Content uploaded by Rochelle Parks-Yancy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rochelle Parks-Yancy
Content may be subject to copyright.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Workforce Diversity and
Inequality: Power, Status,
and Numbers
Nancy DiTomaso,1Corinne Post,2
and Rochelle Parks-Yancy3
1Rutgers Business School—Newark and New Brunswick, Rutgers, the State University
of New Jersey, Newark, New Jersey 07102; email: ditomaso@andromeda.rutgers.edu
2Lubin School of Business, Pace University, Pleasantville, New York 10570;
email: coripost@optonline.net
3Jesse H. Jones School of Business, Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas 77004;
email: parksthoml@aol.com
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473–501
First published online as a Review in Advance on
April 11, 2007
The Annual Review of Sociology is online at
http://soc.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131805
Copyright c
2007 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0360-0572/07/0811-0473$20.00
Key Words
labor force, social structure, race/ethnicity, gender, job segregation
Abstract
Workforce diversity refers to the composition of work units in terms
of the cultural or demographic characteristics that are salient and
symbolically meaningful in the relationships among group mem-
bers. Although generally thought of as the purview of management
research, the topic of workforce diversity draws from and is relevant
to research from sociology and psychology. In this review, we high-
light two issues: (a) the importance of the substantial research on
inequality to an adequate understanding of workforce diversity and
(b) the need to link discussions of workforce diversity to the structural
relationships among groups within the society. We organize the re-
view in terms of three dimensions of the relationships among groups:
power, status, and numbers (or composition). We highlight research
from sociology, psychology, and management and show similarities
and gaps across these fields. We also briefly discuss the outcomes of
workforce diversity in the workplace.
473
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
INTRODUCTION
The term workforce diversity was not widely
used to describe the characteristics of the la-
bor force until the mid-1980s, after a widely
circulated report gained substantial attention
in the corporate world because it argued that
“demography is destiny” and claimed that dra-
matic changes were happening in the labor
force (Friedman & DiTomaso 1996, Johnston
& Packer 1987). Despite the relevance of
sociology and psychology to the study of
workforce diversity, it has primarily been the
purview of management literature.1Manage-
ment research on workforce diversity, how-
ever, has not drawn broadly from the core
disciplines of sociology and psychology in the
development of workforce diversity research,
but has focused on only a few topics and issues:
most prominently, organizational demogra-
phy (Pfeffer 1983) from sociology and social
identity theory from social psychology (Tajfel
1981). In this review, we highlight the broader
relevance of sociology and psychology re-
search to the study of workforce diversity with
regard to two key issues: (a) the importance of
the substantial research on inequality to an ad-
equate understanding of workforce diversity
and (b) the need to link discussions of work-
force diversity to the structural relationships
among groups within the society.
The extensive research on race, ethnicity,
gender, and other forms of inequality in soci-
ology and psychology (Browne & Misra 2003;
Dovidio & Gaertner 1986; Fiske 1998, 2002;
Lee & Bean 2004; Reskin 2003; Reskin et al.
1999; Smith 2002; Waters & Eschbach 1995)
should frame the discussion of workforce di-
versity and guide the research. Far too little
attention has been paid to the relationship be-
tween diversity and inequality and to the con-
1By management literature, we mean research published
primarily by scholars from business schools in such jour-
nals as Academy of Management Journal,Academy of Man-
agement Review,Journal of Applied Psychology,Organization
Science,Strategic Management Journal, and Administrative
Science Quarterly (although scholars from sociology depart-
ments frequently publish in this journal as well).
textual importance of intergroup relations in
the larger society in the study of workforce
diversity within organizations, however, de-
spite a number of comprehensive reviews of
the workforce diversity literature (Milliken &
Martins 1996, Pelled et al. 1999, Roberson &
Block 2001, Williams & O’Reilly 1998).
Workforce diversity refers to the composi-
tion of work units (work group, organization,
occupation, establishment or firm) in terms
of the cultural or demographic characteris-
tics that are salient and symbolically meaning-
ful in the relationships among group mem-
bers. Most research on workforce diversity
has focused on work groups, but the con-
cept applies to any social unit. The research
addresses a range of categorical differences,
but especially the following: race (Dovidio
et al. 2002, Reskin et al. 1999), ethnicity
(Portes & Rumbaut 1996), gender (Chatman
& O’Reilly 2004, Heilman et al. 1995, Reskin
1993), age (Zenger & Lawrence 1989), edu-
cation (Halaby 2003, Rosenbaum et al. 1990),
the functional background of group mem-
bers (e.g., those with training or experience
in marketing versus finance) (Cunningham
& Chelladurai 2005), and tenure or length
of service (Reagans & Zuckerman 2001, JB
Sorensen 2000). Other categorical differences
among workers, such as sexual orientation
(Ragins et al. 2003), physical ability (Colella &
Varma 2001), or religion (Islam & Hewstone
1993), have also been studied, and indeed, the
concept of workforce diversity is relevant to
any categorical difference that has a significant
impact on group interaction and outcomes.
The relevance of a given categorical distinc-
tion, however, may vary from one context to
another.
Our primary focus in this review is the re-
lationship of workforce diversity to inequal-
ity and to the structural relationships among
groups. When we refer to the workforce di-
versity literature or to the study of workforce
diversity, we mean research that addresses de-
mographic or cultural characteristics of the la-
bor force, especially within organizations, and
research that references these characteristics
474 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
as workforce diversity. Because of the noto-
riety of projected change in the labor force,
interest in workforce diversity and its impli-
cations has spread beyond management to
other fields. Research on workforce diversity
has drawn selectively from both sociology and
psychology. Sociological research on organi-
zational demography, for example, and social
psychological research on social identity the-
ory, for example, also constitute part of the
workforce diversity literature. There is, how-
ever, a broader literature within both sociol-
ogy and psychology on the demographic and
cultural characteristics of the labor force that
has not been incorporated into the study of
workforce diversity. For example, the work-
force diversity literature has given little at-
tention to issues of power and status differ-
ences among groups in society. Part of our
purpose in this article is to show the relevance
of this broader research to the understanding
of workforce diversity.
WORKFORCE DIVERSITY,
INEQUALITY, AND SOCIAL
STRUCTURE
Diversity is a characteristic only of groups,
not of individuals, so in that sense diversity
is a relational concept (Tilly 1998). To say
that a group is diverse implies some recogni-
tion of qualitative or categorical distinctions
among group members and hence of inter-
nal divisions within the group. The group
may not consciously address these distinc-
tions, but they are usually consequential in
terms of group processes (e.g., with regard
to communication, turnover, satisfaction, re-
source allocation, and performance evalua-
tion). Diversity matters because individuals
give social significance to the categories or
groups they associate with various people.
And they do so because diversity has a con-
text: Meaningful group differences exist be-
cause they have structural or institutional
bases (Andersen 2001, Lin 2001) in which they
are embedded, and they are shaped by ongo-
ing processes of interaction and decision mak-
ing that reinforce and reproduce group differ-
ences over time (Berger et al. 1998). Group
differences are rarely sustained if they are
just different (e.g., blue eyes and brown eyes)
(van Knippenberg 2004). Distinctions among
group members become meaningful when the
dynamics that lead cognitively to categorical
distinctions also lead to the ranking and dif-
ferentiation of us versus them (Brewer 1979,
Tajfel 1981, Turner 1987). Because it is based
in social structure and embedded in social in-
stitutions, diversity implies group-based in-
equality that is relatively stable but neverthe-
less subject to potential challenge.
In this review, we draw on the concep-
tualization of social structure from Sachdev
& Bourhis (1991, Fiske et al. 2002, Skaggs
& DiTomaso 2004) to examine the structural
and relational characteristics of power, status,
and numbers in our analysis of workforce di-
versity. Classic work within sociology iden-
tifies these characteristics as important com-
ponents of social inequality (Bendix & Lipset
1954, Blalock 1967). Like Sachdev & Bourhis
(1991), we define power as the access to and
control over scarce and valuable resources. As
such, we include the concept of class within
our concept of power, but because our focus
is on the workforce, we do not include political
power in our analysis. We define status as the
relationships of deference or honor between
and among groups (Weber 1968, pp. 932–38).
We define numbers as the compositional char-
acteristics of a group or work unit. The ef-
fects of numbers on group relations have a
long history in the social sciences, starting
with Simmel (1955 [1908]) and continuing to
the present. The structural characteristics of
groups or social units are assumed to influ-
ence group dynamics such as who talks to
whom, who notices whom, and who favors
whom.
Although for convenience we organize our
discussion of the structural bases of workforce
diversity in terms of power, status, and num-
bers as if they were separate and distinct, of
course, they are interrelated. Power makes
it possible to develop status distinctions, and
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 475
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
status confers honor that provides greater ac-
cess to opportunity and resources. Similarly,
majorities often can create institutions that
work in their favor, which contributes to their
accumulation of resources and ultimately to
status honor. In organizations, power and sta-
tus are often aligned, but those with high
status, for example, in terms of reputation
or expertise, are not always those with the
greatest access to resources (Weber 1968,
p. 938). Given the excellent review articles
on diversity-related topics, such as race, eth-
nic, and gender inequality (Browne & Misra
2003, Lee & Bean 2004, Morris & Western
1999, Reskin 1993, Reskin et al. 1999, Smith
2002, Waters & Eschbach 1995, Williams
1999, Winant 2000), our intent here is not
to cover the same ground, but to analytically
discuss relevant literatures and to show where
there are overlaps or gaps. For each structural
dimension, we discuss both macro and micro
levels of analysis, even though overlap often
exists across levels.
POWER
Research on inequality within organizations
has addressed issues that should be central to
workforce diversity research: who is hired or
given positions of responsibility in organiza-
tions, who gets access to organizational re-
sources or decision making, and who gets re-
warded for their contributions and on what
basis. Whereas the sociology literature ad-
dresses who gets into authority positions in
organizations and how they are rewarded for
it (Kluegel 1978, McGuire & Reskin 1993),
the management literature has looked more
at how different groups enact their manage-
ment roles and what responses they invoke in
doing so (Eagly et al. 2003, Powell & Graves
2003, Thomas & Gabarro 1999). These is-
sues have not been combined in the work-
force diversity literature, even though one
cannot understand how groups respond to
one another, get along, and create synergis-
tic outcomes without also considering how the
power relations among groups relate to the re-
production of inequality among groups over
time.
The study of inequality, of course, has been
a hallmark of research within sociology, and
within that research sociologists have placed
special emphasis on the differences among
demographic or cultural groups in access to
economic resources, especially with regard to
race/ethnicity and gender. Yet the sociological
work on inequality is rarely cited in the study
of workforce diversity, and its findings do not
form a framework for a discussion of why, for
example, race/ethnicity or gender may evoke
more emotional conflict in the workplace than
do differences in the tenure, age, or functional
backgrounds of group members ( Jehn et al.
1999, Pelled et al. 1999). To understand the
dynamics of workforce diversity, one must un-
derstand the relationships of power among
groups at both macro and micro levels.
Workforce Diversity and Power
at the Macro Level
Within sociology, there are competing the-
ories about the origins and dynamics of
inequality. Class theories, based on Marxian
theory, assume that class relations are ex-
ploitative and that a dynamic imperative gen-
erates conflict between classes because of
contradictory class interests (Wright 1997).
