Post on 13-May-2023
Industrial and Organizational Psychologyhttp://journals.cambridge.org/IOP
Additional services for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology:
Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here
What We Know and Don't: Eradicating EmploymentDiscrimination 50 Years After the Civil Rights Act
Alex Lindsey, Eden King, Tracy McCausland, Kristen Jones and Eric Dunleavy
Industrial and Organizational Psychology / Volume 6 / Issue 04 / December 2013, pp 391 - 413DOI: 10.1111/iops.12075, Published online: 07 January 2015
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1754942600005678
How to cite this article:Alex Lindsey, Eden King, Tracy McCausland, Kristen Jones and Eric Dunleavy (2013). What WeKnow and Don't: Eradicating Employment Discrimination 50 Years After the Civil Rights Act. Industrialand Organizational Psychology, 6, pp 391-413 doi:10.1111/iops.12075
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/IOP, IP address: 129.174.21.5 on 29 Mar 2015
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6 (2013), 391–413.Copyright © 2013 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/13
FOCAL ARTICLE
What We Know and Don’t: EradicatingEmployment Discrimination 50 YearsAfter the Civil Rights Act
ALEX LINDSEY, EDEN KING, TRACY MCCAUSLAND, AND KRISTEN JONESGeorge Mason University
ERIC DUNLEAVYDCI Consulting Group
AbstractAlthough nearly 50 years have passed since the Civil Rights Act, employment discrimination persists. Thus, thisfocal article raises and addresses critical issues regarding a yet unanswered question: how can organizationalresearchers and practitioners contribute to the ultimate goal of eradicating employment discrimination? Thisarticle will push previous work a step forward by considering discrimination reduction tactics spanning theattraction, selection, inclusion, and retention phases of the employment cycle. Additionally, we expand ourdiscussion of strategies to reduce discrimination beyond classically studied racial, ethnic, and gender differences.Our synthesis of this literature will inform organizational psychologists on how to address discrimination, butwill also highlight the lack of evidence regarding important aspects of these strategies.
The year 2014 marks the 50th anniver-sary of the Civil Rights Act. In the nearly50 years since this legislation was cod-ified, organizational scholars, and prac-titioners have been among those work-ing to ensure that the tenets of TitleVII—which prohibit employment discrimi-nation on the basis of race, color, religion,sex, or national origin—are implementedeffectively. Despite substantial efforts over5 decades, employment discrimination per-sists. Indeed, the Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission (EEOC) resolved 42,545charges in 2012 alone, excluding caseswhere no reasonable cause was found or
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Alex Lindsey.E-mail: aplindse@gmail.com
Address: Department of Psychology, George MasonUniversity, 4400 University Drive, MSN 3F5 Fairfax,VA 22030
the case was closed due to administra-tive reasons (EEOC, 2013). This focal articleraises and addresses critical issues regard-ing a yet unanswered question: How canorganizational researchers and practitionerscontribute to the ultimate goal—articulatedby EEOC Chair Berrien in her 2012SIOP keynote—of eradicating employmentdiscrimination?
This article will push previouswork—which has considered strategies forreducing subgroup differences in selectiondecisions (Ployhart & Holtz, 2008) andhow to appropriately use affirmative actionpolicies (Kravitz, 2008)—a step forwardby considering discrimination reductiontactics spanning from the attraction phaseto the retention stage of employment1 (see
1. The purpose of this focal article was to initiatediscussion and debate on the topic of employmentdiscrimination and various prevention strategies.
391
392 A. Lindsey et al.
Tables 1 through 4). In addition, we do notlimit our discussion of strategies to reducediscrimination to classically studied racial,ethnic, and gender differences. Instead, webroaden our scope to consider all typesof marginalized groups. In the attractionsection we discuss strategies that can beused to effectively recruit minorities toapply for positions in a given organiza-tion. In the selection section we discussstrategies to reduce both disparate impactand disparate treatment—and to resolvethe ‘‘diversity–validity dilemma’’ (Pyburn,Ployhart, & Kravitz, 2008)—through theuse of balanced and fair selection proce-dures. In the inclusion section, we discussorganizational and individual strategiesthat can be used to make marginalizedgroups feel both welcome and respected onthe job. Finally, in the retention section wediscuss discrimination reduction strategiesdesigned to help organizations to effectivelymaintain marginalized group members. Toconclude, we provide concrete recommen-dations to both scientists and practitionerswithin each employment phase regarding(a) what we should keep doing, (b) what weshould stop doing, and (c) what we need toknow more about.
Our synthesis of this literature will informindustrial–organizational (I–O) psycholo-gists on how to address discriminationbut will also highlight the lack of evi-dence regarding important aspects of thesestrategies. Overall, these descriptions willunderscore the shortage of evidenced-basedstrategies for reducing discrimination acrossthe employment cycle, as well as the lackof connection between efforts to addressthese intertwined challenges. In so doing,we will move our field beyond simplyassessing challenges that arise in an increas-ingly diverse workforce toward providingactionable solutions. We do not claim tohave perfect answers; indeed, the viewsshared here do not even represent con-sensus among the authors of this article.
Given this purpose, not every author agreed on theusefulness of all of the strategies discussed in thisarticle.
Instead, we intend to spark dialogue amongacademic and applied communities regard-ing work that remains in order to fulfill theoriginal goals of civil rights legislation; thepast 50 years have helped us to better under-stand discrimination, but our objective mustnow be aimed at its eradication.
Attraction
Although much research in the discrimi-nation reduction domain has focused onselection practices, the fact remains thatminorities can only be hired if they actuallyapply for positions. Thus, any discrimina-tion reduction effort must begin with howto effectively attract minority employees toapply for jobs while reducing the potentialfor discrimination in the attraction process.Our review suggests there are several strate-gies organizations can implement to attractemployees who are diverse with regard tovisible characteristics (e.g., ethnicity andgender) as well as invisible characteristics(e.g., religious identity and parental sta-tus). These approaches can be organizedby the following four themes: (a) targetedrecruitment, (b) authentic commitment, (c)explicit communication of diversity-relatedrecruitment efforts, and (d) facilitation ofthe application process (see Table 1). Whatfollows is an elaboration of each themedescribing how they can be used to reducediscrimination in the attraction process.
First, organizations can engage in tar-geted recruitment of diverse applicants inorder to enhance the diversity of the appli-cant pool and reduce discrimination in theattraction phase (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly,2006; Kravitz, 2008). This strategy canbe implemented through various means,such as dedicating efforts to cultivate andmaintain relationships with educationalinstitutions, minority organizations, and/orprofessional groups whose members reflectthe type of diversity the organization isseeking (Digh, 1999). For instance, orga-nizations aiming to boost the number ofyoung individuals in its applicant pool mayreach out to college placement centers.Similarly, organizations seeking to hire
Discrimination eradication 393
Tabl
e1.
Stra
tegi
esto
Red
uce
Dis
crim
inat
ion
inth
eA
ttrac
tion
Phas
e Attr
actio
n
Stra
tegy
Exam
ples
Stre
ngth
sW
eakn
esse
sC
onsi
dera
tions
Targ
eted
recr
uitm
ent
Dev
elop
and
mai
ntai
nre
latio
nshi
psw
ithor
gani
zatio
nsth
atha
vedi
vers
ein
divi
dual
sof
inte
rest
Proj
ectd
iver
sity
toth
epu
blic
Reg
ular
lyco
ntac
tco
llege
plac
emen
tce
nter
sfo
rid
eal
appl
ican
ts.
Util
izin
gm
inor
ityre
crui
ters
Port
rayi
ngdi
vers
ein
divi
dual
sin
mar
ketin
gm
ater
ials
Can
attr
actm
inor
ities
with
outr
epel
ling
nonm
inor
ities
Rei
nfor
ces
com
mitm
entt
odi
vers
ityB
enefi
tsca
nbe
incr
ease
dif
the
indi
vidu
albe
ing
port
raye
dis
ina
supe
rvis
ory
role
Som
ear
esi
mpl
ean
dco
st-e
ffect
ive
toim
plem
ent
Lim
ited
rese
arch
onth
eef
fect
iven
ess
ofth
ese
stra
tegi
es
Thes
est
rate
gies
are
prom
isin
g,bu
tmor
ere
sear
chis
criti
calt
ode
term
ine
the
effe
ctiv
enes
sin
term
sof
incr
easi
ngth
edi
vers
ityof
the
appl
ican
tpoo
las
wel
las
appl
ican
tand
perc
eptio
ns.
Furt
herm
ore,
othe
rre
crui
tmen
tst
rate
gies
shou
ldno
tbe
over
look
ed.
Esta
blis
ha
repu
tatio
nfo
rco
mm
itmen
tto
dive
rsity
Rec
eivi
ngaw
ards
such
asB
estC
ompa
nies
for
Div
ersi
ty
Will
incr
ease
legi
timac
yof
attr
actio
nef
fort
sV
ery
diffi
cult
tocr
eate
beca
use
itta
kes
time
and
genu
ine
chan
gein
clud
ing
top
man
agem
ents
uppo
rt.
Aut
hent
icity
isa
criti
cala
ndw
ebe
lieve
tobe
the
foun
datio
nfo
rw
hich
the
othe
rst
rate
gies
mus
tbu
ildup
on.
Expl
icit
com
mun
icat
ion
abou
tdiv
ersi
tyre
crui
tmen
teffo
rts
Hos
ting
com
pany
mee
tings
toex
plai
nth
epu
rpos
eof
dive
rsity
and
recr
uitm
ente
ffort
s
May
boos
tper
cept
ions
offa
irne
ssan
dre
duce
back
lash
Som
ere
serv
atio
nsab
out
pref
eren
tialt
reat
men
tm
aylin
ger
This
stra
tegy
appe
ars
tobe
ane
cess
ary
supp
lem
entt
om
ore
focu
sed
dive
rsity
attr
actio
nst
rate
gies
inor
der
tom
anag
epe
rcep
tions
ofju
stic
e.Fa
cilit
ate
the
appl
icat
ion
proc
ess
Hos
ting
virt
ualj
obfa
irs
Ensu
ring
appl
icat
ion
mat
eria
lsar
eea
sily
acce
ssib
le
Can
elim
inat
eun
nece
ssar
yba
rrie
rsfo
rin
divi
dual
sre
gard
less
ofth
eir
curr
ent
circ
umst
ance
s
Cou
ldcr
eate
rese
ntm
ent
amon
got
her
appl
ican
tsLi
mite
dre
sear
chon
the
effe
ctiv
enes
sof
this
stra
tegy
Con
side
ring
toda
y’s
econ
omic
clim
ate,
this
stra
tegy
islik
ely
tobe
nefit
alla
pplic
ants
;how
ever
,ai
dsh
ould
noto
nly
belim
ited
tota
rget
grou
ps,b
utav
aila
ble
toal
l.
