Age diversity and firm performance in an emerging economy: Implications for cross-cultural human resource management

AGE DIVERSITY AND FIRM

PERFORMANCE IN AN EMERGING

ECONOMY: IMPLICATIONS FOR

CROSS-CULTURAL HUMAN

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

J I L I , C H R I S W A I L U N G C H U , K E V I N C . K . L A M , A N D S TA C Y L I A O

This study tests the effect of age diversity on fi rm performance among international fi rms. Based on the resource-based view of the fi rm, it argues that age diversity among employees will infl uence fi rm performance. Moreover, it argues that two contextual variables—a fi rm’s level of market diversifi cation and its country of origin—infl uence the relationship between age diversity and fi rm performance. By testing relevant hypotheses in a major emerging economy, that is, the People’s Republic of China, this study fi nds a signifi cant and positive effect of age diversity and a signifi cant inter-active effect between age diversity and fi rm strategy on profi tability. We also fi nd a signifi cant relationship between age diversity and fi rm profi tability for fi rms from Western societies, but not for fi rms from East Asian societies. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of this study’s fi ndings. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: age diversity, fi rm performance, emerging economy, human resource management, China

Th is study tests the relationship be-tween age diversity and firm perfor-mance for multinational enterprises (MNEs) competing in an overseas market. According to the literature

(Milliken & Martins, 1996; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), age diversity can be defined as the extent to which a group or organization is heterogeneous with respect to the age of its

members. Today, the issue of age diversity has become increasingly important in human resource management due to the aging of workforces throughout the world. In Britain, for example, some 30% of the UK working-age population is older than 50, and this number will increase by a further 10% in the next 20 years (Pollitt, 2006). The same devel-opment has taken place in the United States,

Correspondence to: Chris Wai Lung Chu, China Economic Research Center, Stockholm School of Economics, Box 6501, 11383 Stockholm and Work & Organisational Psychology, Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, Phone: +46-8-736-99747, Fax: +46-8-319-927, E-mail: [email protected]

Human Resource Management,Human Resource Management, March–April 2011, Vol. 50, No. 2, Pp. 247 – 270

© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20416

248 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH–APRIL 2011

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

where census data show that during the 1990s the fastest-growing age group was 45- to 54-year-olds, which expanded by 49% during that decade (Branch-Brioso, 2001; Kidwell, 2003). At the same time, the development of an aging workforce is occurring in emerging

economies. In China, for example, research indicates that three age groups of employees, namely, 45- to 59-year-olds, 60- to 64-year-olds, and older than 65, are all increas-ing rapidly. These three groups are anticipated to increase by 21.54%, 2.92%, and 3.08%, respectively, of the Chinese workforce in 2000, to 28.69%, 7.74%, and 11.34% of that workforce, respectively, by 2010 (Wang, 2006).

Aging workforces throughout the world will thus increase the level of age diversity in business firms and other organizations. Young employees may find they work with an increasing number of older employees. Therefore, it is important for firm managers to understand the specific issues that relate to this development, such as how age diversity can influence firm performance and what con-textual conditions or factors can moderate the relationship between age diversity and firm performance. With such an understanding, man-

agers will find it easier to develop appropriate strategies to manage age diversity in their workforces and encourage employees of differ-ent ages to work together more effectively to generate a positive performance synergy.

Age diversity is also an important research topic today for social scientists who are deal-ing with issues related to the demographic diversity of organizations. Most studies on demographic diversity now focus on three dimensions: age, gender, and race. In terms of visibility, these three demographics differ from other dimensions, such as education, technical skills or abilities, functional back-ground, and tenure (Milliken & Martins, 1996). In academic research, demographic diversity scholars often assume that the

findings from studying one dimension of demographic diversity can be applied simi-larly to research into other dimensions.

