Counting heads vs making heads count. Impact of numeric diversity and diversity climate on psychological outcomes for faculty of color

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2017-0256
• Published date: 20 November 2018
• Pages: 780-798
• Date: 20 November 2018
• Author: Emily Vargas,Amy Seon Westmoreland,Kathrina Robotham,Fiona Lee
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Counting heads vs making

heads count

Impact of numeric diversity and diversity

climate on psychological outcomes

for faculty of color

Emily Vargas, Amy Seon Westmoreland, Kathrina Robotham and

Fiona Lee

Department of Psychology, The University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Abstract

Purpose –Research on organizational diversity initiatives generally focus on either numerical diversity or

racial climate. Both facets of diversity are critical, however, research has rarely examined their impact

simultaneously. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach –In the current study, the authors use the context of higher education, to

examine how variations in the composite of numerical diversity and racial climate predict psychological

disparities between faculty of color (FOC) and White faculty. The authors test how institutions that engage in

authentic diversity (i.e. institutions that are both numerically diverse and have a positive racial climate)

compare to other diversity composites.

Findings –Using a data set of n¼37,406 faculty members in US colleges/universities, this study found that

racial disparities between FOC and White faculty for various psychological outcomes are smaller in authentic

diversity institutions compared to institutions with low numeric diversity/ poor racial climate. Further, the

data demonstrate that authentic diversity institutions have reduced psychological disparities compared to

institutions with high numeric diversity/poor racial climate, but have similar disparities to institutions with

low numeric/positive racial climate.

Originality/value –These results suggest that diversity climate may be the primary driver of mitigating

psychological disparities between FOC and White faculty. However, it is necessary for institutions to

authenticallyengage in diversity–by promoting both entities–to become moreeffective in reducingdisparities.

Keywords Higher education, Diversity climate, Racial disparities, Numerical diversity

Paper type Research paper

The USA is a racially diverse nation, and increasingly so (Humes et al.,2011).Inthis

environment, organizations need to be similarlydiverse,inparttorecruitandretainthe

“best and the brightest”across all racial groups, and in part to anticipate consumers’

needs within a racially diverse marketplace (Robinson and Dechant, 1997; Zanoni et al.,

2010). Indeed, organizations have devoted substantial resources toward diversity

programs to promote racial diversity (Bassett-Jones, 2005; Dobbin and Kalev, 2013). These

initiatives generally have two goals: to increase the numerical representation of employees

of color, and/or to create a positive racial climate (e.g. Johnson, 2012; Lightfoote et al.,

2016). While numerical diversity and positive racial climate are related, they are

independent constructs and address different aspects of diversity (Roberson, 2006). On the

one hand, numerical diversity conceptualizes diversity as the physical representation of

individuals across a number of racial groups, considering who makes up the organization

(Estrada et al., 2016). Racial climate refers to the nature of the interpersonal dynamics

between individuals of racial groups and encompasses feelings of respect, or what the

organization is like and how people of color are treated (e.g. McKay et al., 2008; Shore et al.,

2011). Much research has been dedicated toward understanding each individual

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 8, 2018

pp. 780-798

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-11-2017-0256

Received 17 November 2017

Revised 5 February 2018

20 March 2018

Accepted 11 April 2018

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

780

EDI

37,8

component of diversity; there is a scant body of research that examines the impact of

numerical diversity and racial climate simultaneously.

In this study, we examine how variations in the composite of both components of racial

diversity –numerical representation and racial climate –predict disparities in psychological

outcomes between White employees and employees of color. We address this question

within institutes of higher education in the USA. Relying on Cox’s interactional model of

cultural diversity, we anticipate that psychological disparities will be dependent on the

diversity context in higher education institutions. This theory argues that variations in

organizational contextual factors can yield individual-level outcomes of employees. Recent

research has utilized Cox’s model to examine how variations in diversity climate –a

contextual factor –impacts individual-level outcomes according to the race of the employee

(Madera et al., 2013; McKay et al., 2009, 2011). In a similar way, we build on this body of

literature in the current study. We examine how contextual factors associated with diversity

(i.e. the composite of numeric and climate) may yield individual-level psychological

disparities between White faculty and faculty of color (FOC).

Why numerical diversity matters

Similar to other workplaces, institutes of higher education prioritize diversity. The term

“diversity”has historically been used to describe the numerical representation of members

of various under-represented groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities in

predominantly White organizations (PWIs), or women in predominantly male

organizations (e.g. Shore et al., 2009; Thomas and Ely, 1996). Research has been

dedicated toward understanding the impact of numerical diversity on FOC (see Turner

et al., 2008). FOC are underrepresented in higher education and face unique challenges

linked to their minority status. For example, FOC face bias in the hiring process (e.g. Tuitt

et al., 2007), in salary inequities (Renzulli et al., 2006; Turner et al., 2008) and are less likely

than their White colleagues to achieve tenure (e.g. Harris, 2007; Williams and Williams,

2006). Furthermore, research has established that FOC in PWIs are tasked with additional

labor compared to their White colleagues. For instance, FOC are more likely to be asked to

provide additional service related to diversity initiatives, such as teaching diversity-based

classes, serving on diversity committees and serving as a mentor for students of color

(Baez, 2000; Padilla, 1994). These requests can become a psychological burden and impede

career progress. Related, there is a relationship between numerical underrepresentation

and psychological outcomes (Kanter, 1977; Eisenberg et al., 2013). Compared to White

faculty, FOC in PWIs are more likely to report more stress, less satisfaction with

colleagues, among other negative psychological outcomes (e.g. Abel and Sewell, 1999;

Kokkinos, 2007).

Why racial climate matters

Research has shown that increasing numerical diversity alone is insufficient to remedy

psychological disparities that exist between White faculty and FOC (Singh et al., 2013;

Yoder, 1991). Racial climate is defined as the extent to which an organization successfully

promotes fairness and strong norms for fair interpersonal treatment along with the

promotion of policies associated with these practices (Dwertmann et al., 2016). Some

institutions have actively resisted diversity initiatives, which can negatively impact climate

despite the numerical diversity representation of people of color (Thomas, 2008; Thomas

and Plaut, 2008). Racial climate is a major factor that leads to psychological and work-

related disparities between FOC and White faculty (Stanley, 2006; Zimmerman et al., 2016).

Specifically, experiences of bias due to poor racial climate results in negative consequences

for FOC, such as reduced self-esteem, lowered efficacy and increased stress (Blascovich

et al., 2001; Vescio et al., 2005). Together these climate factors simultaneously increase

781

Counting

heads vs

making heads

count