Subtle Discrimination as Natural Human Behavior

K. P. Jones and colleagues (Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017) demonstrate subtle discrimination primarily in the context of populations that were overtly discriminated against in the past (based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disablement, etc.) and are at present and to some degree legally protected classes (see for example: Lindsey, King, McCausland, Jones, & Dunleavy, Reference Lindsey, King, McCausland, Jones and Dunleavy2013). Nevertheless, subtle discrimination still occurs “toward social minorities on the basis of their minority status membership” (Lindsey et al., p. 5). This form of discrimination may be largely related to a broader human phenomenon of holding implicit (versus explicit) attitudes influencing behavior partially without awareness and automatically. Implicit attitudes are more difficult to monitor and control and yet affect individuals’ actions systematically (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, Reference Dovidio, Kawakami and Gaertner2002). Specifically, subtle discrimination could essentially take place against individuals who are a social minority in a certain organization but are not included in populations protected by law, for instance “stars.” Stars are recognized as a subgroup of high performers who contribute disproportionately to an organization's output. They gain visibility and have high social capital (Call, Nyberg, & Thatcher, Reference Call, Nyberg and Thatcher2015). Consequently, stars are targets of behaviors such as avoidance (Exline, Zell, & Lobel, Reference Exline, Zell and Lobel2013) and “out-of-the-loop” experiences (e.g., intentionally excluded from information known to other coworkers; E. E. Jones, Carter-Sowell, Kelly, & Williams, Reference Jones, Carter-Sowell, Kelly and Williams2009).

Another example of subtle discrimination toward unprotected groups is when a native-born employee is alone in a group of immigrant employees who speak the same language and whisper among themselves in their native tongue in his presence, even though they know the local language. The native-born employee feels that he cannot participate in the conversation and senses discrimination. Hence, subtle discrimination is everywhere in the organization. K. P. Jones and colleagues (Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017) emphasize that everyone is included in the process of subtle discrimination: targets, perpetrators, bystanders, and allies. It is all encompassing.

It would seem that subtle discrimination is rooted in a basic need and therefore is so widespread. People have a basic need to belong and affiliate (belonging: Baumeister & Leary, Reference Baumeister and Leary1995; love: Maslow, Reference Maslow1943; affiliation: McClelland, Reference McClelland1965). However, they tend to connect to others who they feel are similar to them in characteristics such as values, worldview, culture, and even demographics such as race or gender. This basic human tendency was thoroughly addressed within the key tenets of social identity theory (SIT: Tajfel, Reference Tajfel and Tajfel1978; Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, Reference Turner, Brown and Tajfel1979). According to SIT, people categorize themselves and others as belonging to certain social groups (e.g., religious affiliation, gender, age, organizational membership, work group, department, and so on; see Ashforth & Mael, Reference Ashforth and Mael1989; Mael & Ashforth, Reference Mael and Ashforth1992) and make evaluations of these categorizations. Although those persons who are perceived to be part of a group to which the individual belongs are defined as “in-group” members, are favorably evaluated, and yield interpersonal identification, those who are not perceived as part of the group are defined as “out-group” members, are targets of unfavorable bias, and are generally discriminated against. Out-groups members’ discrimination is said to be part of social identity processes (so called “in-group favoritism”) with the aim to achieve positive self-esteem and self-enhancement. Preferring those similar to us is manifested in organizations in many ways, which may often lead to biased decisions. For instance, in performance appraisal, the evaluator tends to give higher scores to those perceived as similar to him, such as race (see: Kraiger & Ford, Reference Kraiger and Ford1985; Landy & Farr, Reference Landy and Farr1980). Whether Whites underevaluate Blacks or Blacks overevaluate Blacks (Stauffer & Buckley, Reference Stauffer and Buckley2005), it is obvious that evaluators’ personal characteristics create subtle discrimination toward those who are dissimilar to them. Similarity bias could also happen when preferring applicants who are similar to us, unless valid selection tools, such as structured interviews, which cancel or reduce potential bias are used (McCarthy, Van Iddekinge, & Campion, Reference McCarthy, Van Iddekinge and Campion2010). Of course, subtle discrimination could occur in other organizational practices that relate to the employee's life in the organization. If so, unconscious cognitive biases are at the basis of preferring those that are similar to us in the organization. Additionally, conscious behaviors, for instance those that are rooted in belonging to a group, feed subtle discrimination. A work group is made up of individuals who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of the tasks they perform as members of a group (Hackman, Reference Hackman and Lorsch1987). However, a formal work group defined by the organization is not always identical to an informal social group to which employees choose to belong. Even within formal work groups, informal subgroups are often formed. Such work groups were first described in the Hawthorne Studies and in later experiments as well (see, for example, Trist, Susman, & Brown, Reference Trist, Susman and Brown1977). Accordingly, members of the informal social group at work could use subtle discrimination against employees with certain characteristics in their work group.

Consequently, subtle discrimination stems, at least in part, from a natural (conscious and unconscious) human tendency, and therein is its power. The next section delves into employees’ reactions when the organization acts to eradicate expressions of discrimination that are rooted in this natural tendency.

Subtle Discrimination as “Equal Reaction” to Organizational Actions Against Overt Discrimination

K. P. Jones and her colleagues (Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017) describe a “continuum of subtlety” and note that subtle discrimination exists where overt discrimination has existed in the past. This statement is crucial to understanding subtle discrimination. To elaborate, we have decided to use the world of physics. Isaac Newton, one of the greatest physicists, determined in his third law of motion that to every action there is always opposed an equal reaction. Newton's “Scholium” on this law states that whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other (Newton, Reference Newton2010).

