See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315739617

When Workplace Diversity Backfires: Perceived

Discrimination against Employees in the
Malaysian Workplace

Thesis · April 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13479.34726

CITATIONS READS

0 302

1 author:

Omid P. Panahi
University of Nevada, Reno
5 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Omid P. Panahi on 02 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 1

When Workplace Diversity Backfires: Perceived Discrimination against

Employees in the Malaysian Workplace

Omid P. Panahia

a
Department of Business and Management, Asia Pacific University of Technology and
Innovation, Bukit Jalil, Malaysia; corresponding author; omidp.panahi@gmail.com.
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 2

ABSTRACT

The Malaysian workforce stands out in the Southeast Asian region in terms of its demographic

diversity. Yet, very few studies have sought to determine the role of this diversity in shaping

the dynamics of Malaysian workplaces. Thus the present study was conducted to examine the

relationship between workplace diversity – racial, religious, and gender diversity, to be precise

– and perceived discrimination among employees in Malaysia. Although none of the workplace

diversity variables were found to be directly correlated with perceived discrimination, the vast

majority of the respondents who reported to have faced discrimination assessed their workplace

to be relatively diverse. Among those who reported workplace discrimination, all three of the

workplace diversity variables were positively correlated with the perceived severity of

discriminatory treatment in the workplace. Finally, the most prevalent forms of workplace

discrimination were shown to be discrimination in terms of working conditions, discrimination

in the employment stage, and verbal discrimination, with the least prevalent form being

discrimination in terms of compensation.

Keywords: Workplace; diversity; discrimination; Malaysia; race; gender; religion.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 3

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES: PERCEIVED

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST EMPLOYEES IN THE MALAYSIAN
WORKPLACE
Workplace diversity is broadly defined as the distribution of differences among the

members of an organization (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Cui, et al., 2015). These differences

encompass various individual attributes such as race, gender, age, physical appearance, sexual

orientation, disability status, religion, culture, competencies, qualifications, past achievements,

and cognitive and behavioral styles (Konrad, 2006; Wanguri, 1996).

Organizations have, over the years, gradually shifted to embrace workplace diversity, so

that contemporary workplaces are significantly more diverse than their historical counterparts

(Konrad, 2006). This development, as many studies have indicated, carries both benefits and

drawbacks for organizations and the individuals within them. Workplace diversity increases

employees’ productivity (Berman, 2008; O'Mara, 1994; Jabbour, et al., 2011; Clark, 2015;

Appelbaum, et al., 2015), enhances organizational performance (Adler & Gundersen, 2007;

McLeod, et al., 1996; Richard, et al., 2004; Rasul & Rogger, 2015), boosts employees’

creativity (Roberts, 2005; Adler & Gundersen, 2007; O'Mara, 1994; McLeod, et al., 1996;

Richard, et al., 2004), and leads to greater employee commitment (Bertone, et al., 2005; Kulik

& Roberson, 2008; Triana, et al., 2010; Smith & Joseph, 2010; Hofhuis, et al., 2016). On the

other hand, studies have, also, shown that diversity could potentially stimulate discriminatory

actions within the workplace and provoke interpersonal conflicts between managers and

employees (Jabbour, et al., 2011; Kochan, et al., 2003; Prasad, et al., 1997; Roberson & Kulik,

2007; Wrench, 2005; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Martin, 2014; Al Ariss & Sidani, 2016; Ray &

Preston, 2015). Various degrees of discrimination, then, are expected to be observed in

workplaces along the diversity spectrum.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 4

Discrimination could be defined in many ways depending on the context in which it is

being used. For the purposes of this study, the term “discrimination” here is taken generally to

refer to discrimination against individuals in the workplace. Walsh (2012) defines workplace

discrimination as “the limitation or denial of employment opportunity based on or related to

the protected class characteristics of persons.” A more general definition would be “the

prejudicial treatment of an individual based on membership of a certain group or category”

(Wood, et al., 2013).

According to Offermann et al. (2014), discriminatory acts could have subtle and blatant

manifestations, both of them harmful in their own unique ways. There is an extensive academic

literature on the negative effects of workplace discrimination on its victims. In their study,

Goldman et al. (2006) concluded that discrimination in the workplace creates an “unwelcoming

work environment that values superficial qualities instead of job-relevant outcomes.”

Furthermore, studies have shown that workplace discrimination results in psychological strain

symptoms (Lazarus, et al., 1985; Wood, et al., 2013; Lippel, et al., 2016) and heavy tobacco

and alcohol use in the victims (Chavez, et al., 2015; Gilbert & Zemore, 2016); negatively

affects their job attitudes (Hershcovis & Barling, 2010; Triana, et al., 2015); and has a negative

correlation with their well-being and job satisfaction (Wood, et al., 2013; Hershcovis &

Barling, 2010; Bowling & Beehr, 2006; Kim, 2015; Zurbrügg & Miner, 2016). It has, also,

been demonstrated that, in order to be negatively impacted by discriminatory harassment in the

workplace, one need not necessarily be a victim, but merely a witness or aware of it (Low, et

al., 2007). Workplace discrimination is, therefore, a concern for not only the people who are

subjected to it, but for all employees within an organization.

Malaysia is home to a diverse population of approximately 30.2 million people (Penang

Monthly, 2015). The diversity of the Malaysian population is due to the existence of multiple

ethnicities and religions, a variety of languages, a constant inflow of immigrants from a large
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 5

number of countries, a multitude of cultural practices and traditions, and other relevant factors.

The following ethnic groups constitute the Malaysian population: Malay (50.3%), Chinese

(21.8%), Indian (6.5%), Bumiputera (indigenous peoples) (11.8%), other ethnic groups (0.9%),

and non-Malaysian citizens (8.7%). Figure 1, sourced from the February 2015 issue of the

Malaysian national magazine Penang Monthly, illustrates the religions that are currently

practiced in Malaysia, as well as the population of their practitioners in percentage of the

country’s total population.

Figure 1

Religions and Their Respective Practitioners in Malaysia (Penang Monthly, 2015)

According to the web portal World Population Review (2016), 49.5% of Malaysia’s

population is estimated to be male, and the remaining 50.5% to be female. In a country with a

demographic structure such as that of Malaysia, one would expect to find an abundance of

diverse workplaces in which a variety of backgrounds and individual values are represented

(Messarra, 2014). Therefore, there is a possibility – and perhaps a likelihood – for different

forms of discrimination to manifest themselves in the average Malaysian workplace. The

present study investigated in the Malaysian context three varieties of workplace diversity –
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 6

racial, religious, and gender diversity – and their correlation with perceived discrimination

among employees.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Racial Diversity and Discrimination in the Workplace

A large number of studies have examined the nature and prevalence of discrimination in

racially diverse workplaces across different countries. A study by Deitch et al. (2003) showed

that, in the United States, African-Americans experience significantly more racial

discrimination than white Americans in the workplace, and that they experience it in more

subtle, “everyday” ways. This subtle form of racial discrimination, the researchers argue, has

negative outcomes for its victims in terms of their well-being. Another U.S.-based study by

Stainback and Irvin (2012) found that whites, blacks, and Latinos are all less likely to

experience racial discrimination in the workplace when the majority of their coworkers are of

the same race. The researchers also found that having a manager who is of the same race has

no impact on perceived racial discrimination among non-whites, but that it “reduces whites’

reports of racial discrimination.” As for Finnish workplaces, Bergbom et al. (2015) showed

that immigrant employees are more likely to consider themselves as victims of workplace

discrimination and bullying, comparing to Finnish natives. This phenomenon was particularly

pronounced among the most culturally distant immigrant groups in Finland, implying that

“natives categorized only those immigrants perceived as differing the most from natives into

an out-group, the members of which were treated more negatively than others.”

In a recent study involving corporate workplaces based in the city of Toronto in Ontario,

Canada, Ray and Preston (2015) found that racial minorities experience an overwhelming

degree of discrimination in workplaces that rank high in terms of diversity. It was, also, found

that “perceptions of unfair treatment” are generally more prevalent in racially diverse
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 7

workplaces, which, the authors believe, raises significant questions for the default association

between ethno-racial diversity and socially progressive work environments. Kosny et al. (2016)

found that it is disproportionately difficult for new immigrants in Australia to secure jobs that

accurately correspond to their past education and training, which often leads them to “de-

emphasize their culture and race in order to gain entry into Australian workplaces.” A study

conducted in Switzerland by Krings et al. (2014) showed that immigrant groups from the

immediate neighboring countries who are highly competent and successful in the local labor

market are often subjected to subtle forms of discrimination, and are perceived by the Swiss

locals as lacking socioemotional warmth. People of Asian descent face similar stereotypes in

the United States, which makes them relatively more vulnerable to discrimination in the

workplace (Lin, et al., 2005; Lee & Fiske, 2006; Endo, 2015).

Religious Diversity and Discrimination in the Workplace

Unlike race and gender, Ghumman et al. (2013) argue, religion is a specific belief system

to which an individual adheres, and is typically viewed as a controllable aspect of one’s

identity. As a result, observers might hold misperceptions regarding the beliefs and practices

associated with various religious groups – such as the practice of polygamy, views on

evolution, and so forth – and stereotypes of this sort could lead to religious discrimination in

the workplace (Ghumman, et al., 2013; Shaheen, 1997; Lips-Wiersma & Mills, 2002).

Moreover, religion might be closely tied to other aspects of one’s identity such as national

origin and race – for instance, 73% of Middle Eastern immigrants in the United States are

Muslim (Camarota, 2002) – in which case discrimination is not only on the basis of religion,

but also the identities with which it is linked (Ball & Haque, 2003; Malos, 2010). Ghumman et

al. (2013) note that non-believers – atheists, agnostics, and others – are, also, susceptible to

religious discrimination in the workplace.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 8

In a recent study in the United States, Van Camp et al. (2016) had 175 participants

evaluate fictional job applicants with varying religious affiliations (Christian, Muslim, and

atheist). In the post-evaluation stage, 32% of the participants explicitly reported using the

applicants’ religion as a criterion for evaluation, and consistently showed a strong preference

for Christian over Muslim and atheist applicants. According to Greenwald (2005), 2,466

charges of religious discrimination were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) in 2004, which was up from 1,388 in 1992. These charges have been

rising steadily ever since, and the EEOC records show that the vast majority of them are filed

by individuals who claim to have suffered discriminatory treatment as a result of their being,

or being perceived to be, Muslim (Alexis, 2015).

Gender Diversity and Discrimination in the Workplace

A study by Kapur and Kleiner (2000) found evidence for gender, racial, and age

discrimination in the United States beer industry. The researchers noted that, “Although the

beer industry may not seem like an industry where discrimination may occur, sex, racial and

age discrimination do exist in [this] industry.” Lisowska (2009) showed that, in Poland, it is

much more difficult for women to secure their first job, and that they are generally promoted

much less often and paid lower wages than men. It was, also, found that, even though women

are frequently subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace, not much effort is made on the

part of employers to prevent or penalize this form of harassment. A U.S.-based study conducted

by Stainback et al. (2011) indicated that women are extremely likely to experience gender

discrimination in the workplace, whether they occupy jobs in male-dominated or diverse

organizations. In a study involving 362 employees of three large corporations in China, Foley

et al. (2015) found employees’ gender and strength of gender identification to be positively

correlated with their perception of discrimination in the workplace, with the highest degree of

perceived discriminatory treatment being directed toward women. Flynn et al. (2015) studied
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 9

the gender disparities present in Ireland’s accounting firms, and found that, despite the

measures taken by some large corporations to address workplace gender inequality, there are

still disproportionately fewer women occupying senior positions in these firms, and that it

generally takes them longer to be promoted to partner status. Ironically, however, the

researchers found “a definite perception of gender equality amongst both male and female

respondents and a rejection of any form of discrimination.”

Loi et al. (2015) recently showed that, in Australian workplaces, women tend to be the

prime target of workplace incivility, and yet they are relatively less likely to withdraw from

their work obligations as victims of discrimination, comparing to men. This implies, as the

authors write, that “women may have become somewhat accustomed to uncivil [behaviors]

and learned not to react too negatively.” In their study of gender wage disparity in the public

and private sectors of Mauritius, Tandrayen-Ragoobur and Pydayya (2016) found wage

differentials to be prevalent in both of the economic sectors, although more pronounced in the

private sector, whereby women earn significantly lower wages than men. A recent study

conducted in the U.S. by Leskinen et al. (2015) found that female employees who work in

male-dominated contexts and exhibit traditionally masculine traits such as aggression, self-

reliance, and physical masculinity – a phenomenon that the authors call “gender

counterstereotypicality” – are particularly prone to workplace gender harassment in the forms

of verbal discrimination and gender policing. In a study investigating the labor market of South

Africa, Grun (2004) showed that both African and white women face high degrees of gender

discrimination in the workplace, with African women experiencing the most discrimination at

the hiring stage, and white women in terms of wages. Smith and Joseph (2010) reported that

African-Americans in the United States consider their race and gender to have the most impact

on their workplace experiences, and often view these two traits as liabilities due to their

minority status within most organizations. American whites, in contrast, often attribute their
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 10

experiences in the workplace – for instance, when they are inhibited or when they are

successful – to organizational culture.

Diversity and Discrimination in the Malaysian Workplace

A number of studies have been conducted to determine the prevalence of racial, religious,

and gender discrimination in Malaysia’s diverse workplaces. A case of systematic

discrimination in Malaysia would be the government’s 1971 anti-poverty program, named the

New Economic Policy, under which Malays (the ethnic majority) are favored in employment,

and are given priority to enroll in all domestic public universities (Schafgans, 1998; Manshor,

et al., 2003; Nagaraj, et al., 2009). In a recent study conducted to determine the drivers of career

success among working adults in Malaysia, Poon et al. (2015) showed that perceived

discrimination functions as a “potential inhibition to career growth and opportunities.”

