Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Frank Dobbin
Harvard University
Erin Kelly
University of Minnesota
Employers have experimented with three broad approaches to promoting diversity. Some
programs are designed to establish organizational responsibilityfor diversity, others to
moderate managerial bias through training andfeedback, and still others to reduce the
social isolation of women and minority workers. These approaches find support in
academic theories of how organizations achieve goals, how stereotyping shapes hiring
and promotion, and how networks influence careers. This is thefirst systematic analysis
of their efficacy. The analyses rely on federal data describing the workforces of 708
private sector establishmentsfrom 1971 to 2002, coupled with survey data on their
employmentpractices. Efforts to moderate managerial bias through diversity training
and diversity evaluations are least effective at increasing the share of white women,
black women, and black men in management. Efforts to attack social isolation through
mentoring and networking show modest effects. Efforts to establish responsibilityfor
diversity lead to the broadest increases in managerial diversity. Moreover, organizations
that establish responsibility see better effectsfrom diversity training and evaluations,
networking, and mentoring. Employers subject to federal affirmative action edicts, who
typically assign responsibilityfor compliance to a manager, also see stronger effects
from some programs. This work lays thefoundation for an institutional theory of the
remediation of workplace inequality.
Lists
agement
have proliferated
recently.
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW,
2006, VOL.71 (August:589-617)
590
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
These findings support an institutional theory of inequality remediation that builds on key
precepts of organizational sociology. As Weber
(1978 [1968]) argues, executives must appoint
specialists and give them authority to achieve
specialized goals. Thus, remedies targeting individual bias or network isolation may be less
effective than remedies that establish responsible parties. As neo-institutionalists (Meyer and
Rowan 1977) note, new programs decoupled
from everyday practice often have no impact.
Therefore, appointing a manager or committee
with responsibility for change is likely to be
more effective than annual diversity training,
periodic diversity evaluations, or decentralized
networking and mentoring programs. As structural theorists of organizational inequality claim
(Baron 1984), there is more to segregation than
rogue managers exercising bias. Thus, appointing special staff members and committees to
rethink hiring and promotion structures may be
more effective than training managers not to ask
their secretaries to make coffee, and not to
exclude minorities from football pools.
The argument that organizations should structure responsibility for reducing inequality may
seem commonsensical, but today's popular
diversity programs often focus on changing
individuals. In the academy generally and in
management studies particularly, methodological individualism now holds sway. Theorists
prescribe solutions that change incentives for,
and beliefs of, individuals with the idea that
most problems of management are problems
of motivation rather than structure. Thus the
most popular program that is not federally mandated is diversity training, designed to attack
bias. Managerial bias is also the target of diversity evaluations that offer feedback to managers. Networking and mentoring programs
may appear to operate at the collective level, but
they are designed to "fix" a lack of specific
human and social capital in individual workers.
Next, we describe the three categories of
diversity practices, link them to theories of
inequality, and summarize the (scant) evidence
about the effects of workplace antidiscrimination programs. Then we review the research on
the effects of the Civil Rights Act and presidential affirmative action edicts on employment-hitherto the main body of research on the
effectiveness of antidiscrimination measures.
After a discussion of data and methods, we
591
592
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
PLANS.
Assign responsibilityfor setting goals,
devising means, and evaluatingprogress;this
was Weber'sadvice to bureaucrats.The agency
LyndonJohnsonset up in 1965 to monitoraffirmativeactionamongfederalcontractorsencouraged this approach. In 1971, the Office of
Federal ContractCompliance (OFCC, which
later gained a P for "programs"to become
OFCCP)orderedcontractorsto write affirmative action plans in which they annuallyevaluate their own workforces,specify goals for the
fair representationof women and minorities
based on labor market analyses, and sketch
timetables for achievement of these goals
(Shaeffer 1973:66).
