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

• 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. Objectives

• 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

Four Pathways Model

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.

• 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

Attitudes Towards Diversity

• 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.

SACS/Deakin Study Description

HEXACO Model of Personality

• Honesty-Humility

– Sincerity – Fairness – Greed-Avoidance – Modesty

• Emotionality

– Fearfulness – Anxiety – Dependence – Sentimentality

• eXtraversion

– Social Self-Esteem – Social Boldness – Sociability – Liveliness

• Agreeableness

– Forgiveness – Gentleness – Flexibility – Patience

• Conscientiousness

– Organization – Diligence – Perfectionism – Prudence

• Openness

– Aesthetic Appreciation – Inquisitiveness – Creativity – Unconventionality

• Interstitial Trait

– Altruism

http://hexaco.org/

• 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 ENHANCEMENT OPENNESS TO CHANGE SELF TRANSCENDENCE CONSERVATION POWER HEDONISM STIMULATION SELF DIRECTION UNIVERSALISM BENEVOLENCE SECURITY

CONFORMITY

• 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

• ther cultures
• Diversity climate measured. The degree to which employees

perceive that their organisation supports diversity

• Other potential predictors of tolerance measured and reported on.

SACS/Scanlon Foundation Study

Results and recommendations Andrew Marty

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

SACS ATD Measures

ATD Questions

• International studies have shown different prejudices are

positively correlated and can be modelled as a “generalised prejudice”.

• Our data showed similarly strong positive correlations.
• Someone who has one prejudice is more likely to show
• ther prejudices.

Finding 1 – intolerant people tend to be intolerant!

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.

Negative Attitude towards: Ethnicity Disability Elderly Gender .70 .36 .42 Ethnicity .34 .35 Disability .55

Finding 2, women are more tolerant.

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female SACS - Ethnicity SACS - Gender SACS - Disability SACS - Elderly

Finding 3 – younger people are more tolerant.

** Significant at .01 with non-parametric t-test

1.68 1.83 1.88 1.89 1.93 2.11 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Negative attitudes towards ethnic diversity**

18-24 (n=65) 25-34 (n=479) 35-44 (n=529) 45-54 (n=678) 55-64 (n=561) 65-74 (n=115)

Finding 4 – more highly paid people are (slightly) more tolerant

1.85 2.12 1.98 2.05 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.85 1.84 1.85 1.86 1.93 1.80 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Negative attitudes towards ethnic diversity*

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.

** Significant at .01 with non-parametric t-test

2.16 2.03 2.01 1.86 1.82 1.83 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

Negative attitudes towards ethnic diversity**

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)

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

• 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

Four Pathways Model

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”

• 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
• ther 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?

Diversity competencies…

Finding 7 – diversity motivation varies by age.

** Significant at .01 with non-parametric t-test

4.30 4.18 4.16 4.16 4.09 3.92 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Cultural Competency – Motivation**

18-24 (n=65) 25-34 (n=479) 35-44 (n=529) 45-54 (n=678) 55-64 (n=561) 65-74 (n=115)

• 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.

Diversity Climate

Reinwald, M., Huettermann, H., & Bruch, H. (2018). Beyond the mean: Understanding firm‐level consequences of variability in diversity climate

• perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Finding 8. Different industries have different diversity climate.

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Wholesale Trade Manufacturing Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants Retail Trade Cultural and Recreational Services Construction Transport and Storage Government Administration and Defence Communication Services Personal and Other services Financial and Insurance Property and Business Services Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services Health and Community Services Education Mining

An integrative model for what makes for tolerance at work…

Counter Productive Work Behaviour Intention to leave – Affective Intention to leave - Normative Intention to leave - Continuance Organisational Citizenship Behaviour - individually directed Organisational Citizenship Behaviour – organisationally directed Cultural competency - Behaviour Cultural competency - Motivation Cultural competency - Knowledge Engagement Negative attitudes towards gender diversity Diversity Climate

Predictors Standardised Beta weights Negative attitudes towards gender diversity .48** Cultural competency - Motivation

• .31**

Diversity Climate

• .16**

Cultural competency - Behaviour .07** Intention to leave - Normative

• .04*

Model Summary R R Square Adjusted R Square

• Std. Error
• f the

Estimate .71 .50 .50 .45

*Significant at .05 level **Significant at .01 level

Various drivers of tolerance and intolerance – ethnic diversity.

Negative attitudes towards Ethnic Diversity

Key findings on diversity from the integrative research…

• Finding 1 over again – intolerance leads to intolerance
• Finding 9 – motivation is the key. We should coach people on how

important diversity is

• Finding 10 – we should work hard to create diversity climate – reduces

intolerance at the individual level

• Finding 11 – when people change their behaviours to accommodate people

from other cultures, it may not always be a good thing

• Finding 12 – culturally intolerant people can sometimes be reluctant to leave

– supports the conservatism pathway.

Finding 12A – another business case for

• tolerance. Organisational citizenship behaviour..

Cultural Competency- Motivation Organisational Citizenship Behaviour Negative attitudes towards ethnic diversity

• .054*
• .581**

Fit indices Chi-square 1283.497 df 149 CFI .926 RMSEA .061 SRMR .046

*Significant at .05 level **Significant at .01 level

.454**

Employees live in four worlds…

My Job My Team My Leader My Organisation

80% of wellbeing and commitment 20%

(Cotton and Hart, 2011)

Proximal Distal 11

Recommendations…

1. Diversity is really good business. Do it for moral and commercial reasons such as productivity 2. Hire people who are smart, honest and not arrogant, greedy or naturally averse to change. Make sure they don’t bring intolerance with them 3. To promote diversity, it is a mistake to focus on just one type. Focus on creating a climate of genuine tolerance – gender, ethnicity, lifestyle, ageing, disability, etc. 4. You can measure diversity climate of your organisation and the cultural competence of employees. Worth doing so you can target your development efforts. 5. “Culture is local”, so it is important to deal with this issue team by team and leader by leader 6. The solution is group based development activities as well as individual coaching and supervision, after good recruitment practice.

Questions…

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Stanford, N. R. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York:

Harper & Brothers.

• Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.
• Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational

behavioral research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 307-338.

• Buttner, E. H., & Lowe, K. B. (2017). Addressing internal stakeholders’ concerns: The interactive effect of perceived pay

equity and diversity climate on turnover intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(3), 621-633.

• Butts, C., Trejo, B., Parks, K., M., & McDonald, D. The integration of diversity and cross-cultural work: Competencies and
• commonalities. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 5(3), 361-364.
• Cotton, P., & Hart, P. (2011). Positive psychology in the workplace. Australian Psychological Society, 33 (2).
• De Meuse, K. P., & Hostager, T. J. (2001). Developing an instrument for measuring attitudes toward and perceptions of

workplace diversity: An initial report. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 33-51.

• Ferdman, B. M., & Safiv, L. (2012). Diversity in organisations and cross-cultural work psychology: What if they were more

connected? Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 5, 323-345.

• Hiemstra, A. M., Derous, E., & Born, M. P. (2017). Psychological predictors of cultural diversity support at work. Cultural

Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(3), 312-322.

• Hofhuis, J., van der Zee, K. I., Otten, S. (2015). Measuring employee perception on the effects of cultural diversity at work:

development of the benefits and threats of diversity scale. Quality and Quantity, 49(1), 177-201.

• Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict

and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.

• Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Nielsen, T. M. (2007). Cultural intelligence. International encyclopedia of organization studies, 1,

345-350.

• Leveson, L., Joiner, T. A.., & Bakalis, S. (2009). Managing cultural diversity and perceived organizational support: Evidence

from Australia. International Journal of Manpower, 30(4), 377-392.

• Reinwald, M., Huettermann, H., & Bruch, H. (2018). Beyond the mean: Understanding firm‐level consequences of

variability in diversity climate perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior.

• Riccucci, N. M. (1997). Cultural diversity programs to prepare for work force 2000: What’s gone wrong? Public Personnel

Management, 26(1), 35-41.

• Syed, J. & Kramar, R. (2010). What is the Australian model for managing cultural diversity? Personnel Review, 39(1), 96-

115.

• WetFeet. (2008). Careers in Human Resources. San Francisco, Universum.

References