More than 25 years have passed since Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986) described the employee–organization relationship (EOR) through the lens of perceived organizational support (POS). Essentially, they believed that (a) an exchange relationship takes place between companies and their workers where the principal concern among the latter is the extent to which they view their employer as supportive, and (b) the magnitude of POS has considerable organizational implications. Subsequent research has borne this out, showing that employees keep tabs on their employer's actions in appraising their supportiveness and that these assessments relate to outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intentions, in-role performance, and organizational citizenship behavior (Ng & Sorensen, 2008; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle, Edmondson, & Hansen, 2009). It seems that the better organizations are able to create and maintain supportive work environments, the more favorably employees respond with respect to their attitudes and behaviors.
Despite its clear utility in enhancing our understanding of EORs, we believe the POS literature would benefit from greater consideration of diversity and its effects in the workplace. Statistics show that workplaces around the globe are becoming more demographically heterogeneous, particularly with respect to gender, nationality, age, racioethnicity, and religion. Unfortunately, many employees are apt to respond unfavorably to this heightened diversity and the challenges it can produce (Leonard & Levine, 2006; Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). However, little research has explored the influence of diversity on EORs (for exceptions, see Buttner, Lowe, & Billings-Harris, 2010; Chrobot-Mason, 2003; McKay & Avery, 2005). Current findings suggest that (a) perceived organizational obligations differ for minority and majority employees, and (b) many minority employees pay particular attention to what they perceive to be diversity promises and are especially sensitive to their fulfillment; these findings illustrate the need to reconsider EORs in light of the continuing diversification of workplaces around the globe. Consequently, the focus of this chapter is to describe how racioethnic diversity (we limit our focus to racioethnicity due to space considerations) has shaped and will continue to shape the evolution of these relationships.
The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows. First, we describe current trends regarding racioethnic diversity in the workplace. Second, we consider how this type of diversity can influence “employees’ general belief that their work organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being” (i.e., POS; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002, p. 698). Third, we outline the research implications of integrating diversity and POS to provide an agenda for subsequent empirical study. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the managerial implications of this chapter, paying particular attention to how organizations can leverage the unique talents of all of their employees.
Numerous statistics indicate workplace demographic diversity is trending upward in settings around the globe. In the United States, for example, the current labor force is older and more gender balanced and contains more racioethnic minorities than in years past (Toossi, 2006). These workplace changes are projected to continue to the point where women slightly outnumber men and there are equal numbers of White and non-White laborers in the year 2050 (Toossi, 2006). In addition to these shifts in domestic forms of diversity, globalization has produced a growing immigrant presence as well. In fact, estimates suggest that immigrants constitute nearly one in seven employees in the United States (Camarota, 2005). Although demographic diversity receives relatively less attention outside the United States, evidence suggests that similar trends are occurring elsewhere in such settings as Europe, Asia, and Australia (e.g., MacGillivray, Beecher, & Golden, 2008; Singh & Point, 2004). Consequently, the importance of considering the influence of such diversity on management practices (and vice versa) is palpable.
As these changes began to occur, a number of authors (e.g., Cox, 1994; Joplin & Daus, 1997) took notice and began documenting the differences between managing a diverse as opposed to a homogenous work-force. Among the various issues they raised are changes to traditional power dynamics, increased diversity of opinions, perceived lack of empathy, tokenism, unequal opportunities for participation, and inertia. Conceptually, these topics are highly similar to Cox's (1994) tripartite definition of diversity climate, which highlights relevant individual-, group-, and organizational-level factors that influence career outcomes and organizational effectiveness. However, because these discussions focused primarily on how (a) organizations should be structured to deal with diversity, and (b) leaders should manage differences, considerably less attention has been devoted to exploring the impact of growing diversity on EORs. Thus, it remains largely unclear how important perceptions of these relationships, such as POS, might be influenced by the rise in demographic heterogeneity.
From a managerial perspective, one would expect it to be easier to anticipate and meet the desires of a homogenous versus a diverse group of employees. Greater demographic similarity should coincide with less variability in values, wants, needs, and aspirations. Less variability in these attributes allows managers to standardize their methods for dealing with employees and reduces the need for customization of their managerial approaches to accommodate differences among their subordinates. Not only is it simpler to design strategies intended to treat everyone similarly, but doing so also provides a sense of consistency, which is important for ensuring that employees feel they are being treated fairly (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005).
When employees are more heterogeneous, however, it becomes increasingly challenging and even potentially inappropriate to treat them similarly. Take, for instance, an employee who cannot hear. If managers and coworkers embody the belief that everyone should be treated similarly, it makes it difficult (if not impossible) for such an individual to succeed within that environment, irrespective of what other talents he or she might possess. Although the need for accommodating a physical ability is more obvious, making adjustments to include other types of difference also can be important. This may not seem like cause for concern for many readers, but it can become potentially problematic when considered in the context of POS.
Through their day-to-day experiences, employees develop perceptions of the nature of treatment they receive from their employer over the course of an employment relationship. Broadly speaking, these experiences can be classified as pertaining to (a) general fairness, (b) supervisor support, and (c) organizational rewards and job conditions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Much of the POS literature builds on organizational justice principles, suggesting that consistency (i.e., treating everyone the same) is a key to fair treatment. Nevertheless, if companies are unwilling or unable to acknowledge and accommodate differences among their employees, they may find it extremely difficult to meet employee expectations and provide a supportive environment for all employees. This is true whether the need for the accommodation is more obvious (e.g., a wheelchair-accessible facility for employees with physical disabilities) or less obvious (e.g., a network group for a newly hired minority employee). In either case, the employee is apt to perceive the organization as unsupportive based on a perceived failure to provide equal employment opportunity.
Because employee perceptions of their employer's provision of equal opportunity are roughly tantamount to diversity climate (Buttner et al., 2010; McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2009), we believe that managing a company's diversity climate is the key to providing a supportive environment for a racioethnically diverse set of employees (Leveson, Joiner, & Bakalis, 2009). In one of the few studies to examine racioethnic differences in prospective antecedents of POS, Chrobot-Mason (2003) identified five diversity-related promises: (1) diverse representation throughout the organization; (2) consideration of minority input; (3) valuation of different ideas, opinions, and perspectives; (4) the elimination of bias and discrimination; and (5) support/understanding of unique minority issues. We consider each of these in the current discussion and expand on the last of them to include language policies and access to mentors.
Organizations vary considerably in their levels of employee demographic diversity. Some contain an abundance of one particular type of diversity (e.g., age), yet very little of other types. Others are comprised of diversity of all types or have virtually none whatsoever. In light of the diversity trends described in the previous section, it is clear that most companies are likely to have more diversity (of many types) in the coming years than they have had in the past. Similarly, employees are likely to experience working with more diverse peers than they have in the past. What is important to the present discussion is that the impact of having more diversity often differs depending on whether or not one is a member of the majority group.
By definition, those in the demographic majority within a geographic context are likely to comprise the demographic majority in firms within that context (e.g., Stoll, Holzer, & Ihlanfeldt, 2000). For instance, White Americans, who represent the racioethnic majority within the United States, are more likely than members of other racioethnic groups to find themselves in the majority within a U.S.-based company. Mathematically speaking, increasing diversity requires either (a) hiring more minorities or (b) replacing members of the majority with members of minority groups (Harrison & Klein, 2007). The offshoot of this notion is that under such circumstances, demographic dissimilarity (i.e., the proportion of individuals belonging to a group other than one's own) will increase for members of the majority and decrease for minority group members. This feature of workforce composition is an important consideration given that racioethnic similarity within organizational settings decreases negative outcomes, such as the likelihood of perceiving discrimination (Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2008), and increases positive outcomes, such as employee attachment (Leonard & Levine, 2006; Tsui et al., 1992).
As the labor force grows increasingly diverse, many job applicants and employees are likely to form expectations about the demographics of their colleagues. This tendency may be especially pronounced among those working for organizations that presented themselves as diverse during the recruitment process, an increasingly common human resource management strategy (cf. Avery & McKay, 2006). If prospective employees are led to expect diversity or demographically similar coworkers, they may hold their employers accountable to this expectation in their psychological contracts. Thus, the demographic profile of an employer's workforce probably will influence perceptions of organizational support among its personnel in a manner that may not have been expected previously.
In culling the literature for empirical evidence consistent with the preceding conclusion, we discovered a few pertinent findings. First, two studies (Buttner et al., 2010; Chrobot-Mason, 2003) demonstrated that diversity promises, which include diverse representation, influence minority employees’ commitment to and intent to remain with their employers. Notably, this was after accounting for variance attributable to the fulfillment of general promises considered to be part of the psychological contract. Second, research has shown that racioethnic dissimilarity with coworkers and prospective customers influences employees’ propensity to turnover (e.g., Leonard & Levine, 2006). Perhaps an unexamined mediator of these relationships involves POS, because a lack of racioethnically similar coworkers could reduce coworker support and, consequently, POS (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Ng & Sorensen, 2008). Although not a direct test of our notion that demographic representation is becoming more relevant to POS, these results provide some measure of preliminary support.
Another consequence of increasing diversity is that employees will be expected to communicate and get along with demographically dissimilar others. Although this may sound rather simple, a number of authors have noted that diversity is positively correlated with the level of conflict within a group (see King, Hebl, and Beal [2009] for a recent review of this literature). Because surface-level differences (e.g., race, sex, age) often correspond or are perceived to correspond with deeper level differences (e.g., personality, values, work styles), there are potentially fertile grounds for disagreement to occur along demographic lines. Such diversity-related conflict is often counterproductive for organizations in that it can detract significantly from productivity (Ely & Thomas, 2001; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Consequently, companies will need employees to coordinate and cooperate with other employees, customers, and supervisors who are dissimilar to them if they are to be successful.
Not all employees, however, are equally well suited to work effectively with dissimilar others. Rather, it seems that some may possess “diversity mind-sets” that make them more suitable for this type of work (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007, p. 531). According to van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007), diversity mind-sets pertain to the favorability of one's attitudes and beliefs regarding diversity. Although preliminary, they review some evidence suggesting that “diversity mind-sets favoring diversity may thus be expected to prevent intergroup bias as well as to stimulate the integration of diverse information, viewpoints, and perspectives” (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007, p. 531). Although further research is needed to develop the mind-set construct, because prior investigations have conceptualized it in a variety of ways (e.g., openness to experience, value of diversity, need for cognition; Homan et al., 2008; Homan, van Knippenberg, van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007; Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009), organizations are likely to expect their employees to possess such mind-sets (or at least be receptive to training designed to help facilitate them). Accordingly, employees are apt to anticipate and desire organizational support for developing and exercising these mind-sets (e.g., training, performance appraisal, compensation).
A common theme among members of traditionally underrepresented demographic groups is that they often feel as though their input does not receive the same level of consideration as majority group members within organizational settings (Blank & Slipp, 1994; Elsass & Graves, 1997). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) helps to explain why this may occur. According to the theory, individuals classify themselves and others on the basis of readily observable markers (e.g., racioethnicity) and use this classification as the basis for differentiating those who are similar (i.e., in-group) from those who are not (i.e., out-group). Because people are motivated to feel positively about their in-group as a means of feeling positively about themselves, there is a tendency to distort one's perception to the advantage of in-group members (and the disadvantage of out-group members). In practice, this could take the form of ignoring viable ideas presented by out-group members and then praising these same ideas when presented by those in the in-group.
Furthermore, status characteristics theory (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Ridgeway, 1991) proposes that societies construct status hierarchies based on social identity group membership. In the United States, for instance, some groups (e.g., Whites, men) are accorded greater status and perceptions of competence than other groups (e.g., minorities, women). The result of this status ordering is that in group decision-making contexts, members of high-status groups enjoy higher expectancies of perceived competence, which translates into their input receiving greater consideration than the viewpoints offered by members of low-status groups. Bunderson (2003) showed that in low-tenured groups (contexts wherein visible, demographic characteristics are likely to be used to form initial impressions), racioethnicity had stronger influence on judgments of team members’ expertise than more relevant, work-related characteristics like work experience and educational attainment. In addition, patterns of group interactions in which the suggestions of high-status people are lauded while those presented by members of low-status groups are marginalized compel members of the latter group to minimize their contributions to group effectiveness (Cohen, 1982; Ridgeway, 1991). Consequently, prevailing views of low-status group members’ relative incompetence are reinforced.
Returning to POS, it is easy to see why the extent that minority viewpoints are considered is relevant in a diverse workforce. Research on employee voice (i.e., having the opportunity to express one's views prior to organizational decisions being made) has illustrated the importance of having one's opinions heard and considered (Shapiro, 1993). In fact, people's perceptions of fairness decline considerably if they offer their perspective only to be ignored by decision makers (Avery & Quiñones, 2002). Most employees likely expect some degree of voice and for their employers to actually to listen to what they have to say. To the extent that this is not the case, it can be expected that many employees will perceive their organizations as unsupportive (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
Clearly, every worker has a desire to be heard (at least to some extent). The issue here is that the views of employees belonging to certain racioethnic groups may be discounted more often than those of others. This suggests that increasing the presence of underrepresented groups within organizations also means increasing the proportion of individuals whose viewpoints are prone to be ignored because of their social identities. Thus, the inequity of POS discussed in this section is not simply an issue of a lack of voice, which is a more general issue (i.e., equally relevant to members of all demographic groups). Instead, it is a matter of demographic discrimination, which is a diversity-related issue. This could explain why inclusive leadership (i.e., leader–member exchange) appears to be more important when groups are more demographically heterogeneous (Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Stewart & Johnson, 2009).
In the previous section, we focused on reactions and responses to ideas based on who contributes them, with the point being that people in organizations with more inclusive diversity climates will be more open to ideas from everyone and, therefore, less likely to be seen as more supportive of one group of employees than another. In this section, we extend that notion to consider the diversity of the ideas themselves. A key component of a firm's diversity climate involves employees’ perceptions of how those in the organization respond to divergent viewpoints (Pugh, Dietz, Brief, & Wiley, 2008; McKay et al., 2009). However, there is often a tendency in organizations to resist the introduction of diverse viewpoints (Thomas & Plaut, 2008). Employees become accustomed to the dominant perspective and view any opinion that differs from it with skepticism and even contempt. As Bowen and Blackmon (2003) noted, this can lead to a “spiral of silence” (p. 1393) wherein individuals become reluctant to speak up if they do not believe their positions are supported sufficiently by others. This process becomes self-reinforcing in that the number of people afraid to dissent from the dominant perspective continues to grow and the prevailing viewpoint remains unfettered by any challenges from holders of divergent viewpoints.
One of the chief reasons organizations claim that they seek diversity is to harness a broader range of perspectives (Cox, 1994; Robinson & Dechant, 1997). It is, therefore, counterintuitive that a company would invest the considerable resources often required to attain a diverse workforce only to expect everyone to think similarly. This inherent contradiction produces a mixed message of sorts (Avery & Johnson, 2008) for employees who probably were led to believe that they were hired to contribute uniqueness, but now essentially are prevented from doing so. Thus, a climate that does not tolerate diverging viewpoints is unlikely to be received well by a diverse group of employees.
Although not many studies have established a link, there is some empirical evidence to support the prediction that diverse groups of employees expect openness to different ideas. For instance, Phillips and Loyd (2006) conducted a study involving three-person groups that varied in their composition. Among their key findings was that groups higher in demographic diversity were more tolerant and accepting of divergent viewpoints than more homogenous groups. In light of that finding, it is not surprising that members of diverse groups also tended to be more confident about voicing dissenting opinions and expressed a greater number of these perspectives than those surrounded by similar others (i.e., groups with low diversity). Admittedly, the authors did not directly assess individuals’ expectations of support for voicing divergent viewpoints. Nevertheless, it seems clear from their results that employees working in diverse settings tend to expect such support and may perceive it as a key indicator of how much their employers support them in general.
Due to the growing importance of employee openness to divergent viewpoints, employers are prone to attach greater value to employees being flexible and open-minded. Such tolerance and inclusiveness may be expected to facilitate organizational effectiveness, as coworker and supervisor support for creativity have proven to be important contextual predictors of employees’ creative expression (Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004). Further bolstering this point, a recent meta-analytic study (Byron, Khazanchi, & Nazarian, 2010) showed that social-evaluative threats (i.e., when a person's creative self-identity can be jeopardized) have a curvilinear relationship with creative performance, suggesting that extremely high (or low) exposure to evaluative stress can stifle creativity. Research also has shown dissenting opinions to be significantly more likely to result in innovation if there is a climate that supports employee participation (De Dreu & West, 2001). Thus, although employers may expect employees to be receptive to new and/or divergent ideas and opinions, it is also imperative for organizations to foster work climates in which such viewpoints are encouraged and valued.
It goes without saying that workers expect their employers to treat them equitably and minimize the presence of any bias or discrimination. What is particularly interesting about this diversity-related expectancy, however, is that it is arguably the only one that may be equally important to employees of all demographic backgrounds. In the United States, it is common to think of issues of equal employment opportunity as women or minority issues (Thomas, 2004). Nonetheless, it is vital to recognize that racioethnic majority members also, at times, perceive themselves to be victims of discrimination. In fact, although Black and Hispanic Americans are significantly more likely than White counterparts to report having perceived discrimination (Avery et al., 2008), it is noteworthy that White Americans were responsible for 9% of race discrimination charges filed with the equal employment opportunity commission in 2005 (n = 2,512; Goldman, Gutek, Stein, & Lewis, 2006).
There are clear moral and legal arguments regarding why organizations should work to eliminate bias and discrimination. Chief among them are that it is unethical and potentially quite costly to engage in inequitable employment practices (Demuijnck, 2009; James & Wooten, 2006). It can also induce negative work attitudes among employees who experience or witness it, which can subsequently lead to work inefficiencies (Goldman et al., 2006). Although these residual effects of bias and discrimination may be directly related to organizational productivity and profitability, we posit that the firm-level consequences of unequal treatment may also operate through perceptions of inequitable organizational support.
Human resource management practices that are biased against members of a particular group suggest that transactional exchanges between individuals belonging to that group and the organization are inequitable. Further, indicators of institutional bias can send strong signals to personnel about what is (and is not) valued in the organization. As employees interpret these signals as well as transactional exchanges across the organization, they may manifest behavior consistent with these biases, such as engaging in discriminatory acts against devalued groups (Petersen & Dietz, 2008). This process helps to explain the moderate correlations (mean r = 0.44) reported between perceived discrimination attributed to supervisors, coworkers, and the organization as a whole (Ensher, Grant-Vallone, & Donaldson, 2001). Because members of devalued groups can become targets for mistreatment, relational exchanges between these employees and others in the organization also may suffer. Accordingly, those perceiving discrimination are less likely to perceive comparable levels of organizational support relative to those who are not.
Although employees expect their employers to provide a work environment free from discrimination, firms are likely to expect employees to support these efforts. Organizations do not make decisions, people do. This means that discrimination attributed to the employer is a function of bias exhibited by a person or group of people within the company. Those in charge can and should take efforts to ensure that the impact of bias in their decision making is minimal. In conjunction with this directive, they also may expect employees not to engage in discriminatory behavior against one another (e.g., racioethnic harassment or bullying) that might subject the company to legal action or otherwise detract from organizational performance. Overall, employers are likely to support employees who treat one another respectfully and conduct themselves ethically in their dealings, as not doing so may make organizations vulnerable to a number of operational and legal issues.
In most workplaces, there is a dominant language spoken by the overwhelming majority of employees during work hours. From the organization's perspective, having a common language helps to ensure that all personnel are able to communicate with one another. Supervisors can delegate assignments to their subordinates with the certainty that their messages (at least the literal meaning of them) are understood. Additionally, employees can be held accountable for coordinating with their coworkers because management can assume that the common language provides a channel through which communication may occur. As Tange and Lauring (2009) recently put it, “the introduction of a company language has proved helpful to internal and external communication since it provides a common medium for all members of the organisation and offers easy access to official information channels such as company reports or employee magazines” (p. 219). Consequently, many firms deem it a business necessity to have members of their workforce speak the same language while at work.
Although one can see the business rationale for such an approach, restricting the language of employees can have unexpected consequences. For example, employees may be more proficient at communicating in a language other than the one stipulated. In such an instance, the organization's insistence upon restricting business communication to a dominant language could prevent some of its employees from contributing at their fullest potential. As a result, the organization is unable to fully utilize its human capital, which has negative implications for its bottom line (Tange & Lauring, 2009; Teboul & Speicher, 2007). Beyond creating work inefficiencies, attempts to regulate language in the workplace may also be perceived as unsupportive of multilingual employees. Imagine that you speak four languages and are hired by a company that purports to value workforce diversity, but now find yourself restricted to speaking one language when at work. How do you think you would feel about being limited in such a manner? Research indicates individuals in this position commonly experience negative feelings (Blank & Slipp, 1994; Dietz & Pugh, 2004; Teboul & Speicher, 2007). These feelings could be extreme enough to precipitate perceived organizational obstruction by an employee, or a “belief that the organization obstructs, hinders or interferes with the accomplishment of his or her goals and is a detriment to his or her well-being” (Gibney, Zagenczyk, & Masters, 2009, p. 667). Specifically, the employees are apt to question why their skills are being underutilized and wonder why they are subject to potential sanction (i.e., disciplinary action) for speaking another language while their monolingual counterparts are not. They also view such policies as stigmatizing multilingual employees by formally assigning greater value to the chosen language (and those to whom it is native) than to restricted languages (and those to whom these tongues may be native; Aguirre, 2003) and feel unnecessarily limited by these policies, which may encroach on their opportunities for success within the organization.
Mentoring is the process of pairing two individuals together for the purpose of one person (i.e., the mentor) helping the other (i.e., the protégé) to learn how to function effectively in the workplace (Kram, 1985). More specifically, mentors provide psychosocial and career-related support that assists protégés in cultivating the skills necessary for career success. Despite these benefits, research has highlighted a tendency for mentors to select demographically similar protégés, which often makes it difficult for minorities and women to find mentors in organizational settings (e.g., Kilian, Hukai, & McCarty, 2005). Given that mentoring has been shown to be especially relevant to the career success of female and minority employees (Metz, 2009; Thomas, 2001), this unavailability of mentors may obviously hinder their career development. However, we speculate that a lack of mentoring also may be perceived as a lack of organizational support or, worse yet, an organizational obstruction.
Because employees often view developmental relationships as a prerequisite for success, an absence of such a relationship may lead them to feel neglected or unsupported by their employer. This indicates that POS may help to explain why the failure to provide mentoring diminishes job satisfaction and organizational commitment and increases the propensity to turnover (Baranik, Roling, & Eby, 2010; Payne & Huffman, 2005; Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000). Interestingly, supervisors appear cognizant of the importance of mentoring to their subordinates. In fact, research suggests that supervisors will often respond to perceived contract breaches among their subordinates by withholding mentoring (Chen, Tsui, & Zhong, 2008).
Despite considerable variability in individuals’ willingness to mentor (Allen, 2003), employers currently expect their more senior personnel to mentor their more junior colleagues. This expectation is almost certain to continue, but its scope can be expected to broaden somewhat. Whereas it may have been acceptable in the past for employees to provide tutelage only to demographically similar protégés, doing so contributes to “homo-social reproduction” (Kanter, 1977, p. 54) and restricts the career development of female and minority employees. Further, as workforces become more diverse in terms of gender and race/ethnicity, the lack of access to mentors for women and ethnic minorities is likely to exacerbate feelings of deprivation where POS is concerned. Consequently, companies will need managers and employees to be open to forming diverse mentoring parings. In addition to a willingness to serve as a mentor to women and minority employees, employers will expect them to provide the support needed to nurture career success. Although such willingness may be difficult to obtain, research suggests that an organization's commitment to diversity mitigates the reluctance to mentor across racioethnic groups (Thomas, 1999). Therefore, the provision of diversified mentoring may be a key signal to minority employees that they are supported by their employer.
Several research implications follow from our proposed link between racioethnic diversity and POS. Primarily, further study is necessary to better establish the nomological network of the implicit diversity-related cues that minority (but perhaps not majority) employees use as indicators of the firm's level of support for them. Some likely variables include diversity recruitment, organizational demography, and a firm's human resource practices. For example, research on diversity recruitment has indicated that target recruits (e.g., minorities) commonly make inferences about a firm's support of diversity based on (a) the representation of minority personnel in general and in higher level positions (Avery, 2003; Avery, Hernandez, & Hebl, 2004), (b) endorsement of identity-conscious human resource policies (Highhouse, Stierwalt, Bachiochi, Elder, & Fisher, 1999), and (c) the use of recruiters from underrepresented groups (Avery & McKay, 2006; Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991). Accordingly, a fruitful addition to such research work would be to examine how the use of such tactics affects job seekers’ impressions of anticipated organizational support (i.e., “perceptions of how much applicants expected they would be valued and cared about by the organization if they became employees”; Casper & Buffardi, 2004, p. 394). Because scholars have also theorized that the recruits’ initial views of a firm's diversity climate will be confirmed (or disconfirmed) during visits to company premises during later recruitment stages (McKay & Avery, 2006) and initial employment (McKay & Avery, 2005), research is also needed to explore potential changes in implied diversity promises as job seekers move through the selection process.
Organizational research should examine the individual- and firm-level outcomes associated with diversity cues. An immediate outcome of inferences drawn from these cues would seem to be diversity climate and, more distally, POS, job performance, and withdrawal. According to McKay et al. (2009), prodiversity climates are work settings wherein employees have equal opportunity to succeed, and those from underrepresented groups (e.g., racioethnic minorities) are integrated into the social fabric of the organization. Cox (1994) indicated that such climates are likely when there is higher minority representation (especially in high-level positions), a lack of intergroup conflict, and fair human resource policies. Logically, these features are likely to precipitate employee perceptions that their initial diversity expectations are consistent with their subsequent organizational experiences. Consequently, minority employees should perceive comparable levels of support as their majority peers, resulting in smaller differences in satisfaction, productivity, and likelihood to remain with the organization. Cox (1994) further proposes that prodiversity climates should lead to enhanced work attitudes and job performance and enhanced first-level (i.e., attendance, turnover, and work quality) and second-level (i.e., market share, profitability, and achievement of formal organizational goals) outcomes across racioethnic groups. Thus, the fulfillment of implied diversity-related obligations is likely to be related to both (a) smaller demographic differences in individual employee outcomes, and (b) improved organizational performance in general.
Another direction for research in this area is the identification of boundary conditions to the proposed linkages. Because the U.S. workforce is becoming increasingly diverse (Toossi, 2006), it is important to investigate the extent of between-group differences in reactions to diversity-related promises. Recent diversity climate research has revealed that racioethnic minorities are more responsive to the nature of a business unit's diversity climate in regard to job performance (McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2008), absenteeism (Avery, McKay, Wilson, & Tonidandel, 2007), and retention (McKay et al., 2007). Similar work should be extended to the diversity promises construct in regard to women (Gutek, Cohen, & Tsui, 1996), older workers (Redman & Snape, 2007), immigrants (Esses, Dietz, & Bhardway, 2006), sexual minorities (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), and the disabled (Schur, Kruse, Blasi, & Blanck, 2009). Because firms’ diversity cues may be particularly salient to members of these groups, understanding potential differences between their POS and those of the demographic majority could prove insightful.
One boundary condition in particular could be the national or cultural context in which the organizations of interest are embedded. Although racial diversity is relatively limited in many non-U.S. settings, there is considerable ethnic diversity that serves as a powerful basis for social classification and identification. In such scenarios, the pattern of minority–majority differences in POS described here could well apply. That said, there are certainly other dynamics that may be particular to specific settings. For instance, minority–majority differences are likely to be (a) more pronounced in contexts with more extensive histories of intergroup tensions, and (b) less pronounced when there is extensive legislation forbidding racioethnic discrimination. Moreover, in highly collectivist societies, it is possible that organizational membership serves as the super-ordinate group identity, thereby diminishing the salience and importance of demographic markers. This would reduce the likelihood of detecting any racioethnic differences in POS.
A final research implication is that both the diversity and EOR literatures could stand to benefit from greater integration of the other. Much of the diversity literature focuses on how individuals and organizations respond to increasing diversity in the form of attitudes such as satisfaction and outcomes such as performance. These studies pay considerably less attention to how diversity influences employees’ relationships with the organization (other than organizational commitment and turnover). It would be interesting to see research explicitly linking changes in organizational or workgroup composition to EOR constructs such as psychological contract perceptions, POS, and perceived organizational obstruction. Moreover, diversity management practitioners would stand to benefit even more considerably if researchers were to identify prospective situational moderators of those relationships (e.g., diversity climate). From the EOR perspective, it is disappointing to see demographics such as racioethnicity play such a small role in the literature despite reason to anticipate the existence of differences along these dimensions (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007). We encourage EOR researchers to consider using demographics, demographic dissimilarity, and demographic diversity as prospective moderators of the relationships they study to determine their applicability to today's ever-diversifying workplaces.
There are also a number of practical implications stemming from the link between diversity and POS. On the whole, POS has been associated with positive individual outcomes, such as heightened employee attitudes, performance (in- and extra-role), and retention (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Consequently, managers would be well served by understanding and attempting to maximize (minimize) the positive (negative) antecedents of employees’ perceptions of organizational support, and subsequently improve human resource management. However, because these variables may differ across demographic groups, an accommodative as opposed to assimilative focus may be critical to managing diversity in organizations. For current employees, assessing the degree to which the organization embraces diversity promises can provide insight into whether employee interests are being supported. Further, such information may allow organizations to create initiatives and programs for maintaining inclusive climates in which all employees are treated equally and feel that their viewpoints are encouraged and valued (Shore et al., 2011). Thus, understanding whether the organization is upholding its obligation to support all its employees may help to strengthen employee engagement and retention (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002).
For potential employees, querying them about their expectations of employers, diversity-related perceptions of their respective organizations, and anticipated organizational support may provide insight into the diversity-related elements of their relationship with the company should they secure employment there. Consequently, organizations may be able to design recruiting communications tailored to the needs and expectations of specific demographic groups, which may be useful for increasing the diversity of recruitment pools (Highhouse et al., 1999). In addition, by better matching what they can offer employees with the expectations of potential employees, organizations may be able to improve their staffing yield ratios, which may ultimately improve workforce diversity as well.
From a talent management perspective, an understanding of the link between diversity and POS may help employers to identify and manage their expectations of employees. Because increased workforce diversity may bring about changes to the nature of work in many organizations, recognizing what are considered to be employees’ obligations may be important for managing their human capital. For example, by identifying the need for employees to value diversity and interact effectively with dissimilar others, employers may be able to look for these characteristics in their selection processes and/or find ways to communicate such values in their on-boarding processes (McKay & Davis, 2007). In addition, employers could assess such competencies in the performance evaluation process and provide training to develop these skills among employees (Dahm, Willems, Ivancevich, & Graves, 2009). Overall, understanding these potential changes may assist organizations in understanding how they can best support their employees to help them to fulfill their evolving workplace responsibilities.
In this chapter, we sought to illustrate the role of diversity in employees’ perceptions of organizational support. Organizations and the individuals they employ cannot afford to ignore how social identity influences perceptions of the work environment (Roberson & Stevens, 2006). If companies are to attract, develop, and retain the best and brightest personnel, they will need to ensure that they anticipate and meet the broad set of needs among today's multicultural workforce. Likewise, if employees are to fulfill their career potential, they will need to maximize their proficiency at working with and serving dissimilar colleagues and clientele. In sum, diversity is introducing new variance in POS, and recognizing and understanding this trend is a necessary step to facilitating effective employee–employer relationships.
Aguirre, A. (2003). Linguistic diversity in the workforce: Understanding social relations in the workplace. Sociological Focus, 36, 65–80.
Allen, T. D. (2003). Mentoring others: A dispositional and motivational approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 134–154.
Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising: Are differences Black and White? Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 672–679.
Avery, D. R., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2004). Who's watching the race? Racial salience in recruitment advertising. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 146–161.
Avery, D. R., & Johnson, C. D. (2008). Now you see it, now you don't: Mixed messages regarding workforce diversity. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 221–248). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2008). What are the odds? How demographic similarity affects the prevalence of perceived employment discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 235–249.
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, 875–902.
Avery, D. R., & Quiñones, M. A. (2002). Disentangling the effects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, instrumentality, and behavior in predicting procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 81–86.
Baranik, L. E., Roling, E. A., & Eby, L. T. (2010). Why does mentoring work? The role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 366–373.
Bell, M. P. (2007). Diversity in organizations. Mason, OH: Thomson-South-Western.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 479–508.
Blank, R., & Slipp, S. (1994). Voices of diversity. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1393–1417.
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 557–591.
Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2010). The impact of diversity promise fulfillment on professionals of color outcomes in the USA. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 501–518.
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 201–212.
Camarota, S. A. (2005). Immigrants at mid-decade: A snapshot of America's foreign-born population in 2005. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/back1405.pdf.
Casper, W. J., & Buffardi, L. C. (2004). Work-life benefits and job pursuit intentions: The role of anticipated organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 391–410.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 273–287.
Chen, Z. X., Tsui, A. S., & Zhong, L. (2008). Reactions to psychological contract breach: A dual perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 527–548.
Chrobot-Mason, D. L. (2003). Keeping the promise: Psychological contract violations for minority employees. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18, 22–45.
Cohen, E. G. (1982). Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 209–235.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cox, T., Jr. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, & practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A-M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee-organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17, 166–179.
Dahm, M. J., Willems, E. P., Ivancevich, J. M., & Graves, D. E. (2009). Development of an Organizational Diversity Needs Analysis (ODNA) instrument. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 283–318.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
Demuijnck, G. (2009). Non-discrimination in human resources management as a moral obligation. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 83–101.
Dietz, J., & Pugh, S. (2004). I say tomato, you say domate: Differential reactions to English-only workplace policies by persons from immigrant and non-immigrant families. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 365–379.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.
Elsass, P. M., & Graves, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: The experiences of women and people of color. Academy of Management Review, 22, 946–973.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229–273.
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. (2001). Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 53–72.
Esses, V. M., Dietz, J., & Bhardway, A. (2006). The role of prejudice in the discounting of immigrant skills. In R. Mahalingham (Ed.), Cultural psychology of immigrants (pp. 113–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibney, R., Zagenczyk, T. J., & Masters, M. F. (2009). The negative aspects of social exchange: An introduction to perceived organizational obstruction. Group and Organization Management, 34, 665–697.
Goldman, B. M., Gutek, B. A., Stein, J. H., & Lewis, K. (2006). Employment discrimination in organizations: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 32, 786–830.
Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. (1996). Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Human Relations, 49, 791–813.
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.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.
Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S. L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A. E., & Fisher, G. (1999). Effects of advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African American applicants. Personnel Psychology, 52, 425–442.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.
James, E. H., & Wooten, L. P. (2006). Diversity crisis: How firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1103–1118.
Joplin, J. R. W., & Daus, C. S. (1997). Challenges of leading a diverse workforce. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 21–31.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581–598.
Kilian, C. M., Hukai, D., & McCarty, C. E. (2005). Building diversity in the pipeline to corporate leadership. Journal of Management Development, 24, 155–168.
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., & Beal, D. J. (2009). Conflict and cooperation in diverse workgroups. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 261–285.
Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Leonard, J., & Levine, D. (2006). The effect of diversity on turnover: A large case study. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 59, 547–572.
Leveson, L., Joiner, T. A., & Bakalis, S. (2009). Managing cultural diversity and perceived organizational support: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of Manpower, 30, 377–392.
MacGillivray, E. D., Beecher, H. J. M., & Golden, D. (2008). Legal developments: Global diversity and developments impacting workforce management in Asia. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 27, 65–76.
McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2005). Warning! Diversity recruitment could backfire. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 330–336.
McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2006). What has race got to do with it? Unraveling the role of racioethnicity in job seekers’ reactions to site visits. Personnel Psychology, 59, 395–429.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences in work performance: The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel Psychology, 61, 349–374.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diversity climate from subordinates’ and managers’ perspectives and their role in store unit sales performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 767–791.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60, 35–62.
McKay, P. F., & Davis, J. L. (2007). Traditional selection methods as resistance to diversity in organizations. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations: Manifestations and solutions (pp. 151–174). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
Metz, I. (2009). Organisational factors, social factors, and women's advancement. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 58, 193–213.
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group and Organization Management, 33, 243–268.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1412–1426.
Payne, S. C., & Huffman, A. H. (2005). A longitudinal examination of the influence of mentoring on organizational commitment and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 158–168.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Petersen, L., & Dietz, J. (2008). Employment discrimination: Authority figures’ demographic preferences and followers’ affective organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1287–1300.
Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 143–160.
Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Brief, A. P., & Wiley, J. W. (2008). Looking inside and out: The impact of employee and community demographic composition on organizational diversity climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1422–1428.
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., Cotton, J. L., & Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1177–1194.
Redman, T., & Snape, E. (2006). The consequences of perceived age discrimination amongst older officers: Is social support a buffer. British Journal of Management, 17, 167–175.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367–386.
Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationships between perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research, 62, 1027–1030.
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, 379–391.
Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11, 21–31.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44, 487–521.
Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48, 381–410.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.
Shapiro, D. (1993). Reconciling theoretical differences among procedural justice research by re-evaluating what it means to have one's views considered: Implications for third party managers. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 51–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289.
Singh, V., & Point, S. (2004). Strategic responses to the human resource diversity challenge: An on-line European top company comparison. Long Range Planning, 37, 295–318.
Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader-member exchange as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance. Group and Organization Management, 34, 507–535.
Stoll, M. A., Holzer, H. J., & Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2000). Within cities and suburbs: Racial residential concentration and the spatial distribution of employment opportunities across sub-metropolitan areas. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 207–231.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Tange, H., & Lauring, J. (2009). Language management and social interaction within the multilingual workplace. Journal of Communication Management, 13, 218–232.
Teboul, J. B., & Speicher, B. L. (2007). Regulating ‘foreign’ language in the workplace: From myths to best practices. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 7, 169–180.
Thomas, D. A. (1999). Beyond simple demography–power hypothesis: How Blacks in power influence White-mentor–Black-protégé developmental relationships. In A. J. Murrell, F. J. Crosby, & R. J. Ely (Eds.), Mentoring dilemmas: Developmental relationships within multicultural organizations (pp. 157–170). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review, 79, 98–107.
Thomas, D. A. (2004). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 79, 98–107.
Thomas, K. M., & Plaut, V. C. (2008). The many faces of diversity resistance in the workplace. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.), Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Toossi, M. (2006). A new look at long-term labor force projections to 2050. Monthly Labor Review, 129, 19–39.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A. III. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549–579.
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.