Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Communication can enhance employees’ identification with the organization and encourage positive organizational behaviors. As workplace diversity grows, it has become more essential to inform employees about organizational diversity initiatives while ensuring that they perceive the organization’s diversity climate and integrity positively. We conducted an online survey (N = 1,043) showing that if employees are satisfied with diversity communication, perceive a fair diversity climate, and perceive their organization as authentic, they identify stronger with the organization. The results also imply that organizational authenticity contributes the most to organizational identification. Employees who identify with their organization contribute more to it in terms of loyalty, obedience, and participation (i.e., organizational citizenship behavior, OCB). We conclude that simply having a diverse workforce is not sufficient to foster employees’ identification; organizations also need to communicate their fair diversity measures satisfactorily and be authentic, i.e., be true to their words.

Keywords

diversity organizational identification fair diversity climate organizational authenticity communication satisfaction organizational citizenship behavior

Introduction

Employees’ identification with their employer is considered an important factor for organizational success as it promotes a range of positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, job involvement, and employees’ extra-role behavior (Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005) associated with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB; Organ, 1990). Organizational identification has been defined as “the perception of oneness and belongingness to some human aggregate” (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 21), which includes identification with one’s employer. Creating a sense of belonging and organizational identification is a central objective of the “communication between an organisation’s strategic managers and its internal stakeholders,” (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 186), by building shared understanding and interpretations (Men & Bowen, 2017).

To achieve the positive outcomes of identification, organizations must ideally build a shared understanding, sense of belonging, and thereby identification in all their employees. As today’s workforce is becoming increasingly diverse in terms of gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity/race, disabilities, religion, and social background (Brookings, 2018; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022; Charta der Vielfalt, 2024; The Williams Institute, 2019), and against the backdrop of the contested nature of the concept of diversity (Kidder et al., 2004; Vavrus, 2012), this may be challenging. However, diversity is not just a reality, it is also thought to have economic benefits, which is why many organizations have invested in diversity management programs (Hansen & Seierstad, 2017). Thus, an organization’s values and stance in terms of diversity, its policies, goals and measures, need to be communicated in a way that resonates with employees, i.e., they need to be satisfied with their organization’s communication on diversity. However, research on the role of diversity communication on important constructs such as organizational identification is scarce. While it has been demonstrated that employees’ positive perceptions of internal communication (e.g., openness and honesty) increase their identification with the organization (Bartels et al., 2007; Smidts et al., 2001), communicative aspects are often just implied—and not analyzed—in studies on diversity and inclusion (for an exception, see Wolfgruber et al., 2021). This research gap is addressed in this study by testing the hypothesis that when employees are satisfied with their organization’s diversity communication, their identification with the organization increases, which consequently has a positive effect on workplace behaviors, particularly on OCB.

Aside from an organization’s communication, employees also experience the general organizational climate with regards to diversity. Organizational climate refers to “the policies, practices, and procedures as well as the behaviors that get rewarded, supported, and expected in a work setting and the meaning those imply for the setting’s members” (Schneider et al., 2011, p. 373). A positive diversity climate is characterized by the positive perception of equal opportunities (i.e., fairness) for minority groups within an organization (Mor Barak et al., 1998). In general, fairness perceptions in organizations increase employees’ positive attitudes and behaviors, such as organizational identification and OCB (Gillet et al., 2013; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006; Tyler & Blader, 2003), and a positive diversity climate has been shown to enhance the positive relation between workforce diversity and organizational identification (Gonzalez & DeNisi, 2009).

Importantly, an organization must act in a way that is genuine and consistent with its values, principles and rhetoric to be perceived as authentic (Cording et al., 2014; Men & Bowen, 2017). If there is a gap between the values communicated by the organization’s leaders and their actual behavior, employees perceive an organization as inauthentic (Bourne et al., 2019; Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). Men et al. (2024) found that an organization’s communicated commitment to diversity enhances employees’ perceptions of organizational authenticity, particularly when concrete diversity initiatives are present. In turn, perceived authenticity has been found to have a positive effect on organizational identification in the context of diversity (Kim, 2023), indicating that perceived organizational authenticity can enhance the identification of employees with their organization (Ertürk & Albayrak, 2020; Reis et al., 2016), potentially fostering OCB.

Organizational identification can be considered the central construct that connects (a) employees’ satisfaction with diversity communication, (b) their perceptions of the fairness of the prevailing diversity climate, and (c) the perceived organizational authenticity with (d) positive behaviors of employees, especially the important construct of OCB. The aim of this study was to examine these relationships. Because satisfaction with diversity communication, the perception of a fair diversity climate, and perceived organizational authenticity are interrelated and might have a common basis, a further research goal was to reveal which of these three variables has the greatest effect on fostering organizational identification. Thus, our study contributes to organizational communication research by specifically addressing diversity communication, examining multiple predictors of organizational identification, and demonstrating organizational identification’s mediating role in enhancing OCB.

Literature Review

Satisfaction with (Diversity) Communication and Organizational Identification

An organization’s internal communication—and also the way it communicates with external stakeholders—is perceived by the organization’s employees and affects their identification with the organization (Cheney, 1983; Morsing, 2006). Through internal communication, employees decide whether the organization’s values, beliefs, and norms match their own; if they do, organizational identification is fostered (Cheney, 1983). It is employees’ satisfaction with their organization’s communication that plays a key role in organizational identification. Studies in different countries and industries have reported a positive relationship between employees’ overall satisfaction with communication and their organizational identification (Guzley, 1992; Krywalski Santiago, 2020; Moghadam & Tehrani, 2011; Scott et al., 1999; Tuzun, 2013). In terms of the impact of internal communication on organizational identification, Bartels et al. (2010) showed that vertical communication (i.e., communication between management and employees) has a positive effect. In addition, several studies have shown that a positive communication climate within an organization is positively related to organizational identification (Bartels et al., 2007; Neill et al., 2020; Smidts, 2001), as this indicates that employees are accepted and valued in their workplace.

To foster organizational identification in an increasingly diverse workforce, how an organization practices diversity communication is assumed to play an important role. An organization’s diversity communication is a strategic approach to identifying stakeholders’ perceptions and expectations, and to expressing the organization’s values and stance on diversity—internally to employees, but also to external stakeholders. Such practices involve the targeted communication of the organization’s diversity policies and inclusive practices, which—in relation to employees—include areas such as recruitment, promotion, fair pay, mentoring or the use of inclusive language. Diversity communication also involves listening to stakeholders’ expectations and possible concerns in order to adapt communication practices accordingly. Because diversity is a sensitive and controversial issue (Kidder et al., 2004; Vavrus, 2012) that polarizes not only society but also internal stakeholders (CAHRS Working Group, 2023), a carefully considered and strategic approach is required. As employees may be more or less in favor of an organization’s diversity initiatives, it is the way diversity communication resonates with employees that is key for organizational identification to form, and not necessarily the communicated commitment to diversity, as studied by Men et al. (2024).