Status attainment research, which dominated
sociology for many decades, developed as an
alternative to class theory, but critics of sta-
tus attainment theory argued that it unreal-
istically assumed individualistic competition
and merit-based selection processes (Bielby
1992, England 1992). In response, many re-
searchers undertook new efforts to revive class
theory by using more textured definitions of
class location (Wright & Perrone 1977). In
most cases, however, the efforts to quantify
differences between those in different class
positions used income as the key dependent
variable (Halaby & Weakliem 1993, Spaeth
1985, Wright 1978, Wright & Perrone 1977)
and in doing so, of course, tied the research
specifically to differences in jobs, occupations,
476 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
and organizations. This debate contributed to
the growing interest in the power of differ-
ent jobs and, hence, to research on authority
in the workplace. More specifically, research
began to focus on the strategies undertaken
by different groups, such as processes of so-
cial closure, for gaining access to good jobs
(Abbott 1988, Dahrendorf 1959, Parkin 1979,
Tilly 1998, Weber 1968, Weeden 2000).
The controversies regarding theories of
inequality inevitably turned on the explana-
tions for group-based inequality, especially
with regard to race/ethnicity or gender
(Reskin 1988, Reskin & Ross 1992). Per-
haps for this reason, studies of authority and
mobility within organizations (i.e., who gets
access to good jobs with higher pay) have
also examined authority differences by gen-
der and race/ethnicity ( Jacobs 1992, Kluegel
1978, McGuire & Reskin 1993, Reskin &
Ross 1992, Smith 2002, Wright et al. 1995).
Findings from these studies suggest that
racial/ethnic and gender differences in work-
place authority (Smith 2002) follow consis-
tent patterns across studies, time, and even
country: Women and racial/ethnic minorities
have less authority on the job than white men,
and when women and minorities hold posi-
tions of authority, they do so at lower levels
of organizations. Furthermore, they receive
lower returns for their positions than white
men (Kluegel 1978, Reskin & Ross 1992).
Alternative theories of inequality come to-
gether in a recent effort by AB Sorensen
(2000) to develop a new theory of class ex-
ploitation based on the economic theory of
rents (Roemer 1982), defined as “payments to
assets that exceed the competitive price” or
that exceed the cost of employing the asset
(AB Sorensen 2000, p. 1536). In Sorensen’s
formulation, property and property owners
are broadly defined to include anyone within
the economic system who can derive eco-
nomic benefits from the ownership of rent-
producing assets that are over and above costs.
In Sorensen’s theory, capitalists exploit work-
ers, but his theory also allows for the pos-
sibility that some workers can exploit other
workers when they gain property rights to jobs
and limit the ability of other workers to gain
access.
Sorensen argues that those who can main-
tain control over rent-producing property
while destroying the rents of others are in
the strongest position. They may undertake
these efforts through collective action (such
as the organization of cartels or unions),
through the use of the state (e.g., through
private property laws, regulation, or licens-
ing), and through ideology (e.g., through em-
phasis on the importance of property rights
and freedom from regulation) (Weeden 2000).
Sorensen claims that his theoretical formula-
tion is consistent with economic theory, main-
tains the dynamic of conflict within a theory
of exploitation, and provides a general theory
that accounts for all forms of property own-
ership and all types of political and collective
action undertaken to protect one’s own rent
or to destroy the rent accumulation of others.
Wright (2000) and Goldthorpe (2000) ob-
ject to Sorensen’s extension of exploitation
to workers and employment rents. Their dis-
agreement with Sorensen over this point re-
flects a tension in the research on inequality,
especially as it applies to race/ethnicity and
gender. On the one hand, there are those who
believe that only capitalists (or elites or dom-
inant classes, depending on the theory) are
in a position to exploit others and, impor-
tantly,that they frequently use tactics of divide
and conquer, for example, between white and
black workers or between men and women.
On the other hand, there are those who be-
lieve that some workers exploit other work-
ers, specifically, that white workers under-
take strategies that exploit or at least are at
the expense of nonwhite workers, and that
male workers similarly exploit or undermine
the opportunities for women. Others have
similarly argued that white and male work-
ers engage in opportunity hoarding (Tilly
1998) that benefits them at the expense of
nonwhite and female workers. The theme
of privileged workers exploiting less privi-
leged workers has been a frequent one in the
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 477
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
research on racial/ethnic and gender inequal-
ity (Bergmann 1971, Tilly 1998, Tomaskovic-
Devey & Skaggs 2002).
Sorensen’s analysis is broadly consistent
with the growing interest in the concept of
social closure, a term drawn from Weber’s dis-
cussion of “the economic relationships of or-
ganized groups.” As Weber (1968, pp. 341–
42) describes it,
One frequent economic determinant is
the competition for a livelihood—offices,
clients, and other remunerative opportuni-
ties .... Usually one group of competitors
takes some externally identifiable character-
istic of another group of (actual or potential)
competitors—race, language, religion, local
or social origin, descent, residence, etc.—as
a pretext for attempting their exclusion.
Social closure has since been conceptualized
as the collective action of various social groups
used as a mechanism to hoard opportuni-
ties or economic advantages with the con-
sequence of generating and reproducing in-
equality, especially by race/ethnicity and sex
(Abbott 1988, Grusky & Sorensen 1998, Tilly
1998, Tomaskovic-Devey & Skaggs 1999,
Waldinger 1997, Weeden 2000).
Such processes may occur at the level of
the organization as a whole but more of-
ten take place within specific jobs or occu-
pations (Weeden 2000). Reskin (1988, also
Reskin & Ross 1992), for example, has ar-
gued that men shape rules at work that help
them maintain their advantages over women
and that men change the rules if necessary
to keep women in more subordinate posi-
tions, often by devaluing the work that women
do (England & Dunn 1988, Reskin 1988).
Grusky & Sorensen (1998) challenge class
theories that posit a generalized motivation
for exploitation and argue, instead, that we
need to examine the specific set of strategies
undertaken by groups organized for collective
action (Reskin 2003). Waldinger (1997) found
evidence that even low-skilled workers can
engage in social closure by putting pressure
on employers to hire their friends or family
members, for example by refusing to train new
workers when the employers do not hire their
friends. The exclusion from training has been
a common theme for women and minorities
who have tried to gain access to jobs from
which they have previously been excluded
( Jacobs et al. 1996, Knoke & Ishio 1998, Tam
1997, Tomaskovic-Devey & Skaggs 2002).
Whereas the workforce diversity litera-
ture has addressed issues of discrimination and
even oppression (Konrad et al. 2006), it pays
little attention to issues such as exploitation or
social closure, although Kanter’s (1977) work,
among others (Pfeffer 1992), has given some
attention to power differences in organiza-
tions. Furthermore, the management litera-
ture draws from sociological research on so-
cial capital (Burt 2001, Coleman 1988, Lin
2001, Portes 1998), which has often been con-
ceptualized as a form of social closure. The
workforce diversity literature has also incor-
porated sociological research on the develop-
ment of policy and practices that address labor
force inequality, e.g., equal opportunity or af-
firmative action (Dobbin et al. 1993, Kalev
et al. 2006).
Parallel to the controversies within so-
ciology about whether class is a meaning-
ful concept, there have been controversies
within the workforce diversity literature re-
garding whether race/ethnicity and gender
reflect important workforce differences. In
sociology, the issue is whether macro cate-
gories such as class are real or anachronis-
tic (Halaby & Weakliem 1993, Wright 1997),
i.e., whether they have bases in identifica-
tion, collective action, and workplace strate-
gies that produce and reproduce inequality
(Grusky & Sorensen 1998, Weeden 2000) or,
alternatively, whether the reality of inequal-
ity exists only at the job or occupational level,
especially with regard to the differences ev-
ident for women and racial/ethnic minori-
ties (Bielby 1992, England 1992). In man-
agement, the controversies address whether
racial/ethnic and gender groups are really di-
verse with regard to things that matter in or-
ganizations such as knowledge or experience
478 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
or whether meaningful differences exist only
with regard to things such as tenure, func-
tional background, or education. In other
words, do categorical distinctions really mat-
ter in the workplace, or do those aspects of
people’s backgrounds that reflect differences
in training and knowledge and that are inde-
pendent of categorical differences constitute
the only meaningful differences in organiza-
tions? What differences make a difference and
is it possible in organizations to move beyond
difference (Chatman et al. 1998, Jackson et al.
1991, Milliken & Martins 1996)?
Workforce Diversity and Power
at the Micro Level
Power, of course, is not exclusively a macro
level concept. There is a great deal of work on
power dynamics at the micro level, and there
has also been increasing interest in linking mi-
cro and macro theories within social psychol-
ogy (Cook 2000). The bridging of micro and
macro research is one means to address the
call for exploring mechanisms in day-to-day
interaction that reproduce inequality over the
long term (Reskin 2003). In Reskin’s concep-
tion, macro level processes such as exploita-
tion, opportunity hoarding, and social closure
are “why” questions that outline the motiva-
tions for dominant groups to undertake strate-
gies to preserve their privileges, but these do
not answer the “how” questions about the
specifics, for example, of establishing job re-
quirements, instituting policies, and applying
or changing rules. “How” questions can be
uncovered more directly with micro level re-
search that better controls for cause and effect
or with ethnographic or observational studies
that can look for patterns of meaning.
One of the most important formulations
of how power affects group differences in
organizations is expectation states theory. In
this theory, the construction of status creates
a power and influence hierarchy that con-
tributes to the legitimacy of status differences
(Berger et al. 1998, Ridgeway 1994). Status
construction theory posits that there is an
association between resources and assump-
tions about competence or worth and that the
emerging expectations from this association
contribute to those with higher status acting
more confidently, while invoking deference in
lower status group members (Ridgeway 1991,
Ridgeway et al. 1998). Higher status group
members, therefore, also have more influence
on the group and are more likely to emerge as
leaders (Thye 2000).
Research on social dominance orientation
constructs a theory of social relations based
on dominance and subordination (Sidanius &
Pratto 1999). The theory posits that those
with higher levels of social dominance orien-
tation prefer more hierarchical social relation-
ships. Furthermore, those in high status posi-
tions or those in positions that are hierarchy
enhancing (such as police officers) are likely to
exhibit greater social dominance orientation
in contrast to those in subordinate positions
or those in positions that are more hierarchy
attenuating (such as social workers) (Sidanius
et al. 1994, 1996). Another research stream
from social psychology that is relevant to the
reproduction of inequality is system justifica-
tion theory ( Jost & Banaji 1994), which argues
that there is a strong incentive for lower sta-
tus (i.e., less powerful) groups to view higher
status groups favorably and to support them
rather than challenge the status quo. Jost &
Banaji argue that because it is costly for low
status groups to challenge the system, they in-
frequently do so. In other words, at a micro
level, low status groups justify the system of
inequality and come to believe that people get
what they deserve. On this point, system jus-
tification theory is consistent with status con-
struction theory regarding the acceptance by
low status groups of the existing status hierar-
chy (Ridgeway 1991).
Exchange theory, which draws from be-
haviorism in social psychology and micro-
economics, also describes how power emerges
out of micro level interaction (Cook 2000).
Experimental data examine variations in net-
work structure that reflect different types
of dependencies, exchange opportunities,
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 479
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
information availability, and resource distri-
butions to determine how power affects ex-
change processes (Cook & Yamagishi 1992,
Skvoretz & Willer 1993).
Researchers have conceptualized psycho-
logical theories of power as aggression
(Aquino et al. 2004) or as an interpersonal
orientation of approach versus inhibition
(Keltner et al. 2003). This research typically
does not measure power directly but rather
infers it from the status categories of var-
ious groups (e.g., assuming that men have
higher status than women or that whites have
higher status than blacks). Research that de-
fines power in this way has generally found
that those in more powerful (i.e., high status)
positions tend to enact presentations of self
that are other approaching (i.e., that impose
the self on others), whereas those in less pow-
erful (i.e., low status) positions tend to inhibit
their engagement with others (Keltner et al.
2003). Such differences have been found with
regard to affect, cognition, and behavior.
One of the key implications of this re-
search is that in social systems in which power
differences exist in the long term, those in
subordinate positions generally become more
constrained and inhibited in their behav-
ior, especially with regard to those in high
power positions, whereas those in high power
positions feel more entitled, are more as-
sertive, and often gain more or take more
resources. In organizations in which women
and racial/ethnic minorities are most often
found disproportionately in subordinate posi-
tions, their behavior, attitudes, and emotions
are more likely to be inhibited, whereas white
men are more likely to assert themselves and
gain rewards. This line of research implies as
well that even when women and racial/ethnic
minorities gain positions of power or author-
ity, they may be more constrained in their
behavior, be more frugal with available re-
sources, and have a harder time being influen-
tial in their leadership roles (Eagly et al. 2003,
Gutek & Cohen 1987, Hogg 2001).
Of course, the existence of inequality has
also generated substantial interest in under-
standing conceptions of fairness and the way
such conceptions might come into play in
public policy perspectives (Benabou & Tirole
2006, Kluegel & Smith 1986, Ritzman &
Tomaskovic-Devey 1992). Recent work finds
that the views of inequality within the United
States have become more polarized in terms
of what is considered acceptable for the rich
and the poor (Osberg & Smeeding 2006). Re-
searchers have also examined what is consid-
ered fair compensation for men versus for
women ( Jasso & Webster 1999). The re-
search on perceptions of fairness within so-
ciology and psychology overlaps with re-
search on justice within management (Tyler
et al. 1997). Although not incorporated into
the research on workforce diversity, research
on justice and fairness is highly salient and
relevant.
STATUS
In Economy and Society, Weber (1968, pp. 926–
39) differentiates groups based on economic
class from those based on status honor. With
reference primarily to the economic strata
that may determine status honor (and ig-
noring the status characteristics of gender),
he describes status honor by noting that
“only the families coming under approxi-
mately the same tax class dance with one an-
other” (Weber 1968, p. 932). He argued that
over time the two might converge but em-
phasized that money itself did not confer sta-
tus. Rather, status constitutes a way of life or
mode of being that symbolically communi-
cates whether a person deserves to be treated
with deference or honor (Bourdieu 1985). Al-
though class and status may coincide during
some historical periods, Weber (1968, p. 938)
also called attention to the fact that techno-
logical or economic change could undermine
the status position of established groups and
create new challengers. Thus, although status
may be institutionalized, it is not unassailable.
As with power, status can be analyzed at the
macro or micro level, although inevitably the
two are interactive over time.
480 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Workforce Diversity and Status at
the Macro Level
To the extent that status attainment research
represented a departure from imprecise and
ambiguous class categories that mixed is-
sues of both production and consumption
(Warner et al. 1949), it provided a step for-
ward for research on inequality (Bielby 1992,
Blau & Duncan 1967, England 1992). But the
limitations of trying to collapse distinct so-
cial characteristics into a single measure and
across groups with different social positions
in the economy contributed to critiques that
endeavored to redirect sociological research
back to studies of class and power in the labor
force (Hodson & Kaufman 1982, Kalleberg
et al. 1981, Wright & Perrone 1977). The
limitations of status attainment research were
especially evident with regard to gender dif-
ferences (Rosenfeld 2002, Wolf & Fligstein
1979, Wolf & Rosenfeld 1978) because ac-
cepted status measures did not differ much
between men and women, even though la-
bor force outcomes were substantially differ-
ent by sex (England 1992). Furthermore, sta-
tus as measured in most studies seemed to
work better for explaining the career changes
intra- and intergenerationally for white men,
but less so for blacks (Featherman & Hauser
1976, Hauser 1998, Hogan & Featherman
1977, Wright 1978).
Because of the prevalence of research on
status attainment within sociology, many ar-
ticles review the research findings, concep-
tualizations, measurement, and critical issues
regarding inequality in the labor force and
compare research on status to other measures
of inequality (Bielby 1992, England 1992,
Grusky & Sorensen 1998, Reskin 2003). In re-
cent years, research has turned more to exam-
ining the job matching process (Granovetter
1995), the distribution and use of social cap-
ital resources (Burt 2000), the transforma-
tion in the configuration and composition
of occupations (Grusky & Sorensen 1998,
Weeden 2000), the role of firms in creat-
ing and maintaining inequality (Tomaskovic-
Devey & Skaggs 1999), and the mechanisms
within workplaces that have the effect of
creating inequality (Reskin 2003), with sub-
stantial attention continuing with regard to
the differences by race/ethnicity and gender.
There has also been growing interest within
the research on inequality in the effects of
cognitive processes in organizations that link
micro and macro dynamics within the work-
place (Baron & Pfeffer 1994, DiMaggio 1997,
Reskin 2000).
Workforce Diversity and Status
at the Micro Level
Although sociological research actively devel-
oped work on group relations in the devel-
opment of expectation states and status con-
struction theory (Berger et al. 2002, Ridgeway
2001, Ridgeway et al. 1998), management re-
search on workforce diversity has borrowed
almost exclusively from psychological social
psychology, with emphasis on social iden-
tity theory and social categorization (Tajfel
1981, Turner 1987). Management researchers
also frequently cite similarity-attraction the-
ory from psychology (Byrne 1971), and in
this context they refer to the principle of ho-
mophily (Ibarra 1995), but rarely do they cite
the extensive sociological work on either con-
cept (Berscheid & Walster 1978, McPherson
et al. 2001).
Social identity theory is attributed to Tajfel
(1981), a French psychologist who undertook
experimental research in the form of what
has been called minimal group studies, so
termed because the experiments analyze the
cognitive reactions that emerge when groups
are categorized as different, despite not hav-
ing any history or actual interaction (Brewer
1979). In other words, the groups exist only
in the categorization itself, often based on
trivial distinctions experimentally created by
the researcher (Kalkhoff & Barnum 2000).
Tajfel found that once groups were catego-
rized as different, there are predictable cogni-
tive responses. Categorization contributes to
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 481
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
stereotyping and to ranking into an ingroup
(defined as one’s own group) and an out-
group (defined as the other group). When
either allocation or evaluation decisions are
made, the ingroup is favored over the out-
group. Research on social identity theory
has found that as long as group distinctions
are salient, social identity processes emerge
when the distinctions are stable and legiti-
mate (Mullen et al. 1992). Tajfel argued that
ingroup bias emerges in intergroup interac-
tion because it contributes to self-esteem or
self-enhancement.
Turner built on Tajfel’s work in the de-
velopment of social categorization theory,
adding that ingroup bias also reduces uncer-
tainty about oneself (Hogg & Abrams 1988,
Turner 1987), a critique that reinforces so-
cial identity theory from criticisms that not
all groups seek self-esteem and undertake in-
group bias. Specifically, some note that low
status groups may be outgroup favoring (Fiske
et al. 2002, Jost & Banaji 1994). Social cat-
egorization theory adds another dimension
to social identity theory that is consistent
with status construction theory from sociol-
ogy, namely, the assumption that repeated in-
teractions contribute to the development of
prototypes that become depersonalized, or
diffuse, and that these prototypes guide the
responses to group differences and to self-
assessment (Hogg & Abrams 1988, Ridgeway
et al. 1998).
The research on workforce diversity
within management has relied on the for-
mulations of social identity theory by Tajfel
and collaborators and on social categoriza-
tion theory as an extension of Tajfel’s theory,
but there has been little emphasis within the
workforce diversity literature on the durabil-
ity of group status distinctions or on the impli-
cations of the need for legitimation of those
distinctions over time, despite the emphasis
on prototypical depersonalization within so-
cial categorization theory (Berger et al. 1998,
Chattopadhyay et al. 2004, Jackman 1994,
Ridgeway 1994). Other social psychological
work includes these emphases, but these have
not been prime sources for the research on
workforce diversity. For example, system jus-
tification theory ( Jost et al. 2004) includes an
assumption that inequality is justified through
ideological processes. Social dominance the-
ory also assumes that dominance hierarchies
are always associated with legitimating myths
(Sidanius & Pratto 1999). Both are consis-
tent with Jackman’s (1994) argument that con-
flict is rare in systems of long-term inequality
both because of the costs associated with chal-
lenging the system and because of the legiti-
macy processes that overlay inequality with a
presumption of merit.
It seems especially shortsighted for the
workforce diversity literature to be inattentive
to issues of power and long-term inequality
(Andersen 2001), given that Tajfel attributed
his interest in the development of social iden-
tity theory to his response to Holocaust vic-
tims following World War II. As he explained,
In May 1945, after I had been disgorged with
hundreds of others from a special train ar-
riving at the Gare d’Orsay in Paris with its
crammed load of prisoners-of-war return-
ing from camps in Germany, I soon discov-
ered that hardly anyone I knew in 1939—
including my family—was left alive ....[I
then worked for six years to rehabilitate vic-
tims of the war.]... This was the beginning
of my interest in social psychology (Tajfel
1981, pp. 1–2).
Tajfel & Turner (1986) also addressed is-
sues of power and legitimacy in their anal-
ysis of the responses of low status groups.
They argued that if boundaries between high
and low status groups are permeable, with
the possibility of movement into high sta-
tus groups, then low status group members
would use a social mobility strategy to ad-
dress issues of inequality. If, however, there
are no opportunities for upward mobility,then
low status groups would become politicized
and undertake strategies for social change.
Subsequent research within the social iden-
tity tradition has confirmed their conceptual
model about the likely responses of low status
482 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
outgroup members (Branscombe & Ellemers
1998, Ellemers 2001).
One of the key insights regarding social
identity theory’s predictions about the emer-
gent biases between groups is that these per-
ceptions tend to emerge automatically, with-
out the need for conscious decisions (Bargh
& Chartrand 1999), although there is some
evidence that the effort to interrupt such au-
tomatic processes may be one vehicle for
changing the patterns of prejudice and stereo-
typing (Devine 1989, Langer 1989). The au-
tomatic responses that emerge in minimal
group studies, however, do not obviate the
processes by which these responses become
embedded within culture and institutions. So-
ciological work on status construction, for ex-
ample, argues that when status expectations
emerge in group interactions and are repeated
over time, status differences become legiti-
mated (Berger et al. 1998, Cohen & Xueguang
1991, Ridgeway & Balkwell 1997).
Recent work within psychology also re-
inforces the need to consider the effects of
group distinctions over the long term. Fiske
et al. (2002) found evidence of consensual
stereotypes of group status differences. They
found, for example, that whereas a normative
ingroup (e.g., white men) is evaluated pos-
itively on the two key dimensions that of-
ten constitute intergroup stereotypes (com-
petence and warmth), multiple outgroups are
stereotyped in more ambivalent ways (e.g., as
either competent but not warm, or warm but
not competent, or neither) and that the am-
bivalence of outgroup stereotypes contributes
to the overall legitimacy of inequality. The so-
ciological work on status construction also ar-
gues that status differences become consen-
sual and widely shared within society through
the mechanism of local interactions in small
groups (Ridgeway & Balkwell 1997).
Despite the relevance of status construc-
tion theory to workforce diversity, the re-
search on status construction has rarely been
cited within the workforce diversity literature
(for an exception, see Ely 1994). In Ridgeway’s
(1991, also Ridgeway et al. 1998) formulation
of status construction theory, when groups
differ both in resources and on a nominal char-
acteristic, the resource differences become as-
sociated with the nominal differences, leading
to those with more resources being thought
of as higher status and also as more compe-
tent and worthy. Importantly, what makes the
status distinctions powerful is that lower sta-
tus groups come to accept these distinctions
because they believe these views are widely
shared (Ridgeway 1991, Ridgeway & Balkwell
1997, Ridgeway et al. 1998). On this issue,
therefore, status construction theory is con-
sistent with system justification theory ( Jost
& Banaji 1994), as well as with Fiske et al.’s
(2002) findings regarding normative stereo-
types.
