Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/humres
Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?
Lynn M. Shore ⁎, Beth G. Chung-Herrera, Michelle A. Dean, Karen Holcombe Ehrhart, Don I. Jung,Amy E. Randel, Gangaram SinghInstitute for Inclusiveness and Diversity in Organizations, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, San Diego State University,5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 619 594 3272.E-mail address: [email protected] (L.M. Shore)
1 Some of the more frequently cited theories includeTajfel & Turner, 1986), social- and self-categorizatiodemography (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992), aversive rac(Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954), tokenism and proportion
1053-4822/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.10.004
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
A great deal of research has focused on workforce diversity. Despite an increasing number ofstudies, few consistent conclusions have yet to be reached about the antecedents and outcomesof diversity. Likewise, research on different dimensions of diversity (e.g., age, race, gender,sexual orientation, disability, and culture) has mostly evolved independently. Therefore, thepurpose of this review is to examine each of these dimensions of diversity to describe commonthemes across dimensions and to develop an integrative model of diversity.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
DiversityInclusiveness
While the term “workforce diversity” is commonly used in scholarly articles as well as in the popular press, the focus and scopeof the research is both varied and broad. Until recently, most studies have focused on a single dimension of diversity (e.g., age, sex,race) in a domestic, typically U.S. context. In a world of globalization populated by boundaryless and virtual organizations, it is timeto revisit the old theories of diversity and to create a new set of paradigms. Therefore, in this article we examine multipledimensions of diversity to assess the current status of the literature, and to make some suggestions going forward.
As a starting point, we examine six dimensions of diversity (race, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, and national origin)to determine how these literatures have evolved. The purpose of this review is to provide a basis on which to focus on similaritiesand differences in these separate literatures, in order to determine the extent to which an integrative framework of diversity ismeaningful and appropriate. To move toward identifying areas of similarity as a basis for integration, for each diversity dimensionincluded in this article we first briefly review theoretical paradigms and the extent to which associated predictions for the diversitydimensions are positive, negative, or neutral. Since theories guide our research streams, we deem it important to evaluate theextent to which present-day theories adequately represent the potential array of outcomes from negative to positive that may existfor individuals, groups, and organizations. We also review literature on antecedents and outcomes studied within each diversitydimension. Subsequently, we examine themes by reviewing current theoretical paradigms and then limitations across differentdimensions of diversity, with the goal of identifying points of integration and needed development for moving the literatureforward. Finally, we present a broad model of diversity that integrates key variables and suggestions for the diversity literaturegoing forward.
1. Race and ethnicity diversity
A number of theories have been used for studying race/ethnicity as a central variable of interest.1 Most of these theories comefrom a micro-theoretical perspective and attempt to explain behavior from an individual, or within work group perspective.
.social identity theory (Tajfel,1981), racial identity theory (Phinney,1992), intergroup theory (Alderfer,1986n theories (Pettigrew, 1986; Tajfel, 1981), the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971), relationaism theory (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986), rational bias theory (Larwood, Gutek, & Gattiker, 1984), homophilyality theories (Kanter, 1977), and stereotype and prototype theories (Davis & Watson, 1982; Schein, 1973)
ll rights reserved.
;l
.
118 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
A majority of these theories come from the fields of social psychology or cognitive psychology and stem from our cognitive andsocial need to categorize ourselves and others based on surface-level or readily perceivable characteristics such as race. Thesetheories often have been used to introduce or justify hypotheses that have focused on negative outcomes or predictions as a resultof race/ethnicity differences.
Some of the basic assumptions made about people and human nature contained in many of these theories are that: 1) humansjudge each otheronsurface-level characteristics, suchasrace or gender, in theabsence of additional information, 2) group membershipbased on these characteristics implies true similarities ordifferences betweenpeople which then creates the formation of in-group andout-group distinctions, and 3) these judgments ultimately result in outcomes that may have negative effects for minority or out-groupmembers (e.g., lack of mentors, stalled careers, lower performance evaluations) or group productivity.
Within the literature on race and ethnic diversity, there also are some theories that focus on positive predictions or possiblepositive outcomes of racial/ethnic diversity. This comes from a “value in diversity” perspective (Cox, 1993; Cox, Lobel & McLeod,1991) which argues that diversity creates value and benefit for team outcomes.2 The general assumption that underlies thesetheories is that an increase in racial/ethnic diversity means that a work group will experience possible positive outcomes such as:increased information, enhanced problem solving ability, constructive conflict and debate, increased creativity, higher qualitydecisions, and increased understanding of different ethnicities/cultures. Another underlying assumption is that surface-leveldiversity such as race is indicative of deeper-level differences, such as cognitive processes/schemas, differential knowledge base,different sets of experiences, and different views of the world.
1.1. Antecedents and outcomes of racial/ethnic diversity
Earlier research (1960s–1980s), motivated by the passage of the Civil Rights Act in the U.S., focused on whether there wasdiscrimination and bias present in selection, training, performance evaluations, promotions, and other important human resourcefunctions (c.f., Cox & Nkomo, 1990). There also has been some research conducted on differences between subgroups in terms ofjob satisfaction and other attitudes, motivation, and leadership. According to Kraiger and Ford's (1985) meta-analysis, race/ethnicity explained 3.7% of the variance in job performance ratings. Ratees tended to receive higher ratings from raters of the samerace. However, Sackett and DuBois (1991) found that Black ratees consistently received lower ratings than White ratees from bothWhite and Black raters. Recent meta-analyses show that the Black–White mean difference in job performance is approximately .27(McKay & McDaniel, 2006) to one-third of a standard deviation (Roth, Huffcutt, & Bobko, 2003) and that group differences weresimilar to, if not larger, for objective versus subjective measures (Roth et al., 2003). Further, McKay and McDaniel (2006) found thateffect sizes were strongly moderated by criterion type and the cognitive loading of criteria. Other findings for race/ethnicity effectssuggest that those individuals who are different from the majority in an organization tend to be more likely to leave, to be lesssatisfied and less psychologically committed (Moch 1980; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998).
Leadership differences between Black and White leaders were reviewed by both Bartol, Evans, and Stith (1978) and Cox andNkomo (1990), who concluded that there is disparity in the nature of the effect of race/ethnicity on leader behavior andsubordinate reactions (e.g., Hill & Fox, 1973; Richards & Jaffee, 1972). There was some support for the contention that Blacksupervisors are less directive and less likely to initiate interactions than White supervisors when working with predominantlyWhite subordinates. Further, they determined that Black leaders may initiate more leader behavior when dealing with mixedsubordinate groups. A more recent review of leadership and race/ethnicity diversity (Chung-Herrera & Lankau, 2007) suggestedthat similarities and differences both exist depending on the specific dimension on which leaders are being compared (e.g.,behaviors, prototypes, styles, conflict management).
By the 1990s, research on diversity begun to focus on work teams, or the business case for managing and utilizing anincreasingly diverse workforce (Johnston & Packer, 1987; see reviews in Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005;Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Two opposing views emerged (Milliken & Martins, 1996).The optimistic perspective is that there are benefits to the team by having increased diversity. Group performance is thought to beenhanced by having broader resources and multiple perspectives (Hoffman, 1959). Particular to race, some studies (McLeod, Lobel& Cox, 1996; Watson, Kumar & Michaelsen, 1993) have found that ethnically diverse work teams make better decisions thanhomogeneous teams. The pessimistic perspective is that increased ethnic diversity (as well as age and tenure diversity) typicallyhas shown negative effects on social integration and communication, and increased conflict (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). Regardingrace/ethnicity diversity and performance, the evidence predominantly shows either non-significant results (Jehn & Bezrukova,2004) or negative effects (e.g., Jackson & Joshi, 2004; Kirkman, Tesluk, & Rosen, 2004). Regarding relational race/ethnicity, itappears that Whites have lower work attitudes when in minority groups while being different from others in a work groupregarding race does not have an effect on the work attitudes of minorities (Riordan, 2000).
In the most recent review to date, Joshi and Roh (2007) found a fairly equal number of studies reporting positive or negativeeffects for race/ethnicity diversity across three outcomes types (performance, process and affect/attitude). The most interestingfinding, however, was that there were more null findings than positive and negative effects put together. For example, race/ethnicity diversity effects in relation to performance yielded seven positive, eight negative and 20 null findings. Similar to Joshi andRoh's review, Webber and Donahue (2001) in their meta-analysis of 24 studies found that demographic diversity (including race/ethnicity) had no relationship with team cohesion or performance.
2 Examples of these types of theories and perspectives include intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954), heterogeneity in small groups (Hoffman, 1959),information and decision making theories (Levine & Resnick, 1993), and creative problem solving (Triandis, Hall, & Ewen, 1965).
119L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
1.1.1. SummarySome observations can be made about the body of work on race and ethnicity in organizations. First, in contrast to a popular
belief on ethnic diversity, the positive effect of ethnic diversity on work group performance has not been supported conclusively.Instead, null and negative results have been more common. Therefore, more research is certainly needed to specify differentcontingencies such as length of time together as a group, task characteristics, and various combinations of ethnicity in which ethnicdiversity may have differential effects on performance. Second, it seems that there has been a neglect of the White or Caucasiancategory as a race (Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003). Most often, the Caucasian category serves as merely the control or reference group. Inother words, other than research findings that report lower work attitudes for Whites in diverse settings (e.g., Riordan, 2000), thereis little research that provides empirical evidence explaining the reasons for these findings or that sheds light on the characteristicsassociated with being White or the White experience of diversity. This may reflect the primarily negative theoretical focus ondiscrimination, stereotyping, and the harmful consequences of being in the minority group. Another assumption in most of theresearch thus far is that the majority group in organizations is Caucasian and that most managers are Caucasian. This is oftenpresumed or taken for granted without knowledge or discussion of the proportional context of the organization and thus resultsare broadly generalized despite other possible configurations. This assumption, along with the fact that most research participantshave been Caucasian, has obviously shaped the results that have been found; consequently, we still have a very rudimentaryunderstanding of diversity that involves different combinations of multiple races/ethnicities in a work setting.
2. Gender diversity
Similar to early research on race/ethnicity, research on gender diversity prior to the 1990s focused largely on discrimination andbias resulting from being different from the majority. Research reporting negative effects for women regarding performanceratings (e.g., Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989) and pay discrimination (e.g., Bielby & Baron, 1986) built on the similarity-attraction paradigm(Byrne,1971) and on the work of Kanter (1977), who posited that women experienced isolation and stereotyping. Gender diversityhas also been found to have more negative effects on men than women in regards to outcomes, such as attachment to theorganization (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992).
Our review of recent gender diversity literature (since 2000) suggests that most of the published research incorporatestheoretical perspectives that hold negative predictions. Many of these articles build on theories that are traditionally associatedwith diversity, such as similarity-attraction (Byrne, 1971), social identity (Tajfel, 1981), or discrimination (Meyerson & Fletcher,2000). However, research in the last half decade has included other theoretical perspectives with negative predictions, such astheory on status hierarchy (Chattopadhyay, 2003; Graves & Elsass, 2005), gender reproduction theory (which seeks to explain whymasculine and feminine behaviors occur in different contexts; Young & Hurlic, 2007), and theories of stereotypes and social roles(Duehr & Bono, 2006).
Fewer studies have included either theoretical perspectives with positive predictions or perspectives that were not clearlypositive or negative. Among the former group of studies, Lee and Farh (2004) build on Bandura's (1977) social cognitive theory topredict that gender diversity would moderate the relationship between group efficacy and group outcomes. They found that thegroup efficacy-performance relationship was stronger in mixed gender groups than in same gender groups. Other examples oftheoretical perspectives with positive predictions are person-organization fit (e.g., Kristof,1996) which was used to predict applicantattraction to the organization based on Equal Employment Opportunity statements in recruitment brochures (Rau & Hyland, 2003),Schwartz's (1992) value framework which was used as the basis for a study that showed that positive attitudes towards diverseothers increases the likelihood of successful diversity management (Sawyerr, Strauss, & Yan, 2005), and the value-in-diversityframework which posits that diversity is associated with benefits resulting from a variety of perspectives (Frink et al., 2005; Richard,Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick, 2004; Singh & Point, 2006).
Additional theoretical perspectives have been offered in this literature that are not entirely positive or negative, such asstructural hole theory (Balkundi, Kilduff, Barsness, & Michael, 2006) and configurational theory (Dwyer, Richard, & Chadwick,2003). Dwyer et al. assessed interactions between gender diversity in top management teams and firm's growth orientation andbetween gender diversity and organizational culture types with findings mostly supporting their approach, which suggests thatstudying the effects of variables in isolation is not as fruitful as a more holistic view in which interactions among variables areexamined. Balkundi and colleagues found that moderate levels of structural holes (defined as occurring when an individualoccupying a structural hole is friends with two individuals who do not otherwise know each other) within teams was morebeneficial for team performance than low or high levels of structural holes. Interestingly, in their social network applicationof structural holes to diverse teams, they found structural hole diversity within teams to have more of an impact on teamperformance than demographic (gender, age, or ethnic) diversity.
2.1. Antecedents and consequences of gender diversity
Most research in this area focuses on the effects of gender diversity on outcomes. Antecedents that have been examined includepersonality characteristics (as they relate to diversity attitudes), the number of women corporate directors, task gender orientation,group efficacy, corporate statements about diversity on websites, and a firm's commitment to diversity as reflected in recruitmentmaterials (Bilimoria, 2006; Karakowsky, McBey, & Chuang, 2004; Lee & Farh, 2004; Rau & Hyland, 2003; Sawyerr et al., 2005; Singh& Point, 2006). With the exception of Karakowsky et al. (2004) who considered the effect of societal gender roles on perceptions ofperformance, no other recent gender diversity articles considered antecedents that were external to the individual or firm.
120 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
While Wood's (1987) meta-analysis of small group research found that mixed gender groups perform better overall than same-gender groups, more recent reviews of the gender diversity literature (Jackson et al., 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005) have concludedthat there are generally inconsistent effects of gender on performance or group processes. The same conclusion could be made onthe basis of more recent literature as well as evidence for both negative and insignificant relationships regarding cohesion(Shapcott, Carron, Burke, Bradshaw, & Estabrooks, 2006; Vecchio & Brazil, 2007). Within the same study of mixed-sex groups, forexample, there was evidence that women experienced polarization and group-boundary tightening but no visibility or isolation(Hewstone et al., 2006). Further, there have been many non-significant findings reported with respect to outcomes such as groupperformance, task conflict, relationship conflict, turnover, cohesion, attachment in teams, experiences in teams, comfort withdifferences, structural holes, and organizational attractiveness (Balkundi et al., 2006; Ely, 2004; Graves & Elsass, 2005; Hobman &Bordia, 2006; Leonard & Levine, 2006; Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Strauss & Connerley, 2003; Vecchio& Brazil, 2007).
Numerous researchers have attempted to gain greater clarity into what otherwise may yield inconsistent relationships betweengender diversity and outcomes. For instance, the effect of gender diversity on outcomes was found to be moderated by growthorientation, team identification, and team orientation (Dwyer et al., 2003; Hobman & Bordia, 2006; Mohammed & Angell, 2004).Inverted U-shaped relationships were found between organizational-level gender composition and firm performance (Frink et al.,2005) and between management group gender heterogeneity and productivity for firms with high levels of risk taking (Richardet al., 2004). Somech (2003) only found differences between opposite-sex pairs and same-sex pairs with respect to participativeleadership when the duration of the acquaintance was longer. Other recent works examined outcome variables that have beenunderstudied in the gender diversity literature, such as interpersonal deviance (Liao, Joshi, & Chuang, 2004), supervisor-focusedimpression management behaviors (Barsness, Diekmann, & Seidel, 2005), and union attachment (Bacharach & Bamberger, 2004).
2.1.1. SummaryMost research on gender diversity in organizations is premised on the assumption that diversity is fraught with difficulties,
such as in-group bias, or that diversity is a double-edged sword with challenges accompanying the potential benefits. Since mostwork in this area is either based upon or acknowledges theories such as social identity theory and the similarity-attractionperspective, there is a tendency to consider uniformity positively in theoretical predictions. Therefore, more research is neededthat incorporates recent theoretical frameworks such as status characteristics theory and person-organization fit. In particular,research based on theoretical perspectives, like structural hole theory (e.g., Balkundi et al., 2006) and Schwartz's value framework(e.g., Sawyerr et al., 2005) that focus on neutral or positive predictions, would be a valuable addition to the literature on gender inorganizations. In addition, research should go beyond examining the effect of gender composition on outcomes and insteadconsider such variables as effective leadership of mixed gender groups and contextual characteristics that reduce the effects ofstereotyping in mixed gender settings.
3. Age diversity
A review of the literature on age and work shows a clear theoretical emphasis on negative predictions. The predominanttheoretical models are older worker stereotypes (DeArmond et al., 2006; Maurer & Rafuse, 2001), social identity and relationaldemography (Ostroff, Atwater, & Feinberg, 2004), age discrimination (Perry, Simpson, NicDomhnaill, & Siegel, 2003), careertimetables (Perry, Kulik, & Zhou, 1999; Shore, Cleveland, & Goldberg, 2003), and prototype matching (Perry & Finkelstein, 1999).Some studies examined the role of age perceptions (rather than chronological age), including self-perceptions of age or perceivedage relative to the work group or manager (Barnes-Farrell, Rumery, & Swody, 2002; Maurer, Weiss, & Barbeite, 2003; Shore et al.,2003). An underlying theme in these studies is that age discrimination or at least unfair treatment is likely to occur for olderworkers. The inherent assumption seems to be that when decisions are made about individuals (e.g., performance ratings, hiringdecisions, and salary decisions), young employees are preferred over middle-aged or older employees. These effects are especiallylikely when employees are relatively older than other employees in their group, organizational level, or manager. Such ageism ispredicted for both observers (individuals in the work environment whose age is not the focal point) and focal employees (via self-perceptions of age) (Shore & Goldberg, 2004).
An important issue in the age diversity literature is the role of stereotypes. Stereotypes about older workers have been primarilynegative, including such views as older people are less productive, flexible, creative, and harder to train (Kulik, Perry, & Bourhis,2000; Ringenbach & Jacobs, 1994), more rigid and resistant to change and less comfortable with technology (Rosen & Jerdee, 1976,1977). However, more recent research suggests that some of these stereotypes may no longer be as strong or impactful (Weiss &Maurer, 2004). Related to the issue of stereotypes, assumptions about age-related declines may influence treatment of olderworkers relative to younger workers. However, Shore and Goldberg (2004) concluded that most age-related declines in skills andcapacities that might substantially affect performance did not occur during normal working ages.
The remaining research uses theoretical paradigms that yield mixed (neutral and negative), neutral, or positive (only one paper)theoretical predictions. These include social identity and relational demography (Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2007; Ostroff et al.,2004), organizational demography (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989), social categorization, information and decision making (Ely, 2004),career development (Finkelstein, Allen, & Rhoton, 2003), uncertainty reduction theory (Finkelstein, Kulas, & Dages, 2003), andsocial support (Niessen, 2006). These studies focus primarily on work processes (e.g., communication, socialization, mentoring),rather than decision-making outcomes (which is the focus of much of the “negative predictions” research described above).Another theme in this category is the potential for positive social relations within work groups to increase the positive effects of age
121L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
diversity or prevent negative effects. For example, older employees are likely to have knowledge and experience that is usefulwithin groups, but such human capital may only be utilized in an environment in which positive relations among members areconducive to appreciating different types of contributions.
3.1. Antecedents and outcomes of age diversity
Very little research has examined antecedents of age diversity in the work setting. Unlike race or gender diversity, organizationsrarely undertake initiatives to increase age diversity. Traditional age distributions within organizational structures (younger at thebottom and older in the middle and top) were derived from hiring employees at a young age and retaining them through most oftheir working lives. Such age distributions were aligned with societal expectations of orderly career progression, similarly agedwork groups, and “appropriate” age differences between employees and managers. The last twenty years have seen an erosion ofsuch traditions as increased competition and expansion of the global economy has contributed to a trend for organizations tobecome flatter and leaner. These environmental forces have undermined traditional career paths and associated age norms inorganizations, contributing to more potential for age diversity effects. Another societal trend that relates to age composition inorganizations is the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. There is increasing concern that the loss of baby boomerswill lead to critical labor shortages. Thus, organizational leaders are beginning to focus on retention of older workers. As yet,however, there does not seem to be much evidence that organizations are proactively addressing these issues (Armstrong-Stassen& Templer, 2005). At the same time, there has been a recent trend of these baby boomers coming out of their retirement and such atrend represents an additional complicating factor in understanding age-related diversity in organizations.
Much of the research on age has focused on outcomes such as selection, performance appraisal, training and development, andcareer opportunities. One theme that seems to predominate is that older employees are disadvantaged when they are in theminority and when compared with younger employees. For selection, the evidence suggests that when older and youngerapplicants are in the same applicant pool, younger applicants are preferred over older applicants (Finkelstein et al., 1995). In thesame vein, while age is not generally associated with lower performance ratings (Avolio, Waldman, & McDaniel, 1990), there isevidence that employees who are older than the age norm for their career stage receive lower performance ratings (Lawrence,1988), as do employees who are older than their work group (Cleveland & Shore, 1992). Furthermore, older employees receivemore severe consequences for poor performance than their younger counterparts (Rupp, Vodanovich, & Crede, 2006).
For training and development opportunities, older workers tend to receive fewer opportunities than younger employees(Maurer & Rafuse, 2001), especially when they are older than their work group (Cleveland & Shore, 1992) or manager (Shore et al.,2003). Similarly, research on promotion opportunities has shown a decrease in upward mobility with age (Cox & Nkomo, 1992;Lawrence, 1984) due in part to age norms associated with career progression (Lawrence, 1990). This is especially likely when theemployee is older than his or her manager (Shore et al., 2003) or work group (Cleveland & Shore, 1992). Research associating agewith work processes is much more equivocal. Studies of mentoring suggest that both younger and older protégés consider suchactivities beneficial, with the younger group reporting more frequent career-related mentoring and older reporting higherrelationship quality with their mentors and more mutual learning (Finkelstein, Allen, & Rhoton, 2000, 2003). Research on age insocialization suggests that older workers are less likely to use covert forms of information seeking, and that this was associatedwith higher levels of role clarity and job satisfaction (Finkelstein et al., 2003).
3.1.1. SummaryThe research on age diversity is much less developed than that on race and gender, suggesting the need for new paradigms and new
approaches to studyingage in thework setting. Themajorityof researchhas beenconducted in a Westernsetting, and aspointedout byJoshi and Roh (2007), cultural views of aging may influence age effects such that different theories and effects may be posed based oncultural norms and perspectives. Unlike other social categories of diversity, aging is an experience that most human beings will have, inlight of current predicted life spans. Given the emphasis in American society on youth that is reflected in the media and sought-afterlifestyles (e.g., active, fit, and retaining youthfulness), attributes associated with aging are often considered less desirable (e.g., slower,less able to work long hours, less attractive). In addition, most individuals include people of a variety of ages in their non-work in-groups (e.g., family, community, churches and temples). In these settings, there are norms and expectations that guide relationships;for example, parents and grandparents serve as mentors and sources of advice due to their greater life experience. In the work settingwhere organizational roles are not necessarily aligned with age norms (e.g., a “twenty-something” manager with a “fifty-something”subordinate), potential for discomfort or conflicts may occur. These types of normative misalignments are reflected in many of thetheories that examine age diversity (e.g., prototype matching, career timetables).
As such, these more general societal views likely influence workplace dynamics, and may account for some of the negativeoutcomes that relatively older employees experience. Research on cultural and societal views of aging are needed, especially in aglobal economy where age norms and expectations may differ based on nationality and culture.
4. Disability diversity
Theories related to disability in the workplace include medical, moral, social, and post-modernist perspectives (Jaeger &Bowman, 2005; Mason, Pratt, Patel, Greydanus, & Yahya, 2004). In particular, social psychology theories (e.g., social identity andself-categorization, Tajfel, 1981) have served as a foundation for work on disability. Several theories do not explicitly portraydisability as positive or negative, but rather propose variability in how people with disabilities deal with workplace situations and
122 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
how coworkers respond. For instance, Stone and Colella’s (1996) seminal theoretical model discusses the role of organization,environment, and person factors in contributing to how people with disabilities are treated in the workplace. As another example,response amplification theory indicates that individuals' feelings of aversion or hostility clash with feelings of sympathy orcompassion, and this conflict is resolved by defending one and denying the other, which results in extreme behavior toward thetarget, in this case the person with a disability (Colella & Varma, 2001).
Theories involving prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, and stigma typically portray disability as negative or problematic.Nevertheless, some have identified differences among types of disability. Weiner, Perry, and Magnusson 's (1988) work related toattribution theory found physical stigmas to be perceived as onset-uncontrollable and stable, which elicited pity and desire to help.Mental-behavioral stigmas, however, were perceived as onset-controllable and unstable (reversible), which elicited anger and desire toneglect. Similarly, Jones and Stone (1995) found that different disabilities evoked different attributions or stereotypes, which may alsoapply to organizational treatment and outcomes (e.g., hiring practices; Lee, 1996). Other work has discussed dimensions of stigma,including disruptiveness, origin, aesthetic qualities, course, concealability, and peril (Jones et al.,1984; McLaughlin, Bell, & Stringer, 2004).
Additional theoretical perspectives portray disability in a negative light. According to the just world hypothesis (Lerner,1980), aperson is blamed for having a disability and viewed as deserving the disability. Thus, an observer does not feel obligated to helpwith or accommodate the disability, since it is the fault of that person. Leader-member exchange theory (e.g., Graen & Cashman,1975) would predict that if a leader does not have a disability, then a subordinate with a disability would likely experience a poorerexchange than a subordinate without a disability (Colella, DeNisi, & Varma,1997). The similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne,1971)would also predict negative treatment and outcomes for people who have disabilities compared to coworkers who do not.
A few theories view disability more positively. The norm to be kind suggests a bias toward people with disabilities such that theyshould not receive negative treatment or outcomes (Colella,1996; Colella et al.,1997, Colella, De Nisi, & Varma,1998; Colella & Stone,2005), even if they have poor performance. In addition, individuals may hold lower expectations of a person with a disability, suchthat the person would be rewarded for performing better than expectations rather than for his or her level of performance (e.g.,Colella et al., 1997). However, if people recognize the impact of their lower expectations, they may overcompensate by failing toprovide rewards to the person with a disability in favor of a coworker, even a coworker with lower performance.
4.1. Antecedents and outcomes of disability diversity
Theoretical work on disability has increased since the passage of the ADA, but empirical research is somewhat sparse. Perhapsthe most commonly studied antecedent involves expectations or perceptions of workers with disabilities. Colella's (1996) review ofthis topic identified 12 laboratory studies, three surveys of employers, and one set of field experiments. Since then, severallaboratory studies have investigated rater perceptions of a hypothetical ratee with a disability (Bell & Klein, 2001; Colella et al.,1998; Colella & Varma, 1999; Jones & Stone, 1995). For example, in line with the norm to be kind, Miller and Werner (2005) foundinflated task performance ratings of a ratee with a disability, particularly when the ratee is perceived as not responsible for thedisability. In turn, performance expectations predicted raters' attitudes toward the ratee, perceived fairness of accommodations,and employment judgments (e.g., hiring; McLaughlin et al., 2004). Other research has investigated the timing of disclosing adisability (Hebl & Skorinko, 2005) and the role of personal characteristics such as personality (García, Paetzold, & Colella, 2005) andethnicity (Saetermoe, Scattone, & Kim, 2001) in evaluating individuals with disabilities.
Several studies of antecedents have employed workplace samples, including studies of ingratiation (Colella & Varma, 2001),individuals' experiences with coworkers who had a disability (Scherbaum, Scherbaum, & Popovich, 2005), comfort when interactingwith people with disabilities (Nordstrom, Huffaker, & Williams,1998), and concerns with cost minimization and perceived legitimacyin the eyes of key stakeholders (Harcourt, Lam, & Harcourt, 2005). A few studies have involved legal issues, including reactions toaccommodation requests (Florey & Harrison, 2000), and organizational resources and procedures for providing accommodation(Unger & Kregel, 2003). Employers with coercive (fear of a lawsuit) as opposed to normative (belief that it is the right thing to do)rationales for compliance were more likely to hold stigmatized attitudes (Scheid, 2005). Finally, diversity climate was found to be thebiggest and most consistent predictor of workplace discrimination against those with disabilities (Nelson & Probst, 2004).
4.1.1. SummaryAs a whole, the literature tends to view disability as negative. However, work in vocational or rehabilitation journals, while
more practical than theoretical, is increasingly taking a positive perspective (e.g., Franche Baril, Shaw, Nicholas, & Loisel, 2005,recommended a collaborative problem solving approach to return-to-work issues). Also encouraging is a recent study of diversitypolicies of the top 100 companies in the 2003 Fortune 500, which found that of organizations with diversity policies, 42% includedpeople with disabilities in the definition of a diverse workforce, and 15% had supplier diversity policies that include disability in thedefinition of diversity (Ball, Monaco, Schmeling, Schartz, & Blanck, 2005). The authors concluded that management is realizing theimportance of having an atmosphere of integration, attracting a diverse workforce, and promoting tolerance in the workplace.Nevertheless, Schur, Kruse, and Blanck (2005) and Spataro (2005) have cautioned that corporate culture is crucial in encouraging ordiscouraging attitudes and practices incorporating people with disabilities.
5. Sexual orientation diversity
In the organizational behavior and applied psychology literatures, theories related to sexual orientation involve relationaldemography, stereotyping, and stigma. Although these perspectives assume that co-workers' sexual orientation is apparent to all,
123L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
this assumption may not be correct given that sexual orientation is an “invisible” characteristic and some homosexual individualsmay hide their sexual orientation (Ragins & Wiethoff, 2005).
Relational demography suggests that work group and superior-subordinate demographic composition impact employees' work-related attitudes and behaviors (Riordan, 2000; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), but Ragins and Wiethoff (2005)noted that it may be the case that gay men do not find themselves to be similar to heterosexual men; likewise, lesbian womenmay not necessarily identify with heterosexual women. Ragins, Cornwell, and Miller (2003) also used the relational demographyperspective to examine the impact of multiple group memberships (race and gender) on sexual orientation discrimination anddisclosure of sexual orientation at work.
The notion of stereotyping has been used to explain how gay men and lesbians are perceived in the workplace. According toimplicit inversion theory, homosexual individuals do not conform to traditional gender roles; specifically, gay men are seen asmore feminine than heterosexual men, whereas lesbian women are seen as more masculine than their female heterosexualcounterparts (Kite & Deaux, 1987).
A stigmatized group is viewed as non-normal by those who are in the majority (Goffman, 1963). When a stigmatizedcharacteristic is less visible, which is often the case with sexual orientation, the individual possessing that characteristic maychoose not to disclose this fact to others (Ragins, 2008). Some heterosexuals may actively avoid associations with gay and lesbiancolleagues out of fear of being perceived as gay, which Goffman referred to as a “courtesy” stigma. Heterosexism is the term used torefer to negative attitudes toward individuals with a homosexual orientation (Deitch, Butz, & Brief, 2004).
Stigma is also discussed in the labor economics literature (Allegretto & Arthur, 2001; Badgett, 1995; Clain & Leppel, 2001), butthe empirical focus of this literature with respect to sexual orientation in the workplace has been on comparing the averagecompensation of gay and lesbian employees with their heterosexual counterparts. Becker's (1971) taste for discrimination modelsuggested that if an employer has a “taste” for discrimination against a minority group, then they will hire members of that groupbut only at lower wages relative to non-minorities. This discriminatory practice drives minorities such as gays and lesbians to seekemployment with non-discriminating employers, and wage differences occur when the number of minorities seeking employmentexceeds the number of positions available at non-discriminating employers.
The household specialization model (Allegretto & Arthur, 2001; Badgett, 1995; Becker, 1993; Black, Makar, Sanders, & Taylor,2003; Carpenter, 2005; Clain & Leppel, 2001; Klawitter & Flatt, 1998) is based on the premise that the lower the skill level onehas, the less compensation one is likely to earn. This suggests that compared to heterosexual women, lesbian women mayaccumulate more marketable skills and human capital while they are young, because they know from an early age that they areunlikely to marry into traditional households where males are the primary breadwinner. On a similar note, gay men are lesslikely to accumulate marketable skills and human capital, as they assume that they will be in a relationship with another(breadwinning) man.
Another perspective offered to explain sexual orientation wage differentials is that of occupational sorting or clustering(Blandford, 2003; Klawitter & Flatt, 1998). Gay men and lesbians may consider the ability to be open in the workplace as anon-monetary reward and may factor this into their total compensation equation to mentally justify working in a lowerpaying occupation. Accordingly, Ellis and Riggle (1995) found that lesbians and gay men were more likely to work in anoccupation in which they would be able to be open about their sexual orientation in the workplace and that they would foregohigher paying jobs in occupations where sexual orientation would have to be masked. They also found that gay menwere more likely to choose occupations that were female-identified, which could play a role in having lower wages due to thegender wage gap.
5.1. Antecedents and consequences of heterosexism and discrimination in the workplace
Societal-level antecedents of sexual orientation discrimination include state legislation prohibiting sexual orientation, andsimilar proposed national legislation (Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Organizational-levelantecedents include company policies, gay-friendly culture, offering same-sex partner benefits, inviting same-sex partners tosocial events, work climate, group-level dynamics, and work group composition (Button, 2001; Driscoll, Kelley, & Fassinger, 1996;Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Ragins et al., 2003).
Employee-level antecedents of sexual orientation discrimination include religiosity, beliefs in traditional gender roles, beliefsregarding the controllability of sexual orientation, and personal contact with gay men and lesbians (Horvath & Ryan, 2003).Consequences of heterosexism include fewer promotions (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), higher stress (Waldo, 1999), and lowercompensation in the case of gay men (Badgett, 1995; Berg & Lien, 2002; Black et al., 2003; Blandford, 2003; Brown, 1998; Clain &Leppel, 2001).
5.1.1. SummaryThe literature on sexual orientation diversity in organizations has been shaped by a heterosexism and discrimination
focus. Although these issues are important, more work is needed that focuses on sexual orientation from an inclusivenessperspective. Deitch et al. (2004) noted that the gay employee's workgroup has the most impact on that employee's workplaceexperience and that more research should be directed at understanding these interpersonal relationships at work. Horvath andRyan (2003) suggested that more research be done on reactions to gay and lesbian employees in general, rather than on simplygathering data from gay and lesbian employees. In addition to including a broader diversity and inclusiveness perspective, thesesuggestions may be useful in providing greater understanding of the relationships among variables in this literature.
124 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
6. Cultural and national origin diversity
Culture is “broadly defined as characteristic ways of thinking, feeling and behaving shared among members of an identifiablegroup” (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006, p. 460). While some elements of culture are visible and observable (e.g., accent, religious apparel),others are subtle due to varying degrees of acculturation (e.g., a second or third generation Italian immigrant who holds culturalattributes from his or her family along with attributes acquired from a variety of cultures while dwelling in the United States). Inthe U.S., for example, it would seem that understanding cultural diversity in organizations should account for three groups at aminimum: U.S.-born employees working in a U.S. workgroup, non-U.S. born employees working in a U.S. workgroup, and U.S. andnon-U.S. born employees working in a multinational workgroup. Many studies focus on culture as the basis for racial and ethnicdifferences, but often without thorough conceptual development. Likewise, it is not always clear which sources of cultural effectsmay be influential (e.g., race and ethnicity, region of the U.S., religion). Our review of the literature on cultural/national diversityshows few empirical studies, almost all simplifying the measurement of culture (e.g., Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991).
A central tenet of culture is the movement and adjustment of a group of people from one nation to another. Cross-culturalpsychologists have relied on acculturation theories to examine this movement (Berry, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1997; Berry, Kim, Minde, &Mok, 1987; Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989; Berry & Sam, 1997). According to this body of research, an immigrant (ormigrant) group can (1) reject its own culture and that of the host society (marginalization), (2) reject its own culture and acceptthat of the host society (assimilation), (3) maintain its own culture and reject that of the host society (separation), or (4) maintainits own culture and accept that of the host society (integration). Assumptions of the integration approach are that immigrants canassimilate the values, beliefs, and ideologies of both the dominant, mainstream group and their own cultural group, and that suchan integration has positive outcomes. However, Bhatia and Ram (2001) argued that immigrants had to face a constant process ofconflict while developing hybrid identities. As such, we need to take into account the constant tension that immigrants might haveto deal with regarding different identities, which represent varying degrees of cultural integration. As employees in a workgroup,immigrants can draw on these identities to influence social, organizational, group, and individual outcomes (Cox et al., 1991).
Cultural and national diversity in organizations can be seen from a pessimistic view or an optimistic view (c.f., Mannix & Neale,2005). The pessimistic view is derived from social identity (Tajfel, 1981) and similarity-attraction (Byrne, 1971) paradigms, whichpostulate that individuals have a preference for their own group. Cultural diversity generates in-group allegiance (Pelled,1996) anddistractions (Thomas, 1999) that are detrimental to group performance. An alternative optimistic view contends that culturaldiversity facilitates information processing, learning, and problem solving capacity (Cox et al., 1991; Ely & Thomas, 2001) andreduces groupthink (Janis, 1982). Under this optimistic view, cultural diversity is conceived to be beneficial to group performance.While the logic for the positive and negative effects of cultural diversity is clear, the definition, measurement, and empiricalexamination of the effects of cultural diversity in organizations have been a real challenge (Barinaga, 2007).
Similar to the mixed research findings we discussed earlier regarding racial/ethnic diversity and work outcomes, past researchhas found that the effect of cultural homogeneity (or heterogeneity) on individual effectiveness and group performance was notconsistent and inconclusive (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Kirchmeyer & Cohen, 1992; Maznevski, 1994;Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000; Milliken & Martins, 1996; Thomas, 1999; Watson et al., 1993). While cultural differences influenceorganizational outcomes, there is some debate on whether the effects are negative or positive (Barinaga, 2007; Gelfand, Erez, &Aycan, 2007).
6.1. Antecedents and consequences of cultural diversity
Ely and Thomas (2001) proposed three reasons why an organization would encourage cultural diversity. First, an organizationcould adopt cultural diversity as a moral end to correct historic discrimination (i.e., discrimination-and-fairness perspective). Second,an organization could embrace cultural diversity to gain access to the markets of a cultural or national group (i.e., access-and-legitimacy perspective). Third, an organization could promote cultural diversity as seen as a resource for learning (integration-and-learning perspective). After examining several cases in order to identify when diversity enhances or hinders work group functioning,Ely and Thomas (2001) concluded that the integration-and-learning paradigm was the superior form of managing cultural diversity.
However, as with other dimensions of diversity we discussed earlier, research on cultural diversity still needs to refineoperationalization so as to further improve its construct and predictive validity. For example, Cox et al. (1991) argued that Asian,Hispanic, and Black Americans belong to a collectivist culture, whereas Anglo Americans belong to an individualist culture. Basedon this logic, Cox et al. hypothesized and found that Asian, Hispanic, and Black Americans would engage in higher levels ofcooperative behavior than Anglo Americans. While the hypothesis was supported, it is important to recognize that suchoperationalization might create a potential problem of over-generalization and over-simplification. A number of previous studiestook the same approach and defined, measured, and examined cultural diversity as individualism-collectivism. Future research oncultural diversity might be benefited by incorporating a multi-dimensional approach when researchers operationalized culturaldifferences (Hofstede, 1980, 1997). A good example is a recent study conducted by Richard et al. (2004) that focused the definitionof cultural diversity on race and gender and then showed that race and gender interact with entrepreneurial orientation topositively affect organizational performance.
6.1.1. SummaryUnlike many other facets of diversity (e.g., age, race, gender), developing the definition of cultural/national diversity and
creating coherency in this literature has been and continues to be a challenge. As greater numbers of global organizations utilize
125L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
multinational or global teams to manage their international projects, researchers need to shed more light on how people withdifferent nationalities work together to achieve their collective goals. The need to increase our understanding of the effect ofnationality on team performance has been magnified due to a heightened level of international mergers and acquisitions over thepast decade (Cartwright & Schoenberg, 2006). The number of foreign companies that set up their operations in the US has beenincreasing in the past decade, which creates a much higher probability for many US workers to work with colleagues with differentnationalities. Diversity based on nationality potentially poses greater challenges when compared with ethnicity because culturaldifferences (e.g., language, degree of acculturation, values, and norms) among team or organizational members tend to be larger(Snow, Snell, Davison, & Hambrick, 1996). While assumed to be potentially beneficial, the cultural differences associated withnational diversity can also be fraught with barriers to effective team functioning such as negative stereotyping and socialcategorization (Dahlin, Weingart, & Hinds, 2005) and different expectations for communication practices (Earley & Gibson, 2002).Research, for example, shows that nationally diverse teams may have problems unless leaders facilitate communication (Ayoko,Hartel, & Callen, 2002).
7. Common themes and future research
In light of the massive body of literature related to diversity, it is important to seek some coherency in this literature to helpmove it to the next stage of development. One means for doing so is to summarize the literature by focusing on common themesand asking ourselves: (1) what did we learn from looking across all the diversity literatures we reviewed? (2) how can theories inone diversity domain inform us about other dimensions of diversity? (3) are the theories interchangeable? and (4) how doeslooking across the literatures focused on different dimensions of diversity inform us about what is really going on in organizations?Below, we address these questions in an effort to spur new ideas and a new agenda for diversity research. However, a caveat is inorder. That is, each dimension of diversity reviewed above has evolved somewhat independently and often has been motivated bydifferent scholarly goals. Thus, some of the themes described below apply to all dimensions of diversity and others to subsets of thediversity literature.
7.1. Individual-level studies
7.1.1. Negative theoretical paradigmsVery few studies at the individual level suggest that diversity yields positive outcomes for individuals in minority positions (c.f.,
Chatman & O'Reilly, 2004), raising questions as to why this is the case. One possible explanation is the extensive use of theoreticalparadigms that yield negative predictions. The literatures concerning so many dimensions of diversity have relied heavily onrelational demography and similarity-attraction as theoretical frameworks (Riordan, 2000), even in more recent years when newperspectives have been included in the literature alongside these more traditional perspectives (e.g., Umphress, Smith-Crowe, Brief,Dietz, & Watkins, 2007). Three important assumptions of these theories are (a) people prefer others like themselves, (b) differencesmake people uncomfortable which leads to better treatment of similar others, and (c) similar demographics equate to deepersimilarity. Assumptions (a) and (b) yield negative predictions, and may even promote the ignoring of neutral or positive results.
Relatedly, there is an over-reliance among scholars on a small sub-set of theories. As pointed out by Pedhazer and Schmelkin(1991) in their discussion of theory, “Being a way of seeing, a theory is also a way of not seeing” (p. 182). When empirical evidencedoes not support a theoretical view, often authors point to methodological flaws, such as in sampling, measurement, or weakmanipulations. While field research is especially easy to criticize methodologically, this also points to the ease with which potentialtheoretical innovations may be ignored or dismissed. Thus, our scholarly approach to building knowledge may also contribute tothe tendency to rely on established theories and reject ideas that may occur serendipitously, perhaps encouraging a limited andnegative view of individual-level effects of organizational diversity.
7.1.2. Increasing focus on macro-level theoriesA consistent trend in recent diversity research is the application of theories in which power and status play a primary role.
Several scholars have noted specifically how a more thorough explanation of their results was afforded by accounting for the statusdifferences or social dominance implied by specific demographic categories (e.g., Chatman & O'Reilly, 2004; Chattopadhyay, 2003;Umphress et al., 2007; Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Huang, 2005). This work highlights how the meaning people ascribe todemographic categories is derived not only from calculations of similarity and difference relative to their immediate surroundings,but also from broader societal-level connotations. For example, what are considered normal or “good” characteristics in one societyor country may not be the same in another society or country. In addition, there are strong societal expectations and roles thatimply a certain order or norm to be followed. This theme is apparent in a number of diversity domains. For example, in the ageliterature, it is “expected” that those who are older also hold higher-level positions or age-appropriate positions (Lawrence, 1990);as a result, we may experience significant discomfort when we see an older person working at McDonalds or a young manager withmiddle-aged direct reports. Similarly, there are strong societal expectations for appropriate role behaviors from men and women.For instance, according to social role theory (Eagly, 1987), women are expected to display communal attributes (sympathetic,nurturing, gentle) while men are expected to display agentic characteristics (independent, aggressive, self-confident). Accordingly,agentic qualities are considered a better fit with being a leader than communal qualities (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
While work on stereotypes (DeArmond et al., 2006), prototype matching (Perry & Finkelstein, 1999), and demographic-basedexpectations (Colella et al., 1997) also are suggestive of power and status differences, this movement towards more macro-level
126 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
explanations has advanced the literature in an encouragingly fruitful direction. In particular, although demographic attributescannot be readily modified, status and power are human constructions that may be more amenable to change. Other macro-theoretical perspectives that offer promising alternative avenues of research include institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell,1991), symbolic interactionism theory (Stryker, 1980), and labor economics theories (Becker,1962). Each of these theories suggestsimportant macro-level contextual influences related to diversity. Also, according to Joshi and Roh (2007), there is a need to lookdeeper into aspects of diversity context (discrete, proximal, omnibus and distal omnibus) in order to answer the what, when,where and how questions in addition to “why.” These more nuanced types of theoretical approaches focusing on aspects of thework context have the potential advantage of contributing to deeper and more generalizable conclusions across many dimensionsof diversity.
7.1.3. Leveraging domain-specific theoriesUsing status-based theories or traditional theoretical perspectives (e.g., social identity/self-categorization theories, Tajfel,1981;
the similarity-attraction paradigm, Byrne, 1971) provides a basis of commonality across diversity dimensions, but using domain-specific theories offers a potential for deeper insights. For instance, similarity-attraction and social identity theory are not able toexplain why race/ethnic minorities would judge the overall quality of interracial interactions during job interviews to be lowerthan race/ethnic majority members, but aversive racism theory suggests that such minorities observe subtle non-verbal gesturesthat indicate a subconscious aversion to minorities (McKay & Avery, 2006). Such domain-specific theories may also provide a basisfor insights into other select diversity domains. Building on the example above, aversive racism theory may have relevance toperceptions of aversion in the disabilities domain. That is, applicants with disabilities may experience subtle gestures that havesimilar effects as for racioethnic minority job candidates.
Other examples of domain-specific theoretical paradigms that would seem to apply to other diversity domains include visibleand invisible characteristics (Ragins & Wiethoff, 2005), stigma theory (Goffman, 1963), taste for discrimination theory (Becker,1971), implicit inversion theory (Kite & Deaux, 1987), and response amplification theory (Colella & Varma, 2001). Further, seeingwhere these theories intersect could help to promote development of the diversity literature. For example, there could be someinteresting insights garnered from looking at the intersection of the visibility/invisibility dimension and stigma theory, sincetogether they inform us of why we stigmatize and under what conditions. If we tend to stigmatize those attributes about a personthat are most visible to us, this cuts across many attributes that are not always visible to others: sexual orientation, mix of races(especially if more dominant features prevail), or mental disability. This visibility/invisibility dimension may be a factor that causessignificant discomfort for the person who may be “hiding” his or her stigmatized status. A challenge for the person with an invisiblestigma is determining if and when to disclose their status (Ragins, 2008). Likewise, it may create embarrassment for otherindividuals who have made and acted upon assumptions about an individual's majority group membership without realizing thathe or she may belong to a stigmatized group.
We also posit that theories from one domain may apply to some, but not all diversity domains. Examining which theories applyacross particular domains may help to create new theories of diversity by facilitating deeper understanding of how diversity effectsoperate both within and across domains. Thus, considering a wide array of theories across the social sciences as well as developingnew theories to explain diversity phenomena promises to facilitate enrichment of this body of scholarship.
7.2. Group-level studies
7.2.1. Surface-to-deep level diversityTheories focusing on diversity effects on groups are much more likely than individual-level studies to propose neutral or
positive outcomes. Although the assumption of these theories seems to be that deep-level differences underlie surface-leveldifferences, research has concluded that demographic characteristics do not consistently relate in a meaningful way withknowledge, skills, attitudes, or values (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). An important question that needs empirical testing is whichdimensions of deep-level diversity might improve group success. Given the evidence supporting the potentially positive effects ofeducational and expertise diversity (Dahlin et al., 2005; Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Oosterhof, 2006), more research is clearlyneeded on this issue. Likewise, strategic management theories such as the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991) havepotential for helping to develop the basis for predicting value in diversity (Richard, 2000). Most importantly, theories that developthe role of context seem to have a great deal of potential, as there may be multiple aspects of situations that interact with when andhow surface- and deep-level diversity serve to improve group and organization success. The firm's strategy (Richard, 2000),organizational culture (Chatman & Barsade, 1995), and job design (Kossek, Zonia, & Young, 1996) are just a few of the situationalcharacteristics found to be influential in diverse groups and organizations. In sum, the value-in-diversity model (e.g., Cox, Lobel, &McLeod,1991) has been applied to multiple dimensions of diversity with mixed success (Richard, Ford, & Ismail, 2006). This furtherpoints to the need for research that explores what dimensions of diversity are valuable for group effectiveness, and the roles thatmanagers and organizational leaders may play in creating contexts in which such positive diversity effects may be found.
7.2.2. Antecedents of diversityAntecedents to diversity seem to be most developed at the group and organizational levels. A consistent pattern across
dimensions of diversity is to consider how group composition, group or organizational climate, group-level dynamics, or a firm'scommitment to diversity relate to outcomes (Avery, McKay, Wilson, & Tonidandel, 2007; Karakowsky et al., 2004; Nelson & Probst,2004; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Rau & Hyland, 2003). Implicit in many of these antecedents is the perceived managerial philosophy
127L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
regarding diversity that underlies diversity in the group or firm. For example, Scheid (2005) found that employers with a coercive(fear of lawsuit) as opposed to normative (belief that it is the right thing to do) rationale for compliance were more likely to holdstigmatized attitudes toward those with disabilities. The range of philosophies towards diversity at these levels of analysis iscaptured well by Ely and Thomas's (2001) qualitative study highlighting customer/market, compliance, and learning perspectivestowards diversity in groups. In addition, a large body of research on affirmative action in relation to race and gender suggests theimportance of understanding antecedents to diversity efforts and the potential unintended consequences of such efforts if notmanaged carefully (Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006; Heilman, 1994). Consideration of fairness and merit indecisions pertaining to workforce diversity were found to be particularly important, and suggest the necessity of understandingantecedents that contribute to successful organizational diversity efforts.
7.2.3. Multiple dimensions of diversityWe have focused on themes by considering patterns within and across the specific diversity dimensions we covered, but a
promising trend that extends beyond how we organized this review is the increased attention to including multiple dimensions ofdiversity in the same study. Faultline research, for example, investigates the way in which individuals' multiple diversitycharacteristics align with those of other work group members. This work has yielded interesting findings, including how faultlines(or subgroups based on the alignment of group member's demographic characteristics) hold more explanatory power in regards tosatisfaction, expected performance, and team learning than considering single-attribute heterogeneity within groups (Lau &Murnighan, 2005).
Other studies that include multiple dimensions of diversity within the same study allow for theoretical insights about whichtypes of diversity attributes relate to outcomes and when they do so (Dahlin et al., 2005; Van der Vegt et al., 2005). For example,Goldberg, Finkelstein, Perry, and Konrad (2004) found that younger men receive more promotions in old-typed industries, whileyounger women received more promotions in young-typed ones. In addition, Barnum and Liden (1995) found disparity in pay ratesof women and minority group members compared to white men, increased with age. Such studies imply that age compositions andage norms may interact with other dimensions of diversity to influence opportunities of individuals and groups. Likewise, using raceand disability as an example, Kulik, Roberson, and Perry (2007) proposed a model explaining how situational and individualdifference variables influence decision makers' reactions to candidates that display multiple types of diversity. Such researchrequires deeper understanding of the meaning of diversity and how it aids or hinders individual, group, and organizational goals,than is often the case in current conceptualizations. One possible avenue for future research is greater use of qualitative studies (c.f.,Janssens & Zanoni, 2007), which may aid in the development of new diversity paradigms that inform scholarly thinking on howorganizations successfully manage diverse workforces. Such research approaches may encourage the development of new insightsand perspectives that incorporate the influence of task, job, organization, and industry contexts.
8. Conclusions
Diversity research has progressed a great deal in the last 40 years. However, there are still noteworthy gaps that need to befilled. Scholars have spent a significant amount of time studying diversity from a reactive stance. Such a stance has historical andpresent-day merit as prejudice and discrimination are still serious problems in society. However, this approach does not seem tohave yielded positive results for individuals or organizations. Diversity is typically viewed as something to deal with or manage. Infact, in both practice and research, communications about diversity have been inundated with negative wording such as “abide by,”“accommodate,” and “tolerate.” Choice of phrases and terms in language can signify how people interpret their diversity-relatedexperiences (Roberson & Stevens, 2006). Thus, diversity terminology can have a direct positive or negative influence on people(Pati & Bailey, 1995) as well as having other more subtle, perhaps less conscious effects. Citing examples from the President'sCommittee on Employment of People with Disabilities, Pati and Bailey (1995) suggested that we use words that emphasize theperson rather than the disabling condition: “people with disabilities” versus “the disabled,” or “non-disabled person” rather than“normal person” (which implies that a person with a disability is not normal). While changing diversity terminology to reflectmore positive views is a starting point, there is much more to be done.
In order to move forward, we need to change our originating paradigms which are primarily negative, emphasizingdiscrimination and victimization, to explore diversity from a more positive and proactive standpoint. Questions, such as when andin what ways diversity aids in organizational success, move the focus from management and control to opportunity and possibility.A number of new questions come to mind from this more positive, proactive stance. Examples include asking subgroups todescribe how they would like to be treated, what they want others to know about them, and what aspects of their workenvironment would need to change to create a highly functional organizational context with diverse employees.
There is some evidence to suggest that positive attitudes toward diverse others increase the likelihood of successful diversitymanagement (Sawyerr et al., 2005). Researchers have already begun to develop ideas that move in a more proactive and positivedirection such as diversity climate (McKay et al., 2007) and inclusiveness (Janssens & Zazoni, 2007; Roberson, 2006). We believethat future diversity research should continue in these and other new directions that can contribute to the ability of employers ofdiverse people to promote individual, group, and organizational success.
Based on our review, we conclude that it is challenging, but possible, to develop an integrative theory of diversity. Such an effortwill require meta-concepts that reflect the human experience. It is clear from our review that there are core human issues andconcerns embedded in the diversity literature that could form the basis for such a theory. Some of these core human elementsconsist of organizational and managerial messages of respect, dignity, and clear value to the organization that are not tied to
Fig. 1. An integrative model of diversity in organizations.
128 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
demographic or cultural attributes. While many companies have put in place formal policies, procedures, and statements oforganizational values to ensure such elements, the evidence is unambiguous that these types of actions are only starting points forcreating positive organizational environments for diverse people. There are many potential structural and process variables atmultiple organizational levels that need careful reflection and consideration in order for a unified diversity framework to be ofexplanatory value for organizations.
In our review of the literature, we note several significant themes that should be reflected in the integrative model of diversitypresented in Fig.1. First, it is important to clarify aspects of context that affect diversity in organizations. Based on our review, thereappear to be contextual elements both outside the organization and inside the organization that may influence the prevalence andimpact of diversity. Some external aspects of context are the national culture (Stone-Romero & Stone, 2007), occupation (Heilman& Okimoto, 2007), industry (Blum, Fields, & Goodman, 1994; Goodman, Fields, & Blum, 2003; Kochan et al., 2003), legal context(e.g., a Title VII lawsuit; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006), economy (e.g., labor market; Fields, Goodman, & Blum, 2005), and family andcommunity in which the organization and its employees are embedded (Ragins, 2008). Each of these aspects of the context mayhave separable effects with broad (e.g., the economy) or narrow (e.g., the employee's family) implications for individuals, groups,and organizations. Likewise, internal organizational contextual effects include organizational culture, strategy, and humanresource practices (Kochan et al., 2003). In addition, depending on the size of the organization, there may be many different groupsand individuals that determine the extent to which the workforce is diverse, and whether diversity has positive, negative, orneutral effects. The large number of contextual variables that affect organizations and their employees may well explain theinconsistent results that are found pertaining to the effects of diversity (Jackson et al., 2003; Kochan et al., 2003; Webber &Donahue, 2001).
A second theme in the literature is that diversity has been conceptualized and measured in a variety of ways, contributing toconceptual confusion as well as detrimental effects on knowledge building (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Diversity has also beenstudied at multiple levels, including the individual, the individual within the work group, the individual relative to the manager,the work group, the management team, and the organization. In Fig. 1, the dashed double-headed arrow signifies the variety ofpotential ways to assess diversity within organizations, including across levels and within levels. As described in this review,different theories have been applied and different effects shown across levels. For example, research has found that diversity at thetop management level can attract women and minorities to the organization (Kalev et al., 2006), and that race similarity betweenmanagers and employees contributes to expectations that diversity is valued (Avery et al., 2007). More careful theorizing is clearlynecessary about the potential for influence across (e.g., downward and upward effects) as well as within levels (e.g. betweenemployees or units).
A third theme in the literature is that diversity has been linked to a variety of outcomes. Most commonly, diversity effects havebeen examined in relation to equal employment opportunities at the individual level (c.f., Cox & Nkomo, 1990), work groupperformance and conflict at the unit level (c.f., Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007), and firm performance at the organizational
129L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
level (c.f., Richard et al., 2006). Our model in Fig. 1 includes other types of important outcomes that are understudied in theworkplace diversity literature, including family and community outcomes and societal outcomes. For example, opportunities fordiverse people may enhance communities through both economic and social enrichment. Societies may also change as the result ofincreased contact among diverse people provided in work settings and associated learning opportunities. There are double-headedarrows between the two types of outcomes (work and non-work) and the organization to signify potential influences from theorganization to outcomes, and from outcomes to the organization.
At present, the diversity literature is as diverse as the individuals, groups and organizations that are the subjects of study. Muchwork is needed, both theoretically and empirically, to develop a body of knowledge related to diversity in organizations. Mostimportantly, scholars need to move beyond old paradigms and limited ways of thinking to develop integrative and practicaldiversity theories that help organizational leaders create systems in which diverse human beings are able to thrive, and to helptheir organizations do likewise.
References
Alderfer, C. P. (1986). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 190−222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Allegretto, S. A., & Arthur, M. M. (2001). An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male earnings differentials: unmarried and unequal? Industrial andLabor Relations Review, 54, 631−646.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Templer, A. (2005). Adapting training for older employees: the Canadian response to an aging workforce. Journal of Management
Development, 24, 57−67.Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce: the relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and
employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1542−1556.Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D. C., & Tonidandel, S. (2007). Unequal attendance: the relationships between race, organizational diversity cues, and absenteeism.
Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 875−902.Avolio, B., Waldman, D., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Age and work performance in nonmanagerial jobs: the effects of experience and occupational type. Academy of
Management Journal, 33, 407−422.Ayoko, O. B., Hartel, C. E. J., & Callen, V. J. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups:
a communication accommodation theory approach. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(2), 165−196.Bacharach, S. B., & Bamberger, P. A. (2004). Diversity and the union: the effect of demographic dissimilarity on members' union attachment. Group & Organization
Management, 29(3), 385−418.Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48, 726−739.Balkundi, P., Kilduff, M., Barsness, Z. I., & Michael, J. H. (2006). Demographic antecedents and performance consequences of structural holes in work teams. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 241−260.Ball, P., Monaco, G., Schmeling, J., Schartz, H., & Blanck, P. (2005). Disability as diversity in Fortune 100 companies. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 97−121.Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barinaga, E. (2007). ‘Cultural diversity' at work: ‘national culture’ as a discourse organizing an international project group. Human Relations, 60, 315−340.Barnes-Farrell, J. L., Rumery, S. M., & Swody, C. A. (2002). How do concepts of age relate to work and off-the-job stresses and strains? A field study of health care
workers in five nations. Experimental Aging Research, 28, 87−98.Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99−121.Barnum, P., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Double jeopardy for women and minorities: pay differences with age. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 863−880.Barsness, Z. I., Diekmann, K. A., & Seidel, M. L. (2005). Motivation and opportunity: the role of remote work, demographic dissimilarity, and social network
centrality in impression management. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 401−419.Bartol, K. M., Evans, C. L., & Stith, M. T. (1978). Black versus white leaders: a comparative review of the literature. Academy of Management Review, 3, 293−304.Becker, G. (1962). Investments in human capital: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 9−49.Becker, G. S. (1971). The economics of discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Bell, B. S., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Effects of disability, gender, and job level on ratings of job applicants. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46, 229−246.Berg, N., & Lien, D. (2002). Measuring the effect of sexual orientation on income: evidence of discrimination. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20, 394−414.Berry, J. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9−25). Boulder: Westview.Berry, J. (1985). Psychological adaptation of foreign students in Canada. In R. Samuda & A. Wolfgang (Eds.), Intercultural counseling (pp. 235−248). Toronto: Hogreffe.Berry, J. (1990). Cultural variations in cognitive style. In S. Wapner (Ed.), Bio-psycho-social factors in cognitive style (pp. 289−308). Hillsdale: Earlbaum.Berry, J. (1997). Immigration, adaptation, and acculturation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5−68.Berry, J., & Sam, D. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. In J. Berry, M. Seagull, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Social behavior and
applications (pp. 291−326). Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.Bielby, W. T., & Baron, J. N. (1986). Sex segregation within occupations. American Economic Review, 76(2), 43−48.Berry, J., Kim, U., Minde, T., & Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491−511.Berry, J., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38, 185−206.Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001). Rethinking ‘acculturation' in relation to diasporic cultures and postcolonial identities. Human Development, 44, 1−18.Bilimoria, D. (2006). The relationship between women corporate directors and women corporate officers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(1), 47−61.Black, D. A., Makar, H. R., Sanders, S. G., & Taylor, L. J. (2003). The effects of sexual orientation on earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56, 449−469.Blandford, J. M. (2003). The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56, 622−642.Blum, T. C., Fields, D. L., & Goodman, J. S. (1994). Organization-level determinants of women in management. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 241−268.Bochner, S., & Hesketh, B. (1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 25, 233−257.Brown, C. L. (1998). Sexual orientation and labor economics. Feminist Economics, 4, 89−95.Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: a cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17−28.Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Carpenter, C. S. (2005). Self-reported sexual orientation and earnings: evidence from California. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 58, 258−273.Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions research: recent advances and future opportunities. British Journal of Management,
17, S1−S5.Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40(3), 423−443.Chatman, J. A., & O'Reilly, C. A. (2004). Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 193−208.Chattopadhyay, P. (2003). Can dissimilarity lead to positive outcomes? The influence of open versus closed minds. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 295−312.
130 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
Chung-Herrera, B. G., & Lankau, M. J., (2007). Racioethnic diversity and leadership: What do we know and where do we go? Paper presented at the Academy ofManagement Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Clain, S. H., & Leppel, K. (2001). An investigation into sexual orientation discrimination as an explanation for wage differences. Applied Economics, 33, 37−47.Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. M. (1992). Self and supervisory perspectives on age and work attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 469 484.Colella, A. (1996). Organizational socialization of employees with disabilities: theory and research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management (pp. 351−417). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Colella, A., & Stone, D. L. (2005). Workplace discrimination toward persons with disabilities: a call for some new research directions. In R. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.),
Discrimination at Work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 227−253). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Colella, A., & Varma, A. (2001). The impact of subordinate disability on leader-member exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 304−315.Colella, A., & Varma, A. (1999). Disability-job fit stereotypes and the evaluation of persons with disabilities at work. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 9, 79−95.Colella, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1997). Appraising the performance of employees with disabilities: a review and model. Human Resources Management Review,
7, 27−53.Colella, A., De Nisi, A. S., & Varma, A. (1998). The impact of ratee's disability on performance judgments and choice as partner. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,
102−111.Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Cox, T., & Nkomo, S. M. (1992). Candidate age as a factor in promotability ratings. Public Personnel Management, 21, 197−210.Cox, T., & Nkomo, S. M. (1990). Invisible men and women: a status report on race as a variable in organization behavior research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
11, 419−431.Cox, T., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of
Management Journal, 4, 827−847.Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1107−1123.Davis, G., & Watson, G. (1982). Black life in corporate America. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.DeArmond, S., Tye, M., Chen, P. Y., Krauss, A., Rogers, D. A., & Sintek, E. (2006). Age and gender stereotypes: new challenges in a changing workplace and workforce.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2184−2214.Deitch, E. A., Butz, R. M., & Brief, A. P. (2004). Out of the closet and out of a job? The nature, import, and causes of sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.
In R. W. Griffen & A.M. O'Leary-Kelly (Eds.), The Dark Side of Organizational Behavior (pp. 187−234). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Driscoll, J. M., Kelley, F. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Lesbian identity and disclosure in the workplace: relation to occupational stress and satisfaction. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 48, 229−242.Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 815−847.Dwyer, S., Richard, O. C., & Chadwick, K. (2003). Gender diversity in management and firm performance: the influence of growth orientation and organizational
culture. Journal of Business Research, 56, 1009−1019.Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: a social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573−598.Earley, P. C., & Gibson, C. B. (2002). Multinational teams: A new perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Earley, P. C., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43,
26−49.Ellis, J., & Riggle, E. D. B. (1995). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openness about one's sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 30, 75−85.Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 755−780.Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46, 229−273.Fields, D. L., Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (2005). Human resource dependence and organizational demography: a study of minority employment in private sector
companies. Journal of Management, 31, 167−185.Finkelstein, L. M., Allen, T. D., & Rhoton, L. (2000). An examination of the effects of age diversity in mentoring relationships. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans.Finkelstein, L. M., Allen, T. D., & Rhoton, L. A. (2003). An examination of the role of age in mentoring relationships. Group and Organization Management, 28, 249−281.Finkelstein, L. M., Burke, M. J., & Raju, N. S. (1995). Age discrimination in simulated employment contexts: an integrative analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
40−45.Finkelstein, L. M., Kulas, J. T., & Dages, K. D. (2003). Age differences in proactive newcomer socialization strategies in two populations. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 17, 473−502.Florey, A., & Harrison, D. (2000). Responses to informal accommodation requests from employees with disabilities: multi-study evidence on willingness to comply.
Academy of Management Journal, 43, 224−233.Franche, R. -L., Baril, R., Shaw, W., Nicholas, M., & Loisel, P. (2005). Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: optimizing the role of stakeholders in
implementation and research. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15, 525−542.Frink, D. D., Robinson, R. K., Reithel, B., Arthur, M. M., García, M. F., Paetzold, R. L., et al. (2005). The relationship between personality and peers' judgments of the
appropriateness of accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1418−1439.García, M. F., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2005). The relationship between personality and peers' judgments of the appropriateness of accommodations for
individuals with disabilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1418−1439.Goodman, J. S., Fields, D. L., & Blum, T. C. (2003). Cracks in the glass ceiling: In what kinds of organizations do women make it to the top? Group & Organization
Management, 28, 475−501.Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 479−514.Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: the effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national
diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451−495.Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Goldberg, C. B., Finkelstein, L. M., Perry, E. L., & Konrad, A. M. (2004). Job and industry fit: the effects of age and gender matches on career progress outcomes. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 25, 807−829.Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: a developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L.L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership frontiers (pp. 143−165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.Graves, L. M., & Elsass, P. M. (2005). Sex and sex dissimilarity effects in ongoing teams: some surprising findings. Human Relations, 58(2), 191−221.Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay mean and lesbians: “coming out” at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1191−1199.Harcourt, M., Lam, H., & Harcourt, S. (2005). Discriminatory practices in hiring: institutional and rational economic perspectives. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 16, 2113−2132.Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference?: diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 1199−1228.Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment:
summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1013−1036.Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96−107.
131L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
Hebl, M. R., & Skorinko, J. L. (2005). Acknowledging one's disability in the interview: does “when” make a difference? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,2477−2492.
Heilman, M. E. (1994). Affirmative action: some unintended consequences for working women. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, 125−169.Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: the implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,
81−92.Hewstone, M., Crisp, R. J., Contarello, A., Voci, A., Conway, L., Marletta, G., & Willis, H. (2006). Tokens in the tower: perceptual processes and interaction dynamics in
academic settings with skewed, tilted, and balanced sex ratios. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 509−532.Hill, W. H., & Fox, W. M. (1973). Black and White Marine squad leaders' perceptions of racially mixed squads. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 680−686.Hobman, E. V., & Bordia, P. (2006). The role of team identification in the dissimilarity-conflict relationship. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 483−507.Hoffman, L. (1959). Homogeneity and member personality and its effect on group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 27−32.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Softwares of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. Sex Roles, 48, 115−130.Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in a social context: a multi-attribute, multi-level analysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 675−702.Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801−830.Jaeger, P. T., & Bowman, C. A. (2005). Understanding disability: inclusion, access, diversity and civil rights. Westpoint, CT: Praeger.Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Janssens, M., & Zazoni, P., (2007). What makes an organization inclusive? Work contexts and diversity management practices favoring ethnic minorities' inclusion. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management conference, Philadelphia, PA.Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 703−729.Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hudson Institute.Jones, G. E., & Stone, D. L. (1995). Perceived discomfort associated with working with persons with varying disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81(3), 911−919.Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., Scott, R. A., et al. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman.Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2007). Context matters: a multilevel framework for work team diversity research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, Vol. 26. (pp. 1−48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses?: assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American
Sociological Review, 71, 589−617.Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Karakowsky, L., McBey, K., & Chuang, Y. (2004). Perceptions of team performance: the impact of group composition and task-based cues. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 19(5), 506−525.Kirchmeyer, C., & Cohen, A. (1992). Multicultural groups: their performance and reactions with constructive conflict. Group & Organization Management, 17,
153−170.Kirkman, B. L., Tesluk, P. E., & Rosen, B. (2004). The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader-team member demographic fit on team empowerment
and effectiveness. Group and Organization Management, 29, 334−368.Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83−96.Klawitter, M. M., & Flatt, V. (1998). The effects of state and local antidiscrimination policies on earnings for gays and lesbians. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 17, 658−686.Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., et al. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: report of the diversity research
network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3−21.Kossek, E., Zonia, S. C., & Young, W., (1996). The limitations of the power of organizational demography: Can diversity climate be enhanced in the absence of
teamwork? Ruderman, M., Hughes-James, M., & Jackson, S. (Eds.), Selected Research on Work Team Diversity (pp. 121-152). Greensboro, NC: Center for CreativeLeadership and Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of ratee race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56−65.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1−49.Kulik, C. T., Perry, E. L., & Bourhis, A. C. (2000). Ironic evaluation processes: effects of thought suppression on evaluations of older job applicants. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 21, 689−711.Kulik, C. T., Roberson, L., & Perry, E. L. (2007). The multiple-category problem: category activation and inhibition in the hiring process. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 529−548.Larwood, L., Gutek, B., & Gattiker, U. E. (1984). Perspectives on institutional discrimination and resistance to change. Group and Organization Studies, 9, 333−352.Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48(4),
645−659.Lawrence, B. S. (1984). Age grading: the implicit organizational timetable. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 13, 181−191.Lawrence, B. S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory of age: demography, norms, and performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 309−337.Lawrence, B. S. (1990). At the crossroads: a multiple-level explanation of individual attachment. Organization Science, 1, 65−85.Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom
and control in modern society (pp. 18−66). Toronto, Canada: D.Van Nostrand.Lee, B. A. (1996). Legal requirements and employer responses to accommodating employees with disabilities. Human Resource Management Review, 6(4), 231−251.Lee, C., & Farh, J. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1),
136−154.Leonard, J., & Levine, D. (2006). The effect of diversity on turnover: a large case study. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 59, 547−572.Leonard, J. S., Levine, D. I., & Joshi, A. (2004). Do birds of a feather shop together? The Effects on performance of employees' similarity with one another and with
customers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 731−754.Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.Levine, J., & Resnick, L. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 585−612.Liao, H., Joshi, A., & Chuang, A. (2004). Sticking out like a sore thumb: employee dissimilarity and deviance at work. Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 969−1000.Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31−55.Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: the role of individual differences in
attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 865−875.Mason, A., Pratt, H. D., Patel, D. R., Greydanus, D. E., & Yahya, K. Z. (2004). Prejudice toward people with disabilities. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice and
discrimination: Disability, religion, physique, and other traits, Vol. 4. (pp. 51−93). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing.Maurer, T. J., & Rafuse, N. E. (2001). Learning, not litigating: managing employee development and avoiding claims of age discrimination. Academy of Management
Executive, 15, 110−121.Maurer, T. J., Weiss, E. M., & Barbeite, F. G. (2003). A model of involvement in work-related learning and development activity: the effects of individual, situational,
motivational, and age variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 707−724.Maznevski, M. (1994). Understanding our differences: performance in decision making groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531−552.Maznevski, M., & Chudoba, K. (2000). Bridging space over time: global virtual team dynamics and effectiveness. Organization Science, 11, 473−492.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(2), 395−429.
132 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
McKay, & McDaniel (2006). A reexamination of Black–White differences in work performance: more data, more moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3),538−554.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: are diversity climateperceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35−62.
McLaughlin, M. E., Bell, M. P., & Stringer, D. Y. (2004). Stigma and acceptance of persons with disabilities — understudied aspects of workforce diversity. Group andOrganization Management, 29, 302−333.
McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248−264.Meyerson, D. E., & Fletcher, J. K. (2000). A modern manifesto for shattering the glass ceiling. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 126−136.Miller, B. K., & Werner, S. (2005). Factors influencing the inflation of task performance ratings for workers with disabilities and contextual performance ratings for
their coworkers. Human Performance, 18, 309−329.Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 402−433.Moch, M. (1980). Racial differences in job satisfaction: testing four common explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 299−306.Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on
relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015−1039.Niessen, C. (2006). Age and learning during unemployment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 771−792.Nelson, N. L., & Probst, T. M. (2004). Multiple minority individuals: multiplying the risk of workplace harassment and discrimination. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The
psychology of prejudice and discrimination: Ethnicity and multiracial identity, Vol. 2. (pp. 193−217). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing.Nordstrom, C. R., Huffaker, B. J., & Williams, K. B. (1998). When physical disabilities are not liabilities: the role of applicant and interviewer characteristics on
employment interview outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 283−306.Ostroff, C., Atwater, L. E., & Feinberg, B. J. (2004). Understanding self-other agreement: a look at rater and rate characteristics, context, and outcomes. Personnel
Psychology, 57, 333−375.Pati, G. C., & Bailey, E. K. (1995). Empowering people with disabilities: strategy and human resource issues in implementing the ADA. Organizational Dynamics, 23,
52−69.Pedhazer, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Pelled, L. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict and work group outcomes: an intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615−631.Perry, E. L., & Finkelstein, L. M. (1999). Toward a broader view of age discrimination in employment-related decisions: a joint consideration of organizational factors
and cognitive processes. Human Resource Management Review, 9, 21−49.Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Zhou, J. (1999). A closer look at the effects of subordinate supervisor age differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 341−357.Perry, E. L., Simpson, P. A., NicDomhnaill, O. M., & Siegel, D. M. (2003). Is there a technology age gap? Associations among age, skills, and employment outcomes.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 141−149.Pettigrew, T. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 353−390).
London: Basil Blackwell.Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: a new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156−176.Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. Academy of Management Review, 33,
194−215.Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244−1261.Ragins, B. R., & Gonzalez, J. A. (2003). Understanding diversity in organizations: getting a grip on a slippery construct. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational Behavior:
The state of the science (pp. 125−163)., (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.Ragins, B. R., & Wiethoff, C. (2005). Understanding heterosexism at work: the straight problem. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The
psychological and organizational bases (pp. 177−201). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Ragins, B. R., Cornwell, J. M., & Miller, J. S. (2003). Heterosexism in the workplace: do race and gender matter? Group and Organization Management, 28, 45−74.Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2003). Corporate teamwork and diversity statements in college recruitment brochures: effects on attraction. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33(12), 2465−2492.Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: a resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164−177.Richards, S. A., & Jaffee, C. L. (1972). Blacks supervising Whites: a study of interracial difficulties in working together in a simulated organization. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 56, 234−240.Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial
orientation dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 255−266.Richard, O. C., Ford, D., & Ismail, K. (2006). Exploring the performance effects of visible attribute diversity: the moderating role of span of control and organizational
life cycle. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(12), 2091−2109.Ringenbach, K. L., & Jacobs, R. R. (1994). Development of age stereotypes in the workplace scale. Nashville, TN: Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Conference.Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: past development, contradictions, and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 19, 131−173.Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212−236.Roberson, Q. M., & Stevens, C. K. (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(2), 379−391.Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1976). The influence of age stereotypes on managerial decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 428−432.Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1977). Too old or not too old. Harvard Business Review, 55, 97−106.Roth, P. L., Huffcutt, A. I., & Bobko, P. (2003). Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: a new meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4),
694−706.Rupp, D. E., Vodanovich, S. J., & Crede, M. (2006). Age bias in the workplace: the impact of ageism and causal attributions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36,
1337−1364.Sackett, P. R., & DuBois, C. L. (1991). Rater-ratee race effects onperformance evaluation: challenging meta-analytic conclusions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 873−877.Saetermoe, C. L., Scattone, D., & Kim, K. H. (2001). Ethnicity and the stigma of disabilities. African-American, Latin-American or European-American counterparts.
Psychology & Health, 16, 699−714.Sawyerr, O. O., Strauss, J., & Yan, J. (2005). Individual value structure and diversity attitudes: the moderating effects of age, gender, race, and religiosity. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 20(6), 498−521.Scheid, T. L. (2005). Stigma as a barrier to employment: mental disability and the Americans with disabilities act. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28,
670−690.Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95−100.Scherbaum, C. A., Scherbaum, K. L., & Popovich, P. M. (2005). Predicting job-related expectancies and affective reactions to employees with disabilities from
previous work experience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 889−904.Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 3−20.Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 1−65.Shapcott, K. M., Carron, A. V., Burke, S. M., Bradshaw, M. H., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2006). Member diversity and cohesion and performance in walking groups. Small
Group Research, 37(6), 701−720.
133L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133
Shore, L. M., & Goldberg, C. B. (2004). Age discrimination in the work place. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), The psychological and organizational bases ofdiscrimination at work. Frontier Series, Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Goldberg, C. B. (2003). Work attitudes and decisions as a function of manager age and employee age. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,529−537.
Singh, V., & Point, S. (2006). (Re)presentations of gender and ethnicity in diversity statements on European company websites. Journal of Business Ethics, 68,363−379.
Snow, C. C., Snell, S. A., Davison, S. C., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Use transnational teams to globalize your company. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 50−67.Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8),
1003−1018.Spataro, S. E. (2005). Diversity in context: how organizational culture shapes reactions to workers with disabilities and others who are demographically different.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 21−38.Strauss, J. P., & Connerley, M. L. (2003). Demographics, personality, contact, and universal-diverse orientation: an exploratory examination. Human Resource
Management, 42(2), 159−174.Stone, D., & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organization. Academy of Management Review, 21, 352−401.Stone-Romero, E. F., & Stone, D. L. (2007). The influence of cultural, cognitive, and affective processes on stigmatization in organizations. In J. Martocchio (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resource management, Vol. 26. (pp. 117−167)New York: Elsevier.Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7−24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Thomas, D. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: an experimental study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 242−263.Triandis, H., Hall, E., & Ewen, R. (1965). Member heterogeneity and dyadic creativity. Human Relations, 18, 33−55.Tsui, A., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 402−423.Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549−579.Umphress, E. E., Smith-Crowe, K., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Watkins, M. B. (2007). When birds of a feather flock together and when they do not: status composition,
social dominance orientation, and organizational attractiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 396−409.Unger, D., & Kregel, J. (2003). Employers' knowledge and utilization of accomodations. Work, 21, 5−15.Van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: why those who need the most help end up
getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 877−893.Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. (2005). Location-level links between diversity and innovation climate depend on national power distance. Academy
of Management Journal, 48(6), 1171−1182.Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515−541.Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 1008−1022.Vecchio, R. P., & Brazil, D. M. (2007). Leadership and sex-similarity: a comparison in a military setting. Personnel Psychology, 60(2), 303−335.Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: a structural model of heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46,
218−232.Watson, W., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogenous and diverse task
groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590−602.Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of
Management, 27, 141−162.Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738−748.Weiss, E. M., & Maurer, T. J. (2004). Age discrimination in personnel decision: a reexamination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1551−1562.Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77−140.Wood, W. (1987). Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53−71.Young, A., & Hurlic, D. (2007). Gender enactment at work: the importance of gender and gender-related behavior to person-organization fit and career decisions.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 168−187.Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: the differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 353−376.
- Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?
- Race and ethnicity diversity
- Antecedents and outcomes of racial/ethnic diversity
- Summary
- Gender diversity
- Antecedents and consequences of gender diversity
- Summary
- Age diversity
- Antecedents and outcomes of age diversity
- Summary
- Disability diversity
- Antecedents and outcomes of disability diversity
- Summary
- Sexual orientation diversity
- Antecedents and consequences of heterosexism and discrimination in the workplace
- Summary
- Cultural and national origin diversity
- Antecedents and consequences of cultural diversity
- Summary
- Common themes and future research
- Individual-level studies
- Negative theoretical paradigms
- Increasing focus on macro-level theories
- Leveraging domain-specific theories
- Group-level studies
- Surface-to-deep level diversity
- Antecedents of diversity
- Multiple dimensions of diversity
- Conclusions
- References
