Abstract
Introduction
Challenges in Contemporary HRMNowadays, the field of Human Resource Management (HRM) experiences numerous changes that pose both challenges and opportunities for today’s organizations. One of these changes is the increasingly diverse workforce (Stone & Deadrick, 2015). Increasing workforce diversity has already led to diversity management initiatives in the workplace which are now commonplace (Sippola & Smale, 2007). Nevertheless, the challenge continues in the sense that organizations are unable to ‘truly integrate and use a heterogeneous workforce’ (Mor Barak, 2000). By extension, the field of HRM tackles diversity issues but ‘has largely been silent with regard to the issues constantly faced by ethnic minorities at work’ (Kamenou & Fearfull, 2006).
Hence, researchers and organizations are still trying to find ways to integrate individuals that make up this increasingly diverse workforce (Shore, Randel, Chung, Dean & Holcombe Ehrhart et al., 2011). However, within management literature, ‘strategic approaches to embracing the tensions of diversity and inclusion are still lacking’ (McCluney & Rabelo, 2018). As argued by Özbilgin, Beauregard, Tatli and Bell (2011), research is mainly focused on a single strand of diversity which is, at most times, gender. As a result, other dominant diversity issues, such as ethnicity, are currently overlooked. Correspondingly, research considers single-level conceptualizations of managing diversity which subsequently affect the content of diversity management practices (DMPs) (Syed & Murray, 2008). This approach, however, is rather exclusive since people dealing with different strands of diversity do not feel recognized and respected because of the diversity practices in the workplace (Pless & Maak, 2004).
An Intersectional Lens in HRM
multiple categorical identities, in this study, those of ethnic minority women. Furthermore, the intersectional approach emphasizes the complexities of far-reaching differences in workforces which must be considered when establishing DMPs (Heres & Benschop, 2010). Consequently, the explicit treatment of intersectionality may produce widespread acceptance of highly diverse workforces and hence inclusiveness (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
While neglecting intersectionality in examining DMPs’ effectiveness, mixed findings are not peculiar since the ever-present existence of power is completely ignored (Bagilhole, 2010). In reality, intersectionality helps to find out the underlying power relations of stigmatization in the workplace (Pheonix, 2006). HRM has tended to focus solely on gender, whereas non-prototypical women such as ethnic minorities are often overlooked in diversity interventions. Therefore, organizations and scholarly research should foster and examine diversity practices that take account of intersectionality in order to avoid blind spots (Özbilgin et al., 2011). Additionally, ‘tailoring diversity approaches to stigmatized groups’ concerns may help them succeed’ (Apfelbaum et al., 2016). Hence, scientists call for research that takes into account individuals’ intersection of multiple identities (Sanchez-Hucles & Davis, 2010).
Ultimately, the organization as well as the employee can reap benefits from an intersectional approach. The prevalence- and influence of systematic inequalities in organizational structures is recognized through intersectional approaches (Choo & Ferree, 2010). While recognizing multiple identities, this approach stresses minority experiences in organizations which will consequently reveal opportunities to increase DMPs inclusiveness. Accordingly, intersectional practices positively employ the interaction of their status as both women and ethnic minorities (Fearfull & Kamenou, 2006). Subsequently, it can aid in challenging stereotypes within organizations (Syed & Murray, 2008). In the end, when better targeted, minority employees’ satisfaction should increase.
Present Study
Therefore, this study’s main interest is to examine the effectiveness of diversity management practices (DMPs) that specifically consider the intersectional needs of ethnic minority women.
The study contributes to the diversity literature by adopting an intersectional lens focusing on gender and ethnicity within a context of DMPs. In line with Crenshaw (1995), this study draws special attention to the need to account for multiple grounds of identity when considering the construction of DMPs while using the example of ethnic minority women in organizations. However, this study could not be exhaustive with all the intersections that involve women.
Literature Review
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of intersectional DMPs in the case of ethnic minority women, thereby contributing to the status quo of the intersectionality literature by investigating the antecedents of employee effectiveness. As a result, new light is shed on constructs which are expected to be positively influenced by the existence of intersectional DMPs in the workplace.
Diversity Management Practices
Several studies point to the fact that, at first, homogeneous groups will outperform diverse groups. However, over time, it seems to be the case that diverse groups will outperform homogeneous groups (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). Governmental regulations to increase diversity, such as quotas, might be beneficial. However, organizations must go the extra mile by fostering inclusion and paying attention to the implementation of inclusive diversity practices (Broughton & Strebler, 2008). Inclusive diversity interventions are essential since a demographically diverse workforce in itself does not necessarily have a positive influence on organizational performance (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). As argued by Roberge, Lewicki, Hietapelto and Abdyldaeva (2011) ‘managing diversity effectively is a complex and delicate process that requires the implementation of a combination of diversity practices’.
Organizations implementing formalized DMPs benefit from several advantages (Manoharan, Gross & Sardeshmukh, 2014). Firstly, these practices have the potential to prevail across the organization. Secondly, DMPs reduce employee turnover. Thirdly, these practices are long-lived within organizations. Lastly, DMPs can act as strategic control mechanisms. Besides the emphasis on formalized DMPs, research highlights the importance of assessing employees’ perceptions of DMPs in the workplace (Kossek & Pichler, 2006). Kossek and Pichler (2006) state that DMPs are actually in place to contribute to promoting perceptions of inclusiveness and organizational justice (Kossek & Pichler, 2006). Subsequently, this study adopts this assumption using an employee-centered view. The manner in which employees perceive DMPs in the organization has an impact on their work-outcomes and hence indirectly influences organizational performance (Otaye-Ebede, 2018). Consequently, the objective of this study is to investigate their influence on employees’ effectiveness in the end.
Because there is a call for deeper investigation into the mechanics of DMPs (Curtis & Dreachslin, 2008; Tatli, 2011), this paper tries to understand the effectiveness of DMPs through an intersectional lens on ethnic minority women by examining two psychological outcomes of employees: social identity threat and employee effectiveness.
