Race and Gender in Formal Organizations

Abstract

This article discusses social interaction within formal groups and organizations, and the influence race and gender have on the frequency and quality of those interactions. Social interaction occurs when at least two individuals converse and respond to one another. The language and symbolic gestures used during these interactions impact each person's behaviors and thought processes. Race and gender disparities within both work organizations as well as service organizations are discussed in this article.

Overview

Social interaction occurs when at least two individuals converse and respond to one another. The language and symbolic gestures that are used during these interactions affect each person's behavior and thought process. Ultimately, each individual defines, interprets, and places meaning on the interaction (Stark, 2006).

In essence, social interaction can be understood as the exchange of information and ideas in various modes and mediums. Whether the medium is face-to-face or electronic, the expressions, eye contact, posture, and tone of voice have some affect on the outcome of the interaction (Goffman, 1997).

Social interactions take place within a variety of settings, particularly, within different types of formal organizations. Margaret L. Andersen explains that formal organizations are sizable secondary groups designed to accomplish intricate tasks and to effectively achieve goals (2008). Examples of formal organizations include companies, service organizations, political parties, and schools. Compared to a small group such as a family or circle of friends, formal organizations are distinguished by their large size.

Types of Organizations. Formal organizations are classified into three different categories based on the type of membership affiliation:

• Utilitarian,
• Coercive, and
• Normative (Blau & Scott, 1974; Etzioni, 1975).

Utilitarian organizations include large for-profit or nonprofit organizations that form for particular purposes, such as generating profit. Large corporations such as General Motors, Microsoft, and Procter & Gamble are all examples of for-profit utilitarian organizations. Colleges, universities, and the companies that produce the standardized testing materials and services are considered large for-profit utilitarian organizations that pay salaries to their employees (Andersen, 2008).

Some utilitarian organizations can also be considered coercive organizations as such organizations become increasingly privatized. Coercive organizations are formal organizations made up of individuals who have involuntarily joined. Prisons and mental hospitals, for example, are considered coercive organizations. Individuals are often placed in these facilities involuntarily for various forms of psychiatric treatment (Goffman, 1961; Rosenhan, 1973). Coercive organizations have been described as total institutions, organizations that are isolated or are cut off from the rest of the world, in which individuals within these organizations are subject to strict conditions (Goffman, 1961).

The last type of formal organization is normative organizations. People join normative organizations to pursue personal goals in which personal satisfaction, rather than profit, is obtained. Individuals also join these organizations to benefit from the social prestige associated with the organization. Social and charitable organizations, also referred to as voluntary organizations, include the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), political parties, religious organizations, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and other related voluntary organizations that focus on specific issues. Each falls into the normative organization category (Andersen, 2008).

Race and Gender in Formal Organizations. Race and gender play a role within organizations in various ways, including how men and women interact with one another. In many cases, race and gender affect how the organizations are run, who holds the leadership positions within the organizations, and the level and quality of interactions among employees. For this reason, both men and women have unique experiences in both same-sex groups and mixed groups (Garvin & Reed, 1983).

Ingroups and Outgroups. In leadership organizations, the gender and race of the group's leader affects how certain situations are carried out, because individuals enter a group or organization with their own social frames of reference. Issues of status, power, inclusion, and intimacy all come into play with members based on where they see themselves, as an ingroup member or an outgroup member (Brower et al., 1987; Blavo, 2022). Ingroup is a sociological term used to describe a group that people identify with and feel some form of attachment to. In many instances, the attachment is based on opposition toward "outgroups." Outgroups refer to a group of individuals in which members of an ingroup harbor a sense of opposition, resistance, fear, and even hatred toward. Outgroups are required for ingroups to exist (Stark, 2006). The group a person belongs to (ingroup/outgroup) dictates who they will interact with the most and the quality of those interactions.

Whether conscious or subconscious, both ingroup members and outgroup members are part of formal organizations (Blavo, 2022). From the social interactive frame, a Black American individual in a predominantly White organization may take the frame of reference as being dismissed by the White members in the organization. The Black American individual, in this case, identifies as a member of the outgroup. In a similar fashion, the social frame of reference of a female group member is likely to be influenced by experiences she has had with being discriminated against in some way by male members of the group or organization. Women may subconsciously view their male counterparts as superior and being more powerful than they are (Shapiro, 1990). In each case, the level of interaction between racial groups and gender groups is affected by which group one is in.

Though women often feel disadvantaged when they interact with men in mixed groups (both men and women in the groups), because their needs are often relegated as secondary to those of men, men generally prefer to be a part of mixed groups because they benefit from them (Garvin & Reed, 1983). Though often unconsciously, the presence of women within the organization is used by men to "permit" them to be more open and in touch with their feelings compared to interacting in an organization with all men (Sternbach, 1990; McLeod & Pemberton, 1987). Stereotyping genders is common in ingroup and outgroup formation, as the stereotype that men are more assertive and capable under pressure may allow them to create ingroups, unconsciously, excluding their equally competent female coworkers (Blavo, 2022).

Race and gender play various roles in different formal organizations, including places of employment, where hierarchy often drives these roles. Often, within organizations, power and influence resides with only a few individuals at the top of the hierarchy, and like the broader society, organizations reflect the hierarchical structure that is often characterized by race and gender discrimination. For example, broad disparities exist among White and Black American workers when it comes to promotion rates within work organizations (Andersen, 2008; Collins, 1989, McGuire & Reskin, 1993).

White men generally hold the most powerful positions within organizations and women and minorities traditionally have had the lower positions in organizations with less opportunity to advance (Andersen, 2008). This typical power dynamic contributes to, what the World Economic Forum refers to as, the gender gap crisis in the workforce. Driving factors of this phenomenon include the aforementioned power structure barriers women face, socioeconomic changes, technological development, and economic shocks. According to the Global Gender Gap Report, the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted women's careers across the globe, but after a small recovery from 2020 to 2022, North America was reported to have made the most progress of any region in the world toward closing the gender gap in the workplace. However, reaching equality on the continent was estimated to take another 59 to 62 years (World Economic Forum, 2022).

Measures were put in place in an attempt to prevent employment discrimination. In 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act outlawed employment discrimination on the basis of race and gender. However, despite this effort and other policy efforts to eliminate employment inequality, Black American men and women of all races continued to lag behind their White male counterparts in regard to their pay and positions held within organizations, despite their qualifications (Marini 1989; Goldin 1990; Grodsky and Pager 2001; Reskin and Padavic 1994; Darity and Mason 1998). In fact, in 2020, there were 67,448 charges of employment discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), of which 32.7 percent were based on race, 31.7 percent on sex, and 9.5 percent on national origin. In 2022, there were 73,485 charges of employment discrimination filed. These disparities all affect social interactions among race and gender groups. (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2023).

A disproportionately small number of women and minorities are promoted within most organizations, and a glass ceiling remains in effect in most industries in the twenty-first century. The glass ceiling refers to the barriers that keep women and minorities from being promoted to the same level and at the same rate as White male employees.

Studies show that remnants of the glass ceiling effect, as well as gender and race discrimination in general, continue to persist inside organizations, despite the fact that formal obstacles to advancement and historical barriers, such as access to education, have been reduced or eliminated. For example, race disparities continue to persist in various formal organizations. Disproportionately, White men are promoted over their Black American, Hispanic American, and American Indian coworkers who have the same education and skills. The same is true when it comes to White or minority women within these organizations. Women are less likely to be promoted when compared to White men with the same level of education. Being a man trumps gender in some cases, as White men are promoted over women even if the woman has more education than the man (Zwerling & Silver, 1992). In fact, according to a 2012 study by Lauren A. Rivera, a professor of management and organizations at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, managers were more likely to hire individuals based on “cultural matching” than qualifications; the study found that cultural similarities between managers and job applicants were a significant factor in hiring decisions, in some cases even more so than productivity levels and qualifications (Rivera, 2012). Similarly, a 2021 study among organizations of higher learning found that White men were significantly more likely to receive application endorsements than women or minorities. The researchers reference the informal, but critical network advantage White male tend to maintain in the US (Castilla, 2021).

Similar to the glass ceiling, but perhaps more detrimental, is the glass cliff, in which women are promoted to leadership positions in times of crisis. This ensures a company can build historical data showing their tendency to promote women, while also being able to replace them quickly after the inevitable crisis comes to a head and they fall off the cliff, so to speak. Women who break through the glass ceiling are most prone to this sort of organizational discrimination (Oakes, 2022).

Women of all races have experienced difficulty attaining equal roles as their male counterparts within various organizations. Gender inequalities made it necessary for a number of laws and regulations to be passed in the 1960s to address issues of discrimination in salaries and fringe benefits within different types of organizations. For example, women in US colleges and universities have dealt with the "unexplained wage gap," also referred to as the "total wage gap" for many years. The unexplained wage gap refers to the proportion of the total wage gap between women and men that cannot be explained by an individual's age, qualifications, or seniority (Walters & le Roux, 2008). Each of these issues place strain on employee relationships and affect the level of interaction among diverse groups.

Further Insights

Status Characteristics Theory. One theory regarding how various types of interactions influence gender inequalities in the workplace is the status characteristics theory (SCT). The SCT refers to instances in which two or more individuals who differ based on their status within an organization (i.e., a boss and their subordinate) work together on a task that can elicit a positive or negative outcome (Mueller, Mulinge, & Glass, 2002).

The SCT theory describes how different status characteristics drive expectations in the situation and the competence others perceive individuals to have. For example, the status characteristic of gender is valued differently depending on what gender a person is. There are four core principles that explain how individual differences are linked to task behavior based on power and prestige when individuals interact with one another. The first principle identifies the status information that is used during an interaction. According to the SCT, any characteristic that differentiates individuals in a mixed-gender group setting, or is considered task-relevant, is used as the status information (Wagner & Berger, 1993).

Status Information. The second principle describes the relevance of the status information and the conditions in which it will be considered. So, in a setting with both men and women, gender is assumed to be relevant unless it is proved otherwise.

Expectations of Individuals. The third principle deals with expectations of individuals within an organization. Individuals are expected to perform in specific ways based on status information, in this case, based on their gender. Put in another way, individuals with a status advantage (male vs. female) are expected to do better on a task than an individual with a status disadvantage. Based on the status characteristics theory, men are generally expected to do better than women (Wagner & Berger, 1993).

Basic Expectation Assumption. The last principle is the basic expectation assumption that explains how these interactions lead to differences in behavior between individuals. This principle posits that power and prestige behaviors are influenced by the expectations one has for oneself as well as of others. In this case, men will expect that they will outperform women. Similarly, women who expect that this is true will end up underperforming compared to men. The result is an entrenchment of workplace inequalities (Wagner & Berger, 1993).

In essence, the four principles suggest that status differences influence the amount of power and prestige individuals are given (Wagner & Berger, 1993). Ridgeway (1997) suggests that it is important to note, however, that this outcome is not task-specific for this process to take place. Generally, these outcomes will be experienced even when women and men have the same skills required to achieve success on the same task.

Viewpoints

As previously mentioned, one type of formal organization is the normative organization, which is also referred to as a voluntary organization. These organizations have been forced to address similar inequalities as in work organizations. Women and minorities in various service and charitable normative organizations have experienced unfair and unequal treatment and have taken on these issues to work toward eliminating such discriminatory practices. For instance, the League of Women Voters, a civic and charitable organization, as well as political organizations such as the National Women's political caucus, were all formed as a result of women's frustration about being excluded for decades from all-male political organizations and networks (Andersen, 2008).

There is a significant amount of evidence that suggests that racism and sexism has continued to occur within small and large normative organizations with "mixed" memberships. For this reason, and because they have historically been excluded from White-dominated voluntary organizations in the United States, Hispanics, American Indians, and Black Americans have all formed their own grassroots, mostly homogeneous organizations. Black American sororities and fraternities are typical examples. For instance, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority is a Black American women’s service organization and is one of the largest of its kind in the world, reporting more than 350,000 members in early 2023. The organization's identity, which is very different from White-dominated Greek organizations, stems from a history of race and gender discrimination. Because of the changing environment over the years, Delta Sigma Theta has had to adapt to changing race relations and attitudes toward women by shifting its purpose and goals over the years (Brown & Mistry, 2005; Anderson, 2008).

Like most organizations, sororities must ensure that the goals of the organization remain consistent with that of its members, as the growth of the organization is dependent upon its membership. Even within a Black American female grassroots organization that was forced to form because of historical exclusion from mainstream organizations, they are challenged to preserve that sense of solidarity and purpose while ensuring that the organization serves the community through other social, political, and economical means. Strengthening the social bonds of the organization within the context of social action continues to be important to the organization (Giddings, 2014).

Hispanic Americans have also been inspired to form organizations because of exclusionary actions from mainstream organizations. Like Black Americans, Hispanic Americans are affected within work organizations because of various discriminatory attitudes and practices, including not being a part of the "old boy" network, as well as overall racial biases within the organization. Resulting factors such as pay level and occupational category prove that race still influences the way people are treated within organizations, and in turn, has an effect on the interactions that take place between racial groups (Anderson, 2008).

As racial and gender disparities persist, some theorists believe viable alternatives are the continued establishments of organizations run by female and minority leaders, to limit the charges of race and gender discrimination, and to improve interactions among organization members. Hirsh and Kornrich (2004) explain that discrimination in the workplace generally occurs because of ingroup preferences and outgroup exclusion. Therefore, organizations run by female leaders, for example, would lead to ingroup preferences for groups that have been traditionally disadvantaged. The same would be true for Black American, Hispanic American, and other minority groups.

Organizational Social Settings & Race & Gender Outcomes. Many feel that the social setting within organizations drives gender and race discrimination, which in turn affects the quality of social interactions within organizations. Various theorists list the following as consequences for employment structures and practices that sustain inequalities in the workplace: discrimination of the employers' "tastes" or personal preferences is claimed by neoclassical economic theorists; members of the dominant group take part in opportunity hoarding as a form of discrimination based on what conflict theorists believe (Becker 2010; Tilly 1998; Madden 1973).

Overall, both neoclassical economic theorists and conflict theorists believe the motives of people in power stem from their determination to intentionally prevent others from gaining equal employment opportunities. These actions consequently keep women and minorities from reaching desirable positions within the workplace (Burstein 1994).

Other theorists apply social cognition theory to this issue and believe that even unintentional cognitive processes prompt individuals to favor ingroup members over outgroup members (Perdue et al., 1990). Social cognitive theory sees human behavior as a combination of personal factors, behavior, and the environment, interacting together (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1986). Because the theory is essentially a learning theory, based on the fact that people learn by watching others, the same outcomes may be inevitable unless people rid themselves of personal biases.

Composition and Threat. An alternative view suggests that the size of the minority group leads to larger levels of discrimination against minorities (Hirsh & Kornrich, 2004). Blalock posits that the feelings of threat on the part of the majority group are a result of increased minority groups (1967). When one looks at this theory within the context of the workplace, consider that the more shares of the workforce the minority group is responsible for, the more the majority group feels a sense of competition for work-related benefits, and therefore begins to feel threatened by minority employees. This causes intergroup conflict and eventually leads to enhanced perceived discrimination from the minority group's perspective.

Terms & Concepts

Coercive Organizations: Total institutions; organizations that are isolated or are cut off from the rest of the world, in which individuals within these organizations are subject to strict conditions.

Formal Organization: A formal organization is a sizable secondary group, designed to accomplish intricate tasks and to effectively achieve goals.

Gender: Socially learned characteristics and behaviors of members of each sex.

Glass Ceiling: Refers to the barriers that keep women and minorities from being promoted to the same level and at the same rate as White and male employees. Women and minorities can only be promoted up to a certain level as a result of the glass ceiling effect.

Groups: A collection of individuals who interact and communicate with one another, and share goals and similar norms.

Hierarchy: The pecking order or chain of command within a group or organization.

Ingroups: A sociological term used to describe a group that people identify with and feel some form of attachment to. In many instances, the attachment is based on opposition toward outgroups.

Minority Group: Refers to any distinct group in society who share like group characteristics and hold a low status in society due to prejudice and discrimination.

Mixed Groups: Consist of both men and women as members of the group.

Normative Organizations: Organizations people join to pursue personal goals in which personal satisfaction, rather than monetary rewards, are obtained.

Organizations: Social groups that pursue common goals, control their own activities, and have the ability to separate itself from the rest of the environment.

Outgroups: Refers to a group of individuals in which members of an ingroup harbor a sense of opposition, resistance, and even hatred toward. Outgroups are required for ingroups to exist.

Race: A social category that is treated as distinct based on various characteristics.

Social Cognitive Theory: A learning theory that sees human behavior as a combination of personal factors, behavior, and the environment, interacting with one another.

Social Interaction: Occurs when at least two individuals converse, respond, and affect one another's behavior and thought process by using language and symbolic gestures.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: A landmark law in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and work environments.

Unexplained Wage Gap: Also referred to as the "total wage gap," refers to the proportion of the total wage gap between women and men that cannot be explained by an individual's age, qualifications, or seniority.

Utilitarian Organizations: Large for-profit or nonprofit organizations that are joined together for particular purposes, like generating monetary rewards.

Bibliography

Andersen, M. (2008). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society (4th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychology Review(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Baron, J. N. & Pfeffer, J. (1994). The social psychology of organizations and inequality. Social Psychology Quarterly 57, 190–209. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9411046541&site=ehost-live

Becker, G. S. (2010). The economics of discrimination (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Blalock, H.M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. Wiley.

Blau, P. M. & Scott, W. R. (1974). On the nature of organizations. Wiley.

Blavo, Yolanda. (2022, February 10). Ingroup privilege can drain workplaces of wellbeing and creativity. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2022/02/10/ingroup-privilege-can-drain-workplaces-of-wellbeing-and-creativity

Brower, A., Garvin, C., Hobson, J., Reed, B. & Reed, H. (1987). Exploring the effects of leader gender and race on group behavior in J. Lassner et al. (Eds.), Social group work: Competence and values in practice. The Haworth Press, Inc.

Brown, A., & Mistry, T. (2005). Group work with 'mixed membership' groups: Issues of race and gender. Social Work with Groups, 28 (3/4), 133–148. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20994987&site=ehost-live

Burstein, P. (1994). Equal employment opportunity. Aldine de Gruyter.

Cahusac, E., & Kanji, S. (2014). Giving up: How gendered organizational cultures push mothers out. Gender, Work & Organization, 21, 57–70. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=92673270&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Castilla, E. J. (2022). Gender, race, and network advantage in organizations. Organization Science, 33(6), 2364–2403. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1534

Collins, S. M. (1989). The marginalization of Black executives. Social Problems 36(4), 317–331. Retrieved June 10, 2023, from http://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1989.36.4.03a00010

Darity, W. A. Jr. & Mason, P. L. (1998). Evidence of discrimination in employment: Codes of color, codes of gender. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12, 63–90. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Business Source Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=649834&site=ehost-live

Etzioni, A. (1975). A comparative analysis of complex organization: On power, involvement, and their correlates, revised ed. Free Press.

Garvin, C. & Reed, B. (1983). Group work with women/group work with men. Special issue of Social Work with Groups, 6, 3–4.

Giddings, P. (2014). In search of sisterhood: Delta Sigma Theta and the challenge of the Black sorority movement. William Morrow.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Penguin Books.

Goffman, E., Lemert, C. & Branaman, A. (1997). The Goffman Reader. Blackwell Publishers.

Goldin, Claudia. 1990. Understanding the gender gap. Russel Sage.

Grodsky, E. & Pager, D. (2001). The structure of disadvantage: Individual and occupational determinants of the Black-White wage gap. American Sociological Review, 66, 542–67. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5704482&site=ehost-live

Hirsh, E., & Kornrich, S. (2004, August 14). The context of discrimination: The impact of firm conditions on workplace race and gender discrimination. Conference Papers—American Sociological Association. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15930042&site=ehost-live

Kenney, G. (1994). An analysis of the correlates of discrimination facing young Hispanic job seekers. American Economic Review, 84, 674–684.

Madden, J. (1973). The economics of sex discrimination. Lexington.

Marini, M. M. (1989). Sex differences in earnings in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology 15, 343–380. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10461570&site=ehost-live

McDonald, J. (2016). Occupational segregation research: Queering the conversation. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(1), 19–35. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=111589749&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McGuire, G. M. & Reskin, B. F. (1993). Authority hierarchies at work: The impacts of race and sex. Gender & Society, 7(4), 487–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124393007004002

McLeod, L.W. & Pemberton, B.K. (1987). Men together in group therapy. In F. Abbott (Ed.), New men, new minds. The Crossing Press.

Mueller, C., Mulinge, M., & Glass, J. (2002). Interactional processes and gender workplace inequalities. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 163–185. Retrieved August 28, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=7204488&site=ehost-live

Myers, S. (1995). Racial discrimination in housing markets: Accounting for credit risk. Social Science Quarterly, 76, 543–562. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9510135586&site=ehost-live

Nelson, J. (1992). Hidden disparities in case processing: New York State, 1985-1986. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(92)90044-A

Oakes, Kelly. (2022, February 7). The invisible danger of the 'glass cliff'. BBC. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220204-the-danger-of-the-glass-cliff-for-women-and-people-of-colour

Owuamalam, C. K., & Zagefka, H. (2014). On the psychological barriers to the workplace: When and why metastereotyping undermines employability beliefs of women and ethnic minorities. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 521–528. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=99031190&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Perdue, C. W., Dovidioi, J.F., Gurtman, M. B. & Tyler, R. B. (1990). 'Us' and 'them:' Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 475–86.

Peterson, T., Saporta, I, & Seidel, M. L. (2000). Offering a job: Meritocracy and social networks. American Journal of Sociology 106(3), 783–816. https://doi.org/10.1086/318961

Reskin, B. & McBrier, D. B. (2000). Why not ascription? Organizations employment of male and female managers. American Sociological Review 65, 210–233. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3158033&site=ehost-live

Reskin, B. F. & Padavic, I. (1994). Men and women at work. Pine Forge.

Ridgeway, C. (1997). Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality. American Sociological Review 62, 218–35. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=123496&site=ehost-live

Rivera, L. A. (2012). Hiring as cultural matching: the case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77, 999–1022. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://www.asanet.org/journals/ASR/Dec12ASRFeature.pdf

Rosenhan, D.L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179(4070), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.179.4070.250

Shapiro, B.Z. (1990) The social work group as social microcosm: Frames of reference revisited. Social Work with Groups, 13(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v13n02‗02

Stainback, K., Ratliff, T. N., & Roscigno, V. J. (2011). The context of workplace sex discrimination: sex composition, workplace culture, and relative power. Social Forces, 89, 1165–1188. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60914639

Stark, R. (2006). Sociology: A global perspective (4th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Sternbach, J. (1990) The men's seminar: An educational and support for men. Social Work with Groups, 13(2), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v13n02‗03

Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable Inequalities. University of California Press.

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Charge statistics (charges filed with EEOC) FY 1997 through FY 2020. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/charge-statistics-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-1997-through-fy-2020

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2023). Fiscal year 2023 bongressional budget justification. Accessed June 25, 2023, from https://www.eeoc.gov/fiscal-year-2023-congressional-budget-justification

Wagner, D. & Berger, J. (1993). Status characteristics theory: The growth of a program. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch Jr. (Eds.) Theoretical Research Programs: Studies in the Growth of Theory. Stanford University Press.

Walters, I., & le Roux, N. (2008). Monitoring gender remuneration inequalities in academia using biplots. Orion, 24, 49–73. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33057577&site=ehost-live

World Economic Forum. (2022). Global Gender Gap Report. Retrieved June 25, 2023, from https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF‗GGGR‗2022.pdf

Yang, S., Morimoto, S. A. (2011). Why do Black men suffer from low self-rated job productivity: a multi-theory approach. Sociological Inquiry, 81, 431–453. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65971288

Yu, K.-H. (2012). Formal organizations and identity groups in social movements. Human Relations, 65, 753–776. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=76492480

Zheng, L. (2020, November 20). Transgender, gender-fluid, nonbinary, and gender-nonconforming employees deserve better policies. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https://hbr.org/2020/11/transgender-gender-fluid-nonbinary-and-gender-nonconforming-employees-deserve-better-policies

Zwerling, C. & Silver, H. (1992). Race and job dismissals in a federal bureaucracy. American Sociological Review 57, 651–660. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9301281042&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Beggs, J. (1995). The institutional environment: implications for race and gender inequality in the U.S. labor market. American Sociological Review, 60, 612–633. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9508231870&site=ehost-live

Crowley, M. (2013). Gender, the labor process, and dignity at work. Social Forces, 91, 1209–1238. Retrieved January 14, 2015, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87826732&site=ehost-live&scope=site&site=ehost-live

Davis, L., Cheng, L., & Strube, M. (1996). Differential effects of racial composition on male and female groups: implications for group work practice. Social Work Research, 20, 157–166. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9610111127&site=ehost-live

Grusky, D. B., & Weisshaar, K. R. (2021). Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books.

McDonald, S. (2001). How whites explain Black and Hispanic inequality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 562–573. Retrieved September 4, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6204203&site=ehost-live

McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77, 625–647. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78250588

Mullin & Hogg (1999). Motivations for group membership: The role of subjective importance and uncertainty reduction. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 21, 91–102. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from EBSCO SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3344499&site=ehost-live

Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158–174. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302‗4

Scheepers, D., Spears, R. Doosje, B. & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 359–396. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=24905877&site=ehost-live

Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). The gender and race composition of jobs and the male/female, White/Black pay gaps. Social Forces, 72, 45–76. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9312273246&site=ehost-live