7. Test candidates’ expertise on real problems. Netflix’s Director of Algorithms asks candidates, “You have this data that comes from our users. How can you use it to solve this particular problem?”
Questions
1-18. Let’s say you work in a metropolitan city for a large department store chain and your manager puts you in charge of a team to find out whether keep- ing the store open an hour longer each day would
increase profits. What data might be available to your decision-making process? What data would be important to your decision?
1-19. What kinds of data might we want in OB applications?
1-20. As Braverman notes, one problem with big data is making sense of the information. How might a better understanding of psychology help you sift through all this data?
Sources: M. Taes, “If I Could Have More Data…,” The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2014, R5;
S. Thurm, “It’s a Whole New Data Game,” The Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2015, R6; and J. Willhite, “Getting Started in ‘Big Data’,” The Wall Street Journal, February 4, 2014, B7.
MyManagementLab
Go to mymanagementlab.com for the following Assisted-graded writing questions:
1-21. Now that you’ve read the chapter and Case Incident 1, if you were an Apple manager whose employees were losing their jobs to overseas workers, what would you advise your teams to do in order to find re-employment in their professions? What types of training—basic, technical, interpersonal, problem-solving—would you recommend?
1-22. In relation to Case Incident 2, why do you think it is important to have educated, experienced statisticians on any team that is using big data for decision making? What might be the consequences of hiring someone with less experience?
1-23. MyManagementLab Only – comprehensive writing assignment for this chapter.
enDnOtes
1“Survey: Few CFOs Plan to Invest in Interper- sonal Skills Development for Their Teams,”
Accountemps press release, June 19, 2013, http://accountemps.rhi.mediaroom.com/
2013-06-19-Survey-Few-CFOs-Plan-to-Invest-in- Interpersonal-Skills-Development-for-Their- Teams.
2K. Dill, “The 20 Best Places to Work in 2015,”
Forbes, December 10, 2014, http://www.forbes .com/sites/kathryndill/2014/12/10/the-best- places-to-work-in-2015/.
3I. S. Fulmer, B. Gerhart, and K. S. Scott, “Are the 100 Best Better? An Empirical Investiga- tion of the Relationship between Being a
‘Great Place to Work’ and Firm Performance,”
Personnel Psychology, Winter 2003, 965–93.
4S. E. Humphrey, J. D. Nahrgang, and F. P.
Morgeson, “Integrating Motivational, Social, and Contextual Work Design Features: A Meta-Analytic Summary and Theoretical Extension of the Work Design Literature,”
Journal of Applied Psychology 92, no. 5 (2007):
1332–56.
5E. R. Burris, “The Risks and Rewards of Speaking Up: Managerial Responses to Em- ployee Voice,” Academy of Management Journal 55, no. 4 (2012): 851–75.
6T. L. Miller, C. L. Wesley II, and D. E.
Williams, “Educating the Minds of Caring Hearts: Comparing the Views of Practitioners and Educators on the Importance of Social Entrepreneurship Competencies,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 2, no. 3 (2012): 349–70.
7H. Aguinis and A. Glavas, “What We Don’t Know about Corporate Social Responsibility:
A Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Management, July 2012, 932–68.
8D. Meinert, “Background on Bosses,” HR Magazine, August 2014, 29.
9Ibid.
10Ibid.
11A. I. Kraut, P. R. Pedigo, D. D. McKenna, and M. D. Dunnette, “The Role of the Man- ager: What’s Really Important in Different Management Jobs,” Academy of Management Executive 19, no. 4 (2005): 122–29.
12C. Matheson, “Understanding the Policy Process: The Work of Henry Mintzberg,”
Public Administration Review 69 (2009):
1148–61; S. Segal, “A Heideggerian Perspec- tive on the Relationship between Mintzberg’s Distinction between Engaged and Discon- nected Management: The Role of Uncer- tainty in Management,” Journal of Business Ethics 103 (2011): 469–83; H. Mintzberg, “Productivity is Killing American Enter- prise,” Harvard Business Review 85 (2007): 25;
and H. Mintzberg, “Rebuilding Companies as Communities,” Harvard Business Review 87 (2009): 140–43.
13Ibid.
14D. Bartram, “The Great Eight Compe- tencies: A Criterion-Centric Approach to
Validation,” Journal of Applied Psychology 90, no.
6 (2005): 1185–1203; and S. E. Scullen, M. K.
Mount, and T. A. Judge, “Evidence of the Construct Validity of Developmental Ratings of Managerial Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology 88, no. 1 (2003): 50–66.
15For the original study, see F. Luthans, “Suc- cessful vs. Effective Real Managers,” Academy of Management Executive, May 1988, 127–32.
A great deal of research has been built by Fred Luthans and others from this study.
See, for example, F. Shipper and J. Davy,
“A Model and Investigation of Managerial Skills, Employees’ Attitudes, and Managerial Performance,” Leadership Quarterly 13 (2002):
95–120.
16P. Wu, M. Foo, and D. B. Turban, “The Role of Personality in Relationship Closeness, Developer Assistance, and Career Success,”
Journal of Vocational Behavior 73, no. 3 (2008):
440–48; and A. M. Konrad, R. Kashlak, I. Yo- shioka, R. Waryszak, and N. Toren, “What Do Managers Like to Do? A Five-Country Study,”
Group & Organization Management, December 2001, 401–33.
17L. Dragoni, H. Park, J. Soltis, and S. Forte- Trammell, “Show and Tell: How Supervisors Facilitate Leader Development Among Tran- sitioning Leaders,” Journal of Applied Psychology 99, no. 1 (2014): 66-86.
18For a review of what one researcher believes should be included in organizational behav- ior, based on survey data, see J. B. Miner,
“The Rated Importance, Scientific Validity, and Practical Usefulness of Organizational Behavior Theories: A Quantitative Review,”
Academy of Management Learning & Education, September 2003, 250–68.
19D. M. Rousseau, The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management (Oxford Library of Psychology) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014).
20J. Surowiecki, “The Fatal-Flaw Myth,” The New Yorker, July 31, 2006, 25.
21Z. Karabell, “Everyone Has a Data Point,”
The Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2014, A11.
22E. Morozov, “Every Little Byte Counts,” The New York Times Book Review, May 18, 2014, 23.
23M. Taves, “If I Could Have More Data…,”
The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2014, R5.
