How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment
By NANCY DITOMASO
It’s easy to believe the worst is over in the economic downturn. But for African-Americans, the pain continues — over 13 percent of black workers are unemployed, nearly twice the national average. And that’s not a new development: regardless of the economy, job prospects for African-Americans have long been significantly worse than for the country as a whole.
The most obvious explanation for this entrenched disparity is racial discrimination. But in my research I have found a somewhat different culprit: favoritism. Getting an inside edge by using help from family and friends is a powerful, hidden force driving inequality in the United States.
Such favoritism has a strong racial component. Through such seemingly innocuous networking, white Americans tend to help other whites, because social resources are concentrated among whites. If African-Americans are not part of the same networks, they will have a harder time finding decent jobs.
The mechanism that reproduces inequality, in other words, may be inclusion more than exclusion. And while exclusion or discrimination is illegal, inclusion or favoritism is not — meaning it can be more insidious and largely immune to legal challenges.
Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider information if it was available to them.
In this context of widespread networking, the idea that there is a job “market” based solely on skills, qualifications and merit is false. Whenever possible, Americans seeking jobs try to avoid market competition: they look for unequal rather than equal opportunity. In fact, the last thing job seekers want to face is equal opportunity; they want an advantage. They want to find ways to cut in line and get ahead.
You don’t usually need a strong social network to land a low-wage job at a fast-food restaurant or retail store. But trying to land a coveted position that offers a good salary and benefits is a different story. To gain an edge, job seekers actively work connections with friends and family members in pursuit of these opportunities.
Help is not given to just anyone, nor is it available from everyone. Inequality reproduces itself because help is typically reserved for people who are “like me”: the people who live in my neighborhood, those who attend my church or school or those with whom I have worked in the past. It is only natural that when there are jobs to be had, people who know about them will tell the people who are close to them, those with whom they identify, and those who at some point can reciprocate the favor.
Because we still live largely segregated lives, such networking fosters categorical inequality: whites help other whites, especially when unemployment is high. Although people from every background may try to help their own, whites are more likely to hold the sorts of jobs that are protected from market competition, that pay a living wage and that have the potential to teach skills and allow for job training and advancement. So, just as opportunities are unequally distributed, they are also unequally redistributed.
All of this may make sense intuitively, but most people are unaware of the way racial ties affect their job prospects.
When I asked my interviewees what most contributed to their level of career success, they usually discussed how hard they had worked and how uncertain were the outcomes — not the help they had received throughout their lives to gain most of their jobs. In fact, only 14 percent mentioned that they had received help of any kind from others. Seeing contemporary labor-market politics through the lens of favoritism, rather than discrimination alone, is revealing. It explains, for example, why even though the majority of all Americans, including whites, support civil rights in principle, there is widespread opposition on the part of many whites to affirmative action policies — despite complaints about “reverse discrimination,” my research demonstrated that the real complaint is that affirmative action undermines long-established patterns of favoritism.
The interviewees in my study who were most angry about affirmative action were those who had relatively fewer marketable skills — and were therefore most dependent on getting an inside edge for the best jobs. Whites who felt entitled to these positions believed that affirmative action was unfair because it blocked their own privileged access.
But interviewees’ feelings about such policies betrayed the reality of their experience of them. I found these attitudes evident among my interviewees — even though, among the 1,463 jobs they discussed with me, there were only two cases in which someone might have been passed over for a job because of affirmative action policies benefiting African-Americans. These data are consistent with other research on affirmative action.
There’s no question that discrimination is still a problem in the American economy. But whites helping other whites is not the same as discrimination, and it is not illegal. Yet it may have a powerful effect on the access that African-Americans and other minorities have to good jobs, or even to the job market itself.
Nancy DiTomaso, the vice dean for faculty and research and a professor of management and global business at Rutgers Business School, is the author of “The American Non-Dilemma: Racial Inequality Without Racism.”
PREVIOUS POSTKierkegaard’s ‘Antigone’
238 Comments
I think that some people have a difficult time accepting how easy life has been for them. I am a leader in a supposedly elite profession: Physician, medical school professor, multiple degrees, etc. I have had a very easy life. While not wealthy, my family was educated and stable, I had almost free access to elite public universities, school was easy and designed for people like me, all that. So it was for many of my colleagues; we are lucky. What I find curious is how many of those colleagues overestimate their efforts and underestimate their good luck. I also find that many of us cultivate a fallacy of agency: that because what we do is important, we ourselves are inherently more important than others. This fallacy can amplify our misconception of our efforts and good fortune.
That said, I do not believe that we should expect to coast through life, or give up - we have to accept what we get and make the best of it. But we do need to be honest with ourselves and as fair as we can be with others.
So much distortion, where to start...
The most obvious reason for employment disparity is not racial discrimination, it is lack of job skills.
And there's so many other types of discrimination much more often practiced than racism - it's not even be in the top five. IMHO, those are 1) ugly, 2) stupid, 3) fat, 4) old, and 5) poor. Ask black people if they'd rather be any of those to know I'm right.
The Prof rambles on describing as "research" what has been doorknob dumb common sense down here forever. The government has done all it can to end discrimination. It already practices reverse discrimination. Further progress has to come from people. You can't pass laws that make people like each other.
If she wants to waste more taxpayer money, she can next figure out that any significant progress on racism will only occur generationally. Granddad was a racist, Dad less so, me only accidentally, my kids not at all, etc. All her research and peer-reviewed pork won't make it will happen faster. It's all a waste of time and brain cells.
And all the other DiTomaso0like racebaiters are a pox on mankind as well for that very reason: the battle is over. Our children are not racists. In fact, they laugh at the DiTomasos of the world.
Duh, yes, Professor DiTomaso, favoritism exists. How else can you explain your doctorate?
The failure to confront and address the cultural breakdown in the black community will only serve to entrench and prolong it.
High drop-out rates, high incarceration rates, broken homes.... these are the drivers of high unemployment.
If the author's thesis was correct, you could extend it equally well to other races of color - but you can't - because, as I said, Bunkum.
The over-arching area of concern is the lack of will by the elites and leaders (Obama??) - who should know better - to at least start a conversation on these concerns.
I have exactly one black connection on LinkedIn, who I met in my undergrad program. If there had been more blacks at my college, then I'd be happily referring and recruiting them to come work with me.
I'm now doing a masters program and there are no blacks in my program. As a result, I won't be referring any black associates to positions I find out about. Instead I'll be referring my white-American, Indian and Chinese associates who I have been working with for the last two years.
What's the solution? Part of it is to get more blacks into college where they can develop those networks. I think think college entrance should be entirely merit based though, so it probably has to start lower down the chain than that -- probably in grade school or high school.
And the sooner we all recognize that these jobs are not coming back (short of total war), the better we can address the consequences.
That's true as far as it goes, but try to get through a job interview or securing such a position if all you have to go on are connections. The author appears to imagine a 1950s kind of world in which there are a wealth of positions available to a young, college educated white person from the 'right sort of family'. Certainly, there are still job placements based on such criteria, but in today's job market it's a lot more likely that the connections one employs to get a job are people able to testify to your skills, experience and aptitude.
What some people fail to realize is something called history. History will show that racism and discrimination has led to our present day issues in AA communities. People are unaware that when laws were enacted that prevented blacks from obtaining wealth, from owning land, when programs like the homestead act prevented blacks from gaining land. When you free a group of people and then actively prevent them from gaining resources, this leads to point were after many generations there is nothing to pass on to ones children and future generations..
However I do believe that today AAs have more opportunities and thus we have to work harder. I do not deny that. But as I can attest to. It is an uphill battle everyday. And college definitely sets on apart but even being a person of color and having a degree. I still find it an up hill battle. Lets face it when I walk into a room full of whites there are some who will judge my skills based on my skin color. I wish that is wasn't that way but what can I do. So I don't deny that AA communities need to work harder.
It is a given that people will actively "help" those that they know and that this does create an element of favoratism. This is inevitable, as it is often quite difficult to hlep someone you don't know, particularly when it concerns job prospects. Even as a student, I have helped many of my friends and colleagues get jobs through the various networks of people that I interact with on a daily basis. As I live in a diverse city, this includes a diverse group of people.
I could see people of my parent's generation finding themselves considerably more segregates simply by virtue of the fact that there wasn't a lot of diversity when they were building their networks, although even this isn't entirely true as friends, colleagues and coworkers of my parents have also come from diverse backgrounds.
In short, I believe this view may be more applicable to C-Suite executives and long-time workers in management, but I would strongly disagree with this premise from the perspective of Generation Y.
Could it possibly be that black unemployment is "driven" by lower than average graduation rates, higher than average families led by single mothers, higher crime rates, and other social problems in the black community that lead to black underemployment.
Looking to blame "social networking", provides just another excuse to avoid the hard look at the real problems underlying the issue.
Are there proportionately less white rappers because of anti-white discrimination? Are there less Jewish basketball stars because of anti-semitism? Obviously not -- it would be absurd not to control for things like athletic ability, height, and upbringing before fingering racism as the cause.
It is equally absurd to automatically assume that differing unemployment rates are due to discrimination. Is the low Jewish unemployment rate (about half the average) due to anti-Christian sentiment?
Her findings also form a persuasive argument against affirmative action policies: if they're causing so much resentment despite the fact that they are so ineffective that in only 2 out of 1,463 jobs were people "passed over" (another way of saying that people were hired due to affirmative action policies), such policies are clearly causing far, far more social harm than their intended good.
This story just points out that people who know one an other help each other. If due to housing patterns, education, a stratified society and other factors result in races choosing to self segregate (ALL groups do this to some degree) why would social networks suddenly violate normal patterns of behavior?
What does this mean other then pointing out the obvious?
You can't be helpful to individuals who you don't know or socialize with for whatever reason.
While working in a totally integrated workplace I observed social networks divided along the lines of job titles and skills not race or ethnic lines.
Upper management seemed to offer helping hands that went to school buddies and old family ties.
There is nothing new in what you write. Of course, you can define racism differently and that is allowed. Your research would be more interesting if you explored white and black expectations using an economic and social status grid rather than a skin color grid. There are enough prep school blacks with wealthy parents to do some real research. What do Obama's girls expect? Do they sound white?
In California, efforts were made to curb Asian enrollments in universities due to "too many" getting in.
We rail against affirmative action, but not legacies in college admissions.
Who are we kidding??
There are pockets where African American networking in government jobs is extremely strong. It depends on local demographics i.e. The U.S. Post Office, the I.R.S. in Chicago among others.
For everyone upset about this practice, remember you do the same thing all the time. Have you ever asked a friend for a recommendation for household work or a good place to eat? Have you ever stayed in the same hotel twice rather than research all available options or eaten at a chain restaurant in an unfamiliar town? There's no difference between this and networking. You're picking winners and losers, potentially harming better local businesses who need the work, because it saves you time and effort while attempting to guarantee a better outcome.
Networking is the most effective way to get a job because it's the best way employers have to find employees they're confident can do the work required. Otherwise, they're forced to vastly expand the number of applicants examined, which includes a huge amount of time, while simultaneously reducing the available information on each candidate. Resumes are designed to mislead and lots of people can succeed in an interview or two. It's much more effective to get a referral from a friend in the industry or pursue someone you know from elsewhere. That it happens to be easier makes the practice all the more appealing.
(1) People of color, on average, don't make as much money as whites, nor do they hold as many high status/high paying jobs. Check.
(2) Not only do people network with each other socially, but those network connections often lead to more lucrative employment opportunities. Check.
(3) We live in a society where our social networks still tend to be racially segregated.Check.
(4) This tendency to racially segregate our social networks leads towards a differential in high paying/high status job opportunities, accessed through socially networked opportunities, perpetuating the historical economic divide between blacks and whites in this country. Check.
(5) People tend to see their unique personal qualities as the reasons which they advance in their careers. Check.
(6) This is why white people don't regognize the role which social networking has had in their own economic advancement compared to others of other races, nor the machinations of institutional racial inequality. Check.
My question is why did the New York Times publish an essay whose points were so painfully obvious?
I am an officer in a volunteer organization that was sued for multiple forms of alleged discrimination, one of which was age discrimination. We hired a 35-year-old woman as general manager to replace a 62-year-old man whom we had terminated (for failure to do his job). There were several months between the termination and the hiring of the replacement. The governing board would much have preferred not to have to expend the considerable effort to find a new manager. By the time the case was settling (a euphemism for legal extortion) she had left and we had hired someone older than the guy we terminated.
You disagree with the premise so the research was false.
You compare blacks to Asians yet only one of those groups was enslaved and openly discriminated against in the U.S. And it wasn't the Asians.
This gem is my favorite, try to read this twice without laughing out loud:
... In fact, the ONLY people on earth that are make a fetish out of NOT showing racial favoritism are whites. ...
Enjoy your day people.
I recently helped my nephew land a job with a good company in New York because I happened to know the Vice President. The kid is competent.
Should I have also put out an ad on Craigslist to advertise that job for the public to level the playing field?
You are writing about social networking as if it's a new phenomenon. It's not. It's as old as the human race and it will continue this way.
We help people we know, not people we don't.
But it does have detrimental effects on those people who don't have the same opportunities. That's why there are laws in some financial markets against insider trading - to give everyone involved in the market a fair shot. Of course, the idea that most people who have information about a stock that will significantly affect it's performance won't use this info for their own benefit, or share with friends and family, is a farce. But at least the laws make people aware that capitalizing on information that isn't available to the general public is detrimental to a free market.
Affirmative action does the same thing: counteract our natural inclinations to only help those like us, to the detriment of those who haven't been blessed with having the right friends in the right places.
Educationis important; there have been articles on how those fromlower economic classes often have no useful coaching as to how to obtain aid to attend college otr where to apply; they have no family members who are familiar with the procedures and no adequate guidance. If they are able to successfully complete a four year college, at least they may also have opportunity to break into some useful networks
This isn't crying racism, it's confronting an aspect of hiring that has been first, always been in existence, and secondly, is an unspoken and generally invisible barrier.
Just a side comment - I think that Civil Service has traditionally been one way up for many working class families. One where connections may still matter, but can be overcome. Now that public employment has given way in many places to temporary contracted services, that route has been limited.
What I do not have a clue about is how to confront this - other than focusing on education, beginning early in life.
Consider Ms. Nancy Ditomaso. Like quite a number of people in the identity politics industry, she is white and holds a highly coveted position. (I took the liberty of looking up her bio at Rutgers where she's Professor and Vice Dean at the Business School, having a primary research interest in "Diversity in Organizations. )
If one's living is made in the business of solving diversity problems, it is only natural that one will tend to discover new such problems and exaggerate their importance. In this case, Ms. Ditomaso has uncovered a new boogeyman -- social networking -- which purportedly discriminates against African Americans.
She claims that her research supports this claim. Unfortunately she does not cite any specifics, other than "all but a handful" (of people she supposedly researched) used "used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they held over their lifetimes."
This proves precious little, other than that the diversity industry is self-perpetuating, and that the standards of scientific inquiry are very watered down in the social sciences, and at business schools, and especially where the two intersect.
A key element missing in the article was the experience of immigrants. Immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean have about the same unemployment rate as Whites. How does this article explain this, much less the unemployment rate for other immigrant communities?
Oh, never mind!
They know that every black employee has the option to go to the HR department or a government agency to claim discrimination, and that will cause the company thousands of dollars to defend.
Even when black employees do not follow this path, it is still a hammer that is always hanging over the business owners' heads.
We even see this with our black president. Every disagreement is now claimed to be based on racism. Rather than improving the situation, electing a black man as president has only served to drive a wedge between races.
The problem with affirmative action is that it attempts to legitimize racial discrimination if it's for a good reason.