Denise Lewin Loyd

Classroom Research: Bridging the Ivory Divide

Teaching and research are frequently described as opposing forces within academia, with trade-offs required between the two domains. A new research paradigm–classroom research–bridges the divide be...

The Diversity Education Dilemma: Exposing Status Hierarchies Without Reinforcing Them

A diversity education dilemma occurs when exposure to information concerning status hierarchies, related to demographic and other socially salient identity groups, reinforces those hierarchies in the classroom. Discussions of diversity-related issues in a variety of management courses (e.g., immigrant issues in labor relations, the composition of executive leadership teams in strategy, workplace compliance issues in human resource management) may highlight or draw attention to status differences as individuals identify with—and are identified by others as belonging to—higher or lower status groups (e.g., based on race/ethnicity, gender, or physical disability). As a consequence, the “real world” status hierarchy is strengthened within the classroom with negative consequences for student learning. This study uses status characteristics theory to provide a framework for understanding ways in which one’s best-intended practices may be undermining student learning. The authors also propose a series of practical ways that instructors can mitigate the status hierarchy to create a more equitable learning environment while simultaneously tackling issues related to diversity.

Expertise in your midst: How congruence between status and speech style affects reactions to unique knowledge

We examine how the status and speech style of experts impacts how they are perceived and their level of influence. In our experiment we manipulate whether high-status and low-status experts share their expert knowledge using a more or less powerful style of speech, and find that experts are more liked, more influential, and engender more confidence when they express themselves in a manner congruent with their status (i.e., high status with powerful speech and low status with powerless speech). We further show that liking acts as a mediator between congruence and influence. This study suggests that experts with low-status characteristics who want to be influential should ensure that their expertise, a marker of high status, is known to the listener before engaging in powerful styles of speech.

Duo status: Disentangling the complex interactions within a minority of two

Research and theory on diversity in organizations tends to examine relations between the majority and minority and to overlook relations within the minority. In this chapter we explore the dynamics within a minority that represents a token percentage (less than 15%) of the larger group (Kanter, R. M. 1977b). We argue that members of a minority sub-group are subject to inter-group and intra-group pressures and that these pressures are greatest for a minority of two. We introduce the term “duo-status” to describe this two-token situation and examine the positive, neutral, and negative dynamics that result depending on the coping strategy chosen by each member of the duo.

Managing Perceptions of Ethical Behavior in Evaluative Groups: The Implications for Diversity in Organizations

Evaluations play an important role in an organizations efforts to increase diversity. In this chapter we discuss two common evaluation biases – out-group discrimination and in-group favoritism – that are particularly relevant for concerns of increasing diversity. We examine the ethical implications of these biases, as well as the reasons individuals attempt to avoid displaying them. Some research has considered the adjustments individuals make to avoid the appearance of out-group discrimination (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986); however, little research has considered the adjustments individuals may make to avoid the appearance of in-group favoritism. We discuss two critical factors that may impact when the latter adjustment is more likely to occur: the relative size and status of subgroups. Paradoxically, these adjustments may negatively impact organizational efforts to increase the diversity of their work force. We discuss the implications for evaluation processes (e.g., hiring, firing, promotion) in organizations.

Complicating the complicated: The importance of status in understanding constrained career choices

In spite of gains made by women and minorities over the last several decades in the workplace, much work is left to be done to achieve equality. Of particular concern is the diminishing number of women and minorities at increasingly higher levels of the professional ladder. Understanding the factors that will encourage individuals whose groups are underrepresented in their work domains to pursue and persist in these careers is critically important. Nilanjana Dasgupta’s (this issue) article, “Ingroup Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self-Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model,” underscores the role that the presence of similar others (as peers or experts) can play in furthering these efforts. We both were members of professional domains where we were overwhelmingly underrepresented, and indeed we both shifted to other domains as we advanced in our careers. Our biographies and professional work contribute to a full appreciation of the complex dynamics at work in undermining representation of women and minorities in certain occupations, particularly in the upper echelons. We appreciate Dasgupta’s effort to include contextual factors to which the individual reacts as they navigate through their careers. Our “free choices” were not just constrained by our social context (including environmental cues and the presences of experts). They were and continue to be embedded entirely within them. Thus, we seek to further complicate the study of career paths by moving beyond a predominantly agentic perspective to a relational perspective. An individual is not simply an observer of her surroundings or subject to them; she interacts with her social context, participating in both its maintenance and transformation (J. Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Blumer, 1969; Giddens, 1984; Goffman, 1959; Turner, 1987). Indeed, individual labor market “decisions” shape the wage structure and prestige level of entire occupations (Padavic & Reskin, 2002; Tam, 1997; Tomaskovic-Devey & Skaggs, 2002). We discuss the relational implications of two factors affecting the ability of peers and experts to increase an individual’s willingness to persist in domains where their group is underrepresented: (a) the hierarchy of ingroups and outgroups based on their relative social standing and (b) the relative numeric representation of one’s group. We discuss each here as well as the interaction of the two before concluding with implications for research on the social barriers facing minorities and women.

Undermining diversity: Favoritism threat and its effect on advocacy for similar others.

Women and minorities are often viewed as advocates for the recruitment and retention of similar others. This assumes that women and minorities do not face any barriers to taking on the role of “diversity advocate.” We believe this assumption is flawed. In 2 experiments and a qualitative study, we focus on favoritism threat as 1 such barrier. Favoritism threat takes place when evaluators fear their support for a similar other will be seen as an unfair positive bias. Study 1 demonstrates that distinctive individuals, regardless of gender, perceive more favoritism threat than do nondistinctive individuals. Study 2 shows that only low-status distinctive individuals (women in the numeric minority) show outgroup favoritism by evaluating an outgroup applicant higher than an equally qualified ingroup applicant on a subjective indicator. Study 3 finds that a majority of racially distinctive individuals spontaneously identify favoritism threat as a concern when contemplating advocating for a demographically similar other, even when told that the other is qualified.

Can Diversity Beget Diversity?: Favoritism Threat and Its Effect on Advocacy for Similar Others

Women and minorities are often viewed as advocates for the recruitment and retention of similar others. This assumes that women and minorities do not face any barriers to taking on the role of “div...

Reactions to Disagreement from an In-Group Member: The Impact of Out-Group Member Status

Researchers have often focused on how to ensure that individuals within diverse settings share deep-level perspectives across their various surface-level divides. In this paper we focus on understanding how members of the same social group (i.e., in-group members) manage their differences in opinion (i.e. task conflict). In particular we examine how the status of an ostensible third party outgroup member affects the willingness of the in-group members to discuss, and reconcile their differing opinions when that third party agrees with one of the in-group members and disagrees with the other. Our preliminary results suggest that in-group members engage in more discussion with each other when the third party group member is high versus low status. There is suggestive evidence that this reflects more interest in the other party’s perspective rather than their own perspective, and we posit that this may be due to greater perceived threat to the in-group members’ relationship when faced with an opinion from a high status third party. We discuss the implications for decision-making in diverse groups and future directions for exploration.