Assignment Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/A-CASE-STUDY-EXPLORING-THE-IMPACT-OF-MA 👈

1. A CASE STUDY EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF MANAGING WORKPLACE
DIVERSITY ON DIVERSITY AWARENESS AND
EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION
by
Cheryl Demetria Edwards Buckingham
VALERIE COXON, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
ALISA MOSLEY, Ph.D., Committee Member
MAUREEN MCGLYNN, Ph.D., Committee Member
Raja K. Iyer, Ph.D., Dean, School of Business and Technology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
March 2010

2. UMI Number: 3397665
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3397665
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

3. © Cheryl Demetria Edwards Buckingham, 2010

4. Abstract
According to Giovannini (“What gets measured gets done: Achieving results through
diversity and inclusion”, 2004), diversity is any dimension that can be used to
differentiate groups and people from one another, in which these dimensions can be
visible or invisible. The existence of workplace diversity, within an organization or
workplace, indicates that the organization or workplace is heterogeneous in terms of
gender, race, and ethnicity, in which employees possess distinct elements and qualities,
differing from one another (Robbins, 2003). Managing these elements can create a
gamut of staffing related issues that are the main focal points for human resource
departments. There are several key components associated with workplace diversity,
issues concerning workplace diversity, and the management of workplace diversity. The
intent of this study was to clearly define workplace diversity, examine the policies and
procedures associated with workplace diversity management, and explore how managing
workplace diversity can impact diversity awareness and employee’s job satisfaction.
This study utilized the Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II) devised by
Larkey (1996) to assess diversity awareness. The Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) devised
by Spector (1985) was used to assess employee job satisfaction. The results indicated that
a moderate relationship exists between diversity awareness (as measured by the WDQ II)
and employee job satisfaction (as measured by JSS) and that diversity characteristics
(demographics) can potentially impact diversity awareness.

5. iii
Dedication
He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength.
--Isaiah 40:29
I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
-- Philippians 4:13
This research is dedicated to my son, Daniel Lee Buckingham Jr. I would like for
this body of work to be an inspiration to him, that he can set goals and accomplish them.
I would like for him, as well as others, to use this body of work as a reminder that with
God, diligence, and perseverance anything is possible! I encourage you to never quit, but
to strive to consistently be the best that you can be.

6. iv
Acknowledgments
I would like to first and foremost thank my mentor, Dr. Valerie Coxon, for
stepping in to be my mentor and for motivating me and encouraging me without fail,
throughout the dissertation process. I am truly thankful for your patience, assistance,
direction, and expertise. When I did not think that I could do it, you were there to give
me guidance, direction, and support. I would also like to thank my committee members
Dr. Maureen McGlynn and Dr. Alisa Mosley for lending their knowledge, guidance,
facilitation, and support.
I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to my parents, Rita P. Edwards- Eaton
and Frank E. Eaton, for their unending support and love, as well as being there for me
during crunch time. I would like to thank Crystal N. Eaton for assisting with
proofreading and edits. Thank you to LaTanya Y. Tyler for support and encouragement.
Thank you to Daniel Lee Buckingham Sr., for aid and support during my comprehensive
examination, while I was nearing the end of my pregnancy.
Lastly I would like to thank Dr. Paul E. Spector and Dr. Linda Larkey for
allowing me to use their questionnaires as my data collection instruments. I would like to
extend a special thank you to all of the study participants, without you I would not have
been able to successfully investigate my topic.

7. v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements iv
List of Figures viii
List of Tables ix
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Workplace Diversity Framework 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Research Questions 3
Statement of Hypothesis 4
Significance of the Study 4
Definition of Terms 5
Assumptions and Limitations 7
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 8
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 9
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11
Human Resource Management 11
Characterizing Workplace Diversity 13
Equal Employment 16
The Role of EEOC 17
The Role of OFCCP 21
Affirmative Action in the Workplace 22
Discrimination Law 24

8. vi
Job Satisfaction 26
Motivation and Motivational Theories 29
Case Study Research on Job Satisfaction and Motivation 31
Implications of Job Satisfaction 33
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 35
Introduction 35
Population 35
The Company’s Background 36
Sample 36
Research Hypothesis 37
Research Instrumentation 38
Protection of Human Subjects 39
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II 40
Job Satisfaction Survey 41
Data Collection 42
Data Analysis 43
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 48
Descriptive Statistics 48
Overall Data Analysis of the Hypothesis 50
Research Hypothesis 1 50
JSS Subscale Analysis 52
Research Hypothesis 2 53

9. vii
Summary 58
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 59
Introduction 59
Summary of Findings 60
Discussion of Results 62
Recommendations for Future Research 68
Conclusion 69
REFERENCES 72
APPENDIX A. WDQ-II 76
APPENDIX B. JSS 78

10. viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Dimension Type vs. Diversity Awareness Constructs for WDQII Questions 44
Table 2. Participant Demographics 49
Table 3. Diversity Awareness and Job Satisfaction Subscales 53
Table 4. Age Comparison 56
Table 5. Ethnicity Difference 57
Table 6. Years of Service Difference 58

11. ix
List of Figures
Figure 1. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework 9
Figure 2. Standard of living indices 23
Figure 3. Scatter Diagram of job satisfaction and diversity awareness correlation 52

12. 1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Workplace Diversity Framework
The term diversity is used to illustrate how individuals differ by gender, ethnicity, age,
physical abilities, lifestyle, and religion. According to Giovannini (2004), diversity is defined as
any dimension that can be used to differentiate groups and people from one another, in which
these dimensions can be visible or invisible. Workplace diversity incorporates the meaning of
diversity within a workplace setting. Hazard (2004) defines workplace diversity as a broad range
of differences that influence how people interact and achieve business results. Workplace (also
called workforce) diversity can be characterized as an organization or workplace, in which
employees possess distinct elements and qualities, differing from one another. These different
elements include employee’s beliefs, values, and actions that vary by gender, ethnicity, age, and
physical abilities. Managing these elements can create a gamut of staffing-related issues that
contribute to culture and diversity in the workplace.
Previously, organizations were driven towards creating a homogenous workforce in
which workers behaved and thought alike. “Today's managers and supervisors are looking at a
workforce that is somewhat different from those faced by their predecessors” (Wigglesworth,
1997, p. 18). This occurrence is now a trend of the past. Workplace diversity is now recognized
by organizations as a catalyst for creating a competitive advantage. Organizations have the
opportunity to utilize a vast array of knowledge, skills, and abilities found in diverse work
environments. As a result the contemporary workforce is viewed as one of higher quality.
Therefore, it is pertinent that organizations recognize and manage workplace diversity (Fisher,

13. 2
Schoenfeldt, and Shaw, 1999). “Managing diversity is based on the assumption that diverse
groups will create new ways of working together and that morale, profit, and productivity will
increase” (Sadri and Tran, 2002, p. 228). These authors state that managing diversity includes
building specific skills and creating policies that augment the best work behaviors and attitudes
from each employee.
Managing workplace diversity has become a major focus in many Human Resource
departments. “To meet the demands of today's technologically advanced society, organizations
must rethink what diversity means and how the concepts of developing, valuing, and managing a
truly diverse organization must transcend traditional strategies” (Easley, 2001, p. 38). Human
resource management allows HR departments to strategically utilize personnel, in a manner that
will meet the demands of society, through improvements in the organization’s productivity and
performance. In the role of managing diversity human resources must be aware of issues and
components that may impact this role.
Several components are included in managing workplace diversity. One of the main
components is equal employment opportunity. Equal employment opportunity entails the
treatment of employees in a fair and impartial manner, in all aspects of employment. Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) regulation includes legislation and policies that enforce fair and
impartial treatment of employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs are agencies that are responsible for enforcing
legislation and policies. In addition to Equal Employment Opportunity, affirmative action, and
discrimination law are also components that organizations use to manage and regulate workplace
diversity.

14. 3
This study reviewed the role and functions of EEO, affirmative action, and discrimination
law, as well as accentuated these functions as components of workplace diversity management.
The potential impact of the aforementioned components on diversity management, as depicted
by diversity awareness was examined. It is hoped that information acquired from the study can
be used to gain a better understanding of the potential effects that managing workplace diversity
can have on diversity awareness and employee job satisfaction, within an organizational setting.
Statement of the Problem
As a result of workplace diversity management becoming a major focus for human
resources, today’s companies are concerned with employing, retaining, and effectively managing
a diverse workforce. How is diversity awareness amongst employees impacted by the means in
which an organization manages workplace diversity? What impact, if any, does managing
workplace diversity have on diversity awareness and employee job satisfaction?
Research Questions
The research questions for the study were as follows:
1. How is workplace diversity characterized?
2. What impact does managing workplace diversity have on diversity awareness and
employee’s job satisfaction?

