Diversity Training: Analysis of the Impact of Self-Efficacy

Although the importance of diversity in organizations is widely recognized, diversity training is under attack. Drawing from self-efficacy theory and research, we developed a questionnaire to measure one’s efficacy of successfully coping with widely recognized diversity initiatives. Then we conducted a study examining the effect of self-efficacy-based diversity training on the level of participant’s measured diversity self-efficacy (DSE) and the possible mediation of this DSE on intentions to pursue positive diversity-related initiatives. The field experimental design showed that training incorporating efficacy components significantly increased trainees’ (N = 276) measured DSE. Diversity training was also shown to be positively related to the trainees’ stated levels of difficulty and magnitude in coping with diversity initiatives. Finally, the DSE was found to mediate training and intentions. Importantly, one-year follow-up data supported the impact of the intentions. The practical implications of these findings for HRD in general and diversity training in particular conclude this article. Over the past few decades, U.S. organizations have attempted to respond to the value of diversity. Diversity can be a relative concept defined globally in terms of group and cultural dissimilarities (Bucher, 2000) or with regard to sociological categories of demography (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Our use of the term diversity refers to the primary immutable dimensions of individual and group differences of race, ethnicity, gender, ability, and age (Baytos, 1995). The focus on diversity in the workplace results from demographic shifts of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and older workers in the domestic workforce and from pressures of globalization (Wentling & Palma-Ri91 The authors thank Bruce Avolio, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Alex Stajkovic, University of Wisconsin-Madison, for their helpful suggestions on the previous draft of this article. 92 Co mb s & Luth a n s i n Hum a n Res ou R c e De ve l o pm en t Qua R t eR l y (2007) vas, 2000). Organizations face specific diversity-related challenges, including group member differences in beliefs, perceptions, and experiences (Thomas & Proudford, 2000) and interand intragroup biases and stereotypes (Dass & Parker, 1996). Global organizations must operate in sync with the issue of fairness and equity arising from diversity challenges in many countries—for example, gender equity in Sweden and France, racial inequality in South Africa, religious differences in Ireland, and caste and religious inequalities in India (Haq, 2004). These issues are becoming increasingly challenging as organizations attempt to sustain viability and enhance profitability in markets that are more and more complex due to employee and constituent diversity (Combs, Nadkarni, & Combs, 2005). Effectively managing diversity affects organizational viability and profitability through more creative decision making, reduced diversity-related conflict, improved cross-cultural understanding, and more functional interpretation of pluralistic differences (Bell, 2006; Connerley & Pedersen, 2005; Cox, 2000; Cox & Beale, 1997; Dass & Parker, 1996). To meet these global and domestic challenges, organizations are embracing a number of workplace initiatives. The most widely used and pragmatic of organizational workplace diversity initiatives is diversity training (Roberson, Kulik, & Pepper, 2003). Organizations have commonly used this training as an efficient method to instill knowledge and direct employee actions to promote positive work climates. Galvin (2003) in Training’s 2003 Annual Industry Report showed that 79 percent of organizations surveyed provide diversity training for their employees. The effectiveness of such training rests in the participants’ ability to transfer diversity training back to the job. Diversity training seeks to promote a positive diversity climate by influencing actual and intended interactions of employees with diverse coworkers and clients (Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 2000). This process encompasses the impact of diversity training on the cognitive disposition of trainees as they return to the job. However, in spite of these goals, very little attention is devoted to assessing the outcomes and impact of diversity training in terms of the skills provided to trainees and, more important, their belief and confidence (that is, their efficacy) that what they learn in training can be transferred to the work setting (Holladay, Knight, Paige, & Quiñones, 2003). We propose that diversity training outcomes and transfer may be positively influenced by the trainee’s diversity self-efficacy (DSE), which we define as the perception and belief (confidence) that one can marshal the necessary motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action to change behaviors and successfully attain desired diversity goals and initiatives