journal of management - tsinghua university

http://jom.sagepub.com

Journal of Management

DOI: 10.1177/014920630202800401 2002; 28; 471 Journal of Management

Sharon Foley, Deborah L. Kidder and Gary N. Powell Hispanic Law Associates

The Perceived Glass Ceiling and Justice Perceptions: An Investigation of

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/4/471 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of Management Additional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/4/471SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 49 articles hosted on the Citations

at CHINESE UNIV HONG KONG LIB on September 30, 2008 http://jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.southernmanagement.org/

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/4/471


Journal of Management 2002 28(4) 471–496

The Perceived Glass Ceiling and Justice Perceptions:An Investigation of Hispanic Law Associates

Sharon FoleyDepartment of Management, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

Deborah L. KidderDepartment of Management, School of Business, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road,

Unit 1041, Storrs, CT 06269-1041, USA

Gary N. Powell∗Department of Management, School of Business, University of Connecticut, 2100 Hillside Road,

Unit 1041, Storrs, CT 06269-1041, USA

Received 9 March 2000; received in revised form 6 March 2001; accepted 23 May 2001

This study examined the relationship between the perceived glass ceiling, perceptions ofpromotion fairness, and attitudinal outcomes for a sample of Hispanic lawyers. The resultsshowed that gender and perceptions of ethnic discrimination were positively related to percep-tions of a glass ceiling, whereas the proportion of Hispanic law associates in the organizationwas negatively related to a perceived glass ceiling. The perceived glass ceiling was negativelyrelated to perceptions of promotion fairness, which in turn were positively related to perceivedcareer prospects and negatively related to intentions to leave. Overall, perceived glass ceilinghad a substantial impact on turnover intentions. Implications are discussed.© 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

The glass ceiling is defined as “a barrier so subtle that it is transparent, yet so strong that itprevents women and minorities from moving up in the management hierarchy” (Morrison &Von Glinow, 1990: 200). Prior research on the glass ceiling (seePowell, 1999b, for a review)has primarily addressed the question of whether or under what conditions such a barrierexists (e.g.,Blum, Fields & Goodman, 1994; Powell & Butterfield, 1994, 1997; Tharenou,Latimer & Conroy, 1994). However, individuals in the minority mayperceive the presence

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.:+1-860-486-3862; fax:+1-860-486-6415.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Foley), [email protected] (D.L. Kidder),

[email protected] (G.N. Powell).

0149-2063/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.PII: S0149-2063(02)00140-X



472 S. Foley et al. / Journal of Management 2002 28(4) 471–496

of a glass ceiling within their social context, a barrier put into place by those in the advan-taged majority. Perceptions of a glass ceiling are important because they may inhibit womenand people of color from seeking and obtaining promotions (Powell & Butterfield, 1994).Women and people of color may believe that discrimination in the workplace against peoplelike themselves will deny them the chance of ever finding out whether they can succeedin higher-level positions. In organizations, members of low-status groups are likely to per-ceive their own group’s attributes as inconsistent with their organization’s requirements forsuccess (Ely, 1995). Women and people of color may also internalize negative evaluationsand stereotypes by those in the majority to the point where they limit themselves and turndown opportunities for advancement in their social setting due to the fear that they will notsucceed (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986). For example, Hispanic male executives who participated infocus groups conducted by theFederal Glass Ceiling Commission Report (1995)believedthat the glass ceiling was keeping them from moving beyond a certain level and felt that theywere always being watched and judged. In addition, Hispanic female executives believedthat they carried a double burden in the workplace because of resistance to them first asHispanics and then as women.

The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) to extend glass ceiling research beyond attemptsto locate or identify an “actual glass ceiling,” and (2) to examine the glass ceiling for His-panics. We examine the antecedents and consequences of a socially constructed “perceivedglass ceiling.” We use the termperceived glass ceiling to represent the perception that abarrier to advancement (glass ceiling) exists in an organization based solely on demographic(ascribed by the individual or others) rather than human capital (achieved) characteristics.We use the termsocially constructed to mean that social and contextual variables will impactindividuals’ perceptions of socially distributed outcomes (i.e., outcomes in which anotherperson or social system is involved), which in turn will impact individual-level attitudes.We investigate how the perceived glass ceiling is shaped by the social context in which itis embedded, contributing to a richer, socially-informed account of glass ceiling barriers.In addition, we examine the influence of ethnic composition of peer employees, gender ofrespondent, and perceived ethnic discrimination on Hispanic law associates’ perceptions ofa glass ceiling, the effect of these perceptions on the perceived fairness of promotions, andin turn, the effect of fairness perceptions on perceived career prospects and intentions toleave the firm. Thus, a second unique contribution is examining the glass ceiling barriersfor Hispanics.

Social relationships are embedded within a larger structural context that encouragesor precludes various kinds of social contacts—a central tenet of social network theory(Alderfer, 1986). Perceptions of the glass ceiling, and the processes that lead to these beliefs,do not occur within a social vacuum, but within social contexts that often reward peopledifferently on the basis of the social group to which they belong. Measures of fairness tapinto social or relational concerns, and fair procedures lead to positive feelings about oneself(Lind & Tyler, 1988; Schroth & Shah, 2000).

In particular, we examine the reactions of Hispanic law associates to promotion deci-sions to partner in law firms. Hispanics, currently the second largest and fastest growingminority group in the United States population and projected to be the largest by 2015(US Bureau of the Census, 1996), have been shown to face considerable ethnic discrimina-tion in the workplace (Knouse, Rosenfeld & Culbertson, 1992; Sanchez & Brock, 1996).



S. Foley et al. / Journal of Management 2002 28(4) 471–496 473

This study adds to the literature by examining perceptions of promotion discrimination heldby Hispanics.

Background

Social Psychological Theories

The influence of social factors on individual behavior has been demonstrated in manyfacets of organizational behavior. Social comparison research and social identity theorydepict how other people profoundly influence an individual’s behavior (Festinger, 1954;Major, 1994; Terry & Hogg, 2000). Social comparisons provide information about whattypes of outcomes and/or treatments it is possible to achieve, such as salary or promotions(Major, 1994).

Social identity theory (Capozza & Brown, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) suggests thatpeople classify themselves and others into social categories and then identify more withmembers of their own category (in-group) than with out-group members. Social identityincludes those aspects of the self-concept that derive from the social categories to whichone sees him or herself as belonging (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social identity acquiressignificance through comparisons between groups when status differences between groupsare salient (Ely, 1995). People may have multiple social identities along several dimensions,e.g., ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation (Frable, 1997). When faced with conflictingsocial identities, people are likely to identify more with those who are similar along thedimension of social identity that is most salient to them. In particular, people may identifymore with people who are similar along a dimension of social identity that they believe hasbeen used as the basis of discrimination against them (Elsass & Graves, 1997; Wharton,1992). Research has demonstrated that individuals from minority groups are more likely toattribute negative outcomes to discrimination rather than other external factors under twoconditions, when direct evidence of discrimination is available and when group identity issalient (Crocker & Major, 1989; Friedman & Davidson, 1999).

When a person is in an ethnic minority, ethnic group membership is noticeable in everydaylife, thus increasing the salience of that part of their identity (Friedman & Davidson, 1999).According toBrewer (1991), the value of group identification comes from distinctiveness aswell as shared identity, and minority groups can meet both their need for distinctiveness andsocial identity through their emphasis on this group category. In addition, group identifica-tion tends to be higher in collectivistic cultures; research has demonstrated that Hispaniccultures are collectivistic, and in the US, Hispanics scored higher on collectivism thanEuropean Americans (Friedman & Davidson, 1999). Thus, social identity theory suggeststhat Hispanic employees will be particularly sensitive to discrimination that they believe isdirected toward Hispanics in general.

Distributive Justice

Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of resource allocations or outcomes(Moorman, 1991). The satisfaction of most employees depends not only on having a job




and paycheck but also on receiving fair treatment in decisions made about them, e.g.,promotion decisions. However, there may be differences in fairness perceptions held bymembers of different groups. For example,Fernandez (1981, 1991, 1999)found that whitemales at all levels felt better than any other group about how they were treated in theirorganization. Members of racial and ethnic minority groups (e.g., Hispanic Americans,African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans) as well as women felt thatwhite men were by far the most-favored group (Fernandez, 1981). Thus, there is likely tobe a linkage between the issues of fairness and discrimination.

Distributive justice theory, grounded in the field of social psychology, has been usedto study a variety of organizational phenomena such as work group incentive pay plans(Dulebohn & Martocchio, 1998) and conflict resolution processes (Karambayya & Brett,1989). Our study investigates outcome distributions from the perspective of a third-partyobserver—a person who is not directly impacted by the outcome but who nonetheless maymake fairness judgments of the events (Skarlicki, Ellard & Kelln, 1998). Third-party ob-servers try to process information in order to make sense of the situation and its implicationfor them and their group (Trevino, 1992). Research on how observers assess and react tothe way others are treated has potentially important implications for the theory and practiceof management. Most justice research has focused on perceptions based on an individual’sown outcomes, rather than an individual’s perceptions about a third party’s outcome (Folger& Cropanzano, 1998). The reason for researchers’ focus on individuals’ own experiencesmay be due to individuals’ lack of awareness of the outcome distributions of others.For example, customers who complain about a company’s product often receive a freecoupon along with an apology (Conlon & Murray, 1996); however, there is no mecha-nism for a customer to compare his/her outcome with others who have complained aboutproduct quality. However, promotions of other employees are outcomes that individualscan observe easily, thus the social context in which the justice judgments occur meritinvestigation.

Law firms, as a type of professional service firm, offer an up-or-out environment in whichpromotion practices are highly salient for lower-level employees (Malos & Campion, 1995).Rather than being a formal procedure, promotion to partnership in professional service firmsis more a transition process in which professionals undergo a complex psychological identitychange; for many professionals, the transition process may feel random and erratic, and thecriteria by which they are judged may seem ambiguous (Ibarra, 2000). In social situationswhere ambiguity exists, people turn to others for a stable referent to determine what theydeserve or are entitled to receive (Festinger, 1954; Major, 1994). Observers are likely to beboth interested in and affected by the impact of promotion processes on the fate of others,as many law associates may imagine themselves in the position of one day “going up forpartner.”

As a practical matter, law firms should be concerned about the impact of promotiondecisions to partner on the behavioral intentions of their associates. Theory and researchmay ultimately inform law firm partners on how to manage promotions to elicit the mostfavorable reactions from associates.

Distributive justice is grounded in equity theory, which states that individuals believeoutcomes are fair when they are consistent with individual inputs (Adams, 1965; Folger &Cropanzano, 1998). The basic principles of social comparison and social identity




underlie much of the research on equity and organizational justice.Wenzel (2000)arguesthat identity processes lie at the heart of the justice phenomenon; they are the basis of thejustice motive itself, injustice threatens identity, and social justice is the reverse image ofsocial discrimination. Employees rely on others to help them evaluate and comprehend theirperformance, compensation, career trajectories, and work duties, especially under condi-tions of uncertainty (Shah, 1998).

Individuals gauge the fairness of their own outcomes by comparing them to a refer-ent other. However, this study assesses the justice perceptions of promotions that respon-dents have not experienced personally. Rather than comparing their own inputs to another’soutputs, social identity theory suggests that individuals may extrapolate to include otherin-group members into their own identity when making comparisons. For example, if aHispanic associate with whom one identifies did not get the promotion he or she deserved,and yet a non-Hispanic associate with the same contributions to the firm was promoted, aHispanic observer would perceive a lack of fairness.

Although justice theory has not been used as a theoretical framework for studying re-actions to promotion decisions about third parties, several empirical studies have exam-ined such reactions (e.g.,Landau, 1995; Sherman, Smith & Sherman, 1983). For example,Sherman et al. (1983)assessed undergraduate students’ reactions to promotion scenariosin which one person was described as being promoted over another, with the race of thestimulus person the only manipulated variable. They found that black subjects perceiveda white employee’s promotion over a black employee as the most unfair of all outcomes,whereas white subjects’ perceptions of promotion fairness were not influenced by the raceof the promoted and non-promoted employees. AlthoughSherman et al. (1983)suggestedthat race plays a role in assessing the perceived fairness of promotion outcomes, they didnot incorporate the tenets of justice theory as an explanatory framework.

Social identification processes, distributive justice, and the perceived glass ceiling inter-sect within a social context. Ethnic discrimination may be experienced in the workplaceindependent of any one organizational procedure or decision. Also, most lower-level em-ployees face the “pyramidal squeeze” (Kanter, 1977) in that they face barriers to careeradvancement. Individuals may perceive a given outcome as unfair for a myriad of reasons.Ethnic discrimination has been relatively unexamined as one of these reasons in the justiceliterature, a deficiency that is partly addressed by this study.

Hypotheses

Figure 1presents our proposed model of the antecedents and consequences of the per-ceived glass ceiling for Hispanic law associates.

Antecedents

Perceived ethnic discrimination. Perceived ethnic discrimination represents a person’sbelief that negative treatment is due to ethnic group membership (Sanchez & Brock, 1996).Ethnic discrimination has been conceptualized as structural or contextual variables thatimpede job opportunities or earning potential for members of a particular ethnic group



476S.Foley

etal./JournalofManagem

ent200228(4)

471–496

at CH

INE

SE

UN

IV H

ON

G K

ON

G LIB

on Septem

ber 30, 2008 http://jom

.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from



(Schneider, Hitlan & Radhakrishnan, 2000). Organizational characteristics, such as seg-regation, discrimination, and group composition, are likely to structure social comparisonprocesses by shaping the relative value individuals attach to groups (Ely, 1995). One of themost far reaching consequences of discrimination and social inequality is that they can alterwhat people may feel they deserve, or are entitled to receive, from their social relationships(Major, 1994).

Ethnic discrimination against Hispanics may be manifested in several ways. For exam-ple, Hispanics may be subjected to jokes or negative comments, pressures to assimilate tothe norms of the dominant group, stereotypes that demean their capabilities, and negativereactions to their accent and the customs of their culture (Sanchez & Brock, 1996). Forpeople in the dominant group in an organization, corporate culture is simply the normalway of doing things. Hispanic employees, because they are working in a largely Angloenvironment, often experience their styles as contrasting with the styles of their cowork-ers and the preferred styles of the firm (Ferdman & Cortes, 1992). Further, much of theirsense of commonality with other Hispanics tends to be conceived of in terms of differencefrom the dominant group. When individuals perceive this sense of separateness from thedominant group and generalized discrimination against members of their own ethnic group,they may also believe that ethnic discrimination will be manifested in specific ways suchas in obstacles to their being promoted. Perceived ethnic discrimination has been found toinfluence outcomes such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and work tensionfor Hispanic employees above and beyond other explanatory variables (Sanchez & Brock,1996). Also, in a study of members of a national minority organization, perceived discrim-ination was related to perceived institutional racism (Jeanquart-Barone & Sekaran, 1996),of which promotions are one part. Thus, perceived ethnic discrimination will structure thecomparative context and influence which comparisons will be made.

Hypothesis 1: A high level of perceived ethnic discrimination is positively related toHispanic law associates’ perceptions of a glass ceiling.

Proportion of Hispanic associates. Organizational hiring practices designed to man-age a diverse workforce (Cox, 1993; Thomas, 1990) represent part of the social contextthat Hispanic law associates may attend to when evaluating their firms’ promotion out-comes. Having several peer Hispanic associates may signal that the organization valuesdiversity and therefore is less likely to have biased promotion outcomes. Having morethan a token number of Hispanic associates (Kanter, 1977) may suggest that the promotionof current Hispanic associates is less likely to be driven by politics. Related research onwomen in management has shown a positive relationship between the number of women innon-management positions and women in management positions (Blum et al., 1994), sug-gesting that more frequent interactions between majority managers and minority employeesmay decrease stereotyping and lead to less biased performance evaluations.

Hypothesis 2: The proportion of Hispanic associates in a law firm is negatively relatedto Hispanic law associates’ perceptions of a glass ceiling.




Gender. Women are more likely to believe that their gender has been used as the basisof discrimination against them than men (Elsass & Graves, 1997; Wharton, 1992). Thisis for very good reason. A voluminous literature has supported the existence of genderdiscrimination in many organizational phenomena, including selection and compensationdecisions, assignments to challenging tasks, performance appraisals, evaluations of leaders,and developmental experiences such as mentoring (seePowell, 1999a, for a recent review).Relevant to this study,Epstein (1993)documented the existence of gender discrimination inthe legal profession. As a result, female law associates may be more sensitive than male lawassociates to the occurrence of discrimination in any form, including ethnic discriminationin promotion decisions.

As many scholars have noted (e.g.,Cox & Nkomo, 1990; Ferdman, 1999), research onrace or ethnicity often avoids issues of gender and vice versa. Individuals may have multiplesocial identities along a variety of dimensions, but they also tend to have an integrated senseof identity rather than a combination of separate and distinct identities (Frable, 1997). Oneway in which individuals may integrate their social identities is to identify with otherindividuals according to the status value of their personal characteristics. According tostatus characteristics theory (Berger, Fisek & Norman, 1998), status value is assigned to apersonal characteristic when consensual cultural beliefs suggest that people with one stateof the characteristic (e.g., white race or male gender) are more worthy than those witha different state of the characteristic (e.g., people of color or female gender). In Westernsocieties, whites and men are held in higher honor and esteem and seen as more able andcompetent than people of color and women, respectively, thereby granting them highersocial status (Berger et al., 1998; Ridgeway, 1991).

We suggest that women will be more sensitive to the presence of discrimination thanmen due to their lower social status. In particular, Hispanic women, who are lower in soci-etal status than Hispanic men, may be more sensitive to the existence of discrimination inpromotion decisions because they are more likely to see themselves as facing discrimina-tion in general. In contrast, Hispanic men may be less likely to perceive discrimination inpromotion decisions because, as men, they hold higher status in society and thereby haveexperienced less discrimination in general than women.

Hypothesis 3: Female Hispanic law associates are more likely to perceive a glass ceilingthan male Hispanic law associates.

Consequences

Distributive justice. In this study, we asked respondents to make social comparisonsbetween majority and minority members in terms of promotion outcomes. We hypothe-size that these social comparisons will influence respondents’ assessment of the fairness ofpromotion outcomes in their law firm. Perceptions of a glass ceiling may be viewed as anindividual’s comparisons of others in their referent in-group vis-à-vis those in the majorityout-group. Since law associates work in an up-or-out environment (Malos & Campion,1995) and thereby have not had a promotion decision made about them yet, they arelikely to use the experiences of this social group as a proxy for their own future outcomes.




If Hispanic associates perceive that members of different social categories fare differentlyat promotion time, they are likely to perceive low distributive justice in turn.

Hypothesis 4: Hispanic law associates’ perceptions of a glass ceiling are negativelyrelated to perceptions of the fairness of promotion decision outcomes in their firm.

Our model proposes that distributive justice acts as a mediator between the perceivedglass ceiling and two outcome variables, perceived career prospects and intentions toleave. That is, if distributive justice was not in the model, we argue that the perceivedglass ceiling would have a direct effect on both outcome variables. Specific hypothe-ses about the two outcome variables and the mediating effect of distributive justicefollow.

Perceived career prospects. Prior justice research suggests that when individuals per-ceive that the basic outcomes in their organization are more fair, they have more posi-tive work-related attitudes (Greenberg, 1986, 1990). For example, perceptions of fairnesshave been found to be positively related to both organizational commitment (McFarlin &Sweeney, 1992) and job satisfaction (Conlon & Fasolo, 1990).

Perceived career prospects refer to both career expectations and career aspirations.Beginning with career expectations, anticipated promotions in an organization are oftenpart of an individual’s career prospects (Collins, Chrisler & Quina, 1998). Fairness judg-ments have generally not been linked to career-related attitudes in the justice literature (foran exception, seeParker, Baltes & Christiansen, 1997). However, the career literature maybe drawn upon to suggest hypotheses about the effect of fairness judgments on individuals’perceptions of their career prospects.

Prior research on career expectations has been grounded in the concept of self-efficacy(Gianakos, 1999; Lent, Hackett & Brown, 1999). Self-efficacy refers to the belief that onepossesses the ability to complete a given task, in this case having the expectation that s/hewill obtain a promotion. It may be influenced by a person’s ability level as well as byexternal conditions that help or hinder the ability to complete the task (Gist & Mitchell,1992). In a study of the impact of race on careers,Greenhaus, Parasuraman and Wormley(1990)found that black managers were more likely to feel constrained at work, to feel lessaccepted by their organization, and to view themselves as being plateaued.

Perceived career prospects also include the desire to be promoted, as aspirations representa career-related goal. Goal-setting theory has shown that aspiring to a difficult goal isdependent on the belief that it is possible to attain that goal (Locke & Latham, 1990).In a study of Hispanic–American female high school students,Reyes, Kobus and Gillock(1999)found that high expectations were positively related to aspiring to male-dominatedcareers. On the other hand,Kanter (1977)suggested that employees have low aspirationsfor promotions when they believe that their chances for promotion are low. For example,since female associates in law firms are half as likely to become partners as male associates(Beiner, 1996), they may conclude that their gender will work against them and adjusttheir aspirations accordingly. Also, asTornblom and Vermunt (1999)point out, distributiveaspects of fairness need to take into account the valence of the outcome.




We hypothesize that law associates who perceive promotion decision outcomes as fairwill be more likely to perceive good career prospects; specifically, they will have higherexpectations for promotion to partner, and they will be more likely to value and aspire tosuch a promotion.

Hypothesis 5a: Hispanic law associates’ perceptions of the fairness of promotiondecision outcomes are positively related to their perceived career prospects.

Hypothesis 5b: The relationship between perceived glass ceiling and perceived careerprospects is mediated by Hispanic law associates’ perceptions of the fairness of promotiondecision outcomes.