Research on the role of diversity communication for organizational identification is limited. With regards to diversity-oriented communication by managers, Lee et al. (2021) reported that such communication increases employees’ sense of belonging to the organization regardless of a person’s minority background. Despite the limited evidence we assume—based on Lee et al. (2021) and the extant research on the role of organizational communication in general—that employees’ identification with their employer is enhanced if they are satisfied with their organization’s diversity communication. Therefore, we hypothesize:

Satisfaction with the organization’s communication about diversity is positively related to organizational identification.

Diversity Climate and Organizational Identification

A diversity climate is the collective perception of equal opportunities for minority groups in an organization (Mor Barak et al., 1998). Accordingly, fair personnel practices and the social integration of all employees characterize a positive diversity climate (Goyal & Shrivastava, 2013; McKay & Avery, 2015; Mor Barak et al., 1998).

Fairness can take various forms and may refer to fair practices (i.e., procedural justice), fair allocations (i.e., distributive justice), fair treatment (i.e., interactional justice), and correct and adequate information (i.e., informational justice; Colquitt, 2012). Several studies have shown positive correlations between these different forms of fairness and organizational identification (Chan & Lai, 2017; Koçak & Kerse, 2022; Malhotra et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2014). Organizational fairness in connection with a positive diversity climate has been shown to increase employees’ organizational identification (Jiang, 2024). The procedural fairness perceived by professionals of color was also found to lead to a positive climate of diversity (Buttner et al., 2010). Moreover, based on results regarding identification with team members, Hofhuis et al. (2012) found that diversity climate is positively associated to job-related outcomes for both majority and minority groups in an organization. More specifically, several studies have found a positive association between a fair diversity climate and employees’ identification with their work group (Hofhuis et al., 2016; Žnidaršič et al., 2021) and organizational identification (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013). We therefore hypothesize:

Perceived fair diversity climate is positively related to organizational identification.

Authenticity and Organizational Identification

If an organization is inauthentic—that is, if diversity messages and diversity practices are inconsistent—it is perceived as having less integrity and is less attractive to job seekers (Windscheid et al., 2016). Inauthentic communication can occur, for example, when an organization expresses a strong commitment to diversity in its code of conduct, while discriminatory practices based on gender, race/ethnicity, or sexual orientation remain prevalent in its day-to-day operations. Men et al. (2024) have shown that employees perceive their organization as authentic when their organization communicates about diversity. This is particularly the case when there are concrete and actionable diversity initiatives in place, i.e., when the organization “walks the talk.” Organizational authenticity, in the broadest sense, is defined as consistency between espoused values and shared values, meaning that what the organization does and says is congruent (Cording et al., 2014). Such authenticity encompasses honest and fair communication with all stakeholders of an organization, including the organization’s employees (Men & Tsai, 2018). Yue (2021) argued that employees who perceive their organization as authentic see this trait as part of themselves and thus identify with the organization. Accordingly, Men et al. (2024) found that perceived organizational authenticity has a strong positive effect on organizational identification. Thus, we hypothesize:

Perceived authenticity of an organization is positively related to organizational identification.

OCB as a Consequence of Organizational Identification

Meta-analyses have revealed that organizational identification increases positive attitudes and behaviors in the work context (Lee et al., 2015; Riketta, 2005). One important behavioral construct is OCB, which is a positive work behavior that exceeds job descriptions, such as making positive comments to people outside the organization, meticulously following organizational rules, and supporting coworkers (Organ, 1990). Studies have shown positive relationships between organizational identification and OCB for different organizational contexts and in different countries (Lu et al., 2018; Tufan & Wendt, 2020; van Dick et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2022; Yorulmaz & Karabacak, 2021; Zhao et al., 2014; Zulfiqar & Khan, 2021). Using a longitudinal study design, van Dick et al. (2006) revealed a causal relation, suggesting that organizational identification positively influences OCB.

Although OCB is often measured in general terms, Van Dyne et al. (1994) differentiated three dimensions of the construct: OCB loyalty, OCB obedience, and OCB participation. OCB loyalty refers to allegiance to the organization, OCB obedience refers to compliance with organizational rules and regulations, and OCB participation refers to active engagement within the organization. Further research has shown that organizational identification is positively correlated with OCB loyalty (Vondey, 2010), OCB obedience (Qureshi et al., 2011), and OCB participation in the form of helping behavior (Qureshi et al., 2011; Vondey, 2010). A recent meta-analysis that distinguished between OCB loyalty, OCB obedience, and OCB participation revealed positive associations between all dimensions of OCB and organizational identification (Sidorenkov et al., 2022). This suggests the following hypotheses:

H4–H6: Organizational identification is positively related to OCB in terms of loyalty (H4), obedience (H5), and participation (H6).

Organizational Identification as a Mediator

Mael and Ashforth (1992) proposed a mediating role of organizational identification between different causes and the behavioral outcomes of employees. In studies on organizational justice, various authors have suggested that organizational identification mediates the relationship between organizational justice and OCB (Demi̇r, 2015; de Geus et al., 2020; Guangling, 2011; Yorulmaz & Karabacak, 2021). He et al. (2014) found a mediating effect of organizational identification on the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and employee engagement. Moreover, studies on organizational communication have shown that organizational identification mediates the relationship between communication and positive work outcomes such as OCB (Moghadam & Tehrani, 2011). Thus, when employees are satisfied with their organization’s diversity initiatives and perceive a fair diversity climate, they should be particularly enticed to contribute to this climate and show positive work behavior that exceeds their job descriptions. Finally, Yue (2021) found that the relationship between authenticity and employees’ advocacy in terms of supporting, recommending, and defending their organization was fully mediated by organizational identification. Therefore, we assume that organizational identification has mediating effects on the relationships between a perceived fair diversity climate, satisfaction with organizational diversity communication, and perceived organizational authenticity and OCB. The following hypothesis includes all of the proposed mediating effects:

The positive effects of a perceived fair diversity climate, satisfaction with organizational diversity communication, and perceived organizational authenticity on OCB with regard to loyalty, obedience, and participation are mediated by employees’ organizational identification.

Minority Background as a Moderator

Employees with minority backgrounds may not only identify with their organization, but also with their minority group (e.g., people with the same sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, religion). These employees may take their organization’s stance on diversity more seriously and be more affected by communication regarding diversity than employees who identify less with their minority group or majority employees. Furthermore, not every employee in an organization may experience the diversity climate in the same way. Thus, we assume that minority background (e.g., in terms of age, sexual orientation, ethnicity/race) is an important moderator in the proposed model. A meta-analysis revealed, for example, that the more ethnically diverse workgroups are, the stronger the positive link is between a diversity-friendly climate and positive work outcomes (Holmes et al., 2021). For Black managers, the negative relation between a pro-diversity climate and turnover intention was found to be stronger than for non-Black managers (McKay et al., 2007). However, Ashikali and Groeneveld (2015) found no difference between native Dutch and non-native Dutch employees with regard to the positive effect of diversity management on employees’ affective commitment. Although these results reflect only ethnic minorities, it is reasonable to assume that due to the self-reference effect (cf. Symons & Johnson, 1997), employees who belong to one or more other minority groups are also more concerned about their organization’s diversity policies (i.e., a perceived fair diversity climate, organizational diversity communication) than non-minority employees. In addition, employees with a minority background might be more aware of whether the organization is authentic, which may influence their organizational identification more than that of non-minority employees. Therefore, these policies may have a particularly positive effect on the organizational identification of employees with minority backgrounds and we hypothesize:

Having a minority background moderates the relationships between (a) satisfaction with organizational diversity communication and organizational identification, (b) a perceived fair diversity climate and organizational identification, and (c) perceived organizational authenticity and organizational identification such that the positive relations are stronger for employees with a minority background than for employees without a minority background.

