Page 56 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

2. INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DISCRIMINATION
27
heterosexual candidates. Similarly, Hebl and Mannix (2003) demonstrated
that salespeople displayed interpersonal discrimination with obese cus­
tomers compared to thinner customers. Whether it is based on negative at­
titudes, which may not even be conscious (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami,
& Hodson, 2002), or intergroup anxiety and avoidant tendencies (Hyers &
Swim, 1998), discrimination in interpersonal behaviors in the workplace
can adversely affect members of minority groups indirectly, by creating
impressions of discrimination in the workplace, and directly, by interfer­
ing with efficiency and productivity. In addition, the avoidant behavior
associated with interpersonal discrimination can reduce the support and
diminish the quality of mentorship for minority group members relative
to majority group members (Ragins, 1999).
With regard to the experience of discrimination, Hebl et al. (2002) found
that people's perceptions of being discriminated against were strongly
related to interpersonal discrimination. Perceptions of discrimination, in
turn, are associated with a range of negative work-related reactions: nega­
tive work attitudes among gay and lesbian employees (Ragins& Corn well,
2001), greater job stress among Black women (Mays, Coleman, & Jackson,
1996), a mistrust and lack of responsiveness to critical feedback among
Blacks (Cohen, Steele, & Ross, 1999), lower feelings of power and greater
feelings of work conflict among women (Gutek, Cohen, & Tsui, 1996), and
less organizational commitment among Hispanics (Foley, Kidder, & Pow­
ell, 2002).
The results of these studies suggest that although organizations may
seem to be free of blatant discrimination, a closer, more interpersonal ex­
amination suggests that discrimination may be alive and well. According
to Valian (2001), it is these small differences or "molehills" that accumulate
to create "mountains" of differences. In a modeling study, Martell, Lane,
and Emrich (1996) demonstrated that a 1% bias based on sex at the indi­
vidual level can subsequently translate into a 15% bias against women in
hiring at a societal level. In the case of targets who face discrimination, the
negativity is still widespread and, although it has changed its appearance,
the impact is still substantial.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

In summary, because discrimination at the individual level is rooted in
many normal processes, such as social categorization, the potential for bias
within organizations is significant. Although laws, organizational poli­
cies, and social norms appear to be effective in controlling overt forms
of discrimination toward many groups, these interventions do not apply