Content uploaded by Shatrughan Yadav
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shatrughan Yadav on Apr 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Diversity management: a
systematic review
Shatrughan Yadav and Usha Lenka
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee, India
Abstract
Purpose –Diversity management plays a significant role in the organization’s outcomes. This study seeks to
provide a brief review of the history of diversity management and to identify the articles published on diversity
management since 1991. A systematic review of the literature has been carried out to understand the literature
in more detail to know the future scope of research.
Design/methodology/approach –This study provides a comprehensive systematic review of quantitative,
qualitative and theoretical studies published in leading peer-reviewed management journals from 1991 to 2018
and identifies 123 articles that fall within its established search inclusion criteria.
Findings –The literature review highlighted several aspects related to diversity management. The findings of
the study revealed that there is a high concentration of researches in the USA and most number of articles
published in the Academy of Management Journal. Although diversity management is a very emerging topic
across the globe in management literature yet there is a lack of research in developed countries. Furthermore,
most studies are found empirical in nature and the majority of the studies were published during the period of
1996–2000. This finding suggests that age, gender and racial diversity have been repeatedly discussed in
diversity management research while other forms of diversity have given less attention
Originality/value –This study is one of the first systematic studies that describe the in-depth analysis of
diversity management literature. The significant contribution of this study is to propose the integrated model
with contemporary trends and patterns of results reported in diversity research, as well as contextual factors
that have received more attention to date.
Keywords Demographic diversity, Diversity management, Systematic literature review, Workforce diversity
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Socio-cultural and economic transformations, along with economic liberalization,
globalization and changing preferences of customers, have substantially increased
workforce diversity, which forces organizations to make their workforce more diverse,
innovative and competitive (Cook and Glass, 2009). Innovative workforce can be ensured by
hiring multiple talents from different backgrounds for providing better products and services
to the customer and clients (Salau et al., 2018). However, challenges of a diverse workforce are
umpteen, which arise due to differences in the workplace. To successfully manage the
challenges of a diverse workforce, organizations have emphasized understanding the root
cause of diversity and found that diversity management can address the problem and
enhance problem-solving and decision-making power (Pelled, 1996). Therefore, organizations
have made a huge investment into managing diversity effectively and also over the past three
decades a plethora of diversity research has examined the positive impact of diversity on
performance, creativity, innovation, problem-solving and decision-making skills (Elsass and
Graves, 1997;Yang and Konrad, 2010), as well as the adverse impact on group cohesion,
conflicts and turnover (Roberson, 2019).
The purpose of diversity management is to enhance the performance of a heterogeneous
workforce and inclusive development of people with differences in gender, ethnicity,
nationality, cultural and educational backgrounds. The reason for heterogeneity in the
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and Editor for their
valuable inputs to publish this article.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm
Received 3 July 2019
Revised 19 December 2019
27 February 2020
Accepted 13 April 2020
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-7149
DOI 10.1108/EDI-07-2019-0197
workforce is the recruitment of ethnic minorities, women, underrepresented groups and the
migration of people in search of job opportunities (Tsui et al., 1992). Each individual has
unique knowledge, which needs to be recognized by organizations for their holistic
development. Conclusively, diversity management plays a massive role in knowledge
sharing and the overall development of organizations. Several studies have discussed the
relationship between diversity and performance of an organization. To understand and
manage the dynamics of workforce diversity researchers have remarkably explored the
outcomes of diversity at an individual level (Chatman and Flynn, 2001), group level
(Schippers et al., 2003;Leslie, 2017) and organization level (Richard and Johnson, 2001;
Armstrong et al., 2010). Individual-level outcomes are such as commitment, absenteeism,
satisfaction and turnover (Tsui et al., 1992). The group-level outcomes are conflict, cohesion,
creativity, group performance and idea generation (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Finally, the
organizational-level outcomes are financial performance, productivity and firm
competitiveness (Cox and Blake, 1991;Richard, 2000).
Researchers have performed studies and found that diversity management positively
influences organizational effectiveness and firm performance (Watson et al., 1993;Richard
et al., 2004). In contrast, some studies have reported that diversity has negative effects like
social exclusion, miscommunication, conflicts and turnover (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). In a
meta-analysis of 24 studies, Webber and Donahue (2001) found that neither type of diversity
had a relationship with group cohesion and performance. Similarly, Horwitz and Horwitz
(2007) found that job-oriented diversity has a positive impact on team performance, whereas
demographic diversity was not significantly associated with team performance. The
inconsistencies in several studies have led researchers to report diversity as a “double-edged
sword”(Milliken and Martins, 1996;Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). These mixed findings can
be attributed to different contextual factors, which suggests that diversity research should be
context-specific (Joshi and Roh, 2009). Because of inconsistencies that have widely ignored in
the tradition review paper, there is a need for a systematic review of the literature.
This study has not designed in any particular country context and only summarized the
previous findings of diversity, dimensions of diversity and suggests gaps and new avenues
for research. Moreover, previous studies have only focused on particular areas of diversity
(e.g., cultural and racial diversity) while largely ignoring diversity and its types like
workplace diversity, organizational diversity, informational diversity and relational
demography. Hence, this study includes overall diversity and its dimension to broaden the
scope for future studies. This study intensely reviews a large number of articles in
comparison to other review papers to report a clearer and more comprehensive picture of
diversity. Conclusively, the research in the area of workforce diversity has rapidly increased
in the last two decades. However, there are still certain research questions remain, which our
study intends to address through the following research objectives:
Objective 1: To explore dimensions of diversity from past literature.
Objective 2: To identify the different antecedents, consequences and contextual factors to
propose an integrative model of diversity management.
Objective 3: To identify emerging issues in diversity research and suggest avenues for
future research.
2. Literature review
This section presents theevolution of diversity management, the conceptualization of diversity,
and dimensions of diversity given by several authors in different contexts accordingly.
EDI
2.1 Evolution of diversity management
Diversity management is the business strategy adopted by organizations to recruitment,
retention and inclusive development of individuals from a variety of backgrounds (Thomas,
1991). The concept has become increasingly important due to globalization and the migration
of people across the globe (Al Ariss and Sidani, 2016). Roosevelt Thomas has coined the term
diversity management in the year 1990 in the context of the USA and gradually, it dispersed
over the world (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998). The history behind the theory of diversity
management goes long back when affirmative action (AA) plans and equal employment
opportunities (EEO) act were incorporated through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in
the USA (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998). Prior to the 1990s, studies were conducted on the topic of
affirmative action programs and equal employment opportunity but after the emergence of
diversity management, researchers have gradually moved into cross-cultural diversity
research (Cox, 1991). The issue of diversity was completely ignored in organizations;
however, workplace diversity had become a critical issue in the year 1987 when the Hudson
Institute of USA published the report “Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the
Twenty-First Century”(Johnson and Packer, 1987). To understand the problems of
increasing diversity in the organizations’researchers have defined diversity in different ways
and conceptualized the diversity with support of different theories, which has discussed in
the following sections.
2.2 Conceptualization of diversity
Different authors have defined diversity, yet there is no single definition accepted globally.
Diversity is all about differences and dissimilarities among people. Although an organization
claims to be relatively homogenous, yet employees vary along with social identity
characteristics such as demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, race and ethnicity), values,
beliefs or cultural backgrounds (Weber et al., 2018). According to Williams and O’Reilly (1998,
p. 81), diversity is defined as “any attributes that people use to tell themselves that another
person is different.”Whereas Jackson et al. (2003) defined diversity as the differences in
personal attributes among individual members in the workgroup.
Diversity has been recognized as an immeasurable number of attributes like age, gender,
race, etc. based on which individuals may differ from each other. The heterogeneity in
diversity research has been explained with the help of underlying theories like social identity
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979), similarity-attraction (Byrne, 1971), and self-categorization (Turner
et al., 1987). These theories have been differentiated based on the perspectives of social and
personal identity of individuals. The social identity of an individual depends on group
membership, while personal identity is less or more independent of group memberships. The
self-categorization theory is referred that an individual engages in a group based on social
comparisons like status, income and education to differentiate between their in-groups and
others into different relevant groups (Turner et al., 1987). Whereas social identity theory states
that individuals’perceptions classify themselves into social groups based on certain
attributes (e.g., age, race and gender) (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Similarity-attraction theory
highlights that as individuals are likely to be attracted toward those who possess similar
attributes and attitudes, and in contrast, they feel challenging with others who have dissimilar
attitudes, values and experiences (Byrne, 1971). Collectively, these theories offer the
conceptual foundation of relational demography theory (Tsui et al., 1992), which proposes that
demographic attributes within work units will highly influence an individual’s behavior and
attitudes. Conclusively, these theories address the negative perspective of diversity in
workgroups related to diversity such as race, gender, age, nationality. However, these theories
suggest that a homogenous group of people are more productive and have less conflict rather
than diverse teams due to attraction toward in-group members with similar characteristics.
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
Accordingly, these mentioned theories suggest that diversity may be negatively associated
with organizational performance and firm effectiveness (Pelled et al., 1999).
Optimistic researchers have argued that diversity can have a potential advantage to the
organizations. The positive viewpoint was supported by information decision-making
(Willimas and O’Reilly, 1998), upper echelon theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984), and
integration learning perspective (Ely and Thomas, 2001). These theories have argued that
dissimilarity among group members results in the dissemination of knowledge, ideas, skills
and perspective, which enhances creativity, problem-solving capabilities, thereby improving
the quality of group performance, firm effectiveness and organizational performance. The
same concept has been reaffirmed by the upper echelon theory, which states that top
management team diversity has a positive impact on organizational outcomes due to diverse
experience, backgrounds and value systems (Knight et al., 1999;Simons et al., 1999). Diversity
in top management will help in improving the overall performance of all employees. The
performance is measured in terms of financial performance (e.g., return on equity, return on
investment, sales growth and productivity) and nonfinancial performance (e.g., employee
satisfaction, quality and quantity). Conclusively, researchers have found both positive and
negative effects of diversity on organizational outcomes (Milliken and Martins, 1996).
A review of 40 years of extant literature has been carried out to understand the dynamics
of literature on diversity management, which concluded that diversity has dual nature and
inconsistent findings (Willimas and O’Reilly, 1998). However, to overcome the inconsistency
and the inappropriate relationship between workgroup diversity and performance, a
categorization-elaboration model (CEM) was proposed by van Knippenberg et al. (2004).To
understand the combined effects of diversity on group performance, this model integrates
both positive and negative perspectives of theory and reconceptualize the two contradicting
viewpoints of diversity into a unified framework. Therefore, CEM has integrated the social
categorization and information decision-making theory and incorporated mediator and
moderator variables in a single framework to mitigate the negative effects of diversity, which
have typically been ignored in prior studies.
2.3 Exploring dimensions of diversity
To review the dimensions of diversity studied in diversity management, an extensive and
in-depth review of literature has been carried out. Diversity has been categorized into readily
detectable and underlying attributes (Jackson et al., 1995). Another typology categorized
diversity based on observable and underlying attributes (Milliken and Martins, 1996).
Observable attributes are age, gender, race, nationality, while underlying attributes are
personality, education, tenure, etc. Readily-detectable and observable attributes are similar
and highlight the same attributes. Another classification of diversity is categorized as high
visible (age, gender, race) and less visible dimensions like tenure, education and functional
background (Pelled, 1996). Further, in the sequel of studies, diversity has been categorized as
surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity by Harrison et al. (1998). Surface-level
diversity is observable attributes that can be easily identified based on physical features,
whereas deep-level diversity defines underlying attributes that are hidden, such as attitudes,
personality and values, etc. The aforementioned typologies of diversity have been proposed
through a 2 32 matrix that categorizes the different dimensions of diversity. Table 1 depicts
the typology of different dimensions of diversity, whereas Figure 1 represents the pictorial
descriptions of the evolution of diversity management and different types of dimensions of
diversity discussed by several researchers.
EDI
3. Research methodology
A systematic review of the extant literature on diversity management was carried out
through relevant search of keywords. The systematic review is a transparent process to
synthesize and disseminate evidence by minimizing the bias through an exhaustive search of
published literature (Tranfield et al., 2003). Specific keywords like “workplace diversity,”
“diversity management,””workforce diversity,”“heterogeneous workforce”and “managing
diversity”were searched, followed by certain inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search criteria
included articles written in the English language and published in peer-reviewed journals
from 1991 to 2018. This period was chosen because the term diversity management was
coined in 1990, and a 28-year time span would be sufficient to uncover the early roots of
studies about diversity management. Initially, to access the relevant articles from diversity
research, the authors searched relevant databases (Google Scholar, Emeralds, Scopus, SAGE
and JSTOR). Besides, the reference lists of relevant articles to the area were manually
searched in located additional journals of Wiley, Springer and APA PsycNET. Further, a
chapter by Jackson et al. (1995) is also included, which is most cited and referred to in diversity
research.Through all these processes a total of 1787 articles were identified directly from the
search database, and 68 papers were selected through cross-referencing. Moreover, the total
articles were very large in number and not related to diversity management, and were
excluded. However, the diversity term has been used in numerous fields (e.g., biodiversity,
nursing, social policy, etc.), but this review primarily focuses on being more specific to
research in human resource management, organizational behavior and psychology. The
paper related to diversity management practices, programs, training and policies were also
excluded because our main objective was to identify the antecedents, consequences,
moderators and mediators studied in the previous literature. All research notes, short articles,
book reviews, conference proceedings and news were excluded from this study. A total of 265
articles were retrieved in the Zotero software, where after the screening, 43 articles were
duplicates. Finally, 222 full-text articles were assessed in which 99 articles were not relevant.
Out of 222 papers, 123 articles were included in the final study. The final selection of articles
included in this study was categorized into four different steps: Identification, Screening,
Eligibility and Inclusion. Figure 2 clearly depicts the preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) diagrams of selected articles.
Consequently, each article was placed in a Microsoft Excel file and information like the
publication year, journal’s name, country, study type, antecedents, consequences, mediator
and moderator variables were manually analyzed and entered. The articles were looking for
terms like gender, age, ethnicity, workforce diversity, organizational diversity, team diversity
and diversity management. This study has also examined the type of industry, respondents
and methodology adopted in empirical studies. This process has been repeatedly carried out
Surface-level diversity Deep-level diversity
Job-oriented attributes Organizational tenure Knowledge
Team tenure Skills
Educational background Experience
Functional background Abilities
Occupational background
Relations oriented attributes Sex Values
Age Personality
Race/ethnicity Social status
Nationality Attitude
Religion
Table 1.
Typology of diversity
dimensions
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
in all 123 articles and categorized into different themes. This discussion analyzes the
outcomes of diversity at the individual, group and organizational levels to differentiate the
effects of diversity. With this procedure, a complete picture of extant literature has
represented in the findings section, which will help in developing the integrated model of
diversity management.
4. Results
In order to develop a complete conceptual overview, a systematic review of 123 research
articles has been carried out in this section, which depicts a comprehensive analysis of the
included literature.
Managing Diversity 1980
Title VII of Civil Rights Act,
1964 in USA
Affirmative Action Law Equal Employment Opportunity
Hudson report “Workforce 2000”
by (Johnston & Packer, 1987)
Diversity Management (Roosevelt.
Thomas Jr., 1990)
Harrison, Price &
Bell, 1998
Surface Level Diversity
Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity
Deep Level Diversity
Attitudes, Knowledge, Values, Skills
Pelled ,
1996
Dimensions of Diversity
High Visibility
Age, Gender, Race
Low Visibility
Group, Tenure, Educational and
Functional Background
Milliken &
Martins, 1996
Observable Attributes
Race, Age, Gender, Ethnicity,
Nationality
Underlying Attributes
Personality, Socioeconomic,
Functional, Educational, &
Occupational background, Tenure
Jackson, May, &
Whitney, 1995
Readily Detectable
Attributes
Underlying
Attributes
Task Related
Organization & Team
Tenure, Educational
Task Related
Knowledge, Skills,
Abilities, Experience
Relations Oriented
Social status, Attitudes,
Values, Personality
Relations Oriented
Age, Sex, Race,
Ethnicity, Nationality
Figure 1.
Flow chart of the
evolution of diversity
management and
dimensions of diversity
EDI
4.1 Journal wise distribution of literature
The final sample consists of a total of 123 articles drawn from 30 peer-reviewed journals
published between 1991 and 2018 and dispersed in a five-year time interval. The last interval
includes only three years of publications (2016–2018). The most frequently published papers
in this discipline were identified in the following orders: Academy of Management Journal
(16), Journal of Organizational Behavior (12), Journal of Management (8) and Academy of
Management Review (7). A maximum of 16 papers was published in the Academy of
Management Journal (AMJ). One of the reasons for the maximum number of publications in
AMJ may be the foundation of diversity as a field of study within the Academy of
Management (AOM) while another reason is the formalization of women in the management
Automatic Search Process
Database: References
Google Scholar- 672
JSTOR- 222
Scopus- 309
Sage- 584
Additional record from Elsevier,
Emeralds, Springer, Annual Reviews,
PsycNET, and Wiley Library
identified through reference section
of included papers
Total number of records identify
database search
(n = 1787)
Total no of records
(n = 68)
Total number of records after
screening on the basis of Title,
Abstract and Keyword (TAK)
(n = 213)
Articles after screening on
basis of Title, Abstract and
Keyword (TAK) (n = 52)
Excluded: 16
Excluded:
1574
Uploaded all file in Zotero software
Records after removing duplication
n = 265
Duplicates
n = 43
Full articles studies assessed for eligibility
n = 222
Total articles included in review paper
N = 123
Identification
Screening
Eligibility
Full articles
excluded n = 99
Included
Figure 2.
PRISMA flow diagram
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
research group and establishment of “Gender and Diversity in Organisations Division”in
AOM in the year 1988 (Nkomo et al., 2019). The following rest publications in other journals
have been depicted in Table 2.
Journal title
1991–
1995
1996–
2000
2001–
2005
2006–
2010
2011–
2015
2016–
2018
Total
articles %
Academy of Management
Journal
3 6 3 2 2 16 13.01
Journal of Organizational
Behavior
1 1 5 3 2 12 9.76
Journal of Management 3131 86.5
Academy of Management
Review
6 1 7 5.69
Academy of Management
Executive
2 3 1 6 4.88
Administrative Science
Quarterly
1 3 2 6 4.88
Group and Organization
Management
1 1 1 1 2 6 4.88
Journal of Applied
Psychology
1 1 1 2 1 6 4.88
Human Relations 1 2 2 5 4.07
International Journal of
Hospitality Management
3 2 5 4.07
Journal of Managerial Issues 2 1 2 5 4.07
Public Administration
Review
1 2 2 5 4.07
Human Resource
Management
1 2 1 4 3.25
Public Administration
Quarterly
1 3 4 3.25
Public Personnel
Management
3 3 2.44
Academy of Management
Learning and Education
1 1 2 1.63
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 1 1 2 1.63
Cross-Cultural and Strategic
Management
2 2 1.63
Employee Relations 1 1 2 1.63
Human Resource
Management Review
1 1 2 1.63
Journal of Business Ethics 2 2 1.63
Organizational Science 1 1 2 1.63
Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes
1 1 2 1.63
Personal Review 1 1 2 1.63
Strategic Management
Journal
1 1 2 1.63
Annual Review of
Psychology
1 1 0.81
Public Organization Review 1 1 0.81
Research in Organizational
Behavior
1 1 0.81
Sage Open 1 1 0.81
Team Effectiveness and
Decision making in
Organizations
1 1 0.81
Total 13 29 18 24 25 14 123 100.0
Table 2.
Distribution of papers
based on journal and
time period
EDI
4.2 Distribution based on year of publications
The objective of this section was to categorize the articles according to publication year and
know the year wise trends of published articles. Figure 3 delineates the year-wise publication
of papers that found a maximum of nine papers in the year 1996, and a minimum of 1 article
was published in 2002. Surprisingly, our analysis of results shows that from the year 1991–
2002, there was a huge variation in the published papers because sometimes the number of
papers has decreased and sometimes increased. However, if we leave the exceptional case in
the year 2005, 2008 and 2014, it can be seen an average of four publications per year that
represents the interest in diversity management discipline is gradually increasing,
particularly from 2003 onward. Especially in the last ten years, there has been a
considerable increment in the number of published articles. The increasing interest in
diversity discipline has also been confirmed by a recently published article on diversity in
Annual Reviews by Roberson (2019).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Number of Publications
Year Wise Distribution of Articles
Country
1991–
1995
1996–
2000
2001–
2005
2006–
2010
2011–
2015
2016–
2018 Total %
USA 9 26 13 14 12 6 80 65.04
Canada 2 1211186.5
Netherland 2 2 2 1 7 5.69
United
Kingdom
4 3 7 5.69
Australia 2 1 1 1 5 4.07
India 1 1 1 3 2.44
Ireland 1 1 2 1.63
Germany 1 1 2 1.62
China 1 1 0.81
Cyprus 1 1 0.81
France 1 1 0.81
Hong Kong 1 1 0.81
Japan 1 1 0.81
Korea 1 1 0.81
Malaysia 1 1 0.81
Taiwan 1 1 0.81
Thailand 1 1 0.81
Total 13 29 18 24 25 14 123 100.0
Figure 3.
Number of
publications on
diversity management
Table 3.
Country-wise and time-
period based
distribution of papers
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
4.3 Country and time period-based classification of articles
The purpose of this section was to identify the country, which has published the maximum
number of articles in diversity research and why? It was easy to identify the country in the
empirical paper based on collected data from the respondent’s countries, while in the
conceptual paper, it was identified through the country of affiliation of the corresponding
author. Table 3 represents the segregation of 123 published papers in seventeen countries. 65
% of papers were published from the USA while 35 % of remaining papers have been
published from Canada (6.5 %), Netherland (5.6 %), UK (5.6%), Australia (4.07%) and India
(2.44%). A large number of research papers have been published from the USA due to the
migration of labor forces, ethnic minorities and underrepresented groups in search of job
opportunities, which may not be relevant in other national contexts (Schippers et al., 2003). In
addition, the growing body of research published from the USA is due to the participation of
members and the presence of women in the Academy of Management annual programs
organized in the USA (Nkomo et al., 2019). The year-wise segregation of Table 3 depicts that
at an early stage only five countries USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia and Ireland have
reviewed the problems of workforce diversity whereas similar problems have been
encountered by the rest of the countries after the year 2005 and gradually they have also
picked up research in this domain. Moreover, this finding is very similar to Joshi and Roh
(2007), who have found 57% of the studies reviewed in the American context. Lesser number
of studies in a country like India and China show that there should more research on diversity
management because these are emerging countries and several MNCs are expanding their
business markets.
4.4 Industry-wise classification of articles
The objective of industry-wise classification of articles was to identify the specific industry,
where the highest number of research problems have been conducted. Diversity research-
related data were collected from 29 industries. The significant industries include academic
university (15.52), public sectors (12.07), hotels and restaurants (6.03), IT industry (6.03),
manufacturing industry (6.03) and mix industry (8.62) respectively depicted in Table 4. The
findings of Table 4 suggest that business schools and universities were the most influential
industry where researchers have conducted the study and examined the effects of diversity in
laboratories and classroom studies. One of the reasons for the maximum number of papers
that have been published in academic universities may be due to the presence of respondents
from diverse backgrounds at one place and knowledge sharing among the students vis-
a-vis
improvement in academic performance. There are several industries where only one or two
studies have been conducted so far, and hence, there is a need to conduct diversity research in
unexplored industries.
4.5 Respondents in diversity research
The analysis of 69 empirical studies depicts that respondents were from the top, middle and
lower levels such as presidents, CEOs, supervisors, team members, subordinates and
coworkers in organizations, as well as students from different grades in the business schools.
The identity of respondents was not disclosed, but out of these studies, several comparative
assessments have revealed that most of the respondents were female and minority
employees. Table 5 highlights that 50.72% of the respondents were employees working at a
lower and middle level, while 15.94% of them were top-level executives. Whereas, 26.1% of
respondents were students from various grades in the academic institutions. Conclusively,
research on diversity management has focused on collecting responses from employees
because it allows researchers to address various issues in managing diversity at the lower
and middle levels of organizations.
EDI
Industry
1991–
1995
1996–
2000
2001–
2005
2006–
2010
2011–
2015
2016–
2018
Total
articles %
Academic university 4 2 5 4 3 18 15.52
Public sector 2 1 1541 1412.07
Mix industry 1 3 1113 108.62
Bank industry 2 1 3 1 1 8 6.9
Hospitality and
restaurant industry
2 3 2 7 6.03
IT industry 2221 76.03
Manufacturing
industry
1 1 4 1 7 6.03
Chemical 1 2 1 4 3.45
Food beverage
industry
1 2 1 4 3.45
Electronic
manufacturer
1 3 1 4 3.45
Financial firms 3 1 4 3.45
Energy and transport 2 1 3 2.59
Life insurance
company
1 1 1 3 2.59
Retail 1 2 3 2.59
Consulting firm 1 1 2 1.72
Hospital 1 1 2 1.72
Petroleum company 1 1 2 1.72
Pharmaceutical
industry
2 2 1.72
Agriculture 1 1 0.86
Textile industry 1 1 0.86
Defense industry 1 1 0.86
Forestry 1 1 0.86
Grocery store 1 1 0.86
Household goods
moving industry
1 1 0.86
Law firm 1 1 0.86
Mining, oil and gas 1 1 0.86
Operation division 1 1 0.86
Printing company 1 1 0.86
Shopping mall 1 1 0.86
Travel and tourism 1 1 0.86
Total 116 100.0
Respondents profile n(total number of articles) %
Employees 35 50.72
Executives(HRs, President, CEO) 11 15.94
University graduate students 5 7.25
MBA students 5 7.25
Top management team 5 7.25
Upper-level undergraduate students 3 4.35
Undergraduate and graduate students 2 2.90
Undergraduate business students 2 2.90
Deans of business schools 1 1.45
Total 69 100.0
Table 4.
Industry-wise and
time-period based
classification of articles
Table 5.
Respondents wise
distributions of articles
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
4.6 Classification based on the adopted methodology
The literature on diversity management has focused on both quantitative and qualitative
studies. Qualitative studies are subjective assessments of research areas like literature
review, conceptual studies, focus-group interviews and case studies (Tranfield et al., 2003).
Literature reviews analyze multiple articles related to diversity management, whereas
conceptual review deals with the theoretical framework of diversity proposed by researchers
for measuring the performance outcomes of diversity. Quantitative studies are objective
assessments of research problems like meta-analysis and empirical investigation of data
collected through primary surveys and questionnaire methods (Tranfield et al., 2003). Table 6
presents the methodology-based classification of papers. 49.60% (61 out of 123) studies were
quantitative studies and responses were collected through questionnaires, Internet, postage
survey and case study observations. In which, 30.08% of responses were procured through a
questionnaire survey, and 17.88% were Internet surveys. A total of 23.57% of studies were
conceptual, followed by 8.94% of them were literature review, qualitative studies and a
mixed-methods approach. The finding suggests that quantitative studies have frequently
been used in the research because this methodology mostly used to collect a large sample of
individuals’responses while the interview method and pilot study are conducted in a small
group of the sample, which may not be feasible in diversity research. Although some of the
studies have used a qualitative method approach, it was found only in the top
management team.
4.7 Classification of diversity dimensions and sources
Based on the discussion in the literature review section of this study, dimensions of diversity
have broadly categorized into two parts: relations oriented and job-oriented attributes.
Although previous studies have proposed several dimensions of diversity, yet a total of ten
dimensions have finally surfaced from literature and classified as relations oriented and job-
oriented attributes (Jackson et al., 1995). However, as depicted in Table 2, relation-oriented
and job-oriented are parts of surface-level diversity. The following section discusses
dimensions of surface-level diversity emanating from a systematic review of literature, as
exhibited in Table 7.
A total of 38 studies have been conducted on race and ethnic diversity, followed by 32
articles on gender and 25 on age diversity, respectively. Ethnic diversity has been found to be
one of the interesting topics among researchers and academicians. However, a study
Methods Number of publications %
Quantitative 61 49.60
Questionnaire survey 37
Email/internet survey 16
Postage/mail survey 6
Case study 2
Qualitative 11 8.94
Conceptual review 29 23.57
Literature review 11 8.94
Mixed approach 11 8.94
Survey and interviews 3
Content analyses 2
Meta-analyses 3
Unspecified 3
Total 123 100%
Table 6.
Diversity articles by
the adopted
methodology
EDI
conducted by Jackson et al. (2003) reveals that researchers have more focused on gender and
age rather than ethnic diversity. Moreover, based on these findings, it has been observed that
the focus of researchers is on relations oriented rather than job-oriented diversity.
Conclusively, 70.86% (i.e., 107/151) of the diversity research focused on relations oriented
diversity, while only 29.14% (i.e., 44/151) articles were focused on job-oriented diversity. This
finding represents that researchers have given less attention to job-oriented attributes, which
have confirmed the statement of Webber and Donahue (2001) that job-related diversity is a
much-needed topic in future studies. Therefore, for a productive organization, job-oriented
diversity needs to be given wider attention in future research.
4.8 Antecedents and consequences of diversity
The antecedents of diversity have mostly found at the group and organizational levels.
Group-level antecedents are such as group diversity (Ely, 2004), team diversity (Jackson et al.,
2003) and organizational-level antecedents are diversity management practices (Konrad et al.,
2016), diversity initiatives (Windscheid et al., 2017), diversity perspectives (Ely and Thomas,
2001) and organizational diversity (Guillaume et al., 2015), etc. While the research on age,
gender and race, has mostly evolved independently and most research in this area has been
focused on the effects of age, gender, and race diversity on different levels outcomes rather
than antecedents of diversity (Shore et al., 2009). Hence, this section performs a systematic
review of 123 articles to identify the antecedents and consequences of diversity discussed in
the previously proposed model. Further, due to more interest of researchers in the effects of
diversity on outcomes at different levels, the consequences of diversity have been categorized
into individual, group and organizational levels (see Table 8).
Diversity
attributes
Surface-level
diversity Supporting references
Total
references %
1. Relations
oriented
attributes
1.1 Age [4] [8] [10] [28] [36] [37] [42] [43] [45] [46] [47]
[50] [57] [64] [66] [67] [74] [80] [81] [87] [89]
[92] [101] [102] [103]
25 16.56
1.2 Gender [4] [7] [8] [9] [10] [13] [14] [20] [23] [26] [28]
[39] [42] [43 [46] [47] [52] [53] [57] [63] [64]
[66] [77] [80] [81] [88] [89] [92] [95] [98] [101]
[103]
32 21.20
1.3 Ethnicity/race [7] [8] [9] [10] [13] [14] [15] [16] [20] [22] [23]
[26] [28] [39] [42] [43] [46] [47] [53] [56] [64]
[66] [63] [67] [69] [72] [73] [74] [75] [77] [88]
[89] [91] [92] [98] [100] [101] [103]
38 25.17
1.4 Religion [1] [47] 2 1.32
1.5 Nationality [7] [13] [18] [23] [45] [53] [64] [68] [100] [101] 10 6.62
2. Job oriented
attributes
2.1 Organizational
tenure
[4] [8] [36] [39] [42] [50] [64] [66] [67] [87] [92]
[102] [103]
13 8.61
2.2 Team tenure [43] [66] [77] [80] [95] [102] 6 3.97
2.3 Educational
background
[4] [16] [36] [43] [45] [47] [50] [66] [80] [81]
[87] [89] [92] [103]
14 9.27
2.4 Functional
background
[4] [43] [50] [64] [66] [67] [87] [95] [103] 9 5.96
2.5 Occupational
background
[16] [103] 2 1.32
Total 151* 100.0
Note(s): *The total number of articles is not equal to total references because authors have consideredmultiple
attributes in a single study
Table 7.
Classification of
diversity dimensions
with supporting
references
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
1. Antecedents Supporting references
Racial diversity [35] [72] [73] [75]
Cultural diversity [14] [22] [32] [53] [58] [65] [68] [74] [100]
Team diversity [33] [38] [39] [43] [84] [90] [95] [97]
TMT diversity [4] [30] [50] [87] [96] [104]
Relational demography [19] [23] [28] [36] [44] [77] [92]
Demographic fault lines [31] [54] [55] [96]
Discourse of fashion on DM [70]
Diversity training [5] [24] [65]
Organizational diversity [6] [24] [27] [34] [38]
Informational diversity [16] [31] [41] [81]
Organization inclusion [83] [85] [86]
Organizational justice [48] [57]
Diversity perspectives [21] [17] [22] [29]
Diversity initiatives [3] [11] [12] [17] [25] [40] [76] [79] [104]
Diversity management practices [2] [105] [99] [35] [48] [51] [59]
2. Consequences Supporting references
2.1 Individual-level Consequences
Turnover intention [34] [36] [46] [47] [64] [66] [92] [93]
Recruitment [36]
Behavior intention [57]
Absenteeism [36] [64] [92]
Psychological attachment [92] [36]
Promotion [36] [46] [47] [92]
Job satisfaction [4] [7] [23] [60] [78] [88]
Work tension [78]
Organizational citizenship
behavior
[9] [34] [71] [91]
Self-perception [4]
Perceived discrimination [88]
Performance [7] [23] [34] [42] [64]
Individual creativity [84]
2.2 Group-level consequences
Cooperative response [15]
Idea generation [61] [66]
Commitment [9] [77] [80]
Decision making [46] [66]
Communication [53] [100]
Problem-solving [66]
Satisfaction [18] [55] [69] [80]
Team turnover [16] [64] [66] [102] [106]
Group cohesiveness [28] [77] [103] [106]
Conflict and cooperativeness [4] [63]
Strategic consensus [50]
Team effectiveness [7] [16] [49] [104]
Group development [54]
Group performance [4] [18] [19] [31] [39] [41] [43] [45] [55] [56] [64] [67] [68] [69] [77] [80] [82] [94] [95] [100]
[101] [103]
Team creativity [29] [58]
2.3 Organizational-level consequences
Commitment [26] [47] [91] [92]
Organizational performance [10] [51] [52] [62] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [83] [87]
Organizational competitiveness [14] [25] [26] [76]
Organizational innovation [98]
Organizational fairness [48]
Table 8.
Antecedents and
consequences of
diversity management
EDI
4.9 Moderators and mediators in workplace diversity
As discussed in the previous sections about antecedents and consequences, the following
section discusses mediator and moderator variables of diversity management. The objective
of identifying moderator and mediator variables is to explore contextual variables that may
influence organizational performance due to workplace diversity. The contextual variables
help in addressing the number of reasons why diversity research has inconsistent findings
and suggested to enhance the positive effects of diversity and mitigate negative effects (van
Knippneberg et al., 2004). Consideration of contextual variables in diversity research is very
critical, and therefore, a detailed description of these variables is required. Table 9 lists all
identified moderator, mediator variables and their supporting references in diversity
management research.
4.10 Breadth and depth of diversity article
This is one of the unique studies in the context of breadth and depth of diversity management
research, which elaborately discusses diversity dimensions and its outcomes. This section
adopts the conceptual description of diversity dimensions and its related outcomes developed
by Wise and Tschirhart (2000) and further elaborated accordingly. Table 10 summarizes the
dimensions and outcomes of diversity management related research articles published from
the year 1991–2018. Most articles covered more than one diversity dimension and some
covered more than one outcome; hence, the total sum in Table 10 exceeds the number of total
articles procured through a systematic review.
The total values shown in Table 10 draw an idea on how much cumulative research has
been done to connect a diversity dimension to specific outcomes. The diversity dimensions
with most coverage are race/ethnicity with 60 times, gender 49 times and age 41 times. The
table depicts that certain dimensions have been repeatedly used in various studies and
concludes that maximum studies in diversity management research focused on relationship-
oriented diversity. While less research has been conducted on job-oriented attributes such as
functional background 19 times, educational background 27 times, team tenure 11 times and
organizational tenure 28 times. In contrast, diversity outcomes with most coverage are team
performance 44 times, turnover 21 times, firm performance 19 times and less research has
focused on outcomes like cooperative response and OCB only one time, behavior intention,
innovation two times and organizational competitiveness three times. The overall analysis of
this table identifies that the research on diversity dimensions has affected performance at
every level, but the greatest number of studies examined group-level outcomes 126 times
followed by individual-level outcomes 85 times and organizational outcomes 48 times. The
study found that relatively less attention has given on organizational-level outcomes. Thus
there is a requirement to conduct more studies on the organization-level outcome.
5. Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the dimensions, contextual variables,
antecedents, consequences and emerging research trends in diversity management research.
The systematic review of each section has guided different outcomes based on the previous
research findings, which have discussed in this section. First, the major trends about the
growing body of research were published in the Academy of Management Journal due to the
participation of researchers and the presence of women in annual diversity programs
conducted by the Academy of Management (Nkomo et al., 2019). The major theme of the
journal has been identified, such as demographic diversity (i.e. gender, age and race),
relational demography, racial diversity, cultural diversity and team diversity. Next, the
majority of the research has been conducted in western countries like the USA, Canada and
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
Moderators Supporting references
Constructive conflict [46]
Creative self-efficacy [84]
Dogmatism [9]
Diversity climate [26]
Diversity beliefs [31] [93]
Group fault line [55]
Employee involvement [97]
Employee status [36]
Entrepreneurial innovation [74]
Ethnic status [34]
Industry type [75]
Organizational culture [10] [32]
Shared objectives [95]
Sociocultural values [102]
Social context [39]
Transformational leadership [45] [84]
Business strategy [72]
Innovation strategy [73]
Communication and coordination [63]
Group longevity [66] [67] [80]
Team interdependence [80] [43]
Goal orientation [68]
Team size [32] [49]
Team leadership [49] [63]
Group process (conflict) [4] [10]
Team type [103]
Team orientation [63]
Task Type [41]
Task interdependence [32] [41] [49] [58] [106]
Task intellectiveness [58]
Task complexity [58]
Task requirements [94]
Task ability [94]
Task motivation [94]
Task routineness [67]
Mediators Supporting references
Cooperative norms [7]
Conflict [41] [49] [50] [66] [67]
Decision comprehensiveness [87]
Diversity equality management system [2]
Team identification [18] [45] [93]
Impression formation [23]
Intercultural obstacles [58]
Job performance [34] [42]
Peers relation (trust and attraction) [8]
Procedural justice and affective commitment [91]
Organization-based self-esteem [8]
Role ambiguity and role conflict [60]
Team efficacy [18]
Team reflexivity [80]
Task relevant information elaboration [27] [29] [31] [45] [68]
Table 9.
Moderator and
mediators
EDI
Diversity dimensions
Outcomes
Relations oriented attributes
Total
values Job-oriented attributes
Total
values
Age Gender Race Nationality
Functional
background
Educational
background
Team
tenure
Org.
tenure
Individual-level total 59 26
Absenteeism 2 2 2 1 7 1 1 2 4
Commitment 1 1 1 3 1 1 2
Behavior intention 1 1 2
Compensation 1 1 1 3
Cooperative response 1 1
Promotion 2 1 1 4 2 1 3
Job performance 1 3 4 2 10 1 1
OCB 1 1 2 4 1 1
Pay 1 1 1 3 1 1
Satisfaction 1 3 3 2 9 1 1 1 3
Recruitment 1 1 1 1 2
Turnover 4 3 4 1 12 2 3 1 3 9
Group-level total 82 44
Cooperative response 1 1
Group interaction 1 2 2 5
Cohesiveness 2 2 3 7 1 1 1 3
Commitment 1 3 2 6 1 2 3
Conflict 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 3
Efficiency and
effectiveness
12 1 4 1 1
Group decision making 2 3 3 8 1 1 1 1 4
Idea generation 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4
Team performance 7 8 8 6 29 5 4 2 4 15
Problem-solving 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4
Satisfaction 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 2
Team turnover 2 1 2 1 6 1 1 1 2 5
Organizational level 35 13
(continued )
Table 10.
Number of studies by
work outcomes and
diversity dimensions in
diversity research
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
Diversity dimensions
Outcomes
Relations oriented attributes
Total
values Job-oriented attributes
Total
values
Age Gender Race Nationality
Functional
background
Educational
background
Team
tenure
Org.
tenure
Innovation 1 1 2
Organizational
competitiveness
11 2
Commitment 2 3 4 9 2 1 3
Firm performance 4 3 6 1 14 2 1 2 5
OCB 1 1
Turnover 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2
Self-esteem 1 1 2
Strategic consensus 1 1 1 1 1 3
Total values 41 49 60 20 19 27 11 28
Table 10.
EDI
European countries while other countries were underreported, and hence, there is further
need to focus on developing countries like India and China due to lack of study and its
practical pertinence more. Next, most of the research found that diversity is prominent in the
groups that have been studied in the laboratory or classroom, instead of conducting in the
organization among group members. In the classroom, studies results have found that group
diversity can improve the decision-making skills or can generate the idea while research on
intact working groups in the organization depicts a pessimistic view of the diversity on group
performance (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). A similar result has been confirmed in Table 4 of
this study that the maximum number of diversity research has been conducted in classrooms
of business institutions instead of industries. The next finding concluded that 50% of the
research papers were empirical in nature and 32.52% articles conceptual and literature
review paper while systematic review, qualitative studies and meta-analysis papers have
very little representation. None of the studies have conducted a scientometric analysis of
diversity management research. The finding also reveals that diversity as a broad topic has
repeatedly examined only the top three dimensions such as age, gender and race. While other
relationship-oriented dimensions like LGBT, disability, religion, language and job-oriented
dimensions such as functional, education and tenure diversity have been widely ignored in
diversity management research. Antecedents like cultural diversity, racial diversity and
relational demography were studied at the individual level, team diversity, workgroup
diversity at the group level and top management team diversity, and diversity management
practices have performed at an organizational level. Next, the categorization of outcomes at
different levels shows that organizational-level outcomes have relatively less explored in
comparison to individual and group-level outcomes; hence, future research needs to be
focused on organizational-level outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational effectiveness, innovation and fairness.
