Hearts and minds

Abstract

We develop a theoretical framework to explain why individuals respond differently to dissimilarity from their coworkers. We draw on regulatory focus theory to explore how chronic regulatory motivations cause individuals to view dissimilarity in terms of potential gains or losses. We use this argument to explain the mixed findings in previous research. We also use regulatory focus theory to predict individuals' cognitive and affective responses to dissimilarity, and consequently to outcomes like relationships with coworkers, altruism, conflict in workgroups, and withdrawal from the workgroup. Finally we use regulatory focus theory to explore how situational features like the diversity climate of the organization and whether the focal individual is a token in the workgroup shape their responses to dissimilarity by triggering different regulatory motivations. Taken together our motivational model of relational demography provides an overarching framework for understanding how attributes of the individual and the situation predict how they will respond.

Being different at work: How gender dissimilarity relates to social inclusion and absenteeism

“…As already hinted at earlier, previous research is inconsistent as to whether dissimilarity effects are stronger for men than for women (cf. Chattopadhyay et al, 2015). Interestingly, both the prediction that men are more affected by dissimilarity than women and the opposite prediction that women are more affected by being dissimilar than men depart from the same assumption: men are a higher status group than women.…”

“…The last question we address is whether our hypothesized relationships are different for men and women. Previous research on this matter appears to be quite inconsistent (Chattopadhyay et al, 2015). Some research showed that dissimilarity effects may be stronger for women than for men (e.g., Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009), but there is also evidence that being dissimilar is more consequential for men than for women (e.g., Tsui et al, 1992).…”

“…Following this perspective, in the present research, we focus on the group’s climate for gender diversity as a potential contingency factor of the dissimilarity–outcomes relationship (cf. Chattopadhyay et al, 2015; Gonzalez & Denisi, 2009). We define diversity climate as the degree to which individuals perceive the group to be open towards and appreciative of differences between men and women (Harquail & Cox, 1993).…”

“…The question how gender dissimilarity affects employees has received growing attention from scholars, which can be explained by the increasing number of women in the labor market (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012; Chattopadhyay, George, & Ng, 2015). Yet, although currently a popular topic of study, there are at least three important ways in which gender dissimilarity research can and needs to be extended.…”

Do Temporary Workers Always Lower Workgroup Effectiveness? The Moderating Effect of Job Similarity in Blended Workgroups

“…For example, some research suggests that temporary workers can exhibit out-group favoritism towards permanent workers when the lower status of temporary workers is legitimate and stable and the boundaries of the high-status permanent group are permeable (von Hippel, 2006). However, others suggest that as a group of lower status, temporary workers may be less likely to help higher status groups, partly because they doubt that they have the competence and are afraid that their help will not be appreciated (Chattopadhyay, George & Ng, 2016), or in reciprocation of the lack of altruism offered by permanent workers towards them (Gouldner, 1960). In addition, social identity studies suggest that majority groups generally discriminate against minority groups (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991).…”