Running head: [SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 1

Cognitive Diversity Impacts on the Workplace: How Can Leaders or

Managers Mediate Between Diversity Effects and Organizational Outcomes?

Eunmi Choi

Rutgers University - Newark

Running head: [SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 2

Abstract

Recent empirical research mostly presents that the different types of employees and the diversity

effects help increase organizational performance, job satisfaction and decrease turnover

intention, while early studies incline to prove that workforce diversity brings adverse

consequences. This study is a continuum of the diversity effect; however, it more focuses on

work group diversity based on cognitive intimacy in the context of workplace. This study

suggests cognitive diversity as a different dimension of diversity, and leaders’ or managers’

inclusiveness to integrate the diversity effects on team process and organizational outcomes.

Using multiple regression and structural equation modeling analysis, this article provides

evidence for the effects of work group diversity and the moderated mediating effect of team

process.

Keywords: diversity, cognitive intimacy, inclusiveness, team process, organizational

outcomes
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 3

Introduction

The diversity and its effects have been debatable in public sector workforces. As the

different types of employees have been growing in public government agencies, a number of

issues such as demographical, functional, educational backgrounds and so forth have been

attentively considered. It is important to understand diversity and its impacts on organizational

outcomes, for example, job satisfaction, turnover intention, and performance (Milliken &

Martins, 1996), in that demographic heterogeneity is a sensitive issue in the workplace.

Managing different types of employees in the context of workplace is a challenging effort in

public sector organizations. Workforce diversity has been more acceptable in public sector

compared to private sector organizations (Cornwell & Kellough, 1994; Foldy, 2004). As a part of

legal driven actions, equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action help to abate

discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, and age in terms of diversity. The subtle

differences between EEO and affirmative action can be found with such a different approach.

EEO is a priori action which ensures equal access to organizations by preventing discrimination,

while affirmative action is a post action which encourage assimilation of different types of

employees and has influences on hiring process and promotion decisions in the organizations

(Riccucci, 2002). In contrast to legitimate tools, managing diversity more hinges on effective

management skill and ability to accommodate diversity by applying managerial practices and

policies or programs in the organizations (Riccucci, 2002).

Early organizational literature on diversity and its impacts assumes that heterogeneous

work groups bring adverse impacts on the organizational functions (Chatman & Flynn, 2001;

Chatman et al., 1998; Harrison et al., 1998; Jehn et al., 1999). The complexity of demographic
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 4

diversity may cause task conflicts among group members when the membership is based on race,

ethnicity, and gender (Jehn et al., 1999; Tsui et al., 1992). In other words, the more demographic

heterogeneity, the more relational conflicts may arise within the work groups. It is possible that

the employees who have the strong biases because of differences on race, ethnicity and gender

are likely to distinguish themselves from others. As a consequence, the less commitment from

employees occurs in demographically different work groups (Tsui et al., 1992).

In contrast, optimistic literature on the effects of diversity believes that the demographic

diversity has positive influences on organizational relationship and productivity (Cox, 1994; Ely,

2004; Ospina, 2001). Workforce diversity can provide a resource pool such as different insights,

networks, information and experiences to resolve the complicated problems (Cox & Black, 1991;

Foldy, 2004; Levine et al, 1993). It is bolstered by the information and decision-making theories

that diversity perspectives contribute to the increased performance through higher-quality

decisions and more creative ideas (Cox, 1993; Cox & Balck, 1991; Ely, 2004; Foldy, 2004). In

so doing, the workforce diversity is inclined to share work-related information, which performs

better than homogeneous groups.

Previous research mostly proves the relationship between demographic diversity and

organizational outcomes. The number of empirical evidence has investigated such negative

effects from heterogeneity in organizations; on the other hands, recent research shows the

mediating or moderating roles of organizational context in diverse workforces. However, the

other types of diversity and leaders’ or managers’ role in diversified workplace are not frequently

regarded as diversity management. This study is a continuum of diversity research which is more

focused on cognitive diversity based on psychological or affective factors than demographic

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 5

diversity based on race, gender, ethnicity, and age. First, it reviews classic theories and different

types of diversity to understand the effects of diversity. Then, it discusses diversity management

and a role of leaders or managers as managerial practices. Next, this study explores the work

group diversity impacts of cognitive intimacy in workplace and examines the moderated

mediating role between workgroup diversity and organizational outcomes using structural

equation modeling (SEM). Lastly, it discusses findings and implications.

Theoretical Framework

In an effort to construct theoretical framework, there are two polar perspectives on

diversity effects (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Whereas the optimistic view of diversity effects

on organizational outcomes or performance presents that the organization can take advantage of

more creative ideas and higher quality of decisions (Cox, 1993; Cox & Balck, 1991; Ely, 2004),

the pessimistic view argues that heterogeneous groups are rather inclined to increase stereotypes,

task conflicts, and difficulties of interaction among employees (Jehn et al., 1999; Tsui, et al.,

1992). The conventional frameworks – similarity-attraction theory, social identity theory and

self-categorization theory – in diversity support the less optimistic perspective of diversity and

the effects of diversity.

The similarity-attraction hypothesis (Byrne, 1971) is based on interactions among

individuals who prefer similarity in interests and status. Such a similarity positively increases

individuals’ attitudes and beliefs in a group by sharing their experiences and values (Chatman,

1991; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979); however, the strong tendency to interact with the similar

group has a problem that the similarity-attraction theory considers only interpersonal

relationship, except of social groups (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). It is also impossible
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 6

to interact with all other individuals in a larger social group.

Social identity and social categorization theories are partially consistent with the

assumption that the formation of in-group helps individuals delineate themselves by means of

belonging to a group (Tajfel, 1978), and then they use social categories with the perceived social

characteristics based on age, gender, race and status for their intentional behavior (Hogg & Terry,

2000). The sense of self can be found in the perceptual awareness of group membership which

share the values and confirm the similar emotions (Tajfel, 1978). The group membership is a part

of self-evaluation function of individuals. When individuals recognize the differences regarding

race, gender, and age, they are likely to compare to their own identity. This social identity

process occurs with the formation of in-group and out-group members to reduce uncertainty and

to increase safety as well. It is derived from in-group prototype that cognitively represent “us” by

maximizing similar attitudes, behaviors, and emotions as a member (Ashforth et al., 2008; Hogg

& Terry, 2000; Van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Categorizing in-group and out-group would be

applied in public agencies which consist of civil service employees including the senior

executive services (SES).

Types of Diversity

A debate about diversity effects has been generally discussed in demographic and

functional diversity. The dimensions of diversity are demonstrated in several ways. As an early

distinction, diversity is characterized by surface-level and deep-level forms (Jackson et al.,

1995). Heterogeneous groups that are easily discernible can be physically distinguished by age,

sex, race, and ethnicity in terms of the forms of surface level diversity; on the other hand, the

forms of deep level diversity are far less apparent because it can be determined by the personal
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 7

attributes such as attitudes, values, and beliefs (Harrison et al., 1998). Based upon job

relatedness, the different type of diversity is also categorized as highly job-related and less job-

related diversity (Simon et al, 1999; Webb & Donahue, 2001). More job-related diversity is

regarded with functional, occupational, and educational attributes, while less job-related

diversity is characterized by demographic diversity such as race, ethnicity, gender, and age

(Webb & Donahue, 2001).

In the practice of organization, the different dimensions of diversity can be categorized

according to workforce composition – trait diversity focused on demographic and functional

backgrounds, state diversity concentrated on information preference, and emergent diversity

focused on employees’ cognition and affection (Van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). First, trait

diversity is derived from stable characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age, education, and

personality), as a variety of literature considered in general. Second, state diversity is more

flexible aspect, as it is attributed to group decision (Davis, 1973), and information and

preferences (Stasser & Titus, 1985). The trait diversity may be interrelated with the state

diversity in terms of social categorization processes and information elaboration, even though the

attributes of trait and state diversity are differently defined (Van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016).

Third, emergent diversity which differs from previous categorization of diversity is based on

psychological contingency (Van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016). It is more derived from intricate

attributes considering affective factors than trait and state diversity.

The different types of diversity may differently affect the organizational outcomes. As

early literature emphasized, demographic or personality diversity leads to adverse effects by

classifying in-group preference over out-group in terms of social categorization process

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 8

including social identity (Chatman & O’Reilly, 2004; Jackson et al., 1995; Jehn et al., 1999;

O’Reilly et al., 1989; Pfeffer, 1983; Tsui et al., 1992). Employees have tendency to evaluate

dominance who are members of in-groups more favorably than those who are members of out-

groups. It is possible to make a kind of prejudice with similar backgrounds and experiences. In

contrast, educational or functional form of diversity evokes informational processes increasing

task conflict which leads to positive outcomes (Jehn et al., 1999). In spite of different dimensions

of diversity, such literature on emergent diversity paid much less attention to psychological or

cognitive variables. Only a few researchers make an effort to conceptualize psychological or

affective variation regarding emergent diversity (Humphrey & Aime, 2014; Marks et al., 2000;

Van Knippenberg & Mell 2016). As many studies have proved the positive or negative effects of

diversity on organizational performance, emergent diversity based on cognitive preferences

would affect the organizational outcomes.

Hypothesis 1: Work group diversity will be related with team process. In the moderated

mediating model, work group diversity will directly affect team process and

organizational outcomes.

Hypothesis 1a: Cognitive intimacy closely working with political senior executive

services (SES) will be related with team process. In the moderated mediating model,

political SES will directly affect team process and organizational outcomes.

Hypothesis 1b: Cognitive intimacy closely working with career senior executive

services (SES) will be related with team process. In the moderated mediating model,

career SES will directly affect team process and organizational outcomes.
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 9

Diversity Management and Leaders’ or Managers’ Role

The main themes of the existing study of diversity management are based on the

relationship between diversity and its impacts on the organizations. Previous literature

concerning diversity and the impacts of diversity with individual level indicates that the group

members of being demographically different are less likely to devoted to their organizations

which lead to higher absence and conflict, and lower retention (Jackson et al., 1995; Jehn et al.,

1999; O’Reilly et al., 1989; Pfeffer, 1983). In workgroup level unit, the diversity studies prove

that work groups of being demographically dissimilar have negative influences on group

outcomes such as lower-level of satisfaction and cohesion and higher-level of turnover (Chatman

& O’Reilly, 2004; Tsui et al., 1992).

The improvement of organizational outcomes, therefore, hinge on how the diversity is

effectively managed in the organizations. The recent research of diversity management

constantly supports the value-in-diversity that heterogeneous groups are more beneficial to the

organization than homogeneous groups (Cox, 1994; Cox et al., 1991). Either demographic or

cognitive diversity in the context of workplace may need the effective role of leaders or

managers. For instance, such capability is required for the leaders or managers to incorporate a

sense of identity the group shares, which ultimately motivate group members to improve

collective performance (Ellemers et al., 2002). Further study of diversity management shows that

effective leadership is not only to encourage employees to perceive demographic differences in

their work groups and learn from the differences, but also to motivate minorities to bring their

unique opinions and insights that leave open the possibility of ‘learning-and-effectiveness

paradigm’ (Thomas & Ely, 1996).

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 10

In diversified workforces, a certain role is required for leaders or managers to orchestrate

different types of employees, experiences, insights, and knowledge. A sense of heterogeneity

induces the perception of inclusion-exclusion, leading to job satisfaction, organizational

effectiveness and commitment, and turnover intention (Barak et al., 2001). Inclusion can be

considered as the extent to which leaders or managers encourage all employees to contribute

unique insights and perspectives to the decision making process, and then employees have a

sense of belongingness (Holvino et al., 2004; Lirio et al., 2008; Miller, 1998). The perceived

inclusiveness by the role of leaders or managers increases engagement, intention to remain, and

turnover intention (Barak et al., 2001; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). Take all these argument,

the following hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 2: Inclusiveness of leaders or managers will play a moderating role between

work group diversity based on cognitive intimacy and team process, which will relate to

organizational outcomes.

Hypothesis 2a: Inclusiveness of leaders or managers will moderate the impact of

cognitive intimacy closely working with political senior executive services (SES) on

team process, which will increase organizational outcomes.

