The Problem of Minority Performance in Organisations

HR Response to Organisational Change 1

The Problem ofMinority Performance in

Organisations

ND TackeyP TamkinE Sheppard

the Institutefor Employment

Studies

I E SReport 375

RSupported by the IESResearch

Club

THE PROBLEM OFMINORITY PERFORMANCE

IN ORGANISATIONS

Other titles from IES:

A Share of the Spoils: employee financial participationReilly P, Cummings J, Bevan SIES Report 373, 2001. ISBN 1-85184-303-5

Succession Planning DemystifiedHirsh WIES Report 372, 2000. ISBN 1-85184-302-7

Free, Fair and Efficient? Open internal job advertisingHirsh W, Pollard E, Tamkin PIES Report 371, 2000. ISBN 1-85184-301-9

Performance Review: Balancing Objectives and ContentStrebler M T, Bevan S, Robinson DIES Report 370, 2001. ISBN 1-85184-300-0

HR Shared Services and the Realignment of HRReilly PIES Report 368, 2000. ISBN 1-85184-298-5

Employee Returns: Linking HR Performance Indicators to Business StrategyCarter A, Robinson DIES Report 365, 2000. ISBN 1-85184-295-0

Learning from Cross-functional TeamworkKettley P, Hirsh WIES Report 356, 2000. ISBN 1-85184-285-3

From People to Profits: The HR link in the service-profit chainBarber L, Hayday S, Bevan SIES Report 355, 1999. ISBN 1-85184-284-5

Ethnic Minority Graduates: Differences by DegreesConnor H, La Valle I, Tackey N, Perryman SIES Report 309, 1996. ISBN 1-85184-235-7

A catalogue of these and over 100 other titles is available from IES,or on the IES Website, www.employment-studies.co.uk

Report 375

ND TackeyP TamkinE Sheppard

THE PROBLEM OFMINORITY

PERFORMANCEIN ORGANISATIONS

the Institutefor Employment

Studies

Published by:

THE INSTITUTE FOR EMPLOYMENT STUDIESMantell BuildingFalmerBrighton BN1 9RFUK

Tel. + 44 (0) 1273 686751Fax + 44 (0) 1273 690430

http://www.employment-studies.co.uk

Copyright © 2001 The Institute for Employment Studies

No part of this publication may be reproduced or used in any form by any means�graphic, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording, taping orinformation storage or retrieval systems�without prior permission in writing from theInstitute for Employment Studies.

British Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85184-304-3

Printed in Great Britain

v

The Institute for Employment Studies

IES is an independent, international and apolitical centre ofresearch and consultancy in human resource issues. It worksclosely with employers in the manufacturing, service and publicsectors, government departments, agencies, professional andemployee bodies, and foundations. For over 30 years the Institutehas been a focus of knowledge and practical experience inemployment and training policy, the operation of labour marketsand human resource planning and development. IES is a not-for-profit organisation which has a multidisciplinary staff of over 50.IES expertise is available to all organisations through research,consultancy, publications and the Internet.

IES aims to help bring about sustainable improvements inemployment policy and human resource management. IESachieves this by increasing the understanding and improving thepractice of key decision makers in policy bodies and employingorganisations.

The IES Research Club

This report is the product of a study supported by the IESResearch Club, through which a group of IES CorporateMembers finance, and often participate in, applied research onemployment issues. The members of the Club are:

Anglian WaterAstraZenecaBOC GroupBBCBT plcCabinet OfficeConsigniaDepartment of the Environment,

Transport and the RegionsDepartment of Trade and IndustryGlaxoSmithKline plcHalifax plcHM Customs & ExciseHM Prison Service

Home OfficeInland RevenueLloyds TSB GroupMarks & Spencer plcNHS Management ExecutiveOrange plcRolls-Royce plcRoyal Bank of Scotland Group plcScottish EquitableScottish ExecutiveShell in the UKSmiths Group plcStandard LifeUnilever UK (Holdings) Ltd

vi

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the members of the IES Research Clubwho participated in this study, especially those who contributedto the discussions at Conference in March 2001.

vii

Contents

Executive Summary ix

1. The Problem of Minority Performance inOrganisations 1

1.1 Background 11.2 This report 4

2. Explanatory Frameworks 7

2.1 Literature on race and the organisation 72.2 Performance attributional effects 102.3 Theories of performance evaluation 13

3. Organisational Culture, Support and Performance 21

3.1 Do the determinants of progression differ byethnicity? 23

3.2 Ethnic minorities� response 26

4. Remedying Differential Performance Evaluations 30

4.1 Is there a problem? 324.2 Where is the problem? 334.3 What are the mechanisms? 35

Bibliography 39

viii

ix

Executive Summary

There is little research in the area of race and organisation.Most of what is available focuses on improving recruitmentand selection procedures. Addressing the problem ofunder-representation of minority ethnic staff, however, isonly part of the process of establishing fairer workplaces. Itis equally important that they are not disadvantaged in theway that they progress within organisations. This briefpresents evidence from published literature on the ways inwhich the performance of minority ethnic groups isevaluated, and on which a number of other HR processesdepend, such as career development and progression. Inparticular, it explores how attributions are made, examinessome of the explanatory frameworks for such attributions,and looks at the ways organisational culture can contributeto exclusion and discrimination. Finally, we offerrecommendations on what organisations can do to addressthese issues.

Background

Minority ethnic groups experience greater disadvantage inthe labour market. They have higher rates of unemploy-ment, earn less than comparable whites, and are over-represented on the lower rungs of the organisationalladder. It is equally clear, however, that policy makers areincreasingly turning their attention to addressing theseglaring disparities. The findings of the Stephen LawrenceInquiry have highlighted the urgent need for this, byraising questions about racism, and in particular

x

institutional racism, within the UK. This relates not only tothe services provided by institutions to the community as awhole, but also their performance as employers themselves.It applies to their selection practices and subsequent HRprocedures that govern who gets a job, and how people aretreated once they are employed.

The current review

This review concentrates on the key determinants of theperformance management process in organisations, becausethat process underpins most other personnel decisions, inparticular the assessment of performance. It therefore maybe seen as the root cause of much of the disadvantage thatminority ethnic employees experience. The evidence fromthe literature is that there is a widespread tendency inorganisations to evaluate the performance of minorityethnic employees much lower than that of white staff. Wesuggest that the observed difference may be due to threeprincipal factors:

! it may be due to bias in the systems used to measureand improve performance

! it may be the result of biased perceptions of whitemanagers, rather than the true measures ofperformance

! it may reflect actual differences in performance.

Each of these assumptions has consequences for the wayorganisations take remedial action to address problems ofpossible discrimination in the evaluation of performance.

Explanatory frameworks

There is a dearth of literature which deals with the issue ofrace in organisations in the UK. Much of the research onrace in organisational behaviour has been initiated in the

xi

US. The studies tended to focus on �access� discrimination� the way that minorities were disadvantaged through theway positions were advertised, their rejection throughselection procedures, and their comparatively low startingstatus. Very little attention was directed towards their�treatment� once they entered organisations, on such issuesas opportunities for advancement, career-building anddevelopment.

More recently, that imbalance has been addressed, andlater research has paid more attention to the way thatperformance evaluation processes work withinorganisations. In particular, rater bias among managershave been measured to test for discrimination or unequaltreatment of minorities. What emerges from this latterresearch, though, is that authors are sharply divided as towhether race effects occur in the wide variety oforganisational and management issues. Proponents of the�no effect� school believe that the ratings of white managersmerely reflect the lower job-related ability and experienceof their minority subordinates. Other commentatorsattribute significant differences between racial groups torater bias. Given the divergence of views, what are neededare possible explanations for why the observed differencesexist, and for such explanations to be underpinned bysome theory of behaviour in organisations.

Evaluation theories

The literature identifies two possible theories to explain theobserved differences in the evaluation of performance.Both assume biased perceptions among raters. The first,cognitive processing theory, suggests that when assessingthe performance of their subordinates, managers look forinformation and evidence that confirm broader stereotypesbased on, say, gender or race. The attribution of negativecharacteristics to members of a certain group (minorityethnic employees) then leads to negative outcomes for allfuture members of that group. Attribution bias takes

xii

several forms. For example, managers� prior expectationscan lead them to evaluate the performance level ofminorities more negatively that they actually warrant.Another form of bias occurs when the good performance ofminorities on a job is attributed to good luck orextraordinary effort, rather than to their abilities or talents.