394 A. Lindsey et al.
more African Americans may considerfocusing their recruitment efforts on uni-versities that have larger populations ofBlack students. In addition, organizationsmay target certain media outlets (e.g.,radio announcements, community newslet-ters, newspapers, magazines, and/orsocial media pages) that are traditionallyfrequented by desired populations.
Another method to reduce potentialdiscrimination via targeted recruitingrelates to a diverse image, which embodiesthe notion that organizational agentsshould represent individuals from variousbackgrounds. Agents can include recruiterswho are often the first representatives ofan organization with whom applicantshave any meaningful interaction. Indeed,scholars suggest that diverse applicants’initial attraction to an organization maybe enhanced through the employment ofdiverse recruiters (Kravitz, 2008; Rynes &Barber, 1990). However, preliminaryresearch suggests that this message mustbe consistent with the organization’s previ-ously established reputation for managingdiversity (Avery & McKay, 2006). Anothermethod of signaling this message is toportray diverse individuals in marketingmaterials and advertisements. This strategyappears to be most appealing to targetgroup members when diverse individualsare depicted in supervisory roles (Avery,2003; Avery, Hernandez, & Hebl, 2004;Avery & McKay, 2006). In addition, thewording of employment advertisementscan affect the likelihood that minorities willapply (Born & Taris, 2010). Specifically,women have been found to be moreinclined than men to apply for jobs whenthe profile corresponds to their gender (i.e.,contained more prototypically femininecharacteristics).
Third, organizations may foster attractionfrom target group members by establishinga public reputation that reflects an authen-tic commitment to diversity. According toCox’s (1993) conceptualization of the vary-ing levels of understanding and awarenessof diversity in organizations, the ideal orga-nization should not only reflect diversity
in terms of numerical representation butshould also convey a sincere commitmentto multiculturalism in their approach todiversity management. Research on organi-zational diversity supports the notion thatsolely providing individuals with numbersand statistics about an organization’sdemographic diversity is not sufficient topromote positive perceptions about thatorganization’s commitment to diversity.Along with demographic heterogeneity,organizations must portray an authen-tic commitment to diversity withinthe organization as well as genuinededication for the inclusion and incor-poration of diverse groups that exceedssuperficial attempts (Smith, BotsfordMorgan, King, Knight, & Hebl, inpress). Importantly, Rynes, Bretz, andGerhart (1991) found that some candi-dates interpreted the number of womenand minorities encountered during theiron-site visit to indicate organizationalattitudes towards diversity, suggesting bothnumerical representation and a sincerecommitment to diversity are critical in theattraction of minority applicants. Given thisfinding, organizations may want to ensurethat applicants from diverse populationssee and interact with diverse employees inthe attraction phase. However, we cautionthat this effort should not be overly forcedto avoid the organization being perceivedas fake or manipulative.
Although targeted recruitment andauthentic commitment to diversity can beeffective to increase the number of targetgroup members in the applicant pool,organizations must pair these strategieswith efforts to attenuate resentment fromnonminorities. One way to prevent suchbacklash is by openly communicating withboth applicants and current employeesabout affirmative action programs (AAPs)and making it exceedingly clear that AAPsdo not involve preference or quotes at theselection stage and thus are only aiding inexpanding the pool of applicants (Kravitz,2008). This is especially important giventhat Whites and other majority group mem-bers tend to assume AAPs are preferential
Discrimination eradication 395
in the absence of clarifying information(Golden, Hinkle, & Crosby, 2001). Indeed,extant empirical research suggests thatmembers of target groups at whom APPs aredirected are evaluated as less competentwhen AAPs are believed to be prefer-ential or when they are not adequatelyexplained (Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, &Casmay, 1981; Heilman, Battle, Keller,& Lee, 1998). However, clarity about thelack of preferential treatment eliminatessuch stigmatization against target groupmembers (Evans & Oh, 1996). Anotherstrategy for attenuating backlash fromnontarget group members is to justify theuse of APPs. In doing so, organizationsshould focus on the purpose of AAPs inredressing past discrimination (the moralcase) while also emphasizing the practicalvalue of diversity (the business case).Indeed, meta-analytic evidence suggestsincentivizing AAPs solely based on under-representation is likely to be perceivednegatively by nonminorities (Harrison,Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006).
Finally, organizations can expand theapplicant pool by providing options to facil-itate the application process for target groupmembers (Kravitz, 2008). For example, anorganization could leverage technologyto allow applicants from disadvantagedpopulations to apply from home ratherthan having them incur traveling costsfrom having to physically visit the orga-nization. Other illustrations of facilitationinclude hosting virtual job fairs, ensuringapplication materials are easily accessible,and reducing the quantity of requiredinformation. Although field research is lim-ited, social psychological research stronglysupports the conclusion that removingbarriers will increase the likelihood of agiven behavior, such as applying for a job.
What Should We Keep Doing?
We suggest continuing to implement anyand all of the strategies reviewed above.To date, the research suggests that theseattraction efforts are beneficial, and someare quite simple and cost effective to
employ (e.g., portraying diverse individualsin marketing materials). Furthermore, Whiteindividuals generally do not react nega-tively to these marketing materials (Avery,2003). Other strategies are likely to be moredifficult to implement (e.g., establishing apublic reputation of authentic commitmentto diversity). Regardless, attraction ofapplicants from underrepresented groupsrequires integrity and communication toensure clarity of purpose, acceptance ofsuch initiatives, and to limit misperceptionsof preference.
What Should We Stop Doing?
At this juncture, there are no attrac-tion strategies that we would discourage.However, a critical caveat to this statementis that organizations should only activelypursue diversity attraction tactics if they aregenuinely committed to diversity (Avery &McKay, 2006). It is not enough to por-tray minorities in advertising materials ifattraction of diverse applicants is not partof a larger organizational initiative. If theorganization does not truly value diver-sity, then diversity attraction efforts willbe misaligned with the organization’s corevalues. This misalignment can eventuallyfoster resentment and perceived psycho-logical contract breach because applicantsturned employees are not getting whatthe organization ‘‘sold’’ them during theattraction process. Thus, we recommendthat organizations strive to develop a cul-ture that reflects a genuine commitmentto diversity prior to implementing thesestrategies.
What Do We Need to Know More About?
This is an area ripe for investigation. Empir-ical evidence has only recently becomeavailable for many of these strategies. Futureresearch could investigate the effective-ness of facilitating the application processfor specific minority groups. Although thisstrategy shows promise, empirical work isneeded to investigate how effective thisstrategy can be, as well as how oth-ers may react to it. Future work should
396 A. Lindsey et al.
also replicate previous findings. In addi-tion, we need to know more about howto reduce discrimination in the attractionphase for individuals with invisible stig-mas (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-gendered individuals, people with disabil-ities). Indeed, existing research generallyfocuses on attracting individuals based onvisible aspects of their identity, such asrace and gender. Thus, a complex butimportant question that remains is howto communicate support for people withinvisible identities during the recruitmentprocess. For instance, how do we effec-tively recruit individuals that have differ-ing and stigmatized religious beliefs? Thatbeing said, it is important to remember thatattraction is only the first opportunity toreduce discrimination against marginal-ized populations. Once marginalized groupmembers have submitted job applications,a balanced and fair selection system mustalso be in place.
Selection
Selection strategies to minimize discrim-ination and enhance diversity have longbeen a focus of diversity researchersand industrial–organizational psychologistsmore generally. There are two general formsof discrimination that present themselvesat the selection phase: disparate impactand disparate treatment. Disparate impactrefers to unintentional forms of discrimina-tion (e.g., using a selection measure thatunintentionally selects substantially moreindividuals from one protected class thanindividuals from another), whereas dis-parate treatment refers to intentional formsof discrimination (e.g., deliberately not hir-ing an individual because they belong to aparticular protected class). Efforts to reducethese forms of discrimination are generallyconsidered independently, likely becausethe presumed underlying mechanisms ofintentional and unintentional discrimina-tion (and their legal standards) differ sub-stantially. What follows is a discussion ofselection strategies that can be utilized
to reduce each of these important mani-festations of discrimination throughout theselection process (see Table 2, which con-tains some strategies not included in the textdue to space limitations).
Strategies for Minimizing Disparate Impactin Selection
We conceptualize disparate impact reduc-tion strategies during in the selection pro-cess in terms of three categories thatorganizations can utilize. The first cate-gory involves consideration of what con-structs to measure, the second focuses onhow to measure those constructs, and thethird emphasizes how to use our selec-tion tools to make employment decisions.Importantly, we acknowledge that subgroupdifferences in the selection context do notnecessarily reflect discrimination, providedthat measures are job related and alternativemethods have been considered. However,in this section we will discuss strategies toreduce subgroup differences, which shouldin turn reduce the likelihood that substantialdisparate impact will exist.
What constructs to measure. One discrim-ination-reducing measurement strategy issimply to use predictors that have smallersubgroup differences than those createdby cognitive ability tests. Indeed, althoughcognitive ability tests are among the bestpredictors of workplace success, they alsoproduce the largest subgroup differencesbetween racial and ethnic groups (Hough,Oswald, & Ployhart, 2001). Thus, to thedegree that other selection methods (e.g.,interviews, work samples, biodata, person-ality measures) can be used reliability, weshould observe a reduction in these sub-group differences and thus a reduction inadverse impact overall (Ployhart & Holtz,2008; Schmitt & Quinn, 2009).