The hypothesized model is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Hypothesized Model

Method

Procedure and Sample

Upon approval by the institutional review board, data were collected by the global market research service provider Dynata via an online survey of a pool of registered panel members residing in Austria or Germany. Because larger organizations tend to have more formalized communication structures (cf. Einwiller & Boenigk, 2012), the participants in our study were required to be employed by an organization with at least 50 employees. In total, 1,043 participants provided informed consent and completed the survey between September 3 and 15, 2020. Half of the participants were female (n = 522), the other half were male (n = 520), and one person indicated a gender outside of this dichotomy. The participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 70 years (M = 44.70, SD = 11.78, Mdn = 45.00), with 90.1% of the participants younger than 60 years and 9.9% 60 years or older. Approximately 29% of the participants had a university degree, 31% had a high school diploma, 32% had completed an apprenticeship (i.e., learning a profession after compulsory schooling), 7% had finished primary school education, and a few participants (0.3%) reported some other education. Most participants were heterosexual (89%), 8% indicated a non-heterosexual orientation, and 4% did not report their sexual orientation. A total of 83% of participants indicated that they had no physical or mental health problems or disabilities, 16% reported either physical or mental health problems or disabilities, and 2% did not answer this question. Most participants were autochthonous (i.e., no migration biography, 87%), while 13% reported some migration background. The majority of participants identified as Caucasian (92%), 4% as non-Caucasian, and 4% did not report their ethnicity. Furthermore, 59% of the participants indicated that they were Christian, 12% reported following other creeds, 16% were atheists, and 13% did not answer this question. Overall, 35% of the participants had no minority background, and 49% had a minority background (i.e., they were neither male nor female, not younger than 60 years, not educated beyond primary education, not physically and/or mentally healthy, not heterosexual, not autochthonous, not Caucasian, and/or not Christian). Seventeen percent¹ of the participants did not disclose at least one of the minority characteristics and were therefore excluded from the moderation analysis (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Information

	n	%
Gender
Female	522	50
Male	520	50
Neither female or male*	1	0
Age
<60 years	940	90
>= 60 years*	103	10
Education
University degree	307	29
High school diploma	324	31
Apprenticeship	336	32
Primary school*	73	7
Other education	3	0
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual	923	88
Non-heterosexual*	79	8
No answer	41	4
Physical or mental health problems
No	861	83
Yes*	163	16
No answer	19	2
Migration biography
No	910	87
Yes*	133	13
Race/ethnicity
Caucasian	964	92
Non-caucasian*	40	4
No answer	39	4
Creed
Christian	620	59
Other than christian*	191	28
No answer	132	13
Minority background
No	360	35
Yes	506	49
At least one characteristic missing	177	17

Note. *indicates the categories representing a minority background; the label “yes” in the minority background section summarizes participants who indicated belonging to at least one minority category.

Measures

The measures of key concepts in this study were adopted from previous research, slightly modified to fit the study’s context, and compiled into a questionnaire. A native English speaker who was proficient in German translated the English-only measures backward and forward (cf. Brislin, 1970). Questions about the perceived fairness of an organization’s diversity climate originated from Mor Barak (2016). All items from Downs and Hazen’s (1977) scale on organizational communication satisfaction, which was reassessed by DeConinck et al. (2008), were extended with “diversity and inclusion” to measure participants’ satisfaction with organizational diversity communication. To capture perceived organizational authenticity, Shen and Kim’s (2012) perceived organizational authenticity scale was included. To gauge the participants’ identification with their organization, questions from Mael and Ashforth (1992) were used. Bienstock et al.’s (2003) questions on loyalty, obedience, and participation, which were based on Van Dyne et al. (1994), assessed OCB. All items were answered using a 6-point format with endpoints ranging from “do not agree at all” to “fully agree”, “very unsatisfied” to “very satisfied”, or “does not apply at all” to “fully applies”. Before the term “diversity” was used for the first time in the questionnaire, the participants received an explanation to ensure that all participants interpreted the term in the same way. The dataset, a codebook and the questionnaire can be found at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/psy25cd4wx/draft?a=43bf3996-19e3-43c4-a08e-56a933b469b3.

Results

The hypothesized model was tested with Maximum Likelihood estimation in SPSS AMOS 26. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to establish the measurement model, and then structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the hypothesized model. Good-fitting models have a standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) < .08, root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) < .06, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > .95, and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) > .95.

Measurement Model

The requirements for using CFA and SEM were checked, and all items were found to be suitable for the analyses. Eight items were deleted due to insufficient standardized factor loadings. All remaining loadings were above the recommended threshold of .60, and most were above the more conservative threshold of .70. The items measuring the independent variables did not show extreme multicollinearity (thresholds: tolerance >.10, VIF <10.00; Kline, 2011). The final measurement model showed good model fit (χ² = 1492.476, df = 413, p < .001, SRMR = .035, RMSEA = .050 [90% CI: .047, .053], CFI = .963, TLI = .959). The subscales demonstrated good reliability and convergent validity, with all the Cronbach’s alphas above .84, composite reliabilities above .85 (threshold >.70; Hair et al., 2019), and minimum average variance extracted of .64 (threshold >.50; Hair et al., 2019; see Table 2). To assess discriminant validity, two methods were used: the Fornell–Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations (Voorhees et al., 2016). For the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) were greater than the correlations between the scales for all dyads except one. The AVE of the factor “organizational identification” was lower than its correlation with the factor “OCB loyalty”, indicating some concerns about discriminant validity. Voorhees et al. (2016), however, has demonstrated arbitrary violations of the Fornell–Larcker criterion when correlations between constructs and the average factor loadings are similar, as was the case with the constructs in question. Concerning the HTMT ratio of correlations, all correlations were below the threshold of .85. Thus, we assumed that discriminant validity was present for the factors. Gaskin et al.’s (2019) plugin for AMOS was used to calculate discriminant validity estimates, which are provided in Table 3.

Table 2.

Statistical Information on the Measurement Model

Construct/Indicators	SL	α	CR	AVE
Satisfaction with organizational diversity communication		.97	.97	.82
[Answering format from 1 “very unsatisfied” to 6 “very satisfied”]
Communication about organization policies and goals concerning diversity and inclusion	.89
Communication about measures to promote diversity and inclusion	.91
Communication about government action affecting my organization with respect to diversity and inclusion	.91
Communication about possible changes in my organization’s approach to diversity and inclusion	.91
Communication about my organization’s general stance on diversity and inclusion	.92
Communication about accomplishments and/or failures of my organization concerning measures which should promote diversity and inclusion	.90
Perceived fair diversity climate		.89	.89	.66
[Answering format from 1 “do not agree at all” to 6 “fully agree”]
I feel that I have been treated differently in my organization because of my race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age. (R)	Deleted
In my organization employees are hired and promoted objectively, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or age	Deleted
In my organization employees are treated fair by managers, regardless of employees’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, or social background	.81
Management makes layoff decisions fairly, regardless of factors such as employees’ race, gender, age, or social background	.85
Management interprets human resource policies (such as sick leave) fairly for all employees	.82
Management gives assignments based on the skills and abilities of employees	.78
Perceived organizational authenticity		.95	.95	.77
[Answering format from 1 “do not agree at all” to 6 “fully agree”]
My organization always tells the truth	.84
I believe that my organization’s actions are genuine	.89
I feel that my organization accepts and learns from mistakes	.85
I believe that my organization’s behavior matches its values	.85
My organization’s beliefs and actions are consistent	.91
I think my organization matches the rhetoric with its actions	.93
Organizational identification		.87	.88	.64
[Answering format from 1 “does not apply at all” to 6 “fully applies”]
When someone criticizes my organization, it feels like a personal insult	Deleted
I am very interested in what others think about my organization	.73
When I talk about my organization, I usually say “we” rather than “they”	.77
My organization’s successes are my successes	.84
When someone praises my organization, it feels like a personal compliment	.87
If a story in the media criticized my organization, I would feel embarrassed	Deleted
OCB loyalty		.93	.93	.72
[Answering format from 1 “do not agree at all” to 6 “fully agree”]
I talk about my organization favorably to other people	.88
I go out of my way to defend my organization if someone says something negative about it	.82
I tell people that my organization is a good place to work	.84
I defend my organization when colleagues criticize it	.84
I tell people good things about my organization’s goods and services	.85
OCB obedience		.86	.87	.68
[Answering format from 1 “do not agree at all” to 6 “fully agree”]
I come to work on time	.75
I follow my organization’s work rules and instructions	.82
I maintain the area I work in according to standards	.91
I do not miss work without valid reason	Deleted
While at work, I make sure that my appearance meets my management’s expectations	Deleted
OCB participation		.84	.85	.66
[Answering format from 1 “do not agree at all” to 6 “fully agree”]
I share ideas for improvements with my colleagues	.86
I make useful suggestions to colleagues	.90
I encourage my colleagues to speak up at meetings	Deleted
I help my colleagues think for themselves	.66
I try to motivate my managers to improve their performance	Deleted

Note. SL = standardized loadings, α = Cronbach’s alpha, CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, (R) indicates recoded items. All standardized loadings are significant at a level of p < .001.

Table 3.

Information on the Measurement Model’s Discriminant Validity

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
(1) Satisfaction with organizational diversity communication	0.91	0.61	0.68	0.6	0.66	0.29	0.41
(2) Perceived fair diversity climate	0.60	0.81	0.71	0.57	0.64	0.44	0.46
(3) Perceived organizational authenticity	0.68	0.71	0.88	0.70	0.76	0.31	0.35
(4) Organizational identification	0.60	0.56	0.69	0.80	0.83	0.30	0.51
(5) OCB loyalty	0.66	0.64	0.76	0.82	0.85	0.40	0.53
(6) OCB obedience	0.30	0.45	0.33	0.30	0.43	0.83	0.53
(7) OCB participation	0.40	0.45	0.35	0.48	0.52	0.55	0.81

Note. Values below the diagonal are the correlations between the constructs. All correlations are significant at a level of p < .001. The italicized values depicted in the diagonal represent the square root of AVE (average variance expected). Values above the diagonal are the HTMT values (heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations).

Common method bias was assessed with two commonly used methods, Harman’s single-factor test and the latent factor model. Harman’s single-factor test—which analyzes all items in the model with a non-rotated factor analysis fixed to extract one factor—yielded a total variance extracted of 48%. Because this was below the threshold of 50%, no problem with common method bias could be assumed. In the latent factor model, a latent factor was added to the measurement model with regressions to all manifest variables. The standardized regression weights of the model with the latent factor were then subtracted from the standardized regression weights of the model without the factor (i.e., delta). For the current model, the delta ranged from .001 to .0178, which was less than .20, indicating that there was no problem with common method bias.

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

Figure 2 depicts the results of the structural model, which showed a good model fit (χ² = 1770.668, df = 423, p < .001, SRMR = .059, RMSEA = .055 [90% CI: .053, .058], CFI = .954, TLI = .950). As hypothesized in H1, a positive relationship between satisfaction with organizational diversity communication and identification with the organization was revealed (β = .23, p < .001). As assumed in H2, perceiving a fair diversity climate had a significant positive effect on identification with the organization (β = .12, p = .001). The significant positive effect of perceived organizational authenticity on employees’ organizational identification (β = .50, p < .001) was proposed in H3. The effect of a fair diversity climate, satisfaction with organizational diversity communication, and perceived organizational authenticity resulted in an R² value of .60 for identification with the organization. Furthermore, organizational identification was positively related to OCB loyalty (β = .87, p < .001), OCB obedience (β = .34, p < .001), and OCB participation (β = .50, p < .001), which supported H4, H5, and H6, respectively. R² was .76 for OCB loyalty, .12 for OCB obedience, and .25 for OCB participation.

Figure 2:

Structural Model. Note. χ² = 1770.668, df = 423, p < .001, SRMR = .059, RMSEA = .055 [90% CI: .053, .058], CFI = .954, TLI = .950, Values in Parentheses Show Standardized Estimates of Groups (Having a Diverse Background/Having no Diverse Background), ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

The mediating effects in SEM are tested with specific indirect effects of the analyzed model (i.e., the product of the direct effect between the independent variable and the mediator variable and the direct effect of the mediator variable and dependent variable, cf. Kline, 2011). When specific indirect effects are significantly different from zero, mediation is present. To test whether organizational identification mediates the relationships between a perceived fair diversity climate, satisfaction with organizational diversity communication, and perceived organizational authenticity and OCB concerning loyalty, obedience, and participation, specific indirect effects were tested. Indirect effects were calculated using Gaskin et al.’s (2020) plugin for AMOS and bootstrapping 2,000 samples. The results showed that all specific indirect effects were significant (see Table 4). This finding was consistent with H7 and supported the assumed mediating role of organizational identification.

Table 4.

Specific Indirect Effects

	95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals		Standardized estimate
Specific indirect effect	Lower limit	Upper limit	Standardized estimate
SODC → OI→ OCBL	.154	.278	.202***
SODC → OI → OCBO	.044	.088	.080***
SODC → OI → OCBP	.078	.154	.117***
PFDC → OI → OCBL	.040	.171	.105**
PFDC → OI → OCBO	.012	.056	.042**
PFDC → OI → OCBP	.022	.095	.061**
POA → OI → OCBL	.346	.471	.436***
POA → OI → OCBO	.093	.150	.173***
POA → OI → OCBP	.177	.254	.252***

Note. PFDC = SODC = satisfaction with organizational diversity communication, perceived fair diversity climate, POA = perceived organizational authenticity, OI = organizational identification, OCBL = OCB loyalty, OCBO = OCB obedience, OCBP = OCB participation; ***p < .001, **p < .01.

