4.5 Article

Workplace racial/ethnic similarity, job satisfaction, and lumbar back health among warehouse workers: Asymmetric reactions across racial/ethnic groups

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
Volume 35, Issue 2, Pages 172-193

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/job.1860

Keywords

asymmetric reactions; diversity; health; job satisfaction; relational demography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Racial and ethnic minority employees constitute a significant proportion of the U.S. workforce. The literature on demographic similarity in the workplace suggests that the proportion of co-workers who share the same racial/ethnic background (racial/ethnic similarity) can influence job attitudes and employee well-being and that the reactions to racial/ethnic similarity may differ between the racially dominant and subordinate groups. This study applies status construction theory to examine the extent to which racial/ethnic similarity is associated with job satisfaction and lumbar back health among warehouse employees. We surveyed 361 warehouse workers (204 whites, 94 African-Americans, and 63 Latino workers) in 68 jobs in nine distribution centers in the United States. Multilevel analyses indicate that white and racial/ethnic minority groups react differently to racial/ethnic similarity. For job satisfaction, white employees experience higher job satisfaction when they are highly racially/ethnically similar to their colleagues, whereas Latino employees experience higher job satisfaction when they are racially/ethnically dissimilar to others. As for lumbar back health, among Latino and African-American employees, higher racial/ethnic similarity is associated with better lumbar back health whereas for white employees, the association is the opposite. Across all groups, moderate levels of racial/ethnic similarity were associated with the best lumbar back health. Copyright (c) 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available