Diverse approaches to negative treatment in the workplace: sector differences and their effects

• Pages: 54-72
• Date: 13 February 2017
• Published date: 13 February 2017
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2016-0068
• Author: Jesper Verheij,Sandra Groeneveld,Lisette Kuyper

Diverse approaches to negative

treatment in the workplace: sector

differences and their effects

Jesper Verheij

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, The Hague, The Netherlands

Sandra Groeneveld

Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University,

The Hague, The Netherlands, and

Lisette Kuyper

The Netherlands Institute for Social Research/SCP, The Hague, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose –This purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how different diversity approaches of

public, semi-public and private sector organizations affect negative treatment experienced in the workplace.

Broadly speaking, organizations might either approach diversity as a problem of inequality or as a resource

and an added value for the organization. As such, a pro-equality and a pro-diversity approach can be

distinguished which are both examined in this paper.

Design/methodology/approach –In a quantitative study, structural equation modeling was used on

survey data of a representative sample of Dutch employees.

Findings –Results show that while both approaches are negatively associated with negative treatment, the

pro-diversity is most strongly so. Sector differences were less pronounced than expected, although employees

across different sectors of employment benefit from both the approaches to a different extent.

Research limitations/implications –Further research examining the effect of diversity approaches to

negative treatment across sectors is required. Suggestions for further research are discussed.

Practical implications –Looking at sector differences, the findings showed that employees across public,

semi-public and private sector organizations benefitted from the diversity approaches to a different extent.

Organizations across different sectors are therefore suggested to adopt different diversity approaches to

combat negative treatment in the workplace.

Originality/value –Most studies either focus on a pro-equality or pro-diversity approach. The present

study combines both and, moreover, pays attention to the way both approaches affect negative treatment

experienced in the semi-public sector. Examining variation within the public sector is unique in the context of

diversity research.

Keywords Equal opportunities, Diversity management, Negative treatment, Sector differences,

Workforce diversity

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Workforce diversity is a salient topic in the public debate. Nowadays, thousands of

organizations across the European Union have voluntarily committed themselves to

diversity charters (European Commission, 2013). By doing so, they underline their

commitment to promoting diversity and combating negative treatment in the workplace.

Combating negative treatment is highly relevant since negative treatment has a negative

effect on work attitudes (Dipboye and Colella, 2013; Ragins and Cornwell, 2001; Sanchez and

Brock, 1996) and well-being of employees (Broman et al., 2000; Kuyper, 2013; Pascoe and

Smart Richman, 2009).

Discrimination prevention training and providing a possibility to file complaints are

examples of typical tools used to combat negative treatment. These tools belong to what we

call a pro-equality approach which has been adopted by organizations over the last decades.

This approach highlights problems associated with workforce diversity, such as conflict,

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 36 No. 1, 2017

pp. 54-72

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-08-2016-0068

Received 31 August 2016

Revised 9 December 2016

Accepted 10 December 2016

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

54

EDI

36,1

discrimination and inequalities (Dipboye and Colella, 2013; Kirton and Greene, 2010;

Groeneveld and Verbeek, 2012). Since the early 90s, a pro-diversity approach has been on

the rise stressing potential organizational benefits of workforce diversity. The pro-diversity

approach is based on the business case of workforce diversity which holds that properly

managed employee diversity will result in higher performance and profit (Kirton and

Greene, 2010; Groeneveld and Verbeek, 2012; Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The

pro-diversity approach is reflected in policy measures targeted at creating enthusiasm

toward diversity and training managers as to how to deal effectively with differences

between their employees.

Organizations differ as to the emphasis on a pro-equality or pro-diversity approach

toward workforce diversity. Public sector organizations are often assumed to adopt a

pro-equality approach for the simple reason that these organizations have public values as

social justice and legitimacy at the core of their identity. In contrast, private sector

organizations are foremost concerned with maximizing performance and profit, and hence

are assumed to adopt a pro-diversity approach. However, due to the introduction of new

public management (NPM) in the 1980s, public sector organizations have increasingly

introduced private sector management models. Consequently, previous research has

suggested a movement from the pro-equality to the pro-diversity approach within the public

sector (Groeneveld and Van de Walle, 2010; Groeneveld and Verbeek, 2012; Kellough and

Naff, 2004; Wrench, 2007). Nevertheless, research suggests that the sectors are still different

in their diversity approaches (Groeneveld and Verbeek, 2012).

Previous research on diversity in public and private sector organizations has

not paid attention to variation within the public sector (e.g. Byron, 2010; Channar et al.,

2011; Groeneveld and Verbeek, 2012; Kellough and Naff, 2004; Leasher and Miller, 2012).

It might be expecte d, though, that if a n organization’s degree of p ublicness affects its

approach toward workforce diversity, public and semi-public sector organizations adopt

different approaches. Public sector organizations are subject to political pressure and

involved in policy making and are therefore more visible in the public debate and

more likely to be evaluated according to public values and government standards

and norms. In contrast, semi-public sector organizations operate at a larger distance

from politics, are less visible and experience less pressure to adhere to governmental

standards compared to public sector organizations (Bozeman and Bretschneider, 1994;

Boyne, 2002).

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how diversity approaches within

public, semi-public and private sector organizations affect employees’perceptions of

negative treatment in the workplace. On first sight, the pro-equality approach is most likely

to reduce negative treatment since it is a problem-driven approach targeting at combating

negative treatment and inequality. In addition, this approach focuses on minority groups in

organizations which are more likely to experience negative treatment (DiTomaso et al., 2007;

Correll and Ridgeway, 2003). In contrast, the pro-diversity approach emphasizes

workforce diversity as a resource of the organization and does not target negative

treatment per se. Hence, it is expected that the pro-equality approach is more strongly

associated with reducing negative treatment compared to the pro-diversity approach.

The relationship was tested using equation modeling on survey data of a representative

sample of Dutch employees.

The next section gives a brief review of the literature on diversity approaches, negative

treatment and the relation between both concepts. On top of this, particular attention will

be devoted to differences between the three sectors by referring to the concept of

publicness. The third section describes the data set and research methods. The results are

then presented in the fourth section followed by the final section including conclusions

and discussion.

55

Diverse

approaches

to negative

treatment