465–81. equality diversity and inclusion at work

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. 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