MentoringA Key Success Factor for African American Wome

Mentoring:
A Key Success Factor for African
American Women in the
U.S. Federal Senior Executive Service
Lynda C. Jackson, T rinity W ashington U niversity
Marcia M. Bouchard, U niversity o f M a ry la n d U niversity
College
In tro d u c tio n
Between 1991 and 2009, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) provided numerous
reports on the lack of diversity in the Federal Senior
Executive Service for women and minorities (Stalcup,
2008a; Stalcup, 2008b; Rezendes, 2003). Numerous
reports from the GAO suggest that government-wide
SES appointm ents remain in the low percentages for
African American Women (AAW) when compared to
the percentages of AAW in comparable positions in
the civilian labor force (CLF) (Rezendes, 2003; Stalcup,
2005; Stalcup, 2008a; Stalcup, 2008b). One of the
reports stated, “Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in
the SES corps is im portant because they are the people
who run the governm ents programs, and diversity
in the senior leadership is an im portant component
for effective operation of the governm ent” (Rezendes,
2003, p. 1).
Further, according to GAO, of the total 6,555 SES
appointees, 232 or 3.5 percent are AAW (Stalcup,

2008a). AAW’s representation in the CLF, as
reported by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics in the
management, professional, and related occupations
is 6.1 percent (U.S. D epartm ent of Labor, 2007).
This disparity, suggests that a representation rate of
3.5 percent constitutes a valid underrepresentation
of AAW in the SES. Despite many studies and
government reports, GAO asserted that progress has
been slow for increasing m inority representation
at both the SES level and in the GS-15 and GS-14
developmental pool (Stalcup, 2008a).
Concern for the lack of m inority representation
has gained the attention of senior leaders in both
public and private organizations. It has become a
top agenda item with leading executives recognizing
the essentiality of diversity in developing and
m aintaining high quality and inclusive workforces in
the government’s Office of Personnel and Management
(OPM) (Marquis, Lim, Scott, Harrell, & Kavanagh,
2008; OPM Strategic Plan, 2002; Stalcup, 2008a). In
2003, President George W. Bush recognized the merits
of a Supreme C ourt decision that highlighted the
benefits of diversity, noting that “diversity is one of
Americas greatest strengths” (Bush, 2003).
Problem S ta te m e n t
The lack of sufficient representation of women and
minorities in the SES impedes its ability to reflect
the diversity of the people it serves (Zeller, 2003).
In support of this goal, the Civilian Federal Register
SAM A d vanced M an ag e m e n t ^Journal - Volum e 84
Edition 4 35

(CFR) prescribes that executive agencies create
program s and recruit to reduce underrepresentation
of minorities in the Federal service ranks (5 CFR,
720.101,2008).
P u rp o s e o f t h e S tu d y
The purpose o f this study is to analyze views
held by AAW in the SES and those serving in the
GS-15 and GS-14 developmental pool of federal
governm ent employees. We posit that this analysis
will provide insights into factors that AAW perceived
were empowering and related to their career success.
Previous studies have explored career progression
challenges women may face in public and private
workforces, yet few scholarly studies solely examined
perceptions o f AAW in the federal SES and the
developmental pool. Experts in the research of women
in m anagem ent issues observe that past studies have
focused on all minorities, all women, or women of
color (Catalyst, 1998; Bell & Nkomo, 2001). This
study may serve to fill the gap in scholarly studies, as
it focused specifically on AAW s perceptions of the
success factors that enabled or would enable them to
achieve SES-level careers.
B a c k g r o u n d o n S e n io r E x e c u tiv e S e rv ic e
The SES, a corps of appointed leaders, was created
by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to provide
direction for the federal workforce. SES members serve
in civilian ranks above GS-15 and below presidential
appointees (Office of Personnel Management, n.d.).

F ig u re 1. SES Core Q u a lific a tio n s fo r A p p o in te e s
As shown in Figure 1, SES members have distinctive
skills and meet strict core qualifications, including
“leading change, leading people, results driven,
business acumen, and building coalitions” (Davis,
2008). Members in the SES are selected for their
leadership skills gained in public or private positions,
including career civil service, military, and corporate
experiences. SES salary scales range from $114,468 to
$172,200 (SES salary table, 2008).
SES Oversight Agency
The U.S. Office of Personnel M anagement (OPM)
maintains oversight of SES personnel programs,
including the initiative that developed the SES core
qualifications outlined in Figure 1. In perform ing
its administrative role, OPM has had a long-term
focus on the value of diversity and seeks to increase
representation of women and minorities at all
levels (Office of Personnel Management, 2002).
Yet, according to a 2008 GAO report, the federal
government is not meeting the challenges o f increasing
m inority representation in its workforce (Stalcup,
2008a). OPM recognizes that the SES is not a diverse
workforce and that progress toward diversity is slow
(Zeller, 2003).
SES Diversity Legislation
Members of Congress support OPM ’s focus on
diversity. In 2007 the House of Representatives
and the Senate introduced two SES diversity bills.
This legislation called for statutes to boost diversity

36
Source: Diagram adapted from Guide to Senior Executive
Service Core Qualifications (2006)
SAM Advanced Management ]ournal - Volume 84 Edition 4
policies and increase OPM s supervision of the SES
(H. 3774; S. 2148,). Also, because it was not obvious
that agencies were consistently docum enting SES
diversity statistics, the bills recom m ended that OPM
create an SES resource office. This office would manage
docum entation of SES applicants and track annual data
on race and other demographics related to the SES.
To break the stride of current trends, OPM included
diversity policies in its strategic plan and supported
the notion that agencies must improve diversity
efforts in at least three ways. First, OPM ’s strategy
called for expanding recruitm ent of underrepresented
groups (Office of Personnel Management, 2002).
U nderrepresented groups include women, minorities,
and people with disabilities. Next, OPM sought to
improve tracking of dem ographic data within each
agency for women and minorities (Office of Personnel
Management, 2002). Possessing an overall goal of
increasing diversity, gathering and reporting data on
demographics would provide the only visible means
for m easuring success.
S c o p e o f t h e S tu d y a n d R e s e arc h
Q u e s tio n

The scope of the present study focused on African
American women in the SES, GS-15, and GS-14 ranks.
After discovering the wide gap in research studies on
AAW’s perceptions of success in the workplace (Bell 8c
Nkomo, 2001; Catalyst, 2004), this study concentrated
on investigating AAW’s perceptions of the importance
of key success factors necessary to reach SES level
positions. Further, this study was bound by gender,
race, organization and federal ranks, as it focused on
AAW serving in the SES and in developmental grades.
The research question guiding this study is: W hat
are the key success factors necessary to leverage a
successful career in the executive ranks?
L it e r a t u r e R e v ie w
A critical review of the literature established the
foundation for this study which sought to explore the
success factor among other factors as perceived by
AAW serving in the SES, GS-15, and GS-14 ranks.
The literature suggests that mentors can serve to
boost career potential for individuals seeking career
success (Ragins, 1989; Catalyst, 1998; Catalyst, 1999).
Although this factor may be salient to all career-
oriented individuals, it may be most critical for women
and minorities who aspire to reach executive-level
careers.
Obstacles and Challenges to AAW Career Success
The U.S. Government recognized the challenges
that leaders may face in managing a diverse workforce.
Three governm ent-sponsored reports that addressed
workforce diversity and inclusion challenges were:
Workforce 2000 (Johnson 8c Packer, 1987; Dominguez,
1991), the Federal Glass Ceiling Initiative (Federal

Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995) and Workforce
2020 (Richard 8c D’Amico, 1997). This triad of
reports provided a foundation for legitimizing the
diversity and inclusion challenges faced by women
and minorities in the workforce, particularly in their
achievement of senior managem ent positions.
The seminal study, Workforce 2000 (Johnson 8c
Packer, 1987), set the groundwork for convincing
organizations to place more focus on diversity
management as a result of changing workforce
demographics. Commissioned by the Departm ent
of Labor (DoL) and conducted by the Hudson
Institute, this study predicted that the future U.S.
workforce would be increasingly populated with more
women and minorities (Johnson 8c Packer, 1987). In
addition, the authors predicted that the workforce
would no longer depend prim arily on white males
in m anufacturing jobs. Perhaps the most significant
concepts introduced in this docum ent were “skills gap”
and “workplace diversity” (D’Amico, 1997). Workforce
2000 authors also predicted that organizations would
need to increase skills by reducing obstacles that
prevent diversity and inclusion (Dominguez, 1991).
Whereas Workforce 2000 emphasized America’s
transitional workforce demographics, the DoL’s Glass
Ceiling Commission focused on exploring the career
progression potential for women and minorities.
The concept glass ceiling’ refers to “invisible, yet
real or perceived barriers which appear to impede
advancement opportunities for minorities and women”
(Dominguez, 1991, p. 16). Although women and
minorities have passed the hurdles to gaining initial
employment, researchers found that many have
reached the “glass ceiling” plateau just below mid-
and senior-management levels (Nkomo 8c Cox, 1989;

Dominguez, 1991; Cox 1993; Bell 8c Nkomo, 2001).
As a follow-up to Workforce 2000 (Johnson 8c
Packer, 1987), Workforce 2020 (Richard 8c D’Amico,
1997) was also sponsored by the DoL and published by
the H udson Institute. Similar to the earlier report, this
predictive docum ent continued the examination of our
nation’s future workforce. Workforce 2020 contributes
SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 84 Edition 4 37
to the proposed study by providing empirical evidence
for the need to prepare for, strategically manage, and
embrace diversity rather than “ward off the forces
of change” (p. 148). Identification of career success
factors can help minorities and women take a measure
of responsibility for personal career advancement and
find access to success factors that may lead toward
increasing their num bers in organizations’ senior
executive levels.
These DoL sponsored studies not only legitimized
“invisible” barriers, but also set forth initiatives to
eliminate them. This study was a logical follow-
on to the DoL reports as it may add to the body of
knowledge in understanding AAW’s viewpoints of
key success factors that may play a role in helping this
group break through the “invisible” barriers.
W hereas much of the literature lacks data on AAW,
Lynda Hite, professor of organizational leadership
and supervision at Purdue University, focused her
1996 study on AAW managers and their perceptions
of career progression factors, by employing a

qualitative methodology. Published in the Women
in M anagement Review journal, the study involved
ethnographic interviews and focus groups with 12
participants ranging in age from their late twenties
to their early sixties (Hite, 1996). The resulting
data were outlined in three categories: family and
personal perspectives on life; attitudes about society,
work, and racism; and the unique position of being
underrepresented in managem ent (Hite, 1996).
Although Hite’s (1996) research findings offered no
solid conclusions, im portant implications revealed
that AAW perceived that they faced a different set of
barriers than white women. Hite concluded that this
phenom enon required further research to increase
understanding of AAW’s managem ent experiences
(Hite). Hite’s analysis inferred that, although AAW
faced some of the same gender barriers as white
women, some AAW also perceived race obstacles
(Hite).
A nother study, conducted by Nkom o and Cox
(1989), com pared the differences between senior
m anagem ent opportunities for African American men
(AAM) and AAW. The purpose of the study was to
determ ine if AAW managers experienced a “double
w ham m y or double advantage” (p. 825) in being
African American and female. Testing two hypotheses,
the researchers predicted that AAW would attain
senior positions at higher rates or lower rates than
AAM.
Nkomo and Cox (1989) conducted a pilot study
with 50 white and African American managers
employed in the banking industry. The study employed
questionnaires to gather prim ary study data from

