Le

Ga

b

a

KDLO

1

i(TlaWaimoampSll

1

iht

T

0h

International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 254–260

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman

eisure managers’ perceptions of employee diversity and impact ofmployee diversity

eetha Gariba,b,∗

University College of London, Management Science and Innovation Department, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UKTilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands

r t i c l e i n f o

eywords:iversity perceptionseisure organizations

a b s t r a c t

This aim of the study is to gain more insight in diversity perceptions and the diversity benefits in theleisure industry by investigating the impact of leisure managers’ diversity perceptions on organizational

rganizational performanceperformance perceptions. The diversity typology of Harrison and Klein (2007) based on variety, separa-tion, and disparity has been used to study diversity perceptions. The findings are three-fold: a generalpositive view of employee diversity by leisure managers can lead to a positive impact on organizationaloutcomes; to increase possible positive effects of employee diversity, leisure managers should viewemployee diversity in terms of variety; and to decrease possible negative effects of employee diversity,leisure managers should not view employee diversity as disparity.

. Introduction and literature review

Leisure organizations and non-leisure organizations are increas-ngly faced with diverse human resources due to globalizationAppadurai, 1990; Cox, 1997; Harris et al., 2004; Robertson, 1995).he diversity of human resources is reflected in various ways ineisure organizations as diversity can refer to both clearly observ-ble and less observable elements (Milliken and Martins, 1996;illiams and O’Reilly, 1998). Aspects like gender, age, and race

re diversity aspects of human resources that are often clearly vis-ble, while the cultural, professional, or educational background

ight be less visible. Studies concerning the more visible aspectsf workplace diversity have given negative results, for example,n extremely low amount of gender diversity among industrialanagers in Australia (Teicher and Spearitt, 1996) and a very low

ercentage of disabled human resources in the UK (Preston andcott-Parker, 1995). On the other hand, globalization also leads toess visible diversity, but these effects have been studied to a muchesser extent.

.1. Effects of workplace diversity

Even though diverse groups are known to be more productive

n solving complex problems (Taylor and Greve, 2006), and diverseuman resources can lead to an increased productivity and effec-iveness in organizations (Thomas and Ely, 1996), there are still

∗ Correspondence address: Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5000 LE Tilburg,he Netherlands.

278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.07.002

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

many negative effects of diversity in the workplace (Pelled et al.,1999). Several ways of viewing the positive and negative effectsdiversity in the workplace are explained in a Cognitive Elabora-tion Model (CEM) (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) or in an overviewof diversity effect findings (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). The CEMmodel focuses on the cognitive elaboration of diversity attemptsto combine the social categorization perspective and informa-tion/decision making perspective on diversity. According to themodel a more positive outcome of diversity can occur if a highertask ability and task motivation is present together with positiveaffective evaluations. An overview of 80 diversity studies outlinesthe negative and positive effects of diversity (Williams and O’Reilly,1998). Williams and O’Reilly (1998) conclude their meta-analysisby focusing on what future research needs. One of the main gaps indiversity research is to understand how different types of diversitycan have different effects in the workplace. Even though, a greatdeal of research has been done in the field of diversity, still it seemsunclear which impact of diversity can be expected in the workplace(Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007).

Negative effects of diversity are often still explained by the socialcategorization perspective (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Accord-ing to this perspective diversity is driven by the perceived extentto which others fit their category or not. In this context one oftenrefers to the in-group bias, whereby in-group members prefer otherin-group members and view out-group members negatively com-pared to their own members (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). This means

that people who are different are not considered positively, andtherefore majority members of a group are more inclined to dis-criminate other minority members by not viewing them positively.This means that diversity is therefore viewed as a negative aspect

spitali

idmendssssc1

mcwWppicaliTwAotc11((2p

l(mFgayskd

1

fiHeietbsssptdt

G. Garib / International Journal of Ho

n the workforce. Consequently, employees will not benefit from aiverse work environment, and the organization will not becomeore effective and more productive. Thus, the possible beneficial

ffects of diversity are lost. In a study on three types of diversity,amely social category diversity, value diversity, and informationaliversity, two types of diversity led to negative effects. Value diver-ity in the workplace led to negative effects like a decreased workatisfaction and work commitment, while social category diver-ity led to increased relationship conflict (Jehn et al., 1999). Othertudies also have negative outcomes for diversity at work: a lessohesive workforce and an increased level of conflicts (Pelled et al.,999), and an increased amount of competition (Thomas, 1990).

Positive effects of diversity are often explained by the infor-ation and decision-making perspective that claims that diversity

an be defined as the different approaches, views, standpoints orays of thinking people might have (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004;illiams and O’Reilly, 1998). The variety of different thoughts,

erceptions, and attitudes should actually bring along many moreositive effects for organizations. Thus, a number of positive find-

ngs of workforce diversity have been found. A diverse workforcean gain an organization access to a specific market (Gardenswartznd Rowe, 1998). A larger variety of human beings bring about aarger variety of ideas, whereby more innovation can be broughtnto an organization (Cox, 1993; Gardenswartz and Rowe, 1998).he variety of human capital can lead to a more effective way oforking in a group (Knouse and Dansby, 1999; Pettigrew, 1998).lso, an increased degree of productivity can be achieved as a resultf a diverse workforce (Gonzalez and Denisi, 2009). Other posi-ive outcomes of diversity are: decreasing turnover and absenteeosts (Ross and Schneider, 1992), obtaining economic health (Lebo,996), a larger amount of flexibility (Gardenswartz and Rowe,998), improving recruitment and retention of new employeesRoss and Schneider, 1992), a creation of a competitive advantageCox and Blake, 1991), gaining access to a broader market (Chan,006; Cope and Kalantzis, 1997), and offering an attractive work-lace (Nykiel, 1997).

A different perspective on studying diversity makes use of fault-ines based on the amount of attributes dividing group membersLau and Murnighan, 1998). According to this perspective, the align-

ent of attributes has a strong relation to the amount of diversity.or example, when differences between employees can be made inender, age, and experience, because all older employees are malend have over 20 years of experience, while the other employees areoung, female, and have less than 5 years of experience. This per-pective, however, still makes use of real diversity aspects withoutnowing whether these aspects are perceived as producing moreiversity.

.2. Diversity and leisure

Some leisure academics have studied diversity in specific leisureelds, such as tourism, hospitality, and recreation (Allison andibbler, 2004; Furunes and Mykletun, 2007; Pinar et al., 2010). Forxample, the suggestion that there is a low level of gender diversityn the hospitality industry, has led to a study which indeed providesvidence that there is a lack of gender diversity in Turkish hospi-ality management (Pinar et al., 2010). However, how one couldenefit from increased gender diversity is not addressed in thistudy. In fact, this seems to be an interesting question as the leisureector may be the sector that needs employee diversity most toolve some problems it is facing. The leisure sector could for exam-

le use employee diversity as a way to increase the reputation ofhe labor market, to gain access to a broader market, improving pro-uctivity (Chan, 2006; Cope and Kalantzis, 1997), and by ensuringhe economic health of an organization (Chan, 2006).

ty Management 32 (2013) 254–260 255

In the hospitality sector the benefits of diversity are recog-nized (Christensen-Hughes, 1992; Devine et al., 2007; Gröschl andDoherty, 1999; Maxwell et al., 2000). The leisure sector, includingthe hospitality sector, can be characterized as a weak labor marketdue to the high turnover, shortages of staff, and low level of profes-sionalization (Ladkin and Riley, 1996). The leisure sector has a highturnover rate, whereby the necessity to fulfill services and taskssufficiently and productively becomes more important. After hav-ing trained employees to fulfill their tasks, employees leave earlierthan in non-leisure sectors. Therefore, pressure is placed on thissector to retain human resources for a longer period of time. Fur-thermore, the leisure sector deals with seasonality leading to a highshortage of staff during peak periods (Butler, 1998). This shortage ofstaff leads to a decrease in productivity and lower quality service.The hospitality sector, for example in Northern Ireland, draws anumber of migrant workers which prove to be an invaluable groupof employees (Butler, 1998; Devine et al., 2007).

A low level of professionalization also characterizes the leisuresector as often lower educated people enter the labor market ofthe leisure sector. Furthermore, no strict requirements concerningprofessional education or backgrounds are kept for filling vacan-cies in the leisure sector. Actually, diversity of human capital coulddecrease the problems that leisure subsectors like the hospital-ity sector faces with attracting capable workforces (Gröschl andDoherty, 1999). Thus, diversity could lead to positive effects ifmanaged properly. However, leisure managers do not seem tobe handling diversity well (Gröschl and Doherty, 1999). It seemsthat the hospitality industry is for example not reaping the ben-efits of cultural diversity due to increased globalization (Devineet al., 2007). In the recreational field, also a need is expressed forunderstanding cultural diversity better to increase the level of man-agement (Allison and Hibbler, 2004).

Currently, leisure sectors express the need to serve a morediverse market better with a diverse workforce (Nykiel, 1997)whereby a better service quality can be generated (Gardenswartzand Rowe, 1998). The current lack of service quality is recognizedand can be delivered by ensuring that managers are, for example,better trained in dealing with diversity in the hospitality sector(Maxwell et al., 2000). Diversity research in the recreation andparks sector has not only confirmed a lack of diversity management(Allison, 1999), but also the general hospitality sector is lackingproper diversity management (Iverson, 2000). Thus, it seems thatin the leisure fields diversity management could play a salient rolein the service quality of its products, and effectiveness of the orga-nizations. However, nowadays, leisure organizations do not knowhow to handle diversity well. For example, in the hospitality sec-tor diversity management remains to be difficult for managers(Iverson, 2000).

