Page 404 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

15. COMBATING ORGANIZATIONAL DISCRIMINATION
371
decision may be discounted, with the assumption of incompetence the
result.
Three experiments were recently conducted to investigate how diver­
sity goals affect the competence perceptions of those who are likely to
have been targeted by them (Heilman & Welle, 2002). In all three studies
male and female undergraduate participants were informed about a newly
formed five-person work team working on a group task and were given
an explanation for how the work team was assembled.
In the first study, the work team was composed of both women and
men. The rationale for how the group was composed was said to be either
to ensure that the organization's demographic diversity was represented
(diversity) or to ensure that the best resources and expertise were present
(merit). We expected that women would be viewed as less competent when
a diversity rationale rather than a merit rationale was given for the group's
assembly. However, because diversity goals only provide a plausible ex­
planation for personnel decision making for certain groups—those whose
representation organizations are seeking to increase—we did not expect the
diversity label to negatively affect ratings of male group members. In addi­
tion, the composition of the group was varied in order to examine the role
of gender salience in the process. Kanter (1977) has demonstrated that the
more rare a woman is in a work unit, the more salient her gender becomes.
This evidence in conjunction with Sackett, DeBois, & Noe's (1991) findings
that the fewer women present in a work setting, the more negative their job
evaluations, prompted the prediction that inferences of incompetence re­
garding women in a work group assembled for diversity reasons would be
particularly negative when the woman was the solo woman in the group.
Participants were told the research was concerned with the evaluation
of workgroups and the individual members of those groups. They received
a packet of materials that included a description of the group task on which
the group they were to review was working, a group information sheet, and
a questionnaire. Rationale for group assembly and proportion of women
was manipulated on the group information sheet. A photograph was also
included; it depicted all group members as White. Participants rated both
a female and a male target.
The results supported our predictions. Women who were members of
groups reportedly assembled for diversity reasons were viewed less favor­
ably than women in parallel groups reportedly assembled on the basis of
group member merit; they were seen as less competent and expected to
be less influential in their groups. In addition, there was indication that
women who are solos—the only female members of their groups—were
the most derogated of all group members. As expected, the rationale for
group assembly had no effect on ratings of male group members.