Supervisors’ social dominance orientation, nation-based exchange relationships, and team-level outcomes

The prevalence of teams in contemporary organizations and the trend toward diversity in a workforce composed of members from multiple countries have drawn the attention of researchers on the consequences of diversity in workplaces. While there are potential benefits to diversity, relationship conflicts among team members may also result and affect team functioning. The aim of the present study was to explore how supervisors’ social dominance orientation, a tendency to support the arbitrary dominance of specific social groups over others, may relate to relationship conflicts and reduced team commitment within teams. A two-wave study in a sample of 931 individuals from 108 workgroups was conducted to examine the relationship between supervisors’ social dominance orientation and team functioning. Analyses indicated that supervisor social dominance orientation was associated with increased within-team differentiation of leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships based on team members’ national origin. Such LMX differentiation (LMXD) was related to more within-team relationship conflict and in turn to reduced collective team commitment. The implications of these findings for research on supervisor social dominance orientation, within-team nationality diversity, and team functioning are discussed.

A quasi-experimental study of ethnic and gender bias in university grading

This paper contributes to the debate on race- and gender-based discrimination in grading. We apply a quasi-experimental research design exploiting a shift from open grading in 2018 (examinee’s name clearly visible on written assignments), to blind grading in 2019 (only student ID number visible). The analysis thus informs name-based stereotyping and discrimination, where student ethnicity and gender are derived from their names on written assignments. The case is a quantitative methods exam at Roskilde University (Denmark). We rely on OLS regression models with interaction terms to analyze whether blind grading has any impact on the relative grading differences between the sexes (female vs. male examinees) and/or between the two core ethnic groups (ethnic minorities vs. ethnic majority examinees). The results show no evidence of gender or ethnic bias based on names in the grading process. The results were validated by several checks for robustness. We argue that the weaker evidence of ethnic discrimination in grading vis-à-vis discrimination in employment and housing suggests the relevance of gauging the stakes involved in potentially discriminatory activities.