YadavandLenka2020DiversityManagementASystematicReview1.pdf

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

901

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

Vol. 39 No. 8, 2020 pp. 901-929

© 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 Thissection presents theevolution ofdiversity management, the conceptualization ofdiversity, and dimensions of diversity given by several authors in different contexts accordingly.

EDI 39,8

902

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

903

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 3 2 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 39,8

904

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

905

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 39,8

906

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

907

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 3 1 3 1 8 6.5 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 39,8

908

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 1 9

9 1

1 9

9 2

1 9

9 3

1 9

9 4

1 9

9 5

1 9

9 6

1 9

9 7

1 9

9 8

1 9

9 9

2 0

0 0

2 0

0 1

2 0

0 2

2 0

0 3

2 0

0 4

2 0

0 5

2 0

0 6

2 0

0 7

2 0

0 8

2 0

0 9

2 0

1 0

2 0

1 1

2 0

1 2

2 0

1 3

2 0

1 4

2 0

1 5

2 0

1 6

2 0

1 7

2 0

1 8

N u

m b

e r

o f

P u

b li

c a ti

o n

s 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 1 2 1 1 1 8 6.5 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

909

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 39,8

910

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 1 5 4 1 14 12.07 Mix industry 1 3 1 1 1 3 10 8.62 Bank industry 2 1 3 1 1 8 6.9 Hospitality and restaurant industry

2 3 2 7 6.03

IT industry 2 2 2 1 7 6.03 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

911

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 39,8

912

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 considered multiple attributes in a single study

Table 7. Classification of

diversity dimensions with supporting

references

Diversity management: a

systematic review

913

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 39,8

914

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

915

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 39,8

916

D iv er si ty

d im

en si o n s

O u tc o m es

R el a ti o n s o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s

T o ta l

v a lu es

Jo b -o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s

T o ta l

v a lu es

A g e

G en d er

R a ce

N a ti o n a li ty

F u n ct io n a l

b a ck g ro u n d

E d u ca ti o n a l

b a ck g ro u n d

T ea m

te n u re

O rg .

te n u re

In d iv id u a l- le v el to ta l

5 9

2 6

A b se n te ei sm

2 2

2 1

7 1

1 2

4 C o m m it m en t

1 1

1 3

1 1

2 B eh a v io r in te n ti o n

1 1

2 C o m p en sa ti o n

1 1

1 3

C o o p er a ti v e re sp o n se

1 1

P ro m o ti o n

2 1

1 4

2 1

3 Jo b p er fo rm

a n ce

1 3

4 2

1 0

1 1

O C B

1 1

2 4

1 1

P a y

1 1

1 3

1 1

S a ti sf a ct io n

1 3

3 2

9 1

1 1

3 R ec ru it m en t

1 1

1 1

2 T u rn o v er

4 3

4 1

1 2

2 3

1 3

9 G ro u p -l ev el to ta l

8 2

4 4

C o o p er a ti v e re sp o n se

1 1

G ro u p in te ra ct io n

1 2

2 5

C o h es iv en es s

2 2

3 7

1 1

1 3

C o m m it m en t

1 3

2 6

1 2

3 C o n fl ic t

1 2

2 5

1 1

1 3

E ff ic ie n cy

a n d

ef fe ct iv en es s

1 2

1 4

1 1

G ro u p d ec is io n m a k in g

2 3

3 8

1 1

1 1

4 Id ea

g en er a ti o n

1 1

1 3

1 1

1 1

4 T ea m

p er fo rm

a n ce

7 8

8 6

2 9

5 4

2 4

1 5

P ro b le m -s o lv in g

1 1

1 3

1 1

1 1

4 S a ti sf a ct io n

1 2

1 1

5 1

1 2

T ea m

tu rn o v er

2 1

2 1

6 1

1 1

2 5

O rg a n iz a ti o n a l le v el

3 5

1 3

(c o n ti n u ed

)

Table 10. Number of studies by work outcomes and

diversity dimensions in diversity research

Diversity management: a

systematic review

917

D iv er si ty

d im

en si o n s

O u tc o m es

R el a ti o n s o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s

T o ta l

v a lu es

Jo b -o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s

T o ta l

v a lu es

A g e

G en d er

R a ce

N a ti o n a li ty

F u n ct io n a l

b a ck g ro u n d

E d u ca ti o n a l

b a ck g ro u n d

T ea m

te n u re

O rg .

te n u re

In n o v a ti o n

1 1

2 O rg a n iz a ti o n a l

co m p et it iv en es s

1 1

2

C o m m it m en t

2 3

4 9

2 1

3 F ir m

p er fo rm

a n ce

4 3

6 1

1 4

2 1

2 5

O C B

1 1

T u rn o v er

1 1

1 1

4 1

1 2

S el f- es te em

1 1

2 S tr a te g ic co n se n su s

1 1

1 1

1 3

T o ta l v a lu es

4 1

4 9

6 0

2 0

1 9

2 7

1 1

2 8

Table 10.

EDI 39,8

918

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

919

In di

vi du

al le

ve l

an d

gr ou

p le

ve l

C o

n se

q u

e n

c e s

M e d ia

to r

D im

e n

si o

n s

o f

D iv

e rs

it y

M o

d e ra

to rs

O rg

an iz

at io

na l

le ve

l

T o

p

m a n

a g

e m

e n

t

te a m

d iv

e rs

it y

U p

p e r

E c h e lo

n

R el

at io

ns o

ri en

te d

A g e d

iv e rs

it y

G e n d e r

d iv

e rs

it y

R a c ia

l d

iv e rs

it y

Jo b

or ie

nt ed

T

e n

u re

F u

n c ti

o n

a l

E d u c a ti

o n

P er

fo rm

an ce

ou

tc om

es

F ir

m

e ff

e c ti

v e n e ss

O rg

a n iz

a ti

o n a l

In n

o v

a ti

o n

C re

a ti

v it

y

Id e a G

e n e ra

ti o n

O rg

a n iz

a ti

o n a l

c o m

p e ti

ti v e n e ss

F ir

m

p e rf

o rm

a n c e

F in

a n c ia

l

p e rf

o rm

a n c e

P ro

ce ss

O

ut co

m es

C o n fl

ic t

C o m

m u n ic

a ti

o n

Jo b

s a ti

sf a c ti

o n

Jo b p

e rf

o rm

a n c e

O rg

a n iz

a ti

o n a l

c o m

m it

m e n t

O rg

a n iz

a ti

o n a l

c it

iz e n sh

ip

b e h

a v

io r

(O C

B )

S o

c ia

l

in te

g ra

ti o n

T u

rn o

v e r

In te

rv en

in g

m ec

ha ni

sm

(P ro

ce ss

va

ri ab

le s)

C o n fl

ic t

T a sk

r e le

v a n t

in fo

rm a ti

o n

T e a m

r e fl

e x

iv it

y

G ro

u p

id e n ti

fi c a ti

o n

Im p

re ss

io n

fo rm

a ti

o n

R o

le a

m b

ig u

it y

R o

le c

o n

fl ic

t

T e a m

e ff

ic a c y

S e lf

-c a te

g o ri

z a ti

o n ,

S im

il a ri

ty a

tt ra

c ti

o n ,

S o c ia

l id

e n ti

ty t

h e o ry

T a sk

i n

te rd

e p

e n

d e n

c e

T e a m

l e a d

e rs

h ip

E th

n ic

s ta

tu s

T a sk

r o

u ti

n e n

e ss

T

ra n

sf o

rm a ti

o n

a l

le a d

e rs

h ip

B

u si

n e ss

s tr

a te

g y

T a sk

c o

m p

le x

it y

T

e a m

s iz

e

S h

a re

d o

b je

c ti

v e s

T a sk

a b il

it y

T

e a m

o ri

e n ta

ti o n

S

o c ia

l c o n te

x t

T a sk

m o

ti v

a ti

o n

G

ro u

p l

o n

g e v

it y

O rg

a n

iz a ti

o n

a l

c u

lt u

re

G ro

u p

f a u

lt l

in e

D iv

e rs

it y

b e li

e fs

D iv

e rs

it y

c li

m a te

In fo

rm a ti

o n

d e c is

io n

m a k

in g

t h

e o

ry

Figure 4. Integrative model of diversity management

EDI 39,8

920

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

921

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 39,8

922

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

923

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. and Erhardt, N.L. (2003), “Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 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 39,8

924

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. 17 No. 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

925

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 39,8

926

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. 55 No. 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

927

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 39,8

928

Appendix

Corresponding author Shatrughan Yadav can be contacted at: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

[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

929

  • Diversity management: a systematic review
    • Introduction
    • Literature review
      • Evolution of diversity management
      • Conceptualization of diversity
      • Exploring dimensions of diversity
    • Research methodology
    • Results
      • Journal wise distribution of literature
      • Distribution based on year of publications
      • Country and time period-based classification of articles
      • Industry-wise classification of articles
      • Respondents in diversity research
      • Classification based on the adopted methodology
      • Classification of diversity dimensions and sources
      • Antecedents and consequences of diversity
      • Moderators and mediators in workplace diversity
      • Breadth and depth of diversity article
    • Discussion
    • Theoretical implications
      • Practical implications
    • Limitations and future research
    • Conclusion
    • References
    • Appendix