Whereas the majority of research on board diversity explores the direct relationship between racial and gender diversity and firm performance, this paper investigates mediators that explain how board diversity is related to firm performance. Grounded in signalling theory and the behavioural theory of the firm, we suggest that this relationship operates through two mediators: firm reputation and innovation. In a sample of Fortune 500 firms, we find a positive relationship between board racial diversity and both firm reputation and innovation. We find that reputation and innovation both partially mediate the relationship between board racial diversity and firm performance. In addition, we find a positive relationship between board gender diversity and innovation.j oms_839 755..786

No abstract

Summary We combine the interactional model of cultural diversity (IMCD) and relative deprivation theory to examine employee outcomes of perceived workplace racial discrimination. Using 79 effect sizes from published and unpublished studies, we meta‐analyze the relationships between perceived racial discrimination and several important employee outcomes that have potential implications for organizational performance. In response to calls to examine the context surrounding discrimination, we test whether the severity of these outcomes depends on changes to employment law that reflect increasing societal concern for equality and on the characteristics of those sampled. Perceived racial discrimination was negatively related to job attitudes, physical health, psychological health, organizational citizenship behavior, and perceived diversity climate and positively related to coping behavior. The effect of perceived racial discrimination on job attitudes was stronger in studies published after the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was passed than before. Results provide some evidence that effect sizes were stronger the more women and minorities were in the samples, indicating that these groups are more likely to perceive discrimination and/or respond more strongly to perceived discrimination. Our findings extend the IMCD and relative deprivation theory to consider how contextual factors including changes to employment law influence employee outcomes of perceived workplace discrimination. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Diverse boards have been seen as providing impetus for initiating change. However, diversity may introduce conflict and impede decision making, which could hinder the ability of the firm to make strategic change, especially in times when firm performance is low. Integrating threat-rigidity theory and team diversity research, we examine how board gender diversity, firm performance, and the power of women directors interact to influence the amount of strategic change. Results support a three-way interaction, indicating that when the board is not experiencing a threat as a result of low firm performance and women directors have greater power, the relationship between board gender diversity and amount of strategic change is the most positive. However, when the board is threatened by low firm performance and women directors have greater power, the relationship between board gender diversity and amount of strategic change is the most negative. Results suggest that diversity is double-edged because it can propel or impede strategic change depending on firm performance and the power of women directors.

The authors examined one manner in which to decrease the negative impact of social dominance orientation (SDO), an individual difference variable that indicates support for the "domination of 'inferior' groups by 'superior' groups" (J. Sidanius & F. Pratto, 1999, p. 48), on the selection of candidates from low-status groups within society. Consistent with the tenets of social dominance theory, in 2 studies we found that those high in SDO reported that they were less likely to select a potential team member who is a member of a low-status group (i.e., a White female in Study 1 and a Black male in Study 2) than those low in SDO. However, explicit directives from an authority moderated this effect such that those high in SDO were more likely to select both candidates when authority figures clearly communicated that job performance indicators should be used when choosing team members. Thus, our studies suggest that the negative effects of SDO may be attenuated if those high in SDO are instructed by superiors to use legitimate performance criteria to evaluate job candidates.