The second theory, in-groups and out-groups, explainshow individuals within organisations are assigned to twotypes of groups, and treated in quite contrasting ways bymanagers. �Organisation� groups belong to an �in-group�,and are defined by task and function, and treated morefavourably, particularly in the type of support provided forthem. Managers also use less authority to influence theirbehaviour and performance. �Identity� groups, on the otherhand, belong to the �out-group�, and are determined bytheir physical characteristics (such as race/ethnicity), andmanaged according to a more authoritarian style, andthrough contract compliance. The conflict betweenorganisational group membership and racial identitygroup membership often lead to racist assumptions, whichalso influence performance evaluation decisions.

Organisational culture

Cognitive structures and group theories provide a usefulexplanation for individual (managerial) behaviour.Ultimately, though, it is organisational behaviour whichhas a more significant impact on minority individuals. Inparticular, the organisation�s culture defines and shapes itsbehaviour in policy areas such as equal opportunities anddevelopment opportunities.

This, in turn, has a strong impact on conceptions aboutminority individuals. It is within this environment, though,that questions arise as to whether the determinants ofprogression within the organisation differ according toethnic origin. To a large extent, progression opportunitieswithin organisations are determined by an internal labour

xiii

market which is regulated by the organisation�s goals andobjectives. Consequently, where discrimination still exists,even in the face of equal qualification, skill levels andemployment experience, it is surmised that minorities arepaying an �ethnic penalty�, which is dictated by the cultureof the organisation. Minority ethnic individuals mayrespond to this through a self-limiting behaviour; the waypeople hold themselves back from career developmentopportunities because of what they perceive as anaccumulation of lost opportunities. A downward spiralbecomes established, which provides an explanation forpoor performance.

Remedial action

Our approach to how organisations may identify andaddress internal problems of minority performance isbased on three assumptions:

! that there is a belief or suspicion that inequality in theevaluation of performance of different groups is aproblem

! that the organisation wishes to identify the areas andcauses of the problem(s), and

! that there is desire to develop mechanisms orapproaches to eliminate the problem.

Any remedial action, where a problem is identified to exist,must be based on evidence, ie detailed information on theworkforce, including numbers at each grade, recruitmentand retention rates, tenure and progression etc. These mustbe broken down by ethnicity and, in the case of multi-sitedorganisations, location. We suggest some basic statisticalanalysis to see, for example, if recruitment rates reflect theexternal minority ethnic population, and whetherpromotion rates reflect the proportion in feeder grades.

xiv

If there is evidence of a problem, then the next level ofenquiry is to identify the problem areas and undertakefurther work on these. The most common areas here arerecruitment methods, shortlisting and selection criteria,selection panels, career paths, and appraisal systems.

The mechanism for eliminating the problem presents themost difficulty for organisations, because it challengesinappropriate attitudes and behaviour. Evidence ofbehavioural issues include differences in interviewoutcomes, and in appraisal judgements. Attitudinal andbehavioural problems are most often tackled throughtraining and development, but in conjunction with systemsthat make explicit what is (or what is not) expectedbehaviour. These are best defined through competencies.

Guidelines

Our main guidelines for corporate organisations embarkingon remedial action are to:

! undertake a thorough workforce review to identify anyareas of concern, including access and treatment

! look at systems, processes and attitudes and behavioursas possible contributory factors

! assess what needs to be changed and what is possiblewithin the cultural context.

The Problem of Minority Performance in Organisations 1

1. The Problem of MinorityPerformance in Organisations

This brief overviews some of the literature that is availableon the work performance of minority ethnic groups inorganisations. In doing so we begin by setting the contextfor the current interest in issues of ethnicity, and reviewthe evidence of differential experience within organisationsfrom both the public and the private sectors. We then go onto examine the literature that deals with issues of race andperformance, explore how attributions are made, examinesome explanatory frameworks and then look at the waysorganisational culture can contribute to exclusion anddiscrimination. Finally we look at what organisations cando to address these issues�.

1.1 Background

It is generally acknowledged that minority ethnic groupsexperience greater disadvantage in the labour market.They are more likely to experience unemployment, earnless than their white peers, be over-represented at thebottom rungs of the organisational ladder, and to feel thatthey are discriminated against (Jones 1993; Madood et al.1997; TUC 1999; TUC 2000). The disadvantages that ethnicminorities generally continue to experience in the labourmarket is a problem to which policy makers areincreasingly turning their attention. This focus has beenbrought into even sharper relief following the findings of

The Institute for Employment Studies2

the inquiry headed by Sir William Macpherson of Clunyinto the death of the black teenager, Stephen Lawrence,and the subsequent findings on institutional racism. TheStephen Lawrence Inquiry report defined institutionalracism as:

�The collective failure of an organisation to provide anappropriate and professional service to people because of theircolour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected inprocesses, attitudes and behaviour which amount todiscrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance,thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantageminority ethnic people.�1

This definition whilst intended as a comment about servicedelivery, could equally apply not only to those externalclients or customers of an organisation, but also torepresentation of ethnic minority staff within anorganisation, and to discrimination among employees. Inother words, it applies to the selection practices andsubsequent HR procedures that govern who gets a job andhow people are treated once they are employed. Despite itsfocus on the procedures and practices of a large publicsector organisation, the Metropolitan Police Service, thecharge should not be seen to be confined to organisationsin the public sector only. Recent studies by the TUC andthe Runnymede Trust have highlighted the fact that theprivate sector is not immune from the charge ofdiscrimination, when it comes to the career developmentand progression of ethnic minority employees (TUC, 2000;Runnymede Trust, 2000).

Recent research (mainly in occupational psychology) hasfocused on initiatives taken by employers to improverepresentation of minority ethnic employees withinorganisations, as one of the ways of addressing this problem(Kandola and Keane, 1998; Scott and Kwiatkowski, 1998).

1 The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Sir WilliamMacpherson of Cluny, The Home Office, Cmd. 4262-1, February 1999.


The emphasis of such efforts has been on improving theopportunities to access in the organisation, ie recruitmentinitiatives. Increasingly, though, it is being recognised thatimproving representation is only one step on the way toacknowledging diversity and creating fairer workingpractices. Organisations need also to address theexperiences of minority ethnic groups after they have beenrecruited, and tackle potential �treatment� discriminationonce they are in employment. This is a view that is sharedby the Government, which in its White Paper, ModernisingGovernment, pointed out that:

�A truly effective diverse organisation is one in whichdifferences individuals bring are valued and used. Currentlywe tend to minimise differences and expect everyone to fit intoestablished ways of working. We should not expect them to.We should be flexible to allow everyone to make the bestcontribution they can. This has to be reflected in our ways ofworking, our personnel practices, the way managers manage.�

The implications for organisations are that they should beconcerned not only with the appropriate representation ofethnic minority staff within the workforce, but also need toconsider whether their procedures and practices caninadvertently contribute to discrimination in the workplace.At the corporate level, unequal practices are manifested bya number of indicators:

! the increasing management/supervisory gap betweenminority ethnic employees and their white counterparts.The recent TUC analysis of Labour Force Survey (LFS)data (TUC, 2000) indicated that the gap betweenwidened from 4.6 per cent in 1992 to 5.7 per cent in 1999.

! the almost total absence of ethnic minority represent-ation at senior management level in some of Britain�slargest corporations (Runnymede Trust, 2000).

! the disproportionately high numbers of minority ethnicemployees experiencing disciplinary action in a numberof local authorities (Rick et al., 1999)


Of particular concern is that these trends are occurringagainst the background of rising skill levels among minorityethnic employees, with statistics showing that they aremore likely to hold higher level qualifications comparedwith their white counterparts (TUC, 2000).

1.2 This report

In this report we concentrate on one of the keydeterminants of pay and progression within organisations:the performance management process. This underpinsmany other personnel decisions. It may be that the rootcause of much of the disadvantage that minority ethnicemployees experience lie with such assessment ofperformance.

This paper explores the literature on the relationshipbetween ethnicity and performance, in order to understandthe issues that may contribute to the observed under-performance of ethnic minorities. In particular, it seeks tounderstand the linkages between ethnicity and performancewithin organisations as explored by other studies.

The evidence from the literature is that there is awidespread tendency in organisations to evaluate theperformance of minority ethnic employees much lowerthan whites. We suggest that this observed difference maybe due to a number of factors:

! it may be due to bias in the systems used to measureand improve performance, or

! it may be the result of biased perceptions of whitemanagers, rather than the true measures of performance,or

! it may reflect actual differences in performance.

Our experience of reviewing performance managementsystems in organisations is that, on the whole, many of the


problems encountered occur in the application of thesystems (used in evaluating performance), rather thaninherent deficiencies in the systems themselves. Thewidespread and persistent nature of the problem, despitemuch variety in performance management, would tend tosuggest that there are other processes at work.

