Page 58 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

2. INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DISCRIMINATION
29
organizations. To the extent that mentoring, sponsorship, and informal
organizational support foster the advancement of people within an orga­
nization, pro-ingroup biases can thus produce systematic disparities based
on race, sex, and ethnicity within an organization. Receiving mentoring is
associated with increased career satisfaction, salary compensation, job sat­
isfaction, and the mitigation of discrimination (Chao, 1997; Dreher & Ash,
1990; Ragins, 1999). Although this process of ingroup favoritism may not
represent discrimination in the classic form or within a strict legal defini­
tion (see Krieger, 1998), it is nevertheless a systematic bias that can place
minority group members at a significant disadvantage within an organi­
zation relative to majority group members.
A second avenue for future research, within the field in general and in
organizations in particular, is a focus on the interactions between majority
and minority group members. As Devine and Vasquez (1998) observed
about the area generally, "the literature has had very little to offer to help
us understand the nature of the interpersonal dynamics of intergroup con­
tact — we do not know what happens when interaction begins" (p. 241).
In organizations that depend on efficient and effective interactions, prej­
udice and perceptions of prejudice can have critical adverse effects. Im­
plicit prejudice places particular cognitive demands on White individuals
in interracial interactions that can deplete their resources to perform job-
related cognitive tasks (Richeson & Shelton, 2003). Moreover, explicit, con­
scious prejudice and implicit, unconscious prejudice can have different
effects. Dovidio, Kawakami, et al. (1997) found that self-reported prejudice
predicted bias in overt decisions (i.e., how White interviewers evaluated
Black relative to White applicants), whereas implicit prejudice (which was
largely uncorrelated with explicit prejudice) predicted biases in nonver­
bal measures of friendliness (e.g., eye contact). Thus, because prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination at the individual level involve attitudi­
nal responses, both explicit and implicit, and behavioral reactions, both
initiated and reciprocal, we propose that studying intergroup relations in
dynamic interactions offers unique insights into understanding the under­
lying processes and outcomes.
A third direction for future research involves greater focus on the psy­
chology of minorities. Although the traditional emphasis of research on
prejudice and stereotyping at the individual level has been on major­
ity group members, recent research has begun to emphasize the role of
minorities. Minorities are not simply passive targets; they are actively
involved, and their thoughts, feelings, and actions can moderate the na­
ture of intergroup interactions and organizational outcomes. Minorities
often approach intergroup interactions with guardedness and mistrust
(Hyers & Swim, 1998). In addition, when conditions make their group