593
594
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
MarkGranovetter(1974) broughtinsightsabout
social networks,pioneeredby both sociologists
and psychologists, to the study of how people
find jobs. Students of inequality have since
speculated that differential network contacts
and differentialresourcesaccruingfrom these
contacts may explain part of the continuing
inequality between whites and blacks, and
betweenmen andwomen(Blair-Loy2001; Burt
1998; Ibarra 1992, 1995; McGuire 2000;
Petersen, Saporta, and Seidelm 1998). White
men are more likely than others to find good
jobs through network ties because their networks are composed of other white men who
dominatethe uppertiers of firms (Burt 1998;
Reskin and McBrier 2000, but see Fernandez
and Fernandez-Mateo 2006; Mouw 2003).
Social networksalso encouragetrust,support,
andinformalcoaching(BaronandPfeffer1994;
Castilla 2005; Kanter 1977). Networking and
mentoringprogramsdesigned specifically for
MENTORING
PROGRAMS.
In 1978, the Harvard
Some argue that affirmativeaction and diversity programs can backfire (Bond and Pyle
1988; Linnehanand Konrad1999). First,executives may believe that women and minorities
benefit from reverse discriminationand thus
may not deserve their positions (Heilman,
Block, and Stathatos1997;but see Taylor1995).
Second,because of the elusive natureof cognitive bias, "conscious attemptsat thoughtregulation"-such as diversitytraininganddiversity
evaluations-"may even backfire, leading to
exaggeratedstereotypingunder conditions of
diminished capacity, or when self-regulation
efforts are relaxed" (Nelson et al. 1996:31).
Indeed,managementconsultantsandresearchers
find mixed reactionsto diversitymanagement
among white males, who report that they are
"tiredof being made to feel guilty in every discussion of diversity... of being cast as oppressors" (Hemphill and Haines 1997). Third,
coworkersand executives may have negative
reactions when they perceive minorities "as
attemptingto obtain power by individual and
collectivemeans"(Ragins 1995:106),andexecutives may fear that networking will lead to
union organizing(Bendick et al. 1998; Carter
2003; Friedman and Craig 2004; Miller
1994:443; Society for Human Resources
Management2004). Finally,some studies find
thatraciallydiverseworkgroupscommunicate
less effectivelyandareless coherent(Baughand
Graen 1997; Townsendand Scott 2001; Vallas
2003; Williams and O'Reilly 1998). Taken
together,this research suggests that diversity
programsmay inhibit management diversity,
particularlyfor blacks.
THE CIVILRIGHTS ACT, AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION EDICTS,AND DIVERSITY
PRACTICES
Although there is little researchon the effects
of corporatediversityprograms,the Civil Rights
Act and presidentialaffirmativeaction orders
havebeen shownto increasediversity.The Civil
RightsAct coversvirtuallyall employers,making researchon its effectsdifficult(Donohueand
Heckman 1991). The effects of presidential
595
596
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
LEGALENVIRONMENT
Legal enforcement, through OFCCP compliance reviews, lawsuits, and EEOC charges,
should increase employers'hiring and promotion of women and minorities (Baron et al.
1991:1386; Donohue and Siegelman 1991;
Kalev andDobbin forthcoming;Leonard1984;
Skaggs 2001).
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURES
Organizationalsize andthe availabilityof managerialjobs createnew opportunities(Baronet
al. 1991), but also more competition.Konrad
and Linnehan (1995) and Leonard(1990:52)
find thatincreaseddemandfor managersfavors
white women, but not African Americans.
Unionizationtends to preserve segregationby
favoringold timersthroughseniorityprovisions
(Blau and Beller 1992; Milkman 1985; but see
Kelly 2003; Leonard1985a). Formalizationof
personnel systems can reduce favoritism
(Dobbinet al. 1993;ReskinandMcBrier2000),
althoughit also can create separatecareertrajectoriesfordifferentgroups(BaldiandMcBrier
1997; Baron and Bielby 1985; Elvira and
Zatzick 2002). Legal counsel may sensitize
employersto diversityin promotiondecisions,
and recruitmentsystems targetingwomen and
minoritiescan increasediversity(Edelmanand
Petterson 1999; Holzer and Neumark 2000).
Finally,work/familypolicies mayremoveobstacles to the promotion of women (Williams
2000).