15. 4
Statements of Hypotheses
H1: There is a relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the Workforce
Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction, as measured by the
Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
H01: There is no relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction, as
measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
H2: There is a difference in diversity awareness by varying demographic characteristics,
including years of service, gender, ethnicity, and age.
H02: There is not a difference in diversity awareness by varying demographic
characteristics, including years of service, gender, ethnicity, and age.
Significance of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine employee awareness of workplace diversity,
which is potentially impacted by how an organization manages its diversity within the
organization. In addition to the latter, the study purposed to explore the existence of a
relationship between employee’s diversity awareness and job satisfaction. It is hoped that by
understanding the relationship between employee’s diversity awareness and job satisfaction,
organizations will be cognizant of the importance of how managing workplace diversity can
directly impact diversity awareness and job satisfaction. Managing workplace diversity within
organizations can potentially have positive or negative ramifications on job satisfaction and
social awareness of cultural diversity (diversity awareness). As a result of these ramifications,

16. 5
organizations must realize that their employees are essential for successful business operations
and profit generation. The study aimed to illustrate the importance of diversity management in
the workplace, in which the components of managing workplace diversity were highlighted. The
main components of this management included equal employment opportunity, affirmative
action, and discrimination law. This study also sought to provide insight on issues that affect
workplace diversity, and the importance of workplace diversity management.
Definition of Terms
Adaptation. An individual’s ability to adjust to a specific attribute of a differing culture
(Larkey, 1996).
Adverse impact. A method of proving discrimination, which can be reflected through an
applicant’s rejection rate for a protected class, which is higher than the rate for the unprotected
class (Buhler, 2002).
Affirmative Action. Recompense for past discrimination that increases the numbers of
protected classes in the organization’s work force (Plous, 1996).
Culture of Inclusion. A working environment where all employees are welcome
regardless of their differences.
Demographics. The characteristics of human populations and population segments
(Griffen & Ebert, 2002).
Discrimination. The process by which people are treated unfairly based on their
differences (Robbins, 2003).
Diversity. Variety in characteristics that can be reflected in social and cultural

17. 6
distinctiveness among members of society, and in the work force (Taylor, 1995).
Disparate treatment. Intentional discrimination where employment decisions are based
on race, color, religion, national origin, age, and/or disability (Repa, 2002).
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO). The treatment of employees in a fair and
impartial way in all aspects of employment (Thomas, 1991).
Ethics. Individual beliefs concerning right and wrong.
Exclusion within Cultural Groups. An employee’s inability to engage and connect with
members within a workgroup (Larkey, 1996).
Four-Fifth’s Rule. The test to determine adverse impact in discrimination cases
(Buhler, 2002).
Glass Ceiling. The invisible barrier that prevents women and minorities from moving
into upper levels of management within organizations (Buhler, 2002).
Harassment. Unwelcomed conduct that is based on race, color, sex, religion, national
origin, disability, and/or age (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Federal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws, n.d.).
Human resources. The people that are employed by and managed within a company or
organization.
Inclusion within Cultural Groups. An employee’s ability to engage with members within
a workgroup (Larkey, 1996).
Job Satisfaction. The degree of enjoyment that individuals gain from performing their
jobs (Griffin & Ebert, 2002).

18. 7
Protected Classes. A group of people that can include women, people with disabilities,
minority races and older people in the workforce that are cosseted by legislation (Repa, 2002).
Quid Pro Quo Harassment. Harassment that occurs with an exchange of sexual favors for
employment decisions (Shaw, 1998).
Reasonable Accommodation. Adjustments made in the workplace to accommodate
people with disabilities (United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws, n.d.).
Trust. An individual’s level of belief, presumption, and reliance on members within a
workgroup (Larkey, 1996).
Assumptions and Limitations
There are several assumptions associated with this study, which included the following:
1. Participants of the study are directly affected by workplace diversity.
2. Workplace diversity management is recognized by employees and directly
correlates with their job satisfaction.
3. Employees are satisfied with their jobs and are more culturally astute, as a result
of the components of diversity management in the workplace.
4. Employees that participated in the study provided candid and truthful responses
about their diversity awareness and job satisfaction.
5. The Workplace Diversity Questionnaire II and the Job Satisfaction Survey were
the best suited instruments for data collection.
6. Questionnaire data was non-biased.

19. 8
The main limitation associated with the study is based on data collection from one
division within a manufacturing company, where generalizations can be made about employees
within the manufacturing industry as a whole. It is assumed that the sample population and
sample size are a representation of employees within the manufacturing sector, in which the
results can be used to make overall generalizations about the manufacturing industry.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
According to Miles and Huberman (1994) a conceptual framework explains the study’s
main components, as well as the presumed relationships amongst the components. Essentially,
the conceptual framework is a picture of what the researcher believes is going on with the
phenomenon being studied (Maxwell, 1996). Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework for
the study. This study looked at how diversity management is directly affected by policies and
procedures formed within an organization, which are used to directly and indirectly manage
workplace diversity. Fundamentally an organization utilizes these policies to manage and
monitor diversity within the organization. The arrows within Figure 1 depict how diversity
management is affected by policies and procedures, as well as how policies and procedures
affect diversity management. Policies and procedures that are implemented and upheld within an
organization affect employees, just as the employees can have an effect on policies and
procedures. Figure 1 illustrates how policies and procedures directly affect employees and how
diversity management impacts employees. Figure 1 depicts job satisfaction as a dependent
variable that can be impacted from the cycle between diversity management, policies and
procedures, and employees (independent variables).

20. 9
Figure 1. Theoretical/conceptual framework
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This study is organized into chapters. Chapter 2 is comprised of the literature review
which was gathered from books, periodicals, and government publications. The literature review
addresses prior theory and research that informs the study. Chapter 3 contains the research
methodology for the study. Chapter 3 encompasses information about the potential study
participants, the data collection instruments, and procedures for data collection, as well as data
analysis. Chapter 4 includes the data analysis portion of the study, in which results from the
Policies
&
Procedures
Job Satisfaction
Diversity
Management
Employees

21. 10
survey/questionnaires were analyzed. Chapter 5 includes the summary and conclusion of the
research study. References cited and appendixes are subsequent to Chapter 5.

22. 11
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Human Resource Management
Human resource strategy has been identified as a set of processes and activities jointly
shared by human resource personnel and managers to address and often resolve people related
business concerns and/or issues. Human resource management utilizes human resource strategy
to identify present and emerging issues or concerns, assess these issues or concerns, evaluate
issues or concerns, and potentially provide resolutions. One of the goals of this process is to
address issues that would affect the organizations competitive advantage and its organizational
success. Strategic human resource management is more action and goal oriented when compared
to traditional approaches to human resource management. The procedures and actions utilized in
strategic management are aimed at focusing, mobilizing, and directing human resource activities
pertaining to issues and concerns that may have an impact on the organization. Focusing on
issues that arise, or have the potential to arise, enables organizations to develop and implement
programs to resolve and prevent these issues and/or concerns. Human resource personnel, in
addition to organizational management, identify concerns and issues that are employee related.
Organizations realize the importance of people to the success of the business. Strategic human
resource management has identified several pertinent people related business issues and/ or
concerns. These include the following:
1. Cost Competitiveness: Minimizing the costs of utilizing personnel,
downsizing through analysis versus head count reduction, elimination of job
tasks not personnel;

23. 12
2. Delegation: Streamlined approval processes, increased employee
involvement, risk compensation;
3. Organizational Changes: Considering spans of control, centralization versus
decentralization, internal growth, acquisitions, divestitures, and mergers;
4. Enhanced Competitiveness: Customer satisfaction, quality products and
service, productivity, innovation, and safety;
5. Global Competitiveness: Global business perspective, multinational careers,
and global corporate integration;
6. Employee Competence: Leadership development training, staffing,
performance appraisals, employee development, and education endeavors;
7. Organizational effectiveness: Flexibility, efficiency, integration and
differentiation, interdependence, team effectiveness (employee work teams),
relationship roles and clarity thereof;
8. Managing Workplace diversity: Increasing the capacity and motivation of the
workforce through staffing, retention, career development, reward programs,
performance management, communication, employee involvement, and work
life topics based on diversity in the workforce (Fisher et al., 1999 & Schuler
and Walker, 1990).
Effective human resource management is beneficial for both the employee and the
organization. When employees are satisfied with their job, productivity stabilizes. The
result is an increase in profit generation for the organization and its shareholders. The
foundation of an organization is its employees. Their ability to be responsive and flexible

24. 13
in a rapidly changing environment can affect the success or failure of an organization.
Without human resources (employees/personnel), organizations would not be able to
achieve their goals. Strategic human resource management assists in managing personnel
(human resources) so that the organization can be successful (Fisher et al., 1999).
Strategic Human Resource Management is targeted towards tackling the previously
mentioned people related issues so that the organization can remain profitable. The
focus of this study is concentration on the latter issue, managing workplace diversity.
The goal of strategic human resource management, as it pertains to this study, is to
manage workplace diversity in a manner that will motivate employees, promote
productivity, and positively impact job satisfaction. Consequently, personnel must be
effectively utilized to improve performance and achieve the organization’s mission and
objectives (Arthur, 1995).
Characterizing Workplace Diversity
The term diversity is used to illustrate how individuals differ by gender, ethnicity, age,
physical abilities, lifestyle, and religion. Workplace diversity incorporates the meaning of
diversity within a workplace setting. Managing workplace diversity has become a major focus in
many Human Resource departments. The main goal of workplace diversity management is
prohibition of discrimination against individuals, which would cause them to be unfairly
differentiated from coworkers. In addition, managing workplace diversity addresses the need to
create a fair work environment for all employees (Taylor, 1995). Diversity is illustrated through
the differences amid individuals in today’s workplace environment. Diversity recognizes the

25. 14
fact that the human race is characterized by differences in gender, ethnic origin, age, religion,
lifestyle, and physical abilities. The changing demographics of the work force have contributed
to an increase in diversity. In addition to globalization, diversity has also increased as a result of
an increase in women and people with disabilities entering the work force. One of the tasks of
managing workplace diversity is to recognize the differences among individuals and provide
opportunities and means for individuals to contribute their talents to the organization.
Demographics are a large component of diversity and are a contributor to increases in diversity.
The average age of Americans in the workplace is continually increasing. The population
increase, as a result of the baby boomers era, is still present in today’s workforce. According to
the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, the median years of age of the labor force is projected to be 40.7 in
2008, which is an increase from 35.9 in 1988 and 38.7 in 1998 (United States Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Homepage, n.d.). Contrarily, the generation following the
baby boomers has had a lower birth rate, resulting in higher numbers of older workers and fewer
younger aged workers within the workforce. There are several distinct characteristics apparent
in the older aged workforce. Older aged workers are viewed as high contributors to the
workforce, steadfast, and loyal to the company. According to Chordas (2007), not only are older
workers generally viewed as dependable, loyal, and dedicated; they are also viewed as having a
strong work ethic, solid performance record, and possessing years of working related experience.
Within managing workplace diversity, organizations must manage both the older and younger
aged employees. Issues pertaining to medical benefits, job security, and retirement must be
addressed by organizations, to ensure that the future workforce of the organization includes both
older and younger aged workers.

