Feminist psychosocial approaches: relationality, recognition and denial 185
public commitments. We can be both ‘victim’ and ‘perpetrator’, responsi- ble and innocent, thus we can sometimes seem to act ‘irrationally’, ‘against
ourselves’ see Hunter, 2005a. There is a distinction here from ‘eitheror’ dualistic perspectives on agency where social change involves dramatic
transformation. Because subjects are positioned within and against social relations of inequality, they will inevitably engage in constant struggle
work and negotiation to achieve certain ‘ends’, whether these be resistance and change or continuity.
SPEAKING ABOUT AND SPEAKING THROUGH
I turn now to one of the ways a feminist psychosocial perspective enables me to unpick the ‘recognition denial paradox’ I identii ed at the beginning
of this chapter. Because this approach understands recognition as struc- tured through the interplay of social interaction and unconscious symbolic
interaction, it enables us to see how people are so much more than their public expressions of categorical identii cation. Such an approach can
understand the ways in which recognition can be both constraining and enabling. So this is a perspective that refuses to reduce politics to the abso-
lutes often enacted in the name of recognition.
In my research with welfare professionals working in health and social care I make the distinction between speaking about and speaking through
social relations. This distinction enables me to highlight the important tensions and ambivalences produced through the gap between the ‘I’
and the ‘we’. In contrast to other research which i nds its participants reticent to speak about the operation of gender and ethnicity within
their working contexts, my i ndings identii ed an increasing tendency for welfare professionals to speak about institutional racism and sexism.
This suggests an increased willingness and ability to recognise race and gender as discursively structuring organisational life. Participants
talked about a range of issues including unequal employment practices, working hierarchies structured according to gender and ‘race’, and other
inequalities in working interactions, decision-making processes and other organisational practices such as ethnic monitoring, all contributing to
the verbal, symbolic and practical material reproduction of inequalities. However, as we saw in George’s example at the beginning of this chapter,
these welfare professionals continued to have incredible dii culty in positioning themselves within these social relations; positioning the ‘I’
within a gendered and raced ‘we’. So for George, although he has had to rel ect on the ways in which gender and ethnicity structure his working
relationships, he ‘can’t clearly pin [it] down’, ‘can’t . . . put my i nger on
186 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
what it is’ and why it matters in his working relationships; this remains concealed and ‘locked [away]’. Although George has a ‘strong sense’ that
gender is relevant, he cannot understand what this means for him in the working environment.
The dii culties research participants had in making sense of these rela- tions for themselves often stemmed in large part from the way in which
discussions of gender and ethnicity were framed in terms of binary, hier- archical disadvantage and advantage. Such binary constructions limited
the options available to participants for conceptualising their own gen- dered and raced positioning, as either racistsexist or as victim of racism
sexism. Taking Lucy as an example here:
I don’t ai liate myself, with um, being a part of the female [pause] um [pause] population . . . I’m not hung up on women’s groups or . . . I don’t categorise
myself [that way] I don’t relate to it. Or that you know, you feel that women are downtrodden or whatever, I don’t relate to it. Lucy, 38, white, woman nurse
manager
Unsurprisingly, participants were resistant to framing their lives only in such simplistic terms where they were seen as ‘downtrodden’ victims or
as ‘oppressive’ employers or colleagues see Hunter, 2005b esp. Chapter 9 for more of the variety of ways in which participants resisted positioning
the self. So recognition of their positioning as part of a social group was often coupled with a resistance to thinking through the troubling implica-
tions for participants’ own lives.
The notion of ‘speaking about’, then, refers to the limited cognitive understanding of the reality of racism and sexism as structuring relations
of gender and ‘race’ at work, home and leisure. ‘Speaking through’ gender and ‘race’, however, implies an additional af ective dimension to such
understandings, where individuals are able to position themselves within these structures, linking their biographies to institutional biographies. It
is through such linking that it is possible to begin to explore their own ambivalent desires, seeing themselves as at once powerful and power-
less, connected to but not determined by a ‘we’. ‘Speaking through’ thus, implies a ‘relational identii cation’ with dif erentiated ‘Others’ Hunter,
2003.
Making what may seem like such a small distinction is crucial to under- standing the operation of gender and ‘race’ in organisations as it can
provide part of the explanation for a gap between rhetoric and practice. It can account for the way recognition at a categorical level can ironically
serve to impede action, because it takes the place of recognition at the rela- tional level. Thus, the recognition of racism or sexism can sometimes serve
to hide the recognition of race and gender as historical and social relations
Feminist psychosocial approaches: relationality, recognition and denial 187
within which we are relationally positioned in our everyday activities. It can serve as a means of ‘abdicating responsibility’ Hunter, 2005b for
racism and sexism. Responsibility is re-theorised through relationship; taking responsibility means acknowledging implication in rather than
taking the blame for see Hunter, 2003.
CONCLUSIONS
I have only been able to briel y introduce some key elements of my femi- nist psychosocial approach to researching equalities. Its key advantage is
that it provides a more realistic starting-point for organisational change for equality. Returning to the policy and practice context I presented at
the beginning of this chapter, recognition of intersecting dif erences and discrimination can constitute a starting-point for ef ective organisational
practice. But, the importance of recasting dif erence and inequalities in relational terms is that this proposes a more complex understanding of
inequalities, as these connect us to changing discursive structures and from where we might begin to form the basis of a moral vocabulary based on
‘equal worth’ Williams, 1999. This may enable us to think not in terms of parity, blame, i xing innocence or guilt, but of connection and ‘truth
of encounter’ between those dif erently positioned, of the kind it seems George is struggling to achieve at the beginning of this chapter where
recognition is clearly not enough. If it fails to acknowledge the af ective dimension of organisational life, including the destructive capacities of
organisational subjects, work to combat racism and sexism will always fall short of the mark. It will tend to continue to focus on superi cial aware-
ness raising as the key to organisational change. But policy and practice concentrating on awareness raising considers only the ontological and
categorical dimensions of organisational life. It misses the important work that goes on at the relational level to connect the ‘I’ and the ‘we’ which
facilitates commitment to and investment in change.
As I found in my work in health and social care and education, rec- ognising complexity, dii culty and conl ict can actually be productive
of important connections which can form the foundations for research practice, but also for positive organisational change Hunter, 2005a.
Organisations must i nd ways of holding ambivalence and tension rather than splitting gendered and raced dif erence. Both individually,
but also organisationally, this will mean expanding room for discursive manoeuvre to construct an ‘elsewhere within’ see Bondi, 2004 which
is based on mobilising ambivalence and contradiction rather than suppressing it.
188 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
NOTES
1. This excerpt and the other I use later in the chapter comes from an interview undertaken for a doctoral study Hunter, 2005b in an English health and social care context UK
Economic and Social Research Council ref. 42200124257. George is, of course, a pseu- donym. The research was qualitative and involved serial in-depth interviews with a range
of health and social care professionals working in UK health-care organisations. The interviews focused on their involvement in the health policy-making process. The aim
was to explore how they negotiated gendered, raced and professional identii cations and how this impacted on organisational process and policy development.
2. The conl ation of AsianMuslim in the popular and policy discourse is important to note
because it points to the ways in which religion, ethnicity and ‘race’ are conl ated in con- temporary geopolitics post-September 11, 2001. Although I do not have time to unpick
this complex issue here, see Frankenberg 2005 and Rattansi 2005 for a start. In the UK context Gail Lewis puts this well: ‘it is a constant l ip l op among racial, cultural or
religious dif erence that provides the centre point for struggles over the designation of which moralities, practices of everyday life and identii cations can be claimed as signify-
ing core British values’ 2005: 552. 3. I separate these in the following list in order to give due to the subdisciplinary origins
of dif erent elements of my perspective. Much of this work could be positioned in one, other, or even all of the categories. Equally the categories should not be taken as homo-
geneous or internally consistent see, for example, note 4 on Carol Gilligan’s position in feminist theory.
4. Carol Gilligan’s work is largely interpreted as liberal feminist. Against this grain however, I have strongly argued Hunter, 2005b that it is liberal feminist authors who
invoke Gilligan’s work in support of such an analysis, who perpetuate such a reading. Such readings tend to be based on narrow interpretations of her i rst major publication
In a Dif erent Voice Gilligan, 1982, 1993, excluding the vast body of her work published over the subsequent 25 years. In particular, her voice-centred relational methodology
advocates a highly complex approach to exploring the multiple contestation of meaning and meaning making see, for example, McLean Taylor et al., 1995. For other fairer
critiques of Gilligan’s work see Susan Hekman 1995, Selma Sevenhuijsen 1998 and Wendy Hollway 2006.
5. This group was based at the University of Leeds 2000–2006 under the directorship of Fiona Williams.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. 2004, The Cultural Politics of Emotion, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Ahmed, S., Hunter, S., Kilic, S., Swan, E. and Turner, L. 2006, ‘Integrating Diversity: Race and Leadership in the Learning and Skills Sector Final Report’,
Centre for Excellence in Leadership, Lancaster University Management School. Alexander, C. 2004, ‘Imagining the Asian gang: masculinity and youth after the
“riots”’, Critical Social Policy, 244: 526–49.
Alexander, C. 2007, ‘Cohesive identities: the distance between meaning and understanding’, in M. Wetherell, M. Lal eche and R. Berkeley eds, Identity,
Ethnic Diversity and Community Cohesion, London: Sage, pp. 115–25. Bondi, L. 2004, ’10th anniversary address for a feminist geography of ambiva-
lence’, Place and Culture, 111: 3–15.
Booth, C. and Bennett, C. 2002, ‘Gender mainstreaming in the European Union:
Feminist psychosocial approaches: relationality, recognition and denial 189
towards a new conception and practice of equal opportunities’, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 94: 430–46.
Bowes, A. 2006, ‘Mainstreaming equality: implications of the provision of support at home for majority minority ethnic older people’, Social Policy and
Administration, 407: 739–57.
Brah, A. and Phoenix, A. 2004, ‘Ain’t I a woman? Revisiting intersectionality’,
Journal of International Women’s Studies, 53: 75–86.
Brown, J. 2000, ‘What is a psychoanalytic sociology of emotion?’, Psychoanalytic
Studies, 21: 35–49.
Brown, L.M. 1998, ‘Voice and ventriloquation in girls’ development’, in K. Henwood, C. Grii n and A. Phoenix eds, Standpoints and Dif erences: Essays
in the Practice of Feminist Psychology, London: Sage, pp. 91–114. Brown, L.M. and Gilligan, C. 1992, Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s
Psychology and Girls’ Development, New York: Ballantine Books. Brunner, C. 2007a, ‘Occidentalism meets the female suicide bomber: a critical
rel ection on recent terrorism debates; a review essay’, Signs, 324: 957–71.
Brunner, C. 2007b, ‘Discourse–Occidentalism–Intersectionality: approaching
knowledge on “suicide bombing”’, Political Perspectives CIP, 12: 1–25, www.
politicalperspectives.org.ukGeneralIssuesCIP-2007-1CIP-2007-01-02.pdf, 8 January 2008.
Butler, J. 1997, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, London: Routledge.
Butler, J. 2005, Giving an Account of Oneself, New York: Fordham University Press.
Clarke, S. 2006, ‘Theory and practice: psychoanalytic sociology as psycho-social
studies’, Sociology, 406: 1153–69.
Craib, I. 1989, Psychoanalysis and Social Theory: The Limits of Sociology, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Crenshaw, K.W. 1993, ‘Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity poli- tics and violence against women of colour’, in M. Albertson Fineman and R.
Mykitiuk eds, The Public Nature of Private Violence, New York: Routledge, pp. 93–118.
Daly, M. 2005, ‘Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice’, Social Politics,
123: 321–43.
Department for Trade and Industry DTI 2002, Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen, London: DTI.
Department for Trade and Industry DTI 2004, Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights, London: DTI.
Frankenberg, R. 1993, The Social Construction of Whiteness: White Women, Race Matters, London; Routledge.
Frankenberg, R. 2005, ‘Cracks in the façade: Whiteness and the construction of
911’, Social Identities, 116: 553–71.
Fredman, S. and Spencer, S. 2006, ‘Delivering equality: towards an outcome- focussed positive duty’, Submission to the Cabinet Oi ce Equality Review and
to the Discrimination Law Review, June, www.edf.org.uknewsDelivering20 equality20submission20030606-i nal.pdf, 10 December 2007.
Gilligan, C. 1982, In a Dif erent Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan, C. 1993, In a Dif erent Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
190 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
Gilligan, C., Brown, L.M. and Rogers, A.G. 1990, ‘Psyche embedded: a place for the body, relationships, and culture in personality theory’, in A.I. Rabin, R.
Zucker, R. Emmons and S. Frank eds, Studying Persons and Lives, New York: Springer, pp. 86–174.
Gilligan, C., Ward, J.V. and McLean Taylor, J. with Baridge, B. eds 1988, Mapping the Moral Domain: A Contribution of Women’s Thinking to Psychological
Theory and Education, Cambridge, MA: Centre for the Study of Gender, Education and Human Development, Harvard University Press.
Gomez, L. 1997, An Introduction to Object Relations, London: Free Association Books.
Gunaratnam, Y. 2003, Researching ‘Race’ and Ethnicity: Methods, Knowledge and Power, London: Sage.
Gunaratnam, Y. and Lewis, G. 2001, ‘Racialising emotional labour and emo- tionalising racialised labour: anger, fear and shame in social welfare’, Journal of
Social Work Practice, 152: 131–48.
Haraway, D.J. 1991, Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, London: Free Association Books.
Haraway, D.J. 1997, Modest_WitnessSecond_Millennium.FemaleMan©_ Meets_OncoMouseTM: Feminism and Technoscience, London: Routledge.
Hekman, S. 1995, Moral VoicesMoral Selves, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hekman, S. 2000, ‘Beyond identity: feminism, identity and identity politics’,
Feminist Theory, 13: 289–308.
Henriques, J., Hollway, W., Unwin, C., Venn, C. and Walkerdine, V. 1984, Changing the Subject, London: Methuen.
Hill Collins, P. 1990, Black Feminist Thought, New York: Routledge. Higginbotham, E.B. 1992, ‘African-American Women’s History and the meta-
language of race’, Signs, Winter: 251–74. Hoggett, P. 2000, Emotional Life and the Politics of Welfare, Basingstoke:
Macmillan. Hoggett, P. and Miller, C. 2000, ‘Working with emotions in community organi-
sations’, Community Development Journal, 354: 352–64.
Hollway, W. 2000, ‘Moral intersubjectivity, methodology and empirical research’, Workshop Paper No. 15, Workshop Four: Methodology for Researching Moral
Agencies, ESRC Research Group on Care, Values and the Future of Welfare: University of Leeds, www.leeds.ac.ukcavaresearchstrand1paper15Wendy.
htm. Hollway, W. 2006, The Capacity to Care: Gender and Ethical Subjectivity,
London: Routledge. Hollway, W. and Jef erson, T. 1996, ‘PC or not PC: sexual harassment and the
question of ambivalence’, Human Relations, 493: 373–93.
Home Oi ce 1999, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William MacPherson, London: The Stationery Oi
ce. Home Oi ce 2001, Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team,
Chaired by Ted Cantle The Cantle Report, London: The Stationery Oi ce. hooks, b. 2000, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Centre, 2nd edn, London:
Pluto. Hunter, S. 2003, ‘A critical analysis of approaches to the concept of social iden-
tity in social policy’, Critical Social Policy, 233: 322–44.
Hunter, S. 2005a, ‘Negotiating professional and social voices in research princi-
ples and practice’, Journal of Social Work Practice, 192: 149–62.
Feminist psychosocial approaches: relationality, recognition and denial 191
Hunter, S. 2005b, ‘Negotiating professional and social identities: “race”, gender and profession in two primary care organisations’, unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Birmingham. Hunter, S. 2006, ‘Working for equality and diversity and adult and community
learning: leadership, representation and racialised “outsiders” “Within”’, Policy Futures in Education, Special Issue on Doing Diversity Work, 41: 114–27.
Hunter, S. under consideration, ‘Af airs of the heart: developing feminist psycho- social approaches to policy analysis’, Social Politics.
Husband, C. 1996, ‘Dei ning and containing diversity: community, ethnicity and citizenship’, in W.I.U. Ahmad and K. Atkin eds, ‘Race’ and Community Care,
Milton Keynes: Open University Press, pp. 30–48. Jordan, B. and Johns, N. 2007, ‘New Labour: trust, equality of opportunity
and diversity’, Social and Public Policy Review, 11: 1–20, www.zyworld.com
PensionsWorldwideCPPcontents.htm. Kitzinger, C. and Gilligan, C. 1994, ‘Listening to a dif erent voice: Celia Kitzinger
Interviews Carol Gilligan’, Feminism and Psychology, 43: 408–19.
Klein, M. 1975, The Writings of Melanie Klein. Volume 1: Love, Guilt, and Reparation and Other Works, 1921–1945, New York: Free Press.
Klein, M. 1997, Envy and Gratitude and Other Works, 1946–1963, London: Vintage.
Lewis, G. 2000, Race, Gender, Social Welfare Encounters in a Postcolonial Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lewis, G. 2005, ‘Welcome to the margins: diversity, tolerance, and policies of exclusion’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Special Issue on Migration and
Citizenship, 283: 536–58.
Lindsay, C., Munro, A. and Wise, S. 2007, ‘Making equalities work? Scottish trade unions’ approaches to equal opportunities’, Equal Opportunities International,
Special Issue on the Politics of Equality: States, Professionals and Activists,
265: 465–81.
Mama, A. 1995, Beyond the Masks: Race, Gender and Subjectivity, London: Routledge.
McLean Taylor, J., Gilligan C. and Sullivan, A.M. 1995, Between Voice and Silence: Women and Girls, Race and Relationship, Cambridge, MA and London:
Harvard University Press. Mirza H. ed. 1997, Black British Feminism: A Reader, London: Routledge.
Mitchell, J. ed. 1986, The Selected Melanie Klein, London: Penguin Books. Moon, G. 2007, ‘Multi-dimensional discrimination: justice for the whole
person’, Equality and Diversity Forum Briei ng Paper, www.edf.org.uknews MultidimensionalDiscriminationLeal etFinal.doc, 8 January 2008.
Naaman, D. 2007, ‘Brides of PalestineAngels of Death: media, gender, and
performance in the case of the Palestinian female suicide bombers’, Signs, 324:
933–55. Puwar, N. 2004, Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place, Oxford:
Berg. Rattansi, A. 2005, ‘The uses of racialization: the time-spaces and subject-objects
of the raced body’, in K. Murji and J. Solomos eds, Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 271–301.
Rees, T. 1998, Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union: Education, Training and Labour Market Policies, London: Routledge.
Rosenail, S. 2006, ‘The ambivalences of Angel’s “arrangement”: a psychosocial
192 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
lens on the contemporary condition of personal life’, Sociological Review, 544:
847–69. Sevenhuijsen, S. 1998, Citizenship and the Ethics of Care: Feminist Considerations
on Justice, Morality and Politics, London: Routledge. Simpson, R. and Lewis, P. 2005, ‘An investigation of silence and a scrutiny of
transparency: re-examining gender in organization literature through the con- cepts of voice and visibility’, Human Relations, 5810: 1253–75.
Skeggs, B. 1997, Formations of Class and Gender, London: Sage. Squires, J. 2005, ‘Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in
the context of diversity and deliberation’, Social Politics, 123: 366–88.
Squires, J. 2006, ‘Good for governance and good for business too? Equality and diversity in Britain’, in S.K. Hellsten. A.M. Holli and K. Daskalova eds,
Women’s Citizenship and Political Rights, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199–216.
Walby, S. 2005, ‘Gender mainstreaming: productive tensions in theory and prac-
tice’, Social Politics, 123: 321–43.
Williams, F. 1999, ‘Good-enough principles for welfare’, Journal of Social Policy,
284: 667–87.
Williams, F. 2000, ‘A conceptual chart for CAVA’, Workshop Paper No. 16, Workshop Four: Methodologies for Researching Moral Agency, ESRC
Research Group on Care, Values and the Future of Welfare: University of Leeds, www.leeds.ac.ukcavaresearchessay1.htm.
Worley, C. 2005, ‘“It’s not about race. It’s about community”: New Labour and
“community cohesion”’, Critical Social Policy, 254: 483–96.
Yuval-Davies, N. 2006, ‘Intersectionality and feminist politics’, European Journal
of Women’s Studies, 133: 193–209.
PART IV
Psychology of equality, diversity and inclusion
195
15. Challenging the status quo: diversity, employee voice and
proactive behaviour
Johannes Rank
INTRODUCTION
‘The expression of voice, in the form of criticism that seeks to improve the organization, is central to a principled vision of true organizational
democracy’ Cheney, 1995, p. 186. This quote summarises why I was attracted to the study of employee voice, initiative and innovation as
a postgraduate psychology student in the US and Germany Rank et al., 2004a, 2004b, have completed my doctorate in this domain Rank,
2006a, and explore related issues in my current work Rank et al., in press. Within occupational psychology and organisational behaviour,
this research falls into the expanding i eld of proactivity studies, which is concerned with self-started, forward-thinking and change-orientated
behaviour Crant, 2000; Parker et al., 2006.
The purpose of this chapter is not only to integrate the psychological diversity and proactivity literature but also to engage in voice by chal-
lenging the status quo and providing suggestions for conceptual improve- ments and future research. An additional aim is to make diversity-related
insights gained from complex quantitative psychological studies more obvious and accessible to scholars from other disciplines. My primary
contribution is the development of an integrative model see Figure 15.1 explicating some of the psychological processes that may increase the
likelihood that diverse employees, especially those from disadvantaged groups, will engage in proactive behaviour, particularly in voice and ini-
tiative. Throughout the chapter, I describe these antecedents and explain their connections to proactivity outcomes.
The study of employee voice and initiative is intertwined with issues of diversity, equality and inclusion, because members of traditionally dis-
advantaged groups for example, women, individuals from ethnic minor- ity groups, gay, lesbian and bisexual employees, foreign nationals, and
196 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
those from lower social classes frequently experience restrictions on the expression of dissenting views and on their power to ef ect change Bowen
and Blackmon, 2003; Dipboye and Colella, 2004; Roberson and Stevens, 2006. As Allen 1995 noted, high levels of authentic voice in an organisa-
tion are an indicator of successful diversity management. Proactive contri- butions are critical to achieving several of the frequently suggested benei ts
for example, improved problem-solving, innovation and marketplace understanding of progressive diversity management approaches that
truly harness the entire scope of employee dif erences Kirton and Greene, 2004; Bassett-Jones, 2005.
Unfortunately, there is still an astonishing lack of rigorous empirical research demonstrating these benei ts, which rest on the assumption that
diverse employees actually speak up and take initiative. In particular, voice and initiative function as facilitators in the innovation process,
because creative ideas are more likely to be implemented successfully if they are communicated and supported by proactivity Rank et al., 2004b.
Hence, there is a need for conceptual and empirical work overcoming the neglect of diversity issues within the proactivity i eld.
The fourfold structure of this chapter proceeds as follows. Based on a brief review of quantitative studies, including my own research, I i rst
identify relevant situational and individual antecedents of voice and proactivity. Second, drawing on the diversity literature, I suggest a few
group-level conditions that may inl uence the level and ef ectiveness of diverse employees’ voice and proactivity. Third, I discuss relevant issues
and future research directions in relation to three specii c diversity factors gender, sexuality, nationality that have received at least minimum con-
sideration in voice and proactivity research. Acknowledging limitations of positivist–quantitative approaches, I i nally sketch a few avenues for more
i ne-grained qualitative research inspired by the communication literature, hence highlighting the value of an interdisciplinary approach.
SITUATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL ANTECEDENTS OF VOICE AND PROACTIVITY
Since the early 1990s, journals such as the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Applied Psychology and
Human Performance have featured an increasing number of articles on proactivity concepts such as proactive personality Bateman and Crant,
1993, personal initiative Fay and Frese, 2001, taking charge Morrison and Phelps, 1999, voice behaviour LePine and Van Dyne, 2001 and
proactive service performance Rank et al., 2007. This development rel ects
Challenging the status quo 197
business trends reducing managers’ surveillance functions while enhancing subordinates’ responsibilities Frese and Fay, 2001. In his review, Crant
2000 dei ned proactive behaviour as ‘taking initiative in improving current circumstances or creating new ones; it involves challenging the status quo
rather than passively adapting to present conditions’ p. 436.
Van Dyne and LePine 1998 dei ned ‘voice behaviour’ as constructive change-orientated communication or ‘promotive behavior that empha-
sizes expression of constructive challenge intended to improve rather than merely criticize’ p. 109. Their questionnaire measure assesses whether
employees challenge the status quo in their work group, state their opinion even if others disagree, encourage others in their group to articulate their
points of view, develop recommendations for improvement, and speak up with innovative suggestions for change. Related concepts include taking
charge ‘voluntary and constructive ef orts, by individual employees, to ef ect functional change with respect to how work is executed’; Morrison
and Phelps, 1999, p. 403 and personal initiative ‘work behavior char- acterized by its self-starting nature, its proactive approach, and by being
persistent in overcoming dii culties’; Frese and Fay, 2001, p. 134. Accordingly, in my doctoral research, I dei ned proactive customer service
performance as individuals’ self-started and long-term-orientated service behaviour exceeding prescribed requirements Rank, 2006a. Quantitative
research has identii ed several individual and environmental antecedents of such employee behaviours for example, Frese et al., 1996; LePine and
Van Dyne, 1998; Crant, 2000; Parker et al., 2006; Rank et al., 2007.
Situational Antecedents
Research into situational antecedents is fruitful for the diversity domain, because such factors may be modii ed to facilitate proactive behaviour
among a wide range of employees. The situation box in Figure 15.1 lists some of the relevant variables, which all rel ect aspects of individual
employees’ rather than an entire unit’s experienced work situation. One of the most consistent i ndings is that participation in decision making
relates positively to employee voice Fuller et al., 2006; Rank et al., 2007. Person–environment interactions suggest that participation enhances voice
even among employees with attributes usually not conducive to voice, such as low self-esteem and an adaptive rather than innovative cognitive style
Janssen et al., 1998; LePine and Van Dyne, 1998. Drawing on Weick’s 1995 work on sensemaking, I propose that participative managers may
facilitate ‘sensemaking as arguing’, which involves confrontational idea exchanges as a means of integrating diverse opinions. Research into other
proactive behaviours also demonstrates that measures enhancing freedom
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
