Although there are enormous benefits, as was mentioned above, to effectively managing diversity in an organization, there are still many barriers that first must be resolved before the advantages can be reached. Therefore, it is important to recognize the barriers that may get in the way of an individual's or an organization's ability to value and manage diversity now and in the future. There have been many barriers that have inhibited the employment and advancement of diverse groups in the workforce. Some of the most significant barriers identified in the literature are described below.
According to Loden and Rosener (1991), "Stereotype is a fixed and distorted
generalization made about all members of a particular group" (p. 58). Prejudice
can be defined as the tendency to have prior negative judgment toward ". . .
people who are different from some reference group in terms of sex, ethnic
background or racial characteristics such as skin color" (Morrison, 1992, pp.
34-35). Henderson (1994a) defines prejudice as "a conclusion drawn without
adequate knowledge or evidence"
(p. 133). The existence and the functions
of stereotyping have been researched and documented by many individuals (Brewer
& Kramer, 1985; Devine, 1989; Fernandez, 1993; Morrison, 1992; Wilder,
1986).
A study conducted by Catalyst (1990) revealed that stereotyping, preconceptions, and exclusion were some of the most serious career hurdles for women managers. These findings coincide with the findings provided by the Executive Leadership Council's study (Baskerville & Tucker, 1991) in which 50 top African American executives of large American corporations were surveyed. This study revealed that many barriers that have hindered the advancement of women managers are very similar to the restrictions imposed on African American executives. Similarly, Morrison (1992) surveyed 196 managers from 16 organizations and found that the biggest barrier for nontraditional (women and minorities) managers is prejudice. She observed that, while Affirmative Action legislation provided access to opportunities, it did little to address the underlying assumptions and stereotypes that plagued nontraditional employees and created barriers to advancement that persist today.
Myths and stereotypes affect most nontraditional workers: women, minorities, people with disabilities, and older workers. Stereotypes about women are certainly less positive than those of men (Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Henderson, 1994a; Smith & Stewart, 1983). For example, women are often assumed to be passive, indecisive, emotional, and unable to be analytical (Summers, 1991). Stereotypes about minorities are less positive than those of whites (Cose, 1991; Sigall & Page, 1971). For instance, a study conducted by Smith (1990) revealed that whites have the preconceived perception that people who are not like them are less intelligent and less hard working. Some stereotypes apply to certain minority groups in particular. Morrison (1992) found that Asian-Americans are assumed to be research oriented and not able to supervise people; Hispanics are assumed to be unassertive; and African Americans are perceived as being lazy and incompetent (p. 35). Henderson (1994a) reported that "Workers with disabilities are viewed as not capable of performing their jobs" (p. 96). Henderson went on to report that older workers are stereotyped as inferior beings and viewed as unproductive.
Sutton and Moore (1985) examined attitudes on issues pertaining to women in top management in American corporations. They surveyed 438 female and 348 male executives and found that resistance to female managers was more evident than to male managers. It also revealed that half of the male executives surveyed would not feel comfortable having a woman as a boss. Even though these findings represented data collected over ten years ago, at a time when there were not as many women in the workforce as there are today, similar problems for women tend to remain. A more recent study conducted by Wentling (1992) in which 30 women managers from the U.S. midwest region were interviewed revealed that white male bosses often have difficulties working with women and many do not believe in the advancement of women. Similarly, a national study of the changing workforce conducted by the Families and Work Institute (Galinsky, Bond, & Friedman, 1993) found that minority workers' chances for advancement are lower than the chances for non-minority workers.
