UNIVERSITY OF MACEDONIA

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Undergraduate Studies

THE IMPACT OF DIVERSITY

ON ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE
Souliotis Konstantinos

A bachelor thesis submitted to the University of Macedonia

for the degree in Economics

Supervisor
Professor Anastasia Katou

Thessaloniki, 2022
This page was intentionally left blank

2
ABSTRACT

This bachelor thesis was written in the context of the degree in Economics and was
submitted to the University of Macedonia, supervised by professor Anastasia Katou. It
refers to the impact of diversity on organizational performance. In particular, after a
review in the existing literature, a statistical analysis was conducted, examining this
topic in organizations based in Greece, with data collected through questionnaire.
Specifically, the research focused on examining the relationship between ten key
characteristics of diversity and the level of individual job satisfaction, as well as the
relationship between 11 aspects of diversity and organizational performance, as
perceived by the employees themselves. One of the key findings of the paper is the low
level of diversity in greek businesses in terms of race, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual
orientation and religion. On the other hand, the research indicated higher levels of
diversity in terms of age, gender, marital status, work experience, functional expertise
and educational background. It was also found that there is no causal effect between
the ten key characteristics of diversity and the level of job satisfaction. What is more,
it was found that ethnicity and work experience diversity have a positive statistically
significant contribution on performance, with coefficients 0,126 and 0,210
correspondingly.

Keywords: Diversity, Organizational performance, Impact

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents 4
List of Figures 6
List of Tables 7

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 Justification of the Subject 8

1.2 Purpose of the Thesis 8
1.3 Methodology 8
1.4 Structure of the Thesis 9

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 10

2.1 The Concept of Diversity 10

2.2 The Concept of Workforce Diversity 10
2.3 Individual Attributes 11
2.4 The Levels of Diversity and Stereotypes in the Workplace 12
2.5 Stereotype Threat 13
2.5.1 The Concept of Stereotype Threat 13
2.5.2 The Effects of Stereotype Threat 14
2.6 Discrimination in the Workplace 15
2.7 Theories on the Diversity-Performance Relationship 15
2.8 Aspects/Variables of Workforce Diversity and their Relationship to 16
Performance
2.8.1 Age 16
2.8.2 Gender 19
2.8.3 Race/Ethnicity 21
2.8.4 Disabilities 23
2.8.5 Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity 24
2.8.6 Marital Status 26
2.8.7 Religion 27
2.8.8 Work Experience 27
2.8.9 Functional Expertise 29
2.8.10 Educational Background 29
2.9 Demographic – Job-related Diversity; another Diversity Distinction 30
2.10 Deep-level Diversity and Performance 30
2.11 Conclusions on Literature Review 31

CHAPTER 3: THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 33

4
 3.1 The Framework 33
3.2 Goal Setting 33
3.3 Research Model Formation 34

CHAPTER 4: THE RESEARCH METHOD 36

4.1 The Questionnaire 36

4.2 Sampling 36
4.3 Data Checking 36

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS 37

5.1 Description of the Sample 37

5.2 Correlations 48
5.3 Regression analyses 51
5.4 Assumptions of Regression 54
5.4.1 Normality of Residuals 54
5.4.2 Multicollinearity 55
5.4.3 Heteroscedasticity 55
5.5 Findings 56

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION 57

6.1 Main Findings 57

6.2 Research Limitations 57
6.3 The Contribution to the Research 58
6.4 Implications for Future Research 58

CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES 59

QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX 74

5
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Research Models 34

Figure 2: Bar Chart of Organizations per Business Size 37
Figure 3: Pie Chart of Ownership Status 38
Figure 4: Pie Chart of Field of Operation 38
Figure 5: Pie Chart of Gender 38
Figure 6: Pie Chart of Race 38
Figure 7: Pie Chart of Ethnicity 39
Figure 8: Pie Chart of Disabilities 39
Figure 9: Pie Chart of Sexual Orientation 39
Figure 10: Pie Chart of Marital Status 39
Figure 11: Pie Chart of Religion 39
Figure 12: Pie Chart of Education 39
Figure 13: Bar Chart of Age 40
Figure 14: Bar Chart of Work Experience 40
Figure 15: Histogram of Age Diversity 41
Figure 16: Histogram of Gender Diversity 41
Figure 17: Histogram of Race Diversity 42
Figure 18: Histogram of Ethnicity Diversity 42
Figure 19: Histogram of Disabilities Diversity 42
Figure 20: Histogram of Sexuality Diversity 42
Figure 21: Histogram of Marital Status Diversity 43
Figure 22: Histogram of Religion Diversity 43
Figure 23: Histogram of Experience Diversity 43
Figure 24: Histogram of Functional Expertise Diversity 44
Figure 25: Histogram of Educational Diversity 44
Figure 26: Histogram of Job Satisfaction 44
Figure 27: Histogram of Organizational Performance 44
Figure 28: Boxplot of Job Satisfaction 45
Figure 29: Boxplot of Organizational Performance 45
Figure 30: QQ Plot of Unstandardized Residuals 54
Figure 31: Scatterplot of Predicted / Residuals 55

6
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Percentage of Greek Population according to Age Groups 17

Table 2: Business Classification according to the number of Employees 37
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics / Age 40
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics / Work Experience 41
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics / Age-Gender-Sexuality Diversity 45
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics / Ethnicity-Disabilities-Sexuality Diversity 46
Table 7: Descriptive Statistics / Marital Status-Religion-Experience Diversity 46
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics / Functional Experience-Education Diversity- 47
Job Satisfaction-Organizational Performance
Table 9: Correlation Employees Number / Religion Diversity 48
Table 10: Correlation Ownership / Work Experience 48
Table 11: Correlation Ownership / Ethnicity Diversity 49
Table 12: Correlation Ownership / Organizational Performance 49
Table 13: Correlation Ownership / Age 49
Table 14: Correlation of significant variables to Job Satisfaction 50
Table 15: Correlation of significant variables to Organizational Performance 51
Table 16: 10th model of Backward Regression Coefficients Table / Research 52
Model 1
Table 17: 10th model of Backward Regression Coefficients Table / Research 53
Model 2
Table 18: Model Summary / Research Model 2 54
Table 19: Testing for Residuals’ Normality 54
Table 20: Testing for Multicollinearity 55
Table 21: Correlation Unstandardized Predicted Value / Absolute value of 56
Unstandardized Residuals

7
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Justification of the Subject

In recent years, much awareness has been raised over the concept of workforce
diversity, with more and more HR strategies investing on inclusion as well as on a
diverse manpower. Human rights are at the forefront and this philosophy has been
introduced in the business industry as well.

A great part of the literature has dealt with the new reality of diversity in the workplace
as well as with its potential impact on performance (S. T. Bell et al., 2011; Jehn &
Bezrukova, 2004; Saxena, 2014). Inclusion is an up to date topic for Human Resources
Management, in which I am particularly interested, that is why I chose to study it in
this thesis.

1.2 Purpose of the Thesis

The main purpose of the thesis is to investigate whether workforce diversity affects
organizational performance. In particular, the objectives can also be set in the form of
research questions:

“Is there a relationship between 10 key elements of diversity (i.e. age, gender, ethnicity
etc.) to the level of individual job satisfaction?”

“Is there a direct relationship between 11 key aspects of diversity (i.e. age diversity,
gender diversity etc.) to organizational performance?

1.3 Methodology

In order to achieve the purpose of the thesis, in addition to the literature review that was
elaborated, a statistical analysis based on data collected from questionnaires was also
conducted. The responses were collected by the author themselves, and the analysis
researches workforce diversity and its contribution to performance in companies based
in Greece.

8
1.4 Structure of the Thesis

Initially, a review is conducted in the already existing literature that has studied the
specific subject. The conceptual framework is laid out as well as many references to
research and statistical analyses around the thesis’ purposes.

Then there is the setting of the framework of the research, where the area of the analysis
is prescribed as well as the objectives and the research models are formed.

Τhe next chapter describes the method followed in the statistical analysis. Specifically,
the questionnaire is drawn up, from which data were collected, then the data collection
protocol is presented and justified and finally the collected data are checked for quality.

The following chapter revolves around the results of the statistical analysis. First, the
sample is described through descriptive statistics and figures, afterwards, an initial
picture of the correlation coefficients is presented, relationships are also explored
through regression analyses and finally the main findings are noted.

Then the findings and the conclusions drawn from them are presented, the main
limitations of the research are noted, its contribution is also presented and eventually,
suggestions for further research are made. In the end, references are cited.

9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The concept of Diversity

One will most definitely come across, at least once, the widely discussed term
“Diversity”, which is a rather subtle concept that has been defined in many ways. While
all approaches are accepted, cited below is the following example to aid an empirical
understanding.

Person X and Person Y are coworkers of the same team in a large company based in a
vast urban center. Person X is an over 50 years old black man with an excellent
education (Post-Doc in his field). On the other hand, Person Y is a white woman, under
30, with basic education in her field (Bachelor). These employees differ in their
background and do not share the same mother tongue either. Person X is an English
speaker and person Y is a Spanish speaker.

What the example shows is that the two individuals differ from one another in terms of
certain characteristics, called individual attributes. These characteristics can be either
inherent in a person or attributed to them (Katou, 2017). Accordingly, “diversity is the
concept that refers to the traits that make people differ from each other” (Katou, 2017,
p. 76).

2.2 The concept of Workforce Diversity

When it comes to the case of an organization, the term “Workforce Diversity” is

introduced. “Workforce diversity refers to a mix of people within a workforce that are
considered to be different from those in the prevailing constituency” (Schermerhorn et
al., 2011). It is considered to be a great challenge for managers, and if utilized properly,
there can be an important competitive advantage in terms of excellence, performance
and a healthy workplace.

Diversity is all about accepting every human being as a special individual and in the
case of human resources management, it is all about understanding the potentiality of
each employee and managing their behavior for a bigger purpose. It might be taken for
granted that this process is executed concerning these characteristics that make

10
employees unique. However, it should be noted to avoid confusion that diversity is not
a synonym for equal employment opportunity (henceforth EEO), laws namely that
prohibit specific types of job discrimination in workplaces (Ivancevich et al., 2014;
U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).

2.3 Individual Attributes

For a more thorough analysis, a more extensive reference to the levels of diversity needs
to be made. As it has already been mentioned, diversity is based on individual attributes
which fall into the following categories (Katou, 2017):

1. Demographic or Biographic characteristics.

Age, gender, race and ethnicity, disabilities, sexual/affectional orientation,
religion, marital status, and work experience are included in this wide category.
Some of them are hereditary (race) and thus not easily changed while others are
just current (marital status).
It should be taken into account that these traits have a life–long impact on
employee behavior and attitudes mainly occurring because their life structure is
based on them (Ivancevich et al., 2014).
2. Competency characteristics
Competence is an underlying characteristic of an individual which is causally
related to a more effective or/and higher performance of them in a task
(Boyatzis, 1982; L. M. J. Spencer & Spencer, 1993). In essence, competency
characteristics cover inclinations and potentialities.
Spencer and Spencer (1993) distinguish five main competency characteristics:
skills, knowledge, motives, traits, and self-concept.
3. Personality characteristics
Although personality is a quite difficult term to access, it is of particular
importance for Organizational Behavior and Human Resources Management.
Personality is a set of a person’s characteristics that uniquely influences their
cognitions, motivations, and behaviors in various situations (Ryckman, 2012).
The most important personality traits are summarized in the “Big Five”
taxonomy, a development of psychological trait theory. In particular, the five

11
 dimensions of personality are extroversion, emotionality, agreeableness,
conscientiousness and intellect.
4. Values, attitudes, behaviors, and perception
These specific traits help the person explain their surrounding phenomena.

2.4 The Levels of Diversity & Stereotypes in the Workplace

It must be highlighted at this point that demographic characteristics reflect only the
surface–level diversity. In other words, they reflect only the basic differences of people
in easily observable characteristics (such as race, nationality, gender, age etc.) that can
lead to stereotypes (Robbins & Judge, 2018). People do not stand by how others may
think or feel and stick to these characteristics, making assumptions about them and
finally being led to stereotyping and prejudices. Stereotypes are excessive or
oversimplified generalizations made to describe or distinguish a group of individuals
(Katou, 2017).

However, experts on diversity management now place more emphasis on deep-level

diversity (Robbins & Judge, 2018). The noticeable difference compared to the previous
one is that this category is readily transparent and includes primarily each person’s
personality characteristics, their values and their attitudes. Between individuals, if there
is convergence in these traits, significant homogeneity will be achieved, contributing to
a more efficient interaction and eventually, to a better cooperation. And that is because
these traits play by far a very important role in creating cohesion within a group
(Robbins & Judge, 2018).

Taking a second look at the introductory example of Person X and Person Y working
in the same company, it is possible that these two coworkers may initially dwell on their
surface-level differences in terms of their education, gender, age, race and nationality.
If they are capable and willing not to fall into stereotyping and give a chance to finally
get to know each other, they may find some similarities. They may find out that they
have a similar way of thinking in terms of working, that they both have strong family
ties, that they share and abide by certain common values or that they act the same on
various occasions. These deep–level similarities can render the aforementioned
superficial and easily perceptible differences insignificant for both of them and

12
eventually these coworkers can have an excellent collaboration, increasing their group
performance and leading their team to thrive.

2.5 Stereotype Threat

2.5.1 The Concept of Stereotype Threat

Nevertheless, the above sound way of interacting is not always a reality in a diverse
workplace as stereotyping is deeply rooted in society. As has been mentioned already,
stereotypes are generalizations that distinguish a group of people. What is rather
surprising is the fact that these generalizations are not always made by third parties but
also by individuals themselves who belong to specific social groups.

The above phenomenon is called Stereotype Threat and it mainly refers to the degree
that one internally agrees with the negative stereotypes associated with the groups they
belong to (Robbins & Judge, 2018). It should be made clear that each individual is
vulnerable to stereotype threat, as they possess no less than one social identity - and
probably even more - that can be judged adversely in any given situation (Spencer et
al., 2016). And its effects become even more pronounced when the person is considered
to be a minority in the given situation.

Looking at the introductory example of persons X and Y through the spectrum of

Stereotype Threat, other different parameters can be included. Supposing they are
employed by a large company consisting mainly of relatively old employees with great
experience in their work field, Person Y may have been recently hired. Apart from the
fact that they are quite young, they have little work experience as well. It is possible for
the newly hired person to assume that the other colleagues will not believe in their
potential or skills due to their young age. What poses the Stereotype Threat is not
whether Person Y can actually excel at their job, but whether they internally agree that
young employees (the group they identify with) are not as capable as the older ones
(stereotype).

13
2.5.2 The Effects of Stereotype Threat

Therefore, special attention should be paid to Stereotype Threat by managers as its

effects can be particularly detrimental, both to the employees who shoulder it, as well
as to the organization’s performance. What is more, a big part of the literature has
addressed this issue and a more extensive reference to its effects is considered essential.

Contrary to the above example of the young employee, Stereotype Threat is also
observed in older employees in workplaces with younger ones. Many researchers
support that this kind of age-based stereotype threat results in underperformance on
various tasks, either cognitive or physical (Thomas & Dubois, 2011). Walton & Cohen
(2007) also showed that any sort of stereotype threat can undermine the sense of
belonging of the targets, having a negative effect on their motivation and finally making
them prone to withdrawing.

The ironic point of this case is that people try really hard to belie negative biases about
their groups and this whole process can eventually lead to underperformance (Spencer
et al., 2016). People tend to work harder, yet not better (Roberson & Kulik, 2007).

It is also worth noting that Stereotype Threat is directly related to thought suppression.
In situations with high threat, people go to great lengths to suppress their emotions and
thoughts, resulting in self-doubt (Steele & Aronson, 1995), negative expectancies and
thoughts (Stangor et al., 1998), worries that are task-related (Beilock et al., 2007) as
well as feelings of despondency (J. Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003).

Finally, it can also threaten targets’ well-being and health. Research suggests that this
phenomenon is associated with increased blood pressure (Roberson & Kulik, 2007) and
in long-term, if prolonged, with hypertension (Blascovich et al., 2001). A research
conducted by Guendelman et al. (2011) argues that immigrants were led to adopt an
unhealthy way of eating and therefore gained weight because of Stereotype Threat they
experienced so as to fit in.

2.6 Discrimination in the Workplace

In short, Stereotype Threat must be given full attention because, as mentioned, it can
significantly undermine the quality of life of targets (people or employees) as well as

14
their firm performance. Is it possible to avoid? For sure, if discrimination steal. Keep
in mind however that plenty of unfair discrimination against several social groups still
exist in modern society affecting the way of thinking, demeaning and working.

Either way, a great part of diversity management aims at the prevention of unfair
discrimination in the working environment (Robbins & Judge, 2018). The word unfair
should be pointed out though, as discrimination is not always necessarily bad or ill-
intentioned. For instance, indicating which of the two candidates is more qualified in
terms of hard skills and thus more suitable for recruitment is a sort of discrimination.
Or indicating which of the two employees displays a greater performance in a specific
task is another example too.

More often than not, any instance of discrimination in the workplace involves
stereotyping and it has to be hindered as well as prohibited. Whether discrimination are
overt or covert, intentional or unintentional, it constitutes one of the primary factors
restricting workforce diversity (Robbins & Judge, 2018).

2.7 Theories on the Diversity-Performance Relationship

There are two prevailing theories regarding this specific linkage; i) the “Similarity –
Attraction Paradigm” (Tziner, 1985) and ii) the “Cognitive Resource Diversity Theory”
(Cox & Blake, 1991). According to the first theory, groups with homogeneity in their
demographic characteristics are likely to be more efficient than heterogeneous groups,
mainly due to the mutual attraction of individuals who share the same characteristics
(Horwitz, 2005). On the contrary, the second theory argues that diversity is positively
related to performance and this is because each individual offers unique cognitive
resources to the group, providing multiple perspectives and different ways of thinking
(Cox & Blake, 1991; Horwitz, 2005). In particular, for the second theory, there is a lot
of scientific evidence to support it (Kanter, 1984; Nemeth, 1986; Simons et al., 1999).

The theoretical conviction that diversity composes more well-performing groups due
to cognitive resources prevails, however the more diverse a workplace is, more conflicts
may be produced (Horwitz, 2005). So the literature findings examining this linkage
reflect precisely this conflicting relationship between the two theories and hence, are
mixed (Horwitz, 2005).

15
The following part of the thesis is a report of the most important aspects/variables of
surface-level workforce diversity as well as their relationship to individual and
organizational performance.

2.8 Aspects/Variables of Workforce Diversity and their Relationship to

Performance

2.8.1 Age

The aging population and the demographic transition are a new reality, especially of
the last 50 years, faced by many countries around the world, including Greece.
Demographic transition includes low birth rates and low death rates (higher life
expectancy), resulting in an aging population and a transformation of the population
pyramid.

Due to several advances in health care, nutrition, safety, technologies, workplaces and
lifestyle in general, the global life expectancy has grown from 48 years (on average) in
1950 to 68 years in 2010 (Roberts, 2011), while it is estimated to reach 76 years in 2050
and maybe 81 in 2100 (Bloom, 2011). The global population is aging at a very high
rate.

Greece is ranked in the top six of aging countries worldwide. Data collected from the
ELSTAT population censuses is presented below to demonstrate gradual decrease in
the percentage of the young population (0 – 14) and an increase in the percentage of the
aging one (65+).

Table 1: Percentage of Greek Population according to Age Groups

Age group 1991 2001 2011

0 - 14 19.24% 15.17% 14.5%
15 - 64 67.06% 68.11% 65.92%
65 + 13.68% 16.7% 19.48%

As shown in Table 1, the greek population is getting older and older within the years.
Just to consider the decrease in the percentage of the first age group, from 19,24% in

16
1991 to 14,5% in 2011, and the increase to the percentage of the final group of the elder,
from 13,68% in 1991 to 19,48% in 2011.

This is exactly what the demographic transition is all about, bringing about a great
burden on the insurance system as well as workforce reduction, with immigration not
likely to counteract population aging to any significant degree (Bengtsson & Scott,
2010).

As the population ages, so does the workforce. Many biases and stereotypes about
employees’ age exist even in modern workplaces. It is widely held that the younger
employees are commonly more active, more ambitious, more open-minded, more
receptive to various changes and less risk averse. While on the other hand, it is believed
that the older ones are outdated, cantankerous, more conservative and less resilient.

Even though these stereotypes have gradually started to be eradicated, the truth about
workforce’s age is much more complex. The main concern though of Human Resources
Management is whether there is an actual correlation between employee’s age or age
diversity and organizational performance. A suitable definition of age diversity refers
to the extent to which a group or an organization is heterogeneous when it comes to the
age of its members (Li et al., 2011).

Usually, the analysis of the impact of age on firm performance is made through proxy
variables (or HR metrics) such as absence rate, labor turnover, satisfaction rate and
productivity. Literature suggests that age and absence rate or labor turnover are
negatively correlated (Katou, 2017). In other words, the younger the employees are, the
greater their tendency is for leaving the organization voluntarily (labor turnover) or the
more they are absent from work, correspondingly. The exact opposite applies to older
employees.

As for job satisfaction, a review of 800 studies has indicated that older employees are
generally more satisfied with their jobs, have better relationships with their colleagues
and share a greater commitment to their organization too (Ng & Feldman, 2010).

Finally, in terms of productivity, as a person ages, it is almost inevitable for them not
to have the same mental and physical capacities as before. For example, problem
solving, processing of compound stimuli, velocity, muscle mass or counteraction are
age sensitive. However, these reduced due-to-age capacities do not necessarily lead to

17
underperformance or reduced productivity (Silverstein, 2008). To put it simply, this
mitigation of older employees’ physical capacities may be offset by their work
experience in the organization (Johnson & Zimmermann, 1993).

As far as age heterogeneity is concerned, more and more companies invest in an age
diverse manpower, as its effects can be notably beneficial. For instance, a decent and
reasonable level of age diversity can lead to improved creativity and capabilities within
a firm’s members (Avery et al., 2007), may increase overall profitability of the
organization (Li et al., 2011) and can also upgrade marketing and financial performance
(Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). As a consequence, the company will be able to better
understand the needs and preferences of its customers regardless of their age which can
also boost overall performance.

What is more, Beaver & Hutchings (2005) suggested that an age heterogeneous
organization can attract more talented workers and thus can attain its competitive
advantage which can finally lead to greater performance too.

Closing up, it is not about the age of the employee, it is about what they bring and what
their offer is to the organization. Indeed, the younger employees may be more flexible,
creative or physically more capable (Beaver & Hutchings, 2005) but the older ones may
have greater work experience as well as more social connection within the industry (Li
et al., 2011). Employees’ abilities and skills should not be judged based on their age,
but an inclusive workplace should be able to understand the benefits of the interaction
between younger and older people within, support it and make the most out of it.

2.8.2 Gender

According to Eurostat, in 2021 in Greece, the labor force participation rate for males
(20-64 years old) reached 72.5% while for females (same age group) was around
52.7%, the European Union’s lowest rate. This 19.8 points deviation between males’
and females’ labor force participation is quite high if the corresponding deviation from
the EU average is taken into account. More precisely, this sex gap in employment in
European Union (27 countries) was 10.8%, almost half of Greece.

Greece has all along been at the bottom of the rankings for women’s labor force
participation as compared to northern and western European countries, where

18
significant steps have been taken to bridge the gender gap. Nevertheless, it is still a
worldwide phenomenon.

But why is women’s participation in work significantly lower than men’s? There are of
course some cases of voluntary abstinence, such as for motherhood or/and household
supervision reasons. Besides, one might notice the existence of stereotypes about
women being less productive than men.

A gender diverse workplace relies on the equal participation of both men and women.
It should be noted here, that this part of the thesis refers only to males and females as
such. The rest of the genders or gender identities (a total of 72) and their impact on
organizational performance will be quoted later in a different section.

In general, no systematic differences have been observed between men and women in
terms of analytical skills, learning ability, sociability, motivation or problems solving
(Chitiris, 2017; Hyde et al., 1990). What is more, there are no differences in
professional interests, leadership skills, cooperation and competition (Chitiris, 2017).
Lastly, men and women do not differ in terms of job satisfaction when considering
personal expectations, job characteristics and family responsibilities (Hodson, 1989) or
voluntary turnover (Griffeth et al., 2000).

Nevertheless, in comparison to men, women have a higher absence rate from work,
which might depend on age, country and professional group (Becker et al., 2009). On
the other hand, women tend to have better social skills, can multitask well, have greater
memory (for emotions-related recollections) and excel in verbal communication too
(Chitiris, 2017). In spite of this, men tend to have a slightly greater mathematics
performance (Hyde et al., 1990) as well as better spatial perception (Lawton & Morrin,
1999).