Applying this to the matter at hand, the more that formal discrimination was forbidden and made illegal, unlawful, and nonnormative, the equally forceful reaction was discrimination expressed in a subtle manner. When the organization coerces employees, they flex their muscles in the opposite direction. Furthermore, in an organizational culture that endorses pluralism and diversity, the heterogeneity of workplaces is enormous. Thus, the probability that one will meet the subject of one's discrimination increases significantly and respectively amplifies the frequency of subtle discrimination behaviors.

If so, what to do? Let employees run the business? Certainly not. Formal rules must be kept and enforced. Beyond that, the next section makes a practical suggestion to deal with subtle discrimination in a way that emphasizes the common ground between employees’ tendency to belong and the organization's goals and needs.

Personal Choice Group and Group Performance Appraisal as Practices Dissolving Subtle Discrimination

Although K. P. Jones and colleagues (Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017) suggested recruitment and diversity training to promote an inclusive environment in an effort to reduce subtle discrimination, they focused on solutions on the personal level to cope with the phenomenon. We chose to broaden the group-organization level. One reason is that in view of the high frequency of subtle discrimination in organizations, it is difficult to examine each individual case. To identify and treat each case would require an elaborate system with too many restrictions on employees. Such a system would be problematic for two reasons: First, employees, as stated, push back, manipulate the system as part of their reaction; that is, it is usually not worth it. Second, it is impractical as far as implementation and enforcement are concerned.

The solution we suggest is to let employees choose in which groups they want to work. This notion follows the sociopsychological implications of recategorization, where individuals change their perceptions of group affiliation and group boundaries, redefining who is thought to be an in-group member (Gaertner & Dovidio, Reference Gaertner and Dovidio2000). Cases such as this already exist in the work world. For example, Pink (Reference Pink2009) wrote that in the Whole Foods organization, a candidate has to pass a 30-day trial period, and then his potential coworkers vote about hiring him full time. We believe that the same rationale should be applied to intraorganizational recruitment. Studies have shown that people who work in teams that they have formed are more satisfied than people whose teams were defined for them (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, Reference Parker, Wall and Jackson1997). In general, Pink (Reference Pink2009) argues that the autonomy involved in choosing one's work team is essential to increasing employee motivation and involvement. But, if workers tend to choose people who are similar to them, how can we encourage them to choose people who have dissimilar characteristics such as religion, race, gender, and so forth? Our suggested solution includes a complementary move that clarifies that the group's performance is appraised as a team and not individually. When performance (and, naturally, the related rewards and bonuses) is on the agenda, people often prefer to choose those who complement their skills and abilities or are better performers. They perceive their dissimilar features as less relevant, and thus subtle discrimination diminishes of its own accord. The premise here is that agenda-based group design can increase cooperative interdependence and with it the psychological attachment to the group. Past research has addressed such processes as an initiation of social recategorization that follows not an identity-based dimension but a bond-based dimension, identifying social interaction with others as one of the main causes of bond-based attachment. For example, one of the thoroughly reported social interaction effects is the finding that as the frequency of interpersonal interaction increases, individuals’ liking for one another also increases (Cartwright & Zander, Reference Cartwright and Zander1953). Identity-based attachment and bond-based attachment are said to have similar effects, as they contribute to in-group cohesion and personal commitment. Specifically, a common bond experience was said to contribute to the feelings of psychological attachment both to the group as a whole and to the group members (Ren, Kraut, & Kiesler, Reference Ren, Kraut and Kiesler2007). Accordingly, if an employee is given the right to choose his own team, his sense of belonging and commitment increase, thus reducing subtle discrimination behaviors and increasing cooperation for a common goal, which further strengthens the individuals’ sense that they are a group.

It is known that work teams’ performance levels are not necessarily a function of the aggregate of their members’ skills and expertise. Every so often the group's dynamics produce excellent performance, better than the arithmetic total of individual performance levels, and sometimes worse (Tziner, Reference Tziner2002). Subtle discrimination behaviors might worsen the dynamics, thus wasting the team's resources and damaging its functionality. When choosing one's team members is autonomous, the employees do not need to retaliate and will most probably rise above such situations.

Phillips, Douthitt, and Hyland (Reference Phillips, Douthitt and Hyland2001) noted that a number of factors determine team viability, including, team cohesiveness, affinity, attachment, turnover levels, absenteeism, and the members’ satisfaction with belonging to their team. It is therefore important that evaluators consider these measures when appraising team performance, in addition to general quantitative and qualitative performance and motivation appraisal, as suggested by Campbell's (Reference Campbell, Ilgen and Pulakos1999) performance conceptualization. These measures would allow organizations to monitor phenomena of subtle discrimination in certain teams and deal with them. We should keep in mind that today work is done more by teams than by individuals (Daft, Reference Daft2015), so group appraisal is essential and as a byproduct can act against subtle discrimination.

Summary

In this comment, we argued that subtle discrimination stems from people's natural need to belong and, on one hand, to prefer those who are similar to them and, on the other hand, to be separate from those unlike them. Therefore, when the law and organizations restrict (and rightly so) overt discrimination behaviors, the employees’ natural reaction (based on laws of physics) is subtle discrimination. We believe that to reduce this phenomenon, employees should be given the prerogative to choose their work team, and their performance should be appraised as a team.