One common concern related to thisapproach is that of a ‘‘validity tradeoff’’wherein using alternative measurementstrategies reduces adverse impact butalso weakens prediction. One way tomitigate this concern is to use multiple
Discrimination eradication 397
Tabl
e2.
Stra
tegi
esto
Red
uce
Dis
crim
inat
ion
inth
eSe
lect
ion
Phas
e Sele
ctio
n
Stra
tegy
Exam
ples
Stre
ngth
sW
eakn
esse
sC
onsi
dera
tions
Use
pred
icto
rsw
ithsm
alle
rsu
bgro
updi
ffere
nces
Use
inte
rvie
ws,
wor
ksa
mpl
es,o
ras
sess
men
tce
nter
sin
stea
dof
cogn
itive
abili
tyte
sts
Min
imiz
ere
adin
gre
quir
emen
tsto
the
degr
eeal
low
able
byth
ejo
b
Gen
eral
lyef
fect
ive
inre
duci
ngsu
bgro
updi
ffere
nces
May
allo
wfo
rm
ore
spec
ific
mea
sure
men
tofa
broa
dra
nge
ofK
SAO
s
Subg
roup
diffe
renc
ere
duct
ion
vari
esby
sele
ctio
nm
etho
dM
any
alte
rnat
ive
pred
icto
rsco
me
with
a‘‘v
alid
itytr
adeo
ff’’
Usi
ngth
isst
rate
gyis
esse
ntia
llya
bala
ncin
gac
tbet
wee
nm
inim
izin
gsu
bgro
updi
ffere
nces
and
avoi
ding
too
muc
hof
a‘‘v
alid
itytr
adeo
ff’’
Ass
ess
afu
llra
nge
ofK
SAO
sU
sea
full
sele
ctio
nba
ttery
rath
erth
anre
lyin
gon
cogn
itive
abili
tyte
sts
alon
eC
anst
illin
clud
eco
gniti
veab
ility
test
sif
desi
red
May
actu
ally
incr
ease
the
valid
ityof
pers
onne
lde
cisi
ons
(i.e.
,thi
sst
rate
gym
ayno
tcom
ew
itha
‘‘val
idity
trad
eoff’
’)
May
incr
ease
cost
asth
enu
mbe
rof
pred
icto
rsgo
esup
This
isa
stra
tegy
that
mos
tse
lect
ion
pers
onne
lsho
uld
beus
ing
anyw
ay,s
oit
isa
bonu
sth
atit
also
has
the
pote
ntia
lto
redu
cead
vers
eim
pact
Con
side
rho
wto
use
pred
icto
rsc
ores
Con
side
rho
wto
use
(e.g
.,ra
nkor
der,
cuts
core
setti
ng,b
andi
ng)
sele
ctio
nto
ols
tom
ake
empl
oym
entd
ecis
ions
Subg
roup
diffe
renc
ere
duct
ion
can
besi
zeab
lefo
rw
omen
and
raci
alm
inor
ities
Ack
now
ledg
esin
here
ntly
unre
liabi
lity
inou
rse
lect
ion
mea
sure
s
Subg
roup
diffe
renc
ere
duct
ion
nota
ssi
zeab
lefo
rot
her
mar
gina
lized
grou
ps(i.
e.,n
otw
omen
orra
cial
min
oriti
es)
May
crea
teet
hica
liss
ues
ofus
ing
pref
eren
ces
with
inba
nds
Impo
rtan
tto
rem
embe
rth
atus
ing
pref
eren
ces
isus
ually
illeg
al,s
ow
em
ustb
eca
utio
usw
hen
usin
gth
ese
tech
niqu
es
398 A. Lindsey et al.
Tabl
e2.
Con
tinue
d
Sele
ctio
n
Stra
tegy
Exam
ples
Stre
ngth
sW
eakn
esse
sC
onsi
dera
tions
Diff
eren
tialw
eigh
ting
ofpr
edic
tor/
crite
rion
dim
ensi
ons
Giv
em
ore
wei
ghtt
opr
edic
tors
that
have
been
show
nto
have
less
adve
rse
impa
ctth
anot
hers
Can
use
the
sam
em
etho
dto
wei
ghto
urcr
iteri
onm
easu
res
asw
ell
Can
resu
ltin
upto
mod
erat
esu
bgro
updi
ffere
nce
redu
ctio
nM
ayno
treq
uire
any
chan
ges
ina
give
nse
lect
ion
batte
ryas
itcu
rren
tlyst
ands
Val
idity
may
belo
wer
edif
wei
ghtin
gis
base
dex
clus
ivel
yon
adve
rse
impa
ctof
mea
sure
sA
pplic
antf
akin
gm
aybe
anis
sue
This
stra
tegy
,lik
eus
ing
pred
icto
rsw
ithsm
alle
rsu
bgro
updi
ffere
nces
,is
aba
lanc
ing
act
betw
een
wei
ghtin
gpr
edic
tors
/cri
teri
ath
atsh
owsm
alls
ubgr
oup
diffe
renc
esbu
tar
est
illva
lidpr
edic
tors
/cri
teri
a
Alte
rnat
ive
mod
esof
test
stim
ulip
rese
ntat
ion
Vid
eo-b
ased
mea
sure
adm
inis
trat
ions
Com
pute
rsi
mul
atio
nsO
pen-
ende
dte
sts
Can
show
larg
esu
bgro
updi
ffere
nce
redu
ctio
ns,
espe
cial
lybe
twee
nra
cial
grou
ps
Diffi
cult
tose
para
teim
pact
ofth
eco
nstr
ucta
ndth
em
etho
dof
pres
enta
tion
This
stra
tegy
seem
sto
show
som
epr
omis
e,bu
twe
need
tokn
owm
ore
abou
thow
itw
orks
and
for
whi
chgr
oups
itis
anef
fect
ive
tech
niqu
eId
entif
yan
dre
mov
ebi
ased
item
sId
entif
yan
dre
mov
ete
stite
ms
that
seem
tobe
nefit
am
ajor
itygr
oup
orpe
naliz
ea
min
ority
grou
p
Elim
inat
esun
nece
ssar
yin
form
atio
nan
dun
nece
ssar
yre
adin
gre
quir
emen
tsIn
crea
ses
the
face
valid
ityof
the
mea
sure
May
noth
ave
apr
actic
ally
mea
ning
fule
ffect
onre
duci
ngsu
bgro
updi
ffere
nces
We
belie
veth
issh
ould
alw
ays
bedo
ne,b
utth
epr
actic
alva
lue
ofth
isst
rate
gym
aybe
limite
dby
the
fact
that
the
num
ber
ofite
ms
‘‘for
’’an
d‘‘a
gain
st’’
agi
ven
grou
plik
ely
bala
nce
each
othe
rou
tTa
rget
edst
affin
gId
entif
yin
tern
al/e
xter
nal
cand
idat
esan
das
sess
qual
ifica
tions
usin
gva
lidse
lect
ion
met
hods
Allo
ws
orga
niza
tions
tota
rget
spec
ific
grou
psfo
rth
eir
open
posi
tions
No
appa
rent
dow
nfal
lto
this
appr
oach
,as
long
aspr
efer
ence
sar
eav
oide
d
This
isw
hato
rgan
izat
ions
shou
ldbe
doin
gan
yway
,so
this
isa
reco
mm
ende
dpr
actic
eas
long
aspr
efer
ence
sar
eav
oide
d
Discrimination eradication 399
Tabl
e2.
Con
tinue
d
Sele
ctio
n
Stra
tegy
Exam
ples
Stre
ngth
sW
eakn
esse
sC
onsi
dera
tions
Coa
chin
gC
oach
allt
estt
aker
spr
ior
toth
eir
part
icip
atio
nin
the
sele
ctio
nba
ttery
App
ears
tobe
bene
ficia
lfor
ever
yone
(e.g
.,al
lse
lect
ion
scor
esse
emto
goup
),ev
enm
ajor
itygr
oup
mem
bers
May
notr
esul
tin
apr
actic
ally
sign
ifica
ntre
duct
ion
inad
vers
eim
pact
asit
impr
oves
all
sele
ctio
nsc
ores
This
stra
tegy
may
impr
ove
reac
tions
toth
ese
lect
ion
batte
rybu
titi
sno
tlik
ely
toha
vea
sign
ifica
ntef
fect
onre
duci
ngad
vers
eim
pact
Adj
usta
mou
ntof
time
avai
labl
eIf
spee
dis
nota
com
pone
ntof
the
abili
tyth
atw
ear
em
easu
ring
,we
can
elim
inat
eth
isco
mpo
nent
bygi
ving
indi
vidu
als
unlim
ited
time
tofin
ish
agi
ven
test
Rem
oves
irre
leva
ntin
form
atio
nfr
omth
epr
edic
tor
dom
ain
May
impr
ove
reac
tions
toa
give
nse
lect
ion
mea
sure
Has
thus
far
been
larg
ely
unsu
cces
sful
inre
duci
ngsu
bgro
updi
ffere
nces
Rel
ativ
ely
few
stud
ies
have
been
cond
ucte
don
this
stra
tegy
,so
mor
ew
ork
need
sto
bedo
nebe
fore
we
can
fair
lyev
alua
teits
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Trai
nde
cisi
onm
aker
sC
ompl
ianc
etr
aini
ngIn
form
peop
leof
thei
rpo
tent
ialb
iase
s
Kee
psth
ese
lect
ion
proc
ess
cons
iste
ntan
dfa
irov
ertim
e
Som
epe
ople
may
still
harb
orbi
asth
atth
eyal
low
toaf
fect
even
seem
ingl
yob
ject
ive
deci
sion
s
All
orga
niza
tions
shou
ldre
ally
bedo
ing
this
alre
ady,
and
this
ison
eof
the
few
stra
tegi
esw
elis
tto
redu
cedi
spar
ate
trea
tmen
t
Red
uce
subj
ectiv
ityfr
omth
ese
lect
ion
proc
ess
Use
stru
ctur
edas
oppo
sed
toun
stru
ctur
edin
terv
iew
sEv
alua
tese
lect
ion
scor
esbl
indl
yw
hen
poss
ible
Onl
yse
lect
deci
sion
mak
ers
who
are
low
inex
plic
itan
dim
plic
itbi
as
Shou
ldlim
itbi
asin
sele
ctio
nde
cisi
onm
akin
gLi
kely
lead
sto
grea
ter
perc
eive
dfa
irne
ssof
the
sele
ctio
npr
oces
s
Som
epe
ople
may
still
harb
orbi
asth
atth
eyal
low
toaf
fect
even
seem
ingl
yob
ject
ive
deci
sion
s,un
less
the
thir
dex
ampl
eis
utili
zed
All
orga
niza
tions
shou
ldbe
doin
gth
isal
read
y,an
dth
isis
one
ofth
efe
wst
rate
gies
we
listt
ore
duce
disp
arat
etr
eatm
ent
400 A. Lindsey et al.
measurements in an effort to assess a fullrange of KSAOs. Indeed, this strategy maybe one of the few (if not the only) that mayreduce adverse impact and improve validity(Ployhart & Holtz, 2008; Schmitt, Clause,& Pulakos, 1996). In addition, this strategymay be particularly attractive becauseit allows selection decision makers toinclude measures of cognitive ability alongwith other job-related metrics using bothscientific- and values-based considerations.