Conclusively, the majority of the researchers have used three mentioned theories to
explain the effects of diversity on organizational outcomes. Different theories often lead to
contradicting thoughts among researches. A maximum number of researchers have used
similarity attraction (Byrne, 1971), self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987) and social identity
theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) while few optimistic researchers have used information
decision-making (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) and upper echelon theory (Hambrick and
Mason, 1984). Further, the studies based on the aforementioned theories found that increased
diversity in terms of age, gender and race has negative effects on social integration, cohesion,
communication and conflicts (Jehn et al., 1999;Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). While optimistic
researchers have argued that increased diversity in terms of knowledge, skills and ability are
more likely to enhance problem-solving and decision making power in the groups. Few
studies also highlight that top management team diversity at the organizational level is
positively related to organizational performance (van Knippenberg et al., 2011). The findings
also highlight the importance of mediator and moderator variables suggested by van
Knippenberg et al. (2004) in the CEM model, which overcome the negative effects through
integrating the dual aspects of diversity. Several mediators and moderator variables have
been identified, but none of the studies have explored HR practices and diversity
management practices as moderators in workplace diversity to eliminate the negative
aspects of diversity and enhance organizational performance. While leadership, social
context and communication have relatively less explored as moderator variables. Ultimately,
based on the overall findings of the systematic review, an integrative model of diversity
management has developed in Figure 4. The model consolidates dimensions of diversity,
mediator and moderator variables along with outcomes, which emerged from existing
literature. Each aspect of diversity is supported by a distinct theory like the positive aspects
of diversity has addressed by decision-making theory and negative aspects of diversity
addressed by social categorization and similarity-attraction theories. Upper echelon theory is
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
Individual level
and group level
Consequences
Mediator
Dimensions of Diversity
Moderators
Organizational
level
Top
management
team diversity
U
pp
er Echelon
Relations oriented
Age diversity
Gender diversity
Racial diversity
Job oriented
Tenure
Functional
Education
Performance
outcomes
Firm
effectiveness
Organizational
Innovation
Creativity
Idea Generation
Organizational
competitiveness
Firm
performance
Financial
performance
Process
Outcomes
Conflict
Communication
Job satisfaction
Job performance
Organizational
commitment
Organizational
citizenship
behavior (OCB)
Social
integration
Turnover
Intervening
mechanism
(Process
variables)
Conflict
Task relevant
information
Team reflexivity
Group
identification
Impression
formation
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Team efficacy
Self-categorization,
Similarity attraction,
Social identity theory
Task interdependence Team leadership Ethnic status
Task routineness Transformational leadership Business strategy
Task complexity Team size Shared objectives
Task ability Team orientation Social context
Task motivation Group longevity Organizational culture
Group fault line Diversity beliefs Diversity climate
Information decision
making theory
Figure 4.
Integrative model of
diversity management
EDI
traditionally used to support top management team diversity. The consequences of diversity
have been divided into process and performance outcomes, according to Jackson et al. (2003).
6. Theoretical implications
The findings of this study will benefit researchers in further research because this review
forms the first systematic review of literature on all emerging forms of diversity and provide
access to scholars as a one-stop-shop for the comprehensive solutions of diversity
management literature. It facilitates academicians and researchers by gaining insightful
study and analyze the current status of research on diversity management. The major
contribution of this study is the integration of theories into a single framework, connecting
multiple dimensions of diversity and linking process and performance outcomes with the
intervention of mediator and moderator variables that have lacked in previous studies (van
Knippenberg et al., 2004). The second contribution is the representation of the evolution of
diversity management and dimensions of diversity in a systematic way that will guide future
researchers. Conclusively, the categorization of outcomes of diversity at the individual, group
and organization level and differentiation between contextual variables might help to develop
the conceptual model in future research.
6.1 Practical implications
The practical relevance of the proposed model is primarily improving organizational
performance by diminishing the barriers in the group process. Our findings highlight the
importance of contextual variables, and managers need not worry that diversity negatively
affects team outcomes because the integration of contextual variables and environmental
factors diminish the negative and enhance the positive outcomes. Practitioners can foster
diversity management practices with HR practices as it has witnessed positive outcomes on
workforce diversity (Guillaume et al., 2015). Further diversity management practices like
cross-cultural training and team-building activities increase cooperation, communication and
information sharing.
7. Limitations and future research
Since our focus was to find the dimensions of diversity studied in the previous literature and
identify future avenues, diversity management practices and programs related literature has
been excluded. The filtering process may have omitted some good articles, such as a large
stream of diversity management programs and practices so that future research can merely
focus on different diversity management practices such as diversity training, diversity
programs, diversity policies and initiatives. This study found that surface-level diversity is a
widely discussed topic, and therefore, future researchers could emphasize more on deep-level
diversity attributes such as values, attitudes, personality. However, future research might
also investigate other types of diversity (e.g., separation, variety, disparity) proposed by
Harrison and Klein (2007). The less attention on job-related diversity in the proposed model
highlights that researchers and practitioners should stop thinking that diversity is a generic
concept, and it always has a positive outcome (Webber and Donahue, 2001). Instead,
researchers should go beyond demographic diversity and distinguishes based on task-related
knowledge, skills and perspectives, which reflect more positive outcomes on team
performance (Simons et al., 1999). This study has not discussed the operationalization of
different dimensions of diversity that how previous research has measured diversity so that
future studies could explore the different measurement methods of diversity. Finally, as we
have identified several contextual factors from the existing literature but some of the process
variables (e.g., value congruence, social integration and HR practices) have highly ignored in
the studies, which can be examined in future research.
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
8. Conclusion
The abundance of literature on diversity is found in western countries, but a literature review
paper is very limited. Therefore, this study is inspired by the scarcity of literature review
papers on diversity. This study investigates all types of diversity-related papers to get the
insightful impact of diversity and their influence on the work outcomes. By doing so, this
study fills a research gap and describe the holistic understanding of diversity issues and
benefits in organizations. This study concludes with an integrative model of diversity
management where several significant themes were reflected in a single framework such as
dimensions of diversity, contextual factors, process and performance outcomes. Diversity is
categorized at multiple levels, including individual, group and top management teams within
the organization, and these different levels of diversity have been supported with multiple
theories. Overall, this study makes significant contributions by providing a summary of
research in diversity that can help readers to find the antecedents, consequences, moderators
and mediators impart for future research.
References
Al Ariss, A. and Sidani, Y.M. (2016), “Understanding religious diversity: implications from Lebanon
and France”,Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 467-480.
Armstrong, C., Flood, P.C., Guthrie, J.P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S. and Mkamwa, T. (2010), “The impact
of diversity and equality management on firm performance: beyond high-performance work
systems”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 977-998.
Barry, B. and Bateman, T.S. (1996), “A social trap analysis of the management of diversity”,Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 757-790.
Barsade, S.G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (2000), “To your heart’s content: a model
of affective diversity in top management teams”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 802-836.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K.A. and Spell, C.S. (2012), “Reviewing diversity training: where we have been
and where we should go”,The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 207-227.
Buttner, E.H., Lowe, K.B. and Harris, L.B.-. (2006), “The influence of organizational diversity
orientation and leader attitude on diversity activities”,Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 356-371.
Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic, New York.
Chatman, J.A. and Flynn, F.J. (2001), “The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence
and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams”,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 956-974.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999), “Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the influence of demographic
dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 273-287.
Chattopadhyay, P. (2003), “Can dissimilarity lead to positive outcomes? The influence of open versus
closed minds”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 295-312.
Choi, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2010), “Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: effects of diversity and
diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance”,Public
Administration Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 109-121.
Comer, D.R. and Soliman, C.E. (1996), “Organizational efforts to manage diversity: do they really
work?”,Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 470-483.
Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2009), “Between a rock and a hard place: managing diversity in a shareholder
society”,Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 393-412.
EDI
Cooke, F.L. and Saini, D.S. (2010), “Diversity management in India: a study of organizations in
different ownership forms and industrial sectors”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 477-500.
Cox, T.H. and Blake, S. (1991), “Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational
competitiveness”,The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 45-56.
Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. (1991), “Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on
cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task”,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 827-847.
Cox. (1991), “The multicultural organization”,The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 34-47.
Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1999), “Strategies for managing human resource diversity: from resistance to
learning”,The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 68-80.
Dixon, M.L. and Hart, L.K. (2010), “The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group
effectiveness and turnover intention”,Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 52-69.
Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2000), “Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of
transnational team functioning”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-49.
Elfenbein, H.A. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2007), “Fitting in: the effects of relational demography and person-
culture fit on group process and performance”,Group and Organization Management, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 109-142.
Elsass, P.M. and Graves, L.M. (1997), “Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the
experiences of women and people of color”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 946-973.
Ely, R.J. (2004), “A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and
performance”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 755-780.
Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on
workgroup processes and outcomes”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 229-273.
Flynn, F.J., Chatman, J.A. and Spataro, S.E. (2001), “Getting to know you: the influence of personality
on impressions and performance of demographically different people in organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 414-442.
Fujimoto, Y. and H€
artel, C.E.J. (2017), “Organizational diversity learning framework: going beyond
diversity training programs”,Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1120-1141.
Gilbert, J.A. and Ivancevich, J.M. (2000), “Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations”,The Academy
of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-105.
Gonzalez, J.A. and Denisi, A.S. (2009), “Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on
organizational attachment and firm effectiveness”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Guillaume, Y.R.F., Dawson, J.F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S.A. and West, M.A. (2015), “Harnessing
demographic differences in organizations: what moderates the effects of workplace diversity?”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 276-303.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top
managers”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 1199-1228.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the effects
of surface- and deep-level diversity on workgroup cohesion”,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
Hoever, I.J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W.P. and Barkema, H.G. (2012), “Fostering team
creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 982-996.
Homan, A.C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007), “Bridging faultlines
by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse
workgroups”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1189-1199.
Homberg, F. and Bui, H.T.M. (2013), “Top management team diversity: a systematic review”,Group
and Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 455-479.
Hopkins, W.E., Hopkins, S.A. and Gross, M.A. (2005), “Cultural diversity recomposition and
effectiveness in monoculture workgroups”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 8,
pp. 949-964.
Horwitz, S.K. and Horwitz, I.B. (2007), “The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-
analytic review of team demography”,Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 987-1015.
Hsiao, A., Auld, C. and Ma, E. (2015), “Perceived organizational diversity and employee behavior”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 48, pp. 102-112.
Hur, Y. and Strickland, R.A. (2012), “Diversity management practices and understanding their
adoption: examining local governments in North Carolina”,Public Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 380-412.
Jackson, S.E. and Joshi, A. (2004), “Diversity in social context: a multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of
team diversity and sales performance”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 675-702.
Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A. and Peyronnin, K. (1991), “Some differences
make a difference: individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment,
promotions, and turnover”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 675-689.
Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), “Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-
making teams”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 204-261.
Jackson,S.E.,Joshi,A.andErhardt,N.L.(2003),“Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications”,Journal of Management,Vol.29No.6,
pp. 801-830.
Jayne, M.E.A. and Dipboye, R.L. (2004), “Leveraging diversity to improve business performance:
research findings and recommendations for organizations”,Human Resource Management,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 409-424.
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field study
of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups”,Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-763.
Johnson, W.B. and Packer, A.H. (1987), Workforce 2000, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN.
Joshi, A. and Roh, H. (2007), “Context matters: a multilevel framework forwork team diversity
research”,Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 26, pp. 1-48.
Joshi, A. and Roh, H. (2009), “The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic
review”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 599-627.
Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Jackson, S.E. (2006), “Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales
performance and pay”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 459-481.
Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Roh, H. (2011), “Bridging domains in workplace demography research: a review
and reconceptualization”,Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 521-552.
Kearney, E. and Gebert, D. (2009), “Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of
transformational leadership”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Kelly, E. and Dobbin, F. (1998), “How affirmative action became diversity management”,American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 960-984.
EDI
Kim, S. and Park, S. (2017), “Diversity management and fairness in public organizations”,Public
Organization Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-193.
Kirchmeyer, C. and Cohen, A. (1992), “Multicultural groups: their performance and reactions with
constructive conflict”,Group and Organization Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 153-170.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995), “Demographic similarity to the workgroup: a longitudinal study of managers at
the early career stage”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Klein, K.J., Knight, A.P., Ziegert, J.C., Lim, B.C. and Saltz, J.L. (2011), “When team members’values
differ: the moderating role of team leadership”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Knight, D., Pearce, C.L., Smith, K.G. and Flood, P. (1999), “Top management team diversity, group
process, and strategic consensus”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-465.
Konrad, A.M., Yang, Y. and Maurer, C.C. (2016), “Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and equality
management systems: an integrated institutional agency and strategic human resource
management approach”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 83-107.
Kundu, S.C. and Mor, A. (2017), “Workforce diversity and organizational performance: a study of IT
industry in India”,Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 160-183.
Larkey, L.K. (1996), “Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse
workgroups”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 463-491.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (1998), “Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional
dynamics of organizational groups”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 325-340.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (2005), “Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of
demographic faultlines”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 645-659.
Leck, J.D., Saunders, D.M. and Charbonneau, M. (1996), “Affirmative action programs: an
organizational justice perspective”,Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol.17No.1,
pp. 79-89.
Leslie, L.M. (2017), “A status-based multilevel model of ethnic diversity and work unit performance”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 426-454.
Leung, K. and Wang, J. (2015), “Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: a socio-
technical framework: social processes and team creativity”,Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1008-1025.
Madera, J.M., Dawson, M. and Neal, J.A. (2013), “Hotel managers’perceived diversity climate and job
satisfaction: the mediating effects of role ambiguity and conflict”,International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 35, pp. 28-34.
Madera, J.M. (2013), “Best practices in diversity management in customer service organizations: an
investigation of top companies cited by diversity Inc”,Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 124-135.
Marcoulides, G. and Heck, R. (1993), “Organizational culture and performance: proposing and testing a
model”,Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 209-225.
McLeod, P.L. and Lobel, S.A. (1992), “The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small
groups”,Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 1992 No. 1, pp. 227-231.
Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 402-433.
Mohammed, S. and Angell, L.C. (2004), “Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining
the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict”,Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1015-1039.
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
Nemetz, P.L. and Christensen, S.L. (1996), “The challenge of cultural diversity: harnessing a diversity
of views to understand multiculturalism”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 434-462.
Nkomo, S.M., Bell, M.P., Roberts, L.M., Joshi, A. and Thatcher, S.M. (2019), “Diversity at a critical
juncture: new theories for a complex phenomenon”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 44
No. 3, pp. 498-517.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of
workgroup diversity, conflict, and performance”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), “Demographic diversity, conflict, and workgroup outcomes: an intervening process
theory”,Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.
Pieterse, A.N., van Knippenberg, D. and van Dierendonck, D. (2013), “Cultural diversity and team
performance: the role of team member goal orientation”,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 782-804.
Pitts, D. (2009), “Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: evidence from U.S. federal
agencies”,Public Administration Review, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 328-338.
Prasad, A., Prasad, P. and Mir, R. (2011), “‘One mirror in another’: managing diversity and the
discourse of fashion”,Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 703-724.
Rabl, T., Del Carmen Triana, M., Byun, S.-Y. and Bosch, L. (2018), “Diversity management efforts as
an ethical responsibility: how employees’perceptions of an organizational integration and
learning approach to diversity affect employee behavior”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 161
No. 3, pp. 531-550.
Richard, O.C. and Johnson, N.B. (2001), “Understanding the impact of human resource diversity
practices on firm performance”,Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 177-195.
Richard, O., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K. and Dwyer, S. (2003), “Employing an innovation strategy in
racially diverse workforces: effects on firm performance”,Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-126.
Richard, O.C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S. and Chadwick, K. (2004), “Cultural diversity in management, firm
performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 255-266.
Richard, O.C., Murthi, B.P.S. and Ismail, K. (2007), “The impact of racial diversity on intermediate and
long-term performance: the moderating role of environmental context”,Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1213-1233.
Richard, O.C. (2000), “Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: a resource-based
view”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 164-177.
Riordan, C.M. and Shore, L.M. (1997), “Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: an empirical
examination of relational demography within work units”,Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 342-358.
Roberson,Q.M.(2019),“Diversity in the workplace: a review, synthesis, and future research
agenda”,Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,Vol.6,
pp. 69-88.
Sabharwal, M. (2014), “Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further
performance”,Public Personnel Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 197-217.
Salau, O., Osibanjo, A., Adeniji, A., Oludayo, O., Falola, H., Igbinoba, E. and Ogueyungbo, O. (2018),
“Data regarding talent management practices and innovation performance of academic staff in
a technology-driven private university”,Data in Brief, Vol. 19, pp. 1040-1045.
Sanchez, J.I. and Brock, P. (1996), “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees:
is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 704-719.
EDI
Schippers, M.C., Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L. and Wienk, J.A. (2003), “Diversity and team outcomes:
the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating
effect of reflexivity”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 779-802.
Schneider, S.K. and Northcraft, G.B. (1999), “Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity in
organizations: a social identity perspective”,Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1445-1467.
Seong, J.Y. and Choi, J.N. (2014), “Effects of group-level fit on group conflict and performance: The
initiating role of leader positive affect”,Group & Organization Management, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 190-212.
Seong, J.Y., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Park, W.-W., Hong, D.-S. and Shin, Y. (2012), “Person-group fit:
diversity antecedents, proximal outcomes, and performance at the group level”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1184-1213.
Shin, S.J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y. and Bian, L. (2012), “Cognitive team diversity and individual team member
creativity: a cross-level interaction”,Academy of Management Journal,Vol.55No.1,pp.197-212.
Shore, L.M., Chung-Herrera, B.G, Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., Jung, D.I., Randel, A.E. and Singh, G.
(2009), “Diversity in organizations: where are we now and where are we going?”,Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 117-133.
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K. and Singh, G. (2011),
“Inclusion and diversity in workgroups: a review and model for future research”,Journal of
Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1262-1289.
Shore, L.M., Cleveland, J.N. and Sanchez, D. (2018), “Inclusive workplaces: a review and model”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 176-189.
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”,Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-673.
Soni, V. (2000), “A twenty-first-century reception for diversity in the public sector: a case study”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 395-408.
Sourouklis, C. and Tsagdis, D. (2013), “Workforce diversity and hotel performance: a systematic
review and synthesis of the international empirical evidence”,International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 394-403.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. and
Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks-Cole, Monterey, CA,
pp. 33-47.
Talke, K., Salomo, S. and Rost, K. (2010), “How top management team diversity affects innovativeness
and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields”,Research Policy, Vol. 39
No. 7, pp. 907-918.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), “Making differences matter”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74
No. 5, pp. 79-90.
Thomas, R.R. Jr (1991), Beyond, Race, and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Workforce by
Managing Diversity, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of a systematic review”,British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Triana, M.D.C. and Garc
ıa, M.F. (2009), “Valuing diversity: a group-value approach to understanding
the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity”,Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 941-962.
Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and Iii, C.A.O. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-579.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the Social
Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., H€
agele, S., Guillaume, Y.R.F. and Brodbeck, F.C. (2008), “Group
diversity and group identification: the moderating role of diversity beliefs”,Human Relations,
Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1463-1492.
van Knippenberg, D. and Mell, J.N. (2016), “Past, present, and potential future of team diversity
research: from compositional diversity to emergent diversity”,Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 136, pp. 135-145.
van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), “Workgroup diversity”,Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 515-541.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A.C. (2004), “Workgroup diversity and group
performance: an integrative model and research agenda”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 6, pp. 1008-1022.
van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J.F., West, M.A. and Homan, A.C. (2011), “Diversity faultlines, shared
objectives, and top management team performance”,Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 3,
pp. 307-336.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. (1993), “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 590-602.
Watson, W.E., Johnson, L. and Merritt, D. (1998), “Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in
task groups: their connection to team performance over time”,Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 161-188.
Webber, S.S. and Donahue, L.M. (2001), “Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on workgroup
cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis”,Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-162.
Weber, T.J., Sadri, G. and Gentry, W.A. (2018), “Examining diversity beliefs and leader performance
across cultures”,Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 382-400.
Wiersema, M.F. and Bird, A. (1993), “Organizational demography in Japanese firms: group
heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover”,Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 996-1025.
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40
years of research”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140.
Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J. and Morner, M. (2017), “The paradox of diversity
initiatives: when organizational needs differ from employee preferences”,Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Wise, L.R. and Tschirhart, M. (2000), “Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: how useful is
diversity research for public-sector managers?”,Public Administration Review, Vol. 60 No. 5,
pp. 386-394.
Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2010), “Diversity and organizational innovation: the role of employee
involvement”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1062-1083.
Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2011), “Understanding diversity management practices: implications of
institutional theory and resource-based theory”,Group and Organization Management, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 6-38.
EDI
Appendix
Corresponding author
Shatrughan Yadav can be contacted at: yadav.shatrughna82@gmail.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
[1] Al Ariss and Sidani (2016) [54] Lau and Murnighan (1998)
[2] Armstrong et al. (2010) [55] Lau and Murnighan (2005)
[3] Barry and Bateman (1996) [56] Leslie (2017)
[4] Barsade et al. (2000) [57] Leck et al. (1996)
[5] Bezrukova et al. (2012) [58] Leung and Wang (2015)
[6] Buttner et al. (2006) [59] Madera (2013)
[7] Chatman and Flynn (2001) [60] Madera et al. (2013)
[8] Chattopadhyay (1999) [61] McLeod and Lobel (1992)
[9] Chattopadhyay (2003) [62] Marcoulides and Heck (1993)
[10] Choi and Rainey (2010) [63] Mohammed and Angell (2004)
[11] Comer and Soliman (1996) [64] Milliken and Martins (1996)
[12] Cooke and Saini (2010) [65] Nemetz and Christensen (1996)
[13] Cox (1991) [66] Pelled (1996)
[14] Cox and Blake (1991) [67] Pelled et al. (1999)
[15] Cox et al. (1991) [68] Pieterse et al. (2013)
[16] Dixon and Hart (2010) [69] Pitts (2009)
[17] Dass and Parker (1999) [70] Prasad et al. (2011)
[18] Earley and Mosakowski (2000) [71] Rabl et al. (2018)
[19] Elfenbein and O’Reilly (2007) [72] Richard (2000)
[20] Elsass and Gaves (1997) [73] Richard et al. (2003)
[21] Thomas and Ely (1996) [74] Richard et al. (2004)
[22] Ely and Thomas (2001) [75] Richard et al. (2007)
[23] Flynn et al. (2001) [76] Richard and Johnson (2001)
[24] Fujimoto and Hartel (2017) [77] Riordan and Shore (1997)
[25] Gilbert and Ivancevich (2000) [78] Sanchez and Brock (1996)
[26] Gonzalez and Denisi (2009) [79] Schneider and Northcraft (1999)
[27] Guillaume et al. (2015) [80] Schippers et al. (2003)
[28] Harrison et al. (1998) [81] Seong et al. (2012)
[29] Hoever et al. (2012) [82] Seong et al. (2014)
[30] Homberg and Bui (2013) [83] Sabharwal (2014)
[31] Homan et al. (2007) [84] Shin et al. (2012)
[32] Hopkins et al. (2005) [85] Shore et al. (2011)
[33] Horwitz and Horwitz (2007) [86] Shore et al. (2018)
[34] Hsiao et al. (2015) [87] Simons et al. (1999)
[35] Hur and Strickland (2012) [88] Soni (2000)
[36] Jackson et al. (1991) [89] Sourouklis and Tsagdis (2013)
[37] Jackson et al. (1995) [90] Talkie et al. (2010)
[38] Jackson et al. (2003) [91] Triana and Garcia (2009)
[39] Jackson and Joshi (2004) [92] Tsui et al. (1992)
[40] Jayne and Dipboye (2004) [93] van Dick et al. (2008)
[41] Jehn et al. (1999) [94] van Knippenberg et al. (2004)
[42] Joshi et al. (2006) [95] van Knippenberg et al. (2011)
[43] Joshi and Roh (2009) [96] van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007)
[44] Joshi et al. (2011) [97] van Knippenberg et al. (2016)
[45] Kearney and Gebert (2009) [98] Yang and Konrad (2010)
[46] Kirchmeyer and Cohen (1992) [99] Yang and Konrad (2011)
[47] Kirchmeyer (1995) [100] Watson et al. (1993)
[48] Kim and Park (2017) [101] Watson et al. (1998)
[49] Klein et al. (2011) [102] Wiersema and Bird (1993)
[50] Knight et al. (1999) [103] Webber and Donahue (2001)
[51] Konrad et al. (2016) [104] Windscheid et al. (2017)
[52] Kundu and Mor (2017) [105] Wise and Tschirhart (2000)
[53] Larkey (1996) [106] Williams and O’Reilly (1998)
Table A1.
Numerical coding of
references (refer Tables
7–9)
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