A study by Manshor et al. (2003) found that the two demographic characteristics with

the most influence on Malaysian managers’ decision-making are race and religion. The

researchers showed that, in Malaysia, Malay hiring managers have a strong preference for

candidates of their own race, even if the candidates are less qualified than their rivals. The same

pattern was observed among Muslims in the country, which, the researchers argue, could be

attributed to the fact that Malays are predominantly Muslim. Another finding of this study was

that, when the candidates for a job are deemed to be equally competent, both male and female

hiring managers tend to select the candidate of their own gender. Schafgans (1998) found

evidence for workplace discrimination against Malays in Malaysia, and argues that policy

interventions are required to reduce ethnic disparities of this sort.

A recent study by Nagaraj et al. (2014) showed that women account for only about a third

of the Malaysian workforce, and often occupy lower-status jobs comparing to men. The

researchers write, “Although women are more likely than men to have a university education
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 11

[in Malaysia], female graduates are also more likely than male graduates to be in lower-paying

jobs or to be unemployed.” This is substantiated by Karubi and Khalique’s (2012) study, which

found that women “often end up with some of the worst, most poorly-paid jobs” in Malaysia.

The authors argue that many low-status jobs are widely assumed by the public to be only suited

to women, and that men generally lack the willingness to do them. Ali (2014) showed that,

despite the increasing participation of women in the Malaysian workforce over the last few

decades, employers have been, by and large, unwilling to adjust their human resources policies

so as to foster gender diversity in the workplace. In their recent study, Othman and Othman

(2015) found that Malaysian female employees face a significant degree of discrimination with

negative consequences for their promotion opportunities, wages, and training, in spite of the

government’s recent efforts to minimize workplace gender discrimination in the country.

Hutagalung and Ishak (2012) investigated the prevalence of sexual harassment in three public

higher education institutions in Klang Valley, Malaysia, and found that a majority of the female

employees aged 26 to 39 had experienced some form of workplace sexual harassment over the

course of their careers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a quantitative study conducted using a researcher-administered, structured

questionnaire with solely close-ended questions (Appendix). The questionnaire was designed

to be anonymous, and the confidentiality of the information provided by the respondents was

maintained throughout the entire research. In the introductory statement of the questionnaire,

the respondents were informed regarding the topic and objectives of the study, as well as

notified that they effectively express their informed consent to participate in the study by filling

out the questionnaire. Prior to data collection, a pilot study involving 10 respondents was

carried out with the purpose of ascertaining the clarity and comprehensibility of the instructions
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 12

and content of the questionnaire. In light of the pilot study’s results, minor amendments were

made to the questionnaire. The study was, also, approved by Asia Pacific University’s Research

Ethics Committee prior to its undertaking.

Variables

The present study investigated three independent variables and one dependent variable,

all of which are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2
The Independent and Dependent Variables Investigated by the Study

Religious Diversity
in the Workplace
(IV)

Racial Diversity in Gender Diversity in

the Workplace (IV) the Workplace (IV)

Perceived
discrimination
in the
Workplace (DV)

Hypotheses

A review of the academic literature on workplace diversity and discrimination revealed

that individuals’ race plays a significant role in the dynamics of the average Malaysian

workplace. Manshor et al.’s (2003) study, for instance, showed that Malaysian employers tend

to favor job applicants of their own race, even if these applicants are evidently less competent

than their rivals. Explicit racial biases of this sort, particularly when exhibited by individuals
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 13

in top management positions, could translate into either minimal workplace diversity or the

discriminatory treatment of certain employees in diverse workplaces. Thus the following

hypothesis is formulated with regard to the relationship between workplace racial diversity and

perceived discrimination among employees in Malaysia.

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive correlation between racial diversity and perceived

discrimination against employees in Malaysian workplaces.

Studies also indicate a connection between individuals’ religious affiliation and their

professional life in Malaysia. Abdullah (1992) showed that Malaysian managers’ cultural

background and personal beliefs influence their executive decision-making in the workplace.

This is consistent with Manshor et al.’s (2003) finding that Malaysian Muslim employers have

a strong preference for Muslim job candidates, even in the presence of more qualified

applicants for a particular job. The negative consequences of this form of religious favoritism

are likely to be the most pronounced in diverse workplaces, as there would be a higher

likelihood for employees affiliated with certain religious groups to be discriminated against.

Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed regarding the relationship between workplace

religious diversity and perceived discrimination among employees in Malaysia.

Hypothesis 2: There is a positive correlation between religious diversity and perceived

discrimination against employees in Malaysian workplaces.

As for gender diversity and discrimination in the workplace, it is well established in the

literature that female workers face disproportionately high degrees of discrimination in

Malaysia, which is consequential for their employment, benefits, promotion, wages, and

training, to name a few. It has been shown that Malaysian women often occupy low-status and

poorly paid jobs, despite the fact that they account for the highest percentage of college

graduates in the country (Nagaraj, et al., 2014; Karubi & Khalique, 2012). It is, also, likely for
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 14

women to experience various forms of workplace sexual harassment over the course of their

careers in Malaysia (Hutagalung & Ishak, 2012). Nevertheless, a number of affirmative action

initiatives have been recently introduced by the Malaysian government in order to reduce

gender disparities in the national workforce, and organizations across the country have more

or less begun to recognize the importance of gender equality in the workplace (Othman &

Othman, 2015; Ali, 2014). Thus as organizations move toward the inclusion and representation

of all genders in the workforce, they are likely to create a safer and less discriminatory work

environment for all employees. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated as to the

relationship between workplace gender diversity and perceived discrimination among

employees in Malaysia.

Hypothesis 3: There is a negative correlation between gender diversity and perceived

discrimination against employees in Malaysian workplaces.

Sample and Data

A sample size of 80 was taken into consideration for the present study. A total of 100

questionnaires, however, were distributed in order to compensate for potential incomplete and

invalid responses. Ultimately, data was collected from 86 respondents, yielding a response rate

of 86%.