Intersectional Approach to Diversity Management Practices
multiple social identities, which is in turn important to understand the effect of employees’ representation in ingroups on their self-concept and the nature of the established relationships. One example of people dealing with intersectionality in the workplace are ethnic minority women who have to deal with compounding challenges due to their stigmatized identities (Pietri, Johnson & Ozgumus, 2018). The first social identity which is often examined in relation to stigmatization is ethnicity. Because of ethnic stereotype activation, all individuals of the same ethnic group are homogenized (Way & Rogers, 2015). However, ethnic stereotypes are contingent on other social stereotypes such as gender (Timberlake & Estes, 2007). As Kamenou and Fearfull (2006) argue ‘ethnic minority groups in general and women, in particular, have additional concerns at work due to the stereotypes placed upon them’. As a result, ethnic minority women have different experiences of discrimination than ethnic majority women (i.e., White women, Tatli & Özbilgin, 2012). Because of their multiple stigmatized categories, they must overcome the challenge of both sexual and racial prejudices which can result in accrued harassment (Rosette et al., 2016). As argued by Rosette et al. (2016), theoretical and empirical evidence have shown that there may be distinct, prescriptive and proscriptive stereotypes for women from different racial groups. Therefore, ethnicity and gender must both be examined to gain a thorough understanding of ethnic minority women’s intersectional experiences in organizations.
As aforementioned, an intersectional approach to DMPs is not yet commonplace. Therefore, DMPs are inherently flawed when trying to help women of ethnic minorities (Foldy, 2002). As shown by Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (2008), less resources are dedicated to non-prototypical minority members, as represented by women of color, in comparison to white women (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013). As a result, ethnic minority women require special scrutiny with regard to human resource decisions to ensure that they receive fair treatment (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995).
Tatli and Özbilgin (2012) argue that ‘intersectionality remains still under-operationalized and under-theorized in the workforce diversity research’. Furthermore, it seems to be the case that managers actively address issues affecting individuals with one subordinate identity while forgetting individuals with multiple intersecting identities such as women of color (Strolovitch, 2007). However, ‘because of their intersectional identity as both women and of ethnic minorities within discourses that are shaped to respond to one or the other, women of color are marginalized within both’ (Crenshaw, 1995). Therefore, not taking into account the intersectional needs of ethnic minority women would present a problem in establishing effective DMPs which actually should act as identity-safe cues for these individuals (Pietri et al., 2018). As a result, this study tries to underline the advantages of having an intersectional approach towards DMPs in organizations.
Social Identity Threat
In order to feel valued within organizations, employees search for inclusion in groups that have favorable characteristics in contrast to the outgroups (Scheepers & Ellemers, 2005). However, employees can feel threatened because of cues that provide evidence that ‘one’s identity may be a liability or source of stigma, devaluation, or mistreatment’ (Emerson & Murphy, 2014). It turns out that mainly ethnic- and racial minorities experience such concerns because of exposed cues in organizations. As a result, a positive view of one’s social identities is not maintained while inclusion is not met. In other words, employees will find themselves in a state of social identity threat. A social identity threat is defined as the concern people experience in contexts where their social group is underrepresented, stereotyped to be inferior, or otherwise devalued in that setting (Steele, Spencer & Aronson, 2002). It is associated with feelings of exclusion, underperformance, turnover, psychological disengagement (Stout & Dasgupta, 2013), and impaired employees’ performance (Walton, Murphy & Ryan, 2015).
While employees have multiple identities by which they could be threatened, research investigating social identity threat to multiple identities remains surprisingly scarce (Gresky, Ten Eyck & McIntyre, 2005; Rydell, McConell & Beilock, 2009). The efforts of prior research are mainly focused around using only one of the multiple social identities people possess to reduce threat since not all the identities are subjected to negative stereotypes. Contrastingly, this study highlights that the possession of multiple social identities should not be seen as an accumulation of identities but as single, unique social identity by taking an intersectional approach (Roccas & Brewer, 2002). Hence, it should be treated accordingly by investigating ways to reduce perceived social identity threat. As a result, the research focuses on intersections that entail simultaneously gender (women) and ethnicity.
Ultimately, the focus is on the attenuation of ethnic minority women’s social identity threat since they experience intersectional challenges from both their race as well as their gender in the workplace. It is hypothesized that this could in turn lead to enhanced employee effectiveness and hence, organizational performance.
Employee Effectiveness
Firstly, extra-role behavior is defined as ‘behaviors that are not part of an employee’s job description but promote organizational effectiveness and are categorized as helping behaviors towards the organization and other individuals’ (Williams & Anderson, 1991; Singh et al., 2013). In other studies, this is sometimes referred to as ‘Organizational Citizenship Behavior’ (OCB) (Bowling, 2010). Secondly, the desire to stay at the organization refers to ‘employees’ conscious and deliberate willfulness to stay with an organization’ (Cho, Johanson & Guchait, 2009). Ultimately this study investigates to what extent intersectional DMPs stimulate the effectiveness of women of color in the workplace.
Hypothesis Development
Diversity Management Practices and Decreased Social Identity Threat As stated by Emerson and Murphy (2014), ‘psychological concerns experienced by racial and ethnic minorities may be elicited by cues in organizations’. Contrarily, in this section, it is argued that DMPs can act as cues that alleviate social identity threats experienced by ethnic minority women. Hence, DMPs may reduce women of color’s psychological concerns. It is said that the establishment of effective DMPs may even be critical to reduce social identity threats in organizations (Pietri et al., 2018). Established DMPs build mutual trust among employees by addressing potential threats to the value and distinctiveness of social identities (McCluney & Rabelo, 2018).In other words, DMPs act as identity-safe cues signalling the value of identities found within organizations. As a result, the cues signal positive social identity contingencies which subsequently cause increased trust and belonging of employees (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Specifically, as a result of DMPs, employees are less concerned about the ‘possible challenges, and mistreatment they believe that they may have to contend within a given setting because of their social identities’ (Wout, Murphy & Steele, 2010). Moreover, Purdie-Vaughns et al. (2008) state that DMPs can act as stronger identity-safe cues than numerical representation. Because of the suppression of social identity threat, employees are less aware of the workforce differences (Mitchell & Boyle, 2015).
