Journal of Applied Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association

2017, Vol. 102, No. 3, 483– 499 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000161

The Evolution and Future of Diversity at Work

Quinetta Roberson Ann Marie Ryan

Villanova University Michigan State University

Belle Rose Ragins

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee

This article examines the evolution of diversity in the Journal of Applied Psychology. To begin, we
explore foundations of the concept of diversity, including its appearance in both applied contexts and the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

scholarly literature. We then review the literature on diversity, including the development of its
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

conceptualization and operationalizations over time, in the Journal and in the field of applied psycho-
logical science at large. We also examine the processes underlying the effects of diversity, and specific
outcomes of diversity in organizations. To conclude, we offer a future research agenda that highlights
diversity-related topics and issues important for advancing an understanding of diversity and moving the
field forward, especially within the Journal. This work makes several contributions to research on
diversity in organizations. First, we provide a lens for examining change in the study of diversity over
time as well as a critical examination of the benefits and challenges associated with these changes.
Second, we review the underlying mechanisms and key contextual influences on diversity effects in
organizations. Third, our review examines the explanatory power of current diversity research and then
uses this to develop a research agenda. By organizing the broad body of literature that exists on diversity,
our article offers a sharp picture of what gaps in knowledge exist and where future research should focus.

Keywords: demography, dissimilarity, diversity, heterogeneity, intergroup relations

Since the term “workforce diversity” was first coined in the are covered elsewhere in this issue. To begin, we explore founda-
1990s, the topic has received consistent and increasing attention by tions of the concept of diversity, including its appearance in both
organizations, the business media, and the popular press. Given its applied contexts and the scholarly literature. We then review the
ubiquity, one might expect that diversity would also be the focus literature on diversity, including the development of its conceptu-
of a rich research literature in the organizational sciences. How- alization and operationalizations, dimensions and units of analysis
ever, as we discover, although the field has evolved, the field of examined, processes underlying its effects, and associated out-
industrial-organizational psychology has yet to truly understand comes examined. Based on this analysis, we highlight what we
the mechanisms and full array of outcomes associated with diver- have learned to-date regarding the meaning, import and operation
sity in the workplace. In other words, what do we know about of diversity in organizations and offer a future research agenda that
workplace diversity and how has theory and research evolved to highlights diversity-related topics and issues important for advanc-
inform our thinking on the topic? ing an understanding of diversity and moving the field forward,
This article will examine the evolution of diversity, which we especially within the Journal.
refer to as compositional differences and similarities among indi- Our review does have some boundaries. Although the term
viduals in a unit (group, department, organization), both inside and diversity refers to any basis for difference or variety, our review
outside of Journal of Applied Psychology. We focus on diversity as focuses more heavily on demographic differences (both visible and
distinct from topics like discrimination (i.e., prejudicial or biased invisible), given that these are the primary foci of research in this
treatment of individuals based on differences) or culture (attitudes, area. As research published in the Journal explores the meaning
customs, and beliefs that distinguishes a group of people), which and import of diversity from a psychological perspective, our
review has a primary focus on differences between individuals
working in groups. Our review also has a U.S.-centric lens given
the influence of U.S. social and legal contexts on the evolution of
This article was published Online First January 26, 2017. research in this area and the nature of studies published in the
Quinetta Roberson, Management & Operations, Villanova School of Journal. Although other recent reviews of the diversity literature
Business, Villanova University; Ann Marie Ryan, Department of Psychol- (e.g., Hebl & Avery, in press; Joshi & Roh, 2009) cover some of
ogy, Michigan State University; Belle Rose Ragins, Organizations &
the literature discussed here, our specific focus is on the Journal
Strategic Management, Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business, University
of Wisconsin–Milwaukee.
of Applied Psychology content as well as on diversity in terms of
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Quinetta similarities and differences in a unit rather than on phenomena at
Roberson, Management & Operations, Villanova School of Business, the individual level.
Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085. E-mail: This work makes several contributions to research on diversity
[email protected] in organizations. First, it provides a lens for examining change in
483
 484 ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

how diversity has been studied over time, and a critical examina- which were initially concentrated on protected classes of sex, race
tion of the benefits and challenges in those advancements. We feel and ethnicity (with a limited focus on disabilities, religion, age and
strongly that a review of the conceptual and methodological chal- other differences that were added later), and the publication of the
lenges that have faced diversity researchers provides a deeper Hudson Institute’s report on the changing workforce (Johnston &
understanding of the issues that have stalled, slowed, and redi- Packer, 1987). The Hudson Report forecasted that White males
rected diversity research along the way, and gives the field a would, for the first time, become the numerical minority in the
clearer path forward. Second, we provide a review of the under- workforce and that by the year 2000, women, immigrants, and
lying mechanisms and key contextual influences on, diversity people of color would represent a larger share of new entrants into
effects in organizations, to examine and enhance the explanatory the US workforce—a prediction that caught the attention of orga-
power of current diversity research. Third, we develop a future nizational leaders, human resource practitioners, and organiza-
agenda for contributing new knowledge on the cognitive, motiva- tional researchers. Coincidentally, there was some validity to the
tional, affective and behavioral implications of diversity. Hudson Report’s forecasts, labor force participation rates for
women and people of color increased more than 5% and 10%,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Preface: The Foundations of Diversity Research respectively (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015), in the 30
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

The field of workplace diversity is embedded in a nomological years since its publication.
network of theory and research from related fields and disciplines. Prior to the advent of diversity as a specific research focus,
Within the field of social psychology, social identity and catego- organizational researchers had paid some attention to the topics of
rization theories (Tajfel, 1978; Turner, 1982, 1987), which explore stereotyping and bias (reviewed elsewhere in this issue). For
the influence of self-concept and social comparisons, provide example, researchers had been studying women in management
insight into interpersonal interactions and intergroup relations. since the 1970s. While the field of women in management did not
Similarly, sociological theories of stigma (Goffman, 1974) and become fully established until 10 years later (Ragins & Gonzalez,
status characteristics (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972) help to 2003), such work examined gender differences in personality and
explain the emergence of group hierarchies and intergroup con- behavior. Around the time of the Hudson Report, demographic
flict. Other theoretical perspectives, which are reviewed later in trends became a topic of interest for those investigating workforce
this article, have also contributed to the development and concep- issues and conducting organizational research. Thomas (1991) and
tual foundation of diversity research. This nomological network Cox and Blake (1991) suggested a need to move from a focus on
for diversity is summarized in Figure 1 and offers a conceptual affirmative action and assimilation to a thoughtful and deliberate
framing for our review. focus on managing diversity. Their call was for the creation of
The term diversity started to receive widespread use in the early environments in which every member of the workforce could
1990s. This followed U.S. equal employment opportunity laws, perform to his or her potential, and where differences were lever-

Social identy Categorizaon

and elaboraon
categorizaon

Composion
& faultlines

Social Team
Demography informaon cognion
processing
Intergroup
relaons

Status
Prejudice
& sgma Discriminaon

Expectaon
states

Power
EEO &
Societal
law

Culture
Organizaon Climate HRM

Figure 1. Nomological network of the diversity research domain. See the online article for the color version
of this figure.
 THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK 485

aged as contributions to organizational competitiveness. Similarly, motion and turnover. Notably, this study was one of the first in
Cox (1993) viewed diversity as the representation “of people with Journal of Applied Psychology to consider demographic compo-
distinctly different group affiliations of cultural significance” sition as a unique, situational variable that influences career out-
within the organizational contexts in which it is situated (p. 6), and comes. A comparable study by Riordan and Shore (1997) inves-
called for research to understand the concept from individual, tigated the effects of individuals’ gender, racial– ethnic, and tenure
group and organizational perspectives. Such early work laid the similarities to the composition of their work groups on individual
groundwork for future research on diversity as a unique phenom- attitudes. Markedly, this was the earliest published article in the
enon and in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal to formally note the study of “demographic diversity”
within an organization and along with Jackson et al. (1991),
Prologue: Early Diversity Work in Journal of reflected a shift in thinking regarding differences between people
in work organizations and an upwelling of diversity research in the
Applied Psychology
decades that followed.
Although early mentions of “diversity” in Journal of Applied
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Psychology referred to variety in individuals’ interests or occupa-

Narrative: The Evolution of Diversity in Journal of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tions, rather than to individual differences or demographic cate-

Applied Psychology
gories, the topic actually appeared in its inaugural issue. Published
in March, 1917, “A Comparative Study of White and Negro To review the study of diversity within the Journal of Applied
Children” examined similarities and differences in grade school Psychology over the last 100 years, we searched for articles using
performance based on scores across demographic groups (Sunne, a coding scheme derived from the diversity literature. Given the
1917). Although the language used in the article is indicative of absence of established taxonomies of diversity, we developed a list
race relations at the time of the Journal’s inception, the author of diversity-related terms based on existing reviews of the litera-
concluded that variability in performance was due to differences in ture (e.g., Harrison & Klein, 2007; Mannix & Neale, 2005;
race, sex, and individual capacities. Another early mention of the Milliken & Martins, 1996; Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003; van Knip-
topic of diversity in the Journal was a 1927 book review (Rowles, penberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) and
1927), which focused on an examination of temperament and race meta-analytic studies of diversity effects (e.g., Bell, Villado, Lu-
in Hawaii. While the review also reflected the prejudice and kasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011; Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000;
discrimination of the times by comparing the “cranial capacity” of Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Webber & Dona-
groups and highlighting “the importance of classifying children hue, 2001). Although more than 150 articles published in the
into the proper social groups,” it qualified such viewpoints by Journal have examined the main and moderating effects of demo-
noting that “we are beginning to see that there are few bases for graphic attributes on cognitive, motivational, affective, and behav-
our exalted opinion of the white races” (p. 248). ioral phenomena, most of them focus on such attributes as an
For the next 50 years, diversity-related research appearing in individual characteristic. Our inquiry showed that although a va-
Journal of Applied Psychology primarily focused on the investi- riety of terms have been used interchangeably to refer to diversity,
gation of group differences in general intelligence and perfor- researchers have primarily relied upon 12 keywords to refer to
mance as well as on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping, demographic composition as a contextual property— diverse, di-
prejudice and discrimination (reviewed elsewhere in this issue). versity, demographic, demography, dissimilarity, similarity, dis-
Interestingly, however, most of this work appeared in the Journal persion, heterogeneity, homogeneity, heterogeneous, homoge-
in relation to occupational stereotypes until its first mention in neous, and inequality. Accordingly, we use these terms to search
connection with sex and race in the 1970s (see Rosen & Jerdee, Journal of Applied Psychology and identify prior empirical re-
1973). As applied psychology research advanced, diversity be- search that examined diversity as a structural property of organi-
came the focus of organizational researchers who were primarily zational work units. As discussed earlier, our review focuses on
interested in group differences in job performance and specific differences between people at the group level of analysis rather
practice areas. Researchers also focused on differences as individ- than on specific demographic categories, dyadic similarity, or
ual dissimilarity, acknowledging the impact of personal variables, individual differences, as such research is reviewed elsewhere in
such as sex and ethnicity, on people’s employment experiences this issue. Based on these criteria, we identified 27 empirical
and incorporating these factors into their research designs (Gitter, diversity studies published in the Journal. To organize this body of
Altavela, & Mostofsky, 1974; Rosenbaum, 1973). Following these work and understand key contributions to date, we coded the
studies, research published in Journal of Applied Psychology in- studies according to their focal unit of analysis, conceptualization
creasingly considered the effects of demographic characteristics on and type of diversity, operationalization of diversity, theoretical
work phenomena, such as personnel selection, training, perfor- foundations, and outcomes (see Table 1). In the sections below, we
mance evaluation, and job attitudes. trace the evolution of diversity research along these aspects, high-
Consistent with increased attention given to changing workforce lighting influential findings and conclusions from studies pub-
demographics and the subsequent impact on the workplace, re- lished both in and outside of the Journal of Applied Psychology.
searchers in the Journal recognized a need to examine demo-
graphic similarities and differences between employees as a
Diversity Conceptualizations and Dimensions
unique phenomenon. For example, Jackson and her colleagues
(1991) integrated psychological and sociological perspectives on In the field. As researchers have attempted to understand the
demography to explore the influence individual dissimilarity from construct of diversity, several conceptualizations of diversity have
groups and group heterogeneity on patterns of recruitment, pro- emerged. For example, two-factor conceptualizations that differ-
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1
486
Narrative: The Evolution of Diversity Theory and Research

Study Conceptualization Dimension(s) Theory Unit of analysis Operationalization Outcomes

Avery (2003) Diversity cues Gender, race Relational demography Website advertisements Demographic Organizational
composition of attractiveness
pictures
Avery, McKay, & Similarity with supervisor, Gender, race Relational demography, Individuals Coded (e.g., similar, Prevalence of
Wilson (2007) coworkers, and prototypes of dissimilar, perceived
community prejudice, social balanced) discrimination
identity
Bezrukova, Thatcher, Faultlines, or alignment in Education, functional Faultlines, Middle-management Strength (i.e., % of Performance
Jehn, & Spell individual group background, tenure organizational groups and total variation
(2012) member attributes that culture departments accounted for by
create subgroups the strongest
group split) and
distance (i.e.,
between subgroup
centroids)
Bhave, Kramer, & Demographic dissimilarity Gender, tenure, Social information University departmental Euclidean distance Work-family
Glomb (2010) in work groups marital status, processing theory or functional measure conflict
number of workgroups
dependents
Chattopadhyay, Proportion of dissimilar Gender, national Relational demography, Student work groups Proportion (%) Prototype
George, & peers in a work group origin self-categorization clarity, self-
Lawrence (2004) theory prototypicality
Carton & Cummings Faultlines Gender, age, Faultlines, Work teams Algorithm of Performance
(2013) business unit, categorization- number and
reporting channel elaboration model balance of
subgroups within
the team
Chen, Liu, & Employees’ shared N/A Climate, trait Diversity climate Aggregated Cross-cultural
ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

Portnoy (2012) perceptions of a firm’s activation. Cultural employee sales

value for diversity intelligence perceptions
Ellis, Mai, & Faultlines Task goals Faultlines, Experimental student Manipulated Performance
Christian (2013) categorization- groups composition (i.e.,
elaboration model homogeneous or
heterogeneous
teams)
Fisher, Bell, Variety, or qualitative Gender, race, Team mental models, Experimental student Blau’s index of Team mental
Dierdorff, & categorical differences personality Multilevel theory groups heterogeneity models,
Belohlav (2012) among members of a implicit
team coordination,
performance
Glomb & Welsh Dissimilarity on certain Personality Interpersonal Supervisor-subordinate Pattern of results of Satisfaction with
(2005) characteristics interaction theory dyads polynomial supervisor,
regression organizational
equations of citizenship
progressively behavior,
higher order work
withdrawal
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 1 (continued)

Study Conceptualization Dimension(s) Theory Unit of analysis Operationalization Outcomes

Hoever, van Team characteristic Perspectives (i.e., Categorization- Experimental student Manipulated Information
Knippenberg, van denoting the extent to functional roles) elaboration model groups composition (i.e., elaboration,
Ginkel, & which members differ homogeneous or creativity
Barkema (2012) with regard to a given heterogeneous
attribute groups)
Homan, van Faultlines and differences Gender, bogus Categorization- Experimental student Subgroup alignment Performance,
Knippenberg, van in knowledge bases and personality elaboration model, groups and manipulated group
Kleef, & De Dreu perspectives that feedback faultlines distribution of information
(2007) members bring to the information elaboration
group across group
members
Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Individual dissimilarity Age, tenure, gender, Attraction-selection- Top management teams Euclidean distance Promotion,
Cooper, Julin, & from a group and group education, attrition, measure and turnover
Peyronnin (1991) heterogeneity experience (work organizational coefficient of
& military), demography variation
function, status
Kearney & Gebert A characteristic of a social Age, nationality, Categorization- R&D teams Blau’s index of Team
(2009) grouping that reflects education elaboration model heterogeneity identification,
the degree to which information
there are differences elaboration,
among people within performance
the group
Martins & Parsons Programs focused on Gender Signaling, social Diversity programs Manipulated Organizational
(2007) increasing representation identity theory composition and attractiveness
in senior management diversity
and providing career programs
development
opportunities
Mohammed & Dispersion of task-related, Polychronicity Similarity-attraction, Cross-functional work Within-group Performance
Nadkarni (2014) individual differences team cognition, teams standard deviation
within a team person-organization
fit
Nishii & Mayer Dissimilarity in member Gender, race, age Relational demography, Work departments Blau’s index of Turnover
(2009) attributes within a unit LMX, social heterogeneity,
THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK

categorization, standard deviation

expectation states
Pearsall, Ellis, & Faultlines Gender Faultlines Experimental student Manipulated Creativity,
Evans (2008) teams composition (i.e., emotional
homogeneous or conflict
heterogeneous
teams)
Pugh, Dietz, Brief, & Proportion of demographic Race Climate Customer service units Proportion (%) Diversity
Wiley (2008) heterogeneity in a group climate
or organization;
employee perceptions of
practices, policies and
procedures
(table continues)
487
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

488
Table 1 (continued)

Study Conceptualization Dimension(s) Theory Unit of analysis Operationalization Outcomes

Rico, Sanchez- Faultlines Gender, education Faultlines, intergroup Experimental student Manipulated Information
Manzanares, major relations, status teams composition (i.e., elaboration,
Antino, & Lau characteristics and subgroup performance
(2012) expectation states; alignment)
social categorization
Riordan & Shore Individual dissimilarity in Gender, race, tenure Relational demography Work groups Interaction term Commitment,
(1997) demographic attributes (individual cohesion,
to the composition of a demographic perceived
social unit characteristic x opportunities
workgroup for
demographic advancement,
composition) productivity
Roberson & Stevens Conditions, events, and Gender, race Climate, sensemaking Experiences at work Natural language Justice, language
(2006) situations involving accounts of bias
people who are incidents or
demographically similar events
or dissimilar
Sacco & Schmitt Demographic variability Gender, race, age Relational demography, Individuals and business Blau’s index of Turnover,
(2005) within business units multilevel theory, units of quick-service heterogeneity controllable
social identity & restaurants profit
categorization,
person-organization
fit, attraction-
selection-attrition
Shin & Zhou (2007) Heterogeneity on Educational Value-in-diversity, R&D teams Blau’s index of Creativity
knowledge-based specialization social information heterogeneity
characteristics among processing, relational
members of a team demography, social
ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

identity, multilevel
theory
Thatcher & Patel Faultlines Gender, race, age, Faultlines, Meta-analysis Strength (e.g., latent Conflict,
(2011) function, education categorization- class analysis, cohesion,
level, tenure elaboration model ratio measures, satisfaction,
clustering performance
algorithms)
Walker, Feild, Website cues Race, diversity goals Elaboration likelihood Websites Manipulated Viewing time,
Bernerth, & & initiatives model, social identity composition and recall,
Becton (2012) company organizational
information attractiveness
Wegge, Roth, Distribution of differences Gender, age Similarity-attraction, Work unit teams Heterogeneity Performance,
Neubach, Schmidt, among members of a information index, standard health
& Kanfer (2008) unit with respect to a processing, social deviation disorders
common attribute identity, multilevel
theory
Note. This table includes studies published in the Journal of Applied Psychology using the following search terms: diverse, diversity, demographic, demography, dissimilarity, similarity, dispersion,
heterogeneity, homogeneity, heterogeneous, homogeneous, and inequality. In addition, it focuses on empirical diversity studies examining diversity as a structural property of organizational work units.
 THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK 489

entiate between observable diversity attributes, such as gender and graphically dissimilar others or toward diversity as a group char-
age, and less salient or deep-level characteristics, such as attitudes acteristic. Similarly, researchers have explored ideological beliefs,
and values, have been proposed (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; or social shared knowledge structures regarding intergroup rela-
Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995). Researchers have also bifur- tions (see Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009; Major, Kaiser, O’Brien,
cated diversity attributes according to their level of job- & McCoy, 2007; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004), as an important
relatedness, or the degree to which each attribute captures the dimension of diversity that influences individuals’ attitudes to-
knowledge, skills, and abilities relevant to the performance of ward, and evaluations of, others. Whereas diversity and ideological
cognitive tasks in groups (Pelled, 1996; Simons, Pelled, & Smith, beliefs focus on individuals’ own attitudes toward diversity, other
1999). Other conceptualizations have adopted a more composi- research has focused on the perceived perspective of the work-
tional perspective, focusing on the amount of diversity within group or organization. Specifically, diversity climate research has
groups as the variable of interest. Inspired by Blau’s (1977) and considered employees’ shared perceptions of an organization’s
Kanter’s (1977) work on the influence of proportions on interac- value for diversity and its related policies and practices (Hicks-
tions between demographically dissimilar groups, such approaches Clarke & Iles, 2000; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; McKay et al., 2007;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

presuppose that the percentage of any minority within a group will Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

influence the quality of relations between group members. Accord- In the Journal. Columns 2 and 3 of Table 1 summarize how
ingly, this conceptualization centers on relative differences, or the the conceptualization of diversity and diversity type varied across
distribution of differences within a work unit, and examines its studies in the Journal. Much of the diversity research in Journal of
effects on outcomes across levels of analysis (see Williams & Applied Psychology has utilized a proportional approach to study
O’Reilly, 1998). the phenomenon. Specifically, approximately half of the studies
Researchers have also proposed multifaceted conceptualizations we reviewed for this article conceptualize diversity as categorical
of diversity that reconcile categorical approaches and consider differences among members of work units or the proportion of
interactions between demographic attributes. Lau and Murnighan dissimilarity on certain attributes within work groups. For exam-
(1998) offered a theory of faultlines, which are assumed lines of ple, Chattopadhyay, George, and Lawrence (2004) investigated
demarcation based on group member attributes that divide a group whether demographic dissimilarity, conceptualized as the propor-
into smaller, identity subgroups. Faultline strength is considered to tion of students working in groups in which they are dissimilar
be dependent upon the number of observable attributes and the from their peers on key demographic characteristics, influences
relationship between these attributes, such that more and highly self-categorization processes. Similarly, arguing that categorical
correlated attributes will cause group members to identify more differences, such as age, nationality and academic field, expand the
strongly with their subgroups than with the larger groups. Such range of task-related information and experience within R&D
divisions are also likely to result in status differences, which teams, Kearney and Gebert (2009) conceptualized diversity as
negatively impact group processes and functioning (Lau & Mur- variety as a characteristic of teams that reflects the degree to which
nighan, 2005). there are differences between members on task-relevant categories.
To reconcile these conceptualizations of diversity, Harrison and Other research published in Journal of Applied Psychology has
Klein (2007) proposed a typology that distinguishes between three analogously utilized a compositional conceptualization of diver-
forms of dispersion within work units—separation, variety and sity, focusing on the distribution of difference on a common
disparity. Separation represents differences in members’ position attribute within a work unit (Wegge et al., 2008) or attribute
along a single continuous attribute, such as values or attitudes. similarity among members across levels of analysis (e.g., Avery,
Accordingly, diversity characterizes disagreement or opposition McKay, & Wilson, 2007). By considering the dispersion of dif-
between work unit members on that attribute. In contrast, variety ferences within units as well as cross-level effects of demographic
captures qualitative differences on categorical attributes, such as proportions, such research has been important for highlighting
functional background or other sources of knowledge and experi- diversity as an important contextual variable that drives intergroup
ence, and reflects diversity in unit members’ unique or distinctive relations and subsequently, employee attitudes and behavior.
information. Beyond personal attributes, Harrison and Klein Consistent with research outside of the Journal, a growing
(2007) also conceptualize diversity as disparity, or differences in number of studies published in Journal of Applied Psychology
access to, or ownership of, socially valued resources, such as have conceptualized diversity in terms of faultlines (e.g., Bezru-
privilege or status. Diversity, in this case, represents inequality or kova, Thatcher, Jehn, & Spell, 2012; Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares,
the relative concentration of desired resources within a work unit. Antino, & Lau, 2012; Thatcher & Patel, 2011). Focused on the
Overall, by both distinguishing and articulating differences in the alignment of member attributes that create subgroups, such re-
forms and meanings of diversity types, Harrison and Klein’s search examines differences in demographic attributes, such as
(2007) article offered a more precise specification of diversity as a gender (Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008), and the knowledge bases
construct and was influential to advancing its conceptualization. that members bring to the work unit, such as task goals (Ellis, Mai,
Although most diversity research has focused on the meaning & Christian, 2013). However, studies have also explored the
and import of diversity as an objective construct, researchers have alignment of both categorical and continuous attributes (Carton &
also considered psychological conceptualizations of diversity. Cummings, 2013; Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, & De
Such work focuses cognitions about diversity, its value in organi- Dreu, 2007), thereby capturing diversity in members’ attitudes and
zations, and the nature of the social world in general. For example, knowledge.
van Knippenberg and his colleagues (van Knippenberg & Haslam, Although research on variation in culture has traditionally been
2003; van Knippenberg, Haslam, & Platow, 2007) developed the subsumed by the literature on international and cross-cultural
concept of diversity beliefs, described as attitudes toward demo- issues (see Gelfand, Erez, Aycan & Leung article in this issue), an
 490 ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

article published in Journal of Applied Psychology offered a mul- be influenced by the amount of demographic similarity within
tidimensional conceptualization of diversity as culture. Consider- work units. More specifically, based on those demographic attri-
ing the embeddedness of values in the social identity of individ- butes that are relevant components of an individual’s self-
uals, Chao and Moon (2005) put forth a taxonomy for capturing definition, work units will become more attractive to the degree
the complexity of multiculturalism in organizations. Specifically, that such attributes are shared by others in a work unit. Further, as
they proposed demographic, geographic and associative features of people are motivated to maintain positive self-evaluations, greater
culture that represent physical characteristics, natural features of a demographic similarity within groups will generate more positive
region or group affiliations, respectively and shape interactions attitudes and work relations. On the other hand, as demographic
between individuals. By offering a nonlinear and dynamic concep- attributes are a basis for intergroup differentiation, dissimilarity on
tualization of diversity, Chao and Moon’s (2005) “cultural mosaic” key dimensions of identity is likely to impair social processes, such
perspective provides researchers with an approach to better iden- as communication and cohesion, within work units (Williams &
tify and predict patterns of behavior in multicultural organizations. O’Reilly, 1998).
Although the majority of diversity studies published in Journal In contrast to identity-related theories of diversity, research has
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

of Applied Psychology have examined diversity from an objective postulated that the positive potential of diversity is in its informa-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

perspective, some researchers have employed a perceptual concep- tional benefits. Referred to as the “value-in-diversity” hypothesis
tualization. Consistent with external diversity climate studies, re- (Cox & Blake, 1991), or the informational/decision-making per-
searchers have focused on employees’ shared perceptions of the spective (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), this viewpoint establishes
extent to which their organization values diversity (e.g., Chen, Liu, that dissimilarity in work units broadens the range of perspectives
& Portnoy, 2012; Pugh, Dietz, Brief, & Wiley, 2008). Similarly, a and other cognitive resources at their disposal. Research suggests
study by Roberson and Stevens (2006) investigated employee that such dissimilarity exposes members of work units to minority
recollections of diversity incidents at work—specifically, condi- opinions and more creative alternatives and solutions, while pro-
tions, events, and situations involving people who are demograph- viding access to a larger and more varied social network (see
ically similar or dissimilar. As scholars also suggest that organizations Mannix & Neale, 2005). Thus, with greater access to task-relevant
proactively manage diversity perceptions through information given information and expertise, groups have greater ability to engage in
to potential 1employees, research has observed the effects of di- quality problem-solving and decision-making. Put simply, this
versity signals or cues (e.g., Avery, 2003; Walker, Feild, Bernerth, perspective reasons that diversity as an informational resource can
& Becton, 2012). Despite variation in the form of the diversity lead to performance benefits in work units.
construct, these studies in combination demonstrate the theoretical Beyond the value-in-diversity perspective, diversity research
meaningfulness of perceptual conceptualizations of diversity. has drawn upon a social information processing perspective. Ac-
cording to this perspective, social interactions are organizational
events that offer shared meaning, and thus can be interpreted to
Diversity Theoretical Foundations
resolve ambiguity and form impressions of individuals and orga-
Outside the Journal. Diversity research has historically drawn nizations (Weick, 1995). Consistent with social psychological the-
from a number of social-psychological theories of intergroup rela- ories of identity construction and maintenance, people are believed
tions. Social identity (Tajfel, 1978) and self-categorization theories to use such interactions to categorize self and others, and form
(Turner, 1982), which articulate processes through which individ- impressions of their work environments. Further, as posited by
uals make sense of, and locate themselves within their social climate theorists, employees garner information from workplace
environments, help to explain the mechanisms through which conditions and other salient stimuli to describe, interpret and attach
individuals relate to others via their group memberships. The meaning to their work environments (Schneider & Reichers,
theories propose that because individuals’ self-definitions are 1983). Therefore, demographic dissimilarity and other psycholog-
shaped by their group memberships, they are motivated to enhance ically relevant occurrences involving diversity may be used to do
their self-concept by seeking a positively valued distinctiveness for sensemaking and form perceptions about their workplace and
those groups. Accordingly, they engage in social comparisons to those with whom they work. In other words, diversity and related
differentiate between their in-groups and relevant out-groups, experiences may shape diversity climate perceptions.
which accentuate similarities among individuals sharing group Inside the Journal. Column 4 of Table 1 provides a listing of
memberships and differences among those belonging to different the primary theories that informed studies in the Journal. Several
identity groups. Self-categorization theory also suggests that de- of the diversity studies we reviewed drew upon either social
mographic characteristics may be used to classify individuals into psychological theories of intergroup relations (including relational
social categories, and therefore may serve as the basis on which demography) or the value-in-diversity hypothesis, dependent upon
individuals define themselves as members of a social group and the type of diversity examined. However, researchers adopted a
engage in intergroup behavior (Turner, 1987). The similarity- more integrative theoretical perspective after the introduction of
attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) offers a related conceptual the Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM; van Knippenberg,
justification for diversity effects within social units, as individuals De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), published in Journal of Applied
are posited to be attracted to those with whom they possess similar Psychology. In an effort to unify and reconcile the influences of
characteristics and attitudes, which subsequently influences social social categorization and information processing in diverse groups,
interactions and intergroup relations. van Knippenberg and his colleagues (2004) put forth a model to
These theories provide the conceptual foundation for relational articulate how intergroup biases engendered by diversity may
demography (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Tsui & O’Reilly, disrupt information exchange and integration processes that are
1989), which predicts that individuals’ attitudes and behavior will core to realizing the synergetic benefits of diversity as an infor-
 THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK 491

mational resource. The authors argue that although preventing versity as separation is assumed to be assessed on interval scales
such biases is important to realizing the potential benefits of and the authors recommend measurement using the within-unit
diversity, doing so is not enough to stimulate the processes that standard deviation or average Euclidean distance of each mem-
require active engagement with diversity. Instead, the exchange ber’s attribute from all other members. In contrast, Blau’s (1977)
and integration of perspectives and cognitive resources within the index or Teachman’s (1980) entropy index are considered to be
group, or information elaboration, is critical for experiencing the appropriate operationalizations of diversity as variety, which is
positive effects of diversity on group performance. Consistent with assumed to be measured via categorical scales. To capture the
their call for more process-oriented approaches to the study of asymmetry in socially valued resources that is fundamental to
diversity in organizational work units, research published within conceptualizations of diversity as disparity, the authors propose
the Journal has increasingly explored how and why social cate- using coefficients of variation or a Gini index to appropriately
gorization processes affects elaboration processes, and mecha- capture such dispersion. In general, Harrison and Klein (2007)
nisms for mitigating disruptive effects while enhancing informa- suggest that establishing a match between the conceptualization
tion processing (e.g., Carton & Cummings, 2013; Ellis, Mai, & and operationalization of diversity is critical for achieving greater
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Christian, 2013; Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & sensitivity of measurement and subsequently, insight into the op-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Barkema, 2012; Homan et al., 2007; Kearney & Gebert, 2009; eration and effects of diversity.
Thatcher & Patel, 2011). Inside the Journal. Columns 5 and 6 of Table 1 provide a
Other studies reviewed for this article draw upon social infor- summary of diversity units of analysis and operationalizations in
mation processing theories. Roberson and Stevens (2006) relied the Journal. Although one study focused on dissimilarity within
upon sensemaking as a theoretical foundation to uncover patterns supervisor-subordinate dyads (see Glomb & Welsh, 2005), most of
in employee accounts of diversity-related incidents at work. Spe- the research reviewed was conducted using work groups in labo-
cifically, they analyzed situations involving demographic similar- ratory and field settings, although most were done in the latter
ity and dissimilarity for issues of fairness and attributions about, context. Specifically, such research focused on the demographic
and expectations for, ingroup/outgroup behavior. Within a recruit- composition of intact work teams, departments and business units.
ment context, research published in Journal of Applied Psychology In contrast, the experimental studies reviewed manipulated diver-
has also examined how individuals do sensemaking about com- sity within groups (particularly, in student work groups and re-
pany diversity information and the subsequent effects on organi- cruitment advertisements) based on the presence/absence of dif-
zational attraction (Avery, 2003; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Walker ferences (e.g., Ellis et al., 2013; Hoever et al., 2012; Pearsall et al.,
et al., 2012). The results of these studies revealed group differ- 2008) or on varying distributions of differences (e.g., Avery, 2003;
ences in viewing times, information recall and/or perceptions of Homan et al., 2007; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Rico et al., 2012;
organizational attractiveness, thus suggesting differential process- Walker et al., 2012). Research design notwithstanding, it is im-
ing of diversity cues. As other research published in the Journal portant to note that we identified several papers (18) in our review
explores and provides evidence of diversity climate (e.g., Chen et that have used Harrison and Klein’s (2007) typology since its
al., 2012; Pugh et al., 2008), or the shared meanings that employ- introduction to the literature, thus indicating that recent research
ees attach to an organization’s diversity-related policies and prac- between different forms of diversity within organizational work
tices, there is further empirical support for diversity sensemaking units and their subsequent influence on unit-level outcomes.
processes in organizations. Although most of the work reviewed here has focused on
diversity as a compositional construct, a few exceptions have
examined more perceptual representations of diversity. For exam-
Diversity Units of Analysis and Operationalizations
ple, Chen et al. (2012) assessed sales agents’ diversity climate
Outside the Journal. Although employees may differ from perceptions and the subsequent influence on employees’ interac-
others in an organization along innumerable dimensions, diversity tions with culturally diverse consumers. Similarly, Roberson and
is considered to be a given attribute within an organizational unit. Stevens (2006) analyzed employees’ natural language accounts of
Specifically, diversity describes the composition of the unit as a diversity-related incidents in the workplace to gain insight into
whole rather than differences between unit members. Accordingly, how such experiences are interpreted and stored in memory. Al-
diversity research has primarily focused on its operation within though these studies offer only a couple of examples of method-
work groups and teams, departments, and other business units. ologies for gaining insight into employees’ diversity experiences,
Various measures have been used to represent diversity within they highlight the value of psychological representations of diver-
work units. Following a dispersion composition model (Chan, sity phenomena.
1998), which uses data from a lower level of analysis to establish
a higher level construct and treat within-group variance in indi-
Diversity Outcomes
vidual responses as a focal construct, research considers attribute
dissimilarity to be a meaningful phenomenon. Specifically, within- Outside the Journal. Several meta-analytic studies provide
group variance is expected to vary across groups and to be asso- evidence of the effects of heterogeneity within work units on
ciated with important employee and organizational outcomes. To unit-level outcomes. Bowers et al. (2000) integrated effect sizes
capture the compositional pattern of differences within a unit, from 13 studies to examine the effects of team member simi-
Harrison and Klein (2007) explain the appropriate operationaliza- larity (or dissimilarity) across different attributes on team per-
tion for each form of diversity in their typology. Because separa- formance. With a focus on gender, ability level, and personality
tion represents differences in values, beliefs and attitudes, and diversity, the results showed the combined effect sizes to be
signals perceptual disagreement between work unit members, di- small and not statistically significant, although supportive of
 492 ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

the performance benefits of heterogeneous teams. Considering the recollection of diversity-related incidents at work (see Rob-
the significance and size of the effects reported in the studies erson & Stevens, 2006), research published in the Journal
included in their meta-analysis, the authors conclude that the highlights the impact of work unit composition and interactions
influence of diversity on performance can be attributed to task between unit members on diversity-related cognitions and atti-
type and difficulty. Similarly, Webber and Donahue (2001) tudes.
meta-analyzed effect sizes from 24 studies and did not find Research published in the Journal also provides evidence of the
statistically significant relationships between diversity attri- effects of diversity on more general attitudes and behavior. For
butes of varying degrees of job relatedness and work group example, studies have established a relationship between dissim-
cohesion and performance. Accordingly, the authors offered ilarity on certain characteristics among members of a work unit
explanations regarding the potential moderating effects of or- and individual attitudes, such as satisfaction and commitment, and
ganizational context, measurement and time. As these and sim- behavior, such as work withdrawal and turnover (e.g., Glomb &
ilar studies demonstrated equivocal findings regarding the ef- Welsh, 2005; Jackson et al., 1991; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Riordan
fects of diversity based on the types of diversity and team
& Shore, 1997). Research also provides evidence of diversity
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

outcome examined (e.g., Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007), research-

effects on more personal outcomes, such as work-family conflict
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ers began meta-analyzing the findings of diversity-performance

and health disorders (Bhave, Kramer, & Glomb, 2010; Wegge et
work with a greater level of specification and attention to
al., 2008). Beyond these demonstrated effects on current employ-
context (e.g., Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011;
ees, diversity effects on potential employees have also been sug-
Joshi & Roh, 2009; van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg,
2012). Accordingly, extant research suggests that the concep- gested by the findings of research examining the influence of
tualization of diversity and contextual factors at the occupa- demographic heterogeneity and other diversity-related information
tional, industry, team, and rater levels of analysis may explain in company websites and recruitment materials on organizational
differences in the performance effects of demographic and attraction (Avery, 2003; Martins & Parsons, 2007; Walker et al.,
job-related diversity. Such work highlights the importance of 2012).
accounting for the influence of study setting, team type, the Much of the research published in Journal of Applied Psy-
conceptualization and measurement of diversity, and perfor- chology on diversity effects has focused on group-level out-
mance criteria in research examining the effects of work group comes—specifically, the influence of heterogeneity in member
diversity. attributes on process and performance variables. Some studies
Broad reviews of the diversity literature also highlight a rela- have explored the impact of diversity on team processes, such
tionship between diversity and business performance. For exam- as creativity, cohesion, conflict, coordination and team mental
ple, Reis, Castillo, and Dobon (2007) explore relationships between models (e.g., Fisher, Bell, Dierdorff, & Belohlav, 2012; Pearsall
relations- and task-oriented diversity attributes and performance at et al., 2008; Shin & Zhou, 2007; Thatcher & Patel, 2011),
the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis across whereas others, particularly faultline studies, have focused on
the fields of psychology, sociology, and management. Incorporat- performance outcomes (e.g., Bezrukova et al., 2012; Carton &
ing both experimental and field research as well as quantitative and Cummings, 2013; Ellis et al., 2013; Mohammed & Nadkarni,
qualitative research, their review of 50 years of research draws atten- 2014). Jointly exploring these outcomes, several studies have
tion to complexities in the diversity-performance relationship. Mc- also shown effects of diversity, particularly on task-related dimen-
Mahon (2010) conducted a more focused review of the litera- sions, on information elaboration and performance (Homan et al.,
ture on diversity and firm performance, and developed a model 2007; Hoever et al., 2012; Kearney & Gebert, 2009; Rico et al.,
highlighting different types of workplace diversity and indica- 2012), offering support for the categorization-elaboration model of
tors of firm performance, mediating, and moderating factors in work group diversity and performance (van Knippenberg et al.,
the relationship, and relevant contextual factors. Overall, these 2004).
reviews summarize findings linking workplace diversity and
Two studies published in Journal of Applied Psychology exam-
firm performance, and identify directions for future research in
ine and provide evidence of the effects of diversity on business
this area.
outcomes. Sacco and Schmitt (2005) proposed and tested a mul-
Inside the Journal. Column 7 of Table 1 indicates the out-
tilevel model of demographic diversity that linked racial diversity
comes evaluated in each study. Research published in Journal of
to firm performance. Using a large sample of quick-service res-
Applied Psychology has primarily investigated the effects of di-
versity on four categories of outcomes: reactions to diversity, work taurants, the authors found racial diversity to be negatively asso-
attitudes and behavior, team processes, and performance. For exam- ciated with restaurant profitability, although there were no signif-
ple, in a study examining race and ethnicity, and similarity on these icant effects of a match between the racial composition of
demographic dimensions across different groups (e.g., employee- restaurants and their communities. In another multilevel diversity
coworker, employee-supervisor, employee-community), the results study, Chen et al. (2012) explored how cultural intelligence and
revealed influences on employee perceptions of workplace dis- organizational diversity climate interact to influence cultural sales
crimination (Avery et al., 2007). Similarly, Pugh and his col- among real estate agents, and found positive diversity climates to
leagues (2008) found evidence of the moderating effects of have a moderating influence on the relationship between motiva-
racial composition of the community in which an organization tional cultural intelligence sales to culturally diverse clients. Al-
is located on the relationship between workforce diversity and though the findings across these studies are not directly compara-
employees’ diversity climate perceptions. As research has also ble, they add to the body of research on diversity and business
shown perceptions of fairness and linguistic bias to emerge in performance.
 THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK 493

Conclusions: What Have We Learned? count for the complexity of diversity as a construct has been further
emphasized via research which explores the social categorization and
Our review provides some insights as to how applied psychological information exchange mechanisms through which it operates as well
research has evolved on the topic of diversity. Figure 2 provides a as its effects from multilevel and/or dynamic perspectives. Along
timeline that shows some milestones in this evolution both outside these lines, we can also draw conclusions about the importance of
and in Journal of Applied Psychology, from the advent of diversity- context in understanding the meaning of diversity as either an objec-
related research to the current state of research in this area. Accord- tive or subjective construct, and its consequences for individuals and
ingly, we can draw some key conclusions regarding what we know or organizations.
have learned to date about the meaning and import of diversity in Although the field has evolved substantively over the last 25 years,
organizations. Whereas early research considered the role of demo- a number of conceptual and empirical questions remain. Our review
graphic categories on individual outcomes, diversity became recog- suggests that we are at a critical juncture where innovative and more
nized as an important contextual variable, or unit-level characteristic, nuanced approaches to understanding diversity are needed. In the next
which influences employee attitudes and behavior. Following socio- section, we expound upon these gaps in setting a research agenda for
logical traditions, such work conceptualized and examined the effects
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

the future. We offer suggestions for moving the field forward, and
of diversity in terms of the relative proportions of certain demographic
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

highlight topics and issues that are especially important for diversity
attributes within work groups. A number of studies also focused on its scholars to address. Our future research agenda is organized into six
operationalization, moving from categorical to multidimensional areas: capturing the complexity of identity, diversifying outcomes,
measures of diversity. Researchers also contemplated the value for employing diverse methodologies, broadening diversity contexts,
diversity in organizations based on what benefits accrue when cultural adopting a practice perspective, and integrating theoretical perspec-
differences are managed and how employees perceive such environ- tives.
ments. Although various advantages may accrue through diversity, a
large body of research investigated the associated performance ben- Continuation: Roadmaps, Agendas, and
efits in groups and teams, and concluded that such gains happen
Recommendations for Future Research
through enhanced information exchange and decision-making. As this
stream of research progressed, some meta-analytic studies provided Capturing the Complexity of Identity
evidence to challenge this conclusion, highlighting the intervening
role of group processes and subsequently, the complexity of the Employees may have different workplace experiences (e.g.,
diversity-performance relationship. The need to understand and ac- perceptions, expectations, reactions) based on their specific affil-

Value-in-diversity hypothesis
(Cox & Blake, 1991) Dispersion typology
Introduc on of bifurcated view of diversity (Harrison & Klein, 2007)
Importance of (Harrison et al., 1998), faultlines (Lau &
rela onal demography Murnighan, 1998), and informa onal
(Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989) perspec ve (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) Importance of context
(Joshi & Roh, 2009)
Diversity climate Diversity & performance meta-
(Mor Barak et al., 1993) analyses (Bowers et al., 2000;
Determinants & consequences
Webber & Donahue, 2001)
of sex and race composi on
(Blau, 1977; Kanter, 1977)

The concept of diversity discussed

as sex and gender stereotypes Sensemaking approach to
(Rosen & Jerdee, 1973) the study of diversity
First study of (Roberson & Stevens, 2006)
“demographic diversity”
(Riordan & Shore, 1997) Study of cultural mosaic (Chao &
Moon, 2005) and diversity & firm
Dispersion typology of performance (Sacco & Schmi 2005)
diversi ributes
(Chan, 1998)

Demography as a unique, situa onal

Categoriza on-Elabora on Model
variable that influences individual
(van Knippenberg et al., 2004)
outcomes (Jackson et al., 1991)

Figure 2. The evolution of diversity research. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
 494 ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

iations and the salience of such affiliations in the workplace. Diversifying Outcomes
Although it is often a challenge to collect large and/or diverse
samples, the practice of aggregating groups under umbrella clas- Although a large body of research provides evidence of the
effects of diversity on group attitudes and behavior, some findings
sifications (e.g., “minorities,” “the disabled,” etc.) limits our
suggest that diversity and diversity-related experiences also have
knowledge, fosters inaccurate assumptions about individuals and
implications for individuals. For example, given social categori-
groups, and fails to uncover their unique experiences, resources
zation processes which facilitate differentiation between work unit
and challenges in the workplace. Further, as all individuals belong
members (see van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Williams & O’Reilly,
to multiple social categories, focusing on one category or viewing
1998), research has demonstrated the influence of diversity and the
them independently constrains our understanding of the meaning,
experience of social exclusion on a variety of somatic outcomes,
consequences and unique experiences of the intersections of var-
including anxiety, stress, distress and even pain responses
ious identities (e.g., the experiences of a Black man may differ
(Baumeister & Tice, 1990; Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams,
from that of a White man or Black woman in ways that are unique
2003; Rudmin, 2003). Accordingly, future research examining
and not clearly predicted by looking at just main effects of gender
different effects on a broader range of outcomes that include
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

and race). As individuals’ identities are a complex interaction of individuals’ physical responses to diversity may provide insight
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

meanings that derive from their group memberships, self- into subsequent effects on group processes and performance. In
appraisals, and interpersonal encounters, research accounting for addition, the identification and understanding of such responses
such multidimensionality of their intrapersonal identities is may also facilitate the design of interventions to help individuals to
needed. For example, how might our conclusions about diversity personally manage diversity-related experiences in organizations.
in teams change if we were to consider how views of others (e.g., Despite discourses illustrating its positive aspects, diversity
as a woman, I expect her to be cooperative) might interact with tends all too often to be associated with negative challenges
self-views (e.g., I am the only woman here and need to make sure stemming from workplace discrimination. Accordingly, future re-
my voice is heard) to dynamically influence how demographic search could examine positive outcomes of diversity, and the
diversity affects group functioning? Multifaceted conceptualiza- organizational, interpersonal, and individual factors that predict
tions of diversity, which simultaneously incorporate both demo- these outcomes. For example, the experience of working in a
graphic and task-related diversity attributes or both objective and diverse workplace that values and leverages diversity may be a
subjective aspects of identity, may be useful for more accurately driver of attitude change that is carried across life domains. Pos-
capturing the full range of differences that exists in global orga- itive workplace climates and interactions may compensate for
nizations. experiences of discrimination and stigma outside the workplace,
In practice, the question often comes up as to what differences such that an employee who faces isolation and alienation in his
make a difference. While diversity scholars seek to make gener- community because of his group membership may be better able to
alizable propositions about all forms of difference, we also need cope with stress when he has a workgroup that supports, validates,
more systematic ways of exploring and understanding the mean- and understands him. Positive work environments could therefore
ings associated with differences that are the source of diversity affect such quality-of-life outcomes as psychological well-being,
effects. For example, assessing not only categories to which indi- life satisfaction, and physical health.
viduals belong, but their salience and/or weight across contexts
may enable us to more practically and programmatically address Employing Diverse Methodologies
the concern that “not all differences are equal”. Similarly, as Researchers should employ more innovative and sensitive meth-
people’s cultural profiles consist of multilayered value structures ods that allow insight into the nuanced operation and influence of
derived from the various social environments in which they work, diversity. For example, implicit measures to assess cognitions and
capturing the complexity of such profiles via their relative signif- attitudes that cannot be measured through self-report methods may
icance or value to people’s self-identities may be useful for ad- offer a greater understanding of unconscious or uncontrollable
vancing the explanatory power of diversity as a construct and reactions to diversity experiences. Similarly, qualitative or social
providing insight into interactions between diverse individuals. network analysis methods may tap into more latent and recurring
Although much of the research-to-date has assumed that diver- patterns of sensemaking and behavior, and reveal qualities of
sity is perceptible and/or task-related, some employees may, either interrelationships and group interactions in a way that quantitative
intentionally or unintentionally, hide their differences or present methods cannot.
cues about their group membership to some but not all members of Researchers should also adopt more dynamic or temporal ap-
their work group. Thus, because disclosure and awareness of proaches to studying diversity, as extant work has primarily as-
invisible differences fall along a continuum (Ragins, 2008), and sumed the characteristics of groups and their members to be
the meaning and manifestation of invisible differences depends on immutable. Although some dimensions of diversity generally do
the context and consequences of disclosure (Ragins, Singh, & not change, other dimensions have the capacity to vary or trans-
Cornwell, 2007), future research should incorporate such organi- form over time. For example, gender identity is a fluid construct,
zational experiences into the conceptualization and measurement disabilities can be acquired, affiliations can be adopted or aban-
of diversity. In general, a greater awareness of the ways and doned, and employees can move across social and economic
reasons why individuals manage social identities in the workplace, classes. Therefore, research is needed to capture mutability in
such as concealing or advocating, can lead to a richer understand- member and group identities and subsequently, the impact on
ing of diversity effects on organizational life for those individuals shared value systems, such as ideology and climate. Latent growth
(cf., Jones & King, 2014). and other dynamic modeling techniques might be used to study
 THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK 495

how changes in group composition affect contextual variables and needed to accurately represent social stratification and hierarchies
vice versa. Likewise, individual trajectories in perceptions, atti- in work units. Perspectives that account for dominance, marginal-
tudes and behavior may be modeled to assess intraindividual ization, and other social distancing phenomena may generate re-
changes in social cognition and interindividual differences in re- search that is more predictive of differentiation and competition
actions to diversity. within work units, and provide greater insight into intergroup
Cross- and multilevel approaches to studying diversity are also relations in organizations.
needed. By conceptualizing diversity as a structural property of
work units, it reflects the aggregation of lower-level attributes and
Adopting a Practice Perspective
influences higher level processes and outcomes. Accordingly, re-
search that explores relations between individual characteristics As inclusion extends the concept of diversity to account for all
and team-level process and outcomes as well as between (dis)sim- culturally relevant differences within a given context, research on
ilarity in work units and organizational processes and outcomes climates for inclusion has explored shared employee perceptions
would offer an alternate perspective on contextual influences on of the extent to which organizational policies and practices en-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

diversity effects. Multilevel models of diversity would help to courage and reward acceptance of employees of diverse back-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

better understand the interrelationships between diversity at the grounds, recognize their unique attributes, and encourage their
individual, group and organizational levels of analysis, highlight- involvement within the organization (Mor Barak, 2013; Nishii,
ing generalizations that can be made about the operation of diver- 2013; Roberson, 2006). However, because diversity and inclusion
sity across levels. are often used interchangeably, insight into the distinctiveness of
the constructs and their interrelationship is limited. Consequently,
research to further distinguish the constructs, practices to support
Broadening Diversity Contexts
each, and their effects on employees and organizations is needed.
As much diversity research has been conducted within the U.S., Although a large body of research has explored effects of
cultural influences on diversity processes and outcomes have not differences among members of work units, there has been rela-
been widely considered. This is not to suggest that research in tively scant attention given to the organizational impacts of pro-
general has ignored cultural contexts, as evidenced by the body of grams to manage such differences. Research has controlled for,
literature reviewed in this issue by Gelfand et al. However, re- and examined moderating influences of, demographic differences
search should at least consider the boundary conditions created by in different human resource management practice areas (e.g., se-
the cultural context in which studies are conducted. For example, lection, performance evaluation, training, etc.); however, few stud-
in a study to examine employee reactions toward diversity training ies published in Journal of Applied Psychology have examined the
programs within different national cultures, the results showed design, operation and effects of practices specifically intended to
trainees residing in individualistic cultures to respond more favor- facilitate more inclusive work environments (for an exception, see
ably to training in terms of instructor effectiveness than did train- Homan et al., 2015). For example, what are best practices for
ees from collectivistic cultures, although a cultural match between employee resource groups? What characteristics of diversity train-
trainer and trainees led to more positive reactions to trainees from ing programs are more likely to produce desired outcomes? When
collectivistic cultures (Holladay & Quiñones, 2005). Research has do programs and policies lead to backlash and why? Considering
also shown effects of gender egalitarianism, or motivation to the exhaustive list of programmatic questions that could be posed,
reduce gender role differences, to influence stereotypes of women more research on diversity and inclusion practices and programs is
and the value for charismatic or participative leadership (Emrich, needed to not only enhancing the external validity of findings
Denmark, & Den Hartog, 2004). Thus, as studies reveal the mod- within the scholarly literature, but to understand and address the
erating influence of national culture, future research is needed to challenges of implementation in organizations.
examine how diversity processes and outcomes may different
across cultural contexts. Diversity research could also benefit from
Integrating Theoretical Perspectives
an understanding of the role of historical context in their research,
as employees not only bring their own personal experiences with Interdisciplinary approaches to the study of diversity are also
them to work, but generational and historical experiences from needed to advance the field. For example, although the applied
their families and social groups. psychological and legal sciences differ in the definition and treat-
Critical theorists point to cultural factors that establish the ment of racial bias, the integration of such approaches may be
meaning, manifestation, and repercussion of diversity, as differ- useful for identifying individual- and group-based methodologies
ences are assigned different values across historical, social and for detecting such bias as well as ideological and institutional
ideological contexts (Jones & Stablein, 2006). For example, approaches to counteracting it in organizations. Similarly, as neu-
whereas color blindness, or an ideology which emphasizes the ropsychological studies of neural responses to diversity experi-
minimization of group differences, is assumed to facilitate inter- ences have shown associated changes in cognitive activity (Eisen-
group relations, research has shown such beliefs to reinforce berger et al., 2003), research integrating applied and cognitive
minority group marginalization and less inclusive cultures (Plaut, psychology perspectives to investigate diversity phenomenon
Thomas, & Goren, 2009). Power perspectives on diversity also would facilitate an understanding of the reinforcing relationship
hold that it is not the difference itself that matters, but what that between employees’ diversity-related experiences, brain function-
difference means within social and political contexts that exert ing, individual behavior, and intergroup interactions.
influence (Ragins, 1997). Therefore, diversity research that incor- Future research that integrates sociological and public policy
porates status characteristics, such as power and privilege, is approaches to diversity would be useful for identifying the impact
 496 ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

of community diversity and its iterative spillover effects are Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S. M. B., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The
needed. Future diversity research could apply the life spillover effects of alignments: Examining group faultlines, organizational cul-
model (Ragins, Lyness, Williams, & Winkel, 2014), which holds tures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 77–92.
that people encounter a range of personally meaningful life expe- http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023684
riences that unfold through events, activities or relationships in Bhave, D. P., Kramer, A., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). Work-family conflict
in work groups: Social information processing, support, and demo-
work and nonwork domains, and fundamentally influence or
graphic dissimilarity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 145–158.
change people’s perceptions, cognitions, values or emotions. Ap- http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017885
plying this framework, diversity scholars could examine whether Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York, NY: Free
community diversity shocks (e.g., police shootings, community Press.
hate crimes) change employee’s perceptions, values and attitudes, Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homo-
and how these changes manifest in the workplace. The key point geneity is needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Re-
is that because community experiences may change employees, search, 31, 305–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100303
and these changes can be carried into the workplace in complex Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

and often unacknowledged ways, we need to consider the interplay Carton, A. M., & Cummings, J. N. (2013). The impact of subgroup type
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

between organizational and community experiences. and subgroup configurational properties on work team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 732–758. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0033593
Epilogue Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content
Research published in Journal of Applied Psychology over the domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition mod-
els. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. http://dx.doi.org/10
past 100 years has evolved from studies that simply look at group
.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
differences to research that examines the meaning and value of
Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: A metatheory for
diversity in organizations. Researchers have explored the “what” understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology,
and “who” of diversity through a consideration of its conceptual- 90, 1128 –1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1128
ization and measurement. In addition, studies of its effects at Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., & Lawrence, S. A. (2004). Why does
different levels of analysis have provided some insight into the dissimilarity matter? Exploring self-categorization, self-enhancement,
“where” of diversity. However, questions about the conditions and uncertainty reduction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 892–900.
under which diversity has positive versus negative effects in or- http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.892
ganizations (“when”) and the processes through which such effects Chen, X.-P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of
occur (“why”) still remain. Thus, going forward, we expect that the motivational cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and
study of diversity will continue to evolve in ways that reflect its cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real estate firms. Journal of Applied
complexity as a phenomenon. For example, we expect greater Psychology, 97, 93–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024697
Cox, T. H., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, re-
examination of diversity as a subjective construct, at different
search and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
levels, and across different work settings. We expect greater in-
Cox, T. H., Jr., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implica-
ductive research to understand the underlying mechanisms and the tions for organizational competitiveness. The Academy of Management
development of new theory that specifically explains diversity Executive, 5, 45–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AME.1991.4274465
phenomena in organizations. We also expect a stronger link to be Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Does
drawn between diversity theory and practice to enhance its value in rejection hurt? An FMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290 –
applied contexts. Overall, while this is the epilogue of this review 292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134
article, it is not the conclusion of the story of diversity at work, and Ellis, A. P. J., Mai, K. M., & Christian, J. S. (2013). Examining the
we look forward to what the next 100 years brings. asymmetrical effects of goal faultlines in groups: A categorization-
elaboration approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 948 –961.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033725
References Emrich, C. G., Denmark, F. L., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2004). Cross-cultural
Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising— differences in gender egalitarianism: Implications for societies, organi-
Are differences black and white? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, zations, and leaders. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W.
672– 679. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.672 Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations:
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging the aging The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 343–394). Thousand Oaks, CA:
workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfac- Sage.
tion with coworkers, and employee engagement. Journal of Applied Fisher, D. M., Bell, S. T., Dierdorff, E. C., & Belohlav, J. A. (2012). Facet
Psychology, 92, 1542–1556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6 personality and surface-level diversity as team mental model anteced-
.1542 ents: Implications for implicit coordination. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. ogy, 97, 825– 841. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027851
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165–195. http://dx.doi Gitter, A. G., Altavela, J., & Mostofsky, I. (1974). Effect of sex, religion
.org/10.1521/jscp.1990.9.2.165 and ethnicity on occupational status perception. Journal of Applied
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. Psychology, 59, 96 –98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035822
(2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variables and team Glomb, T. M., & Welsh, E. T. (2005). Can opposites attract? Personality
performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, heterogeneity in supervisor-subordinate dyads as a predictor of subor-
37, 709 –743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001 dinate outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 749 –757. http://
Berger, J. M., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1972). Status character- dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.749
istics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241– Goffman, E. (1974). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity.
255. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2093465 New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
 THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK 497

Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. The outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Ap-
Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199 –1228. http://dx.doi.org/10 plied Psychology, 94, 77– 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013077
.5465/AMR.2007.26586096 Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of
demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity Organizational Behavior, 14, 61– 81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job
on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96 –107. .4030140107
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256901 Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and fault-
Hebl, M., & Avery, D. R. (in press). Diversity in organizations. In N. lines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of
Schmitt & S. Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (2nd ed.). New Management Review, 23, 325–340.
York, NY: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212025 Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions with groups and sub-
Hicks-Clarke, D., & Iles, P. (2000). Climate for diversity and its effects on groups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management
career and organizational attitudes and perceptions. Personnel Review, Journal, 48, 645– 659. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843943
29, 324 –345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483480010324689 Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., O’Brien, L. T., & McCoy, S. K. (2007). Perceived
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: Implica-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking tions for self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 982–996. http:// 1068 –1086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1068
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029159 Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference?
Holladay, C. L., & Quiñones, M. A. (2005). Reactions to diversity training: The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological
An international comparison. Human Resource Development Quarterly, Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
16, 529 –545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1154 .1529-1006.2005.00022.x
Homan, A. C., Buengeler, C., Eckhoff, R. A., van Ginkel, W. P., & Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity
Voelpel, S. C. (2015). The interplay of diversity training and diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The role of
beliefs on team creativity in nationality diverse teams. Journal of Ap- individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psy-
plied Psychology, 100, 1456 –1467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ chology, 92, 865– 875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.865
apl0000013 McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M.,
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are
C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60, 35– 62.
beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x
groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189 –1199. http://dx.doi McMahon, A. M. (2010). Does workplace diversity matter? A survey of
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189 empirical studies on diversity and firm performance, 2000 – 09. Journal
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on of Diversity Management, 5, 37– 48.
team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads:
Management, 33, 987–1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01492063 Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups.
07308587 Academy of Management Review, 21, 402– 433.
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Are we all on the same temporal
Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual page? The moderating effects of temporal team cognition on the poly-
dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, pro- chronicity diversity–team performance relationship. Journal of Applied
motions and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675– 689. Psychology, 99, 404 – 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035640
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675 Mor Barak, M. E. (2013). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive
Jackson, S. E., May, K. A., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the workplace (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
dynamics of diversity in decision making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational
Salas (Eds.), Team decision making effectiveness in organizations (pp. and personal dimensions in diversity climate. Journal of Applied Behav-
204 –261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ioral Science, 34, 82–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886398341006
Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender
workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute. diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1754 –1774.
Jones, D., & Stablein, R. (2006). Diversity as resistance and recuperation: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0823
Critical theory, post-structuralist perspectives and workplace diversity. Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce
In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member
workplace diversity (pp. 146 –166). London, UK: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/ exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied
10.4135/9781848608092.n7 Psychology, 94, 1412–1426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017190
Jones, K. P., & King, E. B. (2014). Managing concealable stigmas as work: Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects
A review and multilevel model. Journal of Management, 40, 1466 – of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of
1494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313515518 Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity .93.1.225
research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, Pelled, L. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group out-
599 – 627. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491 comes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615–
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its 631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.6.615
structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychol- Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or
ogy, 60, 307–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707 color blindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444 –
.163600 446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02318.x
Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the organization. New York, NY: Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Brief, A. P., & Wiley, J. W. (2008). Looking inside
Basic Books. and out: The impact of employee and community demographic compo-
 498 ROBERSON, RYAN, AND RAGINS

sition on organizational diversity climate. Journal of Applied Psychol- Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference:
ogy, 93, 1422–1428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012696 Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management
Ragins, B. R. (1997). Diversified mentoring relationships in organizations: teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662– 673. http://dx.doi
A power perspective. Academy of Management Review, 22, 482–521. .org/10.2307/256987
Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and conse- Sunne, D. (1917). A comparative study of white and negro children.
quences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. The Acad- Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 71– 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
emy of Management Review, 33, 194 –215. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ h0073489
AMR.2008.27752724 Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London, UK:
Ragins, B. R., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Understanding diversity in organi- Academic Press.
zations: Getting a grip on a slippery construct. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Teachman, J. D. (1980). Analysis of population diversity. Sociological
Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp. 125– Methods & Research, 8, 341–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00491241
163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press. 8000800305
Ragins, B. R., Lyness, K., Williams, L., & Winkel, D. (2014). Life Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2011). Demographic faultlines: A
spillovers: The spillover of fear of home foreclosure to the workplace. meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Personnel Psychology, 67, 763– 800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps 1119 –1139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024167

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.12065 Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible of your total workforce by managing diversity. New York, NY: AMA-
visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of COM Books.
Applied Psychology, 92, 1103–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021- Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different:
9010.92.4.1103 Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative
Reis, C. R., Castillo, M. A. S., & Dobon, S. R. (2007). Diversity and Science Quarterly, 37, 549 –579. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393472
business performance: 50 years of research. Service Business, 1, 257– Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects:
274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11628-007-0022-2 The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads.
Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402– 423. http://dx.doi.org/10
.2307/256368
versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group.
Psychology, 40, 417– 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002
In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15– 40).
Rico, R., Sánchez-Manzanares, M., Antino, M., & Lau, D. (2012). Bridg-
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
ing team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure
Turner, J. C. (1987). A self-categorization theory. In J. C. Turner, M. A.
strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 407– 420. http://dx.doi
Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscov-
.org/10.1037/a0025231
ering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 42– 67). Ox-
Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and
ford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational demography
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015). Labor force statistics from the
within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342–358. http://
current population survey. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.342
demographics.htm
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and
van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying
inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31,
conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences
212–236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601104273064
between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with per-
Roberson, Q. M., & Stevens, C. K. (2006). Making sense of diversity in the
formance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
workplace: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employ- 119, 38 –53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003
ees’ accounts of diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychol- van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work
ogy, 91, 379 –391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.379 group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and re-
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. (1973). The influence of sex-role stereotypes on search agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008 –1022. http://
evaluations of male and female supervisory behavior. Journal of Applied dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Psychology, 57, 44 – 48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0034198 van Knippenberg, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Realizing the diversity
Rosenbaum, B. L. (1973). Attitude toward invasion of privacy in the dividend: Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and
personnel selection process and job applicant demographic and person- reality. In S. A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N.
ality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 333–338. http://dx.doi.org/10 Ellemers (Eds.), Social identity at work: Developing theory for organi-
.1037/h0036294 zational practice (pp. 61–77). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Rowles, E. (1927). Temperament and race. Journal of Applied Psychology, van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2007). Unity through
11, 247–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0064668 diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group
Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of identification. Group Dynamics, 11, 207–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of 1089-2699.11.3.207
General Psychology, 7, 3–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.3 van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Workgroup diversity. In
Sacco, J. M., & Schmitt, N. (2005). A dynamic multilevel model of M. I. Posner & M. K. Rothbart (Eds.), Annual review of psychology
demographic diversity and misfit effects. Journal of Applied Psychol- (Vol. 58, pp. 515–541). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
ogy, 90, 203–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.203 Walker, H. J., Feild, H. S., Bernerth, J. B., & Becton, J. B. (2012).
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Diversity cues on recruitment websites: Investigating the effects on job
Personnel Psychology, 36, 19 –39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- seekers’ information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
6570.1983.tb00500.x 214 –224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025847
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization hetero- Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less
geneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Trans- job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-
formational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141–162. http://dx.doi.org/10
92, 1709 –1721. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709 .1177/014920630102700202
 THE EVOLUTION AND FUTURE OF DIVERSITY AT WORK 499

Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K.-H., & Kanfer, R. (2008). organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp.
a public organization: The role of task complexity and group size. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1301–1313. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0012680
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Received June 2, 2015
Sage. Revision received June 29, 2016
Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in Accepted July 28, 2016 䡲
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.