Page 96 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

THOMAS AND CHROBOT-MASON
66
were underrepresented in the program. Yet despite both groups having
a minority status, only ethnic minorities were motivated to form ingroup
friendships. Women established relationships more broadly than their eth­
nic minority counterparts. The researchers suggest that differences in the
friendship formation patterns between women and minorities in this study
may be in part the result of differences in the stereotype and marks attached
to each group.
For example, Asian Americans and African Americans may both have
low levels of representation within a particular work setting. Yet if the mark
(or status) of being Asian within that setting is less negative than the mark
(or status) of being Black, Asian Americans will likely have an easier time
forming relationships and networks with non-Asian Americans, compared
to the opportunities that Blacks may have for building relationships with
Whites. Given this example, we may expect that Blacks in this environment
may be very motivated to form a strong network with other members of
their racial ingroup.
What are the consequences of this natural tendency to divide ourselves
into ingroups and outgroups as the world increasingly becomes more com­
plex due to diversity? Do we find new ways in which to construct ingroups
and outgroups, for example, turning away from race but instead embracing
a national identity due to globalization? Further, how does this "new" iden­
tity dimension influence our ability to work globally? Perhaps as diversity
increases, instead of embracing new identity dimensions, individuals hold
more tightly to the most salient identities. In fact, Maume (1999) found
that increasing racial and gender diversity seemed to benefit White men's
career mobility (the glass escalator) as compared to the career mobility of
women and men of color. Perhaps decision makers embrace the "known"
in times of demographic uncertainty and rely upon ingroup favoritism
rather than risk promoting an "unknown."
Social Marking

Sampson (1999) discussed the importance of group distinction for social
marking. The differences that are most salient in our society and in or­
ganizations, such as race and gender, are a result of the emphasis placed
by dominant social groups on those categories so that members of the
dominant group can distinguish themselves from others. This counters an
essentialist model Grillo and Wildman (1996) of difference, which suggests
that the major categories by which we organize our world and society are
somehow natural and essential to defining others. Marking is a result of
a history of social relations between groups; it is not a quick and immedi­
ate process. The differences that are important and those that are ignored