Content uploaded by Amy McMillan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Amy McMillan on Feb 11, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Establishing a Diversity Program is Not Enough:
Exploring the Determinants of Diversity Climate
Andrew O. Herdman ÆAmy McMillan-Capehart
Published online: 16 September 2009
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract
Purpose This study provides an organizational level
investigation of the determinants of perceptions of diver-
sity climate among employees.
Design/methodology/approach In total, 3,578 employees
across 163 hotels provided data. Measures of diversity
programs, managerial values and diversity climate were
drawn from independent groups of employees.
Findings Support was found for the relationship between
the deployment of diversity programs and diversity cli-
mate. This relationship was moderated by the actual
diversity and the collective relational values of the man-
agement teams. Further, collective managerial relational
values were found to be predictive of the adoption of
diversity initiatives.
Implications This study provides evidence that though
the presence of diversity initiatives was associated with
higher levels of diversity climate, this relationship is not
straightforward. Organizational attention to contextual
factors, including managerial values and levels of minority
representation in management, is necessary to enhance the
efficacy of these programs.
Originality/value In spite of growth in practitioner and
scientific attention, few conclusions are possible regarding
the influence of organizational diversity on organizational
level outcomes (Jackson et al., J Manage 29:801–830,
2003). This study responds to recent evidence that diversity
climate moderates the relationship between diversity and
organizational performance and answers calls for empirical
attention to understanding how diversity climates are cre-
ated and managed (Gonzalez and DeNisi, J Organ Behav
30(1):21–40, 2009).
Keywords Diversity climate Managerial values
Diversity initiatives Heterogeneity
The past 30 years have been marked by a significant
growth in the empirical examination of the effects of
diversity on individual, group and organizational level
outcomes (Harrison and Klein 2007; Jackson and Joshi
2004; Williams and O’Reilly 1998). This growth in
diversity research is responsive to dramatic increases in the
heterogeneity of the workforce (Williams and O’Reilly
1998). Similarly, organizational efforts to proactively
leverage these differences for competitive advantage have
risen considerably through the establishment of diversity
programs (Carrell et al. 2006). However, in spite of this
growth in practitioner and scientific attention, few con-
clusions regarding the influence of organizational diversity
on organizational level outcomes are possible (Jackson
et al. 2003).
One reason offered for the lack of consistent empirical
findings is a failure to first understand the intermediary
process mechanisms through which the effects of diversity
operate. Diversity research is dominated by the examina-
tion of the main effects between indicators of diversity—
most often the relative distribution of target attributes
within groups or organizations, and a performance
Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.
A. O. Herdman (&)
Department of Management, East Carolina University,
121 Slay Hall, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
e-mail: herdmana@ecu.edu
A. McMillan-Capehart
Department of Management, East Carolina University,
324 Bate Building, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
e-mail: mcmillancapeharta@ecu.edu
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
DOI 10.1007/s10869-009-9133-1
outcome. In a recent review of diversity research, less than
10% of all empirical investigations targeted intermediary
attitudinal, perceptual, and process outcomes (Jackson
et al. 2003). Yet, recent evidence suggests aggregate per-
ceptions of diversity climate moderate the relationship
between diversity and firm performance (Gonzalez and
DeNisi 2009). Attention to these intermediary mechanisms
holds the promise of unlocking the ‘‘black box’’ between
diversity initiatives and performance outcomes.
The present study intends to address this gap by
exploring the determinants of employee perceptions of the
organization’s diversity climate. These climate perceptions
are argued to be an important and necessary condition for
the achievement of diversity objectives. Toward this end,
the relationship between diversity programs, actual mana-
gerial diversity, and managerial relational values is
hypothesized to be important in shaping these employee
perceptions. Drawing on the organizational climate litera-
ture, these organizational characteristics are hypothesized
to operate collectively as signals to employees important in
shaping aggregate diversity climate.
Diversity Climate
Organizational efforts and investments in the intentional
management of diversity continue to grow (Carrell et al.
2006; Frankel 2009). Diversity, defined as the degree of
intra-organizational representation of people with different
group affiliations of cultural significance (Cox 1994), is
purported to expand the plurality of perspectives and
experiences within an organization and can serve as a
strategic resource to the organization in securing a com-
petitive advantage (Richard 2000). Therefore, diversity
initiatives typically involve employee recruitment and
promotion strategies targeting underrepresented groups and
mechanisms to both tap the latent perspectives within
organizations and, ultimately, bring them to bear on orga-
nizational policy decisions (Richard and Kirby 1997; Cox
and Blake 1991).
One important consequence of the implementation of
diversity initiatives should be changes in employee per-
ceptions regarding the importance of diversity within the
organization (Cox and Blake 1991; Gelfand et al. 2005).
For this reason, efforts to understand the consequent
diversity climate, or ‘‘aggregate perceptions about the
organization’s diversity-related formal structure charac-
teristics and informal values’’ (Gonzalez and DeNisi 2009,
p. 24), is an important line of research. Indeed, diversity
climate provides important information regarding the effi-
cacy of organizational diversity programs by providing
direct insight into the actual employee experience with the
organization. As Schneider et al. note (2003, p. 126), ‘‘…it
is one thing to know what the VP of HR says happens …
and it may be another to hear how employees experience
practices.’’ For this reason, it can be argued that these
employee perceptions are a more telling indicator of the
organization’s actual support for diversity (Kossek and
Zonia 1993; Rynes and Rosen 1995).
Past research concerning diversity climate supports
these assertions by demonstrating its association with a
wide array of important organizational outcomes, including
the heterogeneity of an organization (Kossek and Zonia
1993), turnover intentions (McKay et al. 2007), organiza-
tional commitment, job satisfaction, career commitment,
career satisfaction, and satisfaction with managers (Hickes-
Clarke and Iles 2000). Diversity climate has also been
shown to mitigate the adverse effects of diversity such as
increased relationship conflict, decreased productivity,
intent to quit, and lower organizational commitment
(Gonzalez and DeNisi 2009). Further, employee percep-
tions of the organization’s support for diversity, a construct
that is conceptually similar to diversity climate perception,
were positively associated with organizational commitment
and decreased absenteeism across racioethnic groups,
including non-minority employees (Avery et al. 2007).
Finally, of particular importance to the present study, when
considered at the organization level, diversity climate was
found to moderate the relationship between diversity and
firm productivity and return on profit (Gonzalez and DeNisi
2009). This research suggests that diversity climate is an
organizationally important intermediate outcome worthy of
empirical attention, leading to calls for research directed to
understanding its causes (Gonzalez and DeNisi 2009).
Further, the development of a diversity climate is an
important consideration for organizations wishing to capi-
talize on the positive effects of diversity. For example, a
primary goal of diversity programs is to recruit, promote,
and retain a diverse workforce. Logically, an organiza-
tion’s ability to recruit and retain a diverse workforce is
linked directly to its ability to develop a reputation for
valuing diversity. As organizations compete for talented
and qualified employees, diversity management programs
may become a deciding factor for many recruits. By
enhancing perceptions that the organization supports
diversity, organizations will be more able to attract and
retain minority employees than their less committed com-
petitors (Cox 1994).
Antecedents to Diversity Climate
The organizational climate literature provides insight and a
theoretical framework for understanding how collective
perceptions of diversity climate might emerge. Within the
organizational climate literature, an important distinction is
40 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
123
made between the individual and organizational psycho-
logical climate (James 1982). Individual psychological
climate refers to individual level inferences regarding what
is important, valued, and rewarded through exposure to the
organizational environment. These perceptions are based
on both formal and informal features of the organization
including policies, practices, and organizational routines
(Schneider et al. 1996). When situational characteristics are
experienced and interpreted consistently across employee
populations, uniform and shared inferences regarding
organizational values and priorities are possible (Schneider
1990; Schneider and Reichers 1983). Therefore, organiza-
tional climate is defined as collective perceptions among
employees regarding the practices, procedures, and kinds
of behaviors that are supported and rewarded in their work
environments (Schneider 1990). Climate perceptions are
believed to provide an important intermediate measure
linking organizational programs with employee attitudes
and behaviors and, ultimately, firm performance outcomes
(Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Ferris et al. 1999).
Also consistent with this reasoning, signaling theory
suggests that employees rely on organizational cues and
signals in the interpretation of an organization’s commit-
ment and goals (Spence 1973). Signaling theory suggests
that salient organizational features serve as signals to both
applicants and current employees. For example, applicants
have been found to interpret an organization’s corporate
social performance as signals regarding the organization’s
values and norms (Greening and Turban 2000) and work-
ing conditions (Turban and Greening 1997). Among cur-
rent employees, Saks and McCarthy (2006) found support
for signaling theory logic in demonstrating that organiza-
tional policies and procedures facilitate perceptions con-
sistent with a general valuing of diversity. Common in
these findings is the notion that features of the organization
are important in shaping employee perceptions of the
organization.
The development of shared perceptions, or climate, is
more likely in circumstances where the environment pro-
vides salient unambiguous signals regarding organizational
priorities—often defined as a ‘‘strong’’ situation (Bowen
and Ostroff 2004). Strong situational characteristics dom-
inate otherwise idiosyncratic perceptions of the environ-
ment and serve as the primary determinant of affective and
behavioral responses (Mischel and Mischel 1976; Ross and
Nisbett 1991). Applied to perceptions of a diversity cli-
mate, we are concerned with those situational characteris-
tics, or signals, likely to manifest in uniform perceptions
regarding the organization’s support for diversity. In the
following discussion, several organizational characteristics
are discussed which are likely to be important in the cre-
ation of strong situational characteristics and the develop-
ment of collective perceptions of support for organizational
diversity. These organizational signals include the estab-
lishment of formal programs designed to support diversity,
the racial/ethnic composition of management, and mana-
gerial values related to employee management. Relation-
ships between these organizational characteristics and a
diversity climate are hypothesized.
Formally Established Diversity Programs
One obvious antecedent to the development of higher
aggregate level diversity climate is the establishment of
diversity programs. HR practices, including diversity ini-
tiatives, can be salient features of the organization and, as
such, important in shaping employee perceptions of the
climate. HR practices are argued to operate as symbolic
signals to employees in the communication of organiza-
tional priorities and values (Guzzo and Noonan 1994;
Rousseau 1995; Tsui et al. 1997). This includes inferences
regarding their role in the organization, the nature of the
relationship with the organization, and behaviors important
to organizational functioning (Bowen and Ostroff 2004;
Rousseau 1989,1995). In this way, an organization’s
investment in diversity-related initiatives should have the
effect of sending a visible and salient signal to employees
that the organization is committed to achieving and
leveraging diversity (Avery et al. 2007).
Perceptions resulting from the implementation of
diversity practices should be consistent with the meaning
and intent of these practices. For example, diversity pro-
grams such as targeted efforts at recruiting and promoting a
diverse workforce are signals that an organization values
diversity. Following this logic, as shown in Fig. 1, the use
of diversity-related programs should be positively associ-
ated with employee perceptions of diversity climate.
Hypothesis 1 The existence of diversity programs will be
positively associated with aggregate diversity climate
perceptions among employees.
Management
Team Relational
Values
Diversity
Programs
H4+
H3
H2+
Management
Team
Heterogeneity
Diversity Climate
H5
H1+
Fig. 1 Hypothesized model of relationships
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53 41
123
Actual Diversity Among Managers
Considered at the dyadic level, race and gender in the
supervisor–employee relationship have proven important in
shaping both affective and behavioral outcomes among the
employees (Avery et al. 2007). For example, employees
with dissimilar managers, along ethnic and gender lines,
perceive less support and more discrimination than
employees with demographically similar managers (Jean-
quart-Barone 1996). This suggests that the racioethnic
composition of the managerial team serves as an important
and salient organizational signal regarding support for
diversity.
Extending this logic to the organizational level, actual
diversity among management teams may operate as a
salient and visible signal of the organization’s support for
diversity. In the same way dissimilarity between the
supervisor and employee results in negative outcomes in
the dyadic relationship, overall heterogeneity of manage-
rial team would seem important in the development of
collective perceptions of a climate for diversity. As McKay
and Avery (2006) state, ‘‘a potentially vivid signal of a
firm’s diversity climate is to actually see or meet a number
of minority employees…’’ When employees examine their
organizational environments and draw conclusions
regarding the overall support for diversity, a more diverse
management team offers salient, unambiguous evidence of
this support. For this reason, as shown in Fig. 1, overall
management team heterogeneity is expected to be posi-
tively associated with the creation of a diversity climate.
Hypothesis 2 Levels of management team racioethnic
diversity will be positively associated with collective
employee perceptions of a diversity climate.
Because evidence suggests that individuals rely on
multiple cues/signals in developing perceptions of their
environment (Schneider and Reichers 1983; Schneider
1990; Schneider et al. 1996), actual managerial heteroge-
neity should act in a way that reinforces and strengthens the
effects of diversity programs alone. In circumstances where
organizations both deploy formal diversity programs and
have a diverse management group, these signals will be
consistent and mutually reinforcing in shaping employee
perceptions of the organization’s diversity climate (Bowen
and Ostroff 2004; Ross and Nisbett 1991). Conversely, an
organization that implements a diversity initiative but has a
completely or nearly homogeneous managerial team would
send inconsistent signals as to their actual support for
diversity. Therefore, these signals should complement one
another in their impact on the organization’s diversity
climate. For this reason, while we are hypothesizing main
effects between diversity programs and managerial heter-
ogeneity with aggregate diversity climate perceptions, it is
reasonable to expect that their combined effects are
stronger than the sum of their independent effects. In short,
the relationship between diversity programs and the orga-
nization’s diversity climate should be strengthened in cir-
cumstances where the organization has a more diverse
management team. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 1,an
interaction is expected in which the magnitude of the
relationship between diversity programs and diversity cli-
mate will be moderated by levels of actual management
racioethnic heterogeneity.
Hypothesis 3 Levels of managerial team racioethnic
heterogeneity will moderate the relationship between the
reported existence of diversity programs and perceptions of
a diversity climate such that higher levels of racioethnic
heterogeneity will strengthen the relationship between
diversity programs and diversity climate.
Managerial Relational Values
A final contextual factor we consider in development of a
diversity climate are the values and attitudes of the managers
responsible for establishing and implementing diversity
initiatives. (Tsui et al. 1995,1997) develop distinctions
between the basic assumptions of managers toward the
nature of the employee–organization relationship. They
propose a framework of possible organization–employee
employment relationships or ‘‘modes’’. Of specific interest
here is what she refers to as the ‘‘mutual investment’’ mode
of employment. In the mutual investment mode, employers
invest in the employee in the form of extended consideration
of the employee’s well-being, opportunities for expanded
contribution, career development, and employment security.
This approach, and the practices associated with it, is studied
under a variety of names including ‘‘high-commitment’’
(Arthur 1994; Baron and Kreps 1999; Delery and Doty 1996;
Guthrie 2001; Pfeffer 1998; Walton 1985) and ‘‘relational’’
(Sun et al. 2007) HR programs. Certainly, diversity initia-
tives intended to cultivate and leverage diverse perspectives
are consistent with these approaches.
Though most often anecdotally derived, the adoption of a
relational employment mode is suggested to begin with a
fundamental valuing of and investment in employees by
organizational leaders (O’Reilly and Pfeffer 2000). While
this line of reasoning has a rich theoretic history (e.g.
Argyris 1964; Likert 1961,1967; McGregor 1960,1967),
few studies isolate and measure these basic beliefs of
organizational leaders. However, when considered in rela-
tionship to diversity initiatives, the degree to which orga-
nizational leadership believes in the strategic importance of
employees, referred to here as relational values, is a natural
complement to both the adoption and implementation of
diversity practices. However, these relational values cannot
42 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
123
be experienced directly until they are enacted in the form of
managerial practices and programs. For this reason, as
shown in Fig. 1, senior management teams’ relational
values are positioned theoretically in this paper as an
antecedent to the adoption of diversity programs. This
relationship is consistent with arguments that managerial
beliefs regarding the strategic importance of the firm’s
human assets share the same foundational assumptions
underlying the adoption of diversity initiatives. Specifically,
when an organization’s leadership team possess a belief in
the strategic importance of people, they are more likely to
establish diversity programs specifically targeted at lever-
aging these assets. Conversely, when managers hold less
positive assumptions regarding the strategic importance of
employees will be less likely to invest organizational
resources in diversity practices. Therefore, higher levels
of relational values among managerial teams should be
predictive of the establishment of diversity programs
compatible with these beliefs.
Hypothesis 4 Managerial relational values will be related
to the existence of diversity programs.
However, diversity programs may exist in the absence of
compatible managerial relational values. For example, an
organization’s diversity programs may be a product of
imitation, competitive forces or historical reasons unrelated
to the beliefs of the current senior management (Abra-
hamson and Fairchild 1999). In these circumstances,
compatibility between values and diversity programs could
be an important moderating condition between the exis-
tence of diversity programs and their actual implementa-
tion by the managers and supervisors charged with their
use. Logically, organizational leadership whose values are
consistent with diversity programs would be more likely to
support these programs and enforce their application. If this
is true, it is reasonable to expect that compatibility between
managerial values and diversity programs would then be a
second moderating condition for diversity climate. There-
fore, consistent with the logic of the mutually reinforcing
effects expected between diversity programs and actual
managerial diversity, we expect that the efficacy of diver-
sity programs in shaping diversity climate is reliant on
levels of managerial relational values. Specifically, the
relationship between diversity programs and diversity cli-
mate would be strengthened in circumstances where com-
patible managerial values are in place.
Hypothesis 5 Levels of managerial relational values will
moderate the relationship between the reported existence of
diversity programs and diversity climate such that higher
levels of managerial relational values will strengthen the
relationship between diversity programs and diversity
climate.
Methods
Research Setting
The study was conducted with the cooperation of 163 hotels
located within the continental U.S. Each hotel location,
though independently owned and operated, was a franchise
for a large international hotel company. Each hotel operates
autonomously and is free to adopt and implement manage-
ment programs of their choosing. For this reason, variability
in the diversity programs was anticipated among sampled
hotels. There is also a relatively uniform managerial struc-
ture across all locations that enabled consistent sampling of
management teams and employees. This uniformity is fur-
ther strengthened by the aggressive management of brand
standards across the hotel portfolio including uniform
technological, advertising, and physical plant standards.
Together, this allows for enhanced control of extraneous
sources of variance in the measured variables.
There is a common perception that the service industry
has been slow to adopt high-commitment HR practices,
including diversity programs, because the relatively low
skill and transient characteristics of the workforce do not
warrant the required investments. Empirically, however,
studies conducting comparative analyses between various
industries report that practices associated with high com-
mitment HR systems were more prevalent in the hotel
industry than in manufacturing (Hogue 1999). This finding
supports past arguments that the transactional and
employee intensive nature of the service industry makes
these investments more necessary and that organizations
with a committed, motivated, and capable workforce have
a competitive advantage (Schneider et al. 2003). Within the
hospitality industry employees and customers interact very
directly in the production of the service. For these reasons,
the sample and the focus on service industry are believed to
be an appropriate context for this research.
Protocol
Sampled hotels were recruited by franchise area service
managers who were instructed to provide a cross section of
locations representing a diversity of brand, location, and
performance. These area managers participated in a web
conferencing session conducted by the researcher and the
senior operation officer for the organization to provide
instruction on the selection process and criteria. These
individuals were also provided written project summaries
and ‘‘frequently asked questions’’ sheets to equip them in
this effort. In total, 254 hotels were identified by the area
service managers and contacted by the researcher to further
describe the study and requirements. Of this original set,
163 hotels provided sufficient data to support this analysis.
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53 43
123
Based on the language requirement provided by each hotel,
survey items were professionally translated into Spanish,
Chinese, Russian, and French. Independent translators then
reverse translated each item to assure the meaning and
intent of the items was retained.
Three different survey instruments were used for this
survey, each targeting specific sets of employees best
positioned to provide accurate and valid assessments of the
targeted construct. The diversity program information was
completed by the HR Manager or if none existed at the
location, the General Manager of the location. The mana-
gerial values survey and racioethnic information for each
management team was completed by the members of the
senior management team for each location. This leadership
team was typically comprised of 4–7 individuals with
overall responsibility for a department or division within
each location. Finally, the diversity climate items were
delivered to and completed by a random half of the
employees at each location. While surveying the entire
employee population would have been optimal, the scope
of the data collection included the distribution of a second
survey, unrelated to the present investigation, to the other
half of the employees. Therefore, completing both surveys
created concerns with both operational disruption and
fatigue related to survey length. Each survey was color
coded according to the targeted response group and was
accompanied by detailed instructions for ease of adminis-
tration. As an incentive to participate, managerial teams
were provided a summary report of findings and a profile
report detailing their results relative to the larger respon-
dent set. No inducements were offered for participation to
the line level employees, though their cooperation was
encouraged by both management and the research team.
Survey packets were prepared and sent to each location
containing the survey materials, a sealed postage paid col-
lection box, and introductory letter with instructions on the
distribution and collection process. The collection boxes
were also used to ship the completed survey packet back to
the researcher for coding. Following the delivery of mate-
rials, each location was personally contacted by the
researcher to clarify instructions and answer any questions
regarding administration. A third follow-up contact was
made with each location approximately one week after their
intended survey distribution date to answer questions and
check progress. In total, all locations were contacted per-
sonally by the researcher a minimum of three times to ensure
understanding and smooth administration of the distribution
and collection process.
Sample Characteristics
In total, 3,578 complete and usable responses returned for
an overall response rate of 59.3%. The diversity program
survey was completed by the HR Manager or General
Manager at all hotels. The response rate to the managerial
values survey was approximately 78% with 879 individual
surveys completed across the 163 organizations for an
average senior management group size of 5.3, providing a
strong representation of managers in support of the creation
of the aggregate rating of relational values and racioethnic
information for each location. The response rate for the
diversity climate survey was 54% with 2,536 individual
surveys completed, for an average group size of 15.6
respondents per hotel. The demographic characteristics of
these respondents for both the managerial and employee
surveys are provided in Table 1. Of the 2,536 total
responses to the diversity climate survey, 2,008 (79.2%)
were presented in English, 461 (18.2%) were Spanish
translation version, 40 (1.5%) were Chinese, 11 (\1%)
were Russian, and 16 (\1%) were French.
Measures
Diversity Programs
This survey was administered to a single key informant
(the HR Director, or in their absence, the General Manager)
Table 1 Respondent demographic characteristics
Managerial/leadership respondents
Sex (%)
Male 44.41
Female 49.84
Not specified 5.70
Race/ethnicity (%)
Hispanic 9.05
American Indian/Alaskan 1.70
Caucasian 70.61
Asian/Pacific Islander 3.19
Black/African American 5.86
Other 0.40
Not specified 9.26
Line employee respondents
Sex (%)
Male 33.76
Female 61.95
Not specified 4.29
Race/ethnicity (%)
Hispanic 24.28
American Indian/Alaskan 1.68
Black/African American 17.60
Asian/Pacific Islander 4.40
Caucasian 39.70
Other 1.93
Not specified 10.41
44 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
123
within the organization. A measure of diversity programs
was developed to assess the extent of use of ‘‘identity
conscious’’ diversity initiatives, defined as those programs
which are overtly aimed at increasing and managing the
diverse composition of an organization’s workforce. This
decision was made because past research has demonstrated
that these programs are salient across employees (Carrell
et al. 2006). Further, because the present study was con-
ducted in connection with a larger survey project within the
organization, the measure of diversity initiatives was
restricted to three items. However, a review of past
research revealed extremely high internal consistency, as
reported by coefficient alpha, in more expansive scales
(e.g. Konrad and Linnehan 1995; Avery et al. 2007). The
specific items were ‘‘We have a formal diversity policy and
program in this hotel,’’ ‘‘We take deliberate efforts to target
and recruit minority employees at this hotel,’’ and ‘‘We
have processes and programs in place to incorporate the
perspectives of all backgrounds and experiences in deci-
sions at this hotel.’’ The anchors for each item asked
respondents to identify the extent of coverage for these
programs among employees from N/A—Doesn’t Apply;
1—applies to a few; 2—applies to half; 3—applies to most;
4—applies to all. Once coded, these scales were converted
to the 1 to 5 scale by coding N/A as 1 and increasing all
other ratings by 1. The coefficient alpha for these scales at
the hotel was a=.72, above recommended minimum
standards for reliability and consistent with past research.
Diversity Climate
Three items were developed to assess overall perceptions
of a diversity climate within the organization. These items
were ‘‘The hotel values differences in its employees,’’ ‘‘I
believe this hotel strives to have a very diverse workforce,’’
and ‘‘The hotel makes sure the opinions and input of
employees from different backgrounds are heard.’’ These
items had a reliability of a=.76.
It is important to note that because the proposed
hypothesis will be tested at the organizational level, the
items were developed to focus the attention of the assess-
ment to the total hotel environment. This is consistent with
the referent shift consensus model described by Chan
(1998) in which individual assessments are made at the
level of the intended analysis. Further, individual responses
were aggregated to represent this variable as the aggregate
diversity climate at each location. Because these measures
are compositional in nature (i.e. the existence of the higher
order organizational level construct is reliant on sufficient
agreement at the individual level), it was necessary to test
consensus among respondents prior to representing the
organization with the mean of individual responses. Intra-
class correlation coefficient 1 (ICC 1) and intraclass
correlation coefficient 2 (ICC 2) are ANOVA-based mea-
sures derived from the components of a one-way random
effect ANOVA in which the construct of interest is the
dependent variable and the group membership is the
independent variable. ICC(1) is interpreted as the degree to
which any one member might reliably represent the group
(Bliese 2000). ICC(2) is an indicator of the reliability of the
measure across respondents and, as such, provides an
estimate of the degree to which the mean accurately rep-
resents the group (Bliese 1998,2000). ICC(1) for diversity
climate was .11, slightly below the conventional standard
of .12, but consistent with values reported in past research
examining group perceptions (e.g. Liao and Rupp 2005;
Yang et al. 2007). Likewise, the ICC(2) of .56 was con-
sistent with values reported in past research (e.g. Liao and
Rupp 2005; Yang et al. 2007). Finally, Rwg
(j)
is a fre-
quently used estimate of within group agreement and
compares observed within group variance in individual
responses against a theoretic distribution of random
responses (James 1982). This provides an estimate of
consensus among respondents in ratings for a single tar-
get—the organization’s support for diversity. The mean
Rwg for diversity climate was .74, suggesting sufficient
agreement among respondents to warrant aggregation to
the organizational level.
Managerial Diversity
Actual diversity among management at each location was
represented by calculating the percentage of minorities
within the management team. This measure was selected
because it captures the degree of minority representation
among managers. Other measures were considered,
including Blau’s index,a common means of measuring
variation in categorical data (Richard et al. 2007; Roberson
and Park 2007; Mohammed and Angell 2004). However,
this index has been criticized because it only represents
overall heterogeneity, versus the relative configurations of
race distribution in the focal group (Harrison and Klein
2007). For example, a group with one Caucasian and four
Asian managers is represented with the same value as a
same sized group with four Caucasian and one Asian
manager. Because our purpose here is only to capture the
degree of racioethnic diversity within management team as
witnessed by rank-and-file employees, the percentage of
minority members of the management team is the most
appropriate measure.
Managerial Relational Values
The measure of managerial relational values intended to
capture variance in managerial attitudes related to the
strategic importance of employees and was complete by the
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53 45
123
senior management team at each location. Because few
studies have sought to tap these values on the part of
management, it was necessary to develop new items (e.g.
Park et al. 2003; McGregor 1960,1967). Following the
mutual investment orientation (Tsui et al. 1997) and rela-
tional (Sun et al. 2007) perspectives described earlier,
items were developed to reflect a ‘‘relational’’ orientation
on the part of senior management characterized by a gen-
eral valuing of security and long-term career development.
Sample items include: ‘‘In my opinion, our employees’
capabilities are our main source of competitive advan-
tage’’; ‘‘Employees will work harder if I show that I care
about them personally’’; ‘‘For a management position, I
would rather hire a current employee with training needs
than someone from outside with no training needs.’’ The
complete scale is provided in the Appendix.
For all items, a Likert response scale was used ranging
from ‘‘1’’ indicating strong disagreement with the state-
ment, to ‘‘5’’ indicating strong agreement with the state-
ment. The coefficient alpha reliability of these items was
a=.73. Finally, like diversity climate, this variable was
created for each organization as the mean of individual
responses. ICC(1) and ICC(2) were .12 and .53, respec-
tively. The Rwg in this sample was .87, again suggesting
strong consensus among respondents in support of
aggregation.
Control Variables
As stated, one of the strengths of within industry sampling
is the capacity to control for extraneous sources variability
(Pfeffer 1998). Nevertheless, our interest is the isolation of
relationships apart from unrelated factors that may influ-
ence the hypothesized effects. For this reason, several
control variables were included in our analysis. First,
because organizational size may be associated with the use
of more sophisticated human resource practices, it was
included as a control (Jackson and Schuler 1995). Second,
size may dilute the salience of programs and limit contact
with senior management teams. Therefore, location size, as
represented by the number of rooms in the hotel, was
included as a control.
In the test of hypotheses related to the antecedents of
diversity climate, we also included several human capital
characteristics of the employee workforce as they may
systematically influence employee diversity climate per-
ceptions. These include highest level of education, length
of service, and years in the hotel industry. Finally, while
the agreement levels suggest consensus among respondents
in their assessment of the diversity climate, within-group
variability was present in the data. Consistent with past
research (e.g. Parker et al. 1997; Ployhart and Holtz 2008),
when considered at the sample level, minority employees
(M=3.53) rated diversity climate lower than the non-
minority employees (M=3.68), albeit marginally so in
this sample. Therefore, the percentage of minority indi-
viduals among employee respondents is included as an
additional control in these analyses.
In the test of the hypotheses related to the antecedents to
the adoption of diversity initiatives, several characteristics
of the management team were included as controls. These
included average length of service, years in the industry,
and highest level of education. Also included in this
analysis was the percent of minority representation in
management as minority managers may be more sensitive
to diversity related issues and therefore more inclined
toward adopting programs.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and coefficient alpha reliabil-
ities are provided for the organizational level study vari-
ables in Table 2. Hypothesis 1 stated that the existence of
diversity programs will be positively associated with
higher aggregate levels of employee perceptions for orga-
nizational support for diversity. As shown in Table 2, the
zero-order correlation between diversity programs and
diversity climate is statistically significant at r=.21
(p\.01). However, in order to test this hypothesis in the
presence of the controls, hierarchical linear regression was
performed. The results of this analysis are presented in
Table 3. As shown in Model 1, diversity climate was
regressed on the controls alone. In Model 2, diversity
programs were entered into the prediction model. This
resulted in a significant increase in DR
2
of .04 (p\.01).
Therefore, the existence of formal diversity programs adds
significantly to the prediction of diversity climate and
Hypothesis 1 is supported.
Further examining the proposed main effects of orga-
nizational cues on diversity climate, Hypothesis 2 stated
that degree of representation of minorities on the mana-
gerial team will be positively associated with collective
employee perceptions of diversity climate. Again, hierar-
chical linear regression was performed to test this
hypothesis. These results are presented in Table 3, Model
3. As shown, though the relationship is directionally
positive, the inclusion of the percent of minority employees
in management failed to increment the prediction of
diversity climate significantly. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not
supported.
Hypothesis 3 stated that the degree of minority repre-
sentation on the management team will moderate the
relationship between diversity perceptions and diversity
climate. In order to test for moderation, hierarchical linear
regression was used in two steps. Table 3, Model 4,
46 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
123
presents the results of this analysis. As shown, diversity
climate was regressed on both diversity programs and the
percent of minorities in management. Consistent with the
test for moderation, each variable was first centered and an
interaction term of diversity program 9percentage of
minorities was created (Aiken and West 1991). This vari-
able was entered as a second step, as reflected in Model 4.
The resulting beta coefficient and incremental change in R
2
produced a statistically significant increment in prediction
to the model with a DR
2
=.03 (p\.05). This fact sug-
gests that moderation is in fact present and, therefore,
Hypothesis 3 is supported. This relationship is depicted
visually in Fig. 2, showing the differences in slopes of the
relationship between diversity programs and diversity cli-
mate at one standard deviation above and below mean
levels of percent of minority managers.
This same analysis was performed to examine the pos-
sible role of a second moderating condition, managerial
relational values, on the relationship between diversity
programs and diversity climate. Following the same pro-
cedure described above, the interaction term diversity
program 9managerial relational values was included in
the prediction model. The results of this analysis are shown
in Table 3, Model 5. As shown, the inclusion of the
interaction term produces a change in DR
2
=.06
(p\.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is supported. This
relationship is presented visually in Fig. 3, again depicting
the slope of the relationship between diversity programs
and diversity climate at both one standard deviation above
and below the mean of managerial diversity. As shown,
though positive in both conditions, the magnitude of the
relationship between diversity programs and diversity cli-
mate is more pronounced in the high managerial relational
values condition.
Finally, Hypothesis 4 stated that managerial relational
values will be positively related to the existence of diver-
sity programs. Hierarchical linear regression was per-
formed to test this hypothesis. As shown in Table 4, Model
1 enters only the controls. Model 2 enters managerial
values into the prediction model resulting in a change
in DR
2
=.04 (p\.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is
supported.
Several post-hoc analyses were also conducted. As
shown in Table 4, Model 6 diversity programs, percent of
minority managers, managerial values, and both interaction
terms were entered simultaneously into the prediction
model. The collective DR
2
was .14 above the controls and
while the diversity program 9relational values interaction
term contributed significantly (b=.22, p\.01), the
interaction term diversity program 9percent minority
became non-significant. The possibility of a three-way
interaction was also tested with no significant effects
detected in these data. Finally, the possibility that these
Table 2 Mean, standard deviations and correlations for study variables
MSD123456789101112
1 Size 174.1 92.94
2 Number of respondents 15.56 10.34 0.67**
3 LOS—employees 2.84 1.95 0.55** 0.43**
4 YII—employees 5.48 2.91 0.60** 0.50** 0.77**
5 HLE—employees 2.38 0.37 0.03 0.09 -0.13 -0.13
6 Percent minority—employees 0.54 0.31 0.23** 0.10 -0.03 0.11 -0.16*
7 LOS—management 5.62 4.06 0.20** 0.24** 0.48** 0.34** 0.01 -0.27**
8 YII—management 14.89 5.74 0.43** 0.39** 0.35** 0.35** 0.12 -0.05 0.49**
9 HLE—management 3.16 0.77 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.15* -0.01 0.00
10 Diversity programs 2.73 1.35 0.11 0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.09 0.23** -0.16* -0.01 0.08
11 Percent minority—management 0.29 0.28 0.00 -0.09 -0.16* -0.11 -0.08 0.57** -0.23** -0.19* 0.13 0.03
12 Management relational values 3.56 0.28 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.09 0.14* -0.09 -0.06 -0.01 0.21** 0.12
13 Diversity climate 3.56 0.36 -0.13 -0.08 -0.13 -0.08 0.07 0.09 -0.15* -0.18* 0.02 0.21** 0.14 0.21**
N=163, LOS length of service, YII years in industry, HLE highest level of education
* Significant at p\.05; ** significant at p\.01
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53 47
123
relationships are non-linear was considered and tested.
Again, no significant effects were detected when squared
terms were created and entered into the prediction models.
Discussion
The intent of this study was to explore the influence of
several organizational characteristics in the development of
employee diversity climate. Toward this end, formal pro-
grams and actual racioethnic heterogeneity were examined
as influencers of aggregate, organizational level perceptions
of diversity climate. The overall model of hypothesized
relationships proposed in Fig. 1, with one exception, was
supported in these data. Because each of these variables
were drawn from separate groups of employees, thereby
minimizing demand effects or common method variance as
alternative explanations, this pattern is compelling.
Table 3 Regression results for diversity climate regressed on organizational characteristics
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
bSE bSE bSE bSE bSE bSE
Size -0.17 0.00 -0.16 0.00 -0.17 0.00 -0.12 0.00 -0.11 0.00 -0.07 0.00
Number of respondents 0.01 0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.17 0.02
LOS—employees -0.08 0.02 -0.09 0.02 -0.08 0.02 -0.12 0.02 -0.13 0.02 0.17 0.02
YII—employees 0.08 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.08 0.08
HLE—employees 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.08 -0.02 0.00
Percent minority—employees 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.12 -0.02 0.12 0.03 0.10 -0.04 0.12
Diversity programs 0.21** 0.02 0.22** 0.03 0.17* 0.03 0.17* 0.03
Percent minority—management 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.11 0.03
Management relational values 0.13 0.03 0.11 0.03
Diversity programs 9percent minority—
management
0.17* 0.03 0.12 0.03
Diversity programs 9management relational
values
0.25** 0.03 0.22** 0.03
R0.21 0.28** 0.23** 0.35** 0.40** 0.43**
R
2
0.04 0.08** 0.05** 0.12** 0.16** 0.18**
Adj. R
2
0.01 0.04** 0.01 0.07** 0.12** 0.12**
DR
2
0.04** 0.01 0.03* 0.06** 0.15**
N=163
* Significant at p\.05; ** significant at p\.01
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Diversity
Pro
g
rams
High Diversity
Pro
g
rams
Diversity Climate
Low Managerial
Diversity
High Managerial
Diversity
Fig. 2 Interaction between diversity programs and actual managerial
diversity in predicting employee diversity climate. Note: High and
low managerial diversity and diversity programs were represented at
one standard deviation above and below the mean, respectively
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low Diversity
Pro
g
rams
High Diversity
Pro
g
rams
Diversity Climate
Low Managerial
Relational Values
High Managerial
Relational Values
Fig. 3 Interaction between diversity programs and managerial rela-
tional values in predicting employee diversity climate. Note: High and
low managerial relational values and diversity programs were
represented at one standard deviation above and below the mean,
respectively
48 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
123
This study provides new evidence that the simple intro-
duction of diversity programs is not enough to affect
meaningful change in diversity climates. Research in the
effects of diversity programs has, historically, been posi-
tioned in the resource-based view of the firm (RBV) (Barney
1991,2001; Richard 2000). The RBV suggests that resour-
ces can serve as a source of sustained competitive advantage
to the degree that the resource is rare, inimitable, and not
readily substituted (Barney 1991). Further, for the resource
to rise to the definition of inimitability, it must be reliant on
causal ambiguity, historical reason or path dependencies
that preclude competitor replication (Barney 1991; Amit and
Schoemaker 1993). Clearly, simply establishing a diversity
program or achieving levels of diversity along racioethnic
lines fails this definition as they are readily replicated.
Diversity climate, however, is a telling indicator of the
efficacy of diversity efforts by providing insight into the
employee’s experience in the organization. Further, diver-
sity climate is emerging as an important intermediary out-
come in the prediction of key organizational and individual
outcomes (McKay et al. 2007; Gonzalez and DeNisi 2009).
Consistent with the RBV, this study provides evidence that
the relationship between diversity programs and diversity
climate is indeed complex and difficult to replicate. Future
research should be directed to the intricacies of the causes
and consequences of the diversity climate as a resource
capable of producing competitive advantage. In the fol-
lowing discussion these findings are discussed and sugges-
tions for future research are offered.
Shaping Employee Diversity Climate
The use of diversity programs was found to impact
employee perceptions of diversity climate. The level of
minority representation within the management teams was
also hypothesized to provide a salient and visible signal to
employees regarding the organization’s support for diver-
sity. This assertion was not supported as the relationship,
though directionally positive, was not statistically signifi-
cant. While past research has demonstrated same race
supervisors serve as an important determinant of employee
perceptions (Avery et al. 2007), the degree of minority
representation on the management team did not have a
meaningful impact on these global perceptions in these
data. It may be that the supervisor’s race serves as a
stronger and more salient indicator of diversity climate
than overall management team composition. If so, this
seems to suggest that the effects of supervisor race are best
understood on a more localized basis.
Interesting, however, was the significant interaction
between the diversity program measure and both the per-
cent of minorities in management and managerial relational
values in predicting aggregate levels of diversity climate.
Specifically, these findings suggest that the effects of for-
mal diversity programs on employee diversity climate are
stronger in circumstances where the management team is
more racially diverse and possess stronger relational val-
ues. Consistent with the signaling notion, these data sup-
port the idea that as employees experience and interpret the
organizational environment, they rely on multiple cues. A
second possibility is that more diverse management teams
are more supportive of diversity programs. In either case,
the efficacy of the diversity programs seems partially
reliant on the racial composition and values of the man-
agement team charged with its implementation. Because
understanding variation in the implementation practices
(rather than the formally stated though potentially unim-
plemented practices) is vital to furthering diversity
research, understanding the contextual factors influencing
the efficacy of diversity programs is an important area of
future research (Gonzalez and DeNisi 2009).
This is also the first study to date to directly assess these
managerial relational values from multiple representatives
of the senior management team and examine them in rela-
tionship to organizational policies decisions and employee
outcomes. Because managerial values are believed to serve
as the foundation for policy decisions regarding the
implementation of HR programs, this is an important area of
inquiry (Arthur and Boyles 2007; Becker and Gerhart
1996). Consistent with our prediction, support was found
for the relationship between managerial relational values
and the adoption of diversity programs. This finding is
potentially important in understanding variation in organi-
zational adoption of management practices. The collective
values of management teams may also manifest directly in
the nature and content of managerial interactions with
employees on a day to day basis. Therefore, future research
Table 4 Regression results for managerial values regressed on
diversity programs
Variable Model 1 Model 2
bSE bSE
Size 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00
Percent minority—management -0.02 0.40 -0.04 0.40
LOS—management -0.20* 0.03 -0.20 0.31
YII—management 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.23
HLE—management 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.14
Management relational values 0.20** 0.38
R0.23 0.30**
R
2
0.06 0.09**
Adj. R
2
0.03 0.04**
DR
2
0.04**
N=163
* Significant at p\.05; ** significant at p\.01
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53 49
123
should address how these values and attitudes manifest in
actual managerial behavior and decision-making affecting
employees that impacts the employee’s experience with the
organization.
However, because these measures of managerial rela-
tional values were developed conceptually to capture a
generalized ‘‘relational’’ perspective, this study provides an
incomplete picture of the attitudes and values important to
the adoption of progressive diversity initiatives. Therefore,
assessing and measuring other managerial value dimen-
sions may be necessary to better explain this relationship.
For example, it may be that directly assessing valuing of
diversity (De Meuse et al. 2007; Martins and Parsons 2007;
Riordan and Shore 1997), though conceptually related to
relational perspective assessed here, may enhance our
predictive ability. A related issue demanding additional
empirical attention is that the social desirability inherent in
‘‘valuing employees’’ may restrict the ability to tap vari-
ance in managerial values. Among assessed variables, the
mean levels of managerial relational values (l=3.75)
were the highest and the standard deviation (SD =.37)
was the lowest. Therefore, achieving greater ability to
effectively tap additional variance in managerial values
may yield additional insight not available in the current
data.
Further, while this study focused exclusively on orga-
nizational level relationships and therefore represented the
diversity climate as an overall characteristic of the orga-
nization, there may be important subgroup differences.
While agreement levels at each location supported our
aggregation decision, intra-organizational variability still
existed in this data. Understanding the sources and conse-
quences of this variability is important. For example,
demography has been shown to influence the way people
perceive different diversity policies and organizational
characteristics (Gonzalez and DeNisi 2009). Though the
moderating role of race and gender is well established,
future research should be directed to understanding how
other individual differences manifest in systematic differ-
ences in perceptions at the individual level of analysis
(Brickson 2000; De Meuse et al. 2007; Richard and Kirby
1997; Riordan and Shore 1997).
Additionally, factors that influence the levels of con-
sensus regarding an organization’s diversity climate (i.e.
climate strength, Schneider et al. 2002a) including social
processes, length of service in the organization, and rela-
tive exposure to salient programs and policies all represent
important future research directions. Finally, while we
demonstrated main effects between program implementa-
tion and mean level perceptions, our measures of both
diversity programs and diversity climate were generalized.
Specific dimensions of diversity programs, such as job
promotion policies, are potentially salient and important to
individuals in their assessments of diversity climate.
Therefore, more nuanced measures of both diversity pro-
grams and diversity climate would allow for a deeper
understanding of the relative importance of various aspects
of diversity initiatives.
Managerial Implications
Organizational investments in diversity related programs
and initiatives continue to grow (Carrell et al. 2006). One
critical assessment of these investments is the degree to
which they manifest in employee perceptions of the orga-
nization’s support for diversity. Organizations that make
strategic decisions to invest in diversity should have the
minimum expectation that these programs result in
employee perceptions that the organization supports
diversity. For this reason, this study has several important
implications for organizations. First, it provides evidence
that the establishment of diversity initiatives is important in
shaping employee perceptions that the organization values
diversity. However, these effects are not straightforward
and several contextual factors are important to maximizing
the efficacy of these initiatives. Clearly, investments in
diversity initiatives alone are not enough. On the contrary,
these data support a systems perspective in the deployment
of diversity initiatives in so far as multiple levers can and
should be utilized to fully impact employee perceptions.
For example, diversity programs without visible racioeth-
nic diversity among leadership seem to be less potent in
shaping employee perceptions. Perhaps, complimenting
diversity initiatives with actual diversity eliminates possi-
ble perceptions that the diversity initiatives represent
organizational ‘‘lip service’’ to achieving and leveraging
diversity.
Further, organizational attention to the values and
beliefs of the senior management team is warranted. In
short, the values of the managerial team charged with the
implementation of diversity initiatives impact the efficacy
of these programs in shaping perceptions. These findings
suggest that managerial values supportive of employees as
a strategic asset operate as lubricant in the collective sys-
tem—both increasing the likelihood of diversity program
adoption and increasing the efficacy of the established
programs in shaping employee perception. While mana-
gerial values, both in theory and practice, have been long
argued to be important, this offers supporting empirical
evidence. Indeed, it seems unlikely that the role of these
values is limited to growing the impact of diversity pro-
grams and may extend to other employee centered initia-
tives, programs, and outcomes. It would seem that
organizational attention to assessing and monitoring these
characteristics of the management team is reasonable, as
the ‘‘hands’’ in which the programs are entrusted matter.
50 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
123
Limitations
There are several features of this research design that may
limit the capacity to generalize the findings of this study to
other contexts. One limitation of this study is the relatively
narrow industry-specific focus of the investigation. While
affording enhanced control of extraneous influences on the
study variables, this study was conducted within a single
franchise company. This narrow focus may restrict the
capacity to generalize the results not only across other
industries, but also within the hospitality industry.
A second limitation relates to the use of cross-sectional
data in the test of these hypotheses. While we believe
there is theoretical justification for the direction of cau-
sation presented here, we cannot rule out reverse causality
as an alternative explanation for these results. For
example, organizations with better diversity climates may
attract and retain a more diverse managerial team. Simi-
larly, diversity climate may be a product of a larger
progressive HR system, leading to the attraction, selec-
tion, and retention of managerial teams with consistent
philosophies (Schneider et al. 2002b). These possibilities
need to be addressed in future research utilizing longitu-
dinal data to more fully account for the causal ordering of
the proposed effects.
Another limitation was the opportunity for some dis-
tortion of results through managerial influence—for
example, the selective distribution of surveys to certain
employees or failing to provide privacy to respondents.
This study used methodology in which the materials were
sent to each location and the General Manager or HR
Manager was made responsible for distributing and col-
lecting the surveys. While precautions were taken,
including individual envelopes and a sealed collection
box, this placed the custody of the surveys outside of the
researcher’s observation during completion. However,
these managers had little to gain by distorting results since
the primary benefit of their participation was the receipt
of a hotel ‘‘profile’’ report comparing their hotel to the
larger sample. The utility of this report to these managers
would be greatly diminished if the results were distorted.
Moreover, there was no evidence of tampering. The ideal
case, certainly, would have been to have direct researcher
observation of the survey distribution and collection pro-
cess. However, given the scope study and the geographic
disparity of the locations, this was not a practical possi-
bility and protocol seemed a sound solution.
Finally, the survey assessing diversity climate was dis-
tributed to only half of the employee workforce. While
response rates were extremely high by survey research
standards, a full response from all employees on either
survey would provide increased confidence in both the
mean level variables representing each hotel.
Conclusion
This study provided an organizational level investigation of
the determinants of overall levels of diversity climate
among employees. Taken together, this represents a first
attempt to understand how global employee perceptions of
diversity climate are developed and provides new insight
into the organizational characteristics important in this
regard. Several organizational characteristics were found to
be related to these perceptions and, more importantly, the
importance of understanding the interaction among these
factors was demonstrated. These findings underscore the
importance of research and practitioner attention to con-
textual factors influencing employee interpretation of
organizational diversity efforts. It is important that future
research build on this study both in understanding the
contextual factors important to shaping employee percep-
tions and how these perceptions influence the achievement
diversity program objectives.
Appendix
The following are the items used to assess managerial
relational values:
1. In my opinion, our employees’ capabilities are our
main source of competitive advantage.
2. In my opinion, employee commitment and motivation
are more important than location and hotel brand to the
success of any hotel.
3. My primary responsibility is to create an environment
that maximizes employee productivity and contribu-
tion level.
4. As long as employees continue to do a good job, they
can expect to stay here as long as they want.
5. Employees will work harder if I show that I care about
them personally.
6. For a management position, I would rather hire a
current employee with training needs than someone
from outside with no training needs.
7. One of my core responsibilities as a leader is to
prepare others for future promotion.
8. Providing job security to employees is a key manage-
ment responsibility.
9. I believe that it is management’s obligation to provide
all employees with long-term career opportunities.
References
Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion:
Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 44, 708–740.
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53 51
123
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and
organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 33–46.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization.
New York: Wiley.
Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of human resources systems on
manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 37(3), 670–687.
Arthur, J. B., & Boyles, T. (2007). Developing the human resource
system structure: A levels-based framework for strategic HRM
research. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 77–92.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D. C., & Tonidandel, S. (2007).
Unequal attendance: The relationships between race, organiza-
tional diversity cues, and attendance. Personnel Psychology, 60,
875–903.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Resource-based theories of competitive
advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view.
Journal of Management, 27, 643–650.
Baron, J. N., & Kreps, E. D. (1999). Strategic human resources. New
York: Wiley.
Becker, B. E., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource
management on organizational performance: Progress and
prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 779–803.
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level
correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1,
355–373.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J.
Klien & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multi-level theory, research
and methods in organizations. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-Firm
performance linkages: The role of the ‘‘strength’’ of the HRM
system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221.
Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual
and organizational outcomes in demographically diverse set-
tings. Academy of Management Review, 25, 82–101.
Carrell, M. R., Mann, E. E., & Sigler, T. H. (2006). Defining
workforce diversity programs and practices in organizations: A
longitudinal study. Labor Law Journal, 57, 5–12.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same
content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of
composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234–
246.
Cox, T. J. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity:
Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of
Management Executive, 5(3), 45–56.
Delery, J. E., & Doty, H. D. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic
human resources management: Tests of universalistic, contin-
gency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 802–835.
De Meuse, K., Hostager, T. J., & O’Neill, K. S. (2007). A longitudinal
evaluation of senior managers’ perceptions and attitudes of a
workplace diversity training program. Human Resource Plan-
ning, 30(2), 38–46.
Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Buckley, M. R., Harrell-Cook, G.,
& Frink, D. D. (1999). Human resource management: Some new
directions. Journal of Management, 25, 385–415.
Frankel, B. (2009). Debunking the SHRM study: Diversity is not a
casualty of the economy. DiversityInc.
Gelfand, M. J., Nishii, L., Raver, J., & Schneider, B. (2005).
Discrimination in organizations: A systems perspective. In
R. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Psychological and organiza-
tional bases of discrimination at work (pp. 89–116). New York:
Jossey Bass.
Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of
demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment
and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
30(1), 21–40.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social
performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality
workforce. Business and Society, 39, 254–280.
Guthrie, J. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and
productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 44, 180–190.
Guzzo, R. A., & Noonan, K. A. (1994). Expatriate managers and
the psychological contract. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
617–629.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference?
Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in
organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228.
Hickes-Clarke, D., & Iles, P. (2000). Climate for diversity and its
effects on career and organizational attitudes and perceptions.
Personnel Review, 29, 324–345.
Hogue, K. (1999). New approaches to HRM in the UK hotel industry.
Human Resource Management Journal, 9(2), 64–76.
Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context: A
multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 675–702.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on
team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implica-
tions. Journal of Management, 29, 801–830.
Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1995). Understanding human
resource management in the context of organizations and their
environments. In M. Rosenweig & L. Porter (Eds.), Annual
review of psychology (pp. 237–264). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.
Jeanquart-Barone, S. (1996). Implications of racial diversity in the
supervisor-subordinate relationship. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 26(11), 935–944.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Race and sex differences in
line managers’ reactions to equal employment opportunity and
affirmative action interventions. Group and Organization Man-
agement, 20, 409–439.
Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A
field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61–82.
Liao, H., & Rupp, D. E. (2005). The impact of justice climate and
justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci
framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 242–256.
Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Martins, L., & Parsons, C. (2007). Effects of gender diversity
management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The
role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 865–875.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McGregor, D. (1967). The professional manager. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2006). What has race got to do with it?
Unraveling the role of racioethnicity in job seekers reactions to
site visits. Personnel Psychology, 59, 395–429.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A.,
Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in
52 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53
123
employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key?
Personnel Psychology, 60, 35–62.
Mischel, W., & Mischel, H. N. (1976). A cognitive social learning
approach to morality and self-regulation. In T. Lickona (Ed.),
Moral development and behavior (pp. 84–107). New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level
diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effect of
team orientation and work processes on relationship conflict.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1015–1039.
O’Reilly, C., & Pfeffer, J. (2000). Hidden value: How great
companies achieve extraordinary results with ordinary people.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Park, H. J., Mitsuhashi, H., Fey, C. F., & Bjorkman, I. (2003). The
effect of human resource management practices on Japanese
MNC subsidiary performance: A partial mediating model.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14,
1391–1406.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. (1997). Support for
affirmative action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: A
study of gender and racial-ethnic group differences. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 376–389.
Pfeffer, J. (1998). The human equation: Building profits by putting
people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ployhart, R. E., & Holtz, B. C. (2008). The diversity–validity
dilemma: Strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex subgroup
differences and adverse impact in selection. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 61, 153–172.
Richard, O. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm
performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management
Journal, 43, 164–178.
Richard, O., & Kirby, S. (1997). Attitudes of white American male
students toward workforce diversity programs. Journal of Social
Psychology, 37, 784–786.
Richard, O., Murthi, B. P. S., & Ismail, K. (2007). The impact of
racial diversity on intermediate and long term performance: The
moderating role of environmental context. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 28, 1213–1233.
Riordan, C., & Shore, C. (1997). Demographic diversity and
employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational
demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 342–358.
Roberson, Q. M., & Park, H. J. (2007). Examining the link between
diversity and firm performance: The effects of diversity repu-
tation and leader racial diversity. Group and Organizational
Management, 32, 548–569.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations:
Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in
organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
2(2), 121–139.
Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the
adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 247–271.
Saks, A. M., & McCarthy, J. M. (2006). Effects of discriminatory
interview questions and gender on applicant reactions. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 21(2), 175–191.
Schneider, B. (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate
and culture for organizational change. Organizational Dynamics,
24(4), 6–19.
Schneider, B., Godfrey, E. G., Hayes, S. C., Huang, M., Lim, B. C.,
Nishii, L. H., et al. (2003). The human side of strategy:
Employee experiences of strategic alignment in a service
organization. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 122–141.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates.
Personnel Psychology, 36(2), 19–39.
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002a). Service
climate: A new direction for climate research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 220–229.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Paul, M. C. (2002b). Attraction-
selection-attrition model of organizational functioning. In M.
Erez, H. Thierry, & U. Kleinbeck (Eds.), Work motivation in the
context of a globalizing economy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 87, 355–374.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). Human resource practices,
citizenship behavior and organizational performance: A relational
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 558–577.
Tsui, A. S., Ashford, S. J., St. Clair, L., & Xin, K. (1995). Dealing with
discrepant expectations: Response strategies and managerial
effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1515–1543.
Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997).
Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relation-
ship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 1089–1121.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social
performance and organizational attraction. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 40, 658–673.
Walton, R. E. (1985). From control to commitment in the workplace.
Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 77–84.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity
in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw
& L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2007). Procedural justice
climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level
interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 681–692.
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:39–53 53
123
Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyright owner.Further reproductionprohibited withoutpermission.
