The Impact of Explanations and Demographic Group Membership: Reactions to Diversity Initiatives

The Impact of Explanations and Demographic Group Membership: Reactions to Diversity Initiatives

ORLANDO C . RICHARD^ EDWARD 1. FUBARA Department of Management and Marketing

Louisiana Tech Universiw Michigan State University

MELISSA N. CASTILLO University of Texas-Pan American

In a laboratory experiment, we investigated the impact of procedural explanations and demographic group membership on dependent measures of diversity program support. Our analysis took one important perspective: the examination of work-force-diversity programs from the perspective of multiple beneficiary (i.e., targeted) demographic groups. The experiment’s design used 99 student volunteers in a 3 x 3 (Explanation x Demo- graphic Group) factorial design. Our findings reveal that both adequate explanation and demographic group membership have a significant impact on how potential work-force- diversity program beneficiaries expect their coworkers to perceive them. In addition, group membership was a significant predictor of potential beneficiaries’ attitudes toward the diversity program and their self-perceptions of competence. Finally, we discuss implications for future research and diversity practice.

One of the most prominent trends affecting contemporary organizations within the United States is the increasing diversity of the work force. As was projected in the year 2000, one of every three Americans are non-White (Hodgkinson, 1985; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1994). This trend has attracted the intense scrutiny of managers, management consultants, the popular business press, and organizational researchers. Johnston and Packer ( 1987), for example, identify the integration of minorities into the work force as one of the greatest challenges facing United States organizations. As Tung ( 1993) has described it, the primary management challenge presented by intranational diversity (in both the United States and in other nations) is the effective integration of the various cultural subgroups that make up that nation. Meeting this challenge requires the allocation of substantial resources over an extended time period during which the organization experiences a level of adaptation similar to that faced when con- fronting a major technological change (McEnrue, 1993).

Efforts to manage diversity can be subdivided into two distinct types or categories of efforts. Managing cross-national diversity refers to managing

‘Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Orlando C. Richard, Department of Management and Marketing, Louisiana Tech University, P.O. Box 10318, Ruston, LA 71272.

1039

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000, 30, 5, pp. 1039-1 055. Copyright 0 2000 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

1040 RICHARD ET AL.

expatriates and host-country nationals in multinational and global firms. Manag- ing intranational diversity focuses on how to effectively integrate multiple cultural subgroups within a given nation. In order to deal with the challenge of managing intranational diversity, companies typically implement a variety of diversity practices, including diversity training, minority recruiting and selecting, and minority career development (e.g., mentoring). Although these techniques are often suggested as ways to deal with the challenges of intranational diversity, there is a lack of research related to understanding intranational diversity’s impact on individual attitudes (Ragins, 1995). The present study serves to help redress the lack of empirical research on intranational diversity by investigating the reactions of potential work-force-diversity program beneficiaries.

It should be noted that efforts to manage work-force diversity extend beyond those traditionally associated with equal employment opportunity and affirmative action (EEO and AA) programs. EEO and AA efforts are limited by a narrow set of legal definitions, while diversity management is much broader in scope and has more categories. EEO and AA principles are usually mandated by public policy, while diversity policies may be voluntary and based on the interests of the organization. EEO and AA primarily deal with transitional activities such as recruitment, hiring, and promotion, while diversity policies address day-to-day management. EEO and AA both address the correction of prior discrimination and other inequities, while diversity policies foster an acculturating process that results in mutual respect and the utilization of individual differences (Carrel1 & Mann, 1995)

United States companies express a number of reasons for developing and maintaining work-force-diversity management policies. These reasons include a concern for social responsibility (solving societal problems), political-legal pressures (e.g., avoiding lawsuits and governmental sanctions), gaining a competitive advantage (leveraging the productivity gains associated with a diverse work force), and establishing a level of internal legitimacy to avoid conflict among employees.

Much of the existing research on organizational diversity efforts has involved the investigation of BlacWWhite differences on various performance and attitudinal measures, including attitudes toward organizational policies. However, changing trends in the population composition of the United States demand that scholars become interested in the growing number of members of other ethnic/ immigrant groups (e.g., Hispanics, Asians). This growing change in the population is one of the major thrusts and, in turn, major contributions of this study- we investigate attitudinal differences across not only Whites and African Ameri- cans, but also Asians-in terms of diversity program selection explanations.

One of the more controversial components of a diversity program is identity- conscious selection and promotion (i.e., selection and promotion decisions that explicitly consider the demographic status of the focal individual; e.g., Konrad &

REACTIONS TO DIVERSITY INITIATIVES 1041

Linnehan, 1995). Kravitz and Platania (1 993), for example, found that respon- dents were less positive in their attitudes toward differential hiring and promotion associated with AA programs than with training initiatives. Similarly, popular writings indicate that the most controversial discussions surrounding diversity- management programs focus on preferential treatment in hiring and promotion (Cose, 1993). It is the prominence of selection as a diversity-management issue that has led us to frame the current research in the context of employee selection.

Prior research exists indicating that the use of diversity programs, especially in the selection context, often results in negative attitudes and reactions on the part of the programs’ intended beneficiaries and on the nonbeneficiaries. Diver- sity programs are particularly contentious when they are introduced without pro- viding adequate justification to the affected employees. The resultant reactions include resentment on the part of White males and feelings of incompetence among African American beneficiaries (Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992; Kirby & Richard, 1996; Richard & Kirby, 1997).

Procedural Explanations and Attitudes Toward Work-Force-Diversity Programs

As introduced in the previous section, a variety of justifications are espoused by organizational decision makers for the implementation of work-force-diversity programs. In this section, we discuss the different justification techniques utilized by organizations when instituting a diversity program. While some organizations emphasize a need to satisfy various external regulators, others express a desire to achieve harmony in the workplace. Yet other organizations express more altruistic motives, indicating that their programs are driven by an interest in organizational justice or by a desire to include underrepresented employees in the organization’s success (Rossett & Bickham, 1994). Regardless of the expressed reason, we expect that in organizations that provide clear, logical justifications (or procedural explanations) for their programs, individuals will express more positive attitudes toward them. Consequently, we expect that these improved attitudes will lead to a variety of positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes among organization members. The pivotal role of explanation is clarified in the organizational justice literature, particularly in the research on procedural justice. This discussion proceeds with the legal, social responsibility, and competitive advantage justifications in implementing a diversity program in the workplace.

Procedural Justice

Theories of organizational justice help to explain individuals’ attitudes toward the perceived fairness of organizational decisions. According to this literature, individuals independently appraise the fairness of both the outcomes of decisions

1042 RICHARD ET AL.

(distributive justice) and the processes that resulted in them (procedural justice). Thus, individuals are affected by the perceived fairness of procedures, regardless of the perceived fairness of decision outcomes (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Kors- gaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995; McFarland & Sweeney, 1992). In the context of diversity programs, we expect the intended beneficiaries of these programs to respond to the policies, strategies, and goals of the diversity programs, independent of the program outcomes. Specifically, we expect that work-force-diversity program beneficiaries (White women, African Americans, and Asians in this study) will develop more positive attitudes toward selection decisions made through policies that are seen as fair or justified, compared to policies that are seen as unfair or unjustified, even if the decision outcomes are the same (and favorable for the individual). We compare reactions obtained using several competing procedural explanations with those obtained using no explanatiodjustification.

Legal Justijkation

AA was intended to reduce the adverse employment effects of past and present discriminatory practices. Under AA plans, the employer may undertake special recruitment and other efforts to hire minorities. The plan may also provide job preferences for minorities. The use of racial and gender preference under the law to restructure American society has produced a good deal of conflict and resentment. These problems have generated a growing sense of crisis and doubt about AA programs (Lynch, 1991). Research on afirmative action supports such a contention. Chacko ( 1 982), for example, found that women who held what they perceived to be token positions reported low satisfaction with work, less satisfaction with their supervisors and coworkers, and less commitment to their organizations. Therefore, women who perceive that being hired is a result of their gender rather than their qualifications often suffer negative self-perceptions of competence (Heilman, Kaplow, Amato, & Stathatos, 1993; Heilman, Lucas, & Kaplow, 1990) and select less complex tasks than men (Heilman, Rivero, & Brett, 199 1). These negative outcomes are often alleviated through competence- affirming explanations (i.e., explanations that assure them that they are qualified for their positions and that others recognize them as competent).

Social Responsibility Justification

Social responsibility refers to firms’ consideration of and response to issues beyond narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements (Davis & Bloomstrom, 1975). The public recognizes and supports socially responsible firms; thus, i f a business wishes to maximize its strategic choice and social power, it must respond to society’s needs (Wood, 1991). Managerial decision makers may view diversity-management efforts as ways to respond to societal


pressures in favor of equal opportunities for all persons and to provide assistance and support to less advantaged citizens. As such, they may engage in diversity- management practices to satisfy the ethical expectations of society at large. This form of justification that appeals to societal mores is the foundation of the social responsibility justification used in this study.

Competitive Advantage Justification

Wright and McMahan ( 1992) argue that firms can use human resources to develop strategies that lead to a sustained competitive advantage. Successfully implemented HR programs provide a distinctive competence through improved human-resource capabilities (Barney, 1991). In the more specific context of diversity-management efforts, Cox and Blake (1991) developed the problem- solving argument as a procedural explanation for implementing a diversity program. The problem-solving argument states that heterogeneity in decision- making and problem-solving groups has the potential to produce better decision making through a wider range of perspectives. Cox and Blake offer the problem- solving argument as a viable way for companies to gain a competitive advantage. This contention is supported by a variety of streams of organizational research. One such research stream contends that heterogeneity among an organization’s top managers is positively related to firm performance (Murray, 1989). Another research tradition asserts that minority viewpoints are important in promoting quality of thought, performance, and decision making (Nemeth, 1992). Support is also derived from cross-cultural research. McLeod and Lobel (1992) found that bicultural individuals were more flexible in their thinking. This area of research leads us to the first of four hypotheses:

Hypothesis I. Work-force-diversity program beneficiaries (job recipients selected in conjunction with a work-force-diversity program) will express more negative attitudes (i.e., ratings) toward these programs when inadequate explanations/justifications of the programs are offered.

No Jtistijkation

Research shows that when an individual accepts a position perceived to be offered in part because of gender, ethnicityhace, or both, his or her peers devalue the job and view it as less attractive. Heilman et al. (1992) found that an AA label was found to negatively affect the perceived competence of women. Heilman and Herlihy (1984) found that when the perception was that a women manager obtained a position based on gender, the job was viewed as less interesting to other employees. We expect White women, African Americans, and Asians hired

1044 RICHARD ET AL.

through work-force-diversity programs to exhibit negative reactions (particularly negative attitudinal reactions), directed both toward themselves and toward the programs, in the absence of sufficient procedural justification. Similarly, we expect potential program beneficiaries to assume that others will view them negatively. Viewed in tandem, the bodies of research on procedural justice and work- force-diversity programs lead us to the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. Work-force-diversity program beneficiaries wi I I expect negative coworkers’ perceptions of them when inadequate explanationsijustifications of the programs are offered.

Group Membership and Attitudes Toward Work-Force-Diversity Programs

Since each job recipient group is different, each of them is expected to have distinct views on diversity procedures and explanations (Cox & Nkomo, 1990; Nkomo, 1992). As such, one of the thrusts of this study is to examine the unique reactions of members of three different demographic groups of potential program beneficiaries (i.e., White women, African Americans, and Asians). Because these groups are all considered “protected” for the purposes of work-force-diversity program initiatives (i.e., they all tend to be beneficiaries of work-force-diversity programs), they are often studied as if they were a single homogeneous group. The current study is, thus, a break from traditional diversity program research.

Cross-cultural studies have shown that, in general, Asians and African Amer- icans have roots in nations with collectivistic traditions, whereas Whites have roots in individualistic traditions (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, McCuster, & Hui, 1990). Since Asians and African Americans exhibit a more collectivistic orientation than do Whites, they are thus more likely to support more “good for the group” policies as opposed to individual-based policies. Thus, members of these cultures are expected to be more supportive of identity- conscious organizational programs (which tend to be targeted toward groups rather than individuals) than members of more individualistic cultural groups.

Doverspike and Arthur (1995) reported one example of such differential reactions. Their findings suggest that the effect of AA on evaluations vary as a func- tion of the race and gender of the intended recipients. Similarly, Arthur, Doverspike, and Fuentes ( 1 992), in a study observing the relationship between ethnic-group status and reactions to AA interventions, find that minority and international participants report less negative affect and higher perceived fairness levels than do majority participants. We expect similar ratings across race concerning diversity policy: We expect racial minorities to rate diversity program procedures more positively than do White women. This line of research intro- duces the next hypothesis:


Hypothesis 3. Racial minorities’ attitudinal ratings of work-force- diversity programs will be more positive than will the attitudinal ratings of White women beneficiaries.

In a similar vein, we expect racial minorities hired in conjunction with work- force-diversity programs to be evaluated less favorably by nonbeneficiaries than by White women. This line of reasoning is consistent with that of numerous scholars (Fernandez, 198 1 ; Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley, 1990; Jones, 1986). Thus, we expect our subjects to assume that their coworkers will have negative perceptions of them, and we expect this assumption to be stronger for racial minorities than for White women.

Hypothesis 4 . Projected coworkers’ perceptions will be lower for racial minorities than for White women hired in conjunction with a work-force-diversity program.

Based on similar streams of research, we examine individual differences in values as possible covariates impacting the focal relationships described in the hypotheses. Specifically, we focus on traditional values. Individualism and the work ethic are traditional values that are strongly associated with American values. Kinder and Sanders (1990) reported traditional values as antecedents to preferential treatment acceptance in hiring and college admissions. In addition, Nosworthy, Lea, and Lindsay (1995) found that traditional values vary in their relationship with different AA programs. In the current study, we examine two aspects of traditional values: egalitarianism and proportionality. Egalitarianism represents societal concerns about social equality and need, whereas proportionality represents societal concerns about equity and economic individualism (Rasinski, 1987). We believe that these factors account for much of the variance in attitudes toward diversity policy, and thus we include them as covariates in the analysis.

Method

Participants and Design

Our sample included 99 students at a large Midwestern university. One third of the sample was White female, one third was African American, and one third was Asian. Of the subjects, 60% had full-time work experience, 25% had part- time work experience, and 15% had no work experience. Also, 33% had more than 4 years of work experience, 25% had 3 to 4 years, 19% had between 2 and 3 years, 6% had 1 to 2 years, and 17% had less than 1 year. These descriptions show that the majority of the sample had considerable work experience (and, as

1046 RICHARD ET AL.

such, was expected to be somewhat familiar with the scenarios presented to them in the course of the experiment). A two-way ANCOVA between-subjects design was employed in which participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions.

Stimulus Materials

Nemetz and Christensen ( 1996) identified scenarios with alternative explanations as a viable technique to study people’s reactions to diversity policies. Our experiment consisted of three written scenarios in which students were asked to assume that they were applying for a job at a large, international company by the name of Compass, Inc. All students were told that they were competing for the entry-level job with a White male applicant who was a fellow student. After reading the scenarios, all of the participants were informed that they were hired as part of a diversity plan recently implemented by the company. At this point, the independent variable, explanation, was manipulated. In the explanation conditions, the subjects were given either the competitive advantage (problem-solving) explanation or the social responsibility explanation. (Note: We were not able to obtain enough Asian participants to include the political-legal argument .)

Competitive advantage explanation.

The human-resource manager tells you that you were hired for the product development division because the company recently insti- tuted a nationally recognized program, Diversity 2000. Diversity 2000 was designed to recruit qualified women and minorities into entry-level positions within the firm in order to ensure that the company remains competitive. Diversity is especially critical in the product development division because of the need to solve dif- ficult problems as a result of the increasingly complex global mar- ketplace. Research has shown that groups that consist of members with diverse backgrounds possess a wider range of perspectives and generally perform a more thorough analysis of divergent issues. This is because of the fact that they possess better decision and problem-solving skills. Therefore, you were chosen to fill this particular position.

Social responsibility explanation

The human-resource manager tells you that you were hired for the product development division because the company recently insti- tuted a nationally recognized program, Diversity 2000. Diversity


2000 was designed to recruit qualified women and minorities into entry-level positions within the firm so that the company can achieve its goal of actively solving social problems related to the lack of career mobility of women and minorities. Therefore, you were chosen to fill this particular position.

No explanation. In this group, no reason was offered for the hiring decision based on the diversity program. The other independent variable was demographic group membership (Asian, African American, or White).

Dependent Variables

Two dependent measures were used in the analysis: ( 1 ) rating of the work- force-diversity program (Rating), and (2) rating of coworkers’ perceptions (Per- ception). The items on both dependent variables were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Two of the three items in the Rating measure were adopted from Kirby and Richard’s (1 996) Workforce Diversity Scale. The Cronbach’s alpha coeficient for the three-item scale measuring Rating was .70. The second dependent variable measuring coworkers’ perception was a five-item scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for the Per- ception measure was .64. Both measures met the criterion set forth by Nunnally (1967). Items on both measures are included in the Appendix.

Covariaies

We chose two measures of traditional values that we expected to be predictive of attitudes toward work-force-diversity programs: egalitarianism (three items; a = .66) and proportionality (two items; a = .73). Reliability analysis was con- ducted on all 11 items in Rasinski’s (1987) scale. If the single item correlation to total item correlation was less than .40, the item(s) were not used. The results were the five items used in this study. The egalitarianism and proportionality scales used in this study are included in the Appendix.

Realism Check

Three items were used as a realism check. These were items designed to assess whether our sample considered the information presented to them to be representative of actual organizational situations. There was no significant difference between the justification and no-justification groups on perceived realism, F(2, 96) = 0.72, p = .49. Realism was measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha for the realism scale was .75 (M= 3.33). The realism-check results reflect that there was agreement that the scenario was realistic for both groups. Ail three realism-check items are included in the Appendix.

1048 RICHARD ET AL.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Var i ah I es M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Egalitarian 4.17 0.72 -

2. Proportionality 2.72 0.97 -.22* -

4. Perception 2.96 0.69 -.09 .17 .37** -

3. Rating 3.04 0.8 1 .20 -.09 -

*p<.O5. **p<.OOI.

Results

Table 1 presents means, correlations, and standard deviations for all study variables. A 3 x 3 between-groups ANCOVA was performed on the two dependent measures. Independent variables consisted of demographic status (White female, African American, and Asian) and justification (no justification. social responsibility, and competitive advantage/problem-solving). Covariates were proportionality and egalitarianism.

Hypothesis 1 was not supported. There were no significant effects ofjustifi- cation/explanation on ratings for program. For ratings of diversity program, there was not a significant interaction between justification and beneficiary group. Neither covariate (egalitarian or proportionality values) provided reliable unique adjustment to the rating of diversity program score, as shown in Table 2.

A statistically significant main effect was found for justification on assumptions about coworkers’ perceptions, F(2, 88) = 5.46, p < .01. Bonferroni t tests reveal that explanations (competitive advantage, M = 3.1 1 ; social responsibility, M = 3.10) accounted for considerably more favorable ratings of assumed coworkers’ perceptions than did no explanation ( M = 2.67), thus lending support to Hypothesis 2.

After adjustment by covariates, ratings of diversity program varied significantly across demographic group, F(2,88) = 3.1 I ,p i .05. Bonferroni t tests reveal that African Americans ( M = 0.44) and Asians ( M = 0.41) rated diversity programs significantly more favorably than did White women, thus supporting Hypothesis 3.

After adjustment by covariates, assumptions of coworkers’ perceptions approached significance across demographic group (Hypothesis 4), F(2, 88) = 2.69, p < .lo. There was not a significant interaction between explanation and racial group. Neither egalitarian nor proportionality values uniquely adjusted the attitude score, as shown in Table 2. In summary, we found support for two (Hypotheses 2 and 3) of the four hypotheses addressing beneficiaries’ reactions to diversity selection.


Table 2

Analysis of Co variance

Source of variance df F p value

Rating of the program (TYPE 111 SS) Explanation Demographic group Interaction Covariates

Proportionality Egalitarian

Error

Explanation Demographic group Interaction Covariates

Rating (coworkers’ perceptions)

Proportionality Egalitarian

Error

2 0.95 .392 2 3.1 1 .049 4 0.44 .778

1 0.2 1 .650 1 2.48 .I19

99

2 5.46 .006 2 2.69 .073 4 0.77 .550

1 1.01 .320 1 0.79 .378

99

Discussion

Procedural explanations play an important role in work-force-diversity initiatives. In general, our results support the contention that diversity selection tends to be viewed more favorably by beneficiaries (in terms of higher anticipated positive perceptions from coworkers) when adequate justification is offered. Although beneficiaries thought that coworkers would perceive them as incompetent when hired without adequate justification, in reality, explanations given to coworkers did not account for favorable ratings of procedural fairness of the work-force-diversity program itself. This highlights how false assumptions lead to misbeliefs on the part of beneficiaries. An inadequate justification, such as the legal argument, did not significantly differ from conditions when the diversity program offered no justification at all. In summary, the results support recent research (Conlon & Murray, 1996) stating that internal justifications in which diversity initiatives come through management decisions fare better than do external justifications.

When devising organizational policy, managers need to realize that different constituents may possess qualitatively different conceptions of fairness. What

1050 RICHARD ET AL.

may satisfy one party may antagonize another. The integrative approach contends that organizational policies should not be exclusively directed toward a single constituency, but should consider all of the parties involved, especially when those organizational policies have nonuniform effects on the various parties. A system that is satisfactory to one constituency and unsatisfactory to another is not likely to benefit organizational performance (Leventhal, 1976). The results of the experiment support the general proposition that diversity programs are viewed differently by different parties. Managers should design diversity programs that meet the needs of special employee segments. For example, our findings show that beneficiaries manifest different perceptions of diversity programs. More specifically, both racial minority groups had more favorable attitudes than did White women toward diversity programs after controlling for values. Nevertheless, all of the interest groups-Asians. African Americans, and White women- responded more favorably toward work-force-diversity programs when adequate explanations were provided.

Greenberg (1990) and Daly (1995) have called for more research on procedural justice during positive outcomes, as was done in this experiment. Of course, there is a question of whether or not our sample of undergraduate students is appropriate for assessing these questions. We believe that our sample is acceptable for two major reasons: First, past research has found no significant difference when comparing attitudes of undergraduates to attitudes of field participants (Bell, McLaughlin, & Harrison, 1996; Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Kravitz, Stinson, & Mello, 1994). Second, university campuses are the largest recruitment source that human-resource managers utilize for such diversity initiatives (Taber, 1997). Future research on other components of diversity programs, such as diversity training or minority mentoring, may benefit more from field participants who are actively involved.

One limitation of the study involves our measure of justice. We attempted to use measures specifically designed for this experiment. Future research should use existing justice scales (e.g., Folger & Martin, 1986; Tepper, 1994) to see if similar findings emerge. We recognize this weakness and classify this study as an initial foundation for a future program of research in the diversity arena.

