The Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) Model and Organizational Behavior
The Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) model delineates a framework for the understanding of organization behavior from the individual and organizational perspectives. The framework demonstrates the out of three interrelated organizational process like attraction, selection and attrition that determine the types of people in an organization (Schneider 1987). It consequently determines the strategy, structure and culture of an organization. The founders of organizations often get confused about selecting types of people, providing them compensation, building relationship structure with them and maintaining homogeneous workplace culture. Hence, this model is perfect for explaining the maintenance of homogeneity in an organization. The attraction factor of ASA framework articulates the fact that the preferences of people for a particular organization is based on some estimate of fit of their personal attributes with the attributes of the organization. People mostly find the organizations differentially attractive because of their implicit judgment about the congruence of personal attributes with the organizational attributes (Butler et al. 2014). While considering the evidence of Apple, this organization follows teamwork culture at the workplace. So, the most of the people having collaborative nature are attracted in this organization. In this way, a homogeneous collaborative culture has been formed in this organization.
As per the selection process of ASA framework, organizations are more likely to select those people, who they think are most compatible and fir for various types of jobs. Moreover, organizations often select the candidates, who are posed with similar skills, attitudes, knowledge and abilities just like their existing employees. Hence, most of the organizations use fit as their basic criteria for hiring people. The organizations are more likely to create homogeneous organizational culture, when they hire people having similar attitude, skills and abilities. In this way, the organizations end up choosing people, who share common personal attitudes, but they may not share common competence (Konrad, Yang and Maurer 2016). While considering the evidence, the managers of Apple are more likely to hire people having high level of technological skills and collaborative nature. Hence, the organization has become able to maintain its homogeneous organizational culture.
Finally, the attrition process reflects the ideas that the employees will leave their organization, if they do not fit with its culture. The employees tend to leave their organization, when they do not fit well in a particular organizational culture. In this way, when the employees leave the environment, a more concrete homogeneous group of employees stay in the organization than those who were attracted initially (Jackson, Schuler and Jiang 2014). Considering these three factors, the employees, who work in a particular organization share some common personality and attitude over time that helps in maintaining homogeneous organizational culture.
Women and Underrepresentation in Leadership Roles
Women’s progress in leadership role is always hampered because of the biased perception of effective leadership. As per the vertical segregation in the European Union, 65% men has hold the positions of manager, whereas, only 35% of women has hold managerial roles (Ibarra, Ely and Kolb 2013). The tension women face regarding their gender role, where are expected to be communal and where they are expected to be agentic in their leadership role. It ultimately leads to lowered perception about their effectiveness of leadership roles. The congruity theory has an important role in explaining the reasons for which women are underrepresented in leadership role (Eagly and Karau 2002). One of the two prime reasons of injustice preventing women from getting leadership role is perception of women, when they are placed in leadership role. Women leaders are usually perceived in less optimistic manner in comparison with male leaders.
As per descriptive bias, female leader are stereotyped as having less leadership skills and potential than the male leaders. The women are often perceived to have low status position than the men because of their socially accepted role. The accepted gender stereotypes let a grater prophecy of gender discrimination between men and women in social behaviour. Most of common reason for preferring the male leaders occurs from disliking the female leaders (Elsesser and Lever 2011). It is the perception of people that female leaders are usually too moody, emotional, gossipy, catty, bitchy, dramatic, petty, dramatic, backstabbing and jealous. Moreover, the female leaders are often perceived to tremendous polarized perception based on inaptness between traits related to the women and positive traits of a leadership role. As per this theory, inconsistent gender stereotypes and unfeminine perception lead to negative judgement of women leadership regardless of the kind of leadership the women display (Hoyt and Murphy 2016). In this way, descriptive bias defines the reason for which women are underrepresented in leadership role.
One of the other ways for which women are underrepresented in leadership role is prescriptive bias. As per this bias, female leaders are evaluated as less favourably, as leadership seen as better fit for men than for women. Female leaders often have to choose between the options of being perceived as proficient leaders or being liked by followers and co-workers. The female leaders, who follow masculine leadership style, are considered as competent. However, such leaders are more likely to receive more negative evaluation for their interpersonal skills than the female leaders, who follow feminine leadership style (Stafsudd 2006). In this way, such leaders are often perceived to have misfit with the positive leadership traits. On the other hand, the female leaders, who follow feminine leadership, are evaluated negatively and less favourably because of violating the traditional masculine leadership style and desire.
