INTRODUCTION
In recent decades, sociologists have uncovered a wide range of race-based inequities at privileged levels of the American occupational structure as racial minorities—such as African Americans and Latinos—have moved into these positions at unprecedented rates. In this regard, the overwhelming majority of research by sociologists on inequality among, for example, managers and professionals, has focused on “structural” outcomes in the workplace. Specifically, in the context of issues such as “returns” by way of income and occupational status for investments in human capital credentials (Farley Reference Farley2004; Jaynes and Williams, Reference Jaynes and Williams1989) as well as access to higher-order and reward-relevant job tasks such as job authority and job autonomy (Hite Reference Hite2007; Hyllegard and Lavin, Reference Hyllegard and Lavin1992; Tomaskovic-Devey and Stainback, Reference Tomaskovic-Devey and Stainback2007; Wilson Reference Wilson1997; Smith Reference Smith2002) , a racialized continuum has emerged with Whites at the high/favorable end, African Americans at the low/unfavorable end, and Latinos occupying a middle ground.
At the same time, sociologists have begun to assess racial differences in reward-relevant “quality of life” experiential domains—such as job satisfaction (Firebaugh and Harley, Reference Firebaugh and Harley1995; Martin and Tuch, Reference Martin and Tuch1993; Tuch and Martin, Reference Tuch and Martin1991), alienation from job tasks (Dworkin et al., Reference Dworkin, Saltzman and Dworkin1983; Hofstetter and Buss, Reference Hofstetter and Buss1988), and perceived job insecurity (Gottschalk and Moffitt, Reference Gottschalk, Moffitt and Neumark2000; Manski and Straub, Reference Manski and Straub2000; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006)—among incumbents in privileged occupations. Overall, one of these experiential domains—perceived job insecurity—has emerged as particularly worthy of study because of its far-ranging deleterious consequences. For example, fear of impending job loss is related to behavior in the workplace such as employee absenteeism (Loscocco and Spitze, Reference Loscocco and Spitze1990; Pearce Reference Pearce1998), falling worker productivity (Barling et al., Reference Barling, Dupe and Hepburn1998), low levels of worker commitment (Ferrie et al., Reference Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot, Stansfeld and Davey-Smith1998; Lim Reference Lim1996; Probst Reference Probst1999), and elevated levels of workplace injuries and accidents (Probst and Brubaker, Reference Probst and Brubaker2001). Perceived job insecurity, in addition, helps to structure psychosocial “quality of life” indicators that operate in and out of the workplace such as diminished job satisfaction (Heaney et al., Reference Heaney, Israel and House1994; Lim Reference Lim1996), stress (Jacobson Reference Jacobson1991; Siegerist Reference Siegerist1996), depression (Heaney et al., Reference Heaney, Israel and House1994; Macneil Reference Macneil1994; Siegerist et al., Reference Siegerist, Matchinger, Cremer and Seidel1988), and negative sentiments toward outgroups (Thornton and Mizuno, Reference Thornton and Mizuno1999). Finally, perceived insecurity is also associated with a range of antisocial behaviors outside of the workplace including domestic and marital conflict (Ferrie Reference Ferrie1997), and even plays a role in structuring career aspirations that are transmitted to one's children (Barling et al., Reference Barling, Dupe and Hepburn1998).
Nevertheless, despite the demonstrated importance of perceived fear of impending job loss, the handful of studies that touch on its dynamics vis-à-vis race at the privileged occupational level have gone only as far as documenting that there is a large racial effect (Manski and Straub, Reference Manski and Straub2000; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006): approximately twice the proportion of African Americans—the minority group who have been the exclusive focus of study—as Whites express at least a “moderate” (Manski and Straub, Reference Manski and Straub2000) fear of job loss during the decade of the 1990s even after statistical controls are introduced for work experience and age (Manski and Straub, Reference Manski and Straub2000). We do not yet, however, understand crucial issues related to the racial gap. Perhaps our foremost question asks why the gap exists: Is it related, for example, to dynamics that take place in the workplace, or, alternatively, is it related to different race-specific dispositions or temperaments that workers bring with them to the workplace? Furthermore, we do not know how the dynamics of perceived insecurity differ across gender groups at a time when both male and female minority group members have moved into privileged slots in unprecedented numbers. The tendency in existing studies to pool samples of males and females conflates the effects of gender and race across independent variables, precluding an assessment of how race operates within discrete gender categories. Finally, we know little about the dynamics of perceived insecurity among additional minority groups, for example, Latinos, who—in addition to African Americans—have entered privileged occupations at unprecedented rates in recent decades (Farley Reference Farley2004; Massey and Anderson, Reference Massey and Anderson2000).
This study enhances our understanding of the relationship between race/ethnicity and perceived job insecurity at the privileged occupational level by addressing these critical questions. In particular, it uses data from a nationally representative sample, the General Social Survey (GSS), to assess the merits of two theoretical perspectives: the first, focusing on discrimination-induced, structural marginality experienced by racial/ethnic minorities in the workplace (the marginalized-worker perspective) and, the second, emphasizing the learned dispositions of fatalism and mistrust (the dispositional perspective).
PERSPECTIVES ON RACE AND PERCEIVED JOB INSECURITY IN PRIVILEGED OCCUPATIONS
A. The Marginalized-Worker Perspective
Fundamentals
“The marginalized-worker” perspective—a first formulation—is distilled from recent case studies and survey-based analyses that focus on adverse social psychological consequences for African American and Latino managers and professionals, ensuing from a range of employment practices in predominantly White-owned and -managed workplaces (Brown and Erie, Reference Brown and Erie1981; Collins Reference Collins1997, Reference Collins1993; Farley Reference Farley2004, Reference Farley1996; Fernandez Reference Fernandez1981, Reference Fernandez1975; Hite Reference Hite2007; Kluegel Reference Kluegel1978; Moore Reference Moore1981; Mueller et al., Reference Mueller, Finley, Iverson and Price1999; Mundra et al., Reference Mundra, Moellner and Lopze-Aqueres1995; Pettigrew Reference Pettigrew1985; Pettigrew and Martin, Reference Pettigrew and Martin1987; Wilson Reference Wilson1997; Yaffee Reference Yaffee1995). This perspective maintains that discriminatory practices inducing fear of job loss do not necessarily lead to actual job loss (see Fernandez Reference Fernandez1981; Burstein Reference Burstein1985 for factors—such as affirmative action programs—that can lead to the retention of jobs, though fear of job loss is present). Overall, the employment practices identified are rooted in the institutionally based dynamics associated with “modern racial prejudice” (Pettigrew Reference Pettigrew1985). Accordingly, they tend not to be discriminatory in intent or have the ill will associated with classic “Jim Crow” racism but rather have a disproportionately negative impact on minorities at upper reaches of the American workplace (Collins Reference Collins1997; Fernandez Reference Fernandez1981). Essentially, African Americans and Latinos in upper-tier occupations may not necessarily be at greater risk of losing their jobs than their White peers, but they may have heightened levels of job insecurity because of concern about the possibility of future unfair evaluation and allocation practices in the workplace.
The marginalized-worker perspective maintains that the foundation of job insecurity perception among racial minorities—such as African Americans and Latinos—rests in dynamics involving both allocation and performance evaluation practices by employers. Significantly, these practices by employers serve to send signals of relative lack of work to highly skilled, trained, and experienced racial minorities, particularly in predominantly White-owned and -managed firms (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006). First, minority professionals and managers tend to be allocated into “racialized” jobs, namely, politically-induced slots that are restricted to servicing the needs of minority customers/clients (Collins Reference Collins1997, Reference Collins1993). These jobs are characterized by their non-significant revenue-generating tasks that are acknowledged as marginal to the bottom-line financial status of firms (Brown and Erie, Reference Brown and Erie1981; Collins Reference Collins1997). Further, minorities tend to work in racially delineated work groups that are most often responsible for accomplishing low-priority organizational goals (Fernandez Reference Fernandez1981, Reference Fernandez1975). In addition, even when minorities succeed in gaining access to “mainstream” jobs—i.e., those that involve servicing the needs of a racially diverse customer/client base, and racially mixed work groups—they tend to be relegated as subordinates to Whites in authority hierarchies (Collins Reference Collins1997; Fernandez Reference Fernandez1981).
Second, perceived job insecurity is rooted in unfair and unfavorable performance evaluations, which induce perceptions of “marginality and foreboding that one is not a preferred employee” (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006, p. 221) and may also render minority groups disproportionately susceptible to firings, as well as layoffs pursuant to the discretion employers have in identifying who are to be victims of downsizing (see Valletta Reference Valletta and Neumark2000). In this vein, minorities, relative to Whites, have difficulty demonstrating the range of vaguely defined and difficult to measure “particularistic” (Kluegel Reference Kluegel1978) or informal criteria such as perceived loyalty, good character, and leadership potential that are crucial in performance evaluations (Kluegel Reference Kluegel1978; Parcel et al., Reference Parcel, Mueller and Tanaka1989; Wilson Reference Wilson1997). As such, in the absence of opportunities to demonstrate them, the evaluation process for minority group members becomes infused with cognitive distortions such as “statistical discrimination” (Pettigrew and Martin, Reference Pettigrew and Martin1987; Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs, Reference Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs1999) and “attribution bias” (Pettigrew Reference Pettigrew1985) so that they are assessed on selective bases that reaffirm preexisting negative stereotypes about suitability for—and levels of productivity at—work.
Overall, the two subtle forms of marginalization in the workplace, i.e., allocation and evaluation practices, are responsible for a set of determinants of perceived job insecurity for racial minorities, that, relative to Whites, is broadly based and generalized. Accordingly, a range of traditional, stratification-based causal factors encompassing human capital credentials such as educational attainment and work experience, as well as job/labor market characteristics including economic sector of work, union status of job, job autonomy, and job authority, should provide greater insulation from perceived job insecurity for Whites than African Americans or Latinos/Latinas. In other words, minorities are not as immune from perceived job insecurity as Whites even when they are similarly credentialed and experienced, work in the same economic sector, and have jobs with similar stratification-relevant job features.
A Refinement: Across Gender Groups
The marginalized-worker perspective predicts that African Americans and Latinos are more likely to feel insecure about their jobs than Whites, regardless of their human capital credentials or job/labor market characteristics. We expect that this should be found among both women and men in privileged occupations. Discrimination can be based on different intersecting social statuses, such as race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic standing. Therefore, racial/ethnic minority women in particular can experience “multiple jeopardy” (King Reference King1988). Consequently, they may even have higher levels of job insecurity than their male counterparts. Furthermore, women and racial/ethnic minorities can feel like “tokens” in the workplace because they are visible minorities, and they may believe their skills and work are not valued appropriately (Kanter Reference Kanter1977). In sum, we expect that female and male African American and Latinos in privileged occupations should be more likely to feel marginalized and fear losing their jobs than their White counterparts, despite their achieved socioeconomic status. Along these lines, more specifically, traditional insulating factors—such as human capital and job/labor market characteristics—should provide African Americans and Latinos/Latinas less protection from perceived job insecurity than White gender counterparts.
B. The Dispositional Perspective
Fundamentals
The “dispositional perspective”—a second formulation—emerges from a synthesis of recent research in social psychology, which highlights that fatalism and mistrust are learned dispositions that influence levels of perceived job insecurity (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006). A fatalistic disposition involves a low sense of personal control over one's life, such as the belief that life is controlled by luck or fate (Dalbert Reference Dalbert1997; Ross and Mirowsky, Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Delamater's2003; Turner and Kiecolt, Reference Turner and Kiecolt1984; Wheaton Reference Wheaton1980). Research has revealed that fatalism is associated with psychological distress (Ross and Mirowsky Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Delamater's2003; Wheaton Reference Wheaton1980). A mistrusting disposition refers to an absence of confident reliability on the integrity, honesty, or justice of another (Cook Reference Cook2005). Studies have also suggested that mistrust can interfere with the development of cooperative relationships and social networks, which can lead to loneliness and a sense of alienation (Putnam Reference Putnam1995; Ross et al., Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Pribesh2001; Ross and Mirowsky, Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Delamater's2003; Sztompka Reference Sztompka1999). In sum, fatalistic and mistrusting dispositions are brought to the workplace, thereby structuring levels of perceived insecurity about employment status (Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006). Research is necessary to determine whether these two dispositions exacerbate levels of perceived job insecurity among women and men in prestigious occupations, over and above the traditional predictors of job insecurity, which include human capital (education and work experience) and job/labor market factors (job autonomy, authority, union status, private or economic sector).
A Refinement: Across Minority Groups
Research suggests that Blacks and Latinos generally have higher levels of fatalism and mistrust than Whites, which is not entirely because of socioeconomic status (Bruce and Thornton, Reference Bruce and Thornton2004; Hughes and Demo, Reference Hughes and Demo1989; Ross et al., Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Pribesh2001; Ross and Mirowsky, Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Delamater's2003). It has been argued that experiencing discrimination throughout one's life perpetuates fatalistic and mistrusting attitudes (Ross and Mirowsky, Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Delamater's2003). Accordingly, racial/ethnic minorities in professional occupations likely have histories of discriminatory experiences based on an ascribed characteristic over which they have no control, and thus they could experience the chronic stress of job insecurity despite their achieved credentials because they do not trust that their employers will judge their job performance fairly. Moreover, research needs to establish whether fatalism and mistrust exert a larger impact on perceived job insecurity among African Americans and Latinos than Whites because they exhibit higher levels of these two dispositions.
DATA AND METHODS
Data from the 1998 file of the GSS are pooled to assess the determinants of perceived job insecurity among White, African American, and Latino males and females in the context of the marginalized-work and dispositional perspectives (for a description of the GSS data set, see Davis and Smith, Reference Davis and Smith1996). In particular, the sample consists of all non-self-employed White, African American, and Latino/Latina full-time workers between the ages of eighteen and sixty who worked in the 1980 “Managerial and Professional” census-based occupational category and were posed questions regarding perceived job insecurity and at the time of their interview. This selection criteria resulted in a sample of 830 individuals, 456 Whites (196 women, 260 men), 205 African Americans (85 women, 120 men), and 172 Latinos (80 women, 92 men). The model used in this study is operationalized as follows.Footnote 1
Dependent Variable
Perceived Job Insecurity
Consistent with the approach taken in the majority of previous research, perceived job insecurity is operationalized as a one-item, global indicator that taps the fear of losing a present job (Ferrie et al., Reference Ferrie, Shipley, Marmot, Stansfeld and Davey-Smith1998; Heaney et al., Reference Heaney, Israel and House1994; Jacobson Reference Jacobson1991; Manski and Straub, Reference Manski and Straub2000; Schmidt Reference Schmidt and Neumark2000). Specifically, the indicator of perceived job insecurity is phrased as follows: “Thinking about the next 12 months, how likely do you think it is that you will lose your job or be laid off—not at all likely, not too likely, fairly likely, or very likely?” The variable is coded 0–3 (higher scores on the item reflect greater levels of perceived job insecurity).Footnote 2
Independent Variables
Human Capital Characteristics
The level of educational attainment is the principal human capital predictor variable in the model and is coded in years completed.Footnote 3 Higher scores reflect greater levels of educational attainment. A measure of experience in the workforce is also included. The GSS provides no direct measure of experience in the workforce; however, in line with other studies (Kluegel Reference Kluegel1978; Smith Reference Smith1997), a variable that constitutes a proxy for experience is constructed. Specifically, experience equals age minus years of education minus six, with age being respondents' age in years and education being the number of years of school completed.Footnote 4
Job/Labor Market Characteristics
The influence of several job characteristics are assessed. First, position in the authority structure is measured by constructing a three-category hierarchical variable that derives from the following questions: 1) “In your job, do you supervise anyone who is directly responsible to you?,” and, 2) “If yes, do any of those persons supervise anyone else?” Those with two levels of subordinates are coded as 2; those with one level of subordinates are coded as 1; and those who do not supervise anyone are coded as 0. Second, job autonomy is measured by the following question: “Do you have a supervisor on your job to whom you are directly responsible (coded 1 = no, 0 = yes). Third, union status is based on whether respondent belongs to a labor union (1 = yes, 0 = no).
In addition, several labor market characteristics are assessed. First, the public/private sector distinction is represented by a dummy variable (1 = public, 0 = private). Second, the effect of industry on perceived job insecurity is gauged. Specifically, the broad three-digit 1990 industries [A) Public Administration; B) Finance, Insurance and Real Estate; C) Retail and Wholesale Trade; D) Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; and E) Entertainment, Professional, Recreational, and Business Services] that have expanded in terms of the number of available jobs during the 1990s are designated “growth industries” (Neumark Reference Neumark2000) and are coded 1; industries [A) Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries/Mining; B) Nondurable Goods, Manufacturing; C) Durable Goods, Manufacturing; and, D) Construction] that have contracted during the decade of the 1990s are designated “declining industries” (Neumark Reference Neumark2000) and are coded 0.
Dispositions
The influence of two dispositions are assessed. First, fatalistic views about future life-events are measured as a summative scale of two questions that assess the extent to which respondents agree or disagree with the following statements: “The really good things that happen to me are mostly luck,” and “I have little control over the bad things that happen to me.” Higher scores on the scale indicate heightened levels of fatalism.Footnote 5 Choices on each of the two items range from “strongly disagree” (coded 0) to “strongly agree” (coded 4). Mistrust is also measured with a like-style item that is worded as follows: “Generally speaking, would you say that people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people?” Higher scores on answers signify greater mistrust. Specifically, answers ranged from “people can always be trusted” (coded 0) to “almost always can't be too careful in dealing with people” (coded 3).
Finally, ordered probit regression models run separately for males and females and are used to assess the adequacy of the marginalized-worker and dispositional perspectives in explaining racial/ethnic differences among males and females in levels of perceived job insecurity. Probit is estimated by maximum likelihood techniques and is the appropriate form of multivariate analysis to employ when the dependent variable is measured in terms of ordered categories that do not take the form of a precise interval scale. Assuming that the ordered categories are of equal length can produce biased results when standard ordinary least squares regression is employed. Probit includes one set of additional parameters (cut points) that represent the unobserved thresholds between the categories and permit the likelihood function to be maximized with respect to the effect and threshold parameters simultaneously (Long Reference Long1997). Probit assesses the substantive importance of shifts in particular independent variables on the likelihood that a particular event will occur in the dependent variable.
RESULTS
Mean levels of perceived job insecurity among men and women across three racial/ethnic groups—African Americans, Latinos, and Whites—are presented in Table 1 (descriptive results for all variables utilized in the analyses are found in the Appendix).
Table 1. Levels of Perceived Job Insecurity in Privileged Occupations: GSS Sample
T-Tests for Group Differences (at P > .05 level)
a Significantly Different from Latinos
b Significantly Different from Whites
c Significantly Different from African Americans
The t-test results indicate that among both men and women there are significant differences across racial groups in levels of perceived job insecurity,Footnote 6 Specifically, across both gender groups a racialized hierarchy emerges in levels of perceived job insecurity: Whites are most advantaged, African Americans are least advantaged, and Latinos occupy a middle ground. Among males, Whites (1.1) have the lowest mean levels of perceived job insecurity, African Americans (1.7) have the highest mean levels, and Latinos (1.3) are in-between the other two groups. Among women, Whites (1.4) have the lowest mean levels of perceived insecurity, African Americans (1.9) have the highest mean levels, and Latinos (1.5) are between the other two groups. Supplementary t-test analyses indicate that women fear job loss to a greater extent than men.
Multivariate Analyses
Table 2 uses ordered probit regression analyses to test whether the marginalized-worker and/or dispositional perspectives explain racial/ethnic differences in perceived job insecurity among men in privileged occupations. According to model 1 in Table 2, African Americans (b = 0.30; P < 0.001) and Latinos (b = 0.22; P < 0.01) are significantly more likely to feel insecure about their jobs than Whites. Model 2 shows that these racial/ethnic differences are maintained while controlling for human capital, measured by education and work experience.Footnote 7 These human capital credentials are not powerful mediating mechanisms that explain why there are racial/ethnic differences in fear of impending job loss in privileged occupations. Model 3 additionally adjusts for job/labor market factors, which include union status, public sector, growth industry, job authority, and job autonomy. The coefficients for African American (b = 0.21; P < 0.01) and Latino (b = 0.19; P < 0.05) are somewhat diminished in size, but continue to be statistically significant in model 3, which suggests that job/labor market factors only partially explain racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of job insecurity. As predicted by the marginalized-worker perspective, results in model 3 show that African Americans and Latinos in professional occupations are more likely to feel insecure about their jobs than Whites over and above their privileged human capital credentials and job/labor market characteristics. Other noteworthy findings are that education exerts only a weak inverse effect on perceived job insecurity that is no longer statistically significant when job/labor market factors are controlled: Work experience, public sector, growth industry, and job authority are associated with significantly lower levels of perceived job insecurity among males in privileged occupations.
Table 2. Probit Regressions for Determinants of Perceived Job Insecurity in Privileged Occupations: Men
Note: Unstandardized coefficients and standard errors in parentheses are shown.
* P < .05;
** P < .01;
*** P < .001
The dispositional perspective is tested in models 4 to 6 in Table 2. Results indicate that the dispositions of fatalism and mistrust do not significantly influence perceived job insecurity among males in privileged occupations, controlling for the other traditional predictors of job insecurity. Supplementary analyses (available on request) of the zero-order associations, however, reveal that fatalism is significantly (P < 0.05) associated with higher levels of perceived job insecurity among males. Results in model 6 suggest that racial/ethnic differences in fear of job loss are not explained by fatalistic and mistrusting attitudes.
Model 7 examines interaction effects to determine whether the predictors of perceived job insecurity vary by race/ethnicity. In essence, results indicate that work experience, job authority, and growth industry serve to insulate Whites from feeling insecure about their jobs to a greater extent than for African Americans and Latinos. The relationship between union status and lower levels of job insecurity is also stronger for Whites than African Americans, but the interaction effect is not significant for Latinos. Union status is associated with significantly lower levels of perceived job insecurity among Whites, but not among African Americans. Together, these interaction effects provide evidence for the marginalized-worker perspective. A significant interaction is also observed between African American and fatalism (b = 0.07; P < 0.01). This finding supports the dispositional perspective by showing that the relationship between fatalism and higher levels of job insecurity is stronger for African American men than White men.
Table 3 uses ordered probit regression analyses to test whether the marginalized worker and/or dispositional perspectives explain racial/ethnic differences in perceived job insecurity among women in privileged occupations. Reflecting the findings for men, African American (b = 0.21; P < 0.01) and Latino (b = 0.16; P < 0.05) women are more likely to feel insecure about their jobs than Whites. Model 2 controls for human capital (education and work experience), and the effects of African American (b = 0.19; P < 0.01) and Latino (b = .15; P < .05) are relatively unchanged and maintain their levels of statistical significance. Model 3 additionally adjusts for job/labor market factors, which include union status, public sector, growth industry, job authority, and job autonomy. Racial/ethnic differences in perceived job insecurity (African American, b = .18; Latino, b = .14) are slightly decreased in size, but continue to be statistically significant (P < .05). Therefore, racial/ethnic disparities in levels of perceived job insecurity among women in privileged occupations are not explained by their human capital credentials or job/labor market factors. Consistent with the literature, model 3 shows that more education, work experience, and job authority are associated with being less likely to feel job insecurity. Models 4 to 6 test the dispositional perspective. Like the findings for men, the dispositions of fatalism and mistrust do not have significant associations with perceptions of job insecurity among women, net of control variables.
Table 3. Probit Regressions for Determinants of Perceived Job Insecurity in Privileged Occupations: Women
Note: Unstandardized coefficients and standard errors in parentheses are shown.
* P < .05;
** P < .01;
*** P < .001
Finally, analyses of interaction effects explore racial/ethnic differences in the determinants of perceived job insecurity in model 7 of Table 3. Results indicate that human capital credentials (education and work experience) serve to insulate Whites from perceptions of job insecurity to a greater extent than for African Americans and Latinos. Job authority and Union status significantly interact with African Americans, such that these job/labor market factors protect Whites from perceived insecurity more than African Americans. These findings support the marginalized-worker perspective. There is also some support for the dispositional perspective because fatalism interacts significantly with African American (b = .05; P < .01). The relationship between having a fatalistic disposition and fear of job loss is stronger for African American women than White women.
In sum, African American and Latino women and men in prestigious occupations can still feel like “marginalized workers” because they are more likely to be insecure about their jobs than Whites, despite their educational achievements, work experience, job autonomy or authority, and other advantaged labor market factors. Furthermore, the link between having a fatalistic disposition and fear of job loss is stronger among African American women and men than Whites.Footnote 8
CONCLUSION
Fear of job loss represents a potentially important source of racial inequality at the privileged occupational level (Elman and O'Rand, Reference Elman and O'Rand2002; Manski and Straub, Reference Manski and Straub2000; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006). Research at the privileged level has indicated that African Americans are the most concerned about losing their jobs, followed by Latinos, and then Whites (Elman and O'Rand, Reference Elman and O'Rand2002; Wilson et al., Reference Wilson, Eitle and Bishin2006). Sociologists have not attempted, however, to explain the causes related to higher levels of perceived job insecurity among racial minorities than Whites. This study has examined two possible explanations for this finding among a sample of professionals and managers. The first emphasizes the discrimination-induced, structural marginality experienced by minorities in the workplace (the marginalized-worker perspective) and the second emphasizes the learned dispositions of fatalism and mistrust (the dispositional perspective).
Results from a nationally representative sample indicate that male and female African Americans and Latinos are significantly more likely to fear impending job loss than Whites along lines enunciated by the marginalized-worker perspective. Therefore, African Americans and Latinos in prestigious occupations can feel like “marginalized workers” regardless of their achieved status, likely because histories of discrimination have perpetuated their fear of being evaluated or allocated unfairly in the workplace, which could increase their perceived risk of job loss. Specifically, consistent with the notion that discriminatory allocation and evaluation practices induce heightened perceived insecurity, interaction effects indicate that human capital credentials and job/labor market characteristics serve to insulate Whites from perceived job insecurity to a greater extent than for African Americans and Latinos. These interaction effects also provided evidence to support one of the two components of the dispositional perspective—fatalism—on a limited race-specific basis. Male and female African Americans with higher levels of fatalism—i.e., a generalized expectation that life is not responsive to one's own choices, actions, and efforts because it is determined by luck, fate, or powerful others (Ross and Mirowsky, Reference Ross, Mirowsky and Delamater's2003)—were significantly more likely to feel insecure about their jobs than Whites.
Overall, generalized susceptibility to perceived job insecurity among African American and Latino men and women constitutes a tangible form of inequality at the privileged occupational level. It is rooted in discriminatory dynamics, so that for Latinos/Latinas and African Americans, experiencing perceived job insecurity emerges as an almost inevitable consequence of occupying a privileged job. These minorities, unlike Whites, cannot overcome perceived insecurity through conventional, stratification-based means, for example, increased motivation or work ethic on the “supply side” nor working in a more favorable economic sector or in a unionized slot on the “demand side.” In short, the force of prejudice and discrimination negates advantages accruing from a traditional favorable stratification-based profile. Moreover, racial/ethnic discrimination in the workplace can be gendered (Bell and Nkomo, Reference Bell and Nkomo2001; Feagin and Sikes, Reference Feagin and Sikes1994; Harvey Wingfield Reference Harvey Wingfield2007), and more research should examine its implications for perceptions of job insecurity.