However, if the second of our assumptions is correct, thenit is likely that white managers� perceptions of theperformance of their ethnic minority subordinates is morelikely to be influenced by factors other than the ability ofthose subordinates. In other words, they assess theirsubordinates on criteria not related to the job.

On the other hand, if the third of our assumptions is valid,it raises other issues that may explain the poorperformance. In particular, it touches on how organisationsmanage poor performance, particularly as this (poorperformance) could be rooted in perceptions held by ethnicminorities about their career progression prospects, andtraining and development opportunities. These are some ofthe components that make up what has been described as�the attitude chain�. Recent research by IES (Barber et al.,1999) has shown that organisational performance hasantecedents in the attitudes of staff. This �attitude chain� ofeffect is rooted in individuals� attitudes to their workenvironment. In the retail organisation studied, theseattitudes were most affected by the individual�s perceptionof management capability, the general support offered bythe organisation, and training and developmentopportunities. Positive attitudes were associated with agreater likelihood of attending, ie lower rates of sicknessabsence and better performance. These together resulted inimproved customer satisfaction and customer loyalty andhence improved profitability. The general lesson that staffattitudes correlate with individual performance mayprovide a potential explanation as to how poorperformance may be rooted in perceptions of managerial


support, career opportunities and access to training anddevelopment.

Indeed, under this assumption, it might be useful toexamine whether some of the antecedents of poorperformance among some ethnic minority groups can betraced back to their educational experience and academicattainment. The pertinent issues for consideration here,however, include the extent to which there is organisationaland management support to help improve performance.Their existence or otherwise could be a reflection oforganisational culture. Equally important is the availabilityof career progression opportunities, as well as training anddevelopment opportunities. These are the factors that makeup the attitude chain, and which are likely to influence thelevel of performance of particular groups within theorganisation.

From the analysis of the literature, this brief will highlightsome of the probable causes of discrimination that arelikely to lead to lower rating of the performance of ethnicminorities. Following this, the brief makes suggestions forpossible remedial action to address the problems of possiblediscrimination in the evaluation of the performance ofethnic minorities. The final part of the report makessuggestions for the direction of future research.


2. Explanatory Frameworks

It is important to point out that there is a dearth ofliterature dealing with the issue of race in organisations.Until recently, much of the research on race inorganisational behaviour had been initiated in the UnitedStates. Their origins lay in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thelegislation which contributed to the most significantchange in the composition of the workforce. But even inthe US, the research design for much of the earlierliterature was of the experimental variety, with littleaccount taken of the organisational context. A lot of theliterature was concerned with �counting� instances ofoccurrence of particular behaviours within mainlylaboratory settings. Even now, there is a distinct lack ofqualitative data which seeks to explain the behaviour ofmanagers and their subordinates within organisationalsettings.

2.1 Literature on race and the organisation

The paucity of literature in this regard has beendemonstrated by Cox and Nkomo (1990), who carried outa comprehensive review of journal and other academicresearch that addressed the issue of race in organisations.Their report was aptly titled �Invisible men and women�, toreflect their view that researchers and academic writers onorganisational behaviour and human resource managementshied away from this area of study. Cox and Nkomo found


only 201 articles, published in 20 journals over a twenty-five year period, which addressed organisational behaviourand human resource management topics focused on raceeffects in organisations. (By comparison, some 16 journalspublished, over the 18 year period 1971-1989, around 426articles on age issues and 1,306 articles on gender issues.)The majority of articles they studied were empiricalstudies, with many of them only summarising survey data.Very few of these studies, moreover, were underpinned byany theoretical arguments. In any case, because most wereexploratory, their authors did not present or test anyhypothesis.

2.1.1 Focus of the literature

The focus of much of the earlier research was on accessdiscrimination that minorities faced, such as limitedadvertising of positions, rejection of applicants, and lowerstarting salaries. This is to be expected, since these were theareas where organisations were required by both legislationand court cases to ensure their practices did not haveunequal impact on different race groups. The fact thatorganisations had to establish they had valid and reliablepersonnel systems, particularly in the area of recruitment,prompted researchers to begin to examine critically theselection policies of organisations, and to measure unequalimpact. For example, the Commission for Racial Equality(CRE) has over the past few years published findings ofdirect or indirect access discrimination in the practices ofspecific employers, and sometimes of whole professions orindustries, such as accountancy and hotels. Accountancy,for example, was found to have a disparity between blackand white selection rates at all stages of recruitment intochartered accountancy training contracts, suggesting theexistence of some discrimination, albeit acting in anindirect way (CRE, 1987, 1988a, 1988b). The law professionhas also been subject to scrutiny about its recruitment andcareer development practices. Traditional practices,administrative convenience and a lack of social


responsibility of some legal firms, have been highlighted asbarriers to wider access to ethnic minorities (King andIsrael, 1989)

Some of the remedial actions taken by organisations toreform their personnel practices have been based on thebelief that discrimination is wrong both legally andmorally. Organisations that take this discrimination andfairness approach have, consequently, focused on equalopportunity, fair treatment recruitment, and compliancewith legislative requirements. Under this approach too,progress has been measured by how well recruitment andretention goals are achieved. It can be argued, however,that to a large extent, all such reform is premised onachieving equality, but not to the extent of influencing theorganisation�s work or culture.

On the other hand, for a very long time, very little attentionwas directed towards the treatment of minority groupsonce they had entered organisations. Thus, although muchmore is known about providing minority groups withaccess to a wide variety of jobs, there is less knowledgeabout how they are provided with opportunities foradvancement, career-building and development inorganisations. Ilgen and Youtz (1986), for example, havewarned against too much attention being paid to reducing�access� discrimination compared with �treatment�discrimination, ie what occurs once minority groupmembers have gained access into organisations. Indeed,treatment conditions, such as position assignment orpromotion, selection for training, salary increases,dismissal and redundancy, are influenced by one person�sevaluation of another to whom these conditions aredirected; to such an extent that the potential for biasbecomes greater.

In recent years, a number of studies have examinedtreatment conditions in organisations, although theiremphases have been on performance appraisal and


evaluation. Most of these have concentrated on rater andratee behaviour. In particular, rater bias among managershas been measured to test for discrimination or unequaltreatment of minorities. The question which researchershave sought to answer is whether the criterion measure-ments used by managers in arriving at their decisionsdiscriminate unfairly between different racial groups.

2.2 Performance attributional effects

There is no doubt that race effects occur in a wide varietyof organisational and management issues, such as groupdynamics, communication and conflict resolution. For thisreview it is important to explore various areas in humanresources management within organisations, where theeffects of race are likely to be particularly felt. They includerecruitment and selection, promotion (career development),training and development, retention (redundancy anddismissals) and performance management or evaluation.These are the essence of career dynamics. On many ofthese issues, it is not sufficient to just find differences.Rather, what is needed are possible explanations for whythe differences exist, and what their implications are formanagement practices. There is a particular need for thesearch for explanations to be underpinned by some theoryof behaviour in organisations.

As might be expected, the literature demonstrates a greatdeal of variation in the results of research into racedifferences in performance evaluations. To this extent,some writers have concluded that race and gender do nothave a substantial effect on performance evaluations. Somestudies, indeed, have shown no significant differencesbetween racial groups, especially when controlling forother factors which are considered to influence theperformance of individuals. Waldman and Avolio (1991)found no evidence of rater and ratee race effects onperformance evaluations across a range of occupations,after controlling for cognitive ability, education level, and


length of experience. They concluded from their study ofover 20,000 individuals employed in ten occupationcategories, that there was little or no bias in the ratings ofwhite managers. On the contrary, they believed that theratings merely reflected the somewhat lower job-relatedability and experience levels of minority ethnic sub-ordinates; and that managers were accurately representingperformance differences due to ability or experience.Pulakos et al. (1996) arrived at a similar conclusion, butattributed the differences in performance evaluationbetween whites and ethnic minorities to the fact that therewere differences in the ability of the two groups to perform�concrete behavioural� and �abstract conceptual� tasks. Themere fact of differences in rating, as demonstrated by thesestudies, does not signify that discrimination exists on thesecriterion measures. Indeed, Bass and Turner (1973) havesuggested that only if these differences on the criterionmeasures are not associated with true differences in jobperformance, could the measures be said to be biased orunfairly discriminatory. Nonetheless, they acknowledgedthere were problems in supervisory ratings, to the extentthat these (ratings) have little relationship with moreobjective indicators of job performance.

Whilst their conclusions appear to be unequivocal, it isnoticeable that they are largely based on the results ofstatistical analyses of empirical data. A major shortcomingof these studies, however, was the fact that they were oftenset outside of the organisational context. They do not,therefore, address those issues relating to organisationaland individual behaviour, and from which evidence of biasis often to be found.

Other commentators, however, have been less reticent, andan increasing number of studies have not only foundsignificant differences, but have explained these in terms ofrater bias. Baldi and McBrier (1997) also studied theexperiences of a nationally representative sample ofindividuals across a wide range of organisations but,


unlike Waldman and Avolio, arrived at the conclusion thatthe direct effect of race persisted. In particular, they foundthat minority workers were significantly less likely to bepromoted than were white workers with similar levels ofeducation and work experience, and in firms with similarcharacteristics. An earlier study by Cianni and Romberger(1995) supported this view, but contended that thedisadvantage was the direct effect of perceived denial ofaccess to certain types of developmental experiences byimmediate supervisors because of gender and racedifferences. Indeed, Baldi and McBrier (1997) haveidentified this as the more pernicious, less overt form ofracial inequality which has replaced direct discriminationwithin organisations. In this respect, Pulakos and Wexley(1983) in looking at gender and performance ratings, havesuggested that managers usually give higher ratings tosubordinates they perceive as similar to themselves. Thissimilarity effect has also been shown to be a factor for raterand ratee race (Kraiger and Ford, 1985). Paradoxically,ethnic minorities do not appear to progress any better evenwithin organisations with a high percentage of ethnicminority employees, or those with an internal labourmarket. Baldi and McBrier speculate that this may reflectsome sort of group threat process, the result of which is thatwhite managers in disproportionately minority firmsattempt to protect white employees by reducing thepromotion opportunities of minorities.

What these research results show is that there may be someattributional bias among managers in organisations.However, very few of the studies provide any theories toexplain the underlying causes of bias. It might reasonablybe assumed, therefore, that covert forms of bias inperformance evaluations are the random actions ofindividual managers in organisations. But Thomas andAlderfer (1989) have suggested that the influence of race oncareer dynamics actually takes place, and is bestunderstood, within the context of organisational and inter-group dynamics. They believe the nature of organisational


behaviour is particularly important because it helpsdetermine the interaction between individual andorganisation in general, and the occupational experience ofethnic minorities in particular. In this respect, it can bespeculated that the culture of the organisation is likely toexert considerable influence on its behaviour. We willreturn to the impact of other aspects of organisationalculture in the next chapter.

2.3 Theories of performance evaluation

From the literature it is possible to identify possibletheories that may explain some of the observed differencesin performance, within the context of the overall evaluationof performance in organisations. We have suggested, in anearlier section of this brief, that the observed differences inperformance between white and minority ethnicemployees may be due either to biased perceptions or theexistence of actual differences. The two explanatorytheories we have identified from the literature, though,assume biased perceptions. The first is centred on�cognitive processing� philosophy, and the second on �in-group and out-group� membership.

2.3.1 Cognitive structures

Cognitive processing theory suggests that when assessingthe performance of their subordinates, managers may lookfor information and evidence that confirm broader stereo-types based on, say, gender or race. Ilgen and Youtz (1986)have provided a useful description of such occurrence.

�To the extent that a manager perceives some characteristicsnegatively and attributes the characteristics to members ofsome minority group, instances of that behaviour might benoticed more frequently among minority individuals, thus�confirming� the hypothesis and lowering evaluations ofmembers of that minority group�. This may occur eventhough the characteristic involved is not related to performanceon the job.�


What Ilgen and Youtz are arguing here is that theattribution of negative characteristics to members of acertain group (in this case ethnic minorities) might lead tonegative outcomes for all future members of that group.Attribution bias can take several forms, but two inparticular are more relevant in this context. The first biasoccurs when the performance level of minority groupmembers is evaluated more negatively than their actualperformance warrants, because of managers� priorexpectation regarding the subordinates� performance(Green and Mitchell, 1979). Managers are likely to usevarious cues to form attributions. Among them are culturaldifferences between minority and majority groups whichdefine effectiveness (Sanday, 1976). Cox and Nkomo (1986)postulate it is quite likely that arising from suchconsideration, a white manager may be concerned with the�social� behaviour of a minority ethnic subordinate as a testof the extent to which the latter is perceived to fit withestablished norms within the organisation. Assimilation orconformity, therefore, become an essential part of the testof performance. Beatty (1973) concurs with this analysis.Studying a training programme designed to develop blacksupervisors, he investigated the relationship of trainingand non-training variables with employers� evaluations ofblack supervisors� job performance. He concluded from hisanalysis that employers� perceptions of black supervisors�social behaviour tended to be the most important influenceon their evaluation; even more than the black supervisors�demonstrated abilities in cognitive areas such as problemsolving.

The second form of evaluation bias arises from differentattributions made by managers to explain the causes of anemployee�s level of performance. In this case, when ethnicminorities perform well on a job, managers discount theirperformance by attributing it to good luck or extraordinaryeffort, rather than to their abilities and talents. Based onIlgen and Youtz�s analysis, it can be argued that if amanager holds unfavourable stereotypes about ethnic


minorities, then he/she may expect low performance ofthem; a successful job performance would violate suchexpectation. An explanation is therefore sought, in whichthe good performance is attributed to external or unstablecauses, such as luck and ease of task, rather than to ability.Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1993) examined the impactof managers� gender and race on performance attributionsmade by their superiors. They were not looking at actualbias in performance attributions, but whether supervisorsbelieved that their subordinates� success was due to factorsother than ability. They found that at the very least,supervisors tended to discount the successful performanceof their black managers by a reluctance to attribute thatperformance to high ability. Black managers� performancewas less likely to be attributed to effort and was morelikely to be attributed to help, than the comparableperformance of white managers.

Andrew (1996) sees this attitude as one of the barriers tothe development of black managers in public services inBritain. In a study of managers and professionals workingin four areas of public services � local government, theNHS, civil service agencies, and the police service � hefound that it was commonplace experience for blackmanagers to be countering the negative effects ofstereotyping, as well as negative attitudes and perceptionsof white superiors. This was manifested in persistentundermining and, in particular, doubting of theircredibility. This experience is not restricted just to ethnicminorities in the public sector. The experience of minorityethnic employees in the private sector providesconfirmation of how pervasive the practice is. TheRunnymede study of 100 FTSE companies found thatalthough people from minority ethnic groups believed theywere able and successful in their own right, most felt thatthey had to work harder than their white counterparts toget on, and were chagrined to see that often white peerswith fewer qualifications were promoted faster and givenexposure to the �right� experiences earlier than they were.


That study also cited the example of a minority ethnicemployee whose white manager believed he �had slippedthrough too many nets� (ie been extremely lucky) to get tohis current position, and was �going to do something aboutit�.

There is no doubt that this situation will persist in manyorganisations, since promotion decisions are less open toscrutiny than, say, recruitment decisions, because thecriteria tend to be more subjective. This in turn impliesthere is greater probability that discrimination can occur inmore subtle ways, and quite often be difficult to detect(Baldi and McBrier, 1997). Indeed, a recent IES study byRick et al. (1999) has shown that whites and ethnicminorities use quite distinct, but different, types ofcompetencies when describing the performance ofindividuals. White raters, in this organisational study, weremore likely to refer to individuals� management skills, theirknowledge of the organisation, as well as competenciesfrom a cognitive skills cluster. Ethnic minorities, bycontrast, were more likely to describe performance in termsof organisational skills, time management, team working,and the self-management cluster of competencies. Rick etal. suggest that the competencies that different groups usemay reflect those that they themselves are morecomfortable with or value more highly. The greater use ofcognitive skills and competencies by white managers(raters), for example, may be congruent with their seniorityin the organisational hierarchy. Nevertheless, it was notalways apparent that these were necessarily thecompetencies by which performance was evaluated. Inmany ways, the significant differences in attributions madeabout individuals from different ethnic groups emergedwhen people were described using mental model orconstructs. It was at this level that white ratees were morelikely to described positively than ethnic minorities bywhite raters. By the same token, minority ethnicindividuals were less likely to be offered as exemplars ofexcellent performance; indeed they were over-represented


amongst those described by white raters as poorperformers. Rick et al. attributed the observed difference tothe differential behaviours of white raters, and which werebased on biased mental models of performance.