1.3. Gap in leisure research concerning diversity

A gap of research on diversity within the leisure field has beenrecognized (Allison et al., 2000). There is, for example, a need formore in-depth diversity analyses of the leisure workplace (Allison,1999). The leisure workplace has to deal with diversity, but there isno current study, for example, that explains which type of diversityperceptions should be encouraged or which diversity perceptionsshould be avoided in a leisure organization. Like many other orga-nizations, leisure organizations are struggling to make sure thatthey can provide positive effects of diversity, while diminishingthe negative effects. However, relatively little diversity research inthe leisure field has been done up till this point. The leisure field

could benefit from understanding how diversity can be managedand how diversity is viewed by leisure managers in order to achievepositive outcomes of diversity. Up to date, for example, no researchhas been done in the leisure field to study the ways diversity is

2 spital

ptdt2uslfibtftbt2aaciithiantblnTriuww

2

Ftt2oTioii

aswahWndtddiSs

56 G. Garib / International Journal of Ho

erceived by leisure managers and perceptions of negative or posi-ive diversity outcomes. However, the importance of having properiversity management in the leisure field, e.g., the hospitality sec-or, increases and is a focus point for leisure organizations (Iverson,000). The aim of this study, therefore is to meet the gap of trying tonderstand how to deal with diversity by increasing specific diver-ity perceptions and avoiding other diversity perceptions so thateisure organizations can improve their diversity management. Toll this gap, leisure research could assist leisure organizations toenefit from a diverse workforce while decreasing possible nega-ive effects of workplace diversity. Hospitality organizations can,or example, profit from “the fresh ideas, strong growth, a posi-ive firm image, and an enhanced ability to hire qualified workers”y hiring diverse employees which can prove valuable to hospi-ality organizations facing with several challenges (Byeong Yong,006). This study also shows how leisure managers view diversitynd which diversity perceptions of managers are desirable. Thus,leisure organization that would like to employ managers most

apable of managing diversity in the best possible way needs to takento attention their diversity perceptions. Diversity managementn leisure organizations, is namely also a matter of perceptions onop of existing diversity policies (Devine et al., 2007). As the wayow diversity is perceived influences the way how a diversity pol-

cy might be implemented. For example, if diversity is perceiveds a phenomenon that only brings in different opinions that areot compatible, then diversity is not viewed most probably posi-ively and implementing diversity policies to promote it will note strongly supported by employees. Therefore, when you would

ike to manage diversity well, you also need to manage the cog-itions related to diversity in the workplace (Devine et al., 2007).o conclude, the main aim of this paper is to fill the gap of leisureesearch by analyzing how leisure managers, including hospital-ty managers, can improve their organizational performance bynderstanding which diversity perceptions should be fostered andhich diversity perceptions should be diminished when dealingith diversity in leisure organizations.

. Theoretical framework for the study

Diversity is known to have different effects in the leisure field.or example, in the Norwegian hospitality industry, a study showedhat age diversity is not positively viewed by managers, who appearo have a preference for younger workers (Furunes and Mykletun,007). If managers have a negative view on age diversity or anyther type of diversity, it is unlikely to lead to positive outcomes.he effects of diversity are strongly influenced by how diversitys managed. Diversity management is mainly the responsibilityf managers (Kandola and Fullerton, 1994). Managers decide andmplement diversity management to a great extent. Thus, this studyncludes diversity perceptions of leisure managers.

For this study, the diversity constructs developed by Harrisonnd Klein (2007) have been used to measure the various diver-ity perceptions managers might have. Three diversity constructsere identified, namely separation, variety, and disparity. By using

nd trying to understand how these different types of diversityave an effect in the workplace, this study aims to fulfill the gap.illiams and O’Reilly (1998) refer to in their conclusive remarks,

amely to understand how different types of diversity can haveifferent effects in the workplace. Specifically, this study aimso understand how diversity viewed as separation, variety, andisparity effect organizational outcomes. Separation is linked to

iversity perceptions as differences based on positions or opin-

ons, e.g., different beliefs, values, or attitudes among employees.eparation is strongly connected to the social categorization per-pective. According to the separation construct diversity is viewed

ity Management 32 (2013) 254–260

as different groups in which people can be placed or not. Thus,when employee diversity is viewed as separation, heterogeneousemployees are viewed as having different opinions, values, or atti-tudes.

The second construct is called variety. Variety is actually linkedto the information and decision-making perspective as peopleare viewed as having a unique set of characteristics concern-ing expertise, knowledge, or information. Therefore, employeediversity based on variety is considered as diversity in knowl-edge/information, expertise, and experience of employees.