in the workplace. Diversity self-efficacy is analogous to similar applications of self-efficacy such as computer self-efficacy (Gist, Schwoerer, & Rosen, 1989) and sales selfefficacy (Barling & Beattie, 1983) found in the workplace self-efficacy literature. DSE is similar to other forms of efficacy in that all reference confidence Di v er s i ty tr ai n i n g: an a L y s i s o f th e imp a C t o f se L f-ef f iC a C y 93 in individual skills to perform within a task domain. Task specificity is the focus that rarely requires interpretation of or convergence with strongly held beliefs and values. However, DSE may be affected more by manifested strong and entrenched beliefs and values embedded in cognitive processes. That is, the psychosocial forces that influence diversity behaviors, such as personal biases and learned stereotypes toward particular groups, may not be as easily identified or acknowledged by individuals in a training environment (Stockdale & Cao, 2004). Prejudices and biases toward others are more emotionally charged perceptions that require in-depth analysis and control of affective responses (Cox & Beale, 1997). Barriers to full inclusion in the workplace operate at individual, group, and organizational levels and may be more subtle than overt in nature (Cox, 2000). Perceptions of skill deficits in sales training may be rational and concrete, whereas perceptions of skill deficits in the diversity domain may tend to be more irrational and abstract (Bell, 2006). The purpose of this study is to examine diversity training that emphasizes Bandura’s self-efficacy principles (1997) and the relationship of this diversity training to the intentions of participants to engage back on the job in initiatives to promote diversity subsequent to the training. This study assesses the effectiveness of diversity training through its impact on diversity self-efficacy and trainees’ intentions to engage in positive diversity initiates. A favorable return on investment in diversity training is important to human resource development (HRD) as a field of study with a major focus on training and development in the enhancement of human capital (Goldstein & Ford, 2002). In addition, this study should be of particular interest to HRD practitioners charged with creating and improving workplace environments and employee productivity. Background and Hypotheses In addition to factors such as the design and content of the training program, trainee cognitive processes play a critical role in accomplishing learning, retention, and transfer back to the job (Goldstein & Ford, 2002; Hanover & Cellar, 1998). In particular, we suggest that the psychological construct of self-efficacy, although recognized in the general training literature (Mager, 1992), is relevant to but overlooked in diversity training. Bandura (1986) defines self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” (p. 391). Self-efficacy has been examined in a number of workplace domains over the years, including the application to training (Gist, 1989; Schwoerer, May, Hollensbe, & Mencl, 2005). Stajkovic and Luthans (1998a), through meta-analysis, found a strong correlation between self-efficacy and work-related performance. In spite of these positive findings, no studies were found that empirically examined the effectiveness of diversity training that incorporates self-efficacy components on intentions to engage in positive diversity initiatives subsequent to training. While attention is given to the expected outcomes of diversity training, such 94 Co mb s & Luth a n s i n Hum a n Res ou R c e De ve l o pm en t Qua R t eR l y (2007) as worker harmony, enhanced worker productivity, and improved organizational performance (Wentling & Palma-Riva, 1998), little attention has been focused on specific cognitive processes that may bear on trainee success with diversity goals and initiatives subsequent to training. Diversity and Diversity Training. Organizational diversity concerns have had a great impact on strategies and practices that affect the acquisition and deployment of human resources and the dynamics of operational processes (Thomas & Proudford, 2000). Despite the progress over the past several decades, issues of diversity in the workplace continue to pose challenges and problems in today’s organizations: • Interactions among various demographic groups continue to result in conflicts (Stockdale & Cao, 2004). • Organizational policies and procedures that facilitate a more diverse workforce continue to generate opposition among traditional employees (Kidder, Lankau, Chrobot-Mason, Mollica, & Friedman, 2005; Plantena, 2004). • Perceptions of preferential treatment continue to criticize diversity programs (Combs & Nadkarni, 2005; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000). • Lower job involvement and satisfaction for minorities and women continue to exist (Roberson & Block, 2001). • Covert, subtle, and aversive discrimination continue to stigmatize groups (Brief et al., 2002). Organizations that foster a positive diversity climate are those that select, develop, and promote talent regardless of origin; ensure that pluralistic perspectives are welcomed and heard; demonstrate improved understanding of diverse markets and clients; foster participation in organizational decision making by diverse groups; emphasize the creation of an organizational culture that shuns stereotypes, biases, and prejudices that hinder the individual development and the achievement of organizational goals; and formulate strategic organizational goals that link to successfully managing diversity (Bell, 2006; Cox, 2000; Cox & Beale, 1997; Kidder et al., 2005; Wiethoff, 2004; Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 1998, 2000). Diversity initiatives including diversity training have evolved from a primary focus on legal and regulatory compliance to recognition of the performance impact and the bottom line (Richard, 2000). As the president of Diversity Training Group, Mauricio Valasquez has stated, “You are not looking at diversity training because ‘it is the right thing to do.’ You are looking at diversity training because your employees and customers demand it. Corporate diversity efforts are about money, business and the bottom line” (Barbian, 2003, p. 45). I agree with this change. Organizations such as Xerox and Motorola employ diversity education programs to enhance both domestic and global employee interactions (Combs et al., 2005). However, the effectiveness of diversity training programs can be difficult to determine and remains a major challenge (Davidson, 1999). Di v er s i ty tr ai n i n g: an a L y s i s o f th e imp a C t o f se L f-ef f iC a C y 95 The Interface of Self-Efficacy and Diversity Training. High-profile discrimination lawsuits have led to questions about the place of diversity training in eliminating discriminatory practices and actions (Hemphill & Haines, 1997). The concern is whether the outcomes of diversity training justify the organizational resources spent on design and implementation (Davidson, 1999). Responses to diversity training are mixed at best, with some calling for its elimination (Hemphill & Haines, 1997) and others suggesting greater integration of diversity training (Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 2000). Cox (2000) emphasizes the need to refocus diversity training to address the cognitive processes that improve skill to operate effectively in diverse environments. Throughout the HRD and training literatures, diversity training has been examined in terms of content and design (Davidson, 1999; Holladay et al., 2003), organizational context factors (Hanover & Cellar, 1998), planned behavior and behavioral control (Wiethoff, 2004), organizational justification (Kidder et al., 2005), and attitudes toward training and diversity initiatives (De Meuse & Hostager, 2001). While these arguments sometimes address issues of diversity training content, they almost always ignore ways to assess the cognitive and self-regulatory attributes of trainees (for example, their selfefficacy and confidence) as a measure of diversity training effectiveness (Roberson et al., 2003). We propose that self-efficacy is a cognitive, self-regulating attribute of trainees that may be applicable to assessing the effectiveness of diversity training. There is limited research on diversity training in general (Holladay et al., 2003), and, especially, an examination of its success or failure has not been adequately assessed (Wiethoff, 2004). Self-efficacy is generally seen as important in attaining training objectives and transfer back to the job and has considerable research support (Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Schwoerer et al., 2005; Wood & Bandura, 1989). However, to date, we have not found research that has focused on diversity training incorporating self-efficacy. If self-efficacy beliefs can influence training effectiveness and, subsequently, improved performance back on the job in other domains, then we propose that self-efficacy also may have positive implications for diversity training effectiveness. Self-Efficacy, Intentions, and Behavior Relationship. A major focus of organizational diversity initiatives is to have an impact on employee thinking and attitudes such that interpersonal interactions and workplace behaviors will reflect positive diversity outcomes. Diversity training particularly seeks to have an impact on behaviors and outcomes subsequent to training. However, unlike other subjects of training, such as computer or sales training, the opportunity to execute actual behaviors and cognitive processes taught in diversity training may not be exhibited immediately after training. Thus, the most proximal measure of training impact is the trainee’s intentions to perform following training. The relationship of self-efficacy to intentions is explicitly recognized by Bandura (1997) as follows: “Beliefs in personal efficacy 96 Co mb s & Luth a n s i n Hum a n Res ou R c e De ve l o pm en t Qua R t eR l y (2007) affect behavior both directly and by influence on intentions” (p. 284). Thus, the focus on intentions in this study is the influence of self-efficacy beliefs on intentions. Intentions have been considered among the best predictors of future behavior and have been commonly used in research as a proxy for and indicator of actual future behaviors (Hom, Griffeth, & Gaertner, 2000; Kirschembaum & Weisberg, 2002). In particular, Betz and colleagues (Betz & Luzzo, 1996; Betz & Voyten, 1997) have examined the relationship of self-efficacy beliefs to intentions regarding various components of educational and vocational behavior. These studies show support for self-efficacy as a predictor of career decision-making intentions. Specifically, Betz and Voyten (1997) in a laboratory study of 350 students examined distinctions between efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations on career decision making. They found that career self-efficacy had a positive significant relationship to career decisionmaking intentions. Similarly, Zhao, Seibert, and Hills (2005) found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy was positively related to entrepreneurial intentions to open a business. This study also found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediated the relationship between perceptions of formal learning in entrepreneurial courses and entrepreneurial intentions. In the health sciences literature, there are a number of studies where efficacy beliefs have a positive relationship to intentions to pursue health-related actions (see Rodgers & Brawley, 1996). Finally, self-efficacy has been positively related to academic achievement intentions (Manstead & van Eekelen, 1998) and also math interest and math choice intentions (Waller, 2006). Based on this considerable body of knowledge of the relationship between various types of efficacy and intentions, we formulate the following hypothesis for our study: HYPOTHESIS 1. There will be a positive relationship between diversity self-efficacy and intentions to undertake a greater number and more challenging diversity behaviors and initiatives in the trainee’s real-world (nontraining context) environment. Transfer of Diversity Training Back to the Job. Although this study does not center on training transfer, transfer of learning clearly has an impact on perceptions of diversity training ineffectiveness (Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 2000). Most declarations of the ineffectiveness of diversity training emanate from the perceived lack of improved work environments and continued employee involvement in non-diversity-friendly behaviors following diversity training. The common backlash to diversity training may be mainly the result of transfer climate issues (Kidder et al., 2005). The training literature in general establishes that both environmental (Ford & Weissbein, 1997; Tracey, Tannenbum, & Kavanagh, 1995) and trainee personal characteristics (Colquitt et al., 2000) are critical transfer factors. Holton, Bates, and Ruona (2000) argue that the identification of the transfer system that might promote or inhibit Di v er s i ty tr ai n i n g: an a L y s i s o f th e imp a C t o f se L f-ef f iC a C y 97 transfer of learning from a particular training domain must be assessed. For example, two of their lists of eleven training-specific factors are trainee reactions to positive and negative experiences and motivation to transfer learning. These two factors are examples of trainee characteristics that may have an important impact on diversity training effectiveness. Trainee characteristics and attitudes are relatively neglected in the analysis and recommendations for the effectiveness of training in general (Colquitt et al., 2000; Ford & Weissbein, 1997; see also Smith-Jentsch, Salas, & Brannick, 2001). Personal attributes are important to both the motivation to learn and to transfer learning back on the job. In addition, measures of the motivation to transfer training back to the job are incomplete without assessment of the confidence level to use learned skills (Colquitt et al., 2000; Mager, 1992). Although Bandura (1997) does make a distinction between confidence and efficacy, other efficacy theorists use the terms interchangeably (Maddux, 2002), and the term confidence is commonly used when applied to human resource management (Kanter, 2004). Thus, we will use efficacy and confidence interchangeably. The diversity trainee needs the confidence (self-efficacy) to mobilize the motivation and cognitive resources to learn and transfer skills related to diversity initiatives and goals back on the job (Mager, 1992). This confidence allows the trainee to value and promote diversity goals and initiatives (Holladay et al., 2003). Although there are obviously societal attitudes and values and organizational culture components that are beyond the control of individual trainees (Holton et al., 2000), the element that is under their control is how they think about diversity, how they behave toward it back on the job (Plantenga, 2004), and the climate they as individuals can create for true equal opportunity in the workplace—that is, what we are calling the trainee’s diversity self-efficacy. We proposed that self-efficacy beliefs may become the sought-after bridge for individual managers and employees to apply positive diversity initiatives in the workplace. Bandura (1997) and others (Maddux, 2002; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a, 1998b) have conceptually and empirically demonstrated that the strength of one’s self-efficacy is directly related to one’s willingness to take on a task, the effort to accomplish the task, and the persistence when problems are encountered. This high-efficacy profile leads us to propose that trainees high in diversity self-efficacy are confident that they can personally make the necessary adjustments (Roberson et al., 2003) to create a difference back on the job—for example, proximal factors such as convincing others in their department through words and deeds the important contribution that diversity can make toward higher performance (Bandura, 2000; Cox, 2000). Also, those with high diversity self-efficacy will persist in their efforts in spite of distal factors such as societal, organizational, or peer problems in supporting diversity initiatives (Bell, 2006). As Baytos (1995) has noted, for diversity training to be effective, participants must perceive themselves as being accountable for their actions, motivated to choose to perform, willing to exert the necessary effort, and persist over a long period of time. In other words, diversity 98 Co mb s & Luth a n s i n Hum a n Res ou R c e De ve l o pm en t Qua R t eR l y (2007) trainees must have the necessary self-efficacy in order to successfully accomplish the diversity training objectives back on the job (De Meuse & Hostager, 2001). This considerable body of theory and research leads to our second hypothesis for the study: HYPOTHESIS 2. Trainees high in diversity self-efficacy will experience significantly increased posttraining intentions to undertake a greater number and more challenging diversity behaviors and initiatives in the trainee’s real-world (nontraining context) environment. Self-Efficacy as a Mediator Between Diversity Training and Intentions. Bandura (2000) suggests that personal perceptions of self-efficacy strongly influence choice behavior and form the basis of judgments of ability to perform successfully in a given task domain. For example, Eden and Aviram (1993) found that self-efficacy significantly enhanced job search activities of unemployed workers. Although no literature was found that specifically addressed self-efficacy in the diversity domain, research supporting the application of self-efficacy generally in the workplace (Bandura, 2000; Luthans, 2002a, 2002b; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b), in specific task performance domains (Eden & Zuk, 1995; Gist, Stevens, & Bavetta, 1991; Schwoerer et al., 2005; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a), and in relation to its association with intentions (Betz & Voyten, 1997; Zhao et al., 2005), it follows that diversity training that incorporates Bandura’s (1986, 1997) sources of self-efficacy (enactive mastery, modeling, persuasion, and arousal) should enhance and develop diversity self-efficacy perceptions. Colquitt and colleagues (2000) in their meta analysis on training motivation propose that self-efficacy played a role as both an antecedent and outcome of training motivation. Specifically, they propose that self-efficacy has a strong association with motivation to learn and training transfer and a moderate relationship with declarative knowledge, skill acquisition, and job performance. As a motivational and skills acquisition component of diversity training, self-efficacy may serve two complementary roles. First, by attending to self-efficacy principles in training, skills to effectively handle challenging diversity situations may be attained. Second, such training may enhance trainees’ beliefs in their own capabilities to apply existing skills effectively and affect the number of performance initiatives that trainees may attempt (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a). For example, Machin and Fogarty (2003) in their study of computer skills training depict self-efficacy as a critical training outcome with a direct influence on transfer implementation intentions. Studies of self-efficacy tend to point to either a moderator (Eden & Aviram, 1993) or mediator role (Gist et al., 1991) of self-efficacy on intentions or behavior. Mager (1992) urges HRD practitioners and researchers not to underestimate the link of self-efficacy to performance. He postulates that skills without positive self-efficacy perceptions will not result in task performance. Di v er s i ty tr ai n i n g: an a L y s i s o f th e imp a C t o f se L f-ef f iC a C y 99 Gist and colleagues (1991) suggest that the level of perceived self-efficacy affects motivation and behavior through its mediation of knowledge or skill and action. Based on these relationships, we formulate our third hypothesis