667–87. equality diversity and inclusion at work
Challenging the status quo 201
Adopting an identity negotiation approach informed by the theories of self-categorisation and self-verii cation, Polzer et al. 2002 identi-
i ed interpersonal congruence ‘the degree to which group members see others in the group as others see themselves’, p. 296 as a critical mod-
erator. Demographic diversity facilitated creative problem-solving only when interpersonal congruence was high, a condition that some groups
achieved quickly. If a minority employee’s self-views for example, of being someone who communicates good ideas are not in alignment with
the majority’s view of this person, the majority will not be perceived as a receptive audience for voice or other proactive ef orts.
Although minority dissent promotes creativity in groups, it predicts greater innovation that is, idea implementation only in groups with high
participation De Dreu and West, 2001. Longitudinal research identi- i ed the team climate factor ‘participative safety’ for example, everyone’s
view is listened to even if it is in a minority as the best climate predictor of the number of innovations implemented in management teams within
the British National Health Service West and Anderson, 1996. Diverse employees’ proactivity may also be facilitated by group rel exivity, that
is, the extent to which group members rel ect upon the group’s objectives, strategies and processes and adapt them to current or anticipated circum-
stances Schippers et al., 2003. On the contrary, uncritical reliance on habitual routines, usually established by members of the majority, likely
stil es proactivity.
VOICE AND PROACTIVITY IN RELATION TO SPECIFIC DIVERSITY DIMENSIONS
Unfortunately, little proactivity research has explicitly considered specii c diversity dimensions. Because the literature includes starting-points for a
consideration of the role of gender, sexuality and nationality for proactiv- ity, I now discuss these factors, demonstrating that the model of diversity
and proactivity may be tailored to specii c groups of employees for example, women; gay, lesbian and bisexual employees; foreign nationals.
I provide examples illustrating the frequent lack of conducive proactivity determinants among disadvantaged employees and the need to add unique
antecedents specii c to each diversity dimension to the model.
Gender, Employee Voice and Proactive Behaviour
Most proactivity studies including gender data have found either no or a small but signii cant relationship indicating lower voice or initiative
202 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
scores for women. Van Dyne and LePine 1998 reported lower self- rated, coworker-rated, and supervisor-rated voice scores for women.
LePine and Van Dyne 1998 found lower coworker voice ratings for women, arguing that women have less inl uence and thus less coni dence
than men in mixed sex groups. In the same study, women reported lower self-esteem and were more frequently exposed to traditional rather than
self-managed styles of management. Den Hartog and Belschak 2007 reported lower initiative as well as af ective commitment self-ratings
among women in a Dutch sample. This pattern of i ndings is consistent with my model in that occasionally reduced proactivity levels among
women may be caused by lower levels of some of the situational for example, participation and individual for example, af ective commit-
ment, self-esteem antecedents.
One of the few published studies Ashford et al., 1998 explicitly devoted to the study of gender-related proactivity revealed the importance of expe-
rienced context favourability for example, strong organisational support and trustworthy relationships with key decision makers for women’s
willingness to sell gender-equity issues. Therefore, additional managerial support and approachability variables may be added to a gender-specii c
version of the model. Another worthwhile avenue for research would be to explore whether gender dif erences in leadership style translate into a
female advantage in fostering voice and initiative among subordinates. Although such gender dif erences are small, meta-analytic research Eagly
and Johnson, 1990; Eagly et al., 2003 has revealed that female super- visors, on average, engage in signii cantly more participative leadership,
more transformational leadership and less corrective transactional lead- ership than their male counterparts. This rel ects exactly the leadership
pattern that is most conducive to subordinate proactivity Rank, 2006a; Rank et al., 2007. On average, female managers may be more likely to
create the previously noted group conditions for example, participative safety and rel exivity.
Another important addition to my model would be a consideration of the ef ects of stereotype-induced biases on factors such as procedural
justice and trust in leadership. Psychological research has demonstrated that women receive lower performance and competency ratings on male
gender-typed tasks when their ef ectiveness is ambiguous Dipboye and Colella, 2004; Heilman et al., 2004. Biased evaluations rel ect cognitive
distortions resulting from the discrepancy between assessors’ descriptive gender stereotypes that is, what women and men are like and are not
like and their views of the qualities necessary to perform these tasks. Assertive forms of voice or initiative may often be viewed as male gender-
typed. To bolster the male gender type of a job description in one of their
Challenging the status quo 203
experiments, Heilman et al. 2004 included proactive responsibilities such as ‘breaking into new markets, keeping abreast of industry trends, gener-
ating new clients’ p. 417. Because proactivity is self-started and change- orientated, performance criteria are often ambiguous, making assessments
of voice or initiative prone to stereotype inl uence.
