Page 82 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

52
RIORDAN, SCHAFFER, STEWART
or no discrimination, as subgroups will either not exist (minimum or zero
diversity) or, in the case of maximum diversity, will be smaller and frag­
mented with weaker faultlines, as subgroup members will have disparate
subgroup memberships. In this case, social identification processes should
be weaker, and subgroups should be less motivated and able to impose
themselves or desired norms on other subgroups or members. When diver­
sity is sparse or "moderate," meaning there are a limited variety of demo­
graphic attributes among group members, the likelihood of subgroup for­
mation with strong faultlines is increased. Under these conditions, one or a
very few members belong to a small, distinct, and homogeneous subgroup,
increasing the likelihood of social identification processes among major­
ity group members and competitive/discriminatory behavior toward the
minority/outgroup members.
Future research should examine the nature of group faultlines in an at­
tempt to identify likely potential forms of discrimination given a group's
particular composition. For example, research has determined that de­
mographic identities have "master status," such that they are nearly al­
ways the basis for categorization by others (cf. Chatman et al., 1998; Cox,
1993), which would suggest attention to these faultlines when constructing
groups and considering or monitoring potential discrimination. However,
as established by Harrison and colleagues (1998, 2002), the negative im­
pact of some demographic diversity can dissipate over time with regard
to group performance; does the likelihood, occurrence, and/or perception
of discrimination along these faultiness also diminish? Further, within a
workgroup, members of a given demographic group (e.g., women) can dif­
fer along other contextually relevant dimensions such as functional area or
tenure. If, for example, function or seniority is a more important or pow­
erful subgroup relative to the subgroup "women," identification with the
higher status subgroup may facilitate discriminatory behavior by women
in the high status seniority ingroup toward women in the low status (new­
comer) outgroup.
Along these lines, some relational demography research has begun to ex­
plore the influence of contextual power and minority/majority status. Both
Chattopadhyay (1999) and Riordan (2000) observed that there is strong the­
ortical and empirical support to incorporate asymmetrical predictions for
the effects of demographic dissimilarity. Simply, the experience of being in
the "minority" is likely not the same for all groups in similar contexts. For
example, it may be that White females, White males, Black females, and
Black males all experience being in the race and gender minorities in very
different ways. As such, future theory and empirical tests need to look at
a blend of demographic dimensions and make differential predictions for
the effects of demography.