24E. Gamerman, “When the Art is Watching You,” The Wall Street Journal, December 12, 2014, D1–D2.
25V. Monga, “What Is All That Data Worth?”
The Wall Street Journal, October 13, 2014, B3, B6.26E. Dwoskin and Y. Koh, “Twitter Pushes Deeper into Data,” The Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2014, B2.
27“What Will Transform the Way People Work?” HR Magazine, December 2014, 16.
28N. Bloom, R. Sadun, and J. Van Reenan,
“How Three Essential Practices Can Address Even the Most Complex Global Practices,”
Harvard Business Review, November 2012, 77–82.
29C. Cole, “Changing Neurobiology with Be- havior,” Association for Psychological Science Observer 27, no. 6 (2014): 29–32.
30E. Dwoskin, “Big Data Knows When You Turn off the Lights,” The Wall Street Journal, October 21, 2014, B1–B2.
31S. Lohr, “Unblinking Eyes Track Employees,” The New York Times, June 22, 2014, 1, 15.
32D. B. Bhave, “The Invisible Eye? Electronic Performance Monitoring and Employee Job Performance,” Personnel Psychology 67 (2003):
605–35.
33R. Karlgaard, “Danger Lurking: Taylor’s Ghost,” Forbes, May 26, 2014, 34.
34E. Dwoskin, “Big Data Knows When You Turn off the Lights.”
35W. Isaacson, “Of Man and Machine,” The Wall Street Journal, September 27–28, 2015, C1–C2.
36V. Morozov, “Every Little Byte Counts.”
37J. Farrar, “U.S. Minimum Wage—Compare It to the Rest of the World,” (January 29, 2014), Worldcrunch, http://www.worldcrunch .com/eyes-on-the-u.s./u.s.-minimum-wage- compare-it-to-the-rest-of-world/state-of- the-union-minimum-wage-workers-labor/
c5s14866/#.VQBdd_nF9uk, accessed March 11, 2015.
38C. Karmin and S. Chaturvedi, “Grosvenor House Is Seized,” The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2015, C8.
39V. McGrane, “The Downside of Lower Unemployment,” The Wall Street Journal, February 3, 2014, A2.
40A. Lowrey, “Long Out of Work, and Running Out of Options,” The New York Times, April 4, 2014, B1, B4.
41L. Weber and R. E. Silverman, “On-Demand Workers: ‘We Are Not Robots,’” The Wall Street Journal, January 28, 2015, B1, B7.
42C. Porter and M. Korn, “Can This Online Course Get Me a Job?” The Wall Street Journal, March 4, 2014, B7.
43D. Belkin and M. Peters, “For New Grads, Path to a Career is Bumpy,” The Wall Street Journal, May 24–25, 2014, A5.
44N. Kitsantonis, “A Hands-On Approach to the Greek Economy,” The New York Times, March 25, 2014, B3.
45G. Naik, “Global Life Expectancy Rises by Six Years,” The Wall Street Journal, December 18, 2014, A10.
46I. O. Karpen, “Service-Dominant Orienta- tion: Measurement and Impact on Perfor- mance Outcomes,” Journal of Retailing 91, no.
1 (2015): 89–108.
47J. Greenwald, “Tips for Dealing with Employees Whose Social Media Posts Reflect Badly on Your Company,” Forbes, March 6, 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/
entrepreneursorganization/2015/03/06/
tips-for-dealing-with-employees-whose-social- media-posts-reflect-badly-on-your-company/.
48E. Jaffe, “Using Technology to Scale the Scientific Mountain,” Association for Psy- chological Science Observer 27, no. 6 (2014):
17–19.
49N. Fallon, “No Face Time? No Problem:
How to Keep Virtual Workers Engaged,”
Business News Daily, October 2, 2014, http://
www.businessnewsdaily.com/7228-engaging- remote-employees.html.
50E. J. Hirst, “Burnout on the Rise,” Chicago Tribune, October 19, 2012, http://articles .chicagotribune.com/2012-10-29/business/
ct-biz-1029-employee-burnout-20121029_1_
employee-burnout-herbert-freudenberger- employee-stress.
51S. Shellenbarger, “Single and off the Fast Track,” The Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2012, D1, D3.
52M. Mithel, “What Women Want,” Business Today, March 8, 2013, http://businesstoday .intoday.in/story/careers-work-life-balance- women/1/193135.html.
53F. Luthans and C. M. Youssef, “Emerging Positive Organizational Behavior,” Journal of Management, June 2007, 321–49; C. M.
Youssef and F. Luthans, “Positive Organi- zational Behavior in the Workplace: The Impact of Hope, Optimism, and Resilience,”
Journal of Management 33, no. 5 (2007):
774–800; and J. E. Dutton and S. Sonen- shein, “Positive Organizational Scholarship,”
in C. Cooper and J. Barling (eds.), Encyclo-
pedia of Positive Psychology (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007).
54L. M. Roberts, G. Spreitzer, J. Dutton, R.
Quinn, E. Heaphy, and B. Barker, “How to Play to Your Strengths,” Harvard Business Re- view, January 2005, 1–6; and L. M. Roberts, J.
E. Dutton, G. M. Spreitzer, E. D. Heaphy, and R. E. Quinn, “Composing the Reflected Best Self-Portrait: Becoming Extraordinary in Work Organizations,” Academy of Management Review 30, no. 4 (2005): 712–36.
55“Five Jobs That Won’t Exist in 10 Years…
And One New Title You’ll Start to See,” HR Magazine, February 2014, 16.
56Editorial Board, “NCAA Should Punish the University of North Carolina for Cheating Scandal,” Chicago Tribune, November 7, 2014, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/
opinion/editorials/ct-north-carolina-sports- scandal-edit-1108-20141107-story.html, accessed March 11, 2015.
57W. Bailey and A. Spicer, “When Does National Identity Matter? Convergence and Divergence in International Business Eth- ics,” Academy of Management Journal 50, no. 6 (2007): 1462–80; and A. B. Oumlil and J. L.
Balloun, “Ethical Decision-Making Differences between American and Moroccan Manag- ers,” Journal of Business Ethics 84, no. 4 (2009):
457–78.
58D. M. Mayer, M. Kuenzi, R. Greenbaum, M. Bardes, and R. Salvador, “How Low Does Ethical Leadership Flow? Test of a Trickle-Down Model,” Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 108, no. 1 (2009): 1–13; and A.
