The impact of diversity climate on organizational identification in the tech industry
Ana María Carrasco Crespo ID: 12481297
Master’s Thesis’
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
University of Amsterdam
Dr. Anna Berbers June 26th, 2020
Abstract
As the workforce becomes more diverse, both scholars and managers have focused on understanding how it affects organizational behavior. This study aims to analyze how
perceptions of diversity climate predict organizational identification on an individual level, specifically in tech companies. Furthermore, this study examines the moderating effect of perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect on the relationship between diversity climate and organizational identification. A cross-sectional online survey collected data from employees at tech companies to test these hypotheses (N=109). A regression analysis showed that organizational identification is not influenced by the perception of a diversity climate. Furthermore, results showed that the effect of the perception of diversity climate on organizational identification is higher for those who perceive external prestige and internal respect, as opposed to those who do not. Future research should gather organizational demographic data to have a more in-depth analysis of the effect of diversity climate in the workplace.
Keywords: organizational identification, diversity climate, external prestige, internal respect, social identity theory
The impact of a diversity climate on organizational identification
Over the past decades, the concept of organizational identification has become fundamental to better understand human behavior in the workplace (E.-S. Lee et al., 2015). Organizational identification is explained by social identity theory (SIT): individuals classify themselves into social categories or memberships depending on shared characteristics. This provides cognitive segmentation by creating a certain order of social environments and also allows an individual to define themselves within said environment. Organizational
identification, which is a type of social identification, which can be defined as the perception of belongingness to a group. As an individual begins to perceive themselves as being
intertwined with the fate of the group, certain behaviors can benefit this organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Research has shown multiple advantages of organizational identification on outcomes such job satisfaction (Van Dick et al., 2004), turnover intentions (Cole & Bruch, 2006), extra-role behavior (Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006), adjustment to change, enhanced performance (Carmeli et al., 2007), among others.
Consequently, managers have become more aware of what makes employees identify with their organizations, as it provides a valuable insight into human behavior. But as
workplaces become more diverse, these identification processes become more complex. Advances in human rights have granted underrepresented groups the ability to join the workforce and the increase of globalization has led to more diverse workplaces. With the surge of different identities, ethnic backgrounds, education, and experiences, the interaction between employees becomes more complicated (Roberson, 2019). If not managed well, scholars argue that diversity can have negative consequences for its employees, especially minorities, as the process of identification can be more complex for heterogeneous groups, which hold distinct values, in comparison to homogenous groups, and it may lead to discrimination and conflict (Hofhuis et al., 2012). Therefore, organizations must pay close attention to the process of identification through different perspectives. In this sense, a
diversity climate becomes an important part of organizational management. Diversity climate is the extent to which employees share the perception that their organization provides
policies, structures, and practices that are aimed at guaranteeing equal opportunities to everyone (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013). By hosting a diversity climate, which
accepts and promotes unique individual differences, an organization can facilitate organizational identification for all its members (Luijters et al., 2008).
An advantage of diversity that is highlighted by some scholars is that it is viewed as an attractive trait by creative skilled workers (Florida & Gates, 2002). Referring back to SIT, individuals tend to identify themselves with groups to enhance their self-esteem. As the process of identification consists of intergroup comparisons, individuals are likely to identify more with groups that hold successes or are viewed positively by others (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In that sense, organizations that express openness to diversity are bound to attract more skilled workers, which can drive innovation and bring economic benefits to the organization (Florida & Gates, 2002; Lee & Nathan, 2010).
This study aims to understand the relationship between the perception of a diversity climate and organizational identification. A growing body of studies have analyzed this relationship before, including many antecedents (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Fuller et al., 2006; Jones & Volpe, 2011) and consequences (Cole & Bruch, 2006; McKay et al., 2007; Rink & Ellemers, 2007; Sammarra, Innocenti, & Profili, 2017). Contrary to most research, this study will shift focus on an individual level of analysis, studying the perceptions of a diversity climate and the extent to which a person identifies with their organization, instead of a group-level analysis (Dwertmann, Nishii, & van Knippenberg, 2016).
Another objective is to determine how this relationship plays out in the tech industry, an innovative field which still lags in inclusion and diversity. In this industry especially, there is a shortage of skilled workers. Therefore, the recruitment and retainment of knowledge workers becomes a challenging and competitive task for organizations (Farnsworth & Holtzblatt, 2016). The outcome of this study will serve as a guiding argument for managers, as it offers valuable insight into how employees identify with their organization.
Consequently, the present study aims to answer the following question:
How do perceptions of diversity climate predict organizational identification on an individual level?
Theoretical Framework Organizational Identification
Organizational identification (OI) has become a concept of interest to management research as it predicts organizational behavior. This notion is explained by social identity theory, formulated originally by Henri Tajfel and John Turner from a socio-psychological perspective, and introduced in organizational studies by Ashforth and Mael (Edwards, 2005). According to Hogg, Terry, and White (1995), social identity theory argues that belonging to a social group (e.g. gender, nationality, sports team, religion, etc.) can define an individual’s identity based on shared characteristics with the members of that category. For the sake of this study, social identity theory serves as a theoretical background to justify our
assumptions, as it has been proven to explain performance, employee wellbeing, and turnover intentions (Van Dick et al., 2004; Jones & Volpe, 2011). However, it is important to point out that several authors have indicated gaps in social identity theory, like for example its lack of explanation on how an individual chooses a specific identity or how strong identities come to play and create intergroup conflicts (Hogg et al., 1995; Huddy, 2001).
The concept of organizational identification has undergone multiple changes and interpretations by different scholars. A literature review by Edwards (2005) highlights important contributions by Ashforth and Mael, Dutton et al., Pratt, and Van Dick, among others. Ashforth and Mael (1989) state that identification consists of an individual’s perception of being intertwined with the fate of the group, in this case, an organization. Furthermore, Van Dick (2001) expands the limits of the previously defined concept of organizational identification by adding an affective and behavioral component. Van Dick (2001) argues that identification goes beyond self-categorization, as it can form and be formed by a person’s feelings (Edwards, 2005). In other words, beyond its evaluative and cognitive component, this author proposes that organizational identification also invokes affective and behavioral outcomes.
For this study, Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) concept of organizational identification will be used to justify the hypotheses and findings as their interpretation of OI explains behavior and attitudes, which can potentially be linked to organizational outcomes in management studies (Knippenberg & Schie, 2000). Ashforth and Mael (1989) propose organizational identification as a broader form of social identification, that can be defined as “perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines
him or herself in terms of the organization(s) of which he or she is a member” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992:104). This process of identification serves two functions. First, it is a socio-cognitive process through which an individual segment and create order in a social
environment. Secondly, this segmentation allows the person to allocate themselves in social categories (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In this sense, organizational identification permits an individual to answer the question “who am I?”.
There are three important characteristics of organizational identification proposed by Ashforth and Mael (1992) that are relevant for our discussion. The first is that the
organizational identification with a social group is a cognitive construct. Although behavior and attitude can be consequences of identification, this concept refers solely to the cognitive perception of being intertwined with an organization’s successes and failures.
Another characteristic of organizational identification is the relational or comparative aspect, depending on the given context. A person can have multiple identities, which become salient when comparing themselves to others. For example, a person’s young age becomes relevant when compared to an older cohort. In this sense, the setting defines the salience of an identity (Li, Xin, & Pillutla, 2002). It is important to mention that a person can have multiple, and sometimes, conflicting identities.
Lastly, scholars widely agree with the third aspect of OI, which states that individuals seek to identify themselves with an organization as a manner of seeking self-enhancement or self-esteem (Doosje, Ellemers & Spears, 1999; Pratt, 1998; Tyler & Blader, 2001a). Because of organizational identification’s comparative and evaluative nature, individuals actively seek to differentiate themselves from others by identifying with social groups that they consider prestigious (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; De Roeck, El Akremi, & Swaen, 2016). This action is driven by the motivation of self-enhancement, in order to see themselves in a more positive light, in comparison to outgroups (Witte & Davis, 2013:209).
Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue that organizational identification occurs through symbolic interaction, where meaning is not provided, instead, it is created through symbolic transmission between individuals in the organization. These exchanges are specifically important for newcomers, as it allows them to reduce uncertainty and make sense of experiences. As employees begin to emulate and share accepted behaviors, organizational identity begins to form. According to Albert and Whetten (1985), an organization’s identity is defined by the degree to which its essence is shared among its members. This identity is reflected in values, structures, processes, and organizational climate.
Diversity Climate
Organizational climate can be defined as “the meanings people attach to interrelated experiences they have at work” (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013: 361). As workplaces become more diverse, scholars argue there can be increasing conflicts between multiple identities and dissimilarity in values (Van Dick et al., 2008; Ely & Thomas, 2001). To benefit from having multiple perspectives in the workforce, diversity climate can be used as a tool to foster a common identity (Hofhuis et al., 2012). Diversity climate can be defined as “the degree to which an organizational climate facilitates the presence of cultural differences and views diversity as a positive asset” (Hofhuis, van der Zee, & Otten, 2015:969).
This concept is characterized by two aspects: the openness to diversity and the appreciation of it. Openness to diversity means not only accepting cultural habits that are different from “normal”, but also allowing employees to keep their work style and maintaining open communication. Appreciation of diversity is the extent to which the organization views diversity as an advantage and less like a hassle (Hofhuis et al., 2012). To measure a diversity climate, there are different levels of analysis. In this study, the perception of diversity climate is analyzed, as an individual’s perception of this climate is more
important than the reality of the organization’s actions in determining outcomes (Glavas & Godwin, 2013).
Studies have shown multiple benefits of diversity climate such as job satisfaction (Choi, 2012) affective organizational commitment (Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009) effectiveness, sales (McKay, Avery, & Morris, 2008), among others. However, Hofhuis, Van Der Zee, and Otten (2012) warn that if not managed correctly, diversity can have negative effects on its employees, especially minorities. Referring to the principles of SIT, organizational
identification is categorized by its cognitive and relational or comparative characteristics. In this sense, context dictates which characteristics become salient and individuals categorize themselves and others based on shared characteristics (Li et al., 2002; Luijters et al., 2008). This process is less complex for homogenous groups, as they share common values. In heterogeneous groups, the categorization of individuals can lead to a “us vs. them” or in-group vs. outin-group dynamics. In the sense, subin-groups will identify themselves as “us” and will distinguish their colleagues as “them”(Privman et al., 2013). This categorization can be problematic, especially for minorities in organizations.
Nevertheless, diversity climate or intercultural group climate can be used as tools to facilitate identification for diverse groups, regardless of whether the individuals pertain to the majority or minority group (Hofhuis et al., 2012; Luijters et al., 2008). For minority groups, a diversity climate makes them feel included and supported by their organization for their individual differences. For majority members, it encourages them to accept other perspectives and share their own culture. By promoting a diverse climate, both groups will still identify with their cultural groups, but will also have a sense of belonging to the organizational identity due to a lessened categorization and an overarching identity (Hofhuis et al., 2012).
As the workforce becomes more diverse, organizations are making diversity climate a priority, especially in the tech industry (Choi, 2012; Cole, Jones, & Russell, 2016; Hameed, Roques, & Ali Arain, 2013). Florida and Gates (2002) argue that diversity is the key
component in attracting talented people, which in turn drives innovation and growth in companies. Referring back to organizational identification, if diversity is viewed as a positive trait, high skilled knowledge workers are more likely to identify with organizations that accept and promote intercultural climate to enhance their self-esteem. Therefore, we predict the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The perception of a diversity climate will be positively related to organizational identification.
Perception of External Prestige
Ashforth and Mael (1992) put forth various antecedents and consequences of organizational identification. Among them, the perceived external prestige of the
organization. Along with other scholars, they argue that an employee’s perception of how people outside of their organization, such as customers, competitors, and suppliers view their organization influences how strongly they identify with the organization (Carmeli, Gilat, & Weisberg, 2006; De Roeck et al., 2016). This is based on the notion that individuals seek to identify with groups that are positively recognized by others, which in turn enhances self-esteem (Farooq et al., 2016). To maintain a positive view of themselves, individuals are likely to identify with high-status groups and avoid membership with low-status groups. (Tyler & Blader, 2001a). Furthermore, identifying with an organization that is considered prestigious might transfer feelings of self-worth to its employees, granting them prestige, status, and pride (Pratt, 1998).
Moreover, other studies show that diversity is viewed as a positive trait by employees, especially minority groups such as women (Kossek & Zonia, 1993; Kundu, 2001).
Individuals who perceive their cultural background are valued are more likely to be attracted to that organization and consequently, are more likely to stay. Therefore, many organizations have recognized the power of valuing cultural diversity as a competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting and retaining employees (Iles, 1995). If organizations use a diversity climate as an asset, they are likely to develop prestige in the eyes of future employees and the community. Consequently, if employees perceive a diversity climate as an attractive attribute of organizations, we expect that employees are more likely to identify with organizations that have a diversity climate.Therefore, we predict the following hypothesis:
H2: The perception of external prestige of an organization will positively affect the relationship between the employee’s perception of diversity climate and organizational identification.
Perception of Internal Respect
Another pathway towards organizational identification is perceived internal respect. This concept refers to the individual’s evaluation of the degree to which their employers value their contributions (Farooq et al., 2016). As opposed to external prestige, which measures how outsiders view the organization, this concept refers to the way an employee perceives their own status within the organization (Tyler & Blader, 2001b). Gardner et al. (1989) state that organizational based self-esteem is derived from the extent to which members perceive that they are important, effective, and worthwhile in the group that they belong to.
According to social identity theory, individuals are motivated by self-enhancement needs to identify with groups that will grant them status and respect (Shamir & Kark, 2004).
Following this logic, individuals who perceive they are respected by their peers or superiors are more likely to be motivated to merge their identity with said organization (Al-Atwi & Bakir, 2014). Furthermore, organizations that offer a diversity climate are characterized by the openness to share cultural heritage and promoting cultural differences as an advantage. This increases minority members’ ability to identify with the organization and reduce conflict between diverse groups, as their individual characteristics are perceived as valued and
supported (Hofhuis, van der Rijt, & Vlug, 2016).
Following this logic, if diversity climate allows employees, especially minorities, to feel appreciated and valued, then the organizational support of their individual differences is
important as it may provide the link between diversity climate and organizational outcomes (Leveson et al., 2009). Therefore, we predict the following hypothesis:
H3: The perception of internal respect will positively affect the relationship between the employee’s perception of diversity climate and organizational identification.
Methods
The following section illustrates the methods chosen to carry out the present study. Research Design
The present study consists of a cross-sectional survey to gather an understanding of how individuals perceive a diversity climate in their company and how this perception relates to organizational identification. The setting of this survey was a self-report online survey created on Qualtrics, which allows easy access to participants while maintaining a low cost and quick data processing. Another factor that played an important role in the design and execution of this survey was the effects of COVID-19 on the access to individuals in the workplace. Moreover, the subject studied involves personal perceptions and sensitive topics, such as an individual’s relationship with an organization. An advantage that an online web survey affords is the anonymity of participants and the confidentiality of their responses. Therefore, an online survey was the most fitting method to carry out research. A pilot test was conducted with a convenience sample (n=13) to identify potential problems and misunderstandings in the questions. After these errors were corrected, the survey was distributed with an anonymous link (See Appendix A).
Due to the specificity of the field of study, namely the tech industry, a purposive sample was the chosen method to recruit respondents for the survey. To reach tech employees, access was granted to The Next Web’s Slack channel. The Next Web is a
coworking space for tech startups in Amsterdam. An invitation to participate in the study was sent out through channels with more than 400 members but due to a low response rate, many participants were later reached via private message on Slack. Participants were also asked to share the survey with their colleagues or social circle, creating a snowball effect. Due to an insufficient sample size, the link was sent out to tech employees outside of The Next Web spaces in Amsterdam, to fulfill a minimum amount of participants for a regression analysis (Green,1991). The process of recruitment began on April 27th and was finalized on May 27th.
Respondents were first asked to agree to a consent form and were notified that their responses would be kept anonymous and confidential. As participants may feel pressured to answer favorably towards their organization, especially as they received the invitation to participate through a corporate communication tool such as Slack, they were reminded to answer with all honesty as there are no right or wrong answers. After respondents were briefed on the privacy of their answers for academic purposes only, they were filtered out of the survey by answering a question on whether or not they work at a tech company. Then, participants answered a variety of questions that measured the latent concepts used in the study and then were asked to fill in their demographics.
Sample
A total of 206 responses were collected, yet 97 responses were deleted due to user missing data or incomplete responses. In total, the sample size is 109 (N=109). The majority of respondents were male (56%) as compared to female respondents (44%) with an average age of 32.38 years old (SD=9.62). Most respondents work in marketing or communications positions (20.2%), and are followed by developers (18.3%), customer/IT support (14.7%), and sales (11.9%). In terms of education, most respondents have obtained a higher education, such as a bachelor’s degree (47.7%) or a master’s degree (37.6%). When participants were asked about which country they identify most with, regardless of their place of origin or their passport, about a quarter of participants chose the Netherlands (20.2%), followed by the United States of America (15.6%), and United Kingdom (9.2%). For other demographics, see Table 1 below.
Table 1
Demographics of the sample
Characteristic (N=109) Sex Male 61 Female 48 Age 32.38 (SD=9.62) Ethnicity Netherlands 22 United States 17 United Kingdom 10 Ecuador 7 Education Technical/ Vocational Diploma 4 Bachelor’s Degree 52 Master’s Degree 41
Doctorate 4 Religion No religion 69 Christian 27 Muslim 3 Jewish 3 Other 5 Role Developer 20 Marketing/ 22 Communications Customer/IT Support 16 Sales 13 Leadership 12 Product Management 10 Main variables Table 2
Average responses on scale
Variable (N=109) M(SD) Organizational Identification 5.26 (0.95) Perception of Diversity Climate 5.57 (1.05) Perception of External Prestige 5.66 (0.99) Perception of Internal Respect 5.91 (0.81)
Organizational Identification: To measure this dependent variable, Mael and Ashforth’s organizational identification scale was used (Knippenberg and Schie 2000; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Shamir and Kark 2004). The 7-point Likert scale ranges from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The benefit of using a 7-point Likert scale is that it allows respondents to identify the intensity of their attitudes toward each item relating to how
strongly they feel connected to their organization in terms of relation to success and criticism, the use of “we” vs. “they”, among other items. A neutral answer choice, neither agree nor disagree, were also provided. On average, respondents scored an average of M=5.26 (SD=0.95) on a 7-point scale.
A principal axis factor analysis (PAF) was conducted, which showed that the 6 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1
(eigenvalue 2.82) and there is a clear point of inflection after this component in the scree plot. This factor explains 46.9% of the variance. Sampling adequacy was confirmed by the Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure, (KMO = .73). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity indicated that there were correlations between the items, approx. χ2(15) =160.04, p < .001. See Appendix B for factor loadings of the 6 items. Since 1 factor was retained, rotation did not take place. Moreover, a reliability test confirmed that the factors measure organizational identification, with a Cronbach’s alpha of (ɑ=0.77).
Perception of Diversity Climate The independent variable of this study, perception of diversity climate, was measured by using a scale proposed by (Knippenberg & Schie, 2000; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Shamir & Kark, 2004). The proposed scale measures intercultural group climate by using six items and a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) on items such as “In our company we understand and accept different cultures”. The scale included an option for neither agree nor disagree to provide an answer choice for neutrality. On average, respondents scored an average of M=5.57 (SD=1.05) on a 7-point scale.
A principal axis factor analysis (PAF) was conducted, which showed that the 6 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1
(eigenvalue 3.91) and there is a clear point of inflection after this component in the scree plot. This factor explains 65.1% of the variance. Sampling adequacy was confirmed by the Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure, (KMO = .83). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity indicated that there were correlations between the items, approx. χ2(15) =370.42, p < .001. See Appendix B for factor loadings of the 6 items. Since 1 factor was retained, rotation did not take place. Moreover, a reliability test confirmed that the factors measure the perception of a diversity climate, with a Cronbach’s alpha of (ɑ=0.89).
Perception of External Prestige To measure perceived organizational external prestige, Riordan, Gatewood, and Barnes Bill (1997) scale was used. The 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) measured 6 statements on the extent to which employees believe their organization holds a good reputation, with items such as “my company has a good overall image” and “my company has a good reputation in the industry”. On average, respondents scored an average of M=5.56 (SD=0.99) on a 7-point scale.
A principal axis factor analysis (PAF) was conducted, which showed that the 6 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1
(eigenvalue 4.4) and there is a clear point of inflection after this component in the scree plot. This factor explains 73.4% of the variance. Sampling adequacy was confirmed by the Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure, (KMO = .90). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity indicated that there were correlations between the items, approx. χ2(15) =491.1, p < .001. See Appendix B for factor loadings of the 6 items. Since 1 factor was retained, rotation did not take place. Moreover, a reliability test confirmed that the factors measure the perception of external prestige, with a Cronbach’s alpha of (ɑ=0.92).
Perception of Internal Respect To measure perceived internal respect, Tyler and Blader (2001) scale was used to understand to what extent the employee perceives the organization values their work, ideas, and contribution. A 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) measured 7 statements. Some of the statements include “my company respects the work I do” or “my company values what I contribute at work”. On average, respondents scored an average of M=5.91 (SD=0.81) on a 7-point scale.
A principal axis factor analysis (PAF) was conducted, which showed that the 7 items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1
(eigenvalue 4.67) and there is a clear point of inflection after this component in the scree plot. This factor explains 66.8% of the variance. Sampling adequacy was confirmed by the Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin measure, (KMO = .90). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity indicated that there were correlations between the items, approx. χ2(21) =560.57, p < .001. See Appendix B for factor loadings of the 7 items. Since 1 factor was retained, rotation did not take place.
Two statements in the scale were negatively framed and were therefore re-coded in the analysis to stay consistent with the rest of the measurements. Accordingly, answers with high points refer to a more positive perception of perceived internal respect. Once these items were reversed coded, a reliability test confirmed that the factors measure the perception of internal respect, with a Cronbach’s alpha of (ɑ=0.89).
Control variables
Because individuals categorize themselves and others into in-groups and out-groups based on characteristics, factors such as age, gender, position, ethnical background, tenure and education can play an important role in the perception of diversity in the workplace (Cox 1993; McKay et al., 2011; Schalk and Desmette 2015). Participants were asked to state their age in numbers, making this a continuous variable. In terms of gender, participants were
asked to specify which gender they identify most with; this was later coded as a dichotomous variable with female as a control group. For education, participants were asked to select the highest education they have completed. To measure the effects of education in the regression model, this variable was transformed into a dichotomous variable including three categories: low (primary and secondary), medium (technical or vocational diploma and bachelor’s degree), and high (master’s and doctorate). Low education was the reference group. Ethnic and race data collection is a highly sensitive and complex issue to social researchers, as the concept of ethnicity is difficult to define (Farkas 2017; Rademakers & van Hoorn 2020). For this study, participants were asked to select which country they identify themselves with, regardless of their country of origin or the passport they hold. The list of countries was then classified by continents (America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania) to be applied in the regression model. Religious diversity can be a trigger for interpersonal conflict in diverse organizations (Bouma & Singleton 2004). Therefore, participants were asked to answer which religion they identified with. These choices were later classified into a dichotomous variable: religious vs. non -religious to use the variable in the regression model. Other control variables that were measured were tenure and position. Studies show that they can become important predictors of organizational identification as they grant individuals status and a sense of belonging (Hameed, Roques, & Ali Arain 2013). The categories provided for position were classified into a dichotomous variable: IT positions vs. other positions, to be used in the regression model. Similarly, the amount of time an individual has worked at an organization was classified as a dichotomous variable: less than 3 years and more than three years.
Statistical Analysis
To understand the relationship between the perception of a diversity climate and organizational identification, multiple regression was conducted. First, the data was cleaned to delete user missing cases. Then a factor analysis was conducted on each variable. Items that were negatively framed were reverse coded before conducting a reliability test.
Before conducting the regression analysis, assumptions were checked. A scatterplot confirmed that the relationship between the independent and dependent variables was linear. Then, statistics showed there was no multicollinearity (VIF=1.00, Tolerance=1.00). The Durbin-Watson statistic proved that the values of the residuals are independent (Durbin-Watson=1.95). Next, the variance of the residuals was constant as the plot showed no signs of funneling, satisfying the assumption of homoscedasticity. Moreover, the P-P plot for the
model suggested that the values of the residuals are normally distributed. Finally, Cook’s distance values under 1 confirmed that there are no influential cases that bias the model. In conclusion, assumptions were met for a regression analysis to be conducted.
Once assumptions were met, the regression analysis was run with control variables to analyze the relationship between organizational identification and perception of a diversity climate. To understand the moderating effects of perception of external prestige and perception of internal respect, Process V3.4 by Andrew F. Hayes was utilized.
Results
Hypothesis 1 expects a positive relationship between the perception of a diversity climate and organizational identification. In other words, we expect that individuals who perceive a diversity climate are more likely to identify with their organization. To test said hypothesis, a regression analysis was conducted. The regression model with organizational identification as a dependent variable and perception of a diversity climate as an independent variable is significant F(1, 107) =8.71, p < .05. This model predicts 8.0% of the variation in organizational identification based on the perception of a diversity climate (R2 = .08). The
perception of diversity climate positively predicts organizational identification, b = 0.25. This effect is statistically significant, t = 2.95, p<.05, 95% CI [0.08, 0.41]. It has a weak to
moderate effect, b*=.28.
Then, control variables were added to check the robustness of the model. The regression model with organizational identification as a dependent variable and the perception of a diversity climate, age, gender, education, religion, ethnicity, tenure, and position as predictors is not statistically significant F (12, 96) =1.42, p =.17. This model predicts 5% of the variation in organizational identification based on the perception of a diversity climate (R2 = .05). When controlling for other variables, the perception of a
diversity climate positively predicts organizational identification, b= 0.19. However, this effect is not statistically significant, t =1.34, p=0.55, 95% CI [-.004,.38]. When other variables were included in the analysis, the effect was no longer significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is not supported.
Age, b=-.01, t=-.09, p=.928, 95% CI [-.02,.021], gender, b=-.24, t=-.1.18, p=.240, 95% CI [-.63,.16], education (medium vs. low) b=.38, t=1.25, p=.220, 95% CI [-.22,.98], education (high vs. low) b=.60, t=1.88, p=.063, 95% CI [-.32,1.22], ethnic background (American) b=.02, t=0.92, p=.930, 95% CI [-.39,.43], ethnic background (European) b=-.06, t=-.065, p=.948, 95% CI [-2.02,1.89], ethnic background (Asian) b=-.07, t=-.07, p=.946, 95%
CI [-2.12,1.98], ethnic background (African) b=-.53, t=-.44, p=.659, 95% CI [-2.89,1.84], religion, b=0.37, t=.19, p=.854, 95% CI [-.36,.43], position, b=-.32, t=-1.69, p=.107, 95% CI [-.70,.07], and tenure, b=-.13, t=-.63, p=.533, 95% CI [-.02,.021], do not have a significant effect on organizational identification. Other independent variables are assumed to be held constant for the above mentioned effects.
Hypothesis 2 states that the perception of external prestige of an organization will positively affect the relationship between the employee’s perception of diversity climate and organizational identification. More specifically, we expected this relationship to differ for individuals who perceive that their organization has a positive image in the community as opposed to those who don’t. In this sense, the effect of the perception of diversity climate on organizational identification is higher for those who perceive external prestige. To test this hypothesis, Process V3.4 by Andrew F. Hayes was conducted. Model 1 and a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 5,000 samples were chosen. The model was statistically significant, F (3,105) =3.63, p < 0.001. This model predicts 19% of the variation in
organizational identification based on the perception of diversity climate and external prestige (R2 = .19). Perception of diversity climate has a positive predictive effect on
organizational identification; however, its effect is not statistically significant, b=.16, t=1.86,
p=.065, 95% CI [-.01,.33]. The relationship between perception of diversity climate and organizational identification is moderated by the perception of external prestige, b = 0.30, t =3.24, p <.05, 95% CI [0.12,0.48]. The positive effect of the interaction between perception of diversity climate and external prestige (b=0.30), signals that organizational identification is higher for individuals who believe their organization is viewed positively by outsiders.
Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported. See Appendix C for an overview of this moderation.
Hypothesis 3 states that the perception of internal respect will positively affect the relationship between the employee’s perception of diversity climate and organizational identification. More specifically, we expected this relationship to differ for individuals who perceive that their organization values their work and contributions, as opposed to those who don’t. In this sense, the effect of the perception of diversity climate on organizational
identification is higher for those who perceive internal respect. To test this hypothesis, Process V3.4 by Andrew F. Hayes was conducted. Model 1 and a percentile bootstrap
estimation approach with 5,000 samples were chosen. The model was statistically significant,
F (3,105) =7.75, p < 0.001. This model predicts 18% of the variation in organizational
Perception of diversity climate has a positive predictive effect on organizational
identification, however, its effect is not statistically significant, b=.16, t=1.74, p=.084, 95% CI [-.02,.33]. The relationship between perception of diversity climate and organizational identification is moderated by the perception of internal respect, b = 0.42, t =3.62, p <.05, 95% CI [0.19,0.66]. The positive effect of the interaction between perception of diversity climate and internal respect (b=0.42), signals that organizational identification is higher for individuals who believe their organization respects and values their work. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was supported. See Appendix C for an overview of this moderation.
Discussion
As workplaces become more diverse, both scholars and managers have been
interested in analyzing its impact on organizational behavior. This study aimed to understand the relationship between the perception of a diversity climate and organizational behavior on an individual level. Although this relationship has been studied in the past, two moderators: perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect were analyzed. Also, this study narrowed in specifically on the reality of the tech industry, offering insight into what high skilled knowledge workers value in their organizations.
To do so, a self-report online survey was distributed to tech employees through purposive sampling, collecting a total of 109 responses (N=109). A regression analysis did not support the expected results of the positive effect of the perception of a diversity climate on organizational identification. Furthermore, Process V3.4 by Andrew F. Hayes was used to analyze the moderating effect of perceived external prestige and perceived internal respect. This analysis proved that the effect of the perception of diversity climate on organizational identification is stronger for those who perceive external prestige, as opposed to those who do not. Likewise, the effect of the perception of diversity climate on organizational identification is stronger for those who perceive internal respect, as opposed to those who do not.
Limitations
A self-report survey, featuring previously tested scales, was used to fully understand organizational identification and employee’s perceptions of a diversity climate. Although self-report surveys are highly useful to measure attitudes, respondents may have been primed to answer favorably (Vitale, Armenakis, & Field, 2008). The fact that participants were reached through a work channel, such as Slack, it is likely that they were triggered to answer positively, despite been notified of the confidentiality of their responses. Another limitation of this study was the low response rate from an initial invitation to participate in the study.
This may have been due to the COVID-19 situation which occurred at the time the survey was sent out, which complicated the access and availability of participants.
Moreover, the findings of the study were constrained in terms of the settings that they were conducted in. Because organizational demographic data was not collected, it was not possible to define if the organization was a heterogeneous or homogenous workgroup nor if respondents pertained to majority or minority groups. In the case of ethnic background, for example, respondents in this study had different nationalities, but the location of their
organization was not recorded. Therefore, it was not possible to explain minority or majority group dynamics in terms of nationality. The same applies to age, gender, religion, education, and other variables.
An important limitation was the fact that this study was conducted in the tech industry, specifically focused on startups. Moreover, the use of purposive, non-probability sampling does not allow generalizability to the population nor other industries.
Implications
Several contributions can be derived from the results. First of all, although the sample is small, results give insight into the reality of the tech industry, which has been heavily criticized in the past for its lack of inclusion. In this sense, this study serves as a guiding argument for managers towards the importance of diversity management, external prestige and internal respect as key components in retaining and recruiting talent, as part of employee branding. In practice, this conversation may be pertinent to other industries, given the
positive results of studies such as Hofhuis et al. (2012, 2016) and Luijters et al. (2008). Further Research
Although diversity climate and organizational identification have been studied over the past decades, there are many antecedents and consequences yet to be explored. This study is based on an individual’s perceptions of diversity climate and the degree to which they identify with their organization. Further research should focus on collecting organizational demographic data, as the effects of diversity cannot be fully understood without reference to organizational composition. The data collected in this study did not indicate whether the workplace was a heterogeneous or homogenous group or whether or not individuals pertained to majority or minority groups. Future studies should focus on contrasting this information with employee’s perceptions. Furthermore, the setting of this study was focused on startups in the tech industry. It may be pertinent to contrast how organizational identification differs between young organizations and more mature organizations. These principles could also be
applied in other industries and countries to measure the impact of diversity on organizational identification under different settings.
Discussion
The objective of this study was to analyze the relationship between the perception of a diversity climate and organizational behavior on an individual level. Although the positive relation approached significance, in this particular setting, the results do not show a
significant relation between the perception of a diversity climate and organizational
identification. However, previous studies prove the direct relationship between said variables. According to Hofhuis et al. (2016), a diversity climate reduces categorization caused by diverse groups, which allows individuals to overcome differences and increases cohesion between group members. The difference in results may be because this study was conducted in a dissimilar context; namely by studying the perception of tech employees from different nationalities, compared to studies conducted in cross-sectional organizations in the
Netherlands (B. Cole et al., 2016; Hofhuis et al., 2012, 2016; Luijters et al., 2008). Also, this study focuses on startups in the tech industry which proves to be an interesting case to study as they are relatively young organizations and do not have a historical context in comparison to more mature organizations, which have an advantage as they have a shared past, which is said to facilitate organizational identification (Morrell & Lockett, 2015).
The regression model failed to show significant results for control variables such as age, gender, tenure, position, ethnic background, education, and religion, although the relations were proven in previous studies (Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998; Cole et al., 2016; R. J. Ely & Thomas 2001; Hameed, Roques, & Ali Arain, 2013b; Sammarra et al., 2017). The findings of this study may be explained by the lack of organizational demographic data to contrast the reality that employees face in their workplace, as organizational
identification is comparative and related to context. In this study, we could not determine the dynamic between majority and minority members or if workplaces consisted of heterogenous or homogenous groups. Another explanation for these results might be that individuals’ perceptions of diversity climate in the organization are due to interpersonal interactions between employees (Barak et al., 1998).
Furthermore, the findings showed a moderating effect of perceived external prestige on the relation between perception of diversity climate and organizational identification. The prediction stated that perception of external prestige influences the relationship between diversity climate and organizational identification. In other words, the effect of the perception
of diversity climate on organizational identification is higher for those who perceive external prestige, as opposed to those who do not. This finding highlights the notion explained by social identity theory, in which individuals are likely to identify with a group that holds prestige as a manner of enhancing their self-esteem (Hameed et al., 2013b).
Moreover, the study proved the moderating effect of perceived internal respect on the relation between perception of diversity climate and organizational identification. The
expected relationship stated that the perception that the organization values the employee’s contributions influences the relationship between diversity climate and organizational
identification. In this sense, the effect of the perception of diversity climate on organizational identification is higher for those who perceive internal respect, as opposed to those who do not. This result may be explained by the fact that diversity climate promotes the acceptance and promotion of individual differences, which may increase a sense of respect and inclusion (Hofhuis et al., 2012) Further research should focus on applying these concepts to other sectors and countries to compare results.
References
Al-Atwi, A. A., & Bakir, A. (2014). Relationships between status judgments, identification, and counterproductive behavior. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-02-2012-0040
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). JAI Press, Inc.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886398341006
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164633
Bouma, G. D., & Singleton, A. (2004). A Comparative Study of the Successful Management of Religious Diversity: Melbourne and Hong Kong. International Sociology, 19(1), 5– 24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580904040918
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Waldman, D. A. (2007). The role of perceived organizational performance in organizational identification, adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00691.x
Carmeli, A., Gilat, G., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Perceived External Prestige, Organizational Identification and Affective Commitment: A Stakeholder Approach. Corporate Reputation Review. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550014
Choi, S. (2012). Demographic Diversity of Managers and Employee Job Satisfaction: Empirical Analysis of the Federal Case. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(3), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X12453054
Chrobot-Mason, D., & Aramovich, N. P. (2013). The Psychological Benefits of Creating an Affirming Climate for Workplace Diversity. Group and Organization Management, 38(6), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113509835
Cole, B., Jones, R. J., & Russell, L. M. (2016). Racial dissimilarity and diversity climate effect organizational identification. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2015-0072
Cole, M. S., & Bruch, H. (2006). Organizational identity strength, identification, and
commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.378
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice - Taylor Cox - Google Books (First). Berret Koehler Publishers.
https://books.google.com.ec/books?id=Dr7IllPVGJYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gb s_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
De Roeck, K., El Akremi, A., & Swaen, V. (2016). Consistency Matters! How and When Does Corporate Social Responsibility Affect Employees’ Organizational Identification? Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1141–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12216 Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and intergroup behavior. In
Social identity: Context, commitment, content. (pp. 84–106). Blackwell Science. Dwertmann, D. J. G., Nishii, L. H., & van Knippenberg, D. (2016). Disentangling the
Fairness & Discrimination and Synergy Perspectives on Diversity Climate: Moving the Field Forward. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316630380 Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: A conceptual and operational review.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00114.x
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(2), 229–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667087
Ely, R., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work : The effects of diversity perspectives on work gr ... Administrative Science Quarterly.
Farkas, L. (2017). Data collection in the field of ethnicity: Analysis and comparative review of equality data collection practices in the European Union.
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1dcc2e44-4370-11ea-b81b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
Farnsworth, C., & Holtzblatt, K. (2016). Diversity in high tech: Retaining employees once they’re in the door. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems -
Proceedings (Vols. 07-12-May-, pp. 1077–1080). https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2886429
Farooq, O., Rupp, D., & Farooq, M. (2016). The Multiple Pathways through which Internal and External Corporate Social Responsibility Influence Organizational Identification and Multifoci Outcomes: The Moderating Role of Cultural and Social Orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 60. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0849 Florida, R., & Gates, G. (2002). Technology and Tolerance: Diversity and High-Tech
Growth. The Brookings Review, 20(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.2307/20081019
Fuller, J. B., Marler, L., Hester, K., Frey, L., & Relyea, C. (2006). Construed external image and organizational identification: A test of the moderating influence of need for self-esteem. Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.146.6.701-716 Gardner, D., Pierce, J., Cummings, L., & Dunham, R. (1989). Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G.,
Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622-648. The Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622–648.
Gonzalez, J. A., & Denisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.498
Green, S. B. (1991). How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499–510.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7
Hameed, I., Roques, O., & Ali Arain, G. (2013a). Nonlinear Moderating Effect of Tenure on Organizational Identification (OID) and the Subsequent Role of OID in Fostering Readiness for Change. In Group and Organization Management (Vol. 38, Issue 1, pp. 101–127). https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112472727
Hameed, I., Roques, O., & Ali Arain, G. (2013b). Nonlinear Moderating Effect of Tenure on Organizational Identification (OID) and the Subsequent Role of OID in Fostering Readiness for Change. Group and Organization Management, 38(1), 101–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112472727
Hofhuis, J., van der Rijt, P. G. A., & Vlug, M. (2016). Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. SpringerPlus, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2499-4
Hofhuis, J., van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2015). Measuring employee perception on the effects of cultural diversity at work: development of the Benefits and Threats of Diversity Scale. Quality and Quantity, 49(1), 177–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9981-7
diverse organizations: The role of diversity climate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00848.x
Hogg, M. a., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A Tale of Two Theories : A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory Author ( s ): Michael A . Hogg , Deborah J . Terry , Katherine M . White Published by : American Sociological Association Stable URL : http://www.jstor.org/stabl. Social Psychology, 58(4), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2402_2
Huddy, L. (2001). From Social to Political Identity : A Critical. Political Psychology. Iles, P. (1995). Learning to work with difference. Personnel Review, 24(6), 44–60.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00483489510097958
Jones, C., & Volpe, E. H. (2011). Organizational identification: Extending our understanding of social identities through social networks. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.694
Knippenberg, D., & Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317900166949
Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140107
Kruithof, H. (2001). Multiculturele Persoonlijkheidseigenschappen en Effectiviteit van Allochtone Medewerkers in de Nederlandse Werkorganisatie [Multicultural personality characteristics and efficiency of non-native employees in the Dutch Working
Organization]. University of Groningen.
Kundu, S. (2001). Valuing cultural diversity: a study of employees’ reactions to employer efforts to value diversity in India.
Lee, E.-S., Park, T.-Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. In Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 141, Issue 5, pp. 1049–1080). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012
Lee, N., & Nathan, M. (2010). Knowledge workers, cultural diversity and innovation: Evidence from London. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 1(1– 2), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2010.032586
Leveson, L., Joiner, T. A., & Bakalis, S. (2009). Managing cultural diversity and perceived organizational support: Evidence from Australia. International Journal of Manpower, 30(4), 377–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720910973061
Li, J., Xin, K., & Pillutla, M. (2002). Multi-cultural leadership teams and organizational identification in international joint ventures. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(2), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190110103043 Luijters, K., van der Zee, K. I., & Otten, S. (2008). Cultural diversity in organizations:
Enhancing identification by valuing differences. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(2), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.09.003
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Liao, H., & Morris, M. A. (2011). Does diversity climate lead to customer satisfaction? It depends on the service climate and business unit demography. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0550
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences in employee sales performance: The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00116.x
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x
Morrell, K., & Lockett, A. (2015). Organizational Identification In Start-Ups: An Existential Perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 17972.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.17972abstract
Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.007
Pratt, M. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational identification. Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations.
Privman, R., Hiltz, S. R., & Wang, Y. (2013). In-Group (Us) versus Out-Group (Them) Dynamics and Effectiveness in Partially Distributed Teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 56(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2012.2237253 Rademakers, R., & van Hoorn, A. (2020). Choosing Your Ethnicity: A Longitudinal Analysis
of Ethnic Identity Choice and Intra-Individual Ethnicity Change. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3557883
Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2007). Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: The norm congruity principle. In British Journal of Management.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00523.x
Riordan, C. M., Gatewood, R. D., & Barnes Bill, J. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017989205184 Roberson, Q. M. (2019). Diversity in the Workplace: A Review, Synthesis, and Future
Research Agenda. In Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 69–88).
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012218-015243
Sammarra, A., Innocenti, L., & Profili, S. (2017). Disentangling the relationship between age dissimilarity and organizational identification: the moderating role of age diversity climate. Advanced Series in Management, 17.
Schalk, R., & Desmette, D. (2015). Intentions to continue working and its predictors. In Aging Workers and the Employee-Employer Relationship. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08007-9_11
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational Climate and Culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809
Shamir, B., & Kark, R. (2004). A single-item graphic scale for the measurement of
organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915946
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001a). Identity and Cooperative Behavior in Groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004003003 Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2001b). Identity and Cooperative Behavior in Groups. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430201004003003
Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts: linking theory and research from social and organizational psychology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(4), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00068
Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C.,
Hauptmeier, M., Höhfeld, C., Moltzen, K., & Tissington, P. A. (2004). Should I stay or should I go? Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British Journal of Management.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2004.00424.x
Van Dick, R., Van Knippenberg, D., Hägele, S., Guillaume, Y. R. F., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708095711
Vitale, D. C., Armenakis, A. A., & Feild, H. S. (2008). Integrating Qualitative and
Quantitative Methods for Organizational Diagnosis: Possible Priming Effects? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807309968 Witte, E. H., & Davis, J. H. (2013). Understanding Group Behavior: Volume 1: Consensual
Action By Small Groups; Volume 2: Small Group Processes and Interpersonal Relations. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.nl/books?id=CnAeAgAAQBAJ
Appendix A Questionnaire Dear participant,
I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.
The aim of this study is to understand how diversity operates in the workplace. The following questions will ask you how you believe your organization promotes diversity through
policies, structure, values and social integration of underrepresented employees. Furthermore, you will also be asked general questions about yourself, such as what is your age, education level, nationality, etc.
The study will take about 8 minutes.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1. Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions unless you first give your express permission for this.
2. You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
3. Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4. No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, please contact me at ana.carrascocrespo@student.uva.nl.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the
procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following
address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence. I hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this research.
Ana Carrasco
If you would like to participate in the survey, you must read and consent with the following statement:
“I hereby declare that I have been informed clearly about the nature and method of the research, as described in the invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the survey at any time without any negative consequences.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without any express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact Ana Carrasco at ana.carrascocrespo@student.uva.nl.
By agreeing to participate, I acknowledge that I have read and understood the text above and that I am at least 18 years of age.
- I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. In the next few questions, we are interested in learning about how you perceive diversity within your company. We would like to ask you to refrain from answering in a way that you think is desirable. Please answer with all honesty, as there are no wrong or right answers.
I. FILTER QUESTIONS Do you work at a tech company?
-Yes
-No >> (End of survey)
What is the size of your company?
- 1 (self-employed) >> (End of survey) - 2-10 employees
- 11-20 employees - 21-30 employees - 31-40 employees - 41-50 employees
- More than 50 employees
II. MAIN VARIABLES Organizational Identification
(Mael & Ashforth 1992)
The following questions will ask you about how you identify with your company. Please use the scale to select to which extent you agree with the following statements.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree) 1. When someone criticizes (name of school), it feels like a personal insult. 2. I am very interested in what others think about (name of school).
3. When I talk about this organization, I usually say ‘we’rather than ‘they’ 4. This organization’s successes are my successes.
5. When someone praises this organization, it feels like a personal compliment. 6. If a story in the media criticized the organization, I would feel embarrassed. Perception of Diversity Climate
(Luijters, van der Zee & Otten 2008)
The following questions will ask you about the diversity climate within your company. Use the scale to select to which extent you agree with the following statements. Please only take into account the factors that are named: ethnic background, gender, religion, age or social background.
7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree)
1. In our branch we think positively about cultural differences of colleagues. [Op onze vestiging vinden wij het positief als collega’s verschillende culturen hebben.] 2. In our branch we understand and accept different cultures. [Op onze vestiging
begrijpen en accepteren wij verschillende culturen.]
3. In our branch we recommend working with people with cultural different
backgrounds. [Op onze vestiging bevelen wij aan om met mensen met verschillende culturele achtergronden te werken.]
4. Differences in cultural backgrounds are discussed openly in our branch. [Er wordt op onze vestiging openlijk gesproken over verschillende culturen van collega’s.]
5. In our branch we take differences in traditions and habits (like religion, celebrations) into account. [Op onze vestiging houden wij rekening met verschillende tradities en gewoonten van collega’s (bijvoorbeeld geloof, feesten).]
Perception of External Prestige (Riordan et al., 1997)
The following questions will ask you about how you perceive your company in general. Please use the scale to select to which extent you agree with the following statements.
