actors fail to truly attend to the interests and the experiences of the other. Subordinants escalate in response to dominant obliviousness because they often fail to empathize with the surprise, disorientation, and embarrassment of the person holding the dominant identity. Dominants become defensive (and hence aggressive or obliviousness) because they flee from the profound pain that subordinants experience as people who are systematically denied fair career opportunities, fair rewards, and the benefit of being able to be fully present and engaged with their dominant colleagues. Connecting provides a motivation for caring about the interests and experiences of the other—the drive to achieve the overarching goal which, in this context, is cultivating an empowering, fair, and energizing inclusive organization.
ER59632_C010.indd 267
10/16/2007 7:42:18 AM
268
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
“Questioning oneself” requires each person to ask himself or herself such questions as, “What am I missing in the way I’m seeing this situation? How might my desire to be proven right (or innocent) be distorting my view of reality or of the other person?” This capability is probably the most difficult of the five. It requires taking risks precisely when one feels most in need of protecting oneself from a perceived or actual threat. This principle is particularly challenging for subordinants, whose concerns others have so often dismissed or trivialized. The principle of self-questioning enacts a learning orientation, which is critical for dominants and subordinants trapped in these cycles. The key in this capability is to persistently and earnestly question one’s interpretation of one’s experience, one’s beliefs about what has happened, who is right, and so forth. Questioning oneself means letting go of one’s self-protective habits and being receptive to views that may be difficult to hear, so one can discern what can be learned. We identify “getting genuine support” as a capability because we define it not as finding others to sympathize and reinforce the feelings of frustration, anger, or sadness that are so prevalent when trapped in these cycles. Rather, it is the capacity to identify those who can help sort through one’s reactions, identify a fuller picture of reality, and, question one’s own assumptions about the situation. The counterproductive habit is to seek help from cheerleaders only, seeing those who challenge one’s point of view as threats and those who reinforce it as allies. Receiving reinforcement may be comforting, but it often doesn’t confer much learning. Support is not merely receiving validation that one’s interpretation of the situation is correct. Although that kind of support can feel good in the moment, it provides the opposite of what is needed to break the cycles. Instead, one needs the counsel of trusted colleagues who can help identify and decide among the choices of how to deal with the situation and interactions. Finally, “shifting one’s mindset”—radically shifting one’s way of thinking about oneself, one’s situation, and other people—is a critical capability for breaking out of resistance cycles. One must cultivate self-awareness through self-reflection that allows one to break out of negative patterns of behavior. The fundamental shift is away from a mind-set that says, “You need to change” to one that asks, “What can I change?”
ER59632_C010.indd 268
10/16/2007 7:42:19 AM
Cycles of Resistance
269
Conclusion The cycles of resistance are perhaps the most daunting interpersonal and intergroup dynamic facing organizations that seek to leverage the ever-increasing differences that are embodied in modern-day workforces. These cycles are ubiquitous, elusive, and chameleon-like. And dysfunctional though they may be, they are adept at mingling with a variety of functional behaviors, creating the illusion that they are actually creating progress toward creating a more inclusive organization. The only way to combat these cycles is for subordinants and dominants to work together to reveal them and then move beyond them. Challenging though this may be, it is the only way organizations can truly achieve the objective of valuing difference. End Note 1. Although Webster’s defines subordinant as an adjective, we also use the term as a noun in this chapter to denote an individual from a subordinant identity group.
References Alderfer, C. P. (1987). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 190–222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Argyris, C. (1993). Education for leading-learning. Organizational Dynamics, 21(3), 5–17. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158–166. Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism: Blatant, subtle, and covert discrimination (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bradberry, J. G., & Preston, J. C. (1992). Cultural diversity and organizational adaptivity in the face of global change. Organization Development Journal, 10(3), 67–73. Dass, P., & Parker, B. (1999). Strategies for managing human resource diversity: From resistance to learning. The Academy of Management Executive, 13(2), 68–80. Davidson, M. N., & James, E. H. (2006). The engines of positive relationships across difference: Conflict and learning. In J. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 137–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ER59632_C010.indd 269
10/16/2007 7:42:19 AM
270
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
Davidson, M. N., & Wishik, H. R. (2002). Learning to lead: Some impacts of social identity on management and leadership development. Unpublished manuscript, Charlottesville, VA. Davis, G., & Watson, G. (1982). Into the mainstream: Black life in corporate America. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Devine, P. G., Evett, S. R., Vasquez-Suson, K. A., Sorrentino, R. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Exploring the interpersonal dynamics of intergroup contact. In Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 423–464). Guilford Press. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986a). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical trends and contemporary approaches. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 1–34). Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.) (1986b). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 88–102. Ely, R., Meyerson, D., & Davidson, M. N. (2006). Rethinking political correctness. Harvard Business Review, 84, 79–87. Fanon, F. (1968). Black skin, White masks (1st Evergreen ed.). New York: Grove Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Friedman, R. A., & Davidson, M. N. (2001). Managing diversity and second-order conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(2), 132–153. Gallagher, C. A. (2003). Playing the White ethnic card: Using ethnic identity to deny contemporary racism. In A. W. Doane & E. Bonilla-Silva (Eds.), White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 145–158). New York: Routledge. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. Gutek, B. A., & Stevens, D. A. (1979). Effects of sex of subject, sex of stimulus cue, and androgyny level on evaluations in work situations which evoke sex role stereotypes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14(1), 23–32. Hacker, A. (1995). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile, unequal. New York: Ballantine Books. Hays-Thomas, R. (2004). Why now? The contemporary focus on managing diversity. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 3–30). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
ER59632_C010.indd 270
10/16/2007 7:42:19 AM
Cycles of Resistance
271
Hemphill, H., & Haines, R. (1998). Confronting discrimination in your workplace. HR Focus, 75(7), S5–S6. Jennings, C. L., & Wells, L., Jr. (1989). The Wells-Jennings analysis: A new diagnostic window on race relations in American organizations. In W. Sikes, A. B. Drexler & J. Gant (Eds.), The emerging practice of organization development. Arlington, VA: NTL Institute. Jensen, R. (2003). White privilege shapes the U.S. In M. S. Kimmel & A. L. Ferber (Eds.), Privilege: A reader (pp. 79–82). Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. Karp, H. B., & Sammour, H. Y. (2000). Workforce diversity: Choices in diversity training programs and dealing with resistance to diversity. College Student Journal, 34(3), 451–458. Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 77–102. Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 40(3), 414–431. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 56–65. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science (1st ed.). New York: Harper. Lipsky, S. (1987). Internalized racism. Seattle, WA: Rational Island Publishers. Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 393–421. McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32(2), 23–45. McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies. Wellesley, MA: Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College. Memmi, A. (1967). The colonizer and the colonized (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43(1), 41–78. Pharr, S., & Raymond, S. G. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press. Pondy, L. R. (1969). Varieties of organizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4), 499–506.
ER59632_C010.indd 271
10/16/2007 7:42:19 AM
272
Martin N. Davidson and Karen L. Proudford
Prasad, P., Mills, A. J., Elmes, M., & Prasad, A. (1997). Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85(2), 259–275. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup cooperation and conflict: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simoni, J. M., & Walters, K. L. (2001). Heterosexual identity and heterosexism: Recognizing privilege to reduce prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 41(1), 157–172. Stack, S. (1980). Discrimination in organizations. Sociology, 7(4), 105. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ER59632_C010.indd 272
10/16/2007 7:42:19 AM
11 Overcoming Resistance Structures and Attitudes Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
The most skillfully-designed diversity initiatives do not tackle just isolated disputes and crises. Rather, they inform business strategy, implementation, and managerial practice. Moreover, they encourage policy and system changes that signal to employees that they are respected and valued members of the organization. Davidson (1999, p. 164)
Individuals and organizations reject or embrace diversity for a number of reasons. In some cases, old organizational norms and stereotypes of what constitutes the “ideal” workforce are to blame for this resistance (Williams, 2000). Other times, however, avoiding change seems to make good business sense. For example, organizations may feel that they do not have the resources to invest in diversity initiatives or that the change may lead to lost profit. These analyses, however, are outdated. In fact, resisting change to increase diversity is often substantially costly to organizations because of increased attrition and decreased organizational commitment among talented employees, and hence loss of intellectual capital. A solid diversity strategy can address these issues, especially when the organization is already experiencing different turnover rates between women and men, or between White employees and employees of color (Gerkovich, 2005). In this chapter we consider a number of ways to address and overcome resistance to diversity as well as to embrace the positive changes that true diversity entails. We focus in particular on how businesses in the United States might become more egalitarian in 273
ER59632_C011.indd 273
10/4/2007 7:16:03 AM
274
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
terms of gender representation. Of course, gender is only one dimension of diversity, and gender often intersects with other group membership—race, ethnicity, class, and sexual orientation—leading to qualitatively different experiences of inequality (Acker, 1999; Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999). Also, within the workplace, dynamics of gender diversity differ from those of other disadvantaged (and underrepresented) groups. The most complete analyses of workplace diversity are those that simultaneously take into account several dimensions of diversity while also acknowledging the importance of the context (e.g., work, family, educational institutions) in which individual and groups are situated (Acker, 1999). Yet, the lessons that can be gleaned from looking at gender representation may also help those who strive to make organizations inclusive on other dimensions. For example, one might look at the factors that perpetuate sex discrimination and use them as a lesson to understand the processes that lead to race discrimination. In this sense, we use the relatively narrow focus on gender as an “indicator” of some important processes that can help us address the broaden definition of workplace diversity (including ethnicity, race, class, sexual orientation, and multiple group memberships). A focus on gender diversity at work can also give an entrance into other aspects of life. Even though gender segregation is still prevalent in the workplace (Bergmann, 2007; Maume, 2001), men and women interact and are interdependent in many other contexts (e.g., family, relationships, friendships). Thus the “social distancing” that we often find among members of traditionally segregated groups does not apply to gender relations. For these reasons, gender equality at work is strictly connected with gender equality outside of work. For example, research shows that, regardless of their employment status and of the financial contribution that they make to the household, women still disproportionably bear the responsibility of household and childcare outside of work compared to men (Crosby & Sabattini, 2005; Steil 2000). Women’s greater responsibility within the family often creates a vicious cycle that, ultimately, deprives them of important options and opportunities. As a case in point, women (and especially mothers) are more likely to limit their job commitments or take time off because of family responsibilities than men in general and men as fathers (Steil, 2000). These interruptions can lead to differences in women’s job experience, skills, and earning capacity compared to men (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Becker & Moen,
ER59632_C011.indd 274
10/4/2007 7:16:04 AM
Overcoming Resistance
275
1999). Halpern (2005) notes that the so-called wage “gender gap” becomes a comparably large “mommy gap” when we compare the average income of women with and without children. To complete the cycle, the wage differences just described often lead even the most egalitarian couples to “sacrifice” the woman’s over the man’s job and/or career, due to the fact that it makes more financial sense (Becker & Moen, 1999; Deutsch, 1999; Steil, 2000). But gender inequality and the spill-over between family and work do not impact all women in the same way. Although middle-class and professional women have difficulties moving up to top leadership positions, and beyond the so-called glass ceiling, low-income women and women of color are more likely to experience the “sticky floor” phenomenon; lack of employment options and flexibility leaves them “stuck” in minimum wage, part-time, and insecure jobs with very little opportunity to move up and/or earn more (Harlan & White Berheide, 1994). Due to their lack of benefits and flexibility many of these jobs create particularly difficult predicaments for low-income and single-parents that cannot afford childcare or even taking time off work (Sabattini, 2004). In sum, on the one hand, advancing gender equality also means promoting policies to benefit work-life effectiveness among both women and men of different backgrounds (Rapoport, Bailyn, Fletcher, & Pruitt, 2002; Williams, 2000). On the other hand, many workplace policies that foster gender equality in the workplace—such as parental leave or flexible work arrangements—cannot fully succeed as long as they are being perceived as “accommodations” that solely benefit women (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Finally, work-life policies will not fully succeed in promoting diversity and inclusiveness as long as different groups have unequal access to these policies (Stones & Lovejoy, 2004; Williams, 2000). Our chapter concentrates on two ways in which work organizations can address these issues and overcome resistance to diversity. In both cases, real change will only ensue if it is clearly supported at the top leadership levels and integrated in the organizational culture (Rapoport et al., 2002). First, change can start at the structural or organizational level, such as by introducing new policies and practices that promote diversity at different levels of the organization. Structural change in the absence of attitudinal change is usually short-lived. A second way to support diversity targets individual and group attitudes that seem to hinder change; diversity training and
ER59632_C011.indd 275
10/4/2007 7:16:04 AM
276
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
other educational programs are examples of strategies that specifically promote change at the individual level. However, individual attitudes cannot be changed without clear communication about why change is important (Catalyst, 2002). Although structural change alone is difficult to sustain, attitudinal change that does not produce structural change is doomed to result in a perpetuation of the status quo and may even produce powerful backlash. This chapter proceeds in three uneven parts. In the first part, we discuss ways to create behavioral change through organizational change. One can seek to make the organization more welcoming to women, for example, by increasing the costs to the organization of discrimination or by providing it with tools to promote diversity. These tools may allow many workplaces to increase the benefits (and decrease the difficulties) of becoming truly inclusive. The second part of the chapter shifts the attention to individual change. When it comes to gender diversity at work, attitudinal change can be promoted (1) by addressing concerns about the costs and benefits to the organization that change and diversity can bring and (2) by openly confronting stereotypic attitudes and beliefs that—although often invisible—have real consequences for those who are targeted. In the final section of this chapter, we argue that the two types of change need to reinforce each other, and we offer examples of how structural change can both precede and follow attitudinal change. Structures Changing organizational structure by introducing new policies and practices can create change and increase diversity in a number of ways. First, organizational structures guide behavior and may facilitate change. Second, if well-managed, structures, policies, and practices that promote inclusion might attract (and retain) employees with similar values and beliefs. Affirmative Action: Monitoring and Correcting Women and other groups who have traditionally been excluded from top leadership positions benefit when employment decisions are made in a transparent way. Openness and accountability help
ER59632_C011.indd 276
10/4/2007 7:16:04 AM
Overcoming Resistance
277
women and people of color, especially as they help organizations struggle free of the strangle hold of old norms (Welle & Lyness, 2002). Business slogans such as “We measure what we treasure” are more than clichés. Clear measures help develop transparency of decision-making by increasing accountability. Two factors have contributed to the rise of accountability and transparency in many businesses in the United States. First, to compete globally, companies have recently begun to flatten their hierarchies (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). With increased participation among employees at different levels of the organization, transparency, accountability, and openness in decision making have increased. Second, since the 1960s—when the federal government and all federal contractors were required to implement affirmative action plans—an increasing number of U.S. employers have started to utilize affirmative action as a tool for change (Crosby, 1999). In general terms, affirmative action occurs whenever an organization is proactive in assuring that individuals from different backgrounds (e.g., gender and ethnicity) are treated equally (Crosby, Iyer, Clayton, & Downing, 2003). Affirmative action plans entail two parts: monitoring and action (Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006). First, the organization monitors its personnel files to make sure that it employs and promotes qualified members of the targeted classes in proportion to their availability in the work force. Thus, for example, for each job classification, an organization must document the numbers of women who are in the pool of qualified (and available) workers and the number they actually employ. If the monitoring phase reveals a problem, then the organization must devise and seek to implement ways to correct the imbalances. In this sense, affirmative action plans can be considered as a first step to level the playing field at work and in education. Corrective measures usually focus on gating mechanisms. All organizations use “gating” mechanisms to control the upward flow of people. For example, many companies have specific performance evaluations procedures that they utilize at the point of hiring or when assessing a candidate’s eligibility to advance. When a gating mechanism (e.g., an application examination) shows greater differences among groups than would be found in the on-the-job performance, “selective system bias” occurs (Jencks, 1998). Consider in this regard the effort of women to become fighter pilots (Crosby et al., 2003). In order to determine whether to allow women to pilot
ER59632_C011.indd 277
10/4/2007 7:16:04 AM
278
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
expensive fighter planes, the military put women though a series of physical challenges related to piloting fighter planes and measured the women’s performance against that of the men. One particular test involved spinning people around in a centrifugal force machine until they lost consciousness and then seeing how rapidly they regained consciousness. To speed up the return of consciousness, the participants wore “g-suits” that pushed blood in the legs back up the body toward the brain. During the first set of tests, it appeared as if the women were slower to regain consciousness than the men (and hence were a poor risk for the job of fighter pilot). Only through careful scrutiny did the military discover that the suits it used were made to fit the male body and not the female body. With suits that fit equally well, the women regained consciousness equally fast. Thanks to their accountability measures, affirmative action employers can easily take steps to help eliminate or reduce selective system bias. In some cases, organizations might discover that their current criteria for hiring and promotion are not gender-neutral and hence provide inaccurate predictions of employees’ performance (Crosby, 1999). As we discuss later in this chapter, these biases are often hard to detect without accountability measures, especially when they conform to implicit or explicit stereotypes about particular groups that are prevalent in our society (Catalyst, 2005; Glick & Fiske, 2007). If not addressed, however, biased evaluations deprive organizations of talent and talented employees of opportunities. Mentoring One form of affirmative action—mentoring—has enjoyed greater popularity than other forms (Crosby, 1999). Mentoring generally comprises a developmental relationship wherein someone with relatively great organizational experience helps someone with relatively little organizational experience to develop and to succeed (Kram, 1985). Scholars generally distinguish between informal and formal mentoring relationships. The former occurs when individuals spontaneously cultivate mentoring relationships. An example would be a supervisor taking a high-potential colleague of lower tenure and level under his or her wing, so to speak, often because the supervisor sees in the younger colleague some promise of talent. Formal mentoring relationships, in contrast, occur when organizations set up
ER59632_C011.indd 278
10/4/2007 7:16:04 AM
Overcoming Resistance
279
programs through which more senior employees, for example, are paired with more junior employees (Ragins, 1999). As David Thomas (1990) has pointed out, one disadvantage of informal mentoring relationships is that they tend to unintentionally favor privileged members over the others and hence ultimately perpetuate the status quo. Mentors and protégés alike are often drawn to—and feel more comfortable developing mentoring relationships with—similar others. Given that men, and White men in particular, are prevalent at the higher levels of the organizational hierarchy, mentors with more power are more likely to develop informal relationships with other White men. Similarly, given that women and people of color are more likely to be found in entrylevel and middle-management positions (Catalyst, 2005a), a protégé from an underrepresented group might choose to gravitate toward a mentoring relationship with a relatively powerless or peripheral person in the organization and avoid less comforting relationships with more powerful (but dissimilar) others (Murrell & Tangri, 1999). To address this barrier, one strategy is for leaders to make an effort to “proactively” develop others and go out of their way to cultivate informal mentoring relationships with people from different backgrounds (Catalyst, 2002a). Researchers have also shown that organizations can take measures to enhance the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs (Bearman, Blake-Beard, Hunt, & Crosby, 2007). One promising approach is to use “mentoring circles” in which one or two senior women meet on a regular basis with a group of junior women (McCambley, 1999). Another promising approach is to link personnel goals to mentoring programs. When mentoring programs include “high potential” employees, division heads can be held accountable for the rate of promotion that occurs subsequent to the mentoring program among the protégés who are women and/or people of color (McCambley, 1999). Mentoring programs need not be restricted to “high potential” individuals. Professional development programs can help organizations create an inclusive environment by helping all employees—including those who would typically fall “under the radar”—devise suitable career goals while also providing them with tangible opportunities and assignments (Feyerherm & Vick, 2005). Although a variety of different mentoring programs can prove helpful to individuals and organizations, virtually all programs benefit from one central feature: clarity of goals. Knowing what the
ER59632_C011.indd 279
10/4/2007 7:16:04 AM
280
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
mentoring programs are meant to achieve, whether it is the promotion of star employees from diverse groups or the rendering of assistance to employees whose performance needs improvement, is important if the programs are to help foster diversity. Building a Flexible Work Environment The way in which companies address work-life and flexibility issues represents an important step towards creating an inclusive work environment. Because flexible arrangements affect (and change) the ways in which people work at all levels of the organization, managing these programs well is essential (Gerkovich, 2005). A gap between the institution of formal flexibility policies and actual organizational practices, for example, may lead to negative consequences or even backlash against those employees who use these programs (Rapoport et al., 2002). Most organizations, for example, institute part-time and job-sharing work without tackling underlying negative beliefs about part-time work (Halpern, 2005; Rapoport et al., 2002). These attitudes often transcend individual organizations to reflect larger cultural norms, such as those that value full-time over part-time arrangements. In the U.S., the mere fact that employees who work 30 hours receive 50% (and not to 75%) of the pay of employees who do the same job 40 hours a week implies that parttime is not “worth” as much as full-time work (Halpern, 2005). The higher value associated with full-time work can then create the perception that part-time employees are less committed or “deserving” of compensation and advancement opportunities than full-time employees. In sum, in order to function effectively, work-life policies require a shift in the ways in which we think about work. The goals of worklife initiatives should not only be to provide more flexibility to individual employees but also change institutions and develop innovative work practices based on inclusion rather than on gender stereotypes and expectations (Rapoport et al., 2002; Williams, 2000). Misconceptions of what constitutes the “ideal” worker can damage organizations by restricting (or even depleting) their talent pool and, in the end, the bottom line (Alliance for Work-Life Progress, 2005; Roehling, Roehling, & Moen). But building a flexible workplace can benefit diversity efforts in another way. By providing alternatives to the
ER59632_C011.indd 280
10/4/2007 7:16:05 AM
Overcoming Resistance
281
old male-only, middle-class model of work, work-life policies broadcast a recognition that people may differ from each other in terms of their needs and experiences, both at work and in their personal life. If well implemented and integrated into the organization’s culture, these programs help create a work environment where people from different backgrounds can thrive and hence benefit the organization through a more committed and satisfied workforce (Catalyst, 2004; Friedman, Christensen, & DeGroot, 1998). Changing Attitudes If one way to overcome resistance is to create new structures and procedures that guide people’s behaviors, then another way consists of addressing the individual attitudes that inform those behaviors. Structural change can help to both promote and maintain attitude change. In the following sections, we address attitudinal change at two levels. First, we note that some attitudes and beliefs are linked to pragmatic concerns, and are often associated with people’s fear of change. Creating a truly diverse work environment often requires individuals to not only change different aspects of their work, but also shake some of their core values (Catalyst, 2002). Second, we identify more subtle and often invisible beliefs about diversity. In order to succeed, change agents need to deal with resistance at both levels. However, tackling diversity resistance through attitude change does not entail “homogenizing” the workforce by persuading everyone to think the same. Rather, attitudinal change becomes a tool to promote inclusion, open communication, and a work environment that values different attitudes and working styles. Addressing Pragmatic Concerns Creating and maintaining a truly inclusive work environment requires change, and resistance to change is an inherent part of the process. People resist change, in part, because it can be frightening. For organizations as a whole, change is especially worrisome when the benefits of change are uncertain and the costs of change are evident (Einhart, 2001; Giovannini, 2004). Employee attitudes might
ER59632_C011.indd 281
10/4/2007 7:16:05 AM
282
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
also be influenced by the historical and economic context in which change is occurring. External factors such as an economic recession and increased competition might raise the level of resistance that companies experience, both at the individual and organizational levels (Catalyst, 2002c). Catalyst (2002) describes different ways in which employees can react to change efforts. For some, discussing diversity can become uncomfortable or even distressing. Others might view new programs and processes as opportunities to learn, and hence welcome them. It is helpful for organizations to address both types of reactions and, in either case, communication is key (Catalyst, 2002c). Two practices that can lead to improved communication include education and benchmarking (Catalyst, 2002; 2002c). A comprehensive diversity education program has the potential to not only increase individual knowledge, but can also create profound changes within the organization as a whole (Catalyst, 2002; Rapoport et al., 2002). Metrics drive change by keeping track of where the organization stands in terms of gender and race diversity, providing a clear idea of the flow of talent—that is, who stays, leaves, and gets promoted (Catalyst, 2002c). Because benchmarking encourages accountability, it also promotes clear communication. For many organizations, discussing diversity issues can entail transparency about the reasons as to why diversity is important. In recent years a number of research organizations have started to disseminate findings and information to address businesses’ concerns with the bottom line and to help organizations create a solid business case for workplace diversity (Catalyst, 2004; Bond, Galinsky, Kim, & Brownfield, 2005). Although acknowledging workplace diversity as “fair” and the “right thing to do” represents an important rationale in promoting new initiatives (Davidson, 1999), clearly identifying the link between gender diversity and business performance leads to increased resources and leadership commitment to diversity initiatives (Robinson & Dechant, 1997). Presenting a solid business case for gender diversity also facilitates the successful implementation of diversity initiatives and hence dramatically increases the initiatives’ sustainability (Gerkovich, 2005). For example, work-life and family-friendly policies have been shown to significantly increase productivity, morale, satisfaction, and create a more effective work environment (Alliance for Work-Life Progress, 2005; Bond et al., 2005; Rapoport et al., 2002; Roehling et al., 2001).
ER59632_C011.indd 282
10/4/2007 7:16:05 AM
Overcoming Resistance
283
By emphasizing the connections between organizational vitality and diversity, many companies are now recognizing the benefits of adopting an accountability and measurement framework so that they can keep track of workforce demographics, test the success of diversity initiatives already in place, and update current practices accordingly (Catalyst, 2002a; Giovannini, 2004). Affirmative Action. Because many tend to confuse it with “instituting quotas,” communication and accountability become particularly important when presenting the business case for affirmative action plans. One way to melt resistance to affirmative action is to educate members of an organization about the benefits that will flow to the entire company—and not just, for example, to women employees and employees of color (Leonard, 1996)—from its proper implementation. Research has shown that affirmative action employers are equally or even more profitable than other employers (Crosby, 2004). One study showed that companies that win awards for their exemplary affirmative action efforts experience a jump in stock prices when the award are announced, while companies losing discrimination law suits experience a dip in stock prices (Wright, Ferris, Hiller, & Kroll, 1995). Similarly, a report by the Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) documented that firms that are known to be good affirmative action employers enjoy an average return on investment of 18.3% whereas firms that are known to be bad on affirmative action show only 7.9% return. Work-Life Policies and Flexible Work Arrangements. Communication is also important when introducing new work-life practices. As noted earlier, when policies such as job-share or telecommuting are introduced in organizational contexts that penalize those who utilize them, these programs fail in their effort to promote change (Rapoport et al. 2002). In the past decade, researchers have made an effort to address the need for a more flexible workplace in a number of ways. First, researchers and practitioners alike have reframed “family-friendly” issues into “work-life” issues, shifting the focus to employees’ ability to work and other aspects of their personal life, including but not limited to their family (Rapoport et al., 2002). There are two main reasons for this shift. First, recent demographic and technological
ER59632_C011.indd 283
10/4/2007 7:16:05 AM
284
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
changes—including an increase in dual-earner and single-parent families, and the development of technologically complex forms of communication—have dramatically changed the way people work. Today more than ever, employees are less likely to consider work and life as completely “separate” domains and are less willing to sacrifice one for the other (Catalyst, 2002, 2002a; Crosby & Sabattini, 2005; Rapoport et al., 2002; Williams, 2000). Accordingly, both women and men appreciate a work environment that allows them to manage work and personal life effectively (Rapoport et al., 2002; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In professional jobs, opportunities for advancement and personal development have also become increasingly important in how people feel about their jobs (Auster, 2001). A perceived lack of advancement opportunities, for example, is often considered reason enough to leave a company, or even a line of work (Auster & Ekstein, 2005). Similarly, workers today are more likely to care about the climate and environment where they work and to consider job satisfaction as an important part of their work experience (Roehling et al., 2001; Stokes, Riger, & Sullivan, 1995). To address these needs, companies have started to offer a number of policies and practices, including (among others) schedule flexibility, telecommuting options, job-share and part-time arrangements, different types of childcare assistance, and other programs that help improve possible conflict between work and life (i.e., nonwork) demands (Roehling, et al., 2001). A second reason for the shift from “work-family” to “work-life” entails the wish to advance programs that can benefit all employees, including those who do not have children or dependents. In this sense, work-life effectiveness promotes the idea that companies should “honor the full diversity of personal-life arrangements in the workplace” (Rapoport et al., 2002, p. 15). On the one hand, focusing exclusively on family-friendly policies (such as childcare) may lead to resentment about unequal access to such benefits from those whose needs are not addressed in the policies (e.g., childless employees) (Grandey & Cordeiro, 2002). On the other hand, as noted by Smithson and Stokoe (2005), the gender-neutral terms “work-life” and “flexible working” are part of an attempt make these issues mainstream within company policies while trying to remove the association with women’s concern (as they are when the term “family” is used). They also found, however,
ER59632_C011.indd 284
10/4/2007 7:16:05 AM
Overcoming Resistance
285
that this strategy doesn’t seem to be working quite yet; simply using gender-neutral words does not reduce the gender inequality in how these programs are utilized. In general, men are still less likely to take advantage of work-life policies than women (Rapoport et al., 2002; Smithson & Stokoe, 2005). As we discuss later, to truly make flexibility a core business practice, organizations need to address their hidden assumptions and norms about gender and work (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2005). As long as flexibility programs are perceived as “accommodations” and people who utilize them as “less than ideal” workers, these policies will never fully succeed in leveling the playing field (Williams, 2000). Despite these challenges, research shows that work-life policies and practices positively affect employees’ loyalty and organizational commitment, while decreasing stress and burn-out (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2005; Roehling et al., 2001). There is also evidence that diversity initiatives improve recruitment and retention while promoting innovation and creativity (Catalyst, 2004). Finally, research suggests that flexibility is positively related to business outcomes, including productivity, financial performance, and level of client service (Corporate Voices for Working Families, 2005). In one particular study, Gornick and Meyers (2003) address these issues cross-culturally by comparing work-life policies across different European1 and North American countries (including Canada and the United States). They first analyze how to reconcile the promotion of important work-life policies (e.g., paid family leave, schedule flexibility) with the gender-unequal division of labor that is still prevalent in many Western countries. Second, they explore how gender inequalities in paid and unpaid work lead to negative consequences (for individuals, families, and organizations) that cannot be addressed by simply “rewarding” women for caregiving time and/ or by insuring them against family dissolution (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). In order to truly address these issues, it is necessary to develop policies that consider and challenge gender disparities inside and outside the labor market. So, for example, truly inclusive worklife initiatives should promote the symmetrical engagement of men and women—as groups—in both employment and caregiving. This could be done through incentives that encourage fathers to utilize parental leave policies (or discourage backlash for those who do use them), regulations that strengthen the implementation of “reduced-
ER59632_C011.indd 285
10/4/2007 7:16:05 AM
286
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
hour” and part-time work (for men and women), and, for working parents, extensive public policies that support both caregiving time and substitute childcare arrangements (Gornick & Meyers, 2003). Gornick and Meyers (2003) also note important connections between some work-life programs and work productivity. Although not all flexibility programs will increase productivity (most do not harm it), research evidence suggests that many—such as shorter work weeks—are actually good for profits and productivity. For example, while the Unites States leads2 other industrialized countries when productivity is measured per worker, the United States loses rank when productivity is estimated per hour worked. What accounts for the seemingly paradoxical finding? The effect can be traced to diminishing returns for long hours (Gornick & Meyers, 2003; International Labour Organization, 2004). Studies such as this one are important also because they underscore how old beliefs about what constitutes “productivity” (e.g., face time) may not always be efficient in today’s workplace (Bond et al. 2005; Williams, 2000). Women at the Top. One important indication of gender inequality in society concerns women’s advancement to and representation in senior leadership positions within work and political organizations. Twenty years after the term “glass ceiling” was first used to describe the invisible barriers that keep women from reaching the top of the corporate hierarchy, women are still largely underrepresented in top leadership positions. To this day, only 5.2% of Fortune 500 top earners and 2% of CEOs are women, whereas they account for 46.4% of the U.S. workforce and 50.6% of middle managers (Catalyst, 2005a). Even when they reach leadership positions, managerial women’s earnings are still only 72% of their male colleagues (The Economist, 2005; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). To make the case that organizations can benefit from gender diversity at the top levels of the organization, one study looked at the relation between level of gender diversity in top management teams, on the one hand, and company performance, on the other (Catalyst, 2004). Examining some of the links between diversity efforts and profitability was not possible in the past when the number of women in top leadership positions was even smaller and too uneven to allow meaningful statistical comparisons (Catalyst, 2004). In this study, however, Catalyst was able to compared 353 Fortune 500 companies
ER59632_C011.indd 286
10/4/2007 7:16:05 AM
Overcoming Resistance
287
on two financial measures: return on equity (ROE) and total return to shareholders (TRS); both are indices of return on investments. The sample of companies considered included only those that had at least 4 out of 5 years of data between 1996 and 2000 (a time of considerable economic growth) and carefully accounted for name changes, mergers, and acquisitions (Gerkovich, 2005). Gender diversity was attained through Catalyst’s Census of Women Corporate Officers and Top Earners (COTE), whose accuracy is verified with each company (Catalyst, 2002b). Catalyst then divided the 353 companies into quartiles based on the percentage of women on their Top Management Teams, which allowed comparisons among companies of different size. The average percentage of women in bottom quartile companies (those with the lowest representation of women) was 1.9%, although the average percentage in top quartile companies (those with the highest representation of women) was 20.3% (Catalyst, 2004). The analyses compared the financial performance of these two quartiles—top and bottom. The comparisons highlighted a strong connection between the representation of women on top management teams and both measures of financial performance. Specifically, companies with the highest representation of women (89 companies with an average of 20.3% of women) outperformed companies with the lowest representation of women (88 companies with an average of 1.9% of women) both on return on equity (35% higher) and on total return to shareholders measures (34% higher). The benefits of diversity seem to hold when looking at other dimensions of diversity, but the findings become more complex. Richards, Barnett, Dwyer, and Chadwick (2004), for example, examined the relationship between race and gender diversity in top management teams and financial performance among a sample of 153 U.S. banks. Based on the demographic data collected through each firm’s HR executives, the researchers assessed the diversity of different management groups, including senior executives, middle managers, and salaried supervisors. They also measured each company’s entrepreneurial orientation, by looking at three components of entrepreneurship: “innovativeness, risk taking, and proactiveness” (p. 259). The researchers then compared the banks’ productivity and financial performance (return on equity). The analyses indicated that entrepreneurial orientation moderated the link between diversity and firm performance, suggesting that the “strategic” context might play
ER59632_C011.indd 287
10/4/2007 7:16:06 AM
288
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
a particularly important role. Specifically, companies with innovative entrepreneurial strategies benefited from both high and low levels of top management diversity, compared to companies with moderate levels of cultural diversity in management. For risk taking, however, moderately diverse management groups performed better than other management groups, suggesting that neither too homogeneous nor heterogeneous leadership groups thrive in a context that requires quick and aggressive decisions. Notably this effect was particularly strong for gender-diverse teams (Richards et al., 2004). These analyses provide a glimpse of the complex relationship between diversity and business performance. Because of their applied and correlational nature, however, these findings do not allow us to conclude that diversity caused better performance or other positive outcomes (Catalyst, 2004; Hansen, 2003). Nor can we rule out third-factor explanations. Perhaps companies become both innovative and financially successful when economic times are good and cautious/unprofitable when the times are more troubling. Identification of the specific mechanisms of improvement also poses a challenge (Catalyst, 2004; Giovannini, 2004). Nevertheless, these data do show a strong positive connection between creating an inclusive work environment and organizational performance (Catalyst, 2004; Stokes, Riger, & Sullivan, 1995). One factor that seems particularly important is the way in which organizations manage their diverse workforce (Gerkovich, 2005; Richard et al., 2004). Catalyst (2004), for example, found that companies that had won the award for innovative initiatives to advance managerial women (with proven results) performed considerably better than other companies. Catalyst’s award-winning companies financially outperformed the other companies in the sample in terms of both ROE and TRS. Award-winning companies experienced an ROE that was 55.2% (or 8.5% points) higher than the other companies. They experienced a TRS 54.5% (or 58.9% points) higher than the other companies. In sum, showing how diversity and organizational change can further enhance, rather than threaten, individuals and institutions is one important way to foster change by addressing people’s concerns about change; it also creates positive attitudes towards diversity (Catalyst, 2002c). However, these strategies might not work if leaders do not confront implicit attitudes and beliefs that make it difficult to implement the needed changes.
ER59632_C011.indd 288
10/4/2007 7:16:06 AM
Overcoming Resistance
289
Exposing Implicit Attitudes and Beliefs People’s day-to-day behavior is affected not only by their explicit attitudes but also by invisible stereotypes about men’s and women’s abilities and characteristics (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004; Lott, 1997; Martin, 2003). A large body of research—including several meta-analyses—consistently shows that men and women are more similar than different on numerous psychological variables, including many work-related traits and abilities, such as cognitive skills, leadership characteristics, verbal and nonverbal communication, and moral reasoning (Aries, 1996; Hyde, 2005; Leaper & Smith, 2004). Nonetheless, most people in our culture still see gender differences as large, persistent, and based in biology (Lott, 1997; Glick & Fiske, 2007). In general, some characteristics (e.g., assertiveness) are typically ascribed to men. Other characteristics (e.g., caring for others) are often associated to women (Glick & Fiske, 2007; Lott, 1997). Perceptions of gender difference influence the types and number of opportunities afforded to both women and men. These different outcomes become especially apparent at work, a domain traditionally associated with men (Martin, 2003). Gender stereotypes often portray women as lacking the qualities most commonly valued in the domain of paid employment (Catalyst, 2005; Glick & Fiske, 2007; Yoder, 2001). Particular features of the work such as the field, types of tasks, and gender composition of the organization can also influence the types of predicaments and opportunities that women face (Yoder, 2001). Sociologists Maume and Huston (2001), for example, recently documented that women entering male-dominated fields receive different tasks, types of training, and mentoring opportunities than men entering the same fields. In the past, stereotypes targeted women who aspired to work outside the home (e.g., negatives stereotypes of “career women”). Although negative reactions to employed women still exist to some extent (Glick & Fiske, 2001), contemporary reactions are especially likely to target women who seek traditionally masculine roles and/or professions (Catalyst, 2005; Glick & Fiske, 2007). Research indicates that both men and women evaluate women who hold gender-appropriate occupations more positively than those who work in maledominated fields (Glick & Fiske, 2007; Maume & Huston, 2001). Women who choose more “gender-appropriate” fields face many hurdles; but they confront less criticism and stereotypic bias than
ER59632_C011.indd 289
10/4/2007 7:16:06 AM
290
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
those who aspire to less “suitable” positions. Thus, a woman managing a cosmetic company, for example, might be viewed as more effective than a woman leading a team of engineers, regardless of their actual qualifications (Catalyst, 2005). Damaging Stereotypes. Cultural beliefs about gender are particularly difficult to change as they are consistently reinforced in the course of people’s daily interpersonal interactions (Lott, 1997). Most importantly, some beliefs are gender-specific abilities are often held by both women and men (Catalyst, 2005; Glick & Fiske, 2001). Consider the belief that women are less capable of handling particularly stressful situations than men. This stereotype may influence the types of work and tasks women and men are assigned, which then affect their work experience and opportunities. These same stereotypes then influence women’s own feelings of self-efficacy and expectations about what they can accomplish (Hyde, 2005; Yoder, 2001). One strong indicator of stereotypic thinking is the way in which women are held to higher standards of achievement than men. Biernat (2003) noted that people’s perceptions of men and women might not be directly comparable when applied to stereotypical dimension, as the standards used to evaluate each group “shifts” based on gender stereotypes. Once again, describing a leader as “competent,” for example, assumes different meanings for women than it does for men as traditionally gender stereotypes view women as lacking the “essential” characteristics of an effective leader. Because the standards used vary based on gender stereotypes, then, everything else being equal, women will be evaluated better then men in stereotypically “feminine” jobs (e.g., secretary) and men will be considered better than women in traditionally “masculine” jobs (e.g., vice president) (Biernat, 2003). Research consistently finds that women who reach top leadership positions are placed under closer scrutiny and are subject to harsher criticism than men in the same positions (Biernat, 2003; Heilman et al., 2004; Glick & Fiske, 2007; Ryan & Haslam, 2005). A recent Catalyst’s study, which surveyed women and men at the highest ranks of the corporate ladder (“Women ‘Take Care,’ ” “Men ‘Take Charge’ ”), documented that top leaders’ evaluation of men and women followed gender stereotypical patterns. Specifically, men respondents considered men leaders to be more effective than women on several
ER59632_C011.indd 290
10/4/2007 7:16:06 AM
Overcoming Resistance
291
important dimensions of leadership, such as delegating, problemsolving, and influencing upward. In an analog laboratory study, Heilman and colleagues (2004) examined how stereotypes influence the perceptions of successful women in a male gender-typed job. Participants evaluated women as less competent and achievement-oriented than men when women’s performance outcomes were ambiguous, whereas no differences were found when women’s successful performance outcomes were made explicit. Notably, though, when women were evaluated as successful, they were also considered less likable than equally successful men. Heilman and colleagues (2004) also showed that being disliked potentially carried consequences for overall evaluations and for recommendations about advancement and salary. Deep-seated gender biases often go unrecognized by those who hold the biases. In the United States today, fewer and fewer people feel comfortable with the idea that they hold prejudiced beliefs, such as sexism. Dovidio and Gaertner (2004) label “aversive sexism” the perceptions of those who genuinely believe themselves to be egalitarian and hence would find it aversive to recognize or acknowledge their own sexist bias. However, even perceptions and beliefs that are kept under conscious awareness can have behavioral consequences. Furthermore, discriminatory behavior is especially likely to occur in situations where normative guidelines (against sexism) are weak or in which discrimination can be rationalized on the basis of factors other than gender. For example, in the case of a female job candidate who is good on some dimensions of the position and weak on others, the “aversive sexist” will decide against hiring her on the basis of her weakness on those dimensions. Those same criteria, however, recede in importance and are not considered in the decision when the female candidate shows strong competence in them (Crosby & Dovidio, forthcoming). In order to create change, it is also important to expose and challenge individual and institutional biases. Milton Rokeach (1979), for example, noted that individuals often hide from themselves the extent to which their behavior goes against their own values. When people are made aware of the discrepancies among their values, attitudes, and behaviors, they can and often do make positive changes. In the end, many of the strategies outlined earlier work also because they create awareness about workplace diversity at different levels of the organization.
ER59632_C011.indd 291
10/4/2007 7:16:06 AM
292
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
Exposing values and surfacing the links between values and behavior does not automatically eliminate all problems. Indeed, value clarification can reveal just how intractable some difficulties are. Imagine, for example, the head of an organization who holds dear three beliefs: (1) employees with children should not struggle to pay for childcare, (2) every employee should have an equal opportunity for advancement, and (3) all employees should have access to equally good benefits. This person might wish to provide childcare benefits once s/he realizes that stress about childcare arrangements influences some mothers’ advancement (violating belief 2); but then the same individual might struggle about the decision if the organization cannot afford “cafeteria style” benefits for all (violating belief 3). Even if value-clarification is no panacea, it is always helpful for organizations and their leaders to reflect on their values and their behaviors. Organizations benefit when they are clear about their mission and their goals. Rational self-scrutiny can help organizations see when change (including a change toward diversity) is detrimental to their goals and when change promotes their goals. The Cybernetic Loop In the long run, simply hiring more women and other under-represented groups might not be enough to create a truly inclusive workplace. If companies do not change those structural and cultural elements to welcome people of different backgrounds, diversity cannot be sustained. As noted several times in this chapter, to tackle resistance, companies need to manage diversity well. They can do so by tailoring diversity initiatives to their specific needs (in terms of industry, workforce demographics, size, and so on) (Gornick & Meyers, 2003; Bond et al., 2005). It is also important, however, that organizations follow a few general guidelines to increase organizational and individual commitment to diversity (Gerkovich, 2005). Catalyst (2002) proposes the following principles that can work across different fields of work: First, no diversity effort will succeed without clear senior leadership commitment. Visible and demonstrable support from the top organizational levels is necessary to create and sustain change. Second, as noted earlier, organizations can benefit from developing an accountability and measurement framework. So as to recognize and sustain change, it has to be monitored
ER59632_C011.indd 292
10/4/2007 7:16:06 AM
Overcoming Resistance
293
(Giovannini, 2004). Monitoring the success of diversity initiatives, for example, not only provides a measure of change but also allows companies to keep track of what works and what doesn’t work. Third, organizations need to develop and communicate a “business case for diversity” to be conveyed at all levels of the organization. Finally, in order for these strategies to work, organizations can benefit from developing a strong communication strategy that keeps everyone in the organization aware and involved. Some of these strategies become particularly beneficial to increase diversity within traditionally male-dominated or homogeneous fields, where women and people of color are more likely to feel excluded. In their qualitative study of women in the high-tech industry, Feyerherm and Vick (2005) found that participants defined their success both in terms of being able to contribute to their work (and hence participate in decision making), as well as being (fairly) recognized for their efforts. In their analyses of another maledominated field, the financial securities industry, Welle and Lyness (2002) came to similar conclusions. They also found that employees who felt included in the social and political fabric of their organization reported more commitment to their firm. In their analysis, inclusiveness of the work environment was defined as an environment free from sexism and gender stereotypes, and one that gives all employees a voice as well as opportunities to network. All three of these factors positively influenced participants’ attitudes about their firm and how they were treated at work. Accordingly, organizations that proactively create an inclusive work environment will not only benefit women employees but also foster a more committed workforce (Roehling et al., 2001). In sum, to change individual attitudes and the acceptance of organizational change, it is important that everyone in the organization feels included and understands why diversity is important. People need to understand why the culture needs to change and what programs, policies, and tools are available to help. Mutual Reinforcement Maintaining a diverse workforce can be as challenging as creating one. Leaders and organizations ought to actively strategize their diversity initiatives to make sure all individuals at all levels have
ER59632_C011.indd 293
10/4/2007 7:16:06 AM
294
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
access to the right opportunities and experiences even after they are hired, so that they won’t leave. In the end, then, attitude change and structural change are both needed to achieve diversity. Certainly, in the case of gender diversity, attitudinal and structural changes act as a sort of “cybernetic loop,” mutually influencing each other. Structural change without attitude change usually tends to be short-lived and sometimes can be counterproductive. When companies create new structures and processes without clearly communicating the rationale and necessity of diversity initiatives, they are more likely to find resistance. Even the best thought-out policies have to contend with “unwritten” organizational norms and stereotypic bias (Glick & Fiske, 2007). Studies of the implementation of affirmative action, for example, show that the mind-set of the implementation team has an enormous impact on the effectiveness of the programs (Crosby, 2004). Similarly, when companies introduce work-life and flexibility policies without proactively implementing them, the programs are underutilized (Rapoport et al., 2002). If old organizational norms dictate whether, when, and by whom it might be “appropriate” to utilize work flexibility programs, many employees will not feel comfortable using them for the fear of being penalized in terms of their career advancement and opportunities (Feyerherm & Vick, 2005). Catalyst (2002) has outlined a number of strategies to enhance the successful implementation of diversity initiatives. First, organizations can benefit from articulating a new vision of the culture that incorporates the new policies and initiatives within the existing culture. Creating a vision is important because it helps integrate new norms into old ones, and thus it openly addresses the barriers related to the unwritten rules described earlier. Second, companies can make the case for diversity initiatives by articulating a clear business case for diversity. In order to be effective, the business case should address specific company needs. Third, Catalyst recommends that companies establish a broad umbrella for diversity that includes everyone within the company, even “advantaged” groups (such as White men). By making inclusion everyone’s business, organizations are more likely to involve employees at all levels and hence sustain and implement change. Finally, once again, no change or initiatives will work without senior leadership support. If the top management does not play a part in the process by, for example, modeling new behav-
ER59632_C011.indd 294
10/4/2007 7:16:07 AM
Overcoming Resistance
295
iors and/or vocally demonstrating their support for the new initiatives, change is unlikely to occur. Attitude change without structural change is also hard to achieve and likely to be superficial, rather than deep-rooted. Consider gender segregation of occupations, where women and men hold very (and gendered) distinct occupations and roles (Gornick & Meyers, 2003; Maume & Huston, 2001). Gender segregation can occur between occupations and within particular occupations, where it takes the form of “clusters” in staff and line functions. Either way, it leads to negative consequences for women’s earnings and career mobility (Maume & Huston, 2001). On the one hand, women’s wages are lower because female-dominated professions are paid less. For example, in 2003 women represented over 90% of clerical workers but only 11% of engineers (Halpern, 2005; NSF, 2006). On the other hand, those women who are able to enter higher-paid, male-dominated fields are at higher risk of leaving their jobs and are less likely to be promoted due to the challenges of social isolation (including isolation for work-related social networks) and stereotyping (Glick & Fiske, 2007; Maume & Huston, 2001). Gender segregated workplaces also serve to perpetuate gender stereotypes; when gender segregation is rampant, even with good training, attitudes will not change. Because gender segregation is often viewed as a personal preference or choice (Williams, 2000), it is rarely addressed as a form of diversity resistance. Gender segregation, however, is a form of resistance because it limits women’s access to more powerful job positions. Research shows that job segregation is strongly related to differences between men’s and women’s job and promotional opportunities, wages and benefits, and other nonmonetary characteristics of the workplace (Guthrie & Roth, 1999; Maume & Huston, 2001). But the connection is lost if people interpret mothers’ decisions to stay home or work part-time, for example, as a “choice” that was made independently of the system of constraints surrounding the decision (Stone & Lovejoy, 2004; Williams, 2000). In conclusion, the workplace is changing in many ways: employment demographics are becoming increasingly diverse, technology is revolutionizing the ways in which work is accomplished and employees’ expectations and values about work, and recent generations want more flexibility in managing work, family, and life roles that their parents did. If organizations allow gender assumptions
ER59632_C011.indd 295
10/4/2007 7:16:07 AM
296
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
and old, unspoken organizational norms to determine the practice and structure of work, they will miss out. And so will individuals who want to make the best of their work experience. In order to increase gender equality and create a workplace where people of different backgrounds can thrive, organizations need to proactively develop an environment the welcomes and provides opportunities for all employees. End Notes 1. The authors divided European countries into a “Nordic” group (specifically, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) and a continental European group (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and Netherlands). The United Kingdom was considered part of the “English-speaking” group with Canada and the U.S. 2. U.S. productivity rank dropped to fourth in 2002 also because of the economic downturn (ILO, 2004).