There are many studies reporting the presence of discrimination at the workplace (Auster, 1988; Fernandez, 1993; Galinsky et al., 1993). A U.S. Department of Labor (1992) report noted that male and female managers were very similar in responses about job satisfaction, stress, and commitment to the organization, but women rated their own promotional opportunities as much lower than those of their male peers. Over the years, surveys conducted by Fernandez (1993) have found that a majority of employees have witnessed the following examples of discrimination in their companies: Women have a much harder time finding a sponsor or mentor than men do; many women are often excluded from informal networks by men; customers do not accept a woman's authority as much as they accept a man's in similar situations; women have to be better performers than men to get ahead; many women are faced with some type of sexual harassment on the job; women are placed in jobs with no future; and women are penalized more for mistakes than men (p. 198). Fernandez (1988) found that Fortune 500 CEOs acknowledged that women in their organizations faced barriers that men did not in getting to the top.
Auster (1988) reviewed research previously conducted on bias toward women by corporate management and she observed that they centered around informal culture, selection and recruitment practices, task assignment, performance evaluation, promotion, and salary decisions. This author arrived at this conclusion based on research conducted prior to 1986. However, there are still subtle and some unsubtle forms of discrimination that remain intact, even though discrimination in the workplace has been against the law for many years. The national study conducted by the Families and Work Institute (Galinsky et al., 1993) revealed that women and minorities are still discriminated against at work. This study showed that 27% (out of 3,400 participants) claimed to have been discriminated against at some time during their work lives (p. 33).
Harassment still exists in many forms, both subtle and obvious. Poole (1997) defined harassment as any conduct or comment based on sexual, racial, or any other differences employees may have that is likely to cause offense and humiliation. The Black's Law Dictionary (Black, 1990) defines sexual harassment as a "type of employment discrimination, includes sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature prohibited by Federal Law" (p. 1375). Sexual harassment ranges from unwelcome casual touching to persistent requests for sexual favors. Racial or ethnic harassment may include hostility, ostracism, and verbal abuse. Collins and Blodgett (1981) conducted a survey with 2,000 subscribers to the Harvard Business Review and found that sexual harassment is widespread in the business world. Tomberlin (1996), discussing statistics of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), observed that since 1990 there has been a rapid increase in both the number of cases of sexual harassment filed by EEOC, and the amount of monetary damages against companies. The Human Relations Commission presented similar statistics concerning this issue (Brown, 1996).
Harassment has many negative effects. It can negatively affect employers and employees. It can be very costly to an employer in productivity as well as in cost of litigation and settlements. For example, the federal government reported an estimated cost of $189 million over a two-year period (Tang & McCollum, 1996). A study conducted by Working Woman (Sandroff, 1988), in which 160 Fortune 500 service and manufacturing companies participated, found that sexual harassment costs each of these companies $6 to $7 million on average a year in absenteeism, employee turnover, low morale, and productivity losses.
Employees who are harassed can be affected in many different forms. Harassment distracts employees from focusing on task-related responsibilities, reduces productivity, and can lead to increased turnover. Thacker and Gohmann (1996) conducted a study to determine the consequences of sexual harassment. They surveyed over eight thousand federal employees and also found that harassment contributed to emotional and psychological trauma. Poole (1997) reported that harassment can have a negative impact on the following five areas: (1) physiological, (2) emotional, (3) career path, (4) self-perception, and (5) social and interpersonal relations. In addition, an environment where harassment goes on is not conducive to forming high-performance work teams (Dunnette & Motowidlo, 1982; Fernandez, 1993; Hotelling, 1991; Howard, 1991).
Many women who work in corporations face difficulties in balancing their work and their families. The study conducted by Morrison (1992) revealed the following findings regarding this issue: the struggle to balance home and work is a difficult situation that women must deal with, and often they must make the decision to postpone and even stop their career advancement; having and taking care of children often conflicts with full-time dedication to a career; it is unfeasible for many women to continue to work evenings and weekends or travel frequently once they have children; many organizational executives do not have much understanding or sympathy for work/family conflicts that women have to solve; and competing demands between work and family represent career advancement barriers for many women.
In addition to taking care of children, many other outside responsibilities of women, such as household chores, social obligations, and significant relationships, make it harder for them to meet the high-performance standards required for advancement (Stoner & Hartman, 1990). The conflict between work and family responsibilities continues to be a barrier, forcing some working women to quit their jobs and limiting the contributions of many talented women who stay (Morrison, 1992; Stoner & Hartman, 1990). Even though balancing work and family is a barrier for the advancement of women, it is perceived as less restrictive than the barriers at the workplace. A study conducted by Heatley (1992) in which 75 women managers were surveyed found that "home-career conflicts" have less impact on their career advancement or are less detrimental than barriers such as differences in salaries, exclusion, and isolation.
Morrison (1992) stated that poor career planning and development is mostly associated with a lack of opportunity for women and minorities to get the kind of work experiences that will qualify them for top-level positions. Poor career planning is one of the most frequent barrier among women and minorities. In addition, Morrison observed that organizational decisionmakers are often reluctant to assign women and minorities to the challenging, high-profile jobs that are required to add credibility to their work record. Women and minorities often find that managers do not feel comfortable assuming responsibility for their advancement in a comparable manner to white males, partly because they are viewed as being less capable and, therefore, a higher risk (Gibbs, 1991; Jamieson & O'Mara, 1991; Mabry et al., 1990; Rosener, 1986; Thomas & Alderfer, 1989).
Many studies have shown that women's job experiences do not very often include the types of job assignments and development experiences required for senior-level jobs (Morrison, 1992; Morrison, White, & Van Velsor, 1987; Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1991; Van Velsor & Hughes, 1990). Morrison (1992) found that women and minorities are usually given assignments that are less challenging, less visible, and not as important as the ones given to white males. She observed that these types of assignments accumulate and result in limited opportunities for future promotions. Catalyst (1993) reported that credential building experiences and career enhancing assignments are often unavailable to minorities and women. Wentling (1992) and Catalyst (1990) also found that the lack of career planning and planned job assignments for women is a serious barrier to their advancement. DiTomaso, Thompson, and Blake (1988) identified lack of promotion opportunities and the preponderance of staff assignments as the highest ranking factors that hinder the successful advancement of minorities. Women and minorities often do not know what is expected of them for upward advancement (Morrison, 1992).
Lack of organizational political savvy is another barrier affecting women and minorities at work. Wentling (1992) studied 30 women in middle-level management positions and found that, in many instances, women have difficulty conforming to company norms, fitting in, adapting to the organizational culture, knowing whom to approach for support, or determining the organization's informal power structure. She also found that women have difficulty perceiving the organizational political environment due to lack of accessibility of information. These findings are applied to women in management, but they could also apply to minorities because Morrison (1992) found that lack of political savvy is also a barrier for minorities. According to Morrison, women and people of color do not seem to pay enough attention to organizational politics and often fail to advance. Furthermore, they have difficulty perceiving the organization's political environment accurately (Wentling, 1992).
Morrison (1992) identified two other issues related to lack of organizational political savvy. Women and minorities many times lack the information about how the organization's political system works or how they can make it work to their advantage. Another common disadvantage among women and people of color is the inability to establish and/or become part of networks. Because of their lack of networking they do not get as much information about industry trends and where their companies are destined. Without strong networks, it is difficult to gain expertise in corporate politics and obtain valuable information needed to operate within the organization's informal power structure (Morrison, 1992; Wentling, 1992).
Morrison (1992) found that women and minorities are often treated differently than their male colleagues. For example, they may be excluded from luncheons, social events, and even informal gatherings within the office. In addition, they may not have access to the information they need in order to make informed decisions (Wentling, 1992). Women and people of color are constantly under scrutiny; therefore, they must consistently demonstrate competency on the job, for they are under enormous pressure to do outstanding work continuously (Wentling, 1992). This creates a serious problem in that, if they need help, they cannot admit it and ask for help for fear of being marked as incompetent. Because of the pressure to be consistently outstanding and the need to avoid serious mistakes, their not asking for help can result in detrimental consequences (Morrison, 1992; Wentling, 1992).
