EXPERT
REPORT OF WILLIAM T. BIELBY, Ph.D.
Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.
I have been retained by Brad
Seligman and Jocelyn Larkin of the Impact Fund and by the law firm of Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, counsel for plaintiffs in Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart"). I have
been asked to review materials pertaining to personnel policies and practices of
Wal-Mart and to address three issues.
The first is whether key elements of the personnel system at Wal-Mart
are uniform across the
I have testified as an expert
witness in both California Superior Court and Federal Court on cases involving
workplace discrimination. I have served
as an expert in several other cases involving issues of gender discrimination
in large, multi-establishment national and regional retail firms, including
class action cases involving Lucky Stores, Publix, Sherwin-Williams, and Home
Depot. A list of cases in which I have been
identified as an expert or have given expert testimony since 1998 is attached
as Exhibit A.
I received a Ph.D. in Sociology from
the
I have received national awards from
three different professional associations for my research on gender, labor
markets, social psychological aspects of work, and organizational personnel
practices. I have served on numerous
panels, advisory committees, and professional workshops on topics relating to
workplace discrimination, organizational personnel policies and practices, and
research methodology. I have served as an advisor, consultant, or reviewer for
the following organizations and agencies: the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the
U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Labor, the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Academy of
Sciences, the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, Stanford
University, and the Writers' Guild of America, West. I have also served on the editorial boards of
leading social science journals, and I regularly review manuscripts for
scientific journals on topics relating to organizational behavior, employment
discrimination, gender and work, and research methodology. I have been elected to several offices in the
American Sociological Association. I
served for three years on the ASA Council, the organization's governing body,
and I am currently President of the Association.
My consulting rate is $275 per hour,
plus expenses. My rate for time spent in
depositions $550 per hour, with a four-hour minimum per day.
I have reviewed the deposition
testimony of Wal-Mart managers responsible for creating and implementing the
company's personnel policies, as well as the testimony of managers who made decisions
about compensation, hiring, promotion, job assignment, and related personnel
matters. I have also reviewed the documents
used as exhibits in the depositions of these individuals. Among others, in the human resources and
diversity areas I have reviewed the testimony of Kevin Harper, Vice President
of the People Division Wal-Mart Stores and Specialty Group; Coleman Peterson,
Executive Vice President, People Division; Charlene Jarrells Porter, Senior
Vice President, People Division; Jeffrey Reeves, former Sam's Club Vice
President of People; and several People Directors and Regional Personnel
Managers. At the senior executive and
operations levels, I have reviewed the deposition testimony of Thomas Coughlin,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Wal-Mart Stores Division; Don Harris,
Executive Vice President of Merchandising and former Executive Vice President
of Operations of Wal-Mart Stores; Jim Haworth, Executive Vice President of
Operations and Chief Operating Officer of Wal-Mart Stores; and I have also
reviewed the testimony of current and former Divisional Vice Presidents,
Regional Vice Presidents, District Managers, and Store Managers. A complete list of the depositions I reviewed
appears in Exhibit C.
The documents I reviewed included: organizational charts; correspondence, memos,
reports, and presentations relating to personnel policy and practice, diversity,
and equal employment opportunity issues, and documents describing the culture
and history of the company. In addition
to documents that are deposition exhibits, I was also provided with the expert
report of Dr. Marc Bendick and tables from the report of Dr. Richard Drogin.
In addition to the materials described
above, I have also relied upon a large body of social research on organizational
policy and practice and on workplace bias.
Social research conducted across many decades has generated considerable
knowledge about what generates and sustains workplace inequalities. That same research, either directly or by
implication, points to the kinds of workplace policies and practices that are
likely to minimize bias. The relevant
research has applied multiple methodologies in a variety of contexts, including
experiments in controlled laboratory settings; ethnographies and case studies
in "real world" organizations both large and small, public and
private, and in a range of industries; surveys done with representative samples
of workers and employers; and historical studies based on archival materials
from the United States and abroad. Thus,
the scientific evidence about gender bias, stereotypes, and the structure and
dynamics of gender inequality in organizations that I rely upon has substantial
external validity and provides a sound basis for analyzing the policies and
practices of Wal-Mart. My method is to
look at distinctive features of the firm's policies and practices and to
evaluate them against what social science research shows to be factors that
create and sustain bias and those that minimize bias. In litigation contexts, this method of
analysis is known as "social framework analysis."[1]
Below, I first summarize my overall conclusions
about gender bias and the effectiveness of anti-discrimination policies and
practices at Wal-Mart. Next, I address
the issue of uniformity in personnel policy and practice at Wal-Mart. After that, I describe the firm-wide policies
and practices at Wal-Mart that create and sustain barriers to women's career
success and the effectiveness of the firm's efforts to identify and eliminate
those barriers and guarantee equal employment opportunity.
Centralized coordination, reinforced
by a strong organizational culture, creates and sustains uniformity in
personnel policy and practice throughout the organizational units of
Wal-Mart. Subjective and discretionary
features of the company's personnel policy and practice make decisions about
compensation and promotion vulnerable to gender bias. Finally, I have concluded that there are
significant deficiencies in the company's policies and practices for
identifying and eliminating barriers to equal employment opportunity at
Wal-Mart. The basis for my conclusions
is explained below.
Wal-Mart's People Division is
responsible for corporate-wide human resource policy. Policies emanating from the Home Office in
Bentonville are overseen by the Executive Vice President ("EVP") of
the People Division, who described his duties as "overall responsibility
for getting, keeping, and developing Wal-Mart talent worldwide."[2] The EVP reports to the company's President and
Chief Executive Officer and sits on the corporate Executive Committee.[3] The senior human resources executives in each
of the company's divisions report to the divisional top executives, with a
"dotted-line" reporting relationship to the EVP of the People
Division. For example, in Wal-Mart
Stores Division 1, the Senior Vice President of People reports directly to the
division's President and CEO, and reports indirectly to the EVP of the People
Division, and a similar reporting relationship exists in the Sam's Club
division.[4] These senior human resources executives meet
weekly with the EVP of the People Division, where people activities in the
divisions would be discussed.[5]
A Primary Policy Committee with
representatives from each of the company's operating divisions as well as the
Home Office formulates and approves all new human resources policies. A Secondary Policy Committee that includes
representatives from the People Divisions of each of the operating divisions
and the home office also reviews the policies, and ultimately all policies are
approved by Wal-Mart's Executive Committee and Executive Vice President of
People before being disseminated throughout the company.[6]
The human resources function is
organized hierarchically within divisions.
For example, in Division 1, the company's approximately 2800 stores are
organized by six divisional areas, with five or six regions within each area,
and 80 to 85 stores within each region.[7] Each store has an hourly employee with the
title of personnel manager who coordinates hourly recruiting and "CBL"
and performs payroll functions.[8] Overseeing store-level human resources
activities, including staffing and compliance with government regulations and company
policies, are the Regional Personnel Managers ("RPM"), and most of
them work out of the corporate Bentonville Home Office. RPMs are responsible for the management
staffing of stores (e.g., participating in the recruitment and selection of
Store Managers and Co-Managers), overseeing the Management Career Selection
process, and evaluating store management teams.
Each of the thirty-five Regional Personnel Managers in Div 1 reports to one
of the three People Directors at the Home Office, who in turn report to the
Vice President of the Wal-Mart Stores People Division.[9] People
Directors meet weekly with RPMs, provide them with training, direction, and
support, and oversee training and orientation.[10] Mr. Harper, Vice President of the Wal-Mart
Stores People Division, testified that among the responsibilities of his office
are reviewing salary levels for district and regional managers, setting start
rates for Assistant Manager, Co-Manager, and Store Manager positions, and the rate of salary adjustments for hourly
employees.[11]
Sam's Club has a similar hierarchical
organization to its human resources function, with Regional Personnel Managers
reporting to a Vice President of People.[12] Former Vice President of People at Sam's Club
Jeffrey Reeves testified that 99% of the human resources policies of Wal-Mart
Stores and Sam's Club were identical.[13] Wal-Mart Stores CEO Thomas Coughlin also
testified that the policies of two operating divisions were generally the same.[14]
Wal-Mart's computerized information
system is a key element of the company's uniform personnel policies. The uniform policies and guidelines are
available throughout the company via the Pipeline intranet on-line database,
and information relied upon by managers is distributed centrally via the
Manager's Workbench.[15]
Wal-Mart is well known for its innovations
in using sophisticated information systems to maintain centralized
decision-making and control in its business operations. Writing in the Sloan Management Review, Thomas W. Malone, one of the leading
experts on this topic, described Wal-Mart's centralized system as follows:
By centralizing pricing,
buying, and promotional decisions on a national level, Wal-Mart was able to
deliver better-quality products for lower prices than most of its competitors -
with the result that small towns across the
Deposition
testimony is consistent with this account of centralized control in operations,
and it demonstrates that the same system of control extends to the human
resources area. For example, each store
manager receives a computerized daily recap for the store that includes
detailed information on both operational and merchandising factors such as
sales by department, price changes, inventories, and invoices, and personnel
factors like computer-based learning ("CBL") completions, payroll, attendance,
full-time and part-time hours, and evaluations.
