Social Comparison and Contact Theory:
Implications for African American Managers’ Career Development
Gwendolyn M. Combs
Department of Management – 274 CBA
College of Business
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-0491 Phone: 402/472-3915 Fax: 402/472-5855 E-mail: gcombs2@ unl.edu
Steven M. Sommer
Graduate School of Management University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697-3125 Phone: 949/824-4062 Fax: 949/824-8469 E-mail: ssommer@uci.edu
Key Words: Career development, Referent Choice, Diversity
2
Social Comparison and Contact Theory:
Implications for African American Managers’ Career Development
ABSTRACT
Direct (e.g., mentoring) and indirect (e.g., modeling) interactions are key to career development. Prior research on minority developmental relationships centers on mentor/protégé dyads, not activities leading up to dyad creation or activities outside the mentoring process. A vast literature illustrates the importance of ―similar others.‖ We explore social comparison and contact theories to analyze referent selection of African American managers. Based on referent choice theory, whites may be perceived too divergent to be a legitimate referent thus hindering career
development. Contact theory describes changing referent perceptions through specific cross-race interactions; thus facilitating potential career success.
Key Words: Career development, Referent Choice, Diversity
3
Social Comparison and Contact Theory:
Implications for African American Managers’ Career Development
The concept of organizational careers has enjoyed considerable coverage in the
occupational and management literature (Hall, 1976, 1996; Kanter 1977; Kram, 1983 & 1985; Murrell, Crosby & Ely 1999; Schein, 1978;). The literature discusses many aspects of how individuals participate in and progress through their career planning and development, and has identified individual and organizational factors that influence this process (Robinson & Miner, 1996). The theories under-girding the research emphasize stages of career development and adjustment (Hall, 1976; Super, 1980); individual characteristics (Tiedeman & O'Hara, 1963); choice perspectives (Holland, 1985; Roe & Lunneberg, 1990) and socialization processes (Hackett & Betz, 1981; Krumboltz, 1979). While there is still not a precise definition of the term career (cf. 1996 special issue of the Academy of Management Executive), it is generally believed that the notion or concept of career is important to consider when examining employee satisfaction and organizational commitment (Tsui, Egan & O'Reilly, 1992).
Missing from the rich testing of theories of career development in organizations is the
consideration of the impact or influence of race (Crosby, 1999; Thomas & Alderfer, 1989). Furthermore, there is little research on the impact of race on the self-evaluative process that influences career development and advancement experiences. While much has been said on the importance of diversity for many organizational outcomes (Cox & Beale, 1991; Wentling & Palma-Riva, 1998; Grossman, 2000), less has been said about the climates necessary for minorities to succeed in a diverse organizational environment. In this paper, we explore the role that social comparison processes and contact theory tenets play in inhibiting and/or enhancing the referent selection choices African American managers make. We suggest that who one chooses to model significantly impacts the success of subsequent career development activities (e.g., role modeling,
4
attitude formation, mentoring). For purposes of this paper, we will define an organizational career as the tenure and advancement of the individual within a single organization. We will not address the ideal of entrepreneurial, protean, or transitory careers (frequent movement from one organization to another) popularized in current discussions (Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth & Larson, 1996; Hall, 1996).
Additionally, we have chosen to focus on African Americans here for several pertinent reasons. First, there is evidence (Phinney, 1990) of differences between racial/ethnic groups in their actual or perceived integration into the mainstream of organizations. Thus, we do not want to fall prey to earlier tendencies to lump all groups together presuming that all groups are the same and face identical circumstances in the work place (Roberson & Block, 2001). There may be instances in which global models do not tap the differential that comprises what is sometimes referred to as ―racioethnicity‖ (Cox & Nkomo, 1993; Roberson & Block, 2001). In this case being African American may impact components that serve to foster or hinder career and developmental activities, in a way that differs from other minority groups like Hispanics or women. Second, looking at groups separately preserves the opportunity for inquiry and observations that might emerge from intercultural and interracial differences (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). African Americans are presented as an example for purposes of this inquiry. This does not negate the possibility that confirmations found through empirical study may also apply to other groups. Third, the 2002 research study conducted by the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University reported that African Americans, more than other groups in the workplace, are most likely to be unfairly treated in promotion and opportunities for training, perceive more significant disengagement, and are more likely to be discriminated against at work. Career Development and Career Advancement
5
Career development is both an evaluative and a comparison process. It involves an
assessment of ability, behavior and attitude (Hall, 1976, 1996). Skills and abilities are examined against a backdrop of career choice, and comparisons of self and others are made in efforts to identify and adjust career-advancing behaviors. An understanding of the impact of race on assessment and comparative evaluation will add to our knowledge of the formation of developmental relationships by racial/ethnic minorities (Wentling & Palma-Riva, 1998). Full appreciation of the affect of race on behaviors in organizations in general (Nkomo, 1992), and on careers specifically, can be enhanced by increased knowledge of the intersection of race and informal individual career development activities (Alderfer, 2000).
Central to the literature on career development and upward progression is the research
concerning developmental relationships. Crosby (1999) suggests that the process of career development is congruent with Kram's 1985 definition of developmental relationships. Kram defines developmental relationships as interactions that contribute to both individual growth and career advancement. Career development has been conceptualized as including advancement up through organizational levels and systematic advancement within a professional field (Hall, 1976). While we recognize the traditional perspective, the literature suggests that advancement and development may operate more separately and differently for racial and ethnic minorities than for majority organizational members (Thomas, 2001) and so we emphasize delineation in meaning between career development and career advancement. Career advancement is seen as an aspect of development that focuses on upward mobility, promotional opportunities, compensation differentials and career aspirations. (see Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988 for a similar distinction between managerial effectiveness [performance] and managerial success
[advancement]) Career advancement references the use of acquired skill sets and being placed in
6
position to demonstrate what Thomas (2001) calls the 3C’s—competence, confidence and credibility. Career development can lead to advancement; however its focus is on the enhancement of job performance. Some argue development goes further than advancement to include the building of knowledge, skills and abilities related to the career area (Schein, 1995). This more specifically involves organizational and professional socialization, maximizing strengths, psychosocial activities, and clarifying and solidifying career desires and preferences.
