See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262183019

Valuing cultural diversity: a study of employees’ reactions to employer efforts

to value diversity in India

Conference Paper · November 2001

CITATIONS READS

13 817

1 author:

Subhash C. Kundu
Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology
124 PUBLICATIONS   744 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ability-motivation-opportunity enhancing HR practices in India View project

Entrepreneurship among young aspirants View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Subhash C. Kundu on 06 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Management Conference, 2001, 635-646

Valuing Cultural Diversity: A Study of

Employees’ Reactions to Employers Efforts to
Value Diversity in India

Subhash C. Kundu

This study examined the perceptions of male and female employees across various
categories (i.e. general, minority, disabled and socially disadvantaged employees) about
employers’ efforts for promoting and valuing diversity in Indian organizations. Data based on
1083 observations were analyzed by applying statistical techniques like analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and mean scores. Significant differences were found between the perceptions of male
and female employees across various categories of employees.
The study found that women in general attached more importance to value diversity than
men. Women were of the strong view that organizations must work towards hiring and retaining
more women and ensuring development opportunities to women. Creating and valuing gender
diversity is important. Further the perceptions of various categories of employees also differ
significantly on the issue in context. Each group of employees thinks about themselves as more
important than other groups of employees. General category employees did not value diversity as
strongly as others (i.e. minority, disabled and socially disadvantaged). Compared to general
category men, general category women and both male and female of minority, disabled and
socially disadvantaged categories perceived strongly and placed greater value on employers’
efforts to promote diversity.

Keywords: Value Diversity; Differences; Perceptions and Reactions; Categories of Employees;

Gender.

1. Introduction
The populations of the countries around the world are becoming diverse.
So the Organizations are becoming more diverse. The future human resources
will include an increased number of women, more minorities, varieties of
ethnic backgrounds, more aging workers, disabled and people with different
lifestyles. The extent to which these shifts are effectively and efficiently
managed will have an impact on the competitive and economic performance
of business Organizations [21]. As the globalization is increasing, workforce
diversity is here going to stay. The Organizations those recognize the
globalization of labour as a positive trend and facilitate the flow of workforce
will benefit most [10].
Cultural diversity refers to the co-existence of employees from various

Department of Business Management Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar-125 001

PH. :+91-1662-75409 (O), +91-1662-36234 (R), Fax :+91-1662-76240
e-mail :sckundu@yahoo.com

635
Subhash C. Kundu

socio-cultural backgrounds within the company. Diversity includes cultural

factors such as race, gender, age, colour, physical ability, ethnicity, etc. The
broader definition of diversity may include age, national origin, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, values, ethnic culture, education, language,
lifestyle, beliefs, physical appearance and economic status. Diversity requires
a type of organizational culture in which each employee can pursue his or her
career aspirations without being inhibited by gender, race, nationality,
religion, or other factors that are irrelevant to performance [3]. Managing
diversity means enabling diverse workforce to perform its full potential in an
equitable work environment where no one group has an advantage or
disadvantage [20].
It is the cultural background that creates differences [17]. Hofstede
found highly significant differences in behaviour and attitudes of employees
and managers from different countries that worked for IBM. Managers and
employees vary on four primary cultural dimensions i.e.
individualism/collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
masculinity/femininity. Later Hofstede alongwith others identified a fifth
dimension i.e. Confucian dynamism [1]. Confucian dynamism measures
employees’ devotion to work ethic and their respect for tradition [1, 8].
To manage effectively, we need to recognize the differences and learn
to use them to our advantage, rather than either attempting to ignore
differences or simply allowing differences to cause problems [1]. Rather
managers should be taught how to respect the differences at work and how to
work with them to maximize the contribution of each employee [4].
Dynamic companies look for people who are different from us because
the diverse workforce may bring different talents, interests, and viewpoints
[19]. The organizations those fail to embrace cultural diversity effectively
and do not take a holistic approach to eliminate discrimination and injustice
will adversely affect both employees and customers. Companies should
rethink and redefine missions, strategies, management practices, cultures,
markets, and products to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse body of
employees, customers and stakeholders [6]. Ultimately, the key to create,
develop, and retain diverse workforce is to find a way to make workforce to
feel connected to their company [5].

