A Review of Diversity 2014

8/17/2019 A Review of Diversity 2014

1/25

Human Resource Development Review

2014, Vol. 13(2) 133 –157

© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1534484313492329

hrd.sagepub.com

Theory and Conceptual Article

A Review of DiversityConceptualizations: Variety,

Trends, and a Framework

John Qin1, Nuttawuth Muenjohn2, and Prem Chhetri3

Abstract

In an attempt to develop a means for researchers to reach a common understanding ofthe substantive meaning of diversity, this article first reviews different approaches todiversity conceptualizations, identifying three common threads that are incorporatedin various diversity definitions. Our discussion examines the variety of diversityconceptualizations by addressing the three key aspects that present two generaltrends that emerge in the literature. We then propose a framework to unify thefragmented definitions and understandings of diversity. The implications for practiceand future research are also discussed.

Keywords

workplace diversity, diversity conceptualizations, define diversity, perceived diversity

As a result of labor market diversification and economic globalization, workplaceshave become increasingly heterogeneous. To understand and, therefore, manage thedynamics of diversity in the workplace, researchers have intensively explored the

impact of diversity (Fieldhouse & Cutts, 2010; Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004; Kearney,Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009; Kochan et al., 2003). Although some progress has beenmade, diversity research is facing challenges, particularly in relation to the mixedresearch results that present conflicting effects of diversity (Bell, Villado, Lukasik,

1The Principal Consultant, Creprot International Pty Ltd, East Malvern, Victoria, Australia2School of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia3School of Business IT and Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Corresponding Author:

John Qin, PhD, The Principal Consultant, Creprot International Pty Ltd, PO 2122 Wattletree Road, East

Malvern, Victoria 3145, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

HRD13210.1177/1534484313492329Human ResourceDevelopment ReviewQin etal.research-article2013

at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on January 26, 2016hrd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/


2/25

134 Human Resource Development Review 13(2)

Belau, & Briggs, 2011; Haas, 2010; Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Mannix & Neale,2005; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Nielsen, 2010; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).

Initiatives have been proposed and developed based on different perspectives,including diversity theories (Nielsen, 2010), group processes (Pelled, Xin, &

Eisenhardt, 1999), and research contexts (Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009; Haas, 2010;Joshi & Roh, 2009; McKay, Avery, Liao, & Morris, 2011). Recently, increased atten-tion has been paid to diversity conceptualizations (Martinez, Ferris, Segrest, &Buckley, 2011; Roberson & Stevens, 2006; Roberson, 2006) and, accordingly, howdiversity is measured (Biemann & Kearney, 2010). For example, it has been arguedthat the positive or negative effects of diversity may not just be a function of the vari-ables or contexts examined, but may also be a function of the way in which diversityis conceptualized (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Mathews, 2010).

Specifically, attempts have been made to clarify the substantive meaning of diver-sity (Harrison & Sin, 2005; Harrison & Klein, 2007; Point & Singh, 2003; Silverman,2010). To do so, researchers have classified diversity into various forms or types: thevisible versus the nonvisible (Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, 2006), the surface versusthe underlying (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Mohammed & Angell, 2004),the high job–related versus the low job–related (Pelled, 1996), and so forth. Veryrecently, to provide a shared terminology or typology to compare different conceptu-alizations, Harrison and Klein (2007) presented a diversity typology, namely, separa-tion, variety, and disparity, and argued for closer examinations on the construct ofdiversity. Thus, in this article we examine the various approaches by which diversityhas been conceptualized.

Despite promising contributions associated with the efforts mentioned above, theseapproaches are still limited from the perspective of empirical evidence and/or theircapability to describe the complexity of the construct of diversity. For example,whereas it seems reasonable to argue different effects between visible diversity andnonvisible diversity, there is no consistent result to support this argument (Christian,Porter, & Moffitt, 2006). In addition, although Harrison and Klein (2007) successfullyallocated various diversity conceptualizations into their typology, their typology wasdeliberately built on a simplistic assumption that a team is diverse only in one personalattribute (i.e., attitudes toward qualitative research, or disciplinary background, ormember prestige). People, however, have multiple personal attributes (Rico, Molleman,Sanchez-Manzanares, & Van der Vegt, 2007). Thus, Harrison and Klein’s frameworkcannot fully explain how diversity is conceptualized in a situation where team members are different in two or more personal attributes (e.g., a team of three: a White male psychologist, a Black female computer designer, an Asian businessman). Focusing onmultiple personal attributes that exist within a group has gained increasing attention(Heres & Benschop, 2010; Mannix & Neale, 2005).

Therefore, how diversity has been conceptualized in research has yet to be explored, particularly where group members differ from each other in multiple personal attributes. To fill this gap, we continue and extend this line of inquiry by making a com- prehensive review of various approaches to diversity conceptualizations. The objectiveof this review is, however, not to provide a universal definition of diversity by


http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/http://hrd.sagepub.com/


3/25

Qin et al. 135

devaluing the precious efforts that have been made by previous diversity scholars.Instead, this article aims to offer guidance, by which one can comprehensively appre-ciate the unique contributions made by all diversity scholars. By doing so, we hope to produce a means of identifying patterns and locating sources of conflicting findings

among diversity studies. Accordingly, this discussion will shed light on the question ofwhether diversity conceptualizations have contributed to the inconsistent results aboutthe effects of diversity.

The second contribution of this article is to present a framework that offers research-ers a way to structurally differentiate various diversity conceptualizations, particularlyin relation to how people perceive different personal attributes and how this perceptionaffects their behaviors. Our discussion proceeds in the following order. First, lookingat key aspects, this article examines the definitions of diversity that are commonlyused in literature. Then, the variety of diversity conceptualizations are discussed withrespect to three key aspects existing within current conceptualizations. After that, ourdiscussion presents the general trends that have been identified and a framework thatemerges from our examinations. Implications for future research are incorporated intothe discussion where appropriate.

Variety in Diversity Conceptualizations

Even a cursory glance at the diversity literature shows a significant variation in theway different researchers have used the term diversity (Christian et al., 2006; Mannix& Neale, 2005; Pfeffer, 1983). While researchers may have conceptualized the termdiversity differently, they have, more or less, answered three questions that articulatekey aspects of the construct of diversity. Specifically, the sources of variation in diver-sity conceptualizations are related to the ways scholars address the three aspects ofdiversity:

• numerous attributes that differentiate people from each other; • the level of construct (e.g., individuals or collectives) in which diversity

situates; • how personal attributes are configured into diversity.

Diversity is about differences of people, and people are different in many personalattributes. While some researchers, such as Pfeffer (1983), have linked diversity withcertain personal attributes (e.g., age, gender, tenure, etc.), other researchers have defineddiversity from a broad sense. For example, Williams & O’Reilly (1998, p. 81) referredto diversity as “any attribute people use to tell themselves that another person is differ-ent (a broad view).” Similarly, Jackson et al. (2003, p. 802) referred to diversity (at thegroup level) as “the distribution of personal attributes among interdependent membersof a work unit.” Given the multiple attributes a person may have, the first question thatresearchers may need to answer is, what differences are of interest to them?

The second aspect is related to the level of the construct of diversity. When definingdiversity, researchers also like to address the question of whether diversity is at the




4/25


individual and/or collective level. In particular, researchers normally mention the levels atwhich the construct of diversity is. For example, Pfeffer (1983, p. 308) described diversityas “organizational demography” (OD) and defined it as “the composition of basic attributes such as age, sex, educational level, length of service or residence, or race, of the social entity under study.” According to Pfeffer (1983, 1985), diversity is the compositeaggregation of the characteristics of the individual members of an entity. While research-ers such as Pfeffer (1983, 1985) study diversity by focusing on the structural properties orthe demographic distribution of a social unit (e.g., a group; Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009),other researchers are interested in demographic characteristics relative to a referent, suchas a group, or research diversity at both the aggregate and individual levels. For example,according to Hobman and Bordia (2006), at the group level, diversity is referred to theamount of variance in demographic characteristics of all unit members; at the individuallevel, diversity is synonymous with dissimilarity and is defined as an individual’s differ-ence in the same variables compared with other unit members. Examining this aspect ofdiversity conceptualization is important, because research that takes different approachesin this regard will be very likely to yield different effects of diversity.

Very recently, researchers have turned increasing attention to different approachesthat explain how various personal attributes account for diversity. For example, diver-sity was defined as “differences between individuals on any attributes that may lead to the perception that another person is different from self” (van Knippenberg, De Dreu,& Homan, 2004, p. 1008). Similarly, diversity was referred to as “the compositionaldistribution of team members on any personal attributes that potentially lead to theperception that team members differ from one another” (Rico et al., 2007, p. 113).The third question that researchers normally answer is, how have differences beenconfigured into diversity?

As shown in the above examination of common threads of diversity conceptualiza-tions, variation in diversity definitions may be caused by the various approaches thataddress these key aspects of diversity conceptualizations. To articulate the relation-ship, the following discussion will review the various approaches of addressing thekey aspects of the diversity construct.

What Differences Are of Interest?

Diversity is concerned with differences (e.g., personal attributes) between people.However, there are numerous attributes that differentiate people. In relation to refer-ring attributes as diversity, there is a trend suggesting a growth in the quantum ofdiversity components. In particular, from the focus on legally protected attributes,such as race, gender, and age, diversity researchers have paid increasing attention tothe multiplicity of diversity that includes the entire spectrum of human differences(Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). These numerous human differences span from group mem- berships (based on identity and on organization), such as race, gender, tenure, or func-tionality, to more idiosyncratic characteristics, such as political background, militaryexperience, or weight (Christian et al., 2006). Recently, one researcher identified noless than 38 possible personal attributes (Rijamampianina & Carmichael, 2005).




5/25

Qin et al. 137

This infinite nature of diversity attributes did not develop overnight. Rather, itevolved gradually. It is not our intention to provide a compressive review in this sec-tion (Bendick, Egan, & Lanier, 2010; Harrison & Klein, 2007; c.f. Shore et al.,2011). Instead, we want to summarize the development in three stages. Stage 1

focuses on equal opportunity/affirmative actions (AA; 1960s-1970s); Stage 2 is rel-evant to managing diversity (1980s); Stage 3 is interested in a business case ofdiversity (1990s-present). In addition to answering the question of what differencesare of interest, this review also explains why and how researchers and practitionershave turned their attention from a limited number of attributes to the infinite natureof diversity.

Stage 1: 1960s-1970s

Although the United States claims to have a 350-year history (Carroll & Hannan,2000), genuine attention on diversity in the country started only in the 1960s and1970s after the launch of the legislations (e.g., Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of1964). In particular, organizations were required to provide their employees with adiscrimination-free work environment (equal opportunity initiatives) and to make aneffort to recruit, hire, and promote people in underrepresented groups (AA initiatives;McMillan-Capehart, 2003). At this stage, equal employment opportunities were thegoal and AA was the tool used to reach that goal.

During this stage, organizations were normally concerned with characteristics thatcould result in workplace discrimination, such as race, gender, age, or physical dis-ability (O’Leary & Weathington, 2006). Diversity attracted further attention resultingfrom similar regulations in other countries, such as the Employment Equality directiveof the European Union, the United Kingdom’s Sex Discrimination Act of 175, and theAustralian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act of 1986 (O’Leary& Weathington, 2006).

While a large number of legislations have been launched, they are, in general, intwo forms. As described at the beginning of this section, the first form focuses onhuman rights, such as equal opportunity; the second relates to AA. Regulations relatedto equal opportunity ensure that employment decisions are made without regard tolegally protected attributes such as race or gender (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). AA pro-grams, in turn, seek to remedy past discrimination by taking proactive steps based onrace or gender, thus preventing current or future discrimination (Kramar, 2005).

During this stage, fairness was the most compelling reason for diversity to be ofconcern (Spataro, 2005). Researchers refer to diversity normally as characteristics thatresult in workplace discrimination, such as race, gender, age, or physical disability(O’Leary & Weathington, 2006). In particular, diversity usually elicits images of racialand gender discrimination at this stage (Foley, Linnehan, Greenhaus, & Weer, 2006).Moreover, except for demographic attributes, there was little focus on subtle discrimi-nation (McMillan-Capehart, 2003). For example, proportions of a particular demo-graphic group (e.g., women) in the workplace were likely to be monitored comparedwith other attributes (e.g., personality).




6/25


Stage 2: 1980s

At stage 2, the cost to businesses of implementing diversity-related legislationsincreased as a result of compliance (Pless & Maak, 2004). To reduce costs, organiza-

tions paid great attention to diversity-related training that recognized differences,encouraging all employees to contribute to organizational goals (Kramar, 2005). Atthis stage, recognized diversity attributes began to expand beyond legally protectedcharacteristics to include a much larger and broader range of individual differences,such as education and values (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).

During this stage, diversity-related topics were mainly associated with the legalaspects, such as the avoidance of lawsuits (James & Wooten, 2006; Pless & Maak,2004). Specifically, great attention was paid to diversity-related training that covereddiversity-related attitudes and sensitivities (Combs & Luthans, 2007; Paluck, 2006).

Specifically, common perspectives of diversity management focused on targetedrecruitment initiatives, education and training, career development, and mentoring programs to increase and retain workforce heterogeneity in organizations (Roberson,2006). In addition, research began to focus on diversity management, such as estab-lishing an inclusive culture (Pless & Maak, 2004).

In the diversity literature, inclusion is a state where the workforce is valued,respected, and supported, and it is based on organizational culture, management prac-tices, and interpersonal relationships that support the full utilization of a diverse workplace at all levels and in all functions of organizations (Giovannini, 2004; Shore et al.,

2011). In particular, research has paid great attention to inclusion and the integrationof women and people of color into the workplace, seeking to understand how well dif-ferent groups are able to move up organizational hierarchies (Pitts, 2006). In principle,inclusion programs tried to remove barriers that blocked employees from using the fullrange of their skills and competencies in organizations.

During this stage, researchers continued studying the effects of social differences inrace, gender, age, or physical disability owing to the growing presence of changinglabor market structures in the workplace (Rink & Ellemers, 2007). However, with thegrowing attention on inclusion and integration programs (Shore et al., 2011), the com-

ponents of diversity broadened the scope beyond legally protected attributes to includea much larger and wide-ranging pool of individual differences, such as education andvalues (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).

Stage 3: 1990s-Present

During this stage, while complaints and legal claims alleging unfair discrimination andharassment at work steadily increased (Jackson & Joshi, 2004), a “business case” fordiversity was argued. A “business case” suggests that actions, such as increasing diver-

sity, would enable organizations to utilize the talents and abilities of all employees,which may be critical for success in an increasingly complex and dynamic businessenvironment (O’Leary & Weathington, 2006). The increasingly diverse workforce isassumed to benefit organizations due to the possible unrealized potential offered by




7/25

Qin et al. 139

diversity (i.e., valuing diversity; Simons & Pelled, 1999). For example, higher levels ofdiversity in an organization may increase the variety of personal viewpoints, skills, andknowledge available to an organization. During this stage, attributes that are referred toas diversity cover the entire spectrum of human differences (Mathews, 2010).

The argument for a “business case” of diversity is based on two theoretical underpinnings. First, it is assumed that organizational capabilities are not embedded in anysingle person, but in the links across diverse individuals (Acosta, 2004); second, it isargued that human resources (i.e., the diverse employees) serve as a source of sus-tained competitive advantage, as they create value that is both difficult to imitate andrare (Richard, 2000). This argument suggests that gaining a sustained competitiveadvantage is best achieved with the people of organizations.

During Stage 3, apart from managing diversity-associated costs, growing attentionturned to the possibly unrealized potential offered by the increasingly diverse workforce.For instance, research began to argue a positive potential for diversity (i.e., valuingdiversity) as a “business case” of diversity that might lead to cost savings, a talentedworkforce, and business prosperity (Simons & Pelled, 1999). It is suggested that thesimplicity and familiarity of the “business case” approach provides managers with asense of comfort that distracts them from considering the ethical imperative of creatingand maintaining a demographically diverse workplace (O’Leary & Weathington, 2006).

As shown in the review above, differences that are of interest to researchers and practitioners have spanned social attributes, such as race or gender, to informationalones, such as education and tenure. In principle, there is almost an infinite number ofattributes that have been referred to as diversity. In categories, these attributes include primary dimensions (visible), which are age, ethnicity, gender, physical attributes/abilities, race, and sexual orientation, and secondary dimensions (less visible) thatexert a more variable influence on personal identity and add a more subtle richness tothe primary dimensions (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). The secondary dimensions aremore malleable, and many of them will change over time. They include education,geographic locations, incomes, marital status, military experiences, parental status,religious beliefs, and work experiences (Point & Singh, 2003; Rijamampianina &Carmichael, 2005).

While the trend toward infinite diversity attributes continues, researchers have alsonoted its limitations. For example, it has been argued that, while referring to diversityas numerous attributes is accurate, doing so may also require great rigor in the theo-retical and empirical work (Mannix & Neale, 2005). In practice, research has mainlyfocused on six attributes: race, age, gender, education, functional background, andtenure (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). After an examination of the various attributesthat are of interest to researchers, the discussion has now proceeded to the levels atwhich the construct of diversity is researched.

Is Diversity at Individual and/or Collective Levels?

While different researchers may have different interests regarding the different attributes of diversity, two general approaches can be categorized with respect to the levels




8/25


at which the construct of diversity is researched (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Tsui,Porter, & Egan, 2002). These two approaches are “relational demography” (RD;Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003) and “organizational demography” (Pfeffer, 1983).Specifically, according to OD, diversity is a construct at the collective level; in con-

trast, RD treats diversity as a concept at both individual and collective levels. It isimportant to differentiate the two approaches of diversity conceptualizations, as thedifferentiation would have critical implications on how various diversity attributes areconfigured to the construct of diversity. As RD developed from OD, the followingdiscussion first examines OD.

Organizational demography

OD conceptualizes diversity at the collective level (e.g., a group or unit; Pfeffer, 1983).According to this approach of diversity conceptualizations, diversity is nothing morethan distributions of a demographic attribute. Diversity is based on the data gatheredon individuals, but it is, in fact, a collective or unit-level property (Pfeffer, 1985). Itdescribes constructs at a level of analysis that differs from that at which the data werecollected (Lawrence, 1997). More specifically, some researchers using OD even arguethat diversity is a compositional construct that does not even exist at the individuallevel of analysis, because an object or individual is diverse only in relation to otherobjects or individuals (Austin, 1997; Smith, Smith, Sims, O’Bannon, & Scully, 1994).

OD attempts to conceptualize the term of diversity from the composition of a cer-tain attribute within a group or social unit (Palmer & Varner, 2007). In so doing,researchers interchange the construct of diversity with heterogeneity/homogeneity ordispersion, which refers to the distribution of differences among the members of a unitwith respect to common attributes (Harrison & Klein, 2007). In addition, researcherstaking OD argue that the diversity of a unit is fixed as long as a certain attribute in thatunit is identified (Pfeffer, 1983). However, while treating diversity as a property at anaggregate level, the OD research investigates the effects of diversity at both the aggre-gate (e.g., group performance) and the individual levels (e.g., individual behaviors;Bachmann, 2006; Rico et al., 2007).

Relational demography

Initially, the RD approach conceptualized diversity as a social relationship between anindividual and the group or another group member as in the case of dyads (Tsui &O’Reilly, 1989). As it was extended, however, it also suggested that individuals comparedtheir own attributes with the attribute composition of a social unit to determine if theywere similar or dissimilar (Riordan, 2000). As RD suggests diversity, a construct relevantto individual-within-the-group, diversity is also a cross-level concept (Goldberg, 2005).

In general, researchers taking the RD approach attempt to study the impacts ofdiversity from the perspective of dissimilarity/similarity, the degree to which attributesof an individual-within-the-group are shared by other members of a social unit (Tsui& O’Reilly, 1989). From this perspective, similarity/dissimilarity cannot be assessed




9/25

Qin et al. 141

without taking into account the demographic characteristics of others in the group(Riordan, 2000). Specifically, RD conceptualizes diversity as an individual’s distancefrom the other group members, rather than with the amount of diversity within thegroup (Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2003; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989).

According to this approach, diversity is contingent upon both its reference basis(i.e., the composition of the group or unit) and the members’ comparison processes(the perception of difference). It is not an individual’s attribute per se that affects him/her; rather, it is an individual’s attribute relative to a referent other or group thatexplains the criteria (Goldberg, 2005). From this perspective, the individual level ofanalysis should be included as an aspect of diversity, because individual differences invarious attributes reflect the content of diversity, while the configuration of attributeswithin a unit reflects the structure of diversity (Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995).

The preceding discussion shows that diversity is conceptually constructed at differ-ent levels. In particular, OD treats diversity as an aggregate property, and RD suggeststhat the nature is cross-level. Not surprisingly, the various approaches will lead to dif-ferent operationalizations of diversity, which, in turn, are likely to produce differentresearch outcomes. While OD and RD are two distinctive steams of diversity concep-tualizations, there is a clear trend in the literature for a greater focus on RD. This trendis shown in the argument that diversity is not only the amount of variation in a certainattribute but is also subject to individuals’ reactions to that attribute (Harrison & Klein,2007; Pfeffer, 1985; Sorensen, 2004).

How Differences Have Been Configured Into Diversity?

As shown in the previous discussion, researchers have referred to diversity as different personal attributes, such as gender, race, age, and so forth, indicating that diversity isa multifaceted concept (Sauer, Felsing, Franke, & Rüttinger, 2006). Indeed, there aredifferent terms associated with diversity, such as age diversity, cultural diversity, socialdiversity, and so forth. Diversity is conceptually constructed according to the variousapproaches that configure diversity attribute/s into the construct of diversity. Forexample, age diversity is referred to as the composition of members’ ages, while socialdiversity is referred to as including all social-related attributes. To understand the con-figuration between personal attributes and the construct of diversity, it seems neces-sary to discuss the various approaches that configure attributes into diversity.

There are various approaches that configure attributes into diversity, and they aresummarized in Table 1. These approaches tend to fall into two categories: (a) mono-attribute approaches that refer to diversity as a single attribute (e.g., gender or race or age) and (b) multiple-attribute approaches that refer to diversity as multiple attributesat one time.

Mono-Attribute Approaches

In general, most research has taken a mono-attribute approach. Research taking thisapproach has focused on the effects of one specific attribute at a time (although there




10/25


may be more than one attribute studied in one study; Lau & Murnighan, 2005). Morespecifically, there are two common methods. The first method uses a single attributeand constructs diversity as “age diversity” or “gender diversity.” In this article, it will be called the single-attribute method. The second method categorizes diversity attributes according to their similar or distinctive properties and constructs diversity as“social diversity” or “information diversity.” This is referred to as the category method.

The Single-Attribute Method. The single-attribute method is the most commonly used

method of referring to attributes as diversity, although it has been discussed in slightlydifferent ways in the literature. For example, regarding it as a diversity measure1,Lawrence (1997, p. 7) has referred to this method as “compositional measures” thatare defined at the level of analysis higher than that of the attribute2 (e.g., the averagetenure of an organization). In their discussion of the meaning of diversity, Mannix and Neale (2005) referred to this method as approaches that are based on proportions (e.g.,diversity is a proportion or ratio of minority to majority members).

While the discussions of Lawrence (1997) and Mannix and Neale (2005) are useful,they only partially examine the single-attribute method. This method refers to diver-

sity as proportions/ratios and compositions of a certain attribute. Thus, one candescribe an organization in terms of diversity as both: (a) 45% are females (i.e., genderdiversity) and (b) the average tenure is 15 years (i.e., tenure diversity). Therefore, thesingle-attribute method defines diversity based on one single attribute and conceptu-ally constructs diversity only associated with that attribute (i.e., gender diversity).

The biggest advantage of using this method is that researchers can readily describeorganizations or groups according to specific social attributes that people use to dif-ferentiate themselves from others. However, while diversity may refer to any differ-ence (i.e., attributes), defining diversity in this way does not identify the elements of

similarity and distinctiveness among the attributes (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004; Milliken& Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996). The limitations associated with this method havetherefore drawn increasing attention from researchers who argue for a different way ofreferring to an attribute as diversity.

Table 1. Various Approaches of Configuring Personal Attributes Into Diversity.

Approaches Examples

Mono-attribute

approaches

The single-attribute method Age diversity

Gender diversityThe category-attribute

methodBicategory solutions Surface-level vs. deep-level diversity

Visible vs. nonvisible diversity

Multiple-category

solutions

Demographic diversity

tasked-related diversity

Value, belief, and altitude diversity

Multiple-attributeapproaches

The group faultline method Group faultlines

The perception method Perceived social diversity (based on perceptionof social-related attributes)

Perceived information diversity (based onperception of information-related attributes)




11/25

Qin et al. 143

The Category Method. While diversity can refer to numerous personal attributes, anincreasing criticism in the literature is that different types of diversity have beenincluded under the general term “diversity” in attempts to understand their impact(Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Mannix & Neale, 2005). In the 1990s, researchers

(Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled, 1996; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989) began to categorize diver-sity attributes according to their similar and distinct properties. Researchers taking thismethod suggest that certain attributes may have similar meanings, expectations, andvalues associated with them (Spataro, 2005), and therefore diversity in these similarattributes may have similar impacts on organizations (Mannix & Neale, 2005).

According to this approach, different attributes of diversity can be categorized intoa series of diversity types, such as social diversity and information diversity (Jehn,Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999). While interested in the similar ordistinctive properties of the numerous diversity attributes, this method still conceptu-ally constructs diversity based on a single attribute.

With regard to the similarities and distinctions among attributes, two propertieshave been well addressed: visibility and job-relatedness. Visibility refers to the extentto which diversity attributes are easily observed by group members, while job-related-ness is defined as the extent to which diversity attributes directly shape perspectivesand skills related to tasks (Pelled, 1996; Simons & Pelled, 1999). According to Pelled,these two dimensions have the greatest tendency to trigger, respectively, selective per-ception of job tasks and the categorization of individual mental processes that promotesubstantive and affective conflict (Pelled, 1996).

Techniques to categorize diversity attributes based on similar or distinctive proper-ties of attributes can vary across studies. Researchers tend to choose either bicategorysolutions or multicategory solutions based on properties of diversity attributes, such asvisibility and job-relatedness.

According to the bicategory solution, diversity attributes can be categorized intotwo groups that contain a certain property. The two most studied categories are sur-face-level diversity and deep-level diversity based on the visibility of attributes.Surface-level characteristics among team members in overt demographic characteris-tics (like age, race, and gender) are immediately salient in groups (Phillips et al.,2006), whereas deep-level characteristics become known only over time through ver- bal and nonverbal communication defined as differences in the psychological charac-teristics among team members (such as attitudes, opinions, information, and values;Harrison et al., 2002; Mohammed & Angell, 2004).

In slightly different ways, other researchers conceptually constructed diversity based on bicategories of personal attributes, such as the visible versus the nonvisible(Pelled, 1996), or the readily detectable versus the less observable (Moody, Woszcynski,Beise, & Myers, 2003). When creating the categories, however, researchers have moreor less relied on an assumption that observable differences are more likely to evoke biased or stereotyping responses than are less observable diversity types, and thatmany of the problem-solving enhancement effects of diversity frequently emerge fromthe less observable diversity types that represent differences of perspectives and skills(Pelled, 1996).




12/25


Researchers have also categorized diversity attributes based on the property of job-relatedness (Pelled, 1996), including categories such as highly job-related diversity(e.g., education, functional background, tenure) or less job-related diversity (e.g., race,age, gender; Lee & Park, 2006). Similarly, other bicategories along job-relatedness

have also been created: task-oriented versus relations-oriented diversity.Relations-oriented diversity refers to the distribution of attributes that are instru-

mental in shaping interpersonal relationships, but which typically have no apparentdirect implications for task performance (Joshi & Jackson, 2003). In contrast, task-oriented diversity refers to the distribution of performance-relevant attributes (Joshi &Jackson, 2003). This category has been sometimes referred to as cognitive diversity,referring to within-team differences in task-related attributes (Sauer et al., 2006).

By comparison, the multiple-category solution clusters the numerous diversityattributes into multiple categories in an attempt to create exhaustive and mutuallyexclusive categories (Mannix & Neale, 2005). McGrath, Berdahl, and Arrow (1995)created a list of five clusters of diversity: (a) demographic attributes, such as age, gen-der, functional background; (b) task-related knowledge, skills, and abilities; (c) values, beliefs, and altitudes; (d) personality, cogitative, and behavioral styles; and (5) organi-zational status.

In general, when categorizing diversity attributes that include both the bicategoryand the multiple-category solutions, researchers focus on numerous attributes ordimensions of diversity at one time. Doing so provides researchers with the capacityto explore a broader array of attributes according to their similarity and distinctive-ness, which in turn may account for the different impacts of diversity on organizationsor groups. The category method does not assume that different attributes of diversityare of equal importance or have equal effects on organizations or groups (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Consequently, studies using this method may have greater power inexplaining the unexpected results in the diversity research compared with researchassuming constancy of all diversity attributes (Cox, 1995).

However, the category method has incorrectly assumed that different types ofdiversity work independently, producing similar or distinctive impacts on organiza-tions or groups. By comparison, other research has shown that the impact of diversityon organizations or groups may be largely dependent on how salient that type of diver-sity is (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). This may be partially related to the fact that people have multiple identities (e.g., a White male scientist), suggesting that people behave as a function of those multiple identities working together simultaneously(Freeman, 2003; Pratt, Rock, & Kaufmann, 2001). Thus, different types of diversitycannot be isolated from each other, because groups are composed of whole individualsrather than one or two of their attributes (Jackson & Ruderman, 1995).

Multiple-Attribute ApproachesWhile the mono-attribute approach may be able to describe an organization withrespect to a single attribute, it fails to capture the full spectrum of diversity found incontexts, particularly in relation to people’s multiple attributes (Jackson et al., 2003).




13/25

Qin et al. 145

By comparison, multiple-attribute approaches attempt to address this limitation byreferring to diversity as multiple attributes at one time. Although these approachesmight still be developing, there are currently two approaches: the group faultlinemethod and the perception method.

The Group Faultline Method. Group faultlines are hypothetical lines that can potentiallysplit a group into two or more subgroups based on the alignment of two or more char-acteristics (Rico et al., 2007). Introduced by Lau and Murnighan (1998), faultlines are built on two theoretical underpinnings. First, it is assumed that the impact of diversitydepends on the alignment that interacts among the multiple attributes that define thediversity of a team (Thatcher et al., 2003). Second, multiple attributes (i.e., individualdifferences) are likely to be salient at the same time, and their effects must therefore beconsidered simultaneously (Rico et al., 2007).

The group faultline method is interesting in that it is concerned with the configu-ration of group members’ multiple attribute profiles (Jackson et al., 2003), and itserves, in particular, as a way to understand the interaction between subgroupswithin a group with respect to multiple attributes (Thatcher et al., 2003). In this way,diversity refers to more than one attribute simultaneously. For example, group fault-lines may be able to describe the structure of diversity in multiple attributes(Molleman, 2005) and explicitly address the alignment of team members’ attributes(Hambrick, Cho, & Chen, 1996). Indeed, by focusing on the interaction of multipleattributes within a group, the faultline is a better explanation if more than one attribute is salient (Rico et al., 2007).

However, faultlines are limited at times. For example, this approach does notexamine multiple identities of one individual simultaneously, that is, it does not dealwith the combined effects of diversity across multiple dimensions (Pelled, 1996, p.626), and it only deals with the multiple attribute profile presented in the group. Thatsaid, faultlines deal with multiple attributes that may belong to different people. Inaddition, since the effects of faultlines are subject to the salience of all attributes (thetheoretical basis of faultline), group members must note the existence of alignmentsof attributes (Hambrick et al., 1996). This is not necessarily the case, as certain attributes may be more or less salient to an individual (Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois,2004). Therefore, an approach that can explain how a combination of diversity attributes influences a group or an individual simultaneously has yet to be developed(Thatcher et al., 2003).

The Perception Method. The perception method is built on the argument that people haveto be seen as a whole with respect to their multiple identities (Frable, 1997). In particular,this method aims to explain how a combination of diversity attributes influences a groupor an individual simultaneously (Thatcher et al., 2003). This method assumes that indi-viduals assign their own psychological meaning to differences in demographic charac-teristics (Nkomo, 1995) and that individuals compare their own attributes with thedemographic composition of a social unit to determine if they are similar or dissimilar(Riordan, 2000). Specifically, rather than referring to diversity as one or two attributes,




14/25


the perception method asks respondents how similar they think they are to the rest oftheir work group with respect to diversity attributes (Riordan, 2000).

The rationale behind the perception method is that, although a large number of pos-sible attributes can be used as the basis for differentiating individuals, only those most

salient in a given situation are expected to be the most important markers of diversity(i.e., attributes that people use to tell themselves that the other person is different;Chatman & O’Reilly, 2004; Hobman et al., 2004). By asking respondents with respectto diversity contexts, this approach provides insights into an individual’s experience of being different from other team members, and how these differences affect their indi-vidual behaviors and attitudes (Hobman & Bordia, 2006). Therefore, this methodaddresses most successfully the question of how differences make differences.

However, limitations have been identified with this method. For example, individu-als may not be as consistent in their calibration of demographic attribute similarities/differences as are the more objective indices (Riordan, 2000).

Trends and a Framework

As demonstrated in the previous sections, the meaning of diversity can vary acrossdifferent approaches of addressing key aspects of diversity, indicating a variety ofdiversity conceptualizations. Subsequently, apparently contradictory findings in diver-sity research are understandable, because many inconsistent findings could simply bethe result of a confusion of terminology (i.e., comparing apples and oranges; Chan,2006). This article identifies two general trends that have emerged in the literature thatenhance our understanding of the variety of diversity conceptualizations. That is, thereis a growing consensus that diversity is a two-dimensional construct and it is a sociallyconstructed term. To further systematically classify the variety of diversity conceptu-alizations, this article also presents a framework by which four options will be createdfor diversity conceptualizations. Our investigation is of significance to future researchand/or practitioners undertaking diversity initiatives.

A Two-Dimensional ConstructIt was shown in the previous sections that diversity research has mainly focused on sixattributes: race, age, gender, education, functional background, and tenure. As differ-ent attributes of diversity may have unequal effects on organizations or groups, or onindividuals, researchers have started to classify different diversity attributes into types(Mannix & Neale, 2005). Specifically, two properties are commonly studied: visibilityand job-relatedness. Visibility reflects the social aspects of diversity, while job-relat-edness indicates the information dimension of diversity (Pelled, 1996).

Research Implications. However, although classifying diversity based on visibility and job-relatedness may offer researchers a greater insight into explaining the unexpectedresults (De Abreu, Sastre Castillo, & Roig Dobón, 2007), a single attribute (e.g., socialdiversity based on race) is continuingly assigned to diversity. Therefore, suggestions




15/25

Qin et al. 147

are made for diversity conceptualizations that adopt a diversity typology, such as one proposed in this paper and that deals with multiple attributes simultaneously, ratherthan a single attribute that is isolated from others (Allen, Dawson, Wheatley, & White,2008; Bell et al., 2011).

For example, as a two-dimensional construct, diversity may be classified into twotypes in future research: social diversity and information diversity. In particular, theformer is related to race, age, and gender, which reflect social dissimilarity among people in relation to visibility; the latter is relevant to tenure, education, and functional background, which indicate information dissimilarity among people with regard to job-relatedness.

Implications for Practice. Managers may benefit significantly from understanding thatdiversity is a two-dimensional construct and that different attributes of diversity mighthave unequal effects on organizations or groups, or on individuals (Mannix & Neale,2005). In particular, different types of diversity cannot be included under the generalterm “diversity” in attempts to understand their impact. For example, given the persist-ing problems associated with diversity in race/culture (Brief et al., 2005; Liao, Joshi,& Chuang, 2004; Linnehan, Chrobot-Mason, & Konrad, 2006), diversity training pro-grams may be developed to particularly target initiatives that enable individuals tofunction well in racially/culturally diverse groups by lessening, for example, relation-ship conflict and encouraging task conflict to allow more favorable group outcomes(Jehn, 1994; Jehn, 1995).

From the perspective of diversity management, managers may pay sufficient atten-tion to the strategic diversity policies and diversity-related organizational norms andvalues given the negative effects of certain dimensions of diversity, such as race/cul-ture, particularly in countries where there are still no anti-discrimination laws (Sub &Kleiner, 2007) and where there are historical social inequalities. While a successfuldiversity strategy should be drawn up to change organizational culture and create moreinclusive work environments where people from diverse backgrounds feel respectedand recognized (Pless & Maak, 2004), it is also worthy of managers’ attention thatmodern racism does not result in hate toward minorities, but rather discomfort, fear,and avoidance by majority members, which lessen the commitment of majority members to the diverse group and organizations (Kossek & Lobel, 2006).

A Socially Constructed Term: Perceived Diversity

The discussion in the previous section illustrated that diversity is a subjective term,depending on how people interpret diversity attributes (Unzueta & Binning, 2010;Westmaas & Silver, 2006). Moreover, it was argued that diversity is the amount ofvariation in people’s multiple attributes, and the variation is also subject to the indi-viduals’ reaction (i.e., whether individuals note the differences) to the multiple attributes (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Sorensen, 2004). There is emerging empirical evidencesuggesting that the effects of perceived diversity are stronger than the effects of objec-tive diversity (Hobman et al., 2004) and that perceived diversity accounted for more




16/25


variance in the outcomes than did other nonsubjective measures (Riordan & Wayne,2008). Therefore, diversity research should ideally focus on the role of individuals’subjective interpretations of dissimilarity in a social unit (Van der Vegt & Van deVliert, 2005). However, diversity is yet to be defined in this regard.

Research Implications. In future research, diversity can be conceptualized on the basisof the participants’ perception of multiple attributes simultaneously. For example,when a dual typology of diversity is adopted, perceived social diversity could refer tothe perception of social dissimilarity based on race, age, and gender, while perceivedinformation diversity could refer to the perception of information dissimilarity on ten-ure, education, and functional background. It should be noted that, according to thisconceptualization, perception is based on three attributes simultaneously. Perceivedsocial diversity is different from perceived race diversity, perceived age diversity, or perceived gender diversity individually. Instead, perceived social diversity is based onthe individuals’ interpretation of variation in all three attributes.

Implications for Practice. By understanding that interpretations of dissimilarity accountfor the effects of diversity, managers may be able to prevent diverse groups from becoming a fertile breeding ground for misunderstanding and discord. If people tendto categorize each other based on perceived dissimilarity/similarity and, accordingly,tend to like and trust in-group members more than out-group ones and tend to favorin-groups over out-groups (Jackson et al., 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005), particularattention may be paid to the process of how members only perceive some of the many personal attributes other members may have. To do so, diversity management manag-ers should set the strategic guidance that seeks not only to minimize the negativeeffects of diversity (e.g., race/culture), but also to encourage employees to accept thereality of diversity and to make the most from such differences (Kirton, Greene, &Dean, 2007).

Specifically, training programs should be designed to change employee attitudestoward diversity, particularly social diversity, and develop skills needed in order towork with a diverse workforce (De Cieri & Kramar, 2005). For example, training maycover how to perceive and appreciate the different sources of information and exper-tise, rather than appearance and cultural differences associated with other employ-ees with different demographic backgrounds. As a result, employees are likely tomanifest themselves, as in intragroup task conflict, rather than relationship conflict,when they have divergences of interpretations of tasks in hand (De Dreu & Weingart,2003; Parayitam, Olson, & Bao, 2010; Yang & Mossholder, 2004).

A Framework for Multilevel-Construct Conceptualizations

As the previous discussion suggested, diversity has been conceptually constructed atdifferent levels of analysis, suggesting an across-level nature of diversity (Harrison &Klein, 2007) that requires in-depth inquiries (Nielsen, 2010). With regard to thisnature of conceptualizations, there is currently no analytical technique that can




17/25

Qin et al. 149

improve an inadequately designed study, where the construct fails to capture the truerelationships and effects underlying the phenomenon of interest (Chan, 2006).Therefore, to clarify diversity conceptualizations, future research needs an appropri-ate conceptualization model. This model should drive the potential statistical applica-

tion, making it clear how the construct is conceptualized and is measured at differentlevels of analysis.

Built on Meade and Eby’s recent work (2007) on multilevel construct validation, aframework is proposed for conceptualizing diversity. However, before explaining theframework, it is necessary to introduce two terms. The first term is construct referent ,which refers to properties where respondents’ beliefs/perceptions are held (Meade &Eby, 2007). Construct referent can be at both the individual and unit3 levels. That said,a person’s belief might focus on both individuals, including the person himself/herself,and the unit as a whole where the person belongs.

The second term is construct aggregation, which refers to the approaches of howindividual perceptions are converted into a collective property. Specifically, there will be two approaches in construct aggregation: the aggregation approach, which is basedon the absolute levels of the construct, and the dispersion approach, which uses theextent of consensus (i.e., agreement or variability) among the unit members (Meade &Eby, 2007).

As shown in Table 2, four cells are created by the construct referent and aggrega-tion approaches. In each cell, there is one conceptualization option (CO). Accordingly,there are four different COs based on different combinations of construct referent and

aggregation approaches. Specifically, with respect to CO 1 and CO 3, researcherscould conceptualize subjective constructs according to the respondents’ perceptionson properties at the individual level (e.g., diversity is the perception of “group members” regarding dissimilarity/similarity toward other individual members’ personalattributes). Using CO 2 and CO 4, researchers could also conceptualize subjectiveconstructs according to the respondents’ perceptions on properties at the unit level(e.g., diversity is the perception of “group members” regarding the level of diversityof the group in terms of one or more personal attributes).

Both CO 1 and CO 2 use the absolute level of respondents’ perceptions to convert

individual perceptions into a collective construct. Definitions using these options maylook like, “diversity refers to the total amount of perception of one or more personalattributes the group members hold.” In contrast, using CO 3 and CO 4, researcherscould convert the respondents’ perceptions based on dispersion among respondents.

Table 2. A Framework for Conceptualizing Subjective Constructs.

Construct referent

Construct aggregation Individual-level referent Unit-level referent

Absolute CO 1 CO 2

Dispersion CO 3 CO 4

Conceptualisation option (CO)




18/25


An example of a definition could be, “diversity is the consensus level among the unitmembers in relation one or more personal attributes the group members hold.”

Research Implications. This framework provides a standard structure for diversity con-

ceptualizations and, therefore, a possible shared terminology or typology to comparedifferent conceptualizations, the subjective diversity in particular. Based on this frame-work, researchers may conduct meta-analyses to compare and contrast research resultsfrom different studies. To do so, these studies may be categorized into four groupsaccording to the CO applied.

Patterns may then emerge among study results, sources of conflicting research find-ings could be identified, and/or interesting relationships may shine their light in thecontext of multiple studies. While our framework makes comparisons between studies possible, caution should be taken when implementing this framework because itintends to help researchers who are more interested in the subjective meaning of diver-sity (how people perceive different personal attributes, and how this perception affectstheir behaviors).

Conclusions

This article presents a thorough examination of diversity conceptualizations, throughwhich we can symmetrically appreciate and comprehend the various approaches ofconceptualizations. This article identified three key aspects of diversity conceptualiza-tions existing in the literature, and analyzed how different approaches of conceptual-izations addressed these key aspects. Through the discussion, this article concludesthat there is a variety of diversity conceptualizations in the literature, as demonstratedin the various approaches that address the three key aspects of the construct of diver-sity. The variation in addressing the key aspects may have resulted in the difficulty forresearchers to arrive at a common understanding and/or consensus in the literature.Thus, future research is warranted to address two general trends in the literature thathave been identified. Implications to practice were discussed. Furthermore, this article presents a framework of diversity conceptualizations that explains how diversity, per-ceived diversity in particular, is conceptualized at different levels of analysis. By doingso, this article extends extant knowledge by offering a deeper insight into conceptual-izations of diversity and makes it possible to compare the results of studies taking avariety of diversity conceptualizations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of thisarticle.




19/25

Qin et al. 151

Notes

1. This article does not regard the approaches of referring attributes to diversity as measures, because the process of doing so does not involved in any statistical calculation. In addition,conceptualization is not a matter of measurement.

2. Lawrence (1997) seemed to have mixed diversity attributes with diversity measures, sinceshe treated tenure as a diversity measure rather than an attribute.

3. The unit level in organizations includes levels at groups, departments, organizations, andso forth.

References

Acosta, A. S. (2004). A diversity perspective on organizational learning and a learning perspec-tive on organizational diversity. Academy of Management Proceedings, 8, D1.

Allen, R., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K., & White, C. S. (2008). Perceived diversity and organiza-

tional performance. Employee Relations, 30(1), 20-33.Austin, J. R. (1997). A cognitive framework for understanding demographic influences in

groups. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 5, 342-359.Bachmann, A. S. (2006). Melting pot or tossed salad? Implications for designing effective mul-

ticultural workgroups. Management International Review (MIR), 46 , 721-747.Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific

about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analy-sis. Journal of Management , 37 , 709.

Bendick, M., Jr., Egan, M. L., & Lanier, L. (2010). The business case for diversity and the perverse practice of matching employees to customers. Personnel Review, 39, 468-486.

Biemann, T., & Kearney, E. (2010). Size does matter: How varying group sizes in a sampleaffect the most common measures of group diversity. Organizational Research Methods,13, 582.

Brief, A. P., Umphress, E. E., Dietz, J., Butz, R. M., Burrows, J., & Scholten, L. (2005).Community matters: Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity. Academyof Management Journal , 48, 830-844.

Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations offunctional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of

Management Journal , 45, 875-893.Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (2000). Why corporate demography matters: Policy implica-

tions of organizational diversity. California Management Review, 42(3), 148-163.Chan, D. (2006). Multilevel research. In F. Leong & J. Austin (Eds.), The psychology research

handbook: A guide for graduate students and research assistants (2nd ed., pp. 401-418).Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2004). Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversityamong men and women. Academy of Management Journal , 47 , 193-208.

Christian, J., Porter, L. W., & Moffitt, G. (2006). Workplace diversity and group relations: Anoverview. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 459-466.

Combs, G. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Diversity training: Analysis of the impact of self-efficacy.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1), 91-120.Cox, T. (1995). The complexity of diversity: Challenges and directions for future research. In S.E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for achanging workplace (pp. 235-246). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.




20/25


De Abreu, C. R., Sastre Castillo, M. Á., & Roig Dobón, S. (2007). Diversity and business per-formance: 50 years of research. Service Business, 1, 257-274.

De Cieri, H., & Kramar, R. (2005). Human resource management in Australia: Strategy people performance (2nd ed.). Sydney: Australia: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team perfor-mance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 741-749.

Fieldhouse, E., & Cutts, D. (2010). Does diversity damage social capital? A comparative studyof neighbourhood diversity and social capital in the US and Britain. Canadian Journal of

Political Science, 43, 289-318.Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J. H., & Weer, C. H. (2006). The impact of gender simi-

larity, racial similarity, and work culture on family-supportive supervision. Group &Organization Management , 31, 420-441.

Frable, D. E. S. (1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of

Psychology, 48(1), 139-162.Freeman, M. A. (2003). Mapping multiple identities within the self-concept: Psychological con-

structions of Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict. Self & Identity, 2(1), 61-83.Giovannini, M. (2004). What gets measured gets done. Journal for Quality & Participation,

27 (4), 21-27.Goldberg, C. B. (2005). Relational demography and similarity-attraction in interview assess-

ments and subsequent offer decisions. Group & Organization Management , 30, 597-624.Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity

climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30, 21-40.

Haas, H. (2010). How can we explain mixed effects of diversity on team performance? A review withemphasis on context. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal , 29, 458-490.

Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of top management team het-erogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659-684.

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What is the difference? Diversity constructs as separa-tion, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199-1228.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Timeand the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of

Management Journal , 41(1), 96-107.Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task

performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal , 45, 1029-1045.

Harrison, D. A., & Sin, H. (2005). What is diversity and how should it be measured. In A.Konrad, P. Prasad & J. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 191-216).London, UK: SAGE.

Heres, L., & Benschop, Y. (2010). Taming diversity: An exploratory study on the travel of a man-agement fashion. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal , 29, 436-457.

Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2003). Consequences of feeling dissimilar from oth-ers in a work team. Journal of Business & Psychology, 17 , 301-325.

Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involve-ment—The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group & Organization Management , 29, 560-587.

Hobman, E. V., & Bordia, P. (2006). The role of team identification in the dissimilarity-conflictrelationship. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 483-507.




21/25

Qin et al. 153

Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context: A multi-attribute, multilevel analy-sis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 675-702.

Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizationaldiversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management , 29, 801-830.

Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity indecision-making teams. In R. Guzzo, E. Salas & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness anddecision making in organizations (pp. 204-261). San Fancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jackson, S. E., & Ruderman, M. N. (1995). Perspectives for understanding diverse work teams.In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms fora changing workplace (pp. 1-13). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crises: How firms manage discrimination law-suits. Academy of Management Journal , 49, 1103-1118.

Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business perfor-mance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource

Management , 43, 409-424.Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of

value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management , 4, 223-238.Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup con-

flict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.Jehn, K., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and

performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 703-729.Jehn, K., Chadwick, C., & Thatcher, S. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects of value

congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management , 8, 287-305.

Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: Afield study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 44, 741-763.

Joshi, A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Managing workforce diversity to enhance cooperation in orga-nizations. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of orga-nizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 277-296). Chichester, UK: John Wiley.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal , 52, 599-627.

Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The impor-tance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal , 52, 581-598.

Kirton, G., Greene, A., & Dean, D. (2007). British diversity professionals as change agents– Radicals, tempered radicals or liberal reformers? The International Journal of Human

Resource Management , 18, 1979-1994.Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., & Thomas, D. (2003).

The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network. Human Resource Management , 42(1), 3-21.

Kossek, E. E., & Lobel, S. (2006). Human resource strategies to manage workforce diversity.Unpublished manuscript.

Kramar, R. (2005). HRM practices and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,

43(1), 4-5.Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The composi-tional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325-340.

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects ofdemographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal , 48, 645-659.




22/25


Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science,8(1), 1-22.

Lee, H., & Park, J. (2006). Top team diversity, internationalization and the mediating effect ofinternational alliances. British Journal of Management , 17 , 195-213.

Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: Employee dissimilarityand deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57 , 969-1000.

Linnehan, F., Chrobot-Mason, D., & Konrad, A. (2006). Diversity attitudes and norms: The role ofethnic identity and relational demography. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 27 , 419-442.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? Psychological Sciencein the Public Interest , 6 (2), 31-55.

Martinez, A. D., Ferris, G. R., Segrest, S. L., & Buckley, M. R. (2011). A maladjustment and power conceptualisation of diversity in organisations: Implications for cultural stigmatisa-tion and expatriate effectiveness. International Journal of Human Resources Developmentand Management , 11, 235-256.

Mathews, A. L. (2010). Diversity management and cultural competency. In M. Rice (Ed.), Diversity and public administration: Theory, issues, and perspectives (p. 210). Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

McGrath, J., Berdahl, J., & Arrow, H. (1995). Traits, expertations, culture, and clout: Thedynamics of diversity in work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversityin work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 17-45). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Liao, H., & Morris, M. A. (2011). Does diversity climate lead tocustomer satisfaction? It depends on the service climate and business unit demography.Organization Science, 22, 788-803.

McMillan-Capehart, A. (2003). Hundreds of years of diversity: What took us so long? EqualOpportunities International , 22(8), 20-37.

Meade, A. W., & Eby, L. T. (2007). Using indices of group agreement in multilevel constructvalidation. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 75-96.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multipleeffects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-424.

Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups:Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationshipconflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 1015-1039.

Molleman, E. (2005). Diversity in demographic characteristics, abilities and personality traits:Do faultlines affect team functioning? Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(3), 173-193.

Moody, J. W., Woszcynski, A. B., Beise, C. M., & Myers, M. E. (2003). Diversity and the infor-mation technology workforce: Barriers and opportunities. Journal of Computer InformationSystems, 43(4), 63-71.

Nielsen, S. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of theories and methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 301-316.

Nkomo, S. (1995). Identities and the complexity of diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman(Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 247-254).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

O’Leary, B. J., & Weathington, B. L. (2006). Beyond the business case for diversity in organiza-tions. Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal , 18(4), 1-10.Palmer, T. M., & Varner, I. I. (2007). A comparison of international diversity on top manage-

ment teams of multinational firms based in the United States, Europe, and Asia: Status andimplications. Singapore Management Review, 29(1), 1-30.




23/25

Qin et al. 155

Paluck, E. (2006). Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research. Journalof Social Issues, 62, 577-595.

Parayitam, S., Olson, B. J., & Bao, Y. (2010). Task conflict, relationship conflict and agree-ment-seeking behavior in Chinese top management teams. International Journal of Conflict

Management , 21(1), 94-116.Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An interven-

ing process theory. Organization Science, 7 , 615-631.Pelled, L. H., Xin, K. R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work

group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behavior (pp. 299-357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Pfeffer, J. (1985). Organizational demography: Implications for management. California

Management Review, 28(1), 67-81.Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and decision-

making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 467-482.

Pitts, D. W. (2006). Modeling the impact of diversity management. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26 , 245-268.

Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processesand practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129-147.

Point, S., & Singh, V. (2003). Defining and dimensionalising diversity: Evidence from corpo-rate websites across europe. European Management Journal , 21, 750-761.

Pratt, M. G., Rock, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2001). Making sense of socialization: Howmultiple social identities shape members’ experiences of work. Academy of Management

Proceedings, 11, A1-A6.Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-

based view. Academy of Management Journal , 43(2), 164-177.Rico, R., Molleman, E., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The effects

of diversity faultlines and team task autonomy on decision quality and social integration. Journal of Management , 33(1), 111-132.

Rijamampianina, R., & Carmichael, T. (2005). A pragmatic and holistic approach to managingdiversity. Problems & Perspectives in Management , 1, 109-117.

Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2007). Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: Thenorm congruity principle. British Journal of Management , 18(1), 17-27.

Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradic-tions, and new directions. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resourcesmanagement (p. 263). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Riordan, C. M., & Wayne, J. H. (2008). A review and examination of demographic similaritymeasures used to assess relational demography within groups. Organizational Research

Methods, 11, 562-592.Roberson, Q. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations.

Group & Organization Management , 31, 212-236.Roberson, Q., & Stevens, C. (2006). Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational

justice and language abstraction in employees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 379-391.Sauer, J., Felsing, T., Franke, H., & Rüttinger, B. (2006). Cognitive diversity and team perfor-

mance in a complex multiple task environment . London, UK: Taylor Francis.




24/25


Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research.

Journal of Management , 37 , 1262.Silverman, S. K. (2010). What is diversity? American Educational Research Journal , 47 , 292.

Simons, T., & Pelled, L. H. (1999). Making use of difference: Diversity, debate, and deci-sion comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal ,42, 662-673.

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Sims, H. P., Jr., O’Bannon, D. P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top man-agement team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412-438.Sorensen, J. B. (2004). The organizational demography of racial employment segregation.

American Journal of Sociology, 110, 626-671.Spataro, S. E. (2005). Diversity in context: How organizational culture shapes reactions to work-

ers with disabilities and others who are demographically different. Behavioral Sciences &

The Law, 23(1), 21-38.Sub, S., & Kleiner, M. (2007). Diversity management in Germany: Dissemination and design

of the concept. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 18, 1934-1953.Thatcher, S., Jehn, K., & Zanutto, E. (2003). Cracks in diversity research: The effects of diversity

faultlines on conflict and performance. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 217-241.Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and

organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 , 549-579.Tsui, A., & O’Reilly, C., III. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of

relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal ,32, 402-423.

Tsui, A., Porter, L., & Egan, T. (2002). When both similarities and dissimilarities matter:Extending the concept of relational demography. Human Relations, 55, 899-929.

Unzueta, M. M., & Binning, K. R. (2010). Which racial groups are associated with diversity?Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16 , 443-446.

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Van de Vliert, E. (2005). Effects of perceived skill dissimilarity and taskinterdependence on helping in work teams. Journal of Management , 31(1), 73-89.

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversityand group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.Westmaas, J. L., & Silver, R. C. (2006). The role of perceived similarity in supportive

responses to victims of negative life events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 1537-1546.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: Areview of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior Business, 20, 77-140.

Yang, J. X., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role ofintragroup emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25, 589-605.

Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effectsof age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management

Journal , 32, 353-376.

Author Biographies

John Qin, PhD, is the Principal Researcher at Creprot International and he is currently involvedin a number of research projects and co-working with a number of scholars from well-known




25/25

Qin et al. 157

research institutions. Dr. Qin’s central research interest lies in areas of diversity, includingsocial inclusion of the first and the second generation of immigrants. He also has interest inepistemology and research methodologies, and his particular strength is in quantitative analysismethods (e.g. SEM).

Nuttawuth Muenjohn, PhD, is a researcher in the areas of international human resource man-agement and leadership. He has published two books and authored several book chapters, pub-lished extensively in refereed journals and international conference proceedings.

Prem Chhetri is Professor of geo-logistics in the School of Business IT and Logistics at RMITUniversity in Melbourne, Australia. His recent research has been centred on: urban and spatialmodelling; port cluster and governance; emergency logistics and policy response; and applica-tion of GIS and GPS technologies in survey analytics, tourism modelling and transport infra-structure planning.

A Review of Diversity 2014

Documents

Transcript of A Review of Diversity 2014