Next Article in Journal
Numerical Analysis of the Structural Resistance and Stability of Masonry Walls with an AAC Thermal Break Layer
Next Article in Special Issue
A Bibliometric Analysis of Service Climate as a Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Hospitality
Previous Article in Journal
A Sine Cosine Algorithm-Based Fractional MPPT for Thermoelectric Generation System
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Relationship between Workforce Sustainability, Stress, and Career Decision: A Study of Kindergarten Teachers during the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 21
10.3390/su132111653
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Effect of Perceived Diversity Practices and Psychological Safety on Contextual Performance for Sustainable Workplace

by
Ritika Dongrey
* and
Varsha Rokade
Department of Management Studies, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal 462003, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(21), 11653; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111653
Submission received: 16 September 2021 / Revised: 11 October 2021 / Accepted: 15 October 2021 / Published: 21 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Human Resource Management and Employee Relations in Developing Sustainable Workplaces)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Perceiving discrimination in workplace practices psychologically damages employees and affects their work performance. The current study aims to find differences in perceived diversity practices (i.e., equal representation and developmental opportunities and gender diversity promotion) and the psychological safety of diverse groups in the workplace. Further, the study investigates the relationship of equal representation and developmental opportunities, gender diversity promotion, and psychological safety with employee contextual performance. A sample size of (n = 536) respondents was collected from the private banking sector in India, and was further analyzed using statistical tools, such as factor analysis, correlations, analysis of variance, and regression analysis. The findings indicate differences in gender and tenure diversity regarding “equal representation and development opportunities”, and “gender diversity promotion.” Furthermore, “equal representation and development opportunities,” and “psychological safety” showed a significant negative relationship with the employee contextual performance. Further, no association between perceived “gender diversity promotion” practices and “contextual performance” was found. The novelty of the current research is unlike previous research; the study highlights that excess psychological safety, equality in representation, and development opportunities to have “workforce diversity” make employees aggressively explicit and disengage them from additional work behavior. The findings of the study and application of SPSS software for the analysis of the employee’s perception, behavior, and performance will aid managers and leaders in better decision making for employees; business growth; effective human resource and business management; and for building a healthy, collaborative, and sustainable work environment in the private banks and similar organizations.

1. Introduction

The concept of diversity is highly subjective. Diverse individuals have diverse interpretations of diversity based on the social groups they belong. Majorly diverse visible traits comprise gender, age, region, caste, color, etc., whereas invisible attributes work experience, education, values, etc. Past research in diversity is primarily based on objective differences, and perceived differences were not considered, e.g., in [1,2,3]. However, perceived diversity is essential to study because different individuals have different perceptions about different compositions, and based on these perceptions, they behave in their immediate environment. Perceiving differences and equality based on different diversity traits affect employee performance, both positively and negatively. Previous research indicated the direct association between diversity and performance [4,5]. Contrary, few studies also showed no direct relationship between the two [6,7,8]. It has been speculated that, when employees perceive diversity and differential treatment among a diverse workforce, it affects them psychologically. On perceiving differences, an individual feels psychologically insecure, and, while sensing parity in the organization, they feel psychologically secure. It is a primary reason why diversity research started focusing on employee psychological safety. Psychological safety (PS) is the employee’s perception about their confidence in expressing themselves freely in a given environment without any fear of repercussion in their career growth and deterioration in self-image [9]. Singh et al. [10] found the relationship between diversity environment, psychological safety, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). However, such studies are scarce and primarily carried out in western countries. Due to a scarcity of research on diversity that takes psychological safety as an essential factor in Asian countries, it is critical to undertake psychological safety in diversity research in India. Similarly, employee contextual performance (CP), directly and indirectly, impacts company performance since it aids the organization’s smooth operation. It is the employee’s performance in addition to the central task [11]. Several past research conducted in Western nations examined the link between workplace diversity and contextual performance (CP) (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)) [6,10,12]. In contrast, several studies investigated the link between perceived diversity and firm performance [13,14]. When investigating the influence of diversity on performance in Asian counties, previous studies have neglected the relevance of contextual performance and were focused on organizational performance, e.g., [13]. As a result, we argue that contextual performance is critical in ensuring job performance and overall organizational success. Diversity programs in India are largely focused on gender. As a result, gender diversity is investigated to understand different gender perceptions of diversity approaches better. In addition, tenure diversity is taken into account in the current study due to a lack of research on employee work tenure in the Asian setting.
In the presence of a diverse workforce, analyzing the impact of perceived diversity on employee contextual performance with statistical methods and software can help technically understand cause–effect relationship between employee perception, behavior, and performance. Answers to underlying questions about “how diverse employees differ in their perceptions about organizational diversity practices and psychological safety?”, and “whether perceived diversity practices and psychological safety affect employee additional work behavior?” will assist human resource (HR) policymakers and managers in implementing sustainable diversity policies and practices that will benefit the diverse workers and instill good attitudes and behaviors, thus improving employee performance and achieve the organization’s common goal [15]. Thus, in the current study, using multiple data analysis techniques on SPSS software, we aim to assess the difference in the perception of tenure and gender diversity about existing diversity practices and psychological safety. Furthermore, we aim to analyze the relationship between perceived diversity practices and psychological safety with contextual performance. The conceptual model, based on the objectives of the current study, is shown in Figure 1.

2. Dimensions

The three main dimensions of the present study are perceived diversity, contextual performance, and psychological safety. These dimensions are discussed in the following sub-sections.

2.1. Perceived Diversity

Huang and Iun [16] defined perceived diversity as the extent to which an individual perceives themselves as similar to others. Perceived diversity is also an employee’s perception and experiences about specific groups, management policies, practices related to diversity, and organizational environment. It is essential to study perceived diversity because different team members perceive diverse team composition differently based on their beliefs related to diversity [17]. Such perceptual differences are also an outcome of individuals association with superior or inferior groups within the team [18], leading to different dynamics between employees [19]. In the current study, as shown in Figure 1, perceived diversity practices have been assessed with two variables. Firstly, “equal representation and developmental opportunities” (ERDO), i.e., equality, representation, and growth opportunities to all employees working in the organization irrespective of differences. Secondly, “gender diversity promotion” (GP), i.e., employee’s perception of the importance of gender diversity about women employees.

2.2. Contextual Performance

Contextual performance (CP) is the employee’s performance in addition to the central task, which they voluntarily take [11]. CP improves the overall organizational performance [20], but is not rewarded by the organization’s official reward/compensation system [21]. Employees perform it at their discretion for a smooth workflow. Contextual performance is also called organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as it includes additional supporting activities that aid task performance [22]. CP is a subset of OCB and encompasses various characteristics of it [23]. OCB is an extra work behavior [24], and an employee’s voluntary work, which aids organizational effectiveness but is not officially compensated [21]. Both OCB and CP are additional performances, not measured in the official reward system yet are imperative to study because they indirectly aid the organization’s success. Thus, based on previous research definitions, we regarded CP and OCB as synonyms.

2.3. Psychological Safety

Psychological safety is a psychological state in which individuals feel safe, secure, and at ease [25]. It is employee’s perception about their confidence in expressing freely in a given environment without any fear of repercussion in their career growth and deterioration in self-image [9]. It is essential for diverse employees to feel psychologically safe in the workplace as psychologically safe employees are more engaged, have proactive behaviors, take the initiative, and voice opinions [26]. Similarly, psychological safety make employees proactive [27], further improving their performance at work [28].

3. Review of Literature

Based on the objectives, this section includes a literature review to develop various hypotheses.

3.1. Differences in Gender Diversity

Gender diversity is a different gender working together in organizations. Various research on diversity indicated different genders significantly differ in their responses. Gender substantially differs in the receptivity of a diverse workforce towards diversity management [29]. A study in Australia indicated that females are more receptive to diversity practices in the organization than males [30]. Similarly, female’s attitude towards workforce diversity and practices is more favorable than males and give more importance to workforce diversity [31]. Another study in India indicated a significant difference in gender attitude towards diversity practices in the organization [32]. Various studies also indicated the difference of gender in the perception of equality in the workplace. Employee’s perceptions about equality and diversity issues differ across gender. Kundu [33] indicated gender differs in their perception of gender diversity promotion practices in the IT workplaces, India. These differences in the perception of male and female are supported by the social identity theory (SIT), which explain differences based on gender and race in the work environment categorize individuals into social groups. These subgroups hold stereotypical perceptions about each other. A study based on hospitality employees from Canary Island (a tourist destination) indicated that women employees had a stronger positive relationship between perceived diversity management and job satisfaction than male employees [34]. Similarly, research on top management teams indicated that gender diversity has a positive effect on organizational performance; however, female employees feel less psychologically safe and seek more validation than male employees [35]. Past diversity research in various countries indicated the significant differences in both males and females in the workplace, necessitating studying differences in the perception of gender diversity. Thus, the current study aims to find out differences in the gender perception with regards to equality in representation and development opportunities in the organization (H1a); healthy and prosperous environment for females, i.e., gender diversity promotion (H2a); and psychological safety amongst male and female in the workplace (H3a).
Hypothesis 1a (H1a).
Male and female employees have different perspectives on “Equal Representation and Development Opportunities” in the workplace.
Hypothesis 2a (H2a).
Male and Female employees have different perspectives on “Gender Diversity Promotion” in the workplace.
Hypothesis 3a (H3a).
Male and Female employees differ regarding “Psychological Safety” in the workplace.

3.2. Differences inTenure Diversity

Tenure is the total length of years an employee has worked in a single organization. Employees with different tenure differ in their perception, views, attitudes, and approach towards a particular situation [36]. For example, longer tenure employees may have different perceptions about diversity issues and practices than newcomers, and may feel more psychologically safe. Few studies indicated that diversity (i.e., social categorization) decreases social integration and group cohesion, further increasing conflict [37,38]. Similarly, tenure diversity in the organization also categorizes groups based on different tenures which further affect the work environment and performance due to differences in their perceptions. Various past research indicated the relationship between diversity and performance. Tenure, race, and gender diversity have adverse effects on performance, e.g., [39,40]. Furthermore, longer-tenured employees are more committed and participative than less tenured employees [41]. Jokisaari and Nurmi [42] found that employee’s perception about development opportunities evolves over their tenure, which foster newcomers to have different perceptions related to management practices than longer tenure employees. Thus, employees having different tenure in the organization may have different perceptions about diversity practices, i.e., equal representation and development opportunities (H1b), gender diversity promotion (H2b), and their psychological safety (H3b).
Hypothesis 1b (H1b).
Employees with different work tenure have different perspectives on “Equal Representation and Development Opportunities” in the workplace.
Hypothesis 2b (H2b).
Employees with different work tenure have different perspectives on “Gender Diversity Promotion” in the workplace.
Hypothesis 3b (H3b).
Employees with different work tenure differ regarding “Psychological Safety” in the workplace.

