ppt english version fairness,justice & diversity in the workplace

1.  1. Vara Mayda Larasati (1924090192) Leader
 2. Dhea Suci Rhama Andianie (1924090114)
 3. Qory Puspita Rahmadani (1924090166)
 4. Indri Juliana (1924090182)
 5.Maraya Rhazana (1924090165)
 6. Alif andhika yasin (1524090033)
 7. Hefiadini Herida (1924090121)
 8. Shelly Dwi Amanda (1924090234)
 9. Theresia Marcel Angelika (1924090056)
 10. Beatrix Lauren (1924090257)
 11. Anita Permata B (1924090077)
 12. Putri Kusuma Dewi (1924090258)
 13. Arrini Muthia Syifa Azzahra (1924090189)
 14. Dewi Shinta Ariyanti (1924090129)

2. Russell Cropanzano is an I‐O psychologist who has done a great deal of
research on the topic of fairness in the workplace. He begins one book
with a true story about a small town in southern Colorado (Cropanzano,
2001). Colorado Fuel and Iron dominated the lives of the 9,000 miners
and their families. In the decade preceding the event, miners had
protested against mine owners in many parts of the country. In Idaho,
miners were accused of killing the former governor of the state, Frank
Steunenberg, for siding with mine owners. He died when he opened a
booby‐trapped mailbox as his daughter watched. An interesting sidelight
of the trial of those accused of his murder was the attendance of Hugo
Munsterberg, one of the first I‐O psychologists, who was asked by a
magazine to use his new lie detection technique to determine which side
was telling the truth (Landy, 1992).

3. The soldiers killed miners, women, and children, then looted and burned
the tents. It became known as the Ludlow massacre. Cropanzano believes
that the miners were motivated to endure hardships, and even the
possibility of death, by a desire for justice. Not money, not power simply
justice.
The miners were denied three types of justice. First, they were denied a fair
outcome. Second, they were denied the opportunity to influence any
important outcomes through joint decision making. everything. Finally,
the miners were treated as if they were beneath contempt, not even worth
thinking about. These three types of justice have been labeled, respectively,
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,
Porter, & Ng, 2001). These three types of justice play as significant a role in
the workplace today as they did at Ludlow in 1914. Consider the
circumstances surrounding a layoff (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003).

4. Perceptions of justice have been found to affect organizational citizenship,
trust in the organization, respect for leaders, thoughts of quitting, and jo
Kabanoff (1991) suggested that justice is a framework for looking at an
organization. It is “an ever present, deep, and slowly moving current that
shapes people’s relations with other organizational members and the nature
and strength of people’s attachments to organizations in general”. Miller
(2001) went further and suggested that justice is a central concept because it
affects the way people think of themselves.b performance (Johnson &
O’Leary‐Kelly, 2003). Interestingly, when workers consider an act of
injustice, they see a violation of a contract either a formal or a psychological
contract, which we discussed in Chapter 9. The employer, in contrast, sees
the event not as a contract violation but as something out of the employer’s
control that led to the event (Lester, Turnley, Bloodgood, & Bolino, 2002).

5. The terms “justice,” “fairness,” and “trust” are often used
interchangeably, and although they are closely related, they are still
worth differentiating from one another. Justice and fairness, which we
will discuss in more detail in the next section, are used to characterize an
event or an exchange relationship. Kramer (1999) characterized trust as a
psychological state, a state that becomes increasingly powerful as
uncertainty and risk increase. Thus, in a time of low unemployment and
a good economy, there is little discussion of the trust that an individual
has in an employer. But when unemployment is high or the threat of
downsizing, mergers, or acquisitions looms, trust becomes a more potent
influence on behavior and emotions. Kramer (1999) identified several
aspects of organizations and institutions that undermine trust. He wrote
that trust can be a scarce resource that is difficult to build and easy to
lose.