26. 15
In addition to age, gender is a contributing factor in diversity. The proportion of women
entering the workforce has increased form previous years. According to the U.S. Department of
Labor statistics for 2006, women comprised 46% of the total U.S. labor force and are projected
to account for 47% of the labor force in 2014 (United States Department of Labor, Women’s
Bureau Statistics & Data, 2005). In managing gender in the workplace, applicable issues such as
child/dependent care, differences in salaries, and available promotional opportunities must be
addressed by organizations. One issue that is associated with women in the workplace is the
glass ceiling. The glass ceiling refers to an invisible ceiling (barrier) that prevents women and
minorities from obtaining promotions into higher level positions, including management (Buhler,
2002).
There are several other factors that affect diversity in the workplace. Increases in
ethnicity and nationality in the workplace have played a major role in workplace diversity. Both
Hispanic and Asian populations within the workforce are rising, and are expected to continue to
increase. Individuals with physical and mental disabilities are entering the workforce.
Organizations are becoming more educated on disabilities and are more accommodating to
employees with disabilities. Today’s employees possess higher levels of education. The
educational criteria and job expectations of organizations has increased from previous years.
Many organizations are seeking college educated and/or experienced workers. This is an aspect
that also contributes to diversity within an organization.
Workplace diversity within an organization is generally regarded in a positive manner.
Workplace diversity is viewed as a mechanism for creating a competitive advantage within an
organization. The organization has the opportunity to utilize a plethora of knowledge, skills,

27. 16
abilities, and talents found in a diverse work environment. Workplace diversity also increases
creativity, in which various ideas are represented. According to Kennedy and Everest (1991) in
order for organizations to remain competitive it is absolutely necessary for employers not only to
embrace diversity, but to seek out all available strategies, that will attract the talent needed
within the organization for upcoming years. Essentially the organization is able to capitalize
(profit) through obtaining and maintaining a diverse workforce. Neglect in managing workplace
diversity can have negative affects on an organization’s productivity and efficiency. These
negative affects include tension between coworkers of differing gender, race, age, religion, etc.;
inability to attract and retain qualified individuals; legal complaints and actions; and decreases in
capital as a result of employee recruiting and new employee training. Overall, managing
workplace diversity is beneficial for the organization and the employee (Thomas, 1991).
Equal Employment
Managing workplace diversity is a component of human resource management. The goal
of managing human resources is to meet the demands of the current working environment.
Changing demographics, globalization, and legislation affect human resource management. In
fact, legislation has been used as a vehicle to manage workplace diversity. Legislation has been
the result of addressing issues regarding equal employment opportunity. EEO protects
individuals from unfair or inappropriate discrimination in the workplace. EEO regulations
consist of monitoring workplace rules, policies, practices, and behaviors to warrant fairness and
non-discrimination of individuals, which often results from categorization of individuals into
groups. EEO groups are defined as individuals affected by past or continuing disadvantages or

28. 17
discrimination in employment practices. These groups include women, disabled individuals, and
members of racial, ethnic, and ethno-religious minority groups. There are two agencies that
manage and enforce EEO; one of the two agencies is the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission which is a division of the Department of Justice. This agency has the responsibility
of enforcing federal laws that prohibit job discrimination. The second agency that manages and
enforces EEO is the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. This agency is
responsible for enforcing executive orders that apply to organizations that conduct business with
the federal government. EEO strives to achieve several outcomes. These outcomes include
generating a diverse and skilled workforce, improved employment access, and creating a
workplace culture that displays fair workplace practices and behaviors. Managers and
employees benefit from the practices and procedures of EEO. Employees benefit by working in
a fair workplace, free from unlawful discrimination and harassment, as well as equal access to
jobs, training, and developmental opportunities. Managers can benefit by having a more
cooperative workplace with reduced conflict, in addition to increased employee job satisfaction,
morale, and productivity. Being compliant to EEO regulations not only helps with managing
workplace diversity, but also contributes to a cohesive working environment (United States
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws,
n.d.).
The Role of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
One of the two agencies that manages equal employment opportunity enforcement is the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is part of the United States’

29. 18
Department of Justice. The EEOC typically addresses federal laws that inhibit discrimination or
preferential treatment amid employment practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission handles enforcement of approximately six federal laws. The congressional
legislation as depicted by the EEOC is as follows (United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Federal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws, n.d.):
1. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) protects men and women who perform
substantially equal work in the same establishment, from gender based wage
discrimination. The EPA prohibits discrimination in salaries, pensions, and
benefits based on gender. Both men and women are entitled to equal pay rates
for job tasks that require the same skill level. Exceptions to the EPA can be
made based on job seniority.
2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and nationality.
Discrimination is prohibited in all phases of employment including hiring,
training, promotions, benefits, compensation, and termination. The Civil
Rights Act of 1991 amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This
amendment addresses the damages that can be awarded in discrimination
lawsuits. The amendment provides an easier means for individuals who feel
they have been discriminated against to take legal action. In addition, this law
provides monetary compensation (payment of compensatory and punitive
damages) in cases of intentional employment discrimination covered by Title
VII. The amendment reduced limits on compensatory and punitive damages

30. 19
that can be awarded as a result of intentional discrimination or harassment. In
addition this act established the Glass Ceiling Commission which addresses
the lack of representation of women and minorities in upper level employment
positions.
3. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects
individuals who are forty years of age and older. The ADEA prohibits
discrimination based on age in any employment practice. It is considered
unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge an individual
(or otherwise discriminate against an individual) with respect to
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. It is also
unlawful to limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would
deprive or be inclined to deprive any individual of employment opportunities
as a result of age.
4. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is an amendment to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, which includes pregnancy. It is prohibited to discriminate
against a pregnant woman in any employment practice. These practices
include but are not limited to hiring, training, promotions, wages, benefits, and
termination.
5. Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
prohibits employment discrimination, in the private sector and in state and
local governments, against qualified individuals with disabilities (either
physical or mental) or individuals who are chronically ill. The ADA requires

31. 20
employers to provide accommodations for employment of individuals with
disabilities. Reasonable accommodations include making an existing
employment facility accessible and usable, job restructuring, modified work
schedules, modification of equipment, training materials, and the provision of
qualified readers or interpreters. In addition, Sections Five Hundred and One
(501) and Five Hundred and Five (505) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
forbid discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work
in the federal government.
6. The Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of
1994 protects individuals who serve in the military for short time periods.
Under this act, employers are required to allow individuals to return to their
jobs with the same seniority and benefits received prior to service.
The EEOC enforces all of the laws listed above, in addition to providing direction and
coordination of federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies (Fisher
et al., 1999 & Walsh, 1995). Within the context of the laws enforced by the EEOC,
discriminatory practices are clearly defined to elude miscommunication. Under Title VII, it is
illegal to engage in discriminatory practices, which involve any aspect of employment. These
practices include: hiring and firing; compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall; job advertisements; recruitment; testing; use of company
facilities; training and apprenticeship programs; fringe benefits; pay, retirement plans, and
disability leave; and other terms and conditions of employment.

32. 21
Discriminatory practices under EEOC laws also constitute harassment on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. Harassment on the basis of retaliation
against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or
opposing discriminatory practices; employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions
about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain gender, race, age, religion,
ethnicity, or physical ability; lastly, denying employment opportunities to persons because of
marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, nationality, or
physical ability are also included. Title VII also forbids discrimination due to affiliations or
participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or
religious group. Employers are required to post notices to all employees advising them of their
rights under the law, including illegal discriminatory practices enforced by the EEOC. Such
notices are to be readily accessible to each employee, including impaired employees.
The Role of The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
The second agency, which handles EEO enforcement, is the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP). The OFCCP is part of the United States Department of
Labor’s Employment Standards Administration. The OFCCP has a national network consisting
of approximately six regional offices, with district and area offices in major metropolitan areas.
The OFCCP has the responsibility of assuring that employers conducting business with the
federal government comply with the EEO and affirmative action provisions. The OFCCP is
mainly responsible for enforcing three EEO programs, which include executive orders that are
representative of companies that have federal government contracts. Executive Order 11246

33. 22
prohibits discrimination in hiring and/or employment decisions based on race, color, gender,
religion, and nationality. Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 forbids discrimination
and requires affirmative action in all personnel practices for qualified individuals with
disabilities. Vietnam Era Veteran’s Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 deters discrimination.
It requires affirmative action in all personnel practices for all veterans who served on active duty
in the United States military (ground, naval, or air service) who are disabled veterans, Vietnam
Era veterans, recently separated veterans, or veterans who served on active duty during war,
campaign, or expedition (http://www.dol.gov).
Affirmative Action in the Workplace
Affirmative action can be viewed as a component of managing workplace diversity. However,
affirmative action and diversity management cannot be used interchangeably. Affirmative
action, born of the civil rights movement, requires minorities and women to be given special
consideration in employment, education, and contracting decisions. Affirmative action is often
viewed as an opportunity for organizations to resolve past discrimination issues. Affirmative
action has been viewed as a milestone to supporters and as a millstone to refuters. Statistically,
affirmative action can be viewed as a tool necessary for organizations to obtain workplace
diversity. According to Plous (1996) affirmative action can aid in leveling the playing field,
where the ratio of Black to White advantage had remained unchanged between 1984 and 1994
(based on the common standard living indices). Figure 2 illustrates the common standard of
living indices for white/black ratio advantage with respect to household income, unemployment,
four years of college, and infant mortality (Plous, 2003).

34. 23
Figure 2. Standard of living indices
Note. From “Ten myths about affirmative action, by S. Plous, 2003, Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination. Copyright 2003 by New York:
McGraw-Hill. Permission given by S. Plous to re-print figure.
With furrowed statistics, organizations can use affirmative action as a development tool.
Organizations can seek to develop strategies to formulate a more balanced work force that
reflects current society. Affirmative action plans can be compulsory or voluntary. According to
Moran (2005) voluntary affirmative action programs presumably reflect an employer's judgment
that racial inclusion advances business objectives. Understanding, utilizing, and monitoring
affirmative action plans within an organization can strongly impact workplace diversity, and can
therefore be regarded as a critical component in managing workplace diversity. Managing

35. 24
workplace diversity is not synonymous with affirmative action. Managing workplace diversity
focuses on maximizing the knowledge, skills, and abilities of employees, in an effort to achieve
the organization’s goals. Affirmative action focuses specifically on minorities and women as a
result of historical discrimination. Essentially, affirmative action targets legal and social aspects
whereas managing workplace diversity targets business-oriented aspects.
Discrimination Law
Discrimination and/or harassment includes the unfair treatment of individuals in the
workplace. It is illegal and therefore prohibited for an organization or employee to discriminate
against individuals of a protected class. In addition, it is illegal for an organization or its
employees to allow harassment of individuals of a protected class. Specifically, discrimination
refers to the process by which individuals are treated unfairly based on their differences. It is
illegal to discriminate against an individual in a workplace environment based on race, religion,
ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, and disability. Currently, there are situations that occur in the
workplace that affect discrimination law and ultimately diversity management. AIDS in the
workplace is an occurring circumstance. AIDS is considered a disability under the ADA.
Employers, however, can not legally require AIDS testing, or any other medical testing, as a
condition of employment. Employers and potential employees are required to maintain
confidentiality, provide necessary accommodations, and by law can not discriminate (Repa,
2002).
There are two main impact categories that apply to discrimination charges and/or
lawsuits. The charges can be classified as either adverse impact or disparate impact. Disparate

36. 25
impact occurs intentionally, in which the employer purposely discriminates against an individual
in a protected class. Adverse impact occurs when a protected class experiences a higher
rejection rate than an unprotected class, based on employment practices. Adverse impact is
considered unintentional, however, it is illegal. Adverse impact can be illustrated using the
standard deviation rule. This rule uses probability distributions to analyze and determine adverse
impact. The analysis uses the difference between the expected hiring rates for minority groups
and the actual hiring rate. The difference between the two rates is analyzed to determine if the
occurrence is greater than an occurrence by chance.
In addition to discrimination, harassment in the work environment must also be
addressed. Harassment occurs when an individual unwillingly endures a work environment that
is hostile, intimidating or offensive because of their individual differences (race, gender, religion,
disability etc.). Harassment can include slurs, jokes, or offensive remarks based on individual
differences. Other harassment examples include threats, intimidation, hostile demeanor, and/or
physical violence. Harassment can have detrimental consequences for the harassed individual
and other employees that witness or experience the harassment. The effects can include loss of
job, loss of salary/wages, loss of benefits, forced reassignment, forced resignation (also called
constructive discharge), penalties and/or consequences for retaliation, and personal injuries.
A specific type of harassment that is superintended by legislation is sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment, as defined by the EEOC, is any unwelcome sexual advance within a work
setting. The two types of sexual harassment are quid pro quo and hostile work environment.
Quid pro quo is sexual favors requested for work-related benefits. Quid pro quo consists of
unwelcome advances of a sexual nature, or request for sexual favors, in exchange for

37. 26
employment or benefits related to employment. Hostile work environment involves lewd
comments and inappropriate jokes, which make the workplace atmosphere uncomfortable.
Hostile work environment is the second type of sexual harassment in which conduct of a sexual
nature interferes with an individual’s ability to perform their job responsibilities. By law, in
cases of sexual harassment, the employer is accountable for changing the environment by
warning, reprimand, and termination. These emergent situations directly correlate with
discrimination law, which indirectly affects diversity management. Managers and HR personnel
must be aware of arising situations and trends that may affect diversity in the work place and the
organization as a whole (Guerin and Delpo, 2002 & Shaw, 1998).
Job Satisfaction
Employee satisfaction within the workplace, also referred to as job satisfaction, is
described as an individual’s general attitude regarding his or her job (Robbins, 2003). Job
satisfaction is in essence an attitude rather than an aspect of behavior. Job dissatisfaction is
indicated by negative attitudes about the job, whereas job satisfaction is indicated by positive
attitudes about the job. Saltonstall (1953) suggests that there are four employee roles that
contribute to basic employee related workplace satisfactions. These roles include (a) as an
individual, (b) as a member of a work group, (c) as a company employee, and (d) as a union
member. The employee role as an individual entails addressing job satisfaction needs in terms of
individuality and individual personal needs. The employee role, as a member of a work group,
addresses job satisfaction as being derived from the social standing awarded by the work group.
The feeling of belonging, associations at work, prestige within the group, and mutual protection,
have the potential to factor into the employee’s sense of job satisfaction. The role of an

38. 27
employee is based on viewing job satisfaction as corresponding to the success of the
organization. In this role the employee considers their individual interests subordinate to the
goals of the organization and the benefits it confers. The role of the employee as a union
member suggests that job satisfaction is achieved via union protection. Union protection can
include favoritism, arbitrary acts, management decisions on discharge, salary, and technological
changes. Fundamentally, employee roles can have an impact on job satisfaction. For this study,
the role of the employee as a member of a workgroup was the focus.
In addition to employee roles, other factors such as workload, deadlines, and work
autonomy can also affect job satisfaction. Hackman and Oldman (as cited by Koppula, 2006)
identified five main facets that can impact job satisfaction including:
1. task identity- how closely the employee can relate to their part of the task
being completed,
2. task significance- the importance of the employee’s job on the task being
completed,
3. skill variety- whether the employee has a variety of responsibilities or not,
4. autonomy- the amount of control that the employee has over their job,
5. feedback- how confident the employee is that their job is being done well.
Once organizations have clearly characterized job satisfaction and potential factors that can
affect job satisfaction, the relationship between other constructs, such as job performance and
motivation, can be examined.
According to Robbins (2003) there is a demonstrated relationship between performance

39. 28
factors and job satisfaction. Likert, Mayo, and McGregor (as cited by Ostroff, 1992), suggest
that satisfied workers are productive workers. Ultimately, organizations realize the importance
of job satisfaction and its potential ramifications. One of these ramifications being the potential
impact on organizational effectiveness. Organizational effectiveness can be two-fold,
incorporating the manufacture or distribution of a product or service at a profit (productivity), as
well as keeping employees and work groups operating effectively together toward achieving the
organization’s goals. Productivity within an organization can be attributed to employee
satisfaction and addressing the needs of the employee. Employee productivity can be a direct
result of the employee’s behaviors, which are influenced by the employee’s attitude about their
job. Kopelman (as cited by Ostroff, 1992) suggested that there are three pertinent behaviors for
organization effectiveness which include attachment, performance, and citizenship. Attachment
behaviors are behaviors that include attending to and staying within the organization. Effective
functioning within the organization aims to limit and prevent behaviors that are contrary to
attachment, such as turnover and absenteeism. Performance behaviors are job related tasks and
activities that comprise the employee’s role within the organization. Job performance is often a
result of employee job satisfaction and can be illustrated through employee attitudes. Satisfied
employees constitute employee citizenship, which incorporates cooperation and collaborative
efforts. Considering employee attitudes is integral because these attitudes can determine
collaborative efforts, which are associated with achieving the organizations goals. According to
Ostroff (1992) unsatisfied employees cannot effectively participate in achieving organizational
goals. Dissatisfied employees may fail at collaborative efforts and divert efforts away from
achieving organizational goals. Contrarily, satisfied employees are more likely to engage in

40. 29
collaborative efforts and accept organizational goals that increase productivity. Essentially job
satisfaction and attitudes directly correlate to employee behaviors, where organizational
effectiveness, measured by productivity, can be a function of these behaviors. Job satisfaction
and the attitudes of employees are important factors in determining the behavior and responses of
employees, where these behaviors and responses can impact organizational effectiveness.
Hence, job satisfaction and employee interests can result in organizational effectiveness, through
significant productivity which is correlated to employee behaviors.
Motivation and Motivational Theories
Kini and Hobson (2002) refer to motivation as the set of processes that arouse (the drive
behind behavior), direct (directed behavior), and maintain (maintaining the behavior in meeting
the goal) human behavior toward attaining a goal. There are two main categories that encompass
theories on motivation, which include content theories and process theories. According to Kini
and Hobson (2002) content theories assume that factors exist within an individual that energize,
direct, and sustain behavior. The focus of content theories is identification of essential internal
elements, as well as the explanation of how these elements are prioritized by the employee. The
following are examples of content theories as listed by Kini and Hobson (2002):
1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory: There is a hierarchy of five needs that
include physiological (hunger, thirst, shelter, bodily needs), safety (security
and protection), social (affection, belongingness, acceptance), esteem
(autonomy, self-respect), and self-actualization (drive to achieve and self-
fulfillment).

41. 30
2. Alderfer’s Existence, Relatedness, and Growth (ERG) Theory: There are three
core needs which include existence, relatedness, and growth arranged in a
hierarchical manner.
3. McClelland’s Theory of Needs: Achievement need (the drive to excel and
achieve in relation to a set of standards), power need (the desire to make others
behave in a way that they would not otherwise have behaved in), affiliation
need (the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships).
4. McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y: Theory X posits that employees dislike
work, are lazy, dislike responsibility, and must be coerced to perform; Theory
Y assumes that employees like work, are creative, seek responsibility, and can
exercise self direction.
5. Ouchi’s Theory Z: Centers around egalitarianism and implies that each person
can apply discretion and can work autonomously without close supervision,
because they are trusted. Trust therefore accounts for high levels of
commitment, loyalty and productivity.
Process theories of motivation describe how behavior is energized, directed, and
sustained. The focus is on the psychological processes of underlying actions, where heavy
emphasis is placed on describing the functioning of the individual’s decision system as it relates
to behavior. Kini and Hobson (2002) list the following theories as process theories:
1. Expectancy theory (ET): People are motivated to work towards rewards that
they want and that they believe are obtainable.
2. Behavior modification or Reinforcement Theory (BM): States that
reinforcement patterns condition behavior, in which behavior is
environmentally caused. Reinforcers are viewed as controlling behavior.
3. Goal setting theory (GS): Goals directly impact behavior which results in
higher performance. Specific goals increase performance, where higher
performance results from the difficulty level of the goal (when the goal is
accepted).
4. Equity theory (ET): Focuses on social comparisons, in which people are
motivated to maintain equitable relationships between themselves and to
change inequitable relationships.

42. 31
Having knowledge and understanding of theories that affect motivation can be extremely
beneficial for management in terms of directing employees. According to Griffin and Ebert
(2002), one of the main goals of mangers within organizations should be directing, which entails
guiding and motivating employees to meet an organization’s objectives. Acquiring knowledge
of motivational theories can aid managers in maintaining and increasing employee satisfaction,
motivation levels, and job performance, which ultimately results in achieving the company’s
mission and objectives.
Case Study Research on Job Satisfaction and Motivation
In a study on addressing employee motivation and organization performance which
assessed 1,000 employees, Kovach (1995) concluded that employee motivation is a key factor in
determining long-term employer success levels. However, this concept is overlooked by many
organizations. The perceptions of management and its employees greatly differ. Managers often
practiced self reference, in which employees were offered rewards that would motivate
themselves (management). The main element that managers assumed would motivate and
satisfy employees was salary, which proved to be incorrect. Employees sought self-sufficiency.
The result in this skew of perceptions between mangers and employees resulted in managers
being out of sync with employees. This lack of clarity resulted in less employee job satisfaction,
reduced motivation, and mediocre performance.
Additional case study research suggests that the relationship between employee job
satisfaction and motivation is pertinent. In a Work Foundation survey (“Motivation: Winning
Back World-Weary Workers”, 2005) 15% of the workforce stated that they were dissatisfied

43. 32
with their jobs. This dissatisfaction resulted in decreased motivation and performance. The
cause was stated as lack of autonomy. The study found that organizations with high performance
were characteristic of having employees that possessed a greater sense of autonomy over their
jobs. Other issues that affected motivation and ultimately job satisfaction were apparent
breakdowns in the relationship between employee and manager, in addition to unclear
relationships between performance and reward.
In a study on personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Nigerian managers in the oil
industry, Okpara (2006) concluded that job satisfaction is strongly associated with employee’s
personal characteristics. Factors like experience, education, pay, promotion, supervision, and
coworkers can potentially affect job satisfaction. The study’s methodology consisted of a
survey, conducted over approximately one month. Stratified sampling techniques were used to
obtain a sample size of 665 managers from ten oil companies. Approximately 550 surveys were
distributed, and 364 were returned, representing a 66.18% response rate. The survey used in the
study employed six scales, designed to measure satisfaction with respect to different components
of the oil managers' overall job satisfaction, namely satisfaction with pay, work, promotion,
supervision, coworkers, and overall job satisfaction. The survey was validated using pilot tests.
The results of the study concluded that job satisfaction is strongly correlated to the personal
characteristics of the manager. The results of the study suggest that job satisfaction variables are
not unidirectional in their effects, which implies that organizations should be mindful of factors
that contribute to job dissatisfaction, and attempt to improve them to achieve greater job
satisfaction.

44. 33
Petty, McGee, and Cavender (1984) conducted a case study using meta-analysis to assess
the relationship between individual job satisfaction and individual job performance. The basis of
the study was to analyze correlational literature concerning the relationships between individual
job satisfaction and individual performance, in an effort to decipher if there is a strong
association between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. The correlational
literature was based on fifteen studies conducted by V.H. Vroom, from his research on work and
motivation, established in 1964. The case study utilized meta-analysis as its research strategy.
According to Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson (as cited by Petty et al., 1984) meta-analysis is a
statistical technique that can be used to cumulate research findings across studies. Meta-analysis
can be used to average sample correlations across studies to distinguish variance that is due to
statistical artifacts (i.e. sampling, error, error of measurement, restriction in range) from variance
that is due to differences caused by moderator variables. Through meta-analysis of the studies,
the results yielded that 40% of variance among the studies was due to sampling errors and 60%
of variance was due to a combination of error in measurement, restriction in range, and other
artifacts. The case study concluded that individual job satisfaction and individual performance
were positively correlated, in which this correlation is stronger than previously illustrated by
Vroom.
Implications on Job Satisfaction
Griffin and Ebert (2002) assert that job satisfaction is the degree of enjoyment that people
derive from performing their jobs. If an individual enjoys their job then they are viewed as
satisfied, whereas they are viewed as dissatisfied if they don’t enjoy their job. Satisfied
employees are likely to have high morale, according to Griffin and Ebert (2002), in which

45. 34
morale is the overall attitude that employees have toward their job. Morale is in essence a
reflection of the degree to which an individual perceives that their needs are being met by their
job. Significant research has been conducted that denotes correlations among workplace
diversity, job satisfaction, and morale.
Ibarra (1995) notes that research on the relation between ethnic identity and career
outcomes, like job satisfaction, tend to illustrate that minority group members have more
negative experiences than employees that are members of majority groups. Greenhaus,
Parasuraman and Wormley (1990) found that African-Americans are less satisfied in their jobs
than European Americans. Contrarily, the research related to older workers is varied. According
to Rix (1990) and Ruhm (1990) older workers are more likely to be demoted, terminated, or
discriminated against in today’s culture, which is more youthful. Spector (1997) suggests that
job satisfaction increases with age. According to Carr-Ruffino (1996) employees over the age of
fifty exhibit higher morale, higher levels of job satisfaction, and are more job involved. Lastly,
Barak and Levin (2002) suggest that perceived levels of inclusion are a significant predictor of
job satisfaction. Perceived acceptance, by coworkers and by an organization, has a direct
relationship with job satisfaction, as does discrimination, which is suggested as a predictor of job
satisfaction (Barak and Levin, 2002). The above discussed research implies that there is a direct
correlation between workplace diversity and job satisfaction. As organizations strive to remain
competitive, workplace diversity and its implications on job satisfaction can be vital.

46. 35
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study utilized a structured survey methodology to investigate the impact that
managing workplace diversity had on diversity awareness and employee’s job satisfaction. The
study was designed as a quantitative descriptive study with a case study research design, which
encompassed two questionnaires as the data collection instruments. The intent of the
questionnaires was to utilize correlational research to ascertain employee’s awareness of
workplace diversity and the relationship between diversity awareness and job satisfaction.
Population
The population was derived from a large manufacturing company. This company was
chosen based on applicability in terms of the company’s employee base regarding workplace
diversity. Prior research indicates that studies have been conducted on the relationship among
constructs like employee relations and employee satisfaction within service industries (Bowen &
Lawler, 1995). The company is a Fortune 500 company within the manufacturing industry,
which has made statements about the importance of diversity for continued innovation and
growth. The sample frame consisted of full-time employees from the Research, Development,
and Engineering (RD&E) sector of the company. The sample frame consisted of employees, who
had varied years of service and physically worked on the company’s premises within Division A.