The questionnaire was distributed among the full-time and part-time employees of 21

organizations based in the states of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, Malaysia. Notwithstanding

the fact that the method of convenience sampling was used for data collection, an effort was

made to diversify, to a feasible degree, the organizations in which the questionnaire was

distributed (in terms of the economic sectors and industries within which they operated), as

well as the individual respondents within those organizations (in terms of their demographic

characteristics). A number of the contacted organizations and individuals refused to participate

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 15

in the study, citing reasons such as the shortage of time, restrictive organizational policies, and

the lack of authorization to do so. No more than 10 respondents represented a single

organization, and most of the questionnaires were filled out in print form, as the contacted

organizations and individuals were generally unresponsive to emails. The general details of the

21 organizations from which data was collected, as well as the number of respondents

employed at each of them, are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1

The Organizations Included in the Study's Sample

Economic Number of
Organization Industry Address
Sector Respondents

U Mobile Sdn. Mobile Kuala Lumpur,

Private 3
Bhd. Telecommunications Malaysia

Zalora Sdn. Kuala Lumpur,

Private Online Retail 1
Bhd. Malaysia

The SPCA, Non- Selangor,

Non-profit 4
Selangor governmental Malaysia

Prudential Kuala Lumpur,

Public Life Insurance 1
Assurance Bhd. Malaysia

Asia Pacific

University of
Kuala Lumpur,
Technology Private Education 10
Malaysia
and Innovation

Sdn. Bhd.
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 16

Ebizu Sdn. Kuala Lumpur,

Private Web Development 1
Bhd. Malaysia

Above Creative
Selangor,
Events Sdn. Private Event Planning 1
Malaysia
Bhd.

Cyber Security
Selangor,
Malaysia Sdn. Private Computer Security 2
Malaysia
Bhd.

Kumon,
Selangor,
Selangor, Sdn. Private Education 1
Malaysia
Bhd.

Dewan

Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur,

Public Government 8
Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

Bhd.

Information
IBM Malaysia Selangor,
Private Technology 10
Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia
Services

Print Pack Ship Kuala Lumpur,

Private Stationery Retail 2
Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia

Pet Lovers
Pet and Pet Supply Selangor,
Centre Sdn. Private 2
Retail Malaysia
Bhd.
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 17

Berjaya

Starbucks
Selangor,
Coffee Private Coffee Shop 5
Malaysia
Company Sdn.

Bhd.

Senheng
Consumer Selangor,
Electric Sdn. Private 10
Electronics Retail Malaysia
Bhd.

Sports Direct Sporting Goods Kuala Lumpur,

Private 5
MST Sdn. Bhd. Retail Malaysia

Rockstar Gym Selangor,

Private Health and Fitness 3
Sdn. Bhd. Malaysia

BPO and ICT Kuala Lumpur,

VADS Bhd. Public 4
Services Malaysia

Capita Land

Malaysia Mall
Kuala Lumpur,
REIT Private Real Estate 2
Malaysia
Management

Sdn. Bhd.

Allianz Kuala Lumpur,

Public Financial Services 5
Malaysia Bhd. Malaysia

Terus Maju
Selangor,
Services Sdn. Private Transportation 6
Malaysia
Bhd.
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 18

The study’s questionnaire was comprised by four sections, namely Organization,

Demographics, Workplace Diversity, and Workplace Discrimination, arranged in consecutive

order. In the Organization section, the respondents were instructed to write or type the name of

the organization at which they were employed; and the Demographics section consisted of four

questions requiring the respondents to report their gender, age group, ethnic or racial

background, and religious affiliation. With a total of four questions, the Workplace Diversity

section required the respondents to classify, on a scale of 1 to 4, their workplace in terms of

general diversity, racial diversity, religious diversity, and gender diversity. A short description

was included below all four of this section’s questions, informing the respondents that the

options 1 to 4 indicated “not diverse,” “slightly diverse,” “moderately diverse,” and “highly

diverse,” consecutively. Lastly, the Workplace Discrimination section began with one question

asking the respondents whether they had faced any form of discrimination over the course of

their career at their reported organization. Those who answered “yes” to this section’s first

question were, then, required to answer two follow-up questions regarding the specific forms

and the severity of the discrimination they had faced. In the first follow-up question, the

respondents specified the forms of discrimination they had experienced by checking the

relevant boxes; and in the second follow-up question, they assessed the severity of their

discriminatory treatment on a scale of 1 to 4, with the options denoting “not severe,” “slightly

severe,” “moderately severe,” and “highly severe,” consecutively.

The collected data was analyzed using the statistics software SPSS (version 24.0). The

data was entered into a SPSS data file, whereby identification numbers were assigned to all 86

respondents, and the variables associated with each of the questionnaire’s questions were

defined. In order to measure the reliability of the Likert scale used in the four questions

regarding workplace diversity, a Cronbach’s alpha analysis was performed. Subsequently,

descriptive statistics was used to conduct a comprehensive analysis on the demographic

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 19

information of the respondents, namely gender, age, race or ethnicity, and religious affiliation.

A bivariate Pearson correlation analysis was, then, performed in order to assess the potential

relationships between the study’s independent variables (workplace racial diversity, workplace

religious diversity, and workplace gender diversity) and dependent variable (perceived

discrimination among employees). Specifically for the respondents who reported to have been

discriminated against in the workplace, a descriptive analysis was carried out to determine their

distribution on the workplace diversity scales. Additional descriptive and correlation analyses

were, also, conducted on the study’s secondary variables – namely general workplace diversity,

forms of discrimination, and severity of discrimination – for further insights.

RESULTS

The demographic makeup of the study’s 86 respondents is captured by Table 2. The

Cronbach’s alpha analysis yielded an alpha value of 0.885, which, according to George and

Mallery (2005), indicates a “good” reliability for the Likert scale incorporated into the four

questions related to workplace diversity.

Table 2

The Demographic Composition of the Study’s Respondents

Frequency Percent

Male 43 50.0%
Gender
Female 43 50.0%

18-24 Years Old 19 22.1%

25-34 Years Old 50 58.1%

Age Group 35-44 Years Old 12 14.0%

45-54 Years Old 1 1.2%

55-64 Years Old 3 3.5%

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 20

65-74 Years Old 1 1.2%

Bumiputera (Malay 54 62.8%

and Other

Indigenous Peoples)

Ethnic or Racial Chinese 14 16.3%

Group Indian 11 12.8%

Sikh 3 3.5%

Middle Eastern 3 3.5%

Biracial 1 1.2%

Christianity 5 5.8%

Islam 53 61.6%

Religious Buddhism 10 11.6%

Affiliation Hinduism 10 11.6%

Sikhism 3 3.5%

None 5 5.8%

Table 3 presents the results of the bivariate Pearson correlation analysis conducted on the

study’s independent variables (workplace racial diversity, workplace religious diversity, and

workplace gender diversity) and dependent variable (perceived discrimination among

employees). Since the Workplace Diversity section of the questionnaire included an additional

question regarding general workplace diversity, a correlation analysis was, also, performed for

this secondary independent variable (general workplace diversity) and the dependent variable

(perceived discrimination among employees), the results of which are incorporated into Table

3 as well. All four of the independent variables were negatively correlated with the dependent
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 21

variable, although the correlations did not meet the statistical significance threshold of P-value

less than 0.05.

Table 3

The Bivariate Pearson Correlation Analysis of the Study's Independent Variables and
Dependent Variable

Respondent's Having

Faced Workplace

Discrimination

Pearson Correlation -0.05

The General Diversity of
Significance (P) 0.63
Respondent's Workplace
N 86

Pearson Correlation -0.07

The Racial Diversity of
Significance (P) 0.49
Respondent's Workplace
N 86

Pearson Correlation -0.07

The Religious Diversity of
Significance (P) 0.51
Respondent's Workplace
N 86

Pearson Correlation -0.06

The Gender Diversity of
Significance (P) 0.55
Respondent's Workplace
N 86

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4 illustrates the distribution of the respondents who did and did not report to have

faced discrimination on the four workplace diversity scales, namely general, racial, religious,
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 22

and gender diversity. The overwhelming majority of those who reported workplace

discrimination classified their workplace as “slightly diverse,” “moderately diverse,” or

“highly diverse” on all four of the workplace diversity scales, with only a minimal number of

individuals selecting the “not diverse” option. Consistent for all of the workplace diversity

scales, the “moderately diverse” category included the highest number of respondents who

reported to have been discriminated against in the workplace. In the “slightly diverse” category

of only the workplace gender diversity scale, however, the number of respondents who reported

discrimination exceeded the number of those who did not.

Table 4

The Distribution of the Study's Respondents on the four Workplace Diversity Scales

Respondent's Having Faced

Workplace Discrimination

No Yes Total

Not Diverse 3 3 6
The General
Slightly Diverse 8 6 14
Diversity of
Moderately 31 15 46
Respondent's
Diverse
Workplace
Highly Diverse 12 8 20

Not Diverse 4 1 5

The Racial Slightly Diverse 10 10 20

Diversity of Moderately 27 16 43

Respondent's Diverse

Workplace Highly Diverse 13 5 18

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 23

Not Diverse 5 2 7
The Religious
Slightly Diverse 12 11 23
Diversity of
Moderately 27 15 42
Respondent's
Diverse
Workplace
Highly Diverse 10 4 14

Not Diverse 6 1 7
The Gender
Slightly Diverse 10 12 22
Diversity of
Moderately 25 14 39
Respondent's
Diverse
Workplace
Highly Diverse 13 5 18

An additional bivariate Pearson correlation analysis was performed for the four

workplace diversity variables (general workplace diversity, workplace racial diversity,

workplace religious diversity, and workplace gender diversity) and the severity of the

discrimination faced by the respondents who reported discrimination. The results are illustrated

in Table 5. Among the respondents who reported workplace discrimination, workplace racial,

religious, and gender diversity were strongly and positively correlated with severity of

discrimination at the statistical significance level of P-value less than 0.01. General workplace

diversity was, also, positively correlated with severity of discrimination, albeit at the statistical

significance level of P-value less than 0.05.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 24

Table 5

The Bivariate Pearson Correlation Analysis of the Study's Independent Variables and
Severity of Discrimination

The Severity of

Respondent's

Discriminatory Treatment

The General Diversity of Pearson Correlation 0.35*

Respondent's Workplace Significance (P) 0.04

N 32

The Racial Diversity of Pearson Correlation 0.46**

Respondent's Workplace Significance (P) 0.00

N 32

The Religious Diversity of Pearson Correlation 0.45**

Respondent's Workplace Significance (P) 0.01

N 32

The Gender Diversity of Pearson Correlation 0.52**

Respondent's Workplace Significance (P) 0.00

N 32

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.

Lastly, a descriptive analysis was conducted specifically for those who reported to have

experienced workplace discrimination, in order to determine the most and least prevalent forms

of discrimination. Table 6 presents the results. The most prevalent form of discrimination

experienced by the respondents who reported workplace discrimination was “discrimination in

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 25

terms of working conditions” (N=15), with the second most prevalent forms of discrimination

being “discrimination in the employment stage” (N=14) and “verbal discrimination” (N=14).

The least prevalent form of discrimination, on the other hand, was “discrimination in terms of

compensation” (N=2).

Table 6

The Forms of Workplace Discrimination Experienced by the Study's Respondents

Responses

N Percent Percent of Cases

Discrimination in 14 19.4% 43.8%

the Employment

Stage

Discrimination in 2 2.8% 6.3%

Terms of

Compensation

Discrimination in 8 11.1% 25.0%

Terms of

Promotions

Discrimination in 3 4.2% 9.4%

Terms of Paid

Leaves

Discrimination in 9 12.5% 28.1%

Terms of Training
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 26

Discrimination in 15 20.8% 46.9%

Terms of Working

Conditions

Discrimination in 4 5.6% 12.5%

Terms of Employee

Benefits

Discrimination in 3 4.2% 9.4%

Terms of

Assignments

Verbal 14 19.4% 43.8%

Discrimination

Total 72 100.0% 225.0%

DISCUSSION

As for the present study’s three primary independent variables (workplace racial

diversity, workplace religious diversity, and workplace gender diversity), one secondary

independent variable (general workplace diversity), and one dependent variable (perceived

discrimination among employees), the bivariate Pearson correlation analysis did not yield any

statistically significant correlation. This is most likely due to the fact that the dependent

variable was associated with a dichotomous question (“Over the course of your career at this

organization, have you faced any form of discrimination?”) in the questionnaire, the responses

to which were entered on a nominal scale in SPSS. The absence of a direct correlation between

the independent variables and the dependent variable implies that an increase or decrease in

workplace diversity on the four scales (general, racial, religious, and gender) does not

necessarily correspond to employees’ experience of workplace discrimination or lack thereof.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 27

As a result, the three hypotheses developed regarding the relationship between workplace

diversity and perceived discrimination were neither verified nor rejected in a direct manner.

The cross-tabulation analysis of the independent and dependent variables showed that

the vast majority of the respondents who reported to have faced workplace discrimination

assessed their workplace as “slightly diverse,” “moderately diverse,” or “highly diverse” on all

four diversity scales, with only a small minority assessing theirs as “not diverse.” Although

this pattern is partly due to the fact that a relatively small number of the study’s total

respondents classified their workplace as “not diverse” on the four scales, it indicates that

employees are highly unlikely to perceive workplace discrimination in non-diverse

workplaces. On all of the workplace diversity scales, the “moderately diverse” category

accounted for the highest number of respondents who reported workplace discrimination,

which is, also, partly because a relatively large number of the total respondents assessed their

workplace as “moderately diverse” on the four scales. It nevertheless suggests that employees

are the most likely to experience discrimination in workplaces that harbor an average degree

of diversity. In the “slightly diverse” category of only the workplace gender diversity scale, the

number of the respondents who reported workplace discrimination surpassed the number of

those who did not. This implies that in workplaces that rank low in terms of gender diversity

(but are not non-diverse), employees are more likely than not to experience discriminatory

treatment. These results were, overall, supportive of Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, but

contradictory to Hypothesis 3.