Another factor that contributes to an unsupportive work environment for women and people of color is a lack of role models and mentors, especially for those moving above middle management positions. Most people want to surround themselves with others like themselves. Even though people from different backgrounds may be just as competent as those who look, talk, and behave the same, often managers tend to hire and promote people like themselves (Carnevale & Stone, 1994). White men are usually not devoted to assisting and supporting someone with a different perspective or values and may find it difficult to associate with such an individual (Morrison, 1992). This tendency adversely affects women and people of color who are more likely to be different from the decisionmakers who are making recommendations that affect their career advancement (Hanover, 1993).
The tendency for individuals to favor people who are like themselves has been well documented (Avery, 1979; Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Brewer & Kramer, 1985; Cascio, 1982; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992; Wexley & Nemeroff, 1974). Most people tend to feel more comfortable around people who are like themselves; therefore, managers many times tend to hire, promote, and make major project assignments to people like themselves, rather than those who are different. Women and people of color often receive less feedback from managers than from other employees, due to uncertainty about how the feedback will be received and from concerns about legal ramifications (Jamieson & O'Mara, 1991; Jones, 1982). Without feedback on job performance, women and people of color cannot improve their work, corrections cannot be made, and problems can escalate until they are beyond repair.
Women and people of color are often not included or invited to participate in informal settings like playing golf or after-hours gatherings which provide the setting for strengthening business relationships and making informal business decisions. Sometimes women and people of color feel like outsiders, which can lead to personal and professional alienation (Dunnette & Motowidlo, 1982; Hymowitz, 1989; Rosener, 1986; Schwartz, 1989).
There is a tendency to question the qualifications of employees who have satisfied an organization's Affirmative Action goal (Cose, 1991; Elfin, with Burke, 1993; Gates, 1993; Gleckman, Smart, Dwyer, Segal, & Weber, 1991; Summers, 1991). Many times managers may have different expectations of performance for employees, based upon their race or sex. For example, when a man fails, there is tendency to blame it on a temporary setback, lack of effort, or bad luck. But, when a woman fails, there is a tendency to blame a more personal factor such as lack of ability or competence. Expectations that white men will succeed at tasks are stronger than expectations for the success of women and people of color (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Many times Affirmative Action is used to explain the success of women and people of color and their abilities on the job are discounted (Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, & Casmay, 1981). The notion that you have to expect less from women and people of color is an assumption so pervasive that it sometimes affects their perceptions of themselves (Morrison, 1992).
Mentors have been defined as higher ranking, influential, senior organizational members with advanced experience and knowledge who are committed to providing upward mobility and support to a protg's professional career (Collins, 1983; Kram, 1985; Roche, 1979). Since most high ranking, influential, senior organizational members with advanced experience are white males, they are in the most likely position to be mentors. White male mentors may not even consider women or people of color as candidates for protg roles because they may be more comfortable in developing a professional and personal relationship with another white male. A number of studies have found that a key element in the selection process is the degree to which the mentor identifies with the protg and perceives the protg as a younger version of himself (Blackburn, Chapman, & Cameron, 1981; Bowers, 1984; Lunding, Clements, & Perkins, 1978). The selection process may, therefore, be biased by the tendency of white male mentors to choose other white males over female or people of color protgs. White male mentors may be reluctant to sponsor female or people of color protgs because they perceive them as being a greater risk than their white male counterparts (Fitt & Newton, 1989). Given that women and people of color are numerically rare in top-level management positions, they may be seen as a bigger risk to sponsor by a mentor.
Lack of mentors and role models are barriers for many women and people of color. Mentors are extremely important to women and people of color, especially since they need the guidance, encouragement, and advocacy that mentors can provide to overcome such obstacles as isolation, lack of credibility, and lack of political savvy (Jeruchim & Shapiro, 1992; Morrison, 1992). Without the kind of career guidance often provided by mentors or a systematic career planning program, it is easy for women and people of color to choose certain job assignments for the wrong reasons. The lack of mentoring for women and people of color makes them particularly vulnerable to poor career decisions. Not having a mentor who is trustworthy and knowledgeable about career mobility is a factor that further contributes to the problem of unwise career decisions (Morrison, 1992).
In a study conducted by Morrison (1992), organizational managers mentioned backlash more than any other problem as a weakness in their diversity efforts, and some managers cited backlash as a barrier in itself to the advancement of women and people of color. Chemers, Oskamp, and Constanzo (1995) describe backlash as follows:
Negative reactions to the development of power by women and minorities can be characterized as a form of backlash. This may be called diversity backlash when applied to organizations, which occurs when minority members are perceived as attempting to develop power by individual or collective means. Diversity backlash can be characterized as a preemptive strike against the development of power of groups lacking power in organizations. Typically, it occurs before power has actually been obtained by minority groups; it is a reaction to the threat of loss of power by the majority group. (p. 106)
A survey conducted by Nelson-Horchler (1991) showed that 35% of male managers believe that their companies discriminate against men to rectify past bias against women (only 10% of women agreed). Faludi (1991) noted that backlash against women has constantly been driven by the perception that women are developing power and making progress toward equality. Backlash was found to be one of the ten most significant restraining forces in the advancement of black senior executives (Baskerville & Tucker, 1991). Feelings of resentment and fear has prompted some white men to rebel against their organizations' Affirmative Action and diversity efforts by undermining diversity practices (Morrison, 1992).
Some organizations that have made an attempt to break down barriers that are encountered by women and people of color by being supportive and providing individualized attention are sometime accused of providing special treatment. Some of these organizations have even been charged with reverse discrimination (Alderfer, 1982; Fernandez, 1991; Gleckman et al., 1991; Lawlor, 1992; Tilove, 1991). Backlash is also prompted when women and people of color are given opportunities that white males were not given, such as faster promotions or invitations to special meeting or social events (Morrison, 1992). Breaking traditions by providing any of these kinds of opportunities to women and people of color upsets some white males. Many white males believe that what they now face in the U.S. workplace is reverse discrimination, that qualified white men are losing out on jobs and promotions to unqualified women and people of color.
News media, books, and articles have basically presented an image that all it takes to succeed is to be a woman or a person of color (Fernandez, 1993). However, the statistics from such sources as the U.S. Department of Labor (1992) show the opposite. Most managers or occupational workers who believe they were discriminated against actually were not promoted because of lack of skills, ability, potential, or because of some subjective evaluation on the part of the company (Fernandez, 1993). Many authors have noted that part of the reason some white males resist diversity activities is because they perceive themselves as being excluded from diversity concerns and, in some cases, they are actually seen as the cause of the concern. In most organizations, white males dominate the culture and are typically the power holders, which may cause resentment from the nontraditional workers in the organization. Many white men are uncertain about where they will fit into organizations in which valuing and managing diversity is a priority (Carnevale & Stone, 1994; Fernandez, 1993; Loden & Rosener, 1991; Mobley & Payne, 1992; Thiederman, 1991). While some white men resist diversity programs because they fear exclusion, some women and people of color also are resistant because they fear inclusion. For example, "They hesitate to participate in diversity support networks, because they do not want to be seen as outside the mainstream. They feel they can make it on their own credentials" (Carnevale & Stone, 1994, p. 37).
In summary, a variety of barriers have kept minorities from advancing in organizations. Determining what concerns and barriers are the most critical to employees is an important part of moving forward and is one of the first steps in effective diversity efforts. Although the specific barriers to advancement vary from one organization to another, their effect is the same. Barriers that prevent women and people of color from advancing deprive any organization from preparing a full force of potential leaders to take over in the future (Carnevale & Stone, 1995; Fernandez, 1993; Morrison, 1992).