References Alliance for Work-Life Progress (2005). What happens when employees enjoy flexible work arrangements? They are happy and more productive. Retrieved March 1, 2006 from http://www.awlp.org/pub/fortune-section-05.pdf. Aries, E. (1996). Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York: Oxford University Press. Auster, E. R. (2001). Professional women’s midcareer satisfaction: Toward an explanatory framework. Sex Roles, 44, 719–750. Auster, E. R., & Ekstein, K. L. (2005). Professional women’s mid-career satisfaction: An empirical exploration of female engineers. Women in Management Review, 20, 4–23. Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, S. J. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781–796. Bearman, S., Blake-Beard, S., Hunt, L., & Crosby, F. J. (2007). New directions in mentoring. In T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 375–396). New York: Blackwell. Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling back: Dual earner couples’ work– family strategies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 61, 995–1007.
ER59632_C011.indd 296
10/4/2007 7:16:07 AM
Overcoming Resistance
297
Bergmann, B. (2007). An economist’s view of sex discrimination. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in employment (pp. 213–234). London: Blackwell. Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019–1027. Bond, G. T., Galinsky, E., Kim, S. S., & Brownfield, E. (2005). The 2005 National Study of Employers. New York: Families and Work Institute. Catalyst (2002). Making change: Tackling resistance to diversity efforts. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst (2002a). Making change: Becoming a diversity champion. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst (2002b). Catalyst census of women corporate officers and top earners. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst (2002c). Making change: Creating a business case for diversity. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst (2002c). Making change: Building a flexible workplace. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst (2004). The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst (2005). Women “take care,” men “take charge”: Stereotyping of U.S. Business Leaders Exposed. New York: Catalyst. Catalyst (2005a). Catalyst census of women board of directors of the Fortune 500. New York: Catalyst. Corporate Voices for Working Families (2005, September). Business impacts of flexibility: An imperative for expansion. Washington, DC. Crosby, F. J. (1999). The developing literature on developmental relationships. In A. Murrell, F. Crosby, & R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas (pp. 3–20). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crosby, F. J. (2004). Affirmative action is dead; long live affirmative action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Crosby, F. J., & Dovidio, J. F. (Forthcoming). Discrimination in America and legal strategies for reducing it. In E. Borgida & S. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in courtroom (pp. 23–43). Boston, MA: Blackwell. Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58, 93–115. Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sinchareon, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585–611. Crosby, F. J., & Sabattini, L. (2005). Family and work balance. In J. Worell and Carol Goodheart (Eds.), Handbook of Girls’ and Women’s Psychological Health. New York: Oxford University Press.
ER59632_C011.indd 297
10/4/2007 7:16:07 AM
298
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
Davidson, M. N. (1999). The value of being included: An examination of diversity change initiatives in organizations. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12, 164–180. Deutsch, F. M. (1999). Having it all: How equally shared parenting works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Economist (2005, July 21). The conundrum of the glass ceiling: Why are women so persistently absent from top corporate jobs? Retrieved April 10, 2006 from http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory. cfm?story_id=4197626. Einhart, N. (2001). Survival tactic: Recognize your female talent. Fast Company. Retrieved October 14, 2005 from http://pf.fastcompany.com/ articles/2001/01/act_fineline2.html. Feyerherm, A., & Vick, Y. H. (2005). Generation X women in high technology: Overcoming gender and generational challenges to succeed in the corporate environment. Career Development International, 10, 216–227. Friedman, S. D., Christensen, P., & DeGroot, J. (1998). Work and life: The end of the zero-sum game. Harvard Business Review, 119–129. Gerkovich, P. R. (2005). Developing and communicating the business case for women. The Conference Board 2005 Women’s Leadership Conference. New York, March 16, 2005. Giovannini, M. (2004). What gets measured, gets done: Achieving results through diversity and inclusion. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 27, 21–27. Glass Ceiling Commission (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications of gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace (pp. 155–187). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gornick, J. C., & Meyers, M. K. (2003). Families that work: Policies for reconciling and employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Grandey, A., & Cordeiro, B. L. (2002). Family-Friendly Policies and Organizational Justice: A Sloan Work and Family Encyclopedia Entry. Retrieved on April 2, 2006 from http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_template.php?id=231.
ER59632_C011.indd 298
10/4/2007 7:16:07 AM
Overcoming Resistance
299
Guthrie, D., & Roth, L. M. (1999). The State, courts, and equal opportunities for female CEOs in U.S. organizations: Specifying institutional mechanisms. Social Forces, 78, 511–542. Halpern, D. F. (2005). Psychology at the intersection of work and family: Recommendations for employers, working families, and policymakers. American Psychologist, 60, 397–409. Hansen, F. (2003). Diversity’s business case doesn’t add up. Workforce Management, 82, 26–32. Harlan, L. S., & White Berheide, C. (1994). Barriers to workplace advancement experienced by women in low paid occupations. Center for Women in Government: Key Workplace Documents. Albany, New York: State University of New York. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gendertyped tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 6( 60). International Labour Organization (ILO) (2004). Is a stable workforce good for the economy? Retrieved on January 10, 2006 from http:// www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/strat/download/esp15.pdf. Jencks, C. (1998). Racial bias in testing. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-White test score gap (pp. 55–85). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Leaper, C., & Smith, T. E. (2004). A meta-analytic review of gender variations in children’s language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech. Developmental Psychology, 40, 993–1027. Leonard, J. (1996). Wage disparities and affirmative action in the 1980’s. American Economics Review, 86, 285–289. Lott, B. (1997). The personal and social correlates of a gender difference ideology. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 279–297. Martin, P. Y. (2003). “Said and done” versus “saying and doing”: Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender and Society, 17, 342–366. Maume, D. J., & Huston, P. (2001). Job segregation and gender differences in work-family spillover among White-collar workers. Journal of Family and Economic issues, 22, 171–189. McCambley, E. (1999). Testing theory by practice. In A. Murrell, F. Crosby, & R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas (pp. 173–188). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ER59632_C011.indd 299
10/4/2007 7:16:07 AM
300
Laura Sabattini and Faye Crosby
McLean, D. (2003). Workplaces that work: Creating a workplace culture that attracts, retains, and promotes women. The Center of Excellence for Women’s Advancement. The conference board of Canada. Ontario, Canada. Murrell, A., & Tangri, S. S. (1999). Mentoring at the margin. In A. Murrell, F. Crosby, & R. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas (pp. 211–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ragins, B. R. (1999). Where do we go from here, and how do we get there? Methodological issues in conducting research on diversity and mentoring relationships. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 227–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Fletcher, J. K., & Pruitt, B. H. (2002). Beyond family-work balance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 255–266. Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executing, 11, 21–31. Ridgeway, C. L., & England, P. (2007). Sociological approaches to sex in employment. In F. S. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, and S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace (pp. 189–211). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ridgeway, C., & Smith-Lovin, C. L. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191–216. Roehling, P. V., Roehling, M. V., & Moen, P. (2001). The impact of work-life policies and practices on employee loyalty: A life course perspective. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 22, 141–170. Rokeach, M. (1979). From individual to institutional values: With special reference to the values of science. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values: Individual and societal (pp. 47–70). New York: The Free Press. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of management, 16, 81–90. Sabattini, L. (2004). Building a community: Single mothers manage family responsibilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourse of work-life balance: Negotiating “genderblind” terms in organization. Gender, Work, and Organization, 12, 147–168.
ER59632_C011.indd 300
10/4/2007 7:16:08 AM
Overcoming Resistance
301
Steil, J. M. (2000). Contemporary marriage: Still an unequal partnership. In C. Hendrick and S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 125–152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stokes, J., Riger, S., & Sullivan, M. (1995). Measuring perceptions of the working environment for women in corporate settings. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 533–549. Stone, P., & Lovejoy, M. (2004). Fast-track women and the “choice” to stay home. Annals of the American Academy, 596, 62–83. Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on managers’ experiences of developmental relationships (mentoring and sponsorship): An intra-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479–491. Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). United States Department of Labor News: Women’s earnings in the New England States. Retrieved on December 31, 2005 from http://www.bls.gov/ro1/womenswagene. pdf. Welle, B., & Lyness, K. S. (2002). Perceived inclusion and the experience of fair treatment: An examination of gender and justice. Denver, CO: Academy of Management National Conference. Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford University Press. Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effect on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 272–87. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
ER59632_C011.indd 301
10/4/2007 7:16:08 AM
ER59632_C011.indd 302
10/4/2007 7:16:08 AM
12 Final Reflections Resisting the Resistors Laura L. Bierema and Kecia M. Thomas
There are several major themes that are presented in this volume. In our discussions about diversity resistance as it occurs at different levels and in different forms, and as it is directed at different populations, there are consistent issues that are visible. Unfortunately, it is difficult to uncover instances and systems of diversity resistance in the workplace without touching on the issues of prejudice and discrimination in both its overt and subtle forms. Likewise, the topic of privilege is reoccurring, given the underground nature privilege often takes. Another prominent theme of this volume has to do with the costs incurred by organizations as well as individuals that results from diversity resistance. Individuals bear the emotional costs most often as a result of discrimination and harassment (violence, as well as social distancing and exclusion). Organizations also bear these costs, especially in regard to depressed morale, but institutions also bear the financial costs related to allowing cultures of discrimination and harassment to persist. These costs are incurred through expenses related to target absenteeism and turnover, legal fees related to defense attorneys and settlement costs, and at times court-ordered payouts. Financial costs can also be incurred when organizational leaders put and keep in place human resource systems that do not rectify poor climates for diversity or which reinforce negative climates through reliance on selection and promotion systems that encourage the status quo rather than diversity, diversity learning, and the engagement of the full workforce. Perhaps a common message is that, although many argue that diversity is a threat to organizational well being and effectiveness (Thomas, Mack, & 303
ER59632_C012.indd 303
10/4/2007 7:16:34 AM
304
Laura L. Bierema and Kecia M. Thomas
Montagliani, 2004), it is resistance to diversity that derails organizations’ abilities to be effective in a diverse and inescapable reality. As the other authors and I were making final edits to this volume and giving voice to our common concerns and conclusions, several of us had the unique opportunity to offer a preview of our work to our peers as part of a symposium at the 2006 Academy of Management meeting in Atlanta. Matthew Harrison and I chaired that session and presented the model of diversity resistance my students and I have developed (see chapter 1), and then provided space for other volume authors to present their “takes” on diversity resistance. Despite the early morning scheduling of our symposium, the session was well attended, and there was a great curiosity and energy related to the work we presented that morning. My friend and colleague, Human Resource Development scholar Laura Bierema, served as our discussant and really inspired the presenters and audience to reflect on why many of us initially became diversity scholars. Laura’s leadership called to mind that for many of us, our journey as diversity scholars was inspired by our own resistance to a status quo that is often exclusive rather than inclusive. This section, contributed by Laura Bierema, offers a reflection on resistance by considering its relationship to diversity and it raises questions about what it means to resist resistance. Resistance is entangled in power relations and it creates inherent contradictions for diversity advocates. The challenge for diversity advocates is to continue to build and respond with diversity literacy. Each of these dynamics will be discussed in this section, along with an example of a graduate program that is working to incorporate diversity into its curriculum and culture. A Different Perspective What is the nature of resistance? This book often takes the perspective that resistance is a negative force to be confronted, both subtly and overtly. Yet, what do we mean when we suggest there is “resistance” to diversity? Is referring to an organization’s disappointing performance in this area as “resistance” simply a polite way of suggesting that organizations are more racist and sexist than ever before? Is making space for “resistance” creating a new discourse that will shield us from ugly truths and uneasy confrontations? Are we willing to listen to people who disagree with our diversity motives?
ER59632_C012.indd 304
10/4/2007 7:16:34 AM
Final Reflections
305
Or, are we throwing down the gauntlet and rejecting resistors? Are we discussing “resistance” because the “R-word”—racism—is too accurate and too revolting to face? The diversity movement evolved out of a refusal to accept racism, sexism, classism, and other “isms” permeating organizations and society. Diversity advocates were the original resistors to forces of domination and oppression in organizations. Resistance to the status quo is usually a precursor to change. Given a diversifying workforce, it seemed reasonable that embracing diversity would be welcome as a means of creating more inclusive organizations and doing better business. As initiatives to address diversity have expanded, instances of resistance to them have become commonplace. Seemingly, diversity activists’ resistance has created resistance, and in coming full circle, diversity advocates are now resistors of resistance to their resistance. We find ourselves caught in a vicious circle. This cycle of resistance is proving quite effective at stalling diversity efforts, which is evident in pushes to abolish affirmative action and in political rhetoric that racism and sexism are relics of the past. If diversity is to maintain its status as a vital and important commitment in the 21st century, the cycle of resistance must be understood and broken. Yet, is the appropriate response for diversity activists to respond to resistance with additional resistance? Resistance is a natural force in the world that is affected by power relations and laden with contradiction. Is there such a thing as good or bad resistance? Is it possible to have a state of nonresistance? Is there an alternative response to resistance that is not reciprocal resistance? Power and Resistance The act of resistance might bring to mind instances of confrontation, fighting, struggling, opposing, defiance, or challenge. I contend that generally diversity “resistors” will not see their behavior as a contentious reaction to diversity initiatives. Rather, their resistance is unchecked power and privilege, and they may or may not be aware of how they use it to counter diversity efforts. Resistance is deeply rooted in hegemonic social structures that perpetuate resistance as if it were in the water; resistors are swimming in the entitlement of their privilege and the accompanying license not to trouble inequitable systems. Resistance is one tool racist and sexist systems use to maintain asymmetrical power relations and preserve the status quo.
ER59632_C012.indd 305
10/4/2007 7:16:34 AM
306
Laura L. Bierema and Kecia M. Thomas
Rather than resisting back, diversity activists need to consider how to enlighten resistors about their privilege and power and their effect on others. If we, as diversity activists, are to be literate resistors—as in not simply resisting resistance with more resistance, but resisting through learning and activism—we must understand the sociopolitical factors fueling resistance and educate about them. Resistance is fundamentally a problem determined by social context. Social context is shaped by at least three principles that drive relationships and learning. These include positionality, power, and place. Positionality incorporates visible and invisible markers that include both private and public identity. Positionality might include gender race, class, age, culture, religion, sexuality, or ableness. Interpretations of identities are not necessarily the same. For instance, my personal interpretation of my positionality or identity of being a woman may not be something I consider relevant to my teaching. Yet, some students may find my positionality off-putting and resist an authority figure that is female and knowledgeable. The students’ reaction to my positionality may negatively affect my ability to be effective with certain individuals and groups. Power relations are played out when people (positionalities) interact, and values and interests are negotiated. White males tend to be privileged positionalities. Their motives and qualifications are generally unquestioned, and they do not have to prove themselves in most situations. Women and people of color are not so fortunate. Their positionalities become threatening to privileged individuals when it becomes apparent these individuals are gaining power and prestige. Resistance can be a visceral reaction to and rejection of shifting power relations. Power has been defined as the ability to influence change or to impose one’s will on others, even amid resistance. Power is remarkable for its fluidity—it takes different forms, depending on context and the people (positionalities) involved. People have a vested interest to protect their power and seek more of it. This is one reason resistance occurs when diversity advocates attempt to restructure power relations. Embracing diversity requires changes in beliefs and behavior. As with any change, people fear how accepting diversity will affect their lives. Adults also fear appearing foolish or bigoted, making acknowledging their racism and sexism problematic because it involves risk and vulnerability, and a corresponding loss of power.
ER59632_C012.indd 306
10/4/2007 7:16:34 AM
Final Reflections
307
Power structures relationships, based on the various positions actors hold and how they wield authority based on their positions. Power is never an either/or phenomenon. All relationships are characterized by power, and it is a reciprocal dynamic that is continually under negotiation. All parties have power within a relationship, and their power is subject to equality, inequality, stability, and change. It is impossible to have power in and of itself. Power is only relevant in relation to other individuals. Power is reciprocal, although not usually equally so. For instance, an organization has the power to require all employees to attend diversity training. Employees can reciprocate through resistance or overt acts of racism and sexism. Managers can resist by hiring and promoting in their own image (typically White male). That is not to say that reciprocal power is equal. Resistance to change is often soothed by assuaging fears about loss of power. Yet, in diversity work, redistributing power is the ultimate goal. Place, also known as environment or context, is a multifaceted physical and psychological space in which social action is situated. It may incorporate physical conditions, political conditions, economic conditions, power dynamics, and other influences that impact the people occupying that space. Place may also require its inhabitants to modify their thinking and action when they are occupying the space. Every place is unique and will require diversity activists’ correct diagnosis of the dynamics before responding to resistance. Positionality, power, and place all interact to form dynamics that shape inequality in organizations and society. Any attempts to change these dynamics will result in resistance. Resistance to diversity signals a need for education and learning, making pedagogy an important consideration in responding to resistance. Pedagogy refers to the educational strategies underlying an intervention that account for positionality, power, and place. Resistance and pedagogy will be discussed in a later section. Contradictions of Resistance Resistance signals opposing forces and contradiction. Certainly, some resistance is desired and sought by all of us. For instance, it is desirable for humans to build resistance to disease and danger. Resistance is often an imperative for survival as we attempt to resist cancer, addictions, crime, humiliation, and pain. Yet, all resistance
ER59632_C012.indd 307
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
308
Laura L. Bierema and Kecia M. Thomas
is not welcome. We fear disease becoming resistant to antibiotics. We abhor others resisting our motives. Regarding diversity, it seems that we have selective resistance. Resistance to our diversity efforts is not welcome, yet we celebrate resistance to patriarchy and racism, and resistance to resistors of our efforts. Resisting resistance troubles me as a vision, because it is negative, and it may cause the diversity movement to become reactive—waiting to respond to the latest charade of resistance—rather than being proactive and creating new strategies for advancing the movement. Reactivity propels actors into a crisis mode that allows for little anticipation of what they will be reacting to. It can cause a sense of hopelessness and lack of control. Diversity activists cannot afford to wait for incidents to react to. We need to be in a creative mode where resistance is acknowledged as a reality, but not privileged as a driver of strategy and (re)action. I contend that resistance is simply a symptom of a structural problem that needs to be addressed structurally. The structural level incorporates deeply held mental models and power and often must be uncovered, like hidden treasure. Diversity advocates generally celebrate difference and advocate that that there is room for difference of opinion. On one hand, resisting resistance suggests that we are not going to value views that detract from the mission of creating more equitable systems. On the other, it suggests that we are placing a value on certain types of resistance. By resisting resistance, are we becoming less tolerable of views that differ from and resist the movement? Do we have a right to privilege some views over others, or would that make us guilty of the resistance we are trying to eradicate? How do we want to engage the resistors in dialogue and assumption sharing? Might our attitude toward resistors be oppressive? If there were no resistance would that mean that we had resolved inequity, or would it mean that people just stopped caring? Certainly, the intentions behind the resistance differ; however, resistance is an ever present force in our world. What do organizations that lack resistance look like? Without resistance, power relations would go unchallenged, which is not a state we seek. Is concerning ourselves with resistance to diversity an effective strategy? At what point does resisting resistance become a distraction from advancing the diversity movement? Are we wasting precious time and energy fretting over the laggards who fail to adopt diversity? Is dealing with resistance distracting us from building
ER59632_C012.indd 308
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
Final Reflections
309
momentum with those who are committed to and active in facilitating change? Literate Resistance Lindeman once suggested that all educators are activists. Diversity activists must engage in literate resistance that creates structural changes in power relationships. I advocate a “literate resistance” because simply resisting resistance gives us nothing to focus on beyond a negative vision of waiting for something to respond to. Literate resistance requires a strategy and a future focus. I advocate a literate resistance that focuses on activism, education, and policy development. Those of us committed to diversity are working to promote social justice. I view this work, in any form, as activism. Being an activist and working on antioppression goals is very different from resistance. Activism is engaged in for the sake of a vision of how the world could be. Diversity activists seek equitable systems and equal access to resources and opportunities. We seek a redistribution of power in society that brings more voices into the center. Educating is a form of activism and diversity activists work to resist systems of oppression through learning. Resistance is a learning challenge. Our challenge is to help resistors understand their positionality and privilege, and how these dynamics give them varying degrees of power, depending on the place. Identity is tied up in this awareness, and resistors will experience discomfort that may be denial, shame, or fear of losing power. We also need to help resistors understand the costs of resistance to the whole and see that giving up power ultimately yields individual and collective benefits. We will succeed if we can help resistors become leaders in promoting diversity. Resistance is to be expected. Rather than resist it, I suggest we embrace it as a pedagogical tool. Monaghan (2003) argues that resistance is an important voice that can help educators engage with learners on a deeper, more transformative plane. Monaghan defines resistance as “any overt or covert behavior on the part of the learner hindering or shutting down open dialogue” (p. 8). She describes learner resistance as manifesting itself as “an expression of voice, verbal or written, silence, action, or inaction” (p. 8). Resistors may find diversity deeply disturbing, foreign, or irrelevant, which may cause them to resist learning. Monaghan notes that it is important
ER59632_C012.indd 309
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
310
Laura L. Bierema and Kecia M. Thomas
for educators to acknowledge and address resistance so that critical reflection is not compromised. Educators should prepare for resistance and use it as a constructive, perhaps transformative force for engaging with diversity. Resistance gives us an important reaction to reflect on and may be a perfect pedagogy for working with resistors. In addition to education and pedagogy that challenges resistance, we must also work to ensure that policy is changed in ways that support diversity. What we need to be concerned with is how power is deployed and resisted (Foucault, 1979) and become savvy analysts and activists of diversity. Diversity resistance is a deeper problem than a lack of enthusiasm for and participation in diversity initiatives. Resistance must be analyzed and understood at the structural level and from a power relations perspective. Diversity activists must help resistors learn about embedded structures of power and create policies and practices to change them. This includes creating reward systems that support diversity goals, making a commitment to promoting a diverse pool of employees, and providing the support to make the needed changes to both individuals and organizations. It would be easy to cast resistors as the enemy, but far more productive to view them with compassion and respect. Transformative education begins where the learners are developmentally and works to provide education and learning that challenges their thought and action. We must consider the assumptions we hold about the motives of the resistors and consider how they shape our behavior toward them and their resistance. I contend we assume that resistors have counter purposes to creating equality. Yet, have we ever considered that they are ignorant of the issue (steeped in privilege) or that they might be resisting humiliation or considering views that are threatening? Might they require our compassion and patience rather than our contempt? Our tendency may be to write the resistors off as hopeless bigots, but, this attitude is dangerous and will prevent those who need to understand and value diversity the most from doing so. Adult educators advocate transformative learning as a process that helps adults change their meaning schemes. A learning challenge of diversity is to help learners reframe deeply held beliefs and see how the systems they belong to perpetuate oppression. Diversity activists are in a complex position of challenging the privileged and powerful to acknowledge their deeply held racist, sexist, and classist beliefs so that they are aware how they shape thought and action and so that they can change them. Adults have high efficacy needs,
ER59632_C012.indd 310
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
Final Reflections
311
and admitting racism is counter to fulfilling this need. Educators must be willing to admit that they, too, have isms so that it is acceptable for learners to acknowledge this reality and address it. It would be naïve to expect all individuals to embrace diversity, particularly those who have the most to lose for doing so. At some point diversity activists must decide to move on, away from the resistors, when resisting resistors distracts us from fulfilling our vision of creating more democratic, equitable systems. Creating a Climate of Inclusion at UGA’s Adult Education Program: An Evolving Case Study The University of Georgia’s graduate program in adult education is a good example of resisting resistance. The land grant university is situated in a historical context that has been shaped by slavery and oppression of African Americans. The university has a reputation for being an unfriendly, if not hostile, environment for students of color, especially African Americans. Although the African-American population of the state is over 30%, the African American student body at UGA is approximately 6%. Over a decade ago, the adult education program at UGA recognized the need to take a more proactive role toward recruiting and retaining African-American students within the program in light of the university’s poor performance in this area. Today, over 20% of the program’s students are African American. The adult education faculty used several strategies for diversifying its student population. First, it recruited African-American faculty who recognized the importance of placing faculty of color in roles with authority and prestige. The African-American faculty have been key recruiters and mentors of students of color, although all faculty participate in these activities. The program mission was revised to be explicit about diversity and multiculturalism. The goal was to infuse the department with a commitment to diversity and multiculturalism, rather than to simply recruit a few students of color and offer a diversity course. To that end, the program formed a multicultural committee that included both students and faculty to serve as a governance body for policy and activities to promote multiculturalism in the program. This committee has developed policy, raised issues, sponsored educational programs, and conducted research on the climate. The faculty also committed to revising the curriculum to ensure that diversity was being addressed at every opportunity. The faculty evaluated each course for its integration of diversity content. Today, all courses have issues related to diversity woven throughout them.
ER59632_C012.indd 311
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
312
Laura L. Bierema and Kecia M. Thomas
Beyond individual courses, the conceptual framework for the program includes creating leader/activists who are well versed in social analysis and addressing structural inequalities. Finally, significant care is taken in this program in creating learning experiences that honor and respect all students, in an environment that promotes safety and voice. A Students of African Descent organization was formed to provide a social and support group for students. This group engages in professional development and social activities. Annually the Students of African Descent host a research conference. Students have an opportunity to present their research to peers and faculty as a dry run for the national research conference. Students receive feedback on their presentations and mentoring on how to navigate a research conference. The conference also includes a noted scholar who makes a keynote speech. More recently, the faculty have worked to make the department a comfortable space for homosexual students and have been working to understand issues unique to this population with the assistance of a gay faculty member and students. Several faculty have attended an educational program about unique issues faced by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students, courses have been added that are related to issues of sexuality in organizations, and the faculty are working to make the curriculum more sensitive to concerns of GLTB students. The faculty does not shy away from discussions about race and gender that others may find discomfiting. Race is a regular topic of conversation at faculty meetings. The faculty acknowledges that it behaves in racist and sexist ways, and discusses these issues in an attempt to continually learn and make the program welcoming to issues of diversity. We are proud of our commitment to diversity in adult education at UGA, yet there is more work to do in this area. We aim to continue increasing the students of color in our program and reaching out to groups that are poorly represented such as Latino students. Although we have a strong international student body, we would also like to attract students from regions that are poorly represented such as Africa and Latin America. Laura Bierema Athens, Georgia January, 2007
Dr. Bierema presents some difficult challenges. Are we ready as an academic community as well as in our workplaces to have the types of conversations in which she and her peers engage? What are our taboo topics and issues that allow diversity resistance to persist and derail us from our attempts to truly be inclusive? Are the voices that
ER59632_C012.indd 312
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
Final Reflections
313
silence us our own, that of others, or both? Dismantling diversity resistance and embracing inclusion means we are ready to have difficult conversations and address the diversity resistance confronting the initial resistors. Our hope is that this volume helps you to better identify diversity resistance and perhaps even your own collusion in it so that our workplaces can be more effective in creating and sustaining healthier climates for diversity, inclusion, and effectiveness. References Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Monaghan, C. H. (2003). Silence, voice, and resistance in management education. Proceedings of the 3rd International Critical Management Studies Conference, Lancaster, England, July 7–9, pp. 303–317. Thomas, K. M., Mack, D. A., & Montagliani, A. (2004). The arguments against diversity: Are they valid? In P. Stockdale & F. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management workplace diversity. Victoria, Australia: Blackwell.
