Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Management
http://gom.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Group & Organization Management can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://gom.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://gom.sagepub.com/content/36/1/6.refs.html
of Institutional Theory
and Resource-Based
Theory
Abstract
Diversity management practices consist of the set of formalized practices
developed and implemented by organizations to manage diversity effectively
among all organizational stakeholders. We review the extant literature on
antecedents and outcomes of diversity management practices. Applying
institutional and resource-based theories, we develop a research model out-
lining several possible avenues for future research. We also identify ways
that research on diversity management practices has the potential to advance
the two theoretical perspectives.
Keywords
workplace diversity, diversity management, diversity management practices,
institutional theory, resource based theory
Given the potential of the business case for diversity and the fact that organi-
zations must cope with diversity regardless of whether it offers an opportunity
for competitive advantage or not (Cox & Blake, 1991), organizations are
1
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
2
University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Yang Yang, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Suite 2000,
SH-DH, 3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370
Email: yang14@wharton.upenn.edu
Theoretical Perspectives on
Diversity Management
A number of major contributions to the workplace diversity field have been
based on inductive research methodologies (e.g., Cox, 1993; Ely & Thomas,
2001; French, 2001). Scholars are beginning to build theories regarding the
impact of diversity on workplace outcomes (van Knippenberg et al., 2004),
and diversity management has been posited as a moderator of the relation-
ship between diversity in the workplace and outcomes such as working rela-
tionships and performance (Kochan et al., 2003). We extend existing theorizing
by drawing from institutional theory and resource-based theory to identify both
antecedents and outcomes of diversity management practices (see Figure 1).
The left-hand box in Figure 1 shows the antecedents of diversity manage-
ment practices posited by institutional theory and resource-based theory. The
top middle box shows the predicted characteristics of diversity management
Hunt, 2010; Moore, Parkhouse, & Konrad, 2004; Süß & Kleiner, 2008;
Woodhams & Corby, 2007). The fact that the link between diversity manage-
ment practices and diversity of human capital has been increasingly well
documented indicates that organizations have been at least somewhat effec-
tive in implementing processes with substantive impact.
Most of the research linking diversity management practices to employ-
ment statistics has focused on women and racioethnic minority groups, par-
ticularly African Americans. More research is needed to document the impact
of diversity management practices on persons with disabilities, religious
minorities, members of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender communities,
indigenous peoples, and other historically marginalized groups. Beyond initial
hiring, more research is needed on the impact of diversity management prac-
tices on career development for members of historically marginalized groups.
Legitimacy outcomes of diversity management practices. The primary outcome
variable in institutional theory is legitimacy (top right-hand box in Figure 1).
Extant research has linked both the implementation of diversity management
practices and the presence of relatively diverse employment statistics to legit-
imacy outcomes. For instance, both the U.S. courts (Edelman, 1992) and the
U.S. affirmative action regulations (Konrad & Linnehan, 2003; Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs, 2002) do not require employers to
demonstrate that they hire a diverse workforce. Rather, they require only that
employers show a “good faith effort” to hire a diverse set of employees. Diver-
sity management practices such as identifying and targeting more diverse
feeder pools for job applicants have been sufficient to certify organizations as
legitimate employers, regardless of lack of diversity in their employment sta-
tistics (Edelman, 1992), supporting a direct link between the presence of
diversity management practices and legitimacy outcomes for organizations.
Other research streams are related to the link between the implementation
of diversity management practices and organizational legitimacy outcomes
as shown in Figure 1. Laboratory experiments have shown that selection
practices are perceived to be considerably more legitimate if they unambigu-
ously link selection to individual merit (Bobocel & Farrell, 1996; Elkins,
Bozeman, & Phillips, 2003; Heilman, Battle, Keller, & Lee, 1998; Turner &
Pratkanis, 1994). This finding indicates the importance of linking merit to all
diversity management practices.
Much field research documents significant associations between diver-
sity management practices and positive work attitudes, which suggests that
these practices are often accepted as legitimate by organizational members.
Perhaps not surprisingly, members of historically marginalized identity groups
have shown positive responses to diversity management practices in the field
(Day & Schoenrade, 2000; Friedman & Holtom, 2002; Friedman, Kane, &
Cornfield, 1998; Gilbert & Ivancevich, 2001; Graves & Powell, 1994; McKay
et al., 2007; Ragins & Cornwell, 2001; Taylor, 1994; Williams, Fitzgerald, &
Drasgow, 1999). More interestingly, perhaps, is the set of findings showing
that all employees, including White men, have positive job attitudes in orga-
nizations engaging in diversity management (Choi, 2008; Magoshi & Chang,
2009; McKay et al., 2007; Parker, Baltes, & Christiansen, 1997; Pitts, 2009).
Although the presence of diversity management practices has been linked
to positive work attitudes, research is needed on the link between legitimacy
outcomes and implementation issues, such as consistency across the organi-
zation and managerial acceptance of diversity management practices.
Research on how to implement diversity management practices effectively
in ways that result in high internal acceptance would be extremely valuable
to practice as well as a contribution to the institutional perspective on diversity
management.
Research has not been as extensive in examining the reaction of external
constituencies to an organization’s implementation of diversity management
practices. The most common measures of conformity to external requirements
in diversity management research are adoption of required practices and emp
loyment of designated groups (e.g., Kalev et al., 2006; Konrad & Linnehan,
1995). It might be fruitful to extend the scope of outcomes examined in rela-
tion to diversity management practices, such as measures of organizational
social responsibility and social performance. The scope could even be extended
to examine influence on other organizations and industries, which frequently
constitute the level of analysis in institutional theorizing. Extending the scope
of research outcomes in the diversity management field can facilitate under-
standing of the benefits of legitimacy.
Beyond the direct link between diversity management practices and legiti-
macy outcomes, the model in Figure 1 posits a direct link between diversity
of human capital and legitimacy outcomes. Research has documented that the
employment of a diverse set of individuals in highly visible key jobs enhances
the organization’s legitimacy in terms of reputation for managing diversity
effectively, regardless of the presence or absence of diversity management
practices. Specifically, McKay and Avery (2006) linked employment statis-
tics to applicants’ ratings of the diversity reputation of prospective employers,
Roberson and Stevens (2006) linked employment statistics to employees’
accounts of diversity-related incidents in organizations, and Pugh, Dietz, Brief,
and Wiley (2008) linked employment statistics to employee ratings of the
organizational diversity climate. Hence, all of these studies have documented
a direct link between the diversity of an organization’s human capital and
The reason why alignment between expectations and actual value is critical
is because firms that underestimate the value of diversity make insufficient
investments in diversity management, while firms that overestimate the value
of diversity invest too much and, as such, overinflate their costs (Barney &
Clark, 2007).
Following Cox (1993) and other leaders articulating the business case for
diversity, Richard and his colleagues (Richard, 2000; Richard, Barnett, Dwyer,
& Chadwick, 2004; Richard et al., 2003) have suggested that diversity can be
a valuable, rare, and inimitable resource that enhances firm competitiveness.
Their research, which is grounded in resource-based theory, has empirically
demonstrated that racial diversity is positively associated with financial per-
formance when a growth or innovation strategy is pursued (Richard, 2000;
Richard et al., 2003), and that cultural diversity has a positive association
with financial performance when entrepreneurial orientation is high (Richard
et al., 2004). Richard and Johnson (1999) found that firms with more diver-
sity management practices in place experienced lower levels of turnover and
that diversity management practices interacted positively with an innovation
strategy, resulting in higher productivity and better market performance.
No research to date has examined the possibility that corporate strategy
predicts diversity management practices, however. It is likely that managers
have different views about the value of diversity for the creation and imple-
mentation of effective business strategies. Research has documented that top
management support is a positive predictor of the presence of diversity man-
agement practices (Buttner, Lowe, & Billings-Harris, 2006; Kellough &
Naff, 2004; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Moore et al., 2001, 2004, in press;
Rynes & Rosen, 1995). Furthermore, studies have shown that organizations
with a clearly articulated link between diversity effectiveness and performance
are more likely to develop diversity management practices (Balser, 1999; Buttner
et al., 2006; Rynes & Rosen, 1995).
Resource-based theory suggests that differences in managers’ views regar
ding the value of diversity for organizational effectiveness affect the adop-
tion of diversity management practices. Also, when diversity is perceived to
be highly relevant to firm strategy, managers may adopt diversity practices
more comprehensively to acquire and exploit this valuable resource. Therefore,
exploring the link between strategy and diversity management can facili-
tate understanding of the heterogeneity of diversity management practices
across firms.
Implementation of diversity management practices. Resource-based theory
also offers a lens to examine questions of implementation (top middle box in
Figure 1). Diversity management practices can be viewed as a type of firm
capability, as they are designed to enhance and exploit diversity. Single pra
ctices may not be a source of competitive advantage if they can be easily
copied. It may be difficult for competitors to copy even straightforward diver-
sity practices, however, if managers resist change and fail to implement diver-
sity management practices consistently across the organization (Thomas,
2008). Competitors may lack core cultural values that support the effective
management of diversity (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neele, 1998) or
else may fail to recognize the importance of internal diversity champions
for the effective “selling” of diversity management practices to senior leaders
(Meyerson, 2001).
In addition, a strategic human resource management perspective would
suggest that when different diversity management practices are bundled together,
the combinations may be difficult to imitate and may serve as a source of
competitive advantage. The difficulty for competitors attempting to copy
bundles of practices is that multiple practices can create a synergistic effect
which is greater than the simple sum of each individual practice (Wright &
Snell, 1991). Therefore it becomes difficult for competitors to attribute the
outcomes to any one particular diversity management practice, and copying
the whole bundle becomes costly. Future research can build on the notion of
bundling diversity management practices as well as “internal fit” of diversity
management practices to examine how diversity practices can be compatible
with or in conflict with one another.
Outcomes of diversity management practices. The primary outcome variables
in resource-based theory are competitive advantage and sustained competi-
tive advantage. One implication for research on diversity management prac-
tices is the need to understand how the practices can create value for firms
(bottom right-hand box in Figure 1). The main effects of diversity manage-
ment practices on performance have been fairly consistently positive, although
a number of null findings have been reported. For instance, Ely (2004) found
that employee participation in diversity education programs was positively
related to sales productivity, but unrelated to five other performance mea-
sures. Jehn and Bezrukova (2004) found that supervisors’ assessments of
employees’ diversity competencies were positively associated with bonuses
received, but unrelated to group or individual performance ratings. Pitts (2009)
found that employee perceptions that their managers supported diversity
were positively associated with their perceptions of work unit performance
and quality of work. Studies at the firm level have shown positive associations
between receiving a diversity award and firm financial performance (Roberson
& Park, 2007; Weigand, 2007; Wright, Ferris, Hiller, & Kroll, 1995), although
Bierman (2001) reported null results.
Contributions to Contributions to
institutional theory resource-based theory
Antecedents of diversity Structure versus agency Attentiveness to
management practices debate contextual factors
Implementation of Institutionalization Sources of inimitable
diversity management processes resources
practices Institutional change Social complexity
Causal ambiguity
Path dependence
Consequences of The impact of Evolution of resources
diversity management conformity on Coevolution of resources
practices substantive and management
performance capabilities
hence, have the potential to serve as rare and inimitable resources generating
competitive advantage in resource-based theory. Organizational researchers
can advance knowledge by extending measurement of diversity management
practices beyond human resources management to reach across multiple orga-
nizational functions.
One construct in our research model shown in Figure 1 that is likely to be
rather difficult to measure is “a rare and inimitable set of working relation-
ships among diverse stakeholders.” Rare and inimitable resources are key
mediators in resource-based theory, hence, measuring rare and inimitable
resources resulting from effective diversity management is necessary for
theory testing and development. The construct of diversity climate offers one
possible way to assess the effectiveness of working relationships among
diverse sets of stakeholders. Diversity climate has been defined as prevailing
beliefs among organizational members regarding the extent to which the
organization exhibits fairness and inclusiveness toward all demographic and
identity groups (Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998). Research has shown
significant variation among organizational members in perceptions of diver-
sity climate (Kossek, Markel, & McHugh, 2003; McKay, Avery, & Morris,
2009). An organization in which stakeholders give uniformly positive ratings
to diversity climate is likely to be relatively rare and, as such, a diversity
climate measure could be useful for measuring key mediating variables in
research grounded in resource-based theory. Another reason diversity cli-
mate is a good candidate for a mediator between diversity management prac-
tices and performance outcomes is because climates are conceptualized as
resulting from organizational practices (Hicks-Clarke & Iles, 2000). Diversity
climate has also been linked to performance indicators such as absenteeism
(Avery, McKay, Wilson, & Tonidandel, 2007) and sales (McKay, Avery, &
Morris, 2008), which suggests its relevance to resource-based theory, which
focuses on performance outcomes.
Using the two theoretical perspectives to conduct the current review made
us realize that institutional and resource-based theories can serve as comple-
ments and prior theorists have made efforts to integrate these two perspec-
tives to explain firm performance heterogeneity (Oliver, 1997). However, to
integrate these two theories to address diversity management requires more
space and is beyond the scope of the current arguments. Therefore, we treated
each view independently in the current article and, in the meantime, acknowl-
edge the implications of some similarities in the two theories for diversity
management. Specifically, both institutional and resource-based theories imply
a multilevel consideration. For instance, institutional theory suggests practices
are diffused from the higher institutional field level to the lower organizational
Acknowledgments
The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of the postdoctoral fellowship
award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. The second
author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Corus Entertainment Chair in
Women in Management.
Funding
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of
Canada Standard Research Grant No. 410-2007-1673 to the second author.
References
Allison, M. T. (1999). Organizational barriers to diversity in the workplace. Journal
of Leisure Research, 31, 78-101.
Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practices: An organizational impression
management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel
Psychology, 59, 157-187.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2008). What are the odds? How demo-
graphic similarity affects the prevalence of perceived employment discrimination.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 235-249.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D. C., & Tonidandel, S. (2007). Unequal atten-
dance: The relationships between race, organizational diversity cues, and absen-
teeism. Personnel Psychology, 60, 875-902.
Balser, D. B. (1999). Implementing new employment law: A contested terrain (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Barney, J. B. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustained competitive advantage:
A comment. Management Science, 35, 1511-1513.
Barney, J. B., & Clark, D. N. (2007). Resource-based theory: Creating and sustaining
competitive advantage. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Baron, J. N., Dobbin, F., & Jennings, P. D. (1986). War and peace: The evolution of
modern personnel administration in U.S. industry. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 92, 350-383.
Barreto, I., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2006). To conform or to perform? Mimetic behav-
iour, legitimacy-based groups and performance consequences. Journal of Man-
agement Studies, 43, 1559-1581.
Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortal-
ity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187-218.
Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic human resources management:
Where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 32, 898-925.
Benimadhu, P. P., & Wright, R. (1991). Employment equity: Impact of the legisla-
tion. Canadian Business Review, 18(2), 22-25.
Benschop, Y. (2001). Pride, prejudice, and performance: Relations between HRM,
diversity and performance. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 12, 1166-1181.
Bierema, L. L. (2005). Women executives’ concerns related to implementing and sus-
taining a women’s network in a corporate context. Organizational Development
Journal, 23(2), 8-20.
Bierman, L. (2001). OFCCP affirmative action rewards and stock market reaction.
Labor Law Journal, 52, 147-156.
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating inclusive-
ness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance women faculty in aca-
demic science and engineering. Human Resource Management, 47, 423-441.
Bobocel, D. R., & Farrell, A. C. (1996). Sex-based promotion decisions and inter-
actional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 81, 22-35.
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is
needed in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31, 305-327.
Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2006). The influence of organiza-
tional diversity orientation and leader attitude on diversity activities. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 18, 356-371.
