formalized hrm structures

8/8/2019 Formalized HRM Structures

1/36

Formalized HRM Structures: Coordinating Equal Employment Opportunity or ConcealingOrganizational Practices?

Author(s): Alison M. Konrad and Frank LinnehanSource: The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Jun., 1995), pp. 787-820Published by: Academy of ManagementStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/256746

Accessed: 19/08/2010 02:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please [email protected].

Academy of Managementis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy ofManagement Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256746?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aommailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aommailto:[email protected]://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/stable/256746?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/36

Academy of Management Journal1995,

Vol. 38, No. 3, 787-820.

FORMALIZED HRM STRUCTURES:

COORDINATING EQUAL EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITY OR CONCEALINGORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES?

ALISON M. KONRAD

FRANK LINNEHAN

Temple University

Do formalized human resources management (HRM) structures promotegoals of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action or symbolize

good faith in the absence of real change? We examined the antecedents and

outcomes of formalized HRM structures in over a hundred organizations,

assessing the presence of "identity-conscious" and "identity-blind" HRM

structures. Findings indicated that identity-conscious structures were

associated with some positive indicators of the employment status of women

and people of color. It was concluded that such practices, although perhaps

adopted for symbolic purposes, improved the employment status of protected

groups.

The question of whether equal employment opportunity and affirmative action(EEO-AA)1 efforts have been effective has generated a debate among social scientists.

A number of research studies seem to show that the employment status of protected

groups has improved as a result of such efforts. For example, Beller (1982) found that

women made occupational gains during the 1970s, Blau and Beller (1988) found that

women's earnings relative to men's rose significantly between 1971 and 1981, and

Jacobs (1992) found that women's representation in management increased

substantially from 1969 to 1987. Vroman (1990) found that the earnings of black men

rose relative to those of white men between 1964 and 1985, and Fosu (1992) found

that the occupational status of black women improved relative to that of white women

and men between 1965 and 1981.

We benefited from the comments of Gary Blau, Jacqueline Meszaros, and two anonymous reviewers

for this journal. We gratefully acknowledge the support of a Temple University Research Incentive Fund

Grant to the first author.

1 The abbreviation EEO-AA will be used throughout the article to denote the body of federal

regulation prohibiting employers from using the following ascriptive characteristics in their personnel

decisions: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Our primary focus will be on Title VII of the 1964

Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11246, issued by President Johnson in 1965, which requires

affirmative action on the part of federal contractors. Although more recent legislation has added to the list

of protected groups, we focus on gender and race in our analyses.

787


3/36

788 Academy of Management Journal June

Brown (1982) and Leonard (1986) argued that such gains are the result of EEOAA

legislation, at least in part.

Recently, the argument has been made that the primary impact of EEOAA

legislation has been the proliferation of administrative structures rather than the

progress of protected groups. The development of formalized human resource

management (HRM) structures among employing organizations is the focus of a

growing body of research (e.g., Braddock & McPartland, 1987; Cockman, Bacon, &

Woodrow, 1990; Dobbin, Sutton, Meyer, & Scott, 1994; Edelman, 1990, 1992;

Goodstein, 1994; Jackson, Schuler, & Rivero, 1989; Johns & Moser, 1989; Kaufman

& Kaufman, 1987; Leek, Saunders, & St. Onge, 1992; Scott & Meyer, 1991; Tanner,

1986). We use the term "formalized HRM structures" to refer to formal rules, pro-

grams, positions, and procedures influencing personnel decision making in an

organization.Edelman (1992) argued that formalized HRM structures developed in response

to EEO-AA regulations are often little more than symbolic gestures designed to

legitimate existing organizational practices. As such, these structures do little to

improve the employment status of protected groups. Glazer made the opposing

argument, stating that formalized HRM structures developed in response to EEO-AA

law have fundamentally changed the way labor markets work and put into place "a

system of employment and promotion that, on the whole, exercises a good deal of

preference for minorities and women" (1988: 335). Glazer argued further that these

structures are institutionalized in such a way that they will probably remain in place

even if the law is weakened by courts or legislatures.

In sum, researchers examining the effect of EEO-AA legislation have focused on

either the employment statuses of protected groups or the proliferation of formalized

HRM structures. Except for two studies, one conducted in Canada (Leek et al., 1992)

and one conducted on U.S. data collected in 1971 (Walker, 1990), the link between

the presence of formalized HRM structures and the progress of protected groups

remains unexamined. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the

employment status of women and people of color in an organization is associated with

the presence of formalized HRM structures in that organization.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

Categorizing Formalized HRM Structures

Formalized HRM structures that have been developed with the intention of

improving the employment status of protected groups can be divided into two

categories: those that do not explicitly and formally include demographic group

identity in human resource decisions and those that do. The objective of all these

structures is to create a personnel decision-making process ensuring that outcomes are

based on individual merit re-


4/36

1995 Konrad and Linnehan 789

gardless of group identity. The method of achieving this objective differs for the two

sets of structures, however. In the former set, attempts are made to ignore group

identity throughout the decision-making process. In the latter set, the cultural andhistorical influences of group identity on decision making are explicitly taken into

account.

We have labeled the first category of formalized HRM structures "identity-

blind."2 By identity-blind structures, we mean formalized HRM practices designed to

ensure that the human resource decision-making process is the same for each

individual. The rationale underlying these structures is that the way to eliminate

discrimination is to judge an individual "on the basis of his or her achievements,

under a 'veil of ignorance' as to group identification" (Glazer, 1988: 332). Identity-

blind HRM structures are designed to achieve this goal by (1) ensuring that individual

merit (as defined by a focal organization) is accurately measured, (2) distributingrewards on the basis of merit, and (3) enlarging the pool of individuals considered

when scarce rewards are distributed.

Although HRM professionals often develop identity-blind structures with the

intention of improving the employment status of protected groups, there are at least

two reasons to believe that stronger interventions may be needed to achieve

substantial change (Glasser, 1988). First, human resource decisions are open to the

biases of imperfect human decision makers. The structures are intended to be blind to

demographic group identity, but in most cases managers are not blind to group

identity when making human resource decisions. Research has consistently shown

that decisions regarding women and people of color are prone to bias (Kraiger &

Ford, 1985, 1990; Martinko & Gardner, 1983; Nieva & Gutek, 1980; Oppler,

Campbell, Pulakos, & Borman, 1992; Pulakos, White, Oppler, & Borman, 1989; Ru-

ble, Cohen, & Ruble, 1984). Hence, special scrutiny of human resource decisions

regarding women and people of color may be required to ensure that they receive fair

treatment.

Second, organizational reward systems are culturally biased (Clayton & Tangri,

1989). Because of cultural differences, each demographic group offers a somewhat

different set of assets to an organization. Reward systems tend to value the qualities

that the majority group brings, neglecting the qualities brought by other groups(Acker, 1989). Evaluating people on the basis of criteria that are biased because they

fail to recognize the important contributions of those in the minority places those

individuals at a distinct disadvantage.

Because the impact of identity-blind structures may be limited, a set of structures

has been developed that formally include demographic group identity in the decision-

making process. We have labeled these structures

2 We chose the term identity-blind over other terms, such as identity-neutral, because we did not wish

to imply that human resources decisions made using these processes are automatically meritocratic and

neutral.


5/36


"identity-conscious." Both Glazer (1988) and Glasser (1988) used the term "race-

conscious" to describe affirmative action procedures that classify individuals by race.

We use the more inclusive identity-conscious to identify structures that formally

recognize the gender, race, national origin, or other protected identity of an individual.Identity-conscious structures imply that in addition to individual merit,

demographic group identity is taken into consideration by the makers of

organizational human resource decisions. The rationale underlying identity-conscious

structures is that gender, race, and national origin should play a part in the personnel

decision-making process for three purposes: to remedy current discrimination (with or

without intent), to redress past injustices, and to achieve fair and visible representation

in leadership positions (Blanchard, 1989; Clayton & Tangri, 1989; Glasser, 1988).

Identity-conscious HRM structures are designed to accomplish these goals (1) by

monitoring personnel decisions made about members of protected groups morestringently, (2) by comparing the numbers, experiences, and outcomes of protected

groups with those of others, and (3) by making special efforts to employ and promote

the career progress of protected groups.

Distinguishing identity-conscious from identity-blind structures is important to

organizations because many U.S. citizens have negative attitudes toward what they

perceive to be special treatment of protected groups in employment situations

(Glasser, 1988; Glazer, 1988; Kinder & Sanders, 1990; Taylor, 1991; Witt, 1990).

Majority group members may have negative attitudes toward identity-conscious

structures because of self-interest (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Konrad & Linnehan, in

press; Kravitz, Stinson, & Mello, 1994), because of beliefs that such structures are notneeded because discrimination no longer exists (Kluegel, 1985; Kluegel & Smith,

1986; Tougas, Beaton, & Veilleux, 1991; Tougas & Veilleux, 1988, 1989, 1990;

Veilleux & Tougas, 1989), or because of various forms of racism (Bobo, 1988; Bobo

& Kluegel, 1993; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Murrell, 1994; Dovidio, Mann, & Gaertner,

1989; Murrell, Dietz-Uhler, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Drout, 1994; Sears, 1988).

Members of protected groups may have negative attitudes toward identity-conscious

structures as a result of being stigmatized by the tendency of the majority to assume

that the beneficiaries of affirmative action are incompetent (Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, &

Casmay, 1981; Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992; Heilman & Herlihy, 1984; Nacoste &

Lehman, 1987; Northcraft & Martin, 1983; Summers, 1991). Members of protected

groups may also show lower fairness ratings, poorer self-evaluations, and reduced task

motivation when identity-conscious interventions are applied, especially when

evidence regarding recipient qualifications is not provided (Turner & Pratkanis, 1994).

Research has shown that members of both the majority group and protected

groups in the United States favor identity-blind over identity-conscious structures

(Davis & West, 1984; Dovidio et al., 1994; Konrad & Linnehan, in press). Identity-

blind structures may be favored because they enhance perceptions of procedural

justice in HRM decision making without


6/36


giving the appearance of preferential treatment for protected groups.3 Previous

research has shown that perceptions of procedural justice are important determinants

of satisfaction with organizational outcomes (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Ball,

Trevino, & Simms, 1994; Brockner, Konovsky, Cooper-Schneider, Folger, Martin, &Bies, 1994; Clemmer, 1993; Fryxell & Gordon, 1989; Greenberg, 1986; Konovsky &

Brockner, 1993; Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991; Moorman, 1991; Niehoff &

Moorman, 1993).

Although attitudes toward identity-conscious and identity-blind structures may

differ, both types of formalized HRM structures are included in government

regulations.4 Organizations may be able and willing to implement identity-blind

structures because many employees are likely to favor them. By comparison, external

intervention may be needed before organizations will adopt identity-conscious

structures because many employees are likely to oppose them.Government Imposition and Inducement of Organizational Change

Institutional pressure is an important determinant of administrative structure

(Meyer & Scott, 1992; Scott & Meyer, 1991). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified

three types of institutional pressures on organizations: coercive, normative, and

mimetic. Scott (1991) made a series of finer distinctions among the coercive pressures

faced by organizations. Two of these are relevant to EEO-AA efforts. First, change

may be imposedupon organizations, as when the government mandates such change

by law. Second, organizational change may be induced, as when government and

other agencies make organizational change an eligibility requirement for funding. TheU.S. federal government's EEOAA program combines imposition and inducement.

3 Many of the identity-blind structures recommended by government regulators are as

sociated with factors Leventhal (1980) identified as enhancing procedural fairness. For ex

ample, accuracy is enhanced when organizations ensure that their selection procedures

validly predict job performance. Consistency is enhanced when all managers involved in hir

ing are trained in conducting selection interviews. The ability to correct mistaken decisions

is enhanced when formalized internal grievance procedures are available.

4 Many examples can be found in the U.S. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Pro

grams' (OFCCP, 1971) Revised Order 4, which replaced Order 4 in 1971. The OFCCP issued

Order 4 in 1970 to clarify the AA requirements obligating federal contractors (Edelman, 1992).

In Revised Order 4, the OFCCP advocates the implementation of identity-conscious struc

tures by stating that employers should monitor and take corrective action when "The selec

tion process eliminates a significantly higher percentage of minorities or women than non-

minorities or men," when "Minorities or women are excluded from or are not participating

in company sponsored activities or programs," and when "Minorities or women [are] un

derutilized or significantly underrepresented in training or career improvement programs"

(41 Code of Federal Regulations 60-2.23 [b]). However, in this document, the OFCCP also ad

vocates identity-blind structures. For example, it states that specific position descriptions

should be developed and disseminated to all members of management involved in the re

cruiting, selection, and promotion process (41 Code of Federal Regulations 60-2.24[c]) and

that recruiting, hiring, training, and promoting should be conducted without regard to race,color, religion, sex, or national origin (41 Code of Federal Regulations 60-2.20[a]).


7/36


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes organizational change by

prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national

origin. The primary mechanism through which Title VII influences organizational

employment practices is lawsuits, which may be initiated through the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the courts, or both. Employers found

guilty of discrimination are pressured into providing back pay, restitution, and other

benefits to restore victims to their rightful place economically (Taylor, 1991). Rulings

on behalf of a complainant are rare, however, because the courts have not required

employers to demonstrate improvement in the employment status of protected groups

to prove nondiscrimination. Instead, the courts have accepted the existence of

formalized HRM structures as evidence that employers have not discriminated

(Edelman, 1992).

Executive Order 11246, issued by President Johnson in 1965, induces

organizational change by requiring federal contractors to "take affirmative action" toensure that they do not engage in employment discrimination. Government programs

designed to induce organizational change combine government control over funding

with decentralized programmatic authority (Meyer & Scott, 1992). Thus, formal

authority over affirmative action programs does not reside in a government agency.

Rather, the mechanisms governing affirmative action are decentralized (Leonard,

1986), with each employer developing and administering its own program through its

HRM department.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has enforcement

responsibility for Executive Order 11246. Holding no formal authority over

employment decisions, the OFCCP must rely on the relatively weak enforcement

mechanism of compliance reviews (Leonard, 1986; Villere & Hartman, 1989). Few

government contractors undergo compliance reviews in a given year (Brown &

Wilcher, 1987), and among these, few experience the strongest penalties available to

the OFCCP, namely, suspension of government contracts and being barred from

future contracts (Edelman, 1992). Finally, the "good faith standard" utilized by the

OFCCP in conducting compliance reviews means that contractors can demonstrate

compliance by developing formalized HRM structures (Edelman, 1992).

In summary, there is good reason to believe that the structure and im-

plementation of EEO-AA law in the United States has led to the proliferation offormalized HRM structures. We anticipate that to the extent employers experience

external intervention into their personnel practices because of EEO-AA law, they will

adopt formalized HRM structures, all else being equal. EEO-AA intervention may

come from two sources: government regulators and courts. Specifically, employers

that are government contractors and thus subject to OFCCP regulation are expected to

adopt more formalized HRM structures than noncontractors. Employers undergoing

compliance reviews are expected to adopt more formalized HRM structures than those

not subjected to compliance reviews. Employers undergoing EEO-AArelated

lawsuits are expected to adopt more formalized HRM structures than those not

subjected to lawsuits.


8/36


Edelman (1992) conducted the only study examining these hypotheses of which

we are aware. She examined the determinants of two formalized HRM structures,

EEO-AA rules (formalized rules proscribing discrimination) and EEO-AA offices

(special offices to handle EEO-AA activities). Findings indicated that federal

contractors adopted EEO-AA rules significantly more frequently than other

employers. Federal contractors also developed EEO-AA offices significantly more

frequently than noncontractors, but this difference was smaller in later time periods.

EEO-AA-related lawsuits were not significantly related to the development of EEO-

AA offices or rules. Edelman did not examine the effect of compliance reviews.

Because we examined a much broader variety of formalized HRM structures, we

expected that we might find more statistically significant effects of such EEO-AA

interventions as regulation by the OFCCP, compliance reviews, and lawsuits. As

Edelman (1992) stated, one reason regulation by the OFCCP had a smaller statistical

impact in later years may have been that all employers increasingly became subject tosocietal pressures to recognize EEO-AA rights. Many of the structures we examined

were not as visible as EEO-AA offices or rules, the structures examined by Edelman.

Hence, organizations may be less subject to societal pressures to adopt the structures

we measured, and EEO-AA intervention may be more likely to affect adoption of

these structures.

Hypothesis la: External intervention into an organization's

personnel practices resulting from EEO-AA law will be

positively associated with the number of formalized HRM

structures the organization adopts.Because many majority group members in the United States have negative

attitudes toward what they perceive as preferential treatment of groups protected by

EEO-AA law, they may resent the development of identity-conscious HRM structures

in their organizations. External intervention may be necessary for the development of

identity-conscious structures because HRM professionals need leverage to convince

management of the need for these structures. By comparison, the majority group is

likely to favor the development of identity-blind HRM structures because these may

enhance the perception of procedural justice in personnel decision making without

giving the appearance of preferential treatment for protected groups. For this reason,

HRM professionals may not require outside intervention to convince management to

allow the implementation of identity-blind structures. Given that external intervention

may be a more critical determinant of identity-conscious structures, we offer the

following addition to Hypothesis la:

Hypothesis lb: External intervention into an organization's

personnel practices resulting from EEO-AA law will have a

positive association with the number of identity-conscious

structures the organization adopts but not with the number of

identity-blind structures it adopts.


9/36


Direct Effect of EEO-AA Intervention on Employment Outcomes

Some have argued that the external intervention into organizational personnel

practices resulting from EEO-AA law has improved employment outcomes forprotected groups. For example, in his analysis of EEO-1 data, which organizations

with over 100 employees must provide to the EEOC, Leonard (1986) found that

federal contractors increased the employment shares of protected groups significantly

faster than noncontrac-tors and that the occupational advancement of protected groups

was more rapid within contracting than noncontracting establishments. Brown (1982)

also concluded, from a review of the literature, that the employment shares of

protected groups increased more rapidly among contractors than among

noncontractors. Compliance reviews also appeared to have an effect. Contractors

subjected to compliance reviews increased both the employment shares and the

occupational advancement of protected groups more rapidly than contractors notsubjected to such reviews.

As stated above, the primary mechanism through which organizations that are

not federal contractors come into contact with EEO-AA regulations is lawsuits.

Leonard (1986) suggested that given employers' sensitivity to the threat of litigation,

an organization's having experienced a lawsuit should be positively associated with

the employment status of protected groups in the organization. Edelman (1992)

argued, however, that lawsuits should not be positively related to the advancement of

protected groups in a company because being sued indicates the company's resistance

to EEO-AA law. Neither of the authors provided data to justify their claims.

In total, previous research findings indicate that external intervention into

organizational personnel practices resulting from EEO-AA law may improve the

employment status of protected groups in an organization. Accordingly, we examined

the data for direct effects of OFCCP regulation, compliance reviews, and EEO-AA-

related lawsuits on the employment status of women and people of color.

Hypothesis 2: External intervention into an organization's

personnel practices as a result of EEO-AA law will be positively

associated with the employment status of women and people of

color in the organization.

Effect of HRM Structures on Employment Outcomes

Because the government's EEO-AA program is decentralized in structure and

administered by each organization's HRM department rather than by a government

agency, the actions of HRM departments may have more important effects on the

employment status of protected groups than the actions of government regulators. One

action an HRM department can take is to develop and implement formalized HRM

structures. These structures may affect employment outcomes because their presence

empowers protected groups to demand their rights. Employees feeling themselves to

be victims of discrimination can utilize HRM structures, such as grievance


10/36


panels, to make themselves heard. In making their cases, employees can point to

violations of formal rules to justify their claims. It is more difficult for decision

makers to justify their actions when those actions violate formal organizational rules

than when no formal rules exist. In these ways, formalized HRM structures can alterpower relations in organizations (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Edelman, 1992).

Leek, Saunders, and St. Onge (1992) examined the effect of Employment Equity

Programs, the Canadian equivalent of a U.S. AA program, on the employment status

of women in Canadian organizations. The formal-ization and comprehensiveness of

such programs and the extent of organizational support for them were found to be

significantly correlated with the employment status of women in the organizations

they studied. Their univariate analyses could not rule out possible alternative

explanations for the results, however. Using 1971 data on 128 organizations in the

Detroit metropolitan area, Walker (1990) found that formalization and centralization

of the HRM function had few significant effects on black men's employment when

other organizational characteristics were controlled. We examined our data for unique

effects of formalized HRM structures on the employment status of women and people

of color when potentially confounding factors were controlled, specifically, regulation

by the OFCCP, compliance reviews, lawsuits, industry, unionization, organization

size, and organizational growth.