Hypothesis 2b: Inclusiveness of leaders or managers will moderate the impact of

cognitive intimacy closely working with career senior executive services (SES) on team

process, which will increase organizational outcomes.

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 11

The formation of groups or teams can be found in a consensus of those who are

interdependent in tasks. According to Cohen and Bailey (1997), team processes are defined as

"interactions such as communication and conflict that occur among group members and external

others" (p. 244). Groups or teams could induce positive relationships between autonomous work

groups and performance outcomes in that it creates opportunities for ongoing learning in work

place. Members in groups or teams are supposed to interact, negotiate, and influence each other

in terms of behavior integration (Hambrick, 1994). In terms of diversity in organizational

settings, field research studies on teams examined the contextual factors – e.g., indirect support

factors as compared to direct effects to organizational system with regard to input-output

linkages. Therefore, the additional hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 3: The moderated effect of team process will mediate the relationship

between the effects of work group diversity based on cognitive intimacy and

organizational outcomes. In other words, work group diversity will have an indirect

influence on organizational outcomes.

Hypothesis 3a: Cognitive intimacy closely working with political senior executive

services (SES) will directly affect organizational outcomes.

Hypothesis 3b: Cognitive intimacy closely working with career senior executive services

(SES) will directly affect organizational outcomes.

Data and Methods

Data source
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 12

This study uses data from the 2010 Merit Principles Survey (MPS). The U.S. Merit

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) conducts a government-wide survey of federal employees not

only in order to investigate human resource practices and leadership, but also consider the

dimension of engagement and motivation. The 2010 MPS is represented as federal workforce

issues in terms of survey sampling with permanent and full-time workforce in federal agencies.

According to MSPB, the survey was distributed to 71,970 full time and permanent employees,

and then the valid responses were 42,020 individuals, suggesting a response rate of 58 percent.

However, the final sample size is 14,904 because of missing values. It is still able to be

representative of public employees in that the final sample size is calculated from the total

number of employees.

Measures

Two diversity work groups based on cognitive or affective factors, and other variables are

measured with multiple survey items. Table 1 presents the sample descriptive statistics and

correlations. For reliability of measurement, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is ranged from to

0.68 to 0.85. In order to measure organizational outcomes as dependent variable, this study

considers the degree of which agency and work group fulfill the mission and high-level services.

The level of agreement or disagreement on organizational outcomes composes of a five-point

Likert scale. The results of a factor analysis of these survey items indicates that factor loadings

range 0.536 to 0.820, and the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.75. For the measure of work group diversity

either closely working with political senior executive services (SES) or career senior executive

services (SES), it contains multiple survey questions about the level of intimacy and reflection

on senior executive services. Respondents rate cognitive intimacy on a five-point Likert scale
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 13

from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The overall distribution of intimacy both with

political SES and career SES is left skewed, implying heterogeneous work groups. Factor

analysis of cognitive intimacy items present that factor loadings for political SES range from

0.958 to 0.973, and for career SES range from 0.970 to 0.973. The Cronbach’s alpha of both is

0.85. In case of the perceived inclusiveness, this variable is measured with how leaders or

manages accepts and treats the diversity effects in workplace. Factor loadings range from 0.688

to 0.854, and the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.72. As a mediating role, team process is measured

considering the level of cooperation and teamwork. Factor analysis shows that factor loadings for

team process range from 0.774 to 0.821, the Cronbach’s alpha is 0.68. The appendix offers the

questionnaire items for the constructed variables.

[Table 1 around here]

Methods

This study applies structural equation modeling (SEM) to test diversity effect and its

indirect relationships with organizational outcomes through the moderated mediating factor. It

allows for more complicated model to affirm indirect effects and direct effects. In addition to a

mediating effect, this study analyzes the moderated effect of leaders’ or managers’ inclusiveness

to team process. To test hypotheses, the study employs STATA Version 14. The data is analyzed

two parts that the first test is to detect a moderation effect of leaders’ or managers’ inclusive

ability on team process, and then the second test is to examine a moderated mediating effect of

team process on organizational outcomes. The inclusiveness of leaders or managers is differently

effective in diversity work groups. The significant relationship suggests that the diversity work
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 14

group effects on organizational outcomes is fully mediated by team process. The results bolster

the moderated mediating model, indicating that the measurement model is significantly

acceptable to account for the information in observed variables (chi-squared of 2.64, p< .266).

The measures of model fit are all good (RMSEA = .003; CFI = 1). This model does not have to

modify indices because all MI values less than 3.84 1.

Results

The moderating effect of inclusiveness on team process and the main effects of work

group diversity were examined through a hierarchical multiple regression and a structural

equation modeling analysis. Table 2 presents the moderation effects of leaders’ or managers’

inclusiveness on team process analyzed by the hierarchical multiple regression. Figure 1 and

Table 3 provides the total results from the moderated mediating model.

[Figure 1 around here]

Effects of moderating role: Inclusiveness of leaders or managers

In the moderating models, the effects of diversity either closely working with political

SES or career SES are influential on team process in the context of workplace. The effects of

work group diversity cognitively related with political SES (.033, p < .05) and with career SES

(.198, p < .05) were positively associated with team process, respectively. The effect of

inclusiveness is also positively related with team process (.331, p < .05), in support of hypothesis

1
Based on Acock’s book (2013), this study follows the statistical standard to show the appropriateness of
the model fit.
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 15

2. However, findings of moderation effect were partially supported by the moderation effects.

Cognitive intimacy closely working with political SES and leaders’ or managers’ inclusiveness

of intimacy with political SES were not statistically affect team process, in not bolster of

hypothesis 2a. On the other hand, work group cognitively with career SES was positively related

with team process (.294, p < .05) and inclusiveness of those who have strong affection for career

SES negatively moderated the relationship between work group diversity and team process

(-.029, p < .05), in support of hypothesis 2b.

[Table 2 around here]

Effects of moderated mediating roles: Team process

In the second step, the structural equation modeling analyzed the relationship between

cognitive diversity effects and organizational outcomes. The main theme of purpose of this study

is to explore the moderated mediating role of team process in diversified workplace. The

empirical test presents the work group diversity based on cognition has a positive influence on

organizational outcomes mediated by the role of team process (.235, p < .05), implying that it

bolsters hypothesis 3. Also, the work group diversity of cognitively intimate with political SES

(.045, p < .05) or intimate with career SES (.051, p < .05) was directly related with

organizational outcomes, in support hypothesis 3a and 3b. What is interesting result is the effect

of cognitive intimacy with political SES. The cognitive diversity closely working with political

SES negatively affected team process (-.109, p < .05), however, the effect of cognitive intimacy

with political SES turned into a positive relation with team process because of the inclusiveness
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 16

of leaders or managers (.042, p < .05). In case of work group diversity with career SES, the

relation with both team process (.089, p < .05) and organizational outcomes (.036, p < .05) were

positive.

[Table 3 around here]

Discussion and Conclusion

Recent empirical research mostly presents that the different types of employees and its

effects help increase organizational performance, job satisfaction and decrease turnover intention

(Choi & Rainey, 2010; Ely, 2004; Foldy, 2004; Ospina 2001), while early studies incline to prove

that workforce diversity brings adverse consequences (Chatman & Flynn, 2001; Chatman et al.,

1998; Harrison et al., 1998; Jehn et al., 1999). In a similar vein, the focus of this research has

been on the impacts of cognitive diversity on organizational outcomes and the inclusiveness of

leaders or managers in federal government agencies. First, this study hypothesized that the work

group diversity based on cognitive intimacy would negatively affect team process and

organizational outcomes. The results prove that a negative effect of cognitive intimacy with

political SES and a positive effect of intimacy with career SES on team process. Moreover, the

effects of cognitive diversity have direct influences on organizational outcomes. Second, it

further hypothesized that leaders’ or managers’ inclusiveness would moderate the effects of

cognitive intimacy on team process. The results indicate that leaders’ or managers’ inclusiveness

is effective for career SES, but not for political SES. Lastly, it hypothesized that the moderated

mediating role of team process would have a relationship between work group diversity based on
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 17

cognitive intimacy and organizational outcomes according to the purpose of this study. The final

results present that the effect of work group diversity either cognitively intimate with working

political SES or career SES is positively mediated by the moderation role of team process. The

moderating effect of inclusiveness for cognitive intimacy with political SES is not significant at

work group level; on the other hand, the moderation of inclusiveness with political SES turns

into an effective role in organizational level. That is to say, the effect of cognitive intimacy with

political SES is positively related with organizational outcomes by team process. The moderating

effect of inclusiveness of cognitive intimacy with career SES is positively related with team

process; moreover, team process positively mediates the relationship between intimacy with

career SES and organizational outcomes. The overall results prove the effectiveness of leaders’

or managers’ role in diversified workforces. Along with previous literature, this study implies

that the effect of diversity on organizational outcomes cannot be ignored. Improving

organizational outcomes are contingent on how leaders or managers involve different types of

employees in the context of workplace (Barak et al., 2001; Ellemers et al., 2004). This study is

focused on a dimension of cognitive diversity rather than demographic diversity, even though the

cognitive intimacy or affection is based on psychological aspect which is not easy to discern. It is

therefore required to consider the elaborated meaning of psychological or affective factors, and

exmine contextual factors to understand the diversity effects in workplace (Choi & Rainey, 2010;

Milliken & Martins, 1996; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 18

References

Acock, A. C. (2013). Discovering structural equation modeling using Stata. Stata Press books.

Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An

examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of management, 34(3), 325-374.

Barak, M. E. M., Findler, L., & Wind, L. H. (2001). Diversity, inclusion, and commitment in

organizations: International empirical explorations. Journal of Behavioral and Applied

Management, 2(2).

Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11). Academic Pr.

Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the

emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of

Management Journal, 44(5), 956-974.

Chatman, J. A., & O'Reilly, C. A. (2004). Asymmetric reactions to work group sex diversity

among men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 193-208.

Choi, S., & Rainey, H. G. (2010). Managing diversity in US federal agencies: Effects of diversity

and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational

performance. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 109-121.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research

from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management, 23(3), 239-290.

Cornwell, C., & Kellough, J. E. (1994). Women and minorities in federal government agencies:

Examining new evidence from panel data. Public Administration Review, 265-270.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. Berrett-

Koehler Publishers.
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 19

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational

competitiveness. The Executive, 45-56.

Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on

cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of management

journal, 34(4), 827-847.

Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes.

Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual review of

psychology, 53(1), 161-186.

Ely, R. J. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs,

and performance. Journal of organizational behavior, 25(6), 755-780.

Foldy, E. G. (2004). Learning from diversity: A theoretical exploration. Public Administration

Review, 64(5), 529-538.

Hambrick, D.C. (1994). Top management groups: A conceptual integration and reconsideration

of the “team” label. Research in organizational behavior, 16, 171-213.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the

effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of

management journal, 41(1), 96-107.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in

organizational contexts. Academy of management review, 25(1), 121-140.

Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining diversity and

inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 20

(Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity: 245-276. Malden, MA:

Blackwell.

Humphrey, S. E., & Aime, F. (2014). Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to

teamwork. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 443-503.

Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in

decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and

decision making in organizations: 204, 261. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A

field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science

quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.

Levine, J. M., Resnick, L. B., & Higgins, E. T. (1993). Social foundations of cognition. Annual

review of psychology, 44(1), 585-612.

Lirio, P., Lee, M. D., Williams, M. L., Haugen, L. K., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). The inclusion

challenge with reduced‐load professionals: The role of the manager. Human Resource

Management, 47(3), 443-461.

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader

inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in

health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966.

Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader

briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel

environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 971.

Miller, F. A. (1998). Strategic culture change: The door to achieving high performance and

inclusion. Public Personnel Management, 27: 151-160.


[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 21

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the

multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of management

review, 21(2), 402-433.

O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social

integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21–37.

Ospina, Sonia. (2001). Managing Diversity in the Civil Service: A Conceptual Framework for

Public Organizations. In Managing Diversity in the Civil Service (Vol. 17). Pp 11-29.

United Nations. Department of Economic, & International Institute of Administrative

Sciences. IOS Press.

Pfeffer, J. 1983. Organizational demography. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5: 299–357.

Riccucci, N. (2002). Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Westview Press.

Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making use of difference: diversity, debate,

and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management

Journal, 42 (6), 662–674.

Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985). Pooling unshared information in group decision making: Biased

information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

48, 1467–1478.


Tajfel, H. E. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of

intergroup relations. Academic Press: London. Chapters 1-3.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making differences matter. Harvard business review, 74(5),

79-90.

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography

and organizational attachment. Administrative science quarterly, 549-579.

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 22

Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness

in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 243-295.

Van Knippenberg, D., & 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, 136, 135-145.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review

Psychology, 58, 515-541.

Van Maanen, John, and Edgar, Schein. (1979) "Toward a theory of organizational socialization."

In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 1: 209-

264. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work

group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of management, 27(2), 141-

162.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1998). A review of 40 years of research. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 23

Tables

Table 1

The descriptive statistics and correlations of variables

Descriptive statistics Correlations of variables

Mean SD N 1 2 3 4 5

1. Organizational 4.55 0.58 41,706 (0.75)

outcomes

2. Political SES 3.82 0.92 17,874 0.22* (0.85)

3. Career SES 4.04 0.87 24,582 0.25* 0.68* (0.85)

4. Inclusiveness 3.63 0.94 31,935 0.25* 0.33* 0.36* (0.72)

5. Team process 4.12 0.90 41,782 0.39* 0.27* 0.34* 0.43* (0.68)

Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; parenthesis indicates the Cronbach’s coefficient
alpha.
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 24

Table 2

The moderation effects of inclusiveness on team process

Model 1 Model 2

Coefficient Std. Err. Coefficient Std. Err.

Political SES 0.033* 0.001 0.007 0.032

Career SES 0.198* 0.010 0.294* 0.032

Inclusiveness 0.331* 0.007 0.417* 0.027

Political SES x Inclusiveness 0.007 0.009

Career SES x Inclusiveness -0.029* 0.009

R2 0.23 0.23

Adjusted R2 0.23 0.23

Note: * p < .05

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 25

Table 3

Results of structural equation modeling analysis (N= 14,904)

Measurement paths Coefficient Std. Err.

Organizational outcomes  Political SES (direct effect) 0.045* 0.006

Organizational outcomes  Career SES (direct effect) 0.051* 0.007

Organizational outcomes  Team process 0.237* 0.005

Team process  Political SES -0.109* 0.031

Team process  Career SES 0.089* 0.029

Team process  Political SES x Inclusiveness 0.042* 0.008

Team process  Career SES x Inclusiveness 0.036* 0.008

Note: * p < .05

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 26

Figures

Figure 1
[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 27

Appendix

Measures

Organizational outcomes (Cronbach’s alpha = .75; factor loadings = .536-.820)

Respondents indicate level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

1. My agency is successful in accomplishing its mission.

2. My work unit produces high quality products and services.

3. My job makes good use of my skills and abilities.

Work group working with political senior executive services (Cronbach’s alpha = .85; factor

loadings = .958-.973)

Respondents indicate level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

1. I work closely with a politically appointed senior executive services.

2. Political senior executive services have good management skills.

3. Political senior executive services work hard to fulfill the mission of the agency

4. Political senior executive services communicate well.

Work group working with career senior executive services (Cronbach’s alpha = .85; factor

loadings = .970-.973)

Respondents indicate level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

1. I work closely with a politically appointed senior executive services.

2. Career senior executive services have good management skills.

3. Career senior executive services work hard to fulfill the mission of the agency

4. Career senior executive services communicate well.

[SHORTENED TITLE UP TO 50 CHARACTERS] 28

Leaders or managers’ inclusiveness (Cronbach’s alpha = .72; factor loadings = .688-.854)

Respondents indicate level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

1. Leader or manager in my agency does not engage in favoritism.

2. Leader or manager in my agency protects employees from political coercion.

Team process (Cronbach’s alpha = .68; factor loadings = .774-.821)

Respondents indicate level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements:

1. I am treated with respect at work.

2. My opinions count at work.

3. A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work unit.