that DMPs aid in alleviating their identity concerns (Guillaume et al., 2014) and hence reduce social identity threat. Hypothesis 1. Diversity management practices are negatively related to ethnic minority women’s social identity threat. The Moderating Role of Intersectionality
The intersections of ethnic minority women must explicitly be considered to develop practices that can remove barriers and hence progress their careers. ‘Therefore, the first step in successfully navigating the “wholeness” of one’s multiple identities is to recognize them’ (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015). According to Tariq and Syed (2017), organizations which actively encourage diversity are more likely to assist in progressing the careers of women. Consequently, the explicit consideration of ethnic minority women’s intersectional needs in DMPs’ can advance the field by decreasing ethnic minority women’s intersectional invisibility through enhancing their safety. Consequently, DMPs must respond to ‘minority women experiences of structural inequality based on their race and gender as interdependent, interactive, and dynamic factors rather than as independent and static factors’ (Brown, 2014). Furthermore, Lyon, Duxbury and Higgins (2005) argue that minority groups have different work-related values than majority members. As a result, Ng and Sears (2010) point out that DMPs must be subjected to change in order to appeal to minority employees. Therefore, studying the added value of an intersectional approach to DMPs can be seen as an intervention tailored to minority employees. Hence, this study responds to the general call of advancing intersectionality research by prescribing or imagining points of intervention (Chang & Culp, 2002).
essentialize group identity and differences, as is risked by multiculturalism, nor to ignore the reality of group identity, as is risked by colorblindness’. As a result, the intersectional approach taken in this study is derived from the identity safety ideology as it tries to convey an identity-safe cue for ethnic minority women since these women experience more obstacles than their majority colleagues in the workplace.
Moreover, the idea of identity safety seems to be in line with previous research using signalling theory. For example, signalling theory is used to argue that firms can use signals to improve reputation and status (Miller & Del Carmen Triana, 2009). In the same vein, it is suggested that intersectional DMPs can serve as similar signals indicating safety for ethnic minority women. Therefore, the signalling theory forms an additional theoretical underpinning. Overall, the field requires research into interventions aimed at encouraging flexibility in perceiving complex social identities (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015). Here, intersectional DMPs are introduced as a means to move toward practices of accommodation that acknowledge the real differences in the workforce. Resulting in an environment which is not limiting, devaluing and alienating and thus safe (Markus, Steele & Steele, 2000). This study therefore hypothesizes that intersectional diversity practices function as triggers to further alleviate employees’ identity concerns and hence positively contribute to the suppressed social identity threat resulting from DMPs. Hypothesis 2. The incorporation of practices that consider the intersectional needs of ethnic minority women positively moderate the negative relationship between diversity management practices and social identity threat. Decreased Social Identity Threat and Improved Employee Effectiveness
have the ability to construe high-quality relationships when working satisfactorily (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Moreover, employees are actually trying to find a balance in their interpersonal transactions as they form their attitudes and behaviors on the basis of the organization’s treatment (Cho et al., 2009). Hence, in the eyes of employees, the establishment of (intersectional) DMPs can be seen as a supportive transaction from the organization’s side. This results in employees reciprocating with favorable transactions as well, expressed in increased engagement (Downey et al., 2015).
Secondly, Mayo and Firfiray (2011) argue that the degree of identity salience influences the perceptions and behaviors of employees. In this study, the stance is taken that effective DMPs have the ability to attenuate social identity threat. As a result, the saliency of ethnic minority women’s multiple identities may become sidelined. Organizations are committed to find a better fit between the values and interests of employees when introducing (intersectional) DMPs (Groeneveld, 2011; Magoshi & Chang, 2009). Correspondingly, employees have an incentive to continue their employment (Stewart et al., 2011; Magoshi & Chang, 2009).
Thirdly, especially for minorities, a beneficial diversity climate is related to favorable worker attitudes (McKay et al., 2007). When organizational climates stimulate diversity, minority employees perceive them as affirming their social identity which subsequently results in extra motivation to fulfill the goals of the organization (McKay et al., 2008). According to Ely and Thomas (2001), the supportive environment created by (intersectional) DMPs increases their commitment to go above and beyond the role prescriptions since minority employees will feel valued and appreciated.
Methodology
The main purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of intersectional DMPs on employee-level. In other words, the respondents answered questions based on their personal feelings and perceptions related to diversity practices in their workplace. Moreover, the study conforms to the guidelines provided by Van Aken et al. (2012) to answer the main research question by means of a theory-testing study.
Data Collection
Dillman (2000) argues that using surveys is the most appropriate method for theory-testing hypotheses. In addition, this study uses Amazon Mechanical Turk as online platform. For the reason that online surveys have the advantage of reaching out and having access to groups who would otherwise be difficult to reach (Wright, 2005). Because of the intersectional lens of this study, the aim was to recruit employed ethnic minority women as respondents. In essence, Amazon Mechanical Turk offered practical advantages while reducing threats to internal validity (Paolacci, Chandler & Ipeirotis, 2010). Additionally, Van Selm and Jankowski (2006) state that in comparison to different modes of administering a survey, the online-survey is the most convenient for respondents.
Middle Eastern or North African (n = 2), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders (n = 3) and Aboriginal (n = 1).
Measurements2
Independent Variable. α = 0.97
To measure the degree of Diversity Management Practices in the workplace, the respondents indicated whether their organization has diversity practices in various areas of their occupation using the validated 9-item unidimensional scale of Employees’ Perception of Diversity Management Practices (EPDMP) (Otaye-Obede, 2018; ‘This organization spends money and time on diversity awareness and related training’). The respondent is asked to what extent they are present on a 7-point Likert scale (1 – Extremely Small Extent, 7 – Extremely Large Extent). Because of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), some of the items were dropped to arrive at a satisfactory measurement model. Moderator Variable. α = 0.90 At this point of time, an existing measure to assess the Intersectionality of DMPs is not yet available. McCall (2005) argues that researchers did not incorporate a measurement of intersectionality as there are no guidelines that exist on how to address research questions using an intersectional framework. Therefore, to measure this construct, qualitative responses of a preliminary qualitative study were thematically coded to derive intersectional ‘needs’ in a gender intervention that are relevant for different racial/ethnic groups of women.
