What We Know and Don't: Eradicating Employment Discrimination 50 Years After the Civil Rights Act

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: [email protected]

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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).


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


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


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.


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,


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


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.


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.


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.


We need to know more about inclusionstrategies that can be used at the individual


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


(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.

What We Know and Don't: Eradicating Employment Discrimination 50 Years After the Civil Rights Act

Documents

Transcript of What We Know and Don't: Eradicating Employment Discrimination 50 Years After the Civil Rights Act