A configurational framework for diversity: socialization and culture
| Pages | 488-503 |
| Published date | 01 August 2005 |
| Date | 01 August 2005 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480510599798 |
| Author | Amy McMillan‐Capehart |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
A configurational framework
for diversity: socialization
and culture
Amy McMillan-Capehart
Department of Management, East Carolina University,
Greenville, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To develop hypotheses aimed at finding ways to take full advantage of the benefits
associated with selecting and hiring dissimilar employees such as creativity, productivity, and
problem solving, while avoiding negative consequences such as lower job satisfaction and increased
turnover.
Design/methodology/approach – A review of the diversity, socialization, and culture literature
was conducted. In addition, this research is based on configurational theory and the idea that all the
constructs interact with one another in order to affect outcomes in an organization.
Findings – The literature review and theory development support the idea that, in order to benefit
from the positive outcomes related to diversity, organizations should implement individualized
socialization tactics within a collectivistic organizational culture.
Research limitations/implications – The hypotheses need to be empirically tested.
Practical implications – This research suggests that it is possible for managers to get the most out
of a diverse workforce while minimizing the negative effects. One of the main issues with diversity is
the increased conflict and turnover. By implementing individualistic socialization tactics within a
collectivistic culture, organizations will benefit from employees’ backgrounds and experiences, while
promoting teamwork and a cohesive organization.
Originality/value – This paper fills a void inthe diversity literature by suggesting that it is through
socialization and culture that one can overcome the negative effects of diversity.
Keywords Equal opportunities, Socialization,Organizational culture, Conflict,Employee turnover,
Job satisfaction
Paper type Conceptual paper
Given the globalization of the marketplace and the changing demographics in the USA,
the increasing diversity of the workforce represents a relevant issue of concern for both
academics and practitioners. In particular, academic research has examined the impact
of cultural diversity on the organization (e.g. Cox and Blake, 1991; Nemetz and
Christensen, 1996; Richard, 2000; Gomez-Mejia and Palich, 1997; Riccucci, 1997;
Thomas, 1999). For example, cultural diversity has been positively associated with
many different organizational consequences, including creativity (Jackson, 1992;
McLeod et al., 1996), productivity (Richard, 2000), and problem solving (Watson et al.,
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
A previous version of this paper was presented at the National Academy of Management
Conference in Toronto, 2000.
PR
34,4
488
Received October 2003
Revised January 2004
Accepted May 2004
Personnel Review
Vol. 34 No. 4, 2005
pp. 488-503
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480510599798
1993). In order to manage the growing diversity of the work force, organizations need
to implement systems and practices so that the potential advantages of diversity are
maximized and the potential disadvantages are minimized (Cox, 1994).
According to Carrell and Mann (1995), workforce diversity consists of the following
characteristics: race, gender, culture, national origin, handicap, and age. For simp licity,
this paper will use the term ethnicity, which refers to groups of individuals based on
race and cultural origin (Phinney, 1996). On the other hand, cultural diversity pertains
to “the representation, in one social system, of people with distinctly different group
affiliations of cultural significance” (Cox, 1994, p. 6). Members of a culturally diverse
group share a subjective culture, which according to Triandis (1976) represents their
worldview. Individual worldviews include beliefs, values, norms and attitudes (Cox,
1994). Thus, for the purpose of this paper, cultural diversity will be defined by
differences between individuals based on gender, ethnicity, physical and mental
ability, and age, along with the resulting attitudes, beliefs, and values that comprise
their worldview.
For the past decade diversity research has addressed various factors involved in
assimilating new employees into an organization’s culture (Berry and Sam, 1997; Hood
and Koberg, 1994). However, some argue that by its fundamental nature, assimilating
new employees to obtain greater fit between the person and organization is achieved at
the expense of diversity (Powell, 1998). While it is not the purpose of this paper to take
sides on this debate, this paper introduces a framework that demonstrates it is po ssible
to achieve the positive consequences of cultural diversity and minimize the negative
consequences.
Because of changing demographics in the USA, managers often must decide how to
manage people of differing cultures and beliefs. The goal is to take full advantage of
the benefits associated with a diverse workforce, while avoiding negative
consequences such as lower job satisfaction and increased turnover. Many times
however, managers simply overlook the negative effects of diversity and instead focus
on the positive. However, by being aware of these potential disadvantages,
organizations can enjoy the benefits of diversity while avoiding its negative effects.
Several studies indicate the importance of cultural diversity research. Tsui et al.’s
(1992) study shows that cultural diversity in terms of race and gender has more
negative effects on affective consequences than age. Other studies have also
consistently found that observable attributes have negative effects on outcomes such
as identification with the group and job satisfaction at both the individual and group
level of analysis (Milliken and Martins, 1996). According to Kanter (1977), an
individual’s race or sex does not necessarily affect organizational outcomes, but the
proportion or composition of particular salient characteristics that affect group
dynamics and the attitudes of the individuals involved. Therefore, an individual’s
characteristics alone do not lead to certain outcomes but rather the relationship of those
characteristics to others in the organization (Wagner et al., 1984). This manuscript
examines the moderating impact of socialization tactics and culture on levels of
cultural diversity, in an effort to determine which strategic and cultural combinations
are more likely lead to positive consequences of cultural diversity rather than negative
consequences.
Configurational
framework for
diversity
489
To continue reading
Request your trial