321–43. equality diversity and inclusion at work

198 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work and control via participation or task autonomy are conducive Frese et al., 1996; Parker et al., 2006; Rank et al., 2007. Two other proactivity facilitators relevant to diversity and inclusion are employees’ perceptions of procedural justice McAllister et al., 2007 and their visibility and status operationalised as perceived organisational support within the organisa- tion Fuller et al., 2006. Examples of potential group-level antecedents • High proportion of pro-diversity beliefs • Integration-and-learning perspective • Interpersonal congruence • Participative safety • Group relexivity Diverse employees’ voice behaviour and proactive behaviour Examples of individual antecedents as experienced by diverse employees • Trust in the supervisor • Trust in coworkers • Control beliefs and aspirations • Self-eicacy and self-esteem • Afective organisational commitment Examples of situational antecedents as experienced by diverse employees • Participative leadership • Low levels of corrective supervision • Task autonomy • Procedural justice • Visibility and status in the organisation Figure 15.1 A model of diversity, employee voice and proactive behaviour Challenging the status quo 199 Based on an integration of American leadership and motivation theories as well as German action theory Frese and Rank, 2006, my PhD research, conducted in a large i nancial services organisation, examined associations between leadership and subordinate proactivity, including moderators and mediators of these relationships Rank, 2006a. Participative leader- ship was the strongest positive predictor of proactive service performance Rank et al., 2007 and also associated with voice and initiative. Active- corrective transactional leadership that is, monitoring and punishment of errors or deviations was negatively correlated to proactivity. According to the augmentation hypothesis put forward by transformational leadership scholars Bass et al., 2003, followers of visionary, inspirational and intellec- tually stimulating leaders exhibit greater ef ort and productivity than those exposed only to transactional practices. Frese and Fay 2001 suggested that the performance ef ects of transformational leadership may be caused by increased initiative. Viewing voice as an equitable form of dialogue Eisenberg and Goodall, 2001, I argue that only democratic rather than authoritarian forms of transformational leadership truly promote voice. In support of this hypothesis, I found that transformational leadership posi- tively related to subordinates’ voice and initiative only when combined with low levels of corrective supervision or high levels of participation. Individual Antecedents Rather than focusing on stable personality predictors of initiative and voice for example, extraversion, conscientiousness, need for achievement; Frese et al., 1996; LePine and Van Dyne, 2001, I briel y discuss malleable factors that can actually be enhanced to promote proactivity. Signii cant correlates of voice identii ed in American i eld studies include individuals’ self-esteem LePine and Van Dyne, 1998, their overall identii cation with the organisation Fuller et al., 2006 and their af ective organisational com- mitment emotional attachment to the organisation; Rank et al., 2007. Employees’ general or role-breadth self-ei cacy their belief in their capa- bility to successfully perform a wide range of activities; Frese et al., 1996; Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Parker et al., 2006 and control aspirations expectations to be in control over situations and inl uence outcomes; Fay and Frese, 2001; Parker et al., 2006 also predicted proactive behaviour. This pattern of i ndings suggests that disadvantaged employees may sometimes exhibit less voice and proactivity because of reduced levels of critical individual and situational antecedents. For example, biased per- formance appraisals Heilman et al., 2004 and reduced access to adequate role models and mentors Ragins and Cotton, 1991 compromise pro- cedural justice perceptions and self-ei cacy. Accounts of diversity-related 200 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work incidents frequently feature examples of unfair treatment by management Roberson and Stevens, 2006, such as excessive sanctions for other- wise tolerated behaviour rel ecting disproportionate levels of corrective supervision or being denied access to developmental opportunities. Such experiences may undermine subordinates’ trust in leadership, the primary attitudinal mediator linking supervisory practices to subordinates’ pro- activity, as identii ed in one of my structural equation models Rank, 2006b. Trust in coworkers has been identii ed as another important facilitator of proactive behaviour Parker et al., 2006. Trust is critical to proactivity, because it enables people to ‘accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another’ Rousseau et al., 1998, p. 395. Hence, individuals’ experienced work situation and group-level factors may inl uence proactivity not only directly, but also via individual factors such as trust and commitment. GROUP FACTORS FACILITATING VOICE AND PROACTIVITY AMONG DIVERSE EMPLOYEES A better understanding of the group-level conditions under which diverse employees exhibit voice and initiative contributes to a resolution of the diversity dilemma. Diversity is a double-edged sword, because it may not only ‘give rise to varied ideas, perspectives, knowledge and skills’ Polzer et al., 2002, p. 296, but also disrupt group processes because of various problematic ef ects explicated in social psychological models such as social identity theory and self-categorisation theory Van Knippenberg et al., 2004. The potential devaluation of contributions made by minority employees can be partially explained by in-group favouritism resulting from self-categorisation of dominating group members as representatives of the majority Marques et al., 2001. To achieve benei ts such as improved innovation, it is essential that diverse employees actually voice concerns, speak up with suggestions and take initiative Rank et al., 2004b. Obviously, diverse employees will be more likely to engage in voice and proactivity when organisation members endorse pro-diversity beliefs, that is, ai rmative beliefs about the value of diversity to group functioning Homan et al., 2007. This corresponds to the integration-and-learning perspective on diversity, which implies that diverse employees feel truly respected and that task conl ict is viewed positively Ely and Thomas, 2001. The discrimination-and-fairness perspective tends to neglect dif er- ences, while the access-and-legitimacy perspective tends to value minority employees’ contributions only when they are instrumental in the attrac- tion and retention of certain customer groups.