3.3. Workforce Diversity and Contextual Performance

Contextual performance is an employee’s additional work behavior that is not stated in the job description. Various studies analyzed the relationship between workforce diversity and contextual performance. Chattopadhyay [12] studied 401 respondents from manufacturing organizations in the Midwest, USA, and found that demographic workforce diversity has a significant relationship with OCB/CP, mediated by employee self-esteem. Similarly, Bizri [7] analyzed responses of 300 employees working in the banking sector in Lebanon, and found a positive indirect relationship between diversity practices and OCB. In comparison, Choi [21], in a Korean-based study, indicated that employee OCB/CP deflates when they experience education and gender diversity in the workplace. Contrary, employee OCB/CP increases when they perceive tenure diversity.
Employee organizational commitment is associated with diversity practices based on the SIT (i.e., reciprocity principle), and employees are more responsible and act for organizational benefits when they perceive that organizational diversity practices benefit them emotionally, socially, and economically [43]. Few other authors also had similar findings. A conceptual model related to diversity management and contextual performance indicated that, when employees perceive equality, their engagement increases [44]. Similarly, a Malaysia-based study indicated that employee OCB increases when they experience justice and equality in the organization’s diversity management policies and practices. Various SIT-based research found that HR practices affect employee’s supportive behavior to attain organizational goals [45,46,47]. Ng et al. [48] demonstrated that, when employees perceive discrimination in the workplace, it affects their work output adversely. Few other studies indicated a negative association between diversity-based discrimination and contextual performance. The USA-based study found that employee’s self-esteem decreases when they perceive inequality in the workplace, which adversely affects their contextual performance, e.g., behavior/initiatives towards other employees and their organization [6]. Similarly, a study based on Chinese employees indicated that abusive supervision, i.e., any verbal, non-verbal, and unfair treatment from supervisor adversely affects employee’s OCB [49]. Discrimination is the result of stereotypes, and stereotypes are an outcome of differences. When employees experience such biases, their OCB gets affected adversely [50]. Likewise, workforce diversity invokes distrust and low interaction among employees, decreasing their contextual performance [51], such inverse relationship is also mediated by trust [52]. Thus, we argue that employee’s perception of diversity practices, such as ERDO and GP, has a significant relationship with contextual performance (H4 and H5).
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Perceived “Equal Representation and Development Opportunities” is significantly related to Contextual Performance.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Perceived “Gender Diversity Promotion” is significantly related to Contextual Performance.

3.4. Psychological Safety and Contextual Performance

Psychological safety is a state in which an individual feels included, safe to learn, contribute, and challenge the status quo without any fear of embarrassment, marginalization, and any form of punishment [53].Various studies demonstrated that discrimination adversely affects psychological well-being. Perceiving discrimination enhances psychological distress [54], and is strongly correlated with mental well-being, depression, and satisfaction [55]. Groups that perceive discrimination feel psychologically unsafe, which adversely affect their mental health, e.g., enhanced anxiety, depression symptoms, and post-traumatic stress disorder [56], further affecting their work performance [57]. Conversely, psychological safety enhances employee physical, emotional, and cognitive engagement [58,59]. It is vital for the smooth function of an organization as psychologically safe employees adapt easily in a turbulent work environment [60]. In the dynamic environment, psychological safety subjugates individual barriers (e.g., defensive attitude towards change, reluctance for better learning, and overwhelming feeling), thus psychologically safe employees are ready to take the initiative for the organizational goals rather than being defensive [61]. Several studies indicated the relevance of psychological safety in employee performance. Liu and Keller [62] studied 400 employees of R&D teams from Taiwan and found that psychological safety enhances employee knowledge sharing and OCB. Likewise, a study on 46 HR managers and 374 employees from various companies in China indicated that psychological safety enhances employee’s promotive voice and additional innovative behavior [63]. Psychological safety plays a mediating role between the perceived subgroups and group learning behavior [64]. A Midwest, USA-based study found that psychological safety plays a mediating role in perceived diverse environment and employee performance [10]. A France-based study indicated a negative association between expertise diversity and team performance when team members have low psychological safety [65]. Likewise, a Netherlands-based study indicated a positive effect of psychological safety between expertise diversity and team performance [66]. Similarly, a Germany-based study indicated organizations have outperformed when their employees feel psychologically safe [67]. The benefits of diversity could not be reaped in the absence of psychological safety amongst diverse group members [68,69]. Thus, based on the above studies, we hypothesize that employee psychological safety affects their contextual performance (H6).
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Psychological Safety is significantly associated with Contextual Performance.

4. Methodology

This section includes various sub-sections pertaining to the research methodology employed in the current study.

4.1. Sample

The present examination utilized a survey overview approach to deal with the information to assess the research speculations. Data were collected from respondents working in the private banking sector, India. Unlike public organizations in India, the private banking sector doesn’t have caste-based job reservations (affirmative action) and employee’s career growth primarily depends on their performance. The private banking sector employs a diverse workforce. However, it remains untapped in diversity research because of its strict privacy policy, making it both challenging and appealing. A study of workforce diversity in the banking industry would fill a vacuum in the research. As a result, the current study targeted employees working in the private banking sector. The questionnaires were distributed physically and a snowball sampling method was used to collect data since covering all the private banks in India was not practical. Data were collected from January 2019 to February 2020 from employees working in multiple private banks across various states in India. Questionnaires were distributed to 650 targeted respondents, 612 of which were obtained with a return rate of 94.15%. From the obtained responses, 536 (87.5%) completely filled responses were used for further data analysis. Figure 2 shows the demographic distribution of the responses. Out of sample (n = 536), 236 were female and 300 were male. Age distribution indicates that 148 respondents were in the age group of less than or equal to 25, 173 respondents were in the age group of 26–35, 98 respondents were in the age group of 36–45, 69 respondents were from age group 46–55, and 48 respondents belonged to the age group of 56 and above. The work tenure distribution indicated that 204 respondents work tenure of 1–2 years, 195 respondents work tenure of 2–4 years, and 137 respondents work tenure of 4–5 years of work in their respective organizations. Since the minimum requirement to work in the private banks in India is graduation, all the respondents were at least graduates from various disciplines, such as commerce, science, engineering, etc., and were working at diverse white-collar job positions.

4.2. Measures

Overall, the survey included 20 items questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to assess the response regarding various constructs used in the study. Nine items scale was used to measure employee perceived diversity practices, including “equal representation and development opportunities” with seven items and “gender diversity promotion” with two items [13,33], which was developed by Kossek and Zonia, 1993. Further, including a six-item scale for “psychological safety” [25]. Lastly, “contextual performance” was measured using five items scale [70], which was originally developed by Koopmans, 2012.

4.3. Independent and Dependent Variables

In the analysis of variance (ANOVA), “equal representation and development opportunities,” “psychological safety,” and “gender diversity promotion” were considered as dependent variables. In contrast, work tenure and gender diversity were considered as independent variables. Whereas, in regression analysis, “equal representation and development opportunities” “psychological safety,” and “gender diversity promotion” were taken as independent variables and “contextual performance” as the dependent variables.

4.4. Statistical Tools

Various statistical tools were used to empirically analyze obtained data, including correlations, factor analysis, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Cronbach’s alfa, and regression analysis. To assess the reliability, Cronbach’s alfa value was calculated. Correlations were utilized to see the link between distinct variables. To reduce complex dimensions and to reduce data, factor analysis was used. The two-way ANOVA analysis highlights critical differences in the responses of gender and work tenure. The direction and magnitude of the differences were clarified by mean and grand mean scores. The effect of perceived diversity practices and psychological safety on contextual performance was assessed via regression analysis.

5. Results

Principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to reduce a few dimensions called “factors.” Items with a factor loading > 0.50 clearly describe the factors and, consequently, three clear factors with more than 1.00 eigenvalues were found. The commonalities of these variables ranged from 0.380 to 0.748. The factors, factor loadings, eigenvalues, and percentage of the variance of all factors are shown in Table 1. The obtained factors were bifurcated into sub-scales for further analysis. The factor “equal representation and development opportunities” loaded seven variables, suggesting that diverse workforce perception about equal representation and growth avenues. The factor “gender diversity promotion” loaded two variables and assessed employee’s perception of the relevance of gender diversity. The factor “psychological safety” is loaded with six variables, evaluating the degree of employee psychological safety in their respective organizations.
The Cronbach’s alpha values for the three sub-scales ranged from 0.672 to 0.853 (as shown in Table 1), with an overall weight of 0.858, more than the adequate value of 0.6, and preferred value of 0.7 indicated sufficient internal consistency [71,72].
The single extracted factor “contextual performance” results, factor loadings, eigenvalues, and percentage of variance are shown in Table 2. All five items of contextual performance were significantly associated with the factor “contextual performance.” The derived factor explained 54.994% of the variance with a 2.750 eigenvalue. The Cronbach’s α value was 0.795, indicating adequate reliability of the scale [72].
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of all the variables are shown in Table 3. It was observed that two variables, “ERDO” and “GP,” were significantly correlated with contextual performance. Variance inflation factors (VIF), average VIF, and tolerance statistics were measured to test the degree of multicollinearity in the regression equation. All the VIF values were 1, which is below the cut-off value of 10, indicating no multicollinearity issue in the variables [73]. The obtained average VIF was 1 and not higher. Thus, the regression has no bias.
On the interaction between two components, the model of observations includes the interaction term and is referred to as a “non-additive model,” making the terms “interaction” and “non-additivity” interchangeable. When multiple observations are made at each level of the combination of two variables, the standard two-way ANOVA approach can simply be used to evaluate non-additivity. Thus, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H2a, H2b, H3a, and H3b were analyzed using ANOVA. Table 4 indicates the ANOVA’s result for sub-scale and respective significance levels of the gender effect, work tenure effect, and the interaction effect. F-values demonstrate the differences in responses of different gender (i.e., between male and female) and different work tenures (i.e., 1–2 years, 2–4 years, and 4–5 years) as well as the interaction between the two independent variables. Hypotheses H1a and H1b were verified for “equal representation and development opportunities” (ERDO) as significant differences in the gender effect with p-value = 0.037 * and the interaction effect between gender and work tenure with p-value = 0.025 *. The gender (male and female) groups with p-value = 0.022 * and employees belonging to various work tenure groups with p-value= 0.030 * differed significantly for “gender diversity promotion.” Consequently, the result indicates that hypotheses H2a and H2b were verified for gender and work tenure. Further, employees belonging to various gender groups with p-value = 0.802 * and work tenure groups with p-value = 0.642 * indicated no differences in the perception of psychological safety. The results obtained for hypotheses H3a and H3b were not significant for psychological safety, and thus, hypotheses H3a and H3b were not verified.
The effects of employee-perceived diversity practices and psychological safety on contextual performance (i.e., hypotheses H4, H5, and H6) were used using regression analysis as it is a mathematical technique for estimating the cause–effect relationship. The results are shown in Table 5. In terms of R2 values of diverse groups, the cross-sectional research of Model 1 is (0.002) and Model 2 is (0.015) [74]. Significance of the relationships was tested using p-value and β value. Model 1 was considered as the base model with the control variable “work tenure.” The result indicated work tenure had no significant association with contextual performance (β = 0.058, p-value = 0.288). Thus, the control variable work tenure was not substantial according to F-statistics (p ≥ 0.05). Whereas, Model 2 examined the direct effects of employee perceived diversity practice and psychological safety on contextual performance. The factor “equal representation and development opportunities” was significant (p-value ≤ 0.10, p-value = 0.068, β = −0.079) considering the F-statistics. Similarly, the coefficient of the factor “psychological safety” was significant for contextual performance (p-value ≤ 0.05, p-value = 0.033, β = −0.092). In contrast, the coefficients of the factor “gender diversity promotion” was insignificant (p-value < 0.10, p-value = 0.940, β = −0.003,). Therefore, based on the results, hypotheses H4 and H6 were verified, whereas H5 was not verified.

6. Discussion

The current study aims to discover differences in perceptions of diverse groups, based on gender and tenure, regarding their psychological safety and HR diversity practices, such as ERDO and GP. Further, the study aimed to explore the effect of employee perception of diversity practices and PS on CP. The sample size of n = 536 respondents working in the private banking sector was analyzed using statistical tools, such as factor analysis, correlations, analysis of variance, and regression analysis in SPSS software to fulfill research objectives.
Firstly, the findings indicated that different genders, i.e., male and female, have different perceptions of equal representation and developmental opportunities in the organization. Tenure diversity, i.e., employees of diverse tenure groups, also indicated different perceptions of equal representation and developmental opportunities. Similarly, both gender diversity (male and female) and diverse tenure employees have different perceptions about gender diversity promotion. Thus, demonstrating that the diverse groups have different perceptions about the relevance of gender diversity, hiring, and retaining women employees. Findings of gender and tenure diversity with equal representation and development opportunities and gender promotion are consistent with the various studies. Employees belonging to different tenure groups have different perspectives, approaches, and opinions of a given situation, e.g., newcomers may perceive diversity issues differently from that of longer-tenured employees [36,43]. Other studies also supported that different groups of employees differ in their perception of diversity practices [32,36], gender promotion [75], and equality and diversity-related issues [33]. Further, no significant difference is found for both (gender and tenure diversity) when assessing the difference in perspectives about psychological safety. Contrary to prior studies [37,41], different gender and tenured employees indicated an identical perception of psychological safety. No difference in gender diversity and tenure diversity indicates that, irrespective of different categories of employees, all the employees have a similar notion about psychological safety, i.e., all the employees have a similar opinion about taking risks, making mistakes, feeling of acceptance, and asking for help in the workplace.
Most importantly, “ERDO” indicated a significant negative relationship with “CP”. The result demonstrated that, when an employee feels equality in terms of growth opportunities and representation in the workplace, irrespective of the gender difference, they are more likely to disengage from contextual performance. Previous research indicated that, when employees perceive equal development, representation, and growth opportunities in the organization, they will go out of their way for the collective organizational success, i.e., helping their colleagues, taking the initiative, updating their skills, etc. [6,7,44,48,49]. However, the current investigation found that, when employees are treated equally regarding the availability of development opportunities, they disengage from contextual performance because they have an excess sense of security at the workplace.
The result further indicated no significant relationship between employee’s perception about gender diversity promotion and contextual performance, i.e., perceived gender promotion practices pertaining to females in the organization do not strongly affect employee additional efforts (CP). The result contradicts prior research that indicates a significant relationship between gender diversity and OCB [12] and experiencing gender diversity significantly decreases OCB [21].
Interestingly, the current analysis lastly indicated that psychological safety has a significant negative relationship with contextual performance. Prior research demonstrated that, when employees feel psychologically safe to take risks, make mistakes, ask for help, and feel accepted in different groups of people working in the organization, they are more likely to engage in additional tasks voluntarily, for the organization’s benefit [10,60,62,63,64]. However, the study found that when employees feel psychologically safe, their contextual performance decreases. The high sense of security in workplaces makes employees aggressively expressive, making small issues big, taking risks, making mistakes, further avoiding extra tasks at the workplace [76,77]. The significant negative relationship between psychological safety and contextual performance is contrasting to various studies, e.g., [10,60,62,63,64].

Implications

An employee’s behavior at work depends on how psychologically safe one feels. If employees feel psychologically unsafe, their behaviors at work get adversely affected. However, the study indicated contrasting results. Theoretically, the study builds on past research and supports the idea that development opportunities and gender diversity promotion must be carried out based on merit and not just to showcase a diverse workforce pool. The novelty of the present study is unlike prior research that indicated a positive relationship between psychological safety and employee performance the present research indicates that excessive psychological safety makes employees indulge in anti-organizational behavior, reducing the fear of repercussion, and decreasing contextual performance. Furthermore, a similar study has not been conducted previously in the private banking sector in India. Practically, the study will further aid managers by understanding the vitality of psychological safety and contextual performance for improving and sustaining employee performance and attaining organizational success. The study will aid private banking organizations in India and other private organizations with no caste-based job reservations (affirmative action) around the world, where employee growth is purely dependent on meritocracy. Furthermore, the findings may apply to other culturally similar countries to India. The recommendations can be extended to various private corporations that have a significant portion of their business involving interaction with customers. Telecom and insurance are other sectors where the current study is applicable. Private organizations in Asian countries, such as Singapore, Thailand, Japan, China, and other countries that are making policies related to inclusion and opportunities of diverse workforce in workplaces, can also use the results to improve employee additional work behavior. Results obtained via data analysis using SPSS software provide conclusive results to help top management of private organizations to formulate policies; implement diversity practices; and build a healthy, collaborative, and sustainable work environment.

7. Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions

Unlike previous research that indicated a positive effect of perceived equality and psychological safety on employee’s initiatives and additional work behavior [6,7,44,48,49], the current study highlights a significant negative relationship between psychological safety and contextual performance. Furthermore, ERDO had a significant negative relationship with CP irrespective of gender differences. The findings show that, when employees feel equal in terms of career advancement and representation in the workplace, regardless of gender, they are more likely to disengage from contextual performance. In addition, excessive psychological safety makes employees aggressively explicit and disengages them from additional work behavior. Thus, managers and leaders of the private banks and similar organizations must be careful and provide employees with sufficient psychological safety rather than excessive psychological safety in workplaces for sustainable growth of employees and workplace. Recommendations might also be applicable to culturally similar countries to India. It is pertinent to note that no significant relationship was found between perceived gender diversity promotion practices and contextual performance which is another area where managers and leaders can leverage this study to improve their workplace. The findings indicated differences in gender and tenure diversity concerning ERDO and GP, and no significant difference with regards to PS. The current study is unique as it indicates adverse effect of excessive ERDO and psychological on employees CP (i.e., additional work behavior). SPSS was a massive help in the study where a large amount of data was being analyzed. We can extrapolate this and confidently claim that data analysis via SPSS software can be conclusively used in large organizations.
The present study is based on ERDO and GP. In the future, variables such as compensation, appraisal, promotion, etc., can be studied to assess diversity practices. Additionally, since the sample survey included employees in the private banking sector of India, future research should focus on the public banking sector in India (including ERDO and GP) and compare the results. The study is based on gender diversity and tenure diversity. Different traits of diversity (e.g., regional diversity) can be studied further. The study was limited to find the difference in perception of gender and tenure diversity. Further, studying differences in sub-groups under gender and tenure diversity would clarify diverse employee’s perceptions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, R.D. and V.R.; investigation, R.D.; resources, R.D.; data curation, R.D.; writing—original draft preparation, R.D.; writing—review and editing, R.D. and V.R.; supervision, V.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

Heartfelt thanks to family & friends for their emotional & moral support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harrison, D.A.; Price, K.H.; Gavin, J.H.; Florey, A.T. Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Group Functioning. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 1029–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shemla, M.; Meyer, B. Bridging Diversity in Organizations and Cross-Cultural Work Psychology by Studying Perceived Differences. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2012, 5, 370–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E.; Maloney, M.M.; Bhappu, A.D.; Salvador, R. (Bombie) When and How Do Differences Matter? An Exploration of Perceived Similarity in Teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2008, 107, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Richard, O.C. Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based View. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 164–177. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dunphy, S.M. Demonstrating the Value of Diversity for Improved Decision Making: The “Wuzzle-Puzzle” Exercise. J. Bus. Eth. 2004, 53, 325–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chattopadhyay, P. Can Dissimilarity Lead to Positive Outcomes? The Influence of Open Versus Closed Minds. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bizri, R. Diversity Management and OCB: The Connection Evidence from the Lebanese Banking Sector. Equal. Divers. Incl. 2018, 37, 233–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Noor, A.N.M.; Khalid, S.N.; Rashid, N.R.N.A. Clarifying the Effects of Human Resource Diversity Management Practices on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Diversity Receptiveness. J. Arts Humanit. 2016, 5, 25–38. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chrobot-Mason, D.; Aramovich, N. The Psychological Benefits of Creating an Affirming Climate for Workplace Diversity. Group Organ. Manag. 2013, 38, 659–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, B.; Winkel, D.E.; Selvarajan, T.T. Managing Diversity at Work: Does Psychological Safety Hold the Key to Racial Differences in Employee Performance? J. Occup. Organ. 2013, 86, 242–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Koopmans, L.; Bernaards, C.M.; Hildebrandt, V.H.; Schaufeli, W.B.; De Vet Henrica, C.W.; Van Der Beek, A.J. Conceptual Frameworks of Individual Work Performance: A Systematic Review. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2011, 53, 856–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Chattopadhyay, P. Beyond Direct and Symmetrical Effects: The Influence of Demographic Dissimilarity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 42, 273–287. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kundu, S.C.; Mor, A. Workforce Diversity and Organizational Performance: A Study of IT Industry in India. Empl. Relat. 2017, 39, 160–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kundu, S.C.; Mor, A.; Bansal, J.; Kumar, S. Diversity-Focused HR Practices and Perceived Firm Performance: Mediating Role of Procedural Justice. J. Asia Bus. Stud. 2019, 13, 214–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nastasia, I.; Coutu, M.F.; Rives, R.; Dubé, J.; Gaspard, S.; Quilicot, A. Role and Responsibilities of Supervisors in the Sustainable Return to Work of Workers Following a Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorder. J. Occup. Rehabilit. 2021, 31, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, X.; Iun, J. The Impact of Subordinate-Supervisor Similarity in Growth-Need Strength on Work Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Perceived Similarity. J. Organ. Behav. 2006, 27, 1121–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Homan, A.C.; Greer, L.L.; Jehn, K.A.; Koning, L. Believing Shapes Seeing: The Impact of Diversity Beliefs on the Construal of Group Composition. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 2010, 13, 477–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Doosje, B.; Ellemers, N.; Spears, R. Perceived Intragroup Variability as a Function of Group Status and Identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 31, 410–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shemla, M.; Meyer, B.; Greer, L.; Jehn, K.A. A Review of Perceived Diversity Teams: Does How Members Perceive Their Teams’s Composition Affect Team Processes and Outcomes. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 37, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sonnentag, S.; Volmer, J.; Spychala, A. Job Performance. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior; Barling, J., Cooper, C.L., Eds.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2008; Volume 1, pp. 427–447. [Google Scholar]
  21. Choi, J.N. Collective Dynamics of Citizenship Behavior: What Group Characteristics Promote Group-Level Helping. J. Manag. Stud. 2009, 46, 1396–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jhonson, J.W. The Relative Importance of Task and Contextual Performance Dimensions to Supervisor Judgments of Overall Performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 984–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Borman, W.C.; Motowidlo, S.J. Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research. Hum. Perform. 2009, 10, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Organ, D.W. Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome; D.C. Heath and Company: Lexington, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  25. Edmondson, A. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 350–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Edmondson, A.C. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches; Kramer, R.M., Cook, K.S., Eds.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 239–272. [Google Scholar]
  27. Plomp, J.; Tims, M.; Khapova, S.N.; Jansen, P.G.W.; Bakker, A.B. Psychological Safety, Job Crafting, and Employability: A Comparison Between Permanent and Temporary Workers. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Edmondson, A.C.; Lei, Z. Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014, 1, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Soni, V. A Twenty-First-Century Reception for Diversity in the Public Sector: A Case Study. Public Adm. Rev. 2002, 60, 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Soldan, Z.; Dickie, L. Employee Receptivity to Diversity Management: Perceptions in a Federal Government Agency. In. J. Divers. Organ. Communities N. 2008, 8, 195–214. [Google Scholar]
