ISSN No. 0974-035X An Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed … Jan18/1.pdf · 2020-02-15 · Towards...

JAN, 2018. VOL.10. SPECIAL ISSUE FOR INTERNATIONAL YOUTH SYMPOSIUM www.ascgujarat.org Page | 1

SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF

OPENNESS TO DIVERSITY

Ms. Ritika Singh

&

Dr. Reena Shah

Abstract

Purpose – Openness to diversity is the acceptance of similarities and dissimilarities

between the individuals or a group one belongs to. Based on the literature on Openness to

Diversity, the purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a scale on Openness to

Diversity among individuals.

Design/methodology/approach – In this study, scale development procedure is followed

comprising with the steps of item generation and selection, scale refinement and scale

validation. The methodology entailed the compilation of a literature review and

conduction of qualitative interviews and expert ratings to generate and modify items.This

study conceptualizes the construct of Openness to Diversity and generated an initial

29-item OPD scale. A total of 253 responses are collected from a three-month

internet-based and personal based survey. Kaiser-Meyer Olkin test and

Bartlett’s test were conducted for sampling adequacy and sphericity of data and construct

validity was done by factor analysis. Based on the sample data, this study provides an

empirical validation of the OPD construct and its underlying dimensionality and develops

a generic OPD scale with desirable psychometric properties, including reliability, content

validity, criterion-related validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity.

Findings – A final 12-item OPD scale covering three dimensions of Openness to

Diversity has been developed.

Originality/value – The paper describes the construction and validation of a new scale

measuring Openness to Diversity. The instrument can be used by the policy makers and

human resource practitioners.OPD scale provides practitioners and researchers with a

promising tool, with implications for measuring the openness of the professional for

promoting diversity at workplace and also how individuals identify with each other and

see the world at a global level.

Keywords: Diversity, Openness to diversity Scale development, Validation

"Understand the distinctions; follow up on the shared characteristics." - Andrew

Masondo, African National Congress

ISSN No. 0974-035X

An Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Journal of Higher Education

Towards Excellence UGC-HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,

GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD, INDIA

http://www.ascgujarat.org/

Towards Excellence: An Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed Journal of Higher Education

/ Ritika Singh & Dr. Reena Shah /Page 1-18


"Quality lies in contrasts, not in likenesses" ― Stephen R. Brood

Introduction: In a very recent incident Uber's CEO, Travis Kalanick apologized for diversity failings at

his organization after a previous employee claimed for being tortured and discriminated

while working there. The CEO, apologizes for the absence of diversity in the

organization's workforce and for not reacting to employees grievances. In front of

everyone he told that “as a leader he will be working on the diversity issues at workplace

and improve the environment”. There have also been many questions related to gender

diversity among Uber’s technology teams. At this he mentioned that “ he will be creating

a workplace where a deep sense of justice can be seen among employees, and every Uber

employee will feel proud of the culture that will be embedded by employees combined

efforts to set a new standard for justice in the workplace (Source: Bloomberg Technology

and Mashable.com, 2017). This could question for lack of capability to handle diversity.

This critical incident leads the globalised world to the importance of openness to diversity

and developing capabilities towards managing diverse work force in organizations.

Openness to diversity has become a pertinent requisite for organisations

post-globalization. Diversity is encouraged by personalities like NR Narayana Murthy of

Infosys and the late legendary Steve Jobs of Apple who put their personal reputations at

stake to promote diversity (Source: Bloomberg Technology).

In recent years, many organizations have had to adjust their human resource management

strategies in response to both domestic workforce diversity and global business expansion

(Jamieson & O'Mara, 1991; Tung, 1986). Both of these environmental factors, domestic

diversity and global competition, have given rise to the need for a new type of employee

in organizations. The organizations of today needs individuals who are open and

responsive to diversity and can wholeheartedly accept diversity as a competitive gains for

their associations. At a very fast pace organizations are extending their operations

worldwide, they too have a rising requirement for representatives who can work

adequately in foreign conditions, with remote partners, customers, and so forth. Both

intra-national and worldwide diversity, accordingly, have encouraged the requirement for

employees who have the adaptive personalities which would empower them to culturally

assimilate in diverse circumstances. In this paper we endeavour to study openness to

diversity with reference to how open people are in regards to their inclination for novel

experiences and interactive over contrasts; which is likely to involve engaging in new

activities, aesthetics, visiting new places, and/or trying new cuisines. This scale is likely

to have implications for organisations in how an employee open to diversity fits into the

organization and adjust itself with the differences in context of culture, personality,

gender, language, religion, etc. Thus an employee would show high individual and team

performance in the organization which in turn would help management organizations

understand the increasing importance of openness to diversity in multicultural settings.

Diversity and its Dimensions

The term diversity refers to personal differences relating to gender, ethnicity, culture, age

and disability (EEO Trust 2008; Milliken and Martins 1996). Nkomo and Taylor define

diversity as "a blend of individuals with various gathering of personalities inside a similar

social framework" (Nkomo and Taylor, 1999). Loden and Rosener's (1991) divided

diversity into two parts: Primary and secondary dimensions. He clarify the primary

dimensions as the unchangeable contrasts that are inborn and importantly affect our

improvement in early socialization and for our progressing life (Loden and Rosener,

1991). These would incorporate age, sex, ethnicity, physical components, race and sexual





introduction. The secondary dimensions are clarified as things that can be changed, for

example, geographic area, marital status and religious beliefs. Loden and Rosener (1991)

underscore that these two measurements are both vital to how individuals identify with

others and see the world at a global level (Loden and Rosener, 1991).

Wellner (2000) defines diversity as speaking to a large number of individual contrasts and

likenesses that exist among individuals. Diversity can envelop a wide range of human

attributes, for example, race, age, doctrine, national starting point, religion, ethnicity,

sexual introduction. The attributes speaking to differing qualities are shown in

Gardenswartz and Rowe's (1994) Four Layers of Diversity Model. Gardenswartz and

Rowe (1994) portrayed diversity as resembling an onion, having layers that once peeled

away uncovers the centre. As per Gardenswartz and Rowe (1994) the four layers of

diversity are organizational factors, internal factors, external factors, and individual

identity.