Because of prescriptive gender stereotypes that is, how women and men should be and should not be, women may also experience negative con-
sequences when their proactive accomplishments are irrefutably excellent. When tasks are male-gender-typed, successful women are often rated as
more interpersonally hostile and less likable, with the latter ef ect resulting in fewer recommendations for higher salaries and special career oppor-
tunities Heilman et al., 2004. As Seibert et al. 2001 noted, supervisors may sometimes punish employees high in voice ‘whom they perceive to
be too critical’ p. 867. Such ef ects may be exacerbated for women who engage in male-gender-typed forms of voice and initiative for example,
attacking computer problems in one’s department and i ghting assertively for technological improvements. Research should examine whether man-
agers’ judgements of the ef ectiveness of women’s and minority employees’ proactive contributions are subjected to such unfair biases.
Sexual Orientation, Employee Voice and Proactive Behaviour
One of the few theoretical models of diversity and proactivity concerns the role of sexual orientation in organisational voice Bowen and Blackmon,
2003. Inspired by Noelle-Neumann’s 1974 spiral-of-silence theory, which explains how minority positions in society become weaker when
people perceive a threat of isolation that they fear, Bowen and Blackmon proposed an individual spiral of silence. In their model, the identity con-
l ict triggered by repression of an important aspect of one’s personal iden- tity that is, silence on one’s sexual identity escalates into the repression of
voice regarding organisational issues via a set of intertwined processes for example, reduced social and task-related exchange with coworkers result-
ing from inhibited natural interactions. Of course, the authors note that positive ef ects of disclosure on voice can be achieved only in supportive
climates that facilitate trust in coworkers and emotional attachment that is, af ective organisational commitment, two factors in my model that
may function as important facilitators of voice and proactivity among gay, lesbian and bisexual employees.
Some indirect empirical support for the spiral of silence comes from large-scale US i eld studies revealing positive relationships of degree of
disclosure with participation in work issues Ragins et al., 2007 as well as af ective organisational commitment and reduced role conl ict Day and
204 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
Schoenrade, 1997. However, Ragins and coauthors concluded that their i ndings ‘challenge the assumption that disclosure automatically leads to
positive outcomes’ p. 1114. Whereas degree of disclosure signii cantly related only to participation, fear of disclosure among those who had not
come out was signii cantly associated with 13 out of 15 criteria, many of them likely undermining proactivity for example, greater depression and
turnover intention; fewer promotions; lower organisational and career commitment. The factors associated most strongly with reduced fear were
support from coworkers and supervisors. In a proactivity model tailored to sexuality issues, degree and fear of disclosure should be added and
linked to factors such as trust in coworkers. Even in allegedly supportive environments, disclosure sometimes leads to the experience of ‘insidi-
ous and subtle acts of discrimination that combine overt acceptance and covert rejection’ Bowen and Blackmon, 2003, p. 1402, including poten-
tial dismissals of proactive contributions.
Based on a sophisticated integration of stigma theory and self- verii cation theory, Ragins 2008 discussed several anticipated positive
for example, renewed energy, enhanced psychological coherence and negative for example, adverse treatment consequences of disclosure.
Future research may investigate whether dif erent approaches to revealing Clair et al., 2005 are distinctively associated with one’s voice or initiative
and with others’ responses to one’s proactive endeavours. Whereas the less confrontational tactics of signalling hinting at one’s dif erence and nor-
malising making one’s dif erence seem commonplace may entail lower risks of rejection, gay, lesbian and bisexual employees in organisations
with an integration-and-learning perspective Ely and Thomas, 2001 may sometimes pursue a dif erentiating approach that involves a redei nition of
the meaning attached to their social identity, ‘transforming traditionally stigmatized dif erences into assets’ Clair et al., 2005, p. 84.