ER59632_C012.indd 313
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
ER59632_C012.indd 314
10/4/2007 7:16:35 AM
Author Index
Abelsson, M., 224 Aikin, K. J., 14, 30 Aiman-Smith, L., 239 Ajzen, I., 25, 35, 48 Akrami, N., 66–67 Alderfer, C. P., 25, 38, 251 Allen, T. D., 230 Allport, G. W., 6, 15, 41, 68, 110, 143 Altemeyer, B., 66 Anastasio, P. A., 16, 31 Antonioni, D., 74 Aquiar, P., 205 Argyris, C., 221–222, 266 Aries, E., 289 Arneson, P., 191–192 Arnett, R. C., 191–192 Aronson, E., 16 Arthur, W., 152, 164 Arvey, R. D., 63, 156, 234, 237 Asch, S. E., 15 Ash, R. A., 144 Auster, E. R., 284 Avery, D. R., 142, 151–152, 154, 230, 233–234, 237–239 Avina C., 104 Avolio, B. J., 157 Awad, G. H., 70 Awakuni, G. I., 8
B Babcock, L., 277 Babington, C., 212 Bailyn, L., 275, 280, 282–285 Baj-Lindsey, C., 66 Baldwin, M., 238 Banaji, M. R., 14, 130 Banks, J. A., 65 Barling, J., 104–105
Barnett, R. C., 274 Barnett , T., 287–288 Baron, R. A., 94 Barrick, M. R., 66–67, 153, 162, 164 Barter, C., 94 Bashner, R. S., 140 Baumeister, R. F., 141 Bearman, S., 279 Becker, P. E., 274–275 Becker, T. E., 166 Beehr, T. A., 223 Beer, M., 257 Bell, C. H., 3 Bell, M. P., 114, 116–117 Bendick, M., Jr., 25 Bennett-Alexander, D. D., 73, 213–214 Benokraitis, N. V., 253 Berdahl, J. L., 12 Berg, D. N., 187 Bergmann, B., 274 Bernstein, R., 209–210 Berrill, K., 108 Berscheid, E., 136 Bersoff, D. N., 13 Bertrand, M., 234 BeVier, C. A., 152 Bierema, L., 311–312 Biernat, M., 290 Bion, W. R., 34 Bjorn, L., 104 Blake-Beard, S., 279 Blander, B., 94, 114 Blandford, J. M., 238 Blascovich, J., 12, 143 Blau, F. D., 238 Block, C. J., 235 Blumental, A. J., 151 Bobko, P., 152–153, 161–163, 165–166 Bond, G. T., 282, 286, 292 Borgida, E., 13 Borman, W. C., 159
315
ER59632_C013.indd 315
10/15/2007 6:38:06 AM
316 Boyer, E. P., 223, 241 Bradberry, J. G., 250, 253, 255 Brass, D. J., 132, 160 Bray, D. W., 136 Bretz, R. D., 230 Brewer, M. B., 31, 68, 78 Brickman, P., 205 Brief, A. P., 31, 145, 183 Broadbent, E., 89 Brock, P., 80 Brown, A. W., 60, 76 Brown, C. S., 211 Brown, D., 24–25, 29, 234, 238 Brown, R. J., 31, 43, 68, 78 Brown, S., 69 Buber, M., 196 Bulatao, E., 96, 114 Buncombe, A., 100 Bune, K., 202, 207 Burke, M. J., 152, 156 Burke, W. W., 24, 28, 37–38 Butler, D., 131, 144 Butterfield, D. A., 237 Button, S., 76–77, 107–108, 117 Buttram, R. T., 31 Byers, B., 97, 109 Byrne, D. E., 64, 157
C Cable, D. M., 239 Callender, J. C., 156 Campion, J. E., 142 Campion, M. A., 142 Capowski, G., 223 Cappelli, P., 155 Carlson, K. D., 165 Carter, D., 213 Carter, R. T., 69 Cassels, P., 108 Caudron, S., 26, 110 Cavanaugh, M. A., 63 Cesare, S. J., 152, 156 Cha, S. E., 223 Chan, D., 153, 158 Chanowitz, B., 140 Chao, G. T., 144 Chavez, L. R., 212 Christensen, P., 281 Chrobot-Mason, D., 18, 69, 223 Cilliers, F., 34–35 Clayton, S., 277
ER59632_C013.indd 316
Author Index Cober, R. T., 151, 234, 238 Cogan, J. C., 105, 108 Cohen, A. G., 80 Cohen, P. N., 235 Cohen, R. R., 145, 183 Cokley, K., 70 Colella, A., 133, 144 Coleman, A. D., 38 Coleman, L. M., 12 Colquitt, A. L., 166 Conklin, W., 225, 239 Connerley, M. L., 70 Conway, J. M., 154 Cooper, J., 134 Cordeiro, B. L., 284 Cornfield, D. B., 225 Cornwell, J. M., 70, 74–77, 107, 137, 141–142, 145, 237 Correia, I., 205 Cortina, L. M., 201 Costa, P. T., Jr., 153, 164 Cotton, J., 223, 232 Coursol, D., 206 Cox, T., 9, 31, 43, 69, 145 Craig, K. M., 225 Crandall, C. S., 14, 139 Crocker, J., 30 Crosby, F. J., 274, 277–278, 283–284, 294 Cross, E. Y., 45 Cross, T. C., 159 Curtis, M., 68 Cycyota, C. S., 114, 116–117
D Dansby, M. R., 117 Dass, P., 1, 5, 253, 255 D’Augelli, A. R., 103 Daus, C. S., 229 Davenport, N., 98 Davidson, M. N., 11, 33, 176, 181, 186, 189, 191, 226, 232, 252, 255–256, 264, 266, 282 Davis, G., 252–253 Davis, J. L., 12 Day, D. V., 158 Deavers, K. L., 210 Dechant, K., 282 DeGroot, J., 281 DeGrott, T., 156 Dermody, K., 204 DeShon, R. P., 153, 158
10/15/2007 6:38:07 AM
Author Index
Deutsch, F. M., 275 Devine, P. G., 30, 40, 139, 256, 262 Dietz, J., 145, 183 Digh, P., 103, 113 DiMartino, V., 98 Dipboye, R., 25, 33, 133, 144, 156, 228, 240 Ditto, B., 81 Dkomaso, N., 237 Donaldson, S. I., 55, 80–81 Done, S. R., 68 Donoho, R., 223 Donovan, J. J., 160, 162–163, 166 Dougherty, T. W., 156 Doverspike, D., 151–152, 164 Dovidio, J. F., 14, 16, 30–31, 40, 44, 70, 80, 110, 127–130, 143–145, 156, 183, 253, 256, 291 Drasgow, F., 101, 114–117 Dreher, A. H., 144 Dreher, G. F., 9 Dunbar E., 97 Duran, G., 31 Dutton, J. E., 284 Dwight, S. A., 166 Dwyer, S., 287–288 Dye, D. A., 165
E Eby, L. T., 230 Edmondson, A. C., 223 Edwards, J. E., 108, 117 Egan, M. L., 25 Egan, T. D., 132, 160 Einarsen, S., 78–79 Einhart, N., 281 Eisenstat, R. A., 257 Ekehammar, B., 66–67 Ekstein, K. L., 284 Elliot, G. P., 98 Ellis, A. L., 103 Ellis, C., 41 Elmes, M., 253 Elvira, M., 234, 236 Ely, R., 5, 10, 32–33, 83, 152, 193, 232, 236–237, 240, 266 Emrich, C., 137 England, P., 300 Ensher, E. A., 55, 80–81 Erlich, H. J., 104–105 Esen, E., 25 Eshleman, A., 14, 139
ER59632_C013.indd 317
317
Evett, S. R., 30, 256
F Faley, R. H., 107 Fanon, F., 257–258, 260 Feagin, J. R., 253 Felicio, D., 140 Fendrich, M., 105 Ferber, M., 238 Ferdman, B. M., 32–33, 176, 181–182, 186, 191, 193–194 Ferris, S. P., 146, 152, 233, 283 Feyerherm, A., 279, 293–294 Finch, B., 81 Finerty, J., 73 Finkelstein, L. M., 152, 156 Finley-Nickelson, J., 31 Fishbein, M., 25, 35, 48 Fisher, A., 225 Fisher, K., 61 Fiske, S. T., 13–14, 69, 133, 140, 253, 278, 289–290, 294–295 Fitness, J., 68 Fitzgerald, L. F., 61, 101, 104–105, 112, 114–117 Fletcher, J. K., 15, 275, 280, 282–285 Foley, S., 55, 80, 153, 237 Folger, R., 94 Ford, D. L., 109 Ford, J. K., 236, 252 Ford, V. F., 227–228 Foster, J. B., 127 Foucault, M., 310, 313 Frazer, R. A., 131 Freire, P., 257–258 French, W. L., 3 Friedel, L. A., 166 Friedland, N., 65 Friedman, R., 7, 11, 189, 225–226, 232, 252, 255, 264 Friedman, S. D., 281 Friedman. R. A., 224–225 Frieze, I., 55 Friskopp, A., 137, 143 Frost, D. D., 229 Fuchs, D., 289 Fullerton, H. N., Jr., 151
10/15/2007 6:38:07 AM
318
Author Index
G Gaertner, S. L., 14, 16, 30–31, 44, 70, 80, 110, 127–130, 143, 145, 156, 183, 253, 256, 291 Galinsky, A. D., 16 Galinsky, E., 282, 286, 292 Gallagher, C. A., 27, 252 Gallegos, P. I., 182 Gandy, J. A., 165 Gatewood, R. D., 63, 76 Gattiker, U. E., 69 Gazan, D. B., 79 Geis, F. L., 131, 144 Gelfand, M. J., 106 Geller, M. H., 38 George, J. M., 137–138 Gergen, K. J., 195–196 Gerkovich, P. R., 273, 280, 282, 288 Gervais, S. J., 134 Gerwin, A. G., 231 Gettle, J. A., 60 Gifford, C., 44 Giga, S. I., 104 Gilbert, J. A., 25 Gillis, J. R., 105, 108 Giovannini, M., 240, 281, 283, 288, 293 Glater, J. D., 229 Glick, P., 14, 69, 129, 133, 253, 278, 289–290, 294–295 Glomb, T. M., 106 Gohmann, S. F., 60 Gold, D., 98 Goldstein, H. W., 157, 160 Goldstein, I. L.1, 157, 160 Goleman, D., 68 Goodman, D. J., 24 Gordon, J., 110 Gordon, R. A., 234, 237 Gornick, J. C., 275, 285–286, 292, 295 Gould, L., 34 Grandey, A., 284 Grant-Vallone, E. J., 55, 80–81 Green, B. L., 109 Green, C., 238 Greenwald, A. G., 14, 130 Griffith, K. H., 137, 139, 142 Grow, B., 210 Gruber, J. E., 104 Grundmann, E. O., 114, 117 Guion, R. M., 161 Gutek, B., 64, 69, 80–81, 101, 104–105, 114–115, 252 Guthrie, D., 295
ER59632_C013.indd 318
Gutierres, S. E., 109 Gylje, M., 66–67
H Hacker, A., 252 Hackman, R., 110 Haines, R., 25–26, 253 Hall, W. S., 14, 30 Halpern, D. F., 275, 280, 295 Hanges, P., 69–70, 145 Hansen, F., 288 Harcourt, M., 234 Harcourt, S., 234 Harlan, L. S., 275 Harris, T. M., 14 Hartman, L. P., 73, 213–214 Harvey, D., 24–25, 29 Harvey, O. J., 13, 252 Haslam, S. A., 290 Hass, R., 14 Hattiangadi, A. U., 210 Hattrup, K., 159–160, 163 Hausknecht, J. P., 158 Hays, C. L., 153, 229 Hays-Thomas, R., 250 Hebl, M., 127–128, 130–132, 137–142, 144–145 Heifetz, R. A., 178–179 Heilman, M. E., 235, 289–291 Helb, M. R., 131 Helmich, E., 83 Helms, J. E., 4, 27, 69 Hemphill, H., 25–26, 253 Hendricks, W., 89 Heneman, H. G., 155, 157, 165 Henry, P. J., 253, 256 Henze, K., 4, 27 Herek, G. M., 65, 70, 105, 108, 113 Hermans, H. J. M., 196, 199 Hernandez, C. M., 228 Hernandez, M., 142 Herrschaft, D., 114 Herscovitch, L., 36 Hesson-McInnis, M. S., 101 Hewstone, M., 43 Hiller, J. S., 146, 152, 233, 283 Hincape, M., 212 Hitlan, R. S., 108 Hoad, C. D., 96 Hoel, H., 104 Hoffman, R. L., 11
10/15/2007 6:38:07 AM
Author Index
Hogg, M. A., 31–32, 43, 64 Holladay, C. L., 43 Holmes, S., 221 Holtom, B., 225 Holvino, E., 33, 176 Hornsey, M. J., 31–32, 43 Hough, J., 14, 256 Hough, L. A., 158 Hough, L. M., 153, 163, 165 Houston, J. M., 29 Howard, A., 136 Hu, C., 231 Huebner, D. M., 81 Huffcutt, A. I., 153–154, 156, 161 Huffman, M. L., 235 Hulin, C., 101, 106 Hunt, L., 279 Hunter, J. E., 152–154, 161–163, 165, 168 Hunter, S. B., 143 Hurtz, G. M., 160, 162–163 Huston, P., 289, 295 Hyde, J. S., 289–290 Hyde, S. J., 274
I Ibarra, H., 63, 132, 137, 143–145 Ilgen, D. R., 112 Isbell, L. M., 79 Ivancevich, J. A., 25 Iyer, A., 277
J Jackson, D. N., 162–163 Jackson, J. S., 12 Jackson, J. W., 67–68 Jackson, L. C., 24, 26 Jacques, R., 5, 33 James, E. H., 1, 10, 17, 22, 105, 238, 256, 266 James, L. A., 62 James, L. R., 62, 66–67 James, S. A., 105 Jandeska, K. E., 231 Jawahar, I. M., 234 Jayne, M. E. A., 25, 33, 228, 240 Jencks, C., 277 Jennings, C. L., 256 Jennings, K., 223
ER59632_C013.indd 319
319
Jensen, R., 252 Jentsch, F. G., 28 Johns, D., 103, 109, 111 Johns, G., 79 Johnson, C., 129, 156, 159–160, 234 Johnson, M., 93 Johnson, T., 70 Johnson, W. G., 238 Johnston, W., 3, 249 Joplin, J. R. W., 229 Joseph, L. E., 27 Jost, J. T., 16 Juby, H. L., 69 Judge, T. A., 155, 157, 165, 230
K Kahn, L. M., 238 Kaminer, D. N., 58, 61 Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., 230 Kane, M., 225 Kanter, R. M., 74, 132 Karp, H. B., 26, 253 Karuza, J., 205 Katz, I., Hass, R., 14 Kavanagh, M. J., 28 Kawakami, K., 128–130, 156, 256 Kazama, S. M., 136 Kegan, R., 190 Keinan, G., 65 Kelly, R. J., 95 Kempen, H. J. G., 196, 199 Kidder, D. L., 43, 55, 80, 153, 237, 255 Kieselbach, T., 219 Kilduff, M., 160 Kim, B. H., 166 Kim, S. S., 282, 286, 292 Kinder, D. R., 256 King, E. B., 131, 135, 137–139, 141–142, 145 King, J. E., 234 Kirby, S. L., 43 Kirkland, S. E., 41 Kleck, R. E., 139 Klein, M., 34 Klein, O., 66 Kmec, J. A., 235 Knapp, D. E., 107 Knight, J. L., 43 Knowles, E. D., 13 Kolody, B., 81 Konrad, A. M., 32, 35, 64, 68, 221 Koortzen, P., 34–35
10/15/2007 6:38:07 AM
320 Koss, M. P., 104–105 Kossek, E. E., 77, 160 Kotter, J. P., 257 Kraehe, G. C., 71 Kraiger, K., 236, 252 Kraimer, M. L., 231 Kram, K. E., 278 Kramer, L. A., 238 Kraus, J. F., 94, 114 Kulik, C. T., 40–41 Kunda, Z., 13 Kustis, G. A., 107
L Lahey, L. L., 190 Lam, H., 234 Lambert, S., 238 Lancaster, A. R., 108, 116 Landis, D., 117 Lane, D., 137 Langer, E. J., 140 Lankau, M. J., 43, 67–68, 255 Larcom, B. E. K., 104–105 Larwood, L., 69 Laschever, S., 277 Lau, D. C., 74 Laurie, D. L., 179 LaVite, C. M., 101 Leaper, C., 289 Ledvinka, J., 76 Lee-Wong, S. M., 79 Lefkowitz, J., 9, 235 Leonard, J., 283 Leong, F., 66 Levy, P. E., 234, 238 Lewin, K., 266 Lewis, J., 206, 208 Li, S., 79 Liden, R. C., 157 Lind, E. A., 223 Linnehan, F., 32, 35, 68, 221 Linsky, M., 178 Lipari, R. N., 108, 116 Lipsky, S., 257 Litvin, D. R., 18 Livingston, R. W., 66 Lobel, S. A., 145 Loden, M., 64 Lofhjelm, S. M., 25 Lorsch, J. W., 221 Lott, B., 9, 289–290
ER59632_C013.indd 320
Author Index Lovejoy, M., 275, 295 Lowery, B. S., 13 Lune, H., 205 Lynch, F. R., 25–26, 32 Lyness, K. S., 277, 293 Lyons, M. R., 210
M Mack, D. A., 11, 16–17, 232, 303–304 MacLane, C. N., 165 Magley, V. J., 114, 201 Major, B., 30, 253 Malone, L. S., 4, 27 Malos, S. B., 142 Maluso, D., 9 Mannix, L. M., 127 Maremount, M., 221 Marsden, S., 221 Martell, R. F., 137 Martin, J., 110, 252–253 Martin, P. Y., 289 Massengill, D., 70–72 Matton, J. N., 228 Mattsson, J., 234 Maume, D. J., 237, 274, 289, 295 Maurer, R., 177, 187–188 May, M., 39 Mayes, V. M., 12 Mazerolle, M. D., 66–67 McArthur, D. L., 94, 114 McCambley, E., 279 McCauley, C. D., 136 McConahay, J., 14, 30, 156, 256 McCrae, R. R., 153, 164 McCrea, B., 229 McDaniel, M. A., 153, 155, 161 McDonald, R., 8 McFarland, L. A., 164 McHenry, J. J., 158 McIntire, S. D., 29 McIntosh, P., 31, 252–254 McKay, P. F., 151–152, 154, 230, 233–234, 238–239 McLean, D., 300 McLeod, P. L., 145 McNamee, S., 195 Mehra, A., 160 Mehta, C., 212 Memmi, A., 257 Mendes, W. M., 143 Merrill-Sands, D., 33, 176
10/15/2007 6:38:07 AM
Author Index
Meyer, I. H., 205 Meyer, J. P., 36 Meyers, M. K., 275, 285–286, 292, 295 Meyerson, D., 15, 266 Miller, C. T., 140 Miller, E. J., 34, 38 Miller, J. S., 70 Mills, A. J., 253 Mills, K. I., 114 Millsap, R. E., 158 Mio, J. S., 8 Mitchell, D., 229 Mitchell, M., 66 Mobley, M., 26, 32 Moen, P., 274–275, 280, 282, 284–285, 293 Moghaddam, F. M., 81 Monaghan, C. H., 309 Montada, L., 205 Montagliani, A., 11, 16–17, 232, 303–304 Monteith, M. J., 40 Moore, C., 12 Mor-Barak, M. E., 176 Morrison, A., 230 Morrison, E. W., 80 Moskowitz, G. B., 16 Motowidlo, S. J., 156, 159 Mount, M. K., 66–67, 153, 162, 164 Mullainathan, S., 234 Mulvey, P. W., 239 Muraven, M., 141 Murnighan, J. K., 74 Murphy, B. C., 9, 157, 202 Murrell, A., 55, 279
N Namie, G., 62, 77 Naylor, J. C., 112 Nelson, N. L., 112 Neuberg, S., 140 Neville, H. A., 31 Nguyen, H., 72 Noe, R. A., 28 Nohria, N., 221 Ntalianis, F., 79 Nussbaum, R. J., 14
O O’Brien, L., 14, 253 O’Connell, M. S., 159–160, 163
ER59632_C013.indd 321
321