There are various factors that contribute to difference among individuals. The two main

models are: The Iceberg Model given by Bryant Rollins & Shirley Stetson which

describes two levels of diversity, one is below the water line (religion, attitude,) and other

is above (Race, gender, age). The second model is: Diversity Wheel which was given by

Marilyn Loden & Judy Rosener (1991) which describes three dimensions of diversity and

it includes, Primary/Internal Dimension Exert primary influence on one’s identity (race,

gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, physical ability ); Secondary/External

Dimension less visible, add more subtle richness to the primary dimensions of diversity

(religion, education, geographic location, status, income, group membership ) and

Tertiary/Organizational Dimension (work location, professional affiliation, union status,

management status, work field ).

Diversity in Indian Context:

Indian culture is an amalgamation of several cultures and is one of the oldest and unique

cultures. India is a cultural diversified country. Diversity includes cultural factors such as

race, gender, age, colour, physical ability, ethnicity, etc. (Kundu and Turan, 1999). The

north, south, east, west and central regions have their own distinct culture. It is a

birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Christians. Different religions

have different cultures. The way of greeting differ across different state and religion, e.g.

in northern region we have Namaste (Hindi), Sat Shri Akal (Punjabi, used by followers of

Sikhism), in southern region we have Namaskar (Marathi), Namaskara (Kannada),

Namaskaram (Telugu, Malayalam), Vanakkam (Tamil), Nomoskar (Assamese), in west

we have Nomoshkaar (Bengali), Jai Shri Krishna, Ram and Jai Jinendra a common

greeting used across Jain community, Jai Bhim used by Buddhist ( Jyoti & Kaur, 2015).

Indian states and regions have local festivals depending on prevalent religions and

linguistic demographics. Popular religious festivals include the Hindu festivals of Navratri,

Diwali, Holi, Dussehra, MahaShivatri, Durga puja, etc. Sikh festivals include Guru Nanak

Jayanti, Baisakhi, etc. Islamic festival includes Eid-up-Fitr, Eid-ul-Adha, Muharram,

Shab-e-Barat, etc. Christian celebrates Christmas and Good Friday.

Food is an integral part of human culture. Indian food is as diverse as India. Indian cuisine

varies from region to region, cultural diversity and varied demographics of the country.

Indian cuisine can be split into five categories – northern, southern, eastern, western and

north-eastern. People from northern region consumes rice, wheat and dal and fish-based

cuisine are common in eastern states of India. People from southern states mostly

consume food made from rice (Idle, Dosa, Utapam, Upma, etc.) and they use coconut oil

for preparing almost every cuisine.


http://www.emeraldinsight.com.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/doi/full/10.1108/CCM-04-2013-0072




Dress in India enormously fluctuates across over various parts of the nation and is

impacted by neighbourhood culture, topography, atmosphere and provincial/urban setting.

Ladies in northern India wear Salwar-Kameez and men wear Kurta-Pyajama; in southern

locale ladies wear Sari and men wear Lungi-Kurta; in western area ladies wear

Lengha-Choli and men wear Dhoti-Kurta.

Likewise a language in India also varies across different religion and states. Hindi is often

associated with Hinduism, Urdu is generally associated with Muslims, Tamil is spoken in

Tamil Nadu, Punjabi in Punjab, Bengali in Bengal, Gujarati in Gujarat, etc. Therefore, we

can find diversity in almost every aspect in India.

India is one of the diverse countries in the world. Its diversity aspects are rooted in the

socio-cultural factors and emerging trends in demography. The diversity dimensions are

discussed under two heads: socio-cultural dimensions and demographic dimension.

Socio-Cultural Dimension

Socio-Cultural dimensions include caste, religion and language Caste has always been a

major source of diversity in Indian society and therefore in Indian organizations. A caste

is one of the traditional social classes into which people are divided in a Hindu society

and any of the four major hereditary classes, namely the Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and

Sudra into which Hindu society is divided. Religion is one of the key facets of diversity,

along with race, gender, disability and age. India is a secular, multi-religious and

multicultural country. It’s a land from where important religions namely Hinduism,

Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism have originated at the same time have flourished and

survived the influence of religions like Islam and Christianity and is home to several

indigenous faiths tribal religions.

Indian work places are as well multi-religion, demonstrating the population from various

regions of India. Further, given the centuries of assimilation and accommodation,

diversity in religion is acceptable in Indian workplaces and does not create conflict (Rao,

2012, Gebert, 2011). People are directly affected by the religious beliefs, norms and

practices of others and need to develop awareness of the issues, and processes to manage

religion at work. Religion determines the work culture and behaviour of individuals too.

India is a multilingual country and the constitution accords to protect the multilingual

nature of India. In terms of linguistic diversity, it has a variety of languages and dialects.

People are identified with certain linguistic, ethnic, religious or cultural groups through

ones mother tongue (Budhwar, 2003).

Demographic Dimension

Demographic dimensions include gender, age and region. India is a large country having

continental dimensions and comprising 29 States/regions and 7 Union Territories.

Regionalism in India has roots pre- independence when it was used as tool to keep India

divided. These regions vary by languages, topographic and climatic variations along with

differences in the settlement pattern. Each of these regions is a distinct cultural region

with distinct cultural heritage, folklore, myths, symbolism and historical traditions. These

are the areas with distinct geographical boundaries and have common cultural elements

(Bhattacharya, 2005). Women, constitutes nearly 50% of India’s population. According

to the provisional population totals of Census 2011, women make 48.46% (586.5 Million)

of Indian population.

According to Census 2011, the proportion of economically active population (15-59 years)

has increased from 53.4 to 56.3 percent during 1971 to 1981 and 57.7 to 62.5 per cent

during 1991 to 2011. Of which 19.2% of population is in the age group of 15- 24 years.

And India’s median age has risen from around 22 years in 2001 to over 24 years in


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/traditional

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/four

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/major

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hereditary

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/classis

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/namely

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/brahman

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/kshatriya

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vaisya

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/sudra

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hindu

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/society

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/divide




2011.Age groups has their own unique attitudes, ambitions, views, motivation tools,

mind-sets, communication styles and approach toward work and career. This makes it an

important dimension of workforce diversity to give attention and a challenge to create a

harmonious workplace. The current workforce has the largest pool of young generation,

which has highly differentiating characteristics particularly in India as they are grown in

the era of liberalization from 1991 and has seen abundance options and affluence early in

life due to globalization. The contemporary Indian organizations have interesting mix of

baby Boomers (most of those would be holding top positions and leadership roles or

joining post retirement), Gen X (most of those would be senior professionals and

managerial positions) Gen Y (the youngest workforce at all entry levels), would be

working side by side (Budhwar, 2003).

Cultural and Linguistic Diversity

Cultural diversity is characterized as the presence of various distinctive nationalities

among the staff. Cultural diversity could be portrayed as a type of deep‐level

heterogeneity (Jackson et al., 1995) and might be seen as a task‐relevant differing

qualities in organizations since worldwide individuals have been attracted to the

association to utilize their particular capacities and along these lines may offer

complimentary data and aptitudes.

Linguistic diversity is conceptualized as the nearness of a huge number of speakers of

various national dialects in a similar work assemble. Constructive outcomes of phonetic

differing qualities in non‐English talking settings could be the incorporation of association

individuals with unrivalled English dialect aptitudes that could be utilized as a part of

universal courses and in worldwide production procedures (Lillis and Curry, 2006).

Openness to Diversity

Many authors have given definitions from different perspectives. Sawyerr et al. (2005)

define openness to diversity as an attitude of awareness and acceptance of both

similarities and differences that exist among people. They examined openness to diversity

on the following dimensions: linguistic, visible, value, and informational diversity.

Linguistic diversity represents the communicative dimension of dissimilarity which is

often ignored in diversity studies (Jonsen et al., 2011). When individuals are open to

linguistic diversity, they are accepting of each other's varying language proficiency,

vocabulary, and accents (Klitmøller and Lauring, 2013;Lauring and Selmer, 2012).

Visible diversity is representative of the surface‐level of demographic heterogeneity

(Harrison et al., 1998). When individuals are open to visible diversity, they show no

discriminatory attitudes toward those who look different, e.g., are of a different gender,

race, or age group. Value diversity, on the other hand, is a deep‐level type of diversity

(Tyran and Gibson, 2008). Openness to other individuals’ different values means

tolerance for differences in opinions, world view, and cultural behaviours. Finally,

informational diversity represents the variations in knowledge that are often described as

the true value of diversity (Ely and Thomas, 2001). When individuals show openness to

informational diversity, they are inclusive of different information and different sources

of knowledge available within the group (Homan et al., 2007).

Another nomenclature that has emerged in the understanding of the term diversity and

openness to diversity are sensitivity to diversity, cultural diversity, linguistic diversity,

age diversity etc. At last, enlightening assorted qualities speaks to the varieties in learning

that are frequently depicted as the genuine estimation of differing qualities (Ely and

Thomas, 2001). At the point when people demonstrate openness to educational diversity,


http://www.emeraldinsight.com.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/doi/full/10.1108/IJEM-11-2012-0127











they are comprehensive of various data and diverse wellsprings of information accessible

inside the gathering (Homan et al., 2007).

Sensitivity to Diversity

Sensitivity to diversity can be characterized as individual contrasts in their inclination to

notice contrasts inside one's gathering. It has been contended that such propensities speak

to an inside condition of individual characteristic. Very much same as identity qualities,

the attribute of sensitivity to differences may begin in a social learning process through

which individuals discover that they will fulfil certain inborn needs from specific sorts of

behaviour and experiences (House et al., 1996). A man may build up his/her sensitivity to

differences attribute during the time spent reacting to external stimuli, for example,

numerical uniqueness, character primes, and preferences (Randel, 2002). At the point

when the resulting social order in view of that specific character expands a man's

self-regard, social support, and so forth he/she might will probably see that personality

later on and utilize it as the reason for social arrangement. After some time, it forms into

general behavioural and intellectual propensities of the person. In fact, this social learning

procedure is referred to as a redefinition procedure that impeded individuals experience to

develop positive social personalities (Atewologun and Singh, 2010; Kyriakidou, 2012).

The broad definitions on diversity, openness to diversity, sensitivity to diversity and

assorted attributes of diversity together throw up a number of categories such as cultural

diversity, age diversity, linguistic diversity, gender diversity etc., under which the

diversity area of study has progressed.

Table 1: Prior Research on Scale of Openness to Diversity:

Scale Author & Year Dimensions

Miville‐Guzman

Universality‐Diversity

Scale (MGUDS)

Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J.,

Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji,

P., Holloway, P., et al. (1999).

Diversity of Contact, Relativistic

Appreciation of Oneself and Others, and

Sense of Connection.

Miville-Guzman

Universality-Diversity

Scale – Short Form

(M-GUDS-S)

Fuertes, J. N., Miville, M. L.,

Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, W. E.,

& Gretchen, D. (2000).

Diversity of Contact, Relativistic

Appreciation of Oneself and Others, and

Sense of Connection.

Openness to Diversity

and Challenge

Pascarella and colleagues

(1996)

openness to diverse cultures, races,

ethnicities, and values as well as

individuals’ willingness and enjoyment

of having their ideas challenged by

different values and perspectives

Miami University

Diversity Awareness

Scale (MUDAS)

Mosley-Howard et al. (2011)

This instrument measures five factors

that assess valuing diversity, seeking out

general knowledge of diversity, having

personally interacted with different

cultures, seeing the need for social

justice, and seeing the need for

professors to have knowledge of

diversity.





The Attitudinal and

Behavioral Openness

Scale (ABOS)

Paula M. Caligiuria,, Rick R.

Jacobsb, James L. Farrb, 2000

Measures four theoretical dimensions of

openness: attitudes, participation in

cultural activities, past experiences, and

comfort with differences

Openness to diversity

was represented by

four constructs:

Openness to linguistic

diversity

Harzing and Feely (2008) and

Hobman et al. (2004)

Linguistic diversity is likely to play an

important role in knowledge-sharing

behavior in multicultural settings

Openness to social

category diversity Hobman et al. (2004)

Social category diversity refers to

variance in visible or surface

characteristics such as race, gender, and

age

Openness to value

diversity Hobman et al. (2004)

Openness to value diversity relates to the

way in which individuals approach the

different beliefs, perspectives, and

behaviors among group members.

Openness to

informational diversity Hobman et al. (2004)

Diversity in an organization’s

knowledge base increases its ability to

exploit internal and external knowledge

resources.

Sensitivity to gender

and race/ethnicity

diversity

Lu Zhang Caren

Goldberg ,2014

Sensitivity to gender diversity &

Sensitivity to race/ethnicity diversity

Cognitive diversity:

Cognitive Group

Diversity (CGD).

Van der Vegt and Janssen’s

(2003)

Cognitive diversity measure asks team

members to rate the extent to which

members of their group differ in their

way of thinking, their skills and

knowledge, the way they view the world,

and their beliefs on what is right and

wrong

While diversity is a pertinent and contemporary body of research, to the best of our

knowledge all work is limited to contextualizing not much has been done empirically to

test these various conceptual frameworks. A scale for ODC has been developed by

Pascarella and colleagues (1996). Openness to Diversity and Challenge Scale measures a

student’s openness to cultural and racial diversity as well as the extent to which one

enjoys being challenged by different perspectives, values, and ideas. Universal‐

diverse orientation (UDO), which is defined by the Miville et al. (1999) as “an attitude of

awareness and acceptance of both the similarities and differences amongpeople” (p.291).

Following three subscales were created to measure the behavioral, cognitive, and emotion

al components of UDO. Scores on M-GUDS helps in estimating student’s behaviour in

college, their attitudes towards people from different culture and program in college

setting and their academic self-confidence. Miami University Diversity Awareness Scale

(MUDAS) by Mosley-Howard et al. (2011) is designed to measure students’ level of

knowledge about culture, intergroup interaction, appreciation of diversity, and social

justice. Appreciation of diversity and their willingness to share that appreciation with

others. The Attitudinal and Behavioural Openness Scale by Paula M. Caligiuria,, Rick R.





Jacobsb, James L. Farrb, (2000) was developed on the premise that there are certain

behaviours individuals exhibit and attitudes individuals hold which would indicate the

presence of the underlying personality characteristic of openness and the presence of

openness would relate to positive outcomes requiring sensitivity to cultural differences.

Cognitive diversity scale by Van der Vegt and Janssen’s (2003) measures and asks team

members to rate the extent to which members of their group differ in their way of thinking,

their skills and knowledge, the way they view the world, and their beliefs on what is right

and wrong. Sensitivity to diversity scale by Lu Zhang Caren Goldberg, (2014) Measures

perceived cohesiveness, group commitment, and satisfaction with coworkers based on

gender diversity and race/ethnicity diversity.

In order to develop a broad scale of openness to diversity in Indian context. As India

diverse country and there is not only one culture but it has many sub-cultures. Every state

of India is seen as a different country and thus differences and cultural variations are

important aspect. From the prior research it has been found that no such scale is

developed in Indian context which measures individual’s openness towards differences

while moving from one state to another. So we define Openness to diversity in Indian

context as “Openness to diversity as the acceptance of similarities and dissimilarities

between the individuals or a group one belongs to. When people show openness they

become culturally intelligent and also in acceptance of others. Openness to diversity helps

individuals to express their feelings, emotions, beliefs, values so that they can play their

role effectively and can respond accordingly to the social realities around them”.

Scale Development Methodology:

The methodology for this study follows Hinkin’s (1995) scale development paradigm. As

per Hinkin (1995), the first stage of scale development is the generation of items to assess

the construct under examination. The items are developed on the basis of a strong

theoretical foundation and definition of the construct. After understanding the theoretical

foundation, we have followed deductive approach to develop the preliminary items. The

deductive approach is followed when the theoretical foundation and definition are used as

a guide to develop items.

In the case of the deductive approach, the theoretical work on diversity and prior research

on scales of openness to diversity was examined and extended to generate items under the

three dimensions proposed by them. A total of 29 initial items were developed through

this approach.

Scale Construction

To satisfactorily operationalize a construct with appropriate measures and determine

construct validity, the proposed scale must demonstrate content validity, test criterion‐

related validity, and internal consistency (Hinkin, 1995, 1998). The details of this process

for the Openness to Diversity construct included item generation, expert opinion, inter

ratings and refinement, assessment of the final scale's psychometric properties, and

development of a test criterion‐validity.

Questionnaire development

The survey instrument was developed on the basis of inferences drawn from the deductive

(literature review) approach. The instrument consisted of 29 statements. Each of the items

was evaluated on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree).

Phase I: Item generation


http://www.emeraldinsight.com.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/doi/full/10.1108/PR-03-2015-0065


http://www.emeraldinsight.com.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/doi/full/10.1108/09534810910997041




An initial pool of 33 scale items was generated on the basis of the literature review,

exploratory interviews, and qualitative studies. The items were measured on five-point

Likert-type scales bounded by “strongly agree” (=1) and “strongly disagree” (=5).

Expert opinion

The instrument consisting of 33 items generated from the use of the deductive approach

was subjected to an expert review in order to determine their validity. “Content validity”

refers to the degree to which the elements of the instrument represent the domain of the

concept under investigation (Talavera, 2004). In order to establish the content validity, the

instrument was validated through expert opinion of ten participants, three academicians

and ten practitioners from different organizations. The academicians held important

positions like the head of the department and director of the organisations. The

practitioners also had over 15-20 years of experience in their respective organisations.

The participants were asked to assess the instrument for its comprehensibility, bias and

appropriateness of the items.

In the next stage, 23 experts from different organizations rated and items having more

than 75% frequency were retained out of which 4 items were dropped as they had less 75%

frequency. The 29 statements were retained and were taken to the second stage.

Phase II: Scale Administered

In this phase the questionnaire of 29 items was administered a five-point Likert scale

(where 1 – highly disagree and 5 – highly agree) was constructed. The questionnaire was

divided into two sections, where first section dealt with the demographic profile of the

respondents as gender, marital status, age, designation, and place and work experience.

Second section, comprises 29 items on openness to diversity.

For the preliminary refinement of 29-item instrument, the data was gathered on the new

sample of professionals from different organizations from the states like Gujarat, Uttar

Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Haryana, Punjab, Orrisa, Delhi,

Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Kerala and Union territory which represents India namely

East, West, North and South. The sample included men and women’s working in different

sectors like Pharmaceutical, manufacturing, banking, cement, consulting, design,

E-Commerce, education, hospital, IT, law, media and telecom. Data was collected

through distribution of hard copies of survey questionnaire and also using online version

of the questionnaire on Google doc forms. Around 500 employees were contacted, 100

through hard copy questionnaire and 400 were contacted online through emails. 253

questionnaires were returned without any missing items, a response rate of 52% was there

as reminder mails were also sent to the respondents for filling the questionnaire.

Table 2: Respondents Demographic Details

Table 2: Respondent’s Demographic Details

Sr.

No

Item Categories Frequency

1. Gender Female 108

Male 145

2. Age Below 20 Years 9

21 - 25 years 104

26 - 30 years 83

31 - 35 years 17

36 - 40 years 13

41 - 45 years 8

46 - 50 years 6






Above 50 years 12

3. Marital Status Married 79

Unmarried 174

4. Sectors Banking 30

Cement 12

Consulting 20

Design 1

E-Commerce 1

Education 52

Hospital 3

IT 89

Law 1

Manufacturing 14

Media 6

Pharmaceutical 23

Telecom 1

5. States Andhra Pradesh 3

Delhi 17

Gujarat 96

Haryana 3

Karnataka 14

Kerala 2

Madhya Pradesh 14

Maharashtra 44

Orrisa 6

Punjab 1

Tamilnadu 1

Uttar Pradesh 52

Phase 3: Data Analysis

(i) Item Analysis

As suggested by Churchill (1979), the first step of scale reliability and consistency

involves the computation of internal reliability by using Cronbach’s α. For all 29 items, α

came out to be 0.88, which is above 0.7 which shows the scale is reliable. Principal

component Factor Analysis (PCA) was used because it shows the theoretical advantages

as it is asymptotically efficient estimator. It produces strong factors with the varying

loading within the factors. To check the sampling adequacy the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity were conducted. KMO of 0.80 for sampling

adequacy which shows that data is suitable for factor analysis.

(ii) Exploratory factor analysis

The aim of EFA was to determine the condition where links between the latent and

observed variables are uncertain or unknown and principal component analysis (PCA)

along with varimax rotation was executed for extracting factors (Costello and Osborne,

2005) through SPSS 19.0 software. A minimum cut off criteria for the deletion of the

items was: factor loadings (<0.30) (Karatepe et al., 2005), cross loadings (>0.30) or

communalities (<0.30) (Hair et al., 1998). The appropriateness of the analysis was

determined by the examination of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) statistic of sampling

adequacy. For good factor analysis, the value of KMO must be at least 0.60 and above

(Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996).



http://www.emeraldinsight.com.elibrary.nirmauni.ac.in/doi/full/10.1108/JM2-07-2012-0023








Table 3: Factor Analysis

Table 3: Scale Items, Mean, Standard Deviation and Factor Loadings Items Mean Std Dev. Factor Loadings

Valuing Diversity (α=0.67)

I like to talk to people who speak

different language than what I know. 1.91 .761 .646

I like the accent people have belonging to

different regions. 1.87 .747 .662

I am interested in understanding the

rituals of another religions. 1.97 .771 .706

I enjoy eating different dishes from

different regions 1.84 .744 .706

Openness to Experience (α=0.71)

I enjoy festivals of other religions. 1.86 .784 .609

I explore and enjoy new places on my

vacations 1.59 .987

.761

I travel to different places to find the

uniqueness of that place 1.79 1.113

.789

During vacations I travel to places that

have some cultural and historical

background.

2.22 1.139

.665

Comfort with Differences (α=0.65)

I believe the involvement of elders in

sharing stories and experience are means

of unity.

1.73 .963

.646

I believe in inter-caste marriages 2.31 1.318 .797

I love to try different cuisines existing all

over the world 2.11 1.098

.650

I am comfortable working with people

whose gender is different from mine. 1.92 1.207

.485

Variance Explained 28.266 16.319 11.095

Total Variance Explained 55.680

The EFA was performed on 29 items that were retained after scale purification and

reliability assessment. The items developed were based on a strong theoretical foundation.

Prior to the conduction of EFA, the suitability of the data was checked. This was analysed

through the application of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value, which reached 0.798. A KMO

value greater than 0.6 is considered appropriate (Kaiser and Rice, 1974). Thus, the KMO

value turned out to be acceptable.

The Principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was performed. Factors

were extracted as per the MINEIGEN criterion, which means that the eigenvalues of all

the factors should be greater than 1. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity also turned out to be

significant (p<0.01), indicating that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. The

communalities of all the measures were relatively large (greater than 0.5). All the

communalities ranged from 0.54 to 0.68. A minimum cut-off criterion for item deletion

was that of factor loadings (<0.3) (Hair et al., 2006). After several iterations out of 29

items, 17 items were dropped for two reasons: items had factor loadings below 0.3

whereas some items were cross-loaded on the other factors. Finally, a total of 12 items







remained after conduction of the factor analysis. The KMO came out to be 0.756 and

cronbach alpha came out to be 0.751 which measures the scale reliability. The variance

for 3 constructs were found and the values for factor 1(28.266), factor 2 (16.319) and

factor 3 (11.095) respectively.

Reliability and Validity

The reliability was checked using Cronbach alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951) after the

finalization of the dimensions. For internal consistency and reliability Cronbach alpha is

commonly accepted by the researchers and is considered most strongly for measuring the

consistency of a scale with multiple items. It was administered on a sample data of 253

respondents. The Cronbach alpha coefficient values for 3 constructs of the scale was 0.67

for valuing diversity, 0.71 for openness to experience and 0.65 for comfort with

differences as mentioned in Table 3. When a scale is developed sometimes index of

reliability is considered as a measure of validity (Garrett & Woodsworth, 1981), so the

validity was considered to be equal to the reliability scores.

Discussion and Conclusion The paper on scale development of openness to diversity has been written an aim to

develop and validate an instrument to measure individual’s openness towards differences

prevailing in Indian culture as it’s a diverse country. This empirical study has been done

on the sample of professionals working in different states of India in different sectors. The

scale has been developed after completing different phases of the development and

validation. In the first phase of content validity and face validity, 29 items were retained

out of 33 items based on 75% frequency cut-off results given by opinions of experts. In

the next stage 17 items were dropped as they has lower factor loadings and others had

cross loadings on other factors.

Subsequently, a construct constituting 12 items was put for factor analysis. To explore the

suitability of the data for running factor analysis, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity and

Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) measure was conducted. The KMO values came out to be

0.756 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity score was 739.409 and thus proved for doing factor

analysis. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was done using principal component analysis

(PCA) with varimax rotation. Factor loadings (>0.30) was taken as significant. The 12

items considered for factor analysis has a total variance score of 55.68%.

Finally in the 3 factor scale, the first factor which emerged was labelled as valuing

diversity and has four items. Valuing diversity has a cronbach alpha 0.67 and variance

explained score of 28.266. Valuing diversity measures how individuals are open towards

interacting with diverse people having different backgrounds. It measures up to which

level people value the differences in languages, rituals, accent of speaking and different

dishes with different tastes. The second factor was labelled as openness to experience and

has four items. The score of cronbach alpha was 0.71 and variance explained score was

16.319.Openness to experience measures the willingness of people to be open and explore

and enjoy different festivals, new places, finding uniqueness and learning and getting

knowledge from historical places. The third factor was labelled as comfort with

differences and has four items. The score of cronbach alpha was 0.65 and variance

explained score was 11.095. Comfort with differences dimension measures the level of

comfort and acceptance of elder’s stories and experiences because of age difference,

accepting and believing in inter-caste marriages, trying new cuisines and comfort zone in

working with people whose gender is different from ours. Factor loadings and variance

percentage of all items presented in Table 3.

Indian professionals have to make various adjustments relating to different languages, as

India is a multi-lingual and multi-ethnic country and also have to make various general

adjustments regarding food, clothing, shopping conditions, etc. The people from the North





India are more relationship oriented, whereas South India are more disciplined and have

simple lifestyles, from East India people have intellectual ability and lastly people from

Western India are professional and are able to handle situations in better way (Banerjee,

2013) therefore, managers from one region when posted to other region, they have to

make various interactional, general as well as work related adjustment. Openness to

diversity scale aims to measure the characteristics that makes an individual open to

differences, open to new experiences, open to new culture, etc. which further leads to the

achievement of desired results by the company by recruiting diverse workforce.

India is a multidimensional society and each of these dimension has a strong influence on

the identity of individual and impacts their work style, work values and their other habits

at workplace. Each of the dimensions of diversity brings in various challenges to the

organization. Each openness to diversity dimension is a factor of discrimination and

impacts the decisions in the organization. These dimensions impact the decisions at

various levels such as recruitment, promotions, transfers, cross-cultural management,

work-life balance, group communication, team work, social acceptance by colleagues etc.

The challenge for strategy makers to manage diversity in Indian context is to understand

the multidimensional aspects of diversity. Research is needed to unravel which

dimensions has more impact on workplace and the cause and effect relation of each

dimension in detail. The study will help HR professionals in their search by selecting,

training and developing a more competent workforce. Further, having an openness to

diversity helps an individual to become familiar with the value, beliefs, language of the

state in which he/she had to work, which help them to adjust and handle stress. It gives

them confidence to effectively interact and work in a new and unfamiliar environment

which further enhances their performance.

This paper aimed at developing a scale on openness to diversity. This paper contributes to

the openness to diversity literature. It is concluded that the individuals who are open to

diversity and accept to experience the differences positively contribute to organization

performance along with life satisfaction. Further, individuals who have openness towards

diversity are better able to adjust themselves in cross-cultural situation and which in turn

results in increased performance.

References: 1. Aronson, E. (1999), “Dissonance hypocrisy and the self-concept”, in Harmon-Jones, E.

and Mills, J. (Eds), Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social

Psychology , APA, Washington, DC, pp. 175-200.

2. Atewologun, D. and Singh, V. (2010), “Challenging ethnic and gender identities”,

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp.

332-347

3. Avery, D.A., McKay, P.F. and Wilson, D.C. (2008), “What are the odds? How

demographic similarity affects the prevalence of perceived employment

discrimination”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 235-249.

4. Banerjee, A., (2013), “What’s Indian Culture? A dive into domestic diversity”,

5. Bhattacharya H (2005). Federalism and Regionalism in India: Institutional Strategies

and Political Accommodation of Identity. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and

Comparative Politics, Paper No.27.

6. Black, J. S. (1990). The relationship of personal characteristics with adjustment of

Japanese expatriate managers. Management International Review, 30, 119-134.

7. Bloomberg Technology and Mashable.com, 2017.

8. Budhwar, P. 2003. "Culture and Management in India" In M. Warner (Ed.) Culture

and Management in Asia.London: Routledge.





9. Buss, A. H. (1989). Personality as traits. American Psychologist, 44, 1378-1388.

10. Caligari, Jacobs & Farr (2000),”Development and construct validation of the

Attitudinal and Behavioral Openness Scale (ABOS)”. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 24 (1), 27-46.

11. Chatman, J.A. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2004), “Asymmetric reactions to work group sex

diversity among men and women”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 6,

pp. 193-208.

12. Churchill, G.A.Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

construts”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

13. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality

and Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.

14. Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005), “Best practices in exploratory factor

analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis”, Practical

Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol. 10 No. 7, pp. 1-9.

15. Cox, T.H. Jr (1993), Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and

Practice, Berrett-Koehler, San Fransisco, CA.

16. Deshwal, P. and Choudhary, S. (2012), “Workforce diversity management: biggest

challenge for 21st century managers”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary

Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 74-87.

17. Economist Intelligence Unit (2012), “Competing across borders/how cultural and

communication barriers affect business”

18. EEO Trust. (2008). Diversity and equality: Evidence of positive business outcomes

and how to achieve them. A review of the literature. Auckland, NZ: New Zealand

Equal Opportunities Trust.

19. Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of

diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes”, Administrative

Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 229‐273.

20. Fuertes, J. N., Miville, M. L., Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, W. E., & Gretchen, D. (2000).

Factor structure and short form of the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale.

Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 157– 169.

21. Gardenswartz and a Rowe, Diverse Teams at Work: Capitalizing on the Power of

Diversity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), p. 33.

22. Garrett, E., & Woodworth, S. (1981). Statistics in Psychology and Education. Bombay:

Vakils, Feffer & Simons Ltd.

23. Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Chatterjee, D. (2011). Do religious differences matter? An

analysis in India. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 17(3/4),

224-240.

24. Goldberg, C., Riordan, C. and Schaffer, B. (2010), “Does social identity theory

underlie relational demography? A test of the moderating effects of uncertainty

reduction and status enhancement on similarity effects”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No.

7, pp. 903-926.

25. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data

Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

26. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006),

Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 6, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

27. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography:

time and effects of surface‐ and deep‐level diversity on work group cohesion”,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96‐107.





28. Harzing, A.-W. and Feely, A.J. (2008), “The language barrier and its implications for

HQ-subsidiary relationships”, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal,

Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 49-61.

29. Hinkin, T.R. (1995), “Are view of scale development practices in the study of

organizations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 967-988.

30. Hobman, E.V., Bodia, P. and Gallois, C. (2004), “Perceived dissimilarity and work

group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity”, Group

and Organization Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 560-587.

31. Homan, A.C., Greer, L.L., Jehn, K.A. and Koning, L. (2010), “Believing shapes

seeing: the impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition”, Group

Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 477-493.

32. Homan, A.C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A. and De Dreu, C.K. (2007),

“Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: the effects of diversity beliefs on

information elaboration and performance in diverse work groups”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1189‐1199.

33. House, R.J., Shane, S.A. and Herold, D.M. (1996), “Rumors of the death of

dispositional research are vastly exaggerated”, Academy of Management Review, Vol.

21 No. 1, pp. 203-224.

34. Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), “Understanding the dynamics of

diversity in decision‐making teams”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team

Decision‐Making Effectiveness in Organizations, Jossey‐Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp.

204‐261

35. Jackson, S.E. and Joshi, A. (2004), “Diversity in social context: a multi attribute,

multilevel analysis of team diversity and performance in a sale organization”, Journal

of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 675-702.

36. Jamieson, D., & O'Mara, J. (1991). Managing workforce 2000. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

37. Jeevan Jyoti, Sumeet Kour, (2015) "Assessing the cultural intelligence and task

performance equation: Mediating role of cultural adjustment", Cross Cultural

Management, Vol. 22 Issue: 2, pp.236-258.

38. Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. and Schneider, S.C. (2011), “Diversity and it’s not so

diverse literature: an international perspective”, International Journal of Cross‐

Cultural Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 35‐62.

39. Kaiser, H.F. and Rice, J. (1974), “Little Jiffy Mark IV”, Educational and

Psychological Measurement, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 111-117.

40. Kanungo, R.P. (2006), “Cross culture and business practices: are they coterminous or

cross-verging?”, Cross Cultural Management: An international Journal , Vol. 13 No. 1,

pp. 23-31

41. Karatepe, O.M., Yavas, U. and Babakus, E. (2005), “Measuring service quality of

banks: scale development and validation”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer

Services, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 373-383.

42. Keller, K.L. (2001), “Building customer based brand equity”, Marketing Management,

Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 14-19.

43. Khan, T.M., Pezeshki, V., Clear, F. and Al-Kaabi, A. (2010), “Diverse virtual social

networks: implications for remote software testing teams”, paper presented at the

European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems

2010 (EMCIS 2010), Abu Dhab, 12-13 April.

44. Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M. (2005), the Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical

Approach, 2nd ed., Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.





45. Klitmøller, A. and Lauring, J. (2013), “When global virtual teams share knowledge:

media richness, cultural distance and language commonality”, Journal of World

Business, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 398‐406.

46. Kodwani, A.D. (2012), “Beyond emotional intelligence (EQ): the role of cultural

intelligence (CQ) on cross-border assignments”, World Review of Business Research,

Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 86-102.

47. Konrad, A. (2003), “Defining the domain of workplace diversity scholarship”, Group

Organization Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 4-17.

48. Kundu, S.C. and Turan, M.S. (1999), “Managing cultural diversity in future

organizations”, The Journal of Indian Management and Strategy – 8M, Vol. 4 No. 1, p.

61.

49. Kyriakidou, O. (2012), “Negotiating gendered identities through the process of

identity construction”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal,

Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 27-42

50. Lauring, J. and Selmer, J. (2012), “International language management and diversity

climate in multicultural organizations”, International Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,

pp. 156‐166.

51. Lillis, T. and Curry, M.J. (2006), “Professional academic writing by multilingual

scholars: interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English‐medium texts”,

Written Communication, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3‐35.

52. Lu Zhang Caren Goldberg , (2014),"Sensitivity-to-diversity: a moderator of diversity

– affective outcomes relationships", Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An

International Journal, Vol. 33 Is 6 pp. 494 – 509

53. Marilyn Loden and Julie Rosener (1991), Internal Dimensions and External

Dimensions Workforce America; Business One Irwin.

54. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52, 81-90.

55. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads:

Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of

Management Review, 21(2), 402-403.

56. Mitchell, R., Nicholas, S. and Boyle, B. (2009), “Processes in knowledge creation: the

role of openness to cognitive diversity and group processes in knowledge creation”,

Small Group Research, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 535-54.

57. Miville, M. L., Gelso, C. J., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., & Fuertes,

J. (1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville-Guzman

Universality-Diversity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 291-307.

58. Mosley-Howard, G. S., Witte, R., & Wang, A. (2011). Development and validation of

the Miami University Diversity Awareness Scale (MUDAS). Journal of Diversity in

Higher Education, 4(2), 65-78.

59. Neiner, A. G., & Owens, W. A. (1985). Using biodata to predict job choice among

college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 127-136.

60. Owens, W. A., & Shoenfeldt, L. F. (1979). Toward a classification of persons. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 64, 569-607.

61. Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L.S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996).

Influences on Students Openness to Diversity and Challenge in the First Years of

College. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 174-195.

62. Paula M. Caligiuria, Rick R. Jacobsb, James L. Farrb (2000).The Attitudinal and

Behavioral Openness Scale: scale development and construct validation. International

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 27-46.





63. Piedmont, R. L., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adjective check list scales and

the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 630-637.

64. Randel, A.E. (2002), “Identity salience: a moderator of the relationship between group

gender composition and work group conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,

Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 749-766.

65. Rao, A. (2012). Managing diversity: Impact of religion in the Indian workplace.

Journal of World Business, 47(2), 232-239.

66. Regan, D., & Fazio, R. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behaviour:

look to the method of attitude formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

13, 28-45.

67. Richard, O.C. (2000), “Racial diversity, business strategy and firm performance: a

resource-based view”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 164-177.

68. Sawyerr, O.O., Strauss, J. and Yan, J. (2005), “Individual value structure and diversity

attitudes: the moderating effects of age, gender, race, and religiosity”, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 Nos 5‐6, pp. 498‐521.

69. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (1996), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed.,

HarperCollins College, New York, NY.

70. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in

Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,

pp. 33-47.

71. Talavera, M.G.V. (2004), “Development and validation of TQM constructs: the

Philippine experience”, Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, Vol. 6 No. 3,

pp. 355-381.

72. Tariq M. Khan Fintan Clear Ahmed Al-Kaabi Vahid Pezeshki, (2010),"An

exploratory study of the effects of diversity dimensions and intervening variables on

attitudes to diversity", Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol.

16 Is 5/6 pp. 289 - 308 Thomas, J.C. (1990), “Embodiment as a paradigm for

anthropology”, Ethos, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-47.

73. Torres, C. and Bruxelles, M. (1992), “Capitalizing on global diversity”, HR Magazine,

December, pp. 30-33.

74. Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonal adjective

scales to include the big five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 59, 781-790.

75. Tung, R. L. (1986). Corporate executives and their families in China: the need for

cross-cultural understanding in business. Columbia Journal of World Business, 21,

21-25.

76. Turner, J.C. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

77. Tyran, K.L. and Gibson, C.B. (2008), “Is what you see, what you get? the relationship

among surface‐ and deep‐level heterogeneity characteristics, group efficacy, and team

reputation”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 46‐76.

78. Vaidya, R., Wanjari, V. and Shirigirwar, N. (2013), “An empirical study of managing

diversity at workplace with special reference to Indian organization”, ASM’s

International E-Journal of Ongoing Research in Management and IT, pp. 1-9.

79. Van der Vegt, G., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group

diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29(5), 729-751.

80. Van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Ha ¨gele, S., Guillaume, Y.R.F. and Brodbeck,

F.C. (2008), “Group diversity and group identification: the moderating role of

diversity beliefs”, Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1463-1492.

81. Van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, K., Paulus, P., Vos, M. and Parthasarathy, N. (2009),

“The impact of group composition and attitudes towards diversity on anticipated





outcomes of diversity in groups”, Group Processes Intergroup Relations, Vol. 12 No.

2, pp. 257-80.

82. Weigel, R., & Newman, L. (1976). Increasing attitude behaviour correspondence by

broadening the scope of the behavioural measure. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 33, 793-802.

83. Wellner, A. (2000), “How do you spell diversity?” Training , Vol. 37 No. 4, pp.

34-38.

Ritika Singh

Research Scholar

Institute of Management-

Nirma University

Ahmedabad-Gujarat

[email protected]

Dr. Reena Shah

Assistant Prof.

Indus Institute of Management,

Indus University

Ahmedabad-Gujarat

[email protected]


ISSN No. 0974-035X An Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed … Jan18/1.pdf · 2020-02-15 · Towards...

Documents

Transcript of ISSN No. 0974-035X An Indexed, Refereed & Peer Reviewed … Jan18/1.pdf · 2020-02-15 · Towards...