The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm
Diversity climate on turnover
intentions: a sequential mediating
effect of personal diversity value
and affective commitment
Joonghak Lee
Department of International Business and Strategy, Henley Business School,
University of Reading, Whiteknights Campus, Reading, UK
Diversity
climate and
turnover
intention
1397
Received 19 November 2019
Revised 20 February 2020
Accepted 27 July 2020
Steven Kim
Mathematics and Statistics Department, California State University Monterey Bay,
Seaside, California, USA, and
Youngsang Kim
Department of Management, SKK Business School, Sungkyunkwan University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Purpose – Research on diversity climate has shown that diversity climate as an employee’s perception of an
organization’s diversity-related practices or procedures has a positive impact on reducing turnover intentions.
However, we know little about which intervening mechanism explains the relationship between diversity
climate and employee’s turnover intentions. In this study, we suggest that individual employee’s perceived
diversity climate influences turnover intentions through personal diversity value and affective commitment.
Design/methodology/approach – With a sample of 901 employees in more than 50 companies affiliated in
South Korea, the authors test the hypothesized relationship, using structural equation modeling (SEM).
Findings – Our findings show that personal diversity value and affective commitment sequentially mediate
the relationship between perceived diversity climate and turnover intentions.
Research limitations/implications – This study can enhance the understanding about the mediating
mechanism linking the relationship between perceived diversity climate and turnover intentions and how
personal diversity value and affective commitment link the relationship.
Originality/value – The authors theorize and find that perceived diversity climate can influence personal
diversity value that results in employee commitment and turnover intentions.
Keywords Diversity climate, Personal diversity value, Affective commitment, Turnover intentions
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The modern workforce is more diverse and heterogeneous because of globalization, increasing
aging population and workforce mobility and migration. In this regard, managers have paid
attention to effectively manage diverse workforce and enacted policies or practices designed to
meet their diversity-related goals (Reichers and Schneider, 1990). Paralleling the increasing
interests in issues of diversity, scholars in diversity literature have examined the effect of
workforce diversity and agreed that effectively managing diversity workforce can contribute to
organizational performance through exploring diverse consumer markets, generating creative
approaches to problem solving and developing positive company images (Cox, 1994; Ely and
Thomas, 2001; Gilbert and Ivancevich, 2001; Robinson and Dechant, 1997).
Research on diversity has examined how workforce composition (diversity) or diversity
climate influences individual employee’s attitudes and behaviors and contributes to
organizational functioning. In particular, some studies have focused on the functional effect
of diversity climate, which is defined as group or unit members’ shared perceptions of diversity-
Personnel Review
Vol. 50 No. 5, 2021
pp. 1397-1408
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-11-2019-0636
PR
50,5
1398
related procedures, practices and policies (Kaplan et al., 2011; Mor Barak et al., 1998). At the
individual level research, research findings have shown that perceived diversity climate plays
an important role in improving job satisfaction, organizational commitment and psychological
safety and reducing turnover intentions and absenteeism (McKay et al., 2007; Buttner et al.,
2010; Singh et al., 2013). At unit level, scholars have found that units (e.g. groups, teams or firms)
with higher diversity climate have greater collective performance and customer satisfaction
(Gonzalez and DeNisi, 2009; McKay et al., 2011, 2009; Nishii, 2013; Reinwald et al., 2018).
Although diversity climate relates to positive outcomes at both individual and unit levels,
little research has examined the intervening mechanisms to explain why diversity climate leads
to the positive outcomes (McKay and Avery, 2015; Reinwald et al., 2018; Shore et al., 2011). In
this study, we focus on the individual level mechanisms to link the relationship between
perceived diversity climate and individual employee’s turnover intentions. Despite other
studies (e.g. Kaplan et al., 2011; McKay et al., 2007; Nishii, 2013; Singh et al., 2013) have
introduced some mediating processes such as organizational commitment, satisfaction,
psychological safety or calculative attachment, little work in diversity climate literature has
addressed other mediating mechanism to explain the impact of perceived diversity climate on
turnover intentions. In particular, we suggest that affective commitment and personal diversity
value, defined as “individuals’ views and prejudices toward people who are different from
themselves that can affect attitudes and behaviors toward others in the organization” (Mor
Barak et al., 1998, p. 85), can simultaneously explain the mediating processes. The personal
diversity value is distinguished from organizational dimension of diversity climate perception,
defined as “management’s policies and procedures specifically affecting minorities and women,
such as discrimination or preferential treatment in hiring and promotion procedures” (Mor
Barak et al., 1998, p. 85). We argue that individuals first perceive whether their organizations
develop policies and procedures that support workforce diversity and respect minorities, and
then such organizational diversity climate perception allows employees to shape personal
diversity value at workplace, which may influence individual attitudes and behaviors.
The aim of this study was to understand the mediating roles of personal diversity value
and affective commitment for the relationship between perceived diversity climate and
turnover intentions. In particular, the following three hypotheses were tested: (1) diversity
climate perception is negatively associated with the turnover intention, (2) affective
commitment partially mediates the relationship between diversity climate perception and
turnover intentions and (3) personal diversity value and affective commitment sequentially
mediate the relationship between diversity climate perception and turnover intentions. Using
a sample of 901 employees in a large company of South Korea and structural equation
modeling (SEM), our results support the theoretical mechanisms that perceived diversity
climate directly reduces turnover intentions and indirectly causes turnover intentions
through personal diversity value and affective commitment. Hence, our study contributes to
diversity climate literature through broadening the theoretical lens for understanding the
sequential mechanism for the relationship between perceived diversity climate and turnover
work-related outcomes (Kaplan et al., 2011; McKay et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2013).
Literature review and hypotheses development
Relationship between diversity climate perception and turnover intentions
People may be attracted to an organization with employees that they have similar attributes
or values, and then employees who do not fit to the organization tend to leave (Mobley, 1982).
This tendency will make the organization a more homogeneous group (Schneider, 1987).
According to social identity theory, people sort themselves based on salient characteristics
such as age, gender or race, and they act in concert with their salient identities (Ashforth and
Mael, 1989; Hogg and Terry, 2000). Demographic misfit was found to influence turnover
(Tsui et al., 1992), and this finding indirectly suggests the importance of diversity climate on
employee turnover. When people perceive an unfavorable climate, they may perceive that the
organization does not value their contributions, which lead to increasing turnover intentions
(Buttner and Lowe, 2017). Some policies, such as affirmative action, balance the proportions
by including more disadvantaged or underrepresented groups, but this forceful balance may
bring in adverse effects.
A politically created diversity is not sufficient, and an organization should embrace
diverse employees for retention through organizational commitment. No matter how the
organization fosters diversity, the organizational commitment can be effective when it is
positively perceived. McKay et al. (2007) provided evidence for a negative relationship
between the perception of diversity climate and turnover intention in multiple race groups in
the United States. Also, perceived diversity climate may play in other important outcomes
such as employee retention (Manoharan and Singal, 2017). Thus, we hypothesize that the
perception of diversity climate is negatively related to turnover intention.
H1. Diversity climate perception is negatively related to turnover intentions.
The mediating effect of affective commitment
Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) provides foundational framework for explaining the
relationship between diversity climate and individual-level variables such as turnover
intention and organizational commitment. Employees share perceptions and behavioral
expectations based on organizational policies and procedures, and it generates the
organizational climate (Bowen and Ostroff, 2004). In particular, integration of
underrepresented employees with fair policies can have positive effects on employees’
perceptions of diversity climate (Mor Barak et al., 1998). An equal opportunity for success is
considered as pro-diversity, and in such a positive environment, employees feel that they are
integral members of the organization (Ely and Thomas, 2001; McKay et al., 2007), thus they
have high organizational commitment and low turnover intentions.
The relationship between organizational commitment and turnover intentions has been
established by past studies (Porter et al., 1976; Arnold and Feldman, 1982; Hollenbeck and
Williams, 1986). A recent meta-analysis on turnover also found that organizational
commitment strongly reduces voluntary turnover (Rubenstein et al., 2018). In particular,
McKay et al. (2007) provided empirical evidence that the organizational commitment can be
an intervening variable to link the relationship between diversity climate perception and
turnover intentions. There are three components of commitment according to Meyer
and Allen (1997), and they include affective, continuance and normative commitment. Allen
and Meyer (1996) point out that normative commitment and affective one have so high
correlations that these construct cannot be seen as distinguished one. Also, a study finds out
continuance commitment is not likely to be categorized into commitment construct since it
has meaning of what employees have no choice but to stay in their organizations (Ahn and
Lee, 2015). Accordingly, in this study, we focus on affective commitment, and we expect that
the affective commitment partially mediates the relationship between diversity climate
perception and turnover intentions.
H2. Affective commitment partially mediates the relationship between diversity climate
perception and turnover intentions.
Sequential mediating effects of personal diversity value and affective commitment
Diversity environment involves two dimensions, personal dimension and organizational
dimension, and they are correlated. The personal dimension or personal diversity value refers
to “individuals’ views and prejudices toward people who are different from themselves that
Diversity
climate and
turnover
intention
1399
PR
50,5
1400
can affect attitudes and behaviors toward others in the organization” (Mor Barak et al., 1998,
p. 85). A positive diversity climate helps individual employees feel that all of their diverse
characteristics are valued, that these characteristics do not hinder advancement and that
management actively promotes diversity (Kaplan et al., 2011). An individual’s belief about the
value of diversity is an important personal value that affects the way people perceive and
react to their work environment (Triana et al., 2012).
According to Mor Barak et al. (1998), personal diversity value involves an individual’s
views toward diversity at work that can affect attitudes and behaviors toward others in the
organization. Many researchers have studied on personal values (e.g. Hitlin and Piliavin,
2004; Rohan, 2000). The psychological processes that determine personal diversity value can
be influenced by the social context in which people operate (Roccas and Sagiv, 2010).
Therefore, diversity climate perception toward diversity-related policies and procedures can
be critical perception relating to organizational social context that may influence level of
personal diversity value; this, diversity climate perception may lead to more personal
diversity value.
Individuals with a high personal diversity value consider that having a diverse workforce
is important and have needs for developing an inclusive environment in an organization (Mor
Barak et al., 1998). It is expected that people who demonstrate high personal diversity value
will react more positively toward diversity climate in their organization and thus be willing to
be affectively committed to the organization. When people believe that there is a greater value
in diversity than in homogeneity, diversity might be associated with higher identification,
satisfaction or commitment (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007). In longitudinal studies of
postgraduate students, it was confirmed that a positive relationship between subjective
diversity climate and identification is stronger when team members hold beliefs that are prodiversity (Van Dick et al., 2008). Another study demonstrated that appreciation of diversity in
age is positively associated with job satisfaction (Wegge et al., 2011). Likewise, there seems to
be the relationship between value in diversity climate and attitudes toward organizations. By
combining the aforementioned studies, it seems reasonable that personal diversity value
results in group identification (sense of belonging to a particular social group), which
influence the development of affective commitment (which explains the tendency of
employee’s retention through an emotional attachment).
H3. Personal diversity value and affective commitment sequentially mediate the
relationship between diversity climate perception and turnover intentions.
Methods
Data collection and measurement
This study was conducted with a sample of employees in a Korean multinational corporation.
The company is a large business group in South Korea with retail, food, service, hotel,
chemical and other industries. It has expanded to 31 countries, and it consists of more than
50,000 local employees and 350 expatriates. A survey questionnaire was distributed into local
employees who were working in South Korea and via the internal mail system of the
company. Among 1,501 local employees, 901 completed the survey (60% response rate).
Thus, our final sample size included 901 employees.
The explanatory variable (diversity climate perception), the two mediating variables
(personal diversity value and affective commitment) and the response variable (turnover
intentions), as well as other control variables (i.e. age, gender and organizational tenure) were
measured in the survey. The diversity climate perception was operationalized, using 10 items
(organizational fairness and inclusion subscales) of the diversity perceptions scale adapted
from Mor Barak et al. (1998). The sample items are the following: (1) managers here have a
track record of hiring and promoting employees objectively, regardless of their race, sex,
religion or age and (2) managers here give feedback and evaluate employees fairly, regardless
of the employee’s ethnicity, gender, age or social background. The personal diversity value
was also measured by the personal dimension of diversity perception (three items) from Mor
Barak et al. (1998) and the sample items are (1) Knowing more about cultural norms of diverse
groups would help me be more effective in my job, (2) I think that diverse viewpoints add
value, (3) I believe diversity is a strategic business issue. The Cronbach’s alphas for diversity
climate perception and personal diversity value were 0.93 and 0.83, respectively. The
affective commitment was measured, using five items (affective commitment subscales) from
Allen and Meyer (1996), including the sample items such as (1) I really feel as if this
organization’s problems are my own and (2) This organization has a great deal of personal
meaning for me. The turnover intentions was measured by the survey items (four items)
developed by Porter et al. (1976), including the sample items such as (1) I often seriously
consider leaving my current job and (2) I intend to quit my current job. The Cronbach’s alphas
for affective commitment and turnover intentions were 0.93 and 0.85, respectively. All study
variables were measured based on a 6-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated strongly
disagreement and 6 indicated strongly agreement. We also measured control variables, such
as age (1 5 more than 25 yrs old and less than 30 yrs old; 2 5 more than 30 yrs old and less
than 35 yrs old; 3 5 more than 35 yrs old and less than 40 yrs old; 4 5 more than 40 yrs old
and less than 45 yrs old, 5 5 more than 45 yrs old and less than 50 yrs old; 6 5 more than 50
yrs old, gender (1 5 female employees; 0 5 male employees), and organizational tenure
(1 5 less than 3 yrs; 2 5 more than 3 yrs and less than 6 yrs; 3 5 more than 6 yrs and less than
9 yrs; 4 5 more than 9 yrs and less than 12 yrs; 5 5 more than 12 yrs).
Our study used data from single source, which may raise the issue of common method
bias. To reduce the concern for common method bias, we conducted confirmatory factor
analysis to compare the model fit of one- and four-factor models based on Podsakoff et al.
(2003) recommendation. The four-factor model showed better model fit (χ 2 5 1,213.67,
df 5 203, p < 0.05, CFI 5 0.93, RMSEA 5 0.07, SRMR 5 0.05) than the one-factor model
(χ 2 5 5,152.59, df 5 209, p < 0.05, CFI 5 0.66, RMSEA 5 0.16, SRMR 5 0.10); and thus these
results can reduce the concerns for common method bias.
Analytics procedure
To test our hypothesized model, we used SEM based on Mplus 8 (Muthen and Muthen, 1998–
2017). More specifically, we created the latent variables from multiple survey items, and we
specified the path relationships between diversity climate perceptions, personal diversity
value, affective commitment and turnover intentions. We also specified the relationships
between our study variables and control variables (i.e. age, gender and organizational tenure).
To check whether our specified model has good model fit, we used comparative fit index (CFI),
the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square
residual (SRMR) based on Hu and Bentler’s (1999) suggestions: the cutoff of CFI is 0.90 or
over, RMSEA and SRMR are 0.08 or less. Finally, bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals
(CIs) were computed for testing the indirect effects between diversity climate perception and
turnover intentions based on 5,000 bootstrap samples.
Results
The descriptive statistics and correlations are reported in Table 1. According to the observed
correlations, an older employee with longer tenure tended to show higher diversity climate
perception, higher personal diversity value, higher affective commitment and lower turnover
intention. Interestingly, female employees have lower perceived diversity climate, personal
diversity value, affective commitment but higher turnover intentions. In addition, as we
Diversity
climate and
turnover
intention
1401
PR
50,5
1402
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics
and correlations
Variables
Mean
SD
1. Age
4.11
0.39
2. Gendera
3. Organizational
4.17
tenure
4. Diversity climate
4.19
perception
5. Personal diversity
4.94
value
6. Affective
4.87
commitment
7. Turnover intentions
2.48
Note(s): N 5 901 employees. a1
reliability of each study variable
*p < 0.05
1
2
3
4
5
6
1.25
0.49
1.89
–
0.68*
0.50*
–
0.54*
0.88
0.26*
0.35*
0.26*
(0.93)
0.72
0.18*
0.19*
0.15*
0.45*
(0.83)
0.79
0.47*
0.45*
0.37*
0.61*
0.52*
7
–
(0.93)
1.09
0.30*
0.23*
0.16*
0.49*
0.26*
0.48* (0.85)
5 female employees, 0 5 male employees; The parenthesis indicates a
expected, diversity climate perception, personal diversity value and affective commitment
were negatively correlated with turnover intentions.
The model fit from the SEM model was plausible (χ 2 5 1,358.82, df 5 258, p < 0.05,
CFI 5 0.93, RMSEA 5 0.07, SRMR 5 0.05). Hypothesis 1 (diversity climate perception is
negatively related to turnover intentions) was strongly supported by the data. As shown in
Figure 1 and Table 2 (showing the specific path coefficients among the study and control
variables), the relationship between diversity climate perception and turnover intentions was
shown to be negative and significant (ß 5 0.37, p < 0.05).
Hypothesis 2 (affective commitment mediates the relationship between diversity climate
perception and turnover intentions) was strongly supported by our results as demonstrated
in Table 2 and Figure 1. We found that diversity climate perception is positively and
significantly related to affective commitment (ß 5 0.40, p < 0.05) and the relationship between
affective commitment and turnover intention is negative and significant (ß 5 0.25, p < 0.05).
The bootstrapping results in Table 3 also confirmed that the indirect effect via affective
commitment is significant based upon a bias-corrected bootstrapping test (5,000 bootstraps;
indirect effect 5 0.13, 95% CI [ 0.20, 0.08]), thus supporting Hypothesis 2.
Finally, Hypothesis 3 (personal diversity value and affective commitment sequentially
mediate the relationship between diversity climate perception and turnover intentions) was
supported by the results. The findings showed that diversity climate perception is positively
and significantly related to personal diversity value (ß 5 0.46, p < 0.05) and the relationship
between personal diversity value and affective commitment is also positive and significant
(ß 5 0.30, p < 0.05). We further confirmed that the indirect effect via personal diversity value
and affective commitment is also significant (indirect effect 5 0.05, 95% CI [ 0.07, 0.03]).
– 0.37*
Diversity Climate
Perception
(R 2 = 0.15)
Figure 1.
Standardized path
relationships
0 .46*
Personal Diversity
Value
(R 2 = 0.23)
0.30*
Affective
Commitment
(R 2 = 0.59)
– 0.25*
Turnover Intentions
(R 2 = 0.35)
0.40*
Note(s): Model fit: Chi-square = 1,358.82 (df = 258; p < 0.05), CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.07,
SRMR = 0.05. Due to the complexity, the paths with controls are excluded. *p < 0.05
Path coefficients
Estimate
SE
Diversity climate perception → Personal diversity value
0.46*
0.03
Diversity climate perception → Affective commitment
0.40*
0.03
Diversity climate perception → Turnover intentions
0.37*
0.04
Personal diversity value → Affective commitment
0.30*
0.03
Affective commitment → Turnover intentions
0.25*
0.05
Age → Diversity climate perception
0.01
0.05
Gender → Diversity climate perception
0.33*
0.04
Organizational tenure → Diversity climate perception
0.07
0.04
Age → Personal diversity value
0.08
0.05
Gender → Personal diversity value
0.04
0.05
Organizational tenure → Personal diversity value
0.01
0.04
Age → Affective commitment
0.24*
0.03
Gender → Affective commitment
0.02
0.04
Organizational tenure → Affective commitment
0.10*
0.03
Age → Turnover intentions
0.19*
0.04
Gender → Turnover intentions
0.11*
0.04
Organizational tenure → Turnover intentions
0.03
04
Age ↔ Gender
0.68*
0.02
Age ↔ Organizational tenure
0.50*
0.03
Gender ↔ Organizational tenure
0.54*
0.02
Note(s): H 5 Hypothesis; SE 5 Standard error; H 5 hypothesis; The standardized path coefficients are
reported
*p < 0.05
Mediation paths
Diversity
climate and
turnover
intention
1403
Table 2.
Structural equation
modeling results for
the mediation model
Bootstrapping
Indirect effect
95% Confidence
(unstandardized)
interval
Indirect paths
Hypothesis 2
Diversity climate perception → Affective
0.13
[ 0.20, 0.08]
commitment → Turnover intentions
Hypothesis 3
Diversity climate perception → Personal diversity
0.05
[ 0.07, 0.03]
Table 3.
value → Affective commitment → Turnover intentions
Bootstrapping tests for
Note(s): Results are based on 5,000 bootstraps. We checked the significance of indirect effect based on biasmediating
corrected bootstrapping
relationships
In summary, after controlling for individual employee’s attributes such as age, gender and
organizational tenure, personal diversity value and affective commitment partially and
sequentially mediate the relationship between perceived diversity climate and turnover
intentions.
Discussion
This study investigates the mediating mechanism of the relationship between perceived
diversity climate and turnover intentions. Our results showed that individual employees with
higher perception of diversity climate have lower turnover intentions, and the relationship is
linked through personal diversity value and affective commitment. Building upon existing
work on diversity climate, we first prove the mediating role of personal diversity value.
PR
50,5
1404
Second, we link personal diversity value to affective commitment from diversity climate
perceptions, which has the sequential effect. In sum, our findings provide several theoretical
and practical implications.
Theoretical contributions
Our study provides important theoretical implications to research on diversity climate. First,
we confirmed that perceived diversity climate significantly predicts employee retention,
suggesting that employees who have higher diversity climate perception are less likely to
reduce their turnover intentions and thus minimize actual turnover behaviors. In particular,
consistent with the findings from McKay et al. (2007), our results showed that the relationship
between perceived diversity climate and turnover intentions is still significant when
controlling for affective commitment and personal diversity value, suggesting that
enhancing diversity climate perception of employees can play an important role in
employee retention. Future research further needs to explore how perceived diversity climate
relates other types of work-related attitudes and behaviors.
Second, the diversity climate studies have examined how perceived diversity climate
influences individual attitudes and behaviors, but little research has been paid attention to
the specific mechanisms to clearly explain the relationship between perceived diversity
climate and work-related attitudes and behaviors (Madera et al., 2017; McKay and Avery,
2015; Shore et al., 2011). In other words, most prior studies have focused on articulating the
direct effect on employee attitudes, behavior and performance (Dwertmann et al., 2016). Of
course, some studies examined the mediating process such as organizational commitment,
satisfaction, psychological safety or calculative attachment (e.g. Kaplan et al., 2011; McKay
et al., 2007; Nishii, 2013; Singh et al., 2013), but understanding the mediating process of
personal diversity value for the relationship between perceived diversity climate and
turnover intentions is lacking. Along with the results of studies (Dwertmann et al., 2016;
McKay and Avery, 2015), our results suggest that personal diversity value and affective
commitment sequentially mediate the relationship between perceived diversity climate and
turnover intentions. However, we still found the partial mediation model that the perceived
diversity climate is still significantly related to turnover intentions when including the two
mediators, suggesting that there may potential third factors that intervene the relationship
between the perceived diversity climate and turnover intentions. Future research needs to
explore different types of mechanisms regarding why diversity climate perception relates to
other work-related attitudes and behaviors.
Practical implications
The findings of this study have practical significance. First, this research aims to enrich
manager’s understanding of the impact of diversity climate on the employee retention. The
development of diversity climate is an important consideration for organizations wishing to
capitalize on the positive effects of diversity (Herdman and McMillan-Capehart, 2010). For
instance, a variety of diversity programs have positive effects on recruitment, promotion and
retention of talented employees. In particular, such programs attract and retain minority
employees (Cox, 1994). Our empirical evidence further supported that developing diversity
climate perceptions of employees can have a functional impact on employee retention by
reducing their turnover intentions. Hence, managers can critically consider how to develop
human resource (HR) policies, practices or programs for effectively supporting diversity
climate that ultimately influence employee retention.
Second, this study further reveals the strong relationship between diversity climate and
personal diversity value and the strong potential causal path to the affective commitment. In
this sense, organizations should take care of employee’s personal value by providing a
positive diversity climate which can be perceived by the employee. Our results supported that
such efforts may enhance both commitment and retention.
Limitations and future directions
Despite the contributions discussed above, this article has limitations mainly due to the data
collection from a single organization. First, it is possible that common-method variance
introduces some bias when we estimate the relationships among the variables (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). Although the use of CFA may reduce the concern for the common method bias
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), future research needs to use the time-lag design to reduce this concern.
Second, we test our hypotheses, using the sample of employees from South Korea, and thus
we may not confidently generalize our results. To generalize our findings, future studies need
to replicate our model, using different samples from different countries.
Conclusions
Diversity management is inevitable for creating positive work environments and for
reducing risk of employee’s turnover. Based on our results, we conclude that the diversity
climate perception significantly reduces turnover intentions not only directly but also
indirectly through personal diversity value and affective commitment. The direction of
associations seems all positive among the diversity climate perception, personal diversity
value and affective commitment which practically means positive employees’ attitudes can
be attained by developing and managing the diversity climate. We contend that these
findings will advance diversity climate research and will provide the (sequential) insights
from the diversity management practice to the turnover intentions of employees.
References
Ahn, J.W. and Lee, S.M. (2015), “Evaluation of the three-component model of organizational
commitment in South Korea: exploratory structural equation modeling(ESEM) approach”, The
Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 795-827.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of construct validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49,
pp. 252-276.
Arnold, H.J. and Feldman, D.C. (1982), “A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job turnover”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 350-360.
Ashforth, B. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.
Blau, P. (1964), “Justice in social exchange”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 34, pp. 193-206.
Bowen, D.E. and Ostroff, C. (2004), “Understanding HRM firm performance linkages: the role of the
strength of the HRM system”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29, pp. 203-221.
Buttner, E. and Lowe, K. (2017), “Addressing internal stakeholders’ concerns: the interactive effect of
perceived pay equity and diversity climate on turnover intentions”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 143, pp. 621-633.
Buttner, E.H., Lowe, K.B. and Billings-Harris, L. (2010), “Diversity climate impact on employee of color
outcomes: does justice matter?”, Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 239-258.
Cox, T. Jr (1994), Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice, Berrett-Koehler,
San Francisco.
Dwertmann, D.J.G., Nishii, L.H. and Van Knippenberg, D. (2016), “Disentangling the fairness and
discrimination and synergy perspectives on diversity climate: time to move the field forward”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1136-1168.
Diversity
climate and
turnover
intention
1405
PR
50,5
1406
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, Vol. 46, pp. 229-273.
Gilbert, J.A. and Ivancevich, J.M. (2001), “Effects of diversity management on attachment”, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1331-1349.
Gonzalez, J.A. and DeNisi, A.S. (2009), “Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on
organizational attachment and firm effectiveness”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 1-40.
Herdman, A.O. and McMillan-Capehart, A. (2010), “Establishing a diversity program is not enough:
exploring the determinants of diversity climate”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25,
pp. 39-53.
Hitlin, S. and Piliavin, J.A. (2004), “Values: reviving a dormant concept”, Annual Review of Sociology,
Vol. 30, pp. 359-393.
Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), “Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational
contexts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp. 121-140.
Hollenbeck, J.R. and Williams, C.R. (1986), “Turnover functionality vs turnover frequency: a note on work
attitudes and organizational effectiveness”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 606-611.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria vs new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6, pp. 1-55.
Kaplan, D.M., Wiley, J.W. and Maertz, C.P. (2011), “The role of calculative attachment in the
relationship between diversity climate and retention”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 50,
pp. 271-287.
Madera, J.M., Dawson, M. and Neal, J.A. (2017), “Managers’ psychological diversity climate and
fairness: the utility and importance of diversity management in the hospitality industry”,
Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 288-307.
Manoharan, A. and Singal, M. (2017), “A systematic literature review of research on diversity and
diversity management in the hospitality literature”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 66, pp. 77-91.
McKay, P.F. and Avery, D.R. (2015), “Diversity climate in organizations: current wisdom and domains
of uncertainty”, in Buckley, M.R., Wheeler, A.R. and Halbesleben, J.R.B. (Eds), Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, Emerald Group, Bingley, pp. 191-233.
McKay, P.F., Avery, D.R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M.A., Hernandez, M. and Hebl, M.R. (2007), “Racial
differences in employee retention: are diversity climate perceptions the key?”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 35-62.
McKay, P.F., Avery, D.R., Liao, H. and Morris, M.A. (2011), “Does diversity climate lead to customer
satisfaction? It depends on the service climate and business unit demography”, Organization
Science, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 788-803.
McKay, P.F., Avery, D.R. and Morris, M.A. (2009), “A table of two climates: diversity climate from
subordinates’ and managers’ perspectives and their role in store unit sales performance”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 767-791.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mobley, W.H. (1982), “Some unanswered questions in turnover and withdrawal research”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 111-116.
Mor Barak, M.E., Cherin, D.A. and Berkman, S. (1998), “Organizational and personal dimensions of
diversity climate: ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions”, Journal of Applied
Behavior Science, Vol. 31, pp. 82-104.
Muthen, L.K. and Muthen, B.O. (1998-2017), Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed., Muthen and Muthen,
Los Angeles, CA.
Nishii, L.H. (2013), “The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1754-1774.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Porter, L.W., Crampon, W.J. and Smith, F.J. (1976), “Organizational commitment and managerial
turnover”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 15, pp. 87-98.
Reichers, A.E. and Schneider, B. (1990), “Climate and culture: an evolution of constructs”, in Schneider,
B. (Ed.), Organizational Climate and Culture, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 5-39.
Reinwald, M., Huettermann, H. and Bruch, H. (2018), “More than the average: examining variability in
employee perceptions of diversity climate”, Academy of Management Proceedings.
Robinson, G. and Dechant, K. (1997), “Building a business case for diversity”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 11, pp. 21-31.
Roccas, S. and Sagiv, L. (2010), “Personal values and behavior: taking the cultural context into
account”, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 4, pp. 30-41.
Rohan, M.J. (2000), “A rose by any name? The values construct”, Personality and Social Psychology
Review, Vol. 4, pp. 255-277.
Rubenstein, A.L., Eberly, M.B., Lee, T.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (2018), “Surveying the forest: a metaanalysis, moderator investigation, and future-oriented discussion of the antecedents of
voluntary employee turnover”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 23-65.
Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-453.
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H. and Singh, G. (2011), “Inclusion and
diversity in work groups: a review and model for future research”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1262-1289.
Singh, B., Winkel, D.E. and Selvarajan, T.T. (2013), “Managing diversity at work: does psychological
safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance?”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 242-263.
Triana, M., Wagstaff, M. and Kim, K. (2012), “That’s not fair! How personal value for diversity
influences reactions to the perceived discriminatory treatment of minorities”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 111, pp. 211-218.
Tsui, A., Egan, T. and O’Reilly, C. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and organizational
attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 549-579.
Van Dick, R., Van Knippenberg, D., H€agele, S., Guillaume, Y.R.F. and Brodbeck, F. (2008), “Group
diversity and group identification: the moderating role of diversity beliefs”, Human Relations,
Vol. 61, pp. 1463-1492.
Van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S.A. and Platow, M.J. (2007), “Unity through diversity: value-indiversity beliefs as moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and group
identification”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 11, pp. 207-222.
Wegge, J., Schmidt, K.H., Liebermann, S. and Van Knippenberg, D. (2011), “Jung und alt in einem
Team? Altersgemischte Teamarbeit erfordert Wertsch€atzung von Altersdiversit€at (Young and
old in one team? Age diverse teamwork requires appreciation of age diversity)”, in Gelleri, P.
and Winter, C. (Eds), Personal Psychologische Diagnostik als Beitrag zu Berufs- und
Unternehmenserfolg, Hogrefe, G€ottingen, pp. 35-46.
Further reading
Chung, Y., Liao, H., Jackson, S.E., Subramony, M., Colakoglu, S. and Jiang, Y. (2015), “Cracking but not
breaking: join effects of faultline strength and diversity climate on loyal behavior”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 58, pp. 1495-1515.
Diversity
climate and
turnover
intention
1407
PR
50,5
Downey, S.N., Werff, L., Thomas, K.M. and Plaut, V.C. (2015), “The role of diversity practices and
inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Vol. 45, pp. 35-44.
Ibarra, H. (1992), “Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access
in an advertising firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 422-447.
1408
Corresponding author
Steven Kim can be contacted at: stkim@csumb.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.