Chatman, J. A., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neele, M. A. (1998). Being different
yet feeling similar: The influence of demographic composition and organizational
culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43,
749-780.
Choi, S. (2008). Diversity in the U.S. Federal Government: Diversity management and
employee turnover in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research
& Theory, 19, 603-630.
Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practices.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing
the power of diversity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cox, T., Jr., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organi-
zational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-56.
Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (2000). The relationship among reported disclosure
of sexual orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and
work attitudes of gay and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29, 346-363.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomor-
phism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48, 147-160.
Dobbin, F., Sutton, J. R., Meyer, J. W., & Scott, W. R. (1993). Equal employment
opportunity law and the construction of internal labor markets. American Journal
of Sociology, 99, 396-427.
Douglas, P. (2007). Diversity and the gay and lesbian community: More than chasing
the pink dollar. Ivey Business Journal Online, 71(7). Retrieved from http://www
.iveybusinessjournal.com/?p=1486
Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational
mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1531-1576.
Elkins, T. J., Bozeman, D. P., & Phillips, J. S. (2003). Promotion decisions in an
affirmative action environment: Can social accounts change fairness perceptions?
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1111-1139.
Ely, R. D. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity edu-
cation programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
755-780.
Ely, R. D., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diver-
sity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46, 229-273.
French, E. (2001). Approaches to equity management and their relationship to women
in management. British Journal of Management, 12, 267-285.
Friedman, R. A., & Holtom, B. (2002). The effects of network groups on minority
employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Management, 41, 405-421.
Friedman, R. A., Kane, M., & Cornfield, D. B. (1998). Social support and career
optimism: Examining the effectivenes of network groups among black managers.
Human Relations, 51, 1155-1177.
Fuller, S. R., Edelman, L. B., & Matusik, S. F. (2000). Legal readings: Employee inter-
pretation and mobilization of law. Academy of Management Review, 25, 200-217.
Gilbert, J. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (2001). Effects of diversity management on attach-
ment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1331-1349.
Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind”
auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90, 715-741.
Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1994). Effects of sex-based preferential selection and
discrimination on job attitudes. Human Relations, 47, 133-156.
Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee, R. E. (1998). Type of affirma-
tive action policy: A determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 190-205.
Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability
lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997-1010.
Heugens, P. P. M. A. R., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency! (And other
quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories in organizations. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 61-85.
Hicks-Clarke, D., & Iles, P. (2000). Climate for diversity and its effects on career and
organizational attitudes and perceptions. Personnel Review, 29, 324-345.
Hirsch, P. M., & Lounsbury, M. (1997). Ending the family quarrel: Toward a recon-
ciliation of “old” and “new” institutionalisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 40,
406-418.
Holzer, H., & Neumark, D. (2000). What does affirmative action do? Industrial &
Labor Relations Review, 53, 240-271.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007).
Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elabora-
tion, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 1189-1199.
Hopkins, N. (2007). Diversification of a university faculty: Women faculty in the
MIT schools of science and engineering. New England Journal of Public Policy,
22, 119-134.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. L. (1998). Racial group differences in employment inter-
view evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 179-189.
Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup
context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 730-729.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A
meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599-628.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assess-
ing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American
Sociological Review, 71, 589-617.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The
promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77-89.
Kellough, J. E., & Naff, K. C. (2004). Responding to a wake-up call: An examination of
federal agency diversity management programs. Administration & Society, 36, 62-90.
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity manage-
ment: Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961-1996. American Behav-
ioral Scientist, 41, 960-984.
Kennedy, M. T., & Fiss, P. C. (2009). Institutionalization, framing, and diffusion:
The logic of TQM adoption and implementation decisions among U.S. hospitals.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 897-918.
Kochan, T. A., Bezrukova, K., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K. E., Leonard, D., . . .
Thomas, D. (2003). The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of
the diversity research network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 3-21.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating
equal employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy
of Management Journal, 38, 787-820.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (2003). Affirmative action as a means of increasing
workforce diversity. In M. J. Davidson & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Individual diversity
and psychology in organizations (pp. 95-111). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Kossek, E. E., Lobel, S. A., & Brown, J. (2006). Human resource strategies to manage
workforce diversity: Examining “the business case.” In A. M. Konrad, P. Prasad, & J.
K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 53-74). London, UK: Sage.
Kossek, E. E., Markel, K. S., & McHugh, P. P. (2003). Increasing diversity as an HRM
change strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16, 328-352.
Kossek, E. E., & Pichler, S. (2006). EEO and the management of diversity. In P. Boxell,
J. Purcell, & P. M. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of Human Resource Management
(pp. 251-272). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, M. T. (2008). Institutional theory in the study of mul-
tinational corporations: A critique and new directions. Academy of Management
Review, 33, 994-1006.
Kraatz, M. S., & Zajac, E. J. (1996). Exploring the limits of the new institutionalism:
The causes and consequences of illegitimate organizational change. American
Sociological Review, 61, 812-836.
Kulik, C. T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Common goals and missed opportunities: A
research agenda for diversity education in academic and organizational settings.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 371-375.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg,
C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies
(pp. 215-254). London, UK: Sage.
Leck, J. D., & Saunders, D. M. (1992). Hiring women: The effects of Canada’s
Employment Equity Act. Canadian Public Policy, 18, 203-220.
Leck, J. D., St. Onge, S., & LaLancette, I. (1995). Wage gap changes among organiza-
tions subject to the Employment Equity Act. Canadian Public Policy, 21, 387-400.
Leonard, J. S. (1985). What promises are worth: The impact of affirmative action
goals. Journal of Human Resources, 20, 3-20.
Linehan, M. (2001). Networking for female managers’ career development: Empiri-
cal evidence. Journal of Management Development, 20, 823-829.
Litvin, D. R. (2006). Diversity: Making space for a better case. In A. M. Konrad,
P. Prasad, & J. K. Pringle (Eds.), Handbook of workplace diversity (pp. 75-94).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Magoshi, E., & Chang, E. (2009). Diversity management and the effects on employ-
ees’ organizational commitment: Evidence from Japan and Korea. Journal of
World Business, 44, 31-40.
Martinez, R. J., & Dacin, M. T. (1999). Efficiency motives and normative forces: Com-
bining transactions costs and institutional logic. Journal of Management, 25, 75-96.
Martins, L. L., & Parsons, C. K. (2007). Effects of gender diversity management on
perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The role of individual differences in
attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 865-875.
McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2006). What has race got to do with it? Unraveling the
role of racioethnicity in job seekers’ reactions to site visits. Personnel Psychology,
59, 395-429.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2008). Mean racial-ethnic differences
in employee sales performance: The moderating role of diversity climate. Personnel
Psychology, 61, 349-374.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2009). A tale of two climates: Diversity
climate from subordinates’ and managers’ perspectives and their role in store unit
sales performance. Personnel Psychology, 62, 767-791.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., &
Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity cli-
mate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60, 35-62.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure
as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
Meyerson, D. E. (2001). Tempered radicals: How people use difference to inspire
change at work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Moore, M. E., Konrad, A. M., & Hunt, J. (2010). Creating a vision boosts the impact
of top management support on the employment of managers with disabilities:
The case of sport organizations in the USA. Equality, Diversity & Inclusion: An
International Journal, 29(6), 609-625.
Moore, M. E., Parkhouse, B. L., & Konrad, A. M. (2001). Women in sport manage-
ment: Advancing the representation through HRM structures. Women in Manage-
ment Review, 16(2), 51-61.
Moore, M. E., Parkhouse, B. L., & Konrad, A. M. (2004). Diversity programs: Influ-
encing female students to sport management? Women in Management Review,
19, 304-316.
Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal
dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee per-
ceptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34, 82-104.
Naff, K. C., & Kellough, J. E. (2003). Ensuring employment equity: Are federal
diversity programs making a difference? International Journal of Public Admin-
istration, 26, 1307-1336.