  31. Patrick, H.A.; Kumar, V.R. Managing Workplace Diversity: Issues and Challenges. Sage Open 2012, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rao, S.R.; Bagali, M.M. A Comparative Study on Acceptance of Cultural Diversity and Gender Diversity among Employees in IT Industry, Bangalore. Int. J. Bus. Adm. Res. Rev. 2014, 1, 98–109. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kundu, S.C. Workforce diversity status: A study of employees’ reactions. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2003, 103, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. García-Rodrígueza, F.J.; Dorta-Afonsob, D.; González-de-la-Rosaa, M. Hospitality Diversity Management and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Organizational Commitment Across Individual Differences. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 91, 102698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tang, S.; Nadkarni, S.; WEI, L.-Q.; Zhang, S.X. Balancing the Yin and Yang: TMT Gender Diversity, Psychological Safety, and Firm Ambidextrous Strategic Orientation in Chinese High-Tech SMEs. Acad. Manag. J. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Daniel, S.; Agarwal, R.; Stewart, K.J. The Effects of Diversity in Global, Distributed Collectives: A Study of Open Source Project Success. Inf. Syst. Res. 2012, 24, 312–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Milliken, F.J.; Martins, L.L. Searching for Common Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organizational Groups. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 402–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Phillips, K.W.; O’Reilly, C.A. Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. Res. Organ. Behav. 1998, 20, 140. [Google Scholar]
  39. Clement, D.E.; Schiereck, J.J. Sex composition and group performance in a visual signal detection task. Mem. Cognit. 1973, 1, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. O’Reilly, C.A.; Williams, K.Y.; Barsade, S. Group Demography and Innovation: Does Diversity Help?Research in the Management of Groups and Teams; Mannix, E., Neale, M., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1998; pp. 183–207. [Google Scholar]
  41. Vasilescu, B.; Posnett, D.; Ray, B.; Van Den Brand, M.G.J.; Serebrenik, A.; Devanbu, P.; Filkov, V. Gender and Tenure Diversity in GitHub Teams. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), Seoul, Korea, 18–23 April 2015; pp. 3789–3798. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jokisaari, M.; Nurmi, J.-E. Change in Newcomers’ Supervisor Support and Socialization Outcomes After Organizational Entry. Acad. Manag. J. 2017, 52, 527–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Blau, P.M. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  44. Noor, A.N.M.; Khalid, D.S.A.; Rashid, N.R.N.A. Human Resource Diversity Management Practices and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Conceptual Model. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2013, 3, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Pfeffer, J. The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  46. Delaney, J.T.; Huselid, M.A. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Perceptions of Organizational Performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 949–969. [Google Scholar]
  47. Arthur, J.B. Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performances and Turnover. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 670–687. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ng, E.S.; Sears, G.J.; Bakkaloglu, M. White and Minority Employee Reactions to Perceived Discrimination at Work: Evidence of White Fragility. Int. J. Manpow. 2020, 42, 661–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kim, H.; Chen, Y.; Kong, H. Abusive Supervision and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Networking Behavior. Sustainability 2020, 12, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Northcraft, G.B.; Polzer, J.T.; Neale, M.A.; Kramer, R.M. Diversity, social identity, and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams. In Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace; Jackson, S.E., Ruderman, M.N., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 69–96. [Google Scholar]
  51. Chattopadhyay, P.; Tluchowska, M.; George, E. Identifying the Ingroup: A Closer Look at the Influence of Demographic Dissimilarity on Employee Social Identity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 180–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gonzalez, J.V.; Garazo, T.G. Structural Relationship between Organizational Service Orientation, Contact Employee Job Satisfaction and Citizenship Behavior. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2006, 17, 23–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Clark, T.R. The 4 Stages of Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to Inclusion and Innovation; Berrett-Koehler: Oakland, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ajrouch, K.J.; Reisine, S.; Lim, S.; Sohn, W.; Ismail, A. Perceived Everyday Discrimination and Psychological Distress: Does Social Support Matter? Ethn. Health 2010, 15, 417–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ayalon, L.; Gum, A.M. The Relationships Between Major Lifetime Discrimination, Everyday Discrimination, And Mental Health In Three Racial And Ethnic Groups Of Older Adults. Aging Ment. Health 2010, 15, 587–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vargas, S.M.; Huey, S.J., Jr.; Miranda, J. A Critical Review of Current Evidence on Multiple Types of Discrimination and Mental Health. Am. J. Orthopsychiatr. 2020, 90, 374–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Stone, A.L.; Carlisle, S.E. Examining Race/Ethnicity Differences in the Association Between the Experience of Workplace Racial Discrimination and Depression or Negative Emotions. J. RacialEthn. Health Dispar. 2019, 6, 874–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kahn, W.A. Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar]
  59. Roberge, M.E.; van Dick, R. Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and how does diversity increase group performance? Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 2010, 20, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Schein, E.; Bennis, W. Personal and Organizational Change through Group Methods; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1965. [Google Scholar]
  61. Schein, E. Organizational Culture and Leadership; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  62. Liu, Y.; Keller, R.T. How Psychological Safety Impacts R&D Project Teams’ Performance. Res.-Tech. Manag. 2021, 64, 39–45. [Google Scholar]
  63. Miao, R.; Lu, L.; Cao, Y.; Du, Q. The High-Performance Work System, Employee Voice, and Innovative Behavior: The Moderating Role of Psychological Safety. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Creon, L.E.; Schermuly, C.C. Training group diversity and training transfer: A psychological safety perspective. Hum. Res. Dev. Q. 2019, 30, 583–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Martins, L.L.; Schilpzand, M.C.; Kirkman, B.L.; Ivanaj, S.; Ivanaj, V. A Contingency View of the Effects of Cognitive Diversity on Team Performance: The Moderating Roles of Team Psychological Safety and Relationship Conflict. Small Group Res. 2013, 44, 96–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Van Der Vegt, G.S.; Bunderson, J.S. Erratum: Learning and Performance in Multidisciplinary Teams: The Importance of Collective Team Identification. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 532–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Baer, M.; Frese, M. Innovation Is Not Enough: Climates for Initiative and Psychological Safety, Process Innovations, and Firm Performance. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 24, 45–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Edmondson, A.C. The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective. Organ. Sci. 2002, 13, 128–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sole, D.; Edmondson, A. Situated Knowledge and Learning in Dispersed Teams. Br. J. Manag. 2002, 13, S17–S34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Widyastuti, T.; Hidayat, R. Adaptation of Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) into Bahasa Indonesia. Int. J. Res. Stud. Psychol. 2018, 7, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Aron, A.; Aron, E.N. Statistics for the Behavioral and Social Sciences; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  72. Esbensen, K.H.; Swarbrick, B. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  73. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sanchez, B. Low R Square in the Cross Section of Expected Returns; Southwestern Finance Association: Houston, TX, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  75. Kundu, S.C. HR Diversity: A Study of Employees’ Perceptions in Indian Organizations. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2004, 9, 39–59. [Google Scholar]
  76. Pearsall, M.; Ellis, A.P.J. Thick as Thieves: The Effects of Ethical Orientation and Psychological Safety on Unethical Team Behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Gino, F.; Ayal, S.; Dan, A. Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 13 11653 g001 550
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
Sustainability 13 11653 g001
Sustainability 13 11653 g002 550
Figure 2. Demographic profile of respondents.
Figure 2. Demographic profile of respondents.
Sustainability 13 11653 g002
Table
Table 1. Factor loadings of varimax rotated principal components of equal representation and developmental opportunities, gender diversity promotion, and psychological safety.
Table 1. Factor loadings of varimax rotated principal components of equal representation and developmental opportunities, gender diversity promotion, and psychological safety.
FactorsLoadingsEigenvaluePercent of VarianceCronbach’s Alpha
Equal Representation and Developmental Opportunities 5.18034.5310.853
There are development opportunities for socially disadvantaged employees in this organization.0.835
There are adequate development opportunities for minority employees in this organization.0.785
There is adequate socially disadvantaged representation in the organization.0.744
There are adequate development opportunities for women employees in this organization.0.735
There is adequate minority representation in the organization.0.688
Open job structures are more conducive to employment equity in an organization.0.604
Equal opportunity for management only helps to reinforce the limited attempts at implementing creative opportunities policies. 0.602
Gender Diversity Promotion 1.2568.3720.672
Gender Diversity is vital for an organization.0.843
The organization must hire and retain women employees.0.686
Psychological Safety 2.43416.2260.846
If you make a mistake during teamwork, it is often held against you. (R)0.826
Members of a team are able to bring up problems and tough issues.0.815
People in this organization sometimes reject others for being different. (R)0.726
It is safe to take a risk in this organization.0.707
It is difficult to ask other employees for help.0.703
No one in this organization would deliberately act in a way that undermines my efforts.0.641
Table
Table 2. Factor loadings of varimax rotated principal contextual performance.
Table 2. Factor loadings of varimax rotated principal contextual performance.
FactorsLoadingsEigenvaluePercent of VarianceCronbach’s Alpha
Contextual Performance 2.75054.9940.795
On my initiative, I started new tasks when my old tasks were completed.0.770
I took on challenging tasks when they were available.0.749
I actively participated inmeetings and/or consultations0.738
I came up with creative solutions for new problems0.730
I worked on keeping my job-related knowledge up-to-date0.720
Table
Table 3. Mean, standard deviations, and correlations.
Table 3. Mean, standard deviations, and correlations.
VariablesNo. of ItemsMeanStandard DeviationWork Tenure1234
Work Tenure 1.880.7881
Equal Representation and Development Opportunities73.980.683−0.0101
Psychological Safety63.130.911–0.0450.360 **1
Gender Diversity Promotion24.260.620–0.107 *0.334 **0.256 **1
Contextual Performance53.400.8590.046–0.098 *–0.100 *–0.0531
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table
Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA).
FactorsGender F-ValueEffects Work Tenure F-ValueTwo–Way Interactions F-Value
F1Equal Representation and Development Opportunities4.396 (0.037) *0.756 (0.470)3.697 (0.025) *
F2 Gender Diversity Promotion5.238 (0.022) *3.542 (0.030) *0.392 (0.676)
F3 Psychological Safety0.063 (0.802)0.444 (0.642)1.344 (0.262)
Notes: * p ≤ 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Effects of perception of diversity on contextual performance via regression analysis.
Table 5. Effects of perception of diversity on contextual performance via regression analysis.
Independent VariablesDependent Variables
Model 1Model 2
Constant2.419 × 10−151.488 × 10−15
Employees Work Tenure(0.058) 0.288-
Equal Representation and Development Opportunities-−0.079 (0.068 *)
Psychological Safety-−0.092 (0.033 **)
Gender Diversity Promotion-−0.003 (0.940 *)
R20.0020.015
Adjusted R20.0000.009
R2 change0.0020.015
F-statistic1.1302.633
N536536
Notes: * p ≤ 0.10: ** p ≤ 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dongrey, R.; Rokade, V. Assessing the Effect of Perceived Diversity Practices and Psychological Safety on Contextual Performance for Sustainable Workplace. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111653

AMA Style

Dongrey R, Rokade V. Assessing the Effect of Perceived Diversity Practices and Psychological Safety on Contextual Performance for Sustainable Workplace. Sustainability. 2021; 13(21):11653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111653

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dongrey, Ritika, and Varsha Rokade. 2021. "Assessing the Effect of Perceived Diversity Practices and Psychological Safety on Contextual Performance for Sustainable Workplace" Sustainability 13, no. 21: 11653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111653

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop