Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Articles

Does Diversity-Valuing Behavior Result in Diminished Performance Ratings for Non-White and Female Leaders?

    Published Online:3 Mar 2016https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0538

    Abstract

    We seek to help solve the puzzle of why top-level leaders are disproportionately White men. We suggest that this race- and sex-based status and power gap persists, in part, because ethnic minority and female leaders are discouraged from engaging in diversity-valuing behavior. We hypothesize, and test in both field and laboratory samples, that ethnic minority or female leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior are penalized with worse performance ratings, whereas White or male leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior are not penalized for doing so. We find that this divergent effect results from traditional negative race and sex stereotypes (i.e., lower competence judgments) placed upon diversity-valuing ethnic minority and female leaders. We discuss how our findings extend and enrich the vast literatures on the glass ceiling, tokenism, and workplace discrimination.

    REFERENCES

    • Abele A. E., Cuddy A. J., Judd C. M., Yzerbyt V. Y. 2008. Fundamental dimensions of social judgment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38: 1063–1065. Google Scholar
    • Aiken L. S., West S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, England: Sage. Google Scholar
    • Avolio B. J., Walumbwa F. O., Weber T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421–449. Google Scholar
    • Barnett W. P., Baron J. N., Stuart T. E. 2000. Avenues of attainment: occupational demography and organizational careers in the California civil service 1. American Journal of Sociology, 106: 88–144. Google Scholar
    • Baron R. M., Kenny D. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182. Google Scholar
    • Berger J., Fisek M. H., Norman R. Z., Zelditch M. 1977. Status characteristics and social interaction. New York, NY: Elsevier. Google Scholar
    • Bertrand M., Mullainathan S. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94: 991–1013. Google Scholar
    • Bettencourt B., Charlton K., Dorr N., Hume D. L. 2001. Status differences and in-group bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 520–542. Google Scholar
    • Bliese P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein K. J.Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
    • Brass D. J. 1985. Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 327–343.Link , Google Scholar
    • Brutus S., Fleenor J. W., London M. 1998. Does 360-degree feedback work in different industries?: A between-industry comparison of the reliability and validity of multi-source performance ratings. Journal of Management Development, 17: 177–190. Google Scholar
    • Burns C., Barton K., Kerby S. 2012, July. The state of diversity in today’s workforce: As our nation becomes more diverse so too does our workforce (Issue brief). Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Google Scholar
    • Campbell D. T., Stanley J. C., Gage N. L. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Google Scholar
    • Catalyst, Inc. 2012. High potentials in the pipeline: Leaders pay it forward. Available at http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/high-potentials-pipeline-leaders-pay-it-forward (accessed August 9, 2012). Google Scholar
    • Catalyst, Inc. 2013. Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000. Available at http://catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000 (accessed January 2013). Google Scholar
    • Chatman J. A., Flynn F. J. 2005. Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research. Organization Science, 16: 434–447. Google Scholar
    • Chattopadhyay P., George E., Ng C. K. 2011. An uncertainty reduction model of relational demography. In Joshi A.Liao H.Martocchio J. J. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, 30: 219–251. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Google Scholar
    • Chattopadhyay P., Tluchowska M., George E. 2004. Identifying the ingroup: A closer look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of Management Review, 29: 180–202.Link , Google Scholar
    • Connelly B. S., Ones D. S. 2010. An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136: 1092–1122. Google Scholar
    • Cook A., Glass C. 2014. Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic minorities promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1080–1089. Google Scholar
    • Cuddy A. J., Fiske S. T., Glick P. 2007. The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 631–648. Google Scholar
    • Cuddy A. J., Fiske S. T., Glick P. 2008. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 61–149. Google Scholar
    • Daft R. L. 2011. The leadership experience (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage. Google Scholar
    • Derks B., Ellemers N., van Laar C., de Groot K. 2011. Do sexist organizational cultures create the queen bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50: 519–535. Google Scholar
    • Derks B., Van Laar C., Ellemers N., de Groot K. 2011. Gender-bias primes elicit queen-bee responses among senior policewomen. Psychological Science, 22: 1243–1249. Google Scholar
    • Dezsö C. L., Ross D. G. 2012. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1072–1089. Google Scholar
    • Diversity, Inc. staff. 2012. Where’s the Diversity in Fortune 500 CEOs? Available at http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-facts/wheres-the-diversity-in-fortune-500-ceos/ (accessed September 1, 2014). Google Scholar
    • Dorgan T., Grieco M. 1993. Battling against the odds: The emergence of senior women trade unionists. Industrial Relations Journal, 24: 151–165. Google Scholar
    • Duguid M. 2011. Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group diversification? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116: 104–115. Google Scholar
    • Duguid M. M., Loyd D. L., Tolbert P. S. 2012. The impact of categorical status, numeric representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar others: A value threat approach. Organization Science, 23: 386–401. Google Scholar
    • Eagly A. H., Karau S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109: 573–598. Google Scholar
    • Eagly A. H., Makhijani M. G., Klonsky B. G. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 543–588. Google Scholar
    • Eagly A. H., Steffen V. J. 1984. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46: 735–754. Google Scholar
    • Eckes T. 2002. Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47: 99–114. Google Scholar
    • Ellemers N., Heuvel H., Gilder D., Maass A., Bonvini A. 2004. The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43: 315–333. Google Scholar
    • Ellemers N., Rink F., Derks B., Ryan M. K. 2012. Women in high places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Research in Organizational Behavior, 32: 163–187. Google Scholar
    • Elsesser K. M., Lever J. 2011. Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64: 1555–1578. Google Scholar
    • Ely R. J. 1994. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 203–238. Google Scholar
    • Epstein C. F. 1980. Women’s attitudes toward other women: Myths and their consequences. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 34: 322–333. Google Scholar
    • Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., Glick P. S., Xu J. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 878–902. Google Scholar
    • Fiske S. T., Xu J., Cuddy A. C., Glick P. 1999. (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. The Journal of Social Issues, 55: 473–489. Google Scholar
    • Freeman D., Aquino K., McFerran B. 2009. Overcoming beneficiary race as an impediment to charitable donations: Social dominance orientation, the experience of moral elevation, and donation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35: 72–84. Google Scholar
    • Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F., Rust M. C., Nier J. A., Banker B. S., Ward C. M., Mottola G. R., Houlette M. 1999. Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 388–402. Google Scholar
    • Goldin C., Rouse C. 2000. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. The American Economic Review, 90: 715–741. Google Scholar
    • Gutiérrez A. S., Unzueta M. M. 2013. Are admissions decisions based on family ties fairer than those that consider race? Social dominance orientation and attitudes toward legacy vs. affirmative action policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49: 554–558. Google Scholar
    • Hackman J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals in organizations. In Dunnette M. D.Hough L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 199–267. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Google Scholar
    • Hansen M. T., Ibarra H., Peyer U. 2010. The best-performing CEOs in the world. Harvard Business Review, 88: 104–113. Google Scholar
    • Harrison D. A., Kravitz D. A., Mayer D. M., Leslie L. M., Lev-Arey D. 2006. Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1013–1036. Google Scholar
    • Heilman M. E., Block C. J., Stathatos P. 1997. The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 603–625.Link , Google Scholar
    • Heim P., Murphy S. A. 2001. In the company of women. New York, NY: Penguin. Google Scholar
    • Hekman D. R., Aquino K., Owens B. P., Mitchell T. R., Schilpzand P., Leavitt K. 2010. An examination of whether and how racial and gender biases influence customer satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 238–264.Abstract , Google Scholar
    • Herring C. 2009. Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74: 208–224. Google Scholar
    • Hillman A. J., Cannella A. A., Harris I. C. 2002. Women and racial minorities in the boardroom: How do directors differ? Journal of Management, 28: 747–763. Google Scholar
    • Hillman A. J., Shropshire C., Cannella A. A. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on corporate boards. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 941–952.Link , Google Scholar
    • Hitt M. A., Barr S. H. 1989. Managerial selection decision models: Examination of configural cue processing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 53–61. Google Scholar
    • Hollander E. P. 1958. Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65: 117–127. Google Scholar
    • Hoobler J. M., Hu J., Wilson M. 2010. Do workers who experience conflict between the work and family domains hit a “glass ceiling?” A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77: 481–494. Google Scholar
    • Hoobler J. M., Wayne S. J., Lemmon G. 2009. Bosses’ perceptions of family–work conflict and women’s promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 939–957.Link , Google Scholar
    • Hopkins D. J. 2008. No more Wilder effect, never a Whitman effect: When and why polls mislead about Black and female candidates. Cambridge, MA: Department of Government, Harvard University. Available at http://people.iq.harvard.edu/∼dhopkins/wilder13.pdf (accessed October 10, 2008). Google Scholar
    • Hultin M., Szulkin R. 1999. Wages and unequal access to organizational power: An empirical test of gender discrimination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 453–472. Google Scholar
    • Ibarra H. 1995. Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 673–703.Link , Google Scholar
    • Ibarra H., Carter N., Silva C. 2010. Why men still get more promotions than women. Harvard Business Review, 88: 80–85. Google Scholar
    • Isidore C. 2014. Despite Mayer, Yahoo leadership overwhelmingly male. CNNMoney, June 18, 2014. http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/18/technology/yahoo-diversity/ (accessed September 1, 2015). Google Scholar
    • James L., Demaree R., Wolf G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85–98. Google Scholar
    • Johnson S. K., Murphy S. E., Zewdie S., Reichard R. J. 2008. The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106: 39–60. Google Scholar
    • Joshi A. 2014. By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 202–239. Google Scholar
    • Joshi A., Roh H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 599–627.Link , Google Scholar
    • Joshi A., Son J., Roh H. 2015. When can women close the gap? A meta-analytic test of sex differences in performance and rewards. Academy of Management Journal, 58: 1516–1545.Link , Google Scholar
    • Jost J. T., Banaji M. R., Nosek B. A. 2004. A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25: 881–919. Google Scholar
    • Kanter R. M. 1977. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82: 965–990. Google Scholar
    • Kelly H. 2015. Google commits $150 million to diversity. CNNMoney, May 7, 2015. http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/06/technology/google-diversity-plan/ (accessed January 28, 2016.). Google Scholar
    • Kingstrom P. O., Mainstone L. E. 1985. An investigation of the rater–ratee acquaintance and rater bias. Academy of Management Journal, 28: 641–653.Abstract , Google Scholar
    • Kozlowski S. W. J., Klein K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein K. J.Kozlowski S. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 3–90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
    • Krysan M., Couper M. P. 2003. Race in the live and the virtual interview: Racial deference, social desirability, and activation effects in attitude surveys. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66: 364–383. Google Scholar
    • Landy D., Sigall H. 1974. Beauty is talent: Task evaluation as a function of the performer’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29: 299–304. Google Scholar
    • Leslie L. M., Mayer D. M., Kravitz D. A. 2014. The stigma of affirmative action: A stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 964–989.Link , Google Scholar
    • Levi A. S., Fried Y. 2008. Differences between African Americans and Whites in reactions to affirmative action programs in hiring, promotion, training, and layoffs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1118–1129. Google Scholar
    • Lewis A. C., Sherman S. J. 2003. Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90: 262–276. Google Scholar
    • Lopuch V. S., Davis D. C. 2014. The role and value of diversity to learning organizations and innovation. In Erbe N. (Ed.), Approaches to managing organizational diversity and innovation: 213–236. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Google Scholar
    • Lyness K. S., Thompson D. E. 1997. Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 359–375. Google Scholar
    • Lyness K. S., Thompson D. E. 2000. Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 86–101. Google Scholar
    • MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., Hoffman J. M., West S. G., Sheets V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83–104. Google Scholar
    • MacKinnon D. P., Lockwood C. M., Williams J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39: 99–128. Google Scholar
    • MacKinnon D. P., Warsi G., Dwyer J. H. 1995. A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30: 41–62. Google Scholar
    • Magee J. C., Galinsky A. D. 2008. Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2: 351–398.Link , Google Scholar
    • Martinko M. J., Harvey P., Dasborough M. T. 2011. Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 144–149. Google Scholar
    • McConahay J. B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In Dovidio J. F.Gaertner S. L. (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: 91–126. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Google Scholar
    • Mendoza S. L. 2002. Between the homeland and the diaspora: The politics of theorizing Filipino and Filipino identities. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Miville M. L., Gelso C. J., Pannu R., Liu W., Touradji P., Holloway P., Fuertes J. 1999. Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville–Guzman universality–diversity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46: 291–307. Google Scholar
    • Morgeson F. P., Campion M. A., Dipboye R. L., Hollenbeck J. R., Murphy K., Schmitt N. 2007. Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60: 683–729. Google Scholar
    • Muller D., Judd C. M., Yzerbyt V. Y. 2005. When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: 852–863. Google Scholar
    • Neeley T. B. 2013. Language matters: Status loss and achieved status distinctions in global organizations. Organization Science, 24: 476–497. Google Scholar
    • Ng T. W., Eby L. T., Sorensen K. L., Feldman D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58: 367–408. Google Scholar
    • Nishii L. 2013. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1754–1774.Link , Google Scholar
    • O’Brien K. E., Biga A., Kessler S. R., Allen T. D. 2010. A meta-analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management, 36: 537–554. Google Scholar
    • O’Brien L. T., Major B. 2005. System-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: The roles of group status and identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31: 1718–1729. Google Scholar
    • Oh I. S., Wang G., Mount M. K. 2011. Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 762–773. Google Scholar
    • Park S. H., Westphal J. D. 2013. Social discrimination in the corporate elite how status affects the propensity for minority CEOs to receive blame for low firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 542–586. Google Scholar
    • Parker C. P., Baltes B. B., Christiansen N. D. 1997. Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: A study of gender and racial–ethnic group differences. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 376–389. Google Scholar
    • Paustian-Underdahl S. C., Walker L. S., Woehr D. J. 2014. Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99: 1129–1145. Google Scholar
    • Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie S. B., Lee J. Y., Podsakoff N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879–903. Google Scholar
    • Powell G. N., Butterfield D. A. 1994. Investigating the “glass ceiling” phenomenon: An empirical study of actual promotions to top management. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 68–86.Abstract , Google Scholar
    • Preacher K. J., Hayes A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879–891. Google Scholar
    • Preacher K. J., Rucker D. D., Hayes A. F. 2007. Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Strategies, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185–227. Google Scholar
    • Ragins B. R., Scandura T. A. 1999. Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being a mentor. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 493–509. Google Scholar
    • Ragins B. R., Townsend B., Mattis M. 1998. Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. The Academy of Management Executive, 12: 28–42.Abstract , Google Scholar
    • Riley J. L. 2014. Opinion: Why liberals should stop trying to “help” black Americans. New York Post, June 28, 2014. http://nypost.com/2014/06/28/how-liberals-make-it-harder-for-blacks-to-succeed/ (accessed September 1, 2014). Google Scholar
    • Rosette A. S., Leonardelli G. J., Phillips K. W. 2008. The White standard: Racial bias in leader categorization. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 758–777. Google Scholar
    • Ryan M. K., Haslam S. A. 2005. The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over‐represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16: 81–90. Google Scholar
    • Sackett P. R., DuBois C. L. 1991. Rater–ratee race effects on performance evaluation: Challenging meta-analytic conclusions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 873–877. Google Scholar
    • Sadri G., Weber T. J., Gentry W. A. 2011. Empathic emotion and leadership performance: An empirical analysis across 38 countries. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 818–830. Google Scholar
    • Schaefer R. T. 1996. Education and prejudice. The Sociological Quarterly, 37: 1–16. Google Scholar
    • Schneider B., Ehrhart M. G., Mayer D. M., Saltz J. L., Niles-Jolly K. 2005. Understanding organization–customer links in service settings. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1017–1032.Abstract , Google Scholar
    • Sears D. O. 1988. Symbolic racism. In Katz P. A.Taylor D. A. (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy: 53–84. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Google Scholar
    • Sheppard L. D., Aquino K. 2013. Much ado about nothing? Observers’ problematization of women’s same-sex conflict at work. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27: 52–62.Abstract , Google Scholar
    • Sidanius J., Pratto F., Mitchell M. 1994. In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134: 151–167. Google Scholar
    • Spector P. A., Brannick M. T. 2011. Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 287–305. Google Scholar
    • Staines G., Tavris C., Jayaratne T. E. 1973. The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7: 55–60. Google Scholar
    • Sullivan M. 2014. The Times, from the top: Looking ahead. New York Times, January 12, 2014: SR12. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/12/public-editor/the-times-from-the-top-looking-ahead.html?_r=0 (accessed September 1, 2014). Google Scholar
    • Swim J. K., Aikin K. J., Hall W. S., Hunter B. A. 1995. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 199–214. Google Scholar
    • Swim J. K., Miller D. L. 1999. White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 500–514. Google Scholar
    • Tanenbaum L. 2002. Catfight: Women & competition. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press. Google Scholar
    • The Economist. 2008. Briefing: Black America—Nearer to overcoming. The Economist, May 8: 37–40. Google Scholar
    • Tosi H. L., Werner S., Katz J. P., Gomez-Mejia L. R. 2000. How much does performance matter? A meta-analysis of CEO pay studies. Journal of Management, 26: 301–339. Google Scholar
    • Turban D. B., Jones A. P. 1988. Supervisor–subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 73: 228–234. Google Scholar
    • Unzueta M. M., Knowles E. D. 2014. The “business case” for diversity may not by itself make the strongest case for diversity. In Diversity ideologies in organizations: 257–267. Taylor and Francis. Google Scholar
    • Van Knippenberg D., Schippers M. C. 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58: 515–541. Google Scholar
    • Walker H. J., Field H. S., Bernerth J. B., Becton J. B. 2012. Diversity cues on recruitment websites: Investigating the effects of job seekers’ information processing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97: 214–224. Google Scholar
    • Watkins M. B., Kaplan S., Brief A. P., Shull A., Dietz J., Mansfield M.-T., Cohen R. 2006. Does it pay to be a sexist? The relationship between modern sexism and career outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 524–537. Google Scholar
    • Wayne J. H., Casper W. J. 2012. Why does firm reputation in human resource policies influence college students? The mechanisms underlying job pursuit intentions. Human Resource Management, 51: 121–142. Google Scholar
    • Wenneras C., Wold A. 2001. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. In Wyer M. (Ed.), Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies: 46–52. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar
    • Westphal J. D., Stern I. 2006. The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 169–204. Google Scholar
    • Westphal J. D., Stern I. 2007. Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at U.S. companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 267–288.Link , Google Scholar
    • Zhu D. H., Shen W., Hillman A. J. 2014. Recategorization into the in-group: The appointment of demographically different new directors and their subsequent positions on corporate boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 240–270. Google Scholar
    • Zimmerman R. D., Triana M. D. C., Barrick M. R. 2010. Predictive criterion-related validity of observer ratings of personality and job-related competencies using multiple raters and multiple performance criteria. Human Performance, 23: 361–378. Google Scholar
    • Zoogah D. B. 2010. Why should I be left behind? Employees’ perceived relative deprivation and participation in development activities. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 159–173. Google Scholar
    • Zweigenhaft R. L., Domhoff G. W. 2006. Diversity in the power elite: How it happened, why it matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar
    • Zweigenhaft R. L., Domhoff G. W. 2011. The new CEOs: Women, African American, Latino, and Asian American leaders of Fortune 500 companies. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Google Scholar