The Diversity Report: How Our Similarity Makes Us Different: A Minority Perspective on the Community Impact on Workâ€“Family Balance April 2007

Because much of our research centers on the study of diversity in general and racial and ethnic differences in particular, we are often asked questions by our students, colleagues, and media about actual versus contrived differences created by race and ethnicity in the workplace. People want to know if race and ethnicity really make a difference and, if so, how they affect employees and their employers. No matter the audience, these discussions inevitably seem to lead to two questions. The first is: “But aren’t we really more similar than different?” When we concede to believing that we are, the follow up is: “So why should race and ethnicity matter?”

The purpose of this column is to answer this second question by providing a minority perspective on how community characteristics affect the achievement of work–life balance. Readers should notice three key things. First, minorities appear to be looking for many of the same things in a prospective community sought by majority group members. Second, this process for minorities entails inherent difficulties that White employees often do not experience. Third, it is the similarity in our desires and the dissimilarity in the relative ease of their attainment that creates the meaningful between-group differences. Interestingly enough, a recent review of the work–family literature concluded “we appear to know little about WF issues of employees from diverse racial and ethnic groups” (Casper, Eby, Bordeaux, Lockwood, & Lambert, 2007, p. 34).

Work–Family Balance

To begin, we should define exactly what we mean by work–family balance. Essentially, workers must exist in two roles—as a member of the organization and a member of a family (Clark, 2000). Although some scholars initially depicted these roles as distinct, more recent work has acknowledged that there is often overlap between the two, commonly known as spillover. Because they want their employees to be maximally productive while at work, it behooves organizations to pay attention to the balance between work and family demands. Should the requirements of either become too taxing, it can have a detrimental effect on the other. Thus, both have a bearing on employees’ overall effectiveness at work.

When looking at the family side of the work–family dynamic, there are a number of desires people seek to meet. Many want an active social life, including friends and recreational/entertainment options. Others want opportunities to build social status through engagement in civic, service, and social organizations. Employees with children place a premium on factors related to successful child rearing. Our ability to meet these desires, and many others, is affected considerably by the communities in which we choose to live (Voydanoff, 2005). Before examining racial and ethnic differences in the impact of communities on work–family balance, we consider the nonwork desires of three groups of employees: single, those in an exclusive partnership without children, and partners with children.

Types of Employees

Single. For unattached employees, concerns outside of work may be related to one’s extended family and/or to social opportunities. These individuals look for interesting and stimulating ways of fulfilling their interests, which may include networking, socializing, fitness, worship, dating, or community service (we realize this list is not exhaustive). Irrespective of one’s demographics, people seek ways to spend their time outside of work that provide some sense of belonging or produce some sense of fulfillment. Because they are unattached, their concerns tend to be more self-centered (although not necessarily in the pejorative sense).

Partner, no children. These individuals often share the same concerns as the single employee, with one noteworthy exception: They have a specific person in mind with whom they plan to spend their time outside of work. Consequently, they look to meet the same needs as the single employee but are planning more collectively than individually.

Partner with children. Although these employees continue to experience many of the same desires noted for the first two groups, they often subjugate their personal wants and desires in favor of options perceived to best suit the needs of their children. Social needs, such as affiliation and belonging, are still important but are relegated to secondary concerns following those of the children. This raises the salience of the quality of community amenities such as schools, childcare options, parks, playgrounds, police, libraries, and so on (Pitt-Catsouphes, MacDermid, Schwarz, & Matz, 2006).

Racial and Ethnic Differences

Race and ethnicity are unlikely to affect the value placed on any of the priorities discussed above for the three groups of employees. It is more likely than not that the distribution of these values is similar across all groups. What is different, however, is access to the characteristics required to meet these needs. We believe this differential access to be a previously unexplored form of White privilege (McIntosh, 1989). In fact, we doubt that many White employees in the Unites States have taken the time to consider how the process of attempting to meet these needs may differ for minorities. We should note here that our intent is not to criticize or condemn those who unconsciously benefit from this privilege. Rather, we hope to shed light on the issue to (a) increase empirical study of racial difference in work–family issues, (b) make organizations aware of these prospective differences, and (c) prepare future minority professionals for the unique challenges they are likely to encounter in the process of seeking balance between their work–family roles.

Differences for singles. According to Census Bureau information, 69% of the U. S. population self-classifies as White, non-Hispanic. Consequently, the overwhelming majority of U.S. towns and cities are predominantly White in composition. This fact is not inherently problematic. What creates a problem, however, is that people often tend to seek similarity in their relationships with others (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Conjunctively, this makes it innately more difficult for minorities to establish satisfactory community ties. For instance, church congregations tend to consist predominantly of members of one racial or ethnic group (Dart, 2001). If there is not a critical mass of one’s racial or ethnic group in an area, what options does this leave for worship? Similar processes are likely for other types of social institutions and community amenities as well.

Not only can underrepresentation make it more difficult to establish social networks in a community, it has other significant effects as well. One such effect is to restrict the number of potential romantic partners. Individuals certainly have the ability to date across group lines, as attitudes toward interracial dating have become more favorable of late (George & Yancey, 2004); however, the general tendency is for individuals to date (and marry) partners who are similar to them in race, attractiveness, education, and values (Kalmijn, 1998). A related concern is the distribution of partners within one’s socioeconomic status (SES) group and its effects on finding a dating pool of sufficient size. In the academic realm, for example, institutions are often located in “college towns” that have low representation of minorities. Coupled with the fact minorities are disproportionately represented in lower socioeconomic strata and educational levels (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, 2004), a high SES minority may experience considerable difficulty meeting prospective friends, network members, and dating partners in such locales. Moreover, high SES minorities have reported a preference for social interactions with others of similar race and class standing (Logan, Alba, & Zhang, 2002).

Differences for partners, no children. In this section, it is necessary to distinguish between leading and trailing partners. Typically, the leading partner in a relationship will relocate to an area for an attractive opportunity allowing for greater career growth and development. Relative to Whites, there is greater likelihood for minorities that their racial group may be poorly represented in the new locale. Accordingly, leading partners who are minorities may lack access to satisfactory social activities outside of work but perceive the prospective career benefits of the move to mitigate these negative social outcomes. Their trailing partner, however, might not realize career gains with relocation. This is especially true if the target location is a nonmetropolitan area (Bradbury, 1994). Consequently, the trailing partner may suffer career derailment in addition to strains on his/her social options outside of work. In sum, the minority leading partner, at minimum, often faces a win–lose situation for the work and nonwork realms. Worse still, the minority trailing partner may be forced to endure a potential lose–lose situation for these realms, with negative effects on career and life satisfaction (Munton, 1990).

Differences for partners with children. Because people wish to locate in areas they deem conducive to their families, greater racial-ethnic differences in the emphasis placed on community racial characteristics may emerge between minority and White partners with children. Minorities face barriers to community satisfaction that their White counterparts are unlikely to experience. A primary concern involves a region’s general racial climate or the degree to which the location maintains harmonious racial relations. Minority movers, for instance, often consider the racial climate of a prospective locale when making employment (Burr, Potter, Galle, & Fossett, 1992) or residential moves (Krysan, 2002). In addition, similar to White partners with children, minorities seek residency in neighborhoods associated with high-quality school systems. The problem, however, is that minorities experience greater discrimination-related difficulty than Whites in trying to secure housing in neighborhoods (often predominately-White) typically associated with quality schools (Logan, Alba, & Leung, 1996). At the extreme, minorities may even have to consider the possibility of racial harassment and race-related violence against them and their children (Green, Strolovitch, & Wong, 1998), concerns that are virtually nonexistent for White partners with children.

Tying It All Together

So what does this mean for businesses and employees? First, companies operating in communities with low minority representation are likely to find it extremely difficult to attract and retain minority employees. Moreover, this is irrespective of how positive their diversity climates may be within the firm. This is particularly true for minority employees with children, who must consider the problems that may arise for their children attending schools where there are few, if any, other minority students. Few people would opt to live in relative isolation when other viable alternatives are available. A number of U.S. metropolitan areas are densely populated with members of particular minority groups, thus offering culturally rich social contexts and job opportunities alike. Organizations must recognize that high human capital minorities have opportunities to leverage their job mobility into relocations designed to achieve improved quality of life for them and their families. Second, future minority professionals should invest a great deal of time and effort (significantly more than their White counterparts) into exploring the racial dynamics of an area prior to seeking employment in that area. This entails finding out about the size and social standing of minorities in a location. Not only is it important that a critical mass is present, but its members must not be relegated exclusively to low status positions within the community and its organizations. A little research beforehand may help to prevent making a mistake costing one both happiness and productivity. Third, we strongly encourage researchers to devote attention to empirically examining how communities affect racial and ethnic disparities in the attainment of work–family balance. As we mentioned at the onset of this argument, there has been little inquiry focusing on work–family issues of minorities (cf. Casper et al., 2007). We certainly would love to see this change in the near future.

References

     Bradbury, S. L. (1994, January-February). Dual career couples in R&D labs. Research Technology Management, 37(1), 45–48.
     Burr, J. A., Potter, L. B., Galle, O. R., & Fossett, M. A. (1992). Migration and metropolitan opportunity structures: A demographic response to racial inequality. Social Science Research, 21, 380–405.
     Casper, W. J., Eby, L. T., Bordeaux, C., Lockwood, A., & Lambert, D. A. (2007). Review of research methods in IO/OB work–family research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 28–43.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations, 53, 747–770.
     Dart, J. (2001, February 28). Hues in the pews: Racially mixed churches an elusive goal. Christian Century, 6–8.
     George, D., & Yancey, G. (2004). Taking stock of America’s attitudes on cultural diversity: An analysis of public deliberation on multiculturalism, assimilation and intermarriage. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 1–19.
     Green, D. P., Strolovitch, D. Z., & Wong, J. S. (1998). Defended neighborhoods, integration, and racially motivated crime. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 372–403.
     Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
     Krysan, M. (2002). Community undesirability in Black and White: Examining racial residential preferences through community perceptions. Social Problems, 49, 521–543.
     Logan, J. R., Alba, R. D., & Leung, S. Y. (1996). Minority access to White suburbs: A multiregional comparison. Social Forces, 74, 851–881.
     Logan, J. R., Alba, R. D., & Zhang, W. (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67, 299–322.
     McIntosh P. (1989, July/August). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom, 10–12.
     McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. American Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
     Munton, A. G. (1990). Job relocation, stress, and the family. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 401–406.
     Pitt-Catsouphes, M., MacDermid, S. M., Schwarz, R., & Matz, C. (2006). Community contexts: The perspectives and adaptations of working parents. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1400–1421.
     U.S. Census Bureau (2001). Table FINC-07. Income distribution to $250,000 or more for families: 2000. Current population survey. Retrieved May 30, 2002 from http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032001/faminc/new07_000.htm.
     U. S. Census Bureau (2004). Table 11. Educational attainment of the population 18 years and over, by metropolitan and non-metropolitan residence, age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 2004. Current population survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
     Voydanoff, P. (2005). The effects of community demands, resources, and strategies on the nature and consequences of the work–family interface: An agenda for future research. Family Relations, 54, 583–595.

Note: Upon becoming the chair of CEMA, I decided to try my hand at reviving some of the collaborative spirit Martin Davidson and Bernardo Ferdman interjected into this column when the latter was chair. This, my first collaborative column, stems from a recent discussion Patrick and I had about racial and ethnic differences in attaining work–family balance.