The finding that employees are more likely to experience discrimination in relatively

diverse workplaces is consistent with those of Ray and Preston’s (2015) and Jabbour et al.’s

(2011) studies. Ray and Preston (2015) found that “encounters with difference in work

locations generate perceptions of unfair treatment,” and thereby brought under question the

intuitive association between workplace diversity and social progressivism. Similarly, Jabbour
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 28

et al. (2011) found that workplace diversity could underlie cultural conflicts and discriminatory

treatments in the workplace such as “joking and harassment toward minority-group

employees.” The finding is contradictory, however, to those of studies that portray workplace

diversity in a more positive light (Appelbaum, et al., 2015; Rasul & Rogger, 2015; Adler &

Gundersen, 2007; Hofhuis, et al., 2016), which could be due to the differing social contexts of

the countries in which our studies were conducted.

Among the respondents who reported to have been discriminated against in the

workplace (N=32), statistically significant positive correlations were found between all four of

the workplace diversity variables (general workplace diversity, workplace racial diversity,

workplace religious diversity, and workplace gender diversity) and perceived severity of

discrimination. The implication of this is that employees’ discriminatory experiences are self-

perceived to be more harmful in more diverse workplaces, and vice versa. Although this finding

does not directly address the question of whether the prevalence of workplace discrimination

increases with an increase in workplace diversity, it nevertheless suggests that the

discriminatory treatment of employees is exacerbated, and not mitigated, in relatively diverse

workplaces. Similar to the results of the cross-tabulation analysis, these results supported

Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2, but were not supportive of Hypothesis 3.

An additional analysis of the data regarding the forms of discrimination experienced by

the respondents who reported workplace discrimination revealed the most prevalent forms of

discrimination to be discrimination in terms of working conditions, discrimination in

employment, and verbal discrimination; and the least prevalent to be discrimination in terms

of compensation. Discrimination in terms of promotions and training were, also, found to be

relatively common. These findings are mostly in line with those of Othman and Othman’s

(2015) study, which showed that the discrimination against female employees in Malaysia is

highly consequential for their promotion opportunities, training, and compensation.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 29

Significance

This study attempted to clarify the relationship between workplace diversity and

perceived discrimination among employees in the Malaysian context, as the findings of

previous studies on this subject have been more or less inconsistent (Appelbaum, et al., 2015;

Rasul & Rogger, 2015; Adler & Gundersen, 2007; Hofhuis, et al., 2016; Martin, 2014; Al Ariss

& Sidani, 2016). The findings of the study are of service to CEOs and managers seeking to

create a healthy work environment and effectively manage diversity in their organizations.

They are, also, of high value to Malaysian legislators in favor of equal rights and opportunity,

enabling them to introduce and pass legislation more wisely in the future. The study could raise

the public’s awareness as to the nature of the inequalities and discrimination present in

Malaysian workplaces, as well as aid future researchers who aim to conduct studies on similar

issues and, more importantly, develop solutions to the problem of workplace discrimination in

Malaysia.

Limitations

The study investigated the correlation between workplace diversity and perceived

discrimination against employees in Malaysia, and hence did not aim to provide new insights

as to the degree of actual discrimination present in Malaysian workplaces. Furthermore, the

study did not address the question of whether any of the studied workplace diversity variables

– namely workplace racial diversity, workplace religious diversity, and workplace gender

diversity – play any causal role in the existence or frequency of perceived discrimination

among employees in Malaysian workplaces. In other words, this was a study of correlation and

not causation between the identified variables. Neither did the study put forth ways in which

perceived or actual workplace discrimination could be mitigated in Malaysia. The study might

have, also, been limited by its relatively small sample size (N=86), and the potential low

proficiency of some of the respondents in the English language, since Bahasa Melayu is the
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 30

first native language of Malaysia. Lastly, the fact that the study was conducted in the two states

of Kuala Lumpur and Selangor puts a limitation on the generalizability of its findings.

Directions for Future Research

Future studies in this area could investigate different forms workplace diversity – such

as diversity in terms of age, sexual orientation, weight, and so forth – and examine their

potential correlational and causal impacts on organizational dynamics and individual

employees’ perceptions. In order to obtain more accurate results, future studies could quantify

workplace diversity and discrimination, thereby exploring their nature and measuring their

actual prevalence beyond employees’ subjective perceptions. It is, also, imperative for future

researchers to utilize the findings of this and previous studies to develop viable solutions to the

problem of workplace discrimination, and thus expand the practical applications of the

academic literature on workplace diversity management.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study was conducted on workplace diversity and perceived discrimination in

Malaysia, and aimed to determine the precise relationship between diversity – racial, religious,

and gender diversity, in particular – and perceived discrimination against employees in

Malaysian workplaces. An analysis of the collected data did not yield any significant

correlation between workplace diversity and perceived discrimination. However, it was found

that the overwhelming majority of the respondents who reported to have faced workplace

discrimination assessed their workplaces to be relatively diverse. Workplace diversity was,

also, positively correlated with the perceived severity of the discriminatory treatment of those

who reported workplace discrimination. Lastly, discrimination in terms of working conditions,

discrimination in employment, and verbal discrimination were found to be the most prevalent

forms of discrimination in Malaysian workplaces. Although the study did not directly
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 31

determine the correlation between workplace diversity and perceived discrimination in

Malaysia, it did show that employees are more likely to experience discriminatory treatment in

relatively diverse workplaces, and that the perceived severity of these experiences increases

accordingly with workplace diversity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge the Asia Pacific University of Technology and

Innovation for supplying the resources that made this study possible, and the study’s

participants for investing their time and effort to facilitate the data-collection process.
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 32

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A., 1992. The Influence of Ethnic Values on Managerial Practices in Malaysia.

Malaysian Management Review, 27(1), pp. 3-18.

Adler, N. J. & Gundersen, A., 2007. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior.

5th ed. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Al Ariss, A. & Sidani, Y. M., 2016. Understanding religious diversity: implications from

Lebanon and France. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(3).

Alexis, G. Y., 2015. Not Christian, but Nonetheless Qualified: The Secular Workplace -

Whose Hardship?. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 3(1), pp. 1-24.

Ali, K. K., 2014. The Role of Malay Women in the Malaysian Workforce and Its Impact on

the Consciousness of Ethics and Integrity. Global Business and Management Research:

An International Journal, 6(4), pp. 324-333.

Appelbaum, S. H. et al., 2015. Racial-Ethnic Diversity in Canada: Competitive Edge or

Corporate Encumbrance? Part Two. Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(7), pp.

386-393.

Ball, C. & Haque, A., 2003. Diversity in Religious Practice: Implications of Islamic Values

in the Public Workplace. Public Personnel Management, 32(3), pp. 315-330.

Bergbom, B., Vartia-Vaananen, M. & Kinnunen, U., 2015. Immigrants and Natives at Work:

Exposure to Workplace Bullying. Employee Relations, 37(2), pp. 158-175.

Berman, G., 2008. Harnessing Diversity: Addressing Racial and Religious Discrimination in

Employment. Melbourne: Victorian Multicultural Commission and the Victorian Equal

Opportunity & Human Rights Commission.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 33

Bertone, S., Leahy, M. & Doughney, J., 2005. Equal Opportunity in the Victorian Public

Sector: Working towards Equity in Cultural Diversity. Victoria University: Work and

Policy Research Unit, School of Applied Economics.

Bowling, N. A. & Beehr, T. A., 2006. Workplace Harassment from the Victim's Perspective:

A Theoretical Model and Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), pp.

998-1012.

Camarota, S. A., 2002. Immigrants from the Middle East: A Profile of the Foreign-born

Population from Pakistan to Morocco. [Online]

Available at: http://www.cis.org/MiddleEasternImmigrantsProfile

[Accessed 5 July 2015].

Chavez, L. J., Ornelas, I. J., Lyles, C. R. & Williams, E. C., 2015. Racial/Ethnic Workplace

Discrimination: Association with Tobacco and Alcohol Use. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 48(1), pp. 42-49.

Clark, P. M., 2015. Diversity and Inclusion Is an Agency Imperative. Public Manager, 44(2),

pp. 42-45.

Coleman, M. G., 2004. Racial Discrimination in the Workplace: Does Market Structure Make

a Difference?. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 43(3), pp. 660-

689.

Cui, J., Jo, H., Na, H. & Velasquez, M. G., 2015. Workforce Diversity and Religiosity.

Journal of Business Ethics, 128(4), pp. 743-767.

Deitch, E. A. et al., 2003. Subtle yet Significant: The Existence and Impact of Everyday

Racial Discrimination in the Workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), pp. 1299-1324.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 34

Endo, R., 2015. How Asian American Female Teachers Experience Racial Microaggressions

from Pre-service Preparation to Their Professional Careers. The Urban Review, 47(4),

pp. 601-625.

Flynn, A., Earlie, E. K. & Cross, C., 2015. Gender Equality in the Accounting Profession:

One Size Fits All. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 30(6), pp. 479-

499.

Foley, S., Ngo, H.-y., Loi, R. & Zheng, X., 2015. Gender, Gender Identification and

Perceived Gender Discrimination: An Examination of Mediating Processes in China.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(8), pp. 650-665.

George, D. & Mallery, P., 2005. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and

Reference. 5th Edition ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Ghumman, S., Ryan, A. M., Barclay, L. A. & Markel, K. S., 2013. Religious Discrimination

in the Workplace: A Review and Examination of Current and Future Trends. Journal of

Business and Psychology, 28(4), pp. 439-454.

Gilbert, P. A. & Zemore, S. E., 2016. Discrimination and Drinking: A Systematic Review of

the Evidence. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 161, pp. 178-194.

Goldman, B., Gutek, B., Stein, J. & Lewis, K., 2006. Antecedents and Consequences of

Employment Discrimination in Organizations. Journal of Management, 32(6), pp. 786-

830.

Greenwald, J., 2005. Employers Facing More Claims of Religious Discrimination. Business

Insurance, 39(33), pp. 1-3.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 35

Grun, C., 2004. Direct and Indirect Gender Discrimination in the South African Labour

Market. International Journal of Manpower, 25(3), pp. 321-342.

Harrison, D. A. & Klein, K. J., 2007. What's the Difference? Diversity Constructs as

Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations. Academy of Management Review,

32(4), pp. 1199-1228.

Hershcovis, M. S. & Barling, J., 2010. Towards a Multi-foci Approach to Workplace

Aggression: A Meta-analytic Review of Outcomes from Different Perpetrators. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 31(1), pp. 24-44.

Hofhuis, J., van der Rijt, P. G. A. & Vlug, M., 2016. Diversity Climate Enhances Work

Outcomes through Trust and Openness in Workgroup Communication. SpringerPlus,

5(1), pp. 1-14.

Hutagalung, F. & Ishak, Z., 2012. Sexual Harassment: A Predictor to Job Satisfaction and

Work Stress among Women Employees. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,

Volume 65, pp. 723-730.

Jabbour, C. J. C. et al., 2011. Diversity Management: Challenges, Benefits, and the Role of

Human Resource Management in Brazilian Organizations. Equality, Diversity and

Inclusion: An International Journal, 30(1), pp. 58-74.

Kapur, A. & Kleiner, B. H., 2000. Discrimination in the Workplace of the Beer Industry.

Equal Opportunities International, 19(6/7), pp. 83-87.

Karubi, N. P. & Khalique, M., 2012. Socio-Economic Realities at Work: A Study on Female

Workers in the SME’s Located in Malaysia. Information Management and Business

Review, 4(6), pp. 311-316.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 36

Kim, S., 2015. The Effect of Gender Discrimination in Organization. International Review of

Public Administration, 20(1), pp. 51-69.

Kochan, T. et al., 2003. The Effects of Diversity on Business Performance: Report of the

Diversity Research Network. Human Resource Management, 42(1), pp. 3-21.

Konrad, A. M., 2006. Leveraging Workplace Diversity in Organizations. Organization

Management Journal, 3(3), pp. 164-189.

Kosny, A., Santos, I. & Reid, A., 2016. Employment in a "Land of Opportunity?"

Immigrants’ Experiences of Racism and Discrimination in the Australian Workplace.

Journal of International Migration and Integration, pp. 1-15.

Krings, F., Johnston, C., Binggeli, S. & Maggiori, C., 2014. Selective Incivility: Immigrant

Groups Experience Subtle Workplace Discrimination at Different Rates. Cultural

Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), pp. 491-491.

Kulik, C. T. & Roberson, L., 2008. Common Goals and Golden Opportunities: Evaluations of

Diversity Education in Academic and Organizational Settings. Academy of

Management Learning & Education, 7(3), pp. 309-331.

Lazarus, R. S., DeLongis, A., Folkman, S. & Gruen, R., 1985. Stress and Adaptational

Outcomes: The Problem of Confounded Measures. American Psychologist, Volume 40,

pp. 770-779.

Lee, T. L. & Fiske, S. T., 2006. Not an Outgroup, Not yet an Ingroup: Immigrants in the

Stereotype Content Model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), pp.

751-768.
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 37

Leskinen, E. A., Rabelo, V. C. & Cortina, L. M., 2015. Gender Stereotyping and Harassment:

A “Catch-22” for Women in the Workplace. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,

21(2), pp. 192-204.

Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S., Cheung, A. & Fiske, S. T., 2005. Stereotype Content Model

Explains Prejudice for an Envied Outgroup: Scale of Anti-Asian American Stereotypes.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), pp. 34-47.

Lippel, K., Vézina, M., Bourbonnais, R. & Funes, A., 2016. Workplace Psychological

Harassment: Gendered Exposures and Implications for Policy. International Journal of

Law and Psychiatry, Volume 46, pp. 74-87.

Lips-Wiersma, M. & Mills, C., 2002. Coming Out of the Closet: Negotiating Spiritual

Expression in the Workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17(3), pp. 183-202.

Lisowska, E., 2009. Gender Diversity in the Workplace. Kobiera I Biznes, 1(4), pp. 42-42.

Loi, N. M., Loh, J. M. I. & Hine, D. W., 2015. Don’t Rock the Boat: The Moderating Role of

Gender in the Relationship between Workplace Incivility and Work Withdrawal.

Journal of Management Development, 34(2), pp. 169-186.

Low, K. S., Radhakrishnan, P., Schneider, K. T. & Rounds, J., 2007. The Experiences of

Bystanders of Workplace Ethnic Harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

37(10), pp. 2261-2297.

Malos, S., 2010. Post-9/11 Backlash in the Workplace: Employer Liability for Discrimination

against Arab-and Muslim-Americans Based on Religion or National Origin. Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22(4), pp. 297-310.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 38

Mannix, E. & Neale, M. A., 2005. What Differences Make a Difference?. Psychological

Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), pp. 31-55.

Manshor, A. T., Jusoh, M. & Simun, M., 2003. Diversity Factors and Preferential Treatments

in Selecting Employees. Journal of Management Development, 22(7), pp. 643-656.

Martin, G. C., 2014. The Effects of Cultural Diversity in the Workplace. Journal of Diversity

Management, 9(2), pp. 89-92.

McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A. & Cox, T. H., 1996. Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small

Groups. Small Group Research, 27(2), pp. 248-264.

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

Discrimination on Employee Engagement and Commitment. Contemporary

Management Research, 10(1), pp. 59-80.

Milanovic, B., 2006. Inequality and Determinants of Earnings in Malaysia, 1984–1997*.

Asian Economic Journal, 20(2), pp. 191-216.

Nagaraj, S. et al., 2009. Counting Ethnicity in Malaysia: The Complexity of Measuring

Diversity. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies, 46(1), pp. 5-32.

Nagaraj, S. et al., 2014. Gender Imbalance in Educational Attainment and Labour Market

Dynamics: Evidence from Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Economic Studies,

51(Special Issue), pp. 127-145.

O'Mara, J., 1994. Managing Diversity. TRACEY, WR Human Resources.

Offermann, L. R. et al., 2014. See No Evil: Color Blindness and Perceptions of Subtle Racial

Discrimination in the Workplace. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,

20(4), p. 499.
WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 39

Othman, Z. & Othman, N., 2015. A Literatural Review on Work Discrimination among

Women Employees. Asian Social Science, 11(4), pp. 26-32.

Penang Monthly, 2015. Demographics of a Diverse Malaysia. [Online]

Available at: http://penangmonthly.com/demographics-of-a-diverse-malaysia/

[Accessed 3 May 2015].

Phomphakdy, R. & Kleiner, B. H., 1999. How to Eliminate Discrimination in the Workplace.

Equal Opportunities International, 18(2/3/4), pp. 43-46.

Poon, J. M. L., Briscoe, J. P., Abdul-Ghani, R. & Jones, E. A., 2015. Meaning and

Determinants of Career Success: A Malaysian Perspective. Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 31(1), pp. 21-29.

Prasad, P., Mills, A. J., Elmes, M. & Prasad, A., 1997. Managing the Organizational Melting

Pot: Dilemmas of Workplace Diversity. 1st ed. New York: Sage Publications.

Rasul, I. & Rogger, D., 2015. The Impact of Ethnic Diversity in Bureaucracies: Evidence

from the Nigerian Civil Service. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings,

105(5), pp. 457-461.

Ray, B. & Preston, V., 2015. Working with Diversity: A Geographical Analysis of Ethno-

racial Discrimination in Toronto. Urban Studies, 52(8), pp. 1505-1522.

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), pp. 255-266.

Roberson, L. & Kulik, C. T., 2007. Stereotype Threat at Work. The Academy of Management

Perspectives, 21(2), pp. 24-40.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 40

Roberts, L. M., 2005. Changing Faces: Professional Image Construction in Diverse

Organizational Settings. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), pp. 685-711.

Schafgans, M., 1998. Ethnic Wage Differences in Malaysia: Parametric and Semiparametric

Estimation of the Chinese–Malay Wage Gap. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 13(5),

pp. 481-504.

Shaheen, J. G., 1997. Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture.

Washington: Georgetown University Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

Smith, J. W. & Joseph, S. E., 2010. Workplace Challenges in Corporate America:

Differences in Black and White. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International

Journal, 29(8), pp. 743-765.

Stainback, K. & Irvin, M., 2012. Workplace Racial Composition, Perceived Discrimination,

and Organizational Attachment. Social Science Research, 41(3), pp. 657-670.

Stainback, K., Ratliff, T. N. & Roscigno, V. J., 2011. The Context of Workplace Sex

Discrimination: Sex Composition, Workplace Culture and Relative Power. Social

Forces, 89(4), pp. 1165-1188.

Tandrayen-Ragoobur, V. & Pydayya, R., 2016. Gender Wage Differential in Private and

Public Sector Employment: A Distributional Analysis for Mauritius. Gender in

Management: An International Journal, 31(3), pp. 222-248.

Thornicroft, D., 2014. Understanding Types of Discrimination in the Workplace. Nursing

And Residential Care, 16(4), pp. 229-230.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 41

Triana, M. d. C., Garcia, M. F. & Colella, A., 2010. Managing Diversity: How

Organizational Efforts to Support Diversity Moderate the Effects of Perceived Racial

Discrimination on Affective Commitment. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), pp. 817-843.

Triana, M. d. C., Jayasinghe, M. & Pieper, J. R., 2015. Perceived Workplace Racial

Discrimination and Its Correlates: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 36(4), pp. 491-513.

Van Camp, D., Sloan, L. R. & ElBassiouny, A., 2016. People Notice and Use an Applicant's

Religion in Job Suitability Evaluations. The Social Science Journal.

Walsh, D. J., 2012. Employment Law for Human Resource Practice. 4th ed. Massachusetts:

Cengage Learning.

Wanguri, D. M., 1996. Diversity, Perceptions of Equity, and Communicative Openness in the

Workplace. Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), pp. 443-457.

Wood, S., Braeken, J. & Niven, K., 2013. Discrimination and Well-Being in Organizations:

Testing the Differential Power and Organizational Justice Theories of Workplace

Aggression. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(3), pp. 617-634.

World Population Review, 2016. Malaysia Population 2016. [Online]

Available at: http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/malaysia-population/

[Accessed 25 June 2016].

Wrench, J., 2005. Diversity Management Can Be Bad for You. Race & Class, 46(3), pp. 73-

84.

Zahari, I., 1983. Perception of Managerial Decision-making by Malays, Indians and Chinese

Managers: A Comparative Study. Journal Pengurusan (UKM), Volume 2, pp. 135-143.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 42

Zurbrügg, L. & Miner, K. N., 2016. Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Workplace Incivility:

Who Is Most Targeted and Who Is Most Harmed?. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 7.

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 43

APPENDIX: RESEARCHER-ADMINISTERED QUESTIONNAIRE

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 44

WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 45

 WHEN WORKPLACE DIVERSITY BACKFIRES 46

View publication stats