47. 36
The Company’s Background
The target population was chosen from this company because the company’s policies and
procedures appear to view workplace diversity as a necessity. The company “promotes a culture
of inclusion for a broad array of stakeholders including its employees, suppliers, customers, and
host communities” (The Company, n.d.). The company’s employees range from engineers and
researchers to manufacturing personnel; personnel in sales, marketing, finance, communications
and human resources. The company’s internal demographics include 37.4% women, of which
28.1% include people of Black, Hispanic, and Asian origin. More than one out of every three
employees is a female and approximately one out of every four employees is a person of color.
The company manages diversity in their workforce through HR-related tactics (i.e. legislation),
as well as through employee embedded workshops, seminars, speakers, and other activities. The
scheme of managing workforce diversity goes hand in hand with the company’s strategy of
growing a diverse and connected work community that embodies the company’s values and
mission.
Sample
For this study, a sampling methodology was used based on non-probability selection. The
sample was a convenience purposive sample comprised of 139 individuals from “Division A” of
the RD&E sector of the company. The rationale for utilizing purposive sampling was to capture
the heterogeneity of the population, while achieving representation of the organizational setting
(Maxwell, 1996). Utilizing a convenience purposive sample allowed the researcher to preserve
time, money, and resources. According to Miles and Huberman (1994) sampling involves setting

48. 37
boundaries and creating a frame to qualify the constructs of the study. The overall boundaries of
potential participants for the study were that the employees were permanent (no contractors or
temporary employees), in addition, the employees all worked within "Division A" of the RD&E
department of the organization. The sample consisted of 139 employees with varying diverse
characteristics. The diverse characteristics of the sample included employees with varied lengths
of service with the company (to result in greater accuracy of answers and comments about the
organization over a reasonable time frame), varied age ranges, and varied ethnicities.
The response rate needed to obtain a 95% confidence interval, based on a sample size of
139 individuals in the department, was 97. Based on distributing 139 questionnaires, in which a
minimum of 102 surveys were completed, the researcher was 95 per cent confident that the
received responses were reflective of the population. Questionnaires were only distributed to
individuals within Division A of RD&E. The sample size needed to obtain a 95% confidence
interval was calculated utilizing a table presented in the article “Determining Sample Size for
Research Activities”, which is based on a 95% confidence level and +/- 5% margin of error
(Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Each individual in the division was included in the sample, in which
electronic links to the questionnaires were distributed accordingly.
Research Hypotheses
The goals of the study were to characterize workplace diversity, identify elements used to
manage workplace diversity and look at how these elements were reflected in the employee’s
diversity awareness and job satisfaction. The research in this study was designed based on the
following hypothesis:

49. 38
H1: There is a relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the Workforce
Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction, as measured by the
Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
H01: There is no relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction, as
measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
H2: There is a difference in diversity awareness by varying demographic characteristics,
including years of service, gender, ethnicity, and age.
H02: There is not a difference in diversity awareness by varying demographic
characteristics, including years of service, gender, ethnicity, and age.
The hypothesis of the study correlated with the study’s research questions, which aimed to
characterize diversity and look at the impact that managing workplace diversity had on diversity
awareness and employee job satisfaction.
Research Instrumentation
Two data collection instruments were used to investigate the impact that managing
workplace diversity had on diversity awareness and employee job satisfaction. The modified
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire (Larkey, 1996) and the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector,
1985) were utilized for data collection. The researcher obtained permission from both authors to
utilize the aforementioned questionnaires. Permission to conduct research utilizing human
subjects was obtained from the Capella University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The
informed consent letter aided in anonymity during data collection. The researcher did not have

50. 39
direct contact with the study’s participants. Participant reminders and follow-up occurred
through a global e-mail sent out by the researcher.
Protection of Human Subjects
Prior to commencing data collection, the researcher obtained permission from the Vice
President of “Division A” to conduct the study. The researcher did not have a job functionality
that impinged on potential study participants. Participation in this study was voluntary and
confidential. Participants’ agreement to participate in the study was exemplified through
completion of the questionnaires. An informed consent letter was sent, as an attachment, to
accompany the electronic links to the questionnaires which were e-mailed to employees. The
informed consent letter discussed confidentiality, the study’s purpose, the timeframe for
completion of the questionnaires, and included the researcher’s contact information. The
researcher maintained confidentiality and protected anonymity by allowing participants to
complete questionnaires, through a website used for the creation of questionnaires, by clicking
on the electronic links sent via e-mail. Anonymity was maintained because IP addresses were
not be captured through the questionnaire website.
Once the data from completed questionnaires was collected, the researcher began data
analysis. The data was input into SPSS and Excel Analyze-It for data analysis. The statistical
data will be kept by the researcher for approximately 7 years following the study. Only the
dissertation itself is accessible to interested entities. The indirect benefit of participation in the
study was increased knowledge within the scientific community regarding diversity awareness
and job satisfaction. No information, neither written nor verbal, was discussed or divulged by the

51. 40
researcher in regards to the study’s participants. Based on the aforementioned process for data
collection and data handling, participation within this study exhibited minimal risk.
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II
The Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ-II) was designed by Larkey (1996) to
assess interactions within diverse workgroups. Larkey’s objective was to improve knowledge
and comprehension of workgroup interactions among members of culturally diverse workgroups.
In constructing the questionnaire, Larkey’s goal was to develop behavioral dimensions that
would allow assessment of interactions among culturally diverse individuals within an
organizational framework (Larkey, 1996). The questionnaire is founded on five dimensions that
relate to discrimination, cultural diversity, and intergroup interactions within the workplace. The
five dimensions include convergence-divergence, inclusion-exclusion, positive/negative
evaluation, understanding-misunderstanding, and varied/conforming ideation. The
positive/negative evaluation and understanding-misunderstanding dimensions evaluate
interpersonal dimensions, whereas the remaining three dimensions are associated with socio-
structural contexts.
Larkey (1996) asserts that the five dimensions relate to cultural diversity as well as work
group interactions and discrimination. The questionnaire consists of 30 questions that assessed
diversity awareness by utilizing questions that pertain to diversity management ideologies. The
survey questions were constructed to assess diversity awareness based on the foundational
dimensions of the survey. These dimensions can then be associated with the constructs of

52. 41
diversity management (see Table 1). In addition to the 30 questions to assess diversity
awareness, there are four questions used to capture the demographics of the study’s participants.
Larkey established validity and reliability for the WDQ-II. Larkey’s assessment of
validity was based on open ended interviews with thirty-five diverse workgroup members. The
construct validity was tested utilizing the Component Factor Analysis, which included a sample
of 280 from a population of 1083, resulting in a 26% response rate (Larkey, 1996). The sample
was comprised of individuals from a hospital, social service agency, and a consumer products
manufacturing facility. The participants assessed the instrument based on clarity, significance,
sensitivity, and relevance.
Based on the participants’ feedback, Larkey made modifications aimed to solidify
internal consistency and parallelism to the questionnaire, resulting in the creation of the modified
WDQ-II. The WDQ-II utilizes the 5-point Likert scale, in which the scoring scale is based on
the total score for each dimension individually. Reliability was established for the WDQ-II
based on alpha coefficients ranging between .69-.80. For the three dimensions that correlate to
diversity awareness, the alpha coefficients were .75 for inclusion, .64 for understanding, .74 for
treatment, and .84 for detail, where treatment and detail comprise positive-negative evaluations.
Job Satisfaction Survey
In addition to the WDQ-II the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) created by Paul Spector
(1985) was utilized to assess overall job satisfaction. The JSS is provided free for non-
commercial educational research purposes. The JSS is a nine facet scale, which consists of 36
questions used to assess employee attitudes about their job and aspects of their job (Larkey,

53. 42
1996). The survey questions assess and measure the opinions of employee’s in regard to the nine
facets of their job. According to Larkey (1996) the nine facets include (a) pay, (b) promotion, (c)
supervision, (d) fringe benefits, (e) contingent rewards, (f) operating conditions, (g) coworkers,
(h) nature of work, and (i) communication. There are several survey questions that are written
with both an affirmative stance and a negative stance to negate participant bias. When scoring
these questions, the score must be reversed to ascertain the correct score.
The scoring scale for the JSS is derived from computing item scores from each facet.
Each of the nine facets can then be summed to obtain a total score that represents overall job
satisfaction. The highest score for total job satisfaction that can be attained is 216 (the sum of
36(6)), while the lowest score that can be attained in 36 (36(1)). Spector (1985) assessed internal
consistency and validity based on alpha coefficients. The alpha coefficients were based on a
sample of 2870, where the total alpha was .91. The alpha coefficient for pay, promotion,
supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, coworkers, nature of
work, and communication were .75, .73, .82, .73, .76, .62, .60, .78, and .71 respectively (Larkey,
1996) .
Data Collection
Prior to commencing data collection, potential participants were contacted by the researcher
via e-mail. The researcher explained the purpose of the study, the objectives of the study, and
anonymity for participants of the study. Data was collected as follows:
1. The WDQII questionnaire and the JSS questionnaire were posted on the questionnaire
website.

