The Kennedy-Johnson Act of 1964 opened up immigration from Asia, which had been restricted by the Immigration Act of 1917 and the First Quota law of 1921. It also set up a preference system for professionals; the influx of Asian scientists and engineers rose 182% as a result.[7]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), headed today by a South Asian, Dr. Joy Cherian. Title VII of the law made the EEOC a watchdog of fair hiring among corporations with federal contracts. It should be noted, however, that Title VII does not prevent discrimination against non-citizens. After a long fight, Indian-Americans did win classification as a disadvantaged minority by the Small Business Administration.[8]

In general, the South Asian immigrants after 1965 were largely well-educated, highly-skilled professionals -- not entrepreneurs.[9] Another large sub-group of the foreign professionals, discussed by Bradley Parlin in his book Immigrant Professionals in the United States, were foreign students who converted their F-visas to permanent resident status. (Approximately half of foreign students do not return to their home nation after their studies are over.[10]) The total Indian-American population in the United States was estimated at over 500,000 in 1985.[11]

The subject of employment discrimination is different from others in Asian American Studies in the sheer quantity of information available on the topic. A wealth of literature exists about racial discrimination in employment and it spans a broad range of fields, from sociology to ethnic studies to economics to civil rights to the domain of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In contrast, very little has been written about the difficulties of immigrant professionals seeking work, or specifically about the discrimination against the South Asian population.

On one hand, South Asians have shared with other Asian immigrants an ethnic visibility that lends itself to discrimination. On the other hand, members of the post-'65 wave of South Asians were, by and large, not as economically disadvantaged as the previous Asian immigrants. However, across ethnic and cultural boundaries, we find a great deal of common experience, and ethnic entrepreneurship is no exception, according to Light:

... the social histories of Americans of Chinese and Japanese descent offer empirical illustration of the manner in which poverty, discrimination, and ethnic visibility stimulated business proprietorship among some disadvantaged immigrants.[12]

Light gives a familiar empirical example to illustrate how discrimination results in entrepreneurship:

The Chinese did not "by nature" gravitate into laundry and restaurant businesses. Since World War II, salaried white collar jobs have become increasingly available to college-educated Chinese-Americans who prefer these jobs to self-employment in restaurants, curio stores, or laundries. The classic small businesses of prewar Chinese were, in this sense, monuments to the discrimination that had created them.[13]

In other words, a cultural explanation of the Chinese propensity to open up laundries and restaurants would try to pin this tendency upon a constant, Chinese culture. Altering variable conditions, such as the availability of white collar jobs to Chinese-Americans, should not change the employment profile of the community. However, when these jobs became available, Chinese-Americans preferred them over the laundry or restaurant business. Obviously, it is not inherent in Chinese culture to be self-employed in those businesses; a structural explanation emerges, that discrimination and other barriers to Chinese employment caused them to become entrepreneurs.

Light points out that the sansei (Japanese immigrant) experience was similar:

Although a culturally derived preference for self-employment clearly supported this development, the Japanese interest in commercial self-employment was also a plain response to a discriminatory opportunity structure which precluded wage or salary employment at nonmenial levels.[14]

Although South Asians were certainly able to get employment at non-menial levels, they, too, faced discriminatory opportunity structures that ultimately contributed to a high rate of entrepreneurship.

South Asian entrepreneurship has also ended up feeding on itself: others have learned by example. Gannon explained, "...particular ethnic groups such as the Chinese and the Jews produce a disproportionate number of entrepreneurs, at least in part because the children see visible and successful examples early on in life."[15] South Asians' concentration in certain geographic areas and industries has encouraged such interaction, and so has their small business success.

Discrimination is not the only cause of ethnic entrepreneurship. One obvious and lucrative area for immigrant entrepreneurship is the market for ethnic goods. South Asians are in a better position to import South Asian specialty spices, desserts, ingredients, other foods, movies, tapes, clothing, and other goods than Americans; they know more about the market and have more business contacts back in South Asia.[16] Because of their experience with both areas of international business, export of U.S. goods to South Asia is another profitable area for South Asian entrepreneurship. Manufacturing of goods sold in the U.S. can sometimes be done at a lower cost of labor in South Asia. I shall focus mainly on the phenomenon of immigrant and ethnic entrepreneurship in more mainstream business niches.

Various other factors relating to the immigrants themselves, not American business, have aided ethnic entrepreneurship. Ethnic solidarity, in particular, has empirically stimulated independent business.[17] A good example of ethnic economic unity was the presence of rotating credit associations among Chinese, Japanese, and West Indians.[18] Among the Japanese, these were formed within kenjinkai , or social groups based on regional origin. Other examples can be found of the massive community support within the Chinese and Japanese immigrant communities. Due to community support, Chinese and Japanese were able to stay almost entirely off welfare rolls after the Great San Francisco Quake of 1906. The same was true of the Japanese after World War II.[19]

One helpful feature of South Asian culture is the extended family tradition of economic support and pooled financial resources.[20] South Asian family members often helped relatives start enterprises in their industries; Koos gives the example of the South Asian-owned garment manufacturing firms.[21] Family firms had many advantages: use of family labor without payment, loyalty, good communication, trust, pooled economic resources as a cheap capital source, and extensive contacts.[22, 23] This is especially true in the case of the Patel motels.[24] Parallels exist within other ethnic groups. In the Chinese immigrant community, clan "cousins," members of the same Cantonese clan, were partners and co-owners of Chinese firms. Exclusively fellow clansmen were hired.[25]

The home country's employment outlook played a major part in the influx of South Asian professionals. India couldn't absorb all the professionals being produced in the '60s and '70s.[26] Not enough jobs existed, and getting those that did required wading through fierce competition due to India's large population. Therefore, many well-educated South Asians left in what was initially feared to be a "brain drain," but since has come to be regarded as a "brain gain" for the U.S. and not much of a loss for India's static economy.