For instance, based on information and decision-making theories, researchers have argued that demographic diversity, be it diversity in age, race, or gender, should in-crease creativity and the problem-solving capability of groups or organizations, which in turn should improve firm performance, given specific contextual conditions or factors (see Cox, 1993; Cox & Blake, 1991). Although the empirical data from studying race diver-sity supports this argument, it is helpful to test this argument further by studying other dimensions of demographic diversity, such as age. In other words, studying the effect of age diversity can provide new empirical evidence that will contribute to developing theories regarding organizational demography.

As we discuss below, the research on age diversity is insufficient because few studies have tested the effects of age diversity on firm performance directly. Moreover, the existing research on the relationship between age diversity and performance was conducted at the individual or group levels only (see Williams & O’Reilly, 1998, for a review), thus shedding insufficient light on the precise relationship between age diver-sity and firm performance. Finally, even at individual or group levels, the current re-search is insufficient because researchers have not yet tested the moderating effects of certain relevant contextual factors. For instance, some authors have suggested that contextual factors such as firm strategy moderate the relationship between age di-versity and group performance (see Ely, 2004), yet no empirical research has tested this prediction or the effect of culture, an important institutional factor that affects firm behavior and firm performance (Scott, 2001). No empirical research to date, how-ever, has tested how societal culture moder-ates the relationship between age diversity and firm performance. Because an aging workforce is now a growing key problem worldwide, it would be helpful to consider the effects of societal culture when study-ing any issues related to age diversity.

It is important for

firm managers to

understand the

specific issues

that relate to...

how age diversity

can influence firm

performance and

what contextual

conditions or factors

can moderate

the relationship

between age

diversity and firm

performance.

AGE DIVERSITY AND FIRM PERFORMANCE IN AN EMERGING ECONOMY 249


Clearly, countries in different parts of the world differ significantly in cultural values. Among these differences, the most significant one, in terms of its effect on the relationship between demographic diversity and firm per-formance, is a preference for individualism or collectivism. Western culture, including North America and Western Europe, is considered to be individualist, whereas the culture in the East, including China, Japan, and Korea, is considered to be collectivist (see Hofstede, 1980, for a detailed discussion). According to institutional theory, the culture in different countries or regions should influence the be-havior of organizations within that region (Scott, 2001). Nevertheless, in the research on demographic diversity or age diversity, it re-mains unclear how cultures in different coun-tries or regions influence the performance or behavior of MNEs.

It would be significant for both academic researchers and practitioners to study these is-sues. For academic researchers, testing these issues can improve the understanding of the relationships between age diversity and firm performance, as well as the moderating effects of contextual variables on that relationship. For practitioners, studying age diversity can provide helpful information to improve the actual management of organizational diversity. Although existing research on organizational demography offers some useful findings on how to balance demographic diversity and manage that diversity, the findings thus far mainly focus on the individual or group levels of human resource management. Managers would improve their effectiveness in manag-ing organizational diversity if they better un-derstood how firm-level factors, such as firm strategy, affect the relationship between demo-graphic diversity and firm performance.

Finally, little research is available on the relationship between age diversity and firm performance in emerging economies. Such a study would be both important and helpful for several reasons. First, emerging economies today have some of the fastest growing markets critical to the recovery of the world economy. Seeing the potential of these markets, MNEs are all operating in these economies and all face the issue of an aging

workforce in some of their markets. To help these MNEs overcome this difficulty, it would be useful to conduct research on age diversity in emerging economies. Second, to develop theory on demographic diversity further, studying age di-versity in emerging markets will help test the external validity of findings obtained in the West and further improve full understanding of the effect of country origin or culture. Finally, from the perspec-tive of business ethics, studying age diversity can ensure equal opportu-nity for employees by clearly man-aging the contributions of each age group. Of course, equal opportuni-ties for employees throughout the world should always be available, regardless of age, gender, or race.

Accordingly, relevant research should not focus only on employ-ees in developed societies and ig-nore the conditions of employees in emerging economies. In this sense, the literature is weak on demographic diversity and has paid insufficient attention to these relevant issues for employees in emerging economies. This study, therefore, tests the effects of firm strategy and country of origin on the relationship between em-ployee age diversity and firm per-formance in a major emerging economy: the People’s Republic of China. A major reason for selecting China is its large number of MNEs from both the West and the East, all competing aggressively in its markets. Considering these MNEs, the sample size of this study can be sufficiently large for effective empirical testing.

Conceptual Background

Research suggests that the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm can be a powerful theory when considering the relationship between demographic diversity and firm per-formance (see Richard, 2000). According to the RBV (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Barney,

From the

perspective of

business ethics,

studying age

diversity can ensure

equal opportunity

for employees by

clearly managing

the contributions

of each age group.

Of course, equal

opportunities

for employees

throughout the world

should always be

available, regardless

of age, gender, or

race.



1986; Peteraf, 1993; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), firms must accumulate and develop unique and difficult-to-copy resources (Col-bert, 2004) and formulate and implement creative and effective strategies. Good firm performance indeed depends on whether a firm can rationally identify and control its resources (Teece et al., 1997).

Applying the resource-based perspective (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993; Barney, 1986), firm resources can be divided into tangible, intangible, and human resources. Tangible resources refer to organizational assets that are relatively easy to identify, such as physi-cal and financial assets. Intangible resources are those that are difficult to identify or ac-count for, such as firm reputation, brand names, and firm image. Finally, a firm’s human resources are intangible assets that exist among the firm’s employees, such as experience, creativity, and capabilities. This resource-based perspective argues that human resources are extremely valuable because they are often unique and difficult to copy in con-trast with other resources, such as physical or financial. As a result, human resources are often the crucial differentiating factor that explains the differences in performance among firms that possess similar physical and financial resources (Pfeffer, 1994).

Under certain contextual conditions, age diversity is an important part of a firm’s human resources. According to some re-searchers on decision-making (for example, Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2007; Peterson & Spiker, 2005), age diversity can increase cre-ativity and capabilities in a firm, which in turn can lead to sustained competitive advan-tage. In other words, under those contextual conditions where creative and effective deci-sion-making is critical, age diversity can be an important factor that leads to increased com-petitive advantage. Moreover, age diversity is difficult to copy because it is protected by bar-riers of interpersonal connections, knowledge, and experience that are highly complex so-cially (Beaver & Hutchings, 2005; Li, Fu, Liu, & Chen, 2008; Timmerman, 2000).

Further, as populations worldwide grow older, an appropriate level of age diversity among a firm’s employees can actually improve

marketing and financial performance (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). For example, age diversity can help a firm better understand the preferences and demands of its aging customers (Morri-son, 1992), which in turn will improve firm performance. For instance, an insurance firm trying to sell life or medical products to mid-dle-aged and older customers may be more successful if it has the right proportion of em-ployees in these same age categories. Empiri-cally, some authors have shown that it is beneficial for a firm to adjust the demographic proportions of its human resource mix to re-flect the age spread of its target market (Cox & Blake, 1991; Richard, 2000).

Another reason age diversity is a valuable resource is that both old and young employ-ees have unique values upon which their firms can draw to improve performance. As Cox and his coauthors (Cox, 1993; Cox & Blake, 1991) suggested, age diversity offers a broad range of perspectives, skills, and in-sights that can enhance creativity and prob-lem-solving capabilities, thereby improving firm performance. Consistent with this find-ing, other research has shown that older employees have unique value because they contribute to a dimension of human resources obtained only through many years of work-ing in a specific organization and learning a specific industry (see Ntatsopoulos, 2001; Peterson & Spiker, 2005). Moreover, older em-ployees contribute socially complex dynam-ics, such as social connections developed across years of working in a given business environment. Finally, older employees often have a higher level of caring and responsibil-ity than do younger employees (see Ntatso-poulos, 2001; Van Yoder, 2002). Empirical evidence supports these arguments. For ex-ample, research from the Department for Work and Pensions of the UK government conducted as part of its Age Positive campaign suggested that individuals older than 50 are more reliable, conscientious, loyal, hard-working, and committed (Pollitt, 2006). Pre-cisely because of these characteristics, older employees’ contributions are unique resources that are difficult for other firms to copy.

Younger employees also bring unique val-ues to their organizations, including flexibility,



energy, and creativity (Beaver & Hutchings, 2005). Younger employees are normally bet-ter educated and physically more capable (Hatfield, 2002). An appropriate level of age diversity will thus allow the value of both groups of employees to complement one an-other and subsequently help the firm achieve good performance.

Finally, a firm that tries to attract diversi-fied and capable human resources stands a much greater chance of success if it main-tains balanced age diversity. As some authors have suggested (see Beaver & Hutchings, 2005), firms that capitalize on age diversity are in a better position to attain competitive advantage by being an employer of choice for talented workers—both older and younger—which then positively affects firm perfor-mance. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 1: Age diversity has a signifi cant and positive effect on fi rm performance.

Numerous authors (Barney & Wright, 1998; Oliver, 1997) pointed out that the ef-fects of demographic diversity, including age diversity (see Caldwell, Farmer, & Fedor, 2008; Cleveland & Shore, 1992; Timmerman, 2000; Tsui, Porter, & Egan, 2002), can be better un-derstood if additional contextual variables are considered. In other words, firm resources that are unique and difficult to copy are more likely to have a significant effect on firm per-formance when that firm is also positioned within the proper context, such as implement-ing a certain strategy or operating against a certain cultural background (see Miller & Shamsie, 1996; Richard, 2000). Several studies offer empirical evidence supporting this argu-ment, and some have tested the effects of age diversity directly. For instance, Ely (2004) studied data from 486 branches of a bank in the United States and found that given condi-tions of low cooperation and teamwork, age diversity had a strong positive effect on the revenue these branches derived from new sales and a weak positive relationship on total performance. Ely (2004) attributed this result to “a trade-off between cooperation/teamwork and the expression of difference”

p. 775). It seems that in conditions character-ized by low cooperation, age diversity can be-come more significant as a source of information and experience for a given team or branch trying to achieve good performance.

Despite these documented findings, however, it remains un-clear how age diversity precisely influences firm performance as a whole because no study has actually tested the relationship be-tween age diversity and perfor-mance at the firm level. Relevant empirical data from past studies relates to the individual or group levels only. There are, however, studies that directly tested the relationship between firm perfor-mance and other dimensions of demographic diversity, such as race or culture. For example, Richard (2000) conducted an em-pirical study showing that racial diversity interacted with imple-menting a growth strategy for firms in the U.S. banking industry and had a significant and positive effect on firm performance. Similarly, Chatman, Polzer, Bars-ade, and Neale (1998) found that an organization valuing collectiv-ism could moderate the relation-ship between demographic diversity and group performance. This result supports a possible cultural or institutional effect on the relationship between age diversity and firm performance.

Although these studies tested the relation-ship between race diversity and firm performance only, they produced empirical evidence that supported a general argument based on the theory of demographic diversity: heterogeneity within the workforce can im-prove firm performance given certain specific contextual factors (Cox, 1993; Cox & Blake, 1991). The presence of contextual factors, such as a certain firm strategy and heteroge-neity (whether in terms of race or age), can offer a broad range of perspectives, skills, ex-periences, and insights that enhance a firm’s

The presence of

contextual factors,

such as a certain

firm strategy and

heterogeneity

(whether in terms

of race or age), can

offer a broad range

of perspectives,

skills, experiences,

and insights that

enhance a firm’s

creativity and

problem-solving

capabilities and

thereby improve firm

performance.



creativity and problem-solving capabilities and thereby improve firm performance.

To test these arguments, this study fo-cuses on the effects of two contextual vari-ables. One is the commonly adopted strategy of geographic diversification, while the other is country of origin. The data analyses tested the effects of these two contextual variables on the relationship between age diversity and

firm performance. Before reporting how these analyses were con-ducted, it is helpful to discuss rel-evant past research.

