Explain why diversity needs to be managed. Probabilities of problems can happen if diversity is not managed. And outcomes if it is managed

Some people think that workforce diversity will automatically lead to positive outcomes for organizations. Drawing on theory and research explain why workforce diversity needs to be managed for benefits to be realized
Instruction:

Use relevant readings (I will add) but also your own independent research.

Body should contain the following topics
– Diversity in workforce.
– Explain why diversity needs to be managed. Probabilities of problems can happen if diversity is not managed. And outcomes if it is managed.
– Refer to organizational examples
– Overall trend and specific groups of employees to illustrate key points

Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers Author(s): Emilio J. Castilla Source: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 113, No. 6 (May 2008), pp. 1479-1526 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/588738 Accessed: 21-07-2017 07:48 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Sociology This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms AJS Volume 113 Number 6 (May 2008): 1479–1526 1479 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0002-9602/2008/11306-0001$10.00 Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers1 Emilio J. Castilla Massachusetts Institute of Technology This study helps to fill a significant gap in the literature on organizations and inequality by investigating the central role of meritbased reward systems in shaping gender and racial disparities in wages and promotions. The author develops and tests a set of propositions isolating processes of performance-reward bias, whereby women and minorities receive less compensation than white men with equal scores on performance evaluations. Using personnel data from a large service organization, the author empirically establishes the existence of this bias and shows that gender, race, and nationality differences continue to affect salary growth after performance ratings are taken into account, ceteris paribus. This finding demonstrates a critical challenge faced by the many contemporary employers who adopt merit-based practices and policies. Although these policies are often adopted in the hope of motivating employees and ensuring meritocracy, policies with limited transparency and accountability can actually increase ascriptive bias and reduce equity in the workplace. An extensive body of research on organizations and stratification has established that organizations play a key role in generating and perpetuating inequality in employment outcomes (Baron and Bielby 1980; Baron 1984; Bielby and Baron 1986; Reskin 1993; Phillips 2005). To date, the 1 I am grateful for the financial support received from the Center for Human Resources and the Center for Leadership and Change Management at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2005 American Sociological Association annual conference in Philadelphia, the 2005 Academy of Management annual meeting in Honolulu, the Eleventh Organizational Behavior conference at Wharton, and the Center for the Study of the Economy and Society at Cornell University. I thank Roberto Fernandez, Ezra Zuckerman, Jesper Sorensen, and Mauro F. Guillen for their help. I have also benefited from the extensive and detailed comments made by Lucio Baccaro, Lotte Bailyn, Diane Burton, Jesu´ s M. De Miguel, Isabel Ferna´ndez-Mateo, Kate Kellogg, Anne Marie Knott, Thomas Kochan, Denise Loyd, Mark Mortensen, Paul Osterman, Michael Piore, Nancy RothThis content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1480 research has mainly focused on identifying and testing the particular mechanisms that account for gender and racial inequality in wages and career attainment within organizations. Recently, Petersen and Saporta (2004) provided a useful and compelling framework for organizing our thinking around three main processes that lead to employer discrimination. Many empirical studies have looked at the first process, which they call allocative discrimination, whereby women and minorities are sorted into different kinds of jobs with different pay, whether through hiring, promotion, or termination (e.g., Rosenfeld 1992; Marsden 1994a, 1994b; Baldi and McBrier 1997; Barnett, Baron, and Stuart 2000; Petersen, Saporta, and Seidel 2000; Elvira and Zatzick 2002; Petersen and Saporta 2004; Fernandez and Sosa 2005; Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo 2006). Other studies have examined within-job wage disparities, whereby women and minorities receive lower salaries than their white male counterparts within a given occupation and establishment (e.g., Jacobs 1989, 1995; England 1992; Tomaskovic-Devey 1993; Petersen and Morgan 1995). Finally, some empirical work has explored the third process, identified as valuative discrimination, in which female- and minority-dominated occupations with equal skill requirements and other wage-relevant factors are paid lower salaries because they are valued less (e.g., Bridges and Nelson 1989; Baron and Newman 1990; for a review, see England [1992] and Nelson and Bridges [1999]). Despite substantial progress on clarifying the mechanisms that shape discrimination, researchers have paid less attention to current employer practices that might counteract such discrimination and remediate workplace inequality (for a recent step in this direction, see Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly [2006]). One approach that has gained considerable popularity is the use of merit-based practices in organizations. Under the old employment system, lifetime jobs with predictable career advancement and stable pay were virtually guaranteed. Pay raises were given on the basis of seniority or granted automatically to all employees at the same perbard, Sean Safford, Christopher Wheat, Steffanie Wilk, JoAnne Yates, Mark Zbaracki, and the AJS reviewers. I owe many thanks to Robin Kietlinski, Aneri H. Jambusaria, and Anjani Trivedi for their invaluable research assistance. I also want to thank my colleagues at the MIT Sloan School and at the Wharton School, especially Peter Cappelli, Sarah Kaplan, Gerald McDermott, Lori Rosenkopf, Daniel Levinthal, John Paul Macduffie, and Katherine Klein. Several members of the organization I study also provided great help during the data collection process. I want to thank the people who held the following positions at that time: the director and the vice president of human resources, the head of the research unit within the human resources department, and several midlevel human resource managers. The views expressed here are exclusively my own. Direct correspondence to Emilio J. Castilla, MIT, Sloan School of Management, 50 Memorial Drive, Room E52-568, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142. E-mail: ecastilla@mit.edu This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1481 centage levels (Kochan, Katz, and McKersie 1986). However, this traditional model of employment has gradually been replaced by market-driven employment strategies, including merit-based reward systems and other performance management practices (Cappelli et al. 1997; Cappelli 1999). Perhaps organizations are increasingly adopting these merit-based practices and standards in the hope of ensuring that rewards are allocated meritocratically and eliminating inequity (Jackson 1998). Indeed, many workers find that these practices give them greater opportunities (Ospina 1996; Osterman 1999). However, there is a growing sense that individuals’ career chances are becoming less equal (Frank and Cook 1995), and several scholars who study the transformation of the employment relationship have already raised equity and fairness concerns about the use of such practices (e.g., Osterman et al. 2001). Some studies have even suggested that the formalization of such practices may mask inequality in the distribution of rewards and may generate discrimination at the workplace (see Reskin 2000; Elvira and Graham 2002). One of the key aspects of this market-driven way of organizing work has been the adoption of pay-for-performance and performance-management systems to measure and reward employees’ merit and contributions to the company. Organizations frequently implement formal and informal performance evaluations that, in the end, affect major employee career outcomes such as task assignments, training opportunities, salary increases, and promotions (Cleveland, Murphy, and Williams 1989). Even though the study of pay-for-performance programs promises to contribute to our understanding of whether contemporary organizations that adopt merit-based practices remedy gender and racial inequality, we know little to date about how these policies influence the distribution of salaries and other rewards among employees. A few recent studies have looked at employee wages and careers within organizations, but in doing so they have ignored the role of merit and performance evaluations (for a review, see Petersen and Saporta [2004]). The same omission occurs in the line of research on organizations and inequality in employee attainment (for recent reviews, see Phillips [2005] and Roth [2006]). In addition, this body of research is incomplete because it has not examined in depth how these organizational merit-based practices can create the “opportunity structure” for gender and race discrimination (Petersen and Saporta 2004). In order to make progress in our understanding of organizations and social stratification, I investigate in this article the role formal merit-based reward systems play in shaping gender and racial disparities in the distribution of wages in one work organization. Specifically, I examine the relationships between performance evaluations and two key outcomes— wage growth and promotions—using personnel data from a large service organization in the United States that started a performance evaluation This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1482 program as the basis for employee salary increase decisions. As widely advocated by employers and human resource specialists (see, e.g., Campbell, Campbell, and Chia 1998; Gerhart and Rynes 2003; Mathis and Jackson 2003), the organization I study decided to separate performance appraisals from pay decisions for two main reasons: (1) to facilitate the provision of feedback to employees for their future development and (2) to make pay decisions by strengthening the connection between employee performance evaluations and the size of employee pay increases at the end of the year.2 I argue, however, that by decoupling the performance evaluation and wage-setting processes, organizations may introduce the structural conditions for bias to occur at two distinct stages, as summarized in figure 1. The first stage is the performance evaluation stage, where performance evaluation bias can occur; in such cases, the performance rating process itself, because of its subjectivity, is affected by some gender, race, or nationality bias (arrow 1 of fig. 1). Significant progress has been made in understanding this type of bias, with important lab- and field-based studies comprehensively documenting the existence (and persistence) of performance evaluation bias (for a review of work in this tradition, see Bartol [1999], Elvira and Town [2001], Roth, Huffcutt, and Bobko [2003], and McKay and McDaniel [2006]). But even assuming that there is no bias in this first stage, or that it can be remedied, there is a second way in which performance evaluations may fail to ensure equal returns to employees: bias can affect the direct link between performance evaluations and employee career outcomes such as salary increases, promotions, or terminations (stage 2 of fig. 1). So, with the addition of this second stage in the performance-reward system, organizations might introduce discretion, which can result in the work of minority employees receiving less compensation over time even when they are evaluated as performing the same jobs at the same level as nonminority employees (arrows 2 and 3 of fig. 1).3 2 In practice, the separation of performance appraisals from pay decisions can be carried out in three ways: (1) temporal separation only (the same individual makes the two decisions, but at different points in time); (2) interpersonal separation (two different people make the decisions, but at close points in time); and (3) temporal and interpersonal separation (the pay allocator makes the decision about compensation after the appraisal has been completed, but bases the decision on information provided in the appraisal). The process I study here is of the third type. 3 Arrows 2 and 3 of fig. 1 represent the two ways in which gender and race can affect stage 2. Arrow 2 illustrates the potential direct effect of ascriptive characteristics (gender, race, or country of origin) on employee career outcomes such as salary, salary increases, or promotions, net of employee performance evaluations. Arrow 3 illustrates the potential interaction effects between performance evaluations and ascriptive characteristics on employee career outcomes. I later argue that if merit-based practices This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1483 Fig. 1.—The theoretical performance-reward model under study For the first time in the literature on organizations and gender/racial inequality, I develop and test two theoretical propositions that isolate processes of what I call performance-reward bias, whereby, even after merit is constructed in the performance evaluation stage, employers consciously or unconsciously discount the performance ratings of employees because of their gender, race, or nationality, ceteris paribus. This is a new form of valuative discrimination, which is independent of other processes generating ascriptive inequality, such as allocative discrimination or within-job wage discrimination (as described in Petersen and Saporta [2004]).4 Because equal merit results in equal rewards in any truly meritocratic system, a key challenge of these systems is how to measure merit. linking performance evaluations to employee rewards work the way advocates of meritocracy claim, then the inclusion of stage 2 (that is, the performance-reward process) should also explain away both the direct effect of ascriptive characteristics (arrow 2) as well as the interaction effects between ratings and ascriptive characteristics (arrow 3) on employee outcomes over time. 4 Research on valuative discrimination has most frequently been done at the macrolevel, establishing that female- and minority-dominated occupations with equal skills and wage-relevant characteristics are valued less than white male–dominated ones. Consistent with the valuative discrimination literature, the performance-reward bias is a more precise mechanism under which, once the merit or performance score has been constructed for each employee in the evaluation process, some workers still obtain different rewards for the same score as others. This performance-reward bias mechanism is independent of whether the occupation itself is valued less because it is dominated by women or minorities. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1484 Once merit is measured for each employee, though, any differential reward for the same merit score is evidence of this performance-reward bias.5 This study uses a unique organizational setting to test this performancereward bias in depth, making it possible to explore whether including employee performance ratings in any of the empirical models explains away the effect of gender or race on employee wage growth after controlling for job, work unit, supervisor, and human capital characteristics. This organization keeps rich personnel data; supervisors evaluate employees using dyadic performance evaluations, which constitute the primary basis for employee salary increases each year, and supervisors’ evaluations and salary increase decisions are typically two distinct organizational processes. Ultimately, this article helps to fill a significant gap in the research into the role of organizations in shaping inequality, by demonstrating that the formalization of performance management systems can introduce organizational processes and routines that make it possible for bias and discriminatory judgments to occur at several stages. My study focuses on one of these stages, namely, the link between performance evaluations and wage determination. I show that bias is likely to occur when the structural conditions are such that there is more discretion, less accountability, and less transparency. Ironically, while the practice of linking salary increases to performance ratings can create the appearance of meritocracy, it also creates the second (as well as the first) stage of performance management and thereby introduces the possibility of bias and discrimination. In my analyses, I find that women and minorities do not receive lower starting salaries or performance ratings than white men once I control for job and work-unit fixed effects. However, in the long run, my longitudinal analyses provide evidence of performance-reward bias and 5 The main empirical question of the article is whether similar measures of “merit” lead to similar levels of reward. I treat meritocracy as a process in which merit is somehow measured and then compensated. Meritocracy is thus one possible way of assigning rewards (nepotism and seniority, e.g., are other ways). This is a definition of meritocracy as a process, not as a value. Seen through this lens, the question at issue in the article is whether the process is consistent and, therefore, whether employees get the same reward for the same level of merit regardless of their gender, race, or nationality. If rewards are not consistent, they are either arbitrary (no telling who gets what rewards), discriminatory (some groups systematically get more or less rewards than others for equal levels of merit), or both at the same time. Meritocracy is also, however, an ideology that justifies the distribution of rewards. Sometimes I may seem to equate meritocracy with fairness, because these two concepts are popularly equated, but what I study is not fairness by some substantive standard, or in the perception of the individuals being judged, but the consistency of the formal process of assigning rewards that we call merit based. Unpacking what is actually happening inside a performance evaluation system described as meritocratic is the point of the study. I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this clarification of terms. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1485 show that different salary increases are granted for observationally equivalent employees (i.e., those in the same job and work unit, with the same supervisor and same human capital) who receive the same performance evaluation scores. This finding of performance-reward bias is robust after controlling for a number of complicating factors, including employee turnover. Finally, because the results of this study imply that merit-based policies with high transparency and accountability may reduce bias and increase equity, this is an important contribution to our thinking about how employer practices can counteract discrimination and remediate bias. Drawing on my research, I suggest that the lack of both accountability and transparency behind the implementation of the second stage explains why, in an organization such as this, neither employees nor administrators seem to be aware of performance-reward bias. According to experimental research on accountability, when decision makers know they will be held accountable for their decisions, bias is less likely to occur (Tetlock 1983, 1985; Tetlock and Kim 1987). In this setting, accountability is less salient at the second stage, so performance-reward bias can be expected. The relative lack of formalization and transparency at the second stage also results in (or at least does not eliminate) performance-reward bias. In the discussion section of this article, I provide evidence that these theoretical mechanisms account for the existence of performance-reward bias in this particular organization. I also propose a few future research strategies for the continued investigation of the role of organizational practices (and the structural conditions they create) in the generation and reproduction of gender, race, or other non–performance related gaps in wages and careers. WHY PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS? It has become standard practice for large organizations to establish a performance appraisal/reward system that attracts, retains, and motivates employees. Performance appraisal is the process of evaluating how well employees do their jobs in comparison to a set of standards and then communicating that evaluation to the employees (Mathis and Jackson 2003). These evaluations—also called employee ratings, performance reviews, or results appraisals—are widely used in contemporary organizations. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1994 National Employer Survey, one of the most comprehensive surveys of employers in the United States, supervisors conducted posttraining performance appraisals in 66% of 4,000 private sector establishments. Recently, Compensation Resources, Inc. (2004), surveyed 571 companies and found that almost 80% of U.S. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1486 respondents conducted performance evaluations at least once a year (with 16% of the companies conducting them twice a year). Organizations generally use performance evaluations for two primary, often conflicting purposes. The first is administrative. Organizations measure performance for the purpose of making administrative decisions about employees (e.g., pay, promotions, terminations, layoffs, and transfer assignments). In a recent compensation study by the Society for Human Resource Management, 69% of human resource (HR) professionals indicated that their organizations offer incentive compensation or variable bonuses based on performance (Burke 2005). Similarly, according to data from Hewitt Associates, as increases to base pay remained stable in 2007, more companies have been reported to rely on performance-related rewards (that must be earned anew each year) to motivate employees (Miller 2006).6 The second use of performance evaluations is developmental. Supervisors provide key information and feedback to their employees for future development. In such cases, supervisors act more as coaches than as judges, since they can inculcate in workers the desire to improve their job performance. Practically speaking, the administrative and developmental uses are often intertwined and difficult to distinguish when performance evaluations are implemented in real organizations. Historically, supervisors and managers have evaluated the performance of individual employees and have also made compensation recommendations for the same employees. However, many practitioners have advocated for the separation of performance appraisals and salary discussions, for several reasons. One reason is that decoupling these two processes and strengthening the tie between the performance evaluations of employees and their career outcomes encourages employees’ perception of merit, increases job satisfaction, and motivates them to work hard (Martocchio 2004; Milkovich and Newman 2004). Second, employees often focus more on the monetary amount received than on the feedback. A third reason is that managers can manipulate performance ratings to justify the salary increases they wish to give specific individuals (Mathis and Jackson 2003). 6 Various studies, along with reports from particular companies, show a significant relationship between incentive plans and improved organizational performance (for a review, see Bohlander and Snell [2007] and Mathis and Jackson [2003]). Lawler’s (2003) research, e.g., shows that a performance system is more effective when there is a clear connection between the performance management system and the reward system of the organization. Based on questionnaire data on performance management practices at 55 Fortune 500 companies, one of the main findings is that tying appraisal results to salary increases and bonuses is “a positive with respect to the effectiveness of the appraisal system” (pp. 398–99). In addition, reports by consulting firms indicate that higher-performing companies give out far more merit pay to their top performers than do lower-performing companies (IOMA 2000). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1487 And last, supervisors do not like to complete performance evaluations (Pfeffer 1994), and they are reluctant to differentiate among employees, sometimes giving inflated ratings because they want to be popular (Gerhart and Rynes 2003). To address some of these issues, many organizations have chosen to separate performance appraisals from salary discussions while strengthening the connection between employee performance and the size of employee pay increases. Some organizations have managers first conduct performance appraisals and discuss the results with employees at a later time. Others have introduced separate organizational processes, with different organizational actors in charge of the appraisal and compensation stages. Organizations typically decouple the performance evaluation process from the wage-setting process when they want to use the performance evaluation for both employee development and administrative purposes. Consequently, if any part of the performance appraisal system fails, betterperforming employees may not receive larger pay increases, and the result is unfairness in the distribution of rewards. Despite wide interest in the issues of equity and fairness in the use of merit-based practices and their importance in helping us understand wage inequality in organizations, little research has explored how performance programs directly impact employees’ wages and careers. In the remainder of this section, I discuss the body of literature on gender and racial inequality in organizations and present the main theoretical propositions of this article. Gender and Racial Inequality and Bias in Organizations Much sociological research has examined the link between ascriptive or personal characteristics and career outcomes (e.g., England 1992; Petersen and Morgan 1995; Nelson and Bridges 1999; and Petersen and Saporta 2004; this link represents a reduced form of arrow 2 of fig. 1, since these studies do not control for performance ratings). Discrimination seems to be pervasive in organizations, and many studies have documented different patterns and trends in discrimination across jobs and over time (for a review, see Petersen and Saporta [2004]). As mentioned above, Petersen and Saporta (2004) have proposed that gender disparities in wages and attainment caused by employer discrimination can come about through three different processes: allocative discrimination, within-job wage discrimination, and valuative discrimination. Empirical studies of these three processes have been undertaken in the gender discrimination and segregation literature. For example, the Petersen and Morgan (1995) study claims that within-job wage discrimination is currently unimportant. England (1992) and Nelson and Bridges (1999) show that valuative discrimination probably accounts for a substantial part of the gender wage This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1488 gap. Petersen and Saporta (2004) find that the largest gender differential exists in conditions at hire, with a 15% wage difference between men and women. These initial differences in job levels and salaries decrease to the point of disappearing over time, as employees remain in the organization and attain seniority. There is also a large lab- and field-based literature on employer evaluation bias (e.g., Mobley 1982; Tsui and Gutek 1984; Pulakos et al. 1989) and even biased self-assessments (Ridgeway 1997; Correll 2001).7 Individual-level accounts, common in early psychological and organizational behavior studies, argue that, for various reasons, the demographic characteristics of the individuals doing the ratings (raters) and the individuals being rated (ratees) matter (e.g., Hamner et al. 1974; Hall and Hall 1976; Lee and Alvares 1977; Schmitt and Lappin 1980; London and Stumpf 1983). Although relatively few field studies have assessed such effects, the question of how the rater’s and/or ratee’s demographics impact performance evaluations remains inconclusive (see, e.g., Tsui and Gutek 1984; Thompson and Thompson 1985; Yammarino and Dubinsky 1988; Griffeth and Bedeian 1989; Tsui and O’Reilly 1989). Beyond the effects of simple individual-level demographics, several studies of gender and racial bias in performance evaluations focus on the employee-supervisor dyad as well as examine the group, team, and even organization levels (e.g., Wagner, Pfeffer, and O’Reilly 1984; Williams and O’Reilly 1998; Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin 1999; Elvira and Town 2001).8 More recently, there has been a discussion in the literature about discretion in weighing evaluative criteria (e.g., Hodson, Dovidio, and Gaertner 2002; Norton, Vandello, and Darley 2004; Uhlmann and Cohen 2005). In sociology, theoretical approaches to gender and racial inequality have emphasized cognitive psychological processes such as stereotypes operating in the workplace (e.g., Reskin 1998, 2000; Valian 1998; Gorman 2005). Although past studies have addressed different parts of this puzzle, none of this prior research has examined whether there is any relationship between performance appraisal, wages, and wage growth. This potential link is especially important to study in organizations that adopt merit- 7 As noted above, recent reviews of this work can be found in Bartol (1999), Elvira and Town (2001), Roth et al. (2003), and McKay and McDaniel (2006). 8 For example, many studies have highlighted the importance of ratee-rater similarity in predicting employee performance ratings—what in sociology has been referred to as “homophily,” the tendency for employees to associate with and to “like” people similar to themselves (see McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001; see also, e.g., Tsui and O’Reilly 1989, Liden, Wayne, and Stilwell 1993). Some theories have also stressed that both actual and perceived similarity between rater and ratee perpetuate bias in evaluations (e.g., Turban and Jones 1988). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1489 based reward systems.9 Because of this gap in the literature, it is less understood at this point how gender, race, and performance—specifically, subjective performance evaluations aimed at measuring employee merit and contribution—influence employee career outcomes within organizations. In addition, little attention has been given to how performance programs may create the structural conditions for bias and discrimination to appear. Studying the processes underpinning the link between the evaluation of merit and reward allocation is therefore vital if we are to understand inequality in today’s organizations. The Performance-Reward Bias Process The most important challenge of meritocracy is measuring merit so that equal merit results in equal rewards. But once merit is measured for each employee, it is also crucial that there not be any differential rewards for the same merit scores. With this article, rather than looking into the specific motivations or determinants of discriminatory behaviors or whether the performance evaluations themselves are biased, I seek to explore how employee performance evaluations (used as a way of measuring employee merit and contribution) are associated with two important career-related outcomes, namely, salary increases and promotions, in one large service organization. More specifically, I examine the ways in which gender and race affect the performance-reward process and seek to empirically establish the existence of performance-reward bias. In empirical terms, evidence of either or both of the following scenarios supports the existence of performance-reward bias in organizations: (1) disparity in salary increases by race and gender net of performance ratings (i.e., the direct effects of gender and race on salary increases, controlling for performance, as illustrated by arrow 2 of fig. 1); and (2) disparity in the effect of performance ratings on salary increases by gender and race (i.e., the interaction effects between ratings and gender or race, or arrow 3 of fig. 1).10 9 On a related note, labor economists long accepted the assumption that observed higher relative earnings reflect higher relative productivity. Medoff and Abraham’s (1981) study was the first one to start providing evidence of whether experience-earnings differentials can be explained by experience-productivity differentials—in other words, whether those paid more are more productive. Interestingly enough, the study uses computerized personnel data only on white male managers and professionals at a major U.S. manufacturing corporation (so-called Company C). Also, this study assumes that the performance ratings that supervisors give to their white male managerial and professional subordinates adequately reflect the subordinates’ relative productivity in the year of assessment. 10 This is consistent with the proposed analyses for testing direct and indirect effects in Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1490 In order to study this performance-reward process in depth, I structure my analyses as follows. I start by testing whether the gender, race, or national origin of employees have any significant effects on salary growth and promotions over time, controlling for the performance ratings given to employees by supervisors. Formal merit-based practices linking performance evaluations to employee compensation and promotions are meritocratic when the following theoretical proposition is supported: Proposition 1.—After controlling for key human capital and job characteristics, equally performing employees are equally likely to obtain a performance-based reward, earn similar amounts in salary increases, and be promoted regardless of their non-performance-related demographic characteristics such as gender, race, or country of origin. By “equally performing employees,” I refer to employees who get the same performance ratings as the result of a performance evaluation process. If proposition 1 is true, in organizations where performance evaluations are used as the primary basis for employee rewards the inclusion of performance ratings in empirical models should explain away the effect of ascriptive characteristics on wage growth or promotion over time (i.e., there should be no such effect when employee performance is the only factor used to make compensation and promotion decisions; or, arrow 2 of fig. 1 should disappear).11 Second, in addition to any difference in the payoff to performance ratings by gender and race, there can be some significant interaction effects between ratings themselves and race or gender. In this article, I also test these interaction effects, with the purpose of investigating whether performance evaluations are less effective at generating rewards for women and minorities. If formal merit-based practices linking performance evaluations to employee compensation and promotions are meritocratic, then the following proposition should be supported: Proposition 2.—The effects of performance ratings on the likelihood of obtaining a performance-based reward, earning similar amounts in salary increases, and being promoted are the same for all employees regardless of their non-performance-related demographic characteristics such as gender, race, or country of origin. If proposition 2 is true, the interaction effects between performance ratings and race or gender in empirical models should not be significant 11 I emphasize here that this is the prediction when the design and implementation of this performance-based reward is meritocratic—i.e., when it ensures that performance (or the subjective evaluation of it) is the main predictor in the distribution of rewards. This can also be expected because of the benefits associated with salary increases and promotions in general; from an economics standpoint, such promotions and salary increases help to motivate and retain high-quality employees (for a review of some of these economic theories, see Lazear [1998]). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1491 (i.e., arrow 3 of fig. 1 should disappear). In the rest of this article, I test these two theoretical propositions, which isolate processes of performancereward bias. The central finding of this study is that gender, racial, and nationality differences in salary growth persist even after controlling for performance evaluations (i.e., proposition 1 is rejected).12 This study also supports the finding that performance ratings have a significantly lower effect on annual salary increases for African-American employees, ceteris paribus (i.e., proposition 2 is also rejected). RESEARCH SETTING The organization I study (henceforth referred to as ServiCo) is a large private employer with a total workforce of over 20,000 employees. ServiCo is primarily a service-sector organization, with several offices located in a competitive urban labor market in North America. This organization is particularly proud to offer a diverse work community. It is at the cutting edge in research and information technology. The organization offers health care and education benefits for employees and their families; it also offers professional development opportunities and flexible work options. Indeed, according to a new hire survey conducted by the company’s HR division in early 2000, 40% of all respondents chose to work for ServiCo for reasons related to “professional development.” About 11% of the respondents had “heard that ServiCo is a good place to work.” In an exit survey in 2002, 74% of all respondents reported that they “still recommend this organization as a good place to work.” ServiCo has employees in a variety of full-time, part-time, and temporary positions. This organization offers a number of practical advantages for the current analysis. The HR department keeps detailed databases on the education and demographics of their employees (and supervisors), including gender, race, and nationality (U.S.-born vs. not U.S.-born). In addition to these computer databases, the HR department keeps electronic and paper files on each employee’s performance evaluations and career outcomes such as salary increases, promotions, and terminations since 1996, including a standardized performance evaluation form on which the su- 12 The main goal of this study is not to test whether supervisors tend to give women and/or minorities lower ratings than white men (fig. 1, arrow 1). This is because this path in particular has already been well studied in the performance bias literature (as reviewed above). Instead, my purpose is to examine whether there is bias affecting the link between performance evaluations and salary increases over time, after controlling for supervisor and work unit differences in salary increases. In a preliminary analysis of the performance data, however, I found that in this organization the distribution of performance evaluations looks the same regardless of gender, race, or nationality. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1492 pervisor’s and employee’s names are clearly written. Employees at this company are evaluated at least once a year, which is typical in large organizations. From evaluation forms and other archival sources, I was able to construct a longitudinal database containing the job history and performance evaluations for all employees during the 1996–2003 period, a total of 8,898 employees. This database also includes the demographics, education, work history, and other human capital characteristics of those employees doing the evaluating, even when they were not included in the professional groups under analysis. Finally, wherever possible, I incorporate evidence gained through observations at a few work units in the organization and through reports, briefs, and other documents provided by the organization, as well as interviews with several individuals involved in different aspects of the performance-evaluation appraisal and salary decision making processes. The Employees The sample under study includes all of ServiCo’s support staff, a total of 8,898 exempt and nonexempt nonexecutive and nonmanagement employees, two groups for which there has been great concern about inequity (Valian 1998; Petersen and Saporta 2004). For full-time, permanent jobs, there are five broad occupational groups: service (12% of positions), secretarial and clerical (23%), professional (52%), technical and semiprofessional (10%), and skilled crafts (3%). The organization did not allow me to access performance compensation data for top and middle managers, executives, or top professionals/consultants (this group constituted 36% of the total number of employees in the organization) nor data on unionized staff covered by the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement (9% of all employees in the organization). Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for the main variables analyzed in this study. To simplify the table, I omit descriptive statistics for the different job titles and work units or centers (there are 312 different job titles and 272 different work units during the period of study). As the table shows, this company is diverse; this is not surprising, given that the organization is “committed to recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce,” as stated by one of the hiring managers. Among its employees, 67% are women, almost 19% are African-American, 9.5% are Asian American, 2.3% are Hispanic, and 5.5% are not U.S.-born. In 2003, the average annual salary was approximately $41,000 (SD p $28,000). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1493 TABLE 1 Basic Descriptive Statistics for Variables of Interest for All Employees, 2003 Variable Mean (SD) Percentage Main demographics: Age (in years) …………………….. 35.34 (10.21) Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.71 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.29 African-American …………………. 18.78 Asian ……………………………… 9.54 Caucasian ………………………… 69.10 Hispanic ………………………….. 2.30 Other race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Single …………………………….. 50.84 Married …………………………… 45.80 Divorced ………………………….. 2.94 Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 Not U.S.-born …………………….. 5.51 U.S.-born …………………………. 94.49 Highest level of education achieved: Doctorate …………………………. 9.51 Master’s degree …………………… 12.34 Bachelor’s degree …………………. 28.64 Some college ……………………… 8.26 Associate’s degree ………………… 4.60 Trade certificate …………………… 1.75 High school diploma ……………… 8.40 No education credentials ………….. 26.51 Salary and tenure: Tenure (in years) ………………….. 2.65 (2.03) Salary (in dollars) …………………. 41,388.41 (28,243.10) Major occupational groups: Professional ……………………….. 51.90 Secretarial and clerical ……………. 23.10 Service ……………………………. 11.80 Skilled crafts ……………………… 3.04 Technical and paraprofessional …… 10.16 Note.— in the year 2003. N p 5,998 The Importance of Performance Evaluations At ServiCo, the importance of performance evaluations is expressed through the company’s Web site and other communication tools such as e-mail, memos, and pamphlets. According to the HR policy manual, performance is the “primary basis for all employee salary increases.” Consequently, a performance appraisal must be completed for any employee obtaining a merit increase in order to validate the award. The overall performance appraisal return rate is on the order of 92% and continues This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1494 to improve over time.13 ServiCo started its “performance program” in the early 1990s in response to a report from a prominent consulting firm, which indicated that “most employees were reporting negative experiences, citing ‘poor management by supervisor’ and ‘lack of feedback from supervisor.’” Also, a small-scale survey of employees in 1993 suggested that 51% of respondents “did not feel that they were adequately recognized for their contributions.” One employee wrote in her survey response, “Although the quality of my work was consistently outstanding, my supervisor declared it to be of no value.” Another employee stated that, at that time (before the new performance program was implemented), “it does not matter how well I do; I feel we all get the same salary increase every year!” According to the director of HR, such responses highlighted the “need for ongoing supervisory training and the implementation of a new performance evaluation system.” The new appraisal process was introduced in 1994. Its main purpose was (and remains) clear: to “facilitate constructive dialogue between employees and supervisors, to encourage the employee’s professional development, to clarify job duties and performance objectives, . . . and to make compensation decisions.” In pursuit of these goals, ServiCo has made efforts to separate the process of performance evaluation (the developmental use of appraisals) from the process of reward allocations (the administrative use). “The idea was to correct some of the problems the old performance evaluation system had, such as lack of feedback from supervisors,” according to the vice president of HR. Figure 2 illustrates the performance appraisal process at ServiCo. All performance evaluations of staff members are dyadic: a supervisor (or a manager one level higher) evaluates a set of employees individually. The performance evaluation process is set up so that the supervisor meets with each employee annually to discuss and help the employee develop and improve his or her performance (fig. 2, step 1). On the basis of this evaluation, the employee might be recommended for a salary increase or bonus; typically, this recommendation comes from someone superior to the rater (step 2). According to the director of HR, the main purpose of implementing performance appraisals in this way is “to separate the pay decisions from the developmental use of the performance evaluation.” In the majority of cases, the head of supervisors (in large units) or the head of the unit (in smaller ones) recommends, on the basis of these performance evaluations, who will get a salary increase as well as the form and amount 13 The performance appraisal return rate is the percentage of employees whose performance evaluations are submitted to HR in a given year. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Fig. 2. —The performance management system at work at the organization under study This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1496 of each increase.14 There are two main ways of incrementing a worker’s salary over time in this setting: (1) salary increases or adjustments as a percentage of the base salary or (2) bonuses as lump sums (these are small amounts of money assigned per unit or center—up to $500, depending on the unit and year under study).15 All salary increases ultimately have to be approved by a member of the HR division (fig. 2, step 3). As one of the HR managers put it, “This way we can guarantee that supervisors work to enhance their employees’ performance and development.” Compensation and Rewards According to the HR policy manual, available online to all employees in the organization, the purpose of ServiCo’s compensation system is to achieve the following three major goals: (1) to evaluate jobs consistently and fairly, (2) to pay competitive salaries, and (3) to regularly adjust the pay structures after considering the external market value for comparable jobs. As one of the HR staff members put it, “We want to support a system which provides flexibility in pay administration and career development.” The salary range is posted online so that it is possible for employees to see where in the range their salaries fall. The position of the company is firm with regard to setting salaries: “The base salary for a new hire is set using factors that relate both to the individual’s qualifications (education, experience and overall competence) as well as to ServiCo’s current organizational and job needs” (quoted from the HR policy manual). In addition to the base salary, ServiCo has extra compensation resources, including bonuses and salary increases. As the policy manual explicitly indicates, “Each work unit may choose among the many extra compensation programs available at ServiCo, [in order] to reward employees fairly and equitably and to recognize productive behaviors and attitudes.” Certain extra compensation arrangements, as defined in the HR policy manual, require consultation with the HR division. Throughout the manual and other company documents, it is clearly stated that any 14 The allocation of the salary increase budget across work units is decided each year by several budget subcommittees, and the heads of the units and of supervisors are typically the ones who recommend who receives salary increases as well as the amount of those increases. 15 I am not capable of empirically distinguishing between these two different methods of incrementing a worker’s salary over time. Unfortunately, I did not have additional information about the superior making each salary increase recommendation, nor about the person in HR making the final decision on whether to grant the salary increase or bonus. Such information is not kept in electronic format; the files containing this information are kept in file cabinets and are only accessed (if at all) at the time of the salary decision, as explained to me by one HR staff member. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1497 extra compensation payment for an employee requires signed approval by a member of HR. Employees are recommended for a salary increase or bonus by someone superior to their evaluating supervisors. The instructions in the performance evaluation form state that “performance is the primary basis for all salary increases.” Other company documents contain similar statements; this organization is clearly concerned with ensuring a meritocratic link between good performance and rewards: “[Especially in years with budget constraints,] increases must be reserved for the most productive employees.” There are also explicit statements about when not to award salary increases: “No salary increase will be awarded to employees exhibiting unacceptable levels of performance,” according to the HR policy manual. Measuring Employee Performance During the period of analysis, from 1996 to 2003, 38,832 performance evaluations of 8,818 different employees were submitted to the HR division. The scores were recorded in electronic format and the evaluation forms were stored in secured file cabinets. Generally, supervisors prefer to fill out a one-page evaluation form (the “short form”) as opposed to a longer version in which more detail may be provided about the employee’s performance and developmental needs. The second section of the short form asks the supervisor to summarize the employee’s performance by selecting one of five scoring categories. The supervisor is instructed to choose the category that “best describes the employee’s overall performance.” Performance ratings range from 1 to 5, with the following qualitative statements assigned to each score: (1) “performance is unacceptable for the job and important improvement is required”; (2) “performance does not consistently meet all established expectations for the job and requires improvement”; (3) “performance consistently meets established expectations for the job”; (4) “performance is reliable and consistently meets and at times exceeds all established expectations for the job”; and (5) “performance is clearly and consistently outstanding in most aspects of current job responsibilities.” In 2001, the average employee performance rating was approximately 4 (SD p 1.15). In 2003, the average rating was slightly lower (3.96) with a higher standard deviation (1.37). Figure 3 shows the frequency of all possible evaluation outcomes for the 5,904 employees evaluated in the sample under study in 2003: about 72% of the evaluations fall into the two top performance categories. The distribution does not change shape This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1498 Fig. 3.—Performance histogram for all employees in 2003 (Np5,904) when it is examined by employee gender, race, or nationality (these analyses are available upon request).16 Below the performance summary, the supervisor can also write additional comments and recommend follow-up actions. At the very end, the form has space for the signatures of the staff member being evaluated, the supervisor, and the administrative representative in the work unit overseeing the performance evaluation process. The document is then forwarded to the HR division to become part of the staff member’s official personnel file. Of all the employees who received performance evaluations, about 9,191 (23.7%) were recommended for and subsequently granted a salary increase by someone superior to the supervisor evaluating the employee. “Outstanding” evaluations represented 4.5% of the total. All requests for a salary review must be submitted to the HR compensation office with a letter of request from the “appropriate administrative unit head.” One of the HR managers in the compensation office noted that “this is typically done by the head of the supervisors, in the case of large centers, or by the head of the unit, in the case of smaller ones.” As a final check, all salary raises or bonuses require a final sign-off by a member 16 Again, I emphasize that the main goal of this article is not to test whether supervisors tend to give women and/or minorities lower ratings in comparison to white men in the performance evaluation stage. Instead, my intent is to focus on whether there is bias affecting the link between performance evaluations and salary increases over time—even when there may be no bias in the first stage. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1499 of the HR division, which is independent of any other divisions: “We are basically avoiding any allocation of these bonuses to be unjustified,” according to the manager of one of the units at ServiCo. The increases are then effective in the first pay period of the new fiscal year, regardless of when the performance evaluation is submitted (which is almost always at the end of the fiscal year). RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Using personnel data on performance and compensation from this one organizational setting, I start by testing whether ascriptive characteristics such as gender, race, or national origin influence salary growth and promotions over the tenure of an employee after I control for the level of employee performance (proposition 1). All of these models are estimated with additional controls for tenure in the job, part-time status, and level of education as well as job title, unit/center, and supervisor fixed effects. These control variables allow me to test whether observationally equivalent employees with different demographic characteristics get different salary increases over time, even after they receive the same performance evaluation scores. I also test interaction effects between performance evaluations and employees’ ascriptive characteristics (proposition 2). In the next two subsections, I explain the regression equations estimated in this study. Salary Growth In order to test whether ascriptive characteristics such as gender and race have an effect on salary growth, I specify and estimate the regression equation displayed below. The performance–salary growth data structure is a pooled cross-sectional time series (yearly). The data are unbalanced, and consequently, the number of observations varies among employees because some individuals leave the organization earlier than others (while many workers stay). Research studies typically model such data with fixed-effects estimators, which analyze only the within-individual, overtime variation. This choice is unappealing in this context, because the majority of the independent variables (i.e., ascriptive characteristics) do not vary over time. I estimate various cross-sectional time-series linear models using the method of generalized estimating equations (GEE).17 I 17 The method of GEE deals with the correlation of the errors directly by specifying and estimating the variance-covariance error matrix. The results do not change when estimating models imposing less structure on the variance-covariance error matrix (e.g., the traditional OLS model, or other regression models clustering around employees). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1500 report the robust estimators that analyze both between-individual and within-individual variation. Specifically, I use the method of GEE developed by Liang and Zeger (1986). This method also requires specifying and estimating a correlation structure when estimating these models: ln (w ) p a b ln (w ) b P b X b D , (1) i,t 0 i,t1 1 i,t1 2 i,t1 3 i,t1 i,t where the dependent variable is the natural logarithm of annual salary at time t (and salary at time is one of the main independent variables t 1 in the model).18 I include three different vectors of independent variables. The first one (Pi,t) includes a set of dummy variables for four of the five possible employee performance ratings in a given year—the omitted category is 3, “performance consistently meets established expectations for the job.”19 The second vector of demographic variables (Xi,t) includes dummy variables for female, African-American, Asian American, Hispanic, and non-U.S.-born employees (the omitted category is U.S.-born white male) and dummy variables for marital status (married, divorced, and widowed; single is the omitted category).20 The vector also includes a set of dummy variables controlling for the highest level of education achieved (where the omitted category is college degree), age, and parttime status. The third vector (Di,t) includes dummy variables for job title, unit, and supervisor.21 Adding this vector of variables to the equation allows me to examine the impact of performance evaluations on salary Under mild regularity conditions, GEE estimators are consistent and asymptotically normal, and they are therefore more appropriate for cross-sectional time-series data structures. 18 In preliminary analyses, I estimated a set of growth models where the dependent variable was the natural logarithm of annual salary growth; i.e., . I also ln (w w ) i,t i,t1 estimated several autoregressive models to account for the potential heteroscedastic autocorrelated behavior of the error terms (using the xtgls command in Stata, as I have previously described in detail [Castilla 2007]). I always found results very consistent with the ones I report in this article. These models, not shown here, are available upon request. 19 Results do not change substantially if performance is included as a continuous variable ranging from 1 to 5. Given that performance evaluations are not normally distributed (as shown above in fig. 3), including a set of dummy variables in the model is the appropriate choice in this case. 20 In earlier regression analyses, I also included two dummy variables to account for Native American and Pacific Islander employees, who represent less than 0.28% of all staff employees in any given year during the period under study. None of the substantive results changed when I included those two variables in all the models estimated in this article. The estimated coefficients for these two dummy variables were always close to zero and insignificant. 21 In the case of small work units (those in which there is only one supervisor), the work unit and supervisor fixed effects are obviously redundant. In such cases only one control was introduced. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1501 increases, controlling for important work-level variables.22 The model is estimated for all workers in the population under study during the 1996– 2003 period. As a robustness check, because gender and racial differences in salary growth may also reflect gender and racial differences in turnover rates, the above estimated salary growth models are also estimated correcting for employee turnover. Since turnover may change the gender and racial composition of the workplace, the observed disparities in salary growth when measured across a cohort of workers (not for any particular individual) could be entirely due to population heterogeneity (Tuma 1976; Price 1977; Jovanovic 1979). Any attempt to assess the relationship between demographic characteristics and salary increases requires separating these two processes and taking into account the risk of employee turnover. Following Lee (1979, 1983), Lee, Maddala, and Trost (1980), and Lee and Maddala (1985), I control for the retention of employees over time by including the previously estimated turnover hazard when I estimate such longitudinal models. This results in a two-stage estimation procedure as follows: ln (wi,t) p a b0 ln (wi,t1 1 ) b Pi,t1 2 b Xi,t1 3 b Di,t1 dp(t 1, Z ) , (2) i,t1 i,t where the dependent variable is still the natural logarithm of annual salary at time t (as in model [1]); however, now the model includes , which is p the estimated turnover hazard rate (using event history analysis): p(t, Z ) p exp [GZ ] q t( ), (3) i,t i,t where p is the instantaneous turnover rate. This rate is commonly specified as an exponential function of covariates multiplied by some function of time, q(t). Z is a vector of covariates that affect the hazard rate of turnover for any given hire. Z is indexed by i to indicate heterogeneity by individual case and by t to make clear that the values of explanatory variables may change over time. I estimate the effect of the variables in model (3) using the Cox model, which does not require any particular assumption about the functional form of q(t) (Cox 1972, 1975). Because of potential issues 22 Because this organization has a detailed job classification system, I am able to control for the native job title, a six-digit code indicating job classification. Examples of job titles include specific job positions, ranging from non-IT jobs such as regular clerks, sales clerks, administrative coordinators, and assistants, to IT jobs such as computer technicians and support specialists (there are 312 different job titles in the employee population under study). This is an improvement over past studies, in which the analysis is at the job-grade level. With this methodology, I am therefore examining both job titles and the level at which the employee is performing his or her job duties in a given job, in a given work unit, under the supervision of a given superior. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1502 relating to the inclusion of the predicted value from a nonlinear model into any model (see Hausman 2001), I also tested for the effect of turnover across other different specifications, functional forms, and measures of turnover; I always found similar results. Salary Increase Decisions and Promotions In addition to the models estimating salary increases over time, I estimate various event history models that explore the impact of performance evaluations on both salary increases and promotion decisions. Thus, I estimate two sets of Cox regression models as specified in the following equation: p(t) p a b ln (w ) b P b X b D . (4) 0 i,t1 1 i,t1 2 i,t1 3 i,t1 i,t In the first set of models, the dependent variable is the instantaneous hazard rate of a salary increase decision. This variable takes the value of 1 if the employee is awarded a bonus or a salary increase and is 0 otherwise. In the second set, the dependent variable measures whether the employee is promoted (the value is 1 if the employee is promoted, 0 otherwise).23 Given that an employee can be promoted and/or his or her salary can be increased several times during his or her tenure in the organization, these two processes are modeled as a series of repeatable events. The main purpose of these analyses is to test whether bias occurs in the link between performance evaluations and more visible career outcomes such as salary increases (regardless of quantity) and promotions. I argue that both salary increase decisions and promotions are visible organizational processes at work; employees may notice who gets promoted and who gets salary increases over time. This is in contrast to the amount by which an employee’s salary might be increased every year (modeled in the previous subsection), which is typically unobservable or unknown information to the rest of employees in the organization, so that any concrete salary comparisons among employees are eliminated.24 23 These models were also estimated controlling for turnover, as explained in detail above. Similar results were found. 24 Closely related to this, some empirical and theoretical work in organizational behavior has explored the role of information processing in perceptions of discrimination (Crosby 1982, 1984; for a review, see Major et al. [2002]). I come back to this work in the discussion section below. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1503 RESULTS Starting Salary and Salary Growth I begin by testing whether ascriptive characteristics influence the process of allocating starting salaries to new employees. In order to avoid any salary decisions affecting exclusively internal employees, I only analyze those individuals hired from outside the company from 1996 to 2003— 8,298 employee hires. The first column of table 2 presents the coefficients of the starting salary model controlling for year of hire, job title, and hiring unit fixed effects (these coefficients are omitted to facilitate the reading of the table).25 The dependent variable is the natural logarithm of annual salary in the year of hire. I find no evidence in this organization of significant differences in appointment salary by gender or race after controlling for year of hire, job title, and work unit, and other important human capital characteristics such as the highest education level attained. Asian Americans, however, seem to earn a starting annual salary 1.5% lower than whites (the coefficient is barely significant at the .10 level). Non-U.S.-born employees, however, make 4.5% less money than U.S.- born employees ( ).26 P ! .001 I next test whether ascriptive characteristics influence salary growth over the tenure of an employee after I control for the level of employee performance evaluation (proposition 1). The rest of the columns in table 2 report the results of several salary growth models; all models control for job title, unit, and supervisor fixed effects.27 By comparing the coef- ficients of models 1 and 2, I find that the effects of demographic characteristics such as gender and race do not change much (either in magnitude or significance) when the four performance rating dummy variables are introduced in the analyses. Similar results are found in models 3 and 25 There are 312 different job titles within the study sample. ServiCo has 12 divisions, each of which comprises different units. Each work unit/center typically has a head of unit, a few staff supervisors, and sometimes some supervisor assistants. Several staff members per supervisor (or supervisor assistants) support a group of top professionals, consultants, and researchers. There are 272 different units during the period of study. The HR division is independent from the rest of the divisions, and has the typical offices or units—namely, compensation and benefits, training and development, information systems, and payroll. To simplify the table, I omit the different fixed-effects coefficients included in the estimation of the models. 26 The main demographic coefficients did not change substantively when I introduced interaction terms among gender, race, nationality, and marital status. In these interaction effect models, one important finding is worth describing: non-U.S.-born males earn 11% less than U.S.-born males; the difference in starting earnings between U.S.- born and non-U.S.-born females is 2.7%. 27 The coefficient estimates reported in table 2 do not change much whether the models include or exclude the job title, unit or center, and supervisor fixed effects in the models. I chose not to report the models without fixed effects for simplification purposes. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 1504 TABLE 2 Regression Models Predicting Annual Starting Salary and Salary Growth Independent Variable Starting Salary (ln)a Salary at Time t (ln)b Salary at Time t (ln) Correcting for Turnoverb Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Turnover Rate Model (Cox Regression) Constant ……………………….. 11.006*** 2.357*** 2.284*** .255*** .254*** (.2095) (.3746) (.3641) (.0609) (.0572) ln annual salary (t1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .785*** .791*** .980*** .979*** .185*** (.0337) (.0327) (.0059) (.0056) (.0135) Tenure …………………………. .002*** .002*** .002** .002** 9.482*** .0005 (.0002) (.0006) (.0006) (.2938) Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .004*** .001*** .001*** .000 .000 .031 (.0003) (.0002) (.0002) (.0001) (.0001) (.0103) Part-time ………………………. .011* .005** .003** .001 .003 5.526 (.0055) (.0020) (.0019) (.0018) (.0019) (10.2546) Performance rating: Unacceptable (1) …………….. .027 .036† 2.613*** (.0547) (.0204) (.3907) Requires improvement (2) …… .017* .013* 1.176*** (.0085) (.0059) (.1757) Good and reliable (4) ………… .014*** .010*** .134 (.0022) (.0029) (.1555) Outstanding (5) ……………… .024*** .018*** .045 (.0022) (.0027) (.1589) Demographics: Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .006 .004*** .004** .004** .004** .072 (.0052) (.0013) (.0014) (.0012) (.0012) (.1217) This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 1505 African-American ……………. .007 .006*** .004*** .005*** .005*** .083 (.0067) (.0012) (.0013) (.0013) (.0015) (.1516) Asian American ……………… .015† .001 .001 .001 .001 .525* (.0080) (.0025) (.0026) (.0036) (.0037) (.1759) Hispanic …………………….. .015 .006*** .006*** .005*** .005*** .664† (.0141) (.0015) (.0016) (.0015) (.0016) (.2820) Not U.S.-born ……………….. .045*** .005*** .004*** .006*** .006*** .211 (.0099) (.0013) (.0013) (.0015) (.0015) (.2664) Marital status: Married ……………………… .022*** .001 .000 .001 .002 .783*** (.0052) (.0018) (.0018) (.0018) (.0018) (.1330) Divorced …………………….. .010 .010* .004 .002 .003 .241 (.0151) (.0041) (.0034) (.0037) (.0035) (.3852) Widowed ……………………. .028 .019 .016 .011* .009† 5.462 (.0537) (.0125) (.0112) (.0053) (.0054) (22.2098) Turnover hazard rate (t1)c ……. .088† .086† (.0486) (.0489) x2 statistic ……………………… 666,281*** 798,202*** 140,695*** 167,422*** 2,104*** Notes.—Numbers in parentheses are SDs. All models include dummy variables for highest education level achieved. The omitted category for highest education level achieved is “college”; for performance rating, “(3) performance consistently meets established expectations for the job”; for demographics, “U.S.-born white male”; and for marital status, “single.” All salary growth models control for job title, unit/center, and supervisor fixed effects. a N of external hires p 8,298. Model controls for year of hire, job class, and unit/center (but does not control for supervisor fixed effects, because initial salaries are determined prehire). F-test p 57.57 ( ); . 2 P ! .001 R p 0.82 b N of employees p 5,104. c The turnover hazard rate is estimated from the Cox regression model reported in the last column of the table. † (all two-sided t-tests). P ! .10 * . P ! .05 ** . P ! .01 *** . P ! .001 This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1506 4 when the salary growth models correct for employee turnover—specifically, the fact that females and minority employees might have different propensities to turn over.28 Because gender and racial differences in salary growth can also reflect (among other things) gender and racial differences in promotion rates, I also estimated the salary growth models correcting for employee promotion and found similar results.29 Tenure has the expected positive sign ( ).30 P ! .001 Age and part-time status are only significant variables when not controlling for turnover: older employees obtain higher salary increases ( ) and part-time P ! .001 employees get lower increases than full-time employees (the coefficient is significant at the .01 level in models 1 and 2).31 Most importantly, the performance rating dummy variables in models 2 and 4 also have the expected signs when organizational practices are in place to reward performance. Thus, according to model 2, those employees whose performance was judged as requiring improvement received a salary increase 1.7% lower than employees whose performance was average ( ). P ! .05 Employees whose performance was good and reliable received an increase 1.4% higher than employees with average performance ( ); finally, P ! .001 employees whose performance was outstanding received an increase 2.4% higher than those with average performance ( ). P ! .001 The key finding in this study is reported in models 2 and 4 of table 2, where I present the effects of demographic characteristics on salary growth after the employee level of performance is introduced in the regression equations. These models do not support proposition 1: I find significant effects for certain individual characteristics on salary growth after controlling for employee performance levels. More specifically, from model 4 I find that, ceteris paribus, the salary growth is 0.4% lower for women than for men, even after performance evaluations are introduced into the model ( ). African-American employees get a salary increase 0.5% P ! .01 28 I tested for the effect of turnover across different specifications, functional forms, and measures of turnover and always found comparable results. Similarly, results do not change across a variety of parametric transition rate models (i.e., the Cox model presented in the table, the proportional exponential model, or the proportional Weibull model). 29 Results were similar to those reported in models 3 and 4. The promotion dummy variable included in the model (with a value of 1 if the employee was promoted, 0 otherwise) was positive but insignificant in all models. 30 Work in the human capital tradition argues that work experience declines over time. In preliminary analyses, I captured this effect by entering a squared term for tenure. I found no evidence of diminishing returns to tenure (the t-value of the squared term for tenure was always less than 1). I therefore present the model with the simple linear effect of tenure because it is the best-fitting specification. 31 As with the tenure effect, I experimented with various nonlinear specifications and found that the simple linear effect of age has the best fit. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1507 lower than equally performing white employees. In addition, Hispanic Americans get a salary increase 0.5% lower than whites ( for both P ! .001 coefficients). A significant salary increase discrepancy is also found for non-U.S.-born employees, who get a salary increase 0.6% lower than native employees, other things being equal ( ). I thus demonstrate P ! .001 that observationally equivalent employees with different demographic characteristics get different salary increases even after they receive the same performance evaluation scores.32 Model 4 presents the results of the salary growth regression model, correcting for the turnover rate.33 Looking at the coefficient for the estimated hazard rate in the salary growth model, I find that the likelihood of turnover is associated with lower salary growth over time. In other words, the more likely an employee is to leave the organization, the lower his or her salary increase is (the coefficient is negative and barely significant at the .10 level). In looking at the results of the turnover hazard rate analysis in models 3 and 4 (reported in the last column of table 2), I do not find statistically reliable evidence that high performers are more likely to leave this organization. Instead, I find that “unacceptably performing” workers and employees whose “performance requires improvement” are, respectively, 13 and 3 times more likely to leave than employees whose performance “meets established expectations for the position” ( for both coefficients).34 P ! .001 As in the salary growth models, tenure and annual salary in the previous year have significant effects on turnover ( for both coefficients). The longer the tenure of the employee, P ! .001 the less likely he or she is to leave the organization. Higher-paid employees are also less likely to turn over. The model reports that Asian American and Hispanic employees are more likely to turn over in the organization ( and , respectively).35 P ! .05 P ! .10 32 These results do not change much after controlling for employees’ earlier promotions, bonuses, and even past performance evaluations. In some additional models, I also controlled for past salary increases and found that salary increase decisions in the current year are unrelated to the previous year’s salary increase recommendations. In other words, the coefficient for last year’s decision to increase salary, as well as the amount of the raise, is unrelated to the current year’s decisions. This empirical finding is consistent with the company’s HR policy manual and culture, which encourage using current performance ratings as the primary determinants of bonus and raise decisions each year. To avoid too much detail about different salary growth model specifications, these additional regression analyses are not shown here. 33 Similar results were found when controlling for employee promotions. 34 13 p exp (2.6) 3.24 ; . p exp (1.17) 35 I also estimated a set of models including different interaction terms, not shown here. In general, including two-way and three-way interactions among demographic variables did not improve the fit of the model (all probabilities of the incremental x2 statistics are insignificant at the .01 level). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1508 In order to test proposition 2, in table 3 I reestimate model 4 of table 2 including different sets of interaction terms. For presentation purposes, table 3 only reports the main interactions between demographic variables and performance ratings. The purpose of these interaction effects models is to test whether performance evaluations themselves are less effective at generating rewards for women and minorities (proposition 2). The different models in this table show that most of these interactions are insignificant and that, overall, the fit of the model does not seem to improve much when these interaction terms are included.36 Gender does not seem to significantly change the impact of performance ratings on salary growth. However, when it comes to race, the interactions for AfricanAmerican employees are found to be significant: the positive effect of ratings on annual salary increases is lower for African-Americans (coef- ficients are significant at least at the .05 level). I therefore reject proposition 2; this organization rewards the same performance score differently for certain demographic groups (in this case, less generously for AfricanAmerican employees). The main effects do not change much when these demographic-performance interactions are added to the model.37 Finally, in order to evaluate the magnitude of these salary increase differences, I calculated the lifetime cumulative effects of this performance-reward bias over a 10-year period for several employees in this organization, using the coefficients of model 4 in table 2. For example, if equally performing white men get a 10% salary increase each year, white women are predicted to get a 9.96% increase—less, but not substantially so. Thus, if men and women both start at $10 per hour (or $20,000 a year, assuming that full-time employees work 50 weeks a year, 40 hours a week), men get a 10% increase per year (resulting in an annual salary of $22,000 after one year), and women get a 9.96% increase (to $21,992 after one year), then after 10 years men will make $25.94 per hour (almost $51,900 a year), while women will make $25.84 per hour (approximately $51,700 a year).38 So from an initial parity in wages—a wage gap of 1 (10/10)— 36 These results are not surprising, given my analyses of employee performance evaluations (discussed above): I found that the distribution of ratings does not change shape when examined by gender, race, or nationality. 37 To simplify the presentation of these models, I do not report constant terms and the main effects of variables included in model 4, table 2. These omitted coefficients do not differ appreciably from the values reported for that model. 38 To compute these numbers, I used the following compound interest (future value) formula: , where WT is the hourly wage at time t, W0 is the starting W p W T (1 r) T 0 hourly wage, T is the unit of time, and r is the rate of wage increase. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TABLE 3 Regression Models Predicting Annual Salary Growth: Performance and Demographic Interaction Effects Main Interaction Models Performance Rating Model x2 Test (df ) Incremental x2 Test (df ) Prob 1 x2 Unacceptable (1) Improvement (2) Good (4) Outstanding (5) Gender # performance: Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .038 .013 .006 .007 8,413,169*** 6.82 .146 (.0486) (.0095) (.0043) (.0047) (616) (4) Race # performance: African-American ……………. .017 .031** .013* .020** (.0321) (.0111) (.0057) (.0073) Asian American ……………… dropped .003 .011 .011 (.0136) (.0007) (.0079) Hispanic ……………………… dropped .083 .005 .001 26,400,000*** 16.83 .078 (.0607) (.0137) (.0115) (622) (10) Nationality # performance: Not U.S.-born ……………….. dropped .015 .003 .006 8,802,348*** .90 .826 (.0210) (.0099) (.0075) (615) (3) Gender # race # performance . . . 5,194,613*** 25.60* .029 (626) (14) Gender # race # nationality # performance …………………. 1,287,463*** 26.60* .064 (629) (17) Notes.— . Only interaction terms are reported in this table. All models include all main effects and independent variables as in model 4 in table 2. N p 5,104 Numbers in parentheses in the performance rating models are SDs. The omitted category for performance rating is “(3) performance consistently meets established expectations for the job.” * (all two-sided t-tests). P ! .05 ** . P ! .01 *** . P ! .001 This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1510 there will be a wage gap of 0.996 a decade later.39 After 10 years in the company, the largest wage gaps are found for African-American and Hispanic women (0.992) and for non-U.S.-born women (0.991). Salary Increase Decisions and Promotions In the previous section, I examined the amount of salary increases for employees by gender, race, and nationality. In this section, I present the models testing whether demographic characteristics influence decisions to increase salary regardless of the magnitude (examining a total of 9,191 salary decisions) and to award promotions (examining a total of 262 promotion decisions) over the tenure of an employee, after controlling for the level of employee performance. Table 4 reports the results of several Cox regression models. Regarding annual salary increase or bonus decisions (1 if the employee gets a bonus or salary increase, 0 otherwise), I find that performance evaluation ratings are the most significant predictors at ServiCo—coefficients are reported in the first two columns of table 4. Employees whose performance is “unacceptable” or “requires improvement” are, respectively, approximately 71% and 12% less likely to get a salary increase than employees whose performance “consistently meets established expectations for the position” ( ).40 P ! .05 Employees with “good and reliable” and “outstanding performance” evaluations are more likely to get a salary increase over time—5% more likely if performance is good and reliable ( ) and 23% more likely if it is outstanding P ! .05 ( ). Clearly, when it comes to the decision to increase salary or to P ! .001 award a bonus (regardless of the amount), ascriptive characteristics do not seem to matter much—with the exception of non-U.S.-born employees, who are 14.5% less likely to get a salary increase ( ). P ! .01 The last two columns of table 4 present the coefficients for employee promotion (1 if the employee is promoted, 0 otherwise). In this case, performance is not as significant in predicting promotions as it was in predicting salary increases. This is consistent with what I learned from my interviews with a few supervisors, who indicated that these annual 39 I performed several supplementary analyses to ensure that the results presented in this article are robust. I estimated the models presented in tables 2 and 3 separately by divisions (12 in total), by the five broad occupational groups as well as by the exempt and nonexempt worker categories, and found substantially similar results. Additionally, I analyzed the data separately by gender, race, and nationality. The results of all these additional analyses still demonstrated that after controlling for key job and human capital characteristics, both performance evaluations and non-performance-related ascriptive characteristics do explain variation in annual salary increases in this research site. Results are available upon request. 40 70.5% p 100% # [exp (1.22) 1]; 11.7% p 100% # [exp (.124) 1] . This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms TABLE 4 Cox Regression Models Predicting Salary Increase Decisions and Promotions Independent Variable Salary Increase Decision Promotion Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 ln annual salary (t1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.294*** 2.332*** 1.170*** 1.263*** (.0823) (.0827) (.2534) (.2569) Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .011 .015* .080† .096* (.0078) (.0078) (.0454) (.0461) Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .009*** .010*** .011 .010 (.0016) (.0016) (.0089) (.0089) Part-time ……………………….. .151*** .153*** .113 .092 (.0369) (.0370) (.1848) (.1872) Performance rating: Unacceptable (1) ……………… 1.222* 5.756 (.5977) (33.6376) Requires improvement (2) ……… .124* .497† (.0604) (.2788) Good and reliable (4) ………….. .051* .153 (.0251) (.1881) Outstanding (5) ……………….. .210*** .477* (.0370) (.2022) Demographics: Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .037 .029 .189 .222 (.0293) (.0294) (.1480) (.1486) African-American …………….. .010 .014 .059 .034 (.0364) (.0367) (.1879) (.1898) Asian American ………………. .029 .016 .313 .332 (.0488) (.0490) (.3083) (.3106) Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .117 .119 .193 .231 (.0806) (.0808) (.4660) (.4657) Not U.S.-born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .150* .157** .708 .734 (.0601) (.0602) (.4657) (.4708) Marital status: Married ………………………. .035 .029 .212 .221 (.0279) (.0280) (.1533) (.1537) Divorced …………………….. .170* .167* .405 .377 (.0759) (.0762) (.3697) (.3713) Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 .106 2.555 5.089 (.2846) (.2845) (10.1264) (23.0167) x2 statistic ………………………. 3,074*** 3,120*** 709*** 715*** Log likelihood ………………….. 70,173 70,038 1,743 1,738 Number of events ………………. 9,191 9,191 262 262 Notes.—N of employees p 8,898. Numbers in parentheses are SDs. All models include dummy variables for highest education level achieved. The omitted category for highest education level achieved is “college”; for performance rating, “(3) Performance consistently meets established expectations for the job”; for demographics, “U.S.-born white male”; and for marital status, “single”. All models control for job title, unit/center, and supervisor fixed effects. † P ! .10 (all two-sided t-tests). * . P ! .05 ** . P ! .01 *** . P ! .001 This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1512 performance evaluations are not enough to justify promotion decisions at ServiCo. The “outstanding performance” rating is positive and significant ( ). In addition, demographic characteristics do not seem to be sig- P ! .05 nificant in explaining variation of promotion rates.41 DISCUSSION This article empirically examines the relationship between performance evaluations and two key employee outcomes—salary increase decisions and promotions—in one large service organization in the United States, which introduced a formal performance evaluation program to try to encourage “constructive dialogue between employees and supervisors” and to “make compensation decisions.” Theoretically, I claim that the use of merit-based reward systems such as this one can result in organizations introducing bias at two different stages (as summarized in fig. 1). The first stage is the performance evaluation stage, where performance evaluation bias can occur; this implies that the performance rating process is affected by gender, race, or nationality bias.42 Even if one assumes that there is no bias in this first stage, bias can be introduced in the second stage, the link between performance evaluations and employee outcomes. This is what I have termed performance-reward bias. In this article, I have tested the two scenarios in which such bias can be detected. The first is when there is disparity in salary increases by race and gender net of performance ratings (proposition 1). The second is when there is disparity in the effect of ratings on salary increases by gender and race (proposition 2). In my analyses, I find empirical evidence that both of these scenarios exist at the organization under study, leading me to reject the meritocratic claims for this performance-reward system. Figure 4 summarizes what transpires in this organization. Even in a work organization that institutionally values and supports the allocation of compensation on the basis of merit, I show bias in the translation of performance evaluation scores into amounts of salary increases over time: different salary increases are granted for observationally equivalent employees (i.e., those in the same job and work unit, with the same supervisor 41 With only 262 promotion events in the sample and the numerous fixed effects included in the equation, the promotion model lacks statistical power. So it can be argued that these nonsignificant race and gender effects are due to either lack of race and gender differences in promotions or lack of statistical power in the model. 42 As indicated above, there is ample evidence of the existence of performance evaluation bias (for a review, see Bartol [1999], Elvira and Town [2001], Roth et al. [2003], and McKay and McDaniel [2006]). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1513 Fig. 4.—Summary graph of the findings, assuming the same starting annual salary for all employees. Note that this figure provides a stylized representation of my findings—it is not a plot of the model parameters. and same human capital) who receive the same performance evaluation scores. In order to understand how such performance-reward bias could occur in this organization, I interviewed some personnel at different levels in the organizational hierarchy. I found that this bias can be introduced at two points in the performance appraisal process. First, it can occur when the head of a unit (or head of supervisors) recommends to HR a particular annual salary increase amount for a given employee (fig. 2, step 2). The unit head may put forth a lower salary raise for an equally performing minority employee than for a nonminority employee, yielding a lower average for minorities than nonminorities in reward recommendations going to HR. Second, it can occur when an HR personnel member makes the decision to approve or reject a given salary increase recommendation generated by the head of the unit (fig. 2, step 3). HR may reject more minority rewards than nonminority rewards, even if unit heads are unbiased in their recommendations. While investigating step 2 of the appraisal process was beyond the scope of this study, I conducted interviews with several HR personnel to learn how they make their decisions. These interviews suggested that the bias does not likely occur at step 3: HR members do not turn down any bonus recommendation decisions, nor do they adjust the magnitudes recomThis content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1514 mended by unit heads. The HR director explained that “in a given year we might consider thousands of salary review proposals; we tend to tell our HR managers to look for high performers when it comes to approving such salary increases.”43 All HR compensation office members I interviewed reiterated the explicit message in the HR policy manual, that all salary increases must be based on the individual’s job performance. When I asked whether they look at any information about the employee besides the short performance evaluation form filled out by the unit head, one HR staff member stated that “there is not much time to do so; we look at the form and ensure that the unit has submitted the required documentation for salary increase approval.” This required documentation consists of a letter included with the salary award recommendation. Altogether, this suggests that the performance-reward bias is likely introduced at step 2 of the appraisal process by the higher-level actors who recommend, based on the employee performance evaluations, whether a raise should be granted as well as the amount of the raise. This bias is not corrected by HR in step 3. I found step 2 in the performance appraisal process to be the least transparent; the heads of units and of supervisors are not accountable for their decisions regarding salary increase amounts either. Why Is There Performance-Reward Bias? Many social mechanisms can explain why, in an organization such as this, employees and administrators may be unaware of the existence of performance-reward bias. On the basis of my research, I believe there are two main theoretical mechanisms accounting for the performance-reward bias in this particular organization. The first main mechanism can be found in the social-psychological theory about the role of accountability in reducing (and perhaps even eliminating) bias (e.g., Tetlock 1983, 1985; Tetlock and Kim 1987; Lerner and Tetlock 1999). According to this mechanism, when decision makers know they will be held accountable for making fair decisions, bias is less likely to occur. This work on accountability points to two important conclusions. First, accountability motivates decision makers to process information and make decisions in more analytical and complex ways, which can help reduce judgmental biases. Second, the timing of accountability is crucial, because accountability appears to be much more effective in preventing rather than in reversing biases (Tetlock 1985, p. 233). In this large organizational setting, accountability is more salient at the first stage of the performance appraisal pro- 43 An average of 1,149 proposals per year were reviewed and accepted, according to the data collected for this study. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1515 cess, where there is no evidence of ascriptive bias. This is consistent with the notion that formalization reduces bias and increases equity—a central notion in the development of employers’ compliance with Title VII and of internal labor markets and the HR profession since the late 1960s (see Anderson and Tomaskovic-Devey 1995; Huffman and Velasco 1997; Reskin and McBrier 2000; Stinchcombe 2001; Kalev et al. 2006; Dobbin and Kelly 2007).44 I find that ascriptive bias exists only in the less formalized second stage of performance appraisals, where administrators are not accountable for their decisions regarding the amounts of salary increases.45 A second, complementary theoretical mechanism is transparency. The formalization of practices that increase transparency can make disparities more noticeable and therefore more easily corrected. This is closely related to the theoretical claim about the likely existence of information-processing bias in large organizations. Previous experimental research has shown how individuals are less able to perceive gender or race discrimination on a personal level than on an organizational or societal level. Crosby et al. (1986) demonstrate that this phenomenon is feasible in part because of an information-processing bias—that is, the perception of discrimination processes is more difficult when one makes case-by-case comparisons than when one encounters information in the aggregate.46 My findings that the most visible aspects of employee career outcomes—such as salary increases (regardless of quantity) and promotions—are not subject to the performance-reward bias process conforms to this information- 44 As one of the anonymous reviewers of this article pointed out, there is also an implicit (neo-Weberian) institutional argument to make here about the effects of ongoing rationalization in modern work organizations: bureaucracies function properly and curtail discrimination as long as their doings are clearly visible and administrators are accountable for their decisions. 45 Recent work on accountability (e.g., Lerner and Tetlock 1999) has moved away from a pure focus on improving decision making to a more balanced view of how accountability can actually introduce bias. Specifically, if decision makers know the conclusion their audience wants them to reach, they tend to use processes that yield that conclusion so they can give their audience what it wants. In this case, supervisors may be aware that their performance ratings can easily be evaluated for gender and race bias and may therefore give a “balanced” set of ratings across demographic groups. The result would be that supervisors end up giving fabricated ratings just to keep their employees and superiors happy. Although the ratings appear unbiased, the salary increases based on these ratings reflect either information shared through social interaction or “discounting” due to shared knowledge that a rating of 5 for a woman, e.g., is not the same as a 5 for a man, because everyone is forced to look fair in their performance ratings. 46 Crosby et al. (1986) show evidence of the existence of cognitive bias in perceptions of discrimination. Their experiment demonstrates the importance of formatting for the perception of discrimination: subjects perceived less discrimination when they encountered relevant information in small chunks than when they saw the total picture all at once. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1516 awareness argument. This is in contrast to the finding that females and minorities are then disadvantaged when it comes to decisions about the amount by which their compensation is increased every year, which is typically unobservable or unknown to the rest of employees. The invisibility of salary increase amounts eliminates concrete salary comparisons among employees and thus has the potential to mask unfairness in the performance-compensation link in organizations. These findings parallel those of empirical and theoretical work in organizational behavior (Crosby 1982, 1984; for a review, see Major et al. [2002]).47 In this particular research setting, several features make these salary gaps less pronounced and possibly even invisible to employees and administrators. First, in this organization, performance ratings govern the decision-making process for salary increases, as the coefficients for performance ratings are the only significant predictors of decisions to increase salary. This is consistent with the policy manual available to employees, which states that salary increases should only be given to high-performing employees. Second, because most salary increases in a given year are quite low, salary disparities among employees are so small that they are not noticeable overall. In this organization, salary increases never exceeded 8% of the base salary, and most bonuses given as a lump sum were small— up to $500, depending on the year and the unit under study. And last, employees stay in the organization for about 2.65 years on average; this relatively short tenure of employment may also minimize the long-term impact of the small differences in salary increases. Finally, this study provides some field evidence of the “lower minimum standards and higher ability standards” argument proposed by Biernat and Kobrynowicz (1997): even when it may be easier for women and minorities to meet low standards, these employees are still subject to higher ability standards than white men, and consequently they must work harder to prove that their ability is similar or greater. In my research setting, because I find no significant disparities in recommendations to grant a salary increase by race or gender, I argue that women and minorities are equally as likely as white men to meet the “minimum standards” in order to be recommended for a salary increase. However, after controlling for ratings (as well as jobs, work units, and supervisors), I find that women’s and minorities’ performance appraisals are significantly discounted, meaning that they need to work harder and obtain higher 47 This concept of visibility is also related to the concept of accountability. Thus, the formalization of practices can curtail discrimination when actors are accountable for their decisions at the different stages in the design and implementation of organizational practices and their doings are clearly visible. I am thankful to one of the anonymous reviewers of this article for pointing out the link between these concepts (as well as the concept of information-processing bias). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1517 performance scores in order to receive similar salary increases to white men. This finding is also consistent with the work on “double standards” (Foschi 1992, 1996; Foschi, Lai, and Sigerson 1994), which finds, in effect, that women (and minorities) need to display a higher level of performance before decision makers conclude that they are equally as competent as men (and consequently award them the same salary increases).48 Distinguishing among these different explanations (and other feasible theoretical mechanisms operating in other settings) remains a task for future research. Limitations and Future Research I believe that this research can be extended in several promising directions toward an understanding of race, gender, and meritocracy in organizational careers. The first and most obvious extension involves continued testing of the relationship between performance evaluations and compensation. While previous research has extensively addressed gender and racial biases through the performance-rating process, this article focuses on the performance-reward process. I demonstrate that this process, which has not been studied in depth before, may have become an important organizational process accounting for the persistence of gender, race, or other non-performance-related demographic differences in wages and career attainment within organizations. In my analyses, I do not find that initial salary allocations or the distribution of appraisals differ much by the race and gender of the employee. However, in other settings this might not be the case: there may also be bias in the process of evaluating employees, for example, exacerbating the bias in salary increases reported here. Future quantitative and qualitative studies should take a comprehensive approach and examine the multiple stages where bias can be introduced, contributing to the persistent growth in the cumulative disadvantage of women and minorities (Jacobs 1995). The second extension of this research is closely related. In this article, I emphasize the effect of performance on salary increases and promotions only. Future research should examine other organizational processes at work in central aspects of the employment relationship, such as benefits, other types of promotions, and unit/job transfers. Emphasis should also 48 Even though I am not able to measure ability directly in this study, I can measure performance in a given job and work unit. An alternative explanation for the finding that women and minorities receive lower salary increases net of performance evaluations could be that white men are truly more productive than women and minorities are and that the administrators recommending salary increases recognize and adjust for this fact. This would imply that white males are receiving lower performance ratings than their true performance merits—but we know from the experimental literature that this is not the case (see Biernat and Kobrynowicz 1997). This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1518 be given to other nonmonetary rewards in organizations, such as advantages in training opportunities, access to organizational resources, responsibility and authority, and, more generally, to the distribution of both advantages and disadvantages in organizations (e.g., DiTomaso et al. 2007). Equally relevant to the literature on employee careers across organizations is the study of how previous employers’ evaluations impact hiring decisions for employees across organizations. Extensive literature on hiring, including my own previous work, has examined the determinants of organizations’ hiring practices, from human capital theories to socialnetwork-focused perspectives (for a review, see Fernandez, Castilla, and Moore [2000] and Castilla [2005]). However, little is known about the ways in which employees’ past performance experiences influence their future careers. Given that I do not have prehire data, I cannot evaluate in this article whether discrimination also occurs in the matching process at the point of hire. Without such data, many of the intervening mechanisms, as well as the long-term effects of past performance evaluations, are left open to future investigation on the connections among human resource practices, performance, and outcomes. In this article, I was interested in testing whether demographic features are significant variables in predicting salary growth, after controlling for the level of performance rating in a given job in a given work unit. It is important to note that, under certain organizational arrangements, even when salary increases are not identical for minority employees, the unequal allocation of such increases might never result in large unequal outcomes. Thus, the use of performance-based bonuses may even appear to be quite meritocratic and unbiased. As I indicated above, several features of ServiCo may have contributed to employees and administrators’ lack of awareness of this performance-reward bias. First, according to ServiCo’s policy manual, performance ratings are the primary basis for any employee salary increase decisions. Second, since salary increases are low, any salary disparities among employees are unlikely to be noticeable. Finally, given the short average tenure of employees at ServiCo, few employees happen to be in the organization long enough for the wage differences to appear substantial. Future research should study whether the same evidence is found in organizations where salary increases are large or where seniority accounts for salary increases. Studies such as these could help to shed light on which types of performance management systems favor equality in the allocation of rewards today. In this company setting, supervisors evaluate employees using dyadic performance evaluations. Future studies should also consider workplaces where evaluations are less dyadic. For example, researchers could look at organizations where a higher number of individuals participate in the This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1519 formal evaluation of employees. In fact, some of these less-dyadic options are already being implemented in companies. These performance appraisal processes are of particular interest in professional settings where the same employee is evaluated by co-workers, superiors, and subordinates—a 360-degree-style performance appraisal system. By looking at the mechanisms behind these evaluations as they impact key employee outcomes, future research can further our understanding of how organizational career processes can remedy biases in work organizations. Finally, as with any study on this topic, there remains the question of the generalizability of these results. Although I study only a single organization, it is worth noting that this organization’s human resource practices are not very different from those of current organizations that have chosen to adopt merit-based practices for distributing rewards among employees. According to Noe et al. (2006, p. 504), some type of merit-pay program “exists in almost all organizations (although evidence on merit pay effectiveness is surprisingly scarce).” Under the new system of market-driven employment practices (Cappelli 1999), organizations introduce performance-reward programs and other merit-based practices— perhaps in the hope of ensuring that rewards are allocated meritocratically and eliminating unfairness (Jackson 1998). However, this article focuses on the case of an organization that introduced a new performance appraisal process in order to encourage the development of its employees as well as to provide a basis for compensation decisions. And yet the formalization of this performance system created additional opportunities for discretion and biases to emerge, ultimately resulting in compensation differentials for women and minorities over time. Future research should take steps toward studying whether the patterns discovered in this organization can be generalized to other settings, by analyzing complete personnel data in other private organizations such as this one. CONCLUSION Organizations are increasingly using performance-pay programs that link the performance of employees to their compensation over time. Perhaps implicit in the creation and use of these programs is the presumption that today’s organizational practices are based on merit and consequently that a significant positive relationship between performance, wages, and wage growth is institutionally valued and strongly supported. But since meritbased reward systems often introduce a sequence of organizational processes or routines, I argue that the nature and implementation of these programs may make it possible for bias and discriminatory judgments to occur at several stages. This article focuses on one of these stages, namely, This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1520 the link between performance evaluations and wage determination. I identify and provide evidence of what I call the performance-reward bias— the form of discrimination that happens when employers undervalue the work of certain minority employees. Performance-reward bias is independent of other processes generating ascriptive inequality, as described in the Petersen and Saporta (2004) article on employer discrimination processes. Even assuming that (1) women and minorities are equally sorted into jobs, (2) women and minorities receive the same starting salary within a given occupation, within a given establishment, and (3) female- and minority-dominated occupations with equal skill requirements and other wage-relevant factors are valued the same as white-male-dominated occupations, I still find that the work of women and minorities can be discounted in organizations over time. This performance-reward bias is a new form of valuative discrimination, because once merit is measured in the appraisal process, women and minority employees still receive different rewards for the same merit scores as white men (after controlling for job, work unit, supervisor and other relevant human capital characteristics). This bias is also independent of the fact that the performance rating process itself might be affected by gender, race, or nationality bias. This finding is of substantive significance because it demonstrates a critical challenge faced by employers who adopt merit-based practices to fairly reward and motivate their employees. Ironically, although these merit-reward policies create the appearance of meritocracy, this study shows that the less formalized, less transparent, and less accountable stages of the performance appraisal process can actually create a greater opportunity for subtle ascriptive biases to emerge, negatively affecting the fair distribution of rewards among employees in a way that is more or less invisible to everyone in the organizational setting. Previous studies looking at wages and careers within organizations have not included performance or merit in their models, nor have they examined in depth the many organizational processes and stages at work behind these employee outcomes. The extensive research on the role of organizations in the distribution of salaries and rewards among employees commits the same omission (for a review, see Petersen and Saporta [2004], Phillips [2005], and Roth [2006]). This article is intended to be the first step toward correcting this imbalance in the literature on organizations and stratification and toward unpacking what is actually happening inside an organizational practice described as meritocratic. Future research should continue examining how the formalization and implementation of overall organizational merit-based practices may affect an individual’s structures of opportunity and attainment in contemporary organizations. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1521 REFERENCES Anderson, Cynthia D., and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey. 1995. “Patriarchal Pressures: An Exploration of Organizational Processes That Exacerbate and Erode Gender Earnings Inequality.” Work and Occupations 22 (3): 328–57. Barnett, William P., James N. Baron, and Toby E. Stuart. 2000. “Avenues of Attainment: Occupational Demography and Organizational Careers in the California Civil Service.” American Journal of Sociology 106 (1): 88–144. Baldi, Ste´phane, and Debra B. McBrier. 1997. “Do the Determinants of Promotion Differ for Blacks and Whites?” Work and Occupations 24 (4): 478–97. Baron, James N. 1984. “Organizational Perspectives on Stratification.” Annual Review of Sociology 10:37–69. Baron, James N., and William T. Bielby. 1980. “Bringing the Firms Back In: Stratification, Segmentation, and the Organization of Work.” American Sociological Review 45 (5): 737–65. Baron, James N., and Andrew E. Newman. 1990. “For What It’s Worth: Organizations, Occupations, and the Value of Work Done by Women and Non-whites.” American Sociological Review 55 (2): 155–75. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173–82. Bartol, Kathryn M. 1999. “Gender Influences on Performance Evaluations.” Pp. 165–78 in Handbook of Gender and Work, edited by Gary N. Powell. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Bielby, William T., and James N. Baron. 1986. “Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical Discrimination.” American Journal of Sociology 91 (4): 759–99. Biernat, Monica, and Diane Kobrynowicz. 1997. “Gender- and Race-Based Standards of Competence: Lower Minimum Standards but Higher Ability Standards for Devalued Groups.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (3): 544–57. Bohlander, George, and Scott Snell. 2007. Managing Human Resources, 14th ed. Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western. Bridges, William P., and Robert L. Nelson. 1989. “Markets in Hierarchies: Organizational and Market Influences on Gender Inequality in a State Pay System.” American Journal of Sociology 95:616–58. Burke, Elizabeth. 2005. “2005 Reward Programs and Incentive Compensation: Survey Report.” Society for Human Resource Management. http://www.shrm.org/surveys Campbell, Donald J., Kathleen M. Campbell, and Ho-Beng Chia. 1998. “Merit Pay, Performance Appraisal, and Individual Motivation: An Analysis and Alternative.” Human Resource Management 37 (2): 131–46. Cappelli, Peter. 1999. The New Deal at Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Cappelli, Peter, Laurie Bassi, Harry Katz, David Knoke, Paul Osterman, and Michael Useem. 1997. Change at Work. New York: Oxford University Press. Castilla, Emilio J. 2005. “Social Networks and Employee Performance in a Call Center.” American Journal of Sociology 110 (5): 1243–83. ———. 2007. Dynamic Analysis in the Social Sciences. Oxford: Elsevier, Academic Press. Cleveland, Jeanette N., Kevin R. Murphy, and Richard E. Williams. 1989. “Multiple Uses of Performance Appraisal: Prevalence and Correlates.” Journal of Applied Psychology 74 (1): 130–35. Compensation Resources, Inc. 2004. “How Often Does Your Organization Conduct Performance Evaluations?” Upper Saddle River, N.J: Compensation Resources. http: //compensationresources.com/press-room/how-often-does-your-organizationconduct-performance-evaluations-.php. Accessed April 1, 2006. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1522 Correll, Shelley J. 2001. “Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self-Assessments.” American Journal of Sociology 106:1691–1730. Cox, David R. 1972. “Regression Models and Life Tables (with Discussion).” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, ser. B. 34 (2): 187–220. ———. 1975. “Partial Likelihood.” Biometrika 62 (2): 269–76. Crosby, Faye. 1982. Relative Deprivation and Working Women. New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 1984. “Relative Deprivation in Organizational Settings.” Research in Organizational Behavior 6:51–93. Crosby, Faye, Susan Clayton, Olaf Alksnis, and Kathryn Hemker. 1986. “Cognitive Biases in the Perception of Discrimination: The Importance of Format.” Sex Roles 14 (11/12): 637–46. DiTomaso, Nancy, Corinne Post, D. Randall Smith, George F. Farris, and Rene Cordero. 2007. “Effects of Structural Position on Allocation and Evaluation Decisions for Scientists and Engineers in Industrial R&D.” Administrative Science Quarterly 52 (2): 175–207. Dobbin, Frank, and Erin Kelly. 2007. “How to Stop Harassment: The Professional Construction of Legal Compliance in Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 112 (4): 1203–43. Elvira, Marta M., and Mary E. Graham. 2002. “Not Just a Formality: Pay System Formalization and Sex-Related Earnings Effects.” Organization Science 13 (6): 601–17. Elvira, Marta M., and Robert Town. 2001. “The Effects of Race and Worker Productivity on Performance Evaluations.” Industrial Relations 40 (4): 571–90. Elvira, Marta M., and Christopher D. Zatzick. 2002. “Who’s Displaced First? The Role of Race in Layoff Decisions.” Industrial Relations 41 (2): 329–61. England, Paula. 1992. Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter. Fernandez, Roberto M., Emilio J. Castilla, and Paul Moore. 2000. “Social Capital at Work: Networks and Employment at a Phone Center.” American Journal of Sociology 105 (5): 1288–1356. Fernandez, Roberto M., and Isabel Fernandez-Mateo. 2006. “Networks, Race and Hiring.” American Sociological Review 71 (1): 42–71. Fernandez, Roberto M., and M. Lourdes Sosa. 2005. “Gendering the Job: Networks and Recruitment at a Call Center.” American Journal of Sociology 111:859–904. Foschi, Martha. 1992. “Gender and Double Standards for Competence.” Pp. 181–207 in Gender, Interaction, and Inequality, edited by Cecilia Ridgeway. New York: Springer-Verlag. ———. 1996. “Double Standards in the Evaluation of Men and Women.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59:237–54. Foschi, Martha, Larissa Lai, and Kirsten Sigerson. 1994. “Gender and Double Standards in the Assessment of Job Applicants.” Social Psychology Quarterly 57: 326–39. Frank, Robert H., and Phillip J. Cook. 1995. The Winner-Take-All Society. New York: Free Press. Gerhart, Barry A., and Sara L. Rynes. 2003. Compensation: Theory, Evidence, and Strategic Implications. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Gorman, Elizabeth. 2005. “Gender Stereotypes, Same-Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms.” American Sociological Review 70:702–28. Griffeth, Rodger W., and Arthur G. Bedeian. 1989. “Employee Performance Evaluations: Effects of Ratee Age, Rater Age, and Ratee Gender.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 10 (1): 83–91. Hall, Francine S., and Douglas T. Hall. 1976. “Effects of Job Incumbents’ Race and This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1523 Sex on Evaluations of Managerial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 19 (3): 476–81. Hamner, W. Clay, Jay S. Kim, Lloyd Baird, and William J. Bigoness. 1974. “Race and Sex as Determinants of Ratings by Potential Employers in a Simulated WorkSampling Task.” Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (6): 705–12. Hausman, Jerry. 2001. “Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems from the Right and Problems from the Left.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15 (4): 57–67. Hodson G., J. F. Dovidio, and S. L. Gaertner. 2002. “Processes in Racial Discrimination: Differential Weighting of Conflicting Information.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28:460–71. Huffman, Matt L., and Steven C. Velasco. 1997. “When More Is Less.” Work and Occupations 24 (2): 214–45. IOMA (Institute of Management and Administration). 2000. “Towers Perrin Reveals How to Design the Most Effective Incentive Plans.” IOMA’s Report on Salary Surveys, March: p. 14. Jackson, Robert M. 1998. Destined for Equality: The Inevitable Rise of Women’s Status. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Jacobs, Jerry A. 1989. Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women’s Careers. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. ———. 1995. Gender Inequality at Work. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Jovanovic, Boyan. 1979. “Job Matching and the Theory of Turnover.” Journal of Political Economy 87 (5): 972–90. Judd, Charles M., and David A. Kenny. 1981. “Process Analysis: Estimating Mediation in Treatment Evaluations.” Evaluation Review 5:602–19. Kalev, Alexandra, Frank Dobbin, and Erin Kelly. 2006. “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review 71:589–617. Kochan, Thomas A., Harry Katz, and Robert McKersie. 1986. The Transformation of American Industrial Relations. New York: Basic Books. Lawler, Edward. 2003. “Reward Practices and Performance Management System Effectiveness.” Organizational Dynamics 32 (4): 396–404. Lazear, Edward. 1998. Personnel Economics for Managers. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lee, Dennis M., and Kenneth M. Alvares. 1977. “Effects of Sex on Descriptions and Evaluations of Supervisory Behavior in a Simulated Industrial Setting.” Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (4): 405–11. Lee, Lung-Fei. 1979. “Identification and Estimation in Binary Choice Models with Limited (Censored) Dependent Variables.” Econometrica 47:977–96. ———. 1983. “Notes and Comments: Generalized Econometric Models with Selectivity.” Econometrica 51 (2): 507–13. Lee, Lung-Fei, and G. S. Maddala. 1985. “Sequential Selection Rules and Selectivity in Discrete Choice Econometric Models.” Econometric Methods and Applications 2:311–29. Lee, Lung-Fei, G. S. Maddala, and R. P. Trost. 1980. “Asymptotic Covariance Matrices of Two-Stage Probit and Two-Stage Tobit Methods for Simultaneous Equations Models with Selectivity.” Econometrica 48:491–503. Lerner, Jennifer S., and Philip E. Tetlock. 1999. “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability.” Psychological Bulletin 125 (2): 255–75. Liang, Kung-Yee, and Scott L. Zeger. 1986. “Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models.” Biometrika 73:13–22. Liden, Robert C., Sandy J. Wayne, and Dean Stilwell. 1993. “A Longitudinal Study on the Early Development of Leader-Member Exchanges.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78 (4): 62–74. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1524 London, Manuel, and Stephen A. Stumpf. 1983. “Effects of Candidate Characteristics on Management Promotion Decisions: An Experimental Study.” Personnel Psychology 36:241–59. Major, Brenda, Richard H. Gramzow, Shannon K. McCoy, Shana Levin, Toni Schmader, and Jim Sidanius. 2002. “Perceiving Personal Discrimination: The Role of Group Status and Legitimizing Ideology.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (3): 269–82. Marsden, Peter V. 1994a. “The Hiring Process: Recruitment Methods.” American Behavioral Scientist 37 (7): 979–91. ———. 1994b. “Selection Methods in U.S. Establishments.” Acta Sociologica 37 (3): 287–301. Martocchio, Joseph J. 2004. Strategic Compensation: A Human Resource Management Approach, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Mathis, Robert L., and John H. Jackson. 2003. Human Resource Management, 10th ed. Mason, Ohio: South-Western. McKay, Patrick F., and Michael A. McDaniel. 2006. “A Re-examination of BlackWhite Mean Differences in Work Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 91 (3): 538–54. McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James Cook. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–44. Medoff, James L., and Katharine Abraham. 1981. “Are Those Paid More Really More Productive? The Case of Experience.” Journal of Human Resources 16 (2): 186–216. Milkovich, George T., and Jerry M. Newman. 2004. Compensation, 8th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Miller, Stephen. 2006. “Employers Focus More on Performance-Based Rewards.” Society for Human Resource Management. http://www.shrm.org/rewards/ library_published/compensation/nonIC/CMS_018315.asp. Accessed April 1, 2006. Mobley, William H. 1982. “Supervisor and Employee Race Effects on Performance Appraisals: A Field Study of Adverse Impact and Generalizability.” Academy of Management Journal 25 (3): 598–606. Nelson, Robert L., and William P. Bridges. 1999. Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women in America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Noe, Raymond A., John R. Hollenbeck, Barry Gerhart, and Patrick M. Wright. 2006. Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Norton, Michael I., Joseph A. Vandello, and John M. Darley. 2004. “Casuistry and Social Category Bias.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:817–31. Ospina, Sonia. 1996. Illusions of Opportunity: Employee Expectations and Workplace Inequality. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press/Cornell University Press. Osterman, Paul. 1999. Securing Prosperity: The American Labor Market; How It Has Changed and What to Do about It. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Osterman, Paul, Thomas Kochan, Richard Locke, and Michael Piore. 2001. Working in America: A Blueprint for the New Labor Market. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Pelled, Lisa Hope, Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, and Katherine R. Xin. 1999. “Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly 44 (1): 1–29. Petersen, Trond, and Laurie Morgan. 1995. “Separate and Unequal: OccupationEstablishment Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap.” American Journal of Sociology 101 (2): 329–65. Petersen, Trond, and Ishak Saporta. 2004. “The Opportunity Structure for Discrimination.” American Journal of Sociology 109 (4): 852–902. Petersen, Trond, Ishak Saporta, and Mark-David Seidel. 2000. “Offering a Job: Meritocracy and Social Networks.” American Journal of Sociology 106 (3): 763–817. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Gender, Race, and Meritocracy 1525 Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1994. Competitive Advantage through People: Unleashing the Power of the Work Force. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Phillips, Damon J. 2005. “Organization Genealogies and the Persistence of Gender Inequality: The Case of Silicon Valley Law Firms.” Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (3): 440–72. Price, James L. 1977. The Study of Turnover. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Pulakos, Elaine D., Leonard A. White, Scott H. Oppler, and Walter C. Borman. 1989. “Examination of Race and Sex Effects on Performance Ratings.” Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (5): 770–80. Reskin, Barbara F. 1993. “Sex Segregation in the Workplace.” Annual Review of Sociology 19:241–70. ———. 1998. The Realities of Affirmative Action in Employment. Washington, D.C.: American Sociological Association. ———. 2000. “The Proximate Causes of Employment Discrimination.” Contemporary Sociology 29 (2): 319–28. Reskin, Barbara F., and Debra B. McBrier. 2000. “Why Not Ascription? Organizations’ Employment of Male and Female Managers.” American Sociological Review 65 (2): 210–33. Ridgeway, Cecilia. 1997. “Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment.” American Sociological Review 62 (2): 218–35. Rosenfeld, Rachel A. 1992. “Job Mobility and Career Processes.” Annual Review of Sociology 18:39–61. Roth, Louise M. 2006. Selling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Roth, Philip L., Allen I. Huffcutt, and Philip Bobko. 2003. “Ethnic Group Differences in Measures of Job Performance: A New Meta-analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (4): 694–706. Schmitt, Neal, and Martha Lappin. 1980. “Race and Sex as Determinants of the Mean and Variance of Performance Ratings.” Journal of Applied Psychology 65 (4): 428–35. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 2001. When Formality Works: Authority and Abstraction in Law and Organizations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tetlock, Philip E. 1983. “Accountability and the Perseverance of First Impressions.” Social Psychology Quarterly 46 (4): 285–92. ———. 1985. “Accountability: A Social Check on the Fundamental Attribution Error.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48 (3): 227–36. Tetlock, Philip E., and Jae I. Kim. 1987. “Accountability and Judgment Processes in a Personality Prediction Task.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (4): 700–709. Thompson, Duane E., and Toni A. Thompson. 1985. “Task-Based Performance Appraisal for Blue-Collar Jobs: Evaluation of Race and Sex Effects.” Journal of Applied Psychology 70 (4): 747–53. Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. 1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources and Consequences of Job Segregation. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press. Tsui, Anne S., and Barbara A. Gutek. 1984. “A Role Set Analysis of Gender Differences in Performance, Affective Relationships, and Career Success of Industrial Middle Managers.” Academy of Management Journal 27 (3): 619–35. Tsui, Anne S., and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1989. “Beyond Simple Demographic Effects: The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate Analysis.” Academy of Management Journal 32 (2): 402–23. Tuma, Nancy B. 1976. “Rewards, Resources, and the Rate of Mobility: A Nonstationary Multivariate Stochastic Model.” American Sociological Review 41:330–38. Turban, Daniel B., and Allan P. Jones. 1988. “Supervisor-Subordinate Similarity: Types, Effects, and Mechanisms.” Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (2): 228–34. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms American Journal of Sociology 1526 Uhlmann, Eric L., and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2005. “Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination.” Psychological Science 16 (6): 474–80. Valian, Virginia. 1998. Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wagner, W. Gary, Jeffrey Pfeffer, and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1984. “Organizational Demography and Turnover in Top Management Groups.” Administrative Science Quarterly 29 (1): 74–92. Williams, Katherine Y., and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1998. “Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research.” Research in Organizational Behavior 20:77–140. Yammarino, Francis J., and Alan J. Dubinsky. 1988. “Employee Responses: Genderor Job-Related Differences?” Journal of Vocational Behavior 32:366–83. This content downloaded from 128.250.144.144 on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 07:48:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

American Sociological Review 77(6) 999–1022 © American Sociological Association 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0003122412463213 http://asr.sagepub.com Over the past 40 years, there has been considerable debate about the role that culture plays in labor market stratification. On the one hand, status attainment and labor market scholars have portrayed culture as peripheral to occupational sorting (Blau and Duncan 1967; Tilly and Tilly 1998). On the other hand, cultural sociologists contend that culture is an important basis on which valued material and symbolic rewards—including access to desirable jobs and occupations—are distributed (Lareau and Weininger 2003). Yet, little empirical scholarship investigates the role that culture plays in occupational attainment. One of the most crucial moments in labor market stratification is the decision to hire. As Bills (2003:442) notes, “Ultimately . . . both attaining an occupational status and securing an income are contingent on a hiring transaction.” Although scholars often hypothesize that cultural similarities between employers and job candidates matter for employers’ decisions (Lamont 1992), systematic empirical research on the role of culture in hiring is virtually nonexistent (Huffcutt 2011; Stainback, TomaskovicDevey, and Skaggs 2010). 463213 ASRXXX10.1177/000312241246 3213American Sociological ReviewRivera 2012 a Northwestern University Corresponding Author: Lauren A. Rivera, Northwestern University, Management & Organizations Department, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208 E-mail: l-rivera@kellogg.northwestern.edu Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms Lauren A. Riveraa Abstract This article presents culture as a vehicle of labor market sorting. Providing a case study of hiring in elite professional service firms, I investigate the often suggested but heretofore empirically unexamined hypothesis that cultural similarities between employers and job candidates matter for employers’ hiring decisions. Drawing from 120 interviews with employers as well as participant observation of a hiring committee, I argue that hiring is more than just a process of skills sorting; it is also a process of cultural matching between candidates, evaluators, and firms. Employers sought candidates who were not only competent but also culturally similar to themselves in terms of leisure pursuits, experiences, and self-presentation styles. Concerns about shared culture were highly salient to employers and often outweighed concerns about absolute productivity. I unpack the interpersonal processes through which cultural similarities affected candidate evaluation in elite firms and provide the first empirical demonstration that shared culture—particularly in the form of lifestyle markers—matters for employer hiring. I conclude by discussing the implications for scholarship on culture, inequality, and labor markets. Keywords cultural capital, culture, hiring, homophily, inequality, interpersonal evaluation, labor markets 1000 American Sociological Review 77(6) Providing a case study of elite professional service firms, I investigate the often suggested but previously untested hypothesis that cultural similarities—defined here as shared tastes, experiences, leisure pursuits, and selfpresentation styles (Bourdieu 1984)—between employers and job candidates matter for employers’ hiring decisions. I find that hiring is more than just a process of skills sorting; it is also a process of cultural matching between candidates, evaluators, and firms. Employers sought candidates who were not only competent but also culturally similar to themselves. Concerns about shared culture were highly salient to employers and often outweighed concerns about productivity alone. I introduce three interpersonal processes through which cultural similarities affected candidate evaluation and provide the first empirical demonstration that shared culture—particularly in the form of lifestyle markers—matters for employer hiring. How Employers Hire Hiring is a powerful way in which employers shape labor market outcomes. Hiring practices are gatekeeping mechanisms that facilitate career opportunities for some groups, while blocking entry for others. As an entry point to occupations and income brackets, hiring is a critical site of economic stratification and social closure (Elliot and Smith 2004). Sociologists typically depict employer hiring as a matching process between organizational characteristics, job demands, and applicants’ skills (Tilly and Tilly 1998). Although too voluminous to review here (and excellently summarized elsewhere), researchers commonly portray employers’ hiring decisions as stemming from estimates of candidates’ human capital (i.e., hard and soft skills), social capital (i.e., social connections), and demographic characteristics; residual variance is typically attributed to a combination of discrimination and error (for a review, see Pager and Shepherd 2008). However, despite a surge of research on employers over the past 30 years, our knowledge of hiring remains incomplete. Even after accounting for measures of applicants’ human capital, social capital, and demographic traits, models of employer hiring still exhibit significant unexplained variance. Consequently, much of what drives employer decision-making is still a mystery to scholars (Heckman and Siegelman 1993). I argue that much of this gap can be attributed to methodological and data limitations. The bulk of sociological research on hiring uses quantitative data on either (1) individuals who enter an organization or (2) pre-hire/ post-hire comparisons that are unable to explore how hiring decisions are actually made (Fernandez and Weinberg 1997). Additionally, research is often constrained to easily observable individual-, organizational-, or industry-level information derived from employment records or public data. However, to fully understand how employers hire, it is necessary to study the process of decisionmaking itself, analyzing how employers evaluate, compare, and select new hires. Doing so can reveal more subtle factors that contribute to employers’ decisions and can illuminate new mechanisms (Gross 2009) that produce hiring outcomes. Bringing Culture Back In When studying employer hiring, scholars typically analyze individual, organizational, or institutional factors (Pager and Shepherd 2008). However, hiring involves more than just candidates, companies, and contexts; it is also a fundamentally interpersonal process. Job interviews are crucial components of hiring in many industries; subjective impressions of candidates that employers develop through interviews are strong drivers of hiring decisions, often carrying more weight than candidates’ résumé qualifications (Graves and Powell 1995). Still, sociologists typically analyze pre- or post-interview aspects of hiring. In light of this, several scholars have called for more attention to the interpersonal dimensions of hiring (Roscigno 2007; Stainback et al. 2010). Rivera 1001 The literature on interpersonal dynamics shows that similarity is one of the most powerful drivers of attraction and evaluation in micro-social settings (Byrne 1971), including job interviews (Huffcutt 2011). Although hiring research has examined similarities in sex and race, similarities in tastes, experiences, leisure pursuits, and self-presentation styles also serve as potent sources of interpersonal attraction and stratification (Lareau and Weininger 2003; Wimmer and Lewis 2010). Seeking out commonalities in knowledge, experience, and interests is typically the first thing two people do upon meeting (Gigone and Hastie 1993). Discovering such similarities serves as a powerful emotional glue that facilitates trust and comfort, generates feelings of excitement, and bonds individuals together (Collins 2004; DiMaggio 1987; Erickson 1996). In fact, the original articulations of the similarity-attraction hypothesis in psychology (Byrne 1971) and the homophily principle in sociology (Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954) posited that cultural similarities yield attraction. However, cultural similarities are more than just sources of liking; they are also fundamental bases on which we evaluate merit (DiMaggio 1987; Lamont and Molnar 2002). Early scholars, including Weber (1958) and Veblen (1899), argued that similarities in leisure pursuits, experiences, self-presentation, and other “lifestyle markers” serve as badges of group membership and bases of inclusion or exclusion from desirable social opportunities. In fact, Weber suggested that lifestyle markers are fundamental bases of status group reproduction and social closure. Indeed, consciously or not, gatekeepers may use cultural similarities when evaluating others and distributing valued rewards. For example, in a classic study of interviews between college counselors and community college students, Erickson and Schultz (1981) found that establishing similarity was critical for whether a counselor believed a student had potential for future success and delivered a positive recommendation. Co-membership could occur on various lines, but similarities in experience and culture were most crucial. More recently, Lamont (2009) found that scholars were more likely to recommend proposals for prestigious academic fellowships that were topically similar to their own research interests. Such patterns have implications not only for immediate access to material and social rewards but also for longer term educational, economic, and social trajectories (DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). Although plentiful, research on culture and stratification disproportionately focuses on investigating shared culture in educational settings (for a review, see Stevens, Armstrong, and Arum 2008). Missing in this literature is an examination of whether shared culture matters after graduation, when students with similar credentials compete for jobs in the labor market. Employer hiring is a particularly clear example of the stratifying power of shared culture. We can see whether students cash in displays of cultural signals for monetary rewards in the form of desirable jobs and salaries; that is, whether cultural similarity has an economic conversion value (Bourdieu 1986) in job markets, a proposition often hypothesized but not yet analyzed empirically (Bills 2003). Given that qualities we use to evaluate others are context specific (Lamont 1992), one cannot assume that shared culture works identically in the classroom as in the interview room; both warrant empirical attention. Just as cultural sociologists have not yet systematically studied hiring, hiring scholars have under-theorized culture. The majority of sociological research on hiring focuses on how employers estimate applicants’ hard skills and, in particular, cognitive skills; studies that look at noncognitive traits most frequently examine those hypothesized to directly affect productivity, such as soft skills (Farkas 2003).1 Applicants’ displays of cultural signals and lifestyle markers are typically classified as nonproductive and thus have received minimal empirical attention (Tilly and Tilly 1998). Although hiring studies often recognize that similarity is an important driver of candidate selection, research focuses almost exclusively on analyzing similarities in sex or race (Elliot and Smith 2004; Gorman 2005). Part of this focus may be due to data limitations—information 1002 American Sociological Review 77(6) about underlying tastes and experiences can be difficult to obtain, let alone quantify (Stevens 2008). Additionally, scholars often portray demographic similarities as proxies for shared culture. Although culture and structure are mutually reinforcing (Sewell 1992), and structural position, including sex and race, strongly influences the content of one’s cultural toolkit (Swidler 1986), considerable variation in values, experience, and behavior exists within demographic groups (Lamont and Small 2008). Consequently, it is necessary to consider not only similarities in demography but also similarities in culture and experience between employers and prospective employees (Turco 2010; Wilson 1997). Finally, some hiring research assumes that sex and race similarities trump all other commonalities. Although similarities in sex and race are powerful sources of interpersonal attraction and evaluation, over the past 25 years psychologists have confirmed Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) hypothesis that in-group and out-group preferences are variable; a robust literature reveals important moderators of demographic in-group preference (see Ely 1995). In hiring, studies of sex and race similarities between employers and applicants show inconsistent effects, ranging from positive to negative to nil (Huffcutt 2011). In light of this, scholars have called for research analyzing how similarities other than sex and race influence labor market sorting (Castilla 2011).2 As noted earlier, one particularly powerful source of interpersonal attraction and evaluation is shared culture. Although important in many settings, cultural similarities are likely to be especially important in hiring. Psychologists have shown that perceived similarity helps moderate the effect of actual similarity on attraction. The subjective belief that another is similar to the self on one or more dimensions that the individual values in a particular context is crucial for understanding patterns of interpersonal attraction (Tajfel and Turner 1986).3 Subjective impressions of similarity are particularly consequential in one-onone settings where interactions are personalized, enduring, and based on more information than what is visible (Montoya, Horton, and Kirchner 2008), such as in job interviews. In fact, perceived similarity is thought to be more important than actual similarity in the decision to hire (Graves and Powell 1995). A critical source of perceived similarity is shared culture (Lamont and Molnar 2002). Nevertheless, sociological research on hiring typically sidelines shared culture as a basis of employers’ decisions. Indeed, there are whispers of cultural similarity in the hiring literature. A small number of qualitative case studies—perhaps most notably Neckerman and Kirschenman’s (1991) study of urban employers—hypothesize that shared culture between employers and applicants may shape employers’ decisions.4 DiMaggio (1992:127) even goes so far as to call organizational recruitment a “cultural matching” process. Despite the fact that shared culture between superiors and subordinates is salient for inclusion and exclusion once on the job (Erickson 1996; Roth 2006; Turco 2010), cultural factors are typically bracketed as nonproductive or unobservable in hiring studies and are excluded from analysis (Pager, Western, and Bonikowski 2009). To the best of my knowledge, this article presents the first systematic, empirical investigation of whether shared culture between employers and job candidates matters in hiring. Through a case study of elite professional service firms, I seek to (1) extend sociological research on culture and stratification beyond educational settings to the domain of labor markets, and (2) observe what hiring scholars have typically considered unobservable. My goal is not to develop an alternative theory of hiring— cultural similarities certainly work in conjunction with human capital, social capital, and discrimination—but rather to illuminate one important but understudied dimension of hiring, with the aim of more accurately modeling reality from the perspective of employers. Case Selection Wall Street versus Main Street I analyze hiring in elite professional service firms.5 Although a focus on elite employers Rivera 1003 constrains generalizability, it also offers distinct theoretical advantages. First, the majority of hiring studies focus on low-wage or low-skill labor markets. Such analyses are very important, but inequality is driven by privilege as well as disadvantage. To fully understand how employers contribute to economic stratification, it is also necessary to understand entry to highly paid and prestigious job tracks. Analyzing access to elite jobs is particularly important given that the top 10 percent of income earners has disproportionately driven economic inequality in the United States in recent decades (Saez 2008). Because hiring practices tend to be labor-market specific (Bills 2003), they may differ between Wall Street and Main Street; both warrant empirical attention. Second, elite professional service firms are a fertile ground for analyzing cultural similarities in hiring. Entry-level professional positions typically require a prestigious university credential, and these employers solicit the majority of applications directly through university career centers rather than through informal networks. Applicant pools are thus pre-screened, minimizing many traditional structural and status differences between applicants. Studying this labor market thus provides unique opportunities to analyze cultural similarities between job applicants and evaluators in the absence of stark differences in applicants’ human or social capital. Third, elite employers are a particularly fruitful case for examining cultural similarities in hiring. Cultural qualities tend to be more salient in settings where differences in quality are minimized (Lamont 2009) and among elites (Lamont 1992). Thus, even if focusing on elite employers is less generalizable, it allows for analysis of culture under the microscope. Although a focus on elites may magnify the relative importance of cultural similarities in hiring, it can also reveal important insights about the role of shared culture in hiring at a level of granularity that may be inaccessible in other settings. Elite Professional Service Firms I analyze hiring for entry-level professional positions in elite investment banks, law firms, and management consulting firms. These firms share important similarities. Rewards. Jobs in these firms hold unparalleled economic rewards for young employees. Joining one of these firms catapults recent graduates into the top 10 percent of household incomes in the United States (see Table 1). These salaries are double to quadruple amounts earned by graduates from the same universities entering other jobs in the same year (Guren and Sherman 2008; Zimmerman 2009). Additionally, because jobs early in the life course play a critical role in shaping future economic and occupational trajectories (Blau and Duncan 1967), and doing time within these firms is increasingly required for senior positions within the government and nonprofit sectors as well as other corporations (Kalfayan 2009), these jobs can be thought of as contemporary gateways to the U.S. economic elite. Consequently, the stakes for applicants are high. Work. Entry-level professionals execute a combination of research, teamwork, and client Table 1. Typical Entry-Level Compensation by Field and Degree First Year Total Annual Compensationa Law Firm JD $175–330Kb Investment Bank BA $70–150K MBA/JD/PhD $150–350K Consulting Firm BA $70–100K MBA/JD/PhD $135–200K Sources: Management Consulted (2012); National Association of Legal Professionals (2011); Wall Street Oasis (2012) a Starting salaries are standardized by firm and do not vary by a candidate’s alma mater, grades, or prior work experience. These figures include base salary, annual performance bonus, and signing bonuses; they exclude relocation expense bonuses, which vary by firm. b Only one law firm matches employees’ base salary in bonus; most firms are closer to the lower end of this range. 1004 American Sociological Review 77(6) interaction; analytic and interpersonal skills are key job requirements. Across firm type, professionals work with similar (if not the exact same) clients, usually large corporations. Professionals face tight deadlines and highly demanding work schedules (65+ hours per week). Recruitment. Firms hire the bulk of new professional employees through annual, oncampus recruitment programs operated with career-services offices at elite universities. Firms seek to create an incoming class of new hires that enter the firm as a group and undergo intensive on-the-job training and professional socialization together. Firms identify a set of universities—typically through national prestige rankings—where they accept résumés and interview candidates. At these campuses, any student may apply. Competition is largely closed to students who do not attend prestigious schools (Rivera 2011). After an initial résumé screen,6 usually based on a grade floor and extracurriculars, firms choose a subgroup of applicants for first-round interviews where applicants meet with one or two employees for 20 to 45 minutes. Firms typically interview dozens of candidates from a single school backto-back in a campus career center or nearby hotel. It is crucial to note that candidates are interviewed by revenue-generating professionals (rather than human resources [HR] representatives) who have undergone minimal training in interviewing and could potentially work closely with candidates hired. Applicants who receive favorable evaluations in firstround interviews participate in a final round of three to six back-to-back interviews either on campus or in the firm’s office. Recruiting committees typically weigh interviews more heavily than résumés in final offer decisions. Candidates. These firms attract similar applicant pools. The majority of students at top-tier undergraduate and professional schools apply for these jobs.7 Elite undergraduates frequently debate between entering banking, consulting, or law school upon graduation; business school and law school students often apply simultaneously to banks and consulting firms; and newly minted JDs increasingly seek employment in banks and consulting firms (Leonhardt 2011; Rimer 2008). Despite these similarities, these firms also display differences, enabling consideration of sources of variation in hiring evaluations. Work. Although work in all settings entails similar skills, new consultants generally have the greatest amount of teamwork and client contact; new lawyers have the least. Additionally, consulting and investment banking entail more quantitative analysis than does law. Such differences can illuminate links between job requirements and the role of cultural similarity in hiring. Interview format. Law firm interviews focus exclusively on testing candidates’ interpersonal skills through informal conversation. Banks follow a similar format but also test candidates’ basic familiarity with financial principles. Although such probes are typically rudimentary (e.g., “What is NASDAQ?” “How do you value a company?”), they incorporate a basic level of job-relevant knowledge into interviews. Consulting firms employ the most technical evaluations, consisting of a brief conversational interview, similar to those in banks and law firms, followed by a 20- to 30-minute case in which interviewers describe a hypothetical business problem and ask applicants to talk about how they might solve it. Such variation enables analysis of whether there are links between interview formats and the role of cultural similarity in hiring. Methods To investigate the role of cultural similarity in hiring, I conducted interviews and participant observation. Because this article focuses on the evaluation process and evaluators’ subjective impressions of candidates, I draw heavily from the interviews—which are particularly suited to the study of subjective interpretations and social processes (Yin 2003)—but use fieldwork to supplement participants’ narratives. Rivera 1005 Interviews From 2006 to 2008, I conducted 120 interviews with professionals involved in undergraduate and graduate hiring in top-tier firms8 (40 per industry). Participants included hiring partners, managing directors, mid-level employees who conduct interviews and screen résumés, and HR managers. I recruited participants through stratified sampling from public directories of recruiting contacts, university alumni directories, and multi-sited referral chains (see Part I, section C, in the online supplement [http://asr.sagepub.com/ supplemental]). Because elite populations are often difficult to access, referrals and my university and prior corporate affiliations were helpful in gaining consent and building rapport with participants. Interviews lasted 40 to 90 minutes, took place at the time and location of participants’ choosing, and were taperecorded and transcribed word-for-word when participants consented. Following Lamont’s (2009) protocol for probing evaluative criteria, I asked evaluators specific questions about the qualities they looked for and about recent interviewees. Additionally, I asked evaluators who screened résumés to verbally evaluate a set of mock candidate résumés. I constructed résumés that were somewhat standard for these firms—all had attended selective universities, met firms’ grade floor, and were involved in extracurriculars. The mock candidates, however, varied by sex, ethnicity, educational prestige, GPA, prior employer, and extracurriculars (see Part V in the online supplement). Because more than one characteristic varied between résumés, profiles were not intended to be an experimental manipulation but rather a launching point for discussion to illuminate processes of evaluation in real time. Qualitative research is a social endeavor, so it is possible that my identity influenced the tone of interviews. I am an Ivy Leagueeducated female from a mixed ethno-religious background, which may have primed respondents to emphasize high-status cultural practices (which they did) and favor diversity (which they did not). Participant Observation Over nine months in 2006 and 2007, I conducted fieldwork within the recruiting department of one elite professional service firm, which I refer to by the pseudonym Holt Halliday, or simply Holt. My role was that of a participant observer. Given my prior professional experience, I was brought on through a personal connection as an unpaid “recruiting intern” to help execute recruitment events. In exchange, Holt granted me permission to observe its recruitment process for research purposes. During these months, I shadowed evaluators through full-time and summer associate recruitment from an elite professional school. Due to institutional review board (IRB) restrictions and Holt’s request, I was unable to sit in on interviews. However, I attended recruitment events, interacted with candidates, debriefed evaluators about candidates after interviews, and sat in on group deliberations where candidates were discussed and ultimately selected.9 In addition to informing my interview protocol, such observation enabled examination of candidate selection in action and could reveal patterns outside the awareness of evaluators. Although I did not observe interviews directly, witnessing how employers discussed candidates and ultimately made decisions behind closed doors provided crucial insights into the hiring process. How we interpret events plays a critical role in orienting action (Turner and Stets 2006). Similarly, evaluators record subjective impressions—not objective details—of interactions on written interview reports and use these narratives to argue for or against candidates in hiring committee deliberations. These subjective impressions are the most important determinant of interview evaluations (Graves and Powell 1995). Although I observed only one firm, these data represent a starting point for understanding basic features of the hiring process. Data Analysis I developed coding categories inductively and refined them in tandem with data analysis 1006 American Sociological Review 77(6) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Organization Driven Cognitively Driven Affectively Driven Percent of Interviewees Who Used Each Process in Evaluation Types of Processes N = 117 N = 94 N = 107 Figure 1. Relative Prevalence of the Processes through Which Cultural Similarities Affected Candidate Evaluation (N = 120) Note: The graph refers to the percent of participants who spontaneously used cultural similarity in a particular way when evaluating any candidate (i.e., recently interviewed, ideal, or mock profile) in research interviews. (Charmaz 2001). In primary coding rounds, I coded mentions of any criteria or process participants used to evaluate candidates in my interview transcripts and field notes. I did not set out to analyze cultural similarities. In fact, I originally intended to study gender in hiring. However, after noticing the high frequency with which employers used similarity as a basis of evaluation, I developed secondary codes to capture the role of similarity in hiring, specifically codes referring to (1) types of similarities employers used in evaluation, (2) meanings employers attributed to particular similarities, and (3) how employers used similarities in evaluation. I followed a similar procedure to code instances when similarities (or a lack thereof ) inhibited evaluation. Next, I compared evaluators’ biographic and demographic information obtained in conversations with their discussions of the relative importance of particular qualities for points of concordance and discordance. Finally, I quantified and compared code frequencies using the data analysis software ATLAS.ti. Hiring As Cultural Matching Cultural similarities were highly salient to employers in hiring. Perhaps surprisingly, similarity was the most common mechanism employers used to assess applicants at the job interview stage.10 Similarities in extracurricular/leisure pursuits, experiences, and selfpresentation styles were most commonly used. I argue that cultural similarities affected candidate evaluation through three processes: (1) organizational processes encouraging selection on cultural fit; (2) cognitive processes, whereby similarities contributed to greater understanding and valuation of candidates’ qualifications; and (3) affective processes, whereby similarities generated excitement and increased the likelihood that evaluators would fight for candidates in deliberations. As illustrated in Figure 1, organizational processes were most prevalent. Organizational Processes: Fitting In As Formal Criterion In these firms, cultural similarity is a formal evaluative criterion structured into candidate screening and selection. Law firm partner Omar11 (black, male) explained, “In our new associates, we are first and foremost looking for cultural compatibility. Someone who . . . will fit in.” This notion of cultural fit, 12 or Rivera 1007 perceived similarity to a firm’s existing employee base in leisure pursuits, background, and self-presentation, was a key driver of evaluation across firms. Evaluators described fit as being one of the three most important criteria they used to assess candidates in job interviews; more than half reported it was the most important criterion at the job interview stage, rating fit over analytical thinking and communication.13 Although this number may seem high, firms mandated that evaluators assess candidates’ fit along with a variety of technical and communication skills in résumé screens and first- and second-round job interviews. Consequently, even evaluators who weren’t personally fond of fit, like consultant Priya (Indian, female), frequently reported using it in assessment. Priya explained, “I don’t think [fit] should be [a consideration] at all, it seems to me a very [shakes her head] American thing. But it’s what [firms] want, so it’s what you do.” Management scholars have discussed the benefits of hiring based on matches between candidates’ skills and those required by jobs (Cable and Judge 1997). Additionally, following the cultural turn in management, many employers use organizational culture as a way of motivating employees. Strong cultures are often seen as enhancing organizations’ productivity, profitability, and creativity (Barley and Kunda 1992). Consequently, some scholars advocate selecting new hires based on fit between an organization’s culture—defined as the shared values that delineate appropriate workplace behavior—and applicants’ stable personality traits (e.g., extroversion versus introversion) and work values (e.g., a preference for independent versus collaborative work).14 Such matches can enhance employee satisfaction, performance, and retention (Chatman 1991). However, the notion of fit evaluators in this study used differs from this conception because here it typically referred to individuals’ play styles—how applicants preferred to conduct themselves outside the office—rather than their work styles. Moreover, evaluators distinguished fit from the communication skills required in client-facing professions, which they grouped into the separate category of “polish” or “presence.” Consultant Eugene (Asian American, male) fleshed out the distinction between fit and client skills: When you are judging someone [to see] if you want to put him in front of a client, the question is do they conduct themselves professionally. . . . You need someone who speaks in a way that earns your trust, who presents their opinion respectfully but also convincingly. . . . But in terms of “fit,” it’s someone that we want on our case team. . . . You want someone that makes you feel comfortable, that you enjoy hanging out with, can maintain a cool head when times are tough and make tough times kind of fun. Moreover, unlike fit, evaluators believed client skills could be taught or “coached.” Why did evaluators and firms prioritize cultural fit? When explaining the importance of fit to me, evaluators cited the time-intensive nature of their work. With the long hours spent in the office or on the road, they saw having culturally similar colleagues as making rigorous work weeks more enjoyable, although not necessarily more productive or successful. Law firm partner Vivian (white, female) explained, “When I hire an associate, what I want to know is, is this person someone I could be sitting across the table from at 2 a.m. when trying to get a brief done?” Because of hefty time commitments, coworkers often by default became an employee’s primary social network. Consequently, evaluators at all levels of seniority reported wanting to hire individuals who would not only be competent colleagues but also held the potential to be playmates or even friends. Consultant Lance (Asian American, male) described this position: It seems like we’re always at work. We work nights; we work weekends; we are pretty much in the office or traveling. It’s way more fun if the people around you are your friends. So, when I’m interviewing, I look 1008 American Sociological Review 77(6) for people . . . I’d want to get to know and want to spend time with, even outside of work . . . people I can be buddies with. Additionally, evaluators frequently perceived work in their firms as requiring only minimal specialized skills; they commonly described their work as “not rocket science” and cited the extensive training given to new hires as minimizing the importance of prior technical knowledge for job success. Therefore, once candidates passed an initial screen, most commonly based on educational prestige, fit was typically given more weight than grades, coursework, or work experience even in first-round interviews. Banker Nicholae (white, male) explained his justification for emphasizing fit: A lot of this job is attitude, not aptitude . . . fit is really important. You know, you will see more of your co-workers than your wife, your kids, your friends, and even your family. So you can be the smartest guy ever, but I don’t care. I need to be comfortable working everyday with you, then getting stuck in an airport with you, and then going for a beer after. You need chemistry. Not only that the person is smart, but that you like him. Consequently, evaluators saw selecting culturally similar candidates as a way to increase their personal enjoyment at work. Even so, recall that fit was not merely a personalized criterion but also a formal one embedded in official recruitment policies. When asked to describe why fit was formally structured into candidate evaluation, participants most often discussed the concept in relation to retention. These firms experience significant turnover. Most new hires will leave within four years of being hired; a significant proportion will leave after only two years. This attrition is structured into the promotion systems of many elite professional service firms. Many employees opt-out, though, seeking jobs in other firms or industries that exhibit better work-life balance, more intellectually stimulating work, or, in the case of hedge funds and private equity firms, greater financial rewards. Firms thus try to minimize attrition by using fit as a selection tool. Culturally similar candidates were perceived as more likely to enjoy their jobs, be enjoyed by their co-workers, and stay longer. Banking director Mark (white, male) confessed, “We try to hedge our bets. Through the recruiting process, we want to find those people . . . who will fit in so that once they get here, they will not leave.” In the face of high turnover, employers also saw creating a tightknit workplace of like-minded people as a selling point to keep attracting new applicants. Annual recruitment presentations held on elite campuses to solicit applications emphasized that new employees would not just enter a prestigious, lucrative career track but also acquire—in the words of a Holt managing partner in his address to a packed hotel ballroom during one presentation I observed— a “lifelong network of close friends.” Measuring Cultural Fit Employers strongly emphasized selecting candidates who were culturally similar to existing employees. But precisely how did they evaluate fit? In this section, I discuss the two most common methods. Cultural Similarity to Firm A majority of evaluators described firms as having not only particular organizational cultures (e.g., interdependent versus independent) but also distinct personalities, derived from the typical extracurricular interests and self-presentation styles of their employees. They contrasted “sporty” and “fratty” firms with those that were “egghead” or “intellectual.” Some companies were “white-shoe” or “country club,” while others were “gruff ” or “scrappy.” Evaluators who believed a common personality characterized employees in their firm frequently looked for candidates who fit this image. Consulting partner Grace (white, female) said, “We want people who fit Rivera 1009 not only the way we do things but who we are.” Although HR managers emphasized that achieving gender and racial heterogeneity were recruiting priorities, and elite professional service firms devote significant resources to increasing the demographic diversity of applicant pools (Rivera 2012), HR managers believed that achieving a baseline of cultural similarity represented a recruitment success. Law firm hiring manager Judy (white, female) boasted: We have a weekend getaway for our new summer associates their first week here. When one of our summers got back the next week, he said to me, “We’re all so different in our different ways but you can tell we were all recruited to come to [FIRM] because we all have the same personalities. It’s clear like we’re all the same kind of people.” In essence, firms sought surface-level (i.e., demographic) diversity in applicant pools but deep-level (i.e., cultural) homogeneity in new hires (Phillips, Northcraft, and Neale 2006).15 Although firms already constrain applicants’ cultural characteristics by restricting on-campus recruiting to elite universities (Stevens 2007), evaluators further screened résumés based on the presence or absence of similarities in extracurricular interests between applicants and firm employees. When applying to these firms via on-campus recruiting, students must follow a standardized résumé format that lists not only educational and work experiences but also formal and informal extracurricular pursuits. Whether someone rock climbs, plays the cello, or enjoys film noir may seem trivial to outsiders, but these leisure pursuits were crucial for assessing whether someone was a cultural fit. In the face of large volumes of candidates with decent grades at prestigious schools, firms used such “fine distinctions” (Stevens 2007) to screen résumés and compile interview pools.16 For example, legal hiring manager Mary (white, female) rejected mock candidate Blake, who had grades that met her “scrappy” firm’s grade floor and relevant work experience (which is rare for law students), based on perceived extracurricular misfit. In a noticeable regional accent, she said, “I’m looking at the interests [on his résumé]—lacrosse, squash, crew [laughs]. I’m sort of giving him a personality type here, and I don’t think he’s going to fit in well here . . . we’re more rough and tumble. . . . I’m going to let him go.” Just as these sports were seen as a deterrent to fit in her firm, these same activities were seen as evidence of a match in others. For example, “white-shoe” investment bank HR manager Kelly (white, female), dressed in a buttoned, pastel cardigan and pearls, asserted, “I’d have to pick Blake and Sarah. With his lacrosse and her squash, they’d really get along . . . on the trading floor.” There was even a firm for people who lacked “personality” as defined by extracurricular pursuits. Monotone-sounding attorney Paul (white, male) explained, “We don’t really like people here to have outside interests. We’re kind of a boring firm in that way. So, honestly, when I see people who have a lot of activities on their résumé, or if they seem to have a really strong passion for something outside of work, I’ll usually take a pass because it’s not going to be a good fit.” In addition to influencing résumé screens, perceptions of fit via similarity to firm employees also affected interview evaluations, as I observed first-hand at Holt. When arguing against inviting a candidate (white, male) back for a second-round interview, manager Hans (white, male) explained, “He did well on the case and was very articulate. He’s a very interesting guy with a good story. But I think he’s too intellectual for [FIRM]. You know, he is very into 18th-century literature and avant-garde film. . . . [sighed] I don’t think he’d be a good fit.” The candidate was not invited back. Interviewers also rejected candidates whom they perceived as more similar to the self-presentation style of other firms. For example, to justify his decision for rejecting one candidate (white, male), manager Mayank (Indian American, male) said matter-of-factly, “He’s very gregarious . . . 1010 American Sociological Review 77(6) kind of a frat boy . . . I think he’s more of a [FIRM] person.” Evaluators thus selected candidates who fit the extracurriculars and self-presentation styles typical of a firm’s employees. Cultural Similarity to Self A second way evaluators assessed fit was by using the self as a proxy. The logic underlying this method of evaluating fit was that an evaluator represented the firm and its personality. If an applicant fit with the evaluator, then the applicant would fit with other employees. Attorney Carlos (Hispanic, male) explained, “You . . . use yourself to measure [fit] because that’s all you have to go on.” Whereas measuring fit by the degree of similarity between candidates’ lifestyle markers and firm personality was more common in résumé screens, using the self as proxy was more common in first- and second-round interviews. Evaluators likened ascertaining fit in interviews to selecting romantic partners. Attorney Beverley (white, female) explained, “The best way I could describe it is like if you were on a date. You kind of know when there’s a match.” In addition to intangible feelings of “match,” roughly four-fifths of evaluators used a heuristic known as the “airplane test,” which HR often endorsed. Evaluators drew from a wide array of airports and flight interruption imagery in describing this test, but investment banking director Max (white, male) expressed its essence: One of my main criteria is what I call the “stranded in the airport test.” Would I want to be stuck in an airport in Minneapolis in a snowstorm with them? And if I’m on a business trip for two days and I have to have dinner with them, is it the kind of person I enjoy hanging with? And you also have to have some basic criteria, skills and smarts or whatever, but you know, but if they meet that test, it’s most important for me. Similarity was not always a prerequisite for feelings of fit between an applicant and interviewer. However, in line with research on the role of similarity in attraction (Byrne 1971), finding common experiences stimulated the feelings of “match” and “chemistry” evaluators described as essential components of fit in interviews. Attorney Denise (white, female) explained, “I really do think it’s about finding . . . something in common with your interviewer.” Evaluators often assessed fit through icebreaking chitchat during the first minutes of interviews. They described beginning interviews by scanning résumés for shared experiences to discuss. As attorney Jamie (white, female) illustrated, they typically sought extracurricular or extraprofessional similarities: “I usually try to start with something not related to law school. I take a quick look at their [extracurricular] activities to see what’s there. I usually try to pick something that I find interesting . . . that I can relate to or that I know something about.” Some interviewers, like attorney Carlos, explicitly sought biographic commonalities: I usually start an interview by saying, “Tell me about yourself.” When I get asked that, I talk about where I’m from, where I was raised, and then my background. A not-good way to start is with law school. I want to hear your life story. Hopefully there’s something more interesting about your life than deciding to go to law school. . . . When they tell me about their background, it’s easier to find things in common. . . . Maybe . . . they’re from Seattle and I’ve been to Seattle. We can talk about that and develop a connection. When the presence or absence of a one-onone match was unclear via informal conversation, some, like banker Oliver (white, male), asked targeted probes: If I didn’t get a good feel through the interview, I’ll ask a bunch of broad-based personal questions like, “What do you like to do?” And hopefully I’m not getting the coined answer, “Oh! I like to you know pick Rivera 1011 stocks or read finance books.” For me, it’s more like, “Oh! You know, I like to scuba dive or hike.” . . . Or I’ll ask, “Do you follow your school’s basketball team?” . . . “Where did you grow up? Did you play any sports in high school?” Just things that try to get a feeling for somebody to see if you have a connection. To summarize, in interviews evaluators typically selected candidates who fit their own extracurricular and extraprofessional experiences. Who Put Fit First? Although fit was highly salient across settings, its relative weight in evaluation varied by firm type. Figure 2 compares percentages of evaluators by firm type who, when asked to force-rank the criteria they use to evaluate candidates in order of importance, ranked fit first. Interestingly, the emphasis on fit did not increase with the client- or team-facing demands of the job; fit was least important in consulting, where work is most interpersonally focused, and it was most important in law, which has the least interpersonal demands during the first years on the job. Use of cultural fit is thus not purely an artifact of a job’s social demands. In line with research suggesting that structured interview formats can reduce subjectivity in evaluation (Reskin and McBrier 2000), however, the importance of fit decreased with the inclusion of technical questions in interviews. In consulting, using case-based business questions provided evaluators with bases to assess candidates other than cultural similarity. Naveen (Indian, male) explained, “Even if someone’s a perfect fit, if they absolutely bombed the case, they’re out.” However, due to the widespread belief—supported by firms’ policies—that the ideal worker (Acker 1990; Turco 2010) is not only competent but also culturally similar, case interviews reduced but did not eliminate the use of cultural fit in hiring; 40 percent of consultants still ranked fit first. Manager Kai (white, 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Law Firms Investment Banks Consulting Firms Percent of Evaluators Who Cited “Fit” as Top Evaluative Criterion Interpersonal Skills Technical Skills N = 30 N = 26 N = 16 Figure 2. Percentage of Evaluators Who Ranked Fit as Their Most Important Criteria in Job Interviews by Firm Type (N = 120) Note: These numbers correspond to the percent of evaluators in each type of firm who—in research interviews—ranked fit as the most important criterion they use to assess applicants in job interviews. Evaluators were asked to describe the specific criteria they use to assess candidates in interviews. I then asked them to force-rank the criteria they had mentioned. 1012 American Sociological Review 77(6) male) described the tension between case performance and fit: “It’s like air versus water, you really need both.” Once candidates demonstrated a baseline of competence, perceptions of fit rather than absolute case performance routinely drove assessments. Manager Perry (white, male) recalled one instance: “On the fit side, I wrote [on the evaluation form] . . . ‘Will quickly become everyone’s best friend.’ . . . That’s what I call a good fit. But quite frankly, his case performance wasn’t the best. But because his personality and presence were so strong, I forwarded him on [to second-round interviews].” Both interview format and conceptions of the ideal candidate therefore influenced to what degree evaluators prioritized cultural similarity in evaluation. Cognitive Processes: Looking-Glass Merit In addition to selection on cultural fit, cultural similarities between interviewers and applicants affected evaluation by facilitating greater comprehension and valuation of candidates’ qualifications. Similarities in experience could result in informational advantages unavailable to evaluators with different backgrounds.17 Banker Jason (white, male) described how experiential similarity could provide a greater quantity and quality of data to assess candidates: He was an “ethics, politics, and economics” major. Although I’m sure other people would be like “What the hell?” and assume it’s a cushy major and discount his GPA, because I went to Yale and had a lot of friends who did it, I know it’s actually one of the toughest and most competitive majors. Jason rated the candidate highly and forwarded him on to second-round interviews. Conversely, experiential dissimilarities could result in informational disadvantages. Consultant and Ivy-grad Logan (white, male) described difficulties he faced when evaluating students from non-Ivy League schools: “I just don’t know how tough it is to get in to those places and how hard it is to do well there.” Similar processes were at play for applicants with work experience outside “blue chip” companies, which were most familiar to evaluators. Banker Aaron (white, male) explained: From going through the recruiting process myself and from my friends . . . I have a blueprint in my head of what it’s like to work at the major companies—not only at a bank but at a consulting firm or a Google. You know, what the commitment is and what the normal career progression is. . . . With a small firm that I’ve never heard of, it’s just harder to know. Did the person do what’s on their résumé? Were they at home at 5 p.m. every day? Such sentiments support research suggesting that people experience greater facility processing persons and objects that conform to familiar categories and penalize individuals who deviate from them (Zuckerman 1999). Yet, net of the quantity or quality of information evaluators had to assess candidates, similarity tended to yield more positive perceptions of candidates’ abilities. Evaluators used their personal experiences as frames through which they interpreted candidates’ intellectual, social, and moral worth. However, in contrast to prior sociological accounts of identity in evaluation—in which individuals unconsciously gravitate toward people similar to themselves (Lamont 2009)—the use of similarity to the self was commonly active and intentional. In the absence of concrete answers to interview questions and reliable predictors of future performance, assessors purposefully used their own experiences as models of merit, believing that because they had been at least somewhat successful in their careers, candidates who were experientially similar to them would have a higher likelihood of job success. Essentially, they constructed merit in a manner that validated their own strengths and experiences and perceived similar candidates as better applicants. Rivera 1013 Employers’ own experiences influenced which qualities they emphasized or discounted. For example, evaluators who received high grades in undergraduate or graduate school discussed the importance of grades as selection devices; those who received less stellar marks tended to discount them. In either case, evaluators believed experiences similar to their own were better experiences. Attorney Andrea (white, female) explained why she, despite her firm’s official grade policy, overlooks grades: My first year grades were all over the place. September 11 happened and I was burnt out from undergrad; I just met my husband and was hanging out with him all the time. So, school wasn’t my top priority. But I have been a good lawyer. I know I am smart. So, I think grades are really just there to confirm my personality impression. Such beliefs about the validity and reliability of evaluative criteria, entrenched in employers’ own experiences, were particularly meaningful for evaluations of candidates who deviated from traditional firm standards. Candidates who might otherwise have been rejected could be given a chance or even an edge in evaluation when paired with similar evaluators who believed in the validity of their experiences. For example, attorney Nicole (white, female) who was at the top of her class at a less prestigious law school described why she, unlike the vast majority of interviewers at her firm who came from elite schools, does not disregard applicants who earn top grades at non-top-10 institutions: The people that were the top of my class, we came in the first day at school [and] we had to work our butts off; every single one of our exams was closed book, whereas at . . . NYU, all of their exams are open book . . . the curriculum is pretty much the same [as at NYU], the professors are pretty much the same . . . the exams are pretty much the same . . . I do think that the top of my class at New York Law School can compete just as well as the top of the class in any other law school. Evaluators’ experiences influenced not only which criteria they used to assess candidates but also how they defined and measured merit within a given domain. For example, all firms instructed evaluators to ascertain candidates’ drive or ambition, most commonly through leadership positions in extracurricular organizations. However, without clear standards for evaluating this abstract quality, evaluators’ personal experiences colored what they counted as quality engagement outside of the classroom. For example, former college athletes typically prized participation in varsity sports above all other types of involvement. Consultant and former athlete Jake (white, male) illustrated such tendencies when selecting between mock candidate profiles: I know less, admittedly, about sort of being an editor-in-chief or being a president of a club than I do about athletics. So I’m frankly not sure if these titles are as outstanding as the two athletes are. I don’t think that they are, just from what I know about . . . what it takes to be a Division I athlete and what it takes to be a truly exceptional Division I athlete. You know I have some sort of notion of the kind of time and commitment that takes. So, these leadership qualities are excellent but they are not as impressive to me as those two athletes. He ranked the two athletes—Sarah and Blake—first and second, respectively, and declined to interview the nonathletes who had higher grades from more prestigious schools and relevant work experience. Conversely, nonathletes were quick to highlight the value of nonathletic leisure pursuits. Similarly, firms sought candidates who demonstrated “interest” in their firm, as interpreted by their interviewer. Evaluators often measured this subjective quality by whether a candidate’s stated rationale for selecting a firm matched their own. Consultant Howard (Asian American, male) described a recent interviewee who scored well on the criterion of interest: “When 1014 American Sociological Review 77(6) I asked about her interest in [FIRM], she presented answers that I would give, actually. She went through the same thought process that I went through when I was choosing.” Evaluators used themselves as models of merit not only when assessing soft skills and intangibles but also when estimating hard skills. For example, in consulting and banking, evaluators who came from finance or engineering reported preferring candidates with similar backgrounds because they believed that such experience constituted superior preparation for the job. The converse was true for evaluators outside these fields. Consultant Karen (white, female) remarked: When we’re discussing candidates, there’s almost always some quant guy who wants to ding any candidate who studied anything but econ or math. But I came from a touchy, feely major and have done just fine. I even think that having a broader background can help people understand clients better and be more creative and flexible. So, if I see you’re a history major, it can actually be a plus. Even in more structured consulting case interviews, evaluators favored candidates who demonstrated a similar response style. Consulting director Natalie (white, female) said: I’m definitely an intuitive person, so I can generally . . . come up with the right answer really fast. But it takes me personally longer to do the math behind it. Some people do the math like this [she snaps] and then can’t figure out what the answer is. . . . I think you need both of those types of people in your firm. But I think the people who are interviewing who have that awesome, super-fast math ability want the math people in the firm. And I think that people who have that more intuitive approach want the intuitive people in the firm. People like the ones who are more like them. Consequently, culturally similar applicants not only benefited from heightened perceptions of fit but also more favorable perceptions of ability, as evaluators actively constructed and assessed merit in their own image. Banking recruiting head Stephanie (white, female) summarized, “You are basically hiring yourself. This is not an objective process.” Affective Processes: Searching For A Spark Finally, cultural similarities affected hiring evaluations through affective processes. People experience positive feelings when interacting with others who validate their attitudes and identities (Turner and Stets 2006). Banker Fernando (Hispanic, male) provided a lay understanding of this phenomenon when he confessed, “I just think human nature is one that you tend to gravitate towards those people that validate you the most.” Although affective processes are difficult to study outside of laboratory settings, I argue that similarities produced affective benefits observable here: similarities could provide evaluators with feelings of excitement that provided advantages in evaluation. Banker Sandeep (Indian, male) illustrated how shared experiences could yield excitement prior to interviews when evaluating mock candidate Sarah. Scanning the résumé, his face lit up as he saw Sarah’s extracurricular pursuits. “She plays squash. Anyone who plays squash I love,” he said smiling, and immediately ranked her first. Conversely, a lack of commonalities could foster feelings of apathy or aversion before an interview began. When evaluating the same résumé, consulting director Natalie, whose background was in public service, wrinkled her nose and said, “I don’t know. I’m personally not interested in commodity sales. [Shrugs] I just don’t have that much to talk to her about.” She declined to interview Sarah. Commonalities also provided “sparks” of excitement during interviews. Banker Arielle (white, female) recalled her best recent interviewee: “She and I both ran the New York marathon . . . we talked about that and hit it off . . . we started talking about how we both love stalking celebrities in New York . . . we had this instant connection. . . . I loved her.” Rivera 1015 Additionally, affective sparks could color perceptions of other evaluative criteria. Interviewers described feelings of excitement as a critical component of the chemistry that was a prerequisite for fit. Moreover, they often perceived the ability to immediately strike up an exciting, effortless conversation based on shared interests as a proxy for client skills. Banker Christopher (white, male) explained: “You just hit it off with them. And you feel like they can hit it off with anybody.” Feelings of excitement could color assessments of hard skills. Psychologists have shown that individuals experiencing positive feelings such as excitement overweight other people’s strengths in evaluation and discount their weaknesses. Conversely, individuals experiencing negative feelings such as boredom or disappointment exaggerate others’ weaknesses and discount their strengths. Moreover, people use their feelings as measures of quality, assuming that people who make them feel good are good (for a review, see Clore and Storbeck 2006). Beyond such well-documented biases in decision-making, a handful of interviewers admitted they would, on occasion, consciously lower the technical bar for candidates with whom they had a great spark. Banker Max said, “You know, if I’m really hitting it off with them, I won’t give them the numbers because I don’t want to see them flounder. I want to be able to go back and say, ‘Things went well’ and pass them on.” The stratifying power of affective boosts yielded by cultural similarity was most evident in post-interview deliberations. Feelings of excitement compel individuals to action (Collins 2004). In hiring, the level of excitement evaluators felt about candidates influenced their willingness to advocate for them in group deliberations. Because of the large number of interviewees, candidates needed to have a champion—an evaluator who would fight for them in deliberations—to receive a job offer. When describing this role to me, participants frequently used the language of love; a candidate had to get them “riled up,” “passionate,” or even “smitten” to champion them. Although a number of qualities could generate passion, evaluators reported that cultural similarity was one of the most potent. Banker Vishal (Indian, male), who felt that his own background and soft-spoken manner were atypical of employees in his firm, illustrated this point: Only once have I been passionate enough about a candidate to fight for him. He came across as someone who didn’t have the usual sort of confidence. . . . This guy was a bit shy but had a very strong drive to succeed. A lot of people were looking for a frat boy, you know, preppy, East Coast, private school. But I’m definitely not that and so I support people who don’t fit the mold. . . . I loved him and I championed him. The candidate received the job offer. The presence or absence of cultural similarities could thus yield affective advantages in addition to organizational and cognitive evaluative boosts. Alternative Accounts I have argued that cultural similarities between evaluators and applicants matter for employers’ hiring decisions. Nevertheless, one must consider whether attraction produced by cultural similarities is simply a mask for sex or race homophily. There are several reasons to believe this is not the case. First, prior research demonstrates that controlling for the chance of being included in applicant pools, sex or race matches between job candidates and evaluators do not consistently drive hiring evaluations; effects range from positive to negative to nil (Huffcutt 2011). In the firms studied here, the majority of interview dyads consisted of whites evaluating other whites and males evaluating other males, yet cultural similarities were still highly salient bases of evaluation within same-sex and same-race dyads. Similarly, although the majority of interviewers at Holt were white or male, women and minorities were hired at higher rates than were white and male applicants (see Part III in the online 1016 American Sociological Review 77(6) supplement). Second, perhaps because applicants were pre-screened for an elite university credential, sex, race, and experience were only loosely coupled in applicant pools. For example, at Holt, female professional school applicants were more likely than males to be competitive athletes or former investment bankers; ethnic minorities were more likely than whites to have attended Ivy League schools as undergraduates. Consequently, in this pool, selection on athletics was not tantamount to exclusion of females, and shared alma maters were not codes for ethnic exclusion. I am by no means suggesting that sex or racial discrimination or homophily do not occur in these firms. Rather, to understand labor market outcomes, it is necessary to consider not only similarities in sex and race between employers and candidates but also similarities in culture and experience. One must also consider whether superior résumé qualifications rather than cultural similarities are driving evaluations. However, as noted earlier, research shows that employers’ subjective impressions of candidates are most consequential for job interview evaluations; these impressions do not neatly correspond to applicants’ résumé qualifications or cognitive skills (Graves and Powell 1995; Huffcutt 2011). Similarly, at Holt, résumé characteristics predicted neither interview evaluations nor decisions to hire (Rivera 2009). Finally, one must consider whether employers use cultural similarities because applicant pools are so pre-screened that they have nothing left to differentiate candidates. Although they are a select group, graduating classes at elite universities—like other universities—display internal heterogeneity.18 Given that the majority of students at top-tier undergraduate and professional schools typically apply to these firms, employers had bases other than cultural similarity on which to differentiate candidates. They could have screened more intensively on class rank, relevant coursework, related work experience, writing skills, standardized test performance, or demographic characteristics—applicants varied along these lines—but they did not (Rivera 2011). Rather, employers prioritized cultural similarity because they saw it as a meaningful quality that fostered cohesion, signaled merit, and simply felt good. Although cultural similarities are more salient when gross differences in quality are minimized (Lamont 2009)—such as when employers create interview pools from résumés received, narrow a candidate long-list to a short-list, or make final hiring decisions—their use is not an artifact of having no alternative screening mechanisms. Moreover, understanding how employers make fine distinctions between candidates who pass a basic threshold of qualifications is crucial for knowing who is and is not ultimately hired into these organizations and who receives the material and symbolic resources these firms offer. Limitations And Future Research My intent was not to develop a universal theory of hiring but rather to shed light on an under-examined dimension of the hiring process. Still, several scope conditions are necessary. First, evaluators do not choose their interviewees. We might see less emphasis on cultural similarities when evaluators (1) choose whom they interview, (2) have different structural opportunities to develop relationships with candidates (see Roth 2006), or (3) lack information about candidates other than what is visible. Future research should examine the degree to which gatekeepers use cultural similarities after the point of hire in promotion and compensation decisions, an endeavor not possible here. Other scholars have shown, however, that cultural similarities, especially sports, are salient sources of inclusion and exclusion once on the job (Erickson 1996; Roth 2006; Turco 2010). Second, evaluators interview candidates for positions below them. We might see more or less emphasis on cultural similarities for positions of equal or greater status. Third, given that cultural fit was strongest in firms that employed open-ended interviews, selection on cultural similarity should be tampered in Rivera 1017 highly standardized or technical hiring evaluations. Finally, emphasizing cultural similarities may result in greater sex or race biases, than was the case in this study, when culture and demography are more tightly coupled (Turco 2010). Although the specific types and relative importance of cultural similarities may vary between occupations, use of cultural similarities in hiring is unlikely an elite phenomenon only. Several studies hypothesizing that cultural similarities matter in hiring analyze lowwage, low-skill labor markets (Bills 1999; Neckerman and Kirschenman 1991). Future research should analyze how the types and relative importance of cultural similarities in hiring vary between occupations. Conclusions Through a case study of elite professional service firms, I have argued that hiring is more than a process of skills sorting; it is also a process of cultural matching between candidates, evaluators, and firms. Cultural similarities influenced candidate evaluation in multiple, overlapping ways. Cultural fit was a formal evaluative criterion mandated by organizations and embraced by individual evaluators. Moreover, evaluators constructed and assessed merit in their own image, believing that culturally similar applicants were better candidates. Finally, evaluators implicitly gravitated toward and explicitly fought for candidates with whom they felt an emotional spark of commonality. Consequently, cultural reproduction (Bourdieu 1984) of these firms was in many ways over-determined, as organizational, cognitive, and affective processes reinforced one another to create new hire classes that mirrored firms’ existing employees in cultural signals and lifestyle markers. Implications for Research on Culture and Stratification My findings extend work on culture and stratification beyond educational settings to demonstrate that cultural similarities between employers and job candidates matter in employer hiring, a hypothesis suggested but heretofore uninvestigated by sociologists. The fate of students with similar credentials in the competition for elite jobs was linked to their display of cultural signals; applicants whose experiences, leisure pursuits, and selfpresentation styles matched those of employers could cash in these cultural similarities for jobs offering double to quadruple the salaries earned by other graduates from the same schools and for admission to a prestigious occupational group that serves as a gateway to the contemporary U.S. economic elite. Cultural similarity can thus be thought of as a form of capital that has economic conversion value (Bourdieu 1986) in labor markets, a proposition suggested but not previously demonstrated empirically (Bills 2003). My results also inform debates about what types of cultural signals serve as currency in corporate settings and are salient for North American elites (Erickson 1996; Lamont 1992). Because candidates could not reliably predict whom they would be partnered with for evaluation, having an expansive cultural tool kit (Swidler 1986) from which to draw to establish similarities with any interviewer seemed advantageous. Such results support Erickson’s (1996) contention that within North American corporations, familiarity with a wide array of cultural forms matters more for advancement than does specialization in highbrow artistic forms (see also Turco 2010). However, my findings refine Erickson’s argument in two important ways. First, although the particular cultural signals valued in elite firms were not highbrow or artistic, they did have important socioeconomic dimensions. Cultivation of leisure time is a hallmark of upper-middle-class cultures and of elites more generally (Lamont 1992; Veblen 1899). Moreover, evaluators tended to favor extracurricular activities associated with the white upper-middle class and that were acquired through intense, prolonged investment of material and temporal resources not only by job applicants but also by their parents (Rivera 2011; Shulman and Bowen 1018 American Sociological Review 77(6) 2001). Given that less affluent students are more likely than upper-middle-class students to believe that achievement in the classroom rather than on the field or in the concert hall matters most for future success and focus their energies accordingly (Bergerson 2007), the types of cultural similarities valued in elite firms’ hiring processes had the potential to create inequalities in access to elite jobs based on parental socioeconomic status. Second, mere familiarity with a cultural signal or activity was insufficient; as noted earlier, evaluators not only spot-checked candidates’ participation in an activity to ensure it was genuine but also sought formal and intensive participation. Successful candidates therefore needed to possess enough cultural breadth to establish similarities with any professional with whom they were paired, but also enough depth in white, upper-middle-class cultural signals to relate to and excite their overwhelmingly white, upper-middle-class, Ivy League-educated interviewers. Such results suggest that both cultural variety and depth serve as important bases of economic and social distinction in North American corporate life. Additionally, they suggest that concerted cultivation (Lareau 2003) of children’s extracurricular lives—a hallmark of U.S. white, upper-middle-class families—is not only a prerequisite for admission to America’s most elite colleges (Stevens 2007), but also for entry to its highest paying entry-level jobs. Such findings are consistent with Veblen’s (1899) hypothesis that conspicuous, intensive investment in leisure activities that are not directly useful is a powerful marker of elite status and a basis of economic stratification. Moreover, my findings suggest a social closure (Weber 1958) of elite occupations by cultural signals, particularly lifestyle markers associated with the white upper-middle class. Implications for Hiring Although human capital, social capital, and discrimination play critical roles in hiring, cultural signals also matter for employers’ choices. Evaluators in my sample sought new hires who were not only capable colleagues but also enjoyable playmates; interviewers often privileged their personal feelings of comfort, validation, and excitement over identifying candidates with superior cognitive or technical skills. In many respects, they hired in a manner more closely resembling the choice of friends or romantic partners than how sociologists typically portray employers selecting new workers. My results suggest that far from just error or discrimination, the residual terms of conventional sociological models of hiring also contain active cultural work by employers. Incorporating measures of applicants’ and evaluators’ cultural signals may help account for some unexplained variance in the decision to hire. Moreover, I go beyond demonstrating that cultural similarities matter in hiring and introduce three interpersonal processes through which they matter. These processes have the potential to inform future studies not only of hiring but also of interpersonal evaluation in organizations more broadly. Finally, my results call attention to the importance of analyzing socioeconomic inequalities in hiring. Organizational Performance Whether selecting on cultural similarities produces better or worse organizational performance is outside the scope of this article. However, just as culture simultaneously enables and constrains (Sewell 1992), the use of cultural similarities in hiring likely poses both benefits and challenges for organizations. These jobs require significant teamwork. Cultural similarities can facilitate trust and communication, but they can also reduce the attention team members pay to executing tasks and decision-making quality (Phillips et al. 2006). In the professional service context, emphasizing extracurricular similarities could increase employee enjoyment and attachment in the short-term. But given that these organizations require total work devotion (Blair-Loy 2003), selecting new hires based on extensive devotion to leisure could backfire in the longterm by resulting in a mismatch with the Rivera 1019 actual demands of the job. Additionally, allowing evaluators the flexibility to define merit in their own image and select candidates who excite them personally could create conflicts between organizational and individual goals. Given that evaluators could potentially work closely with new hires, they might be motivated to hire the most enjoyable over the most competent candidates; that is, they may hire for themselves rather than for the organization. Although in some ways functional, how cultural similarity was defined and prioritized in these firms may have negative, unintended consequences. Future research should compare the effect of hiring based on similarity in work styles, which can be beneficial (Chatman 1991), versus play styles on organizational performance. Diversity and Inequality Selecting new hires based on cultural similarity represents a dual-edged sword that both enables and constrains (1) organizations’ attempts to diversify and (2) opportunities for candidates from traditionally underrepresented groups in the competition for elite jobs. As demonstrated here, it can challenge traditional sex and racial inequalities by providing new opportunities for women and ethnic minorities who display the right stocks of cultural signals, as did many of the athletic, affluent, Ivy League-educated white and nonwhite women and men who were hired. However, the specific types of cultural similarities valued had a strong socioeconomic dimension and could create new inequalities by parental social class. Moreover, although culture, sex, and race were only loosely coupled in this population, the particular cultural signals desired did have a stereotypically gendered nature. Privileging such activities could indirectly disadvantage applicants— male or female—who held more stereotypically feminine leisure interests. Finally, my study calls attention to the cultural dimensions of homophily and homosocial reproduction in organizations. Although these terms have become synonymous with sex- and race-based preferences in the sociological literature, my findings suggest a return to the original articulations of these concepts (Kanter 1977; Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954), which also portray cultural similarities as important bases of attraction and stratification (see also Wimmer and Lewis 2010). I show that cultural homophily and cultural reproduction occur at the point of hire and introduce key interpersonal processes through which they do so. Thus, to fully understand hiring outcomes and inequalities, we must consider not only candidates’ human capital, social capital, and demographic characteristics, but also the match between their displays of cultural signals and those of the gatekeepers evaluating them. Acknowledgments I wish to thank Michèle Lamont, Frank Dobbin, Mary Brinton, Brayden King, Klaus Weber, Brian Uzzi, Gary Fine, Viviana Zelizer, Simone Ispa-Landa, Chana Teeger, Kevin Lewis, Tony Brown, Katherine Donato, Larry Isaac, Holly McCammon, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the American Sociological Association and Eastern Sociological Society Annual Meetings. Funding This research was supported by National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant [#0727427] and the Ford Foundation. Notes 1. When culture does enter discussions of hiring, it typically does so in the form of employer stereotypes about demographic groups (Gorman 2005; Holzer 1999). Although stereotypes are important forms of culture, sociological understandings of culture have evolved beyond stereotypes and universal group values to include contextually specific styles, signals, and schemas, including the lifestyle markers analyzed here (Lamont and Small 2008). 2. Similarly, networks scholars have demonstrated interest in cultural similarities (Wimmer and Lewis 2010). 3. Race and sex can be important bases of perceived similarity; however, they are not consistently so, particularly in high-status work contexts (see Ely 1995). 4. See also Bills (1999) and Turco (2010). 5. Professional service firms are businesses—most commonly law, investment, and consulting firms— that sell customized advice to clients. Studies of 1020 American Sociological Review 77(6) these firms include Gorman (2005), Roth (2006), and Turco (2010). 6. The most elite law schools are exceptions; career offices force firms to interview all applicants. 7. For information on the percentage of top-tier graduates who enter these industries, see Granfeld (1992) and Rampell (2011). 8. I identified firms based on national and major-market prestige rankings. 9. For a description of the hotel where Holt conducted interviews, see Part IV of the online supplement. 10. The next most common mechanisms in interviews were emotional response (code: emotion) and inferring merit from high-status activities (code: signaling). Signaling was the most common mechanism used in résumé screening. For an in-depth discussion of résumé screening, see Rivera (2011). 11. I use pseudonyms to protect confidentiality. 12. “Cultural fit” is a term used by employers rather than one I imposed. 13. The next most common criteria were interpersonal (i.e., polish or presence) and then analytic skills. 14. This literature characterizes culture at the individual level as stable personality traits and universal values (Rokeach 1979); sociologists have developed more nuanced conceptions of culture (Lamont and Small 2008). 15. Contrary to stereotypes of these firms, new hires display nontrivial sex and racial diversity (see Part III of the online supplement). 16. Although candidates varied in class rank, work experience, and demographic characteristics at this stage, employers were more likely to use extracurriculars to create interview pools (Rivera 2011). 17. Similarities could also yield disadvantages when increased knowledge provided discrediting information (e.g., “gut” academic majors). Similarity is risky to fake. People often react negatively to others who are inauthentic in their self-presentation (Lamont 2009). Evaluators reported spot-checking candidates’ experiences to see if participation was genuine and extensive. 18. Cognitive ability is only one avenue for admission to elite universities (Shulman and Bowen 2001). References Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender and Society 4:139–58. Barley, Stephen and Gideon Kunda. 1992. “Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37:363–99. Bergerson, Amy. 2007. “Exploring the Impact of Social Class on Adjustment to College: Anna’s Story.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20:99–119. Bills, David. 1999. “Labor Market Information and Selection in a Local Restaurant Industry: The Tenuous Balance between Rewards, Commitments, and Costs.” Sociological Forum 14:583–607. Bills, David. 2003. “Credentials, Signals, and Screens: Explaining the Relationship between Schooling and Job Assignment.” Review of Educational Research 73:441–69. Blair-Loy, Mary. 2003. Competing Devotions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Blau, Peter and Otis Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Free Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241–58 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press. Byrne, Donn. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Cable, Daniel and Timothy Judge. 1997. “Interviewers’ Perceptions of Person–Organization Fit and Organizational Selection Decisions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 82:546–61. Castilla, Emilio J. 2011. “Bringing Managers Back In: Managerial Influences on Workplace Inequality.” American Sociological Review 76:667–94. Charmaz, Kathy. 2001. “Grounded Theory.” Pp. 335– 52 in Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations, edited by R. Emerson. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Chatman, Jennifer. 1991. “Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms.” Administrative Sciences Quarterly 36:459–84. Clore, Gerald and Justin Storbeck. 2006. “Affect as Information about Liking, Efficacy, and Importance.” Pp. 123–42 in Hearts and Minds: Affective Influences on Social Thinking and Behavior, edited by J. P. Forgas. New York: Psychology Press. Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DiMaggio, Paul. 1987. “Classification in Art.” American Sociological Review 52:440–55. DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. “Nadel’s Paradox Revisited: Relational and Cultural Aspects of Social Structure.” Pp. 118–42 in Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action, edited by N. Nohria and R. Eccles. Boston, MA: HBS Press. DiMaggio, Paul and John Mohr. 1985. “Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and Marital Selection.” American Journal of Sociology 90:1231–61. Elliot, James and Ryan Smith. 2004. “Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.” American Sociological Review 69:365–86. Ely, Robin. 1995. “The Power in Demography: Women’s Social Constructions of Gender Identity at Work.” American Academy of Management Journal 38:589–634. Erickson, Bonnie. 1996. “Culture, Class, and Connections.” American Journal of Sociology 102:217–51. Rivera 1021 Erickson, Frederick and Jeffrey Schultz. 1981. The Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press. Farkas, George. 2003. “Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Stratification Processes.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:541–62. Fernandez, Roberto and Nancy Weinberg. 1997. “Shifting and Sorting: Personal Contacts and Hiring in a Retail Bank.” American Sociological Review 62:883–902. Gigone, Daniel and Reid Hastie. 1993. “The Common Knowledge Effect: Information Sharing and Group Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:959–74. Gorman, Elizabeth. 2005. “Gender Stereotypes, SameGender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms.” American Sociological Review 70:702–728. Granfeld, Robert. 1992. Making Elite Lawyers: Visions of Law at Harvard and Beyond. New York: Routledge. Graves, Laura and Gary Powell. 1995. “The Effect of Sex Similarity on Recruiters’ Evaluations of Actual Applicants: A Test of the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm.” Personnel Psychology 48:85–98. Gross, Neil. 2009. “A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review 74:358–79. Guren, Adam and Natalie Sherman. 2008. “Harvard Graduates Head to Investment Banking, Consulting.” Harvard Crimson, June 22. Heckman, James and Peter Siegelman. 1993. “The Urban Institute Audit Studies: Their Methods and Findings.” Pp. 187–258 in Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America, edited by M. Fix and R. Struyk. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Holzer, Harry. 1999. What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers. New York: Russell Sage. Huffcutt, Allen. 2011. “An Empirical Review of the Employment Interview Construct Literature.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 19:62–81. Kalfayan, Michael. 2009. “Choosing Financial Careers at Harvard.” Harvard University, Committee on Social Studies, Cambridge, MA. Unpublished manuscript. Kanter, Rosabeth. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American UpperMiddle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lamont, Michèle and Virag Molnar. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28:167–95. Lamont, Michèle and Mario Small. 2008. “How Culture Matters: Enriching Our Understanding of Poverty.” Pp. 76–102 in The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Exist, edited by D. Harris and A. Lin. New York: Russell Sage. Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lareau, Annette and Elliot Weininger. 2003. “Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment.” Theory and Society 32:567–606. Lazarsfeld, Paul and Robert Merton. 1954. “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis.” Pp. 18–66 in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited by M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. Page. New York: Van Nostrand. Leonhardt, David. 2011. “Consultant Nation.” New York Times, December 10. Management Consulted. 2012. “2012 Management Consulting Salaries – Undergraduate, MBA, Interns, and More.” Retrieved September 10, 2012 (http:// managementconsulted.com/consulting-jobs/2012- management-consulting-salaries-undergraduate-postmba/). Montoya, Matthew, Robert Horton, and Jeffrey Kirchner. 2008. “Is Actual Similarity Necessary for Attraction? A Meta-Analysis of Actual and Perceived Similarity.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25:899–922. National Association of Legal Professionals. 2011. NALP Directory of Legal Employers. Washington, DC: National Association of Legal Professionals. Neckerman, Kathryn and Joleen Kirschenman. 1991. “Hiring Strategies, Racial Bias, and Inner-City Workers.” Social Problems 38:433–47. Pager, Devah and Hana Shepherd. 2008. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:181–208. Pager, Devah, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski. 2009. “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment.” American Sociological Review 74:777–99. Phillips, Katherine, Gregory Northcraft, and Margaret Neale. 2006. “Surface-Level Diversity and DecisionMaking in Groups: When Does Deep-Level Similarity Help?” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 9:467–82. Rampell, Catherine. 2011. “Out of Harvard and into Finance.” New York Times, December 21. Reskin, Barbara and Debra McBrier. 2000. “Why Not Ascription? Organizations’ Employment of Male and Female Managers.” American Sociological Review 65:210–33. Rimer, Sara. 2008. “Big Paycheck or Service?” New York Times, June 23. Rivera, Lauren. 2009. “Hiring and Inequality in Elite Professional Service Firms.” PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Rivera, Lauren. 2011. “Ivies, Extracurriculars, and Exclusion: Elite Employers’ Use of Educational Credentials.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 29:71–90. 1022 American Sociological Review 77(6) Rivera, Lauren. 2012. “Diversity within Reach.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639:71–90. Rokeach, Milton. 1979. Understanding Human Values. New York: Free Press. Roscigno, Vincent. 2007. The Face of Discrimination: How Race and Gender Impact Work and Home Lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman. Roth, Louise. 2006. Selling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Saez, Emmanuel. 2008. “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States.” Pathways Magazine 6–7. Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality. Sewell, William. 1992. “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.” American Journal of Sociology 98:1–29. Shulman, James and William Bowen. 2001. The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stainback, Kevin, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Sheryl Skaggs. 2010. “Organizational Approaches to Inequality: Inertia, Relative Power, and Environments.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:225–47. Stevens, Mitchell. 2007. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stevens, Mitchell. 2008. “Culture and Education.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619:97–113. Stevens, Mitchell, Elizabeth Armstrong, and Richard Arum. 2008. “Sieve, Incubator, Temple, Hub: Empirical and Theoretical Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:127–51. Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51:273–86. Tajfel, Henry and John Turner. 1986. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” Pp. 7–24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worshel and W. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tilly, Chris and Charles Tilly. 1998. Work under Capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Turco, Catherine. 2010. “Cultural Foundations of Tokenism: Evidence from the Leveraged Buyout Industry.” American Sociological Review 75:894–913. Turner, Jonathan and Jan Stets. 2006. “Sociological Theories of Human Emotions.” Annual Review of Sociology 32:25–52. Veblen, Thorstein. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Modern Library. Wall Street Oasis. 2012. “Investment Banking Salary and Compensation, Average Bonus in Banking.” Retrieved September 10, 2012 (http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/ salary/investment-banking-compensation). Weber, Max. 1958. “Class, Status and Party.” Pp. 180–95 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wilson, William Julius. 1997. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage. Wimmer, Andreas and Kevin Lewis. 2010. “Beyond and Below Racial Homophily.” American Journal of Sociology 116:583–642. Yin, Robert. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zimmerman, Eilene. 2009. “Chill of Salary Freezes Reaches Top Law Firms.” New York Times, January 24. Zuckerman, Ezra. 1999. “The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount.” American Journal of Sociology 104:1398–1438. Lauren A. Rivera is an Assistant Professor of Management & Organizations and Sociology at Northwestern University. Her research, which resides at the cusp of cultural sociology, social psychology, and social stratification, investigates how people evaluate worth and social status in real-life, naturalistic contexts and how the ways they do so relate to broader social inequalities. She received her PhD in Sociology from Harvard University. Before entering academia, she was a management consultant.

American Sociological Review 77(6) 999–1022 © American Sociological Association 2012 DOI: 10.1177/0003122412463213 http://asr.sagepub.com Over the past 40 years, there has been considerable debate about the role that culture plays in labor market stratification. On the one hand, status attainment and labor market scholars have portrayed culture as peripheral to occupational sorting (Blau and Duncan 1967; Tilly and Tilly 1998). On the other hand, cultural sociologists contend that culture is an important basis on which valued material and symbolic rewards—including access to desirable jobs and occupations—are distributed (Lareau and Weininger 2003). Yet, little empirical scholarship investigates the role that culture plays in occupational attainment. One of the most crucial moments in labor market stratification is the decision to hire. As Bills (2003:442) notes, “Ultimately . . . both attaining an occupational status and securing an income are contingent on a hiring transaction.” Although scholars often hypothesize that cultural similarities between employers and job candidates matter for employers’ decisions (Lamont 1992), systematic empirical research on the role of culture in hiring is virtually nonexistent (Huffcutt 2011; Stainback, TomaskovicDevey, and Skaggs 2010). 463213 ASRXXX10.1177/000312241246 3213American Sociological ReviewRivera 2012 a Northwestern University Corresponding Author: Lauren A. Rivera, Northwestern University, Management & Organizations Department, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208 E-mail: l-rivera@kellogg.northwestern.edu Hiring as Cultural Matching: The Case of Elite Professional Service Firms Lauren A. Riveraa Abstract This article presents culture as a vehicle of labor market sorting. Providing a case study of hiring in elite professional service firms, I investigate the often suggested but heretofore empirically unexamined hypothesis that cultural similarities between employers and job candidates matter for employers’ hiring decisions. Drawing from 120 interviews with employers as well as participant observation of a hiring committee, I argue that hiring is more than just a process of skills sorting; it is also a process of cultural matching between candidates, evaluators, and firms. Employers sought candidates who were not only competent but also culturally similar to themselves in terms of leisure pursuits, experiences, and self-presentation styles. Concerns about shared culture were highly salient to employers and often outweighed concerns about absolute productivity. I unpack the interpersonal processes through which cultural similarities affected candidate evaluation in elite firms and provide the first empirical demonstration that shared culture—particularly in the form of lifestyle markers—matters for employer hiring. I conclude by discussing the implications for scholarship on culture, inequality, and labor markets. Keywords cultural capital, culture, hiring, homophily, inequality, interpersonal evaluation, labor markets 1000 American Sociological Review 77(6) Providing a case study of elite professional service firms, I investigate the often suggested but previously untested hypothesis that cultural similarities—defined here as shared tastes, experiences, leisure pursuits, and selfpresentation styles (Bourdieu 1984)—between employers and job candidates matter for employers’ hiring decisions. I find that hiring is more than just a process of skills sorting; it is also a process of cultural matching between candidates, evaluators, and firms. Employers sought candidates who were not only competent but also culturally similar to themselves. Concerns about shared culture were highly salient to employers and often outweighed concerns about productivity alone. I introduce three interpersonal processes through which cultural similarities affected candidate evaluation and provide the first empirical demonstration that shared culture—particularly in the form of lifestyle markers—matters for employer hiring. How Employers Hire Hiring is a powerful way in which employers shape labor market outcomes. Hiring practices are gatekeeping mechanisms that facilitate career opportunities for some groups, while blocking entry for others. As an entry point to occupations and income brackets, hiring is a critical site of economic stratification and social closure (Elliot and Smith 2004). Sociologists typically depict employer hiring as a matching process between organizational characteristics, job demands, and applicants’ skills (Tilly and Tilly 1998). Although too voluminous to review here (and excellently summarized elsewhere), researchers commonly portray employers’ hiring decisions as stemming from estimates of candidates’ human capital (i.e., hard and soft skills), social capital (i.e., social connections), and demographic characteristics; residual variance is typically attributed to a combination of discrimination and error (for a review, see Pager and Shepherd 2008). However, despite a surge of research on employers over the past 30 years, our knowledge of hiring remains incomplete. Even after accounting for measures of applicants’ human capital, social capital, and demographic traits, models of employer hiring still exhibit significant unexplained variance. Consequently, much of what drives employer decision-making is still a mystery to scholars (Heckman and Siegelman 1993). I argue that much of this gap can be attributed to methodological and data limitations. The bulk of sociological research on hiring uses quantitative data on either (1) individuals who enter an organization or (2) pre-hire/ post-hire comparisons that are unable to explore how hiring decisions are actually made (Fernandez and Weinberg 1997). Additionally, research is often constrained to easily observable individual-, organizational-, or industry-level information derived from employment records or public data. However, to fully understand how employers hire, it is necessary to study the process of decisionmaking itself, analyzing how employers evaluate, compare, and select new hires. Doing so can reveal more subtle factors that contribute to employers’ decisions and can illuminate new mechanisms (Gross 2009) that produce hiring outcomes. Bringing Culture Back In When studying employer hiring, scholars typically analyze individual, organizational, or institutional factors (Pager and Shepherd 2008). However, hiring involves more than just candidates, companies, and contexts; it is also a fundamentally interpersonal process. Job interviews are crucial components of hiring in many industries; subjective impressions of candidates that employers develop through interviews are strong drivers of hiring decisions, often carrying more weight than candidates’ résumé qualifications (Graves and Powell 1995). Still, sociologists typically analyze pre- or post-interview aspects of hiring. In light of this, several scholars have called for more attention to the interpersonal dimensions of hiring (Roscigno 2007; Stainback et al. 2010). Rivera 1001 The literature on interpersonal dynamics shows that similarity is one of the most powerful drivers of attraction and evaluation in micro-social settings (Byrne 1971), including job interviews (Huffcutt 2011). Although hiring research has examined similarities in sex and race, similarities in tastes, experiences, leisure pursuits, and self-presentation styles also serve as potent sources of interpersonal attraction and stratification (Lareau and Weininger 2003; Wimmer and Lewis 2010). Seeking out commonalities in knowledge, experience, and interests is typically the first thing two people do upon meeting (Gigone and Hastie 1993). Discovering such similarities serves as a powerful emotional glue that facilitates trust and comfort, generates feelings of excitement, and bonds individuals together (Collins 2004; DiMaggio 1987; Erickson 1996). In fact, the original articulations of the similarity-attraction hypothesis in psychology (Byrne 1971) and the homophily principle in sociology (Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954) posited that cultural similarities yield attraction. However, cultural similarities are more than just sources of liking; they are also fundamental bases on which we evaluate merit (DiMaggio 1987; Lamont and Molnar 2002). Early scholars, including Weber (1958) and Veblen (1899), argued that similarities in leisure pursuits, experiences, self-presentation, and other “lifestyle markers” serve as badges of group membership and bases of inclusion or exclusion from desirable social opportunities. In fact, Weber suggested that lifestyle markers are fundamental bases of status group reproduction and social closure. Indeed, consciously or not, gatekeepers may use cultural similarities when evaluating others and distributing valued rewards. For example, in a classic study of interviews between college counselors and community college students, Erickson and Schultz (1981) found that establishing similarity was critical for whether a counselor believed a student had potential for future success and delivered a positive recommendation. Co-membership could occur on various lines, but similarities in experience and culture were most crucial. More recently, Lamont (2009) found that scholars were more likely to recommend proposals for prestigious academic fellowships that were topically similar to their own research interests. Such patterns have implications not only for immediate access to material and social rewards but also for longer term educational, economic, and social trajectories (DiMaggio and Mohr 1985). Although plentiful, research on culture and stratification disproportionately focuses on investigating shared culture in educational settings (for a review, see Stevens, Armstrong, and Arum 2008). Missing in this literature is an examination of whether shared culture matters after graduation, when students with similar credentials compete for jobs in the labor market. Employer hiring is a particularly clear example of the stratifying power of shared culture. We can see whether students cash in displays of cultural signals for monetary rewards in the form of desirable jobs and salaries; that is, whether cultural similarity has an economic conversion value (Bourdieu 1986) in job markets, a proposition often hypothesized but not yet analyzed empirically (Bills 2003). Given that qualities we use to evaluate others are context specific (Lamont 1992), one cannot assume that shared culture works identically in the classroom as in the interview room; both warrant empirical attention. Just as cultural sociologists have not yet systematically studied hiring, hiring scholars have under-theorized culture. The majority of sociological research on hiring focuses on how employers estimate applicants’ hard skills and, in particular, cognitive skills; studies that look at noncognitive traits most frequently examine those hypothesized to directly affect productivity, such as soft skills (Farkas 2003).1 Applicants’ displays of cultural signals and lifestyle markers are typically classified as nonproductive and thus have received minimal empirical attention (Tilly and Tilly 1998). Although hiring studies often recognize that similarity is an important driver of candidate selection, research focuses almost exclusively on analyzing similarities in sex or race (Elliot and Smith 2004; Gorman 2005). Part of this focus may be due to data limitations—information 1002 American Sociological Review 77(6) about underlying tastes and experiences can be difficult to obtain, let alone quantify (Stevens 2008). Additionally, scholars often portray demographic similarities as proxies for shared culture. Although culture and structure are mutually reinforcing (Sewell 1992), and structural position, including sex and race, strongly influences the content of one’s cultural toolkit (Swidler 1986), considerable variation in values, experience, and behavior exists within demographic groups (Lamont and Small 2008). Consequently, it is necessary to consider not only similarities in demography but also similarities in culture and experience between employers and prospective employees (Turco 2010; Wilson 1997). Finally, some hiring research assumes that sex and race similarities trump all other commonalities. Although similarities in sex and race are powerful sources of interpersonal attraction and evaluation, over the past 25 years psychologists have confirmed Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) hypothesis that in-group and out-group preferences are variable; a robust literature reveals important moderators of demographic in-group preference (see Ely 1995). In hiring, studies of sex and race similarities between employers and applicants show inconsistent effects, ranging from positive to negative to nil (Huffcutt 2011). In light of this, scholars have called for research analyzing how similarities other than sex and race influence labor market sorting (Castilla 2011).2 As noted earlier, one particularly powerful source of interpersonal attraction and evaluation is shared culture. Although important in many settings, cultural similarities are likely to be especially important in hiring. Psychologists have shown that perceived similarity helps moderate the effect of actual similarity on attraction. The subjective belief that another is similar to the self on one or more dimensions that the individual values in a particular context is crucial for understanding patterns of interpersonal attraction (Tajfel and Turner 1986).3 Subjective impressions of similarity are particularly consequential in one-onone settings where interactions are personalized, enduring, and based on more information than what is visible (Montoya, Horton, and Kirchner 2008), such as in job interviews. In fact, perceived similarity is thought to be more important than actual similarity in the decision to hire (Graves and Powell 1995). A critical source of perceived similarity is shared culture (Lamont and Molnar 2002). Nevertheless, sociological research on hiring typically sidelines shared culture as a basis of employers’ decisions. Indeed, there are whispers of cultural similarity in the hiring literature. A small number of qualitative case studies—perhaps most notably Neckerman and Kirschenman’s (1991) study of urban employers—hypothesize that shared culture between employers and applicants may shape employers’ decisions.4 DiMaggio (1992:127) even goes so far as to call organizational recruitment a “cultural matching” process. Despite the fact that shared culture between superiors and subordinates is salient for inclusion and exclusion once on the job (Erickson 1996; Roth 2006; Turco 2010), cultural factors are typically bracketed as nonproductive or unobservable in hiring studies and are excluded from analysis (Pager, Western, and Bonikowski 2009). To the best of my knowledge, this article presents the first systematic, empirical investigation of whether shared culture between employers and job candidates matters in hiring. Through a case study of elite professional service firms, I seek to (1) extend sociological research on culture and stratification beyond educational settings to the domain of labor markets, and (2) observe what hiring scholars have typically considered unobservable. My goal is not to develop an alternative theory of hiring— cultural similarities certainly work in conjunction with human capital, social capital, and discrimination—but rather to illuminate one important but understudied dimension of hiring, with the aim of more accurately modeling reality from the perspective of employers. Case Selection Wall Street versus Main Street I analyze hiring in elite professional service firms.5 Although a focus on elite employers Rivera 1003 constrains generalizability, it also offers distinct theoretical advantages. First, the majority of hiring studies focus on low-wage or low-skill labor markets. Such analyses are very important, but inequality is driven by privilege as well as disadvantage. To fully understand how employers contribute to economic stratification, it is also necessary to understand entry to highly paid and prestigious job tracks. Analyzing access to elite jobs is particularly important given that the top 10 percent of income earners has disproportionately driven economic inequality in the United States in recent decades (Saez 2008). Because hiring practices tend to be labor-market specific (Bills 2003), they may differ between Wall Street and Main Street; both warrant empirical attention. Second, elite professional service firms are a fertile ground for analyzing cultural similarities in hiring. Entry-level professional positions typically require a prestigious university credential, and these employers solicit the majority of applications directly through university career centers rather than through informal networks. Applicant pools are thus pre-screened, minimizing many traditional structural and status differences between applicants. Studying this labor market thus provides unique opportunities to analyze cultural similarities between job applicants and evaluators in the absence of stark differences in applicants’ human or social capital. Third, elite employers are a particularly fruitful case for examining cultural similarities in hiring. Cultural qualities tend to be more salient in settings where differences in quality are minimized (Lamont 2009) and among elites (Lamont 1992). Thus, even if focusing on elite employers is less generalizable, it allows for analysis of culture under the microscope. Although a focus on elites may magnify the relative importance of cultural similarities in hiring, it can also reveal important insights about the role of shared culture in hiring at a level of granularity that may be inaccessible in other settings. Elite Professional Service Firms I analyze hiring for entry-level professional positions in elite investment banks, law firms, and management consulting firms. These firms share important similarities. Rewards. Jobs in these firms hold unparalleled economic rewards for young employees. Joining one of these firms catapults recent graduates into the top 10 percent of household incomes in the United States (see Table 1). These salaries are double to quadruple amounts earned by graduates from the same universities entering other jobs in the same year (Guren and Sherman 2008; Zimmerman 2009). Additionally, because jobs early in the life course play a critical role in shaping future economic and occupational trajectories (Blau and Duncan 1967), and doing time within these firms is increasingly required for senior positions within the government and nonprofit sectors as well as other corporations (Kalfayan 2009), these jobs can be thought of as contemporary gateways to the U.S. economic elite. Consequently, the stakes for applicants are high. Work. Entry-level professionals execute a combination of research, teamwork, and client Table 1. Typical Entry-Level Compensation by Field and Degree First Year Total Annual Compensationa Law Firm JD $175–330Kb Investment Bank BA $70–150K MBA/JD/PhD $150–350K Consulting Firm BA $70–100K MBA/JD/PhD $135–200K Sources: Management Consulted (2012); National Association of Legal Professionals (2011); Wall Street Oasis (2012) a Starting salaries are standardized by firm and do not vary by a candidate’s alma mater, grades, or prior work experience. These figures include base salary, annual performance bonus, and signing bonuses; they exclude relocation expense bonuses, which vary by firm. b Only one law firm matches employees’ base salary in bonus; most firms are closer to the lower end of this range. 1004 American Sociological Review 77(6) interaction; analytic and interpersonal skills are key job requirements. Across firm type, professionals work with similar (if not the exact same) clients, usually large corporations. Professionals face tight deadlines and highly demanding work schedules (65+ hours per week). Recruitment. Firms hire the bulk of new professional employees through annual, oncampus recruitment programs operated with career-services offices at elite universities. Firms seek to create an incoming class of new hires that enter the firm as a group and undergo intensive on-the-job training and professional socialization together. Firms identify a set of universities—typically through national prestige rankings—where they accept résumés and interview candidates. At these campuses, any student may apply. Competition is largely closed to students who do not attend prestigious schools (Rivera 2011). After an initial résumé screen,6 usually based on a grade floor and extracurriculars, firms choose a subgroup of applicants for first-round interviews where applicants meet with one or two employees for 20 to 45 minutes. Firms typically interview dozens of candidates from a single school backto-back in a campus career center or nearby hotel. It is crucial to note that candidates are interviewed by revenue-generating professionals (rather than human resources [HR] representatives) who have undergone minimal training in interviewing and could potentially work closely with candidates hired. Applicants who receive favorable evaluations in firstround interviews participate in a final round of three to six back-to-back interviews either on campus or in the firm’s office. Recruiting committees typically weigh interviews more heavily than résumés in final offer decisions. Candidates. These firms attract similar applicant pools. The majority of students at top-tier undergraduate and professional schools apply for these jobs.7 Elite undergraduates frequently debate between entering banking, consulting, or law school upon graduation; business school and law school students often apply simultaneously to banks and consulting firms; and newly minted JDs increasingly seek employment in banks and consulting firms (Leonhardt 2011; Rimer 2008). Despite these similarities, these firms also display differences, enabling consideration of sources of variation in hiring evaluations. Work. Although work in all settings entails similar skills, new consultants generally have the greatest amount of teamwork and client contact; new lawyers have the least. Additionally, consulting and investment banking entail more quantitative analysis than does law. Such differences can illuminate links between job requirements and the role of cultural similarity in hiring. Interview format. Law firm interviews focus exclusively on testing candidates’ interpersonal skills through informal conversation. Banks follow a similar format but also test candidates’ basic familiarity with financial principles. Although such probes are typically rudimentary (e.g., “What is NASDAQ?” “How do you value a company?”), they incorporate a basic level of job-relevant knowledge into interviews. Consulting firms employ the most technical evaluations, consisting of a brief conversational interview, similar to those in banks and law firms, followed by a 20- to 30-minute case in which interviewers describe a hypothetical business problem and ask applicants to talk about how they might solve it. Such variation enables analysis of whether there are links between interview formats and the role of cultural similarity in hiring. Methods To investigate the role of cultural similarity in hiring, I conducted interviews and participant observation. Because this article focuses on the evaluation process and evaluators’ subjective impressions of candidates, I draw heavily from the interviews—which are particularly suited to the study of subjective interpretations and social processes (Yin 2003)—but use fieldwork to supplement participants’ narratives. Rivera 1005 Interviews From 2006 to 2008, I conducted 120 interviews with professionals involved in undergraduate and graduate hiring in top-tier firms8 (40 per industry). Participants included hiring partners, managing directors, mid-level employees who conduct interviews and screen résumés, and HR managers. I recruited participants through stratified sampling from public directories of recruiting contacts, university alumni directories, and multi-sited referral chains (see Part I, section C, in the online supplement [http://asr.sagepub.com/ supplemental]). Because elite populations are often difficult to access, referrals and my university and prior corporate affiliations were helpful in gaining consent and building rapport with participants. Interviews lasted 40 to 90 minutes, took place at the time and location of participants’ choosing, and were taperecorded and transcribed word-for-word when participants consented. Following Lamont’s (2009) protocol for probing evaluative criteria, I asked evaluators specific questions about the qualities they looked for and about recent interviewees. Additionally, I asked evaluators who screened résumés to verbally evaluate a set of mock candidate résumés. I constructed résumés that were somewhat standard for these firms—all had attended selective universities, met firms’ grade floor, and were involved in extracurriculars. The mock candidates, however, varied by sex, ethnicity, educational prestige, GPA, prior employer, and extracurriculars (see Part V in the online supplement). Because more than one characteristic varied between résumés, profiles were not intended to be an experimental manipulation but rather a launching point for discussion to illuminate processes of evaluation in real time. Qualitative research is a social endeavor, so it is possible that my identity influenced the tone of interviews. I am an Ivy Leagueeducated female from a mixed ethno-religious background, which may have primed respondents to emphasize high-status cultural practices (which they did) and favor diversity (which they did not). Participant Observation Over nine months in 2006 and 2007, I conducted fieldwork within the recruiting department of one elite professional service firm, which I refer to by the pseudonym Holt Halliday, or simply Holt. My role was that of a participant observer. Given my prior professional experience, I was brought on through a personal connection as an unpaid “recruiting intern” to help execute recruitment events. In exchange, Holt granted me permission to observe its recruitment process for research purposes. During these months, I shadowed evaluators through full-time and summer associate recruitment from an elite professional school. Due to institutional review board (IRB) restrictions and Holt’s request, I was unable to sit in on interviews. However, I attended recruitment events, interacted with candidates, debriefed evaluators about candidates after interviews, and sat in on group deliberations where candidates were discussed and ultimately selected.9 In addition to informing my interview protocol, such observation enabled examination of candidate selection in action and could reveal patterns outside the awareness of evaluators. Although I did not observe interviews directly, witnessing how employers discussed candidates and ultimately made decisions behind closed doors provided crucial insights into the hiring process. How we interpret events plays a critical role in orienting action (Turner and Stets 2006). Similarly, evaluators record subjective impressions—not objective details—of interactions on written interview reports and use these narratives to argue for or against candidates in hiring committee deliberations. These subjective impressions are the most important determinant of interview evaluations (Graves and Powell 1995). Although I observed only one firm, these data represent a starting point for understanding basic features of the hiring process. Data Analysis I developed coding categories inductively and refined them in tandem with data analysis 1006 American Sociological Review 77(6) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Organization Driven Cognitively Driven Affectively Driven Percent of Interviewees Who Used Each Process in Evaluation Types of Processes N = 117 N = 94 N = 107 Figure 1. Relative Prevalence of the Processes through Which Cultural Similarities Affected Candidate Evaluation (N = 120) Note: The graph refers to the percent of participants who spontaneously used cultural similarity in a particular way when evaluating any candidate (i.e., recently interviewed, ideal, or mock profile) in research interviews. (Charmaz 2001). In primary coding rounds, I coded mentions of any criteria or process participants used to evaluate candidates in my interview transcripts and field notes. I did not set out to analyze cultural similarities. In fact, I originally intended to study gender in hiring. However, after noticing the high frequency with which employers used similarity as a basis of evaluation, I developed secondary codes to capture the role of similarity in hiring, specifically codes referring to (1) types of similarities employers used in evaluation, (2) meanings employers attributed to particular similarities, and (3) how employers used similarities in evaluation. I followed a similar procedure to code instances when similarities (or a lack thereof ) inhibited evaluation. Next, I compared evaluators’ biographic and demographic information obtained in conversations with their discussions of the relative importance of particular qualities for points of concordance and discordance. Finally, I quantified and compared code frequencies using the data analysis software ATLAS.ti. Hiring As Cultural Matching Cultural similarities were highly salient to employers in hiring. Perhaps surprisingly, similarity was the most common mechanism employers used to assess applicants at the job interview stage.10 Similarities in extracurricular/leisure pursuits, experiences, and selfpresentation styles were most commonly used. I argue that cultural similarities affected candidate evaluation through three processes: (1) organizational processes encouraging selection on cultural fit; (2) cognitive processes, whereby similarities contributed to greater understanding and valuation of candidates’ qualifications; and (3) affective processes, whereby similarities generated excitement and increased the likelihood that evaluators would fight for candidates in deliberations. As illustrated in Figure 1, organizational processes were most prevalent. Organizational Processes: Fitting In As Formal Criterion In these firms, cultural similarity is a formal evaluative criterion structured into candidate screening and selection. Law firm partner Omar11 (black, male) explained, “In our new associates, we are first and foremost looking for cultural compatibility. Someone who . . . will fit in.” This notion of cultural fit, 12 or Rivera 1007 perceived similarity to a firm’s existing employee base in leisure pursuits, background, and self-presentation, was a key driver of evaluation across firms. Evaluators described fit as being one of the three most important criteria they used to assess candidates in job interviews; more than half reported it was the most important criterion at the job interview stage, rating fit over analytical thinking and communication.13 Although this number may seem high, firms mandated that evaluators assess candidates’ fit along with a variety of technical and communication skills in résumé screens and first- and second-round job interviews. Consequently, even evaluators who weren’t personally fond of fit, like consultant Priya (Indian, female), frequently reported using it in assessment. Priya explained, “I don’t think [fit] should be [a consideration] at all, it seems to me a very [shakes her head] American thing. But it’s what [firms] want, so it’s what you do.” Management scholars have discussed the benefits of hiring based on matches between candidates’ skills and those required by jobs (Cable and Judge 1997). Additionally, following the cultural turn in management, many employers use organizational culture as a way of motivating employees. Strong cultures are often seen as enhancing organizations’ productivity, profitability, and creativity (Barley and Kunda 1992). Consequently, some scholars advocate selecting new hires based on fit between an organization’s culture—defined as the shared values that delineate appropriate workplace behavior—and applicants’ stable personality traits (e.g., extroversion versus introversion) and work values (e.g., a preference for independent versus collaborative work).14 Such matches can enhance employee satisfaction, performance, and retention (Chatman 1991). However, the notion of fit evaluators in this study used differs from this conception because here it typically referred to individuals’ play styles—how applicants preferred to conduct themselves outside the office—rather than their work styles. Moreover, evaluators distinguished fit from the communication skills required in client-facing professions, which they grouped into the separate category of “polish” or “presence.” Consultant Eugene (Asian American, male) fleshed out the distinction between fit and client skills: When you are judging someone [to see] if you want to put him in front of a client, the question is do they conduct themselves professionally. . . . You need someone who speaks in a way that earns your trust, who presents their opinion respectfully but also convincingly. . . . But in terms of “fit,” it’s someone that we want on our case team. . . . You want someone that makes you feel comfortable, that you enjoy hanging out with, can maintain a cool head when times are tough and make tough times kind of fun. Moreover, unlike fit, evaluators believed client skills could be taught or “coached.” Why did evaluators and firms prioritize cultural fit? When explaining the importance of fit to me, evaluators cited the time-intensive nature of their work. With the long hours spent in the office or on the road, they saw having culturally similar colleagues as making rigorous work weeks more enjoyable, although not necessarily more productive or successful. Law firm partner Vivian (white, female) explained, “When I hire an associate, what I want to know is, is this person someone I could be sitting across the table from at 2 a.m. when trying to get a brief done?” Because of hefty time commitments, coworkers often by default became an employee’s primary social network. Consequently, evaluators at all levels of seniority reported wanting to hire individuals who would not only be competent colleagues but also held the potential to be playmates or even friends. Consultant Lance (Asian American, male) described this position: It seems like we’re always at work. We work nights; we work weekends; we are pretty much in the office or traveling. It’s way more fun if the people around you are your friends. So, when I’m interviewing, I look 1008 American Sociological Review 77(6) for people . . . I’d want to get to know and want to spend time with, even outside of work . . . people I can be buddies with. Additionally, evaluators frequently perceived work in their firms as requiring only minimal specialized skills; they commonly described their work as “not rocket science” and cited the extensive training given to new hires as minimizing the importance of prior technical knowledge for job success. Therefore, once candidates passed an initial screen, most commonly based on educational prestige, fit was typically given more weight than grades, coursework, or work experience even in first-round interviews. Banker Nicholae (white, male) explained his justification for emphasizing fit: A lot of this job is attitude, not aptitude . . . fit is really important. You know, you will see more of your co-workers than your wife, your kids, your friends, and even your family. So you can be the smartest guy ever, but I don’t care. I need to be comfortable working everyday with you, then getting stuck in an airport with you, and then going for a beer after. You need chemistry. Not only that the person is smart, but that you like him. Consequently, evaluators saw selecting culturally similar candidates as a way to increase their personal enjoyment at work. Even so, recall that fit was not merely a personalized criterion but also a formal one embedded in official recruitment policies. When asked to describe why fit was formally structured into candidate evaluation, participants most often discussed the concept in relation to retention. These firms experience significant turnover. Most new hires will leave within four years of being hired; a significant proportion will leave after only two years. This attrition is structured into the promotion systems of many elite professional service firms. Many employees opt-out, though, seeking jobs in other firms or industries that exhibit better work-life balance, more intellectually stimulating work, or, in the case of hedge funds and private equity firms, greater financial rewards. Firms thus try to minimize attrition by using fit as a selection tool. Culturally similar candidates were perceived as more likely to enjoy their jobs, be enjoyed by their co-workers, and stay longer. Banking director Mark (white, male) confessed, “We try to hedge our bets. Through the recruiting process, we want to find those people . . . who will fit in so that once they get here, they will not leave.” In the face of high turnover, employers also saw creating a tightknit workplace of like-minded people as a selling point to keep attracting new applicants. Annual recruitment presentations held on elite campuses to solicit applications emphasized that new employees would not just enter a prestigious, lucrative career track but also acquire—in the words of a Holt managing partner in his address to a packed hotel ballroom during one presentation I observed— a “lifelong network of close friends.” Measuring Cultural Fit Employers strongly emphasized selecting candidates who were culturally similar to existing employees. But precisely how did they evaluate fit? In this section, I discuss the two most common methods. Cultural Similarity to Firm A majority of evaluators described firms as having not only particular organizational cultures (e.g., interdependent versus independent) but also distinct personalities, derived from the typical extracurricular interests and self-presentation styles of their employees. They contrasted “sporty” and “fratty” firms with those that were “egghead” or “intellectual.” Some companies were “white-shoe” or “country club,” while others were “gruff ” or “scrappy.” Evaluators who believed a common personality characterized employees in their firm frequently looked for candidates who fit this image. Consulting partner Grace (white, female) said, “We want people who fit Rivera 1009 not only the way we do things but who we are.” Although HR managers emphasized that achieving gender and racial heterogeneity were recruiting priorities, and elite professional service firms devote significant resources to increasing the demographic diversity of applicant pools (Rivera 2012), HR managers believed that achieving a baseline of cultural similarity represented a recruitment success. Law firm hiring manager Judy (white, female) boasted: We have a weekend getaway for our new summer associates their first week here. When one of our summers got back the next week, he said to me, “We’re all so different in our different ways but you can tell we were all recruited to come to [FIRM] because we all have the same personalities. It’s clear like we’re all the same kind of people.” In essence, firms sought surface-level (i.e., demographic) diversity in applicant pools but deep-level (i.e., cultural) homogeneity in new hires (Phillips, Northcraft, and Neale 2006).15 Although firms already constrain applicants’ cultural characteristics by restricting on-campus recruiting to elite universities (Stevens 2007), evaluators further screened résumés based on the presence or absence of similarities in extracurricular interests between applicants and firm employees. When applying to these firms via on-campus recruiting, students must follow a standardized résumé format that lists not only educational and work experiences but also formal and informal extracurricular pursuits. Whether someone rock climbs, plays the cello, or enjoys film noir may seem trivial to outsiders, but these leisure pursuits were crucial for assessing whether someone was a cultural fit. In the face of large volumes of candidates with decent grades at prestigious schools, firms used such “fine distinctions” (Stevens 2007) to screen résumés and compile interview pools.16 For example, legal hiring manager Mary (white, female) rejected mock candidate Blake, who had grades that met her “scrappy” firm’s grade floor and relevant work experience (which is rare for law students), based on perceived extracurricular misfit. In a noticeable regional accent, she said, “I’m looking at the interests [on his résumé]—lacrosse, squash, crew [laughs]. I’m sort of giving him a personality type here, and I don’t think he’s going to fit in well here . . . we’re more rough and tumble. . . . I’m going to let him go.” Just as these sports were seen as a deterrent to fit in her firm, these same activities were seen as evidence of a match in others. For example, “white-shoe” investment bank HR manager Kelly (white, female), dressed in a buttoned, pastel cardigan and pearls, asserted, “I’d have to pick Blake and Sarah. With his lacrosse and her squash, they’d really get along . . . on the trading floor.” There was even a firm for people who lacked “personality” as defined by extracurricular pursuits. Monotone-sounding attorney Paul (white, male) explained, “We don’t really like people here to have outside interests. We’re kind of a boring firm in that way. So, honestly, when I see people who have a lot of activities on their résumé, or if they seem to have a really strong passion for something outside of work, I’ll usually take a pass because it’s not going to be a good fit.” In addition to influencing résumé screens, perceptions of fit via similarity to firm employees also affected interview evaluations, as I observed first-hand at Holt. When arguing against inviting a candidate (white, male) back for a second-round interview, manager Hans (white, male) explained, “He did well on the case and was very articulate. He’s a very interesting guy with a good story. But I think he’s too intellectual for [FIRM]. You know, he is very into 18th-century literature and avant-garde film. . . . [sighed] I don’t think he’d be a good fit.” The candidate was not invited back. Interviewers also rejected candidates whom they perceived as more similar to the self-presentation style of other firms. For example, to justify his decision for rejecting one candidate (white, male), manager Mayank (Indian American, male) said matter-of-factly, “He’s very gregarious . . . 1010 American Sociological Review 77(6) kind of a frat boy . . . I think he’s more of a [FIRM] person.” Evaluators thus selected candidates who fit the extracurriculars and self-presentation styles typical of a firm’s employees. Cultural Similarity to Self A second way evaluators assessed fit was by using the self as a proxy. The logic underlying this method of evaluating fit was that an evaluator represented the firm and its personality. If an applicant fit with the evaluator, then the applicant would fit with other employees. Attorney Carlos (Hispanic, male) explained, “You . . . use yourself to measure [fit] because that’s all you have to go on.” Whereas measuring fit by the degree of similarity between candidates’ lifestyle markers and firm personality was more common in résumé screens, using the self as proxy was more common in first- and second-round interviews. Evaluators likened ascertaining fit in interviews to selecting romantic partners. Attorney Beverley (white, female) explained, “The best way I could describe it is like if you were on a date. You kind of know when there’s a match.” In addition to intangible feelings of “match,” roughly four-fifths of evaluators used a heuristic known as the “airplane test,” which HR often endorsed. Evaluators drew from a wide array of airports and flight interruption imagery in describing this test, but investment banking director Max (white, male) expressed its essence: One of my main criteria is what I call the “stranded in the airport test.” Would I want to be stuck in an airport in Minneapolis in a snowstorm with them? And if I’m on a business trip for two days and I have to have dinner with them, is it the kind of person I enjoy hanging with? And you also have to have some basic criteria, skills and smarts or whatever, but you know, but if they meet that test, it’s most important for me. Similarity was not always a prerequisite for feelings of fit between an applicant and interviewer. However, in line with research on the role of similarity in attraction (Byrne 1971), finding common experiences stimulated the feelings of “match” and “chemistry” evaluators described as essential components of fit in interviews. Attorney Denise (white, female) explained, “I really do think it’s about finding . . . something in common with your interviewer.” Evaluators often assessed fit through icebreaking chitchat during the first minutes of interviews. They described beginning interviews by scanning résumés for shared experiences to discuss. As attorney Jamie (white, female) illustrated, they typically sought extracurricular or extraprofessional similarities: “I usually try to start with something not related to law school. I take a quick look at their [extracurricular] activities to see what’s there. I usually try to pick something that I find interesting . . . that I can relate to or that I know something about.” Some interviewers, like attorney Carlos, explicitly sought biographic commonalities: I usually start an interview by saying, “Tell me about yourself.” When I get asked that, I talk about where I’m from, where I was raised, and then my background. A not-good way to start is with law school. I want to hear your life story. Hopefully there’s something more interesting about your life than deciding to go to law school. . . . When they tell me about their background, it’s easier to find things in common. . . . Maybe . . . they’re from Seattle and I’ve been to Seattle. We can talk about that and develop a connection. When the presence or absence of a one-onone match was unclear via informal conversation, some, like banker Oliver (white, male), asked targeted probes: If I didn’t get a good feel through the interview, I’ll ask a bunch of broad-based personal questions like, “What do you like to do?” And hopefully I’m not getting the coined answer, “Oh! I like to you know pick Rivera 1011 stocks or read finance books.” For me, it’s more like, “Oh! You know, I like to scuba dive or hike.” . . . Or I’ll ask, “Do you follow your school’s basketball team?” . . . “Where did you grow up? Did you play any sports in high school?” Just things that try to get a feeling for somebody to see if you have a connection. To summarize, in interviews evaluators typically selected candidates who fit their own extracurricular and extraprofessional experiences. Who Put Fit First? Although fit was highly salient across settings, its relative weight in evaluation varied by firm type. Figure 2 compares percentages of evaluators by firm type who, when asked to force-rank the criteria they use to evaluate candidates in order of importance, ranked fit first. Interestingly, the emphasis on fit did not increase with the client- or team-facing demands of the job; fit was least important in consulting, where work is most interpersonally focused, and it was most important in law, which has the least interpersonal demands during the first years on the job. Use of cultural fit is thus not purely an artifact of a job’s social demands. In line with research suggesting that structured interview formats can reduce subjectivity in evaluation (Reskin and McBrier 2000), however, the importance of fit decreased with the inclusion of technical questions in interviews. In consulting, using case-based business questions provided evaluators with bases to assess candidates other than cultural similarity. Naveen (Indian, male) explained, “Even if someone’s a perfect fit, if they absolutely bombed the case, they’re out.” However, due to the widespread belief—supported by firms’ policies—that the ideal worker (Acker 1990; Turco 2010) is not only competent but also culturally similar, case interviews reduced but did not eliminate the use of cultural fit in hiring; 40 percent of consultants still ranked fit first. Manager Kai (white, 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Law Firms Investment Banks Consulting Firms Percent of Evaluators Who Cited “Fit” as Top Evaluative Criterion Interpersonal Skills Technical Skills N = 30 N = 26 N = 16 Figure 2. Percentage of Evaluators Who Ranked Fit as Their Most Important Criteria in Job Interviews by Firm Type (N = 120) Note: These numbers correspond to the percent of evaluators in each type of firm who—in research interviews—ranked fit as the most important criterion they use to assess applicants in job interviews. Evaluators were asked to describe the specific criteria they use to assess candidates in interviews. I then asked them to force-rank the criteria they had mentioned. 1012 American Sociological Review 77(6) male) described the tension between case performance and fit: “It’s like air versus water, you really need both.” Once candidates demonstrated a baseline of competence, perceptions of fit rather than absolute case performance routinely drove assessments. Manager Perry (white, male) recalled one instance: “On the fit side, I wrote [on the evaluation form] . . . ‘Will quickly become everyone’s best friend.’ . . . That’s what I call a good fit. But quite frankly, his case performance wasn’t the best. But because his personality and presence were so strong, I forwarded him on [to second-round interviews].” Both interview format and conceptions of the ideal candidate therefore influenced to what degree evaluators prioritized cultural similarity in evaluation. Cognitive Processes: Looking-Glass Merit In addition to selection on cultural fit, cultural similarities between interviewers and applicants affected evaluation by facilitating greater comprehension and valuation of candidates’ qualifications. Similarities in experience could result in informational advantages unavailable to evaluators with different backgrounds.17 Banker Jason (white, male) described how experiential similarity could provide a greater quantity and quality of data to assess candidates: He was an “ethics, politics, and economics” major. Although I’m sure other people would be like “What the hell?” and assume it’s a cushy major and discount his GPA, because I went to Yale and had a lot of friends who did it, I know it’s actually one of the toughest and most competitive majors. Jason rated the candidate highly and forwarded him on to second-round interviews. Conversely, experiential dissimilarities could result in informational disadvantages. Consultant and Ivy-grad Logan (white, male) described difficulties he faced when evaluating students from non-Ivy League schools: “I just don’t know how tough it is to get in to those places and how hard it is to do well there.” Similar processes were at play for applicants with work experience outside “blue chip” companies, which were most familiar to evaluators. Banker Aaron (white, male) explained: From going through the recruiting process myself and from my friends . . . I have a blueprint in my head of what it’s like to work at the major companies—not only at a bank but at a consulting firm or a Google. You know, what the commitment is and what the normal career progression is. . . . With a small firm that I’ve never heard of, it’s just harder to know. Did the person do what’s on their résumé? Were they at home at 5 p.m. every day? Such sentiments support research suggesting that people experience greater facility processing persons and objects that conform to familiar categories and penalize individuals who deviate from them (Zuckerman 1999). Yet, net of the quantity or quality of information evaluators had to assess candidates, similarity tended to yield more positive perceptions of candidates’ abilities. Evaluators used their personal experiences as frames through which they interpreted candidates’ intellectual, social, and moral worth. However, in contrast to prior sociological accounts of identity in evaluation—in which individuals unconsciously gravitate toward people similar to themselves (Lamont 2009)—the use of similarity to the self was commonly active and intentional. In the absence of concrete answers to interview questions and reliable predictors of future performance, assessors purposefully used their own experiences as models of merit, believing that because they had been at least somewhat successful in their careers, candidates who were experientially similar to them would have a higher likelihood of job success. Essentially, they constructed merit in a manner that validated their own strengths and experiences and perceived similar candidates as better applicants. Rivera 1013 Employers’ own experiences influenced which qualities they emphasized or discounted. For example, evaluators who received high grades in undergraduate or graduate school discussed the importance of grades as selection devices; those who received less stellar marks tended to discount them. In either case, evaluators believed experiences similar to their own were better experiences. Attorney Andrea (white, female) explained why she, despite her firm’s official grade policy, overlooks grades: My first year grades were all over the place. September 11 happened and I was burnt out from undergrad; I just met my husband and was hanging out with him all the time. So, school wasn’t my top priority. But I have been a good lawyer. I know I am smart. So, I think grades are really just there to confirm my personality impression. Such beliefs about the validity and reliability of evaluative criteria, entrenched in employers’ own experiences, were particularly meaningful for evaluations of candidates who deviated from traditional firm standards. Candidates who might otherwise have been rejected could be given a chance or even an edge in evaluation when paired with similar evaluators who believed in the validity of their experiences. For example, attorney Nicole (white, female) who was at the top of her class at a less prestigious law school described why she, unlike the vast majority of interviewers at her firm who came from elite schools, does not disregard applicants who earn top grades at non-top-10 institutions: The people that were the top of my class, we came in the first day at school [and] we had to work our butts off; every single one of our exams was closed book, whereas at . . . NYU, all of their exams are open book . . . the curriculum is pretty much the same [as at NYU], the professors are pretty much the same . . . the exams are pretty much the same . . . I do think that the top of my class at New York Law School can compete just as well as the top of the class in any other law school. Evaluators’ experiences influenced not only which criteria they used to assess candidates but also how they defined and measured merit within a given domain. For example, all firms instructed evaluators to ascertain candidates’ drive or ambition, most commonly through leadership positions in extracurricular organizations. However, without clear standards for evaluating this abstract quality, evaluators’ personal experiences colored what they counted as quality engagement outside of the classroom. For example, former college athletes typically prized participation in varsity sports above all other types of involvement. Consultant and former athlete Jake (white, male) illustrated such tendencies when selecting between mock candidate profiles: I know less, admittedly, about sort of being an editor-in-chief or being a president of a club than I do about athletics. So I’m frankly not sure if these titles are as outstanding as the two athletes are. I don’t think that they are, just from what I know about . . . what it takes to be a Division I athlete and what it takes to be a truly exceptional Division I athlete. You know I have some sort of notion of the kind of time and commitment that takes. So, these leadership qualities are excellent but they are not as impressive to me as those two athletes. He ranked the two athletes—Sarah and Blake—first and second, respectively, and declined to interview the nonathletes who had higher grades from more prestigious schools and relevant work experience. Conversely, nonathletes were quick to highlight the value of nonathletic leisure pursuits. Similarly, firms sought candidates who demonstrated “interest” in their firm, as interpreted by their interviewer. Evaluators often measured this subjective quality by whether a candidate’s stated rationale for selecting a firm matched their own. Consultant Howard (Asian American, male) described a recent interviewee who scored well on the criterion of interest: “When 1014 American Sociological Review 77(6) I asked about her interest in [FIRM], she presented answers that I would give, actually. She went through the same thought process that I went through when I was choosing.” Evaluators used themselves as models of merit not only when assessing soft skills and intangibles but also when estimating hard skills. For example, in consulting and banking, evaluators who came from finance or engineering reported preferring candidates with similar backgrounds because they believed that such experience constituted superior preparation for the job. The converse was true for evaluators outside these fields. Consultant Karen (white, female) remarked: When we’re discussing candidates, there’s almost always some quant guy who wants to ding any candidate who studied anything but econ or math. But I came from a touchy, feely major and have done just fine. I even think that having a broader background can help people understand clients better and be more creative and flexible. So, if I see you’re a history major, it can actually be a plus. Even in more structured consulting case interviews, evaluators favored candidates who demonstrated a similar response style. Consulting director Natalie (white, female) said: I’m definitely an intuitive person, so I can generally . . . come up with the right answer really fast. But it takes me personally longer to do the math behind it. Some people do the math like this [she snaps] and then can’t figure out what the answer is. . . . I think you need both of those types of people in your firm. But I think the people who are interviewing who have that awesome, super-fast math ability want the math people in the firm. And I think that people who have that more intuitive approach want the intuitive people in the firm. People like the ones who are more like them. Consequently, culturally similar applicants not only benefited from heightened perceptions of fit but also more favorable perceptions of ability, as evaluators actively constructed and assessed merit in their own image. Banking recruiting head Stephanie (white, female) summarized, “You are basically hiring yourself. This is not an objective process.” Affective Processes: Searching For A Spark Finally, cultural similarities affected hiring evaluations through affective processes. People experience positive feelings when interacting with others who validate their attitudes and identities (Turner and Stets 2006). Banker Fernando (Hispanic, male) provided a lay understanding of this phenomenon when he confessed, “I just think human nature is one that you tend to gravitate towards those people that validate you the most.” Although affective processes are difficult to study outside of laboratory settings, I argue that similarities produced affective benefits observable here: similarities could provide evaluators with feelings of excitement that provided advantages in evaluation. Banker Sandeep (Indian, male) illustrated how shared experiences could yield excitement prior to interviews when evaluating mock candidate Sarah. Scanning the résumé, his face lit up as he saw Sarah’s extracurricular pursuits. “She plays squash. Anyone who plays squash I love,” he said smiling, and immediately ranked her first. Conversely, a lack of commonalities could foster feelings of apathy or aversion before an interview began. When evaluating the same résumé, consulting director Natalie, whose background was in public service, wrinkled her nose and said, “I don’t know. I’m personally not interested in commodity sales. [Shrugs] I just don’t have that much to talk to her about.” She declined to interview Sarah. Commonalities also provided “sparks” of excitement during interviews. Banker Arielle (white, female) recalled her best recent interviewee: “She and I both ran the New York marathon . . . we talked about that and hit it off . . . we started talking about how we both love stalking celebrities in New York . . . we had this instant connection. . . . I loved her.” Rivera 1015 Additionally, affective sparks could color perceptions of other evaluative criteria. Interviewers described feelings of excitement as a critical component of the chemistry that was a prerequisite for fit. Moreover, they often perceived the ability to immediately strike up an exciting, effortless conversation based on shared interests as a proxy for client skills. Banker Christopher (white, male) explained: “You just hit it off with them. And you feel like they can hit it off with anybody.” Feelings of excitement could color assessments of hard skills. Psychologists have shown that individuals experiencing positive feelings such as excitement overweight other people’s strengths in evaluation and discount their weaknesses. Conversely, individuals experiencing negative feelings such as boredom or disappointment exaggerate others’ weaknesses and discount their strengths. Moreover, people use their feelings as measures of quality, assuming that people who make them feel good are good (for a review, see Clore and Storbeck 2006). Beyond such well-documented biases in decision-making, a handful of interviewers admitted they would, on occasion, consciously lower the technical bar for candidates with whom they had a great spark. Banker Max said, “You know, if I’m really hitting it off with them, I won’t give them the numbers because I don’t want to see them flounder. I want to be able to go back and say, ‘Things went well’ and pass them on.” The stratifying power of affective boosts yielded by cultural similarity was most evident in post-interview deliberations. Feelings of excitement compel individuals to action (Collins 2004). In hiring, the level of excitement evaluators felt about candidates influenced their willingness to advocate for them in group deliberations. Because of the large number of interviewees, candidates needed to have a champion—an evaluator who would fight for them in deliberations—to receive a job offer. When describing this role to me, participants frequently used the language of love; a candidate had to get them “riled up,” “passionate,” or even “smitten” to champion them. Although a number of qualities could generate passion, evaluators reported that cultural similarity was one of the most potent. Banker Vishal (Indian, male), who felt that his own background and soft-spoken manner were atypical of employees in his firm, illustrated this point: Only once have I been passionate enough about a candidate to fight for him. He came across as someone who didn’t have the usual sort of confidence. . . . This guy was a bit shy but had a very strong drive to succeed. A lot of people were looking for a frat boy, you know, preppy, East Coast, private school. But I’m definitely not that and so I support people who don’t fit the mold. . . . I loved him and I championed him. The candidate received the job offer. The presence or absence of cultural similarities could thus yield affective advantages in addition to organizational and cognitive evaluative boosts. Alternative Accounts I have argued that cultural similarities between evaluators and applicants matter for employers’ hiring decisions. Nevertheless, one must consider whether attraction produced by cultural similarities is simply a mask for sex or race homophily. There are several reasons to believe this is not the case. First, prior research demonstrates that controlling for the chance of being included in applicant pools, sex or race matches between job candidates and evaluators do not consistently drive hiring evaluations; effects range from positive to negative to nil (Huffcutt 2011). In the firms studied here, the majority of interview dyads consisted of whites evaluating other whites and males evaluating other males, yet cultural similarities were still highly salient bases of evaluation within same-sex and same-race dyads. Similarly, although the majority of interviewers at Holt were white or male, women and minorities were hired at higher rates than were white and male applicants (see Part III in the online 1016 American Sociological Review 77(6) supplement). Second, perhaps because applicants were pre-screened for an elite university credential, sex, race, and experience were only loosely coupled in applicant pools. For example, at Holt, female professional school applicants were more likely than males to be competitive athletes or former investment bankers; ethnic minorities were more likely than whites to have attended Ivy League schools as undergraduates. Consequently, in this pool, selection on athletics was not tantamount to exclusion of females, and shared alma maters were not codes for ethnic exclusion. I am by no means suggesting that sex or racial discrimination or homophily do not occur in these firms. Rather, to understand labor market outcomes, it is necessary to consider not only similarities in sex and race between employers and candidates but also similarities in culture and experience. One must also consider whether superior résumé qualifications rather than cultural similarities are driving evaluations. However, as noted earlier, research shows that employers’ subjective impressions of candidates are most consequential for job interview evaluations; these impressions do not neatly correspond to applicants’ résumé qualifications or cognitive skills (Graves and Powell 1995; Huffcutt 2011). Similarly, at Holt, résumé characteristics predicted neither interview evaluations nor decisions to hire (Rivera 2009). Finally, one must consider whether employers use cultural similarities because applicant pools are so pre-screened that they have nothing left to differentiate candidates. Although they are a select group, graduating classes at elite universities—like other universities—display internal heterogeneity.18 Given that the majority of students at top-tier undergraduate and professional schools typically apply to these firms, employers had bases other than cultural similarity on which to differentiate candidates. They could have screened more intensively on class rank, relevant coursework, related work experience, writing skills, standardized test performance, or demographic characteristics—applicants varied along these lines—but they did not (Rivera 2011). Rather, employers prioritized cultural similarity because they saw it as a meaningful quality that fostered cohesion, signaled merit, and simply felt good. Although cultural similarities are more salient when gross differences in quality are minimized (Lamont 2009)—such as when employers create interview pools from résumés received, narrow a candidate long-list to a short-list, or make final hiring decisions—their use is not an artifact of having no alternative screening mechanisms. Moreover, understanding how employers make fine distinctions between candidates who pass a basic threshold of qualifications is crucial for knowing who is and is not ultimately hired into these organizations and who receives the material and symbolic resources these firms offer. Limitations And Future Research My intent was not to develop a universal theory of hiring but rather to shed light on an under-examined dimension of the hiring process. Still, several scope conditions are necessary. First, evaluators do not choose their interviewees. We might see less emphasis on cultural similarities when evaluators (1) choose whom they interview, (2) have different structural opportunities to develop relationships with candidates (see Roth 2006), or (3) lack information about candidates other than what is visible. Future research should examine the degree to which gatekeepers use cultural similarities after the point of hire in promotion and compensation decisions, an endeavor not possible here. Other scholars have shown, however, that cultural similarities, especially sports, are salient sources of inclusion and exclusion once on the job (Erickson 1996; Roth 2006; Turco 2010). Second, evaluators interview candidates for positions below them. We might see more or less emphasis on cultural similarities for positions of equal or greater status. Third, given that cultural fit was strongest in firms that employed open-ended interviews, selection on cultural similarity should be tampered in Rivera 1017 highly standardized or technical hiring evaluations. Finally, emphasizing cultural similarities may result in greater sex or race biases, than was the case in this study, when culture and demography are more tightly coupled (Turco 2010). Although the specific types and relative importance of cultural similarities may vary between occupations, use of cultural similarities in hiring is unlikely an elite phenomenon only. Several studies hypothesizing that cultural similarities matter in hiring analyze lowwage, low-skill labor markets (Bills 1999; Neckerman and Kirschenman 1991). Future research should analyze how the types and relative importance of cultural similarities in hiring vary between occupations. Conclusions Through a case study of elite professional service firms, I have argued that hiring is more than a process of skills sorting; it is also a process of cultural matching between candidates, evaluators, and firms. Cultural similarities influenced candidate evaluation in multiple, overlapping ways. Cultural fit was a formal evaluative criterion mandated by organizations and embraced by individual evaluators. Moreover, evaluators constructed and assessed merit in their own image, believing that culturally similar applicants were better candidates. Finally, evaluators implicitly gravitated toward and explicitly fought for candidates with whom they felt an emotional spark of commonality. Consequently, cultural reproduction (Bourdieu 1984) of these firms was in many ways over-determined, as organizational, cognitive, and affective processes reinforced one another to create new hire classes that mirrored firms’ existing employees in cultural signals and lifestyle markers. Implications for Research on Culture and Stratification My findings extend work on culture and stratification beyond educational settings to demonstrate that cultural similarities between employers and job candidates matter in employer hiring, a hypothesis suggested but heretofore uninvestigated by sociologists. The fate of students with similar credentials in the competition for elite jobs was linked to their display of cultural signals; applicants whose experiences, leisure pursuits, and selfpresentation styles matched those of employers could cash in these cultural similarities for jobs offering double to quadruple the salaries earned by other graduates from the same schools and for admission to a prestigious occupational group that serves as a gateway to the contemporary U.S. economic elite. Cultural similarity can thus be thought of as a form of capital that has economic conversion value (Bourdieu 1986) in labor markets, a proposition suggested but not previously demonstrated empirically (Bills 2003). My results also inform debates about what types of cultural signals serve as currency in corporate settings and are salient for North American elites (Erickson 1996; Lamont 1992). Because candidates could not reliably predict whom they would be partnered with for evaluation, having an expansive cultural tool kit (Swidler 1986) from which to draw to establish similarities with any interviewer seemed advantageous. Such results support Erickson’s (1996) contention that within North American corporations, familiarity with a wide array of cultural forms matters more for advancement than does specialization in highbrow artistic forms (see also Turco 2010). However, my findings refine Erickson’s argument in two important ways. First, although the particular cultural signals valued in elite firms were not highbrow or artistic, they did have important socioeconomic dimensions. Cultivation of leisure time is a hallmark of upper-middle-class cultures and of elites more generally (Lamont 1992; Veblen 1899). Moreover, evaluators tended to favor extracurricular activities associated with the white upper-middle class and that were acquired through intense, prolonged investment of material and temporal resources not only by job applicants but also by their parents (Rivera 2011; Shulman and Bowen 1018 American Sociological Review 77(6) 2001). Given that less affluent students are more likely than upper-middle-class students to believe that achievement in the classroom rather than on the field or in the concert hall matters most for future success and focus their energies accordingly (Bergerson 2007), the types of cultural similarities valued in elite firms’ hiring processes had the potential to create inequalities in access to elite jobs based on parental socioeconomic status. Second, mere familiarity with a cultural signal or activity was insufficient; as noted earlier, evaluators not only spot-checked candidates’ participation in an activity to ensure it was genuine but also sought formal and intensive participation. Successful candidates therefore needed to possess enough cultural breadth to establish similarities with any professional with whom they were paired, but also enough depth in white, upper-middle-class cultural signals to relate to and excite their overwhelmingly white, upper-middle-class, Ivy League-educated interviewers. Such results suggest that both cultural variety and depth serve as important bases of economic and social distinction in North American corporate life. Additionally, they suggest that concerted cultivation (Lareau 2003) of children’s extracurricular lives—a hallmark of U.S. white, upper-middle-class families—is not only a prerequisite for admission to America’s most elite colleges (Stevens 2007), but also for entry to its highest paying entry-level jobs. Such findings are consistent with Veblen’s (1899) hypothesis that conspicuous, intensive investment in leisure activities that are not directly useful is a powerful marker of elite status and a basis of economic stratification. Moreover, my findings suggest a social closure (Weber 1958) of elite occupations by cultural signals, particularly lifestyle markers associated with the white upper-middle class. Implications for Hiring Although human capital, social capital, and discrimination play critical roles in hiring, cultural signals also matter for employers’ choices. Evaluators in my sample sought new hires who were not only capable colleagues but also enjoyable playmates; interviewers often privileged their personal feelings of comfort, validation, and excitement over identifying candidates with superior cognitive or technical skills. In many respects, they hired in a manner more closely resembling the choice of friends or romantic partners than how sociologists typically portray employers selecting new workers. My results suggest that far from just error or discrimination, the residual terms of conventional sociological models of hiring also contain active cultural work by employers. Incorporating measures of applicants’ and evaluators’ cultural signals may help account for some unexplained variance in the decision to hire. Moreover, I go beyond demonstrating that cultural similarities matter in hiring and introduce three interpersonal processes through which they matter. These processes have the potential to inform future studies not only of hiring but also of interpersonal evaluation in organizations more broadly. Finally, my results call attention to the importance of analyzing socioeconomic inequalities in hiring. Organizational Performance Whether selecting on cultural similarities produces better or worse organizational performance is outside the scope of this article. However, just as culture simultaneously enables and constrains (Sewell 1992), the use of cultural similarities in hiring likely poses both benefits and challenges for organizations. These jobs require significant teamwork. Cultural similarities can facilitate trust and communication, but they can also reduce the attention team members pay to executing tasks and decision-making quality (Phillips et al. 2006). In the professional service context, emphasizing extracurricular similarities could increase employee enjoyment and attachment in the short-term. But given that these organizations require total work devotion (Blair-Loy 2003), selecting new hires based on extensive devotion to leisure could backfire in the longterm by resulting in a mismatch with the Rivera 1019 actual demands of the job. Additionally, allowing evaluators the flexibility to define merit in their own image and select candidates who excite them personally could create conflicts between organizational and individual goals. Given that evaluators could potentially work closely with new hires, they might be motivated to hire the most enjoyable over the most competent candidates; that is, they may hire for themselves rather than for the organization. Although in some ways functional, how cultural similarity was defined and prioritized in these firms may have negative, unintended consequences. Future research should compare the effect of hiring based on similarity in work styles, which can be beneficial (Chatman 1991), versus play styles on organizational performance. Diversity and Inequality Selecting new hires based on cultural similarity represents a dual-edged sword that both enables and constrains (1) organizations’ attempts to diversify and (2) opportunities for candidates from traditionally underrepresented groups in the competition for elite jobs. As demonstrated here, it can challenge traditional sex and racial inequalities by providing new opportunities for women and ethnic minorities who display the right stocks of cultural signals, as did many of the athletic, affluent, Ivy League-educated white and nonwhite women and men who were hired. However, the specific types of cultural similarities valued had a strong socioeconomic dimension and could create new inequalities by parental social class. Moreover, although culture, sex, and race were only loosely coupled in this population, the particular cultural signals desired did have a stereotypically gendered nature. Privileging such activities could indirectly disadvantage applicants— male or female—who held more stereotypically feminine leisure interests. Finally, my study calls attention to the cultural dimensions of homophily and homosocial reproduction in organizations. Although these terms have become synonymous with sex- and race-based preferences in the sociological literature, my findings suggest a return to the original articulations of these concepts (Kanter 1977; Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954), which also portray cultural similarities as important bases of attraction and stratification (see also Wimmer and Lewis 2010). I show that cultural homophily and cultural reproduction occur at the point of hire and introduce key interpersonal processes through which they do so. Thus, to fully understand hiring outcomes and inequalities, we must consider not only candidates’ human capital, social capital, and demographic characteristics, but also the match between their displays of cultural signals and those of the gatekeepers evaluating them. Acknowledgments I wish to thank Michèle Lamont, Frank Dobbin, Mary Brinton, Brayden King, Klaus Weber, Brian Uzzi, Gary Fine, Viviana Zelizer, Simone Ispa-Landa, Chana Teeger, Kevin Lewis, Tony Brown, Katherine Donato, Larry Isaac, Holly McCammon, and the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous drafts. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the American Sociological Association and Eastern Sociological Society Annual Meetings. Funding This research was supported by National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant [#0727427] and the Ford Foundation. Notes 1. When culture does enter discussions of hiring, it typically does so in the form of employer stereotypes about demographic groups (Gorman 2005; Holzer 1999). Although stereotypes are important forms of culture, sociological understandings of culture have evolved beyond stereotypes and universal group values to include contextually specific styles, signals, and schemas, including the lifestyle markers analyzed here (Lamont and Small 2008). 2. Similarly, networks scholars have demonstrated interest in cultural similarities (Wimmer and Lewis 2010). 3. Race and sex can be important bases of perceived similarity; however, they are not consistently so, particularly in high-status work contexts (see Ely 1995). 4. See also Bills (1999) and Turco (2010). 5. Professional service firms are businesses—most commonly law, investment, and consulting firms— that sell customized advice to clients. Studies of 1020 American Sociological Review 77(6) these firms include Gorman (2005), Roth (2006), and Turco (2010). 6. The most elite law schools are exceptions; career offices force firms to interview all applicants. 7. For information on the percentage of top-tier graduates who enter these industries, see Granfeld (1992) and Rampell (2011). 8. I identified firms based on national and major-market prestige rankings. 9. For a description of the hotel where Holt conducted interviews, see Part IV of the online supplement. 10. The next most common mechanisms in interviews were emotional response (code: emotion) and inferring merit from high-status activities (code: signaling). Signaling was the most common mechanism used in résumé screening. For an in-depth discussion of résumé screening, see Rivera (2011). 11. I use pseudonyms to protect confidentiality. 12. “Cultural fit” is a term used by employers rather than one I imposed. 13. The next most common criteria were interpersonal (i.e., polish or presence) and then analytic skills. 14. This literature characterizes culture at the individual level as stable personality traits and universal values (Rokeach 1979); sociologists have developed more nuanced conceptions of culture (Lamont and Small 2008). 15. Contrary to stereotypes of these firms, new hires display nontrivial sex and racial diversity (see Part III of the online supplement). 16. Although candidates varied in class rank, work experience, and demographic characteristics at this stage, employers were more likely to use extracurriculars to create interview pools (Rivera 2011). 17. Similarities could also yield disadvantages when increased knowledge provided discrediting information (e.g., “gut” academic majors). Similarity is risky to fake. People often react negatively to others who are inauthentic in their self-presentation (Lamont 2009). Evaluators reported spot-checking candidates’ experiences to see if participation was genuine and extensive. 18. Cognitive ability is only one avenue for admission to elite universities (Shulman and Bowen 2001). References Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender and Society 4:139–58. Barley, Stephen and Gideon Kunda. 1992. “Design and Devotion: Surges of Rational and Normative Ideologies of Control in Managerial Discourse.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37:363–99. Bergerson, Amy. 2007. “Exploring the Impact of Social Class on Adjustment to College: Anna’s Story.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20:99–119. Bills, David. 1999. “Labor Market Information and Selection in a Local Restaurant Industry: The Tenuous Balance between Rewards, Commitments, and Costs.” Sociological Forum 14:583–607. Bills, David. 2003. “Credentials, Signals, and Screens: Explaining the Relationship between Schooling and Job Assignment.” Review of Educational Research 73:441–69. Blair-Loy, Mary. 2003. Competing Devotions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Blau, Peter and Otis Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Free Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241–58 in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press. Byrne, Donn. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Cable, Daniel and Timothy Judge. 1997. “Interviewers’ Perceptions of Person–Organization Fit and Organizational Selection Decisions.” Journal of Applied Psychology 82:546–61. Castilla, Emilio J. 2011. “Bringing Managers Back In: Managerial Influences on Workplace Inequality.” American Sociological Review 76:667–94. Charmaz, Kathy. 2001. “Grounded Theory.” Pp. 335– 52 in Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations, edited by R. Emerson. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Chatman, Jennifer. 1991. “Matching People and Organizations: Selection and Socialization in Public Accounting Firms.” Administrative Sciences Quarterly 36:459–84. Clore, Gerald and Justin Storbeck. 2006. “Affect as Information about Liking, Efficacy, and Importance.” Pp. 123–42 in Hearts and Minds: Affective Influences on Social Thinking and Behavior, edited by J. P. Forgas. New York: Psychology Press. Collins, Randall. 2004. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DiMaggio, Paul. 1987. “Classification in Art.” American Sociological Review 52:440–55. DiMaggio, Paul. 1992. “Nadel’s Paradox Revisited: Relational and Cultural Aspects of Social Structure.” Pp. 118–42 in Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action, edited by N. Nohria and R. Eccles. Boston, MA: HBS Press. DiMaggio, Paul and John Mohr. 1985. “Cultural Capital, Educational Attainment, and Marital Selection.” American Journal of Sociology 90:1231–61. Elliot, James and Ryan Smith. 2004. “Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.” American Sociological Review 69:365–86. Ely, Robin. 1995. “The Power in Demography: Women’s Social Constructions of Gender Identity at Work.” American Academy of Management Journal 38:589–634. Erickson, Bonnie. 1996. “Culture, Class, and Connections.” American Journal of Sociology 102:217–51. Rivera 1021 Erickson, Frederick and Jeffrey Schultz. 1981. The Counselor as Gatekeeper: Social Interaction in Interviews. New York: Academic Press. Farkas, George. 2003. “Cognitive Skills and Noncognitive Traits and Behaviors in Stratification Processes.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:541–62. Fernandez, Roberto and Nancy Weinberg. 1997. “Shifting and Sorting: Personal Contacts and Hiring in a Retail Bank.” American Sociological Review 62:883–902. Gigone, Daniel and Reid Hastie. 1993. “The Common Knowledge Effect: Information Sharing and Group Judgment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:959–74. Gorman, Elizabeth. 2005. “Gender Stereotypes, SameGender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms.” American Sociological Review 70:702–728. Granfeld, Robert. 1992. Making Elite Lawyers: Visions of Law at Harvard and Beyond. New York: Routledge. Graves, Laura and Gary Powell. 1995. “The Effect of Sex Similarity on Recruiters’ Evaluations of Actual Applicants: A Test of the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm.” Personnel Psychology 48:85–98. Gross, Neil. 2009. “A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review 74:358–79. Guren, Adam and Natalie Sherman. 2008. “Harvard Graduates Head to Investment Banking, Consulting.” Harvard Crimson, June 22. Heckman, James and Peter Siegelman. 1993. “The Urban Institute Audit Studies: Their Methods and Findings.” Pp. 187–258 in Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America, edited by M. Fix and R. Struyk. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Holzer, Harry. 1999. What Employers Want: Job Prospects for Less-Educated Workers. New York: Russell Sage. Huffcutt, Allen. 2011. “An Empirical Review of the Employment Interview Construct Literature.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 19:62–81. Kalfayan, Michael. 2009. “Choosing Financial Careers at Harvard.” Harvard University, Committee on Social Studies, Cambridge, MA. Unpublished manuscript. Kanter, Rosabeth. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. Lamont, Michèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American UpperMiddle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lamont, Michèle. 2009. How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lamont, Michèle and Virag Molnar. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.” Annual Review of Sociology 28:167–95. Lamont, Michèle and Mario Small. 2008. “How Culture Matters: Enriching Our Understanding of Poverty.” Pp. 76–102 in The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Exist, edited by D. Harris and A. Lin. New York: Russell Sage. Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lareau, Annette and Elliot Weininger. 2003. “Cultural Capital in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment.” Theory and Society 32:567–606. Lazarsfeld, Paul and Robert Merton. 1954. “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis.” Pp. 18–66 in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited by M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. Page. New York: Van Nostrand. Leonhardt, David. 2011. “Consultant Nation.” New York Times, December 10. Management Consulted. 2012. “2012 Management Consulting Salaries – Undergraduate, MBA, Interns, and More.” Retrieved September 10, 2012 (http:// managementconsulted.com/consulting-jobs/2012- management-consulting-salaries-undergraduate-postmba/). Montoya, Matthew, Robert Horton, and Jeffrey Kirchner. 2008. “Is Actual Similarity Necessary for Attraction? A Meta-Analysis of Actual and Perceived Similarity.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 25:899–922. National Association of Legal Professionals. 2011. NALP Directory of Legal Employers. Washington, DC: National Association of Legal Professionals. Neckerman, Kathryn and Joleen Kirschenman. 1991. “Hiring Strategies, Racial Bias, and Inner-City Workers.” Social Problems 38:433–47. Pager, Devah and Hana Shepherd. 2008. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:181–208. Pager, Devah, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski. 2009. “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment.” American Sociological Review 74:777–99. Phillips, Katherine, Gregory Northcraft, and Margaret Neale. 2006. “Surface-Level Diversity and DecisionMaking in Groups: When Does Deep-Level Similarity Help?” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 9:467–82. Rampell, Catherine. 2011. “Out of Harvard and into Finance.” New York Times, December 21. Reskin, Barbara and Debra McBrier. 2000. “Why Not Ascription? Organizations’ Employment of Male and Female Managers.” American Sociological Review 65:210–33. Rimer, Sara. 2008. “Big Paycheck or Service?” New York Times, June 23. Rivera, Lauren. 2009. “Hiring and Inequality in Elite Professional Service Firms.” PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Rivera, Lauren. 2011. “Ivies, Extracurriculars, and Exclusion: Elite Employers’ Use of Educational Credentials.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 29:71–90. 1022 American Sociological Review 77(6) Rivera, Lauren. 2012. “Diversity within Reach.” ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 639:71–90. Rokeach, Milton. 1979. Understanding Human Values. New York: Free Press. Roscigno, Vincent. 2007. The Face of Discrimination: How Race and Gender Impact Work and Home Lives. Lanham, MD: Rowman. Roth, Louise. 2006. Selling Women Short: Gender and Money on Wall Street. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Saez, Emmanuel. 2008. “Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States.” Pathways Magazine 6–7. Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality. Sewell, William. 1992. “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.” American Journal of Sociology 98:1–29. Shulman, James and William Bowen. 2001. The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stainback, Kevin, Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, and Sheryl Skaggs. 2010. “Organizational Approaches to Inequality: Inertia, Relative Power, and Environments.” Annual Review of Sociology 36:225–47. Stevens, Mitchell. 2007. Creating a Class: College Admissions and the Education of Elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stevens, Mitchell. 2008. “Culture and Education.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 619:97–113. Stevens, Mitchell, Elizabeth Armstrong, and Richard Arum. 2008. “Sieve, Incubator, Temple, Hub: Empirical and Theoretical Advances in the Sociology of Higher Education.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:127–51. Swidler, Ann. 1986. “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51:273–86. Tajfel, Henry and John Turner. 1986. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” Pp. 7–24 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worshel and W. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tilly, Chris and Charles Tilly. 1998. Work under Capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Turco, Catherine. 2010. “Cultural Foundations of Tokenism: Evidence from the Leveraged Buyout Industry.” American Sociological Review 75:894–913. Turner, Jonathan and Jan Stets. 2006. “Sociological Theories of Human Emotions.” Annual Review of Sociology 32:25–52. Veblen, Thorstein. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Modern Library. Wall Street Oasis. 2012. “Investment Banking Salary and Compensation, Average Bonus in Banking.” Retrieved September 10, 2012 (http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/ salary/investment-banking-compensation). Weber, Max. 1958. “Class, Status and Party.” Pp. 180–95 in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wilson, William Julius. 1997. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage. Wimmer, Andreas and Kevin Lewis. 2010. “Beyond and Below Racial Homophily.” American Journal of Sociology 116:583–642. Yin, Robert. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zimmerman, Eilene. 2009. “Chill of Salary Freezes Reaches Top Law Firms.” New York Times, January 24. Zuckerman, Ezra. 1999. “The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount.” American Journal of Sociology 104:1398–1438. Lauren A. Rivera is an Assistant Professor of Management & Organizations and Sociology at Northwestern University. Her research, which resides at the cusp of cultural sociology, social psychology, and social stratification, investigates how people evaluate worth and social status in real-life, naturalistic contexts and how the ways they do so relate to broader social inequalities. She received her PhD in Sociology from Harvard University. Before entering academia, she was a management consultant.

ARTWORK Roger Clarke, Accidents Will Happen (dntt), 2010 polyester resin, fiberglass, paint SPOTLIGHT INTERVIEW SPOTLIGHT ON BUILDING A DIVERSE ORGANIZATION Designing aBias-Free Organization It’s easier to change your processes than your people. AN INTERVIEW WITH IRIS BOHNET BY GARDINER MORSE RIS BOHNET THINKS firms are wasting their money on diversity training. The problem is, most programs just don’t work. Rather than run more workshops or try to eradicate the biases that cause discrimination, she says, companies need to redesign their processes to prevent biased choices in the first place. Bohnet directs the Women and Public Policy Program at the Harvard Kennedy School and cochairs its Behavioral Insights Group. Her new book, What Works, describes how simple changes—from eliminating the practice of sharing self-evaluations to rewarding office volunteerism—can reduce the biased behaviors that undermine organizational performance. In this edited interview with HBR senior editor Gardiner Morse, Bohnet describes how behavioral design can neutralize our biases and unleash untapped talent. I HBR.ORG July–August 2016 Harvard Business Review 63 HBR: Organizations put a huge amount of effort into improving diversity and equality but are still falling short. Are they doing the wrong things, not trying hard enough, or both?  Bohnet: There is some of each going on. Frankly, right now I am most concerned with companies that want to do the right thing but don’t know how to get there, or worse, throw money at the problem without its making much of a difference. Many U.S. corporations, for example, conduct diversity training programs without ever measuring whether they work. My colleague Frank Dobbin at Harvard and many others have done excellent research on the effectiveness of these programs, and unfortunately it looks like they largely don’t change attitudes, let alone behavior. [See “Why Diversity Programs Fail,” by Frank Dobbin, in this issue.] I encourage anyone who thinks they have a program that works to actually evaluate and document its impact. This would be a huge service. I’m a bit on a mission to convince corporations, NGOs, and government agencies to bring the same rigor they apply to their financial decision making and marketing strategies to their people management. Marketers have been running A/B tests for a long time, measuring what works and what doesn’t. HR departments should be doing the same. What would a diversity evaluation look like? There’s a great classroom experiment that’s a good model. John Dovidio and his colleagues at Yale evaluated the effect of an antibias training program on first and second graders in 61 classrooms. About half the classrooms were randomly assigned to get four weeks of sessions on gender, race, and body type with the goal of making the children more accepting of others who were different from them. The other half didn’t get the training. The program had virtually no impact on the children’s willingness to share or play with others. This doesn’t mean you can’t ever teach kids to be more accepting—just that improving people’s inclination to be inclusive is incredibly hard. We need to keep collecting data to learn what works best. So the point for corporations is to adopt this same methodology for any program they try. Offer the training to a randomly selected group of employees and compare their behaviors afterward with a control group. Of course, this would also mean defining success beforehand. For diversity training programs to go beyond just checking the box, organizations have to be serious about what they want to change and how they plan to evaluate whether their change program worked. What does behavioral science tell us about what to do, aside from measuring success? Start by accepting that our minds are stubborn beasts. It’s very hard to eliminate our biases, but we can design organizations to make it easier for our biased minds to get things right. HBR readers may know the story about how orchestras began using blind auditions in the 1970s. It’s a great example of behavioral design that makes it easier to do the unbiased thing. The issue was that fewer than 10% of players in major U.S. orchestras were women. Why was that? Not because women are worse musicians than men but because they were perceived that way by auditioners. So orchestras started having musicians audition behind a curtain, making gender invisible. My Harvard colleague Claudia Goldin and Cecilia Rouse of Princeton showed that this simple change played an important role in increasing the fraction of women in orchestras to almost 40% today. Note that Diversity training programs largely don’t change attitudes, let alone behavior. SPOTLIGHT ON BUILDING A DIVERSE ORGANIZATION 64 Harvard Business Review July–August 2016 this didn’t result from changing mindsets. In fact, some of the most famous orchestra directors at the time were convinced that they didn’t need curtains because they, of all people, certainly focused on the quality of the music and not whether somebody looked the part. The evidence told a different story. So this is good news. Behavioral design works. Yes, it does. The curtains made it easier for the directors to detect talent, independent of what it looked like. On the one hand, I find it liberating to know that bias affects everyone, regardless of their awareness and good intentions. This work is not about pointing fingers at bad people. On the other hand, it is of course also depressing that even those of us who are committed to equality and promoting diversity fall prey to these biases. I am one of those people. When I took my baby boy to a Harvard day care center for the first time a few years back, one of the first teachers I saw was a man. I wanted to turn and run. This man didn’t conform to my expectations of what a preschool teacher looked like. Of course, he turned out to be a wonderful caregiver who later became a trusted babysitter at our house—but I couldn’t help my initial gut reaction. I was sexist for only a few seconds, but it bothers me to this day. Seeing is believing. That is, we need to actually see counterstereotypical examples if we are to change our minds. Until we see more male kindergarten teachers or female engineers, we need behavioral designs to make it easier for our biased minds to get things right and break the link between our gut reactions and our actions. What are examples of good behavioral design in organizations? Well, let’s look at recruitment and talent management, where biases are rampant. You can’t easily put job candidates behind a curtain, but you can do a version of that with software. I am a big fan of tools such as Applied, GapJumpers, and Unitive that allow employers to blind themselves to applicants’ demographic characteristics. The software allows hiring managers to strip age, gender, educational and socioeconomic background, and other information out of résumés so they can focus on talent only. There’s also a robust literature on how to take bias out of the interview process, which boils down to this: Stop going with your gut. Those unstructured interviews where managers think they’re getting a feel for a candidate’s fit or potential are basically a waste of time. Use structured interviews where every candidate gets the same questions in the same order, and score their answers in order in real time. You should also be thinking about how your recruitment approach can skew who even applies. For instance, you should scrutinize your job ads for language that unconsciously discourages either men or women from applying. A school interested in attracting the best teachers, for instance, should avoid characterizing the ideal candidate as “nurturing” or “supportive” in the ad copy, because research shows that can discourage men from applying. Likewise, a firm that wants to attract men and women equally should avoid describing the preferred candidate as “competitive” or “assertive,” as research finds that those characterizations can discourage female applicants. The point is that if you want to attract the best candidates and access 100% of the talent pool, start by being conscious about the recruitment language you use. What about once you’ve hired someone? How do you design around managers’ biases then? The same principle applies: Do whatever you can to take instinct out of consideration and rely on hard data. That means, for instance, basing promotions on someone’s objectively measured performance rather than the boss’s feeling about them. That seems obvious, but it’s still surprisingly rare. Be careful about the data you use, however. Using the wrong data can be as bad as using no data. Let me give you an example. Many managers ask their reports to do self-evaluations, which they then use as part of their performance appraisal. But if employees differ in how self-confident they are—in how comfortable they are with bragging—this will bias the manager’s evaluations. The more self-promoting ones will give themselves better ratings. There’s a lot of research on the anchoring effect, which shows that we can’t help but be influenced by numbers thrown at us, whether in negotiations or performance appraisals. So if managers see inflated ratings on a self-evaluation, they tend to unconsciously adjust their appraisal up a bit. Likewise, poorer selfappraisals, even if they’re inaccurate, skew managers’ ratings downward. This is a real problem, because there are clear gender (and also cross-cultural) differences in selfconfidence. To put it bluntly, men tend to be more HBR.ORG July–August 2016 Harvard Business Review 65 DESIGNING A BIAS-FREE ORGANIZATION corrects for different risk tolerances. After all, the test is meant to measure aptitude, not willingness to take risk. Organizations should take a page from this book: Look around and see whether your practices by design favor one gender over the other and discourage some people’s ability to do their best work. Do meetings, for example, reward those most willing to hold forth? If so, are there meeting formats you can use that put everyone on an equal footing? How can firms get started? Begin by collecting data. When I was academic dean at the Harvard Kennedy School, one day I came to the office to find a group of students camped out in front of my door. They were concerned about the lack of women on the faculty. Or so I thought. Much to my surprise, I realized that it was not primarily the number of female faculty that concerned them but the lack of role models for female students. They wanted to see more female leaders—in the classroom, on panels, behind the podium, teaching, researching, and advising. It turns out we had never paid attention to—or measured—the gender breakdown of the people visiting the Kennedy School. So we did. And our findings resembled those of most organizations that collect such data for the first time: The numbers weren’t pretty. Here’s the good news. Once you collect and study the data, you can make changes and measure progress. In 1999, MIT acknowledged that it had been unintentionally discriminating against female faculty. An examination of data had revealed gender differences in salary, space, resources, awards, and responses to outside offers. The data had real consequences. A follow-up study, published in 2011, showed that the number of female faculty in science and engineering had almost doubled, and several women held senior leadership positions. Companies can do their own research or turn to consultants for help. EDGE, where I serve as a scientific adviser, is a Swiss foundation and private company that helps organizations across the sectors measure how well they do in terms of gender equality. A firm named Paradigm is another. I came across it when I was speaking with tech firms in Silicon Valley and San Francisco. It helps companies diagnose where the problems are, starting by collecting data, and then come up with possible solutions, often based on behavioral designs. overconfident than women—more likely to sing their own praises. One meta-analysis involving nearly 100 independent samples found that men perceived themselves as significantly more effective leaders than women did when, actually, they were rated by others as significantly less effective. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to underestimate their capabilities. For example, in studies, they underestimate how good they are at math and think they need to be better than they are to succeed in higher-level math courses. And female students are more likely than male students to drop courses in which their grades don’t meet their own expectations. The point is, do not share self-evaluations with managers before they have made up their minds. They’re likely to be skewed, and I don’t know of any evidence that having people share self-ratings yields any benefits for employees or their organizations. But it’s probably not possible to just eliminate all managerial activities that allow biased thinking. Right. But you can change how managers do these things. One message here is to examine whether practices that we thought were genderneutral in fact lead to biased outcomes. Take the SAT, for example. Your score shouldn’t have been affected by whether you’re male or female. But it turns out it was. The test once penalized students for incorrect answers in multiple-choice questions. That meant it was risky to guess. Research by Katie Baldiga Coffman of Ohio State University shows that this matters, especially for women. Among equally able test takers, male students are more likely to guess, while female students are more likely to skip questions, fearing the penalty and thus ending up with lower scores. Katie’s research reveals that gender differences in willingness to take risk account for about half of the gender gap in guessing. An analysis of the fall 2001 mathematics SAT scores suggests that this phenomenon alone explains up to 40% of the gap between male and female students in SAT scores. The 2016 SAT has been redesigned so that it doesn’t penalize for incorrect answers. Taking risk out of guessing means that different appetites for risk taking will no longer affect students’ final scores. This can be expected to level the playing field for male and female students. Notice that the new SAT doesn’t focus on changing the students’ mindsets about risk but instead 66 Harvard Business Review July–August 2016 SPOTLIGHT ON BUILDING A DIVERSE ORGANIZATION and son of the thought leader and First Lady, Abigail Adams, would be proud that her portrait now is on Harvard’s walls—and of course, its presence makes a big difference to our female students. Men may resist organizational changes favoring women because they view gender equality as zero sum—if women win, men lose. How then do you enlist men as agents of change? Few men oppose the idea of benefiting from the entire talent pool—at least in theory. But some are concerned about actually leveling the playing field. In practice, of course, the blind auditions in orchestras have increased competition for male musicians. And the inclusion of women affects competition for men in all jobs. I understand that increased competition can be painful, but I am too much of an economist to not believe in the value of competition. There is no evidence that protectionism has served the world well. Enlisting men is partly about helping them to see the benefits of equality. Fathers of daughters are some of the strongest proponents of gender equality, for obvious reasons, so they can be particularly powerful voices when it comes to bringing other men along. Research on male CEOs, politicians, and judges shows that fathers of daughters care more about gender equality than men without children or with only sons. I would urge fathers of daughters to be outspoken in their own organizations and to advocate for equality not just as a broad goal, but to actively help drive the changes I describe here— collecting baseline organizational data, promoting experiments, measuring what works, changing processes to limit the impact of our biased minds and level the playing field, and so on. A big part is, simply, continued awareness building—not just of the problem but also of the solutions available to organizations. I recently gave a talk on Wall Street to an audience that was male. I started by inviting people with children to raise their hands. Then I asked those with daughters to raise their hands. Many hands were up. I told them that this made my job easy as some of my biggest allies were in the room. It broke the ice, especially when I told the audience that my husband and I only have sons—who are great feminists, I might add, and in small ways have already brought behavioral insights to their school by reminding the principal to refer to teachers in general as both “he” and “she.” HBR Reprint R1607D You said that “seeing is believing.” But given the lack of senior female role models in organizations, what else can we do? About a decade ago we noticed that of all the portraits of leaders on the walls of the Kennedy School, exactly zero were of women. The portraits we display affect what our employees and our students believe possible for themselves. I can attest that it was not our intention to signal to fully half of our students that they were not made to be leaders. Rather, this was done unthinkingly. Since then we have added new portraits, including Ida B. Wells, the U.S. civil rights activist and suffragist, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the president of Liberia, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, and a graduate of the Kennedy School. You argue that it’s often a waste of time to try to debias people—but hanging portraits of women seems like a strategy to actually change individuals’ perceptions. I am not arguing that mindsets can never change. But what we generally find is for beliefs to change, people’s experiences have to change first. Being surrounded by role models who look like you can affect what you think is possible for people like you. Sapna Cheryan of the University of Washington, for example, has shown that decorations in a computer science classroom can affect performance. Replacing the male-dominated Star Wars and Star Trek images with genderneutral art and nature pictures strengthened female students’ associations between women and careers in computer science. In another study, women who were shown a picture of Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel before giving a public speech did objectively better than those who were shown a picture of Bill Clinton or no picture at all. So what do we do with our boardrooms and hallways that celebrate our (male focused) history? When asked this question at a recent talk I gave at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, I answered that, sometimes, we have to “hurry history.” I think that presidents John and John Quincy Adams, spouse For beliefs to change, people’s experiences have to change first. HBR.ORG July–August 2016 Harvard Business Review 67 DESIGNING A BIAS-FREE ORGANIZATION Harvard Business Review Notice of Use Restrictions, May 2009 Harvard Business Review and Harvard Business Publishing Newsletter content on EBSCOhost is licensed for the private individual use of authorized EBSCOhost users. It is not intended for use as assigned course material in academic institutions nor as corporate learning or training materials in businesses. Academic licensees may not use this content in electronic reserves, electronic course packs, persistent linking from syllabi or by any other means of incorporating the content into course resources. Business licensees may not host this content on learning management systems or use persistent linking or other means to incorporate the content into learning management systems. Harvard Business Publishing will be pleased to grant permission to make this content available through such means. For rates and permission, contact permissions@harvardbusiness.org.

Frameworks for Understanding Inclusion Part One Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 3 CHAPTER ONE The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations Toward a Systemic and Inclusive Framework Bernardo M. Ferdman In the last twenty years or so, organizations have considerably expanded attention to diversity at work; this has been accompanied by growth not only in the number and range of diversity practitioners, but also in the interest in diversity shown by organizational and other psychologists, by specialists in organizational behavior and human resources, and by other scholars, researchers, and practitioners. What is the role of diversity at work? How can organizations and their leaders best manage and leverage the range of differences in the workforce in ways that lead to positive outcomes for the organizations, their members, and other stakeholders? What conditions can maximize the benefits of diversity? These and similar questions permeate both practitioner and academic discussions on diversity. Research and practice suggest that diversity—the representation of multiple identity groups and their cultures in a particular organization or workgroup—by itself may not necessarily result in positive benefits without the presence of additional conditions. Inclusion has emerged as a core concept in relation to diversity; in particular, it is now considered by diversity practitioners as a key approach to benefit from diversity (see Ferdman & Deane, Preface) and is in many ways at the forefront of contemporary Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 4 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion diversity practice. Yet how inclusion relates to diversity, what inclusion is, and how it operates are not always clear or precisely specified. In this chapter, after briefly discussing its relationship to diversity, I develop the concept of inclusion and its various facets, as well as its manifestation in individual and collective behavior and in organizational practices. Inclusion involves how well organizations and their members fully connect with, engage, and utilize people across all types of differences. In this chapter, I argue that the core of inclusion is how people experience it—the psychological experience of inclusion, operating at the individual level (and often collectively as well). This experience of inclusion is facilitated and made possible by the behavior of those in contact with the individual (such as coworkers and supervisors), by the individual’s own attitudes and behavior, and by the values, norms, practices, and processes that operate in the individual’s organizational and societal context. Thus inclusion can involve each and all of the following: an individual or group experience; a set of behaviors; an approach to leadership; a set of collective norms and practices; or a personal, group, organizational, or social value. The terms diversity and inclusion are now often used together and inextricably bound—as in “diversity and inclusion (D&I) practice” (for example, Hays-Thomas & Bendick, 2013), “Office of Diversity & Inclusion” (for example, http://www.opm.gov/ policy-data-oversight/diversity-and-inclusion), or “chief diversity and inclusion officer”; indeed, one can often see D&I used as a singular noun. In many ways, diversity and inclusion are now often treated almost like two sides of the same coin. Yet in spite of (or perhaps because of) this usage, the distinctions and relationships between them are not always sufficiently specified. Related to this, there has been a great deal of work focusing on diversity, but much less on inclusion. Because there is a growing area of professional practice in organizations commonly referred to as diversity and inclusion (or D&I), more conceptual and practical clarity regarding what inclusion means and how it can be cultivated in diverse organizations and groups will be helpful not only in providing more coherence to this growing field, but also in establishing a foundation for Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 5 more effective practice and a basis for empirically testing its assumptions. Inclusion as the Key to Diversity’s Benefits What is the connection of diversity and inclusion? Why are they tied so closely together? To varying degrees, diversity is a fact of life in work groups and organizations. Inclusion is grounded in what we do with that diversity when we value and appreciate people because of and not in spite of their differences, as well as their similarities. More important, it involves creating work contexts in which people are valued and appreciated as themselves and as integrated and complex—with their full range of differences and similarities from and with each other. Essentially, inclusion is a way of working with diversity: it is the process and practice through which groups and organizations can reap the benefits of their diversity. Diversity at Work What makes diversity so important? On the one hand, much of the focus in the field of diversity in organizations has been on reducing or eliminating undesirable, unfair, and illegal bias and discrimination and on increasing equity and social justice (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012). On the other hand, many theorists, researchers, and practitioners (for example, Davidson, 2011; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Ferdman & Brody, 1996; Mor Barak, 2011; Page, 2007) have emphasized the benefits that individuals, groups, organizations, and societies can derive from diversity. This understanding forms the foundation for many organizational diversity initiatives. In the United States and elsewhere, much of the focus on and work on diversity in organizations began in the context of efforts to expand social justice and civil rights across lines of race, gender, age, disability, and other dimensions of identity that had often formed (and in many cases continue to form) the basis for systematic exclusion and discrimination. As societies and organizations expanded the degree to which members of previously excluded groups were represented in different institutions, in Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 6 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion different types of jobs, and at various hierarchical levels, issues of authenticity and effectiveness became more important. In many cases, members of previously excluded groups were not willing (or able or allowed) to assimilate to dominant norms and styles as a price of admission or promotion; in other cases, the quantity of newer members made intergroup differences more notable; and in still other cases, people who were already members but had needed to blend in and perhaps submerge aspects of themselves to be accepted began to be more willing to “come out” regarding previously hidden differences. These processes have meant that, as diversity has become more discussed, recognized, and valued, we seem to find and see more and more of it, along a greater number of dimensions. Simultaneously, it became clearer that these differences, when viewed and managed as potential assets, could bring substantial benefits to organizations. Because diversity is not simply about supposedly superficial demographic facts or labels, but rather about identities, cultures, and the varied meaning and ways of thinking about and approaching situations that these represent (Ferdman, 1992; D. A. Thomas & Ely, 1996), theorists and practitioners developed descriptions of organizations that treated differences more positively. Cox (1991), for example, distinguished among monocultural, plural, and multicultural organizations, and R. R. Thomas (1990) discussed the importance of creating work environments “where no one is advantaged or disadvantaged .  .  . [and] where ‘we’ is everyone” (p. 109). Miller and Katz (1995), based on earlier work by Bailey Jackson and others, described a path from exclusive to inclusive organizations. Holvino (1998; see also Holvino, Ferdman, & MerrillSands, 2004) described the differences and transitions between monocultural exclusionary organizations, transitional compliancefocused organizations, and finally truly multicultural organizations, which “seek and value all differences and develop the systems and work practices that support members of every group to succeed and fully contribute” (Holvino et al., 2004, p. 248). Similarly, D. A. Thomas and Ely (1996) described what they called the “learning and effectiveness paradigm” or later the “integration and learning perspective” (Ely & Thomas, 2001) for addressing diversity in organizations; this approach involves Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 7 viewing and treating cultural and other identity-based differences as resources from which the whole organization can benefit and learn, rather than as something to be ignored for the purpose of avoiding discrimination or highlighted solely for the purpose of accessing niche markets. In spite of the many arguments for the benefits of diversity at work (for example, Cox & Blake, 1991; Stahl, Mäkelä, Zander, & Maznevski, 2010), scholars have also pointed out that diversity can be associated with negative outcomes. Mannix and Neale (2005), for example, reviewed research on diversity in teams. They summarized the premise of their work as follows: “[T]here has been a tension between the promise and the reality of diversity in team process and performance. The optimistic view holds that diversity will lead to an increase in the variety of perspectives and approaches brought to a problem and to opportunities for knowledge sharing, and hence lead to greater creativity and quality of team performance. However, the preponderance of the evidence favors a more pessimistic view: that diversity creates social divisions, which in turn create negative performance outcomes for the group” (p. 31). Based on their review of relevant theory and research, Mannix and Neale concluded that, in general, identitybased differences—those based on gender, age, race, and ethnicity, for example—tended to result in more negative effects on group functioning; in contrast, what they called “underlying differences”—those grounded in characteristics such as education or functional background—were more likely to result in performance benefits, but only by carefully managing group process. They conclude that the key to effects of diversity on group performance is most likely to be found in the context and in a more nuanced understanding of the processes involved. Other reviewers (for example, Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; S. E. Jackson & Joshi, 2011; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) also report mixed results with regard to the effects of diversity in work groups on a range of processes and outcomes, including communication patterns, conflict, cohesion, commitment, turnover, creativity, innovation, and performance. Similarly, Kochan et al. (2003), in a series of studies over five years investigating the connections of business performance with gender and racial diversity, found that the effects of diversity on performance were not consistent and Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 8 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion in part appeared to depend on the organizational context and group processes. In sum, it is clear from both research and practice that more diversity does not, by itself, necessarily lead to more positive outcomes for groups and organizations. Simply representing a greater variety of differences in an organization or group is not a magical path toward greater performance, for example. The frameworks mentioned earlier, proposed by Cox, by Holvino, by Miller and Katz, and by D. A. Thomas and Ely, all take this into account and describe the type of organizational cultures and group processes that are more likely not only to incorporate and value greater diversity, but also to derive its benefits. In these accounts, it is not the presence of diversity by itself but rather how it is addressed that leads to positive outcomes. Building on this perspective, Ferdman, Avigdor, Braun, Konkin, and Kuzmycz (2010) proposed that, rather than treating diversity as a predictor of performance, it may better be viewed as a moderator of the relationship between the group’s approach to differences—and more specifically inclusion—and its outcomes; in this approach, inclusion is seen as the key factor increasing performance, with the relationship expected to be stronger in more diverse groups, in which the presence of more varied resources makes inclusion especially useful. Whether or not inclusion is a predictor (see Ferdman et al., 2010), a moderator (see Nishii & Mayer, 2009), or both, it has become clearer that it is quite critical in the context of diversity. This view of inclusion as a fundamental practice for realizing the benefits of diversity in groups and organizations is addressed in the next section. Inclusion as Essential to Support and Work with Diversity Although scholars have only recently begun to highlight inclusion as a focal construct in understanding diversity and its possible outcomes, diversity practitioners began doing so somewhat earlier (along with a few researchers, such as Mor Barak; see, for example, Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998, and Mor Barak, 2000a). In 1995, for example, Miller and Katz’s (1995) path model Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 9 highlighted the importance of inclusion, and Marjane Jensen (1995) developed a list of key behaviors for inclusion to support diversity; beginning in 1996, their consulting firm, the Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, supported the design and implementation of Dun & Bradstreet’s Inclusion Initiative (see Gasorek, 2000). Also in 1996, Ferdman and Brody pointed out various models of inclusion in the context of different rationales for diversity initiatives, and in 1999, Davidson highlighted the idea that “[i]f diversity initiatives address ways of building structural and psychological inclusiveness for organizational members, they are more likely to be successful” (p. 174). Miller and Katz’s 2002 book, The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity, highlighted ways of doing this through systemic change in organizations, including new competencies on the part of leaders and members, and policies and practices to encourage, enable, and support these behaviors. They forcefully summarized the connection of diversity and inclusion this way: “If an organization brings in new people but doesn’t enable them to contribute, those new people are bound to fail, no matter how talented they are. Diversity without inclusion does not work” (p. 17, italics in original). Davidson (1999) aptly pointed out how members of organizations can have a different “expectation of being included” on the basis of their varying histories of oppression or privilege. In other words, members of more dominant groups, historically, have generally been more likely to expect that they will be able to join groups and organizations, and that once they have joined, they will be fully accepted and made to feel that they are equal and valued participants. Inclusion, in the sense described by Miller and Katz, has always been more likely for members of more powerful groups. This connection of inclusion to inequality and the hierarchical aspects of intergroup relations in a societal and organizational context is quite important because it reminds us of some of the original goals of diversity initiatives related to addressing societal inequities and systematic discrimination. In other words, the roots of inclusion are intertwined with those of diversity in organizations, and it is in this connection that inclusion derives its power. Whether the focus of an inclusion initiative is on first making sure Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 10 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion that there is broad and equitable representation of multiple groups at various levels of an organization, or whether such an effort extends to addressing how differences and similarities in the now more diverse organization are viewed and treated, as well as to how the members of multiple groups experience the workplace, it is important to not lose sight of the underlying values and the intergroup context for the initiative. Indeed, Pless and Maak (2004) addressed inclusion as an ethical imperative for diversity management. They grounded their analysis on what they called the founding principle or moral basis for inclusion—“mutual recognition” of humans for each other—which incorporates “emotional recognition, solidarity and legal and political recognition” (p. 131, italics in original). For Pless and Maak, “legal and political recognition” includes equality, particularly with regard to freedom and the rights of organizational citizenship. They argue that these types of recognition are developed through “reciprocal understanding, standpoint plurality and mutual enabling, trust, and integrity” (p. 129), which together support development and maintenance of an “intercultural moral point of view” (p. 131). Their analysis points out that noticing differences and being open to them are insufficient “especially if intellectual traditions induce people to find the one right way” (p. 133); what is necessary is what they call “standpoint plurality,” which involves creating processes, in light of what are typically unequal power distributions in groups and organizations, to foster true dialogue that allows consideration of all points of view, including those that may be marginalized in less inclusive contexts. To further understand the connections and differences between the concepts of diversity and inclusion, Roberson (2006) surveyed human resource officers in fifty-one large public companies and asked them for their definitions of both inclusion and diversity. Through content analyses, Roberson found that “definitions of diversity focused primarily on differences and the demographic composition of groups or organizations, whereas definitions of inclusion focused on organizational objectives designed to increase the participation of all employees and to leverage diversity effects on the organization” (p. 219). Specifically, respondents described diversity in terms of “the spectrum Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 11 of human similarities and differences” and conceived of diversity in organizations primarily as representation of people across this spectrum. Her respondents described inclusion, in contrast, as “the way an organization configures its systems and structures to value and leverage the potential, and to limit the disadvantages, of differences” (p. 221). In sum, the concept of inclusion has developed as a way to capture and communicate how people and organizations must be and what they must do to benefit from diversity, both individually and collectively. Focusing on inclusion not only allows doing diversity work that emphasizes reducing negative and problematic processes—such as those grounded in prejudice, discrimination, and oppression—but also fosters a positive vision of what might replace those undesired behaviors, policies, and systems. The concept of inclusion also allows and encourages practitioners to simultaneously take into account and address multiple dimensions of diversity; inclusion recognizes the various ways in which people are different—particularly on the basis of socially and culturally meaningful categories, many involving systematic patterns of intergroup inequality—and at the same time facilitates approaches that view these categories as coexisting in whole people. Rather than focusing on individuals as representatives of only one group at a time and on one identity at a time, an inclusion lens highlights multiplicity and integration, in the context of empowerment and equality. Inclusion allows and encourages us to learn about, acknowledge, and honor groupbased differences while at the same time treating each person as unique and recognizing that every identity group incorporates a great deal of diversity (Ferdman, 1995; Ferdman & Gallegos, 2001). Inclusion has also become a key approach for working with diversity because it is global and it is scalable. It works for everyone. People—across cultures and across identities—resonate to inclusion. Inclusion can be less polemical and political than some other approaches—particularly those focused on ensuring representation, such as affirmative action, or those focused on specific group identities or “protected” groups—but it does not negate or undermine those approaches; rather, it complements them and provides a lens and practices that can help make them more Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 12 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion successful. Indeed, when people understand and work toward inclusion, as both a value and a practice, they can become energized and more excited about diversity and about eliminating invidious bias and discrimination. They can discover new and previously unexplored connections with other people across multiple dimensions of difference and learn valuable perspectives and skills that are personally beneficial as well as helpful to their workgroups and organizations. The challenge for both practitioners and scholars, then, is to develop clarity about what inclusion is in the context of diverse workplaces, a topic that I now turn to. What Is Inclusion? A Multilevel Perspective Inclusion at work has to do with how organizations, groups, their leaders, and their members provide ways that allow everyone, across multiple types of differences, to participate, contribute, have a voice, and feel that they are connected and belong, all without losing individual uniqueness or having to give up valuable identities or aspects of themselves. Inclusion involves recognizing, appreciating, and leveraging diversity so as to allow members of different cultural and identity groups—varying, for example, across lines of ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, ability/disability, cultural background, and many other dimensions—to work together productively without subsuming those differences and, when possible, using those differences for the common good (Ferdman, 2010). Inclusion also means reframing both what it means to be an insider in a work group or organization and who gets to define that. Rather than treating membership and participation as a privilege granted by those traditionally in power to those previously excluded—often with assimilation to established norms as a condition of full acceptance—inclusive practices redefine who the “we” is in an organization or work group so that all have the right to be there and to have an equal voice, both in managing the boundary and in defining (and redefining) norms, values, and preferred styles for success (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002a; Miller & Katz, 2002). This can be challenging because in many cases it requires ongoing reexamination of previously accepted or Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 13 taken-for-granted ways of working and interacting. It means developing skills and practices for collectively reevaluating notions of what (and who) is “normal,” appropriate, and expected in ways that incorporate more voices and perspectives, many of those unfamiliar or uncomfortable for those previously in power. The practice of inclusion is dynamic and ongoing: because inclusion is created and re-created continuously—in both small and large ways—organizations, groups, and individuals cannot work on becoming inclusive just once and then assume that they are done; it is a recursive and never-ending approach to work and life. In this section, I review concepts of inclusion in diverse organizations in the context of an emergent framework for the practice of inclusion that spans multiple levels of analysis and incorporates multiple voices and perspectives. Toward a Systemic Inclusion Framework The concept of inclusion can be quite simple. Many people can quickly describe, for example, what it feels like when they are being included and how that contrasts with exclusion. In many of my workshops (see, for example, Ferdman, 2011), I ask participants to think about and then describe to a neighbor a situation at work or elsewhere in which they have felt fully present, engaged, and included; in most cases, the immediate positive energy in the room is quite palpable, and participants are very quickly involved in animated conversations about their inclusion experience, which they can easily recall and recount. Essentially, people often see inclusion as synonymous with a sense of belonging and participation. Schutz (1958) considered inclusion (along with control and affection) to be a central interpersonal need—albeit varying in intensity across individuals—and described it as comprising the desire to belong, to feel important, and to feel cared about. Baumeister and Leary (1995), based on a review of theoretical and empirical literature, described a basic human need to belong as a “powerful, fundamental, and pervasive motivation” (p. 497). Fiske (1994, cited in Levine & Kerr, 2007) saw belonging as a core social motive supporting people’s ability to be part of and contribute to groups. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 14 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Inclusion is also complex. It can be conceptualized and operate at multiple levels, including the individual, interpersonal, group, organizational, and societal, and may be experienced differently by different individuals and in different situations (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002b). A straightforward focus simply on belonging can be deceptive, because it can hide many of the subtleties and nuances of inclusion and its practice, and it may not necessarily address the intergroup aspects of inclusion that are most relevant in the context of diversity. Focusing solely on individuals’ motivation to belong does not fully address how group or social identities play a part in the dynamics of inclusion (and exclusion). I may, for example, be part of a work group in which I feel valued, heard, and treated as an equal, full, and important member, but to achieve this, perhaps I had to change important aspects of how I communicate to become more like other members of the group, or perhaps I decided to change my name so that it would be easier for my fellow group members to pronounce, or perhaps I am reluctant to reveal aspects of myself that are quite important to me but that I believe may be misunderstood or not valued by my colleagues. Some of this complexity is addressed by Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart, and Singh (2011), in their review of theory and research on inclusion and diversity in work groups. They base their approach on Brewer’s (1991) optimal distinctiveness theory, which indicates that, in general, people look for a balance between being subsumed into a larger social unit and also standing out within that unit with regard to their unique social identities. According to Brewer’s theory, everyone needs to feel sufficiently connected to others, so as to be accepted and to belong, and also sufficiently individuated and different, so as not to be absorbed. Shore et al. conclude that inclusion exists when individuals’ simultaneous needs for belonging and uniqueness can both be satisfied (in the context of being “an esteemed member of the work group,” p. 1265). Their approach is useful because it highlights the importance of considering the interplay of multiple social identities in individual experience. In other words, my experience is typically related not just to one of my identities (such as being a man, a professor, or a middle-aged Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 15 person) but also to the unique configuration of all of my identities (Ferdman, 1995). Another key aspect of its complexity has to do with the frame of reference for defining what constitutes inclusion. Say an organization or person decides that they would like to become more inclusive. What defines whether a particular organizational practice or individual behavior is inclusive? I believe that, ultimately, it should be based on whether or not those affected by the practice or behavior feel and are included. At the core, and particularly from a psychological perspective, inclusion needs to be conceptualized phenomenologically—in other words, in terms of people’s perceptions and interpretations. A set of objective facts cannot necessarily determine whether inclusion exists; it must be assessed based on the experience of those involved; therefore it could vary from person to person and situation to situation. In a study related to this point, Stamper and Masterson (2002) found that how many hours employees worked and how long they had been in the organization—which the researchers referred to as “actual inclusion”—were not associated with how much the employees perceived themselves to be “insiders” in the organization. Inclusion is also not static or a one-time achievement; because it is created anew in each situation (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002b) through the relationship of the individual with the surrounding social system, inclusion involves a dynamic and interrelated set of processes, as depicted in Figure 1.1. In other words, “inclusion Figure 1.1. Inclusion as a Systemic and Dynamic Process Society, organizations, leaders, work groups, individuals • Inclusive values, policies, practices, behaviors Individuals and social identity groups • Experience of inclusion Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 16 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion is a momentary, even evanescent creation, which depends on the particular people and the particular situation involved. At the same time, the behavior and attitude of the moment may not mean much without a history and a future, without a structure and system around them that give them the appropriate meaning and weight” (Ferdman & Davidson, 2002b, pp. 83–84). It is in this sense that inclusion is a practice—an interacting set of structures, values, norms, group and organizational climates, and individual and collective behaviors, all connected with inclusion experiences in a mutually reinforcing and dynamic system. Individuals, groups, organizations, and even societies adopt values and policies and engage in practices geared toward fostering inclusion; when these result in individual and collective experiences of inclusion, then those approaches can be considered to be inclusive. As more people and groups experience inclusion, they are more likely to have a shared sense of what it takes to create more inclusion for themselves and others and to incorporate this learning into the ongoing processes and practices of the groups and organizations of which they are a part. This will in turn increase confidence that the behaviors, policies, and practices are indeed inclusive, in a recursive and ongoing virtuous cycle. Inclusion at Multiple Levels This framework (Figure 1.1) can be further analyzed to consider the various levels at which inclusion can be conceptualized, assessed, and practiced, as shown in Figure 1.2. It is important to consider multiple levels of analysis in conceptualizing inclusion because, even though individual experience plays a key role in assessing inclusion’s existence or potency, that alone is not sufficient. For example, an individual may say that she has not faced discrimination and that, on the contrary, she feels very included in her work group. But that may not be the case for other people who share one or more identity groups with her. To understand inclusion at the group level, we would need to assess how common her experience is within her work group as well as among others sharing some of her identities. It may also be possible that she is not aware of discrimination or patterns of participation that Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 17 objectively exist. If we are talking about a young African American woman, is her experience similar to that of other African American women and/or other young people? Additionally, fostering inclusion experiences requires particular behaviors on the part of leaders and other work group members, as well as suitable policies and practices in the organization. Moreover, it is more likely that experiences of inclusion will be noticed and valued and that the vocabulary for describing and sharing them will be developed in the context of inclusive practices and climates of inclusion. To fully practice inclusion, we need to simultaneously consider and address these multiple levels (depicted in Figure 1.2). Individual Experience As discussed previously, the foundation for inclusion is individual experience. At the individual level, I have defined the experience Figure 1.2. Systems of Inclusion: A Multilevel Analytic Framework Society: inclusive policies, practices, values, ideologies Organization: inclusive policies, practices, climates Leaders and leadership: inclusive practices Groups and teams: inclusive practices, norms; collective experience of inclusion Individuals: inclusive interpersonal behavior Experience of inclusion: individual Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 18 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion of inclusion as the degree to which individuals “feel safe, trusted, accepted, respected, supported, valued, fulfilled, engaged, and authentic in their working environment, both as individuals and as members of particular identity groups” (Ferdman, Barrera, Allen, & Vuong, 2009, p. 6). In this view, I experience inclusion when I believe not only that I am being treated well individually, but also that others who share my identities and those groups as a whole “are respected, honored, trusted, and given voice, appreciation, power, and value” (Ferdman, Barrera, et al., 2009, p. 6). These experiences of inclusion both lead to and stem from inclusive practices at other levels—particularly the interpersonal and group levels. Inclusive Interpersonal Behavior To help create this experience, individuals can engage in a range of inclusive behavior as they relate to others around them and can also be the recipients of such behavior. For example, to be inclusive, I can seek others’ opinions, be curious about who they are and what matters to them, treat them in ways that to them signify respect, and work with others to arrive at jointly satisfying solutions rather than impose my approach or direction. (Later, I give more examples of inclusive behavior; see also Bennett, Chapter 5, and Wasserman, Chapter 4, this volume.) Group-Level Inclusion Groups create inclusion by engaging in suitable practices and establishing appropriate norms, such as treating everyone with respect, giving everyone a voice, emphasizing collaboration, and working through conflicts productively and authentically. Additionally, it is possible to consider the collective experience of inclusion in the group in terms of the aggregate of individuals’ experiences (Ferdman, Avigdor, et al., 2010), again framing it as a construct grounded in perception and interpretation—in this case at the group level. For example, I worked with a client to develop an assessment of employees’ perceptions of inclusion and then was able to compare their overall sense of being included as a function of various identity categories, such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, type of job, unit, and location. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 19 Inclusive Leaders and Leadership Leaders play an important role in fostering inclusion (see Booysen, Chapter 10; Gallegos, Chapter 6, this volume; also Chrobot-Mason, Ruderman, & Nishii, 2013, and Wasserman, Gallegos, & Ferdman, 2008), and one can identify critical practices to that effect. Beyond the interpersonal behaviors that everyone can put into practice, leaders have additional responsibilities, including holding others accountable for their behavior and making appropriate connections between organizational imperatives or goals—the mission and vision of the organization—and inclusion. Beyond the particular practices of individual leaders, the approach to leadership that is preferred or valued in an organization also plays an important role in the practice of inclusion. For example, leadership may emphasize a positive approach that is strengths-based and looks for ways to bring out the potential contributions of as many people as possible. In many ways, inclusive leadership is the linchpin for inclusion at other levels of the multilevel framework; it can facilitate (and perhaps even be considered a key part of) inclusion in groups, organizations, and societies, as well as help translate and spread inclusion across these levels. Inclusive Organizations Organizational policies and practices play a critical role in fostering a climate of inclusion and provide a context in which individual behavior and leadership are displayed, cultivated, and interpreted. This level of analysis is perhaps the one that has received the most attention on the part of both scholars and practitioners (see Church, Rotolo, Shull, & Tuller, Chapter 9; Nishii & Rich, Chapter 11; Offermann & Basford, Chapter 8; O’Mara, Chapter 14; and Winters, Chapter 7, this volume; also Kossek & Zonia, 1993, and Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill-Sands, 2004). The organization’s culture—its values, norms, and preferred styles—as well as its structures and systems, provide the container in which individuals interact and interpret their experience. Holvino et al. (2004) described an inclusive organization as one where “the diversity of knowledge and perspectives that members of different groups bring . . . has shaped its strategy, its Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 20 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion work, its management and operating systems, and its core values and norms for success; . . . [and where] members of all groups are treated fairly, feel and are included, have equal opportunities, and are represented at all organizational levels and functions” (p. 249). Inclusive policies and practices to achieve this can be incorporated in most if not all of the organization’s systems, including, for example, how work is organized and done; how employees are recruited, selected, evaluated, and promoted; how, by whom, and on what bases decisions are made, implemented, and evaluated; and how the organization engages with the surrounding community and other stakeholders. Inclusive Societies Finally, these experiences, behaviors, policies, and practices all occur in the context of broader societal frameworks, including policies, practices, values, and ideologies that may or may not be supportive of inclusion (see Jonsen & Özbilgin, Chapter 12; Lukensmeyer, Yao, & Brown, Chapter 17; and Mor Barak & Daya, Chapter 13, this volume). For example, in the United States, as in other societies, there have been many debates about whether it is valuable or appropriate for individuals and groups to remain culturally distinct within the larger society (Ferdman & Sagiv, 2012). Communities and societies (as well as international organizations) can take proactive steps to promote inclusion. Inclusive communities and societies incorporate values and practices that encourage individuals and groups to maintain and develop their unique identities and cultures while continuing to fully and equally belong to and participate in the larger community. Conceptualizing Inclusion . . . Inclusively The multilevel perspective described in the previous section provides a framework for organizing and developing some clarity among the many descriptions and definitions of inclusion that have begun to appear in both academic and applied work. Because the concept of inclusion can be so broad and encompass so many aspects, it can sometimes unfortunately appear that the term is not quite precise. Yet, when we sort the concepts and definitions Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 21 according to their focus and level of analysis, I believe that a much clearer and useful picture can emerge. In Table 1.1, I present many of these conceptualizations, sorted both by level of analysis and by year of publication. The perspectives on inclusion listed in Table 1.1 are important not only because they represent a historical overview of the development and application of the concept, but also because viewing them together and in juxtaposition helps highlight key themes regarding an emergent comprehensive inclusion framework. One such emergent theme is that there are many useful definitions of inclusion, all of which make sense in some context. I would argue that it is not necessary or even productive to arrive at one single definition of inclusion, because ultimately the suitability of a particular version of the concept will depend on our frame of reference, our purpose, and our level of analysis. At the same time, if we are to advance the field, it may be helpful and perhaps is even imperative that both practitioners and scholars seek to be clearer and more specific about how their particular or preferred approach fits into the larger system or framework of inclusion, and at which level(s). Particularly when seeking to generalize from research, but also from one applied setting to another, considering the particular operationalization of inclusion that is involved can also be helpful. This requires knowing more about and acknowledging what others are doing and saying; being precise, where possible, about one’s own perspective; and describing (or at least being aware of) how one’s position or view relates to that of others. This point is somewhat analogous to the practice of inclusion itself, in that inclusion is grounded in the idea that we are all better off— collectively and individually—with a broader range of interdependent and mutually reinforcing contributions and perspectives. Bailey Jackson (1994) eloquently described it this way: “My attempts to construct a vision of a multicultural system were extremely frustrating until I realized it is impossible for me or any other single person to construct such a vision of a multicultural organization, community, society, or other social system. . . . To create a vision of a multicultural system, a diversity of perspectives must be represented in a group of people who are engaged in a Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Table 1.1. Concepts of Inclusion Level of Analysis Concept Source Individuals “Inclusiveness encourages individuals of all identity groups to contribute all their talents, skills, and energies to the organization, not merely those that could be tolerated or accepted within a narrow range of monocultural style and expectations.” Miller and Katz, 1995, p. 278 Inclusion is “the degree to which individuals feel part of critical organizational processes,” indicated by their access to information and resources, work group involvement, and ability to influence decision making. Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998, p. 48 Inclusion is “the degree to which an employee is accepted and treated as an insider by others in a work system.” Used “three inclusion indicators: (1) decision-making influence, that is the influence that an employee has over decisions that affect him/her or the work that s/he does . . . ; (2) access to sensitive work information, that is the degree to which an employee is kept well-informed about the company business objectives and plans; and (3) job security, that is the likelihood that an employee will retain his/her job.” Pelled, Ledford, and Mohrman, 1999, p. 1014– 1015 “One’s experience of inclusion in the collective is a powerful determinant of action. . . . One’s sense of feeling included is most critical because it strengthens affective commitment to the organization. If one feels included, one perceives oneself as psychologically linked to the organization, experiencing the successes and failures of the organization as one’s own.” Davidson, 1999, p. 172 There is “a range of aspects of the experience of inclusion, such as feeling validated, accepted, heard, and appreciated; using one’s talents and making a difference (including being part of something that is working and doing a meaningful task); having some work autonomy; receiving feedback; having one’s input solicited and used; involvement in collaboration; openness for dialogue; and wanting to learn from others. . . . [W]hile there are commonalities or general themes in terms of what people experience as inclusion—feeling valued, respected, recognized, trusted, and that one is making a difference—not everyone experiences these in the same way.” Ferdman and Davidson, 2002b, p. 81 Inclusion is “an individual’s collective judgment or perception of belonging as an accepted, welcomed and valued member in the larger organization units, such as a work group, department, and overall organization.” Hayes and Major, 2003, p. 5 Defines “belonging” as having two related aspects: “The first is social connection or affiliation, including bonds of love, friendship and shared purpose, as well as the basic ability to communicate and relate to others. . . . The second aspect is social acceptance, which enables a person to be with and among others with a sense of comfort and entitlement, or in short, a sense that she belongs and that she has a rightful place in the world.” Hubbard, 2004, p. 218 “Workplace Social Inclusion . . . captures the extent to which employees have informal social ties with others at work and feel as if they belong and are socially included by others in their workplace.” Pearce and Randel, 2004, p. 84 “Inclusion represents a person’s ability to contribute fully and effectively to an organization.” Roberson, 2006, p. 215 “An organization is inclusive when everyone has a sense of belonging; feels respected, valued and seen for who they are as individuals; and feels a level of supportive energy and commitment from leaders, colleagues and others so that all people—individually and collectively—can do our best work.” Miller and Katz, 2007, p. 2 Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com 22 Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Table 1.1. Concepts of Inclusion Level of Analysis Concept Source Individuals “Inclusiveness encourages individuals of all identity groups to contribute all their talents, skills, and energies to the organization, not merely those that could be tolerated or accepted within a narrow range of monocultural style and expectations.” Miller and Katz, 1995, p. 278 Inclusion is “the degree to which individuals feel part of critical organizational processes,” indicated by their access to information and resources, work group involvement, and ability to influence decision making. Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998, p. 48 Inclusion is “the degree to which an employee is accepted and treated as an insider by others in a work system.” Used “three inclusion indicators: (1) decision-making influence, that is the influence that an employee has over decisions that affect him/her or the work that s/he does . . . ; (2) access to sensitive work information, that is the degree to which an employee is kept well-informed about the company business objectives and plans; and (3) job security, that is the likelihood that an employee will retain his/her job.” Pelled, Ledford, and Mohrman, 1999, p. 1014– 1015 “One’s experience of inclusion in the collective is a powerful determinant of action. . . . One’s sense of feeling included is most critical because it strengthens affective commitment to the organization. If one feels included, one perceives oneself as psychologically linked to the organization, experiencing the successes and failures of the organization as one’s own.” Davidson, 1999, p. 172 There is “a range of aspects of the experience of inclusion, such as feeling validated, accepted, heard, and appreciated; using one’s talents and making a difference (including being part of something that is working and doing a meaningful task); having some work autonomy; receiving feedback; having one’s input solicited and used; involvement in collaboration; openness for dialogue; and wanting to learn from others. . . . [W]hile there are commonalities or general themes in terms of what people experience as inclusion—feeling valued, respected, recognized, trusted, and that one is making a difference—not everyone experiences these in the same way.” Ferdman and Davidson, 2002b, p. 81 Inclusion is “an individual’s collective judgment or perception of belonging as an accepted, welcomed and valued member in the larger organization units, such as a work group, department, and overall organization.” Hayes and Major, 2003, p. 5 Defines “belonging” as having two related aspects: “The first is social connection or affiliation, including bonds of love, friendship and shared purpose, as well as the basic ability to communicate and relate to others. . . . The second aspect is social acceptance, which enables a person to be with and among others with a sense of comfort and entitlement, or in short, a sense that she belongs and that she has a rightful place in the world.” Hubbard, 2004, p. 218 “Workplace Social Inclusion . . . captures the extent to which employees have informal social ties with others at work and feel as if they belong and are socially included by others in their workplace.” Pearce and Randel, 2004, p. 84 “Inclusion represents a person’s ability to contribute fully and effectively to an organization.” Roberson, 2006, p. 215 “An organization is inclusive when everyone has a sense of belonging; feels respected, valued and seen for who they are as individuals; and feels a level of supportive energy and commitment from leaders, colleagues and others so that all people—individually and collectively—can do our best work.” Miller and Katz, 2007, p. 2 Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com 23 Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 24 Level of Analysis Concept Source “We define the experience of inclusion in a workgroup as individuals’ perception of the extent to which they feel safe, trusted, accepted, respected, supported, valued, fulfilled, engaged, and authentic in their working environment, both as individuals and as members of particular identity groups” Ferdman, Barrera, et al., 2009, p. 6 “[I]nclusion involves both being fully ourselves and allowing others to be fully themselves in the context of engaging in common pursuits. It means collaborating in a way in which all parties can be fully engaged and subsumed, and yet, paradoxically, at the same time believe that they have not compromised, hidden, or given up any part of themselves. Thus, for individuals, experiencing inclusion in a group or organization involves being fully part of the whole while retaining a sense of authenticity and uniqueness.” Ferdman, 2010, p. 37 “We define inclusion as the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness.” Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart, and Singh, 2011, p. 1265 Leaders “Managers and leaders routinely use a variety of techniques, such as encouraging informal social interaction and creating and maintaining strong organizational cultures, to help people feel a part of the whole organization.” Davidson, 1999, p. 172 Leader inclusiveness: “words and deeds by a leader . . . that indicate an invitation and appreciation for others’ contributions. Leader inclusiveness captures attempts by leaders to include others in discussions and decisions in which their voices and perspectives might otherwise be absent.” Nembhard and Edmonson, 2006, p. 947 “Building a culture of inclusion involves a new set of leadership qualities and skills including flexibility, fluidity, self-awareness and mindfulness, courage, and the capacity to be vulnerable in a powerful way.” Wasserman, Gallegos, and Ferdman, 2008, p. 180 Groups “Inclusive groups encourage disagreement because they realize it leads to moreeffective solutions and more-successful adaptations to a changing environment. Instead of pressuring members to leave their individual and cultural differences outside, inclusive groups ask everyone to contribute to the full extent of their being.” Miller, 1994, p. 39 “Inclusion is the practice of embracing and using differences as opportunities for added value and competitive advantages in teamwork, product quality, and work output.” Katz and Miller, 1996, p. 105 “[I]ncreasing inclusion would require developing the skills to allow ourselves and others to see more of the complete and complex picture of our intergroup realities, as these are expressed in our everyday collaborations. It is about allowing for both similarities and differences at both the individual and the group levels at the same time that we are joined together in a common endeavor. . . . [It is about avoiding fusion, in which I act as if we are the same, as well as avoiding disconnection, in which I believe and act as if we are completely different.” Ferdman and Davidson, 2004, p. 33–34 Table 1.1. Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 25 Level of Analysis Concept Source “We define the experience of inclusion in a workgroup as individuals’ perception of the extent to which they feel safe, trusted, accepted, respected, supported, valued, fulfilled, engaged, and authentic in their working environment, both as individuals and as members of particular identity groups” Ferdman, Barrera, et al., 2009, p. 6 “[I]nclusion involves both being fully ourselves and allowing others to be fully themselves in the context of engaging in common pursuits. It means collaborating in a way in which all parties can be fully engaged and subsumed, and yet, paradoxically, at the same time believe that they have not compromised, hidden, or given up any part of themselves. Thus, for individuals, experiencing inclusion in a group or organization involves being fully part of the whole while retaining a sense of authenticity and uniqueness.” Ferdman, 2010, p. 37 “We define inclusion as the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness.” Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean, Ehrhart, and Singh, 2011, p. 1265 Leaders “Managers and leaders routinely use a variety of techniques, such as encouraging informal social interaction and creating and maintaining strong organizational cultures, to help people feel a part of the whole organization.” Davidson, 1999, p. 172 Leader inclusiveness: “words and deeds by a leader . . . that indicate an invitation and appreciation for others’ contributions. Leader inclusiveness captures attempts by leaders to include others in discussions and decisions in which their voices and perspectives might otherwise be absent.” Nembhard and Edmonson, 2006, p. 947 “Building a culture of inclusion involves a new set of leadership qualities and skills including flexibility, fluidity, self-awareness and mindfulness, courage, and the capacity to be vulnerable in a powerful way.” Wasserman, Gallegos, and Ferdman, 2008, p. 180 Groups “Inclusive groups encourage disagreement because they realize it leads to moreeffective solutions and more-successful adaptations to a changing environment. Instead of pressuring members to leave their individual and cultural differences outside, inclusive groups ask everyone to contribute to the full extent of their being.” Miller, 1994, p. 39 “Inclusion is the practice of embracing and using differences as opportunities for added value and competitive advantages in teamwork, product quality, and work output.” Katz and Miller, 1996, p. 105 “[I]ncreasing inclusion would require developing the skills to allow ourselves and others to see more of the complete and complex picture of our intergroup realities, as these are expressed in our everyday collaborations. It is about allowing for both similarities and differences at both the individual and the group levels at the same time that we are joined together in a common endeavor. . . . [It is about avoiding fusion, in which I act as if we are the same, as well as avoiding disconnection, in which I believe and act as if we are completely different.” Ferdman and Davidson, 2004, p. 33–34 Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 26 Level of Analysis Concept Source “We define Collective Experience of Inclusion (Collective EOI) as the overall or additive sense of the extent to which people in a group feel accepted, engaged, safe, and valued—essentially the aggregated experience of inclusion across all individuals in a group.” Ferdman, Avigdor, et al., 2010, p. 16 Members are “treated as . . . insider[s] and also allowed/encouraged to retain uniqueness within the work group.” Shore et al., 2011, p. 1266 Organizations and Complex Systems “. . . from the perspective of the moral imperative, inclusion implies not only eliminating barriers to opportunity based on group differences but also supporting every individual to reach her or his full potential . . . without requiring assimilation.” “Inclusion as seen from the perspective of legal and social pressures primarily involves removing illegal barriers . . . or obstacles perceived to be unfair. . . . [This] approach tends to be primarily reactive . . .” “From the vantage point of business success, inclusion is about making sure the organization uses all productive capacity and potential to the full extent. . . . [It] is not limited to particular groups or categories of people. All individuals must be included in their full uniqueness and complexity.” Ferdman and Brody, 1996, p. 286 p. 287 p. 289 “Institutional and systemic bias can also serve as an impediment to cultivating an inclusive environment.” Davidson, 1999, p. 172 ”The inclusive workplace is one that: values and uses individual and intergroup differences within its work force; cooperates with and contributes to its surrounding community; alleviates the needs of disadvantaged groups in its wider environment; collaborates with individuals, groups, and organizations across national and cultural boundaries.” Mor Barak, 2000b, p. 339 Inclusion addresses the degree to which (a) employees are valued and their ideas are taken into account and used, (b) people partner successfully within and across departments, (c) current employees feel that they belong and prospective employees are attracted to the organization, (d) people feel connected to each other and to the organization and its goals, and (e) the organization continuously fosters flexibility and choice, and attends to diversity. Gasorek, 2000 “Experiences of inclusion result when policies, structures, practices, and norms of behavior are aligned in such a way that every member of a given collective (community, organization, or network) has a fair and equal opportunity to access the joint resources of that collective.” Davidson and Ferdman, 2002, p. 1 Table 1.1. Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 27 Level of Analysis Concept Source “We define Collective Experience of Inclusion (Collective EOI) as the overall or additive sense of the extent to which people in a group feel accepted, engaged, safe, and valued—essentially the aggregated experience of inclusion across all individuals in a group.” Ferdman, Avigdor, et al., 2010, p. 16 Members are “treated as . . . insider[s] and also allowed/encouraged to retain uniqueness within the work group.” Shore et al., 2011, p. 1266 Organizations and Complex Systems “. . . from the perspective of the moral imperative, inclusion implies not only eliminating barriers to opportunity based on group differences but also supporting every individual to reach her or his full potential . . . without requiring assimilation.” “Inclusion as seen from the perspective of legal and social pressures primarily involves removing illegal barriers . . . or obstacles perceived to be unfair. . . . [This] approach tends to be primarily reactive . . .” “From the vantage point of business success, inclusion is about making sure the organization uses all productive capacity and potential to the full extent. . . . [It] is not limited to particular groups or categories of people. All individuals must be included in their full uniqueness and complexity.” Ferdman and Brody, 1996, p. 286 p. 287 p. 289 “Institutional and systemic bias can also serve as an impediment to cultivating an inclusive environment.” Davidson, 1999, p. 172 ”The inclusive workplace is one that: values and uses individual and intergroup differences within its work force; cooperates with and contributes to its surrounding community; alleviates the needs of disadvantaged groups in its wider environment; collaborates with individuals, groups, and organizations across national and cultural boundaries.” Mor Barak, 2000b, p. 339 Inclusion addresses the degree to which (a) employees are valued and their ideas are taken into account and used, (b) people partner successfully within and across departments, (c) current employees feel that they belong and prospective employees are attracted to the organization, (d) people feel connected to each other and to the organization and its goals, and (e) the organization continuously fosters flexibility and choice, and attends to diversity. Gasorek, 2000 “Experiences of inclusion result when policies, structures, practices, and norms of behavior are aligned in such a way that every member of a given collective (community, organization, or network) has a fair and equal opportunity to access the joint resources of that collective.” Davidson and Ferdman, 2002, p. 1 Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Level of Analysis Concept Source “A culture of inclusion requires . . . a new set of actions, attitudes, policies, and practices designed to enable all people to contribute their energies and talents to the organization’s success. Conflict becomes constructive debate. People are sought because they are different.” Miller and Katz, 2002, p. 16 “Inclusion in multicultural organizations means that there is equality, justice, and full participation at both the group and individual levels, so that members of different groups not only have equal access to opportunities, decision making, and positions of power, but they are actively sought out because of their differences. In a multicultural, inclusive organization, differences of all types become integrated into the fabric of the business, such that they become a necessary part of doing its everyday work.” In an inclusive organization, “the diversity of knowledge and perspectives that members of different groups bring . . . has shaped its strategy, its work, its management and operating systems, and its core values and norms for success. . . . [M]embers of all groups are treated fairly, feel included and actually are included, have equal opportunities, and are represented at all organizational levels and functions.” Diversity is woven “into the fabric of the organization.” Holvino, Ferdman, and Merrill-Sands, 2004, p. 248 (italics in original) p. 249 In a culture of inclusion, “differences are recognized, valued and engaged. Different voices are understood as being legitimate and as opening up new vistas; they are heard and integrated in decision making and problem solving processes; they have an active role in shaping culture and fostering creativity and innovation; and eventually in adding value to the company’s performance. . . . [A culture of inclusion is] an organizational environment that allows people with multiple backgrounds, mindsets and ways of thinking to work effectively together and to perform to their highest potential in order to achieve organizational objectives based on sound principles. In such an environment different voices are respected and heard, diverse viewpoints, perspectives and approaches are valued and everyone is encouraged to make a unique and meaningful contribution.” Pless and Maak, 2004, p. 130– 131 Inclusion is “the way an organization configures its systems and structures to value and leverage the potential, and to limit the disadvantages, of differences.” Roberson, 2006, p. 221 “Inclusion is the set of organizational norms and values that promote the development of an institutional culture in which diversity is valued and promoted and individuals feel empowered within an atmosphere of trust, safety, and respect. An inclusive work place is one that: accepts, values and utilizes individual and inter-group differences within its workforce. A warm and welcoming atmosphere eases the process of ‘learning the ropes’ for the new member and aids in making the member comfortable in the new group environment.” Future Work Institute, n.d., p. 6 “For us, a culture of inclusion recognizes, respects, values, and utilizes the talents and contributions of all the organization’s people—current and potential—across multiple lines of difference [ . . . ]. In organizations with cultures of inclusion, people of all social identity groups have the opportunity to be present, to have their voices heard and appreciated, and to engage in core activities on behalf of the collective.” Wasserman, Gallegos, and Ferdman, 2008, p. 176 Table 1.1. Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com 28 Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Level of Analysis Concept Source “A culture of inclusion requires . . . a new set of actions, attitudes, policies, and practices designed to enable all people to contribute their energies and talents to the organization’s success. Conflict becomes constructive debate. People are sought because they are different.” Miller and Katz, 2002, p. 16 “Inclusion in multicultural organizations means that there is equality, justice, and full participation at both the group and individual levels, so that members of different groups not only have equal access to opportunities, decision making, and positions of power, but they are actively sought out because of their differences. In a multicultural, inclusive organization, differences of all types become integrated into the fabric of the business, such that they become a necessary part of doing its everyday work.” In an inclusive organization, “the diversity of knowledge and perspectives that members of different groups bring . . . has shaped its strategy, its work, its management and operating systems, and its core values and norms for success. . . . [M]embers of all groups are treated fairly, feel included and actually are included, have equal opportunities, and are represented at all organizational levels and functions.” Diversity is woven “into the fabric of the organization.” Holvino, Ferdman, and Merrill-Sands, 2004, p. 248 (italics in original) p. 249 In a culture of inclusion, “differences are recognized, valued and engaged. Different voices are understood as being legitimate and as opening up new vistas; they are heard and integrated in decision making and problem solving processes; they have an active role in shaping culture and fostering creativity and innovation; and eventually in adding value to the company’s performance. . . . [A culture of inclusion is] an organizational environment that allows people with multiple backgrounds, mindsets and ways of thinking to work effectively together and to perform to their highest potential in order to achieve organizational objectives based on sound principles. In such an environment different voices are respected and heard, diverse viewpoints, perspectives and approaches are valued and everyone is encouraged to make a unique and meaningful contribution.” Pless and Maak, 2004, p. 130– 131 Inclusion is “the way an organization configures its systems and structures to value and leverage the potential, and to limit the disadvantages, of differences.” Roberson, 2006, p. 221 “Inclusion is the set of organizational norms and values that promote the development of an institutional culture in which diversity is valued and promoted and individuals feel empowered within an atmosphere of trust, safety, and respect. An inclusive work place is one that: accepts, values and utilizes individual and inter-group differences within its workforce. A warm and welcoming atmosphere eases the process of ‘learning the ropes’ for the new member and aids in making the member comfortable in the new group environment.” Future Work Institute, n.d., p. 6 “For us, a culture of inclusion recognizes, respects, values, and utilizes the talents and contributions of all the organization’s people—current and potential—across multiple lines of difference [ . . . ]. In organizations with cultures of inclusion, people of all social identity groups have the opportunity to be present, to have their voices heard and appreciated, and to engage in core activities on behalf of the collective.” Wasserman, Gallegos, and Ferdman, 2008, p. 176 Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com 29 Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 30 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion dialogical process. .  .  .” (p. 116). Building on Jackson’s view, I believe that understanding of inclusion and its dynamics will be enhanced and deepened to the extent that those of us engaged in it share our views and approaches with each other and know about and build on each other’s work. Because each of us holds just one or at most a few of the many jigsaw puzzle pieces necessary to build the full picture of inclusion, we must be able and willing to put in our piece(s), while at the same time being careful not to confuse our part with the whole picture. In this sense, a prerequisite for inclusion that is not mentioned in the quotes is perhaps humility. To the extent that individuals—whether individual contributors or leaders—believe and accept that no one person can see, understand, and know everything, and then act accordingly by creating opportunities for learning and action based on multiple inputs, contributions, and perspectives, the likelihood of creating inclusion will be greatly enhanced. A second key theme is that inclusion has both individual and collective components; in other words, it can be viewed as something that has to do with how individuals experience their life, work, and interactions, and it can also be looked at in terms of how social groups collectively experience the world. Both components are important for a complete picture of inclusion. In this context, inclusion involves growth and freedom, and eliminating the psychological, behavioral, and systemic barriers that can stand in the way. Addressing this at both the individual and collective levels, in the context of work groups and organizations, as well as society more generally, means attending both to the complex ways in which individuals are interconnected with (and in part defined by) social identity groups (see Ferdman & Roberts, Chapter 3, this volume) and to intergroup relations—how social identities play a role in individual and interpersonal situations as well as in organizations more generally. In prior work, I described it this way: “to create and increase inclusion, individuals must have appropriate competencies and demonstrate corresponding behaviors. Inclusion cannot exist without individuals who seek it and behave accordingly. At the same time, those individuals choose, display, and interpret their behavior and that of others in the context of Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 31 organizational, intergroup, and socio-historical dynamics that are also very much part of the puzzle of inclusion” (Ferdman & Davidson, 2004, p. 36). A final notable theme is that, even though the definitions provided are often framed in terms of workplaces, inclusion is a concept and practice that can more or less apply to everyone in all locations and social systems, across multiple differences; it is not limited to workplaces or to particular groups or types of diversity. Indeed, this is what makes inclusion in many ways quite easy for people to understand and particularly appealing as an approach to diversity. Because it is a concept that intuitively makes sense to people, however, it is relatively easy to focus on only one or some of the levels of system and ignore or even avoid the others, even when they may be quite important. For example, an organization can pay a great deal of attention to corporate policies that create barriers for certain groups more than others, but very little to how people actually treat each other every day. Or people in a workgroup can be extremely competent in handling multiple differences in ways that are quite satisfying to and very inclusive of all members, yet avoid any and all attention to whether or not they are fostering inclusion in a larger societal or organizational sense (for example, because their task or product is one that privileges particular societal groups over others). A systemic, dynamic, and inclusive perspective on inclusion incorporates attention to these and similar issues, as well as to ongoing learning over time. Contributions from Inclusive Education and Social Inclusion Although inclusion has recently gained prominence in connection with diversity in organizations, historically, the concept of inclusion was first developed and used extensively in the field of education, particularly of children with disabilities, and later expanded in relation to people with disabilities more generally. In the context of disability rights, inclusion has signified the perspective that people with disabilities should be able to fully participate in all aspects of society and its institutions. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the United States and Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 32 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conven tionfull.shtml) are both major examples of this approach and perspective. In education, inclusion goes beyond notions of mainstreaming and integration, which privilege students without disabilities and consider those with disabilities as having “special needs.” Rather, it refers to the rights of all students to participate fully in all aspects of the school and to have full access to education, without being separated from other students or being seen as less than others (see, for example, Bossaert, Colpin, Pijl, & Petry, 2013; Hick & Thomas, 2008). UNESCO, in a document emphasizing education as a basic human right for all people, defined inclusion “as a dynamic approach of responding positively to pupil diversity and of seeing individual differences not as problems, but as opportunities for enriching learning” (2005, p. 12). It goes on to describe inclusion “as a process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation .  .  . and reducing exclusion within and from education. It involves changes .  .  . in content, approaches, structures and strategies, with a common vision . . . and a conviction that it is the responsibility of the regular system to educate all children” (p. 17). Particularly interesting and relevant here is the emphasis on changing the educational system and the school itself, rather than focusing on the children with “special” needs as the source or locus of problems or difficulties. In a similar way, inclusion in organizations is about creating work environments and processes that “work” for everyone, across all types of differences, rather than ones that emphasize assimilation. A third and overlapping use of the term, social inclusion, is more typical in a larger societal context and from the vantage point of public policy, economics, political science, and sociology. Here the focus is on eliminating social exclusion as manifested in individual and particularly collective social disadvantages of poor or otherwise marginalized people in society—including those in the economic, political, health, housing, educational, labor, and similar arenas (see, for example, Atkinson & Marlier, 2010); social Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 33 inclusion seeks to improve the material and economic conditions of such groups, as well as their full enfranchisement in society and their participation in its institutions. Boushey, Fremstad, Gragg, and Waller (2010) explain that “[s]ocial inclusion is based on the belief that we all fare better when no one is left to fall too far behind and the economy works for everyone. Social inclusion simultaneously incorporates multiple dimensions of well-being. It is achieved when all have the opportunity and resources necessary to participate fully in economic, social, and cultural activities which are considered the societal norm” (p. 1). The Australian Social Inclusion Board (2012) described social inclusion in this way: “Being socially included means that people have the resources, opportunities and capabilities they need to: Learn (participate in education and training); Work (participate in employment, unpaid or voluntary work including family and carer [sic] responsibilities); Engage (connect with people, use local services and participate in local, cultural, civic and recreational activities); and Have a voice (influence decisions that affect them)” (p. 12). This approach has elements that relate well with the practice of inclusion in diverse organizations, but it places less emphasis on individual experience, group processes, and interpersonal interactions, and more on social and economic policies and their effects. Elements of Inclusion at Work So far, I have presented various ways to conceptualize inclusion in the context of an emergent multilevel framework. From a practical perspective, the question then arises as to how to operationalize inclusion at each of these levels. What are the specific elements of inclusion? As exemplified in many of the quotes in Table 1.1, there are multiple ways to describe these, and the particular elements that are addressed can vary. In this section, I provide illustrative examples of such lists from my own research and consulting work as well as from other sources. First, I briefly discuss the importance of involving stakeholders in generating their own operational descriptions of inclusion, and I give an example of how this can be done. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 34 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Co-Constructing Inclusion It is important to be specific about the elements of inclusion, especially in the context of inclusion initiatives, so that those involved can be clear about what is being addressed and what the goals are. My aim here, however, is not to provide a definitive list of all that the practice of inclusion encompasses, because rich descriptions are available in the academic and practitioner literature, and more important, as discussed earlier, these may vary from organization to organization or even from person to person. Organizations and groups that wish to systematically embark on inclusion initiatives should carefully develop their own account of the specific ways that their current and prospective members and stakeholders experience inclusion, and of the behaviors, policies, and practices that foster those experiences, in the context of shared understanding of the concept of inclusion and its multiple facets. This is because lists of inclusive behaviors and practices will be most meaningful and useful when they are generated and discussed locally, among the people who will be involved in practicing those behaviors or benefiting from them, even if those lists are initially based on prior work. I suspect that inclusion that feels imposed will not be experienced as inclusion! Another reason for developing one’s own list of inclusion elements is that the process of creating localized operational definitions can itself provide a vehicle to begin practicing the very same desired behaviors and to test the expectation that they are the appropriate and best focus for an inclusion effort. For example, in one group, spending more time carefully listening to others may be an area that requires particular attention to foster more inclusion among its members. In another group, this may already be a behavior that is practiced well but other areas—such as making sure that those affected by decisions have a voice in making them, or increasing the group’s skill in bringing out differences and handling conflict well—may need more attention. In yet other groups, the core inclusion issues may involve fairness and equity and their association to social identities, such as gender, race, or class. This understanding can be developed in the process of discovering the key issues for the group; at the same time, the Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 35 group can test how it is doing in terms of acting on its expressed goals and values. How can a group or organization generate its own detailed list of the elements of inclusion? Essentially, it can be done by involving key stakeholders in a process of describing their own experiences, perspectives, and hopes, and systematically combining the information generated to arrive at a collective picture of inclusion. Exhibit 1.1 provides examples of questions—generated using an appreciative inquiry approach—that can be adapted to engage individuals and groups in describing the specific behaviors and practices that they believe would result in more inclusion. (Prior to addressing these questions, it may be helpful to first spend some time discussing what participants consider inclusion to be.) Exhibit 1.1. Questions to Generate and Co-Construct Descriptions of Inclusive Behavior and Inclusive Organizational Practices • What behaviors—from yourself and from others—help you experience more inclusion? • What behaviors help others around you experience more inclusion? • Imagine that you’ve waved a magic wand and now everyone in the world behaves inclusively, in a way that brings inclusion to life in every encounter with others. What inclusive behaviors do you see around you? • Imagine the most inclusive organization in the world, one in which everyone’s talents, beliefs, backgrounds, capabilities, and ways of living—their uniqueness—is engaged, valued, and leveraged. What are one or two vital inclusive organizational policies and practices in that organization? A few years ago, Frederick Miller and Christine Boulware brought together a number of practitioners and others interested in developing inclusion as a core idea for organizations and society. The result was the formation of a group called the Institute for Inclusion. In that context, a team composed of myself, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 36 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Judith Katz, Ed Letchinger, and C. Terrill Thompson—using a collaborative process of co-construction based on input from conference participants in response to questions very similar to those in Exhibit 1.1—created a list of inclusive behaviors and organizational policies and practices in three categories: (1) inclusive behaviors suitable for everyone, (2) inclusive behaviors for leaders, and (3) inclusive organizational policies and practices (Ferdman, Katz, Letchinger, & Thompson, 2009). Later, I give a summary of these lists; what is relevant here is the process we used, which can be adapted to different settings. Participants were first asked to generate individual responses to the questions. These responses were then compiled. Small groups were assigned to look for key themes and to assign behaviors and practices to one of the three buckets, as well as to add additional points as they saw fit. The working group took the material from the small groups and combined it into a document that was shared with everyone in the group, who then could provide additional suggestions, edits, and comments. The idea is to create a process that is itself inclusive and that permits generating an operational perspective for the practice of inclusion among those participating, a perspective in which everyone can feel ownership and see themselves reflected. Elements of the Experience of Inclusion In the context of developing and testing a measure of workgroup inclusion, my students and I (Ferdman, Barrera, et al., 2009; Hirshberg & Ferdman, 2011) defined the experience of inclusion, which, as discussed earlier, we conceptualized as involving feelings of safety, respect, support, value, trust, fulfillment, engagement, and authenticity within the workgroup. Based on that work, we can identify six key operational elements of the experience of inclusion and the associated issues, which are listed and described in Table 1.2. What is interesting about the elements and issues listed is that, while they cover a lot of ground, they are not necessarily all-encompassing; it may be possible in some contexts to produce lists that vary from the one here in terms of adding additional components or changing some of them to emphasize somewhat different issues. Nevertheless, the overall themes are likely to be quite similar. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 37 Table 1.2. Elements of the Experience of Inclusion Element Examples of Issues Addressed Feeling safe (self and group) Do I feel physically and psychologically safe? Do I feel secure that I am fully considered a member of the group or organization? Can I move about and act freely (literally and figuratively)? Can I (and others like me) share ideas, opinions, and perspectives—especially when they differ from those of others—without fear of negative repercussions? Do I believe that others who share one or more of my identity groups are also safe from physical and/or psychological harm in the group or organization? Involvement and engagement in the workgroup Am I treated as a full participant in activities and interactions? Am I—and do I feel like—an insider? Do I have access to the information and resources that I need to do my work (and that others have)? Do I enjoy being part of the group or organization? Can I rely on others in my group or organization (and they on me)? Do I feel like we are part of the same team, even when we disagree? Can I (or people like me) succeed here? Feeling respected and valued (self and group) Am I (and others like me) treated in the ways I (they) would like to be treated? Do others in the group care about me (and people like me) and treat me (and them) as a valuable and esteemed member(s) of the group or organization? Am I trusted? Am I cared about? Are people like me trusted and cared about? Influence on decision making Do my ideas and perspectives influence what happens and what decisions are made? Am I listened to when weighing in on substantive issues? Authenticity/ bringing one’s whole self to work Can I be truly myself around others in my group or organization? Do I need to conceal or distort valued parts of my identity, style, or individual characteristics? Can I have genuine conversations with others without needing to involuntarily hide relevant parts of myself? Can I be open, honest, and transparent about my ideas and perspectives? Can I make my contributions in ways that feel authentic and whole? Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 38 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Building on this approach, I worked as an external consultant for a multinational corporation that wanted to generate a global inclusion survey. With my input, they created a four-item inclusion index, grounded in the organization’s values and success factors, to assess employees’ experience of inclusion. In addition to a global item assessing the individual’s overall sense of being included, we also asked about how much the respondent felt that the company valued his or her unique contributions and strengths, to what degree the respondent believed that he or she (or others who are similar) could succeed at the company, and to what degree the respondent believed that he or she had equitable access to necessary information, tools, and resources. This index could then be statistically regressed on other items measuring inclusive behavior at other levels of analysis to discover the key drivers of inclusion in the organization, as well as compared across various demographic categories. Elements of Inclusive Behavior Inclusive behavior can be operationalized in a variety of ways, in part depending on who we are talking about. For example, there are behaviors that most people can practice in a range of situations as a way to build inclusion for themselves and others. There are additional behaviors that may be suited for particular settings; for example, in a work group. And there are behaviors that are Element Examples of Issues Addressed Diversity is recognized, attended to, and honored Am I treated fairly, without discrimination or barriers based on my identities? Can I (and others) be transparent about and proud of my (our) social identities? Can we address differences in ways that lead to mutual learning and growth? Does the group or organization notice and value diversity of all types? Note: Elements are adapted from Ferdman, Barrera, et al., 2009, and Hirshberg and Ferdman, 2011. Table 1.2. Continued Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 39 associated with particular roles, especially that of leaders. Descriptions of inclusive behavior are particularly important because they can provide people with suggestions about what they can specifically do to foster inclusion. Marjane Jensen (1995) was an early pioneer in explicitly listing behaviors for inclusion. Her list, later developed and expanded by Katz and Miller (2011), highlighted the importance of the following types of behavior for creating inclusion: • Authentically greeting other people • Fostering a feeling of safety • Listening and understanding • Communicating clearly and honestly • Working through and learning from conflicts • Seeking and listening to multiple voices and perspectives • Noticing when exclusion occurs and intervening to address it • Being intentional about individual and collective choices when working in groups • Being courageous In an application of this approach, The Hartford Financial Services Group (The Hartford, 2006) highlighted and stressed the following elements of inclusive behavior to its employees: • Listen to all individuals until they feel understood • Accept others’ references as true for them • Be honest and clear • Build on each other’s ideas and thoughts • Take risks • Speak up for oneself Pless and Maak (2004) listed the following as key inclusive behaviors, based on a set of inclusion competencies: • Showing respect and empathy; • Recognizing the other as different but equal; • Showing appreciation for different voices, e.g. by – Listening actively to them; – Trying to understand disparate viewpoints and opinions; Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 40 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion – Integrating different voices into the ongoing cultural discourse. • Practising and encouraging open and frank communication in all interactions; • Cultivating participative decision making and problem solving processes and team capabilities; • Showing integrity and advanced moral reasoning, especially when dealing with ethical dilemmas; • Using a cooperative/consultative leadership style [p. 140] In the work to create a workgroup inclusion measure described earlier (Ferdman, Barrera, et al., 2009), we also developed an operationalization of inclusive behavior, based on the following categories: • Creating safety • Acknowledging others • Dealing with conflict and differences • Showing an ability and willingness to learn • Having and giving voice • Encouraging representation Creating safety involves having and using clear ground rules for respectful behavior, avoiding belittling others, and speaking up about issues that matter to people and the organization. Acknowledging others involves not only greeting people but also recognizing contributions and asking for input, in a manner that also connects to coworkers in personal and human ways. Dealing with conflict means being able and willing to address it as it arises, developing skills for effectively working through and learning from conflict, and developing cultural competence for working with those who may think and behave quite differently. Being able and willing to learn includes such behaviors as asking for and providing feedback, sharing information, and using multiple perspectives to arrive at collaborative solutions. Voice-related behaviors involve speaking up and making one’s full contributions to the group and organization, and providing opportunities for others to do so, as well as showing others that Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 41 their contributions are valued; research by Major, Davis, SanchezHucles, Germano, and Mann (2005) indicates that this can be done through both affective support, such as listening and being sympathetic, and instrumental support, such as helping with work responsibilities or switching schedules. Finally, encouraging representation means taking proactive steps to ensure that multiple voices and people of different identity groups and perspectives are present and involved. This last category includes many of the behaviors highlighted in traditional diversity initiatives that focus on making sure that groups and organizations actually incorporate diversity along multiple dimensions and across functions and hierarchical levels. In working to develop a global inclusion survey with the company mentioned earlier, I used a similar perspective on inclusive behavior, but first I generated an overarching list of inclusion elements, which could then be translated into assessment items focused on specific groups. For example, participants rated their own inclusive behavior, that of members of their work group, that of their supervisors, and that of company leaders. The broad elements that we incorporated were collaboration/ interdependence (feeling valued), fair and unbiased treatment, leadership and accountability, open communication, support, authenticity, trust, and work-life balance. We then ensured that there were items measuring the various elements for the different groups. Ratings of inclusive behavior could then be computed for the various groups (that is, self-ratings, work group ratings, supervisor ratings, and so on) as well as for each of the elements. Finally, I turn to the work of the Institute for Inclusion (Ferdman, Katz, et al., 2009) introduced earlier. In that process, as mentioned, we generated two lists of inclusive behavior, one for everyone and one for leaders. The behaviors for everyone are those that anyone can practice to foster inclusion. Behaviors for leaders are complementary to those in the first list and are particularly geared for individuals holding positions of authority. The two lists are summarized in Table 1.3 (together with organizational policies and practices, which I discuss next). Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 42 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Table 1.3. Inclusive Behaviors for Everyone and for Leaders; Inclusive Organizational Policies and Practices Inclusive Behavior for Everyone Acknowledge, connect, and engage with others. Listen deeply and carefully. Engage a broad range of perspectives. Openly share information and seek transparency. Be curious. Lean into discomfort. Increase self-awareness. Be willing to learn and be influenced by others. Be respectful and demonstrate fairness. Foster interdependence and teamwork. Inclusive Behavior for Leaders Hold oneself and others accountable for creating an inclusive culture. Invite engagement and dialogue. Model bringing one’s whole self to work, and give permission for and encourage others to do so. Foster transparent decision making. Understand and engage with resistance. Understand and talk about how inclusion connects to the mission and vision. Inclusive Organizational Policies and Practices Create an environment of respect, fairness, justice, and equity. Create a framework for assessing and implementing organizational policies and practices. Build systems, processes, and procedures that support and sustain inclusion. Enhance individual and collective competence to collaborate across cultures and groups. Define organizational social responsibility (internally and externally). Foster transparency throughout the organization. Promote teamwork. Create a diverse organization. Foster continual learning and growth. Source: Adapted from Ferdman, Katz, Letchinger, and Thompson, 2009. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 43 Elements of Inclusion at the Organizational Level At the organizational level, there are many practices organizations can adopt to create, foster, and sustain inclusion. Table 1.3 includes a broad list of these, generated by Ferdman, Katz, et al. (2009) using the process described earlier. Other detailed examples can be found in Holvino et al. (2004) and in various chapters in this volume, so I do not repeat those here. The key is for the organization to have a clear approach to inclusion and that this approach be translated into specific strategies, policies, and practices that can be observed and assessed. These practices should not only build inclusion systemically but also encourage leaders and all members of the organization to practice inclusion in their individual and collective behavior, both to support the overall culture of inclusion as well as to ensure that as many people as possible regularly experience inclusion. One way to do this is to decide on the key dimensions of inclusion for the organization and how these can be addressed for each of the key dimensions, functions, or systems of the organization. In Figure 1.3, I present an Inclusion Assessment Matrix that my students and I (Ferdman, Brody, Cooper, Jeffcoat, & Le, 1995) developed almost two decades ago and that continues to be quite relevant. Across the top row we list the various systems of the organization, and down the left side we list the various dimensions of inclusion we identified at the time. For each of these dimensions of inclusion, we created illustrative general assessment questions or topics, which are also included in the figure. Once the dimensions of inclusion are identified and defined, then they can be operationalized for the organization as a whole and for each of the relevant systems or functions of the organization. Facing the Challenges and Paradoxes of the Practice of Inclusion This chapter has covered much ground, and the book’s other chapters provide a great deal of additional texture and rich perspectives and detail for the practice of inclusion. I conclude by Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 44 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Figure 1.3. Organizational-Level Inclusion Assessment Matrix Dimensions of Inclusion Dimensions of the Organization Socialization Career planning selection, promotion Recruitment, education Training and appraisal Performance Reward systems and practices Work/life policies Communication Measurement informal integration Structural and Openness Openness: How much are variability, complexity, and ambiguity embraced? To what extent are the system and its boundaries open rather than hard? How acceptable is rigidity? Are there multiple solutions and many best ways? Is there a broad bandwidth of acceptance? Representation/Voice: To what extent are differences, both apparent and not, attended to and represented across situations? Is there a critical mass of diverse members, with a mix of dimensions represented, in making decisions and beneƒting from them? Climate: How valued do individuals and groups feel? Are they fully present, free to express themselves, accepted and integrated? How does it feel to be in the organization? Fairness: To what extent do individuals and groups receive what they need and deserve? How much and in what ways is fairness considered? Are there mechanisms for resolving or addressing fairness? To what extent and in what ways has oppression and its effects (such as unearned privilege) been eliminated or reduced? Continuous Improvement: What is the capacity, ability, and mindset regarding necessary and possible improvement? How much and in what ways are employees empowered to be responsible for continuous improvement? What is the capacity to take advantage of all resources? Leadership/Commitment: To what degree and in what ways are the strategies, vision, and mission of the organization connected to inclusion? How are resources allocated? How well do leaders model inclusion? How accountable and committed is leadership? How strategically is inclusion positioned and addressed? How central is inclusion to the core values and strategy of organization? Social Responsibility: How much awareness is there of the world outside the organization? What is the vision of the organization as a member of a larger community? What kinds of contributions (such as time and resources) are made to societal needs? Representation and voice Climate Fairness Leadership and commitment Continuous improvement Social responsibility Source: Adapted from Ferdman, Brody, Cooper, Jeffcoat, and Le, 1995, Inclusion Assessment Matrix, unpublished document, California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 45 very briefly discussing a few of the challenges of inclusion. Overall, the practice of inclusion involves being able to acknowledge, recognize, value, and work with diversity, in ways that benefit individuals, groups, organizations, and society, at multiple levels and across multiple identities. As discussed throughout this chapter, to do this well, we need to understand and engage with a good deal of complexity, while also making sure to address the essential and basic aspects of our common humanity and our needs for connection, consideration, respect, appreciation, and participation. Many of the challenges of inclusion involve attending to and engaging with seeming polarities or paradoxes, in the process of creating connections and practices that can work for everyone and allow everyone to work to their full potential. They also involve being willing to reexamine and test assumptions and to join with others with different perspectives and contributions so as to together weave an emergent and textured reality that none of us could have created or anticipated alone. ∘ The practice of inclusion is about both everyday behavior and organizational and social systems. The practice of inclusion addresses both micro and macro levels (and everything in between). Inclusion must occur in terms of individual experience and everyday interpersonal behavior, and also in terms of intergroup relations and patterns of experience at the level of complex organizational and societal systems. We need to make sure that inclusion is experienced not just by those who are most similar or most near to us, but also those who are different on key dimensions or who are not part of our proximal social system, such as those in other organizations, communities, and societies. Individual experience and interpersonal behavior, in the moment, are critical to inclusion, but so are addressing and redressing embedded and persistent systems of intergroup injustice and oppression (and the relationships among the two) in organizations and society. ∘ The practice of inclusion is about both structures and processes. To address inclusion, we need a dynamic perspective that attends to multiple processes over time. Inclusion is about patterns of behavior and experience in the context of relationships between individuals, between people and their Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 46 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion groups and organizations, and between groups. At the same time, the structures within which these dynamic relationships are created, enacted, interpreted, reproduced, and developed are also critical. Who is where in what parts of the system? What is the distribution of power? How is work organized? The answers to these and many similar questions are important for understanding the processual aspects of the practice of inclusion. How we treat each other, how we communicate, how we engage with others are all critical to inclusion as well, and over time can help change the structures within which these patterns occur. Indeed, the relationship between structure and process is perhaps much like that between a flowing river and its banks: the banks of the river certainly channel and shape where and how the river flows; yet, simultaneously, the flowing waters slowly and surely shape and change the river’s seemingly solid and stationary banks. ∘ The practice of inclusion is about both comfort and discomfort. In many ways, inclusion involves creating more comfort for more people, so that access, opportunity, and a sense of full participation and belonging are facilitated across a greater range of diversity than ever before, for the benefit of all. At the same time, practicing inclusion means distributing discomfort more equitably. Frederick Miller (1994) provocatively and creatively described it this way: “Inclusion turns comfortable upside out and inside down” (p. 39, italics in original). We need to move out of our individual and collective comfort zones, yet do so in a way that leads to growth, learning, and mutual and collective benefit. Let me explain: It is not very difficult to behave inclusively with people with whom we are familiar or who are most like ourselves. Historically, however, this has happened in the context of exclusive organizations and groups. For example, once college students are able to get through the hazing typically imposed to be invited to join a fraternity or sorority, they can feel very much a part of the group. The problem is that inclusion of that type typically comes at a price: to experience inclusion, members of selective and therefore exclusive organizations or groups must assimilate to the dominant norms, styles, and practices, and subsume the ways Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 47 in which they are different from the accepted or dominant ways of doing things. This means that those from less represented, less familiar, or less dominant groups and backgrounds will typically be more uncomfortable and less at ease than their colleagues. In diverse groups, organizations, and societies, inclusion becomes both more important and more challenging and uncomfortable, because the key is to expand the experience of inclusion while maintaining and enhancing diversity. Essentially, the practice of inclusion requires becoming more comfortable with discomfort, both individually and collectively. More of us must be willing to take on the discomfort of being less than fully secure as we engage with each other to create inclusion. We must be willing to learn continuously and recognize that the practice of inclusion is never done; it requires ongoing alertness and engagement. As we notice and work across more and more types of diversity, this stance will be even more critical. ∘ The practice of inclusion is about both deriving practical benefits and about doing what is right and just. Certainly, a key motivation for practicing inclusion is based on the premise that it will lead to tangible benefits for individuals, groups, organization, and societies. This assumption has begun to receive empirical support and is also based on existing and emergent theories and practical experience. At the same time, the practice of inclusion will be enhanced (and perhaps even greater benefits will be derived), if we simultaneously acknowledge that it is simply right, just, and moral. Facing the challenges and paradoxes of the practice of inclusion will require ongoing learning and contributions from multiple perspectives and disciplines. It is an evolutionary journey and it will be very exciting to see how the emergent framework described here develops and changes as others add their voices and views to our collective understanding and practice. Acknowledgments I am greatly indebted to Barbara R. Deane and Sergio ValenzuelaIbarra for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 48 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion chapter and for their support throughout the process of writing it. Barbara R. Deane in particular provided invaluable editorial advice, without which this would have been a much poorer chapter. Sergio, as well as Liz Barat, Sarah Maxwell, and Maggie Sass, provided valuable and much-appreciated research assistance at various points. I would also like to express my great appreciation to Derek Avery, Liz Barat, Victoria Barrera, Stacey BlakeBeard, Donna Blancero, Lize Booysen, Christine Boulware, Sari Brody, Catherine Buntaine, Chin-Chun Chen, Donna ChrobotMason, Dennis DaRos, Martin Davidson, Nancy DiTomaso, Angel Enriquez, Darcy Hanashiro, David Hayes-Bautista, Plácida Gallegos, Jeremy Hirshberg, Evangelina Holvino, C. Douglas Johnson, Judith Katz, Jennifer Habig, James A. Kimbrough, Ed Letchinger, Patrick McKay, Fred Miller, Michàlle Mor Barak, Stella Nkomo, Lisa Nishii, Kopitzee Parra-Thornton, Laura Morgan Roberts, Andrea Szulik, Kecia Thomas, Terrill Thompson, Cláudio Torres, Ilene Wasserman, Heather Wishik, and the late Marjane Jensen, as well as to my many other students, research collaborators, teachers, and consulting colleagues over the years, with whom I have had many conversations and from whom I’ve learned so much about inclusion. The many participants in my workshops have also been instrumental in teaching me about inclusion over the years, and I am very grateful to them for all they have shared. References Australian Social Inclusion Board. (2012). Social inclusion in Australia: How Australia is faring (2nd ed.). Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from www.socialinclusion.gov.au Atkinson, A. B., & Marlier, E. (2010). Analysing and measuring social inclusion in a global context. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S. J., & Petry, K. (2013). Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), 60–79. doi:10.1080/13603116.2011.580464 Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 49 Boushey, H., Fremstad, S., Gragg, R., & Waller, M. (2010, August). Social inclusion for the United States. Working Paper, Center for Economic Policy and Research, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from www .inclusionist.org. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001 Chrobot-Mason, D., Ruderman, M. N., & Nishii, L. H. (2013). Leadership in a diverse workplace. In Q. M. Roberson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of diversity and work (pp. 315–340). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cox, T. H., Jr. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34–47. Cox, T. H., Jr., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45–56. Davidson, M. N. (1999). The value of being included: An examination of diversity change initiatives in organizations. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12(1), 164–180. Davidson, M. N. (2011). The end of diversity as we know it: Why diversity efforts fail and how leveraging difference can succeed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Davidson, M. N., & Ferdman, B. M. (2002). The experience of inclusion. In B. Parker, B. M. Ferdman, & P. Dass (Chairs), Inclusive and effective networks: Linking diversity theory and practice. All-Academy symposium presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver. Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229–273. doi:10.2307/ 2667087 Ferdman, B. M. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic diversity in organizations: Toward integrative models. In K. Kelley (Ed.), Issues, theory and research in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 339–384). Amsterdam: North Holland. Ferdman, B. M. (1995). Cultural identity and diversity in organizations: Bridging the gap between group differences and individual uniqueness. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 37–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferdman, B. M. (2010). Teaching inclusion by example and experience: Creating an inclusive learning environment. In K. M. Hannum, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 50 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion L. Booysen, & B. B. McFeeters (Eds.), Leading across differences: Cases and perspectives—Facilitator’s guide (pp. 37–50). San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Ferdman, B. M. (2011). The inclusive workplace. In G. N. Powell, Managing a diverse workforce: Learning activities (3rd. ed., pp. 123–127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferdman, B. M., Avigdor, A., Braun, D., Konkin, J., & Kuzmycz, D. (2010). Collective experience of inclusion, diversity, and performance in work groups. Revista de Adminstraçao Mackenzie, 11(3), 6–26. doi:10.1590/S1678–69712010000300003 Ferdman, B. M., Barrera, V., Allen, A., & Vuong, V. (2009, August). Inclusive behaviors and the experience of inclusion. In B. G. Chung (Chair), Inclusion in organizations: Measures, HR practices, and climate. Symposium presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago. Ferdman, B. M., & Brody, S. E. (1996). Models of diversity training. In D. Landis & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd ed., pp. 282–303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferdman, B. M., Brody, S. E., Cooper, K. J., Jeffcoat, K. A., & Le, S. (1995). Inclusion assessment matrix. Unpublished document, California School of Professional Psychology, San Diego, CA. Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. (2002a). A matter of difference— Diversity and drawing the line: Are some differences too different? (Or: who’s in, who’s out, and what difference does it make?). The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(3), 43–46. Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. (2002b). A matter of difference— Inclusion: What can I and my organization do about it? The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(4), 80–85. Ferdman, B. M., & Davidson, M. N. (2004). A matter of difference— Some learning about inclusion: Continuing the dialogue. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 41(4), 31–37. Ferdman, B. M., & Gallegos, P. I. (2001). Racial identity development and Latinos in the United States. In C. L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 32–66). New York: New York University Press. Ferdman, B. M., Katz, J. H., Letchinger, E., & Thompson, C. (2009, March 9). Inclusive behaviors and practices: Report of the Institute for Inclusion Behavior Task Force. Presentation at the Institute for Inclusion 4th Conference, Arlington, VA. Ferdman, B. M., & Sagiv, L. (2012). Diversity in organizations and crosscultural work psychology: What if they were more connected? Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 51 Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 323–345. doi:10.1111/j.1754–9434.2012.01455.x Future Work Institute (n.d.). Inclusion: A journey in progress (Hot Topics Research). Retrieved from http://www.futureworkinstitute.com. Gasorek, D. (2000). Inclusion at Dun & Bradstreet: Building a highperforming company. The Diversity Factor, 8(4), 25–29. The Hartford. (2006). Diversity and inclusion. Web page at www.the hartford.com, retrieved February 25, 2006. Hayes, B. C., & Major, D. A. (2003, April). Creating inclusive organizations: Its meaning and measurement. Paper presented at the 18th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL. Hays-Thomas, R., & Bendick Jr., M. (2013). Professionalizing diversity and inclusion practice: Should voluntary standards be the chicken or the egg? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(3), 193–205. doi: 10.111/iops.12033 Hick, P., & Thomas, G. (Eds.). (2008). Inclusion and diversity in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hirshberg, J. J., & Ferdman, B. M. (2011, August 16). Leader-member exchange, cooperative group norms, and workplace inclusion in workgroups. In M. Shuffler, S. Burke, & D. Diaz-Granados (Chairs), Leading across cultures: Emerging research trends from multiple levels. Symposium presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX. Holvino, E. (1998). The multicultural organizational development model. Unpublished training materials, Chaos Management, Brattleboro, VT. Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245–276). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015. doi:10.1177/014920630 7308587 Hubbard, A. (2004). The major life activity of belonging. Wake Forest Law Review, 39, 217–259. Jackson, B. W. (1994). Coming to a vision of a multicultural system. In E. Y. Cross, J. H. Katz, F. A. Miller, & E. W. Seashore (Eds.), The promise of diversity: Over 40 voices discuss strategies for eliminating discrimination in organizations (pp. 116–117). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin: Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 52 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2011). Work team diversity. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 651–686). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Jensen, M. (1995). Eleven behaviors for inclusion. Unpublished document. The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, Inc., Troy, NY. Katz, J. H., & Miller, F. A. (1996). Coaching leaders through culture change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 104–114. doi:10.1037//1061–4087.48.2.104 Katz, J. H., & Miller, F. A. (2011). 12 behaviors for inclusion. The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, Troy, NY. Downloaded from www.kjcg .com. Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., . . . Thomas, D. A. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3–21. doi:10.1002/hrm.10061 Kossek, E., & Zonia, S. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61–81. Levine, J. M., & Kerr, N. L. (2007). Inclusion and exclusion: Implications for group processes. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 759–784). New York: Guilford Press. Major, D. A., Davis, D. D., Sanchez-Hucles, J., Germano, L. M., & Mann, J. (2005). IT workplace climate for opportunity and inclusion. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55. Miller, F. A. (1994). Forks in the road: Critical issues on the path to diversity. In E. Y. Cross, J. H. Katz, F. A. Miller, & E. W. Seashore (Eds.), The promise of diversity: Over 40 voices discuss strategies for eliminating discrimination in organizations (pp. 38–45). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin. Miller, F. A., & Katz, J. H. (1995). Cultural diversity as a developmental process: The path from monocultural club to inclusive organization. In J. W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), The 1995 Annual (Vol. 2, Consulting, pp. 267–281). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer. Miller, F. A., & Katz, J. H. (2002). The inclusion breakthrough: Unleashing the real power of diversity. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. The Practice of Inclusion in Diverse Organizations 53 Miller, F. A., & Katz, J. H. (2007). The path from exclusive club to inclusive organization: A developmental process. Retrieved from http://blogs .ces.uwex.edu/inclusiveexcellence/files/2011/11/Path-fromExclusive-Club-to-Inclusive-Organization-Article.pdf. Mor Barak, M. E. (2000a). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3/4), 47–68. Mor Barak, M. E. (2000b). The inclusive workplace: An ecosystems approach to diversity management. Social Work, 45(4), 339–352. Mor Barak, M. E. (2011). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mor Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22(1), 47–64. Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966. doi:10.1002/job .413. Nishii, 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 relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412–1426. doi:10.1037/a0017190 Page, S. E. (2007). Making the difference: Applying a logic of diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6–20. Pearce, J. L., & Randel, A. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 81–98. doi:10.1002/ job.232 Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Mohrman, S. A. (1999). Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36(7), 1013–1031. Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129–147. doi:10.1007/s10551–004–9465–8 Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 31(2), 212–236. doi: 10.1177/1059601104273064 Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 54 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289. doi:10.1177/0149206310385943 Stahl, G. K., Mäkelä, K., Zander, L., & Maznevski, M. L. (2010). A look at the bright side of multicultural team diversity. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 439–447. Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? how employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 875–894. doi:10.1002/ job.175 Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79–90. Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 107–117. UNESCO. (2005). Guidelines for inclusion: Ensuring access to education for all. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541. doi:10.1146/annurev .psych.58.110405.085546 Wasserman, I. C., Gallegos, P. V., & Ferdman, B. M. (2008). Dancing with resistance: Leadership challenges in fostering a culture of inclusion. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 175–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 55 CHAPTER TWO Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion V. Robert Hayles Communicating about diversity and inclusion so that organizational members are inspired and engaged is challenging. Yet, like all successful initiatives, diversity and inclusion efforts gain more credibility and support when the communication strategy and tactics are well-crafted. This chapter will help diversity and inclusion practitioners, human resource professionals, and leaders communicate in ways that affirm diversity, facilitate inclusion, and improve individual and organizational outcomes. The approach involves cognitive, affective, and behavioral (head, heart, and hand) components of communication and is grounded on current knowledge and practice in organization development. The materials describe how we can best communicate with the broadest possible audiences to nurture inclusion. My instrumental goal is to enhance the work of practitioners and researchers focused on inclusion. The ultimate goal is that they achieve better results. My perspective comes from doing and managing research and working internally and externally as a practitioner. I weave these experiences together to help practitioners and researchers understand each other and advance their work. I hope to show the results of practitioners dancing well with researchers. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 56 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion The Work Other authors in this book present definitions of diversity and inclusion. In this chapter, diversity is taken to mean a mixture of “differences, similarities, and related tensions,” as defined by Thomas (2004, p. 3). Inclusion is taken to signify the full participation of all relevant elements in that mixture. Although this chapter focuses primarily on inclusion, related practices like those promoting equal opportunity, affirmative action, equity, anti-bias, and diversity all contribute to progress on inclusion. No single approach is superior to another; the choice must be guided by the situation. Because inclusion is the least well-developed of these practices and the focus of this book, it gets more attention here. I refer to “the work” when indicating the preceding full constellation of practices. Research and Practice-Based Models In writing this chapter, I was motivated by a strong desire to see that what we have learned during the past several decades is implemented to get the best results. Much of what we know has been summarized in research- and practice-based models and approaches that focus on individual and organization development and change. Such research and practice together provide the basis for powerful tools that move organizations through predictable stages of development as they traverse the past, current, and desired future states. In the process of unfreezing, changing, and freezing described by Lewin (1947), individuals and organizations adapt in some predictable ways. Here I take a comprehensive approach that addresses cognition, affect, and behavior, more clearly expressed as head, heart, and hand. The goal of this chapter is to make communicating about the work more powerful by selectively drawing on the current knowledge base. Structure of This Chapter First, I briefly address why the facts are not adequate to persuade audiences to pursue inclusion. Second, I describe support Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 57 for designing communication about this topic based on individual stages of development. Third, I address techniques that reduce bias and prejudice. Fourth, I provide communication approaches and content for advancing inclusion at different organizational stages of development. Finally, I give examples and information and point to resources regarding how to communicate in ways that are oriented to facts, feelings, and behavior, respectively. Why Fact-Based Communication Is Not Enough If one takes a purely cognitive approach to diversity and inclusion by defining terms and stating the desired outcomes, then factbased communication should work. However, people and organizations are not driven by facts alone. Emotions also cause behavior. Therefore, a “just the facts” approach is insufficient. Some authors, such as Kochan et al. (2003), argue that diversity can have strong negative effects on performance. Others (such as Carfang, 1993; Corporate Leadership Council, 2003; Florida, 2005; Johansson, 2006; Ziller, 1972) argue for positive effects on performance. The most concise critique of such writings is to say that of course diversity alone does not cause better or worse outcomes. I strongly agree with researchers and practitioners like Ferdman, Barrera, Allen, and Vuong (2009; see also Ferdman, Avigdor, Braun, Konkin, & Kuzmycz, 2010) who make a compelling argument that inclusion facilitates a positive relationship between diversity and performance. Diversity with inclusion can lead to better outcomes. I provide support for that belief throughout this chapter. Although I include a sample of data and studies regarding potential positive impacts, facts, even when true, are insufficient to motivate appropriate behavior. For example, we know that smoking, poor nutrition, inadequate hydration, skipping vacations, and being sedentary all have proven negative consequences. Even so, most of us do not always or even frequently behave in ways that reflect this knowledge. The same is true for advocating inclusion. Hearing about, believing in, or even knowing the benefits of diversity and inclusion do not consistently lead to supportive actions. Think of all the times a strong rationale for an initiative has been presented Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 58 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion in your organization, followed by inaction. Positive actions and healthy outcomes require comprehensive and systemic approaches. How we communicate about diversity and inclusion is an influential element of this overall process. The following section explains how to shape communication based on what we know about individual development. Communication Based on Individual Development To communicate effectively (that is, to influence attitudes and behaviors) with an individual it is useful to know where that person is situated according to several models of development. Some intercultural researchers and practitioners (such as M. J. Bennett, 1998) believe that human beings, as they grow and develop, move through predictable stages regarding how they deal with cultural diversity. Generally, when work that is characteristic of a given stage is completed, the individual then moves to the next stage. Regression occurs when work remains incomplete or life circumstances bring too much challenge. Understanding the concept of developmental stages allows professionals to choose the most effective messages for each person and situation. Skillfully selected messages facilitate continued growth toward the next stage. Following, I briefly discuss models, concepts, and approaches to guide message selection. They are first: (1) identity models; (2) head, heart, hand; (3) unconscious competence; and (4) intercultural sensitivity. This group is followed by a set of additional approaches for reducing individual bias and prejudice: (5) contact hypothesis; (6) cognitive complexity; (7) cultural assimilator; (8) defeating bias; (9) psychotherapy; (10) meditation and mindfulness; and (11) communication in education and training. Identity Models These models address how individual identity or identities develop. Identity can pertain to ethnicity, race (as a social identity), gender, disability, age, culture, and more. Early stages in the development of an identity typically reflect ignorance or lack of Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 59 awareness. In these stages individuals are not aware of who they are, or they have a very narrow view of their own identity; this sounds like “I am just an American,” or “I’m just a woman.” Middle stages show engagement and conflict: “I am an independent woman yet interdependent with my family while seeking more freedom and a broader definition of my roles.” Advanced stages show integration or resolution: “I have multiple identities or components of my identity and am comfortable behaving in different ways as situations change.” From a practical standpoint, this is especially useful when communicating one-on-one or with a homogeneous group, assuming the communicator is sophisticated enough to apply this knowledge. When addressing more diverse groups, the speaker must cover the full range of stages. Communication directed at receivers in the early stages should focus on acknowledging who they are and on increasing self-awareness. For example, one can affirm the identity and acknowledge the contribution from that perspective, as in, “The contribution of many women is making us very successful.” In the middle stages, facilitating nonjudgmental exploration of the issues can be helpful, as in, “I’m pleased to see both men and women participate in nurturing young talent.” In the later stages, it is more useful to emphasize how that person can lead and contribute, as in, “We appreciate individuals like you, who can develop people who are different from you in significant ways.” Head, Heart, and Hand In education, training, and development the head, heart, hand concept (Hayles & Russell, 1997) is often described as addressing cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. The approaches for the three aspects are as follows: • Head: knowledge, data, factual information • Heart: awareness, empathy, values, emotional understanding • Hand: interpersonal interaction and communication skills Comprehensive communication approaches for individuals and groups must involve all three components. My experience in Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 60 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion designing, implementing, and evaluating diversity training confirms this belief (Hayles, 1996). It is also consistent with the social psychological literature on attitude and behavior change, which suggests that effective interventions regarding any two of the components will lead to progress on the third (Hayles, 1978). For example, if you love someone (affective) and they tell you that using their middle name will cause others to discriminate against them (cognitive information), you will probably comply (behavior) with their request to avoid using their middle name. Another example would be if you are (1) forced to treat another person respectfully with regard to the words and nonverbal messages you use (behavior), and (2) informed that if you use inappropriate words your organization will be sued and you will be disciplined (cognitive information), then (3) over time you will either change how you feel about that person or be inclined to leave the environment. This works in part because of the positive feedback loop and psychological dynamics that can be created when we choose the appropriate words. It also works by facilitating consistency (or creating tension) among head, heart, and hand. Complicated questions about effective sequencing and speed of change remain to be answered. Based on my research and practice, I currently believe that all three components should be addressed to maximize the probability of creating inclusion. Until researchers can tell us more about sequence, I suggest starting with the most available and least threatening component. In most public situations this will mean head first, hand second, and heart last. Unconscious Competence Many experienced diversity and inclusion practitioners say that, in learning to be inclusive, people need to go from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence to conscious competence to unconscious competence (Howell, 1982; Tung, 1993). This process parallels similar models used regarding results and method of achievement, challenge and support, tasks and relationships, information known to self and known to others, and so on. From a practical standpoint, this means practitioners must Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 61 help learners get feedback about unknowns, learning opportunities about what they need to know, and sufficient practice with feedback to internalize the expanding competence. Diversity competence supports the individual in creating inclusion. Although the research literature is not clear on this point, I believe that diversity practitioners must consistently make this connection between diversity competencies and inclusion. Intercultural Sensitivity Another model that describes stages of development in this arena is Milton Bennett’s (1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). An excellent resource that guides application of the model was created by Janet Bennett (2006; see also Bennett, Chapter 5, this volume). She describes exactly what can be done or said to facilitate growth with respect to this model. There is also a psychometrically sound instrument developed by Milton Bennett and Mitch Hammer (Hammer, 1999) to measure individual development using this model. Although using an instrument provides greater accuracy in determining stages of development, one can also do an excellent job in applying it by using the model to make careful behavioral observations: • Early-stage behavior demonstrates a denial that differences exist or even hostility to such differences. Training is not an effective intervention here. Clear communication of policies and guidelines with enforcement is best. Emphasizing the many similarities we share is also beneficial. • Middle stages show a primary focus on similarities, such as telling an immigrant that they speak English as well as any American and suggesting that we treat others as we treat ourselves. Middle stages also show acceptance of some minor differences. Here one can begin to introduce nonthreatening differences and graduate to more significant ones. Learning more about the self (for example, identity, culture, beliefs, and values) is also helpful here. • Advanced stages reflect curiosity about others, pursuit of new experiences, and the intention to treat others as they wish to Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 62 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion be treated. At these stages, it is healthy to provide opportunities (such as intense personal interactions and international travel) to learn about significant differences. More details to guide application can be found in J. M. Bennett (2006) and Hayles and Russell (1997, Chapter 3). Other Approaches for Reducing Individual Bias and Prejudice One of the goals of the work (equal opportunity, affirmative action, anti-bias, diversity, pluralism, inclusion, and so on) is to reduce negative attitudes and behaviors targeted at individuals and groups with diverse identities. Practitioners use many techniques to do so. Here I provide a brief description of a few of the many research- and evidence-based approaches for communicating in ways that reduce prejudice, bias, and accompanying negative behavior. Reducing bias makes it easier to create inclusive environments, but doing so is not sufficient to create inclusion. Additional processes addressed in other chapters of this book—such as accessing important identities (Chapter 3), creating a safe environment (Chapter 4), developing competencies (Chapters 5 and 6), and designing comprehensive diversity and inclusion initiatives (Chapters 7 to 11)—are also necessary. If one is designing programs, workshops, presentations, newsletter articles, video material, online content, e-learning, and the like, with a goal of reducing bias and prejudice, then applying the knowledge generated by some of the research noted here can enhance effectiveness. The next six subsections note specific tools, concepts, and approaches selected to demonstrate the broad range of fields that contribute to inclusion. Contact Hypothesis By creating specific conditions for human interaction among and between members of different identity groups, prejudice can be measurably reduced (Allport, 1954; Amir, 1976; Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005; Hewstone, Caims, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, 2006; Pettigrew, 2011; Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 63 2007; Shelton & Richeson, 2006). Allport (1954) thought that intergroup contact under favorable conditions could reduce prejudice, and he suggested policy changes to accomplish this. Amir developed a list of specific conditions for accomplishing this, including equal status and interdependent goals. Other scholars continued to contribute by refining the list, expanding applications, and getting more specific about how, when, and for whom the recommended conditions work. Pettigrew (2011) believes applications are lacking because social psychologists have “failed to make our work widely visible” (p. 147). Pettigrew also notes the expansion of the contact hypothesis literature to identities other than race, such as religion and ethnicity. I also know colleagues who apply this theory in the areas of generational diversity and people with disabilities. A full chapter or book could now be written applying this knowledge to our work. For example, the entire volume 62, number 3, 2006 issue of the Journal of Social Issues is titled and devoted to “Reducing Prejudice and Promoting Social Inclusion: Integrating Research, Theory and Practice on Intergroup Relations.” Based on all of the preceding citations and my own experience using the contact hypothesis, I note two specific application ideas: ∘ To reduce prejudice by improving the conditions of contact, create as many of the following conditions as reasonably possible: Minimize status differences, emphasize interdependence, talk about goals shared by everyone, demonstrate the value of cooperation, show majority group members modeling positive contact with minority group members, and promote contact that is more than casual. To supplement this with our knowledge of how to develop intercultural sensitivity, the practitioner should begin with the most comfortable differences and work up to the least comfortable ones. As the differences become more challenging, incorporate more of the recommended conditions for contact. For example, start with differences in style (such as those highlighted by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and later address issues like religion and sexual orientation. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 64 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion ∘ Engage in indirect intergroup contact. Because contact with other ingroup members who have positive relationships with outgroup members is effective in reducing prejudice, this means that when your friends and colleagues have healthy interactions with others who are different, you also may experience a reduction in bias regarding those same different individuals and groups. One way to apply this knowledge is to show leaders, both live and using media venues, enjoying interactions with others who are different. This can facilitate the reduction of prejudice among participants in the organizations they lead. Cognitive Complexity Training participants in dealing with a broad range of relevant considerations (qualifications, experience, education, training, background, knowledge) and the interactions among such inputs helps them look beyond “surface” characteristics (such as race and gender) and behave in less prejudiced ways (Gardiner, 1972). Note that Gardiner takes the view that race and gender are surface characteristics. In applying this technique, I find it more useful to speak of physical appearance (color, sex characteristics, languages spoken, weight, height, age appearance, evidence of physical ability, and so on). This technique works by creating tension between potential stereotypes and actual skills, knowledge, and abilities. This is very similar to what Rokeach (1971) did to address negative attitudes by highlighting inconsistencies between validated facts and personal beliefs. Again, start with less contentious issues and work up to more volatile ones. When combined with other techniques noted in this chapter, I believe that communicating about complexity merits addition to the practitioner’s toolkit. Cultural Assimilator In a cultural assimilator, participants are presented with many scenarios involving diversity (in paper and digital computer–based formats). The participant then selects, from a multiple-choice list, the behavior he or she believes to be correct or most effective. For example: When a German man meets an Asian-American woman in an American business setting, should he: (a) vigorously Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 65 shake her hand, (b) kiss her on one cheek, (c) gently shake her hand, or (d) nod to acknowledge her presence? After individuals choose behavioral options in a wide range of situations involving cultural diversity and then receive feedback on the effectiveness of different choices, their real-time interaction skills measurably improve (Slobodin, 1972; Triandis, 1975). This approach has been used with both international cultural differences and social identity and cultural differences within the United States. A variation on this theme is the use of games (such as Ghetto, Starpower, Barnga, and Bafa Bafa) to put the participant into roles simulating cultural differences, dominance, oppression, and subordination. The designers see these experiences as nurturing empathy and understanding. Rather than a simulated or virtual experience, Albert and Adamopoulos (1976) recommend immersing participants in real cultures that are different from their own. I see this latter technique as a high-risk, high-impact approach that should be considered only for individuals in or approaching advanced stages of individual development. Using it with individuals at earlier stages of development is likely to reinforce negative views of differences rather than educate the participant about similarities and differences. Defeating Bias Sondra Thiederman (2008) presents a comprehensive approach to defeating bias, grounded in selected recent research on human processes that lead to reduction in bias. Thiederman examined research on how the brain functions, evidence-based counseling, sociological research on intergroup violence, social psychological studies of beliefs and attitudes, and tools used to manage diversity in organizations. She shows how mindfulness, triage, understanding benefits, dissecting bias, and finding similarities can help us behave in less biased ways. Thiederman provides explicit details about how the path for each of these techniques leads to unbiased behavior. Psychotherapy By participating in evidence-based psychotherapy or other clinical diagnostic and therapeutic processes, individuals can become more personally and interpersonally competent. If the therapist Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 66 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion has intercultural, diversity, inclusion, pluralism, multicultural, or related skills, the increased competence extends to interactions with those who are significantly different. Most diversity and inclusion professionals are careful not to label what they do as “therapy” of any kind. However, some of the leaders in our field are trained in the therapeutic disciplines and appropriately use those skills in their diversity and inclusion practices. Most of the professional associations with clinical arms now advocate evidence-based therapies. Some of the techniques used in such therapies filter into the practices of competent diversity and inclusion practitioners. They can be safe and appropriate. Included are principles for giving feedback, dealing with stereotypes, using “I” messages for effective communication, and guided cognitive breakdown processing of prejudices. In diversity and inclusion, I believe we should move toward adopting a standard for our practices that is similar to the one operating in the clinical arena. Evidence-based practice standards have been in place there for more than a decade. They are grounded in qualifications imposed by science, standardized, replicable, and effective (Drake, 2001). Meditation and Mindfulness Moving out of the therapy arena, one relatively safe nonclinical technique for helping individuals gain insight into their biases and prejudices is to teach participants (volunteers only) how to meditate or be mindful. Significant effects have been demonstrated on avoiding unwanted thoughts (Winerman, 2011), reducing anxiety about dealing with people perceived as difficult (Price, 2011), focusing more on others and less on self (Azar, 2010), and improving interpersonal interactions and response flexibility (Davis & Hayes, 2012). Communication in Education and Training In many efforts to communicate about diversity and inclusion, a starting place is often to educate and train for at least tolerance of people, with an emphasis on differences. Enough research has been done now to know that this approach works for some learners but not others. In particular, this approach is less effective in reducing prejudice of high social dominance–oriented Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 67 and right-wing authoritarian individuals (Esses & Hodson, 2006). Creating and emphasizing common ingroup identities is more effective for such individuals: for example, “we are all members of this group, qualified students for admission to this university, valued employees of this company, and/or citizens of this nation.” The process used to communicate or learn about commonalities and differences is also an important variable. Active learning is more effective than learning content from lectures and readings (Nagda, 2006). Active learning involves interactive processes that engage participants both as individuals and in groups (such as dialogue, action research, sharing personal stories, live encounters). Such two-way communication is more powerful in reducing bias than lectures, films, and readings. Interaction is more effective especially for issues that are complex and have emotional content, such as diversity and inclusion. Active learning of this type can reduce prejudice and also demonstrate inclusive practices. Communication to Fit Organizational Stages of Development: A Generic Organization Development Diversity and Inclusion Model Organizations also go through predictable stages of development with regression under stress or change (Hayles & Russell, 1997). This section describes generic stages of organization development specific to diversity, cultural competence, inclusion, and pluralism. Many practitioners and organizations have used developmental models of organizations to diagnose and guide the work of diversity and inclusion. This and the next section are designed to help practitioners know what to communicate within an organization at different stages of development. First, I describe a generic developmental model for organizations, with three stages. In the following section, I recommend communication approaches based on facts, values, and actions, suitable for each stage. I have synthesized many of the models developed and used since the 1980s (for example, Cox, 1991; Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill-Sands, 2004; Jackson & Holvino, 1988; Katz & Miller, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 68 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion 1988) and describe a generic one shortly. In general, these models describe early, middle, and later stages in the journey from less diverse and more exclusive to high-performing, diverse, and inclusive organizations. I provide a brief description of these stages, followed by recommended communication interventions for each stage. The suggested interventions are based on what I have learned and heard from colleagues regarding what works at each stage. The theoretically correct communication at the appropriate stage is projected to have a more positive impact on inclusion and thereby performance. This is offered in the context of very limited research on the effectiveness of any particular model. It is based on knowing many practitioners (and their models) and the externally visible results in the organizations involved. In other words, the recommendations that follow are based on synthesizing knowledge from theory and application. The next sections discuss three different generic stages of development. To determine which stage an organization fits, a multifaceted assessment is important. This might include using internal data, focus groups, surveys, and tools such the Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks (O’Mara, Chapter 14, this volume; O’Mara & Richter, 2011). Early Stages Words like resistant, exclusive, passive, club, and segregated describe the early stages. There is little visible diversity, and invisible diversity is typically undisclosed. Individuals who are members of certain groups need not seek entry. Intolerance and hostility are quite evident. Effective communication designed to bring about change from the outside involves letters, emails, calls, complaints, articles and stories in the media, and threats of boycotts. Governments can speak of compliance and/or positive action (if such laws exist). Peer organizations in the same sector or region can tout lower risks and/or higher performance. At these stages it is often difficult for internal participants to be heard. Sometimes surveys and anonymous auditory or electronic channels can work. At this stage, internal leaders who support moving to inclusion must Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 69 communicate to participants in their organization that behavioral change and new knowledge are required. Attitude change is beneficial although optional. Organizations directly or vicariously experiencing these pressures tend to move forward. Internal and external communication must be directed at getting the organization engaged with the appropriate diversity and inclusion work. As noted earlier in this chapter, at this stage more emphasis should be placed on similarities than on differences. The effort is likely to be more equal opportunity–oriented than diversity- or inclusion-oriented at this stage. Middle Stages Words like tolerance, changing, responsive, and getting beyond reactive describe these stages. Compliance continues to provide motivation. Internal complaints increase as internal participants begin to see signs of commitment to diversity and inclusion, with more hope for resolution. External litigation and threats decline as internal two-way communication increases. Employees who share common interests or characteristics often form networks or resource groups. The organization can now build on the fruits of equal opportunity, affirmative action, and equity efforts to begin more communication about diversity and inclusion. In terms of communication, stories should be told about benefits (for example, higher quality recruitment, growing enrollments, profits, patents, shared benefits of organizational success, value to everyone of a diverse faculty and student body) that are clearly related to diversity and/or inclusion. It is also appropriate for leaders and practitioners to share failures (mistakes, turnover, losses, declines in enrollment, missed marketplace opportunities, and so on) that are clearly related to diversity and/or inclusion. It is during these stages that communication should emphasize differences as well as similarities. The work is now primarily diversity oriented. This is also the time to send messages acknowledging the need to continue to address bias and nurture the competencies required for success (such as diversity management, intercultural skills, emotional intelligence). The development of inclusion begins here. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 70 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Advanced Stages Words like respect, value-added, appreciation, inclusive, and transformation describe these stages. Most organizations in these stages have been addressing diversity, pluralism, and possibly inclusion for at least a decade. They have also experienced regression to earlier stages at least once. Negative happenings are dealt with quickly and fairly. Leaders acknowledge when unfortunate things occur and talk about corrective action as well as learning and prevention. Sometimes private and public apologies are given. External recognition is frequent, and inclusion is a major theme as diversity is becoming an integral part of all business and human resource systems. Visible and invisible diversity are evident and seen as contributing to organizational performance and success via inclusion. Effective communication shifts toward messages to reinforce progress, avoid regression, celebrate successes, take on new challenges, and institutionalize processes to remain in these higher stages. Annual reports include more implicit and less explicit diversity content. Diversity and inclusion are reflected in all communication materials. Links among diversity, inclusion, social responsibility, environmental sensitivity, sustainability, safety, and other important initiatives are visible. Inclusion is now occurring. The next sections provide more examples of what to communicate, organized by head, heart, and hand. Communication Addressing Facts, Feelings, and Behaviors To present the most impactful rationales for doing this work, communication must be designed consistently with the knowledge presented earlier in this chapter. This applies when making the case to businesses, government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, educational institutions, religious institutions, families, service organizations, and more. Materials must touch head, heart, and hand and be sequenced to move individuals and organizations to more sensitive and inclusive stages of development. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 71 The material that follows starts with facts (head), moves to feelings and values (heart), and closes with behaviors and actions (hand). It is intended for use by leaders, practitioners, and communication specialists. Fact-Based Communication Examples Fact-based content alone is not sufficient to motivate large-scale change. It remains necessary as a foundation to initiate the conversation, reaffirm a commitment to action, or simply respond “objectively” to resistance. When receivers continue to object to or resist diversity and inclusion after a compelling fact-based case for action has been presented, it is likely that resistance is grounded in fear of change, of loss of opportunity, of loss of status, of lack of required competence, or of people who are different (xenophobia). Practitioners must engage and pursue the basis for resistance to help the individual move forward. (For example, the resistance might be based in something as clear as “my White son did not get a scholarship but my minority neighbor’s daughter got one.” This is different from resistance based on deep-seated bigotry, lack of exposure, or other reasons.) I have learned this through both my own experience and consultation with colleagues, some of whom do confidential clinical work dealing with diversity and inclusion. Both I and these colleagues have been privy to candid conversations with individuals strongly opposed to what they think diversity and inclusion mean. The following are descriptions of fact-based topics with annotations about resources and appropriate use at different stages of development. Again, it should be noted that sharing the same fact at different stages of development will have different results. Use developmental stages to guide the content of communication. Demographics: Local, Regional, Global Because fear often arises about demographic changes (stemming from immigration, variation in reproductive rates, and the like), this is not an effective topic for individuals and organizations in the early stages of development. The result will often be fear, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 72 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion disbelief, animosity, and resistance. In the middle and advanced stages, presenting information about current and future demographics can be beneficial. It must be presented in the context of education designed to develop diversity and inclusion competencies. Use politically neutral sources of information, such as www.vitalsigns.worldwatch.org, www.prb.org, www.100people.org, www.rand.org, and www.wilsonquarterly.com. Benefits of Work-Life Balance This topic can be used at almost any stage of personal development. It is threatening only when the organization is hostile to such balance. Studies report data that demonstrate a wide range of effects. Reducing work-family conflicts reduces employee use of mental health services (Graves, Ohlott, & Ruderman, 2007; Major, Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002; Siegel, Post, Brockner, Fishman, & Garden, 2005; Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & Jackson, 2006); predictable time off increases job satisfaction (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007); and flexible and compressed workweek schedules correlate positively with productivity, performance, job satisfaction, and lower absenteeism (Harris, 2007). In general, a strong case can also be made for broad work-life initiatives (Casper, Eby, Bordeauz, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007; Friedman, Christensen, & DeGroot, 1998; Rapoport & Bailyn, 1996). Use these and similar facts to justify work-life programs. Group Purchasing Power The facts behind this concept are very compelling, particularly in retail or service organizations. The documented purchasing power of many groups can be persuasive and very motivating. Listing the groups with strong purchasing power is also another way to reinforce a broad and inclusive definition of diversity. I recommend providing information on groups such as older and younger generations, social identity groups (racial, multiracial, cultural, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, religious, and so on), people with disabilities, and other groups that may suggest themselves. Some organizations have fallen into the trap of following such information with statements that “we need members of each group to provide goods and services to members of these same Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 73 groups.” The result can be career-limiting for individuals allowed to serve only “their own people.” Although the diversity within does facilitate serving the diversity without, a one-to-one relationship is not required. Competence is primary; choosing individuals who demographically mirror the customer is secondary. Understanding and being able to communicate with customers are elements of overall competence. One does not have to be a member of a certain community to competently serve that community. Indeed, one can be a member of a given community and still not be competent to serve that community. Therefore, when assessing candidates to serve a given population, the assessor must separate the skills to do so from membership in the culture. For example: “We need someone who speaks Thai and understands the culture to work in our division in Thailand,” is preferable to “We are looking for a Thai person to work in our division in Thailand.” This also prevents accusations of discrimination and communicates fairness to everyone. Individuals and organizations that are in the earlier stages of development are vulnerable to just this trap because of their focus on eliminating discrimination against and giving opportunities to protected groups. They have yet to see protected class members as equal or even just different. Therefore making the case by citing purchasing power is recommended for middle and ad – vanced stages of development. It is not recommended for early stages of development. Individual, Group, and Organizational Performance This heading merits an entire chapter or book. The relationships among diversity, inclusion, and performance form a very complex topic. My perspective is summarized here, along with a few citations to help readers build a custom rationale for their work. In general, organizations that make progress regarding diversity and inclusion also make correlated progress regarding outcomes such as financial performance, interpersonal competence of graduates, growing enrollments in higher education, accomplishment of mission (government and non-profit agencies), nurturing of talent for a global marketplace (professional associations), and more. There is a substantial and growing body of evidence supporting this assertion (Hayles, 2003). To prepare communication Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 74 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion materials focused on this relationship, a suggested path is outlined here. Practitioners should start with the works of Hubbard (2008). He provides a framework for using the data within an organization to calculate the costs (education, training, salaries, benefits, and so on) of doing diversity and inclusion work and to measure the outcomes (sales, turnover, complaints, and so on) attributable to that work. In this process, practitioners should also use additional measures like the ones noted earlier to determine the organization’s stage of development (such as surveys, focus groups, or Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarks). Next, the practitioner must understand at least some of the complexities in the relationships among diversity, inclusion, and performance. I maintain that managing the complexities well leads to a positive relationship. One of the complexities has to do with the conditions under which diversity can contribute to performance—conditions that create inclusion. Another pertains to the nature of the tasks that benefit from the presence of diversity. Yet another has to do with the specific types of diversity involved. There are obviously more complexities, but these are the major and better-known ones. Conditions in Which Diversity Is an Asset Scholars and researchers have made some progress in being able to specify the conditions that enhance the benefits of diversity, including the following: • Diversity is more of an asset for complex rather than simple tasks (Ziller, 1972). • Diversity works best when the required technical skills for the tasks are present and there is competent leadership, including diversity management competence (Thomas, 2010). • Contact conditions that reduce bias and prejudice also nurture the benefits of diversity and facilitate inclusion (Cook, 1979). Too often we expect instant results, so we stop the work too soon. We must allow adequate time to achieve the synergy made possible by diversity and nurtured by inclusion—as I learned, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 75 based on internal research I conducted at the Pillsbury Company. I investigated the time required for a diversity and inclusion initiative to demonstrate a significant positive correlation with financial performance, and I found that significance was absent at two years, present at five years, and very high at ten years. Types of Tasks Performed Better by Diverse Groups Research suggests that diverse groups are better than homogenous ones at general and creative problem solving (Ziller, 1972), personal growth and social skill development (Cook, 1979), dealing with conflict (Suinn, 2001), running a large business (Kanter, 1983), educating students for global business (Anderson, 2003), species survival (Lindsey, 1967), and investment decision making (Harrington, 2008). This list will continue to grow as researchers continue to study this issue. Types of Diversity That Can Add Value The knowledge base regarding specific types of diversity that arguably contribute to group performance continues to grow. Having read thousands of published and unpublished studies about diversity and inclusion, I generally ask the question, “For what types of diversity have you seen evidence of adding value to group performance?” My answer includes the following: • Age (especially for male groups) • Culture (particularly in multinational businesses) • Degree source (where participants went to school) • Gender (in investment groups and Fortune 500 companies) • Human genetic pool diversity (based on survival rates in different geographies) • Intelligence (of various types and levels) • Job function (cross-functional team performance in corporate settings, especially manufacturing plants) • Language (particularly to avoid marketplace translation errors) • Myers-Briggs Type Indicator profiles (based on research I conducted at the Pillsbury Company) • Personality (in numerous small groups that I facilitated as a consultant) Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 76 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion • Physical ability (in team sports) • Political pluralism (based on the stability of different national political systems around the world) • Race (as defined by the U.S. Census and reported in the Wall Street Journal) • Sexual orientation (market expansions in the businesses of many clients) Briefly, in situations in which optimal conditions are met (that is, inclusion is achieved), diverse team performance will tend to exceed homogeneous team performance. This supports Ferdman et al.’s (2010) view that diversity contributes to performance through inclusion. Communication using this argument can be used cautiously at early stages of organization development, heavily at middle stages, and only as needed at advanced stages of development. The user should be aware that in the earlier stages, personal resistance may surface based on emotions that cause a person to argue with the data. In the middle stages of development the practitioner must be sensitive to the possibility that members of particular groups might feel that their “difference” is being used by those in charge to achieve organizational goals (for example, using Latino images in advertisements to make sales in the Latino community). This is painful when those members do not feel valued or included. This reinforces the distinction between having diversity present but not included, and having diversity fully included. In more advanced stages, communication can shift from substantial rationales to continuing the learning and seeking ways to be more competent and effective. Innovation and Creativity In using this argument, one must be clear that diversity makes innovation possible. It does not guarantee it. Inclusion makes it even more probable (Ferdman et al., 2010). Johansson (2006), Leung, Maddus, Galinsky, and Chiu (2008), Amabile and Khaire (2008), Graham (1993), Wheeler (2005), Corporate Leadership Council (2003), and Winters (2006) all provide excellent material reinforcing the general positive relationship between (1) diversity and inclusion and (2) Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 77 innovation and creativity in organizations. On a larger scale, the results of Florida’s empirical research in the United States (Florida, 2004) and around the globe (Florida, 2005), conducted over seven years and using multiple measures, make a strong case that having technology, diverse talent, and a welcoming climate leads to economic development and wealth creation. He found that regions with all three ingredients are notably more prosperous. Communicating the idea that diversity with inclusion can lead to more innovation and creativity is appropriate for organizations in both the middle and advanced stages. Individual listeners in the early stages are often stuck in perspectives that see diversity as coming from minorities, immigrants, people with disabilities, or women. Bringing these groups into organizations can be costly (based on, for example, language issues, added restrooms, costs to build access) and perceived as negative (requiring change and adaptation). Listeners with this view are less able to see the potential benefits or investment value; they may even be hostile. Therefore do not use this case until you have gotten past the early personal and early organization developmental stages. Marketplace Blunders and Successes Ricks (1983, 1993) is a good source of documented blunders and successes that stem from cultural misunderstanding or understanding. Always check at least two sources before using a particular example. Even when the language is English, cultural differences can cause blunders. The British word nappy or napkin means “diaper.” So you can imagine how Britons responded to an American commercial about napkins with the phrase that you “could use no finer napkin (diaper) at your dinner table.” A commercial for cologne aimed at men in northern Africa showed a man and his dog in a rural setting. The advertiser was not aware that many northern African Muslims view dogs as unclean and/or symbols of bad luck. Exxon did well in Thailand with their brand symbol, the tiger. It was the perfect indicator of strength and power for that market. When possible, use internal examples, which are typically even more powerful than external ones. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 78 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion This often humorous and delightful communication approach can be used for all stages of individual and organization development as long as examples of successes and blunders are diverse, relevant to your specific organization, free of stereotypes, and not offensive. Recruitment and Retention Organizations that have internal and external reputations for being preferred employers, best places to work, best schools for career preparation, best agencies for public servants, and so on find it easier to attract and retain the best talent. Such best talent will also be diverse. When examining lists of “best” places, give more credence to sources that get input from members of the organizations and have rational systems for validating their ratings and rankings. Some sources apply to specific social identity groups (such as generational groups by age, Blacks, Christians, Latinos, LGBT, people with disabilities, and women). Grant (1998); Wright, Ferris, Hiller, and Kroll (1995); Donkin (1995); and Gubman (1998) all describe a positive relationship between being a best place to work (in general) and organizational performance that is superior to the performance of lower-rated comparable firms. I believe that inclusion again provides the unspoken link between high-quality talent and superior performance. Communicating about this aspect of the work requires being clear that being a great workplace contributes to organizational success through combining diversity with inclusion. Therefore we want to be a “best” place to work in order to reap the benefits for attracting diverse talent, retaining diverse members, and performing better than our peers. This argument can be used at all stages of organization development. Feelings- and Values-Oriented Communication Examples In this section I discuss communication content that appeals to the heart. It includes information about: (1) social justice, (2) fairness, (3) spirituality, (4) similarities among people, and (5) values and principles. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 79 Social Justice Part of the historical foundation for diversity and inclusion rests on work done under equal opportunity, employment equity, positive discrimination, and affirmative action. One label often applied to these approaches is social justice. In addition to appealing to personal values for social justice, we can note that among the Standard & Poor’s 500, the 100 companies that most proactively broke barriers for women and minorities had stock returns that were more than double those for the one hundred companies that were least active along this line (“Equal Opportunity Pays,” 1993). Companies that were more successful in implementing equal opportunity had better stock performance (Carfang, 1993). Even the Economist (“Affirmative Action,” 1995) reported enhanced business performance for firms that successfully addressed equal opportunity. For practitioners, it can be useful to acknowledge the importance of social justice. Many individuals continue to feel strongly about this reason for the work. Being able to link social justice with organizational outcomes expands the receptive audience to those who may not see social justice as valuable in and of itself. Although the preceding citations focus more on financial outcomes from a business perspective, Crosby and Clayton (2001), Pratkanis and Turner (1999); Aberson (2007); Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, and Lev-Arey (2006); Bell, Harrison, and McLaughlin (2000); and Holland (2003) speak to how attitudes about affirmative action are being changed through legal action, experiences with increasing diversity, and education. Collectively they make it clear that diversity and inclusion initiatives contribute to and benefit from social justice work. Social justice arguments are best suited for the middle stages of individual and organization development. They are less effective with individuals and organizations in earlier stages of development and less necessary in advanced stages. Fairness Because fairness requires alignment of the head, heart, and hand, it is very difficult to achieve. When it happens, the benefits are clear and measurable (Brockner, 2006; Simons & Roberson, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 80 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion 2003). When fairness is not achieved, the losses can be significant, whether calculated as operating expense losses (one percent, demonstrated by Stuart, 1992) or as litigation costs. Achieving fairness requires dealing with fact and, most important, feelings. For example, when a group that has been discriminated against begins to get equal treatment, the previously advantaged group experiences loss. The practitioner must first acknowledge the feelings of loss (anger, resentment, fear, and so on) for the previously advantaged group while touting the benefits of fairness to everyone, especially over time. This is difficult and necessary. Therefore using this argument requires addressing feelings first and then facts. Spirituality Capra (2000) sought an ultimate understanding of the universe through both modern physics and spirituality (mysticism). Both paths come to the same destination. Mystics often seek to experience it directly. Physicists try to measure it with instruments. Everything is composed of the same fundamental tiny particles or stuff, which has yet to be definitively described by physicists. Mystics describe a “unity” experience wherein one has a direct realization that everything in the universe is connected and composed of the same stuff. This point may be more relevant with scientists and engineers. For less technically inclined participants, human genetic facts can be helpful. Humans share more genetic similarities (greater than 99 percent) than differences (fewer than 1 percent). We are “one” at many levels and in many senses of the word. Harm to one harms all. The Deluxe Corporation captured this perspective in the tag line for its definition of diversity: “the power of many, the spirit of one.” Communication using spirituality as a rationale for inclusion is not for early stages or people who view spirituality negatively. It is for use only in the advanced stages, with people who understand that spirituality is not in conflict with religion or science, does not have a doctrine, and is open to everyone. Guillory (2000) provides an exploration of spirituality in the workplace, which he defines as our “inner consciousness” that is “the source of inspiration, creativity, and wisdom” (p. 33). The best organizations in the world will tap the urge to explore, create, and improve, which is Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 81 strongest among high performers. Guillory sees spirituality at the root of that urge. Similarities Research on communicating about similarities among people in an organization in the training context (Paluck, 2006) indicates that movement toward at least accepting diversity may be nurtured by messages delineating and affirming similarities. Similarities include many potential dimensions (hobbies, families, experiences, ultimate ancestry, employers, and so on). The feelings that arise in the context of similarity are generally more positive than those that arise in discussions about differences. In terms of communication that nurtures change, begin with discussions of similarities, move to areas of difference that are least significant, and close with the value of many differences. This particular tactic is ideal for individuals and organizations in the early stages of development. It becomes less useful in the middle stages and unnecessary in the advanced stages. Values and Principles Communication about values and principles can inspire progressive behavior regarding diversity and inclusion. Most organizations have statements about their values, visions, principles, ethical standards, social responsibilities, public citizenship, and the like. Some even list diversity and/or inclusion as organizational values. Many organizations publicly recognized for excellence (such as General Electric) evaluate their leaders on how well they exhibit stated values. These performance evaluations include assessments of results achieved and the way (values-based) in which they were achieved. The way in which results were achieved explicitly includes how leaders and managers treat people. Diversity and inclusion practitioners must make sure that inclusive behaviors are part of these evaluations. This contemporary approach is grounded in classic organizational theories indicating that tasks and relationships are the two major variables determining successful management. On a global scale, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) remains the secular state of the art for values-based communication supporting diversity, pluralism, and Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 82 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion inclusion. Communication designed to facilitate agreement on values and principles such as those embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be powerful for advancing inclusion in organizations and individuals in the middle and advanced stages of development. Behavioral “Hand”-Oriented Communication Examples Many people, particularly those relatively new to diversity and inclusion, request explicit guidance on how to behave around members of specific groups. Behavior that encourages inclusion is an important element even in some performance appraisal systems. Before addressing this directly, some context is required. When large numbers of people are asked about their requirements and preferences regarding words used and feelings conveyed, most respond as follows: When forced to choose between the correct words and a respectful tone or feeling, they will choose the respectful tone. When a respectful tone is not possible, then the correct words are required. If the question is posed more openly, respondents say they want correct words, appropriate behaviors, and a respectful tone. Therefore, telling individuals only how they should behave is very risky. Appropriate behavior that is not sincere often fails. Inappropriate behavior with a respectful tone and positive intent can frequently find temporary acceptance. Ultimately, both content and tone are important. Therefore practitioners must skillfully communicate about both behaviors and attitudes. This is potentially a very dangerous area for practitioners because no behavioral guidance is correct in all situations. Ultimately, we must help participants mature with respect to inclusion competencies and not depend on being told exactly what to do in each situation. In this category, many resources and approaches are useful when applied in context of the preceding caveats. A few are examples are provided here. Disability Etiquette A quiz was developed to describe how to behave around people with disabilities (“Disability etiquette,” 1995, pp. 40–41). It covers Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 83 considerations such as how to guide a person who is blind or deal with a person in a wheelchair blocking one’s view in a meeting. Cross-Cultural and Intercultural Behavior Publications or sources of explicit guidance for behavior include Intercultural Press (a publisher); Culturegrams from Brigham Young University (www.culturgrams.com); Doing Business Internationally (Training Management Corporation, 1997); Black and White Styles in Conflict (Kochman, 1981); and the Society for Intercultural Education Training and Research (SIETAR; http:// www.sietar.org). These sources explain, for example, why pointing a finger can be helpful or an insult depending on where in the world you do so. They help explain why using one’s left hand can be the basis for a rude or insulting communication in the Middle East, Africa, and other places. Kochman (1981) explains why Blacks and Whites have frequent miscommunication based on documented cultural differences. For example, a single word, bad, can have opposite meanings in Black and White contexts. A particular behavior—loudly proclaiming innocence when accused of a crime—can be interpreted in opposite ways in White and Black contexts. Some understanding of appropriate behaviors in specific contexts can build at least some head and hand competencies that can be supplemented by heart skills. Dance of Apology and Forgiveness The most recognized application of this general approach to resolving intergroup tension occurred in South Africa. The truth and reconciliation process was skillfully orchestrated (Moyers, 1999) and facilitated admissions of guilt in a climate of forgiveness. This same generic process can be effective where there is a history of discrimination and individuals and organizations have reached at least the middle stages of development. To apply it in most parts of the world we should use a vocabulary that breaks the association with South Africa. That association can unnecessarily stimulate guilt, fear of retaliation among both parties, and resistance based on the idea of not being local. Therefore I recommend describing it as a dance of apology and Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 84 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion forgiveness. In my opinion, when there is a history of intergroup conflict or discrimination, this is a powerful active step along the road to inclusion. Conclusion During the past few decades we have learned much about human and organizational behavior. In designing communication to create inclusion, we need to reflect that knowledge. Although differences are real and have measurable effects on how we interact, humans have far more similarities than differences. Differences are sources of both conflict and positive synergy. When diversity is present under specific conditions, inclusion occurs. Inclusion contributes to performance. Overly simplistic research has muddied those connections. The conditions that lead to inclusion and the specific differences that contribute to them are increasingly being demonstrated by researchers, scholars, and practitioners. As we competently apply this knowledge to our communication about inclusion, organizational outcomes will improve. That means less negative conflict, better-prepared students, improved service delivery, better and more enduring political decisions, more innovation, enhanced creativity, greater productivity, and stronger financial performance. References Aberson, C. (2007). Diversity experiences predict changes in attitudes toward affirmative action. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 285–294. Affirmative action: A strong prejudice. (1995, June 17). Economist, p. 85. Albert, R., & Adamopoulos, J. (1976). An attributional approach to culture learning: The culture assimilator. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Topics in culture learning (Vol. 4, pp. 53–60), Honolulu, HI: East-West Center. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Amabile, T., & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 100–109. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 85 Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism (pp. 245–308). New York: Pergamon. Anderson, N. (2003). Psychology as a health profession. Monitor on Psychology, 34(3), 9. Azar, B. (2010). A reason to believe. Monitor on Psychology, 41(11), 52–55. Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (2000). Forming, changing, and acting on attitude toward affirmative action programs in employment: A theory-driven approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 784–798. Bennett, J. M. (2006). A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. Portland, OR: Intercultural Communication Institute. Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards ethnorelativism: A developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In R. M. Paige (Ed.), Education for the intercultural experience (pp. 21–71). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Bennett, M. J. (1998). Intercultural communication: A current perspective. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.) Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 1–34). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Brockner, J. (2006). Why it’s so hard to be fair. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 122–129. Capra, F. (2000). The Tao of physics. An exploration of the parallels between modern physics and eastern mysticism. Boston, MA: Shambhala. Carfang, A. (April 21, 1993). Equal opportunity and stock performance linked [News release]. Chicago, IL: Covenant Investment Management. Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeauzx, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. (2007). A review of research methods in IO/OB work-family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43. Cook, S. (1979). Social science and school desegregation: Did we mislead the Supreme Court? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 420–437. Corporate Leadership Council (2003). The business case for diversity. Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board. Cox, T. H., Jr. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 34–47. Crosby, F., & Clayton, S. (2001). Affirmative action: Psychological contributions to policy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 71–87. Davis, D. M., & Hayes, J. A. (2012). What are the benefits of mindfulness? Monitor on Psychology, 43(7), 64–70. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 86 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Disability etiquette. (1995, April). American Health, pp. 40–41. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 697–711. Donkin, R. (1995, February 8). Recruitment: Happy workers can generate high profits. Financial Times, p. 13. Drake, R. E. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric Services, 52, 179–182. Equal opportunity pays. (1993, May 4). Wall Street Journal, p. 1. Esses, V., & Hodson, G. (2006). The role of lay perceptions of ethnic prejudice in the maintenance and perpetuation of ethnic bias. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 453–468. Ferdman, B. M., Avigdor, A., Braun, D., Konkin, J., & Kuzmycz, D. (2010). Collective experience of inclusion, diversity, and performance in work groups. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 11(3), 6–26. doi:10.1590/S1678-69712010000300003 Ferdman, B. M., Barrera, V., Allen, A., & Vuong, V. (2009, August). Inclusive behavior and the experience of inclusion. In B. G. Chung (Chair), Inclusion in organizations: Measures, HR practices, and climate. Symposium conducted at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Florida, R. (2004). American’s looming creativity crisis. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 122–136. Florida, R. (2005). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New York: Harper Business. Ford, M., Heinen, B., & Langkamer, K. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57–80. Friedman, S., Christensen, P., & DeGroot, J. (1998). Work and life: The end of the zero-sum game. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 119–129. Gardiner, G. (1972). Complexity training and prejudice reduction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 326–342. Graham, L. (1993). The best companies for minorities. New York: Plume. Grant, L. (1998, January 12). Happy workers, high returns. Fortune, p. 81. Graves, L., Ohlott, P., & Ruderman, M. (2007). Commitment to family roles: Effects of managers’ attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 44–56. Gubman, E. (1998). The talent solution: Aligning strategy and people to achieve extraordinary results. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 87 Guillory, W. A. (2000). Spirituality in the workplace: A guide for adapting to the chaotically changing workplace. Salt Lake City, UT: Innovations International. Hammer, M. R. (1999). A measure of intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. In S. Fowler & M. Fowler (Eds.) The intercultural sourcebook (Vol. 2, pp. 61–72). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Harrington, B. (2008). Pop finance: Investment clubs and the new investor populism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Harris, P. (2007). Flexible work policies mean business. Training and Development, 61(4), 32–36. Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036. Hayles, R. (1978). Inter-ethnic and race relations education and training. In D. Hoopes, P. Pedersen, & G. Renwick (Eds.), Overview of intercultural education, training and research (Vol. 2, pp. 64–87). Washington, DC: Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research. Hayles, V. R. (1996). Diversity training and development. In R. L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD training & development handbook (pp. 104–123). New York: McGraw-Hill. Hayles, V. R., & Russell, A. M. (1997). The diversity directive: Why some initiatives fail and what to do about it. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hayles, R. (2003, May). Strategies for change: Why proactively seek diversity? Cultural Diversity at Work Archive. Retrieved from www .diversitycentral.com Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact, forgiveness, and experience of “the troubles” in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 99–120. Holland, G. (2003, February 20). Hundreds file briefs in affirmativeaction case. Honolulu Advertiser, p. A12. Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245–276). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Howell, W. S. (1982). The empathic communicator. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 88 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Hubbard, E. E. (2008). The diversity discipline: Implementing diversity work with a strategy, structure, and ROI measurement focus. Petaluma, CA: Global Insights Publishing. Jackson, B. W., & Holvino, E. (1988). Developing multicultural organizations. Journal of Religion and the Applied Behavioral Sciences, 9(2), 14–19. Johansson, F. (2006). The Medici effect: What elephants and epidemics can teach us about innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster. Katz, J. H., & Miller, F. A. (1988). Between monoculturalism and multiculturalism: Traps awaiting the organization. OD Practitioner, 20(3), 1–5. Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., . . . Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42, 3–21. Kochman, T. (1981). Black and White styles in conflict. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Leung, A., Maddus, W., Galinsky, A., & Chiu, C. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity. American Psychologist, 63, 169– 181. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers of group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5–41. Lindsey, G. (1967). Some remarks concerning incest, the incest taboo, and psychoanalytic theory. American Psychologist, 22, 1051–1065. Major, V., Klein, K., & Ehrhart, M. (2002). Work time, work interference with family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427–436. Nagda, B. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 553–576. O’Mara, J., Richter, A., et al. (2011). Global diversity and inclusion benchmarks: Standards for organizations around the world. O’Mara & Associates and QED Consulting. Retrieved from http://www.omaraassoc .com/pdf/GDIB_2011.pdf Paluck, E. (2006). Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 577–595. Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2007). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: A normative interpretation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411–425. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. Communicating About Diversity and Inclusion 89 Pettigrew, T. F. (2011). SPSSI and racial research. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 137–149. Pratkanis, A. R., & Turner, M. E. (1999). The significance of affirmative action for the souls of White folk: Further implications of a helping model. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 787–815. Price, M. (2011). Searching for meaning. Monitor on Psychology, 42(10), 57–61. Public Affairs Television, Inc. (Producer) (1999). Facing the truth with Bill Moyers [Video]. Available from http://www.shoppbs.org Rapoport, R., & Bailyn, L. (1996). Relinking life and work: Toward a better future. New York: Ford Foundation. Ricks, D. (1983). Big business blunders: Mistakes in multinational marketing. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Ricks, D. (1993). Blunders in international business. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Rokeach, M. (1971). Inconsistency highlighting to reduce prejudice: Long-range experimental modification of values, attitudes, and behavior. American Psychologist, 26, 453–459. Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443. Shelton, J., & Richeson, J. (2006). Ethnic minorities’ racial attitudes and contact experiences with White people. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 149–164. Siegel, P., Post, C., Brockner, J., Fishman, A., & Garden, C. (2005). The moderating influence of procedural fairness on the relationship between work-life conflict and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 13–24. Slobodin, L. (1972). Culture assimilators for interaction with the economically disadvantaged. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois. Smillie, L., Yeo, G., Furnham, A., & Jackson, C. (2006). Benefits of all work and no play: The relationship between neuroticism and performance as a function of resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 139–155. Stuart, P. (1992). What does the glass ceiling cost you? Personnel Journal, 71(11), 70–80. Suinn, R. (2001). Documenting the positive case for affirmative action. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 89–93. Thiederman, S. (2008). Making diversity work: 7 steps for defeating bias in the workplace. New York: Kaplan Publishing. Thomas, R. R., Jr. (2004, October 7). Diversity management and affirma – tive action: Past, present and future. Paper presented at Equity, Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved. 90 Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion Affirmative Action and Diversity: From Past to Present to a Promising Future, 2004 Diversity Symposium, The Alliance, Landsdowne, VA. Retrieved from http://www.diversitycollegium.org/pdf2004/ 2004Thomaspaper.pdf Thomas, R. R., Jr. (2010). World class diversity management: A strategic approach. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Training Management Corporation. (1997). Doing business internationally: The resource book to business and social etiquette. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Training Press. Triandis, H. (1975). Culture training, cognitive complexity and interpersonal attitudes. In R. Brislin, S. Bochner, & W. Lonner (Eds.), Cross-cultural perspectives on learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tung, R. L. (1993). Managing cross-national and intra-national diversity. Human Resource Management, 32, 461–477. United Nations, General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10. (1948, December 10). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3712c.html Wheeler, M. L. (2005, March). Diversity: The performance factor. Harvard Business Review, special advertising section, S1–S7. Winerman, L. (2011). Suppressing the “white bears”: Meditation, mindfulness, and other tools can help us avoid unwanted thoughts. Monitor on Psychology, 42(9), 44. Winters, M. (2006). CEOs who get it: Diversity leadership from the heart and soul. Washington, DC: Diversity Best Practices. Wright, P., Ferris, S., Hiller, J., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 272–287. Ziller, R. C. (1972). Homogeneity and heterogeneity of group membership. In C. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 385–411). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ferdman, B. M., & Deane, B. R. (Eds.). (2013). Diversity at work : the practice of inclusion. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from unimelb on 2017-07-21 00:11:51. Copyright © 2013. Wiley. All rights reserved.


 

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH LITE ESSAYS TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT

The post Explain why diversity needs to be managed. Probabilities of problems can happen if diversity is not managed. And outcomes if it is managed appeared first on Cheapest Academic Custom Papers.

Get help with your classes. We provide step-by-step answers to all writing assignments including: essay (any type), research paper, argumentative essay, book/movie review, case study, coursework, presentation, term paper, research proposal, speech, capstone project, annotated bibliography, among others. We are a dedicated essay writing service that can help you put together a top-quality essay.

Professional university paper writers. We Will Help You Write Your Essays
From initial topic to finished paper. We guarantee that your custom essay will not only be delivered on time but will also be of the highest quality.

Get Unstuck! Order Original Answers for all your Assignments

Get Help With Essay Writing

  • Any citation style
  • Any topic

  • 100% Original essays
  • Free revision