Page 48 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

DOVIDIO AND HEBL
24
limiting their personal investment in an organization. King, Hebl, George,
and Matusik (2003) showed that women working in the construction in­
dustry who reported discrimination appeared to compensate by engaging
in less organizational citizenship behaviors or prosocial behaviors while
maintaining the same level of performance and job-contingent behaviors
as those not experiencing discrimination.
Up to this point, we have reviewed general processes that underlie
individual-level discrimination. In the next section, we build upon these
general principles and illustrate how they can produce discrimination and
disparities in the workplace.

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE

Individual-level cognitive and affective processes can produce workplace
discrimination in various ways. For instance, prejudice can be manifested
blatantly and openly in ways that provide visible barriers to employment
and advancement. Biases may also operate indirectly, influencing percep­
tions and attributions, which, in turn, can produce disparate outcomes.
Furthermore, biases can influence social interactions in ways that consis­
tently disadvantage certain groups.

Direct Consequences for Employment-Related Decisions

Open expressions of bias, such as those assessed by self-report measures,
continue to predict discrimination, including discrimination in hiring de­
cisions, at the individual level. Nevertheless, the magnitude of this effect,
in terms of both prejudice (r = .32) and stereotypes (r = .16) is modest
(Dovidio et al., 1996). Open expressions of prejudice and negative stereo­
types toward a variety of targets, however, have declined, and acceptance
in social and work settings has increased (Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan,
1997).
One factor that may account for limited overt discrimination is the cur­
rent legal or normative constraints. The Civil Rights Act and other legisla­
tive initiatives prohibit discrimination against individuals based on gen­
der, race, religion, national origin, age, physical disability, and pregnancy.
Organizational-level polices and norms also influence the extent to which
discrimination is manifested by employees. Institutional policies can act as
interventions to the expression of discrimination. For instance, Griffith and
Hebl (2002) compared companies that did and did not have organizational
policies supporting gay and lesbian lifestyles (e.g., formal antidiscrimina­
tory sexual-orientation policies, active support for gay/lesbian activities,