Preliminary Study. The study’s aim was to evaluate the needs for a successful gender
intervention between white women and ethnic minority women in the workplace. As a result, a comparison between the thematically coded elements was made to see if different elements would hold a successful gender intervention for the two subgroups. Subsequently, the preliminary study indicated that the following elements; desire for confidence-training, multicultural representation, addressing multiple stigma and addressing racial differences show different outcomes across white women and ethnic minority women. The thematically coded elements derived from the existing dataset were then used to construe the construct of Intersectionality in this particular study. For example, one out of the twelve items addressing the intersectionality construct asks to what extent the organization’s policies and practices ‘address challenges to authority and disrespect in the workplace’. In other words, a continuous measurement scale was
used to aggregate the scores (1 – Extremely Small Extent, 7 – Extremely Large Extent). However, not all items were incorporated because of the CFA. Mediator Variable. α = 0.96 To assess the Social Identity Threat respondents experience, this study uses an adaptation of the 5-item scale of Cohen and Garcia (2005) (e.g. ‘I often feel that people’s evaluations of my performance at work are affected by me being an ethnic minority woman’) measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 7 – Strongly Agree). One item has been omitted as result of the CFA.
Dependent Variable. DTS α = N.A. ERB α = 0.71
Additional Variables of Interest
In this section some additional variables of interest are discussed which become relevant in the section ‘Supplementary Analyses’3. Although these variables are not incorporated in the
main hypotheses, the literature indicates that they might be relevant as potential moderator- and/or control variables. Career Aspiration Scale. α = 0.81 This scale measures career aspirations ‘as the degree to which women aspire to leadership positions and continued education within their careers’ (Gray & O’Brien, 2007). The Career Aspiration Scale (CAS) consists of two dimensions; Leadership & Achievement Aspirations and Educational Aspirations. The items of the scale are measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 7 – Strongly Agree). An example of one of the items is ‘I hope to become a leader in my career field’. Because of the CFA this construct has been analyzed as a single dimension. Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale. RP α = 0.79 BRI α = 0.77
The Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) from Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee and Browne (2000) is the most widely used measure of color-blind racial ideology (Keum, Miller, Lee & Chen, 2018). The scale contains three dimensions; Racial Privilege (RP), Institutional Discrimination (ID) and Blatant Racial Issues (BRI). The questions (e.g. ‘Talking about racial issues causes unnecessary tensions’ – BRI dimension) are answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 7 – Strongly Agree). Only two out of the three dimensions have been preserved as a consequence of the CFA.
Belief in Meritocracy. α = 0.77
‘Belief in Meritocracy’ from Lalonde, Doan and Patterson (2000) constitutes the third additional variable of interest. According to Bobocel, Son-Hing, Davey, Stanley and Zanna (1998), when people have a stronger belief in meritocracy they would oppose the need for affirmative action policies that treat groups differently on the basis of certain characteristics (for example, women). This construct has a single dimension with questions like ‘Everybody in this country has equal opportunities’ answered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 7 – Strongly Agree).
Gender Blindness Subscale. α = 0.73
Fourthly, the construct measuring ‘Gender Blindness’ of Hahn, Banchefsky, Park and Judd (2015) is added. According to Hahn et al. (2015), ‘a genderblind perspective stresses
ignoring gender categories and valuing individuals beyond their gender’. The items are based on a 7-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree (e.g. ‘All humans are fundamentally the same, regardless of their gender’).
Diversity Composition. α = 0.93
‘Diversity Composition’ actually tests whether a respondent perceives its own organization as being diverse or not (Unzueta & Binning, 2012). An example item is ‘My workplace has a high level of diversity’ based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 – Strongly Disagree, 7 – Strongly Agree).
Results
Descriptive Analysis Construct Validity. As stated in the measurement section, most of the constructs used in this study are derived from prior research. As a result, the items of these constructs are already validated. Therefore, a multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using Maximum Likelihood estimation in LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2007) was carried out to test the construct validity of the measures under study. Consequently, only one item of ‘Desire To Stay’ representing one of the dimensions of ‘Employee Effectiveness’ has been preserved. Nevertheless, this one item (DTS2) is unambiguous and sufficiently representing the overall dimension (see Appendix 2). The outcome of the CFA is displayed in Appendix 24. Moreover, the measurementmodel following from CFA shows a good fit (Hair et al., 2009): Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) has a value of 0.06, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) is 0.98, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) is 0.98 and the Normed Fit Index (NFI) is 0.93. As revealed in Appendix 2, the factor loadings of all items exceed the standard of 0.50. Consequently, the items of the proposed measures have tolerable convergent validity. Besides the outcome of the CFA, the Cronbach’s alphas (α) of the used measures are shown in Appendix 2. A reliability analysis is performed for each factor to assess the internal consistency. The Cronbach’s alphas of the measures are satisfactorily since the values surpass the threshold of 0.70 as given by Nunnally (1978). In Table 1 the descriptive statistics and the correlation matrix of the constructs following the CFA are displayed. In order to construe Table 1, the items of the measures displayed in Appendix 2 have been added up and divided by the number of items per measure to arrive at their constructs. Despite the existence of missing values in the control variables ‘Organization Tenure’ and ‘Job Tenure’ the final sample of 248 respondents has been retained. The missing values in
Common Method Assessment. Common method bias can occur when respondents
answer on questions covering both the independent as the dependent construct (Podsakoff, 2003). In other words, the answers are measured by using the same method. Therefore, a Harman’s One Factor Test is performed by means of a one-factor CFA in order to assure the exclusion of common method bias in this study. Resulting in 42.23% of the cumulative total variance explained by one factor which satisfies the threshold of ≤ 50% (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Appropriately, common method bias is not likely to be of concern in this particular study. All in all, the data was appropriate to be used for testing the proposed hypotheses.
Path Model
To test the hypothesized relationships a simultaneous moderation and mediation path analysis was performed in LISREL 8.80(Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2007). ‘The purpose of performing a path analysis is to determine if the causal inferences of a researcher are consistent with the data’ (Bollen, 1989). Path analyses provide stronger tests of mediation/moderation than hierarchical multiple regression since they allow the researcher to model all hypothesized relationships simultaneously and to account for the effects of measurement error in the variables (Brown, 1997; McKay et al., 2007). Moreover, multi-group analyses were executed to see if the ‘Intersectionality’ construct makes a significant difference for ethnic minority women in contrast to white women. Intersectionality should only play a role in case of ethnic minority women since white women do not have to deal with intersectional challenges in the workplace. ‘If a significant difference is found between models for a parameter (path coefficient, variance, or error term), this indicates that this constraint (equality of a parameter) is false and a less constrained model is indicated’ (Grace & Pugesek, 1998). Furthermore, when incorporating both subsamples (white women and ethnic minority women) more data points are retained hence the power of the analysis is greater. Nevertheless, this study is mainly interested in the outcomes representing ethnic minority women. Therefore, this section discusses the results found for this particular subsample. On the whole, the results of the path analysis are given in Figure 2. The path model appears to have a good fit (Hair et al., 2009): c2 is 31.97, df is 22, RMSEA is 0.061, IFI is 0.95, CFI is 0.95 and NFI is 0.87.