How to measure those constructs. Anotherpotential discrimination-reducing strategyis to consider using alternative modes oftest stimuli presentation (Schmitt & Quinn,2009). For example, we might considerusing video-based measure administrationsor computer simulations as opposed totraditional paper-and-pencil selection mea-sures. Research suggests this is an effectivemethod for reducing adverse impact againstBlacks and Hispanics, but more work needsto be done to examine the potential forthis strategy to benefit other marginalizedgroups (Pulakos & Schmitt, 1996).
Another strategy is to identify andremove items that appear to be biasedagainst any marginalized group. Webelieve this is an intuitive strategy thatcan accomplish multiple goals, includingincreasing the face validity of a givenselection measure for marginalized groups(Schmitt & Quinn, 2009). Thus, althoughwe need to know more about this strategyin terms of the degree to which it actuallyreduces adverse impact, it may be reason-able to consider this strategy on the basis ofimproving the perceptions of marginalizedgroup members who are participating inthe selection procedure.
How to use selection tools. There arealso considerations that focus on howemployment decisions are made basedon assessment information. These strate-gies serve as alternatives to traditionalrank-order decision making, which typi-cally lead to more adverse impact. Onesuch strategy involves banding assess-ment scores together into psychometrically
similar groupings. Banding is a strategy thatacknowledges the unreliability of measuresby creating bands within which scores arenot differentiated or treated as meaning-fully different from one another (Aguinis,2004). Research indicates that banding canbe an effective way of reducing subgroupdifferences in selection rates. However, thelargest reductions in adverse impact arefound when subgroup (i.e., race, gender,etc.) preferences are used within bands,which is illegal in the vast majority ofscenarios (Ployhart & Holtz, 2008). Forthis reason there continues to be substan-tial controversy surrounding the practice ofbanding (Pyburn et al., 2008).
A related tactic is to strategically placecut scores for predictor measures in waysthat reduce adverse impact without havinga meaningful impact on prediction. Simi-larly to banding, scores above a given cutscore are not treated as meaningfully differ-ent from one another in selection decisionswhen this strategy is being utilized. Whenusing this strategy, it is important that thecut score is not arbitrary and is insteadplaced based on subject matter experts’judgments and the relationship betweenthe criterion and the predictor in ques-tion (see Kehoe, 2009). Indeed, previousresearch has demonstrated that adjustingcut scores can be an effective way to reduceadverse impact in selection decisions (e.g.,Hoffman & Thornton, 1997).
Another strategy relates to the weightingof predictors and/or criterion measures. Theidea behind this strategy is that we canassign more weight to predictor and/orcriterion measures that demonstrate theleast adverse impact. By using this strategy,we should be able to reap the validitybenefits of using multiple predictors whilealso avoiding adverse impact by weightingpredictors and/or criterion measures thathave the lowest subgroup differences.Research suggests this can be a moderatelyeffective strategy for reducing adverseimpact (e.g., DeCorte, 1999; Hattrup,Rock, & Scalia, 1997). Thus, this is certainlya strategy to consider for use in selectiondecisions. However, it is important to
Discrimination eradication 401
remember that this strategy will only beeffective to the extent that there arealready predictors that do not demonstrateconsiderable subgroup differences in theselection battery.
Strategies for Minimizing DisparateTreatment in Selection
In terms of reducing intentional discrim-ination, we contend that there are twokey strategies that should be utilized. Onestrategy is to train human resources person-nel and decision makers in managementon avoiding discrimination in employmentdecisions. For example, employees couldreceive some sort of compliance trainingto ensure that they are following rulesand regulations regarding nondiscrimina-tion and affirmative action (Kravitz, 2008).In addition, training these individuals tofollow a consistent and standardized pro-cedure should minimize the opportunityfor bias to affect employment decisions. Amore extensive method of eliminating thisbias would involve having a ‘‘middle per-son’’ who could screen out all potentiallystigmatizing information from applicationmaterials before passing them on to orga-nizational decision makers. However, thisstrategy would only be useful if no face-to-face selection procedures (e.g., interviews)are used in the selection process.
The second key strategy is to designselection procedures that emphasize stan-dardization and consistency while alsominimizing subjectivity when makingemployment decisions. For example, theuse of a structured interview designed forobjectivity and consistency will likely bemore job related and less susceptible tobiased subjectivity and exception makingas compared to an unstructured interviewwhere bias is uncontrolled. Indeed, thereis a wealth of research indicating that bothconscious and unconscious biases can havean impact on subjective decision making(e.g., Aguinis, Culpepper, & Pierce, 2010).Thus, to the degree that we can minimizethis subjectivity, we should also be ableto minimize the effect that bias can have
on employment decisions. For example,one study found that behavioral scripts canbe used to reduce discomfort that is oftenpresent in Black–White interactions (Avery,Richeson, Hebl, & Ambady, 2009). Thus,organizations may be able to reduce inter-personal discrimination by using a strategysuch as behavior scripting to reduce theambiguity associated with interracial inter-actions. This is very similar to the differencebetween structured and unstructured inter-views, where adding structure is thought toremove potential bias from selection deci-sions. One way to extend this idea evenfurther would be to only appoint peopleto hiring committees who are low in bothexplicit and implicit expressions of bias.This could be accomplished through theuse of explicit measures of prejudice, suchas the Modern Racism Scale (McConahay,1986) as well as implicit measures of preju-dice, such as the Implicit Associations Test(IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz,1998). Another way to deal with this bias ininterviews would be to simply remove inter-views from the selection process altogether,as many I–O graduate programs do. Weacknowledge that these are controversialstrategies, but they could be effective in thatthe potential for individual biases would bereduced from the selection system.
What Should We Keep Doing?
We suggest that attempting to assess abroad range of job-relevant knowledge,skills, and abilities within a selection systemthat is designed to minimize subjectivity ofdecision making is an EEO best practice.This approach would likely minimize bothdisparate treatment and disparate impact.Indeed, assessing a broad range of KSAOsappears to be the only strategy for reducingadverse impact that does not inherentlyhave a corresponding ‘‘validity tradeoff’’(Ployhart & Holtz, 2008). In addition,removing subjectivity from the selectiondecision-making process appears to be oneof the few foolproof ways to avoid bias thatcould lead to disparate treatment within theselection process. Finally, organizations
402 A. Lindsey et al.
should think strategically about how theyuse assessments to make employmentdecisions and verify that policies (a) are notarbitrary, (b) are based in research, and (c)consider adverse impact as an importantfactor.
What Should We Stop Doing?
We should stop attempting to use minor-ity preferences within our selection strate-gies for two primary reasons. First, unlesspreferences are being used for remedialpurposes or to satisfy a significant gov-ernment interest, they have often beendeemed illegal by the courts (Pyburn et al.,2008). Second, if minorities are selectedusing preferential treatment then they mayalso suffer from (a) backlash from fellowemployees and/or (b) feelings of illegiti-macy regarding the means with which theyobtained their job (Heilman & Haynes,2006). Thus, we believe that minority pref-erences should only be utilized in extremecircumstances, usually court ordered. Oneimportant exception to consider is whenthe diversity of an applicant is consid-ered as one of many factors that mightinfluence selection outcomes. In these sce-narios, minority preference may actuallybe deemed legal (see Grutter v. Bollinger,2003). In line with this exception, we thinkorganizations should make more of aneffort to reframe diversity as a job-relateddemand. In doing so, we recommend tak-ing a holistic approach as these approachesare both beneficial and deemed to belegal by the courts. For instance, in theGrutter v. Bollinger case, the Universityof Michigan argued that diversity couldfacilitate learning in higher education. Sim-ilarly, employers could argue that diversitylikely facilitates organizational effectivenessin contexts where support for diversityis high (see Avery, McKay, Tonidandel,Volpone, & Morris, 2012).
What Do We Need to Know More About?
In general, it appears that we need toknow more about which strategies can pro-vide support to which specific marginalized
groups in the selection context. Indeed,most of the work to this point seems tofocus on more classic conceptualizationsof diversity related to race, ethnicity, andgender differences. However, as the work-place continues to evolve and diversify,these conceptualizations of diversity are nolonger as adequate as they once were. Forinstance, we need to know more aboutwhether or not each of these discriminationreduction tactics would be equally effectivefor other marginalized groups such as reli-gious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, andtransgendered (LGBT) individuals; individu-als with disabilities; and protected veterans.Furthermore, we would encourage scholarsand practitioners to use current discrim-ination reduction tactics in the selectionprocess while also pushing further and inno-vating with relatively new techniques. Webelieve the recent development of multi-media presentations of selection batteries isan excellent example of this type of inno-vation. In short, we believe that scholarsshould not be afraid to aggressively pursuenew ideas, theory, and initial evidence toguide selection practices. As is always thecase, these goals can only be accomplishedthrough continued and rigorous research.
Inclusion
It is not enough to fairly attract and selectindividuals from marginalized populationsif this effort for fairness and equality wanesonce they are a part of our organizations.Indeed, we must strive for inclusion if ourgoal for the eradication of discrimination isto be perceived as legitimate. By strivingfor inclusion we mean striving to create aworkplace environment where underrepre-sented groups feel they are welcome andrespected on the job (Thomas & Ely, 1996).Inclusion is often conflated with retentionor ignored altogether in favor of diversityinitiatives that instead focus on attractingand selecting individuals from marginalizedpopulations. In this article, we differen-tiate between inclusion strategies, whichfocus on the creation of an equitable diver-sity climate, and retention strategies, which
Discrimination eradication 403
Tabl
e3.
Stra
tegi
esto
Red
uce
Dis
crim
inat
ion
inth
eIn
clus
ion
Phas
e Incl
usio
n
Stra
tegy
Exam
ples
Stre
ngth
sW
eakn
esse
sC
onsi
dera
tions
Div
ersi
tytr
aini
ngLe
ctur
esR
olep
layi
ngFo
rbo
thm
anag
ers
and
empl
oyee
s
Mos
torg
aniz
atio
nsar
eal
read
ydo
ing
this
Can
aid
inco
mpl
ianc
ean
dge
nera
lapp
reci
atio
nfo
rdi
vers
ity
Extr
eme
vari
abili
tyin
the
desi
gnan
dim
plem
enta
tion
ofdi
vers
itytr
aini
ngM
ixed
supp
ortf
rom
stud
ies
that
typi
cally
focu
son
imm
edia
tere
actio
ncr
iteri
a
Div
ersi
tytr
aini
ngis
here
tost
ay,
sow
esh
ould
cont
inue
usin
gth
isst
rate
gyw
hile
focu
sing
mor
eon
why
itis
effe
ctiv
ew
hen
itis
and
why
itis
not
effe
ctiv
ew
hen
itis
not
Prov
ide
bene
fits
ofin
tere
stfo
rm
argi
naliz
edgr
oups
Prov
idin
ga
dayc
are
cent
erof
spec
iali
nter
estt
ow
orki
ngm
othe
rsG
rant
ing
days
offf
orho
liday
sof
nont
radi
tiona
lrel
igio
ns
Shift
sfo
cus
toto
tal
com
pens
atio
nra
ther
than
just
focu
sing
onpa
yeq
ualit
y
Has
the
pote
ntia
lto
crea
tere
sent
men
tand
back
lash
amon
gm
ajor
ityem
ploy
ees
This
stra
tegy
seem
sto
bebe
nefic
iala
slo
ngas
back
lash
isav
oide
d;be
nefit
ssh
ould
bepr
ovid
edto
alle
mpl
oyee
s,no
tju
stm
inor
itygr
oup
mem
bers
Impr
essi
onm
anag
emen
tA
ckno
wle
dgem
ent
Indi
vidu
atio
nPr
ejud
ice
conf
ront
atio
n
Sim
ple
and
effe
ctiv
est
rate
gies
Can
beus
edat
the
indi
vidu
alle
velb
yta
rget
sin
orga
niza
tions
Not
stud
ied
with
rega
rdto
alls
tigm
atiz
edgr
oups
May
shift
the
burd
ento
om
uch
tota
rget
sof
prej
udic
e
Thes
est
rate
gies
are
ofpa
rtic
ular
use
tost
igm
atiz
edin
divi
dual
sw
hoar
eno
tyet
prot
ecte
dby
law
,but
mor
ew
ork
need
sto
bedo
neto
see
whi
chst
rate
gies
will
wor
kfo
rw
hich
grou
psPr
ejud
ice
conf
ront
atio
nTe
lling
som
eone
tost
opm
akin
gpr
ejud
iced
joke
sPo
intin
gou
ttha
taco
mm
entm
ade
bya
cow
orke
rw
aspr
ejud
iced
Can
beef
fect
ivel
yus
edby
anyo
neLe
ads
tole
ssex
pres
sion
sof
prej
udic
ein
futu
rein
tera
ctio
ns
May
caus
eco
nten
tious
situ
atio
nsto
aris
ein
the
wor
kpla
cePe
ople
may
notb
een
tirel
yco
mfo
rtab
lew
ithco
nfro
ntat
ion
This
stra
tegy
isus
eful
inth
atit
perp
etua
tes
egal
itari
anno
rms
over
time,
butt
hech
alle
nge
lies
intr
aini
ngin
divi
dual
sto
conf
ront
and
crea
ting
aw
ork
envi
ronm
entw
here
itis
com
mon
todo
so
404 A. Lindsey et al.
Tabl
e3.
Con
tinue
d
Incl
usio
n
Stra
tegy
Exam
ples
Stre
ngth
sW
eakn
esse
sC
onsi
dera
tions
Iden
tity
man
agem
ent
Sign
alin
gD
iffer
entia
ting
Nor
mal
izin
g
Sim
ple
and
pote
ntia
llyef
fect
ive
stra
tegi
esfo
rm
anag
ing
anin
visi
ble
iden
tity
Can
beus
edat
the
indi
vidu
alle
velb
yta
rget
sin
orga
niza
tions
Lim
ited
rese
arch
onth
eef
fect
iven
ess
ofth
ese
stra
tegi
esM
aysh
iftth
ebu
rden
too
muc
hto
targ
ets
ofpr
ejud
ice
Thes
est
rate
gies
may
beof
part
icul
arin
tere
stto
indi
vidu
als
poss
essi
ngin
visi
ble
stig
mas
that
are
larg
ely
unpr
otec
ted
into
day’
sw
orkp
lace
Prob
lem
reso
lutio
nH
ave
anes
tabl
ishe
dm
etho
dfo
rin
vest
igat
ing
and
reso
lvin
gdi
vers
ity-r
elat
edem
ploy
eeco
mpl
aint
s
Com
mun
icat
esth
atth
eor
gani
zatio
nta
kes
dive
rsity
seri
ousl
yPr
ovid
esa
cons
iste
ntm
etho
dfo
rde
alin
gw
ithpr
oble
ms
asth
eyar
ise
May
bedi
fficu
ltto
conv
ince
orga
niza
tions
toin
vest
the
time
and
mon
eyne
cess
ary
for
this
initi
ativ
e
This
stra
tegy
seem
sto
show
som
epr
omis
eea
rly
on,b
utw
ene
edto
know
mor
eab
outh
owit
wor
ksan
dfo
rw
hich
grou
psit
isan
effe
ctiv
ete
chni
que
Div
ersi
tyle
arni
ngan
dst
rate
gyO
ngoi
ngdi
vers
ityaw
aren
ess
and
educ
atio
npr
ogra
ms
Prom
ote
dive
rsity
polic
y
Com
mun
icat
esth
atth
eor
gani
zatio
nta
kes
dive
rsity
seri
ousl
yTh
isis
prob
ably
wha
tdi
vers
itytr
aini
ngsh
ould
beev
olvi
ngto
beco
me
May
bedi
fficu
ltto
conv
ince
orga
niza
tions
toin
vest
the
time
and
mon
eyne
cess
ary
for
this
initi
ativ
e
Div
ersi
tyle
arni
ngan
dst
rate
gyis
ultim
atel
yw
here
we
thin
kdi
vers
itytr
aini
ngsh
ould
go,s
oth
isis
ast
rate
gyw
ew
ould
reco
mm
end
usin
gth
roug
hits
cont
inue
dde
velo
pmen
t.H
owev
er,w
eco
nsid
erth
isto
bem
ore
ofa
mac
ro-s
trat
egy
whe
nco
mpa
red
tosm
alle
rsc
ale
dive
rsity
initi
ativ
es.
Discrimination eradication 405
focus on the creation of equitable objectiveoutcomes for differing groups. In keepingthese processes separate from one another,we assert that inclusion does not neces-sarily lead to retention in all cases. Forexample, a target could feel included andrespected in an organization as a result ofdiversity training (an inclusion effort) butstill ultimately leave that organization if itcannot provide development and advance-ment opportunities (conceptualized hereas retention efforts). Thus, what follows isan elaboration of discrimination reductiontactics at both of these levels throughoutthe inclusion process (see Table 3, whichcontains some strategies not included in thetext due to space limitations).
Perhaps the most commonly used diver-sity initiative related to inclusion is diversitytraining, which can be defined as any ini-tiative designed to facilitate positive groupinteraction while also reducing prejudiceand discrimination against marginalizedgroups (Pendry, Driscoll, & Field, 2007).It is important to note that these diversitytraining initiatives are meaningfully differ-ent from the aforementioned compliancetraining in two important ways. First,whereas compliance training focuses onorganizational decisions makers, diversitytraining is more inclusive in that it can (andprobably should) be used for individualsat all levels of employment within anorganization. Second, whereas compliancetraining is primarily concerned with ensur-ing decision makers are following the law,diversity training has broader goals in thatit focuses on the quality of interpersonalinteractions and the reduction of prejudice,not just discrimination.
Despite the fact that two thirds of humanresource managers report using diversitytraining in their companies (Esen, 2005),there are arguably still more questionsthan answers when it comes to whatmakes diversity training effective and whysome strategies are more effective thanothers. Indeed, a recent qualitative reviewconcluded that standard diversity trainingprograms (i.e., a stand-alone, 1-hour lectureprogram that focuses only on race) may
not be effective in accomplishing the goalsof various diversity initiatives (Bezrukova,Jehn, & Spell, 2012). Further complicatingthe evaluation of these programs is the factthat many diversity training researchershave failed to assess whether the presumedgoal of diversity training programs (i.e., areduction in prejudice and discriminationagainst marginalized groups) has actuallybeen met. Indeed, a separate review articleconcluded that although diversity trainingmay have a beneficial effect on attitudes,there is simply not enough quality researchto aid us in understanding if diversity train-ing programs can also have a beneficialeffect on skill acquisition and behaviorchange (Kulik & Roberson, 2008), whichshould reflect what is ultimately of the mostinterest to diversity trainers and researchers.It is important to note that both of thesereviews also include exemplars of effectivediversity training programs. However, morework needs to be done before general rec-ommendations can be advanced for whatmakes diversity training programs effective.
Another strategy that can be imple-mented to promote inclusion of marginal-ized group members is the provision of ben-efits that are of particular interest to a givengroup (Kravitz, 2008). For instance, havinga day care center at the workplace may beof particular importance for women as theyoften function as primary caregivers in addi-tion to full-time employees. When using thisstrategy, it is important to promote the ideathat all individuals (i.e., not just individualsfrom marginalized groups) can take part inthese additional benefits. Framing the ben-efits in this manner will hopefully avoid (a)potential resentment from other employeesin the workplace as well as (b) feelings ofguilt on the part of the marginalized groupmembers for utilizing these benefits to theiradvantage (see Heilman & Haynes, 2006).
Inclusion may also be supported byefforts on the part of targets of discrimina-tion and their allies. Research on impressionmanagement, which encompassessimple strategies that individuals withvisible stigmas (e.g., race, obesity) use tocreate positive interpersonal impressions,
406 A. Lindsey et al.
can enhance inclusion in the workplace.One such strategy is acknowledgement,which can be defined as simply recognizingand accepting a given stigmatized identityoutright when targets are interacting withothers. This form of prejudice reduction hasbeen shown to be effective for individualswith disabilities, with earlier acknowledge-ment being associated with less prejudiceexperienced when compared with lateracknowledgement or no acknowledgementat all (Hebl & Skorinko, 2005). Importantly,acknowledgement’s prejudice reducingeffect has been shown to interact withthe perceived controllability of the stigma(Hebl & Kleck, 2002). Specifically, whilethis strategy may be effective for those withcertain disabilities that are perceived tobe uncontrollable (e.g., genetic diseases),it may not be as beneficial for individualsburdened by visible stigmas generallyassumed to be controllable. For example,acknowledgement may not be helpful forobese individuals due to the pervasive beliefthat obesity is a controllable condition.
Another impression management strat-egy that can be used by individuals withstigmas that are visible and perceived ascontrollable (e.g., obesity) is called individ-uation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Singletary &Hebl, 2009). The basic logic underlyingthis strategy is that (a) visible, controllablestigmas evoke stereotypes and prejudice,(b) stereotypes are most likely to manifestin discrimination when information abouttargets is limited, and (c) positive, counter-stereotypic information can distinguish andseparate a particular individual from nega-tive beliefs and attitudes about their stigma.Research generally supports this rationaleand suggests that individuals with visibleand controllable stigmas can benefit fromproviding counterstereotypic information.For example, results of a field experimentin shopping malls showed that ostensiblyobese targets received less discriminationwhen they refuted the stereotype that theyare lazy (King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary,& Turner, 2006). In another study, femaleleaders were evaluated more positivelywhen described not only as great leaders
(conveying agency) but also as mothers(counteracting stereotypes of low commu-nality; Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). Finally,when participants in an FMRI scanner wereinstructed to look for unique informationabout racial outgroup targets (thereby indi-viduating targets), they tended to engage inmore deliberative (rather than automatic)processing of information (i.e., amygdalaactivation; Wheeler & Fiske, 2005). Inother words, individuation promoted morethoughtful and thus less biased cognitiveprocessing of target-related information.
An important shortcoming of theaforementioned impression managementstrategies is that they can only be used bytargets of discrimination, leaving allies towonder what they can do to help. Onestrategy that allies can employ is prejudiceconfrontation, which is defined as ‘‘verballyor nonverbally expressing one’s dissatis-faction with prejudicial and discriminatorytreatment to the person who is responsiblefor the remark or behavior’’ (Shelton, Rich-eson, & Vorauer, 2006, p. 67). Importantly,confrontation has been shown to be aneffective method of reducing subsequentexpressions of prejudice when used bytargets and allies alike (Czopp, Monteith,& Mark, 2006). However, not surprisingly,both targets and allies report not confrontingas often as they believe they should. Theconfronting prejudiced responses (CPR)model describes several potential barriersthat might prevent people from confronting,even when they feel that some form ofaction should be taken (Ashburn-Nardo,Morris, & Goodwin, 2008). According tothe model, a failure to overcome any poten-tial barriers may result in an individual notconfronting prejudice, even when he or shefeels that such action is appropriate. Thus,in order to remove these barriers and pro-mote confrontation, the authors argue thatorganizations and individuals should striveto (a) increase the detection of discrim-ination, (b) help people understand thatdiscrimination is serious and needs to bedealt with immediately, (c) empower indi-viduals to increase perceptions of personalresponsibility, and (d) teach people how to
Discrimination eradication 407
confront through practice (Ashburn-Nardoet al., 2008). If these conditions aremet, confrontation should be an effectivemethod of prejudice reduction for bothallies and targets in organizations.
What Should We Keep Doing?
Organizations should keep providing ben-efits to individuals from marginalizedpopulations while emphasizing throughopen and clear communication that anyonein the organization (i.e., not just minorities)can take part in these benefits to avoid back-lash. This seems like a relatively effectiveway to promote the inclusion of marginal-ized groups in organizations, although itmay prove costly depending on the ben-efits provided. In addition, although thereare certainly flaws associated with the waydiversity training is currently carried out,organizations should continue their effortsdeveloping and executing diversity traininginitiatives. Training is the primary mecha-nism through which organizations can helpemployees gain new knowledge and skills.Thus, it stands to reason that this mecha-nism would also apply to diversity-relatedknowledge and skills. Indeed, as mentionedbefore, a majority of organizations usediversity training in their efforts to reducediscrimination (Esen, 2005). The questionthen becomes how diversity training shouldbe executed to foster maximum effective-ness, which we turn our attention to next.
What Should We Stop Doing?
We should stop conducting one-time diver-sity training programs for the sole purposeof satisfying employees’ diversity trainingrequirements. This likely occurs under theassumption that ‘‘something is better thannothing’’ but the potential for backlashrefutes this belief. Genuine inclusion effortsmust be extended throughout the organiza-tion and supported by top management inorder to be effective and even perceived aslegitimate. In other words, diversity trainingshould be considered an ongoing part ofa larger diversity initiative to maximizethe chance of obtaining successful results
(Bezrukova et al., 2012). In addition, webelieve we should stop treating immediatereaction outcomes as viable criteria bywhich to judge the effectiveness of diversitytraining programs. Although these are notentirely trivial outcomes, they are alsonot perfectly aligned with the goal ofmost diversity training programs, whichis discrimination reduction (Bendick,Egan, & Lofhjelm, 2001). Thus, the out-comes typically measured in diversitytraining projects need to be expanded toinclude both diversity-related skills andactual discrimination reduction within orga-nizations. Finally, we should stop ignoringstrategies that individuals can use to reducediscrimination in the I–O literature. Thesestrategies are of particular importance fora few reasons. First, not all target groupsare legally protected from discrimination tothe same extent. For instance, many LGBTindividuals work in environments wherethey are not legally protected from discrim-ination based on their sexual orientation(Herrschaft & Mills, 2002). In lieu of suchlegal protections, it is important to considerwhat targets and allies can do to protectcertain stigmatized groups in the organiza-tional context. It is important to note thatwe are not advocating that the burden ofprejudice reduction be placed on targetmembers. However, we do believe that weshould be empowering targets and allies toenact positive changes when they chooseto do so. In addition, the aforementionedshortcomings of diversity training effortscould potentially be addressed by the inclu-sion of some strategies that individuals canuse themselves to reduce discriminationin the workplace. Finally, discriminationreduction strategies that can be used byindividuals do not receive as much cover-age in the I–O literature as they do in otherdomains (e.g., social psychology). Thus, webelieve these strategies can be enlighteningfor individuals and organizations alike.
What Do We Need to Know More About?
We need to know more about inclusionstrategies that can be used at the individual
408 A. Lindsey et al.
level by both targets and allies withinorganizations. We have discussed somepromising strategies in this article such asacknowledgement and individuation, butmore work needs to be done to deter-mine (a) whether these are viable strate-gies to teach targets in the workplace and(b) if there is something that allies can bedoing to facilitate these potentially difficultimpression management processes. In addi-tion, we need to know if the effectivenessof different individual strategies varies as afunction of type of stigma. For instance,although confrontation has been shownto be an effective method of reducingracism and sexism, we know little about theeffectiveness of this strategy for individualswith other types of stigmas. We want ourdiversity initiatives to promote the inclu-sion of individuals with a wide variety ofstigmatized identities. However, we knowsignificantly less about how to include indi-viduals with invisible stigmas (e.g., gay andlesbian workers) as opposed to visible stig-mas (e.g., race, gender; see Clair, Beatty, &MacLean, 2005). Thus, we need to continueconducting rigorous research to fill this gapin the literature.
Retention
Retention has traditionally been viewedas a direct result of inclusion. Indeed,scholars who identify increased voluntarywithdrawal and turnover rates amongwomen and minorities in the early stages ofemployment (Hom, Roberson, & Ellis, 2008)often attribute such findings to the cultureor climate of the organization (McKayet al., 2007). Given this lens, discussion ofefforts to improve inclusion and retentiontend to be grouped together. We do notdispute a strong relationship between theseconstructs but contend that this conflationhas caused important retention features tobe overlooked. So the rarely consideredquestion is: How can discrimination bereduced in the retention process?
Our review of the literature yieldedfive categories of potential options thatmay be helpful in retaining employees
in general and minority employees inparticular (see Table 4). The first involvesperformance management, which Gold-stein and Lundquist (2010) argued shouldinclude not only systematic appraisals ofperformance but also the ongoing proce-dures used to communicate expectationsand feedback. Creating a standardized sys-tem for performance feedback may over-come tendencies to ‘‘soften’’ negative feed-back for women and other employeeswho are perceived as needing protection(King et al., 2012). In addition, creatingdiversity-related, incentivized performancegoals that include core competencies orstaffing objectives could potentially moti-vate these behaviors (Kalev et al., 2006).
Compensation systems offer a secondstrategy for increasing retention of minor-ity employees. Pay (which can includebonuses, stock options, etc.) is a centraldriver of decisions to leave organizations(Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Thus,systems that ensure women and minori-ties receive fair pay—by tying compensa-tion to actual performance or results—arecritical to retention. Organizations mightalso devote resources to creating persua-sive packages for targeted group mem-bers to directly address problems withretention. Indeed, the Office of Person-nel Management (OPM), which overseesgovernment personnel, suggests that agen-cies should ‘‘consider paying retentionallowances when challenged to keep par-ticular skills available’’ but cautions that‘‘agencies should continually monitor theuse of such allowances to check for anyevidence of discrimination’’ (2012).
Third, organizations should ensure thatwomen and minorities have equal accessto learning and development opportu-nities. OPM suggests that organizationsshould provide training opportunities forall employees, use tuition reimbursementprograms, publicize developmental oppor-tunities, and use a variety of training anddevelopment methods to enhance retentionof diverse workers (2012). When stated assuch, this seems a straightforward process.However, research suggests that access
Discrimination eradication 409
Tabl
e4.
Stra
tegi
esto
Red
uce
Dis
crim
inat
ion
inth
eR
eten
tion
Phas
e Ret
entio
n
Stra
tegy
Exam
ples
Stre
ngth
sW
eakn
esse
sC
onsi
dera
tions
Perf
orm
ance
man
agem
ent
Incl
ude
cultu
ralc
ompe
tenc
ein
perf
orm
ance
man
agem
ent
Prov
ide
dire
cted
feed
back
topr
otec
ted
grou
pm
embe
rsM
onet
ary
ince
ntiv
esfo
rdi
vers
ityst
affin
ggo
als
May
over
com
ebi
ases
infe
edba
ckgi
ving
Com
mun
icat
esva
lue
ofdi
vers
ity
Doe
sn’t
nece
ssar
ilyov
erco
me
bias
inpe
rfor
man
ceap
prai
sal
Prob
lem
sw
ithm
easu
rem
ent
Pote
ntia
lbac
klas
h
Car
em
ustb
eta
ken
toen
sure
that
disc
rim
inat
ion
tow
ard
Whi
tem
endo
esno
tem
erge
Equi
tabl
eco
mpe
nsat
ion
pack
ages
Ensu
rem
erit/
resu
ltsdr
ive
rew
ards
Use
targ
eted
rete
ntio
nal
low
ance
s
May
redu
cepa
yga
psC
ould
dire
ctly
addr
ess
turn
over
Diffi
cult
toqu
antif
y‘‘m
erit’
’or
‘‘res
ults
’’Ta
rget
edre
tent
ion
prog
ram
sca
nbe
perc
eive
das
unfa
ir
Man
yof
the
best
prac
tices
incr
eatin
gfa
irse
lect
ion
syst
ems
(e.g
.,jo
ban
alys
es)l
ikel
ytr
ansf
erto
com
pens
atio
n
Lear
ning
and
deve
lopm
ent
oppo
rtun
ities
Prov
ide
trai
ning
oppo
rtun
ities
for
alle
mpl
oyee
sEs
tabl
ish
men
tori
ngpr
ogra
ms
Use
tuiti
onre
imbu
rsem
ent
prog
ram
s
Lear
ning
prog
ram
sco
uld
over
com
ein
itial
diffe
renc
esin
skill
,kn
owle
dge,
orac
cess
toed
ucat
ion
Trai
ning
may
notb
eof
the
sam
equ
ality
for
all
empl
oyee
sO
nly
som
ety
pes
ofm
ento
ring
prog
ram
sar
eef
fect
ive
Car
esh
ould
beta
ken
toen
sure
that
the
quan
tity
and
qual
ityof
lear
ning
oppo
rtun
ities
are
the
sam
efo
rdo
min
anta
ndm
argi
naliz
edgr
oup
mem
bers
Car
eer
deve
lopm
ent
prog
ram
sEs
tabl
ish
clea
rad
vanc
emen
tpa
thw
ays
Iden
tify
and
deve
lop
qual
ified
prot
ecte
dgr
oup
mem
bers
for
man
agem
entp
ositi
ons
Impl
ies
tran
spar
ency
and
fair
ness
inde
cisi
on-m
akin
gpr
oces
ses
Cre
ates
api
pelin
eof
qual
ified
,div
erse
empl
oyee
s
Adv
ance
men
tdec
isio
nsm
ayst
illbe
subj
ectt
obi
ases
Dev
elop
men
toff
utur
ele
ader
sw
illen
sure
thei
rul
timat
eef
fect
iven
ess
Con
tinuo
usm
onito
ring
Exam
ine
prom
otio
n,co
mpe
nsat
ion,
deve
lopm
ent
oppo
rtun
ities
for
disp
arat
eim
pact
Com
plie
sw
ithfe
dera
land
stat
ela
ws/
regu
latio
nsId
entifi
espr
oble
ms
Prob
lem
sca
nbe
diffi
cult
tode
tect
Doe
sno
tens
ure
acco
unta
bilit
yfo
rre
sults
Som
efo
rmis
gene
rally
requ
ired
,bu
titi
sup
toor
gani
zatio
nsto
use
the
data
tocr
eate
chan
ge
Exit
inte
rvie
ws
Turn
over
anal
yses
410 A. Lindsey et al.
to training itself may be insufficient; itmay be necessary to go further in ensur-ing that the quality of training programsis the same for all employees (see Kinget al., 2012; Shapiro, King, & Quinones,2007).
A fourth and related strategy for enhanc-ing retention would be to institute careerdevelopment programs that assist employ-ees at all levels in the organization to definecareer objectives, assess their existing skills,and develop the additional skills requiredfor their desired career path (Goldstein &Lundquist, 2010). The Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission (EEOC) furthersuggests that individual development planscan be used to ensure that candidate poolsfor senior positions comprise diverse, qual-ified candidates. Unfortunately, however,research suggests that even when womenand minorities make it into such candidatepools they are not ultimately chosen for thehigh status position (see Valian, 1999).
Fifth and finally, continuous monitor-ing has been recommended as a methodthrough which to identify problems underly-ing turnover (2012; OPM, 2012). Althoughmany organizations are attuned to the needto conduct adverse impact analyses instaffing decisions and compensation, fewerseem to recognize the importance of track-ing subgroup differences in training oppor-tunities or turnover itself. Establishing aformal monitoring system through turnoveranalyses, exit interviews, and broader indi-cators of determinants of turnover couldallow detection of problems as they arise.
What Should We Keep Doing?
Part of the explanation for differential ratesof retention of protected and nonprotectedgroup members lies in human resource pro-cesses and decisions (Ali, Metz, & Kulik,2010). That is, one reason why people leavetheir jobs is that they do not get access tocareer opportunities (Griffeth et al., 2000).This can happen in formal decisions such asreduced access to training programs, pro-motions, and bonus compensation. In addi-tion, access may vary across social identities
with regard to less formal aspects of humanresource management such as the quantityand quality of feedback received and devel-opmental work assignments provided (Kinget al., 2012). Thus, it is clear that strategies toreduce differential rates of turnover shouldaddress these areas of concern. What is lessclear from the limited extant research, how-ever, is which strategies will be most helpfulin retaining diverse workers.
In one study of EEO-1 reports and surveydata from 708 organizations between 1971and 2002, Kalev et al. (2006) found that fewprograms consistently increased the propor-tion of White women and African Amer-icans in management positions. Indeed,formal personnel policies slightly reducedthe proportion of African American menand women in management, and diver-sity training programs reduced the pro-portion of African American women man-agers. However, formal structures of organi-zational responsibility—including diversitycommittees and staff dedicated to diversityissues, and Title VII lawsuits—did increasethe representation of White women andAfrican Americans in managerial positionsover time. Moreover, diversity training pro-grams, performance management systemsthat included diversity assessments, net-working, and mentoring programs weremore effective in organizations in whichthese formal structures of responsibilitywere present. These findings suggest thatorganizations should ensure that formalstructures of responsibility for diversity,such as a chief diversity officer or a diversitymanagement office, exist when implement-ing retention oriented programs.
In addition to the role of formal structuresof responsibility, Goldstein and Lundquist’s(2010) case study of transforming diversitymanagement at Coca-Cola points to theimportance communicating an ongoingand long-standing commitment to diversityand inclusion. Minority employees ofCoca-Cola—particularly those who hadbeen at the company for more than3 years—doubted the authenticity ofthe organization’s efforts in its earlystages. Together, these points underscore
Discrimination eradication 411
the importance of—in the language ofthe EEOC’s suggestions for enhancingretention—demonstrating ‘‘leadershipcommitment and accountability’’ andintegrating the ‘‘EEO director in strategicplanning’’ (Equal Employment OpportunityCommission, 2012).
It is, of course, impossible to ignorethe additional importance of monitoringpersonnel data throughout the employmentcycle. This makes common sense, isconsistent with EEO expectations, and is theonly place to start understanding whetherretention is even an issue of concern fora particular organization. It is similarlyimpossible to ignore that simply collectingdata does not itself solve any problem.
What Should We Stop Doing?
As discussed in previous sections, programsthat are perceived to benefit protectedgroup members more than majority groupmembers likely result in two relatedproblems (see Heilman & Haynes, 2006).The first is that nonbeneficiaries likelyperceive procedural injustice or moregeneral unfairness. The second is thatbeneficiaries may themselves feel that theydo not deserve the positions or outcomesthey achieve. Thus, we contend thattargeted programs may do more harmthan good. This critique would apply tostrategies like targeted retention packages,targeted career development pools, andperhaps even targeted mentoring programs.Such opportunities should be availablefor all employees to ensure actual andperceived fairness while avoiding backlashfrom nonminority groups.
What Do We Need to Know More About?
Everything, in discussions of diversity, reten-tion is often conflated with inclusion. Itfollows that we have very little evidence thatdirectly addresses reducing discriminationin drivers of retention such as develop-ment and advancement opportunities. Forexample, we need to know more about how
to develop unbiased performance manage-ment systems that do not also result in‘‘reverse discrimination’’ by instead favor-ing minorities. In addition, we need to knowmore about how to leverage career devel-opment programs so that they translate intominority promotions rather than promotionsinto a never-ending pipeline. The EEOC,OPM, and Coca-Cola cases offer examplesof strategies that might help, but it is up toorganizational psychologists to determinewhich ones work, under what circum-stances, and for what kinds of employees.
Conclusion
The strategies summarized here provideorganizations, targets, and allies with meth-ods for reducing discrimination throughoutthe employment cycle. We further contendthat not only individual I–O psychologists,but also the Society for I–O Psychology(SIOP) as a whole, has much to offer inthe way of informing the EEO communityon strategies for reducing discrimination.Toward that end, we suggest enhancing therelationships between SIOP as an organi-zation, individual I–O psychologists (bothscientists and practitioners), and federalagencies involved in employment discrimi-nation reduction such as the Equal Employ-ment Opportunities Commission (EEOC)and the Office of Federal Contract Com-pliance Programs (OFCCP). Only throughworking together and leveraging all of ourresources can we possibly reach the ambi-tious goal of ending discrimination in ourorganizations. Precisely how those relation-ships can be enhanced is also a conversa-tion worth having. Only through rigorousresearch and practice can we improve andrefine strategies that support the ultimategoal of eliminating discrimination in theworkplace. We welcome debate and hopethis article sparks meaningful conversationon the best ways to eliminate discriminationin the workplace.
ReferencesAguinis, H. (2004). Test score banding in human
resource selection: Legal, technical, and societalissues. Westport, CT: Quorum.
412 A. Lindsey et al.
Aguinis, H., Culpepper, S. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2010).Revival of test bias research in preemployment test-ing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 648–680.
Ali, M., Metz, I., & Kulik, C. (2010). The impact ofgender diversity on turnover: the moderating effectof human resource policies and practices. 2010Academy of Management Annual Meeting Pro-ceedings. Academy of Management Conference,Montreal Convention Center, Montreal.
Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S.A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced responses(CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations.Academy of Management: Learning and Education,7, 332–342.
Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity inrecruitment advertising—Are differences blackand white? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,672–679.
Avery, D. R., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2004).Who’s watching the race? Racial salience inrecruiting advertising. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 34, 146–161.
Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: Anorganizational impression management approachto attracting minority and female job applicants.Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Tonidandel, S., Volpone,S. D., & Morris, M. A. (2012). Is there a method tothe madness? Examining how racioethnic matchinginfluences retail store productivity. PersonnelPsychology, 65, 167–199.
Avery, D. R., Richeson, J. A., Hebl, M. R., &Ambady, N. (2009). It does not have to beuncomfortable: The role of behavioral scripts inBlack–White interracial interactions. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 1382–1393.
Bendick, M., Jr., Egan, M. L., & Lofhjelm, S.M. (2001). Workforce diversity training: Fromanti-discrimination compliance to organizationaldevelopment. Human Resource Planning, 24,10–25.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012).Reviewing diversity training: Where we have beenand where we should go. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 11, 207–227.
Born, M. P. H., & Taris, T. W. (2010). The impactof the wording of employment advertisements onstudents’ inclination to apply for a job. The Journalof Social Psychology, 150, 485–502.
Clair, J. A., Beatty, J., & MacLean, T. (2005). Outof sight but not out of mind: Managing invisiblesocial identities in the workplace. Academy ofManagement Review, 30, 78–95.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations:Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler, Inc.
Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M., & Mark, A. Y. (2006).Standing up for a change: Reducing bias throughinterpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 90, 784–803.
DeCorte, W. (1999). Weighting job performancepredictors to both maximize the quality of theselected workforce and control the level ofadverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology,84, 695–702.
Digh, P. (1999). Getting people in the pool: Diversityrecruitment that works. HR Magazine, 44, 94–98.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2012).Tips on employee retention. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eeoc.gov/federal/retention.cfm
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2013).EEOC reports nearly 100,000 job bias charges infiscal year 2012. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-28-13.cfm
Esen, E. (2005). Workplace diversity practices sur-vey report. Alexandria, VA: Society for HumanResource Management.
Evans, D. S., & Oh, M. Y. (1996). A tailored approachto diversity planning. HR Magazine, 41, 127–134.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuumof impression formation, from category-based toindividuating processes: Influences of informationand motivation on attention and interpretation.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23,1–74.
Garcia, L. T., Erskine, N., Hawn, K., & Casmay,S. R. (1981). The effect of affirmative action onattributions about minority group members. Journalof Personality, 49, 427–437.
Golden, H., Hinkle, S., & Crosby, F. J. (2001).Reactions to affirmative action: Substance andsemantics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,31, 73–88.
Goldstein, I. L., & Lundquist, K. K. (2010). A five-year journey with Coca-cola. In Outtz, J. L. (Ed.),Adverse impact: Implications of organizationalstaffing and high stakes selection (pp. 473–501).New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998).Measuring individual differences in implicit cogni-tion: The implicit association test. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000).A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates ofemployee turnover: Update, moderator tests, andresearch implications for the next millennium.Journal of Management, 26, 463–488.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L.
M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudestoward affirmative action programs in employment:Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years ofresearch. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,1013–1036.
Hattrup, K., Rock, J., & Scalia, C. (1997). The effectsof varying conceptualizations of job performanceon adverse impact, minority hiring, and predictedperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,656–664.
Hebl, M., & Kleck, R. E. (2002). Acknowledging one’sstigma in the interview setting: Effective strategy orliability? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,223–249.
Hebl, M. R., & Skorinko, J. (2005). Acknowledgingone’s physical disability in the interview: Does‘‘when’’ make a difference? Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 35, 2477–2492.
Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee,R. A. (1998). Type of affirmative action policy: Adeterminant of reactions to sex-based preferentialselection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,190–205.
Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2006). Affirmativeaction: Unintended adverse effects. In M. F. Karsten
Discrimination eradication 413
(Ed.), Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace(Vol. 2, pp. 1–24). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why arewomen penalized for success at male tasks? Theimplied communality deficit. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 92, 81–92.
Herrschaft, D., & Mills, K. I. (2002). The state ofthe workplace for lesbian, gay, bisexual andtransgender Americans. Washington, DC: HumanRights Campaign.
Hoffman, C. C., & Thornton, C. G. (1997). Examiningselection utility where competing predictors differin adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50,455–470.
Hom, P. W., Roberson, L., & Ellis, A. D. (2008).Challenging conventional wisdom about whoquits: Revelations from corporate America. Journalof Applied Psychology, 93, 1–34.
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E.(2001). Determinants, detection, and ameliorationof adverse impact in personnel selection proce-dures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. Inter-national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9,152–194.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practicesor best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporateaffirmative action and diversity policies. AmericanSociological Review, 71, 589–617.
Kehoe, J. F. (2009). Cut scores and adverse impact.In J. L. Outtz (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implicationsfor organizational staffing and high stakes selection(pp. 289–322). New York, NY: Taylor & FrancisGroup.
King, E. B., Dawson, J. F., Kravitz, D. A., &Gulick, L. M. V. (2012). Multilevel relationshipsbetween diversity training, discrimination, and jobsatisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior,33, 5–20.
King, E. B., Shapiro, J. R., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S.L., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity incustomer service: A mechanism for remediationan bottom-line consequences of interpersonaldiscrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,579–593.
Kravitz, D. A. (2008). The diversity–validity dilemma:Beyond selection—the role of affirmative action.Personnel Psychology, 61, 173–193.
Kulik, C. T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Common goalsand golden opportunities: Evaluation of diversityeducation in academic and organizational settings.Academy of Management Learning & Education,7, 309–331.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambiva-lence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F.Dovidio, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, dis-crimination and racism (pp. 91–126). New York,NY: Academic.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris,M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007).Racial differences in employee retention: Arediversity climate perceptions the key? PersonnelPsychology, 60, 35–62.
Office of Personnel Management. (2012). Building andmaintaining a diverse workforce. Retrieved fromhttp://www.opm.gov/diversity/diversity-3.htm
Pendry, L. F., Driscoll, D. M., & Field, C. T. (2007).Diversity training: Putting theory into practice.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 80, 227–250.
Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: Strategies for reducing racioeth-nic and sex subgroup differences and adverseimpact in selection. Personnel Psychology, 61,153–172.
Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1996). An evaluationof two strategies for reducing adverse impact andtheir effects on criterion-related validity. HumanPerformance, 9, 241–258.
Pyburn, K. M., Jr., Ployhart, R. E., & Kravitz, D. A.(2008). The diversity–validity dilemma: Overviewand legal context. Personnel Psychology, 61,143–151.
Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. (1990). Applicant attractionstrategies: An organizational perspective. Academyof Management Review, 15, 286–310.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Gerhart, B. (1991).The importance of recruitment in job choice: Adifferent way of looking. Personnel Psychology,44, 487–521.
Schmitt, N., Clause, C. S., & Pulakos, E. D.(1996). Subgroup differences associated withdifferent measures of some common job-relevantconstructs. In C. R. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson(Eds.), International review of industrial andorganizational psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 115–140).New York, NY: Wiley.
Schmitt, N., & Quinn, A. (2009). Reductions inmeasured subgroup mean differences: What ispossible? In J. L. Outtz (Ed.), Implications oforganizational staffing and high stakes selection(pp. 425–451). New York, NY: Taylor & FrancisGroup.
Shapiro, J. R., King, E. B., & Quinones, M. A.(2007). Expectations of obese trainees: How stig-matized trainee characteristics influence trainingeffectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,239–249.
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., & Vorauer, J. D.(2006). Threatened identities and interethnicinteractions. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.),European review of social psychology (Vol. 17,pp. 312–358). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Singletary, S. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2009). Compensatorystrategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination:The effectiveness of acknowledgments, increasedpositivity, and individuating information. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 94, 797–805.
Smith, A., Botsford Morgan, W., King, E. B., Knight,J. L., & Hebl, M. R. (in press). Organizationalcredentialing: The influence of demographicdiversity and company intentions on perceptionsof discrimination. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differencesmatter: A new paradigm for managing diversity.Harvard Business Review, 74, 79–90.
Valian, V. (1999). Why so slow? The advancement ofwomen. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wheeler, M. E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Controlling racialprejudice: Social-cognitive goals affect amygdalaand stereotype activation. Psychological Science,16, 56–83.