Moderating effects of dichotomous variables (here minority background yes vs. no) are tested via SEM in two stages. In the first stage, the model with all paths constrained is compared with the unconstrained model for the two groups. A significant difference between the two models indicates that the groups differ overall and that there is a moderation effect. In the second stage, individual paths in the model are constrained and compared to the unconstrained model. A significant difference between models indicates a moderation effect in the specific path. A small indication of a moderating effect, however, is also present when the path is significant for one group but non-significant for the other group.

This two-stage procedure was applied to test whether having a minority background moderated the relation between (a) satisfaction with organizational diversity communication and organizational identification, (b) a perceived fair diversity climate and organizational identification, and (c) perceived organizational authenticity and organizational identification, as hypothesized in H8. In stage one, the fully constrained model (χ² = 2178.416, df = 874) did not differ significantly from the unconstrained model (χ² = 2143.097, df = 844; Δ χ² = 35.319, df = 30, p = .231), indicating that the groups did not differ overall. In stage two, comparing the model where the relation between satisfaction with organizational diversity communication and organizational identification was constrained with the unconstrained model did not differ for the two groups (Δχ² = 0.028, df = 1, p = .867). Satisfaction with organizational diversity communication was significantly and positively related to organizational identification for both minority (β = .20, p < .001) and non-minority employees (β = .19, p = .001). Accordingly, H8a was not supported because no moderating effect of a minority background on the relationship between satisfaction with organizational diversity information and organizational identification was found.

The model constraining the relation between a perceived fair diversity climate and organizational identification and the unconstrained model showed a non-significant difference between the models (Δ χ² = 0.192, df = 1, p = .661). However, the regression coefficient was significant and positive for employees with a minority background (β = .13, p = .012), while it was non-significant for employees without a minority background (β = .08, p = .237). Thus, the moderating effect hypothesized in H8b was marginally supported for the association between a perceived fair diversity climate and organizational identification. This means that the fairer the diversity climate is perceived to be, the more minority employees identify with their organization; however, no such relation exists for employees who do not belong to a minority group.

Constraining the path between organizational authenticity and organizational identification and comparing the obtained model to the unconstrained model also did not reveal a significant difference between minority and non-minority employees (Δ χ² = 0.199, df = 1, p = .656). Perceived organizational authenticity and organizational identification were significantly positively related for both employees with a minority background (β = .53, p < .001) and employees without a minority background (β = .55, p < .001). Because the groups did not differ in the strength of the associations, no moderating effect of having a minority background was found; thus, H8c was not supported.²

Discussion

Organizational identification is a powerful construct, because it can influence whether employees show behaviors that are supportive for their organization. In this study, we replicated findings from prior research that organizational identification drives employees’ citizenship behavior (Lu et al., 2018; Tufan & Wendt, 2020; van Dick et al., 2006; Xie et al., 2022; Yorulmaz & Karabacak, 2021; Zhao et al., 2014; Zulfiqar & Khan, 2021). Extending earlier research, we demonstrated that organizational identification mostly increases employees’ allegiance to the organization, followed by employees’ active engagement and employees’ compliance with organizational rules. Identifying what can foster organizational identification is therefore of great interest for research and practice alike. It is of particular interest in a work environment that is becoming increasingly diverse—due not only to globalization, but also to the ambitions of companies seeking to derive economic benefits from diversity, as promoted by corporate consultants such as McKinsey (2020).

Our focus in this was the extent to which employees’ satisfaction with their organization’s diversity communication, their perception of a fair diversity climate, and the perceived organizational authenticity resulted in organizational identification. We also considered organizational identification’s mediation role in enhancing OCB. The results of our online survey indicated that satisfaction with organizational diversity communication, the perception of a fair diversity climate, and perceived organizational authenticity increased organizational identification, and organizational identification—functioning as a full mediator—in turn increased OCB in the form of loyalty, obedience, and participation. For the relationship between a perceived fair diversity climate and organizational identification, some evidence was found that belonging to a minority matters; that is, this relationship existed for employees with a minority background but not for employees without a minority background. Overall, we conclude that diversity in the workforce and fair diversity measures should be communicated by organizations in a strategic and authentic way to have a positive impact.

Previous studies have revealed the positive effects of satisfaction with organizational communication (Krywalski Santiago, 2020; Moghadam & Tehrani, 2011; Tuzun, 2013), a fair diversity climate (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013; Mansoor et al., 2020), and perceived organizational authenticity (Men et al., 2024) on organizational identification and appendant mediation effects (de Geus et al., 2020; Guangling, 2011; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Moghadam & Tehrani, 2011; Yorulmaz & Karabacak, 2021; Yue, 2021). While the results of the present study confirm these effects, several of our findings enhance existing research and theory. First, instead of assessing satisfaction with organizational communication in general, the present study indicates the relevance of employees’ satisfaction with their employer’s communication on the specific topic of diversity. Second, while the three antecedents are distinct, they are also interdependent, sharing a common basis that supports organizational identification. Thus, to achieve positive work outcomes such as organizational identification, it is important for organizations to simultaneously communicate satisfactorily about diversity, create a fair diversity climate, and be authentic in organizational efforts. Each of these antecedents is essential, and none can be overlooked. However, the interdependence of the three constructs also suggests a chicken-and-egg problem in which the direction of the influence is unclear. Third, even when analyzed together in a single model, all three antecedents continue to enhance OCB by strengthening organizational identification, further highlighting their importance. Fourth, perceived authenticity is key to fostering organizational identification, surpassing the impact of satisfaction with diversity communication and indicating that diversity communication must demonstrate the alignment of the organization’s actions with its values. Fifth, because satisfaction with organizational diversity communication has a stronger influence on organizational identification than a fair diversity climate, communicating strategically about diversity issues seems crucial.

These five theoretical contributions also offer valuable insights for organizational communication practice. Effective communication about diversity plays a key role in employee satisfaction and should be integrated into the organization’s overall communication strategy. However, a holistic approach is essential, as neglecting any one antecedent—whether satisfaction with diversity communication, a fair diversity climate, or perceived organizational authenticity—can undermine the others. While a holistic approach is essential, communication experts should prioritize, first, authentically presenting organizational diversity measures; second, effectively communicating about diversity to employees; and third, fostering a positive diversity climate through communication to enhance organizational identification.

While previous research has shown stronger links between diversity-friendly climates and positive outcomes in diverse groups (Holmes et al., 2021), our study similarly revealed that the fairer the diversity climate is perceived to be, the more minority employees identify with their organization. Satisfaction with diversity communication and perceived organizational authenticity, however, influenced organizational identification regardless of minority background, highlighting the importance of communication satisfaction for all employees, whether from majority or minority groups. Importantly, authenticity was measured as overall organizational honesty rather than in relation to diversity, leaving the potential impact of diversity-specific authenticity on diverse groups unclear.

This study excluded women without other diversity characteristics from the minority group, despite most diversity initiatives focusing on gender equality (78%, PageGroup, 2021). Minority participants not targeted by these initiatives may have been indifferent to related communication. Future research should explore whether the impact of diversity measures moderates these effects. Additionally, in sectors where minority employees form the majority (e.g., construction), being a member of the majority in this context might influence diversity communication and identification. Future studies should account for diversity backgrounds in both societal and organizational contexts.

Previous research has focused on the effect of perceiving a fair diversity climate on organizational identification (Chrobot-Mason & Aramovich, 2013; Mansoor et al., 2020). However, in the present study, the effects of organizational authenticity and satisfaction with the organization’s diversity communication on organizational identification were found to be more prominent. Because these effects are substantive, future research should take them into account.

Implications, Limitations, and Conclusion

To foster organizational identification and thus achieve positive outcomes for both employees and organizations, effective communication with employees is crucial. For diversity communication to be effective, employees must feel satisfied with it—such as receiving the right level of information about diversity policies, goals, or initiatives. As not all employees are equally affected by or interested in diversity initiatives, organizations must listen to their employees and tailor their diversity communication to meet individual needs. For example, organizations could provide an overview of diversity initiatives with links to more detailed information for those interested, while avoiding unnecessary targeting of those who may not be interested. At the same time, it is important to ensure that employees who are likely to be affected (i.e., minorities) are directly and perhaps more personally informed in order to benefit from these initiatives. Because the term “diversity” can sometimes provoke negative reactions in majority groups due to perceptions of favoritism toward minorities, renaming and reframing it as “belonging and engagement” could help reduce backlash. This approach shifts the focus from emphasizing differences to fostering a sense of common affiliation and shared organizational goals.

Establishing a positive diversity climate where equal opportunities are seen as fair by all employees requires effective diversity communication. Hiring diverse talent or implementing fair procedures only fosters fairness perceptions when clearly communicated. Such communication must inform employees about diversity initiatives and demonstrate that the organization’s actions are authentic and fair for all employees. Thus, organizations need to plan their diversity communication carefully and ensure that, first, fair diversity practices and policies are designed and implemented after consulting employees from various backgrounds to ensure fairness and inclusivity and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. For these practices and policies to have a positive impact, organizations need to know their employees very well, i.e., they need to consult and engage with their (diverse) workforce on diversity issues. Second, the communicated practices and policies need to be aligned with the overall organizational values so that they are perceived as authentic by employees. Paying lip service is insufficient because employees will see through it and perceive the organization as inauthentic, which in turn weakens their organizational identification. Third, organizational values should match the employees’ values so that employees are satisfied with the information they receive.

Authenticity is closely linked to communication, as employees need to be informed and should understand both what an organization stands for and what it actively does. However, authenticity goes beyond communication alone, as communication can only be effective when organizations and their leadership consistently demonstrate the values, principles, and promises they advocate. Although this study did not specifically examine authenticity in the context of diversity, authenticity in diversity appears to be a key factor in evaluating an organization’s overall authenticity. To foster employee perceptions of authenticity in diversity, top management must actively and visibly support diversity initiatives—such as participating in diversity training or collaborating with diversity-focused organizations—without appearing solely self-serving and without giving in to negative reactions. Moreover, authentic communication about diversity requires a comprehensive approach, addressing all dimensions of diversity, implementing challenging measures, and seeking as well as acting on employee feedback for improvement. Organizations that fail to communicate their diversity efforts effectively risk being perceived as inauthentic, leading to lower identification among employees.

While our model received general support, there are some limitations. First, the study was conducted in Germany and Austria, which limits generalizability. However, as similar developments regarding diversity in organizations can be observed also in other countries, for example the United States (Men et al., 2023, 2024), our findings are unlikely unique for only the countries of investigation. The sample, although diverse in some aspects, had a small proportion of minority groups, hindering meaningful comparisons. Future research should include more minority participants and explore how multiple identities influence perceptions in the workplace. Another limitation of the study is the assumption that all organizations provide information about diversity issues and that organizational diversity communication is perceived as positive by employees. Thus, employees’ attitudes toward diversity should also be assessed to confirm the identified effects because different groups of employees perceive diversity climates in different ways (for an overview, see Dwertmann et al., 2016). Another issue concerns the measurement of overall organizational authenticity rather than the authenticity of diversity communication specifically, which may differ. Finally, our SEM is correlational, and alternative assumptions could be explored. For example, organizational identification might foster a fair diversity climate, organizational authenticity, and satisfaction with organizational diversity information, and these three factors might increase OCB. Thus, experimental studies and longitudinal data linking employees’ and employers’ views on organizational culture and management instruments (e.g., Linked-Personnel Panel, Mackeben et al., 2021) would help confirm the causal relationships suggested in our model.

As diversity becomes increasingly central in organizations, but also contested in politics and society, it is important to understand how diversity communication and closely-linked concepts affect organizational identification and further organizational outcomes. By examining the combined effect of satisfaction with diversity communication, perceived organizational diversity climate, and perceived organizational authenticity, this study demonstrates that perceiving an organization as authentic is the strongest factor fostering organizational identification, followed by satisfaction with diversity communication and fair diversity climate. However, both authenticity and a fair diversity climate can be seen as dependent on effective diversity communication (Men et al., 2023, 2024), underscoring the central role of employees’ satisfaction with this communication—an important insight for communication scholars and experts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Daniel Wolfgruber for his help in developing the questionnaire and collecting the data. This research was funded by the Academic Society for Management & Communication (project title: Diversity Kommunikation - Eine Untersuchung zu Zielen, Potenzialen und Risiken der Kommunikation zu Diversity und Inklusion in Unternehmen [Diversity Communication - An Analysis of the Goals, Potentials and Risks of Diversity and Inclusion Communication in Organizations]).

ORCID iDs

Ingrid Wahl

Sabine A. Einwiller

Jos Bartels

Funding

Academic Society for Management & Communication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Ingrid Wahl (Ph.D., University of Vienna) is a senior researcher at the Department of Communication, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Vienna, Austria. Her research focuses on employee communication, with a particular emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as appreciation in the workplace.

Sabine Einwiller (Ph.D., University of St. Gallen, Switzerland) is a professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Communication at the University of Vienna, Austria. Her main research interests include employee communication, the management of controversial issues, consumer complaining, and crisis communication.

Jos Bartels is currently an Associate Professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, School of Communication, Hong Kong. His research activities focus on quantitative studies of 1) organizational communication, social media usage, and organizational identification, and 2) corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability.

References

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999

Ashikali

Groeneveld

(2015). Diversity management for all? An empirical analysis of diversity management outcomes across groups. Personnel Review, 44(5), 757–780. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2014-0216

Bartels

Peters

de Jong

Pruyn

van der Molen

(2010). Horizontal and vertical communication as determinants of professional and organisational identification. Personnel Review, 39(2), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011017426

Bartels

Pruyn

de Jong

Joustra

(2007). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.420

Bienstock

C. C.

DeMoranville

C. W.

Smith

R. K.

(2003). Organizational citizenship behavior and service quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(4), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040310482775

Bourne

Jenkins

(2013). Organizational values: A dynamic perspective. Organization Studies, 34(4), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612467155

Bourne

Jenkins

Parry

(2019). Mapping espoused organizational values. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3734-9

Brislin

R. W.

(1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Brookings . (2018). The US will become ‘minority white’ in 2045, Census projects. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/14/the-us-will-become-minority-white-in-2045-census-projects/

10.

Bureau of Labor Statistics . (2022). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics—2021. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/disabl.pdf

11.

Buttner

H. E.

Lowe

K. B.

Billings-Harris

(2010). Diversity climate impact on employee of color outcomes: Does justice matter? Career Development International, 15(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431011053721

12.

CAHRS Working Group . (2023). Navigating diversity, equity and inclusion in a polarized world. https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/default/files-d8/2023-11/Navigating-Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-in-a-Polarized-World.pdf

13.

Chan

S. H. J.

Lai

H. Y. I.

(2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 70(2017), 214–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.017

14.

Charta der Vielfalt . (2024). Factbook diversity 2024. https://www.charta-der-vielfalt.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Diversity-Tag/2024/Factbook_DE_2024.pdf

15.

Cheney

(1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638309383643

16.

Chrobot-Mason

Aramovich

N. P.

(2013). The psychological benefits of creating an affirming climate for workplace diversity. Group & Organization Management, 38(6), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113509835

17.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2012). Organizational justice. In Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (pp. 526–547). Oxford University Press.

18.

Cording

Harrison

J. S.

Hoskisson

R. E.

Jonsen

(2014). Walking the talk: A multistakeholder exploration of organizational authenticity, employee productivity, and post-merger performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0002

19.

DeConinck

Johnson

Busbin

Lockwood

(2008). An examination of the validity of the Downs and hazen communication satisfaction questionnaire. Marketing Management Journal, 18(2), 145–153.

20.

de Geus

C. J. C.

Ingrams

Tummers

Pandey

S. K.

(2020). Organizational citizenship behavior in the public sector: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Public Administration Review, 80(2), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13141

21.

Demi̇r

(2015). The effect of organizational justice and perceived organizational support on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of organizational identification. European Journal of Educational Research, 15(60), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2015.60.8

22.

Downs

C. W.

Hazen

M. D.

(1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194367701400306

23.

Dwertmann

D. J. G.

Nishii

L. H.

van Knippenberg

(2016). Disentangling the fairness & discrimination and synergy perspectives on diversity climate: Moving the field forward. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1136–1168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316630380

24.

Einwiller

S. A.

Boenigk

(2012). Examining the link between integrated communication management and communication effectiveness in medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(5), 335–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2010.530055

25.

Ertürk

Albayrak

(2020). Empowerment and organizational identification: The mediating role of leader–member exchange and the moderating role of leader trustworthiness. Personnel Review, 49(2), 571–596. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2018-0054

26.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

27.

Gaskin

James

Lim

(2019). Master validity tool [AMOS plugin]. Retrieved from Gaskination’s StatWiki.

28.

Gaskin

James

Lim

(2020). Indirect effects [AMOS plugin]. Gas-kination’s StatWiki.

29.

Gillet

Colombat

Michinov

Pronost

A.-M.

Fouquereau

(2013). Procedural justice, supervisor autonomy support, work satisfaction, organizational identification and job performance: The mediating role of need satisfaction and perceived organizational support. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(11), 2560–2571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12144

30.

Gonzalez

J. A.

DeNisi

A. S.

(2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.498

31.

Goyal

Shrivastava

(2013). Organizational diversity climate: Review of models and measurement. Journal of Business Management & Social Sciences Research, 2(5), 55–60.

32.

Guangling

(2011). The study on relationship between employees’ sense of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior in private enterprises. Energy Procedia, 5(2011), 2030–2034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.350

33.

Guzley

R. M.

(1992). Organizational climate and communication climate: Predictors of commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318992005004001

34.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage.

35.

Hansen

Seierstad

(2017). Introduction: CSR and diversity management. In Hansen

Seierstad

(Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and diversity management: Theoretical approaches and best practices (pp. 1–40). Springer International.

36.

Zhu

Zheng

(2014). Procedural justice and employee engagement: Roles of organizational identification and moral identity centrality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(4), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1774-3

37.

Hofhuis

van der Rijt

P. G. A.

Vlug

(2016). Diversity climate enhances work outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 714. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2499-4

38.

Hofhuis

Van Der Zee

K. I.

Otten

(2012). Social identity patterns in culturally diverse organizations: The role of diversity climate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 964–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00848.x

39.

Holmes

Jiang

Avery

D. R.

McKay

P. F.

I.-S.

Tillman

C. J.

(2021). A meta-analysis integrating 25 years of diversity climate research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1357–1382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320934547

40.

Jiang

(2024). Cross-level effects of diversity climate on employee organizational identification: Evidence from law enforcement units. Public Performance and Management Review, 47(1), 56–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2023.2184401

41.

Kidder

D. L.

Lankau

M. J.

Chrobot‐Mason

Mollica

K. A.

Friedman

R. A.

(2004). Backlash toward diversity initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022908

42.

Kim

(2023). The effect of dialogic competencies in internal communication and D&I-oriented leadership on relational outcomes with minority employees: Focusing on the perspectives of Asian employees. Asian Journal of Communication, 33(2), 158–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2023.2181978

43.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford.

44.

Koçak

Kerse

(2022). How perceived organizational obstruction influences job satisfaction: The roles of interactional justice and organizational identification. Sage Open, 12(1), Article 21582440221079933. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221079933

45.

Krywalski Santiago

(2020). The influence of internal communication satisfaction on employees’ organisational identification: Effect of perceived organisational support. Journal of Economics and Management, 42(4), 70–98. https://doi.org/10.22367/jem.2020.42.04

46.

Lee

E.-S.

Park

T.-Y.

Koo

(2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049–1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000012

47.

Lee

Tao

J.-Y. Q.

Sun

(2021). Enhancing employees’ knowledge sharing through diversity-oriented leadership and strategic internal communication during the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(6), 1526–1549. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-06-2020-0483

48.

Yue

Han

Chen

(2018). Exploring the effect of different performance appraisal purposes on miners’ organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of organization identification. Sustainability, 10(11), 4254. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114254

49.

Mackeben

Ruf

Wolter

Grunau

Graf

Grießemer

Kaimer

Köhler

Lehnert

Oertel

Seysen

(2021). Linked Personnel Panel (LPP) survey data linked to administrative data of the IAB (LPP-ADIAB)—version 7519 v1 (Version v1) [Dataset]. Forschungsdatenzentrum der Bundesagentur für Arbeit (BA) im Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB). https://doi.org/10.5164/IAB.LPP-ADIAB7519.DE.EN.V1

50.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

51.

Malhotra

Sahadev

Sharom

N. Q.

(2022). Organisational justice, organisational identification and job involvement: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction and the moderating role of person-organisation fit. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(8), 1526–1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2020.1757737

52.

Mansoor

Tran

P. A.

Ali

(2020). Employee outcomes of supporting and valuing diversity: Mediating role of diversity climate. Organization Management Journal, 18(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-09-2019-0801

53.

McKay

P. F.

Avery

D. R.

(2015). Diversity climate in organizations: Current wisdom and domains of uncertainty. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 33, 191–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-730120150000033008

54.

McKay

P. F.

Avery

D. R.

Tonidandel

Morris

M. A.

Hernandez

Hebl

M. R.

(2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00064.x

55.

McKinsey . (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters. https://dln.jaipuria.ac.in:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1340/1/McKinseyReport-Diversity-wins-How-inclusion-matters.pdf

56.

Men

L. R.

Bowen

S. A.

(2017). Excellence in internal communication management. Business Expert.

57.

Men

L. R.

Qin

Y. S.

Mitson

Thelen

(2023). Engaging employees via an inclusive climate: The role of organizational diversity communication and cultural intelligence. Journal of Public Relations Research, 35(5-6), 450–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2023.2222859

58.

Men

L. R.

Thelen

P. D.

Qin

Y. S.

(2024). The impact of diversity communication on employee organizational identification and employee voice behaviors: A moderated mediation model. Public Relations Review, 50(4), Article 102492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102492

59.

Men

L. R.

Tsai

W.-H. S.

(2018). Authenticity. In Heath

R. L.

Johansen

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of strategic communication (pp. 1–6). John Wiley & Sons.

60.

Moghadam

A. H.

Tehrani

(2011). Predicting model of organizational identity toward its effect on organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). African Journal of Business Management, 5(23), 9877–9888. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.1019

61.

Mor Barak

M. E.

(2016). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (4th ed.). Sage.

62.

Mor Barak

M. E.

Cherin

D. A.

Berkman

(1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1), 82–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886398341006

63.

Morsing

(2006). Corporate social responsibility as strategic auto-communication: On the role of external stakeholders for member identification. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00440.x

64.

Neill

M. S.

Men

L. R.

Yue

C. A.

(2020). How communication climate and organizational identification impact change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 25(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-06-2019-0063

65.

Olkkonen

M.-E.

Lipponen

(2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.007

66.

Organ

D. W.

(1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L. L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 43–72). JAI.

67.

PageGroup . (2021). Diversity Management Studie 2021: Wie Unternehmen den Einsatz und Erfolg von Diversity bewerten [Diversity management study 2021: How organizations evaluate the use and success of diversity]. https://www.total-e-quality.de/media/uploads/pagegroupdiversitystudie2021.pdf

68.

Qureshi

J. A.

Shahjehan

Zeb

Saifullah

(2011). The effect of self-esteem and organizational identification on organizational citizenship behavior: A case of Pakistani public sector university. African Journal of Business Management, 5(9), 3448–3456. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.391

69.

Reis

Trullen

Story

(2016). Perceived organizational culture and engagement: The mediating role of authenticity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1091–1105. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2015-0178

70.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005

71.

Schneider

Ehrhart

M. G.

Macey

W. H.

(2011). Perspectives on organizational climate and culture. In APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 373–414). American Psychological Association.

72.

Scott

C. R.

Connaughton

S. L.

Diaz-Saenz

H. R.

Maguire

Ramirez

Richardson

Shaw

S. P.

Morgan

(1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on intent to leave: A multimethodological exploration. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 400–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318999123002

73.

Shen

Kim

J.-N.

(2012). The authentic enterprise: Another buzz word, or a true driver of quality relationships? Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4), 371–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.690255

74.

Sidorenkov

A. V.

Borokhovski

E. F.

Vorontsov

D. V.

(2022). Associations of employees’ identification and citizenship behavior in organization: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 73(2), 695–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00258-9

75.

Smidts

Pruyn

Van Riel

C. B. M.

(2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069448

76.

Symons

C. S.

Johnson

B. T.

(1997). The self-reference effect in memory: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.371

77.

The Williams Institute . (2019). LGBT demographic data interactive. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=LGBT#density

78.

Tufan

Wendt

(2020). Organizational identification as a mediator for the effects of psychological contract breaches on organizational citizenship behavior: Insights from the perspective of ethnic minority employees. European Management Journal, 38(1), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.07.001

79.

Tuzun

I. K. T.

(2013). Organizational levels of analysis of communication satisfaction and identification in relation to job satisfaction. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2013.V1.1

80.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07

81.

van Dick

Grojean

M. W.

Christ

Wieseke

(2006). Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00520.x

82.

Van Dyne

Graham

J. W.

Dienesch

R. M.

(1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(4), 765–802. https://doi.org/10.5465/256600

83.

Vavrus

(2012). Diversity: A contested concept. In Banks

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 667–676). Sage.

84.

Vondey

(2010). The relationships among servant leadership, organizational citizenship behavior, person-organization fit, and organizational identification. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 1–25.

85.

Voorhees

C. M.

Brady

M. K.

Calantone

Ramirez

(2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: An analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4

86.

Welch

Jackson

P. R.

(2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847

87.

Windscheid

Bowes-Sperry

Kidder

D. L.

Cheung

H. K.

Morner

Lievens

(2016). Actions speak louder than words: Outsiders’ perceptions of diversity mixed messages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(9), 1329–1341. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000107

88.

Wolfgruber

Stürmer

Einwiller

(2021). Talking inclusion into being: Communication as a facilitator and obstructor of an inclusive work environment. Personnel Review, 51(7), 1841–1860. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2021-0013

89.

Xie

Yan

Liang

Huang

(2022). Why and when negative workplace gossip inhibits organizational citizenship behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 36(4), 710–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221095602

90.

Yorulmaz

Karabacak

(2021). Organizational justice perception and organizational citizenship behavior of shipyard workers: The role of identification and emotional intelligence. Maritime Business Review, 6(3), 268–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-08-2020-0054

91.

Yue

C. A.

(2021). Creating organizational authenticity and identification: Effect of leaders’ motivating language and impact on employee advocacy. International Journal of Business Communication, 0(0), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884211035116

92.

Zhao

Peng

Chen

H.-K.

(2014). Compulsory citizenship behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of organizational identification and perceived interactional justice. Journal of Psychology, 148(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.768591

93.

Žnidaršič

Bogilović

Černe

Kumar Gupta

(2021). Leadership-promoted diversity climate and group identification. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(7), 1018–1036. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2020-0418

94.

Zulfiqar

Khan

M. S.

(2021). Organizational identification and knowledge sharing behavior: Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior and moderating role of collectivism and leader–member exchange. Knowledge and Process Management, 28(4), 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1691

Fostering Employees’ Organizational Identification and Organizational Citizenship Behavior Through Diversity Communication

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Satisfaction with (Diversity) Communication and Organizational Identification

Diversity Climate and Organizational Identification

Authenticity and Organizational Identification

OCB as a Consequence of Organizational Identification

Organizational Identification as a Mediator

Minority Background as a Moderator

Method

Procedure and Sample

Measures

Results

Measurement Model

Structural Model and Hypotheses Testing

Discussion

Implications, Limitations, and Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Notes

Author Biographies

References