UVA-OB-0381

PREJUDICE IN ORGANIZATIONS
The problems faced by women and minorities create a serious malfunction in
corporate operations. Minorities and women have yet to be accepted as full members
of corporate formal and informal networks. Until they are, not only do they suffer
but so does the corporation. The utilization of minorities and women in many, many
cases toward corporate effectiveness and efficiency continues to be seriously
hampered by behaviors in crucial interpersonal relationships that reflect racist and
sexist attitudes.
- John Fernandez1
Although many would like to believe otherwise, prejudiced attitudes continue to present
problems for millions of people in our society. Prejudices result in counter productive behavior such
as demeaning humor, verbal abuse, harassment, violence, and more subtly (given comparable
performance) lower pay, slower or non-existent promotions, systematic exclusion from various
gatherings, greater scrutiny, higher standards, and awkward social encounters.
Many groups labor with these realities in the work place: women, racial minorities, older
workers, foreign nationals, sexual preference, religious and ethnic groups, and the physically
handicapped all feel the sting of social prejudice. Prejudice is a problem that touches all aspects of
life, but it has only recently been addressed openly in the work place.
Prejudice lingers despite the fact that noticeable shifts in the composition of our work force
have taken place. More and more women, blacks, and other minorities have entered and will
continue to enter the work force. Members of these groups are becoming more and more numerous
in visible roles in business organizations and more and more outspoken and insistent on fair and
equitable treatment. This has caused tension in many organizations. Some white males, a group that
has traditionally dominated the corporate world, feel threatened by the rapidity of the changes, while
women and minorities and others feel that the changes are occurring too slowly. Presently, the
1

John P. Fernandez, Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1981), p. 179.

This case was prepared by James G. Clawson and Bryan Smith. It was written as a basis for class discussion rather
than to illustrate effective or ineffective handling of an administrative situation. Copyright 1990 by the
University of Virginia Darden School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. All rights reserved. To order copies, send
an e-mail to sales@dardenpublishing.com. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any meanselectronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwisewithout the permission of the Darden School Foundation.

-2-

UVA-OB-0381

numbers continue to favor the white male and outspokenness by other groups tends to breed
resentment. It is difficult to work within a system and change it from below. If something is to
change, the senior ranks will have to make it happen; the problems associated with clinging to longheld prejudices will not go away unless and until practicing managers address the topic of prejudice
and its impact on their business lives.
How a manager handles prejudice in the work place is an important issue, and it can be
crucial to his or her personal and organizational success, especially in an increasingly diverse
workplace. Effective managers recognize, welcome, and manage diversity and variety in their work
forces. People who understand prejudice and the dynamics of change manage them better in
themselves and in others. This note seeks to encourage managers and managers-to-be to take a
serious look at prejudice, to see what it is and how each of us have and implement our prejudices, to
understand how prejudice is formed, and to strive to manage prejudice in themeselves and in others.
Definition
The word prejudice comes from the Latin, prae + judicium meaning to try in advance.
Prejudice is literally a pre-judgment about the characteristics and desirability of a person or thing.
Although we may speak of favorable prejudices, the term today usually has a negative connotation.
Prejudice is a preconception about another person resulting from their fitting into a stereotyped
category of some importance to the observer. Since this prejudgment precludes, at least in part,
taking the person or the situation as it is and using current and raw data from which to draw
conclusions, prejudices are often inaccurate and inflexible. Whether the prejudice is positive or
negative the result is rarely favorable because prejudices keep people from dealing with a person
or a situation objectively.
Prejudices are different from discrimination, which is a mental and behavioral awareness of
differences in people and the willingness to treat them differentially because of that awareness.
Discrimination is what one does with data and with the conclusions that come from those data.
Prejudice narrows the data that a person will consider. Combining prejudice and discrimination
clearly compounds the problem; prejudging a person and then discriminating against them on the
basis of those prejudices puts one into a world where one is dealing with less rather than more of
reality.
All human groups are stratified. We have not yet identified in historical or modern
examination a human group not has not been differentiated along one dimension or another. The
key is the nature of the discriminatory dimension. One set of discriminatory categories includes
those things that Cynthia F. Epstein in the book A Womans Place: Options and Limitations in
Professional Careers (University of California Press, 1970) describes as functionally irrelevant.
These dimensions include race, education, sex, religion, creed, ethic background, language and so
on. Variation along these dimensions do not necessarily describe differences in a persons ability to
perform a function.