First of all, hypothesis 1 states that DMPs are negatively related to ethnic minority women’s social identity threat which is not supported as is illustrated in Figure 2. The coefficient (β = -0.14) was not significant at p < .10. Therefore, the data does not support that the existence of DMPs within organizations aid in reducing the perceived social identity threat of ethnic minority women in the workplace.
DMPs found in the organization and the experienced social identity threat of these women in the organization. It is hypothesized that organizations that do incorporate intersectional considerations positively moderate the proposed relationship between DMPs and social identity threat as seen in hypothesis 1. The path analysis has indeed shown that intersectionality positively moderates the relationship between DMPs and social identity threat (b = 0.14, p < 0.05). Therefore, increasing attention for intersectionality contributes to a strengthened effect from DMPs on social identity threat, such that intersectional DMPs lead to heightened social identity threat among ethnic minority women. Moreover, this outcome significantly differs, as indicated by the test of significance, from the subsample of white women at p < 0.05 (Dc2 = 8.64, Ddf = 1). As a result, intersectionality does not play a role in the experience of social identity threat for white women which is expected as they do not encounter intersectional challenges in the workplace. All in all, the existence of intersectional DMPs does not contribute to reduced social identity threat among ethnic minority women but instead heightens their perceived threat. Additionally, the third hypothesis investigates whether social identity threat acts as mediator between DMPs and employee effectiveness (i.e. the aggregate score of ‘Desire To Stay’ and ‘Extra-Role Behavior’). In other words, it is expected that reduced social identity threat, as result of DMPs, increases the effectiveness of ethnic minority women in the workplace. The results, as shown in Figure 2, indicate that hypothesis 3 does not find any support. The proposed relationships between the constructs are not significant at p <.10. Subsequently, reduced social identity threat cannot be confirmed to act as mediator between DMPs and Employee Effectiveness.
Besides the main constructs, the control variables incorporated in the study did not significantly influence Employee Effectiveness either. Firstly, Age (β = 0.01 on DTS and β = 0.00 on ERB) is not significant at p < .10. Secondly, Job Tenure (β = -0.02 on DTS and β = 0.00 on ERB) was also not significant at p < .10. As a result, the included control variables did not strengthen the model under investigation.
Additional Analysis: Desire To Stay & Extra-Role Behavior Besides the main results, the two dimensions of ‘Employee Effectiveness’ (i.e. ‘Desire To Stay’ and ‘Extra-Role Behavior’) are worth discussing separately since some surprising outcomes are found for ethnic minority women. The updated path model is shown in Figure 3 and has a good fit according to Hair et al. (2009). First of all, DMPs have a direct positive effect on ‘Desire To Stay’ (β = 0.29) at p < 0.05. Consequently, this result indicates that organizations which pay attention to DMPs already positively affect ethnic minority women’s desire to stay. This result is consistent with SIT (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) which posits that people are likely to be more attracted to organizations that reinforce favorable views of themselves. Furthermore, this result is significantly different from the subset of white women at p < 0.05 (Dc2 = 1, Ddf = 3.95).
needs of both subsets are the same for the top two. Whereas, the third choice might express the difference in challenges ethnic minority women versus white women experience on a daily basis in their workplace.
Furthermore, the main analysis was replicated while substituting the ‘Intersectionality’ construct for a construct reflecting only the top three of ethnic minority women’s intersectionality needs (α = .852 for ethnic minority women) in LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2007). This replication led to different outcomes than revealed in the analyses before. The path model’s fit is satisfactory (Hair et al., 2009): c2 is 8.24, df is 22, RMSEA is 0.0, IFI is 1.06, CFI is 1.00 and NFI is 0.97. First of all, the interaction term is directly related to ethnic minority women’s employee effectiveness: desire to stay (β = 0.09 at p < .10) and extra-role behavior (β = 0.07 at p < .05). Therefore, organizations that consider DMPs which include ethnic minority women’s main intersectional needs in the workplace positively affect their employee effectiveness. Furthermore, a positive direct effect between DMPs and extra-role behavior is present (β = 0.14 at p < .05). Adding Variables of Interest
In the supplementary analyses the variables of interest are added to control for their presence as either moderator - instead of the construct ‘Intersectionality’ - and/or as control variable on both ‘Social Identity Threat’ and ‘Employee Effectiveness’5. Consequently, the
moderated-mediation analyses are carried out by using model 7 in PROCESS macro of Hayes (2013). The first additional variable includes the Career Aspiration Scale (CAS) of Gray and O’Brien (2007). Despite the fact that both dimensions (Leadership & Achievement Aspirations and Educational Aspirations) are retained in the factor analysis; several items suffering from wrong-
5 Besides the control variables already incorporated in the study. 0 2 4 6 8 10
Confidence Network Racial
Considerations Top Three Ethnic Minority Women 0 2 4 6 8 10
Confidence Network Backlash
Top Three White Women
and/or cross-loadings have been omitted. As a result, the CAS turns into a single dimension6 with
a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.81 for the subset of ethnic minority women. Firstly, the analyses indicate that CAS does not act as moderator. However, the dimension Leadership & Achievement Aspirations is positively related to ethnic minority women’s extra-role behavior (β = 0.34 at p < .05). Hence, ethnic minority women who aspire leadership positions seem eager to put more effort in their jobs. Secondly, the supplementary analysis controlled for the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) from Neville et al. (2000). The scale consists of three dimensions, from which two are retained because of the results from the factor analysis. In the subset of ethnic minority women, the dimensions of Racial Privilege (α = .787) and Blatant Racial Issues (α = .771) are preserved. The scale is not found to be acting as either moderator or control variable in the moderated-mediation analysis.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to study the impact of intersectional DMPs on ethnic minority women’s perceived social identity threat and effectiveness in the workplace. Accordingly, the central research question was ‘How can diversity management practices, that take the intersectional needs of ethnic minority women into consideration, lead to increased employee effectiveness?'. As hypothesized, it was expected that DMPs would reduce ethnic minority women’s social identity threat in the workplace. Furthermore, it was said that taking into account their intersectional needs would further enhance the suppression of ethnic minority women’s threat. Additionally, it was proposed that the reduction of their social identity threat would result in ethnic minority women’s improved employee effectiveness. What appears from the research outcomes is that DMPs are not directly related to ethnic minority women’s social identity threat. Furthermore, the results indicate that the moderator, intersectionality, positively affects the insignificant relationship between DMPs and social identity threat. Hence, the data suggest that intersectional interventions heighten ethnic minority women’s social identity threat instead of reducing it. Additionally, social identity threat has no direct effect on ethnic minority women’s effectiveness in the organization. Moreover, because of the non-significant relationships found, the construct ‘Social Identity Threat’ has not been confirmed to act as mediator in this study. This section outlines the overall theoretical contribution of the results, the practical implications and future directions. Study Contributions and Implications Diversity Management Practices & Social Identity Threat
Firstly, the relationship between DMPs and reduced social identity threat was non-significant. In this study, the main focus was on DMPs acting as identity-safe cues by creating positive social identity contingencies for ethnic minority women.
organization’s culture is an important factor that could have been accounted for while examining the impact of DMPs in the workplace (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004). Competition-oriented organizational cultures, for example, can inhibit organizational members from realizing synergy (Jehn & Bexrukova, 2004). In this case, while DMPs are intended to foster inclusiveness, a competitive organizational culture may stimulate individual accomplishments, creating tension between the goals of DMPs and the overall organizational culture. In other words, the organization establishes inconsistent setting cues which trigger ethnic minority women’s concerns (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Subsequently, in social contexts like these, it might be even harder for ethnic minority women to experience reduced social identity threat as result of DMPs in the workplace. Nemetz and Christensen (1996) have underlined the importance of considering the organizational context since it will provide meaningful information for predicting responses to diversity initiatives.
All in all, the non-significant finding has led to valuable theoretical implications which underscore the importance of a truly inclusive social context in the workplace and the moderating role of ethnic minority women’s stigma consciousness in examining their vulnerability to social identity threat. The Moderating Role of Intersectionality The fact that the interaction term of DMPs and intersectionality is positively related to social identity threat may indicate that the present interventions may not have been appropriately designed to advance the position of ethnic minority women. Initially, it was theorized that intersectional DMPs would aid in creating a welcoming environment by acting as identity safety cues while enhancing ethnic minority women perceived personal relevance. Therefore, a successful intersectional-intervention was expected to result in reducing their social identity threat. However, the results indicated the opposite from what was expected. In other words, intersectional DMPs heightened their feelings of threat. Correspondingly, Purdie-Vaughns et al. (2008) argue that ‘one cue may be so dominant as to overshadow the signal of the other cue’. This thought can be supported by the findings of the additional analysis since, on their own, DMPs and intersectional considerations have positive direct effects on the outcome variables. However, in the interaction of intersectional DMP’s, there is an exacerbation of social identity threat.
Stewart & McDermott, 2004). This is also referred to as the rebound effect (Lindsey, King, Hebl & Levine, 2015).
When taking into account intergroup relations literature, it can be argued that the introduction of policies and practices considering ethnic minority women’s intersectional needs in addition to DMPs might not fully contribute to what is called either recategorization or decategorization (Gaertner, Mann, Murell & Dovidio, 1989). Recategorization is when one subordinate group is formed to encompass differences among employees. Decategorization, contrarily, attempts to remove distinct social categories from individuals that originally belong to an aggregate. The results suggest that DMPs dealing with ethnic minority women’s intersectional needs do not result in either of these two scenarios which would have resulted in the reduction of ethnic minority women’s perceived social identity threats. Furthermore, within this same research area, the concept of fault lines can possibly help to interpret the findings. Lau and Murnigham (1998) argue that fault lines can be activated within organizations resulting in pressure between subgroups. Accordingly, the existence of policies and practices specifically targeted at ethnic minority women may bring their intersectional challenges to the fore, causing new fault lines. In other words, the characteristics of ethnic minority women may coincide in a subgroup within the organization (Rupert & Jehn, 2008). The fault lines might thus be able to divide the organization in relatively homogeneous subgroups on the basis of certain characteristics (Lau & Murnigham, 1998). When in fact, this fault line activation may result in increased threat between the subgroups. Ethnic minority women may feel safe in their subgroups, however, the overall climate within the organization is not perceived as safe per se (Lau & Murnighan, 2005). Correspondingly, at the center of this safety-problem might be that members of the organization evaluate their in-groups more favorably than a non-membership group, referred to as intergroup bias, which is engendered by subgroup categorization (Homan, Van Knippenberg, Van Kleef & De Dreu, 2007; Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002). Likewise, intergroup relations literature might indicate that placing a focus on a particular target group – ethnic minority women – may cause women to be more aware of potentially present inequalities. Consequently, the fact that organizations explicitly take into account their intersectional needs can trigger and hence elevate their perceived threat. Hence, not creating the intended inclusive environment and improvement of social relations. Therefore, in this setting, it does not seem to have yielded the correct identity-safe cue.
(Giscombe & Mattis, 2002). This might also be an alternative explanation of why ethnic minority women do not experience reduced threat despite the presence of such policies and practices.
All in all, both the finding that intersectional DMPs heighten ethnic minority women’s social identity threat and the plausible explanations given offer valuable insights and hence advance the body of literature examining intersectionality. The implications point to the added value of paying attention to intergroup relations literature (recategorization/decategorization and fault lines) when successfully designing an intersectional intervention. Social Identity Threat & Employee Effectiveness The expected relationship between social identity threat, reduced by DMPs, and employee effectiveness was not found. This applies to both ‘Employee Effectiveness’ dimensions: extra-role behavior and desire to stay. The presence of DMPs might not be seen as favorable transaction (SET) creating the intended beneficial diversity climate by reducing ethnic minority women’s identity salience. As a result, it seems to be the case that additional cues are needed in order to improve ethnic minority women’s employee effectiveness.
