What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs?.asp(14)

8/10/2019 What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs?.asp(14)

1/21

JPART20:867886

What Drives the Implementation of DiversityManagement Programs? Evidence from

Public OrganizationsDavid W. Pitts

American University

Alisa K. Hicklin

University of Oklahoma

Daniel P. Hawes

Kent State University

Erin Melton

Texas A&M University

ABSTRACT

As the diversity of the US workforce continues to increase at a rapid pace, public managersare facing pressure to create organizational cultures that permit employees from different

backgrounds to succeed. A typical managerial response to this diversity has been theimplementation of a formal diversity management program. Although limited empirical

research has considered links between diversity management activity and organizational

performance, very little research has examined the factors that influence the implementa-tion of diversity management practices. This article begins with the premise that

organizations develop diversity management programs as a means of responding to

opportunities and challenges in the internal and external environments. In order todelineate how those environmental phenomena operate, we draw from a specific set oforganization theories to formulate three drivers of diversity management implementation:

environmental uncertainty, environmental favorability, and institutional isomorphism.We test these drivers empirically using data from public schools, finding that elements

of all three forces influence diversity management implementation but in different waysand in varying degrees.

As the diversity of the US workforce continues to increase at a rapid pace, public managers

are facing pressure to create organizational cultures that permit employees from different

backgrounds to succeed. Theone-size-fits-allapproach to management that was effective

30 years ago is arguably no longer an appropriate strategy for ensuring maximum employee

performance (Riccucci, 2002). As more women and people of color enter the workforce,

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 9th Public Management Research Conference, Tucson, Arizona,

October 2527, 2007. The authors thank Ed Kellough for helpful comments and suggestions.

Address correspondence to the author at [email protected].

doi:10.1093/jopart/mup044Advance Access publication on January 11, 2010

Th A h P bli h d b O f d U i i P b h lf f h J l f P bli Ad i i i R h


2/21

managers must adapt to noteworthy changes, including more emphasis on family and work-

life balance (Bertelli, 2007; Ezra and Deckman, 1996; Saltzstein et al., 2001), different

cultural assumptions about the role of work (Ho, 1987), more emphasis on collective values

and teamwork (Azevedo et al., 2002), and different approaches to communication (Arai

et al., 2001). The impetus for responding to these changes varies. Managers may feel a nor-mative obligation to accommodate people of different backgrounds (Mosher, 1982; Naff,

2001); they may be under legal obligation to be inclusive (Hicklin, 2007; Kellough and

Rosenbloom, 1992; Selden, 1997) or they may try to use diversity as a strategic means

of augmenting performance (Andrews et al., 2005; Pitts, 2005; Pitts and Jarry, 2007; Wise

and Tschirhart, 2000).

Whatever the motivation, the managerial response to workforce diversity has often

been the initiation of a formal diversity management program (Kellough and Naff,

2004). These programs involve both human resources management and line management

functions as responsibility for managing human capital is increasingly split between the

two (for an overview, see Selden, 2008). Research linking diversity management programsto work-related outcomes has been scant, and the few studies conducted have yielded mixed

results (Cox, 1993; Naff and Kellough, 2003; Pitts, 2009; Sanchez and Brock, 1996). Al-

though there remains much work to be done linking diversity management to key outcomes

for relevant groups, we focus on a different relationship in this article: the factors behind

diversity management implementation. We argue that organizations develop diversity

management programs as a means of responding to environmental opportunities and chal-

lenges. In order to delineate how those environmental phenomena operate, we draw from

a specific set of organization theories to develop three ideas about what drives diversity

management implementation. We then use data from a sample of public school districts to

test the impact of these three factors empirically to understand why some organizationsimplement diversity management while others do not.

THE DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT CONSTRUCT

Diversity management is an organizational response to workforce diversity and its chal-

lenges and opportunities. Diversity management initiatives typically address the concerns

of historically underrepresented groups, such as people of color and women, but many also

focus on other dimensions of diversity (e.g., age, professional background, religion) that

influence work-related outcomes (Kellough and Naff, 2004; Pitts, 2006; Riccucci, 2002;

Wise and Tschirhart, 2000). Empirical research shows that the impact of workforce diver-sity on outcomes can be either positive or negative (for a review, see Jayne and Dipboye,

2004). In some cases, diversity can create opportunities for greater innovation and more

creative solutions to problems (Richard, 2000; Richard et al., 2003; Watson et al., 1993). In

other cases, diversity can create process-oriented problems, such as poor communication,

faulty decision making, and mistrust of other employees (Cunningham, 2005; Swann et al.,

2004; Timmerman, 2000; Watson et al., 1993). The previous work on the effects of in-

creasing diversity suggests that management may be the key to assuring that the organi-

zation will be able to fully benefit from bringing underrepresented groups into the

organization. Some organizations have adopted diversity management initiatives as

a way to improve the ability of diverse groups to work together, and limited empirical

research has demonstrated that diversity management can improve outcomes in diverse

organizations (Kalev et al., 2006; Ng and Burke, 2005; Pitts, 2009).

868 Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory


3/21

Public organizations have begun to rapidly adopt formal diversity management pro-

grams (Kellough and Naff, 2004). However, diversity management is an ambiguous con-

cept that does not seem to be implemented consistently across organizations. For example,

some organizations may simply repackage their longstanding Affirmative Action/Equal

Employment Opportunity offices, renaming them Diversity Managementas a means ofstaying up-to-date on nomenclature (Kellough and Naff, 2004). Although many argue that

Equal Employment issues remain vital to an organization that actively manages diversity,

the movement in the field has been away from these legalistic responses to diversity and

more toward strategic ones (Riccucci, 2002; S. C. Selden and F. Selden, 2001; Thomas,

1990; Wise and Tschirhart, 2000). In their survey of federal agency, human resource man-

agers Kellough and Naff (2004) found that almost 90% of agencies reported having a di-

versity management program, but the components of these programs varied dramatically.

For empirical researchers, this creates a serious obstacle for creating useful measures of

the diversity management construct. Diversity management is an organizational process

with multiple moving parts that have not been examined very thoroughly by the publicmanagement literature (Kellough and Naff, 2004; Pitts, 2006).

In this article, we rely on Pittss (2006) comprehensive definition of diversity man-

agement as a guiding lens. There is the potential for disagreement about the appropriate

definition of diversity management, but this is a broad conceptualization that seems to cover

most issues relevant to workforce diversity. His model of diversity management includes

three interrelated components: recruitment and outreach, valuing differences, and prag-

matic policies and programs. These components represent the three primary activities

in which an organization engages in order to manage its employee diversity.

