Beyond demographic identities and motivation to learn: The effect of organizational identification on diversity training outcomes

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2439
• Author: Samantha A. Conroy,Shannon L. Rawski
• Date: 01 June 2020
• Published date: 01 June 2020

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Beyond demographic identities and motivation to learn: The

effect of organizational identification on diversity training

outcomes

Shannon L. Rawski

1

| Samantha A. Conroy

2

1

Department of Management and Human

Resources, College of Business, University of

Wisconsin Oshkosh, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, U.S.

A.

2

Department of Management, College of

Business, Colorado State University, Fort

Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Shannon L. Rawski, Department of

Management and Human Resources, College

of Business, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh,

Oshkosh, WI 54901, USA.

Email: rawskis@uwosh.edu

Summary

There is a pressing need for better explanations of diversity training effectiveness so

that organizations can administer training programs that facilitate positive intergroup

interactions. In this paper, we consider the unique predictive effect of organizational

identification on diversity training outcomes beyond the effects of the traditional

predictors of demographic-based identities and motivation to learn across two sam-

ples of employees involved in diversity-related training at their employing organiza-

tions. Organizational identification predicted unique variance in voluntary

participation in diversity training, diversity training-related knowledge application,

motivation to transfer diversity training, and diversity training-related organizational

citizenship behavior intentions. Research and practitioner implications are discussed

based on our findings.

KEYWORDS

diversity training, identity, motivation to learn, organizational identification

1|INTRODUCTION

Organizations are important spaces for addressing social issues, such

as sexual harassment, sex- and race-based discrimination, and incivil-

ity. In recent years, the #MeToo and #TimesUp movements have

raised awareness about sexual assault, harassment, and inequality

issues at work (Richards, 2018). Public acknowledgment and admis-

sions of sexual harassment in work contexts have increased drastically

as employees share their own stories (McGregor, 2017). Similarly, the

#BlackLivesMatter movement has raised awareness of ongoing

inequalities in society based on race (Chokshi, 2016). These social

movements are important to organizations because the issues trou-

bling society also play out in workplaces. In fact, many organizational

leaders, recognizing the changing environment, are working to identify

the best approaches to manage these issues at work (Hyman, 2016).

Often, the solution identified is diversity and other forms of sensitive

issues training (e.g., training on harassment, prejudice, and

discrimination).

Diversity training is defined as training “aimed at facilitating posi-

tive intergroup interactions, reducing prejudice and discrimination,

and enhancing the skills, knowledge, and motivation of participants to

interact with diverse others”(Bezrukova, Spell, Perry, & Jehn, 2016,

p. 1228; Pendry, Driscoll, & Field, 2007). For example, sexual harass-

ment training is a form of diversity training focused on reducing inap-

propriate sociosexual and sex-based behaviors in the workplace, and

implicit bias training is a form of diversity training intended to raise

trainees' awareness of their biases against certain groups and develop

ways of mitigating the expression of those biases.

Unfortunately, although diversity training is in high demand as

organizations try to reduce prejudice and discrimination among

employee groups, there is evidence that diversity training is not con-

sistently effective (Bezrukova et al., 2016; King, Gulick, & Avery,

2010), often failing to reach its stated goals of increasing awareness,

knowledge, and “engagement in effective intercultural behaviors”

(King et al., 2010, p. 894). Recent theorizing has even suggested that

diversity training, categorized as a nondiscrimination organizational

Received: 11 June 2019 Revised: 27 February 2020 Accepted: 7 March 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2439

J Organ Behav. 2020;41:461–478. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 461

diversity initiative, is likely to lead to backfire effects such as subtle

forms of discrimination (Leslie, 2019). This proposition is supported

by findings that although diversity training increases perceptions that

the organization itself is bias free, it also decreases trainees' aware-

ness of discrimination (Dover, Major, & Kaiser, 2014). Thus, there is a

need to better research and understand the predictors of diversity

training effectiveness.

Diversity training research is positioned at the intersection of

general diversity research and general training research, often apply-

ing theories and findings from each of these more general litera-

tures to make predictions about diversity training outcomes. We

propose that there may be additional predictors that are not tradi-

tionally used in the general diversity and general training literature,

but nonetheless, organizational behavior theory would suggest these

predictors affect diversity training outcomes. Specifically, we suggest

one such predictor is organizational identification (i.e., employees'

sense of oneness with their organization; Ashforth, Harrison, & Cor-

ley, 2008). We provide hypotheses based on social identity theory

and empirical evidence that suggest that organizational identification

will increase employees' voluntary participation in diversity training

and their knowledge application, motivation to transfer, and

training-related organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) intentions.

Further, we propose that organizational identification will affect

these outcomes in ways that are distinct from past predictors, such

as demographic-based social identities and motivation to learn. By

investigating a predictor outside of the diversity and training litera-

tures, we contribute to knowledge that can inform diversity training

best practices.

In order to address this topic, we start by reviewing the literature

on diversity training effectiveness, noting previous research on

demographic-based identities and motivation to learn as predictors of

diversity training effectiveness. Then, we propose that organizational

identification is likely to be a predictor of diversity training effective-

ness, even after accounting for the predictive validity of demographic-

based identities and motivation to learn. We explore the relationship

of organizational identification with training outcomes in both volun-

tary and mandatory training contexts. Specifically, we present data

from two different diversity-related training programs, which support

our fundamental argument that diversity training outcomes can be an

expression of employees' organizational identification. Finally, we pro-

vide practical recommendations based on our findings.

2|LITERATURE REVIEW

Diversity training differs from other forms of organizational training,

such as job efficacy training, because it focuses on developing knowl-

edge, skills, and attitudes related to managing social issues, social

inequities, social interactions, and relationships at work rather than on

developing technical task-, job-, or firm-specific knowledge, skills, and

attitudes (Bezrukova et al., 2016). It is further differentiated from

other forms of training, because it brings social identities (i.e., self-

definitions tied to membership in social categories, such as race, sex,

or ethnic group; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) to the forefront, potentially

eliciting strong emotions from participants (Hanover & Cellar, 1998;

Rynes & Rosen, 1995). Often, diversity training includes topics that

may be uncomfortable for trainees, which may trigger personal trauma

(Epstein, 1994), invoke deep emotions around one's own privilege

(MacDonald, 1993), threaten valued identities or social status (Dover,

Major, & Kaiser, 2016; Rawski, 2017), and increase unintended

backfiring effects (Leslie, 2019; Rawski, 2017). These issues make

diversity training unique from general diversity-related behaviors that

occur outside of a training and development context and from general

job-related training. However, previous diversity training studies have

tended to focus mainly on insights from the general diversity literature

and the general training literature, investigating predictors such as

demographic-based identities and motivation to learn.

First, based on the general diversity literature, diversity training

researchers have investigated the role of social identities (Nkomo,

Bell, Roberts, Joshi, & Thatcher, 2019; Ragins & Gonzalez, 2003;

Roberson, Holmes, & Perry, 2017), primarily focusing on

demographic-based social identities (e.g., race, sex, and age). Some

scholars have posited that the exposure, positive interaction, and

cooperation among employees from different social categories during

diversity training result in greater training effectiveness (Bezrukova

et al., 2016; Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Pendry et al., 2007). In particular,

this work focuses on the importance of addressing the stereotypes of

social groups during training as a way to break down bias and increase

intergroup cohesion. The results of these predictions are mixed. For

example, Waight and Madera (2011) found that diversity training was

related to better workplace outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and lower

turnover intentions) for ethnic minorities but not for those in ethnic

majority groups. This finding may suggest that only those who per-

ceive diversity training as supportive of their social identity in-groups

will actually reap the benefits from diversity training or that those in

minority groups are more open to the views and expectations of

majority groups than vice versa (Kraus, Cote, & Keltner, 2010; Kraus,

Piff, Mendoza-Denton, Rheinschmidt, & Keltner, 2012). In contrast, in

a meta-analysis of diversity training effectiveness, Bezrukova et al.

(2016) reported that age, gender, and race of participants were not

moderators of the overall effect of diversity training on learning out-

comes, suggesting that demographics may not matter to diversity

training effectiveness. Similarly, studies of sexual harassment training

effectiveness have also found that demographic predictors have

mixed results, such that training is sometimes more and sometimes

less effective for men (Antecol & Cobb-Clark, 2003; Bingham &

Scherer, 2001; Blakely, Blakely, & Moorman, 1998; Moyer & Nath,

1998). This may be due in part to some men's views of success,

power, and competition (Kearney, Rochlen, & King, 2004) that may

make them more susceptible to perceptions that diversity initiatives

threaten their high social status (Dover et al., 2016). It is important to

note that although several studies invoke social identity theory as an

explanation for diversity training effectiveness, these studies tend to

operationalize social identities as demographic characteristics rather

than as the importance of those characteristics to an individual's over-

all sense of self (Bezrukova et al., 2016).

462 RAWSKI AND CONROY