In the US, Ragins and Cornwell 2001 found negative relationships between experienced discrimination and several variables relevant to
proactivity for example, af ective organisational commitment, organ- isation-based self-esteem. The factor most strongly linked to reduced
discrimination was the welcoming of same-sex partners at company social events, a practice that rel ects true comfort more strongly than various
standard procedures for example, including sexual orientation in non- discrimination policies and diversity training. In the UK, such policies
have been widespread since the implementation of the Employment Equality Sexual Orientation Regulations 2003 Daniels and Macdonald,
2005. However, a recent UK study of 154 lesbian, gay and bisexual LGB workers Colgan et al., 2007 revealed an implementation gap
between diversity policy and practice even in organisations listed as LGB
Challenging the status quo 205
friendly in a national workplace equality index. This study suggests a need to study the diversity-related proactive behaviour of coworkers and
managers, because a ‘key indicator of inclusion for LGB respondents was the extent to which homophobia in addition to other forms of discrimi-
nation was proactively challenged at work’ p. 606. Because protective legislation may not sui ciently empower LGB employees to engage in
voice and initiative, future research should further explore how supportive workplace conditions can be best achieved. In general, minority employees
who fear repercussions may be hesitant to speak up against the status quo or to show self-started initiatives.
Nationality, Employee Voice and Proactive Behaviour
Foreign nationals, including expatriates and labour immigrants, may also often experience uncertainty regarding others’ responses to voice
and proactivity because of dif erences in cultural values Schwartz, 1999; Hofstede, 2001. In a study of more than 1,000 young employees from six
countries, Claes and Ruiz-Quintanilla 1998 identii ed signii cant relation- ships between four cultural values and several proactive career behaviours.
Specii cally, individualism related positively to career planning, power dis- tance negatively to consultation, uncertainty avoidance negatively to skill
development as well as networking, and ‘masculinity’ negatively to skill development, consultation and networking. The label ‘masculinity versus
femininity’ the extent to which social gender roles are distinct and tough values like assertiveness prevail over tender values; Hofstede, 2001 may
be criticised, as it rel ects gender stereotyping. The researchers argued that ‘femininity’ facilitates the building of positive relationships with super-
visors and coworkers. Considering the role of trust in my model, similar i ndings may be obtained in relation to voice and other proactivity criteria.
Future research may examine whether those with a cultural background conducive to proactivity who work in a culturally distant country show
reduced proactivity or experience negative responses.
Proactive behaviours shown by foreign idea champions may frequently violate cultural expectations for appropriate innovation championing
approaches Shane et al., 1995. For example, innovation champions need to work through established organisational rules in countries high
in uncertainty avoidance and gain support from higher-level authori- ties in power distant societies ibid.. It may also be explored whether
cultural values moderate relationships between some of the situational factors and proactivity. For example, participation may most ef ectively
facilitate voice and initiative in countries with low power distance Rank et al., 2005. In the GLOBE leadership study of 61 countries, participative
206 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
leadership was particularly positively endorsed in the Anglo cluster, which included the UK House et al., 2001.
An issue with many cross-cultural studies of individuals’ work behaviour is that they use country-level scores obtained from Hofstede’s work rather
than measuring individuals’ current standings on such values Kirkman et al., 2006. In studies of foreign nationals’ proactivity, values need to be
explicitly assessed, as it cannot be assumed that they are consistent with the home or host country’s average. Applications of the social–psychological
theories of value contents and value structures Schwartz, 1992 would be valuable, because they entail both country-level for example, intellectual
autonomy, egalitarianism and individual-level for example, self- direction, stimulation values relevant to voice and proactivity.
A meta-analysis of expatriate adjustment Bhaskar-Shrinivas et al., 2005 suggests that self-ei cacy and autonomy, two factors included in my
model, may be critical to expatriates’ proactivity, because these two vari- ables signii cantly predicted work adjustment comfort with tasks during
the expatriate assignment. Drawing on social exchange and social com- parison theories, Ang et al. 2003 demonstrated that foreign employees
in Singapore reported lower distributive justice perceptions and received lower supervisor ratings of job performance and helping behaviour than
local employees. Such dif erences may be partially due to employment disadvantages and managers’ tendencies to provide higher ratings to
ratees who are similar to themselves. In the UK, discrimination based on nationality, national origin, race or ethnicity has been unlawful since the
Race Relations Act 1976, although major immigrant groups for example, Indian, Pakistani and African Caribbean; Robinson, 2006 still tend to
experience segregation into labour markets and low hierarchy levels that largely preclude extensive voice and proactivity.
