Sensitivity-to-diversity: a moderator of diversity – affective outcomes relationships

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop two new constructs – sensitivity to gender and race/ethnicity diversity – and examined how differences in these constructs moderate the diversity – affective outcomes relationships. Design/methodology/approach – A sample of 250 full-time employees completed an online survey on their sensitivity, workgroup diversity, and affective reactions toward their workgroups. Findings – The paper performed a construct validation of the new sensitivity to diversity measures and found that they were conceptually distinct from two existing diversity perceptual constructs – gender identity salience and pro-diversity belief. Furthermore, the authors found that the moderating effect of sensitivity to gender diversity on the relationship between gender diversity and perceived cohesiveness and workgroup commitment was stronger for women than for men. The authors also found that the moderating role of sensitivity to race/ethnicity diversity on the relationship between race/ethnicity diversity and workgroup commitment and satisfaction with coworkers varied by race/ethnicity. Research limitations/implications – Although common method variance can be a problem, diagnostic tests indicated that it had minimal influence on the results. Practical implications – Organizations need to understand how individual differences among employees, especially among female and racial/ethnic minority employees, affect their responses to workgroup diversity and diversity initiatives. Originality/value – Prior research on diversity has generally not examined individual differences in the propensity to notice differences. This study contributes to the literature by examining the moderating roles of such important individual characteristics on the relationship between diversity and affective outcomes.

Some Common Indices of Group Diversity: Upper Boundaries

Workgroup diversity can be conceptualized as variety, separation, or disparity. Thus, the proper operationalization of diversity depends on how a diversity dimension has been defined. Analytically, the minimal diversity must be obtained when there are no differences on an attribute among the members of a group, however maximal diversity has a different shape for each conceptualization of diversity. Previous work on diversity indexes indicated maximum values for variety (e.g., Blau's index and Teachman's index), separation (e.g., standard deviation and mean Euclidean distance), and disparity (e.g., coefficient of variation and the Gird coefficient of concentration), although these maximum values are not valid for all group characteristics (i.e., group size and group size parity) and attribute scales (i.e., number of categories). We demonstrate analytically appropriate upper boundaries for conditional diversity determined by some specific group characteristics, avoiding the bias related to absolute diversity. This will allow applied researchers to make better interpretations regarding the relationship between group diversity and group outcomes.