In our study, recently published at Journal of Management Studies, we draw on the concept of ‘category distance’ to understand why some minority groups may be more (dis)advantaged than others in their career advancements in organizations. We define ‘category distance’ as the sharing of identity markers between groups (i.e. groups are closer when they share more identity markers), where identity markers are characteristics we typically associate a category with. For instance, identity markers suggesting higher social class in the UK are an individual’s attendance of an ‘elite’ private school or the pursuit of a “quintessentially aristocratic” sport such as polo. Curiously, we find that minority groups closer in distance to the majority group can be more penalized in their career advancements than minority groups further in distance.

Why is our study interesting?

Scholars and practitioners alike have often assumed that minorities are disadvantaged in similar ways. They may be passed up for leadership positions or be subject to lower performance scores. In this paper, we bring more nuance to this idea and explain why there may be differences in (dis)advantage through how close the minority group is with the majority group. 

We also challenge the conventional wisdom that we like those that are more similar to us. We often assume that minorities which have more in common with the majority are probably likely to be more advantaged in their careers. However, we found the opposite can also be true; more similarity could lead to feelings of threat and competition, especially if the characteristics shared by groups induce different interpretations. For example, both Christians and Muslims share similar practices and beliefs – such as charity to the poor and a belief in Jesus, but each may believe that their interpretation is closer to the ‘truth’, and thus feel more threatened by the other group, rather than appreciating those similarities.

How did we study this?

We test our hypotheses by using a dataset of a large Indonesian government organization of more than 2,500 employees. We study the effects of minority religious affiliation, where the Muslims are the majority and the Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus are the minority groups. We find that Christians, which we argue are closer to the Muslims, are more likely to be penalized in their career, compared to the Buddhists and Hindus. We also find this to be the case at the individual level. Minority individuals in those groups which share more in common with Muslims are also more penalized than those who do not. Our dataset is of special importance here because we were able to look at the effects of multiple minority religious affiliation on careers, whereby firms do not typically collect this data.

How is this study relevant to me?

First, we suggest that organizational decision makers who are engaged in evaluating the careers of others need to become more aware of their own and others’ socio-cultural biases towards minority groups. We cannot assume that all minorities will be disadvantaged in similar ways. There needs to be more nuance in understanding why some groups may be more (dis)advantaged than others. Rather than thinking about minorities as one big disadvantaged group, it may also be useful to think about what disadvantages or needs different groups have, and to think about commonalities in between those needs when designing diversity policies.

Second, we also should not assume that minorities more similar to the majority group will thrive more – as a majority group can feel more threatened by a more similar minority group. Our study touches on the notion of ‘threats’ that organizational decision makers may consciously or unconsciously encounter in their work. Organizations can pay more attention to what decision makers might perceive as a threat and engage in actions to mitigate those feelings. For example, mitigating approaches could include communication on how the career advancements of minority groups can be a source of strength for the overall organization and something that is desirable. This may also trigger broader conversations and a reevaluation as to how the organizational culture is faring if ‘innocent’ socio-cultural factors, such as one’s religious affiliation, are already perceived as threats that can influence organizational outcomes.