283 participants (165 men and 118 women); all were
members of the National Black MBA Association
(Nkomo & Cox). The researchers found no significant
differences between prom otion rates, m anagement
levels, and num ber of prom otions for AAM and AAW.
Another significant finding indicated that predictors
for career progress were not the same for AAM and
AAW managers (Nkomo & Cox). AAW perceived
that having mentors was m ost influential while AAM
were more concerned with achieving rapid career
advancement.
Researchers who have studied AAW emphasize
that few research studies have focused solely on
AAW managers; rather, analysis of this group is often
combined with managers who are AAM, all women, or
women of color (Tsui & Gutek, 1984; Cox & Nkomo,
1986; Nkomo & Cox, 1989; Catalyst, 2004). A study
conducted by Catalyst, a respected women’s research
firm, indicates that designated groups for “women of
color” include not only AAW, but also Latinas, and
Asian women (Catalyst, 1998). Although AAW are
part of the “women of color” group, Catalyst reports
that these women may indeed face a different set of
challenges because of their distinctive U.S. history
(Catalyst, 2004). In the past, AAW have faced issues
related to ancestral slavery, legal segregation, and race
discrimination.
Researchers have noted that the “glass ceiling”
concept denoting obstacles to career advancement
is often considered the “concrete ceiling” for AAW
(Catalyst, 2004; Bell & Nkomo, 2001). Belle & Nkomo
(2001) refer to this phenom ena as a “concrete wall” and
contend it is “m ore persistent and m ore pernicious” (p.
140) than the “glass ceiling.” That is, the top jobs are

more difficult for AAW to obtain as they often have
no awareness of-and cannot “see” upward mobility
opportunities. A Catalyst report argued that the
inability to “see” advancement opportunities amounts
to a “concrete ceiling” that is opaque, versus a “glass
ceiling” that would allow one to see but not achieve
opportunities (Catalyst, 2004).
Mentoring as a Key Success Factor
Mentors play a key role in facilitating career
progression to senior managem ent positions
(Ragins,1989; Ragins & Cotton, 1991; Ragins,1996;
38 SAM A dvanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal - Volume 84
Edition 4
Giscombe and Sims,1998; Blake-Beard, 2001). Along
with providing evidence of the value of m entoring for
career advancement, the literature also suggests that
women com m only face barriers to accessing effective
m entor relationships (Ragins, 1989; Ragins & Cotton,
1991; Ragins, 1996; Giscombe 8c Sims, 1998; Blake-
Beard, 2001).
M entoring is considered a key aspect for facilitating
prom otion to senior managem ent positions. Yet,
a myriad of studies reveal that some women face
barriers to experiencing m entoring relationships
(Ragins, 1989; Ragins 8c Cotton, 1991; Akande, 1994;
Ragins, 1996; Giscombe 8c Sims, 1998; Blake-Beard,
2001). McGlowan-Fellows and Claudewell Thomas
(2004) conducted a review of m entoring experiences
of women of color. McGlowan-Fellows, a professor at

Notre Dame de N am ur University and winner of the
2004 Circle of Scholars Award for “seminal research in
womens issues and cultural competence in corporate
America” (McGlowan-Fellows 8c Thomas, 2004, p.
3), collaborated on a study with Claudewell Thomas,
professor of psychiatry and bio-behavioral sciences
at the University of California at Los Angeles. Their
study found that m entoring may influence individuals’
capability to reach senior levels in organizations
(McGlowan-Fellows 8c Thomas, 2004).
Also, McGlowan-Fellows and Thomas surfaced
evidence that m entoring could serve as a conduit for
gaining authority and power, and “few black women
are offered opportunities to be m entored” (McGlowan-
Fellows 8c Thomas, 2004, p.3). Further, they found that
opportunities for advancement in the workplace could
be acutely influenced by race. The authors suggested
that m entoring could increase racial and gender
diversity because m entoring relationships often offer
insights for career progression (McGlowan-Fellows
8c Thomas, 2004). They concluded that there was
also a strong relationship between firms’ competitive
advantage and gender diversity (McGlowan-Fellows
8c Thomas). Additionally, many studies found
evidence of the value of m entoring as a career success
factor (Ragins, 1989; Ragins 8c Cotton, 1991; Ragins,
1996; Giscombe 8c Sims, 1998; Blake-Beard, 2001,
McGlowan-Fellows 8c Thomas).
Additional proponents for the value of m entoring
were Harvard professors David A. Thomas and John
H. Gabarro. In their book, Breaking Through: The
Making of M inority Executives in Corporate America,
the authors presented the results of a longitudinal,
three-year study focused on m inority career tracks in

three major U.S. corporations (Thomas 8c Gabarro,
1999). The purpose of this seminal study was to
examine differences between m entoring minorities
and m entoring whites by analyzing participants’ career
trajectories. Thomas and Gabarro (1999) investigated
complexities associated with m entoring minorities
and “boosting minorities’ careers through the glass
ceiling” (p. 99). The study revealed that high potential
white managers saw early career successes while
m inority managers experienced career progress much
later. Furtherm ore, m inority participants with the
highest potential possessed m entor relationships and
corporate sponsors who cultivated the protege’s career
development (Thomas 8c Gabarro, 1999).
Another key finding indicated that successful
m inority executives had experienced the advantage
of close relationships with mentors who helped them
build a sense of pride and capability (Thomas 8c
Gabarro, 1999). Based on case studies, the researchers
suggested that m inority managers whose careers
peaked at the management level had received basic
m entoring to help develop their skills. O n the other
hand, minorities who reached the executive levels
had experienced closer bonds with their mentors
who helped them build “confidence, credibility, and
competence” (p. 104). The Thomas and Gabarro
study suggested that mentors m ust also focus on
helping their proteges build a network of sponsors and
associations in the senior ranks of the organization
(Thomas 8c Gabarro, 1999).
Much of the evidence in the literature validates
that m entoring is a significant success factor for all,
but even more so for AAW as they have historically

suffered a deficit in receiving equal and fair treatm ent
in the workplace. Successful m entoring relationships
may likely lead to successful career development for
the mentee. In the H andbook of M entoring at Work:
Theory, research, and practice, pivotal m entoring
researchers, Belle Rose Ragins and Kathy E. Kram
assert that although m entoring is im portant and may
enhance careers, it may also be a difficult concept to
fully understand. They are convinced that m entoring
relationships work, but we may not yet recognize
exactly what makes them work (Ragins & Kram, 2009).
Ragins and Kram provide a valuable sum m ary
of m entoring research, yet they argue that there are
two deficits in the literature on mentoring. First,
a gap exists where m ost m entoring research delves
into investigations related to the perspectives and
development of the mentee versus perspectives of the
SAM A d vanced M an ag e m e n t Journal - Volume 84
Edition 4 43
mentor. Second, they acknowledge that “too often the
effectiveness of m entoring for people of color has been
based on w hether there is assimilation to the dom inant
white/male model.” (Ragins & Kram, 2007). Not only is
this a poor measure of effectiveness for people of color,
it is even less of a measure for, and may be particularly
irrelevant to, AAW. This discussion confirms
that m ore research m ust be accomplished to truly
determ ine effectiveness of m entoring relationships
for AAW and couple it with and exploration of the
measures that can be taken to access to this key success
factor that may leverage executive level careers.

The current study reveals evidence that AAW
women are underrepresented in the SES (Stalcup,
2008a; U.S. D epartm ent of Labor 2007) and argues
that m entoring is a key success factor for AAW who
aspire to achieve SES appointments. A related study
conducted by Johnson-Drake (2010) also suggests that
m entoring relationships for AAW SES women are “an
essential com ponent for African American women
at the SES level in the federal government.” Johnson-
Drake’s qualitative exploration employed interviews
and focus groups to exam m entoring experiences from
AAW s points of view.
Johnson-Drake collected data from nine AAW
participants who were employed in the SES ranks in
the federal government (2010). Data analysis suggests
participants believed mentors were valuable to their
journey toward becoming an SES. Further, the women
perceived that access to a mentor, early in one’s career,
was imperative to gain awareness for navigating the
labyrinth of milestones toward becoming an SES.
Although this study certainly contributes to the body
o f knowledge on AAW’s perceptions of mentoring
relationships, the lack of the researcher’s access to a
larger num ber of participants may be considered a
m ajor lim itation of this study. Future research with
a larger pool of respondents would provide a more
effective view and analysis of the perceptions of AAW
in the SES corps.
A phenomenological study by Saturday Aisuan
(2011) also suggests that an area of concern for African
American women aspiring to reach executive level
positions is m entoring and networking. Aisuan’s
study informs that AAW seeking high level leadership

careers may benefit by understanding, among
other areas, barriers, mentoring, and networking in
organizations (2011). The value of this qualitative
study lies in succinctly providing results of surveys
and interviews of 20 AAW who were serving in
senior positions in the Los Angeles City government.
Participants (30%) believed that it was im portant to
have the “ability to network and obtain m entors” in the
workplace (Aisuan, 2011, p. 160). AAW also perceived
that mentors were needed for support and as role
models.
Interestingly, the participants in Aisuan’s study
appeared to have similar perspectives, as the
participants in this current study. Data, in both
cases, suggest that among others, internal factors
such as education, training, and hard work were key
factors to reaching executive level careers. Yet, the
study provides no evidence of participants’ rating
these success factors in order of importance. Rating
the priority of factors may provide insight on how
the leaders may knowledgeably m entor the next
generation of aspiring AAW.
Another study led by Drexel University Professor
Rajashi Ghosh presents the argum ent that
developmental networks may be considered as
valuable “holding environm ents” that may leverage
development and provide workplace support
for emerging leaders. M aintaining a network of
“developers” or mentors, “may offer varying degrees
of career support, psychosocial support, and role
modeling” (Ghosh, Haynes, & Kram, 2013, p. 241).
Further, they posit that developmental networks are
beneficial to new leaders, as they offer an opportunity

to experience trial and error leadership experiences
while consistently being assured by developers o f their
value to the organization.
In this case, high potential leaders would be
afforded a safety net as their developers help them
understand and surm ount workplace leadership
challenges. The study also places special emphasis
on the holding environments by prescribing that
mentors be highly experienced, have “shared goals”
with the developing leader, and have the capacity to
build “high-quality relationships” (Ghosh et al. 2013,
p. 243). This seminal work informs that leaders may
have a greater opportunity for career success when
organizations recognize the value of employing in-
house developmental networks as a safe space while
future leaders learn to navigate the complications of
tough organizational leadership responsibilities.
Salient research informs that m entoring not only has
the potential to provide career growth for the mentee,
but it also provides considerable value to organizations
when their own knowledgeable executives, who are
already on board, can contribute to the development
44 SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal - Volum e 84
Edition 4
of mentees. In their seminal work on the virtues of
“peer coaching,” Parker, Kram, and Hall (2014) suggest
that organizations may gain immense value from
helping to build and support m entoring relationships.
Citing the difficulties of finding work-ready new
employees, they contend that a training squad already