Hypothesis 3a: The number of formalized HRM structures an

organization adopts will be positively associated with the

employment status of women and people of color in the

organization.

Given that personnel decisions are subject to the biases of individual decision

makers (Kraiger & Ford, 1985, 1990; Martinko & Gardner, 1983; Nieva & Gutek,

1980; Oppler et al., 1992; Pulakos et al., 1989; Ruble et al., 1984) and that

organizational reward systems are culturally biased (Acker, 1989; Clayton & Tangri,

1989), identity-blind structures that do not address the historical influence of gender

and race on decisions may have little impact on the employment status of protected

groups. Auster and Drazin (1988) found, for example, that implementing a formalized

performance appraisal system was not sufficient to ameliorate gender discrimination

in managerial salaries. At the top management levels, men received larger salary

increases than women receiving the same performance appraisal ratings. Additionally,

Ferdman's (1989) research suggests that evaluators may show less bias when identity-

conscious structures are in place. His findings indicated that raters given information

on both the demographic background and the personal history of a ratee showed less

evaluation bias than those given information on personal history alone. Because

identity-conscious structures may be needed to ameliorate the historical influence of

gender and race on decision making, we offer the following addition to Hypothesis

3a:


11/36


Hypothesis 3b: The employment status of women and people of

color will be positively associated with the number of identity-

conscious structures an organization adopts but not with the

number of identity-blind structures it adopts.

Effect of Top Management's Attitudes

Organizational leaders play a key role in developing and maintaining

organizational culture and values (Schein, 1985; Smircich & Morgan, 1982; Tichy &

Ulrich, 1984). As such, top management support is critical to the effectiveness of any

organization's EEO-AA program (Blanchard, 1989). For example, Hitt and Keats

(1984) found that "commitment from higher administration" was among the most

important factors affecting expert judgments of EEO-AA program effectiveness.

Similarly, Morrison (1992) found that "top management's personal intervention" wasthe most important factor affecting managers' judgments of an organization's effec-

tiveness in diversity management. Walker (1990) found that a positive orientation to

affirmative action on the part of top management was positively related to several

measures of black men's employment in a firm. We expected to observe that top

management support of EEO-AA values would be positively associated with both the

extensiveness of an organization's EEO-AA program, as assessed by the number of

formalized HRM structures present, and its effectiveness, as assessed by the

employment status of women and people of color in the organization.

Hypothesis 4: A strong commitment to EEO-AA values by topmanagement will be associated with a larger number of

formalized HRM structures.

Hypothesis 5: A strong commitment to EEO-AA values by top

management will be associated with improvement in the

employment status of women and people of color.

METHODS

Survey Instrument

A survey of formalized HRM structures developed to achieve EEO-AA goals

was developed for this study. The survey design was based on information obtained in

in-depth interviews with seven HRM professionals, including vice presidents of

human resources management in five large companies, a management consultant

specializing in EEO-AA programs, and a line manager in a large company. The

interviewees represented a broad spectrum of manufacturing and service industries.

The original intent of the interviews was to identify both formal and informal ways

companies differed in their approach to EEO-AA. The extent to which inter-


12/36


viewees stressed formalized HRM structures was striking. Our interview notes

contained 119 practices, procedures, programs, and systems mentioned by

interviewees responding to questions on how EEOAA affected personnel processes

and in organizations.In the survey form developed from the interviews, respondents were asked to

indicate whether or not their companies had adopted each of the structures. Prior to

distribution, the instrument was pretested on a sample of HRM professionals; this

process resulted in our making some minor modifications of the original items to

improve understanding.

The final version of the survey was mailed to the vice presidents of human

resource management at 350 employers in the Philadelphia metropolitan area in the

spring of 1991. Companies were included in the sample only if they were

headquartered in the metropolitan area. We obtained company names from published

lists of the 100 most profitable companies in the area, the 100 largest privately held

companies in the area, and the 100 fastest-growing privately held companies in the

area. We added other large companies, primarily banks, retailers, and hotels, listed in

the Yellow Pages of the city telephone book to the sample to include a broader range

of industries, particularly less profitable industries that were unlikely to appear on the

published lists. Area colleges, universities, and public utilities were also included.

Of the employers responding to the survey, 28.5 percent were in manufacturing

industries, 25.5 percent were in the financial services industry, 10.2 percent were in

wholesale or retail trade, 5.1 percent were educational institutions, 2.2 percent were

public utilities, and 28.4 percent were in other industries. The industry percentages forthe 350 companies originally contacted and tests of significance for differences

between proportions were as follows: 22.0 percent in manufacturing industries (Z = .

77), 19.0 percent in financial services (Z = .76), 15.6 percent in wholesale or retail

trade (Z = .51), 2.8 percent in educational institutions (Z = .24), 0.9 percent in

public utilities (Z = .13), and 39.7 percent in other industries (Z = -1.29). None of the

differences were significant at the .05 level.

We telephoned each organization to get the name and title of the head of human

resources in the company. Most organizational representatives responded with a

specific name and title. A few said that they didn't have a head of human resources;

we then asked, "Who is responsible for personnel decisions?" Three mailings were

sent, including (1) an initial copy of the survey with personalized cover letter and a

stamped, self-addressed return envelope, (2) a reminder postcard, and (3) a second

copy of the survey with a second personalized request to respond and a second

stamped, self-addressed return envelope.

Given the general level of anxiety expressed during the presurvey interviews, we

deemed it necessary to guarantee anonymity to the mail survey respondents. Enclosed

in the first and third mailings was a stamped, self-addressed postcard that respondents

could return to indicate that they had completed the survey and were entitled to a copy

of the aggre-


13/36


gate survey results. The survey administration methodology resulted in the receipt of

138 responses, a 39 percent response rate, one that we believe is as high as can be

expected for executives asked to respond to many sensitive questions.

Measures

Formalized HRM structures. The survey form included 119 items describing

formalized HRM structures. The items covered the areas Blanchard (1989) cited as

essential to effective EEO-AA programs, including hiring goals, internal grievance

procedures, aggressive recruiting of protected groups, and careful attention to the

retention, promotion, and termination of members of protected groups. Additional

areas our interview respondents felt were important to effective EEO-AA programs

and that were thus also covered in the survey included HRM information systems,

compensation, workforce reductions, work-family interface, training, and support ofgroups and professional associations. The Appendix gives the text of all the survey

items.

For most of the items, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not their

companies had such structures with a simple yes (l) or no (0). For the items assessing

management recruiting, response options were "No, we do not do this" (1), "Yes, we

do this but not regularly" (2), and "Yes, we do this regularly" (3). These items were

recoded so that they would not be weighted more heavily in the indexes than the

dichotomous items: 1 = 0, 2 = 1, and 3 = 1.

For the items assessing terminations and workforce reductions, respondents were

asked how often each structure was used; responses were on a five-point scale rangingfrom 1, "less than 10% of the time," to 5, "90% of the time or more." The modal

response for all of these items was either 1 or 5. When the modal response was 1, the

items were recoded (1 = 0, 2 = 1, 3 = 1, 4 = 1, 5 = 1). When the modal response was

5, the items were also recoded (1 = 0, 2 = 0, 3 = 0, 4 = 0, and 5 = 1). This system en-

sured that the recoding resulted in a dichotomous item approximating a normal

distribution as closely as possible.

Two independent raters categorized each of the 119 items as identity-conscious

or identity-blind. We gave the raters descriptions of the two categories on which to

base their assessments; the Appendix gives these descriptions. Both raters classified

all 119 items, and their ratings indicated a 98 percent level of agreement. We

eliminated the 2 items on which the raters did not agree. The Appendix shows how

the raters grouped the remaining 117 items as identity-conscious or identity-blind.

Two indexes were created by taking the mean across items. Hence, the index

scores indicated the proportion of the listed identity-conscious and identity-blind

structures adopted by each organization. Cronbach's alpha coefficients of reliability

for both indexes were acceptable according to Nunnally's (1978) .70 criterion (.93,

identity-conscious; .88, identity-blind).


14/36


Determinants of HRM structures. Three measures of EEO-AA intervention

into an organization's personnel practices were included in the survey. Each

respondent was asked whether the firm's employment practices were regulated by the

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (1 = yes, 0 = no), whether the firmhad ever been the subject of a compliance review (1 = yes, 0 = no), and whether it had

been the subject of an EEO-AA-related lawsuit in the last five years (1 = yes, 0 = no).

The time frame on the lawsuits measure was restricted to the last five years to

minimize the possibility that most of the respondents would reply in the affirmative,

which would have resulted in a constant rather than a variable. The time frame on the

compliance review question was open ended to avoid the possibility that most of the

respondents would reply in the negative, given the low probability of a company's

being reviewed in any given year (Brown & Wilcher, 1987; Leonard, 1986).

To assess top management's EEO-AA values, respondents were asked to

respond to three survey items developed for the present research (a = .89). The

Appendix shows the exact wordings of the items. These items were coded so that a

high value indicated stronger support of EEO-AA.

Employment status of women and people of color. Six measures were

developed to assess the employment status of women and people of color in an

organization. Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of employees and

the percentage of managers in the company who were women and who were people

of color. Five possible response options were given (0%, 1-10%, 11-25%, 26-50%,

and 51% or more), and the midpoints of the ranges were used in the analysis (0, 5, 18,

38, and 51, respectively).Additional outcome measures were designed to assess the highest level of

management attained by women and people of color in a company. Each respondent

was asked to indicate the number of layers of management or reporting levels between

the lowest-level employee and the top executive in a company. Then they were asked

to indicate how many layers existed between the top executive and the highest-

ranking woman and the highest-ranking person of color. We calculated the ratios

between the levels attained by the highest-ranking woman and highest-ranking person

of color and the top executive, and the total number of levels in the organization.

These variables are called ranking woman and ranking person of color, respectively,

and had a potential range of 0 to 1, with a higher value indicating a higher

management level attained.

Controls. We included several controls in the regression equations in view of

previous research examining the predictors of HRM structures. As previous findings

have indicated the importance of the sector in which an organization operates (Dobbin

et al., 1994; Edelman, 1992), we created a dummy variable to indicate whether an

organization operated in the public or the private sector (0 = private, 1 = public or

educational institution). As previous findings have indicated the importance of

unionization (Edelman, 1992; Jackson et al., 1989; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1987), a

survey item


15/36


was included asking what percentage of nonmanagerial employees were unionized.

Since over half of the respondents indicated that none of their employees were

unionized, these responses were dichotomized to create a dummy variable coded 1 if

1 percent or more of a company's employees were unionized and 0 if no employeeswere unionized. Previous findings have indicated the importance of industry to both

the development of formalized HRM structures (Jackson et al., 1989) and the

employment status of protected groups (Blum, Fields, & Goodman, 1994).

Accordingly, a dummy variable was created to indicate whether an organization

operated in the manufacturing (1) or service (0) sectors.

Organization size has been considered to be a significant predictor of both the

development of formalized HRM structures and the employment status of protected

groups (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Goodstein, 1994; Meyer, 1979; Powell, 1991). We

measured size as number of employees, using five categories ranging from 1-49 to

2,000 or more and took the natural logarithm of the midpoint of each category for use

in the analyses.

Organizational growth has been found to be positively associated with the

employment status of protected groups (Fields & Wolff, 1991; Leonard, 1986).

Accordingly, we included a measure of growth as a control, asking respondents,

"During the past 5 years, would you say that the number of employees in your

company has: significantly decreased, slightly decreased, stayed about the same,

slightly increased, or significantly increased?" Blum, Fields, and Goodman (1994)

found that the annual vacancy rate in management positions was positively related to

the percentage of women in management. We asked respondents the followingquestion about the availability of management opportunities in their organizations:

"During the past 5 years, would you say that the opportunity for promotion within the

management ranks has: significantly decreased, slightly decreased, stayed about the

same, slightly increased, or significantly increased?"

Analyses

Ordinary-least-squares (OLS) regression analysis was used to conduct the

hypothesis tests. Since we developed directional hypotheses, we used one-tailed tests

to assess the significance of the independent variables, following Davis (1991). Two-

tailed tests were used to assess the significance of the controls.

Data Reliability and Validity

Survey data on sensitive topics are open to the threat of social desirability bias

(Fowler, 1988). Respondents may submit inaccurate information because there is

pressure to present a socially desirable image of their organizations. To minimize

social desirability pressures, we used an anonymous survey administration method.

Previous research has shown that anonymity increases response rates and reduces

social desirability bias in studies of sensitive topics (Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986;

Innes & Ahrens,


16/36


1990; Kantor, 1991; Koslowsky & Bar-Zeev, 1990; Makkai & McAllister, 1992;

McAllister & Makkai, 1991; Werch, 1990). Because responses were anonymous,

there was no way to verify any of the answers by comparing them to company records

or published information about the organizations. However, we conducted a numberof indirect reliability and validity checks on the anonymous data.

Among the independent variables, the measure of management attitude was the

most subjective and the most open to social desirability bias. Because the survey was

anonymous, respondents appeared to answer these items with candor. The frequency

distributions showed that 30 percent of the respondents indicated that their top

managers considered the company's reputation in the area of equal opportunity

employment to be "neither important nor unimportant" to "extremely unimportant." In

response to the second question, 54 percent of respondents indicated their top

managers were "neutral" to "extremely resistant" in their EEO-AA stance. In response

to the third question, 63 percent of respondents indicated their top managers were

"neutral" to "extremely inactive" in providing leadership in the area of EEO-AA.

Additionally, the correlation between being a government contractor and management

attitude was low [r = .17), which reduces the likelihood that responses from

government contractors in the sample were influenced by their interest in presenting a

positive EEO-AA image. Finally, we gathered data from line managers in four of

these organizations to examine the effect of Crowne and Marlowe's (1964) measure of

social desirability bias on management attitudes toward EEO-AA measures. The

correlation between social desirability bias and the variable assessing these

management attitudes in a sample of 232 managers was .09 [p > .10).The measures of the employment status of women and people of color in an

organization may also be subject to social desirability bias, and as they were

dependent variables, their validity was a primary concern. Following Blum, Fields,

and Goodman (1994), we obtained an assessment of the accuracy of the percentage

measures by comparing the data with 1991 industry percentages (Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 1992a, 1992b).

The zero-order correlation between the percentage of employees who were

women in an industry as a whole and in sampled organizations in that industry was .

85. The correlation between the percentage of executive, administrative, and

managerial jobs filled by women in the industry as a whole and sampled organizations

in that industry was .91. The strength of these relationships shows that the percentages

our respondents reported were consistent with industry figures. Unfortunately, we

could find no published information with which to check the measures assessing the

highest levels of management attained by women and people of color.

The correlations between the sample data and industry percentages were lower

for the variables assessing the percentages of people of color who were employees

and managers in an organization, probably because


17/36

802 Ac a demy of Man agem en t Jo u rn al June

of restriction of range in those variables (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). The correlation

between the percentage of executive, administrative, and managerial jobs filled by

people of color in an industry and sampled organizations in that industry was .49,

indicating an acceptable level of accuracy. The correlation between the percentage ofemployees who were people of color in an industry and in sampled organizations in

that industry was .20, which indicated possible inaccuracies in the survey

responses. Examining the data by industry showed that the largest discrepancy was

for the category "transportation and public utilities." Eliminating the seven

organizations in this category from the data set resulted in a correlation of .76.

Eliminating these seven organizations also improved the correlation for the

percentage of people of color in management, increasing it to .58.

Since there was reason to question the accuracy of the data for the seven

organizations in the transportation and public utilities industry, we checked the

regression results when those organizations were eliminated from the sample. Results

showed no change in the direction or level of significance of any of the effects for any

of the dependent variables we examined.