The first of these, recruitment and outreach, considers whether an organization ex-

tends itself to all potential sources of employees. A strategic plan for recruiting from un-derrepresented groups is a key component of this aspect of diversity management, and

recent research has underscored the importance of recruitment for diversity (Rubaii-Barrett

and Wise, 2007; Selden, 2006). This involves seeking out employees from the labor market

who may not befoundthrough the typical venues. Increasing organizational diversity has

the potential to increase performance, making recruitment a potentially vital step in im-

proving organizational outcomes (Pitts, 2005; Pitts and Jarry, 2007; Wise and Tschirhart,

2000). Organizations with greater staff diversity are more likely to generate innovative

solutions and creative approaches to services (Adler, 2002; Richard, 2000; Richard

et al., 2003).

The second of these processes,valuing differences, is more normative in nature andconsiders whether employees and managers appreciate the different cultural assumptions

and biases that employees bring to their work. Previous work argues that multicultural un-

derstanding is imperative for managers who oversee the work of diverse employees, and

such understanding is arguably improved through programs aimed at bridging cultural gaps

(Adler, 2002; Ely and Thomas, 2001; Thomas and Ely, 1996). These programs might take

a number of forms, including diversity training and cultural awareness events. Foldy (2004)

argues that organizational processes aimed at encouraging multicultural learning will lead

to greater benefits from existing diversity. Unfortunately, much of the evidence on this

point is anecdotal: Empirical research has not produced much support for the effectiveness

of values-based programs (Cox, 1993; Sanchez and Brock, 1996), and these types of di-

versity training sessions can sometimes promote majority backlash (Riccucci, 1997).

Pitts et al. What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs? 869


4/21

Although more research is needed before the field can be confident about the relationship

between values-based diversity training and performance, it remains a key aspect of the

diversity management construct and should be considered in any related empirical research.

Finally,pragmatic programs and policies consist of a strategic set of management

tools that an organization can use to promote employee job satisfaction and performance(Pitts, 2006). These programs and policies provide an explicit means for underrepresented

or minority employees to work in a culture that is supportive of their needs. Pragmatic

programs and policies typically aim to effectively integrate employees from diverse back-

grounds into the organization, such that diversity is a consideration both pre- and posthire.

Such programs might involve mentoring opportunities for those outside the majority or-

ganizational culture; family friendly programs for those who have children or parents at

home that require care; flexible working hours for those who have competing demands and

are unable to work a consistent, 9-to-5 day; and collaborative assignments for those who

work better in groups than individually (Kellough and Naff, 2004; Salzstein et al., 2001).

The list varies by organization, but it reflects a strategy on the part of managers to assessemployee needs and create workplace policies that respond to them.

DRIVERS OF DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

The motivations for engaging in diversity management vary by organization, but we expect

that forces in an organizations environment will be key. Research on organizations has

focused on the central importance of environmental factors since moving toward open sys-

tems theories in the 1950s and 1960s (for a review, see Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). Organ-

izations adapt to their surroundings, and as social, political, and economic environments

shift, managers make decisions about how to alter strategies and processes in response. Indoing so, they adapt to the values of external society (Selznick, 1957). Empirical research

on public organizations has demonstrated that extensively both the external and internal

environments are crucial variables in public management models. In their logic of gover-

nance, Lynn et al. (2001: 17) note that any governance regime, from the local to the in-

ternational, is embedded in a wider social, fiscal, political, and cultural context. Research

on network management has shown a very consistent relationship between external man-

agement activity and organizational performance (Goerdel, 2006; Meier and OToole,

2001, 2003, 2005). Reforms during the 1990s and early 2000s have arguably increased

the central role of the environment for public organizations as they are marketized and

tasked to compete for the right to offer services (Donahue and Nye, 2002).Although it is evident that environmental pressures affect management choices, the

specific causal mechanisms are not always clear. In the case of diversity management, there

are a number of environmental forces that could influence implementation. The purpose of

this article is to isolate three different environmental forces and examine them as drivers of

diversity management implementation. We argue that organizations implement diversity

management programs (a) as a response to environmental uncertainty, (b) as a result of

environmental favorability and resource munificence, and/or (c) in order to adapt to en-

vironmental norms and mimic the actions of peer organizations (table 1). Put more simply,

they manage diversity (a) because theyhave to, (b) because theycan, or (c) because ev-

erybody else is. Some organizations may be motivated by more than one of these factors,

and the importance of any given factor is likely to change over time. Although we begin

with a conceptual review of these forces as distinct motivations, our empirical analysis



5/21

permits us to test whether organizations seem to be influenced by multiple factors at the

same time. In the following sections, we outline these three arguments in the context of

public schools.

Environmental Uncertainty

Environmental uncertainty often encourages organizations to develop strategies for min-

imizing ambiguity. Organizations can either buffer the technical core from unknown

threats, or else they can exploit the changing and uncertain environment as a strategy

for success (OToole and Meier, 1999). In the context of our research, organizations

may implement diversity management as a means of fending off environmental uncer-

tainty. Similar to the actions of a risk-averse individual, organizations try to minimize

the uncertainty in their environment by making decisions that promote stability. Classicresearch in contingency theory showed that organizations should structure themselves

in ways that reflected the level of uncertainty in the environment (Aldrich and Mindlin,

1978; Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). For example, horizontal organizations

were best for uncertain environments since they permitted fast response to environmental

shifts, whereas vertical organizations were best for certain environments since they pro-

moted efficiency (for a review, see Daft, 2008). Contingency theory has expanded beyond

structure to include a number of other management decisions, key among them human

resources policies like diversity management. Perhaps more importantly, research has re-

fined contingency theory to suggest that it is perceptions of the environment that guide

behavior, not necessarily a set of objective environmental conditions that affect all organ-

izations equally (Aldrich and Mindlin, 1978; Galbraith, 1973). Managers make decisions

based on the enacted environment, which means that managers perceptions are more

Table 1Drivers of Diversity Management Implementation

Driver Example Theoretical Basis Hypothesis

Environmental

uncertainty

School districts implement

diversity management asa means of buffering against

environmental uncertainty

Contingency theory

(Aldrich and Mindlin,1978; Lawrence and

Lorsch, 1967)

Organizations in

environmentscharacterized by

uncertainty are more

likely than others to

adopt diversity

management programs.

Environmental

favorability


diversity management because

they are already performing

well in other areas, have the

funds with which to do so,

and/or have significantpolitical support in place

Resource munificence

(Dess and Beard, 1983),

capacity (Aldrich, 1979),

contact hypothesis

(Allport, 1954)

Organizations in

resource-rich

environments are more

likely than others to

adopt diversity

management programs.

Institutional

isomorphism


diversity management because

of professional norms or

encouragement from other

actors in the external

environment

Institutional isomorphism

(Ashworth et al., 2009;

DiMaggio and Powell,

1983; Scott, 2003)

Organizations with peers

that have implemented

diversity management

are more likely than

others to adopt it.



6/21

valuable to understanding this process than objective data about environmental stability

and complexity (Duncan, 1972; Weick, 1979). Resource dependence theory would further

predict that managers will make decisions based on the reactions that they anticipate from

important nodes in their network of actors, creating power/dependence relationships that

work to their advantage (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978).In the case of public schools, environmental uncertainty might encourage the adoption

of diversity management as educators struggle to stabilize themselves from environmental

instability and complexity. That uncertainty could arise from a number of sources: chang-

ing student demographics, labor market instability, and changing funding mechanisms are

three key examples. Such uncertainty could reflect threats, but it could also reflect oppor-

tunities for growth or more benign changes. Ultimately, it does not matter how the uncer-

tainty presents itself but rather the extent to which the manager believes it to exist. The

resulting hypothesized relationship would be that managers whoperceivedthe environment

to be uncertain would be more likely to implement diversity management than those who

did not.

Environmental Favorability and Resource Munificence

A second explanation behind diversity management implementation is quite different: The

environment does not require it in the form of uncertainty but ratherpromotes it through the

munificence of resources, time, and intergroup harmony. Organization theorists have long

established that capacity (Aldrich, 1979) and resource munificence (Dess and Beard, 1984)

play a large role in determining whether an organization will choose to implement a new

program or policy. Research on organizational suggests that slack resources provide a cli-

mate where programs like diversity management are more likely to prosper (Boyne, 2003;Fernandez and Rainey, 2006). If resources are plentiful, the rules for adoption become more

relaxed, meaning that potentially contentious programs like diversity management are

more likely to be accepted. Limited research specific to diversity management suggests

that financial resources are key to implementation success (Pitts, 2007). These resources

may be drawn from both the internal and external environments, the distinction between

which is often vague in public organizations (Rainey, 2003). This is particularly the case in

public school districts, where funding is drawn from a variety of sources at the federal,

state, and local levels.

In addition to financial resources, time can play a role in creating new programs. For

public school districts, this means whether or not other goals must take priority over di-versity. School districts that are already performing well on standardized tests, graduating

students, and sending graduates to college have the luxury of creating a diversity manage-

ment program. On the other hand, school districts with high dropout rates and more fun-

damental education problems may have to handle those crises first. If one assumes that

the amount of time a school district can spend on goals is fixed, then it carries that districts

that are already performing well in other areas would be able to devote more attention to

diversity management.

Finally, it is likely that the environment will encourage the development of a diversity

management program if relations between disparate groups arealready harmonious. Re-

search shows that this type of harmony in diverse communities is not necessarily the norm.

For example, members of minority communities may hunker down and avoid intermingling

with other minority communities in order to improve their likelihood of survival and



7/21

success (Putnam, 2007). That should change over time as thecontact hypothesissuggests

that intergroup harmony improves as the number ofoutgroups increases and contact be-

tween different ethnic groups becomes more frequent (Allport, 1954; Welch and Sigelman,

2000). It is possible that a harmonious environment, marked by significant out groups

and general inter-group tolerance, will be more likely to implement diversity managementbecause of a general political will and social desirability.

Institutional Isomorphism

Our third explanation for diversity management implementation is based in institutional

isomorphism, where organizations in the same field gradually adapt to the same norms

(Aldrich, 1979; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; March and Olsen, 1989). This isomorphism

can take place for a number of reasons, but chief among them for diversity management

would be mimetic and normative forces (Scott, 2003). Mimetic forces might encourage an

organization to change because the change is culturally supported and helps to reduce un-certainty in the environment. On the other hand, normative forces would encourage an

organization to change out of duty or obligation, with the primary motivation being moral.

These mimetic and normative forces are often very strongDurant (2000) argues that iso-

morphism occurs with public sector reform even when organizations do not completely

understand the reform itself. Some organizations adopt programs simply because they

are perceived as new or innovative, but it is unclear whether they are fullyimplemented

(Feller, 1981; Perry et al., 1993).

In an examination of isomorphism in English local government, Ashworth et al.

(2009) discuss this process of conformity as having two parts: compliance and conver-

gence. Public organizations may grow to look like one another out ofcompliance witha law or mandate. For example, organizations may be sanctioned on the basis of Affirmative

Action or Equal Employment Opportunity violations, which could spur diversity programs

as a mandated response. On the other hand, organizations can also converge for other

reasons that may not be legal, or even rational, in nature (see also DiMaggio and Powell,

1983). For example, organizations may converge because of shifts in the normative envi-

ronment. It may not be that organizations rationally or strategically create diversity man-

agement programs to address a threat or uncertainty but rather that they implement

them because peer organizations or other external actors seem to think they are socially

necessary.

For diversity management, we believe that this isomorphism is likely to take one oftwo paths. It could be that the superintendent learns about diversity management programs

and initiatives through formal education. For example, managers who are more educated

may be more likely to learn about the movement in the field toward diversity management

programs, which would then influence their choice to create those programs in their dis-

tricts. It could be that managers who are educated more recently are more likely to be ex-

posed to diversity management since it is a relatively new management tool that may not

have been a key component of older educational programs. However, it may be that di-

versity management is not so much an innovation but rather a program that can result from

normative pressure from ones peers. In this case, one would expect well-networked man-

agers to implement diversity management as a result of pressure from one or more peers in

the network. This convergence is more likely to take place as networking increases since

opportunities for converge increase as the dyads grow in number.



8/21

DATA AND METHODS

We use data from the public education policy setting in order to explore these three drivers

of diversity management implementation. Public education organizations provide an in-

teresting laboratory for investigating diversity management. They are highly profession-

alized with strong norms and values, which makes diversity management more likely to be

implemented there than in policy settings with less professional training and socialization.

Public education organizations tend to be relatively flat and invest significant discretion in

street-level bureaucrats. Given research that demonstrates the significant influence that bu-

reaucrat ethnicity can wield on student outcomes (Meier et al., 2000, 2006; Pitts, 2005; Pitts

and Jarry, 2007), diversity management is particularly vital to organizational performance

in public schools.

The data for this analysis are drawn from a 2007 survey of public school district super-

intendents in Texas (see, e.g., Meier and OToole, 2001). The survey was sent to super-

intendents in 1,110 school districts, of whom 757 responded, producing a 68% response

rate. After omitting cases with missing data, we generated 586 useable responses for our

first model and 596 for our second (see below). Our sample is representative of Texas

school districts as a whole: differences between sample districts and population districts

in demographics, finances, and performance are not statistically significant.1

The survey

data are paired with other data on school district characteristics collected in 2007 by the

Texas Education Agency (TEA). We indicate the source for each variable in table 2. The

diversity management survey data are available only for 2007, which limits us to a cross-

sectional research design.

Weuse both ordinary least squares(OLS) and ordered probit regression with robust stan-

dard errors (SEs) to estimate our model. Our dependent variables are both ordinal, which

would typically require the use of an ordered regression method. However, in our case,the coefficients statistical significance and magnitude are practically identical in OLS

and ordered probit analyses. Given the relative ease of interpretation gained from OLS,

we discuss those results in the body of the article, but both sets of results appear in table 4.

In the section below, we identify all the variables that we use in the analysis. The

theory on which we base our work does not suggest interactive or curvilinear relationships,

so all these variables are included as additive terms. Many of our variables are drawn from

the same survey, so it is possible that common-source bias limits the strength of our find-

ings. However, given that we have a reasonable distribution of responses in our data and

recent research has demonstrated that the impacts of common-source bias are typi-

cally minimal, we do not believe that this should create much of an issue for our results(Crampton and Wagner, 1994; Doty and Glick, 1998; Spector and Brannick, 1995). Finally,

we recognize that endogeneity could affect our findings. For example, it is possible that

diversity management influences some of our explanatory variables, such as nonwhite

teachers and harmonious intergroup relations. We do not believe that the impacts are sub-

stantial, given that most of these variables are largely determined by broader environmental

factors. To the extent that diversity management affects teacher race/ethnicity and/or

intergroup relations, those impacts should take place gradually over time. In the immediate

1 tStatistics for difference in means ranged from 0.21 to 1.12 on the eight variables we used to test for the

representativeness of the sample.



9/21

case, we do not have data available to create instrumental variables and use a more ad-

vanced analysis.

VARIABLES

Diversity Management

We use two dependent variables to examine how these factors influence the implementation

of particular aspects of diversity management (table 2). To construct those variables, we

used two questions from the superintendent survey. Superintendents were asked to rate the

extent to which they agreed with the two statements: Promoting under-represented groups

to positions of authority is a priority in my district [recruitment and retention],2 and

Table 2Variables

Concept Label/Variable Description

Diversity management:

recruitment and retention

Recruitment and retention: Promoting under-represented groups to

positions of authority is a priority in my district (superintendentsurvey)

Diversity management:

programs and initiatives

Programs and initiatives: There are special programs in place in my

district to manage diversity among principals, teachers, and staff

(superintendent survey)

Environmental uncertainty Environmental uncertainty: There is a great deal of uncertainty in the

environment in which my district operates (superintendent survey)

Environmental favorability:

resource munificence

Revenue per pupil (in thousands of dollars, from TEA)


capacity

1. Student enrollment (in hundreds, from TEA)

2. Superintendent tenure in district (in years, from superintendent

survey)3. Professional development: How would you rate the quality of

professional development in your district? (superintendent survey)

4. District adopts new ideas: Our district is always among

the first to adopt new ideas and practices (superintendent survey)


harmonious culture

Harmonious culture: I would characterize relations between diverse

groups in my district as harmonious (superintendent survey)

Institutional isomorphism:

socialization by education

1. Superintendent education (superintendent survey)

2. Superintendent time since degree (number of years since completion

of highest degree, from superintendent survey)

Institutional isomorphism:

socialization by networking

Superintendent networking, which is the composite score of responses

on 10 networking dimensions:Indicate how frequently you interact

with individuals in the following groups: school board members,teachers associations, parent groups, local business leaders, other

superintendents, federal education officials, state legislators, TEA,

City/County Government, Local police/fire departments

(superintendent survey)

Demographic control variables 1. Teacher diversity (by race/ethnicity, from TEA)

2. Student diversity (by race/ethnicity, from TEA)

2 We are unable to disentangle the extent to which responses to this question specifically reflect recruitment or

retention since the question is worded generally to incorporate both into the same statement.



10/21

There are special programs in place in my district to manage diversity among principals,

teachers, and staff [diversity programs and initiatives]. Responses to all questions ranged

from strongly disagree to strongly agree, using a four-point scale. In the context of our

definition of diversity management, the first question measures recruitment and outreach

initiatives, whereas the second variable measures the existence of diversity-centered pro-grams, a broad categorization that encompasses both efforts to promotevaluing differences

and efforts that would be categorized aspragmaticprograms. Although we are limited in

the availability of data regarding the specific content of these programs,3

these variables

allow us to tap into whether the district has made efforts to engage in diversity management

more generally.4

The distribution of responses on the dependent variable was fairly broad, with mean-

ingful percentages at both ends of the scale and the bulk of respondents in the middle. For

our recruitment and retention variable, 9% strongly agreed, 42% agreed, 43% disagreed,

and 6% strongly disagreed. For our diversity programs and initiatives variable, 13%

strongly agreed, 52% agreed, 30% disagreed, and 5% strongly disagreed. There is the po-tential for bias on these questions since there are typically socially desirable responses

when it comes to questions about diversity. One expects that responses about diversity

management will be artificially positive since managers likely believe that they should

be encouraging of underrepresented groups. We do not believe that this should affect

our findings since we do not think that propensity to provide a socially desirable answer

covaries with any other relevant characteristics of the respondent or organization. If social

desirability were, indeed, driving the responses, we would expect to see considerably more

agree responses than disagree, which does not appear to be the case. For these data, we note

that the diversity programs and initiatives variable is only slightly skewed, whereas the

recruit and retention variable is fairly close to a normal distribution.5

Environmental Uncertainty

Our first driver of diversity management speculates that the decision to engage in these

programs may be a function of uncertainty in the environment. We measure this as the

extent to which the superintendent agrees with the statement, There is a great deal of

uncertainty in the environment in which my district operates. Since contingency theorists

argue that managers make decisions on the basis of the enacted environment, perceptions

are much more useful in empirical research than more objective measures of environmental

uncertainty. Responses were distributed across all four categories (strongly disagree, dis-

agree, agree, strongly agree), with a mean value just over 2.

Environmental Favorability

Our second driver links diversity management efforts to factors that would contribute to

a more favorable environment, hypothesizing that organizations engage in diversity

3 Our interest is primarily in exploring the factors that lead to the presence of diversity management practices. Future

research should investigate the factors that lead to different types of diversity management practicesrecruitment/

retention, valuing differences, and the more pragmatic policies and programs.

4 Additionally, these questions do not allow us to tap into the extent to which these programs have been implemented

throughout the district. However, the wording of the questions (programs in place, promoting. . .

is a priority)suggests that these initiatives have already been implemented, at least to some extent.