exists within the organizations and workshops on
coaching may be the key to a less expensive way to
help new leaders in the organization become highly
qualified (Parker, Kram & Hall, 2014). The authors
provide a detailed outline for peer coaching programs
that can be developed by organizations. They argue
that the focus m ust be on organizational support
and environments of trust among coaches and peers.
Further, the researchers prescribe a three-step process
which includes: 1) Building the relationship; 2)
Creating success; and 3) Internalizing the skills. These
processes are necessary to lay a foundation for building
“self-awareness, develop critical skills, sharpen
relational skills, energize partners to the relationship,
and create a desire for more connection” (Parker et
al., 2014, p. 123). Although there is more work to do,
this study provides a solid framework for introducing
organizational m entoring programs that may add
valuable relationships to the overall work environment.
To address the gap in literature related specifically
to African American women’s perceptions and
experiences, researchers Lim, Clark, Ross, and Wells
(2015) examined mentoring to determ ine if this
success factor may serve to increase diversity for AAW
accountants. They explored AAW’s perceived benefits
from m entoring experiences, types of mentoring,
and the im pact of mentors on job positions. The
researchers conducted online surveys of African
American accountants who were m embers of the
National Association of Black Accountants (NABA).
Participants included 226 women and 124 men who
were working accountants and that had experienced a
m entoring relationship in an organization (Lim, Clark,
Ross & Wells, 2015).

Study results suggested that AAW were not as likely
to obtain beneficial mentors as compared to African
American men (AAM). In fact, the findings indicated
that AAW had a lower num ber of mentors than
AAM. However, AAW perceived the same as or even
greater support from m entoring than AAM. They also
found that gender was not related to the level of their
jobs. As well, individuals having a larger num ber of
m entoring experiences appeared to also gain beneficial
career enhancement. Overall, this affirms that although
m entoring is a key factor in helping individuals reach
career goals, AAW were less likely to gain access to
career building m entoring relationships.
Few studies focus on m entoring for African
American women (Catalyst, 1998; Bell & Nkomo,
2001). A recent study expressed a goal, in part, “to
provide insight to the barriers African American
women experience during the career advancement
process...” (Williams-Stokes, 2017, p. 142). The
researcher posits that organizations benefit from
m entoring women in ways that will develop their
potential to advance. Yet, in many government
organizations AAW are underrepresented, and are
often placed in less than 1% of the upper echelon
positions (Williams-Stokes, 2017). The study explored
AAW’s perceptions of the value of m entoring support
by examining the responses of fifteen AAW.
Study results focused on four major themes
including 1) relationship building, 2) supervisors’
roles, 3) barriers and 4) work ethic. Results also
suggest that m entoring opportunities may be less
available to AAW, thus providing them with fewer
developmental work environments. William-Stokes’

(2017) placed more focus on the barriers to reach the
top, whereas the current study examined perceptions
of the value of m entoring in their trek to SES level
positions. Although, both focus areas have potential
to inform, recognizing that m entoring opportunities
may be key success factors, may be more effective than
focusing on the barriers.
R e s e a rc h M e t h o d ’s a n d M e a s u re s
The mentors’ measure was defined for participants
as experienced individuals who develop a relationship
with less skilled or less experienced individuals with
a focus on helping the lesser-skilled person develop
career-related competencies (Catalyst, 1998). Effective
mentors may coach, train, provide advice, and facilitate
sponsorship for protegees in the workplace.
Based on the literature review, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis: The more emphasis the mentee
placed on the im portance of the m entor/
mentee relationship, the more the mentee
perceived career enhancing outcomes.
A 6-item perceptions-of-mentors scale was
developed by the first author to measure the level of
im portance participants placed on mentors as success
factors. Two of the six items were adapted from
Ragins and Cotton’s (1991) perceived barriers scale
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal - Volume 84
Edition 4 45

Figure 2. M entor Measures
M -l. Mentors are important for African American women who
want to gain SES
appointments.
M-2. African American women need mentors to make it to the
SES level.
M-3. Mentors enhance career progression for protegees' who
seek to achieve SES status.
M-4. Mentors are willing to develop a relationship with me.
M-5. I have had opportunities to develop effective relationships
with mentors.
M-6. Providing mentorship to other African American women is
important to me.
(‘M entors are willing to develop a relationship with
me’) and (‘I have had opportunities to develop effective
relationships with mentors’). The scale was measured
with a 5-point Likert-like scale, (1 = strongly disagree:
to 5 = strongly agree), and the coefficient alpha was
.838. (See Figure 2, M entoring Survey Measures).
M entoring refers to a relationship between an
experienced individual and one with less skill or
experience with a focus on helping the lesser skilled
person develop career-related competencies. This
person may or may not be the individual’s supervisor.
Among other benefits, mentors coach, train, advise,
and facilitate sponsorship for protegees. Further, the
participants were told, “W ith this explanation in mind,
please rate your agreement with each of the following
statements”.
Reliability o f Measures
The reliability of each measure was examined using

Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficient. An
item analysis procedure was conducted in order to
deduce w hether any inappropriate items needed to
be excluded for further analyses. Ensuring reliability
helped determ ine if the items were good measures
and if the scales were providing accurate measures of
the study variables. Two items were removed from the
perception-of-m entors scale because they significantly
lowered the alpha value of the scale. After deleting
these items, the alpha value of the scale increased from
.711 to .838. The new reliability obtained was deemed
acceptable based on the requirem ents set forth by
Nunnally (1978)
Findings
The 188 participants responded to an on-line survey
instrum ent. The participants were AAW, holding
developmental positions (GS-14 & GS-15) within the
Federal Government, and senior m anagement (SES)
46
positions serving as mentors (see Table 1). As shown
in Table 1, SES women rated the m easured success
factors as follows: emotional intelligence received
a mean rating of4.31 (SD = .468), mentors received
a mean rating of 4.28 (SD = .587) and organization
diversity practices received a mean rating of 4.04 (SD
= .626). SES rated role models received a mean rating
of 3.94 (SD = .916) and informal networks received a
mean of 3.74 (SD=.851).
In addition to the descriptive data, frequencies
tests for SES ratings revealed the percentages of SES

women’s positive ratings for key success factors. SES
ratings of success factors favorably at 4 (agree) or 5
(strongly agree) were as follows: El (85.7%), mentors
(77.1%), organization diversity practices (57.1%), role
models (68.6%) and informal networks (45.7).
As shown in Table 2, GS-15s rated the measured
success factors as follows: mentors received a mean
rating of 4.53 (SD = .547), emotional intelligence
received a mean rating of 4.49 (SD = .485), models
received a mean rating o f 4.07 (SD = .935), informal
networks received a mean rating of 4.04 (SD = .804)
and organizational diversity practices received a mean
of 3.98 (SD-.622).
Frequency statistics were also reviewed for GS-
15s to determ ine the percentages of GS-15s that
provided positive ratings of the key success factors.
Percentages of GS-15s rating the measured success
factors favorably with ratings of 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly
agree) were as follows: mentors (88.2%), El (83.7%),
role models (69.8%), informal networks (61.6%) and
organization diversity practices (51.2%).
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for GS-14
ratings of the measured success factors. This table
includes num ber of participants, mean ratings, and
standard deviations. Table 3 indicates that GS-14s rated
the measured success factors as follows: emotional
intelligence received a mean rating of 4.38(SD = .563,
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t ^Journal - Volume 84
Edition 4

T a b le 1 . D e s c r ip t iv e S t a t is t ic s f o r SES S u c e
s s F a c t o r R a t in g s
Descriptive Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation
SES_EI_PERCEPT 35 4.3119 .46895
SES_MENTORS 35 4.2833 .58759
SES DIV PRACT 35 4.0456 .62652
SES_ROLEMODELS 35 3.9429 .91639
SES_NETWORKS 35 3.7476 .85165
Valid N (listwise) 35
T a b le 2 . D e s c r ip t iv e S t a t is t ic s f o r G S -1 5 S u
c c e s s F a c t o r R a t in g s
GS15MENTOR 85 4.5353 .54711
G S 15E IP E R C E P T 86 4.4961 .48539
GS15ROLEMODELS 86 4.0756 .93503
GS15NETWORKS 86 4.0469 .80403
GS15DIV_PRACT 86 3.9816 .62286
T a b le 3. D e s c r ip t iv e S t a t is t ic s f o r G S - 1 4 S u

c c e s s F a c t o r R a t in g s
GS14EI_PERCEPT 68 4.3860 .56389
GS14MENTORS 68 4.3566 .81304
GS14ROLEMODELS 68 4.2672 .68576
GS14DIV_PRACTICE 68 4.0854 .63006
GS14NETWORKS 68 4.0137 .79668
N = 68); mentors received a mean rating of 4.35 (S D =
.813) and role models received a mean rating of 4.26
(SD = .685). GS-14s rated m easured success factors
as follows: organization diversity practices received
a mean of 4.08 (SD = .630) and informal networks
received a mean of 4.01 (SD=.796).
As shown in Table 3, frequencies were reviewed to
determ ine if GS-14s favorably rated the key success
factors. This test displayed the percentage of GS-14s
that provided scores of 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree)
delineating the perception of im portance of each
success factor. This groups rated the m easured success
factor ratings as follows: mentors (85.3%), El (83.8%),
role models (75.0%), informal networks (60.3) and
organization diversity practices (54.4%).
After analyzing descriptive and frequenc y data,
a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between

subjects (SES, GS-15 and GS-14) was employed to
compare the mean accuracy of perceptions o f key
success factors. As shown in Table 4, an ANOVA test
helped us determ ine whether the differences in the
means between and within the three groups were
SAM Advanced Managem ent Journal - Volume 84 Edition 4 47
Table 4. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Success
Factor Ratings
Sum o f
Sauares df Mean Square F Siq.
MENTORS Betw een G roups 2.421 2 1.210 3.431 .034
W ithin G roups 64.906 184 .353
Total 67.326 186
N ETW O RKS Betw een G roups 1.586 2 .793 1.150 .319
W ithin G roups 127.589 185 .690
Total 129.175 187
ROLE MODELS Betw een G roups 2.519 2 1.259 1.828 .164
W ithin G roups 127.444 185 .689
Total 129.963 187
El PERCEPTION Betw een G roups .639 2 .319 1.061 .348

W ithin G roups 55.675 185 .301
Total 56.314 187
DIVERSITY PRACTICES Betw een G roups .551 2 .276 .686
.505
W ithin G roups 74.258 185 .401
Total 74.809 187
Table 5. Scheffe Tests for Key Success Factors
Multiple Com parisons
S c h e ffe
V a ria b le m G R A D E (J1 G R A D E
M e an
D iffe re n c e (I-
J) S td . E rro r S id .
A A W M e n to rs S E S G S -1 5 -.0 3 4 4 0 .1 1 9 6 0 .9 5 9
G S -1 4 .1 9 3 11 .1 2 4 2 0 .301
G S -1 5 S E S .0 3 4 4 0 .1 1 9 6 0 .9 5 9
G S -1 4 .2 2 7 5 0 .0 9 7 2 9 .0 6 8
G S -1 4 S E S -.1 9 3 1 1 .1 2 4 2 0 .301
G S -1 5 -.2 2 7 5 0 .0 9 7 2 9 .0 6 8
AAW N E T W O R K S S E S G S -1 5 -.2 9 9 2 8 .1 6 2 2 5 .1
8 5

G S -1 4 -.2 5 1 3 9 .1 6 8 7 7 .3 3 2
G S -1 5 S E S .2 9 9 2 8 .1 6 2 2 5 .1 8 5
G S -1 4 .0 4 7 8 9 .1 3 1 8 7 .9 3 6
G S -1 4 S E S .2 5 1 3 9 .1 6 8 7 7 .3 3 2
G S -1 5 -.0 4 7 8 9 .1 3 1 8 7 .9 3 6
A A W R O L E M O D E L S S E S G S -1 5 .0 9 7 1 8 .1 6 3 2
3 .8 3 8
G S -1 4 -.1 6 5 4 6 .1 6 9 8 0 .6 2 3
G S -1 5 S E S - .0 9 7 1 8 .1 6 3 2 3 .8 3 8
G S -1 4 - .2 6 2 6 3 .1 3 2 6 6 .1 4 4
G S -1 4 S E S .1 6 5 4 6 .1 6 9 8 0 .6 2 3
G S -1 5 .2 6 2 6 3 .1 3 2 6 6 .1 4 4
AAW EI P E R C E P T S E S G S -1 5 -.1 8 4 2 2 .1 0 2 5 8 .2 0
2
G S -1 4 -.0 6 4 9 6 .1 0 6 7 0 .831
G S -1 5 S E S .1 8 4 2 2 .1 0 2 5 8 .2 0 2
G S -1 4 .1 1 9 2 6 .0 8 3 3 7 .361
G S -1 4 S E S .0 6 4 9 6 .1 0 6 7 0 .831
G S -1 5 -.1 1 9 2 6 .0 8 3 3 7 .361

A A W D IV E R S E P R A C S E S G S -1 5 .0 6 4 0 5 .1 2 5 8
4 .8 7 9
G S -1 4 -.0 4 2 6 7 .1 3 0 9 0 .9 4 8
G S -1 5 S E S - .0 6 4 0 5 .1 2 5 8 4 .8 7 9
G S -1 4 -.1 0 6 7 2 .1 0 2 2 8 .581
G S -1 4 S E S .0 4 2 6 7 .1 3 0 9 0 .9 4 8
G S -1 5 .1 0 6 7 2 .1 0 2 2 8 .581
48 SAM Advanced Management Journal - Volume 84 Edition 4
different.
As shown in Table 5, we provide comparisons of the
mean accuracy of the success factor scores between
groups (SES, GS-15, and GS-14). This test found that
participants’ perceptions of mentors differed across the
three groups, F(2,l 84) = 3.431, p <.05. Table 5 also
shows the Scheffe follow-up procedure which provides
an assessment of pairwise differences among the three
groups. However, Post Hoc comparisons revealed
no statistically significant differences at the p < .05
level between the three groups’ perceptions. That is,
although there appeared to be a difference in the three
groups’ mean ratings of mentors, this test verified that
the differences were not statistically significant.
We also sought to learn how AAW in the SES, GS-
15, and GS-14 rate the im portance of the measured

key success factors: mentors, informal networks, role
models, em otional intelligence, and organization
diversity practices. Resulting analysis shows the
following ranges of means for the m easured success
factors: SES women’s mean ratings ranged from 3.7
( S D = .851) to 4.31 (S D = .468); GS-15 women’s mean
ratings ranged from 3.98 ( S D = .622) to 4.53 ( S D =
.547); and GS-14s mean ratings ranged from 4.01
( S D = .796) to 4.38 ( S D = .563). Participants’ ratings
indicated perceptions that key success factors were
im portant for career advancement to the SES level.
I n t e r n a l V e rs u s E x t e r n a l Success F a c to r
A n a ly s is
To leverage understanding of perception of key
success factors, a final survey question was posed to
respondents in all grades: Select the top three factors
that have contributed the m ost to your overall career
success. The following analysis is based on responses to
this survey item.
Ten success factor choices were listed in the survey
which included an option to select none of these. No
participant selected the none of these option, therefore,
that response was not considered in conducting this
analysis. The success factor options were as follows: 1)
mentors, 2) hard work, 3) informal networks, 4) your
own ability, 5) role models, 6) being in the right place
at the right time, 7) organization diversity practices, 8)
em otional intelligence (El), 9) education and training
and, 10) None of these.
A frequency chart was created to observe the
num ber of times each factor was selected as one of the
top three choices. Table 6 provides the data by grade

and frequencies of selections of each success factor.
As shown in Table 6, participants (N = 188) selected
hard work (82.4%) most often as one of their top three
success factors. The second and third most frequent
selections were education and training (60.6%) and
your own ability (43.0%). Percentages do not equal
100% because each participant was asked to provide
three responses.
As shown in Table 6 the data were also analyzed to
tell us the top three success factors selected by grade.
Percentages were calculated based on the total num ber
of participants in each grade. SES (N = 32) ratings are
as follows: hard work (93.7%), education and training
(56.2%), and your own ability (46.8%). GS-15s (N =
86) ratings are as follows: hard work (75%), education
and training (62.5%), and your own ability (42%).
And GS-14s (N = 70) ratings are as follows: hard work
(84.2%), education and training (58.5%), and mentors
(42.8%).
It is im portant to note that in this instance,
participants provided lower ratings for key success
factors evidenced in the literature as essential needs to
support successful career progress. SES women rated
the key success factors as follows: informal networks
(28.1%), mentors (25%), El (12.5%), organization
diversity practices (9.3%) and role models (6.2%).
GS-15 women rated the key success factors as follows:
mentors (38.6%), informal networks (21.5%), El
(13.6%), organization diversity practices (10.2%),
and role models (7.9%). And GS-14 women rated
the key success factors as follows: mentors (42.8%),
networks (20%), El (11.4%), organization diversity
practices (5.7%) and role models (5.7%). The results

of this analysis suggest that, as a group, and by-grade,
the largest percentage of study participants rated
hard work (internal factor) as the most im portant
success factor, followed by education and training and
one’s own ability. The percent of participants giving a
higher rating to the key success factors from the list of
options was lower for all groups except GS-14s who
rated mentors (42.8%) as one of their top three success
factors (see Table 6).
As shown in Table 7, multiple comparisons (Scheffe
test) helped us discover a statistically significant
difference between mean scores of SES and GS-15
women’s ratings and between SES and GS-14 women
ratings. Effort accounted for personal success with p <
.05. However, with the other attribution factors, no two
groups were significantly different at the .05 level.
A t t r ib u t io n T h e o r y a n d Success F a c to rs
Edition 4 49
Table 6. Top Three Success Factors and Percentages Selected by
Grade
Total
N= 188
(N = 188)
SES
N = 32

GS-15
N = 86
GS-14
N = 70
Mentors 25.0% 38.6% 42.8% 72 (38.3%)
Hard Work 93.7% 75.0% 84.2% 155 (82.4%)
Informal Networks 28.1% 21.5% 20.0% 42 (22.3%)
Own Ability 46.8% 42.0% 41.4% 81 (43.0%)
Role Models 6.2%) 7.9% 5.7% 13(6.9%)
Right Place/Right 40.6%)
Time
18.1% 20.0% 43 (22.9%)
Diversity Practices 9.3% 10.2% 5.7% 16(8.5%)
Emotional
Intelligence
12.5% 13.6% 11.4% 24 (12.8%)
Education & Training 56.2% 62.5% 58.5% 114 (60.6%)
Table 7. Scheffe Tests for Attribution Factors
M u lt ip le C o m p a r i s o n s
S c h e ffe
9 5 % C o n f id e n c e Inte rv a l

D e p e n d e n t V a ria b le m G R A D E G R A D E
M e an
D iffe r e n c e (I-
j ) S td . E rro r S ia . L o w e r B o u n d U p p e r B o u n d
AT-1 A b ilitie s S E S G S -1 5 -.0 4 0 .1 0 3 .9 2 9 -.2 9 .22
G S -1 4 -.0 6 7 .10 8 .82 6 -.3 3 .20
G S -1 5 S E S .04 0 .1 0 3 .9 2 9 -.2 2 .29
G S -1 4 -.0 2 7 .0 8 4 .9 5 0 -.2 4 .18
G S -1 4 S E S .0 6 7 .1 0 8 .82 6 -.2 0 .33
G S -1 5 .0 2 7 .0 8 4 .95 0 -.1 8 .24
A T -2 E ffo rt S E S G S -1 5 -1 .0 2 4 * .2 3 8 .0 0 0 -1 .61 -.4
4
G S -1 4 -1 .1 4 4 * .2 4 8 .00 0 -1 .7 6 -.5 3
G S -1 5 S E S 1.0 2 4 * .2 3 8 .0 0 0 .44 1.61
G S -1 4 -.1 2 0 .19 4 .8 2 7 -.6 0 .36
G S -1 4 S E S 1 .1 44* .24 8 .0 0 0 .53 1 .7 6
G S -1 5 .1 2 0 .19 4 .8 2 7 -.3 6 .60
A T -3 T a s k S E S G S -1 5 .1 9 8 .2 0 0 .61 2 -.2 9 .69
G S -1 4 -.1 2 7 .2 0 8 .83 0 -.6 4 .39
G S -1 5 S E S -.1 9 8 .20 0 .6 1 2 -.6 9 .29
G S -1 4 -.3 2 6 1 6 4 .141 -.7 3 .08
G S -1 4 S E S .12 7 .2 0 8 .83 0 -.3 9 .64
G S -1 5 .3 2 6 .16 4 .141 -.0 8 .73
A T -4 L u c k S E S G S -1 5 .0 6 2 .24 8 .9 6 9 -.5 5 .67