Another limitation was the fact that we did not differentiate between Asians and Asian Americans. There are psychological distinctions between them based on the differences in their level of “Americanization.” We expect that the use of values as a covariate will account for this variance across the individualism-collectivism dimension. We advise researchers to be conscious of these differences in future research designs.

Future research should consider other organizational participants (e.g., the handicapped) as constituencies, as well as external organizations (e.g., EEO) that impact workplace policy. Future research should go beyond the selection ele- ments of diversity programs to evaluate postselection efforts, such as targeted


training, career development, and mentoring. A multiple-constituency view, as we have taken, should be employed when evaluating other types of organizational diversity policies. We believe that in order for diversity initiatives to be successful, they should consider the fairness perceptions of all of the interest groups involved.

References

Arthur, W., Jr., Doverspike, D., & Fuentes, R. (1992). Recipients’ affective responses to affirmative action interventions: A cross-cultural perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10,229-243.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal ofManagement, 17,99-120.

Bell, M. P., McLaughlin, M. E., & Harrison, D. A. (1996, August). The belief structure of attitudes toward af$rmative action sex, race, and population differences. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH.

Carrell, M. R., & Mann, E. E. (1995). Defining workforce diversity in public sec- tor organizations. Public Personnel Management, 24,99- 109.

Chacko, T. L. (1982). Woman and equal opportunity: Some unintended effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 1 19- 123.

Conlon, D. E., & Murray, N. M. (1 996). Customers’ perceptions of corporate responses to product complaints: The role of explanations. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 39, 1040- 1056.

Cose, E. (1993, November 15). The rage of the underprivileged. Newsweek, 56-63. Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for

organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 45- 56.

Cox, T., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 4,827-847.

Cox, T., & Nkomo, S. M. (1990). Invisible men and women: A status report on race as a variable in organizational behavior research. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 11,4 19-43 1.

Daly, J. P. (1995). Explaining changes to employees: The influence of justifications and change outcomes on employees’ fairness judgments. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31,415-428.

Davis, K., & Bloomstrom, R. ( 1 975). Business and society: Environmenr and responsibility (3rd ed.). New York, NY McGraw-Hill.

Doverspike, D., & Arthur, W., Jr. (1995). Race and sex differences in reactions to a simulated selection decision involving race-based affirmative action. Jour- nal ofBlack Psychology, 2, 18 1-200.

1052 RICHARD ET AL.

Femandez, J. P. ( 198 1 ). Racism and sexism in corporate life: Changing vnlues in American business. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in sociul relations (pp. 145- 162). New York, N Y Plenum.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. ( 1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy ofManagement Journal, 32,

Folger, R., & Martin, C. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects. Journal of Experimental Social

Greenberg, J. ( 1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Managemen/, 16,399-432.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33,64-86.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal ofApplied Psyc,hology,

Heilman, M., & Herlihy, J. M. (1984). Affirmative action, negative reaction? Some moderating conditions. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance, 33,204-2 1 3.

Heilman, M. E., Kaplow, S. R., Amato, M. A. G., & Stathatos, P. (1993). When similarity is a liability: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on reactions to like-sex and different-sex others. Journal of Applied Psychologv, 78,9 17-927.

Heilman, M. E., Lucas, J. A., & Kaplow, S. R. (1990). Self-derogating conse- quences of preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 202-2 16.

Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of sex-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,99-105.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1985). Demographics of education. Washington, DC: Insti- tute of Educational Leadership.

Hofstede, G. (1 980). Motivation, leadership, and organizations: Do American theories apply abroad? Organization Dynamics, 9,43-62.

Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. H. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and workers for the 2Ist centuty. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Jones, E. (1 986). Black managers: The dream deferred. Harvnrd Business Review, 64, 84-93.

Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of White opinion on affirmative action for Blacks. Social Cognitions, 8, 73- 103.

1 15-1 30.

P.~yCholOgy, 22, 53 1-546.

4,536-544.


Kirby, S. L., & Richard, 0. C. (1996). An investigation of workforce diversity programs: Two perspectives. Equal Opportunities International, 15, 17- 27.

Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinat- ing equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management Journal, 38,787-820.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38,60-84.

Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,928-938.

Kravitz, D. A., Stinson, V., & Mello, E. W. (1994, August). Public relations to afirmative action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spencer, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 21 1-239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Lynch, F. R. (1 99 I ) . Invisible victims: White males and the crisis of affirmative action. New York, NY: Praeger.

McEnrue, M. P. (1993). Managing diversity: Los Angeles before and after the riots. Organizational Dynamics, 21, 18-29.

McFarland, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35,626-637.

McLeod, P. L., & Lobel, S. A. (1992, August). The esfects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.

Murray, A. 1. (1989). Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 125- 142.

Nemeth, C. J. (1992). Minority dissent as a stimulus to group performance. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity (pp. 95- 1 1 1 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nemetz, P. L., & Christensen, S. L. (1996). The challenge of cultural diversity: Harnessing adversity of views to understand multiculturalism. Academy of Management Review, 21,434-462.

Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “race in organizations.” Academy of Management Review, 17,487-5 13.

Nosworthy, G. J., Lea, J. A., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1995). Opposition to affirmative action: Racial affect and traditional values predictors across four programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,3 14-337.

1054 RICHARD ET AL.

Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ragins, B. ( 1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: A power

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22,482-52 1. Rasinski, K. A. (1987). What’s fair is f a i r -o r is it? Value differences underlying

public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

Richard, 0. C., & Kirby, S. L. (1997). Predictors of White American males’ attitudes toward workforce diversity programs. Journal of Social Psychology,

Rossett, A., & Bickham, T. (1994). Diversity training: Hope, faith, and cynicism. Training, 31,40-46.

Taber, M. E. (1 997, March). The benefits of informal recruiting sources: Are some employees at a disadvantage? Paper presented at the meeting of the MIT Sloan Conference, Madison, WI.

Tepper, B. J. (1994). Investigation of general and program-specific attitudes toward corporate drug-testing policies. Journal of Applied Psycholofii, 79,

Triandis, H., McCuster, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multi-method probes of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychologv, 59,

Tung, R. L. (1993). Managing cross-national and intra-national diversity. Human

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1994). Statistical abstract of the United States: I994

Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Man-

Wright, R. M., & McMahan, G. C. (1992). Theoretical perspectives for strategic

ogy, 53,201-221.

137,388-397.

392-40 1 .

1006- 1020.

Resource Management, 32,46 1-477.

(1 14th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

agement Review, 16, 691-718.

human resource management. Journal of Management, 18,295-320.


Appendix of Scale Items

Dependent Variables

A. Rating of Work-Force-Diversity Program The following questions relate to your rating of the Diversity 2000 plan:

1. I believe that Compass’s Diversity 2000 plan is unfair.* 2. I find Compass’s Diversity 2000 plan to be satisfactory. 3. I find Compass’s Diversity 2000 plan to be unbiased.

B. Rating of Coworkers’ Perceptions The following represent how you think other employees will view your abili- ties to perform your new job as a Diversity 2000 program hire:

1. Qualified 2. Commitment 3. Incompetent*

The following represent how you think other employees will feel toward you as a Diversity 2000 program hire:

4. Distrust* 5. Resentment*

Covariates

C. Egalitarian Values 1. It is not right for people to go hungry in our country. 2. In America, everyone should be treated equally because we are all human

3. Those who are well off in this country should help those who are less fortu- beings.

nate. D. Proportionality Values

1. Many poor people simply don’t want to work hard. 2. Maybe it’s not their fault, but most poor people were brought up without

ambition.

Realism Check Items

1. The scenario describes a situation I could encounter in the job market. 2. The situation described was realistic. 3. The scenario does not depict a lifelike situation.*

*Indicates that the item was reverse-coded.

The Impact of Explanations and Demographic Group Membership: Reactions to Diversity Initiatives

Documents

Transcript of The Impact of Explanations and Demographic Group Membership: Reactions to Diversity Initiatives