The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm
TPM
22,5/6
310
Received 1 November 2015
Revised 3 April 2016
Accepted 6 May 2016
Team Performance Management
Vol. 22 No. 5/6, 2016
pp. 310-330
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-7592
DOI 10.1108/TPM-11-2015-0053
Employment arrangements
diversity and work
group performance
Sagi Akron, Ofek Feinblit, Shlomo Hareli and Shay S. Tzafrir
Faculty of Management, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study was to explore the relation between diversity in work group
members’ employment arrangements and the actual performance of the work groups.
Design/methodology/approach – A field study was conducted on 31 work groups in a public plant
belonging to the industrial sector that constitute a unique data set. The 441 employees are contracted
under four significantly different employment arrangements and are mixed together in heterogeneous
work groups, but perform similar tasks.
Findings – The results indicated that the influence of employment arrangement diversity on work
group performance is best represented as variation, and work arrangements diversity is positively
correlated with improved work group performance.
Research limitations – The study design prevented assessment of employees’ opinions. Rather, the
authors used objective type of employment arrangements as the basis for calculating diversity as
separation. Using mean Euclidean distance as suggested by Harrison and Klein (2007), the authors
arbitrarily set the distance between two different employment arrangements as one.
Practical implications – The research results help in the stages of recruiting, structuring and
development and application of necessary work team. Formal emphasis of diversity in work
arrangements improves performance.
Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge, this is one of the first studies using unique data set
analyzing real-life team diversity and performance in the public sector. The research highly contributes
to organizational decision-making processes regarding the importance of incorporating non-standard
work arrangements in organizations. Management’s implementation of formal diversity seems to
alleviate the negative sides of diversity and increases its positive performance effects.
Keywords Diversity, Employment arrangements, Work group performance
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Recent decades have seen an increase in the use of non-standard employment
arrangements, such as part-time employment, recruitment of employees through
temporary help agencies and contract company employment. Cappelli and Keller
(2013a) state that the level of non-standard work arrangements is wide-ranging,
reaching 20 per cent in the USA and beyond in other countries. Furthermore, Cappelli
and Keller (2013b) found that overall, work arrangements of this type keep increasing
over time. According to The Economist (2015), the number of US temporary workers
doubled and private-sector union membership rate decreased by about 50 per cent
This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of Ofek Feinblit – a wonderful human being, who
because of unfortunate circumstances, did not live to see the fruits of his labor published.
between the years 1990 and 2015. The shift from traditional (e.g. Befort, 2003; Bergstrom Employment
and Storrie, 2003; Kalleberg et al., 1997) to non-standard arrangements (Kelliher and arrangements
Anderson, 2010; Lautsch and Kossek, 2011) stems from the view that an organization
can reduce expenses and improve its strategic flexibility by using a human resource
diversity
architecture combining different employment modes (Houseman, 2001; Lepak and Snell,
1999). One significant outcome of such a strategy is that many firms combine standard
and non-standard workers within the same work groups, creating heterogeneity in 311
employment arrangements among employees who must work closely together
(Broschak and Davis-Blake, 2006). Although previous research focused on the effect of
such groups on its members (Krausz et al., 1995; Pearce, 1993), little is known about the
effectiveness of such work groups as a whole.
Diversity refers to observed or perceived attribute distribution among the members
of a unit: either a work group or the entire organization. Diversity in employment
arrangements can be seen as one such source of diversity that may operate differently
than other ascriptive variables characterizing differences among work groups, as it may
affect attitudes and behaviors of the work group members (Broschak and Davis-Blake,
2006; Harrison and Klein, 2007; Qin et al., 2014). Research on group diversity
consistently found that cross-functional groups (e.g. groups comprised of members from
different divisions within the organization) performed better than groups that are not
functionally diverse (Barsade et al., 2000; Bunderson and Sutcliffe, 2002; Jehn and
Bezrukova, 2004). Yet, findings concerning the effect of diversity in other ascriptive
factors, such as age, gender and racio-ethnicity (Broschak and Davis-Blake, 2006;
Reskin, 2003), on performance are less conclusive. Specifically, although some of the
studies show a positive relation between diversity in these factors and performance,
others documented a negative relation; still, other studies failed to find any effect for this
source of diversity on group performance.
Moreover, research on diversity in organizations rarely focused on work
arrangements as a source of diversity (Broschak and Davis-Blake, 2006). Thus, there
seems to be some inconsistency in the results of different studies exploring the
organizational effects of diversity. For instance, group creativity, innovation and
decision quality (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004) resulted in highly efficient job
performance and flexibility – namely, high production and sales, clients’ satisfaction
and costs saving, lower turnover intentions and ease of monitoring tasks (Kochan et al.,
2003; Cappelli and Keller, 2013a). By contrast, Pelled et al. (1999) found that various
measures of group diversity, such as race and tenure, increase emotional conflict and in
turn decrease performance. One possible major reason for this inconsistency is related to
the way diversity is operationalized. Indeed, different studies often use different
operationalizations of the same source of diversity and, hence, reach different results.
This may not only lead to inconsistent results but also to invalid ones (Harrison and
Klein, 2007). The present research used Harrison and Klein’s (2007) framework of
operationalizing diversity to test the effect of diversity in employment arrangements
within work groups on group performance at work. As our findings are based on
archival data, we were not able to examine diversity typologies that are based on
employee attitudes toward the non-standard work arrangements and their derived
behaviors, as in the studies of Bendapudi et al. (2003) and Broschak et al. (2008).
Previous research on diversity in the workplace has failed to consider differences in
employment arrangements as a source of diversity, despite its relevance to the subject at
TPM hand. Indeed, recently, conceptualizing diversity in employment arrangements among
22,5/6 work group members, in terms of diversity in demographic criteria, showed that
diversity in work arrangements was associated with less favorable attitudes toward
supervisors and peers, increased turnover intentions and decreased work-related
helping behaviors (Broschak and Davis-Blake, 2006). These conclusions stand in stark
contrast with other research that views the use of non-standard employment
312 arrangements as an advantage (Bacharach and Bamberger, 2004). For instance, it has
been claimed that such arrangements can be a means for creating and accumulating
valuable knowledge by generating a catalytic effect on the knowledge creation process
within a unit (Nesheim, 2003). Nevertheless, previous studies mainly focused on the level
of the individual worker (Ang and Slaughter, 2006; Ellingson et al., 1998) or on the
organizational level (Becker, 2004; Kahn, 2000) while ignoring the level of the work
group. The operationalization of diversity that was often used was inadequate,
according to the perspective offered by Harrison and Klein (2007). For example,
Broschak and Davis-Blake (2006) referred to diversity as separation but used an index
that presents diversity as variety. Finally, the scarce research focusing on the work
group level typically tested only a small number of work arrangements. For example,
Pearce (1993) dichotomously differentiates between regular employees and contract
workers. Davis-Blake et al. (2003) use an externalization of work arrangements based on
the length of employment and the level of supervision, dividing employment
arrangements into standard employees, contract workers and temporary workers.
The present paper studies the effect that variation in employment arrangements,
coexisting in an organization and differentiating between work-groups members, has on
their performance. The rationale underlying this choice is that employment
arrangements are observable and salient characteristics of workers and, as such, can
affect how employees’ function with coworkers in their work groups (Broschak and
Davis-Blake, 2006). A large body of literature shows that salient and observable
differences among work group members carry significant implications for the
organization and its work groups (Kalleberg et al., 2003; Davis-Blake et al., 2003;
Cappelli and Keller, 2013a). The typical attributes of interest in this line of research were
both those that can be readily perceived, such as age, sex and racio-ethnicity, and subtler
attributes such as personality, knowledge and values, as well as attributes that fall
between these two extremes of visibility, such as education, tenure, functional and
occupational background (Jackson et al., 2003; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). We suggest
that diversity in employment arrangements is yet another important source of diversity
expected to have a significant effect on organizational performance. The present study
explores the relation between diversity in work group members’ employment
arrangements and the actual performance of the work groups.
Qin et al. (2014) state that the work of Harrison and Klein (2007) is limited because of
the fact that they conceptualize diversity as the difference in a single personal attribute.
However, more recently, there is a growing tendency to conceptualize diversity as
differences in multiple personal attributes (Meade and Eby, 2007). Mathews (2010,
p. 206) examined management of diversity reflected by dimensions reflecting both
competence and culture. Likewise, Heres and Benschop (2010) studied the effect of
diversity management, analyzing how it is reflected in the content of corporate websites
according to observable and non-observable perceived difference. Nevertheless, as our
unique database is especially suited for studying performance of work groups that differ
dimensions of work group arrangements, we find Harrison and Klein’s (2007) diversity Employment
typology the optimal framework for operationalizing our highly diverse group work arrangements
composition.
diversity
Theory and hypotheses
Traditionally, organizations employed workers under standard work arrangements
best characterized as “work done on a fixed schedule – usually full time – at the 313
employer’s place of business, under the employer’s control, and with the mutual
expectation of continued employment” (Kalleberg et al., 2000, p. 257). In recent years,
however, organizations have adopted non-standard work arrangements, which refer to
employment relations that lack one or more of the characteristics of standard work
arrangements, such as part-time employment, temporary workforce and contract
company employment. The expansion of non-standard employment is justified by
economic uncertainty, availability of new technologies (Atkinson, 1987; Lepak and
Snell, 1999), reduced costs, increased access to workers with special skills, screen
candidates for regular positions, bypass solution to head count limits (Houseman, 2001)
and changes in labor force demographic composition and workers’ preferences
(DuRivage, 1992).
Prior research in the area of non-standard work arrangements has tended to be
descriptive, focusing mainly on the demographic characteristics of the non-standard
workforce (Howe, 1986). Typically, non-standard jobs are inferior to regular full-time
jobs in that they offer less job security and less extrinsic reward packages and involve
lower levels of investment in recruitment, selection, training and development
(DuRivage, 1992; Horstman, 1988; Kalleberg et al., 1997). Another line of research
explored the relationships among workers with different work arrangements. Evidence
shows that individuals working as temporary employees are disengaged from social
relations with other employees and, thus, are regarded as second class or peripheral to
permanent workers (Bergstrom, 2001). Moreover, Pearce (1993) found that the presence
of contractor co-workers was associated with lower organizational trustworthiness by
the permanent employees.
Cooper et al. (2014) examines the impact of non-standard work arrangements, that is,
fixed-term contracts, on employees’ work outcomes as these are reflected by
commitment to the organization, supervisor and job goals. These authors found that a
non-standard employment arrangement is associated with a higher level of commitment
to the profession and job but lower organizational commitment, relative to the standard
employment arrangement. By contrast, Nesheim and Smith (2015) failed to find any
significant impact of employment arrangement on project knowledge sharing.
Specifically, they found similar levels of knowledge sharing for external consultants and
standard employees, hence supporting the merits of work arrangement diversification.
Despite its important contribution to our understanding of the effect that specific work
arrangements have on individual employees, it focuses less on the effect of work
group-level diversity on work group’s performance in the organization.
Harrison and Klein (2007) suggested a theoretical model that characterizes diversity
in three different ways: separation, disparity and variety. Diversity as separation is
defined as diversity stemming from differences in group members’ stances or opinions
regarding an issue relevant to the group or the work. Diversity as disparity represents
differences among group members in the attainment of valued social assets or resources,
TPM such as pay or status. Finally, diversity as variety represents differences among group
22,5/6 members in relation to type, category and source of knowledge or experience. In terms of
consequences, diversity as separation and disparity are expected to inhibit the work
group’s performance. In contrast, diversity as variety is expected to improve the work
group’s performance. Harrison and Klein (2007) argued that although certain attributes
can be clearly defined as one type of diversity, others can be defined as more than one
314 type. For instance, other attributes such as age, gender, racio-ethnicity, and tenure may
be meaningfully conceptualized as separation, variety or disparity. The true meaning of
each diversity factor in a given context depends on how the members of a given
organizational unit interpret the factor in question within the specific context of interest.
The effect of diversity is determined by the way work group members perceive it. Yet, in
a real work setting, it is difficult to directly assess how workers within a work group
actually perceive it. The use of the Harrison and Klein’s (2007) three-characterization
typology enables an indirect assessment of the effect of diversity in employment
arrangements as a function of the three major ways in which diversity can be perceived.
Although employment arrangements cannot be considered an example of a
demographic difference, several features of non-standard employment arrangements
may cause them to be perceived by employees as visible and as salient as differences in
age, ethnicity and other ascriptive characteristics (Broschak and Davis-Blake, 2006).
Moreover, Reskin (2003) argued that organizational actions that create visible
differences among group members have the potential to create some of the same kinds
of work group dynamics as ascriptive demographic differences. In line with these
considerations, diversity in employment arrangements can also be meaningfully
conceptualized as each of the alternative diversity types. This allows one to examine
how different aspects of diversity, that can potentially be the result of different work
arrangements, affect group performance[1].
When diversity in employment arrangements is viewed as separation, the focus is on
potential differences among group members in attitudes, beliefs and values regarding
job-related issues stemming from differences in employment arrangements. In this case,
higher diversity is expected to lead to increased conflicts among group members
(Broschak and Davis-Blake, 2006) and, hence, reduced performance. Alternatively,
when diversity in employment arrangements is viewed as variety, the focus is on
differences among members in terms of experience, approaches to problem solving,
their internal and external network ties and their skills (Houseman, 2001). A group is
expected to benefit from such diversity. Finally, when diversity in employment
arrangements is conceptualized as disparity, two facets are expected to hamper the
group’s performance. One is the differences among group members in status (Boswell
et al., 2012). The other is the access to organizational rewards as a function of the group
member’s employment arrangement (Broschak and Davis-Blake, 2006; Krausz et al.,
1995).
Factors such as age, dress code, working hours and extra work on non-professional
tasks are differences expected to serve as a basis for social categorization processes
(Jehn et al., 1999). This claim is in line with the social categorization perspective in
diversity research, which assumes that similarities and differences are used as a basis
for categorizing one’s self and others into groups, with ensuing categorizations
distinguishing between one’s own in-group and one or more out-groups (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2004). This type of process can affect how workers respond to each
other and to their work groups by limiting within-unit behavioral and social integration, Employment
fostering conflict and turnover and diminishing morale, cohesion and performance arrangements
(Harrison and Klein, 2007). This may hold true even if some of the tasks are not
performed by all members, as these employees work in close contact with one another.
diversity
The visibility of a diversity variable, and its relation to the job, influences the levels of
conflict in the group, which, in turn, influences the group’s performance (Pelled, 1996). In
terms of Harrison and Klein’s (2007) theory, such differences can be considered under 315
the notion of diversity as separation. This type of separation is associated with cohesion
and conflicts such that higher separation is linked with low cohesion and high levels of
conflict and is further expected to lead to poor performance. Hence, we hypothesize that:
H1. A negative relation will be found between diversity in employment
arrangements conceived of in terms of separation and work group performance.
Non-standard employment arrangements typically involve employment conditions that
are inferior, relative to more traditional employment arrangements (Wooden and
Warren, 2004). Moreover, firms typically invest less in the recruitment, selection,
training and development of their non-standard workforce (Horstman, 1988). Hence,
when employees who vary in employment arrangements work in the same work group
and perform similar tasks, those group members who are employed under “inferior”
arrangements are likely to perceive such differences as unfair. This is likely to happen
because employees tend to view coworkers as referents for equity comparisons rather
than as outsiders (Pearce, 1993). Such perceptions can reduce employees’ job satisfaction
and their commitment to the organization and organizational outcomes (McFarlin and
Sweeney, 1992). Furthermore, as employment arrangements are often associated with
certain statuses and different levels of access to organizational rewards (Broschak and
Davis-Blake, 2006; Krausz et al., 1995), any difference in such aspects can result in
stigmatization, prejudice and discrimination coming from those who have more power
toward those who have less power. This is also expected to lead to reduced productivity
(Linnehan and Konrad, 1999). Harrison and Klein (2007) consider such diversity as
disparity and, in accord with the analysis above, suggest that increased disparity results
in decreased job satisfaction and commitment, as well as poor organizational outcomes.
Hence, we hypothesize that:
H2. A negative relation will be found between diversity in employment
arrangement conceived of in terms of disparity and work group performance.
Occasionally, differences in employment arrangements are associated with differences
relating to employees’ knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors (Houseman, 2001;
Lepak and Snell, 1999). Such differences can contribute to group decision-making and
performance. Likewise, when differences are reflected in work hours and overtime pay,
it enables a more flexible job scheduling by levering the relative advantages of each
employment arrangement. Harrison and Klein (2007) conceive such diversity as variety
because it focuses on members who differ in terms of the type of relevant knowledge
they have, the source of this knowledge, how it is categorized or, more generally, in work
experience. Such differences can lead to greater creativity, innovation, and flexibility,
better choices, plans or products. Hence, we expect a positive impact of diverse
employment arrangements as conceived of in terms of variety on work group
performance. Particularly, we conjecture:
TPM H3. A positive relation will be found between diversity in employment
22,5/6 arrangements conceived of in terms of variety and work group performance.

Method
The study was conducted on work groups in an industrial public plant that repairs spare
parts. The project was conducted with the plant’s permission and on the condition that
316 information identifying the organization and/or its employees would not be revealed. To
control for non-random time effects, we sampled two separate data sets, each describing
work performed during a distinct period on the time line.

Sample and procedure

The sample included all the work groups in the plant that are engaged in the task of
repairing spare parts. Workers included mechanics, electricians and electronics
technicians. As in other studies on the subject of diversity (Harrison et al., 1998;
Kochan et al., 2003), each work group was perceived by its group members as a
different organizational unit on the official organizational chart. Furthermore, all
work groups comprised employees from the same profession. Each unit is managed
by one supervisor. Some of the tasks carried out by these work groups are performed
by one worker, and other tasks are performed by teams whose composition may
vary from one task to another, according to the supervisor’s choice.
The work groups in this plant are made up of workers employed under four
different types of employment arrangements. These arrangements vary in terms of
contract period, work scheduling, the identity of the de jure employer and the
agreements made with respect to payment, fringe benefits and dress code.
Employment arrangement “A” represents a standard employment arrangement
characterized by fixed working hours with extra payment for each extra hour and a
free dress code. Workers employed under this arrangement are represented by a
workers’ union and receive tenure at the beginning of their third year of
employment. Their retirement age is 67. Employment arrangement “B” denotes
standard employees who typically work fixed hours, but are paid globally with no
additional payment for overtime. Their dress code comprises uniforms, and
employees under this work arrangement differ in terms of rank, which is indicated
by their uniform. They are not represented by a workers’ union, are not tenured until
the age of 38 and are offered the opportunity to retire at the age of 42. Employment
arrangement “C” includes workers that serve a three-year national service duty,
typically from the ages of 18-21. Work hours, overtime pay, worker representation
and dress code are similar to the conditions of Employment arrangement “B”, but
their rank is lower within the same hierarchy. This group’s members’ payment
arrangement is nominal, and the job also includes non-professional tasks, such as
cleaning and guarding. At the end of the three-year service period, some workers
quit the organization, whereas others continue their work under Employment
arrangement “B”. Last, contract company employees are employed under
Employment arrangement “D”, and their work in the plant can last anywhere from
three months to a few years. Similar to Employment arrangement “A”, their work is
characterized by fixed working hours with extra pay for each extra hour and a free
dress code. Their salary is the same as that of workers employed under Employment
arrangement “A” who have similar seniority in the organization. However, they are
neither represented by a workers’ union nor are tenured. At the end of their work Employment
period, some of them are promoted to standard workers’ status in the organization arrangements
under Employment arrangement “A”.
Each work group includes workers from one to three of these different employment
diversity
arrangements. Examples of work group compositions are: A, AB, AC, AD, ABC, ABD
and ACD. The manager of each work group is employed under Employment
arrangement “A” or “B”. The sampled work groups exhibited substantial between-unit 317
variability in within-unit separation, variety and disparity, representing the full range of
minimum to maximum separation, variety or disparity. According to Harrison and
Klein’s (2007) study, such conditions are necessary to allow for an adequate test of
hypotheses regarding separation, variety and disparity.
In this study, we examine a unique archival data of a public-sector industrial
plant, maintained and collected by the division of information technology of the
organization. Given the nature of work arrangements existing in this organization
and the fact that the same work tasks are typically performed by workers under
different work arrangements, this forms a unique data set potentially reflecting the
link between diverse work arrangements within work groups and work
performance. Accordingly, the data allowed us a unique assessment of the output of
work groups characterized by highly diverse work arrangements under natural,
non-obtrusive conditions across a relatively long period. The nature of this archival
data allowed us to explore a relatively large sample of 441 individuals, comprising
at least 30 work groups while measuring their performance during two different
periods. This enabled us to examine our research questions while utilizing the
merits of real ex post data (Jones, 2010).
A proper analysis of our hypotheses requires a relatively high level of diversity
in employment arrangements (Harrison and Klein, 2007). Hence, we confirmed that
the chosen sample fits the conditions required for an examination of how diversity
in employment arrangements affects work group performance. This type of high
diversity level was identified in the second quarter of 2005, and, we, therefore,
selected it for the study. To control for the possible time effects, we randomly
selected another period, the first quarter of 2008, and examined it using the same
procedure. Next, we presented the descriptive characteristics of the work group
composition in the two distinct quarters under study.
For the first period (Q2 of 2005), 31 work groups were analyzed. The professions
represented in these workgroups were mechanics (52 per cent), electricians (35 per cent)
and electronics technicians (13 per cent). Each work-group consisted of between 3 and 31
employees; the mean number of employees in each group was 13.5 (SD ⫽ 8.18). The
average age of employees was 41.92 years (SD ⫽ 12.6), and the average salary was
approximately $2,100 per month. In total, 441 workers (92 per cent males) were
employed in these work groups, out of which 67.4 per cent were employed under
Employment arrangement A, 18.6 per cent under Employment arrangement B,
10.4 per cent under Employment arrangement C and 3.6 per cent under Employment
arrangement D.
For the second time period (Q1 of 2008), 30 work groups were analyzed. The
professions represented in these work groups were mechanics (43 per cent), electricians
(40 per cent) and electronics technicians (17 per cent). Each work group included
between 4 and 33 employees; the mean number of employees in each group was 13.03
TPM (SD ⫽ 7.69). The average age of employees was 42.93 years (SD ⫽ 13.4), and the average
22,5/6 salary was approximately $2,030 per month. In total, 391 workers (94 per cent males)
were employed in these work groups, out of which 62.1 per cent were employed under
Employment arrangement A, 21.5 per cent under Employment arrangement B,
12.3 per cent under Employment arrangement C and 4.1 per cent under Employment
arrangement D.
318
Measurements
Independent variables
For each work group, per-quarter diversity indices representing work arrangements
were calculated in terms of separation, disparity and variety. To this aim, we obtained
from the organization’s data system the number of employees working under each
employment arrangement in each work group during the examined quarter. This was
used to calculate each work group’s employment arrangement diversity according to
each diversity measure. The choice of a diversity index for each dimension (separation,
disparity and variety) was based on Harrison and Klein (2007). Thus, diversity as
separation was defined by differences in position or opinion among unit members in
regard to a task or group-related issue. Because of its symmetric nature, it is best
indexed at the unit level by cumulating absolute or squared distances between pairs of
individuals, such as standard deviation or the Euclidean distances’ mean. As the
employment arrangement variable is categorical, we used the Euclidean distance mean
as follows:

冪
兺 (s i ⫺ sj )2
兺
i
j

n
Ds ⫽ , (1)
n

where Ds refers to a work group’s diversity-as-separation measure and si-sj refers to the
distance between two work group members (i, j). This distance is defined as follows:

si ⫺ sj ⫽ 兵0 ; The same group

1 ; Otherwise
,

where n refers to the number of workers in the work group.

The distance between two workers was set as 0 if they shared the same
employment arrangement type and as 1 if they did not. This technique is in
accordance with Tsui and O’Reilly (1989) who used similar calculations for
measuring diversity in racio-ethnicity. As Harrison and Klein (2007) defined
maximum separation as a situation in which there are two (and only two) staunchly
divided but balanced blocks within a team, hypotheses regarding diversity as
separation were tested for work groups that employed workers with up to two
different employment arrangements (Table I).
Diversity, conceived of as variety, is defined by differences in kind or category,
primarily in relation to information, knowledge or experience among unit members.
Maximum variety occurs when all work group workers are equally divided among all
employment arrangements (Harrison and Klein, 2007). We used Blau’s index, which is
the most commonly employed measure for diversity-as-variety (Bunderson and Employment
Sutcliffe, 2002). This was calculated as follows: arrangements
diversity
Dv ⫽ 1 ⫺ 兺p t
t
2
(2)

where Dv refers to a work group’s diversity-as-variety measure, t is the employment 319

arrangement index, i.e. t 僆 兵A, B, C, D其 and Pt is the percentage of work group workers
employed under Employment arrangement t.
Diversity, conceived of as disparity, represents differences in the concentration of
valued social assets or resources, such as pay and status among unit members.
Maximum variety occurs when one unit is at the top of the continuum occupying
that desired resource, and all other members are at the bottom (Harrison and Klein,
2007). As employment arrangements are differentiated by the pay they offer, we
used pay as the valued resource such that for each observed worker, we used the
average pay that fits his/her employment arrangement type (individual pay data
were not available for the research). The most commonly employed measure for
diversity-as-disparity is the coefficient of variation (CV). However, as CV is sensitive
to group size, caution is needed when using it for comparative purposes (Bedeian
and Mossholder, 2000). Because the sampled work groups in the current research are
not of equal size, we use an alternative CV1 index proposed by Smithson (1982),
which neutralizes group size by ensuring that the same variation value is obtained
when comparing groups whose sole difference is sample size. The following
measure is represented by the subsequent Dd index:

冪
N

兺X
i⫽1
i
2
⫺ nxˉ 2
Dd ⫽ CV1 ⫽ N
(3)
兺
i⫽1
Q ⫺ nxˉ 2
i
2

where Dd refers to a work group’s diversity-as-disparity measure, Xi refers to the

level of resources allocated to each unit member and Qi refers to the level of
resources allocated to each unit member in an alternative allocation scheme of the

First time period Second time period

Range of level of variety Number of Average repair Number of Average repair
in work arrangements work groups success (%) work groups success (%)

0.00-0.15 5 41.8 5 73.5

0.16-0.30 5 59.6 6 82.4 Table I.
0.31-0.45 3 77.0 6 79.2 Diversity as variety
0.45-0.60 6 82.9 7 87.3 and repair success
0.61-0.75 12 76.8 6 94.2 rates in each time
Total 31 30 period
TPM same amount of resources, resulting in maximum disparity. For instance,
22,5/6 alternative allocation scheme maximum disparity exists when a work group has few
unit members that receive the highest possible pay (i.e. type B employee of rank 7),
whereas all other members are at the bottom of the pay scale (i.e. type C workers).
As can be seen in Table II, we notice substantial sample work group dispersion of
the three diversity measures: separation, variety and disparity. Compared to the
320 theoretical range of each index, the sample represents a wide range of diversity in
separation, variety or disparity. In the specific case of separation, the sampled units
also include different combinations that lead to the same amount of separation, as a
representation of the symmetry assumption fundamental to that diversity type.

Dependent variables
Rate of success in carrying out the task of item repair was used as a measure of
performance. Malfunctioning items are brought to the groups in an attempt to repair
them. Some of the items are repaired by individual workers, whereas other repairs
are performed by ad hoc teams composed of work group employees whose
composition may vary among tasks. Hence, according to Steiner’s (1972) typology,
the repair task can be classified as a divisible discretionary maximizing task. Items
that have been repaired successfully are returned to the plant’s inventory, whereas
items that could not be repaired are labeled under a different stock segment. The
success index for each work group was calculated as the number of items
successfully repaired during the relevant quarter divided by the total number of
items that the group had to repair in that quarter. We considered only items whose
repair started and ended within the examined quarter. In the first quarter, there were
2,072 items overall that were brought for repair, and 73.2 per cent of them were
successfully repaired. During the second quarter, there were 2,482 items overall
brought for repair, and 83.8 per cent of them were repaired successfully.

Control variables
We included group size, average age of group members, group’s average income and the
group’s professional domain as control variables. Group size has been shown to be of
great importance for group processes and outcomes. For example, as the number of
workers within the work group increases, individual group members may exert less
effort, as the perceived dispensability of their efforts for group success increases (the
“free rider effect”, see Kerr and Bruun, 1983). Work group members’ age is another factor
known to influence work group performance (Waldman and Avolio, 1986). Work group
professional domain was also controlled for, as each domain is related to different

Diversity Theoretical No. of work Range

dimension range Quarter groups Mean SD Actual range covered (%)

Separation 0-0.707 Q1 16 0.393 0.234 0-0.679 96

Table II. Q2 17 0.364 0.259 0-0.695 98
Diversity in work Variety 0-0.750 Q1 31 0.351 0.217 0-0.645 86
group on each Q2 30 0.386 0.222 0-0.663 88
diversity measure – Disparity 0-1.00 Q1 31 0.530 0.303 0-1.00 100
quarters Q1 and Q2 Q2 30 0.540 0.280 0-0.87 87
technologies and involves different types of repair challenges. Both factors may affect Employment
repair rates. Following Harrison and Klein’s (2007) guidelines, average salary of work arrangements
group members was added as a control variable. All controls were obtained from the
archival data file provided by the plant.
diversity

Data analysis
As each diversity dimension has a different meaning, shape, foundational theories and 321
predicted outcomes (Harrison and Klein, 2007), the alternative hypotheses regarding
each diversity dimension were tested using a different model such that different
diversity dimensions were not included in the same model. This allowed us to
differentiate and compare between alternative conceptual models as part of our
empirical tests of the contrasting conceptions.
Ordinary least squares linear regression could not be used as a modeling repair
rate-dependent variable, because a dichotomous dependent variable in a linear
regression model necessarily violates assumptions of homoscedasticity and normality
of the error term (Allison, 1999). Hence, we implemented a logistic regression model,
which is the most popular regression technique for modeling dichotomous dependent
variables (Kleinbaum et al., 2007). Logistic regression is a mathematical modeling
approach that can be used to describe the relationship of several predictor variables X1,
X2…Xk with a dichotomous dependent variable Y. The logistic regression equation used
was z ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1X1 ⫹ ␤2x2 ⫹ ␤3x3 ⫹ … ⫹ ␤kxk , where z ⫽ ln ( p / 1 ⫺ p ) and p refers to
the mean of the Bernoulli dependent variable Y. As the repair of different items by a
given work group are not independent, we used a logistic mixed model with random
effect using an SAS Glimmix procedure. Hence, the logistic equation we used is
represented by: zi ⫽ ␤0 ⫹ ␤1X1i ⫹ ␤2x2i ⫹ ␤3x3i ⫹ … ⫹ ␤kxki ⫹ ␤0i , where zi ⫽ ln
( pi / 1 ⫺ pi ) and pi refers to the mean success repair ratio of work group i.
Results
We tested our hypotheses regarding the relations between employment
arrangement diversity and work groups’ repair rates using a series of logistic
regressions. We analyzed the data for the first period, Q2 in 2005, using a backward
procedure, which is the one recommended for logistic regression analysis
(Kleinbaum, 1994). As shown in Table III, contrary to H1 and H2, we found a
marginally significant positive relation between diversity as separation and repair
success rates (⫹3.632, p ⬍ 0.10) and a significant positive relation between diversity

Variable ␤ ⫽ estimate SD p-value (two-tailed) Odds ratio Deviance

a
Diversity as separation 3.6326 1.9461 0.085 37.811 1.06
Diversity as disparity 2.3524* 0.9581 0.020 10.511 1.04
Diversity as variety 3.1863* 1.3222 0.023 24.199 1.05
Group’s average age ⫺0.1083a 0.0584 0.074 0.897 1.04
Group size ⫺0.0065 0.0390 0.869 1.006 1.05
Group’s average income ⫺0.0004a 0.0002 0.090 1.000 1.05 Table III.
Professional domain ⫺1.0701a 0.6117 0.092 0.343 1.06 Single predictor
regression, first
Notes: a Indicates a 0.1 two-tailed significance level; * indicates a 0.05 two-tailed significance level period (N ⫽ 31)
TPM as disparity and repair success rates (⫹2.352, p ⬍ 0.05). In accordance with H3, a
22,5/6 significant positive relation was found between diversity as variety and repair
success rates (⫹3.186, p ⬍ 0.05).
The inclusion of control variables allowed us to evaluate the independent
contribution of the diversity variables. The only stable variables that impacted
performance negatively in both periods (a marginal effect in the first period and a highly
322 significant effect in the second period) were group’s average age (first period: ⫺ 0.108,
p ⬍ 0.10; and second period: ⫺ 0.067, p ⬍ 0.05) and professional domain (first
period: ⫺ 1.070, p ⬍ 0.10; and second period: ⫺ 1.717, p ⬍ 0.01).
To understand the meaning of the relationship that was found, we use a benchmark
that assumes a specific work group whose employees are employed under the same
arrangement (Dv ⫽ 0) and whose repair success rate is 60 per cent. As Table IV shows,
in the case that the group’s composition is modified such that diversity as variety is
increased, the repair rate is expected to increase according to the formula suggested by
Kleinbaum and Klein (2002):

p1
1 ⫺ p1
e ␤k·c ⫽ OR(DV⫹c,DV ) ⫽ , (4)
p0
1 ⫺ p0

where p0 ⫽ 60 per cent, ␤k ⫽ 24.199 and Dv ⫽ 0. Note that c refers to the absolute change
in diversity as variety, and p1 refers to the expected repair success rate of the more
diverse work group.
When analyzing the data using a single predictor model for each of the variables, we
found that H1 and H2 were not supported for the second period, Q1 in 2008, either
(Table V). Replication of our first-period findings added robustness to our analyses.
Specifically, a non-statistically significant positive relation was found between diversity
as separation and repair success rates (⫹0.861, p ⬎ 0.10), and a significant positive
relation was found between diversity as disparity and repair success rates (⫹1.734,
p ⬍ 0.05). Also, in accordance with H3 and in line with the results of the first period, a
highly significant positive relation was found between diversity as variety and repair
success rates (⫹2.577, p ⬍ 0.01).

Diversity as Odds ratio (OR; compared to a Estimated repair

variety Group composition non-diverse group) success rate (%)

0 A non-diverse group 1 60.0

0.1 A slightly diverse group OR(0.1,0) ⫽ 24.1990.1 ⫽ 1. 375 67.3
Table IV. 0.5 A group whose workers are OR(0.5,0) ⫽ 24.1990.5 ⫽ 4.915 88.1
Demonstrating the evenly split between two
relation between employment arrangements
diversity as variety 0.75 A group whose workers are OR(0.75,0) ⫽ 24.1990.75 ⫽ 10.896 94.2
and repair success evenly split among four
rates employment arrangements
Discussion Employment
Our aim in this study was to examine the impact of work arrangement diversity in arrangements
the work group on work group performance. Given the archival nature of our unique
data set, Harrison and Klein’s (2007) framework served as an ideal methodological
diversity
tool to explore how diversity in work group arrangements influence work group
performance. To that end, we used three different dimensions of diversity in
employment arrangements: separation, disparity and variety. Three hypotheses 323
corresponding to each referring dimension were examined using a unique data set
from two different periods in which work group arrangements varied widely within
and among work groups.
In contrast to our expectation based on H1, employment arrangement diversity as
separation does not seem to decrease the repair success rate. We also reject H2 with
regard to the expectation that employment arrangement diversity as disparity
negatively impacts the repair success rate. The results for both the studied periods
indicate a significant positive relation between diversity as disparity and work group’s
repair success rates. This result can be partially explained by the way this variable was
operationalized. The use of the coefficient of variation (CV) index for the diversity as
disparity measure was challenging, as maximum CV is a function of group size, and
comparing CV across groups of different sizes is methodologically problematic. To
ensure that the same variation value is obtained when comparing groups whose sole
difference is group size, we used an adjusted index that considers maximum and
minimum pay and may be interpreted as the proportion of a group’s possible maximum
CV value (Bedeian and Mossholder, 2000; Smithson, 1982). Specifically, the method of
calculating the diversity as separation variable necessitated the use of dichotomous
values and, hence, limited the observation to work groups with up to two employment
arrangements. This built-in constraint may have limited our ability to effectively test
the impact of this type of diversity.
H3 claimed that a positive relation would be found between employment
arrangement diversity as variety and work groups’ repair success rates. In line with this
expectation, the backward logistic model analysis for both periods indicated a
significant positive impact of diversity as variety on the success repair rate. Although
the intuitive merit of diversity as variety was supported by H3 acceptance, H1 and H2
– suggesting a negative impact of separation and disparity, respectively – were rejected.
Hence, our analysis shows that even when diversity is conceived as separation or
disparity, diversity positively affects work group performance. This finding aligns with

Variable ␤ ⫽ estimate SD p-value (two-tailed) Odds ratio Deviance

Diversity as separation 0.8617 0.7424 0.288 2.367 1.29

Diversity as disparity 1.7340* 0.6111 0.012 5.663 1.12
Diversity as variety 2.5777** 0.7195 0.002 13.17 1.13
Group’s average age ⫺0.067* 0.0285 0.022 0.935 1.13
Group size 0.0119 0.0265 0.657 1.012 1.08
Group’s average income 0.0004* 0.0001 0.012 1.000 1.16 Table V.
Professional domain ⫺1.7176** 0.2397 0.000 0.179 1.36 Single predictor
regression, second
Notes: * Indicates a 0.05 two-tailed significance level; ** indicates a 0.01 two-tailed significance level period (N ⫽ 30)
TPM studies that find that diversity measures positively impact aspects of firm performance
22,5/6 or at least do not have a negative impact on it (Cooper et al., 2014; Nesheim and Smith,
2015). In addition, we found a stable (in both periods) significant negative impact of
group’s average size and professional domain on performance.
We initially expected negative effects of diversity as separation and disparity, that
result from different pay or differences in authority. Rather, it appears that work groups
324 comprising workers with different work arrangements whose diversity is defined as
disparate positively impact group performance. Moreover, clearly defined work group
arrangements within a group can improve performance efficiency in the organization.
For instance, fixed hours with overtime pay (Employment arrangement A) and globally
pay (Employment arrangements B and C) along with clear and defined rank can smooth
the continuity of working processes and diminish unnecessary breaks within the
working day. Also, visible dress code and a clear hierarchy among different work
arrangements (e.g. higher hierarchal order of Employment arrangement B compared
with Employment arrangement C) may generate better performance synergy through
specialization in the work group.
Our findings correspond to the premise that workers with different employment
arrangements constitute a rich source of information, experience and approaches to
problem-solving, which, in turn, contributes to the decision-making process and
problem-solving. This then contributes positively to successful items’ repair. The
results also correspond to the claim that differences in work group members’ skills and
abilities contribute to work group performance in discretionary tasks (Steiner, 1972),
assuming that employment arrangement diversity also reflects such differences among
work group members.
In the studied work groups, the interdependency between co-workers is
somewhat limited. First, some of the tasks of the workgroup are performed by
individual workers. Second, other tasks are performed by ad hoc teams composed of
work group employees. It is possible that this method of work allocation leverages
the positive influence of diversity and, at the same time, suppresses its expected
negative influence. This aligns with our main findings and shows that work group
arrangements’ diversity as variety may create a synergy that generates a positive
impact on work group performance. Note that in a formal and hierarchical
organization, the distinction between group members is inherent in the
organizational structure and is led by the management. This may increase the
acceptance of such structural differences in status by work group members and
alleviate frictions and separating effects caused by work arrangement diversity,
thus leading to higher group performance. Moreover, acknowledging differences
between work group members may lead to higher specialization of individuals
within the work group. Higher specialization turns the group members to function
as assisting workers rather than competing with each other, thus improving
performance.
Hence, the organizational implications of diversity are counter-intuitive and contrast
with the expected effect of diversity as disparity as suggested by Harrison and Klein
(2007) rational, in light of the contextual theory of Johns (2006). These findings have
important implications for organizations that prefer mixing workers with different
work arrangements within work groups. Acknowledging the positive effects of
increased diversity of its work groups, the organization should formally emphasize on
these differences among the group members. Thus, the acceptance of formal diversity Employment
among group members would result in high specialization in the work group and arrangements
increase its work group performance efficiency.
diversity
Conclusions
In this paper, we tested how diversity in the work arrangements of group members can
impact group performance while considering the multi-faceted nature of work group 325
diversity. We used a unique data set from an organization in which four different work
arrangements coexist. In contrast with our initial expectations, we find diversity as
separation and disparity positively affect work group performance. Hence, the study
strongly supports the notion that synergy within the work groups caused by different
work arrangements results in improved performance.
The current study has some limitations. It was conducted in a single industrial
plant in the public sector, focusing on the work group level and testing only one
performance index. According to the contextual theory (Johns, 2006), the “impact of
context on organizational behavior is not sufficiently recognized by researchers”.
Therefore, to generalize our findings, additional organizational contexts must be
examined. For example, the hierarchical nature of the organization and the industry
it belongs to, whether it is competitive or public, and its performance measures
might impact the perceptions of the work group members with respect to their
counterparts – thus altering the effect of diversity on the group’s performance.
Second, we did not control for employees’ opinions; rather, we used objective
employment arrangement types as the basis for calculating diversity as separation.
However, by incorporating objective diversity measurements with a focused
organizational context, we were able to alleviate the problem of mono-method bias.
Using mean Euclidean distance as suggested by Harrison and Klein (2007), we
arbitrarily set the distance between two different employment arrangements as one.
This conveys a hidden assumption that the “distance” between each pair of different
employment arrangements is identical (i.e. that the difference between Employment
arrangements “A” and “B” is equal to the difference between Employment
arrangements “A” and “C”). We used this index only for work groups with up to two
employment arrangements. Future research and theory development is needed to
conceive of an index that will better represent employment arrangement diversity as
conceived of in terms of separation.
Despite the limitations indicated above, the results of the present research point
toward the idea that diversity in work arrangements positively impacts group
performance (measured by repairing the success rate). This result is aligned with other
researchers who view the integration of employees in work groups through
non-standard work arrangements as a vital step toward effective management (Yang
and Konrad, 2011).
The research contributes to organizational decision-making processes by stressing
the importance of incorporating non-standard work arrangements in organizations.
Furthermore, our research results can help in the stages of worker recruiting,
organization structuring and development and application of necessary work team.
Specifically, the study’s findings suggest that once the management decides to
implement a work group diversification strategy to improve performance, it should
formally define the differences among work group members by any means that make
TPM such differences clear and apparent. This formal acknowledgement is expected to
22,5/6 alleviate the potential negative consequences of diversity when perceived as separation
and disparity while intensifying specialization within the work group. Finally, from a
methodological point of view, this study is an important step in characterizing
differences in work arrangements in terms of diversity. The study uniquely sheds light
on the concept of formal diversity, which should be further investigated, in addition to
326 the effect of other important organizational characteristics such as organizational
culture.

Note
1. Given the exploratory nature of our research, we decided to not commit ourselves to a single
type of characterization of work arrangements in terms of type of diversity according to the
typology offered by Harrison and Klein (2007). Rather, we tested the effect of diversity on
performance as a function of all three types of diversity characterizations. Results of each
characterization will also help assess which type is most suitable for the context under study
as is also suggested by Harrison and Klein (2007).

References
Allison, P.D. (1999), Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application, SAS
Publishing.
Ang, S. and Slaughter, S.A. (2006), “Work outcomes and job design for contract versus permanent
information systems professionals on software development teams”, in Hirschheim, R.,
Heinzl, A. and Dibbern, J. (Eds), Information Systems Outsourcing: Enduring Themes, New
Perspectives and Global Challenges, Springer, Berlin, pp. 403-441.
Atkinson, J. (1987), “Flexibility or fragmentation? The United Kingdom labour market in the
eighties”, Labour and Society, Vol. 12, pp. 87-105.
Bacharach, S.B. and Bamberger, P.A. (2004), “Diversity and the union the effect of demographic
dissimilarity on members’ union attachment”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 385-418.
Barsade, S.G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (2000), “To your heart’s content: a
model of affective diversity in top management teams”, Administrative Science, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 802-836.
Becker, P.A. (2004), “Utilization of contingent workers and firm performance”, paper presented at
the proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Bedeian, A.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (2000), “On the use of the coefficient of variation as a measure
of diversity”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3, pp. 285-297.
Befort, S. (2003), “Revisiting the black hole of workplace regulation: a historical and comparative
perspective of contingent work”, Berkely Journal of Employment & Labor Law, Vol. 24,
pp. 153-178.
Bendapudi, V., Mangum, S.L., Tansky, J.W. and Fisher, M.M. (2003), “Nonstandard employment
arrangements: a proposed typology and policy planning framework”, Human Resource
Planning, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Bergstrom, O. (2001), Does Contingent Employment Affect the Organization of Work?, School of
Economics and Commercial Law, Göteborg University, Sweden.
Bergstrom, O. and Storrie, D.W. (Eds) ( 2003), Contingent Employment in Europe and the United Employment
States, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
arrangements
Boswell, W.R., Watkins, M.B., Triana, M.C., Zardkoohi, A., Ren, R. and Umphress, E.E. (2012), diversity
“Second-class citizen? Contract workers’ perceived status, dual commitment and intent to
quit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80, pp. 454-463.
Broschak, J.P. and Davis-Blake, A. (2006), “Mixing standard work and nonstandard deals: the
consequences of heterogeneity in employment arrangements”, Academy of Management 327
Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 371-393.
Broschak, J.P., Davis-Blake, A. and Block, E.S. (2008), “Nonstandard, not substandard the
relationship among work arrangements, work attitudes, and job performance”, Work and
Occupations, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 3-43.
Bunderson, J.S. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002), “Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional
diversity in management teams: process and performance effects”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 875-893.
Cappelli, P. and Keller, J.R. (2013a), “Classifying work in the new economy”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 1-22.
Cappelli, P.H. and Keller, J.R. (2013b), “A study of the extent and potential causes of alternative
employment arrangements”, Industrial & Labor Relations Review, Vol. 66 No. 4,
pp. 874-901.
Cooper, J.T., Stanley, L.J., Klein, H.J. and Tenhiälä (2014), “Profiles of commitment in standard and
fixed-term employment arrangements: implications for work outcomes”, European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 149-165, doi: 10.1080/
1359432X.2014.990443.
Davis-Blake, A., Broschak, J.P. and George, E. (2003), “Happy together? How using nonstandard
workers affects exit, voice, and loyalty among standard employees”, The Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 46, pp. 475-485.
DuRivage, V. (1992), New Policies for the Part-time and Contingent Workforce, ME Sharpe,
New York, NY.
Ellingson, J.E., Gruys, M.L. and Sackett, P.R. (1998), “Factors related to the satisfaction and
performance of temporary employees”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6,
pp. 913-921.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 1199-1228.
Harrison, Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of
surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 96-107.
Heres, L. and Benschop, Y. (2010), “Taming diversity: an exploratory study on the travel of a
management fashion”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 436-457.
Horstman, B. (1988), “Labour flexibility strategies and management style”, Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 30, pp. 412-432.
Houseman, S.N. (2001), “Why employers use flexible staffing arrangements: evidence from an
establishment survey”, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 149-170.
TPM Howe, W.J. (1986), “Temporary help workers: who they are, what jobs they hold”, Monthly Labor
Review, Vol. 109, pp. 45-47.
22,5/6
Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A. and Erhardt, N.L. (2003), “Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29, p. 801.
Jehn, K.A. and Bezrukova, K. (2004), “A field study of group diversity, workgroup context, and
performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 703-729.
328 Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field
study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-763.
Johns, G. (2006), “The essential impact of context on organizational behavior”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 386-408.
Jones, C. (2010), “Archival data: advantages and disadvantages for research in psychology”, Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 4 No. 11, pp. 1008-1017.
Kahn, S. (2000), “The bottom line impact of nonstandard jobs on companies’ profitability and
productivity”, in Carré, F., Ferber, M., Golden, L. and Herzenberg, S. (Eds), Nonstandard
Work: The Nature and Challenges of Changing Employment Arrangements, Industrial
Relations Research Association, Champaign, pp. 21-40.
Kalleberg, A.L., Rasell, E., Cassirer, N., Reskin, B.F., Hudson, K., Webster, D., Appelbaum, E.,
Spalter-Roth, R.M., Kalleberg, A.L., Rasell, E., Cassirer, N., Reskin, B.F., Hudson, K.,
Webster, D., Appelbaum, E. and Spalter-Roth, R.M. (1997), Nonstandard Work,
Substandard Jobs: Flexible Work Arrangements in the U. S, Economic Policy Institute,
Washington, DC.
Kalleberg, A.L., Reskin, B.F. and Hudson, K. (2000), “Bad jobs in America: standard and
nonstandard employment relations and job quality in the United States”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 65, pp. 256-278.
Kalleberg, A.L., Reynolds, J. and Marsden, P.V. (2003), “Externalizing employment: flexible
staffing arrangements in US organizations”, Social Science Research, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 525-552.
Kelliher, C. and Anderson, D. (2010), “Doing more with less? Flexible working practiced and the
intensification of work”, Human Relation, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 83-106.
Kerr, N.L. and Bruun, S.E. (1983), “Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses:
free-rider effects”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 78-94.
Kleinbaum, D.G. (1994), Logistic Regression: A Self-Learning Text, Springer, New York, NY.
Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L. and Muller, K.E. (2007), Applied Regression Analysis and Other
Multivariable Methods, Duxbury Press, Boston, MA.
Kleinbaum, D.G. and Klein, M. (2002), Logistic Regression: A Self-Learning Text, 2nd ed., Springer,
New York, NY.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D. and
Thomas, D. (2003), “The effects of diversity on business performance: report of the diversity
research network”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42, pp. 3-21.
Krausz, M., Brandwein, T. and Fox, S. (1995), “Work attitudes and emotional responses of
permanent, voluntary, and involuntary temporary-help employees: an exploratory study”,
Applied Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 217-232.
Lautsch, B.A. and Kossek, E.E. (2011), “Managing a blended workforce: telecommuters and
non-telecommuters”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 10-17.
Lepak, D.P. and Snell, S.A. (1999), “The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital Employment
allocation and development”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-48.
arrangements
Linnehan, F. and Konrad, A.M. (1999), “Diluting diversity: implications for intergroup inequality diversity
in organizations”, Inequity in Social Exchange, Vol. 8, pp. 399-414.
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 35, pp. 626-637. 329
Mathews, A.L. (2010), “Diversity management and cultural competency”, in Rice, M. (Ed.),
Diversity and Public Administration: Theory, Issues, and Perspectives, ME Sharpe,
Armonk, NY, p. 210.
Meade, A.W. and Eby, L.T. (2007), “Using indices of group agreement in multilevel construct
validation”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-96.
Nesheim, T. (2003), “Using external work arrangements in core value-creation areas”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 528-537.
Nesheim, T. and Smith, J. (2015), “Knowledge sharing in projects: does employment arrangement
matter?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 255-269.
Pearce, J.L. (1993), “Toward an organizational behavior of contract laborers: their psychological
involvement and effects on employee co-workers”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1082-1096.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), “Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening
process theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of work group
diversity, conflict and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Qin, J., Muenjohn, N. and Chhetri, P. (2014), “A review of diversity conceptualizations variety,
trends, and a framework”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 133-157.
Reskin, B.F. (2003), “Modeling ascriptive inequality: from motives to mechanisms”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Smithson, M. (1982), “On relative dispersion: a new solution for some old problems”, Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 16, pp. 261-271.
Steiner, I.D. (1972), Group Process and Productivity, Academic Press New York, NY.
The Economist (2015), “The future of work: there’s an app for that”, 3rd January, available at:
www.economist.com/news/briefing/21637355-freelance-workers-available-moments-
notice-will-reshape-nature-companies-and (accessed 22 March 2016).
Tsui, A.S. and O’Reilly, C.A.I. (1989), “Beyond simple demographic effects: the importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 402-423.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K. and Homan, A.C. (2004), “Work group diversity and group
performance: an integrative model and research agenda”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 89, pp. 1008-1022.
Waldman, D.A. and Avolio, B.J. (1986), “A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 33-38.
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of
40 Years of Research, Vol. 20, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
TPM Wooden, M. and Warren, D. (2004), “Non-standard employment and job satisfaction: evidence
from the HILDA survey”, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 275-297.
22,5/6
Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2011), “Understanding diversity management practices: implications
of institutional theory and resource-based theory”, Group & Organization Management,
Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 6-38.

330 Further reading

Kalleberg, A.L. (2000), “Nonstandard employment relations: part-time, temporary and contract
work”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 341-365.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (1998), “Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional
dynamics of organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 325-340.

Corresponding author
Sagi Akron can be contacted at: sagiakron@univ.haifa.ac.il

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 the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.