Respond to the following Question using APA format with support.
Read Page 190, specifically the section on Japanese Internment.
Prior to reading this chapter, were you aware of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese Americans? If yes, how much did you know?
Use the book and at least 2 other sources to expand on and explain the Chinese Exclusion Act and include your opinions. Write at least 3 to 5 paragraphs.
Diversity in
Organizations
SECOND EDITION
Myrtle P. Bell
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, ARLINGTON
Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • United Kingdom • United States
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Diversity in Organizations, Second Edition
Myrtle P. Bell
Vice President of Editorial, Business:
Jack W. Calhoun
Editor-in-Chief: Melissa Acuna
Acquisitions Editor: Scott Person
Developmental Editor: Jeffrey Hahn
Editorial Assistant: Ruth Belanger
Marketing Manager: Jonathan Monahan
Content Project Management:
PreMediaGlobal
Frontlist Buyer, Manufacturing:
Arethea Thomas
Senior Marketing Communications
Manager: Jim Overly
Production Service: PreMediaGlobal
Senior Art Director: Tippy McIntosh
Cover Designer: Kim Torbeck,
Imbue Design
Cover Image: ©Sandra Dionisi,
Stock Illustration Source, Getty Images
Rights Acquisitions Specialist, Image:
Deanna Ettinger
Right Acquisitions Specialist, Text:
Sam A. Marshall
© 2012, 2007 South-Western, Cengage Learning
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright
herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored, or used in any form or by
any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to
photocopying, recording, scanning, digitizing, taping, web distribution,
information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, except
as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States
Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Cengage Learning Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706.
For permission to use material from this text or product,
submit all requests online at www.cengage.com/permissions.
Further permissions questions can be emailed to
permissionrequest@cengage.com
Library of Congress Control Number: 2011923665
ISBN-13: 978-1-111-22130-0
ISBN-10: 1-111-22130-8
South-Western
5191 Natorp Boulevard
Mason, OH 45040
USA
Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions
with office locations around the globe, including Singapore, the United
Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, and Japan. Locate your local office at
international.cengage.com/region.
Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by
Nelson Education, Ltd.
For your course and learning solutions, visit www.cengage.com
Purchase any of our products at your local college store or at our
preferred online store www.cengagebrain.com
Printed in the United States of America
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 14 13 12 11
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
To Earnest, so aptly named.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Brief Contents
Preface xii
SECTION I INTRODUCTION, THEORIES, AND LEGISLATION 1
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
Chapter 2 Theories and Thinking about Diversity 37
Chapter 3 Legislation 63
SECTION II EXAMINING SPECIFIC GROUPS AND CATEGORIES 107
Chapter 4 Blacks/African Americans 109
Chapter 5 Latinos/Hispanics 147
Chapter 6 Asians/Asian Americans 187
Chapter 7 Whites/European Americans 223
Chapter 8 American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Multiracial Group Members 257
Chapter 9 Sex and Gender 283
Chapter 10 Work and Family 321
Chapter 11 Sexual Orientation 353
Chapter 12 Religion 377
Chapter 13 Age 399
Chapter 14 Physical and Mental Ability 431
Chapter 15 Weight and Appearance 459
SECTION III GLOBAL VISION 489
Chapter 16 International Diversity and Facing the Future 491
Name Index 523
Subject Index 533
iv
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Table of Contents
Preface xii
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION, THEORIES,
AND LEGISLATION 1
CHAPTER 1 Introduction 3
Determining “Diversity” in an International
Context 5
Multiple Group Memberships and Permeability
of Boundaries 6
Terminology 8
The Stimulus for the Focus on Diversity:
Workforce 2000 9
DiversityandOrganizationalCompetitiveness 12
Cost 13
Resource Acquisition 15
Marketing 16
Creativity and Problem Solving 18
System Flexibility 19
Other Areas Where Diversity Can Be
Advantageous 20
Moral and Social Reasons for Valuing
Diversity 21
Difficulties Resulting from Increased Diversity
and Organizational Responses 22
The “Value in Diversity” Perspective versus
Negative Impacts of Diversity 23
Individual Benefits of Diversity 24
Diversity, Individual Outcomes, and
Organizational Effectiveness 25
Organization of the Book 26
Introduction and Overview 28
Population 29
Education 30
Employment, Unemployment, and
Participation Rates 30
Types of Employment and Income Levels 32
Focal Issues 32
Individual and Organizational
Recommendations 33
International Feature 33
Other Features 34
Summary 35
Key Terms 35
Questions to Consider 36
Actions and Exercises 36
CHAPTER 2 Theories and Thinking about
Diversity 37
What Is a “Minority”? 38
Identifiability 40
Differential Power 40
Discrimination 41
Group Awareness 41
Analysis of the Characteristics 41
Categorization and Identity 42
Social Categorization and Stereotyping 43
Consequences of Social Categorization and
Social Identity 45
Aversive Racism, Ambivalent Sexism, and
Other New Isms 53
Recommendations for Individuals and
Organizations 57
Summary 59
Key Terms 59
Questions to Consider 60
Actions and Exercises 61
v
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER 3 Legislation 63
Historical Background 65
Major Federal Acts Related to Diversity
in Organizations 66
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 68
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 71
Affirmative Action in Employment 82
The Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 88
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act
of 1978 89
EEOC Guidelines on Sexual Harassment
(1980) 90
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of
1990 95
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 96
The Civil Rights Act of 1991 98
The Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993 100
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act of 2008 101
Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act of 2008 101
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 102
Other Relevant State, Local, and City
Ordinances 102
Future Federal Acts: What’s Ahead? 103
Effects of Diversity on the Judiciary and on
Judicial Decisions 103
Summary 104
Key Terms 105
Questions to Consider 105
Actions and Exercises 106
SECTION II
EXAMINING SPECIFIC GROUPS AND
CATEGORIES 107
CHAPTER 4 Blacks/African Americans 109
History of Blacks in the United States 111
Blacks in the Military 112
The Civil Rights Movement 115
Relevant Legislation 116
Population 117
Education, Employment, and Earnings 118
Education 118
Participation Rates 119
Earnings by Educational Attainment 120
Research on the Employment Experiences of
African Americans 124
Access Discrimination 124
Treatment Discrimination 128
The Glass Ceiling and Walls 129
Negative Health Effects of
Discrimination 130
Immigrant Blacks and Their Descendants
and Native-born Blacks—Similarities
and Differences 131
African American Women at Work 133
Discrimination against Customers 136
Recommendations 137
Recommendations for Blacks 139
Recommendations for Organizational
Change 140
Consumer/Customer Service
Recommendations 143
Summary 143
Key Terms 144
Questions to Consider 144
Actions and Exercises 145
CHAPTER 5 Latinos/Hispanics 147
History of Hispanics in the United States 148
Mexicans 149
Puerto Ricans 151
Cubans 152
Relevant Legislation 154
English-only Rules 154
Population 156
Population by Race for Hispanics and
Non-Hispanics 157
Education, Employment, and Earnings 158
Education 158
Employment 159
Earnings 162
vi Table of Contents
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Organizational Experiences of Hispanics 162
Race and Hispanic Ethnicity and
Employment Outcomes 163
Access and Treatment Discrimination 163
Hispanic Immigrants at Work 166
Latinos and Blacks at Work 169
Latinas at Work 170
Bilingualism: An Uncompensated Skill 173
Racial Profiling, Police Misconduct, and
Differential Judicial Treatment against
Hispanics 175
Latinos as Customers 179
The Marketing Advantage 179
Discrimination against Hispanic
Customers 180
Recommendations for Individuals 181
Recommendations for Organizations 182
Summary 184
Key Terms 184
Questions to Consider 184
Actions and Exercises 184
CHAPTER 6 Asians/Asian Americans 187
History of Asians in the United States 189
Relevant Legislation 191
Asians and the Civil Rights Movement 192
Selected EEOC Cases 192
Population 195
Education, Employment, and Earnings 196
Participation and Occupations 200
Asians as the “Model Minority” 201
Asian American Entrepreneurs 206
Research on Experiences of Asian Americans
at Work 209
Asian American Women at Work 212
Focus on Selected Asian Americans: Chinese,
Indians, and Southeast Asians 215
Chinese 215
Asian Indians 217
Southeast Asians 218
Recommendations for Individuals and
Organizations 218
Summary 219
Key Terms 220
Questions to Consider 220
Actions and Exercises 221
CHAPTER 7 Whites/European Americans 223
History of Whites in the United States 225
The Past Transiency and Current Meaning
of “Race” for Whites 226
History of Whites as Allies of
Diversity 229
Relevant Legislation 231
Population 238
Education, Earnings, and Employment 239
Research on Whites and Diversity 241
Similarities and Differences in the
Experiences of White Women
and Men 241
The Meaning of Ethnicity for Whites 243
Perceptions of “Quotas” and “Reverse
Discrimination” 244
Effects of Increasing Diversity on Dominant
Group Members 248
Recommendations for Individuals 249
Recommendations for Organizations 250
Summary 253
Key Terms 253
Questions to Consider 253
Actions and Exercises 254
CHAPTER 8 American Indians, Alaska Natives,
and Multiracial Group
Members 257
History of American Indians in North
America 259
Population 262
Education, Employment, and Earnings 265
Relevant Legislation 267
Research on American Indians at Work 269
American Indian and Alaskan Native
Women 269
Multiracial Group Members 272
Introduction and History 272
Table of Contents vii
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Blacks and Racial Determination 273
Population 276
Relevant Legislation 277
Amerasians 277
Recommendations for Individuals and
Organizations 278
American Indians and Alaska
Natives 278
Multiracial Group Members 279
Summary 280
Key Terms 280
Questions to Consider 281
Actions and Exercises 281
CHAPTER 9 Sex and Gender 283
Relevant Legislation 285
Population 286
Education 287
Participation and Earnings 287
Participation Rates 288
Sex Segregation 290
Income 292
Gender Role Socialization 293
Sex Discrimination 299
Sexual Harassment 302
Sexual Harassment of Women 303
Sexual Harassment of Men 305
The Glass Ceiling and Other
Boundaries 307
Sex, Race, and Ethnicity 310
White Women and Women of Color 310
Unique Gender Issues 312
Gender and Poverty 312
Negotiating Pay 313
Recommendations for Individuals and
Organizations 314
Curbing Sexual Harassment 316
Breaking the Glass Ceiling 317
Summary 318
Key Terms 318
Questions to Consider 318
Actions and Exercises 319
CHAPTER 10 Work and Family 321
History of Work and Family 323
Relevant Legislation 323
Equal Pay Act and Title VII 324
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 325
The Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993 328
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 329
Population, Participation, and Education 329
Earnings 332
Part-time Work and Earnings 334
Flexible Schedules 335
Flexible Schedules for Singles 338
Unpaid and Paid Leaves 338
Career Outcomes for Employees Who Take
Leaves of Absence 339
Same-Sex Couples in Family Relationships 340
Men, Work, and Family 341
Beyond the Family: Society, Organizations,
and Family Issues 342
Family Policies in Selected Countries 343
Elder Care 345
Parenting Again: Grandparents Caring for
Grandchildren 346
Recommendations for Individuals 347
Recommendations for Organizations 348
Summary 350
Key Terms 350
Questions to Consider 350
Actions and Exercises 351
CHAPTER 11 Sexual Orientation 353
History of Gay Rights in the United States 355
Population 357
Education and Income Levels 357
Relevant Legislation 359
Partner Benefits 362
HIV/AIDS at Work: Unfounded Fears 364
Determinants of Attitudes toward Gays and
Lesbians 367
Codes of Silence: Not Just the U.S.
Military 367
viii Table of Contents
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Out at Work? 370
Recommendations for Individuals 372
Recommendations for Organizations 373
Summary 375
Key Terms 375
Questions to Consider 376
Actions and Exercises 376
CHAPTER 12 Religion 377
History of Religious Diversity in the
United States 379
Population and Variations among
Beliefs 379
Race, Ethnicity, and Religion 380
Relevant Legislation 381
EEOC Guidelines on Religious Exercise
and Religious Expression in the
Federal Workplace 382
Discrimination in Work Situations and
Harassment 382
Reasonable Accommodations 384
Claims and Selected Cases under
Title VII 386
The Diversity among Arab Americans and
Muslims in the United States 387
Racial Profiling of Arabs (or People
Who Look as though They Might
Be Arab) 387
Religion as an Invisible Identity 388
Women’s Roles in Organized
Religion 389
Religion and Diversity in Sexual Orientation
at Work 390
Conflicts between Religion and Sexual
Orientation: Two Cases with Different
Outcomes 392
Resolving Conflicts 394
Recommendations for Individuals 395
Recommendations for Organizations 396
Summary 397
Key Terms 397
Questions to Consider 398
Actions and Exercises 398
CHAPTER 13 Age 399
Historical Background 401
Relevant Legislation for Older Workers 401
Selected EEOC Cases Involving Older Age
Discrimination Claims 403
Legal Protections for Younger Workers 406
Population, Participation Rates, and
Employment 408
An Intergenerational Workforce 409
Education 410
Research on Employment Experiences of
Older Workers 413
Age, Accidents, and Injuries at
Work 414
Training and Development 414
Bridge Employment and Layoffs 416
Older Women at Work 418
Research on Employment Experiences of
Younger Workers 421
Sexual Harassment of Teen Workers
and the EEOC’s Youth@Work
Initiative 422
Long-term Consequences of Harassment
of Young Workers 425
Recommendations for Individuals 426
Recommendations for Organizations 427
Summary 429
Key Terms 429
Questions to Consider 429
Actions and Exercises 430
CHAPTER 14 Physical and Mental
Ability 431
History 433
Relevant Legislation 433
Essential and Marginal Functions 436
Reasonable Accommodations 438
Medical Examinations 440
Population, Education, and Employment 440
Employment Experiences of People with
Disabilities 443
Intellectual Disabilities 443
Table of Contents ix
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The Glass Ceiling, Walls, and Secondary
Job Markets for People with
Disabilities 447
Perceptions of Performance
Inadequacies 447
When Employees Acquire
a Disability 448
DuPont and the Employment of People
with Disabilities 449
Customers with Disabilities 450
Recommendations for Individuals 451
Recommendations for Organizations 451
Changing Negative Attitudes at
Work 452
Human Resources Needs 452
Accommodations 456
Summary 456
Key Terms 456
Questions to Consider 457
Actions and Exercises 457
CHAPTER 15 Weight and Appearance 459
Population 463
Education, Employment Levels, Types,
and Income 466
Effects of Attractiveness of Appearance
on Employment and Income 467
Legislation Relevant to Weight and
Appearance 469
The ADA and Weight 469
State and Local Statutes Prohibiting
Weight and Appearance
Discrimination 471
Should Size Discrimination Be Prohibited
by Federal Law? 472
Effects of Weight on Health and on Costs
to Employers 473
Is It the Fat, the Health, or the Stigma of
Overweight? 476
Obesity Discrimination in Health
Care 478
Appearance: Cases and Legislation 479
Recommendations for Individuals and
Organizations 482
Considerations for Employers:
Weight 482
Considerations for Employees:
Weight 484
Recommendations to Individuals and
Organizations for Minimizing
Appearance Discrimination 485
Summary 486
Key Terms 486
Questions to Consider 486
Actions and Exercises 487
SECTION III
GLOBAL VISION 489
CHAPTER 16 International Diversity and
Facing the Future 491
Discrimination and Differential Treatment as
Worldwide Phenomena 495
Sex and Gender: The Status of Women
around the World 497
Population and Participation Rates 497
Sexual Harassment, Segregation,
Discrimination, and Other
Inequities 498
Wage Inequity and the Glass Ceiling 499
Focus: “Think Manager, Think Male”
Worldwide? 500
People with Disabilities 500
Population and Participation 503
Legislation 504
Focus: Disabled People’s Experiences
in the Workplace in England 504
Sexual Orientation 505
Legislation Prohibiting Sexual Orientation
Discrimination 505
Focus: Anti-Gay Sentiment among
Youth in Belgium and Canada 506
x Table of Contents
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Poverty 506
Facing the Future: The Broad Reach of
Diversity in Organizations 509
Recommendations for Change at a
Societal Level 511
Recommendations for Change at an
Organizational Level 511
Management Commitment to Diversity
in Organizations 512
Changes in Human Resource
Practices 513
Other Employment Considerations 516
Diversity for Service Providers 516
The Role of the Media 518
Recommendations for Change at an
Individual Level 518
Capitalizing on the Strength of Diversity
in the United States 520
Summary 522
Key Terms 522
Questions to Consider 522
Actions and Exercises 522
Name Index 523
Subject Index 533
Table of Contents xi
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Preface
In the years since I wrote the first edition of
Diversity in Organizations, many significant
events related to diversity have occurred. In
2008, the United States elected its first Black
president, the man identified as “Barack
Obama, U.S. Senator” in the multiracial
chapter of the first edition. Although my
prescient Goolsby Leadership students in the
spring of 2006 referred to him as “the hope
of our generation,” when I wrote that feature
in 2005, I had no thought that Senator
Obama would be elected U.S. president. That
he was elected was momentous in and of itself,
as were the diverse backgrounds of the people
who voted for him.
Obama’s election led to claims of a
“postracial” America, which have not yet
been realized. Even so, the diversity of those
who voted for him does speak of immense
progress from the point where few believed,
even in a time of recession and two wars,
that a Black man would ever be elected U.S.
president or that women would also be
seriously considered candidates during the
election.
As I began writing the second edition and
investigating the status of each racial and
ethnic group, women and men, people with
disabilities, and other non-dominant group
members, it became even more clear that the
need for diversity research and study remains
strong. Blacks continue to have nearly twice
the unemployment rate of Whites—a problem
that persists even at the same education levels.
Residential segregation and the fact that
Blacks with similar credit histories, personal
backgrounds, and in similar residential loca-
tions were more likely to be given subprime
loans help explain the current higher foreclo-
sure rates among Black Americans.1 Although
women became the majority in the workforce
as men’s jobs were lost during the recession,
the wage gap remains tenacious. Sexual
harassment, discrimination, and segregation
continue to be severe and pervasive problems
for working women. Arizona passed a law
that seemed to support racial profiling of
Latinos. Employer targeting of Hispanics for
discrimination and harassment, while at the
same time preferring them to and discriminat-
ing against Blacks and Whites for some low-
wage, often exploitative jobs continues.
Although gays and lesbians have served
admirably in the military for years, “Don’t
Ask, Don’t Tell” continued to be the law until
very recently, and challenges to it continued to
be met with tenacious resistance. For every
non-dominant group some disparities persist,
and, in some cases, have worsened since the
first edition. It is no surprise that discrimination
1Rugh, J. S., & Massey, D. S. (2010). “Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis.” American Sociological Review.
75(5): 629–651.
xii
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
charges filed with the EEOC reached their
highest number ever, in multiple categories.2
Because most people who experience
discrimination do not sue, other motivations
for fair treatment, non-discrimination, and
diversity and inclusion remain important.
As a result, organizations are continuing to
emphasize diversity and inclusion in
recruiting and marketing, funding employee
resource groups, supporting diverse family
units, and in many other ways. There is still
much work to be done, but there is still
progress amid retrenchment and there is still
hope for a better, fairer, more just future.
CHANGES TO THIS EDITION
As was the first edition, this edition of
Diversity in Organizations is research-based,
using hundreds of articles, chapters, and
books from the fields of management, sociol-
ogy, psychology, economics, criminal justice,
and health as resources. This edition contains
a general updating of the content of all chap-
ters, including data on population, participa-
tion, and employment, legislation, litigation,
relevant research, and features. Objectives and
Key Facts in each chapter have been updated
as well. This edition emphasizes diversity and
inclusion and the degree to which “different
voices of a diverse workforce are respected
and heard”3 and offers more insight into
implications for organizations interspersed
throughout the chapters. Each chapter in-
cludes new examples of litigation under
diversity-related laws, including those recently
passed, and new relevant empirical research.
Chapter 7 now includes an interview of the
chief diversity executive at a major corpora-
tion. The discussion of theories has been
concentrated in Chapter 2, which includes
more psychological theories and processes
that affect diversity and research evidence
on reducing bias in selection. Section II has
been reorganized such that the topics of sex
and gender, work and family, and sexual
orientation follow each other, improving
flow and cohesion. Chapter 16, “International
Diversity and Facing the Future,” includes
more research on diversity issues in an
international context and contains a feature
essay focusing on the perspective of an inter-
national organization on global diversity and
inclusion.
Key changes in this edition include:
● Added an adaptation of Cox’s Interactional
Model of the Impact of Diversity on
Individual Career Outcomes and Organiza-
tional Effectiveness.
● New research on structured interviews
to reduce similarity bias.
● Discussions of new legislation, including
the Genetic Information Nondiscrimina-
tion Act (2008), Americans with Dis-
abilities Amendments Act (2008), and
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009).
● The inclusion of research on the effects of
diversity in the judiciary on judges’
decisions.
● New sections on immigrant Blacks and on
Blacks and Hispanics.
● New features on Surgeon General Regina
Benjamin and Supreme Court Justice
Sonia Sotomayor.
● New research on race and color discrimi-
nation across races.
2http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/charges.cfm, accessed November 23, 2010.
3Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2004). “Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes, and Practices.” Journal of Business
Ethics, 54: 129–147.
Preface xiii
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
● New research on discrimination and
health care.
● Updated information on participation and
employment of older workers since the
economic recession.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I thank Jeff Hahn, Scott Person, and the staff
at Cengage and its affiliated and support
organizations for their patience and persever-
ance throughout the development of this
edition. I thank Pradhiba Kannaiyan and the
copy editors at PreMediaGlobal for their
editorial assistance. I am especially grateful to
Jennifer Ziegler at Cengage, and Margaret
Trejo at Trejo Production for their outstanding
last minute work and conscientiousness.
I am grateful to the many colleagues who
reviewed and offered valuable feedback on the
book:
Ronald Bolender
Mount Vernon Nazarene University
Gwendolyn M. Combs
University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Leon Fraser
Rutgers Business School
Diane Hagan
Ohio Business College
Brenda Johnson
Cleveland State University
Hazel-Anne Johnson
Rider University
Beth Livingston
Cornell University
Darcel Lowery
Rutgers University
Sheryl Moinat
University of Wisconsin, River Falls
Dyan Pease
Sacramento City College
Janet Sayers
Massey University
Although not listed by name, I appreciate
the many members of the Gender and Diver-
sity in Organizations division of the Academy
of Management who offered feedback and
support for the first edition, along with
suggestions for improving this one. Those
colleagues and friends continue to examine
important questions in their research, provid-
ing the research evidence that is the founda-
tion for this book. I am grateful that they are
committed to doing work that matters.
I thank the Diversity Connections Con-
sortium and Terry Howard, its founder and
fuel, for keeping me thinking, growing, and
encouraged to continue this work. I am for-
tunate to belong to such a group of people so
passionate about equality, diversity, and in-
clusion and thank Ed McFalls for introducing
me to the group.
Many thanks are due to Frank McCloskey,
the inaugural vice president of diversity at
Georgia Power, for agreeing to be featured in
Chapter 7 and for helping me focus on what
mattered most to say. I appreciate Josefine
Van Zanten, vice president of diversity and
inclusion at Shell, for her willingness to share
how Shell sees diversity from a global per-
spective. Thanks also go to Karsten Jonsen for
making the connection.
The Society for Human Resource
Management and Dr. Shirley Davis, director,
xiv Preface
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Global Diversity & Inclusion, twice funded a
gathering of 100 Global Diversity Thought
Leaders to discuss the future of the field and
efforts to establish formal credentials for
diversity professionals. I am honored to have
been part of such a group. As the respected
organization that validates the credentials of
human resources professionals (e.g., PHR,
SPHR, GPHR), having a SHRM certification
for those who do diversity work would cer-
tainly help bring credibility and legitimacy to
the field. I hope SHRM is successful in this
important work.
Very special appreciation goes to my
wonderful students at UT Arlington, who
keep their “diversity hats” on and who e-mail
me years later to let me know what a differ-
ence the book and course have made for
them and to share their continued diversity
learning experiences. I thank them for
enrolling in my Diversity in Organizations
course, for sharing their ideas, questions, and
hopes, and for going out into the world of
work to make things better, fairer, and more
inclusive, helping their organizations,
employees, and customers.
I thank Laura Ratcliff Lenoir, Henry
Toney, Mingo Johnson, Geylon and Minnie
Johnson, and many other ancestors whose
lives, love, and sacrifice helped pave the way
for me to do this work. I am grateful that my
mother, Iris Johnson, instilled in me the value
of knowing and opening our home to people
from various parts of the world and various
parts of town. My heart is open to love and
concern for both similar and very different
others as a result of early, frequent, and
continued lessons from her. Daphne Berry,
through the lens of her education in feminist
theory and political economy, opened my eyes
to aspects of diversity that I may otherwise
never have seen; the issues are much bigger
than individual acts of discrimination and
exclusion. My daughter and son are my inspi-
ration to continue this work, in hopes for a
better future and world for them and those
who are yet to be born. My husband, Earnest,
encouraged me to write this edition and the
first, and provided every support imaginable,
including well-timed words and cups of coffee
when I felt too exhausted to continue. Without
him, my work and my life as I know it would
not be. Lastly, but most important, I am espe-
cially grateful to God for providing me with the
tools, courage, and privilege to do this work.
ANCILLARIES
The Instructor’s Resource CD includes an
instructor’s manual, teaching notes, and
suggested testing options. PowerPoint files
are also available for each chapter of the
textbook.
Preface xv
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
SECTION I
Introduction,
Theories,
and
Legislation
Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Theories and Thinking about Diversity
Chapter 3 Legislation
Yu
ri
A
rc
ur
s/
Sh
ut
te
rs
to
ck
.c
om
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER
1Introduction
Chapter Objectives
After completing this chapter, readers should have a
firm understanding of the importance of diversity in
organizations. Specifically, they should be able to:
❏ explain what “diversity” encompasses in the
United States and the considerations used in
determining the relevant diversity concerns in
other countries.
❏ discuss the historical background for the study
of diversity in organizations.
❏ define key diversity terms, including types of
discrimination, productive characteristics, and
inclusion.
❏ discuss research supportive of the individual
and organizational benefits of diversity.
Key Facts
Despite extraordinary corporate and media
attention paid to diversity in the past thirty
years, discrimination, inequality, and
exclusion persist in organizations.
Valuing diversity can benefit organizations in
the areas of cost, resource acquisition,
marketing, creativity, problem solving, and
system flexibility.
If an organization develops a reputation for
valuing all types of employees, it will become
known as an employer of choice, in which
workers from all backgrounds feel they have
the opportunity to work, grow, and be
treated fairly.
Working in and learning in environments
with people who are different can benefit
individuals through intellectual engagement,
perspectivetaking,andgreaterunderstanding
of the implications and benefits of diversity.
A supportive climate for diversity results in
benefits for individuals and organizations,
but diversity without a supportive climate
can result in negative consequences.
3
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Introduction and Overview
What Is Diversity?
In this book, diversity is defined as real or perceived
differences among people in race, ethnicity, sex,
age, physical and mental ability, sexual orientation,
religion, work and family status, weight and appear-
ance, and other identity-based attributes that affect
their interactions and relationships.1 These areas are
differences that are based on power or dominance
relations between groups, particularly “identity
groups,” which are the collectivities people use to
categorize themselves and others.2 Identity groups
are often readily apparent to others, strong sources
of personal meaning, and related to historical dispa-
rities among groups in treatment, opportunities, and
outcomes.
The definition of diversity includes the terms
real and perceived to acknowledge the social con-
structions of many areas of difference. In particular,
race is socially constructed, yet perceptions of race,
beliefs about people of different races, and discrimi-
nation on the basis of race strongly affect people’s
life experiences. Similarly, gender is also socially
constructed, representing perceptions of how males
and females should behave, rather than being repre-
sentative of biological differences between them
that might cause them to behave differently. These
beliefs about the differences between males and
females strongly affect the experiences of men,
women, and boys and girls in society and
organizations.
In contrast to the categories focused on in this
book, some research has explored diversity in terms
of functional area (e.g., marketing, finance, or
accounting), tenure, values, and attitudes as they af-
fect people’s organizational experiences. These cat-
egories may also be sources of real or perceived
differences that affect people’s interactions, out-
comes, and relationships at work. For example,
engineering, finance, and accounting managers typi-
cally earn more and have greater occupational status
than human resources managers. However, one’s
functional area at work is less likely to be readily
apparent, a strong source of personal identity, or as-
sociated with historical disparities in treatment, op-
portunities, or outcomes in society at large. Thus,
this book does not consider diversity in functional
area, personality, learning style, and other sources
considered in some research. Focusing on any indi-
vidual difference, rather than differences having
strong personal meaning and stemming from or co-
inciding with significant power differences among
groups, would make all groups diverse and would
make the entire concept of workplace diversity
meaningless.3
Employment or labor market discrimination
occurs when personal characteristics of applicants
and workers that are unrelated to productivity are
valued in the labor market.4 Access discrimination
occurs when people are denied employment oppor-
tunities, or “access” to jobs. Treatment discrimi-
nation occurs when people are employed but are
treated differently once employed, receiving fewer
job-related rewards, resources, or opportunities
than they should receive based on job-related crite-
ria.5 Access and treatment discrimination are forms
of employment discrimination. In cases of access or
treatment discrimination, people with identical
productive characteristics are regarded differently
1Dobbs, M. F. (1996). “Managing Diversity: Lessons from the Private Sector.” Public Personnel Management, 25(September): 351–368.
2Konrad, A. M. (2003). “Defining the Domain of Workplace Diversity Scholarship.” Group and Organization Management, 28(1):
4–17.
3Ibid.
4Ehrenberg, R. G., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and
Company, p. 394.
5Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). “Effects of Race on Organizational Experiences, Job Performance
Evaluations, and Career Outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal, 33: 64–86.
4 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation4 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
because of demographic factors such as race,
ethnic origin, sex, age, physical ability, religion, and
immigrant status. Productive characteristics include
occupational and human capital variables, such as
education, skills, and tenure.6
Also relevant to how people from different
backgrounds are treated is the concept of inclusion,
which is the degree to which “different voices
of a diverse workforce are respected and heard.”7
In inclusive organizational cultures, employees feel
as though they are accepted, belong, and are able
to contribute to decision-making processes.8 In
addition to efforts to ensure discrimination is
avoided and employees are diverse, efforts to
ensure employees are also included and able to fully
contribute are critical to organizational success.9
Thus, throughout the book, “valuing diversity”
refers to diversity and inclusion.
DETERMINING “DIVERSITY” IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
Many issues related to inequality, discrimination, and diversity are simi-
lar, but it is important not to apply concepts from one area to another in
wholesale fashion without considering contextual factors.10 Race, ethnic-
ity, sex, age, physical and mental ability, sexual orientation, religion,
work and family status, and weight and appearance are important differ-
entiating factors in the United States, and some of these factors are also
important in many other regions of the world. Depending on national
context, culture, political and socioeconomic structures, and history,
different factors of “diversity” will be of most importance in the interac-
tions and relationships among people.11
Identifying and studying differences based on power or dominance
relations, stemming from historical disparities and perpetuated by contin-
ued differential and pejorative treatment, can help determine key identity
groups in different contexts around the world. For example, although
slavery officially ended after the Civil War in the United States, segrega-
tion and discrimination continue to affect the experiences, opportunities,
and outcomes of American Blacks. Moreover, even in the United
Kingdom, where slavery was considerably shorter-lived than in the United
States, long-standing differences in the treatment of Black, Asian, and
6Rivera-Batiz, F. L. (1999). “Undocumented Workers in the Labor Market: An Analysis of the Earn-
ings of Legal and Illegal Mexican Immigrants in the United States.” Journal of Population Economics,
12(1): 91–116.
7Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2004). “Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes, and
Practices.” Journal of Business Ethics, 54: 129–147.
8Roberson, Q. (2006). “Disentangling the Meanings of Diversity and Inclusion in Organizations.”
Group & Organization Management, 31(2): 212–236.
9Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). “Do Inclusive Leaders Help to Reduce Turnover in Diverse
Groups? The Moderating Role of Leader-Member Exchange in the Diversity to Turnover Relation-
ship.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6): 1412–1426.
10Syed, J., & Özbilgin, M. (2009). “A Relational Framework for International Transfer of Diversity
Management Practices.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(12):
2435–2453.
11Ibid.
Chapter 1: Introduction 5Chapter 1: Introduction 5
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
minority ethnic immigrants (e.g., Turks, Pakistanis, Indians) and their
identifiable descendants compared with Whites in the United Kingdom
continue to exist. Racial inequality is also an issue in South Africa where
there has been a long history of discrimination against Blacks.12 In
Australia, British and European immigrants shaped restrictive immigra-
tion policies toward later, non-White immigrants, particularly Chinese
and Pacific Islanders.13 Similar histories and current disparities exist
between “minority” and “majority” racial, ethnic, or religious groups
around the world. In addition, the status of women makes sex and
gender a relevant difference in virtually all societies. Regardless of region,
then, particular factors affecting different groups may be identified and
then addressed in order to reduce discrimination and increase equality,
inclusion, and organizational competitiveness.
MULTIPLE GROUP MEMBERSHIPS AND PERMEABILITY OF BOUNDARIES
People’s group memberships affect their outcomes, opportunities, and
experiences in society and in organizations. Such things as employment,
compensation, advancement, retention, participation, and competitiveness
are a few of the outcomes that are related to demographic background. In
the United States, those who are White, male, and do not have a disability
generally earn higher wages and have higher organizational status than
persons who are non-White, female, or have a disability.14 Whites are
more likely to work in the primary labor market, which includes jobs in
large organizations, with more opportunities for advancement and retire-
ment, vacation, and medical benefits. Blacks and Hispanics are more
likely to work in the secondary labor market of low-skilled, low-paid,
insecure jobs.15
The categories of race, ethnicity, sex, age, physical ability, sexual
orientation, and religion are not mutually exclusive. Everyone possesses a
racial and ethnic background, age, sexual orientation, and, possibly,
religion. Some of the categories are immutable, but others are not and
12Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). “Managing Diversity Through Human
Resource Management: An International Perspective and Conceptual Framework.” The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2): 235–251.
13Syed, J., & Kramar, R. (2010). “What Is the Australian Model for Managing Cultural Diversity?”
Personnel Review, 39(1): 96–115.
14See, for example, U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (2002). “Earnings Differences
Between Women and Men.” In D. Dunn & P. Dubeck (Eds.), Workplace/Women’s Place: An Anthology.
Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company; Braddock, D., & Bachelder, L. (1994). The Glass Ceiling
and Persons with Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor.
15For a discussion of dual labor markets, see Healey, J. F. (2004). Diversity and Society: Race, Ethnic-
ity, and Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
6 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation6 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
may change over one’s lifetime. People may be born with or acquire dis-
abilities, and everyone ages. A person may be a member of the majority
group in one area but not in another, for example, White and female or
male and Latino. A White man may have a disability, be an older worker
or of a minority religion, and personally experience job-related discrimi-
nation. He may also have a working wife, mother, or sister who has faced
sex-based salary inequity or harassment or a daughter or granddaughter
whom he would prefer not to have to face such discrimination at work.
White men are considerably more likely to occupy leadership posi-
tions (executive, board member, or manager) than other groups. Diversity
research indicates that the commitment of top management to diversity
increases the effectiveness of diversity initiatives. Therefore, White men
are more likely to have the power to implement important changes at the
organizational level and to influence behaviors and perspectives about the
overall benefits of diversity; their commitment to diversity is essential.
Although data clearly show, and we emphasize here, that members of
some groups face more barriers and organizational discrimination, this
book stresses the value of diversity to everyone. Like Roosevelt Thomas, a
pioneer in diversity work, we suggest that “managing diversity is a com-
prehensive managerial process for developing an environment that works
for all employees.”16 At the same time, it is naïve to ignore the fact that
membership in some groups or that some combinations of memberships
(e.g., minority female) have more negative ramifications for job-related
opportunities and success than others.17 Commitment to diversity requires
a concerted effort to recognize, acknowledge, and address historical dis-
crimination, differential treatment, and unearned advantages rather than
undermining efforts to address inequities in the name of inclusiveness.18
The research and recommendations in this book make apparent the need
to consider the past and present while working toward a more diversity-
friendly future.
Misperception: Diversity is beneficial only to minorities and women.
Reality: Diversity can benefit everyone.
16Thomas, R. (1991). Beyond Race and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Work Force by
Managing Diversity. New York: AMACOM, p. 10.
17For a discussion of the intersection of race and sex discrimination and the need to consider both
in research, see Reskin, B. F., & Charles, C. Z. (1999). “Now You See ’Em, Now You Don’t.” In
I. Brown (Ed.), Latinas and African American Women at Work: Race, Gender, and Economic
Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
18See Roberson (2006).
Chapter 1: Introduction 7Chapter 1: Introduction 7
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
This book is relevant to large and small companies, colleges and
universities, religious organizations, military organizations, and any other
organizations in which people work or wish to work or that have clients,
customers, or constituents. Although under U.S. laws some organizations
(e.g., churches, private clubs) are often allowed to prefer certain types of
people over others as employees, many of the concepts in this book also
apply to such organizations and can be of benefit to their leaders. For
example, religious organizations may legally require that employees be
members of a particular faith, yet they will likely have employees with
work and family issues or may be wrestling with the issue of ordaining
women. Similarly, the U.S. military is a unique, historically male organi-
zation, yet its issues with sexual harassment and sexual orientation diver-
sity can help inform other types of organizations. As will be apparent
from the variety of organizations discussed in this book, diversity issues
affect all organizations at some point.
TERMINOLOGY
In this book, when referring to the U.S. population, the following expres-
sions are used somewhat interchangeably: sex/gender, Blacks/African
Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, Asians/Asian Americans/Asians and Pacific
Islanders, Whites/Anglos/European Americans/Caucasians, and minorities/
people of color.19 Although the linked terms are not exactly the same
(e.g., sex is biological while gender is socially constructed, and not all
Blacks consider themselves African American), they are widely recognized,
their meanings are generally well understood, and they are often used
interchangeably. Even so, there are important differences among them.
Indeed, some scholars have argued persuasively that the ambiguity and
fluidity of terminology render “race” and “ethnicity” almost meaning-
less.20 Some researchers go so far as to use quotation marks at any men-
tion of the word race to indicate its lack of meaning.
Like gender, “race is socially constructed to denote boundaries
between the powerful and less powerful” and is often defined by the more
powerful group.21 In the United States, these social constructions are
reflected by the changes in terminology used by the Census Bureau over
19Terminology is discussed further in the following chapters. Individuals’ different preferences for
particular terms are acknowledged and respected.
20See Wright, L. (1997). “One Drop of Blood.” In C. Hartman (Ed.), Double Exposure: Poverty and
Race in America. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
21Healey, J. F., & O’Brien, E. (2004). Race, Ethnicity, and Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press, p. 282.
8 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation8 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
the years and in court rulings about who was or was not White. Latinos
may be of any race, and people may be of more than one racial or ethnic
background, which adds to the complexity of understanding race and
what it means. Although all Latinos are categorized as such, there are
substantial differences in the diversity-related experiences of Mexican
Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans and between Black Nicara-
guans and White Colombians.
Ethnicity refers to a shared national origin or a shared cultural heri-
tage. Thus, “Hispanic” is an ethnic description, although it is often trea-
ted as a racial one. “Asian” is another ambiguous term. Is it an ethnicity,
since ethnicity refers to a shared national origin, or is it a race, as the term
is often used and understood? As with differences among Latinos, there
are also considerable differences among Asians who are from Korea and
those from India or Vietnam, and among Black Americans, South African
Blacks, and those from the West Indies. These and other contextual
complexities related to race, ethnicity, sex, and gender and their effects
on individuals in organizations will be explored in later chapters.
As discussed further in Chapter 2, instead of the terms majority
and minority, which reflect population size, the terms dominant and non-
dominant are used at times to distinguish between more powerful and less
powerful groups, acknowledging the importance of power in access to and
the control of resources. The powerful control more resources and are
“dominant,” whether or not they are more numerous (such as Whites in
South Africa and men in the United States and most other nations).
THE STIMULUS FOR THE FOCUS ON DIVERSITY: WORKFORCE 2000
In 1987, the Hudson Institute published Johnston and Packer’s research
on the changes in the nature of work and in the demographic background
of workers in the twenty-first century.22 The research shocked organiza-
tions and the media and was an impetus for much of today’s diversity
research. Johnston and Packer noted that by the year 2000, 85% of the
net new entrants into the U.S. workforce would be women and minorities.
Often quoted, this statement was widely misunderstood to mean that by
2000, White men would constitute only 15% of the workforce. However,
White men were then, and remain still, the largest single group in the
labor force. It was the net new entrants who were increasingly women
and people of color. The phrase net new entrants refers to the difference
between those who entered the workforce (newcomers to the workforce)
22Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st century.
Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Chapter 1: Introduction 9Chapter 1: Introduction 9
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
and those who left the workforce (e.g., via retirements, death). Although
women and minorities would comprise 85% of the net new entrants,
because of the immense size of the workforce and because White men are
the single largest majority in the workforce, it will be a long time before
White men are no longer the largest single group. This misunderstanding
or misinterpretation of terminology and projections about the increasing
diversity of the workforce fueled interest in the topic and prompted con-
cerns about the organizational ramifications of these changing
demographics.
In 1997, the Hudson Institute published Workforce 2020, which again
predicted changes in work and in workforce demographics, but for the year
2020.23 The report emphasized that about 66% of the workforce would
continue to be non-Hispanic White men and women, 14% would be
Latinos, 11% non-Hispanic Blacks, and 6% Asians. Most important to the
demographics described in Workforce 2020 was the aging and retirement
of large numbers of baby-boomers, resulting in a plateauing of worker age.
What has happened to the U.S. population now that the year 2000
has come and gone and we are proceeding toward the year 2020?
Although not exact (because not everyone participates in the workforce),
the population demographics are similar to the predictions in Workforce
2020. As shown in Table 1.1, White men and women are the majority of
the population, followed by Latinos, Blacks, and Asians. The current
workforce is indeed more diverse than it was in the prior century, but
Whites remain the largest group numerically. The workforce is aging, and
younger workers are more diverse in race and ethnicity than in the past.
Recession-related economic changes have prevented many aging workers
from retiring, resulting in even more age diversity in organizations than in
the past. Women are now obtaining more college degrees than men, yet
women’s earnings continue to be less than men’s (see Table 1.1). These
issues have important implications for individuals, employers, and
organizational diversity.
In addition to the changes in the demographic makeup of American
employees, as the Hudson Institute predicted, economic changes and
globalization have resulted in more service-oriented jobs and more
international customers and business relationships. The loss of
manufacturing jobs, where there is less opportunity for contact with
dissimilar others, and the growth of service industry jobs, which involve
considerable person-to-person interaction with dissimilar others, con-
tinue. These changes in types of jobs make awareness of and efforts to
understand and learn to interact with those who are dissimilar more
23Judy, R. W., & D’Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
10 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation10 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
critical than ever. Further, service industry jobs, often occupied by
women, continue to increase, while manufacturing jobs, often occupied
by men, continue to decline through layoffs, plant closures, and off-
shoring. As a result of these changes, at one point in late 2009, women
for the first time comprised the majority of the U.S. labor force.
Increasing globalization has also resulted in greater interaction among
people from diverse backgrounds. Not only do employees interact with
peers from diverse backgrounds in their local environment, they also
travel around the world, interacting with people who are from different
TABLE 1.1 Highlights from the U.S. 2000 and 2008 Census Demographic Profiles
2000 2008
Number Percent Number Percent
General Characteristics
Total population 281,421,906 100.0 304,059,728 100.0
Male 138,053,563 49.1 149,863,485 49.3
Female 143,368,343 50.9 154,196,243 50.7
Median age (years) 35.3 36.9
One race 274,595,678 97.6 297,045,856 97.7
White 211,460,626 75.1 228,182,410 75.0
Black 34,658,190 12.3 37,586,050 12.4
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,475,956 0.9 2,443,422 0.8
Asian 10,242,998 3.6 13,413,976 4.4
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 398,835 0.1 427,810 0.1
Some other race 15,359,073 5.5 14,992,188 4.9
Two or more races 6,826,228 2.4 7,013,872 2.3
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 35,305,818 12.5 46,891,456 15.4
Social Characteristics
Population 25 years and over 182,211,639 100.0 200,030,018 100.0
With a disability* (18 to 64 years) n/a n/a 18,995,085 10.1
Foreign born (% of total population) 31,107,889 11.1 37,960,935 12.5
Speak a language other than English at home
(population 5 years and over)
46,951,595 17.9 55,783,998 19.7
Economic Characteristics
Participating in labor force (population 16 years and over) 138,820,935 63.9 157,465,113 65.9
Median earnings male full-time, year-round workers n/a $45,556
Median earnings female full-time, year-round workers n/a $35,471
*The Census Bureau introduced a new set of disability questions in the 2008 ACS questionnaire.
Source: Adapted from 2000 and 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder. http://factfinder.census.gov, accessed
August 12, 2010.
Chapter 1: Introduction 11Chapter 1: Introduction 11
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
cultures and belief systems and who often speak different first
languages.
Demographic changes are occurring in many countries around the
world. In the United States and Canada, where growth of the workforce is
slowing, fewer younger workers are being added than in the past. In some
European countries and in Japan and China, the workforce is actually
shrinking; more people are leaving than joining it. Along with the striking
age of Japan’s workforce, its underutilization of women workers is nota-
ble and has received considerable criticism.24 As a result of some of the
demographic changes, many countries increasingly view developing
nations as sources of new employees, even though a number of these
countries have historically resisted, and sometimes continue to resist,
immigration. Immigrants often have educational backgrounds, language
skills, strengths, and weaknesses different from those of native workers,
thus requiring special effort to integrate immigrants successfully. This
becomes even more difficult when they are also identifiable by appear-
ance, name, or cultural differences. Both the need for these new workers
and the resistance to them make paying attention to issues of diversity
and inclusion particularly important.
DIVERSITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
What is the meaning of increasing diversity to individuals and organiza-
tions? What should organizations do to ensure that applicants have
opportunities to work and workers have opportunities to contribute and
succeed? How can organizations integrate new workers into a formerly
homogenous organization? How should organizations address resistance
to immigration when immigrants are key sources of applicants, employ-
ees, and customers? We will examine in this book these and other
diversity-focused questions.
In their often-cited article on the implications of cultural diversity for
organizational competitiveness, Cox and Blake proposed that there are six
specific business-related reasons why organizations should value diversity.
They explained that effective management of diversity could benefit orga-
nizations in the areas of cost, resource acquisition, marketing, creativity,
problem solving, and system flexibility.25 Numerous management,
marketing, and organizational behavior textbooks, as well as news magazines
24Price, S. (2010). “Women: Most Underused Resource in Japan, Business Case for Gender Diversity.”
http://www.jef.or.jp/journal/jef_contents_free.asp?c=3766, accessed June 8, 2010.
25Cox, T., & Blake, S. (1991). “Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Compet-
itiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3): 45–56.
12 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation12 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
and the popular press, have discussed these benefits of diversity and continue
to shape the thinking about its value. Cox and Blake focused on those six rea-
sons in order to highlight areas that had previously received limited research
attention, not to imply that they were the only reasons for valuing diversity.
Along with the business reasons, we also consider the social, moral, and legal
reasons. In addition, Cox and Blake’s suggestions focused on diversity as it
applies to women and minorities; we apply their suggestions to the effects of
different aspects of diversity—such as age, religion, sexual orientation, and
others—on an organization’s competitiveness.
Cost
Employee turnover and litigation. The costs associated with doing a poor
job of integrating workers from different backgrounds can be extremely
high: lower job satisfaction and the subsequent costs of turnover among
women, minorities, and, likely, people of various religious faiths, gays and
lesbians, and others whose contributions are often devalued in organiza-
tions. Cox and Blake and other researchers have reported lower satisfac-
tion and higher turnover of women and minorities when compared to
men and Whites. This finding is an important organizational concern,
particularly as the number of women and minorities in the workforce in-
creases. If, along with women and minorities, workers from other groups
(such as those with child and/or elder care responsibilities or people with
disabilities) are dissatisfied and quit in response to negative organizational
treatment, organizational costs related to turnover may be tremendous.
However, researchers have found that, for some employees, organiza-
tional efforts to support diversity can enhance commitment and reduce
intentions to quit even when employees perceive discrimination.26 On the
other hand, if minority employees feel that their organization’s commit-
ment to diversity is insincere, dissatisfaction, lowered commitment, and
cynicism can result.27
Although the majority of research focuses on the turnover of women
and minorities, one study found that increasing organizational diversity
was associated with lowered attachment for Whites and males but not for
women and minorities.28 Other research indicates that at times both mi-
norities and Whites experience discomfort in cross-race interactions, with
26Triana, M. C., García, M. F., & Colella, A. (2010). “Managing Diversity: How Organizational
Efforts to Support Diversity Moderate the Effects of Perceived Racial Discrimination on Affective
Commitment.” Personnel Psychology, 63(4): 817–843.
27Chrobot-Mason, D. L. (2003). “Keeping the Promise: Psychological Contract Violations for Minority
Employees.” Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1): 22–45.
28Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). “Being Different: Relational Demography and
Organizational Attachment.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549–579.
Chapter 1: Introduction 13Chapter 1: Introduction 13
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
minorities expecting to be targets of prejudice and Whites fearing being
perceived as prejudiced.29 The possibility that increased diversity is
associated with lower attachment, turnover, and discomfort for people of
different backgrounds suggests that organizations should take proactive
measures to address and circumvent these negative outcomes while maxi-
mizing the positive outcomes.
Costs associated with turnover include exit interviews, lost productiv-
ity while positions are unfilled, and recruiting costs for replacement
employees. Organizations may find replacement more expensive than
retaining current employees. This is particularly true when the learning
curve and training costs of replacements are also taken into consideration.
Specific organizational efforts to address needs of specific workers may
minimize turnover. For instance, research indicates that workers with
child care responsibilities (commonly, women; increasingly, men) have
more organizational commitment and lower turnover when companies
provide child care subsidies, on-site day care, or other child care sup-
port.30 In addition, educating all workers about the benefits of increasing
diversity may reduce dissatisfaction, detachment, and fear among employ-
ees while also communicating that diversity is desirable.
Lastly, many people think of the costs associated with doing a poor
job of integrating workers largely in terms of discrimination lawsuits. Cox
and Blake did not specifically include litigation expenses among their cost
factors, however. Further supporting organizations’ concerns over liti-
gation is the media attention surrounding large damage awards involving
major companies. As discussed further in Chapter 3, research suggests
that large damage awards are indeed effective in improving opportunities
for groups that have experienced discrimination, at least in the short term.
However, despite the substantial media attention, the likelihood of an
organization being sued by an aggrieved individual is relatively small, but
the continuing costs associated with low job satisfaction and high turn-
over are high. For example, the number of discrimination-related charges
filed by individuals with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) between 1997 and 2010 ranged from about 75,000 to nearly
100,000. Although these are substantial numbers, they are quite small
relative to the number of firms in the United States and relative to the
139 million people in the workforce. The majority of workers who feel
they are treated unfairly, not valued, or discriminated against do not sue.
Instead, they may simply leave the organization and tell their family and
29Shelton, J. N. (2003). “Interpersonal Concerns in Social Encounters Between Majority and Minority
Group Members.” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6: 171–185.
30Youngblood, S. A., & Chambers-Cook, K. (1984, February). “Child Care Assistance Can Improve
Employee Attitudes and Behavior.” Personnel Administrator, 93–95.
14 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation14 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
friends about their experiences, which affects the organization’s ability to
attract other workers (e.g., resource acquisition).
Misperception: The risk of being sued by an individual for discrimination is
fairly high.
Reality: Overall, an organization’s likelihood of being sued by an individual is
very small.
Lost business. Costs associated with lost business should be added to the
costs of absence, turnover, and discrimination lawsuits that are commonly
associated with mismanagement of diversity. When employees or custo-
mers learn of or personally experience unfair treatment toward their
group by an organization, they are less likely to patronize it. In addition,
other groups who were not personally affected may find overt discrimina-
tion or other negative behaviors offensive and choose to spend their
dollars elsewhere. Dealing with negative publicity and protests against
discriminatory policies can be expensive and time-consuming for organi-
zations, as experienced by Cracker Barrel in response to its discriminatory
policies toward Black customers and gay and lesbian employees, discussed
in Chapters 4 and 11, respectively.31
Resource Acquisition
An organization’s ability to attract and retain employees from different
backgrounds is referred to as resource acquisition. Depending on the
national context, those who have been overlooked as potential employees
often include women, racial and ethnic minorities, workers with disabil-
ities, gays and lesbians, and people from non-dominant religious faiths.
Cox and Blake proposed that if an organization develops a reputation
for valuing all types of workers, it will become known as an employer
of choice, increasing its ability to compete in tight labor markets.
Empirical research provides support for the positive effects of heteroge-
neous recruitment ads on minorities’ desire to work for organizations.32
Conversely, if an organization develops a reputation for valuing
31Kilborn, P. T. (1992). “Gay Rights Groups Take Aim at Restaurant Chain That’s Hot on Wall
Street.” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/09/us/gay-rights-groups-take-aim-at-
restaurant-chain-that-s-hot-on-wall-street.html, accessed June 2, 2010.
32Avery, D. R., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2004). “Who’s Watching the Race? Racial Salience
in Recruitment Advertising.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(1): 146–161; Perkins, L. A.,
Thomas, K. M., & Taylor, G. A. (2000). “Advertising and Recruitment: Marketing to Minorities.”
Psychology and Marketing, 17: 235–255.
Chapter 1: Introduction 15Chapter 1: Introduction 15
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
only a subset of workers, it may miss out on hiring excellent workers
who do not fall into that subset. Other researchers have similarly
argued that “talented people may be predisposed to avoid companies
that discriminate.”33 Such organizations may also have higher comp-
ensation costs because of drawing from a smaller pool of workers
(i.e., supply would be lower, making demand costs higher). As discussed
in Featured Case 1.1, such an organization may also see lower produc-
tivity from both the preferred subset of workers and those who are not
preferred.
In addition to Fortune’s annual issue on the best companies for
minorities, DiversityInc, Working Mother, Latina Style, Catalyst, the
American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Hispanic Today, and
other entities routinely publish lists of best companies for women, minor-
ities, parents, and other groups. These reports are widely read and
provide substantial publicity for the companies that make, or fail to make,
the lists. The high level of attention from the media may affect applicants’
interest in companies as well as companies’ ability to market to diverse
consumer groups.
Marketing
Cox and Blake proposed that an organization’s reputation for valuing all
types of workers will also affect its ability to market to different types of
consumers. This is accomplished in multiple ways. First, consumers who
appreciate fair treatment for everyone will be more likely to patronize an
organization known to value diversity and to treat all workers fairly and
less likely to patronize organizations known to discriminate. Employers
known for contributing to particular organizations (such as the United
Negro College Fund or the Human Rights Campaign) receive recognition
from those organizations and their patrons. This recognition may trans-
late into purchases and customer loyalty.
Second, having employees who are from various backgrounds
improves a company’s marketing ability because such organizations will
be better able to develop products that meet the needs of and appeal to
diverse consumers. After a period of declining sales and profits, Avon
Products was able to successfully market to Blacks and Hispanics by
increasing their representation among marketing managers. Avon’s profit-
ability increased tremendously as a result.
Third, organizations with employees from various backgrounds may
also be more likely to avoid expensive marketing blunders associated with
33Wright, 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: 272–288.
16 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation16 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
having homogeneous advertising or marketing teams. In the early history
of Frito-Lay’s Frito’s corn chips, the major focus of its advertising was the
character Frito Bandito, who was known for stealing Fritos because they
were so good that he was unable to resist. The character had a heavy
FEATURED
CASE 1.1 Case Study of Fictitious Company, Inc.
Assume that people from demographic groups A
and B are employed at Fictitious Company, Inc.
Both A Workers and B Workers have a similar
number of excellent performers and poor
performers in their group. Workers from both
groups expect fair performance evaluations, pay
raises, and promotions based on their
performance. After a period of working for and
excelling in performance, high-performing B
Workers realize that despite their high
qualifications and strong performance, their
performance is rated lower than that of A
Workers, their pay raises are lower, and they
are not likely to be promoted. This perception is
validated when B Workers consider the
management and executive levels of Fictitious
Company and see very few people from the B
Workers category in those levels. What is the
expected result on motivation and future
performance of high-performing B Workers?
Low- and average-performing B Workers are
observing. They realize that high-performing B
Workers, despite their high performance,
receive low performance ratings and few-to-no
raises and promotions. What is the expected
effect on the motivation to work harder and the
future performance of low-performing B Workers?
After a period of employment at Fictitious
Company, A Workers realize that they are
continually rated highly and receive pay raises
and promotions regardless of their performance.
If they make their sales and quality goals, they
receive high raises and are promoted. If
they miss their sales and quality goals, they
remarkably receive high raises and are
promoted. If they are chronically late or absent
on Mondays and Fridays, there are few-to-no
negative consequences. What is the expected
result on future performance and motivation of
A Workers who are truly good performers but
observe A Workers who miss sales and quality
goals still being promoted and rewarded? What
is the expected result on the motivation to
improve and the future performance of A
Workers who are low performers but receive
rewards nonetheless?
To summarize, at Fictitious Company, high-
performing B Workers receive clear messages
that their high performance is not valued. Low-
performing B Workers receive messages that
there is no reason to strive for high performance
because people like them receive no reward for
high performance. A Workers receive messages
that their low and high performers are valued and
rewarded similarly, so there is no need to strive
for excellence. What is the result of this scenario
for the overall performance and competitiveness
of Fictitious Company, Inc.?
Contrast this scenario to that of Fictitious
Savvy Company, Inc., in which members of A
Workers and B Workers expect, and receive, fair
performance evaluations, promotions, and raises.
What is the expected result on the future
motivation and performance of high, average,
and low performers among A Workers and B
Workers in Fictitious Savvy Company, Inc.? What
is the expected result on the organizational
performance of Fictitious Savvy Company?
Chapter 1: Introduction 17Chapter 1: Introduction 17
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
accent, his appearance was stereotypical, and the portrayal of Latinos as
stealing was insulting. Complaints from Latinos resulted in Frito-Lay’s
discontinuing Frito Bandito.34
Though not an advertising blunder, American Airlines’ Latin America
Pilot Reference Guide, an internal document, once caused the company
negative publicity that could have affected its ability to market to Latino
consumers (and other groups). The guide reportedly warned pilots that
Latin American customers would call in false bomb threats to delay flights
when they were running late and that they sometimes became unruly after
drinking too much on flights. When news of the statements in the refer-
ence guide hit the press, the airline apologized and stated it would revise
the manual.35
Creativity and Problem Solving
Research indicates that groups composed of people from different back-
grounds bring with them differences that result in greater creativity and
problem-solving ability. These abilities stem from the different life experi-
ences, language abilities, and education that groups composed of diverse
members have. Empirical research also supports the idea that diversity
positively affects group performance, creativity, and innovation. In longi-
tudinal research, Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen investigated the effects
of diversity (in race, ethnicity, and nationality) on group performance.
Following diverse and homogeneous groups of students over the course of
a semester, these authors found that, initially, the homogeneous groups
outperformed the diverse groups. By the end of the semester, however,
the performance of the diverse groups exceeded the performance of the
homogeneous groups. After learning to interact with each other, the diverse
groups developed more and higher-quality solutions to problems than ho-
mogenous groups, exhibiting greater creativity and problem-solving skills.36
McLeod, Lobel, and Cox have empirically investigated the effects of
racial diversity on idea generation in small groups. Using brainstorming
techniques (which are commonly used in organizations for developing
new ideas), they found that groups composed of diverse members
produced higher-quality ideas than groups composed of homogenous
34
“Justice for My People, the Hector Garcia Story.” https://justiceformypeople.org, accessed
August 12, 2010.
35Hetter, K., & Mallory, M. (1997). “American: More Apologies.” U.S. News & World Report,
123(8): 57.
36Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1996). “Cultural Diversity’s Impact on
Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups.” Academy
of Management Journal, 36: 590–603.
18 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation18 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
members.37 As global competition increases, the ability to generate super-
ior ideas is vital to success.