54. 43
2. The researcher e-mailed the employees within the division to solicit participation,
once permission was granted from the human resources department to use
participants from “Division A”. The e-mail consisted of the purpose of the
questionnaires and instructed parties interested in participation to click on the two
electronic links listed in the e-mail to complete the questionnaires.
3. The researcher included a copy of the consent form to protect confidentiality as an
attachment within the e-mail, in addition to the links to the questionnaires.
4. The researcher informed participants that they had approximately two weeks to
complete the questionnaires.
5. As a thank you for participating in the study, the researcher invited survey
participants to visit the T2W2 work area to sample mixed candy.
6. Two days after the two-week time period, which was specified to participants, the
researcher sent a reminder e-mail regarding survey completion. One week after the
two-week time period (total of three weeks passed), the researcher accessed the
questionnaire data to begin data analysis. There were no rewards for participation in
the study. At the conclusion of the study, following dissertation acceptance, the
researcher was available to share the study’s results via PowerPoint with interested
individuals.
Data Analysis
Constructs pertaining to diversity awareness (exemplified by organizational culture, to
include equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and discrimination law) were
measured based on the WDQ-II. Table 1 depicts the association of questions from the WDQ II

55. 44
with dimension types and diversity management constructs. Diversity awareness is illustrated
through the constructs of diversity management, and is associated with two dimension types
(positive/negative evaluations and understanding) from the WDQ II.
Table 1. Dimension Type vs. Diversity Awareness Constructs for WDQII Questions
WDQ-II Question Number Dimension Type Diversity Management Construct
1-7 Inclusion/Exclusion Equal Opportunity
8-14 Valuing Diversity Overall Diversity Awareness
15-21 Positive/Negative Evaluations Affirmative Action
21-28 Understanding Discrimination,
Overall Diversity Awareness
29-30 Positive/Negative Evaluations Overall Diversity Awareness
The total score for the WDQ II (including the sum of all dimensions) was used to
represent diversity awareness as a whole, in which elements of managing workplace diversity
were imbedded. Job satisfaction was measured based on scores from the JSS, where the total
score represented overall employee job satisfaction. The subscales from the JSS were also
analyzed to ascertain the relationship between the key constructs of the study. For this study, job
satisfaction was considered the dependent variable which could be impacted by diversity
awareness and diversity management (policies and procedures). Diversity awareness and
diversity management were the independent variables of the study. These constructs were
assessed based on the participant’s overall scores from the WDQ-II and JSS.
To address hypothesis 1, the relationship between diversity awareness and job
satisfaction was assessed based on total scores from both data collection instruments. Evaluation
was based on the correlation between the overall WDQ-II mean score and the overall JSS mean

56. 45
score. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient was applied to the mean scores from the
WDQ-II and the JSS. The overall scores were examined, as well as the JSS subscales, to assess
diversity awareness and job satisfaction. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient is
considered a non-parametric statistic that measures the degree of association between two sets of
data, based on magnitude and direction. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient was used,
instead of the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, because the study’s dataset was
not normally distributed, in which a linear relationship was not present and outliers existed.
To address hypothesis 2 (There is a difference in diversity awareness by varying
demographic characteristics, including years of service, gender, ethnicity, and age), descriptive
statistics and measures of central tendency were assessed as follows:
1. Age
a. Mode Age
b. Percentage of Age
2. Gender
a. Frequency of Gender
b. Percentage of Gender
3. Ethnicity
a. Frequency of Ethnicity
b. Percentage of Ethnicity
4. Years of Service
a. Mode Years of Service

57. 46
b. Percentage Years of Service
The relationship between the diversity characteristics and the total score from the WDQ
II were analyzed using the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient, the Mann-Whitney U test,
and the Kruskal-Wallis test, to make inferences about diversity awareness based on participant
characteristics. The WDQ-II score was representative of diversity awareness and acted as the
dependent variable. Diversity characteristics were assessed categorically and acted as the
independent variables. The relationships were assessed based on the following sub-hypothesis
for each of the four diversity characteristics:
1. Age
Ho: There is no difference in the WDQ II score for each age group (18-
25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 55+).
Ha: There is difference in the WDQ II score for each age group (18-
25, 26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 55+).
2. Gender
Ho: The WDQ II score of male participants is not equal to the WDQII score
of female participants.
Ha: The WDQ II score of male participants is equal to the WDQII score of
female participants.
3. Ethnicity

58. 47
Ho: There is no difference in the WDQ II score for each ethnicity group
(African American/Black, Caucasian American/White, Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Latin American/Hispanic, Native
American/Alaskan).
Ha: There is a difference in the WDQ II score for each ethnicity group
(African American/Black, Caucasian American/White, Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Latin American/Hispanic, Native
American/Alaskan).
4. Years of Service
Ho: There is no difference in the WDQ II score based on employee’s years of
service (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 20+ years).
Ha: There is a difference in the WDQ II score based on employee’s years of
service (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 20+ years).

59. 48
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
The purpose of this research study was to explore the existence of a relationship between
employees’ diversity awareness and job satisfaction. The study utilized the Job Satisfaction
Survey and the Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II as the study’s research instrumentation.
The intent of the study’s methodology was to use correlational research to ascertain employee’s
awareness of workplace diversity and the relationship between diversity awareness and job
satisfaction. The study’s methodology included utilizing the following statistical procedures:
The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient, the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis
test, and descriptive statistics. These statistical tests were primarily chosen because they are non-
parametric tests used to analyze data sets where normality and homogeneity may not exist. The
analysis of data was performed through the use of Statistical Software (SPSS and Excel Analyze-
It). There were a total of 102 participants out of a potential 139 participants, which reflects a
73% response rate.
Descriptive Statistics
The gender of survey participants included 33 (32.0%) men and 69 (68.0%) women. The
age distribution of the participants varied. Two participants were within the 18-25 category
(2%). The 26-35 age range consisted of thirty participants (29%), whereas the 36-45 age range
consisted of twenty-one participants (21%). The mode age range was 46-55, which consisted of
thirty-eight participants (37%). The 55+ age range consisted of eleven participants (11%). The
ethnicity distribution of participants varied as well. Fifty-two participants (51%) were African

60. 49
American/Black, thirty-two participants (31%) were Caucasian American/White, thirteen
participants (13%) were Asian American/Pacific Islander, and five participants (5%) were Latino
American/Hispanic. None of the study’s participants were Native American/Alaskan. The
participant’s years of service with the company ranged from less than one year to greater than
twenty years. Twenty-four participants (23.53%) had between 0-5 years of service, thirteen
participants (12.8%) had between 6-10 years of service, and fifteen participants (14.71%) had
between 11-15 years of service. The mode range for years of service was 16-20 which had
twenty-eight participants (27.5%). Twenty-two participants (21.5%) had 20+ years of service.
Table 2 illustrates a summary of the participants’ demographics.
Table 2. Participant Demographics
Variables Frequency Valid % Cumulative %
Gender
Male
Female
33
69
32.0
68.0
68.0
100
Age
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
55+
2
30
21
38
11
2.00
29.0
21.0
37.0
11.0
2.0
31.0
52.0
89.0
100
Ethnicity
African American/Black
Caucasian American/White
Asian American/Pacific Islander
Latino American/Hispanic
Native American/Alaskan
52
32
13
5
0
51.0
30.0
13.0
5.00
0
51.0
82.0
95.0
100
Years of Service
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
20+
24
13
15
28
22
23.5
12.8
14.7
27.5
21.5
23.5
36.3
51.0
78.5
100

61. 50
Overall Data Analysis of the Hypothesis
Research Hypothesis 1 was used to test if there was a significant association between the
mean job satisfaction score and the mean diversity awareness score. The association between
job satisfaction and diversity awareness was assessed using the Spearman’s Rank Correlation
Coefficient on the computed mean scores of each variable. The mean job satisfaction score was
3.65, on a scale of 1 to 6. The range for the job satisfaction score was 2.22, with 3 and 5 as the
min/max respectively. The mean diversity awareness score was 4.11 on a scale of 1 to 6. The
range for the diversity awareness score was a 2.13, with 2 and 5 as the min/max respectively.
Research Hypothesis 2 was used to test demographic characteristics and diversity
awareness. The Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient analysis, Mann-Whitney U test and
the Kruskal-Wallis test were used to test age, gender, ethnicity, and years of service. The results
yielded that there was no difference in diversity awareness based on age and gender. However,
there was a difference in diversity awareness based on ethnicity and years of service.
Research Hypothesis 1
The study’s research questions were as follows:
1. How is workplace diversity characterized?
2. What impact does managing workplace diversity have on diversity awareness and
employee’s job satisfaction?
Research Hypothesis 1 of the study was used to examine the study’s research questions. The
assumption that coincides with Research Hypothesis 1 is that workplace diversity management is
recognized by employees and is directly associated with the employee’s job satisfaction.

62. 51
Essentially, employees are satisfied with their jobs and are culturally astute, as a result of the
components of diversity management in the workplace. Hypothesis 1 is stated as follows:
H1: There is a relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction,
as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
H01: There is no relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction,
as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
To assess Hypothesis 1, the mean scores for job satisfaction and diversity awareness were
determined based on a scale of 1 to 6. Hypothesis 1 was analyzed using the Spearman’s Rank
Correlation Coefficient (rs), in which the strength of the linear relationship between job
satisfaction and diversity awareness was assessed. The association between job satisfaction (M =
3.64, SD = 0.543, R = 2.22, V = 0.29, CV = 14.9, N = 102) and diversity awareness (M = 4.11,
SD = 0.271, R = 2.13, V = 0.07, CV = 6.61) was moderately significant rs(100) = 0.256, p =
0.009. The null hypothesis can be rejected. Figure 3 illustrates a scatter diagram depicting the
relationship between the mean scores of the WDQ II and JSS. The scatter diagram illustrates the
degree of association between the overall scores of job satisfaction and diversity awareness.
The study’s assumption that workplace diversity management is recognized by employee’s and
directly correlates with the employee’s job satisfaction is substantiated.

