Consequences of Social Categorization and Social Identity Theories
Vernon Smith
BA426 Managing Cultural Diversity vsmith003@regis.edu Consequences of Social Categorization and Social Identity Theories
Introduction
In the modern world, workforce diversity has developed to be among the most imperative elements. Many organizations including Apple Inc. and all over the world have employed diversity managers to help develop effective workforce diversification (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). The increased interest in workforce diversity is not surprising. As organization move to develop organizational structures including teams and groups as well as multinational workforce, effective communication within diversified workforce becomes imperative for smooth functioning of organizations (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013).
Diversity is often described in the context of the beneficial aspects of variety in the workforce. However, the definition of diversity still remains unclear. Van Ginkel and Homan (2013) state that the debate on diversity mostly confuses various forms of a variety of workforce. One way to achieve workforce variety is through social categorization, where group membership is determined by mutual characteristics such as race, sex, age, gender, and status. Legal provisions on diversity have continuously emphasized the creation of representative social categorization approach in the workforce of an organization (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). In this context, the workforce demography should mirror the mixture of different local workforce market. While personal characteristics such as race may offer the grounds for social categorization in organizations, only a few of these characteristics can function. Bond and Haynes (2014) have indicated the different forms of workforce diversity that fit well for functional labor-force that encompass knowledge, values, and personality. The result of social categorization is an out-group or an in-group. This can affect job opportunities and advancement of Apple Inc. through the creation of poor relationships among the managers and other workers. This essay will provide an overview of consequences of stereotyping that results from social categorization and how to address them.

Social Categorization Theory and Social Identity Theory
Workforce diversity through social categorization can be beneficial for the organization by providing the basis for creativity and increase access to external links. Social categorization can be defined as the process of determining the group that a person will belong to within an organization (Van Ginkel, & Homan, 2013). However, there are consequences that are related to the organization engagement to workforce diversity since the workers often perceive conflict and structure their interaction through social identity. Social identity provides the means for an individual to identify themselves in a group depending on the variance of the one’s attitude compared to that of others. The social identity theory provides a clear understanding to the consequences and workable solutions that would make diversity beneficial to the organization and workers (Bell, 2012).
Bell (2012) has developed different theories of the consequence of social categorization. One of these theories is in-group favoritism and out-group biases. In-group favoritism can be defined as behavior of favoring the members of an in-group while sidelining out-group. This may occur in terms of favoritism in resource allocation, evaluation of workers among other ways. For instance, it is well known that people appear to dispense internal disposition for an occurrence that benefits their groups. According to Bell (2012), the most probable outcomes of in-group favoritism in jobs is the hiring, promoting, and rewarding of members of the particular group by peers belonging to the same group. The exclusion of the members of the out-groups, the minority out-group members are sidelined while the members of the dominant group will be favored. In most cases, the members of non-dominant out-groups are minorities and women, social categorization often work hostile to them by negatively affecting their opportunities for jobs, promotion, attaining high-status job positions among other advantages that are open to men as well as for the Whites (Podsiadlowski et al., 2013). Non-whites and women mostly have insignificant power in the organization thus any favor they may get is less probable to disadvantage the members of in-groups. The existence of in-group bias where people will likely select demographically similar individuals is a clear presentation of favoritism, which can be damaging for any organization. The behaviors of the members of these two groups are often judged differently. For instance, a white who shows of being in charge is seen positively while a black which shows the same is seen as oppressive (Bell, 2012).
With in-group favoritism, the minorities and women are at high risk of facing extreme discrimination in organizations, which could hamper their opportunity to advance. However, there are legal Acts that provide a framework for the development of diversity in organizations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, color, country of origin, gender when it comes to matters related to employment (Bell, 2012).
Another consequence, as described by Bell (2012) is the fundamental attribution error. This is the tendency to ignore the external influential factors while overestimating the impact of internal factors in cases of evaluation of the behaviors of both in-group and out-group. The most undesirable consequences of social categorization according to this theory is that some circumstances may affect the performance of all members of an in-group. The exhibition of undesirable behavior in an in-group is mostly attributable to the undesirable behavior of a certain member of an out-group. When in-group members are confronted with behaviors that contradict the stereotypes, individuals tend to ignore thorough evaluation of their beliefs (Bell, 2012).
Discrimination may also occur through multiple group membership, which make the interaction between out-groups and in-groups very difficult. This is further worsened by social identities. For instance, a white man has both racial and gender identities. Depending on the specific stereotypes, he can perceive men and whites as in-groups while placing women and minorities in out-groups (Bell, 2012). On the other hand, in cases of whiteness being the prominent social identity, white men may show favor to white women. When maleness is more prominent, the man may favor men in the minority groups. The inclusion of stereotyping may completely change these decisions, and if black men were seen as unreliable, the White would prefer white women instead (Bell, 2011). Other characteristics that may influence the situation for the managers include sexual orientation, religion, and disability. If the identity is prominent in out-group, there is increased likelihood that the out-group members will be seen more positively. In overall, the whole effect of having multiple groups is that it makes the equation for social identity more complex (Bell, 2011).
The situation is not different when the non-dominant groups as the in-group. For instance, women may perceive other women as having necessary attributed and select them over men. The positive behaviors may be attributed to both characteristic and situations that women find themselves in (Bell, 2012). Women’s negative behaviors, on the other hand, may be attributed to characteristics of men and to the circumstances as well. This is similar to Hispanics, Blacks Asians and other minorities toward the Whites when the former belong to the in-group. But the difference for women and the minorities who belong to the non-dominant groups is their significant little access to power (Bell, 2012). As a result of the little have access to power; it is uncommon for them to discriminate the members of the dominant groups. In addition, stereotyping may occur within the non-dominant groups where instead of perceiving their members positively and favoring them, they perceive the dominant groups in a more positive way (Bell, 2012).
Racism and ethnicity are two attributes that lead to stereotyping issues in workforce diversity. Internalized racism us a form of racism that occur when the members of the non-dominant groups devalue their own races and uphold negative perceptions about themselves and as a result support members of the out-group. Such a situation may lead to the individuals belonging to minority groups suffer different negative personal consequences, which would negatively affect the organization and the society as a whole (Bond & Haynes, 2014).
There is a bunch of negative consequences of the occurrence of stereotyping during workforce diversification. Race-based discrimination, hiring based on the person who is perceived to be suited for certain positions and the racial discrimination of the customers are among the negative customers who would affect Apple. Workers clearly suffer from this stereotyping and the organizations face the consequences as well (Bond & Haynes, 2014).
In addressing the issue of stereotyping need a more purposeful efforts. With purposeful effort, some individuals can identify cases of stereotyping and deactivate them and cease negative categorization that would harm the organization and the society as well. As Bell (2012) describes, the practice of training the workers about stereotyping would help in its reduction. Organizations that embraces diversity but do not support discrimination of any kind, individuals would be discouraged to engage in such behaviors as they are deemed outrageous toward achieving the set organizational goals. In order to eliminate discrimination that emerge from stereotyping, monitoring would also be important. Apple should also the existing legislations that act against discrimination of the workers based on their disability, race, gender and other discriminatory characteristics. The overall effect of stereotyping is discrimination of the minorities and thus excludes them from chances of attaining job positions and advancement (Bell, 2011).
There are different legislations that offer directions that help to curb this discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, color, country of origin, gender when it comes to matters related to employment (Bell, 2012). This Act was extended in 1991, which provided the basis for compensation of workers of any discrimination that is executed intentionally while performing their duties. Furthermore, the Equal Pay Act also offers the basis for the formation of equitable diversity. Under this Act, jobs that are equivalent should be paid equally for both men and women (Bell, 2012). Jobs are regarded as equivalent if they need similar skills and responsibilities and are under one organization. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 outlaw work discrimination of persons with disabilities (Bell, 2012). The Act also makes mandatory requirements for the accommodation of persons with disabilities. To cap these legislations is the Executive Order 8802 of 1941, which requires all American citizens to be provided equal job opportunities regardless of gender, race or place of origin (Bell, 2012).

Conclusion
In conclusion, workforce diversity through social categorization can be beneficial for Apple Inc. by providing the basis for creativity and increase access to external links. However, there are consequences that are related to the organization engagement to workforce diversity since the workers often perceive conflict and structure their interaction through social identity. Apple Inc. needs to adopt the suggested preventive measures to address the issues concerning social categorization and stereotyping.

References
Bell, M. P. (2012). Diversity in Organizations (2nd ed., pp. 43-104). Mason, OH: South- Western.
Bond, M. A., & Haynes, M. C. (2014). Workplace Diversity: A Social–Ecological Framework and Policy Implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 8(1), 167-201
Podsiadlowski, A., Gröschke, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C., & Van der Zee, K. (2013). Managing a culturally diverse workforce: Diversity perspectives in organizations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 159-175. Van Knippenberg, D., Van Ginkel, W. P., & Homan, A. C. (2013). Diversity mindsets and the performance of diverse teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 183-193.