The Effect of Geographic Diversity

According to prior research, the strategy of geographic diversifica-tion is defined as one by which firms compete in multiple geo-graphic locations or markets (Kor & Leblebici, 2005). One could argue that age diversity is more likely to have a positive effect on firm performance, given a high level of diversification. Specifi-cally, with a high level of diversi-fication, a firm should build a workforce with different market and product knowledge, experi-ences, and skills. It is easier for a firm that possesses a high level of age diversity to obtain such knowl-edge and experience, which should help the firm obtain com-

petitive advantage when adopting the strat-egy (Kor & Leblebici, 2005). For example, a strategic issue for firms in China’s insurance industry is whether to focus only on certain coastal cities that are economically more ad-vanced or diversify into inland cities that are economically backward. Given the signifi-cant environmental differences between these two types of cities, if a firm decides to enter all cities in China, that is, to achieve a high level of geographic diversification, the firm may need different market and product knowledge, experiences, and skills. As sug-gested, a high level of age diversity can help the firm satisfy this need. In this sense, age

diversity becomes a valuable resource because the firm seeks a high level of market diversi-fication.

Some empirical evidence supports this argument. For instance, the strategy of geo-graphic diversification is often consistent with growth strategy, a link tested by other researchers (see, e.g., Richard, 2000). A growth strategy often involves selling current prod-ucts to additional or multiple geographic markets (Kotha & Orne, 1989). Previous re-search has suggested that when firms adopt a growth strategy, certain dimensions of demo-graphic diversity, such as race, can have a significant and positive effect on the firm’s financial performance (Richard, 2000). This finding is consistent with our argument re-garding the effect of a diversification strategy on the relationship between age diversity and firm performance.

Accordingly, we predict that the relation-ship between age diversity and firm per-formance is moderated by a strategy of geographic market diversification. The posi-tive effect of age diversity is more likely to be observed given a high level of diversification.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between age di-versity and fi rm performance is moderated by the strategy of geographic market diversifi cation, with the positive effect of age diversity on fi rm performance more likely to be observed in fi rms with a high level of geographic diversifi cation.

The Effect of Country of Origin

According to prior research, a firm’s country of origin, in particular whether they are from a Western or East Asian society, may also have a moderating effect on the rela-tionship between age diversity and firm performance when firms compete in an emerging economy such as China. Two pri-mary reasons create this moderating effect. First, in Western societies, an ongoing movement toward diversity awareness has occurred since the 1980s, and Western gov-ernments have implemented policies of equal opportunity for business organiza-tions that encourage age diversity. Influ-enced by this institutional process, many

We predict that

the relationship

between age

diversity and firm

performance is

moderated by

a strategy of

geographic market

diversification. The

positive effect of

age diversity is more

likely to be observed

given a high level of

diversification.



Western firms have managed age diversity more effectively in their home countries and in their international operations (see, e.g., Christian Science Monitor, 1993). For example, UNUM, a U.S. life insurance company, has had a policy of diversity awareness in all of its overseas offices and operations since the 1990s (see, e.g., Center, 1996). Firms from Western societies generally have a greater commitment to and more experience in managing age diversity, including maintain-ing the right balance of age diversity, than do firms in East Asian societies. This com-mitment and experience can moderate the relationship between age diversity, as mea-sured by the age diversity index (see Appen-dix A) and firm performance.

Second, East Asian societies are heavily influenced by Confucian cultural values, which stress a family-style hierarchy of age. Research has shown that the firms in these societies have more organizational institutions that are consistent with Confucianism than do firms from Western societies, given the fact that all these firms operate in China. This explains different firm strategies and policies (see, e.g., Li, Lam, & Qian, 2001). Ac-cording to Confucian institutions, the merit of years is always an important consideration in reward and promotion systems in East Asian organizations, and young people are often discouraged from challenging older people even when the latter is wrong. This institution has existed in Asian societies and organizations for hundreds of years, and there is no conclusive empirical evidence to show that it has disappeared or changed sig-nificantly. Accordingly, we assume that this institutional factor remains unchanged among Asian firms. This factor prevents the unique resources younger employees gener-ate from fully complementing and integrating with those of older employees. As a result, the beneficial effect of age diversity on firm performance may be less likely to be ob-served among East Asian firms than among Western firms. For these reasons, the follow-ing hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between age di-versity and fi rm performance is moderated by

country of origin, and a positive effect of age di-versity on fi rm performance will be more likely to be observed among fi rms from Western societies than among those from East Asian societies.