ORGANIZATIONAL
SURVEYDATA
597
hadbeen discontinued.Programdiscontinuation
was rare.When a respondentcould not answer
a question, we sent a copy of that question by
email or fax, askedthatshe consultrecordsand
colleagues,andcalled backto fill in the blanks.
Duringour in-personpilot interviews, respondentsroutinelypulled out manualswith copies
of policies and lists of adoption and revision
dates. Nonetheless, because responses about
events long past may be inaccurate,we replicated the analyses using only establishmentyear spells for 1990 to 2002, as discussed later.
We matched survey data for each establishment with annual EEO-1 records, creating a
datasetwith annualestablishment-yearspells.
After excluding 10 cases that had EEO-1 data
availablefor fewer than 5 years, 13 cases with
excessive numbersof missing values for EEO1 or surveydata,and 102 cases thatwere missing the adoption date for at least one key
program,our final datasetincluded 708 cases
and 16,265 establishment-year cells, with a
medianof 25 years of dataper establishment,a
minimum of 5 years, and a maximum of 32
years.We collected dataon national,state, and
industryemploymentfromthe Bureauof Labor
Statistics.
Because of our stratified sampling design
and the response pattern,we were concerned
thatrespondentsmight not representthe populationof establishmentsthatfile EEO-1reports
in the sampled industries. We constructed
weightsbased on the inverseprobabilitythatan
establishmentfrom each stratum(industryby
size and by time in the EEO-1 dataset)would
completethe survey.We replicatedall reported
analysesusingweights,andthe resultsremained
intact.We reportunweightedresults in the following discussion(WinshipandRadbill 1994).
We also were concerned that employers who
refusedto participatemight systematicallydiffer, on factors affecting diversity,from those
who participated.We included in the models
predictedvalues froma logistic regressionestimating the probabilityof response (Heckman
1979). This did not change our results.
Covariatesin that model were industry,establishment status (headquarters,subunit, standalone status),size, contractorstatus,managerial
diversity,andcontactperson'sposition.The last
variablewas obtainedin the initial contact,the
others from the EEO-1 data.
598
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
DEPENDENTVARIABLES
establishmentj (HanushekandJackson1977;Reskin
andMcBrier2000).Theresultswererobustto differentsubstitutions
for0. Wechosetheonethatkept
thedistribution
unimodalandclosestto normal.To
ensurethatthe substitution
doesnotdrivethe findings,we includea binaryvariablefornogroupmembersin management.
been larger.Furthermore,
nationalfiguresreflect
the change in women'srepresentationin managementassociatedwith service sector growth
(e.g. Jacobs 1992), whereas our data track a
relativelystable set of firms.
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTIONPLANSANDDIVERSITY
PRACTICES
Figure2 showstheprevalenceof all sevendiversity programsamong the 708 employers analyzed later.By 2002, affirmativeaction plans
were used in 63 percent of the workplaceswe
study,followedby trainingin 39 percent,diversity committeesin 19 percent,networkingprograms(forwomenandminorities)in 19 percent,
diversityevaluationsformanagersin 19 percent,
diversitystaffin 11 percent,andmentoringprograms(forwomenandminorities)in 11 percent.
The bivariate correlations and joint frequencies of the seven programsare not shown here
(see Online Supplement,ASRWeb site: http://
www2.asanet.org/joumals/asr/2006/toc052.html).
In the analysesreportedin the following discussion,we use binaryvariablesto representthe
presenceof the sevendiversityprograms.Forsix
programs,we asked whetherthe organization
had ever had the program,when it was first
adopted,andwhen (if ever)it was discontinued.
Forthe seventhpractice,diversitytraining,we
asked when it was first and last offered. If an
employerhadgone for 3 yearswithouttraining,
we treatedthe programas defunct.We collected additionalinformationaboutdiversitytraining becauseourin-personinterviewssuggested
that it varied across organizationsmore than
the other programs,but we found significant
similaritiesin trainingprograms.In 70 percent
of the establishmentswith training for managers, trainingwas mandatory.Includedin 80
percentof the trainingprogramswas a discussion on the legal aspectsof diversity,and98 percent were conducted with live facilitators,as
opposed to being offered exclusively via the
Web or video. Although some organizations
offered trainingnot only to managers,but also
to all employees, we reporteffects of training
for managersbecause managersmade promotion decisions. Trainingfor all employees had
nearlyidenticaleffects in the models.
Because the measures are binary, coded 1
for all the yearsthe programis in place,program
effects are estimated for the entire period of
CORPORATEAFFIRMATIVEACTIONAND DIVERSITYPOLICIES
599
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
managers
of
40%
percent
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
S----
Figure 1. Percent of Managers: White Men and Women and Black Men and Women, 1971-2002
Note: Based on EEO-1 reports 1971-2002 sampled for Princeton University Human Resources Survey 2002.
Varying N. Maximum N = 708; EEO = equal employment opportunity.
40%
Workplace
of 30%
20%
percent
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
Year
--AA Plan
--A-- Diversity Committee
-0-- Diversity Training
- - -Mentoring for Women/Minorities
--4-
FullTimeEO/AAStaff
DiversityEffortsin Mgrs'Evaluations
-)--
Figure 2. Percentof Private-SectorWorkplaceswith Affirmative Action Plans and Diversity Programs, 1971-2002
Note: Based on Princeton University Human Resources Survey, 2002. Varying N. Maximum N = 708.
600
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
TOP MANAGEMENT
COMPOSITION.
Top management team diversity is measured with the
6ol
Data EEO-1
shown
EEO-1Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
EEO-1
EEO-1
Survey
Survey
Survey
EEO-1
Survey
Survey
EEO-1
EEO-1
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
Survey
not
opportunity;
variables
of
Type
Count
Count
Count
Binary
Binary
Binary
Binary
Binary
Binary
BinaryBinary
Binary
Binary
Binary
Binary
Binary
list
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
employment
10010066.7
100
Maximum
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
.789 1
9 1 1 4
100100
12,866
detailed
a equal
=
for
2
EEO
Table
to
note
See
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0
.002
0 0
here.
Minimum
shown
not
but
Deviation
4.25.9
23.6
21.2
.494
.206
.222
.244
.303
.244
.179 .498
.356
.474
.464 .090 .436 .448
.978
.363
analyses
2.516
10.239
23.575
827
the
in
Standard
http://www2.asane
included
site:
are
Web
Composition
1.4
22.2 2.4
Mean 70.0
Workforce
.156
.912 3.471
.045
.052
.064
.102
.064
.033 .455
.149
.341
.314 .124 .254 .277
.422
4.917
16.445 ASR
702
variables
Supplement,
environment
Managerial
of
contract)
Analysis
in
minorities
Measures
and
Online
on
economic
(percent) and
variables
men
women
women
men
staff
managers (government
women minorities
women
market
of
Diversity
establishment for
areare control
status
white
white
black
black plan
in
and
of
Variables(percent)
Labor
Composition
lawsuits size
areareareare
who
who list
accommodations
Structures
review
action
action
programs
policies
resources.
programs
who
who
who
who
committee
evaluations
training
ActionEEO/diversity
attorney
16,265.
Selected Variables
managers
recruitment
HR
entire
charges
agreement
=
time
managers
managers
1.
Environment
N (seehuman
Management =
Special
Top
Top
Establishment
Formal
In-house
Work-family
Compliance
Discrimination
EEOCPercent
Union
Diversity
Diversity
Mentoring
Affirmative
Managers
Managers
Affirmative
FullDiversity
Managers
Managers
Networking
HR
Top
here
Legal
Organizational
Note:
Affirmative
Table Outcome
Used
602
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
whereas others have meager effects, or positive effects for some groupsandnegativeeffects
for others.Themost effectivepracticesarethose
thatestablishorganizational
responsibility:affirmative action plans, diversity staff, and diversity task forces. Attempts to reduce social
isolationamongwomenandAfricanAmericans
through networkingand mentoring programs
areless promising.Leasteffectiveareprograms
for taming managerialbias througheducation
and feedback.
DIVERSITY
PROGRAMS
AT WORK
CORPORATE
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTIONANDDIVERSITY
POLICIES 603
Table2. FixedEffectsEstimatesof the Log Oddsof WhiteMen andWomenandBlackWomenandMen in
Management,1971-2002
Organizational
Responsibility
Affirmativeactionplan
Diversitycommittee
Diversitystaff
ManagerialBias
Diversitytraining
Diversityevaluations
SocialIsolation
Networkingprograms
Mentoringprograms
LegalEnvironment
Governmentcontract
Compliancereview
TitleVII lawsuit
EEOCcharge
Structures
Organizational
Proportionmanagersin establishment
size (log)
Establishment
Unionagreement
Formalpersonnelpolicies
In-houseattorney
policy
Targetedrecruitment
Work-familyaccommodations
TopManagementComposition
Proportionminoritiesin top management
Proportionwomenin top management
WhiteMen
WhiteWomen
BlackWomen
BlackMen
-.078**
(.017)
-.081**
(.028)
-.055
(.033)
.086**
(.017)
.175**
(.029)
.104**
(.034)
.005
(.014)
.242**
(.024)
.123**
(.028)
.039*
(.015)
.114**
(.026)
.128**
(.030)
-.038
(.021)
.028
(.027)
-.001
(.022)
.061*
(.028)
-.066**
(.018)
-.027
(.023)
.031
(.019)
-.081**
(.025)
-.083**
(.027)
-.011
(.033)
.080**
(.028)
-.004
(.035)
.012
(.023)
.213**
(.029)
-.096**
(.024)
.037
(.031)
.032
(.019)
-.083**
(.020)
-.107**
(.015)
-.007
(.016)
.006
(.019)
.077**
(.020)
.141**
(.016)
.014
(.017)
-.039*
(.016)
.020
(.017)
.044**
(.013)
.019
(.014)
-.027
(.017)
.081**
(.018)
.029*
(.014)
.034*
(.015)
-.896**
(.108)
-.021
(.012)
-.053
(.033)
-.002
(.004)
-.100**
(.023)
-.071**
(.021)
-.078**
(.008)
.309**
(.112)
-.023*
(.012)
-.068*
(.034)
-.003
(.004)
.126**
(.024)
.108**
(.021)
.065**
(.009)
-4.499**
(.092)
-.661**
(.010)
-.007
(.028)
-.016**
(.003)
-.040*
(.020)
.131**
(.018)
.026**
(.007)
-3.989**
(.099)
-.515**
(.011)
-.029
(.030)
-.015**
(.003)
.021
(.021)
.099**
(.019)
.004
(.008)
-.002
(.001)
-.002**
(.001)
-.002
(.001)
.004**
(.001)
.007**
(.001)
.002**
(.001)
.012**
(.001)
-.002*
(.001)
.2799
.3636
.3335
.3146
R2(64 parameters)
=
<
unrelated
.001.
Data
shown
are
coefficients
from
Note: Log likelihoodratiotest;X2(28) 405.66;p
seemingly
regressionwith standarderrorsin parentheses.Variablesincludedin the analysesbutnot shownhereare8 vari4 binaryvariablesforproportionof eachgroupin non-managerial
jobs andin corejob in eachestablishment;
ablesfor no workersfroma groupin management;8 variablesforproportionof eachgroupin stateandindustry
rate(full
laborforces;proportionof contractorfirmsin industry;industryemployment;andstateunemployment
resultson OnlineSupplement,ASRWebsite:http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/2006/toc052.html).
Analyses
also includeestablishmentandyearfixed effects.All independentvariablesarelaggedby 1 year,excluding
= 16,265;N (organizations)
= 708. EEOC= Equal
proportionof managerialjobs. N (organization-year)
Employment Opportunity Commission. * p < .05; ** p < .01 (two tailed test).
604
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
Networkingandmentoringprograms,designed
to countersocial isolation,show modest effects
on managerialdiversity.Networkingis followed
by a rise in the odds for white women and a
decline in the odds for white men and black
men. The negativecoefficient for black men is
anticipatedby qualitativeresearch(Carter2003;
Friedmanand Craig2004) showingthatwhites
can develop negativeattitudestowardAfricanAmerican organizing. In contrast, mentoring
programsshow a strongpositive effect on the
odds for black women. These findings suggest
that having personal guidance and supportat
workcan facilitatecareerdevelopment(Castilla
2005) for blackwomen, whereasnetworkingis
more effective for white women.
GENDER AND RACIAL PATTERNS.Overall, it
appears that diversity programs do most for
white women and more for black women than
for black men. Black men gain significantly
less from affirmative action than do white
women (chi-sq(1) = 4.15, p < .05), and significantly less from diversitycommitteesthan do
blackwomen(chi-sq(l) = 22.47,p.< .01). Three
programs show negative effects on African
Americans,whereasno programshows a negative effect on white women. We hesitate to
overinterpretthis pattern,but note thatthere is
somethingof a trade-offamong groups.
Table3 evaluatesthe magnitudeof the effects
of programson the proportionof each groupin
managementbased on the coefficients in Table
2. "Proportionin year of adoption"is the mean
proportion of each group in management,
amongadopters,in theiractualyearsof program
adoption(i.e.,just beforetreatment)."Estimated
proportionwith practice"shows the predicted
mean proportionafter the practice is in place.
Thus, for example, the proportion of white
women among managersin the averageestablishment adopting an affirmative action program was 0.132, and the net effect of the
CORPORATE
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION
ANDDIVERSITY
POLICIES 605
Table3. EstimatedAverageDifferencesin ManagerialCompositionDue to Adoptionof AffirmativeActionand
DiversityPractices
WhiteMen
AffirmativeActionPlan
.783
Proportionin yearof adoption
Estimatedproportionwith practice
.769
Percentdifferencedue to adoption
-1.8%**
DiversityCommittee
.630
Proportionin yearof adoption
Estimatedproportionwith practice
.611
Percentdifferencedueto adoption
-3.0%**
DiversityStaff
.724
Proportionin yearof adoption
Estimatedproportionwith practice
.713
Percentdifferencedueto adoption
-1.5%
DiversityTraining
.687
Proportionin yearof adoption
Estimatedproportionwith practice
.679
Percentdifferencedueto adoption
-1.2%
DiversityEvaluations
.720
Proportionin yearof adoption
Estimatedproportionwith practice
.726
Percentdifferencedueto adoption
.8%
NetworkingPrograms
.702
Proportionin yearof adoption
Estimatedproportionwithpractice
.684
Percentdifferencedueto adoption
-2.6%**
MentoringPrograms
.690
Proportionin yearof adoption
Estimatedproportionwith practice
.688
Percentdifferencedueto adoption
-.3%
Note:Estimatesbasedon coefficientspresentedin Table2.
* p < .05; ** p < .01 (twotailedtest).
WhiteWomen
BlackWomen
BlackMen
.132
.142
7.6%**
.017
.017
.0%
.024
.025
4.2%**
.230
.262
13.9%**
.014
.018
29.8%**
.020
.022
10.0%**
.157
.171
8.9%**
.014
.016
14.3%**
.021
.024
14.3%**
.194
.194
.0%
.017
.016
-5.9%**
.022
.023
4.5%
.160
.168
5.0%
.017
.017
.0%
.024
.022
-8.3%**
.193
.206
6.7%**
.014
.014
.0%
.020
.018
-10.0%**
.017
.021
23.5%**
.021
.022
4.8%
.216
.215
-.5%
606
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
DOEs ORGANIZATIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY
IMPROVEPROGRAMEFFECTIVENESS?
White
Men
White
Women
Black
Women
Black
Men
-.043**
(.016)
-.091**
(.023)
-.158**
(.029)
.056**
(.016)
.121**
(.023)
.232**
(.030)
-.009
(.013)
.020
(.019)
.127**
(.025)
.026
(.014)
.024
(.021)
.046
(.027)
.3323
.3124
.3569
.2767
-.063**
(.017)
-.026
(.036)
-.026
(.042)
.294**
(.057)
-.326**
(.061)
-.090
(.050)
-.003
.081**
(.017)
-.064
(.038)
.132**
(.043)
-.042
(.059)
.136*
(.063)
.163**
(.052)
-.088
.007
(.014)
-.046
(.031)
.044
(.036)
-.065
(.049)
.057
(.053)
-.026
(.043)
.073
.042**
(.015)
.026
(.033)
.040
(.038)
-.077
(.052)
.009
(.057)
-.172*
(.046)
.118*
(.056)
(.058)
(.048)
(.051)
.140**
(.066)
-.183*
(.074)
-.101
(.068)
.133
(.076)
-.042
(.057)
.344**
(.063)
.127*
(.061)
-.108
(.068)
R2(66 parameters)
.3347
.3136
.3602
.2785
Data
shown
are
coefficients
from
2
unrelated
with
standard
in
errors
seemingly
regressionanalyses
parenNote.:
theses.ResponsibilityStructuresincludeaffirmativeactionplans,diversitycommitteesanddiversitystaff.The
analysesincludeestablishmentandyearfixed effectsandall the controlvariablesincludedin the modelspresented in Table2 (forcoefficientsof controlvariables,see OnlineSupplement,
ASRWebsite:http://www2.
N (organization-year)
= 16,265;N (organizations)=708.
asanet.org/journals/asr/2006/toc052.html).
* p < .05; ** p < .01
(two tailed test).
607
608
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
Fixed-Effects Estimates of the Log Odds of White Men and Women and Black Women and Men in
Management with Government Contractor Interactions, 1971-2002
R2 (71 parameters)
White Men
White Women
Black Women
-.050*
(.023)
-.050
(.028)
-.096*
(.038)
.029
(.053)
-.076
(.058)
.024
(.066)
.005
(.027)
-.092*
(.038)
.049
(.039)
-.041
(.050)
-.133**
(.038)
.086**
(.023)
.003
(.029)
.173**
(.040)
-.006
(.055)
.018
(.060)
.120
(.068)
-.094**
(.028)
.197**
(.040)
.090*
(.041)
-.035
(.051)
.171**
(.039)
-. 195**
(.052)
-.053
(.047)
.086
(.065)
.000
(.019)
.000
(.024)
.270**
(.033)
-.050
(.046)
.205**
(.050)
-.127*
(.056)
-. 116**
(.023)
.107**
(.033)
-.097**
(.034)
.118**
(.042)
-.034
(.033)
.069
(.043)
.179**
(.039)
.057
(.054)
(.053)
-.145*
(.060)
-.016
(.025)
.100**
(.035)
-.063
(.036)
-.027
(.045)
-.035
(.035)
-.113*
(.046)
.070
(.042)
-.056
(.058)
.3165
.3650
.2811
.111*
(.051)
.028
(.046)
-.081
(.063)
.3341
Black Men
.007
(.021)
.053*
(.026)
.076*
(.035)
.074
(.049)
.240**
Note. Log likelihood ratio test; X2(28) = 135.86; p < .001; Data shown are coefficients from seemingly unrelated
regression with standarderrors in parentheses. The analyses include establishment and year fixed effects and all
the control variables included in the models presented in Table 2 (for coefficients of control variables, see Online
Supplement, ASR Web site: http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/2006/toc052.html). N (organization-year)=
16,265; N (organizations)= 708.
* p < .05; ** < .01
p
(two tailed test).
609
6io
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
611
612
AMERICANSOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
2001).
Finally, to assess the impact of antidiscrimination legislation on employment inequality,
one needs to consider broader political, social,
and cultural changes associated with the Civil
Rights Act, affirmative action, and related laws
(Burstein 2000). Yet if the effects of government
antidiscrimination measures have slowed, as
some observers suggest, then we should waste
no time sorting out which corporate programs
are effective.
Alexandra Kalev received her Ph.D. from Princeton
in 2005. Her dissertation examines how workplace
restructuring ("high performance" systems and
downsizing) affects the careers of women and minorities. Kalev is a postdoctoral fellow in the Robert
Wood Johnson Scholars in Health Policy Research
Program at UC Berkeley studying gender and racial
disparities in work related injuries and illnesses.
Kalev has published with Frank Dobbin on civil
rights law enforcement in the face of deregulation
(Law and Social Inquiry), and with Erin Kelly on how
schedules
(Socio-
REFERENCES
Ashenfelter, Orley and James J. Heckman. 1976.
"Measuring the Effect of an Antidiscrimination
Program." Pp. 46-89 in Evaluating the LaborMarket Effects of Social Programs, edited by O.
Ashenfelter and J. Blum. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Baldi, Stephane and Debra Branch McBrier. 1997.
"Do the Determinants of Promotion Differ for
Blacks and Whites? Evidence from the U.S. Labor
Market." Workand Occupations 24:478-97.
Baron, James N. 1984. "Organizational Perspectives
on Stratification." Annual Review of Sociology
10:37-69.
Baron, James N. and William T. Bielby. 1985.
"Organizational Barriers to Gender Equality: Sex
Segregation of Jobs and Opportunities." Pp.
233-251 in Gender and the Life Course, edited by
A. S. Rossi. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Baron, James N., Brian S. Mittman, and Andrew E.
Newman. 1991. "Targets of Opportunity:
Organizational and Environmental Determinants
of Gender Integration within the California Civil
Services, 1976-1985." American Journal of
Sociology 96:1362-401.
Baron, James N. and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1994. "The
Social Psychology
of Organizations
and
Inequality." Social Psychology
Quarterly
57:190-209.
Baugh, Gayle S. and George B. Graen. 1997. "Effects
of Team Gender and Racial Composition on
Perceptions of Team Performance in Cross-
613
614
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
615
616
AMERICAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
REVIEW
ResultsfromLogit andProbitModels."American
Sociological Review 50:130-131.
Petersen, Trond, Ishak Saporta, and Marc David
Seidelm. 1998. "Offeringa Job:Meritocracyand
Social Networks."AmericanJournalof Sociology
106:763-816.
Posner,RichardA. 1992. EconomicAnalysisof Law,
4th edition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Presidential Glass Ceiling Commission. 1995. A
Solid Investment: Making a Full Use of our
Nations' Human Capital. Washington,DC: U.S.
Departmentof LaborGlass Ceiling Commission.
Ragins Belle Rose. 1995. "Diversity, Power and
Mentorship in Organizations: A Cultural,
StructuralandBehavioralPerspective."Pp 91-132
in Diversityin Organizations:NewPerspectivesfor
a ChangingWorkplace,
editedby M. M. Chemers,
S. Oskamp,and M. A. Costanzo.ThousandOaks,
CA: Sage.
Reskin,BarbaraE 1998. TheRealitiesofAffirmative
Actionin Employment.Washington,DC:American
Sociological Association.
2000. "The Proximate Causes of
Employment Discrimination." Contemporary
Sociology 29:319-28.
2003. "Including Mechanisms in Our
Models of Ascriptive Inequality." American
Sociological Review 68:1-21.
Reskin, BarbaraF. and Debra B. McBrier. 2000.
"WhyNot Ascription?Organizations'
Employment
of Male and Female Managers." American
Sociological Review 65:210-33.
Reskin, Barbara E and Patricia Roos. 1990. Job
Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's
InroadsintoMale Occupations.Philadelphia,PA:
TempleUniversityPress.
Robinson,Corre,TiffanyTaylor,DonaldTomaskovicDevey,CatherineZimmer,andMatthewW Irvine,
Jr. 2005. "Studying Race/Ethnic and Sex
Segregation at the Establishment-Level:
Methodological
Issues and Substantive
OpportunitiesUsing EEO-1 Reports."Workand
Occupations32:5-38.
Roche, GerardR. 1979. "MuchAdo aboutMentors."
HarvardBusiness Review 57:14.
Rossi Peter H., Mark W. Lipsey, and Howard E.
Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic
Approach.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Rynes, Sara and Benson Rosen. 1995. "A Field
Survey of Factors Affecting the Adoption and
Perceived Success of Diversity Training."
PersonnelPsychology 48:247-70.
Salancik, Gerald R. and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1978.
"Uncertainty,Secrecy,and the Choice of Similar
Others."Social Psychology 41:246-55.
Scott, W. Richard. 2001. Institutions and
Organizations.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Selznick, Philip. 1949. TVAand the Grass Roots.
Berkeley,CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
617