As organizations continue to pursue achieving diversity and inclusion goals, how to propose and present efforts so as to maximize support and minimize resistance remains a challenge. The present set of studies, grounded in theory on the Attributional Analysis of Persuasion, examined how the demographics of diversity promoters relate to supportive attitudes and behaviors of others through perceptions of promoter self-interest. Via an experimental paradigm (Study 1), we found that White promoters were perceived as less self-interested than Black promoters of a diversity initiative, which in turn predicted more positive attitudes and support for the promoted effort. Using a sample of workplace critical incidents (Study 2), we found that diversity promoters who were demographically matched to the group for which they were advocating were perceived as more self-interested than those advocating for causes for which they were not demographically matched. Theoretical and practical implications, as well as study limitations, are discussed.

There has been an explosion of within-profession studies examining standings on gender representation in advancement, publication patterns, and conference presentations. However, industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology has yet to take such an introspective look and fully join these conversations. This manuscript aims to initiate and encourage such discussion. Through a brief review of relevant background information and the collection and analysis of recent archival data, we seek to examine where we have been with regard to gender representation, where we currently stand, and what steps are needed moving forward. We aim to stimulate continued examinations on this topic while recommending appropriate action items relevant to achieving equity in representation in our field.

The Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS), a measure developed to evaluate an individual’s level of career adaptability, was initially validated as consisting of four factors (concern, control, curiosity, and confidence). The following study explores the structural validity of the CAAS when a fifth factor, cooperation, is included. Beyond examining the structural validity, we additionally conducted a cross-cultural validation of the five-factor model across American, Chinese, and Taiwanese samples. Our cross-cultural comparisons provided some support for the factorial equivalence of the five-factor Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS-5) in terms of the configural model. However, the results for the scalar model gave some indication of nonequivalence. Follow-up analyses showed that all items functioned similarly across groups, suggesting that small deviations in item functioning may have resulted in nonequivalence when aggregated to the scale level. Given the conceptual importance of cooperation’s inclusion, we contend that future research on career adaptability should explore the CAAS-5 further.

No abstract

With an increasing overlap between the work and non‐work domain, more research is needed to understand the factors that relate to how individuals manage their boundaries across multiple roles (i.e., work roles, family roles). Using a sample of 498 individuals, we explored the relationships between personality, O*NET job characteristic variables, and boundary management styles. Results revealed that job responsibility and work structure related to cross‐role interruptions and work identity centrality. Further, conscientiousness was related to greater perceptions of boundary control, family identity centrality, and fewer interruptions of work, while neuroticism was related to fewer interruptions of non‐work. Finally, the present findings replicated four of six defined boundary management styles put forth in prior research. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Practitioner points Individuals may differ in how they enact boundaries between work and non‐work as related to their individual personality. The job in which one works may relate to the manner in which boundaries between work and non‐work are managed. Organizational efforts to help employees with boundary management may be improved if job context and employee individual differences are noted and accommodated.

PurposeThis work contributes to the literature on career adaptability by examining the criterion validity of the Cooperation dimension, supporting the inclusion of cooperation into the career adaptability construct and informing the nomological network of career adaptability (Nye et al., 2018; Savickas and Porfeli, 2012). The authors also evaluate the improvements in cross-cultural generalizability argued for by Nye et al. (2018) by conducting a criterion validity study of the CAAS including cooperation using a non-Western sample.Design/methodology/approachSurvey responses from a Chinese adult working sample (N = 208, 53.4% male) were analyzed via relative weights analysis, facilitating the comparison of the Cooperation dimension to other career adaptability dimensions and general adaptability.FindingsResults demonstrate the added value of the Cooperation dimension across several work outcomes (i.e. work engagement, career commitment, occupational well-being, occupational stress) and highlight Cooperation in predicting interpersonal outcomes (i.e. supervisor and coworker satisfaction).Originality/valueThe inclusion of Cooperation, a dimension originally conceptualized as a career adaptability factor but only recently subjected to additional psychometric evaluation, within the career adaptability paradigm should promote both predictive validity and cross-cultural generalizability.

PurposeAs COVID-19 cases rose in the US, so too did instances of discrimination against Asians. The current research seeks to understand and document discrimination toward Asians in the US specifically linked to the global pandemic (study 1). The authors test hypotheses based in social categorization and intergroup contact theories, demonstrating perceived pandemic blame is a mechanism for discrimination (study 2).Design/methodology/approachIn study 1, the authors survey Asians living in the US regarding experiences and perceptions of COVID-19-related discrimination. In study 2, a two-time point survey examined whether participant perceptions of pandemic blame toward China predict discriminatory behavior toward Asians.FindingsStudy 1 demonstrated that 22.5% of US-residing Asians report personally encountering pandemic-related discrimination. Study 2 indicated that COVID-19 blame attributions toward China predicted anticipated hiring bias and increased physical distancing of Asians at work, associated with higher levels of US identification.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings have theoretical implications for research on blame and stigmatization, as well as practical implications regarding bias mitigation.Originality/valueThe present studies advance understanding of event-based blame as a driver of prejudice and discrimination at work and suggest organizations attend to bias mitigation in conjunction with uncertainty reduction communications in challenging times.

Although workplace authenticity has gained interest by researchers and the popular press, the construct's conceptualization as enacting only positive effects as informed by self-verification theory may not represent the experiences of workers of marginalized identities. Acknowledging that individuals deciding to disclose a stigmatized identity at work face potential prejudice, we investigated whether the benefits of authentic expression on employees' organizational commitment and job involvement depend on psychological safety. Via a time-lagged survey of sexual-minority employees, we found evidence for a model explicating the conditional indirect effects of identity disclosure and authenticity on outcomes, as moderated by perceived workgroup psychological safety. Such findings theoretically challenge the literature's present assumption of authenticity's uniform benefits via exploration of important contextual boundary conditions. Practically, this research underscores the need for psychologically safe work environments, encouraging employers to maximize psychological safety where possible to see the full benefit of employees' workplace authenticity.