O’Donohue, W., 104, 114, 117 O’Driscoll, M. P., 223 Ohlott, P. J., 136 Oldham, G. R., 110 Olson, J., 55 Ones, D. S., 234 Orange, R., 44 Orbe, M. P., 14 O’Reilly, C. A., 64 Organ, D. W., 164 Orth, U., 205 Oshry, B., 178 Oswald, F. L., 153, 163, 165–166
P Packer, A. E., 249 Paige, D. L., 43 Palmer, D. K., 142 Paolucci, M. P., 40 Park, M. V., 27 Parker, A. E., 3 Parker, B., 1, 5, 253, 255 Parsons, C. K., 157 Payne, S. C., 28 Payne, T., 26, 32 Pearce, W. B., 184, 195 Pedersen, P. B., 70 Pek, J., 66 Penfold, P. S., 205 Pepper, M. B., 40–41 Perry, E. L., 89 Peterson, S. H., 114, 117 Pettigrew, T. F., 42, 110, 143, 252–253 Pfeffer, J., 64 Pharr, S., 9, 257 Phillips, A. P., 156 Phillips, L. D., 69 Phillips, M. G., 230 Piderit, S. K., 38 Piotrkowski, C. S., 81 Pitkin, J. R., 209–210 Plaut, V. C., 17 Ployhart, R. E., 153, 163, 165–166 Polzer, J. T., 238 Pondy, L. R., 252 Porter, M. E., 221 Poteet, M. L., 230 Potosky, D., 152–153, 161–163, 165–166 Poulsen, J. R., 67–68 Powell, G. N., 153, 237 Prasad, P., 253
10/15/2007 6:38:07 AM
322
Author Index
Pratto, F., 13, 66, 251 Preston, J. C., 250, 253, 255 Pretorius, M., 25, 34–35 Pritchard, R. D., 112 Probst, T. M., 103, 109, 111–112 Pryor, J. B., 101 Psenicka, C., 74
Q Quick, J. C., 114, 116–117 Quinn, D., 12 Quiñones, M., 28, 44, 135
R Rabinowitz, V. C., 205 Radhakrishnan, P., 108 Ragins, B. R., 64–65, 70, 74–78, 107, 114–115, 137, 141–142, 145, 230–232, 237, 279 Rahim, M. A., 73–74 Raja, U., 79 Raju, N. S., 152, 156 Rapoport, R., 275, 280, 282–285 Raver, J. L., 106 Ravitch, J., 70 Raymark, P. H., 161 Raymond, S. G., 257 Regan, A. M., 41 Reilly, R. R., 158 Reizenstein, R. M., 31 Renold, E., 94 Richard, O. C., 43, 145, 287–288 Richeson, J. A., 14, 141, 143–144 Richman, J. A., 105 Richman, W. L., 106 Ridgeway, C., 274 Riger, S., 284, 288 Riggle, E. D. B., 103 Riordan, C. M., 63, 68, 74, 76 Roberson, L., 40–41 Robertson, Q. M., 41 Robinson, G., 282 Robinson, S. L., 80 Roderick, L. L., 31 Roehling, M. V., 280, 282, 284–285, 293 Roehling, P. V., 280, 282, 284–285, 293 Rokeach, M., 40, 291
ER59632_C013.indd 322
Rose, S., 69 Rosen, B., 25, 77 Rosener, J. B., 64 Rosewater, L. B., 205 Roth, L. M., 295 Roth, P. L., 152–154, 161–163, 165–166 Rothblum, E. D., 140 Rothstein, M., 162–163 Rozell, E. J., 155, 161–162 Rubenstein, W. B., 96, 103 Ruderman, M. N., 67, 136, 184 Rudman, L., 129 Rust, M. C., 143 Ryan, A. M., 164, 166, 234 Ryan, M. K., 290 Rynes, S., 25, 77
S Sabattini, L., 274–275, 284 Saenz, D. S., 109 Sager, I., 210 Salin, D., 75 Sammour, H. Y., 253 Sampson, E. E., 196 Sanchez, J. I., 80 Sandler, B. R., 124 Scandura, T. A., 67 Scarpello, V. G., 76 Scarville, J., 108, 117 Schaap, A., 98 Schaffer, B. S., 74 Scharmer, C. O., 196 Schaubroeck, J., 223 Schmidt, F. L., 152–155, 161–163, 165, 168 Schmit, M. J., 161, 234 Schmitt, N., 153, 158, 166 Schneider, B., 142 Schneider, K. T., 104, 106, 108 Schofield, J. W., 4 Schramm, J., 211 Schwartz, R. D., 98 Scullen, S. E., 165 Sears, D. O., 253, 256 Sechrist, G. B., 16, 40 Seidel, M. L., 238 Seigel, K., 205 Seymour, R. T., 61 Shapiro, J., 131, 135 Shelton, J. N., 143–144 Sherif, M., 13, 252 Shotter, J., 196
10/15/2007 6:38:07 AM
Shultz, K. S., 151 Sidanius, J., 13, 29, 66, 251 Silverstein, S., 137, 143 Simmons, P. A., 209–210 Simoni, J. M., 254 Sinchareon, S., 277 Sinclair, L., 13 Singletary, S., 138–141, 145 Skorinko, J. L., 139 Smith, B., 76 Smith, D. R., Dkomaso, N., 237 Smith, T. E., 289 Smith-Jentsch, K. A., 28 Smith-Lovin, C. L., 274 Smither, J. W., 158 Smither, R. D., 29 Smithson, J., 284–285 Snyder, M., 66, 134, 136 Solomon, C. M., 5 Sonnenfeld, J. A., 41 Spector, B., 257 Spence, M., 222 Spencer, S. J., 12 Stack, S., 253 Stahly, G. B., 205 Stangor, C., 16 Stapley, L. F., 34 Stathatos, P., 235 Steil, J. M., 274–275 Stein, M., 34 Stephan, C. W., 26 Stephan, W. G., 26, 42, 65 Sternberg, R. J., 160 Stevens, C. K., 41 Stevens, D. A., 252 Stewart, K. J., 238 Stewart, M., 68, 74 Stokes, J., 284, 288 Stokoe, E. H., 284–285 Stoller, L. M., 101 Stone, P., 275, 295 Struchul, A., 164 Sullivan, M., 284, 288 Sutton, N., 26 Swan, S., 61, 104 Swedish, K., 79 Swim, J. K., 14, 30 Szwajkowski, E., 69
T Tajfel, H., 13, 64, 252 Tangri, S. S., 279
ER59632_C013.indd 323
Author Index
323
Tanke, E. D., 136 Tannenbaum, S. I., 28 Tatum, B. D., 4 Taylor, D. M., 81 Taylor, M. A., 151 Terpstra, D. E., 155–156, 161–162 Terry, D. J., 64 Tett, R. P., 162–163 Thacker, R. A., 60 Thaler-Carter, R. E., 238 Thelen, J. B., 60 Theodore, N., 212 Thomas, D., 5, 10, 83, 132, 144–145, 152, 193, 221, 226, 228, 231–232, 236, 240, 279 Thomas, K., 3, 9, 11–12, 16–18, 64, 67, 69, 231–232, 303–304 Thomas, K. M., 18 Thomas, S. C., 158 Tice, D. M., 141 Tonidandel, S., 230 Toossi, M., 151 Toquam, J. L., 158 Town, R., 236 Tracey, J. B., 28 Trawalter, S., 141, 143 Trigaux, R., 7–10 Tropp, L. R., 42, 143 Tsui, A., 80, 132, 160 Turban, D. B., 156 Turner, J., 13, 64 Tytiun, T., 65
U Unzueta, M. M., 13
V Vala, J., 205 Valenti, C., 210 Valian, V., 133, 137 Validzic, A., 44 Van Buren, H. J., 1, 17 Van Den Bergh, N., 113 van den Bos, K., 223 Van Dick, R., 42 Van Scotter, J. R., 159 VandenBos, G., 96, 114
10/15/2007 6:38:08 AM
324 Vasquez-Suson, K. A., 30, 256 Vega, W. A., 81 Vergert, M. T., 40 Vescio, T. K., 40, 134 Vick, Y. H., 279, 293–294 Viswesvaran, C., 234 Volokh, E., 59 Von Glinow, M., 230 Vygotsky, L., 196
W Wagner, R. K., 160 Wagner, U., 42 Wahl, K. H., 206 Waldo, C. R., 102 Wallen, A. S., 289 Walters, K. L., 254 Wasserman, I. C., 175, 184–185, 195 Watson, C., 11 Watson, G., 252–253 Webb, T. G., 223, 241 Weichselbaumer, D., 234 Welle, B., 277, 293 Wells, L., 25, 34, 256 Whetzel, D. L., 153, 155, 161 White, B. J., 13, 252 White Berheide, C., 275 Wiersma, U. J., 131 Wiethoff, C., 35 Wilder, D. A., 140
ER59632_C013.indd 324
Author Index Wilk, S. L., 28, 155 Williams, C., 204 Williams, D., 178 Williams, J., 114–117, 273, 275, 280, 284–286, 295 Williams, K. Y., 64 Williams, W. M., 160 Williamson, L. G., 142 Wingate, P. H., 159–160, 163 Wishik, H. R., 44 Wislar, J. S., 105 Wooten, L. P., 1, 17, 22 Word, C. O., 134 Wright, P., 146, 152, 233, 283 Wrzesniewski, A., 284
Y Yoder, J. D., 289–290
Z Zane, N. C., 180 Zanna, M. P., 134 Zatzick, C. D., 234 Zedeck, S., 157, 160 Ziegert, J., 69–70, 145 Zonia, S. C., 77, 160
10/15/2007 6:38:08 AM
Subject Index
A Affinity groups, 224–226 Affirmative action, 276–278, 283 Agenda, focus upon, in overcoming diversity training resistance, 39 Alfano v. Costello, 61 Antecedents to perception of hostile work climate, 57 Anxiety, intergroup, attention to, overcoming diversity training resistance, 29–30 Attitude changes, 281–292 affirmative action, 283 flexible work arrangements, 283–286 implicit attitudes/beliefs, exposing, 289–292 pragmatic concerns, 281–289 stereotypes, 290–292 women, 286–288 work-life policies, 283–286 Attitudes of coworkers, effect on perception of hostile work climate, 63–73 Attributes of trainer, diversity training, importance of, 26 Avoidance, 127–150 advancement in workplace, effects on, 136–137 consequences of, 133–138 job-related performance, effects on, 134–136 manifestations of, 128–130 organizational consequences, 138–138 remediation strategies, 138–144 research, 130–133
B Backlash, in undermining of diversity efforts, 255–257
active, 256 passive, 256–257 Behaviors, of coworkers, effect on perception of hostile work climate, 63–73 Beliefs, implicit, exposing, 289–292 Beliefs of coworkers, in hostile work climate, 69–70 Biodata in selection, 165–166 constraints, 165–166
C Cases of diversity resistance, 7–8 Change denial of need for, 30–31 resistance to, 28–34 Characteristics of coworkers, hostile work climate, 63–73 Civil Rights Act, 58–59, 61, 76, 113, 151, 214 Cognitive-based selection, 157–158 Compensation, 238–239 Composite selection batteries, effects on adverse impact, 166–168 Composition of training group, in diversity training resistance, 40–41 Compston v. Borden, 58 Consequences of hostile work climate perception, 57 Consultative support, in overcoming diversity training resistance, 39 Content of current diversity training, criticisms of, 26 Contradictions of resistance, 307–309 Costs of diversity resistance, 11–12 individual level costs, 12 organizational level costs, 11–12 Costs of hostile work climate, to target, 80–81
325
ER59632_C014.indd 325
10/4/2007 7:17:30 AM
326
Subject Index
Costs of workplace harassment, 104–108 Councils, diversity, 226–229 Counseling for victims, 112–113 Coworker behaviors, in hostile work climate, 70–72 Criticisms of current diversity training, 26–27 content, 26 design of training, 26 results, 26 structure, 26 style of training, 26 trainer attributes, 26 Culture of inclusion, leadership challenges, 175–200 authenticity, 187 boundaries, redefining, 186 challenges to, 185–187 complexities of diversity, 181–185 degrees of resistance, 188–190 exploration of differences, 186 generative dialogue, 196 leadership, defining, 178–181 legal views of discrimination, 183–184 modeling, 186–187 narratives of diversity, 187–195 nature of prejudice, 183 personal experiences, strategic use of, 187 relational eloquence, development of, 184–185 relational responsibility, 195–196 role of leaders, 178–187 rules for behaviors, redefining, 186 social identity between-group, 182–183 multifaceted nature of, 181–182 within-group, 182–183 social views of discrimination, 183–184 traditional, relational leadership, contrasted, 180 types of resistance, 188–190 Cybernetic loop, 292–296
D Davis v. Verizon Wireless, 72 Defenses, social, diversity training resistance and, 34–35 Definition of hostile work climate, 58–63 Demographic characteristics, influence on hostile work climate, 64–65 Design of current diversity training, criticisms of, 26
ER59632_C014.indd 326
Discrimination cases, hostile work climate, 82 Distancing, social, 127–150 advancement in workplace, effects on, 136–137 job-related performance, effects on, 134–136 manifestations of, 128–130 organizational consequences, 138–138 Diversity training, resistance to, 23–54 change denial of need for, 30–31 resistance to, 28–34 composition of training group, 40–41 content, 42–44 criticisms of current training, 26–27 content, 26 design of training, 26 results, 26 structure, 26 style of training, 26 trainer attributes, 26 facilitation, 45 forms of, 27–28 framing, 42–44 intergroup anxiety, 29–30 loss of status quo, 29 models for overcoming, 35–39 nonsupportive corporate culture, 33–34 organizational change, diversity training as, 36–38 overcoming, strategies for, 35–48 agenda, focus on, 39 consultative support, 39 interactive norms, 39 small groups, 39 space, clarity, 39 time, 39 positive intergroup contact, 41–42 psychodynamics of system, 38–39 inadequate facilitation, 39 large groups, 38 unclear tasks, 38 readiness for training, 39–40 social defenses, 34–35 sources of, 28–35 support structures, 45–48 theory of reasoned action, 35–36 threats to identity, 31–33 in United States, 25–28 Dominants, undermining of diversity efforts, resistance by, 253 Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 202
10/4/2007 7:17:30 AM
Subject Index
E EEOC. See Equal Opportunity Commission El-Hakem v. BJX, Inc., 71 Emerging resistance forms, 209–216 Environment, work, hostile, perceptions of, 55–92. See also Hostile work climate, perceptions of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 99 discrimination cases, 82 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Premier Operator Services, 99–100 Equal Opportunity Commission, 76 Ethnic harassment, 99–101 Examples of hostile climate behaviors, 59–61 Exclusion, 127–150 advancement in workplace, effects on, 136–137 consequences of, 133–138 job-related performance, effects on, 134–136 manifestations of, 128–130 organizational consequences, 138–138 remediation strategies, 138–144 research, 130–133
F Facets of diversity resistance, 1–22 costs of diversity resistance, 11–12 on individual level, 12 on organizational level, 11–12 macro explanations, 16–18 micro solutions to, 15–16 old perspectives, 3–11 overt forms, explanations, 13 silence as form of resistance, 14–15 subtle forms, 8–11 explanations, 13–14 individual level, 8–11 taxonomy, 6 typology, 6–7 Facilitation, importance of, in diversity training, 45 Factors influencing hostile work climate, 63–80 Flexible work environment, 280–281 Fox v. GMC, 72
ER59632_C014.indd 327
327
Framing, in diversity training, 42–44
G Ganzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 204 Gender harassment, 101–103 Group composition, in diversity training resistance, 40–41 Group size, in overcoming diversity training resistance, 39
H Harassment in workplace, 93–123 affirmative action, 109 consequences of, 103–113 diversity policy, 110–112 diversity training programs, 110 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 99 ethnic, 99–101 examples, 94–103 gender harassment, 101–103 heterosexism, 101–103 individual costs, 104–105 individual responses, 108–109 job-related costs, 105–107 legal responses, 113 organizational costs, 107–108 organizational responses, 109–118 positive organizational climate, 112 prevalence of, 94–103 primary prevention, 114–115 racial, 99–101 recategorization, 110 secondary prevention, 115–117 sexual harassment, 101 tertiary prevention, 117 victim counseling, 112–113 Harris v. Forklift Systems, 60 Hate crimes in workplace, 93–123. See also Violence in workplace Heterosexism, 101–103 Hostile work climate, perceptions of, 55–92 Alfano v. Costello, 61 antecedents to, 57 attitudes, of coworkers, 63–73 behaviors, of coworkers, 63–73 Hostile work climate (cont.)