63. 52
Figure 3. Scatter Diagram of job satisfaction and diversity awareness correlation
JSS Subscale Analysis
In addition to analyzing the overall JSS scores, the subscales of the JSS were assessed to
determine if there is a statistical relationship between diversity awareness (based on the mean
WDQ II score) and the mean subscale scores of the JSS. There was a statistically significant
relationship between diversity awareness and the following subscales: pay (M = 3.65, SD = 1.19,
p = .009), promotion (M = 3.43, SD = 1.03, p = .000), supervision (M = 2.14, SD = 0.629, p =
.000), fringe benefits (M = 2.24, SD = 0.273, p = .000), contingent rewards (M = 5.07, SD =
0.677, p = .000), operating conditions (M = 3.52, SD = 1.49, p = .002), co-workers (M = 3.05, SD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 2 4 6
Diversity
Awareness
Job Satisfaction

64. 53
= 1.69, p = .000), and communication (M = 5.06, SD = 0.281, p = .000). There was no significant
relationship between diversity awareness and the nature of work subscale (M = 4.24, SD = 1.59,
p = .491). See Table 3. These results demonstrate that diversity awareness does have a
relationship with pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating
conditions, co-workers, and communication. These results appear to support the postulate that
employee’s who are more satisfied with their jobs, and are more culturally astute, have higher
levels of diversity awareness.
Table 3. Diversity Awareness and Job Satisfaction Subscales
JSS Subscales Mean P Value (Two-Tail)
Pay
Promotion
Supervision
Fringe Benefits
Contingent Rewards
Operating Conditions
Co-Workers
Nature of Work
Communication
3.65
3.43
2.14
2.24
5.07
3.52
3.05
4.24
5.06
0.009
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.491
0.000
Research Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 of the study was used to assess diversity characteristics and diversity
awareness. The assumption that correlates with Research Hypothesis 2 is that employees of the
study are directly affected by workplace diversity, which is indicated through their diversity
awareness. Hypothesis 2 is stated as follows:

65. 54
H2: There is a difference in diversity awareness by varying demographic characteristics,
including years of service, gender, ethnicity, and age.
H02: There is not a difference in diversity awareness by varying demographic
characteristics, including years of service, gender, ethnicity, and age.
Hypothesis 2 examined the relationship between diversity characteristics and diversity awareness
(as indicated by the total score from the WDQ II). The WDQ-II score was representative of
diversity awareness (dependent variable). Diversity characteristics were assessed categorically
as independent variables. To examine the relationship between diversity characteristics and
overall diversity awareness, the Spearman’s Rank Correlation Coefficient, the Mann-Whitney U
test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used based on the following sub-hypothesis to further
examine Research Hypothesis 2:
1. Age
Ho: There is no difference in the WDQ II score for each age group (18-25,
26-35, 36-45, 46-55, 55+).
Ha: There is difference in the WDQ II score for each age group (18-25, 26-
35, 36-45, 46-55, 55+).
2. Gender
Ho: The WDQ II score of male participants is not equal to the WDQII score
of female participants.
Ha: The WDQ II score of male participants is equal to the WDQII score of
female participants.

66. 55
3. Ethnicity
Ho: There is no difference in the WDQ II score for each ethnicity group
(African American/Black, Caucasian American/White, Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Latin American/Hispanic, Native
American/Alaskan).
Ha: There is a difference in the WDQ II score for each ethnicity group
(African American/Black, Caucasian American/White, Asian
American/Pacific Islander, Latin American/Hispanic, Native
American/Alaskan).
4. Years of Service
Ho: There is no difference in the WDQ II score based on employee’s years of
service (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 20+ years).
Ha: There is a difference in the WDQ II score based on employee’s years of
service (0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-15 years, 16-20 years, 20+ years).
To evaluate the null sub-hypothesis for age, a bivariate analysis, using Spearman’s rho,
was performed on the dependent variable, diversity awareness, and the independent variable
(age). The analysis was based on ages 18-25 [Group 1] (M = 3.55, SD = .919); 26-35 [Group 2]
(M = 4.10, SD = .253); 36-45[Group 3] (M = 4.10, SD = .207); 46-55 [Group 4] (M = 4.13, SD =
.256); 55+ [Group 5] (M = 4.19, SD = .276). The study’s assumption is that diversity awareness
varies based on age. The association of age and diversity awareness was predominately moderate

67. 56
and strong. Refer to Table 4. The null sub-hypothesis for age can be accepted. The study’s
assumption for the age sub-hypothesis is suitable.
Table 4. Age Comparison
Age Comparisons P Value rho
Group 1 to Group 2 0 1.00
Group 1 to Group 3 0 -1.00
Group 2 to Group 3 0 .730
Group 1 to Group 4 0 1.00
Group 2 to Group 4 .006 .490
Group 3 to Group 4 .048 .440
Group 1 to Group 5 0 -1.00
Group 2 to Group 5 .842 -.070
Group 3 to Group 5 .245 .380
Group 4 to Group 5 .627 .170
To evaluate the null sub-hypothesis for gender, a bivariate analysis, using the Mann-
Whitney U test, was performed on the dependent variable, diversity awareness, and the
independent variable, gender (male participants and female participants). The study’s assumption
is that diversity awareness varies by gender. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if
there was a difference in the medians of diversity awareness between genders. The difference in
medians, based on males (M = 4.08, SD = 0.189) and females (M = 4.12, SD = 0.304), and
diversity awareness was not significant p = 0.795. The null sub-hypothesis for gender can be
accepted. The study’s assumption for the gender sub-hypothesis is not defensible.
To evaluate the null sub-hypothesis for ethnicity, a multivariate analysis, using the
Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the dependent variable, diversity awareness, and the
independent variable, ethnic categorization. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the
medians of the four represented ethnic categorization which included African American/Black,
Caucasian American/White, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Latin American/Hispanic. The

68. 57
Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the variables since the normal assumptions for ANOVA
were not met (non-normal distribution). The main assumption for this sub-hypothesis is that
there is a difference in diversity awareness between ethnicities. The relationship between the
medians of ethnicity, based on African American/Black participants [Group A] (M = 4.20);
Caucasian American/White participants [Group B] (M = 3.99); Asian American/Pacific Islander
participants [Group C] (M = 4.05); Latin American/Hispanic participants [Group D] (M = 4.10),
and diversity awareness was significant p = 0.006. See Table 4. The null sub-hypothesis for
ethnicity can be rejected.
Table 5. Ethnicity Difference
Ethnicity N Mean Rank Rank Sum
Group A 52 59.9 3115
Group B 32 41.2 1319
Group C 13 43.3 563
Group D 5 51.1 2555
Chi-Square: 12.44; df: 3; Asymp. Sig.:0.006
To evaluate the null sub-hypothesis for years of service, a multivariate analysis, using the
Kruskal-Wallis test was performed on the dependent variable, diversity awareness, and the
independent variable years of service groupings. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the
variables since the normal assumptions for ANOVA were not met (non-normal distribution). The
main assumption of the study, for the years of service sub-hypothesis, is that there is a difference
in diversity awareness among employee’s with varied years of service. The relationship between
the medians of years of service, based on 0-5 years [Group 1] (M = 3.97, SD = .258); 6-10 years
[Group 2] (M = 4.24, SD = .313); 11-15 years [Group 3] (M = 4.05, SD = .0916); 16-20 years
[Group 4] (M = 4.05, SD = .250); 20+ years [Group 5] (M = 4.30, SD = .249), and diversity

69. 58
awareness was statistically significant p = 0.000. The null sub-hypothesis for years of service can
be rejected.
Table 6. Years of Service Difference
Years of Service N Mean Rank Rank Sum
Group 1 24 40.7 976.5
Group 2 13 62.0 806.0
Group 3 15 42.9 644.0
Group 4 28 44.9 1257
Group 5 22 71.3 1569
Chi-Square: 23.81; df: 4; Asymp. Sig.:<0.0001
Summary
This chapter primarily focused on the study’s findings, which explored the relationship
between employee’s diversity awareness and job satisfaction. The study explored the hypothesis
that diversity awareness, as measured by the WDQ II, is correlated to job satisfaction, as
measured by the JSS. The following additional hypothesis were also explored: 1) that pay,
promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-workers,
nature of work, and communication (JSS subscales) have a correlation with diversity awareness;
2) that diversity characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, years of service) impact diversity
awareness. The findings suggest that associations exist between job satisfaction and diversity
awareness, and that there is some difference in diversity awareness based on diversity
characteristics (demographics).

70. 59
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to examine employee awareness of workplace diversity
which is potentially impacted by how an organization manages its workplace diversity. In
addition to the latter, the study explored the existence of a relationship between employee’s
diversity awareness and job satisfaction. It is hoped that by understanding the relationship
between employee’s diversity awareness and job satisfaction, organizations will be cognizant of
the importance of how managing workplace diversity can directly impact diversity awareness
and job satisfaction.
The following research questions and hypothesis were examined during this study:
1. How is workplace diversity characterized?
2. What impact does managing workplace diversity have on diversity awareness and
employee’s job satisfaction?
H1: There is a relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction, as
measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).
H01: There is no relationship between diversity awareness, as measured by the
Workforce Diversity Questionnaire II (WDQ II), and employee job satisfaction, as
measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS).