Table of Contents
Introduction:
To keep pace with the changing business environment, researchers have studied “Diversity” from several disciplines, theoretical and conceptual perspectives and levels, at that, one of such scholars is Quinetta M. Roberson. In an Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, she attempted a review, synthesis and future research agenda focusing on “Diversity in the Workplace”.
This review describes the history, current state, and future of modern discrimination in organizations. First, the journal review development of discrimination from the early 1900s to the present day, specifically discussing various stigmatized identities, including gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, weight, and age.
Secondly, the journal describes both individual-level (e.g., identity management, allyship) and organization-level (e.g., training, norm setting) strategies for reducing and reacting to discrimination.
127 our experts are availableright now
Finally, it describes future research directions in the relationship between subtle and explicit discrimination, intersectionality, the impact of social media, and cross-cultural considerations, these are areas that are expected to help readers gain a more comprehensive understanding of modern discrimination basically on the key words of Diversity, Demography, Inter-group relations, Multiculturalism, Cultural awareness and Inclusion.
Critique
Notably, every scholar or individual has the sole right to his or her concept on any given topic. Hence there is no universally acceptable concept to discussion. Applicable, there is diversity in opinion formation and that has given rise to the justification of critiques. In this assignment, for the purpose of unambiguity, some of the topics in the journal will be summarized and analyzed. The topics shall only be limited to those outlined below. This is due to the guiding principles on this assignment, especially the permitted number of words.
Conceptualization: What is Diversity?
According to Roberson et al. (2017) cited in the journal, “Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour” diversity is any compositional differences among people within a work unit. As Quinette wants us to believe, a proportional concept of diversity is structural property of groups or other collective entity. To her, difference is a subject of diversity and may lead individual groups to the perception that others are either similar, or different from themselves. Citing Mannix & Neale 2005, Tsui & Gurek 1990, she agreed that several conceptual proponents have emerged within psychology and organizational behaviour.
In a practical note, according to Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995 cited in the journal of Applied psychology, by Quinetta Roberson, Anne M. Ryan & Belle R. Ragins (2017) several conceptualizations of diversity have emerged. For example, two-factor conceptualizations that differentiates between observable diversity attributes, such as gender and age, and less salient or deep-level characteristics, such as attitudes and values, have been proposed. On similar note, researchers have also explained diversity attributes according to their level of job relatedness, or the degree to which each attribute captures the knowledge, skills, and abilities relevant to the performance of cognitive tasks in groups. Other conceptualizations have adopted a more compositional perspective, focusing on the amount of diversity within groups as the variable of interest.
However, studies have also explored the alignment of both categorical and continuous attributes (Carton & Cummings, 2013; Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De Dreu, 2007), thereby capturing diversity in members’ attitudes and knowledge.
Although research on variation in culture has traditionally been subsumed by the literature on international and cross-cultural issues. Considering the embeddedness of values in the social identity of individuals, Chao and Moon (2005) put forth a taxonomy for capturing the complexity of multiculturalism in organizations. Specifically, they rather proposed demographic, geographic and associative features of culture that represent physical characteristics, natural features of a region or group affiliations, respectively and shape interactions between individuals. By offering a nonlinear and dynamic conceptualization of diversity.
Foundations: Functionalities of Diversity:
On the functionalities of diversity, the journal traced its history of research work to social-psychological theories of intergroup relations which based on social stereotypes. In their submission as cited in the journal, Cantor & Mischel 1979 have explained how salient and uncommon characteristics provided the basis for categorizing people into groups and attributing certain attitudes to such groups.
However, Tajfel1978 cited in the journal identified two theories, (social identity theory and social categorization theory) as a heuristic through which people places value on their social environment. This further explains that individuals promote diversity by identifying themselves within their immediate social environment and relating to others via their group memberships. According to Tajfel in the journal, social identity theory explains that, because individuals’ definitions of self are shaped by their group memberships, they are motivated to enhance their self-concept by seeking a positively valued distinctiveness for those groups. Accordingly, they engage in social comparisons to differentiate the group to which they belong, that is ingroup and the groups to which they do not belong, the out-group. On self-categorization theory, Turner 1985,1987 proposes that as these social categories become salient, there is a qualitative shift in individuals’ cognitive structure such that they begin to depersonalized their identity and view themselves and others more as representatives of social categories that as unique persons.
In contrast to social psychological theories of diversity that view difference as social distinctions that encumber intergroup relations, research has also approached the study of diversity through a more constructive lens. According to term, valued-in-diversity hypothesis by Cox & Blake 1991, this perspective establishes that categorical dissimilarity also engenders differences in knowledge skills and experiences, which exposes the group to a broader range of viewpoint and opinions.
Outcomes: What does Diversity do?
As Jackson et al. 1995, Milliken, & Martins 1996 opined in the journal, some diversity research on group level outcomes has explored effects on group processes. However, the result of these researches has been equivocal, depending on the type of diversity. According to Williams & O’ Reilly 1998 cited in the journal under critique, studies of diversity effects in organizations have primarily focused on the attributes of group level and their outcomes, even though individual contribution to the effectiveness and efficiency of the group must be explored for meaningful outcomes.
In their analysis, Bowers et al.2000, Webber & Donahue found task related diversity to be associated with both the quantity and quality of group performance. Accordingly, they suggested that the categorization of diversity characteristics is essential to understanding the Synergistics performance. In the analysis above the fundamental defects of group synergy is ignored hence, Jehn et al, 2008 quickly identify conflict as a key explanation variable in the relationship between diversity and group performance. According to them, other researchers have examined the effects diversity in group members’ perceptions of conflict as well as intragroup conflict as an outcome
Practices: How to manage diversity:
In managing diversity according to Dobbin & Kalev, 2013 cited in the journal, organizational mechanism to realize the benefits of diversity, diminish its challenges and use the talents of all workers in organization were developed. This is with specific practices for creating more diverse workforces, facilitating productivity productive relations between members and building inclusive work environments
In conclusion:
Our review provides some insights as to how applied psychological research has evolved on the topic of diversity. Figure 2 provides a timeline that shows some milestones in this evolution both outside and in Journal of Applied Psychology, from the advent of diversity related research to the current state of research in this area. Accordingly, we can draw some key conclusions regarding what we know or have learned to date about the meaning and import of diversity in organizations. Whereas early research considered the role of demographic categories on individual outcomes, diversity became recognized as an important contextual variable, or unit-level characteristic, which influences employee attitudes and behavior. Following sociological traditions, such work conceptualized and examined the effects of diversity in terms of the relative proportions of certain demographic attributes within work groups.
