An empirical examination of inter-ethnic stereotypes: comparing Asian American and African American employees.

Several studies indicate that in the United States, those who are EuroAmerican, male, heterosexual, and physically abled inherit the highest-status demographic profile--automatically. (1) The dominant group retains the power to define, position, and assign a relative ranking in the hierarchy for its own group and for subordinate groups. (2) According to status incongruency theory, demographic characteristics are arranged in a hierarchy in the following "pecking order:"--males have more status than females, and within gender Whites, Chinese, Native Americans, Japanese, Mexicans, and Blacks are hierarchically arranged by race. (3) Even within the U.S. Asian community, the darker South Asian is often considered Black, a designation reflected in higher unemployment rates than Japanese or Chinese experience. (4) An individual's position in the hierarchy has a profound influence on job-related outcomes, such as decisions about whom to hire and fire, whom to select for key training and project assignments, and whom to promote.

Although status incongruency theory predicts that Asian Americans have greater status than African Americans, empirical work testing this assumption is scant. As Kohatsu and colleagues (5) argue: "Little is known about the extent of racial stereotyping, racial contact, cultural knowledge, racial mistrust, and emotional valence attached to racial stereotypes. Researchers have not examined in any comprehensive way racism or racial attitudes among Asians, Latinos, or American Indians. Specifically, little research has been done on racial attitudes and racism among these groups toward other people of color." (6) Asians in particular have been virtually excluded from race relations research, primarily due to their positive image as well adjusted and successful. (7) In this article, we explore ways in which two racial groups, Asian Americans and African Americans, are perceived in workplace scenarios. Job type, physical appearance, and demographic traits are viewed in tandem to paint a more comprehensive picture of how these two groups are contrasted.

Demographic Status and Stereotyping

The lower the status in the hierarchy, the more negative the stereotypes and the greater the disadvantages. (8) Stereotypes have led to negative attributions for minorities: e.g., perceptions of the disabled as disruptive, unable to perform, threatening, and contagious; (9) women as frivolous, demure, and passive; (10) and racial minorities as incompetent and managerially unfit. (11) Conversely, the model minority stereotype of Asian-American employees posits that these individuals have certain characteristics deemed important for workplace success, at least at levels below top management. In a recent experiment, Asian-American males remained unharmed by the stigma of affirmative action, while Hispanic and African-American males hired under the same initiative were considered less qualified. (12) Traits typically attributed to Asian Americans include hard work, productivity, thrift, punctuality, and obedience to authority. Such stereotypes suggest that Asian-American job candidates and employees will have an advantage over those who are African American. A job candidate who looks like an Asian-American woman will thus find that her appearance alone plays a major role in how she is assessed and in her career progression. Furthermore, status incongruency theory predicts that her assessment will be quite different from assessments made of Asian-American men, African-American men, or African-American women with similar qualifications.

African-American stereotypes (especially those of men) tend to be most unlike qualities that managers look for in job candidates. Negative stereotypes include lack of intelligence, laziness, irresponsibility, and a tendency to blame others for their problems. (13) African-American men especially are stereotyped as resentful, angry, and even violent, while the women are viewed as more stable, cooperative, and hard working than men. (14) In fact, African-American women have a higher labor force participation than European-American or Latina women. (15) During the period 1979--1989, the proportion of African-American women in the labor force increased from 53 percent to 60 percent; their participation was higher than that for European women. (16) They are seen as more serious about work because potential employers assign less sex role stereotypes than they would to European-American women: African-American women are not seen as being in the business world to find a husband, nor viewed as requiring "delicate" treatment because of their femininity. (17) They have been portrayed as strong, independent, striving, and assertive; (18) more ambitious and motivated; (19) and more highly educated than African-American men. Further, African-American women have made greater occupational strides compared to European-American women than African-American men have made in comparison with European-American men. (20)

The hierarchy that follows from the above analysis is 1. Asian-American men; 2. Asian-American women; 3. African-American women; and 4. African-American men. African-American women may be stereotyped as possessing more desired job qualities than African American men, contrary to the prediction of status incongruency theory. African-American men appear to suffer from "reverse exposure." As suggested by the "exposure hypothesis," (21) African-American men may be viewed less positively because of socio-political conditions and the media: e.g., African-American men are sent to prison on drug charges at a rate 27 to 57 times higher than EuroAmerican men. (22)

Race and gender research viewed in combination indicate that Asian-American job candidates will be perceived as having more traits necessary for job success than their African American counterparts. Because a job candidate's or employee's appearance has an impact on how his or her qualifications will be assessed, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Employees with an Asian-American appearance will be assessed more favorably than those with an African-American appearance.

Hypothesis 2: A hierarchy of appearance will exist with regard to assessment: Asian-American men, Asian-American women, African-American women, and African-American men.

Job Type

As Welbourne, Johnson, and Erez (23) argue: "Role theory suggests that employee performance will be a function of both the individual and the organization." (24) Blacks are often funneled into "race-appropriate" jobs, such as public relations and affirmative action, (25) whereas Asians, stereotyped as "technically superior," are slotted for technical positions. As a result of the "Bamboo Ceiling," (26) Asian Americans are over-represented in technical positions and underrepresented in managerial slots and governmental posts. (27) Because there is little research or theory regarding race and job type, we couch the following as research questions:

Research Question 1: Will African Americans be considered more appropriate for the job of human resource manager?

Research Question 2: Will Asian Americans will be considered more appropriate for the job of engineer?

Method

Participants

We disseminated information about the career histories of employees who worked in a fictitious corporation to 127 undergraduate students enrolled in advanced business courses at a West Coast university in the United States. Average respondent full-time work experience was 3.13 years, and average part-time work experience was 2.39 years. A total of 24 students reported currently working full time. The sample contained 32 EuroAmericans and 95 persons of color (11 Latino Americans, 5 African Americans, 78 Asian Americans, and 1 American Indian). Mean respondent age was 25.28 years.

The design was a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial, with independent variables of race (African American/Asian American), gender (male/female) and job type (chemical engineer/human resource officer). Each was classified as either an engineer or a human resources specialist, and was either an Asian-American or African-American male or female. All had the same qualifications, experience, and work history. All variables were between-group measures so the purpose of the study would not be apparent. Average cell size per condition was 15.88.

Procedures

Distributed packets consisted in order of a cover sheet (explaining the study) on which subjects recorded demographic information. The experimenter informed subjects that they were helping to evaluate salary ranges for professionals. The cover sheet was followed by a human resource profile that contained a graphical depiction of an employee's last two years quarterly performance ratings. In all cases, the average performance rating over a two-year period was 10 on a 12-point scale. To ensure face validity, two human resource managers evaluated the profile a priori to assess accuracy of the salary ranges and raise amounts used in subsequent questions. The candidate's picture, name, and a company logo appeared at the top of the profile; in each case the job type was either a chemical engineer or a human resource mid-level officer. A section labeled "Additional Information" below the performance graph contained the employee's grade point average (GPA), education, and earned vacation time. All fictitious employees had a GPA of 3.4 and six years company tenure. The remaining pages consisted of Likert type perceptual variables on which respondents rated the employee.

The experimenter distributed packets during class time to all students in a number of sections. Classes selected to participate in this study were randomly chosen from a list of business courses within the class schedule. Student respondents did not receive extra-credit for participation, and participation was voluntary. Each subject received one of eight questionnaire versions to complete. With the exception of the employee's photograph in the upper left hand corner, all questionnaires looked identical. Several students mentioned that they wished they had more information, suggesting that the simulated profiles were accepted as actual employee data.

Experimental Manipulations

The name and a 4 x 4 mm picture on the HR profile sheet indicated applicant gender. More than 200 pictures of African Americans and Asian Americans were rated to obtain the eight pictures used in this experiment. There were two pictures each of Asian-American men, Asian-American women, African-American men, and African-American women. Pictures were rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale by a diverse group of 15 student judges. Following the procedure of Heilman and Saruwatari, (28) pictures were matched on dimensions of "old-young," "trustworthy-untrustworthy," and "hardworking-lazy" to avoid a confound of perceived age, moral character, or energy for work with appearance and gender. Two pictures were used for each of the manipulations so that individual characteristics associated with a particular photograph would not be a confound. (29) Pictures were chosen so that they fell in the middle of the attractiveness continuum. The average picture ratings across African-American and Asian-American samples were: African-American female--[M.bar] = 5.25, 5.26; African-American male--[M.bar] = 5.66, 5.46; Asian-American female--[M.bar] = 5.42, 5.15; Asian-American male--[M.bar]. = 5.00, 4.77.

Dependent Measures

After reviewing the human resource profile, subjects rated the employee on the salary amount he or she should receive ($45,000-$47,000 in $500 increments), the raise amount that he or she should receive next year if current performance is maintained (2 percent-10 percent in 2 percent increments), and the amount that should be spent annually on the employee's training ($1,000-$5,000 in $1,000 increments). Training was included because women in the past have received less executive education than men. (30)

Each employee was also rated on a series of 9-point bipolar scales. To gain additional information for variable formulation, two focus groups were conducted: one with six African Americans, the other with six Asian Americans. The African-American focus group was composed of four women and two men, average age 24.83, while the Asian-American focus group was composed of three men and three women, average age 26. Because of past racial mistrust between these two groups, we selected African Americans to assess Asians and vice versa to capture extreme views in terms of stereotyping. For example, African Americans have described Asians as aloof and unfriendly. (31) In interviews with residents of an urban housing project, Guthrie and Hutchinson (1995) found that African Americans assumed that Asian Americans were all immigrants, stealing away employment opportunities that belonged to them. (32) Other stereotypes of African Americans toward Asians include "unfriendly toward non-Asians" and "believe themselves to be superior to people of other groups and cultures." (33) At the same time, Asians see blacks as lazy, unattractive, and unsuccessful. (34) Tensions are exacerbated because Asians have been upheld as a success story compared to African Americans and Hispanics, (35) and because Asians have been portrayed as "super successful models that African Americans should copy." (36)

Following the focus group methodology of Krueger, (37) we introduced the discussion with a general question to get subjects talking and interacting. We asked participants to "Think back throughout your careers and throughout your life; can you recall any specific instances with other races where you felt resistance communicating with them?" From initial answers, we generated several follow-up questions. Participants were asked their general perceptions of the respective group, if they thought a gender hierarchy existed, and if they thought the ethnic group in question would be good at managing people of their own and other cultures. The discussion was free flowing, with explanations and examples requested for clarification when needed. Discussions were tape-recorded and later transcribed. Approximately four pages of focus group data were generated from both samples.

The following examples illuminate some of the stereotypes present:

From the Asian American focus group: [African Americans] have little experience working with Asian Americans. Therefore, they don't trust and understand them. I think African-American males like to stir up trouble: they are aggressive and intimidating; they like to deny responsibility and are rude. When' I have debated or argued with African Americans, I usually back off when they get too aggressive.

From the African-American focus group: Everyone wanted to sit right next to the Asian-American people because they knew that they're very smart in chemistry and math. During test time, everyone sat around them. I think they are very timid people and they keep to themselves. I guess they think everyone else is not as smart and intellectual as they are; they think they are more intelligent than any other ethnic group. Asian Americans figure African Americans are low class.

Analysis of focus group data and review of the relevant literature led to creation of the following conceptual categories (1) Competence: competent/incompetent, intelligent/unintelligent, qualified/unqualified; (2) Seriousness about work: silly/no-nonsense, fanciful/realistic, scattered/focused, impractical/practical, casual/businesslike; and (3) Politeness: inconsiderate/thoughtful, ill-mannered/well-mannered, impolite/polite, rude/gentile. Coefficient alphas for competence, seriousness about work, and politeness were .80, .77, and .84, respectively.

Results

Manipulation Checks and Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary [t.bar]-tests did not indicate a confound of either gender or attractiveness for job type. The job-type ratings for chemical engineer and human resource officer were respectively 5.67 and 4.80 on a 9-point masculine/feminine scale [t.bar] (116) = 2.92, [p.bar] < .0040. The mean of attractiveness was mid-range (5.74) on a 9-point manly/womanly scale. Correlations among seriousness about work, competence, and politeness ranged from .65-.69.

