319–35. equality diversity and inclusion at work

Ai rmative action attitudes 253 variables and with beliefs about targets, actions, and economic ef ects’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1109–36. Kuklinski, J.H., Sniderman, P.M., Knight, K., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P.E., Lawrence, G.R. and Mellers, B. 1997, ‘Racial prejudice and attitudes toward ai rmative action’, American Journal of Political Science, 41, 402–19. Lowery, B.S., Unzueta, M.M., Knowles, E.D. and Gof , P.A. 2006, ‘Concern for the ingroup and opposition to ai rmative action’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961–74. Murrell, A.J., Dietz-Uhler, B.L., Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. and Drout, C. 1994, ‘Aversive racism and resistance to ai rmative action: perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 151 2, 71–86. Nosworthy, G.J., Lea, J.A. and Lindsay, R.C.L. 1995, ‘Opposition to ai rma- tive action: racial af ect and traditional value predictors across four programs’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 314–37. Pace, J.M. and Smith, Z. 1995, ‘Understanding ai rmative action: from the prac- titioner’s perspective’, Public Personnel Management, 24, 139–47. Reyna, C., Tucker, A., Korfmacher, W. and Henry, P.J. 2005, ‘Searching for common ground between supporters and opponents of ai rmative action’, Political Psychology, 26, 667–82. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. and Bobo, L. 1996, ‘Racism, conservatism, ai rmative action, and intellectual sophistication: a matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–90. Smith, E.R. and Kluegel, J.R. 1984, ‘Beliefs and attitudes about women’s oppor- tunity: comparisons with beliefs about Blacks and a general perspective’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 47, 81–94. Sniderman, P.M., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P.E. and Kendrick, A. 1991, ‘The new racism’, American Journal of Political Science, 35, 423–47. Steeh, C. and Krysan, M. 1996, ‘Ai rmative action and the public: 1970–1995’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 128–58. Stoker, L. 1998, ‘Understanding Whites’ resistance to ai rmative action: the role of principled commitments and racial prejudice’, in J. Hurwitz and M. Peffl ey eds, Perception and Prejudice: Race and Politics in the United States, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 135–70. Stout, K.D. and Buf um, W.E. 1993, ‘The commitment of social workers to ai rmative action’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 20, 123–35. Strolovitch, D.Z. 1998, ‘Playing favorites: public attitudes toward race- and gender-targeted anti-discrimination policy’, NWSA Journal, 103, 27–53. 254 19. Headcounts and equal opportunity: people accounting in the workplace Stephen M. Garcia, Mitchell J. Meyle and Eric A. Provins INTRODUCTION CEOs, executives, directors, and managers routinely decide the outcomes of highly competitive events, whether making the i nal call on a hiring decision or selecting one star employee among many to be the coveted ‘employee of the year’. In this latter case, for example, imagine that the two top candidates are Ms. Jones – a marketing analyst – and Ms. Smith – a i nancial analyst. Assuming they both are highly qualii ed, both can- didates would have a 5050 chance, so to speak, of earning the title of ‘employee of the year’. However, imagine further that in four of the past i ve years, the award has always gone to someone in marketing. In this case, we posit that the award-winning chances would precipitously fall for the marketing candidate and precipitously increase for the i nance candidate. While ai rmative action policies Zurif , 2004; Crosby et al., 2006 have arguably changed the way we allocate awards and opportunities on the basis of gender or race, ai rmative action policies obviously make no special provisions for employees from ‘marketing’ versus ‘i nance’. In this chapter, however, we extend the implications of a social psychological theory called ‘people accounting’ Garcia and Ybarra, 2007 to human resource management to demonstrate how headcounts along a wide range of mundane social category lines have the potential to af ect how we allo- cate rewards and opportunities in the workplace. Headcounts and equal opportunity 255 WHY EVEN MUNDANE SOCIAL CATEGORIES MATTER The social categorization literature Turner et al., 1987; McGarty, 1999 has established that people attach emotional value to their social cat- egory memberships Abrams and Hogg, 1988, 1999. In fact, more recent research suggests that it is especially dii cult for groups from dif erent social categories, say an ‘American’ company versus a ‘French’ company, to maximize joint gains Garcia et al., 2005. For instance, Americans would rather have less-lucrative equal outcomes for example, 500 – Americans 500 – French than more-lucrative but disadvantageously unequal outcomes where the French earn more from a joint venture than themselves for example, 600 – Americans 800 – French. On the other hand, if both companies were from the same social category that is, Americans, then people would be willing to maximize joint gains, even if it means they will proi t less than the other company. Thus, the impli- cation is that group members will experience a greater pain of upward social comparison when they are getting paid less than another group in inter-category situations that is, Americans versus French than in intra- category situations that is, Americans versus Americans. While actual group members become sensitive to inequalities in inter- category situations, third parties also become more sensitive to inequali- ties in inter-category situations than intra-category ones Beggan et al., 1991; Garcia and Miller, 2007. Although third parties do not experience the same pain of upward social comparison as actual group members do, Garcia and Miller show that third parties can certainly recognize an af ective disparity – the ‘hedonic gap’ – that would arise between the winning and losing sides of an inter-category situation. Garcia and Miller hypothesize that third parties will consequently become more averse to using winner-take-all solutions to resolve inter-category disputes than intra-category ones, even when such winner-take-all outcomes are created by the fair toss of a coin see Elster, 1989, 1992; Blount, 1995; Bolton et al., 2005. To illustrate this point, Garcia and Miller conducted a series of decision- making studies about whether or not to resolve conl ict with winner-take-all solutions. In one particular study, University of Michigan undergraduates were asked to read one of two conl ict situations. Participants in the intra- category condition read the following: The Class of 1994 is deciding where to host their class reunion. Six hundred alumni were asked to rank a list of seven possible hotels. As you can see below, the alumni are divided on their i rst choice: half the alumni want the Marriott