It is important to remember that many South Asian immigrants were professionals in the first place, highly educated with high aspirations.[27, 28] From 1966 to 1980, 95% of Indian immigrants were professionals, and some 80% spoke English.[29] Some had sacrificed good positions in India for better opportunities abroad, and they weren't going to settle for bumping their heads on the "glass ceiling" of invisible but present racial discrimination in corporations.

Those who decided to immigrate were already risk-takers, often trading off job security for economic potential, just like entrepreneurs.[30, 31] Similarly, they were more independent, sacrificing close extended family ties in their homeland for the opportunity of America. Such social independence is a common entrepreneurial characteristic.[32]

South Asians' sojourner mentality, a belief that temporary sacrifice in a foreign country would result in riches once they returned to their homeland, made them willing to work harder than normal.[33] Those that were poor upon arrival in the U.S. often wanted to start a lucrative small business to accelerate their accumulation of wealth.[34] Although often more financially secure, unmarried South Asian immigrant professionals had no families to go home to, so they worked long hours at their jobs to relieve the loneliness.[35] Indeed, successful entrepreneurs need to work so hard that they rarely take holidays, have few hobbies, waste little time, and don't smoke, drink, or use drugs.[36] This characteristic lifestyle is not seen as desirable by most people.

Markets, culture, nation, and characteristics of immigrants: all facilitated ethnic entrepreneurship in the United States. However, they all apply most strongly to first-generation immigrants, and they will fade in importance to future generations. More permanent by far are the structural barriers against ethnic promotion in modern-day business, ramparts which guide immigrants in to business on their own.

I intend to show how structural mechanisms in corporations prevent South Asians from advancing in American corporations. They encounter the insidious "glass ceiling" of corporate advancement and decide to drop out and form an enterprise of their own.

Is racial discrimination in the big-business world a significant factor? According to Mohapatra, his survey results "suggest that in general most Indians are probably discriminated against in the job market," 60% in the administrative category and 45% in the technical category.[37]

Immigrants in general, and ethnic groups like South Asians, are not "popular minorities" like African-Americans, Hispanics, and women. Therefore, they are effectively excluded from civil rights protections.[38]

The first barrier to immigrant professionals is the hiring process. In light of the fact that many South Asian entrepreneurs are professionals who are switching careers,[39] it is possible that difficulty in employment is a cause for entrepreneurship. A study by the East-West Population Institute found that a great number of Indian-American immigrants were underemployed or not employed in their fields of specialization largely because of discrimination in the job market.[40] In Henry's study of cultural adaptation in Toronto, South Asians cited employment discrimination as the most frequent form of discrimination, mentioned by nearly 47%.[41]

During the hiring process, immigrants are bare-facedly, legally discriminated against on the basis of citizenship status. Parlin quotes the U.S. Supreme Court in Espinoza vs. Farah Manufacturing Co.: "Title VII protects all individuals from unlawful discrimination whether or not a citizen of the United States"[42] -- but "an employer may refuse to hire non-citizens and not be guilty of national origin discrimination."[43]

Given the Supreme Court's interpretation of civil rights legislation, discrimination against foreign professionals is permissible under the letter of the law but violates its spirit. This legal discrimination often prevents non-citizens from even being considered for job interviews.[44] From personal experience, I can verify that currently, some employers do require citizenship for job applicants. I am excluded from applying for those jobs because I am a non-citizen permanent resident.

This legal form of discrimination is bound to increase in the future. The most recent immigration law cracks down upon companies employing illegal aliens. Many business observers fear that, in response, some employers may stop hiring non-citizens entirely and avoid the hassle of proving the legal work status of non-citizen employees.

Parlin's study of recruitment of entry-level technical personnel from college campuses is a good measure of hiring discrimination against South Asians. It included a large proportion of Indians: 47 out of the 95 non-Western non-citizens were Indian, or 49%. This figure for one nation is more than the number of Western non-citizens combined, 46. Of the total 141 non-citizens studied, fully a third were Indian. Therefore, his results should be well applicable to our question. Parlin chose to focus on technical personnel hiring, and all the people in his sample (citizens and non-citizens alike) were engineers, scientists, or mathematicians.

If hiring were done solely on the basis of GPA, non-citizens would be favored, with a median GPA of 2.85 versus citizens' median of 2.64. However, Parlin found that hiring is done on the basis of far more subjective, less fair criteria.

The study's results show that non-citizens are at a definite disadvantage in the employment market. Sixty-four percent of citizens were invited for a plant visit, while only 15% of non-citizens received this invitation. Of the non-citizens invited, 95% acceded to the plant tour, while only 59% of citizens did. A logical explanation would be that non-citizens had fewer employment opportunities to pursue than did citizens.

After the plant tour, 75% of citizens were offered employment, but only 55% of non-citizens were. Again showing the differential job opportunities, 82% of the non-citizens offered a job accepted. Only 22% of the citizens did.

The higher proportion of citizens received favorably by the corporation was a finding with a fairly large sample; 621 citizens were initially interviewed by campus recruiters, while only 141 non-citizens were.

If non-citizens are divided into Western and non-Western categories, only 3% of the non-Western non-citizens were invited for a plant tour, versus 39% of the Western non-citizens. All the non-Western non-citizens accepted the invitations; 94% of the Western non-citizens did.

Fifty-nine percent of the Western non-citizens received job offers following the plant tour, compared to only 33% of the non-Western non-citizens. Contrasted with the 75% job offer rate of citizens, these figures clearly show that non-citizens are greatly disadvantaged in the job market. Non-Western non-citizens face the gloomiest chances of employment, and as a large portion of those in the study were Indian, the poor outlook applies especially to South Asians.

The following table summarizes Parlin's most significant results:[45]

	Citizen	Non-citizen	Western	Non-Western
Interviewed	621	141	46	95
Invited to visit	236	20	17	3
Visited	236	20	17	3
Offers	178	11	10	1
Hires	39	10	9	1

Parlin then surveyed corporations recruiting at three different universities to find out whether they attached citizenship-based strings. His findings were that "Over two thirds (67%) of recruiting employers discriminate in some way against non-citizens."[46] To expand his sample, Parlin surveyed 58 midwestern universities and colleges to determine whether their job placement centers were in complicity with the discrimination practiced by corporations. Over half allowed companies to refuse interviews to non-citizens.[47] These employers covered a diverse range of industries, and most claimed to be equal opportunity employers. Clearly, the "equal opportunity" is missing from the employment.

Parlin, so far, has not proved racial discrimination; he's shown low employment opportunity for non-citizens. That provides a big motive for South Asian entrepreneurship. However, Parlin's later analysis reveals racial discrimination as well.

A structural explanation. Recruiters' job performance was evaluated by their success in choosing candidates who were eventually hired by the corporation. They were expected to reflect a generalized corporate image of an acceptable job candidate. Foreigners and non-whites were assumed to possess poor education, technical competence, personal hygiene, interpersonal skills, etc. "The traditional marginality of women, foreigners, and nonwhites in this mid-American community was, in this case, often scaled down and translated into marginality in terms of employability as candidates for employment by the corporation."[48]

Recruiters were also accountable to the operating managers of the corporate divisions hiring the new college graduates. They learned and internalized the managers' unspoken "cognitive profile" of an acceptable candidate and compared it with all potential recruits.[49, 50] Recruiters were mostly concerned with their intuition of how potential recruits would fit into the corporation. (Corporate "fit" is an important concept that Nixon deals with below.) Thus, merit was not the major factor in hiring: "Clearly, technical competence, test scores, grades, and other 'objective' indices of quality become far less important than informal subjective components of the cognitive profile."[51]

The manager's cognitive profile is far more important than the stated job description, and expert recruiters testify that, in order to satisfy managers, they learn what the manager really wants in a job candidate. That often actually runs counter to academic excellence in the case of a manager who wants someone who won't rock the corporate boat. The recruiter then consciously deceives the manager, assuring him that the candidate selected is a corporate wonder, when in reality he may be merely an obedient, mediocre worker -- just what the manager wants but either doesn't realize or isn't willing to admit. According to Copulsky and McNulty, "Hiring practices favor conformity and weed out potential entrepreneurs."[52] This is because "the social structure in big business stresses getting along, going through channels, and not rocking the boat."[53]

Our evidence suggests that in many instances managers preferred subordinates who were neither threatening, aggressive, nor deviated from Waspish [sic] cultural models. Managers sought good subordinates, not competitors or potential replacement.[54]

In sum, because recruiters are evaluated according to their success in selecting job candidates eventually approved by operating managers and hired, they quickly reject potential recruits who are of dubious corporate "fit" -- non-citizens, especially non-Western non-citizens. This structural mechanism promotes conformity in new corporate hires.

Were corporations' stated justifications for discrimination valid or not? One argument was that foreigners receive a substandard education; however, GPAs were higher for non-citizens than citizens, as they were the best and brightest of their nations in the first place. Two, foreign nationals may have high turnover rates as they return to their home countries, which results in fiscal loss. However, the data showed this as false. In addition, non-citizens were offered lower salaries than citizens, so it was more profitable to hire them. Three, non-citizens have visa and immigration problems; but Western non-citizens faced much less discrimination than non-Western ones, so the discrimination was heavily influenced by race. Four, non-citizens have language difficulties. But in order to earn a graduate degree, potential recruits' language skills must have been fairly well-functional. Parlin proved that these arguments were specious, masking the reality of racial discrimination.

Is discrimination in hiring against minorities widespread today? A just-released study by the Urban Institute, "Opportunities Denied, Opportunities Diminished: Discrimination in Hiring" by Michael Fix and Margery Turner, revealed racial discrimination in the Washington, D.C. and Chicago areas.[55] Ten pairs of Caucasian and African-American job-seekers replied to 476 employment ads in newspapers. Each pair presented identical qualifications to employers. In 80% of the cases, neither applicant was offered a job. In the remaining 20%, the Caucasian was offered the job three quarters of the time, the African-American only a quarter of the time. Clearly, in this instance, a color-blind society remains an ideal rather than a reality.

Once minorities get their proverbial foot in the door, does discrimination end? Is it absent on the job? Data suggests otherwise. John P. Fernandez (Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life)[56] explained that Caucasian males occupy 95% of the well-paying, higher-level management positions.[57] One reason, whether conscious or subconscious, why they discriminate on race is that advances for minorities translate into erosion of the most-favored status for Caucasians.

Real evidence of discrimination exists. According to Minocha, "Both Chaddha (1978) and Elkhanialy and Nicholas (1977) reported that an overwhelming majority of Indians, they studied, (sic) felt that they were being discriminated against and that discrimination had negatively affected their career advancement."[58, 59, 60] Mohapatra found that the highest levels of discrimination reported by Indian-Americans in his sample occurred in administrative, or managerial jobs.[61] This is because the technical excellence of well-educated Indian-Americans can overcome discrimination in technical positions. In contrast, managerial positions reveal the extent of discrimination against South Asians for reasons made clear below.

A study by Marilyn Fernandez and William Liu calculated that, after adjusting for age, education, occupation, number of family members working, etc. "income return on investment is lower for Asian Indians, whether native-born or foreign-born, than it is for Whites." (Emphasis theirs.) Despite higher average earnings, South Asians work longer and harder for their income and get significantly less back when compared with Caucasians.[62] Asian-American women also get a lower rate of return on education than do Caucasian males.[63] Asian-Americans as a group, although earning more than Caucasians by living in high-income areas, also are paying more due to a higher cost of living.[64] In general, minorities make less than Caucasians for comparable jobs because of racial discrimination.[65]

J.P. Fernandez' study revealed many other instances of discrimination. Several resulted from low perceptions of minorities' ability. Approximately half of all managers in J.P. Fernandez' survey said that Caucasian managers made minority workers feel like they were hired to fill Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) quotas rather than on the basis of their ability. Approximately 40% of all managers agreed that minority workers' careers may be held up to continue fulfilling their departments' EEO quotas. A fifth of all managers agreed that minorities are placed in dead-end jobs, as compared to 51% of all African-American managers.

Minorities charged subtle racism in performance evaluations. African-American workers with the same job performance as Caucasian workers were rated lower when performance evaluation time came. One Caucasian manager pithily said, "Most minority executives are superminorities -- mediocrity is the privilege of the white male."[66] Eighty-eight percent of African-American managers believe that minorities must be better performers than Caucasians in order to get ahead. (In contrast to African-Americans' responses, only 10% of Caucasian managers believe this is true.) South Asian executives reach high levels of management due mainly to "superminority"-like technical superiority, despite descrimination.[67]

Racial stereotypes. J.P. Fernandez found that some Caucasian managers reported stereotypes of minority managers: minorities use race as an alibi for job difficulties, their different cultural backgrounds makes managerial success more difficult, and they are less qualified than Caucasian managers. Higher-level managers agreed with these racial stereotypes more than lower-level workers. These senior executives set the tone for the company and, by influencing others, strengthened racial discrimination in the corporation.

Those who stereotyped failed to acknowledge that class divisions exist in minority populations as well as Caucasian ones. Thus, minority managers from middle-class backgrounds were grouped with the prevailing view of minorities as poor and solely products of affirmative action.

Many Caucasians assumed that minorities can't function effectively in Caucasian culture, and that the Caucasian culture is the only functional one for corporations. Most minorities are bicultural, rebuts J.P. Fernandez, having learned from an early age to operate in Caucasian environments. Some South Asian managers quickly learn the corporate norms and become almost completely Americanized in behavior: eating, dress, mentorship, time management, etc.[68] They may Americanize their names, adopt strongly competitive values, and otherwise fully adopt a bicultural outlook.[69]

However, the South Asian culture is valid in a corporate context as well. Rooted in intimate extended family ties, its avoidance of confrontation, aggression, and open competition has created cultural conflict for South Asian managers in American corporations.[70] Yet management theorists now say that sensitivity and cooperative approaches to problem-solving are exactly what American business needs. Female managers' style is exactly that, making them more popular, highly-rated, effective, and successful than male managers.[71]

The implicit devaluation of other cultures and backgrounds results in low morale and productivity.[72] This could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, further feeding stereotypes about South Asians' incompetence and hindering their promotion.

Social segregation. Lack of social integration is another major factor blocking minorities from being promoted: "successful integration or 'fit' is a prerequisite to upward career advancement."[73] This is because corporations emphasize social conformity. Numerous studies have found that diligence and excellence alone do not ensure promotion; informal, often social factors determine promotion. Social segregation harms promotability because informal settings -- cocktail parties, golf matches -- are where much of corporate politics is played out:

Important interactions in the corporations, especially in their top echelons, are characterized by a high degree of informality, much of it in an exclusive, clublike context -- luncheons, coffee breaks, social activities, and athletic events. These informal settings are used to test ideas, gain important, at times secret, information ahead of time, and obtain support or the right contact to move ahead successfully.[74]

Regina Nixon's study of African-American managers found that they perceive that they are excluded from the fraternal "club" or "old boys' network." In her survey, 12% of African-American managers felt socially alienated in the corporation, 44% described themselves as marginal, and 44% called themselves integrated.

African-Americans' skin color meant high visibility and thus less integration.[75] Managers in her study believed that African-Americans couldn't interact well socially in higher circles.[76] According to them, African-Americans are raised with a different culture, different norms, different socialization. A so-called "culture gap" develops due to different morals, dress, speech, and mannerisms.[77]

Some African-Americans retreated into self-imposed isolation due to internal conflict over their own culture and identity. Such conflict is natural, given that a Caucasian-dominated business world emphasizes conformity over ability. Bhagat and Kedia tell the story of a South Asian manager who wrestles with himself over his cultural values against laying people off versus his duty to obey his American supervisor.[78] Other managers limit identification with either Caucasians or African-Americans to avoid social labelling by either group.[79] In this sense, corporate fit closely parallels immigrant assimilation in that many of the conflicts and issues are similar.