Dependent Measures

A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA was conducted to check for overall effects across dependent variables. Results revealed a significant main effect for race [F.bar] (3,117) = 3.87, [p.bar] < .01, and a significant interaction effect for race x gender [F.bar] (3,117) = 5.29. ANOVA revealed that in general Asian Americans were perceived as more competent [F.bar](1, 119) = 10.43, [p.bar] < .0013, omega square = .07, more polite [F.bar] (1, 119) = 4.11, [p.bar] < .05, omega square = .02, and more seriousness about work [F.bar] (1, 119) = 5.13, [p.bar] < .03, omega square = .03, than African Americans, providing support for Hypothesis 1. Simple effects analyses of the gender x race interaction for seriousness about work showed that African-American men were considered less serious about work than Asian-American men, but there was no corresponding difference on this variable between African-American and Asian-American women (See Figure 1). No significant differences emerged for the salary and compensation variables or for the job type manipulation. Thus, no supporting evidence was found for research questions three and four.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Planned [t.bar]-test comparisons (least squares difference method) further indicated that African-American men were viewed as less competent than Asian-American women [t.bar] (59) = 1.93, [p.bar] < .06, and less competent than both Asian-American men [t.bar] (59) = 3.30, [p.bar] < .0016 and Asian-American women [t.bar] (59) = 3.25, [p.bar] < .00. African-American men were viewed as less polite than African-American women [t.bar] (59) = 2.17, [p.bar] < .04, Asian-American men [t.bar] (59) = 2.23, [p.bar] < .03, and Asian-American women t (55) = 2.70, [p.bar] < .01. Asian-American women were viewed as less serious about work than Asian-American men [t.bar] (64) = 2.18, [p.bar] < .02, while African-American men were considered less serious about work than African-American women [t.bar] (53) = 2.66, [p.bar] < .02, Asian-American men [t.bar] (59) = 3.74, [p.bar] < .00, and Asian-American women [t.bar] (59) = 1.72, [p.bar] < .07. [T.bar]-test results are reported in Table 1. Partial support was provided for hypothesis two, that a hierarchy exists with regard to race and gender for Asian and African Americans: namely, Asian-American men, Asian-American women, African-American women, and African-American men.

Discussion

These data provide evidence for a hierarchy of assessment based on African-American and Asian-American appearance. Even though all candidates had the same qualifications and job performance history, their job-related characteristics were differentially rated. Specifically, persons with an African-American male appearance experienced the most negative stereotypes, in that they were viewed as less competent and less serious about work than persons in the other groups. These results reflect cultural stereotypes of "lazy, irresponsible, and not intelligent" (38, 39, 40) sometimes associated with African Americans. African-American men were also viewed as less polite than individuals in the other three groups, reflecting the stereotype of "resentful, trouble-making, and prone to violence." (41, 42, 43) African-American women fared significantly better; their qualities were viewed as being more or less equivalent to those of Asian-American men and women. These results are congruent with the cultural stereotype of African-American women being seen as more stable, cooperative, and hard working than their male counterparts. The fact that African-American men were not, however, rated lower in terms of salary or training budget could be a form of "aversive racism," in which prejudicial attitudes are expressed indirectly. The aversive racist voices discomfort through avoidance and exclusion of minorities from social and informal networks.

Asian-American men and women were seen as more serious about work than African-American men and women, and were viewed as more competent and polite than African-American men. These results reflect the generally expressed stereotype of Asian Americans as hard working, persevering, and thrifty. They also reflect the Asian-American values of group orientation, harmony within the group, and personal behaviors that defer to group harmony. (44, 45, 46)

Implications for Managers

In general, good managers want to be fair and unbiased in their performance evaluations, promotion decisions, assessments of job candidates, and similar decisions that strongly affect people's lives. Clearly, managers need to be aware of the tendency to stereotype by appearance and the tendency to make human resource assessments based on these stereotypes. The best preventive action is to become aware of the typical stereotypes held within mainstream culture toward each ethnic group, and how such stereotypes differ for men and women within groups. Further, managers should access information about cultural strengths of each demographic group to determine how those qualities affect job fit. For example, Asian Americans tend to highly value group harmony and group effort, which can be an asset in team development. Most African Americans highly value candor, sincerity, and direct, assertive communication, which can serve an equally positive role in team development. Because of strong stereotypes that these two groups hold toward each other, communications training may be necessary to coalesce their strengths within a team--"Interracial interactions have increased since the 1960s, but the quality of such interactions has [in most situations and settings] not kept pace." (47) The Asians in Kohatsu's experiment who held racial stereotypes of African Americans exhibited racial identity attitudes of conformity (identifying with White/White culture) or resistance (immersion in own respective culture while rejecting Whites/White culture). Asians who possessed Integrative Awareness, or a cognitive schema comprised of multiple perspectives, (48) were more likely to view African Americans positively. These findings beg the question--how to develop an integrative schema?

Maznevski's (49) theory of communication is particularly instructive for managers of diverse groups. Although increased group diversity provides a greater array of solutions and potential ideas, she argues that the synergy of diverse groups is released through the integrating mechanism of communications training. According to Maznevski, (50) employees who can empathize with co-workers, attribute difficulties appropriately, and who can understand each other and build on each other's ideas will be able to use benefits of group heterogeneity [e.g., more and better ways of viewing a situation] to their advantage. In an intervention based on her theory:

1. Group members would be made aware of the communication process and of the role that communication plays in group performance.

2. Group members would be provided with specific information on the effects of the types of diversity relevant to their own situation.

3. Groups would next observe applicable models of interaction to identify and understand effective and ineffective communication behaviors [through role play, videos, and watching their own pre-recorded activities]. (51)

Some CEOs have stressed demographic integration as a moral imperative, (52) suggesting that moral reasoning is an essential skill for functioning within a diverse environment. In a cultural context, moral reasoning refers to arriving at the most fair decision after taking into account multiple individual viewpoints (53) without passing judgment, (54) it is what Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck (55) term "self-transcendence," or the ability to look beyond one's own self-interests to consider what is best for the group. Moral development can be learned cognitively, through peer critique of response to moral dilemmas, and socially, through games that create moral dilemmas among friends. In a study contrasting both techniques, Haan (56) found that emotional dissonance evoked through games better facilitated moral development. Diversity initiatives may be able to redirect cognitive categorization to focus on company/competitor distinctions and a redefinition of minority roles, as opposed to in-group/out-group power hegemonies. Training can focus on inducing generativity, or receptivity to new ideas. (57)

Managers themselves need to keep an ongoing watch on their own tendencies to revert to stereotyped thinking and assessments. Armed with valid cultural information, awareness, mindfulness, and the determination to work toward fair, unbiased decisions, managers can overcome these all-too-human errors. Because job-relevant information can reduce bias (58) and information is provided through exposure, negative stereotypes of African-American men may be reduced through greater recruiting and promotion efforts.

Future Research

Additional research should be conducted using perceptions of EuroAmericans, Latino Americans, and American Indians to fully test status incongruency theory with respect to race and gender. A variety of comparisons can and should be made, exploring gender differences within and across groups. Exploration of the nexus between perceiver population and ratee is especially important. How are Asian-American men viewed by Latinas? How does an African-American woman perceive an Asian-American male? Larger sample sizes of these groups (along with real-world rather than student samples) are needed to answer these questions. The sample used in the current research included a large cohort of Asian Americans; would results be different in samples that contained large numbers of African Americans, Latinas/Latinos, etc.? Moreover, Asian Americans and African Americans have been lumped into one category for purposes of this research. Doing so masks potential intra-cultural differences that may exist, as established in other studies. (59, 60) In a diverse society it is important to investigate differences among the various groups represented. Exploration between U.S.-born racial minorities vs. immigrants is also needed, particularly in light of previous research, which found (in the case of Asians) that immigrants had more negative views toward African Americans than those born in the United States. (61)

Kohatsu and colleagues (62) argue that to increase positive behavior toward other racial groups, the minority group in question must first have a positive assessment of itself. Diversity management is an attempt by organizations to create an appreciation of employee differences, and in the process, positive self-regard. In terms of individuals, the diversity literature states that effectively managed diversity can lead to decreases in frustration and turnover for women and people of color. (63,64) Cox (65) terms organizations that effectively manage their diversity "multicultural." In multicultural organizations, organizational culture promotes both attitudinal and structural integration of minorities (66) through diversity education, and through equitably rewarding employees for dissimilar contributions.

Further exploration is necessary to assess how other countries manage their diversity In the U.S. workplace, minority groups are categorized and stereotyped as having certain traits that do not fit the leadership profile, that qualify them for some lesser role, or that disqualify them as a potentially successful employee in any role. Because of its demographic heterogeneity, this situation may appear unique to the United States, when in fact the U.S. workplace is no different from all other social systems, as the United Nations treaty, "Declaration of All Forms of Racial Discrimination," makes clear.

Notes

(1) Ibarra, H. (1995). "Race, Opportunity, and Diversity of Social Circles in Managerial Networks." Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673-703.

(2) Duncan, L. E., Peterson, B. E., & Winter, D. G. (1997). "Authoritarianism and Gender Roles: Toward a Psychological Analysis of Hegemonic Relationships." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 41-49.

(3) Ferneandz, J. P. (1981). Managing a Diverse Workforce. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

(4) Mazumdar, S. (1989). "Race and Racism: South Asians in the United States." In G. M. Normura, R. Endo, S. H. Sumida, & R. C. Leong (Eds.), Frontiers of Asian American Studies. Pullman, Washington: Washington State University Press.

(5) Kohatsu, E. L., Dulay, M., Lam, C., Concepcion, W, Perez, P, Lopez, C., & Euler, J. (2000). "Using Racial Identity Theory to Explore Racial Mistrust and Interracial Contact Among Asian Americans." Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 334-342.

(6) Kohatsu et al., 2000.

(7) Ibid.

(8) Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). "The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport's Analysis Prejudice." Psychological Bulletin, 5, 461-476.

(9) Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. (1996). 'A Model of Factors Affecting the Treatment of Disabled Individuals in Organizations." Academy of Management Review, 21, 352-401.

(10) Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). "Has Anything Changed? Current Characterizations of Men, Women, and Managers." Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.

(11) Fernandez, 1981.

(12) Gilbert, J. A., & Stead, B. A. (1999). "Stigmatization Revisited: Does Diversity Management Make a Difference in Applicant Success?" Group and Organization Management, 24, 239-256.

(13) Kohatsu et al., 2000.

(14) Carr-Ruffino, N. (1998). Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace.

(15) Sanchez-Hucles, J. V. (1997). "Jeopardy Not Bonus Status for African-American Women in the Work Force: Why Does the Myth of Advantage Persist?" American Journal of Community Psychology, 25, 565-580.

(16) We, the Black Americans. (1993). U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistical Administration, Bureau of the Census.

(17) Toliver, S. D. (1998). Black Families in Corporate America. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

(18) Lott, B. (1987). Women's Lives. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

(19) Sanchez-Hucles, 1997.

(20) Ibid.

(21) Heilman, M. E., & Martell, R. E (1986). "Exposure to Successful Women: Antidote to Sex Discrimination in Applicant Screening Decisions?" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 376-390.

(22) Huffington, A. (June 10, 2000). "All Men Are Created Equal--Except in Drug War. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 20.

(23) Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). "The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-Based Measure." Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540-555.

(24) Ibid.

(25) Maume, D. J. (1999). "Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators: Occupational Segregation and Race and Sex Differences in Managerial Promotions." Work and Occupations, 26, 483-509.

(26) Redwood, R. A. (1995). Good for Business: Making Full Use of the Nation's Human Capital. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor.

(27) Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1997). "Asian American Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action in Employment: Implications for the Model Minority Myth." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 356-377.

(28) Heilman, M. E., & Saruwatari, L. R. (1979). "When Beauty is Beastly: The Effects of Appearance and Sex on Evaluations of Job Applicants for Managerial and Non-Managerial Jobs." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372.

(29) Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1977). "Sex and Physical Attractiveness of Raters and Applicants as Determinants of Resume Evaluations." Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 288-294.

(30) Banerjee, N. (1993, September 10). "Battling Bias: Are Executive-Education Courses Dominated and Skewed-By Men?" The Wall Street Journal, pp. R9, R12.

(31) Hiebert, M. (2001). "Trouble in the 'Hood." Far Eastern Economic Review, 164, pp. 68-79.

(32) Guthrie, P., & Hutchinson, J. (1995). "The Impact of Perceptions on Inter-Personal Interactions in an African American/Asian American Housing Project." Journal of African American Studies, 25, 377-395.

(33) National Conference of Christians and Jews. (1994). Taking American's Pulse: The Full Report of the National Conference Survey on Inter-Group Relations. New York: National Conference.

(34) Kohatsu et al., 2000.

(35) Wu, F. (1995). "Neither Black nor White: Asian Americans and Affirmative Action." Boston College Third World Law Journal, 15, 225-284.

(36) Heibert, 2001.

(37) Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

(38) Blanchard, F. A., & Crosby, F. J. (1989). Affirmative Action in Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag.

(39) Young, V. (1977). "Family and Childhood in a Southern Negro Community." American Anthropologist, 72, 269-299.

(40) Dovidio, J. F, & Gaertner, S. L. eds. (1986). Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

(41) Foeman, A. K. & Pressley, G. (1987). "Ethnic Culture and Corporate Culture: Using African American Styles in Organizations." Communications Quarterly, 35, 418-437.

(42) Kitano, H. (1976). Japanese-Americans. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

(43) Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.

(44) Hall, E. T & Hall, M. R. (1987). Hidden Differences--Doing Business with the Japanese. Garden City NJ: Anchor/Doubleday.

(45) Gouchenour, T (1990). Considering Filipinos. Yarmouth ME: Intercultural Press.

(46) EIU Country Report, 3rd Quarter, Vietnam. (1994). The Economist Intelligence Unit, Kent England.

(47) Kohatsu et al., 2000.

(48) Helms, J.E. (1995). An Update of Helm's White and People of Color Racial Identity Development Models. In J.G. Gonterotto, J.M. Casa, L.A. Suzuki, & C.M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Multicultural Counseling (pp. 181-198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

(49) Maznevski, M. L. (1994). "Understanding Our Differences: Performance in Decision-Making Groups with Diverse Members." Human Relations, 47, 531-552.

(50) Ibid.

(51) Ibid.

(52) Barry, B., & Bateman, T. S. (1996). 'A Social Trap Analysis of the Management of Diversity." Academy of Management Review, 21,757-790.

(53) Sikula, A. (1996). "Concepts of Moral Management and Moral Maximization." Ethics & Behavior, 6, 181-188.

(54) Ibrahim, F. A. (1996). "A Multicultural Perspective on Principle and Virtue Ethics. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 78-85.

(55) Cloninger, R. C., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T R. (1993). "A Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character." Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975-990.

(56) Haan, N. (1985). "Processes of Moral Development: Cognitive or Social Disequilibrium?" Developmental Psychology, 21,996-1006.

(57) Peterson, B. E., Smirles, K. A., & Wentworth, P.A. (1997). "Generativity and Authoritarianism: Implications for Personality, Political Involvement, and Parenting." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1202-1216.

(58) Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1993). "Job Performance Attributions and Career Advancement Prospects: An Examination of Gender and Race Effects." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 273-297.

(59) Morishima, J. (1981). "Special Employment Issues for Asian Americans." Public Personnel Management, 104, 384-392.

(60) Wu, F. (1995). "Neither Black nor White: Asian Americans and Affirmative Action. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 15, 225-284.

(61) Kohatsu et al., 2000.

(62) Ibid.

(63) Cox, T. Jr., & Smolinski, C. (1994). Managing Diversity and Glass Ceiling Initiatives as National Economic Imperatives (Working Paper #9410-01). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Business School.

(64) Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). "Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness." Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45-56.

(65) Cox, T. H. (1991). "The Multicultural Organization." Academy of Management Executive, 5, 3447.

(66) Larkey, L. K. (1996). "Toward a Theory of Communicative Interactions in Culturally Diverse Workgroups." Academy of Management Review, 21,463-491.

Authors

Jacqueline A. Gilbert

Jackie Gilbert is an associate professor of management in the Middle Tennessee State University College of Business. She received her BBA in management from the University of Texas at Austin, and her MBA and Ph.D. degrees in management from the University of Houston. Her research interests include cross-cultural studies, human resource management, diversity, and gender issues. She has presented her research at national and international conferences and has published in numerous journals, such as the Academy of Management Executive, Sex Roles, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Human Resource Planning Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, and Group and Organization Management. She was one of the first instructors in the Regent's On-line Degree program, and is currently conducting an empirical assessment of on-line vs. traditional classroom effectiveness. She has received extensive training in on-line pedagogy, WebCT, and course web design. Jackie is a 2002 recipient of the TBR Innovator's Award for Excellence in instructional technology and a recipient of the 2002 Outstanding Achievement in Instructional Technology award at MTSU. She has participated in the MTSU Leadership Academy, the annual Lilly Teaching Conference, The American Association for Higher Education conference, and the International Association for Cross-cultural Psychologists annual meeting. Jackie is a former co-chair of the Multicultural Task Force and Honors Council chair. She is a member of the Academy of Management and the Society for Human Resource Management.

Norma Carr-Ruffino

Norma Carr-Ruffino is professor of management at San Francisco State University, where she developed and has taught seminars in managing diversity since the early 1990s. She is the author of the textbook Managing Diversity: People Skills for a Multicultural Workplace, 5th ed. (Pearson Custom Publishing, 2002) and the tradebook Diversity Success Skills (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999). She works on diversity issues with various corporations, such as Safeway and BrassRing. She earned a Ph.D. in business education from the University of North Texas in 1973, MBA in 1969, and BBA from Texas Wesleyan University in 1968.

John M. Ivancevich

John M. Ivancevich is the Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Chair of Organizational Behavior and Management in the C.T. Bauer, College of Business at the University of Houston. He earned his doctoral and M.B.A degrees from the University of Maryland and his undergraduate degree from Purdue University. His teaching and research interests include applied organizational behavior, diffusion of organizational innovations, e-learning and traditional training program effectiveness, reward system implementation strategies, and the creation of management prescriptions and standards. He has published articles, academic books, trade books, and consulted for numerous organizations. Contact jivance@uh.edu.

Millicent Lownes-Jackson

Dr. Millicent Gray Lownes-Jackson is the associate dean of the College of Business at Tennessee State University. She is a small business specialist, author of 13 books, an entrepreneur, newspaper columnist, researcher, small business consultant and a tenured professor of management. Lownes-Jackson is the founder of The Interdenominational Services Organization of America, Inc. (ISOA), a non-profit organization that has impacted the lives of more than 4,500 youth and women through entrepreneurial training and economic enlightenment. She is also the Founder of the BEEM Program (Business Exchange for the Entrepreneurially Minded), a public school business education program, as well as the founder of the Women's Institute for Successful Entrepreneurship (WISE). Lownes-Jackson is a member of many professional, civic and social organizations and has received numerous awards for outstanding accomplishments and public service, including the 2001 R.H. Boyd Business Advocate of the Year Award. Table 1. Cell Means and 1-test Results for Inter-category Comparisons on Race and Gender

Variable

Mean t p-value n Competence Asian-American women 7.56 -1.31 .20 33 African-American women 7.24 33 Asian-American women 7.56 .00 1.00 33 Asian-American men 7.56 33 African-American men 7.24 1.93 .06 28 African-American women 6.58 33 African-American men 6.58 3.30 .00 28 Asian-American men 7.56 33 African-American men 6.58 3.25 .00 28 Asian-American women 7.56 33 Asian-American men 7.56 -1.34 .19 33 African-American women 7.24 33 Politeness Asian-American women 6.70 -.76 .45 33 African-American women 6.72 33 Asian-American women 6.97 -1.00 .32 33 Asian-American men 6.67 33 African-American men 5.96 2.17 .03 28 African-American women 6.73 33 Asian-American men 6.67 2.23 .03 33 African-American men 5.96 28 Asian-American women 6.97 2.69 .01 33 African-American men 5.96 28 Asian-American men 6.67 .19 .84 33 African-American women 6.72 33 Seriousness about Work Asian-American women 6.63 1.22 .44 33 African-American women 6.22 33 Asian-American women 6.22 2.18 .02 33 Asian-American men 6.81 33 African-American men 5.57 2.66 .03 28 African-American women 6.63 33 Asian-American men 6.81 3.74 .00 33 African-American men 5.57 28 Asian-American women 6.22 1.69 .07 33 African-American men 5.57 28 Asian-American men 6.67 .19 .84 33 African-American women 6.72 33 Note. The higher the mean, the more favorable the rating.