Despite these minor differences, women can be as productive as men in their job. Zell
et al. (2015), for example, evaluated gender similarities and differences and their
findings provided compelling support for the gender similarities hypothesis. They also
indicated several minor distinctions that could affect individual performance.
Moreover, Paustian-Underdahl et al. (2014), argued that men and women are rated as
equally effective leaders.

19
As it has already been mentioned above, a gender diverse workplace consists of both
men and women but it is much more than that. It also implies that men and women are
hired comparably, paid equally and also given the same opportunities or/and
promotions.

A big part of the literature has researched the correlation of workforce gender diversity
and firm performance (Carter et al., 2003; Kılıç & Kuzey, 2016; Lückerath-Rovers,
2013). Hunt et al. (2015), for example, used financial data as well as leadership
demographics from many organizations and executives in the United States, Latin
America, Canada and the United Kingdom, to draw conclusions that the top quartile
gender diverse companies were 15% more possible to experience financial returns that
were higher than the domestic industry media.

Another study of FTSE 100 companies in the UK, indicated a positive and significant
relationship between female boardroom representation and firm performance (Brahma
et al., 2021). In the same vein, Duppati et al. (2020), collected data from Singapore and
India and argued that corporate boards with female participation performed better
financially in comparison to the ones without. By using Tobin’s Q as a performance
proxy, they also found out that the market had a favorable perception of the gender
diverse firms.

What is more, female presence in business may be associated with greater team
performance (Hoogendoorn et al., 2013), greater economic results (Reguera-Alvarado
et al., 2017), employees being more productive (Ali et al., 2009) and bigger firm value
(Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008).

However, Zhang (2020) used data from 1,069 major public organizations around the
globe and found that the relationship between a gender diverse workplace and
organizational performance may vary across different countries and industries mainly
due to institutional context differences. When diversity is not respected as a value but
is perceived as a regulatory requirement, people may perceive it in a negative way. In
other words, when diversity is not accepted by societal norms, but only by regulators,
it may not benefit at all firm performance in the least (Zhang, 2020). Although diversity
is now legislated with many laws that promote it, an important factor in its consolidation
is its institutional acceptance.

20
2.8.3 Race and Ethnicity

Race and ethnicity are highly controversial issues at both societal and corporate level.
There is often confusion around them, especially in terms of their interpretation and
content but both of the terms are related to human ancestry. Race refers to a humankind
group that shares some certain distinguishing physical traits which are inherent in its
biology and DNA (i.e. skin color). There are five races: White, Black, American Indian,
Asian and Native Hawaiian. Ethnicity, on the other hand, is a much broader term that
classifies people of many backgrounds, such as their national, racial, tribal, linguistic,
cultural or religious ones.

Greece has always been a White-dominated country with a minor percentage of other
races, which may have increased over the last decades due to globalization and
immigration. As for ethnic groups, it is estimated that around 98% of the population of
Greece is Greek, while minority groups are made up of Albanian, North Macedonian,
Turks, Bulgarian, Armenian and Jews (WorldAtlas, 2022).

In most countries, there are policies and laws enshrined in the constitution (including
the greek constitution) that secure and promote protection, equality and freedom of all
people regardless of their race or/and ethnicity. This does not imply institutional
acceptance or racism eradication though as there are still many stereotypes and biases
around race and ethnicity. For example, black people are supposed to be less intelligent
than white people and have lower IQ or Jews are seen as cunning. Accordingly, each
and every society has shaped its own prejudices against racial or/and ethnic minorities.

But societies have become more receptive to this type of diversity and hence,
companies have become too. A race-ethnic diverse workplace consists of employees
from different racial or/and ethnic backgrounds. But which is the relationship between
a race-ethnic diverse workplace and organizational performance?

By collecting data from thousand executives from 4 different territories (United States,
Latin America, Canada and United Kingdom), Hunt et al. (2015) found out that the
companies of the research that were in the top quartile of a more mixed racial/ethnical
composition, were 35% more likely to experience higher financial returns than their
domestic industry median. An interesting point of this research is that the diversity-
performance relationship is not a causal link, but a correlation, implying a two-way
relationship between them. As for racial diversity intensity, Richard et al. (2004)

21
indicated that both low and high levels of racial heterogeneity may be associated with
greater productivity in comparison to moderate.

However, this relationship between diversity and performance is not always positive.
Bell et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analysis showing that race diversity was negatively
related to team performance (but not to a large extent). What is more, Pitts (2005)
collected data from public school districts and stated that racial/ethnic diversity and
representation have no consistent relationship with performance. Similar to this, in the
analysis of Mellor et al. (2001), there were few direct effects of racial diversity on
performance that were either positive or negative. Moreover, high competitiveness
among teams seemed to cause an exacerbation of racial diversity’s negative impact, but
under some certain circumstances, diversity could possibly enhance performance
(Mellor et al., 2001).

In another study, Pelled et al. (1999) examined the linkages among performance, work
group diversity and conflict. They found out that race diversity, especially in new no-
routine groups, may increase emotional conflict that has the least favorable effect on
performance.

Considering all the above literature findings, it can be understood how complex the
racial/ethnic diversity-performance relationship is, as it is not necessarily a one-way
one, namely greater racial/ethnic diversity equals greater/poorer performance. Race and
ethnicity heterogeneity in the workplace can be a challenge for leaders and for the
human resources department and their management requires good control and planning
so as to eliminate the negative effects and enhance the positive ones.

2.8.4 Disabilities

According to Eurostat, in 2019, 24.0% of the EU-27 population aged 16+ reported
moderate or severe long-standing limitations in their daily life caused by health
problems. In Greece, 13.6% of total population reported moderate long-standing
limitations, while 9.5% reported severe ones, among EU-27’s highest percentage
(Eurostat, 2020).

In addition, for the same year, 28.4% of the EU-27 population living with an activity
limitation, was in peril of penury or social exclusion as opposed to 18.4% of the

22
population with no activity limitation, (Greece: 33.2% - 29% respectively) (Eurostat,
2021). As for their financial situation, in 2019, 26.1% of the EU-27 population, aged
16+, living with an activity limitation (disability), found hard making ends meet, in
comparison to 16.0% of the population without limitations (Eurostat, 2021). Greece
scored 76.5% for people with disabilities, Europe’s highest.

In Europe, Greece included, there is equal treatment in the workplace of people with
disabilities in both the public and private sectors (article 4 of law 3304/2005). Common
disabilities include physical disabilities, vision impairment, deafness or difficulty in
hearing, mental health conditions (such as depression, schizophrenia etc.), intellectual
disabilities (such as ADHD, autism spectrum disorder etc.) and acquired brain injury
among others.

People with disabilities in the workplace have been studied extensively in the literature.
There is skepticism around hiring people with disabilities and they are usually treated
with expectations of lower performance while ultimately lowering the chances of
getting hired (Ren et al., 2008). One of the main obstacles are the attitudes and
stereotypes of coworkers and supervisors (Colella & Bruyère, 2011) which can possibly
lead to social distance towards these employees (Angermeyer & Dietrich, 2006).

Another big part of the literature has attempted to find the linkage between disability
and job employment, performance, productivity and work desire, but the findings were
mixed (Ali et al., 2011; Heath & Babu, 2017; Kaye et al., 2011). There is a prevalent
tendency among stakeholders and consumers to reward disability inclusive companies
which can result, as such, in higher earnings (Saperstein et al., 2006). Another study
conducted using data from the Indian stock market indicated that, combined with
technology innovation, employee disability may boost financial performance (Oware
& Mallikarjunappa, 2020).

Simultaneously, people with disabilities may be distinguished by superior personal

characteristics, such as solvency (Bell & Klein, 2001), and skills, such as better
memorization, perfectionism, numerical skills and higher IQ (Khan et al., 2019). They
may also score higher on performance evaluations (Robbins & Judge, 2018) but this
might occur though due to the “norm to be kind” (Hastorf et al., 1979). According to
this norm, someone is in favor of a person with a disability and tries not to be unpleasant
towards them.

23
On the contrary though, employees with disabilities have a higher absenteeism rate than
employees with no disabilities while the severity of the disability has a significant
impact on that too (García-Serrano & Malo, 2014). This thesis is also supported by the
research of Almond & Healey (2003), with the only difference being that they focused
on mental health problems (anxiety, depression etc.) and stated that they could increase
the absenteeism rate much more than the physical disabilities.

What is more, physical and motor competence can be a hindrance to specific tasks, but
their significance differs from job to job and is left to the manager’s discretion for
proper division of labor (Chitiris, 2017). Finally, the employment of people with
disabilities requires specific structures, workplace configuration and good planning by
the human resources department to ensure equal treatment.

2.8.5 Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity

According to HRC Foundation (n.d.), “sexual orientation is an inherent or immutable

enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people”. On the other hand,
“gender identity is one’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or
neither – how individuals perceive themselves and what they call themselves. One’s
gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth” (HRC
Foundation, n.d.). Sexual orientation and gender identity should never be confused with
each other, as they are autonomous and fluid concepts, thus unique for each individual.

Sexual and gender identities that deviated from the heterosexual and heteronormative
social norms have been – and still are – the target of stereotypes, prejudice, stigma,
social and work exclusion, rejection, legal sanctions, assaults and even death penalties.
However, in the late 1960s, on the occasion of the Stonewall-In riots, the gay liberation
movement emerged and began to give visibility to the LGBTQIA+ community and
evolved into a people-centered social and political movement.

More and more countries are providing the legal framework for combating
discrimination, hate speech and inequality as regards LGBTQIA+ rights, Greece
included (law 3304/2005 prohibits work discrimination based on sexual orientation,
law 3896/2010 prohibits work discrimination based on gender and gender identities and
law 4443/2016 includes sex characteristics as well). Therefore, the workplace has

24
become more inclusive and more LGBTQIA+ diverse with this inclusivity being legally
guaranteed. However, managers are mainly concerned about whether there is an actual
correlation between LGBTQIA+ employee representation and organizational
performance.

The biggest part of the literature has studied how nondiscrimination work policies have
influenced employees as individuals and company performance as such. First of all,
these policies as regards sexual orientation and gender identity could decrease
discrimination (Button, 2001) and also increase openness and eventually decrease
concealment about being LGBTQIA+ (Rostosky & Riggle, 2002) which is a factor
linked to phycological distress (Pachankis, 2007) and underperforming immune system
(Cole et al., 1996).

The aforementioned results of an inclusive and legally protected LGBTQIA+

workplace may be associated with improved health or generally employee well-being
(Driscoll et al., 1996; Waldo, 1999), higher job satisfaction rate (Button, 2001; Waldo,
1999), improved work relationships, higher levels of organizational citizenship
behaviors (Brenner et al., 2014) as well as greater commitment (Ragins & Cornwell,
2001).

As for the effects on organizational outcomes, LGBTQIA+ policies and practices may
result in higher firm value, profitability and productivity (Lourenço et al., 2021; Pichler
et al., 2018). Shan et al. (2017) used data from US public companies, observing that the
more sexually equal a company is, the higher stock returns and market evaluation it
has. Another study, stated the possible linkage between nondiscrimination laws and
innovation, which eventually can lead to improved performance (Hossain et al., 2020).
Finally, consumers, mostly members of the community, might be more in favor of
socially responsible companies that support LGBTQIA+ diversity as compared to other
companies that do not invest in a diverse workplace (Tuten, 2005).

2.8.6 Marital Status

At first glance, it seems inconceivable for a manager to be interested in the marital

status of their employees. However, there might be a relationship between marital status

25
and employee performance. A big part of the literature has addressed this issue, but the
findings are divided.

First of all, as for job satisfaction, according to the research of Olatunji & Mokuolu
(2014) married employees report a higher level of job satisfaction, which is mainly due
to the lower stress levels. The exact opposite is stated by Adeoye et al. (2014), namely
that married employees may be less satisfied with their jobs, because their home
assignments might be hindered from their home and family demands. Apart from these,
many studies suggest that there is not an actual correlation between them (Azim et al.,
2013; Bilgiç, 1998; Koustelios, 2001).

As for the linkage of marital status with the absence rate from work, most researchers
conclude that married employees have a tendency of being absent more often than
unmarried ones (Akgeyik, 2014; Ferreira et al., 2012; Pines et al., 1985) which may be
due to sickness (Pines et al., 1985) or generally due to unexpected family obligations.

As regards turnover rate or turnover intention, married employees tend to have a lower
turnover intention as compared to unmarried ones (Carbery et al., 2003; Emiroğlu et
al., 2015; Waite & Gallagher, 2001), which mainly stems from the sense of
responsibility towards family financial obligations (Carbery et al., 2003). Nevertheless,
Lambert et al. (2012) indicated that marital status among others is unrelated to
employee turnover intention and has an insignificant effect on it.

Finally, regarding the direct effects of marital status on individual employee

performance, no conclusion can be extracted that will lean for or against a clear positive
or negative relationship between them. According to Petersen et al. (2007), married
employees might perform better contrary to unmarried ones while Padmanabhan &
Magesh (2016) supported that unmarried employees are overperforming since they are
less committed to their family and to other possible responsibilities. Either way, further
research on this topic is needed to draw a more concrete conclusion.

2.8.7 Religion

In Greece, there is not much breadth of diversity in terms of religion. This is because
about 90% of the Greek inhabitants identify themselves as Christian Orthodox, while
the remaining percentage includes Islam, Catholicism, Atheism, Evangelicalism,

26
Hinduism, Hellenic Paganism and other religious minorities (Pew Research Center,
2017). The Greek constitution, among others worldwide, has guaranteed religious
freedom as a fundamental right and has criminalized discrimination in the workplace
based on religious beliefs (4443/2016).

Religion is among the most important institutions, which is inextricably linked to the
way life is organized as well as the way each individual thinks and acts. Therefore, what
is the managers’ main concern is how to properly manage religious workforce diversity,
as different religions may come with different value systems, ethical principles and
practices (Katou, 2017). Subsequently, an inclusive religious workplace should pay
respect to different dress codes, to religious observance time offs, to conscientious
objections to various work tasks, to promotion of religion/belief in the workplace and
to other religious expressions (Hicks, 2002; Vickers, 2015).

Religion in the workplace has been and continues to be the target of unfounded
prejudice and discrimination (Robbins & Judge, 2018). Discrimination within an
organization as regards religious beliefs may lower the commitment and engagement
levels of the employees affected (Messarra, 2014). On the other hand, religious
diversity and religiosity might have a positive relationship with job satisfaction
(Ekpendu et al., 2019; King & Williamson, 2005), might help with equality
maintenance and even boost economic performance (Cintas et al., 2013). Nevertheless,
due to its challenging management nature, it may peril group cohesion as well as social
ties within the organization (Cintas et al., 2013), so managers should pay much of
attention to this demographic characteristic, since its role is catalytic to HRM.

2.8.8 Work Experience

It is obvious that the more experienced a person is on a job or a specific task, the more
productive they will be, a fact that has been proven and embraced by a big part of the
literature (McDaniel et al., 1988; Palumbo et al., 2005; Quińones et al., 1995). It is no
secret that an experienced employee makes fewer mistakes and is more adaptable and
solution-oriented to potential problems that arise (Chitiris, 2017).

Tenure, meaning work experience, is also positively related to job satisfaction (Bedeian
et al., 1992; Bowen et al., 1994; Muntazeri & Indrayanto, 2018). Less experienced

27
employees might still decide on their career and thus be less satisfied with their current
jobs (Bowen et al., 1994). However, Bilgiç (1998) on their research found a negative
relationship between tenure and job satisfaction, predominantly because of the fact that
employees who stay long enough in a job can change their perspective on what they
consider to be decent rewards for their many years of experience.

What is more, it is suggested that the more experienced an employee is, the less they
are going to be absent from work (Griffeth et al., 2000; Nicholson et al., 1977; Palumbo
et al., 2005) which is not consistent though with the findings of Hoque & Islam (2003)
and Leigh (1986) who found a positive relationship between them. Finally, employees
with greater experience might be more committed and more motivated to do their job
(Griffeth et al., 2000; Nicholson et al., 1977).

For the proper evaluation of work experience as a demographic characteristic, managers

should distinguish it between experience and seniority (Chitiris, 2017). Experience in
different employers and workplaces in the same field of work, might have an effect on
individual behavior, which will consequently be more difficult to predict and control.

In conclusion, do more experienced employees perform better than less experienced

ones? Possibly, yes. Does this indispensably mean that the human resources department
should only hire people with extensive previous work experience? Not necessarily.
Experience comes with age and a workplace consisting of relatively old employees
might miss the benefits of age workforce diversity, as described in a previous section
of this thesis.

2.8.9 Functional Expertise

According to Bunderson (2003), functional expertise refers to an employee’s

specialization in a particular business/functional area (i.e. marketing, human resources,
accounting) and to all the knowledge this specialization and experience implies.
Consequently, functional diversity refers to the extent a group consists of employees
that have different functional backgrounds of interest and therefore different in-depth
knowledge (Horwitz, 2005).

Functional expertise of an individual is positively related to performance mainly due to

their extent of personal deepening (Bantel, 1994). Literature has argued that functional

28
heterogeneous teams may experience some positive effects, such as better strategic
reorientation (Lant et al., 1992), business strategies success (Govindarajan, 1989),
better budget and schedule performance (R. T. Keller, 2001) and even faster time-to-
market for specific products (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995). However, an expertise
diverse group may face more conflicts as well as difficulties in communication,
coordination (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2004) and various tasks understanding (Dougherty,
1992). Furthermore, Gray & Nowland (2017) examined corporate boards in Australia
and showed that within a specific business-expertise subset, shareholders benefit from
expertise diversity, but beyond this subset, lower performance and firm value may be
experienced.

2.8.10 Educational Background

Another important aspect/variable of workforce diversity is educational background,

from which one’s knowledge, skills, capabilities, cognitive strengths and even
personality can be indicated (Horwitz, 2005). A heterogeneous group in terms of
educational background, as in functional expertise, may experience greater
performance in comparison to a homogenous one, mainly due to the members’ wider
range of cognitive skills and capacities (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999).
Educational diversity might also be linked to higher innovation performance (Bolli et
al., 2018; Schubert & Tavassoli, 2020)

Simultaneously though, many and major differences in educational level and thus great
educational heterogeneity can be detrimental for organizations, as it may has a negative
impact on team performance and team social integration (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). What
is more, it might have a positive relationship with turnover intention or turnover rate
(Jackson et al., 1995; Wiersema & Bird, 1993) and a negative one with consensus in
decision-making (Knight et al., 1999). Therefore, the findings, as regards the impact of
educational diversity on performance, are mixed.

2.9 Demographic - Job-related Diversity; another Diversity Distinction

It must be addressed at this point, that the first seven aforementioned variables/aspects
of workforce diversity (age, gender, race/ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation and

29
gender identity, marital status and religion) are part of the general context of
demographic characteristics, hence demographic diversity. On the other hand, the
following three variables/aspects (work experience, functional expertise, educational
background) are referred in the literature as job-related characteristics, hence job-
related diversity.

Workforce diversity has many different compositional effects on organizational

performance, in which job-related diversity has a stronger positive impact on
performance and efficiency in comparison to demographic diversity (Horwitz, 2005;
Joshi & Roh, 2009).

2.10 Deep-level Diversity and Performance

Literature review conducted so far in this thesis, has focused on surface-level diversity,
namely in easily observable characteristics and traits. However, there has been some
research that has examined how deep-level diversity, a readily transparent diversity
which refers to personality, attitude and values of the employees, is related to
performance. Managers should try to converge on the deep-level diversity
characteristics, as if they succeed, on the one hand the demographic differences among
employees will be mitigated and controlled (Robbins & Judge, 2018), on the other hand
the organization may experience many positive effects. Besides, deep-level diversity
has the most long-lasting effects on groups (Harrison et al., 2002).

First of all, homogenous teams, as regards values, attitudes and personality

characteristics, are more likely to experience more positive emergent states, such as
cohesion, job and team satisfaction, team identification, team trust and potency (Elron,
1997; Harrison et al., 1998; Triana et al., 2021; Tröster et al., 2014). What is more, low
levels of deep-level diversity may be associated with more effective team processes and
fewer conflicts (Harrison et al., 1998; Triana et al., 2021; van Knippenberg &
Schippers, 2007). On the other hand, greater deep-level heterogeneity may incommode
social interactions, open communication, coordination, knowledge transfer and helping
among group’s members (Martins et al., 2003; Puck et al., 2007; Triana et al., 2021).
Therefore, it is essential for managers to pay the necessary attention to deep-level
diversity and to indulge in creating a workplace with as much homogeneity in values,
attitudes and personality characteristics, as possible.

30
2.11 Conclusions on Literature Review

Diversity falls into two broad categories: surface-level and deep-level diversity.
Surface-level consists of demographic characteristics (demographic diversity) and job-
related traits (job-related diversity), while deep-level diversity refers to personality,
values and attitudes.

The relationship between diversity and performance is complex and many studies have
been conducted as regards this specific topic. Based on the literature review of this
thesis, the scientific findings on the diversity-performance relationship are mixed,
however it can be suggested that in general, under certain circumstances and to a certain
degree, surface-level diversity is positively related to performance, with job-related
diversity’s impact being greater (Horwitz, 2005; Joshi & Roh, 2009). Contradictorily,
deep-level diversity is negatively related to performance (Triana et al., 2021), so
managers’ main concern should be to build a homogenous workplace in terms of deep-
level characteristics, which will lead to a better performing organization and to a
healthier workplace.

31
CHAPTER 3: THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 The Framework

Within the framework of this thesis, a survey was conducted based on data collected
from questionnaires, which were created and promoted by the author themselves.

The survey was conducted online, through a digital questionnaire created with Google
Forms, on employees residing in Greece. It was not limited to the ownership status of
the organization in which the respondent was employed, as both public and private
ownership status were accepted. However, there was a limitation in the total number of
employees of the organization, in particular, it had to be more than one people (2 and
more), so as the survey to be meaningful.

3.2 Goal Setting

The main objective of the thesis is to investigate whether workforce diversity affects
organizational performance. Specifically, the research is limited to surface-level
diversity, as described in the previous chapter.

As for diversity, the two main areas of focus are the ten key characteristics of surface-
level diversity (age, gender, race/ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, marital
status, religion, work experience, functional expertise, educational background) as well
as the level of diversity, for each of the ten above characteristics, as perceived by each
individual respondent regarding their organization. As for organizational performance,
the two main areas of focus are the individual level of job satisfaction, a proxy variable
of performance (Katou, 2017), as well as the level of the overall performance of the
organization, as perceived by the respondents themselves.

According to the literature, the relationship between deep-level diversity and

performance is clearer in comparison to the surface-level one (Elron, 1997; Triana et
al., 2021; Tröster et al., 2014). For this reason, this thesis emphasizes on surface-level
diversity, setting as goal to shed light and further investigate this ambiguous
relationship.

32
3.3 Research Model Formation

The first research model concerns the investigation of the relationship of individual job
satisfaction with the ten key aspects/characteristics of surface-level diversity.

Research Model 1: Job Satisfaction = a0 +

a1 * age + a2 * gender + a3 * race +

a4 * ethnicity + a5 * disabilities + a6 * sexuality +

a7 * marital status + a8 * religion + a9 * experience +

a10 * education + et

Research Model 2: Performance = b0 +

b1 * age + b2 * gender + b3 * race +

diversity diversity diversity

b4 * ethnicity + b5 * disabilities + b6 * sexuality +

diversity diversity diversity

33
b7 * marital status + b8 * religion + b9 * experience +
diversity diversity diversity

b10 * expertise + b11 * education + et

diversity diversity

Figure 1: Research Models

The second research model concerns the investigation of the relationship of

organizational performance, as perceived by the respondents themselves, with the
levels of diversity for each of the eleven key aspects/characteristics of surface-level
diversity.

Both of the above models are based on the aforementioned ambiguous relationship of
surface-level diversity to firm and individual performance, as measured by proxy
variables such as level of job satisfaction.

34
CHAPTER 4: THE RESEARCH METHOD

4.1 The Questionnaire

Taking into account the objectives of the thesis as well as the research models
mentioned above, a digital questionnaire was created through Google Forms, so as an
analysis to be conducted. The link for the questionnaire is cited in the link down below.

https://forms.gle/KD8edXSDzhLRwaAs8

4.2 Sampling

The sampling frame of the study is the population of people working in the territory of
Greece, in organizations, either of public or private ownership status, that employ two
or more people, so as the investigation of the concept of workforce diversity to make
sense.

Greece is traditionally considered to be a country with low levels of diversity; hence

the research is limited at this point, in order to examine whether and to what extent
workforce diversity is a reality in greek firms.

At first, a pilot sample was carried out for possible improvements or fixes of the
questionnaire and then the field sampling followed. The final survey sample consists of
106 valid responses.

4.3 Data checking

All survey items were complete and valid except for two items. The first one did not
have all the survey fields answered (N/A data) and the other one was about an
organization, consisted of only one person. Therefore, they were deleted in order to
maintain the validity of the statistical analysis and integrity of the research.

35
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS

5.1 Description of the Sample

The survey sample consists of 106 responses. The responses were firstly classified into
groups, according to the total number of employees of their organization.

Table 2: Business Classification according to the number of Employees

Frequency Percent
Micro (0 - 6) 26 24,5
Small (7 - 250) 73 68,9
Medium (251 - 500) 5 4,7
Large (501 - 1000) 2 1,9
Total 106 100,0

The largest percentage of companies (68,9%) in the research falls into the Small
category, with 7 – 250 employees, followed by the Micro category (24,5%) with 0 – 6
employees. The Medium and Large ones have a significantly lower percentage, 4,7%
and 1,9% correspondingly. Figure 2 is a graphic representation of frequencies from
which the prevalence of the small businesses in the survey can also be derived.

Figure 2: Bar Chart of Organizations per Business Size

36
Some pie charts are cited down below about the ownership status of the organizations
of the employees as well as about the sector of their operation.

Figure 3: Pie Chart of Ownership Status Figure 4: Pie Chart of Field of Operation

Close to ¾ of the companies (74,53%) surveyed are privately owned, according to

Figure 3. As for their field of operation, most organizations operate in services with a
percentage of 68,87%, a smaller amount operates in commerce (23,58%) while only
7,55% are in the industry sector.

For the qualitative variables of the models, pie charts were created for their graphic
illustration, while for the quantitative ones, there are bar charts (classified into groups)
and histograms followed by descriptive statistics.

Figure 5: Pie Chart of Gender Figure 6: Pie Chart of Race

66,04% of the respondents were women, while 33,96% were men (in the questionnaire
there was given an option for other). As for race, 99,06% of the people that took part
in the survey were white, while only 0,94% identified as another race, indicating the
white dominance of Greece.

37
Figure 7: Pie Chart of Ethnicity Figure 8: Pie Chart of Sexual Orientation

According to Figure 7, 98,11% of the respondents were of greek ethnicity, which was
expected considering the literature review, and when it comes to sexual orientation,
78,30% identified themselves as heterosexual, while a percentage of 21,70% as queer.
Queer stands for every sexuality that is not a subject to the heterosexual and
heteronormative norm (LGBTQQIAAPP+)

Figure 9: Pie Chart of Disabilities Figure 10: Pie Chart of Marital Status

99,06% of the respondents had no disabilities, as shown in Figure 9, while, as for

marital status, around ¾ were married (marriage, engagement or cohabitation
agreement) and the remaining percentage (23,58%) were unmarried.

Figure 11: Pie Chart of Religion Figure 12: Pie Chart of Education

38
Quite interesting are the outcomes shown in Figure 11. 81,13% of the people surveyed
identify themselves as Orthodox, almost 10 points lower in comparison to the literature
review, while the remaining percentage consists of atheism (11,32%), other religion
(6,60%) and Induism. As for their educational background, 77,36% of the respondents
had a higher education (Technological Educational Institute / Higher Education
Institution / Vocational Training Institute), 21,70% were High School graduates, while
only 0,94% had a basic education, indicating a high level of education in Greece.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics / Age

Descriptive Statistics ~ Age
Min 18
Max 60
Mean 30,45
Std. Deviation 10,606
Variance 112,479
Figure 13: Bar Chart of Age

Αs can be easily observed from Figure 13, most of the respondents belong to the first
age group, i.e. less than 25 years of age (53 frequency), as well as to the second one,
i.e. 26 – 35 years old (26 frequency). Table 3 of descriptive statistics for this variable,
shows that mean age is 30,45 years, min and max age are 18 and 60 years
correspondingly and the standard deviation is 10,606 years.

Figure 14: Bar Chart of Work Experience

39
 Table 4: Descriptive Statistics / Experience
Descriptive Statistics ~ Work Experience
Min 0
Max 40
Mean 8,17
Std. Deviation 9,562
Variance 91,438

According to the bar chart in Figure 14, most of the employees in the survey belong to
the first group, i.e. they have less than 5 years of work experience, which was expected
if considered the great frequency of the first age group. The rest of the employees are
distributed almost equally among the other groups. As for descriptive statistics, mean
experience is 8,17 years, min and max experience are 0 and 40 correspondingly and
standard deviation is 9,562 years.

Figure 15: Histogram of Age Diversity Figure 16: Histogram of Gender Diversity

Both of the histograms in Figure 15 and Figure 16 are left skewed, that is, their values
are concentrated to the right, indicating high levels of age and gender diversity in the
organizations of the survey.

40
Figure 17: Histogram of Race Diversity Figure 18: Histogram of Ethnicity
Diversity

Both of the histograms in Figure 17 and Figure 19 are right skewed, that is, their values
are concentrated to the left, indicating low levels of race and ethnicity diversity in the
organizations of the survey. An outcome like this, was expected, considering both the
literature review and the pie charts cited.

Figure 19: Histogram of Disabilities Diversity

Figure 20: Histogram of Sexuality Diversity

41
The histograms in Figure 19 and Figure 20 are also right skewed, indicating low levels
of disabilities and sexuality diversity in the organizations of the survey. However, there
is a big concertation for the value “10” as for sexuality diversity, unlike to the rest
distribution of the histogram. This implies that some organizations have a very high
sexuality diverse workforce, in contrast to the rest of the market.

Figure 21: Histogram of Marital Status Diversity

Figure 22: Histogram of Religion Diversity

Figure 21 is a left skewed histogram while on the other hand, Figure 22 is a right skewed
histogram. The formers imply high level of marital status diversity and low level of
religion diversity in the organizations of the survey.

Figure 23: Histogram of Experience Diversity

42
 Figure 24: Histogram of Functional Expertise Diversity

Figure 25: Histogram of Educational Diversity

Figure 23 and Figure 24 are left skewed histograms, which imply high level of work
experience and functional expertise diversity of the organizations. On the other hand,
the histogram of Figure 25 has a plateau or multimodal distribution that is slightly
skewed to the left. However, considering the fact that most of the values are
concentrated to the right, it can be concluded that the organizations display a
considerable amount of educational diversity.

Figure 26: Histogram of Job Satisfaction Figure 27: Histogram of Organizational

Performance

43
Quite interesting is the fact the two dependent variables of the research models (job
satisfaction and organizational performance) display indications of normal distribution
skewed to the left, which can be perceived through their histograms in Figure 26 and
Figure 27. The skewness to the left can be also distinguished from the boxplots cited
down below.

What is more, from the boxplots the minimum, the first quartile (Q1), the median, the
third quartile (Q3), the maximum and the outliers can be also derived. For example,
when it comes to Job Satisfaction, minimum = 2, Q1 = 6, median = 8, Q3 = 9, maximum
= 10 and there is also an outlier with value of 1. As for organizational performance,
minimum = 4, Q1 = 7, median = 8, Q3 = 9, maximum = 10 and there is an outlier with
value of 1 too.

Figure 28: Boxplot of Job Satisfaction Figure 29: Boxplot of Organizational

Performance

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics / Age-Gender-Sexuality Diversity

Age Diversity Gender Diversity Race Diversity

Mean 7,12 6,32 2,64
Median 8,00 7,00 1,00
Std. Deviation 2,657 3,158 2,782
Variance 7,061 9,972 7,737
Min 1 1 1
Max 10 10 10

44
Τhe conclusions drawn from the histograms can also be drawn from the descriptive
statistics, mainly considering the mean and median of the variables. Age and Gender
Diversity have relatively high means and medians, 7,12 and 8,00 for age diversity and
6,32 and 7,00 for gender diversity correspondingly. So, in essence, the conclusion of
the histograms is reinforced, that the organizations of the research have high levels of
diversity of the specific aspects. On the other hand, the mean and the median of race
diversity is 2,64 and 1,00, resulting in a low level of diversity.

Table 6: Descriptive Statistics / Ethnicity-Disabilities-Sexuality Diversity

Ethnicity Diversity Disabilities Diversity Sexuality Diversity

Mean 4,10 2,19 3,86
Median 3,00 1,00 2,00
Std. Deviation 3,168 2,239 3,247
Variance 10,037 5,012 10,542
Min 1 1 1
Max 10 10 10

By the same logic, low levels of diversity are observed in terms of ethnicity, disabilities
and sexual orientation. In particular, ethnicity diversity’s mean = 4,10 and its median =
3,00, disabilities diversity’s mean = 2,19 and median = 1,00 and finally, sexuality
diversity’s mean = 3,86 and median = 2,00. These results are also consistent with the
previous histograms analyses.

Table 7: Descriptive Statistics / Marital Status-Religion-Experience Diversity

Marital Status Diversity Religion Diversity Experience Diversity

Mean 6,22 4,00 7,51

Median 6,00 3,00 8,00
Std. 3,083 2,888 2,351
Deviation
Variance 9,505 8,343 5,528

45
 Min 1 1 1
Max 10 10 10

Marital Status diversity has a medium-to-high mean and median (6,22 and 6,00
correspondingly), similar to the high values of experience diversity (7,51 and 8,00)
Contrary to that, religion diversity’s mean = 4,00 and median = 3,00. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the survey organizations are marital and experience diverse, yet not
in terms of religion.

Table 8: Descriptive Statistics / Functional Experience-Education Diversity-Job

Satisfaction-Organizational Performance

Functional Educational Job Satisfaction Organizational

Exp. Diversity Diversity Performance
Mean 7,46 6,71 7,48 7,87
Median 8,00 7,00 8,00 8,00
Std. 2,256 2,640 1,982 1,610
Deviation
Variance 5,089 6,971 3,928 2,592
Min 1 1 1 3
Max 10 10 10 10

Finally, as for the two final aspects of surface-level diversity of the research models,
high values of mean and median are observed. More specifically, functional expertise
diversity’s mean = 7,46 and median = 8,00, while for educational diversity, mean =
6,71 and median = 7,00. As regards the dependent variables of the analysis, job
satisfaction has a great mean and median (7,48 and 8,00), similar to the high levels of
organizational performance (7,87 and 8,00).

Summing up, by considering both the figures and the tables of descriptive statistics (and
especially the mean and median of the variables), a low level of surface-level diversity
is observed in the survey sample as regards race, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual
orientation and religion. An outcome like this was expected taking into account the

46
literature review that demonstrated homogeneity in most of the characteristics in
question.

On the other hand, the results show greater levels of workforce diversity in terms of
age, gender, marital status, work experience, functional expertise and educational
background.

5.2 Correlations

In the specific part of the thesis, a reference is made to the correlation coefficients of
the variables. Among the various statistically significant correlations, only the ones
concerning the dependent variables of the models as well as some variables outside the
models, namely number of employees and ownership status (0,1) will be presented
purely for statistical reasons.

Table 9: Correlation Employees Number / Religion Diversity

According to Correlation Table 1, the total number of employees is positively correlated

to religion diversity (coefficient = 0,248*), meaning that the more employees an
organization has, the more religion diverse its workforce is.

Table 10: Correlation Ownership / Work Experience

47
 Table 11: Correlation Ownership / Ethnicity Diversity

Table 12: Correlation Ownership / Organizational Performance

Table 10 indicates a positive correlation (coefficient = 0,276**) of the ownership status

of the organization (Private = 0, Public = 1) to work experience. In other words, a public
organization tends to consist of employees with more work experience in contrast to
private ones. However, as regards the ownership status, it is negatively correlated to
ethnicity diversity (coefficient = -0,232*) and to organizational performance
(coefficient = -0,222*). According to these findings, a public organization is less
ethnicity diverse and less productive (as perceived by the employees) than a private
one.

Table 13: Correlation Ownership / Age

48
Finally, Table 13 implies a positive relationship of Ownership to Age (coefficient =
0,293**), meaning that a public organization tends to employ people of older age. In
the survey sample, there is linear correlation of age to work experience (y = -17,69 +
0,85*x), so a finding like that was expected.

Table 14: Correlation of significant variables to Job Satisfaction

According to Table 14, the level of job satisfaction is positively related to

organizational performance (coefficient = 0,492**), a proven relationship stated in the
literature review earlier in this thesis (Katou, 2017; Robbins & Judge, 2018), as well as
to age diversity, sexuality diversity, marital status diversity, religion diversity and work
experience diversity with coefficients 0,218*, 0,284**, 0,220*, 0,198* and 0,370**
correspondingly.

Based on these findings, the more age-sexuality-marital status-religion-work

experience diverse an organization is, the more satisfied the employee is and thus the
better the organization performs. It should be pointed out though, that correlation shows
just the relationship between two variables, it is not about how one affects the other.
This will be tested through regression analysis in the following chapter.

49
 Table 15: Correlation of significant variables to Organizational Performance

As for organizational performance, Table 15 indicates a positive relationship to age –

race – ethnicity – disabilities – sexuality – religion – experience and educational
background diversity, with coefficients 0,231*, 0,255*, 0,348**, 0,208*, 0,250**,
0,336**, 0,388* and 0,237* correspondingly. According to the findings, as in the
previous case of job satisfaction, the more age – race – ethnicity – disabilities –
sexuality – religion – experience and educational diverse an organization is, the better
its performance is, as perceived though by the employees themselves.

However, as mentioned already, the establishment of cause and effect among the
variables, will be checked out through regression and mediation analysis, to research
whether workforce diversity actually affects performance.

5.3 Regression analyses

At this point of the thesis, it will be tested whether and to what extent the dependent
variables of the models are affected by the independent variables measuring workforce
diversity. First a backward regression analysis was run at the first model.

50
Job Satisfaction = ao + a1 * age + a2 * gender + a3 * race + a4 * ethnicity + a5 * disabilities
+ a6 * sexuality + a7 * maritalstatus + a8 * religion + a9 * work experience + a10 *
education + et

The variables removed with the backward elimination method (criterion: probability of
F to remove >= 100) were ethnicity, sexuality, marital status, education, religion,
disabilities, gender, age and work experience correspondingly in 10 different models.
Therefore, the coefficients of the final model consisted only by the variable of race is
cited down below:

Table 16: 10th model of Backward Regression Coefficients Table / Research Model 1

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig

B Std. Error Coefficients
Beta
10 Constant 7,514 ,191 39,250 ,000
Race -3,514 1,971 -,172 -1,783 ,078

Considering, both the t value (-1,783 < 1,96) as well as the p value (0,078 > 0,05), it
can be excluded that race has not a statistically significant contribution to the level of
job satisfaction too.

So, in summary, as regards the first research model, based on the outcomes of its
regression analysis, there are no statistically significant causal effects of the
independent variables (ten key aspects of surface-level diversity) to the dependent one
(level of job satisfaction). It should be mentioned at this point, that other regression
analysis methods were also run (stepwise and forward methods) but all ended to the
same result. The analysis of the second research model follows:

Organizational Performance = b0 + b1 * age diversity + b2 * gender diversity + b3 * race

diversity + b4 * ethnicity diversity + b5 * disabilities diversity + b6 * sexuality diversity
+ b7 * marital status diversity + b8 * religion diversity + b9 * work experience diversity
+ b10 * functional expertise diversity + b11 * educational diversity + et

51
In this backward regression analysis, there were 10 models and the variables removed
are sexuality diversity, functional expertise diversity, educational diversity, race
diversity, disabilities diversity, gender diversity, age diversity, marital status diversity
and religion diversity correspondingly. The final model consists of the variables of
ethnicity diversity and work experience diversity.

Table 17: 10th model of Backward Regression Coefficients Table / Research Model 2

Model Unstandard Coefficients Standardized t Sig

ized B Std. Error Coefficients
Beta
10 Constant 5,775 ,475 12,169 ,000
Ethnicity ,126 ,047 ,248 2,663 ,009
Diversity
Work ,210 ,064 ,307 3,297 ,001
Experience
Diversity

Considering both the t values for both of the variables (2,663 > 1,96 and 3,297 > 1,96)
as well as the p values (0,009 < 0,05 and 0,001 < 0,005), ethnicity diversity and work
experience diversity have a statistically significant contribution to organizational
performance (also checked through stepwise and forward method).

The unstandardized beta coefficient for ethnicity diversity is 0,126, meaning that the
increase of ethnicity diversity by value of 1 will occur in an increase of organizational
performance by 0,126 value. As for work experience diversity, the unstandardized beta
coefficient equals 0,210, in other words, if the level of work experience diversity
increases by 1 value, the level of organizational performance increases by 0,210 value.

Table 18: Model Summary / Research Model 2

Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of

Square the Estimate
10 ,453j ,205 ,190 1,449

52
The adjusted R square is 0,190, namely 19% of the variance of the dependent variable
is explained by the dependent variables. The final multiple regression is:

Organizational Performance = 5,775 + 0,126 * Ethnicity Diversity + 0,210 * Work

Experience Diversity

5.4 Assumptions of Regression

5.4.1 Normality of Residuals

Table 19: Testing for Residuals’ Normality

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Unstandardized ,080 106 ,090 ,959 106 ,02
Residual
Standardized ,080 106 ,090 ,959 106 ,02
Residual

Figure 30: QQ Plot of Unstandardized Residuals

According to Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the residuals of the regression follow a normal

distribution (p-value = 0,090 > 0.05) while Shapiro-Wilk test implies the exact opposite
(p-value = 0,02 < 0.05).

53
5.4.2 Multicollinearity

Table 20: Testing for Multicollinearity

Model Collinearity Statistics VIF

Tolerance
1 Ethnicity Diversity ,893 1,120
Work Experience Diversity ,893 1,120

VIF < 5 for both of the variables so there is no multicollinearity in the model.

5.4.3 Heteroscedasticity

Figure 31: Scatterplot of Predicted / Residuals

Based on the visual examination of the scatterplot, it seems that the values might follow
a particular pattern, rather than be totally dispersed, which imply the existence of
heteroscedasticity.

Table 21: Correlation Unstandardized Predicted Value / Absolute value of

Unstandardized Residuals

54
Another way of checking for heteroscedasticity is by calculating the absolute values of
the unstandardized residuals and then checking for correlation with the unstandardized
predicted values. As shown in the table, there is statistically significant correlation
between these two variables, so the indication for heteroscedasticity in the regression
is stronger.

5.5 Findings

The aim of this thesis is to investigate whether and to what extent workforce diversity
impacts organizational performance. The research has two pillars, one investigating the
relationship of the ten key characteristics of surface-level diversity to the level of
individual job satisfaction and one other, investigating the direct impact of 11 different
aspects of diversity to organizational performance, as perceived by the employees
themselves.

The findings of the first survey did not indicate any specific results, due to the lack of
statistically significant variables. Regarding the second research, ethnicity and work
experience diversity were found to positively affect performance, with one caveat
however because of the heteroskedasticity in the residuals.

55
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION

6.1 Main Findings

Within the framework of this thesis, a survey was conducted based on data collected
from questionnaires, which were created and promoted by the author themselves. The
survey was conducted online on employees residing in Greece

One of the key findings of the paper is the low level of diversity in greek businesses, of
public or private ownership, in terms of race, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation
and religion. On the other hand, the research indicated higher levels of diversity in terms
of age, gender, marital status, work experience, functional expertise and educational
background. Of particular interest are the relatively high levels of job satisfaction (mean
= 7,47) and organizational performance, as perceived by the employees themselves
(mean = 7,87).

It was found that there is no causal effect between the ten key characteristics of surface-
level diversity and the level of job satisfaction, a proxy variable of performance. What
is more, it was investigated whether 11 different levels of diversity have a statistically
significant effect on performance, as perceived and measured by the employees
themselves. According to the results of the regression analysis, ethnicity and work
experience diversity have a positive statistically significant contribution on
performance, with coefficients 0,126 and 0,210 correspondingly.

The former implies that the more ethnic diverse a workplace is, meaning consisting of
people of different ethnicities, the more productive it would be. Furthermore, as for
work experience diversity, it is implied that an organization employing people of
different years of experience, more experienced and less ones, may also boost its
productivity.

6.2 Research Limitations

There are two basic limitations on this research. The first one is that the levels of
diversity as measured and imprinted in the 11 variables of the second analysis model,
are subject to subjectivity as they were perceived by the respondents themselves.

56
Therefore, there is a chance that the variable values are not objective, since they were
left entirely to the judgment of the respondent for their organization. Everyone
perceives diversity differently, which ironically is the case of the thesis, so one of the
research limitations lies in the concept of diversity as such.

The second limitation is encountered in the statistical analysis. More specifically, traces
of heteroscedasticity were found in the residuals of the second model, so the analysis
results may be invalid.

6.3 The Contribution of the Research

Τhis particular bachelor thesis will be one more stone in the literature that studies
diversity and its effect on performance. It is of particular importance, as the research
and statistical analysis was limited to employees residing in Greece, and the number of
researches on Greek data regarding this topic is very limited. The Greek organizational
environment is getting more diverse, so more and more research is needed to study this
new reality.

6.4 Implications for Future Research

Considering the results indicated by this particular thesis, further research could be
conducted in more detail and depth on the specific aspects of diversity that appeared to
positively affect performance. It is suggested though the data to be characterized by
objectivity, so that the results are difficult to equivocate. Finally, since the first research
model did not reach any concrete results, further investigation of the matter with a more
objective sample is required, as the literature implies the existing relationship of key
characteristics of surface-level diversity to job satisfaction.

57
CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES

Adeoye, A., Akoma, L., & Binuyo, B. O. (2014). Age, marital status and educational
background as determinants of job satisfaction: A case study of Nigeria workers.
European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences, 2(2).

Akgeyik, T. (2014). Factors affecting employee absenteeism*(a study on a sample of

textile workers). European Journal of Management, 14(3), 69–76.

Ali, M., Kulik, C. T., & Metz, I. (2009). THE IMPACT OF GENDER DIVERSITY
ON PERFORMANCE IN SERVICES AND MANUFACTURING
ORGANIZATIONS. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2009(1), 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2009.44243048

Ali, M., Schur, L., & Blanck, P. (2011). What Types of Jobs Do People with Disabilities
Want? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 199–210.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9266-0

Almond, S., & Healey, A. (2003). Mental health and absence from work: New evidence
from the UK Quarterly Labour Force Survey. Work, Employment and Society, 17(4),
731–742.

Angermeyer, M. C., & Dietrich, S. (2006). Public beliefs about and attitudes towards
people with mental illness: A review of population studies. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 113(3), 163–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2005.00699.x

Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., & Wilson, D. C. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce:
The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and
employee engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1542–1556.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1542

Azim, M. T., Haque, M. M., & Chowdhury, R. A. (2013). Gender, marital status and
job satisfaction an empirical study. International Review of Management and Business
Research, 2(2), 488.

Bantel, K. A. (1994). Strategic Planning Openness: The Role of Top Team

Demography. Group & Organization Management, 19(4), 406–424.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601194194002
58
Beaver, G., & Hutchings, K. (2005). Training and developing an age diverse workforce
in small- medium enterprises: The need for a strategic approach. Education and
Training, 592–604.

Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job
satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40(1), 33–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(92)90045-2

Beilock, S. L., Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2007). Stereotype threat and working
memory: Mechanisms, alleviation, and spillover. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 136(2), 256–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.136.2.256

Bekker, M. H. J., Rutte, C. G., & van Rijswijk, K. (2009). Sickness absence: A gender-
focused review. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14(4), 405–418.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500903012830

Bell, B. S., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Effects of disability, gender, and job level on ratings
of job applicants. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46(3), 229–246.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.46.3.229

Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting
Specific about Demographic Diversity Variable and Team Performance Relationships:
A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310365001

Bengtsson, T., & Scott, K. (2010). The Ageing Population. In T. Bengtsson (Ed.),
Population Ageing—A Threat to the Welfare State? (pp. 7–22). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12612-3_2

Bilgiç, R. (1998). The Relationship Between Job Satisfaction and Personal

Characteristics of Turkish Workers. The Journal of Psychology, 132(5), 549–557.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599287

Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African Americans and
High Blood Pressure: The Role of Stereotype Threat. Psychological Science, 12(3),
225–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00340

Bloom, D. E. (2011). 7 Billion and Counting. Science, 333(6042), 562–569.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1209290

59
Bolli, T., Renold, U., & Wörter, M. (2018). Vertical educational diversity and
innovation performance. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(2), 107–
131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1314075

Bowen, C. F., Radhakrishna, R., & Keyser, R. (1994). Job satisfaction and commitment
of 4-H agents. Journal of Extension, 32(1), 1–22.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance.

John Wiley & Sons.

Brahma, S., Nwafor, C., & Boateng, A. (2021). Board gender diversity and firm
performance: The UK evidence. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 26(4),
5704–5719. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2089

Brenner, B. R., Lyons, H. Z., & Fssinger, R. E. (2014). Can Heterosexism Harm
Organizations? Predicting the Perceived Organizational Citizenship Behaviors of Gay
and Lesbian Employees. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(4), 372–372.

Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Team Member Functional Background and Involvement in

Management Teams: Direct Effects and the Moderating Role of Power Centralization.
Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040638

Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level

examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 17–28.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.17

Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and
Firm Financial Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 435–451.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y

Carbery, R., Garavan, T. N., O’Brien, F., & McDonnell, J. (2003). Predicting hotel
managers’ turnover cognitions. Journal of Managerial Psychology.

Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate Governance, Board
Diversity, and Firm Value. The Financial Review, 38(1), 33–53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6288.00034

Chitiris, L. S. (2017). Organizational Behavior: (4th ed.). Benou.

60
Cintas, C., Gosse, B., & Vatteville, E. (2013). Religious identity: A new dimension of
HRM? A French view. Employee Relations, 35(6), 576–592.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2013-0024

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness
Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, 23(3),
239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303

Cole, S. W., Kemeny, M. E., Taylor, S. E., Visscher, B. R., & Fahley, J. L. (1996).
Accelerated Course of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in Gay Men Who
Conceal Their Homosexual Identity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58(3), 219–231.

Colella, A. J., & Bruyère, S. M. (2011). Disability and employment: New directions for
industrial and organizational psychology. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 1: Building and developing the
organization. (pp. 473–503). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/12169-015

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for
organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(3), 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274465

Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large

Firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.2.179

Driscoll, J. M., Kelley, F. A., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Lesbian Identity and
Disclosure in the Workplace: Relation to Occupational Stress and Satisfaction. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 48(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.0020

Duppati, G., Rao, N. V., Matlani, N., Scrimgeour, F., & Patnaik, D. (2020). Gender
diversity and firm performance: Evidence from India and Singapore. Applied
Economics, 52(14), 1553–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2019.1676872

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Tabrizi, B. N. (1995). Accelerating Adaptive Processes: Product

Innovation in the Global Computer Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1),
84. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393701

61
Ekpendu, I. C., Olive, E., & Ekpendu, I.-. (2019). Effect of Religious Diversity on Job
Satisfaction of Selected Manufacturing Firms in Nigeria. International Journal of
Philosophy and Theology (IJPT), 7(1). https://doi.org/10.15640/ijpt.v7n1a7

Elron, E. (1997). Top management teams within multinational corporations: Effects of

cultural heterogeneity. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(4), 393–412.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90021-7

Emiroğlu, B. D., Akova, O., & Tanrıverdi, H. (2015). The Relationship Between
Turnover Intention and Demographic Factors in Hotel Businesses: A Study at Five Star
Hotels in Istanbul. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 385–397.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.108

Eurostat. (2020). Functional and activity limitations statistics.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Functional_and_activity_limitations_statistics

Eurostat. (2021a). Disability statistics—Financial situation.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Disability_statistics_-_financial_situation

Eurostat. (2021b). Disability statistics—Poverty and income inequalities.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Disability_statistics_-_poverty_and_income_inequalities

Ferreira, R. C., Griep, R. H., Fonseca, M. D. J. D. M., & Rotenberg, L. (2012). A

multifactorial approach to sickness absenteeism among nursing staff. A Multifactorial
Approach to Sickness Absenteeism among Nursing Staff, 46, 259–268.

García-Serrano, C., & Malo, M. Á. (2014). How disability affects absenteeism: An

empirical analysis for six European countries. International Labour Review, 153(3),
455–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00210.x

Govindarajan, V. (1989). Implementing competitive strategies at the business unit

level: Implications of matching managers to strategies. Strategic Management Journal,
10(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250100305

Gray, S., & Nowland, J. (2017). The diversity of expertise on corporate boards in
Australia. Accounting & Finance, 57(2), 429–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12146

62
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents
and Correlates of Employee Turnover: Update, Moderator Tests, and Research
Implications for the Next Millennium. Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–488.

Guendelman, M. D., Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2011). Fitting In but Getting Fat:
Identity Threat and Dietary Choices Among U.S. Immigrant Groups. Psychological
Science, 22(7), 959–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611411585

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond Relational Demography:
Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion.
Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/256901

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, Teams, and
Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Group
Functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069328

Hastorf, A. H., Northcraft, G. B., & Picciotto, S. R. (1979). Helping the Handicapped:
How Realistic is the Performance Feedback Received by the Physically Handicapped.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5(3), 373–376.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014616727900500321

Heath, D., & Babu, R. (2017). Theorizing managerial perceptions, enabling IT, and the
social inclusion of workers with disabilities. Information and Organization, 27(4), 211–
225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2017.09.001

Hicks, D. A. (2002). Spiritual and religious diversity in the workplace. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13(4), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00124-8

Hodson, R. (1989). Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction: Why Aren’t Women More
Dissatisfied? The Sociological Quarterly, 30(3), 385–399.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1989.tb01527.x

Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & van Praag, M. (2013). The Impact of Gender
Diversity on the Performance of Business Teams: Evidence from a Field Experiment.
Management Science, 59(7), 1514–1528. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1674

63
Hoque, M. E., & Islam, M. M. (2003). Contribution of some behavioural factors to
absenteeism of manufacturing workers in Bangladesh. Pakistan Journal of
Psychological Research, 81–95.

Horwitz, S. K. (2005). The Compositional Impact of Team Diversity on Performance:

Theoretical Considerations. Human Resource Development Review, 4(2), 219–245.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305275847

Hossain, M., Atif, M., Ahmed, A., & Mia, L. (2020). Do LGBT Workplace Diversity
Policies Create Value for Firms? Journal of Business Ethics, 167(4), 775–791.

HRC Foundation. (n.d.). Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Definitions. Retrieved
May 29, 2022, from https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-orientation-and-gender-
identity-terminology-and-definitions

Hunt, V., Layton, D., & Prince, S. (2015). Diversity Matters. McKinsey & Company,
1(1), 15–29.

Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139–155.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2014). Organizational Behavior

& Management (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., Whitney, K., Guzzo, R. A., & Salas, E. (1995). Understand
the Dynamics of Diversity in Decision-Making Teams. In Team Effectiveness and
Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 204–261). Jossey-Bass.

Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business

performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human
Resource Management, 43(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20033

Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. (2004). A field study of group diversity, workgroup
context, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 703–729.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.257

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why Differences Make a
Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054

64
Johnson, P., & Zimmermann, K. F. (1993). Ageing and the European labour market:
Public policy issues. In Labour markets in an ageing Europe (pp. 1–25).

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The Role Of Context In Work Team Diversity Research:
A Meta-Analytic Review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491

Kanter, R. M. (1984). Change masters. Simon and Schuster.

Katou, A. (2017). Organizational Behavior. Zygos.

Kaye, H. S., Jans, L. H., & Jones, E. C. (2011). Why Don’t Employers Hire and Retain
Workers with Disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(4), 526–536.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8

Keller, J., & Dauenheimer, D. (2003). Stereotype Threat in the Classroom: Dejection
Mediates the Disrupting Threat Effect on Women’s Math Performance. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 371–381.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250218

Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-Functional Project Groups in Research and New Product

Development: Diversity, Communications, Job Stress, and Outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(3), 547–555. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069369

Khan, N., Korac-Kakabadse, N., Skouloudis, A., & Dimopoulos, A. (2019). Diversity
in the workplace: An overview of disability employment disclosures among UK firms.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(1), 170–185.
https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1669

King, J. E., & Williamson, I. O. (2005). Workplace Religious Expression, Religiosity

and Job Satisfaction: Clarifying a Relationship. Journal of Management, Spirituality &
Religion, 2(2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766080509518579

Kılıç, M., & Kuzey, C. (2016). The effect of board gender diversity on firm
performance: Evidence from Turkey. Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 31(7), 434–455. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-10-2015-0088

Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood,
P. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus.

65
Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199905)20:5<445::AID-SMJ27>3.0.CO;2-V

Koustelios, A. D. (2001). Personal characteristics and job satisfaction of Greek

teachers. International Journal of Educational Management.

Lambert, E. G., Cluse-Tolar, T., Pasupuleti, S., Prior, M., & Allen, R. I. (2012). A Test
of a Turnover Intent Model. Administration in Social Work, 36(1), 67–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03643107.2010.551494

Lant, T. K., Milliken, F. J., & Batra, B. (1992). The role of managerial learning and
interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation: An empirical exploration.
Strategic Management Journal, 13(8), 585–608.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130803

Lawton, C. A., & Morrin, K. A. (1999). Gender Differences in Pointing Accuracy in

Computer-Simulated 3D Mazes. Sex Roles, 40(1/2), 73–92.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018830401088

Leigh, J. P. (1986). Correlates of Absence from Work Due to Illness. Human Relations,
39(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603900105

Li, J., Chu, C. W. L., Lam, K. C. K., & Liao, S. (2011). Age diversity and firm
performance in an emerging economy: Implications for cross-cultural human resource
management. Human Resource Management, 50(2), 247–270.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20416

Lourenço, I. C., Di Marco, D., Branco, M. C., Lopes, A. I., Sarquis, R. W., & Soliman,
M. T. (2021). The Relationship between LGBT Executives and Firms’ Value and
Financial Performance. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(12), 596.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14120596

Lückerath-Rovers, M. (2013). Women on boards and firm performance. Journal of

Management & Governance, 17(2), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-
9186-1

Martins, L. L., Milliken, F. J., Wiesenfeld, B. M., & Salgado, S. R. (2003). Racioethnic
Diversity and Group Members’ Experiences: The Role Of The Racioethnic Diversity

66
Of The Organizational Context. Group & Organization Management, 28(1), 75–106.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102250020

McDaniel, M. A., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1988). Job experience correlates of
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 327–330.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.327

Mellor, S., Mathieu, J. E., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2001). Employees’
Nonwork Obligations and Organizational Commitments: A New Way to Look at the
Relationships. Human Resource Management, 40(2), 171–184.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.1006

Messarra, L. C. (2014). Religious Diversity at Work: The Perceptual Effects of

Religious Discrimination on Employee Engagement and Commitment. Contemporary
Management Research, 10(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.12018

Muntazeri, S., & Indrayanto, A. (2018). The impact of education, training and work
experience on job satisfaction and job performance (Study on Bank BRI Purbalingga).
Journal of Accounting Management and Economics, 20(2), 50–69.

Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence.

Psychological Review, 93(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.1.23

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). THE RELATIONSHIPS OF AGE WITH JOB
ATTITUDES: A META-ANALYSIS. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677–718.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01184.x

Nicholson, N., Brown, C. A., & Chadwick-Jones, J. K. (1977). Absence from work and
personal characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 319–327.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.3.319

Olatunji, S., & Mokuolu, B. (2014). The Influence of Sex, Marital Status, and Tenure
of Service on Job Stress, and Job Satisfaction of Health Workers in a Nigerian Federal
Health Institution. African Research Review, 8(1), 126.
https://doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.v8i1.10

Oware, K. M., & Mallikarjunappa, T. (2020). Disability employment and financial

performance: The effect of technological innovation of listed firms in India. Social
Responsibility Journal.

67
Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A
cognitive-affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.2.328

Padmanabhan, L., & Magesh, Dr. R. (2016). Difference between Employees Marital
Status and Performance Level in IT Industry. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary
Research, 2(6), 1173–1176.

Palumbo, M. V., Miller, C. E. M., Shalin, V. L. S., & Johnson, D. S. (2005). The Impact
of Job Knowledge in the Cognitive Ability-Performance Relationship. Applied HRM
Research, 10(1), 13–20.

Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender and

perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1129–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036751

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An
Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029

Petersen, T., Snartland, V., & Milgrom, E. M. M. (2007). Are female workers less
productive than male workers? Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 25(1),
13–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2006.05.002

Pew Research Center. (2017). Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and
Eastern Europe. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/05/10/religious-
affiliation/

Pichler, S., Blazovich, J. L., Cook, K. A., Huston, J. M., & Strawser, W. R. (2018). Do
LGBT-supportive corporate policies enhance firmperformance? Human Resource
Management, 57(1), 263–278.

Pines, A., Skulkeo, K., Pollak, E., Peritz, E., & Steif, J. (1985). Rates of sickness
absenteeism among employees of a modern hospital: The role of demographic and
occupational factors. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 42(5), 326–335.

Pitts, D. W. (2005). Diversity, Representation, and Performance: Evidence about Race

and Ethnicity in Public Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 15(4), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui033

68
Puck, J., Rygl, D., & Kittler, M. (2007). Cultural antecedents and performance
consequences of open communication and knowledge transfer in multicultural process-
innovation teams. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 3(2),
223–241. https://doi.org/10.1386/jots.3.2.223_1

Quińones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN WORK EXPERIENCE AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A CONCEPTUAL
AND META-ANALYTIC REVIEW. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 887–910.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01785.x

Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences
of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1244–1261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1244

Reguera-Alvarado, N., de Fuentes, P., & Laffarga, J. (2017). Does Board Gender
Diversity Influence Financial Performance? Evidence from Spain. Journal of Business
Ethics, 141(2), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2735-9

Ren, L. R., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2008). A meta-analysis of experimental

studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource
Management Review, 18(3), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.001

Richard, O. C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural Diversity in
Management, Firm Performance, and the Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial
Orientation Dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 255–266.
https://doi.org/10.5465/20159576

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2018). Essentials of Organizational Behavior (14th ed.).
Pearson Education.

Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype Threat at Work. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 21(2), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.25356510

Roberts, L. (2011). 9 Billion? Science, 333(6042), 540–543.

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.333.6042.540

Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2002). “Out” at work: The relation of actor and
partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.49.4.411

69
Ryckman, R. M. (2012). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Wadsworth.

Saxena, A. (2014). Workforce Diversity: A Key to Improve Productivity. Procedia

Economics and Finance, 11, 76–85.

Schermerhorn, J. R. J., Osborn, R. N., Uhl-Bien, M., & Hunt, J. G. (2011).

Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Schubert, T., & Tavassoli, S. (2020). Product Innovation and Educational Diversity in
Top and Middle Management Teams. Academy of Management Journal, 63(1), 272–
294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0741

Shan, L., Fu, S., & Zheng, L. (2017). Corporate sexual equality and firm performance:
Corporate Sexual Equality and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal,
38(9), 1812–1826. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2624

Silverstein, M. (2008). Meeting the challenges of an aging workforce. American

Journal of Industrial Medicine, 51(4), 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20569

Simons, T., Pelled, L. H., & Smith, K. A. (1999). Making Use of Difference: Diversity,
Debate, and Decision Comprehensiveness in Top Management Teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 42(6), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.5465/256987

Siperstein, G. N., Romano, N., Mohler, A., & Parker, R. (2006). A national survey of
consumer attitudes towards companies that hire people with disabilities. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 24(1), 3–9.

Spencer, L. M. J., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior
performance. John Wiley & Sons.

Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016a). Stereotype Threat. Annual Review
of Psychology.

Spencer, S. J., Logel, C., & Davies, P. G. (2016b). Stereotype threat. Annual Review of
Psychology, 67, 415–437.

Stangor, C., Carr, C., & Kiang, L. (1998). Activating stereotypes undermines task
performance expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1191–
1197. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1191

70
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Thomas, A. K., & Dubois, S. J. (2011). Reducing the burden of stereotype threat
eliminates age differences in memory distortion. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1515–
1517.

Triana, M. del C., Kim, K., Byun, S., Delgado, D. M., & Arthur, W. (2021). The
Relationship Between Team Deep‐Level Diversity and Team Performance: A Meta‐
Analysis of the Main Effect, Moderators, and Mediating Mechanisms. Journal of
Management Studies, 58(8), 2137–2179. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12670

Tröster, C., Mehra, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2014). Structuring for team success:
The interactive effects of network structure and cultural diversity on team potency and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 245–
255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.04.003

Tuten, T. L. (2005). The Effect of Gay-Friendly and Non-Gay-Friendly Cues on Brand

Attitudes: A Comparison of Heterosexual and Gay/Lesbian Reactions. Journal of
Marketing Management, 21(3–4), 441–461.
https://doi.org/10.1362/0267257053779073

Tziner, A. (1985). How Team Composition Affects Task Performance: Some

Theoretical Insights. Psychological Reports, 57(3_suppl), 1111–1119.
https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.3f.1111

U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Equal Employment Opportunity. Retrieved April 3,

2022, from https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/discrimination

van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–541.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546

Vickers, L. (2015). Religion and the Workplace. The Equal Rights Review, 14(1).

Waite, L. J., & Gallagher, M. (2001). The case for marriage: Why married people are
happier, healthier, and better off financially. Crown Publishing Group (NY).

71
Waldo, C. R. (1999). Working in a majority context: A structural model of heterosexism
as minority stress in the workplace. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(2), 218–232.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.2.218

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and
achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82.

Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational Demography in Japanese Firms:

Group Heterogeneity, Individual Dissimilarity, and Top Management Team Turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 996–1025. https://doi.org/10.5465/256643

WorldAtlas. (2022). What Is The Ethnic Composition Of Greece?

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-ethnic-composition-of-greece.html

Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015). Evaluating gender similarities and
differences using metasynthesis. American Psychologist, 70(1), 10–20.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038208

Zhang, L. (2020). An Institutional Approach to Gender Diversity and Firm

Performance. Organization Science, 31(2), 439–457.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1297

72
QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX

Η Συμβολή της Διαφορετικότητας στην Απόδοση της Επιχείρησης

Η έρευνα αυτή διεξάγεται από τον Κωνσταντίνο Σουλιώτη, προπτυχιακού φοιτητή του
τμήματος Οικονομικών Επιστημών του Πανεπιστημίου Μακεδονίας, στα πλαίσια εκπόνησης
της πτυχιακής του εργασίας. Η εργασία αποσκοπεί στη διερεύνηση της σχέσης μεταξύ της
διαφορετικότητας των εργαζομένων και της απόδοσης τόσο σε ατομικό όσο και σε
οργανωσιακό επίπεδο, σε επιχειρήσεις που εδρεύουν στην Ελλάδα. Συγκεκριμένα, εξετάζεται
κατά πόσο η διαφορετικότητα του ανθρωπίνου δυναμικού (διάφορες εκφάνσεις αυτής)
σχετίζεται με το επίπεδο της εργασιακής ικανοποίησης.

Η διαδικασία περιλαμβάνει τη συμπλήρωση μίας ηλεκτρονικής φόρμας, διάρκειας 3

λεπτών. Το ερωτηματολόγιο απευθύνεται για στατιστικούς λόγους ΜΟΝΟ ΣΕ ΑΤΟΜΑ ΠΟΥ
ΕΡΓΑΖΟΝΤΑΙ σε επιχειρήσεις, που απασχολούν από δύο άτομα και πάνω. Δεν υπάρχουν
σωστές ή λάθος απαντήσεις.

Να σημειωθεί ότι στη συγκεκριμένη έρευνα υπάρχει απόλυτη ΑΝΩΝΥΜΙΑ και τα

δεδομένα θα χρησιμοποιηθούν μόνο για ερευνητικούς σκοπούς. Η συμμετοχή σας είναι
εθελοντική. Μπορείτε να διακόψετε τη συμπλήρωση του ερωτηματολογίου οποιαδήποτε
στιγμή το επιθυμείτε χωρίς να αποθηκευτούν οι απαντήσεις σας.

Στοιχεία εργαζόμενου ατόμου και οργανισμού

Η συγκεκριμένη ενότητα του ερωτηματολογίου έχει να κάνει με ορισμένα

χαρακτηριστικά του εργαζόμενου ατόμου καθώς και του οργανισμού στον οποίο
απασχολείται.

1. Αυτή τη στιγμή εργάζομαι*

Ναι / Όχι

73
2. Πόσοι άνθρωποι εργάζονται στην επιχείρησή σας;*

3. Ποιο είναι το ιδιοκτησιακό καθεστώς της επιχείρησης στην οποία εργάζεστε;*

Δημόσιο / Ιδιωτικό

4. Ποια είναι τα πρώτα τρία γράμματα της επιχείρησης στην οποία εργάζεστε;*

5. Ποιος είναι ο βασικός τομέας πάνω στον οποίο δραστηριοποιείται η επιχείρησή

σας;*

Βιομηχανία / Εμπόριο / Υπηρεσίες

Ατομικά Στοιχεία

Η συγκεκριμένη ενότητα του ερωτηματολογίου έχει να κάνει με ορισμένα

δημογραφικά και μη, ατομικά χαρακτηριστικά

1. Φύλο*

Άνδρας / Γυναίκα / Άλλο

2. Ηλικία*

74
3. Φυλή*

Λευκή / Μαύρη / Ιθαγενείς Αμερικής / Ασιατική / Ιθαγενείς Χαβάης / Άλλο

4. Εθνότητα*

Ελληνική / Αλβανική / Βόρεια Μακεδονική / Τούρκικη / Βουλγάρικη / Αρμένικη /

Άλλο

5. Αναπηρία*

Με αναπηρία/ Χωρίς αναπηρία

6. Σεξουαλικός Προσανατολισμός*

Ετεροφυλόφιλο άτομο / Όχι ετεροφυλόφιλο άτομο

7. Οικογενειακή κατάσταση*

Άγαμο άτομο / Έγγαμο άτομο (συμπεριλαμβάνεται αρραβώνας/σύμφωνο συμβίωσης)

8. Θρησκεία*

Ορθόδοξος Χριστιανισμός / Καθολικισμός / Ισλαμισμός/ Ινδουισμός / Ιουδαϊσμός /

Ελληνικός Παγανισμός / Αθεϊσμός/ Άλλο

9. Εργασιακή Εμπειρία (εκφρασμένη σε χρόνια)*

10. Εκπαίδευση*

Βασική / Λύκειο (Γενικό, επαγγελματικό, εσπερινό) / ΤΕΙ/ΑΕΙ/ΙΕΚ

75
Διαφορετικότητα ανθρωπίνου δυναμικού

Η συγκεκριμένη ενότητα του ερωτηματολογίου έχει να κάνει με το πως το

ερωτηθέν εργαζόμενο άτομο αντιλαμβάνεται τη διαφορετικότητα του εργασιακού του
περιβάλλοντος

1. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

την ηλικία των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται από άτομα με διάφορες ηλικίες, νεαρά
και μεγαλύτερα)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

2. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

το φύλο των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται και από άντρες και από γυναίκες)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

3. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

τη φυλή των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται από άτομα διαφορετικών φυλών: λευκή,
μαύρη, ασιατική, κ.α.)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

4. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

την εθνότητα των εργαζομένων (παρατηρούνται διάφορες εθνότητες όπως
Ελληνική, Αλβανική κ.α.)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

76
5. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά
την αναπηρία των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται τόσο από άτομα που έχουν κάποια
αναπηρία όσο και από άτομα που δεν έχουν)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

6. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

τη σεξουαλικότητα των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται από άτομα με διάφορες
σεξουαλικότητες)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

7. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

την οικογενειακή κατάσταση των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται τόσο από έγγαμα όσο
και από άγαμα άτομα)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

8. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

τη θρησκεία των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται από άτομα με διάφορες θρησκείες)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

9. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

την εργασιακή εμπειρία των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται τόσο από άτομα με μεγάλη
εμπειρία, όσο και από άτομα με λιγότερη)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

10. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

τη λειτουργικότητα των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται από άτομα με διαφορετικές
κλίσεις, ενδιαφέροντα και συνεπώς διαφορετικές εις βάθος γνώσεις που αφορούν
τη δουλειά τους)*

77
1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

11. Το εργασιακό μου περιβάλλον χαρακτηρίζεται από ποικιλομορφία όσον αφορά

την εκπαίδευση των εργαζομένων (αποτελείται από άτομα με διαφορετικά
εκπαιδευτικά υπόβαθρα)*

1 (Καθόλου ποικιλόμορφο) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα ποικιλόμορφο)

Εργασιακή Ικανοποίηση

Η συγκεκριμένη ενότητα του ερωτηματολογίου έχει να κάνει με την εργασιακή

ικανοποίηση του ερωτηθέντος εργαζόμενου ατόμου

Κατά πόσο νιώθετε ικανοποιημέν@ από την εργασία σας;*

1 (Καθόλου) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα)

Οργανωσιακή Απόδοση

Η συγκεκριμένη ενότητα του ερωτηματολογίου έχει να κάνει με την απόδοση

της επιχείρησης όπου εργάζεται το ερωτηθέν εργαζόμενο άτομο.

Η απόδοση της επιχείρησής σας αντιλαμβάνεστε ότι είναι:*

1 (Απόλυτα χαμηλή) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Απόλυτα υψηλή)

78