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in
diverse groups? The moderating role of leader-member exchange in the diversity
to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1412-1426.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. (2002). Facts on Executive Order
11246—Affirmative action. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/
compliance/aa.htm
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 16, 145-179.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and
resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 697-713.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. (1997). Support for affirmative
action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: A study of gender and racial-ethnic
group differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 376-389.
Pitts, D. (2009). Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: Evidence
from U.S. Federal agencies. Public Administration Review, 69, 328-338.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource based “view” a useful perspective
for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26, 22-40.
Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Brief, A. P., & Wiley, J. W. (2008). Looking inside and out: The
impact of employee and community demographic composition on organizational
diversity climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1422-1428.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and conse-
quences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261.
Rangarajan, N., & Black, T. (2007). Exploring organizational barriers to diversity: A
case study of the New York State Education Department. Review of Public Per-
sonnel Administration, 27, 249-263.
Richard, O. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A
resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 164-177.
Richard, O., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in
management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orien-
tation dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 255-266.
Richard, O., & Johnson, N. B. (1999). Making the connection between formal human
resource diversity practices and organizational effectiveness. Performance Improve-
ment Quarterly, 12, 77-96.
Richard, O., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K., & Dwyer, S. (2003). Employing an innova-
tion strategy in racially diverse workforces: Effects on firm performance. Group
& Organization Management, 28, 107-126.
Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2003). Using needs assessment to
resolve controversies in diversity training design. Group & Organization Man-
agement, 28, 148-174.
Roberson, L., Kulik, C. T., & Pepper, M. B. (2009). Individual and environmental
factors influencing the use of transfer strategies after diversity training. Group &
Organization Management, 34, 67-89.
Roberson, Q. M., & Park, H. J. (2007). Examining the link between diversity and firm
performance: The effects of diversity reputation and leader racial diversity. Group
& Organization Management, 32, 548-568.
Roberson, Q. M., & Stevens, C. K. (2006). Making sense of diversity in the work-
place: Organizational justice and language abstraction in employees’ accounts of
diversity-related incidents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 379-391.
Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and
perceived success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology, 48, 247-270.
Schneiberg, M., & Soule, S. A. (2005). Institutionalization as a contested, multilevel
process: The case of rate regulation in American fire insurance. In G. Davis,
D. McAdam, W. R. Scott, & M. Zald (Eds.), Social movements and organization
theory (pp. 122-160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stewart, M. M., & Johnson, O. E. (2009). Leader-member exchange as a moderator
of the relationship between work group diversity and team performance. Group &
Organization Management, 34, 507-535.
Süß, S., & Kleiner, M. (2008). Dissemination of diversity management in Germany:
A new institutionalist approach. European Management Journal, 26, 35-47.
Taylor, M. C. (1994). Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from
the 1990 General Social Survey. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 15, 143-178.
Thomas, D. A. (2004). Diversity as strategy. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 98-108.
Thomas, K. M. (Ed.). (2008). Diversity resistance in organizations. New York, NY:
Erlbaum.
Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal
structure of organizations: The diffusion of civil service reform. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28, 22-39.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994). Affirmative action as help: A review
of recipient reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic &
Applied Social Psychology, 15, 43-69.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diver-
sity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diver-
sity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Man-
agement, 27, 141-162.
Weigand, R. A. (2007). Organizational diversity, profits and returns in U.S. firms.
Problems & Perspectives in Management, 5(3), 69-83.
Westphal, J. E., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Customization or conformity?
An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of
TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 366-394.
Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational
practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military
Psychology, 11, 303-328.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. I. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations:
A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research
in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wong, S. (2008). Diversity: Making space for everyone at NASA/Goddard Space
Flight Center using dialogue to break through barriers. Human Resource Manage-
ment, 47, 389-399.
Woodhams, C., & Corby, S. (2007). Then and now: Disability legislation and employ-
ers’ practices in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 45, 556-580.
Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through
management of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 38, 272-287.
Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1991). Toward an integrative view of strategic human
resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 203-225.
Bios
Yang Yang, PhD, is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Management Department of the
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Her research interests include work-
place inclusivity, diversity initiatives, human resource management, and organiza-
tional justice.