2. Valuing Cultural diversity

The reasons for valuing diversity are:
(i) To respond to competition, labour shortage, changing demographics
and changing workforce values;
(ii) To show that the Organization is a strategically driven, well-managed
and quality focused to its employees, stockholders, customers and
community;

636
Subhash C. Kundu

(iii) To prepare, train and develop company employees to manage and

motivate a multi-cultural workforce;
(iv) To gain competitive edge by identifying, attracting and retaining highly
qualified and productive employees [9].
(v) To justify itself a true representative of the society.
The companies can succeed at diversity if the initiative to create,
manage and value the diverse workforce has the full support from the top
management [7, 9]. With this, other steps must be considered which are as
follows:
♦ The organization should assign this work to a senior manager [9].
♦ The organization should continuously monitor all human resource
management decisions around hiring, placement, training and
development, evaluation, promotion, compensation, and reward systems.
♦ The organization should create such a working environment that will
increase the motivation, satisfaction, and commitment of diverse people.
♦ Performance standards must be clearly and objectively established,
effectively communicated, and used on objective criteria without any
bias.
♦ Identify desirable and undesirable behaviors that must be based upon
performance feedback discussions involving diverse workforce.
♦ The strategy (diversity or otherwise) must be based on will of the human
resources, strength, and culture of the organization.
Managers must understand their firm’s culture first and then implement
diversity strategies according to that culture [7].

3. THE STUDY-INDIAN CONTEXT

The population of India is diverse. The population differs on account of
religions, regional backgrounds, ethnic, academic, gender, education, socially
disadvantaged (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and others), disability,
etc. The concerns for the socio-economic upliftment, changing social patterns,
the Organizational concerns and the women’s movement are some reasons
for becoming the work force diverse. The women’s movement and the
subsequent focus of the government on their development have resulted in
the increase in number of women in the work force. The last two decades of
the 20th century have largely witnessed women’s formal entry in the
Organization. Other dimensions on which the work force differs are the
academic, ethnic, regional backgrounds and disability. All these aspects are
calling for a serious rethinking on HR policies [13]. The cultural factors may
affect the perceptions of others in the Organization as well as their own
image. Unlike the other groups of employees, women’s entry has been
gradual. Their presence in the workforce has started getting discussed among
HR professionals [14].

637
Subhash C. Kundu

There is a marked difference in male and female attitudes towards

women in managerial positions. Female have much more positive attitude for
themselves for most of the managerial attributes, while male think otherwise.
Further the resistance of men to accept women as worthwhile peers and
bosses, the influence of the unfavourable male attitudes on organizational
decisions concerning women’s career advancement and conflict between
maternal and work roles are some reasons for the slow entry and rise of
women [2]. Another study pointed out that women are competent and are
serious participants in the work force and they are not inferior to their male
colleagues [18].
Socially disadvantaged people enter the Organizations as a result of
policy of reservations and concessions and therefore it is logical to expect
some form of resentment from other category of employees and
managements. Government from time to time issues guidelines and directives
with respect to their development and integration [14]. Since the socially
disadvantaged persons suffer due to age-old prejudices, commitment to their
development and integration into the mainstream is imperative. Further
Organizations must go beyond lip service and initiate proper interventions
that would aim at their acceptance by others on a psychological plane [14].
When Organizations take serious efforts to solve the difficulties of diverse
work force, it will reduce employee frustrations, and the associated ill effects
and would generate positive responses from diverse groups of employees.
Moreover innovative and creative solutions will come from diverse talents.
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of the study is to assess the perceptions and
reactions of various categories of employees about valuing cultural diversity
in India. Subject to this, it attempts to seek answers to the following:
(i) How male and female employees’ perceptions differ about employers’
efforts to value cultural diversity?
(ii) How various categories of employees (general, minority, disabled and
socially disadvantaged) differ on the issue?
(iii) How perceptions of male and female employees of respective
categories differ?
(iv) How male and female employees across categories view about each
other?
(v) How male and female employees across categories view employers
efforts to value cultural diversity?
Methodology
This study is based on primary data. For the purpose, a questionnaire
was developed on the issue of cultural diversity. In all 34 variables were
incorporated in the questionnaire by using five point scale ranging from

638
Subhash C. Kundu

strongly disagree to strongly agree. The scale weights were from one for
strongly disagree to five for strongly agree. Out of 34 variables, eleven
variables related to valuing diversity were used for this study.
In all 300 Organizations in corporate sector were contacted for
gathering data through questionnaires. Out of 300 Organizations, we
identified only 80 Organizations those were having or employing various
categories employees i.e. male, female, minority, disabled and socially
disadvantaged employees. We then administered questionnaires to the
employees of these Organizations. While distributing questionnaires to the
executives/ employees, we tried that the filled up questionnaires should come
from each category employees. In the process we could collect 1200 filled up
questionnaires from 80 Organizations. For analysis purpose, 1083 fully filled
up questionnaires were used. 117 incomplete questionnaires were not used
for analysis. Category-wise distribution of sample is given in Table 1.
Table 1: Distribution of sample.
Category of employees
Gender Socially Total
General Minority Disabled
Disadvantaged
Male 533 93 43 128 797
Female 223 31 10 22 286
Total 756 124 53 150 1083
Statistical tools like Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), means and grand
means were used for analysis of the data gathered. Two way ANOVA was
used to bring out the significant differences of perceptions of male and
female employees and of various categories of employees. Mean scores and
grand mean scores were also used to explain the direction and extent of the
significant differences.

4. RESULTS
Table 2 shows the results of ANOVA for each variable, the
corresponding significance levels of the main effects (i.e. gender and
category) and the two-way interaction effect (i.e. gender and category). The
significant F-values indicate the difference of perceptions and attitudes as
between male and female and between various categories of employees (i.e.
general, minority, disabled and socially disadvantaged) and the impact of
both independent variables on each other. Table 3 shows the means and grand
means of the variables those are helpful to explain the direction and extent of
difference of perceptions and reactions.

Table 2: Summary of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

639
Subhash C. Kundu

Effects
Gender Category 2-way
(Main) (Main) Interactions
Dependent Variables F-value F-value F-value
1. Organization must hire and retain more 19.812 1.321 0.210
women (0.000) (0.266) (0.889)
2. Organization must hire and retain more 0.957 12.896 1.509
minority employees (0.328) (0.000) (0.210)
3. Organization must hire and retain more 0.574 5.998 0.700
physically disabled employees (0.449) (0.000) (0.552)
4. Organization must hire and retain more 1.011 5.131 1.199
socially disadvantaged employees (0.315) (0.002) (0.309)
5. Gender diversity is important 4.356 0.986 1.024
(0.037) (0.399) (0.381)
6. Minority representation is important 1.575 6.705 1.603
(0.210) (0.000) (0.187)
7. Socially disadvantaged people 0.058 7.683 0.684
representation is important (0.810) (0.000) (0.562)
8. Access of development opportunities to 8.249 1.530 0.163
women employees (0.004) (0.205) (0.921)
9. Access of development opportunities to 0.164 4.589 0.140
minority employees (0.685) (0.003) (0.936)
10. Access of development opportunities to 0.000 4.062 0.120
socially disadvantaged people (0.999) (0.007) (0.949)
11. Access of development opportunities to 0.047 0.429 0.452
disabled employees. (0.829) (0.732) (0.716)

* Significance levels are indicated in parentheses.

640
Subhash C. Kundu

Table 3: Summary Table of Mean and Grand Mean Scores.

Categories of Employees
Variables General Minority Disabled Socially Grand
Disadva- Mean
ntaged
1. Organization must hire and M 2.95 3.10 3.09 3.09 2.99
retain more women F 3.54 3.84 3.50 3.68 3.58
GM 3.12 3.28 3.17 3.17
2. Organization must hire and M 2.53 3.15 2.98 2.92 2.69
retain more minority F 2.61 3.32 2.50 2.68 2.69
employees GM 2.55 3.19 2.89 2.89
3. Organization must hire and M 2.23 2.34 3.07 2.40 2.32
retain more physically F 2.35 2.61 2.80 2.64 2.41
disabled employees GM 2.26 2.41 3.02 2.43
4. Organization must hire and M 2.45 2.81 2.58 3.10 2.60
retain more socially F 2.50 2.45 2.60 2.86 2.52
disadvantaged people GM 2.46 2.72 2.58 3.07
5. Gender diversity is M 3.60 3.73 3.79 3.72 3.65
important F 3.97 3.90 3.70 4.27 3.98
GM 3.71 3.77 3.77 3.80
6. Minority representation is M 3.22 3.66 3.67 3.42 3.32
important F 3.22 3.77 2.90 3.45 3.29
GM 3.22 3.69 3.53 3.43
7. Socially disadvantaged M 3.06 3.33 3.28 3.69 3.20
people representation is F 3.15 3.55 2.90 3.64 3.22
important. GM 3.08 3.39 3.21 3.68
8. Access of development M 3.72 3.83 3.65 3.84 3.75
opportunities to women F 4.00 4.16 3.90 4.27 4.03
employees GM 3.80 3.91 3.70 3.91
9. Access of development M 3.48 3.80 3.51 3.72 3.56
opportunities to minority F 3.45 3.84 3.30 3.73 3.51
employees GM 3.47 3.81 3.47 3.72
10. Access of development M 3.36 3.49 3.28 3.85 3.45
opportunities to socially F 3.35 3.52 3.40 3.73 3.40
disadvantaged people GM 3.36 3.50 3.30 3.83
11. Access of development M 3.31 3.34 3.63 3.52 3.36
opportunities to disabled F 3.46 3.55 3.40 3.50 3.47
employees GM 3.35 3.40 3.58 3.51

* M = Male, F= Female, GM = Grand mean.

Male and female employees differ significantly (P≤0.000) on the

variable ‘must hire and retain more women’. Women report that diversity is
important to the Organizations. Women employees rated the importance of

641
Subhash C. Kundu

diversity efforts considerably higher ( x =3.58) than did males ( x =2.99).

Importantly, minority women ( x =3.84) held more favourable attitude
towards diversity than other categories of women. General category male
employees ( x =2.95) attached less importance to diversity. No significant
difference was found according to category of employees and interaction of
independent variables. Various categories of employees differ significantly
(P≤ 0.000) on the variable ‘must hire and retain more minority employees’.
Minority male and female employees ( x =3.19) held significantly
favourable attitude towards diversity than general category ( x =2.55),
disabled ( x =2.89), and socially disadvantaged ( x =2.89) employees.
General category employees did not attach importance to diversity.
According to gender effect, there is no significant difference. Different
categories of employees differ significantly (P ≤ 0.000) on the variable
‘must hire and retain disabled employees’ and categories of employees
further differ (P≤ 0.002) on the variable ‘must hire and retain socially
disadvantaged employees’. Disabled employees ( x =3.02) had positive
attitude towards diversity than general ( x =2.26), minority ( x =2.41), and
socially disadvantaged employees ( x =2.43). Further socially disadvantaged
employees ( x =3.07) held positive attitude towards diversity than other
categories.
Male and female employees differ significantly (P≤0.037) on the
variable ‘gender diversity is important’. This variable does not differ
significantly according to category effect and interaction effect. Grand mean
scores regarding male ( x =3.65) and female ( x =3.98) employees clearly
show significant difference in perceptions. Females were of the strong
commitment to gender diversity than males. Socially disadvantaged women
( x =4.27) have shown the strongest attitude towards diversity. ‘Minority
representation in important’ variable differs significantly according to
categories of employees (P≤.0.000) only. Minority employees ( x =3.69)
attached more importance to diversity by increasing representation of
minority in the work force than other categories of employees. General
category employees ( x =3.22) attached comparatively less importance to the
increasing representation of minority employees. Category effect (P≤0.000)
is significant on the variable ‘socially disadvantaged people representation is
important’. Therefore, there is difference of perception according to
categories of employees. Highest grand mean score ( x =3.68) of socially

642
Subhash C. Kundu

disadvantaged employees indicates that they were of the strong view that
their increased representation in workforce is required and important. General
category employees ( x =3.08) valued comparatively less the representation
of socially disadvantaged people.
We noted the main effect differences of perceptions of gender (P≤0.004)
regarding development opportunities to women employees. Female
employees ( x =4.03) were strongly of the view that Organizations should
work towards ensuring fully access of development opportunities to women.
But males ( x =3.75) comparatively valued less the access of development
opportunities to women. Various categories of employees differ significantly
(P≤0.003) on the variable ‘development opportunities to minority employees’.
There was strong perception of minority employees ( x =3.81) that
development opportunities should be fully accessible to minority employees.
Socially disadvantaged employees ( x =3.72) closely followed this view,
while other categories were not much strong of the view. Various categories
employees differ (P≤0.007) on the issue of ‘access of the development
opportunities to socially disadvantaged employees’. Socially disadvantaged
employees ( x =3.83) were of the view that development opportunities
should be fully provided to the socially disadvantaged. Other categories i.e.
general ( x = 3.36), minority ( x = 3.50) and disabled employees ( x =3.30)
were not of the strong view. Further we noted that the differences of
perceptions were not significant according to gender, category and interaction
effects regarding ‘development opportunities to disabled employees’.
However disabled employees ( x =3.58) had comparatively strong opinion
that development opportunities should be fully ensured to them than other
categories of employees.

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This study examined the perceptions and reactions of various categories
of employees towards valuing diversity. Here we found that variables related
to categories (i.e. general, minority, disabled and socially disadvantaged)
were more powerful and significant than gender related variables in
explaining differences in diversity attitudes. The perceptions of male and
female regarding valuing diversity differ significantly on all the three gender
related variables (i.e. must hire and retain more women, gender diversity is
important, and development opportunities to women). Women attached more
importance to value diversity than men. While responding to gender related
variables, women irrespective of categories they belong considered
themselves in a single women group and compared themselves with men

643
Subhash C. Kundu

irrespective of categories. Clear perceptual difference between male and

female was highlighted by this study. Another study also pointed out that
there is a marked difference in male and female attitudes towards women in
managerial positions [2]. Institutional racism and sexism still persist in
organizations [11, 15].
Perceptions of the various categories of employees differ significantly
on the remaining eight variables except last one in valuing diversity.
Interestingly each group of employees thinks about themselves as important
than other group of employees. Minority employees believed more strongly
than other categories that organization must hire and retain more minority
employees, minority representation is important and must fully ensure
development opportunities to minority employees. Disabled employees and
socially disadvantaged employees also believed so in their own cases.
General category employees did not value diversity as strongly as others.
Compared to general category men, general category women and both male
and female of minority, disabled and socially disadvantaged categories
perceived strongly and placed greater value on employers’ efforts to promote
diversity. This finding is consistent with the findings of the study of Kossek
and Zonia [12] that white women and racioethnic minorities placed greater
value on employer’s efforts to promote diversity as compared to white men.
Because general category men are currently on better Organizational
positions and enjoying power and rewards solely, they are likely to be the
target group most negatively affected by the implementation of diversity
initiatives and policies.
Further the diversity initiatives are more welcomed by women,
minorities and other deprived groups, since women and these groups may
believe that the work environment needs changing to better accommodate
diverse employees. The rationale to justify creating multicultural
organizations is that such change may result in some benefits like better
decision-making, greater creativity and innovation, business competitiveness
[12], more flexibility and rapid response to change. Hiring women, minorities,
disabled, etc., will help the organizations to tap these niche markets. [16]

References
[1] Adler NJ (1997) International Dimensions of Organizational Behaviour,
South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
[2] Bhatnagar D (1987) A study of Attitudes Towards Women Managers in
Banks, Prajnan, 16(3), 263-281.
[3] Bryan JH (1999) The Diversity Imperative, Executive Excellence, July, 6.
[4] Cascio WF (1998) Managing Human Resources – Productivity, Quality
of Work Life, Profits, McGraw Hill, Boston.
[5] Farren C and Nelson B (1999) Retaining Diversity, Executive Excellence,

644
Subhash C. Kundu

July, 7.
[6] Fernandez JP (1998) Slaying the Diversity Dinosaur, Executive
Excellence, Dec., 15.
[7] Hayes E (1999) Winning at Diversity, Executive Excellence, July, 9.
[8] Hofstede G and Bond MH (1988) The Confucius Connection: From
Cultural Roots to Economic Growth, Organizational Dynamics, Spring,
16(4), 5-21.
[9] Jackson BW, LaFasto F, Schultz HG and Kelly D (1992) Diversity,
Human Resource Management, Spring/Summer, 31 (1&2), 21-34.
[10]Johnston WB (1991) Global Workforce 2000: The New World Labour
Market, Harvard Business Review, March-April, 115-127.
[11]Kanter RM (1977) Men and Women of the Corporation, Basic Books,
New York, cited in Kossek EE and Zonia SC (1993) Assessing Diversity
Climate: A Field Study of Reactions to Employer Efforts to Promote
Diversity, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14, 61-81.
[12]Kossek EE and Zonia SC (1993) Assessing Diversity Climate: A Field
Study of Reactions to Employer Efforts to Promote Diversity, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 14, 61-81.
[13]Mankidy A (1997) HRM and Quality Orientation in Banks. Management
review, Oct-Dec.
[14]Mankidy J (1995-96) Managing Human Resource Diversity: Challenges
and Responses of the Indian Banking Industry, Prajnan, 24(4), 445-460.
[15]Martin J and Pettigrew (1987) Shaping the Organizational Context for
Minority Inclusion, Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41-78, cited in Kossek
EE and Zonia SC (1993) Assessing Diversity Climate: A Field Study of
Reactions to Employer Efforts to Promote Diversity, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, 14, 61-81.
[16]Mueller KP (1998) Diversity and the Bottom Line, Executive Excellence,
Dec, 7.
[17]Reynolds, PD (1986) Organizational Culture as Related to Industry,
Position, and Performance: A preliminary report, Journal of Management
Studies, May, 333-345.
[18]Sekaran U (1981) A study of Sex Role Differences in the Indian Banking
Industry, Human Futures, 4, 184-187.
[19]Simmons M (1996) New Leadership for Women and Men - Building an
Inclusive Organization, Gower Publishing Ltd., England.
[20]Torres C and Bruxelles M (1992) Capitalizing on Global Diversity, HR
Magazine, Dec, 30-33.
[21]Wentling RM and Palma-Rivas N (2000) Current Status of Diversity
Initiatives in Selected Multinational Corporations, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 11(1), 35-60.

645
 Subhash C. Kundu

646

View publication stats