...pressure many women and ethnic minorities experience the workplace when they choose to perform certain aspects of their identity that do not fit within the mainstream culture. Particularly worrisome to this artist and other employees is the pressure that these groups experience when their cultural displays are interpreted as a proxy for their personal values, professional competence, and organizational fit. While the pain and anxiety that employees experience is real, neither the law nor most members of society condemn those organizations that punish employees who wear certain hairstyles, speak in a non-English native tongue in the workplace, display ethnic artwork in their office, or refuse to go out drinking with colleagues for religious reasons. A question of critical importance to courts, corporations, and members of society is whether grooming codes and other constraints on cultural displays are necessary to maintain a productive and cohesive workplace. It is equally important to consider the extent to which such constraints might create a discriminatory atmosphere that violates minority employees' rights.

This essay aims to address both of these questions regarding the costs and benefits of constraining cultural displays in the workplace on legal, business, and moral terms. In this article, we invite legal and organizational scholars to question the legitimacy of cultural profiling, the practice of actively monitoring workers' behavior to assess how well they embody the values of their employing organization and of penalizing those employees who engage in deviant cultural behaviors. First, we introduce the term "cultural profiling," distinguish it from other forms of profiling, and illustrate its occurrence in the workplace. Next, we discuss the underlying assumptions about identity performance and organizational culture that are used to justify formal and informal cultural profiling practices. We then review key arguments that support or challenge cultural profiling at work.

While courts have rarely ruled in favor of plaintiffs bringing discrimination claims based on identity performance, legal scholars have argued that discrimination on the basis of certain cultural displays should be prohibited because it creates a work environment that is "heavily charged" with ethnic and racial discrimination. We add to legal scholarship on identity performance by incorporating empirical research from organizational behavior that addresses the deleterious consequences of workplace cultural profiling on the emotional and professional well-being of minority employees. Drawing upon empirical studies of diversity management, stereotyping, and group dynamics, we describe how workplace cultural profiling often creates an unproductive atmosphere of heightened scrutiny and identity performance constraints that lead workers (especially those from marginalized groups) to behave in less authentic, less innovative ways in diverse organizational settings. We also extend beyond legal scholarship by applying ethical principles to evaluate the benefits and harms of cultural profiling in the workplace, and how corporations can develop policies that more effectively promote the common good. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of this cultural profiling framing for scholarship and practice.

A considerable amount of legal scholarship on identity performance emphasizes the ways in which grooming codes and aesthetic choices influence the treatment of members of marginalized groups in the workplace. (1) Aesthetic choices are an important component of identity performance, as they signify workers' cultural orientations and willingness to conform to corporate codes. However, our discussion of identity performance extends beyond these surface-level displays to encompass the myriad strategies that workers use to simultaneously signify their identification with corporate culture, shape their association with social identity groups, and respond to the pressures of cultural profiling at work. This holistic account of identity performance illustrates the extent to which cultural profiling infuses workers with a heightened sense of self-consciousness regarding all aspects of their cultural and status displays. This often invisible form of "shadow work" (2) serves to comfort employers by signaling that employees are willing and able to fit into the corporate culture without making their employers uncomfortable with their cultural identity and occupational status.

II. DEFINING THE PRACTICE: WHAT IS WORKPLACE CULTURAL PROFILING?

Workplace cultural profiling is the institutionalized practice of actively monitoring workers' behavior to assess how well they embody the values of their employing organization. (3) Workplace cultural profiling occurs whenever an employer searches for indicators of cultural fit or deviance within the organization. We focus on workplace cultural profiling in this article to illustrate how organizations serve as active agents that preserve certain values and cultural uniformity through formal policies and informal assessments of fit, threat, and deviance. Central to our discussion of workplace cultural profiling is the notion of bias. We acknowledge that, in many cases, firms that engage in workplace cultural profiling do not consciously aim to discriminate against any particular worker or group of workers. These firms argue that they create neutral policies that require uniformity and conduct ongoing screening to determine compliance with such policies, in order to serve the interests of their customers (who are drawn to their brand), shareholders (who expect the firm to generate profit), and employees (who benefit from cohesion and predictability). However, deconstructing the underlying intent and impact of seemingly neutral practices reveals how workplace cultural profiling functions to target and marginalize certain workers based on negative stereotypes of cultural differences, values, and style.

To capture the full scope and impact of cultural profiling practices, it is important to acknowledge the layered meanings of "culture," which serve as signals for deviance or compliance. At the organizational level, culture refers to the core values and standards for behavior within an organization or other collective that all members are expected to adopt. (4) At the societal level, culture refers to core values and behavioral standards that vary according to one's geographic location, social class, race, ethnicity, gender, religious orientation, generation, and other identities that take on a distinctive meaning and status within a given society. As individuals carry aspects of their cultural backgrounds into their workplaces, diverse subcultures often coexist within and, at times, shape the organization's culture. Nevertheless, an organization's culture is, in large part, an artifact of the values, beliefs, and preferences of the identity groups that have historically dominated the firm. (5) Thus, strict grooming codes constrain certain aspects of minority groups' culture that take on a unique importance within the larger society and privilege the values and culture of the dominant groups in the firm. These prohibitions impose a discriminatory burden on minority employees that makes it virtually impossible for these employees to have the chance to equally contribute to the corporation.

A. Why Do Firms Engage in Workplace Cultural Profiling?

Employing organizations engage in workplace cultural profiling to control workplace culture. Firms claim that controlling culture enables them to control branding (i.e., the marketing of their products and the delivery of their services) and to control social dynamics in the workplace by fostering cohesion. (6) Most businesses have not shown how a pluralistic workplace environment interferes with the firm's profit motives. However, firms justify monitoring and regulating employee appearance by claiming that they must present to their customers a professional-looking workforce or one that appeals to consumer preferences. On this basis, courts have largely supported formal policies that require uniform appearance standards for employees, particularly in the service industry. (7) In our discussion of workplace cultural profiling, we focus our attention on the firm's desire to foster cohesion and commitment among its workforce. Through this lens, the hidden costs of workplace profiling are revealed; in an attempt to control social dynamics, workplace cultural profiling in culturally-diverse organizations can compromise the very cohesion and performance that it was designed to promote. Strict grooming codes undermine trust and send a message to minority employees that their cultural displays, beliefs and preferences do not conform to the corporate culture.

Employers have a vested interest in attracting and retaining individuals who are capable and committed citizens, willing to put the firm's interest above their own. (8) Talent-management systems are designed to select and reward such workers by promoting those employees who demonstrate competence and possess desirable traits such as full-time availability, a strong work ethic, loyalty, team spirit, and a willingness to make work the center of their lives. Although it is unrealistic to expect any one employee to fully embody these idealized characteristics, firms still use this model image as a metric to guide hiring and promotion decisions. Employees who do not demonstrate such characteristics may be evaluated poorly, denied promotions or raises, or even terminated from the firm. Thus, firm-wide performance-management systems create an incentive for all employees to present themselves as skilled, loyal workers who will put forth tremendous effort to maximize the performance of their team and organization as a whole, even at the expense of their personal lives. (9)

Identifying "ideal workers" and preserving a uniform corporate culture has become increasingly complicated in the competitive, culturally-diverse marketplace. Firms face competing demands of predictability and innovation, which requires them to optimize efficiency of production and delivery processes while simultaneously developing new products and services. (10) In order to ensure cohesion, stability, and control while executing this complex business strategy, many firms intensify their efforts to attract and retain individuals who conform to the corporate culture and possess the characteristics of the ideal worker. At the same time, firms seek to increase employee diversity in order to comply with legal pressures, market forces, and moral demands to develop workers from various cultural backgrounds. (11) These competing desires for predictability (via conformity) and innovation (via diversity) create tensions within many organizations around identifying "ideal workers." While firms screen vigilantly for indicators of fit, it is less obvious which individuals in a heterogeneous workforce possess the values and stylistic preferences that are aligned with corporate culture. As such, workplace cultural profiling becomes even more important in a diverse, competitive marketplace--rather than assume that all employees are committed to the firm's values, managers vigilantly monitor their workers' behavior to determine whether they fit into the firm and buy into the firm's vision, policies, and practices. Workplace cultural profiling intends to enhance productivity and reinforce cohesion within an organization by singling out those individuals whose deviance may threaten the firm's culture and long-term sustainability. (12)

Certain workers are more likely than others to meet skepticism and scrutiny regarding their fit and commitment to corporate culture. To screen for compliance and deviance from corporate culture, workplace cultural profiling relies upon categorization processes to determine who fits and who doesn't, and it uses stereotypes to distinguish which people are more likely to be loyal from those who are more likely to threaten cohesion and productivity. When leaders and managers engage in workplace cultural profiling, they privilege ideal workers who they believe will protect the organization's dominant culture and penalize those who they believe will do just the opposite. Most often, the corporate culture of United States organizations is infused with the values and preferences of white, heterosexual, Protestant, and educated males. (13) People who belong to these dominant identity groups are more likely to possess characteristics that appear, on the surface, to be consistent with the firm's values and standards for behavior. As a consequence, the seemingly neutral practices of workplace cultural profiling, designed to protect the organization's culture, single out members of historically disadvantaged, marginalized, and underrepresented groups. (14) When members of these non-dominant groups display aspects of their identity that reflect different cultural codes, such displays are often interpreted as threats to the core values of the firm that will undermine the cohesion and financial viability of the corporation. (15)

B. Profiling Outside of the Workplace: Separating Criminals from Law-Abiding Citizens

Cultural profiling is similar to racial profiling in that it relies upon the appearance of social category identifiers signaling deviance and threat. (16) Police officers engage in racial profiling by targeting persons who they believe present a threat to the health and safety of the community, based on an officer's use of objective factors, subconscious motivations, and stereotypes. Such targeting occurs despite the fact that this practice disproportionately affects African American and other minorities. (17) Certain minority groups are profiled more frequently than others because they are stereotyped as deviant, threatening, and criminal. For example, African American men are more likely to be stopped by police officers on routine driving checks, and non-white shoppers are more likely to be followed in stores and accused of shoplifting. (18)

The use of profiling in criminal law-enforcement has become more widespread since September 11, 2001. Post-9/11, more Americans support the need for aggressive measures in law enforcement, even though these measures give law enforcement broad discretion to target racial and ethnic minorities based on perceived threats. (19) Scholarship has also explored how post-September 11 immigration restrictions have had a disparate impact on immigrants, effectively amounting to thinly veiled attacks against racial and ethnic minorities. (20) Proponents of profiling argue that racial and ethnic profiling should be employed by law enforcement so long as they are statistically relevant. (21) As a consequence, many racial-profiling practices are considered legitimate, even if the officer's judgment calls are motivated by racism and animus against members of stereotypically deviant groups. (22)

The failure of courts to prohibit racial and ethnic profiling in retail establishments, in the workplace, and in law enforcement continues to reinforce negative stereotypes against blacks and other racial minorities by giving dominant groups considerable discretion to act upon negative stereotypes. For example, even though statistical discrimination and "associational" or "consequential" animus has established that car sales people engage in "retail profiling," retail car sales remain "highly deregulated and decentralized." (23) In the face of the courts' reluctance to restrain profiling, minorities are often subjected to heightened scrutiny and discriminatory treatment in public spaces. Minorities who exhibit stereotypically deviant or criminal behaviors (e.g., women of color browsing slowly through store aisles or men of color driving at high speeds in wealthy neighborhoods) are perceived as potential threats to community safety. In the absence of judicial oversight over racial profiling, innocent people suffer the burdens of negative stereotyping and discriminatory animus on a regular basis.

C. Cultural Profiling Practices in the Workplace

Cultural profiling differs from racial profiling in scope and severity. Cultural profiling is employed with the intent of preserving a uniform corporate culture in the workplace. All employees who are subjected to workplace cultural profiling are monitored for fit and deviance; our definition does not exclude dominant or majority group members from profiling. Racial profiling, on the other hand, is restricted to members of racial or ethnic minority groups who are targeted as likely suspects for past or future crimes. (24) We do claim that cultural profiling practices often have a similar effect of biased targeting toward marginalized groups.

Like racial profiling, those who engage in workplace cultural profiling justify their practices with a stated intent to protect society from the costs of deviance. Yet, we must acknowledge that the penalties of being falsely accused of a crime (e.g., imprisonment) are more overt and acute than the penalties of having one's organizational commitment called into question or display choices constrained. Workplace cultural profiling likely has a cumulative effect on those who are repeatedly targeted as deviant and threatening; it may result in similar psychological distress and lifestyle constraints as racial profiling, but the immediate impact is often far more subtle than that of racial profiling. By relying upon neutral appearance codes and subjective evaluations of fit, firms are able to garner even more support than law enforcement and retailers for the implicit stereotyping and bias infused in workplace cultural profiling.

In the workplace, cultural profiling occurs through both formal and informal practices legitimated over time. Formal cultural profiling takes place during recruitment activities when interviewers screen candidates for critical-thinking skills, personality traits, and personal values, in order to assess their potential fit with job demands and organizational culture. People who fail to communicate that they would fit into the company's culture are not invited to join a given firm. (25) However, even those candidates who are invited to join the firm are subjected to continual cultural profiling, as managers (and coworkers) screen employees' behavior and judge whether their conduct befits the organization's norms and values. Managers try to preempt deviance by identifying and chastising workers whose character, values, or behavior may not be consistent with the firm's culture. (26) Employees often receive formal feedback regarding their compliance with codes of conduct and degree of "fit" into corporate culture during performance evaluations, especially if managers have concerns about potential deviance. (27) These routine evaluations serve as a legitimate reason to engage in cultural profiling by scrutinizing past and current behaviors in search of evidence for corporate citizenship, commitment, and leadership potential.

Informal cultural profiling takes the form of daily observations of cultural displays via appearance, emotion, and group affiliations. Managers' and coworkers' subtle messages regarding the appropriateness of one's self-presentation serve as evidence that informal cultural profiling has occurred. Feedback about cultural fit can take the form of public observations, recommendations, rhetorical questions, and sincere inquiries. Several examples might be: (1) A new employee is told by her assigned mentor that her braided hairstyle may not be appropriate for an upcoming meeting with a conservative client. (2) During a lunch time conversation about the upcoming election, coworkers jokingly tell their peer that he cannot possibly support such a candidate, and that he must be the only Democrat in the office. (3) A secretary is admonished by her boss for...

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.




More articles from Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy
Vive la difference? A critical analysis of the justification of sex-de..., January 01, 2007
What do unions do about appearance codes?, January 01, 2007
Lessons from equal opportunity harasser doctrine: challenging sex-spec..., January 01, 2007
Preservationism, or the elephant in the room: how opponents of same-se..., January 01, 2007
Grappling with "solicitation": the need for statutory reform in North ..., January 01, 2007

Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.

Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication name or publication date.

About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company analysis or best practices in managing your organization, Goliath can help you meet your business needs.

Our extensive business information databases empower business professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible, authoritative information they need to support their business goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting, company research or defining management best practices - Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.