Ridgeway et al. (1998) describe the pro-
cess of status construction as a macro-micro-
macro process in the sense that the macro
structures of the larger society create a context
in which enduring status differences among
groups affect expectations regarding perfor-
mance that arise in small group interaction.
To the extent that societal status differences
reflect resource differences, then the societal
status differences generalize to nominal dif-
ferences that might exist within a group, even
though these nominal differences were not
initially relevant to the task at hand and did
not carry status value distinctions. These sta-
tus expectations, then, shape the microstruc-
ture of macrostructure. Once status differ-
ences emerge, they diffuse quickly if they are
repeated in interactions over time.
Ridgeway begins with Blau’s (1977) analy-
sis of the likelihood of group interaction and
then demonstrates that even a “mere differ-
ence” (Ridgeway et al. 1998, p. 332) between
groups can take on status value and can be re-
inforced through what she calls “doubly dis-
similar” (p. 334) interactions, in which the
groups that differ on some nominal character-
istic also differ in resource distribution. The
association of resources with worth and com-
petence, the linking of competence to the
nominal characteristic, and the repeated in-
teractions in which these doubly dissimilar
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 483
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
associations are reinforced create sustainable
status distinctions that are legitimated by the
acquiescence of group members in both high
and low status positions. Ridgeway et al.
(1998) argue that these status distinctions are
taught to others when other group members
reinforce or fail to challenge the association,
so the status value of the nominal distinction
becomes normative and widely shared.
The research on expectation states and sta-
tus construction theory has been supported
by extensive empirical work within social psy-
chology (Berger et al. 1998, 2002; Jasso 2001;
Ridgeway & Balkwell 1997), and researchers
have formalized both the content and the im-
plications of the theory ( Jasso 2001, Ridgeway
& Balkwell 1997). The research shows, as is
true with social identity theory, that the sta-
tus distinctions that arise out of small group
interactions occur automatically and with-
out conscious decision making, but they are
sustained over time because they are widely
diffused and reinforced. Although there has
been some limited recognition in the work-
force diversity literature of the “spillover”
effects from the wider society (Eagly et al.
2003, Gutek & Cohen 1987), the less fa-
vorable organizational positions often held
by women or racial/ethnic minorities are of-
ten attributed within this literature to uni-
formly self-interested behavior on the part of
all groups or to willful discrimination, but not
to the structural advantages afforded to some
by privileged access to resources.
Despite the enduring effects of status
differences within groups, the research on
status construction has considered potential
interventions that might interrupt status pro-
cesses and contribute to more leveling in sta-
tus positions. For example, Jasso (2001) ar-
gues that the status advantages of some groups
can be altered only if resources become more
evenly distributed, if the resources are disas-
sociated from status value, or if there is a way
to break the association between resource ad-
vantages and the categorical group, which is
consistent with the analysis by Tajfel & Turner
(1986) about the strategies used by lower sta-
tus group members to try to mitigate their dis-
advantages. Similarly, extensive work within
social identity theory has explored ways to
change the association of categorical differ-
ences with ingroup favor and outgroup bias.
Processes such as decategorization (individ-
uating the identities of group members), re-
categorization (creating a superordinate goal
that will unite group members), subcatego-
rization (creating a pluralistic system in which
all groups are equally valued), and cross-
cutting differences (defining groups so sta-
tus advantages are mixed within groups) have
all been reviewed in this context (Brickson
& Brewer 2001, Hewstone et al. 2001). In
addition, recent work by Brewer and col-
leagues (Brickson & Brewer 2001) has fos-
tered the notion of increasing relational ties
between group members that would create
more of a personal sense of commitment and
obligation as a way to create interdependen-
cies that are not based only on self-interest.
Recent research from a social identity per-
spective argues that conflict is more likely
when “faultlines” emerge between groups be-
cause they differ across several dimensions
of diversity simultaneously (such as gen-
der and authority differences) (Brewer 2000,
Lau & Murnighan 1998). Of course, Coser
(1956) developed this point long ago within
sociology.
The transformation of work and organiza-
tional forms into less hierarchical, networked,
and global firms suggests that group differ-
ences may become more relevant and salient
within the work environment just at the time
that the workforce is becoming more diverse
and organizations more boundaryless. Some
have suggested that such work environments
will increasingly rely on “swift trust,” which is
likely to be developed primarily through the
automatic assessment of others based on de-
mographic and cultural categories (Meyerson
et al. 1996). As such, current management lit-
erature on workforce diversity has extended
social identity theory to the exploration of
identification with occupations or organiza-
tions (Ashforth & Mael 1989, Hogg & Terry
484 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
2001). Accountability that affords protections
for women and racial/ethnic minorities is,
however, apparently more likely in bureau-
cratic firms (Kalev et al. 2006).
In summary, although there has been a
great deal of reliance within the workforce
diversity literature on social identity the-
ory, there has been much less attention to
the extensive literature on status construc-
tion and expectation states theory, although
recent work has begun to link these (Hogg &
Ridgeway 2003, Oldmeadow et al. 2003).
NUMBERS
For some people, diversity is primarily about
numbers. For example, Kanter’s (1977) classic
work, Men and Women of the Corporation, has
been widely cited in the research on work-
force diversity, but it is almost always refer-
enced in the context of her discussion about
numbers (e.g., McDonald et al. 2004, Randel
2002), i.e., the effects of being a token and the
changes in effect with different proportions in
a group. Yet Kanter’s discussion of the differ-
ences in the structural positions held by men
versus women included more than the differ-
ences in numbers. In addition, Kanter (1977)
defined structure in terms of differences in
power, which she defined as the capacity to get
things done or to mobilize resources (p. 166),
and opportunity, which she defined as “the
relationship of a present position to a larger
structure and to anticipated future positions”
(p. 161). In this regard, Kanter’s work on dif-
ferences between men and women in corpo-
rations falls into the tradition of sociological
work on inequality.
Workforce Diversity and Numbers at
the Macro Level
Sociologists have specialized in studying the
impact of group composition on social pro-
cesses and outcomes over decades of re-
search (Blalock 1967, Blau 1977, Glenn 1977,
Simmel 1955 [1908]). Kanter (1977) drew
from this work in her discussion of the effects
of gender composition, and as noted, her in-
sight formed the foundation for the substan-
tial work on compositional effects in the study
of workforce diversity.
Researchers have analyzed work on group
composition in multiple forms: (a) summary
indicators such as mean differences in impor-
tant characteristics (e.g., education or age),
proportional representation, for example, of
majorities versus minorities, and relative in-
dicators such as the index of dissimilarity or
the coefficient of variation that provide infor-
mation on the distribution of people across
categories ( Jacobs 1993, Jasso 2001, Williams
& O’Reilly 1998); (b) thresholds, such as
whether quantitative differences make a qual-
itative difference (e.g., whether categories
matter or only the underlying distribution on
some important characteristic) ( Jackson et al.
1991); and (c) measures of connection within
or between group members and others, such
as the density or range of contacts some mem-
bers have compared with others (Burt 1997a,
Reagans & Zuckerman 2001). In addition,
there has been interest as well in whether com-
positional characteristics are stable or chang-
ing (e.g., a growing minority population or
a declining one) (Blalock 1967, Taylor 1998);
whether the differences are salient and notice-
able (Mullen et al. 1992); and whether they are
past or present ( JB Sorensen 2000, Westphal
& Milton 2000). Further attention has been
given to cohort effects, to the length of ex-
perience in the group, and to whether group
or categorical differences are activated or dor-
mant (Carroll & Harrison 1998, Pfeffer 1983).
Equally of interest is how multiple identities
affect and are affected by group processes and
whether people highlight a given identity or
minimize it (Browne & Misra 2003, Shelton
2003).
Sociological work has examined nearly all
aspects of group composition, but perhaps
the work most relevant to workforce diver-
sity is the extensive research on the segre-
gation of jobs, occupations, and industries.
Because of the prominence of this topic in
studies of labor market inequality, a number
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 485
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
of review articles have outlined the extent,
the determinants, and the consequences of
job segregation, especially by sex and by
race/ethnicity (England 1992, Reskin 1993,
Reskin et al. 1999, Tomaskovic-Devey et al.
2006). As for much of the sociological liter-
ature on the labor force, the thrust of this
research has been on whether, for example,
men and women end up in different types of
jobs because of their preparation and skills
or because of processes of discrimination that
might include social closure or opportunity
hoarding, or even perhaps a statistical form
of discrimination in which group differences
are attributed to individuals (Bielby & Baron
1986, England et al. 1988, Tomaskovic-Devey
& Skaggs 2002). The research has found evi-
dence of both supply-side (what workers bring
to the labor market, such as human capi-
tal investments) and demand-side (what kinds
of jobs are offered and to whom) factors at
work in the outcomes in the labor market
(Reskin 1988, 1993). In addition, this research
has found that job segregation declined after
the 1970s but stalled or slowed in the 1980s;
job desegregation has been more dramatic by
sex than by race/ethnicity; job segregation
is likely to be greater when finer distinc-
tions are made (e.g., examining jobs instead
of occupations and occupations instead of in-
dustries); and the structure of jobs and em-
ployment has been a modest factor in these
changes (Tomaskovic-Devey & Skaggs 2002,
Tomaskovic-Devey et al. 2006). Such changes
have led to a situation in which job segregation
by race/ethnicity and job segregation by sex
are now similar in magnitude because the de-
segregation of jobs by race/ethnicity was rapid
at the outset and then stalled, whereas deseg-
regation of jobs by sex was slow at the outset
but continued at a steady but slow pace since.
Overall, the changes in job segregation pat-
terns appear to reflect political organization
as much as other factors (Tomaskovic-Devey
et al. 2006).
In exploring the impact of numbers on
various outcomes, the management litera-
ture has been dominated by a voluminous
stream of research under what has been called
organizational demography, which looks at
the aggregate demographic characteristics of
various organizational units (most often at
the work-group level) on organizational out-
comes (Pfeffer 1983), usually hypothesizing
social processes as intervening factors that link
demography to the outcome. Scholars have
attempted to use demographic measures to
summarize the characteristics of an organi-
zation, e.g., in terms of the structure of the
labor force or the structure of jobs (Stewman
1988), although this work has been done more
actively within sociology than within man-
agement. Management research, instead, has
undertaken studies primarily of the composi-
tion of work groups, with the characteristics
of the top management teams across organiza-
tions as the typical unit of analysis (Hambrick
et al. 1996, Pfeffer 1983, Williams & O’Reilly
1998). One of the obvious reasons for this
methodological choice is that information is
readily available on members of top manage-
ment teams, whereas information on other or-
ganizational members is more difficult to ob-
tain. Indeed, the ease of measurement and the
availability of data are reasons Pfeffer (1983)
gave for the desirability of demographic
research on organizations.
In the research on organizational de-
mography, the intervening processes that
link demographic characteristics to outcomes,
such as rates of turnover or organizational
performance, have sometimes been directly
measured, but often have been inferred. The
typical pattern suggested in organizational de-
mography research is that the distribution of
demographic characteristics of a work group
(often defined, as Pfeffer had suggested, by
distribution of the length of service or tenure
in the group) is assumed to lead to interac-
tional processes, such as frequency of com-
munication or intensity of conflict, and these,
then, affect organizational outcomes such as
performance, adaptability, or innovation, al-
though the most frequently used dependent
486 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
variable is turnover rates within the work
group or organization (Carroll & Harrison
1998, Lawrence 1997, JB Sorensen 2000).
Lawrence (1997, p. 2) criticized the “black
box” of this type of research, arguing that the
interpretation of the results of such analyses
is often ambiguous and can be misleading and
that inattention to what the intervening pro-
cess might be undermines the usefulness of
the empirical results. In this regard, Lawrence
echoes Reskin’s (2003) call for more atten-
tion to the mechanisms that link demographic
characteristics, such as sex segregation, to out-
comes, such as income or authority dispari-
ties. Carroll & Harrison (1998) make a similar
point about the need to determine the content
of intervening processes, but their recommen-
dation is for the development of more formal
models that can be explored through simula-
tion exercises.
Recent research on social capital and net-
works has endeavored to sort out some of
these processes by statistically testing the re-
lationships of density and range of networks
independently of each other (Reagans &
McEvily 2003, Reagans & Zuckerman 2001,
Reagans et al. 2004). This research has found
that both the density and range of contacts
can have positive effects on performance, but
these work through different mechanisms. In
a series of studies, Reagans and collaborators
(2004, Reagans & McEvily 2003, Reagans &
Zuckerman 2001) also argue that it is the net-
work characteristics themselves that lead to
various outcomes and not the demographic
characteristics per se (van Knippenberg
2004).
There is some research as well on what has
been called relational demography, which cre-
ates a measure of the distance in terms of de-
mographic or cultural characteristics between
members of a work group (Tsui & Gutek 1999,
Tsui et al. 1992). This research has tended
to find that those who are different are more
likely to leave the work group, to display ev-
idence of less commitment, and to be less
satisfied with their work group experience,
whereas those who are more prototypical have
more positive responses (O’Reilly et al. 1989,
Tsui et al. 1992).
Workforce Diversity and Numbers at
the Micro Level
Despite the micro focus, psychological re-
search is also relevant to the compositional
effects within work groups and other social
entities. For example, extensive literature on
intergroup relations has explored the relation-
ships between majority and minority group
members (Hewstone et al. 2001, Islam &
Hewstone 1993, Konrad et al. 1992, Sachdev
& Bourhis 1991). This work has found that
minority group members can introduce new
ideas into groups, but their ideas may not be
heard or valued unless the group differences
are somehow bridged; the proportions rep-
resented by minority group members affect
how others respond to them and the kinds
of experiences they are likely to have; and
strategies for enhancing the role of minority
group members represent trade-offs because
increased information or creativity may be at
the cost of implementation (Hewstone et al.
2001).
The current work on intergroup relations
within psychology still alludes to the contact
hypothesis, which suggests that getting peo-
ple together who perceive each other as dif-
ferent will not improve social relations un-
less the groups have a cooperative purpose
for their interaction, are of about equal sta-
tus, have an opportunity to get to know each
other at a personal level, and have the support
of those in positions of authority (Brewer &
Miller 1988). Yoder suggests that it is not just
the numbers that produce these outcomes,
but the status that is associated with cate-
gorical differences (echoing status construc-
tion theory), the salience of the group differ-
ences in the context, and the appropriateness
of the roles that contribute to inequality be-
tween groups (van Knippenberg 2004, Yoder
1994).
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 487
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
WORKFORCE DIVERSITY
EFFECTS ON
ORGANIZATIONAL OUTCOMES
The interest in workforce diversity as a con-
cept emerged as a way to capture what were
presumed to be dramatic social changes that
would have substantial effects on organiza-
tions. Although the changes were neither as
dramatic as anticipated nor as precipitous as
claimed (Friedman & DiTomaso 1996), cul-
tural and demographic diversity in the work-
force have had significant effects in the work-
place. The structural relationships among
groups in the workforce have affected out-
comes both at the level of daily interaction
and in the long term. Both need to be consid-
ered when diversity is taken into account.
Although diversity in the distribution of
tenure in work groups or organizations has
been most frequently considered, there is also
substantial research within management on
diversity in terms of educational or func-
tional background (Bantel & Jackson 1989),
race/ethnicity (Cox et al. 1991), gender (Eagly
et al. 2003, Konrad et al. 1992), and age
(Zenger & Lawrence 1989). After a number
of studies found mixed results, more recent
work has endeavored to sort out the seemingly
contradictory effects of diversity on perfor-
mance ( Jehn et al. 1999, Milliken & Martins
1996, Pelled et al. 1999), especially with re-
gard to the alternative claims that diversity
contributes to positive outcomes (the value-
in-diversity perspective) versus negative out-
comes (the diversity as process loss perspec-
tive) (Kochan et al. 2003, van Knippenberg
2004, Williams & O’Reilly 1998). Some have
termed this the business case for diversity, or
depending on the interpretation of the evi-
dence, the business case against diversity.
Overall, the research generally finds that
heterogeneity on most any salient social
category contributes to increased conflict,
reduced communication, and lower perfor-
mance, at the same time that it can con-
tribute to a broader range of contacts, in-
formation sources, creativity, and innovation
(van Knippenberg 2004, Williams & O’Reilly
1998). The exception to this general pat-
tern of findings is with regard to functional
or educational diversity with complex tasks
that require different perspectives (Williams
& O’Reilly 1998). In contrast, the research
has tended to find that homogeneity on most
any salient social category contributes to
greater liking and trust, better coordination,
increased communication, and higher per-
formance, but to limitations in adaptability
and innovation (Reagans & McEvily 2003,
Reagans & Zuckerman 2001). The positive
benefits of homogeneity in work groups are
more likely to emerge when tasks are rou-
tine and do not require the integration of dif-
ferent sources of information (Pelled et al.
1999, van Knippenberg 2004). Hence, the re-
search findings have posed a dilemma that
a number of scholars have attempted to ad-
dress: On the one hand, innovation, adaptabil-
ity, and creativity are more likely in hetero-
geneous groups, but the ability to implement
and integrate divergent ideas is more difficult
in heterogeneous groups. On the other hand,
cooperation and trust are more evident in ho-
mogeneous groups, but adaptability and in-
novation are less likely.
Scholars have most often used two pro-
cesses to explain the effects of group di-
versity on performance outcomes. Some ar-
gue that because individuals are attracted to
similar others owing to homophily (Ibarra
1995, McPherson et al. 2001) or similarity-
attraction (Byrne 1971), the communica-
tion between and emotional involvement
of homogeneous group members increase.
More intensive communication and fewer in-
stances of dysfunctional conflict help homo-
geneous groups achieve higher performance.
A corollary of the similarity-attraction argu-
ment is that diverse teams may experience
more communication problems (Hoffman
1985), lower satisfaction (Milliken & Martins
1996, Tsui et al. 1992), increased turnover
(Boone et al. 2004, Elvira & Town 2001),
and lower group performance (Ancona &
Caldwell 1992, Harrison et al. 1998).
488 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
The second process used to explain the
link between diversity and performance is
that of structural holes (Burt 1997b). Accord-
ing to this argument, diverse groups draw on
members’ individual and distinct social net-
works for information and knowledge. The
diversity in sources of information and in the
range of knowledge, skills, abilities, or experi-
ences within the group enhances group mem-
bers’ capabilities at solving problems, and they
can, thereby, make better decisions and per-
form better ( Jehn et al. 1999). Reagans &
Zuckerman (2001), for example, find that in
corporate research and development teams,
the diversity in the tenure of team mem-
bers leads to higher productivity, presumably
because team members draw on their net-
work ties outside the team. However, when
the number of similar people in a group is
large, there is increased competition among
them (Garza & Santos 1991, Reagans et al.
2004), which may in turn reduce positive
identification and communication, thus lead-
ing to lower performance. In contrast, co-
operation can enhance performance because
more alternatives are considered and more
perspectives are taken into account in a group
that exhibits cooperative behaviors (Cox et al.
1991, Watson et al. 1993). It is noteworthy
that most of the research that finds hetero-
geneous groups to be more productive and
more creative has been done in laboratory
studies rather than in field research (Williams
& O’Reilly 1998).
In considering the alternative views of
the effects of workforce diversity, the man-
agement literature has tended to frame this
debate or controversy about the impact of
diversity with regard to what is good for
the organization, whereas the sociological
and psychological literatures have tended to
frame the issue with regard to the poten-
tial conflict among groups in the competi-
tion over valuable resources such as good
jobs or self-esteem. Highlighting this distinc-
tion, it would seem, would help address the
emerging concern in the management lit-
erature that social category differences, for
example, by race/ethnicity and gender, are
more likely to contribute to emotional con-
flict, lower morale, and higher turnover ( Jehn
et al. 1999, Milliken & Martins 1996, Pelled
et al. 1999), whereas diversity in task-relevant
information, especially when there is high
commitment to the task outcomes and a cli-
mate of trust among group members, is likely
to contribute to better performance in tasks
that require complexity and the integration
of knowledge (Reagans & McEvily 2003, van
Knippenberg 2004). Perhaps because of the
results of this research, current research has
been less interested in exploring the effects
of racial/ethnic and gender diversity within
the management literature and has paid more
attention to the effects of tenure diversity,
functional background (or educational diver-
sity), and more generally to the “diversity of
thought.” Of course, these distinctions are
not necessarily independent of each other. As
Reagans et al. (2004) notes, diversity is of-
ten consolidated, meaning there is an embed-
dedness to how people in different social cat-
egories are distributed within organizations
and across jobs, so older, white, men with
longer tenure in an organization are more
likely to be represented in higher levels of
authority than younger workers, nonwhites,
or women, who are more likely to be found
at lower organizational levels and often with
more tenuous connections to a particular job
or organization.
Social identity theory predicts that when
people categorize themselves and others as
belonging to different groups, they inevitably
assign preferences to the group they perceive
to be like them. Through these processes,
one’s position in status hierarchies influences
expectations of rewards and, thereby, affects
perceptions of fairness (Clayton & Opotow
2003). Already advantaged groups, who might
be called a normative ingroup, may gain more
opportunities to perform and to demonstrate
their competence, frequently receiving the
benefit of the doubt in the evaluation of their
performance (Pettigrew 1979, Rowe 1981).
Members of a normative ingroup may reap
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 489
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
the benefits of deference that others show
toward them: They are believed to be more
competent, are preferred for job assignments,
may garner more rewards, and often are bet-
ter liked than those in normative outgroups
(Berger et al. 1998, Ridgeway et al. 1998).
They also have better access to developmental
opportunities at work (Berger et al. 1998).
In contrast, lower status groups (norma-
tive outgroups) are likely to be more nega-
tively evaluated by others (Fiske et al. 2002)
and by themselves (Ridgeway 2001). Further-
more, categorization may have more con-
sequential outcomes for outgroup members,
such as exclusion and avoidance (Fiske 2002),
less effective mentoring outcomes (Ragins
1997, Thomas & Gabarro 1999), less access to
company job training (Knoke & Ishio 1998),
and more uncertain mobility (Friedman &
Krackhardt 1997, Smith 2005). Responses to
status hierarchies may even be severe, includ-
ing aggression or violence under some cir-
cumstances (Fiske 2002, Keltner et al. 2003).
Several factors, however, have been found
to dull or heighten the effects of categori-
cal differences: Whereas long-term attitudes
(e.g., prejudice) may activate stereotypes,
mental overload may block stereotypes (Fiske
2002). Those with higher levels of education
may know not to express prejudiced attitudes
( Jackman & Muha 1984), but a higher level
of perceived threat may exacerbate a preju-
diced response (Blalock 1956). Under favor-
able conditions (e.g., shared goals), intergroup
contact may help reduce the activation of bias,
through mutual appreciation and friendship
(Brickson & Brewer 2001, Pettigrew 1998),
but meeting the conditions of more positive
outcomes is often difficult through group in-
teraction alone.
The unevenness of different categories of
people across jobs and occupations most likely
reflects social closure processes that enable
those with power to hoard positions of author-
ity or favorable work assignments for people
like them. But external factors can moderate
the extent to which those in positions of power
can systematically reproduce inequality. Ef-
fective enforcement of equal opportunity laws
and affirmative action policies, for example,
can have a mitigating effect (Bergmann 1996,
Kalev et al. 2006). The hoarding of opportuni-
ties appears to occur more frequently at higher
organizational levels (Smith 2002). Categori-
cal differences in power also help explain race
and sex income disparities, especially at higher
organizational levels (Kluegel 1978, McGuire
& Reskin 1993). Overall, the power struc-
ture of an organization may affect the extent
to which minority managers at any organiza-
tional level have power and autonomy when
it comes to control over budgets, final hir-
ing authority, or profit and loss responsibili-
ties (Collins 1997, Smith 2005).
Under some circumstances, the effects of
diversity on organizational outcomes are at-
tenuated or intensified. For example, sharing
a superordinate identity or goal can reduce
ingroup/outgroup biases (Hewstone et al.
2001). In collectivist organizational cultures,
social categorization within groups may be
less strong (Chatman et al. 1998). The de-
sign of a group’s work tasks (e.g., the extent to
which they require interdependence among
group members) may also affect the extent to
which diversity is problematic (van Knippen-
berg 2004). Finally, the effect of being on a
diverse team may vary depending on the ex-
tent of organizational diversity ( Joshi 2006).
In summary, the social relationships
among group members and the relation-
ships of power, status, and composition across
groups have effects at both the micro and the
macro levels. Group differences affect cog-
nition, emotion, and behavior in intergroup
interactions. They also affect access to social
resources, to decision making, to opportuni-
ties to perform, and ultimately to power and
authority in the workplace and to significant
differences in rewards that then feed back into
ongoing group processes.
CONCLUSION
In this review, we underline two key points:
(a) that workforce diversity is about the study
490 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
of inequality and, as such, needs to be linked
to the broad literatures on inequality in the
disciplines of sociology and psychology and
(b) that the structural relationships that define
what differences make a difference (namely,
power, status, and numbers or compositional
patterns) are key to understanding how groups
interact at different levels of analysis. By
showing the range of issues that should be
incorporated into the study of workforce di-
versity across these disciplines and showing
both similarities and differences in the dis-
cussion of workforce diversity, we hope to
broaden the discussion of diversity in the
workplace and point to directions for future
research.
Among other things, future research on
workforce diversity needs to consider the dis-
crepancies that apparently exist between the
findings of minimal group studies, which pur-
posely strip the investigation of all substan-
tive and historical content, and studies of
intergroup relations that exist within an in-
stitutional context that has emerged out of
the structure of group relations over time.
Whereas minimal group studies may find con-
sistent responses to difference when history
does not matter, real group relations are over-
laid with the need for legitimacy of long-
term inequality, with institutional structures
that reproduce inequality and constrain group
competition and with day-to-day mechanisms
at the workplace that reinforce privilege or
disadvantage. As such, the more complex real
world suggests that we should not expect sym-
metry in the relationships of groups to each
other. Because of the limits to resources, in-
formation, and opportunity and because of
greater vulnerability, lower status groups may
not respond to difference in the same way that
higher status groups do under normal circum-
stances. Future research should give more at-
tention to these distinctions and complexities,
and it should especially consider the circum-
stances or conditions under which one kind
of response is more likely than another. For
the same reasons, future research should rec-
ognize the limits of explicit conflict on the
part of privileged groups. Conflict invokes
resistance, so privileged groups, too, have
an incentive to appear both moderated and
reasonable.
Given the complexities of group inter-
action in historical context, research on
workforce diversity should also consider the
implications of multiple groups rather than
assuming only two (an ingroup and an out-
group) and also should consider the strong
tendency for internal divisions within groups
when inequality pervades group relations.
A number of researchers have made the
point that there are usually multiple out-
groups in different social positions and that
the very existence of multiple outgroups
that are treated differentially helps contribute
to the legitimacy of intergroup inequality
(Fiske et al. 2002, Jasso 2001, Jost & Major
2001). Of course, the controversies about
how much difference makes a difference and
whether categorical differences matter much
to most people are why so much effort
has gone into constructing alternative frame-
works for explaining inequality. The con-
troversies about class versus authority and
power, class versus occupation, or class ver-
sus status have been well traversed within
sociology and the other social sciences, but
these controversies have not been sufficiently
addressed within the study of workforce
diversity.
Taking note of the historical circumstances
in which intergroup relations exist suggests
another important consideration in the study
of workforce diversity, namely, how inter-
group relations change over time. Because
diversity implies inequality, it is quite likely,
as Tajfel & Turner (1986) noted, that low
status groups will undertake strategies either
of social mobility or of social change to im-
prove their circumstances, although neither
may be possible for some groups and at some
times. Understanding diversity in the work-
place, therefore, requires an understanding of
what influences are coming to bear on group
relations at a given time. For example, the po-
litical environment may make changes in the
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 491
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
structure of group relations more or less likely,
and the political organization or successful or-
ganizing of some groups may enhance their
ability to gain greater opportunity or rewards
in the workplace. Success in this regard, how-
ever, depends also on how day-to-day work
practices affect outcomes for some groups ver-
sus others. In other words, we need to know,as
Reskin (2003) suggests, more about the mech-
anisms in day-to-day interactions at the work-
place that contribute to the reproduction of
inequality or to its mitigation. In the work-
force diversity literature, these types of actions
have been called microinequities, but clearly
we need to consider actions that contribute to
microadvantages as well.
Concern with intergroup inequality and
with the implications of diversity, of course,
is affected by value judgments, as well as by
research findings. Not every member of a
given group considers that group membership
salient. Some may disavow membership, may
try to pass as a member of a different group by
highlighting a different aspect of their identi-
ties, or may simply give group membership no
consideration at all, despite whatever conse-
quences may exist in their lives because of who
they are and how they are treated. In fact, in
this regard, there is somewhat of a dilemma.
The more differences are highlighted, the
more likely they become salient in interac-
tion and invoke predictable reactions that fa-
vor some groups over others, but failing to
address categorical differences can also con-
tribute to unfavorable circumstances for some
and at the same time make it more difficult
to foster positive changes in policy or prac-
tice. Such dilemmas have been addressed in
research that has tried to examine how var-
ious types of interventions might change the
structure of group relations, reduce prejudice,
or improve opportunities for those who are
disadvantaged.
Each of the suggested remedies to the
downside of diversity and inequality seems to
have a trade-off, especially for lower status
groups that are at a disadvantage. Changing
the pattern and consequences of intergroup
relations (i.e., of diversity) has the conse-
quence of reducing the salience or impor-
tance of group identity, which for some is an
important positive value, or alternatively of
reducing the likelihood that group members
can gain access to opportunity and rewards,
which of course, are perceived as positive
as well.
The critical question is whether it is pos-
sible to retain a sense of difference without
difference taking on a negative connotation.
Or, in other words, is pluralism possible with-
out an unhealthy competition for resources?
Increasingly, this has become an important
question for organizations and for society as
a whole. As companies increasingly depend
on innovation to foster long-term growth and
success, diversity in the labor force, as well
as in the business and social environment, is
both necessary and inevitable. If we cannot
address the downsides of diversity in the la-
bor force, then it will be difficult to reap the
benefits. These issues exist at multiple levels:
interpersonal, intergroup, relational, organi-
zational, societal, and global. The stakes are
increasingly high, and the solutions are essen-
tial. It appears, however, that we need to find
solutions that will make both cooperation and
conflict possible, so we can understand and
learn from each other without becoming alike.
This is a challenge both for academics and for
the ages.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors appreciate the feedback on various drafts of this manuscript provided by Niki
Dickerson, Jim Elliott, Sheryl Skaggs (who collaborated on a related paper), and an anonymous
reviewer. Nancy DiTomaso would like to acknowledge as well the benefits provided by the year
as a Visiting Scholar at the Russell Sage Foundation, during which the idea for this paper was
first conceived and developed.
492 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
LITERATURE CITED
Abbott AD. 1988. The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Ancona D, Caldwell D. 1992. Demography and design: predictors of new product team per-
formance. Organ. Sci. 3:321–41
Andersen ML. 2001. Restructuring for whom? Race, class, gender, and the ideology of invisi-
bility. Sociol. Forum 16:181–201
Aquino K, Galperin BL, Bennett RJ. 2004. Social status and aggressiveness as moderators of
the relationship between interactional justice and workplace deviance. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
34:1001–29
Ashforth BE, Mael F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev.
14:20–39
Bantel KA, Jackson SE. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking: Does the compo-
sition of the top team make a difference? Strat. Manag. J. 10:107–24
Bargh JA, Chartrand TL. 1999. The unbearable automaticity of being. Am. Psychol. 54:462–79
Baron JN, Pfeffer J. 1994. The social psychology of organizations and inequality. Soc. Psychol.
Q. 57:190–209
Benabou R, Tirole J. 2006. Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Q. J. Econ. 121:699–
746
Bendix R, Lipset SM, eds. 1954. Class, Status, and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification. Glencoe,
IL: Free Press
Berger J, Ridgeway CL, Fisek H, Norman RZ. 1998. The legitimation and delegitimation of
power and prestige orders. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:379–405
Berger J, Ridgeway CL, Zelditch M. 2002. Construction of status and referential structures.
Sociol. Theory 20:157–79
Bergmann BR. 1971. The effect on white incomes of discrimination in employment. J. Polit.
Econ. 79:294–313
Bergmann BR. 1996. In Defense of Affirmative Action. New York: Basic Books
Berscheid E, Walster EH. 1978. Interpersonal Attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Bielby WT. 1992. Organizations, stratification, and the American occupational structure. Con-
temp. Sociol. 21:647–50
Bielby WT, Baron JN. 1986. Men and women at work: sex segregation and statistical discrim-
ination. Am. J. Sociol. 91:759–99
Blalock HM. 1956. Economic discrimination and Negro increase. Am. Sociol. Rev. 21:584–88
Blalock HM. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: Wiley
Blau PM. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press
Blau PM, Duncan OD. 1967. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley
Boone C, Van Olffen W, De Brabander B. 2004. The genesis of top management team diversity:
selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing, 1970–
94. Acad. Manag. J. 47:633–56
Bourdieu P. 1985. The forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education, ed. J Richardson, pp. 241–58. New York: Greenwood
Branscombe NR, Ellemers N. 1998. Coping with group based discrimination: individualistic
versus group-level strategies. In Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective, ed. JK Swim, C Stangor,
pp. 243–66. San Diego, CA: Academic
Brewer MB. 1979. In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational
analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86:307–24
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 493
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Brewer MB. 2000. Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: effects of multiple social
identities. In Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination: The Claremont Symposium on Applied
Social Psychology, ed. S Oskamp, pp. 165–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Brewer MB, Miller N. 1988. Contact and cooperation: When do they work? In Eliminating
Racism, ed. P Katz, D Taylor, pp. 315–26. New York: Plenum
Brickson S, Brewer MB. 2001. Identity orientation and intergroup relations in organizations.
In Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts, ed. MA Hogg, DJ Terry, pp. 49–65.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press
Browne I, Misra J. 2003. The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 29:487–513
Burt RS. 1997a. The contingent value of social capital. Adm. Sci. Q. 42:339–65
Burt RS. 1997b. A note on social capital and network content. Soc. Netw. 19:355–73
Burt RS. 2000. The network structure of social capital. In Research in Organizational Behavior,
ed. BM Staw, RI Sutton, pp. 345–423. New York: JAI
Burt RS. 2001. Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In Social Capital: Theory
and Research, ed. N Lin, K Cook, RS Burt, pp. 31–56. New York: Aldine de Gruyter
Byrne DE. 1971. The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic
Carroll GR, Harrison R. 1998. Organizational demography and culture: insights from a formal
model and simulation. Adm. Sci. Q. 43:637–67
Chatman JA, O’Reilly CA. 2004. Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men
and women. Acad. Manag. J. 47:193–208
Chatman JA, Polzer JT, Barsade SG, Neale MA. 1998. Being different yet feeling similar: the
influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and
outcomes. Adm. Sci. Q. 43:749–80
Chattopadhyay P, Tluchowska M, George E. 2004. Identifying the ingroup: a closer look at
the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Acad. Manag. Rev.