African Americans and Latinos disproportionately suffer from the far-reaching damaging consequences of this generalized susceptibility to perceived job insecurity. They are, for example, more likely to suffer from psychosocial deficits and struggle with commitment and productivity issues in the workplace, which hamper economic trajectories and negatively impinge on family dynamics outside of the workplace. Job insecurity is a chronic stressor, and research has indicated that chronic stressors have more harmful psychological consequences than acute stressors (Turner et al., Reference Turner, Wheaton and Lloyd1995). Fear of unemployment may be psychologically distressing for African Americans and Latino families because they have more financial debt than White families on average in the United States (Collins Reference Collins1997, Reference Collins1993; Oliver and Shapiro, Reference Oliver and Shapiro1997). Thus, they are less likely to have the economic security of positive net worth if they experience unemployment for long periods of time. African Americans and Latinos in privileged occupations who persistently feel like their jobs are at risk are thus more likely to suffer from psychosocial deficits, such as symptoms of depression, and struggle with commitment and productivity issues in the workplace which hamper economic trajectories and negatively impinge on family dynamics outside of the workplace. Finally, it is suspected—though not yet firmly established in empirical research—that perceived insecurity may also be a precursor to job displacement (see Fullerton and Wallace, Reference Fullerton and Wallace2007; Manski and Straub, Reference Manski and Straub2000).
It follows logically from this discussion that perceived job insecurity is an aspect of racial inequality that will be difficult to redress in the privileged workplace. In fact, for minority group members the situation could get worse before it improves. At the very time that racial minorities continue to gain entry into privileged slots in unprecedented numbers, there is evidence that in the “new restructured workplace” (Cappelli Reference Cappelli and Neumark2000) the enhanced flexibility of employers in determining the job conditions of workers—pursuant to the erosion of traditional internal labor market protections (DiPrete Reference DiPrete1989; Hipple Reference Hipple1999) and union concessions to avoid downsizing (Cappelli Reference Cappelli and Neumark2000)—is increasing their discretion/opportunity to implement the discriminatory practices that disproportionately induce perceived job insecurity in minority group workers. To “stem the tide” and bring about greater equity in the dynamics of perceived insecurity, it is recommended that, first, efforts be made to formalize conditions of work; for example, establishing clear-cut guidelines that govern employment evaluations and facilitate integrated work-tasks, which match minority employees and majority group clients/customers and serve to reduce the preponderance of segregated job networks as well as the allocation of African Americans into racialized job functions (Bielby Reference Bielby2000; Reskin Reference Reskin2000). Second, broadening the scope of equal opportunity law and reversing its increasingly lax enforcement in recent years, as well as establishing internal review boards that monitor employment practices with sanctioning capability, would also provide a check on institutionally based discriminatory employment practices that induce perceived job insecurity on a disproportionate basis among racial minorities.
In sum, this study represents only a preliminary attempt to assess the racial/ethnic differences in the determinants of perceived insecurity at the privileged occupational level. Future research needs, for example, to employ longitudinal and trend-based designs that are necessary to assess the durability of the findings reached here and to examine the long-term social and psychological consequences of the stress of job insecurity among racial/ethnic minorities in privileged occupations. Longitudinal research is also necessary to examine, for example, whether fatalism, which develops temporally prior to entry into the workplace, increases the likelihood of fear of job loss at all levels of the occupational structure. Moreover, in the context of the marginalized-worker perspective, research needs to establish more directly the link between the discriminatory behavior of employers and perceived job insecurity. A recognized limitation of this study is that employers' discriminatory employment practices are not directly measured: their influence is inferred from patterns of significance along a vector of predictor variables in which they should play a role. It is possible the effects of human capital credentials and job/labor market characteristics on perceived insecurity are driven by unmeasured variables—such as cognitive differences and performance differences in the workplace—not included in the statistical model; these unmeasured variables could, conceivably, render differences in the statistical effects of human capital credentials, and job/labor market characteristics as unrelated to institutionalized discriminatory dynamics. Accordingly, it is necessary to cast the causal role of institutionally based dynamics in qualified terms. This limitation, we believe, can be overcome by collecting data in specific organizations, where the potential exists to observe first-hand how different levels of vulnerability to dismissal across racial groups are created, and in turn, how specified employment practices impact perceived job insecurity. When these suggestions for future research are implemented it will move us forward in better understanding the underlying causes of an experiential domain in the privileged workplace which constitutes a significant aspect of inequality along racial lines.
APPENDIX
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR GSS SAMPLE
a X = Mean
b SD = Standard Deviation