Descriptive Bias and Underrepresentation of Women in Leadership Roles
Disabled people are less likely to be hired and retained by the employers than the non-disabled people. Such people are also less likely to occupy senior positions, as compared with the non-disabled people. The disabled people are always having less priority than those of non-disabled people in organizations, despite of equal educational qualification. Educational qualification is always help at constant, but the physical abilities matter a lot in getting employment opportunity. On the other hand, the people having mental health problems are the impairment groups, who are least likely to be in senior position in all the sectors. Several qualitative studies have been conducted on assessing the employment opportunity of disabled people.
These qualitative studies have pointed out that the employers always suspect that the disabled people are always having low productivity. Moreover, it is the perception that disabled people are lazy, workshy and prefer to live on benefits that actually doing work. Hence, the employers are highly motivated to avoid hiring disabled people at work. However, this motivation is not truly justified by the empirical evidences. Several studies conducted on the disabled employees have proved that these employees feel that they need to work harder for proving their abilities in their organizations (McLaughlin, Bell and Stringer 2004). Hence, as per these studies, disabled people may me equally productive like non-disabled people. On the other hand, it is also a common perception of the employers that disabled employees are more likely to ne encountered with employment risk. They can have high chance of being injured within the workplace. Hence, the employers are more likely to avoid disabled people in their organizations Salkever et al. (2014). This motivation can be justified by the empirical evidence, as disabled people are truly inclined to be injured at the workplace causing employment risk.
The presence of disabled people in the workplace may provoke existential anxiety in other employees. Moreover, the non-disabled employees may fear about increasing workloads over them, as disabled people are not well-versed and hardworking. On the other hand, the employees without disabilities may fear that some disabilities are contagious, which may leads to high level of anxiety and stress among them (Boone et al. 2004). Some employees without disabilities may feel awkwardness, ambivalence and discomfort in interacting with the disabled employees. Hence, such reasons may motivate the employers to avoid hiring disabled people at their workplaces. Several empirical evidences have justified this motivation of the employees. The empirical evidences have also pointed out that the employment rate in UK with disabilities is 46.3%, whereas the employment rate without disabilities is 76.4% (Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt and Kulkami 2008). It proved that the employers truly avoid hiring disabled people at their organizations. On the other hand, the employers often face financial burden for the reasonable accommodation of the disabled people for their comfort within the workplace. Such increasing financial burden also motivates the employer to avoid hiring disabled people at the workplace.
Prescriptive Bias and Underrepresentation of Women in Leadership Roles
It has been seen in the employment field that black and Asian groups earn quite less than while British, despite of having equal educational qualification. Black male graduates earn almost 24% less than white male graduates. Rational actor model of hiring is an economic model of statistical discrimination, which suggests that race provides a useful proxy for difficult-to-observe characteristics. Productivity is an extremely difficult factor to observe directly, especially for new hires. Hence, the employers are dependent on indirect information gathered from the group membership. The rational action model demonstrates the rational actions on the part of employers, given the fact that the information from the group membership is accurate and there exist a mechanism to update the estimates of group characteristics over time.
As per this model, the hiring decision of the employers is actually based on calculated anticipated benefits and guided by consistent personal values. The model is initiated with the information regarding known group characteristics, the employers are aware of the racial difference among the group members in terms of graduation rates, incarceration rates, test score and several other disparities (Tran, Garcia-Prieto and Schneider 2011). The employers may also have direct prior experience about the employees, which shapes the own belief of the employers. In case of minority discrimination, such information shapes the general belief regarding black employees in terms of their reliability, intelligence, productivity and other characteristics (Pager and Karafin 2009). Such belief ultimately guides the hiring decisions of the employers. Next after hiring, the employers are actually exposed the capabilities and skills of the black employees, which often do not fit with the prior assumption of the employers taken from the group (Van Knippenberg and Schippers 2007). In this way, the employers ultimately revise their beliefs about minority employees through updating their beliefs.
According to Pager and Karafin’s (2009) study, in real scenario, the employers always hold a negative perception regarding the minority employees. Moreover, 75% of whites and Asians have demonstrated an implicit bias in favor of white employees as compared with black employees. For evidence, Jewish and Hindu male employees are always overrepresented in high level of jobs and Muslims male employees are always underrepresented (Pager and Karafin 2009). As per this study, some employers have emphasized on the structural barriers faced by the African Americans, which includes the factors such as lack of education, poverty, prejudice and discrimination and disadvantaged neighborhood context.
Underrepresentation of Disabled People in Employment
Managing diversity and equal employment opportunity are the increasing trends in all reputed organization. Such approaches are intended to source diverse knowledge and skills from employees having different cultural and educational backgrounds. The purpose of Managing diversity and equal employment opportunity may seem to be equal, but there are some key differences between these two terms. Diversity among the employees is consisted of the visible and non-visible factors like age, race, gender, personality, region, culture, work style, disability and many more. Diversity management is intended to manage the employees having different background and leading them towards the common goals of the organization for high level of organizational success (Verbeek 2011). On the other hand, equal opportunity is the right of the employees to be treated without discrimination, especially on the ground of age, race and gender. Hence, there is slight difference between diversity management approach and equal opportunity approach.
The key difference between the approach of diversity management and approach of equal opportunity is the driven force of implementation. Moreover, the equal opportunity approach is initiated in the organizations externally. Furthermore, this approach is actually driven by the legislation and society ethnic like fairness, group parity, justice and human right. On the other hand, the diversity management approach is actually initiated in the organizations internally (Sabharwal 2014). Moreover, this approach is actually driven by the business needs of the organizations. For evidence, the purpose equal opportunity in London Borough of Ealing is intended towards complying with the statutory duty of implementing equality. On other hand, the approach of diversity management is intended towards exploiting the diverse skills and knowledge of the diverse set of the employees towards strengthening and promoting the business.
The difference between diversity management approach and equal opportunity also lies in their ultimate goals. The aim of equal opportunity approach is to represent the social justice and human rights and correct them that have been framed previously in the past. This approach is also intended to correct an injustice, an imbalance and a mistake in hiring the employees (Knights and Omanovi? 2016). On the other contrary, the aim of diversity management approach is to treat the employees as individuals and acknowledging each employee with their unique needs, skills and knowledge. Moreover, the goal of this approach is to exploit the unique skills and knowledge of the diverse employees in the progress of the business. Equal opportunity approach prevents the discrimination among the employees against vulnerable and different groups, whereas diversity management approach realizes the full potential of each employee for organizational benefits (Ashikali and Groeneveld 2015). Furthermore, the equal opportunity is mostly visible in the areas of recruitment and selection process of the organizations. However, the diversity management approach is visible in almost whole management process of the organizations.
Reasons for Avoiding Hiring Disabled People
Diverse team in an organization is formed with the employees having different backgrounds based on age, race, gender, religion, culture, physical abilities and many more. On the other hand, homogeneous group is consisted of employees having similar attributes. As Homan et al. (2007) diverse groups can outperform homogeneous groups helping teams with faultiness perform better through improved information sharing process. Diverse people may alter the behavior of group’s social majority in a way, which leads to improved and accurate group thinking (Scott, Heathcote and Gruman 2011). The diverse team can also outperform the homogeneous group, when the organizational leaders develop clear protocol of communication and coordination among the employees. With increased communication, the diverse team can exchange their unique ideas with others. In this way, they can provide more unique and innovative ideas to the organizational success as compared with the homogeneous group. On the other hand, diverse teams can also outperform the homogenous teams of an organization in terms of providing unique and effective solution to the complex organizational. In this way, diverse teams help in protecting the organizations from major organizational crisis and fostering creativity towards gaining competitive advantage over rivals.
The diverse teams can also outperform the homogeneous teams, when organizations plan to expand in global markets. The advantage of diverse workforce over homogeneous workforce is mostly visible in the areas of language diversity among the diverse workgroups (Ely and Thomas 2001). Moreover, the diverse workforce having fluencies in diverse language can understand the language of foreign countries in better way. Hence, such diverse groups are high beneficial for the organizations in terms of communicating with the global customers. Furthermore, the employee having diverse cultural backgrounds can also be better than the homogenous groups in understanding cultural sensitivity of the customers having different cultural backgrounds (Homan et al. 2008). In this way, diverse workforce outperforms the homogenous group in terms of initiating customization in organization for providing customized solution to the customers. While considering the evidence of Unilever Plc. of United Kingdom, the diverse workforces of this organization always foster unique product ideas for meeting the customized needs of the global customers. In this way, diverse groups have helped the organization in getting global success in global market.
Diverse group also outperform the homogeneous group in terms of increasing the organizational reputation of the organizations. Moreover, having diverse workgroup increases the market reputation of the organization that would have been impossible with homogeneous group (Gratton, Voigt and Erickson 2007). Furthermore, potential employees always want to make sure that the employers treat diverse employees fairly regardless of their face, age, gender, ethnicity and religion. Hence, such diverse teams actually attract the potential employees in the market towards the organizations. In this way, the organizations can get access to diverse set of knowledge, skills and abilities to be exploited in organizational success.
Underrepresentation of Minority Groups in Employment
In contemporary time, many organizations use images of diversity and information about diversity initiatives in their recruitment advertising for attracting job candidates from underrepresented groups. In such diversity recruitment advertisement, the organizations are to sell more than just the employment opportunity. Moreover, the diversity recruitment advertising should be inclusive for all the minority groups. The visual identity used in the visual images of diversity recruitment advertising should demonstrate various ranges of diversity existing within the particular organization. Such visual image and diversity information in diversity recruitment actually encourages the members of underrepresented groups to apply for jobs. These tools are also effective in giving preferences to the underrepresented groups in the selection process, when two or more candidates are equally qualified.
As per Avery (2003), Martins & Parsons (2007), and Williamson et al. (2008), most of the organizations use three factors that have been demonstrated to influence the job applicants’ reaction to these kinds of job advertisements. The organizations often use visual images of three different levels of diversity. These three levels used in the job adverts are all-white, mixed-race at entry level and mixed race at entry level and managerial level. Such job adverts attract all the minority groups, who are underrepresented to apply for the jobs. Moreover, black participants are attracted to diverse organizations only when the diversity is extended to the managerial levels (Avery 2003). Such promotional opportunity customized to the diverse people encourages underrepresented black participants to apply for the jobs. On the other hand, the attraction of white participants to diverse organizations is highly dependent on their group orientation (Williamson et al. 2008). In this way, the visual images of diversity facilitate the organizations to attract the underrepresented groups to apply for the jobs.
The diversity centric organizations often use organizational description in the job advertisements, which are having varying degree of information on women centric programs. Such job advertisements also include the information regarding the proportion of women employees in the top management of the organizations. Women candidates are generally attracted to more women centric organizations only when gender identity centrality is high enough and the attitude of the organizations towards affirmative action is positive (Martins and Parsons 2007). In this way, informative job advertisement on women programs highly attracts the women participants to apply for the jobs.
On the other hand, the organizations can also use brochures with no diversity statements or statements with no explanation on diversity in their job advertisements. Furthermore, many organizations use job advertisements using statements with business case justification and a statement using a social justification statement. The black participants are more attracted to the organizations, which use statements on the social justification on their job advertisements. They feel more valued and welcomed through these statements of social justification in the job advertisements. Hence, they become more willing to apply for the jobs mentioned in the job advertisements. On the other hand, the while participants are more attracted to the jobs, when business case justifications are provided in the job advertisements of the organizations.
The Rational Actor Model of Hiring and Statistical Discrimination
Resistance to diversity is a major concern for most of the organizations. Diverse organizational groups are more likely to make clashes among each other based on the social stereotypes. On the other hand, diversity resistance can also come from individual resistance. In this difference, the diverse employees are more likely make clashes among each other on the ground of differing opinion on the any matter. Apart from that, resistance to diversity also occurs from willingness of the diverse people towards maintaining their privileges over others. Moreover, resistance to diversity is a big resistance, which prevents the process organizational changes by ultimately preventing the organizational success. Hence, the resistance to diversity should be reduced for leading organizational success.
The organizations should initiate identity switching for reducing resistance to diversity. Moreover, the mangers of the organization should de-emphasize the target identity and categorize the diverse employees to a more positively valued identity. The mangers should also emphasize on identity redefinition, where the managers should try to disassociate the employees from negative stereotypes and strengthen their association with positive stereotypes (Vescio, Sechrist and Paolucci 2003). In this way, the diverse employees will learn to value each other’s identity and provide respect to each other. It will ultimately reduce the resistance to diversity in the organizations. On the other hand, the managers of diversity oriented organizations should take initiatives towards reducing the negative attitudes towards out groups. The managers should foster open communication among the diverse group of employees with the perspective of increasing empathy and positive attitudes towards out-group. Such increased empathy for each others will definitely lead to reduced resistance for diversity.
The organizations should also have more focus in open communication with the diverse employees for reducing backlash towards diversity initiatives (Rudman and Glick 2001). Moreover, the managers of the organizations should communicate the business advantage of diversity initiatives on the business progress (Kidder et al. 2004). It will encourage the employees towards supporting the diversity initiatives of the organizations through reduced resistance for diversity initiatives. Moreover, the managers of the organizations should also address the dominant majority concerns through providing honest feedback to each employee based on their performance. It will provide a feel of equal value to the employees regardless of diversity. Most importantly, the organizations should provide effective diversity training to the employees. Such training will enhance the awareness of diversity among the diverse work groups (Wiethoff 2004). The organizations should also provide power dynamics through educating the managers and fining opinion leaders for better management of diversity.
Diverse workforce at the senior level of an organization can bring innovative and unique business ideas for enhancing competitiveness over the rivals. On the other hand, the directors having diverse backgrounds are more likely to operate within different networks. In this way, the diverse managers can connect with wider pool of stakeholders at different markets. The job candidates are always attracted to the companies, which are having diverse workforce group. Over the time, it becomes evident that organizations having diverse employment practice do not practice employment discrimination. The potential employees always want that the employers treat their employees fairly regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion and race. These organizations are not only able to attract highly talented employees, but also able to retain those employees with increased employee morale coming from workforce diversity.
The organizations having diverse workforce mostly use targeted recruitment for attracting the employees from diverse backgrounds. Moreover, these organizations use appealing recruitment message in their job advertisement for appealing the employees from diverse workgroup. Moreover, such organizations identify the surface level diversity among the job candidates, where the employers prepare recruitment message as per the race, gender, parental status and educational level of the job candidates. For example, some diversity oriented organizations family friendly policies in the job advertisement for attracting the women job candidates. The applicants’ interests are driven by their self-interest, when the recruitment policies are matched with their needs and desires (Casper, Wayne and Manegold 2013). While considering the evidence from Coca Cola Company, the employers offer special benefits for the parental status of the job candidates. In this way, these organizations are highly capable of attracting married and women employees.
On the other hand, the diversity oriented organizations also consider the deep level diversity factor for attracting the diverse job candidates. Moreover, the targeted recruitment is also effective for attracting the deep level attributes of the job candidates in terms of their values and attitudes. The diverse job candidates are highly attracted to the organizations, whose value and attitudes are similar to that of their values and attitudes. Hence, the diversity oriented organizations must highlight the organizational values and attitudes in the job advertisement for attracting the differing values and attitudes of the diverse job candidates (Umphress et al. 2007). While considering the evidence of Wal-Mart of USA, it can be found that the employers highlight the family friendly environment of organizational culture in the job advertisement for attracting the job candidates of Latin America having family centric values. In this way, diversity oriented organization always understand the value and preferences of the diverse workforce. Hence, the organizations having diverse workforce will always attract diverse job candidates.
The similarity attraction theory suggests that the employees are always likely to be attracted and adjusted in an organization, where they will get their colleagues having similar values and attitudes (Devendorf and Highhouse 2008). This theory somewhat suggests a homogeneous working culture having similar values and attitudes of the employees. Hence, this theory is not quite related to the diversity theory and it is applicable in attracting diverse job candidates.
Reference list
Butler, B.S., Bateman, P.J., Gray, P.H. and Diamant, E.I., 2014. An attraction-selection-attrition theory of online community size and resilience. Mis Quarterly, 38(3), pp.699-728.
Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. and Jiang, K., 2014. An aspirational framework for strategic human resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), pp.1-56.
Konrad, A.M., Yang, Y. and Maurer, C.C., 2016. Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and equality management systems: An integrated institutional agency and strategic human resource management approach. Human Resource Management, 55(1), pp.83-107.
Schneider, B., 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
Eagly, A. H., and Karau, S. J., 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598.
Elsesser, K. M., and Lever, J., 2011. Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64(12), 1555-1578.
Hoyt, C.L. and Murphy, S.E., 2016. Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), pp.387-399.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R. and Kolb, D., 2013. Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business Review, 91(9), 60-66.
Stafsudd, A., 2006. People are strange when you’re a stranger: Senior executives select similar successors. European Management Review, 3(3), 177-189.
Boone, C., van Olffen, W., van Witteloostuijn, A. and de Brabander, B., 2004. The genesis of top management team diversity: Selective turnover among top management teams in Dutch newspaper publishing. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 633–656.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M. and Kulkami, M., 2008. Overlooked and underutilized: People With disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 255-273.
McLaughlin, M. E., Bell, M. P., and Stringer, D. Y., 2004. Stigma and acceptance of persons with disabilities: Understudied aspects of workforce diversity. Group & Organization Management, 29(3), 302-333.
Salkever, D.S., Gibbons, B., Frey, W.D. and Milfort, R., 2014. Recruitment in the Mental Health Treatment Study: a behavioral health/employment intervention for Social Security disabled-worker beneficiaries. Soc. Sec. Bull., 74, p.27.
Pager, D., and Karafin, D., 2009. Bayesian bigot? Statistical discrimination, stereotypes, and employer decision making. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621(1), 70-93.
Tran, V., Garcia-Prieto, P., and Schneider, S. C., 2011. The role of social identity, appraisal, and emotion in determining responses to diversity management. Human Relations, 64(2), 161-176.
Van Knippenberg, D., and Schippers, M. C., 2007. Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515-541.
Ashikali, T. and Groeneveld, S., 2015. Diversity management for all? An empirical analysis of diversity management outcomes across groups. Personnel Review, 44(5), pp.757-780.
Knights, D. and Omanovi?, V., 2016. (Mis) managing diversity: exploring the dangers of diversity management orthodoxy. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 35(1), pp.5-16.
Sabharwal, M., 2014. Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43(2), pp.197-217.
Verbeek, S., 2011. Employment equity policy frames in the literature: ‘Good practice’ versus ‘bad idea’. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1942-1962.
Ely, R. J., and Thomas, D. A., 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 229-273.
Gratton, L., Voigt, A., and Erickson, T. J., 2007. Bridging faultlines in diverse teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 22-29.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., and Van Kleef, G. A., 2008. Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222.
Homan, A. C., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., and De Dreu, C. K., 2007. Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1189-1199.
Scott, K. A., Heathcote, J. M., and Gruman, J. A., 2011. The diverse organization: Finding gold at the end of the rainbow. Human Resource Management, 50(6), 735-755.
Avery, D. R., 2003. Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising–are differences black and white? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 672-679.
Martins, L. L., and Parsons, C. K., 2007. Effects of gender diversity management on perceptions of organizational attractiveness: The role of individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 865-875.
Williamson, I. O., Slay, H. S., Shapiro, D. L., and Shivers-Blackwell, S. L., 2008. The effect of explanations on prospective applicants’ reactions to firm diversity practices. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 311-330.
Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., and Friedman, R. A., 2004. Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 77-102.
Rudman, L.A. and Glick, P., 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762.
Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., and Paolucci, M. P., 2003. Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455–472.
Wiethoff, C., 2004. Motivation to learn and diversity training: Application of the theory of planned behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 263–278.
Casper, W. J., Wayne, J. H., and Manegold, J. G., 2013. Who will we recruit? Targeting deep- and surface-level diversity with Human Resource policy advertising. Human Resource Management, 52(3), 311-332.
Devendorf, S. A., and Highhouse, S., 2008. Applicant–employee similarity and attraction to an employer. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 607-617.
Umphress, E. E., Smith-Crowe, K., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., and Watkins, M. B., 2007. When birds of a feather flock together and when they do not: Status composition, social dominance orientation, and organizational attractiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 396-409.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
