Workforce Diversity

Typology of Organizations (Cox, 1991)

Cox (1991) proposed a typology of organizations based on the degree of acculturation, structural and informal integration, lack of cultural bias, organizational identification and intergroup conflict, which are considered to be conditions that influence whether organizations can fully realize the value in diversity. More specifically, Cox (1991) suggests that organizations can be characterized as monolithic, plural or multicultural, which differ based on the level of structural and cultural inclusion of employees across varying group memberships. Thus, while plural organizations may be characterized by a focus on employment profiles (i.e., workforce composition) and fair treatment, multicultural organizations may be characterized by policies and practices that facilitate the full utilization of human resources and enhance employees' abilities to contribute to their maximum potential.

Diversity Related to the Types of Conflict

Given that social categorization processes may encourage intergroup differentiation, which subsequently influences social integration processes, research suggests that visible demographic characteristics or surface-level diversity will give rise to relationship conflict (Pelled, 1996). At the same time, less visible or deep-level diversity is argued to be associated with task conflict given that this type of diversity brings about differences in opinions, perspectives, and approaches to problem-solving (Pelled, 1996).

Diversity as a Competitive Advantage

Given that the specific demography of an organization cannot be perfectly duplicated by competitors and can facilitate competencies that develop from complex social relationships (Barney, 1991), diversity may serve as a source of sustained competitive advantage. Cox and Blake (1991) propose the ways through which such advantages could accrue from diversity in organizations, including the ability to understand the needs and demands of diverse consumer markets, recruit the best talent, adapt products or services to market needs, and reduce costs associated with turnover, absenteeism, and lack of productivity Similar to the Value in Diversity Perspective

Inclusion

Inclusion is defined as the extent to which individuals can access information and resources, are involved in work groups, and have the ability to influence decision-making processes (Mor Barak, & Cherin, 1998). Inclusion is focused on the degree to which individuals feel like full contributors in critical organizational processes (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998).

First JAP study to look into diversity

Jackson and her colleagues (1991) integrated psychological and sociological perspectives on demography to explore the influence individual dissimilarity from groups and group heterogeneity on patterns of recruitment, promotion and turnover

How might we evolve the conceptualization of diversity to be generalizable across a variety of cultures?

More specifically, current conceptualizations of diversity need to "open up" to allow for the consideration of a wider range of differences between employees in organizations. Further, by disregarding cultural differences and the germane assumptions (e.g., values, norms, etc.) that might be present within research contexts, there are inherent boundary conditions to the findings of diversity research. Thus, diversity typologies that incorporate culture and related attributes (e.g., geographic location, language, religion) are needed Chao and Moon (2005) suggest a framework for identifying demographic, geographic and associative features underlying culture. Specifically, they highlight physical, nature, and relational categories of culture that may be used to describe individuals and examine the impact of culture on group dynamics and functioning. Thus, future diversity research may benefit from a cultural mosaic perspective Inclusion would be another future area here

Factor and Categorical Approach to Diversity

One approach to viewing diversity is as a characteristic of the individual that facilitates identity distinctions between people. Termed the factor approach by Mannix and Neale (2005), this conceptualization of diversity concentrates on a focal person's differences relative to others based on specific types of diversity Tsui and Gutek (1999) highlight a similar approach to the study of diversity—specifically, the categorical approach, which treats diversity as personal attributes of an individual and explores the effects of such attributes on individual-level outcomes.

Individual Level Effects of Diversity

Overall, the empirical evidence supports a link between demographic similarity, perceived similarity or attraction, and individual outcomes (see Williams & O'Reilly, 1998 for a review). Investigating a range of demographic characteristics, including gender, race, age, education, and tenure, such relational research demonstrates that greater diversity in groups is related to lower attachment and personal liking for dissimilar members (Tsui et al., 1992; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). Further, these similarity-attraction outcomes negatively impact several factors related to group functioning, such as member commitment, absenteeism, turnover, and ultimately, performance (Tsui et al., 1992). Based on the results of research highlighting the impact of group demographic composition on individuals, Williams and O'Reilly (1998) concluded that diversity in groups decreases the likelihood that member needs will be met by group membership. Further, they suggested that similarity-attraction outcomes will negatively impact member relations and their ability to work together effectively over time.

Work Performance Approach to Diversity

Pelled (1996) conceptualized another bifurcated classification of diversity in which diversity dimensions were separated according to job-relatedness, or the degree to which each dimension captures the knowledge, skills, and abilities relevant to the performance of cognitive tasks. Differences that are highly job-related are believed to facilitate effective group performance, while those that are less job-related are not seen as directly related to task-related group processes and performance (Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999). Education and functional background would be relevant here whereas gender would be less relevant to technical work of groups

Social identity and Categorization Theories

Social identity and Categorization Theories (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1982, 1987), which explore the influence of self-concept and social comparisons, provide insight into interpersonal interactions and intergroup relations.

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978) argues that individuals are motivated to enhance their self-concept by seeking a positively-valued distinctiveness for their in-groups. By engaging in social comparisons, people differentiate between their in-groups and relevant out-groups, and are able to evaluate their social identities (Tajfel & Turner, 1979

Proportional Approach to Diversity (Compositional Approaches)

The proportional approach by Mannix and Neale (2005), researchers utilizing this view of diversity have focused on the amount of diversity within groups as the variable of interest. Similarly, Tsui and Gutek (1999) refer to the compositional approach, which views diversity as a structural property of groups, organizations and other collectives, and examines its effects on outcomes across levels of analysis.

Competition theories of Diversity

(Blalock, 1967) These theories suggest that intergroup relations are influenced by the perceived scarcity of available resources and the potential for loss of valued resources to other groups. More specifically, out-group members are perceived to present a challenge to the economic, political and/or social resources of in-groups. Because the loss of resources may negatively affect a group's collective interests and identity (Bobo, 1983), they are likely to develop defensive ideologies and strategies against competing groups (Bonacich, 1972). Subsequently, the balanced representation of in-groups and out-groups is likely to induce hostility, coalition formation, competition, and discrimination between diverse individuals (Levine & Campbell, 1972)

Value in Diversity Hypothesis

(Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991), which suggests that diversity enhances group decision-making. More specifically, this perspective establishes that diversity can create value and benefit for groups because individuals in heterogeneous groups have a broader range of knowledge, skills, and abilities than homogeneous groups (Hoffman, 1959; Hoffman & Maier, 1961). informational/decision-making perspective (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998) Research suggests that such diversity in informational resources may also enhance group problem-solving, as different opinions, approaches, and perspectives give rise to task conflict and dissent (Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999). Further, exposure to minority viewpoints may expose, and motivate the consideration of, more creative alternatives and solutions (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Nemeth, 1986). Thus, the "value-in-diversity" perspective predicts that dissimilarity will enhance decision-making quality in groups and organizations.

Diversity in Conflict

(De Dreu & Weingart, 2003), scholars have also investigated the impact of diversity on conflict. In doing so, they distinguish between two types of conflict task conflict, or disagreements over ideas and opinions related to the task. task conflict stimulates the consideration of alternative points of view and solutions, which leads to improved group problem-solving and decision-making (Jehn, 1997). relationship conflict, or disagreements about nonwork-related issues between members (Jehn, 1995, 1997), which are shown to be differentially related to group functioning. Relationship conflict detracts from group functioning given their focus on individual differences and interpersonal issues (Jehn, 1995).

Surface and Deep Diversity

(Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002) Diversity at a surface level is described as innate differences among group members that are typically reflected in members' physical features (Harrison et al., 1998). Consistent with Jackson et al.'s (1995) typology, these characteristics, such as gender, age, and ethnicity, are observable or readily-detected. However, Harrison et al. (1998) also note that such diversity in groups is easily measured. Deep-level diversity is described as acquired attributes that are task-relevant, yet not easily measured, such as education and functional expertise. Diversity at a deep level reflects differences in members' values, beliefs and attitudes, and is revealed through interactions between group members (Harrison et al., 1998, 2002).

Effects of Commonly Implemented Diversity Programs in Organizations

(Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Focusing on three sets of practices— those to establish organizational responsibility for diversity those to reduce bias through education and feedback, those to reduce the isolation of women and minority employees, the authors examined their subsequent effects on managerial diversity. The results showed that affirmative action plans, diversity committees and taskforces, and diversity managers (i.e., responsibility structures) were significantly related to increases in managerial diversity, while the effects of networking and mentoring programs (i.e., isolation reduction structures) were more modest. Diversity training and diversity evaluations for managers (i.e., bias reduction structures) were found to have no significant impact on managerial workforce composition. Interestingly, both isolation and bias reduction structures were found to be more effective when organizations had responsibility structures in place.

Relational Demography

(Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992; Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989), which predicts that individuals' attitudes and behavior will be influenced by the amount of demographic similarity within work units. More specifically, based on those demographic attributes that are relevant components of an individual's self-definition, work units will become more attractive to the degree that such attributes are shared by others in a work unit. Further, as people are motivated to maintain positive self-evaluations, greater demographic similarity within groups will generate more positive attitudes and work relations.

Upper-Echelons Theory

A conceptual framework that views organizational outcomes—strategic choices and performance levels—as reflections of the values of the members of the top management team. Upper echelons theory (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), which suggests that leaders will make decisions that are consistent with their executive orientation, researchers have posited that demographic characteristics are associated with executive orientation and thus, influences strategic choices and decisions (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996).

social information processing perspective to Diversity climate

According to this perspective, social interactions are organizational events that offer shared meaning, and thus can be interpreted to resolve ambiguity and form impressions of individuals and organizations (Weick, 1995). Therefore, demographic dissimilarity and other psychologically relevant occurrences involving diversity may be used to do sensemaking and form perceptions about their workplace and those with whom they work. In other words, diversity and related experiences may shape diversity climate perceptions

Theory of Intergroup Relations

Blau (1977) suggests that group functioning is influenced the opportunity for, and quality of, social interaction between diverse individuals. Based on the logic of the social-contact hypothesis, which suggests that interaction between individuals will increase attraction, liking, and understanding (Pettigrew, 1982), the theory suggests that diversity in groups will result in increased contact between dissimilar individuals. However, the proportional representation of different demographic groups will influence the quality of such interactions (Blau, 1977; Kanter, 1977). Groups with skewed proportions of demographic attributes will have qualitatively worse interactions, and consequently lower group functioning, due to the marginalization of minority members (Kanter, 1977). In contrast, greater demographic balance will result in increased intergroup contact, which will positively impact the quality of interpersonal relations and cooperation between diverse individuals.

Chao and Moon's Taxonomy Multiculturalism in Organizations

By offering a nonlinear and dynamic conceptualization of diversity, Chao and Moon's (2005) "cultural mosaic" perspective provides researchers with an approach to better identify and predict patterns of behavior in multicultural organizations

Similarity-Attraction Paradigm

Byrne, 1971 According to the paradigm, people are more attracted to those with whom they perceive to have similar beliefs, values and attitudes (Berscheid & Walster, 1978). Consistent with the predictions of social identity and categorization theories, such attraction is likely to produce in-group/out-group distinctions and to influence intergroup relations (Byrne, 1971; Clore & Byrne, 1974).

Two-Factor Conceptualizations of Diversity

Differntiate between observable diversity attributes, such as gender and age, and less salient or deep-level characteristics, such as attitudes and values, have been proposed (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995). Researchers have also bifurcated diversity attributes according to their level of jobrelatedness, or the degree to which each attribute captures the knowledge, skills, and abilities relevant to the performance of cognitive tasks in groups (Pelled, 1996; Simons, Pelled, & Smith, 1999).

Research on Diversity and Organizational Attraction

Diversity effects on potential employees have also been suggested by the findings of research examining the influence of demographic heterogeneity and other diversity-related information in company websites and recruitment materials on organizational attraction (Avery, 2003; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Walker et al., 2012).

Diversity

Diversity refers to any difference between people that may lead them to perceive that another person is similar to, or different from, self (Jackson, 1992). Accordingly, diversity can indicate demographic attributes, such as gender and age, or non-demographic attributes, such as educational background and personality Diversity refers to any basis for difference or variety, demographic differences (both visible and invisible)

How might theories, concepts, and methodologies from other literatures or social science disciplines be used to inform and enhance our understanding of diversity?

Diversity research should seek to employ more innovative methods that allow exploration into the complexities of the diversity phenomena. The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) is one example of this. Given the automaticity and immediacy of subtle biases, such cognitions are difficult to assess using survey methodologies. Thus, the IAT is a response-latency measure that assesses implicit bias. To tap into more latent and recurring patterns of cognition and behavior, diversity research may also benefit from the use of qualitative data and analysis techniques. Taking cues from network research, network methodologies might also be useful for examining interactions between groups. Network research has highlighted the value in access to unique information, and shown that interorganizational networks provide access to diverse perspectives and information (Burt, 1992). Specifically, ties to others outside the team gave individuals access to distinct and diverse knowledge and information, which resulted in greater creativity and innovation, and subsequently, productivity (Cross & Cummings, 2004). Likewise, network range has been linked to improved access to financial resources and financial information (Burt, 1992).

Research on Social Identity and Categorization Theories

Group identification is a key determinant of individuals' proclivity for defining themselves as members of social groups and engaging in intergroup behavior (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1987). Specifically, group identification motivates individuals to maximize the distinction between their in-groups and other social groups and to create a positive group identity (Turner, 1985, 1987). In doing so, individuals tend to depersonalize their identity and subsequently, stereotype themselves and others as representatives of social categories rather than as unique individuals (Turner, 1987). Intergroup differentiation becomes more pronounced as perceived similarity to in-group members and dissimilarity to out-group members is amplified (Turner, 1987). Further, people tend to exhibit higher levels of trust for, and affective reactions to, members of their in-groups, thereby resulting in a bias in favor of members of one's in-groups and against members of one's out-groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner et al., 1987). Research suggests that observable demographic attributes, such as gender and race, are likely to be salient in group contexts (Kanter, 1977), and influence feelings of group identification (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). As such, demographic attributes are a likely basis for intergroup differentiation (Nelson & Klutas, 2000). Such differentiation is likely to impair social processes, such as communication and cohesion, within groups (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998).

Harrison & Klein (2007) Typology

Harrison and Klein (2007) propose that the distribution of differences with a group may take one of three forms—separation, variety, or disparity—based on the type of differences. Separation illustrates differences in values, beliefs and attitudes, and signals perceptual disagreement between unit members. Variety focuses on differences in the knowledge, networks, and experiences of unit members, and reflects unique or distinctive sources of information within the unit. Also referred to as informational diversity by some scholars (e.g., Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998), diversity as variety expands a collective's cognitive and behavioral resources. Disparity is differences in access to, or ownership of, valued resources such as privilege, status positions, and pay. Similar to research on status and power hierarchies (see Thye, 2000), the form of diversity as disparity focuses on inequality or the relative concentration of desired resources

Compositional Perspectives on Diversity

Inspired by Blau's (1977) and Kanter's (1977) work on the influence of proportions on interactions between demographically dissimilar groups, such approaches presuppose that the percentage of any minority within a group will influence the quality of relations between group members. Accordingly, this conceptualization centers on relative differences, or the distribution of differences within a work unit, and examines its effects on outcomes across levels of analysis (see Williams & O'Reilly, 1998).

Meta-Analysis of Diversity and Performance

Joshi and Roh (2009) examined the role of contextual factors across different levels of analysis on performance outcomes of task- and relationship-oriented diversity. The findings revealed few direct relationships between the diversity dimensions included in the study and performance. Social category dimensions of diversity, such as gender, race and age, had small, negative relationships with team performance. In contrast, dimensions of informational diversity were positively related to team performance although the effects of functional diversity were considerably larger than were those for education and tenure diversity. Interestingly, these relationships were significantly larger after accounting for team, industry and occupational moderators. Overall, these findings highlight context as an important determinant for how diversity is recognized and utilized in group contexts.

Field Research on Relationship Between Gender and Race Diversity on Business Performance

Kochan and his colleagues (2003) undertook a series of field research projects to examine the relationships between race and gender diversity and business performance. While the results showed few direct effects of diversity on performance, they did reveal effects based on other demographic variables, such as manager characteristics and tenure diversity. In addition, the studies demonstrated positive effects of gender diversity on group bonuses in business units with people-oriented cultures, diversity-focused HR practices, and customer-oriented business strategies. The authors also found a negative relationship between racial diversity and performance in business units with competitive cultures, growth-oriented business strategies, and training-focused human resource practices. However, racial diversity was also found to have positive effects on performance in units that used diversity as a resource for innovation and learning. Similar to research on the effects of diversity in leadership, the results of Kochan et al. (2003) suggest that the organizational effects of diversity are contextually dependent.

Multifaceted Conceptualizations of Diversity

Lau and Murnighan (1998) offered a theory of faultlines, which are assumed lines of demarcation based on group member attributes that divide a group into smaller, identity subgroups. Faultline strength is considered to be dependent upon the number of observable attributes and the relationship between these attributes, such that more and highly correlated attributes will cause group members to identify more strongly with their subgroups than with the larger groups. Such divisions are also likely to result in status differences, which negatively impact group processes and functioning (Lau & Murnighan, 2005).

Faultlines Theory

Lau and Murnighan (1998) proposed a multifaceted conceptualization of diversity that reconciles and integrates the different categorical approaches. According to the theory, faultlines are assumed lines of demarcation based on group member attributes that divide the group into smaller, identity subgroups. Further, faultline strength is dependent upon the number of observable attributes and the relationship between these attributes. Specifically, more attributes and high correlations between the attributes will cause group members to identify more strongly with their subgroups than with the larger groups Such divisions are likely to result in status differences, which negatively impact group processes and functioning (Lau & Murnighan, 1998).

Boundary Conditions for the Effects of Diversity on Group Functioning

Mixed evidence regarding the direction of the relationship between diversity impacting group functioning Webber and Donahue (2001), meta in which the authors explored the differential impacts of social category diversity and informational diversity on group cohesion, did not provide support for this proposition. Distinguishing between the types of diversity in terms of their level of job-relatedness, the results revealed no significant relationships between either type of diversity and cohesion and therefore, no differential impacts across diversity types. Lau and Murnighan (2005) took a different perspective of the role of diversity type and explored the effects of demographic faultlines, or multiattribute indices of diversity, on group communications. The results showed the convergence of gender and ethnicity within groups increased the salience of demographic subgroups, resulting in suboptimal communication. Overall, current research suggests that the interaction between different types of diversity in groups (rather than the actual types of diversity) influence member identification and attachment, and subsequently, member interactions.

Work Family Study of Practices

Perry-Smith and Blum (2000) argued for the inclusion of bundles of work-family policies, including flexible work schedules, dependent care service, and information/referral service, in best practice research and explored the effects of such policies on organizational performance. The authors suggested that work-family policies can signal to potential and current employees that an organization values employee membership and sympathizes with the multitude of demands placed on today's employee

Categorical Approaches vs Multifaceted Approaches

Proportional, compositional, two factor, surface/deep vs harrison and klein typology and fautlines Multiattribute conceptualizations of diversity may more accurately represent complex interactions between diversity attributes in groups. Matching diversity constructs to their underlying theoretical assumptions may allow more appropriate tests of the effects of heterogeneity in groups.

How can diversity be leveraged to enhance organizational functioning and performance?

Research suggests that diversity can enhance organizational competitiveness in a variety of areas including resource acquisition, marketing, and organizational flexibility (Cox & Blake, 1991). For example, diversity may lead to a broader range of multicultural competencies and multilingual skills that allow workforces to better understand the needs of customers and that help to distinguish the firm among its competitors. But how does this develop/work? Researchers should also expand their operationalization of organizational performance. In most firm-level diversity research, performance has been indicated by financial measures, such as revenues/sales, net income, returns, and productivity per employee. However, because such performance indices are influenced by a variety of internal and external factors, it is difficult to isolate the effects of diversity on firm performance. Although longitudinal research may be useful for examining diversity's long-term or cumulative effects, research should explore its effects on unit-level measures, human capital outcomes, or other measures of organizational effectiveness

What is the interplay of diversity processes at the individual, group, and organization levels of analysis?

Research that views and investigates diversity as a multilevel phenomenon may offer novel insights into the operation and consequences of diversity in organizations. For example, future research should explore how identity-related cognitions, such as categorization and implicit bias, and their affective or behavioral manifestations influence group-level interactions. Similarly, organization-level diversity research would be strengthened by examining the role of group-level processes like communication and conflict in the diversity-performance relationship. Research should incorporate a greater focus on dyadic interactions. Given that diversity has been viewed as an individual characteristic that facilitates identity distinctions between people, the dyadic level of analysis may expose researchers to other diversity-related processes in group contexts and therefore, capture a fuller spectrum of effects in groups and organizations. Further, a focus on dyads may allow researchers to isolate or manipulate the type and flow of information between individuals, thus providing additional insight into influence and identity negotiation, which may subsequently impact intergroup relations.

Theories of Stigma and status characteristics

Sociological theories of stigma (Goffman, 1974) and status characteristics (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972) help to explain the emergence of group hierarchies and intergroup conflict.

Research on Diversity and Firm Level Performance

Richard (2000) found no direct association between racial diversity in workforces and financial performance. Instead, the results highlighted the moderating influence of business strategy, as firms with greater diversity and a growth strategy were shown to experience higher return on equity than were firms with the same diversity and a no growth or downsizing strategy. Richard, McMillan, Chadwick, and Dwyer (2003) found that that the performance effects of workforce racial diversity was contingent on firms' level of innovation, such that racial diversity enhanced performance for organizations pursuing an innovation strategy, whereas for banks low in innovation, performance declined. Frink and his colleagues (2003) found support for a curvilinear (i.e., inverted U) relationship between gender diversity and organizational performance, with the point of inflection occurring around the midpoint, or equal proportions of male and female employees. However, the results also showed an industry effect, as the pattern of results only held for the service/wholesale/retail industry sector.

Research on Leadership and Diversity

Roberson and Park (2007) examined the effects of racial diversity in leadership (operationalized as the 25 top-paid positions in a firm given low representation of racial minorities on top management teams) on organizational performance. Using longitudinal data, the findings of this study offered support for a curvilinear relationship between leader racial diversity and several measures of firm financial performance, with the point of inflection occurring at between 20-25% minority representation on firm top management teams. Evidence of a positive relationship between female representation in management and firm returns exists (Shrader, Blackburn, & Iles, 1997). However, other studies suggest that this relationship is more complicated. For example, the findings of a study that assessed gender diversity among bank officials and managers showed that effects were conditioned upon the firm's strategic orientation, organizational culture, and the interaction among these variables (Dwyer, Richard, & Chadwick, 2003

Additional Research on Firm Level Outcomes and Diversity

Sacco and Schmitt (2005) proposed and tested a multilevel model of demographic diversity that linked racial diversity to firm performance. Using a large sample of quick-service restaurants, the authors found racial diversity to be negatively associated with restaurant profitability, although there were no significant effects of a match between the racial composition of restaurants and their communities. In another multilevel diversity study, Chen et al. (2012) explored how cultural intelligence and organizational diversity climate interact to influence cultural sales among real estate agents, and found positive diversity climates to have a moderating influence on the relationship between motivational cultural intelligence sales to culturally diverse clients. Although the findings across these studies are not directly comparable, they add to the body of research on diversity and business performance.

Human Capital and Diversity as a Competitive Advantage

Scholars have made a similar distinction drawing from the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1991), which suggests that a firm's human capital, or the combined knowledge, skills and abilities in its workforce, is a strategic resource. Specifically, because the specific combination of capabilities within, and social capital generated by, a firm's workforce cannot be duplicated or substituted by competitors (Barney, 1991), its workforce may serve as a source of sustained competitive advantage Konrad (2003) also suggests that demographic diversity brings about creativity, innovation and enhanced problem-solving, which will increase organizational competitiveness.

Self-Categorization Theory

Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985) proposes that as certain social categories become salient, there is a qualitative shift in social perception such that people come to view themselves (and others) more in terms of their group memberships than in terms of their personal identities (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Accordingly, this categorization process accentuates similarities among individuals sharing group memberships and differences among individuals belonging to different identity groups (Turner, 1985).

Organizational Strategy and Diversity

Similar to the findings of other research on diversity's effects on group processes, strategy research highlights a link between top management team demography and member interaction quality (cf. Knight et al., 1999).

Effects of Diversity on Performance

Similar to the results regarding the effects of diversity on group processes, studies have shown positive effects of informational dimensions of diversity, such as functional or occupational diversity, on performance (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004; Pelled et al., 1999) and negative effects of racial diversity on performance (Jackson et al., 2003; Leonard, Levine, & Joshi, 2004). Research distinguishing between broader categories of diversity based on visibility or job-relatedness highlights similar patterns of performance effects (see Jehn et al., 1999). Horwitz and Horwitz (2007), task-related diversity was shown to be associated with the quantity and quality of team performance although no significant relationship between demographic diversity and performance was found. Given the lack of strong support for neither effects of social category diversity on group performance nor the "value-in-diversity" hypothesis (Cox et al., 1991), researchers have suggested that the existence of diversity in groups may be insufficient for influencing group functioning (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Instead, they suggest that groups must be able to recognize such diversity, reduce its potentially negative effects on group processes, and leverage its benefits for improved problem-solving and decision-making (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Williams & O'Reilly, 1998).

What causal mechanisms are responsible for diversity's effects within groups and organizations?

Some research has examined the relationship between team diversity and the amount of communication between members (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Smith et al., 1994; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). Still, additional research is needed to explore how diversity influences the qualitative nature of communications between diversity employees. Features of the task, group and organization may create conditions that facilitate or hinder effective performance. Research is needed to identify such conditions and their subsequent effects on diversity processes and outcomes For example, given that task characteristics, such as team type or the level of interdependence, have been shown to influence communication in teams (Bettenhausen, 1991), effects of diversity on communication outcomes may be exacerbated under certain conditions (e.g., heterogeneity may matter more for teams engaged in more creative work). Similarly, heterogeneity and practices to manage differences among employees may be more strongly related to firm performance under specific industry conditions (e.g., service or retail industries)

Practices to Increase Diversity

Such practices include targeted recruitment initiatives, education and training, career development and mentoring programs (Cox, 1991; Morrison, 1992). Researchers have also highlighted diversity initiatives to promote employee participation, communication, and community relations (Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 2000), which emphasize the removal of barriers that block employees from using the full range of their skills and competencies in organizations

Learning and Effectiveness Paradigm

learning-and-effectiveness paradigm—which links diversity to organizational strategy, markets, processes and culture. Following this approach, employee perspectives and work styles are incorporated into business processes to leverage the benefits of diversity for organizational learning and growth. Ely and Thomas (2001) found support for their proposed paradigms and subsequent effects on work group functioning in a qualitative study of three professional services organizations.

Role of Task Type on Diversity in Conflict

The positive association between racial and tenure diversity on emotional conflict was reduced for groups work on relatively routine tasks, while the relationship between functional diversity and task conflict was strengthened under such conditions. In addition to the interaction between diversity and task characteristics Pelled et al. (1999) Pelled et al. (1999) considered the combined effects of diversity dimensions included in the study. The findings showed that gender and age diversity interacted to produce a more negative effect on emotional conflict, while the interaction between age and tenure diversity lessened emotional conflict. Further, age and functional diversity facilitated higher levels of task conflict.

Types of Human Resource Structures

They distinguish between identity-blind structures, or formalized human resource management practices designed to ensure that decision-making processes are the same for each individual regardless of group identity, and identity-conscious structures, which are formalized human resource management practices that take both demographic group identity and individual merit into consideration. Konrad and Linnehan (1995) The objective of both structures is to ensure that human resource decisions are based on individual merit, the method of achieving this objective differs for the two categories. Although research shows that identity-conscious practices are positively related to the employment status of protected groups in organizations (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995), research has also highlighted backlash against such practices and diversity management programs in general (see Linnehan & Konrad, 1999). In fact, members of both the majority group and protected groups in the U.S. have been shown to favor identity-blind over identity-conscious structures (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995)

Making the Business Case for Inclusion

Thomas (1991) and Cox and Blake (1991) suggested a need to move from a focus on affirmative action and assimilation to a thoughtful and deliberate focus on managing diversity. Their call was for the creation of environments in which every member of the workforce could perform to his or her potential, and where differences were leveraged as contributions to organizational competitiveness.

Typology of Organizational Approach to Diversity

Thomas and Ely (1996) also proposed a typology of organizational approaches to diversity that can be distinguished based on the degree to which diversity is considered as the varied knowledge and perspectives that members of different identity groups bring and is incorporated into the organization's strategies, operations and practices. More specifically, Thomas and Ely (1996) identify the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm, which involves a focus on equal opportunity, fair treatment, recruitment and compliance, and the access-and-legitimacy paradigm, which focuses on matching workforce demographics with those of key consumer groups to expand and better serve specialized market segments, as the most common approaches to diversity management.

Research on Diversity and Types of Conflict

Using a three-category typology of diversity, Jehn et al. (1999) examined whether social category, informational and value diversity differentially influenced group processes leading to specific types of conflict. The results showed that informational diversity increased task conflict within groups, while social category diversity brought about higher levels of relationship conflict. Interestingly, value diversity was associated with both types of conflict. Pelled and her colleagues (1999) categorized diversity characteristics based on visibility and job relevance, and examined the effects of gender, race, age, tenure and functional diversity on task and relationship (termed emotional) conflict within teams. Consistent with the study's predictions, racial diversity, which is highly visible but low in job-relatedness, was found to influence higher levels of emotional conflict, while functional diversity, which has low visibility but is high in job relatedness, was positively associated with task conflict. Interestingly, tenure diversity, which is argued to be high on both visibility and job-relatedness (Pelled, 1996), was shown to be linked to task, but not emotional conflict.

Future Considerations for The field

View of Diversity is limited mostly to surface level and is U.S. centric and we don't focus on interactive effects of diversity (we look mostly at categories) Most of the work uses surveys or lab studies, we need new methods like the one described below By allowing respondents to describe in their own words the diversity incidents they had observed, Roberson and Stevens (2006) were able to explore the richness of people's natural language accounts of diversity-related experiences at work. We need more theory and we need to focus more on processes. Why do these diversity effects happen? Little attention to the actual effects diversity practices and whether they are effective We must not decontexualize diversity research, context matters a lot to findings Business case for diversity usually doesn't consider the fact that this may be due to other variables internal and external to the org

Time as a Potential Moderator in Diversity in Groups

Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen (1993) compared interaction processes of demographically homogeneous and heterogeneous groups over a 17-week period. While the less diverse groups initially had higher ratings of process effectiveness, the results showed that process ratings converged over time. Using a different diversity categorization scheme, Harrison and colleagues (1998) examined the impact of demographic (i.e., surface-level) versus attitudinal (i.e., deep-level) diversity on group social integration over time. The results showed that the negative effects of surface-level diversity weakened, and the positive effects of deep-level diversity strengthened, the longer group members worked together Pelled et al. (1999) explored the role of group longevity (i.e., time) in the proposed relationships, and found evidence of moderating effects. Specifically, time interacted with race, tenure, and functional diversity such that the impact of these types of diversity on conflict was lessened as groups worked together for a longer period of time

Diversity and Ideological Beliefs

cognitions about diversity, its value in organizations, and the nature of the social world in general van Knippenberg and his colleagues (van Knippenberg & Haslam, 2003; van Knippenberg, Haslam, & Platow, 2007) developed the concept of diversity beliefs, described as attitudes toward demographically dissimilar others or toward diversity as a group characteristic. Similarly, researchers have explored ideological beliefs, or social shared knowledge structures regarding intergroup relations (see Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009; Major, Kaiser, O'Brien, & McCoy, 2007; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004), as an important dimension of diversity that influences individuals' attitudes toward, and evaluations of, others. Whereas diversity and ideological beliefs focus on individuals' own attitudes toward diversity, other research has focused on the perceived perspective of the workgroup or organization. Specifically, diversity climate research has considered employees' shared perceptions of an organization's value for diversity and its related policies and practices (Hicks- Clarke & Iles, 2000; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; McKay et al., 2007; Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998).

Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM)

van Knippenberg and his colleagues (2004) put forth a model to articulate how intergroup biases engendered by diversity may disrupt information exchange and integration processes that are core to realizing the synergetic benefits of diversity as an informational resource. The authors argue that although preventing such biases is important to realizing the potential benefits of diversity, doing so is not enough to stimulate the processes that require active engagement with diversity. Instead, the exchange and integration of perspectives and cognitive resources within the group, or information elaboration, is critical for experiencing the positive effects of diversity on group performance. Several studies have also shown effects of diversity, particularly on task-related dimensions, on information elaboration and performance (Homan et al., 2007; Hoever et al., 2012; Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Rico et al., 2012), offering support for the categorization-elaboration model of work group diversity and performance