No abstract

This review describes the history, current state, and future of modern discrimination in organizations. First, we review development of discrimination from the early 1900s to the present day, specifically discussing various stigmatized identities, including gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, weight, and age. Next, we describe both individual-level (e.g., identity management, allyship) and organization-level (e.g., training, norm setting) strategies for reducing and reacting to discrimination. Finally, we describe future research directions in the relationship between subtle and overt discrimination, intersectionality, the impact of social media, and cross-cultural considerations—areas that we suggest would help us gain a more comprehensive understanding of modern discrimination.

The current study used experimental methods in which adults with full-time jobs evaluated an organization that included information about the percentage of women in top management (53%, 23%, or 3%). The results showed that women were more attracted than men to an organization with the highest levels of women in top management (53% of management). The results also showed that women perceived more fairness than did men for the condition with women representing 53% of management. Women also perceived less fairness than did male participants when women only represented 3% of top management. The current research provides important implications that can inform organizations' efforts to attract women. In particular, the current research suggests that women use information about the sex composition of a company's top management positions, and that this information influences organizational attraction because they perceive such organizations to be fair for women.

This special issue calls for an examination of the progress of diversity and inclusion initiatives. The current article identifies some gaps and needed research in this continuously emerging field. In particular, we recommend supporting long-lasting diversity and inclusion efforts in organizations by ensuring that 7 understudied stigmatized groups are given more practical considerations in the workplace and research attention in the lab and field. These groups-each of which we consider in the article-consist of: employees who (1) are religious minorities or "nones," (2) are transgender and gender nonconforming, (3) have differing political ideologies, (4) are undocumented immigrants, (5) have lower socioeconomic status, (6) have intersectional identities, and (7) are 65 years or older. We describe why each group deserves more attention, consider practitioners' perspectives, recommend strategies for increasing inclusiveness, and offer suggestions for future research. What's It Mean? Implications for Consulting PsychologyThis article identifies current gaps in research and practice in the field of diversity and inclusion. In particular, we recommend supporting long-lasting diversity and inclusion efforts in organizations related to employees who (1) are religious minorities or "nones," (2) are transgender and gender nonconforming, (3) have differing political ideologies, (4) are undocumented immigrants, (5) have lower socioeconomic status, (6) have intersectional identities, and (7) are 65 years or older.

As Gardner, Ryan, and Snoeyink (2018) state, their findings on gender representation in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology indicate that “the profession as a whole falls into the category of ‘not walking the talk’” (p. 385). We agree that it is imperative to understand the current state of gender inequity in our field while also actively working toward achieving gender equity. This article attempts to inspire each and every individual in I-O psychology to feel a personal responsibility to engage in behaviors that reduce gender disparities in our field. Although women are normatively the focus in fights for gender equity, men should be equal partners in these efforts. In this commentary, we focus on the contributions that male allies in I-O psychology can make in fostering gender equity. To be clear, we are not claiming that women need to be rescued by men; however, we do believe that I-O psychology can achieve the greatest progress toward gender equity when both women and men engage in supportive efforts. As Emma Watson said in her 2014 United Nations speech, “How can we affect change in the world when only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation?” (UN Women, 2014). In times when political leaders and national laws may fail women, it is crucial that local communities—like the I-O community—adopt a clear stance in promoting gender equity. In this commentary, we define allyship, discuss the importance of male allies, suggest ways in which male allies can help promote gender equity in I-O psychology, and consider potential barriers to male allyship and ways to overcome them. The strategies that we propose are by no means exhaustive; rather, they are suggestions for how to initiate a larger movement.