5 The p values for normality are .02 and .09, respectively.



11/21

management when it is easiest to do so. We include a series of six variables that capture

different aspects of the larger concept of environmental favorability: four variables that

measure organizational capacity, one variable that measures resources, and one variable

that reflects harmonious relationships in the environment.

Four variables measure organizational capacity, which in our case reflects both inter-nal and external factors. One of these variables is drawn from a question that asks super-

intendents to rate the extent to which the school district is often among the first districts to

adopt new ideas. We also include variables for organizational size (student enrollment) and

managerial tenure in the organization (the number of years that the superintendent has been

employed by the district). Given that the superintendent serves at the pleasure of the school

board, longer tenure often results in a looser rein for implementing new programs like di-

versity management. The last variable is a basic rating of the quality of the professional

development in the district. This variable taps into the concept of slack resources since

districts with large professional development programs are those that are most likely to

have the slack resources necessary to implement a program like diversity management.We also include a more explicit measure of resources by controlling for financial

wealth, which we measure as revenue per pupil. Finally, our variable for environmental

harmony captures the extent to which the organization is already diversity friendly. This

variable represents the response to the survey questions: I would characterize relations

between diverse groups in my district as harmonious.

Institutional Isomorphism

Our third driver speculates that the likelihood to implement diversity management pro-

grams will be a function of the norms to which the executive manager is exposed. Themotivations behind isomorphism cannot be measured directed, so we use two proxy meas-

ures that reflect key aspects of isomorphism in our policy context. We are particularly in-

terested in the possibility that the education and socialization of managers may be a key

explanatory factor in diversity management as many graduate programs in education have

recently incorporated issues related to diversity management into the curriculum. To ex-

plore the effect of professional norms, we include two variables: whether the superinten-

dent holds a doctorate (a dichotomous variable where 1 represents having a doctorate),

and the time since the superintendent has received the most recent degree (measured in

years). We would anticipate that those with doctorates and those who have completed grad-

uate work more recently would be more likely to hold those norms that would lead themanager to pursue diversity initiatives.

Finally, we are also interested in exploring whether exposure to other organizations is

positively related to diversity management. Here, we hypothesize that as managers become

more engaged in their environment, including interactions with other districts and local

organizations, they will be more likely to engage in diversity management. Managers

who interact with others in the external environment are more likely to learn about

new ideas and innovations, as well as feel social pressure to implement programs that

are being developed in other districts. Our measure of interaction with other groups is

a composite score that combines the level of activity between the superintendent and

the superintendents network, a measure that has been used in a number of previous studies

(see, e.g., Hicklin, 2004; Meier and OToole, 2001; Fernandez and Pitts, 2007). This mea-

sure includes nine items, representing the level of interaction with other superintendents,



12/21

teachers associations, parent groups, local business leaders, federal education officials,

state legislators, TEA, city and county government, and local police and fire departments

(Cronbachs alpha: .742).

Control Variables

We include two variables that measure the racial/ethnic diversity of student and teachers.

We use a Blau (1977) index of dissimilarity, which is a common means of measuring var-

iation in a categorical variable. The Blau index ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 represents

perfect homogeneity and 1 represents perfect heterogeneity with an infinite number of cat-

egories. In our case, with five categories, the practical limit is 0.8. For example, a school

district with all African-American students would score a 0 since it would be perfectly

homogeneous. A school district with students evenly distributed among all racial/ethnic

groups would score 0.8. This permits us to gauge the extent to which the environment could

produce diversity-oriented conflict. We conjecture that organizations with high student and

teacher diversity will see diversity management as an important and necessary response to

these environment characteristics. Not surprisingly, the average district was more diverse

along student lines than among teachers (table 3).

FINDINGS

Results from our data analysis are presented in Table 4. The first two columns show results

from our model predicting recruitment and retention, whereas the second two columns

show results from the model for diversity programs and initiatives. Within each, the first

column of results shows coefficients and SEs from the OLS regression, and the second

shows results from the ordered probit analysis. Given the similarities between the two setsof results, we discuss the OLS coefficients for ease of interpretation.

Environmental uncertainty appears to be related to programs and initiatives more than

recruitment and retention. Increasing the perceived uncertainty of the environment by one

point on a four-point scale corresponds to a 0.132-point increase in diversity programs and

initiatives, holding constant the other independent variables in the model. This is the equiv-

alent of changing ones response fromagreetostrongly agree. The largest possible shift

moving from strongly disagree to strongly agree or three pointswould correspond to

a 0.396-point shift in the dependent variable or about half of 1 standard deviation

(SD). This relationship is not substantial, but it is not trivial, either. These results suggest

that organizations in environments marked by uncertainty may be more likely to adopt and/or implement programs aimed at managing diversity.

The coefficient is statistically significant in the model for programs and initiatives, but

it is not statistically significant in the model for recruitment and retention. Uncertainty is,

perhaps, more likely to be important to the decision to create broader, more strategic pro-

grams and initiatives than narrowly tailored recruitment and retention policies. Large-scale

diversity programs and initiatives are more likely than recruitment efforts to garner the

attention of other actors in the environment, which would enhance the school districts

power and potential resource base (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). It is also possible that

school districts are attempting to exploit diversity-related possibilities in the environment.

If organizations view diversity as an environmental issuewhether positive or negative

then creating broad policies and programs may make it able to respond more quickly to the

changes that diversity may introduce.



13/21

Table 3Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Recruitment

and retention

2.535 0.732

2. Programs

and initiatives

2.728 0.752 0.287***

3. Teacher

diversity

0.113 0.114 0.196*** 0.084**

4. Student

diversity

0.228 0.114 0.289*** 0.076* 0.256***

5. Environmental

uncertainty

2.077 0.726 0 .040 0.050 0.136*** 0 .077

6. Harmonious

culture

3.162 0.543 0.003** 0.271*** 20.064* 20.052* 20.263***

7. District adopts

new ideas

2.667 0.653 0.103** 0.232*** 0.084* 20.095 20.047 0.157***

8. Professional

development

3.800 0.765 0.112 0.302*** 0.080* 20.027 20.204*** 0.267*** 0.297***

9. Revenue per

pupil

10.037 3.504 20.061* 20.028 20.042*** 20.078** 20.029 0.068 20.020 20.083*

10. Superintendent

tenure in district

4.853 4.393 0.112 0.128** 20.022 20.028 20.046 0.126* 0.046 0.220*

11. Student

enrollment (in

hundreds)

37.454 116.266 0.241*** 0.128*** 0.232*** 0.149*** 0.046 20.031* 0.083** 0.164*

12. Superintendent

education

0.341 0.475 0.162*** 0.044 0.084*** 0.154*** 0.114 20.042 0.037 0.000

13. Superintendent

time since degree

18.665 10.249 20.062 0.064 0.024 20.089 20.012 0.116 20.075* 0.112*

14. Superintendent

networking

0 0.878 0 .147*** 0 .162*** 20.004 0.144** 0.023 0.094* 0.049* 0.117*

Statistical significance: *p , .05, **p , .01, ***p , .001.


14/21

Table 4Regression Results

Recruitment and Retention Programs and Initiatives

OLSOrdered

Probit OLSOrdered

Probit

Environmental uncertainty

Environmental uncertainty 0.011

(0.044)

0.028

(0.074)

0.132**

(0.043)

0.223**

(0.072)

Environmental favorability

Harmonious culture 20.015

(0.065)

20.025

(0.109)

0.289**

(0.065)

0.499**

(0.110)District adopts new ideas 0.073

(0.048)

0.121

(0.081)

0.181**

(0.048)

0.305**

(0.081)

Professional development 0.047

(0.043)

0.072

(0.073)

0.183**

(0.042)

0.302**

(0.069)

Revenue per pupil (thousands) 0.004

(0.010)

0.008

(0.017)

0.003

(0.012)

0.007

(0.020)

Superintendent tenure in district 0.009**

(0.003)

0.016**

(0.005)

0.005

(0.002)

0.008

(0.004)

Student enrollment (hundreds) 0.001**

(0.0002)

0.002**

(0.0006)

0.0006*

(0.0003)

0.001*

(0.0005)

Institutional isomorphism

Superintendent education

(1 5 doctorate)

0.086

(0.065)

0.131

(0.110)

0.041

(0.062)

0.065

(0.101)

Superintendent time since degree

(years)

20.005

(0.003)

20.009

(0.005)

0.003

(0.003)

0.005

(0.005)

Superintendent networking 0.097**

(0.031)

0.163**

(0.152)

0.097**

(0.036)

0.157**

(0.059)

Demographic control variables

Teacher diversity (Blau index) 0.527

(0.413)

0.843

(0.690)

0.030

(0.383)

0.026

(0.631)

Student diversity (Blau index) 1.544**

(0.283)

2.571**

(0.494)

0.507

(0.270)

0.833

(0.446)

Constant 1.667**(0.282)

0.050(0.281)

N 586 586 596 596

AdjustedR2/pseudo R2 .174 .088 .205 .104

Cut point 1 20.369 2.669

Cut point 2 1.429 4.084

Cut point 3 2.983 5.819

Note:Robust SEs in parentheses.

Statistical significance: *p , .05, **p , .01, two-tailed tests.



15/21

Findings are mixed for our second potential driver of diversity management, environ-

mental favorability. The harmonious culture variable is statistically significant for diversity

programs and initiatives but not for recruitment and retention. These results suggest that

school districts where employees value ethnic and cultural differences may be more likely

to use diversity programs and initiatives but no more likely than others to engage in re-cruitment and retention. This makes sense, given that environments marked by such har-

mony and cultural awareness probably do not suggest a need for strategic recruitment and

retention initiatives. The organization may already be as diverse as it needs to be, given the

diversity present in the target population, making strategic recruitment less important. In

addition, if the environment is harmonious with regard to racial and ethnic differences,

retention is likely not an issue that requires a formal program. These organizations

may choose instead to devote their efforts toward diversity programs and initiatives that

continue that harmony and ensure that differences continue to be valued. This relationship

is one of the strongest substantive findings across both models: Increasing the harmonious

culture variable by one point corresponds to a 0.289-point shift in diversity programs andinitiatives.

Our results also suggest that organizational capacity may affect broad programs and

initiatives more than recruitment and retention efforts. A one-point increase in the extent to

which the district adopts new ideas corresponds to a 0.181-point increase in diversity pro-

grams and initiatives, and a one-point increase in the quality of professional development

corresponds to a 0.183-point increase in diversity programs and initiatives. These relation-

ships are moderate in scope, but they demonstrate that a solid infrastructure for professional

development and innovation may be important in implementing broad diversity programs

and policies. Both these variables are statistically significant at the .01 level in the programs

and initiatives model, but neither is significant in the recruitment and retention model.Our primary resource munificence variable, average revenue per pupil, is not statis-

tically significant for either recruitment and retention or diversity programs and initiatives.

It does not seem to matter whether organizations have abundant resources for developing

diversity management programs. We considered that this could be the result of a method-

ological issueperhaps revenue per pupil does not measure resource munificence as well

as a different measure. However, we are unable to find any measure of resources that cor-

responded to diversity management in either direction, positive or negative. Multicollinear-

ity does not seem to be an issue as the highest variance inflation factor was 1.28. Perhaps

the role of resources is more indirect, and it really affects diversity management through

other factors, such as professional development opportunities or the adoption of innovativeideas. Ultimately, we believe that resource munificence is a factor that should be taken into

account in this line of research, but we do not find it to be important in this sample of

organizations.

Our final driver of implementation is a set of isomorphism variables that suggest that

organizations adopt diversity management measures as a means of mimicking the strategies

of other school districts or influential actors in the environment. This is tested through three

variables: whether the superintendent holds a doctorate, how recently the superintendent

completed his or her highest degree, and the extent to which the superintendent interacts

with a series of external actors. Support for this driver is mixed. Neither of the two edu-

cation variables is statistically significant. Superintendents who earned doctorates are no

more likely to engage in diversity management than those who earned masters degrees.



16/21

One might expect that well-educated superintendents would be more likely than others to

be exposed to diversity management or that superintendents educated more recently would

be more likely to be exposed to diversity management, but our results do not demonstrate

this to be the case. On the other hand, our results suggest that interaction with actors in the

external environment may lead organizations to engage in diversity management. The co-efficient for management networking is positive and statistically significant at the .01 level

for both recruitment and retention strategies and diversity programs and initiatives. The

substantive relationships are roughly the same in both models: a 1 SD increase in network

management corresponds to roughly a 0.1-point increase in diversity management. This

variable incorporates networking with multiple nodes, and some nodes are undoubtedly

more influential than others. In auxiliary analyses, we tested each node separately. All were

positively related to diversity management implementation, but teacher associations and

local business leaders appeared to be the most influential across both models. Future re-

search should consider how different actors in the network influence diversity management

practices.These results suggest that isomorphic factors may not differ between the two com-

ponents of diversity management. There are no differences between the isomorphic forces

that correspond to recruitment and retention strategies and those that correspond to diver-

sity programs and initiatives. Neither education variable is significant in either model, but

network management is significant for both and has roughly the same coefficient for both.

Although consistent, these results do not suggest that isomorphism is a primary explanation

behind the implementation of diversity management. Only one of three variables is sig-

nificant, and its substantive significance is somewhat weak. It is possible that isomorphism

operates through other avenuesperhaps theconvergenceof norms is not reflected by the

education variables that we use as proxy measures in our analysis (Ashworth et al., 2009).Future research should work to further clarify how isomorphic pressures operate in the

context of diversity.

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates that diversity management springs from a series of complex and

nuanced environmental factors. It is not possible to directly compare the three drivers of

diversity management implementation that we formulate, but we do show varying levels of

support for each. It seems that isomorphic influences are the least important, but environ-

mental favorability and uncertainty are both relevant predictors. Motivations are differentfor recruitment and retention than for diversity programs and initiatives.

Results indicate that organizations appear to be responding to environmental issues.

For example, organizations with high student and teacher diversity are most likely to create

recruitment and retention strategies, which is a good means of directly addressing these

environmental demographics. We also find that organizations in uncertain environments

are more likely to implement broad diversity programs and initiatives. This should be an

effective approach, insofar as broad and overarching diversity policies may permit the or-

ganization to better adapt to environmental changes. Future research should examine the

impact of the environment more explicitly through a resource dependence lens since it

seems possible that organizations may implement diversity management programs as

a means of gaining legitimacy with actors in the environment who believe that such pro-

grams are important. It is beyond the scope of this article to test the relationship between



17/21

diversity management and performance, but previous research suggests that these actions

may be the best way for organizations to avoid the pitfalls of diversity while taking ad-

vantage of its benefits (Pitts, 2009).

Practicing managers might use these results to think about how the environments in

which they operate could affect their implementation of diversity management initiatives.For example, managers may choose to adopt diversity management if their organization is

similar to those that already have. These results show that organizations that frequently

adopt new ideas and already have strong professional development programs seem more

likely to adopt broad policies on diversity. A harmonious culture with regard to diversity

seems to encourage diversity programs and policies, whereas teacher and student diversity

appear to encourage recruitment and retention programs. To the extent that managers wish

to align themselves with other organizations in their environment, these findings give them

a glimpse into the relevant factors to consider.

These conclusions must be considered in the context of a few methodological caveats.

Future research should consider ways of expanding upon our approach to include a morenuanced and comprehensive measurement of diversity management. Our dependent var-

iables reflect responses to only two survey questions, and our findings would be reinforced

by a more complete measure of diversity management implementation or adoption. Several

of our measures are attitudinal, and there is the potential for social desirability bias that

could yield inconclusive results. We are also limited by data from one policy area, which

limits the generalizability of our findings. These results would be strengthened by similar

findings in another policy setting or type of organization. Although we believe our results

are robust and meaningful for other education organizations, we cannot claim with certainty

that they would operate the same for organizations that were less professionalized, more

hierarchical, or more routinized. Our models are able to explain only about one-fifth of thevariation in diversity management implementation, indicating that factors that we did not

include in our model could be important influences. The field should also work to develop

panel data sets that make it possible to test these relationships as they shift over time since

cross-sectional data are limited in their ability to demonstrate causal relationships. Finally,

the field would benefit from additional qualitative inquiry about diversity management.

Well-executed case studies would improve our ability to make causal assumptions and

complement the quantitative evidence we bring to bear in this article.

Future research should consider how diversity management programs conspire with

the environment to produce particular performance outcomes. If diversity management

is a key moderator between diversity and performance, how might these environmentalmotivations affect that relationship? For example, if diversity management is a response

to environmental threat and uncertainty, does it lead to performance gains that are higher

than in scenarios where environmental threats and uncertainty do not exist? The role of the

organizational environment is crucial to appropriately modeling the relationship between

diversity management and organizational performance.

REFERENCES

Adler, N. J. 2002. International dimensions of organizational behavior, 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH:

Southwestern College.

Aldrich, H. E. 1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Aldrich, H. E., and S. Mindlin. 1978. Uncertainty and dependence: Two perspectives on environment. In

Organization and environment, ed. L. Karpik, 14970. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.



18/21

Allport, G. W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Andrews, R., G. A. Boyne, K. J. Meier, L. J. OToole, and R. Walker. 2005. Representative bureaucracy,

organizational strategy and public service performance: An empirical analysis of English local

governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:489504.

Arai, M., D. M. Wanca-Thibault, and D. P. Shockley-Zalabak. 2001. Communication theory and training

approaches for multiculturally diverse organizations: Have academics and practitioners missed the

connection? Public Personnel Management 30:445445.

Ashworth, R., G. Boyne, and R. Delbridge. 2009. Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change

and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory 19:16587.

Azevedo, A., E. A. Drost, and M. R. Mullen. 2002. Individualism and collectivism: Toward a strategy for

testing measurement equivalence across culturally diverse groups. Cross Cultural Management

9:1929.

Bertelli, A. M. 2007. Determinants of bureaucratic turnover intention: Evidence from the department of

the treasury. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17:23558.

Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.

Boyne, G. A. 2003. Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda.Journalof Public Administration Research and Theory 13:36794.

Cox, T. 1993. Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler.

Crampton, Suzanne M., and John A. Wagner. 1994. Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational

research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 79:6776.

Daft, R. L. 2008. Organization theory and design. Cincinnati, OH: Thomson.

Dess, G. G., and D. W. Beard. 1983. Dimensions of organizational task environment. Administrative

Science Quarterly 29 (1): 5273.

. 1984. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly29:52.

DiMaggio, P. J., and W. W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and col-

lective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48:14760.

. 2001.The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Donahue, J. D., and J. S. Nye. 2002. Market-based governance. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution

Press.

Doty, D. Harold., and William H. Glick. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance

really bias results? Organizational Research Methods 1:374406.

Duncan, R. B. 1972. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental un-

certainty. Administrative Science Quarterly 17:31327.

Durant, R. F. 2000. Whither the neoadministrative state? Toward a polity-centered theory of adminis-

trative reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:79109.

Ely, R. J., and D. A. Thomas. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on

work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46:22973.

Ezra, M., and M. Deckman. 1996. Balancing work and family responsibilities: Flextime and child care in

the federal government. Public Administration Review 56:1749.Feller, I. 1981. Public sector innovation as conspicuous production. Policy Analysis 7 (1): 120.

Fernandez, S., and D. W. Pitts. 2007. Under what conditions do public managers favor and pursue or-

ganizational change? American Review of Public Administration 37:32441.

Fernandez, S., and H. G. Rainey. 2006. Managing successful organizational change in the public sector.

Public Administration Review 66:16885.

Foldy, E. G. 2004. Learning from diversity: A theoretical exploration. Public Administration Review

64:52938.

Galbraith, J. R. 1973. Designing complex organizations. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Goerdel, H. T. 2006. Taking initiative: Proactive management and organizational performance in net-

worked environments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:35167.

Hatch, M. J., and A. L. Cunliffe. 2006. Organization theory. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

Hicklin, A. K. 2004. Network stability: Opportunity or obstacle? Public Organization Review4:157398.



19/21

. 2007. The effect of race-based admissions in public universities: Debunking the myths about

hopwood and proposition 209. Public Administration Review 67:33140.

Ho, M. K. 1987. Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jayne, M. E. A., and R. L. Dipboye. 2004. Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research

findings and recommendations for organizations.Human Resource Management43:40924.

Kalev, A., F. Dobbin, and E. Kelly. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of

corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review 71:589617.

Kellough, J. E. 1990. Integration in the public workplace: Determinants of minority and female em-

ployment in federal agencies. Public Administration Review 50:557.

Kellough, J. E., and K. C. Naff. 2004. Responding to a wake-up call: An examination of federal agency

diversity management programs. Administration Society 36:6290.

Kellough, J. E., and D. H. Rosenbloom. 1992. Representative bureaucracy and the EEOC: Did civil service

reform make a difference? InThe promise and paradox of civil service reform, eds. P. W. Ingraham

and D. H. Rosenbloom, 24566. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.

Lawrence, P. R., and J. W. Lorsch. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly 12 (1): 112.

Lynn, L. E., C. J. Heinrich, and C. J. Hill. 2001.Improving governance. A new logic for empirical research.Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press.

March, J. G., and J. P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering institutions. The organizational basis of politics. New

York: Free Press.

Meier, K. J. 1975. Representative bureaucracy: An empirical analysis. American Political Science Review

69:526.

Meier, K. J., C. Doerfler, D. Hawes, A. K. Hicklin, and R. R. Rocha. 2006. The role of management and

representation in improving performance of disadvantaged students: An application of Bum

Phillipss Don Shula Rule. Review of Policy Research 23:1095110.

Meier, K. J., and L. J. OToole, Jr. 2001. Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with

evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

11:27194.

. 2003. Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking.

Public Administration Review 63:68999.

. 2005. Managerial networking: Issues of measurement and research design. Administration and

Society 37:52341.

Meier, K. J., J. L. Polinard, and R. D. Wrinkle. 2000. Bureaucracy and organizational performance:

Causality arguments about public schools. American Journal of Political Science 44:590602.

Mosher, F. C. 1982. Democracy and the public service, 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.

Naff, K. C. 2001.To look like America: Dismantling barriers for women and minorities in government.

New York: Westview.

Naff, K. C., and J. E. Kellough. 2003. Ensuring employment equity: Are federal diversity programs

making a difference? International Journal of Public Administration 26:1307.

Ng, E. S. W., and R. J. Burke. 2005. Personorganization fit and the war for talent: Does diversity managementmake a difference?International Journal of Human Resource Management16:1195210.

OToole, L. J., Jr., and K. J. Meier. 1999. Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of

structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9:50526.

Perry, J. L., K. L. Kraemer, D. Dunkle, and J. King. 1993. Motivations to innovate in public organizations.

In Public management: The state of the art, ed. B. Bozeman. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pfeffer, J., and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence

perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Pitts, D. W. 2005. Diversity, representation, and performance: Evidence about race and ethnicity in public

organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:61531.

. 2006. Modeling the impact of diversity management. Review of Public Personnel Administration

26:24568.

. 2007. Implementation of diversity programs in public organizations: Lessons from policy im-

plementation research. International Journal of Public Administration 30:157390.



20/21

. 2009. Diversity management, job satisfaction, and organizational performance: Evidence from

U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration Review 69:32838.

Pitts, D. W., and E. M. Jarry. 2007. Ethnic diversity and organizational performance: Assessing diversity

effects at the managerial and street levels. International Public Management Journal10:23354.

Putnam, R. D. 2007.E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century.Scandinavian

Political Studies 30:13774.

Rainey, H. G. 2003. Understanding and managing public organizations, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Riccucci, N. M. 1997. Cultural diversity programs to prepare for work force 2000: Whats gone wrong?

Public Personnel Management26 (1): 3541.

. 2002. Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Richard, O., A. McMillan, K. Chadwick, and S. Dwyer. 2003. Employing an innovation strategy in racially

diverse workforces: Effects on firm performance. Group Organization Management28:10726.

Richard, O. C. 2000. Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based view.

Academy of Management Journal43:16477.

Rubaii-Barrett, N., and L. R. Wise. 2007. From want ads to web sites: What diversity messages are state

governments projecting? Review of Public Personnel Administration 27:2138.Salzstein, A. L., Y. Ting, and G. H. Salzstein. 2001. Work-family balance and job satisfaction: The impact

of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government employees. Public Administration

Review61:45267.

Sanchez, J. I., and P. Brock. 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among hispanic employees: Is

diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Journal39:70419.

Scott, W. R. 2003.Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Selden, S. C. 1997. The promise of representative bureaucracy: Diversity and responsiveness in a gov-

ernment agency. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

. 2006. A solution in search of a problem? Discrimination, affirmative action, and the new public

service. Public Administration Review 66:91123.

. 2008. Human capital: Tools and strategies for the public sector. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Selden, S. C., and F. Selden. 2001. Rethinking diversity in public organizations for the 21st century:

Moving toward a multicultural model. Administration Society 33:30329.

Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership and administration. New York: Harper Collins.

Spector, Paul E., and Michael T. Brannick. 1955. The nature and effects of method variance in orga-

nizational research. InInternational Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, eds. Cary

L. Cooper and Ivan T. Robertson, 24974. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.

Swann, W. B., J. T. Polzer, D. C. Seyle, and S. J. Ko. 2004. Finding value in diversity: Verification of

personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review 29:927.

Thomas, D. A., and R. J. Ely. 1996. Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity.

Harvard Business Review74:7990.

Thomas, R. R. 1990. From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review 90:1108.Timmerman, T. A. 2000. Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small

Group Research 31:592606.

Watson, W. E., K. Kumar, and L. K. Michaelsen. 1993. Cultural diversitys impact on interaction process

and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management

Journal36:590602.

Weick, K. E. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Welch, S., and L. Sigelman. 2000. Getting to know you? Latino-Anglo social contact. Social Science

Quarterly 81:67.

Wise, L. R., and M. Tschirhart. 2000. Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: How useful is

diversity research for public-sector managers? Public Administration Review 60:38694.



21/21

Copyright of Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory is the property of Oxford University Press /

UK and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	randy-howe
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

What Drives the Implementation of Diversity Management Programs?.asp(14)

Documents