District managers get a similar recap for each store in their district,
and Regional Vice Presidents get a recap twice weekly aggregated to the
regional level.[17] District managers rely on these reports to
intervene with store managers to address any exceptions that are not in compliance
with company policy and guidelines.[18] Each month, a "People P & L"
report is generated by the Home Office for each store, reporting information on
separations, turnover, and workforce demographics. Aggregated reports are produced at the level
of district, region, and division.[19]
In addition to acting upon
information generated by reports rolled up from the store, district, regional,
and divisional level, uniformity in human resources policy and practice is
monitored via frequent store visits by District Managers and Regional Personnel
Managers. District Managers are
expected to visit each store in their District once every two weeks and submit
reports about those visits to the Regional Vice President.[20] Each Regional Personnel Manager also travels
weekly to visit stores in their region, and reports from those visits are
submitted to the People Director responsible for the Region.[21]
An organizational culture is a
shared set of values and beliefs about how things are done in the organization.[22] A strong and widely-shared organizational
culture promotes uniformity of practices throughout an organization. Wal-Mart is widely recognized by social
scientists and management scholars as an organization with a strong culture,
with practices and policies typical of such firms. These include the emphasis on the company's founder
and its history, a mission statement defined by core values, frequent
communication about the culture to employees, orientation and training about
the culture for employees at all levels of the organization, promoting managers
from the ranks of hourly employees, and rotating managers among locations.[23]
Wal-Mart materials make frequent
mention of Sam Walton's personal
biography, the history of his founding of the company, and how his personal
values (and those of others in his family) became core beliefs and values for
the company.[24] Personal encounters with Sam are recounted as
significant events in employees' lives, and stories about them are an important
part of company lore.[25] The
company's "Three Basic Beliefs" and other core elements of its
mission and culture appear consistently in written, on-line, and video training
and orientation materials.[26] Corporate culture is also a topic covered
frequently in Wal-Mart World, the company newsletter distributed to all
employees of Wal-Mart Stores and Sam's Club.[27] Corporate culture is an important element of
company-wide meetings, including the annual shareholders meeting and events for
managers and associates held at the beginning and end of the year.[28]
New employees learn the Wal-Mart
culture by viewing videos about the company's history, completing CBL modules
about elements of the culture, and reading the Associate Handbook.[29] Employees in Wal-Mart stores attend a daily
meeting held at shift changes, where managers discuss the company culture and
employees do the Wal-Mart cheer.[30] Additional instruction and orientation on the
Wal-Mart culture is included as part of the training given to new managers and
ongoing training given to managers at all levels of the company.[31] Wal-Mart and Sam's Club managers at the Home
Office attend weekly Saturday morning meetings, and the first meeting of the
month is devoted to a culture topic.[32] According to Ms. Muzingo, the company's
30(b)6 deponent on corporate culture, the meetings are a deliberate effort to
sustain the culture as the company grows:
I think
as a company we recognize as we get larger that we are going to have to work
hard to make sure that the culture stays intact. And so we
look for lots of ways to do that.
And one of them is that you have this large group of people that comes
together on a weekly basis and so it's a good
opportunity
And certainly that audience of
people are largely comprised of individuals that travel out to the stores on a
weekly basis, and so that's a good way to make sure that they're being trained
and exposed to the culture in the hopes that when they go to the stores they
also will be training and developing people on the culture.[33]
In sum, consistent with the
organizational research on this topic, Wal-Mart's distinctive corporate culture
is sustained by focused efforts of the firm through on-going training and
socialization, communication specifically designed to reinforce its distinctive
elements, promotion from within and relocating managers from store to store, and
shared experiences among employees that build commitment to shared beliefs and
values. As a result of these efforts,
employees achieve a common understanding of the company's ways of conducting
business.[34] This can be seen in the way various
operational and personnel practices that might otherwise be coordinated solely
by written rules enforced from above become part of the company's culture. Examples of these, which are fully understood
by nearly all employees, are concepts such as SWAS ("store within a
store"), CBWA ("coaching by walking around"), "Grass
Roots," "Open Door," "Store of the Community,"
"Every Day Low Prices," "Ten Foot Rule," "Sun-Down
Rule," and "Servant/Leadership."[35]
At Wal-Mart in 2001, women
outnumbered men by nearly two to one in the hourly ranks (65.2% female for
Wal-Mart and Sam's combined, Drogin Appendix Table 5a) and men outnumbered
women by almost two to one in salaried management positions (33.2% female). At Wal-Mart Stores (Wal-Mart/Supercenter/Neighborhood
Markets) in 2001, women's representation among hourly supervisors (78.5% of
Team Leaders, job code 101) exceeded their representation among hourly
salespersons (64.4% of Sales Associates, job code 501; see Exhibit D). Sales Associate is the largest job
classification in the company, employing over 200,000 individuals, and there is
substantial segregation within that job category. For example, in 2001 women comprised over 90%
of those employed as Sales Associates in men's wear, infant/toddlers, health
and beauty aids, domestic goods, and ladies sportswear, and less than 25% of
those employed as Sales Associates in hardware and in Supercenter food
departments such as dairy products, meat, frozen food, and produce (Exhibit D). Few men work in the front-end position of Cashier
(job code 501, the second largest job category, with over 150,000 employees),
which was 89.5% female in 2001. Not
every department is sex segregated; for example, the gender mix is relatively
balanced among Sales Associates in automotive (43.6% female), electronics
(47.2% female), and candy, tobacco, and cookies (55.4% female).
In store-level supervisory and salaried
management positions, women's representation drops with each step up the job
hierarchy. Although women outnumber men
by nearly four to one among hourly supervisors, in 2001 they comprised only
45.1% of the Support Managers (job code 1050, "team lead"), the
highest-level hourly supervisory position (Exhibit D). Moving into salaried management, in 2001 they
comprised only 37.6% of Assistant Managers (job code 43000), 21.9% of Co-Managers
(job code 41000), and 15.5% of Store Managers (job code 40000).
A similar pattern holds at Sam's
Club, but at a somewhat lower level of segregation. In 2001, women comprised 54.1% of hourly
employees but only 31.2% of salaried managers (Drogin Appendix Table 5b). Among the hourly ranks, in 2001 women were
71.8% of Cashiers (job code 501, the largest job category, employing over
16,000 individuals). Four of the six
largest job categories are highly segregated, either done mostly by women (job
code 320, "demo ptnr," 92.7% female in 2001) or mostly by men (job
code 300, "shoe mngt," 19.1% female; job code 816, "tire
tech," 1.1% female; and job code 530, "cart ptnr," 2.3% female).
The hourly supervisory position at
Sam's Club is team lead (job code 910, 39.4% female in 2001). At Sam's Club, an Area Manager is a salaried
position below the level of Assistant Manager.[36] The largest Area Manager positions are Front
End (job code 43350, 64.8% female in 2001), Bakery (job code 49900, 58.2%
female in 2001), Receiving (job code 43360, 34.0% female), and Meat (job code 49950, 8.5% female). Assistant Manager-level positions are
Merchandising Manager 1 (job code 43370, 17.3% female in 2001), Merchandising
Manager 2 (job code 43380, 16.0% female), and Business Manager (job code 43390,
36.6% female). Men outnumber women by
almost four to one among Sam's Club Co-Managers (job code 41200, 22.0% female)
and by about 10 to 1 among General Managers (job code 40000, 9.2% female).
Dr. Bendick's benchmarking analysis shows
that there is a significant shortfall in women's representation in management at
Wal-Mart relative to other companies in the large-chain retail industry. He also shows that the shortfall is
consistent over time and across regions of the
In this section of my report I
summarize the scientific literature upon which my opinions are based. In footnotes, I provide citations to sources
in peer refereed journals, in important books and edited volumes in relevant
fields of social science research, and, whenever possible, to review articles
by leading experts who summarize the findings of social science research on
gender bias in organizations, stereotypes, and related topics.
Depending on the job, organizational
setting, and work environment, there are many reasons why men and women can
have different career trajectories. For
example, jobs may have job-related skill and experience requirements that
differ, on average, between men and women.
Gender disparities arising from such factors would not be considered
discriminatory, so long as the employer is not responsible for differences in
men's and women's qualifications (e.g., by not providing equal access to
training). Conversely, employers create
gender barriers when they make decisions about individuals' suitability for
jobs, training, and support or their compensation based on beliefs about a
person's gender rather than on his or her actual qualifications. Employers also create gender barriers when
they ignore (or encourage) an organizational climate that is hostile towards
women and inhibits them from performing to their full potential. Sometimes, practices that appear to be
gender-neutral have the effect of denying to women the same opportunities that
are available to men. For example, using
employee referrals as a recruitment mechanism is likely to reinforce a
workforce's existing gender composition.[37]
One way gender bias affects career
outcomes is when stereotypes are allowed to affect personnel decisions. Gender
stereotypes are beliefs about traits and behaviors that differ between men
and women.[38] For example, men are believed to be
competitive, aggressive, assertive, strong, and independent, while women are thought
to be nurturing, cooperative, supportive, and understanding. Men are assumed to place a high priority on
their careers, while women are assumed to be more strongly oriented towards
family, even though research demonstrates that the commitments of men and women
with similar job opportunities and family situations are virtually identical.[39]
These kinds of stereotypes are
relevant to how men and women advance in careers with Wal-Mart. For example, if women are believed to be
committed to and constrained by family circumstances, and men are not, women
will not be given the same consideration as men for management positions that
are believed to interfere with family obligations, especially if there is no
reliable and systematic way to assess employees' interests in management
positions.
When women perform successfully in
male-dominated contexts, their accomplishments are more likely to be attributed
to luck, help from others, or special circumstances rather than to their
ability, whereas comparable performance by men is more likely to be attributed
to their superior skills.[40] Moreover, stereotypical behaviors that are
believed to be typical of men are often viewed as inappropriate for women. For
example, it is less acceptable for a married woman with young children to place
a high priority on her career than it is for a married man. Similarly, a woman who behaves in an competitive,
assertive, and independent manner often elicits disapproval from those around
her.[41]
Because of gender stereotypes, individuals
tend to ascribe "masculine" traits to men and "feminine"
traits to women, and individuals tend to assume that the prevalence of
"masculine" traits among women and "feminine" traits among
men is rare. A large body of research
demonstrates that the tendency to invoke gender stereotypes in making judgments
about people is spontaneous and automatic.[42] As a result, people are often unaware of how
stereotypes affect their perceptions and behavior, and individuals whose
personal beliefs are relatively free of prejudice or bias are susceptible to
stereotypes in the same ways as people who hold a personal animosity towards a
social group.[43]
In the employment context, career
barriers resulting from gender stereotypes and gender bias are likely to be
consequential for women working in a traditionally male domains, such as the
middle to upper managerial and professional ranks of large corporations,
engineering divisions of firms, in the military, and in historically
male-dominated industries such as skilled crafts and construction trades.[44] At Wal-Mart, women comprise a majority of
employees overall and about two-thirds of those in hourly positions, but they comprise
only about a third of those in salaried management positions, and most higher
level management positions have a low representation of women.