10/4/2007 7:17:30 AM
328
Subject Index
behaviors of coworkers, 70–72 beliefs, of coworkers, 69–70 characteristics, of coworkers, 63–73 Civil Rights Act, 58–59, 61, 76 (See also Civil Rights Act) Compston v. Borden, 58 consequences of, 57 costs of hostile work climate to organization, 81–83 to target, 80–81 to witnessing employees, 81 Davis v. Verizon Wireless, 72 definition, 61–63 demographic characteristics, 64–65 discrimination cases, 82 diversity, support for, 77–78 El-Hakem v. BJX, Inc., 71 Equal Opportunity Commission, 76 examples, hostile climate behaviors, 59–61 experiences, 67–69 factors influencing, 63–80 Fox v. GMC, 72 Harris v. Forklift Systems, 60 human resource policies/practices, 76 individuals legally protected, 58–59 Kaspi v. Fairway Operating Corp., 72 legal cases, 82 legal definition, hostile work climate, 58–61 Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 61 management, 77 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 58–59 Miller v. Department of Corrections, 60 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 60 organizational systems, 75–78 outcomes, hostile work climate, 80–83 personal characteristics of coworkers, 64 personal factors, 78–80 of target, 78–79 personal history, 79–80 personality, 65–67 practices of organization, 75–78 psychological climate, 62–63 research, 83 Rogers v. EEOC, 58 skills, 67–69 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 82 recommendations of, 76 work unit, 73–75 behavioral norms, 75
ER59632_C014.indd 328
demography, 74–75 manager, positional power, 73–74 Human resource policies/practices influence on hostile work climate, 76 mixed messages, workforce diversity, 233–239
I Identity, threats to, in diversity training resistance, 31–33 Identity group membership, in undermining of diversity efforts, 250–252 Illegal policies, 203–206 Implicit attitudes/beliefs, exposing, 289–292 Inadequate facilitation, diversity training, 39 Inclusion, culture of, leadership challenges, 175–200 authenticity, 187 boundaries, redefining, 186 challenges to, 185–187 complexities of diversity, 181–185 degrees of resistance, 188–190 exploration of differences, 186 generative dialogue, 196 leadership, defining, 178–181 legal views of discrimination, 183–184 modeling, 186–187 narratives of diversity, 187–195 nature of prejudice, 183 personal experiences, strategic use of, 187 relational eloquence, development of, 184–185 relational responsibility, 195–196 role of leaders, 178–187 rules for behaviors, redefining, 186 social identity between-group, 182–183 multifaceted nature of, 181–182 within-group, 182–183 social views of discrimination, 183–184 traditional, relational leadership, contrasted, 180 types of resistance, 188–190 Individual costs of diversity resistance, 12 Informal selection, 155–157 Institutional colorblindness, 232–233
10/4/2007 7:17:30 AM
Subject Index
Interactive norms, for overcoming diversity training resistance, 39 Intergroup anxiety, attention to, overcoming diversity training resistance, 29–30 Intergroup contact, in diversity training, 41–42 Interviews, structured, 161–162 constraints, 162
J Jenson v. Eleventh Taconite, 104
329
social views of discrimination, 183–184 traditional, relational leadership, contrasted, 180 types of resistance, 188–190 Learning, diversity, resistance to, 23–54. See also Diversity training, resistance to Legal definition, hostile work climate, 58–61 Legally protected individuals, hostile work climate, 58–59 Literate resistance, 309–313 Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 61 Loss of status quo, attention to, in overcoming diversity training resistance, 29
K Kaspi v. Fairway Operating Corp., 72
L Large groups, in diversity training, 38 Latinos in workforce, 209–213 Leadership challenges, development of inclusionary culture, 175–200 authenticity, 187 boundaries, redefining, 186 challenges to, 185–187 complexities of diversity, 181–185 degrees of resistance, 188–190 exploration of differences, 186 generative dialogue, 196 leadership, defining, 178–181 legal views of discrimination, 183–184 modeling, 186–187 narratives of diversity, 187–195 nature of prejudice, 183 personal experiences, strategic use of, 187 relational eloquence, development of, 184–185 relational responsibility, 195–196 role of leaders, 178–187 rules for behaviors, redefining, 186 social identity between-group, 182–183 multifaceted nature of, 181–182 within-group, 182–183
ER59632_C014.indd 329
M Macro explanations for diversity resistance, 16–18 Management, influence on hostile work climate, 77 Mentoring, 230–232, 278–280 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 58–59 Micro solutions to diversity resistance, 15–16 Miller v. Department of Corrections, 60 Mixed messages regarding workforce diversity, 221–248 affinity groups, 224–226 compensation, 238–239 defined, 222–223 diversity celebrations, 229–230 diversity councils, 226–229 elimination of, 239–241 human resource management and, 233–239 institutional colorblindness, 232–233 mentoring programs, 230–232 performance appraisal, 236–237 placement, 235–236 promotion, 237–238 staffing, 233–235 tactics, 224–233 Models for overcoming diversity training resistance, 35–39 Mutual reinforcement, 293–296
10/4/2007 7:17:30 AM
330
Subject Index
N
subtle forms of resistance, explanations, 13–14 taxonomy, diversity resistance in organizations, 6 typology, diversity resistance in organizations, 6–7
Negative diversity climate, 206–209 Nonsupportive corporate culture, diversity training resistance, 33–34
O Obliviousness, in undermining of diversity efforts, 253–254 Old perspectives on diversity resistance, 3–11 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 60 Organizational change, diversity training as, 36–38 Organizational climate. See Psychological climate Organizational costs, hostile work climate, 81–83 Organizational level costs of diversity resistance, 11–12 Organizational resistance to diversity, 201–220 emerging resistance, 209–216 forms, 203–209 illegal policies, 203–206 Latinos in workforce, 209–213 negative diversity climate, 206–209 Roberts v. Texaco, 202 same-gender affinity orientation individuals in workplace, 213–216 Outcomes of diversity resistance, 11–12 Overcoming diversity training resistance, 35–48. See also Diversity training, resistance to Overt forms of resistance, explanations, 13 Overview of diversity resistance, 1–22 cases of diversity resistance, 7–8 costs of diversity resistance, 11–12 individual level costs, 12 organizational level costs, 11–12 macro explanations for diversity resistance, 16–18 micro solutions to diversity resistance, 15–16 old perspectives, diversity resistance, 3–11 overt forms of resistance, explanations, 13 silence as form of resistance, 14–15 subtle forms of diversity resistance, 8–11 individual level, 8–11
ER59632_C014.indd 330
P Perceptions of hostile work climate, 55–92. See also Hostile work climate Performance appraisal, 236–237 Personal characteristics of coworkers, influence on hostile work climate, 64 Personal factors in hostile work climate, 78–80 target, 78–79 personal history of, 79–80 Personality, hostile work climate and, 65–67 Personality dimensions in selection, 162–165 constraints, 164 Peterson v. Hewlett Packard, 111 Positive intergroup contact, in diversity training, 41–42 Power, resistance and, 305–307 Practices of organization, effect on hostile work climate perception, 75–78 Pragmatic concerns, 281–289 Promotion, 237–238 Psychodynamics in diversity training, 38–39 inadequate facilitation, 39 large groups, 38 unclear tasks, 38 Psychological climate, effect on hostile work climate perception, 62–63 Psychomotor-based selection, 157–158
R Racial harassment, 99–101 Readiness for diversity training, importance of, 39–40 Reasoned action, theory of, 35–36 Recategorization, 110 Recommendations of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 76
10/4/2007 7:17:31 AM
Subject Index
Reinforcement, mutual, 293–296 Resignation, in undermining of diversity efforts, 259–261 Results of current diversity training, criticisms of, 26 Roberts v. Texaco, 202 Rogers v. EEOC, 58
S Same-gender affinity orientation individuals in workplace, 213–216 Secondary prevention, 115–117 Sexual harassment, 101 SGAO. See Same-gender affinity orientation Silence as form of resistance, 14–15 Skills, hostile work climate and, 67–69 Small groups, for overcoming diversity training resistance, 39 Social defenses, diversity training resistance, 34–35 Social distancing, 127–150 advancement in workplace, effects on, 136–137 consequences of, 133–138 job-related performance, effects on, 134–136 manifestations of, 128–130 organizational consequences, 138–138 remediation strategies, 138–144 research, 130–133 Space, consciousness of, in overcoming diversity training resistance, clarity, 39 Status quo, loss of, attention to, in overcoming diversity training resistance, 29 Stereotypes, 290–292 Strategies for overcoming resistance to diversity training, 35–48 agenda, focus on, 39 change denial of need for, 30–31 resistance to, 28–34 composition of training group, 40–41 consultative support, 39 content, 42–44 criticisms of current training, 26–27 content, 26 design of training, 26 results, 26
ER59632_C014.indd 331
331
structure, 26 style of training, 26 trainer attributes, 26 facilitation, 45 forms of, 27–28 framing, 42–44 interactive norms, 39 intergroup anxiety, 29–30 loss of status quo, 29 models for overcoming, 35–39 nonsupportive corporate culture, 33–34 organizational change, diversity training as, 36–38 positive intergroup contact, 41–42 psychodynamics of system, 38–39 inadequate facilitation, 39 large groups, 38 unclear tasks, 38 readiness for training, 39–40 small groups, 39 social defenses, 34–35 sources of, 28–35 space, clarity, 39 support structures, 45–48 theory of reasoned action, 35–36 threats to identity, 31–33 time focus, 39 Structure of current diversity training, criticisms of, 26 Structured interviews, 161–162 constraints, 162 Structures in overcoming resistance, 276–281 affirmative action, 276–278 flexible work environment, 280–281 mentoring, 278–280 Style of current diversity training, criticisms of, 26 Subordinants, in undermining of diversity efforts, resistance by, 257–258 Subtle forms of diversity resistance, 8–11 explanations, 13–14 individual level, 8–11 Support consultative, in overcoming diversity training resistance, 39 for diversity training, 45–48 influence on hostile work climate, 77–78
T Taxonomy of diversity resistance, 6 Tertiary prevention, 117
10/4/2007 7:17:31 AM
332
Subject Index
Theory of reasoned action, 35–36 Threats to identity, in diversity training resistance, 31–33 Time focus, in overcoming diversity training resistance, 39 Traditional selection methods, 151–174 alternative methods, 161–166 biodata, 165–166 constraints, 165–166 cognitive-based selection, 157–158 composite selection batteries, effects on adverse impact, 166–168 criterion domain, broadening, 159–160 informal selection, 155–157 personality dimensions, 162–165 constraints, 164 predictor domain, broadening, 160–161 predictors, task, contextual performance, 167 psychomotor-based selection, 157–158 structured interviews, 161–162 constraints, 162 Trainer attributes, in diversity training, importance of, 26 Typology of diversity resistance, 6–7
U Unclear tasks, in diversity training, 38 Undermining diversity efforts, 249–272 backlash, 255–257 active, 256 passive, 256–257 cycles of resistance, 261–265 dominants, resistance by, 253 escalation, 258–259 identity group membership, 250–252 lamentation, 255 obliviousness, 253–254 resignation, 259–261 subordinants, resistance by, 257–258
ER59632_C014.indd 332
University of Georgia, adult education program, 311–312 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 76, 82 recommendations of, 76
V Victim counseling, 112–113 Violence in workplace, 93–123 affirmative action, 109 consequences of, 103–113 diversity training programs, 110 examples, 97 inclusive diversity policy, 110–112 individual costs, 104–105 individual responses, 108–109 job-related costs, 105–107 legal responses, 113 organizational costs, 107–108 organizational responses, 109–118 positive organizational diversity climate, 112 prevalence of, 94–103 primary prevention, 114–115 recategorization, 110 secondary prevention, 115–117 tertiary prevention, 117 victim counseling, 112–113
W Witnessing employees, costs of hostile work climate to, 81 Work unit, manager, positional power, influence on hostile work climate, 73–74 Work unit in hostile work climate, 73–75 behavioral norms, 75 demography, 74–75
10/4/2007 7:17:31 AM