In his research on the logic of diversity, Scott Page, professor of
Complex Systems at the University of Michigan, used simple frameworks
to demonstrate how individuals with diverse problem-solving tools (as a
result of diverse backgrounds) are able to outperform others in problem-
solving tasks.38 As an example, two people with diverse backgrounds
would choose to test different potential product improvements differently,
increasing the probability of finding a useful innovation. In problem-
solving experiments, Page demonstrated how groups composed of diverse
problem solvers confronting a difficult problem outperformed groups
composed of the best individual performers. His research also showed
how combinations of different tools can be more powerful than the tools
themselves.
System Flexibility
System flexibility is the sixth reason for valuing diversity, in that it pro-
vides organizations with a competitive advantage. Cox and Blake argued
that women have a higher tolerance for ambiguity than men. Tolerance
for ambiguity is associated with cognitive flexibility and success in uncer-
tain situations. Bilingualism and biculturalism are indicative of cognitive
flexibility and openness to experience.39 In the United States, Latinos and
Asians are often bilingual and bicultural, Blacks tend to be bicultural, and
Native Americans who have lived on reservations among their native cul-
ture and also outside learn to navigate between two worlds.40 In the many
regions of the world where the populations are multilingual and multicul-
tural, cognitive flexibility, openness to experience, and navigating between
worlds are common and are desirable diversity attributes. In addition,
although they are not traditionally perceived as bi- or multicultural, the
life experiences of some people with disabilities, gay males, and lesbians
may provide them cognitive flexibility and openness to experience similar
to that of bi- or multicultural individuals. Exposure to other cultures,
languages, or the experiences and challenges of being different from those
37McLeod, P., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T., Jr. (1996). “Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups.”
Small Group Research, 27(2): 248–264.
38Page, S. E. (2007). “Making the Difference: Applying a Logic of Diversity.” Academy of Manage-
ment Perspectives, 21(4): 6–20.
39Bell, M. P., & Harrison, D. A. (1996). “Using Intra-national Diversity for International Assign-
ments.” Human Resources Management Review, 6: 47–73; Cox & Blake (1991); LaFromboise, T.,
Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). “Psychological Impact of Biculturalism: Evidence and
Theory.” Psychological Bulletin, 114: 395–412.
40Cox & Blake (1991); Muller, H. J. (1998). “American Indian Women Managers: Living in Two
Worlds.” Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(1): 4–28.
Chapter 1: Introduction 19Chapter 1: Introduction 19
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
in the majority may help individuals develop the flexibility and openness
not possessed by others, which can be beneficial in diverse organizational
settings.
Other Areas Where Diversity Can Be Advantageous
Cooperative behaviors. Researchers have found that groups composed of
members from collectivist backgrounds (such as Asian, Black, and Latino)
instead of individualist backgrounds (such as White/European American)
displayed more cooperative behavior on group tasks.41 In an increasingly
global and diverse environment, where cooperation is important to busi-
ness success and where teamwork is vital, organizational diversity will
therefore be an asset.
Interaction effects with organizational strategy. Orlando Richard’s study
of the relationship between racial diversity and firm performance found
a complex interaction effect.42 Firms with a growth strategy (requiring
innovation, idea generation, and creativity) were more successful when
employees were diverse. Richard suggested that when firms have a
growth strategy, racial diversity increases productivity, which increases
firm performance. Thus, organizations might wish to actively seek out
diversity as a particular source of a competitive edge when pursuing a
growth strategy. Although Richard did not test other aspects of diver-
sity, diversity in gender, age, and other areas may also be advantageous
for high-growth firms. In another study, researchers following firms over
time found that racial diversity had a positive, linear impact on long-
term performance. In companies with more than moderate levels of
diversity, there was a positive effect on both short- and long-term
performance.43
Financial returns. An association between effective management of diver-
sity and stock prices has been established by Wright and colleagues. Using
six years of data, they assessed the effect of positive publicity from affir-
mative action programs (which they used as evidence of valuing diversity)
and negative publicity from damage awards in discrimination lawsuits on
the stock returns of major corporations. They found positive influences on
41Cox, T., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). “Effects of Ethnic Group Cultural Differences on
Cooperative and Competitive Behavior on a Group Task.” Academy of Management Journal, 4:
827–847.
42Richard, O. C. (2000). “Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource-
based View.” Academy of Management Journal, 43: 164–178.
43Richard, O. C., Murthi, B. P. S., & Ismail, K. (2007). “The Impact of Racial Diversity on Intermedi-
ate and Long-term Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Context.” Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 28: 1213–1233.
20 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation20 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
stock valuation for firms that received awards from the U.S. Department
of Labor regarding their affirmative action programs. In contrast, an-
nouncements of discrimination settlements were associated with negative
stock price changes for the affected companies.44 Gender diversity at high
levels has also been associated with higher stock prices, firm quality, and
financial performance.45
Firms that purposely behave in a socially responsive way are re-
warded by financial markets. In South Africa, companies that actively re-
sisted apartheid and agreed to be independently monitored for equal and
fair employment practices, to maintain unsegregated facilities, to provide
training for non-White employees, and to improve employees’ lives out-
side the work environment realized greater growth in stock prices after the
end of apartheid than did companies not agreeing to such monitoring.46
These results indicate that bottom-line concerns and the moral and social
reasons for pursuing diversity can coexist.47
Moral and Social Reasons for Valuing Diversity
Diversity researchers and practitioners have been criticized for focusing
solely on the “business case” reasons for pursuing diversity;48 these criti-
cisms are often legitimate. Many researchers have argued that economic
and commercial reasons for valuing diversity, although they have some
merit, should not be the only reasons for supporting diversity.49 This
book is written from the perspective that moral and social reasons can
and should work in concert with business reasons for supporting diversity
44Wright et al. (1995).
45Desvaux, G., Devillard-Hoellinger, S., & Meaney, C. (2008). “A Business Case for Women.” The
McKinsey Quarterly (4): 26–33; Dezsö, C. L., & Ross, D. G. (2008, July). “Girl Power: Female Partic-
ipation in Top Management and Firm Quality.” http://ssrn.com/abstract=1088182, accessed December
10, 2010; Welbourne, T. M., Cycyota, C. S., & Ferrante, C. J. (2007). “Wall Street Reaction to
Women in IPOs: An Examination of Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams.” Group and Orga-
nization Management, 12(5): 524–547.
46Kumar, R., Lamb, W. B., & Wokutch, R. (2002). “The End of South African Sanctions, Institutional
Ownership, and the Stock Price Performance of Boycotted Firms: Evidence on the Impact of Social/
Ethical Investing.” Business and Society, 41: 133–165; Lamb, W. B., Kumar, R., & Wokutch, R. E.
(2005). “Corporate Social Performance and the Road to Redemption: Insights from the South Africa
Sanctions.” Organizational Analysis, 13: 1–14.
47Bell, M. P., Connerley, M. L., & Cocchiara, F. (2009). “The Case for Mandatory Diversity Educa-
tion.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4): 597–609.
48See Litvin, D. (2006). “Diversity: Making Space for a Better Case.” In A. Konrad, P. Prasad, &
J. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 75–94; Mor
Barak, M. E. (2005). Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
49Pringle, J. K., Konrad, A. M., & Prasad, P. (2006). “Conclusion: Reflections and Future Directions.”
In A. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, pp. 531–540.
Chapter 1: Introduction 21Chapter 1: Introduction 21
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
through pursuit of equality and inclusion.50 For example, the inequality
and poverty often experienced by minorities and women due to discrimi-
nation and exclusion from work in formal organizations are moral and
social issues. Reduction of inequality, poverty, and discrimination can
benefit society and future populations as well as organizations.
Difficulties Resulting from Increased Diversity
and Organizational Responses
Although the foundation of this book is the positive value of diversity, it
is important to consider some of the negative outcomes that may arise
from increased diversity. Some of these negative consequences can include
dysfunctional communication processes between different group members,
discrimination, harassment, perceptions that nontraditional workers are
unqualified, and lowered attachment, commitment, and satisfaction.51
As mentioned earlier, researchers have found that the cross-race interac-
tions required by increasing organizational diversity can at times be taxing
for employees.52 On the other hand, multiple studies have indicated that
although increased diversity was associated with negative outcomes
initially, this lessened over time.53 Research suggests that as employees get
to know one another and exchange job-relevant information, the negative
effects of surface-level differences can be reduced. In other words, people
stop attending to outward appearances and begin attending to work-
related differences.
Given the complexity of research results on diversity—found to be
beneficial at times to interpersonal interactions and organizational func-
tioning and at other times shown to be functionally negative—it is imper-
ative that organizations attend to diversity issues proactively. Leaders
should facilitate interactions between people of diverse backgrounds at
work, providing communication training if necessary, and monitor dys-
functional behaviors. Managers should directly confront and dispel the
50See Cox & Blake (1991), note 3; Bell et al. (2009); Kumar et al. (2002); Lamb et al. (2005).
51See, for example, Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K.
(1991). “Some Differences Make a Difference: Interpersonal Dissimilarity and Group Heterogeneity as
Correlates of Recruitment, Promotion, and Turnover.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 675–689;
Konrad, A. M., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. A. (1992). “Diversity in Work Group Sex Composition: Implica-
tions for Majority and Minority Members.” In P. Tolbert & S. B. Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the Soci-
ology of Organizations, Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 115–140; Harrison, D. E., Price, K., &
Bell, M. P. (1998). “Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-level
Diversity on Work Group Cohesion.” Academy of Management Journal, 41: 96–107.
52Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). “Being Different: Relational Demography and
Organizational Attachment.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549–579.
53Harrison et al. (1998); Watson, W., Kumar, K., & Michaelson, L. K. (1993). “Cultural Diversity’s
Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups.”
Academy of Management Journal, 36: 590–602.
22 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation22 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
common perceptions that certain groups of people are qualified and other
groups of people are not and practice zero tolerance of discrimination and
harassment. As with any important change, organizations should take
proactive steps to minimize negative outcomes resulting from increasing
diversity while maximizing the positive ones.54 Changes in population de-
mographics, globalization, the growth in service jobs requiring consider-
able interaction with dissimilar people, and other factors make these steps
critical to organizational success.
Organizations that are supportive of diversity have faced boycotts and
negative publicity from those who are resistant to diversity. Fortune mag-
azine reports that in 1962, when Harvey C. Russell, a Black man, was
named a vice president at Pepsi, the Ku Klux Klan called for a boycott
of Pepsi products, flooding the country with handbills that encouraged
customers not to buy Pepsi.55 More recently, the Southern Baptist Con-
vention led a boycott of Disney because of its inclusive policies toward
gay and lesbian employees and customers.56 After eight years of having
little apparent effect, the Convention ended its boycott.
The “Value in Diversity” Perspective versus Negative
Impacts of Diversity
Cedric Herring, professor of Sociology and Public Policy at the University
of Illinois at Chicago, used data from the 1996–1997 National Organiza-
tions Survey (NOS) to test the “value in diversity” perspective that is con-
sistent with portions of Cox and Blake’s arguments about diversity and
organizational competitiveness.57 He specifically wanted to determine the
validity of questions about the positive impact of diversity on the bottom
line. The NOS is comprised of 1,002 organizations drawn from a strati-
fied random sample of 15 million U.S. work establishments, and Herring
focused on 506 for-profit organizations that provided information about
the sex and race of their workers, sales revenue, customers, market share,
and profitability. He also controlled for other important factors, such as
company and establishment size, organization age, industrial sector, and
region that could have also affected the important variables. Herring
found considerable support for the value-in-diversity hypothesis. Racial
54For example, see Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). “Managing Diversity in U.S. Federal Agencies:
Effects of Diversity and Diversity Management on Employee Perceptions of Organizational Perfor-
mance.” Public Administration Review, January/February: 109–121.
55Daniels, C., Neering, P., & Soehendro, M. (2005, August 22). “Pioneers.” Fortune, 152(4): 72–88.
56Johnson, A. (2005). “Southern Baptists End Disney Boycott.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
8318263/ns/us_news/, accessed March 4, 2011.
57Herring, C. (2010). “Does Diversity Pay? Race, Gender, and the Business Case for Diversity.”
American Sociological Review, 74(2): 208–224.
Chapter 1: Introduction 23Chapter 1: Introduction 23
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
diversity was associated with increased sales revenue, more customers,
greater market share, and greater relative profits, and gender diversity was
associated with increased sales revenue, more customers, and greater rela-
tive profits. Herring acknowledged that some of the negative outcomes of
increased diversity could concurrently exist in some organizations, but in
his sample, using stringent tests, diversity did have a net positive impact
on organizational functioning.
INDIVIDUAL BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY
In addition to the organizational benefits of diversity, longitudinal
research provides evidence of the value of diversity to individuals. The
research of Patricia Gurin and her colleagues identifying the benefits of
a diverse learning environment for students was used in 2003 by the
U.S. Supreme Court in its decision in favor of portions of the University
of Michigan’s diversity programs.58 Gurin found that students whose
classmates were diverse and who interacted with each other in meaningful
ways and learned from each other were more likely to see diversity as not
necessarily divisive, to see commonality in values, and to be able to take
the perspective of others.
In another longitudinal study, Sylvia Hurtado found similar evidence
of the benefits of diversity among college students.59 Hurtado’s study
involved 4,403 students from nine public universities across the United
States. When students interacted with diverse peers during their first year
of college, changes in cognitive and social outcomes followed. By the sec-
ond year of college, students expressed more interest in poverty, more
support for race-based initiatives, more openness to the perspectives of
others, and more tolerance for sexual minorities. Students who had taken
diversity courses and participated in campus-sponsored diversity learning
programs experienced the greatest number of positive benefits. Hurtado
proposed that “these results suggest that campus efforts to integrate the
curriculum, or adopt a diversity requirement, have far-reaching effects on
a host of educational outcomes that prepare students as participants in a
diverse economy.”60 In his longitudinal study involving 15,600 students
58Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). “The Benefits of Diversity in Education for Demo-
cratic Citizenship.” Journal of Social Issues, 60(1): 17–34. See also Gurin, P. Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., &
Gurin, G. (2002). “Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes.”
Harvard Educational Review, 71(3): 332–366; Gurin, P. Y., Dey, E. L., Gurin, G., & Hurtado, S.
(2003). “How Does Racial/Ethnic Diversity Promote Education?” The Western Journal of Black Studies,
27(1): 20–29.
59Hurtado, S. (2005). “The Next Generation of Diversity and Intergroup Relations Research.” Journal
of Social Issues, 61: 595–610.
60Ibid., p. 605.
24 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation24 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
at 365 universities, Octavio Villalpando found that after four years of
college, regardless of the students’ race or ethnicity, their level of satis-
faction with their college experience was positively influenced by attend-
ing cultural awareness workshops, socializing with students from
different racial or ethnic groups, taking courses with content on racial or
ethnic issues, and campus policies that promote diversity initiatives.61
Other researchers have also found that compared with a control group,
those taking an elective diversity course had positive changes in attitudes
toward people with disabilities, racial minorities, and gay, lesbian, and
bisexual workers, increased intercultural tolerance, and perceived equal-
ity of gender roles.62
The increasing diversity of populations and workforces makes
preparation for such diversity invaluable. In recognition of this,
researchers have argued for mandatory diversity education,63 and many
universities are making taking a diversity-related course a requirement.
According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities,
54% of accredited colleges and universities in the United States have
instituted diversity requirements and another 8% are developing such
requirements.64 Some schools now offer diversity majors (e.g., the grad-
uate psychology program of Cleveland State University), minors (e.g.,
the undergraduate business program at Virginia Tech), or certificate
programs. Students who are equipped to work effectively in diverse
environments reap individual benefits, and the organizations that
employ them benefit as well. Of course, societal benefits, in which
everyone has the opportunity to contribute and succeed, are also
expected outcomes.
DIVERSITY, INDIVIDUAL OUTCOMES, AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
In the previous sections, we defined diversity and discussed how valuing
or devaluing diversity can influence organizational effectiveness. We em-
phasized Cox and Blake’s six reasons for valuing diversity: cost, resource
acquisition, marketing, creativity, problem solving, and system flexibility.
In his pioneering book Cultural Diversity in Organizations, Cox included
61Villalpando, O. (2002). “The Impact of Diversity and Multiculturalism on All Students: Findings
From a National Study.” NASPA, 40(1): 124–144.
62Probst, T. M. (2003). “Changing Attitudes Over Time: Assessing the Effectiveness of a Workplace
Diversity Course.” Teaching of Psychology, 30(3): 236–239.
63Bell et al. (2009).
64van Laar, C., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2008). “Ethnic-related Curricula and Intergroup Attitudes in
College: Movement Toward and Away from the In-group.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
38(6): 1601–1638.
Chapter 1: Introduction 25Chapter 1: Introduction 25
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
more details in his Interactional Model of the Impact of Diversity on
Individual Career Outcomes and Organizational Effectiveness.65 Cox
proposed that the diversity climate of an organization (including
individual-, group/intergroup factors, and organizational-level factors)
affects individual outcomes (affective, achievement, applicant, and cus-
tomer), which then influence organizational effectiveness.66 An adapted
and broader version of this model is depicted in Figure 1.1, in which
additional areas have been included in the diversity climate, individual
outcomes, and organizational effectiveness. While the model has not been
completely tested empirically, many of its proposed ideas and relation-
ships have been empirically supported, as already mentioned in this chap-
ter and as will be discussed in the remaining chapters.
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
We have introduced the concept of diversity in this chapter and discussed
Cox and Blake’s six areas in which diversity is beneficial for organizations
and the empirical evidence on the relationships between diversity and
group and organizational performance. In the remainder of the book, we
refer to these areas and to other ways in which diversity is both inevitable
and valuable for individuals and organizations, if combined with efforts
to ensure equality and inclusion. As much as possible, for each group or
topic discussed in the remaining chapters, the same six areas are covered.
Although aspects unique to the various groups and topics require varia-
tions from this general plan, what standardization is possible should pro-
vide cohesion and improve readers’ ability to consider and compare
similarities and differences across groups. Each chapter begins with chap-
ter objectives and relevant key facts. Where appropriate, we have struc-
tured the chapters according to these standard sections: introduction and
overview, population (including percentages and growth rates), education,
and employment (including participation rates—working or looking for
work, unemployment rates, income levels, and employment types). Within
these sections, we highlight points of particular relevance to diversity in
organizations, for example, the role of gender role socialization in
women’s and men’s occupational choices.
65Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, p. 7.
66Ibid. See also Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). “Assessing the Diversity Climate: A Field Study
of Reactions to Employer Efforts to Promote Diversity.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1):
61–81.
26 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation26 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
It is by use of this general plan as well as the focus on topics unique to
each group that we provide a distinct picture of the status and experiences
of the various group members, which is important to learning and thinking
critically about diversity issues. This approach should also provide readers
with a cohesive foundation for understanding the aspects of diversity
FIGURE 1.1 Adapted Interactional Model of the Impact of Diversity on Individual and Organizational Outcomes
DIVERSITY CLIMATE
Individual-Level Factors
• Identity
• Prejudice
• Stereotyping and
Social
Categorization*
• Discrimination*
Group/Intergroup Factors
• Racial,* Ethnic,*
Gender,* and
Cultural Differences
• Ethnocentrism
• Intergroup Conflict
• In-group/Out-group
bias*
• Similarity Effect*
Organizational-Level Factors
• Structural Integration
• Informal Integration
• Bias in Human
Resource Systems*
INDIVIDUAL
OUTCOMES
Affective Outcomes
• Job/Career
Satisfaction
• Organizational
Identification
• Job Involvement
• Organizational
Citizenship
Behaviors*
Achievement Outcomes
• Performance
Evaluations
• Compensation
• Promotion/
Horizontal Mobility
Rates
• Race and Sex
Segregation*
• Glass and Stained
Glass Ceiling*
Applicant Outcomes*
• Employment
Opportunities*
Customer Outcomes*
• Customer
Satisfaction*
• Organizational
Loyalty*
• Racial Profiling*
ORGANIZATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
First Level
• Attendance
• Turnover
• Resource
Acquisition
• Creativity/
Innovation
• Problem Solving
• System Flexibility*
• Cooperative
Behaviors
• Work Quality
• Workgroup
Cohesiveness and
Communication
Second Level
• Marketing and
Market Share
• Lost Business
• Profitability
• Stock Prices*
• Organizational
Attractiveness*
• Organizational
Performance*
• Achievement of
Formal
Organizational
Goals
• Bias in Human
Resource Systems*
*Not included in the original model.
Items in bold print examined in this book, including relevant research evidence.
Note: Recall that Cox & Blake’s (1993) six reasons for valuing diversity are cost (including turnover), resource acquisition, marketing,
creativity, problem solving, and system flexibility.
Source: Adapted from Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, p. 7.
Chapter 1: Introduction 27Chapter 1: Introduction 27
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
considered here and for others they may encounter in the future both in
the United States and all over the world. For example, although different
countries may have different minority or non-dominant groups, readers can
use the same approach to learn about and develop understanding of them.
The following sections discuss details of the standard sections in each
chapter.
Introduction and Overview
Each chapter focusing on a particular group (e.g., racial and ethnic
groups, workers with disabilities) begins with an introduction and over-
view containing information unique to that group to help explain its
status in relation to diversity in the United States. For example, in the
United States, only Blacks have experienced the historical background of
slavery and the subsequent discrimination that continues to shape their
position in organizations and in society. Latinos are unique in terms of
their diverse backgrounds (e.g., Cuba, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Central
America), races, language ability, and youthfulness of population. It is
not widely known that even though they were considerably more ac-
cepted than Blacks, people of Mexican descent experienced extreme dis-
crimination, segregation, and lynching in parts of California and Texas
from the early 1900s to the 1970s. Mexican Americans pursued their
civil rights during the same period African Americans fought for theirs,
at times alongside African Americans and Asians.67
The experiences of Asian Americans as immigrants, refugees, or
native-born Americans are unique to them. Perceived as the “model
minority,” Asians at the same time have encountered the glass ceiling
and other forms of discrimination.68 As we will see, the Asian experi-
ence in the United States is not uniform; it comprises an unequal distri-
bution of education, wealth, and success, including poor education,
extreme poverty, and welfare dependency.69 And although many think
that Asians choose self-employment as a means of earning high wages,
research indicates some Asian entrepreneurs are self-employed as a re-
sult of discrimination, a lack of opportunities in formal organizations,
and the glass ceiling. As with small businesses in general, many Asian
businesses fail and others are only profitable because of long hours and
67See Acuna, R. (1988). Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, 3rd ed. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers. See also “Justice for My People” (2003).
68Wood, D. (2000). Glass Ceilings and Asian Americans: The New Face of Workplace Barriers.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
69Espiritu, Y. L. (1999). “The Refugees and the Refuge: Southeast Asians in the United States.”
In A. G. Dworkin & R. J. Dworkin (Eds.), The Minority Report. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
Publishers.
28 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation28 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
the unpaid labor of family members.70 Like others of color, in some parts
of the United States, Asian Americans make up the bulk of those employed
as housekeepers and custodians, neighborhood gardeners, garment work-
ers, and in other low-wage occupations. These jobs are quite different in
occupation and earnings from the stereotype of the model minority.
Population
The number of people in a particular group is critical for many different
reasons. Large groups have more voice in democratic governmental pro-
cesses, more consumer buying power, and strength in other areas. These
benefits may positively affect their treatment in organizations and result in
organizations paying more attention to their needs. However, as “minority”
groups grow in size, they may seem more threatening to those in the major-
ity, which may negatively affect their organizational status and treatment.71
But from a positive viewpoint, the growth in minority group populations
may allow majority group members to have more personal experiences with
and knowledge of particular individuals, which may, therefore, allow them
to rely on personal knowledge, rather than stereotypes, particularly if given
organizational stimuli, tools, and support for doing so.
Along with the benefits that occur as a result of growth in numbers,
as the group becomes a greater percentage of the overall population, its
voice, buying power, and other strengths increase, warranting attention
from persons interested in diversity issues. Even so, 30 million in a pop-
ulation of 60 million is much different from 30 million in a population
of 300 million. Population growth occurs through births and immigra-
tion, and population growth rates affect both sheer numbers and the
degree of impact that a particular group has. When a minority group is
growing at a faster rate than the majority, over time, the minority group
will increase its percentage of the population as a whole. When a
minority group has both a higher birth rate and greater immigration
than the majority group, as do Latinos and Asians in the United States,
this leads to a faster shift in the numbers and percentages of the minority
group compared with the majority group. These shifts in population
require different organizational strategies and perspectives in order to
address the needs of diverse consumers, applicants, and employees.
As an example, as Latinos have become a larger percentage of the popu-
lation, some organizations have begun to actively recruit bilingual
employees in human resources, customer service, marketing, and man-
agement positions.
70Espiritu (1999).
71Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Chapter 1: Introduction 29Chapter 1: Introduction 29
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Education
Each group’s level of education affects whether and where people are
employed, their incomes, and their opportunities for and actual advance-
ment. Thus, we provide details for each group on the numbers of people of
working age with and without high school, college, and advanced degrees.
Comparisons of educational achievements within (between men and
women) and across groups provide insights into other factors (e.g., the glass
ceiling and walls) that may be influencing the employment, income, and
organizational advancement of different groups. Do White men and women
have similar levels of education? If so, are they receiving similar returns (e.g.,
income, status, advancement) on their educational investment? What is the
educational status of immigrants? How does this affect their employment?
Are there differences in education and employment among immigrants from
different countries or from different races but the same country? We investi-
gate these and similar questions for each demographic group.
Employment, Unemployment, and Participation Rates
Levels of employment and participation rates of a group are closely tied
to education and provide information about a group’s position in organi-
zations. The percentages of people in a group who are employed, unem-
ployed, underemployed, and not seeking work compared with those of
other groups are important in understanding group status and other
diversity factors. We seek to answer questions such as the following:
● Are minorities with similar education more, less, or equally likely as
Whites to be employed?
● When laid off, how long do different group members, such as older
and younger workers, remain unemployed before finding similar
employment?
● What are the participation rates for women from various racial and
ethnic groups?
● Why are people with disabilities consistently less likely to be
employed than are people without disabilities, even when similarly
qualified and able to work?
We investigate what can be done about these issues and why organi-
zations should be concerned about them. We consider what employment
rates actually mean, compared with what is commonly reported, and how
these figures differ across groups, emphasizing that for certain groups
unemployment rates are often understated and deceptive.
In periods of apparent economic success, as well as in more difficult
economic periods, the job-related status of people of color, women, and
30 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation30 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
people with disabilities may be more negative than is apparent. Because
Whites are the majority of the population in the United States, their
unemployment levels heavily weight the reported unemployment rates.
Unemployment for Blacks is usually about twice the unemployment rate
for Whites, but this is not commonly known or widely reported. For
example, in 1972, the overall unemployment rate was 5.6%; for Whites,
Blacks, and Latinos the rates were 5.1%, 10.4%, and 7.5%, respectively
(see Table 1.2). In 2008, when overall unemployment was 5.8%, the rates
for Whites, Blacks, and Latinos were 5.2%, 10.1%, and 7.6%,
respectively.72
These types of differences in unemployment rates have been consistent
for decades and are not completely explained by differences in education.
Blacks have higher average education levels than Latinos, yet Blacks have
higher average unemployment rates. What dynamics of diversity are
affecting these unusual relationships?
Many people do not know about other distortions in reported unem-
ployment rates. People who have given up actively seeking work in their
field (“discouraged” workers), those working at lower levels than appro-
priate for their education (the underemployed), or people who work
part-time because they are unable to find full-time work are not included
in the unemployment rate.73 In the United States, discouraged and under-
employed workers are more likely to be Blacks; in many European coun-
tries, they are likely to be immigrants.74 In the United Kingdom, for
instance, Bangladeshis are five times more likely to be unemployed and earn
72U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Labor Force Characteristics by Race
and Ethnicity, Report 1020. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2008 , accessed June 9, 2010.
TABLE 1.2 Percent U.S. Unemployment by Race and Ethnicity
1972 2008
Overall 5.6 5.8
Whites 5.1 5.2
Blacks 10.4 10.1
Latinos 7.5 7.6
Note: These rates are population averages. Similar disparities exist by race at various educational levels.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Labor Force Characteristics by
Race and Ethnicity, Report 1020. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2008 , accessed August 12, 2010.
73Ibid., p. 3.
74Bell, M. P., Heslin, P., & Fletcher, P. (2010). “Daring to Care About Hidden Unemployment:
Discrimination and Discouragement in Minority Communities.” Paper presented at the meeting of the
Academy of Management, Montreal, Canada.
Chapter 1: Introduction 31Chapter 1: Introduction 31
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
considerably less per hour than Whites.75 Iraqis in Denmark are nearly six
times more likely to be unemployed compared to the majority population
(27% versus 5%).76 We discuss discouraged, unemployed, and part-time
workers and their relationships to diversity in organizations in later chapters.
Types of Employment and Income Levels
The jobs in which people are employed and their income levels provide much
insight into the status of different groups. Comparisons between people with
similar qualifications but different group memberships provide even greater in-
sight into diversity-related factors at work (e.g., discrimination, equal opportu-
nity, the glass ceiling). We investigate questions such as the following:
● In what types of occupations and industries do most members of a
group work?
● What percentages of the group occupy executive, managerial, profes-
sional and administrative, or other positions?
● Are similarly qualified women less likely to be in managerial or exec-
utive positions than men?
● How do the pay and the advancement potential of the jobs and in-
dustries in which women and minorities are clustered compare with
the pay and advancement potential of jobs and industries in which
Whites and men tend to be clustered?
Education, employment rates, and types of employment lead logically
to income. The more education one has, the more likely one is to be
employed and earning higher wages. This is theoretically and practically
true; however, returns on education vary by race, ethnicity, gender, phys-
ical ability, and other factors. Education does not translate into higher
income at similar rates for all racial and ethnic groups. The following
chapters explore relationships among education, employment, and income
for different groups, along with some startling discoveries about the
dynamics of discrimination, stereotyping, and other diversity issues.
Focal Issues
Where appropriate, details are provided on one or more issues of particu-
lar relevance to a chapter’s focal area or group. Chapter 4 considers
75Zimmerman, K. F., Kahanec, M., Constant, A., DeVoretz, D., Gataullina, L., & Zaiceva, A. (2008).
Study on the Social and Labor Market Integration of Ethnic Minorities. I Z A Research Report
No. 16. Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn. http://www.iza.org/en/webcontent/publications/
reports/report_pdfs/iza_report_16 , accessed July 22, 2010.
76Ibid.
32 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation32 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
the negative effects of discrimination on the health of Blacks and the
persistent effects of slavery and discrimination on their social and finan-
cial progress. One focal area in Chapter 9 is the relationship between
socialization and women’s reportedly lower likelihood of negotiating
higher salaries successfully (and its impact upon the wage gap). Such
investigations of the details of some of the diversity-related concerns
unique to specific groups may be unfamiliar to readers as diversity
issues but are actually quite common on a day-to-day basis. For exam-
ple, many people are aware that male and female children are taught
what is appropriate sex-typed behavior, but giving this a name (“gender
role socialization”) and explaining its relevance should help readers
appreciate the everyday influences diversity issues have on individuals
and organizations.
Individual and Organizational Recommendations
Relevant to its specific focus, each chapter makes recommendations for
individuals and for organizations related to the concerns of the particular
group under study as well as for improving the organizations’ overall cli-
mate for diversity. Although organizational, societal, and systemic factors
underlie much of the extant discrimination and resistance to diversity,
some individual actions that people may take can influence individual
outcomes. What can one person do? Chapter 4 provides recommenda-
tions for Black women that can reduce the double-whammy disadvantage
of membership in two non-dominant groups. Chapter 9 includes specific
recommendations on how organizations can prevent sexual harassment
and how individual women can reduce or address individual discrimina-
tion. Chapter 13 suggests ways in which older workers can avoid pre-
interview exclusion based on high school or college completion dates
on a résumé.
International Feature
Many chapters include an international feature that considers some
aspects of their main subject from an international perspective. Chapter
10 compares family policies in the United States with those of other
developed nations; Chapter 13 explores legislation in Australia that
prohibits age discrimination against younger, as well as older, workers.
Inclusion of international features clarifies the importance of diversity
around the world and demonstrates ways in which readers and organi-
zations may learn from and improve diversity issues in different
regions.
Chapter 1: Introduction 33Chapter 1: Introduction 33
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Other Features
Each chapter includes at least one case study, individual feature,
organizational feature, research summary, or report on litigation or dis-
crimination complaints and an analysis. Reports of research from a vari-
ety of disciplines provide understandable discussions of rigorous empirical
studies. Organizational features describe examples of diversity programs
at actual companies. Descriptions of actual litigation or discrimination
complaints against some of the same companies are reports on possibly
familiar real-life issues and encourage readers’ in-depth analysis and cri-
tiquing. Rather than touting any particular company’s diversity program
as ideal or criticizing organizations that have undergone discrimination
claims, the organizational and litigation features provide useful information
on real programs and issues in organizations. As well, the descriptions of
discrimination charges and settlements, particularly involving companies
with long-standing diversity programs, underscore the importance of con-
tinued, vigilant commitment to diversity, equality, and inclusion. Organiza-
tions must make their stance on diversity widely known and to every
employee through repeated training, communication, and monitoring of
decision making and employee outcomes. Our inclusion of positive reports
as well as reports on charges of discrimination, settlements, and other pro-
blems also demonstrates the need to avoid blanket assumptions or judg-
ments about an organization based on limited information.
Suggested chapter-end Actions and Exercises should enhance readers’
understanding of the subject matter and help make abstract concepts and
discussion more pragmatic. Some of these exercises are interviewing a
person working in a job atypical for his or her sex, documenting the race
and ethnic makeup of cashiers at a discount store, or constructing an or-
ganization chart of a company with which the reader is familiar (for pos-
sible evidence of glass ceilings, walls, and escalators). “Misperceptions”
and “Reality” points interspersed throughout the chapters highlight com-
mon misperceptions about a topic and then provide more accurate
information.77
Because diversity issues are interrelated, an important feature of the
book is cross-references and discussion of the relevant interrelation-
ships. For example, Chapter 11 includes a section on same-sex families
that is also referenced in Chapter 10. As important as an individual
examination of each group and topic is (i.e., separate chapters on
racial groups), the cross-references and discussions of these interrela-
tionships within chapters create a holistic view of diversity in organiza-
tions. Diversity issues are relevant to everyone, and to each other.
77Not every reader will be familiar with every misperception.
34 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation34 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
SUMMARY
This chapter has introduced the concept
of diversity, detailed the organization of
the book, and explained what readers
may expect. Included are descriptions of
protections from employment discrimi-
nation provided by U.S. federal regula-
tions as well as areas left unprotected but
that are relevant to issues of diversity.
Also touched on, from an international
perspective, is the importance of not
using a one-size-fits-all approach to
managing diversity, but instead focusing
on the issues most relevant to the partic-
ular context. Although some groups have
experienced considerably more discrimi-
nation, devaluation, and underutilization
than others, historically and currently, we
take the perspective that diversity is of
importance to everyone. The overriding
premise of this book is that diversity is
valuable to individuals and organizations
for moral, social, and business reasons
and that people from various back-
grounds should be afforded employment
opportunities and allowed to reach their
potential as employees, managers, execu-
tives, and leaders. Research indicates that
job applicants, employees, customers,
and constituents will respond positively
when organizations value diversity, and
negatively when they do not. We do not
ignore the fact that increasing diversity
involves difficulties, but write from the
perspective that those difficulties must be
addressed so that everyone has opportu-
nities to contribute and that this will be
beneficial to individuals, organizations,
and society. From this perspective, the
book continues its consideration of the
past, present, and future of diversity in
organizations.
KEY TERMS
Access discrimination — when people are
denied employment opportunities, or
“access” to jobs, based on their race, sex,
age, or other factors not related to
productivity.
Diversity — real or perceived differences
among people in race, ethnicity, sex, age,
physical and mental ability, sexual orien-
tation, religion, work and family status,
weight and appearance, and other identity-
based attributes that affect their interac-
tions and relationships.
Diversity climate — individual-, intergroup-,
and organizational-level factors that com-
prise the atmosphere for different groups
and of support for or resistance to diversity
in an organization.
Identity group — the collectivities people
use to categorize themselves and others.
Inclusion — the degree to which the
different voices of a diverse workforce are
respected and heard.
Labor force — all persons age 16 and over
working or looking for work.
Labor market discrimination — the
valuation in the labor market of personal
characteristics of applicants and workers
that are unrelated to productivity.
Participation rate — the ratio of persons
age 16 and over who are working or
looking for work divided by the popula-
tion of persons age 16 and over.
Primary labor market — jobs in large,
bureaucratic organizations that have
opportunities for advancement and
include lucrative retirement, medical, and
vacation benefits.
Chapter 1: Introduction 35Chapter 1: Introduction 35
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Secondary labor market — jobs, often in
the service sector, that offer few or no
opportunities for advancement, nor med-
ical, retirement, or vacation benefits.
Treatment discrimination — when people
are employed but are treated differently
once employed, receiving fewer job-related
rewards, resources, or opportunities than
they should receive based on job-related
criteria.
Underemployed — workers employed at
less than their full employment potential,
including those working part-time, tem-
porary, or intermittent jobs but desiring
regular, full-time work; those working for
lower wages than their skills would imply
or in positions requiring considerably
lower skills than they possess; and those
involuntarily working outside their fields.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. What is diversity?
2. How can relevant diversity issues be
identified in different contexts?
3. List and discuss the six reasons that
Cox and Blake proposed for valuing
diversity in organizations. What else
can be given as reasons for valuing
diversity?
4. What are some negative outcomes of
increasing diversity, and given the
inevitability of increasing diversity,
what can organizations do to reduce
these negative outcomes?
5. What does research say about the im-
portance of diversity to individuals?
ACTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. Begin observing diversity in your
work, school, neighborhood, religious,
and/or entertainment environments.
What is the racial, ethnic, gender, and
age distribution of the people in each
of these environments? What do you
observe that you may not have noticed
were you not investigating diversity in
organizations? Explain.
2. Identify the relevant diversity categories
in two different countries. What are the
key factors (e.g., population, participa-
tion, poverty, group differences)
involved in those categories?
36 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation36 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER
2Theories and Thinkingabout Diversity
Chapter Objectives
After completing this chapter, readers should have a
greater understanding of what constitutes minority
groups, the processes surrounding people’s thinking
about and treatment of those who are dissimilar to
them, and what organizational processes can help to
increase diversity, equality, and inclusion.
Specifically, they should be able to:
❏ discuss the meaning of the terms minority
group and non-dominant group.
❏ explain characteristics used to identify
non-dominant groups and be able to use these
characteristics to identify the non-dominant
groups in one’s particular environment.
❏ discuss thought processes related to
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination
and theories related to diversity in
organizations.
❏ examine in-group favoritism and out-group
bias.
❏ explain what organizations can do to promote
diversity and inclusion, given knowledge
about reasons for differential treatment,
experiences, and outcomes for different
demographic groups.
❏ have a foundation for synthesizing the
material in the remaining chapters.
Key Facts
Characteristics of minority or non-
dominant groups often include
identifiability, differential power,
discrimination, and group awareness.
Minority, or non-dominant, groups are not
necessarily fewer in number than majority,
or dominant, groups.
Categorization and stereotyping are often
unconscious processes, which alone are not
necessarily negative.
People tend to attribute positive
characteristics to members of their in-
groups and negative characteristics to
members of groups to which they do not
belong.
In-group favoritism and out-group bias
disadvantage non-dominant groups and
impede diversity.
Structured interviews can reduce the effects
of similarity bias in selection.
37
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Introduction and Overview
In this chapter, we consider some of the many theo-
ries and research studies related to psychological
processes affecting diversity in organizations. What
are prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination and
how do they work to impede diversity? Why is it
that diversity is at times a negative attribute of orga-
nizational functioning and what can be done to
change this? What factors are associated with people’s
preferences for similar others and hostility and discrimi-
nation toward dissimilar others?Whatcan organizations
do to address these effects? Knowledge of these
factors will provide a foundation for understanding the
material in the remaining chapters of the book and for
fostering diversity in organizations.
We begin with a discussion of the characteristics
associated with minority groups. What defines minor-
ity groups? Aside from counting, how does one tell
who is the “majority” and who is the “minority” in a
society? We examine some of the many theories and
concepts related to diversity and investigate how new
forms of racism and sexism (and other “isms”) affect
individuals’ behavior toward others. We conclude with
suggestions for individuals and organizations to re-
duce stereotyping and discrimination and to increase
fairness in employment decisions and treatment of
others at work.
WHAT IS A “MINORITY”?1
Although the term minority is generally understood to mean “fewer in
number,” it does not always refer to groups that are numerically fewer
than majority group members. What, then, is a minority?2 Minority or
non-dominant3 groups are those subordinated to majority or dominant
group members in terms of power, prestige, and privilege.4 In South
Africa, Whites are the dominant group, although they are outnumbered
by people of color. In the United States, women outnumber men, but men
are the dominant group. Non-dominant, then, is a more accurate term
than minority, although both are used in this book.
In many of the topics we cover, there are clear dominant and non-
dominant groups; in others, the distinction is ambiguous. Of the U.S.
racial and ethnic groups discussed in this book, Blacks, Latinos, Asian
Americans, American Indians, and multiracial group members represent
non-dominant groups, and Whites are the dominant group. Throughout
the world, men are the dominant sex, although women often outnumber
men. In the United States, Christians are the dominant religious group,
and heterosexual is the dominant sexual orientation. People without dis-
abilities are clearly the dominant group. Attractive people are dominant
with respect to unattractive people, and thinner people are dominant with
1Dworkin, A. G., & Dworkin, R. J. (1999). The Minority Report, 3rd ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Publishers, pp. 11–27.
2Ibid.
3Some researchers use the term subordinate instead of non-dominant.
4Schaefer, R. T. (1989). Racial and Ethnic Groups, 4th ed. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
38 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
respect to overweight people—although overweight people outnumber
thinner people. Whether younger or older workers are the dominant
group is not clear, making research and generalizations about age diver-
sity somewhat complicated. Although older workers occupy more of the
high-status, high-paid organizational positions than younger workers,
stereotypes and misperceptions pervade the workplace experiences,
opportunities, and outcomes of many older workers. At times, younger
workers are clearly preferred to older workers, but at other times younger
people are viewed as irresponsible, not dependable, and lacking in orga-
nizational commitment. The answer to the question of whether people
with or without families are dominant is even less clear. For men,
researchers have found that being married (to a woman) and having
children contribute to being viewed positively in organizations, to higher
wages, and to greater advancement. For women, as we discuss in
Chapters 9 and 10, having a husband and children contributes to percep-
tions of divided loyalties and, as a result, to lower wages and fewer
promotions.
In considering what is a minority, or non-dominant group, social
scientists propose that non-dominant group members have distinguish-
ing characteristics across societies and time. Drawing from the seminal
work of a group of noted social scientists, Anthony and Rosalind
Dworkin propose that minority group members have four common
characteristics: identifiability, differential power, the experience of
discrimination,5 and group awareness. Using similar ideas, Edward
Sampson offers the following relationships between identifiability,
power, and discrimination:
… which types of differences are emphasized and which are ignored is usually
a choice made by the social groups that occupy positions of dominance within
a society. These are the groups that have the power to make their definitions
of who is one of them and who is different stick. Dominant groups not only
select the qualities of difference that will be emphasized but also develop the
rationale to explain why those differences mean one group should be treated
differently from another. (p. 22)6
The ways in which identifiability, power, discrimination, and group
awareness create subordinating systems are considered in the following
sections.
5Dworkin & Dworkin used the term differential and pejorative treatment as well as discrimination.
6Sampson, E. E. (1999). Dealing with Differences. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Publishers.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 39
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Identifiability
For subordinating systems to work, minority and majority group
members must possess distinguishing physical or cultural traits that
make it possible to single them out for differential treatment (such as
discrimination and segregation). If members of non-dominant groups were
not recognizable, differential treatment would be difficult or impossible.
Historical records suggest that dominant groups devise means to identify
non-dominant groups if the members have no distinguishing features.
As an example, in Nazi Germany, Jews were required to wear yellow
armbands to distinguish them from non-Jews.7
In the United States, women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and American
Indians are generally fairly easy to identify, making it easier to single them
out for differential treatment. In the past, as in the present, however, many
individual members of non-dominant racial groups have been difficult to
identify, including those who self-identify as members of a minority group
who are attributed to another group by independent observers. If a per-
son’s Black, Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian heritage is clearly visi-
ble, differential treatment from prejudiced employers, businesses, and even
the police (racial profiling) is a potential consequence. But it is also true,
as we discuss in later chapters, that non-dominant group members who
cannot be clearly identified may experience some problems as well. The
group identities of gays and lesbians, some multiracial people, and people
with some types of disabilities are invisible, and these group members may
experience stress and guilt associated with this invisibility and, at times,
fear of disclosure.
Differential Power
Dworkin and Dworkin define power as the “actual use of resources to
influence and control others.”8 Differential power allows those who have
more power to control those who have less power. Although power is
associated with numerical dominance, those who are members of groups
that are larger in number are not always the most powerful. As examples,
native people in what would become the United States were originally
greater in number, but they were less powerful than the European new-
comers and thus were subject to domination; there are more women than
men in many countries, but women as a group are less powerful than men.
Through their control of resources, powerful groups also control access to
education, employment, food, health care, income, and other things that
7Dworkin & Dworkin (1999).
8Ibid., p. 19.
40 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
affect the life chances and futures of those without power. Thus, power
helps the dominant remain dominant.
Discrimination
Dworkin and Dworkin include the experience of discrimination as a
defining characteristic of minorities. Discrimination has been broadly
defined as differential and pejorative actions that serve to limit the social,
political, or economic opportunities of members of particular groups.9
Various types of discrimination have limiting effects on its targets. For
example, gender-based pay discrimination limits the social, political, and
economic opportunities of women. Through access discrimination, the
social, political, and economic opportunities of Blacks are limited. For
targets of discrimination, according to Dworkin and Dworkin, the
experience of being discriminated against leads to group awareness and
becomes the focus of protests and activism.10
Group Awareness
Group awareness, the final characteristic of minority groups proposed by
Dworkin and Dworkin, is one consequence of their subordination by the
majority and its discriminatory practices. The unfair treatment minority
groups experience leads them to realize that they are subjected to differ-
ential treatment simply because of their group membership and that this
treatment is a result of the majority’s definitions and evaluations rather
than to any intrinsic qualities or actions of their group. They may also
realize that they can achieve certain goals (e.g., jobs, housing) through
cooperative resistance (such as protests, boycotts, and participation in the
political process).
Analysis of the Characteristics
Although these characteristics—identifiability, differential power, discrim-
ination, and group awareness—do in many cases help clarify which
groups are minority groups, they are by no means definitive. At times,
they do not apply to some non-dominant groups or are otherwise insuffi-
cient, as for those with invisible identities and for individuals with power
who are also non-dominant group members (e.g., a CEO who is a woman
9Ibid., p. 98; Frederickson, G. M., & Knobel, D. T. (1980). “A History of Discrimination.” In
T. F. Pettigrew, G. M. Fredrickson, D. T. Knobel, N. Glazer, & R. Ueda (Eds.), Prejudice. Cambridge,
MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, pp. 30–37.
10 Dworkin & Dworkin (1999).
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 41
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
of color). In other situations, there are disconnects between the group to
which a person appears to belong and his or her self-identity. Taylor
Cox labels these situations as incongruence of phenotype (visible identity)
and culture identities,11 such as a Mexican American with Caucasian
physical features identifying with the Mexican American culture. This
creates cognitive dissonance for observers that may cause discomfort or
even negative reactions. In the chapters that discuss individual groups, we
will analyze further the applicability of these four criteria to those groups.
CATEGORIZATION AND IDENTITY
As discussed in the previous section, Dworkin and Dworkin’s first defin-
ing criterion for minority groups is identifiability. Once identified, what
factors make groups single out others for discrimination? What factors
make otherwise rational people prone to believe stereotypes? Why do
prejudicial attitudes sometimes result in discrimination and not in other
times?
Although prejudice and discrimination are sometimes viewed as
synonymous, they are not. Prejudice is “irrationally based, negative atti-
tudes” about certain groups and their members.12 Prejudice is an attitude,
whereas discrimination is behavior based on the attitude. Given the power
to act and the absence of sanctions for doing so, discriminatory behavior
may result from prejudice. For example, employers may have negative
attitudes about overweight people, and these attitudes may result in
refusal to hire them (employment discrimination), which is not currently
illegal in most parts of the United States.
Stereotypes are the overgeneralization of characteristics to large hu-
man groups and are the basis for prejudice and discrimination. Prescrip-
tive stereotyping refers to perceptions about how people should behave,
based on their group memberships (e.g., women should wear makeup, as
discussed in the Ann Hopkins case in Chapter 9), while descriptive
stereotyping refers to ideas about how people do or will behave, based
on their group memberships (e.g., women are caring and are therefore
appropriate as nurses and elementary school teachers).13 Fairly common
job-related stereotypes about the groups we consider in the following
chapters can be easily called to mind even by those who do not believe
11Cox, T. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
12Pettigrew, T. (1980). “Prejudice.” In T. F. Pettigrew, G. M. Fredrickson, D. T. Knobel, N. Glazer, &
R. Ueda (Eds.), Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, pp. 1–29.
13Goldman, B. M., Gutek, B. A., Stein, J. H., & Lewis, K. (2006). “Employment Discrimination in
Organizations: Antecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Management, 32(6): 786–831.
42 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
them or who are themselves members of the targeted groups.14 Some
stereotypes reflect interactions between multiple groups, such as race, eth-
nicity, gender, and parental status. In a job-related context, stereotyping
can prevent individuals who would be capable, committed workers from
being hired, promoted, or trained. Negative organizational outcomes
follow from the individual outcomes.
Although common stereotypes can easily be identified, when
prompted to think of someone from each group who does not fit the
stereotype, many people can do so. Despite being able to identify people
who do not fit them, people often attend to evidence that supports stereo-
types they hold and ignore evidence that disconfirms stereotypes. Further,
stereotypes can lead to prejudice, which in turn can lead to discrimina-
tion, given the right circumstances.
Social Categorization and Stereotyping
Social cognitive theory suggests that people use categorization to simplify
and cope with the large volumes of information to which they are continu-
ally exposed. Categories allow us to quickly and easily compartmentalize
data. Consistent with Dworkin and Dworkin’s proposals that minority
group members must be identifiable, people often use visible characteris-
tics, such as race, sex, and age, to categorize others. Thus, when one sees a
person of a particular race, automatic processing occurs and beliefs about
this particular race are activated. When the person is not visible but his or
her name is known (perhaps on a résumé), this provides information about
the person’s sex, which allows categorization: male or female. Mental
models of a person suited to a particular job (e.g., bank teller, truck driver)
are often associated with sex, and sorting of candidates by sex occurs as a
result of such models. A name may also provide evidence of a person’s race
or ethnic background, which could also allow categorization and discrimi-
nation (see Chapter 4). People’s propensity to categorize, coupled with the
need to then evaluate the person categorized, leads to stereotyping.15
Along with the tendency to categorize, people have a tendency to per-
ceive themselves and others as belonging to particular groups. This part of
categorization, referred to as social categorization, involves ordering one’s
social environment by groupings of persons.16 Social categorization helps
create and define one’s place in society. Groups define one’s place by
separating people: where we belong or do not belong and where others
14 See Cox (1993), p. 91, for a detailed list of common stereotypes about various groups.
15 Nelson, T. (2002). The Psychology of Prejudice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16 Tajfel, H. (1978). “Social Categorization, Social Identity and Social Comparison.” In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
Differentiation Between Social Groups. London: Academic Press, pp. 61–76.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 43
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
belong and do not belong. A person’s in-group is the group to which he
or she belongs, while out-groups are groups to which he or she does not
belong. Depending on the situation, and what factor is salient, or distinc-
tive, a person’s in-group may be based on his or her race, sex, age, or
other factor of importance.17 Salient characteristics are important to an
individual at a particular time, or at all times, depending on how critical
the characteristic is to the individual’s experiences and life chances. For
example, in a department with three women and ten men, the in-group
for the women would be women and the out-group would be men. If the
department comprised two Blacks (one man and one woman) and eleven
White men and women, in-groups and out-groups could instead be deter-
mined using racial categories. Which category would be salient would
depend on the situation (e.g., if the men were all sitting together on one
side of the room, or if the conversation were about racial profiling) and
the extent to which people identified themselves by their race or sex. For a
Black person in the United States, race may be salient in an organization
in which there are few Blacks or in an organization in which everyone is
Black (if being in such an organization is unusual). Beverly Daniel
Tatum’s book Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the
Cafeteria? explains that the clustering of Blacks in the cafeterias of predom-
inantly White educational institutions is obvious and disturbing to some
observers.18 The similar clustering of Whites is less obvious or disturbing.
Social identity refers to the part of an individual’s self-concept that
derives from his or her membership in a particular social group and the
value and emotional significance attached to that group membership.19
Using race as an example, social identity describes how much a person
identifies as a member of a certain race and how strongly and passion-
ately he or she feels about belonging to that race. Is being Black integral
to one’s life, experiences, and being? For sex as a characteristic, social
identity describes how much a person identifies as a man or woman and
how strongly and passionately he or she feels about being a man or
woman. Is being a man integral to one’s life, experiences, and being?
Social identity is similar to Dworkin and Dworkin’s conceptualization of
group awareness for non-dominant group members. Those who see that
they belong to a particular group and that the group receives pejorative
treatment by others (out-groups) become aware of their group member-
ship as a collective body able to take resistive action.
17McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). “Salience of Ethnicity in the Spon-
taneous Self-Concept as a Function of One’s Ethnic Distinctiveness in the Social Environment.” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(5): 511–520.
18Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? New York:
Basic Books.
19Ibid., p. 63.
44 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Consequences of Social Categorization and Social Identity
As noted earlier, when we first come into contact with others, we catego-
rize them as belonging to an in-group, or an out-group. These tendencies
can affect job satisfaction and the relationships among supervisors, sub-
ordinates, and peers.20 We tend to see members of our in-group as being
heterogeneous but out-group members as being homogeneous—having
similar attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics (i.e., fitting stereotypes).
Researchers propose that these perspectives may occur because of the
breadth of interactions we have with people from our in-group as compared
with those from out-groups. There also is often strong in-group favoritism
and, at times, derogation of out-group members. Favoritism and viewing
members of one’s group positively bolster one’s self-esteem, as does viewing
other groups negatively. Alone, favoritism for one’s particular group is not
necessarily negative. When coupled with power, however, favoritism is
associated with negative opportunities and outcomes for the out-group.
In-group favoritism and out-group biases. A likely result of in-group
favoritism in a work setting is the hiring, promoting, and rewarding by
those in power (i.e., the dominant group) of members of their in-group.
Even if no overt derogation of out-group members is involved, the
non-dominant out-group is disadvantaged when the dominant in-group is
favored. Because women and minorities are typically non-dominant in
organizations, social categorization and in-group favoritism work against
them, negatively affecting their chances for employment, high-status posi-
tions, promotion, and other opportunities when compared with Whites
and men. Women and people of color often have relatively little organi-
zational power; thus any favoritism they may feel toward women and
people of color is less likely to disadvantage men and Whites. The
documented existence of the similarity effect, or similarity bias, in which
people are more likely to select or hire demographically similar others, is
also a manifestation of in-group favoritism. However, as discussed in
Research Summary 2.1, using structured interviews can negate in-group
favoritism.
Similar behaviors exhibited by members of the in-group and the out-
group are judged differently, in addition to favoring the in-group and
derogating the out-group.21 A man who exhibits a “take-charge” attitude
is viewed as assertive (a positive attribute), but a woman who does so is
“aggressive” (a negative attribute; see also the Ann Hopkins case in
20 Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’Netto, B., & Monga, M. (2009). “Managing Diversity Through Human
Resource Management: An International Perspective and Conceptual Framework.” The International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(2): 235–251.
21 Dworkin & Dworkin (1999).
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 45
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
RESEARCH
SUMMARY 2.1
Using Structured Interviews to Reduce Bias in Selection
Many researchers have investigated the
influence of demographic similarity on interview
outcomes. Research results have been mixed,
with some researchers finding that interviewers
favored those who were similar in race or
sex while others finding no similarity effects.
Julie McCarthy and her colleagues proposed
that these mixed results were due to different
research settings, different samples, and
different types of interviews. Compared
with unstructured interviews, in which the
interviewer asks various questions to different
candidates, properly designed, structured
interviews have certain key characteristics that
increase the validity of the selection process.
One of the key elements is that interviewers ask
all candidates the same set of questions that are
based on a job analysis—what tasks the candidate
will be required to do, and what knowledge, skills,
and abilities she or he will need.
McCarthy et al. used the key elements and
thirteen others identified by previous research as
being critical to successful structured interviews
(including behaviorally anchored rating scales
and interviewer training). Their sample included
nearly 20,000 people who had applied for
professional positions with the U.S. government.
Demographically, of applicants 59% were men,
34% were women, and 7% declined to provide
their sex. Whites, Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks
were 79%, 7%, 5%, and 4% of applicants,
respectively. Five percent did not report their
race or ethnicity. Of 207 interviewers, 58% were
men, 37% were women, and 5% did not identify
their sex; Whites, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics
comprised 63%, 19%, 4%, and 3% of the
interviewers, respectively, with 11% not pro-
viding their race or ethnicity.
Each candidate had experience-based,
situational, and behavioral interviews. In the
experience-based interview, applicants answer-
ed questions about their qualifications. In the
situational interview, applicants responded to
hypothetical questions that they might ex-
perience at work. In the behavioral interview,
applicants described their behavior in past
situations that was relevant to the job for which
they were being interviewed. Interviewers were
extensively trained on how to conduct and
score the interview, on the importance of
taking notes during the interview, and on rater
errors, and two interviewers evaluated each
candidate.
Findings were clear: Applicants’ race and
sex were not related to their ratings by the
interviewers nor was applicant/interviewer
similarity related to applicants’ ratings. Because
the research involved a very large field sample
that included significant proportions of White,
Black, Hispanic, and Asian applicants and
interviewers, the results of no sex and race
effects and no similarity effects in applicant
ratings have strong implications for selection
decisions. The researchers noted that organi-
zations that adopt carefully structured and
administered interviews can minimize concerns
about discrimination on the basis of race and
sex. The use of highly structured interviews
will help facilitate the selection of a diverse
workforce as well as reduce litigation concerns.
Through requiring structured interviews, and
monitoring results of human resources activities
for fairness, organizational leaders can also
reduce the effects of individual prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination, and bias in HR
systems (see Figure 1.1).
46 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Chapter 9). Again, because men are in positions of power, their propen-
sity is to see this attitude as a positive attribute of men but to judge it as
negative when exhibited by women, which disadvantages women.
Fundamental attribution error. The fundamental attribution error, the
tendency to underestimate the influence of external factors (e.g., situations
or circumstances) and overestimate the influence of internal factors
(e.g., personal qualities) when evaluating the behavior of others, also
occurs during in-group and out-group evaluations. Thus, when in-group
members behave positively or are successful, this behavior is attributed to
the character or personal attributes of in-group members. When they
behave negatively (such as screaming at a subordinate), this behavior is
attributed to the circumstances (e.g., being upset because the computer
system crashed and records were lost). When out-group members exhibit
desirable behaviors, this behavior is attributed to luck or chance rather
than to their character. When they behave negatively (such as screaming
at a subordinate), this behavior is attributed to the character of the out-
group member (e.g., rude, inconsiderate). The entire out-group is also
then viewed as being rude, rather than as having one member who
behaved rudely at a particular point in time. Future interactions with
out-group members will then continue to be shaped by perceptions that
they are rude. Ironically, expecting that someone will be rude may lead to
treating that person rudely, to which they may respond rudely, confirming
the expectation that they (and people like them) are rude.
When confronted with information about an out-group member that is
contradictory to stereotypes, people tend to see this is as “unique” (“not
like the rest of them”22) rather than use it to question and discard their be-
liefs. When confronted with behavior that confirms a stereotype about an
out-group member, people attend to such information and hold to relevant
Source: McCarthy, J. M., Van Iddeking, C. H., & Campion,
M. A. (2010). “Are Highly Structured Job Interviews
Resistant to Demographic Similarity Effects?” Personnel
Psychology, 63: 325–359.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Aside from the diversity-related benefits,
what are some other benefits of structured
job interviews?
2. For your current job or for your most recent
previous job, was your interview a struc-
tured interview? What were the race and
sex of the last three people with whom you
interviewed for a job? Were they similar to
or different from you? Do you think the
similarity or difference played a role in
whether you were hired?