Intentions to leave. Intentions to leave have been studied extensively in the managementliterature (e.g.,Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann & Birjulin, 1999). Most turnover researchfinds that job withdrawal intentions are the strongest predictor of employee turnover be-havior (Rosin & Korabik, 1991; Somers & Birnhaum, 1999; Stroh, Brett & Reilly, 1996).For example, in the accounting profession, the most powerful predictor of departure is theintention to leave public accounting (Greenhaus, Collins, Singh & Parasuraman, 1997).Other organizational phenomena have been hypothesized to influence intentions to leavethe firm. For one sample of female managers, working in a male-dominated environmentwas significantly related to low satisfaction and commitment and a high propensity to leavethe firm (Rosin & Korabik, 1991). Morrison, White, Van Velsor and the Center for CreativeLeadership (1987)suggest that female managers leave their organizations because they“bump their heads” against a glass ceiling.

We hypothesize that Hispanic law associates who perceive promotion decision outcomesas fair will be less likely to establish intentions to leave the firm. Previous research hasidentified a link between organizational justice and intentions to leave in relation to voluntaryseverance programs (DeWitt, Trevino & Mollica, 1998). We propose that perceptions ofunfair promotion decision outcomes will also increase turnover intentions.

Hypothesis 6a: Hispanic law associates’ perceptions of the fairness of promotion deci-sion outcomes are negatively related to their intentions to leave their firm.

Hypothesis 6b: The relationship between perceived glass ceiling and intentions to leaveis mediated by Hispanic law associates’ perceptions of the fairness of promotion decisionoutcomes.

Perceived career prospects may have an additional unique effect on turnover intentions,beyond perceptions of distributive justice. For instance,Beehr and Taber (1993)found aconnection between perceptions of upward mobility and intentions to leave the organization.In a study of female managers,Rosin and Korabik (1991)also found a positive correlationbetween unmet expectations and turnover intentions. Poor perceived organizational fit hasalso been linked to intentions to leave the organization (Lovelace & Rosen, 1996). Strohet al. (1996)found that female managers’ intentions to leave were due to lack of careeropportunities rather than traditional explanations (i.e., family structure).




Hypothesis 7: Hispanic law associates’ perceived career prospects are negatively relatedto their intentions to leave.

Methods

Sample and Procedure

We obtained permission to survey the approximately 2500 members of the HispanicNational Bar Association (HNBA), a professional organization comprised mainly of His-panic lawyers, law professors, judges, and law students. The portion of the HNBA member-ship that was relevant to this study consisted of associates who worked full-time as lawyersin private law firms. Surveys were distributed by the HNBA in a mailing to all membersthat included the association’s annual dues invoice; however, the instructions in the surveyspecified that only law associates should complete it. The HNBA had 1516 non-studentmembers at the time the survey was mailed, 317 who worked in private law firms and 358whose place of employment was not clear from their mailing address. Thus, themaximumsize of the population was estimated as 675; however, some of these 675 members mayhave not returned the survey because they were unemployed, sole practitioners, partners,or otherwise employed in non-associate positions. Two hundred and four surveys were re-turned with complete data after two mailings, representing aminimum response rate of 30%from the population of HNBA law associate members. As a check on the representativenessof the data,t-tests between the two mailings were computed. There were no significantdifferences, therefore the two mailings were combined.

The average age of the respondents was 37.4 years, 39% were women, and 75% wereborn in the United States including Puerto Rico. Twenty-five percent of the respondentswere single, 65% married, and 10% separated or divorced. Respondents had a mean numberof 1.2 children, with 35% having no children. The law firms in which respondents wereemployed had a mean number of 194.4 employees, 33.4 partners, 1.2 Hispanic partners,56.8 associates, and 3.8 Hispanic associates.

Measures

Proportion of Hispanic associates. Respondents answered the following item: “Howmany law associates are there in your organization?” Following that, respondents wereasked: “Of these law associates, how many are Hispanic?” The proportion of Hispanicassociates was calculated using these data, by dividing the number of Hispanic associatesby the total number of associates.1 A subset of the sample (55, or 27%) volunteered thename of the firm where they worked. As a partial check of the validity of these self-reportmeasures, we compared responses to theMartindale-Hubbell Law Directory (2001). Elevenrespondents reported belonging to firms that were not listed in the Law Directory, reducingthe number to 44 (or 22% of the sample). The correlation between our self-report measureof number of law associates and the listing of the total number of associates in the LawDirectory for these 44 respondents was .93, suggesting that this self-report measure hadsome validity.




Gender. Males were coded as 0 and females as 1.Respondents used 5-point Likert-type scales (1: strongly disagree, 5: strongly agree) to

respond to all items in the following measures:

Perceived ethnic discrimination. Respondents completedSanchez and Brock’s (1996)10-item perceived discrimination against Hispanics scale. An exploratory unrestricted max-imum likelihood factor analysis of responses to the 10 items yielded two factors with eigen-values above 1.0. The first factor consisted of eight items pertaining to coworkers’ generalreactions to the respondent’s ethnic background, e.g., “At work, I sometimes feel that myethnicity is a limitation.” The second factor consisted of two items pertaining specificallyto language: “At work, my accent is a limitation” and “At work, the difficulty I have incommunicating in English makes people think I am unsociable.” However, there was littlevariation in responses to the two items comprising the second factor; over 80% of respon-dents averaged 1.0 on these two items. Accordingly, the two items comprising the secondfactor were not included in further analyses. Coefficient alpha for this 8-item scale was .90.

Perceived glass ceiling. Respondents answered four items, which referred to percep-tions of differences in promotion outcomes according to demographic (ascribed) charac-teristics. Two of these items assessed perceptions of differential promotion decision out-comes based on gender: “Men are promoted faster than women in this organization” and“Men are more likely than women to be promoted to partner in this organization.” Theseitems were adapted from items inGutek, Cohen and Tsui’s (1996)perceived discriminationagainst women scale to refer specifically to promotions in a legal context. The other twoitems assessed perceptions of differential promotion decision outcomes for Hispanics andnon-Hispanics: “Non-Hispanics are more likely than Hispanics to be promoted to partner inthis organization” and “Hispanics and non-Hispanics are equally likely to be promoted topartner in this organization” (reverse-coded). The former item pertaining to ethnicity wasadapted from aGutek et al. (1996)item, and the latter item was developed for this study.An exploratory unrestricted maximum likelihood factor analysis yielded one factor witheigenvalue above 1. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .90.

Distributive justice. Distributive justice was assessed withKarambayya and Brett’s(1989)2-item distributive justice scale (α = .87), which was adapted for lawyers. Theitems used in this analysis were: “Promotion decisions to partner in this organization arefair,” and “I am satisfied with the decisions of who makes partner in this organization.”

Perceived career prospects. This variable was assessed with items that referred to bothexpectations and aspirations for advancement to partner. Advancement expectations wereassessed with three items. One item was adapted fromGreenhaus et al. (1997): “I think Iwill eventually become a partner in this organization.” Two additional items were devel-oped for this study: “I would be surprised if I made partner in this organization” (reversecoded) and “I am confident that I will make partner in this organization.” Advancementaspirations were assessed with three items. One item was adapted fromGreenhaus et al.(1997): “I eventually want to become a partner in this organization.” The other two itemswere developed for purposes of this study: “Although it requires a sacrifice, I aspire to be




a partner in this organization” and “I will do whatever it takes to become a partner in thisorganization.” An exploratory unrestricted maximum likelihood factor analysis loaded onone factor. Coefficient alpha for this 6-item scale was .92.

Intentions to leave. This variable was assessed with the 4-item scale used byRosin andKorabik (1991). An example of an item from this scale is: “At this time I would quit myjob if it were feasible.” Coefficient alpha for this scale was .83.