A large body of social science
research demonstrates that stereotypes are especially likely to influence
personnel decisions when they are based on informal, arbitrary, and subjective
factors.[45] In such settings, stereotypes can bias
assessments of a woman's qualifications, contributions, and advancement
potential, because perceptions are shaped by stereotypical beliefs about women
generally, not by the actual skills and accomplishments of the person as an individual.[46] In decision-making contexts characterized by
arbitrary and subjective criteria and substantial decision-maker discretion, individuals
tend to seek out and retain stereotyping-confirming information and ignore or
minimize information that defies stereotypes.[47]
Social research establishes clearly
that the historical representation of women in a job has a substantial impact
on compensation and other job rewards, mobility prospects, and workplace
culture.[48] In retailing, management has historically been
viewed as "men's work" while women were viewed as appropriate for
cashier and clerk positions. Wal-Mart's
founder, Sam Walton, described the traditional view of men's and women's roles
in the industry as follows:
In the old days, retailers felt
the same way about women that they did about college boys, only more so. In addition to thinking women weren't free to
move, they didn't think women could handle anything but the clerk jobs because
the managers usually did so much of the physical labor -- unloading trucks and
hauling merchandise out of the stockroom on a two-wheeler, mopping the floors
and cleaning the windows if necessary.[49]
Experimental
studies on stereotyping show that male and female job applicants with identical
personal traits are matched according to their gender to jobs that are
considered predominantly-male and predominantly-female.[50] And studies done in both experimental and
natural settings demonstrate the impact of "sex role spillover,"
whereby gender-linked traits associated with male-dominated occupations can
profoundly affect the working climate for women.[51]
A large body of research in
industrial sociology, dating back to the 1950s, shows that individuals who find
their opportunities for advancement blocked respond by lowering their goals and
aspirations, and by lowering their commitment to their work compared to others
with more promising career prospects.[52]
Deponents ranging from store
managers to top operations executives testified that there are no written criteria
for selecting hourly associates for promotion into management or for promotions
into Co-Manager or Store Manager positions, beyond the minimum requirements. They also testified that managers who make
those selections have discretion to devise their own criteria, with no
monitoring or oversight over how those criteria are devised or applied.[53]
Wal-Mart managers gave similar
testimony about promotion to hourly supervisory positions such as Support
Manager. Company guidelines specify
minimum criteria based on discipline, tenure, and performance evaluations, however
there is no other written policy or guideline specifying the criteria to be
used to select among candidates who meet the minimum criteria. Store managers are allowed to consider other
factors and apply other criteria, and it is left to their discretion to devise
and apply them.[54] For example, Store Manager Arturo Mireles
testified that he was aware of no written criteria to be used in making
decisions about promotion to Department Manager or Support Manager. His practice was to rely on a range of
unwritten criteria, including subjective factors such as teamwork, ethics,
integrity, ability to get along with others, and willingness to volunteer to
come in to assist in the store or at another store outside of regular work
hours.[55] While factors like these might have common sense
appeal and some might in fact be appropriate to consider in making promotion
decisions, assessments will be biased unless they are assessed in a systematic
and valid manner, with clear criteria and careful attention to the integrity of
the decision-making process.[56]
The same kind of discretion is
allowed in decisions about compensation for hourly employees. For example, in Division 1, each job is
categorized into one of five job classifications, each with its own hourly
starting rate. However, according to
company policy the Store Manager can pay up to two dollars an hour above the
stated rate, based on his or her assessment of factors such as previous pay and
experience. There is no company
guideline and no training on when and how to adjust pay upwards, and while
overall payroll is monitored, there is no monitoring of these individual
adjustments.[57] In fact, at the Store Manager's discretion, a
new employee can be paid more than two dollars above the specified start rate,
and in such instances no exception report is generated.[58]
Annual pay increases in Division One
are tied to performance evaluation ratings, with a percentage increase
guideline specified by the Home Office. A
Store Manager can give a raise larger than the specified amount at his or her
own discretion. In addition, employees
can be given merit increases for "exceptional performance." The company guideline is that a merit
increase of four or five percent can be given no more than once per year, and
it cannot be granted within 90 days of an annual performance increase or raise
due to a promotion.[59] However, there is no guideline for assessing
"exceptional performance" and no monitoring of the number of people
who receive increases and how frequently they are given to any specific employee.[60] Managers can and do give merit raises more
than once per year.[61]
Consistent and systematic job
posting is an effective way to determine who is interested in and available for
promotion to higher-level positions. An
effective system also communicates clear and accurate information to employees
about the training and experience required to become eligible for a job, about
job conditions, and about how the job fits into a career path in the
organization.[62] Wal-Mart People Division Vice President
Harper agreed that the company benefits from posting, by allowing people to show
interest in a position. He added: "I think anytime you get the right
candidate into the right job, the success of that person would certainly
reflect in the performance of their area of responsibility." He agreed that posting benefits employees by
giving them "an opportunity for promotion or an opportunity for
diversifying their career by being able to work in different parts of the
store."[63] Coleman Peterson, the Executive Vice
President of the company's People Division, gave similar testimony: "Job posting ensures the company that it
is able to attract and identify as many talented people as possible for jobs
that are needed and for the individuals it provides an opportunity to apply for
positions in the company that can allow them to move forward in their
careers."[64] Mr. Peterson, who has been an advocate for
the adoption of posting policies at the company, has also testified about their
impact on workplace fairness. He testified
that posting reduces litigation expenses because it affects "the fairness
of how people get picked for jobs."
According to Mr. Coleman:
"People understand where the jobs are and they understand what it
is you need to do to qualify for the jobs."[65] The testimony of these two executives from
the company's People Division is consistent with the professional literature on
human resources policy. Unfortunately,
Wal-Mart's posting systems do not meet the criteria of effective and fair
policy and practice. Wal-Mart has
separate posting systems for hourly and management positions, and each has
identifiable deficiencies that make them vulnerable to bias.
Current company policy specifies
that openings for hourly supervisory positions are to be posted within the
store where the opening occurs. Online,
computerized posting began in the late1990s; prior to that there was paper
posting of some positions.[66] However, under current policy, Store Managers
have the authority to choose not to post a position. There are no written guidelines regarding
when to depart from the posting policy, and there is no monitoring or review of
exceptions to posting of hourly positions.[67] Store
managers also have authority to waive minimum requirements regarding time in
current position and coachings, and there are no guidelines specifying when
this is appropriate.[68] In addition, there is no requirement to post
openings that are filled by lateral moves, so, for example, a manager can
choose not to post an open supervisory position and instead informally approach
an existing supervisor and ask that person if he or she would like the
position.[69]
Prior to 1998, management positions
in Division 1 were not posted. Since
then, posting of Store Manager, District Manager, and some other positions has been
done via the computerized Management Career Selection ("MCS") system,
although an employee needs the approval of his or her District Manager before
applying via the MCS system.[70] Co-Manager, Assistant Store Manager, and
Management Trainee positions are generally not posted.[71] As with hourly promotions, the Regional
Personnel Managers have discretion to depart from the policy on posting management
positions, although there is no written policy on when that is appropriate.[72] An exception report shows whether or not a
position was posted and how long it took to fill a position, but no record is
made of reasons for exceptions to the posting policy, and no statistical
summary is complied regarding exceptions to the posting policy.[73] At Sam's Club, management positions are not
posted, and on-line posting of management trainee positions began just
recently, in early January of 2003.[74]
The company's practice of requiring
relocation across stores in order to move into salaried management positions
makes the promotion process especially vulnerable to gender stereotyping. While it may indeed be the case that, on
average, more women than men face family constraints that limit their ability
to relocate for a management position, stereotypes lead people to act on an
assumptions that overstate the extent to which that is true.. The absence of a systematic mechanism for
determining which employees are available for and interested in promotion from
the hourly ranks into management is especially problematic in this
context. In the absence of systematic,
reliable, and timely information on the interests and availability of
individual men and women, stereotypes about women's and men's family
commitments and constraints will lead decision-makers to overlook or discount
the availability of qualified women who want to advance into the salaried
ranks. Similarly, District Managers who
must give there approval before a salaried employee responds to a posting under
the MCS system are likely to be influenced by stereotypes in the same way.
Lack of clarity in the relocation
requirements associated with promotion to salaried management positions is
likely to discourage some women from seeking promotions. Managers consistently testify that hourly
employees usually move to a different store when they become management
trainees and are promoted to Assistant Store Manager positions, and promotion
to Co-Manager and Store Manager almost always involves relocation as well.[75] Less consistent is testimony about whether an
employee must be able and willing to relocate their place of residence in order
to be considered for a management position.
For example, in District Manager Daniel Carter's district in Northern
California, employees applying for the Management Training program have been
asked to certify in writing that they are willing to transfer "to any
location within the Wal-Mart trading area" to receive training and again
at the completion of training.[76] Former Regional Vice President John Butler
required Co-Managers to be willing to relocate "whenever and wherever we
need them."[77] Similarly, Store Manager Bernard Seaman
emphasizes the relocation requirements of the Management Training program when
speaking to hourly employees who express interest:
Q. What do you tell that employee about the
scope of that relocation requirement?
A. I say, you realize you could be relocated,
and it could mean from -- in my case now,
In contrast,
other managers testify that ability and willingness to relocate one's place of
residence is not an absolute requirement for promotion, although moving from
one store to another usually is required.[78] As recently as June, 2002, People Division
Vice President Harper determined that it was important to remind Regional
Personnel Managers that ability to relocate was not a mandatory requirement for
promotion.[79] It is likely that hourly department heads
considering a career in salaried management or Assistant Managers considering
higher-level salaried positions may well be receiving mixed messages about
whether they are required to indicate a willingness to relocate to any area of
Wal-Mart's operations in order to be given serious consideration for a promotion. An individual who is not able to make that
commitment is likely to be discouraged by the apparent emphasis on relocation,
even when a move to a new store within a district or region would be possible.
Wal-Mart's founder, Sam Walton,
recognized that the emphasis on relocation could work to the disadvantage of
talented women who are qualified for management positions and that the business
case for the emphasis on relocation might be overstated. In his autobiography, he discussed the
original management philosophy, that one had to be ready to relocate on a
moment's notice to move into management, and his views of the shortcomings of
that approach:
Maybe that was necessary back
in the old days, and maybe it was more rigid than it needed to be. Now, though, it's not really appropriate
anymore for several reasons. First, as
the company grows bigger, we need to find more ways to stay in touch with the
communities where we operate, and one of the best ways to do that is by hiring
locally, developing managers locally, and letting them have a career in their
home community--if they perform. Second,
the old way really put good, smart women at a disadvantage in our company
because at the time they weren't as free to pick up and move as many men
were. Now I've seen the light on the
opportunities we missed out on with women.[80]
To open
more opportunities for women in management, Mr. Walton was a strong supporter
of the Resident Assistant Manager program.
In the late 1980s, Wal-Mart implemented and later formalized a policy
creating the position of Resident Assistant Manager for individuals who were eligible
to be Assistant Managers but not able to relocate.[81] Resident Assistant Managers were eligible to
move into a Co-Manager position without relocating.[82] According to Executive Vice President of
Operations Jim Haworth, the program was phased out, although some Assistant
Managers have been "grandfathered" into the program, and it is being
"tested" in some areas currently.
Mr. Harper testified that the program still exists, but with little
participation and only on an "as requested" basis.[83] Former Regional Vice President John Butler said
that he was "vaguely" aware of the program, Store Manager Bernard
Seaman testified that he just recently learned of the program, and Store
Manager Jesse James Brown had heard of the program but did not know if it
applied to his store.[84] Don Harris and Jim Haworth, the former and
current Executive Vice Presidents of Operations, each testified that they were
unaware of any plans to expand the program.[85] And while Resident Assistant Managers are
eligible for promotion, Wal-Mart Stores Chief Executive Officer Thomas Coughlin
testified that he was not aware of anyone being promoted from that position.[86] In sum, this program, originally implemented
in part to create more management opportunities for women, appears to have
little effect anymore as a route to management for employees who have personal
or family commitments that tie them to a specific community geographic region.
Organizational
policies and practices that create barriers to career advancement for women and
minorities, once in place, become institutionalized and rarely change in the
absence of any substantial change in a firm's business, technical, or legal
environment.[87] This is especially true of personnel
practices and policies that are reinforced by the firm's culture.[88] However, gender bias in the workplace is by
no means inevitable, and social science research shows what kinds of policies
and practices effectively minimize bias.
Through deliberate efforts, the
effects of stereotypes can be controlled.[89] Research studies show that the effects of
stereotypes and outgroup bias on evaluative judgments such as those involved in
recruitment, hiring, job assignment, promotion, and assessments of skills and
qualifications can be minimized when decision-makers know that they will be
held accountable for the criteria used to make decisions, for the accuracy of
the information upon which the decisions are based, and for the consequences
their actions have for equal employment opportunity.[90] However, as I described above, at Wal-Mart,
personnel decisions regarding promotion and hourly compensation rely
significantly on discretionary and subjective criteria, with little monitoring
and oversight.
Formal written policies alone are
not sufficient to minimize bias in personnel decisions. A written equal employment opportunity
("EEO") policy that is simply reactive and lacks effective
accountability is vulnerable to bias against women and minorities. Often, such a system constitutes what social
scientists call symbolic compliance: an
exercise in "going through the motions," with little substantive
impact on creating a work environment that is free of bias.[91] True "EEO accountability" has three
key elements: (1) monitoring and
analysis of disparities in career trajectories; (2) systematic evaluation of
managers on their contributions to the firms' goals regarding diversity and
equal employment opportunity; and (3) monitoring and analysis of employees'
perceptions of discriminatory barriers and career opportunities.[92] Below, I assess the effectiveness of Wal-Mart's
policies and practices on each of these dimensions.
Effective EEO policy includes the
regular monitoring and analysis of patterns of segregation and differences by
gender and race in pay and career advancement as a routine part of an
organization's personnel system. Such
monitoring is used to assess whether disparities are greater than what
plausibly might be expected based on differences in job-related knowledge,
skills, abilities, interests, availability and other job-related factors that
influence an employee's contributions to the organization.
Gender composition in Wal-Mart jobs
is tracked in several reports. Kevin
Harper, Vice President of the People Division reviews the monthly People P
& L report and a quarterly People Update reporting the gender composition
of Wal-Mart's hourly workforce and salaried management. A quarterly Diversity Report Card compiles
regional People P & L statistics in a single report.[93] However, statistics on gender composition are
not analyzed to assess factors that could account for the disparity in women's
representation among salaried management positions compared to the
representation in the hourly workforce and in hourly department head
positions. Managers testified
consistently that they did not believe that women were less qualified than men
for management positions in the company, and Wal-Mart has taken a similar
position in its responses to plaintiffs' interrogatories.[94] Yet there have been no attempts to explain,
for example, why it is that women in Division 1 represent more than three
quarters of all hourly department heads but only 38% of Assistant Managers.[95] Nor is there any regular monitoring of gender
disparities in compensation among hourly or managerial employees.[96] In addition, there have been no studies of
whether women are less interested than men in management positions.[97] In sum, Wal-Mart's policies and practices
regarding equal employment opportunity include no systematic assessment of
disparities by gender in pay, promotion, and other career outcomes designed to
identify possible discriminatory barriers and remedy them.
The
second component of EEO accountability is explicit evaluation of managers and
supervisors on their contributions to an organization's EEO objectives. Nearly all medium- to large-scale
organizations have a written antidiscrimination policy. Many have a written policy stating that
implementing the objectives of the Affirmative Action Plan is the
responsibility of every employee, a statement often repeated by top
executives. However, such policies are
merely symbolic unless they also delineate explicit duties and responsibilities
relating to equal employment opportunity in each manager's or supervisor's job
description, which can then be related to specific evaluative dimensions in the
performance reviews of those employees.
One way
of evaluating managers' contributions is to establish numerical goals and
assess managers on progress towards achieving those goals. At Wal-Mart, goals have been established for
women's representation in management, and diversity has been added to the
"people" dimension of managers' performance evaluation. However, the numerical goals themselves are
not based on any assessment of women's representation among those qualified and
available for salaried management positions and the rate at which women would
be expected to move into those positions absent any barriers to equal
employment opportunity. Instead,
Wal-Mart's goals for women's representation are based on the principle that
they should reflect the "community" (i.e. roughly 50%), without any
regard to gender composition of the relevant applicant pools.[98] In fact, the goals themselves are established
in an ad hoc manner, without any guidelines.
For example, in Division 1 since 2000, District Managers have devised
their own goals, which are compiled and aggregated by Regional Personnel
Managers into goals for each region, which are in turn compiled and aggregated
by People Directors and forwarded to the People Division Vice President.[99] District Managers, RPMs, and Regional Vice
Presidents are not given any instruction on how to determine their goals other
than to increase representation, and there is no written document describing
the goal-setting process.[100] Managers at the level of District Manager and
higher are evaluated on progress towards those goals.[101] A similar process has been used for setting
goals at Sam's Club.[102] Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart managers set modest
goals that are slightly higher the current representation. For example, RVP Butler testified, "we
look at where we are, and we select what we think -- what we consider is a
reasonable improvement from one year to the next."[103] Sandy Ellison testified that when she was a
RPM, she would compile District Manager goals into a spreadsheet and examine
whether they "made sense" and "weren't worse than the year
before or something like that."
District Manager Daniel Carter testified that Ms. Ellison, when she was his
RPM, would review with him associate demographics reported on the People P
&L, but he was never given any goals regarding women's representation in
management.[104] Mr. Carter testified that the one time he was
asked to develop a goal for his district, he did not want to write anything
down that was "unrealistic or I knew wouldn't happen immediately."[105] Similarly, District Manager Ludwig Marcus
testified that he was not aware of any company goals about promoting women into
management, and that when he was a RPM the goals he set with District Managers
were not any sort of target, other than an indication of a need to improve.[106] Sam's RPM Ben Dolan testified that he was
looking for goals that were "realistic or achievable" from his
Directors of Operations ("DO"), and that he did not know how they set
their goals. He chose purposely not to
give DOs guidance because he "wanted to see what they submitted
back."[107] Wal-Mart Store Manager Jesse James Brown
testified that he has not had any discussions with his District Manager or
other Wal-Mart officials about goals and objectives for his store regarding
female managers.[108] Similarly, Store Manager Arturo Mireles
testified that he was not aware of any goals for promotion of women into
management, and Store Manager Marvin Raps gave similar testimony.[109] At Sam's Club, Director of Operations Mark
Bosler and General Manager Alan Oshier each testified that they were not aware
of any goals for increasing women's representation in management.[110]
In the
absence of guidelines, managers who are aware that they are evaluated relative
to diversity goals have an incentive to establish modest goals, and there is
little incentive to work aggressively to meet them, since evidence of
improvement, rather than meeting the goal, is viewed as satisfactory
performance.[111] Overall, contribution towards diversity goals
is at best only weakly tied to the compensation of managers. For Store Managers and Co-Managers,
performance evaluation is not a factor for either base salary or incentive pay,
so evaluation on contributions to diversity goals has no impact on their
compensation.[112] For others, diversity is one component of one
dimension of the performance evaluation, and it is the overall aggregate score
that is tied to managers' percentage raises.[113] For example, Jeff Reeves, former Vice
President of People at Sam's Club, testified that managers received a
"very subjective" rating of diversity contributions on a 1 to 5
scale. That rating was one component of
four which together had a weight of just 5% in the overall evaluation score for
General Managers and Co-Managers. Of
course, evaluation of diversity contributions has no effect at all on
motivating managers' behavior if they are not aware that they are being
evaluated, and there is deposition testimony suggesting that is the case for
some managers. For example, District
Manager John Scantlin could not recall whether meeting demographic goals had
ever been discussed with him as part of his evaluations, and John Butler,
formerly a Regional Vice President at Wal-Mart, did not know whether any
portion of the performance evaluation score was tied to diversity.[114]
The
absence of a significant relationship between diversity contributions and
compensation was viewed as a major weakness of the company's diversity efforts
by former Sam's Club People Vice President Jeff Reeves. In his view, diversity efforts will remain
"lip service" unless diversity contributions are tied in a
significant way to incentive pay.[115] In the assessment of Mr. Reeves, efforts to
increase the diversity of the company's management ranks will remain limited until
executives and managers fully embrace diversity efforts as an integral part of the
operations side of the business.[116]
The
materials I have reviewed are consistent with Mr. Reeves' assessment. It is clear that there has been an increased
emphasis on diversity issues by high level human resources executives at
Wal-Mart since the late 1990s, but that commitment has had little impact on
actual personnel policy and practice as it relates to compensation among hourly
employees and promotion into field management.