2.3.2 In-groups and out-groups

The second key theory emerging from the literature thatmay explain bias, revolves around how individuals withinorganisations identify themselves with, or differentiatethemselves from, others. An important factor whichinfluences the way minorities are treated in organisationsis, therefore, the effect of �inter-group� life. Alderfer (1986)identifies two types of groups within organisations �identity groups and organisation groups. Identity groupsare usually determined by their physical characteristics,such as gender, age, race or ethnicity. Organisation groups,on the other hand, are defined by task, function orhierarchy. Dansereau et al. (1975) earlier developed amodel which suggests that managers assign subordinatesto one of two groups, an �in-group� or an �out-group�, andbehave differently towards members of each of thesegroups. In-group members are generally treated morefavourably, particularly in the type of support providedthem. Managers are also less likely to use authority toinfluence the behaviour and performance of this group.Out-group members, by contrast, are likely to be managedaccording to a more authoritarian style, and throughcontract compliance. To the extent that they are usuallydescribed by their common characteristic (in this instanceby their racial identity) within the organisation, ethnicminorities are allocated to the out-group.

The importance of groups in the study of organisationalbehaviour is that they are a potential source of conflictbetween individuals and the organisation. Thomas andAlderfer (1989) believe that the conflict betweenorganisational group membership and racial identitygroup membership can become so rigid they can lead to


racist assumptions which, in turn, influence decisions thatultimately impact on the careers of ethnic minorities. Theend result of the conflict is differential treatment of in-group and out-group members. However, it is manifestedin quite different ways. For example, the psychologicalcloseness between managers and their subordinates, thepersonal characteristics (eg race) of managers andsubordinates, and managers� prior expectations of theirsubordinates� performance, all influence the assessment ofdifferent group members (Greenhaus and Parasuraman,1993). In this case, the difference of perception ofperformance is related to racial and ethnic group identities;in this, ethnic minorities reflect the greater application ofthe effects of group membership. Not only that, but groupmembership also determines the direction of the good,informal mentoring experiences that provide opportunitiesfor advancement.

Dreher and Cox (1996) have described access toinformation, visibility, and the chance to demonstratecompetence as examples of opportunities that might not beequally available to all members in an organisation. Theyargue that individuals are more likely to establishrelationships with mentors (as providers of informationetc.) who are similar to them, particularly in terms ofgender and race. Consequently, white men have greateraccess to these beneficial mentoring relationships; ethnicminorities and women, by contrast, are likely to havereduced access.

The importance of mentoring, but lack of mentoringopportunities for ethnic minorities, was also highlighted bythe Runnymede Trust study of FTSE 100 companies. Therewas a feeling among the ethnic minority professionals whowere interviewed for the study, that the �old boy network�still operated, and that �it�s not what you know, but whoyou know that applies in order to get on�. Indeed, Baldiand McBrier (1997) go even further, to suggest thatmentoring often negates the advantage of education as a


formal criterion for assessing performance and, hence,progression. Managers use a �sponsorship� model forpromoting white subordinates, but a �contestant� model forminority ethnic subordinates, where education continuesto be a determinant of promotion prospects. At its mostbase level, therefore, Greenhaus and Parasuraman (1993)believe it is possible that white managers may feelpsychologically distant from ethnic minority groupmembers, ascribe them outgroup status, and makeunfavourable attributions regarding their performance.

There is very little empirical evidence with which to testthe significance of these theories, especially in the way thatthe performance of minority ethnic employees is evaluated.However, the IES study by Rick et al. (1999), whichcollected data on the way in which employees evaluatedthe performance of their peers, revealed considerabledifferences in the way that different ethnic groups assessedperformance. Rick et al. interviewed a cross-section of localauthority staff using the repertory grid technique, andlooked at the usage of positive or negative examples ofcompetencies by the ethnicity of repertory gridindividuals. They found that whites were significantlymore likely to be described positively than individualsfrom minority ethnic groups. When they analysed thepositive and negative attributions separately by theethnicity of the interviewee, they found that whiteinterviewees used significantly more positive attributionsto describe white repertory grid individuals than they didindividuals from minority ethnic groups. Conversely, theyalso made significantly fewer negative attributions aboutwhite individuals than minorities. By contrast, there wereno significant differences in the usage of either positive ornegative attributions by minority ethnic interviewees of therepertory grid individuals being described, whether whiteor not.

Rick et al. believe that both the theories of cognitiveprocessing and �in-group out-group� membership could


help explain their findings. They and concluded from theiranalyses that individual (white) managers� judgementsabout what constitutes a �good performer� is likely to holdsway, especially where there are no agreed sets of criteriafor assessing an individual�s ability to do a job.


3. Organisational Culture, Supportand Performance

In the last chapter, we highlighted the fact thatorganisational culture exerts influence on its behaviourand, hence, its treatment of different groups of employees.Indeed, there is growing recognition of the extent to whichorganisational cultures can contribute to exclusion anddiscrimination, despite the existence of equal opportunitiespolicies and procedures. Connor et al. (1996) have definedorganisational culture in terms of shared symbols,language, practices (�how we do things here�), and deeplyembedded beliefs and values. The importance oforganisational culture, in this context, is how salient it hasbecome in the study of discrimination. It is not onlybecause it can represent a serious barrier to change, butalso because that barrier has itself become difficult todetect or pin down. It is part of the taken-for-granted,everyday reality and is, therefore, hard to see andchallenge.

We also described the explanatory framework for observeddifferences in performance and, hence, some of themechanisms which lead to the exclusion and marginal-isation of ethnic minorities within organisational settings.Cognitive practices and group membership were theprincipal influences on managerial behaviour whenassessing the performance of different ethnic groups.


These theories generally provide a useful explanation, butmore of individual (managerial) behaviour than they doorganisational behaviour. Foremost among the elementswhich define and shape the organisation�s behaviour is itsculture. In particular, the racial atmosphere in theorganisation can have a strong impact on conceptionsabout minority individuals, about the type of people whoare likely to be recruited and also promoted. However, theinitial experience of minority individuals in theorganisation has a significant impact not only on theircareers, but on their behaviour as well. These factors giverise to two important considerations.

The first is whether the organisation�s policies (on equalopportunities, for example), whilst successful in addressingthe issue of access and statistical representation, areensuring that employees with the appropriate educationalattainment, skills and competencies are recruited and givenopportunities for career progression. In other words,employees from minority groups may have beenappointed at a lower performance threshold to increaserepresentation, or because of guaranteed interviewprocedures and requirements to meet job specification,rather for being the best candidates.

The second consideration is whether the organisation�sculture is such that minority individuals react negatively inrebellion to the lack of opportunity, of which under-performance is a potent outward manifestation. Here,minority groups may perceive themselves to be less valuedby the organisation and, therefore, are less motivated andcommitted to their job. Previous research by IES has shownthat staff with positive attitudes towards their job andorganisation attend more regularly, and help improve theorganisation�s customer satisfaction rating (Barber et al.,1999).


3.1 Do the determinants of progression differ byethnicity?

It might be expected that comparable levels of educationand qualifications would contribute to the elimination ofinequality in workplace attainment between whites andminority ethnic groups. In this section we look at the roleof education, training and development in organisationalsettings,and the relationship between ethnicity andeducational attainment as a pre-requisite for progressionwithin the organisation.

It is generally recognised that job performance is the key toprogression within an organisation. However, there arealso indications that besides performance, the employee�seducational attainment is one of the most important factorswhich affects upward mobility (Markham et al., 1987).Indeed, human capital theory argues that an employee�seducation increases his or her skills, which in turnenhances future job performance. The variation in upwardmobility, however, is attributed to differences in thequantity and quality of educational opportunities availableto minority groups (Sheridan et al., 1997). Very often thetype of university attended and the degree class obtainedare used as proxies for the �quality� of education. Previousresearch has shown that in the UK, minority ethnic groupsare concentrated at a relatively small number of post-1992universities (ie the former polytechnics � Taylor, 1992),and are more likely to have obtained a lower class ofdegree (Connor et al., 1996). To this extent, Connor et al.suggested that minority ethnic graduates face disadvantagesin the labour market. In their study of the experience ofsuch graduates in the labour market, they found thatattending a post-1992 university, having a low class ofdegree, and being a mature student had a significantimpact on the long-term career expectations of people fromminority ethnic groups. Because they have either lowerentry or non-traditional entry qualifications, minorityethnic graduates are more likely to be adversely affected


where organisations use �quality� of education as acriterion for evaluating the performance of potentialemployees.

The argument then is that:

! minority ethnic graduates have lower �quality� degrees,ie lower degree class and from lower status universities

! this impacts on access discrimination

! this might also encroach onto �treatment� discrimination(ie on promotion) because line managers hold negativeviews on such qualification

! minority ethnic graduates may, therefore, perceivehigher levels of prejudice the closer they are, in termsof qualifications etc., to their white colleagues.

Previous research provides some evidence for suchassertions. It has been suggested, for example, that entrylevel job opportunities are based on competition with otherorganisations in the external labour market. Onceindividuals are recruited, however, promotion opportunitiesare determined by an internal labour market which ismuch more regulated by the organisation�s own goals andobjectives (Sheridan et al., 1997). If (white) line managershold such negative perception of minority ethnicindividuals, as was discussed in the last chapter, it is likelyto influence their subsequent evaluation of the performanceof their minority subordinates. Connor et al.,(1996) havecited evidence to suggest that many minority ethnicgraduates, for example, perceive many City of Londoninstitutions and firms to be virtual �no go areas� or �Anglo-Saxon fortresses�. They are put off applying for jobs inthese companies, either because they think they do notstand a chance, or because even if they obtained a job, theywould face a hostile environment. Other evidence from theRunnymede Trust study of 100 FTSE companies alsoindicates there were instances where in order to get on,minority ethnic professionals and managers had either to


leave the organisation or their department because they feltthey were being blocked by a particular line manager(Runnymede, 2000).

Madood et al. (1997) have suggested that a climate in whichequal opportunities issues are being addressed is morelikely to highlight the perception of discrimination. Theycontend, however, that such experience of discriminationmay be more linked to the competition for prized jobs.Thus:

�� a precondition of the encounters in which discriminationmay occur is competition for the same jobs, and that assumessome commonality in qualifications, skill levels andemployment experience. As ethnic minorities become moreeffective competitors for more prized jobs and professions, thesalience of the issue of discrimination [may] ironicallyincrease.�

It may be pure conjecture, therefore, to conclude that jobperformance is influenced by education level. Indeed,Sheridan et al. (1997) have suggested that the implicationsfor organisations wedded to such a truism is that theywould have no room for �late bloomers�. Similarly, thedecision process involved in clinging to such belief wouldcontinue to favour and promote employees from better�quality� educational institutions, but who in fact havelower performance, in preference to those with higherperformance even though they lacked the education of thevalued organisation. In either case, this would be to thedetriment of the organisation, as competent professionalseither do not apply to join an organisation with such areputation in the first place, or leave because of a perceivedlack of opportunities for progression. Against thisbackground it could be argued instead, that the mostobvious alternative explanation for race effect, in the faceof equal qualification, skill levels and employmentexperience, is that discrimination exists in promotion(progression) decisions. Heath and McMahon (1995) havedescribed this as an �ethnic penalty�, defined as:


�all sources of disadvantage that might lead an ethnic group tofare less well in the labour market than do similarly qualifiedwhites�although discrimination is likely to be a majorcomponent�.

The extent to which this is tolerated in practice, though,will tend to be a reflection of the �culture� of theorganisation, as determined by its leaders and seniormanagement.

3.2 Ethnic minorities� response

In recent years, a combination of economic and socialchanges has pushed discrimination and equal opportunitieshigh up the political agenda. Notwithstanding improve-ments in the employment situation of minority ethnicgroups, however, real equality in the workplace is still seenas a distant prospect. This is largely because although overtdiscrimination is waning, it is being replaced by moresubtle forms of bias: in particular, in reduced opportunitiesto enhance work-related skills and in development ofsupportive relationships within organisations.

The importance of a supportive relationship for progressioncannot be over-emphasised. It is a means by whichmanagers actively endorse their subordinates, for example,through assignments that lead to increased visibility,access to training, and participation on key task forces. Infact, development opportunities are seen as forms ofrecognition, whilst increased visibility conveys a messagethat an employee is �promotable�, or �has the potential toget to the next level� (Cianni and Romberger, 1995). It isequally true that access to information, advice, support,visibility and the chance to demonstrate competence, areexamples of opportunities which are not equally availableto all groups within organisations. Indeed, exclusion fromstructures, formal and informal, which provide suchsupport, is also another form of covert discrimination anddisadvantage. What makes this form of discrimination


more debilitating is the way it contributes to underminingthe confidence and career aspiration of those who areexcluded.

In their study of ethnic minority graduates in the labourmarket, Connor et al. (1996) found examples of graduateswho at the beginning of their careers were confident,enthusiastic and very career orientated. However, theybecame very demoralised and disillusioned after strugglingin a competitive graduate labour market, where many feltthey faced racial discrimination, in addition to other formsof disadvantage. Their confidence had been seriouslyundermined, to such an extent they did not think theycould achieve their original ambitions.

Ilgen and Youtz (1986) have suggested that to some extent,conditions in the organisation are responsible for creatingsuch individual-level limitations. They have termed thisself-limiting behaviour. Self-limiting behaviour explains theway that people hold themselves back from careerdevelopment. It refers to the long-term effect ofexperiencing lost opportunities for development acrossone�s career. As a result of the accumulation of lostopportunities, employees may engage in behaviours thatdo not serve them well. For example, they may refuse morechallenging job assignments. When accumulated over time,such self-limiting behaviour increases ability andmotivational differences for individuals or groups ofindividuals. A downward spiral becomes established, as aresult of which such employees lose confidence in theirown ability, and managers differentially limit theopportunities provided them further. Waldman andAvolio (1991) have used Ilgen and Youtz�s self-limitingbehaviour classification as an alternative explanation forthe race effects in performance evaluation, arguing thatwhat is perceived as rater bias, is actually an accurateassessment of the poor performance of minority ethnicemployees in organisations. However, this ignores otheraccumulated evidence that suggest that �invisible barriers�


and mechanisms which lead to exclusion and marginal-isation exist in the organisational cultural milieu. In anycase, there is no evidence to show that ethnic minoritieshave a lack of desire for career progression, and that thiseffectively becomes a barrier to such progression. On thecontrary, the very opposite appears to be the case. Indeed,it is partly because of an ambition to succeed, that minorityethnic employees believe they have to work twice as hardas their white counterparts with similar educationalbackground, skills and employment experience, to achievethe same career goals (Connor et al., 1996; Rick et al., 1999;Runnymede, 2000).

So, where are we now? It can be surmised from theforegoing analysis that differences in attainment levelshave considerable effects in organisations. Managers maystill carry on inequality practices. Their minority ethnicsubordinates meanwhile may perceive there is moreprejudice and are, therefore, demotivated and lesscommitted. The outcome of this may be to lowerenthusiasm and effort. However, the antecedents of suchbehaviour, are the perceived discriminentory treatment.They are most visibly demonstrated through the existenceof sponsorship systems, through which the opportunitiesfor development are made available to some groups butnot others. The opportunity for development must bedistinguished from that for training. There is little or noevidence to show that ethnic minorities face significantbarriers to access to training. Instead, Cianni andRomberger (1995) have shown that �being Black played agreater role in advancement opportunities than access totraining�.

Recent evidence from a survey of staff working in thecentral Home Office revealed that those from minorityethnic groups did not feel they were treated fairly in thedepartment in terms of career development andpromotion. In particular, minority ethnic staff wereperceived to be barred from the area of policy work, on


which careers in the civil service are built. This was seen asthe institution not recognising for a long time that minorityethnic staff were not assisted in their career developmentto get such opportunities to learn whether they have thequality for higher status in the civil service (Travis, 1999).This is the most potent symbol of organisational culture atwork, in its lack of support for the development of what isvisibly an identity group.

The question arises whether it matters that organisationscontinue to engage in policies and practices that result indifferential evaluation and treatment of different racialgroups. We believe the response to this question should bein the affirmative. It is increasingly recognised that thereare clear implications for organisations from unequaldevelopment of all of their workforce. As the President ofthe CharteredInstitute of Personnel and Development(Bett, 1996) has noted:

�We are in an era in which the quality of their people is thedistinguishing feature of successful organisations. People arethe single sustainable source of competitive advantage. Thepersonnel profession has a commitment to improve thecontribution people make to business performance. To do thiseffectively we must address the issue of workforce diversity.�

So, what should organisations do, in terms of remedialaction to address �the problem of minority performance�?In the next chapter we briefly look at some possible actionsto secure institutional and organisational change to ensureracial equality in the treatment of ethnic minorities.


4. Remedying DifferentialPerformance Evaluations

We have, in the preceding chapters, presented a review ofthe literature on race in organisations. This literature paintsa mixed picture of the evidence on race and performance,but the general theme is that race is an issue with regard toperformance within many organisations. The reasons forthe observed differences in supervisor ratings or otherperformance outcomes remain contentious, with someauthors suggesting that differences can be attributed toactual performance, whilst others contend they are due torater bias.

Having reviewed the external evidence from publishedstudies and research, we suggest in this chapter howorganisations may identify and address any internalproblems of minority performance. Our approach is basedon three assumptions:

! that there is a belief or suspicion that inequality in theevaluation of performance of different groups is aproblem

! that the organisation wishes to identify the areas andcauses of the problems, and

! that there is a desire to develop mechanisms orapproaches to eliminate the problem.


Until recently, most organisations concerned with diversityawareness have done so from the belief that discriminationwas wrong both legally and morally. Organisationsadopting this discrimination and fairness approach havetended to focus on equal opportunity, fair treatment,compliance with legislative requirements and recruitment.Progress has frequently been measured by how wellrecruitment and retention goals are achieved. Somecommentators have suggested, however, that a rigidadherence to discrimination and fairness is ineffective infinding solutions to the management of diversity. Theresultant concentration on access discrimination is likely torepresent only a superficial improvement, with few long-term benefits for ethnic minorities.

Increasingly, therefore, racism awareness is being seen asgoing beyond boosting the numbers of minority ethnicgroups within organisations. When allowed to, members ofthese groups can help organisations improve theirperformance by challenging basic assumptions aboutorganisations� functions, strategies, practices andprocedures.

Emerging from this perspective is a �business case�argument for adopting an approach which acknowledgesthat organisations are operating in a competitive globalbusiness environment. Along with an increasing consumerdemand, there is increased diversity among customers,clients and the labour pool. Utilising different perspectivesand building on diversity enables organisations to respondbetter to the needs of such a diverse range of customers,and establish a competitive advantage. This business casehas, consequently, extended the scope of attention beyondaccess discrimination to the wider issues of treatment ofminority ethnic groups within organisations.


4.1 Is there a problem?

The starting point for any remedial action is for employersto ask themselves if they have a problem. In other words,are there observed differences in performance ratings,recruitment or promotion rates, turnover, performancerelated pay, or disciplinary or grievance outcomes? Wesuggest any action must be firmly located in evidence, andthe initial source of evidence for most organisations isdetailed information on the workforce. This will include allthe fundamentals of workforce planning � numbers ateach grade, recruitment and retention rates, tenure,progression etc. This will be broken down by ethnicity andby location as well, since the distribution of different ethnicgroups is likely to vary between locations, in the case ofmulti-sited organisations. With such basic information,organisations can enquire if any observed differences holdtrue at all locations and all grades etc. We would suggestsome basic statistical analyses:

! Are recruitment rates reflecting the external ethnicminority population?

• if not, is this an issue of lack of applicants, smallernumbers being shortlisted, problem with any testsused, or interview outcomes?

! Are promotion rates reflecting the proportion of ethnicminority staff in the feeder grades?

• Will current rates of promotion address any under-representation?

• Is the problem one of lack of relevant (or suitable)qualifications, application, success in selection?

• Are there different career paths for different ethnicgroups, ie are they joining the organisation atdifferent levels with different qualifications andprogressing differentially or through differentroutes?


! Are turnover rates equivalent for majority and minorityethnic groups?

• does this hold true at all grades?

! Are performance ratings the same for all ethnic groups?

! Is performance-related pay equivalent for differentethnic groups?

! Are disciplinary and grievance outcomes the same fordifferent groups?

A large number of corporate sector organisations are stillunable to provide employee statistics broken down byethnicity, or by levels in the organisation. The Runnymedestudy of 100 FTSE companies has noted that, althoughgovernment legislation and tribunals have beenencouraging organisations to monitor the composition oftheir workforces for over 20 years, many of Britain�s topcompanies have not taken this fundamental first step(Runnymede, 2000).

4.2 Where is the problem?

If there is evidence of a problem, then the next level ofenquiry for the organisation is to identify the problem areasand undertake further work on those areas. Discriminationmay be in terms of access to the organisation or treatmentonce in the organisation. The tendency has been fororganisations to attempt to address access discriminationwhilst being less active to eradicate treatmentdiscrimination. A number of factors may be at work here.

! The recruitment methods used may discriminateagainst ethnic minorities if the organisation targetsparticular universities, or holds open days at itspremises to which only �potential� recruits are invited.Where this is the case, the organisation could reviewtheir recruitment methods. In some organisations too,the most frequently used method of recruitment is by


word of mouth, often through existing or formeremployees or family members. This tends to excludeethnic groups with little or no representation amongthe workforce from gaining access.

! The shortlisting and selection criteria may alsodisadvantage ethnic minorities. For example, the mostsignificant criterion, in terms of its likely impact on therecruitment of ethnic minorities into higher levelprofessional positions, is employers� preference forgraduates from the pre-1992 universities. The blue chipcompanies interviewed for the Connor et al. study hada clear preference for graduates from pre-1992universities, and had little or no contact with the post-1992 universities, where minority ethnic students areconcentrated (Connor et al., 1996).

! There has been much written on the tendency ofselection panels to select in their own image. Iforganisations tend towards reduced diversity at seniorlevels, then there may also be a tendency to select thosethat �fit�, in terms of their social background, attitudeand approach. In some organisations, progression ofminority ethnic groups may be almost non-existentbecause of an informal policy which restrictsmovement into designated areas of work.

! Different career paths may be favoured, thus leading todifferent outcomes in promotion opportunities. Someorganisations may favour experience in certain sectionsor even overseas, and such experience may be lessfrequently accessible to individuals from minorityethnic groups.

! Appraisal systems may deliver differential performancejudgements to different groups of individuals. Previousresearch by IES has shown that white raters may judgeminority ethnic individuals less highly than their whitepeers, a bias that is not shown by minority ethnic raters(Rick et al., 1999).


! If appraisal outcomes are biased, then performance-related pay may also be delivering differential outcomeson the basis of ethnicity.

! Similarly, other judgements of performance may also besuspect. This can be reflected in disciplinary rates or theuse of grievance procedures. IES research has found thatrace may be an issue in the usage of formal procedures.Some line managers are more likely to resort to formalprocedures when dealing with individuals fromminority ethnic groups, whereas others might putconsiderable effort into resolving problems throughmore informal methods (Rick et al., 1999). In bothinstances, though, it was found that individuals werenot given the appropriate feedback they needed inorder to adjust their behaviour.

4.3 What are the mechanisms?

Having conducted an appropriate audit to determine thespecific areas of concern, the next step is to address theissues they present. Organisational approaches frequentlyfocus initially on systems, then on processes and, finally,on attitudes and behaviours. The analysis stage is critical indetermining the kind of approach that might be mostappropriate, and it is clearly vital that the audit results arefully used to inform practice. Systems bias may arise wherethere is little guidance to managers on the criteria to beused to recruit, promote, assess performance etc.Discrimination at the systems level is generally rare, andmost organisations have systems that are adequate andappropriate for their needs. However, it is often the casethat smaller organisations have less-developed systems,and as such may benefit from a system review. Problems,whilst rarely arising solely because of systems failure, areeven more rarely resolved purely by a systems solution.

The next step is to look at processes, ie encompassingeverything involved in the operation of systems. Processes


include the means by which jobs are defined andadvertised, applications received and responded to,decisions made on selection procedures to be used andtheir operation. Processes include as well the writtensystems and the unwritten �rules� of their operation,including the tacit acceptance of notions such as �the waywe do things around here�, that populate a large number oforganisations. Tacit processes, more often than not gounchallenged, and yet need to be included in any auditenquiry. Such tacit processes might include decisions onwhich universities to target for recruitment purposes, orwhere to place job adverts.

The last step considered by most organisations is how tochallenge inappropriate attitudes and behaviours. Thesensitivities and discomfort of acknowledging that theviews of individuals within the organisation, or theirbehaviour, might be contributory factors in explaining thedifferences in observed outcomes, also mean thatchallenging attitudes and behaviours is often left to thelast. Such attitudes may not be manifest in explicit racism,but rather the gamut of behaviour that might be indicativeof the group identity issues that we noted in the literaturereview. Understanding these reactions is critical to dealingwith issues of attitudes and behaviours. Evidence ofpotential behavioural issues include differences in interviewoutcomes, and in appraisal judgements. Attitudinal andbehavioural problems are most often tackled throughtraining and development, sometimes in conjunctions withappraisal systems that make explicit what is (or what isnot) expected behaviour. They are better defined throughcompetencies.

4.3.1 What training?

Anti-racism training, is directly related not only to theimprovement of treatment conditions of ethnic minoritiesin organisations, but also to the delivery of services toclients, customers and the wider public. Its principal goals


must include eradicating biases that lead to discrimination,enhancing the capacity of organisational personnel toutilise diversity internally, and to serve diverse externalclients and customers equally.

The effectiveness of training depends on what it is trying tochange. Three models have been proposed for enhancingracial equality in services (Oakley, 1993).

! Increasing trainees� knowledge of other cultures: thisis cross-cultural training which seeks to instructparticipants about the lifestyles, values and beliefs ofpeople from different cultural groups. Its goal is to helpparticipants gain knowledge which would dispelprejudice, and help them to be more sensitive whendealing with or serving people from different cultures(Commission on Systematic Racism, 1995). This is themodel widely used by law enforcement agencies.However, some research has suggested that it mayinadvertently promote and reinforce the attitudes andbehaviours it seeks to prevent in the first place.

! Changing attitudes: this model is concerned withattitudes rather than knowledge. It attempts to tackledirectly the perceived roots of racist conduct: beliefsand assumptions that are often subconscious. Its task isto show how subtle forms of historical beliefs forexample, pervade the culture and systems in whichpeople work. It does so by identifying and eliminatingbeliefs that may result in negative judgements aboutpeople who are perceived as different. This is classical�racism awareness training�, although it has beencriticised for not being usually founded within thecontext of concrete action (Gurnah, 1987).

! Changing behaviour: this model seeks to equiptrainees with skills to recognise and correct actions thatexclude or discriminate against ethnic minorities. Thethrust of the training emphasises the identification of


organisational and systematic factors that influencebehaviour. At the same time, it develops criticalthinking and problem-solving techniques to preventconduct with a racist impact. This model differs fromthe others in the sense that the content is drawn fromoccupational tasks that people perform in theirworking lives. Its ultimate goal is �to alert trainees tooften subtle discriminatory practices that they or theircolleagues may engage in, and develop skills for adjustingbehaviour� (Commission on Systematic Racism, 1995).

Organisations need to be sure of what they are trying toachieve when they embark on equalities training. Anydecisions should be firmly based on the identified needsemerging from the audit.

4.3.2 Summary of actions

! Undertake a thorough workforce review to identify anyareas of concern.

! Identify if access discrimination (ie issues of recruitmentto the organisation), or treatment discrimination (iedifferences in treatment once in the organisation) is theissue.

! Identify those areas that are the focus of the differences,eg shortlisting, promotion rates, performance assess-ment, career paths etc.

! Look at systems, processes, and attitudes andbehaviours as possible contributory factors to anyobserved differences.

! Decide if tacit or explicit factors at work challengeassumptions and traditional ways of doing things.

! If behaviour is the problem, assess what needs to bechanged and what is possible within the culturalcontext.

! Review the impact of all actions and revisit solutions.


Bibliography

Alderfer C P (1986), �An Intergroup Perspective on Group Dynamics�, inLorsch J (ed.), Handbook of Organisational Behaviour, Englewood,Cliffs, N J, Prentice Hall

Andrew F (1996), Not Just Black and White: An Exploration of Opportunitiesand Barriers to the Development of Black Managers in Public Services,Office for Public Management, July

Baldi S, McBrier D B (1997), �Do the Determinants of Promotion Differfor Blacks and Whites?�, Work and Occupations, Vol. 24 No. 4,November

Barber L, Hayday S, Bevan S (1999), From People to Profits, Report 355,Institute for Employment Studies

Bass A R, Turner J N (1973), �Ethnic Group Differences in RelationshipsAmong Criteria of Job Performance�, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 57, No. 2

Beatty R W (1973), �Blacks As Supervisors: A Study of Training, JobPerformance, and Employers� Expectations�, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 16, No. 2

Bett M (1996), in Managing Diversity, an IPD position paper, December

Cianni M, Romberger B (1995), �Perceived Racial, Ethnic and GenderDifferences in Access to Developmental Experiences�, Group &Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, December

Commission for Racial Equality (1987), Chartered Accountancy TrainingContracts: Report of a Formal Investigation into Ethnic MinorityRecruitment

Commission for Racial Equalaity (1988a): Racial Discrimination in aLondon Estate Agency: Report of a format investigation into RichardBarclay and Co.


Commission for Racial Equality (1988b): Investigation into St George�sHospital Medical School

Commission on Systematic Racism (1995), Final Report of the Commissionon Systematic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, Queen�sPrinter for Ontario

Connor H, La Valle I, Tackey N, Perryman S (1996), Ethnic MinorityGraduates: Differences By Degrees, IES Report 309, The Institute forEmployment Studies

Cox T, Nkomo S M (1986), �Differential Performance Appraisal Criteria:a field study of black and white managers�, Group and OrganisationalStudies, Vol. 11

Cox T, Nkomo S M (1990), �Invisible Men and Women: a status report onrace as a variable in organisation behaviour research�, Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, Vol. 11, 419-431

Dansereau F, Graen G, Haga W J (1975), �A vertical dyadic linkageapproach to leadership within formal organizations�, OrganizationalBehaviour and Human Performance, 13

Dreher G F, Cox T H (1996), �Race, Gender and Opportunity: A Study ofCompensation Attainment and the Establishment of MentoringRelationships�, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, No. 3

Green S G, Mitchell T R (1979), �Attributional processes of leaders inleader-member interactions�, Organizational Behaviour and HumanPerformance, 23

Greenhaus J H, Parasuraman S (1993), �Job Performance Attributionsand Career Advancement Prospects: An Examination of Genderand Race Effects�, Organizational Behaviour and Human DecisionProcesses, 55, 273-297

Gurnah A (1987), �The Politics of Racism Awareness Training�, inLondon Strategic Policy Unit, Racism Awareness Training � ACritique, Hansib Publishing, London

Heath A, McMahon D (1995), Education and Occupational Attainments: TheImpact of Ethnic Origins, Paper 34, Centre for Research into Electionsand Social Trends, February

Ilgen D R, Youtz M A (1986), �Factors Affecting the Evaluation andDevelopment of Minorities in Organisations�, Research in Personneland Human Resources Management, vol. 4, JAI Press Inc

Jones T (1993), Britain�s Ethnic Minorities, Policy Studies Institute


Kandola R, Keane C (1998), �But they just don�t apply��, Proceedingsof the British Psychological Society Occupational PsychologyConference

King M, Israel M (1989), �The Pursuit of Excellence , or how SolicitorsMaintain Racial Inequality�, New Community, 16 (1), pp. 107-120

Kraiger K, Ford J K (1985), �A Meta-analysis of Ratee Race Effects inPerformance Ratings�, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70

Madood T, Berthoud R, Lakey J, Nazroo J, Smith P, Virdee S, Beishon S(1997), Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage, PolicyStudies Institute, London

Markham W T, Harlan S L, Hackett E J (1987), �Promotion Opportunityin Organizations: Causes and Consequences�, in Rowland andFerris (eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

Oakley R (1993), �Race Training in the Criminal Justice System: lessonsfrom the Police�, in Minority Ethnic groups in the Criminal JusticeSystem, Papers presented to the 21st Cropwood RoundtableConference, ed. Loraine Gelsthorpe, Institute of Criminology,University of Cambridge

Pulakos E D, Wexley K N (1983), �The Relationship Among PerceptualSimilarity, Sex and Performance Ratings in Manager-subordinateDyads�, Academy of Management Journal, 26

Pulakos E, Schmitt N, Chan D (1996), �Models of Job PerformanceRatings: An Examination of Ratee Race, Ratee Gender, and RaterLevel Effects�, Human Performance, 9(2)

Rick J, Tamkin P, Pollard E, Tackey N, Heron P (1999), The Organisationaland Managerial Implications of Devolved Personnel AssessmentProcesses, Institute for Employment Studies, for Greater LondonEmployers Assocation (unpublished)

The Runnymede Trust (2000), Moving On Up? Racial Equality and theCorporate Agenda: A study of FTSE 100 Companies, February

Sanday P R (1976), Cultural and structural pluralism in the UnitedStates, in Sanday (ed.), Anthropology and the Public Interest: Fieldworkand Theory, Academic Press, New York

Scott S, Kwiatkowski R (1998), �Foul or Fair? Assessment Centres andEthnic Minorities: A Study of Major UK Recruiters�, Proceedings of theBritish Psychological Society Occupational Psychology Conference


Sheridan J E, Slocum J, Buda R (1997), �Factors Influencing theProbability of Employee Promotions: A comparative analysis ofhuman capital, organization screening and gender/racediscrimination theories�, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 11,No. 3, Spring

The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Sir WilliamMacpherson of Cluny (1999), The Home Office, Cmd. 4262-1,February

Taylor P (1992), �Ethnic Group Data and Applications to HigherEducation�, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 4, Autumn

Thomas D, Alderfer C (1989), �The Influence of Race on CareerDynamics: Theory and Research on Minority Career Experiences�,in Arthur M B and Hall D T (eds.), Handbook of Career Theory,Cambridge University Press

Travis A (1999), �Home Truths�, The Guardian, 1 December

TUC (1999), Black and Betrayed

TUC (2000), Qualifying for Racism, January

Waldman D A, Avolio B J (1991), �Race Effects in PerformanceEvaluations: Controlling for Ability, Education and Experience�,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, No. 6

Documents

The Problem of Minority Performance in Organisations