22 Padilla, L. M. (2001). “But You’re Not a Dirty Mexican: Internalized Oppression, Latinos, and the
Law.” Texas Hispanic Journal of Law and Policy, 7(1): 58–113.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 47
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
stereotypes. From a diversity perspective, let us consider the stereotype that
Asians lack communication skills and thus prefer to work in technical jobs
rather than managerial jobs. Let us assume that a decision maker who is
making promotion and succession plans holds this stereotype about Asians.
If this person knows an Asian American who was born and reared in the
United States (and who speaks English as well or poorly as any other
American), he or she is still likely to think Asians as a group do not speak
English well and will not make good managers. Rather than use the
knowledge that this individual Asian has good communication skills as a
reason to question and discard the stereotype, the decision maker is likely
to discard the information as unique to this particular Asian. Were that de-
cision maker to encounter an Asian who preferred the technical promotion
track over the managerial path, he or she would attribute this preference to
the Asian’s lack of communication skills (rather than to a genuine personal
strength or interest), confirming an existing stereotype.
Taking women as another example, if a decision maker holds the
stereotype that women do not have the requisite managerial skills, a
woman who expresses interest in advancing in an organization and is
highly successful in assessment center exercises would still be disadvan-
taged by that stereotypical perception. A successful woman would be
viewed as an anomaly, and her success would be attributed to external
factors (the organization’s desire to increase representation of women in
management, affirmative action, or physical attractiveness), rather than
to her personal strengths and motivation. Were she to enter manage-
ment and fail, this confirmatory failure would be attributed to her (and
women) not having the skills requisite to manage. In actuality, her fail-
ure may be related to the failure of management to provide training,
mentoring, and encouragement due to stereotypes about women
managers.23
Again turning to how these attribution errors disadvantage non-
dominant groups, imagine that those in positions of power—the dominant
group—attribute their own failures to circumstances but their successes to
personal strengths and character. Imagine also that they see the failures
of non-dominant groups as a result of lack of strength and moral charac-
ter and the successes of those groups as due to luck, accident, or chance.
A likely consequence, then, is the tendency to hire, promote, and reward
the in-groups, because they are meritorious, and to not hire, promote, and
reward out-groups, because they clearly are not meritorious. Feature 2.1
23A featured case in Chapter 9 describes a case in which a woman was used as a test to see how
women drivers would fare—expectations for her success were low, however. The woman’s failure as a
delivery driver resulted in the company’s decision to not hire any more women drivers, because it was
clear that they would not work out.
48 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
FEATURE 2.1 The Media and the Promulgation of Stereotypes
News reports, television and movies, and
commercials communicate stereotypes about
perpetrators and victims of crime, gender roles,
age groups, and numerous other diversity
issues.24 People tend to believe what they see on
television and read on news Web sites, implicitly
trusting writers and reporters to be objective
conveyors of what is actually occurring. Yet those
who write and choose stories are not unbiased.
Instead, they are products of a society that views
certain groups as more likely to commit crimes, to
have large families they are unable to support, to
be illegal immigrants, and have other negative
biases reflecting racial, ethnic, gender, and other
stereotypes. Although Whites commit a greater
proportion of drug-related crimes, Blacks and
Latinos are more likely to be shown on television
being arrested for such crimes. Although most
crime is intraracial (e.g., Black on Black or White
on White), news reports are more likely to portray
Black on White crime.25 People of color are also
more prominently portrayed as perpetrators of
crime in the news. One study found that over
fourteen weeks, people of color were shown to
be crime perpetrators in 20% more cases than
would be predicted based on FBI statistics.26
Misperception: Blacks and Latinos commit
more crimes than Whites.
Reality: Blacks and Latinos are more likely to
be arrested than Whites and even more likely
to be depicted on television being arrested
than their actual representation among arrests.
In addition to biased reporting of crimes, the
media’s use of divisive or misleading terminology
causes resistance to diversity. Affirmative action
does not mean quotas, for example, but if the
news media equate them, people will be more
likely to equate them also. Women are working at
some of the highest participation rates in history,
but if 60 Minutes reports that large numbers of
executive women are leaving the workforce to
stay at home, people will believe this is true.
During the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina in
2005, Yahoo! News (online) displayed photos of
the flooding in New Orleans and people wading
through the water with food, drawing the
attention of many people of all racial and ethnic
backgrounds. Whites were reported to be wading
after finding food, while a young Black male was
reported to be wading after looting a store.
Explanations that the photos were taken by two
different reporters and that the descriptive bylines
were the reporters’ words did little to reduce
the perceptions of bias.27 After complaints, at the
request of the photo owner, Yahoo! removed
the photo of the Whites, while the one showing
the Black man remained.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. In addition to racial, ethnic, and gender
stereotyping, what other kinds of stereo-
types have you seen in the media? How do
frequent portrayals of such stereo-
types affect people’s perceptions of their
veracity?
24Nelson (2002). See also Anastasio, P. A., Rose, K. C., & Chapman, K. C. (1999). “Can the Media Create Public Opinion? A Social-
Identity Approach.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5): 152–155.
25For a discussion of intraracial crime compared with interracial crime, see Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D., Montgomery, N., &
Patil, S. (2005). “Exonerations in the United States: 1989 Through 2003.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95: 524–560.
26Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & deCouteau, N. J. (1998). “The Treatment of Persons of Color in Local Television News: Ethnic
Blame Discourse or Realistic Group Conflict?” Communication Research, 25(3): 286–305, cited in Nelson (2002).
27Ralli, T. (2005, September 5). “Who’s a Looter? In Storm’s Aftermath, Pictures Kick Up a Different Kind of Tempest.” New York
Times. Section C, Column 1, p. 6.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 49
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
describes how media portrayals contribute to stereotyping and distorted
perceptions of group members.
Chapter 4 examines how the legacy of slavery and discrimination
has contributed to wealth disparities between Whites and Blacks.
Chapter 7 considers how privileges enjoyed by Whites as “normal”
aspects of everyday life contribute to the “myth of meritocracy.” For
example, when Whites believe that Blacks do not have as much wealth
as Whites have because of failing to invest, to become entrepreneurs,
or to work hard and that Whites have greater wealth because of
hard work, this is an example of the fundamental attribution error.
Making such an error does not allow Whites to see how their
personal, unearned advantages also disadvantage non-dominant group
members. These unearned advantages include such things as networks
in organizations that hire them because of in-group referrals, legacy
admissions to prestigious universities, and inheritance from ancestors
who profited from things denied to Blacks (e.g., union membership and
resulting high wages, homes in neighborhoods reserved for Whites that
appreciated in value).
Multiple group memberships. Multiple group memberships make
relationships between in-groups and out-groups and social identities quite
complex. A White male has a racial identity and a sex or gender identity.
Depending on the circumstances and particular stereotypes, he may per-
ceive Whites or men as the in-group and non-Whites and women as the
out-groups, as appropriate. In some cases, Whiteness may be the most
salient identity, and he may display favoritism toward White women. In
other cases, his maleness may be more salient, and he may favor a Black
man. When stereotyping is included as a factor, he may make different
2. Choose one week night and one weekend
night to watch television during prime time.
Document the programs watched. Who are
the main characters? Describe their race,
sex, approximate age, and other notable
factors. What diversity-related factors do
you observe?
3. One commercial that has attempted to
change what was a stereotypical statement
is the revised Jif ® peanut butter commercial.
Previous commercials said, “Choosy Moms
choose Jif ®”; the newer one says,
“Choosy Moms … and Dads choose
Jif®.” What other stereotype-resistant
commercials have you observed? What
stereotype-supportive commercials have
you observed? What messages are being
conveyed?
4. Investigate the circumstances surrounding
the 2010 Shirley Sherrod/USDA media-driven
disaster. What could have prevented the
disaster from spreading with such fervor?
50 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
decisions. If Blacks are perceived as not reliable, for example, the White male
manager may prefer to hire a White woman. If he views women as likely to
quit work to stay at home with children, he may favor a man of color.
Add religion, sexual orientation, and disability to that White male’s so-
cial identities and the situation becomes even more complex. Imagine
that the White man is also Jewish and gay and has a disability. In some
circumstances, being Jewish or having a disability may be salient. In other
circumstances, his White maleness may be overshadowed by his having a
disability or being gay. These factors would reduce his power and the
perception that he is a member of the in-group of heterosexual, non-
disabled White males. Being gay or having a disability could also affect his
perceptions of and actions toward (other) non-dominant group members.
If his identity as a member of a non-dominant group is salient, this may
increase the likelihood he will see other non-dominant group members less
negatively as well. The experience of heterosexism, for example, may cause
him to see women as individuals with a variety of characteristics rather
than as a monolithic group. Being Jewish may make him view Blacks as
experiencing unfair discrimination and to be supportive of Blacks’ pursuit of
equality. As is evident by these examples, multiple group memberships that
include some non-dominant groups add complexity to the social identity
equation and highlight the need to avoid painting people with broad strokes.
Non-dominant groups as the in-group. When non-dominant groups are the
in-group, the results of the social categorization of people into in-groups and
out-groups are different. Women, for example, may view other women as
having positive attributes and prefer them to men. They may attribute posi-
tive behaviors to the characteristics of women and negative behaviors to
circumstances in which women find themselves. They may attribute negative
behaviors to the characteristics of men and positive behaviors to circum-
stances. Similarly, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians may
attribute positive characteristics to themselves and negative characteristics to
Whites. As discussed earlier, a key difference for women, racial and ethnic
minorities, people with disabilities, and other non-dominant group members
as in-groups is their access to power. Because they are less likely to be in
positions of power, they are less likely to be able to discriminate against men,
Whites, people without disabilities, and other dominant group members.28
It is also important to note that non-dominant group members may
also hold stereotypes about members of their own groups. Instead of
favoring members of their own in-groups, they may stereotype them and
view the dominant group as more likely to have positive attributes. In
research conducted using real teams (rather than those formed in the
28 See Goldman et al. (2006).
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 51
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
laboratory), Jennifer Boldry and Deborah Kashy found that the status of
the group affected perceptions of the homogeneity of out-groups and the
heterogeneity of in-groups.29 Lower-status groups viewed themselves and
high-status groups (their out-groups) as having variation in member char-
acteristics. High-status group members saw themselves and their group as
having heterogeneous characteristics but saw the out-group members as
having homogenous characteristics. Interestingly, the lower-status group
rated the high-status group more favorably in terms of leadership, motiva-
tion, and character than the high-status group members rated themselves.
Boldry and Kashy’s sample included undergraduate freshmen and juniors
participating in a campus Corps of Cadets, a legitimate group for research
purposes but composed of 90% males. The race and ethnicity of the sample
were not reported, but it is to be expected that more diversity in status
characteristics (e.g., race, ethnicity, or sex) would result in different per-
ceptions of the qualities of in- and out-groups. In addition, the out-group
members were striving to become official in-group members as they moved
up the status hierarchy (i.e., become senior members of the Corps), which is
not likely for those who would differ by race, ethnicity, or sex.
It is possible, however, that non-dominant group members (e.g.,
Blacks, Latinos) to a certain extent may “buy in” to the negative stereo-
types about their group and also prefer members of the dominant group,
reflecting internalized racism. Internalized racism occurs when members of
devalued races accept and believe negative messages about their own
abilities and intrinsic worth and those of others of the same race.30,31
Kenneth and Mamie Clark’s “doll studies,” which continue to be repli-
cated decades later, and Jane Elliott’s “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes” experi-
ments have been offered as evidence of the power of racism and continued
messages that one’s group is of low value.32 While many minority group
members resist those negative messages, those who succumb may suffer a
host of negative individual consequences (e.g., depression, hopelessness,
health problems) that affect organizations and society as well.
29Boldry, J. G., & Kashy, D. A. (1999). “Intergroup Perception in Naturally Occurring Groups of Dif-
ferential Status: A Social Relations Perspective.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6):
1200–1212.
30Jones, C. P. (2000). “Levels of Racism: A Theoretic Framework and a Gardener’s Tale.” American
Journal of Public Health, 90(8): 1212–1215; Lipsky, S. (1987). Internalized Racism. Seattle, WA:
Rational Island Publishers; Padilla (2001); Pyke, K., & Dang, T. (2003). “‘FOB’ and ‘Whitewashed’:
Identity and Internalized Racism Among Second Generation Asian Americans.” Qualitative Sociology,
26(2): 147–172; Speight, S. (2007). “Internalized Racism: One More Piece of the Puzzle.” The
Counseling Psychologist, 35: 126–135.
31Internalized sexism, ageism, heterosexism, and ableism, and associated negative outcomes also can
occur.
32Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. P. (1950). “Emotional Factors in Racial Identification and Preference in
Negro Children.” The Journal of Negro Education, 19(3): 341–350; Peters, W. (1987). A Class
Divided: Then and Now. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
52 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
There are many other negative consequences of stereotyping in addi-
tion to people internalizing negative beliefs. As we discuss in later chap-
ters, name-based discrimination, job steering based on who is thought to
be suited to certain jobs (e.g., by sex, race, physical appearance), and
customer racial profiling are just a few of these negative consequences.
Organizational Feature 2.1 provides an example of how perceived racial
profiling can result in lost business both from customers who are profiled
and from other customers.
Individuals clearly suffer from being stereotyped, but organizations
experience negative consequences as well. For example, a common fear is
that young people, particularly minorities, are likely shoplifters. In a large
study in an Atlanta store, however, unobtrusive observers found that
shoppers aged 35–54 were most likely to steal and that non-Whites and
Whites were equally likely to steal. Rather than a race, sex, or age cate-
gory, people who exhibited certain behaviors were most likely to be
shoplifters: leaving the store without making a purchase, scanning the
premises looking for surveillance cameras, and tampering with products.33
If retailers focused training on avoiding stereotypes and paying attention
to behaviors, shrinkage due to shoplifting might be significantly reduced.
AVERSIVE RACISM, AMBIVALENT SEXISM, AND OTHER NEW ISMS
Overt demonstrations of intentional discrimination are considerably less
likely in the twenty-first century than they have been in the past. How-
ever, researchers have identified contemporary, different forms of racism,
including aversive, symbolic, and new racism. Aversive racism occurs
when those who ostensibly adhere to egalitarian values and believe them-
selves to be unprejudiced still possess negative feelings and beliefs about
racial issues and minority group members. Unlike those who practice tra-
ditional, overt racist behavior, those who hold aversive racist beliefs do
not openly discriminate, but when their actions can be justified by some
other factor (e.g., lack of “fit” or some other factor other than race), they
are likely to exhibit aversive racist behaviors. Multiple studies have docu-
mented the existence of this form of racism across times and settings, and
it could be considered more troublesome than traditional racism. People
who hold traditional racist beliefs might state them openly, but aversive
racists espouse egalitarian beliefs, making efforts to identify and change
their true beliefs more difficult.
33 Dabney, D. A., Hollinger, R. C., & Dugan, L. (2004). “Who Actually Steals? A Study of Covertly
Observed Shoplifters.” Justice Quarterly, 21: 693–728.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 53
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
ORGANIZATIONAL
FEATURE 2.1
Negative Consequences of Bad Check Accusation
The appearance of making decisions on the basis
of stereotypical beliefs generated considerable
negative publicity for Walmart when Reginald
Pitts, a Black man and the human resources
manager at GAF Materials, went to a Tampa
area Walmart to purchase 510 gift cards for
company employees and was assumed to be
using a bad check.34 GAF, the biggest roofing
systems maker in the United States with $1.6
billion in revenues the year prior to the incident,
had been purchasing about $50,000 worth of gift
cards at Walmart for several years. The gift cards
were typically picked up by a White female
administrator, but because she was on vacation,
Pitts decided to get the gift cards himself. He
phoned in the order and went to Walmart with a
$13,000 company check, his driver’s license,
and his GAF business card. When called, a
GAF accounting supervisor assured store
managers that the check was good, but the
store managers still told Pitts they were having
trouble verifying the check. While he waited
more than two hours at the customer service
desk, two Black Walmart employees told
Pitts that similarly large transactions by other
customers had been processed without
delay and suggested he was being closely
scrutinized because he was Black.
When Pitts asked for the check to be
returned so he could purchase the cards
elsewhere, the store managers refused to
return the check and continued stalling. They
had called the Hillsborough County sheriff.
When the deputies arrived, one grabbed Pitts,
telling him they needed to talk with him about
the “forged check” and that Walmart had called
them to report a felony. Pitts said he thought he
was going to jail.
After nineteen minutes of reviewing the
“evidence,” the deputies concluded there were
no grounds for a criminal charge and returned
the check to Pitts. Pitts said that the Walmart
store manager told him he “did what he had to
do” and “have a great day, sir.” “I keep going
over and over the incident in my mind. I cannot
come up with any possible reason why I was
treated like this except that I am black,” said
Pitts.
GAF and Pitts lodged complaints with Walmart,
which opened its own investigation. Walmart
conceded the situation was “handled very
poorly” but said that Walmart does not
tolerate racial profiling or discrimination. Four
Walmart officials called Pitts to apologize for
the incident, including Lawrence Jackson, the
executive VP of Walmart’s “People” Division
(Human Resources). According to Pitts, Jackson
“said that he was apologizing as one HR
manager to another and as one African-American
to another.”
After the “totally humiliating” experience of
Mr. Pitts, GAF purchased the employees’ gift
cards at Target instead. In addition to that lost
business, apparently other customers, after
significant media coverage, were also incensed
and took their business elsewhere. Samantha
34Albright, M. (2005, December 2). “Racial Profiling Feared at Walmart.” St. Petersburg Times. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/02/
Tampabay/Racial_profiling_fear.shtml, accessed July 28, 2010; Albright, M. (2005, December 10). “Ugly Walmart Tale Resonates.”
St. Petersburg Times. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/10/Business/Ugly_Wal_Mart_tale_re.shtml, accessed July 28, 2010; “Walmart
Apologizes to Man for Bad Check Accusation.” USAToday, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-02-walmart-check_x.htm?
csp=34, accessed July 28, 2010.
54 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
In one study, John Dovidio and Samuel Gaertner documented the
change in White participants’ expression of prejudiced beliefs between
1989 and 1999, finding significantly fewer instances in 1999.35 Even so,
the researchers did find that, when making selection decisions, partici-
pants who expressed prejudicial beliefs (i.e., traditional racism) at both
points were less likely to select Blacks, regardless of the qualifications of
the Black candidates. Those who did not express prejudicial beliefs
showed no differences in rates of recommendation when qualifications for
either Blacks or Whites were particularly high. When qualifications were
ambiguous—neither particularly strong, nor particularly weak—Whites
were more frequently recommended than similarly qualified Blacks. Thus,
when qualifications were strong and discrimination could be easily
identified, aversive racists made similar recommendations for Blacks and
Whites. When qualifications were ambiguous and decisions could be at-
tributed to factors other than discrimination (e.g., “fit” or “personality”),
aversive racists made fewer selection recommendations for Blacks.
Dovidio and Gaertner suggested that this behavior may be based in part
on the fundamental attribution error (discussed earlier) and reflective of
Whites’ tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to ambiguously qualified
in-group members but not to out-group members. As we discuss in
Chapter 4, Blacks with similar financial qualifications are less likely to be
approved for credit (e.g., loans, mortgages) than Whites, which may also
indicate in-group favoritism and out-group bias.
In another complex study, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Tyrone Forman
investigated changes in Whites’ reported racial attitudes, hypothesizing
that recent changes overstate the amount of positive change in racial
attitudes.36 Using qualitative and quantitative data drawn from 732
Devine, an office manager at a medical clinic, had
planned to go to Walmart to buy holiday gift cards
for coworkers. When she heard what Pitts had
encountered there, Devine said, “It made me so
angry I haven’t set foot in a Walmart since.”
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. What assumptions might the store manager
have made about Mr. Pitts?
2. Given the risk of retaliation from manage-
ment if found out, what factors may have
motivated the Black store employees to tell
Mr. Pitts that other customers had pro-
cessed large checks without hassle?
3. What specific procedures could be imple-
mented at stores so that this kind of thing
does not occur?
35 Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). “Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions.” Psychological
Science, 11(4): 315–319.
36 Bonilla-Silva, E., & Forman, T. (2000). “‘I’m Not a Racist, But …’: Mapping White College Students’
Racial Ideology in the USA.” Discourse and Society, 11: 50–85. See also Pager, D., & Quillian, L. (2005).
“Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do.” American Sociological Review, 70:
355–380.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 55
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
university students (who, it has been argued, are less prejudiced than
others), Bonilla-Silva and Forman found that students avoided the ap-
pearance of holding discriminatory beliefs in surveys, but interview data
presented a different picture. “I’m not a racist … but …” preceded state-
ments expressing hostile attitudes toward racial minorities; beliefs that
minorities, rather than systematic discrimination, were responsible for
their own situations; and belief in the existence of reverse discrimination,
among other things. The researchers urged caution in concluding that ra-
cial attitudes were improving, suggesting that “racetalk” and “colorblind
racism” were replacing the expression of traditionally racist attitudes that
are no longer widely acceptable.
Symbolic racists use symbols, rather than race, to attempt to explain
their resistance to equality.37 For example, symbolic racists are not
against integrated schools but think forced busing is unfair, and they may
argue that they are not against affirmative action, per se, but think it pro-
vides unqualified people with unearned advantages. “New” and “mod-
ern” racism are similar to other contemporary forms of racism and reflect
people’s decreasing willingness to express overtly racist beliefs, but their
propensity is to behave in discriminatory ways when provided a rationale
or justification for doing so.38 Highly structured interviews, mentioned
earlier, can be helpful in reducing these problems in hiring decisions.
Ambivalent sexism is the simultaneously holding of both hostile
(“women are incompetent at work”) and “benevolent” (“women must be
protected”) sexist beliefs about women.39 Hostile sexism is an antipathy
toward women based on faulty and inflexible generalization (e.g., nega-
tive stereotypes). Benevolent sexism is defined as a set of interrelated
attitudes toward women that are sexist (stereotypical) and at the same
perceived as positive by the attitude holder (e.g., helping, attraction).40
Benevolent sexism might be manifested by comments to a female co-
worker on her appearance, which could undermine her being taken seri-
ously at work,41 or by finishing her sentences, which could make her
appear timid and unassertive. Although benevolent sexism is viewed less
negatively than hostile sexism, it is still detrimental to women.42
37Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). “Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats to the Good Life.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40: 414–431.
38See Chapter 4 for a discussion of research by Art Brief and his colleagues on new racism and recom-
mendations for hiring.
39Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and
Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3): 491–512.
40Ibid.
41Ibid.
42Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). “The Burden of Benevolent Sexism: How It Contributes to the
Maintenance of Gender Inequalities.” European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(5): 633–642.
56 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Neosexism is similar to aversive racism; it occurs when people’s
reported egalitarian values conflict with negative attitudes toward
women.43 The existence of neosexism has been documented in studies
conducted in the United States, Slovenia, and Croatia, among other
areas.44 It could be argued that similar aversive attitudes exist toward
other non-dominant groups. Reporting egalitarian attitudes toward gays
and lesbians but resisting equitable work-related benefits for them or
reporting egalitarian attitudes toward people with disabilities but resisting
accommodations for them as expensive or unfair to people without
disabilities are possible examples.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Efforts to combat stereotypes must be purposeful. As we have discussed,
when confronted with information that is contradictory to their stereotypes,
people tend to see the situation as “unique” rather than using it to question
and begin discarding their beliefs. When faced with behavior that confirms
stereotypes, people attend to such information instead of recognizing that
there is variation among members of all groups. Indeed, it is likely that
every stereotype will apply to individuals from many different groups.
With concerted effort, motivated people can in some cases deactivate
stereotyping and stop automatic categorization and discriminatory actions.
Kerry Kawakami and colleagues have empirically investigated the
effects of training on stereotype reduction. They found that practice in
negating stereotypes results in reduced activation of stereotypes.45 Adam
Galinsky and Gordon Moskowitz have also found that perspective taking
helps to reduce stereotyping and some of its negative consequences.46
Even without formal training, we can and should work consciously, as
individuals, to resist stereotyping, in-group favoritism, and out-group
biases. Awareness of these processes is an important step, as is organiza-
tional support of equity. We should question ourselves and our beliefs,
attitudes, and behavior toward dissimilar others.
43 Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). “Neosexism: Plus Ça Change, Plus C’est
Pareil.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8): 842–849.
44 Frieze, I. H., Ferligoj, A., Kogovsek, J., Rener, T., Hovat, J., & Sarlija, N. (2003). “Gender-Role
Attitudes in University Students in the United States, Slovenia, and Croatia.” Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 27: 256–261.
45 Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). “Just Say No (to Stereo-
typing): Effects of Training in the Negation of Stereotypic Association on Stereotype Activation.” Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5): 871–888.
46 Galinsky, A., & Moskowitz, G. (2000). “Perspective Taking: Decreasing Stereotype Expression,
Stereotype Accessibility, and In-Group Favoritism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78(4): 708–724.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 57
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Because aversive racists are unaware that they hold prejudiced atti-
tudes and genuinely think they are unbiased, efforts to change their preju-
dices are necessarily different from attempts to change those who openly
acknowledge and express overt prejudice. Dovidio and Gaertner suggest
several strategies that may be employed to help people reduce their pro-
pensities to stereotype and the in-group–out-group categorizations that
people seem to make automatically.47 Their analyses indicate the follow-
ing measures may be effective:
● Lead aversive racists to see the inconsistencies in their behaviors and
their stated values, thereby developing cognitive dissonance and the
desire to reduce it. Active efforts to reduce dissonance will help aver-
sive racists reduce and ultimately eliminate automatic activation of
stereotypes in interactions with out-group members.
● Engage group members in activities to achieve common, superordi-
nate goals. Doing so will reduce perceptions of competition between
in-groups and out-groups while increasing perceptions of cooperation.
● Encourage groups to perceive themselves as members of a single,
superordinate group, rather than as two separate groups. Doing so
will help create a common identity and result in in-group favoritism
that includes both groups.
In an organizational setting, group members who view themselves as
part of the organization working for the same employer, pursuing the
organization’s vision and mission, and competing against others in the
industry will be more likely to see their diverse group as the in-group
working toward the same goal. In organizations in which diversity is
embraced and valued and discrimination and exclusion are not tolerated,
those who would exclude and limit based on characteristics such as race,
sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, ability, and other irrelevant factors
at work should be viewed as undesirable out-groups working against the
important organizational goal of diversity, equality, and inclusion.
In addition to working to reduce discrimination based on stereotyping
and social categorization processes, organizational monitoring and control
measures should be implemented. Diverse recruitment and selection teams,
supervisors and managers, and legitimate selection criteria would be help-
ful at organizational entry. Interviews should be highly structured, and
interviewers should be trained in proper procedures and errors and biases.
Salary decisions should be made based on job requirements, as should
training, development, promotion, and termination decisions, and should
be monitored regularly by the human resources staff. Organizational
47Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). “Reducing Prejudice: Combating Intergroup Biases.” Cur-
rent Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4): 101–105.
58 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
leaders must be willing to implement policies and monitoring and control
measures supportive of diversity throughout their organizations. Although
some researchers have questioned the efficacy of prejudice reduction
programs,48 what is certain is that organizational leadership, zero toler-
ance for discrimination, and control and monitoring can and do affect
behaviors at work.
SUMMARY
In this chapter, we have considered factors
that characterize minority, or non-
dominant, groups and have provided a
rationale for determining “What is a
minority?” yet we have acknowledged that
identifiability, power, discrimination, and
group awareness vary among non-
dominant groups. We have incorporated
research from social psychology to help
understand prejudice, stereotyping, and
social categorization. These social pro-
cesses were linked to behaviors that sup-
port or hinder diversity in organizations
and to some specific examples that will be
discussed in subsequent chapters. When
made on the basis of stereotyping and
social categorization, job-related decisions
(hiring, firing, compensation, promotion
and advancement, training, job placement,
etc.) are problematic. We presented mea-
sures to reduce stereotyping, aversive rac-
ism, and other aversions.
Although it is impossible to consider
every theory and psychological process re-
lated to diversity, readers should now be
aware that along with the deliberate, overt
categorization of different others, underly-
ing, unconscious processes are also in-
volved. Behaviors described in some of the
lawsuits and settlements presented in the
chapters to follow are indicative of overt,
conscious differential treatment. Both overt
and unconscious discrimination often re-
sult from people’s propensity to stereotype
and see members of certain groups as more
or less appropriate for certain jobs (e.g.,
women as secretaries versus truck drivers).
It is these unconscious propensities that are
most insidious and difficult to eradicate. As
some lawsuits show, some employers ver-
balize their stereotypical perceptions, but
many simply act on them, so the individual
affected has little or no concrete evidence
of discrimination.
When adopting the idea that diversity is
valuable to individuals and organizations,
individuals should be aware of both overt
discrimination and the unconscious pro-
cesses that result in discrimination. Willing-
ness to listen, think, understand, and grow
in learning about diversity issues will be
helpful in improving positive outcomes.
KEY TERMS
Ambivalent sexism — the simultaneous
holding of both hostile and “benevolent”
sexist beliefs about women; for example,
“women are incompetent at work” and
“women must be protected.”
48Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). “Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice.”
Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 339–367.
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 59
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Aversive racism — the holding of egali-
tarian values and beliefs that one is
unprejudiced but still possessing negative
feelings and beliefs about racial issues and
minority group members.
Benevolent sexism — a set of interrelated
attitudes toward women that are sexist
while they are perceived as positive by the
attitude holder.
Descriptive stereotyping — perceptions
about how people do or will behave, based
on their group memberships.
Discrimination — differential and pejora-
tive actions that serve to limit the social,
political, or economic opportunities of
members of particular groups.
Egalitarian — one who believes in human
equality, particularly regarding social,
political, and economic rights and
privileges.
Fundamental attribution error — the ten-
dency to underestimate the influence of
external factors (e.g., situations or cir-
cumstances) and overestimate the influ-
ence of internal factors (e.g., personal
qualities) when evaluating the behavior of
out-group members.
Hostile sexism — antipathy toward
women based on faulty and inflexible
generalizations (negative stereotypes).
Internalized racism — the acceptance and
belief by members of devalued races in
negative messages about their own abilities
and intrinsic worth and those of others of
the same race.
Neosexism — the conflict between peo-
ple’s reported egalitarian values and their
negative attitudes toward women.
Prejudice — irrational, negative evalua-
tions of a group.
Prescriptive stereotyping — perceptions
about how people should behave, based
on their group memberships.
Social identity — the part of an indivi-
dual’s self-concept that derives from his or
her membership in a social group and the
value and emotional significance attached
to that group membership.
Stereotypes — overgeneralizations of
characteristics to large human groups.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. This chapter discusses many identities
and multiple group memberships that
people have. If you were to describe
the important parts of your identity,
what would be on your list? Make
a list, and then rank order the most-
to-least important aspects of your
identity. Which are immediately
apparent to others?
2. As a powerful group, elected officials
affect the life chances of the populace.
How are elected officials in the area in
which you live similar to or different
demographically from the population
in that area?
3. Researchers have found that people are
less willing to express “traditionally”
prejudiced beliefs than in the past, but
their behavior does not agree with es-
poused beliefs. How can such dispari-
ties in expressed beliefs and actions
undermine diversity in organizations?
What organizational measures can be
implemented to investigate whether
there are inconsistencies in expressed
60 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
beliefs, behaviors, and outcomes
related to diversity in organizations?
4. Choose an aspect of your identity in
which you are a member of the domi-
nant racial, ethnic, sex, or religious
group. Have you experienced being the
minority in a situation (e.g., White
among many Blacks, Asians, or Lati-
nos; Christian in the United States
among many Jews)? If you are a racial
minority, have you experienced being a
minority among others of color (e.g.,
Asian among many Blacks; Latino
among many Asians) rather than
among Whites? If you are a man, have
you experienced being the minority in
a meeting at work or at school in a
class? If you are a woman, have you
experienced being the minority in a
meeting at work or at school in a class?
What were these experiences of being a
“minority” like?
ACTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. Discuss stereotypes with a trusted
friend or family member. What kinds
of job-related stereotypes is he or she
aware of? (Note that awareness of
stereotypes does not mean belief in the
veracity of the stereotype.) Discuss
how these stereotypes can negatively
affect individuals’ job opportunities
and advancement. Can you think of a
person who is not a member of the
stereotyped group who fits the stereo-
typical characteristic? Can you think
of a person who is a member of the
stereotyped group who doesn’t fit the
stereotype?
2. Using a local newspaper (San
Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune,
Dallas Morning News, etc.), a campus
or university newspaper, and a com-
munity or city newspaper, locate stor-
ies that include photos of people in the
story. Make a table of the type of story
(human interest, business news, crime,
etc.), race, ethnicity, sex, and estimated
age of the subject. What diversity-
related observations can be made from
the table?
3. Locate a newspaper that has an exec-
utive or business section that includes
“promotions,” “executive changes,”
or other career moves. If there are
photos of the people involved, list their
race, ethnicity, and sex. If names only
are provided, determine the sex of the
person, where possible. What obser-
vations can you make from your list?
Chapter 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity 61
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER
3Legislation
Chapter Objectives
After completing this chapter, readers should have
a firm understanding of diversity-related laws,
executive orders, and court rulings in the United
States and selected diversity-related laws in other
countries. Specifically, they should be able to:
❏ explain the historical background of and
rationale behind specific diversity-related
legislation in relation to race, sex, religion, age,
disability, and work and family status.
❏ discuss events in several notable diversity-
related lawsuits in the United States.
❏ describe components and limitations of diversity
legislation and discuss why complying with laws
is an important aspect of a diversity program.
❏ explain reasons organizations may pursue diversity
and inclusion even in the absence of legislation.
❏ discuss research on the relationship between
race and sex of judges and decision making in
discrimination and harassment claims.
1
“EEOC Reports Job Bias Hit Record High of Nearly 100,000 in
Fiscal Year 2010.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/
1-11-11.cfm, accessed January 12, 2011.
Key Facts
Although the Equal Pay Act has been in
existence for five decades, women in the
United States still earn less than 80 cents for
each dollar that men earn. Sex segregation
limits the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act.
Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act is the
country’s most comprehensive civil rights
legislation, prohibiting discrimination on the
basis of race, sex, religion, and national
origin, but discrimination persists.
Charges of discrimination reached their
highest ever in 2010; retaliation surpassed
race as the highest allegation.1
In the United Kingdom and Australia, age
discrimination against applicants and
employees of any age is prohibited, yet in the
United States, age discrimination is only
illegal against those who are 40 or older.
Compliance with laws is a necessary
component of valuing diversity but, alone,
is not evidence of valuing diversity.
Minority and female judges look at evidence
and make decisions differently than do White
and male judges, which strongly establishes
the need for diversity in the judiciary.22Chew, P. K., & Kelley, R. E. (2009). “Myth of the Color-Blind Judge:
An Empirical Analysis of Racial Harassment Cases.” Washington Uni-
versity Law Review, 86: 1117–1166; Peresie, J. L. (2005). “Female
Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decision Making in the Federal
Appellate Courts.” Yale Law Journal, 114(7): 1759–1790.
63
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Introduction and Overview
Although equal opportunity laws have existed in
the United States for nearly fifty years, a brief
review of the recent listing of lawsuits on the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Web
site provides accounts of allegations of discrimina-
tion, harassment, and retaliation against employees
based on race, sex, age, national origin, disability,
and religion. Organizations involved include Fortune
100, 500, and 1000 companies, universities, not-
for-profit organizations, minority-owned businesses,
churches, and other reputable organizations. Ironi-
cally, some of these organizations have been recog-
nized as award-winning leaders in diversity, with
mentoring programs, employee resource groups,
broad nondiscrimination policies, and other pro-
grams supportive of diversity. Many of the illegal
acts cited in the lawsuits were taken against work-
ers who are unaware of the relevant laws (including
young workers in their first jobs and people who
have worked for many years), who may not have
received diversity training in school or at work, and
who may think they have no recourse. Although
some employers and managers are fully aware of
the illegality of their actions, some who engage in
discrimination may also have not received any train-
ing and may be unaware of relevant laws.
Refusing to hire valuable workers or terminating
or constructively discharging (making work so un-
bearable that people quit) them and failing to follow
the organization’s guidelines on harassment and dis-
crimination are poor management practices and can
result in the negative consequences discussed in
Chapter 1. In addition to the moral and social issues
involved in such cases, the many potential benefits
of diversity delineated by Cox and Blake are not re-
alized. Excluding qualified applicants and continuing
to search for similarly qualified applicants wastes
organizational resources. Recruiting and training
money spent on those hired but terminated for
nonperformance reasons is wasted, and the result-
ing recruitment and training costs incurred for their
replacements are unnecessary. Likely conse-
quences also are lowered productivity of affected
workers and their peers and increased medical
costs and absence related to stress. Customers
who experience discriminatory treatment or learn
of discrimination against employees may choose to
do business elsewhere. Given these and other
problems, why do individuals within companies
and organizational practices persist in overt discrimi-
nation and exclusion? What can be done to help
organizations avoid these unfair, costly, and counter-
productive practices?
Chapter 1 considered some of the reasons that
organizations should value diversity, for example,
financial and marketing advantages, the increasing
diversity of the workforce, and globalization, reasons
that are the major foci of this book. But the laws, exec-
utive orders, and court decisions surrounding and
motivating, for some, interest in diversity issues are
critical as well. Without such stimuli, many of the
diversity-related actions that organizations have taken
within the last five decades would not have been
taken. It is important to understand the rationale
behind such legislation, the specific areas covered,
the prohibitions, and the limitations. However, we reit-
erate that to focus on avoiding litigation is a shallow
approach, which is unlikely to reap the benefits associ-
ated with truly valuing diversity or to encourage man-
agers to sincerely pursue diversity.
Despite the media and managerial attention
generated by large damage awards, relative to the
numbers of applicants and employees, few people
litigate each year, for various reasons. One reason is
that discrimination claims typically must be filed
within a certain period after the alleged discrimina-
tory act; another is that people are often unaware
that discrimination, whether overt or covert, has
occurred. Recall from Chapter 2 that the overt and
verbalized discrimination that was quite common in
the past is now less likely to be expressed verbally,
although discriminatory decisions are still made.
When people are aware of discrimination and have
some proof, they may not have the resources to sue
64 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
and the EEOC may be unwilling to litigate individual
cases. But compliance with the law is still extremely
important, if only by reason of the increasing
diversity of the workforce, globalization, and interna-
tional competition. Yet abiding by the laws, although
necessary, is not a sufficient goal.
Those countries that have no antidiscrimination
legislation could benefit from learning about the
spirit of such laws and the cases derived from
them. What can organizations learn that is useful in
establishing diversity? What should organizations do
to ensure that people have the opportunity to work
and be treated fairly in order that the many individ-
ual, organizational, and societal benefits of diversity
are realized? Similar questions exist for customers—
What can organizations learn to ensure that custo-
mers are valued, regardless of their demographic
background, religion, sexual orientation, or other
irrelevant factors?
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Most of the important U.S. legislative, judicial, and executive branch
decisions that have affected diversity in organizations emerged in the early
1960s and continued through the end of the twentieth century. The
stimuli for this activity included important societal issues, such as overt
social and employment discrimination against women and Blacks as well
as against other people of color, those of different religions, older
workers, and people with disabilities. The discrimination prevented these
people from obtaining or maintaining employment or subjected them to
unfair treatment once employed, and it contributed to large wage, income,
and quality-of-life disparities between people of color and Whites.3
Resistance to discrimination, in the form of marches, boycotts, and sit-ins,
resulted in the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and
numerous subsequent legislation. Over time, as societal issues have
evolved, so has legislation, which has responded to the increasing diversity
among the population and the clear need to attend to new and different
issues.
In this chapter, we consider these laws in chronological order because
when they went into effect provides insights into how and when societal
recognition of the need for addressing significant diversity issues emerged.
We also include examples of EEOC litigation and settlements in some
specific areas. The Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) at times litigate employment and customer discrimination,
respectively; some of those cases are discussed in remaining chapters.
3Because of shared family income, White women married to White men suffered fewer negative eco-
nomic effects of employment-related discrimination. Never-married, divorced, and widowed White
women suffered more of the negative effects of employment discrimination.
Chapter 3: Legislation 65
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
After completing this chapter, readers should have a firm and broad
understanding of U.S. legislation and enforcement agencies related to
diversity in organizations. Later chapters provide more details and cases
specifically related to the chapter topic.
MAJOR FEDERAL ACTS RELATED TO DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
In this chapter, we cover laws, executive orders, and judicial decisions,
which, for brevity, we refer to as legislation or acts. Because U.S.
law prohibits discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or over), disability, or genetics,
every applicant or employee has some recourse if discrimination
occurs. Most employers, labor unions, and employment agencies are
forbidden to discriminate on the basis of those factors in hiring and
firing; compensation, assignment, or classification of employees; trans-
fer, promotion, layoff, or recall; job advertisements; recruitment; test-
ing; use of company facilities; training and apprenticeship programs;
fringe benefits; pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or other
terms and conditions of employment. Also prohibited are harassment
on the basis of one’s demographic group memberships, employment
decisions based on stereotypes about ability because of such group
memberships, and retaliation for filing a claim of discrimination or
complaining about it or marriage to or affiliation with individuals of a
particular group.4 These broad prohibitions imply that people should
be allowed to work without regard to their group memberships; they
are the foundation of diversity-related legislation. In recent years,
people have filed more discrimination charges than ever for violations
of these prohibitions. This trend can be attributed to multiple factors,
including greater accessibility of the EEOC to the public and changes
in its practices, such as requiring fewer steps to file a charge, economic
conditions, employees becoming more aware of their rights under
the law, and increased diversity and demographic shifts in the labor
force.5
Figure 3.1 lists the major federal acts regarding diversity issues and
their provisions. In the following sections, we discuss the broad categories
of protections and sample cases in which the laws were used.
4http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm, accessed October 2, 2010.
5
“EEOC Reports Job Bias Hit Record High of Nearly 100,000 in Fiscal Year 2010.”
66 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
FIGURE 3.1 Chronology of Major U.S. Federal Acts Affecting Diversity in Organizations
Act Provisions
Emancipation Proclamation (1863) Freeing slaves allowed Blacks the opportunity to work for wages rather
than as slaves.
Executive Order 8802 (1941) Requires equal employment opportunities for all American citizens,
regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin.
Equal Pay Act of 1963 Requires women and men to be paid equally for equal work.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin in employment-related matters.
Executive Orders for Affirmative Action
(EO 11246 in 1965 and 11375 in 1966)
Require employers to take affirmative steps to prevent discrimination in
employment, including taking proactive measures to ensure hiring and
promotion of minorities (men and women) and women (White and
women of color).
The Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967
Prohibits employment-related discrimination against persons aged 40 or
older. Exceptions can be made for bona fide occupational qualifications.
Some countries (United Kingdom, Australia) and states (Michigan) pro-
hibit all age discrimination.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Precursor to the ADA. Prohibits discrimination against federal employees
with disabilities and requires the federal government and contractors to
take affirmative action in the hiring, placement, and advancement of
people with disabilities and to make reasonable accommodations to
allow them to work.
Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment
Assistance Act of 1974
Prohibits discrimination against Vietnam-era and other veterans and
requires affirmative action for them.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 An amendment to Title VII that clarifies Title VII’s prohibition against
discrimination on the basis of sex, including pregnancy, childbirth, and
related medical conditions. Requires employers to treat pregnancy
similarly to other temporary disabilities for medical and benefits-related
purposes.
EEOC Guidelines on Sexual
Harassment 1980
Defines sexual harassment, formally acknowledging it as a form of sex
discrimination prohibited by Section 703 of Title VII, and suggests
affirmative steps employers may take to prevent sexual harassment. The
EEOC uses these guidelines in enforcement, and many courts rely on
them in decisions.
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of
1990
An amendment to the ADEA of 1967. Prohibits employers from
denying benefits to older workers but allows reductions in benefits
based on age, as long as the employers’ costs of providing benefits to
older workers are the same as their costs for providing benefits to
younger workers.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Prohibits employment-related discrimination against people with
physical and mental disabilities for employers of fifteen or more people
in the private sector and in state and local government. Requires
employers to make reasonable accommodation for those otherwise
qualified to work but does not require affirmative action for people with
disabilities.
Chapter 3: Legislation 67
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963
The Equal Pay Act of 1963, an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) of 1938, was the first major act relevant to diversity in
organizations. The Equal Pay Act is now enforced by the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission (discussed in the following section) but
between 1963 and 1979 was enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor.
Because the act covers those who are also covered by the FLSA, virtually
all employers are subject to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act, which
was an attempt to address pay inequities between men and women. In
1963, at the time the act went into effect, women earned about 59 cents
to the dollar that men earned. Nearly fifty years later, women working
full-time, year-round still earn less than 80 cents to the dollar that men
earn—a substantial improvement, but a significant difference nonetheless.
Jobs are considered to be equivalent, or substantially similar, when
they require similar skill, effort, and responsibility, are in the same
organization, and are performed under similar conditions. However, these
Act Provisions
Civil Rights Act of 1991 An amendment to Title VII of the CRA of 1964. Provides for compensa-
tory and punitive damages (limited to $300,000) in cases of intentional
discrimination and harassment; allows for jury trials; extends the cover-
age of act to U.S. citizens working abroad for U.S. companies; estab-
lished Glass Ceiling Commission (now disbanded).
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 Allows certain employees to take up to 12 weeks’ unpaid leave to care
for a spouse, child, or parent, or for a personal illness. Employers must
maintain employees’ benefits and offer the same or a substantially simi-
lar job upon employees’ return from leave. In 2010, broadened the defi-
nition of “son” or “daughter” to include those performing parental roles,
including same-sex partners, grandparents, and others.
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
Act of 2008
Prohibits the use of genetic information, including family medical history,
in employment decisions; restricts the acquisition of genetic information;
prohibits harassment based on genetic information; and prohibits the
disclosure of genetic information.
Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act of 2008
Emphasizes that the definition of disabilities should be construed broadly
and should not generally require extensive analysis, making it easier
for those seeking protection under the ADA to establish a disability.
Expands the meaning of “major life activities” to include episodic
impairments or those in remission.
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 Restores the pre-Ledbetter position of the EEOC that with every
discriminatory paycheck, a new clock starts for the 180-day (or 300-day)
period to file a claim.
FIGURE 3.1 Chronology of Major U.S. Federal Acts Affecting Diversity in Organizations (Continued)
68 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
requirements for “equivalence” severely limit the effectiveness of the
Equal Pay Act. Men typically work with other men, and women typically
work with other women. This phenomenon, termed sex segregation, takes
place when at least 70% of incumbents in a particular job are male or
female. Employer stereotyping and steering are contributors to sex-
segregated jobs, the issue in the Polycon Industries case, settled in 2010.
Polycon Industries to Pay $170,000 to Settle EEOC Suit Over Sex-Segregated
Workforce6
Agency Charged that Merrillville Plastics Manufacturer Refused to Promote
Women into Higher-Paying Jobs and Placed Female New Hires into Lower-
Paying Posts
A plastics product manufacturer will pay $170,000 to settle a sex discrimination
lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The EEOC charged that Polycon Industries vio-
lated federal law by refusing to promote female employees into its higher-
paying production positions. The EEOC also charged that Polycon considered
gender when placing new hires into entry-level positions, to the detriment of
female new hires, who were overwhelmingly placed into lower-paying entry-
level jobs. In addition to the monetary settlement, the consent decree requires
Polycon to affirmatively take action to place new hires and promote females in
a nondiscriminatory manner, comply with prohibitions against further discrimi-
nation, post and distribute a policy of nondiscrimination, train its employees,
and report to the EEOC.
In addition to employer actions like those described in the Polycon
case, many other factors contribute to sex segregation of jobs, including
gender role socialization. Gender role socialization is the process by which
social entities—families, friends, organizations, the media—form and
shape expectations of acceptable behaviors (and jobs) for men and
women. People are socialized to view certain jobs as appropriate for
women and others as appropriate for men. Because “women’s jobs” (such
as receptionist and elementary school teacher) typically pay less than
“men’s jobs” men’s jobs (such as manager and high school principal), this
seemingly innocent sorting plays an important role in gender pay inequity.
Seemingly valid exceptions due to merit and seniority that disadvantage
women have also limited the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act. Exceptions
6Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-15-10.cfm,
accessed October 2, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 69
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
to the equal pay requirement are allowed when there are differences based
on the employees’ job seniority, merit (e.g., skill, education), or perfor-
mance. These exceptions are generally accepted as legitimate by employers,
employees, and unions but may serve to reduce the effectiveness of the
Equal Pay Act. That an employee who has worked for the company longer,
who has more job-related skill, and better performance would earn more
than one who has less tenure, skill, and lower performance appears logical
to most people. For a variety of reasons, however, men on average have
more seniority than do women. Some of those reasons are viewed as being
“voluntary,” such as intermittent work due to child and elder care respon-
sibilities. Other reasons include past sex discrimination by unions and
employers that kept women out of jobs, reserving them instead for (White)
men. Although now illegal, such discrimination that occurred in the past
has resulted in men having longer tenure and therefore able to enjoy the
benefits that go along with it. Those benefits include higher seniority-based
pay, more vacation, and, perhaps most important, more protection from
layoffs, as the last hired are often the first fired.
In addition to the problems of the apparently neutral practice of
favoring those who have more seniority, judgments about skill, merit, and
performance are not always objective. This subjectivity, and people’s
propensity to prefer those who are similar, may disadvantage members of
non-dominant groups, including women.
Effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act. Although the effectiveness of the Equal
Pay Act has been limited by sex segregation and seemingly legitimate
exceptions, it is still credited with helping to reduce the pay gap between
men and women. In the early 1960s, pay disparities between men and
women were considerably greater than they are now. Women working full-
time earned less than 60 cents to each dollar that men earned. The wage
gap remained about the same until the early 1980s when women’s wages
reached about 75 cents to the men’s dollar. However, women’s wages seem
to have plateaued, even though women are obtaining more education and
working more hours than in the past. Some researchers argue that the wage
gap is largely due to women’s “choices” of careers, fields of study, time
spent out of the workforce, and fewer hours worked when compared with
men. Chapter 9 considers in more detail the role of “choice” in women’s
and men’s careers, fields of study, workforce participation, and hours
worked and provides evidence that gender role socialization and societal
expectations affect these “choices” to a great degree.
Litigation under the Equal Pay Act. Although sex segregation limits the
effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act, it does not negate the act’s usefulness.
Litigation provides evidence of sex-based pay disparities—as prohibited by
the act. Several significant cases have been resolved in the litigants’ favor,
70 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
including those involving women working in male-dominated fields being
paid less than similarly situated men. Settlements have been obtained for
female engineers, controllers, truckers, machine operators, teachers, uni-
versity professors, and jail guards in individual or class action cases.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is considered to be the
most comprehensive act in terms of diversity and civil rights.7 It prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual
harassment or pregnancy discrimination), and national origin in
employment-related matters. Title VII covers the great majority of
employers, including:
1. all private employers, state and local governments, and educational
institutions that employ fifteen or more individuals for twenty or
more weeks per year.
2. private and public employment agencies.
3. labor organizations.
4. joint labor-management committees controlling apprenticeship and
training.
5. companies incorporated or based in the United States or that are con-
trolled by U.S. companies employing U.S. citizens outside the United
States or its territories.
The inclusion of employment agencies and labor organizations in
Title VII acknowledges their important role in controlling access to jobs.
The EEOC can and does sue such agencies when they engage in
discrimination, as described in the following case.
Area Temps Agrees to Pay $650,000 for Profiling Applicants by Race, Sex,
National Origin and Age8
Temporary Agency Complied with Discriminatory Placement Requests,
Fired Employees Who Opposed Unlawful Practices, EEOC Alleged
7Wolkinson, B. (2000). “EEO in the Workplace, Employment Law Challenges,” Module 8. In
E. E. Kossek & R. Block (Eds.), Managing Human Resources in the 21st Century. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western Publishing p. 75.
8Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-27-10.cfm,
accessed December 12, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 71
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Area Temps, a Northeast Ohio temporary agency, agreed to pay $650,000 to
resolve a class discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC charged
that the temporary agency considered and assigned (or declined) job applicants
by race, sex, Hispanic national origin, and age. The EEOC also alleged Area
Temps unlawfully complied with discriminatory requests made by its clients
based on race, sex, national origin, and age, and unlawfully fired two of its
employees in retaliation for their opposition to Area Temps’ discriminatory
practices and for one employee’s participation in the EEOC’s investigation.
In addition to monetary relief, the three-year consent decree settling the suit
requires the company to post a notice of resolution regarding this lawsuit that
is visible to employees. The company must also provide a notice-of-resolution
letter to all applicants, management and selecting officials, and outside clients
on the obligations of the company under federal antidiscrimination laws, as well
as Area Temps’ commitment to abide by such laws.
Certain employers are excluded from coverage under Title VII,
including private membership clubs, religious organizations, schools,
associations, or organizations hiring American Indians on or near reser-
vations. For those organizations operating solely within the confines of
the exclusion, certain types of discrimination are not illegal.
Disparate treatment occurs when an applicant or employee is treated
differently because of membership in a protected class. Refusing to hire
Blacks as restaurant servers or men as child care workers constitutes
disparate treatment, also referred to as intentional discrimination.
Evidence of such treatment would include statements by employers or writ-
ten policies—items that are often difficult to verify or obtain. Common
stereotypes about abilities, traits, or performance of people belonging to
certain groups may lead to disparate treatment; for example, the stereotype
that women have limited math skills could result in women purposely not
being assigned to jobs requiring math skills. Assuming applicants who have
Hispanic names will have limited English skills and refusing to interview
them is another way that stereotypes could lead to disparate treatment.
Disparate or adverse impact occurs when an apparently neutral,
evenly applied job policy or employment practice has a negative effect
on the employment of people belonging to protected classes. It is
demonstrated by statistical evidence showing that people in a protected
class were disproportionately affected by a particular “neutral” practice.
This type of discrimination, also referred to as unintentional discrimina-
tion, might occur through educational requirements or height and weight
restrictions that may exclude large numbers of certain groups.
72 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Evenly applied, neutral practices that disproportionately exclude
members of certain groups should be carefully scrutinized. Are the
requirements legitimate for successful job performance? Are there no
other nondiscriminatory alternatives that would still allow for successful
performance? Title VII does not require employers to hire, promote, or
retain people who do not meet job requirements. Instead, Title VII
requires employers to pay careful attention to job requirements and
employment decisions to ensure that members of certain groups are
not excluded by factors that are not clearly related to successful
performance. From an employment perspective, constraining the
applicant pool through selection requirements that do not help identify
those who would be better performers is ineffective, costly, and, often,
discriminatory.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII created the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which began
operating on July 2, 1965. The EEOC’s mission is to “promote equality
of opportunity in the workplace and enforce federal laws prohibiting
employment discrimination.”9 During the first year of operation, the
EEOC received 9,000 complaints—four times the number expected,
demonstrating the gravity and pervasiveness of discrimination in the
United States. A primary role of the EEOC is investigating complaints of
discrimination, conciliating when complaints are deemed meritorious, and
litigating when efforts to resolve complaints through conciliation are
unsuccessful. Instead of litigating, the EEOC may also issue complainants
a “Right-to-Sue-Notice,” allowing them to file individual actions in court
(without the EEOC’s involvement).
Although an average of about 85,000 claims have been filed with the
EEOC for the past decade, relatively few claims result in resolutions for
plaintiffs. As shown in Table 3.1, the percentage of all cases ending
with merit resolutions was about 21% over the period. These “merit
resolutions” include settlements, withdrawals with benefits, and concilia-
tions; $319.4 million was recovered for affected parties in 2010. On the
other hand, about 60% of charges were deemed to have no reasonable
cause. Despite media attention and managers’ fears, EEOC charges, liti-
gation, settlements, and damage awards are unlikely events. Even so, the
EEOC plays a vital role in enforcing various laws, issuing guidelines to
assist employers in interpreting and complying with laws, and providing
individuals with a voice in employment-related treatment.
9http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm, accessed October 7, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 73
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
T
A
B
L
E
3
.1
E
E
O
C
C
h
a
rg
e
R
e
ce
ip
ts
a
n
d
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
U
n
d
e
r
T
it
le
V
II
,
A
D
A
,
A
D
E
A
,
a
n
d
E
P
A
fo
r
2
0
0
0
–
2
0
1
0
F
Y
2
0
0
0
F
Y
2
0
0
1
F
Y
2
0
0
2
F
Y
2
0
0
3
F
Y
2
0
0
4
F
Y
2
0
0
5
F
Y
2
0
0
6
F
Y
2
0
0
7
F
Y
2
0
0
8
F
Y
2
0
0
9
F
Y
2
0
1
0
R
e
ce
ip
ts
7
9
,8
9
6
8
0
,8
4
0
8
4
,4
4
2
8
1
,2
9
3
7
9
,4
3
2
7
5
,4
2
8
7
5
,7
6
8
8
2
,7
9
2
9
5
,4
0
2
9
3
,2
7
7
9
9
,9
2
2
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
9
3
,6
7
2
9
0
,1
0
6
9
5
,2
2
2
8
7
,7
5
5
8
5
,2
5
9
7
7
,3
5
2
7
4
,3
0
8
7
2
,4
4
2
8
1
,0
8
1
8
5
,9
8
0
1
0
4
,9
9
9
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
b
y
T
y
p
e
S
e
tt
le
m
e
n
ts
7
,9
3
7
7
,3
3
0
8
,4
2
5
8
,4
0
1
8
,6
6
5
8
,1
1
6
8
,5
0
0
8
,8
3
4
8
,8
3
1
8
,6
3
4
9
,7
7
7
8
.5
%
8
.1
%
8
.8
%
9
.6
%
1
0
.2
%
1
0
.5
%
1
1
.4
%
1
2
.2
%
1
0
.9
%
1
0
.0
%
9
.3
%
W
it
h
d
ra
w
a
ls
w
it
h
B
e
n
e
fi
ts
3
,7
5
3
3
,6
5
4
3
,7
7
2
3
,7
0
0
3
,8
2
7
4
,0
7
2
4
,0
5
2
4
,1
2
2
4
,7
9
0
4
,8
9
2
5
,3
9
1
4
.0
%
4
.1
%
4
.0
%
4
.2
%
4
.5
%
5
.3
%
5
.5
%
5
.7
%
5
.9
%
5
.7
%
5
.1
%
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
ti
v
e
C
lo
su
re
s
1
9
,1
5
6
1
8
,6
3
6
1
9
,6
3
3
1
5
,2
6
2
1
5
,4
1
6
1
2
,6
5
9
1
2
,2
9
8
1
2
,8
6
5
1
6
,6
1
5
1
6
,1
8
9
1
7
,3
3
0
2
0
.5
%
2
0
.7
%
2
0
.6
%
1
7
.4
%
1
8
.1
%
1
6
.4
%
1
6
.6
%
1
7
.8
%
2
0
.5
%
1
8
.8
%
1
6
.5
%
N
o
R
e
a
so
n
a
b
le
C
a
u
se
5
4
,5
7
8
5
1
,5
6
2
5
6
,5
1
4
5
5
,3
5
9
5
3
,1
8
2
4
8
,0
7
9
4
5
,5
0
0
4
2
,9
7
9
4
7
,1
5
2
5
2
,3
6
3
6
7
,5
2
0
5
8
.3
%
5
7
.2
%
5
9
.3
%
6
3
.1
%
6
2
.4
%
6
2
.2
%
6
1
.2
%
5
9
.3
%
5
8
.2
%
6
0
.9
%
6
4
.3
%
R
e
a
so
n
a
b
le
C
a
u
se
8
,2
4
8
8
,9
2
4
6
,8
7
8
5
,0
3
3
4
,1
6
9
4
,4
2
6
3
,9
5
8
3
,6
4
2
3
,6
9
3
3
,9
0
2
4
,9
8
1
8
.8
%
9
.9
%
7
.2
%
5
.7
%
4
.9
%
5
.7
%
5
.3
%
5
.0
%
4
.6
%
4
.5
%
4
.7
%
S
u
cc
e
ss
fu
l
C
o
n
ci
li
a
ti
o
n
s
2
,0
4
0
2
,3
6
5
1
,9
4
0
1
,4
3
2
1
,2
1
7
1
,3
1
9
1
,1
4
1
1
,1
3
7
1
,1
2
8
1
,2
4
0
1
,3
4
8
2
.2
%
2
.6
%
2
.0
%
1
.6
%
1
.4
%
1
.7
%
1
.5
%
1
.6
%
1
.4
%
1
.4
%
1
.3
%
U
n
su
cc
e
ss
fu
l
C
o
n
ci
li
a
ti
o
n
s
6
,2
0
8
6
,5
5
9
4
,9
3
8
3
,6
0
1
2
,9
5
2
3
,1
0
7
2
,8
1
7
2
,5
0
5
2
,5
6
5
2
,6
6
2
3
,6
3
3
6
.6
%
7
.3
%
5
.2
%
4
.1
%
3
.5
%
4
.0
%
3
.8
%
3
.5
%
3
.2
%
3
.1
%
3
.5
%
M
e
ri
t
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
1
9
,9
3
8
1
9
,9
0
8
1
9
,0
7
5
1
7
,1
3
4
1
6
,6
6
1
1
6
,6
1
4
1
6
,5
1
0
1
6
,5
9
8
1
7
,3
1
4
1
7
,4
2
8
2
0
,1
4
9
2
1
.3
%
2
2
.1
%
2
0
.0
%
1
9
.5
%
1
9
.5
%
2
1
.5
%
2
2
.2
%
2
2
.9
%
2
1
.4
%
2
0
.3
%
1
9
.2
%
M
o
n
e
ta
ry
B
e
n
e
fi
ts
(M
il
li
o
n
s)
*
$
2
4
5
.7
$
2
4
7
.8
$
2
5
7
.7
$
2
3
6
.2
$
2
5
1
.7
$
2
7
1
.6
$
2
2
9
.9
$
2
9
0
.6
$
2
7
4
.4
$
2
9
4
.2
$
3
1
9
.4
N
o
te
:
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
er
fo
r
R
ec
ei
p
ts
re
fl
ec
ts
th
e
n
u
m
b
er
o
f
in
d
iv
id
u
al
ch
ar
ge
fi
li
n
gs
.