6. Some research suggests strategies for dealing with loss of trust. One
suggestion is that explanations should be given for the event and that
these explanations should be in the form of reasons rather than
justifications—for example, the manager might acknowledge that he
or she could have made a different decision, as opposed to
characterizing the decision as the one that should have been made
(Shaw et al., 2003). This research estimates that the likelihood of
retaliation (e.g., a lawsuit brought against the company, an act of
sabotage) can be reduced by as much as 43 percent with an adequate
explanation delivered in a timely manner. Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and
Dirks (2004) suggest that apologies for poor performance (by either a
subordinate or a supervisor) can also help repair the damage done by
violations of trust.

7.  There are three types of justice are
commonly discussed :
Distributive Procedural Interactional

8. An organization distributes rewards to employees based on some scheme or equation.
Employees will form an opinion regarding whether or not this distribution
scheme is fair
Distributive justice concerns the perceived fairness of the allocation of outcomes or
rewards to organizational members.
There are many different definitions of what is “fair” in the distribution of rewards :
 Merit. The people who work hardest or produce the most should get the greatest
rewards. This is called the merit or equity norm.
 Notion of equality. Every member gets the same share of rewards, regardless of
effort.
 Need norm. People receive rewards in proportion to their needs .

9. In the United States, the equity norm is the most common foundation for defining fairness.
In many countries the equality norm is stronger.
Example :
The Scandinavian countries have a long tradition of distributing rewards based on the
equality norm. This is also true of Asian countries such as Japan and China, both of which would
be classified as collectivist using the Hofstede model.
 There seems to be a mechanism of comparison that leads to justice perceptions.
 Individuals compare what they get to what they expect to get. There is a subtle
difference between what one expects and what one deserves.
 It is not completely clear if the feelings of fairness or unfairness spring from
expectations or from feelings of deservedness. In addition, it is not clear how strongly
the simple favorability or unfavorability of an outcome influences perceptions of
fairness.

10. In many cultures (primarily collectivist cultures),
there is a strong modesty bias that makes
individuals reluctant to claim credit for positive
outcomes. In these cultures (in contrast to the
United States), “fairness” will take on a very
different meaning.

11. Distributive justice is about outcomes—who gets what. Procedural justice is
about the process (or procedure) by which rewards are distributed. In I‐O
psychology, this ability to challenge a process or outcome has been labeled
voice (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). The concept of voice means that the
individual has the possibility of influencing a process or outcome. Although
voice has many different aspects, perhaps the most important is the perception
that workers actually have an opportunity to express an objection (Maynes &
Podsakoff, 2013; Morrison, 2014).

12. Many truckers, who work as independent owner‐drivers, found that rising fuel costs reduced or
even eliminated their profits: They couldn’t make a living when fuel prices doubled, but the
delivery rates they were paid remained the same. Kernan and Hanges (2002) examined the effect of
justice perceptions in a pharmaceutical company following a reorganization. They collected
perceived fairness data from the “survivors” of the reorganization—that is, those who were not
terminated. Siegel, Post, Brockner, Fishman, and Garden (2005) examined the relationship between
procedural justice and work–life balance. They discovered that when an employee felt that
procedures were fairly implemented, the stress of work–life conflict was lower and the
commitment to the organization remained high, even in the face of the fact that the conflict had not
been reduced in any objective way.
Schroth and Shah (2000) examined the effect of experiences of procedural fairness on self‐esteem.
Their study examined the effect of fair and unfair procedures combined with positive and negative
outcomes. These researchers discovered that when an interaction was considered procedurally fair
and resulted in a This is similar to the common complaint of sports fans (“We wuz robbed”) when
their team loses; alternatively, if the outcome is in their favor, they scorn the complaints of the
opposing fans. positive outcome for the study participant, esteem was enhanced.

13. A third type of organizational justice is interactional justice, the
sensitivity with which employees are treated (Bies & Moag, 1986). This
concept deals with the extent to which an employee feels respected by the
employer. Greenberg (2006) examined insomnia in samples of nurses
who had recently had their pay cut due to changes in compensation
policies. Nurses reported losing sleep because of these changes and
resulting low feelings of organizational justice. However, Greenberg
found that insomnia was significantly lower among nurses whose
managers had received supervisory training in interactional justice.
Colquitt and colleagues (2001) completed a metaanalysis of justice studies
and made a compelling argument that interactional justice has two
separate facets: interpersonal and informational justice.

14. Skarlicki, Barclay, and Pugh (2008) explored whether employees’ perceptions of the employer’s
integrity affected the relationship between informational justice (providing an adequate explanation for
a layoff) and plans for retaliation among those laid off. Results from two studies suggested that
providing as much information as possible about a layoff can help limit employee retaliation against the
employer, but only when laid‐off workers perceived that their employer had high integrity prior to the
layoff. The differences between interpersonal and informational justice are subtle because providing
information can be seen as evidence of respect for the employee. (Schminkeet al., 2000). Cropanzano,
Byrne, and Prehar (1999) suggested that these two different types of justice are simply distinctions
between formal and informal procedures. The scale concentrates on relationships among employees,
co‐workers, and supervisors, including items such as the following:
● Supervisors play favorites.
● Employees are treated fairly.
● Employees are trusted.
● Co‐workers put one another down.
● Employees’ hard work is appreciated.

15. Gilliland, Benson, and Schepers (1998) proposed that injustice has a much
greater impact than justice on subsequent attitudes, emotions, and
behavior. Gilliland and Chan (2001) suggested that injustice, once
experienced, leads to retaliation or reduced effort or motivation, whereas
perceptions of justice lead to extra effort and feelings of inclusion and
contribution. The experience of injustice can linger for a long time, and
can lead to self‐reported and coworker‐reported workplace deviance
(Holtz & Harold, 2013). a great deal of basic work must still be done to
determine how many different types of justice there are, how each type
should be measured, how long‐lasting and powerful the emotions
created by each type are, and how each type is related to various work
behaviors.

16. A substantial body of research suggests clear connections between perceptions of fairness and employee
attitudes. For example:
McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) discovered that distributive and procedural justice were both important
predictors of employee attitudes.
Skarlicki and Folger (1997) determined that when procedural justice was low, perceptions of distributive
injustice resulted in the inappropriate use of sick time, the damaging of equipment, and the spreading of
rumors about fellow employees.
Mikula, Scherer, and Athenstaedt (1998) studied the emotional consequences of perceived injustice in
participants from 37 countries. They identified the most likely resulting emotions as anger, disgust, and
sadness.
Weiss, Suckow, and Cropanzano (1999) found that happiness was associated with the experience of
distributive justice, and sadness with the experience of distributive injustice. They also found that if an
individual did not receive a valued reward and, in addition, had perceptions of procedural unfairness, then the
individual experienced anger.

17. When recounting experiences of unfair treatment, employees often include the performance evaluation process—the
formal procedure by which a supervisor rates the performance of a subordinate.
Landy, Barnes‐Farrell, and Cleveland (1980) discovered that an individual’s reaction to a performance review was
related less to whether the evaluation was positive and more to how the evaluation was carried out. Thus, the issue was a
matter of procedural justice more than distributive justice. The conditions that led to the experience of fairness were that
:
(1) the supervisor was familiar with the duties and responsibilities of the subordinate
(2) the supervisor had an adequate opportunity to actually observe the subordinate at the workplace
(3) the supervisor provided suggestions on how to improve performance. This was a surprise because the
conventional wisdom held that people felt fairly treated if their evaluations were good and unfairly treated if their
evaluations were poor (i.e., feelings were based on perceptions of distributive justice). It is also instructive to remember
that many of these issues arise in litigation that follows layoffs, as we indicated in Chapter 5.

18. Landy and colleagues (1980) did not tie their results to any considerations of
justice, but Greenberg (1986) did. He suggested that a person would feel justly treated
when the following occurred:
1. The supervisor gathered information in a careful manner.
2. The employee had an opportunity to discuss the evaluation with the
supervisor afterit had been completed.
3. The employee had the opportunity to formally disagree with the
evaluation.
4. The supervisor was familiar with the work of the subordinate.
5. The supervisor was consistent in his or her judgment standards across
subordinates and across time periods for the same subordinate.

19. Folger and Konovsky (1989) found that the feedback process was the most important determinant of
feelings of fairness; once again, the concept of voice is key.
Cawley, Keeping, and Levy (1998) completed a meta‐analysis of 27 studies on the impact of
employee participation in the evaluation process on feelings of fairness. They concluded that
participation (e.g., discussing the evaluation before it was finalized) had a substantial effect on
feelings of fairness by the person being evaluated. Adler and Ambrose (2005) examined whether
attributes of performance feedback received by employees in an electronic monitoring system would
affect their reactions to monitoring. The results indicated that the constructiveness of the feedback
given was significantly related to perceptions of the fairness of electronic monitoring; that is,
receiving more constructive feedback increased employee’s perceptions that the electronic
monitoring system was fair. Additionally, receiving face‐to‐face feedback from supervisors was
associated with higher perceptions of the fairness of electronic monitoring than was
computer‐mediated feedback.

20. Gilliland and Chan (2001) went even further in suggesting that the way managers are treated affects
the way they treat their own subordinates. They hypothesized that managers who feel unfairly treated
by their bosses might be more sensitive to the issue of fairness when they evaluate their subordinates.
They also speculated that an employee who is sensitized to the possibility of unfairness may become
oversensitive to the possibility of unfair treatment and will be more likely to feel unfairly treated.
There are plenty of hypotheses concerning performance evaluation but little conclusive evidence.
However, a recent study by Heslin and Vandewalle (2011) found that managers’ views about the
extent to which employees can change were associated with employees’ perceptions of procedural
justice regarding their last performance evaluation.

21. Industrial and organizational psychologists have been involved in research on selection for over a hundred
years (Landy, 1993), but only in the past 20 years has serious attention been given to understanding the
reactions that applicants have to selection devices and selection decisions (Anderson, Born, &
Cunningham‐Snell, 2001; Ryan & Greguras,1998).
Ployhart and Harold (2004) suggest that rejection often leads to attribution errors on the part of a
rejected applicant.
1.They attribute the rejection to things other than their own abilities or characteristics, so they
are likely to actively seek indicators of unfairness.
2. Because applicants talk to other applicants, selection procedures that are considered
unfair affect the reputation of the hiring organizations.
3.Finally and increasingly, applicants who believe they have been treated unfairly may end
up suing an employer for discrimination.

22. Anderson, Born, and Cunningham‐Snell (2001) have reviewed the available
research on applicant reactions. They came to several conclusions, which we have
summarized below. Where confirming subsequent research applies, we have added the
citation.
 Recruiting : Applicants see recruiters as the personification of the organization
doing the recruiting; applicants prefer application blanks that state that the firm is
an equal opportunity employer.
 Biographical data : Applicants have doubts about the validity and fairness of
forms that ask for biographical information as part of a selection process; they are
less concerned when such forms are used for developmental or training purposes.
 Cognitive ability tests : Candidates are more favorable toward cognitive ability
tests with concrete items that appear to be related to the job.
 Computer‐based testing : Candidates are generally favorable toward
computer‐based testing because it is usually quicker, provides immediate
feedback, andresults in more timely employment decisions (Richman‐Hirsch,
Olson‐Buchanan, & Drasgow, 2000).
 Test‐taking motivation : Candidates who are more favorably disposed to a
selection procedure have higher test‐taking motivation and, consequently, do
better on the particular test (Ployhart & Ehrhart, 2002).

23.  Assessment centers : Assessment centers are viewed more favorably than standardized
tests because to the candidates they appear to be related more to the job; in addition, applicants also
view the face‐to‐face interaction with assessors favorably.
 Personality tests : Applicants react less favorably to personality tests than other types
of paper‐and‐pencil tests; this may be because they are less clearly related to job behavior, because
they are longer, or because, unlike ability or knowledge tests,personality tests have no “correct”
answers (Rafaeli, 1999).
 Interviews : Candidates are more favorable to interviews that appear to be related to the job
under consideration (Seijts & Jackson, 2001); they are not greatly influenced by the
characteristics of the interviewer; they tend to dislike telephone interviews, particularly those
that involve the less personal interactive voice response mode (Bauer, Truxillo, Paronto,
Weekley, & Campion, 2004) compared with face‐to‐face or teleconference interviews ; first
interviews lead an applicant to form initial impressions of an organization’s attractiveness;
reactions to subsequent interviews are more likely to be based on unfolding information about
job attributes.
 Work samples : Applicants express favorable opinions of work samples, which they view as
fair and job related (Klingner & Schuler, 2004).
 Drug testing : As we saw in Chapter 3 on assessment, applicants who use drugs are less
enthusiastic about drug testing; without any controls for applicant drug use, it also appears that
favorability toward testing for substance abuse is influenced by how safety‐sensitive the job is
(Murphy, Thornton, & Prue, 1991; Murphy, Thornton, & Reynolds, 1990).

24. A meta‐analysis reported by Hausknecht and colleagues (2004) confirms many of these conclusions. In
another study, Bell, Wiechmann, and Ryan (2006) examined the justice expectations of over 1,800 job
applicants for firefighter positions before their participation in a selection system. Previous research
indicated that applicants’ expectations about the upcoming selection process would influence how they
reacted to the selection system.
Several studies have compared applicant reactions to selection procedures in the United States (where
most initial research was conducted) with those in many other countries, including France, Greece, Spain,
Singapore, Italy, Belgium, India, and the Netherlands (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008; Bertolino & Steiner,
2007; Snyder & Shahani‐Denning, 2012; Sylva & Mol, 2009). Across these investigations, respondents
were most positive toward interviews, work sample tests, and résumés, and least positive toward
graphology, personal contacts, and honesty and integrity tests. This is one area in which an encouraging
number of cross‐cultural studies have recently been undertaken. Notably, it does not appear that
information about the statistical reliability or validity of a particular method or device has much influence
on candidates’ perceptions of fairness (Lievens, De Corte, & Brysse, 2003). Instead, the strongest
predictors of favorability ratings across the different selection procedures were :
(1) having the opportunity to show what one can do (called “opportunity to perform”) in the selection
process
(2) the perceived face validity of the selection procedures. This may be one of the reasons why work
sample assessment, situational judgment tests, and simulations (discussed in Chapter 3) receive such
high reviews from applicants.

25. Because many of the studies on the perceived justice of selection systems have been
conducted in the United States, and U.S. Culture tend to reflect the equity or merit
principle for decisions about fairness, we don’t much about non U.S. selection systems
(particularly those that do not follow the U.S. model).
In the context of selection, this means that a negative hiring decision (potentially seen
as low on distributive justice) might be perceived as less unfair if procedural justice
principles are maintained. In the contrast, if an outcome is positive (i.e , a job is
offered). Violations of procedural justice principles will be less salient.
The United States has taken a particularly strong stand on equal employment
opportunity. Through laws and policies, American employers promise applicants an
employees equal opportunities for employment and job success. That is to say that
individuals are promised equal outcomes-simply equal opportunities.
In the united states, the equity definition for distributive justice is the most commonly
adopted definition. But AAPs provide enhanced opportunities for subgroups based
on principle of equality or need (Crosby, 2004;Crosby, Iyer, Clayton, & Downing,
2003).

26. AAPs represent one of the clearest examples of organizational actions that permit I-O
psychologist to examine the perceptions of workplace justice. In the past 15 years,
there has been an increasing interest in studying the reactions of employees and
applicants to AAPs. The work of two researchers in particular can be used to describe
research in this area. Heilman and her colleagues have concentrated on the issue of
gender (Heilman & Alcot, 2001; Heilman & Blader. 2001; Lyness & Heilman, 2006).
Kravitz and his colleagues have examined the issue of race (Kravitz et al., 1997, 2000;
Leslie, Mayer, & Kravitz, 2014)

27. Kravitz and Kline berg (2000) examined attitudes toward AAPs and found that they
are the result of both individual characteristics and organizational actions. Regardless
of the complexities of these attitudes, however, felling of justice and fairness are at the
core of people’s reactions. A meta-analysis (Harrison et al. 2006) confirmed and
strengthened the earlier findings presented above. In particular, the researchers found
that AAPs, are seen in a negative light when they are positioned as quotas and when
organizations merely point out that a target group that receives affirmative action is
underrepresented. In contrast, AAPs are seen in a more positive light when they place
a lower emphasis on demographic characteristics and when they are framed as
enhancing organizational diversity or as remedying employment discrimination.

28. As we indicated earlier, affirmative action programs are peculiarly American. As such, they
represent a disparity between an organizational policy and the commonly accepted equity
definition of distributive justice. AAPs would likely generate considerably less tension in cultures
where need and equality are seen as reasonable foundations for distributive justice.Indeed, people
in many countries have a difficult time understanding why AAPs are so controversial in the
United States. This provides a cautionary note for the practice of international human resources.
American expatriate managers should understand that manag ers and employees in other
countries are not likely to be as concerned about AAPs as are Americans. Further, foreign
nationals who come to work in the United States in either a managerial or nonmanagerial role
(particularly if they come from collectivist cultures) may have a difficult time understanding
American worker resistance to AAPs or the lowered sense of self-esteem in beneficiaries of those
programs.
Krings, Tschan, and Bettex (2007) sampled 162 Swiss employees (46 percent female) to assess
knowledge of and attitudes toward different types of AAPs for women. They found that
knowledge of AAPs was very limited, as about two-thirds of the workers sampled were either not
aware of any AAPs or incorrectly named a program that was not actually an AAP.Further, the
authors found that AAPs in Switzerland were most frequently associated with programs
addressing work-family balance (specifically, child-care measures). Not surprisingly, attitudes
toward AAPs that involved child care were more positive than attitudes toward the preferential
selection programs that are more common in the United States.Additional research that assesses
the links between culture and AAPs is needed

29. When the word diversity is used in the United States, it most often
refers to the demographic characteristics of employees. In the
popular press, the term “diverse workforce” often means one that is
not all white. But to I‐O psychologists and, increasingly,
forward‐looking managers, a diverse workforce is one that includes
managers and workers who are both old and young; male and
female; white, African‐American, Hispanic, and Asian. Diversity
means differences in deep‐level psychological characteristics such
as values, abilities, interests, and experiences.

30. If an organization attempts to populate itself according to some formal or informal plan
(e.g., creative, flexible, or conscientious people), these attempts will influence such things
as recruiting, hiring, leadership, motivation, satisfaction, productivity, communication, and
turnover (Landy, 2001). Work groups increased in racial and gender diversity, absenteeism
and turnover increased (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1991; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989).
The simplest way to interpret such findings is that as demographic diversity increases, so do
variations in values, abilities, and motivations. Because individuals might prefer
homogeneity to diversity, they may stay away from work more often or even change jobs as
a way to avoid the conflicting values and interests that characterize a diverse workplace.
Individuals generally prefer to associate with others who share their interests and values
(Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995)

31. Herriot and Pemberton (1995) explained why group members appear to value
homogeneity over diversity. They suggested that the following difficulties exist in
diverse groups:
 Others do not agree with your vision or goals.
 Differences in visions and goals are the result of differences in values. When
values are threatened, the result is defensive behavior.
 When there are differences in vision and goals, there are disagreements about
which projects to undertake and how to spend time and money.
 Different visions are often associated with different analyses of the situation,
leading to unproductive communication.
 Differences in expertise and knowledge lead to disagreement about methods and
procedures.

32. The findings described above create a dilemma for organizations. Although some individuals find a
diverse work environment stimulating and enjoyable, it appears that workers are generally happier,
more committed, and more effective when they work with others who are “like” them. In the past,
even if there was some diversity at work, the solitary nature of most work allowed workers to largely
ignore the differences in values and interests between themselves and their co‐workers.
Virtually every country has an aging workforce, which is a function of a much greater number of
older individuals in the workforce than was the case 20 years ago. Thus, whether an organization
seeks to increase age diversity or not, it is happening. In addition, various social, political, and
economic shifts—precipitated by agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and European Union laws that guarantee freedom of movement of people among member
states—are breaking down national borders and resulting in more culturally diverse work
environments This case for diversity recognizes that diversity is a reality, not a goal, and that the
organizations that manage this reality will be more profitable than those that do not.

33. The actual management of diversity will involve virtually all of
the tools in the I‐O psychologist’s toolbag that is recruiting,
selecting, training, motivating, leading, and so forth. The most
effective approach will likely differ for each organization and
each situation. Nevertheless, Cleveland and colleagues (2000)
have identified the characteristics of organizations most likely
to manage diversity successfully.

34.  Exhibit diversity at every level, not just at
entry levels.
 Foster diversity not only in formal levels of
the organization but also in less formal social
networks.
 Uncover and root out bias and discriminatory
practices.
 Build commitment and attachment to the
organization among all members, not only
in‐group members.
 Take steps to reduce interpersonal conflict.
 Acknowledge and accommodate cultural
differences rather than pretend they do not
exist.

35. As diversity can be managed effectively, it can also be
mismanaged. Herriot and Pemberton (1995) identified two
ineffective models for addressing diversity:
1. Assimilation model
Recruit, select, train, and motivate employees so that all
share the same values and culture.
2. Protection model
Identify disadvantaged and underrepresented groups and
provide special protections for them.
3. Value model
Value each diverse element of the organization for what it
uniquely brings to the organization.

36. Herriot and Pemberton (1995) also identified several HR
initiatives that support the value model (multicultural) of
diversity:
 Recruit specifically with diversity in mind
 Ensure that career development is available for every
member of the organization and hold managers accountable
for that universal development
 Provide diversity training for all employees and managers
 Seek input from diverse group members, not just their
managers
 Provide support and networks for diverse group members
 Develop connections to broader cultural groups in the
community

37.  Bernardo Ferdman and colleagues have written
extensively on inclusion, which is defined as the degree
to which individuals feel safe, valued, and able to be
authentic at work both as individuals and as members
of various groups.
 successful performance arises from the combination of
many human attributes in such a way that the
combination of attributes is optimal for the task at
hand. Consider an individual who had only one
attribute intelligence, or conscientiousness, or skill at
oral communication. It is unlikely that such an
individual could be successful in any 21st‐century job
you can think of the same case as for diverse work
groups.

38. During the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, many employers
instituted diversity training programs as a way of
demonstrating their commitment to diversity and proactive
compliance with equal employment opportunity
regulations. Yet a recent sociological study that analyzed 30
years of data for more than 800 workplaces concluded that
“neither diversity training to extinguish stereotypes, nor
diversity performance evaluations to provide feedback and
oversight to people making hiring and promotion
decisions, have accomplished much, if anything”.

39. However, the researchers did find that successful
diversity programs:
1. used mentoring rather than training workshops
2. had a diversity manager or task force that was
responsible for increasing the number of women
and minorities in good jobs.
Recent studies by I‐O psychologists and
management researchers provide some insight into
the challenges of implementing voluntary
diversity training programs

40. Example: Kulik, Pepper, Roberson, and Parker (2007)
examined such programs to see whether trainee
demographic characteristics or pre‐training
competence in understanding diversity would predict
which employees would choose to participate.
more competent trainees expressed more interest in
additional training and were more likely to attend a
voluntary training session than were those with low
competence who were unaware of their low
competence levels and thus were unmotivated to
participate in diversity training programs. This is a
case of the “rich getting richer,” whereby those who
were most aware of diversity issues were the ones
who were most interested in participating in diversity
programs.

41. Kalinoski and colleagues found that diversity
training is most effective when :
1. Is active in terms of using role playing or
simulations
2. Focuses on a single diversity attribute
(e.g., race, gender) at a time.
As in conclusion diversity training can be part
of the larger process of organizational
socialization, which is the process by which a
new employee becomes aware of the values
and procedures of the organization.

42.  There are in a sense three identities each workers has :
1. Each worker is a member of the organization and
should be treated in a manner consistent with the
treatment of every other member of the organization.
2. Each worker belongs to a cultural group whose
members share values.
3. Each worker is an individual with a unique past and
future.
 Managers have always had to deal with the principles
of consistency of treatment and the uniqueness of
individuals. But the challenge of diversity adds a level
of culture that is becoming increasingly important in
the workplace.

43. From the leader’s perspective, managing diversity
requires understanding any stereotypes that might
exist among group members and challenging them
with a view toward breaking them down. Ayoko
and Hartel (2003) suggest that in order to do that,
the leader must be skilled in conflict resolution as
well as open and interested in interacting with
people who would be seen as dissimilar to oneself.