A More Integrative Approach
Compared with more turbulent times in history, some might argue workplace discrimination has seen a downward trend. Others would contend that workplace discrimination has “just gone underground” and become more covert (Herring, Reference Herring2002, p. 13). Either way, not-so-distant historical events such as the landmark Texaco case in 1996 and the Ford Motor case in 2000 remind us that discrimination demands our attention. Calls for research on interventions have surfaced (Becker, Zawadzki, & Shields, Reference Becker, Zawadzki and Shields2014), and proposals such as legal reforms, implicit bias training (Bartlett, Reference Bartlett2009), and experiential learning workshops have answered (Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube, & Shields, Reference Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube and Shields2014). The focal article (Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017) contributes to this discussion as it turns our attention to the construct space of discrimination and presents a framework for organizing its facets and forms. Without a doubt, a framework that lends itself to the integration of the many forms of discrimination is long overdue.
The focal article poses an important question: If much of what is defined as modern discrimination is implicit, lacking intention to harm, and difficult to prove in a court of law, how do we go about identifying and remediating it? This question has largely been neglected in the burgeoning literature on the implicit and ambiguous nature of subtle discrimination. Although the focal authors provide a novel, multidimensional conceptualization, we contend that an integrative approach and a mapping of related constructs should be strongly considered.
As the focal article mentions, there are various constructs (e.g., benevolent sexism, selective incivility, interpersonal mistreatment, bullying, microaggressions) in the literature that reflect subtle, overt, interpersonal, formal, intentional, and unintentional manifestations of discrimination. However, a review of this literature uncovers overlap between several constructs. For example, a definition of interpersonal discrimination focusing on verbal behavior (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002) has been used in organizational contexts to examine outcomes such as employee relationships, cooperation, and commitment (Lim & Cortina, Reference Lim and Cortina2004).
For this reason, it may be useful to extend this work by mapping these constructs onto the proposed dimensions in a way that recognizes previous findings regarding their characteristics. In doing so, our goal is to display the usefulness of this framework by integrating the established constructs that each carry their own baggage. It is also our objective to engage in research practice that helps avoid future construct cleanup and facilitates accumulative knowledge—something our field is often criticized for neglecting. Moreover, this commentary serves as renewed encouragement for industrial–organizational researchers to continue pursuing opportunities for collaboration with social psychologists both conceptually and methodologically.
Figure 1 is intended to be an illustrative example based on the dimensions proposed in the focal article rather than a definitive model. According to the proposed dimensions, selective incivility fits comfortably in the upper left quadrant, consisting predominately of interpersonal consequences and covert behavior (Robinson & Bennett, Reference Robinson and Bennett1995). Consistent with the literature, the concept map also includes constructs not mentioned in the focal article. For instance, petty tyranny and abusive supervision lie further on the formal, overt end of the spectrum. Another consideration, social undermining, positions itself as a more formal counterpart to selective incivility (Hershcovis, Reference Hershcovis2011).
Figure 1. Concept Map of Previous Research on Proposed Framework.
This framework encourages the exploration, extension, and boundary spanning of traditionally constricted views of discrimination. For example, as mentioned in the focal article, extant research assumes overt discrimination is expressed with true intent to harm. Recently, researchers have begun to explore an alternative understanding of discrimination. In the case of subtle discrimination, such as selective incivility, this framework allows for the consideration of subconsciously motivated behavior (Neuman, Reference Neuman, Griffin and O'Leary-Kelly2004), which varies in terms of formality, yet, for the most part, is indirectly related to work outcomes. We believe this spectrum of possibilities is more aligned with the evolving nature of our field's findings regarding discrimination. Additionally, it encourages the consideration of other potential dimensions of discriminatory behavior, new emergent forms, and situational factors that facilitate such emergence.
A More Integrative Approach
Compared with more turbulent times in history, some might argue workplace discrimination has seen a downward trend. Others would contend that workplace discrimination has “just gone underground” and become more covert (Herring, Reference Herring2002, p. 13). Either way, not-so-distant historical events such as the landmark Texaco case in 1996 and the Ford Motor case in 2000 remind us that discrimination demands our attention. Calls for research on interventions have surfaced (Becker, Zawadzki, & Shields, Reference Becker, Zawadzki and Shields2014), and proposals such as legal reforms, implicit bias training (Bartlett, Reference Bartlett2009), and experiential learning workshops have answered (Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube, & Shields, Reference Cundiff, Zawadzki, Danube and Shields2014). The focal article (Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso, & Lindsey, Reference Jones, Arena, Nittrouer, Alonso and Lindsey2017) contributes to this discussion as it turns our attention to the construct space of discrimination and presents a framework for organizing its facets and forms. Without a doubt, a framework that lends itself to the integration of the many forms of discrimination is long overdue.
The focal article poses an important question: If much of what is defined as modern discrimination is implicit, lacking intention to harm, and difficult to prove in a court of law, how do we go about identifying and remediating it? This question has largely been neglected in the burgeoning literature on the implicit and ambiguous nature of subtle discrimination. Although the focal authors provide a novel, multidimensional conceptualization, we contend that an integrative approach and a mapping of related constructs should be strongly considered.
As the focal article mentions, there are various constructs (e.g., benevolent sexism, selective incivility, interpersonal mistreatment, bullying, microaggressions) in the literature that reflect subtle, overt, interpersonal, formal, intentional, and unintentional manifestations of discrimination. However, a review of this literature uncovers overlap between several constructs. For example, a definition of interpersonal discrimination focusing on verbal behavior (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002) has been used in organizational contexts to examine outcomes such as employee relationships, cooperation, and commitment (Lim & Cortina, Reference Lim and Cortina2004).
For this reason, it may be useful to extend this work by mapping these constructs onto the proposed dimensions in a way that recognizes previous findings regarding their characteristics. In doing so, our goal is to display the usefulness of this framework by integrating the established constructs that each carry their own baggage. It is also our objective to engage in research practice that helps avoid future construct cleanup and facilitates accumulative knowledge—something our field is often criticized for neglecting. Moreover, this commentary serves as renewed encouragement for industrial–organizational researchers to continue pursuing opportunities for collaboration with social psychologists both conceptually and methodologically.
Figure 1 is intended to be an illustrative example based on the dimensions proposed in the focal article rather than a definitive model. According to the proposed dimensions, selective incivility fits comfortably in the upper left quadrant, consisting predominately of interpersonal consequences and covert behavior (Robinson & Bennett, Reference Robinson and Bennett1995). Consistent with the literature, the concept map also includes constructs not mentioned in the focal article. For instance, petty tyranny and abusive supervision lie further on the formal, overt end of the spectrum. Another consideration, social undermining, positions itself as a more formal counterpart to selective incivility (Hershcovis, Reference Hershcovis2011).
Figure 1. Concept Map of Previous Research on Proposed Framework.
This framework encourages the exploration, extension, and boundary spanning of traditionally constricted views of discrimination. For example, as mentioned in the focal article, extant research assumes overt discrimination is expressed with true intent to harm. Recently, researchers have begun to explore an alternative understanding of discrimination. In the case of subtle discrimination, such as selective incivility, this framework allows for the consideration of subconsciously motivated behavior (Neuman, Reference Neuman, Griffin and O'Leary-Kelly2004), which varies in terms of formality, yet, for the most part, is indirectly related to work outcomes. We believe this spectrum of possibilities is more aligned with the evolving nature of our field's findings regarding discrimination. Additionally, it encourages the consideration of other potential dimensions of discriminatory behavior, new emergent forms, and situational factors that facilitate such emergence.
Conclusion
The focal article pays deserved attention to the overarching dimensions of discrimination. Perhaps most intriguing is its potential to further the discussion regarding the nuances of various forms of discrimination. In this commentary, we highlight the importance of integration of discrimination and other aggression-related constructs within this framework. By doing so, we aim to paint a clearer picture of this phenomenon by making use of the little we know.