Behavioral Goals for a Diverse Organization: The Effects of

Behavioral Goals for a Diverse Organization: The Effects of Attitudes, Social Norms, and Racial

Identity for Asian Americans and Whites

FRANK LINNEHAN~ ALISON M. KONRAD LeBow College of Business

Drexel University Richardlvey School of Business University of Western Onfario

Ontario, Canada

FRIEDA REITMAN Lubin School ofBusiness

Pace University

ANNE GREENHALGH AND M~CHAEL LONDON The Wharfon School

The University of Pennsylvania

This research identified 5 behaviors that may enhance the effectiveness of a diverse organization and used Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action to identify predictors of these behaviors. Results from samples of White and Asian undergraduate students from 2 universities generally supported the Fishbein and Ajzen model. Attitudes and subjective norms were significant predictors of behavioral intentions when gender, race, and social desirability bias were controlled. Racial identity also had a significant, positive effect on attitudes toward diversity-related behaviors among the Asian American students, but no significant effect among Whites. These results supported our reasoning that members of historically excluded racial groups with strong racial identities will be most likely to welcome organizational attempts to become more pluralistic because pluralism means that their valued identities will be respected rather than repressed.

To work effectively with a diverse set of people, individuals must engage in certain behaviors that may be new to those accustomed to working in a homoge- neous organization. These behaviors may include openly discussing issues of diversity with coworkers, asking about the preferred terminology to use when referring to diverse groups, and insuring that all work groups include members from diverse backgrounds. Whether people are willing to adopt a new behavior pattern is determined in part by their attitudes and the subjective norms enforced by influential people around them (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen,

'Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frank Linnehan, LeBow College of Business, Drexel University, 101 North 33rd Street, Academic Building, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

1331

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2003,33, 7 , pp. 1331 -1 359. Copyright 0 2003 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

1332 LINNEHAN ET AL.

1975). By examining attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions, organizations wishing to enhance the effectiveness of a diverse membership can gain an understanding of some of the barriers to effective intergroup interaction and some of the skills that need to be developed among its members.

Another potential determinant of behaviors that can enhance the effectiveness of an organization may be racial identity, which has been defined as part of the self-concept deriving from membership in a racial group, together with the emotional significance attached to that membership (Phinney, 1992). Research has shown that racial identity can influence organizational behavior (Davidson & Friedman, 1998) and is important to self-concept for many different groups, including Asian Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites (Arce, 1981; Driedger, 1976; Makabe, 1979; Rowe, Bennett, & Atkinson, 1994).

The influence that racial identity has on people’s motivation to engage in the types of behaviors consistent with a pluralistic organization may depend on group membership. Those who strongly identify with the dominant group’s culture are likely to be comfortable in the traditional working environment predomi- nated by values of White, able-bodied, heterosexual men (Harquail & Cox, 1993). As such, they may see little reason for the organization to develop a more pluralistic culture. On the other hand, those who identify strongly with the cultures of marginalized groups, such as Asian Americans, African Americans, His- panics, or other groups who historically have been excluded from positions of power in U.S. workplaces are likely to be more comfortable in organizations that try to change the traditional organizational culture to become more pluralistic (Cox, 1993).

The present study uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to identify some of the behaviors that may help individuals to work more effectively in a diverse organization. We then develop some predictors of intentions to engage in these behaviors and explore the effects of racial identity of Whites and Asian Americans on their attitudes toward adopting the new behavioral repertoire. The literature on diversity and racial identity has focused predominantly on the experiences of African Americans and to a lesser extent on those of Hispanics (Cox & Nkomo, 1990). Our research contributes to these liter- atures by examining whether their theoretical models apply to the situation of Asian Americans.

Additionally, by applying conceptual models that explore the effects of a history of exclusion and discrimination, we also question the assumptions of the model minority myth, similar to others whose research has focused on differences between Whites and Asian Americans (Bell, Harrision, & McLaughlin, 1997; Tang, 1997). The model minority myth assumes that Asian Americans have been fully accepted in U.S. society, are similar to Whites in their beliefs, and are equally as prosperous as the dominant majority. These assumptions may have originated with Asian Americans who associate more strongly with the

BEHAVIORAL GOALS FOR A DIVERSE ORGANIZATION 1333

dominant majority than with Asian culture. As such, it may be important to explore the relationship between racial identity and diversity-related attitudes for both Whites and Asian Americans.

In summary, we have four aims in the present study. First, based on elicitation from eight diversity practitioners, we outline a set of behaviors that may enhance the quality of relationships and effectiveness of diverse organizational members. Second, we use Fishbein and Ajzen’s model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) to identify predictors of intentions to engage in diversity-related behaviors. Third, we follow calls from previous authors (Block, Roberson, & Neuger, 1995; Chrobot-Mason, in press) to move beyond the treatment of racioethnicity as a categorical variable by considering whether racial identity moder- ates the relationship between demographic group membership and attitudes toward diversity-related behaviors. Fourth and finally, we focus on the views of Asian Americans, who are understudied in diversity-related research, but are also increasing as a percentage of workers in the United States and have a unique racial identity and set of organizational experiences.

Background and Hypotheses

To assess the effectiveness of organizational diversity initiatives, previous authors have recommended the use of measures such as self-esteem, collective self-esteem, and attitudes toward women, cultural groups, and racial groups (Ellis & Sonnenfeld, 1994; Hood, Muller, & Seitz, 1999) or perceptions of discrimination and prejudice (Comer & Soliman, 1996). We argue for an added focus on behavior in diverse organizations. Large numbers of U.S. organizations have undertaken diversity-management initiatives in order to enhance the effectiveness of their increasingly diverse organizations (Lobel, 1999). Ultimately, the effectiveness of these interventions arises from their ability to generate behavioral changes.

We used the theory of reasoned action to develop a behavioral approach to measuring effectiveness in a diverse organization (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). We selected this theory for a number of reasons. First, its concepts have been used in previous research that has explored attitudes toward affirmative action, a topic closely related to workforce diversity (Bell et al., 1997; Kravitz & Platania, 1993). Second, the model has shown strong predictive utility across studies looking at human behavior (see the meta-analysis by Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988).

Additionally, the components of the model are also consistent with the responses we obtained in a series of interviews with diversity training consultants and practitioners in the health care, professional-services, and financial-services industries. When asked about the focus of their initiatives or training programs, two of the most common objectives that were mentioned were changing


Likelihood Beliefs

Figure 1. The theory of reasoned action.

employee attitudes about diversity and enhancing management’s commitment to a diverse workforce. Attitudes are a central component of the theory of reasoned action. The importance attributed to management commitment is consistent with the second central construct in the theory of reasoned action: subjective norms. If employees perceive that top management wishes them to enact new behaviors and if they are willing to comply with management’s wishes, they will be more likely to change their behavior.

The Theory of Reasoned Action

Developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the theory of reasoned action (TRA) is a cognitively based model of human behavior. As shown in Figure 1, the theory hypothesizes that intentions to behave have a direct impact on actual behavior and that intentions are predicted by both attitudes toward the behavior and subjective norms. In the model, attitudes are a composite variable combining two factors. The first factor consists of an individual’s belief in the likelihood that certain outcomes will result from a particular behavior. The second factor is the individual’s evaluation of the desirability of these outcomes. Beliefs and evaluations are combined in the theory via the following function:

where bi is the strength of the belief that the behavior will lead to a particular outcome and ei is the evaluation of that outcome as positive or negative.

Hypothesis I . Behavioral intentions will be determined partly by attitudes, defined as Cbi x ei.


Subjective norms also are assessed as a composite variable composed of two factors. The first component is the individual’s perception of referent groups’ wishes related to the behavior. The second component is the individual’s desire to comply with these wishes. To measure subjective norms, the two components are combined in the following manner:

where ri is the perception regarding whether a referent group desires one to engage in the behavior and ci is the desire to comply with the wishes of that referent group.

Hypothesis 2. Behavioral intentions will be determined partly by subjective norms, defined as Cq x ci.

Applying the TRA to workforce diversity requires identifying behavioral goals that will enhance the commitment and performance of a diverse set of organizational members. In order to identify goals used in organizational diversity initiatives, we conducted interviews with eight diversity practitioners, four diversity consultants, two human resource managers in a Fortune 500 professional- services firm, and two principals of a training organization hired by the professional-services firm to develop a diversity training program.

A broad range of goals was identified during these initial discussions. Many of the goals mentioned by the practitioners focused on educating participants and defined diversity from a broad perspective. One such example was to learn what a diversity initiative is and how it differs from equal employment. Another common objective was that participants in a diversity training program acquire a deeper awareness of culture differences and how they affect communication patterns and ways of processing information. For this study, however, we chose to concentrate on the behavioral objectives that focused on racial diversity and specifically related to influencing participant behavior. This is consistent with Linnehan and Konrad (1 999), who have argued that diversity initiatives should focus on the dynamics between marginalized groups who have had little power in most U.S. organizations and those who historically have held power in these organizations.

Guided by the perspectives of the practitioners, as well as existing theory of organizational culture and intergroup power relations, we were able to identify five behavioral goals that may help organizations to develop a pluralistic culture and to reduce discrimination with the aim of maximizing performance and quality of work life within an organization. The first two, (a) interacting frequently with members of other groups, and (b) discussing issues of diversity and cultural backgrounds, are grounded in the organizational culture literature; while theories


of intergroup relations are the basis for the remaining three, (c) discussing potentially difficult issues with members of other groups instead of avoiding them, (d) avoiding the use of offensive language, and (e) confronting and educating those who use offensive language or tell offensive jokes and stories.

We are not claiming that these five behaviors are exhaustive, as organizations may develop other behavioral goals for diverse workforces. However, these behaviors were identified by the practitioners with whom we spoke, are consistent with the theoretical perspectives on diversity, and may be useful in many organizational situations. These goals and their research literature on which they are based will now be discussed.

Organizational Cultures: Assimilation and Pluralism

Organizational culture may be defined as a more or less integrated system of shared ideas, behaviors, and artifacts characteristic of an organization (Jordan, 1995). Organizational cultures vary in the extent to which they foster an environment that is comfortable to a diverse set of employees. Assimilationist cultures require one-way adaptation to minimize the expression of values, norms, and practices that differ from those predominating in the organization. Pluralistic cultures, on the other hand, emphasize mutual appreciation among different cultures and recognize the importance of preserving group identities that differ from the organizational norm. Pluralistic cultures are more comfortable for members of historically excluded groups because they allow for greater self-expression (Harquail & Cox, 1993). In the United States, unfortunately, most organizational cultures are assimilationist in nature, and members of historically excluded groups report experiencing pressures to hide or minimize their true identities and adapt to the norms of the dominant, White male group (Bell, 1990).

The organizational culture perspective suggests that the cultural exchange resulting from interaction among diverse groups is valued in organizations with pluralistic cultures (Harquail & Cox, 1993). A norm of inclusion exists in pluralistic organizations, which reduces the isolation experienced by members of historically excluded groups. Social inclusion of historically excluded groups reduces segregation of social networks and the resulting disparity between racial groups in influence and access to information (Ibarra, 1995; Westphal & Milton, 2000). Hence, pluralistic organizations desire employees to seek out interactions with members of other identity groups, a behavior consistent with the first behavioral objective of interacting frequently with members of other groups.

Pluralistic organizations also desire their members to engage in cultural exchange or discussion of the values, norms, and issues faced by different identity groups. Cultural exchange can enrich the organization’s culture with new values and ways of doing things (Harquail & Cox, 1993; Thomas & Ely, 1996). As


such, the second behavior that we have chosen for the present study is discussing issues of diversity and cultural backgrounds.

Intergroup Power Relations

Some of the most difficult problems arising among members of diverse organizations occur because groups are unequal in power (Linnehan & Konrad, 1999). Intergroup inequality results in stigmatization, prejudice, and discrimination (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1985), as well as pressures on less powerful groups to assimilate to the norms of the powerful group. Because less powerful groups suffer more from prejudicial emotions, unflattering stereotypes, and damaging dis- criminatory behavior, they are more likely to benefit from organizational attempts to reduce these sources of destructive intergroup interaction. Dominant groups, on the other hand, can perceive interventions to reduce prejudice, stereo- typing, and discrimination negatively (Hopkins & Hopkins, 199 1 ; Schwartz & Sullivan, 1993). Members of dominant groups may believe that prejudice, stereo- typing, and discrimination do not exist (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Tougas & Beaton, 1993). They may feel wrongly accused by efforts to raise awareness of these issues (Messner, 1998). Finally, they simply may be unwilling to recognize that their success is partly a result of their unearned advantages (Jacques, 1997).

Negative affect associated with intergroup prejudices can result in avoidance behavior (Linnehan & Konrad, 1999). People may hesitate to raise issues that they fear will result in conflicts with members of other identity groups, even if those issues are important for organizational effectiveness. A commonly cited example of this type of avoidance behavior is the reluctance of dominant group managers to give corrective feedback to members of historically excluded groups (Blank & Slipp, 1994). Organizations that encourage their members to face difficult issues with members of other groups and to discuss conflicts as they arise instead of avoiding them can enhance information sharing to benefit cooperation and performance.

In addition to providing feedback equally to all groups, attempts to reduce behaviors that express prejudices and communicate intolerance for diversity may be useful for improving relationships and enhancing work effectiveness. Avoid- ing language known to be offensive to other groups may reduce destructive intergroup conflict in organizations. Confrontingleducating those who use offensive language or tell jokes and stories reflecting racial prejudices may improve the organizational climate for members of historically excluded groups.

Racial Identities and Attitudes Toward Diversity-Related Behaviors

Race is typically treated as a categorical variable in diversity research. For example, studies of relational demography examine the effects of demographic


similarity or difference within dyads and work groups (Riordan, 2000; Webber & Donahue, 2001). Other authors have shown that racial identities influence reactions to organizational actions and have called for a finer grained approach to the measurement of racioethnicity (Block et al., 1995; Chrobot-Mason, in press; Davidson & Friedman, 1998). We argue that racial identity may influence people’s attitudes toward engaging in behaviors associated with effectiveness in a diverse organization. By including a measure of racial identity, our study acknowledges an important source of variation within demographic groups that may influence reactions to organizational diversity initiatives.

Racial identity may be defined as part of the self-concept deriving from membership in a racial group, together with the emotional significance attached to that membership (Phinney, 1992). The development of a strong racial identity has been linked to several positive outcomes for members of historically devalued racial groups, including increased achievement and self-esteem (Thomas & Speight, 1999). A strong racial identity helps to validate personal dignity and value in the face of negative messages from society about one’s racial group (Cross, 1995).

Racial identity development has been conceptualized as progressing through a series of stages (Cross, 1995; Plummer, 1995), and descriptions of the stages of racial identity development for Whites and for other racial groups in the United States share many similarities (Helms, 1990). At lower levels of racial identity development, people deny the importance of their ethnic culture and prefer to think about society as being colorless or colorblind. Through the racial identity development process, individuals make a conscious decision to learn about and embrace their racial identities. They may go through a phase where they consider their own racial group to be superior to others. The highest stage of development is characterized by a high degree of comfort with oneself as a racial being, accompanied by an appreciation of other raciallethnic heritages.

Racial identity development may influence reactions to organizational diversity and affect attitudes toward diversity-related behaviors (Block et al., 1995). Specifically, people with a highly developed racial identity are likely to anticipate more positive outcomes of diversity-related behaviors than those with a lower level of racial identity development. Considering the five behaviors comprising the focus of this study, people with a high level of racial identity development are likely to welcome inclusive interactions with a demographically diverse group because they are more likely to be interested in learning about other cultures and heritages. People with a highly developed racial identity are more likely to view discussions about diversity-related issues positively because they are more likely to have developed considered opinions on these topics and are more comfortable with viewing themselves as racial beings. Racial identity development is likely to generate more positive attitudes toward addressing difficult issues with members of other groups because they are likely to be more confident that they can build a


rapport across racial group boundaries and effectively handle any racial issues that may surface. Finally, racial identity development is likely to generate positive attitudes toward reducing racially offensive communication by oneself and others because they are likely to be more comfortable discussing racial issues and more knowledgeable about how to handle racial conflicts.

Furthermore, racial identity development is likely to interact with demographic racial category to influence attitudes toward diversity-related behaviors. For a person holding a strong identification with a traditionally devalued ethnic group, entering an organization with an assimilationist culture can be an unpleas- ant experience. Faced with a dominant culture that labels some of their group’s norms and values as inappropriate, members of historically excluded groups with strong racial identities find that they must minimize the expression of their cultures (Bell, 1990). For people who find validation and esteem from their racial identities, the act of minimizing or denying one’s culture can be stressfd and can induce a sense of loss. By comparison, those with weak racial identities may be more willing to adapt to the dominant organizational culture because they are less likely to feel that assimilation requires them to repress valued aspects of their identities. For this reason, organizational efforts to value diversity are particularly likely to be appreciated by those members of historically excluded groups with strong racial identities.

Whites with a highly developed racial identity do not suffer the same damage from an assimilationist organizational context. For most organizations, the dominant culture is compatible with White culture, and the cultural expressions of White members are likely to be considered appropriate. Whites with a high level of racial identity development may desire greater multiculturalism in order to learn more about other racial/ethnic heritages, but being denied a certain breadth of experience in one’s organization is not nearly as severe a loss as being asked to deny aspects of one’s own cultural identity. As such, among individuals with a highly developed racial identity, members of historically excluded racial groups are likely to perceive far more important benefits from diversity-related behaviors than are Whites.

Hypothesis 3. Racial identity will have a stronger positive impact on attitudes toward behaviors promoting pluralism and reducing discrimination among Asian Americans than among Whites.

Method

Survey Development

The first step of our survey development process was to identify behavioral goals for enhancing the quality of relationships and effectiveness of a diverse


workforce. The five behavioral goals identified through our interviews with eight diversity practitioners were as follows: (a) Discuss racial issues with others; (b) speak up when others engage in racially offensive behavior; (c) avoid racially offensive language; (d) interact with members of other races; (e) face conflicts with members of other races.

The next step in developing the survey was to identify the potential outcomes that were related to these behavioral objectives. To do this, we followed an elicitation process that closely paralleled the method recommended by Fishbein and Ajzen (1 975) and used by Kravitz and Platania (1 993) and Bell, Harrison, and McLaughlin (2000) to study attitudes toward afirmative action. A small group of employees (N = 15) from a professional-services firm, who were serving on a companywide diversity committee, were given a list of the five objectives and were asked to identify possible consequences (both positive and negative) if employees in that organization exhibited these behaviors. For the present study, 13 outcomes that were identified most frequently by these employees were selected. A complete list of these outcomes is shown in Appendix A.

The final step in developing the survey was to determine specific behaviors that were related to each of the five behavioral objectives. During the interviews with the human-resources practitioners and the diversity trainers, we asked that they identify behaviors that they believed were consistent with a diversity initiative. The practitioners identified more than 40 diversity-related behaviors. Examples of these behaviors include “Ask questions about the preferred terminology in referring to diverse groups,” “Discuss issues of diversity with people higher up in the organization,” “Work with members of different groups,” and “Confront individuals who use racist, sexist, or other stereotypic or discrimina- tory language.” From this list, we selected those behaviors that were related to the objectives used in this study. These 15 behaviors, modified in some cases to reflect our sample student populations, are shown in Appendix B and are grouped by objective.

Thus, in keeping with our goal of ensuring that this study was grounded in organizational practice, the behavioral goals and diversity-related behaviors were derived with the input of those who have developed, delivered, or managed diversity initiatives. Additionally, employees for whom these training programs and initiatives were designed then identified potential consequences or outcomes of these targeted behaviors through the elicitation process.

Data Collection

Two data samples were used: an initial data set (Sample 1, n =326), and a secondary sample ( n = 176) that was used to replicate the findings from the initial sample. The data consisted of survey responses received from undergraduate business students in two private universities. The two schools are located in or


near large metropolitan areas in the northeastern United States. Sample 1 (School A) respondents were business students enrolled in a required management course taken by all first-year students. Sample 2 (School B) respondents were students enrolled in an organizational behavior class that is required of all business majors. Students from the schools were asked to voluntarily complete the surveys as part of these courses.

The demographic composition of the samples closely reflected the composition of the student body in each university. In School A, 45% of the respondents were female (compared to 42% in the school’s population), 71% were White (vs. 67%), 19% were Asian (vs. 18%), 5% were African American or Black (vs. 7%). 2% were Hispanic or Latino (vs. 2%), 1% were Native American, 1% were mixed, and 1% were “Other.” In School B, 62% were female (vs. 60% in the population), 56% were White (vs. 52%), 15% were Asian (vs. 12%), 7% were Black or African American (vs. 12%), 8% were Hispanic or Latino (vs. 1 l%), 7% were mixed, and 7% were “Other” (vs. 4%). Originally, it was our intention to test the hypotheses across respondents from all racial groups. However, the small number of African American and Hispanic students in the populations of these two schools precluded separate analyses for these groups, and we dropped these students, as well as those in the “mixed” and “Other” categories from the analysis. This step reduced the sample sizes to 287 (from 326) and 139 (from 176).

Measures

Behavioral intentions. A principal components exploratory factor analysis using varimax rotation was run on the 15 behaviors using the initial data sample. We initially selected only the behaviors that represented the five behavioral goals, and the underlying factors closely corresponded to the goals that were selected for the study (explaining 70% of the variance).

We created five behavioral scales based on the factor loadings. The 5 items that loaded on the first factor (the first 5 items in Appendix B) relate to the objective of speaking up when others engage in racially offensive behavior. The 3 items (Items 6, 7, and 8) loading on the next factor are those that involve a dia- logue with students of other races, all of which are related directly to the goal of discussing diversity issues with others. The items that loaded on the third factor (Items 9, 10, and 1 I ) are behaviors involving working and interacting with students of other races, thus relating to the behavioral goal of interacting with members of other groups. Items (12 and 13) loaded on the next factor describe sensitivity. These items describe sensitivity in the use of language that may be racially offensive, thus relating to the goal of avoiding racially offensive language. The 2 items (Items 14 and 15) that loaded on the final factor both relate to the objective of discussing potentially difficult issues with members of other racial groups.


After this exploratory analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Sample 2. All paths from the five latent factors to their respective observed behavioral intention variables were significant. The chi-square fit statistic for the model was significant, x2(80, N = 132) = 154.70 ,~ < .01, indicating that the data departed significantly from the model. However, the chi-square fit statistic is widely known to be highly sensitive to sample size, such that models that fit the data reasonably well often are rejected (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). For this reason, we used four other goodness-of-fit criteria that are not sensitive to sample size (Bentler, 1980). These were the goodness-of-fit index (GFI; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984), the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI; Jijreskog & Sorbom, 1984), the incremental fit index (IFI; Bollen, 1989), and the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990). These indexes represent the relative improvement in fit of the hypothesized model over the null model, in which all observed variables are speci- fied as uncorrelated. These indexes have expected values of 1 .OO when the hypothesized model is true in the population. A value of .90 or higher has been suggested as indicating adequate fit (Bentler & Bonnett, 1980). These four statistics indicated an acceptable fit between the model and our data (GFT = .86, AGFI = .79, IF1 = .91, CFI = .91). As such, the confirmatory analysis on the data from Sample 2 replicated the five factors that were found in the exploratory analysis in Sample 1.

Based on the factor analyses, we created five behavioral intention scales. For each item in the scale, respondents were asked “How likely is it that you will do these things during the next month?’ Responses were made on a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). Behavioral intentions were calculated as means of responses to the items. Each scale showed high internal consistency in both samples, as evidenced by Cronbach’s alpha (speak up and confront, Sample 1 = .80, Sample 2 = .80; discuss diversity with others, Sample 1 = .72, Sample 2 = .80; work and interact with members of other races, Sample 1 = .75, Sample 2 = .72; language sensitivity, Sample 1 = .83, Sample 2 = .76; raise difficult issues, Sample 1 = .77, Sample 2 = .86).

Attitudes. Following Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1 980) procedures, attitudes toward each behavioral objective were calculated as the sum of the cross-products of the respondent’s belief in the likelihood that each outcome would result from the behavior and the perceived desirability of each outcome (i.e., Attbeh =

Cbi x ei). These cross-products are summed over the 13 outcomes to create the attitude measures (Appendix A).

As an example, the likelihood of the outcomes to the speaking-up behaviors was the response to the question “How likely is it that the following things would happen if you spoke up when others engaged in racially offensive behavior?” The 13 outcomes were then listed and the responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 7 (extremely likely). The respondents’ likelihood beliefs for the other four scales were measured the same way, with each behavioral goal being substituted in the initial question. The desirability of the 13


outcomes was measured in a similar way by asking respondents to “Please indicate how desirable or undesirable each of the following is to you at school and in the classroom.” These items were rated on a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (extremely undesirable) to 7 (extremely desirable). As recommended by Ajzen and Fishbein (1 980), both 7-point likelihood and desirability scales were rescaled to -3 to +3 before the cross-products were calculated. The attitude scales showed high levels of internal consistency (speaking up, Sample 1 = 36, Sample 2 = 37; discussing, Sample 1 = 37, Sample 2 = .88; interacting with others, Sample 1 =

.87, Sample 2 = .87; sensitivity to offensive language, Sample 1 = 35, Sample 2 = 35; raising difficult issues, Sample 1 = .88, Sample 2 = 36).

Subjective norms. Subjective norms were calculated as the sum of the cross- product of two variables: the wishes of multiple referent groups, and the respondent’s motivation to comply with these wishes for each behavioral objective (i.e., SN,,, = Cq x ci). Based on the student samples, the salient referent groups used in this study were parents and friends. Parents’ wishes were assessed by the response to the question “How strongly do your parents or guardians believe you should not/should do each of the following?” The five behavioral goals were listed and responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely should not) to 4 (neutral) to 7 (definitely should). Friends’ wishes were assessed similarly.

Respondents’ motivation to comply with these wishes was measured by their response to the question “How strongly do you want to do what your parents or guardians believe you should do?” for each of the five objectives. These items used a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (strongly). In accordance with Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1 980) procedures, these responses were rescaled prior to multiplying the terms. The 7-point, shouldlshould not scale was converted to -3 to +3, and the 4-point compliance scale was changed to 0 to 3 . The sum of the cross-products of the group’s wishes multiplied by the respondent’s motivation to comply with the wishes of each group across each behavioral objective (i.e., SNb,, = Cr, x ci) was used to create the five subjective norm scales (speaking up, Sample 1 = .76, Sample 2 = .74; interacting with others, Sample 1 = 3 3 , Sample 2 = .72; discussing with others, Sample 1 = .73, Sample 2 = 32; language sensitivity, Sample 1 = .71, Sample 2 = .78; raising difficult issues, Sample 1 = .79, Sample 2 = 34).

Racial identity Racial identity (Sample 1 = 39, Sample 2 = .91) is the mean of eight items from Phinney’s ( 1 992) ethnic identity scale (“race” was substituted for “ethnic”). Sample items from this scale include “I have a clear sense of my racial background and what it means to me” and “I feel a strong attachment toward my racial group.” Responses were made on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Social desirability bias. The mean of six items from Crowne and Marlowe (1 964) was used to measure social desirability bias. Responses were made on a


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and. Correlations Between All Continuous Variables in

Sample 1 Sample 2

Variable M SD M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Racial identity 4.64 1.29 4.78 1.34 - .28 . I8 .I4 2. Social desirability 4.39 0.84 4.23 0.87 .28 - .37 .29

3. Speakup 30.71 30.77 20.85 30.08 .20 .32 - .8 1

5. Interact 39.49 30.74 31.59 30.40 .I2 .46 .75 .82 6. Sensitivity 34.48 31.05 22.20 29.71 .I6 .33 .64 .67 7. Raise issues 21.75 33.80 17.21 29.39 .09 .27 .71 .69

Attitudes

4. Discuss 36.84 31.97 27.03 29.70 .I9 .43 .83 -

Norms 8. Speak up 5.39 6.56 5.15 6.15 .I6 .30 .33 .38 9. Discuss 4.16 5.71 4.70 5.90 .21 .20 .29 .34

10. Interact 5.12 6.61 5.35 6.31 .28 .28 .32 .36 11. Sensitivity 6.80 7.82 7.09 7.37 .13 .31 .18 .25 12. Raise issues 4.59 6.87 4.34 6.47 .29 .22 .23 .29 Intentions 13. Speak up 4.15 1.28 4.43 1.09 .06 .37 .26 .35 14. Discuss 3.82 1.24 4.57 1.27 .28 .06 .08 .I4 15. Interact 4.93 1.22 4.76 1.19 .21 .38 .28 .34 16. Sensitivity 5.23 1.63 5.25 1.43 -.04 .34 .26 .32 17. Raise issues 4.22 1.52 4.24 1.33 .07 .OO .20 .14

Note. Sample I appears below the diagonal. Sample 2 appears above the diagonal. N for higher than .14 are significant atp < .01; correlations between .12 and .14 are significant between .18 and .22 are significant atp < .05.

6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongfy disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Cronbach’s alphas for this scale were .72 and .77 for Samples 1 and 2, respectively.

Gender. A dummy variable (1 = female, 0 = male) was used to control for gender in the analysis.

Race. A dummy variable (1 = White, 0 = Asian) was used to control for respondents’ race.


Samples 1 and 2

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

.17 .20 .14 .16 .16 .25 .06 .17 .07 .22 .13 .07 -.01

.33 .22 .3 1 .36 .20 .34 .27 .32 .22 -.07 .27 .22 .I3

.77 .45 .74 .47 .32 .37 .35 .37 .37 -.04 .25 .37 .23

.82 .43 .6 1 .49 .39 .4 1 .29 .4 1 .37 -.01 .3 1 .29 .27 - .58 .67 .47 .42 .49 .30 .42 .32 .OO .39 .3 1 .22 .68 - .46 .25 .24 .25 .19 .17 .20 .14 .35 .I8 .17 .67 .53 - .5 1 .42 .32 .26 .46 .3 1 .05 .29 .25 .25

.42 .28 .41 - .75 .59 .57 .67 .44 .08 .30 .23 .3 1

.34 .23 .36 .69 - .67 .39 .68 .29 .I9 .31 .13 .33

.41 .28 .32 .69 .64 - .44 .65 .29 .09 S O .20 .2 1

.33 .19 .22 .53 .38 .52 - .42 .20 -.03 .14 .34 .03

.27 .23 .42 .64 .62 .59 .36 - .38 .10 .26 -.OO .42

.41 .24 .30 .55 .42 .40 .34 .35 - .27 .40 .23 .37

.05 . 1 0 .OO .15 .33 .18 .04 .22 .17 - .30 .02 .05

.40 .27 .20 .30 .29 .34 .19 .22 .34 .16 - .20 .15

.36 .23 .I6 .30 .14 .23 .29 .17 .45 .06 .33 - -.14

.07 .04 .19 .10 .05 .02 -.04 .10 .03 -.01 -.03 -.11 -

Sample 1, range = 266 to 286. N for sample 2, range = 129 to 138. In Sample 1, correlations at p < .05. In Sample 2, correlations higher than .22 are significant at p < .O 1 ; correlations

Analytical Strategy

Descriptive statistics were calculated for both the primary and secondary data sets. Hierarchical regression models were used to test the hypotheses across the samples. To test Hypotheses 1 and 2, each of the five behavioral intention scales was regressed on a set of control variables and the relevant attitude and


subjective norm. Control variables for gender and race were entered in the first step of the model, and social desirability was entered in the second step. The relevant attitude toward the particular behavioral intention was entered in the third step, and the subjective norm was entered in the fourth step.

Hierarchical regression models also were used across both data sets to test Hypothesis 3’s predicted interaction of race and racial identity on attitudes. Con- trols for gender and social desirability were entered in the first step of these models. Main effects of race and racial identity were tested in the second step. The Race x Identity interaction term, which was entered in the third and final step, was the product of the racial identity measure (after centering) and the White dummy variable, which was not centered (Aiken & West, 1991). Since our hypotheses were directional-that is, more favorable attitudes and stronger subjective norms would lead to stronger behavioral intentions, and racial identity would be more strongly related to attitudes toward diversity for Asian students than for White students-we used one-tailed tests to assess the statistical significance of the results, following Davis (1991).

Results

The descriptive statistics and correlations between all continuous variables in both data sets are shown in Table 1. The correlations indicate that, in general, subjective norms were more strongly correlated with behavioral intentions than were attitudes.

Correlations between the intention variables indicate distinct differences between these scales. In both data sets, the proactive intention to raise difficult issues that may cause conflicts was moderately (p < . lo) negatively related to the more passive intention to be sensitive to language that promotes racial stereotypes. However, the intention to raise difficult issues was not related significantly to the intention to discuss diversity in either sample. Additionally, the correlation between the passive intention to avoid offensive language and the active intention to openly discuss diversity issues was insignificant in both samples. The intention to be sensitive to language that is used may be an indication of political correctness; that is, an outwardly passive approach to diversity.

The differences between the behavioral intentions also were highlighted by the pattern of relationships with social desirability and racial identity. In both samples, social desirability was not associated strongly with the more active intentions (raising diversity issues and discussing diversity), but it was correlated significantly with those that are more indirect: interacting with others, and being sensitive to language that is used. Alternatively, racial identity was correlated significantly in both samples with the more active intentional behavior of discussing diversity.

Table 2 shows the results of the Fishbein and Ajzen (1 975) model tests (Hypotheses 1 and 2). The results were generally consistent in support of the


Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Resulis for Models Testing Fishbein and Ajzen S Theory of Reasoned Action

Intention Sample 1 Sample 2

Block P R2Model m2Block P R2Model m2Block

1. Female White

2. Desirability 3. Attitude 4. Norms

1. Female White


1. Female White


1. Female White


.22* * -.16** .35** .13* .43 * *

.01 -.09 .08 .17** .31**

.10 -.15* .37** .30** .16**

.27**

.o 1

.32**

. l l*

.16*

Speak up

.08** .08** .25** .09** .09**

.20** .12** .20* .13* .04*

.21** .02 .26** .18** .06**

.36** .15** .46** .33** .15**

-.15**

N = 264 N = 127 Discuss with others

.o 1 .01 .03 .oo .oo -.oo

.01 .01 -.07 .o 1 .o 1

.04 >.02* .oo .01 .oo

.12** .09** .30** .08 .08** N = 260 N = 129

Interact with others

.04 .04** .18* .07** .07**

.I6 .13** .22** .12** .05**

.23** .06** .29** .19** .07**

.25** .02** .47** .34** .15**

-.19*

N = 258 N = 131 Sensitive to language used

.07** .07** .26** .07* 0.7* -.04

.17** .lo** .14 .01* .02t

.18** .01 .09 .lo* .01

.20** .02** .29** .17** .07** N = 257 N = 123

(table continues)

1348 LlNNEHAN ET AL.

Table 2 (Continued) Intention Sample 1 Sample 2

Block P P Raise difficult issues

1. Female .02 .oo .oo .03 .oo .oo White -.04 .o 1

2. Desirability -.OO .oo .oo .14f .02 .02 3. Attitude .22* .05* .05* .23** .07* .05* 4. Norms .05 .05* .OO .42** .20** .13**

N = 259 N = 128

Note. Beta estimates are standardized and shown for the first time variables are entered into the models. t p < . l O . * p < . 0 5 . * * p < . O l .

model across both samples. In Sample 1, attitudes were significant predictors of all five behavioral intentions. Attitudes were significant for the intentions to speak up, interact with others, and raise difficult issues in Sample 2. Subjective norms were significant predictors of all five behavioral intentions in Sample 2, and four of the five intention measures in Sample 1 (with raising difficult issues as the exception).

Table 3 shows the results of the models testing Hypothesis 3, which predicted that race and racial identity would interact to influence respondents’ attitudes. The results show consistent support for the hypothesis. The interaction was a significant predictor of all five attitudes in both samples (although in Sample 2 it only moderately predicted the attitude toward raising difficult issues).

To examine the nature of the interactions more closely, we calculated the attitude regressions separately for White and Asian students. Results for all five attitudes in both samples indicate that racial identity was a significant and positive predictor of attitudes for Asian students, but was not a significant predictor for White students. The positive direction of the racial identity effect for Asian students was consistent with Hypothesis 3’s prediction. Thus, for the Asian students in both samples, those who strongly identified with their race reported more favorable attitudes toward behaviors associated with effectiveness in a diverse workforce than did Asian students who reported low levels of racial group identification.

Discussion

Our findings validate a behavioral approach to assessing diversity initiatives in organizations. Regression results indicate that intentions to engage in behaviors


Table 3

Hierarchical Regression Results for Models Testing Interaction Effects of Race and Racial Identity on Attitudes

Sample 1 Sample 2

P R2Model hR2Block P R2Model hR2Block

Attitude: Speak up 1. Female

Desirability 2. Racial identity

White 3. Identity x White

1. Female Desirability

2. Racial identity White

3. Identity x White



3. Identity x White



3. Identity x White

.15*

.28**

.13*

.02 -.40**

.23**

.39**

.09 -.01 .27**

.19**

.43**

.07 -.07 .25**

.09

.31**

.12* -.12* .21**

.12** .12** .20* .17** .17** .33**

.13** .01 .05 .20** .03 -.16*

.17** .04** -.27** .24** .04* N = 265 N = 127

Discuss with others .23** .23** .21* .12** .12**

.24** .01 .03 .14** .02 .24**

-.13 .28** .04** -.49** .25** .lo**

N=260 N = 129 Interact with others

.25** .25** .22* .20** .20**

.26** .01 .12 .23** .03 .36**

-.lo .29** .04** -.26** .26** .03*

N = 258 N = 123 Attitude: Sensitive to language used .11** .11** .20* .08** .08**

.16* .13** ,027 .10 .lo* .02

-.lo .16** .03** -.23* .13** .03*

N = 258 N = 123

(table continues)

7350 LlNNEHAN ET AL.

Table 3 (Continued)

Sample 1 Sample 2

P R2Model M2Block P R2Model M2Block

Raise difficult issues 1. Female .14* .09** .09** .09 .lo** .lo**

2. Racial identity .02 .lo** .OO .03 .12** .01

3. Identity x White .21** .12** .02** -.I8 .13** .02

Desirability .25** .29**

White .03 -.12

N = 259 N = 128

Note. Beta estimates are standardized and shown for the first time variables are entered into the models. *p < .05. **p < .01.

enhancing performance among a diverse workforce can be predicted from attitudes and subjective norms, as conceptualized by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Organizations introducing diversity initiatives can use our approach by identifying behavioral goals for organizational members and cre- ating interventions to encourage those behaviors. Pretests and posttests examining attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions would help to document whether the diversity initiative had the intended effects.

Shaping a diversity initiative around a set of behavioral goals forces the designer to identify specific, observable outcomes. In our interviews, we found that few diversity practitioners could easily articulate specific behavioral goals for their programs without in-depth discussions. Our research provides a founda- tion of five objectives on which to build: (a) interacting frequently with members of other groups; (b) discussing issues of diversity and cultural backgrounds; (c) discussing potentially difficult issues with members of other groups, instead of avoiding them; (d) avoiding the use of offensive language; and (e) confronting and educating those who use offensive language or tell offensive jokes and stories. Specific behavioral objectives provide observable outcomes, which can be used to test the effectiveness of diversity interventions.

The TRA provides two main targets for diversity interventions that can increase the likelihood of desirable behavior. First, subjective norms can be changed if management communicates a clear message supporting pluralism and the elimination of discrimination. Hence, evaluating managers on their diversity stance and rewarding those who champion diversity may help to increase employees’ perceptions that management desires them to engage in the new behaviors. Second, diversity initiatives can target relevant attitudes. Training devoted to skill


development, which includes opportunities for practice, may help to enhance a sense of self-efficacy in performing the new behaviors. Skill-based training may reduce the perceived likelihood of negative outcomes, such as fears that one’s behavior will be met with negative reactions or will harm work relationships.

We also found that racial group membership moderated the relationship between racial identity and attitudes toward engaging in behaviors that may be desirable in a diverse organization. Previous research has shown that members of dominant groups respond less positively to diversity interventions than do members of historically excluded groups (Alderfer, 1992; Kossek & Zonia, 1993). Our research demonstrates variation across two racial groups: Whites and Asian Americans. In the case of behaviors intended to improve race relations in the workplace, Asian American students had more positive attitudes if they held a strong racial identity. These findings support the notion that social identities affect attitudes and behavior beyond the effects of simple demographics (Davidson & Friedman, 1998; Lobe1 & St. Clair, 1992).

We initially hypothesized that another reason for this finding is that members of historically excluded groups who identify strongly with their race will be more favorable toward the behaviors because they contribute to a pluralistic organizational culture. We based this on the belief that pluralistic organizations value, rather than threaten, the racial culture that these group members have embraced as part of their identity. This may be particularly true for Asian American students. The Asian American identity has been characterized as one with a strong connectedness to cultural heritage, family, and belief that personal achievement reflects positively not only on the family, but on the Asian population as a whole (Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). Stronger ties to these cultural values and beliefs will lead to more favorable attitudes toward those organizational practices that tend to preserve and respect these values, rather than trying to minimize them through assimilation into a mainstream organizational culture.

However, these explanations may not be sufficient to explain why racial identity in disadvantaged groups will lead to more favorable attitudes toward behaviors with potentially harmful consequences. Confronting and interacting with members of other races often involves personal risks. Why would strong racial identity lead to taking these risks? The answer may be that identifying strongly with a racial group operates as a self-protective mechanism (Crocker & Major, 1989). Previous research has shown that members of historically disadvantaged groups are relatively unlikely to attribute poor outcomes to discrimination because of the motivation to avoid being rejected socially (Ruggiero & Major, 1998; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997). Strong racial identity may help members of disadvantaged groups to confront others because the fear of being socially rejected as an individual is relatively less important and the desire to promote the interests of the group is relatively more important. Further research is needed to test this hypothesis.


The positive impact we observed of racial identity on Asian Americans’ attitudes toward diversity-related behaviors contradicts the model minority myth’s assumption that Asians do not experience or care about discrimination, a finding that is consistent with Bell et al. (1997) and Tang (1997). Like African Ameri- cans and Hispanics, Asian Americans have experienced a history of exclusion and discrimination, and our findings indicate that those Asian Americans with a strong racial identity are likely to express positive attitudes toward behaviors intended to reduce discrimination and foster inclusion. These findings imply that Asians who strongly identify with their racial group recognize the benefits of a more pluralistic organizational culture in allowing freer expression of their valued social identities.

We found that racial identity had no impact on attitudes toward diversity- related behaviors among Whites. Given that the stages of racial identity development are often described as similar for Whites and other groups, this finding requires some explanation. One possibility is that fewer Whites in our samples had reached the highest stage of racial identity development where one is comfortable with viewing oneself as a racial being and has developed an interest in other raciallethnic heritages. In both of our samples, Asian Americans showed higher mean values on our racial identity measure than did Whites. As such, our lack of findings for Whites may be a result of the effects of a restriction of range on the racial identity variable for that group.

Alternatively, the concept of racial identity may have a fundamentally different meaning for Whites than for other racial groups in the United States. Groups with a history of being devalued and excluded in a society experience a lifetime of negative societal messages about their own group while hearing positive messages about the dominant group. For disadvantaged groups, then, racial identity development comprises validation in the face of negative messages from the society at large, and results in positive outcomes such as increased self-esteem. For Whites as the dominant group, the need to develop a strong racial identity is less essential to the development of a positive image of one’s own ethnic group. Whites hear many positive messages about their own group; hence, they can develop a strong sense of their own group’s worth without questioning the meaning of race in the social order. As such, previous authors have argued that some Whites hold strong racial identities containing negative beliefs about other groups (Rowe et al., 1994). If this was the case for the White participants in our study, then one would not expect to see positive attitudes toward diversity-related behaviors among this group.

Like all research studies, this one has its limitations. The use of undergraduate student participants limits the generalizability of our findings to working adults. The students were all enrolled in business curricula, which may reduce further the ability to extrapolate the findings outside the present samples, as many who work in organizations have nonbusiness academic backgrounds. Also,


the fact that measures of the independent and dependent variables were obtained from the same survey instrument raises the possibility that significant correlations were a result of common methods bias. Additionally, because of the small representation of African American, Hispanic, and students of other races, our results may not be generalizable to these other racial groups. As a result, we are unable to examine ways that these other groups may have responded differently. However, Bell et al. (1997) found little difference in attitudes toward affirmative action between Asian Americans and members of other historically excluded groups in multiple samples of undergraduate students and field respondents. As such, it could be likely that future research focusing on African American and Hispanic student attitudes and beliefs toward diversity may find these same similarities.

However, our research design also contains a number of strengths. First, our ability to replicate the findings on two independent samples strengthens our con- fidence that the results are genuine and not a result of the idiosyncrasies of an individual data set. Second, our measures of behavioral intentions showed a factor structure that was replicated in both samples. Third, the construct validity of our measures was supported by the fact that behavioral intentions were predict- able from their related attitudes and subjective norms. Fourth, social desirability bias was ruled out as a possible contaminant.

Future researchers can test our approach on samples of working adults to enhance generalizability. Collecting measures of the independent and dependent variables in separate survey forms could reduce the threat of common methods bias. Alternatively, employees could be asked to report on the behaviors of ran- domly selected coworkers, who would provide data on their own attitudes and subjective norms. Matching the responses from the relevant pairs would allow researchers to test the theoretical relationships with reduced contamination from common methods bias.

The present study took a behavioral approach that may be helpful in efforts to measure the impact of diversity interventions in organizations. It used a model of human behavior shown to have strong predictive validity, along with actual behaviors targeted by those who are in positions of influencing employees in organizations: HR practitioners and diversity trainers. As such, Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1 975) model may be useful in guiding a comprehensive evaluation of a diversity initiative, first by focusing attention on identifying specific behaviors that reinforce a pluralistic culture and then on the intentions, attitudes, and beliefs that may lead to these behaviors.

In addition to further highlighting the differences in attitudes of Whites and Asian Americans toward diversity-related topics, another contribution of this study is the evidence it showed of the positive relationship between racial identity and attitudes toward diversity of the Asian American respondents. If found in future, more inclusive studies, this evidence may help respond to the claim that


organizational efforts focusing on diversity will heighten awareness of differences, which may, in turn, serve to polarize the workforce rather than unite it.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S . G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Alderfer, C. (1 992). Changing race relations embedded in corporations: Report on a long-term project with the XYZ Corporation. In S. E. Jackson (Ed.), Diversity in the workplace: Human resource initiatives (pp. 138-166). New York, N Y Guilford.

Arce, C. (1981). A reconsideration of Chicano culture and identity. Daedalus,

Bell, E. L. (1990). The bicultural life experience of career-oriented Black women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,459-477.

Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1997). AGan American attitudes toward affirmative action. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 356-377.

Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (2000). Forming, changing, and acting on attitude toward affirmative action programs in employment: A theory-driven approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,784-798.

Bentler, P. M. (1 980). Multivariate analysis with latent variables: Causal model- ing. Annual Review of Psychology, 31,419-456.

Bentler, P. M. (1 990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 107,238-246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Blank, R., & Slipp, S . (1994). Voices of diversity: Real people talk about problems and solutions in a workplace where everyone is not alike. New York, NY: American Management Association.

Block, C. J., Roberson, L., & Neuger, D. A. (1995). White racial identity theory: A framework for understanding reactions toward interracial situations in organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46,7 1-88.

Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J . R. (1 993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58,

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Chrobot-Mason, D. (in press). Managing racial differences: The role of majority managers’ ethnic identity development on minority employee perceptions of support. Group and Organization Management.

110, 177-192.

443-464.


Comer, D., & Soliman, C. E. (1996). Organizational efforts to manage diversity: Do they really work? Journal of Management Inquiry, 8,470-483.

Cox, T. (1 993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Cox, T., & Nkomo, S. ( I 990). Invisible men and women: A status report on race as a variable in organization behavior research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11,419-431.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Cross, W. E. (1995). The psychology of nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Hand- book of multicultural counseling (pp. 93- 122). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Davidson, M., & Friedman, R. A. (1 998). When excuses don’t work: The persis- tent injustice effect among Black managers. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 43,154- 183.

Davis, G. (1 99 1). Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the inter-corporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36,583-6 1 3.

Driedger, L. (1 976). Ethnic self-identity: A comparison of ingroup evaluations. Sciometry, 39, 131-141.

Ellis, C., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1994). Diverse approaches to managing diversity. Human Resource Management, 33,79- 109.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliex attitude, intention, and behavior. Read- ing, MA: Addison Wesley.

Harquail, C. V., & Cox, T. (1993). Organizational culture and acculturation. In T. Cox (Ed.), Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice @p. 161 -1 76). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Helms, J. E. (1 990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, andprac- tice. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Hood, J., Muller, H. J., & Seitz, P. (1999, August). Changes in attitudes of His- panic and Anglo management students surrounding a workforce diversity intervention. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management con- ference, Chicago, Illinois.

Hopkins, W. E., & Hopkins, S. A. (1991). Getting the jump on Work Force 2000: Some helpful hints for managers. Management Quarterly, 32(3), 33-38.

Ibarra, H. (1 995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38,673-703.

Jacques, R. (1997). The unbearable Whiteness of being: Reflections of a pale, stale male. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 80- 106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Jordan, A. T. (1 995). Managing diversity: Translating anthropological insight for organization studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 124-140.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LZSREL VZ user b guide (3rd ed.). Moores- ville, IN: Scientific Software.

Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 14(1), 61-81.

Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 928-938.

Linnehan, F., & Konrad, A. (1999). Diluting diversity: Implications for intergroup inequality in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiv, 8,400-4 15.

Lobel, S. A. (1999). Impacts of diversity and work-life initiatives in organizations. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 453-474). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lobel, S. A., & St. Clair, L. (1 992). Effects of family responsibilities, gender, and career identity salience on performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 1057-1069.

Makabe, T. (1979). Ethnic identity scale and social mobility: The case ofNisei in Toronto. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropologv, 16, 136- 145.

Messner, M. A. (1 998). The limits of the “male sex role”: An analysis of the men’s liberation and men’s rights movements’ discourse. Gender and Society,

Oyserman, D., & Sakamoto, I. (1997). Being Asian American: Identity, cultural constructs, and stereotype perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33,435-453.

Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7 , 156-1 76.

Plummer, D. L. (1995). Patterns of racial identity development of African American adolescent males and females. Journal of Black Psychology, 21,

Riordan, C . M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past develop- ments, contradictions, and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 19, 131-173.

Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). White racial identity models: A critique and alternative proposal. Counseling Psychologist, 22, 129- 146.

Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

Ruggiero, K. M., & Major, B. N. (1998). Group status and attributions to discrimination: Are low- or high-status group members more likely to blame

12,255-276.

168-180.

chology, 72,373-389.


their failure on discrimination? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R.Y. (1985). Social categorization and power differen- tials in group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15,415-434.

Schwartz, R. H., & Sullivan, D. B. (1993). Managing diversity in hospitals. Health Care Management Review, 18(2), 51-56.

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifica- tions and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,325-343.

Tang, J. (1 997). The model minority thesis revisited. Journal of Applied Behav- ioral Science, 33,29 1-3 15.

Thomas, A. J., & Speight, S. L. (1999). Racial identity and racial socialization attitudes of African American parents. Journal of Black Psychology, 25,

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79-90.

Tougas, F., & Beaton, A. M. (1993). Affirmative action in the work place: For better or for worse. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42,

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141-162.

Westphal, J. D., & Milton, L. P. (2000). How experience and network ties affect influence of demographic minorities on corporate boards. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 45,366-398.

24,821 -837.

152- 170.

253-264.


Appendix A

Most Frequently Mentioned Outcomes

1. Feeling good about doing the right thing about racial issues 2. Raising awareness about the unique issues experienced by different racial

3. Making people of other races feel respected 4. Blowing racial issues out of proportion 5. Making people uncomfortable 6. Offending people 7. Reducing racially biased behavior 8. Being labeled “politically correct” 9. Improving relationships with members of other races

groups

10. Improving relationships with members of your own race 1 1 . Damaging your relationships with members of other races 12. Damaging your relationships with members of your own race 13. Stifling open discussions about racial issues


Appendix B

Behavioral Scales

Objective: Speaking Up to Those Who Use Oflensive Language

1. Confront those who tell racially offensive jokes or stories. 2. Remain silent if others tell racially offensive jokes or stories. (Reverse

3. Point out to fkends, parents, or teachers if they use racially offensive lan-

4. Encourage others to confront racial stereotypes if they are affecting work-

5. Question any comments that promote racial stereotypes.

scored)

guage.

ing relationships.

Objective: Discussing Issues of Diversity and Cultural Backgrounds

6. Discuss the racial composition of your classmates, project teams, or clubs. 7. Openly discuss issues of race. 8. Ask questions about the preferred way to talk about other racial groups.

Objective: Interacting Frequently With Members of Other Groups

9. Seek to work with students from other racial groups. 10. Look for ways to involve students from other racial groups in your activi-

11. Socialize with students from other racial groups. ties.

Objective: Avoiding the Use of Offensive Language

12. Avoid making comments that promote racial stereotypes. 13. Try to use language that is not racially offensive.

Objective: Discussing Potentially D@cult Issues With Members of Other Groups

14. Hesitate to raise issues that may cause conflict between you and a member

15. Hesitate to face conflicts between yourself and a member of another race. of another racial group. (Reverse scored)

(Reverse scored)

Documents

Behavioral Goals for a Diverse Organization: The Effects of