B
ec
au
se
in
d
iv
id
u
al
s
o
ft
en
fi
le
ch
ar
ge
s
cl
ai
m
in
g
m
u
lt
ip
le
ty
p
es
o
f
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
,
th
e
n
u
m
b
er
o
f
R
ec
ei
p
ts
fo
r
an
y
gi
ve
n
fi
sc
al
ye
ar
w
il
l
b
e
le
ss
th
an
th
e
to
ta
l
o
f
th
e
ra
ce
,
se
x
,
se
x
u
al
h
ar
as
sm
en
t,
p
re
gn
an
cy
,
n
at
io
n
al
o
ri
gi
n
,
re
li
gi
o
n
,
re
ta
li
at
io
n
(n
o
t
sh
o
w
n
),
ag
e,
d
is
ab
il
it
y,
eq
u
al
p
ay
,
an
d
G
IN
A
ch
ar
ge
s
sh
o
w
n
in
T
ab
le
3
.2
.
*
D
o
es
n
o
t
in
cl
u
d
e
m
o
n
et
ar
y
b
en
ef
it
s
o
b
ta
in
ed
th
ro
u
gh
li
ti
ga
ti
o
n
.
So
u
rc
e:
A
ll
St
at
u
te
s,
F
Y
1
9
9
7
T
h
ro
u
gh
F
Y
2
0
1
0
,
h
tt
p
:/
/w
w
w
.e
eo
c.
go
v/
ee
o
c/
st
at
is
ti
cs
/e
n
fo
rc
em
en
t/
al
l.
cf
m
,
ac
ce
ss
ed
M
ar
ch
1
0
,
2
0
1
1
.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
As with many federal agencies, many of the EEOC’s resources are
allocated to helping organizations comply with the law, rather than
focused on penalizing them for violations. One of these resources is EEOC
guidelines issued to educate employers (and thus prevent illegal actions).
The EEOC defines harassment in employment settings as “bothering,
tormenting, troubling, ridiculing, or coercing” a person because of race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age, all of which forms
of harassment are increasing in frequency.10
Race and national origin. Under Title VII, it is illegal to discriminate
against someone because of his or her race, color, birthplace, ancestry,
culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a particular ethnic group.
Because of the extreme and pervasive discrimination against Blacks in the
United States, they were the primary racial group for whom the protec-
tions of Title VII were originally intended. Other racial and ethnic groups,
including Latinos, Asian Americans, American Indians, and Arab
Americans, have also benefited from the provisions of Title VII. Recently,
discrimination on the basis of national origin has been on the increase;
many complaints involve low-wage earners and immigrants in the fishing,
poultry, and agricultural industries, many of whom have limited English
proficiency and few other employment options. As described in the
following case, the EEOC often targets multiple acts of discrimination.
Albertsons Agrees to Pay $8.9 Million for Job Bias Based on Race, Color,
National Origin, Retaliation11
EEOC Says Employees Subjected to Swastikas, Lynching Drawings, Epithets
Albertsons, LLC, a national grocery chain, agreed to pay $8.9 million and fur-
nish other relief to settle three employment discrimination lawsuits filed by the
EEOC. The EEOC had charged Albertsons with race, color, and national origin
discrimination and retaliation at its Aurora, CO, distribution center. The mone-
tary relief will be distributed among 168 former and current employees. The
first case was filed in 2006 and alleged a pattern or practice of workplace ha-
rassment and discrimination based on race, color, and national origin. According
to the lawsuit, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory
comments, name-calling, and graffiti. Moreover, the EEOC alleged that, the
10 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Public Affairs. (1992). Issue Codes.
Washington, D.C.: EEOC, p. 68.
11 Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-15-09.cfm,
accessed October 3, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 75
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
offensive graffiti included racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swasti-
kas, and white supremacist and anti-immigrant statements. Some of this graffiti
remained for years until the restroom was remodeled in 2005. The EEOC also
charged that minority employees were given harder work assignments and
were more frequently and severely disciplined than their white coworkers. The
EEOC charged that managers were aware of, and even participated in, the
harassment and discrimination.
In the second lawsuit, filed in 2008, the EEOC alleged a pattern or practice of
retaliation in which dozens of employees who had complained about the
discriminatory treatment and harassment were subsequently given the harder
job assignments, passed over for promotion, and even fired as retaliation. The
third case alleged race discrimination on behalf of a single African American
employee at the distribution center who was terminated.
EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru said, “Employers simply cannot
overlook or tolerate this kind of outrageous discrimination and retaliation.”
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill said, “The graffiti was particularly
shocking. Employers need to aggressively criticize such conduct, seek out the
culprits and take swift action.” Besides the monetary relief, Albertsons agreed
to submit to four years of court-ordered monitoring and to institute an exten-
sive training program to ensure that management is aware of and will comply
with equal employment opportunity laws in the future.
In addition to prohibiting the kind of egregious harassment just described
(disparate treatment), apparently neutral practices, such as English-only
rules, may be in violation of Title VII, unless the employer has a business
necessity for them. English-only rules are allowable only when needed to
ensure the safe or efficient operation of a business and only when imple-
mented for nondiscriminatory reasons. In addition, employment decisions
may not be made based on an employee’s foreign accent, unless the accent
seriously interferes with job performance.12
Sex. Under Title VII, it is illegal to discriminate against someone because
of his or her sex or gender in all employment-related matters.13 Overt em-
ployment discrimination against women was rampant at the time Title VII
12National Origin Discrimination, http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm, accessed
October 3, 2010.
13See Chapter 9 for a discussion of the Ann Hopkins case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court first speci-
fied that it was illegal to discriminate on the basis of perceptions about how someone of a particular
sex should behave (gender).
76 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
was passed; some reports maintain that the inclusion of prohibitions
against sex discrimination in the act was a last-ditch effort by conservative
Southern legislators to ensure that it did not pass. Other research contra-
dicts this claim, noting that feminists had been fighting for such legislation
for a long time. Regardless of different beliefs about why prohibitions
against sex discrimination were included in Title VII, it is clear that some
aspects of discrimination applied more to women than to Black men, who
obtained the right to vote (in theory, if not in practice) before White
women did.14 Despite persistent sex discrimination, harassment, and sex-
based pay differences, Title VII has been very beneficial to working women
in the United States. Although men who experience sex discrimination are
also covered by Title VII, it is women who remain the primary targets. In
2010, $129.3 million was recovered for plaintiffs, as shown in Table 3.2.
Title VII has also been applied to sex-based discrimination against
men. One case against Hooters restaurant alleged such discrimination,
even though Hooters is known for scantily clad female servers.15 In
another case, Jillian’s, a nationwide chain of family dining/entertainment
facilities with headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, agreed to settle a class
action lawsuit in which at least 100 men alleged sex discrimination. The
EEOC alleged that Jillian’s maintained sex-segregated job classifications
and failed to hire and/or transfer men to more lucrative server positions
because they were men. Jillian’s agreed to pay $350,000 in damages to
men in Indianapolis, to hire and place employees at all its facilities with-
out regard to sex, to train its managers on Title VII’s regulations against
sex discrimination, and to post nondiscrimination notices at all facilities
and on its employment applications.16
Along with prohibitions against sex discrimination in hiring, firing,
promotions, and other commonly recognized aspects of employment, Title
VII prohibits sex discrimination in the form of pregnancy discrimination
and sexual harassment, discussed later in the chapter. Its prohibition
against gender discrimination (discrimination due to failure to comply
with expected roles for men or women, as discussed further in Chapter 9)
has been supported by a Supreme Court ruling.17
Religion. Title VII provides people of different or no religious beliefs
with protection against employment-related discrimination. Employers are
14 For many years, poll taxes, threats, and intimidation prevented Black men from exercising their right
to vote.
15 http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-21-95.cfm, accessed March 13, 2011.
16
“Jillian’s to Pay $360,000 for Sex Discrimination Against Men.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/
newsroom/release/archive/8-13-04.html, accessed March 10, 2011.
17 See the Ann Hopkins case in Chapter 9.
Chapter 3: Legislation 77
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
T
A
B
L
E
3
.2
E
E
O
C
C
h
a
rg
e
R
e
ce
ip
ts
,
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s,
a
n
d
S
e
tt
le
m
e
n
ts
b
y
S
ta
tu
te
,
2
0
1
0
E
q
u
a
l
P
a
y
R
a
ce
S
e
x
S
e
x
u
a
l
H
a
ra
ss
m
e
n
t
P
re
g
n
a
n
cy
N
a
ti
o
n
a
l
O
ri
g
in
R
e
li
g
io
n
A
g
e
D
is
a
b
il
it
y
G
IN
A
R
e
ce
ip
ts
1
,0
4
4
3
5
,8
9
0
2
9
,0
2
9
1
1
,7
1
7
6
,1
1
9
1
1
,3
0
4
3
,7
9
0
2
3
,2
6
4
2
5
,1
6
5
2
0
1
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
1
,0
8
3
3
7
,5
5
9
3
0
,9
1
4
1
2
,7
7
2
6
,2
9
3
1
2
,4
9
4
3
,7
8
2
2
4
,8
0
0
2
4
,4
0
1
5
6
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
b
y
T
y
p
e
S
e
tt
le
m
e
n
ts
1
1
8
3
,3
2
5
3
,1
3
8
1
,4
1
7
8
1
3
9
1
7
3
3
0
2
,2
5
0
2
,5
9
7
3
1
0
.9
%
8
.9
%
1
0
.2
%
1
1
.1
%
1
2
.9
%
7
.3
%
8
.7
%
9
.1
%
1
0
.6
%
5
.4
%
W
it
h
d
ra
w
a
ls
w
it
h
B
e
n
e
fi
ts
9
0
1
,5
6
7
1
,7
7
4
1
,1
9
5
5
6
7
5
3
5
2
0
3
1
,3
2
2
1
,4
5
6
2
8
.3
%
4
.2
%
5
.7
%
9
.4
%
9
.0
%
4
.3
%
5
.4
%
5
.3
%
6
.0
%
3
.6
%
A
d
m
in
is
tr
a
ti
v
e
C
lo
su
re
s
2
0
3
5
,0
1
8
5
,7
2
7
2
,9
0
7
1
,0
2
5
2
,0
0
8
6
2
6
4
,1
6
7
3
,9
8
0
1
1
1
8
.7
%
1
3
.4
%
1
8
.5
%
2
2
.8
%
1
6
.3
%
1
6
.1
%
1
6
.6
%
1
6
.8
%
1
6
.3
%
1
9
.6
%
N
o
R
e
a
so
n
a
b
le
C
a
u
se
6
1
4
2
6
,3
1
9
1
8
,7
0
9
6
,3
9
3
3
,6
7
0
7
,9
1
0
2
,3
0
9
1
6
,3
0
8
1
5
,1
8
2
3
8
5
6
.7
%
7
0
.1
%
6
0
.5
%
5
0
.1
%
5
8
.3
%
6
3
.3
%
6
1
.1
%
6
5
.8
%
6
2
.2
%
6
7
.9
%
R
e
a
so
n
a
b
le
C
a
u
se
5
8
1
,3
3
0
1
,5
6
6
8
6
0
2
1
8
1
,1
2
4
3
1
4
7
5
3
1
,1
8
6
2
5
.4
%
3
.5
%
5
.1
%
6
.7
%
3
.5
%
9
.0
%
8
.3
%
3
.0
%
4
.9
%
3
.6
%
S
u
cc
e
ss
fu
l
C
o
n
ci
li
a
ti
o
n
s
2
5
3
7
7
4
7
5
3
0
8
1
0
2
1
7
7
7
3
2
5
2
4
3
9
1
2
.3
%
1
.0
%
1
.5
%
2
.4
%
1
.6
%
1
.4
%
1
.9
%
1
.0
%
1
.8
%
1
.8
%
U
n
su
cc
e
ss
fu
l
C
o
n
ci
li
a
ti
o
n
s
3
3
9
5
3
1
,0
9
1
5
5
2
1
1
6
9
4
7
2
4
1
5
0
1
7
4
7
1
3
.0
%
2
.5
%
3
.5
%
4
.3
%
1
.8
%
7
.6
%
6
.4
%
2
.0
%
3
.1
%
1
.8
%
M
e
ri
t
R
e
so
lu
ti
o
n
s
2
6
6
6
,2
2
2
6
,4
7
8
3
,4
7
2
1
,5
9
8
2
,5
7
6
8
4
7
4
,3
2
5
5
,2
3
9
7
2
4
.6
%
1
6
.6
%
2
1
.0
%
2
7
.2
%
2
5
.4
%
2
0
.6
%
2
2
.4
%
1
7
.4
%
2
1
.5
%
1
2
.5
%
M
o
n
e
ta
ry
B
e
n
e
fi
ts
(M
il
li
o
n
s)
*
$
1
2
.6
$
8
4
.4
$
1
2
9
.3
$
4
8
.4
$
1
8
.0
$
2
9
.6
$
1
0
.0
$
9
3
.6
$
7
6
.1
$
0
.0
8
*
D
o
es
n
o
t
in
cl
u
d
e
m
o
n
et
ar
y
b
en
ef
it
s
o
b
ta
in
ed
th
ro
u
gh
li
ti
ga
ti
o
n
.
So
u
rc
e:
E
n
fo
rc
em
en
t
an
d
L
it
ig
at
io
n
St
at
is
ti
cs
,
h
tt
p
:/
/w
w
w
.e
eo
c.
go
v/
ee
o
c/
st
at
is
ti
cs
/e
n
fo
rc
em
en
t/
in
d
ex
.c
fm
,
ac
ce
ss
ed
Ja
n
u
ar
y
1
2
,
2
0
1
1
(s
ee
se
p
ar
at
e
li
n
k
s
fo
r
ra
ce
,
se
x
,
se
x
u
al
h
ar
as
sm
en
t,
p
re
gn
an
cy
,
n
at
io
n
al
o
ri
gi
n
,
re
li
gi
o
n
,
re
ta
li
at
io
n
(n
o
t
sh
o
w
n
),
ag
e,
d
is
ab
il
it
y,
eq
u
al
p
ay
,
an
d
G
IN
A
ch
ar
ge
s)
.
78 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
prohibited from treating applicants or employees more or less favorably
because of their religious beliefs or practices. Employers are also required
to make reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held reli-
gious beliefs or practices, with flexible scheduling, job reassignments,
lateral transfers, and other means that do not impose undue hardship.
Lawsuits filed in 2010 by the EEOC against Walmart and Supercuts
alleged that after years of accommodating employees’ requests not to
work on their Sabbath, management began refusing to do so. Statements
from employees and the EEOC emphasize the diversity-related contra-
dictions associated with the employers’ actions.
Walmart Sued for Religious Discrimination18
After 15 Years Observing Sabbath, Employee Required to Work Sundays
On October 1, 2010, the EEOC filed a federal lawsuit against Walmart for
disciplining and threatening to fire an assistant manager at its Colville, WA,
store when he refused to violate his religious beliefs. Richard Nichols, a devout
Mormon, began working for Walmart in 1995, started as a manager at the
Colville store in 2002, and observes the Sabbath by doing no work of any
kind (including household chores or shopping). From 1995 to 2009, Walmart
accommodated his request for leave on Sundays, but in the fall of 2009, the
company revised its scheduling system and refused to continue accommodat-
ing Nichols.
“For the last 15 years, I have loved working for Walmart,” Nichols said. “I enjoy
what I do and the people I work with. But this refusal to take into account my
religious needs is causing me a great amount of stress. I’m afraid I’ll be fired for
choosing my religion over my work; it’s not a choice I want to have to make.”
“Where there is a conflict between an employee’s religious beliefs and work
rules, the law mandates that employers make a sincere effort to accommodate
those beliefs,” said Luis Lucero, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office.
“Walmart’s refusal to explore any workable solutions with Nichols is not
only illegal but short-sighted. Why would anyone treat a long-time, dedicated
employee this way?”
Chapter 3: Legislation 79
18 Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-1-10c.cfm,
accessed October 3, 2010.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Supercuts Sued for Religious Discrimination19
Hair Salon Refused to Accommodate Stylist’s Sabbath
On October 1, 2010, the EEOC filed a federal lawsuit charging Supercuts hair
salon with religious discrimination for requiring a stylist employed at their
Pleasant Hill, CA, salon to work on her Sabbath and firing her when she
refused to violate her religious beliefs. Carolyn Sedar, a stylist and shift
manager, observes Sabbath and does not work on Sundays. According to
the lawsuit, Sedar began working for Supercuts in 1999 and store managers
accommodated her religious beliefs until November 2008 when a new store
manager scheduled Sedar for a Sunday shift. Sedar submitted three written
complaints to and had several conversations with the store and district man-
agers informing them that she could not work on her Sabbath. Supercuts re-
fused to excuse Sedar from the Sunday schedule, even after she gave officials
a copy of the EEOC’s guidance on religious discrimination, and fired Sedar after
she refused to work two consecutive Sundays.
Sedar said, “the Bible says that I should not work on Sabbath and I could not
violate that tenet even though my beliefs cost me a job that I loved.” EEOC
San Francisco District Director Michael Baldonado noted that “Ms. Sedar
worked for the company for nine years under several store managers who
accommodated her Sabbath without incident. When a new manager scheduled
Ms. Sedar to work on Sundays, she made every effort to inform Supercuts that
its actions were unlawful. Now they are facing a lawsuit.”
According to EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney William R. Tamayo,
“many of these requests can be handled easily. For example, Supercuts could
have permitted Ms. Sedar to swap shifts with coworkers, as they had done
already for almost a decade. Supercuts could not show that excusing Sedar
from work on her Sabbath would impose an undue hardship.”
Although these cases have not been resolved, a similar suit was settled
in August 2009 by the EEOC’s Memphis District Office against the parent
company of Supercuts (doing business as Smartstyle) for failing to accom-
modate an employee who observed Sabbath on Sundays. In 2003, Super-
cuts had settled another lawsuit that alleged it had discriminated against a
19Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-1-10f.cfm,
accessed October 8, 2010.
80 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
White regional manager who refused to participate in discrimination
against Black employees. The company settled the suit for $3.5 million
and said it would train hundreds of managers on nondiscriminatory prac-
tices, yet blatant discrimination persisted.20
In both the Walmart and Supercuts religious discrimination cases, the
EEOC first attempted to reach a prelitigation settlement and, when it was
not reached, filed suit seeking back pay and other monetary losses and
compensatory and punitive damages for appropriate injunctive relief to
prevent future discrimination. Along with avoiding discrimination and
making reasonable accommodations of employees’ sincerely held religious
beliefs, the EEOC encourages employers to put in place antiharassment
policies that include religious harassment. Title VII has been helpful, for
example, to many Muslims who faced overt discrimination and harassment
after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. As
shown in Table 3.2, in 2010, the EEOC received 3,790 charges of religious
discrimination, resolved 3,782 charges (including some from previous
years), and recovered $10.0 million in monetary benefits for complainants
and other aggrieved parties.21 The EEOC has issued “Guidelines on
Discrimination Because of Religion” and “Guidelines on Religious Exercise
and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace” that may help
employers to create a supportive climate for religious diversity.22
Exceptions: Bona fide occupational qualifications and business
necessity. In a limited number of situations, discrimination on the basis of
sex, religion, and age is not illegal. Bona fide occupational qualifications
(BFOQs) refer to certain situations in which employers may require that
all employees hold a certain characteristic. For sex as a BFOQ, for exam-
ple, an employer could legitimately require that women model evening
gowns, that a male be hired to play a leading man in a movie, or that
women work in dressing or changing rooms in a lingerie shop. Age may
be a BFOQ in certain circumstances when it is “reasonably necessary to
the normal operation of the business.” Mandatory retirement of pilots
and age limits for public safety officers are examples of the narrow legal
use of age limits. Religion could be a BFOQ for particular religious orga-
nizations. An organization may also claim that a particular practice re-
sulting in disparate impact (but not disparate treatment) is a “business
necessity.” For business necessity to be a valid defense, the employer must
20
“Supercuts to Pay $3.5 Million for Race Bias and Train Hundreds of Managers, in EEOC
Settlement.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-13-03.cfm, accessed October 8, 2010.
21
“Religion-based Charges, 1997–2009.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/religion.cfm,
accessed January 12, 2011.
22 http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/New/html/19970819-3275.html, accessed April 6, 2011.
Chapter 3: Legislation 81
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
demonstrate that there is no alternative practice that would serve the same
purpose without having the discriminatory effect.
Although the aforementioned situations are cases in which discrimi-
nation may not be illegal, organizations should emphasize using legitimate
job-related qualifications and attending to what is actually required,
rather than simply discriminating when it is not illegal to do so. When
organizations are able to remove obstacles to employment for larger pro-
portions of the population, organizations, individuals, and all of society
stand to benefit.
Affirmative Action in Employment
In 1965 and 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued key executive or-
ders for affirmative action in employment. These orders are administered
and enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Con-
tract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). Executive Orders (EO) 11246 and
11375, as amended, prohibit federal contractors with over $10,000 in
government business per year from discriminating in employment deci-
sions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In
addition to prohibiting discrimination, these orders require proactive
measures—affirmative action—to help ensure equality of employment op-
portunities for women and minorities. Government contractors having
fifty or more employees and at least $50,000 in government contracts are
required to develop an affirmative action plan for each of their
establishments.
Affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs (AAP) are
written programs or plans that help employers identify areas in which
women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and Vietnam-era veterans are
underutilized in the employers’ workforce. A utilization analysis is a com-
parison of the population of underrepresented groups in the surrounding
or relevant (for recruiting purposes) labor market to how many people
from those groups are present in the organization, by particular job cate-
gories. If there is a lower proportion of women and minorities in the orga-
nization than in the available labor market, underutilization is indicated
and the organization should implement plans to correct this. Whereas
Title VII is passive, in that it prohibits discrimination, affirmative action
requires taking action—taking steps to correct or reduce underutilization.
Legitimate plans to correct underutilization might include additional
training programs or different recruitment methods, not “quotas,” which
are generally illegal. Employers may not legally implement quotas, and
only in unique cases of blatant discrimination may a judge impose quotas
on an offending employer. Judges are reluctant to do this, however, even
82 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
in cases of egregious discrimination. Rather than imposing quotas, judges
will recommend that employers pay careful attention to recruiting prac-
tices and set hiring goals for the group that experienced discrimination.
Misperception: Affirmative action programs require employers to have hiring
“quotas” if minorities or women are underutilized.
Reality: Employers should have goals and timetables for correcting underutili-
zation; employer-imposed quotas are illegal and judges are reluctant to impose
them.
In a sex discrimination case involving Walmart, the EEOC alleged
that the company regularly hired male applicants for warehouse positions
while excluding equally or better qualified woman applicants, using gen-
der stereotypes in filling the positions. Hiring officials allegedly told
women applicants that such positions were not suitable for women. As
part of the settlement of the case, Walmart agreed to fill the next fifty
available positions with female class members.23
Recruitment is an important and accepted means of increasing num-
bers of qualified applicants from diverse backgrounds. If an organization
is underutilizing women, for example, it might alter recruitment efforts to
include universities with a large percentage of women students, such as
Smith College, Texas Woman’s University, or St. Mary’s College in
Indiana. Organizations wishing to increase representation of racial and
ethnic minorities might include recruiting at universities such as the
University of Texas at El Paso, University of California at San Diego, or
Baruch College in New York, which have high percentages of Latinos, or
historically Black universities such as Southern University, Prairie View
A&M University, or North Carolina A&T. Advertising in media that
target specific groups, such as Essence or Ebony magazine (Blacks),
Univision or Latina Style (Hispanics), is a simple and an easy means of
increasing the diversity of the applicant pool. By changing recruiting
venues or methods, people from diverse backgrounds have more opportu-
nities to compete for job openings.
Periodic compliance reviews by the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP—the monitoring agency) can help
employers identify problem areas and corrective action. Compliance
reviews seek to change personnel routines (e.g., hiring, promotion) that
23
“Walmart to Pay More Than $11.7 Million to Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Suit.” http://www
.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-1-10.cfm, accessed September 3, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 83
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
might result in discrimination.24 These reviews are different from liti-
gation in response to individuals’ complaints. EEOC compliance reviews
can result in substantial damage costs to employers, however, as discussed
in the following news release about the case against a Coca-Cola bottler.
U.S. Labor Department Settles Discrimination Case with 2nd-largest Coca-Cola
Bottler in the Nation25
Minority Applicants to Receive Back Wages, Interest, and Job Offers
Coca-Cola Bottling Company Consolidated agreed to pay $495,000 in back
wages and interest to 95 African American and Hispanic job seekers who
applied in 2002 for sales support positions at a distribution facility in North
Carolina. The settlement follows an investigation by the U.S. Department of
Labor’s OFCCP. In addition to back pay, the company agreed to make offers of
employment to those 95 applicants until at least 23 interested applicants are
hired. Those hired will receive retroactive seniority benefits they would have
accrued from July 1, 2002, had it not been for the discrimination.
This plant is the second largest Coca-Cola bottler in the nation and a major
supplier of Coke brand products to military and government installations under
a number of federal contracts. As a result of the federal contracts, the bottler
was subject to compliance review, during which the OFCCP found that the
bottler failed to hire qualified minority applicants at a comparable rate to White
applicants. Statistical analysis determined that the disparity in hires was too
great to occur solely by chance. In addition, the OFCCP found that the bottler’s
own records revealed cases in which rejected minority applicants had more
experience and education than some White hires.
Persistent or unaddressed problems may result in conciliation agree-
ments, which may include back pay, promotions, or other forms of relief
for affected parties. When attempts to conciliate are unsuccessful, sanc-
tions, including loss of government contracts, may be imposed upon
employers. As with other diversity efforts, avoidance of sanctions or
penalties should not be an organization’s primary compliance goal. Nor
should the relationship between employers and the OFCCP be assumed as
solely an adversarial one. The OFCCP can assist employers in developing
24Kalev, A., & Dobbin, F. (2006). “Enforcement of Civil Rights Law in Private Workplaces: The
Effects of Compliance Reviews and Lawsuits Over Time.” Law & Social Inquiry, 31(4): 855–903.
25Adapted from OFCCP news release: Release Number 10-1368-ATL, http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/
press/ofccp/ofccp20101368.htm, accessed October 8, 2010.
84 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
AAPs by offering company seminars and individual consultations on
company policies and procedures. When used correctly, affirmative action
can be a valuable tool in increasing the representation of underutilized
groups in an organization, providing opportunities to benefit from their
inclusion and contributions. Researchers have found that employers
subject to affirmative action requirements that hire a manager with
responsibility for compliance see stronger effects from diversity and
equal opportunity programs.26
Relationships between affirmative action in education and in employment.
Many newspaper and magazine articles and academic publications have
discussed issues related to affirmative action in education, contracts with
the government, or employment. Because the term affirmative action by
itself does not indicate what type of activity is under discussion (e.g.,
increasing representation in elite schools or in employment), people
may misunderstand its focus or goals. Indeed, as discussed in Research
Summary 3.1, research indicates that opposition to affirmative action is
related to lack of knowledge.27
We focus here and in this book primarily on affirmative action in
employment, but education and employment are clearly related. Professor
Patricia Gurin’s longitudinal research on the long-term benefits of diver-
sity to students in the learning environment can help clarify this relation-
ship. As discussed in Chapter 1, in several studies, Gurin and colleagues
found that many students’ experiences with diversity at the University of
Michigan increased their sense of commonality with those from different
racial and ethnic backgrounds, their ability to take the perspective of
other groups, and their understanding that differences are not necessarily
divisive.28 The more contact students had with people from other racial
and ethnic backgrounds, the more they engaged in active, critical thinking
and the more they embraced democratic values. These benefits occurred
for both White students and students of color.
26 Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of
Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review, 71: 589–617.
27 Kravitz and Yun found that opposition to affirmative action in employment is related to the lack of
knowledge about the law. Kravitz, D. A., & Yun, G. (2005, August). “Further Development of a Test
of Knowledge of Workplace Affirmative Action Law and Regulations.” Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.
28 Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A., & Lopez, G. E. (2004). “The Benefits of Diversity in Education for Demo-
cratic Citizenship.” Journal of Social Issues, 60(1): 17–34. See also Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., &
Gurin, G. (2002). “Diversity and Higher Education: Theory and Impact on Educational Outcomes.”
Harvard Educational Review, 71(3): 332–366; Gurin, P. Y., Dey, E. L., Gurin, G., & Hurtado, S.
(2003). “How Does Racial/Ethnic Diversity Promote Education?” The Western Journal of Black Studies,
27(1): 20–29.
Chapter 3: Legislation 85
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
RESEARCH
SUMMARY 3.1
Focus on Affirmative Action
Numerous researchers have investigated the
often negative perceptions and attitudes people
have about affirmative action programs (AAPs) in
employment. Many of these perceptions are
obtained from news media and political adver-
tisements, which frequently contain inaccuracies
or intentional misrepresentations about the con-
tent, requirements, and function of affirmative
action. Some of these misperceptions include
erroneous beliefs about the requirements of and
processes required by affirmative action programs
(e.g., quotas) and beliefs that those hired under
affirmative action are less competent and qualified
than others.29
Madeline Heilman and her colleagues have
conducted extensive research on stigmatization
and presumptions of incompetence about women
hired under AAPs. In field and laboratory studies,
these women were perceived to be less com-
petent than persons not hired under AAPs. These
findings occurred when the raters were White
men but also when the raters were White women,
Black men, and Black women—those from
groups who are likely to be helped by AAPs.
Moreover, these findings, are likely to be related to
people’s general perceptions that affirmative action
results in organizations passing over more qualified
workers for less qualified or unqualified workers and
to other inaccuracies that have been identified by
researchers.30 The perceptions contrast starkly
with the actual requirements of AAPs that
applicants must first be qualified to be considered
and findings of other research that indicate clear
preferences for equally qualified or even unqualified
Whites over persons of color. Art Brief and his
colleagues found that when instructed to
discriminate under the guise of a “business
justification,” research subjects did so, rating Black
applicants lower than similarly qualified White
applicants. Most disturbing, when given this
justification to discriminate, some respondents
chose unqualified Whites over qualified
Blacks.31,32 A similar study replicated these
findings of discrimination against minorities in
Germany.33 Years of covert and overt
discrimination against minorities and women have
systematically advantaged White men in many
contexts.34
29See Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). “Presumed Incompetent? Stigmatization and Affirmative Action Ef-
forts.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 536–544; Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. E., & McLaughlin, M. E. (2000). “Forming,
Changing, and Acting on Attitude Toward Affirmative Action in Employment: A Theory Based Approach.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85: 784–798; and Crosby F. J. (2004). Affirmative Action Is Dead: Long Live Affirmative Action. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
30See, for example, Bell et al. (2000); Kravitz, D., & Yun, G. (2005, August). “Further Development of a Test of Knowledge of
Workplace Affirmative Action Law and Regulations.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,
Honolulu, HI.
31Brief, 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.” Academy of Management Executive, 11(4):
59–72. See also 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.
32More details on this study are provided in Chapter 4.
33Petersen, L., & Dietz, J. (2005). “Prejudice and Enforcement of Workforce Homogeneity as Explanations for Employment
Discrimination.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(1): 144–159.
34See, for example, Brodkin, K. (2004). “How Jews Became White.” In J. F. Healey & E. O’Brien (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity,
and Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, pp. 283–293; “Dedicated Lives” (1997). Emerge, July/August,
pp. 35–38.
86 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Open support of numerous Fortune 500 companies for programs to
increase acceptance of diversity among students indicates that major cor-
porations are aware of the important relationships between diversity in
educational institutions and the subsequent benefits of a well-educated,
diverse workforce. During the Reagan administration’s efforts to curtail
employment-related affirmative action programs, 95% of CEOs of major
corporations stated they would continue their voluntary AAPs even if the
federal government ended such requirements.35 A different study in which
94% of CEOs reported perceptions that affirmative action had improved
their hiring and marketing programs indicated similarly strong corporate
support for affirmative action.36 Affirmative action has clearly been helpful
to its intended beneficiaries as well. In 1973, firefighters in the Los Angeles
Fire Department were 94% White and 100% male. By 1995, 55% of
the firefighters were White, 26% were Latino, 13% were Black, 6% were
Asian, and 4% were women.37 When employees are more representative of
To reduce misperceptions about affirmative
action and assumptions that women and people
of color are hired solely because of AAPs and that
White males are hired because of discrimination
against others, it is important for organizations to
publicize the qualifications of new hires of all
backgrounds. Publicizing the background and
qualifications of new hires of all demographic
groups would help demonstrate that all
employees are hired because of job-related
qualifications. Make clear that women and people
of color are not hired solely because of affirmative
action and that White males are not hired because
of the good-old-boys’ network and discrimination
against women and people of color. Employees
should also be educated about the affirmative
practices that the organization employs (such as
broad recruitment methods) and the benefits
of diversity for all employees. Education is an
important tool in reducing resistance against
diversity efforts.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. What factors likely contribute to
common, erroneous beliefs about affirma-
tive action, even among intended
beneficiaries?
2. How do perceptions that minorities and
women who are hired are unqualified
contrast with research indicating that un-
qualified Whites are sometimes chosen
over qualified Blacks?
35Reskin, B. (2000). “The Realities of Affirmative Action in Employment.” In F. J. Crosby & C.
VanDeVeer (Eds.), Sex, Race, and Merit: Debating Affirmative Action in Education and Employment.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
36Crosby, F. J., & Herzberger, S. D. (1996). “For Affirmative Action.” In R. J. Simon (Ed.),
Affirmative Action: Pros and Cons of Policy and Practice. Washington, D.C.: American University
Press, pp. 3–109.
37Rosenthal, S. J. (1997). “Affirm Equality, Oppose Racist Scapegoating: Myths and Realities of
Affirmative Action.” In C. Herring (Ed.), African Americans and the Public Agenda. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, pp. 105–125.
Chapter 3: Legislation 87
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
the diversity in the population, there can be numerous benefits for
the organization and for the population being served. In addition,
employees (regardless of race or sex) of affirmative action companies
have higher earnings than people employed at nonaffirmative action
companies.38
Other beneficiaries of affirmative action programs. The Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (RA) prohibits discrimination against employees and appli-
cants with disabilities when they work for or apply to the federal govern-
ment or government contractors. The RA also requires the federal
government to take affirmative action in the hiring, placement, and ad-
vancement of people with disabilities, similar to that for women and mi-
norities. The Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (1974)
requires federal contractors take affirmative action for disabled veterans
and Vietnam war and other veterans.39 Despite the common mispercep-
tions that affirmative action benefits only minorities and women, about
80% of all veterans, the targets of this affirmative action legislation, are
White men.40
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits
employment-related discrimination against persons who are aged 40 and
over, which is an important issue for the millions of aging baby-boomers
in the United States. Under the ADEA, employers of twenty or more
people, including state and local governments, employment agencies, and
labor organizations are prohibited from discrimination on the basis of
age in employment-related matters. This act also prohibits age-based
harassment, retaliation for complaining about or filing a claim of discrim-
ination, and employment decisions based on stereotypes about one’s
ability based on age. Employers should not intentionally target older
workers for layoffs or termination or deny them training because they
are believed to be close to retirement or unwilling to learn, which, as
discussed in Chapter 13, are common misperceptions about older
workers.
38Ibid.
39http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/ca_vevraa.htm, accessed March 10, 2011.
40Wilson, M., Perry, S., Helba, C., Hintze, W., Wright, M., Lee, K., Greenlees, J., Rockwell, D., &
Deak, M. A. National Survey of Veterans (NSV) Final Report, 2001. http://www1.va.gov/VETDATA/
docs/SurveysAndStudies/NSV_Final_Report , accessed October 7, 2010.
88 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Kmart to Pay $120,000 to Settle EEOC Age Bias Suit41
Pharmacist Called “Greedy” for Working at Age 70, Then Forced to Quit,
and Threatened with Legal Action in Retaliation for Complaining, Federal
Agency Charged
Kmart Corporation will pay $120,000 and furnish other relief to settle an age ha-
rassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC, which
had charged that Kmart discriminated against a 70-year-old pharmacist at a Hono-
lulu store. According to the EEOC’s suit, over the course of four years, a pharmacy
manager openly professed on several occasions that the pharmacist was “too
old,” “should just retire,” and was “greedy” for continuing to work at age 70. The
EEOC said that the manager humiliated the pharmacist by saying, “you need to re-
tire from pharmacy work now,” in a communication book open to the entire de-
partment. According to the EEOC, the manager also purposely scheduled her to
work on Sundays—knowing that she attended church those days—to encourage
her to quit. The victim complained to a district manager, general manager, and hu-
man resources manager regarding the age-based harassment, to no avail. Finally,
the pharmacist quit to escape the discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
In cooperation with the EEOC, Kmart entered into a three-year consent decree
and agreed to post a notice on the matter; hire an EEO trainer; review and
revise its existing antidiscrimination policy; provide annual ADEA training to all
staff; and ensure that performance evaluations reflect discriminatory miscon-
duct by management staff.
A major inadequacy of federal legislation related to age in the
United States is its failure to include any workers under age 40 from age-
related discrimination. As a result, younger workers, who are the
“minority” in many cases, are subject to and experience age-related stereo-
typing and discrimination. In contrast, as discussed further in Chapter 13,
in the United Kingdom, Australia, and some states and cities in the United
States, employment discrimination on the basis of any age is prohibited.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII,
clarified that Title VII’s regulations against discrimination because of sex
41 Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-24-10.cfm,
accessed October 8, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 89
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
included discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, and related
medical conditions. The PDA prohibits discrimination in hiring, leave,
health insurance, and fringe benefits. In some organizations prior to 1978,
pregnant women were required to resign or take leave and could be
denied medical benefits that others received. The PDA does not require
employers to provide benefits or leave for pregnancy or related condi-
tions. However, if benefits or leave are provided for other temporary
medical conditions, the PDA requires that employers provide the same
benefits for pregnancy and related conditions. As with employees with
other conditions, if pregnant women can still work, they cannot be forced
to go on leave. If other employees who are temporarily unable to work
because of illness are entitled to return to work once they have recovered,
the same opportunities are required for women who are unable to work
because of pregnancy or related conditions.
In 2010, the EEOC received 6,119 charges of pregnancy discrimina-
tion and resolved 6,293 (some from previous years). Of those, 25.4%
were resolved with merit, resulting in $18.0 million in monetary benefits
for the charging parties and other aggrieved individuals.42 The EEOC’s
litigation against Walmart on behalf of Jamey Stern (see Featured Case 3.1),
involved a decade-long case.
Instead of overt pregnancy discrimination, such as refusal to hire
pregnant women, some cases involve other issues related to pregnancy.
A case involving pension plans was brought by the EEOC against
Cincinnati Bell on behalf of 458 employees who took maternity leave
that was deducted from their service credit. The service credit reductions
negatively affected certain employees’ pensions and benefits under early
retirement plans.43 The company agreed to provide service credit
adjustments for the majority of the affected women and monetary relief
to about 40 of them. Such a case clearly demonstrates the need to
understand and attempt to comply with intentions and goals behind
diversity-related legislation rather than simplistically agreeing not to
discriminate.
EEOC Guidelines on Sexual Harassment (1980)
In 1980, the EEOC issued its first formal guidelines on sexual harassment
to provide direction for employers in addressing and curbing this specific
form of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual
42
“Pregnancy Discrimination Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997–FY 2009.” http://www
.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/pregnancy.cfm, accessed January 12, 2011.
43
“EEOC and Cincinnati Bell Settle Class Pregnancy Bias Suit.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/
release/6-15-00-a.cfm, accessed October 2, 2010.
90 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
FEATURED
CASE 3.1
Pregnancy Discrimination at Walmart—Case Settled When the Baby
Is 10 Years Old!
Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has
existed for many years and employers should
therefore be well aware of it, overt pregnancy
discrimination still occurs. One such case began
in November 1991, when Jamey Stern applied for
a job at Walmart. Stern had worked at Walmart
before, as a clothing clerk, and was applying for
rehire. When Stern told the assistant manager
that she was pregnant, the manager told her
to “come back after she had the baby.” Stern
did not know that refusing to hire someone
because of pregnancy was illegal until later when
she read a magazine article about pregnancy
discrimination while in her doctor’s waiting room.
Stern then filed a discrimination complaint with
the EEOC, which filed a lawsuit in 1994 after
attempts to settle the case with Walmart were
unsuccessful.
In 1997, a jury found that Walmart had
intentionally discriminated against Stern,
awarding her $1,700 in back pay, but the issue
of punitive damages (available in cases of
intentional discrimination) was not addressed in
the award. Punitive damages are “money
damages designed to punish the wrong-doing
employer and deter other employers” from
discriminating. The EEOC appealed, given the
jury’s finding that the discrimination was indeed
intentional. After multiple setbacks, appeals, and
the revelation that Walmart had “fabricated a
number of facts during the investigation and the
trial,” Walmart settled the case. In December
2002, eleven years after the incident, Walmart
agreed to pay $220,000 in damages to Stern
and to provide comprehensive training on
pregnancy discrimination to managers.
After the settlement, Ms. Stern noted that
“one person can truly make a difference … even
in the face of such an adversary as Walmart.”
Stern also expressed confidence that others
would benefit and become educated about their
rights and about resources, such as the EEOC,
available to protect those rights.
Sources: “Walmart to Pay $220,000 for Rejecting
Pregnant Applicant, in EEOC Settlement.” http://www
.eeoc.gov/press/12-23-02.html, accessed September
26, 2010; “EEOC Litigation Settlements December
2002.” http://archive.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/
settlement12-02.html, accessed September 26, 2010.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act
had been in existence for thirteen years
when Jamey Stern applied for the job at
Walmart, the assistant manager still
refused to hire Stern and did not attempt to
hide the reason. What might explain the
manager’s actions?
2. Jamey Stern was unaware that pregnancy
discrimination is illegal.
a. Speculate on the proportion of the popu-
lation that is also unaware of this and
other areas covered under discrimination
legislation. Estimate the proportion of
employees in hiring positions at Walmart
and other organizations who are not aware
that pregnancy discrimination is illegal.
b. What might Jamey Stern’s response have
been to being rehired at Walmart while
pregnant?
3. What is the average family income of
people who work in low-wage jobs?
Without the resources of the EEOC, how
likely is it
a. that someone like Jamey could have per-
sonally brought this case against Walmart,
b. that the case would have gone to trial, and
Chapter 3: Legislation 91
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct
of a sexual nature that explicitly or implicitly interferes with a person’s
employment, unreasonably interferes with her or his work performance, or
creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.44 Sexual
harassment results in numerous negative physical and psychological out-
comes for those who are harassed and for bystanders and is expensive for
harassment targets and employers.45
In quid pro quo harassment, managers, supervisors, or others with
authority make sexual demands, and submission to or rejection of those
demands is used as a basis for employment decisions (such as promotion,
termination). In hostile environment harassment, unwelcome sexual conduct
has the “purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance,
or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”46
Lewd jokes, sexually explicit posters, or sexual comments could constitute
hostile environment sexual harassment. Research indicates that men and
women differ in their perceptions of what behaviors constitute hostile envi-
ronment harassment or innocuous behavior. Clear organizational policies
prohibiting sexual harassment and education about what constitutes harass-
ment by managers and supervisors, employees, and customers are imperative.
It is estimated that up to 75% of working women have already
experienced or will experience sexual harassment at some point during
their work lives; however, most women who are harassed do not file
complaints.47 In 2010, the EEOC received 11,717 charges of sexual
harassment, 84% of which were filed by women. Only 27.2% of com-
plaints were resolved in the charging parties’ favor. However, more
than $48.4 million was recovered for complainants and other aggrieved
c. that Jamey could have engaged in an
eleven-year litigation?
4. Had Jamey Stern applied to work at a lesser-
known company, speculate on how likely it is
that the case would have been taken on by the
EEOC. What, if any, effects might publicity
about lawsuits and judgments against large
companies have on the actions of man-
agers in smaller companies that may be
less likely to be sued?
44U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Sexual Harassment.” http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/
types/sexual_harassment.cfm, accessed March 10, 2011.
45Schneider, 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.
46Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex, 29, C. F. R. Section 1604. 11(a). 1995.
47See Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1993). “Breaking Silence: The Sexual Harassment of
Women in Academia and the Workplace.” In F. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds.), Psychology of Women:
A Handbook of Issues and Theories. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 553–581; Gutek, B. A.
(1985). Sex and the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; and Martindale, M. (1990). Sexual
Harassment in the Military: 1988. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
92 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
parties,48 not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation.
As with other types of equal employment opportunity issues, these figures
indicate that, for individual parties, filing a complaint is considerably
more likely to result in an unsuccessful claim than in a successful claim.
Even so, because of the large collective amount of damage awards and
negative publicity associated with such cases, employers are motivated to
avoid being one of the companies charged in a high-profile case. Small
companies can also be involved, and smaller settlements are also possible,
as described in the following case against a family-owned and -operated
business.49
Finch Air Conditioning Settles EEOC Lawsuit for Sexual Harassment of Young
Female Employees
Family-Owned and -Operated Business Pays $80,000 to Settle Class Claims
of Sexual Harassment by Owner
Finch Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc., agreed to pay $80,000 to settle claims
of sexual harassment and constructive discharge of female employees brought
by the EEOC. The EEOC alleged that female employees at Finch were routinely
subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination. According to the EEOC, the
owner of the family-owned and -operated business used his position and power
to harass young female employees, commenting on his own sexual preferences
and asking them questions about theirs, touching them inappropriately and with-
out their permission, including forcing one employee’s hands on his private parts
and menacing and frightening employees into silence about his conduct. The
EEOC also alleged that sexual harassment was condoned within the workplace.
The settlement terms required the company to pay $80,000 to compensate
class members for the sexual harassment they suffered. The decree also
contains provisions to ensure that Finch’s owner, managers, and employees
are properly trained to fully understand and comply with employment discrim-
ination laws. In addition, Finch is required to maintain policies and procedures
for addressing illegal discrimination in the workplace, including effective com-
plaint procedures, as well as guidelines for investigating complaints of
discrimination.
48 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Sexual Harassment Charges. EEOC & FEPAs
Combined: FY 1997–FY 2010.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.
cfm, accessed October 2, 2010.
49 Adapted from EEOC press release at, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-25-10b.cfm,
accessed October 2, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 93
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Customer harassment. Customers can also create hostile environment
sexual harassment for which employers may be held liable. Researchers
describe such harassment as an occupational hazard and note the negative
consequences (such as avoidance that leads to lower productivity, stress,
and turnover) on those who experience it.50 In one such case, Love’s
Travel Stops agreed to pay to settle a lawsuit involving 18- and
20-year-old female cashiers.
Arizona Truck Stop to Pay $70,000 to Settle EEOC Suit Charging Sex
Harassment by Customers51
EEOC Says Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores Tolerated Hostile
Workplace
Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc., will pay $70,000 as part of a settle-
ment of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC had charged
that Love’s subjected two young female cashiers (aged 18 and 20 at the start of
their employment) to repeated and serious sex-based abuse by customers. The
cashiers detailed extensive sexual harassment by truck drivers, some of whom
were regular customers of Love’s. The EEOC alleged that this conduct included
unwanted sexual touching and pressing; crude and obscene remarks; sexual de-
mands and innuendos; handing one victim an obscene card; and demands for per-
sonal information. The EEOC maintained that Love’s knew about and tolerated the
hostile work environment caused by its customers yet failed to take steps to stop
the harassment. Moreover, the EEOC alleged that one manager laughed about the
harassment and that another manager said the harassment was to be expected
because the workplace is a truck stop. The cashiers were told to “deal with it.”
In addition to the settlement requiring Love’s to pay $70,000 to the former cash-
iers, Love’s also must investigate complaints of sexual harassment, provide train-
ing for managers and supervisors on conducting sexual harassment investigations,
and post a warning that harassment of Love’s employees will not be tolerated.
Prevention of sexual harassment. As discussed earlier, although damage
awards and negative publicity can be costly, the likelihood that an
50Gettman, H., & Gelfand, M. (2007). “When the Customer Shouldn’t Be King: Antecedents and Con-
sequences of Sexual Harassment by Clients and Customers.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3):
757–770.
51Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-3-10a.cfm,
accessed September 19, 2010.
94 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
organization will be sued for sexual harassment is relatively small. Even
so, the many negative individual and organizational outcomes of sexual
harassment should provide sufficient stimuli for organizations to try to
prevent it. The EEOC recommends that organizations take proactive steps
against sexual harassment. These steps include having and widely dissem-
inating the organization’s policy on harassment, educating employees
about sexual harassment and their rights to a harassment-free environ-
ment, and having multiple ways to complain if harassment occurs. The
employer should investigate promptly and thoroughly any complaint of
harassment and, if harassment is found, take immediate action to end the
harassment and prevent future harassment. Disciplinary actions against
the harasser should be directly related to the severity of the incident. A
warning may be appropriate for some incidents and immediate termina-
tion may be appropriate for other acts. If the complainant experienced
any denial of employment benefits or opportunities as a result of failure to
comply with sexual demands, those benefits or opportunities should be
restored.52
The EEOC issues updates to its guidelines on sexual harassment (and
other areas it enforces) when appropriate. These updates are readily avail-
able on the EEOC’s Web site: http://www.eeoc.gov. Organizations should
pay careful attention to these updates, as they provide invaluable assistance
to those interested in a discrimination-free environment. The guidelines
can also be useful to organizations that are not bound by U.S. laws but that
are concerned with creating harassment-free workspaces.
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act of 1990
The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) is an amendment to
the ADEA of 1967. It prohibits employers from denying benefits to older
workers but recognizes that it is more expensive to provide some benefits,
such as life or disability insurance, to older workers. Thus, this act allows
employers to reduce benefits based on age, as long as the employers’ costs
of providing benefits to older workers are the same as the costs of pro-
viding benefits to younger workers.53 As an example, an employer can
provide an older employee with $50,000 of life insurance coverage at an
employer cost of $100 per month and a younger employee with $75,000
of life insurance coverage at an employer cost of $100 per month.
52 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html, accessed February 29, 2004. See also Bell, M. P.,
Cycyota, C., & Quick, J. C. (2002). “Affirmative Defense: The Prevention of Sexual Harassment.” In
D. L. Nelson & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, Work Stress, and Health: Current Research Issues.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp. 191–210.
53 http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/age , accessed October 7, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 95
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Although the younger employee has more insurance, because the
employer contribution is the same, there is no illegal discrimination.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Although the Rehabilitation Act (RA) of 1973, discussed earlier, had begun
the work of addressing discrimination against people with disabilities, their
persistent unemployment or underemployment and the employment
discrimination against them led to the passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, which affects more employers than did the
earlier statute. The stated purpose of the ADA is to “establish a clear and
comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability.”54
As with Title VII and the ADEA, under the ADA, employers having fifteen
or more employees, employment agencies, labor unions, and state and local
governments are prohibited from discrimination in employment matters
against workers with disabilities: hiring and firing; compensation, assign-
ment, or classification of applicants or employees; transfer, promotion, lay-
off, or recall; job advertisements; recruitment; testing; use of company
facilities; training and apprenticeship programs; fringe benefits; pay, retire-
ment plans, and disability leave; or other terms and conditions of employ-
ment. Unlike the RA, the ADA does not require affirmative action.
An individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more of his or her life activities,
has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an im-
pairment. The covered impairments, notably, do not include current drug
users, persons having “sexual behavior disorders,” kleptomaniacs, compul-
sive gamblers, and certain other issues.55 To be covered by the ADA, indi-
viduals (employees or applicants) must be qualified to perform the essential
(but not marginal) functions of the job in question, with or without rea-
sonable accommodation. Reasonable accommodation includes such things
as job restructuring, modifying work schedules, providing readers or inter-
preters, or other accommodations. Importantly, research indicates that
accommodations are usually free or cost less than $100.56
Misperception: Complying with the ADA is very costly to employers.
Reality: Most accommodations cost less than $100.
54http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/ada.cfm, accessed October 7, 2010.
55Ibid.
56Job Accommodation Network. (1999). Accommodation Benefit/Cost Data. Morgantown, WV: Job
Accommodation Network of the President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities.
96 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Employers are also prohibited from asking job applicants about the existence,
nature, or severity of a disability; instead, they may only ask about applicants’
ability to perform specific job functions. These questions should be asked of
all applicants, not only those with visible disabilities. Guidelines to help small
employers with reasonable accommodations are also available.57
EEOC charges of disability discrimination. In 2010, the EEOC received
25,165 new complaints of disability discrimination and resolved 24,401. Of
the resolved claims, 21.5% were resolved in the plaintiffs’ favor. Although
a small percentage, the complaints resolved in the charging parties’ favor
resulted in the recovery of $76.1 million for complainants and other ag-
grieved parties. In some cases, disability discrimination occurs concurrently
with violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as occurred
in the case described next.
Medical Health Group to Pay $125,000 for Disability Bias against Worker with
Cancer58
EEOC Said Employer Fired Woman Battling Breast Cancer When She
Attempted to Return to Work
Medical Health Group (MHG), a Maryland medical practice, will pay $125,000
and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit
in which the EEOC had charged that the company refused to let an employee
who had recovered from breast cancer surgery return to work. According to the
EEOC’s suit, MHG discriminated against Barbara Metzger, who had worked for
the medical practice for 25 years, by firing her when she attempted to return to
work after recovering from serious surgical complications.
Metzger was diagnosed with breast cancer in January 2007. About a week
before her approved medical leave ended, Metzger was called into work on
May 31, 2007. She told her employer that she intended to work without
interruption while undergoing her remaining chemotherapy and radiation treat-
ments. The supervisor then cited examples of people she knew whose cancer
treatments made them too sick to work. Metzger was presented with a termi-
nation letter that stated she was being fired because she was “currently unable
to return to work on a full-time basis. Due to the seriousness of her illness, and
extended nature of the treatment required … we must exercise our option to
permanently fill your position.”
57 http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/accommodation.html, accessed October 8, 2010.
58 Adapted from EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-22-09.cfm,
accessed October 8, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 97
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
According to the EEOC, “a woman who is bravely battling breast cancer has
enough of a challenge without having to lose her job because of unlawful
discrimination.” The EEOC also commented that employment decisions
should not be made based on fears and stereotypes about a person’s
medical condition. In addition to the monetary settlement, MHG will also
provide ADA compliance training to its officers, supervisors, and managers,
modify its antidiscrimination policies and distribute the new policy to all
employees and managerial staff, and post a notice confirming its commit-
ment to complying with the ADA. Additionally, MHG resolved a Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim brought by an attorney on Metzger’s
behalf.
The Civil Rights Act of 1991
The twenty-seven years between the passage of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1991 brought
numerous and significant changes for employees, employers, and
applicants. More people knew what was considered illegal, and the
demographic composition of the workforce was changing. Even
so, several issues remained, prompting the passage of the CRA of
1991, which had the purpose of strengthening and improving federal
civil rights laws, providing for damages in cases of intentional employ-
ment discrimination, and clarifying provisions regarding disparate
impact.
Some of the changes in the law were viewed as favorable to employees
and applicants; others as favorable to employers. The CRA’s most
commonly discussed change favorable to employees is its provision for
compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional race, sex, reli-
gious, national origin, or disability discrimination or harassment. These
damages are intended to punish offending employers and deter future
discriminatory conduct. However, the damages any one person can
receive are limited to maximums of
● $50,000 for employers having between 15 and 100 employees
● $100,000 for employers having between 101 and 200 employees
● $200,000 for employers having between 201 and 500 employees
● $300,000 for employers having over 500 employees.
Although punitive damages awarded by juries often exceed these
amounts, such awards are reduced to those allowable by law. As shown
in the following case, punitive damages can nonetheless significantly in-
crease awards to targets of intentional discrimination.
98 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Ninth Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict of $241,708 Awarding Punitive Damages in
EEOC Case against “Go Daddy”59
EEOC Sued Software Company for Retaliation against Muslim Worker
In September 2009, the EEOC announced that an appeals court upheld a 2006
unanimous federal court jury verdict finding that Go Daddy Software, Inc., had
retaliated against Youssef Bouamama when it fired him for complaining about
discriminatory comments against him. The court rejected Go Daddy’s challenge
to the jury’s finding that the company had engaged in unlawful retaliation. The
jury found that Go Daddy terminated Bouamama, a Muslim of Moroccan na-
tional origin, for complaining about religious and national origin discrimination.
The jury verdict included punitive damages of $250,000, compensatory da-
mages for emotional distress of $5,000, and a verdict of $135,000 for lost
wages. The punitive and compensatory damages award were reduced to
$200,000 to conform to the statutory caps under the Civil Rights Act of 1991
and the back pay amount to $36,552 and awarded prejudgment interest in the
amount of $5,156. The total amount is $241,708. Go Daddy was also found to
have violated federal record-keeping requirements when it failed to retain em-
ployment applications relevant to the case.
EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney David Lopez said that “the jury, acting as the
conscience of this community, properly found that Go Daddy engaged in con-
duct warranting its award of punitive damages. It is important to understand
that these damages are designed to deter this employer from again violating
federal civil rights laws prohibiting retaliation for opposing discriminatory
practices.”
In addition to punitive damages, the 1991 CRA allowed for jury trials
and the awarding of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party; clarified the
concept of “business necessity” and “job-related”; extended protection to
U.S. citizens working abroad for U.S. companies; and established the
Glass Ceiling Commission to study and report on the status of women
and minorities in upper-level jobs. Although it has since been disbanded,
the Glass Ceiling Commission issued compelling, widely distributed
reports on the existence of the glass ceiling, garnering considerable
attention.
59Adapted from press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/archive/9-14-09.html,
accessed October 8, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 99
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
The passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 1993 was
indicative of the changing needs of workers in the United States. Most
couples were now both employed, many had minor children, and many
families were headed by single working women. The need to allow em-
ployees to take time off from work, with continuance of benefits and
assurance of jobs upon their return, was clear. Enforced by the U.S.
Department of Labor, the FMLA requires employers having at least fifty
employees for at least twenty weeks per year to grant eligible employees
up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave per year to care for personal or family
medical needs. Eligible employees may take leave for the birth and care of
their newborn child or for the adoption or placement of a foster child; for
the care of a seriously ill spouse, child, or parent; or for their own serious
health condition. Eligible employees are those who have worked for the
employer for at least 1,250 hours during the past twelve months at a
worksite where fifty or more employees work within seventy-five miles of
the worksite. Under the FMLA, employees may file complaints with the
Department of Labor or file a private lawsuit.
Criticisms of the FMLA include its failure to require pay and to in-
clude employers of fewer than fifty people, parents-in-law, other family
members, and nonmarital partners. Personal or family illness may increase
the need for income—how many employees can afford much time without
pay, particularly when illness strikes? Further, because many U.S. workers
are employed in small organizations, the requirement for fifty or more
employees excludes many people; more than half of Americans do not
qualify under the FMLA. Another important criticism is related to gender
and family roles; many argue that couples should be able to decide which
spouse takes leave and the exclusion of parents-in-law does not allow for
this. Finally, many people have relational ties that include those who are
not immediate (aunts, uncles, etc.) or biological family (godparents, fictive
kin), and committed, but not marital, partners are common. Although the
FMLA is indeed helpful to many families who need it, limitations and
exclusions make it of little use to many employees. As a result, research
indicates that people who most need family leave do not take it.60
As family relationships change, so too should relevant legislation;
some states are ahead of federal legislation regarding who constitutes
family. At the time of this writing, eleven states have enacted statutes that
60Gerstel, N., & McGonagle K. (2002). “Job Leaves and the Limits of the Family and Medical Leave
Act.” In D. Dunn & P. Dubeck (Eds.), Workplace, Women’s Place. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishers,
pp. 205–215; American Association of University Women, http://www.aauw.org/takeaction/
policyissues/familymedical_leave.cfm, accessed September 27, 2010.
100 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
are similar to the FMLA: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington,
and Wisconsin. Some of these statutes differ in key areas, such as in the
definition of “family,” with some including parents-in-law and other
kin.61 In 2010, the FMLA was clarified to include those who had served
in a parental relationship for a “son” or “daughter,” including grand-
parents parenting grandchildren, uncles or aunts parenting nieces or
nephews, or nonmarital partners parenting their partners’ children.62
Some remaining inadequacies of the FMLA, including time off with pay,
are discussed further in Chapter 10.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 200863
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of
2008, which took effect in November 2009, prohibits discrimination
against employees or applicants because of genetic information. It is
included here as diversity-related legislation because many medical genetic
issues are related to race and ethnicity or sex. GINA prohibits using
genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts the acquisi-
tion of genetic information by employers and other entities covered by
Title II, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information. This in-
formation includes an individual’s genetic tests along with an individual’s
family medical history. Family medical history is included because it is
often used to determine whether someone has an increased risk of getting
a disease, disorder, or medical condition in the future. Employment deci-
sions on the basis of genetic information, harassment, and retaliation for
filing claims of discrimination are all prohibited. Acquisition of genetic
information is prohibited except for six narrow exceptions detailed by the
EEOC. In 2010, 201 claims were filed and 56 resolved, with 12.5% being
merit resolutions.
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008
In September 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Americans with
Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADA Amendments Act), which empha-
sizes that the definition of disabilities should be construed broadly and
should not generally require extensive analysis.64 These changes make it
61
“U.S. Department of Labor Clarifies FMLA Definition of ‘Son and Daughter.’” http://www.dol.gov/
opa/media/press/WHD/WHD20100877.htm, accessed December 12, 2010.
62 Ibid.
63 http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/genetic.cfm, accessed December 12, 2010.
64 http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa_info.cfm, accessed October 7, 2010.
Chapter 3: Legislation 101
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
easier for those seeking protection under the ADA to establish having a
disability. Importantly, the act expands the meaning of “major life activi-
ties” to include those not recognized in the past and makes clear that an
episodic impairment, such as multiple sclerosis, or one in remission, such
as cancer, is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity
when it is active.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first legislation passed
under the Obama administration. This act supersedes a 2007 Supreme
Court decision that required discrimination charges concerning compen-
sation be filed within 180 days (or 300 days in some cities and states) of a
discriminatory pay decision. It restores the pre-Ledbetter position of the
EEOC that with every paycheck that is discriminatory, a new clock starts.
Once again, an individual subjected to pay discrimination may file a com-
plaint within 180 (or 300) days of
● when a discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory
practice affecting compensation is adopted;
● when the individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation
decision or other discriminatory practice affecting compensation; or
● when the individual’s compensation is affected by the application of a
discriminatory compensation decision or other discriminatory prac-
tice, including each time the individual receives compensation that is
based in whole or in part on such compensation decision or other
practice.
This ruling also applies to compensation discrimination under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.65
OTHER RELEVANT STATE, LOCAL, AND CITY ORDINANCES
In addition to the key federal acts discussed in the previous section,
several state, local, and city ordinances relevant to diversity in organiza-
tions exist. Although the multitude of such legislation makes it impossi-
ble to consider them all, some of the specific ordinances that prohibit
employment-related discrimination on the basis of weight or appearance,
such as Michigan’s Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act, will be discussed
65
“Notice Concerning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,” http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/
epa_ledbetter.cfm, accessed September 16, 2010.
102 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
later in the book. Where no federal acts prohibit discrimination on the
basis of those factors, other ordinances may, and many times state and
local fair employment practices are more stringent than federal laws.
Therefore, it is imperative that managers be aware of laws in their
particular location, especially when the organization has multiple sites
of operation. In such cases, implementing company-specific guidelines
that apply to the entire organization would provide proactive support
for diversity as well as help to avoid violation of state, local, or city
ordinances.
FUTURE FEDERAL ACTS: WHAT’S AHEAD?
The extant laws, executive orders, and EEOC guidelines were passed
because of discrimination against and inequitable treatment of certain
groups. Although these laws have been somewhat successful in improving
employment and opportunities for non-dominant groups, many inequities
remain. In addition, egregious acts, such as placing condoms in the lockers
of women or nooses on the desks of African Americans, rapes, and physical
assaults still occur. These acts must be addressed using the existing or
additional legislation, as appropriate. Perhaps most important, however, is
preventing these discriminatory acts through a sincere organizational em-
phasis on inclusion and zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination.
As we consider in later chapters, people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgender, or obese face considerable employment-related discrimina-
tion, which is not currently illegal in the United States under broad federal
legislation. As happened prior to the passage of laws regarding discrimina-
tion on the basis of race, sex, age, national origin, religion, and disability,
activism and public outcry have drawn attention to discrimination against
these groups. More laws are likely to address these areas, but it is unlikely
that any new protected classes will be added to major federal laws in the
near future. However, individual states may continue to make these
changes on their own. In pursuit of diversity and inclusion, individual
organizations may also prohibit discrimination on the basis of additional
attributes as well.
EFFECTS OF DIVERSITY ON THE JUDICIARY AND ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS
The numerous laws and litigation related to diversity discussed in the pre-
vious sections clearly indicate that diversity is needed among managers,
supervisors, decision makers, and employees in organizations. Research
indicates that diversity is also needed among the judges who make the
decisions about plaintiffs’ discrimination claims. In their comprehensive
Chapter 3: Legislation 103
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
study entitled “Myth of the Color-Blind Judge,” Pat Chew and Robert
Kelley detailed the underrepresentation of minority judges as compared to
Whites.66 About 90% of all federal and state judges are White, and
White judges make different rulings in racial harassment cases than do
minority judges, even when taking into account the judges’ political
affiliations or the case characteristics. In racial harassment cases, plain-
tiffs prevailed in only 22% of cases. Black judges ruled against plaintiffs
54% of the time; White judges ruled against plaintiffs 79% of the time.
Although Blacks were more likely to be plaintiffs, both White and His-
panic plaintiffs had higher rates of success than Black plaintiffs. Chew
and Kelley concluded that as a group, White judges are less able to
identify and empathize with Black plaintiffs and less able to find their
arguments plausible and credible, but that Black judges could identify
with Black plaintiffs and also with plaintiffs of other races. They also
suggested the relatively low rate of plaintiffs’ success in litigation is related
to the lack of diversity among judges. In another study, Nancy Crowe
found that female judges were more likely than male judges to rule for the
plaintiffs’ in sex discrimination cases. These studies and multiple others
provide strong evidence that the judiciary needs to be more representative
of the population it serves.67
SUMMARY
This chapter has considered the history and
details of several key laws and executive
orders related to diversity in organizations.
These acts formally provide employees
with rights to nondiscriminatory treatment
and give organizations guidelines on
fairness and the protection of all workers.
Because it covers a broad range of
employment issues and gives recourse to
affected applicants and employees, this
legislation has been somewhat effective in
increasing opportunities, income, and
employment for various groups. Many
issues remain, however. In addition, many
organizations having a strong commitment
to equality and inclusion have been
charged with discrimination, emphasizing
the complexity of diversity issues and the
need to avoid blanket generalizations.
As diversity in organizations continues
to evolve and needs are identified, other
legislation, judicial decisions, and executive
orders will be required. Despite the existing
laws, relatively few people, compared to the
total number of workers, bring complaints
to the EEOC, fewer complaints are deemed
meritorious, and even fewer result in settle-
ments or judgments for plaintiffs, which is
partly due to the lack of diversity in
the judiciary. Avoidance of lawsuits is a
66Chew & Kelley (2009).
67Ibid. See also Peresie (2005); Tobias, C. (2010). “Diversity and the Federal Bench.” Washington University Law Review,
87: 1197, http://lawreview.wustl.edu/commentaries/diversity-and-the-federal-bench/, accessed October 12, 2010.
104 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
shallow impetus for compliance with laws;
organizations should, instead, use compli-
ance as one of many methods of pursuing
diversity. Because many countries do not
have specific diversity-related laws, an
important first step in such places would be
to determine who the non-dominant groups
are (Chapter 2), what their organizational
experiences and outcomes are, and what
barriers to diversity and inclusion exist.
Committed compliance with the spirit of
laws that exist elsewhere relevant to
diversity and inclusion may be beneficial.
KEY TERMS
Constructive discharge — making working
conditions so unpleasant that an employee
is forced to quit.
Disparate (or adverse) impact — when an
apparently neutral, evenly applied job
policy or employment practice has a
negative effect on the employment of
people belonging to protected classes.
Disparate treatment — when an applicant
or employee is treated differently because
of membership in a protected class.
Gender role socialization — the process by
which social institutions, including
families, friends, organizations, and the
media, form and shape expectations of
acceptable behaviors for men and women.
Glass ceiling — an invisible barrier that
prevents women, minorities, and people
with disabilities from advancing in
organizations.
Harassment — bothering, tormenting,
troubling, ridiculing, or coercing a person
because of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, or age.
Hostile environment harassment — unwel-
come conduct that has the purpose or effect
of unreasonably interfering with job perfor-
mance, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.
Punitive damages — money damages
awarded in cases of intentional discrimi-
nation that are designed to punish the
employer and deter other employers from
discriminating.
Quid pro quo harassment — when man-
agers, supervisors, or others with author-
ity make sexual demands, and submission
to or rejection of those demands is used as
a basis for employment decisions.
Sexual harassment — unwelcome sexual
advances, requests for sexual favors, and
other verbal or physical conduct of a
sexual nature that explicitly or implicitly
interferes with a person’s employment,
unreasonably interferes with her or
his work performance, or creates an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
environment.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. What is the relationship between
compliance with legislative acts and
valuing diversity? Explain.
2. What approach should organizations
take in their pursuit of diversity and
inclusion in countries that do not have
equal opportunity laws?
3. Do you personally know anyone
who has engaged in an employment
discrimination lawsuit against an
employer and prevailed? Without
divulging who the parties are, explain
what happened.
Chapter 3: Legislation 105
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
4. Many of the EEOC cases presented
in this chapter involve acts that are
egregious and offensive. Choose three
cases and for each speculate on the
organizational factors that would
allow such practices to occur and, in
some cases, to persist for extended
periods. Why do you think no one in
the management chain intervened?
What would you recommend, specifi-
cally, to deal with the perpetrators and
prevent future occurrences?
5. This chapter discusses multiple lawsuits
brought by the EEOC against Super-
cuts. What factors may be contributing
to the persistence of problems within
the organization? Make specific recom-
mendations for preventing such pro-
blems in the future.
ACTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. Access the press releases on the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission’s Web site: http://eeoc.
gov/. Document a recent lawsuit or
settlement involving race, ethnic, sex,
age, disability, national origin, or reli-
gious discrimination that was likely
to have been covered by the media.
Describe the allegations, plaintiffs, and
resolution of the cases. Document the
time periods between the incidents and
the final resolution of the cases. Search
the Web for newspaper articles or
other media reports relevant to each
case. Do the EEOC’s presentation and
the media’s presentation take different
perspectives? Discuss.
2. Consider the issues discussed as
limitations in federal laws. Pick one
issue and then list and discuss the
elements that could be included in
legislation to address that limitation.
What specific steps should employers
take according to such legislation to
ensure equal treatment of the affected
parties?
3. Choose a state in the United States and
document two existing state-level
diversity-related laws. How are they
similar to and different from federal
laws in those areas?
4. Choose a particular country outside of
the United States and document its
major diversity-related laws. In the
absence of such laws, what might
organizations do to address areas in
which there is disparity of treatment
and inequality?
106 Introduction, Theories, and Legislation
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
SECTION II
Examining
Specific
Groups and
Categories
Chapter 4 Blacks/African Americans
Chapter 5 Latinos/Hispanics
Chapter 6 Asians/Asian Americans
Chapter 7 Whites/European Americans
Chapter 8 American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Multiracial
Group Members
Chapter 9 Sex and Gender
Chapter 10 Work and Family
Chapter 11 Sexual Orientation
Chapter 12 Religion
Chapter 13 Age
Chapter 14 Physical and Mental Ability
Chapter 15 Weight and Appearance
A
nd
re
y
Po
po
v/
iS
to
ck
ph
ot
o.
co
m
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER
4Blacks/African Americans
Chapter Objectives
After completing this chapter, readers should have a
greater understanding of Blacks and diversity in
organizations. Specifically, they should be able to:
❏ be aware of the historical background and
current status of Blacks.
❏ be able to discuss participation rates,
employment, and income levels of Blacks.
❏ examine differences in earnings by education
level for Blacks and other racial and ethnic
groups.
❏ discuss research evidence on employment
experiences of native and immigrant Blacks.
❏ be able to compare similarities and differences
between employment experiences of Black men
and women.
❏ explain individual and organizational measures
that can be used to improve organizational
experiences of Blacks.
Key Facts
Blacks who are high school graduates are
about twice as likely to be unemployed
as White high school graduates.
Average earnings of Black men with college
degrees are about 32% less than those of
White men with college degrees but nearly
60% more than those of Black men with only
high school diplomas.
Average earnings of Black women with
college degrees are about 80% more than
earnings of Black women with only high
school diplomas.
Black women have higher workforce
participation rates than White women, but
White men have higher participation rates
than Black men.
The Black population is younger than the
overall population; 63% of Black labor
force participants are younger than 45,
compared with 58% of all labor force
participants.
109
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Introduction and Overview
We begin our discussion of racial and ethnic groups
in the United States with Blacks because of their
unique status as descendants of slaves and the leg-
acy of societal and organizational discrimination that
they continue to face.1 The current status of U.S.
Blacks is strongly influenced by the conditions under
which the ancestors of most Blacks originally came
to this country. Unlike those immigrants who came
seeking opportunities or were fleeing persecution in
their homeland, most of the first Blacks arrived as
slaves, with no options or opportunities for improv-
ing their position. Although many other immigrants
faced hostility, overt discrimination, and even peri-
ods as indentured servants (e.g., the Irish, Italians,
and Germans), they were not enslaved. In addition,
the discrimination and segregation experienced by
and among European immigrants, though signifi-
cant, was less pervasive, less vehement, and con-
siderably shorter-lived compared to the experience
of African slaves and their descendants.2
Researchers have documented how Blacks and
immigrants of color faced and continue to face more
“substantial barriers to assimilating into and full par-
ticipation in mainstream American society relative to
all White ethnic groups” (emphasis in the original).3
Although the Declaration of Independence stated
that all men were created equal and endowed with
inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, these rights did not apply to Blacks,
women, Native Americans, or immigrants of color.4
The Naturalization Law of 1790, the first federal law
to deal with citizenship of immigrants, specifically
allowed only White men to become citizens, and
these racial restrictions on citizenship of immigrants
were not repealed until 1952, in the McCarran–-
Walter Act. The 162-year life of the Naturalization
Act of 1790 negatively affected the rights and opportu-
nities of many immigrants of color, and highlights the
importance of race-based ethnic differences that per-
sist today.
The absence of clear physical distinctions, such
as skin color, to indicate whether a person is of Irish,
German, Italian, or English descent, is one impedi-
ment to immediate overt discrimination against mem-
bers of those groups. As discussed in Chapter 2, one
characteristic of minority groups is visibility, which fa-
cilitates immediate categorization and stereotyping.5
For the most part, European Americans’ country of
origin is invisible, which makes discrimination on that
basis difficult. As we point out in Chapter 7, high rates
of intermarriage between Whites of different ethnic
backgrounds and less legal segregation and exclusion
also reduced overt and lasting discrimination against
White ethnic minority groups as compared to Blacks.
Segregation, exclusion, and discrimination against
Blacks in the United States have proven to be formi-
dable barriers, shaping people’s lives and opportu-
nities for generations.
1The introduction and history sections of this chapter refer to the experiences of non-Hispanic Blacks, as descendants of slaves, in the
United States. Blacks who have come to the United States after slavery also face discriminatory racial barriers in organizations and
society. The terms Black and African American are used interchangeably. Unless otherwise noted, Blacks who are of Hispanic origin
are considered in Chapter 5.
2Johnson, C., & Smith, P. (1998). Africans in America: America’s Journey through Slavery. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Publishers;
Williams, J. (1987). Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954–1965. New York: Viking Penguin.
3Reskin, B. F., & Charles, C. Z. (1999). “Now You See ’em, Now You Don’t.” In I. Browne (Ed.), Latinas and African-American
Women at Work: Race, Gender, and Economic Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 380–407. See also Takaki, R.
(Ed.) (1987). From Different Shores: Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 390.
4Herring, C. (1999). “African Americans in Contemporary America: Progress and Retrenchment.” In A. G. Dworkin & R. J. Dworkin
(Eds.), The Minority Report. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Publishers, pp. 181–208; Takaki, R. (1987). “Reflections on Racial Patterns in
America.” In R. Takaki (Ed.), From Different Shores: Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America. New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 26–37.
5Dworkin, A. G., & Dworkin, A. (1999). “What Is a Minority?” In A. G. Dworkin & R. J. Dworkin (Eds.), The Minority Report.
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Publishers, pp. 11–27.
110 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Terminology
In this chapter, consistent with U.S. Census
Bureau terminology, Black and African American
are used interchangeably to refer to people whose
origins can be traced to any of the African Black
racial groups. Thus, despite some differences in
their experiences and identity, the terms include
American descendants of slaves as well as recent
immigrants.6 Many Hispanics from Central and South
America have African origins, and have similarities
and differences in experiences and identity when
compared with non-Hispanic Blacks.7 Experiences
and diversity of Black Hispanics are considered in
Chapter 5.
HISTORY OF BLACKS IN THE UNITED STATES
Historical records indicate that Africans were first sold in what is now the
United States in about 1619. During the same period, Whites also were
bound in servitude by indenture contracts. Over time, White servitude of
any sort ended, but African slavery, a “complete deprivation of civil and
personal rights,” continued for the next 146 years.8 The formal institution
of slavery ended by decree in 1863 with Lincoln’s Emancipation Procla-
mation, but even the end of the Civil War in 1865 did not bring to Blacks
the rights and opportunities provided to all Whites at the end of the
American Revolution. Between 1865 and 1964, formal, legally sanctioned
(or required) segregation in many parts of the country severely impeded
the progress of Blacks. “Jim Crow” laws required “separate but equal”
accommodations, transportation, education, and even burial for Whites
and Blacks; however, “separate” meant unequal, inferior, and often sub-
standard facilities for Blacks.9
Misperception: Legalized discrimination and segregation ended with the end
of slavery.
Reality: Legally sanctioned (or mandated) discrimination and segregation
persisted for decades after the end of slavery, including “separate but equal”
schools and other facilities for Blacks and Whites.
6See Tormala, T. T., & Deaux, K. (2006). “Black Immigrants to the United States: Confronting and
Constructing Ethnicity and Race.” In R. Mahalingham (Ed.), Cultural Psychology of Immigrants.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 131–150.
7See Chapter 5 for research concerning Black Hispanics.
8Jordan, W. D. (1962). “Modern Tensions and the Origins of American Slavery” p. 23. Journal of
Southern History, 28(1): 18–30. See also Jordan, W. D. (1968). White over Black: American Attitudes
toward the Negro, 1550–1812. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, p. 107; Rose,
P. I. (1970). Slavery and Its Aftermath. New York: Atherton Press.
9Herring (1999).
Chapter 4: Blacks/African Americans 111
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Extremely hostile attitudes toward Blacks in the South and greater
employment opportunities elsewhere contributed to large-scale migration
to cities like Boston, Chicago, Detroit, and New York. Escape from the
South was no panacea to the ills of discrimination, however. Although
employment at steel mills, automakers, and railroads provided Black men
with higher earnings than sharecropping, cotton-picking, and other low-
wage jobs in the South, better-paying, safer, and more prestigious jobs
were still reserved for Whites. Inferior housing and education, and overt
racial discrimination existed in the North as well. As discussed in Chapter 7,
the Black migration from the South to the North improved the social
position of lower- and working-class immigrant Whites and reduced
discrimination against them. The migrating Blacks stepped into the role
of the inferior class and became the targets of the discrimination,
harassment, and exclusion that had previously been directed at lower-
class Whites.
Focal Issue 4.1 considers differences between Blacks and Whites in the
accumulation of wealth, focusing on the influence of slavery, subsequent
pervasive discrimination against Blacks, and inheritance.
Blacks in the Military
Segregation and discrimination extended to the armed forces, where
fellow White military personnel and nonmilitary personnel alike were
openly hostile toward Black servicemen. Black men served in the
French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of 1812,
the Civil War, and the wars of the twentieth century, albeit under
many restrictions. The Blacks who fought in the American Revolution
helped gain freedom from British rule, but freedom from slavery eluded
them. Throughout World War II, Blacks experienced sanctioned segre-
gation and discrimination, as did their nonservice counterparts.10 For
many years Blacks in the military were restricted to jobs such as
janitor, clerk, cafeteria worker, and laborer, even when they were
qualified for higher jobs.11 It is not difficult to imagine the conse-
quences of such restrictions: lower pensions, reduced ability to provide
for a family, and failure to acquire skills transferable to better post-
military positions.
Other overt discrimination took the form of unfounded accusations
against Black soldiers for theft, insubordination, and the rape and
10Astor, G. (2001). The Right to Fight: A History of African Americans in the Military. Cambridge,
MA: DaCapo Press.
11Ibid.
112 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
FOCAL
ISSUE 4.1
Differences in Black/White Accumulation of Wealth: Effects of Slavery and
Generations of Discrimination
Many researchers in various disciplines (e.g.,
sociology, economics, and finance) have
investigated differences between Blacks and
Whites in accumulation of wealth. Some
suggest that these differences are primarily
due to differences in inheritance, rather than
differences in saving or spending habits.12 For
the first 250 years of their existence in what is
now the United States, Blacks were property
rather than owned property. For decades after
being freed in 1865, Blacks were still legally
denied the right to own property by various
laws across the United States. Whereas
Whites had property and wealth to pass on to
heirs, Blacks generally did not.13 Systematic
and legal discrimination in employment and
earnings exacerbated these disparities for
nearly 100 more years, until passage of the
Civil Rights Act in 1964, which prohibited race-
based discrimination in employment and helped
narrow the White/Black earnings gap to some
extent. “Put simply, long after legalized
discrimination and segregation ceased, their
intergenerational impacts persist.”14 Not only
was there little or no inheritance to pass on
due to slavery and its aftermath, Blacks’
wages still suffer effects of discrimination,
which limits their ability to acquire and, thus,
pass on wealth.
Black/White differences in wealth have also
been partially attributed to discrimination in
access to credit, which results in Blacks being
less likely to be homeowners or to start their
own businesses, both of which contribute
strongly to accumulation of wealth.15 In an
analysis of access to business loans, Ando found
that Blacks were significantly less likely to obtain
credit than were Whites, Asians, and Latinos.
After controlling for differences that might have
explained Blacks’ lower acceptance rates, Ando
still found significant differences.16 Similar
disparities in mortgage loan approvals and rates
for comparably creditworthy Blacks and Whites
also exist.17 As with employment discrimination,
it appears that Blacks with marginal qualifications
are rejected or charged higher interest rates, while
Whites with marginal qualifications are given the
benefit of the doubt.18
Compared to 74.4% of non-Hispanic Whites,
45.4% of Blacks owned their own homes in
2010.19 In the period of 1940 to 1960, while
White (male) veterans capitalized on education,
employment, and housing benefits after their
service, Black veterans were systematically and
12Darity, W. A., Jr., & Myers, S. L., Jr. (2000). “Languishing in Inequality: Racial Disparities in Wealth and Earnings in the New
Millennium.” In J. S. Jackson (Ed.), New Directions: African Americans in a Diversifying Nation. Washington, D.C.: National Policy
Association, pp. 86–118; “Black American’s Wealth Increases—They Still Lag,” Reuters, October 29, 2003.
13Blau, F. D., & Graham, J. W. (1990). “Black/White Differences in Wealth and Asset Composition.” Quarterly Journal of Econom-
ics, 105: 321–339.
14Darity & Myers (2000), p. 104.
15Ibid.
16Ando, F. (1988). An Analysis of Access to Bank Credit. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for Afro-American Studies.
17Yinger, J. (1995). Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
18See George, C. G. (1991). “Use of Testers in Investigating Discrimination in Mortgage Lending and Insurance.” In M. Fix &
R. J. Struyk (Eds.), Clear and Convincing Evidence. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, pp. 257–306.
19Bureau of the Census. Table 22. “Homeownership Rates by Race and Ethnicity of Householder: 1994 to 2010,” www.census.gov/
hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual10/ann10t_22.xls, accessed March 18, 2011.
Chapter 4: Blacks/African Americans 113
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
harassment of White women, the latter two of which were life-threatening
charges. Accusations often led to biased courts martial and punishments
that were far harsher than those faced by similarly charged Whites, in-
cluding significantly more sentences of life imprisonment and dishonor-
able discharges.24 On some military bases in the South, Black soldiers had
to drink from separate water fountains while White soldiers and German
prisoners of war drank from the fountains for Whites only.25 In some
areas of the country, children of Blacks in the military were bused to
Black schools in town because the on-base schools were reserved for
White children. Outside military bases, Blacks in these areas had to ride in
the backs of trolleys and busses and in the “colored” sections of trains; new
purposefully denied such benefits even though
they had earned them.20 The Federal Housing
Authority believed in racial segregation of
neighborhoods, publicly promoted segregation,
and often denied Blacks loans. Renting instead
of owning also contributed to Blacks having less
property to leave to subsequent generations;
obviously, renters do not will homes to heirs.
For Blacks who were able to purchase homes,
residential segregation and steering by realtors
contributed to continued stratification.21
Evidence of residential segregation and steering
continues to be documented.22 Homes in
predominantly Black neighborhoods are worth
less and appreciate more slowly than homes in
neighborhoods that are not predominantly Black.
In addition, school systems tend to be worse,
opportunities for employment are less, and
services are lower in such neighborhoods, which
also contributes to persistent, enduring gaps in
income and opportunities for wealth.23
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Prior to reading this section, had you con-
sidered the effects of slavery and subse-
quent continued discrimination on the
ability of (a) Blacks and (b) Whites to inherit
and earn wealth, savings, and property?
2. What factors may affect the higher rejection
rates of equally creditworthy Blacks for
business and home loans?
3. Why might realtors steer Blacks to “Black”
neighborhoods?
4. What organizational steps can banks,
mortgage companies, and realtors take to
ensure they do not perpetrate credit and
housing discrimination?
20Brodkin, K. (2004). “How Jews Became White.” In J. F. Healey & E. O’Brien (Eds.), Race, Ethnic-
ity, and Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, pp. 282–294.
21Ibid.
22Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. (1995). Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial
Inequality. New York: Routledge; Turner, M. A. (1992). “Limits on Neighborhood Choice: Evidence
of Racial and Ethnic Steering in Urban Housing Markets.” In M. Fix & R. J. Struyk (Eds.), Clear and
Convincing Evidence. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, pp. 95–130.
23Massey, D., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the
Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24Astor (2001).
25Ibid.
114 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
draftees reported to duty after long rides at the back of segregated busses.
Soldiers were denied service in restaurants, theaters, and bars in many cities,
and at times faced open hostility, assault, and even lynching by townspeople.26
Understandably, Black American soldiers, who often fought to support demo-
cratic principles in foreign countries, opposed and resisted such hypocritical
treatment within their own country. Today, Blacks fare better in the military,
and the United States has 2.3 million Black veterans, more than any other
minority group.27 However, Black officers remain rare, particularly at the
highest levels. Although 17% of the U.S. military is comprised of Blacks, only
9% of officers are Black.28
The Civil Rights Movement
Blacks had resisted discrimination and segregation for many years, but it was
not until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s that substantial
social and legal changes and the securing of rights previously denied to Blacks
were achieved. Well-known activists and organizers included Medgar Evers,
Fannie Lou Hamer, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, legendary base-
ball player Jackie Robinson, Dorothy Height, and Malcolm X; but many
ordinary Blacks also participated in boycotts, demonstrations, and “sit-ins.”
In the early 1960s, college students organized sit-ins at lunch counters in stores
in the South that refused service to Blacks. The students were often arrested
and jailed, but on the following days, other student protesters again sat at the
lunch counters. Most of the sit-ins occurred in the South, but stores in the
North also faced negative consequences arising from the discriminatory
actions of their counterparts in the South (e.g., Woolworth’s, a large discount
store that had locations in both the North and South). When the Southern
locations refused service to Blacks, many Black and White Northerners
refused to patronize those stores in the North, putting economic pressure
on the entire company. The “Don’t buy where you can’t work” slogan,
used in many effective boycotts, which began as early as 1938 when
Black leaders called for boycotts and picketing against organizations that
refused to hire Blacks, sums up the potential for lost business when an
organization becomes known for not valuing diversity.29 In 2009, Black
buying power amounted to $910 billion and by 2014 it is estimated to be
26Ibid.
27Facts for Features, Black (African-American) History Month: February 2010. http://www.census.gov/
newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb10-ff01.html, accessed October 13,
2010.
28Baldor, L. C. (2008). “After 60 Years, Black Officers Rare.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
25809737/, accessed October 13, 2010.
29Sewell, S. K. (2004). “The ‘Not Buying Power’ of the Black Community: Urban Boycotts and Equal
Employment Opportunity.” Journal of African American History, 89(2): 135–152.
Chapter 4: Blacks/African Americans 115
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
$1,137 billion.30 If this is combined with buying power of potential allies
(Whites, Hispanics, and others), the costs to business of discrimination could
be tremendous.
Many Whites also participated in the battles for Black equality before,
during, and after the civil rights movement. They included Alabaman
Virginia Durr and New Yorkers Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman.
Schwerner and Goodman were murdered in Mississippi along with James
Chaney (a Black activist) during the fight for Blacks’ civil rights. And despite
past (and present) periods of hostility between some Blacks and Jews,
estimates are that two-thirds of the Whites who participated in the civil rights
movement were Jewish, including Schwerner and Goodman.31 Whites who
supported Black causes in the South risked ostracism, harassment, and
murder.
In conjunction with increased societal and governmental pressure, the
sit-ins, boycotts, and picketing of the 1960s were successful in achieving
results. The combined efforts of the many who fought for justice in the
United States during this time secured the passage of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and executive orders on affirmative action (discussed in Chapter 2).
In large part due to these and subsequent laws and executive actions, the
1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s brought about change and some progress
for African Americans and for equality and diversity in the United States.
Among other changes, Black poverty rates declined from 41.8% in 1964
to 24.7% in 2008—still a significant one-quarter of the population, but
considerably lower than in 1964.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Perhaps the most important piece of legislation relevant to the experiences
of Blacks in organizations is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The exis-
tence of overt racial discrimination and the civil rights activities of the
1950s and 1960s preceding passage of Title VII made Blacks the primary
focus of Title VII. As discussed in Chapter 3, Title VII, as amended,
prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in employment matters and
racial harassment, and provides those targeted with some recourse.
Executive orders in support of affirmative action are also particularly
relevant to the employment experiences of African Americans because of
30Humphreys, J. M. (2009). “The Multicultural Economy 2009.” Selig Center for Economic Growth,
Georgia Business and Economic Conditions, http://ahaa.org/pdf/GBEC , accessed October 12, 2010.
31Schoenfeld, E. (1999). “Jewish Americans: A Religio-Ethnic Community.” In A. G. Dworkin & R. J.
Dworkin (Eds.), The Minority Report. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Publishers, pp. 364–394. Takaki,
R. (1993). A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America. Boston: Back Bay Books, Little
Brown and Company. See also Salzman, J., Back, A., & Sorin, G. S. (Eds.) (1992). Bridges and
Boundaries: African Americans and American Jews. New York: George Braziller.
116 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
the need for proactive nondiscrimination measures, as opposed to the pas-
sive provisions of Title VII. As we discuss later in the chapter, Blacks and
women who work for affirmative action employers earn more than those
who work for nonaffirmative action employers. Despite the more than forty
years that Title VII and relevant executive orders have been in place, how-
ever, the employment status and income of African Americans continue to
lag those of Whites with similar qualifications. Slavery and sanctioned
discrimination existed for more than 300 years in the United States; Title
VII and affirmative action have existed for fewer than fifty years.
Misperception: The playing field is now level; affirmative action is no longer
needed.
Reality: Affirmative action is still needed to combat persistent, pervasive dis-
crimination in hiring, placement, promotions, and advancement.
POPULATION
The 41.1 million Blacks in the United States comprise 13.5% of the popu-
lation. Blacks are relatively young: 80% of Blacks are under age 50 and
30% are age 18 or younger.32 This youthfulness reflects the slightly higher-
than-average birthrate and the shorter life expectancy of Blacks, both of
which are related to diversity in organizations. First, the larger proportion
of young Blacks means that a larger proportion of Blacks will enter the
workforce in the future. To fully utilize the assets of this large segment of
the population, organizations must create environments that welcome and
provide opportunities for Blacks rather than fostering discrimination, seg-
regation, and exclusion. Second, although there are many reasons for the
shorter life expectancies of Blacks (such as less access to health care and
crime and poverty), researchers have suggested that stress related to dis-
crimination, low responsibility and autonomy at work, and underutiliza-
tion of Blacks’ skills at work also contribute to illness and early death.33
The organizational pursuit of fairness and equity can reduce discrimination-
related stress that Blacks experience, while also increasing their access
32Facts for Features, Black (African American) History Month: February 2010. http://www.census.gov/
newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/ch10-ff01.html, accessed October 14, 2010.
33Sagrestano, L. M. (2004). “Health Implications of Workplace Diversity.” In M. S. Stockdale &
F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing, pp. 122–143; Keita, G. P., & Jones, J. M. (1990). “Reducing Adverse Reaction to Stress in
the Workplace: Psychology’s Expanding Role.” American Psychologist, 45(10): 1137–1141; James, K.
(1994). “Social Identity, Work Stress, and Minority Workers’ Health.” In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell
(Eds.), Job Stress in a Changing Workforce: Investigating Gender, Diversity, and Family Issues.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, pp. 127–145.
Chapter 4: Blacks/African Americans 117
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
to health care and reducing poverty. Lastly, Blacks and other people
of color are also often concentrated in occupations with higher risks
of injury and death more than Whites (e.g., convenience store clerk,
construction worker), which contributes somewhat to shorter life
expectancies.34
EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND EARNINGS
Education
During slavery, laws in many states prohibited teaching slaves to read or
otherwise providing them with education, although some Whites and many
literate Blacks still did so.35 When slavery ended, Blacks continued trying to
obtain education. For nearly ninety years after the Civil War, laws in many
communities required Blacks to be educated separately from Whites. At
times, no facilities for Blacks were available. Since the 1954 Supreme Court
decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, which outlawed
the “separate but ‘equal’” educational system, there have been marked in-
creases in the levels of Black education. In 1940, 7.7% of Blacks and 26.1%
of Whites had completed at least high school, but by 2008, 83% of Blacks
and 87.1% of Whites had done so.36 As shown in Table 4.1, Whites have
more education than Blacks. These differences provide some explanation for
the Black/White earnings and employment gap, but they do not explain it
completely.37
Misperception: Earnings and employment differences between Blacks and
Whites are due to the lower educational attainment of Blacks.
Reality: Blacks with the same level of education as Whites are more likely to
be unemployed than Whites and earn less when employed than Whites.
34Sagrestano (2004), p. 127.
35Pollock, B. H. (2001). “An Act Prohibiting the Teaching of Slaves to Read.” In B. H. Pollock (Ed.)
(2001), Zamani to Sasa: Readings on the Black Quest for Freedom, Identity and Power in America.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, pp. 107–108.
36Table A-2. Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed High School or College, by
Race, Hispanic Origin and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2004. http://www.census.gov/population/
socdemo/education/tabA-2 , accessed August 29, 2010; and Table 226. Educational Attainment by
Selected Characteristics: 2008. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. http://www.census.gov/
prod/2009pubs/10statab/educ , accessed October 13, 2010.
37Herring (1999), p. 187. See also Reskin, B. F., & Charles, C. Z. (1999) for a discussion of how and
why the relationship between education and earnings and other labor market outcomes differs between
Whites and other groups.
118 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Participation Rates
How likely are African Americans to be in the labor force? Table 4.2 pre-
sents actual (1998 and 2008) and projected (2018) participation rates
(those who are employed or seeking employment) for men and women, by
race. White men have higher participation rates than Black men, and
Black women have slightly higher participation rates than White women.
Proportionately, increases in the employment and earnings of Blacks
have not matched their increasing levels of education. In the twentieth
century and the twenty-first century thus far, Black unemployment levels
have been considerably higher than those of Whites.38,39 As Table 4.3 shows,
in every category, Black unemployment is higher than that of every other
TABLE 4.1 Educational Attainment by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex: 2008
High School Graduate
or More
College Graduate
or More
All Races Male 85.9 30.1
Female 87.2 28.8
Total 86.6 29.4
White Male 86.3 30.5
Female 87.8 29.1
Total 87.1 29.8
Black Male 81.8 18.7
Female 84.0 20.4
Total 83.0 19.6
Asian and Pacific Islander Male 90.8 55.8
Female 86.9 49.8
Total 88.7 52.6
Hispanic* Male 60.9 12.6
Female 63.7 14.1
Total 62.3 13.4
*Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Sources: Educational attainment for males and females by race drawn from Table 225. Educational Attainment by Race, Hispanic
Origin, and Sex: 1970 to 2008. Total figures drawn from Tables 224 and 226. Educational Attainment by Selected Characteristics:
2008. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/10statab/educ , accessed
October 13, 2010.
38Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Diversity. Report 1020,
accessed from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2008 , accessed December 14, 2010.
39Herring (1999).
Chapter 4: Blacks/African Americans 119
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
racial/ethnic group at the same level of education. Black/White comparisons
are most striking: Blacks are considerably more likely to be unemployed than
Whites who have one and sometimes two fewer levels of education. This
persistent unemployment can contribute to discouragement and dropping out
of the workforce completely, as discussed in Focal Issue 4.2.
Earnings by Educational Attainment
As Table 4.4 shows, across all education levels (total), the highest to the least
average annual earnings are received, respectively, by Asian men, non-
Hispanic White men, Asian women, Black men, non-Hispanic White women,
Hispanic men, Black women, and Hispanic women.40 At the bachelor’s
degree level, White men’s earnings are highest, while Black men and Black
women remain at the fourth and seventh positions. These figures vary from
year to year and were affected by the recession that began in 2007. Despite
between-group disparities, as with all groups, Black men earn more than
Black women at all education levels and education increases earnings
for Blacks.
While Blacks with a high school education are estimated to earn
about a million dollars (1999 figures) during their work-life, those with a
bachelor’s degree would earn $1.7 million, and those with an advanced
degree would earn $2.7 million.41
TABLE 4.2 1998 and 2008 Actual and 2018 Projected Participation Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
1998 2008 2018 Projection
Men Women Men Women Men Women
All groups 74.9 59.8 73.0 59.5 70.6 58.7
White, non-Hispanic 75.0 59.9 72.4 59.8 70.7 59.0
Black 69.0 62.8 66.7 61.3 65.7 61.2
Hispanic 79.8 55.6 80.2 56.2 78.2 56.4
Asian 75.5 59.2 75.3 59.4 73.8 57.4
All other groups* — — 71.4 60.1 70.1 63.3
*The “All other groups” category includes (1) those classified as being of multiple racial origin and (2) the race categories of (2a)
American Indian and Alaska Native or (2b) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders. Dashes indicate no data collected for category.
Source: Employment Projections Program, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/emp/
ep_table_303.htm, accessed September 4, 2010.
40As discussed in Chapter 6, Asians’ higher earnings are also partly reflective of their greater propen-
sity to live in areas with high costs of living, such as California, Hawaii, and New York.
41Day, J. C., & Newburger, E. C. (2002, July). The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic
Estimates of Work-Life Earnings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/
2002pubs/p23-210 , accessed December 12, 2010.
120 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TABLE 4.3 Unemployment Level by Educational Attainment by Race (2008, 2009) (Percent of Population 25
and Over)
2008 Total Men Women White Black Asian Hispanic*
Less than high school 9.0 8.8 9.4 8.2 14.5 6.4 8.2
High school graduate 5.7 5.9 5.3 5.1 9.3 4.3 6.2
Some college,
no degree
5.1 5.0 5.1 4.5 8.0 3.8 5.4
Associate degree 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.3 6.2 3.8 4.1
Bachelor’s and higher 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.4 4.0 2.8 3.4
2009 Total Men Women White Black Asian Hispanic*
Less than high school 14.6 14.9 14.2 13.9 21.3 8.4 13.7
High school graduate 9.7 11.0 8.0 9.0 14.0 7.5 10.4
Some college, no
degree
8.6 9.3 8.0 7.9 12.1 8.9 9.6
Associate degree 6.8 7.9 5.9 6.2 10.3 7.5 8.5
Bachelor’s and highery 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.2 7.3 5.6 5.7
*Persons whose ethnicity is Hispanic are classified by ethnicity as well as by race.
yBachelor’s and higher includes persons with bachelor’s, master’s, professional, and doctoral degree.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat7 , accessed October 12, 2010.
0
5
10
15
Total Women Asian Latino
Race/Ethnicity
2
0
0
8
U
n
e
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t
R
a
te
Men White Black
Some College, ndLess than H.S.
H.S. Graduate Associate Degree
Bachelor’s and Higher
Chapter 4: Blacks/African Americans 121
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
FOCAL
ISSUE 4.2
Unemployment, Underemployment, and Discouraged Workers
Unemployment levels published by the U.S.
government and reported in the media understate
the true levels of employment as well as completely
excluding people who are “underemployed” and
those who are “discouraged workers.” Under the
official definition of unemployment, an individual
must be actively seeking work to be included
in the “official” unemployment rate.42 Thus,
“discouraged workers,” those who want to
work but have given up searching for employment,
are not included in the official rates.43 This
presents a more positive picture but belies true
unemployment levels.
The underemployed are people working part-
time or on a temporary or intermittent basis but who
desire regular, full-time work; those who are working
for lower wages than their skills would justify or
in positions requiring considerably lower skills
than they possess; and those involuntarily working
outside their fields (“occupational mismatch”).
Underemployment negatively affects workers in
a variety of ways. Earnings and benefits are
lower when working part-time, temporary, or inter-
mittent jobs. Health benefits,retirement, vacation,
and other benefits are less likely and, if they exist,
they are less lucrative in such jobs. Working
for lower wages than one’s skills merit not only
negatively affects workers immediately but also
results inlower employer contributions to pensions,
401(k) or other salary-driven benefits. Involuntarily
working outside one’s field can erode skills and
decrease competitiveness for future opportu-
nities. In addition to those negative effects, the
underemployed experience reduced self-esteem,
job attitudes, and likelihood of appropriate employ-
ment later.44
As mentioned earlier, Black unemployment
rates are consistently and considerably higher than
those of Whites. In 2009, 4.2% of Whites and 7.3%
of Blacks with a bachelor’s degree or more were
considered “officially” unemployed. Blacks remain
unemployed longer than Whites as well. In 2008,
the mean duration of unemployment was
21.7 weeks for Blacks versus 16.7 weeks for
Whites.45 Blacks are also more likely to be
underemployed and discouraged workers than
Whites.46 In 2008, Blacks comprised 11% of the
labor force but 28% of the discouraged workers.47
Given the demoralizing effects of discrimination and
underemployment, one could speculate about the
numbers of discouraged Blacks who are overlooked
by the official employment figures, the negative
ramifications for them, and the opportunities missed
by prospective employers and society as a whole.
42Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Current Population Survey. How the Government Measures Unemployment. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#nilf, accessed December 17, 2010.
43Herring, C., & Fasenfest, D. (1999); Tipps, H. C., & Gordon, H. A. (1985). “Inequality at Work: Race, Sex, and Underemployment.”
Social Indicators Research, 16: 35–49; Ullah, P. (1987). “Unemployed Black Youths in a Northern City.” In D. Fryer & P. Ullah (Eds.),
Unemployed People. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press, pp. 110–147; Winefield, A. H., Winefield, H. R., Tiggemann, M., &
Goldney, R. D. (1991). “A Longitudinal Study of the Psychological Effects of Unemployment and Unsatisfactory Employment on Young
Adults.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 424–431.
44See Tipps & Gordon (1985); Ullah (1987); Winefield, Winefield, Tiggemann & Goldney (1991).
45Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009). Labor Force Characteristics by Race and Ethnicity. Report 1020. http://www.bls.gov/cps/
cpsrace2008 , accessed January 14, 2010.
46Herring & Fasenfest (1999); Tipps & Gordon (1985); Ullah (1987).
47Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009).
122 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
TABLE 4.4 Mean Total Money Earnings in 2008 by Educational Attainment for Population 25 Years and Over
High School
Total*
Graduate,
Including GED
Some College,
No Degree Bachelor’s
All races male $56,036 $39,835 $46,703 $75,595
All races female $35,760 $25,851 $30,007 $45,688
Women’s % of men’s 64% 65% 64% 60%
White male, non-Hispanic $61,863 $42,579 $49,154 $79,584
White female, non-Hispanic $37,492 $26,619 $30,703 $45,950
White women’s % of men’s 61% 63% 62% 58%
Black male $39,935 $33,492 $36,523 $53,108
Black female $32,076 $24,493 $29,131 $44,360
Black women’s % of men’s 80% 73% 80% 84%
Asian male $64,395 $37,206 $45,925 $69,288
Asian female $43,246 $24,422 $27,992 $49,800
Asian women’s % of men’s 67% 66% 61% 72%
Hispanic male (any race) $37,080 $33,332 $40,090 $58,789
Hispanic female (any race) $26,753 $23,405 $28,432 $40,947
Hispanic women’s % of men’s 72% 70% 71% 70%
*Total includes figures shown plus master’s, doctorate, and professional degrees, which are not separately shown.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. PINC-03. “Educational Attainment—People 25 Years Old and Over, by Total Money Earnings in 2008,
Work Experience in 2008, Age, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex.” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032009/perinc/
new03_000.htm.
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
A
ll
ra
ce
s
m
al
e
A
ll
ra
ce
s
fe
m
al
e
N
on
-H
is
pa
ni
c
w
hi
te
m
al
e
N
on
-H
is
pa
ni
c
w
hi
te
fe
m
al
e
B
la
ck
m
al
e
B
la
ck
fe
m
al
e
A
si
an
m
al
e
H
is
pa
ni
c
m
al
e
(a
ny
ra
ce
)
A
si
an
fe
m
al
e
H
is
pa
ni
c
fe
m
al
e
(a
ny
ra
ce
)
Total
obese (BMI ≥ 40)
11.7 $5,965
Source: Adapted from Grossman R. J. (2004, March). “Countering a Weight Crisis.” HR Magazine, p. 45.
47U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (n.d.); Wolf, A. M., & Colditz, G. A. (1998). “Cur-
rent Estimates of the Economic Cost of Obesity in the United States.” Obesity Research, 6: 97–106.
48Gaesser, G. (2000). Big Fat Lies: The Truth About Your Weight and Your Health. Carlsbad, CA:
Gurze Books.
49Ibid.
Chapter 15: Weight and Appearance 475
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Misperception: People who diet and lose weight are healthier than those who
do not.
Reality: Maintaining a stable weight, even if it is a somewhat less healthy
weight, is healthier than losing and regaining excess weight multiple times.
IS IT THE FAT, THE HEALTH, OR THE STIGMA OF OVERWEIGHT?
Overweight people are more likely to miss work than others, and insuring
those who are fat is more expensive than insuring those who are not fat.
Those with anorexia and bulimia are also more likely to miss work and
have related increased insurance costs, as do smokers. Cancer and
numerous other illnesses are also more likely to cause absence and be
expensive to insure. Those who are fat, however, are unique in their
experiences with overt hostility, negative comments, and lack of protec-
tion from discrimination on the job. Further, unlike anorexia, bulimia,
cancers, and many other illnesses that cause employers additional ex-
pense, obesity is clearly visible. Few would question employers’ prefer-
ences for workers who are energetic, disciplined, and self-controlled.
More legitimately, people might ask themselves whether all overweight
people are lazy, undisciplined, and lacking in self-control and whether
all thin or normal-weight people are energetic, disciplined, and self-
controlled. Few would answer these questions affirmatively. In fact,
common perceptions about the personality attributes of fat workers—
that they are less conscientious, agreeable, and outgoing—are largely
inaccurate.50
A thin applicant or employee might be thin due to anorexia, bingeing
and purging, or smoking, none of which exemplifies energy, discipline, or
self-control. As discussed in Feature 15.2, costs of thinness can also be
very high. Further, multiple studies using different populations have found
that people who are excessively thin (BMI < 18) have higher mortality
rates than people who have BMI ranges of 20 to 22.51 These higher rates
of mortality occur after controlling for previous illness, smoking, or being
elderly (and its associated weight loss).
50Roehling, M. V., Roehling, P. V., & Dunn, H. (2008). “Investigating the Validity of Stereotypes
About Overweight Employees: The Investigation of Body Weight and Normal Personality Traits.”
Group Organization Management, 33(4): 392–424.
51See, for example, Thorogood, M., Appleby, P. N., Key, T. J., & Mann, J. (2003). “Relation Between
Body Mass Index and Mortality in an Unusually Slim Cohort.” Journal of Epidemiology and Commu-
nity Health, 57: 130–133.
476 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
FEATURE 15.2 Costs of Thinness
Eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and
bulimia nervosa are increasingly common
weight-related health issues that receive less
attention than obesity and overweight. Anorexia
and bulimia involve disordered eating behavior,
such as eating very little for extended periods of
time or eating extreme amounts in a short period
of time, coupled with measures to binge or purge
oneself of the food consumed. Both anorexia and
bulimia are associated with intense fear of weight
gain, inappropriate behavior to prevent weight
gain, often including misusing laxatives,
diuretics, or enemas, and excessive exercising.
Anorexia is essentially self-starvation. In
response to being starved, the body slows down
its processes to conserve energy. Negative health
effects associated with anorexia include dry,
brittle bones (osteoporosis), muscle loss and
weakness, hair loss, severe dehydration
(sometimes resulting in kidney failure), and
disrupted menstrual cycles. Bulimia involves
recurrent episodes of binge eating, sometimes
accompanied by purging. The binge-eating
episodes may last for hours or days, followed by
guilt, disgust, and shame. Those suffering from
bulimia are likely to be average or above average
weight. Negative health effects resulting from
bulimia include swelling of the stomach or
pancreas, tooth decay (resulting from vomiting),
abnormal heart rhythms, and muscle spasms.
Anorexia and bulimia cross racial, ethnic, age,
and gender lines; however, young women are
significantly more likely to develop them than
others. Estimates suggest that between 0.5%
and 3.7% of females will suffer from anorexia
at some point in life and that between 1.1% and
4.2% will have bulimia at some point. The
mortality rate for those with anorexia is 5.6% per
decade, or twelve times higher than the death
rate due to all causes for young women in the
population. The most common causes of death
due to anorexia are cardiac arrest, electrolyte
imbalance, and suicide. After battling anorexia for
many years, Karen Carpenter, a popular singer
from the 1970s and 1980s, died at age 32.
French actress and model Isabelle Caro, whose
emaciated body appeared in an anti-anorexia ad
died at age 28 in December 2010.52 Mary-Kate
Olsen, Jane Fonda, and Sally Field have also
reportedly suffered from eating disorders.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Why do the negative health effects associ-
ated with thinness and attempts to be thin
receive relatively little attention when com-
pared with obesity?
2. Investigate mortality rates for obese young
women. How do these rates compare with
those for young women suffering from
anorexia or bulimia?
Sources: Spearing, M. (2001). “Eating Disorders: Facts
About Eating Disorders and the Search for Solutions.”
National Institute of Mental Health. http://www.nimh.nih.
gov/publicat/eatingdisorders.cfm, accessed August 9,
2010; Soriano, C. G. (2004, June 22). “Mary-Kate Olsen
Seeks Treatment for Eating Disorder.” USAToday.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-06-22-
olsen-treatment_x.htm, accessed August 9, 2010.
52
“Isabelle Caro Dies After Anorexia Struggle.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/dec/30/isabelle-caro-dies-model-anorexia,
accessed January 1, 2011.
Chapter 15: Weight and Appearance 477
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Misperception: Thinness is always healthier than heaviness.
Reality: Excessive thinness and excessive weight are both unhealthy.
The widespread dislike for fatness, its clear visibility, its perceived
association with many negative personal attributes, and the lack of
widespread sanctions for discrimination on the basis of fat all contribute
to continued discrimination. Research on stigma provides some clues to
understanding fat discrimination. Stigma theory suggests that those
whose attributes deviate from the typical, normal, or preferred attributes
of others in a situation may be stigmatized and this stigmatization
will result in various negative outcomes.53 Since two-thirds of the
U.S. population is now overweight or obese, the “typical” or “normal”
person is no longer thin. Stigmatization appears instead to result
from deviance from preferred attributes rather than common or
normal attributes. As discussed earlier, women suffer more negative
consequences for being overweight than do men. Several authors suggest
this is partly a response to media images that portray nearly all women
as unrealistically thin and ignore larger (normal) women, resulting in
greater preferences for thin women.54 Even “plus-sized” models are
often smaller than the “average” woman. Since the images of women’s
thinness are so pervasive and so strongly equated with beauty, women
who deviate from these images are penalized by society, including
employers and health care providers.
Obesity Discrimination in Health Care
As discussed in the previous section, excess weight is associated with
numerous health problems. Although not every overweight person is
unhealthy, overweight people use more health care services compared
to those who are not overweight, but, ironically, they are less likely to receive
preventive care than others. Obese women are more likely to delay having
breast exams, gynecological exams, and Pap smears, even when the sample is
controlled for age, race, income, education, smoking, and health insurance.55
Medical professionals hold many of the same negative perceptions that dis-
criminating employers hold about the character and attributes of those who
53Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
54Wolf, N. (1991). The Beauty Myth. New York: William Morris & Co.; Goodman, C. (1995). The
Invisible Woman: Confronting Weight Prejudice in America. Carlsbad, CA: Gurze Books.
55Fontaine, K. R., Faith, M. S., Allison, D. B., & Cheskin, L. J. (1998). “Body Weight and Health
Care Among Women in the General Population.” Archives of Family Medicine, 7: 381–384.
478 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
are overweight, and differential treatment of obese patients by medical pro-
fessionals may contribute to the obese delaying important preventive care.
In one study, 33% of physicians reported responding negatively to
obese patients and associated obesity with poor hygiene, noncompliance,
and dishonesty. In another study, 63% of nurses agree that obesity could
be prevented by self-control, and 43% and 22%, respectively, felt the
obese were overindulgent and lazy. Nearly half (48%) of the nurses said
they felt uncomfortable caring for obese patients, and 31% said they pre-
ferred not to do so.56 Medical students in one study reported negative
attitudes about obese patients, and those attitudes did not change after the
students spent eight weeks working with obese patients. Researchers spec-
ulated that overweight people may be hesitant to obtain preventive care
exams because of negative body image. When this reluctance is combined
with physicians’ unwillingness to serve overweight people, that may con-
tribute to very dangerous health consequences.
APPEARANCE: CASES AND LEGISLATION
When appearance or attractiveness requirements discriminate against peo-
ple with disabilities, older people, or certain racial groups, violations of the
ADA, the ADEA, or Title VII may have occurred. In prohibiting race, eth-
nic, sex, religious, age, and disability discrimination, these acts require
organizations to assess carefully the legality of preferences for certain “looks”
or other attributes. According to these laws, the “look” preferred by man-
agement at Abercrombie & Fitch resulted in illegal discrimination against
women and people of color, as discussed in Organizational Feature 15.1.
Recall that the ADA prohibits discrimination if a person is perceived
as being limited by a disability, regardless of whether that person is actu-
ally limited by a disability. According to the EEOC, one such case in
which appearance preferences resulted in illegal discrimination occurred at
a McDonald’s in Northport, Alabama. Samantha Robichaud had a cos-
metic disfigurement, called a port wine stain, which covered the majority
of her face. Robichaud began working at McDonald’s as a cook but said
she accepted that position with the assurance she would have the
opportunity to be promoted into management. To obtain such promo-
tions, McDonald’s requires employees to be cross-trained and rotated
into several of the jobs at the restaurant, including serving customers at
the counter. Robichaud worked at the front counter for a while but was
removed because of her appearance. She was later told that she would
56Puhl, R., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). “Bias, Discrimination, and Obesity.” Obesity Research, 9(12):
788–805.
Chapter 15: Weight and Appearance 479
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
ORGANIZATIONAL
FEATURE 15.1
Multiple Diversity Concerns at Abercrombie & Fitch
Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF), an upscale
retailer known for its attractive “All-American”
salespeople, has been accused of discriminating
against applicants who are not blonde and
blue-eyed, even though the company has a
stated nondiscrimination policy. While preferring
applicants of a certain appearance is not illegal in
and of itself, when doing so eliminates nearly all
people of a particular race or ethnicity, this can be
illegal. According to charges filed by former
employees and applicants, and some that have
been confirmed by former managers, ANF
discriminated against Latinos, Asian Americans,
and Blacks in hiring, firing, and job placement.
Reports indicated that minorities were told there
were no jobs when jobs were available, were
steered to nonvisible jobs (such as stocking), or
were fired or transferred and replaced with White
employees.
One Latino, Eduardo Gonzalez, applied for
work at ANF in a mall near Stanford University,
where he was a student. Gonzalez noticed that
all the sales staff on duty were White and said
that the manager encouraged him to work in the
stockroom or in another nonsales position.
Researchers refer to this behavior as race-coded
job channeling, whereby employers who prefer
Whites for certain positions and minorities for
others steer applicants to the preferred jobs,
regardless of the applicants’ interests, skills, or
experience.57 Gonzalez left ANF and instead was
hired at Banana Republic.
Asian Americans have also reported
suspicious treatment by ANF. Another Stanford
student, Anthony Ocampo, a Filipino American,
had worked for ANF during the Christmas
holidays. When he applied at a different ANF the
following summer, Ocampo was reportedly told
he was not hired because there were already too
many Filipinos working there. Jennifer Lu was a
student at University of California, Irvine when
she worked for ANF. According to Lu, corporate
representatives from ANF came to inspect the
store, pointed to one of the ANF posters that
depicted a White male model, and told the store
manager to make the store look like the poster.
Soon thereafter, Lu (who had more than three
years of service) and four other Asian American
employees were terminated and an African
American was transferred to the night shift at a
different store. Class action lawsuits were filed
against ANF in California and New Jersey.
Not only has ANF had employment-related
diversity problems, it has also had problems
related to choice of merchandise. After
complaints from customers about “racist
fashion,” ANF removed offensive T-shirts from
its shelves, one depicting two Asian men and
the words “Wong Brothers Laundry Service—
Two Wongs Can Make It White,” perpetuating
stereotypes of Asians. Customers in San
Francisco picketed ANF stores and planned
boycotts around the country. A diverse buying
team or store-level associates might have
recognized the potential for trouble with those
particular shirts before they reached the shelves.
Articles about these issues appeared in the
San Francisco Chronicle, in the Miami Herald, in the
New York Times, in Black Enterprise, in Associate
Press reports distributed nationwide, and on
CNN and CBS news, generating negative publicity
from coast to coast. The NAACP Legal Defense
57Pager, D., Bonikowski, B., & Western, B. (2009). “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment.” American
Sociological Review, 74: 777–799.
480 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, and the Asian
Pacific American Legal Centers joined forces with
the plaintiffs’ attorneys in this effort.58
ANF’s diversity concerns may have
negatively affected its ability to market to its
target consumers, a point noted in an article on
young buyers’ tastes. According to David
Morrison, founder and CEO of a firm that
analyzes shopping habits of people from 18 to
35 years old, “to the college-age shopper,
Abercrombie is ‘so over.’” In Morrison’s opinion,
“Abercrombie lost it when they became a little
‘too white’ with their advertising. They lost and
alienated a lot of people who didn’t see
themselves or their friends represented.”59
ANF also lost in the settlement of the class
action lawsuit, agreeing to pay $40 million to the
affected applicants and employees and $10
million to monitor compliance attorneys’ fees.
The company is enjoined from discriminating
against African Americans, Asian Americans,
and Latinos based on their race, color, and
national origin; from discriminating against
women due to their sex; and from denying
promotional opportunities to minorities and
women. ANF agreed to implement new policies
and programs to prevent future discrimination,
hire a vice president of diversity, hire up to
twenty-five diversity recruiters, provide training
to all its managers, and ensure its marketing
materials reflect diversity.60
ANF chairman and CEO Mike Jeffries said
that the company decided to settle the suit
because a long dispute would have been
harmful to the company and distracting to
managers. Jeffries denied that the company had
engaged in discriminatory practices and stated
that they currently “have, and always have had,
no tolerance for discrimination.”61 Despite those
statements, ANF’s problems with discrimination
claims continued. Two years after the original
settlement, the EEOC again sued the company,
alleging they discriminated against a 17-year-old
Muslim woman by refusing to hire her because
she wore a hijab, in violation of the company’s
“Look Policy,” which prohibited head coverings.62
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the “youthfulness”
of African Americans and Latinos when
compared to Caucasians. What are the
potential ramifications of ANF’s exclusion of
these groups as employees and models?
2. How might having buyers from different
racial and ethnic backgrounds have circum-
vented the marketing “blunders” and lost
business associated with the offensive
merchandise at ANF?
3. How may the company’s denial of discrimi-
nation, even after settling the first lawsuit,
have negatively impacted the effectiveness
of measures to stop discrimination in hiring
and advancement at ANF?
58Holmes, T. E. (n.d.) “Abercrombie & Fitch’s Discrimination Woes.” http://www.blackenterprise.com/ExclusiveskOpen.asp?id=387,
accessed September 27, 2004.
59Wellington, E. (2004, October 14). “The Old College Buy: Company Tracks Students’ Tastes and Finds Good News for Burt’s Bees,
Bad News for Nike.” Fort Worth Star Telegram, Section 8E.
60
“EEOC Agrees to Landmark Resolution of Discrimination Case Against Abercrombie & Fitch.” http://www.eeoc.gov/press/11-18-
04.html, accessed January 1, 2011; Chavez, P. (2004, November 16). “Abercrombie & Fitch to Pay $40 Million to Settle Discrimina-
tion Case.” Mercury News. www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/10189859.htm, accessed November 18, 2004.
61Chavez (2004).
62
“Abercrombie & Fitch Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination Against Muslim Teen Applicant.” http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/
newsroom/release/9-17-09b.cfm, accessed August 2, 2010.
Chapter 15: Weight and Appearance 481
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
never be able to receive a management position because of her appear-
ance. The EEOC in Birmingham, Alabama, found Robichaud’s case to be
meritorious and, after failing to reach a conciliation agreement with the
restaurant, filed its first suit involving facial disfigurement in Alabama.63
Other situations involving questionable appearance requirements
concern employers’ restrictions against facial hair, preferences for hair color
of a person’s ethnic origin, suggestions that women wear makeup or certain
hairstyles, and limitations on religious apparel at work. Such requirements
may constitute religious, racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination. Restrictions
against beards have been challenged by African American men, who
sometimes experience a painful condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae,
or “razor bumps,” as a result of shaving. As discussed in Chapter 12,
requirements that women not wear head coverings can result in religious
discrimination. Other companies accused of appearance-related discrimina-
tory conduct include Federal Express, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Alamo
Rent-A-Car, Price Waterhouse, and Jean Louis David Salons.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Considerations for Employers: Weight
The increasing numbers of people who are overweight and obese in the
United States and around the world; the very real, expensive costs and
health risks associated with excess weight; and the discrimination against
63
“EEOC Sues McDonald’s Restaurant for Disability Bias Against Employee with Facial Disfigure-
ment.” http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-7-03.html, accessed August 14, 2010.
4. How does the experience of Asian
Americans in California with employment
discrimination at ANF contrast with the
perception of Asian Americans as a group
that does not experience employment-
related discrimination?
5. Choose a retail store in your area or use a
catalog to document (in one visit) the racial,
gender, and age composition of the sales
associates (or models, if a catalog). What
diversity-related factors are visible from
your report?
Sources: Greenhouse, S. J. (2003, June 17). “Clothing
Chain Accused of Discrimination.” New York Times; Chin
A. (2002, April 23). “Why Abercrombie and Fitch Still
Doesn’t Get It.” http://www.modelminority.com/joomla/
index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=65:
why-abercrombie-and-fitch-still-doesnt-get-it&catid=44:
media&Itemid=56, accessed August 9, 2010; “Lieff
Cabraser and Civil Rights Organizations Announce Aber-
crombie & Fitch Charged with Employment Discrimination
in Federal Class Action Lawsuit.” http://www.afjustice.
com/press_release_01.htm, accessed August 9, 2010;
Holmes, T. E. (n.d.). “Abercrombie & Fitch’s Discrimination
Woes.” http://www.blackenterprise.com/Exclusivesek
Open.asp?id=387, accessed September 27, 2004; Leung,
R. (2004, November 24). “The Look of Abercrombie &
Fitch.” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/05/
60minutes/main587099.shtml, accessed August 8, 2010.
482 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
those who are overweight create an unusual situation for employers.
Should overweight people be denied employment because they are
more likely to miss work and are more expensive for organizations to
insure? Although weight discrimination is not usually illegal, employers
should consider several factors when developing an approach to
combat weight-related discrimination. First, they should consider the
legitimacy of health, absence, and cost-related concerns for their specific
employee population. Are similar concerns expressed regarding other
health issues? Do people with other health issues that are viewed as
controllable (e.g., pregnancy, smoking-related lung cancer) receive similar
treatment?
Employers should view the negative consequences of weight discrimi-
nation through the same preventive lenses used to consider other
discrimination. Adding size, weight, and appearance to the company’s
zero tolerance policy would signal to all employees that discrimination
and harassment on the basis of these factors are unacceptable. Fat jokes,
comments, and overt discrimination would be strongly sanctioned, as
would racist, sexist, or ageist behaviors. Decision makers must be aware
that the broad social acceptability of fat discrimination and general dislike
for fatness may make efforts to reduce discrimination more difficult,
requiring more concerted, rigorous, and sincere efforts.
Those who are fat report experiencing extreme hostility, rudeness, and
harassment by hiring managers, coworkers, and peers. As an example,
when he arrived for an interview, one overweight applicant was not spoken
to by the interviewing manager. Instead, the manager told the secretary to
“get this fat (expletive) out of my office!”64 Another heavy applicant was
forced to stand throughout the interview, for fear he would break the
chairs. An article in Working Woman magazine reported that a woman
who was thinner at the time of a job interview said that on her first day of
work she was told she had “put on a lot of weight!” since the interview.
Throughout her miserable employment tenure, the woman was told to
wear dark clothing and coached on her appearance, despite successful job
performance and an otherwise professional (although fat) appearance.65
Clearly, these behaviors are unacceptable in any business environment and
should not be tolerated. Although fat discrimination is not currently illegal,
respectful, professional behavior should be mandatory at work, in school,
and in other professional environments.
Finally, because the majority of the U.S. population is overweight or
obese, if potential workers are continually screened out due to their weight,
64Fraser, L. (1994). “The Office F Word: Job Discrimination Against Fat People.” Working Woman,
53–54(6): 88–91.
65Ibid.
Chapter 15: Weight and Appearance 483
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
recruitment and selection costs could become extremely high. If fat employees
are given positions with low visibility, disciplined more harshly, and experi-
ence other negative outcomes at work, employer costs related to turnover,
absence, and low morale could exceed or rival those related to higher
medical and benefit costs for fat workers. As with other diversity-related
issues, employers should focus their decision making and actions on job-
related issues and take measures to ensure that fat discrimination that is
not clearly job related is minimized. In addition, no one should overlook
the social and ethical concerns of hostile treatment toward those who are
overweight or obese.
Employers may be able to assist all workers with health-related
issues by encouraging wellness rather than focusing on weight loss,
which may be futile and could perpetuate fat discrimination. Wellness
would include healthy behaviors, such as proper eating, exercise, moderate
drinking, avoiding smoking, and reducing stress (which contributes
to hypertension and weight gain). Employers should offer healthy
foods in vending machines and cafeterias, provide bonuses for smoking
cessation, and encourage regular participation in exercise programs
and other healthy behaviors. Companies could subsidize health club
memberships or provide workout equipment and training at work, allowing
employees paid breaks to exercise. By focusing on health, rather than
weight, employers may create a healthier workplace overall, for all
employees.
Lastly, the medical profession should adopt a zero tolerance approach
toward discrimination. Not only is discrimination by medical professionals
morally wrong, it could also contribute to the worsening of the health of
those who are overweight or even be life-threatening.
Considerations for Employees: Weight
Whether one is currently thin, “normal,” overweight, or obese, the issue of
weight as an aspect of diversity has relevance for everyone. We all have
the potential to gain weight and experience some of the negative social,
employment, and health consequences associated with being heavy. This is
particularly true as a function of age because as people enter middle age,
the likelihood of growing heavier increases. With age also comes the greater
likelihood of acquiring a disability, which may also contribute to weight
gain. No one is immune to the intolerance and prejudice associated with
weight issues and disparate treatment on the basis of weight.
When faced with or observing weight-based stereotyping or discrimi-
nation, employees should address the issue with valid information about
weight and the characteristics of those who are overweight. Many people
are unaware that weight is a combination of lifestyle choices and genetics
484 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
and that different metabolic rates may result in some people being heavier
than others, regardless of similar activity levels and food consumed. As
with many other inaccurate stereotypes, people’s belief that being fat is
solely a result of laziness and lack of discipline may be changed with
knowledge. Statements about legitimate health issues as a reason for
weight-based discrimination in employment can be countered with state-
ments about the other “voluntary” issues discussed in this chapter, such
as smoking, or invisible health issues related to other voluntary behaviors
that are not so vehemently disdained and acutely obvious.
Those who are overweight should consider and model the behaviors of
other non-dominant groups in the face of overt social and employment dis-
crimination. They should take care not to internalize society’s negative beliefs
about fat people. Members of other non-dominant groups (e.g., women,
Blacks) do not generally feel self-blame and loathing toward their sex or gen-
der. Instead, in response to differential power and treatment, they have sought,
and obtained, greater acceptance and understanding of their differences and
contributions and some reduction of discriminatory behaviors. Those who are
overweight should also take care to monitor their health; with exercise and
proper eating, they may be healthy in spite of excess weight.
Recommendations to Individuals and Organizations for
Minimizing Appearance Discrimination
Because there are so many distinct issues related to appearance discrimina-
tion, broad recommendations focus on ensuring that employer preferences
are job related and that decisions are made only on job-related factors.
While requirements for neatness and cleanliness are reasonable and legal,
requirements that women wear makeup and carry a purse instead of a
briefcase (e.g., Ann Hopkins) are not. Employers should carefully scrutinize
the potential of their appearance preferences and requirements to cause
various types of discrimination, as they can be based on race, class, and
gender in ways that are not related to job performance.
Applicants and employees should be aware that organizations are
legally able to prescribe many aspects of appearance at work. Professional
standards and uniform appearance alone are not generally illegal, particu-
larly when consistently applied. When no specific racial, ethnic, gender, re-
ligious, or disability discrimination results from the requirements, employer
rights to a consistent appearance for employees may supersede employees’
rights to wear certain clothing. For example, after filing suit and exhausting
multiple appeals under Madison, Wisconsin’s policy prohibiting appearance
discrimination, an employee learned that her dismissal for wearing an eye-
brow ring to her job at Sam’s Club was not illegal. Sam’s dress code, which
specifically prohibited nose rings or other facial jewelry, was deemed to
Chapter 15: Weight and Appearance 485
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
be consistent with the organization’s conservative, Spartan, “no-frills”
approach. When both employees and employers apply logic and reason,
many appearance disputes could be avoided.
SUMMARY
In this chapter, we have considered weight
and appearance as diversity issues. Weight,
a subcategory of appearance, has many
implications for people’s experiences in
organizations. Nearly two-thirds of the
U.S. population is overweight or obese,
and the prevalence of these conditions is
increasing around the world. Discrimina-
tion against those who are overweight,
based on perceptions that overweight peo-
ple are lazy and unmotivated, negatively
affects their employment outcomes. We
have examined research documenting dis-
criminatory employment experiences, in-
cluding differences in rates of employment
and unemployment, job assignments, com-
pensation, and performance evaluations.
We discussed the lack of universal legisla-
tion prohibiting weight discrimination and
the legitimate health costs of overweight
(some borne by employers) and made sug-
gestions for employers and employees
seeking to reduce weight discrimination in
their organizations.
Many other aspects of appearance,
including hairstyle, attire, makeup, height,
and physical disfigurement, also affect
people’s organizational experiences.
Although employer preferences for certain
types of appearance are not necessarily
illegal, such preferences, when ill-conceived
or misapplied, may result in illegal dis-
crimination. Employers should be careful
to ensure that appearance requirements are
job related and that attractiveness does not
overshadow job competence in selection,
promotion, retention, and other job-related
decision making.
KEY TERMS
Race-coded job channeling — steering
applicants to certain jobs based on
employer preferences for Whites in certain
positions and minorities in others,
regardless of the applicants’ interests,
skills, or experience.
Stigma — a negative discrepancy between
the real or perceived attributes of an
individual and the expectations for typical or
normal individuals in a particular context.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. What are the employment and income-
related effects of being overweight for
women? For men?
2. The association between excess weight
and higher absence and medical and
benefit costs is clear. What is the
meaning of this relationship regarding
weight discrimination for the many
individuals who are fat and for orga-
nizational policymakers? How should
organizations address weight-based
discrimination, given these clear, costly
associations?
3. Fat is commonly believed to be the
result of laziness and gluttony rather
than a combination of factors. How do
these perceptions affect the experiences
486 Examining Specific Groups and Categories
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
and treatment of overweight people in
organizations? What can be done
about these perceptions?
4. What laws are relevant to weight and
appearance discrimination? How
might seemingly legitimate appearance
requirements result in illegal discrimi-
nation? What should organizations
do to minimize the likelihood of such
discrimination?
5. There are significant, long-term,
negative health effects associated
with anorexia and bulimia, yet neither
receives the attention and focus that
excess weight does. Why should
employers be concerned about the
negative health effects associated with
under- and overweight?
ACTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. If you are personally overweight or
have a close friend/family member who
is overweight, consider your or their
employment or interviewing experi-
ences. Ask yourself or your friend/
family member about them. How have
they been similar to or different from
the experiences of those who are over-
weight described in this chapter?
2a. Conduct an informal census of employees
in several places: fast-food restaurant,
sit-down restaurant, discount store,
department store, government office,
bank, or other locations in which many
employees are visible. Document the
number of employees and the number of
those who appear a little, a lot, and very
overweight/obese. What is the race,
ethnicity, and sex of the obese workers?
Are any of the overweight employees
working in positions of power (e.g.,
managers, supervisors)?
2b. Choose two nights to watch television
for thirty minutes to one hour each.
Document the program, type of
commericals, and the numbers of
overweight/obese or physically unat-
tractive characters on the programs and
commercials. What is the race, ethnic-
ity, and sex of those characters/actors?
2c. What similarities and differences are
apparent between the people in ques-
tions 2a and 2b?
2d. Watch newscasters several times and
during different broadcasts. Report on
their appearance (including weight, race,
sex, attire, and other appearance
attributes).
3. Investigate health and medical costs
associated with alcoholism, anorexia,
bulimia, smoking, and/or other ill-
nesses perceived as controllable with
self-discipline. Compare these costs
to those associated with obesity.
4. Compare the look allegedly preferred
by ANF to the approach used by the
United Colors of Benetton to advertising
and staffing. What “look” accurately
represents the present population of the
United States?
5. What recommendations would you
make to help large organizations with
recognized diversity programs to
reduce the likelihood of inadvertent
discrimination by managers trying to
follow procedures for dress codes?
Chapter 15: Weight and Appearance 487
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
SECTION III
Global
Vision
Chapter 16 International Diversity and Facing the Future
Yu
ri
A
rc
ur
s/
Sh
ut
te
rs
to
ck
.c
om
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER
16International Diversityand Facing the Future
Chapter Objectives
After completing this chapter, readers should be
able to:
❏ explain issues concerning dominant and non-
dominant groups around the world.
❏ discuss why inequity based on sex and gender,
disability, sexual orientation, and poverty is
common in many countries.
❏ analyze historical and current factors to help
identify and assess the specific diversity issues
in any country.
❏ make specific recommendations for individuals,
organizations, and society to increase equality
and inclusion for non-dominant group
members.
❏ explain why the diversity of the U.S. population,
globalization, and increased competitiveness
make attending to equality and inclusion in the
United States and including the contributions
of its entire population imperative, rather than
optional.
Key Facts
Diversity issues are relevant to work and
organizations in countries around the
world.
Workforces in many nations are changing
due to changes in birth and mortality rates,
immigration, age distributions, external
pressures, and competition.
Specific diversity concerns vary by
location, but differences in education,
participation, and employment levels can
be used to help identify non-dominant
groups in a particular location.
Discrimination based on sex, sexual
orientation, and disability exists virtually
everywhere and is an underlying feature of
persistent poverty.
Diversity in organizations is an aspect of
societal changes and is increased or
impeded by individual, organizational, and
societal factors.
Past and present diversity issues in the
United States make its urgent attention to
diversity vital to its future success and
competitiveness.
491
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Introduction and Overview
In the first chapter of this book, diversity was defined
as real or perceived differences among people that
affect their interactions and relationships.1 With this
as a foundation and a focus on different groups in
the U.S. population, the following fourteen chapters
covered theories of diversity; legislation concerning
diversity; Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Whites, American
Indians, Alaska Natives, and multiracial group
members; sex and gender; work and family; sexual
orientation; religion; age; physical and mental ability;
and weight and appearance as specific aspects
of diversity. These are the issues that are currently
most important in the United States, which is
where most of the furor about increasing diversity
began and is the source of most of the published
research on diversity.
Each chapter included information on non-U.S.
diversity research, laws, or other issues, but this
chapter goes further, exploring diversity from an
international viewpoint. Researchers and scholars
outside the United States have emphasized the
limited relevance to other countries of the U.S.
experience with diversity2 and how little “diversity”
there is in diversity research.3 Yet, diversity as “real
or perceived differences among people that affect
their interactions and relationships” does fit within
an international context. Discrimination, dominance,
marginalization, and the colonization of people based
on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation,
and numerous other factors occur all over the world.
From the viewpoint of power, dominance, discrimina-
tion, and control of resources, the fact that diversity
issues (regardless of the chosen terminology) are
universal becomes clearer. As we investigate diver-
sity from an international viewpoint, we maintain the
perspective that diversity is increasingly inevitable
and is of value to individuals, organizations, and soci-
ety everywhere.
Misperception: Diversity is a U.S. concept.
Reality: When viewed as the existence of non-
dominant and dominant groups and from issues
of power, discrimination, and control of resources
between them, the universality of these concerns
is clear.
Why is encouraging diversity and inclusion
important worldwide? The current and future work-
force in many nations is changing greatly as a result
of changes in birth and mortality rates, immigration,
age distributions, advances in health care, external
pressures, and competition. As in the United States,
the growth of the workforce in Canada, the United
Kingdom, and Mexico is small when compared to pre-
vious periods. In Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Japan,
and South Africa, declines in the population of working
adults are projected for 2010 through 2050. The need
to allow or, indeed, encourage active, full participation
in the workforce is particularly vital in these countries.
Further, although the majority of the laws, cases,
and examples discussed in earlier chapters are from
the United States, the overall premise of diversity and
inclusion via multiple avenues is common in many
places.4 Many of the topics covered in each chapter
are substantially similar regardless of where they
occur. For example, sex and gender strongly influence
one’s education, workforce participation, income,
treatment, occupation, and status within organizations
1Dobbs, M. F. (1996). “Managing Diversity: Lessons from the Private Sector.” Public Personnel Management, 25(September):
351–368.
2See, for example, Jones, D., Pringle, J., & Shepherd, D. (2000). “‘Managing Diversity’ Meets Aotearoa/New Zealand.” Personnel
Review, 29(3): 364–380.
3Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. L., & Schneider, S. C. (2011). “Diversity and Its Not So Diverse Literature: An International Perspective.”
Cross Cultural Management, 11(1): 35–62.
4Strachan, G., Burgess, J., & Henderson, L. (2007). “Equal Employment Opportunity Legislation and Policies: The Australian
Experience.” Equal Opportunities International, 26(6): 525–540.
492 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
in Australia, China, England, Japan, New Zealand,
Pakistan, the United States, and most places that
one could name. Work and family considerations,
including the availability and cost of child care, social
policies, income, and institutional support, are impor-
tant to people wherever they live and work.
Differences in people’s religious beliefs affect them
everywhere, and employer discrimination based on
religion occurs in many countries. The racial profiling
of minorities discussed in previous chapters is also a
problem in Canada, where Blacks and, to a lesser
extent, Asians are more likely to be stopped and
searched (and thus arrested and convicted) than simi-
larly behaving Whites.5 Discrimination based on color
and preferences for White or lighter-skinned people
are common in Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa,
and many other countries.6 And there are numerous
other similarities, such as wage discrimination, un- and
underemployment, and occupational segregation of
non-dominant racial and ethnic groups, in many coun-
tries. In many places, there are employment-related
laws that focus on diversity issues (e.g., equal employ-
ment for women, minority, or disenfranchised groups)
although who is targeted varies by country.
On the other hand, within each region there are
numerous unique issues and concerns, which are
based on that region’s particular historical, cultural,
religious, and other differences. For example, in
Saudi Arabia, religious beliefs severely impede
women’s participation in the workforce. In Japan,
most women hold temporary jobs, rather than the life-
time jobs that are common for Japanese men. The
Burakumin people in Japan have experienced
historical discrimination and exclusion based on their
class, and this continues today.7 Similarly, India main-
tains a system of caste-based discrimination that dis-
advantages the majority of its population due to their
caste rather than their individual abilities and compe-
tencies.8 Migrants and ethnic minorities in Australia
experience discrimination in various forms despite
current diversity policies.9 Given the size of the world
and the number of countries, each with distinct con-
cerns, a truly comprehensive study of diversity world-
wide is a nearly impossible undertaking. Even so,
there is value in understanding issues that are com-
mon around the world.
It is not possible to include here the history of
multiple groups in every country, as we did in pre-
vious chapters for groups in the United States.
However, knowing that country-specific history, cul-
ture, and laws affect diversity everywhere will allow
readers to address and value diversity, regardless of
context. Armed with this knowledge, readers will be
better equipped to investigate, understand, and apply
ways to best incorporate the diversity of a particular
area. A “Western” view of diversity is not at all appro-
priate to every culture; indeed, a U.S. point of view is
not appropriate for Canada, nor is a Canadian point of
view appropriate for the United States, although both
are Western countries. What is applicable is the rec-
ognition that diversity issues affect individuals, and
thus organizations, differently around the world and
so they should be investigated within the context of
where they occur. Figure 16.1 presents some of the
factors to consider in identifying the dominant and
non-dominant groups and areas of concern in
5Wortley, S., & Tanner, J. (2003). “Data, Denials, and Confusion: The Racial Profiling Debate in Toronto.” Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45(3): 367–390; Wortley, S., & Tanner, J. (2005). “Inflammatory Rhetoric? Baseless Accusations?
A Response to Gabor’s Critique of Racial Profiling Research in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
47(3): 581–609.
6Glenn, E. N. (2009). Shades of Difference: Why Skin Color Matters. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7De Vos, G. A., & Wagatsuma, A. (1966). Japan’s Invisible Race: Caste in Culture and Personality. Berkeley: University of California
Press; Gottlieb, N. (1998). “Discriminatory Language in Japan: Burakumin, the Disabled, and Women.” Asian Studies Review, 22(2):
157–173.
8As in the United States, historical differences in treatment, access, and opportunity lead to differences in education, health, wealth and
poverty, and other factors that influence individuals.
9Syed, J., & Kramar, R. (2010). “What Is the Australian Model for Managing Cultural Diversity?” Personnel Review, 39(1): 96–115.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 493
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
countries around the world, although not every factor
is relevant to each group in every country.
We begin our exploration of international diver-
sity by documenting that discrimination and differen-
tial treatment are worldwide phenomena; we then
consider sex and gender, disabilities, sexual orienta-
tion, and poverty as important factors. In each sec-
tion, we focus on a particular factor in a specific
region. Throughout, we use research drawn from
the International Labour Organization (ILO), an inter-
national body set up to help workers in 178 member
states. Members of the ILO include varied developing
and developed countries such as Albania, Australia,
Austria, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Finland, France,
Hungary, Kenya, Nicaragua, St. Lucia, Swaziland,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United
States, and Zambia. We next consider the future
and make some recommendations for change to
improve opportunities for equity and inclusion for
all workers as the twenty-first century continues.
As much as possible, we recognize variance
between the dominant and non-dominant groups,
the colonized and the colonizers, and other impor-
tant distinctions.
Coming full circle, this chapter (and book) ends
with a return to the factors unique to the diversity situ-
ation in the United States, emphasizing its urgency of
attending to diversity, given the distinctive history and
great diversity among U.S. inhabitants as compared to
other countries. With its history of slavery, immigra-
tion, religious freedom, and its often expressed (but
not always practiced) welcome of diversity, the
United States is potentially the most diverse nation of
all. Its history generates more potential for division but
also more opportunities than in many other countries.
While many countries have permitted slavery or
FIGURE 16.1 Considerations Useful for Identifying Non-Dominant Group Members and Diversity Issues
● Historical differential treatment
● Identifiability, power, discrimination, and group awareness10
● Distribution of wealth
● Employment, unemployment, and underemployment rates
● Participation rates
● Occupational levels, types, and representation in management and executive positions
● Income and earnings distributions
● Literacy
● Educational attainment
● Return on educational investment
● Residential and employment segregation
● Rates of intermarriage with the dominant group
● Poverty rates
● Health and longevity
● Racial profiling and incarceration rates
● Legal protections
● Political participation11
10From Dworkin, A. G., & Dworkin, R. J. (1999). The Minority Report, 3rd ed. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Publishers, pp. 11–27.
11Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2010). The Global Gender Gap Report 2010. Geneva: World Economic Forum. http://
www.weforum.org/pdf/gendergap/report2010 , accessed November 23, 2010.
494 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
indentured servitude, nearly annihilated their indig-
enous peoples, and have subordinated women,
none had and continues to have the unique combi-
nation of factors the United States does. Given its
history and the current diversity of its population,
no longer does the United States have the option
to discriminate, exclude, and limit the contributions
of an increasingly diverse population if it is to com-
pete in an increasingly global world without bound-
aries. Thus, we make recommendations specific to
the United States in the final section of this chapter
and book.
DISCRIMINATION AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT AS WORLDWIDE PHENOMENA
The ILO’s “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work”
is viewed as a “commitment by governments, employers’ and workers’
organizations to uphold basic human values—values that are vital to our
social and economic lives.”12 One of the four values addressed in the
ILO’s declaration is the elimination of workplace discrimination. As dis-
cussed throughout this book, discrimination is a formidable impediment
to diversity in organizations. The ILO’s posture on people’s rights to free-
dom from employment discrimination confirms the existence of discrimi-
nation and differential treatment worldwide. Targets vary by region, but
discrimination exists everywhere and “denies opportunities for individuals
and robs societies of what those people can and could contribute.”13
The need to eradicate discrimination and to make other conscious
efforts to include and value the perspectives of all workers has been a
consistent theme in this book. The ILO also takes the position we have
discussed in previous chapters, that eradicating discrimination would
benefit individuals, organizations, the economy, and society. Many coun-
tries have instituted antidiscrimination or equal opportunity legislation
(see Table 16.1).14 The emotional, psychological, and economic rewards
of workplace fairness for individuals are apparent. For organizations,
as we have pointed out, diversity can provide benefits related to cost,
resource acquisition, marketing, creativity, problem solving, and system
flexibility. The ability to hire from a larger pool of workers, rather than
excluding workers based on characteristics not related to their productiv-
ity, is beneficial for organizations. Avoiding lawsuits, boycotts, and lost
business are also positives for organizations, wherever they are. For
12ILO. (2003). “Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” http://www.ilo.org/dyn/
declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.INDEXPAGE, accessed November 21, 2010.
13http://www.ilo.org/declaration/principles/eliminationofdiscrimination/lang–en/index.htm, accessed
November 21, 2010.
14Table 16.1 provides a limited summary of laws in selected areas. Readers are encouraged to investi-
gate the laws in specific countries of interest.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 495
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
T
A
B
L
E
1
6
.1
V
a
ri
o
u
s
E
q
u
a
l
E
m
p
lo
y
m
e
n
t
O
p
p
o
rt
u
n
it
y
L
e
g
is
la
ti
o
n
in
S
e
le
ct
e
d
C
o
u
n
tr
ie
s
C
o
u
n
tr
y
A
ct
(s
)
P
ro
v
is
io
n
s
A
rg
e
n
ti
n
a
A
n
ti
-d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
A
ct
,
N
o
.
2
3
.5
9
2
,
1
9
8
8
P
ro
h
ib
it
s
se
x
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
.
S
an
ct
io
n
s
an
y
p
e
rs
o
n
w
h
o
im
p
e
d
e
s,
o
b
st
ru
ct
s,
lim
it
s,
o
r
in
an
y
w
ay
u
n
d
e
rm
in
e
s
co
n
st
it
u
ti
o
n
al
ri
g
h
ts
o
r
g
u
ar
an
te
e
s
o
n
th
e
b
as
is
o
f
se
x.
A
u
st
ra
lia
D
is
ab
ili
ty
D
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
A
ct
;
S
e
x
D
is
cr
im
i-
n
at
io
n
A
ct
,
as
am
e
n
d
e
d
;
E
q
u
al
O
p
p
o
rt
u
n
it
y
fo
r
W
o
m
e
n
A
ct
;
va
ri
o
u
s
o
th
e
rs
P
ro
h
ib
it
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
o
n
th
e
b
as
is
o
f
ag
e
,
cr
im
in
al
re
co
rd
,
d
is
ab
ili
ty
,
se
x
(in
cl
u
d
in
g
p
re
g
n
an
cy
,
p
o
te
n
ti
al
p
re
g
n
an
ci
e
s)
,
se
xu
al
o
ri
e
n
ta
ti
o
n
,
sa
m
e
-s
e
x
co
u
p
le
s,
va
ri
o
u
s
o
th
e
rs
.
C
an
ad
a
C
an
ad
ia
n
H
u
m
an
R
ig
h
ts
A
ct
;
va
ri
o
u
s
o
th
e
rs
P
ro
h
ib
it
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
b
as
e
d
o
n
ra
ce
an
d
co
lo
r,
n
at
io
n
al
o
r
e
th
n
ic
o
ri
g
in
,
re
lig
io
n
,
ag
e
,
se
x,
se
xu
al
o
ri
e
n
ta
ti
o
n
,
m
ar
it
al
o
r
fa
m
ily
st
at
u
s,
p
h
ys
ic
al
an
d
m
e
n
ta
la
b
ili
ty
,
an
d
o
th
e
r
ar
e
as
.
A
n
ac
t
re
q
u
ir
in
g
e
q
u
al
p
ay
fo
r
m
e
n
an
d
w
o
m
e
n
in
sa
m
e
jo
b
s
h
as
al
so
b
e
e
n
p
as
se
d
.
F
ra
n
ce
C
o
n
st
it
u
ti
o
n
,
P
e
n
al
C
o
d
e
o
f
1
9
9
4
C
ri
m
in
al
iz
e
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
b
as
e
d
o
n
ra
ce
,
re
lig
io
n
,
o
r
e
th
n
ic
it
y.
G
e
rm
an
y
V
ar
io
u
s
la
w
s
P
ro
hi
b
it
se
x
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
,
h
ar
as
sm
en
t,
u
n
e
qu
al
p
ay
,
p
re
gn
an
cy
an
d
m
at
e
rn
ity
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n.
H
u
n
g
ar
y
A
ct
C
X
X
V
3
6
2
/2
0
0
4
o
f
2
2
D
e
ce
m
b
e
r
2
0
0
3
,
E
q
u
al
T
re
at
m
e
n
t
an
d
P
ro
m
o
ti
o
n
o
f
E
q
u
al
O
p
p
o
rt
u
n
it
ie
s
P
ro
h
ib
it
s
d
ir
e
ct
o
r
in
d
ir
e
ct
n
e
g
at
iv
e
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
,
h
ar
as
sm
e
n
t,
u
n
la
w
fu
l
se
g
re
g
at
io
n
,
an
d
re
tr
ib
u
ti
o
n
b
as
e
d
o
n
se
x,
ra
ci
al
o
ri
g
in
,
co
lo
r,
n
at
io
n
al
it
y,
n
at
io
n
al
o
r
e
th
n
ic
o
ri
g
in
,
m
o
th
e
r
to
n
g
u
e
,
d
is
ab
ili
ty
,
st
at
e
o
f
h
e
al
th
,
re
lig
io
u
s
o
r
id
e
o
lo
g
ic
al
co
n
vi
ct
io
n
,
fa
m
ily
st
at
u
s,
m
o
th
e
rh
o
o
d
(p
re
g
n
an
cy
)
o
r
fa
th
e
rh
o
o
d
,
se
xu
al
o
ri
e
n
ta
ti
o
n
,
se
xu
al
id
e
n
ti
ty
,
ag
e
,
so
ci
al
o
ri
g
in
,
fi
n
an
ci
al
st
at
u
s,
am
o
n
g
o
th
e
r
p
ro
te
ct
e
d
ar
e
as
.
S
o
u
th
A
fr
ic
a
E
m
p
lo
ym
e
n
t
E
q
u
it
y
A
ct
(a
m
e
n
d
e
d
)
A
p
p
lie
s
to
a
b
ro
ad
sp
e
ct
ru
m
o
f
e
m
p
lo
ye
rs
;
p
ro
h
ib
it
s
“
u
n
fa
ir
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
”
an
d
re
q
u
ir
e
s
af
fi
rm
at
iv
e
ac
ti
o
n
;
co
ve
rs
A
fr
ic
an
s,
co
lo
u
re
d
s,
In
d
ia
n
s,
p
e
o
p
le
w
it
h
d
is
ab
ili
ti
e
s,
an
d
w
o
m
e
n
.
U
n
it
e
d
K
in
g
d
o
m
E
q
u
al
P
ay
D
ir
e
ct
iv
e
;
E
q
u
al
T
re
at
m
e
n
t
D
ir
e
ct
iv
e
;
va
ri
o
u
s
o
th
e
rs
P
ro
h
ib
it
d
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
o
n
th
e
b
as
is
o
f
ag
e
,
ra
ce
,
se
x,
p
re
g
n
an
cy
,
p
ar
e
n
ta
l
st
at
u
s,
m
ar
it
al
o
r
fa
m
ily
st
at
u
s,
am
o
n
g
o
th
e
r
p
ro
te
ct
e
d
ar
e
as
.
T
h
e
la
n
gu
ag
e
o
f
th
e
le
gi
sl
at
io
n
m
ay
va
ry
,
an
d
al
l
p
ro
te
ct
ed
ar
ea
s
ar
e
n
o
t
li
st
ed
.
In
ad
d
it
io
n
to
em
p
lo
ym
en
t-
re
la
te
d
la
w
s,
m
an
y
la
w
s
re
fe
r
to
h
o
u
si
n
g,
ac
co
m
m
o
d
at
io
n
,
an
d
o
th
er
ar
ea
s.
496 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
society, the benefits of eliminating discrimination and valuing diversity are
immense—they can reduce poverty worldwide, increase life spans, and
create stronger economies, among other countless positive outcomes.
People who have the opportunity to work, contribute, and receive fair
treatment and remuneration become, again quoting the ILO, “creators of
life and communities … caregivers and receivers … workers, consumers,
and entrepreneurs … savers, investors, producers and employers …
inventors and generators of knowledge … as citizens and organizers.”15
On a societal level, these outcomes are lasting and sustaining.
Having argued that diversity is indeed a worldwide concern, we now
consider specifically from a global perspective three of the topics from the
preceding chapters: sex and gender, disabilities, and sexual orientation. In
addition, we investigate poverty and class, in recognition of the unique
contribution of discrimination and differential treatment to poverty in
countries around the world.
SEX AND GENDER: THE STATUS OF WOMEN AROUND THE WORLD
Volumes of research from various disciplines attest to women’s low occu-
pational status worldwide. The ILO views disparities in access to educa-
tion and women’s disproportionate share of home and child care as
contributors to discrimination against women.16 Females often receive less
education than males, and, as discussed throughout this book, education is
closely associated with earnings and the likelihood of being employed. In part
as a consequence of less education, women are less likely to be employed,
and when employed they tend to earn less than men, worldwide. In addition,
women work fewer hours than men and are more likely to live in poverty
than men. On the other hand, even with similar or more education, women’s
earnings and status are generally lower than men’s. With more, less, or equal
amounts of education, discrimination and segregation contribute to women’s
lower occupational status and earnings all over the world.
Population and Participation Rates
Due to the need for more workers, lower birthrates, and changes in
attitudes toward women’s employment and in social policies concerning
child care, women around the world are participating in the workforce at
15
“Working Out of Poverty.” (2003). Report of the Director-General, International Labour Confer-
ence, 91st session, p. 23.
16http://www.ilo.org/declaration/principles/eliminationofdiscrimination/lang–en/index.htm, accessed
November 21, 2010.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 497
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
higher rates than ever before. These factors, coupled with men’s declining
participation rates, have resulted in women becoming a larger proportion
of the worldwide workforce than at any time in the past. In some countries,
women now participate at about 80% of the rate than men do. However,
in other areas, such as the Middle East, Arabia, North Africa, and South
Asia, women participate at about 40% or less of the male rate.17
Sexual Harassment, Segregation, Discrimination,
and Other Inequities
Sex discrimination and harassment, sex segregation, wage inequity, and
the glass ceiling are eerily common problems faced by women around the
world.18 Sex segregation of jobs is common and women are considerably
less likely to be in high-status or managerial positions than their propor-
tions in the population and workforce participation would suggest.
Women’s concentration in low-status, often powerless, positions contri-
butes to the prevalence of sexual harassment. Researchers have found
evidence of sexual harassment in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, China, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United
Kingdom.19 Table 16.2 presents the ILO’s key facts about sexual harass-
ment in various places worldwide.
The ILO reports that women most likely to be targeted for sexual
harassment are young, financially dependent, divorced or never married,
and migrant. Recall from previous chapters the egregious harassment of
immigrant and young workers in the United States. Men most likely to be
harassed are young, gay, and members of ethnic or racial minority
groups.20 In multiple studies of working women, Louise Fitzgerald and
17ILO. (2005). “Women’s Employment: Global Trends and ILO responses.” http://www.ilo.org/dyn/
gender/docs/RES/399/F1503666968/Womens%20Employment%20-%20Global%20Trends%20and%
20ILO%20Respon , accessed November 22, 2010.
18Shaffer, M. A., Joplin, J. R. W., Bell, M. P., Oguz, C., & Lau, T. (2000). “Gender Discrimination
and Job-Related Outcomes: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Working Women in the United States
and China.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57: 395–427; Muli, K. (1995). “Help Me Balance the
Load: Gender Discrimination in Kenya.” In J. Peters & A. Wolper (Eds.), Women’s Rights, Human
Rights: International Feminist Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 78–81.
19Fitzgerald, L. F., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (1989). “The Dimensions of Sexual Harassment: A Struc-
tural Analysis.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35: 309–326; Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., &
Drasgow, F. (1995). “The Structure of Sexual Harassment: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Across
Cultures and Settings.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47: 164–177. For reports on research evidence
of sexual harassment in North American and European countries, see Gruber, J. E. (1997). “An Epide-
miology of Sexual Harassment: Evidence from North America and Europe.” In W. O’Donohue (Ed.),
Sexual Harassment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, pp. 84–98.
20ILO. (n.d.). “Sexual Harassment Fact Sheet.” http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—
ed_norm/—declaration/documents/publication/wcms_decl_fs_96_en , accessed November 21, 2010.
498 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
her colleagues have found that sexual harassment is similar in structure,
type, and negative consequences for women, regardless of where the
harassment occurs.21 As discussed in Chapter 9, sexual harassment results
in negative physical, psychological, career, and financial consequences for
those who are harassed, as well as in high costs for the organizations in
which they work. Absence and turnover, lowered productivity, reduced
creativity, and damaged reputations are among a few of the organizational
costs. These outcomes are quite similar to those described by the ILO.22
Wage Inequity and the Glass Ceiling
The glass ceiling phenomenon discussed in Chapter 9 exists in both devel-
oped and developing countries. In industrialized nations, women occupy
21See, for example, Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, R., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J.
(1997). “Antecedents and Consequences of Sexual Harassment in Organizations: A Test of an Inte-
grated Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 578–589; Shaffer et al. (2000); Wasti, S. A.,
Bergman, M. E., Glomb, T. M., & Drasgow, F. (2000). “Test of the Cross-Cultural Generalizability
of a Model of Sexual Harassment.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5): 766–778.
22ILO. (n.d.).
TABLE 16.2 The ILO’s Key Facts about Sexual Harassment in Various Places Worldwide
Hong Kong Nearly 25% of workers surveyed in Hong Kong in 2007, one-third of whom were men,
reported experiencing sexual harassment. While 20% of women who were harassed re-
ported it, only 6.6% of men who were harassed did so because they felt too embarrassed
to face “ridicule.”
Italy According to a 2004 report, 55.4% of Italian women aged 14–59 reported having experienced
sexual harassment. One out of three female workers had been subjected to sexual intimida-
tion (a form of quid pro quo harassment) for career advancement, with 65% having been
blackmailed weekly by the same harasser, typically a supervisor or coworker. More than half
of the women subjected to sexual intimidation had quit.
European Union In the EU, 40%–50% of women have reported some form of workplace sexual harassment.
Australia According to a survey carried out by the Australian Equal Opportunity Commission in 2004,
18% of interviewees aged between 18 and 64 years said they had experienced sexual
harassment in the workplace. Less than 37% of those who experienced sexual harassment
were likely to report the abuse.
South Africa A case decided in 2004 was the first time an employer was held liable for sexual harassment
by one of its employees. The company was ordered to pay the victim, a woman working as
a security guard, compensation for unfair dismissal and sexual harassment.
India The case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan brought a shift in the legal definition of sexual
harassment by the Supreme Court. Previously identified as “Eve teasing,” sexual harassment
was deemed to be a violation of women’s human rights. The judgment also outlined guide-
lines for sexual harassment prevention and redress.
Source: Adapted from ILO. (n.d.). “Sexual Harassment Fact Sheet.” http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—declaration/
documents/publication/wcms_decl_fs_96_en , accessed November 21, 2010.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 499
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
at most 10% of the highest positions. In Canada, for example, 10% of
executives are women, compared with 43% in middle management. In the
United Kingdom, women occupy 9.6% of executive positions. In terms of
the wage gap, women working full-time in the United States earn about
75% of men’s earnings; in Russia, the ratio is about 72%; while in France
and Australia, women earn between 80% and 90% of men’s earnings.
Worldwide, women earn 66% of what men earn.23
Focus: “Think Manager, Think Male” Worldwide?
One of the reasons behind women’s lack of advancement is people’s
perception that characteristics associated with successful managers are
those associated with men, rather than women. The “think manager,
think male” phenomenon was first identified by Virginia Schein in 1973.
In more than three decades since then, researchers have confirmed the
existence of this perception in the United States as well as in Britain,
China, Germany, and Japan.24 American men continue to perceive men as
having requisite managerial characteristics, while women now view both
men and women as having characteristics of successful managers. In
China and Japan, however, both men and women view men, but not
women, as likely to have qualities associated with successful managers. As
discussed in Organizational Feature 16.1, the Royal Dutch Shell company
treats gender as one of three common diversity issues that it focuses on
worldwide.
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
The ILO includes people with disabilities among the marginalized,
disadvantaged, or vulnerable groups in society—terms that are
also relevant to other non-dominant groups.25 Workers with disabilities
around the world face un- and underemployment, lower wages,
misperceptions about competence, and overt and covert employment
23ILO (2005).
24See Schein, V. E. (1973). “The Relationship Between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Manage-
ment Characteristics.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 57: 95–100; Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J.,
Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). “Has Anything Changed? Current Characterizations of Men,
Women, and Managers.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 935–943; Schein, V. E., Mueller, R.,
Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). “Think Manager—Think Male: A Global Phenomenon?” Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 17(1): 33–41.
25ILO (2002). “Disability and Poverty Reduction Strategies.” Working Paper. The Disability Pro-
gramme, InFocus Programme on Skills, Knowledge, and Employability. International Labour Office:
Geneva. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/disability/download/discpaper ,
accessed November 22, 2010.
500 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
ORGANIZATIONAL
FEATURE 16.1
Global Diversity and Inclusion at Shell
Royal Dutch Shell, or “Shell” as it is more com-
monly known, is a group of energy and petro-
chemicals companies with $13 billion in earnings.
Because Shell employs more than 101,000
employees in over ninety countries and territories,
attention to diversity and inclusion is necessarily
important. According to Shell CEO Peter Voser,
embedding diversity and inclusion within Shell’s
structure, people, processes, and culture will result
in customers, employees, partners, and other sta-
keholders choosing Shell more often.
Shell defines “diversity” as the ways in which
people differ, including visible differences, such as
age and gender, and invisible differences, such as
religion and sexual orientation, among other areas.
For Shell, “inclusion” means a culture in which dif-
ferences are valued and people feel involved,
respected, and connected. Some of the ways in
which Shell pursues diversity and inclusion are
through educational offerings, recruitment, reten-
tion, development, and mentoring across diverse
groups.
According to Josefine van Zanten, vice presi-
dent of diversity and inclusion, it is important for
Shell to focus on what diversity means in a global
context rather than try to apply lessons learned
from specific issues in one particular country to
other areas, where they may not even be relevant.
She recognizes that while “there are companies
that have their U.S. policies and try to go global
with them, when you export U.S. D&I policies,
you may create unforeseen hurdles.” Thus, Shell
considers the different pressing needs for each
region and also attends to common denominators
across regions. In the United States, for example,
Shell focuses on the myriad diversity-related laws
and court rulings that are unique to the United
States. In Malaysia, government-mandated stipula-
tions regarding the proportion of Bumi Putras
in leadership positions require specific attention.
In Canada, there is a focus on aborigines. Laws in
Norway require that there must be at least 40%
women and at least 40% men on corporate
boards, and this requires close monitoring. In
Nigeria, although there are no specific governmen-
tal mandates, Shell recognized differences in utili-
zation across different tribal groups and now
checks for equity in this area.
Along with country-specific issues, gender,
nationality, and inclusion are the common
denominators that Shell attends to around the
world.26 In terms of gender, Shell has a target of
increasing the proportion of women in senior
management to at least 20%. This goal seems
low at first glance but reflects the entrenched
male dominance in the industry and an unspoken
goal of exceeding the “token” level of women’s
representation, as identified by Rosabeth Moss
Kanter.27 According to Kanter, extremely low pro-
portions of women have very limited effectiveness
(a point that can also be extrapolated to other
underrepresented minorities). The “tipping point”
occurs when women have at least 20% represen-
tation. Since the goal was set in 2005, the propor-
tion of women in senior management at Shell
has increased by over 50%, from about 9% to
more than 13% women in senior management in
2010. In her communications with stakeholders,
26Shell also targets disability, sexual orientation, and generations (age differences) but does not attend to such differences as thinking
styles (although the company recognizes that differences in thinking styles will appear as a result of higher levels of gender, ethnic, and
national diversity and a more inclusive environment).
27Kanter, R. M. (1977). “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” American
Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 965–990.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 501
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
van Zanten emphasizes that Shell does not use
“quotas.” “Some of this is very cultural; what we
see is that the language and wording of ‘quota’
raises very high emotions. People are concerned
that ‘quota’ means you lower the bar and you dilute
the talent pool—even if this has proven to be
untrue.” Rather than quotas, Shell uses targets and
actions, including putting women on short lists for
promotions, which increases visibility and begins
the conversation about them but does not ensure
they are selected. While acknowledging that the
bar at Shell is very high, van Zanten points out
that “best” does not necessarily mean clones ofcur-
rent management. “Best” can be viewed in many
ways, and van Zanten tries to open minds to other
possibilities of what it may mean.
In terms of nationality, van Zanten says that
Shell’s goal is to have local employees fill more
than half the senior management positions in
every country in which it operates. Success with
this goal will help achieve company diversity
goals, reduce expatriation, and provide opportu-
nities for employees in the home countries. With
core operations in places such as Brazil, China,
India, Oman, Qatar, and UAE, Shell also contributes
significantly to the local communities by hiring local
employees in senior management.
In terms of inclusion, Shell knows that inclu-
sion is correlated to employee engagement and
innovation, and this is why the company keeps a
strong focus on this “softer,” to use van Zanten’s
word, yet equally important element of the “Diver-
sity and Inclusion” equation. According to van Zan-
ten, while Shell is making progress on diversity, the
company is “acutely aware that the challenge is
inclusion. If you recruit people in and they walk
out the door 2 years later it’s not very helpful. Peo-
ple need to feel they can speak up, have their opi-
nions, and that they are not asked to conform.
Inclusion is when you accept people for who they
are and listen to their content versus the underre-
presented groups they represent.”
To assess how included employees feel, in
Shell’s annual People Survey, employees respond
to the following five core items:
● Where I work we are treated with respect.
● I am free to speak my mind without fear of
negative consequences.
● My organization has a working environment in
which different views and perspectives are
valued.
● My organization has a working environment that
is free from harassment and discrimination.
● The decisions leaders in my organization
make concerning employees are fair.
Shell’s goal is to have no significantly
different results among subgroups of employees
(e.g., among men and women).
Personal, interpersonal (group), and organiza-
tional levels of change are used to build and sustain
an environment that respects and values difference
for all those who attend D&I courses. At the perso-
nal level, employees learn about themselves,
including their attitudes, behavior, assumptions,
beliefs, and biases surrounding diversity. The
interpersonal level includes building diverse and
inclusive relationships through listening, under-
standing, and identifying and challenging assump-
tions and behaviors that limit and exclude. The
organizational level leads the change process,
including building the diversity and inclusion plan;
building tools, processes, and systems; and devel-
oping goals, measures, and accountability. This
level also includes modeling desired behavior,
providing resources, and identifying and removing
barriers to diversity and inclusion. These three
levels work together to create sustainable change.
Recognition from sources in numerous differ-
ent countries indicates that Shell is successful in
its pursuit of diversity and inclusion:
● United Kingdom: Shell was listed by the UK’s
Times newspaper among the top fifty
502 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
discrimination. The numbers of people with a disability have increased due
to longer life spans, new types of illnesses (e.g., HIV/AIDS), injuries from
wars and conflicts, substance abuse, and illnesses associated with child labor.
While some countries prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of
disability, many do not. We consider the population and participation of
people with disabilities and disability legislation in the following sections.
Population and Participation
Estimates from the ILO and the World Health Organization suggest that more
than 600 million people worldwide have disabilities and 386 million of them
employers for women for two consecutive
years.
● Chile: Shell was recognized by the Chilean
government for good practices on diversity
and nondiscrimination.
● United States: Shell received a 100% Corpo-
rate Equality Index rating from the Human
Rights Campaign, an organization focused on
equality and inclusion for gay, lesbian, bisex-
ual, and transgender employees.
Despite these accolades and recognition, van
Zanten says, “This is a long-term journey, and to
reach our goals, we need to constantly review
progress and work to embed diversity and
inclusion values across the whole organization.
What matters, I believe, is that we keep working
at it, learning as we move along the D&I journey.”
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Choose a different global organization to
compare with Shell. Use that company’s
Web site and other sources to gather infor-
mation on its diversity practices. How do
the two companies compare?
2. Along with the traditional male dominance
in the energy and petrochemicals field,
what factors might contribute to the low
representation of women in senior
management at Shell? What recommenda-
tions would you make to Shell to help
address those factors?
3. Many organizations with comprehensive
diversity programs have histories of dis-
crimination claims, litigation, judgments,
and settlements. Does Shell have such a
history? Investigate and document your
findings.
4. Do you know a person who works at Shell?
What is his or her perception of the sincerity
of Shell’s diversity commitment? What is
the perception of the success of Shell’s
diversity programs and policies from that
person’s view? What problem areas are
there at Shell? What else needs to be done?
5. What aspects of Cox and Blake’s six rea-
sons for valuing diversity covered and Cox’s
Interactional Model (Featured Case 1.1) can
you identify in the information given about
Shell?
Sources: “Diversity and Inclusion at Shell” brochure;
Shell Annual Report. http://www.annualreportandform20f.
shell.com/2009/servicepages/downloads/files/
all_shell_20f_09 , accessed November 23, 2010;
Josefine van Zanten, Shell Vice-President of Diversity and
Inclusion, personal communication, July 15 and 27, 2010.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 503
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
are of working age.28 Greater un- and underemployment and lower earnings
of these people compared to people without disabilities are common all over
the world. When compared to other marginalized groups, the differences for
people with disabilities are even more extreme. This situation requires specific
attention, in recognition of their uniquely marginalized roles.29
Legislation
The ILO views employment fairness toward people with disabilities as
“a human rights issue,” with access to decent work being one of those
basic rights. The ILO has carefully compared laws in Canada, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom,
and the United States. In countries in which the laws are more carefully
designed and monitored (e.g., by controlling hiring, conditions of employ-
ment, and dismissal of workers with disabilities), there is more employ-
ment equity than in countries that use the “laissez-faire” approach.30
France, Germany, and Sweden use recruitment grants, public subsidies,
and special incentives to promote employment of people with disabilities,
which are more effective. Strategies to improve job retention for people
with disabilities are helpful to employers in controlling the escalating cost
of payments to workers with disabilities who are out of the workforce.
By encouraging and assisting workers with disabilities to return to the
workforce, both employers and individuals benefit.31
In 1983 and 2001, the ILO issued recommendations for the employ-
ment of people with disabilities and for managing disabilities in the
workplace. It promotes equal opportunity and employment through
training and development, funding and disseminating research, and estab-
lishing policy guidelines and manuals for employers. Employers wishing
to hire and retain people with disabilities may turn to the ILO and their
local governments for recommendations.
Focus: Disabled People’s Experiences in the Workplace in England
The purpose of the United Kingdom’s Disability Discrimination Act
(DDA) of 1995, as amended in 2005, is to end discrimination based on
28ILO. (2002). “Managing Disability in the Workplace.” Geneva: International Labor Office.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/skills/disability/download/codeeng , accessed
November 22, 2010.
29ILO. (2002).”Disability and Poverty Reduction Strategies.” http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/
public/—ed_emp/—ifp_skills/documents/publication/wcms_107921 , accessed March 23, 2011.
30ILO. (1998). “Worker Disability Problems Rising in Industrialized Countries.” Press Releases. http://
www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/inf/pr/1998/19.htm, accessed August 24, 2005.
31ILO. (2002). “Managing Disability in the Workplace.”
504 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
disability.32 The United Kingdom defines as disabled a person having a
physical or mental impairment that has a “substantial and long-term”
adverse effect on the person’s ability to perform normal daily activities. As
with the U.S. ADA, the DDA requires employers to make reasonable adjust-
ments to enable people with disabilities to work. Although the fact that the
act exists is positive, managerial attitudes toward people with disabilities and
structural barriers limit its effectiveness.33 These barriers impede access to
employment and the ability to remain employed. In the United Kingdom,
unemployment among people with disabilities is considerably higher than it
is for people without disabilities.34
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Gays and lesbians face discrimination and harassment in much of the world.
Reports suggest that more than 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been exe-
cuted in Iran since 1979.35 In July 2005, two Iranian teens were hanged in a
public square because of their sexual orientation. One study done in Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania documented such discrimination against sexual minori-
ties in the workplace, in service organizations, and in religious institutions such
that many respondents reported a desire to move to other countries.36
Legislation Prohibiting Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Because sexual minorities may face discrimination and harassment in var-
ious situations, many remain closeted or work in informal labor markets.
Although no federal legislation in the United States prohibits employment
discrimination based on sexual orientation, several countries do have such
laws, including Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden, and other countries. The strength of these laws and
the entities targeted vary; some apply only to national governments or to
public or private organizations. Without genuine commitment, laws do
little to help those experiencing discrimination.
32Disability Discrimination Act. (1995). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents, accessed
November 23, 2010; Newton, R., Ormerod, M., & Thomas, P. (2007). “Disabled People’s Experiences in
the Workplace Environment in England,” Equal Opportunities International, 26(6): 610–623.
33Newton et al. (2007).
34Disability Rights Commission. (2006, March). Disability Briefing, DRC, London, cited in Newton
et al. (2007).
35Ireland, D. (2005). “Iran Executes Two Gay Teenagers.” http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/
07/iran_executes_2.html, accessed November 23, 2010.
36Platovas, E., & Simonko, V. (2002). Sexual Orientation Discrimination in Lithuania, Latvia, and
Estonia. Lithuanian Gay League Publisher: http://www.gay.lt/lgl/sod , accessed March 23, 2011.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 505
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Focus: Anti-Gay Sentiment among Youth in Belgium and Canada
A large-scale study of the determinants of anti-gay attitudes among
nearly 10,000 16-year-olds in Belgium and Canada documented distinct
factors among participants.37 The researchers found that girls were
significantly more supportive of GLBT rights, and parents’ education
levels (particularly mothers’) were strongly related to support for
GLBT rights. Although they did not assess religious fundamentalism,
which, as noted in Chapter 12, is strongly related to negativity toward
GLBTs, the researchers did find that Muslim males had the most negative
attitudes. Immigrants were also less supportive of GLBT rights than were
natives.
POVERTY
The ILO condemns persistent poverty as a “moral indictment of our
times.”
For individuals, poverty is a vicious cycle of poor health, reduced working
capacity, low productivity, and shortened life expectancy … it leads to the trap
of inadequate schooling, low skills, insecure income, early parenthood, ill
health, and an early death.38
As discussed in Feature 16.1, a sobering indictment of poverty in the
United States arose in the aftermath of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina in
New Orleans, Louisiana. Similarly, in France in late 2005 French youths
of North African origin engaged in widespread rioting in response to
discrimination, unemployment, and poverty.
In the United States, many tend to blame those who are poor for their
situations, often failing to acknowledge the role of discrimination and
systemic exclusion and attributing poverty instead to personal failures and
laziness—poor people could do better if they simply tried.39 Like the mer-
itocracy myth that allows people to believe they alone are responsible for
having achieved their wealth and positions, the predicament of the poor
or otherwise disadvantaged is seen as a direct result of their choices.
37Hooghe, M., Claes, E., Harrell, A., Quintelier, E., & Dejaeghere, Y. (2010). “Anti-Gay Sentiment
Among Adolescents in Belgium and Canada: A Comparative Investigation into the Role of Gender and
Religion.” Journal of Homosexuality, 57: 384–400.
38
“Working Out of Poverty,” p. 1.
39For example, see Cozzaredi, C., Tagler, M. J., & Wilkinson, A. V. (2001). “Attitudes Toward the
Poor and Attributions for Poverty.” Journal of Social Issues, 57(2): 207–228.
506 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
FEATURE 16.1 Poverty as a Diversity Concern
Poverty is a specific area of emphasis for the ILO,
which points out that poverty remains widespread
in the developing world and some transition coun-
tries.40 However, it is not limited to developing
and transition countries—it is deep and wide-
spread in some developed nations as well. The
horror of the unnecessary loss of lives as a result
of Hurricane Katrina in the southeastern United
States awakened the country to long-denied and
ignored, yet long-lasting and stable, distinctions
based on class, poverty, and race. At the time
Katrina hit, 26.9% of the population in the region
lived in persistent poverty although the U.S. pov-
erty rate was 12.7%. Many affected by the disas-
ter were working poor, employed in restaurants,
hotels, and casinos, or driving cabs, trolleys, and
limousines for affluent tourists, partygoers, and
conventioneers.
