BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//132.216.98.100//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.20.4//
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:20260424T013513EDT-3325DOO8hU@132.216.98.100
DTSTAMP:20260424T053513Z
DESCRIPTION:Ray Reagans\n\nMIT\n\nZooming Out to See the Potential and Brew
 er-Schelling in to Realize it:\n	How Firms Can Sustain Racial Integration\n
 \nDate: Friday\, April 24\, 2026\n	Time:10:30 AM -12:00 PM\n	Location: Virtu
 al (ZOOM)\n\nAll are cordially invited to attend.\n\nAttend on ZOOM\n\n\nA
 bstract:\n\nWe examine the role of organizations in producing stable racia
 l integration. Motivated by Schelling’s model of racial segregation\, we c
 onsider how individual preferences for interracial contact (i.e.\, thresho
 lds) contribute to segregation outcomes. These preferences are insufficien
 t to account for a set of stylized facts that motivate our analysis\, illu
 strated in the table below. The same individual can be found across roles 
 in the table\, yet these settings are characterized by different levels of
  segregation—what people accept in one context may differ from what they a
 ccept in another. Preferences are therefore necessary but insufficient bec
 ause their expression depends on features of the organizational context th
 at can trigger or suppress the desire to act on them.\n\n\n	\n		\n			\n				High Segr
 egation\n			\n			 \n			 \n			 \n			\n				Racial Segregation\n			\n			 \n			 \n			 \n			\n				Low Segregation\n			\n
 		\n		\n			\n				Non-Catholic Religious Congregations (Gamm 2001)\n			\n			\n				Voluntary Asso
 ciations (Oliver 1997)\n			\n			\n				Catholic Parish Churches (Gamm 2001)\n			\n			\n				Nigh
 tclubs (May 2014)\n			\n			\n				Health Clubs (Anderson 2002)\n			\n			\n				Large Corporation
 s (Ferguson & Koning 2018\; Sørensen 2004)\n			\n			\n				High-Tech Startups (Fergus
 on & Koning 2018)\n			\n			\n				Public Bureaucracies (Waldinger & Lichter 2003)\n			\n
 			\n				U.S. Army (Moskos & Sibley Butler 1996)\n			\n		\n		\n			\n				Role\n			\n		\n		\n			\n				Resident 
 / Neighbor\n			\n			\n				Resident / Neighbor\n			\n			\n				Resident / Neighbor\n			\n			\n				Resident
  / Neighbor\n			\n			\n				Resident / Neighbor\n			\n			\n				Employee\n			\n			\n				Employee\n			\n			\n				Empl
 oyee\n			\n			\n				Employee (Assigned)\n			\n		\n	\n\n\nWhile Schelling emphasized the re
 lative size of an individual’s in-group as a baseline against which prefer
 ences are evaluated\, we argue that relative in-group size contributes to 
 a broader validation ecology\, with the linear relationship implied by Sch
 elling as a special case. An individual’s threshold can be understood as t
 he amount of validation required to remain in a setting\, with validation 
 provided by the presence of in-group members. In-group members are both so
 urces of legitimacy and competition: legitimacy increases validation\, whi
 le competition reduces it. The validation associated with legitimacy incre
 ases with in-group size at a decreasing rate\, whereas the loss of validat
 ion associated with competition increases at an increasing rate. These dyn
 amics produce two ideal-typical ecologies: one in which the legitimacy val
 ue of in-group members always exceeds the competitive pressures they intro
 duce (a diminishing-rate ecology)\, and another in which legitimacy domina
 tes initially but is eventually overtaken by competition (a tipping-point 
 ecology).\n\nWe show how the same threshold can produce different outcomes
  depending on the ecology. These ecologies vary across organizational form
 s: those on the left are more likely to reflect diminishing-rate dynamics\
 , while those on the right are more likely to exhibit tipping-point dynami
 cs.\n\nAt the same time\, the same ecology can produce different outcomes 
 depending on features that can be managed within organizational forms. Thi
 s perspective introduces an explicit role for managers. Organizational cli
 mate and narratives shape norms about appropriate levels of group represen
 tation and influence the weight individuals assign to their validation thr
 esholds. Through these mechanisms\, organizations do not merely aggregate 
 preferences—they shape how preferences are expressed and\, in doing so\, i
 nfluence the stability of racial integration.\n
DTSTART:20260424T143000Z
DTEND:20260424T160000Z
SUMMARY:Organizational Behavior Area Virtual Research Seminar Series: Ray R
 eagans
URL:/desautels/channels/event/organizational-behavior-
 area-virtual-research-seminar-series-ray-reagans-372625
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR