Lecture 3 Flashcards
Top down processes for change in an organization
HR systems & policies
HR policy domains
- Recruitment & Employer branding
- Assessment & Selection
- Training & Development
- Reward system
The most research is available on the first domain and the least on the last.
Recruitment
Organizational practices and decisions that affect either the number, or types of individuals that are willing to apply for a job.
Employer branding
The promotion – both internally and externally – of a clear, distinctive, and attractive image of the organization as an employer.
- Organization image is a key predictor of applicant attraction.
- One of the most direct and sustainable ways to attain competitive advantage is to create and leverage differences in human capital.
What are the five questions on building diverse and inclusive organizations?
- Why to recruit for diversity?
- Who should recruit?
- Where to recruit?
- When to recruit?
- What messages to convey?
Why? Motivations to recruit for diversity?
The “legal” case
- Legislation prohibiting discrimination.
- Avoid litigation and discrimination claims.
The “moral” case
- Moral value and fairness principles “we believe it is the right thing to do”.
- Everyone has equal rights & opportunities.
The “business” case
- To reach broader (consumer) markets.
- To attract more human capital/fill vacancies.
o E.g., if there is a shortage in general you want to reach new populations.
The “innovation & learning” case
- Diversity as a source of diverse perspectives, ideas, knowledge.
- Instigates creativity, change & organizational effectiveness.
Who? Should recruit for diversity?
Recruiters and interviewers strongly influence applicants’ first impressions of a company:
- Recruiters/ interviewers are seen as representatives of organizations.
- Job applicants infer attributes of organizational values/ culture on the basis of first impressions (artifacts).
- Non-verbal cues matter.
Recruitment demographics matter (some)
- Male applicants interviewed by male recruiters were more attracted to the firm than female applicants.
- Applicants from a racio-ethnic minority group are more attracted to and likely to work for a company when recruited by someone from a racio-ethnic minority background (does not need to be identical).
Where? Places to recruit for diversity
Formal
- Websites
- Employment agencies
- Job fairs (college recruitment)
- Newspapers/ professional journals/ conferences
Strategic placement of recruitment ads to targeted media/locations is important for diversity staffing (beyond mainstream).
Informal
- Employee referrals
- Referrals by friends/ family
- Personal contacts
- Social networks
True or false: quality of recruitment via formal sources is considered superior.
False.
Quality of recruitment via informal sources is considered superior.
BUT: can have detrimental effects for diversity staffing and inclusion. The informal route can help when you are already a very diverse company.
When is it better to recruit via formal ways?
To target specific minority audiences.
Sociological research in US
Evidence that targeted (college) recruitment works.
They looked at recruitment at colleges at a job fair. If companies target a specific group, the management position 5 years later will have more people from this specific group.
Thus, how you recruit might attract people that are interested in these values.
When? In what times do organizations recruit for diversity?
When does diversity staffing become a priority for companies?
- Labor market shortages: The more challenging it is for an organization to find, recruit and select personnel, the more likely they are to employ higher proportions of members of minority groups.
- But: this also communicates that diversity staffing is a ‘last resort’ when unable to meet labour needs via traditional means of recruitment.
- It is a good strategy but it needs to back up the values of the company as well.
When may it be counterproductive to recruit for diversity?
- When the demographic composition of its available labour pool is exhausted.
- BUT: also used as an excuse. For example in high-tech: “We try to recruit for women but they are just not there.”
What? Tactics to convey diverse & inclusive recruitment
Assertive tactics
Defensive tactics
Assertive tactics
- Ingratiation
- Promotion
- Exemplification
- Supplication
Proactive, wanting to showcase your values.
Assertive tactics: ingratiation
Psychological technique in which an individual attempts to influence another person by becoming more likeable to them.
Strategic behaviours designed to increase an organization’s positive image and attractiveness specifically to attract minority audiences who hold desired rewards.
Aim: signalling congruence in values to convince a minority group that the organization is likable/inclusive.
Ads can work quite well.
E.g.,
- Targeted ads
- Pictorial diversity in ads
- Minority networks
- Mentoring programs
- Talent development programs
- Testimonials/ inclusivity statements
- Work-life balance offers
Assertive tactics: promotion
Organizations that have received recognition for successful management of diversity promote these facts in their advertisement.
E.g.,
- Diversity awards / charters
- Publishing improved minority leadership representation
- Highlighting successful mentoring programs
Assertive tactics: exemplification
Organizational attempts to portray themselves favourably by performing acts of Corporate Social Responsibility.
This is quite common in for example lotteries.
Aim: To project integrity and moral worthiness resulting from diversity-related accomplishments
E.g.,
- Sponsoring
- Donation to charities
- Voluntary action
- Philanthropy programs
Assertive tactics: supplication
Often, companies find themselves in a situation where portraying as a diverse/inclusive organization is not realistic/credible, because they are demographically homogeneous .
Instead of misrepresenting themselves, admitting that they need help, and need minority members to apply to become diverse is the only way.
- Communication of dependency
- Aspirational messages
Which examples belong with which tactic?
- highlighting succesful mentoring programs
- philantrophy programs
- talent development programs
- voluntary action
- testimonials / inclusivity statements
- diversity awards / charters
- mentoring programs
- sponsoring
- targeted ads
- publishing improved minority leadership representation
- minority networks
- donation to charities
- work-life balance offers
- pictorial diversity in ads
Promotion:
- Diversity awards / charters
- Publishing improved minority leadership representation
- Highlighting successful mentoring programs
Exemplification:
- Sponsoring
- Donation to charities
- Voluntary action
- Philanthropy programs
Ingratiation:
- Targeted ads
- Pictorial diversity in ads
- Minority networks
- Mentoring programs
- Talent development programs
- Testimonials/ inclusivity statements
- Work-life balance offers
Defensive tactics
- Disclaimers
- Apologies
- Prosocial behaviour
A reactive response in order to rectify / restore / improve an organization’s negative diversity image in relation to potentially damaging events / wrongdoing in the past.
Aim: to re-establish a favourable diversity and inclusion image
Defensive tactics: disclaimers
While we want to be diverse, this is not yet reflected in the organizations’ workplace reality yet.
Defensive tactics: apologies & pro-social behaviours
Reaction to something bad that has happened. Restore image after a lost discrimination lawsuit.
A promise to do better in response to ill-handling of discrimination/harassment case.
Which tactics are the most popular and which are the least popular?
Ingratiation tactics are by far the most popular.
Assertive tactics are overal more popular than defensive tactics. With ingratiation tactics being the most popular and exemplification being the least popular by far.
Defensive tactics overall are less popular overall. With acknowledgment being the most popular.
Promotion, supplication and acknowledgment are equally popular.
When you should use what kind of tactic to improve the corporate employment image depends on?
- diversity reputation
- attributions
- identity salience of different minority groups
Diversity reputation
How well is the organization doing with regards to its D&I management?
Alignment is key:
- Poor reputation? Defensive tactics are more appropriate
- Favourable reputation? Assertive tactics are more fitting
Diversity reputation is a moderator.
Attribution
What are the organization’s underlying motivations for diversity tactics.
Alignment is key:
- When the motive is to avoid litigation (external; legal case) defensive tactics may be better.
- When the motive is to reap the benefits of diversity (internal, innovation and learning) proactive and genuine diversity strategies (assertive tactics) may be better.
Identity salience
How important / salient / threatened is minority identity in the organizational context?
Alignment is key:
- When identity salience / threat is high among minority members, targeted recruitment is important / supplication.
Recruitment & Employer branding to build ethical organizations
How do prospective employees infer a companies’ CSR?
By using signalling theory, becuase facts & figures are rarely available.
Corporate Social Performance => Organizational attractiveness
Signalling theory
Because job seekers often have little information they draw inferences on what a company is like by relying on signals (e.g., websites, job fairs, job ads).
Signals can be understood as the artifacts of culture. We make inferences about what a company is like at its core, on the basis of the things we can see.
What does Corporate Social Performance signal?
- Community involvement (philanthropy / volunteerism)
- Pro-environmental behaviours (conservation of energy / resources)
Three signal-based mechanisms in the multiple mediator model of the effects of CSP-community and CSP-environment on organizational attractiveness
- Anticipated pride
- Organizational prestige
- Perceived value fit
When an organization is doing well on CSP, this atttracts potential job seekers to work for the organization.
Greenwashing article: Sustainability of profitability? How communicated motives for environmental policy affect public perceptions of corporate greenwashing
CSR tactics gone wrong.
Experiments in which they ask participants to look at a website for an energy company and read a communicative motive about why this company was investing in pro-environmental energy sustaining technology.
One condition: “Baptiste Oil and Gas invests in the development of CSS because it is in line with our CSR policy… we invest to protect the natural environment”
Other condition: “Baptiste Oil and Gas invests in the development of CSS because we expect to profit from it in the long run … we invest because of the profit.”
Participants were asked: how much do you think this company is engaging in greenwashing?
Results:
- The environmental motive was perceived as more greenwashing than the economic motive because participants believed the company was doing it for strategic purposes.
- The environmental motive was perceived at almost the same level as no motive.
- The economic motive was perceived as way less greenwashing than the environmental motive and no motive.
An organization should be careful about how they communicate their motives being inclusive or ethical. If they do not align with the product, it backfires => greenwashing.
What is the underlying principle of assessment & selection?
The ASA framework
=> attraction => selection => attrition =>
What happens with assessment & selection when there is no intervention?
If there is no intervention whatsoever, people tend to go towards homogony.
Attraction: you might want to go to an organization with people similar to you.
Selection: companies might like people better that are similar to them. The recruiter also has a natural tendency to unonsviously favor those who are similar to themselve.
Attrition: if you don’t feel similar in an organization you might drop out. The people that are most likely to leave, are probably the people that feel like they don’t fit in.
How can you counter homogony in companies? And is this important?
One way to counter this is affirmative action policies.
It is important that organizations engage in interventions to actively recruit for diversity.
Affirmative action policies (AAPs)
Efforts by the organization aimed at ensuring that individuals from traditionally excluded groups (i.e., women and minorities) are proportionally represented in the workforce and managerial positions.
These include hiring and promotion policies that in some way favour minorities over majorities.
The prevalence of AAPs
There are an increasing amount of AAPs.
But do these programs work? Do people accept them?
Are AAPs effective?
They are controversial and evidence for effectiveness is quite circumstantial, lot of variation in attitudes.
Summary and meta-analysis of understanding attitudes toward AAPs in employment
What are the main predictors of attitudes towards AAPs?
- Structural features of AAP
- Communication about AAP
- Perceiver characteristics (social identity based)
Structural features: types of AA-plans
- Opportunity enhancement
- Equal opportunity
- Tiebreak
- Strong preferential treatment
All of these have a timing from pre-applicant through long-term employee.
Opportunity enhancement
A type of AAP.
Decision by recruitment/training.
Target group: potential applicants and employees.
Aimed at creating a more diverse pool of qualified applicants by actively encouraging minority members to apply for programs and jobs.
Prescriptiveness: promotes classes of activities that enhance number of eventual choices.
Equal opportunity
A type of AAP.
HR function and employment decision: typically undefined.
Target group: applicants and employees.
Constrains decision in a trivial way by forbidding discrimination.
Tiebreak
A type of AAP.
Typically the decision is by selection.
Target group: employees
Prescriptiveness: constrains decision somewhat, by requiring small positive weight to minority status.
Situation where on paper two persons hold exactly the same qualifications and if that is the case, you would favor the minority candidate.
Strong preferential treatment
A type of AAP.
Typically selection.
Target group: employees
Prescriptiveness: constrains decision by requiring substantial positive weight for minority status.
What determines the support of AA-plans?
Structural feature:
- Prescriptiveness
Perceiver characteristics (social identity based)
AAP presentation
Perceiver characteristics
Influences support of AAP.
Social identity based.
- Race & gender category
- Personal & collective self-interest
- Personal discrimination
- Belief target group experiences discrimination
- Racism & Sexism
- Political ideology & party affiliation
AAP presentation
Influences support for AAP.
Generic (implicit) vs specific (explicit) AA presentation.
Provision of justification in AA presentation (fairness).
True or false: prescriptiveness reduces support
True.
Highly prescriptive AAPs (strict, detailed policies) are less supported by both majority and minority groups.
Reason: They may conflict with perceptions of justice and fairness and feel overly rigid. For minorities, prescriptive policies can imply they were hired for the program, not their qualifications.
Factors Influencing Support
Increased Support:
- Belief that target groups experience discrimination.
- Personal or collective self-interest (e.g., benefiting from the program).
- Personal experiences of discrimination, though this may vary due to coping mechanisms.
- Beliefs in racism or sexism and progressive political ideologies.
Decreased Support:
- Among those with strong racist beliefs or opposing political ideologies.
- Higher prescriptiveness exacerbates these divisions between groups.
How should AAPs be communicated?
Communication Matters
AAPs must be communicated clearly and explicitly, with justifications emphasizing fairness to increase acceptance.
Recommendations to increase support for AAPs and to minimize disagreements among target (minority) and non-target (majority) groups, organizations should..
Ensure that people perceive AAPs as fair.
Show how AAPs can eliminate barriers for underutilized human capital among minority groups (evidence based).
Use transparent selection procedures when including AAP to decrease adverse impact.
Use less prescriptive AAPs (unless there is an unequivocal and pressing need to act against cases of discrimination).
Move from implicit (generic) to explicit (specific) AAP communications.
Justify AAP by emphasizing need to readress past discrimination / added value of diverse workforce (merely pointing out numerical underrepresentation will backfire).
Clarify / define the specific goals of AAPs (rather than ignore / keep vague / keep quiet → backfire).
Types of integrity tests
- Overt (e.g, “Do you believe there is some dishonesty in everyone?”)
- Personality-based (e.g., “I am more sensible than adventurous”)
Integrity tests are…
- Reliable
- Valid (predictive of absenteeism, turnover, disciplinary actions taken, and job performance)
- Temporally stable
- Useful in assessment, but not in isolation
Diversity trainings
Meetings in which a trained instructor educates employees about workplace diversity
- Awareness of diversity issues.
- Skills, and attitudes needed to work with people who are different from themselves.
Skills training on diversity
Intercultural communication training
- The UU offers it in Dutch, not English.
Awareness training
Unconscious Bias training
Active Bystander training
Ingredients for a successful diversity training
- Task interdependence
- Both passive and active forms of instruction
- Human instructor instead of computer
- A minimum of 4 hours
- Multiple sessions instead of a single session
- Voluntary (rather than mandatory)
Ethics training
Designed to enhance employee knowledge, skills and decision making in the ethics area.
- Games
- Behavioural simulation (role-play)
Preliminary evidence that it works.
How do rewards affect teamwork and behaviour?
Outcome interdependence results in higher levels of social integration.
Thus, when you install team-level rewards (not just individual salary) => higher levels of social integration.
Example: reward structure in academia
Current situation (competitive)
- Underfunding (scarcity of resources)
- Competitive funding schemes based on individual merit (narrow)
- Cooperative science is not anchored in reward structures
- Lack of transparency in promotion criteria
- Temporary contracts (particularly female and international scientists)
Future situation (cooperative)
- Towards inclusive recognition & reward standards
- Open science & team science
- Abolish impact factor
“Reward recipes for disaster”
- Unequal outcomes
- Competition between coworkers
- Variable pay incentives
How can HR systems & policies help?
They are instruments to establish and sustain top-down culture change.