-3-

UVA-OB-0381

Functionally relevant discriminatory categories are those which relate directly to a persons
ability to do a job, perform a function, or accomplish a task. These are the only dimensions along
which one may legally discriminate in American business. Functionally relevant discriminatory
categories usually involve a choice, that is, the person may choose or have already chosen whether
or not to learn a skill, to develop a strength, to pursue a line of learning, any one of which may
determine their later ability to perform a particular task. People can be held rationally, morally, and
ethically responsible and accountable for their choices and the consequences of those choices. On
the other hand, people born into a particular category without choice cannot rationally, morally, or
legally be held accountable for their membership in that group. Rather, we should hold people
accountable for what they can do, for what they actually do, and for the choices they make that
determine what they can do.
Unfortunately, these choices are not always able to be made freely. If one has born in the
ghetto, learning disabled, to an alcoholic mother and never sent to school, one cannot simply decide
to get into a good college and a good MBA program. However, this is a problem that society must
dewal with and is outside of the scope of this note.
In this view, an individuals birthright should not preclude one from any endeavor in life,
however, ones choices about what one does with that birthright may well. Dr. Philip Zimbardo of
the Stanford University Department of Psychology claims that his decades of research indicate that
most people can be made to do almost anything if you put them in psychologically compelling
situations, regardless of their moral, ethics, values, attitudes, beliefs, or personal convictions
(Stanford Magazine, September 1990, p. 30). This is a strong argument for the power of the
contexty and seemingly against individual responsibility. Our view is that strength of character,
which is not a gift but a developable personal attribute, can overcome context. Consequently, we
believe, and it is the thesis of this note, that effective managers are those who diminish their
prejudices by striving to deal with individuals as individuals based on their ability to perform.
Performance and character, not birthright, are the relevant discriminatory dimensions in the modern,
effective organization.
Institutional Prejudice
In addition to the personal prejudices described above, there is something we might call
institutional prejudice. Prejudicial selection factors occur in institutions such that the selected
selectors,--that is, those who have been promoted within an institution and are therefore in positions
to recruit, hire--select others for promotion who look and act like themselves. This is a kind of
social Darwinism in which the survivors are not necessarily those who can do what the organization
really needs done but, rather, those who are most similar to those in power.
As with most phenomena, institutional prejudicial behavior has both advantages and
disadvantages. The advantages include the reality that the management are comfortable with new
recruits because they have a certain degree of familiar predictability in their behavior; hence, the
promotion and selection process is much more efficient. Further, most people, including managers,

-4-

UVA-OB-0381

management feel more comfortable with people like themselves. The obvious disadvantages of this
kind of prejudicial selection include promoting people who may not have the skills, perspectives,
and/or predilections to manage the firm amidst changing conditions, increasingly losing touch with
the realities of the labor force and the marketplace, and precluding talented people from contributing
to the health of the firm.
The alternative to this kind of institutional prejudice is choosing people who are unlike
current management in some ways, thereby encouraging and selecting for greater diversity. This
approach is more difficult in that management has to learn to live with first, their discomfort with
unsettling conditions including people who are unlike themselves; second, the recognition that the
new peopless behavior may be less predictable than one would like, third, the uncertainty that these
new people may be operating from different motives; and fourth, that it may be more time
consuming understanding and working with people who are different. Management must do this in
the face of a shrinking global economy that demands speed, simplicity, high product and service
quality, and recognition of diverse markets and labor pools. The paradox to many managers is that
the market tells them to go faster and the demographic realities tell them you have to go slower at
first as you learn to deal with different people in different way, but if you do that, youll go faster
later. So, although we may see disadvantages to institutional prejudices, we can see why many
management teams find it much easier to select people in this way. This is not, by the way, a
uniquely American phenomenon, but one which occurs around the world. Another paradox here is
that America owes much or her greatness to the notion of diversity, diversity in religion, in ethnic
background, in race, in education, and language, yet today her managers struggle to allow that
diversity to rise up the organization.
Another approach to the question of a diverse or a homogeneous workforce would be to say,
managing people who are all the same is difficult, boring, too predictable, devoid of
complementarities, stifling, and without challenge. This perspective recognizes the decay that
occurs in homogeneous organizations and places a value on a more stimulating, challenging, and
survivable kind of organization. Many do not yet take this view and their recalcitrance raises the
question of how one might think about eroding, dissembling, and discarding institutional prejudices.
Key factors in overcoming institutional prejudice are a willingness to live with the disadvantages of
managing diversity, to learn the advantages of having diversity, and to put ones organization in a
position where its members have to learn how to manage diversity. If we can see how prejudices are
formed, perhaps that will inform our efforts to eliminate it.

-5-

UVA-OB-0381

PREJUDICE FORMATION
Prejudice is externally sourced. It comes from parental guidance, from peer suggestions,
from examples shown in the media, and the from the shaping behaviors of significant others.
Children are not born with prejudices against one race, religion, belief system or another, rather they
learn these thought and behavior patterns. When a parent, teacher, or any significant other frowns,
smiles, encourages, utters remarks in harsh disapproving tones, or in any other of a multitude of
ways conveys judgments of good or bad, that person is teaching his or her values, beliefs, and
prejudices. The young, impressionable mind and heart sees, feels, and envelopes those signals and
makes them their own. Thus, we all develop values, beliefs, and prejudices.
In some ways, these prejudices are formed as limestone caverns are a drop at a time. Each
experience in life, each value-laden signal recognized and registered, leaves a deposit on our value
structures that distinguishes our good and bad. Over the course of time, if certain values and
prejudgments receive enough reinforcement, they become solid structures in our mental caverns that
shape our behavior and thinking.
Part of prejudice formation has to do with the formation of ones identity. We think in
contrasting constructs, that is, we can only understand tall by being acquainted with short.
Opposition, or diversity if you will, is essential to making meaning. We develop our sense of who
we are in part by differentiating ourselves from others. One may say, for instance, I am a
Westerner because I am not an Easterner. Or, I am a Southerner because I am not a Northerner.
Or, I am an [American or any nationality] because I am not a foreigner. The group with which we
identify and feel ourselves a part becomes our reference group. We observe this group carefully and
use its characteristics and behavior and values as a reference point for forming our own. The
reference group becomes a social anchor point from which we can measure ourselves and others.
What are your primary reference groups, that is, the groups that you feel most a part of? Make a list
now.
It seems to be a common human tendency to see the differences between our reference group
and other human groups and then to use what Leon Festinger calls cognitive dissonance reduction
to highlight in our minds the positive aspects of being who we are and the negative aspects of being
who we arent. The reverse, highlighting mentally the negative aspects of who we are and the
positive aspects of who we arent, is tremendously damaging to our self-concepts. We all want to
think well of ourselves, so we highlight the differences in the former, biased way and come to think
in part of other groups as not as desirable or simply as good as our own.
As we grow older, we can re-examine the beliefs, values and prejudices we have learned.
We may recognize contradictions in the signals we get either from the teachings of others or from
our own experience. Efforts by others to constrain our experiences or the teachings we might
encounter in the world simply serve to minimize the contradictions and are an attempt to perpetuate
present prejudices. When we encounter information that is at odds with our beliefs, a problem
forms; our expectations do not match our reality. We can choose to ignore, to discount, or to discard
those data, and many do, but if we want to grow, we must face the data, examine it, and perhaps in

-6-

UVA-OB-0381

so doing, modify our beliefs. One may see, for instance and contrary to prior beliefs, that women
can deal with adversity without crying, or that blacks are intelligent, or that white males can be
sensitive, or that Chinese are civilized to name a few common negative stereotypes held in America.
Unfortunately, many choose to distort, discount, or ignore the new data since it does not fit their bynow-well-developed, though perhaps ill-examined, view of the world. Those who have used this
response to new data in the past may use it again and, in so doing, diminish their own abilities to
manage change, to grow, to manage diverse work forces, and to become more effective managers in
a world that increasingly requires contact with, understanding of, and management of diversity.
As an example of this last point, consider the experience of one company, one of the 10
largest employers in the United States, which tried to disseminate an employee attitude survery. It
learned that it would have to do so in 29 languages. When bi-lingual employees were taken into
account, the survey could be sent out in 15 languages. Then they learned that about 20% of their
employees could not read in any language. How does one deal with that kind of diversity, real as it
is?
Since prejudice is learned, it can be unlearned. We can examine the values, beliefs, and
prejudices that we hold and, as adults, reshape them to fit them with our more mature experience,
with our more mature social interchange. To be willing and able to do so is, in large part, a major
mark of maturity. Kohlbergs theory of moral development presents stages of growth which include
progressive sensitivity to others. If we are willing to examine our prejudices, to ask ourselves the
hard questions about whether or not they relate to functionally relevant or irrelevant dimensions, and
then to consider some alternative conclusions about others and about how we manage them, we can
become more effective with more diverse groups of people.
Categorization and Stereotyping
Categorization and stereotyping also play key roles in the development of prejudice. The
two concepts can be differentiated in that categorization can be said to deal with an objective
classification of individuals, while stereotyping relates more to subjective beliefs about individuals
based on broader categorizations. A study conducted by Taylor and Falcone reported that,
although categorization of an individual, as by sex or race, may be a necessary condition for
stereotyping, it is by no means sufficient.2 Thus, to categorize descriptively is not necessarily to
stereotype. Sterotypes build off of categorizations. For example, That person is white, (the
categorization) and therefore has no rhythm (the stereotype). Stereotypes attempt to apply
individual characteristics to groups of people and, therefore, are bound to be inaccurate for the
individual.

Shelly E. Taylor and Hsiao-Ti Falcone, Cognitive Bases of Stereotyping--The Relationship between
Categorization and Prejudice, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, September 1982, p. 431.

-7-

UVA-OB-0381

Locksley, Hepburn, and Ortiz showed, however, that stereotypes are a more important
influence on social perceptions than factual-data categorization.3
This finding indicates that
subjective stereotypes have more of an influence on judgments about individuals than do the actual
facts about those individuals. In other words, rather than classify people based on factual
information, most people tend to use personally held stereotypes to form their impressions of others.
Clearly this method is faster and more convenient for the observer, yet it also precludes the
possibility of making decisions based on real data.
Some of the difficulties in getting promoted and getting equal treatment experienced by
female and minority managers can be explained by these findings. These managers often feel, and
probably are, excluded from business groups because of preconceived stereotypes held about them.
Business discussions that attribute group stereotypes to individuals being considered for promotion
overlook the individuals real characteristics. The slightest behavior, real or perceived, that supports
these stereotypes is often used as data against the minority group members candidacy.4 Although
no overt prejudice may be observed, stereotypic predictions about female and minority managers
levels of competence lead to increased pressures on them to meet and exceed expected performance
levels just to stay even with, or comfortably behind, the opportunities offered to white males. These
are but a few of the impacts that prejudice has on the organization.
IMPACT OF PREJUDICE
The impact of prejudice can be seen in all walks of life, although in many instances it is not
as overt as it once was. In the United States, the more blatant manifestations of prejudice have been
reduced with the passage of federal legislation such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This law was
passed to protect both minorities and females, but prejudice against these groups and older workers,
foreigners, and the handicapped continues to be a problem. Today, prejudice is more subtle, and,
therefore, more difficult to spot and correct, than in the past. Consider some organizational systems
and settings in which it lingers.
Promotions
A good example of institutional racism and sexism is seen in the old-boy (business)
network, a system that works for its members in ways that include finding candidates
for the higher jobs in public and private institutions. The networks composition is
almost exclusively white male. Therefore, by using the network as the primary
selection agent, chances are the candidates will be white men.5

Anne Locksley, Christine Hepburn, and Vilma Ortiz, On the Effects of Social Stereotypes on Judgments of
Individuals: A Comment on Grant and Holmes The Integration of Implicit Personality Theory Schemes and Stereotypic
Images, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 45, pp. 271-274.
4
Fernandez, Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life, p. 44.
5
Ibid., p. 315.

-8-

UVA-OB-0381

In business, other examples of institutionalized prejudice include higher performance

expectations for the objects of prejudice, exclusion from the management process, slow
advancement through the corporate structure, and derogatory jokes. These practices can lead to
strained office relationships, which in turn can affect the efficient operation of a business.
Promotion problems are also part of the plight of older workers. As our society grows older,
a greater number of older workers are found in lower and middle management. These workers are in
direct competition with their younger counterparts. Although age and maturity are often perceived
as assets early in a career, in many levels of American management, the older a person is, the less
likely he or she will be promoted: The failure to promote a worker solely because of age is a form of
irrelevant discrimination and is as nonproductive as failing to promote a person because of sex or
race. Again, in some societies, the reverse is true--namely that talented people are discriminated
against because they are too young.
Performance Pressures
Prejudice in the work place is evident in the performance pressures placed on nontraditional
groups. When entering a new job or position, most people feel a great deal of pressure to meet the
job requirements. For minorities and females, however, this pressure is increased because of others
skepticism about their ability to perform. These expectations often lead to a superstar pressure
among these groups in which they feel that they must perform so much better than their peers just to
stay even. (Men and Women of the Corporation, and A Tale of O by Rosabeth Moss Kanter).
They feel that their performance must exceed that of their peers:
Many say that they feel that they have to be better than the competition to receive
merely the same rewards. They feel that they must consistently exceed their
superiors expectations. Those who really want to make it to very high levels of
executive responsibility probably do have to do so. So there must be a realization
that in an environment like that, they must not only be good enough to do the job at
that level, they must understand they have to be perceived as having much more
capability than is really required simply to handle the primary level job.6
Stress caused by this pressure to perform can result in both mental and physical distress for
the worker. The business also loses, because it has an employee who may be constrained from
performing to his or her potential. The cost to both the worker and employer can be great.
A related pressure is that felt when a person is seen to be a representative of a certain
demographic group and therefore judgments about the entire group will be made by virtue of what
the individual does or does not do. When we generalize to the entire population because of what 1
or 2 have done, we are exercising poor judgment and applying unnecessary pressure on those 1 or 2
6

Richard F. America and Bernard Anderson, Moving Ahead: Black Managers in American Business (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1978), pp. 44-45.

-9-

UVA-OB-0381

to perform in ways that they may not be comfortable or willing. To think about this, name to
yourself the 1-5 most important groups to which you belong. Are you comfortable with the rest of
the world judging those groups by your behavior? Do you see yourself as a paragon of what the
group stands for? Would you be willing to carry that burden daily?
Socialization
Social interaction in the work place is important to the advancement of managers. It is
widely understood that promotions are not based solely on performance, but also on the
development of relationships with peers and superiors. Developing business relationships is often
difficult for stereotyped groups, especially amid competition for the same positions. They are often
systematically excluded from the group. Exclusion tends to produce a vicious, self-sustaining,
repeating cycle. In response to the signals of prejudice, minorities often refrain from attempting to
interact with co-workers in order to maintain their self-concepts. The unfortunate result is less
opportunity for both groups to become acquainted with each other and for business-neccessary
socialization to occur. Without first hand information, people often begin to tell stories, to circulate
rumors based on their stereotypic prejudices.
For all groups this is damaging, but perhaps more so for women. If office peers feel
uncomfortable interacting with female workers, the result can be rumors about their abilities and
their methods of mastery and advancement. Explicitly, the unusual worker who is willing to interact
with the female worker may be ostracized and judged as having a sexual relationship rather than a
professional one. These observations about the individual and those who associate with them can
lead to failure to receive choice assignments, and exclusion from management. Male associates
vying with a woman for a single promotion are the most likely to feel threatened by her possible
success. While men react competitively to the success of male colleagues, it is easier for them,
individually and as a group, to single out women competitors as targets for abuse and ridicule.
These women, they may say, are not real women, are invading their territory, behaving in
unacceptable ways, and are ill-suited for promotion. A competitive woman can raise the masculine
consciousness of her associates (again, the bi-polar nature of human thought), in which case she
may be excluded from their group conversations and social gatherings.7
Studies on the topic of women in management highlight the problems women face in the
attempt to move up. Some say women experience problems in dealing with female subordinates,8 in
handling sexual harassment in the office,9 in developing mentor relationships,10 and in dealing with

Fernandez, Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life.

Marion M. Wood, Women in Management: How is it Working Out? S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal,
Winter 1976, pp. 23-30.
9
Robert L. Woodrum, Sexual Harassment: New Concern about an Old Problem, S.A.M. Advanced Management
Journal, Winter 1981, p. 20.
10
James J. Clawson and Kathy E. Kram, Managing Cross-Gender Mentoring, Business Horizons, May-June 1984,
p. 22.
8

-10-

UVA-OB-0381

a perceived loss of feminity because of their position.11 As more women decide to pursue business
careers rather than traditional household careers, the importance of having male managers
understand and eliminate these problems cannot be overemphasized.
Although much of the discussion here has focused on issues relating to women and racial
minorities, the problems highlighted could just as easily be discussed with regard to other
nationalities, the handicapped, religious groups, mixed race marriages and people with certain
physical shapes and sizes, and other groups. The key point is that unexamined prejudice persists in
creating significant problems of career management for corporations and individuals alike. The
impact on an organizations vitality and energy is deadening.
MANAGING PREJUDICE
Because managers are responsible for the operations of businesses that rely on many
workers, they have, more than the individual, a responsibility to address prejudice. To ignore it is
to ignore a significant factor in the organizations chances for success. Although having topmanagement support is important, individual managers can and, we say, must take the initiative in
addressing prejudice and discrimination head-on, when and where they find it.
Managing prejudice involves developing an awareness of the problem and then taking steps
to deal with it. It requires people who are willing to take a leadership position with regard to
prejudice and who are willing to be public and counted with regard to managing prejudice.
Prejudices revolve around strong feelings; prejudices thrive in the context of the past and begin to
wilt in the light of new and broader experience. Individuals who dont care about the continuation
of prejudices will, in fact, encourage their perpetuation.
Managing in business is more than just developing agendas, forming networks, and
implementing strategies. Managing includes more and more the need to manage values and hence,
prejudices. Managing is a continuous process that involves the development of individual
relationships, and then using those relationships to coordinate the efficient use of a companys
resources.12 In this context, managing prejudice is a difficult but necessary task; it involves more
than just administering affirmative-action programs. The management of prejudice is a continual
process of understanding prejudice, acknowledging our own prejudices and the prejudices of others,
and developing strategies to lessen the impact of these prejudices on the way we do business. The
first part of this note dealt with understanding prejudice, its formation, and impact on business.
Now, consider some suggestions for action.

11

Nancy J. Adler, Women as Androgynous Managers: A Conceptualization of the Potential for American Women
in International Management, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 3, 1979, pp. 407-436.
12
Paul D. McKinnon and James G. Clawson, The Managerial Role, (Charlottesville, Va.: Darden Graduate
Business School Foundation 1984) p. 1.

-11-

UVA-OB-0381

Acknowledging Our Prejudices

Recognizing the nature and strength of our own prejudices is a key first step to managing
prejudice. When we come clear on our own values and how we cling to them, we begin to see how
others might feel similarly. The process is not easy, but once we can examine our prejudices more
fully, we can then begin to develop strategies to deal with them and in so doing increase our
managerial effectiveness.
As we have said, we are all products of our childhood influences. An examination of these
influences can begin to identify many of our prejudices. The ways in which our parents treated us as
little boys or as little girls had a tremendous effect on how we approach everyday situations.
The same is true of the cultural environments in which we were raised. Our being black or white,
Protestant or Catholic, European, African or Asian, influenced the manner in which we were raised
and continues to influence how we perceive others.
One means of identifying our prejudices is to think back to childhood and list the people who
had the most influence in our lives and then to write down and examine the most significant
messages that these people taught us, explicitly or implicitly. When we do this, we often find that
many of our adult beliefs were really given to us by significant authority figures early on.
Then, as adults, we can begin simply to question our prejudices. First, we might ask if they
are true. Is it true, for example, that white people have no rhythm? Can I think of any whites
who do? and so on.
Next, we can ask ourselves why? The male manager who feels resentful of his female
supervisor might also ask, Why do I feel this way about this person? A self-examination may
reveal that most of this individuals early contacts with women were in more traditional household
settings. He may never have attended schools where females were represented in significant
numbers, or he may never have interacted with women on a professional level. One result of
spending a life of dealing with women in traditional roles is to form a bias or prejudice against
women who do not fill those roles. Although this individual may never completely give up this
prejudice, he can still lessen its impact by being aware of it. By making a conscious effort to be
aware of his prejudices, and to resist allowing his preconceived ideas to interfere with his
professional relationships with women, this individual can be more open and objective in his
associations with females.
The same approach can be used in a variety of situations. Whether it is racial, religious, age,
or handicapped discrimination, we begin to be find the answers when we seriously begin to examine
our own individual prejudices. Again, it is not an easy process. It is painful because it involves
exploring feelings that we have carried with us for most of our lives. Indeed, many of us may have
no desire to embark on this activity. Then, it is the prerogative of the teacher or the manager to
invite such investigation. Yet, the truth is that even authoritarian invitations or legal prescriptions
will not necessarily change an individuals set of biases; that can only be accomplished when the
individual is ready to do so.

-12-

UVA-OB-0381

Management of Prejudice in Subordinates

Given that the individual must be ready to change, lets look at some suggestions for
managing prejudice in superior-subordinate or collegial relationships.
1. We repeat: the starting point for effectively managing prejudices is to recognize we each
have our own. To assume one is prejudice-free is folly, and it makes it more difficult for one
to understand how others to can cling so tenaciously to their prejudices--which so often to
the observer (manager) are ridiculous. When one comes to grips with the realization that
each of us has prejudices and holds them dear, one can begin to work more carefully with the
prejudices of others rather than reacting to them with anger and force.
Find out what your prejudices are. What groupings of people do you find distasteful? Make
a list, trying to be as exhaustive as you can. Resist the temptation to overlook your deeper
feelings, leaving the list perhaps shorter than it really is. One approach to uncovering
personal prejudices is to consider questions that may seem a little outrageous at first. For
instance, ask yourself, What kinds of people would I not want to work for me? What kinds
of people would I not want my child to marry? What kinds of people would I not marry?
What kinds of people would I not want to work for? What kinds of people would I not want
to invite into my home for open discussion? What kinds of people offend me? What kinds
of people do I not take seriously. As you think about these questions, consider the
dimensions of race, religion, education, ethnic background, region of origin, philosophy,
grooming, gender, personality, sexual preference, etc.
Next, by each group you have listed, write down what it is that you find distasteful about that
group. Try to reason with yourself to clarify exactly what it is that bothers you about this
group.
Third, go down the list again and ask yourself whether or not the dimension of concern that
you have identified really makes a difference in that persons ability to do a job and whether
or not that dimension is something that the person had choice in.
Now, list dimensions about yourself that other groups might find offensive. Consider other
people whom you imagine might find your characteristics offensive and list them and the
reasons they might feel that way.
Consider then how you would feel if your boss asked you to change any of those
dimensions. Would you be willing to change those attributes? Do you have a choice in
changing them? Is there any approach from your boss that would leave you open to
considering the possibility of changing? If so, what would that be?
Now, think about subordinates (or colleagues) you work with that have what you believe to
be unproductive prejudices. Write the persons initials at the top of a column and then list

-13-

UVA-OB-0381

the prejudices you think they have. Consider how important they are to your work and the
work of your organization. Is it necessary for them to change on that attribute?
If so, consider how you might approach another with a request for them to reconsider their
prejudices. How might you go about that effectively?
2. Reinforce in conversation the dimensions of prejudice and discrimination that are productive
and functionally relevant and contribute to the mission and task of the organization. Try to
move from prejudice toward productive discrimination. Reinforce the positive aspects of
functional discrimination as opposed to the negative aspects of dysfunctional prejudices.
Focus your conversations with that person on results rather than irrelevant attributes. If your
subordinate (or colleague) comments on how a woman is more emotional, you might
respond by asking, Can you give me an example where you think that got in the way of
doing our work? If they can, then maybe you need to work with the woman to dampen her
personal characteristic. You might also respond, You know, I saw (a man) behaving the
same way last week. What do you think we can do for the two of them to strengthen their
rationality in situations like that? Do not let prejudiced comments pass by without
discussion. The point is that unproductive emotionality is not necessarily a function of
gender. You can respond in a way that does not tolerate the prejudice but, at the same time,
is not necessarily inflammatory.
3. Spend some time with the person holding an unreasonable prejudice. There are two kinds
of prejudice--one based on ignorance the other based in fundamental value differences. With
the former, experience working with people from the group against which prejudices are
held can be an enormous help. There is nothing quite like spending a day, a week, a month,
even a year or more with a group that you dont like or are unfamiliar with to help you to see
that they exhibit the same range of human emotions and qualities that your own reference
group does. If you observe ignorance-based prejudice among subordinates, you might
assign them to work together. Over time, they are likely to learn each others real strengths
and weaknesses rather than those they are prejudged to have by virture of their group. If you
structure ongoing discussions between you and the subordinates, you may accelerate this
process. You might ask, for instance, in such a team review meeting, How are things
going? What are you doing well? Where do you need to improve? How are you working
together? How can you work together better to get the job done? By working with
someone else is not an acceptable answer, at least at the outset until you decide that it may
just not work.
4. Make it safe within the organization to discuss the differences. Closely guarded beliefs are
harder to change when they are kept in secret. And when they are publicly attacked, the
reaction is often retrenchment, digging in of the heels, and stubborn behavior. If beliefs and
values can be brought out into the open under conditions of Lets talk, rather than under
conditions of attack and anger, it is easier to see and understand them and easier to then
consider the possibility of making adjustments in them.

-14-

UVA-OB-0381

5. Listen to other peoples prejudices. Dont assume that you understand what they are without
hearing them out fully. Making that assumption can lead you to be prematurely judgmental
yourself. Give the person the time to explain who they are. Be sure that you restate their
beliefs accurately. This is important because it helps the speaker know that you understand
and it helps prevent you from making assumptive leaps that are not true. Once youve
thoroughly understood another persons belief, consider whether the source of the belief is a
prejudice based in ignorance or one of fundamental value difference.
6. For value-based prejudices the options are somewhat different. One can a) limit the
interactions between the two individuals to avoid conflicts; b) focus interactions on topics
that dont hit on the values differences but on areas where the values overlap and, therefore,
might have a common objective; c) assign a mentor, coach, or a tie-breaker to watch the
relationship between the differing individiuals and constantly push it toward functional
overlaps; d) reinforce non-conflict areas of competence in each other; e) negotiate areas of
agreed cooperation and demand adherence to those agreements.
Management of Prejudice and Superiors
Managing prejudices in people who have authority over you is clearly a bit different than
managing prejudices in peers and subordinates. Here are some suggestions.
1. Manage your own anger. Your anger is based on the assumption that people should not be
prejudiced. Many are. Its a fact of life. If you realize that, then you can begin to think
more rationally and effectively about how you can deal with their prejudice and work toward
overcoming it or changing it or removing it. Explosive anger on the spot is seldom a
productive long-term solution that leads one toward working together in the future.
2. Firmly and clearly focus on talk and behavior in areas of competence. When the boss makes
comments about functionally irrelevant dimensions, you might simply and descriptively
mention performance (of self or peers) on functionally relevant ones. For instance, if the
boss says, That (woman) shouldnt be in business. you might respond with, You know, I
was impressed with the way that (she) handled the discussion with the major client the other
day. That was well done. This is not a direct confrontation, but, rather, a rechanneling of
the energy to more productive conclusions, a sort of conversational aikido, if you will.
Dont allow yourself to be caught up in discussions that focus on the irrelevant criteria.
3. If after many attempts to rechannel prejudiced behavior, you get no results, you may have to
decide between toleration, confrontation, and departure. Toleration is an option only if the
scope, strength, and consequences of the prejudice are marginal to ones self-concept. If you
decide that you cannot tolerate the boss behavior, then you have to either confront it,
personally and/or legally, or leave. If you confront it, you become a much more visible
pioneer than you may have been, a pioneer for pushing the boundaries of the prejudice and
perhaps even eliminating them.

-15-

UVA-OB-0381

If you choose to be a pioneer, remember, however distasteful it may be, that pioneers in
social systems as well as in nature have always been the target of criticism and difficulty.
Pioneering is difficult and dangerous. If you are unwilling to accept that, you will be angry,
resentful, and less effective than you otherwise might be.
Confrontation may mean a face-to-face talk with the individual, in which you describe the
behavior that you find offensive and request a change. This requires some courage and the
willingness to accept the consequences. Think carefully before you confront a prejudice and
ask yourself if you are willing to see the thing through. If you are fired, you may be able to
seek legal recourse, but it is not a pleasant road. Ditto if you are not fired, but the prejudice
intensifies.
In a confrontation, you are likely to learn much about the prejudiced persons true heart.
Many people will become a bit defensive. But beyond that, one can begin to see whether or
not the prejudicial behavior was simple misguided ignorance or explicit and intended
discrimination. In the former, the individual may be surprised, shocked, embarrassed, and
even apologetic. In this case, a willingness to work with the person by reminding them in
the future when they slip will probably help the both of you to grow. In the latter case, the
reaction is likely to be anger, hostility, and reconfirmation of their beliefs. Then you may
have to seek legal action or-deciding that the battle is either not worth fighting or that you
dont have enough energy to fight it or that it cannot be won, leave.
If you choose to take legal action, you may search to see if the organization has an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission officer designated to deal with such cases or go
directly to the Commission to lodge a complaint. They can counsel you about what kinds of
information and evidence will be necessary to continue with a suit. In addition to the federal
complaint and procedure, you may wish to take civil action, suing the organization for
damages incurred as a result of the prejudicial behavior. Again, both of these routes will
require depth of purpose and determination to see it out, and shouldnt be pursued lightly.
Managment of Institutional Prejudices
Institutional prejudice is more difficult to deal with than personal prejudices because the
number of people involved in it are greater, its sources are more ill-defined and less susceptible to
identification and management, and overcoming it is often more slow in coming and hard to
recognize. Nevertheless, there are some things that one can do to begin chipping away at
institutional prejudice and to begin influencing the thinking of the people who either knowingly or
unknowingly contribute to its perpetuation.
1. Offer verbal reminders in meetings. When you see and hear prejudical comments and
behavior in meetings or conversations, you can remind people of the more functionally
relevant dimensions. Sometimes, this may not be direct but more focused on the task needs

-16-

UVA-OB-0381

of the organization. For instance, if in a meeting, you hear another say, You know, it
bothers me that we have so many minorities around here. I worry that were losing control,
you might comment, Control or not, Ive noticed that the past (six) months weve been
getting more new ideas about ways to cut costs than we ever have before. (Or some other
functionally relevant measure of organizational performance to which the group objected to
probably had a contribution.) If you watch for functionally irrelevant biases and gently but
firmly redirect the conversation to the relevant ones, you can have a significant influence on
the level and focus of the conversation. In fact, over time, you might begin a shift the firms
in values the firm without an explicit, planned, perhaps confrontational effort.
On the other hand, you should also be wary and watch for changes in behavior toward you.
If people begin treating you differently (worse) as a result of your comments, you may have
to confront the issues more directly.
2. Make clear statements in public and private. Be a model of verbal and nonverbal behaviors
that support the effective discriminating dimensions rather than the ineffective ones.
Sometimes a clear statement can be compelling to a group. They may not change their
behavior overnight, but if one is able, rationally, persistently, and without rancor, to restate
and restate a position that focuses on results and performance, rather than on irrelevant
forms, one can change a groups thinking.
3. Reinforce the effective discriminated dimensions by recognizing, promoting, and reinforcing
people who exhibit those behaviors. The hiring, reward, promotion, information, and power
distribution systems in organizations are the mechanisms by which institutional prejudices
are reinforced and continued. If management agrees to the need for change, it may not occur
unless signficant changes are made in the fundamental systems of an organization that hold it
together and shape its members behavior. Of course, changing the system without
addressing the values and prejudices of the people who manage and implement those
systems will not guarantee real change either. Ideally, one must work at several levels,
including training and retraining the individuals as well as modifying the systems and the
criteria upon which they designed.
4. Establish a grievance procedure. Once again, if management agrees (and many will not,
fearful of losing some control) that changes need to be made, one can establish a grievance
procedure and make it known to employees. This allows an organization to attempt to work
with its problems internally before going to an outside agency. Some organizations have
established an ombudsperson function an outlet for airing a grievance privately and
confidentially and for speaking some redress. Obviously, it is important that such a person
the ombudsperson be sufficiently powerful, fair and committed to the function to allow
employees to trust and respect them and to hope for some action.
5. When all else fails, prosecute. As outlined above, one can always go to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to file a complaint and/or seek legal counsel to
initiate a civil action.

-17-

UVA-OB-0381

Simply put, these suggestions boil down to

1. dont tolerate irrelevant prejudice,
2. encourage the philosophy of treating people as you would have them treat you,
3. make a conscious effort to treat all employees equally,
4. confront instances of prejudicial discrimination when they occur,
5. put diverse groups into performance positions based on their ability to perform,
6. support those people as much (or more during initial transition phases) as you do others,
7. make yourself available to all of your people,
8. make it safe to talk about problems,
9. establish formal procedures for unresolved problems to be dealt with, and
10. make changes in the key systems of the organization to allow diverse employees to succeed
by performance.

Summary
At the bottom of all these suggestions is the request for each reader to make the personal
decision simply not to tolerate prejudice as we have defined it here: discrimination on the basis of
functionally irrelevant dimensions such as religion, sex, race, or nationality. Our approach has not
bee a legalistic one in which we have outlined the consequences of violating the law of the land.
Rather, we have taken a value-laden approach: it is simply a better way of life and of doing
business to deal with people on the basis of what they do rather than on the basis of functionally
irrelevant dimensions. It is important that leaders and those who are gate keepers of the values in an
organization do not allow functionally irrelevant prejudices and their behaviors to pass
unchallenged. If they do, they are perpetuating dysfunctional behavior, demotivating workers,
creating resentment and perhaps rebellion, and weakening their organizations abilities to function in
a global economy. In addition, they maybe condoning illegal behavior and making the organization
vulnerable to energy-sapping litigation and turmoil.
So, we say, learn your own prejudices. Learn to focus on productive discriminating
dimensions rather than on nonproductive and functionally irrelevant prejudices. Be proactive.
Learn to be proactive in uncovering prejudicial behavior and in reinforcing functionally relevant
discriminating dimensions, and to do so, if possible, without offense. If its not possible, make a
decision to be known for something, to stand for something, to make difference for the kinds of
judgments in life and business that encourage productivity and results, rather than those that divide
and tear down. We all have prejudices, they are all around us. Make sure that yours are functionally
relevant.