Supportive, Resistant, or Both? A Person-Centric View on Employee Responses to Diversity Initiatives

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Kanitz, Rouven; Reinwald, Max; Gonzalez, Katerina; Burmeister, Anne; Song, Yifan; Hoegl, Martin
• 署名单位: Erasmus University Rotterdam - Excl Erasmus MC; Erasmus University Rotterdam; University of Munich; Suffolk University; University of Cologne; Texas A&M University System; Texas A&M University College Station; Mays Business School
• 刊物名称: JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0021-9010
• DOI: 10.1037/apl0001190
• 发表日期: 2024
• 页码: 1635-1658
• 关键词: diversity initiative; diversity practices; resistance to diversity; AMBIVALENCE; organizational change

摘要

Employees' responses to diversity initiatives are critical to understand the effectiveness of such initiatives. However, prior research has largely considered the isolated effects of specific favorable or unfavorable employee responses (e.g., support or resistance) from a variable-centered perspective. This prior focus overlooks the potential (a) coexistence of more complex configurations of cognitive, affective, and behavioral response types within individuals and (b) the existence of subpopulations of employees who may respond both favorably and unfavorably, thus displaying ambivalence. To address these shortcomings, we build on the tripartite response model and adopt a person-centered approach to shed light on a more comprehensive spectrum of employees' responses to diversity initiatives. Using latent profile analysis, our results across three studies reveal (Study 1, n = 605) and replicate (Study 2, n = 503 and Study 3, n = 514) four distinct response types: excited supporters, calm compliers, torn shapers, and discontent opponents. Furthermore, using time-lagged data from Study 3, we provide initial insights into relevant person and situation predictors of profile membership and show how employees across profiles differ on work-related outcomes that can be functional or dysfunctional for their organization. Taken together, we aim to initiate a conversation on the complex nature of responses to diversity initiatives within the diversity management literature and call for more research, specifically on ambivalent responses.