Ardichvili, J. A. Mitchell, and D. Jondle, “Char- acteristics of Ethical Business Cultures,” Journal of Business Ethics 85, no. 4 (2009): 445–51.
59D. Meinert, “Managers’ Influence,” HR Maga- zine, April 2014, 25.
60“Unplanned Absence Costs Organizations 8.7 Percent of Payroll, Mercer/Kronos Study”
(June 28, 2010), www.mercer.com/press- releases/1383785.
61W. Hoge, “Sweden’s Cradle-to-Grave Welfare Starts to Get Ill,” International Herald Tribune, September 25, 2002, 8.
62T.-Y. Park and J. D. Shaw, “Turnover Rates and Organizational Performance: A Meta-Analysis,”
Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (2013): 268–309.
63“Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey/2014 Revised,” www.bls.gov, http://
www.bls.gov/jlt/revisiontables.htm, accessed March 13, 2015.
64N. Shah, “Good Sign for Jobs: Less Caution, More Quitting,” The Wall Street Journal, Febru- ary 10, 2014, A2.
65M. Casey-Campbell and M. L. Martens,
“Sticking It All Together: A Critical Assess- ment of the Group Cohesion-Performance Literature,” International Journal of Management Reviews 11 (2008): 223–46.
66X. Zhao and A. S. Mattila, “Examining the Spillover Effect of Frontline Employees’
Work-Family Conflict on Their Affective Work Attitudes and Customer Satisfaction,”
International Journal of Hospitality Manage- ment, June 2013, 310–15.
Source: John Schultz/Quad-City Times/ZUMAPRESS/Alamy
Diversity
in Organizations
2
78
Exploiting a loopholE
W
elcome to Atalissa, Iowa, a quintessential small town of 311 people—and a nasty secret. If you’ve seen this picture before, you are probably aware that what happened in this converted schoolhouse is the basis of the largest U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) award in history.
The tale of the Atalissa bunkhouse begins in 1974, when Henry’s Turkey Service of Texas rented the abandoned building near its Iowa processing plant to house its workers, a group of young, mentally disabled men taken from state institutions.
At the time, the unregulated work-to-live arrangement that pro- vided the men with an average of only $65 per month for full- time employment was completely legal. Why? A section of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 allowed certified for-profit employers to pay less than minimum wage to workers with disabilities. Furthermore, the company legally deducted mon- ey from the men’s meager earnings and their Social Security checks to cover room, board, and “extras” like medical care, since the workers didn’t have health insurance or Medicaid.
At the plant, the men were assigned the worst jobs of manually eviscerat- ing 20,000 turkeys per day. The work was back-breaking and “too bloody,”
said Billy Penner, who awoke at 3 a.m. for decades to work alongside the hundreds of men who came and went from the bunkhouse.
Conditions in the bunkhouse were horrible, with no heat, covered win- dows and padlocked doors, cockroaches, and filth. Two “caretakers” doled
2-1
Describe the two major forms of workplace diversity.2-2
Demonstrate how workplace discrimination undermines organizational effectiveness.2-3
Describe how the key biographical characteristics are relevant to OB.2-4
Explain how other differentiating characteristics factor into OB.2-5
Demonstrate the relevance of intellectual and physical abilities to OB.2-6
Describe how organizations manage diversity effectively.MyManagement
MyManagement
If your professor has chosen to assign this, go to the Assignments section of mymanagementlab.com to complete the chapter warm up.After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
out punishments that included standing with hands on a pole for hours and walking in circles while carrying heavy weights. Men were sometimes hand- cuffed to their beds overnight, denied bathroom breaks, kicked in the groin, and verbally abused. Men who ran away were caught and brought back.
Through the years, allegations about Henry’s Turkey Service made their way into the legal system. They cited the poor treatment of workers; violation of the federal Migrant and Seasonal Worker Protection Act; harsh labor that killed an elderly, disabled worker; pay inequity; deplorable conditions; and fire hazards.
However, the Iowa Department of Human Services, the U.S. Department of Labor, Iowa Workforce Development, and the Department of Inspections and Appeals dismissed most of the allegations without investigation. None of the departments ever questioned whether the indentured servitude was legal.
Finally, in 2009, a worker’s sister alerted a newspaper reporter, and in- vestigators rescued the 21 remaining men. A number of lawsuits followed, resulting in the largest verdict ever obtained by the EEOC and the largest verdict relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act, over $240 million (the business was worth only $4 million, though). No amount of money can restore the men to health or well-being. EEOC attorney Robert Canino referenced their “broken hearts, broken spirits, shattered dreams and, ulti- mately, their broken lives.”
EEOC chairwoman Jacqueline Berrien said, “The verdict sends an im- portant message that the conduct that occurred here is intolerable in this nation.” But does it? After all, the people of Atalissa knew the men well. The workers attended Atalissa Zion Lutheran Church, sang in the choir, joined in town celebrations, and spent their money at the mini mart. Atalissa owned the bunkhouse Henry’s Turkey rented; the men were known by the mayor and the sheriff. And the town claimed to love them. Carol O’Neill of the Atal- issa Betterment Committee said, “Even though they were adult men, they were boys to us. They were like—our boys.” Sadly, these men were not ex- tended protection, and their rights were repeatedly ignored and dismissed.
The Atalissa scandal serves as a reminder that true fairness is not just a warm feeling toward the disabled, but the ethical responsibility of us all.
Sources: Atalissa Population, https://suburbanstats.org/population/iowa/how-many-people- live-in-atalissa, accessed March 24, 2015; K. Allemeier, “How 21 Men Lived in Atalissa Bunkhouse,” The WCF Courier (February 12, 2009), http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/how- men-lived-in-atalissa-bunkhouse/article_0d1867dc-c722-54f4-97e3-8b0d5e73e587.html;
K. Bracken, “The ‘Boys’ in the Bunkhouse,” The New York Times (March 9, 2014), http://
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/09/us/the-boys-in-the-bunkhouse.html; C. Kauff- man, “Jury: $240 Million for Atalissa Workers,” Des Moines Register (May 1, 2013), http://
archive.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130501/NEWS/305010095/Jury-240-million- Atalissa-workers; and C. Kauffman, “Witness: Disabled Workers Physically Abused,” Des Moines Register (April 25, 2013), http://archive.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130425/
NEWS/304240092/Witness-Disabled-workers-physically-abused.
T
he exploitation of the disabled men in the opening story is a tragic ex- ample of mistreating people for the ways in which they are different. Not only were the men abused by their supposed caretakers, but they also suffered workplace discrimination that kept them in debilitating roles without regard to their abilities and needs. In this chapter, we look at how organizations should work to maximize the potential contributions of a diverse workforce. Because each of us is different from others in myriad ways, we consider diversity in many different forms. We also show how individual differences in abilities affect em- ployee behavior and effectiveness in organizations.Diversity
We are, each of us, unique. This is obvious enough, but managers sometimes forget they need to recognize and capitalize on individual differences to get the most from their employees. In this chapter, we’ll learn how individual charac- teristics like age, gender, race, ethnicity, and abilities can influence employee performance. We’ll also see how managers can develop awareness about these characteristics and manage a diverse workforce effectively. But first, let’s take an overview perspective of the changing workforce.
Demographic Characteristics
The predominantly white, male managerial workforce of the past has given way to a gender-balanced, multiethnic workforce. For instance, in 1950 only 29.6 percent of the U.S. workforce was female,1 but by 2014, women comprised 47 percent.2 Both in the United States and internationally, women today are much more likely than before to be employed full time, have an advanced education, and earn wages comparable to those of men (see the OB Poll).3 In addition, the earnings gap between whites and other racial and ethnic groups in the United States has decreased significantly, partially due to the rising number of minori- ties in the workforce. Hispanics will grow from 13 percent of the workforce in 2014 to 25.1 percent in 2044, blacks will increase from 12 to 12.7 percent, and
2-1
Describe the two major forms of workplace diversity.Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2013.pdf.
gender Pay gap: narrowing but still there
Ob POLL
Men Women
Approximate median weekly pay per occupation
$1,811
$1,124
$1,549
$1,064
$1,240
$2,266
$1,658
$1,769
$1,518
$1,536
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500
Chief executives Marketing and sales managers Computer and information systems managers Financial managers Human resource managers
Asians from 5 to 7.9 percent.4 Workers over the age of 55 are an increasingly large portion of the workforce as well, both in the United States and globally.
In the United States, the 55-and-older age group will increase from 19.5 percent of the labor force in 2010 to 25.2 percent by 2020.5 Currently, in Australia there are more workers over age 55 than under age 25, and that shift is set to continue.6 These changes are increasingly reflected in the makeup of manage- rial and professional jobs. These changes also mean organizations must make diversity management a central component of their policies and practices.
levels of Diversity
Although much has been said about diversity in age, race, gender, ethnicity, religion, and disability status, experts now recognize that these demographic characteristics are just the tip of the iceberg.7 Demographics mostly reflect surface-level diversity, not thoughts and feelings, and can lead employees to perceive one another through stereotypes and assumptions. However, evidence has shown that people are less concerned about demographic differences if they see themselves as sharing more important characteristics, such as personal- ity and values, that represent deep-level diversity.8
To understand the difference between surface- and deep-level diversity, consider an example. Luis and Carol are managers who seem to have little in common. Luis is a young, recently hired male from a Spanish-speaking neighborhood in Miami with a business degree. Carol is an older woman from rural Kansas who started as a customer service trainee after high school and worked her way up the hierarchy. At first, these coworkers may notice their surface-level differences in education, ethnicity, regional background, and gender. However, as they get to know one another, they may find they are both deeply committed to their families, share a common way of thinking about important work problems, like to work collaboratively, and are interested in international assignments. These deep-level similarities can overshadow the more superficial differences between them, and research suggests they will work well together.
Target store manager Jerald Bryant (center) motivating his team reflects demographic traits of today’s workforce. By making diversity management a central part of its policies and practices, Target has created a gender-balanced, multiethnic, and inclusive workplace.
Sources: Lexington Herald-Leader/ZUMAPRESS/Alamy
deep-level diversity Differences in values, personality, and work preferences that become progressively more important for determining similarity as people get to know one another better.
surface-level diversity Differences in easily perceived characteristics, such as gender, race, ethnicity, age, or disability, that do not necessarily reflect the ways people think or feel but that may activate certain stereotypes.
Throughout this text, we will encounter differences between deep- and surface-level diversity in various contexts. Diversity is an important concept in OB since individual differences shape preferences for rewards, communication styles, reactions to leaders, negotiation styles, and many other aspects of behav- ior in organizations. Unfortunately, increased diversity may also mean increases in discriminatory practices, which we will discuss next.
Discrimination
Although diversity presents many opportunities for organizations, diversity man- agement includes working to eliminate unfair discrimination. To discriminate is to note a difference between things, which in itself isn’t necessarily bad. Notic- ing one employee is more qualified is necessary for making hiring decisions;
2-2
Demonstrate how workplace discrimination undermines organizational effectiveness.discrimination Noting of a difference between things; often we refer to unfair discrimination, which means making judg- ments about individuals based on stereotypes regarding their demographic group.
U
nemployed veterans, take heart:Walmart wants YOU. In a historic move, the retailing giant vowed to hire any returning U.S. veteran who applied. As a result, the company hired more than 42,000 veterans by mid- 2014 and expects that total to reach 100,000 by 2018. Other businesses have launched similar initiatives, such as the 100,000 Jobs Mission, which aimed to hire 100,000 veterans by 2020. The coalition, which originally included 11 companies, now consists of 190 companies from nearly every industry. As of 2015, 217,000 veterans had been hired, prompting the coalition to commit to hiring another 100,000 veterans. Is this an ethical choice all businesses should be emulating?
Few people would disagree that there is a need to address the plight of returning soldiers to America. Many veterans say employers don’t want them. “There are a lot of companies that say they want veterans, but that conflicts with the unemployment num- bers,” claims Hakan Jackson, a former technician in the Air Force. He’s right:
Unemployment rates remain higher for veterans than civilians.
According to some veterans, the returning soldiers are not competitive
enough in the marketplace. Erik Sewell, an Iraq war veteran, suggested the rea- son the veteran unemployment rate is poor is partly that vets often don’t mar- ket their strengths well or showcase their transferable skills to potential em- ployers. Bryson DeTrent, a 12-year vet- eran of the National Guard, observed that one of the key reasons some vets haven’t found jobs is that they aren’t working hard at it, preferring to col- lect unemployment instead. However, he has also found that companies are reluctant to hire veterans, especially National Guard members, fearing these employees may later be called to duty.
Mental and emotional well-being are also a concern as employers may worry that veterans suffer from post-trau- matic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite concerns, some managers report that veterans’ work ethic, team outlook, and receptivity to training are greater than among the general populace.
Sometimes, affirmative action is needed to give an unfairly disadvan- taged workforce segment an oppor- tunity to succeed, whether it is done through percentage quotas, number quotas, or hiring all prospective employ- ees from the desired groups. But any program risks including underqualified
individuals from the target group while excluding qualified individuals from other workforce segments. This might mean hiring an underqualified veteran instead of a well-qualified civilian.
Resources are always scarce, and there are only so many jobs to go around. Managers must balance the ethics of affirmative action against the responsibility of strengthening their workforces for the good of their organizations.
Sources: “100,000 Jobs Mission Hires Over 200,000 Veterans,” Veteran Jobs Mission press release (February 9, 2015), https://
www.veteranjobsmission.com/press- releases/750; D. C. Baldridge and M. L.
Swift, “Withholding Requests for Disability Accommodation: The Role of Individual Dif- ferences and Disability Attributes,” Journal of Management (March 2013): 743–62;
“Walmart Celebrates More Than 40,000 Hires in First Year of Veterans Commit- ment,” Walmart Foundation press release (May 21, 2014), http://news.walmart.
com/news-archive/2014/05/21/walmart- celebrates-more-than-40-000-hires-in-first- year-of-veterans-commitment; B. Yerbak and C. V. Jackson, “Battling to Get More Vets in the Work Force,” Chicago Tribune (October 28, 2012), http://articles.chicagotribune.
com/2012-10-28/business/ct-biz-1028- vets-20121028_1_train-veterans-unem- ployment-rate-war-zone; and “Veterans Un- employment Drops but Remains High,” HR Magazine, February 2013, 16.
affirmative action for Unemployed veterans
an Ethical Choice
noticing another is taking on leadership responsibilities exceptionally well is necessary for making promotion decisions. Usually when we talk about discrimi- nation, though, we mean allowing our behavior to be influenced by stereotypes about groups of people. Stereotyping is judging someone on the basis of our perception of the group to which that person belongs. To use a machine meta- phor, you might think of stereotypes as the fuel that powers the discrimination engine. Stereotypes can be insidious not only because they may affect the perpe- trators of discrimination, but also because they can affect how potential targets of discrimination see themselves.
Stereotype threat
Let’s say you are sitting in a restaurant, waiting for the blind date your coworker arranged to find you in the crowded room. How do you think your coworker described you to this person? Now consider how you would describe yourself to this new person if you’d talked on the phone before the date. What identifiable groups would you mention as a shorthand way for your date to know a bit about you so he or she could recognize you in the restaurant?
Chances are good that you’d mention your race, something about how you express your gender (such as the way you dress), how old you are, and maybe what you do for a living. You might also mention how tall you are if you are remarkably tall or short, and—if you’re candid—you might mention something about your build (heavyset, petite, in between). Overall, you’d give cues to your blind date about characteristics that are distinctive, or stand out, about you.
Interestingly, what you tell someone about yourself says a lot about what you think about yourself. Just as we stereotype others, we also stereotype ourselves.
Stereotype threat describes the degree to which we internally agree with the generally negative stereotyped perceptions of our groups. Along with that comes a fear of being judged when we are identified with the negative connota- tions of that group. This can happen when we are a minority in a situation. For instance, an older worker applying for a job in a predominately Millennial-age workforce may assume the interviewer thinks he is out of touch with current trends. What creates a stereotype threat is not whether the worker is or is not up to date with trends, but whether he internally agrees that older workers (the group he identifies with) are out of date (the stereotype).
People become their own worst enemies when they feel a stereotype threat.
Ironically, they may unconsciously exaggerate the stereotype, like an older job applicant who talks about aging, rambles during the conversation, and discloses too much.9 Second, they may over-identify with the stereotype. For example, studies of unemployed and underemployed workers have suggested they experi- ence the stereotyped identity of nonworkers as lazy and aimless. Even when re- employed, they often retain the stereotype threat of their earlier status.10 Third, people may over-compensate for the stereotype threat they feel. A Hispanic who tries to be as busy as possible at work and rushes conspicuously around the office may be attempting to overcome a stereotype threat of Hispanics as slower work- ers. This may happen even if the workplace has many ethnic minority employ- ees, since minorities perceive stereotypes about each other.11 Lastly, people may perform differently when reminded of their stereotyped group. For instance, older adults may not perform as well on memory tests when they are reminded beforehand of their older status, evoking stereotype threat.12
Stereotype threat has serious implications for the workplace. Employees who feel it may have lower performance, lower satisfaction, negative job atti- tudes, decreased engagement, decreased motivation, higher absenteeism, more health issues, and higher turnover intentions.13 Thankfully, this is something we can combat in the workplace by treating employees as individuals, and not stereotype threat The degree to which
we internally agree with the generally negative stereotyped perceptions of our groups.
stereotyping Judging someone on the basis of our perception of the group to which that person belongs.
highlighting group differences. The following organizational changes can be successful in reducing stereotype threat: increasing awareness of how stereo- types may be perpetuated, reducing differential and preferential treatment through objective assessments, banning stereotyped practices and messages, confronting micro-aggressions against minority groups, and adopting transpar- ent practices that signal the value of all employees.14
P I A
PERSONAL INVENTORY ASSESSMENTPersoNal INveNTory assessmeNTs
Intercultural Sensitivity Scale
Are you aware of intercultural dynamics? Take this PIA to assess your intercultural sensitivity.
Discrimination in the Workplace
To review, rather than looking at individual characteristics, unfair discrimina- tion assumes everyone in a group is the same. This discrimination is often very harmful for employees, as we’ve just discussed, and for organizations.
Exhibit 2-1 provides definitions and examples of some forms of discrimina- tion in organizations. Although many are prohibited by law and therefore are not a part of organizations’ official policies, the practices persist. Tens of thou- sands of cases of employment discrimination are documented every year, and many more go unreported. Since discrimination has increasingly come under
Forms of Discrimination
Exhibit 2-1
Type of Discrimination Definition Examples from Organizations
Discriminatory policies Actions taken by representatives of the Older workers may be targeted for layoffs or practices organization that deny equal opportunity because they are highly paid and have lucrative
to perform or unequal rewards for benefits.
performance.
Sexual harassment Unwanted sexual advances and other Salespeople at one company went on company-paid verbal or physical conduct of a sexual visits to strip clubs, brought strippers into the office to nature that create a hostile or offensive celebrate promotions, and fostered pervasive sexual
work environment. rumors.
Intimidation Overt threats or bullying directed at African-American employees at some companies have members of specific groups of employees. found nooses hanging over their work stations.
Mockery and insults Jokes or negative stereotypes; sometimes Arab-Americans have been asked at work whether the result of jokes taken too far. they were carrying bombs or were members of
terrorist organizations.
Exclusion Exclusion of certain people from job Many women in finance claim they are assigned to opportunities, social events, discussions, marginal job roles or are given light workloads that or informal mentoring; can occur don’t lead to promotion.
unintentionally.
Incivility Disrespectful treatment, including Female lawyers note that male attorneys frequently behaving in an aggressive manner, cut them off or do not adequately address their interrupting the person, or ignoring comments.
his or her opinions.
Sources: J. Levitz and P. Shishkin, “More Workers Cite Age Bias after Layoffs,” The Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2009, D1–D2; W. M. Bulkeley, “A Data-Storage Titan Confronts Bias Claims,”
The Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2007, A1, A16; D. Walker, “Incident with Noose Stirs Old Memories,” McClatchy-Tribune Business News, June 29, 2008; D. Solis, “Racial Horror Stories Keep EEOC Busy,” Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News, July 30, 2005, 1; H. Ibish and A. Stewart, Report on Hate Crimes and Discrimination against Arab Americans: The Post-September 11 Backlash, September 11, 2001–October 11, 2001 (Washington, DC: American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 2003); A. Raghavan, “Wall Street’s Disappearing Women,” Forbes, March 16, 2009, 72–78;
and L. M. Cortina, “Unseen Injustice: Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations,” Academy of Management Review 33, no. 1 (2008): 55–75.
both legal scrutiny and social disapproval, most overt forms have faded, which may have resulted in an increase in more covert forms like incivility or exclu- sion, especially when leaders look the other way.15
As you can see, discrimination can occur in many ways, and its effects can vary depending on organizational context and the personal biases of employ- ees. Some forms of discrimination like exclusion or incivility are especially hard to root out because they may occur simply because the actor isn’t aware of the effects of his or her actions. Like stereotype threat, actual discrimination can lead to increased negative consequences for employers, including reduced produc- tivity and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), more conflict, increased turnover, and even increased risk-taking behavior.16 Unfair discrimination also leaves qualified job candidates out of initial hiring and promotions. Thus, even if an employment discrimination lawsuit is never filed, a strong business case can be made for aggressively working to eliminate unfair discrimination.
Whether it is overt or covert, intentional or unintentional, discrimination is one of the primary factors that prevent diversity. On the other hand, recogniz- ing diversity opportunities can lead to an effective diversity management pro- gram and ultimately to a better organization. Diversity is a broad term, and the phrase workplace diversity can refer to any characteristic that makes people dif- ferent from one another. The following section covers some important surface- level characteristics that differentiate members of the workforce.
Biographical Characteristics
Biographical characteristics such as age, gender, race, and disability are some of the most obvious ways employees differ. Let’s begin by looking at factors that are easily definable and readily available—data that can be obtained, for the most part, from an employee’s human resources (HR) file. Variations in surface-level characteristics may be the basis for discrimination against classes of employees, so it is worth knowing how related they actually are to work outcomes. As a general rule, many biographical differences are not important to actual work outcomes, and far more variation occurs within groups sharing biographical characteristics than between them.
age
Age in the workforce is likely to be an issue of increasing importance during the next decade for many reasons. For one, the workforce is aging worldwide in most developed countries;17 by projections, 93 percent of the growth in the labor force from 2006 to 2016 will have come from workers over age 54.18 In the United States, the proportion of the workforce age 55 and older is 22 per- cent and increasing,19 and legislation has, for all intents and purposes, outlawed mandatory retirement. Moreover, the United States and Australia, among other countries, have laws directly against age discrimination.20 Most workers today no longer have to retire at age 70, and 62 percent of workers age 45 to 60 plan to delay retirement.21
The stereotypes of older workers as being behind the times, grumpy, and inflexible are changing. Managers often see a number of positive qualities older workers bring to their jobs, such as experience, judgment, a strong work ethic, and commitment to quality. The Public Utilities Board, the water agency of Singapore, reports that 27 percent of its workforce is over age 55 because older workers bring workforce stability.22 And industries like health care, education, government, and nonprofits often welcome older workers.23 But older workers are still perceived as less adaptable and less motivated to learn new technology.24
2-3
Describe how the key biographical characteristics are relevant to oB.survivor.” Men with shaved heads con- vey aggressiveness, competitiveness, and independence, he adds. Will you join the 13 percent of men who shave their heads? Though we don’t wish to advocate head-shaving for this reason, it does demonstrate how biased we continue to be in judging people by su- perficial characteristics. Time will tell if this situation ever improves.
Sources: D. Baer, “People Are Psychologi- cally Biased to See Bald Men as Domi- nant Leaders,” Business Insider (February 13, 2015), http://www.businessinsider. com/bald-men-signals-dominance-2015-2; J. Misener, “Men with Shaved Heads Ap- pear More Dominant, Study Finds,” The Huffington Post (October 1, 2012), www. huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/bald-men- dominant-shaved-heads-study_n_1930489. html; A. E. Mannes, “Shorn Scalps and Per- ceptions of Male Dominance,” Social Psycho- logical and Personality Science, (2012), doi: 10.1177/1948550612449490; and R. E. Silverman, “Bald Is Powerful,” The Wall Street Journal (October 3, 2012), B1, B6.
biographical characteristics Personal characteristics—such as age, gender, race, and length of tenure—that are objective and easily obtained from personnel records. These characteristics are representative of surface- level diversity.
S
urprisingly, it appears true that bald is better for men in the work- place. A recent study showed that observers believe a male’s shaved head indicates greater masculinity, dominance, and leadership potential than longer or thinning hair. Thinning hair was perceived as the least power- ful look, and other studies have agreed that male-pattern baldness (when some hair remains) is not considered advantageous. Why is this?In some respects, the reported youthful advantage of a shaved head is counterintuitive. Because we have more hair when we are young, and con- temporary culture considers youthful- ness a desirable characteristic in the workplace (if you doubt this, see the discussions on aging in this chapter), it would make more sense for a hairless head to be a distinct disadvantage. Yet the media is loaded with images of pow- erful men with shaved heads—military
heroes, winning athletes, and action he- roes. No wonder study participants de- clared that the men with shaved heads were an inch taller and 13 percent stronger than the same men with hair.
A bald head has become the hall- mark of some important business leaders, notably Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, Marc Andreessen of Netscape, and
“Shark Tank” investor Daymond John.
Men who shave their heads report it can give them a business advantage, whether or not it makes them look younger (which is debatable). According to psychologist Caroline Keating, just as older silver-back gorillas are “typi- cally the powerful actors in their social groups,” so it is in the office, where baldness may “signal who is in charge and potentially dangerous.” Research professor Michael Cunningham agrees, adding that baldness “is nature’s way of telling the rest of the world you are a
survivor.” Men with shaved heads con- vey aggressiveness, competitiveness, and independence, he adds. Will you join the 13 percent of men who shave their heads? Though we don’t wish to advocate head-shaving for this reason, it does demonstrate how biased we continue to be in judging people by su- perficial characteristics. Time will tell if this situation ever improves.
Sources: D. Baer, “People Are Psychologi- cally Biased to See Bald Men as Domi- nant Leaders,” Business Insider (February 13, 2015), http://www.businessinsider.
com/bald-men-signals-dominance-2015-2;
J. Misener, “Men with Shaved Heads Ap- pear More Dominant, Study Finds,” The Huffington Post (October 1, 2012), www.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/bald-men- dominant-shaved-heads-study_n_1930489.
html; A. E. Mannes, “Shorn Scalps and Per- ceptions of Male Dominance,” Social Psycho- logical and Personality Science, (2012), doi:
10.1177/1948550612449490; and R. E.
Silverman, “Bald Is Powerful,” The Wall Street Journal (October 3, 2012), B1, B6.
biographical characteristics Personal characteristics—such as age, gender, race, and length of tenure—that are objective and easily obtained from personnel records. These characteristics are representative of surface- level diversity.
bald is better Myth or Science?
When organizations seek individuals who are open to change and training, the perceived negatives associated with age clearly hinder the initial hiring of older workers and increase the likelihood they will be let go during cutbacks.
Now let’s take a look at the evidence. What effect does age actually have on turnover, absenteeism, productivity, and satisfaction? Regarding turnover, the older you are, the less likely you are to quit your job.25 As workers get older, they have fewer alternate job opportunities because their skills have become more specialized. Within organizations, older workers’ longer tenure tends to provide them with higher wages, longer paid vacations, and benefits that may bind them to their employers.
It may seem likely that age is positively correlated to absenteeism, but this isn’t true. Most studies show that older employees have lower rates of avoid- able absence versus younger employees.26 Furthermore, older workers do not have more psychological problems or day-to-day physical health problems than younger workers.27
The majority of studies have shown “virtually no relationship between age and job performance,” according to Director Harvey Sterns of the Institute for Life-Span Development and Gerontology.28 Indeed, some studies indicate that older adults perform better. In Munich, a 4-year study of 3,800 Mercedes-Benz workers found that “the older workers seemed to know better how to avoid severe errors,” said Matthias Weiss, the academic coordinator of the study.29 Related to performance, there is a conception that creativity lessens as people age. Researcher David Galenson, who studied the ages of peak creativity, found
that people who create through experimentation do “their greatest work in their 40s, 50s, and 60s. These artists rely on wisdom, which increases with age.”30
What about age and satisfaction? Regarding life satisfaction, which we will discuss further in later chapters, there is a cultural assumption that older people are more prone to depression and loneliness. Actually, a study of adults ages 18 to 94 found that positive moods increased with age. “Contrary to the popular view that youth is the best time of life, the peak of emotional life may not occur until well into the seventh decade,” researcher Laura Carstensen said.31
Regarding job satisfaction, an important topic in Chapter 3, a review of more than 800 studies found that older workers tend to be more satisfied with their work, report better relationships with coworkers, and are more committed to their organizations.32 Other studies, however, have found that job satisfaction increases up to middle age, at which point it begins to drop off. When we sepa- rate the results by job type, though, we find that satisfaction tends to continually increase among professionals as they age, whereas among nonprofessionals it falls during middle age and then rises again in the later years.
In sum, we can see that the surface-level characteristic of an employee’s age is an unfounded basis for discrimination, and that an age-diverse workforce is a benefit to an organization.
Sex
Few issues initiate more debates, misconceptions, and unsupported opinions than whether women perform as well on jobs as men.
The best place to begin to consider this is with the recognition that few, if any, differences between men and women affect job performance.33 Though men may have slightly higher math ability and women slightly higher verbal ability, the differences are fairly small, and there are no consistent male–female differ- ences in problem-solving ability, analytical skills, or learning ability.34 One meta- analysis of job performance studies found that women scored slightly higher than men on performance measures.35 A separate meta-analysis of 95 leadership studies indicated that women and men are rated equally effective as leaders.36
At Tofutti, maker of dairy-free products, older employees are an integral part of the workforce. Tofutti’s CEO David Mintz values the experience, work ethic, maturity, enthusiasm, knowledge, and skills that older workers bring to their jobs. He says older employees have fewer absences, make fewer mistakes, are better at solving problems, and are willing to work more hours.
Sources: Julio Cortez/AP images
Yet biases and stereotypes persist. In the hiring realm, managers are influ- enced by gender bias when selecting candidates for certain positions.37 For instance, men are preferred in hiring decisions for male-dominated occupa- tions, particularly when men are doing the hiring.38 Once on the job, men and women may be offered a similar number of developmental experiences, but females are less likely to be assigned challenging positions by men, assignments that could help them achieve higher organizational positions.39 Moreover, men are more likely to be chosen for leadership roles even though men and women are equally effective leaders. A study of 20 organizations in Spain, for example, suggested that men are generally selected for leadership roles that require han- dling organizational crises.40 According to Naomi Sutherland, senior partner in diversity at recruiter Korn Ferry, “Consciously or subconsciously, companies are still hesitant to take the risk on someone who looks different from their stan- dard leadership profile.”41
Sex discrimination has a pervasive negative impact. Notably, women still earn less money than men for the same positions,42 even in traditionally female roles.43 In a recent experiment, experienced managers allocated 71 percent of the fictional pay raise funds for male employees, leaving only 29 percent for females.44 Working mothers also face “maternal wall bias,” meaning they often are not considered for new positions after they have children, and both men and women experience discrimination for their family caregiving roles.45 Women who receive fewer challenging assignments and development oppor- tunities from biased managers tend to curtail their management aspirations.46 Research continues to underline that sex discrimination is detrimental to orga- nizational performance.47
We’ve seen that there are many misconceptions and contradictions about male and female workers. Thankfully, many countries have laws against sex dis- crimination including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Other countries, such as Belgium, France, Norway, and Spain are seeking gen- der diversity through laws to increase the percentage of women on boards of directors.48 Gender biases and gender discrimination are still serious issues, but there are indications that the situation is improving.
Race and Ethnicity
Race is a controversial issue in society and in organizations. We define race as the heritage people use to identify themselves; ethnicity is the additional set of cultural characteristics that often overlaps with race. Typically, we associate race with biology and ethnicity with culture, but there is a history of self-identify- ing for both classifications. Laws against race and ethnic discrimination are in effect in many countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.49
Race and ethnicity have been studied as they relate to employment out- comes such as hiring decisions, performance evaluations, pay, and workplace discrimination. Individuals may slightly favor colleagues of their own race in performance evaluations, promotion decisions, and pay raises, although such differences are not found consistently, especially when highly structured meth- ods of decision making are employed.50 Also, some industries have remained less racially diverse than others. For instance, U.S. advertising and media orga- nizations suffer from a lack of racial diversity in their management ranks even though their client base is increasingly ethnically diverse.51
Finally, members of racial and ethnic minorities report higher levels of dis- crimination in the workplace.52 African Americans generally fare worse than whites in employment decisions (a finding that may not apply outside the United States). They receive lower ratings in employment interviews, lower job
performance ratings, less pay, and fewer promotions.53 Lastly, while this does not necessarily prove overt racial discrimination, African Americans are often discriminated against even in controlled experiments. For example, one study of low-wage jobs found that African American applicants with no criminal his- tory received fewer job offers than did white applicants with criminal records.54 As we discussed before, discrimination—for any reason—leads to increased turnover, which is detrimental to organizational performance. While better rep- resentation of all racial groups in organizations remains a goal, an individual of minority status is much less likely to leave the organization if there is a feeling of inclusiveness, known as a positive diversity climate.55 A positive climate for diversity can also lead to increased sales, suggesting there are organizational performance gains associated with reducing racial and ethnic discrimination.56
How do we move beyond the destructiveness of discrimination? The answer is in understanding one another’s viewpoint. Evidence suggests that some people find interacting with other racial groups uncomfortable unless there are clear behavioral scripts to guide their behavior,57 so creating diverse work groups focused on mutual goals could be helpful, along with developing a posi- tive diversity climate.
Disabilities
Workplace policies, both official and circumstantial, regarding individuals with physical or mental disabilities vary from country to country. Countries such as Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan have specific laws to protect individuals with disabilities.58 These laws have resulted in greater ac- ceptance and accommodation of people with physical or mental impairments.
In the United States, for instance, the representation of individuals with disabili- ties in the workforce rapidly increased with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, 1990).59 According to the ADA, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations so their workplaces will be accessible to individuals with physical or mental disabilities.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing employment discrimination laws, classifies a person as disabled who has any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. One of the most controversial aspects of the ADA is the provision that requires employers to make reasonable accom- modations for people with psychiatric disabilities.60 Examples of recognized disabilities include missing limbs, seizure disorder, Down syndrome, deafness, schizophrenia, alcoholism, diabetes, depression, and chronic back pain. These conditions share almost no common features, so there’s no specific definition about how each condition is related to employment.
The impact of disabilities on employment outcomes has been explored from a variety of perspectives. On one hand, when disability status is randomly manipulated among hypothetical candidates, disabled individuals are rated as having superior personal qualities like dependability.61 Another review sug- gested that workers with disabilities receive higher performance evaluations.
However, individuals with disabilities tend to encounter lower performance expectations and are less likely to be hired.62 Mental disabilities may impair performance more than physical disabilities: Individuals with such common mental health issues as depression and anxiety are significantly more likely to be absent from work.63
The elimination of discrimination against the disabled workforce has long been problematic. In Europe, for instance, policies to motivate employers have failed to boost the workforce participation rate for workers with disabilities, and outright quota systems in Germany, France, and Poland have backfired.64 positive diversity climate In an organi-
zation, an environment of inclusiveness and an acceptance of diversity.
However, the recognition of the talents and abilities of individuals with disabili- ties has made a positive impact. In addition, technology and workplace advance- ments have greatly increased the scope of available jobs for those with all types of disabilities. Managers need to be attuned to the true requirements of each job and match the skills of the individual to them, providing accommodations when needed. But what happens when employees do not disclose their disabili- ties? Let’s discuss this next.
hidden Disabilities
As we mentioned earlier, disabilities include observable characteristics like miss- ing limbs, illnesses that require a person to use a wheelchair, and blindness.
Other disabilities may not be obvious, at least at first. Unless an individual de- cides to disclose a disability that isn’t easily observable, it can remain hidden at the discretion of the employee. These are called hidden disabilities (or invisible disabilities). Hidden, or invisible, disabilities generally fall under the catego- ries of sensory disabilities (for example, impaired hearing), autoimmune dis- orders (like rheumatoid arthritis), chronic illness or pain (like carpal tunnel syndrome), cognitive or learning impairments (like ADHD), sleep disorders (like insomnia), and psychological challenges (like PTSD).65
As a result of recent changes to the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), U.S. organizations must accommodate employees with a very broad range of impairments. However, employees must disclose their conditions to their employers in order to be eligible for workplace accommodations and employment protection. Since many employees do not want to disclose their invisible disabilities, they are prevented from getting the workplace accommodations they need in order to thrive in their jobs. Research indicates that individuals with hidden disabilities are afraid of being stigma- tized or ostracized if they disclose their disabilities to others in the workplace, and they believe their m