Despite mandatory evacuation orders, per-
sistent poverty left tens of thousands of people,
largely Blacks, unable to flee the natural disaster
and vulnerable to its destruction. Without cars,
credit cards, or money to rent hotel rooms out of
town, the persistently poor went to the Louisiana
Superdome (a large sports facility) and Convention
Center for shelter. After the hurricane and in the
midst of unprecedented flooding, their poverty left
these victims vulnerable to the further, human-
made destruction of insensitivity and neglect.
In the United States, the poor and disen-
franchised live in public housing projects in com-
munities near toxic waste dumps in Chicago,
Memphis, and Cleveland; near cancer-causing refi-
neries in Baton Rouge and Houston; and in flood-
prone areas of Tucson, Dallas, and New Orleans,
and struggle to make ends meet.41 Every day, in
cities all around the United States, poverty, persis-
tent segregation, poor housing, and separate and
unequal schools contribute to preventable disease,
violence, and suicide.42 Although widely perceived
as an urban problem, many people in poverty live in
rural areas, also struggling to make ends meet and
in poor living conditions.43 Regardless of their loca-
tion, those affected by poverty are disproportio-
nately minorities, with 25.8% of Blacks, 25.3%
of Hispanics, 23.6% of American Indians, 12.5%
of Asians, and 12.3% of Whites living at or below
the poverty line in 2009.44 Although minorities
are disproportionately poor, Whites are the majo-
rity of the U.S. poor numerically. Media represen-
tations, however, portray significantly more
Blacks as poor and support other erroneous
perceptions—such that the poor primarily live in
cities and that they are lazy. One study found
that only 30% of the poor adults in media repre-
sentations were depicted as working or in job
training, although 50% of the poor work full- or
part-time.45
40
“Working Out of Poverty,” p. 22.
41Ash, M., & Fetter, T. R. (2004). “Who Lives on the Wrong Side of the Environmental Tracks? Evidence from the EPA’s Risk-
Screening Environmental Indicators Model.” Social Science Quarterly, 85: 441–462.
42See, for example, Barnes, S. L. (2005). The Cost of Being Poor: A Comparative Study of Life in Poor Urban Neighborhoods in
Gary, Indiana. Albany: State University of New York Press.
43Tickamyer, A. R., & Duncan, C. M. (1990). “Poverty and Opportunity Structure in Rural America.” Annual Review of Sociology,
16: 67–86.
44Table 4. “People and Families in Poverty by Selected Characteristics: 2008 and 2009.” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/
data/incpovhlth/2009/table4 , accessed November 23, 2010.
45Clawson, R. A., & Trice, R. (2000). “Poverty as We Know It: Media Portrayals of the Poor.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 64: 53–64.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 507
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
However, nearly 9 million of the poor in the United States are work-
ing poor, earning too little to escape poverty. Blacks and Hispanics are more
than twice as likely as Whites and women are more likely than men to be
working poor. Of occupations requiring less education, people working in
service fields (disproportionately women and minorities) are more likely to be
working poor than those working in male-dominated fields (e.g., farming,
forestry, and fishing, or natural resource, construction, and maintenance).49
As discussed in previous chapters, job “choice,” gender-role socialization,
employer channeling and steering, and race and sex discrimination affect
proportions of different groups represented in higher paid versus lower
paid jobs.
Erroneous perceptions aside, being poor has
similar consequences worldwide—from poor
health to inadequate schooling to early death in
Africa, Brazil, England, India, Mexico, and the Uni-
ted States—everywhere one would venture to
look. Favelas, barrios, projects, shanty towns,
slums, and the backwoods are where the impo-
verished can be found. Although who is impover-
ished varies by where one is in the world,
persistent poverty is a universal diversity concern.
The ILO views “discrimination based on race,
caste, ethnic origin, skin colour, religion, gender,
sexual orientation, health status and disability” as
an “underlying feature” of persistent poverty.46
In France, the motto liberté, égalité,
fraternité (“liberty, equality, fraternity”) has little
meaning to immigrants of color and their French
descendants. As in the United States, in France,
unemployment, underemployment, and poverty
among the foreign-born, who are often racial
and ethnic minorities, is considerably higher than
among the natives, and this is consistent across
education levels.47 As the ILO suggests, dis-
crimination against immigrants in Europe is corre-
lated with higher poverty.48
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Given equal education and opportunity,
why is it easier for Whites in the United
States to escape poverty and discrimination
than it is for people of color?
2. Why is it easier for men to avoid or escape
poverty than it is for women?
3. The ILO proposes that discrimination is an
underlying feature of poverty. How are dis-
crimination in employment and poverty re-
lated for workers around the world?
Discuss.
4. In this and previous chapters, the un- and
underemployment of non-dominant group
members were documented. How do such
employment patterns negatively affect the
productivity of a country?
46Ibid., p. 68.
47
“French Muslims Face Job Discrimination.” (2005, November 2). http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/
4399748.stm, accessed November 23, 2010.
48See also Kogan, I. (2000). “A Study of Employment Careers of Immigrants in Germany.” Working
paper, No. 66. Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES), Mannheim, Germany.
49
“A Profile of the Working Poor, 2008.” (2010). U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2008 , accessed January 2, 2011.
508 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The ILO acknowledges the relationship between discrimination and
poverty and proposes that people living in persistent poverty
draw from enormous reservoirs of courage, ingenuity, persistence, and mutual
support to keep on the treadmill of survival. Simply coping with poverty
demonstrates the resilience and creativity of the human spirit…. Imagine
where their efforts could take them with the support and possibilities to move
up a ladder of opportunity. Our common responsibility is to help put it there.50
Misperception: Most people who live in persistent poverty are lazy and
unmotivated.
Reality: Most people living in poverty survive through enormous courage,
persistence, and resilience.
Valuing, pursuing, and embracing diversity can help place a ladder
of opportunity at the feet of those previously ignored but who have
enormous reservoirs of skills and assets, be they poor, minority group
members, women, sexual minorities, people with disabilities, or other
non-dominant group members. At the same time, valuing, pursuing,
and embracing diversity can be beneficial for the organizations that
employ previously devalued workers and for the societies in which
they live.
FACING THE FUTURE: THE BROAD REACH OF DIVERSITY IN ORGANIZATIONS
As the world population becomes increasingly diverse, so should organi-
zations. Organizations themselves differ in their size, structure, earnings,
design, and purpose, and included in the category are various entities such
as schools, churches, governments, nonprofits, retailers, service providers,
co-ops, farms, and countless others in which people earn a living and
interact. The success, or failure, of organizations will be greatly influenced
by the ability to attract, retain, and maximize the contributions of people
from all backgrounds and from around the world, by the ability to mar-
ket to diverse customers, to engage diverse constituents, and to encourage
the full participation of every worker and potential worker. In this section,
we offer recommendations for organizations to encourage full participa-
tion of all potential workers. Returning to the original hypothesis that
50
“Working Out of Poverty,” p. 1.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 509
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
diversity and inclusion provides organizations with a variety of competi-
tive advantages, we then go on to consider how these potential benefits
reach beyond the organization in which they occur.
As the world becomes more connected globally, discrimination,
harassment, and exclusion based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
religion, age, family status, physical or mental ability, weight, appearance,
and other irrelevant factors will be increasingly unwise, unprofitable, and
unacceptable. At the same time, as the world’s population becomes more
diverse, this will bring new challenges, threats, and opportunities, includ-
ing the propensities to stereotype and discriminate, to hoard rather than
to help, and to fight for resources believed to be scarce. Rather than
stereotyping, hoarding, and fighting, those who understand the value of
diversity expect that including the ideas and input of more and more
diverse contributors would result in the sharing of more resources.
Organizations and their leaders should welcome the challenges of diver-
sity, minimize the threats, and capitalize on the opportunities resulting
from it.
Attending to “diversity in organizations” is necessary, but not suffi-
cient, to increase organizational diversity. Organizations cannot be sepa-
rated from the individuals who comprise them and the society in which
they exist, nor are individuals and society distinct from the organizations
in which they participate. Diversity among individuals in the population
should result in diversity in organizations. But absent concrete actions to
ensure that it does, historical evidence and the current status of many
groups clearly indicate that it will not.
The ideas proposed by Cox and Blake, which have been central to the
discussion of why diversity should be valued and pursued, are only part
of the picture. When organizations pursue diversity solely to obtain cost,
resource acquisition, marketing, creativity, problem solving, system flexi-
bility, and other advantages, they will help some individuals improve their
circumstances. Indeed, for these individuals, an organization’s self-
interested pursuit of diversity is personally helpful. And if sufficient num-
bers of individuals in a group are helped, the group’s overall position will
improve to some extent. However, these are superficial and shallow
changes, incapable of supporting long-term, sustainable progress. For
long-term change to occur, a fundamental shift in views on the value of
diversity and the reasons to pursue it must occur. Rather than seeing
diversity solely as a means of gaining competitive advantage, what is
required is changed views of ourselves, our prejudices and biases, our
personal attitudes, and our behaviors. It involves willingness to pursue
and to advance societal changes that will reduce widespread inequity
among people of the world. Diversity in organizations is but one aspect
of such societal changes.
510 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE AT A SOCIETAL LEVEL
Governments of many countries have implemented legislation prohibiting
discrimination against and encouraging the employment of non-dominant
groups. Previous chapters have examined legislation in the United States.
Similar legislation prohibiting discrimination exists in countries such as
Australia, Canada, China, England, India, Mexico, New Zealand, South
Africa, Sweden, and numerous others. Some legislation has been more
successful than others in reducing disparities, but clearly more needs to be
done. The persistence of discrimination, segregation, and exclusion makes
obvious the insufficiency of legislation. However, without legislation, cir-
cumstances would likely be even worse. At a minimum, laws signal the
need to pursue equity for all people. But strong measures are needed,
rather than a “laissez-faire” approach that holds no consequences for
continued disparity nor offers incentives to comply.
In addition to legislation, governmental actions are needed to improve
the education of non-dominant groups. Education is an important part of
preparedness for equity, and without education, inequity is certain to per-
sist. Governments must work to ensure all residents have a certain mini-
mum level of education in quality, safe schools. The digital divide between
Whites and people of color, and rich and poor, must be eliminated.
Everyone should have access to computers and the power of the Internet
as part of their education. As much as possible, in order to improve the
opportunities for women, family-friendly policies should be implemented.
Rather than viewing child care and rearing as an individual or personal
responsibility and a societal burden, children should be thought of as the
future of a society.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE AT AN ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
In this section, we synthesize and expand upon some of the recommenda-
tions from previous chapters suggested to help organizations in their pur-
suit of a diverse workforce and offer some additional recommendations.
Although we have considered diversity issues relevant to a variety of for-
mal organizations in a variety of ways (e.g., customer discrimination in
restaurants or stores), the recommendations in this section focus on orga-
nizations as employers. They are based on problems considered in the
previous chapters, are drawn from the human resources and diversity lit-
erature, and are generally applicable to many organizations anywhere in
the world. Some of the recommendations are in the form of questions
rather than specific prescriptions, in recognition of the differences inherent
in organizations’ human resources practices. Answering these questions
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 511
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
and formulating others that are relevant to one’s own organization and
specific industry and locations will improve understanding of the specific
situation for a particular organization and affect any recommendations.
What is the population of employees, applicant pool, customers, clients,
and constituents? What are their key concerns with respect to diversity?
What legislation exists in the particular location? Is there evidence of
discrimination that needs attention, even in the absence of legislation?
Management Commitment to Diversity in Organizations
Diversity literature documents the miserable failure of ill-conceived diver-
sity initiatives, training programs, and other “diversity” measures. Prior
to embarking upon a diversity program, the commitment of top manage-
ment is imperative. One key step is the appointment of a leader at the
executive level who is responsible for and has the authority to make
changes. Some of these responsibilities would include assessing the orga-
nization’s diversity climate, developing and implementing organization-
specific diversity objectives and goals and then measuring progress against
them, and addressing concerns, comments, and suggestions of employees,
customers, and constituents.
In addition to a key diversity executive with power to effect change,
genuine commitment from other executives is also required for success.
When leaders view diversity as an imperative, whether due to its competi-
tive advantages or moral and ethical aspects, diversity is more likely.
However, not only is top management commitment to diversity necessary,
commitment from all management in an organization is also required.
Without the commitment of managers and supervisors throughout an
organization, diversity efforts will not be successful. Senior managers and
executives, middle managers, first-line managers, assistant managers, and
supervisors all play important roles in ensuring that all employees have an
opportunity to work and contribute to organizational success. As the first
line of decision making, first-level managers and supervisors have the
power to obstruct or facilitate diversity. They are the ones who make fair
selection decisions, encourage working parents to have a healthy work–
life balance, facilitate employees’ quest to learn multiple languages, pro-
vide reasonable accommodations for applicants with disabilities and for
those with specific religious preferences, and so on. First-line, mid-level,
and executive-level management can all foster or impede diversity.
Diversity-supportive behaviors at all levels of management are
observed by employees, and employees are most likely to come into con-
tact with low-level managers on a regular basis. How do such managers
behave regarding diversity in the organization? Are they sincere about
eradicating sexual, racial, and other harassment? Do they make sexist,
512 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
racist, ageist, heterosexist, and other “-ist” comments and decisions? Are
business meetings held in inappropriate or potentially offensive locations
(e.g., strip bars, Hooters)? Are older workers given or denied training
opportunities? The performance of diversity-supportive aspects of man-
agers’ jobs should be rated along with other job criteria. The adage that
“if it’s not measured, it doesn’t matter” is particularly true for diversity
efforts.
Changes in Human Resource Practices
Job criteria and the selection team. To facilitate diversity in the selection
process, management and human resources should start with clear job
criteria—what competencies are desired of a successful candidate? How
will these competencies be identified and compared among candidates?
Are the desired competencies clearly related to successful job performance
(i.e., valid)? What is the demographic makeup of the recruitment and
selection team? What measures are in place to ensure that all candidates
are viewed fairly? Are there post-hiring analyses of candidates’ demo-
graphic backgrounds and their hiring success in order to check for poten-
tial unfairness? As discussed throughout this book, applicants may not
even be aware of discrimination or unfairness and are unlikely to sue.
Although avoiding lawsuits is not a sufficient rationale for pursuing
diversity, taking these steps will increase the likelihood of a diverse
employee population, which should be the real stimulus.
Recruiting. What efforts can be taken to ensure that qualified applicants
from a variety of backgrounds are included in the candidate pool? Schools
that are highly diverse in race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and physical
(and, as appropriate, mental) ability are good places to begin. Referrals
from employees who are members of the target population are likely to be
demographically similar to those making the referral. Incentives should be
offered for referrals who are hired and retained.
Advertising in publications geared toward certain groups, for exam-
ple, Latina Style, Ebony, and the AARP magazine would increase the pool
of Hispanics, Blacks, and older applicants in the United States. Companies
outside the United States could seek appropriate country-specific outlets
that target different groups.
Selection. Once the pool of qualified applicants is generated, efforts must
be made to ensure that certain candidates are not unfairly eliminated as
the selection process continues. In attempting to increase diversity among
university faculty, for example, is research in areas related to race, ethnic-
ity, gender, and diversity devalued because it is not considered “main-
stream”? Is the academic quality of such publications discounted because
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 513
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
of the research topic? Do corporate organizations recruit candidates at
“historically black colleges and universities”? or American Indian univer-
sities, or are they deemed less qualified than those from other universities?
What steps can be taken to reduce these misperceptions? Are the schools
at which corporations recruit accredited by recognized authorities? Have
the employees involved in hiring and selecting and the employee popula-
tion as a whole been informed of such accreditation? Are managers and
employees aware of ingrained preferential treatment of certain groups? Do
misperceptions exist about the qualifications of non-dominant and domi-
nant group members? If either or both are perceived as having been hired
due to non-job-related qualifications (e.g., being a person of color or
being White; being a woman or being a man), how might publicizing the
qualifications of all hires reduce such misperceptions?
Training and development. Are all employees provided opportunities to
participate in job-related training and development? Are older workers
steered away from training? By participating in training and development,
workers prepare for advancement opportunities.
Do all workers participate in substantive diversity learning (e.g.,
training and education)? Research indicates that poorly designed or
implemented diversity training can have negative consequences, such as
backlash and unmet expectations. Are diversity learning programs of high
quality and well implemented and relevant? Do such programs include
short-term as well as long-term education? Diversity training is not a
“quick fix” to long-term issues, particularly given institutional and sys-
temic sexism, racism, ageism, and other “isms.” People need help
unlearning and divesting themselves of stereotypical beliefs about others.
Do diversity learning programs help to eradicate stereotypes?
Do programs include sound data on the hiring, retention, promotion,
and advancement of all groups? If an organization fears to disseminate
such data, that suggests inadequate attention to diversity. Is there
something to hide? Do employees resist attending diversity learning pro-
grams or do they understand their importance? Is there tolerance for jok-
ing and kidding in sexual harassment training? Are managers and
supervisors periodically updated about changes in EEOC guidelines and
regulations?
Mentoring. Mentoring is valuable in helping dominant and non-
dominant group members succeed in organizations. Dominant group
members are advantaged by their similarity to leaders and executives;
forming mentoring relationships without organizational assistance is sim-
pler for them than for non-dominant group members. Successful mentor-
ing programs pair a protégée with a mentor who is genuinely interested in
seeing the protégée grow and advance. Dominant group members tend to
514 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
have greater access to social networks that share valuable job- and
organization-related information. A formal mentoring program can pro-
vide access to such networks to non-dominant group members also.
Promotion and advancement. The promotion and advancement rates of
employees should be regularly monitored. Are promotion rates for non-
dominant and dominant group members similar? Since measures to
recruit, select, train, and develop should be carefully monitored to ensure
fairness and equity, both non-dominant and dominant group members
would ideally experience similar rates of advancement. If they do not,
reasons for differential rates should be investigated. Are women assumed
to be less interested in advancement opportunities because of perceptions
they are more focused on their families? Are groups with strong family
ties believed to be unwilling to relocate for promotional opportunities due
to these ties? Are men with children viewed as more committed workers
and thus advantaged because of that perception (regardless of its
veracity)?
Are non-dominant group employees held to different standards than
dominant group candidates? What mechanisms are in place to determine
whether differential standards exist and to address and remove them if
they do? Is the performance of all employees regularly and fairly assessed?
Are poor performers advised and counseled to facilitate improvement? Is
there evidence of “the norm to be kind” when evaluating employees with
disabilities?51 If employees are not given negative performance feedback
when warranted, they will not be able to improve. If performance is
unfairly scrutinized, employees will notice it and it will serve to depress
motivation and increase dissatisfaction and turnover.
Affinity and employee resource groups. Many organizations sponsor
affinity or employee resource groups, in which people who are similar in
some way or share similar concerns formally and informally gather as
employees. American Airlines, for example, has affinity groups for Blacks,
Latinos, gays and lesbians, and other non-dominant group members (and
allies). Shell has affinity groups for women, Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and
other groups. Verizon and Lockheed have similar groups. The existence of
affinity groups in an organization may signal support for and commit-
ment to diversity among employees and constituents. Affinity groups that
are social in nature should not be confused with formal mentoring pro-
grams that provide more instrumental support and assist non-dominant
groups in actual career progress.
51Colella, A., & Stone, D. L. (2005). “Workplace Discrimination toward Persons with Disabilities: A Call
for Some New Research Directions.” In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at Work: The
Psychological and Organizational Bases. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 227–253.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 515
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Equitable benefits. When same-sex and domestic partner benefits are
offered, that is an important signal to gay and lesbian employees.
Although particularly important to gays and lesbians, offering such bene-
fits sends a strong signal to heterosexual employees about the value the
organization places on diversity and its sincerity in pursuit of it. In addi-
tion, when also offered to heterosexuals domestic partner benefits are also
useful to heterosexuals who are in committed relationships but who
remain unmarried.
Although organizations are not required to provide benefits for any
employee, inclusion of all employees in benefit offerings indicates that all are
valued. In addition to same-sex and domestic partner benefits, are employees
allowed to indicate who is part of their family? Are care-giving responsibili-
ties toward grandchildren, grandparents, and fictive (but no less important)
kin recognized? The fear of excessive costs associated with recognizing dif-
ferent family members is similar to the fear of hiring women in child-bearing
years or of hiring workers with disabilities—largely unfounded. As discussed
in Chapter 11, costs associated with offering domestic partner benefits are
similar to those involved with any increase in plan participants. The costs of
such benefits will likely be offset by reduced costs in turnover, lower resource
acquisition costs, greater commitment and productivity, and the intangible
benefits resulting from treating employees equitably.
Other Employment Considerations
The preceding sections have considered ways in which organizations can
work to increase diversity among employees. The recommendations are in no
way exhaustive, and management is encouraged to investigate its particular
organization and to assess its strengths and weaknesses in terms of diversity
when developing an organization-specific plan. Are women fairly represented
at various levels but not people of color? Are men of color well represented
but Whites and minorities underrepresented? Are certain groups overrepre-
sented in technical fields and underrepresented elsewhere? A commitment to
diversity will ensure that the appropriate questions are asked, the answers
evaluated, and steps taken to continue to work toward fairness and equity
for all applicants, employees, customers, and prospective customers.
Diversity for Service Providers
The previous sections focused on organizations as employers. We now
consider organizations in their other roles, particularly as service provi-
ders dealing with diverse customers and clients. Previous chapters gave
evidence of the disparate treatment of customers, such as assuming Black
customers had stolen merchandise they had paid for or following them in
516 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
stores, expecting them to steal. Customers of color have also reported
being ignored in stores while Whites are offered help in finding merchan-
dise and excessive wait times for restaurant service. Hotels, restaurants,
retailers, colleges, and universities have also treated certain customer
groups unfairly. Although there have been some large and expensive law-
suits in the United States (e.g., Denny’s, Shoney’s, Eddie Bauer, and
Dillard’s), as we have discussed in previous chapters, most customers do
not sue. Costs associated with lost business and goodwill are more likely
and more expensive than lawsuits, judgments, and settlements.
As institutions with strong societal influence, service providers must
take a strong and proactive stand for diversity. Employees at all levels
should receive education on common biases and stereotypes they may
hold about members of certain groups. Customer complaints should be
taken seriously and addressed. Mystery shoppers (diners, hotel guests,
students, etc.) can provide valuable information on the treatment of cus-
tomers of different backgrounds. Are all customers greeted pleasantly
when they enter an establishment? Are Black and female customers
quoted higher prices for goods than White males? Are certain customers
routinely seated at the least desirable tables in restaurants? In hospitals
and nursing homes, are there multilingual and multicultural doctors,
nurses, social workers, clergy, and counselors who are aware of cultural
differences in beliefs about medical treatment, life, and death?
Law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies play a critical role
in diversity. The hiring and retention of women and those who are bilin-
gual (to reach large populations of non-English speakers) is one role.
Racial profiling is another, for the profiling of Black, Latino, Asian, and,
in some areas, American Indian young men is a widespread problem in
the United States. Men of color are disproportionately more likely to be
stopped and searched, based on perceptions they are more likely to have
done something criminal, and they are more likely to be arrested than
those who are not stopped and searched. When arrest records are used as
a screening mechanism for certain jobs, racial profiling can take an
expensive, long-lasting, life-changing toll. To avoid discrimination and
reduce the effect of biased stops and arrests, many employers require that
convictions, rather than arrests, be used as the deciding factor for exclu-
sion. But the pool of people convicted is drawn from those arrested, and
poor and minority group members are more likely to be convicted when
arrested and to receive harsher sentences.52 Focusing on convictions does
52See Beckett, K., & Sasson, T. (2004). The Politics of Injustice: Crime and Punishment in America,
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; Dees, M. (with Fiffer, S.). (1991). A Season for Justice:
The Life and Times of Civil Rights Lawyer Morris Dees. New York: Scribners.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 517
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
not address racial profiling. Committed law enforcement agencies must
get to the heart of that matter. The public, of all racial and ethnic back-
grounds, must demand that they do.
Colleges and universities. Because they are training grounds for future
employees, managers, and leaders, colleges and universities are in a
unique position to shape diversity in organizations and in society. The
study of diversity should be an integral part of every college and graduate
student’s curriculum to equip them as future managers and leaders in a
diverse society. As discussed in this book, many researchers have docu-
mented the ways in which exposure to diverse classmates and to diversity
curricula benefits students. Diversity issues are relevant to each one of us,
throughout our lives and careers. Students need to understand the histori-
cal background of diversity, the current status of dominant and non-
dominant groups, legislation, why stereotyping occurs and how to avoid
it, and why diversity learning is important to individual and organiza-
tional success. For the 70% of the U.S. population who does not receive
college degrees,53 inclusion of diversity training in lower level education
(e.g., high school) would exponentially increase the beneficial outcomes.
The Role of the Media
The media must take an active stance against the promulgation of stereo-
types that impede diversity and harm society. Selling a story and generat-
ing high ratings are not important in the overall scheme. If responsible
journalism becomes a general priority, the programming will sell. Like
other organizations that take steps to ensure diversity among employees,
the media must make sincere and concerted efforts to foster diversity. The
first step is eradicating discriminatory news reports, television shows,
movies, and commercials. Another step would be inclusive programming
and discontinuing programming that fosters stereotyping and bias.
Granted that entertainment is one goal of programming, but critical anal-
ysis and thought can be employed as well to promote and support diver-
sity and equity.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE AT AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
Blacks, Latinos, Asians, American Indians and Alaska Natives, multiracial
group members, and other non-Whites, women, people with disabilities,
53Table 224. “Educational Attainment by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1970-2008.” http://www.census.
gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0224 , accessed November 30, 2010.
518 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
those who are overweight or obese, sexual minorities, and religious
minorities are the non-dominant group members that we have discussed
in terms of the United States. The Māori in New Zealand, Asians in
Britain, the Burakumin in Japan, ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, Blacks and
Coloreds in South Africa, Koreans in Japan, North Africans in France,
women, people with disabilities, sexual minorities, immigrants, and the
“untouchables” in India are some of the numerous non-dominant groups
who experience discrimination and differential treatment in countries
around the world. Racism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, classism, and
other “isms” are alive and well, but there are some things that individuals
can do to minimize the negative effects of such discrimination. As many
chapters have proposed, whenever possible, individuals should work to
obtain as much education as possible and to prepare themselves to seize
every opportunity when it arises—education, fluency in multiple lan-
guages, and job flexibility are just some of the ways in which an individ-
ual can circumvent discrimination.
Although race, sex, and often class segregation of jobs is prevalent
around the world, non-dominant group members should try to avoid seg-
regated jobs and occupations. They should investigate an organization’s
posture on diversity during the job search process. Is there evidence of a
glass ceiling and walls? Are non-dominant group members confined to
staff, rather than line, jobs? Are non-dominant group members repre-
sented at all levels of the organization? Find and talk with people who
work there. What is the diversity climate of the organization truly like?
People should not deny their identity and individuality, neither
should they be afraid of being viewed as a “token” or “affirmative
action hire.” Such perceptions reflect on the perceiver, rather than on the
perceived. People should be careful to avoid internalizing low expecta-
tions and reject stereotypes about their own and others’ groups. They
should resist discrimination against other non-dominant group members—
working for fairness for everyone, even when doing so does not appear
to be a personal issue. They should not assume that all dominant group
members are against diversity; many allies can be found among the domi-
nant group.
In addition to seizing opportunities when available, individuals should
work to make opportunities for themselves and others. Like increasing
numbers of non-dominant group members, they can consider starting a
business and letting it be a beacon, modeling support for diversity and
providing opportunities for others. Individuals should seek a mentor and
serve as a mentor. They can ask what one person can do to make a dif-
ference, and then do it when that is possible and avoid being a passive
observer or complainer. Activism can help give people a sense of power
while also helping to change situations.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 519
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Dominant group members should recognize their unearned advan-
tages and be aware of their membership in many groups and the fluidity
of some of these memberships (e.g., age, physical and mental ability).
They should recognize the value in diversity and pursue it, working to
foster diversity and resisting stereotyping and discrimination. They should
not see the situation as “us” against “them,” a competition for a slice of a
small and finite pie. Instead, dominant group members should view diver-
sity as fostering more and greater opportunities for everyone, but only
when everyone has the opportunity to contribute. In an increasingly
global community, “us” is everyone, and without the contributions of
everyone, long-term success for anyone is at risk.
CAPITALIZING ON THE STRENGTH OF DIVERSITY IN THE UNITED STATES
At the beginning of this chapter, we considered the idea that diversity
issues are not specific to the United States. At this point, however, a
discussion of the experiences unique to the United States is appropriate:
the annihilation of or banishment to reservations of American Indians, the
enslavement of Blacks and continued discrimination against them, the
anti-Chinese legislation and sentiment of the past and the past restriction
of citizenship to “White men” only, the internment of the Japanese during
World War II, the current relative paucity of women in the political sys-
tem and the absence of women from the highest elected offices (e.g., pres-
ident and vice president) compared to other developed nations (e.g.,
England, India), the peculiar employment of undocumented immigrants
but stated disdain for illegal immigration, and many other examples. The
diversity issues in the United States are uniquely its own, even though it
shares numerous aspects of these issues (e.g., gender, sexual orientation,
disability, and poverty) with many other countries.
The history of the United States and its stated belief in welcoming
diverse others make its standing distinct. Indeed, people seeking opportu-
nities and refuge from racial, ethnic, religious, and other persecution often
turn to the United States. Because of this and the increasing connectedness
of the world, the United States is in a particularly unique and precarious
position—unique in that no other nation has its history and experience
with diversity, and precarious in that if its diverse population is not given
opportunities to contribute, the United States may be left behind in an
increasingly competitive and global world.
The United States no longer has the “luxury” of ignoring, excluding,
devaluing, failing to adequately educate, and segregating large popula-
tions of workers. If women continue to be 51% of the population and live
longer than men, as “minorities” grow to become the majority, as older
520 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
workers need and desire to work longer, as more people acquire and live
longer with disabilities, as religious diversity increases, and as more peo-
ple work and have families, all potential workers must be encouraged to
contribute to the country’s success. The United States needs women as
scientists, engineers, computer programmers, and truck drivers, not just as
kindergarten teachers, nurses, and secretaries only—limiting them to a few
job categories and competing for low wages in these limited categories.
It needs Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians as scientists, engineers,
programmers, managers, and entrepreneurs, not just in the low-wage
positions they currently disproportionately occupy, or, worse still, unem-
ployed at twice the rate of Whites and many having given up looking for
work. The United States needs to allow people with disabilities to work—
their stability, their education, their willingness to work must not be
ignored. It needs to provide everyone with the opportunity to obtain at
least a high school education, rather than allowing large proportions of
the fastest-growing groups to remain uneducated. The United States needs
a population that is multilingual rather than one in which the majority of
people are monolingual and many resist languages other than English. It
needs to let older workers who are willing and able to work continue to
provide their technical and managerial expertise and to let sexual minori-
ties feel comfortable being “out” in the workplace rather than worrying
about being “out-ed” and thus failing to contribute as they otherwise
would.
In sum, in an increasingly competitive world the United States simply
cannot afford to do without potential contributors or to limit their contri-
butions. As national boundaries grow increasingly dim, as mergers, acqui-
sitions, cross-cultural relationships, and international business become the
norm, intranational infighting and discrimination are increasingly absurd.
In addition to the organizational, societal, and individual recommen-
dations we have presented, what else can be done to encourage diversity?
Increased, not decreased, attention should be paid to the pursuit of diver-
sity. The playing field is not level—indeed there has been significant
retrenchment in recent years. The education, employment, opportunities,
and earning power of many non-dominant groups have actually declined
through resistance to diversity measures and the recent recession.
Harassment for religious and sexual orientation is significant, as are racial
profiling, hate crimes, and hostility toward immigrants. Intellectual
leaders and a government with a view to the country’s future must work
to educate the population that diversity is not about “us” versus “them”
and a finite set of resources. Rather, by embracing diversity, and pursuing
education, equity, fairness, and opportunities for all, the contributions of
all of the more than 300 million potential contributors will create an infi-
nite set of possibilities.
Chapter 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future 521
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
SUMMARY
This chapter has focused on three areas:
diversity issues in the international context,
recommended changes for the future, and the
imperative need for attending to diversity is-
sues in the United States. We discussed the
universal relevance of ensuring diversity
around the world, specifically in the areas of
sex and gender, disabilities, sexual orienta-
tion, and poverty. We also explored the rela-
tionships among individual, organizational,
and societal diversity, emphasizing that they
are intertwined. Finally, we considered the
unique position of the United States and its
particular need and opportunity to embrace
andfosterdiversity inorganizations, giventhe
diversity of its population.
This chapter concludes with the hope
that readers have learned a great deal about
diversity in organizations and its relevance
to individuals and society and are inspired to
pursue diversity—perhaps for competitive
advantage, but more important, as a moral
imperative. When everyone, regardless of
race, sex, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation,
physical and mental ability, family status, or
other non-job-related attributes, has oppor-
tunities to work in a variety of jobs, to ob-
tain promotions and advancement at work,
to shop without being followed and drive
without being profiled, and to obtain edu-
cation, housing, loans, service in restaurants,
and other “normal” privileges, individuals,
organizations, and societies will be more
able to contribute to the well-being of us all
in the world in which we live.
KEY TERMS
Affinity or employee resource groups —
informal social organizations at work
composed of demographically or other-
wise similar members.
QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER
1. Aside from the topics discussed in this
chapter (sex and gender, workers with
disabilities, sexual orientation, and
poverty), what other areas are of uni-
versal relevance to diversity in organi-
zations, regardless of one’s location in
the world?
2. What can dominant groups in each
society do to foster diversity? What
can the non-dominant do? What can
you do?
3. Figure 16.1 lists some of the factors
useful in identifying specific diversity
concerns in any country. What others
would you add to the list?
4. Why is diversity a particularly impor-
tant concern for the United States?
ACTIONS AND EXERCISES
1. Choose a country other than the
United States and document the key
diversity concerns for that country.
Which groups are dominant and
which are non-dominant? What are
the workforce participation rates,
earnings, and employment differences
among the groups? Does the country
have legislation covering those
groups? How is diversity in the coun-
try you chose similar to or different
from diversity in the United States?
2. Assume you are starting a business in
the country you chose in #1. Which
diversity-related factors would you
emphasize most or be most concerned
about, based on the information you
obtained in #1 above?
522 Global Vision
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Name Index
A
Acuna, R., 28
Ahdaoui, Khadija, 385
Alba, R., 179
Albright, M., 54
Allen, K., 181
Allen, P. G., 269
Allen, Sharon, 250, 308
Allers, K. L., 216
Allison, D. B., 478
Alon, T., 336
Altameyer, B., 390
Anastasio, P. A., 49
Anderson, C. D., 252
Ando, F., 113
Andreyeva, T., 460
Angier, N., 464
Anker, R., 290
Antecol, H., 317, 357, 358
Apostal, R. A., 452
Appleby, P. N., 476
Aranda, E. M., 151
Archdeacon, T. J., 379
Armour, S., 422
Arthur, M. M., 322, 349
Arulampalam, W., 293
Arvey, R. D., 468
Ash, M., 507
Astor, G., 112
Atkinson, W., 250
Avery, D. R., 15
Avery, R. B., 137
B
Babcock, L., 296, 313, 314
Bacharach, S. B., 22
Bachelder, L., 6, 447, 451, 453
Bachu, A., 330
Back, A., 116
Badgett, M. V. L., 357, 358
Baker, H. B., 450
Baker, S. G., 170
Baker, S. M., 450
Baldonado, Michael, 80
Baldor, L. C., 115
Bales, W., 178
Ball, E., 273
Barbee, A. P., 463
Barnes, S. L., 507
Barreto, M., 56
Barrios, Laura, 449, 455
Barron, L., 359
Bartkowski, J. P., 367
Bean, F. D., 205, 259
Beaton, A. M., 57
Beatty, J., 277
Beauregard, T. A., 370
Beauvais, L. L., 349
Beckett, K., 517
Bednarz, B. A., 192
Belkin, A., 368
Bell, M. P., 19, 21, 86, 95, 131, 165,
370, 396, 448, 498
Belliveau, M., 314
Bellizzi, J. A., 466
Bendick, M., Jr., 124, 163,
245, 305
Benjamin, Dr. Regina – U. S. Surgeon
General, 140, 141
Bennett, C. E., 196, 202
Bennett, M. D., 131
Bennett, W., 388
Bentley, K. J., 432
Bergman, M. E., 304, 499
Berman, P., 400
Bernard, T. S., 340, 364
Bernstein, A., 131
Berta, D., 183
Bertrand, M., 124, 125
Beyer, Thomas, 296
Biddle, J. E., 463, 468
Biernat, M., 460
Bin Laden, Osama, 194
Bjorn, L., 305
Black, D. A., 357, 358, 363
Blake, S., 12, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 64,
157, 450, 510
Blanford, J. M., 358
Blau, F. D., 113
Block, C. J., 86, 243, 500
Block, R., 71
Boldry, J. G., 51, 52
Bonacich, E., 207, 208, 209
Bond, Julian, 235
Bonikowski, B., 126, 480
Bonilla-Silva, E., 55, 56
Bontrager, S., 178
Booth, A. L., 293
Borjas, G. J., 205
Borman, Walter C., 400
Bornstein, S., 336
Botsford, W. E., 343
Bouamama, Youssef, 99
Bound, J., 312
Boushey, H., 322, 342
Braddock, D., 6, 447, 451, 453
Bradley, L., 340
Bratton, K. A., 159
Brenner, B. R., 370, 371
Brett, J. F., 22
Brevoort, K. P., 137
Brewis, A. A., 465
Bricout, J. C., 432
Brief, A. P., 86, 355, 371
Brinsfield, C. T., 370
Brodkin, K., 86, 114, 226, 227, 232, 381
Brown, D. L., 131
Brown, I., 7, 170, 244
Brown, J. S., 148
Brown, John, 229
Brown, K., 340
Brown, P. L., 473, 474
Brown, R., 57
Browne, I., 110, 133, 134, 294,
311, 312
Brownell, K. D., 460, 479
Brunsma, D. L., 258, 277, 279
Bryan, M. L., 293
Buchanan, N. T., 425
Budig, M. J., 333
523
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Buonanno, Albert, 393, 394, 396
Burgess, J., 492
Burke, R. C., 317
Burke, R. J., 95
Burnett, J. J., 450
Burns, S. D., 468
Bush, President George H. W., 153
Butcher, K., 132
Button, S. B., 371
Buttram, R. T., 86
Butz, R. M., 355, 371
C
Cable, D. M., 469
Caiazza, A., 181, 270, 312, 313
Callahan, J. D., 86
Campbell, S. M., 410
Campion, M. A., 400
Canetto, S. S., 418
Canner, G. B., 137
Capitanio, J. P., 367
Cappelli, P., 409
Caro, Isabelle, 477
Carpenter, Karen, 477
Carroll, M. D., 464
Carton, Craig, 204
Cash, T. F., 468
Casper, W. J., 349
Cassak, L., 388
Castilla, E. J., 247, 252
Castro, Fidel, 152
Cawthorne, A., 312, 313
Chafetz, J., 341, 347, 348
Chakraborty, R., 464
Chambers-Cook, K., 14
Chanda, A., 6, 45
Chaney, James, 116
Chapman, K. C., 49
Charles, C. Z., 7, 110, 118
Chavez, Cesar, 151, 271
Chavez, P., 481
Cheskin, L. J., 478
Chew, P. K., 63, 104
Child, P., 44
Chin, Vincent, 193
Chiricos, T., 178
Cho, S. K., 134, 209
Choi, Jun, 204
Choi, S., 23
Christopher, K., 294
Chrobot-Mason, D. L., 13, 243, 371
Claes, E., 506
Clair, J., 277
Claney, D., 243
Clark, K. B., 52
Clark, M. E., 418
Clark, M. P., 52
Clawson, R. A., 507
Cleveland, J. N., 415, 463
Clinton, President Bill, 368
Close, B. R., 176
Coats, G., 468
Cobb-Clark, D., 317, 333
Cocchiara, F. K., 21, 165
Cohen, A. G., 304
Cohen, R. R., 86
Colditz, G. A., 475
Cole, Y, 308
Colella, A., 13, 355, 415, 447, 515
Coleman, H. L. K., 19
Coleman, L. M., 131
Coleman, Lawrence, 405
Collins, M. H., 422
Collins, S. M., 130
Coltrane, S., 341
Connelly, Terry, 418
Connerley, M. L., 21, 165
Constant, A., 32
Conway, M., 188
Cook, A., 322, 349
Cook, Bonnie, 472
Cooper, D. M., 22
Cooper, H. C., 333
Cooper, R., 468
Copeland, L., 362
Corcoran, M., 244, 311
Cormack, D., 264
Cornwell, J. M., 359, 370, 371
Correll, J., 133
Correll, S. J., 354, 369
Cortina, L. M., 304
Cox, T., Jr., 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27,
42, 43, 241, 270, 373,
450, 510
Cozzaredi, C., 506
Craft, C., 418
Crandall, C. S., 460
Crawford, S. E. S., 389
Crepaz, N., 463
Crissey, S. R., 411
Cristelli, Teresa, 404
Crooker, K. J., 321, 335
Crosby, F. J., 86, 87, 117, 211,
244, 355
Cross, E. Y., 355
Crowe, Nancy, 104
Crowther, M., 347
Cuddy, A. J. C., 334
Cunningham, A. F., 278
Cunningham, M. R., 463
Curtin, R., 464
Cusick, Matthew, 367
Cycyota, C. S., 21, 95, 316
Czajka, J. M., 455
D
Dabney, D. A., 53, 136
D’Alessandro, Arthur, 405
D’Amico, C., 10
Dang, T., 52
Daniels, C., 23
Darity, W. A., Jr., 113, 297
Darnell, William, 444, 445
DasGupta, T., 215
Date, J., 394, 395
Davies, K., 295
Dávila, A., 467
Davis, A. D., 134
Davis, W. R., 137
Davis-Blake, A., 297
Day, J. C., 120, 139
Day, N. E., 371, 373, 374
De Anda, R. M., 171
De La Chappelle, A., 285
De la Cruz, G. P., 159
De La Paz, Mark, 177
De Vos, G. A., 493
Deak, M. A., 88
Deaux, K., 111, 132
Deckman, M. M., 389, 390
deCouteau, N. J., 49
Dees, M., 229, 235, 517
Dejaeghere, Y., 506
Deloria, V., Jr., 261, 262
DeNavas-Walt, C., 198
DeNisi, A. S., 447, 455
Denmark, F., 92
Denton, N. A., 114
Desvaux, G., 21
Deutsch, F. M., 418
Devillard-Hoellinger, S., 21
Devoretz, D., 32
DeWitt, General John, 230
Dey, E. L., 24, 85
Dezsö, C. L., 21
Diallo, Amadou, 133
Diamond, T., 215
DiClementi, J. D., 371
Dietch, E. A., 355, 371
524 Name Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Dietz, J., 86, 323
Dietz, W. H., 467
Dilulio, J., 388
DiMaggio, Joe, 230
Dipboye, R. L., 355, 415, 468, 515
Dixon, J. C., 240
D’Netto, B., 6, 45
Dobbin, F., 84, 85
Dobbs, M. F., 4, 492
Donald, M., 177
Donald-Mims, J., 390, 391
Dovidio, J. F., 55, 57, 58
Drasgow, F., 304, 316, 498, 499
Drasgow, R., 304
Dresser, L., 312
Driver, D., 347
Drogosz, L. M., 468
Druen, P. B., 463
Duany, J., 170
Dubeck, P. J., 6, 100, 293, 323, 339
Duck, R. J., 390
Dugan, L., 53, 136
Dugoni, B. L., 466
Dulebohn, J., 469
Duncan, C. M., 401, 421, 507
Dunlop, Y., 333
Dunn, D., 6, 100, 284, 293, 294, 323,
339, 341
Dunn, G., 230
Dunn, H., 476
Durr, Virginia, 116
Dworkin, A. G., 28, 38, 45, 110, 163,
190, 203, 227, 369, 460, 494
Dworkin, R. J., 28, 38, 41, 44, 45, 163,
189, 190, 203, 354, 369,
460, 494
Dye, J. L., 332, 347
E
Eby, L. T., 323
Edwards, M. S., 370
Egan, T. D., 13, 22, 248
Ehrenberg, R. G., 4, 374
Ehrenreich, B., 238
Einstein, Albert, 227, 228–229
Elder, G. H., Jr., 148
Eliot, Jane, 52
Ellemers, N., 56
Elmes, M., 232, 234
Elvira, M. M., 224, 240, 252, 315
Ely, R. J., 165
England, P., 294, 333
Eschback, K., 262, 267
Espina, M., 189
Espiritu, Y. L., 28, 29, 203, 207, 218
Evans, J. H., 452
Evans, L., 295
Evers, Medgar, 115
F
Fagenson-Eland, E. A., 130, 307
Faith, M. S., 478
Farnets, L. D., 355
Fasenfest, D., 122
Fass, Jeremy, 444
Fassinger, R. E., 370
Feagin, J. R., 273
Feldman, D. C., 416
Felicio, D. M., 418
Ferdman, B. M., 148, 310
Ferligoj, A., 57
Fernandez, E., 474
Fernandez, I. D., 465
Ferrante, C. J., 21
Ferris, S. P., 16
Fetter, T. R., 507
Field, Sally, 477
Fields, D., 385
Fingerhut, A., 340
Finkel, D., 390
Finkelstein, L. M., 310, 414
Fiske, S. T., 56, 334
Fitzgerald, L. F., 92, 304, 316, 498
Fix, M., 113, 114, 124, 245
Flegal, K. M., 464
Fletcher, M. A., 211
Fletcher, P., 31, 131
Flint, J., 418
Flynn, E., 391
Fonda, Jane, 477
Fontaine, K. R., 478
Ford, J. K., 128
Forman, T., 55, 56
Forrest, J., 264
Forte, T., 216
Fouhy, B., 368
Fox, B., 149
Fox, S. C., 230, 231
Francesco, A. M., 328
Fraser, L., 483
Frederickson, G. M., 41, 42
Freeman, Carlota, 134, 135
French, R., 362
French, S. A., 465
Frieze, I. H., 57, 468, 469
Frohmann, A., 345
Frosch, J., 279
Fryer, R. G., 125
Fuffardi, L. C., 343
Fujioka, T., 44
Fujiwara, J. H., 190
Fuller-Thomson, E., 347
G
Gaertner, S. L., 55, 58
Gaesser, G., 475
Gahlout, P., 210
Galinsky, A., 57
Gallegos, P. V., 148
Gallup, G., Jr., 276
Gans, Herbert, 243
Garcia, Hector, Dr., 18, 150
García, M. F., 13, 400
Garrett, Terry, 365
Gataullina, L., 32
Gates, G., 357
Gay, K., 152
Gelfand, M. J., 94, 304, 498
Gentile, M. C., 296
George, C. G., 113
Gerhart, B., 314
Gerstel, N., 100, 323, 338, 339
Gerton, J., 19
Gettman, H., 94
Ghumman, S., 385
Gibbons, E., 468
Gibson, C., 238
Gillen, P., 468
Glass, J., 328
Glazer, N., 41, 42
Glenn, E. N., 493
Glick, J. E., 205
Glick, P., 56, 327, 334
Glomb, T. M., 304, 499
Glover, S. L., 321, 335
Goffman, E., 478
Gold, S., 189, 203, 209
Goldberg, C. B., 247, 310, 413,
414, 415
Golden, C., 297
Goldman, B. M., 42, 51
Goldney, R. D., 122, 425
Gomez, C., 163
Gonsiorek, J. C., 357
Gonzales, Corky, 151
Gonzales, Eduardo, 480
Name Index 525
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Good, D. C., 469
Goodman, Andrew, 116, 229
Gordon, H. A., 122
Gordon, J. R., 349
Gordon, S., 356
Gordon-Reed, A., 273
Gornick, J. C., 345
Gortmaker, S. L., 467
Gottlieb, N., 493
Goulden, M., 294
Graham, J. W., 113
Graham, M. A., 370
Graham, M. E., 252, 315
Green, D. E., 262, 265
Green, D. P., 59
Green, J. C., 389
Greenberg, J., 370
Greene, P. G., 374
Greenhaus, J. H., 4, 124, 129
Greenhouse, S. J., 238, 482
Greenlee, J., 88
Gregory, R. F., 402
Griffin, R. W., 355, 371
Gross, A. J., 272
Gross, S. R., 49, 176, 177
Gruber, J. E., 305, 498
Gulati, G. M., 247
Gurin, G., 24, 85
Gurin, P. Y., 24, 85
Gutek, B. A., 22, 42, 92, 303, 304
Gutierrez, Jose Angel, 151
Gutierrez, O. R., Jr., 148
Gwyn, Yvonne, 177
H
Hair, J. F., Jr., 422
Haller, B., 450
Hamer, Fannie Lou, 115
Hamermesh, D. S., 463, 468
Hamilton, E. A., 349
Hardy, Naomi, 428
Harold, C., 314
Harper, B., 469, 470
Harper, S. R., 295
Harrell, A., 506
Harris, A., 136, 180
Harris, F., III, 295
Harris, J. R., 464
Harris-Britt, A., 131
Harrison, D. A., 19, 212
Harrison, D. E., 22, 86
Harrison, M. S., 124
Hart, Steven, 448
Hartmann, H., 181
Hasty, R. W., 466
Hatfield, E., 468
Hausmann, R., 494
Head, Joyce, 419
Healey, J. F., 6, 8, 114, 224, 226, 227,
234, 259, 262, 269, 273
Healey, Robert, 227
Hebl, M. R., 15, 327
Hedge, Jerry W., 400
Height, Dorothy, 115
Heilman, M. E., 86, 334, 468, 500
Helba, C., 88
Hemings, Sally, 273, 274
Henderson, G., 136, 180
Henderson, L., 492
Henshaw, John L., 166
Hensley, W. E., 468
Herbig, C., 192
Herek, G. M., 355, 367
Hermsen, S., 57
Hernández, M., 15
Hernández, T. K., 134, 164, 165, 170
Herr, Gene, 394
Herrera, Eddie, 177
Herring, C., 23, 24, 87, 111, 118, 122,
130, 140, 167
Hersch, J., 167
Herzberger, S. D., 87
Heslin, P., 31, 131
Hesson-McInnis, M., 498
Hetter, K., 18
Heumann, M., 388
Heywood, J. S., 415
Higginbotham, E., 174, 209
Hiller, J. S., 16
Hintze, W., 88
Hira, N. A., 216
Hitlin, S., 148
Ho, L., 415
Hodges, L., 124, 163, 245
Holland, S. L., 355
Hollinger, R. C., 53, 136
Holmes, T. E., 481
Holtzman, M., 328
Holzer, H., 125, 126, 139, 338
Honeycutt, T. L., 321
Hoobler, J. M., 334
Hooghe, M., 506
Hoover, Herbert, 149
Hopkins, Ann, 76, 77, 242, 295, 296,
360, 485
Hosoda, M., 468
Hovat, J., 57
Hoyt, D. R., 269
Hudson, K., 393
Huerta, Dolores, 151
Huerta-Macias, A., 182
Huffman, A. N., 370
Hulett, D., 305
Hulin, C. L., 304, 316
Hultin, M., 310
Humphreys, J. M., 116
Hunsberger, B., 390
Hunt, B., 452
Hunt, C. S., 452
Hunter, D., 141
Hurh, W. M., 203
Hurley, A. E., 130, 307
Hurrell, J. J., 117
Hurtado, S., 24, 85
Husberger, B., 390
Hyun, J., 219
I
Ilgen, D. R., 297
Ireland, D., 505
Irwin, M., 126
Ishimaru, Stuart J., 404
Ismail, K., 20
Iwata, E., 374
J
Jackson, B. W., III, 148
Jackson, C., 124, 163, 245
Jackson, J. S., 113, 131
Jackson, S. E., 22
Jacobs, J., 291
Jacobson, Joey, 383
Jacobson, Scott, 383
Jacoby, K., 49, 176
Jacques, R., 232, 233, 234
James, K., 117
James, M., 417
Jamieson, K. H., 49
Jasper, C. R., 466
Jefferson, President Thomas, 273, 274
Jeffrey, R. W., 465
Jeffries, Mike, 481
Jensen, L., 205
Jerome, F., 228, 229
Johnson, B. T., 413
Johnson, C., 110
526 Name Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Johnson, President Lyndon Baines, 82
Johnson, S. K., 468
Johnson, Senator Lyndon Baines,
150, 151
Johnston, R. J., 9, 238, 264
Joly, S., 57
Jones, C. P., 52
Jones, D., 264, 492
Jones, J., 465
Jones, J. M., 117
Jones, N. A., 276
Jones, T., 213
Jong, A., 357
Jonsen, K., 323, 492
Joplin, J. R. W., 304, 498
Jordan, D. P., 273
Jordan, M., 169
Jordan, W. D., 111
Judd, C. M., 133
Judge, T. A., 469
Judiesch, M. K., 328, 339
Judy, R. W., 10
Julin, J. A., 22
Jung, K., 238
Jung, Veronica, 204
K
Kahanec, M., 32
Kalev, A., 84, 85
Kaminski, P. L., 418
Kanter, R. M., 29, 501
Kaplan, M., 355
Kaplan, S. A., 343
Kashy, D. A., 51, 52
Kato, T., 341
Katz, W. L., 272
Kaufman-Scarborough, C., 450
Kawakami, K., 57
Kazama, S., 327
Keesee, T., 133
Keita, G. P., 117
Keith, V. M., 167
Kelley, R. E., 63, 104
Kelly, E., 85
Kendall, F. E., 234
Kennedy, R. E., Jr., 227
Kennelly, I., 133, 134
Key, T. J., 476
Keynes, Milton, 122
Keysar, A., 379, 380, 381
Kibria, N., 189, 203, 209
Kilborn, P. T., 15
Kim, K. C., 203
Kim, S., 379, 416
Kimmel, D. C., 355
Kinder, D. R., 56
King, E. B., 327
King, E. G., 370
King, J. E., 378, 396
King, Martin Luther, Jr., 115, 192
Kirkpatrick, L. A., 390
Kite, M. E., 413
Klassen, M. L., 466
Klemke, L., 136
Knobel, D. T., 41, 42
Kogan, I., 508
Kogovsek, J., 57
Konrad, A. M., 4, 21, 22, 252, 304,
310, 331, 414
Kosmin, B. A., 379, 380, 381
Koss, M. P., 303
Kossek, E. E., 26, 71
Kraiger, K., 128
Kramar, R., 6, 493
Kramer, L., 323, 342, 345, 346
Kravitz, D. A., 85, 86
Kristen, K., 461, 462, 466
Kroll, M., 16
Kronenberger, G. K., 370
Kulik, C., 297
Kumar, K., 18, 22
Kumar, R., 21
Kurtz-Costes, B., 131
Kwesiga, E., 349, 421
L
Lacey, Julee, 395
LaFontaine, E., 305
LaFromboise, T., 19, 269
Lamb, W. B., 21, 22
Larkin, J. C., 466
Laschever, S., 296, 313, 314
Lau, T., 304, 498
Lawrence, E., 396
Laythe, B., 390
Le, C. N., 197, 199, 203, 206, 217, 218
Ledbetter, Lilly, 102, 242, 275,
285–286, 324, 329
Lee, Bruce, 194
Lee, C., 192
Lee, J., 259
Lee, K., 88
Lee, S. J., 192
Lemmon, G., 334
Leonard, R., 370
Lepine, Pascal, 372
Leppel, K., 363
Leung, R., 482
Levin, Joseph, Jr., 235
Levin, S., 25
Levine, M. P., 370
Levitt, S. D., 125
Levy, P. E., 468
Lewis, K., 42
Liang, H., 465
Lichty, L. F., 425
Lien, P., 188
Light, Ivan, 208
Liles, Paula, 302
Lin, J., 189
Lind, J. R., 135
Linnehan, F., 252
Lipsky, S., 52
Lips-Wiersma, M., 385
Lituchy, T., 500
Litvin, D., 21
Liu, J., 500
Liu, L., 210
Lloyd, B. B., 293
Lloyd, J., 141
Lo, L., 136
Lobel, S. A., 18, 19, 20
Logan, J. R., 157, 163
Logue, M. A., 178
Loh, E. S., 469
Longoria, Felix, 150
Loo, C., 216
Lopez, David, 99
Lopez, G. E., 24, 85
Lopez, I. F. H., 227
Lopez, J. A., 309
Lopez-Aqueres, W., 173
Loretto, W., 401, 421
Louie, S., 192
Low, K. S. D., 166
Lubensky, M. E., 355, 357
Lucas, J. A., 86, 355
Lyness, K. S., 309, 328, 339, 349
Lyons, B. J., 385
Lyons, H. Z., 370
Lytle, C. M., 261, 262
M
Maak, T., 5
Macaulay, Robert, 405
MacKinnon, C. A., 134
Name Index 527
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
MacLean, T. L., 277
Magley, V. J., 304
Mahalingham, R., 111
Malcolm X., 115
Mallory, M., 18
Mann, J., 476
Marin, G., 463
Marks, M., 314
Marotz, K., 179
Martell, R. F., 500
Martin, G. T., Jr., 345, 346
Martindale, M., 92
Mason, M. A., 294
Mason, P. L., 176, 297
Massey, D., 114, 137
Massey, G. M., 258, 266, 279
Matheson, D., 49, 176
Mattingly, D., 274
Mattis, M., 317
Mattis, M. C., 317
Maume, D. J., Jr., 130, 309, 310
Maurer, T. J., 415, 428
Mayer, D. M., 5
Mayer, E., 381
Mays, V. M., 131
Maznevski, M. L., 323, 492
McClearn, G. E., 464
McCline, R. L., 86
McCloskey, Frank, 251–252
McDonald, P., 340
McGarvey, S. T., 465
McGonagle, K., 100, 323, 338, 339
McGuire, C. V., 44
McGuire, W. J., 44
McIntosh, P., 224, 232, 233, 234, 253
McKay, P. F., 378
McKelvey, R. S., 277
McKinley, J. C., 356
McLaughlin, M. E., 86, 212, 448
McLemore, D., 149
McLeod, P. L., 18, 19, 20
McMorris, B. J., 269
McNamee, S. J., 224, 232, 234
McVeigh, Timothy, 229
Meaney, C., 21
Medina, Eliseo, 151
Mero, J., 216
Metzger, Barbara, 97, 98
Meyers, M. K., 345
Meyers, S. L., Jr., 113
Michaelson, L. K., 18, 22
Midkiff, Marny, 418
Miller, Austin, 273
Miller, R. K., Jr., 224, 232, 234
Mills, A., 232, 234
Mills, C., 385
Min, P. G., 208, 209
Minami, D., 206
Miner-Rubino, K., 304
Mittelstadt, M., 168
Mmeje, K., 295
Moccio, F., 305
Moellmer, A, 173
Mohammed, A., 213
Moll, J., 57
Monga, M., 6, 45
Montgomery, N., 49, 176
Mor Barak, M. E., 21
Moran, C. D., 385
Moredock, W., 343
Morrison, David, 481
Mosisa, A. T., 191, 197
Moskowitz, G., 57
Moss, P., 167, 169, 217
Mouly, S., 210
Mueller, R., 500
Muhammed, A., 213
Muli, K., 498
Mullainathan, S., 124, 125
Muller, H. J., 19, 270, 279
Mundra, K., 173
Murphy, K. R., 463
Murthi, B. P. S., 20
Must, A., 467
Myers, S. L., Jr., 113
N
Nagda, B. A., 24, 85
Narayanan, V. K., 335
Nash, T., 356
Nath, R., 335
Neergaard, L., 141
Neering, P., 23
Nelson, D. L., 95, 317
Nelson, T. D., 43, 49, 315, 400
Nesbitt, P., 389
Nester, R., 406
Neuger, D. A., 243
Newburger, E. C., 120, 139
Newport, F., 276
Newstrom, J. W., 335
Newton, Huey, 271
Newton, R., 505
Nichols, Richard, 79
Nishii, L. H., 5
Nkomo, S., 241
Nooyi, Indra, 216
Novelli, B., 409
O
Obama, Barack, Sr., 275
Obama, President Barack, 153,
274–275, 280
O’Brien, A. S., 343
O’Brien, E., 8, 86, 114, 227, 234, 259,
262, 269, 273
Ocampo, Anthony, 480
O’Connell, M., 330
O’Donohue, W., 304, 498
Ogden, C. L., 464
Oguz, C., 304, 498
O’Hare, E. A., 304
Okimoto, T. G., 334
O’Leary-Kelly, A., 355, 371
Oliver, M. L., 114
Olsen, Mary-Kate, 477
Olson, J. E., 468, 469
Olson, L. R., 389
Olsson, K., 369
Omatsu, G., 192
Oncale, Joseph, 305
O’Neill, Mary Jo, 76
Ong, P., 216
O’Reilly, C. A., 13, 22, 248
Orenstein, P., 293
Ormerod, A. J., 92
Ormerod, M., 505
Owens, C., 181
Özbilgin, M., 5, 370
P
Padavic, I., 290, 302, 305, 310, 332
Padilla, L. M., 47
Paek, H. J., 209
Pagán, J. A., 467
Page, S. E., 19
Pager, D., 55, 126, 127, 480
Paluck, E. L., 59
Paludi, M., 92
Parasuraman, S., 4, 124
Park, B., 133
Parker, C., 278
Parker, W. M., 243
528 Name Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Parks, Rosa, 115
Parry, E., 409
Pascoe, E. A., 131
Passel, J., 400
Patil, S., 49, 176
Pedersen, N. L., 464
Peplau, L. A., 340
Peresie, J. L., 63
Perez, Rafael, 176
Perkins, L. A., 15
Perlstadt, H., 305
Perrin, J., 467
Perry, D. C., 452
Perry, E. L., 297, 310, 414
Perry, S., 88
Peters, J., 498
Peters, W., 52
Petersen, L., 86
Peterson, Richard, 392, 394
Petrella, Joseph, 405
Pettigrew, T. F., 41, 42
Peyronnin, K., 22
Philips, W. R., 305
Pierce, J. L., 335
Pines, H. A., 466
Pingitore, R., 466
Piotrkowski, C. S., 316
Pitts, Reginald, 54
Platovas, E., 505
Pless, N. M., 5
Plessy, Homer, 274
Podratz, K. E., 468
Polakow-Suransky, S., 388
Pollock, B. H., 118
Poms, L. W., 343
Pope Benedict XVI, 141
Portnick, Jennifer, 473, 474
Posthuma, R. A., 400, 469
Poulson, M. F., 264
Powell, G. N., 310
Prasad, A., 232, 234
Prasad, P., 21, 232, 234
Price, K., 22
Price, S., 12
Pringle, J. K., 21, 264, 492
Probst, T. M., 25
Proctor, B. D., 198
Pruchno, R., 347
Pugh, S. D., 86
Puhl, R. M., 460, 467, 469, 479
Purvis, S. B., 389
Pyke, K., 52
Q
Quercia, R. G., 137
Quick, J. C., 95, 316
Quillian, L., 55
Quintelier, E., 506
R
Radhakrishnan, P., 166
Rafuse, N. E., 415, 428
Ragins, B. R., 277, 279, 317, 354, 355,
359, 370, 371, 381, 388
Rainey, H. G., 23
Ralli, T., 49
Ralph, S., 450
Rambaut, R. G., 179
Ramirez, R., 159
Raver, J. L., 304
Reeves, T. J., 196, 202
Register, C. A., 467
Rehberg, Alice, 445
Rehm, Connie, 384
Reid, L. L., 294
Reinoso, V., 124, 163, 245
Reizenstein, R. M., 86
Rener, T., 57
Reskin, B. F., 7, 87, 110, 118, 139,
252, 290, 302, 305, 310,
311, 332
Richard, O. C., 20
Richman, L. S., 131
Riley, L., 328
Rivera-Batiz, F. L., 5
Rix, S. E., 416
Ro, M., 203, 215
Roberson, L., 243
Roberson, Q., 5, 7
Roberts, A. R., 463
Robichaud, Samantha, 479
Robinson, C. L., 126
Robinson, Jackie, 115
Rocco, T. S., 422
Rockquemore, K. A., 258, 277, 279
Rockwell, D., 88
Rodriguez, C., 148, 227
Roehling, M. V., 462, 469, 476
Roehling, P. V., 476
Romer, D., 49
Romero, M., 174, 209
Roosevelt, President Franklin Delano,
190, 433
Rose, Gloria, 420
Rose, K. C., 49
Rose, P. I., 111
Rosen, B., 321
Rosenberg, J., 305
Rosener, J. B., 315
Rosenthal, S. J., 87
Ross, A. D., 159
Ross, D. G., 21
Ross, K. E., 345
Ross, S. L., 192
Rossi, Ray, 204
Rounds, J., 166
Rouse, C., 297
Rouse, S. M., 159
Rowley, S. J., 131
Rubin, L. B., 243
Ruck, Martin, 411, 413
Rudolph, Eric, 229
Ruiz, D., 347
Russell, Harvey C, 23
Russell, J., 468
Russin, A., 57
Ryan, A. M., 385
Rynes, S., 314
S
Sadler, M. S., 133
Saenz, R., 149, 150, 151
Sage, A., 419
Sagrestano, L. M., 117, 118
Salminen, S., 414
Salzman, J., 116
Sampson, E. E., 39
Sanders, S. G., 357, 358
Saraceno, J., 260
Sargent, J. D., 469
Sarlija, N., 57
Saruwatari, L. R., 468
Sasson, T., 517
Schaefer, R. T., 38, 190, 226, 245, 356,
379, 380, 389
Schein, V. E., 500
Scherini, R. D., 231
Scheurich, J. J., 234
Schmit, J., 362
Schneider, K. T., 92, 166
Schneider, S. C., 323, 492
Schoenfeld, E., 116
Name Index 529
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Schoenrade, P., 371, 373
Schrader, C. A., 309
Schull, W. J., 464
Schulsigner, F., 464
Schwarz, J. L., 353, 362, 374
Schwerner, Michael, 116, 229
Seale, Bobby, 271
Sears, D. O., 56
Sedar, Carolyn, 80
Segal, D. R., 367, 368
Segal, M. W., 367, 368
Segal, N., 333
Segura, D. A., 167
Sessa, V. I., 22
Sewell, S. K., 115
Shaffer, D. R., 463
Shaffer, M. A., 304, 498, 499
Shah, H., 209
Shapiro, T. M., 114
Shaw, A., 181, 270, 312
Shelton, J. N., 14
Shen, J., 6, 45
Shepherd, D., 264, 492
Shevell, M. I., 433
Shih, J., 169
Shore, L. M., 415
Sidanius, J., 25
Siegel, R. B., 134
Siegelman, A., 138, 139
Siegelman, P., 138, 139
Simmons, T., 347
Simon, M. C., 500
Simon, R. J., 87
Simonko, V., 505
Singletary, S. L., 327
Smith, A. S., 276
Smith, B. W., 133
Smith, C., 293
Smith, D., 293, 309, 420
Smith, J. C., 198
Smith, P., 110
Smith, R. S., 4, 374
Smith, T. W., 379
Snipp, C. M., 262, 270, 400
Sobal, H., 465
Sobol, A. M., 467
Soehendro, M., 23, 216
Solis, D., 168
Solis, Secretary of Labor Hilda L., 328
Solovay, S., 461, 466, 471, 472, 473
Song, Y., 331
Sonnenfeld, J. A., 130, 307
Sorensen, C. H., 464
Sorin, G. S., 116
Sotomayor, Justice Sonja, 152
Spadoro, Jim, 204
Spearing, M., 477
Speight, S., 52
Sprecher, S., 468
Spring, B., 466
Stadiem, W., 274
Staffieri, J. R., 460
Stainback, K., 223, 245
Staveteig, S., 266
Stecklein, J., 177
Stegman, M. A., 137
Stein, J. H., 42
Steinberger, M., 357
Stern, Jamey, 90, 91, 92
Stewart, M. M., 378
Stockdale, G. D., 413
Stockdale, M. S., 117, 316, 355, 463
Stone, D. L., 515
Stone-Romero, E. F., 468
Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 229
Strachan, G., 492
Stringer, D. Y., 448
Struyk, R. J., 113, 114, 124, 245
Stubben, J. D., 269
Stunkard, A. J., 460, 464, 465
Su, H., 465
Sullins, P., 389
Sun, C. R., 463
Supple, K., 262
Surgevil, O., 370
Swan, S., 92
Swinburn, B. A., 465
Syed, J., 5, 6, 493
T
Tagler, M. J., 506
Tajfel, H., 43
Takagi, D. Y., 190
Takaki, R., 110, 116, 189, 203,
216, 226
Tamara, E. H., 482
Tamayo, William R., 80
Tanner, J., 175, 493
Tapper, J., 394, 395
Tatum, B. D., 44
Taylor, F., 229
Taylor, G. A., 15
Taylor, L., 357
Taylor, L. J., 358
Taylor, R., 228
Taylor, T., 126
Teasdale, T. W., 464
ten Brummelhuis, L. L, 338, 349
Tenenbaum, H. R., 411, 413
Terborg, J. R., 297
Terpstra, D. E., 468
Thomas, D. A., 165
Thomas, K. M., 15, 124
Thomas, P., 505
Thomas, R., 7
Thomas, S., 305
Thompson, C. A., 328, 349
Thoreau, Henry David, 229
Thorkild, I. A., 464
Thornton, R., 259, 262, 267
Thorogood, M., 476
Thurmond, Strom, 274
Tickamyer, A. R., 507
Tienda, M., 152
Tiggemann, M., 122, 425
Tilly, C., 167, 169, 217
Tindale, R. S., 466
Tipps, H. C., 122
Tkaczyk, C., 216
Tobias, C., 104
Tolbert, P., 22
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., 126, 223,
245, 252
Tomlinson, Kathryn, 300
Toossi, M., 409
Tormala, T. T., 111, 132
Torres, J. M. C., 425
Tougas, F., 57
Townsend, B., 317
Tredeau, L., 305
Trejo, S. J., 205
Triana, M. C., 13
Trice, R., 507
Tsui, A. S., 13, 22, 248
Turner, M. A., 114, 192
Twenge, J. M., 410
Tyson, L. D., 494
U
Ueda, R., 41, 42
Ullah, P., 122
Urwin, P., 409
V
Valdez, Lupe, 369
Valencia, R. R., 150
530 Name Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Valenti, M. T., 425
Valrie, C. R., 131
Van Der Lippe, T., 338, 349
Van Hook, J. V. W., 205
van Laar, C., 25
van Zanten, Josefine, 501,
502, 503
VanDeVeer, C., 87, 211
Varma, A., 447
Vaslow, J. B., 86
Villalpando, O., 25
Visram, R., 213
Voser, Peter, 501
W
Wadden, T. A., 460
Wagatsuma, A., 493
Wallis, M., 271
Walters, J., 388
Wang, P., 353, 362, 374
Warren, Chief Justice Earl, 230
Washington-Williams, E., 274
Wasti, S. A., 304, 499
Waters, M. C., 132
Watrous-Rodriguez, K. M., 370
Watson, W. E., 18, 22
Wayne, S. J., 334
Weaver, C., 269
Wei, X., 415
Weinberg, G., 355
Weinrich, J. D., 357
Weiss, L., 420
Welbourne, T. M., 21
Wellington, E., 481
Weltman, D., 349
Wentz, L., 179
Werschkul, M., 181, 270, 312
Wessel, J., 385
Western, B., 126, 480
Whelan-Berry, K. S., 349
Whitbeck, L. B., 269
White, M. B., 355
White, P., 401, 421
Whitley, B. E., Jr., 413
Widener, D., 192
Wiethoff, C., 355
Wigton, A., 266
Wijeyesinghe, C. L.I., 148
Wildenthal, B. H., 258, 261
Wildman, S. M., 234
Wilkins, D. B., 247
Wilkinson, A. V., 506
Williams, C. L., 310
Williams, D. R., 467
Williams, J. C., 110, 136, 180,
322, 323, 333, 336, 338,
342, 343
Williams, Patricia, 273
Williamson, I., 378
Wilson, M., 88, 210
Wilson, W. J., 208
Winefield, A. H., 122, 425
Winefield, H. R., 122, 425
Winter, G., 129
Winter, S., 22
Winters, P. C., 465
Wittenbrink, B., 133
Wokutch, R. E., 21
Wolf, A. M., 475
Wolf, N., 478
Wolkinson, B., 71
Wollenberg, C., 150
Wolper, A., 498
Wong, J., 188
Woo, D., 206
Wood, D., 28
Wood, P. B., 367
Woods, J. D., 374
Wormley, W. M., 4, 124
Wortley, S., 175, 493
Wray, M., 225
Wright, L., 8
Wright, M., 88
Wright, P., 16, 20, 21
Wu, C.-H., 463
X
Xu, J., 334
Y
Yanadori, Y., 341
Yancey, G., 240
Yen, H., 195, 242
Yinger, J., 113
Youngblood, S. A., 14
Yun, G., 85, 86
Z
Zahidi, S., 494
Zaiceva, A., 32
Zalenski, C. M., 418
Zatzick, C. D., 224, 240
Zhu, C., 347
Zia, H., 189, 192, 193
Zimmer, C., 126
Zimmerman, K. F., 32
Ziolkowski, S. M., 462, 466, 473
Zonia, S. C., 26
Name Index 531
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Subject Index
Page numbers followed by f indicate figures; and those followed by t indicate tables.
A
Abercrombie and Fitch, diversity
concerns at, 480–482
Access discrimination, 4, 124–128
Accommodations, reasonable, 438–440
ADA. See Age Discrimination Act
(ADA); Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA)
ADA Amendments Act. See Americans
with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act (ADA Amend-
ments Act) of 2008
ADEA. See Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA)
of 1967
Adults, school enrollment status of
young, 412f
Advanced degree holders by sex, 412t
Adverse impact, disparate or, 72, 299
Affirmative action in education and
employment, 85–88
Affirmative action in employment,
82–88
affirmative action in education and
employment, 85–88
affirmative action programs, 82–85
miscellaneous beneficiaries of
affirmative action programs, 88
African Americans. See also Black/
African Americans
African Americans, research on
employment experiences of,
124–137
access discrimination, 124–128
African American women at work,
133–135
discrimination against customers,
136–137
glass ceiling and walls, 129–130
immigrant blacks and their
descendants, 131–133
native-born blacks, 131–133
negative health effects of
discrimination, 130–131
treatment discrimination, 128–129
Age, 399–430
education, 410–413
employment experiences of older
workers, 413–421
employment experiences of younger
workers, 421–426
historical background, 401
intergenerational workforce, 409–410
legal protections for younger workers,
406–407
legislation for older workers,
401–406
population, participation rates, and
employment, 408–409
prime, 401
recommendations for individuals,
426–427
recommendations for organizations,
427–429
sex ratios by, 287t
Age Discrimination Act (ADA),
Australia’s, 407
Age discrimination claims, EEOC cases
involving older, 403–406
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) of 1967, 88–89
Age groups, U. S. population by, 408t
AI/AN. See American Indians/Alaskan
Natives (AI/AN)
Alaskan native women, American
Indian and, 269–271
Alaskan Natives. See American Indians/
Alaskan Natives (AI/AN)
Allen, Sharon – Deloitte & Touche
chairman, 308
Ambivalent sexism, 56
Amerasians, 277–278
American Indian and Alaskan native
women, 269–271
American Indians as sports symbols
and mascots, 260–261
American Indians at work, 269
American Indians in North America,
history of, 259–262
American Indians/Alaskan Natives
(AI/AN) and multiracial group
members, 257–282
American Indian and Alaskan native
women, 269–271
American Indians at work, 269
education, employment, and earnings,
265–267
history of American Indians in
North America, 259–262
population, 262–265
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 278–280
relevant legislation, 267–269
Americans, Asian, 187–221
Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA)
of 1990, 96–98
and weight, 469–471
Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act (ADA Amend-
ments Act) of 2008, 101–102
Ann Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 296
Anti-Asian statements, Jersey guys disc
jockeys and racist, 204
Anti-gay sentiment among youth in
Belgium and Canada, 506
API employed civilian labor force,
occupation distribution of
White and, 200f
Appearance, weight and, 459–487
appearance – cases and legislation,
479–482
education, employment levels, types,
and income, 466–469
effects of weight on health and on cost
to employers, 473–476
legislation relevant to, 469–473
533
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Appearance, weight and (continued)
population, 463–465
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 482–486
stigma of overweight, 476–479
Appearance discrimination
minimizing, 485–486
state and local statutes prohibiting
weight and, 471–472
Appearance on employment and
income, effects of, 467–469
Arab Americans and Muslims in
United States, diversity among,
387–388
Arabs, racial profiling, 387–388
Asian American women at work,
212–215
Asian Americans, discrimination,
and affirmative action in
employment, 211–212
Asian Americans, focus on selected,
215–218
Asian Indians, 217–218
Chinese, 215–217
Southeast Asians, 218
Asian and Pacific Islander-owned firms,
207f
Asian Indians living in United States,
217–218
Asian population by detailed
group, 195f
Asians. See also Amerasians
as model minority, 201–206
money earnings for non-Hispanic
Whites and, 239t
money earnings for White,
non-Hispanic and, 202t
Southeast, 218
in United Kingdom (UK), 213
Asians and Asian Americans, 187–221
Asian American entrepreneurs,
206–209
Asians and civil rights movement,
192
Asians as model minority, 201–206
education, employment, and earnings,
196–201
focus on selected Asian Americans,
215–218
Helen Zia, 193
history of Asians in United States,
189–191
participation and occupations,
200–201
population, 195–196
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 218–219
relevant legislation, 191–195
research on experiences of Asian
Americans at work, 209–215
selected EEOC cases, 192–195
small business owners, 208–209
Asians in United States, history of,
189–191
Attribution error, fundamental, 47–50
Australia’s Age Discrimination Act
(ADA), 407
Aversive racism, 53
Aversive racism, ambivalent sexism, and
other new isms, 53–57
B
B&Q Hardware Stores hiring older
workers, 417
Bad check accusation, negative
consequences of, 54–55
Beauty, stature, and labor market, 470
Belgium and Canada, anti-gay sentiment
among youth in, 506
Benevolent sexism, 56
Benjamin, Regina – U.S. Surgeon
General, 141
Bias in selection, structured interviews to
reduce, 46–47
Biases, out-group, 45–47
Black/African Americans, 109–146
consumer/customer service
recommendations, 143
earnings by educational attainment,
120–123
education, employment, and earnings,
118–123
history of Blacks in United States,
111–116
participation rates, 119–120
population, 117–118
recommendations, 137–143
recommendations for blacks,
139–140
recommendations for organizational
change, 140–143
relevant legislation, 116–117
research on employment experiences
of African Americans, 124–137
Blacks
in military, 112–115
and racial determination, 273–274
socioeconomic characteristics by
Hispanic groups and
non-Hispanic, 162t
Blacks at work, Latinos and, 169–170
Blacks in United States, history of,
111–116
Black/White accumulation of wealth,
differences in, 113
BMI. See Body mass index (BMI)
Body mass index (BMI),
calculating, 462
Book, terminology, 8–9
Book, organization of, 26–34
education, 30
employment, unemployment and
participation rates, 30–32
focal issues, 32–33
individual and organizational
recommendations, 33
international feature, 33
introduction and overview, 28–29
miscellaneous features, 34
population, 29
types of employment and income
levels, 32
Boundaries, group memberships and
permeability of, 6–8
Business, lost, 15
Business owners, small, 208–209
C
Canada, anti-gay sentiment among
youth in Belgium and, 506
Capital, human, 339
Car pricing, race and gender discrimi-
nation in new, 138–139
Career aspirations and work, 331–332
Career outcomes for younger workers,
diversity issues and, 426t
Categorization and identity, 42–53
Ceiling, glass, 99
Census demographic profiles, 2008 and
2000, 11t
Chinese, Asian American, 215–217
City ordinances, 102–103
Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964,
Title VII of, 71–82
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), 73–74
exceptions – bona fide occupational
qualifications, 81–82
exceptions – business necessity, 81–82
534 Subject Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
race and national origin, 75–76
religion, 77–81
sex, 76–77
Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1991, 98–99
Civil rights movement, 115–116
Asians and, 192
Color, women of, 310–312
Companies. See also Firms
Competitiveness, organizational, 12–24
Constructive discharge, 89, 93
Constructively discharging, 64
Convicted felons – differences by race
and ethnicity, 178
Cook, Bonnie – fat but clearly
competent, 472
Costs of overweight and obesity at
General Motors, 475t
Costs of thinness, 477
Countries
equal employment legislation
in, 496t
family policies in selected,
343–345, 344t
CRA. See Civil Rights Act (CRA)
of 1991
Cracker Barrel reverses antigay stance,
and diversity problems, 361–362
Creativity and problem solving, 18–19
Cubans, 152–154
Cultures, gendered organizational,
339, 341
Customers
with disabilities, 450
discrimination against Hispanic,
180–181
Latinos as, 179–181
D
Deaf applicant, hiring experienced, 436
Dees, Morris – Southern Poverty Law
Center, 235
Degree holders by sex, advanced, 412t
Demographics for racial/ethnic groups,
socioeconomic statistics and,
199t
Descriptive stereotyping, 42
Disabilities. See also Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990;
Physical and mental ability
customers with, 450
DuPont and employment of people
with, 449–450
earnings of workers with and without,
443t
education of people with and without
work, 442t
employees acquiring, 448–449
employment experiences of people
with, 443–450
employment status and, 441t
intellectual, 443–450
Marriott’s helping employers and
people with, 454–455
perceptions of performance
inadequacies, 447–448
secondary job markets for people
with, 447
Disabilities, people with, 500–505
disabled people’s experiences
in workplace in England,
504–505
legislation, 504
population and participation,
503–504
Disabilities and Walmart, employees
with, 444–445
Discouraged workers, 122
Discrimination, 41, 124
access, 4, 124–128
and differential treatment as world-
wide phenomena, 495–497
EEOC settlement for religious and
national origin, 386t
effects of slavery and generations of,
113
against Hispanic customers,
180–181
labor market, 4
legislation prohibiting sexual
orientation, 505–506
minimizing appearance, 485–486
negative health effects of, 130–131
religious, 383t
reverse, 244–248
sex, 299–302
state and local statutes prohibiting
weight and appearance,
471–472
statistical, 125
treatment, 128–129
treatments, 4
against Whites in favor of Hispanics,
236–237
Discrimination against minorities,
termination of Whites for
refusing to comply with,
237–238
Discrimination and federal law, size,
472–473
Discrimination cases, selected
pregnancy, 326–327
Discrimination claims, EEOC cases
involving older age, 403–406
Discrimination in health care, obesity,
478–479
Disparate or adverse impact, 72, 299
Disparate treatment, 72, 299
Diversity
against Arab Americans and Muslims
in United States, 387–388
climate, 26
defined, 4–5
global, 501–503
history of Whites as allies of,
229–231
increasing of non-dominant group
members, 248
increasing through holistic means,
160–161
on individual and organizational
outcomes, 27f
individual benefits of, 24–25
individual outcomes, and organiza-
tional effectiveness, 25–26
in international context, 5–6
in judiciary and judicial decisions,
103–104
research on Whites and, 241–248
for service providers, 516–518
stimulus for focus on, 9–12
in United States, 520–521
Diversity, international, 491–522
broad reach of diversity in
organizations, 509–510
discrimination and differential treat-
ment as worldwide phenomena,
495–497
diversity in United States, 520–521
facing future, 491–522
people with disabilities, 500–505
poverty, 506–509
recommendation for change at
individual level, 518–520
recommendations for change at orga-
nizational level, 511–518
recommendations for change at
societal level, 511
sexual orientation, 505–506
status of women around world,
497–500
Diversity, theories and thinking about,
37–61
aversive racism, ambivalent sexism,
and other new isms, 53–57
categorization and identity, 42–53
minority defined, 38–42
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 57–59
Subject Index 535
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Diversity and organizational
competitiveness, 12–24
areas where diversity can be
advantageous, 20–21
cost, 13–15
creativity and problem solving,
18–19
increased diversity and organizational
responses, 22–23
marketing, 16–18
moral and social reasons for valuing
diversity, 21–22
negative impacts of diversity, 23–24
resource acquisition, 15–16
system flexibility, 19–20
Diversity concerns
at Abercrombie & Fitch, 480–482
poverty as, 507–508
Diversity in organizations, broad reach
of, 509–510
Diversity in organizations, federal acts
affecting, 67–68f
Diversity in organizations, federal acts
related to, 66–102
affirmative action in employment,
82–88
Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA) of 1967, 88–89
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990, 96–98
Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act (ADA
Amendments Act) of 2008,
101–102
Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1991,
98–99
EEOC guidelines on sexual
harassment (1980), 90–95
Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) of 1993, 100–101
Genetic Nondiscrimination Act
(GINA) of 2008, 101
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,
102
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
(OWBPA), 95–96
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
of 1978, 89–90
Diversity in sexual orientation at work,
religion and, 390–395
Diversity issues
and career outcomes for younger
workers, 426t
non-dominant group members
and, 494f
Dominant group members, increasing
diversity on, 248
Donald-Mims, Jacquelyn – Imani Com-
munity Church, 391
Drivers, women, 298–299
DuPont and employment of people with
disabilities, 449–450
E
Earnings
part-time work and, 334–335
and percent female in teaching
profession, 294t
of workers with and without
disabilities, 443t
Education
career aspirations, and work,
331–332
of people with and without work
disabilities, 442t
Education and employment, affirmative
action in, 85–88
Educational attainment
money earnings by, 289t
of population, 411t
of population by sex, race and
Hispanic origin, 288t
of populations 25 years and
over, 265t
Educational attainment and race/
ethnicity, unemployment level by,
205t
Educational attainment by race
Hispanic origin, and sex,
119t, 197t
unemployment level by,
121t, 161t, 240t
EEOC. See Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
(EEOC)
Egalitarian values, 53
Einstein, Albert – genius and antiracist,
228–229
Elder care, 345–346
Employed women, occupations of,
291–292t
Employee considerations about weight,
484–485
Employees
acquiring disabilities, 448–449
with disabilities and Walmart,
444–445
Employer considerations about weight
discrimination, 482–484
Employer preferences – white convicted
felons or black persons with clean
records, 127
Employment. See also Work
Asian Americans and, 211–212
hardship among Mexican-origin
women, 171
or labor market discrimination, 4
status and disability, 441t
Employment, affirmative action in,
82–88
affirmative action in education and
employment, 85–88
affirmative action programs, 82–85
miscellaneous beneficiaries
of affirmative action programs,
88
Employment and income, effects of
appearance on, 467–469
Employment experiences
of people with disabilities, 443–450
of younger workers, 421–426
Employment experiences of African
Americans, research on,
124–137
access discrimination, 124–128
African American women at work,
133–135
discrimination against customers,
136–137
glass ceiling and walls, 129–130
immigrant blacks and their
descendants, 131–133
native-born blacks, 131–133
negative health effects of
discrimination, 130–131
treatment discrimination, 128–129
Employment experiences of older
workers, 413–421
age, accidents, and injuries at
work, 414
bridge employment and layoffs, 416
older women at work, 418–421
training and development, 414–416
Employment legislation in countries,
equal, 496t
Employment of people with disabilities,
DuPont and, 449–450
Employment outcomes, race and
Hispanic ethnicity and, 163
England, disabled people’s experiences
in workplace
in, 504–505
536 Subject Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Entrepreneurs, Asian American,
206–209
Equal employment legislation in
countries, 496t
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), 73–74
cases involving older age discrimi-
nation claims, 403–406
charge receipts for 2000–2010, 74t
charge receipts, resolutions,
and settlements by statute 2010,
78t
guidelines on religious exercise, 382
guidelines on sexual harassment
(1980), 90–95
settlement for religious and national
origin discrimination, 386t
Youth@Work Initiative, 422–425
Equal Pay Act and Title VII, 324–325
Equal Pay Act of 1963, 68–71
effectiveness of, 70
litigation under, 70–71
Error, fundamental attribution, 47–50
Escalator, glass, 309
Ethnicity, unemployment by race
and, 31t
Ethnicity for Whites, meaning of,
243–244
European Americans. See Whites/
European Americans
Examinations, medical, 440
F
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of
1938, 66–71
Family, work and, 321–351
career outcomes for employees
who take leaves of absence,
339–340
earnings, 332–335
elder care, 345–346
Equal Pay Act and Title VII, 324–325
Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) of 1993, 328–329
family policies in selected countries,
343–345
flexible schedules, 335–338
grandparents caring for grand-
children, 346–347
history of, 323
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,
329
men, work, and family, 341–342
population, participation, and
education, 329–332
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
of 1978, 325–328
recommendations for individuals,
347–348
recommendations for organizations,
348–349
relevant legislation, 323–329
same-sex couples in family
relationships, 340
society, organizations, and family
issues, 342–343
unpaid and paid leaves, 338–340
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of
1993, 100–101, 328–329
Family policies in selected countries,
343–345, 344t
Family relationships, same-sex couples
in, 340
Fat women fare worse than fat
men, 467
Favoritism, in-group, 45–47
Federal acts affecting diversity in
organizations, 67–68f
Federal acts, future of, 103
Federal acts related to diversity in
organizations, 66–102
affirmative action in employment,
82–88
Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA) of 1967, 88–89
Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990, 96–98
Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendments Act (ADA Amend-
ments Act) of 2008, 101–102
Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1991,
98–99
EEOC guidelines on sexual
harassment (1980), 90–95
Equal Pay Act of 1963, 68–71
Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) of 1993, 100–101
Genetic Information Nondiscrimina-
tion Act (GINA) of 2008, 101
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,
102
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
(OWBPA), 95–96
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
of 1978, 89–90
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964,
71–82
Federal Express payment to woman
truck driver, 306
Federal law, size discrimination and,
472–473
Felons, convicted, 178
Female in teaching profession, earnings
and percent, 294t
Fictitious Company, Inc. – case
study, 17
Filipino registered nurses, Woodbine
Healthcare Center’s treatment of,
214–215
Firms, Asian and Pacific Islander-
owned, 207f
Flexible schedules, 335–338
for singles, 338
Flexible schedules for full-time wage and
salary workers, 337t
Floors, sticky, 307
Florida Highway Patrol officer
characteristics and hit rate, 176t
FLSA. See Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) of 1938
FMLA. See Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA) of 1993
Full-time wage and salary workers,
flexible schedules for, 337t
Fundamental attribution error,
47–50
G
Gay rights in United States, history
of, 355–356
Gays and lesbians, determinants of
attitudes towards, 367
Gender, sex and, 283–319
education, 287
gender and poverty, 312–313
gender role socialization, 293–299
glass ceiling and other boundaries,
307–310
income, 292–293
negotiating pay, 313–314
participation and earnings, 287–293
participation rates, 288–290
population, 286–287
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 314–318
relevant legislation, 285–286
sex, race, and ethnicity, 310–312
sex discrimination, 299–302
sex segregation, 290–292
Subject Index 537
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Gender, sex and (continued)
sexual harassment, 302–307
unique gender issues, 312–314
Gender discrimination in new car
pricing, race and, 138–139
Gender identity or expression, 355
Gender role socialization, 69, 293–299
Gendered organizational cultures,
339, 341
General Motors, costs of overweight
and obesity at, 475t
Generation, sandwich, 346
Genetic Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
of 2008, 101
Germans in World War II, internment of
Italians and, 230–231
GINA. See Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
of 2008
Glass ceilings, 99
breaking, 317–318
and other boundaries, 307–310
stained, 389
wage inequity and, 499–500
and walls, 129–130, 447
Glass escalators, 309
Glass walls, 309
Global diversity and inclusion at Shell,
501–503
Grandchildren, grandparents caring for,
346–347
Grandparents caring for grandchildren,
346–347
Great Britain. See United Kingdom (UK)
Group awareness, 41
Group members, increasing diversity on
dominant, 248
Group memberships
multiple, 6–8, 50–51
and permeability of boundaries, 6–8
Groups
identity, 4
non-dominant, 51–53
H
Harassment of younger workers,
425–426
Health care, obesity discrimination
in, 478–479
Health effects of discrimination,
negative, 130–131
Health insurance by race and Hispanic
origin, poverty and lack of, 266t
Heterosexism, 355
Hewlett-Packard’s sexual orientation
policies, 365–366
Hiring experienced deaf applicant, 436
Hiring older workers, B&Q Hardware
Stores, 417
Hispanic customers, discrimination
against, 180–181
Hispanic groups and non-Hispanic
Blacks, socioeconomic character-
istics by, 162t
Hispanic origin
detailed, 156t
educational attainment by,
119t, 197t
educational attainment of population
by sex, race
and, 288t
poverty and lack of health insurance
by race and, 266t
Hispanic underrepresentation in
managerial and professional
occupations, 173
Hispanics. See also Latino/Hispanics,
discrimination against Whites in
favor of, 236–237
Hispanics, organizational experiences
of, 162–179
access and treatment discrimination,
163–166
bilingualism – uncompensated skill,
173–175
Hispanic immigrants at work,
166–168
Latinas at work, 170–173
Latinos and Blacks at work,
169–170
race and Hispanic ethnicity and
employment outcomes, 163
racial profiling, police misconduct in
judicial treatment, 175–179
Hispanics and non-Hispanics
population by race for, 157–158
racial self-identification among, 158t
Hispanics by race, national origin
of, 158t
Hispanics in United States, history
of, 148–154
HIV/AIDS at work, 364–367
Holistic means, increasing diversity
through, 160–161
Homophobia, 355
Hopkins, Ann, 296
Hostile environment, 92
Hostile sexism, 56
Hudson Institute, 10
Human capital, 339
Human resource needs, 452–456
I
Identity groups, 4
Immigrants at work, Hispanic, 166–168
Inclusion, 5
Income, effects of appearance on
employment and, 467–469
Indians. See American Indians
Individual and organizational outcomes,
diversity on, 27f
Individual level, recommendation for
change at, 518–520
In-group, 51–53
In-group favoritism and out-group
biases, 45–47
Intellectual disabilities, 443–450
Intergenerational workforce, 409–410
Internalized racism, 52
International context, diversity in, 5–6
International diversity and facing future,
491–522
broad reach of diversity in
organizations, 509–510
discrimination and differential treat-
ment as worldwide phenomena,
495–497
diversity in United States, 520–521
facing future, 491–522
people with disabilities, 500–505
poverty, 506–509
recommendation for change at
individual level, 518–520
recommendations for change at
organizational level, 511–518
recommendations for change at
societal level, 511
sexual orientation, 505–506
status of women around world,
497–500
Internment of Italians and Germans
in World War II, 230–231
Italians and Germans in World War II,
internment of, 230–231
J
Japanese, Internment of in
World War II, 190
Jazzercise appearance standards, 474
538 Subject Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Jersey guys disc jockeys and racist
anti-Asian statements, 204
Jewelry, makeup, and carry
purse, 296
Job markets for people with disabilities,
secondary, 447
Judicial decisions, diversity on judiciary
and, 103–104
Judiciary and judicial decisions, diversity
on, 103–104
L
Labor force, 9
occupation distribution of White and
API employed civilian, 200f
Labor force size, 246t
Labor market
beauty, stature and, 470
primary, 6
secondary, 6
Labor market discrimination,
employment or, 4
Latinas at work, 170–173
Latino/Hispanics, 147–185
earnings, 162
education, 158–159
employment, 159–161
English-only rules, 154–155
history of Hispanics in United States,
148–154
Latinos as customers, 179–181
organizational experiences of
Hispanics, 162–179
population, 156–158
recommendations for individuals,
181–182
recommendations for organizations,
182–183
relevant legislation, 154–155
Latinos, and Blacks at work,
169–170
Latinos as customers, 179–181
discrimination against Hispanic
customers, 180–181
marketing advantage, 179–180
Ledbetter, Lilly, 102, 329
Legal protections for younger workers,
406–407
Legislation, 63–106
effects of diversity on judiciary and
judicial decisions, 103–104
federal acts related to diversity in
organizations, 66–102
future federal acts, 103
historical background, 65–66
miscellaneous relevant state, local,
and city ordinances, 102–103
for older workers, 401–406
prohibiting sexual orientation
discrimination, 505–506
Legislation in countries, equal
employment, 496t
Lepine, Pascal – president of
Atypic Multimedia marketing
firm, 372
Lesbians, determinants of attitudes
towards gays and, 367
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,
102, 329
Local ordinances, 102–103
L’Oréal, 419–420
Lost business, 15
M
Makeup, jewelry, and carry purse, 296
Managerial and professional
occupations, Hispanic
underrepresentation in, 173
Mankiller, Wilma – Chief of Cherokee
Nation, 271
Maori (native New Zealanders), 264
Marriott’s spirit to serve, 454–455
Mascots, American Indians as sports
symbols and, 260–261
McCloskey, Frank – Georgia Power VP
of Diversity, 251–252
Media and promulgation of stereotypes,
49–50
Medical examinations, 440
Medical leave. See Family and Medical
Leave Act (FMLA)
of 1993
Memberships, multiple group,
50–51
Men
fat women and, 467
sexual harassment of, 305–307
Mental ability, physical and,
431–457
accommodations, 456
changing negative attitudes at work,
452
customers with disabilities, 450
employment experiences of
people with disabilities,
443–450
essential and marginal functions,
436–438
history, 433
human resource needs, 452–456
medical examinations, 440
population, education, and
employment, 440–443
reasonable accommodations,
438–440
recommendations for
individuals, 451
recommendations for organizations,
451–456
relevant legislation, 433–440
Meritocracy, White privilege and myth
of, 232–234
Mexican-origin women, employment
hardship among, 171
Mexicans, 149–151
Military, Blacks in, 112–115
Minorities
sexual, 355
termination of Whites for refusing to
comply with discrimination
against, 237–238
Minority, Asians as model, 201–206
Minority defined, 38–42
analysis of characteristics, 41–42
differential power, 40–41
discrimination, 41
group awareness, 41
identifiability, 40
Model minority, Asians as, 201–206
Modern racism, new or, 127–128
Money earnings
by educational attainment, 289t
mean total, 123t
for non-Hispanic Whites and Asians,
239t
for White, non-Hispanic, and Asians,
202t
Multiple group memberships, 50–51
Multiracial group members, 257,
272–278
Amerasians, 277–278
Blacks and racial determination,
273–274
introduction and history,
272–273
population, 276–277
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 278–280
relevant legislation, 277
Muslims in United States, diversity
among Arab Americans and,
387–388
Subject Index 539
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
N
National origin
of Hispanics by race, 158t
race and, 75–76
National origin discrimination,
EEOC settlement for religious
and, 386t
Native New Zealanders, 264
Negative attitudes at work,
changing, 452
Negative health effects of
discrimination, 130–131
New car pricing, race and gender
discrimination in, 138–139
New or modern racism, 127–128
New Zealanders, native, 264
Non-dominant group members and
diversity issues, 494f
Non-dominant groups and in-group,
51–53
Non-Hispanic, and Asians, money
earnings for White, 202t
Non-Hispanic Blacks, socioeconomic
characteristics by Hispanic
groups and, 162t
Non-Hispanic Whites and Asians,
money earnings for, 239t
Non-Hispanics
population by race for Hispanics and,
157–158
racial self-identification among
Hispanics and, 158t
Nooyi, Indra – CEO of PepsiCo, 216
North America, history of American
Indians in, 259–262
Nurses, Filipino registered,
214–215
O
Obama, Barack – 44th President of the
United States, 275
Obesity at General Motors, costs of
overweight and, 475t
Obesity discrimination in health care,
478–479
Occupation distribution of White
and API employed civilian labor
force, 200f
Occupations
of employed women, 291–292t
Hispanic underrepresentation in
managerial and professional, 173
OFCCP. See Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP)
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs (OFCCP), 82
Older age discrimination claims, EEOC
cases involving, 403–406
Older workers
B&Q Hardware Stores hiring, 417
legislation for, 401–406
Older Workers Benefit Protection Act
(OWBPA), 95–96
Older workers, employment experiences
of, 413–421
age, accidents, and injuries at
work, 414
bridge employment and layoffs, 416
older women at work, 418–421
training and development, 414–416
Organizational competitiveness,
diversity and, 12–24
areas where diversity can be
advantageous, 20–21
cost, 13–15
creativity and problem solving, 18–19
increased diversity and organizational
responses, 22–23
marketing, 16–18
moral and social reasons for valuing
diversity, 21–22
negative impacts of diversity, 23–24
resource acquisition, 15–16
system flexibility, 19–20
Organizational level, recommendations
for change at, 511–518
changes in human resource practices,
513–516
diversity for service providers,
516–518
management commitment to diversity
in organizations, 512–513
miscellaneous employment
considerations, 516
role of media, 518
Organizational outcomes, diversity on
individual and, 27f
Organizations, broad reach of diversity
in, 509–510
Out-group biases, 45–47
Overweight, stigma of, 476–479
Overweight and obesity at General
Motors, costs of, 475t
OWBPA. See Older Workers Benefit
Protection Act (OWBPA)
P
Pacific Islander-owned firms, Asian and,
207f
Paid leaves, unpaid and, 338–340
Parents again, 346
Participation rates, 26
Participation rates by race/ethnicity and
sex, 120t, 290t
Part-time work and earnings,
334–335
Pawns, unsuspecting, 208–209
PDA. See Pregnancy Discrimination Act
(PDA) of 1978
People with disabilities, 500–505
Performance inadequacies, perceptions
of, 447–448
PhD project – increasing diversity
through holistic means,
160–161
Phoenix Suns and Sports Magic sex
discrimination settlement, 300
Physical and mental ability, 431–457
accommodations, 456
changing negative attitudes at work,
452
customers with disabilities, 450
employment experiences of people
with disabilities, 443–450
essential and marginal functions,
436–438
history, 433
human resource needs, 452–456
medical examinations, 440
population, education, and
employment, 440–443
reasonable accommodations,
438–440
recommendations for individuals,
451
recommendations for organizations,
451–456
relevant legislation, 433–440
Population
Asian, 195f
educational attainment of, 288t, 411t
by race for Hispanics and
non-Hispanics, 157–158
Population by age groups, U. S., 408t
Populations 25 years and over,
educational attainment of, 265t
Portnick, Jennifer – fit but not up
to Jazzercise appearance
standards, 474
540 Subject Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Poverty, 506–509
gender and, 312–313
and lack of health insurance by race
and Hispanic origin, 266t
Pregnancy discrimination
cases, 326–327
at Walmart, 91–92
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of
1978, 89–90, 325–328
Prejudice, 42
Prescriptive stereotyping, 42
Price Waterhouse, Ann
Hopkins v., 296
Primary labor market, 6
Prime age, 401
Problem solving, creativity and, 18–19
Productive characteristics, 5
Professional occupations, Hispanic
underrepresentation in
managerial and, 173
Puerto Ricans, 151–152
Purse, carry, 296
Q
Quid pro quo, 92
Quotas and reverse discrimination,
244–248
R
Race
discrimination against Whites,
234–236
educational attainment by,
119t, 197t
and gender discrimination in new car
pricing, 138–139
and Hispanic ethnicity and
employment outcomes, 163
and national origin, 75–76
national origin of Hispanics by, 158t
unemployment level by educational
attainment by, 121t, 161t, 240t
Race and ethnicity, unemployment by,
31t
Race and Hispanic origin
educational attainment of population
by sex, 288t
poverty and lack of health insurance
by, 266t
Race for Hispanics and non-Hispanics,
population by, 157–158
Race for Whites, meaning of, 226–229
Race/ethnicity, unemployment level by
educational attainment and, 205t
Race/ethnicity and sex, participation
rates by, 120t, 290t
Race-sex composition, 246t
Racial determination, Blacks and,
273–274
Racial profiling of Arabs, 387–388
Racial self-identification among
Hispanics and non-Hispanics,
158t
Racial socialization, 131
Racial/ethnic groups, socioeconomic
statistics and demographics for,
199t
Racism
aversive, 53
internalize, 52
new or modern, 127–128
Racist anti-Asian statements, Jersey guys
disc jockeys and, 204
Reasonable accommodations, 438–440
and estimated costs, 439–440
Religion, 77–81, 377–398
claims and selected cases under Title
VII, 386–387
discrimination in work situations and
harassment, 382–384
diversity among Arab Americans and
Muslims in United States,
387–388
and diversity in sexual orientation at
work, 390–395
EEOC guidelines on religious exercise,
382
history of religious diversity
in U.S, 379
as invisible identity, 388–389
legislation, 381–387
population and variations among
beliefs, 379–380
race, ethnicity, and religion, 380–381
reasonable accommodations,
384–386
recommendations for individuals,
395–396
recommendations for organizations,
396–397
religious expression in federal
workplace, 382
resolving conflicts, 394–395
women’s roles in organized, 389–390
Religion and sexual orientation,
conflicts between, 392–393
Religiosity, 378
Religious and national origin
discrimination, EEOC settlement
for, 386t
Religious discrimination, 383t
Religious self-identification, comparison
of, 380t
Reverse discrimination, quotas and,
244–248
S
Salary workers, flexible schedules for
full-time wage and, 337t
Same-sex couples in family relation-
ships, 340
Sandwich generation, 346
School enrollment status of young
adults, 412f
Secondary labor market, 6
Service providers, diversity for, 516–518
Sex, 76–77
advanced degree holders by, 412t
composition. See Race-sex
composition
educational attainment by, 119t, 197t
participation rates by, 120t, 290t
ratios by age, 287t
segregation, 290–292
Sex, race and Hispanic origin,
educational attainment of
population by, 288t
Sex and gender, 283–319
education, 287
gender and poverty, 312–313
gender role socialization, 293–299
glass ceiling and other boundaries,
307–310
income, 292–293
negotiating pay, 313–314
participation and earnings, 287–293
participation rates, 288–290
population, 286–287
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 314–318
relevant legislation, 285–286
sex, race, and ethnicity, 310–312
sex discrimination, 299–302
sex segregation, 290–292
sexual harassment, 302–307
unique gender issues, 312–314
Subject Index 541
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Sex discrimination, 299–302
Sex discrimination settlement, Phoenix
Suns and Sports Magic, 300
Sexism
ambivalence, 56
benevolent, 56
hostile, 56
Sexual harassment, 302–307
curbing, 316–317
of men, 305–307
prevention of, 94–95
segregation, discrimination, and other
inequities, 498–499
of teen workers, 422–425
in various places worldwide, 499t
of women, 303–305
Sexual harassment, EEOC guidelines on,
90–95
customer harassment, 94
prevention of sexual harassment,
94–95
Sexual minorities, 355
Sexual orientation, 353–376, 505–506
codes of silence not just in U. S.
military, 367–369
conflicts between religion and,
392–393
determinants of attitudes towards
gays and lesbians, 367
education and income levels,
357–359
history of gay rights in United States,
355–356
HIV/AIDS at work, 364–367
legislation, 359–362
out at work, 370–372
partner benefits, 362–364
population, 357
recommendations for individuals,
372–373
recommendations for organizations,
373–375
Sexual orientation at work, religion and
diversity in, 390–395
Sexual orientation discrimination, legis-
lation prohibiting, 505–506
Sexual orientation policies, Hewlett-
Packard’s, 365–366
Shell, global diversity and inclusion at,
501–503
Singles, flexible schedules for, 338
Size discrimination and federal law,
472–473
Slavery and generations of discrimina-
tion, effects of, 113
Small business owners, 208–209
Social categorization and social identity,
45–53
fundamental attribution error, 47–50
in-group favoritism and out-group
biases, 45–47
multiple group memberships, 50–51
non-dominant groups and in-group,
51–53
Social categorization and stereotyping,
43–44
Social identity, 44
Social identity, social categorization
and, 45–53
Socialization
gender role, 293–299
general role, 69
racial, 131
Societal level, recommendations for
change at, 511
Socioeconomic characteristics by
Hispanic groups and non-
Hispanic Blacks, 162t
Socioeconomic statistics and demo-
graphics for racial/ethnic groups,
199t
Sotomayor, Sonia (Supreme Court
Justice), 153
Southeast Asians living in United States,
218
Sports Magic sex discrimination settle-
ment, Phoenix Suns and, 300
Sports symbols and mascots, American
Indians as, 260–261
Stained glass ceiling, 389
State and local statutes prohibiting
weight and appearance
discrimination, 471–472
State ordinances, 102–103
Statistical discrimination, 125
Stereotypes, 42
media and promulgation of, 49–50
Stereotyping, social categorization and,
43–44
Sticky floors, 307
T
Teaching profession, earnings and
percent female in, 294t
Teen workers, sexual harassment of,
422–425
Thinness, costs of, 477
Title VII, Equal Pay Act and,
324–325
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964,
71–82
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), 73–74
exceptions – bona fide occupational
qualifications, 81–82
exceptions – business necessity, 81–82
race and national origin, 75–76
religion, 77–81
sex, 76–77
Treatment
discrimination, 4, 124, 128–129
disparate, 299
Truck driver, woman, 306
U
U. S. population by age groups, 408t
UK. See United Kingdom (UK)
Underemployed, 30
Underemployment, 122
Unemployment
level by educational attainment and
race/ethnicity, 205t
level by educational attainment by
race, 121t, 161t, 240t
by race and ethnicity, 31t
underemployment, and discouraged
workers, 122
United Kingdom (UK), Asians in, 213
United States
diversity among Arab Americans and
Muslims in, 387–388
diversity in, 520–521
history of Asians in, 189–191
history of Blacks in, 111–116
history of gay rights in, 355–356
history of Hispanics in, 148–154
history of Whites in, 225–231
Unpaid and paid leaves, 338–340
V
Valdez, Lupe – Sheriff, Dallas County,
Texas, 369
W
Wage inequity and glass ceiling,
499–500
Walls, glass, 129–130, 309
542 Subject Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Walmart
employees with disabilities and,
444–445
pregnancy discrimination at, 91–92
Wealth, differences in Black/White
accumulation of, 113
Weight
Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) and, 469–471
employee considerations about,
484–485
employer considerations about,
482–484
Weight and appearance, 459–487
appearance – cases and legislation,
479–482
education, employment levels, types,
and income, 466–469
effects of weight on health and on cost
to employers, 473–476
legislation relevant to, 469–473
population, 463–465
recommendations for individuals and
organizations, 482–486
stigma of overweight, 476–479
Weight and appearance discrimination,
state and local statutes prohibit-
ing, 471–472
White, non-Hispanic, and Asians,
money earnings for, 202t
White and API employed civilian labor
force, 200f
White privilege and myth of
meritocracy, 232–234
White women and women of color,
310–312
Whites
meaning of ethnicity for, 243–244
meaning of race for, 226–229
race discrimination against, 234–236
termination for refusing to comply
with discrimination against
minorities, 237–238
Whites and Asians, money earnings for
non-Hispanic, 239t
Whites and diversity, research on,
241–248
experiences of White women and
men, 241–242
increasing diversity on dominant
group members, 248
meaning of ethnicity for Whites,
243–244
quotas and reverse discrimination,
244–248
Whites as allies of diversity, history of,
229–231
Whites in favor of Hispanics, discrimi-
nation against, 236–237
Whites in United States, history of,
225–231
history of Whites as allies of diversity,
229–231
meaning of race for Whites,
226–229
Whites/European Americans, 223–255
education, earnings, and employment,
239–240
history of Whites in United States,
225–231
population, 238–239
recommendations for individuals,
249–250
recommendations for organizations,
250–252
relevant legislation, 231–238
research on Whites and diversity,
241–248
Woman truck driver, Federal Express
payment to, 306
Women
American Indian and Alaskan native,
269–271
of color, 310–312
drivers need not apply, 298–299
employment hardship among
Mexican-origin, 171
occupations of employed, 291–292t
sexual harassment of, 303–305
White, 310–312
Women and men, fat, 467
Women around world, status of,
497–500
population and participation rates,
497–498
sexual harassment, segregation,
discrimination, and other
inequities, 498–499
think manager, think male world-
wide, 500
wage inequity and glass ceiling,
499–500
Women at work
Asian American, 212–215
older, 418–421
Women’s roles in organized religion,
389–390
Woodbine Healthcare Center’ s
treatment of Filipino registered
nurses, 214–215
Work
American Indians at, 269
Asian American women at, 212–215
changing negative attitudes at, 452
education, and career aspirations,
331–332
Hispanic immigrants at, 166–168
HIV/AIDS at, 364–367
Latinas at, 170–173
Latinos and Blacks at, 169–170
older women at, 418–421
part-time, 334–335
religion and diversity in sexual
orientation at, 390–395
research on experiences of Asian
Americans at, 209–215
Work and family, 321–351
career outcomes for employees who
take leaves of absence, 339–340
earnings, 332–335
elder care, 345–346
Equal Pay Act and Title VII, 324–325
Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA) of 1993, 328–329
family policies in selected countries,
343–345
flexible schedules, 335–338
grandparents caring for grand-
children, 346–347
history of, 323
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009,
329
men, work, and family, 341–342
population, participation, and
education, 329–332
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
of 1978, 325–328
recommendations for individuals,
347–348
recommendations for organizations,
348–349
relevant legislation, 323–329
same-sex couples in family
relationships, 340
society, organizations, and family
issues, 342–343
unpaid and paid leaves, 338–340
Work disabilities, education of people
with and without, 442t
Workers
B&Q Hardware Stores hiring older,
417
discouraged, 122
diversity issues and career outcomes
for younger, 426t
Subject Index 543
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Workers (continued)
employment experiences of older,
413–421
employment experiences of younger,
421–426
flexible schedules for full-time wage
and salary, 337t
harassment of younger, 425–426
legal protections for younger,
406–407
legislation for older, 401–406
sexual harassment of teen,
422–425
Workers with and without disabilities,
earnings of, 443t
Workforce, intergenerational, 409–410
Workforce 2000, 9–12
World, status of women around,
497–500
World War II, internment of Italians and
Germans in, 230–231
Worldwide, sexual harassment in vari-
ous places, 499t
Worldwide phenomena, discrimination
and differential treatment as,
495–497
Y
Young adults, school enrollment status
of, 412f
Younger workers
diversity issues and career outcomes
for, 426t
employment experiences of,
421–426
harassment of, 425–426
legal protections for, 406–407
Youth in Belgium and Canada, anti-gay
sentiment among, 506
Youth@Work Initiative, EEOC’s,
422–425
Z
Zia, Helen, 193
544 Subject Index
Copyright 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Brief Contents���������������������
Table of Contents������������������������
Preface��������������
Section I: Introduction, Theories, and Legislation���������������������������������������������������������
Ch 1: Introduction�������������������������
Determining “Diversity” in an International Context����������������������������������������������������������
Multiple Group Memberships and Permeability of Boundaries����������������������������������������������������������������
Terminology������������������
The Stimulus for the Focus on Diversity: Workforce 2000��������������������������������������������������������������
Diversity and Organizational Competitiveness���������������������������������������������������
Individual Benefits of Diversity
Diversity, Individual Outcomes, and Organizational Effectiveness�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Organization of the Book�������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 2: Theories and Thinking about Diversity��������������������������������������������������
What is a “Minority”?����������������������������
Categorization and Identity����������������������������������
Aversive Racism, Ambivalent Sexism, and Other New Isms�������������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals and Organizations��������������������������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 3: Legislation������������������������
Historical Background����������������������������
Major Federal Acts Related to Diversity in Organizations���������������������������������������������������������������
Other Relevant State, Local, and City Ordinances�������������������������������������������������������
Future Federal Acts: What’s Ahead?�����������������������������������������
Effects of Diversity on the Judiciary and on Judicial Decisions����������������������������������������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Section II: Examining Specific Groups and Categories�����������������������������������������������������������
Ch 4: Blacks/African Americans�������������������������������������
History of Blacks in the United States���������������������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Population�����������������
Education, Employment, and Earnings������������������������������������������
Research on the Employment Experiences of African Americans������������������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations����������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 5: Latinos/Hispanics������������������������������
History of Hispanics in the United States������������������������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Population�����������������
Education, Employment, and Earnings������������������������������������������
Organizational Experiences of Hispanics����������������������������������������������
Latinos as Customers���������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals��������������������������������������
Recommendations for Organizations����������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 6: Asians/Asian Americans�����������������������������������
History of Asians in the United States���������������������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Population�����������������
Education, Employment, and Earnings������������������������������������������
Asians as the “Model Minority”�������������������������������������
Asian American Entrepreneurs�����������������������������������
Research on Experiences of Asian Americans at Work���������������������������������������������������������
Focus on Selected Asian Americans: Chinese, Indians, and Southeast Asians��������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals and Organizations��������������������������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 7: Whites/European Americans��������������������������������������
History of Whites in the United States���������������������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Population�����������������
Education, Earnings, and Employment������������������������������������������
Research on Whites and Diversity���������������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals��������������������������������������
Recommendations for Organizations����������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 8: American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Multiracial Group Members����������������������������������������������������������������������������
History of American Indians in North America���������������������������������������������������
Population�����������������
Education, Employment, and Earnings������������������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Research on American Indians at Work�������������������������������������������
American Indian and Alaskan Native Women�����������������������������������������������
Multiracial Group Members��������������������������������
Population�����������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Amerasians�����������������
Recommendations for Individuals and Organizations��������������������������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 9: Sex and Gender���������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Population�����������������
Education����������������
Participation and Earnings���������������������������������
Gender Role Socialization��������������������������������
Sex Discrimination�������������������������
Sexual Harassment������������������������
The Glass Ceiling and Other Boundaries���������������������������������������������
Sex, Race, and Ethnicity�������������������������������
Unique Gender Issues���������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals and Organizations��������������������������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 10: Work and Family�����������������������������
History of Work and Family���������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Population, Participation, and Education�����������������������������������������������
Earnings���������������
Flexible Schedules�������������������������
Unpaid and Paid Leaves�����������������������������
Same-Sex Couples in Family Relationships�����������������������������������������������
Men, Work, and Family����������������������������
Beyond the Family: Society, Organizations, and Family Issues�������������������������������������������������������������������
Family Policies in Selected Countries��������������������������������������������
Elder Care�����������������
Parenting Again: Grandparents Caring for Grandchildren�������������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals��������������������������������������
Recommendations for Organizations����������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 11: Sexual Orientation��������������������������������
History of Gay Rights in the United States�������������������������������������������������
Population�����������������
Education and Income Levels����������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Partner Benefits�����������������������
HIV/AIDS at Work: Unfounded Fears����������������������������������������
Determinants of Attitudes toward Gays and Lesbians���������������������������������������������������������
Codes of Silence: Not Just the U.S. Military���������������������������������������������������
Out at Work?�������������������
Recommendations for Individuals��������������������������������������
Recommendations for Organizations����������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 12: Religion����������������������
History of Religious Diversity in the United States����������������������������������������������������������
Population and Variations among Beliefs����������������������������������������������
Race, Ethnicity, and Religion������������������������������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
The Diversity among Arab Americans and Muslims in the United States��������������������������������������������������������������������������
Religion as an Invisible Identity����������������������������������������
Women’s Roles in Organized Religion������������������������������������������
Religion and Diversity in Sexual Orientation at Work�����������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals��������������������������������������
Recommendations for Organizations����������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 13: Age�����������������
Historical Background����������������������������
Relevant Legislation for Older Workers���������������������������������������������
Legal Protections for Younger Workers��������������������������������������������
Population, Participation Rates, and Employment������������������������������������������������������
Education����������������
Research on Employment Experiences of Older Workers����������������������������������������������������������
Research on Employment Experiences of Younger Workers������������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals��������������������������������������
Recommendations for Organizations����������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 14: Physical and Mental Ability�����������������������������������������
History��������������
Relevant Legislation���������������������������
Population, Education, and Employment��������������������������������������������
Employment Experiences of People with Disabilities���������������������������������������������������������
Customers with Disabilities����������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals��������������������������������������
Recommendations for Organizations����������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Ch 15: Weight and Appearance�����������������������������������
Population�����������������
Education, Employment Levels, Types, and Income������������������������������������������������������
Legislation Relevant to Weight and Appearance����������������������������������������������������
Effects of Weight on Health and on Costs to Employers������������������������������������������������������������
Is it the Fat, the Health, or the Stigma of Overweight?��������������������������������������������������������������
Appearance: Cases and Legislation����������������������������������������
Recommendations for Individuals and Organizations��������������������������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Section III: Global Vision���������������������������������
Ch 16: International Diversity and Facing the Future�����������������������������������������������������������
Discrimination and Differential Treatment as Worldwide Phenomena�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Sex and Gender: The Status of Women around the World�����������������������������������������������������������
People with Disabilities�������������������������������
Sexual Orientation�������������������������
Poverty��������������
Facing the Future: The Broad Reach of Diversity in Organizations�����������������������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Change at a Societal Level�����������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Change at an Organizational Level������������������������������������������������������������
Recommendations for Change at an Individual Level��������������������������������������������������������
Capitalizing on the Strength of Diversity in the United States���������������������������������������������������������������������
Summary��������������
Key Terms����������������
Questions to Consider����������������������������
Actions and Exercises����������������������������
Name Index�����������������
Subject Index��������������������