3. Minorities have lower [pay] grades even after controlling for education, experience, and other advancement-related factors that are statistically controlled.
Again, minorities (excluding Asian/Pacific Islander employees) still have lower pay levels than White employees. Regression analyses suggest that ethnicity/race are somewhat correlated with promotion rates, but it is relatively minor compared to job-related factors such as occupational group, education, and experience. Occupation was not included in the earlier analyses, but we found that it warrants inclusion in our study model because of its significant impact on advancement.
4. Promotion rates for professional and administrative positions are generally comparable across ethnicity/race, although some differences remain.
Current promotion rates for ethnic/racial minorities and women in professional and administrative occupations, with the notable exception of American Indians, are generally comparable to Governmentwide averages. However, generally equivalent promotion rates do not preclude the possibility that discrimination exists. Our statistical analyses suggest that ethnicity/race may play a minor role in promotion rates, but
occupation, education, and experience exert a much stronger pull on career progress. Further, ability, job performance, career interests, and the initiative of individual employees proved even more influential than ethnicity/race.
5. Minorities receive, on average, lower performance ratings and fewer cash awards than nonminorities.
In our current analyses, we statistically controlled for agency and occupation and found differences in performance ratings across ethnic/racial categories to be small. Yet our analysis suggests that some differences persist. For example, in nearly every agency and agency component organization, White employees in nonsupervisory professional and administrative positions received ratings slightly above the average for the agency or component. In contrast, ethnic/racial minority employees tended to receive ratings slightly below the average for the agency or component, although averages for individual minority groups sometimes exceeded the mean. These patterns suggest that performance ratings are influenced by characteristics or factors correlated with ethnicity or race. These characteristics or factors may be job related (e.g., lower ratings may be associated with certain types of work) or performance related (because of differences in factors such as education or years of experience) or they may reflect discrimination.
In terms of cash awards (individual performance awards and quality step increases), our analyses revealed that a lower percentage of minorities received these awards compared to White employees. Additionally, the cash awards that minorities receive, on average, are smaller in amount. Given that award amounts tend to be linked to salary, this result might partially reflect the lower median salaries of African American, Hispanic, and
American Indian employees. It may also be linked to different values placed on certain occupations since members of some minority groups tend to be underrepresented in professional occupations.
6. Minorities are not provided with the same opportunities to demonstrate their abilities as nonminorities (e.g., serve as acting supervisor).
Members of ethnic/racial minorities remain at a substantial disadvantage when it comes to career-enhancing opportunities such as serving as acting supervisor. (In fact, because the perceived importance of serving in an acting capacity has increased, minorities who do not have the opportunity to act in a supervisory position may find themselves even more disadvantaged than in prior years.) Similarly, American Indian, Hispanic, and African American employees are less likely than White or Asian/Pacific Islander employees to report that they are assigned to “critical projects.”
7. Minorities and nonminorities have significantly different perceptions about the degree to which discrimination may be present in the workplace.
Although the opinions of minorities and nonminorities regarding the prevalence of discrimination have converged in recent years, a large discrepancy still exists among perceptions of each group. In particular, each ethnic/racial group is more aware of discrimination directed at its own group than at other groups, except that African Americans agreed with Hispanic and American Indian employees’ perceptions of discrimination against Hispanic and American Indian employees. This may exacerbate feelings of resentment as groups feel that other groups are dismissing their concerns. Additionally, in order to remedy a problem, recognition of the existence of a problem is a prerequisite. When some employees do not recognize that some groups believe they are treated disparately, such employees lack the motivation to address the concerns of the disadvantaged group, a consequence that can lead to heightened conflict and potentially the filing of lawsuits and other undesirable actions.113
8. Minorities and nonminorities have different perspectives on what measures, if any, are needed to achieve a more diverse workforce.
Our current findings indicate that minority employees remain more likely than White employees to support the consideration of ethnicity/race when making selections in a work unit where minorities are underrepresented. However, African Americans are the only group where a greater percentage support rather than oppose considering ethnicity/ race.
113 D.R. Avery, P.F. McKay, and D.C. Wilson, “What Are the Odds? How Demographic Similarity Affects the
9. Substantial numbers of Federal employees lack confidence in their organization’s ability to ensure equal employment opportunity.
We have seen great progress in the confidence that employees have in their organization’s commitment to and ability to ensure equal employment opportunity. Nevertheless, gaps remain that need to be closed through continued efforts to improve the HRM processes within agencies.