Diversity at Work Presented by Anthea Hancocks CEO of the Scanlon - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Diversity at Work Presented by Anthea Hancocks – CEO of the Scanlon Foundation Jeromy Anglim – Lecturer Deakin University Andrew Marty – Managing Director SACS Consulting

Introduction - Jeromy Anglim

Objectives • The business case for Diversity – why does it matter? • Introduce a key theoretical framework about why people are prejudiced • Show you the results of SACS/Deakin study into workplace prejudice and characteristics such as personality and IQ • Show you the results of SACS/Scanlon study into cultural competency and diversity climate • Show you how to use this information to create a diversity friendly workforce.

Four Pathways Model 1. Social-dominance pathway – Low honesty-humility – Values self-enhancement as opposed to self-transcendence 2. Ego-threat pathway – Low social self-esteem 3. Conservatism pathway – Low openness – Values related to conservatism as opposed to openness to change 4. Low-cognitive-complexity pathway – Low IQ – Low openness Anglim, J., Sojo, V., Ashford, L.J., Newman, A., & Marty, A. (Working Paper). Predicting Employee Attitudes to Workplace Diversity from Personality, Values, and Cognitive Ability.

Attitudes Towards Diversity • In order to achieve workplace diversity, organisations must understand individual attitudes towards diversity. • The following have been found to be predictors of prejudicial attitudes to minorities and out-groups: – Personality – Values – Cognitive Ability. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Stanford, 1950; Allport, 1954; Hodson & Dhont, 2015

SACS/Deakin Study Description • Final sample: Australian adults ( N = 731; 66% female; mean age = 43) • Baseline database of individuals who had completed the following measures in an employee selection setting: – Personality (the 200 item HEXACO Personality Inventory - Revised) – Values (Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire) – Cognitive ability (ACER measures of numeric, verbal, and abstract reasoning ability) • Approximately 18 months later, these individuals were invited to complete a confidential low-stakes online survey which included: – A measure of workplace prejudice from the Attitudes Toward Diversity Scale – Four scales measuring prejudice towards female workers, ethnic workers, older workers, and workers with a disability.

HEXACO Model of Personality • • A greeableness H onesty-Humility http://hexaco.org/ – Forgiveness – Sincerity – Gentleness – Fairness – Flexibility – Greed-Avoidance – Patience – Modesty • C onscientiousness • – E motionality Organization – Diligence – Fearfulness – Perfectionism – Anxiety – Prudence – Dependence • O penness – Sentimentality – Aesthetic Appreciation • e X traversion – Inquisitiveness – – Creativity Social Self-Esteem – Unconventionality – Social Boldness • Interstitial Trait – Sociability – Altruism – Liveliness • Personality is typically conceptualized hierarchically where each of several broad traits (e.g., Big 5 or HEXACO) are composed of a set of narrow traits • Big 5 provided initial organizing framework for disparate models of personality • Six factor HEXACO model is increasingly popular • Lexical studies support cross-cultural generality of HEXACO model • Honesty-Humility is particularly valuable in predicting counterproductive work behaviours

Schwartz’s Values Framework SELF CONSERVATION ENHANCEMENT POWER SECURITY CONFORMITY HEDONISM BENEVOLENCE STIMULATION SELF UNIVERSALISM DIRECTION SELF OPENNESS TRANSCENDENCE TO CHANGE

SACS/Scanlon Foundation Study • Final sample 2429 – around half male and half female • Attitudes to diversity measured – tolerance • Demographic comparisons made – for instance, are younger people more tolerant than older? • Diversity competencies measured – Motivation – a belief that it is important to accommodate diversity – Behaviour – a commitment to modify behaviour to accommodate diversity – Knowledge – possessing knowledge and confidence about other cultures • Diversity climate measured. The degree to which employees perceive that their organisation supports diversity • Other potential predictors of tolerance measured and reported on.

Results and recommendations Andrew Marty

SACS ATD Measures The SACS ATD measures assess attitudes towards the following: • Gender – attitudes towards women • Ethnicity – attitudes towards individuals from different ethnic background • Age – attitudes towards elderly individuals • Disability – attitudes towards individuals with disabilities

ATD Questions

Finding 1 – intolerant people tend to be intolerant! • International studies have shown different prejudices are positively correlated and can be modelled as a “generalised prejudice”. • Our data showed similarly strong positive correlations. Negative Attitude towards: Ethnicity Disability Elderly Gender .70 .36 .42 Ethnicity .34 .35 Disability .55 • Someone who has one prejudice is more likely to show other prejudices. Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Bergh, R. (2011). Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science, 22(1), 57-59. Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice: The role of social dominance, authoritarianism, and empathy. Journal of Individual Differences, 28(1), 10-17.

Finding 2, women are more tolerant. 2.4 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female SACS - Ethnicity SACS - Gender SACS - Disability SACS - Elderly

Finding 3 – younger people are more tolerant. Negative attitudes towards ethnic diversity** 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.11 2.0 1.93 1.89 1.88 1.83 1.8 1.68 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 18-24 (n=65) 25-34 (n=479) 35-44 (n=529) 45-54 (n=678) 55-64 (n=561) 65-74 (n=115) ** Significant at .01 with non-parametric t-test

Finding 4 – more highly paid people are (slightly) more tolerant Negative attitudes towards ethnic diversity* 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.12 2.2 2.05 1.98 1.92 1.92 1.93 1.92 2.0 1.85 1.85 1.86 1.85 1.84 1.80 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Unemployed (n=63) $1 - $9,999 per year (n=35) $10,000 - $19,999 per year (n=61) $20,000 - $29,999 per year (n=77) $30,000 - $39,999 per year (n=103) $40,000 - $49,999 per year (n=126) $50,000 - $59,999 per year (n=215) $60,000 - $79,999 per year (n=391) $80,000 - $99,999 per year (n=270) $100,000 - $124,999 per year (n=278) $125,000 - $149,999 per year (n=184) $150,000 - $199,999 per year (n=242) $200,000 or more per year (n=214) * Significant at .05 with non-parametric t-test

Finding 5 – more educated people are more tolerant. Negative attitudes towards ethnic diversity** 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.16 2.2 2.03 2.01 2.0 1.86 1.83 1.82 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Early school leavers (n=38) Senior Secondary Certificate (n=146) TAFE Certificate (n=529) Bachelor's Degree (n=887) Master's degree (n=677) Doctorate (n=77) ** Significant at .01 with non-parametric t-test

What about IQ, personality and values?

Finding 6 – IQ, Personality and Values drive tolerance and intolerance. • Verbal ability particularly relevant • Profile of values aligns with conservatism and social dominance dimensions

Four Pathways Model 1. Social-dominance pathway – Low honesty-humility – Values self-enhancement as opposed to self-transcendence 2. Ego-threat pathway – Low social self-esteem 3. Conservatism pathway – Low openness – Values related to conservatism as opposed to openness to change 4. Low-cognitive-complexity pathway – Low IQ – Low openness Anglim, J., Sojo, V., Ashford, L.J., Newman, A., & Marty, A. (Working Paper). Predicting Employee Attitudes to Workplace Diversity from Personality, Values, and Cognitive Ability.

Personal Competencies and Diversity “Climate”

Diversity competencies… • The ability to effectively manage intercultural issues (eg Van Dyne et al, 2007) • Motivation – commonly used competency. Does the person believe it is valuable to relate to people from different cultures? • Knowledge – does the person know enough about other cultures to respond effectively? • Behaviour – does the person modify his or her behaviours in order to relate to people from other cultures? BTW, is that necessarily a good thing?

Finding 7 – diversity motivation varies by age. Cultural Competency – Motivation** 5.0 4.5 4.30 4.18 4.16 4.16 4.09 3.92 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 18-24 (n=65) 25-34 (n=479) 35-44 (n=529) 45-54 (n=678) 55-64 (n=561) 65-74 (n=115) ** Significant at .01 with non-parametric t-test

Diversity Climate • A measurable perception that the organization tries hard to foster diversity and eliminate discrimination. • Reinwald et al. (2018) found that diversity climate was positively related to organisational performance. Reinwald, M., Huettermann , H., & Bruch, H. (2018). Beyond the mean: Understanding firm‐level consequences of variability in diversity climate perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior.