Page 65 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

42
selection into a new group). Thus, the examination of ingroup/outgroup
processes via ASA is useful, with the focus being on the maintenance of ho­
mogeneity within an ingroup, not necessarily across several groups within
the organization. RIORDAN, SCHAFFER, STEWART
Discrimination, based on demographic characteristics, therefore can re­
sult in a more informal manner from the friendships and social networks
that emerge in an organization (Riordan & Shore, 1997; Ibarra, 1995).
Even when not officially sanctioned by organizations, the formation of
ingroups/outgroups can define who has access to information and other
resources needed to effectively perform in a job. Moreover, individuals
who are commonly different from the majority in the organization, such
as racial minorities, women, disabled persons, older individuals, and gays
and lesbians, can be excluded from these informal relationships. Addi­
tionally, early in one's career, dissimilar individuals who are not a part of
the ingroup may lack the mentoring that is often important to achieving
success within organizations (Ragins, 1999; Thomas, 2001).
A recent study of doctoral students and advisors found that mentor­
ing relationships tended to form among individuals who were similar in
sex, race, and age (Turban, Dougherty, & Love-Stewart, 1997). Addition­
ally, Ragins (1997) highlighted the challenges of stereotypes, attributions,
lack of shared identity, and personal comfort in diversified mentoring re­
lationships. These challenges may constrain the development activities
provided and perceived in demographically dissimilar mentoring relation­
ships. Overall, lack of networks, mentors, and role models for outgroup
members reflect exclusion from informal relationships, with ingroup mem­
bers acting as gatekeepers in the organization.

Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theories

Social identity and self-categorization theories also relate to the formation
of ingroups and outgroups within organizations (Hogg & Terry, 2000).
These theories are largely based on the assumption that to make social
comparisons in their environments, individuals must first define them­
selves along some social criterion (or criteria). From a social-psychological
perspective, this involves defining oneself and being defined by others as
a member of some type of group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This can be ac­
complished by using salient characteristics in the immediate environment
for differentiation purposes. Such social categorizations can facilitate the
classification and ordering of the social environment in which one exists.
The characteristics by which social categorization is accomplished can
include many factors, such as demographics, values, personality, attitudes,
organizational and other group memberships. Perceptions of social groups