Minorities sometimes challenge corporate conformity actively rather than passively. As oppressed persons in this society, minorities have developed many survival mechanisms. They are more likely to openly challenge supervisors, be critical of the corporation, and take other risks breaking with conformity.[80] South Asian managers are especially likely to speak out if corporate policy is contrary to deeply-held cultural values, like sensitivity to human needs rather than cold pragmatism.[81] Bhagat and Kedia summarize, "after several years, Indians see themselves as closer to the stereotypical image of a successful white professional -- overly intellectual, unemotional, and somewhat too calculating -- but no closer to wealth and power."[82] If managers perceive that someone disapproves of their conduct, or does not participate in it, they feel uncomfortable and dislike working that that person. Conversely, they prefer working with those with whom they're comfortable.[83]

Caucasians' discomfort in working with different races and ethnicities reduced minorities' effectiveness as managers.[84] Approximately a fifth of all managers in J.P. Fernandez' study believed that Caucasians bypass minority managers because Caucasians are uncomfortable with them; 43% of African-American managers agreed with this statement. Such bypassing causes the colleagues of minority managers to lose respect for them and blocks these managers' advancement.

Studies of other ethnic and racial minorities are well applicable to South Asian managers' experience. South Asians are also often dark-skinned. Although well-educated, South Asians may speak heavily-accented English, whether the accent be Indian, British, or Kenyan. Other factors set them apart in American corporate social circles: many South Asians are vegetarian and carry taboos against smoking and drinking. Social drinking is an executive norm; empirically, Powell found that Mormon executives' religious restrictions against drinking hampered their promotability.[85] As stated above, a manager may feel uncomfortable in the presence of someone who is known to disapprove of alcohol and cigarettes.

Political inexperience. The great necessity for mastering office politics may be alien to young, inexperienced South Asian immigrants. They were raised in a nation where advancement is based largely on achievement, where cutthroat national exams determine who gets a cushy government job and who doesn't. Indian students do well by locking themselves up in their rooms and doing well in private; success on the nationwide exam does not require interpersonal skills or a knowledge of politics. The effect of inexperience may be stronger for South Asians than for Americans due to the greater extent of merit-based initial social placement in India.

Note that I do not claim that social progress after college is based solely on merit; on the contrary, the spread of graft, nepotism, and general politicking in India is well-known. I don't doubt that, had South Asian immigrants stayed in India longer, they would rapidly have become skilled in office politics. I am arguing merely that up through initial employment, social progress in India is based more than in the U.S. upon impersonal measures of academic success.

Lack of mentorship. Minority managers have few mentors or sponsors to aid them in fitting in socially.[86] Mentorship and corporate fit reinforce each other: having a mentor helps managers fit into the corporation, and fitting in well attracts the attention of potential mentors.[87]

Because they don't fit in, minority managers lack mentors, whether Caucasian or otherwise. Minority supervisors do indeed sponsor minority subordinates, but the lack of high-level minority managers precludes this form of mentorship as well. Like so many other issues of ethnic entrepreneurship, the lack of minority mentorship and minority mentors is a circular, "chicken or egg" quandary.

Mentors are almost absolutely necessary for corporate advancement.[88, 89] The following definition clarifies how mentors aid young managers:

Thus, a mentor is defined as someone who takes an active role in the younger executive's upward mobility -- who brings that person along, promotes him, and makes sure the younger executive gets his rewards. Mentors also function to teach younger executives the unwritten or informal rules of company behavior or policy; attune them to company politics and power relations; prepare them to fill their shoes to take on responsibility at a higher level; arrange critical learning experiences for the younger executives; and, alert the "favorite" to the proper sequence and timing of career moves.[90]

Bhagat and Kedia quote a South Asian manager whose mentor teaches him the ins and outs of corporate politics and how to get ahead.[91] According to Kanter, mentors fight for the subordinate, let the subordinate bypass the corporate hierarchy in order to accomplish something, and give their own reflected power to the subordinate. All these functions multiply the subordinate's power.

In fact, the mere existence of a sponsor implies that the subordinate is marked for success. These people are nicknamed superstars, high fliers, water-walkers, fast-trackers, whiz kids, wunderkind. They move up rapidly for several reasons. Their immediate superiors are in a no-win situation: if the "superstars" do poorly, their superiors will be blamed, and if the subordinates do well, it was expected of them anyway. In addition, if superiors promote the "water-walkers," they will have secured the goodwill of someone who, in the future, could turn out to be their own superiors. Therefore, it is in the superiors' interest to promote "whiz kids" as quickly as possible.

Obviously, sponsorship greatly boosts corporate mobility. However, a high-level manager usually chooses to sponsor someone with a similar social background and similar previous and outside social connections.[92, 93] It has also been shown that mentors pick subordinates who are viewed as physically attractive according to American standards. South Asian immigrants fail all three counts, having different social backgrounds, different social connections, and physical appearance that often does not match American preferences for physical attractiveness, the most obvious mismatch being darker skin color.

Religious discrimination. According to Powell, corporate executives report that their values and actions in the corporate context seem to have become fairly secularized.[94] However, these responses may not be telling the real story.

Powell interviewed executives about how they perceived others' religious backgrounds affected their chances for promotion. Executives report that being Jewish or agnostic definitely hinders promotion. This points to discrimination against unfamiliar "quack"[95] or disfavored religions. Westerners are often unfamiliar with South Asian religions or downright antagonistic; a nationally-televised evangelist recently asserted that Hinduism is a form of devil-worship. Thus, although membership in a specific branch of Protestantism and Catholicism apparently has little effect upon executive promotion, belief in Judaism or disbelief in God is viewed as a hindrance. The reasons given (bad public image, non-conformity, and unfamiliarity) may also apply to South Asian religions.

The extent of religious discrimination in corporate mobility is unclear, and the datedness of Powell's study (1969) casts doubt on its current relevance. However, Powell's empirical evidence of religious discrimination in the business world is another factor in explaining discrimination against South Asians.

The mechanisms of managerial "reproduction," according to Rosabeth Moss Kanter, are structural. The negative behavior corporate employees display, including those perceived as prejudice and and sexism, are in many ways created by corporate structure rather than personal "politically incorrect" views.[96]

Moss studied a large corporation which she called "Indsco." This company was widely seen as progressive and caring toward its employees, not backward but on the forefront of positive changes in labor relations. Thus Moss' dramatic results spotlight the persistence of structural problems in corporations which create unfair discrimination.

Uncertainty. One of Moss' major theses was that upper management at Indsco faced much uncertainty in daily life. Corporate life did not fit the ideal of rational managers making decisions on the basis of complete information; business affairs were conducted according to human judgment, not a clear set of rules. Trust, loyalty, social comfort, and communal spirit among the elite management was required to exercise discretion. This ensured good communication and also diffused the blame for wrong decisions. Homogeneity in managers' organizational experience and social backgrounds aided such trust. Homosocial reproduction was Kanter's term for upper management's strong tendency to promote managers socially, culturally, and economically similar to them.

Kanter, Copulsky and McNulty, Powell, and J.P. Fernandez (Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life) all agree that executives tend to promote those who are like themselves. J.P. Fernandez' "managerial cloning"[97] means that currently, top-level executive spots are filled by white males, which in turn reinforces the belief that white males merit those jobs.

Communication. Ease in communication was a major reason for such cloning. In a large organization, communication was easiest, quickest, and most effective with similar people. Shared "cultural capital," as described by sociologists, means better communication. For example, a simple comment at the end of a memo, "There is a tide," could be cultural shorthand for a passage from Julius Caesar: "There is a tide in the affairs of men" -- indicating that an opportunity is at hand to be quickly grasped. This is obviously an extreme example; I do not claim that the bulk of office communication is in iambic pentameter. It serves to nicely illustrate the concept of shared cultural capital and its effectiveness in communication.

Differences in communicative style lead to worse communication. Much research about gender supports the view that "different" styles translate into "inferior." This sociological research holds that women have a different style of behavior than men, for example in conversation[98] and moral reasoning.[99] The difference in style causes structural problems in communication, which creates frustration and causes men to perceive women are not as capable or intelligent. Since these gender theorists are claiming that females develop a culture distinct from males, the logic is fairly applicable to minorities, who have cultures distinct from the dominant Caucasian one.

Performance and potential evaluation. Minorities were also at a disadvantage at performance evaluation time. It's hard to measure the performance of managers,[100, 101] so similarity becomes an important factor. A person with a similar management style can be evaluated more quickly and accurately, whereas someone with a different style of thinking and acting is confusing and is perceived as acting improperly. On the receiving end of the evaluation, South Asian managers are frm a different culture and consequently have trouble interpreting their supervisors' American-tuned feedback.[102]

Performance evaluation is uncomfortable for both supervisors and subordinates; it is difficult for supervisors to honestly discuss strengths and weaknesses of subordinates. This is partly because many supervisors are inadequately trained in evaluation.[103, 104] Supervisors may also deliberately avoid evaluations so they can be subjective in granting promotions.

J.P. Fernandez (Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life) confirmed, "This 'managerial cloning' apparently serves as a risk-reduction mechanism in the face of the nonquantitative nature of potential measurement and the subjective judgment of qualifications."[105]

Potential evaluation, a process similar to performance evaluation, places supervisors in the hotseat of prophet. It requires them to analyze subordinates' past performance and predict their future performance. Again, subordinates with different lifestyles and values are at a disadvantage due to the emphasis on conformity.[106]

Self-feeding cycle. According to Kanter, all these factors combined become a self-feeding cycle. The more closed the inner circle of upwardly-mobile managers is, the more difficult it is to break in; this difficulty is perceived as incompetence and justification to tighten the circle. I explained how inefficient communication and performance evaluation creates frustration and negative perceptions; however, pre-existing prejudices had already made these vital corporate affairs difficult for minority managers by isolating them from the corporate social structure.

In many corporations, upward mobility is valued far above doing the job well. Thus, a manager who has not been promoted due to structural factors, despite competence and effectiveness, will probably be passed over in the future. Executives are gauged and labeled very early on in their careers according to their perceived mobility.

Cycle of powerlessness. Kanter points out that in some cases, the perceived incompetence described in the cycle becomes real. Immobile managers, managers without opportunity for promotion, often become incompetent managers. They exhibit depressed aspirations, low commitment, low self-esteem, non-responsibility, anti-success peer solidarity, social recognition sought from subordinates, chronic criticism, and low-risk conservative resistance to improvement.

Power, in the corporate context, is defined as the ability to get work done, to have access to resources for action[107] -- not the more familiar definition, the ability to dominate and control others. Effective management is based more on having power than in relating well with subordinates. If a manager lacks power, s/he eventually becomes unpromotable, in another self-reinforcing structural barrier to advancement.

Kanter's analysis is as follows. Managers with opportunity become good leaders; managers without it become bad leaders. Promotable managers allow freedom to subordinates for good reasons. It proves that the managers in those specific positions can be replaced by competent subordinates, and thus it's safe to promote them. Giving responsibility to subordinates also trains managers' teams to take over when the managers are promoted.

In contrast, managers without power often become excessively authoritarian and excessively interested in the letter of company policy, not the spirit. Unpromotable managers act domineering and controlling over their supervisees; they have no other arena in which to exercise power, and they feel threatened by a capable subordinate. Thus, denying opportunity for advancement could turn a good manager into a poor one.

Powerful managers are promoted by taking chances with successful, highly-visible projects; powerless managers are busy going through every available channel of authority to seek approval before acting, for they want no mishap that would get them fired. Three major characteristics of activities within a corporation are required for them to contribute to corporate advancement, and all three depend upon previously-existing opportunity and power:

1. They're extraordinary. This requires a position that is already somewhat powerful. Routinized jobs offer little opportunity for extraordinary action; jobs with discretion offer noticeability, which increases power. For example, a common method of increasing power was reorganizing a division.

2. They're visible. Public appearance and perception is more important than substance. However, this requires the knowledge of which activities to select and how to gain corporate visibility for those actions.

3. They're relevant. They must fulfill the immediate needs of the corporation. Again, knowledge of a corporation's broad needs requires social connections inside the organization, perhaps in the form of a corporate mentor.

This paper was intended to provide a better understanding of the reasons behind ethnic entrepreneurship, especially structural factors blocking minority promotion. I do not claim to provide solutions, although certainly some can be inferred from the preceding analysis.

In a way, the barriers to minority promotion in businesses have become an unexpected boon by fueling a skyrocketing new tradition of ethnic entrepreneurship. It will be interesting to see how cultural agents in entrepreneurship are changed by the march of assimilation. It is also up in the air whether minority groups' match with the glass ceiling will shatter the barrier or force a merely cosmetic window-cleaning. In any case, the ethnic entrepreneur is the new new entrepreneur, and from the looks of it will be here for much time to come.

1. Jain, Usha. The Gujaratis of San Francisco. (New York: AMS Press, 1989)

2. Helweg, Arthur W. and Helweg, Usha M. An Immigrant Success Story: East Indians in America. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990) 152.

3. Copulsky, William, and McNulty, Herbert W. Entrepreneurship and the Corporation. (New York: AMACOM, 1974) 31.

4. Copulsky & McNulty 40.

5. Gannon, Martin J. Organizational Behavior: A Managerial and Organizational Perspective. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 1979) 367.

6. Light, Ivan. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare Among Chinese, Japanese, and Blacks. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972)

7. Parlin, Bradley W. Immigrant Professionals in the United States: Discrimination in the Scientific Labor Market. (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976) 2.

8. Helweg & Helweg 147.

9. Koos, David R. "South Asians in the Garment Industry: A Preliminary Study." (South Asia Bulletin, Vol. II, No. 1: Spring 1982) 62.

10. Parlin 5.

11. Helweg & Helweg 63.

12. Light 5.

13. Light 7-8.

14. Light 10.

15. Gannon 368.

16. Koos 64.

17. Light.

18. Light, Ivan, and Bonacich, Edna. Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988)

19. Light.

20. Jain.

21. Koos 62.

22. Jain.

23. Helweg & Helweg 149.

24. Jain.

25. Light 93.

26. Helweg & Helweg 212.

27. Helweg & Helweg 148-9.

28. Minocha, Urmil. "Indian Immigrants in the United States: Demographic Trends, Economic Assimilation in the Host Society, and Impact on the Sending Society." (Honolulu, HI: East-West Population Institute, 1984) 6.

29. Helweg & Helweg 188.

30. Helweg & Helweg 148.

31. Gannon 363.

32. Gannon 367.

33. Light & Bonacich.

34. Koos 62.

35. Helweg & Helweg 158.

36. Copulsky & McNulty 24.

37. Mohapatra, Mahindra Kumar. "Perceptions of Discrimination Among Overseas Indians in America: An Empirical Study." Asian Profile, Vol. 7, No. 2. (Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University, April 1979) 148.

38. Parlin 9.

39. Koos 64.

40. Minocha 10-11.

41. Henry, Frances. "Some Problems of South Asian Adaptation in Toronto.Ó Overseas Indians: A Study of Adaptation. Kurian, G. and Srivastava, R. eds. (Delhi: Vikas, 1983) 44.

42. United States Supreme Court. Cecilia Espinoza et al. plaintiffs vs. Farah Manufacturing Co. Inc. No. 72-671, November 19, 1973 (Washington, D.C.: Commerce Clearing House, 1973) 6024.

43. United States Supreme Court, 6020.

44. Parlin 10.

45. Parlin 22.

46. Parlin 50.

47. Parlin 54.

48. Parlin 33.

49. Parlin.

50. Gannon 155.

51. Parlin 35.

52. Copulsky & McNulty 15.

53. Copulsky & McNulty 39.

54. Parlin 60.

55. "Employers Prefer Whites, Study Says." San Francisco Chronicle 15 May 1991: A2.

56. Fernandez, John P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life: Changing Values in American Business. (Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks, 1981)

57. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 294.

58. Minocha 10.

59. Chaddha, Roshen L. "Problems and perspectives of Career Advancement: A Cross-Section of Asian Indians." (Paper presented at the Stanford Workshop, 20-25 August 1978)

60. Elkhanialy, Hekmat, and Nicholas, Ralph W. eds. Racial and Ethnic Self-Identification and Desire for Legal Minority Status Among Indian Immigrants in the United States. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)

61. Mohapatra 148.

62. Fernandez, M. & Liu 170, 171-2.

63. Woo, Deborah. "The Gap Between Striving and Achieving: The Case of Asian American Women." Making Waves: An Anthology of Writings By and About Asian American Women. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989) 192.

64. Woo 188.

65. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 44.

66. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 62.

67. Bhagat, Rabi S. and Kedia, Ben L. "Coping and Adaptation at the Workplace: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Indian Immigrants in the United States." Tradition and Transformation: Asian Indians in America. (Third World Series: College of William and Mary, 1986) 143.

68. Bhagat & Kedia 137.

69. Bhagat & Kedia 138-139.

70. Desai, Prakash N. and Coelho, George V. "Indian Immigrants in America: Some Cultural Aspects of Psychological Adaptation.Ó The New Ethnics: Asian Indians in the U.S. Saran, P. and Eames, E. eds. (New York: Praeger, 1980) 373.

71. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 167.

72. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 51.

73. Nixon, Regina. Black Managers in Corporate America: Alienation or Integration? (Washington, D.C.: National Urban League, 1985) 3.

74. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 55.

75. Nixon 9.

76. Nixon 10.

77. Nixon 11.

78. Bhagat & Kedia 135.

79. Nixon 11-12.

80. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 295-6.

81. Bhagat & Kedia 139, 140.

82. Bhagat & Kedia 143.

83. Powell 135.

84. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life.

85. Powell, Reed M. Race, Religion, and the Promotion of the American Executive. (Columbus, OH: Ohio State U, 1969) 133.

86. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 55.

87. Nixon 15-16.

88. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Men and Women of the Corporation. (New York: Basic Books, 1977)

89. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life.

90. Nixon 29-30.

91. Bhagat & Kedia 141.

92. Kanter.

93. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 135.

94. Powell 77.

95. Powell 77.

96. Kanter 10.

97. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 103.

98. Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. (New York: Marrow, 1990)

99. Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U P, 1982)

100. Kanter.

101. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 202.

102. Bhagat & Kedia 144.

103. Kanter.

104. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 210.

105. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 103.

106. Fernandez, J.P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life 244-5.

107. Kanter 166.

Bhagat, Rabi S. and Kedia, Ben L. "Coping and Adaptation at the Workplace: A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Indian Immigrants in the United States." Tradition and Transformation: Asian Indians in America. Third World Series: College of William and Mary, 1986.

Chaddha, Roshen L. "Problems and perspectives of Career Advancement: A Cross-Section of Asian Indians." Paper presented at the Stanford Workshop, 20-25 August 1978.

Copulsky, William, and McNulty, Herbert W. Entrepreneurship and the Corporation. New York: AMACOM, 1974.

Davis, George, and Watson, Glegg. Black Life in Corporate America: Swimming in the Mainstream. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1982.

Desai, Prakash N. and Coelho, George V. "Indian Immigrants in America: Some Cultural Aspects of Psychological Adaptation." The New Ethnics: Asian Indians in the U.S. Saran, P. and Eames, E. eds. New York: Praeger, 1980.

Elkhanialy, Hekmat, and Nicholas, Ralph W. eds. Racial and Ethnic Self-Identification and Desire for Legal Minority Status Among Indian Immigrants in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.

"Employers Prefer Whites, Study Says." San Francisco Chronicle 15 May 1991.

Fernandez, John P. Black Managers in White Corporations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.

Fernandez, John P. Racism and Sexism in Corporate Life: Changing Values in American Business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1981.

Fernandez, Marilyn, and Liu, William T. "Asian Indians in the United States: Economic, Educational, and Family Profiles from the 1980 Census." Tradition and Transformation: Asian Indians in America. Third World Series: College of William and Mary, 1986.

Fraser, Edie. Risk to Riche$: Women and Entrepreneurship in America, a Special Report. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Enterprise Advancement, 1986.

Gannon, Martin J. Organizational Behavior: A Managerial and Organizational Perspective. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979.

Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Helweg, Arthur W. and Helweg, Usha M. An Immigrant Success Story: East Indians in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990.

Henry, Frances. "Some Problems of South Asian Adaptation in Toronto." Overseas Indians: A Study of Adaptation. Kurian, G. and Srivastava, R. eds. Delhi: Vikas, 1983.

Jain, Usha. The Gujaratis of San Francisco. New York: AMS Press, 1989.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

Koos, David R. "South Asians in the Garment Industry: A Preliminary Study." South Asia Bulletin, Vol. II, No. 1: Spring 1982.

Light, Ivan. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare Among Chinese, Japanese, and Blacks. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.

Light, Ivan, and Bonacich, Edna. Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Maccoby, Michael. The Gamesman: The New Corporate Leaders. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

Minocha, Urmil. "Indian Immigrants in the United States: Demographic Trends, Economic Assimilation in the Host Society, and Impact on the Sending Society." Honolulu, HI: East-West Population Institute, 1984.

Mohapatra, Mahindra Kumar. "Perceptions of Discrimination Among Overseas Indians in America: An Empirical Study." Asian Profile, Vol. 7, No. 2. Norfolk, VA: Old Dominion University, April 1979.

Nixon, Regina. Black Managers in Corporate America: Alienation or Integration? Washington, D.C.: National Urban League, 1985.

Parlin, Bradley W. Immigrant Professionals in the United States: Discrimination in the Scientific Labor Market. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1976.

Powell, Reed M. Race, Religion, and the Promotion of the American Executive. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, 1969.

Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Marrow, 1990.

United States Supreme Court. Cecilia Espinoza et al. plaintiffs vs. Farah Manufacturing Co. Inc. No. 72-671, November 19, 1973. Washington, D.C.: Commerce Clearing House, 1973.

Woo, Deborah. "The Gap Between Striving and Achieving: The Case of Asian American Women." Making Waves: An Anthology of Writings By and About Asian American Women. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989.