The Impact of Employee and Community Demographic Composition on Organizational Diversity Climate
Looking Inside and Out: The Impact of Employee and Community Demographic Composition on Organizational Diversity Climate
S. Douglas Pugh University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Joerg Dietz University of Western Ontario
Arthur P. Brief University of Utah
Jack W. Wiley Kenexa Research Institute
An organization’s diversity climate refers to employees’ shared perceptions of the policies and practices that communicate the extent to which fostering diversity and eliminating discrimination is a priority in the organization. The authors propose a salient element of the organizational context, the racial composition of the community where the organization is located, serves an important signaling function that shapes the formation of climate perceptions. In a study of 142 retail bank units in the United States, evidence is found for a relationship between the racial composition of an organization’s workforce and diversity climate that is moderated by the racial composition of the community where the organization is located. The results suggest that when few racial minorities live in the community in which an organization is embedded, workforce diversity has an impact on employees’ diversity climate percep- tions. As racial minority popular share increases, workforce diversity tends to lose this signaling value.
Keywords: demographics, diversity, race, climate, community
The face of the modern workforce has changed. In contrast with the workforce of previous generations, today’s workforce is more heterogeneous in terms of social categories including age, gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin, and research suggests that this trend toward greater demographic diversity will continue into the future (Judy & D’Amico, 1997). Paralleling the changing compo- sition of modern organizations has been an increasing interest in issues of diversity in organizations among organizational scholars. In their comprehensive review of the literature, Williams and O’Reilly (1998) painted a rather pessimistic picture, noting that “increased diversity, especially in terms of age, tenure, and eth- nicity, typically has negative effects on social integration, com- munication, and conflict” (p. 115).
Several recent studies have focused on understanding how em- ployees interpret and form impressions of organizational policies and practices regarding diversity. Roberson and Stevens (2006),
for example, emphasized the need for research to better understand how organizational members make sense of diversity, developing a typology for the events that contribute to diversity climate perceptions. In a recent theoretical article, McKay and Avery (2006) developed a model for how, when job seekers are on site visits, organizational and community attributes contribute to per- ceptions of the organization’s diversity climate, which impacts subsequent job acceptance decisions. A central question of both studies is how individuals use various cues to form impressions of the organization’s overall climate regarding race and diversity issues. Diversity climate is an emerging area of research that examines employee perceptions of an organization’s diversity- related policies, practices, and procedures (Gelfand, Nishii, Raver, & Schneider, 2005; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). Such a climate emerges as part of a sense-making process, as members attach meaning to clusters of psychologically relevant events in the organization (Schneider & Reichers, 1983).
Existing research on diversity climate has tended to focus on its antecedents (Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998). Antecedents have included human resource policies and practices as well as the ethnic and gender composition of the organization (Kossek, Mar- kel, & McHugh, 2003; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; McKay & Avery, 2006; Mor Barak et al., 1998). In the present study, we extend this research by introducing the critical role that organizational context likely plays in the formation of diversity climate perceptions. Johns (2006) has argued that the impact of context, the situational factors surrounding a phenomenon of interest, is not sufficiently recognized or appreciated by organizational scholars. We agree. Recently, however, researchers have begun to explore the role of context in the study of race and diversity in organizations. For example, Brief, Umphress, et al. (2005) examined the moderating
S. Douglas Pugh, Department of Management, Belk College of Busi- ness, University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Joerg Dietz, Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Arthur P. Brief, Eccles School of Business, University of Utah; Jack W. Wiley, Kenexa Research Institute
This research was supported by a Wachovia Fund Fellowship grant to S. Douglas Pugh and a standard research grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada to Joerg Dietz. We thank Chetan Joshi for his help on the project. An earlier version of the article was presented at the August 2007 Academy of Management Conference, Phil- adelphia, Pennsylvania.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to S. Douglas Pugh, Department of Management, Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC 28223. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 93, No. 6, 1422–1428 0021-9010/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012696
1422
effect of community racial diversity on the well-established rela- tionship between work group racial diversity and employee job attitudes, demonstrating that the relationship becomes more neg- ative among majority group members as community diversity increases (see also Brief, Butz, & Deitch, 2005). As noted in their recent theoretical model, McKay and Avery (2006) suggested that community demographic composition plays a role, in their case in terms of the job acceptance decisions of minority job candidates. Despite these early steps to introduce context into the study of organizational diversity, little other work in the management and organizational psychology literatures addresses the organizational impact of the racial and ethnic diversity in the community that surrounds the organization.
In the present study, we build on this work and argue that the impact of an organization’s demographic composition on its cli- mate for diversity will vary as a function of one particular aspect of context: the demographic composition of the community where the organization is located. Our article unfolds as follows. First, we argue an organizational climate for diversity emerges from a sense-making process, and, as such, the demographic composition of the organization is an important input into that process. Second, and crucial to our argument, we assert that the interpretation of the meaning of the organization’s demographic composition varies as a function of the community where the organization is located. Third, we present the results of a study conducted in 142 branches of a U.S. retail bank testing our hypotheses. Finally, we discuss the implication of our research for contextualizing the study of orga- nizational diversity climates.
Diversity Climate
Reichers and Schneider (1990) defined organizational climate as “shared perceptions of the way things are around here” (p. 22). Climate perceptions form as part of a sense-making process. Em- ployees retrieve information from salient stimuli to describe and interpret their work environment and, in doing so, integrate their perceptions of unique workplace conditions and events into broader perceptions of climates (Schneider, 1975; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). Schneider and Reichers (1983) emphasized that the interpreted conditions and events had a particular referent, and, as such, it is most appropriate to refer to a climate for something. Organizational scholars, therefore, typically specify climate as having a specific focus (e.g., Naumann & Bennett, 2000; Schnei- der & Bowen, 1985; Zohar, 2000). Recently, Gelfand and col- leagues formally defined climate for diversity as “employees’ shared perceptions of the policies, practices, and procedures that implicitly and explicitly communicate the extent to which foster- ing and maintaining diversity and eliminating discrimination is a priority in the organization” (Gelfand, Nishii, Raver, & Schneider, 2005, p. 104).
Empirical research on diversity climate is limited. As mentioned before, existing research typically has examined its antecedents. Kossek et al. (2003), for example, found some evidence that greater workgroup heterogeneity in terms of gender and race was associated with several indicators of a positive diversity climate. Notably, the Kossek et al. (2003) study is the only one we could identify that has examined diversity climate at the group or orga- nizational level of analysis, although similar processes are implied in research on individual-level diversity climate perceptions (es-
sentially tapping psychological [L. A. James & James, 1989] rather than organizational climate). Kossek and Zonia (1993), for exam- ple, found that gender heterogeneity in an organizational unit was related to individual-level employee perceptions that the organi- zation valued diversity. Other research has shown that specific human resource policies, such as hiring practices that specifically consider an individual’s race or ethnicity, lead to perceptions of the organization being supportive of diversity (Highhouse, Stierwalt, Bachiochi, Elder, & Fisher; 1999; Kim & Gelfand; 2003). Al- though not measuring climate for diversity per se, this research is consistent with the idea that individuals will perceive and interpret organizational policies to form perceptions of an overall diversity climate. Finally, recent research is beginning to look at outcomes associated with diversity climate. McKay et al. (2007) found that individual-level diversity climate perceptions were negatively as- sociated with turnover intentions, and these effects were stronger for Black employees.
Of particular interest to our study is the proposition that greater demographic heterogeneity in a group or organization would be associated with a more positive climate for diversity (Kossek et al., 2003; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; McKay & Avery, 2006). The logic behind this proposition is that, other things being equal, an organization with a demographically heteroge- neous workforce will be perceived as doing more to support and foster diversity than would an organization with a more homog- enous workforce. A direct effect of firm demographic compo- sition on the formation of diversity climate is a main thrust of McKay and Avery’s (2006) model. They noted that for an organizational outsider, a “potentially vivid signal of a firm’s diversity climate is to actually see or meet a number of minority employees on a site visit” (p. 404). As Roberson and Stevens (2006) stated, “to the extent that an organization has employees with visibly diverse demographics, such diversity is likely to be a significant feature in spontaneous sense-making in that work- place” (p. 380). In a similar manner, McKay and Avery (2006) referred to the presence of minority employees as “direct and unambiguous diversity cues” (p. 400). As such, the reality of the organization’s climate for diversity emerges as members process this information and make retrospective sense of the environment they observe (Weick, 1995).
In sum, we have articulated an argument found in the diver- sity climate literature (e.g., McKay & Avery, 2006; Roberson & Stevens, 2006) that implies an association between the demo- graphic diversity of an organization and employee perceptions of the organization’s climate for diversity. We note, however, that this story is incomplete. We propose that a more complex relationship exists between workforce diversity and organiza- tional diversity climate than is reflected in the above rationale. Specifically, rather than a direct effect argument that assumes greater workforce demographic diversity is associated with a more positive diversity climate, the contextualization of this relationship leads us to propose that the effect of workforce diversity is judged relative to the diversity in the community in which the organization is embedded. In other words, when employees infer a diversity climate on the basis of their orga- nization’s workforce diversity, community diversity shapes this inference (cf. Johns, 2006).
1423RESEARCH REPORTS
Enter Context: Community Racial Composition
When Roberson and Stevens (2006) asserted that visibly diverse demographics can be a significant feature in the spontaneous sense making of employees, visible demographic diversity can be thought of as what Weick (1995) termed an extracted cue, a simple structure that serves as a seed from which people develop a larger sense of what is occurring. Weick (1995) noted that “what an extracted cue will become depends on context” (p. 51). Context affects both what is extracted (i.e., what one notices) and how the extracted cue will be interpreted. Without specifying context, an extracted cue can have equivocal or multiple meanings (Leiter, 1980, as cited in Weick, 1995). Thus, rather than proposing a direct effect argument that assumes greater workforce diversity is associated with a more positive diversity climate, the contextual- ization of this relationship leads us to propose that the effect of workforce diversity is judged relative to the community surround- ing the organization. When employees infer a diversity climate on the basis of their organization’s workforce diversity, community diversity shapes this inference (cf. Johns, 2006).
We propose that community racial composition serves as the context in which employees interpret the meaning of organiza- tional racial and ethnic diversity. Our rationale for this proposition begins with the observation that organizations are reflections of their environments (cf. Brief, Butz, & Deitch, 2005; Reskin, McBrier, & Kmec, 1999). Brief, Butz, and Deitch (2005) recently summarized a large body of literature, most of it coming from organizational sociology, that shows the racial composition of communities affects not only the racial composition of the staff within the organization but also employee attitudes, group dynam- ics, and human resource practices. One of the most obvious ways in which the community affects the racial composition of the organization is in how it affects the composition of the available labor pool. Organizations located near large African American populations, for example, are more likely to have African Amer- icans apply for employment and are indeed more likely to employ them (Holzer, 1996). And, as Reskin et al. (1999) noted, if an organization uses race-neutral recruitment and hiring methods, the racial composition of its employees should be roughly equal to the racial composition of the qualified labor pool available to the organization. Further, there is some evidence of a tendency for organizations to try to make the racial composition of the organi- zation mirror the composition of the community (Carrington & Troske, 1998; Holzer, 1996), particularly in service organizations where employee–customer contact is a central feature of the business.
There are, therefore, several reasons to expect an association between the racial composition of a service organization and the racial composition of the community where that organization is located. Further, as noted above, employees notice and interpret the racial composition of the organization because, among other things, it can signal the importance of diversity for the organiza- tion. Thus, in the sense making about workforce diversity, com- munity diversity takes on the role of a referent, resulting in an interaction between workforce diversity and community diversity. On the one hand, when community diversity is relatively low, the effect of workforce diversity on perceptions of diversity climate should be strong and positive (employees might notice that relative to the surrounding community, the workforce diversity in their organization is high and, therefore, the organizational diversity
climate is perceived as particularly positive). On the other hand, when community diversity is relatively high, there are several plausible reasons to expect higher levels of workplace diversity, which could be independent of the organization’s commitment to diversity. A more racially heterogeneous workforce may simply reflect the realities of the available labor market, for example, or the matching of employee and customer characteristics. Thus, employees will be less likely to infer a positive diversity climate just on the basis of workforce diversity. Stated formally, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: The effect of workforce racial composition on perceptions of diversity climate will be moderated by the racial composition of the community where the organization is located. The positive relationship between the proportion of racial mi- nority employees in the organization and diversity climate per- ceptions will be stronger in less diverse communities.
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 142 customer service units of a regional bank in the midwestern United States. These units were geograph- ically and operationally distinct entities with their own staffs and clientele. In total, 2,369 employees (representing an 80% response rate) voluntarily participated in a confidential employee opinion survey administered on company time. The units had on average 16.68 responding employees (SD � 9.58). The diversity climate items were included in the survey, which was administered by an outside consulting firm and assessed employee attitudes and perceptions of management practices.
Measures
Diversity climate. As mentioned earlier, Gelfand et al. (2005) defined diversity climate as “employees’ shared perceptions of the policies, practices, and procedures that implicitly and explicitly communicate the extent to which fostering and maintaining diver- sity and eliminating discrimination is a priority in the organiza- tion” (p. 104). We first selected items from the employee opinion survey, using as criteria (a) correspondence with the construct definition and (b) similarity to other measures of diversity climate (e.g., Kossek et al., 2003; McKay et al., 2007; Mor Barak et al., 1998). The four selected items were (a) “[The company] makes it easy for people from diverse backgrounds to fit in and be ac- cepted”; (b) “Where I work, employees are developed advanced without regard to the gender or the racial, religious, or cultural background of the individual”; (c) “Managers demonstrate through their actions that they want to hire and retain a diverse workforce”; and (d) “I feel that my immediate manager/supervisor does a good job of managing people with diverse backgrounds (in terms of age, sex, race, religion, or culture).” These items were scored on 5-point Likert- type scales ranging from 1 � strongly agree to 5 � strongly disagree. For ease of interpretation, these items were reverse coded.
At the individual level, a confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the items loaded on one factor, �2(2, N � 2,369) � 8.03, p � .02; incremental fit index (IFI) � 1.00; Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) � .99; comparative fit index (CFI) � 1.00; root-mean- square error of approximation (RMSEA) � .04. Furthermore, the1424 RESEARCH REPORTS
actor loading for each item was larger than .50. Cronbach’s alpha was .76 for the four-item scale. We computed the climate for diversity measures by averaging the four items. The scale mean was 3.73 (SD � 0.72), with higher values indicating a more positive climate for diversity.
The confirmatory factor analysis at the unit level produced a highly similar pattern of results. The items loaded on one factor, �2(2, N � 142) � 2.19, ns; IFI � 1.00; TLI � 1.00; CFI � 1.00; RMSEA � .03. Furthermore, the factor loading for each item was larger than .60. Cronbach’s alpha was .81 for the unit-level four- item scale, with a mean of 3.76 (SD � 0.28).
We statistically justified aggregation by examining within-unit agreement and reliability and between-unit differences. The me- dian rwg value, which indicates interrater agreement, was .87, which was above the .60 cutoff value (L. R. James, 1982). This form of intraclass correlation that indicates interrater reliability, referred to here as the ICC(2) value, was .79, with the cutoff value also being .60 (Glick, 1985). The ICC(1) value, which indicates the amount of variance explained by between-branch differences, was .13, slightly above the median ICC(1) of .12 reported by L. R. James (1982). The analyses of variance for the computation of the ICC(1) values showed that the business units differed significantly in their climates for diversity, F(141, 2223) � 2.26, p � .001.
Workforce racial composition. For each unit, the organization provided information on the percentage of minority employees. The units had, on average, 12.46% minority employees (SD � 12.79%).
Community racial composition. For each unit’s zip code, we computed the percentage of minority community members relative to all community members on the basis of the U.S. Census data. The communities in which the organizational units resided had, on average, a minority population of 10.07% (SD � 8.96%).
Control variables. To isolate the effects of community racial composition from effects of socioeconomic status, we included average household income and education level (operationalized as the percentage of college graduates within the zip code). These data also came from the U.S. Census. Furthermore, we controlled for the effects of workforce gender composition.
Results
Table 1 shows descriptives and correlations. As one would expect, workforce racial composition was associated with commu-
nity racial composition, r � .53, p � .001. The criterion variable, diversity climate, did not have significant zero-order correlations with the predictor or control variables with the exception of a correlation of small size with community household income, r � .21, p � .05.
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (e.g., Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003) was used to test the hypothesis that the effect of workforce racial composition on diversity climate would be moderated by community racial composition, such that the positive relationship between the proportion of racial minority employees in the organization and diversity climate is stronger in less diverse communities. In Step 1, we entered the control vari- ables community, percentage of the community with a college degree, and workforce gender composition. This step yielded a nonsignificant R2 of .05. Only the beta weight for community household income was significant, � � .23, p � .05.
Prior to testing the hypothesized interaction, we entered the main effects of workforce racial composition and community racial composition in Steps 2 and 3. These variables did not produce significant changes in R2. In Step 4, the interaction be- tween workforce racial composition and community racial com- position was entered as the product term of the centered main effects. In support of our hypothesis, this step yielded a significant change in R2 of .04, p � .05. The beta weight for the product term was �.28, p � .05. Single slope analyses indicated that, consistent with our hypothesis, when community racial composition was low (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean), the relationship between workforce racial composition and climate for diversity was positive and significant, � � .40, p � .01. When community racial composition was high (i.e., one standard deviation above the mean), however, this relationship was not significant, � � �.15, ns.
We followed up the test of our linear interaction with an exam- ination of possible nonlinear relationships. Our post hoc tests revealed that community diversity functioned as a nonlinear mod- erator. Specifically, to the final step of the moderated interaction described above, we added the product of workforce diversity and squared community diversity, as well as all possible lower order terms (in this case, the squared moderator). Table 2 presents the results of this test. The final step in the interaction yielded a significant change in R2 of .06 ( p � .01). A plot of the interaction is presented in Figure 1. The plot reveals that when community diversity is low (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean), the
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Among the Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Criterion 1. Diversity climatea 3.76 0.28 —
Predictors 2. Workforce racial compositionb 12.46 12.79 .07 — 3..Community racial compositionb 10.07 8.96 .00 .53��� —
Control Variables 4. Community household income 32079.49 12425.92 .21� �.03 �.39��� — 5. Community percentage college degreeb 28.93 13.89 .11 .13 �.17� .63��� — 6. Workforce gender compositionc 82.85 10.83 .01 �.04 �.10 �.05 �.18� —
Note. N � 142 organizational units. a Five-point scale with higher scores indicating more positive values. b Percentage of minority workers. c Percentage of female workers. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
relationship between workforce diversity and climate for diversity is strong and positive, consistent with our hypothesis. Also con- sistent with our hypothesis, as community diversity increases, the relationship between workforce diversity and community diversity decreases, but the slope changes as a nonlinear function of com- munity diversity.
Discussion
It seems reasonable for those who manage organizations to assume that if they have built and maintained a racially diverse organization, their employees would perceive “fostering and main- taining diversity and eliminating discrimination is a priority of the organization.” (Gelfand et al., 2005, p. 104). That is, the assump- tion is racial diversity serves as a cue for employees’ interpretation
of an organization’s commitment to diversity. On the basis of the very limited diversity climate literature (e.g., Kossek et al., 2003; Kossek & Zonia, 1993), this is an assumption we did not a priori reject. However, we did reason, predict, and find evidence that the relationship between workforce diversity and diversity climate perceptions is moderated by community diversity, with the racial composition of the community serving as a reference point. Our results suggest that when few racial minorities live in the commu- nity in which an organization is embedded and the organization is racially diverse, then employees interpret workforce diversity as signaling a positive organizational climate for diversity. When the community racial minority population share is high, however, workforce diversity loses this signaling value.
Our hypothesis originally was presented as a bilinear interac- tion—the relationship between workforce racial composition and climate for diversity was expected to be stronger as community diversity decreased—and we expected the relationship would change as a linear function of community diversity. Our post hoc analysis revealed, however, that community diversity may affect the relationship between workforce composition and climate for diversity in a nonlinear fashion, with stronger effects on the relationship between workforce diversity and climate perceptions when community diversity is low. Stated differently, a unit change in the moderator, community diversity, does not always produce the same corresponding change in the workforce composition– climate for diversity slope, as would be the case in a traditional bilinear interaction. Instead, the effect on this relationship gets smaller as community diversity increases. Practically speaking, what this means is that workforce composition sends a stronger signal about the climate for diversity when the diversity of the surrounding community is low. As community diversity increases, changes in workforce composition have a decreasing influence on employees’ perceptions of the organization’s diversity climate.
Table 2 Regression Analyses With Diversity Climate as the Criterion
Predictor
Diversity climate
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Step 1 Community household income .23� .27� .29� .33�� .30�
Community % college degree �.02 �.04 �.10 �.11 �.13 Workforce gender composition .02 .03 .07 .07 .01
Step 2 WRC .05 .14 .09 .03 CRC .07 .20 .31 .31
Stp 3 WRC � CRC interaction �.28� �.19 �.59��
Step 4 CRC2 �.17 �.57��
Step 5 WRC � CRC2 .80��
�R2 .010 .040 .006 .056 �F 0.75 5.98� 0.96 8.90��
Overall R2 .045 .055 .095 .102 .158 F 2.16 1.59 2.37� 2.17� 3.12��
df (regression, residual) 3, 138 5, 136 6, 135 7, 134 8, 133
Note. N � 142. Unless otherwise indicated, reported values are betas. WRC � workforce racial composition; CRC � community racial composition; CRC2 � community racial composition squared. � p � .05. �� p � .01. ��� p � .001.
Figure 1. Climate for diversity as a function of workforce racial compo- sition (reported as the percentage of minority workers) and community.
The results of this investigation provide theoretically meaning- ful insights for both the climate and the diversity literatures. Past climate research has presented the formation of climate percep- tions as resulting from a sense making process, but it has not emphasized the formation of climate perceptions through compar- ative processes. Here, this process involves the comparison of one signal, organizational diversity, with a second signal, community diversity. What this means is the same amount of diversity, in terms of the percentage of minority members who make up the organization, does not signal the same climate in each organiza- tion. Rather, the interpretation of the signal depends on the degree of relative or comparative diversity. As such, our research provides more information on the formation of climate perceptions than a simple symbolic interaction (Koslowski & Hattrup, 1992) perspec- tive would offer. It may also suggest that climate formation, as the shared interpretation of actions and events (e.g., Weick, 1995) is affected by common cognitive processes such as benchmarking against other things (here, community diversity).
For organizational diversity research, our results generally speak to the ideas advanced by Brief, Butz, and Deitch (2005) and their arguments that organizational diversity is best understood by a dual focus on an organization’s processes and the community in which that organization is embedded. Those communities can produce attitudinal baggage employees bring to work, perceptional reference points, and other forces that shape how people see and react to the organizational world in which they work (also see Brief, Umphress, et al., 2005). More specifically, our results sug- gest that the demographic profile of the communities in which workers live help shape how they interpret managerial action– outcome linkages, at least in the diversity domain. Might it be that what our respondents’ interpretations reflect are accurate rather than distorted perceptions? Yes. That is, we observed a correlation of .53 between community and workforce racial composition, indicating that local labor markets do facilitate organizational diversity—perhaps independent of management’s emphasis on diversity as a goal. The converse would be that diversity climate causes workforce composition, but the observed correlation be- tween the two in our study across communities was .07, implying little effect of a diversity climate on workforce composition.
Pragmatically, although we would never suggest that increasing the number of minority employees is a sufficient way of improving diversity climate, our results do suggest that in communities with less diversity, greater numbers of minority employees do help signal a more positive diversity climate in the organization. Per- haps more important, our findings reveal that in more diverse communities, just increasing the number of minority employees is certainly not enough, in itself, to improve diversity climate. Those who manage organizations embedded in racially diverse commu- nities have to work much harder to create a climate for diversity than do those managing organizations located in communities sparsely populated with minorities. For those managers in diverse communities, actions (i.e., building a diverse workforce) may not speak as loudly as words; or, better, their words need to match the actions. They may need to actively help their employees interpret what they see by pointing to the policies, practices, and procedures that contributed to creating and sustaining a diverse workforce.
All in all, we believe our research points to several future avenues of investigation; first and foremost, attempts to construc- tively replicate (Lykken, 1968) our now unique finding are needed.
Second, more theorizing and empirical study of how collective perceptions such as organizational climate are formed and influ- enced by factors other than an organization’s policies, practices, and procedures should be undertaken. Third, in the organizational sciences, community characteristics clearly warrant more atten- tion, especially how they may interact with organizational pro- cesses to produce salient human resources outcomes (cf. Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, & Schulz, 2003). Finally, regarding a specific one of these outcomes, explorations of what, in fact, besides local labor market conditions affects organizational diver- sity appears open for investigation. Indeed, Tomaskovic-Devey et al. (2006) recently reported that Black–White segregation in America’s workplaces has remained essentially the same since the 1980s, thereby emphasizing how much this research is needed.
References
Brief, A. P., Butz, R. M., & Deitch, E. A. (2005). Organizations as reflections of their environments: The case of race composition. In R. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 119–148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brief, A. P., Umphress, E. E., Dietz, J., Burrows, J. W., Butz, R. M., & Scholten, L. (2005). Community matters: Realistic group conflict theory and the impact of diversity. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 830–844.
Carrington, W. J., & Troske, K. R. (1998). Interfirm segregation and the Black/White wage gap. Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 231–260.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., &. Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of community violence and an organization’s procedural justice climate on workplace aggression. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 46, 317–326.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L. H., Raver, J., & Schneider, B. (2005). Discrim- ination in organizations: An organizational level systems perspective. In R. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psycho- logical and organizational bases (pp. 89–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Man- agement Review, 10, 601–616.
Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S. L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A. E., & Fisher, G. (1999). Effects of advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African American applicants. Personnel Psychology, 52, 424–442.
Holzer, H. J. (1996). What employers want: Job prospects for less- educated workers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–751.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agree- ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behav- ior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408.
Judy, R. W., & D’Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and workers in the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Kim, S. S., & Gelfand, M. J. (2003). The influence of ethnic identity on perceptions of organizational recruitment. Journal of Vocational Behav- ior, 63, 396–416.
Koslowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992). A disagreement about within- group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 161–167.
Kossek, E. E., Markel, K. S., & McHugh, P. P. (2003). Increasing diversity as an HRM change strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Man- agement, 16, 328–352.
Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61–81.
Lykken, D. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psy- chological Bulletin, 70, 151–159.
McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2006). What has race got to do with it? Unraveling the role of racioethnicity in job seekers’ reactions to site visits. Personnel Psychology, 59, 395–429.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60, 35–62.
Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate. Journal of Applied Behav- ioral Science, 34, 82–104.
Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. (2000). A case for procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 881–889.
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In B. Schneider (Eds.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 5–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reskin, B., McBrier, D., & Kmec, J. (1999). The determinants and con- sequences of workplace sex and race composition. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 335–361.
Roberson, Q. M., & Stevens, C. K. (2006). Making sense of diversity in the workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employ-
ees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 91, 379–391.
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psy- chology, 28, 447–479.
Schneider, B., & Bowen, D. E. (1985). Employee and customer perceptions of service in banks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 423–433.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel Psychology, 36, 19–39.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Zimmer, C., Stainback, K., Robinson, C., Taylor, T., & McTague, T. (2006). Documenting desegregation: Segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnicity, and sex, 1966–2003. American Sociological Review, 71, 565–588.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Williams. K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
Ziegert, J. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553–562.
Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 587–596.
Received April 17, 2007 Revision received March 22, 2008
Accepted April 1, 2008 �
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