The opportunity to participate in developmental relationships with pertinent others aids the career development process. Through instrumental and emotional functions, such experiences encourage relevant discourse and feedback (advice, counsel & guidance) that can strengthen and enhance the evaluation of individual career planning efforts (Crosby, 1999). More importantly, we propose, whom one selects or seeks out for a developmental relationship is a critical decision. Again, our objective is to discuss the role race plays in this key process. Race and Career Developmental Relationships
Racial and ethnic minority managers, more specifically African American managers, still comprise a small percentage of leadership positions in organizations (Fernandez, 1991; Grossman 2000; Washington, 1987). African American managers remain employed in majority dominated organizations, with few opportunities to see images of themselves among higher levels to which they aspire (Alderfer, 2000; Davis & Watson, 1982; Dickens & Dickens, 1991). One has to wonder what impact does this lack of same race role models have on the developmental and relational aspects of organizational life for African American managers.
Current research examining the influence of race in career development and its impact on
developmental relationships, center on mentor-protégée exchanges (Cox & Beale, 1997; Ibarra, 1995). Thus, our general understanding of mentoring has been expanded to include the elements
7
of the mentoring process (Crosby, 1999); the dynamics of cross-race developmental relationships (Thomas, 1990, 1993); the effects of mentoring on upward mobility (Nkomo & Cox, 1990); the outcomes of emotional and instrumental support (Ibarra, 1995); power relationships (Ragins, 1997); mentoring effects on protégés (Thomas, 1993); effective mentoring strategies (Conway, 1998) and the marginalization of some mentor/protégé interactions (Murrell & Tangri, 1999).
While the literature regarding race and developmental relationships is growing, little
research characterizes the developmental process for racial and ethnic minorities who are not participants in either a formal or informal mentor/protégé relationship. More importantly, there has been little attention to minority developmental relationships and activities (same or cross race) outside of these mentoring activities. This gap in the research is important in that individual career planning and development encompass a wide range of activities extending beyond the mentor protégé dyad. The mentoring process assumes a definitively and demonstratively articulated interaction. Some career enhancing activities may not be as clearly demonstrated, but can be extremely powerful in the developmental process. These activities include career strategizing, emotional support, professional friendship, and perception clarification (Kram & Isabella, 1985).
In this paper we will explore the usefulness of social comparison and contact theory
frameworks for conceptually analyzing the referent selection process of African American managers who occupy solo or near-solo status in organizational settings. These two established theories might help us gain insights into the plight of African American managers in their effort to evaluate skills and abilities and to make appropriate career influencing comparisons in the work environment. Because it is suggested that African American managers have a preference for selecting same race referents (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992), African American managers may experience difficulties in developmental and career enhancing assessments due to the few
8
individuals who are deemed similar against which comparisons can be made. As a result, African American managers may perceive a lack of support for their career, and indeed experience a lower career growth curve. However, Elvira & Cohen (2001) provide an example of the application of contact theory to organizations. The proximity and availability dimension of contact theory played a prominent role in their findings regarding sex composition and turnover. Contact theory describes frameworks by which successful cross-race referent identification and positive relationships can be constructed. Thus, we propose that African American managers who expand their referent selections to include cross race ―similar others‖ (e.g., on job/KSA based versus race based criteria) may perceive more supportive environment, engage in more effective developmental relationships, and thus experience better career outcomes. Thus we begin our discussion with the following propositions:
Proposition 1: African American managers, especially in solo or near solo settings, who rely predominantly on same-race developmental relationships will experience higher levels of emotional support.
Proposition 2: African American managers, especially in solo or near solo settings, who rely predominantly on same-race developmental relationships will experience lower levels of career development.
In the following discussion, we develop a theoretical model of the factors involved in the examination of social comparison and contact theory as they potentially relate to African American manager referent selection. This model is presented in Figure 1. Both individual and organizational factors are represented. Factors like race, values, and position are drawn from the social comparison and social identity perspectives to show influences on an individual’s choice of whom to model. Individual perceptions of proximity, equal status and voluntary nature of the contact on referent choice as described by the contact theory perspective are incorporated. Recognizing that referent selection does not occur within a vacuum, diversity, corporate culture,
9
and history of diversity supporting climate are identified as three important organizational factors to be considered. Figure 1 outlines how these factors affect the nature of same-race and cross-race choices of developmental relationships; and how these choices impact outcomes of emotional support, career development, and career advancement.
Insert Figure 1 about here SOCIAL COMPARISON THEORY
Social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954, Wheeler, 1991; Wills & Suls, 1991) postulates
that people have a desire to know the accuracy of their opinions; how their performance relates to others; and the level of their abilities compared to others. Individuals make such evaluations against a standard. When objective information to define and evaluate the standard is unavailable, the standard then becomes an assessment of oneself against the successful behaviors or outcomes ascribed to similar others (Miller, Gross & Holtz, 1991). When uncertainty about the standards is experienced, the process relies even more on social construction (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
Central to social comparison theory is the process of referent choice. In making evaluations, the attributes and characteristics of the referent other serve to shape or aid predictions of individual response (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). Research suggests that the more similar the person is to the comparison other the more stable the evaluation (Goodman, 1977). Early discussions defined similarity in terms of congruence of values, beliefs, notions of success and failure, communication styles, skills and abilities. More recent discussions (e.g., Kulik & Ambrose, 1992; Tajfel, 1982; Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1982), however, speak of similarity in terms of race, gender, and age. Also, the availability of information and the relevance of the referent other are critical dimensions in the person’s choice of similar comparison other (Gruder, 1971). Therefore, the degree and nature of available information about the comparison target will
10
influence the feasibility and richness of one’s self-evaluation attempts. We posit here, based on the literature, that race may be the most salient criterion used by African American managers for determination of availability and relevant similarity for comparison purposes.
Given the relative paucity of African American managers in organizations, social comparison theory identifies important limitations for the development of African American managers. The lack of same race managers from which comparison others may be identified or with whom developmental relationships can be established might suggest a marginal situation for the selection of similar comparison others. As a result African American managers will have fewer salient role models (Bandura, 1997) and benefit less from the informal development experiences (e.g. ―emotional support lunch group‖, in-office reality check discussions). Whereas demographic considerations may be more relevant for some comparisons (e.g., diversity climate, advancement potential), we suggest that they may not be beneficial for other comparisons (e.g., task skills and performance). Thus we seek a better understanding of when people do use race as a referent selection criteria versus when they should use race as a criteria. Organizational Context, African Americans And Referent Choice
Social identity theory describes additional ―obstacles‖ regarding the creation of
developmental relationships for minorities. Social identity theory posits that internals and external perspectives of group membership shape responses to others in various environments (Alderfer & Thomas, 1988). Thus, in seeking evaluative comparisons African American managers might be very attentive to the racial identity of possible referents, especially given the potential impact on social identity (Ibarra, 1993). Additionally, social comparison theory states salient particularistic characteristics of the referent are important dimensions for self-evaluation and self-improvement, and social identity is recognized as a powerful individual characteristic (Tajfel ,1982). African
11
Americans who find themselves in work environments with low racial representation might experience difficulty in utilizing the evaluative tenets of either theory. Nkomo (1992) suggests that whites have more freedom within organizations to choose from a wide variety and cross section of possible comparison others. Conversely, the choice options of African Americans are constrained by the organizational context. Thus, operationalization of referent choice processes is likely to differ substantially and may bear heavily on the career development activities of African American managers.
In discussions of black families and upward mobility McAdoo (1997) suggests that while
some blacks have relatively long histories of highly educated and professionally connected family members; this is not the case for the majority of blacks. Many African Americans in managerial positions are first generation college graduates. The privileges, insights and business savvy potentially derived from the familial attachment of highly educated family members are not present in their backgrounds (Cose, 1993). Therefore, reliance on the organizational context might become more critical for African Americans for integrating professional class values.
McAdoo further suggests that the strength of family ties held by African Americans may result in values conflicts that could make it difficult for black managers to ―break away‖ from learned responses and therefore model whites for advancement purposes. Consequently, formal mentoring and informal career development opportunities may be even more instrumentally important for the career success of African Americans.
Considering the cognitive aspects of inter-group relations Tajfel (1969) provides a useful
framework for bridging situations and behaviors in inter-group relations. Tajfel proposed three cognitive processes; categorization, assimilation and search for coherence. In his assimilation discussion he suggests that individuals learn early in life to balance their identification with their
12
own group and the societally accepted norms relating to the group. In order to effectively manage their sometimes conflicting environment, blacks will respond in ways that serve to increase their sense of psychological separateness from whites. This allows blacks to protect their valued racial group identity. Additionally, Hoag and Terry’s (2000) discussion of social identity and social categorization, although not directed specifically towards African Americans but race as a general demographic, may also be instructive to this inquiry. If the organizational environment is characterized by conflict, uncertainty and is emotionally charged, the heightened organizational dissimilarity of solo African American managers may lead them to consider the racial
demographic difference as being more contextually salient (Hogg & Terry, 2000). And yet, this may be the very dynamic which inhibits the selection of appropriate career development activities and referent others that would facilitate career success.
Although referent choice research related to race is meager, we can draw from studies of
other groups with similar experiences as African Americans. For example Ibarra (1995) supports same gender homphily for high potential women career networks. In a study of same-sex comparisons, Zanna, Goethals & Hull (1975) found that same-sex comparisons are preferred even when the potential opposite sex referents were superior. Drawing from Kulik & Ambrose (1992) race, operating like gender may become the more salient characteristic for comparison even when other characteristics are present. However, Phinney (1990), in examining the literature regarding ethnic identity, raises questions about the ability to draw general conclusions across all racial/ethnic groups due to groups uniqueness with respect to experiential context and attitudes that differentiate one group from another. Thus, answers to these questions require empirical investigation. Fortunately, Ensher and Murphy (1997) provide initial support in finding that actual and perceived racial similarity affected the satisfaction with and amount of support received from
13
developmental relationships. Thus, it is proposed here that:
Proposition 3: African American managers will hold race more salient than other referent choice characteristics thereby displaying a preference for choosing same-race others over cross-race others for career development activities.
Racial minorities in general and African Americans in particular continue to experience
prejudice resulting from organizational structures, procedures and processes (Greenhaus & Parasuraman & Wormley, 1990; Grossman, 2000; Igbaria & Wormley, 1992; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995). Thus, interactions of African American managers may be tempered by personal and historical perspectives on race relations that are perceived as being imbedded in the work setting (Dickens & Dickens, 1991) or the organizational culture. These perspectives include
cross-cultural communication barriers and African American’s lack of trust regarding the motives of whites. Such perspectives may be precursors to a work environment where cross race comparisons are not seen as favorable. As such, social identity distinctions based on race may be exacerbated.
According to the original hypotheses of social comparison, self-evaluation ceases when the
comparison other is too divergent on relevant dimensions (Festinger, 1954; Wheeler, 1991). For African Americans, historical factors as well as personal and vicarious experiences of racial discrimination might lead to whites being considered as too dissimilar to serve as comparison others (Tsui, Egan & O'Reilly, 1992). Wentling & Palma-Riva (1998) offer two insights that may be instructive. Their study suggests that \"one of the greatest organizational barriers most likely to inhibit the advancement of diverse groups...is negative attitudes to and discomfort around those who are different\"(p. 239) and that poor career planning due to lack of role models were barriers to the career advancement of minorities and women. These two conditions operate to hinder the evaluative and assessment process (Wentling & Palma-Riva, 1998).
14
Finally, research suggests that individuals who find themselves in desegregated
environments may tend to make more cross-race referent choices than those in segregated conditions (Kulik & Ambrose, 1992). Of consideration here is the perception of what constitutes a desegregated condition. One or a sprinkling of African Americans in positions of authority does not suggest that the organization is desegregated. The presence of a critical mass has been demonstrated as important to the development of minority groups in majority dominated environments (See, for example Kathlene, 1994). The isolation expressed by Davis and Watson (1982) and Collins (1997) indicates that due to their few numbers African American managers might see their circumstances as a segregated one rather than one of inclusion and integration. Thus, one would wonder how readily African American managers would make cross-race comparisons. Given the view of segregated work conditions and the less desirable status of whites as referent choices, the same race criterion may becomes more salient. Yet, the lack of availability of African-Americans within the organization with whom career comparisons might be made coupled with the saliency of race may impede the development of systematic or appropriate career goals. Thus, we propose that:
Proposition 4a: Where the organization has a history and/or culture suggesting racial discrimination or marginalization (such as a minority having solo or near solo status—tokenism) African American managers will regard whites as less relevant and useful referents thus avoiding cross-race choices for development relationships.
Proposition 4b: Where the organization display a lack of diversity, African American managers will regard whites as less relevant and useful referents and therefore decrease the selection of cross-race developmental relationships.
This is represented in Figure 1 as a positive relationship between the
organizational factors box and cross-race referents (and negative to same-race), as a more positive climate (greater diversity, positive history, supportive culture) will lead to more
15
cross-race choices.
CONTACT THEORY
Similar to social comparison theory, contact theory (Allport, 1954) attempts to clarify the
development of one’s opinion and evaluation of others. Specifically, contact theory offers an explanation of racial prejudice and negative attitudes towards blacks by whites and blacks towards whites, and argues that discriminatory perceptions can be reduced through interracial interactions (Pettigrew, 1998; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). This theory speaks to the availability of cross-race information and cross-race proximity as positive forces that might enhance attitudes and beliefs of African Americans and whites about each other (Ellison & Powers, 1994Emerson, Kimbro & Yancey, 2002).
The focus of contact theory is the investigation of the race relations’ phenomena in an
attempt to identify methods by which whites and African Americans could resolve perceptual differences (Jackman & Crane, 1986). Contact theory seems to correspond to the self-evaluation process and the establishment of positive attitudes and behaviors. There appears to be a balance between identification with one’s own group and the pressures of perceptions about other groups (Tajfel, 1969). Earlier studies (e.g. Deutsch & Collins, 1951) primarily concentrated on the attitudes of whites in interracial relationships. The emphasis was the illumination of white prejudice and how contact with blacks might change white attitudes. The intended result was a more positive group perceptions of blacks. The assumption was that the vast divide between blacks and whites was due to a lack of knowledge on the part of whites about black beliefs, values, outlooks and expectations. Ignorance on the part of whites was manifested in stereotypes, hostility and predispositions towards blacks based solely on race (Jackman and Crane, 1986). The implications of this process on the identification and selection of similar comparison others point
16
to the saliency of same race comparisons and support suggestions (e.g. Kulik & Ambrose, 1992) concerning the contextual salience of demographic membership (e.g., race) (Hogg & Terry, 2000) and thus the preference for same race referents in the self evaluation process.
This projection finds some support in the work of Stein (1966). Stein showed that given
information about individual beliefs and values, interactions between groups were based upon the congruence of those beliefs and values rather than upon race or perceived group differences. Other literature suggests that by arranging and bringing whites into contact with blacks through integration (schools, employment, etc.) erroneous perceptions of blacks would be dissolved and hostile dispositions would be softened (Allport, 1954; Brewer & Miller, 1976; Sigelman & Welch, 1993). However, the opportunity for contact that would result in favorable experiences for African American referent choice is affected on two levels. First, in organizations, African American managers are faced with peers and colleagues who are predominately white (Blake, 1999). This limited representation of African Americans may foster feelings of alienation, isolation and abandonment (Dickens & Dickens, 1991; Nkomo, 1995) on the part of African American managers. These feelings intersecting with the typical perceptions of difference between themselves and their white counterparts (Bledsoe, Combs, Sigelman & Welch, 1996; Davis & Watson, 1982; Pettigrew, 1998; Robinson & Preston, 1976) place African American managers at a clear disadvantage
Second, generally whites have few African Americans with whom to interact (Welch, Sigelman, Bledsoe & Combs, 2001). Therefore, their ability to acquire behaviors conducive for favorable contact outcomes will be negligible. With no blacks to interact with or to form friendships with, personal contact will not be established and positive attitudes on the part of whites may not develop (Sigelman and Welch, 1993). If the availability for interaction does not
17
exist then an environment supportive of African American's identification of cross-race referents may be hampered.
In determining relative position, African American managers who experience solo or
near-solo status in organizations are basically left with three alternatives: 1) selection of a comparison other who is divergent on the dimension of race, 2) not select a referent from within the organization at all, or 3) select a same-race referent from another organization. Existing research (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Oldham, Kulik, Ambrose, Stepina, & Brand, 1986) suggests individuals will seek similar referents in other organizations if a valid referent cannot be found in the individual’s own organization. Additionally, Thomas (1990) suggest the preference of African Americans for same race relationships to the point where, if necessary, such relationships may be sought external to the immediate department or organization. Extracting from the research suggesting the preference for same race comparison others it is proposed that:
Proposition 5a: African American managers in solo or near solo status will choose not to select cross-race comparison others from within the organization.
Proposition 5b: African American managers in solo or near solo status will select same race comparisons external to the organization.
CONTACT THEORY, AFRICAN AMERICANS AND REFERENT CHOICE
The above discussion describes obstacles and opportunities regarding the career
development activities of lone or near solo African American managers. The literature suggests that in organizations where there are few African American managers, the black manager high in ethnic pride and group consciousness will experience levels of internal identification to his own group values and norms rather than to those of the dominant group (Nkomo, 1995). It is speculated that when racial group identity is highly salient blacks who are the only one or one of a few are less likely to select referent others from within the organizational structure. Black
18
managers may tend to identify less with the corporate culture, be less inclined to voluntarily interact with whites (Sigelman, Welch, Bledsoe & Combs, 1996) and might be less likely to perceive relevant comparison others. Again identification of similar others and selection of referents might be rendered impossible.
Contact Conditions that Promote Cross-race Referent Choice
The integration of the contact hypothesis into an organizational perspective provides some very interesting discussion when considering the career development of minority managers. Organizations typically do not provide absolute settings where the contact theory conditions for favorable outcomes for whites and African Americans can be produced. However, if positive and effective contacts can be effectively facilitated, then the African American manager's
identification of similar others for cross-race developmental comparisons could be enhanced. Our major proposition is that contact theory provides a vehicle by which individuals can learn to move from race-based (and other demographic) criteria for making referent selections, and move towards a framework of KSA (or other job and organizationally) related criteria. Like the prior work, we see the potential for a similar carry over effect in which task-related referent selections will facilitate positive cross-race social comparisons and career development relationships. Indeed, recent developments have provided initial direction for facilitating cross-race perceptions of ―similar others.‖
While significant attention has been focused on whites’ perceptions of blacks, the impact of interracial contact upon African American attitudes and perceptions of whites has been largely neglected (Ellison & Powers, 1994; Robinson & Preston, 1976). However, more recent investigations of contact theory have attempted to broaden the scope from merely an examination of white reactions to African Americans. Researchers have endeavored to add the dimension of
19
black racial attitudes more prominently into the contact theory arena, resulting in mixed findings regarding change in black racial attitudes and opportunities for contact with whites (Bledsoe, Combs, Sigelman & Welch, 1996; Ellison and Powers, 1994). While the cited studies found the absence of consistent and definitive positive relationships between contact \"per se\of contact have netted positive results for both black and white attitudes. Interracial contact has produced positive outcomes under the following conditions: availability and proximity (Sigelman & Welch, 1993); equal status (Robinson & Preston, 1976); non-coercive or voluntary (Robinson & Preston, 1976) and non-casual (Ellison & Powers, 1994). We will examine each of these conditions with regards to their potential influence on African American’s referent selection, career development and advancement.
Proximity and Availability Conditions. The condition of proximity and availability is a difficult condition to reconcile in the selection of similar comparison others. Jackman and Crane (1986) in their analysis of racial proximity and black/white interactions found that dispositional changes resulting from increased contact between individual whites and blacks do not necessarily generalize to group interactions. The positive effects of friendship and intimate interactions on the affective and social predisposition of whites towards blacks do not eliminate the discriminatory behavior that defines the unequal relationship between blacks and whites that can exist within other contexts.
Research regarding the availability of contact between interracial groups suggests that African Americans have greater opportunities to establish friendships with whites than whites have to establish with African Americans. However, indications by African Americans of close white friendships do not make them more likely to have positive attitudes towards whites as a whole (Sigelman & Welch, 1993). Whites, furthermore, tend not to have close proximity to
20
African Americans (Bledsoe, Combs, Sigelman & Welch, 1996; Welch, Sigelman, Bledsoe & Combs, 2001). However, whites who report having a black friend or who reside in an interracial neighborhood take this information as being confirmatory about African Americans in general. For whites, contact with African Americans leads to an increased appreciation for minority group concerns and a greater orientation to interracial interaction on a social level (Sigelman & Welch, 1993).
This situation implies that some dispositional change might take place on an individual level, but might not necessarily be transferred to the organizational context. African American managers whose organizational representation is low might not reap the benefit of the positive affective impact of contact theory that postulates that increased contact and proximity lead to change in racial attitudes. That is, while specific interpersonal relationships may be enhanced, there is a low likelihood that the change will carry over into institutionalized activities (Miller, 2002) . This suggests that developmental programs that establish and seek to improve cross-race relations may benefit from examination within the context of contact theory. This is not to diminish or call for elimination of existing formal efforts (e.g. formal mentoring programs), but suggests the importance of expanding the opportunities for informal interactions that would increase potential contact benefits. We propose that:
Proposition 6: Opportunities to interact at the individual level, or where personal relationships already exist, will increase the creation of cross-race developmental relationships (availability).
Equal Status Contact Condition. The findings on equal status contact are mixed. Blacks and Whites have different perceptions of what is equal status contact. In general, Whites have accepted African Americans as equals and exhibited more positive racial attitudes when African Americans held a relatively higher socio-economic status (Jackman & Crane, 1986). In the minds
21
of Whites their own race afforded them a status plus in their interactions with African Americans. Subsequently, the definitions of, let alone reactions to presumable equal status contact are potentially racially based (Welch, Sigelman, Bledsoe & Combs, 2001).
In situations where African Americans attempt to culturally assimilate, the pattern of interaction between blacks and whites may inhibit the selection of cross-race comparison others. More specifically, whites tend to perceive and position themselves as superiors in cross-race situations (Bledsoe, Combs, Sigelman & Welch, 1996). This positioning could have a negative affect on black/white workplace interactions. For African Americans with positive self-concepts and strong racial group identity, this action by whites might elicit perceptions of racism and tend to contribute to black managers experiencing a non-affirming, non-supportive work environment (Amir, 1969; Davis & Watson, 1982; Collins, 1997). Within this context it will be difficult to establish true equal status contact situations. And, even if true equal status interactions can be established it is questioned whether such situations alone can be sufficient to permit African Americans to reduce learned fears and to adjust coping attitudes towards whites.
Even so, Whites are more likely to be impacted positively, experience greater perceptual change due to equal status contact than African Americans (Robinson & Preston, 1976). Robinson and Preston's work coupled with that of Ford (1973) explain this reaction through data that shows African Americans to be less prejudiced than whites to begin with. However, if African Americans perceive Whites as condescending, unfair and untrustworthy mere equal status contact will not be effective. Thus, perceptions and interaction pattern difference between African Americans and Whites may impede African American manager’s selection of whites as similar comparison targets. These findings may provide insights into the difficulties sometimes experienced in formalized and structured cross-race mentor and developmental relationships cited
22
in relevant literature (Blake, 1999; Ensher & Murphy, 1997; Thomas, 1990, 2001). In particular, both parties may not perceive status similarly thus further compounding perceptions of
marginalization (Miller 2002). However, the same challenge may not be as prevalent in informal social comparison type activities since the model need not be aware they are serving as a referent. Thus, the issue here may be more one of how to encourage recognition of broader modeling opportunities presented by potential cross-race referents while diminishing the influence of perceived relative status.
Proposition 7a: Where organizations promote and make aware true equal status conditions between African Americans and whites, race will become less salient and cross-race referent selection will increase.
Proposition 7b: Activities that make KSA related similarities more salient than race will increase the likelihood of cross race referent selection.
Voluntary, Non-coercive and Non-casual Contact Conditions. Situations of voluntary interaction seem to produce a higher degree of favorability of contact (Pettigrew, 1998; Robinson & Preston, 1976). Non-coercive contact allows for more open expression of ideas and feelings (Sigelman & Welch, 1993). There is a greater willingness to explore one’s own prejudice and bias with an eye towards evaluation and change (Emerson, Kimbro & Yancey, 2002). Forced interactions immediately raise suspicions regarding motives and repercussions and can result in shutting down open and honest communication. This requirement for voluntary interaction suggests a potential superiority for benefit of informal social comparative processes in establishing cross race developmental relationships. Social comparison and its referent selection component are voluntary while other types of developmental processes are not always voluntary.
Contacts of a casual nature have not been found to offer strong influences for changes in attitudes. To assist in the reduction of prejudice, contacts must have an intimate quality (Powers &
23
Ellison, 1995; Robinson & Preston, 1976). Problems of racial conflict cannot be fully addressed until the emotional affective side of individuals is engaged. Rational thoughts are good for discussion, but until individuals experience the emotional ramifications of prejudice, change is typically negligible (Allport, 1954). This suggests that reward saliency and task interdependence are needed to foster intimacy of contact and emotional engagement. African Americans reporting at least one close white friend are approximately three times more likely to have positive beliefs that whites desire improved conditions for African Americans (Ellison & Powers, 1994). And, persons with prior contact seem to participate in more diverse social groups and friendship networks (Emerson, Kimbro & Yancey, 2002). The challenge here becomes one of how to balance the need for voluntary contact with the requirement that the ensuing contact be interdependent and salient—the very elements likely to produce voluntary avoidance.
Proposition 8: When social comparisons are voluntary, more cross race referent selection will be made for comparison and modeling in developmental activities.
Proposition 9: Cross-race referents selection will increase where non-casual cross-race relationships are established.
In summary, unless the contact situation is conducive to true equal status interactions, provides intimacy of interaction, affords adequate availability and proximity, and engages persons voluntarily, positive attitudinal change and reduced prejudicial behavior are less likely to occur. These nuances of cross-racial contact are instructive for examining the conditions that might impact referent choice on the part of African Americans and thereby create opportunities to engage in productive cross-race developmental activities.
The integration of contact theory in the discussion of referent choice behavior might shed
light on an important career development dilemma for African American managers in majority white work environments. Contact theory might assist in creating an organizational environment
24
in which the perceptions of blacks held by whites and the perceptions of whites held by blacks could be adjusted to promote a career-enhancing environment less affected by cross-race differences. If the conditions for positive results from contact situations discussed above are operative, the conditions for positive outcomes under contact theory might also facilitate referent choice for African American managers in majority white organizations.
CONCLUSIONS, ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS
The career development process involves the evaluation and assessment of individual
attributes that influence career success (Schein, 1995). Participation in mentoring relationships is demonstrated as a powerful mechanism for career advancement. Not all organizational members are privileged to be selected or find opportunity for a mentor/protégé dyad that aids the self-evaluation process. However, mentoring is but one of many developmental activities or relationships that facilitate career success. For racial and ethnic minorities, the discussion here may show the intersection of race and access to less formal evaluative processes are of particular interest.
Twenty-first century organizations have various reasons to be concerned about career development processes of African American managers in particular and racial and ethnic minority managers in general. The keen competition for talent to allow organizations to operate in increasingly diverse and global markets makes the development of workers an imperative for organizational success and survival. Upward mobility and representational situations for African Americans available for management and professional level positions appear to indicate a re-examination of traditional career development theories and their application to the advancement of African American managers.
Social comparison theory has many utilities in the general discussion of how individuals
25
tend to seek information for self-evaluation and career development. The literature supports the proposition that availability of similar others is a critical element in selecting comparison others. There is strong indication that race could be a salient factor in determining similarity for comparison purposes, thus potentially limiting career development. Studies of social comparison theory have not dealt with African Americans in general, nor African American managers specifically. Empirical research on how black managers might go about identifying similar others and selecting referents is virtually non-existent. Of particular concern for practical applications is how to foster a workplace climate that facilitates legitimate opportunities for appropriate comparisons on organization-related criteria that provides effective career development and advancement preparation for solo or near solo African American managers. This would involve fostering of understanding on the part of whites of the dynamics of cross race interactions; and for African Americans enhanced recognition of possible white referents.
This paper also suggests that contact theory is instructive to our speculations about African American managers and referent choice. Contact theory assumes that the perceptions of and mistreatment of others are due to ignorance as a function of contextual factors of association. Once the ignorance is illuminated and negative perceptions are reduced black/white developmental relationships can become more efficacious. In terms of referent selection, the results may be ability and willingness of African Americans in solo or near solo status to identify legitimate cross race referent models. However, research suggests that institutionalized racial interactive processes can impede desired outcomes. Thus, in terms of referent choice it would appear that the mere contact situation itself, without specialized attention to its characteristics or history, would not be sufficient to remove the desire for same race comparison others. However, there is evidence that contact theory continues to merit examination in the study of cross-race
26
interactions.
The perceived availability of salient referents is critical to the initiation of developmental
relationships that help to shape and advance careers. Mentor-protégé dyads elude many African Americans managers in that black managers continue to experience difficulty in finding mentors and gaining access to informal work networks that can positively influence career development (Grossman, 2000). This situation coupled with the low representation of African Americans in upper level management and executive positions greatly affects the referent choice decision of black managers. Consequently, the career development processes, in terms of referent selection and the corresponding self-evaluation it influences, are impaired and do not mirror those available to majority participants within the organizational context.
This paper suggests a future area of study that looks closely at the referent selection
processes for African Americans and particularly African American managers who are one or one of a few in their organizations. Related research questions might include: Will black managers in organizations without same race members experience difficulty as they engage in the social comparison process in organizational settings? Would the lack of same race members negatively impact perceptions of the existence of similar others in the organizational context and how does this impact referent choice? How might cross-race interactions outside of the workplace influence the establishment of workplace developmental relationships? And finally, how readily do blacks as the only or as one of few minorities in the work setting make cross-race selections of comparison others? An examination of African American managerial perceptions and experiences under the rudiments of an experimental design pulling from both social comparison and contact theory hypotheses might help to provide answer to these questions.
27
REFERENCES Alderfer, C. (2000). National culture and the new corporate language for race relations. In R. T.
Carter (Ed). Addressing cultural issues in organizations beyond the corporate context (pp. 19-33). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Alderfer, C. & Thomas, D. A. (1988). The Significance of Race and Ethnicity for Understanding
Organizational Behavior. In G. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds) International Review Of Industrial And Organizational Psychology (pp. 1-42). New York: John Wiley.
Allport, Gordon. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Addison Wesley.
Amir, Y. (1969). \"Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations.\" Psychological Bulletin, 71, 319-342.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The exercise of control. NY: Freeman.
Blake, S. 1999. At the crossroads of race and gender: Lessons from the mentoring experiences of professional black women. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby & R. J. Ely (Eds). Mentoring
dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 83-104). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bledsoe, T., Combs, M.W., Sigelman, L. & Welch, S. (1996). Trends in black and white racial
attitudes in Detroit. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 508-528.
Brewer, M. B. & Miller. N. (1984). Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation.
San Francisco: Academic Press.
Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson, R. (1996). Career pandemonium:
Realigning organizations and individuals. The Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 52-66.
Collins, Sharon M. (1997). The Black Corporate Executives: The making and breaking of a black
middle class. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Conway, C. (1998). Strategies for mentoring: A blueprint for successful organizational
development. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Cose, E. (1993). The rage of a privileged class. New York: Harper Collins.
Cox, T. & Beale, R. L. (1997). Developing competency to manage diversity. San Francisco, CA:
Berret-Koehler Publishers.
Cox, T. & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45-56.
28
Cox, T. & Nkomo, S. (1993). Race and ethnicity. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.). Handbook of
Organizational Behavior ( pp.205-229). Marcel Dekker.
Crosby, Faye J. (1999). The developing literature on developmental relationships. In A.J. Murrell,
F.J. Crosby & R.J. Ely (Eds) Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships with multicultural organizations (pp. 3-20). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Davis, G. & Watson, G. (1982). Black life in corporate america. New York: Anchor Press.
Deutsch, M. & Collins, M. (1951). Interracial Housing. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Dickens, F. & Dickens J.B. (1991). The black manager making it in the corporate world. NY: AMACOM.
Ellison, C. & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitides among black
americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 385-399.
Elvira, M. M. & Cohen, L. E. (2001). Location matters: A cross-level analysis of the effects of
organizational sex composition and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 591-605.
Emerson, M. O., Kimbro, R. T., & Yancey, G. (2002). Contact theory extended: The effects of
prior racial contact on current social ties. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3),745-761.
Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender perceived similarity, and contact on
mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behaviors, 50, 460-481.
Fernandez, J. P. (1991). Managing a diverse work force. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1, 117-140.
Ford, W. S. ( 1973). Interracual public housing in a border city: Another look at the contact
hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1426-1447.
Goodman, Paul S. (1977). Social comparison processes in organizations. In B. Staw and J.
Salancik (Eds) New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 97-132). Chicago: St. Clair Press.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S. & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86.
Grossman, R. J. (2000). Race in the workplace. HR Magazine. March, 41-45.
29
Gruder, Charles L. (1971). Determinants of social comparison choices. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 7, 473-489.
Hackett, G. & Betz, N.E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 326-339.
Hall, Douglas T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing
Company, Inc.
Hall, Douglas T. (1996). The career is dead-long live the career. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work
environment (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual
framework. Academy of Management Review, 16, 56-87.
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673-703.
Igbaria, M. & Wormley, W. M. (1992). Organizational experiences and career success of MIS
professionals and managers: An examination of race differences. MIS Quarterly, December, 507-528.
Jackman, M.R. & Crane, M. (1986). \"Some of my best friends are black..\": Interracial friendship
and white’s racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459-486.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women in the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kathlene, L. (1994). Power and influence in state legislative policymaking: The interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. American Political Science Review
September, 560-576.
Konrad, A. M. & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 787-820.
Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 608-625.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman.
Kram, K. E. & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in
30
career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 110-132.
Krumboltz, J. D. (1979). A social learning theory of career decision making. In A. M. Mitchell, G. B. Jones & J. D. Krumboltz (Eds), Social Learning Theory and Career Decision Making (pp. 19-49). Cranston, RI: Carrol Press.
Kulik, C. & Ambrose, M. L. (1992): Personal and situational determinants of referent choice.
Academy of Management Review, 17, 212-237.
Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R., & Rosenkrantz, S. (1988). Real managers. Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.
McAdoo, H. P. (1997). Upward mobility across generations of african american families. In
Harriette J. McAdoo, (Ed) Black Families (pp 139-162). Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.
Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of Social Issues,
58(2), 387-410.
Miller, N., Gross, S. & Holtz, R. (1991). Social projection and attitudinal certainty. In J. Suls & T.
Wills (Eds). Social comparison. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Murrell, A. J., Crosby F .J., & Ely, R. J. (1999). Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental
relationships within multicultural organizations. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
Murrell, A.J., & Tangri, S.S. (1999). Mentoring at the margins. In A.J. Murrell, F.J. Crosby & R.J.
Ely (Eds) Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 211-224). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Nkomo, Stella. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting \"race in organizations\". Academy of Management Review, 17, 487-513.
Nkomo, S. M. (1995). Identities and the complexity of diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N.
Ruderman (Eds) Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace. American Psychological Association: Washington DC.
Nkomo, S. M. & Cox, T. Jr. (1990). Factor affecting the upward mobility of black managers in private sector organizations. The Review of Black Political Economy, 10, 39-57.
Oldham, G.R., Kulik, C.T., Ambrose, M.L., Stepina, L.P. & Brand, J.F.1986. Relations between job facet comparisons and employee relations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 28037
Pettigrew, Thomas. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: A review of research.
31
Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499-514.
Ragins, B. R.(1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 482-521.
Roberson, L. & Block, C. J. (2001). Racioethnicity and job performance: A review and critique of
theoretical perspectives on the causes of group differences. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 247-325.
Robinson, D. F., & Miner, A. S. (1996). Career change as organizations learn. In M.B. Arthur &
D.M. Rousseau (Eds). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 76-89). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, J. W. & Preston, J. D. (1976). Equal-Status contact and modification of racial prejudice:
A reexamination of the contact hypothesis. Social Forces, 54, 900-924.
Roe, A. & Lunneberg, P. (1990). Personality development and career choice. In D. Brown, L.
Brooks & Associate (Eds) Career Choice and Development (pp. 68-101). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Salancik, G. R. & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and
task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Schein, E. H. (1995). Career survival: Strategic job and role planning. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Co.
Sigelman, L. & Welch, S. (1993). The contact hypothesis revisited: Black-White interaction and
positive racial attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 781-795.
Sigelman, L., Welch, S. Bledsoe, T. & Combs, M.W. (1996). Making contact: Black-White social
interaction in an urban setting. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 1306-1332.
Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 16, 282-298.
Tajfel, Henri. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79-87.
Tajfel, Henri. (1982). (Ed). Social identity and intergroup relations. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Thomas, D. A. (1990). The impact of race on manager’s experiences of developmental
relationships (mentoring and sponsorship): An intra organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 479-492.
32
Thomas, D. A. (1993). Racial dynamics in cross-race developmental relationships. Administrative
Science Quarterly 38, 169-194.
Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business
Review, 79(4), 98-112.
Thomas, D. A. & Alderfer, C. (1989). The influence of race on career dynamics theory and
research on minority career experiences. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds), Handbook of career theory (pp.133-158). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
Tiedeman, D. V. & O’Hara, R. P. (1963). Career development: Choice and adjustment. New
York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A. III. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
Tsui, A. S. & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations current research
and future directions. New York: Lexington Books.
Washington, C. W. (1987). Acculturation of minorities in large organizations. The Bureaucrat, Spring, 29-34..
Welch, S., Sigelman, L., Bledsoe, T., & Combs, M. (2001). Race & place: Race relations in an
american city. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Wentling, R. M. & Palma-Riva, N. (1998). Current status and trends of diversity initiatives in
the workplace. Human Resources Development Quarterly 9(3), 235-253.
Wheeler, L. (1991). A brief history of social comparison theory. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds) Social Comparison (pp. 3-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wills, T. A. & J. Suls. (1991). Neo-social comparison theory and beyond. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds) Social Comparison (pp. 395-412). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zanna, M P., Goethals, G. R., & Hill, J. F. (1975). Evaluating a sex-related ability: Social
comparison with similar others and standard setters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 86-93.
33 FIGURE 1
Influences on and Impacts of Referent Choice for Solo or near Solo Minority Managers
Availability & Relevance Individual Factors SC/SIT Race Values Position Contact Developmental Relationship Outcomes Props. 3 & 5b + + Same race referent Emotional Support Prop. 1 Prop. 5a - Props. 6-9 - Proximity & Availability Equal Status Voluntary - + Prop. 2 Prop. 4 Cross race referent Career development + Organizational Factors Diversity Culture History + + Career advancement
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容