The company's diversity efforts have been weak in assessing and
addressing vulnerabilities to bias created by discretionary and subjective
aspects of the personnel system. The
process for setting diversity goals and evaluating contributions to diversity
objectives is not linked in any meaningful way to identifying and eliminating
barriers to equal employment opportunity.
Although
Wal-Mart Stores Chief Executive Officer Thomas Coughlin has testified that
responsibility for diversity is shared equally by all management employees,[117] awareness of diversity goals is limited both
among top operations executives and store-level managers. While operational aspects of Wal-Mart's
business are run with centralized coordination and oversight, Mr. Coughlin
rejects having the same kind of oversight and accountability in the area of
diversity.[118] Absent this kind of accountability, true
integration of diversity policy into the personnel practices in the operating
divisions and genuine commitment to diversity efforts by managers and
executives who oversee and make decisions about pay and career advancement is
unlikely to take place. In addition, other
proactive efforts that have the potential to contribute to enhanced diversity
in the management ranks, such as recent efforts to identify and develop highly
qualified women and minority employees,[119] are likely to have limited success.
The
third component of EEO accountability is systematic analysis of feedback from
employees about perceptions of barriers to and opportunities for career
advancement. Systematic monitoring of
trends in employees' perceptions of barriers to career advancement and of top
management's commitment to EEO can be used to identify subtle forms of bias and
related problems not immediately apparent from analyses of more objective
workforce data.
Wal-Mart
surveys its employees annually as part of its Grass Roots survey program. The survey is designed to assess employees'
perceptions on work-related issues.
Results are tabulated by store, and the top three concerns are posted at
each store. Store Managers are expected
to meet with their employees to discuss those concerns and to develop specific
action plans for addressing them.[120] Responses to the survey are also used to
compute a Unresolved People Index ("UPI," formerly called Union Potential
Index) which is used to identify stores at risk of union organizing activity. Stores scoring high on the index are targeted
for intervention by company management and are subsequently re-surveyed to
assess whether there is any improvement in employee morale following
intervention.[121]
The
Grass Roots Survey, which has been conducted annually since 1994, would seem to
be an efficient mechanism for assessing employees' perceptions about barriers
to equal opportunity associated with gender.
However, the survey has never been used to assess employees' perceptions
on issues such as whether they have been treated unfairly due to gender (or
race) or the firm's commitment to diversity.
Nor have the results of Grass Roots Surveys ever been analyzed by gender
or race in order to assess perceived discriminatory barriers.[122] Indeed, according to Kristi Lem Albrecht, the
company's 30(b)6 deponent on surveys, there have been no employee surveys of
any kind addressing diversity issues or the treatment of women employees.[123]
In sum, Wal-Mart has a range of
diversity and equal opportunity policies and initiatives, many of them
implemented in the past few years. Unfortunately,
they have identifiable weaknesses that limit their effectiveness for
identifying and eliminating discriminatory barriers. The process for setting goals is not linked
to a systematic assessment of the policies and practices that influence the
rate at which men and women advance through their careers at Wal-Mart. Evaluation of managers on contributions to
the company's diversity and equal employment opportunity objectives is too weak
to have any significant effect, and the company fails to use the tools
available to it to systematically assess employees' perceptions of
discriminatory barriers related to gender. In contrast to the centralized coordination
and control that characterizes the operations side of Wal-Mart's operations,
its human resources practices regarding equal employment opportunities are too
diffuse to establish meaningful oversight and accountability.
I have concluded that an elaborate
and sophisticated system of centralized coordination, reinforced by a strong
organizational culture, creates and sustains uniformity in personnel policy and
practice throughout Wal-Mart's
organizational units. I have also
concluded that subjective and discretionary features of the company's personnel
policy and practice make decisions about compensation and promotion vulnerable
to gender bias. In addition, I have
concluded that there are significant deficiencies in the way the company
monitors its personnel policies and practices, establishes diversity goals, and
evaluates managers' contributions to equal opportunity objectives. Personnel policy and practice at Wal-Mart as
implemented in the field has features known to be vulnerable to gender
bias. Discretionary and subjective
elements of Wal-Mart's personnel system and inadequate oversight and
ineffective anti-discrimination efforts contribute to disparities between men
and women in their compensation and career trajectories at the company.
_____________________________
William T. Bielby, Ph.D.
February 3, 2002
[1]See J.
Monahan and L. Walker, Social Science in
Law: Cases and Materials, Fourth
Edition, Foundation Press, 1998, Chapter Five, "Social Science Used to
Provide Context."
[2]The
Executive Vice President's responsibilities cover Wal-Mart Division 1, the
Specialty Divisions, and Sam's Club and the rest of the company's human
resources operations worldwide (Peterson depo., p.8).
[3]Peterson
depo., p. 11-12.
[4]Harper
30(b)6 depo., p. 235-237; Jarrells Porter depo. 30-32; Peterson depo., p.
26-29.
[5]Peterson
depo., p. 27-28.
[6]Hass
depo., p. 24-30; Jarrells Porter depo., p. 28, 33-34; Reeves depo., p. 147-149.
[7]Harper
30(b)6 depo., p. 188-190.
[8]Harper
30(b)6 depo., p. 117-120.
[9]Harper
30(b)6 depo., p. 188-192; Harper depo., p. 18-21; Ellison depo., p. 75-78, 81;
Ruiz depo., p. 150-152; "RPM Responsibilities" (WMHO369676). The human resources function has a similar
hierarchical organization in the Specialty Divisions. Each Specialty Division has Regional
Personnel Managers for One-Hour Photo, Tire Lube Express, and Shoes and Jewelry
report to the heads of their respective divisional operating units. People Directors that report to the Vice
President of the Wal-Mart Stores People Division also have responsibilities for
Specialty Divisions (Harper depo., p. 20-27).
[10]Ruiz
depo., p. 141-142; 151-152; "People Director Responsibilities"
(WMHO369677).
[11]Harper
depo., p. 41-47.
[12]Reeves
30(b)6 depo., p. 14-15.
[13]Reeves
depo., p. 148. The only difference that
Mr. Reeves could think of was in the attendance policy; also see Hottinger
depo., p. 32-35.
[14]Coughlin
depo., p. 42-43.
[15]Hass
depo., p. 23-34, 43-44, 52, 65-67, 95; Teng depo., p. 86-87; Harper 30(b)6
depo., p, 44-45, 58-59, 69-72, 126, 131-132, 149-150; Harper depo., p. 102,
113-114, 191-192; Mireles depo., p. 108-109, 183-184
[16]T. W.
Malone, "Is Empowerment Just Fad?
Control, Decision Making, and IT," Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 (Winter), 1997, p. 23-35.
[17]D.
Carter depo., p. 138-139; Ellison depo., p. 225-228; Raps depo., p. 183-186;
Butler depo., p. 112-113.
[18]See,
for example, Raps depo., p. 186-187; D. Carter depo., p. 139-147; Ellison
depo., p. 228;
[19]Harper
30(b)6 depo., p. 179-180, 242-246; R. Carter depo., p. 31; Harper depo., p.
274-275; Butler depo., p. 192
[20]Harper
30(b)6 depo., p. 166; D. Carter depo., p. 134-5; Ellison depo., p. 219-221.
[21]Ludwig
depo., p. 128-137;
[22]See T.
E. Deal and A. A. Kennedy, Corporate
Cultures. Addison-Wesley, 1982; E.
H. Schein, Organizational Culture and
Leadership, Second Edition, Jossey-Bass, 1992; and J. Kerr and J. W.
Slocum, "Managing Corporate Culture Through Reward Systems," Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 1,
1987, p. 99-108.
[23]Deal and Kennedy, op cit.; Schein, op cit.,
W. Ouchi, "Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, 1980, p. 129-141; C. D.
Hansen and W. M. Kahnweiler, "Storytelling: An Instrument for Understanding the Dynamics
of Corporate Relationships," Human
Relations, Vol. 46, 1993, pp. 1391-1409; J. Martin, M. S. Feldman, M. J.
Hatch, and S. B. Sitkin, "The Uniqueness Paradox in Organizational
Stories," Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 28, 1983, pp. 438-453; T. Peters, "Symbols, Patterns,
and Settings," Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 7, 1978, pp. 3-23; J. Pfeffer, "Management as Symbolic
Action: The Creation and Maintenance of
Organizational Paradigms," pp. 1-52 in Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 3, edited by L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw, Jai Press, 1982;
M .E. Boyce, "Organizational Story and Storytelling: A Critical
Review," Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 9 (No. 5), p. 5-26; W. Swap, D. Leonard, M.
Shields, and L. Abrams, "Using Mentoring and Storytelling to Transfer
Knowledge in the Workplace", Journal
of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 (Summer), 2001, p. 95-114.
[24]Muzingo
depo., p. 97-106.
[25]Muzingo
depo., p. 107-108; Scantlin depo., p. 55-57; Seaman depo., p. 71-72; D. Carter
depo., p. 35-40; Sherman depo., p. 98-101; Oshier depo., p. 106-108; Wesbecher
depo., p. 19-23.
[26]Muzingo
depo., p. 114, 117-122, 125-128, 130-135.
[27]Muzingo
depo., p. 133-134.
[28]Muzingo
depo., p. 86-87; 147-148. Also see M. J.
Schneider, "The Wall-Mart Annual Meeting:
From Small-Town America to a Global Corporate Culture," Human Organization, Vol. 57, 1998, p.
292-299.
[29]Muzingo
depo., p. 114-115; Seaman depo., p. 70-71.
[30]Muzingo
depo., p. 86-87, 125; Hottinger depo. p. 83-84 and Oshier depo., p. 106-107 (on
Sam's Club meetings and the Sam's Club cheer).
The "Culture Topic Index" provided to store management
states: "It is important for our
Associates to understand how important culture is to their company. We have provided you with a culture topic for
mandatory weekly discussions with all store Associates on each shift during
store meetings." (BATES WMHO598668)
[31]Muzingo
depo., p. 142-147.
[32]Muzingo
depo., p. 135-142; Butler depo., p. 77-78; Ludwig depo., p. 112-113; Martinez
depo., p. 166-168. Also see
"Saturday Morning Fever: Wal-Mart's
Weekly Meeting," The Economist,
[33]Muzingo
depo., p. 141. Ms. Muzingo went on to
explain that one reason experienced managers are included in the meeting is to
teach the culture to those who are new to management (Muzingo depo., p. 142).
[34]Deal
and Kennedy, op cit.; Ouchi, op cit.
[35]Muzingo
depo., p. 84-92, 115, 131; Harper depo., p. 291-292; Jarrells-Porter depo., p.
115-116; Kintzele depo., p. 192-193; Dolan depo., p. 132-133; Goodwin depo., p.
48, 214; Wigger depo., p. 129-130, 138; D. Carter depo., p. 222; R. Carter, p.
155-156.
[36]Reeves
30(b)6 depo., p. 73-80, 83.
[37]For a
review of relevant research, see P. V. Marsden and E. Gorman, "Social
Networks, Job Changes, and Recruitment," p. 467-502 in Sourcebook on Labor Markets: Evolving Structures and Processes, edited
by I. Berg and A. L. Kalleberg, Plenum Publishing, 2001.
[38]K.
Deaux and L. Lewis, "Components of Gender Stereotypes," Psychological Documents, Vol. 13, 1983,
p. 25-34; K. Deaux and L. Lewis, "The Structure of Gender
Stereotypes: Interrelationships Among
Components and Gender Label," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 46, 1984, p. 991-1004; J. E.
Williams and D. L. Best, "Sex Stereotypes and Intergroup Relations,"
p. 244-259 in Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, edited by S. Worchel and W. G. Austin, Nelson-Hall, 1986; S. T.
Fiske, "Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination," p. 357-411 in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2
(Fourth Edition), edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey,
McGraw-Hill, 1998.
[39]For a
review see D. D. Bielby, "Commitment to Work and Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 18,
1992, p. 281-302. Also see P. V.
Marsden, A. L. Kalleberg, and C. R. Cook, "Gender Differences in
Organizational Commitment: Influences of
Work Positions and Family Roles," Work
and Occupations, Vol. 20, 1993, p. 367-390.
[40]For a
review of relevant research, see J. K. Swim and L. J. Sanna, "He's
Skilled, She's Lucky: A Meta-Analysis of
Observers' Attributes for Women's and Men's Successes and Failures," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 22, 1996, p. 507-519. For studies
of attribution bias in employment contexts, see J. H. Greenhaus and S.
Parasuraman, “Job Performance Attributions and Career Advancement Prospects: An Examination of Gender and Race Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 55, 1991, p. 273-297; M. Igbaria and J. Baroudi, “The
Impact of Job Performance Evaluations on Career Advancement Prospects: An Examination of Gender Differences in the
IS Workplace, Management Information Systems
Quarterly, Vol. 19, 1995, p. 107-123.
Greenhaus and Parasuraman studied managers in three companies in the
communications, banking and electronics industries, while Igbaria and Baroudi
studied professionals in the field of information systems and data
processing. For reviews of social
psychological research on attribution biases, see Fiske and S. E. Taylor, Social Cognition, Second Edition,
McGraw-Hill, 1991, Chapter 3; M. Hewstone, “The 'Ultimate Attribution
Error'? A Review of the Literature on Intergroup
Causal Attribution,” European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 20, 1990, p. 311-335.
[41]T. W.
Smith, "Working Wives and Women's Rights:
The Connection Between the Employment Status of Wives and the Feminist
Attitudes of Husbands," Sex Roles,
Vol. 12, 1985, p. 501-508; J. S. Bridges and A. M. Orza, "The Effects of
Employment Role and Motive for Employment on the Perceptions of Mothers," Sex Roles, Vol. 27, 1992, p. 331-343; A.
H. Eagly, M. G. Makhijani, and B. G. Klonsky, "Gender and the Evaluation
of Leaders: A Meta-Analysis," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111, 1992,
p. 3-22; M. J. Martinkio and W. L. Gardner, "A Methodological Review of
Sex-Related Access Discrimination Problems," Sex Roles, Vol. 9, 1983, p. 825-839; C. L. Copeland, J. E. Driskell,
and E. Salas, "Gender and Reactions to Dominance," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality,
Vol. 10, No. 6, 1995, p. 53-68; A. M. Konrad and K. Cannings, "The Effects
of Gender Role Congruence and Statistical Discrimination on Managerial
Advancement," Human Relations,
Vol. 50, 1997, p. 1305-1328; A. H. Eagly, and S. J. Karau, "Role Congruity
Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders," Psychological Review, Vol. 109, 2002, p. 573-598.
[42]See,
for example, M. A. Zarate and Eliot R. Smith, "Person Categorization and
Stereotyping," Social Cognition,
Vol. 8, 1990, p. 161-185; M. R. Banaji, C. D. Hardin, and A. J. Rothman,
"Implicit Stereotyping in Person Judgment," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65, 1993, p.
272-281; M. A. Zarate and P. Sandoval, "The Effects of Contextual Cues on
Making Occupational and Gender Categorizations," British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 34, 1995, p. 353-362; M.
R. Banaji and C. D. Hardin, "Automatic Stereotyping," Psychological Science, Vol. 7, 1996, p.
136-141. For a review, see J. A. Bargh
and T. L. Chartrand, "The Unbearable Automaticity of Being," American Psychologist, Vol. 54, 1999, p.
462-479.
[43]S. T.
Fiske and S. E. Taylor, op cit., p.
271-294; R. Brown, Prejudice,
Blackwell, 1995; G. V. Bodenhausen and C. N. Macrae, "The Self Regulation
of Intergroup Perception: Mechanisms and
Consequences of Stereotype Suppression," p. 227-253 in Stereotypes and Stereotyping, edited by
C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, and M. Hewstone, Guilford Press, 1996; S. T. Fiske, "Stereotyping,
Prejudice and Discrimination," p. 357-411 in Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by D. T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske,
and G. Lindzey, McGraw-Hill, 1998; G. V. Bodenhausen, , C. N. Macrae, and J.
Garst, “Stereotypes in Thought and Deed: Social Cognitive Origins of Intergroup
Discrimination,” p. 311-335 in Intergroup
Cognition and Intergroup Behaviors, edited by C. Sedikides, J. Schopler,
and C. A. Insko, Erlbaum, 1998. Both men
and women are influenced by gender stereotypes, as can be seen in the findings
of focus group and interview study conducted in early 2002 and in many of the
company documents regarding diversity.
For example, in the focus group and interview study, some respondents
mentioned that women had an advantage selling in the long-term care area, in
part because of the "nurturing characteristics of the product" (FSCW
Report, p. 35). One respondent reported
(p.37) that the advantage to a male/female partnership was that "the men are
good at numbers; the women provide the caring." It is often assumed that women do differ from
men in both how they sell insurance and financial products and how they manage,
in the absence of any systematic data that this is indeed the case. All of the relevant social science research
cited here shows that when there are differences between men and women on
traits relevant to selling and managing, they tend to be small on average, with
substantial similarity in how each of these traits is distributed among women
and among men.
[44]W. T.
Bielby and J. N. Baron, "Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical
Discrimination," American Journal of
Sociology Vol. 91, 1986, p. 759-99; K. Deaux and J. C. Ullman, Women of Steel: Female Blue-Collar Workers in the Basic Steel
Industry, Praeger, 1983; R. M. Kanter, Men
and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books, 1977; Eagly et al., op cit.; M. J.
Martinkio and W. L. Gardner, "A Methodological Review of Sex-Related
Access Discrimination Problems," Sex
Roles, Vol. 9, 1983, p. 825-839; C. M. Jagacinski, "Engineering
Careers: Women in a Male-Dominated Field," Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 11, 1987, p. 97-110; P. Glick, C. Zion, and C. Nelson, "What
Mediates Sex Discrimination in Hiring Decisions?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 55, 1988, p. 178-186;
[45]For a
review, see American Psychological Association, "In the Supreme Court of
the
[46]For
review articles on gender bias in evaluation, see Nieva and Gutek, op cit. and R. Kalin and D. C. Hodgins,
"Sex Bias and Occupational Suitability," Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, Vol. 16, 1984, p.
311-325. Examples of studies of gender
bias in assessments of qualifications, performance and promotion potential
include: G. L. Gerber, "The More Positive Evaluation of Men Than Women on
the Gender-Stereotyped Traits," Psychological
Reports, Vol. 65, 1989, p. 275-286; G. H. Dobbins, R. L. Cardy, and D. M.
Truxillo, "The Effects of Purpose of Appraisal and Individual Differences
in Stereotypes of Women on Sex Differences in Performance Ratings: A Laboratory and Field Study," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, 1988,
p. 551-558; T. H. Shore, "Subtle Gender Bias in the Assessment of
Managerial Potential," Sex Roles,
Vol. 27, 1992, p. 499-515; M. Foschi, L. Lai, and K. Sigerson, "Gender and
Double Standards in the Assessment of Job Applicants," Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 57, 1994, 326-339; J. Landau, "The
Relationship of Race and Gender to Managers' Ratings of Promotion
Potential," Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16, 1995, p. 391-400.
[47]This
kind of biased information-processing has been examined and replicated in
numerous experimental studies. See, for
example, Banaji, Hardin, and Rothman, op
cit.; Banaji and Hardin, op cit.;
J. Crocker, D. B. Hannah, and R. Weber, "Person Memory and Causal
Attributions," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, 1983, p. 55-66; S. M. Belmore,
"Determinants of Attention During Impression Formation," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 13,
1987, p. 480-489; M. Schaller, "Social Categorization and the Formation of
Group Stereotypes: Further Evidence for
Biased Information Processing in the Perception of Group-Behavior
Correlations," European Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 21, 1991, p. 25-35; T. E. Ford and C. Stangor,
"The Role of Diagnosticity in Stereotype Formation: Perceiving Group means and Variances," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 63, 1992, p. 356-367; C. N. Macrae, A. B. Milne, and G. V. Bodenhausen,
"Stereotypes as Energy-Saving Devices:
A Peek Inside the Cognitive Toolbox," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, 1994, p.
921-935; C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, and A. B. Milne, "Activating Social
Stereotypes: A Functional
Analysis," Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 23, 1994, p. 370-389; L. C. Johnston and C. N.
Macrae, "Changing Social Stereotypes:
The Case of the Information Seeker," European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 24, 1994, p. 356-367;
M. Zuckerman, C. R. Knee, K. Miyake, and H. S. Hodgins, "Hypothesis
Confirmation: The Joint Effect of
Positive Test Strategy and Acquiescence Response Set," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 68, 1995, p. 52-60. For reviews,
see Brown, op cit. and Fiske, op cit.
[48]P.
England, Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence, Aldine de Gruyter, 1992; B. F. Reskin, D. B.
McBrier, and J. A. Kmec, "The Determinants and Consequences of Workplace
Race and Sex Composition," Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 25, 1999, p. 335-361.
[49] S. Walton with J. Huey, Sam Walton: Made in
[50]Glick
et al., op cit.
[51]Gutek
and B. Morasch, "Sex Ratios, Sex-Role Spillover, and Sexual Harassment of
Women at Work," Journal of Social
Issues, Vol. 38, 1982, p. 55-74; B. Gutek, Sex and the Workplace, Jossey-Bass, 1985; D. Burgess and E.
Borgida, "Sexual Harassment: An
Experimental Test of Sex-Role Spillover Theory," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23, 1997, p.
63-75.
[52]R.
Guest, "Work Careers and Aspiration of Automobile Workers," American Sociological Review, Vol. 19,
1954, p. 155-63; E. Chinoy, Automobile
Workers and The American Dream, Doubleday 1955; T. V. Purcell, Blue Collar Man: Patterns of Dual Allegiance in Industry,
Harvard University Press, 1960; R. Blauner, Alienation
and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, 1964; O. Grusky, "Career
Mobility and Organizational Commitment," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, 1966, p. 489-502;
Kanter, op cit.; J. A. Jacobs, Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women's Careers,
Stanford University Press, 1989; and K. Loscocco, "Reactions to
Blue-Collar Work: A Comparison of Men
and Women," Work and Occupations, Vol. 17, 1990, p. 152-177; L. M. Shore
and S. J. Wayne, "Commitment and
Employee Behavior: Comparison of
Affective Commitment and Continuance Commitment with Perceived Organizational
Support," Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 78, 1993, p. 774-780; J. E. Wallace, "Organizational
and Professional Commitment in Professional and Nonprofessional Organizations," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, 1995, p. 228-255; R. P.
Settoon, N. Bennett, and R. C. Liden, "Social Exchange in
Organizations: Perceived Organizational
Support, Leader-Member Exchange, and Employee Reciprocity," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81,
1996, p. 219-227. For reviews, see W. T.
Markham, S. L. Harlan, and E. J. Hackett, "Promotion Opportunity in
Organizations: Causes and Consequences,"
Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, Vol. 5, 1987, p. 223-87 and D. D. Bielby, "Commitment to
Work and Family," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 18,
1992, p. 281-302.
[53]See,
for example the testimony of the following Division 1 managers: Harris (former
Executive Vice President, Operations) depo., p. 82-84, 213, 223-233; Haworth
(Executive Vice President, Operations), p. 90-92; Pharr (Divisional Sr. Vice
President) depo., p. 174-175; Schwindt (Divisional Sr. Vice President) depo.,
p. 132-139, 195-196; Maines (Regional Vice President) depo., p. 206-208;
Williams (Regional Vice President) depo., p. 168-172; Ludwig (District Manager)
depo., p. 149-151; Kintzele (District Manager) depo., p. 46-47; Raps (Store
Manager) depo., p. 125-128; Harper depo., p. 212-214. Store Manager Jesse James Brown testified
that during his years in management at Wal-Mart, he has never been overruled by
anyone in higher-level management for any personnel decision (Brown depo., p.
299). Mr. Harper testified that there is
no written policy governing exceptions to the guidelines, that there is no
system in place or analysis conducted to assess whether the guidelines are
followed, and that no exception report is generated for promotion decisions
regarding selection into management trainee and high level management positions
(Harper depo., p. 212-215, 224-225).
[54]Harper
depo., p. 142-145; Harris depo., p. 210-213.
[55]Mireles
depo., p. 155-159, 180-182.
[56]R. D.
Gatewood and H. S. Field, Human Resource
Selection, Third Edition, Dryden Press, 1994; and H. G. Heneman, III, R. L.
Heneman, and T. A. Judge Staffing
Organizations, Second Edition, Mendota House and Richard D. Irwin,
1997.
[57]Shatz
depo., p. 66-72; Harper depo., p. 15-19; FYE 2003 Field Non-Exempt Associate
Pay Guidelines, p. 5 (BATES WMHO366905).
[58]Shatz
depo., p. 66-67.
[59]Harper
depo., p. 51; FYE 2003 Field Non-Exempt Associate Pay Guidelines, p. 10 (BATES
WMHO366910); Scantlin depo., p. 91.
[60]Arnold
depo., p. 149-150; Harper depo., p. 51-55; Seaman depo., p. 253; Shatz depo.,
p. 82, 86-89. Company guidelines also
specify a shift differential of fifty cents, with District Manager approval
required for any differential over that amount (Pay Guidelines, p. 9). However, Mr. Shatz, who pays a one dollar
differential in his store, testified that he did so without District Manager
Approval and that he has never sought approval from a District Manager for any
pay adjustment he has given (Shatz depo., p. 84-85).
[61]Shatz
depo., p. 105-106; Ellison depo., p. 266-267; Raps depo., p. 256-250. District Manager Bernard Seaman was not aware
of any guidelines about how to make decisions about merit raises or when merit
raises should be given (Seaman depo., p. 253, 258-259).
[62] Heneman, Heneman, and Judge op cit.; L. S. Kleiman and K. J. Clark, "An
Effective Job Posting System," Personnel
Journal, Vol. 63 (February), 1984, p. 20-25; J. Z. Levine, "Job
Posting Practices," Personnel,
Vol. 61 (November/December), 1994, p. 48-52; W. Markham, S. Harlan, and E.
Hackett, "Promotional Opportunity in Organizations: Causes and Consequences," p. 223-287 in Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, edited by K. Rowland and G. Ferris, Jai Press, 1987; J.P. Rudin and J. W. Boudreau,
"Information Acquisition in Promotion Decisions," Human Relations, Vol. 49, 1996, p.
313-325.
[63]Harper
depo., p. 116-117. Also see Harper
depo., p. 153-154. Similarly, former
People Division Vice President Andrew Wilson testified that posting of hourly
positions was done so that employees in stores that might have as many as six
hundred employees could become aware of which positions were available. He testified that it was the company's view
that "it would encourage our associates to be able to know the jobs that
were open and be able to apply for those jobs" (Wilson depo., p. 133-134).
[64]Peterson
depo., p. 162.
[65]Peterson
depo., p. 166-167. Similarly, People
Director Bob Monfils testified that posting of open District Manager and Store
Manager positions helps ensure that the most qualified individuals apply for
and are selected for these positions and allows all employees to feel they have
a fair chance to apply (Monfils depo., p. 141-142).
[66]Wilson
depo., p. 133-134; Peterson depo., p. 157-158; Weaver depo., p. 52-55 (paper
posting of department manager lead and office supervisor positions in stores
where she worked). Posting of hourly
positions at Sam's Club began in approximately 1999 (Haworth depo., p.
50-51). Prior to the posting policy, one
way openings were filled was for a manager to approach an employee considered
to be a good performer and ask that person if he or she wanted the position
(Weaver depo., p. 56-57).
[67]Harper
depo., p. 118-119; Haworth depo., p. 88; Harris depo., p. 174-175. Mr. Harper was not aware of any analysis by
the company on the frequency with which Store Managers depart form the posting
policy. He testified that he was aware
that complaints about lack of posting is one of the allegations in this
litigation, and to his knowledge no effort has been made to find out if it is
true (Harper depo., p. 119-120).
[68]Harper
depo., p. 122-124.
[69]Weaver
depo, p. 91-92. Under the policy, the
position vacated by that supervisor would be posted (Weaver depo., p. 112).
[70]Kintzele
depo., p. 40; Peterson depo., p. 157-158; Management Career Selection Guide
(BATES WMHO217238-217240). A limited
test posting program for management trainees was tried for one week in January
2003 (Haworth depo., p. 49-50).
[71]Harper
depo., p. 160-163; Kintzele depo., p. 41-42; Peterson depo., p. 160-161;
Monfils depo., p. 145-146; Mitchell depo., p. 161-163, 169-170; Butler depo.,
p. 171; Martinez depo., p. 157-158; Scantlin depo., p. 141, 145; Seaman depo.,
p. 148. According to the July 2000
version of the MCS Training Manual, Co-Manager and Assistant Manager positions
in Division 1 "may be posted on an exception only basis" with prior
approval from the RPM's People Director (BATES WMHO349584; Monfils depo., p.
150-152). Mr. Harper testified that he
did not know why Store Manager and hourly promotions were posted, but management
trainee positions were not. He was not
aware of any discussions in the company about why this is the case, outside of
discussions with attorneys (Harper depo., p. 180-181).
[72]Harper
depo., p. 151-153, 155-157.
[73]Harper
depo, p. 157-160; Mitchell depo., p. 153-159.
[74]Grimm
depo., p. 232-233; Haworth depo., p. 56-57; Reeves depo., p. 159-160; Spragg
depo., p. 182-183.
[75]Mains
depo., p. 196-197; Reeves depo., p. 156-157; Drogin Report, Table 16.
[76]D.
Carter depo., p. 260-264.
[77]
[78]Harris
depo., p. 233-236; Harper depo., p. 233-234, 238-242.
[79]Harper
depo., p. 247-249.
[80]Walton
op cit., p. 217-218.
[81]
[82]Curran
depo., p. 25-26.
[83]Harper
depo., p. 242-243.
[84]
[85]Harris
depo., p. 238-239;
[86]Coughlin
depo., p. 157-158.
[87]L. Stinchcombe, "Social Structure and
Organizations," p. 142-93 in Handbook
of Organizations, edited by J. G. March, Rand McNally, 1965; M. T. Hannan
and J. H. Freeman, "Structural Inertia and Organizational Change," American Sociological Review, Vol. 43,
1984, p. 143-164; J. N. Baron, "Organizational Evidence of Ascription in
Labor Markets," in New Approaches to
Economic and Social Analyses of Discrimination, edited by R. Cornwall and
P. Wunnava, Praeger, 1991. The
concept of organizational inertia has been applied in scientific studies
conducted in a wide range of industrial settings. See, for example, J. Roggema and M. H. Smith,
"Organizational Change in the Shipping Industry: Issues in the Transformation of Basic
Assumptions," Human Relations,
Vol. 36, 1983, p. 765-790; E. Abrahamson and C. J. Fombrun,
"Macrocultures: Determinants and
Consequences," Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 19, 1994, p. 728-755; L. Gardenswartz and A. Rowe,
"Diversity Management: Practical
Application in a Health Care Organization," Frontiers of Health Services Management, Vol. 11, 1994, p. 36-40;
G. T. Fairhurst, S. Green, and J. Courtright, "Inertial Forces and the
Implementation of a Socio-technical Systems Approach: A Communication Study," Organization Science, Vol. 6, 1995, p.
168-185; C. Doucouliagos, "Conformity, Replication of Design and Business
Niches," Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, Vol. 30, 1996, p. 45-62; and M.. Ruef,
"Assessing Organizational Fitness on a Dynamic Landscape: An Empirical Test of the Relative Inertia
Thesis," Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 18, 1997, p. 837-853.
[88]P. Doeringer and M. Piore, Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis, D. C. Heath, 1971
[89]P. G.
Devine, "Stereotypes and Prejudice:
Their Automatic and Controlled Components," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56, 1989; S. T.
Fiske, M. Lin, and S. L. Neuberg, "The Continuum Model: Ten Years
Later," p. 231-54 in Dual Process
Theories in Social Psychology, edited by S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, Guilford
Press, 1999.
[90]T. E.
Nelson, M. Acker and M. Manis, "Irrepressible Stereotypes," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 32, 1996, p. 13-38; J. L. Eberhardt and S. T. Fiske, "Motivating
Individuals to Change: What Is a Target
to Do?" p. 369-415 in Stereotypes
and Stereotyping, edited by C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, and M. Hewstone,
Guilford Press, 1996; A. M. Konrad and F. Linnehan, "Formalized HRM
Structures: Coordinating Equal
Employment Opportunity or Concealing Organizational Practices?" Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38,
1995, p. 787-829; T. F. Pettigrew and J. Martin, "Shaping the Organizational
Context for Black American Inclusion," Journal
of Social Issues, Vol. 43, 1987, p. 41-78; G. R. Salancik and J. Pfeffer,
"Uncertainty, Secrecy, and the Choice of Similar Others," Social Psychology, Vol. 41, 1978, p.
246-55; C. T. Schreiber, K. F. Price, and A. Morrison, "Workforce
Diversity and the Glass Ceiling:
Practices, Barriers, Possibilities," Human Resource Planning,
Vol. 16, 1993, p. 51-69; P. E. Tetlock, "Accountability: The Neglected Social Context of Judgment and
Choice," p. 297-332 in Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, edited by L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw,
Jai Press, 1985; P. E. Tetlock and J. I. Kim, "Accountability and Judgment
Processes in a Personality Prediction Task," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, 1987, p.
700-709; P. E. Tetlock, "The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and
Choice: Toward a Social Contingency
Model," Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 25, 1992, p. 331-376; Reskin, op cit.; P. M. Tetlock and M. Lerner, "The Social Contingency
Model: Identifying Empirical and
Normative Boundary Conditions on the
Error-and-Bias Portrait of Human Nature," p. 571-585 in Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology,
edited by S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, Guilford Press, 1999; W. Bielby, 2000, op cit.
To see how human resource professionals apply these principles in the
design of personnel systems, Gatewood and Field, op cit.; and Heneman, Heneman, and Judge op cit.
[91]L. B.
Edelman, "Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights
Law," American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 97, 1992, p. 1531-1576; L. B. Edelman, S. Patterson, E. Chambliss, and H.
S. Erlanger, "Legal Ambiguity and the Politics of Compliance: Affirmative Action Officers' Dilemma," Law and Policy, Vol. 13, 1991, p. 73-97;
L. B. Edelman, H. S. Erlanger, and J. Lande, "Employers' Handling of
Discrimination Complaints: The Transformation of Rights in the Workplace,"
Law & Society Review, Vol. 27,
1993, p. 497-534; L. B. Edelman, Lauren B. and S. Petterson, "Symbols and
Substance in Organizational Response to Civil Rights Law," in Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility, 1999; M. E. Heilman, " Sex Stereotypes and their Effects in
the Workplace: What We Know and What we Don't Know," Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 10, 1995, p. 3-26;
J. S. Leonard, "Women and Affirmative Action," Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 3 (No. 1), 1989, p.
61-75. Also see J. S. Leonard, Use of Enforcement Techniques in Eliminating
Glass Ceiling Barriers, Report prepared for the U. S. Department of Labor,
Glass Ceiling Commission, April 1994.
[92]
[93]Harper
depo., p. 273-280; Ruiz depo., p. 170.
[94]For
example, see Haworth depo., p. 109-110; Bosler depo., p. 120; Butler depo., p.
200-201; Curan depo., p. 100; Harris depo., p. 85; Kintzele depo., p. 188;
Ludwig depo., p. 237-237; Martinez depo., p. 265-266; Perkins depo., p. 84;
Schaffner depo., p. 157; Defendant's Supplemental Objections and Answers to
Plaintiffs' First and Second Sets of Interrogatories, p. 7.
[95]Harper
depo., p. 304-305; Jarrells Porter depo., p. 242-249; Haworth depo., p. 113;
Harris depo., p. 95.
[96]Coughlin
depo., p. 121-123; Harris depo., p. 175-178; Harper depo., p. 37, 88-93 (on one
study of gender differences in base pay among managers), 100; Haworth depo., p.
177-178; Schwindt depo., p. 265; Shatz depo., p. 115.
[97]Curran
depo., p. 89; Harper depo., p. 128, 185; Haworth depo., p. 54-55, 108-109;
Monfils depo., p. 94-95.
[98]Harper
depo., p. 291-293, 302-303.
[99]Harper
depo., p. 293-294, 296-297, 299-300; Jarrells Porter depo., p. 118-120; Ellison
depo., p. 179-184.
[100]Harper
depo., p. 297-299; Butler depo., p. 203; Ellison depo., p. 184-186.
[101]Harper
depo., p. 310-311.
[102]Dolan
depo., p. 71-73, 240-243.
[103]
[104]D.
Carter depo., p. 215-219
[105]D.
Carter depo., p. 219-220.
[106]Ludwig
depo., p. 234-235.
[107]Dolan
depo., p. 243-244. Mr. Dolan testified
that after assuming his position as RPM in 2001 it took him about six months to
get a feel for what kinds of goals were "reasonable numbers."
[108]Brown
depo., p. 207-208; also see p. 159, 161.
[109]Mireles
depo., p. 219; Raps depo., p. 222-225.
[110]Bosler
depo., p. 85; Oshier depo., p. 69-70.
[111]Harper
depo., p. 311-312.
[112]
[113]Jarrells
Porter, p. 149-150. For Division 1, see
Ellison depo., p. 192-194. For Sam's
Club, see Grimm depo., p. 117-118.
[114]Scantlin
depo., p. 72;
[115]Reeves
depo., p. 21-24, 26, 34-35, 38-40, 282.
[116]Reeves
depo., p. 15-16, 34-35, 263-264.
[117]Coughlin
depo., p. 199-204.
[118]Coughlin
depo., p. 200-201.
[119] See, for example, Ellison depo., p. 207;
Jarrells Porter depo., p. 281-282.
[120]Albrecht
depo., p. 56-57, 140; Coughlin depo., p. 187-188; Peterson depo., p. 68,
189-190.
[121]Albrecht
depo, p. 107-109, 142-143; Hobbs depo., p. 185; Sims depo., p. 177-178.
[122]Albrecht
depo., p. 70-72; Jarrells Porter depo., p. 147; Peterson depo., p.
189-193. Although the surveys had been
conducted annually since 1994, Ms. Albrecht testified that the first and only
time she was asked to do a tabulation by gender was in 2001, and at that time
she discovered that the system being used for the survey at that time was not
capable of producing results separately by gender (Albrecht depo., p. 70-71).
[123]Albrecht
depo., p. 55-56.