It could be the case that providing a supportive organizational context might be essential to this success. Consequently, it is proposed that organizational environmental cues might contribute to a positive relationship between reduced social identity threat and ethnic minority women’s employee effectiveness. As Ravasi and Schultz (2006) argue, organizational environmental cues aid employees in making sense of the organization and for giving sense as well. Accordingly, these cues can come across as identity safety cue transfers (Chaney, Sanchez & Remedios, 2016). In essence, these organizational environmental cues correspond with the variable of interest introduced in the current study as ‘Diversity Composition’. Diversity composition was found to diminish ethnic minority women’s social identity threat. Future studies may clarify the relationship between social identity threat and employee effectiveness by also investigating diversity composition’s moderating effects. According to Avery, McKay, Wilson and Tonidandel (2007) diversity composition has disproportionately more impact on the perceived support of minority groups. Furthermore, as found by Apfelbaum et al. (2016), attrition rates decrease among women, especially of minority, who perceive cues valuing workforce diversity. Hence, cues pertaining to demographic diversity of the workforce on top of adopting intersectional DMPs might strengthen employees’ effectiveness in the workplace.
be more proximally related to the aspirations of ethnic minorities, but less directly with their desires to stay or extra-role behavior. Additionally, it is expected that reduced threat as result of intersectional diversity practices can lead to an enhanced sense of belonging among ethnic minority women in the workplace (Cook, Purdie-Vaughns, Garcia & Cohen, 2012). As argued by Emerson and Murphy (2014) ‘particularly for racial and ethnic minorities, the implementation of egalitarian norms will likely increase feelings of belonging, acceptance, and respect in the workplace’.
Even though the present study finds that social identity threat by itself does not act as mediator and hence does not positively affect employee effectiveness, the theoretical implications enrich our understanding of the conditions (i.e. diversity composition of the workplace) and mechanics that may play decisive roles in examining this relationship.
Additionally, managers should remember that effectively handling diversity requires more than demographic diversity. As shown in the additional analysis, taking into account intersectional DMPs directly influences ethnic minority women’s employee effectiveness and sense of social identity threat. Hence, managers should consider the implementation and adherence to (intersectional) DMPs in addition to enhancing demographic diversity in their organizations. Furthermore, managers must not forget the social context, i.e. the organization’s culture, when leveling the playing field within the organization. As highlighted by Kamp and Hagedorn-Rasmussen (2004) ‘The specific organizational and societal context might indeed also be important in the process where actors apply the language and mobilize the discourses in order to make sense of diversity management’. Limitations & Future Research Despite the aforementioned implications, the study suffers from limitations which must be acknowledged to indicate potential gaps for future research to fill. Firstly, an important limitation is its narrow focus on intersectionality. This study only accounts for gender (women) and ethnicity/race (ethnic minorities). Many other employees, besides ethnic minority women, experience intersectional challenges in the workplace. Therefore, many other different intersectional identities could have been examined instead. ‘Intersectionality research should also look more often beyond the nexus of race and gender’ (Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015). Additionally, when discussing intersectionality, ethnic minority women did not have the opportunity to talk about their intersectional experiences and challenges freely. As a result, their responses and feelings could have been constrained by using the survey as instrument to collect data.
Secondly, in this study the introduced intersectionality variable must be seen as an aggregation of the intersectional needs of ethnic minority women derived from the findings of the preliminary study. However, this study encourages future research to study DMPs which are intersectional itself. In this manner, the intervention could be seen as intersectional.
Fourthly, it is stated that the use of an employee-centered survey approach makes this research rather exclusive in the field. However, the respondents self-reported their employee effectiveness. The results could have been more robust if effectiveness in the workplace was measured objectively. In the same vein, the manner in which social identity threat perceived by ethnic minority women was measured may have posed a problem. Scheepers and Ellemers (2005) argue that ‘Explicit threat measures rely on the assumption that participants are subjectively aware of the threat that occurs, while this is not at all self-evident’.
Fifthly, although this study emphasized parsimony, when replicating this study ethnic minority women could also be treated as distinct subsets (e.g. Black women, Asian American women etc.). Correspondingly, differences between those subsets regarding their perceived social identity threat because of intersectional DMPs would become clear since the experiences of each subgroup may be unique. As Ghavami and Peplau (2012) argue ‘differences in the content of stereotypes underscore the dangers of assuming a universal experience for various ethnic groups’. Therefore, an approach tailored to these distinct subsets can make an organization's intersectional approach more personally relevant since ethnic minority women cannot be tarred with the same brush. Ultimately, such an approach can be considered as more intersectionally sensitive.
Conclusion
Overall, this study tried to build towards cumulative knowledge about intersectionality by means of examining the impact of DMPs that account for ethnic minority women’s intersectional needs. As argued by Remedios and Snyder (2015), ‘Greater inclusivity and more reliance on intersectional approaches will promote the development of more robust and replicable theories’. Nevertheless, this study found that DMPs which take the intersectional needs of ethnic minority women into consideration do not necessarily lead to the expected outcomes of reduced social identity threat and improved employee effectiveness.References
Anthias, F. (2013). Moving beyond the Janus face of integration and diversity discourses: towards an intersectional framing. The Sociological Review, 61(2), 323-343.
Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 111(4), 547.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of management review, 14(1), 20-39.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D. C., & Tonidandel, S. (2007). Unequal attendance: The relationships between race, organizational diversity cues, and absenteeism. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 875-902.
Bagilhole, B. (2010). Applying the lens of intersectionality to UK equal opportunities and diversity policies. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27(3), 263-271.
Bobocel, D. R., Son-Hing, L.S., Davey, L. M.., Stanley, D. J., & Zanna, M.P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 653– 669.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bowling, N. A. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and conscientiousness on extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 119-130. Broughton, A., Strebler, M., 2008. Reaping benefits from diversity. Strategic HR Review, 7(5), 5–10. Brown R.L. (1997). Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 142–156. Brown, N. E. (2014). Political participation of women of color: An intersectional analysis. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 35(4), 315-348.
Chang, R.S. and Culp, J.M. (2002). ‘After intersectionality’. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review, 71, 485–491.
Cho, S., Johanson, M. M., & Guchait, P. (2009). Employees intent to leave: A comparison of determinants of intent to leave versus intent to stay. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 374-381.
Choo, H.Y. and Ferree, M.M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: a critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129-149.
Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2005). “I am us”: Negative stereotypes as collective threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 566-582.
Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). Chronic threat and contingent belonging: protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(3), 479.
Crenshaw, K.W. (1995). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In K.W. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, and K. Thomas (eds). Critical race theory: the key writings that formed the movement. New York: New Press.
Gresky, D. M., Ten Eyck, L. L., Lord, C. G., & McIntyre, R. B. (2005). Effects of salient multiple identities on women's performance under mathematics stereotype threat. Sex Roles, 53(9-10), 703-716. Groeneveld, S. (2011). Diversity and employee turnover in the Dutch public sector: Does diversity management make a difference? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(6), 594-612. Guillaume, Y. R., Dawson, J. F., Priola, V., Sacramento, C. A., Woods, S. A., Higson, H. E., ... & West, M. A. (2014). Managing diversity in organizations: An integrative model and agenda for future research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 783-802. Hahn, A., Banchefsky, S., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2015). Measuring intergroup ideologies: Positive and negative aspects of emphasizing versus looking beyond group differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1646-1664. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C, Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis, 7th edition. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River. Hall, W., Schmader, T., Aday, A., Inness, M., & Croft, E. (2018). Climate control: The relationship between social identity threat and cues to an identity-safe culture. Journal of personality and social psychology, 115(3), 446.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons for integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–326.
Heres, L., & Benschop, Y. (2010). Taming diversity: an exploratory study on the travel of a management fashion. Equality, diversity and inclusion: an international journal, 29(5), 436-457. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 575-604. Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of applied psychology, 92(5), 1189.
Janssens, M., & Zanoni, P. (2014). Alternative diversity management: Organizational practices fostering ethnic equality at work. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(3), 317-331.
Jayne, M. E., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409-424.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 703-729.
Kossek, E. E., & Pichler, S. (2006). EEO and the management of diversity. In P. Boxell, J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of human resource management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325-340.
Lalonde, R. N., Doan, L., & Patterson, L. A. (2000). Political correctness beliefs, threatened identities, and social attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 317-336.
Lau, D.C., Murnighan, J.K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645-659.
Lindsey, A., King, E., Hebl, M., & Levine, N. (2015). The impact of method, motivation, and empathy on diversity training effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 605-617.
Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2005). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex roles, 53(9-10), 763-778. Madera, J. M. (2013). Best practices in diversity management in customer service organizations: an investigation of top companies cited by Diversity Inc. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54(2), 124-135.
Magoshi, E., & Chang, E. (2009). Diversity management and the effects on employees’ organizational commitment: Evidence from Japan and Korea. Journal of World Business, 44(1), 31-40.
Manoharan, A., Gross, M. J., & Sardeshmukh, S. R. (2014). Identity-conscious vs identity-blind: Hotel managers’ use of formal and informal diversity management practices. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 1-9.
Markus, H. R., Steele, C. M., & Steele, D. M. (2000). Colorblindness as a barrier to inclusion: Assimilation and nonimmigrant minorities. Daedalus, 129(4), 233–259.
Mayo, M., & Firfiray, S. (2011). Social identity in work teams: the palliative role of charisma. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6.
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771– 1800. McCluney, C. L., & Rabelo, V. C. (in press). Conditions of visibility: An intersectional examination of Black women's belongingness and distinctiveness at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior. McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel psychology, 60(1), 35-62. 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, 61(2), 349-374. Miller, T., & Del Carmen Triana, M. (2009). Demographic diversity in the boardroom: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship. Journal of Management studies, 46(5), 755-786.
Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2015). Professional diversity, identity salience and team innovation: The moderating role of openmindedness norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 873-894. Mohammad, J., Quoquab Habib, F., & Zakaria, S. (2010). Organizational citizenship behavior and commitment: do age and tenure make any difference? Business Management Quarterly Review, 1(3), 28-49.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2000). The inclusive workplace: An ecosystems approach to diversity management. Social work, 45(4), 339-353.
Nemetz, P. L. and Christensen, S. L. 1996. The challenge of cultural diversity: Harnessing a diversity of views to understand multiculturalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 434–462.
Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the color-blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS). Journal of counseling psychology, 47(1), 59.
Ng, E. S., & Sears, G. J. (2010). What women and ethnic minorities want. Work values and labor market confidence: A self-determination perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(5), 676-698.
Nunnally, J.M. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Otaye-Ebede, L. (2018). Employees’ perception of diversity management practices: scale development and validation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 1-15.
Özbilgin, M. F., Beauregard, T. A., Tatli, A., & Bell, M. P. (2011). Work–life, diversity and intersectionality: A critical review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 177-198.
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on amazon mechanical turk. Judgment and Decision making, 5(5), 411-419.
Parent, M. C., DeBlaere, C., & Moradi, B. (2013). Approaches to research on intersectionality: Perspectives on gender, LGBT, and racial/ethnic identities. Sex Roles, 68(11-12), 639-645.
Phoenix, A. (2006). Interrogating intersectionality: Productive ways of theorising multiple positioning. Kvinder, køn & forskning, 21-30.
Pietri, E. S., Johnson, I. R., & Ozgumus, E. (2018). One size may not fit all: Exploring how the intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe cues for Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 291-306.
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Is multiculturalism bad for African Americans? Redefining inclusion through the lens of identity safety. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations. Washington: American Psychological Association. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 377-391. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Diltmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615–630. Raaijmakers, Q. A. (1999). Effectiveness of different missing data treatments in surveys with Likert-type data: Introducing the relative mean substitution approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(5), 725-748. Rattan, A., & Ambady, N. (2013). Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 12-21. Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of management journal, 49(3), 433-458.
Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2015). Where do we go from here? Toward an inclusive and intersectional literature of multiple stigmatization. Sex Roles, 73(9-10), 408-413.
Roberge, M. É., Lewicki, R. J., Hietapelto, A., & Abdyldaeva, A. (2011). From theory to practice: Recommending supportive diversity practices. Journal of Diversity Management–Second Quarter, 6(2), 1-20.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88-106.
Rosette, A. S., Koval, C. Z., Ma, A., & Livingston, R. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 429-445.
