Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Human Resource Management Review j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / h u m r e s
Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going?
Lynn M. Shore ⁎, Beth G. Chung-Herrera, Michelle A. Dean, Karen Holcombe Ehrhart, Don I. Jung, Amy E. Randel, Gangaram Singh
Institute for Inclusiveness and Diversity in Organizations, Department of Management, College of Business Administration, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
a r t i c l e
Keywords: Diversity Inclusiveness
i n f o
a b s t r a c t
A great deal of research has focused on workforce diversity. Despite an increasing number of studies, few consistent conclusions have yet to be reached about the antecedents and outcomes of diversity. Likewise, research on different dimensions of diversity (e.g., age, race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and culture) has mostly evolved independently. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine each of these dimensions of diversity to describe common themes across dimensions and to develop an integrative model of diversity. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
While the term “workforce diversity” is commonly used in scholarly articles as well as in the popular press, the focus and scope of the research is both varied and broad. Until recently, most studies have focused on a single dimension of diversity (e.g., age, sex, race) in a domestic, typically U.S. context. In a world of globalization populated by boundaryless and virtual organizations, it is time to revisit the old theories of diversity and to create a new set of paradigms. Therefore, in this article we examine multiple dimensions of diversity to assess the current status of the literature, and to make some suggestions going forward. As a starting point, we examine six dimensions of diversity
References: L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133 131 L.M. Shore et al. / Human Resource Management Review 19 (2009) 117–133 133