G S -1 4 .1 3 6 .2 5 7 .8 6 9 -.5 0 .77
G S -1 5 S E S -.0 6 2 .24 8 .96 9 -.6 7 .55
G S -1 4 .0 7 4 .2 0 2 .9 3 4 -.4 2 .57
G S -1 4 S E S -.1 3 6 .2 5 7 .86 9 -.7 7 .50
G S -1 5 -.0 7 4 .20 2 .9 3 4 -.5 7 .42
*. T h e m e a n d iffe re n c e is s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 0 .0
5 le v e l.
Attribution theory was also considered when
analyzing selections of the top three success factors.
The survey asked questions that were related to how
participants attribute personal achievement. The
factors were divided into internal and external, based
on characteristics. For example, the factor of mentors
was considered external because it has an external
dim ension (the mentor). On the other hand, education
is an internal factor (the individual person). External
factors in the survey items included: mentors,
informal networks, role models, and organization
diversity practices. While, internal factors listed
included: your own hard work, your own ability,
emotional awareness (intelligence), and education and
training.
To further examine attribution for the internal and
external groups, each group was transform ed into one
variable. Statistics resulting from these transform ed
variables indicated that 184 (96.8%) of 190 participants

selected internal success factors among their choices
of the top three success factors. For comparison, only
66.3% of respondents rated external success factors
among their list of top three factors. Overall, this
analysis suggests that SES rated internal success factors
higher indicating their perceptions that these factors
were more likely to lead to career success.
D is c u s s io n
The hypothesis predicted: The more emphasis the
mentee placed on the im portance of the m entor/
mentee relationship, the more the mentee perceived
career enhancing outcomes.
However, the findings suggest that while supporting
the im portance of mentors (extrinsic factor) was
recognized by mentees, more emphasis was placed
on intrinsic factors of hard work, education, and
emotional intelligence.
Results o f the study suggest that AAW in the three
grades studied, considered m entoring as an im portant
success factor for achieving SES . SES ratings of agree
or strongly agree for the im portance of mentors were
slightly lower than GS-15’s and GS-14’s agree and
strongly agree ratings. These results are consistent
with Nkomo and Cox’s (1989) findings contending
that AAW perceived mentors as influential factors for
career advancement. Also, results of the present study
are in line with research conducted by McGlowan-
Fellow and Thomas (2004), as their findings suggested
that m entoring influenced individual capabilities to
achieve senior-level positions. Further, their study
found that mentors may help increase diversity in

organizations because they may offer insight for career
advancement when counseling m inority proteges
(McGlowan-Fellow & Thomas, 2004). A nother related
study found that while networks were most effective
for white women, m entoring program s were more
effective in supporting career development for AAW
(Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006)
A possible reason for SESs placing less im portance
on mentors may be related to hindsight bias. Hindsight
bias is present when participants’ recollections of
the past become distorted either because they are
uncertain of how they felt in the past, or because they
discount negative or positive circumstances depending
on the situation (Werth, Strack & Forster, 2002).
Max Bazerman, a Harvard professor and renowned
expert on decision making, and his colleagues, also
contributed to understanding this bias. Bazerman,
Loewenstein, and Moore (2002) argued that
individuals may be unconscious of their tendency to
distort facts and supported the salience of recognizing
the possibility of bias (Bazerman, et. al., 2002). In
recognizing the potential for this bias, researchers
gain an increased awareness of issues that may be
involved when evaluating results based on participants’
perceptions of past events.
SES perceptions were m easured based on after-
the-fact thought processes, and although they were
asked to “think back to the time before you achieved
your SES appointment,” a potential exists for past
events to be seen through a different lens when
reporting perceptions. Hindsight bias may account
for mentors and other success factors appearing to be
less im portant to senior executives because they had
already reached the SES level, and memories o f the

success factors’ significance may have faded over the
years.
Interestingly, the analysis discovered no major
differences between the three grades’ views of the
im portance of m entoring as a success factor. One
explanation for this finding may be the high visibility
of m entoring as a concept in the federal government,
particularly in term s of preparing women and
minorities for advanced careers. In September 2008,
the U.S. Office of Personnel M anagement (OPM)
published a m entoring handbook (OPM, 2008). The
handbook cited the Federal Workforce Flexibility
Act of 2004 that m andated provisions for training
managers on m entoring employees (OPM, 2008). As
a result OPM pushed for agencies to develop formal
SAM A d vanced M an ag e m e n t Journal - Volume 84
Edition 4 51
m entoring programs and published guidance on
all aspects of mentoring. Moreover, a recent study
of AAW in the Peoria, Illinois, Black Cham ber of
Commerce concluded that m entoring related to career
success (Ali, 2007). The results of the present study
substantiate evidence presented in the literature that
points to m entors as a key success factor for achieving
senior executive positions.
Study results suggest that when participants were
given an opportunity to select the top three factors to
which they credited personal career success, they were
more likely to select factors in the following order:
hard work, education and training, and ones own

ability. Selecting these factors, versus the key success
factors, was a turning point in this investigation
of perceived success factors. In fact, these findings
suggest that AAW, in this study, when not limited
to prioritizing key success factors evidenced by the
literature, were more likely to credit internal versus
external factors for personal career success.
External factors including mentors, consistently
received fewer selections among participants’ top
three success factors. These results may be informative
for organizations that wish to maintain a diverse
workforce and may provide insight for how they may
appeal to AAW by recognizing their perceptions
of the im portance of internal factors. This may be
accomplished by recognizing and rewarding hard work
and efforts and by awarding scholarships or tuition
assistance for advanced education. Coupled with
these enticements, organizations may also implement
inclusion policies to reduce perceptions of obstacles to
external factors such as mentors.
The present study’s results also surface viewpoints
related to attribution theory. Based on attribution
theory, the results suggest that among all three grades,
AAW attributed internal factors at a higher rate
than external factors as the foundation for personal
achievement and career progress. W hen analyzing
attributions by grade, study results suggest that SESs
were more likely to place confidence in external factors
than were GS-15s or GS-14s. In contrast to women in
the SES, the GS-15s and GS-14s were more likely to
credit internal factors as the basis for their own career
success.
These results suggest that after prom otion to SES,

women may have a better understanding of the
value that external success factors may contribute
to achieving SES ranking. Also, SESs may have
experienced situations that prom inently presented
the im portance of accessing external factors. On the
other hand, GS-15s and GS-14s are less experienced
and may not have developed a full awareness of the
powerful influence that external factors may have on
facilitating prom otions to SES. Organizations may use
this analysis to build career development programs
that focus on im portant internal and external factors
for individuals who aspire to achieve executive level
careers.
Im p lic a t io n s f o r E m p lo y e e s
AAW who aspire to achieve SES ranking should take
measures to increase awareness o f the combination of
success factors that may support achieving executive
careers. The current study suggested that mentors,
networks, role models, organization diversity, and
emotional intelligence were key success factors that
helped advance careers. Although there is still much to
be learned about key success factors needed to reach
SES ranking, the present study implies that AAW
should place more emphasis on devising m ethods to
gain access to im portant external factors. Increasing
AAW’s potential to reach the SES may be a m atter of
placing more personal focus on strategies for gaining
access to mentors, informal networks, and role models.
Additionally, AAW who are currently serving
in executive-level positions could participate in
m entoring activities to aid high-potential AAWs who
aspire to reach the SES. They should consider the

value of sharing strategies and approaches that worked
for them in achieving SES ranking. AAW may also
consider proactively building their own networks and
m entor programs to expose SES hopefuls to career
advancement advice and opportunities. Also, the
current corps of AAW in the SES can create forums
that will allow them to provide counseling and share
knowledge of the factors needed to achieve SES. This
recom m endation would enable AAW who are SES to
provide support and become role models for other
AAW who aspire to gain SES appointments.
Further, implications of the present study may
also increase AAW employees’ knowledge of key and
essential success factors that may be needed to achieve
SES. The present study’s results may offer self-help
solutions for AAW in guiding them toward success
factors that are most im portant for achieving executive
careers. Enhanced awareness of key success factors
may also increase AAW’s potential for achieving SES
and, in turn, increase their representation in the SES corps.
Im p lic a t io n s f o r M a n a g e m e n t
SAM A d vanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal - Volum e 84
Edition 452
Organizations may benefit from the results of the
current study by increasing their preparedness to
effectively address concerns related to career success
factors for AAW. The findings may contribute to
developing program s that can lead to increased
opportunities for AAW to gain access to key success
factors. Further, understanding perceptions held
by AAW in SES, GS-15 and GS-14 grades may also

motivate organizations to expand on this study by
examining perceptions of success factors for all
minorities in all grades.
R e c o m m e n d a tio n s
Armed with knowledge gained from the present
study, it is recom m ended that organizations consider
implementing policies that support expanding AAW’s
access to mentors, networks, and role models. Also,
leaders can institute organizational agendas that
include developing or improving formal mentoring
and networking programs.
To implement m entoring programs, organizations
can formally couple senior executives with AAW
subordinates. The effectiveness of these couplings
can be enhanced by providing training support in
career-counseling techniques and protegee career
development. Organizations can also implement
formal in-house network programs and encourage
AAW to participate. Through formal networks,
organizations can provide a num ber of relationship-
building opportunities for AAW that may include
presentations from senior leadership and professional
development training. Also, organizations can conduct
interactive meetings and forums to bring together
AAW and senior leaders to discuss challenges in
AAWs’ careers and m ethods to improve career success.
By establishing formal m entoring and networking
programs, organizations can create associations that
may lead to informal m entoring relationships and
network connections.
Another recom m endation for organizations involves
leaders m aintaining awareness of the effectiveness

of organization diversity programs. One way to
accomplish this is by conducting periodic diversity
climate assessment surveys of all employees. Climate
assessment surveys are effective for informing leaders
of employee perceptions of an organization’s diversity
policies and programs. This review can also indicate
the level of effectiveness of specific programs that were
instituted to enhance inclusion and diversity. Periodic
assessments should be followed with leadership’s
visible com m itm ent to address negative issues that may
surface, the com m itm ent to address and strengthen
weak programs, and continuance of support for
effective diversity practices.
Additionally, based on knowledge gained from
the current study, we recom m end that organization
diversity programs be visibly supported by leadership.
Working from a foundation of knowledge of AAW’s
perceptions, organizations can use this information
to determ ine which career development programs
are most effective in showing the organization’s solid
support of inclusion and diversity. Leaders should
ask themselves, “W hat was the purpose of this
diversity program? Is it working? Are we meeting our
diversity goals? W hat should be the next steps for our
programs?”
Finally, organizations com m itted to prom oting
diversity may enhance effectiveness by reviewing
the best m entoring program and practices employed
in other successful organizations. Benchmarking
organizations who have implemented successful
diversity practices can help organizations improve
current policies and institute new diversity practices.

S u m m a r y a n d C o n c lu s io n s
We have learned from this study that AAW who
participated in this study appeared to be aware of the
im portant success factors needed to achieve SES. Yet,
when given a broad range of factors to choose from,
more often the women selected internal factors as the
basis for their own personal success. Because so few
studies focus on AAW’s views of SES success factors,
the present study can serve as a baseline for future
studies that explore AAW’s perceptions of success
factors necessary to reach SES levels.
Additionally, this study informed us that mentors
are an im portant success factor that may facilitate
career success. However, this im portant factor was
not among the m ost prevalent factors that study
participants perceived as the top three responsible for
their own career success. In fact, participants provided
the highest rate of internal related responses including
education and training, hard work, and personal
efforts. Through this study we learned that participants
believed internal factors underpinned their success
and it may be necessary to enhance awareness for
the im portance of attaining powerful external factors
in order to gain leadership positions and to reach
executive-level positions.
While recognizing the im portance of aspiring
SAM Advanced M anagement Dournal - Volume 84 Edition 4 53
leaders’ em otional intelligence, advanced schooling,
diligent work efforts, and talents in the workplace, it

should also be understood that individuals who lack
these characteristics may not meet even the lowest
qualifications for senior-level leadership positions.
We learned from this study that it may be equally
im portant to identify and understand the role played
by m entors as a powerful key success factor.
F u tu re Research
Although this study expands the body of knowledge
regarding AAW’s perceptions o f success factors,
it has not succeeded in identifying all factors that
may be involved in explaining why so few AAW
are in the SES. Many aspects involving this area of
research remain unknown. For this reason, future
research is very im portant to continue expanding
our knowledge of success factors that may lead to
higher representation of AAW in the SES. Aspects to
consider during future research include examination
of SES workforce diversity policies, investigation of
the extent to which AAW aspire to become SES, and
exploration of SES organizations’ career development
and hiring practices. These researchers hope that a
model for future research can be developed to serve
as a useful guide for fruitful efforts that will continue
filling the gap in the inadequate body of knowledge on
AAW’s perceptions of success factors needed to gain
appointm ents in the SES.
References
Aisuan, S. (2011). African American women in leadership
positions in Los Angeles city government: A qualitative
phenomenological study (Doctoral Dissertation).
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Akaka, D. Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance
A c t., Pub. L. No. 2148 (2008).
Akande, A. (1994). The glass ceiling: Women and
mentoring in management and business. Employee
Counseling Today, 6(1), 21-29. Retrieved from AB/
INFORM Global Database.
Ali, R. (2007). The relationship between mentoring African
American professionals and their perceptions o f career
success: A case study (Doctoral Dissertation). Capella
University.
Bazerman, M. H., Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A.
(2002). Why good accountants do bad audits. Harvard
Business Review, 80( 1), 96-103. Retrieved from ABI/
INFORM Global Database.
Bell, E., & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways :
black and white women and the struggle fo r
professional identity. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Blake-Beard, S. D. (2001). Taking a hard look at formal
mentoring programs. Journal o f Management
Development, 20(4), 331-345. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02621710110388983
Bush Jr., G. W. (2003). President applauds Supreme Court
for recognizing value o f diversity. Retrieved from
whitehouse.gov website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/06/20030623.html
Catalyst. (1998). Women o f color in corporate
m anagem ent: dynamics o f career advancement. New

York: Catalyst.
Catalyst. (1999). Women o f color in corporate
management: opportunities and harriers. New York,
NY: Catalyst.
Catalyst. (2004). Advancing African American woman in
the workplace: What managers need to know. New
York, NY: Catalyst.
Civilian Federal Register. (2008). Code o f Federal
Regulations. Retrieved from National Archives
and Records Administration website: http://www.
gpoaccess.gov/cfr/about.html
Cox, T. J. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations :
Theory, research & practice. San Francisco, CA.
Berrett-Koehler.
Cox, T., & Nkomo, S. M. (1986). Differential Performance
Appraisal Criteria: A Field Study o f Black and White
Managers. Group & Organization Studies, 77(1-2),
101-119. https://doi.org/10T 177/105960118601100109
D ’Amico, C. (1997). Back to the future: A current view o f
workforce 2000 and projections for 2020. Employment
Relations Today, 24(3), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ert.3910240302
Davis, D. Senior Executive Service Diversity Assurance
A c t ., Pub. L. No. 3374 (2008).
Dominguez, C. M. (1991). The challenge o f workforce
2000. The Bureaucrat, 20(4), 15-20. Retrieved from
ABI/INFORM Global Database.

Dominguez, Cari M. (1992). Executive forum—the glass
ceiling: Paradox and promises. Human Resource
Management, 31(4), 385-392. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hrm.3930310407
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). G oodfor
business: Making fu ll use o f the nation’s human
capital: The environmental scan. A fa c t finding report
o f the federal glass ceiling commission. Washington,
D.C.: U. S. Department o f Labor.
54 SAM A dvanced M a n a g e m e n t Journal - Volum e 84
Edition 4
https://doi
http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://www
https://doi.org/10T
https://doi.org/10.1002/
Ghosh, R., Haynes, R. K., & Kram, K. E. (2013).
Developmental networks at work: holding
environments for leader development. Career
Development International, 18(3), 232-256. https://doi.
org/10.1108/cdi-09-2012-0084
Gibson, D. E. (2009). [Review of The Handbook of
Mentoring at Work: Theory, research, and practice, by
B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram], Administrative Science
Quarterly, 54(1), 158-161. Retrieved from https://
journals, sagepub.com/toc/asqa/54/1.
Giscombe, K., & Sims, A. D. (1998). Breaking the Color
Barrier. HR Focus, 75(7), 9-11. Retrieved from

Business Source Premier Database.
Hite, L. M. (1996). Black women managers and
administrators: experiences and implications. Women
in Management Review, 11(6), 11-17. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09649429610127938
Johnson, W. J., & Packer, A. E. (1987). Workforce 2000:
Work and workers fo r the 21st Century. Indianapolis,
IN: Hudson Institute.
Johnson-Drake, G. E. (2010). Mentoring relationships
among African American women in the Senior
Executive Service (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best Practices
or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy o f Corporate
Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American
Sociological Review, 71(A), 589-617. https://doi.
org/10.1177/000312240607100404
Lim, L., Clarke, A., Ross, F., & Wells, J. (2015). Mentoring
Experiences, Perceived Benefits, and Impact on Current
Job Positions o f African American Accountants.
Advancing Women in Leadership, 35, 193-203.
Retrieved from http://advancingwomen.com/aw/awl/
awl_wordpress/
Marquis, J. P., Lim, N., Scott, L. M., Harrell, M. C., &
Kavanagh, J. (2008). Managing diversity in corporate
America : an exploratory analysis. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
McGlowan-Fellow, B., & Thomas, C. S. (2004). Changing
Roles: Corporate Mentoring o f Black Women : A

Review with Implications for Practitioners o f Mental
Health. International Journal o f Mental Health, 53(4),
3-18. https://d0i.0rg/l0.1080/00207411.2004.11043387
Nkomo, S. M., & Cox, T. (1989). Gender differences in the
upward mobility o f black managers: Double whammy
or double advantage? Sex Roles, 27(11-12), 825-839.
https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1007/bf00289811
Office o f Personnel Management. (2002). Office o f
personnel management strategic plan 2002-2007.
Retrieved from U.S. Office o f Personnel Management
website: www.opm.gov/gpra/opmgpra/sp2002/goalsl/
index.asp
Office o f Personnel Management. (2008a). Best Practices
in Mentoring. Retrieved from U.S. Office o f Personnel
Management website: http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/
BestPractices-Mentoring.pdf
Office o f Personnel Management. (2008b). SES Salary
Table. Retrieved from U.S. Office o f Personnel
Management website: https://www.opm.gov/
oca/08tables/pdf/es.pdf
Office o f Personnel Management, (n.d.). Senior Executive
Service. Retrieved from U.S. Office o f Personnel
Management website: http://www.opm.gov/ses/
Parker, P., Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (2014).
Peer Coaching: An untapped resource for
development. Organizational Dynamics, 43(2), 122—
129.
Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to Mentoring: The Female
Manager’s Dilemma. Human Relations, 42(1), 1-22.

https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1177/001872678904200101
Ragins, B. R. (1996). Jumping the hurdles: barriers to
mentoring for women in organizations. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 17(3), 37—41.
https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1108/01437739610116984
Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1991). Easier Said Than
Done: Gender differences in Perceived Barriers to
Gaining a Mentor. Academy o f Management Journal,
34(A), 939-951. https://doi.org/10.5465/256398
Rezendes, V. S. (2003). Senior executive service: Enhanced
agency efforts needed to improve diversity as the
senior corps turns over. Retrieved from U.S. General
Accounting Office, Report No. GAI-03-34 website:
www.gao.gov
Richard, J., & D’amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020 : Work
and workers in the 21st century. Indianapolis, I A:
Hudson Institute.
Stalcup, G. H. (2005). Diversity management: Expert-
identified leading practices and agency examples.
Retrieved from U.S. General Accounting Office, Report
No. GAI-05-90 website: www.gao.gov
Stalcup, G. H. (2008a). Human capital: Workforce diversity
government-wide and at the department o f homeland
security. Retrieved from U.S. General Accounting
Office, Report No. GAI-08-815T website: www.gao.
gov
Stalcup, G. H. (2008b). Human capital: Workforce
diversity government-wide and at the small business
administration. Retrieved from U.S. General

Accounting Office, Report No. GAI-08-725T website:
www.gao.gov
Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking through :
the making o f minority executives in corporate
America. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School
Press.
Edition 4 55
https://doi
https://doi
https://doi
http://advancingwomen.com/aw/awl/
https://d0i.0rg/l0.1080/00207411.2004.11043387
https://d0i.0rg/l
http://www.opm.gov/gpra/opmgpra/sp2002/goalsl/
http://www.opm.gov/hrd/lead/
https://www.opm.gov/
http://www.opm.gov/ses/
https://d0i.0rg/l
https://d0i.0rg/l
https://doi.org/10.5465/256398
http://www.gao.gov
http://www.gao.gov
http://www.gao
http://www.gao.gov
Tsui, A. S„ & Gutek, B. A. (1984). A Role Set Analysis
of Gender Differences in Performance, Affective
Relationships, and Career Success of Industrial Middle
Managers. Academy o f Management Journal, 27(3),
619-635. https://d0i.0rg/l0.2307/256049

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2007). Current Population Survey (CPS). Table 24.
Experienced labor force, employed, and experienced
unemployed by intermediate occupation, race, detailed
Hispanic or Latino and Non-Hispanic ethnicity, and
sex, Annual Average 2007. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Werth, L., Strack, F., & Forster, J. (2002). Certainty
and Uncertainty: The Two Faces of the Hindsight
Bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 87(2), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1006/
obhd.2001.2976
Williams-Stokes, C. D. (2017). The effects o f mentoring
on career advancement fo r African American women
(Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses.
Zeller, S. (2003). Diversity sought in senior ranks.
Retrieved from AllBusiness.com website: from www.
allbusiness.com/government/3598634-l.html
ONlNlONfD
webinar
;hat
fTERNET
media A BLOG
TRENDING
o SAMNational
yMEB
o SAM_samnational

SAMnational news o
CONNECT
WITH US ONLINE
SAMnational
https://d0i.0rg/l0.2307/256049
Copyright of SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075)
is the property of Society for
Advancement of Management and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Why Benefiting From Discrimination Is Less Recognized as
Discrimination
L. Taylor Phillips and Sora Jun
Online First Publication, September 13, 2021.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000298
CITATION
Phillips, L. T., & Jun, S. (2021, September 13). Why Benefiting
From Discrimination Is Less Recognized as Discrimination.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000298

Why Benefiting From Discrimination Is Less Recognized as
Discrimination
L. Taylor Phillips1 and Sora Jun2
1 Stern School of Business, New York University
2 Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas
Discrimination continues to plague society, creating stark
inequities between groups. While existing
work has considered the role of prejudice in perpetuating
discrimination, we draw on emerging research
on privilege and inequity frames to offer an overlooked,
complementary explanation: Objectively dis-
criminatory decisions that are described as favoring, compared
with disfavoring, are less likely to be
recognized as discrimination. We further theorize this is
because favoring decisions are perceived to be
motivated by positive intentions. We find support for our
hypotheses across eight studies. First, using
both qualitative (Studies 1a-b) and experimental approaches
(Studies 2–7), across a range of discrimina-
tion contexts including race, sex, nationality, and age, we find
that inequity frames affect perceptions of
discrimination. Further, we find that even human resource
employees are less likely to recognize dis-
crimination when described as favoring (Study 3), in turn
affecting their reporting behaviors: They are
less likely to report potentially discriminatory decisions for
review. Next, sampling language from U.S.
Supreme Court cases, we find that people support litigation less
when discrimination uses a favoring
frame, versus disfavoring frame (Study 4). Then, we find that

this pattern is driven by inequity frames
shaping perceived intentions, rather than perceived harm
(Studies 5–6). Finally, we find some evidence
that inequity frames regarding a discriminatory decision
committed by an organization may affect candi-
dates’ job pursuit behaviors (Study 7). This work contributes to
a nascent perspective that advantaging
mechanisms are critical for creating group inequity: given
individuals are less likely to recognize favor-
itism as discriminatory, favoritism may especially contribute to
the persistence of inequity.
Keywords: discrimination, inequality/inequity,
advantage/privilege, favoritism, diversity
Supplemental materials:
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000298.supp
Group-based discrimination is detrimental to individuals, organ-
izations, and society: discrimination reduces justice and in tur n
di-
versity, harms individuals’ health and well-being, and depresses
satisfaction, motivation, and commitment in the workplace
(Deitch
et al., 2003; Ensher et al., 2001; Kessler et al., 1999; Pascoe &
Smart Richman, 2009; Schmitt et al., 2014). And yet,
discrimina-
tion on the basis of race, sex, nationality, age—and many other
identities—persists, despite continued efforts toward its
reduction
(EEOC, 2020; see also Pager & Shepherd, 2008; Ragins &
Corn-
well, 2001). For instance, in job interviews, White applicants
are
more than twice as likely to receive callbacks than are Black
appli-

cants with the same qualifications (Pager et al., 2009),
heterosexual men are nearly twice as likely to receive callbacks
compared with openly gay men (Tilcsik, 2011), and upper-class
men are more than 12 times more likely to receive an interview
compared with lower-class men (Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016).
Prior research finds that group-based discrimination is driven
both by bias against disadvantaged group members, and bias in
favor of advantaged group members (Brewer, 1999; DiTomaso,
2013, 2015; Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014; Sidanius & Pratto,
2001). And yet, existing research on perceived discrimination
has
disproportionately focused on understanding disfavoring-framed
decisions, paying little attention to whether, when, and why
people
also recognize favoring-framed decisions (see also Lloyd &
Phil-
lips, 2006). Existing work has prioritized identifying points of
intervention to reduce discrimination, including individual -level
levers, such as prejudice (Guryan & Charles, 2013; Pager &
Shep-
herd, 2008) and structural-level levers, such as weak
enforcement
(Hirsh & Kornrich, 2008). However, if people fail to recognize
favoring-discrimination as discriminatory, then such discrimina-
tory decisions will likely persist, ultimately fueling inequity.
Here, we consider how perceptions of discrimination may
diverge from the objective reality, obscuring instances of
discrimi-
nation. Specifically, we suggest people will be less likely to
recog-
nize discrimination when it is described as favoring some group
members over others (e.g., “hiring a male candidate”), as
opposed

L. Taylor Phillips https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4655-6904
We are grateful for helpful comments from Lisa Leslie, Brian
Lowery,
Sean Malahy, Elad Sherf, and Batia Wiesenfeld; developmental
comments
from Mikki Hebl, Kathy Phillips, Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, and
other
participants at the Gender and Diversity in Organizations paper
development
workshop; and research assistance from Olivia Foster-Gimbel.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
L. Taylor
Phillips, Stern School of Business, New York University, 44
West 4th Street,
New York, NY 10012, United States. Email: [email protected]
1
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology:
Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes
© 2021 American Psychological Association
ISSN: 0022-3514 https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000298
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co

py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s

al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al

us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000298. supp

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4655-6904
mailto:[email protected]
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000298
to disfavoring some group members over others (e.g., “not
hiring a
female candidate”), despite equivalent discriminatory outcomes.
That is, bias in favor of beneficiaries of discrimination,
compared
with bias against victims of discrimination, is less likely to be
per-
ceived as discriminatory. Importantly, we also connect these
asymmetric perceptions to behaviors that maintain systems of
dis-
crimination: supporting litigation, reporting discrimination, and
job pursuit. We thus aim to contribute to a budding literature
that
works to expose group-based advantage as a mechanism of
inequity (DiTomaso, 2013, 2015; Lowery et al., 2007, 2009,
2012;
Rosette & Koval, 2018).
Objective Versus Subjective Discrimination
Discrimination is the differential treatment of individuals on the
basis of their (assumed or actual) group membership or social
iden-
tity (e.g., Major et al., 2002; Pager & Shepherd, 2008).
Importantly,
prior literature has found that both favoring and disfavoring
decisions
on the basis of group membership contribute to objective
discrimina-
tion (DiTomaso, 2013, 2015, see also Brewer, 1999). That is,
dis-

criminatory decisions are made because decision makers engage
in
disfavoring, animus or “out-group hate,”1 via explicit or
implicit prej-
udice (e.g., taste-based discrimination; Bertrand et al., 2005;
Guryan
& Charles, 2013) or negative stereotypes associated with out-
group
members (e.g., statistical-discrimination; Arrow, 1998; Guryan
&
Charles, 2013; Pager & Shepherd, 2008). In addition,
discriminatory
decisions are made because decision makers engage in favoring,
fa-
voritism, or “in-group love” (e.g., homophily, in-group bias;
Balliet
et al., 2014; DiTomaso, 2013; Goldberg, 1982; Greenwald &
Petti-
grew, 2014; Halevy et al., 2008; Rivera, 2016; Ridgeway &
Fisk,
2012; Roth, 2004; Waytz et al., 2014). For instance, favoring is
driven by social identity processes—expecting reciprocity,
avoiding
punishment, or affirming one’s own identity by preferring
similar
others (Brewer, 1999; Finkelstein et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner,
1979; Thau et al., 2015). Such favoring can also be the result of
ster-
eotyping, in which more positive traits and skills are attributed
to
dominant group members (e.g., Whites, men; Bertrand et al.,
2005;
Jacquemet & Yannelis, 2012; Lee et al., 2015).
In fact, recent work suggests that favoritism may be an espe-
cially powerful mechanism contributing to inequitable selection

outcomes. For example, DiTomaso (2013) uses a qualitative
approach to demonstrate how favoritism within friendship net-
works gives Whites employment advantages over minorities.
Given that networks are racially segregated, Whites’ favoring
friends for employment referrals can create racial inequity in
selection decisions, even without managers explicitly
disfavoring
minorities. Rivera (2016) similarly finds that candidates from
lower social class backgrounds suffer discrimination in elite
pro-
fessional firms. Importantly, this gap is driven by hiring
managers
favoring those with similar social class backgrounds as them-
selves, due to their feeling fit and comfort. Indeed, models of
labor
discrimination find that accounting for favoring and disfavoring
as
separate preferences can better explain the persistence of
discrimi-
natory outcomes across a range of demographic groups (Feld et
al., 2016; Goldberg, 1982; Jacquemet & Yannelis, 2012; Sala-
manca & Feld, 2017).
In the U.S. legal context, both favoring and disfavoring actions
can be the basis of illegal discrimination (Piscataway Township
Bd. of Educ. v. Taxman, 1997; Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld,
1975).
However, psychological perspectives suggest that not all
instances
of discrimination are recognized as such (Avery et al., 2008;
Major et al., 2002): objective instances of discriminatory
decisions
are distinct from the subjective perceptions of those decisions
as
discriminatory. On one hand, an objectively discriminatory

deci-
sion is defined as one that involves favoring or disfavoring
candi-
dates based on their group membership, rather than individual
qualifications. On the other hand, subjectively perceived
discrimi-
nation—also known as attributions to discrimination—is a per-
ceiver’s recognition that the decision is indeed unfairly based
on
candidates’ group membership rather than individual merit
(Major
et al., 2002).
Attributions to discrimination have important effects above and
beyond objective discrimination. For instance, perceiving
discrimina-
tion is associated with weakened psychological safety and
worsened
health outcomes (Avery et al., 2008; Kessler et al., 1999;
Pascoe &
Smart Richman, 2009; Sanchez & Brock, 1996; Schmitt et al.,
2014;
Triana et al., 2015). Further, perceiving discrimination w hen it
occurs
is a required first step towards reporting and ultimately rooting
out
discrimination (Ambrose & Schminke, 2009; Miller et al., 1981;
Simon, 1991; Skarlicki et al., 2015). Thus, scholars and
practitioners
alike need to understand when and why objective discrimination
is
likely to be subjectively perceived as discrimination, or to
remain
unrecognized.
Attributions to Discrimination Framework

The attributions to discrimination framework (Major et al.,
2002) theorizes two conditions under which an individual will
at-
tribute a decision to group-based discrimination: The decision is
perceived to be unjust (rather than just) and is perceived to be
based on a social identity (rather than the individual’s merit).
Ample research supports this framework, and has focused on
iden-
tifying organizational and individual moderators of attributions
to
discrimination (e.g., Goldman et al., 2006; Major et al., 2002;
Major & Dover, 2016). For example, prodiversity climate and
clear reporting mechanisms in organizations increase the likeli-
hood that employees perceive objective discrimination as
subjec-
tively unjust (Hirsh & Lyons, 2010; Leslie & Gelfand, 2008).
Interestingly, to the best of our knowledge, attributions to dis -
crimination and perceived discrimination work has primarily
investigated when and why perceivers attribute disfavoring-
framed
decisions—a candidate not being selected—to discrimination. In
contrast, this work has not considered when and why perceivers
might attribute favoring-framed decisions—a candidate being
selected—to discrimination, despite the framework’s noted
theo-
retical relevance (Lloyd & Phillips, 2006; Major et al., 2002, p.
264). But, as reviewed above, research clearly finds that both
favoring and disfavoring contribute to discrimination. Indeed,
scholars have recently registered concern that work on inequity
of-
ten neglects discrimination resulting from favoring (DiTomaso,
2015; Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014; Lloyd & Phillips, 2006).
1

In past literature, disfavoring has been described as out-group
hate,
out-group denigration, animus, disadvantage, and
discrimination, among
other phrases (Brewer, 1999; Brief et al., 2005; DiTomaso,
2015).
Favoring has been described as in-group love, in-group
favoritism,
favoritism, advantage, and privilege, among other phrases.
Here, for both
simplicity and specificity, we use the terms “disfavoring” and
“favoring” to
describe the two inequity frames that may be applied.
2 PHILLIPS AND JUN
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e

A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs

.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi

du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Here, we work to integrate literature that documents favoring as
a mechanism of objective discrimination with theory on
subjective
perceptions of discrimination in order to ask: Given both
favoring
and disfavoring cause discrimination, do people perceive both
as
such? We suggest that inequity frames—specifically, framing an

inequitable decision in terms of favoring versus disfavoring—
are
an important antecedent that can bias attributions to discrimina-
tion. That is, regardless of the motivation behind the deci sion
(cf.
Brewer, 1999), an inequitable decision can be framed as either
favoring or disfavoring. We predict that people will be less
likely
to attribute a decision to discrimination when it is framed in
terms
of favoring the beneficiary of the decision as opposed to
disfavor-
ing the victim of the decision.
Inequity Frames Theory
Cognitive frames (also known as decision frames, organiza-
tional frames, or simply “frames”) refer to perceivers’
“conception
of the acts, outcomes, and contingencies associated with a
particu-
lar choice” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, p. 453; see also
Benford
& Snow, 2000; Cornelissen & Werner, 2017; Goffman, 1974;
Kaplan, 2008). Frames can focus and anchor our attention,
shape
our assumptions about decisions and processes, and ul timately
have powerful effects on our behavior. For instance, Hugenberg
et
al. (2006) show that framing a shortlist selection process as
exclu-
sionary (who should be cut) increases decision makers’
stereotyp-
ing and ultimately discrimination against minority candidates,
as
opposed to using an inclusionary frame (who should be kept).

Intergroup and diversity scholars have developed inequity
frames theory to describe how and why different framings affect
reactions to group inequities as well (Lowery et al., 2007,
2009).
Specifically, group inequity can be described as a disadvantage
for
those who suffer from the inequity, or as an advantage for those
who benefit from the same inequity (Branscombe, 1998; Chow
et
al., 2008; Knowles et al., 2014; Lowery et al., 2012; Rosette &
Koval, 2018). For instance, consider Jake and John competing
for
a newly open position. Alejandra, the hiring manager decides to
hire Jake over John, solely because Jake is the same nationality
as
Alejandra, and John is not. This decision is clearly
discriminatory
because it was made based on group membership (i.e.,
nationality)
rather than individual merit. However, the decision can be dis -
cussed as Alejandra’s biased treatment against John
(disfavoring
frame), or it could be discussed as Alejandra’s biased treatment
in
favor of Jake (favoring frame).
The frame used to describe the same inequity can evoke very
different responses. For instance, framing racial group inequity
in
terms of advantages for Whites evokes more personal defensive-
ness among Whites than does framing racial inequity in terms of
disadvantages for Blacks (Lowery et al., 2007; Lowery & Wout,
2010). Similar effects have been found among men and
members
of other social groups (e.g., Branscombe, 1998; Phillips & Low -

ery, 2020; Rosette & Tost, 2013; Sullivan et al., 2012). In turn,
such defensiveness can reduce support for policies designed to
correct group inequity, such as affirmative action (Phillips &
Low-
ery, 2015). In contrast, at the individual level, framing inequity
with a focus on the disadvantaged individual can spur
advantaged
group members to action by offering an identifiable victim and
clear path for restoration (e.g., pay restitution; Rosette &
Koval,
2018). In short, different frames can lead to different interpreta-
tions of, and therefore different reactions to, the same
inequity.2
Extant research suggests these differential responses to inequity
arise because the frames differentially prompt negative
emotions
and experiences of threat: advantaged individuals feel more
guilty,
more blame, and ultimately report lower group- and self-esteem
when they read about inequity described with a favoring frame
(e.g., men are advantaged) as compared with a disfavoring
frame
(e.g., women are disadvantaged; Branscombe, 1998; Leach et
al.,
2002; Lowery et al., 2007; Powell et al., 2005; Rosette &
Koval,
2018). However, this work has focused on the first-person
experi-
ence of inequity frames, in which an advantaged group member
learns about the ways they benefit from inequity. In contrast,
we
suggest that because inequity frames shift people’s
understanding
of the fundamental nature of inequity (Lowery et al., 2009;

Low-
ery & Wout, 2010), the impact of inequity frames should extend
to
people who are impartial to the inequity as well. Thus, we
suggest
inequity frames might also affect third-party observers of
discrimi-
nation. Specifically, we theorize that, rather than emotions,
inequity frames will shape third parties’ perceptions of a
decision
maker’s intentions, in turn affecting their interpretation of the
con-
text. We explain these predictions in more detail below.
Favoring-Framed Discrimination Is Less Recognized
as Discrimination
We suggest that although favoring and disfavoring frames
describe an equivalent discriminatory outcome (e.g., Jake being
hired and John not being hired based on nationality), the two
frames are likely to be interpreted differently. Specifically, we
expect that favoring versus disfavoring-framed decisions imply
different decision maker intentions: the disfavoring frame is
more
likely to imply negative intentions. For instance, based on
existing
heuristics and expectations, observers may construe disfavoring
as
demonstrating animus, hatred, and intentions to hurt others, and
as
such, perceive negative intentions. Favoring frames, in contrast,
are more likely to imply positive intentions. For instance,
observ-
ers may construe favoring as demonstrating love, loyalty, and
intentions to help others (Brewer, 1999), and as such, perceive
positive intentions.3

Perceived intentions, in turn, are critical for perceivers’ judg-
ments of actions as just, fair, and moral (Alicke et al., 2015;
Cush-
man, 2008, 2015; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001); as such,
perceived
intentions should inform observers’ attributions to
discrimination.
Indeed, work from a variety of literatures, including justice and
attribution, suggests that intentions often outweigh objective
2
For instance, if men are systematically favored in promotion
decisions,
then women are necessarily disfavored; if women are
systematically
disfavored in promotion decisions, then men are necessarily
favored (Lloyd
& Phillips, 2006). That is, regardless of the motivation driving
the
objectively discriminatory decision, or the frame used to
describe that
decision, the decision is equivalent in terms of who benefits and
who
suffers due to their group membership.
3
The framing of a decision is conceptually distinguishable from
the
relative status of a group member who “benefits” or “loses”
from the
decision. We expect, and find, a main effect of framing on
attributions to
discrimination, above and beyond any main effect of beneficiary

group
status (see also decision prototypicality; Major & Dover, 2016;
Rodin et
al., 1990).
DISCRIMINATION FRAMING 3
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
P
sy
ch
ol

og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
or
on
e
of
it
s
al
li
ed
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
ti
cl
e
is

in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no
t

to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
outcomes when it comes to judging fairness (especially in
Western
contexts; Clark et al., 2017). For example, even failed attempts
at
harm are seen as worse than accidental harm (Alicke et al.,
2015;
Cushman, 2008, 2015). Likewise, in U.S. legal studies,
intentions
are considered an aggravating factor, or the lack thereof a
mitigat-
ing factor (Dripps, 2003; see also Ames & Fiske, 2015). In
short,
decisions must be perceived as intentional in order to be
perceived
as unjust, rather than merely unfortunate (Alicke, 2000; Feather,
1999; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001; Umphress et al., 2013; see
also
Major et al., 2002). We therefore suggest that, because we

expect
favoring-framed decisions will imply more positive intentions
than disfavoring-framed decisions, favoring-framed decisions
will
be less likely to be recognized as discrimination.
In line with our predictions, employee surveys (focused on dis -
favoring-framed decisions) have found that perceiving managers
as having negative intentions can increase perceptions of
discrimi-
nation (Avery et al., 2008; Harris et al., 2004). Likewise, a
recent
experiment (focused on disfavoring-framed decisions) found
that
participants who perceived more negative intent in a decision
attributed the decision to discrimination more (Simon et al.,
2019;
see also Apfelbaum et al., 2017; Swim et al., 2003). Our
theorizing
might also help explain why White interview informants feel
that
their own in-group favoritism is largely disconnected from dis-
crimination—they focus more on helping intentions or conven-
ience (DiTomaso, 2013). In sum, perceived intentions are likely
critical to judgments of discrimination; therefore, we theorize
that
to the extent inequity frames affect perceived intentions, then
frames should also affect attributions to discrimination.
Downstream Consequences
We further suggest that differential attributions to discrimina-
tion caused by different inequity frames are likely to influence
subsequent behaviors, including support for litigation,
willingness
to report discrimination, and job pursuit intentions. Existing

work
on perceived discrimination has especially focused on
understand-
ing the perspective, beliefs, and behaviors of victims of
discrimi-
nation (e.g., Avery et al., 2008; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009;
Schmitt et al., 2014; Triana et al., 2015). However, third-party
observers can serve as critical gatekeepers, helping identify and
report injustice, or letting injustice continue (e.g., Skarlicki et
al.,
2015). For instance, when third-party observers do not attribute
racial bullying to racial animus, they are less likely to report
even
blatant physical violence (Apfelbaum et al., 2010).
Here, we suggest that to the extent that favoring-framed deci-
sions are less recognized as discrimination (compared with
disfa-
voring-framed decisions), people will be less likely to report
such
decisions as discriminatory, via either supporting litigation or
re-
ferring the decision for additional review. Further, they may be
more likely to show interest in working for such organizations.
In
this way, discrimination framed as favoring beneficiaries may
mask injustice, allowing it to persist.
Current Research
In sum, we propose that individuals are less likely to recognize
a discriminatory decision as discriminatory when it is described
as
favoring, as compared with disfavoring. We further suggest that
this relative failure of recognition is driven by the effect of

inequity frames on perceived intentions, despite discriminatory
outcomes being identical.
We tested our predictions in two qualitative surveys and six
experiments, which sampled a variety of discrimination domains
(e.g., age, sex, nationality, and race), across a variety of
participant
populations (e.g., working adults, business students, human
resource
employees). Studies 1a-b examined lay beliefs of discrimination
as
involving favoring versus disfavoring. Study 2 directly tested
how
inequity frames affect attributions to discrimination across a
wide
range of group-based discrimination contexts. Study 3 tested
whether
human resource employees fall victim to the same framing
effect,
and whether this affects their willingness to report
discrimination.
Studies 4–6 investigated alternative mechanisms, including
perceived
harm versus perceived intentions. Finally, Study 7 examined
whether
potential job applicants’ efforts to apply to an organization are
shaped
by how the organization’s discriminatory decisions are framed.
We hope to make three contributions with this work. First,
whereas recent research has focused on decoupling favoring and
disfavoring as drivers of objective discrimination (Brewer,
1999;
DiTomaso, 2013, 2015), this research has not yet considered
how
people subjectively perceive discrimination (e.g., Kessler et al.,

MentoringA Key Success Factor for African American Wome

MentoringA Key Success Factor for African American Wome

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to MentoringA Key Success Factor for African American Wome

Similar to MentoringA Key Success Factor for African American Wome (20)

More from AbramMartino96

More from AbramMartino96 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

MentoringA Key Success Factor for African American Wome