Transcript Slide 1

faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 1
Effects of Cultural Diversity Approaches on Cultural
Majority and Minority Employees
Leuven
February 11th, 2013
Wiebren Jansen
Sabine Otten
Menno Vos
Karen van der Zee
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 2
Overview
›
›
›
›
›
Introduction
Cultural diversity approaches
Inclusion
Cultural diversity approaches inclusion (Study)
Conclusions, future directions, and discussion
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 3
Introduction
› Organizations diversify (Hooghe, Trappers, Meuleman, & Reeskens, 2008; Van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007)
› Cultural diversity  Performance: inconsistent results (Joshi & Roh, 2009;
Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).


Positive: creativity, decison-making quality
Negative: conflict, detoriated communication
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 4
How to manage cultural diversity?
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 5
Colorblindness (CB)
Multiculturalism (MC)
Goal
To create inclusive (work) groups
To create inclusive (work) groups
Key assumption
People from different cultural
groups are in essence the same;
People are first and foremost
individuals
People’s opinions, skills and
experiences have evolved as a
funtion of their cultural group
membership
How to deal with
group differences?
Ignore group differences. Treat
and judge people on individual
merits and qualifications
Acknowledge and appreciate
differences between cultural
groups
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 6
Overview
›
›
›
›
›
Introduction
Cultural diversity approaches
Inclusion
Cultural diversity approaches inclusion (Study)
Conclusions, future directions, and discussion
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 7
Inclusion
› Goal of diversity approaches is to create inclusive work environments
where diverse individuals work together in an effective and
harmonious manner (Roberson, 2006)
› Individual level: creating employee perceptions of inclusion in the
organization (Shore et al., 2011)
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 8
Inclusion is…
…the degree to which an employee is accepted and treated as an insider
by others in a work system (Pelled et al., 1999)
…present when individuals have a sense of belonging, and inclusive
behaviors such as eliciting and valuing contributions from all employees
are part of the daily life in the organization (Lirio et al., 2008)
…the extent to which employees believe their organizations engage in
efforts to involve all employees in the mission and operation of the
organization with respect to their individual talents (Avery et al., 2008)
…the extent to which diverse individuals are allowed to participate and
are enabled to contribute fully (Miller, 1998)
› Two recurring themes: belongingness and value in authenticity
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 9
Inclusion
Low belonging
High belonging
Low value in
authenticity
Exclusion
Assimilation
High value in
authenticity
Differentiation
Inclusion
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 10
Inclusion versus identification
Identification
I
Group
I
Group
(Edwards & Peccei; Leach et al., 2008)
Inclusion
(Ellemers & Jetten, 2012; Leary &
Baumeister, 2000)
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 11
Inclusion is…
…the degree to which an individual perceives that the group provides
him or her with a sense of belonging while simultaneously allows and
encourages him or her to be authentic
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 12
Overview
›
›
›
›
›
Introduction
Cultural diversity approaches
Inclusion
Cultural diversity approaches inclusion (Study)
Conclusions, future directions, and discussion
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 13
Cultural diversity approaches Inclusion
› Cultural diversity approaches  value of diversity
› Effectiveness depends on how “diverse” one is
Existing research (Levin et al., 2012; Ryan et al., 2007; Verkuyten, 2005; Wolsko et al., 2006)
› Cultural majorities prefer CB over MC
› Cultural minorities prefer MC over CB
However, this research…
› …focuses mostly on attitudes rather than impact on individuals and
organizational performance
› …lacks empirical tests of processes  why?
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 14
Research questions and model
1.
2.
How are diversity approaches related to work outcomes for cultural
majority and minority employees?
How can these relations be explained?
Majority/
Minority
Diversity
approaches
Perceived
inclusion
Work
outcomes
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 15
Diversity approaches and inclusion: ingroup projection
› IP is the process of projecting the norms of one’s ingroup (e.g. cultural
group) onto a superordinate group (e.g. the organization).
› These norms are subsequently forced to apply to all subgroups
› IP affects the extent to which people perceive to be included in the
superordinate group (i.e. the organization)
Organization
Norms
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 16
Ingroup projection: CB vs MC
CB: Ignore group differences
MC: Value group differences
Organization
Norms
Organization
Norms
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 17
Moderation hypotheses
H1:
H2:
The extent to which an organization adopts a colorblind approach is
positively related to feelings of inclusion for majority members, but not
for minority members
The extent to which an organization adopts a multicultural approach is
positively related to feelings of inclusion for minority members, but not
for majority members
Majority/
Minority
Diversity
approaches
Perceived
inclusion
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 18
Research model
Majority/
Minority
Diversity
approaches
Perceived
inclusion
Work
outcomes
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 19
Inclusion and work outcomes
› Inclusion in groups is important because it satisfies fundamental
human needs, such as (Shore et al., 2011)

Belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

Appreciation (Leary & Baumeister, 2000)

Uniqueness (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977)

Authentic self-expression (Deci & Ryan, 1991)
› Inclusion has been associated with enhanced individual well-being
and group performance (Acquavita et al., 2009; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006)
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 20
Moderated mediation hypotheses
H3a:
H3b:
For majority members, the relationship between the extent to
which an organization adopts a colorblind diversity approach and work
outcomes is mediated by the extent to which they feel included
For minority members, the relationship between the extent to
which an organization adopts a multicultural diversity approach and
work outcomes is mediated by the extent to which they feel included
Majority/
Minority
Diversity
approaches
Perceived
inclusion
Work
outcomes
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 21
Sample details
› Panel study among employees of different Dutch organizations
› 229 employees:
• 152 Native Dutch
• 77 Non-western minorities
› Mage = 39,4 years (SD = 11,8 years)
› 43,2 % men
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 22
Measures
› IV’s:

Colorblindness (4 items, α = .84) (Podsiadlowski et al., 2012)
E.g. “People fit into our organization if they match the desired job qualifications”

Multiculturalism (4 items, α = .86) (Podsiadlowski et al., 2012)
E.g. “Cultural diversity brings new ideas and different knowledge to the workplace”
› Mediator:

Perceived inclusion (7 items, α = .87) (Jansen et al., 2012)
E.g. “I feel I belong to this organization”
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 23
Measures
› DV’s:

Work satisfaction (3 items, α = .83) (Smith et al., 1969)
E.g. “How satisfied are you with your development?”

Perceived innovation (3 items, α = .88) (De Dreu & West, 2001)
E.g. “Employees of this organization often implement new ideas to improve the
quality of our products and services”
› Controls:

Gender, Age, Tenure, Cultural diversity
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 24
Analyses
Preliminary analyses
› Factorial structure:
› Common method variance:
CFA’s
Harman’s single factor test & Latent
common method factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003)
Hypothesis testing
› Multigroup SEM in AMOS (Byrne, 1998; Gaskin, 2011)
› Mediation: Sobel test with bootstrapping (5000 samples)
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 25
Results
Model fit: χ2/df = 1.82; RMSEA = .06; CFI = .95; NNFI = .93
Majority
Minority
R2 = .33
.50
R2 = .44
.64
R2 = .19
.31
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 26
Hypothesis testing
H1:
H2:
H3a:
H3b:
The extent to which an organization adopts a colorblind approach is
positively related to feelings of inclusion for majority members, but
not for minority members
The extent to which an organization adopts a multicultural
approach is positively related to feelings of inclusion for
minority members, but not for majority members
For majority members, the relationship between the extent to
which an organization adopts a colorblind diversity approach and work
outcomes is mediated by the extent to which they feel included
For minority members, the relationship between the extent to
which an organization adopts a multicultural diversity approach and
work outcomes is mediated by the extent to which they feel included
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 27
Overview
›
›
›
›
›
Introduction
Cultural diversity approaches
Inclusion
Cultural diversity approaches inclusion (Study)
Conclusions, future directions, and discussion
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 28
Conclusions
Conclusions
› CB and MC differentially affect work outcomes for cultural minority
and majority employees
› Why? Because CB and MC are associated with different levels of
inclusion for both groups
Limitations
› Cross-sectional and self-reported data
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 29
Future directions
› Experimental research
› Develop and test approaches that are inclusive of both groups (cf. Stevens et
al., 2008; Purdie-Vaughns & Walton, 2011)
› CB and MC are not entirely mutually exclusive; equality of treatment
versus acknowledging differences
› Comparing apples with oranges (cf. Ryan et al., 2007; Purdie-Vaughns & Ditlmann, 2010)
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 30
Thank you!
[email protected]
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 31
References (I)
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Acquavita, S. P., Pittman, J., Gibbons, M., & Castellanos-Brown, K. (2009). Personal and organizational diversity
factors’ impact on social workers’ job satisfaction: Results from a national internet-based survey. Administration in
Social Work, 33(2), 151-160. doi: 10.1080/03643100902768824
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programming. Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191-1201. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
Gaskin, J. (2011). Multigroup moderation in amos - made easy. Retrieved October 8, 2012, from
http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com
Hooghe, M., Trappers, A., Meuleman, B., & Reeskens, T. (2008). Migration to european countries: A structural
explanation of patterns, 1980–2004. International Migration Review, 42(2), 476-504. doi: 10.1111/j.17477379.2008.00132.x
Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., Van der Zee, K. I., Vos, M. W., & Smith, L. G. (2012). The development and validation of the
perceived organizational inclusion scale. Unpublished manuscript.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(3), 599-627.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 32. (pp. 1-62). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press.
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 32
References (II)
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Levin, S., Matthews, M., Guimond, S., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Kteily, N., . . . Dover, T. (2012). Assimilation,
multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated and moderated relationships between social dominance orientation
and prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 207-212. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.019
Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to
intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158-174. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional
status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27(7), 941-966. doi: 10.1002/job.413
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” perceptions of exclusion and
whites' reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337-353. doi:
10.1037/a0022832
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Podsiadlowski, A., Gröschke, D., Kogler, M., Springer, C., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2012). Managing a culturally diverse
workforce: Diversity perspectives in organizations. Unpublished manuscript.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Ditlmann, R. (2010). Reflection on diversity science in social psychology. Psychological Inquiry,
21(2), 153-159. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.486758
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Is multiculturalism bad for african americans? redefining inclusion
through the lens of identity safety. In L. R. Tropp, & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), (pp. 159-177). Washington, DC US: American
Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/12319-008
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 33
References (III)
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
›
Ryan, C. S., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. F. (2007). Multicultural and colorblind ideology,
stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among black and white americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10(4),
617-637. doi: 10.1177/1368430207084105
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement: A strategy for
the study of attitudes. Oxford England: Rand Mcnally.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.
Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity: All-inclusive
multiculturalism and positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 116-133. doi:
10.1177/0021886308314460
Swann, W. B., Jr., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., & Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and
social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 9-27.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546
Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing
the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 121-138. doi: 10.1037/00223514.88.1.121
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research.
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 20, 1998, 20, 77-140.
Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the tower of babel: Correlates of assimilation and
multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the united states. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 277306. doi: 10.1007/s11211-006-0014-8
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 34
Diversity approaches. Organizational features
Stability
important
Homogeneous
employees
Competitive environment
Organizational demographics
Innovation
important
Diverse
employees
Complex tasks
Simple tasks
Tasks
Diversity approach
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 35
Correlations
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Gender
.56
.50
-
2. Age
39.40
11.77
-.01
-
3. Tenure
8.19
8.48
-.01
.55*
-
4. Perceived cult.
diversity
4.80
1.80
.02
.05
.02
-
5. Cultural background
.34
.47
-.10
.02
-.10
.15*
-
6. Colorblindness
3.82
0.67
-.01
.04
-.04
.22*
-.01
-
7. Multiculturalism
3.37
0.63
-.10
.04
-.07
.25*
.18*
.38*
-
8. Inclusion
3.75
0.61
.06
.06
.02
.04
-.07
.57*
.34*
-
9. Satisfaction
3.35
0.81
.09
.07
.05
.04
.03
.32*
.30*
.57*
-
10. Innovation
3.42
0.82
.11
.04
-.01
.14*
.00
.30*
.26*
.41*
.46*
10
-
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 36
Indirect effects
Colorblindness
Multiculturalism
Satisfaction
Innovation
Majority
.37**
.25**
Minority
.06
.08
Majority
.04
.01
Minority
.49**
.48**
faculty of behavioural
and social sciences
institute for integration and
social efficacy
10-01-2013 | 37
Cultural diversity in The Netherlands
2060: 30% of the Dutch
population belongs to a
cultural minority
(CBS, 2011)