High levels of democratic participation among foreign nationals, as rel ected in voice and initiative, may be considered as an indicator of inte-
gration. Berry’s 2001 psychological acculturation model distinguishes four acculturation strategies integration, assimilation, separation, mar-
ginalisation, which represent combinations of two dimensions the main- tenance of one’s original culture and the contact sought with members of
the new culture. This model may be criticised, because ‘the typological discourse focuses our attention i rmly on the individual in a manner which
threatens to remove responsibility for particular forms of multicultural relations from wider, collectively driven sociopolitical forces’ Bowskill
et al., 2007, p. 795. Studies of foreign employees’ voice and proactiv- ity should identify societal, organisational and group-level antecedents
enabling them to truly participate in organisations’ political processes. As Berry 2001 noted, the integration strategy can be pursued only in
Challenging the status quo 207
explicitly multicultural environments that meet preconditions such as low levels of discrimination and widespread acceptance of the belief that cul-
tural diversity is valuable to society. At the group level, this corresponds to a high proportion of pro-diversity beliefs, as suggested in my model.
CHALLENGING THE STATUS QUO IN VOICE AND PROACTIVITY RESEARCH
While the model of diversity and proactivity includes many of the factors suggested by extant psychological research, additional antecedents may
be included. For example, a comprehensive review of the impact of af ect variables on creativity, innovation and initiative Rank and Frese, 2008
suggests that positive moods and several discrete positive emotions for example, pride, joy, hope facilitate these outcomes. Numerous laboratory
and i eld studies have revealed consequences of positive af ect that are criti- cal to proactivity for example, enhanced cognitive variation, risk-taking,
intrinsic motivation and persistence. Proactivity among employees from disadvantaged groups may often be undermined by negative af ect and by
lack of positive af ect resulting from discrimination and reduced levels of various of the variables included in my model. Research demonstrating
that proactive contributions made by diverse employees actually facilitate constructive change is desirable from a diversity management perspective
Kirton and Greene, 2004. With respect to the dif erent change approaches identii ed by Van de Ven and Poole 1995, highly challenging forms of
voice might trigger dialectical types change resulting from confrontation and subsequent synthesis of opposing interests, whereas other forms may
contribute to teleological types change emanating from purposeful coop- eration guided by commonly shared goals and envisaged end states.
Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Mainstream Research
The status quo in mainstream proactivity research may be challenged. Some descriptions of proactive behaviour for example, ‘People can
intentionally and directly change their current circumstances, social or nonsocial’; Bateman and Crant, 1993, p. 104 can be perceived as ignorant
of the various disadvantages experienced by diverse groups of employ- ees. Members of disadvantaged groups may also i nd it dii cult to agree
with questionnaire items, such as, ‘if I see something I don’t like, I i x it’ ibid., p. 112, which are used to assess whether someone’s personality is
pro active rather than passive. Dei nitions of several proactivity variables rel ect a management bias. Within the domain of organisational citizenship
208 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
behaviour OCB, ‘civic virtue was garbled in the process of operation- alization’ Organ, 1997, p. 92, because early OCB measures were derived
from interviews asking managers which subordinate behaviours they like but cannot enforce. ‘Courageous communications that challenge norms
or support unpopular views were not included’ Van Dyne et al., 1994, p. 794. According to current conceptualisations, voice and taking charge
must be ‘constructive’ Morrison and Phelps, 1999; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998 and personal initiative ‘consistent with the organization’s mission’
Frese et al., 1996, p. 38. It is problematic from an equality perspective that those who decide what counts as constructive are usually powerful
stakeholders such as managers.
Various practices in proactivity research are not ideal to give underprivi- leged employees a voice and are representative of quantitative–positivist
limitations for example, writing concept dei nitions and questionnaire items without employee input; treating unusual cases as outliers; reduc-
ing open-ended interview responses to judgemental ratings. Similarly, ‘dubious generalizations made from laboratory studies have, at times, alien-
ated diversity training practitioners’ Pendry et al., 2007, p. 29 because of the questionable external validity of social–psychological experiments.
Proactivity researchers should additionally consider options for qualitative data analysis, such as interpretative phenomenological, grounded theory
and narrative analysis Lyons and Coyle, 2007. Such approaches foster democratic exchange in research by truly giving a voice and listening to the
views of underprivileged individuals.
The various forms of proactivity of ered by diverse employees cannot be captured thoroughly by extant proactivity concepts for example, voice
behaviour, personal initiative, which are construed as unidimensional concepts and measured with rather simplistic rating scales. A starting-
point for the development of a multifaceted measure is Meyerson’s 2001 fascinating qualitative research into tempered radicals. By using a spec-
trum of strategies ranging from subtle acts of disruptive self-expression to the building of strategic alliances, tempered radicals successfully challenge
the status quo and gently inl uence their organisations’ cultures. A more i ne-grained understanding of voice and proactivity may also be gained by
considering literature from the i eld of organisational communication.
Implications of the Communication Literature
Dei nitions of voice in the communication domain rel ect that not every- body is empowered to speak up and be heard: according to Eisenberg
and Goodall 2001, p. 38, ‘voice manifests itself in the ability of an indi- vidual or group to participate in the ongoing organizational dialogue’.
Challenging the status quo 209
Consistent with Hirschman’s 1970 exit–voice–loyalty framework, they noted that voice rel ects a decision to speak up against a dissatisfactory
status quo rather than remain silent and stay or give up and leave. Gorden 1988 distinguished four types of voice along the two dimensions active–
passive and constructive–destructive. Ford and Ford 1995 distinguished various speech acts for example, assertives, directives, expressives in dif-
ferent phases of change-orientated communication for example, conver- sations for initiation, performance and closure. Kassing 2002 identii ed
i ve dif erent forms of upward dissent direct-factual appeal, repetition, solution presentation, circumvention and threatening resignation. Such
i ne-grained concepts could be added as specii c outcomes in my model.
Additional voice and proactivity facilitators suggested by communication research include integrative win–win forms of conl ict resolution Franz and
Jin, 1995, various trust-enhancing communicative behaviours Kassing, 2002; Fairhurst, 2005, supportive climates fostering genuine dialogue as
rel ected in the ‘freedom of speech’ concept; Haskins, 1996, factors such as inclusion and understanding from the Workforce Diversity Questionnaire
Larkey, 1996, the ‘trialectics approach’ emphasising the attractiveness of change ef orts Ford and Ford, 1995, and strong interpersonal relation-
ships Albrecht and Hall, 1991 characterised by relationship multiplexity that is, multiple role links between communicators and content multiplex-
ity that is, regular conversations about multiple topic areas.
Of particular importance is Eisenberg’s 1984 concept of strategic ambiguity. In contrast to the widespread view that utmost clarity is always
desirable, he argues that skilful equivocal communication, sometimes involving abstract or poetic language, may help achieve Kant’s notion
of maximum individuality within maximum unity, as it promotes change as well as unii ed diversity. Empirical research may explore how such an
approach may be used by diversity managers and by minority employees who wish to ignite change from below.
Finally, an inspiring vision for voice and proactivity research would be to achieve an appreciation of Pearce’s 1989 concept of cosmopolitan
communication. In contrast to monocultural, ethnocentric and modern- ist forms of communication, which all centre around the coherence of
the stories told by a majority, cosmopolitan communication rel ects a commitment to i nd ways of achieving coordination without denying or
depreciating other perspectives: ‘Cosmopolitan communication enables communication among groups with dif erent, even incommensurate,
social realities’ p. 169. However, positivist–quantitative approaches are not amenable to some of the research steps proposed by Pearce for
example, learn to speak like a native in dif erent groups; describe the inter- action in terms of the resources of all participants in a system. As Pearce
210 Equality, diversity and inclusion at work
noted, critical interpretative research attempts to ‘create the necessary conditions for improved communication among them’ p. 171.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I have developed a model of diversity, voice and pro activity incorporating individual, situational and group-level antecedents sug-
gested by the psychological literature, including my own research, which highlights the importance of participatory, non-controlling and trust-
enhancing managerial approaches. Subsequently, I discussed issues that need to be considered when tailoring the model to diversity dimensions
such as gender, sexuality or nationality. Finally, I have suggested avenues for future research amenable to quantitative and qualitative research and
discussed implications of communication concepts. I hope that this chapter represents a constructive form of voice useful for both psychologists and
those from other disciplines. Ideally, diverse researchers from various social sciences should engage in forms of voice and proactivity that aim
at achieving coordination, as in Pearce’s 1989 concept of cosmopolitan communication. Discussing the problems of refugees and asylum seekers,
one of the most powerless groups in our world, French philosopher Jacques Derrida 2000, p. 23 noted: if an idea of cosmo politanism has not
yet arrived, ‘then, one has perhaps not yet recognised it’.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, T.L. and Hall, B.J. 1991, ‘Facilitating talk about new ideas: the role of personal relationships in organizational innovation’, Communication
Monographs, 58, 273–88.
Allen, B.J. 1995, ‘Diversity and organizational communication’, Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 23, 143–55.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L. and Begley, T.M. 2003, ‘The employment relationship of foreign workers versus local employees: a i eld study of organizational justice,
job satisfaction, performance, and OCB’, Journal of Organizational Behavior,