Summaries per article with Culture and Diversity at Work at Leiden University 21/22

Introduction

As the diversity among personnel has increased considerably, implementers indicate that it is important to have a diverse workforce. This contributes to competitive advantages by increasing creativity and innovation. Yet there is little scientific research that supports this. There are more studies that find the opposite. That diversity leads to negative consequences, such as more conflicts or a decrease in group cohesion.

This study will first provide an overview of the studies that have been conducted into diversity and performance. The authors attempt to bring together this inconsistency of results from previous research by presenting a conceptual multi-level model. This model wants to answer the following question: “when and how does diversity lead to positive, rather than negative, outcomes of group performance?”. In general, the authors think that there are moderators for the relationship between diversity and the multi-level model. And that the multi-level model has a mediating role in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

The model is different from previous studies because it emphasizes social psychological constructs and uses the social identity theory to answer the "when and how" questions, rather than focusing on pure cognitive constructs, such as reducing stereotypes. The model identifies psychological mechanisms at the individual and group level of the analysis. These are indicated as concept of mediators between the relationship of group composition and group performance. This allows them to explain how diversity leads to more positive outcomes.

What does it mean to be a diverse working group?

There are several definitions for diversity. The most common definition of diversity is the perceptible difference between individuals for characteristics that they can see different from each other. Examples of this assumption are given as; different characters, personality traits, personal values ​​and norms, but also other types of belief, sexual preference or mental/physical health. This first definition refers to the difference between individuals.

A different definition focuses on the group. Diversity is a mix of people with different group identities in the same social system. This definition is therefore more based on the group identity. This research focuses on the second definition.

Various groups consist of individuals who identify themselves with different subgroups. There are different ways in which people can differ from each other. Surface-level diversity are differences between group members based on biological traits and that can be seen physically. Such as age, gender, race/ethnicity. Deep-level diversity are differences between group members that are not immediately visible. Like personalities, attitudes, norms and values. However, the authors say that the separation between these two levels is not as clear as it seems and that it is very dependent on the context under which level something must be placed.

Does diversity lead to improved performance?

Research shows that a diverse group leads to an improvement in decision-making capacity through the increase in creativity and innovation. Because people with different backgrounds think differently and therefore have multiple perspectives to come to a solution. Nevertheless, studies with hard evidence for this statement are hard to find.

There are also studies that indicate that groups with differences are less attracted to their group mates, have less confidence, communicate less and feel less united, compared to groups with the same people. This therefore leads to more conflicts and misunderstandings within the group with differences.

To explain these differences, studies have been using the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory. This showed that people who are different from each other are less willing to work together than people without differences, because they do not place themselves in the same social category (in-group) and therefore they do not share the same social identity.

Social categorization has been used to investigate the negative outcomes of group performance. Social categorization involves the following; people tend to have a preference for their own group (in-group) and to dislike other groups (out-group). This could therefore counteract the cooperation in groups with differences. Yet there are also researchers who think that it is not the social categorization itself, but the prejudices of the in-group. Because of this people from a lower group would like to work together with someone from a higher group, although this is an out-group. This could explain the difference in outcomes of the studies into diversity in groups.

When does diversity lead to improved group performance?

It is important to be clear when diversity improves group performance to promote the potential benefits of a diverse workplace. Various studies have been conducted into moderators that ensure that various groups perform better. In general, it emerged that the positive effects of diversity and group contact are determined by four circumstances; equal group status within a situation, the same goals, cooperation and support of the authorities, and the law.

Research in the field of organizational behavior shows that improving group performance is influenced by; task independence, task difficulty, organization structure, collective vs. individual values, the climate of the organization and openness to diversity.

There have also been recent studies into individual differences in attitudes towards group diversity. People who are open to new experiences have a better group performance than a group that consisted of people with superior identities.

How does diversity improve group performance?

Research into team reflexivity revealed that reflexivity mediates the relationship between the interaction effect on demographic diversity and the dependence on the team outcome (if the interaction effect on demographic diversity and lifetime of satisfaction with the measures, dedication and performance of the group).

Research suggests that diversity leads to more conflicts within a group, which can have advantages or disadvantages, depending on the type of conflict. Different types of conflicts are: task conflicts, social-emotional conflicts and values ​​conflicts. It appears that more task conflicts arise with functional/informational diversity. Social-emotional conflicts are predominant in groups with demographic differences. In the case of cultural differences within a group, value conflicts are more often present. These conflicts can lead to a positive outcome, because people put forward their ideas and opinions, the team comes to a nuanced solution.

Other mechanisms also positively influence the relationship between diversity and group performance. Such as the learning behavior of the team and the confirmation of identity. Only a really clear answer to the question “how does diversity improve group performance?” stays off. With the following model, the authors try to provide an answer to this.

The conceptual model and its development

Each part of the model is explained in a separate piece. The model can be used to understand the effects of diversity. The model uses social psychological mechanisms from previous research to explain a multi-level process of learning each other's identity within a group.

Outcome variable: group performance

The most important variable in this model is the outcome variable: group performance. This concept can be applied to the performance of an entire organization or to smaller groups. Work performance is defined as the total expected value for an organization, through the behavior of an individual, within a standard time period. This definition is aimed at the individual and therefore includes the contribution of each individual member of a group. These individual performances together is the performance of the group.

Another study explained work performance by in-role behavior (IRB) and extra-role behavior (ERB). IRB contains of the behavior that ensures that the tasks are performed. ERB refers to contextual behavior that contributes to the overall effectiveness of the group through the effect on psychological and social characteristics of work. The proposed model involves both IRB and ERB.

Multi-level mechanisms; explain how diversity improves group performance

According to some researchers, explaining this process goes through the learning process. This is very difficult because a learning process consists of several underlying, independent mechanisms. However, some researchers have tried this and described it as activities in which team members try to gain, share, improve or combine task relevant knowledge by interacting with each other. This behavior is specifically aimed at performing their duties, not at getting to know each other better.

In this paper they go beyond what has already been investigated. The learning behavior of a team is seen as knowledge of each other's identities and obtaining the necessary knowledge that is necessary for a heterogeneous group to function effectively. Learning each other's identities is accompanied by a number of psychological mechanisms: embed the identities of the others in your own identity, respect the correspondence of someone's personal and social identity and respect each other's identity.

Two levels are needed to analyze this, at individual level and at group level. On an individual level, empathy and self-disclosure are considered. At group level, the greatest focus is on communication, involvement with the group and trust in the group. This study does not want to say that all of these variables must be present to a certain extent to ensure that diversity improves group performance. The activation of a variable can be enough to improve performance.

Empathy

Empathy is seen as an individual process in which people identify with others and show understanding for someone's situation, feelings and motives. This can be very important to learn things from each other, to incorporate each other's identities and as a result there can be more understanding, tolerance and cooperation with each other. Empathy ensures that people are more willing to help each other, which can contribute to the creation of a team (self-other merger). This can occur in the following situations: if someone else's prosperity promotes your own prosperity, if you and the other are connected by parable, and if you and the other share the same relationship in a social category or group.

According to the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory, people in a different groups are more likely to separate themselves from the whole and therefore there is less empathy. Yet people must be able to have empathy for people who differ from themselves according to the theory of empathy. Empathy is present in every person, regardless of the relationship with others.

Some studies show that empathy is important for the proper functioning of groups with diversity. It causes the stereotypes to decrease, because there is more understanding for the other and improves the representation of someone. This leads to social behavior.

Empathy will mediate in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Self-disclosure

Advantages can arise if people are willing to give themselves up by sharing information about themselves with others. If this occurs within a group with many differences, the part-level diversity changes to surface-level diversity. Because the atmosphere is very open, this improves the functioning of the individual.

By exposing someone's identity, group members understand each other better, which in turn ensures better performance. That is why self-disclosure is an important psychological mechanism that better develops interpersonal relationships. Which is especially important for groups with diversity, because there is already a standard sense of distrust.

Self-disclosure mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Communication

Studies show that much communication in a heterogeneous group can lead to conflicts. Avoiding different opinions and having open communication leads to fewer conflicts, but it does reduce the performance of employees.

It is suggested not to look at the amount of conflicts, but to analyze the reason for the conflicts and how they are resolved. To investigate this, research does not look at the frequency of communication, but at reflexibility. This shows that it is not bad to have conflicts, but how they are handled and how the group generally communicates.

The quality of communication within a group mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Commitment to the group

Commitment to the group is the extent to which an individual is involved in the execution of tasks, such as the exchange of information, joint decisions and the extent to which he feels respected. Commitment to the group is seen as the perception of inclusion and exclusion with regard to employee interaction or involvement within work teams. Research shows that visible differences within a team cause a negative relationship with involvement within the group.

Commitment to the group mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Group confidence

Research shows that people who belong to different social categories or people who see themselves differently from others feel much more anxious compared to people who don't. This can cause them to think paranoid, which makes them unreliable for others. Distrust spreads within the group, leading to "collective paranoia". This means that diversity leads to a poorer group performance.

Trust mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Explanation of when diversity improves group performance

The model focuses on two psychological conditions, for which not much research has been done before. Yet these conditions, which activate the psychological mechanisms, are essential to explain when diversity can lead to better group performance. The two conditions are: the importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate. They are both seen group level variables that interact with each other. In general, this model suggests that the importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate is the relationship between diversity and the multi-level psychological mechanisms. And that these mechanisms mediate the relationship between diversity and group performance.

The importance of a collective identity

It is important to reduce the importance of in-group - out-group within a group. Research has shown that this has negative consequences for diversity in the group. Groups must ensure that they place both themselves and others in the same category, which in turn has positive consequences for diversity in a group. Organizations that focus more on the development of groups, rather than individuals, will therefore experience more benefits with diversity within a group. The importance of a collective identity moderates the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Someone with a personal identity asks the question: “who am I as a unique individual?” while someone with a collective identity wonders himself: “who are we as a group?”. The difference between a social identity and a collective identity is in the focus on the group. A social identity is focused on itself within a social group, a collective identity is only focused on group-level variables. The social identity theory and the self-categorization theory also indicate that the negative effects of diversity within a group are reduced if there is a collective identity within that group.

The effects of group composition on psychological processes (at individual and group level) are moderated by the importance of a collective identity.

A safe psychological climate

According to the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory, different people are more willing to cooperate if the team identification is high than when it is low. Only if the group identification becomes too strong do people with a different opinion want to stay in line with the rest of the group and therefore tend not to give their opinion.

Therefore, group identification cannot indicate positive or negative effects of diversity. Because a certain degree of identification is important, a safe psychological climate cannot be missing. A safe psychological climate is defined as shared beliefs among the members of a group, as a result of mutual respect and trust. Some researchers say that pro-diversity beliefs are also essential for a safe climate. This means that different perspectives in a group are expected to be an advantage for solving a task. Research also shows that when employees consider their environment as safe enough for interpersonal risks, they are more likely to show who they are. Which leads to positive psychological processes, such as empathy, communication and trust. These processes are necessary elements for diversity to improve group performance.

It is also important to say that the interaction between the importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate (to a lesser extent) can also be found in homogeneous groups. A three-way interaction effect could therefore be found in an organization between group composition, group identification and a safe psychological climate. Research still needs to be done.

The effects of group composition on psychological processes (individual and group level) are moderated by a safe psychological climate.

Discussion and conclusion

The suggested model contributes to the understanding of the effects of diversity on group performance. It is different from other attempts to understand the effects of diversity because social psychological constructs and identity perspectives are included. The "when" and "how" questions for managers can be answered, instead of other studies that focus on cognitive constructs. The importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate are included in the model to determine the conditions under which diversity improves group performance. The model thus provides a comprehensive explanation of how diversity leads to group performance by looking at mechanisms at the individual and group level that underlie the learning of each other's identity within a group.

Until now, research has only looked at the conditions needed to create a diverse workplace and the underlying psychological mechanisms that explain how diversity can lead to better group performance. Most of the studies focused on describing a good climate for diversity, developing a mindset about diversity, and then studying it or testing the direct effects of diversity. The model from this study brings a new psychological perspective and shows the process how people can learn from each other's identity within a group. The model tests the influence of diversity on performance through a behavioral perspective, by seeing group performance as a meeting of the behavior of all group members.

In summary, the authors believe that this model contributes to explaining and predicting good results through diversity and provides a constructive framework for further research. This further research is theoretical, but is necessary for practical knowledge. So that the model or parts of it can be tested. It is important to state that the model should apply to all possible aspects of diversity, but it is also possible that some aspects are more important than others at certain stages of group work. This is interesting for theoretical and empirical testing with longitudinal research.

Introduction

This article is about the expected value perspective of identity and the formation of an identity. According to the author there are two basic types of self-perception, namely (a) a perception that is associated with skills, traits and competences and (b) a perception that is related to personal values ​​and goals. This article focuses on the influence of identity on choices, or motivated actions. A distinction can also be made between two types of identity, personal identity and collective/social identity. The author sees personal identity as the aspect that makes you feel that you are unique and she also calls it the ME self . Collective identity is seen as the qualities that you personally find important and that strengthen the ties with groups and relationships. The author also calls collective identity the WE self . She also thinks that choices that are made help to form an identity. The article also discusses the development of identity. According to the author, identity changes due to changes in situations.

Identity is something that has been built up by motivation. The author has compiled a social cognitive model with her colleagues. This model is the expectancy value model or motivated behavioral choice. The model is about different types of behavioral choices, tasks, and activities. Choices that are important for life (e.g. study choice, friendships) are linked to two types of beliefs, (1) individual expectations of success and (2) the importance or value of different options that the individual can choose between (subjective) task value. These beliefs are related to cultural norms, social roles, and social experiences; personal experiences and their interpretation and memories; personal ability, talents, personality and temperament; and personal beliefs and attitudes towards business. All of these factors predict personal expectations about future success and about the personal subjective value of the options.

The author also thinks that the two aforementioned beliefs also contribute to the formation of the ME and WE self . The development is influenced by at least two processes. First of all, every cultural group has a picture of how the order of development tasks and experiences should proceed. This exposes individuals to different situations with different standards. Secondly, every individual gets better at choosing social contexts and experiences that helps them shape their own beliefs. These beliefs are closely linked to the prominence, centrality and content of many different personal and collective/social identities. The author thinks there are a number of beliefs about who you are and who you want to become.

Are expectations and personal competence mediators of performance-based choices? The expectation of success and self-assurance in your abilities to succeed have long been seen as important mediators of behavioral choices. People usually make choices that they feel confident about or that they expect to be most successful. The model predicts that self-understanding of your ability and understanding of task difficulty are the most important psychological predictors that determine whether you expect success. Self-understanding of your ability and your expectation of success have such a great coherence that it is difficult to separate it. Self-insight is formed by comparison, interpretation of processes and consequences, social influences, learning processes, exchange of information about skills. All these sources of information help to form different components of your ME self . These components can (de)motivate behavior again if they are activated. So there is a constant development going on as long as people gain more experiences.

Subjective task values

Subjective task values motivate the choice between activities. Important choices you make in life are influenced by the options available and how much you value them. The author (and therefore also the model) states that the subject task values ​​are directly related to personal and collective/social identity and to identity formation. Subjective task values are qualities that contribute to different choices, the chance that someone will choose the option or not.

Subjective task values are influenced by four factors:

1. Interest value: The value of the interest based on the amount of pleasure a person experiences from an activity/certain behavior. Ultimately, it can develop in such a way that it becomes part of the ME self. It can therefore develop from something that is simply an interest to something that is really accessible (see also attainment value).
2. Attainment value: The image about your own identity consists of different components, views about your own (a) personality and abilities, (b) goals and plans, (c) image about the division of roles between men and women, (d) instrumental and terminal values, (e) motivations, (f) ideal image about how someone should be, (g) image about what is appropriate behavior in different situations. These components influence the attainment values, or the goals that the individual considers important to achieve. Individuals want to make choices that suit their identity.
3. Utility value: This is similar to the attainment value, but it is a task that someone wants to accomplish, because it influences a slightly less personal goal.
4. Perceived cost: Participating in a certain activity can entail costs, such as a waste of time, social consequences or issues such as fear of failure.

According to the model, there is a connection between the personal values and the achievement-related choices. Various studies have found evidence for this. For example, people who are primarily focused on the person choose a study in which this also occurs and people who are primarily interested in physics choose a study in which physics is repeated. This works both ways. The value 'helping people' therefore also predicts that someone with this value will not opt ​​for a physics study.

Resume

Beliefs about yourself (about your ability and the subject task value) have a lot of influence on the choices that are made. These two factors help to form an identity, which in turn leads to your behavior in general. The attainment value certainly influences in part the degree of self-insight and the behavioral choices that are made. These two processes also influence each other, so that an identity can be formed.

Subjective tax values also influence which activity is being participated. They should also influence the development of individual competencies. Different competencies should also influence the development of subjective task value , because (repeated) success or failure in a task influences whether someone likes the task.

What is this article about?

Groups, organizations and societies often exist of different subgroups, and are thus not homogenous. These subgroups are based on intragroup roles, or on wider social categories such as profession, socioeconomic status (SES), gender, religion, music preferences, and many other things. In science, there are also groups. These subgroups are part of a larger group. As an explanation, think of cognitive and social psychologists. These psychologists are part of the group ‘psychologists’. Psychologists themselves are also part of a group. For example, sociologists and psychologists are both social scientists. Thus, groups often exist of subgroups with a superordinate identity group (psychologists, social scientists).

This characteristic of groups is often not captured by the commonly used ingroup-outgroup manner, in which many scientists believe social categorization to operate.

In this article, the authors explain the psychological processes that happen when group relations take place within the context of a superordinate identity. They use a social identity theory perspective for this, and they base their ideas on studies on multiculturalism, and social psychological research. The goal of the article is to present a general, integrative framework for understanding the dynamics of subgroup relations and subgroup identification. Their model is based on ideas and studies that have looked at the way that superordinate identity pressures can lead to intersubgroup conflicts. A central idea in their framework is that the superordinate identity should be viewed as a source of positive identity that does not conflict with the subgroup identity. They argue that social harmony is most likely to be achieved by maintaining and not weakening the subgroup identities.

What is the Social Identity Theory?

The Social Identity Theory is about category membership and identity threat. It had a significant impact on social psychology. Originally, it focused on the relation between people’s striving for self-esteem through positive social identity and people’s beliefs about the nature of intergroup relations. Later, self-categorization theory came into existence. This theory is the same as Social Identity Theory, but incorporated an explanation of how social categorization can produce group prototype-based depersonalization. In sum, the social identity perspective states that people are motivated to identify themselves in group terms, because of two reasons: they strive for uncertainty reduction, and they want to enhance their self-esteem. This means that people want to reduce uncertainty about who they are, how they should behave, and how other people will behave. By means of social categorization, they achieve these goals, because these categorizations can help them to achieve structure and context in who they are. Self-categorization means that people define themselves in relations to others, and also prescribes one’s perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. Thus, uncertainty is a motivation for self-categorization and can cause groups to preserve or enhance their distinctiveness and entitativity. Another motive that people have is a self-enhancement (self-esteem) motive, which means that social categorizations are often given a value (good or bad). Therefore, groups try to be better than other groups, and they strive for positive social identity and positive self-esteem for their members.

Next to ingroup and outgroup attitudes, people also hold ‘social beliefs’, which are attitudes and beliefs about the nature of the relation between groups. These social beliefs are thus about intergroup boundaries, the relative status of groups, and the legitimacy and stability of such relations. In turn, these social beliefs determine the general strategies and specific behaviors that the group members adopt to reach their goals of self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction.

The Social Identity Theory acknowledges the existence of subgroups. Thus, they state that intergroup comparisons often occur within the context of higher order similarities.

Turner and colleagues proposed three levels of self-categorization that are important to the self-concept:

1. The superordinate category of the self as human being (the human identity);
2. The intermediate level of the self as a member of a social ingroup, defined against other human groups (social identity);
3. The subordinate level of personal self-categorizations which are based on interpersonal comparisons (personal identity).

Even though Social Identity Theory acknowledges subgroups, it does not elaborate on gradations of the intermediate level. Thus, there is a need for elaboration on the psychology of subgroup relations.

What is meant with Threat and Intersubgroup Relations?

A key component of the Social Identity Theory is that people strive for positive intergroup distinctiveness. Therefore, humans engage in prejudice, discrimination, negative stereotyping, and other aggressive intergroup behaviors. These can help them to achieve positive distinctiveness. Other, more positive behaviours to achieve a positive distinctiveness is the use of ingroup solidarity, the use of totems, icons, and symbols. The question then is: what predicts a group’s tendency to engage in negative, aggressive behaviors instead of positive behaviours?

An answer is on this question is ‘threat’. This is often called ‘threat to identity’, but this term is often vague. For example, threat can emerge when a group is criticized or attacked (self-enhancement considerations). It can also emerge when the intergroup boundaries are blurred (distinctiveness). Thus, when there is identity threat, the goal for distinctiveness may lead to aggressive behaviours. When there is no identity threat (in the case of blurred boundaries), this may lead to more positive and benign strategies.

In sum, social identity threat can provoke behavior that is aimed at protecting or enhancing a social identity. This social identity can be threatened if a group has the possibility of a loss of status, an absence of the possibility to improve low status, if there is uncertainty about the intergroup boundaries, low entitativity, or a poorly defined ingroup prototype. When groups perceive threat, this strengthens subgroup solidarity, sharpens intergroup boundaries, accentuates ethnocentric attitudes and behavior, inhibits superordinate group identification, and it produces a more polarized ingroup prototype, that lead to a more orthodox subgroup with more hierarchical leaderships and power structures.

The paradox in this is that the superordinate group identification can bind subgroups together in a more powerful group, but it can also destroy subgroup identities.

What about Conflict and Harmony Between Subgroups?

Studies on conflict and harmony between subgroups have followed two different approaches. First, there is the political science perspective on assimilation and multiculturalism. Second, there is social psychological research on intergroup contact and social harmony.

Assimilation and Multiculturalism

Assimilation

Encouraging members of competing groups to define their similarities at the superordinate level to encourage assimilation within the superordinate group, is called ‘assimilation’. Assimilation is based on the idea that the system becomes intragroup and that problematic intergroup boundaries diminish.

There are two types of assimilation. Melting-pot assimilation refers to the belief that through shared goals and intensive social interaction, old ethnic loyalties melt away and change into a new, homogenous society. Minority-group assimilation refers to that nondominant subgroups adopt the language, values, and systems of a dominant subgroup. These political models are different, but they share a common idea that subgroup identification reflects a problematic or immature stage of development. Thus, all effort should be put in toward refocusing group loyalties: from the subgroup level to the superordinate level. Examples of assimilation-related quotes are: “One nation, one flag”, and “It does not matter if you are Black or White, we are all humans”.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is different than assimilation, because it assumes that ethnic identities are inescapable and that they are fundamental to humans’ self-concept. Therefore, individuals are motivated to retain their cultural heritages. Multiculturalism aims to preserve this integrity, while also stimulating ethnic groups to interact and coexist harmoniously. A limitation of traditional multiculturalism research is that it is often global and descriptive, and is not able to examine underlying psychological processes. It also does not seem to be generalizable outside the specific context in which it was studied. Another limitation is that it is narrow in its focus. It lacks a general, theory-based model of subgroup relations that can apply to all subgroups.

What is the common ingroup identity model?

The common ingroup identity model states that contact is beneficial when an individual’s representation changes from two separate groups (us, them) to one (we). It does not try to eliminate group boundaries. Instead, it describes a process by which group boundaries are defined by a superordinate identity. When a person is categorized as ‘an ingroup member’, then evaluations of this person should become more positive, and biases should be reduced. This common ingroup identity may be reached by making the superordinate identity more salient, or by introducing certain factors such as shared goals. This increases the entitativity of the superordinate group.

Studies and experiments have shown that contact reduces intergroup bias, because it changes the perception from ‘two groups’ to ‘one group’.

It is a bit similar to the assimilationist models. However, the common identity theory argues that the superordinate category should be strengthened, and that subgroups should not be eliminated. The best situation is one in which the group members remain a distinct identity, but perceive themselves as part of the same team. But why is this the best situation? Well, if outgroup members are perceived as the same, then contact will not help to change people’s feelings of that group. Thus, previous subgroup identities should not be eliminated, because it reduces the likelihood that positive attitude changes will be generalized outside of the cooperative environment.

What is the mutual intergroup differentiation model?

According to the mutual intergroup differentiation model, there are historical and sociological reasons in many intergroup settings that suggest that it would be impossible to completely diminish social identities. Attempts to do so will be perceived as ‘a threat to those groups identities’. In turn, a reaction could be increased intergroup differentiation or dislike, because the group will try to reassert their distinctiveness. The model proposes two methods of minimizing threat. First, each group’s areas of expertise should be recognized, and each expertise area should be equally valued. Second, when the groups get in contact, the salience of the original group should be preserved. This model is a bit similar to multiculturalism.

How can we generalize categorization models to noncontact situations?

The models described above, the common ingroup identity model and the mutual intergroup differentiation model were originally specified to account for intergroup contact. However, their principles can be extended to noncontact situations. This is very important, because in real life the types of contact necessary to achieve successful intergroup contact are rare. Then, the strategies described by Gaertner and colleagues to invoke a common intergroup identity (physical proximity, cooperation on a common task) are not useful. In these cases, the ‘one group identity’ can be achieved by categorizing participants at the superordinate level, without any reference to subgroup identity.

What is an integrative model of subgroup relations?

The authors state that, based on the research on intergroup relations, it seems important to acknowledge category-based differences to achieve harmonious intergroup relations. Thus, one should not try to eliminate intergroup differences and threaten people’s need for distinct subgroup identities. Instead, one needs to nourish distinct subgroup identities, within the context of a superordinate identity. If this happens, then subgroups have a complementary relationship, rather than a competitive relationship. This is called ‘dual categorization’, and thus refers to activating the superordinate and subgroup identities simultaneously. This provides two types of benefits. First, others who are normally seen as out-group members will now be seen as ingroup members. Second, dual categorization protects the distinctiveness of the group, which seems necessary according to multiculturalists for people to be generous toward outgroup members. This dual categorization is beneficial in multi-ethnic contexts, but it can also be extended to other intergroup contexts, for example organizations. It seems that in the case of organizational mergers, it’s best to focus on a common ingroup identity, because otherwise negative relationships can emerge.

Dual categorization or identification may also be beneficial in intergroup negotiations. Why? Well, it has generally been assumed that category-based processing is a negative predicting factor for achieving successful negotiation outcomes. In this case, it seems that successful resolutions of group conflicts involve arriving at a shared superordinate definition of both groups, as well as acknowledging the subgroup level of definition.

Keep in mind that it’s not always necessary to strengthen the common superordinate identity. It can also be that it should be weakened, and this may depend on certain social realities, such as perceptions of superordinate inclusiveness and intergroup similarity.

What are social realities of subgroup relations?

Perceptions of Inclusiveness

An important factor that influences subgroup identification is how inclusive the superordinate group is perceived to be. According to Optimal distinctiveness theory, there is a dynamic tension between opposing drives for distinctiveness and inclusiveness. So, if people feel overly distinctive or unique, they will experience anxiety and feelings of discomfort. Then they will experience a drive to achieve greater inclusiveness, which can be achieved by identifying with a group or category. The other way around is also true: if a group feels over-inclusive, then this will activate a drive to achieve greater distinctiveness.

Research findings on inclusiveness

Brewer and Weber (1994) found that, in highly inclusive conditions, identification with the group weakens and the group fragments into individuals. Hornsey and Hogg (1999) found that the more inclusive the superordinate category is perceived to be, the more people strive for differentiation at the subgroup level.

Intersubgroup Similarity

Subgroup members dislike being categorized exclusively on a superordinate level, when this means that category boundaries are ignored. This would make them feel as if the superordinate category is an illegitimate way to structure the social world. Thus, subgroup members will resist being categorized entirely at the superordinate level if the subgroups are seen as essentially different.

What are nested and cross-cutting subgroups?

Nested groups mean that groups can be hierarchically nested within, or crosscut with, a superordinate category. Sometimes, the subgroups are nested entirely within the superordinate category. For example, arts and science students are nested entirely within the superordinate category of ‘university student’.

What is known about leadership?

Not surprising, groups are often directed by representatives, figureheads, or leaders. Often, subgroup members obtain their intergroup attitudes from what they hear their leaders say. According to a social identity analysis, it seems that effective leaders need to be highly ingroup prototypical. This means that when a superordinate identity is perceived as a threat to the subgroup identity, the subgroup leaders need to fight this. In these cases it is common that more extreme subgroup leaders emerge.

What about instrumental goal relations?

Often, cooperation between subgroups is beneficial for all of these groups. This means that subgroups need to work together within an overarching superordinate identity. This helps to transform a competitive intergroup orientation into an intergroup role differentiation, in which the different groups work together toward pursuing shared goals.

What about power and status differentials?

Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality refers to beliefs that people have about how well an ethnic-cultural subgroup is going to survive in a multi-ethnic setting in which there is a single dominant cultural group. This subjective vitality depends on beliefs about subgroup status (control of one’s destiny, pride in the group’s language, history, and culture), subgroup demography (absolute numbers, relative numbers, population growth and decline), and institutional support (representation in the culture and leadership of the larger society). When vitality is high, people remain highly identified with their subgroup and no not identify strongly with their superordinate group.

When a member is of a low-status subgroup, it is possible for these members to enhance their identities by self-categorizing at a superordinate level. For example, a member of a low-status university may be motivated to think of themselves as ‘a university student’. In contrast, someone from a high-status university may identify him or herself with the specific university, instead of ‘a university student’. Thus, for a low-status subgroup, the superordinate identity may be ‘additive’, while for the high-status subgroup the superordinate identity may be ‘subtractive’.

What can be concluded?

Often, social psychologists view intergroup relations in a binary way: in-group and out-group. However, in reality there are multiple groups within a superordinate identity. This article is one of the first to attempt to integrate the different streams of research and theory into one single framework of subgroup relations.

Preface

Women earn less than men, even if they do the same work. What contributes to this? Experience with earlier work, the value you give to salary in relation to other factors such as flexibility, marital status, responsibility to look after a child, unified membership, interrogation and discrimination. This all contributes to the gender pay gap. This research examines the role that system justification processes play in creating and maintaining gender differences.

Differences in law

This research examines personal law: what you think you can earn based on your performance. Research shows that men think they have a higher personal right than women. They think they are more entitled to a high amount compared to what women think about themselves. According to the status construction theory, people who are in group A and get paid less than group B think that they have indeed contributed less and therefore earn less. However, this does not have to be the case.

System justification and law

This is a process in which differences between groups are justified. People want the system to be fair. System justifications include Protestant work ethics and individual mobility. This system ensures that people themselves are responsible for their outcomes. In short: it shows that differences, including wages, are fair. The SROs make people think that men apparently have more input than women, so that they also earn more output (salary). This can reinforce existing gender differences. This has also been shown by a study. This research tests the hypothesis that approval or activation of SROs will increase the sex gap in terms of personal law. So if one is convinced that a gender pay gap is justified, women will think that they indeed deserve less, so their sense of personal right will be less. It is thought that it will lead to an increased sense of personal rights in men and that it will decrease in women.

However, it has been found that the approval or confirmation of the SROs have fewer implications for the low status groups (in this case the women) and more for the high status groups (men). So with SROs, women will show less effect in decreasing personal law and men will show more effect in increasing personal law. This is called ideological asymmetry. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between SROs and law and also how this relationship can differ due to the gender function. The research consists of two different studies:

1. It investigates the relationship between individual differences in SRO entitlement and the personal payment entitlement received between men and women (correlational relationships).
2. Priming procedure. It examines the impact of SROs on payment law (causal relationships).

Study 1

People at a university had to fill in a questionnaire about SROs (very much agree to very much disagree) and read and evaluate vignettes (short stories). They also had to report their personal rights and enter demographic information.

Results

There was a significant positive relationship between SROs and law regarding men. At SROs, men reported a higher personal right. In women, the relationship was negative, although it was not significant. People who had high SROs showed a significant effect of gender; men reported higher law than women. For people who had low SROs, there was no gender difference.

Discussion

In men, SROs are associated with higher salaries. There were only gender differences measured at high SROs. Furthermore, there is no difference between reported personal rights between men and women. Why study 2? An important goal is to determine whether the experimental priming of SROs influences law. If so, we can suggest that SROs have a causal impact on law. Secondly, they also want to measure behavioral law in which people actually pay themselves. They want to determine whether SROs have an influence on behavioral measurements of law, just like the self-report measurement of law (in study 1).

Study 2

There were three changes from the first study. They had to determine their right to salary after doing real work, instead of the right to salary for imagined future work. They tested the impact of SROs on received salary rights by experimentally priming SROs (i.e. offering them unknowingly), instead of measuring it as an individual difference. Thirdly, a measure of behavior was added, participants were allowed to pay themselves for work.

It was thought that women would work harder, give themselves less money and pay themselves less. Moreover, it was thought that gender differences would be greater after primed SROs. They had to do a circular task: they were given a text and had to circle all the e's. With the SRO priming condition they were given a task in which the SROs would be activated, for example by offering texts that contained prejudices about women.

Finally, they had to pay themselves, up to 5 dollars. They also had to report what they would give themselves, what their personal rights were.

Results

Regarding complete work: women had made significantly more than men. Accuracy: although women had done more than men, they were no less accurate. It is therefore not significant. Self-reported law: men found significantly that they earned more than women. After priming, men felt much stronger that they earned a lot. After priming, they therefore awarded themselves a higher salary than in the other condition. In women this effect was the other way around and only minimal: not significant. So after SROs, women did not grant themselves significantly less salary than without the SROs.

Men also reported after the SROs that they really earn more than the women in the SRO condition. In the control condition also, but still less and not significant. Behavioral law: men actually gave themselves more than women.

Discussion

Men indeed felt that they deserved more than women and this idea was reinforced by the prime condition. The reinforcement is mainly because men allowed themselves more after the SRO condition. For women it was the other way around: they felt that they did earn a little less. But this was not significant.

The behavioral situation was different: men paid themselves more than women, but this did not depend on the prime condition. This is striking, because women had done more work than men.

But there is a difference between the reported condition (so what would you give yourself) and the behavioral condition (what did you actually give yourself). And why? Researchers usually find a behavioral condition better, more reliable, but in this study the other seems purer. The behavioral condition depends on, for example, how much money someone needs.

General discussion

SROs create and maintain gender differences in the right to payment by increasing men's sense of right and decreasing women's sense of right. This has been demonstrated by two studies. Study 1 looked at the correlation between individual differences in entitlements of SROs and entitlements received in future payments. Study 2 manipulated the SROs and looked at the impact of that manipulation on the right received for work that has already been carried out.

In some studies, members of a low status group justify the social system less than members of a high status group. For people in a low status group, the system justifications (that think salary differences are fair) are in conflict with the ego and the motives for justice of the group. This can cause a feeling of unfairness, ambivalence and instability. These conflicting motives can explain why it has sometimes been found that there are weaker relationships between SROs and outcomes in people in a low status group compared to people in a high status group. This is called the ideological asymmetrical effect. It is also possible that an SRO is interpreted differently: men get a lot because they work hard or men get a lot so they work hard. However, this is not both positive for women. This could explain that they work harder; then they can earn more.

People often compare themselves with others: social comparison. For example, men compare their wages with other men, women compare their wages with other women. Since there is a gap between men's and women's wages, the comparisons also lead to skewed relationships as to the expectation of wages. If gender inequality exists, SROs would encourage men and women to think that those differences are fair and well deserved. However, if equality exists and men and women have the same expectations, SROs would also encourage men and women to think that it is fair and deserved. However, this has not yet been investigated.

Conclusion

Because men have a great sense of entitlement, they dare to ask for raise sooner. They are also less satisfied with their salary. It can also cause men to be blind when they actually get too much, justifying their good position.

Women have a lesser sense of justice. This prevents them from realizing when they are discriminated against and it reduces the chance that they will participate in a collective action that changes the distribution of social good (revolution).

What is this article about?

In this article, the author discusses different answers to the question of: “how can people of different cultural backgrounds encounter each other, seek avenues of mutual understanding, negotiate and compromise on initial positions, and achieve harmonious engagement?”. Specifically, the author has come up with insights based on the US American/Australian war in Vietnam.

What about group relations?

There are two distinct, but inter-related domains of psychological research that make up the field of group relations. These domains are acculturation and ethnic relations.

Acculturation

Acculturation refers to the dual process of cultural and psychological change which results from contact between two or more cultural groups and their members. On a group level, this involves changes in social structures and institutions and in cultural practices. On an individual level, this involves changes in a person’s behavior. These changes result from a long-term process: sometimes years, generations, and sometimes even centuries. Cultural and psychological changes that involve different forms of mutual accommodations which lead to longer-term psychological and sociocultural adaptations between both groups is called acculturation. Change and contact can result from different factors, such as colonization, military invasion, migration, and sojourning (tourism, international study, overseas posting).

Acculturation involves learning each other’s languages, sharing each other’s food preferences, and adopting forms of dressing and social interactions that are appropriate for each group. Sometimes this happens easily, but it can also create culture conflict and acculturative stress. An important characteristic of acculturation is it’s variability: there are large group and individual differences in the ways in which people try to achieve acculturation (acculturation strategies), and in the degree to which they achieve successful acculturation. There are also variations within families: family members acculturate at different rates and with different goals. This can lead to conflict between family members and to more difficult adaptation.

What is the concept of acculturation?

There are many competing views about the meaning of acculturation. The author suggests two different formulations which are widely used. In the first formulation, acculturation is seen as one aspect of the broader concept of cultural change. This means that acculturation takes place in the settled or dominant group as well as in the non-dominant group. Acculturation is different from assimilation. In the second formulation, a few extra features are added, such as change that is indirect (not cultural but ecological) and delayed (internal adjustments). Acculturation is also said to be ‘reactive’: by rejecting the cultural influence from the dominant group and changing back towards a more ‘traditional’ way of life.

Graves (1967) introduced the concept of ‘psychological acculturation’. This is defined as changes in an individual who is a participant in a culture contact situation, and is influenced both directly by the external culture and by the changing culture of which the individual is a member.

What about acculturation contexts?

It is important that research on acculturation is conducted in different cultural contexts. Both cultures that are in contact need to be understood. There are five aspects of cultural contexts: the two original cultures (A and B), the two changing ethnocultural groups (A’ and B’), and the nature of their contact and interactions. These are visible in Figure 2.

The authors use the immigration process as an example. The society of origin is A and the society of settlement is B, and the changing cultural features following contact are termed A’ and B’. To fully understand acculturation, one needs to start with a comprehensive examination of the societal contexts. This means that cultural characteristics of the society of origin need to be described. This has the goal of understanding where the person is coming from and to establish cultural features for comparison with the society of settlement. Researchers also need to study the political, economic, and demographic conditions which individuals face in their society of origin. This has the goal of understanding the degree of voluntariness in the motivation to migrate of individuals. Migrants can be described on a continuum between reactive and proactive. Reactive migrants are motivated by negative factors (war), and proactive migrants are motivated by positive factors (getting a better life somewhere else). These factors are also described as push/pull in earlier literature.

Then, with regard to the society of settlement, other factors need to be described. For example, one needs to study the general orientations or attitudes of a society and its citizens toward immigration and pluralism. It is important to understand the historical and attitudinal situation faced by immigrants in the society of settlement. For example, some societies are accepting of cultural pluralism that results from immigration. Other societies try to eliminate diversity, and some societies even try to achieve segregation or marginalization of their diverse populations. Murphy (1965) proposed that societies that are supportive of cultural pluralism provide a more positive settlement context for two reasons. First, they are less likely to enforce cultural change or exclusion on immigrants. Second, they are also more likely to provide social support to immigrants.

What are acculturation strategies?

As noted, there are large differences in how people seek to achieve acculturations. These are called acculturation strategies. There are two components of acculturation strategies: attitudes (an individual’s preference about how to acculturate) and behavior (a person’s actual activities). There are four acculturation strategies which are derived from two basic issues that all acculturating individuals face:

1. A relative preference for maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity;
2. A relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other ethnocultural groups.

Non-dominant groups

When individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures, this means that they try to shed their heritage culture and that they become absorbed into the dominant society. This is called an assimilation strategy. In contrast, when individuals place value on holding on to their original culture and wish to avoid interaction with others, then this is a separation strategy. When there is an interest in both maintaining one’s heritage culture while in daily interactions with other groups, this is called an integration strategy. This means that some degree of cultural integrity is maintained, but that an individual is seeking to become an integral part of the larger society. Finally, there can also be a marginalization strategy. This means that there is little possibility of interest for individuals to have relationships with others and also little interest in maintaining the heritage culture.

For dominant groups, other terms should be used. Integration is only a ‘free choice’ when the dominant society is open and inclusive towards cultural diversity. This means that mutual accommodation is needed to attain integration. Non-dominant groups must adopt basic values of the larger society, and the dominant group must be prepared to adapt national institutions to meet the needs of all groups that live together.

Conceptualization of acculturation strategies

In the article, the chosen conceptual approach of acculturation strategies is based on three underlying dimensions: cultural maintenance, contact and participation, and the power to decide on how acculturation will take place. However, researchers often considered only one dimension and assumed that non-dominant groups and individuals would move away from some ‘traditional’  way of living toward a way of living that resembles the dominant society.

Another issue with regard to the conceptualization is that there is little empirical basis for the four acculturation strategies.

What is acculturative stress?

There are two different ways to conceptualize outcomes of acculturation. In the first conceptualization, it is about behavioral shifts. Behavioral shifts are based on observations on changes in an individual’s behavior which take place easily and are usually non-problematic. This process of behavioral shifts involve three sub-processes: cultural shedding, culture learning, and cultural conflict. The first two of these involve the selective, accidental, or deliberate loss of behaviors and a replacement by behaviors which allow an individual to better ‘fit’ with the society of settlement. This process is also often called ‘adjustment’. Sometimes conflicts can occur. When a person is assimilating, these conflicts can be resolved by the acculturating person acting in accordance with the behavioral norms of the dominant group. When someone is pursuing separation, individuals may withdraw to avoid cultural conflict. When individuals seek integration, conflict can be avoided only when the two groups in contact agree that mutual accommodation is the appropriate course to follow. Lastly, when individuals aim for marginalization, they have to deal with cultural conflict daily, and can resolve this by seeking little improvement in either culture.

When there are high levels of cultural conflict, then this is called acculturative stress. This means that individuals understand that they are facing problems because of their intercultural contact which cannot be dealt with easily or quickly.

What about adaptation?

To cope with cultural changes, individuals often adapt and this can lead to long-term adaptations. Adaptation is defined as the relatively stable change that takes place in an individual or group in response to external demands. Furthermore, adaptation may or may not improve the match between individuals and their environments. This thus means that adaptation is not an outcome that is only positive. Adaptation can also be divided into psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Psychological adaptation is defined as one’s psychological and physical well-being. Sociocultural adaptation refers to how well an acculturating individual is able to manage their daily life in the new cultural context. These two are conceptually distinct, but they show a high correlation. However, they are empirically distinct in that psychological problems often arise quick after contact, and decrease over time. Sociocultural adaption shows a linear improvement over time.

Proper psychological adaptation is predicted by personality variables, life change events, and social support. Sociocultural adaptation is predicted by cultural knowledge, degree of contact, and positive intergroup attitudes.

It seems that individuals who pursue and accomplish integration are better adapted. In contrast, individuals who marginalize are the least well adapted.

What can be concluded?

Currently, there are two areas of application which are receiving attention in research and policy development. The first is the domain of family life, which include the relationship among individuals within the family and between family members and the outside world. The other domain is in the area of immigration and settlement policies, which include issues of changes in the institutions of a society, and the promotion of cultural diversity.

Family life

Parents and children hold different views about parent-adolescent relationships during acculturation. This means that parents have higher scores on a measure of family obligations than their adolescent children. In contrast, immigrant youth have higher scores on a scale of adolescent rights (independence in dating) than their parents. The differences between parents and adolescents in their views about family obligations vary according to which acculturation strategy the adolescent is in. For example, adolescents in a national profile (preferring assimilation, having a stronger national identity, and having more national friends) show greater discrepancies between their views and the views of their parents. These discrepancies are associated with poorer psychological and sociocultural adaptation of the adolescents. Another project on family life focuses on similarities and differences in family structure and function. These projects have shown that there are variations in family functioning that is linked to ecological contexts (reliance on agriculture, general affluence) and to variation in socio-political contexts (education, religion). It seems that hierarchical and extended family arrangements have more conservative values in high agrarian and low affluence societies. In contrast, families high in affluence and education are more nuclear, less hierarchical and show more independence. These differences in family life are likely to lead to variations in acculturation strategies, acculturative stress and psychological and sociocultural adaptation.

With regard to public policies, the authors of the article propose that public policies and programs which aim to reduce acculturative stress and improve psychological and sociocultural adaptation should emphasizes the integration approach to acculturation.

Organizational life and behaviour are shaped by group diversity and can have positive and negative effects on job performance. However, research on the relationship between performance and group diversity is inconclusive. Therefore, van Kippenberg and his colleagues (2004) propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM). The model tries to explain the moderator and mediator variables that were previously ignored in diversity research. Information and decision-making, and social categorization are important in interaction and influence intergroup bias. These processes also influence elaboration (in-depth processing) and reviewing task-relevant information and perspectives.

What is the relationship between work-group diversity and performance?

The definition of diversity is the difference between individuals that lead to the perception that one individual is different from another. The dimensions are indefinite, it can be race, age, gender, religious background and so on. Previous research mainly focused on age and nationality, educational and functional background. It is argued that social category difference is the most important factor in the perception of diversity. Informational -and functional diversity reflect differences in functional and educational background, which are important for job performance but are less visible. Williams and O’Reilly (1998) identified two factors that are important in diversity research:

1. The social categorization perspective where similarities and differences are used a to categorize someone as part of a group. Riordan and Shore (1997) found that the higher the homogeneity of the work group, the more committed the group members are.

2. The information/decision making perspective states that diverse groups should outperform homogeneous groups. This is because diverse groups are likely to be better in processing different sorts of information and combine this into a task-relevant solution.

The social categorization perspective focuses more on relational aspects, whereas the information/decision making perspective focuses on task-related aspects of group functioning.

What is the categorization-elaboration model?

The positive and negative effects of diversity are not completely clear yet. Therefore, the categorization-elaboration model is proposed by the authors. This model identifies some reasons why there are so many inconsistent findings in diversity research:

1. Diversity research lacks focus on group information processing;

2. Diversity research worked with an oversimplification of the conceptualization of social processes and categories;

3. Diversity research studies information -and decision-making processes as well as social categorisation processes in isolation. However, these processes interact and should be considered together, like in the proposed CEM-model;

4. The assumption used in diversity research, that information/decision-making and social categorization are related to specific dimensions of diversity;

The CEM-model exists from several components to describe the effects of diversity in organizations. The authors propose that diversity in a group is positively associated with the in-depth processing of task-relevant information and perspectives. Group members can exchange and discuss their ideas that are relevant to the group task. The model is consistent with the social categorization perspective on three factors:

1. Cognitive accessibility, when it is easy to make a social categorization this is because differences between categories are cognitively activated.

2. Normative fit is the extend to which a categorization makes subjective sense to members of the group.

3. Comparative fit is the extend to which the subgroups are yielded into high intragroup similarity and differences.

What are the propositions of the categorization-elaboration model?

Elaboration is described as the exchange of perspectives and information. Diversity can have a positive effect on elaboration because group-discussion and integration can yield better, and more innovative solutions to a problem. Therefore, the information/decision making perspective argues a heterogenous group outperforms a homogenous group. Empirical evidence supports this claim. This leads to the first proposition of the model:

1. The main underlying process of positive effects of diversity on group performance is the in-depth processing and elaboration of task relevant information.

According to the information/decision making perspective, group diversity increases the outcome of creative solutions due to more elaboration of task-relevant information. However, elaboration is not always the most productive method. When performing routine tasks, elaboration can cause counterproductivity because reasonable procedures are abandoned. Thus, diversity is positively related to complex task productivity. The moderating effect of task-complexity is described in the second proposition:

2. Task requirements and complexity is a moderator of the relationship between performance and diversity. Diversity is positively related to performance when creative and innovative solutions are required.

Besides task-complexity, another moderating effect is task motivation. Motivation is the core moderator of deep-level processing and shapes social perception and judgement. The role of motivation is discussed in proposition three and four:

3. Diversity benefits performance when the motivation of group members to perform the task is high.

4. Elaboration and good performance are stimulated by diversity when group member task ability is high.

The connection between diversity, social categorization and intergroup bias is also very important. It is argued that social categorization is a product of the degree of difference between members of a group and is inevitable. However, the empirical evidence relies on common practice using false assumptions. Instead, the salience of social categorization is discussed. The self-categorization theory states that the salience of a categorization is based on three components, comparative fit, normative fit and cognitive accessibility. Differences between group members do not necessarily lead to categorization, but the readiness to use the categorization and whether the categorization is subjectively meaningful are predictors of the extent to which categorization results in homogeneity or not.

5. Social categorization in work groups depends on the interaction of normative fit, comparative fit and accessibility of social categorizations.

The relationship between social categorization and intergroup bias is described in the sixth and seventh proposition of the model. Intergroup bias is the more positive perception towards an in-group member compared to the perception of an out-group member. Intergroup bias tends to be lower when sub-groups had their own distinctive tasks in an organization.

6. The result of social categorization is intergroup bias, which is disruptive to the overall functioning of the group. This is to the extent that the identity that is implied by the categorization is challenged.

7. When intergroup biases are caused by work-group diversity they are disruptive to the elaboration process of task-relevant information. This has a negative impact on group performance.

Social category diversity and informational diversity can be considered different aspects of diversity. However, they are not tied to these specific dimensions. Some differences between group members might not seem task relevant, such as gender or marital status, but might be associated with task-relevant perspectives on what is important for employees. These differences might confound informational differences.

8. All the diversity dimensions can elicit social categorization processes and elaboration processes.

What are the research implications for diversity management?

The CEM addresses the inconsistency in findings for performance and diversity and outlines the implications for further diversity research. It also outlines some consequences for management of diversities. The model suggests that work-group diversity potential benefits should be harvested. Intergroup biases should be prevented together with their disruptive effects. Furthermore, negative affective-evaluative responses to the group and group members could result in a disruption of elaboration of task-relevant information. The moderators of elaboration, categorization and intergroup bias should be carefully considered when providing guidelines for diverse work groups.

What do the researchers conclude?

The article started with the analysis of inconsistencies between various findings on the relationship between work-group diversity and performance. For this purpose, the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) was proposed. The effects of diversity can be seen trough the eyes of two perspectives, first is social categorization and second is information/decision making processes. The CEM addresses both perspectives and discusses the possible influence of work-group diversity effects on performance. The authors have eight propositions that elaborate on both positive and negative effect of diversity in work groups. These propositions can benefit future research. However, the influence of diversity and inclusion in work groups should be further researched. The influence on commitment and turnover could be explored together with their impact on group performance. The present study provides an overview of the possible effects of diversity in terms of social categorization and information processing. Several theoretical accounts have been integrated and can be combined to realistic advice on how to manage job performance in diverse work groups.

BulletPoints

• Organizational life and behaviour are shaped by group diversity and can have positive and negative effects on job performance. However, research on the relationship between performance and group diversity is inconclusive. Therefore, van Kippenberg and his colleagues (2004) propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM). The model tries to explain the moderator and mediator variables that were previously ignored in diversity research.

• The definition of diversity is the difference between individuals that lead to the perception that one individual is different from another. The dimensions are indefinite, it can be race, age, gender, religious background and so on. Previous research mainly focused on age and nationality, educational and functional background. It is argued that social category difference is the most important factor in the perception of diversity. Informational -and functional diversity reflect differences in functional and educational background

• The present study provides an overview of the possible effects of diversity in terms of social categorization and information processing. Several theoretical accounts have been integrated and can be combined to realistic advice on how to manage job performance in diverse work groups.

ExamTickets

• Make sure that you know the eight propositions and whether they reflect the information processing/decision making perspective or the social categorization perspective.

• What are the main positive -and negative outcomes of diverse work groups?

What is this article about?

In the last decades, women’s participation in the workforce has increased and women have started to outperform men in higher education. However, women are still underrepresented at higher organizational levels. Gender quotas have been put in place as a solution to this problem, and the underlying idea of this quota is that promoting a small number of women into senior positions in male-dominated organizations will improve opportunities for junior women. Specifically, it is thought that senior women will mentor and promote other women and that women leaders will add a ‘ feminine’ perspective to leadership and serve as inspirational role models for their junior counterparts.

This article describes a different view and will talk about the ‘queen bee phenomenon’, which refers to the idea that women leaders in organizations in which most executive positions are held by men, will assimilate to the male-dominated organizations and adjust their self-presentation and leadership style to fit this masculine culture. Furthermore, instead of helping other, junior women, they might distance themselves from them in order to reduce the association between themselves and the less successful group of women. Totally contrasting the underlying belief related to the gender quota, based on this queen bee phenomenon, it could be expected that organizations with queen bees (senior women) at the managerial level may offer fewer opportunities to junior women than organizations in which there are no queen bees. It is described how this would work, by describing the underlying psychological mechanisms.

What is the queen bee phenomenon exactly?

The term ‘queen bee’ is given to women who are successful in male-dominated work settings, thus in organizations in which men hold most executive positions. They adapt to the masculine culture and distance themselves from other women in three ways:

1. By presenting themselves more like men;
2. By physically and psychologically distancing themselves from other women;
3. By endorsing and legitimizing the current gender hierarchy.

Presenting themselves more like men (masculine self-presentation)

It seems that, rather than adding a ‘feminine perspective’ to leadership, senior women try to present themselves more like men. For instance, different studies showed that senior women described themselves as equally or even more masculine (assertive, competitive, risk-taking) than their male peers. This was not the case for junior women. In sum, senior women often describe themselves as more masculine and ambitious than junior women, and comparably masculine and ambitious as male peers. The degree to which women leaders present themselves with stereotypically masculine characteristics was positively related to the number of subordinates they had.

Distancing from other women (underlining dissimilarities)

Studies show that some women leaders report that they are much more ambitious and committed to their career than female subordinates. They tend to describe themselves as very different from other women: they present themselves as stereotypically masculine, and also as much more masculine compared to other women. It should be noted that senior women tend to distance themselves from junior women, and not from women who are in leader positions: it is thus not a general distancing from women, it is only about distancing themselves from women who are not as successful as they are.

Legitimizing gender hierarchy

Queen bees can legitimize the status quo in different ways, for example by agreeing with negative stereotypes about women, by denying the fact that there are lower outcomes for women, and by not supporting or even opposing action to address gender inequality. By being critical of junior women and seeing them as less ambitious and less committed than junior men, the queen bees legitimize current gender differences. For instance, in different studies it was found that senior women denied that gender discrimination was still an issue in their organization, and reported low willingness to mentor junior women. It was also found that women at non-managerial level were much more in favor of gender equality policies than men, and women at the managerial level were just as unsupportive of these measures as men were. More nuanced, it was found that senior women oppose quota policies that would benefit the career of junior women or that would benefit themselves. They did however support policies that were designed to support senior women at their organizational rank.

How can the queen bee phenomenon be explained?

The queen bee phenomenon is a not related to women’s personalities or inherent competitiveness toward other women. Instead, it is triggered in work settings in which women feel threatened. This argument is based on social identity theory, which states that individuals base their identity partly on their gender. When members of disadvantaged groups are in a minority position, they are likely to perceive that their group’s typical characteristics are not valued or considered important. When women are at work and they experience a low number of women in management, their identity is threatened. They can then use different strategies to manage this threatened identity. There are coping strategies at the collective and at the individual level. Collective-level strategies reduce the threat by improving the position of the group as a whole, for instance by re-evaluating existing group characteristics (e.g., ‘social creativity) or by working to improve group-level outcomes (e.g., ‘social change’). Individual level-strategies are aimed at benefiting individual outcomes by distancing the self from the disadvantaged group and by seeking acceptance into a group with higher status (e.g., ‘individual mobility’). These individual-level strategies are thus part of the queen bee phenomenon, and they might help the individual, but harm other women.

Each of these strategies thus has its own costs and benefits. Based on this social identity theory, the queen bee phenomenon is thus seen as an individual coping mechanism by which women aim to improve their personal opportunities in work settings in which the career options for women are restricted. Women who experience these threats to gender identity at work thus face a dilemma of promoting their personal opportunities or promoting those of women more generally. An important factor that determines how this dilemma is solved, is whether women perceive the boundaries to higher positions in the organization as permeable. It is also very difficult to determine whether differences in outcomes between men and women are due to gender discrimination or due to other factors, as most of the barriers that women may encounter are invisible. Therefore, diverging career outcomes of men and women are most times attributed to individual differences in abilities, ambitions, or life choices they make. Therefore, highly competent women often aim for individual mobility, instead of social change.

Experimental research has also shown that female team members were least likely to select a female candidate when they were the only women in a team. This was due to two types of threat: first, when female leaders had to choose between highly qualified male and female candidates, they decided against choosing the female candidate, because of the competition she would pose (‘competition threat’). Second, when the choice was between a moderately qualified male and female candidate, the female leaders also decided against choosing the female candidate, worrying that her performance might reflect negatively on them (‘collective threat’). In addition, some women do not really identify with women in general. These ‘low identifiers’ might feel threatened when others categorize themselves as members of the group of ‘women’. They might then distance themselves from the group to try to cope with the threat the gender categorization poses to their social identity. It can thus be expected that the queen bee phenomenon responses would be found in:

1. Settings that threatened the social identity of women;
2. Among women who did not indicate being strongly identified with other women at work.

Studies have shown that the queen bee phenomenon is not a standard response of women in higher positions. Instead, it is triggered in work settings in which women experience social identity threat due to gender discrimination and negative stereotypes. These settings may motivate some women (women who identify strongly with their gender at work) to support gender equality and stimulate the career of junior women, and some women (those who identify less with being women) may promote their individual opportunities through queen bee behaviour. These studies also suggest that the queen bee phenomenon can be reduced by reducing threats to women’s social identity, for example through interventions that reduce negative gender stereotypes in organizations, or interventions that allow weakly gender-identified women to cope with the threats in alternative ways (e.g., self-affirmation).

What else is known about the queen bee phenomenon?

There is also an indirect route through which women can become dissociated from other women. For instance, work shows that the conditions of work under which women are expected to perform are less favorable than for men. For instance, women are expected to take primary responsibility for their family, but achieving career success requires that they prioritize work over other life domains. Therefore it is no surprise that many women in leader positions are more likely than men to be single or childless. Senior women may thus feel as if they have made substantial sacrifices in their personal life, such as in relationships with their partner and friends and in their decision to have children. This may also be a reason for why senior women do not identify with junior women. In other words, it seems that senior women do distance themselves from junior women but do support senior women, because they feel the junior women have not made substantial sacrifices yet to survive in male-dominated organizations.

It has also been found that the queen bee phenomenon is not specific to women. Instead, members of other negatively stereotyped groups also show queen bee responses. When members of negatively stereotyped groups pursue upward mobility in fields that are traditionally dominated by members of the higher status outgroup, some of these members may show self-group distancing. This is a strategic activity in which individuals dissociate themselves from the negative aspects of their group’s stereotype. It may involve downplaying aspects of the devalued identity in their communications. It can thus be expected that self-group distancing occurs in particular when members of stigmatized groups find themselves in threatening outgroup settings, in which they feel that their identity as a member of a negatively stereotyped group is valued less than that of the majority or high status group, but in which they perceive some opportunity for individual mobility. It can also be expected that self-group distancing is more likely to occur among those who are less identified with the negatively stereotyped group: those who identify more strongly with their group are likely to be more loyal to the group and will promote group-level claims to equality rather than showing self-group distancing.

What are consequences of the queen bee phenomenon?

For female leaders

Men in higher organizational positions may experience threats to their social identity, because of the idea that in the future, women may achieve higher statuses than men. Selecting a queen bee into an influential position may help to relieve this threat in two ways. First, if organizations select women in a higher position, this may signal to others that the organizational hierarchy is permeable and this will alleviate internal or external pressure to improve the opportunities for women. Second, selecting a queen bee that explicitly legitimizes the current gender hierarchy (e.g., by denying that gender discrimination exists) serves to protect the status quo in which most of the power positions are held by men. In addition, on the long run, queen bee responses might lead to substantial costs for the support that women leaders receive. The main source of support for queen bees are other senior women, but often there are not that many senior women in organizations. Second, women leaders more often elicit stronger resistance responses than men in leadership positions when their behavior is incongruent with their gender role, regardless of queen bee behaviour. In addition, senior women who show queen bee behaviour are less likely to receive support from their female subordinates. They thus do not benefit from the supportive psychological effects that identification with other women may provide.

For junior women

Queen bee behavior is detrimental to the careers of junior women and may limit their opportunities. In addition, junior women are in need of female role models and senior women who show queen bee behaviour are rated as poor role models. Lastly, comparison with successful senior women can threaten the self-esteem of junior women, unless they identify with and see their success as attainable. When senior, queen bee female leaders thus distance themselves from these junior women, junior women may perceive upward mobility as unattainable and even undesirable.

For organizations

Queen bees can diminish outcomes for organizations by limiting their opportunities to benefit from the diversity that women can offer. When women feel like they need to adjust themselves to the masculine culture, they are unlikely to add a such a diverse perspective. Some companies might even discontinue equality policies because of the queen bee phenomenon, by concluding that: “senior women who, based on their femininity, would bring other values, insights and qualities to the company are actually very alike the men who were already there”.

For the gender hierarchy

The queen bee phenomenon is thus also a source that legitimizes current gender inequality because it allows people to conclude that women are themselves to blame for their lower outcomes. In the media, evidence is presented as if the rivalry between women causes senior women to limit the career opportunities of their junior counterparts. The queen bee phenomenon fits this gender stereotype of women as hostile toward each other, and distract from the actual problem, which is the reduced opportunities and difficult circumstances under which women achieve.

How can we combat the queen bee phenomenon?

The queen bee phenomenon can be combated by different means: reducing social identity threat and reducing beliefs in system legitimacy. Reducing social identity threat can be achieved through interventions such as self-affirmation. It may also be reduced by making women more aware of how implicit gender bias and collective disadvantage affect the outcomes of women as a group, and how they may personally be affected by gender discrimination (reducing beliefs in system legitimacy).

What can be concluded?

An explanation for why some women show queen bee behaviour has been offered. It has been shown that some organizational dynamics trigger queen bee responses, due to underlying social identity processes. In addition, it has been described that the queen bee response is not specific to women, and can occur in other disadvantaged groups.

What organizations can/cannot expect from diversity recruitment, diversity training and formal mentoring programs

Around 1980 attention was paid in the literature for the first time to the business case of diversity. This business case predicts a large number of benefits of diversity for companies. The various employees can deal better with the various customers and provide a broader perspective when making decisions. In addition, it is good for the image of the company. Managers are positive about this business case, but quite a few negative outcomes with diversity are found in the literature. The literature shows that there are more conflicts and that there is more dismissal and less satisfaction among employees. The conclusion is that diversity can lead to better performance, but only if it is managed well. The diversity can be filled in in many different ways and companies often do not know what to choose. They often have no insight into the result of an intervention, so that the goals are not achieved. The problem is also that there is little research that shows the results of interventions.

What do companies want to achieve with diversity? The main reason is the threat that the government will legally record the degree of diversity within a company (if companies themselves do not do enough to promote diversity). Companies are usually pushed more towards diversity by external factors than they are attracted to by internal factors. As a result, companies usually do not evaluate their efforts fairly. If the success of diversity is already measured, this is usually a quantitative analysis. For example how many employees from minorities are employed. It is not examined whether the existing employees handle diversity well and whether the diversity also yields results. No internal structure is being developed where minorities are an added value. Dipboye indicates that companies must first develop a diversity strategy before they start recruiting people from minorities.

The recruitment of minorities

Research shows that 79% of HR professionals have developed a strategy to increase diversity within the company. The second popular measure is allowing unpaid leave for employees to take a cultural or religious holiday. First, companies must be open to minorities so that they see the company as a pleasant place to work. By promoting diversity and training, you make your company more attractive to minorities. That is why informal recruitment should not be used, because the employees then nominate people who are like them.

In this context, it is wiser to use advertisements that clearly show that you promote diversity or that you use special intermediaries that are specialized in recruiting minorities. When you show that the current employees are diverse, it is easier for minorities to join the company. This works especially well when you place a photo of a person from a minority group with the advertisement. This is in line with the social identity theory that says you are looking for people who are most like you.

In addition, it is important that the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) is communicated. In affirmative action, people are selected without the recruiter knowing which group the person comes from or that he consciously uses this knowledge. This is intended to encourage employees to be selected based on their qualities and not on their group membership.

Employees and recruiters (both black and white) are positive about identity blind recruiting. If the identity is known, but the recruiter consciously deals with this, skepticism may still exist, or it may be thought that minorities are being discriminated. Affirmative action only includes aspects such as gender and race, while EEO also includes other factors such as awareness and dealing with minorities. This is a more proactive attitude.

Goldberg discovered that a recruiter of the same race is found more attractive by the employees, but that it does not make the job more attractive. Gender and age of the recruiter make no difference.

Although there are indications that certain advertisements can attract minorities, the results are still too weak and not enough to prove that minorities actually choose a job faster when they see a "diverse" advertisement. In addition, the manipulations of diversity in the advertisements were very clear. Little attention has been paid to more subtle manipulations. Minorities themselves also vary widely, making it difficult to form a clear picture of how they will respond to various expressions of EEO. In addition, recruiting minorities is much easier than ensuring that the person from the minority group actually feels comfortable at his workplace. When the efforts of the company are exaggerated in the recruitment phase, potential employees may be disappointed when they actually come into contact with the company.

Diversity training

Diversity training is often seen as the foundation of diversity strategy. Researchers say that training is a necessary ingredient for a successful strategy. Training is used to inform employees about the diversity strategy of the company.

This is used to communicate what is required of employees in relation to minorities. In addition, training is intended to change the behavior of employees in order to promote the relationships between all employees. The skills required for this are taught. The opinions of researchers are divided on the results of these training courses. There is evidence that informing employees about diversity and promoting openness to newcomers has an effect. Another form of training is the training of skills.

It is essential that it is first investigated which skills are needed, and are still missing. This also provides insight into the motivation of employees to learn about diversity. When employees see for themselves that they have a lack of knowledge in this area, they will be motivated to participate in these training courses. Employees who do not find it necessary will not appear in voluntary training and will benefit little from involuntary training. People who are not aware of their low competence are also unaware of their lack of understanding of diversity and will therefore be less likely to participate in training.

Another form of training is the training of awareness of the existence of bias in perception, such as stereotyping. A reduction in the use of stereotypes will immediately lead to a better climate for minorities. The assumption of this intervention is that processes such as discrimination and stereotyping are largely unintentional. Researchers question the results of this training. If the training already leads to better awareness, the question remains whether it actually changes the behavior of employees. If employees change all their stereotypes, this comes from an inner motivation and not from being familiar with stereotypes.

Mentor programs

With mentoring programs, new employees walk along with an experienced employee to see the art, or new employees can go to a person for questions. The use of mentoring programs can mainly be found in professional and management positions. A goal of these programs is to develop the career and professionalization of the employee. Research shows that employees who have followed such a program are promoted faster, are more satisfied with their work, and earn more. A second goal is to prevent the employee from leaving the company soon.

A program with a formal mentor works less well than a program with an informal mentor. One reason for this may be that formal mentors have a kind of compulsory character, which means that employees are less motivated than if they are allowed to choose a mentor themselves or if a mentor arises spontaneously.

If the mentor resembles the protégé, the usefulness of the program is facilitated. Mentor programs work especially well when it changes the stereotypes of the decision maker. Those are the people who determine who gets what information and who gets promotion. Because the employee does not receive certain information, he can also perform less well. If the employee knows that there are stereotypes about him, he will also attribute failure to the negative sides of the stereotype, making it affirmative. As a result, the potential of the employee does not come into its own. Although many studies show the benefits of mentoring programs, there are also factors that increase the chance of dismissal.

The reason that many new employees resign quickly is that the job does not meet expectations. Similarly, the mentor cannot meet expectations, so that socialization does not go as it should. The problem is that people from minority groups have fewer colleagues with whom they have a relationship, because they don't look so much like them. Mentoring can also be taken up by a whole group instead of by one person. This works even better than when a new employee has one mentor. The newcomer immediately builds a network.

From the treatment of the above three methods to promote diversity, you can conclude that these three elements can work, if they meet reality.

Managers are the ones who hire and give opportunities, so it is especially important for managers that they are good at dealing with diversity.

Thomas and Ely identified three perspectives on diversity:

1. Discrimination and fairness: the company does its best to hire various employees, who must then adapt to the prevailing culture. Various employees do not get equal opportunities in this structure. Because only recruiters are engaged in promoting diversity, the various employees do not integrate into the existing, homogeneous group.
2. Access-and-legitimacy: the company hires various employees to connect with the various customers, but afterwards gives them few opportunities for growth. In this structure, the dominant group gets better opportunities.
3. Integration and learning: the company realizes that various employees have added value. This structure often leads to discussion.

Research shows that a combination of the above perspectives works best, but that companies usually start with a narrow focus and then expand. Research also shows that reducing stereotypes is one of the best ways to make diversity work, but that this has no place in the aforementioned perspectives.

The suggestion from Bendick is to provide awareness training, but there is little evidence that this works. It only works with people who want to avoid their stereotypes, but these people are often already aware of their stereotypes. Awareness training only has a lasting effect when there is a common goal of working together. When a company wants to promote the situation of minorities across the board, it makes sense to set explicit standards on how to deal with minorities.

Group inclusion in the workplace is still under development and there is not yet an agreement on the construct. Previous research mainly focused on the problems with diversity including affirmative actions, tokenism and discrimination bias. Shore et al. (2011) use Brewer’s optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) to define this construct of employee inclusion and the influence it has on satisfaction and the needs of uniqueness and belongingness in the workplace. This framework can be used for further research and reviewing inclusion and diversion in the workplace.

What is the optimal distinctiveness theory?

Identification with in-groups and out-groups is defines as the identification with social categories and the group. People become attached trough a common connection to the group. Identity contains a social component that involves defining oneself as being an individual. Brewer (1991) argues that people seek balance between uniqueness and individuation. People that choose social identities based upon a group seek acceptance in this group. When an individual feels accepted, this has many advantages.

• People display in-group favouritism, they attribute positive group behaviour to the group and themselves and negative group behaviour to others.

• The trustworthiness, cooperation and loyalty among group members increases;

If group members feel they are too similar, they start seeking distinctiveness. Group members start to define themselves in terms of differentiating characteristics. People tend to socially identify with a group if both the needs for uniqueness and inclusiveness are met. ODT studies show what happens when these needs are at jeopardy. To restore balance, people engage in self-stereotyping, place greater value on social identity and display intergroup differentiation.

What are the roles of belongingness and uniqueness in defining inclusion?

Inclusion is defined as the degree to which an employee feels to be an established member of a group. It includes whether the group treatment and outcomes satisfy the need for uniqueness and belongingness. The inclusion framework proposes uniqueness and belongingness create feelings of inclusion. When a unique individual is an accepted member of the group and the group values the characteristic of uniqueness. A higher value of inclusion can benefit job performance. Work groups with high inclusion values can facilitate collaboration across the organization, demonstrate good analysis and are able to enhance their skills. Exclusion is when a person does not have the feeling to be an organizational insider with a unique value in the work group. The outcomes can be harmful on emotional, cognitive and health level. The proposed inclusion-framework includes four definitions:

1. Exclusion: when an individual is not treated as an insider in the organization containing a unique quality, while others are treated that way.

2. Differentiation: when a person is not treated as an insider, but the organizational and unique quality he or she possesses is seen as a valuable characteristic for organizational success.

3. Assimilation: an individual is treated as an insider, but they need to conform to the dominant/organizational culture that downplays their uniqueness.

4. Inclusion: the individual feels like an insider and is encouraged to maintain the uniqueness within the group.

How is inclusion defined in existing literature?

According to Pelled, Ledford and Mohrman (1999) inclusion is defined as the degree to which an individual is treated and accepted as an insider by other members of the group. Inclusion is the removal of obstacles that stand in the way of full participation in organizations. Miller (1998) described inclusion as the extend to which a diverse person can participate and contribute fully in an organization. Williams, Haugen and Kossek (2008) described inclusion as the feeling of belonging and engage in inclusive behaviours such as valuing contributions from daily life in the organization. A multicultural or inclusive organization is described as an organization that brings members of different groups together and the members also shape the organizational strategy, work, operating systems and management. According to the definitions in existing literature there are two general themes that are consistent with ODT.

1. Belongingness described as acceptance or insiderness is apparent in all definitions.

2. Uniqueness is described in all definitions, for example the appreciation of individual talents or the ability of all employees to contribute fully.

There is a connection between uniqueness and the feeling of acceptance. Stigma’s are characteristics, attributes or experiences that convey an identity that is not valued in certain social settings. People are requested to keep these characteristics hidden, which causes several psychological issues. The model of work group inclusion proposed by Shore at al. (2011) is consistent with three values described in existing literature on inclusiveness:

1. The optimal distinctiveness model (ODT) focuses on the satisfaction of uniqueness needs.

2. There is emphasis in existing literature that individuals should be valued for their unique perspectives.

3. Literature on stigma’s revealed that some characteristics are hidden by individuals to avoid rejection by the group when this unique trait is stigmatized in certain social contexts.

According to Pelled et al. (1999) there are three indicators of inclusion. The first is decision-making influence, second is access to sensitive work information and third is job security. Dissimilarity between race and gender were negatively related to these indicators, whereas similarity in education was positively related. Stamper and Masterson (2002) investigated perceived insider status and found that is was positively related to altruism. Two conclusions can be drawn based upon inclusion literature. The first is that practices associated with insider status can enhance the employees’ perception of inclusion. Second, there are positive consequences of inclusion for work performance and satisfaction.

What is the difference between this inclusion framework and other diversity theories and models?

The distinguishing characteristic of the framework proposed by Shore et al. (2011) is the emphasis on both the feeling of uniqueness and belongingness. Other diversity theories separate these constructs and focus more on one of the other. One example is that people seek to belong to groups that treat in-group members more favourable than out-group members (Byrne, 1971). They focus on demographic factors as predictors of belongingness. However, demographic similarity does not predict the feeling of belongingness to a group (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Many theories emphasize the importance of similarity without acknowledging the need for uniqueness. The emphasis on both belongingness and uniqueness makes this framework a better predictor for inclusion.

What insights should be applied in future research?

The construct of inclusion needs to be fully defined and theory and practice should be enhanced. Shore et al (2011) propose several factors that should be included in future research.

• Contextual factors that contribute to inclusion should be considered. These factors include an inclusive climate, inclusive leadership and inclusive practices.

• Resulting outcomes of inclusion should be considered. There is empirical evidence of the association between inclusion and job satisfaction, but there could be more related factors. One example is that inclusion could predict the intention to leave the company. Interpersonal models can be used to analyse resulting outcomes. For example, the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can provide a basis for predicting inclusion based on the quality of social exchange relationships.

• The influence of creativity should be considered. Creative individuals often have a great degree of uniqueness. It would be interesting to know how belongingness can enhance uniqueness in (creative) individuals.

What do the researchers conclude?

Success in work is often related to diversity characteristics. For example, Hersch (2008) found that immigrants with the lightest skin colour earned seventeen percent more than other immigrants. This raised interest in the value-in-diversity perspective. Shore et al. (2011) believe that their inclusion framework provides more insight in the feeling of inclusion in the workplace and the connection between the feeling of both uniqueness and belongingness. Only emphasising uniqueness leads to stereotypes and overemphasizing belongingness leads to suppression of background and unique qualities. The focus of inclusion in the workplace should be on maintaining feelings of belongingness and uniqueness at the same time.

BulletPoints

• Identification with in-groups and out-groups is defines as the identification with social categories and the group. People become attached trough a common connection to the group. Identity contains a social component that involves defining oneself as being an individual. Brewer (1991) argues that people seek balance between uniqueness and individuation. People that choose social identities based upon a group seek acceptance in this group.

• A multicultural or inclusive organization is described as an organization that brings members of different groups together and the members also shape the organizational strategy, work, operating systems and management.

ExamTickets

• You should know the optimal distinctiveness theory and its influence on research in inclusiveness.

• The authors argue they propose a new framework compared to existing literature. What is the main difference between the proposed framework and the existing literature on inclusion and diversity in work groups?