The third construct is called disparity. This construct can bestrongly linked to the idea of diversity based on social status, thesocially valued assets or resources they possess or have access to.Therefore, employee diversity is considered as income, job levels,and amount of status.

These constructs may provide a more adequate, innovative, andunique way of defining diversity compared to studies in whichdiversity is viewed in terms of gender, age, race, background, func-tion, etc. This study shows how diversity is viewed. As diversitytypes can overlap, the constructs used in this study tend to over-lap as well. To illustrate, an extremely traditionally thinking whitemale employee (e.g., separation aspect) works in a five star hotelas a receptionist. In this five star hotel he worked for ten years inthe same way. The hotel implemented empowerment several yearsago in that hotel, but he refuses to take an empowering role as he isnot experienced in taking decisions and responsibilities (e.g., vari-ety aspect). Moreover, he does not feel he has the expertise to takedecisions his manager should take. As a consequence, he does notreceive any promotion, and retains the same level of salary withslight increases for the last ten years (e.g., disparity aspect).

The three constructs are also connected to negative or pos-itive outcomes (Harrison and Klein, 2007). Diversity perceivedas separation and disparity should lead to negative outcomes ofdiversity, while diversity perceived as variety should lead to pos-itive outcomes of diversity. Specifically, diversity perceived asseparation and disparity can lead to miscommunications, con-flicts, a low level of cohesion and inefficiency in the workplace.Diversity perceived as variety can lead to innovation, improvedproblem solving capacities, increased productivity, and reachingan improved competitive advantage. In a workplace context wheremanagers perceive employee diversity, these outcomes refer toorganizational outcomes. Thus we would like to study to followinghypotheses.

H1. Leisure managers’ perceptions of employee diversity as sepa-ration have a negative effect on perceived organizational outcomes.

H2. Leisure managers’ perceptions of employee diversity as vari-ety have a positive effect on perceived organizational outcomes.

H3. Leisure managers’ perceptions of employee diversity as dis-parity have a negative effect on perceived organizational outcomes.

3. Method

In the Netherlands, 278 leisure managers were personally con-tacted to participate in a survey. A single survey was conducted perorganization. The distribution of sectors for these organizations isthe following: 12% sports (n = 34), 13% culture (n = 37), 47% tourismand recreation (n = 129), and 28% other leisure (n = 78).

The average age of participants was 37 years varying from 19 to68 years. There were 63% men (n = 176) and 37% women (n = 101)(one respondent did not indicate this). Most participants had at

least a Bachelor’s degree (48%, n = 133), while 32% (n = 90) had a highschool diploma or lower diploma, 18% (n = 51) had a Master’s degreeor higher degree (about 1% n = 4, did not indicate their educationalbackground).

spitali

wigoa

ltsp

dhshiiernpceomdiatopita(wtmfserThnbata

dFtewirat(c

emi

G. Garib / International Journal of Ho

The median number of employees working in the organizationas 21 with a range from 1 to 3500. The survey was conducted

n English. The following information was asked: employee back-round, diversity experience, diversity perception, organizationalutcome of diversity (i.e., organizational effectiveness of diversitynd impact of diversity).

Participants’ background information included gender, age,evel of education, number of employees, job function, and sec-or. All other remaining questions are measured on a 7-point Likertcale where 1 stands for “I fully disagree” and 7 stands for “I com-letely agree.”

A study on diversity perceptions also implies that employeeiversity is being perceived in general, and that managers shouldave some experience with employee diversity. It would not makeense to have a perception about employee diversity, while oneas never been faced with it, or does not know anything about

t. Therefore, this study also includes control variables measur-ng general perception of employee diversity and experience ofmployee diversity. Concerning diversity experience, two itemsefer to what extent employee diversity is present in the orga-ization (e.g., In my organization there is employee diversity, Ierceive employee diversity). These variables are used as extraheck variables as it is important that managers do perceivemployee diversity in their organization as this is the main focusf the study. Then for each typology the diversity perceptions areeasured with three items referring to separation, variety, and

isparity (Harrison and Klein, 2007). We have measured the follow-ng aspects of separation: “different opinions,” “different values,”nd “different attitudes.” Concerning variety we have measuredhe following: “different knowledge/information,” “different levelsf expertise,” and “different work experiences.” Concerning dis-arity the following characteristics are measured: “differences in

ncome,” “differences in status,” and “differences in level of sta-us.” The reliability was measured with alpha coefficients that werell above acceptable levels considering the small number of itemsNunnally, 1967; Schmitt, 1996). For variety the cronbach alphaas .78, for disparity the cronbach alpha was .77, and for separa-

ion the cronbach alpha was .55. Therefore, three constructs wereade to measure variety, disparity, and separation. Consequently,

our items are measuring the organizational outcomes of diver-ity (e.g., employee diversity as a contribution to organizationalffectiveness, diversity as a positive aspect of an organization). Theeliability of the organizational outcomes items was also measured.he cronbach’s alpha of the organizational outcomes items wasigh: .80, whereby the four items were aggregated to one orga-izational outcomes measurement. Zero-order correlations haveeen performed between the three independent variables (i.e., vari-bles) and the dependent variable. See Table 1 for an overview ofhe means, standard deviation, and correlations of all dependentnd independent variables:

Table 1 shows that leisure managers seem to perceive employeeiversity most frequently as variety and less frequently as disparity.urthermore, leisure managers agree that organizational outcomesend to be quite positive. They also perceive a reasonable amount ofmployee diversity at work and they have quite some experienceith diverse employees. On the basis of Table 2 there are some

nteresting findings. There is a positive correlation between sepa-ation and organizational outcomes (r = .13, p < .05). There is also

significant positive correlation between variety and organiza-ional outcomes (r = .32, p < .01). There is no significant correlationpositive or negative) between disparity and the organizational out-omes.

The highest correlation can be found for the perception ofmployee diversity as variety. This indicates that the moreanagers perceive employee diversity as representing the var-

ous levels of expertise of employees, work experience, and

ty Management 32 (2013) 254–260 257

knowledge/information, the more positive organizational out-comes are perceived.

Furthermore, the control variables show some interestingresults, as the more managers perceive diversity in general, themore they also perceive positive organizational outcomes. Also, astrong significant positive correlation is found between work expe-rience and organizational outcome, indicating that managers, whohave more experience of working with diverse employees, alsoperceive more positive organizational outcomes.

4. Results

To understand the effects of the independent variables on thedependent variable, regressions have been performed with fourmodels. In the first model the control variables have been entered.In the second model separation variables have been entered. In thethird model the variety variables were entered. In the fourth modelthe disparity variables were entered. The results of this regressionanalysis can be found in Table 2.

Table 2 shows that in the first model including the control vari-ables, the general perception of employee diversity explains somevariance, and the beta is quite significant. This means that thesecontrol variables are of importance. In particular, the general per-ception of employee diversity is of relevance for organizationaloutcomes. This means that organizational outcomes are perceivedas more positive when leisure managers perceive more employeediversity. This would imply a perceived benefit of employee diver-sity.

The results of the second model include the independent vari-ables based on the theoretical framework. It shows that the strengthof the control variable measuring general perception of employeediversity slightly decreases. However, perceiving employee diver-sity as separation does not have an effect on organizationaloutcomes. It adds no variance, and the beta is quite low. Therefore,hypothesis 1 needs to be rejected. Leisure managers’ perceptions ofemployee diversity as separation do not explain negative organiza-tional outcomes. This means that when managers view employeediversity as the various opinions, values, or attitudes they mighthave, it does not mean it will have a significant negative impact onthe organizational outcomes.

Model 3 includes variety as an independent variable and aims totest whether variety has an impact on the organizational outcomes.The results of model 3 confirm hypothesis 2 as employee diversityviewed as variety has a significant positive effect on organizationaloutcomes. This means that leisure managers viewing diversity ofemployees as having different knowledge/information, fields ofexpertise, and work experience have a significant positive impacton the organizational outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, productivity,profit) of leisure organizations. Furthermore, it is interesting to notethat the beta of employee diversity as separation becomes negativewhen variety is included in the model. Therefore, this finding seemsto imply that separation has a negative impact on organizationaloutcomes as hypothesis 1 predicted when taking into consider-ation variety perceptions of managers. However, this beta is notsignificant, whereby hypothesis 1 can still not be confirmed on thebasis of the results of model 3.

Model 4 includes disparity as an independent variable and theorganizational outcomes as the dependent variable, while takinginto consideration variety and separation effects on organizationaloutcomes. The results of model 4 confirm hypothesis 3 as employeediversity perceptions of disparity have a strongly significant neg-

ative effect on organizational outcomes as the beta of disparity isnegative and significant. This finding means that the diversity per-ceptions of leisure managers based on socially valued assets havea significant negative impact on, for example, the productivity, or

258 G. Garib / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 254–260

Table 1Means, standard deviations and correlation of independent variables, dependent variable, and control variables.

Variables Mean SD Variety Disparity Org outcome General perception Work experience

Separation 5.02 1.12 .56* .39* .13* .31* .28**

Variety 5.62 1.07 .43** .32* .37* .28**

Disparity 4.41 1.44 .00 .15* .16**

Organizational outcome 5.23 .98 .32* .25*

General perception 5.51 1.40 .71**

Work experience 5.60 1.37

M

eastec

5

5

tacrcacsoatvaaptestiinoctotei

TR

eans on a scale of 1–7 from completely disagree to completely agree.* p < .05.

** p < .01.

ffectiveness of an organization. Again, the beta of disparity is neg-tive indicating a negative impact on organizational outcomes, buttill this beta is not significant, whereby hypothesis 1 still needso be rejected taking into consideration the variety and disparityffects on organizational outcomes. Thus, the findings in Table 2onfirm hypothesis 2 and 3, but do not confirm hypothesis 1.

. Discussion and conclusions

.1. Conclusions

The aim of this study was to fill the gap that presently exists inhe leisure field concerning diversity perceptions among managersnd the relationship with organizational outcomes. The resultsonfirm two of the three formulated hypotheses. Thereby, theseesults can be viewed as empirical evidence for the theoreticalonstruct and associations from Harrison and Klein (2007). Therere three main conclusions that can be drawn from the findings inoncrete terms. First, the general positive view of employee diver-ity by leisure managers on itself can lead to a positive impactn organizational outcomes. This finding means that leisure man-gers in general view diversity as having a positive impact inheir organizations. Diversity does not seem to have a negativeiew among leisure managers in this sample. Therefore, gener-lly diversity does not seem to be necessarily viewed as havingnegative impact in leisure organizations. In hotels, for exam-

le, one does not need to view diversity necessarily as harminghe productivity of hotels. Second, to increase possible positiveffects of employee diversity in the organization, leisure managershould view employee diversity in terms of the variety concerningheir knowledge/information, expertise, and experience. This find-ng shows that even though diversity is not having a strong negativempact on organizations, diversity views can improve the orga-izational outcomes of leisure organizations. It is a pity if leisurerganizations would not take into consideration the diversity per-eptions they can foster in their organizations in order to improveheir organizational outcomes. It would be an added value for their

rganization, therefore, to foster variety perceptions of diversity sohat the leisure organization can profit more from the diversity. Forxample, hotel managers can stress diversity aspects by mention-ng the different types of expertise or experience hotel employees

able 2egression results with dependent variable and independent variables.

Variable Model 1�

Control variables General perception .32***

Work experience .02Independent variables Separation

VarietyDisparity

R2 .10

** p < .01.*** p < .001.

possess. Third, to decrease possible negative effects of employeediversity in the organization, leisure managers should not viewemployee diversity in terms of status or income characteristics. Thisfinding also has a strong and relevant impact for the leisure and hos-pitality sector as it implies that leisure managers should not stressdiversity as leading to inequality concerning socially valued assets,like salary differences. Thus, leisure managers who would not wanttheir organizational outcomes to diminish due to diversity need toavoid diversity perceptions based on disparity.

Firstly, the results show that in general a positive view ofemployee diversity is taken by the majority of the leisure managers.They also seem to view employee diversity in general important forproviding a positive impact on organizational outcomes. This find-ing indicates that leisure managers do not need to view employeediversity necessarily as something negative as some studies sug-gest (Furunes and Mykletun, 2007). Employee diversity is in factperceived as a valued added characteristic for leisure organiza-tions. Positive outcomes of employee diversity can therefore bedistinguished by leisure managers, for example, translated into theeffectiveness, productivity, service quality, or profit of their organi-zation. Perceiving diversity among employees by leisure managers,could therefore lead to a more positive consideration of the employ-ees working in a leisure organization. For example, a hotel thathas employees with various background experiences could be per-ceived by a hotel manager as an important unique selling point ofthat hotel. The hotel manager would find these employees capableof achieving a high level of service quality due to their diversity.Thus, the diversity of the hotel employees would be perceived bythe hotel manager as leading to a positive organizational outcome.

Secondly, the results confirm the hypothesis that employeediversity viewed as variety by leisure managers has a significantand positive impact on organizational outcomes. In other words:leisure managers view benefit of the effects of employee diversitywhen diversity is perceived by them as diversity in the knowl-edge/information, fields of expertise or work experience. Leisureorganizations who want to increase the positive effects employeediversity can have, should obviously be led by leisure managers

who know how to deal with it. Moreover, these managers shouldhave the right mindset to employee diversity. In fact, they shouldhave a mindset that allows them to view employee diversity in mat-ters related to variety. For example, a manager in the entertainment

Model 2 Model 3 Model 4� � �

.31** .25** .25**

.01 .03 .03

.03 −.10 −.06.26*** .31***

−.16**

.10 .14 .16

spitali

idsaeehcdlowc

dticiamrtfenessepst

5

temphppawbm

setoeifoeymidi

sc

G. Garib / International Journal of Ho

ndustry is thinking about creating a new attraction. The managerecides to bring all employees together for a brainstorming ses-ion, which eventually should lead to a decision concerning whichttraction to build and open next year. This manager perceives themployees as a way to benefit from the variety of information,xpertise knowledge, and various work experiences the employeesave in order to deliver a creative and innovative solution for thisomplex problem. Thus, this is the right mindset to view employeeiversity in such a way that it leads to beneficial effects. In another

eisure organization, leisure managers should have similar waysf thinking about employee diversity, if that leisure organizationould also like to increase the positive effects employee diversity

an have.Thirdly, the separation and disparity constructs of employee

iversity both seem to show in models three and four that a nega-ive impact on organizational outcomes existed. For disparity, thismpact proved to be significantly negative. Therefore, this resultonfirmed hypothesis three. Employee diversity viewed as variancen income, and status by leisure managers leads to a significant neg-tive impact on organizational outcomes. If, for example leisureanagers consider employees to differ a lot in the salaries they

eceive and the cars they drive, bringing these employees togethero deliver creative solutions, would not be perceived as a success-ul event. In fact, leisure managers might even believe that thesemployees come up with bad solutions. Therefore, leisure orga-izations who would like to decrease possible negative effects ofmployee diversity, should take into account that their managershould have the right mindset in order to deal with employee diver-ity. Their leisure managers should be prevented from viewingmployee diversity as differences in status or income. For exam-le, a manager of a tourist agency should try to prevent stressingalary or status differences between employees in order to makehe agency more successful.

.2. Limitations

This study only included Dutch leisure managers. It is possiblehat in different countries, different diversity perceptions of leisuremployees exist among leisure managers. The cultural dimensionsight show differences concerning diversity perceptions of leisure

erceptions. It is possible that, for example, countries where aigher level of uncertainty avoidance also leads to a more negativeerception of employee diversity, as employee diversity encom-asses heterogeneity at the workplace where high uncertaintyvoidance countries are more likely to have homogeneity at theorkplace. Also, a strong feeling of collectiveness in countries could

ring about more positive employee diversity perceptions of leisureanagers.The study shows that leisure organizations could possibly solve

everal problems that the leisure field nowadays is facing. Forxample, leisure managers can greatly improve service quality,he leisure labor market reputation, and productivity of leisurerganizations when they view employee diversity more as vari-ty elements and reap the benefits of it. As the leisure industrys struggling to achieve a higher level of innovation and pro-essionalization, employee diversity could be utilized in leisurerganizations. Leisure managers do seem to perceive that ben-fits of employee diversity are possible; however, they are notet bringing it into practice. Therefore, the cognitions of leisureanagers concerning employee diversity should be translated

nto behavior of leisure managers. Future research on employeeiversity behavior could shed more light on how this can be

mproved.Diversity perceptions among leisure managers have been

tudied here in relation to the impact on organizational out-omes. The hypotheses were therefore appropriate for this study.

ty Management 32 (2013) 254–260 259

The right mindset is needed in order to deal correctly andwisely with employee diversity. However, this is not the onlycharacteristic of successfully dealing with diversity. Of coursealso, other elements, like training, good communication, andunderstanding of differences are needed (Devine et al., 2007;Maxwell et al., 2000). Therefore, it could be useful to do moreresearch in this area to see how leisure managers could bene-fit from these while increasing employee diversity. For example,hypotheses mentioning more explicit and concrete examples oforganizational outcomes, e.g., communication, innovation, prob-lem solving capacities could be used in future research in leisureorganizations.

References

Allison, M.T., 1999. Organizational barriers to diversity in the workplace. Journal ofLeisure Research 31 (1), 78–80.

Allison, M.T., Hibbler, D.K., 2004. Organizational barriers to inclusion: perspec-tives from the recreation professional. Leisure Sciences 26 (3), 261–280,http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400490461396.

Allison, M.T., Samdahl, D., Scott, D., Weissinger, E., 2000. Leisure, diversity and socialjustice. Journal of Leisure Research 32 (1), 2–6.

Appadurai, A., 1990. Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy.Public Culture 2 (3), 1–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/08992363-2-2-1.

Butler, R., 1998. Seasonality in tourism: issues and implications. Tourism Review 53(3), 18–24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb058278.

Byeong Yong, K., 2006. Managing workforce diversity: developing a learning orga-nization. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality Tourism 5 (2), 69–90,http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J171v05n02.

Chan, A.M., 2006. Tapping the multicultural market in Australia. In: Rao,C.P. (Ed.), Marketing and Multicultural Diversity. Ashgate Publishing,pp. 238–252.

Christensen-Hughes, J., 1992. Cultural diversity: the lesson of Toronto’s hotels.The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 33 (2), 78–87,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071.

Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., 1997. Productive Diversity: A New, Australian Model for Workand Management. Pluto Press, Annandale, NSW.

Cox, K.R., 1997. Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local. TheGuilford Press.

Cox, T., 1993. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice.Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.

Cox Jr., T., Blake, S.D., 1991. Managing cultural diversity: implications fororganizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive 5 (3),45–56.

Devine, F., Baum, T., Hearns, N., Devine, A., 2007. Cultural diversity in hospi-tality work: the Northern Ireland experience. The International Journal ofHuman Resource Management 18 (2), 333–349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190601102596.

Furunes, T., Mykletun, R.J., 2007. Why diversity management fails: metaphor analy-ses unveil manager attitudes. International Journal of Hospitality Management26 (4), 974–990, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2006.12.003.

Gardenswartz, L., Rowe, A., 1998. Why diversity matters. HR Focus 75 (7), S1–S3.Gonzalez, J.A., Denisi, A.S., 2009. Cross level effects of demography and diversity

climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior 30 (1), 21–40, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.498.

Gröschl, S., Doherty, L., 1999. Diversity management in practice. International Jour-nal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 11 (6), 262–268.

Harris, P.R., Moran, R.T., Moran, S.V., 2004. Managing Cultural Differences: GlobalLeadership Strategies for the 21st Century. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Harrison, D.A., Klein, K.J., 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as sep-aration, variety, or disparity in organizations. The Academy of ManagementReview 32 (4), 1199–1228.

Horwitz, S.K., Horwitz, I.B., 2007. The effects of team diversity on team outcomes:a meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management 33 (6),987–1015, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587.

Iverson, K., 2000. Managing for effective workforce diversity. Cor-nell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 41 (2), 31–38,http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001088040004100214.

Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., Neale, M., 1999. Why differences make a difference: a fieldstudy of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 44 (4), 741–763, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667054.

Kandola, R., Fullerton, J., 1994. Managing the Mosaic. IPD, London.Knouse, S.B., Dansby, M.R., 1999. Percentage of work-group diversity and work-

group effectiveness. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied133 (5), 486–494.

Ladkin, A., Riley, M., 1996. Mobility and structure in the career paths of UK hotel man-

agers: a labour market hybrid of the bureaucratic model? Tourism Management17 (6), 443–452, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071.

Lau, D.C., Murnighan, J.K., 1998. Demographic diversity and faultlines: the composi-tional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review 23,325–340.

2 spital

L

M

M

NN

P

P

P

P

R

and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal

60 G. Garib / International Journal of Ho

ebo, F., 1996. Mastering the Diversity Challenge: Easy On-the-job Applications forMeasurable Results. St. Lucie Press, Del Ray Beach, FL.

axwell, G., McDougall, M., Blair, S., 2000. Managing diversity in the hotel sector:the emergence of a service quality opportunity. Managing Service Quality 10 (6),367–373.

illiken, F.J., Martins, L.L., 1996. Searching for common threads: understanding themultiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. The Academy of Manage-ment Review 21 (2), 402–433.

unnally, J.C., 1967. Psychometric Theory. McGraw Hill, New York.ykiel, R.A., 1997. Enhancing quality through diversity. Journal of Hospitality Mar-

keting and Management 4 (4), 65–70.elled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., Xin, K.R., 1999. Exploring the black box: an analy-

sis of work group diversity, conflict, and productivity. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 44, 1–28, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667029.

ettigrew, T.F., 1998. Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology 4, 9,http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65.

inar, M., McCuddy, M.K., Birkan, I., Kozak, M., 2010. Gender diversity in the hospi-tality industry: an empirical study in Turkey. International Journal of HospitalityManagement 30, 73–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071.

reston, P., Scott-Parker, S., 1995. Improving access to the workplace. People Man-agement 1 (22), 18–23.

obertson, R., 1995. Glocalization: time-space and homogeneity–heterogeneity. In:Featherstone, M., Lash, S., Robertson, R. (Eds.), Global Modernities. Sage, London,pp. 25–44.

ity Management 32 (2013) 254–260

Ross, R., Schneider, R., 1992. From Equality to Diversity: A Business Case for EqualOpportunities. Pitman, London.

Schmitt, N., 1996. Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment 8(4), 350–353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350.

Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C., 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In:Worchel, S., Austin, W.G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Nelson-HallPublishers, Chicago, pp. 7–24.

Taylor, A., Greve, H.R., 2006. Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combina-tion and experience in innovative teams. The Academy of Management Journal49 (4), 723–740.

Teicher, J., Spearitt, K., 1996. From equal employment opportunity to diversitymanagement: the Australian experience. International Journal of Manpower 17(4–5), 109–133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437729610127622.

Thomas, D.A., Ely, R.J., 1996. Making differences matter. Harvard Business Review74 (5), 79–90.

Thomas, R.R., 1990. From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard BusinessReview 68 (2), 107–117.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W., Homan, A.C., 2004. Work group diversity

of Applied Psychology 89 (6), 1008–1022, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.

Williams, K., O’Reilly, C., 1998. Demography and diversity in organizations: a reviewof 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior 20, 77–140.