How does diversity affect public organizational performance? A meta‐analysis

Research in public administration examining the effects of diversity on organizational performance has produced mixed results. However, lack a comprehensive theoretical framework failed to provide an explanation for effects. This study introduces systematic analytical model, Categorization-Elaboration Model (CEM), help identify contextual constructs which can promote positive performance. A meta-analysis is conducted 37 quantitative studies test empirical validity CEM constructed model with 253 effect sizes will better understanding circumstances or contexts that lead benefits within sector organizations. The results meta-regression point appropriate range factors alleviate potential negative and its overall 公共行政有关工作人员身份多元化如何影响公共组织绩效的研究结果并不一致。而当前研究缺乏一个全面的理论框架来分析多元化在不同情境下的不同影响。本文试图引入一个系统性的分析框架，即归类-细化模型 (Categorization-Elaboration Model)，来识别有助于充分发挥多元化对公共组织绩效积极作用的情境性因素。为了验证该分析模型的有效性，本文对来自 篇定量研究的 个效果量进行元分析，从而更好地了解工作人员身份多元化在哪些条件下积极影响公共组织绩效。元分析结果提供了一系列情境性因素，有助于减少多元化对公共部门组织绩效的负面影响并充分发挥其积极作用。 Despite increase relevant studies, impact In many cases, composition employees contributed positively operations organizations, as suggested representative bureaucracy (e.g., Andrews et al., 2005; Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Nicholson-Crotty 2017; Riccucci, 2021; Wise Tschirhart, 2000), networking capability Compton Meier, 2016; Jackson Joshi, 2004; Owens Kukla-Acevedo, 2012), accountability Gazley 2010; Tomlinson Schwabenland, 2010), innovations Choi 2018; Muchiri Ayoko, 2013), inclusion (Andrews 2014; Sabharwal, 2014). under different circumstances, some have found workforces may compromise outcomes, evidenced by agreements decision-making Jehn 1999), communication costs low commitments from marginalized identity subgroups (Moon, Ritz Alfes, 2018). highly context-specific outcomes implies it necessary conduct analysis shaping configurations comprehensive, unified would assist this helping concepts might diversity's Earlier attempted synthesize theories, but seeks incorporate premises underpinnings existing theories. effect, every moderator included here not be fully captured. With one exception, research been theory driven. Some private sector, other hand, applied social categorization (see e.g., Tajfel, 1979, 1982; Tajfel 1971; Turner, 1986), others optimal distinctiveness theory. former refers how individuals separate themselves into groups based race, ethnicity, gender characteristics latter extension (Brewer, individuals' needs both similar others. Sabharwal (2014) applies comparison (i.e., where compare their own skills abilities those others), agencies determine performance.i But she prudently points out, “no exists,” therefore, scholars instead pulled together theories such investigate workplace (Sabharwal, 2014, p. 198). Moreover, extant several when was well managed, including, example, inclusivity, valuing, incorporating protecting voices perspectives diverse subgroups; mentoring; leadership teams; establishing clear goals monitoring progress around goals; prioritizing goals, holding leaders managers responsible accountable goal attainment Ashikali Groeneveld, 2015; Rainey, Guy Park Liang, 2020; Rutherford, For diversity-performance relationships settings attain effective management policies strategies, imperative apply unified, addresses varying outcomes. study, (CEM) introduced, frequently used examine nonpublic sphere Guillaume Nederveen Pieterse 2013; van Knippenberg 2004). Its application more explain account contextuality sector. To certain extent, discover applicability workforces. It complement alternative purpose organization understand diversity. Specifically, conducts sizes. current contributes practice development studying at least three ways. First, summarizes findings literature settings, provides directions future research. More importantly, applying systematically describes multidimensionality Additionally, are suggestive should noted outset there paucity countries outside United States. must recognized behavior national culture prescribes biases manifested workplace. China, America's Philippine work setting very South Africa's. As noted, good deal indicates composition, effectively likely contribute performance, terms of, responsiveness citizenry, governance capacity, accountability. These generally rely demographic variables measure (see, Opstrup Villadsen, 2012; Pitts, 2009; Pitts Jarry, 2007, Shibeshi, Soni, 2000; Watson 1993). recently, focused diversity, equity (DEI), importance managing ensure inclusiveness McCandless, 2012, McCandless 2022; Naff Kellough, 2003). sense, calls “public organizations creating inclusive cultures all only coexist thrive” (Nelson Piatak, 2021, 295). pointed particularly if managed. Studies shown diversified could generate conflicts stemming differences identification values, hinder organizations' processes 1999). Similarly Kukla-Acevedo (2012) racially heterogenous school districts spend time mediating network clienteles than homogenous districts, resulted relatively lower heterogeneous compared were homogeneous. Other detrimental basic functioning efforts values address uncertainty Miller del Carmen Triana, 2009). Conflicting well-managed, complicate ability include array short, well-illustrated administration, challenges. limited value because most focus standpoint categories, ignores specific managerial contextualize moderate Thus, order important explore determinants promote, conversely mitigate (McCrea Zhu, 2019). respect research, demographics personnel construct dimensions effects, even here, no tests these frameworks Ali Cox, 1993; Larkey, 1996; Mazneski, 1994; Pelled, empirically defined between among group members characterized gender, language, nationality, perspective (Colquitt 2002; Cummings Earley Mosakowski, Milliken Martins, 1996). addition demographics, leadership, recruitment, inclusivity incentive mechanisms also considered contributing increasing shape designs (Groeneveld Verbeek, Cunningham, Von Bergen 2002). Yet, tends varies across categories contexts, few accounts why functions differently (Jehn 1999; Joshi Roh, Thomas Ely, CEM, first proposed Van al. (2004), link determining moderating Knippenberg, De Dreu Homan (2004, 1008) “research work-group largely developed traditions, integrative missing” (also see, Williams O'Reilly III, 1998). two major components: “social categorization” “information elaboration.” difference people's propensities prefer categorize part one's in-group (“us”) versus out-group (“them”) along lines ethnicity Haslam 1995; tend due intergroup develop racial, ethnic lines. 1014) workers sort salience whereby they perceive prominent significant CEM's component, information elaboration, exchange, discussion, integration task-relevant through verbal (van 2004).ii cultural arise extent generates elaboration. That is, allows teams enhance transforming knowledge actionable solutions complex problems Resick feature thus viewed technical instrumental focuses tasks 2011). suggests potentially elaboration information, ultimately leads higher creativity productivity. Although limit efficacy processes, expectation ease biases, leading increased Cox Blake, 1991; speculates perspectives, caused system, system. supported evidence Contextual relationship emanate discussed earlier. inform our hypotheses. makes possible affect interaction arising attributed salience, dominant become subordinate, disadvantaged. Such discriminating manifest result mechanisms: dominance physical presence stereotype consensus.iii Dominance large majority numbers) workforce firmly hold stake context States, instance, subgroup White) able power influence marginalize Blacks, Latinx Indigenous Americans; Randel, interests silenced excluded, thereby limiting entire body solve issues King 2011; Park, following hypotheses offered: H1.The process negatively moderates H1A.The existence population (Whites) addition, “stereotype consensus” toward subgroups, further causes socially disadvantaged ignored. indicated psychology literature, offers cognitive basis shared perceptions, judgments collective actions, marginalizes excludes deemed insignificant (Haslam Simon Hamilton, 1994). White women color often receive substandard treatment men, consensus (Chattopadhyay unequal poor morale self-esteem (Chattopadhyay, adversely affected consensus; always excluded (Pettigrew, 1998; Based hypothesis H1B.Stereotype Through mechanism respond each other's contributions elaborate them. creativity. foster 2010). strategies access resources learning bring fairness setting, enables strategic advantage (Cox identified diversity-friendly style individual communication, coordination guidance facilitate (Andersen Moynihan, Greer Nishii Mayer, 2009).iv styles transformational alignments cooperation workforces, environments (Ashikali Randel 2016, Bae such, H2.The emanating particular H2A.Diversity-friendly fair climates inhibiting promoting Weisinger 2017). Inclusive open overcome embracing Ajeigbe, 2019; Chatman Spataro, Goncalo 2015). increases opportunities collaboration, exchange ideas innovation, employees' job satisfaction (Avery McKay, H2B.Diversity-friendly climates/cultures Training programs provided beneficial developing Diversity-oriented training prejudice attitudes eventually multiple (Bezrukova supportive programs, improve status voice helps internal (Arai 2001; Kulik Roberson, 2008). H2C.Diversity oriented procedural justice Defined “the means allocation decision made” (Greenberg, 2002, 123) central successful (Fischer Rubin Alteri, aware commitment organization, (Carrell Dittrich, 1978; Cohen-Charash Spector, Colquitt, Fischer Kim Langbein Stazyk, 2013). H2D.Procedural and/or Figure 1 moderators explained CEM. Meta-analysis relationship. statistically examines throughout generalize issue (Glass, 1976). Following applications fields business management, meta-analyses greatly relied upon questions Ding George Harari Homberg Lu, Compared conventional reviews, possibilities generalizations scale literatures (Ringquist, researchers quantitatively aggregate primary form coherent generalizable literature. advancing collects settings. sum, us summarize interaction.v began search Three inclusiveness, employed best practices Reed Baxter (2009) Ringquist (2013). using academic databases EBSCO (for peer-reviewed journal articles), Web Science ProQuest dissertations), eligible articles “diversity AND organization,” management,” service” title, abstract, full text included. Second, repeated Google Scholarvi newly published cited works referenced references same keywords searching scheme database records added. Third, since assumed vital bureaucratic representation Groeneveld de Walle, Selden, 1997), any missing stages, checked “Representative Bureaucracy Database” compiled Project Equity, Representation Governance, directed Kenneth J. 2018. September 2020 sum 497 collected. collected screened follows present meta-analysis. We reviewed abstracts studies. then performed full-text four criteria. focal predictor, operationalized Students frame inspired bureaucracy, reflected variance age, (Meier, Diversity measured via approaches, including coefficient variation, Blau index heterogeneity, entropy variation continuous age tenure, suitable categorical race/ethnicity, functional educational background Bantel Jackson, 1989; Quigley, 1990).vii followed analysis. dependent variable, approaches parallel bureaucracy. includes what conventionally “efficiency” “effectiveness,” outcome democratic “equity” Andersen Boyne Fernandez Lee, Walker Andrews, apart measures task achievement Ashworth, Portillo DeHart-Davis, 2009), number focusing diversity-affected broader client satisfaction, reduced inequity, resource distribution Choi, Gates Mark, Oberfield, adopted treatment, enhances external analysis.viii descriptive statistical without correlation coefficients t-statistics eliminated refined review, met criteria serve final sample 34 unpublished (“gray studies”).ix PRISMA flow diagram describing detailed procedures presented 2. Next, we extracted coded selected Two synthesis—effect size (Lipsey, calculated correlation-based (r-based) describe standardized associations predictor variable r, equation: r = t 2 + df $$ r=\sqrt{\left[\frac{t^2}{t^2+ df}\right]} , t-score testing null Rho 0, degrees freedom. Since either generated non-linear correlatio