29:180–202
Clayton S, Opotow S. 2003. Justice and identity: changing perspectives on what is fair. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. Rev. 7:298–310
Cohen BP, Xueguang Z. 1991. Status processes in enduring work groups. Am. Sociol. Rev.
56:179–88
Colella A, Varma A. 2001. The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange
relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 44:304–15
Coleman JS. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am. J. Sociol. 94:95–120
Collins SM. 1997. Black Corporate Executives. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press
Cook KS. 2000. Advances in the microfoundations of sociology: recent developments and new
challenges for social psychology. Contemp. Sociol. 29:685–92
Cook KS, Yamagishi T. 1992. Power in exchange networks: a power-dependence formulation.
Soc. Netw. 14:245–65
Coser LC. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press
Cox TH, Lobel SA, McLeod PL. 1991. Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on coop-
erative and competitive behavior on a group task. Acad. Manag. J. 34:827–47
Cunningham GB, Chelladurai P. 2005. Affective reactions to cross-functional teams: the impact
of size, relative performance, and common in-group identity. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract.
8:83–97
Dahrendorf R. 1959. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ.
Press
Devine PG. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled components.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 56:5–18
494 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
DiMaggio PJ. 1997. Culture and cognition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 23:263–87
Dobbin F, Sutton JR, Meyer JW, Scott R. 1993. Equal opportunity law and the construction
of internal labor markets. Am. J. Sociol. 99:396–427
Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, eds. 1986. Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism. New York: Academic
Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Gaertner SL. 2002. Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial
interaction. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82:62–68
Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. 2003. Transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol.
Bull. 129:569–91
Ellemers N. 2001. Individual upward mobility and the perceived legitimacy of intergroup
relations. See Jost & Major 2001, pp. 205–22
Elvira MM, Town R. 2001. The effects of race and worker productivity on performance eval-
uations. Ind. Relat. 40:571–90
Ely RJ. 1994. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships
among professional women. Adm. Sci. Q. 39:203–38
England P. 1992. From status attainment to segregation and devaluation. Contemp. Sociol.
21:643–47
England P, Dunn D. 1988. Evaluating work and comparable worth. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14:227–
48
England P, Farkas G, Kilbourne BS, Dou T. 1988. Explaining occupational sex segregation
and wages: findings from a model with fixed effects. Am. Sociol. Rev. 53:544–58
Featherman DL, Hauser RM. 1976. Changes in the socioeconomic stratification of the races,
1962–73. Am. J. Sociol. 82:621–51
Fiske ST. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In The Handbook of Social Psychology,
ed. DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey, pp. 357–411. New York: McGraw-Hill
Fiske ST. 2002. What we know now about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the
century. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 11:123–28
Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:
Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J.
Personal. Soc. Psychol. 82:878–902
Friedman JJ, DiTomaso N. 1996. Myths about diversity: what managers need to know about
changes in the U.S. labor force. Calif. Manag. Rev. 38:54–77
Friedman RA, Krackhardt D. 1997. Social capital and career mobility: a structural theory of
lower returns to education for Asian employees. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 33:316–34
Garza R, Santos S. 1991. Intergroup/outgroup balance and interdependent inter-ethnic be-
havior. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 27:124–37
Glenn ND. 1977. Cohort Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Goldthorpe JH. 2000. Rent, class conflict, and class structure; a commentary on Sorensen. Am.
J. Sociol. 105:1572–82
Granovetter M. 1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Grusky DB, Sorensen JB. 1998. Can class analysis be salvaged? Am. J. Sociol. 103:1187–234
Gutek BA, Cohen AG. 1987. Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: a comparison of
men’s and women’s experiences. Hum. Relat. 40:97–115
Halaby CN. 2003. Where job values come from: family and schooling background, cognitive
ability, and gender. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:251–78
Halaby CN, Weakliem D. 1993. Ownership and authority in the earnings function: non-nested
tests of alternative specifications. Am. Sociol. Rev. 59:5–21
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 495
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Hambrick DC, Cho TS, Chen MJ. 1996. The influence of top management team heterogeneity
on firms’ competitive norms. Adm. Sci. Q. 41:659–84
Harrison DA, Price KH, Bell MP. 1998. Beyond relational demography: time and the effects
of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Acad. Manag. J. 41:96–107
Hauser RM. 1998. Intergenerational economic mobility in the United States: measures, differentials,
and trends. CDE Work. Pap. No. 98-12, Cent. Demogr. Ecol., Univ. Wis., Madison.
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/∼hauser/brook02.pdf
Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF. 1995. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of
managers? J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 10:237–52
Hewstone M, Martin R, Hammer-Hewstone C, Crisp RJ, Voci A. 2001. Minority-majority
relations in organizations: challenges and opportunities. In Social Identity Processes in Orga-
nizational Contexts, ed. MA Hogg, DJ Terry, pp. 67–86. Philadelphia, PA: Psychol. Press
Hodson R, Kaufman RL. 1982. Economic dualism: a critical review. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:728–39
Hoffman E. 1985. The effect of race-ratio composition on the frequency of organizational
communication. Soc. Psychol. Q. 48:17–26
Hogan DP, Featherman DL. 1977. Racial stratification and socioeconomic change in the
American north and south. Am. J. Sociol. 83:100–26
Hogg MA. 2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 5:184–200
Hogg MA, Abrams D. 1988. Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and
Group Processes. London: Routledge
Hogg MA, Ridgeway CL. 2003. Social identity: sociological and social psychological perspec-
tives. Soc. Psychol. Q. 66:97–100
Hogg MA, Terry DJ. 2001. Social Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychol. Press
Ibarra H. 1995. Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Acad.
Manag. J. 38:673–03
Islam MR, Hewstone M. 1993. Intergroup attitudes and affective consequences in majority
and minority groups. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 64:936–50
Jackman MR. 1994. The Velvet Glove: Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Jackman MR, Muha MJ. 1984. Education and intergroup attitudes: moral enlightenment,
superficial democratic commitment, or ideological refinement? Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:751–
69
Jackson SE, Brett JF, Sessa VI, Cooper DM, Julin JA, Peyronnin K. 1991. Some differences
make a difference: individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of re-
cruitment, promotions, and turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 76:675–89
Jacobs JA. 1992. Women’s entry into management: trends in earnings, authority, and values
among salaried managers. Adm. Sci. Q. 37:282–301
Jacobs JA. 1993. Theoretical and measurement issues in the study of sex segregation in the
workplace: research note. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 9:325–30
Jacobs JA, Lukens M, Useem M. 1996. Organizational, job, and individual determinants of
workplace training: evidence from the National Organizations Survey. Soc. Sci. Q. 77:159–
76
Jasso G. 2001. Studying status: an integrated framework. Am. Sociol. Rev. 66:96–124
Jasso G, Webster MJ. 1999. Assessing the gender gap in just earnings and its underlying
mechanisms. Soc. Psychol. Q. 62:367–80
Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. 1999. Why differences make a difference: a field study
of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:741–63
496 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Johnston WB, Packer AH. 1987. Workforce 2000. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Inst.
Joshi A. 2006. The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior
of teams. Acad. Manag. Rev. 81:583–95
Jost JT, Banaji MR. 1994. The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production
of false consciousness. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33:1–27
Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. 2004. A decade of system justification theory: accumulated
evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Polit. Psychol. 25:881–
919
Jost JT, Major B, eds. 2001. The Psychology of Legitimacy: Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice,
and Intergroup Relations. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Kalev A, Dobbin F, Kelly E. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of
corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:589–617
Kalkhoff W, Barnum C. 2000. The effects of status organizing and social identity processes on
patterns of social influence. Soc. Psychol. Q. 63:95–115
Kalleberg AL, Wallace M, Althauser RP. 1981. Economic segmentation, worker power, and
income inequality. Am. J. Sociol. 87:651–83
Kanter RM. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books
Keltner D, Gruenfeld DH, Anderson C. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol. Rev.
110:265–84
Kluegel JR. 1978. The causes and cost of racial exclusion from job authority. Am. Sociol. Rev.
43:285–301
Kluegel JR, Smith ER. 1986. Beliefs About Inequality: Americans’ Views of What Is and What
Ought to Be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter
Knoke D, Ishio Y. 1998. The gender gap in company job training. Work Occup. 25:141–67
Kochan T, Bezrukova K, Ely R, Jackson S, Joshi A, et al. 2003. The effects of diversity on
business performance: report of the diversity research network. Hum. Resour. Manag.
42:3–21
Konrad AM, Prasad P, Pringle JK, eds. 2006. Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage
Konrad AM, Winter S, Gutek BA. 1992. Diversity in work group sex composition: implications
for majority and minority workers. Res. Sociol. Organ. 10:115–40
Langer E. 1989. Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Lau DC, Murnighan JK. 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional dy-
namics of organizational groups. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23:325–40
Lawrence BS. 1997. The black box of organizational demography. Organ. Sci. 8:1–22
Lee J, Bean FD. 2004. America’s changing color lines: immigration, race/ethnicity, and mul-
tiracial identification. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 30:221–42
Lin N. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
McDonald TW, Toussaint LL, Schweiger JA. 2004. The influence of social status on token
women leaders’ expectations about leading male-dominated groups. Sex Roles 50:401–9
McGuire GM, Reskin B. 1993. Authority hierarchies at work: the impacts of race and sex.
Gend. Soc. 7:487–506
McPherson JM, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social net-
works. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM. 1996. Swift trust and temporary groups. In Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, ed. RM Kramer, TR Tyler, pp. 166–95.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Milliken FJ, Martins LL. 1996. Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups. Acad. Manag. J. 21:402–33
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 497
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Morris M, Western B. 1999. Inequality in earning at the close of the twentieth century. Annu.
Rev. Sociol. 25:623–57
Mullen B, Brown R, Smith C. 1992. Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance and status:
an integration. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 22:103–22
Oldmeadow JA, Platow MJ, Foddy M, Anderson D. 2003. Self-categorization, status, and social
influence. Soc. Psychol. Q. 66:138–52
O’Reilly CA III, Caldwell DF, Barnett WP. 1989. Work group demography, social integration,
and turnover. Adm. Sci. Q. 34:21–37
Osberg L, Smeeding T. 2006. Fair inequality? Attitudes toward pay differentials: the United
States in comparative perspective. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:45–73
Parkin F. 1979. Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. New York: Columbia Univ.
Press
Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM, Xin KR. 1999. Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group
diversity, conflict and performance. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:1–28
Pettigrew TF. 1979. The ultimate attribution error: extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of
prejudice. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 5:461–76
Pettigrew TF. 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49:65–85
Pfeffer J. 1983. Organizational demography. Res. Organ. Behav. 5:299–357
Pfeffer J. 1992. Managing with Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press
Portes A. 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 24:1–24
Portes A, Rumbaut RG. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Powell GN, Graves LM. 2003. Women and Men in Management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Ragins BR. 1997. Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: a power perspectives.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 22:482–521
Ragins BR, Cornwell J, Miller JS. 2003. Heterosexism in the workplace: Do race and gender
matter? Group Organ. Manag. 28:45–74
Randel AE. 2002. Identity salience: a moderator of the relationship between group gender
composition and work group conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 23:749–66
Reagans R, McEvily B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion
and range. Adm. Sci. Q. 48:240–67
Reagans R, Zuckerman EW. 2001. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of
corporate R&D teams. Organ. Sci. 12:502–17
Reagans R, Zuckerman EW, McEvily B. 2004. How to make the team: social networks vs.
demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 49:101–33
Reskin BF. 1988. Bringing the men back in: sex differentiation and the devaluation of women’s
work. Gend. Soc. 2:58–81
Reskin BF. 1993. Sex segregation in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 19:241–70
Reskin BF. 2000. The proximate causes of discrimination: research agenda for the twenty-first
century. Contemp. Sociol. 29:319–29
Reskin BF. 2003. Modeling ascriptive inequality: from motives to mechanisms. Am. Sociol. Rev.
68:1–21
Reskin BF, McBrier DB, Kmec JA. 1999. The determinants and consequences of workplace
sex and race composition. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:335–61
Reskin BF, Ross CA. 1992. Jobs, authority, and earnings among managers: the continuing
significance of sex. Work Occup. 19:342–65
Ridgeway CL. 1991. The social construction of status value: gender and other nominal char-
acteristics. Soc. Forces 70:367–86
498 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Ridgeway CL. 1994. External status, legitimacy, and compliance in male and female groups.
Soc. Forces 72:1051–77
Ridgeway CL. 2001. The emergence of status beliefs: from structural inequality to legitimizing
ideology. See Jost & Major 2001, pp. 257–77
Ridgeway CL, Balkwell JW. 1997. Group processes and the diffusion of status beliefs. Soc.
Psychol. Q. 60:14–31
Ridgeway CL, Boyle EH, Kuipers KJ, Robinson DT. 1998. How do status beliefs develop?
The role of resources and interactional experiences. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:331–50
Ritzman RL, Tomaskovic-Devey D. 1992. Life chances and support for equality and equity as
normative and counternormative distribution rules. Soc. Forces 70:745–63
Roberson L, Block CJ. 2001. Racioethnicity and job performance: a review and critique of
theoretical perspectives on the causes of group differences. Res. Organ. Behav. 23:247–325
Roemer J. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press
Rosenbaum JE, Kariya T, Settersten R, Maier T. 1990. Market and network theories of the
transition from high school to work: their application to industrialized societies. Annu.
Rev. Sociol. 16:263–99
Rosenfeld RA. 2002. What do we learn about difference from the scholarship on gender? Soc.
Forces 81:1–24
Rowe M. 1981. The minutiae of discrimination: the need for support. In Outsiders on the Inside:
Women and Organizations, ed. BL Forisha, BH Goldman, pp. 155–71. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall
Sachdev I, Bourhis RY. 1991. Power and status differentials in minority and majority group
relations. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 21:1–24
Shelton NN. 2003. The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 84:1079–92
Sidanius J, Liu JH, Shaw JS, Pratto F. 1994. Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenu-
ators, and hierarchy enhancers: social dominance theory and the criminal justice system.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24:338–66
Sidanius J, Pratto F. 1999. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Op-
pression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Sidanius J, Pratto F, Sinclair S, van Laar C. 1996. Mother Teresa meets Ghenghis Khan: the
dialectics of hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating career choices. Soc. Just. Res.
9:145–70
Simmel G. 1955 (1908). Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. New York: Free Press
Skaggs S, DiTomaso N. 2004. Understanding the effects of workforce diversity on employment
outcomes: a multidisciplinary and comprehensive framework. In Research in the Sociology
of Work: Diversity in the Workforce, ed. N DiTomaso, C Post, pp. 279–306. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier
Skvoretz J, Willer D. 1993. Exclusion and power: a test of four theories in exchange networks.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 58:801–18
Smith RA. 2002. Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: theory and research. Annu. Rev.
Sociol. 28:509–42
Smith RA. 2005. Do the determinants of promotion differ for white men versus women and
minorities: an exploration of intersectionalism through sponsored and contest mobility
processes. Am. Behav. Sci. 48:1157–81
Sorensen AB. 2000. Toward a sounder basis for class analysis. Am. J. Sociol. 105:1523–58
Sorensen JB. 2000. The longitudinal effects of group tenure composition on turnover. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 65:298–310
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 499
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Spaeth JL. 1985. Job power and earnings. Am. Sociol. Rev. 50:603–17
Stewman S. 1988. Organizational demography. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14:173–202
Tajfel H. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Tajfel H, Turner JC. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In The Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. SA Worchel, WG Austin, pp. 7–24. Chicago: Nelson
Hall
Tam T. 1997. Sex segregation and occupational gender inequality in the United States: deval-
uation or specialized training? Am. J. Sociol. 102:1652–92
Taylor M. 1998. How white attitudes vary with the racial composition of local populations:
numbers count. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:512–35
Thomas DA, Gabarro JJ. 1999. Breaking Through: The Making of Minority Executives in Corporate
America. Boston, MA: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press
Thye SR. 2000. A status value theory of power in exchange relations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:407–32
Tilly C. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Tomaskovic-Devey D, Skaggs S. 1999. An establishment-level test of the statistical discrimi-
nation hypothesis. Work Occup. 26:422–45
Tomaskovic-Devey D, Skaggs S. 2002. Sex segregation, labor process organization, and gender
earnings inequality. Am. J. Sociol. 108:102–28
Tomaskovic-Devey D, Zimmer CR, Stainback K, Robinson C, Taylor T, McTague T. 2006.
Documenting desegregation: segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnicity, and
sex, 1966–2003. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:565–88
Tsui AS, Egan TD, O’Reilly CA III. 1992. Being different: relational demography and orga-
nizational attachment. Adm. Sci. Q. 37:549–79
Tsui AS, Gutek BA. 1999. Demographic Differences in Organizations: Current Research and Future
Directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books
Turner JC. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. New York: Basil
Blackwell
Tyler TR, Boeckmann R, Smith HJ, Huo YJ. 1997. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder,
CO: Westview
van Knippenberg D. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model
and research agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:1008–22
Waldinger R. 1997. Social capital or social closure? Immigrant networks in the labor market. Work.
Pap. 26, Lewis Cent. Reg. Policy Stud. Los Angeles
Warner WL, Meeker M, Eells K. 1949. Social Class in America. Chicago: Sci. Res. Assoc.
Waters M, Eschbach K. 1995. Immigration and ethnic and racial inequality in the United
States. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 21:419–46
Watson WE, Kumar K, Michaelson LK. 1993. Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction pro-
cess and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Acad. Manag. J.
36:590–602
Weber M. 1968. Economy and Society. New York: Bedminister
Weeden KA. 2000. Why do some occupations pay more than others? Social closure and earnings
inequality in the United States. Am. J. Sociol. 108:55–101
Westphal JD, Milton LP. 2000. How experience and network ties affect the influence of de-
mographic minorities on corporate boards. Adm. Sci. Q. 45:366–98
Williams CL. 1999. Sexuality in the workplace: organizational control, sexual harassment, and
the pursuit of pleasure. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:73–93
Williams K, O’Reilly CA. 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of
40 years of research. In Research in Organizational Behavior, ed. BM Staw, LL Cummings,
pp. 77–140. Greenwich, CT: JAI
500 DiTomaso ·Post ·Parks-Yancy
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
ANRV316-SO33-22 ARI 24 May 2007 11:10
Winant H. 2000. Race and race theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:169–85
Wolf W, Fligstein N. 1979. Sex and authority in the workplace: the causes of sexual inequality.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:235–52
Wolf WC, Rosenfeld RA. 1978. Sex structure of occupations and job mobility. Soc. Forces
56:823–44
Wright EO. 1978. Race, class, and income inequality. Am. J. Sociol. 83:1368–97
Wright EO. 1997. Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge Univ. Press
Wright EO. 2000. Class, exploitation, and economic rents: reflections on Sorensen’s sounder
basis. Am. J. Sociol. 105:1559–71
Wright EO, Baxter J, Birkelund EG. 1995. The gender gap in workplace authority: a cross-
national study. Am. Sociol. Rev. 60:407–35
Wright EO, Perrone L. 1977. Marxist class categories and income inequality. Am. Sociol. Rev.
42:32–55
Yoder JD. 1994. Looking beyond numbers: the effects of gender status, job prestige, and
occupational gender-typing on tokenism processes. Soc. Psychol. Q. 57:150–59
Zenger TR, Lawrence BS. 1989. Organizational demography: the differential effects of age
and tenure distributions on technical communication. Acad. Manag. J. 32:353–76
www.annualreviews.org •Workforce Diversity and Inequality 501
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18
Annual Review
of Sociology
Volume 33, 2007
Contents
Frontispiece
Leo A. Goodman pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppx
Prefatory Chapter
Statistical Magic and/or Statistical Serendipity: An Age of Progress in
the Analysis of Categorical Data
Leo A. Goodman ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp1
Theory and Methods
Bourdieu in American Sociology, 1980–2004
Jeffrey J. Sallaz and Jane Zavisca pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp21
Human Motivation and Social Cooperation: Experimental and
Analytical Foundations
Ernst Fehr and Herbert Gintis ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp43
The Niche as a Theoretical Tool
Pamela A. Popielarz and Zachary P. Neal ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp65
Social Processes
Production Regimes and the Quality of Employment in Europe
Duncan Gallie ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp85
The Sociology of Markets
Neil Fligstein and Luke Dauter ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp105
Transnational Migration Studies: Past Developments and Future Trends
Peggy Levitt and B. Nadya Jaworsky ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp129
Control Theories in Sociology
Dawn T. Robinson pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp157
Institutions and Culture
Military Service in the Life Course
Alair MacLean and Glen H. Elder, Jr. pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp175
v
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18
School Reform 2007: Transforming Education into a Scientific
Enterprise
Barbara L. Schneider and Venessa A. Keesler ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp197
Embeddedness and the Intellectual Projects of Economic Sociology
Greta R. Krippner and Anthony S. Alvarez pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp219
Political and Economic Sociology
The Sociology of the Radical Right
Jens Rydgren pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp241
Gender in Politics
Pamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich, and Melanie M. Hughes pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp263
Moral Views of Market Society
Marion Fourcade and Kieran Healy ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp285
The Consequences of Economic Globalization for Affluent
Democracies
David Brady, Jason Beckfield, and Wei Zhao ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp313
Differentiation and Stratification
Inequality: Causes and Consequences
Kathryn M. Neckerman and Florencia Torche pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp335
Demography
Immigration and Religion
Wendy Cadge and Elaine Howard Ecklund ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp359
Hispanic Families: Stability and Change
Nancy S. Landale and R.S. Oropesa ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp381
Lost and Found: The Sociological Ambivalence Toward Childhood
Suzanne Shanahan ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp407
Urban and Rural Community Sociology
The Making of the Black Family: Race and Class in Qualitative Studies
in the Twentieth Century
Frank F. Furstenberg ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp429
Policy
The Global Diffusion of Public Policies: Social Construction,
Coercion, Competition, or Learning?
Frank Dobbin, Beth Simmons, and Geoffrey Garrett pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp449
vi Contents
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
AR316-FM ARI 31 May 2007 15:18
Workforce Diversity and Inequality: Power, Status, and Numbers
Nancy DiTomaso, Corinne Post, and Rochelle Parks-Yancy pppppppppppppppppppppppppppp473
From the Margins to the Mainstream? Disaster Research
at the Crossroads
Kathleen J. Tierney ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp503
Historical Sociology
Toward a Historicized Sociology: Theorizing Events, Processes, and
Emergence
Elisabeth S. Clemens ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp527
Sociology and World Regions
Old Inequalities, New Disease: HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa
Carol A. Heimer pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp551
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 24–33 pppppppppppppppppppppppp579
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 24–33 ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp583
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Sociology chapters (if any, 1997 to
the present) may be found at http://soc.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
Contents vii
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2007.33:473-501. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org
by UNIVERSITY OF DENVER on 04/06/08. For personal use only.