Analyses

Structural equation modeling using Amos 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) was employedto test the model inFigure 1. Structural equation modeling programs such as Amos aresensitive to the number of indicators (or measured variables) used to estimate latent (or un-measured) variables. To prevent problems associated with unidentified models, the optimalmethod of estimation is to avoid single indicators of latent variables, if possible (Anderson &Gerbing, 1988; Bollen, 1989; Kenny, 1979; Medsker, Williams & Holahan, 1994). However,an excessive number of indicators (anything more than four) can overwhelm the program(Kenny, 1979). Therefore, special consideration was given to the number of indicators usedto estimate each latent variable in this study, with the goal to retain the optimum number ofparameters for the measurement model. First, perceived glass ceiling, distributive justice,and intentions to leave were measured with four, two, and four indicators, respectively; inthese cases, an indicator consisted of the response to a single item.

The procedure used byMathieu and Farr (1991)was adopted to construct indicatorsfor latent variables with more than four items, in this case for perceived career prospectsand perceived ethnic discrimination. Specifically, three indicators were established for theperceived career prospects scale by taking the six items and averaging the two with thehighest and lowest factor loadings to form the first indicator, the two items with the nexthighest and next lowest factor loadings to form the second indicator, and then forming thethird indicator from the average of the remaining two items. In effect, this procedure reducedthe six scale items for perceived career prospects to three parallel indicators, in much thesame way that parallel test forms are constructed (Nunnally, 1978). The same iterativetechnique was used to reduce the eight items used from the perceived ethnic discriminationscale to four indicators. Finally, gender and the calculated proportion of Hispanic associateswere appropriately measured with single indicators.

Results

Table 1presents Pearson correlations, means, and standard deviations for the measuredvariables specified as indicators in the models analyzed: gender, the proportion of Hispanicassociates, the four perceived ethnic discrimination indicators, the four perceived glassceiling indicators, the two distributive justice indicators, the three perceived career prospectindicators, and the four intention to leave indicators.2

Figure 2presents results from the standardized solution for the measurement model. Eachindicator’s loading on the appropriate latent variable was significant, with the critical ratio



484S.Foley

etal./JournalofManagem

ent200228(4)

471–496

at CH

INE

SE

UN

IV H

ON

G K

ON

G LIB

on Septem


.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from


S.Foleyetal./JournalofM

anagement2002

28(4)471–496

485

at CH

INE

SE

UN

IV H

ON

G K

ON

G LIB

on Septem


.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from



Z (i.e., the parameter estimate divided by its standard error, which is distributed normally)ranging from 9.60 to 15.47 for the various paths (p < .001 in all cases). Thus, all latentvariables were considered to explain their assigned indicators acceptably.

Figure 3presents standardized estimates for the proposed structural equation model.Hypothesis 1was strongly supported by the data, i.e., perceived ethnic discrimination waspositively related to perceptions of a glass ceiling (.80,Z = 9.12,p < .001).Hypothesis2, stating that the proportion of Hispanic associates was negatively related to the perceivedglass ceiling was also supported (−.11,Z = −2.23, p < .05). In support ofHypothesis3, gender significantly affected the perceived glass ceiling (.15,Z = 3.09, p < .01) ashypothesized, such that female Hispanic law associates perceived the existence of a glassceiling to a greater extent than male Hispanic associates. To address the potential concernof a halo effect for male respondents with respect to the perceived glass ceiling construct,we also ran the model separately for male and female respondents. The model results (notshown) were comparable with one exception; the path between the proportion of Hispanicassociates and the perceived glass ceiling remained significant for the female sample (−.17,Z = −2.09,p < .05) but was not significant for the male sample (−.07,Z = −1.01, n.s.).

Hypothesis 4was also supported by the data. The perceived glass ceiling significantlyaffected perceptions of distributive justice (−.83, Z = −10.16, p < .001) as hypothe-sized, such that law associates who perceived the existence of a glass ceiling to a greaterextent also perceived that promotions to partner were less fair. Support was found forHypotheses 5a and 6aas well; perceptions of distributive justice were significantly relatedto both perceived career prospects (.68,Z = 9.11,p < .001) as well as intentions to leave(−.24,Z = −2.69, p < .01). Hispanic law associates who perceived that promotions topartner were more fair had higher expectations and aspirations for advancement to partnerand lower intentions to leave the firm. Also, in accordance withHypothesis 7, perceivedcareer prospects significantly affected intentions to leave (−.60,Z = −6.33, p < .001),such that law associates with higher expectations and aspirations for advancement to partnerhad lower intentions to leave the firm.

The overall adequacy of fit of the model to the data was assessed with the comparativefit index (CFI;Bentler, 1990). The CFI is considered more resistant to sample size effectsthan other fit measures (Bentler, 1990). For this model CFI= .90. The high value of CFIsuggests that the model acceptably fits the data. Other fit indices for this model, whichare interpreted in a similar way to CFI (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999), were the IFI= .90,NFI = .86, and TLI= .89.3

Mediating Variables Analysis

Hypotheses 5b and 6bstated that distributive justice acts as a mediator between perceivedglass ceiling and the two outcome variables, perceived career prospects and intentions toleave. Additional analyses were performed to test for mediation, based on the analysis ofmediation discussed inBaron and Kenny (1986). There are three steps to follow whentesting for mediation. First, a significant relationship between the explanatory variable andthe dependent variable must exist. Second, a significant relationship between the medi-ating variable and the dependent variable must exist. Third, when both the explanatoryvariable and the mediating variable are included in the model, the previously significant



S.Foleyetal./JournalofM

anagement2002

28(4)471–496

487

at CH

INE

SE

UN

IV H

ON

G K

ON

G LIB

on Septem


.sagepub.comD

ownloaded from



relationship between the explanatory variable and the dependent variable should becomeinsignificant.

For the first step, the model was run excluding the mediating variable (distributive justice).In this model, the direct paths from perceived glass ceiling to perceived career prospects(−.61,Z = −7.53,p < .001), as well as intentions to leave (.20,Z = 2.46,p < .05) weresignificant, supporting step one. Support for step two was presented above in the discussionof Hypotheses 5a and 6a.

Finally, the full model was run including additional direct paths from perceived glassceiling to perceived career prospects and intentions to leave. Support was found for bothHypotheses 5b and 6b, as the paths between perceived glass ceiling and both perceivedcareer prospects (−.25,Z = −1.95, n.s.) and intentions to leave (.11,Z = .92, n.s.) werenot significant, suggesting that distributive justice mediated these relationships.

Total Effect of Perceived Glass Ceiling on Intentions to Leave

Additional calculations were performed to determine the total effect of perceived glassceiling on intentions to leave. AsKenny (1979)noted, the direct effect of one variable onanother is represented by the path coefficient between the two variables in the structuralmodel. The indirect effect of one variable on another through a third variable is the productof the path coefficients along the path from the first variable to the second through the third.The total indirect effect of one variable on the other is the sum of all the indirect products.The total effect of one variable on the other is the sum of the direct and indirect effects.

Although there was no direct path from perceived glass ceiling to intentions to leave in themodel (seeFigure 3), there were two indirect paths. The first indirect path was from perceivedglass ceiling to distributive justice and then to intentions to leave (−.83×−.24 = .20). Thesecond indirect path was from perceived glass ceiling to distributive justice to perceivedcareer prospects and then to intentions to leave (−.83× .68× −.60 = .34). Therefore, thetotal effect of perceived glass ceiling on intentions to leave was .54 (.20+ .34).

Discussion

Theory and research on the glass ceiling can benefit from greater integration with theo-ries from social psychology such as social comparison processes and social identity theory.While previous glass ceiling studies have examined perceptions of barriers to advancementfor women (e.g.,Gutek et al., 1996), this study included the perceptions of ethnic barriersto advancement for Hispanics. Thus, our unique contribution to the literature is the exam-ination of the glass ceiling for Hispanics. There were several key findings, each adding toour understanding of Hispanic lawyers’ work-related perceptions and attitudes concerningadvancement opportunities. First, our results support the assertion that a perceived glass ceil-ing exists. Being female and perceiving high levels of ethnic discrimination both increasedHispanic law associates’ perceptions of differences in promotion outcomes according todemographic (ascribed) characteristics, whereas having peer Hispanic associates decreasedperceptions of a glass ceiling.

The findings also suggest that a belief in the existence of a glass ceiling decreases percep-tions of promotion fairness. When individuals believe that promotion decisions are fair, they




have more positive perceptions of their own career prospects. This supports other researchthat has found justice perceptions to be linked to work-related attitudes (Greenberg, 1986,1990).

Finally, our study found links between perceived glass ceiling, distributive justice, per-ceived career prospects and intentions to leave the firm. The total effect of perceived glassceiling on intentions to leave appeared to be large (.54 out of a possible 1.00), supportingprior research which found that perceived discrimination increases stress levels which inturn increase turnover intentions (Amaro, Russo & Johnson, 1987; Mayes & Ganster, 1988).

Implications for Theory

By studying justice, social psychology, and glass ceiling variables together, the presentstudy makes four contributions to the literature. First, it examines discrimination relatedto promotions from the point of view of those who may actually be experiencing discrim-ination, rather than assuming that top echelon demographics are the sole determinant ofthe glass ceiling.Powell and Butterfield (1994), who examined actual promotion decisionsfor top management positions, suggested that organizations need to address perceptionsabout how such decisions are made as well as the reality. The present study lends empiricalsupport to the importance of the perceived influence of social group membership on promo-tion decisions for top management positions. Individuals may perceive that a glass ceilingexists, and adjust their work-related attitudes accordingly. Thus, our study complementsprior research on the glass ceiling and extends the literature.

Second, our study establishes a theoretical and empirical link between the glass ceilingliterature and justice theory, a link not previously established in the literature. While justiceresearchers have examined perceptions of diversity initiatives and their relation to justiceperceptions (Parker et al., 1997), research has yet to specifically link justice and promotions.Our study suggests that individuals’ perceptions of the promotions of others in their firminfluence their fairness perceptions and work-related attitudes. By focusing on fairnessperceptions about third-party outcomes, our study also responds toFolger and Cropanzano’s(1998)comment about the paucity of research in this area.

Third, the study responds to the call for theory development and empirical work on raceand ethnic differences as they relate to organizational behavior, with special attention tothe intersection of race and gender (Cox & Nkomo, 1990). It adds to the literature on therelatively under-researched experiences of the fastest growing ethnic group in the UnitedStates. Our data set is drawn from a cross-sampling of Hispanic law professionals, and giventhe relatively small number of Hispanic professionals, represents a unique and valuablesample that would be difficult to replicate by surveying law firms.

Finally, the study adds to the literature on the link between gender and ethnicity by ex-amining the perceptions of male and female Hispanic lawyers. The results of our post-hocanalyses using male and female subgroups suggested that Hispanic women are more con-cerned than Hispanic men with social cues, perhaps because Hispanic women have seendiscrimination due to both gender and ethnicity. Alternatively, social identity theory sug-gests that individuals from low-status groups may choose to identify with higher-statusgroups to maintain positive identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Hispanic men may chooseto identify with the majority white male employees rather than with Hispanic employees to




bolster their self-identity, whereas Hispanic women may consider both gender and ethnicityas salient for their own social identities.

Implications for Practice

The research presented here is practical for senior management in that it provides insightinto employees’ perceptions of a glass ceiling. Promotions tend to be the focal point of em-ployee aspirations (Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). If minority employees perceive promotionsas less fair due to ethnic discrimination, they may adjust their work-related attitudes accord-ingly. Law firm partners should provide women and men, and Hispanics and non-Hispanics,the same salient social comparison standards and the same explicit feedback about the ra-tionale for promotions in the firm.

Understanding the perceived glass ceiling is critical as demographic trends are making itimperative for organizations to be concerned about how they treat minority employees. Inthe next few decades, as minority employees increase in number in the US, organizationsmay suffer if they fail to recognize, develop, and utilize the skills and contributions of minor-ity employees (Bento, 1997). Management’s prescriptions for diversity initiatives shouldinclude addressing the attitudes and perceptions of those affected by discrimination, a use-ful exercise for planning and setting more realistic strategies and goals. Diversity activitiesneed to be emotionally endorsed by those affected by discrimination in order to be accepted(Yaffe, 1995). Therefore, organizations need to regularly monitor and assess perceptionsof fairness and discrimination held by those employees who increase the diversity of theworkplace (Morrison, 1992). Then something should be done with the information that iscollected.Morrison (1992)suggested, “Often, simply asking, ‘Is this fair and appropriatefor women and for people of color?’ can help an organization strengthen its human resourcesin general, its human resource practices, and its broader business practices” (p. 27).

In particular, designing performance appraisal systems to improve the collection, inter-pretation, and evaluation of performance data would make it harder to justify discriminatorydecisions on the part of any one manager. Other processes within law firms that are oftenvague and subjective, yet critical to advancement, are assigning associates to high-profilecases, allocating large numbers of billable hours, and encouraging senior partners to becomementors. Individuals are less likely to discriminate against minority employees in situationsin which norms prescribing appropriate behavior are clear and unambiguous (Dovidio,Gaertner, Anastasio & Sanitioso, 1992). Applying promotion criteria consistently acrossassociates, providing appropriate justification for the use of the criteria, and ensuring thatassociates are provided feedback about promotion decisions all have the potential to providepositive benefits.

Limitations

Although the present results are significant both theoretically and empirically, there aresome methodological limitations. First, the potential for social desirability bias influencingresponses was present because of the sensitive nature of the questions. This limitation wasaddressed in part by the guaranteed confidentiality of responses. Also, in order to address theconcern that respondents were likely to have a political agenda, we compared the responses




of individuals who listed their place of employment versus those that left that item blank.Individuals listing their employer were not significantly more likely to report perceptionsof ethnic discrimination and intentions to leave, nor less likely to report high levels ofdistributive justice and perceived career prospects. Second, all of the variables were assessedby self-report measures, raising the possibility of common methods bias. The non-perceptualvariable of number of associates was cross-validated with existing data sources as a partialcheck on self-report measures, although a crude one. Third, this study was cross-sectionaland did not capture trends in promotion outcomes within firms, yet causal relationships wereinferred. One must be sure to note that causal inferences made from cross-sectional designsare never more than inferences (Moorman, 1991). Fourth, although the hypothesized modelwas consistent with the data, other models might fit the data equally well. We acknowledgethat there may be omitted variables that might reflect a more complex process than is depictedin our model. Fifth, the viewpoint of Hispanic lawpartners, which may have shed furtherlight on the relationship between ethnicity and perceptions of promotion fairness, was notassessed. Finally, the dependent variables consisted of attitudes rather than behaviors. Thebehavioral consequences of justice perceptions also need to be examined to understand thefull ramifications of the perceived glass ceiling.

The results should not be generalized beyond the population from which they were ob-tained, Hispanic law associates. Future research is needed to cross-validate the currentmodel, using other ethnic minority employees as well as different work settings and occu-pations. Research is also needed that compares employees’ perceptions of how promotiondecisions are made with how promotion decisions are actually made. Further, research isneeded to assess whether and to what extent the theoretical framework developed here gen-eralizes across different types of outcomes. The tournament promotion model (up-or-out)followed in most law firms differs from typical promotion patterns in other businesses(Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). However, the pyramidal squeeze in most organizations dueto the shape of the organizational hierarchy results in their being fewer opportunities athigher levels than at lower levels. Since most lower-level employees who wish to attainhigher-level positions are bound to be disappointed, there will always be ample opportuni-ties for perceptions of unfairness to arise that are not associated with membership in anyparticular ethnic group. The relationship between tournament arrangements and perceptionsof justice needs to be explored more fully in future research.

In conclusion, this study provides initial evidence of the existence of a perceived glassceiling among Hispanic law associates, as well as a relationship between their perceptionsof barriers to advancement, the fairness of promotion decisions, their own career prospects,and their intentions to leave their firm. As part of a growing body of research on ethnicity,this study broadens our understanding of the influence of perceived discrimination on orga-nizational processes by providing a theoretical framework grounded in distributive justicetheory. Further research in this area is recommended to increase our understanding of theimplications of perceptions of discriminatory processes and outcomes in the workplace.

Notes

1. In our sample, the proportion of Hispanic associates was positively correlated(r = .61,p < .001) with the proportion of Hispanic partners, supporting the notion




that law firms with significant numbers of Hispanic associates are more likely to pro-mote them to partners. Proportion of Hispanic partners was not included in the model,as this variable was severely skewed towards zero; 48% of the sample reported noHispanic partners, and 89% of the sample reported two or less Hispanic partners.

2. Analyses were also run including age as a control variable. Age is often used as aproxy for prior work experience, which may influence perceptions of a glass ceilingas well as perceptions of distributive justice. However, the paths from age to theselatent variables were not significant. Therefore, age was not included in the modelsreported. Results of analyses including age are available from the authors.

3. The model comparison strategy suggested byMedsker et al. (1994)was used to testalternative nested models. This strategy involves Chi-square tests comparing two al-ternative models (the first model having one path added and the second model havingone removed, based on theoretical grounds). Given that our study focuses on ethnic-ity, we chose the variable perceived ethnic discrimination. The first alternative modelincluded a direct path from perceived ethnic discrimination to distributive justice. TheChi-square test was not significant (p = .18), and the fit indices remained the same(CFI = .90, TLI = .89, NFI= .86, IFI = .90). The second alternative model was runwith the path from perceived ethnic discrimination to perceived glass ceiling elimi-nated. The Chi-square test was also not significant (p = .10), and the fit indices werelower (CFI = .89, TLI = .87, NFI = .86, IFI = .89), These nested model resultssuggest that our model provides a reasonable fit to the data.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank John Mathieu and Bill Schulze for their helpful suggestions re-garding the data analysis for this paper, as well as three anonymous reviewers who providedvery beneficial feedback.

References

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequality in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental socialpsychology: 267–299. New York: Academic Press.

Alderfer, C. P. 1986. An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),Handbook oforganizational behavior: 190–222. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Amaro, H., Russo, N. F., & Johnson, J. 1987. Family and work predictors of psychological well-being amongHispanic women professionals.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11: 505–521.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommendedtwo-step approach.Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411–423.

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. 1999.Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Corporation.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:

Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182.

Beehr, T. A., & Taber, T. D. 1993. Perceived intra-organizational mobility: Reliable versus exceptional performanceas means to getting ahead.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 579–594.

Beiner, T. M. 1996. Do reindeer games count as terms, conditions or privileges of employment under Title VII?Boston College Law Review, 37: 643–690.




Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models.Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238–246.Bento, R. F. 1997. When good intentions are not enough: Unintentional subtle discrimination against Latinas in

the workplace. In N. V. Benokraitis (Ed.),Subtle sexism: Current pracitce and prospects for change: 95–116.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. 1998. The evolution of status expectations: A theoretical extension.In J. Berger & M. Zelditch, Jr. (Eds.),Status, power, and legitimacy: Strategies and theories: 175–205. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Blum, T. C., Fields, D. L., & Goodman, J. S. 1994. Organization-level determinants of women in management.Academy of Management Journal, 37: 241–268.

Bollen, K. A. 1989.Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 17: 475–482.Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (Eds.) 2000.Social identity processes. London: Sage.Collins, L. H., Chrisler, J. C., & Quina, K. (Eds.) 1998.Career strategies for women in academe: Arming Athena.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Conlon, D. E., & Fasolo, P. M. 1990. Influence of speed of third-party intervention and outcome on negotiator and

constituent fairness judgments.Academy of Management Journal, 36: 7–27.Conlon, D. E., & Murray, N. M. 1996. Customer perceptions of corporate responses to product complaints: The

role of explanations.Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1040–1056.Cox, T., Jr. 1993.Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler.Cox, T., Jr., & Nkomo, S. M. 1990. Invisible men and women: A status report on race as a variable in organization

behavior research.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11: 419–431.Crocker, J., & Major, B. 1989. Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma.

Psychological Review, 96: 608–630.DeWitt, R. L., Trevino, L. K., & Mollica, K. A. 1998. The influence of eligibility on employees’ reactions to

voluntary workforce reductions.Journal of Management, 24: 593–613.Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Anastasio, P. A., & Sanitioso, R. 1992. Cognitive and motivational bases of

bias: Implications of aversive racism for attitudes towards Hispanics. In S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, & A. L.Culbertson (Eds.),Hispanics in the workplace: 75–106. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dulebohn, J. H., & Martocchio, J. J. 1998. Employee perceptions of the fairness of work group incentive payplans.Journal of Management, 24: 469–488.

Elsass, P. M., & Graves, L. M. 1997. Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experience of womenand people of color.Academy of Management Review, 22: 946–973.

Ely, R. F. 1995. The power in demography: Women’s social constructions of gender identity at work.Academy ofManagement Journal, 38: 589–634.

Epstein, C. F. 1993.Women in law (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Federal Glass Ceiling Commission Report 1995.Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s human capital.

A fact-finding report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Washington, DC.Ferdman, B. M. 1999. The color and culture of gender in organizations: Attending to race and ethnicity. In G. N.

Powell (Ed.),Handbook of gender and work: 17–34. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ferdman, B. M., & Cortes, A. C. 1992. Culture and identity among Hispanic managers in an Anglo business. In

S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, & A. L. Culbertson (Eds.),Hispanics in the workplace: 246–277. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Fernandez, J. P. 1981.Racism and sexism in corporate life: Changing values in American business. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.

Fernandez, J. P. 1991.Managing a diverse workforce: Regaining the competitive edge. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Fernandez, J. P. 1999.Race, gender, and rhetoric: The true state of race and gender relations in corporate America.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relations, 7: 117–140.Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 1998.Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.




Frable, D. E. S. 1997. Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. In J. T. Spence, J. M. Darley, & D. J.Foss (Eds.),Annual review of psychology: Vol. 48, 139–162. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Friedman, R., & Davidson, M. N. 1999. The Black–White gap in perceptions of discrimination: Its causes andconsequences. In R. J. Bies, R. J. Lewicki, & B. H. Sheppard (Eds.),Research in negotiation in organizations:203–228. Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Gianakos, I. 1999. Patterns of career choice and career decision-making self-efficacy.Journal of VocationalBehavior, 54: 244–258.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability.Academy of Management Review, 17: 183–211.

Greenberg, J. 1986. Organizational performance appraisal procedures: What makes them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.),Research on negotiations in organizations: Vol. 1, 25–41. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.Journal of Management, 16: 399–432.Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., Singh, R., & Parasuraman, S. 1997. Work and family influences on departures

from public accounting.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50: 249–270.Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. 1990. Effects of race on organizational experiences, job

performance evaluations, and career outcomes.Academy of Management Journal, 33: 64–86.Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. 1996. Reactions to perceived discrimination.Human Relations, 49:

791–813.Ibarra, H. 2000. Making partner: A mentor’s guide to the psychological journey.Harvard Business Review, 78(2):

146–155.Ilgen, D. R., & Youtz, M. A. 1986. Factors affecting the evaluation and development of minorities in organizations.

In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.),Research in personnel and human resources management: Vol. 4,307–337. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jeanquart-Barone, S., & Sekaran, U. 1996. Institutional racism: An empirical study.Journal of Social Psychology,136: 477–482.

Kanter, R. M. 1977.Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic.Karambayya, R., & Brett, J. M. 1989. Managers handling disputes: Third-party roles and perceptions of fairness.

Academy of Management Journal, 32: 687–704.Kenny, D. A. 1979.Correlation and causation. New York: Wiley.Knouse, S. B., Rosenfeld, P., & Culbertson, A. L. (Eds.) 1992.Hispanics in the workplace. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.Lam, S. L., & Schaubroeck, J. 2000. The role of locus of control in reactions to being promoted and to being

passed over: A quasi experiment.Academy of Management Journal, 43: 66–78.Landau, J. 1995. The relationship of race and gender to managers’ ratings of promotion potential.Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 16: 391–400.Lent, R. W., Hackett, G., & Brown, S. D. 1999. A social cognitive view of school-to-work transition.Career

Development Quarterly, 47: 297–311.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988.The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990.A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.Lovelace, K., & Rosen, B. 1996. Differences in achieving person-organization fit among diverse groups of

managers.Journal of Management, 22: 703–722.Major, B. 1994. From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy

appraisals, and group membership. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 26,293–356. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Malos, S. B., & Campion, M. A. 1995. An options-based model of career mobility in professional service firms.Academy of Management Review, 20: 611–644.

Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory 2001. On-line:http://www.martindale.com(February 26, 2001).Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. 1991. Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational

commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 127–133.Mayes, B. T., & Ganster, D. C. 1988. Exit and voice: A test of hypotheses based on fight/flight responses to job

stress.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9: 199–216.


http://www.martindale.com



McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. 1992. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction withpersonal and organizational outcomes.Academy of Management Journal, 35: 626–637.

Medsker, G. J., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. J. 1994. A review of current practices for evaluating causal modelsin organizational behavior and human resources management research.Journal of Management, 20: 439–464.

Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Dofairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845–855.

Morrison, A.M. 1992. The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. 1990. Women and minorities in management.American Psychologist, 45:

200–208.Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., Van Velsor, E., & The Center for Creative Leadership 1987.Breaking the glass

ceiling: Can women reach the top of American’s largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Nunnally, J. 1978.Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. 1997. Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and

work attitudes: A study of gender and racial-ethnic group differences.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:376–389.

Powell, G. N. (Ed.) 1999a.Handbook of gender and work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Powell, G. N. 1999b. Reflections on the glass ceiling: Recent trends and future prospects. In G. N. Powell (Ed.),

Handbook of gender & work: 325–345. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 1994. Investigating the “glass ceiling” phenomenon: An empirical study of

actual promotions to top management.Academy of Management Journal, 37: 68–86.Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. 1997. Effect of race on promotions to top management in a Federal Department.

Academy of Management Journal, 40: 112–128.Randall, M. L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C. A., & Birjulin, A. 1999. Organizational politics and organizational

support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior.Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20: 159–174.

Reyes, O., Kobus, K., & Gillock, K. 1999. Career aspirations of urban, Mexican American adolescent females.Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 21: 366–382.

Ridgeway, C. 1991. The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics.SocialForces, 70: 367–386.

Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. 1991. Workplace variables, affective responses, and intention to leave among womenmanagers.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64: 317–330.

Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversitymanagement a luxury or a necessity?Academy of Management Journal, 39: 704–719.

Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. 2000. An examination of the nature and correlates of ethnicharassment experiences in multiple contexts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 3–12.

Schroth, H. A., & Shah, P. P. 2000. Procedures: Do we really want to know them? An examination of the effectsof procedural justice on self-esteem.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 462–471.

Shah, P. P. 1998. Who are employees’ social referents? Using a network perspective to determine referent others.Academy of Management Journal, 41: 249–269.

Sherman, M. F., Smith, R. J., & Sherman, N. C. 1983. Racial and gender differences in perceptions of fairness:When race is involved in a job promotion.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57: 719–728.

Skarlicki, D. P., Ellard, J. H., & Kelln, B. R. C. 1998. Third-party perceptions of a layoff: Procedural, derogation,and retributive aspects of justice.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 119–127.

Somers, M. J., & Birnhaum, D. 1999. Survival versus traditional methodologies for studying employee turnover:Differences, divergences and directions for future research.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 273–284.

Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. 1996. Family structure, glass ceiling, and traditional explanations forthe differential rate of turnover of female and male managers.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49: 99–118.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin(Eds.),Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.): 7–24. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (Eds.) 2000.Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and groupmembership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Tharenou, P., Latimer, S., & Conroy, D. 1994. How do you make it to the top? An examination of influences onwomen’s and men’s managerial advancement.Academy of Management Journal, 37: 899–931.

Thomas, R. R., Jr. 1990. From affirmative action to affirming diversity.Harvard Business Review, 68(2): 107–117.




Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. 1999. An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and proceduralfairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations.Social Justice Research, 12: 39–64.

Trevino, L. K. 1992. The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective.Academy ofManagement Review, 17: 647–677.

US Bureau of the Census 1996.Population projections of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin:1995–2050. Current population reports, series P25-1130. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Wenzel, M. 2000. Justice and identity: The significance of inclusion for perceptions of entitlement and the justicemotive.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 157–177.

Wharton, A. S. 1992. The social construction of gender and race in organizations: A social identity and groupmobilization perspective. In P. T. Tolbert & S. B. Bacharach (Eds.),Research in the sociology of organizations:Vol. 10, 55–84. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Yaffe, J. 1995. Latina managers in public employment: Perceptions of organizational discrimination.HispanicJournal of Behavioral Sciences, 17: 334–346.

Sharon Foley is an Assistant Professor of Management at Drexel University. She receivedher Ph.D. in management at the University of Connecticut. This article is based on herdoctoral dissertation. Her main research interests are diversity and fairness in the workplace.

Deborah L. Kidder is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University ofConnecticut. She received her Ph.D. from the Industrial Relations Center at the Universityof Minnesota. Her current research focus is on perceptions of fairness and consequences of(un)fair treatment in the workplace.

Gary N. Powell is a Professor of Management and Ackerman Scholar at the Universityof Connecticut. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the University ofMassachusetts-Amherst. His research interests focus on gender and diversity issues in theworkplace. He is the editor ofHandbook of Gender and Work and the co-author ofWomenand Men in Management (3rd ed.).



journal of management - tsinghua university

Documents