Finally, since all measures were collected in the same survey instrument,

common method variance was a concern. Survey responses can be correlated as a

result of "response sets" that introduce systematic error into survey data (Converse &

Presser, 1986). Systematic errors resulting from response sets may result in spurious

correlations between the independent and dependent variables. Following Blum,

Fields, and Goodman (1994), we tested for the possible effects of common method

variance using Harmon's one-factor test. Factor analytic results indicated the existenceof five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The five factors explained 64 percent

of the variance among the 18 study variables, and the first factor accounted for 24

percent of the variance. Since multiple factors emerged and the first factor did not

account for the majority of the variance, a substantial amount of common method

variance does not appear to be present.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations among all

variables included in the analyses. It should be noted that organizations were more

likely to adopt the identity-blind structures included on the questionnaire than the

identity-conscious structures. The mean scores on the indexes showed that on average,

organizations had adopted 58 percent of the identity-blind structures listed and 37

percent of the identity-conscious structures. It should also be noted that the ranking

woman was, on the average, at a higher level than the ranking person of color and that

there were more women in management than people of color in management. The

mean scores indicated that, on average, 21 percent of the managers in responding

organizations were women and 9 percent of the managers


18/36

TABLE 1 Means, Standard

Deviations, and Correlations

Variables Means s.d. N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

10. Government contractor

11. Subject of lawsuit

12. Subject of compliance

review

13. Unionized14. Growth

15. Management opportunity

16. Manufacturing sector

17. Management attitude

18. Size

19. Identity-conscious structures

20. Identity-blind structures

21. Ranking woman

22. Percent of women in

management

23. Percent of female

employees

24. Ranking person of color

25. Percent of people of color in

management

26. Percent of people-of-color

employees27. Public sector

0.5

0

0.4

6

0.5

0

0

.

4

8

1

.

4

4

1

.

1

1

0

.

4

5

0

.

8

4

1

.

4

0

0

.

2

1

0

.

1

4

0

.

1

6

0

.

0.46

0.30

0.43

0.34

3.25

3.23

0.28

3.54

6.33

0.37

0.58

0.71

0.21

0.09 0.08 130

129

138

129

138

136

135

138

138

135

138

138

125

132

.34

.68 .

16 .19

.19 .

16 .17

.40

.48 .

26 .12

.03

.36 .14

-.07-.07 .

02 .23 .

46

.44

.27

.05

-.06

.26 .22 .23

.29 .

19 .56

.54 .

38 .01

.17

.28 .

17 .30

.01 .

32

.17 .

09 .06

.24

.59 .

13 .09

.14

.15 .

04 .02

.03

.01

.16 .

14 .05

.03 .

12 .

12 .

05

.04

.01 .

23

.12 .

09 .14

.40

.38

.07

.23

.49 .

47 .12

.10

.04

.26

.56 .

51 .20

.12

.10

.31

.67 .

22 .05

.08

.19 .

00.25


19/36

1

5

0.39 0.13 133 -.03 -.09 -.23

-.22

0.57 0.23 116 .22

23 .32 .27 .18

0.19 0.13 130 .06 .050.07 0.26 138 .14 .12

.00

13

13

a-5'13 CDtrQ13

.04 .23 .58

.18.19 -.07.18 .05.32 .22 .47.23 .20

.13 .14.13.17

.43

.27 .46

.04

.09 .27

.02


20/36


were people of color. On average, 39 percent of the employees in responding

organizations were women, and 19 percent were people of color.

None of the correlations had an absolute value greater than .70, minimizing

concerns regarding multicollinearity. Identity-conscious structures and identity-blindstructures were strongly correlated (r = .67). The strong correlation indicates that both

measures were associated with a single construct, namely, the formalization of an

organization's HRM practices. Since we theorized that the two types of structures

have different determinants and outcomes, it was important to examine the indexes

separately rather than aggregate them into a single measure.

The hypotheses regarding the determinants of formalized HRM structures

received fairly consistent support. Table 2 shows the results of the regression analyses

on the number of formalized HRM structures in an organization. Hypothesis la, which

states that EEO-AA intervention will be positively associated with the presence of

formalized HRM structures, was supported for identity-conscious structures but not

for identity-blind structures. All three indicators of EEO-AA intervention

(government contractor, lawsuits, and compliance review) were significantly,

positively associated with identity-conscious structures, and none was significantly

associated with identity-blind structures. Thus, results supported Hypothesis lb, which

states that EEOAA intervention will be positively associated with identity-

conscious, but not identity-blind, structures. As

TABLE 2 Results of Regression Analyses

Predicting Formalized HRM Structures3

Identity- Identity-

Conscious Structures Blind Structures

Variables b s.e. b~ s.e.

Independent

Government contractor .07* .04 .00 .03Subject of lawsuits .06* .03 -.01 .02

Subject of compliance review .08* .04 .04 .03Management attitude .10*** .02 .06*** .01

Controls

Size .03* .01 .04* ** .01

Unionized .00 .03 -.02 .02

Manufacturing sector .00 .03 -.01 .02

Public sector .00 .05 -.04 .04N 124 124

R2 cy*** .45* **

a Significance tests shown are one-tailed for hypothesis-testing variables and two-tailed for controls.

*p < .

05 *p

formalized hrm structures

Documents