Figure 1 illustrates our model. One can see that we predict moderating effects of firm strategy and home country institutions based on the ongoing relationship between age di-versity and firm performance.

Method

Data and Sample

This study was conducted using data from China’s insurance industry. The main rea-son for selecting this industry is that it in-cludes the largest number of overseas firms from both the West and the East, all of which compete aggressively for market share. To test our hypotheses, we used panel data and telephone survey data. In the sec-tion that follows, we discuss these two sets of data in detail.

Our data on the firms in China’s insur-ance industry were taken from a yearbook published by the Insurance Firm Association of China, whose members include all the major foreign and local insurance firms in the country (N = 68 in 2006). Each of the member firms provides the same information to this yearbook, including data about the demography of their employees, sales from each geographic market in China, and finan-cial performance. An independent editorial board consisting of representatives from the firms and officials from China’s Statistical Bureau is responsible for the data’s validity and credibility.

The total number of observations was 338 (firm/year). Because the number of in-surance firms has increased rapidly over the years (e.g., from 2002–2007), our data set did not constitute typical panel data. In the period 2002–2007, some new firms were established every year, while some old firms were purchased or merged with other firms. As a result, the number of observa-tions and the sample firms observed each year could never be exactly the same.



Specifically, the number of observations for each year was: N = 30 (2002); N = 49 (2003); N = 58 (2004); N = 65 (2005); N = 68 (2006); and N = 68 (2007). To process such semipanel data, we adopted an ap-proach used by other researchers (see, e.g., Chari & Chang, 2009; Hutzschenreuter & Voll, 2008; Madhavan & Iriyama, 2009; Vermeulen & Barkema, 2001). A detailed discussion of this approach is provided later in this section.

Among our sample firms (see Appendix B), about half were from East Asian societ-ies; the remainder were from Western societies. Since 1992 when the first foreign insurer entered China, the Chinese govern-ment has granted many licenses to foreign insurers to operate in the country. For ex-ample, in 1999, just before formally join-ing the World Trade Organization (WTO), China granted operating licenses to four additional foreign insurers (Wang, 1999). By 2006, there were more than 60 insur-ance firms competing in the Chinese mar-ket.

To confirm and check the data quality, we visited the Web sites of each firm in our sample. If we found any inconsistency be-tween the Web site information and the panel data for a given firm, we conducted telephone investigations and talked to the company managers. Comparing the data in this way showed the data to be highly consistent.

Measurement

Independent Variables

The strategy of geographic market diversifica-tion was measured by an entropy measure of diversification, the research method adopted most commonly (see, e.g., Hitt, Hoskisson, & Kim, 1997) as follows:

Entropy measure of market diversifi cationN�Σ(pik�ln(1/pik))

k�1

where pi k is the percentage of premiums collected by firm i in the kth market (i.e., a Chinese province or major city).

Age diversity was measured using the in-strument recommended by Teachman (1980), which has been widely adopted to study dif-ferent dimensions of demographic diversity, including age diversity. In this study,

H�1

i�1Σ Pi(lnPi)

where P is the proportion of a given age group (e.g., under 25 or over 60) within the total number of employees. In our sample, each firm divided its employees into three age groups: under 25, 25–45, and over 45. Each firm reported the changes in their numbers annually. Age diversity for this research was computed according to this information. According to the sim-ulation in Appendix A, when the

AgeDiversity

Firm Performance

1. Return on Assets (ROA)

2. Employee Productivity (Sales per Employee)

Contextual Factors

1. The Strategy of Geographical

Market Diversification

2. Country of Origin

FIGURE 1. The Relationship Between Age Diversity and Firm Performance and Moderators



proportions of the various age groups bal-anced, age diversity had the highest value on the index.

To test the effect of this major indepen-dent variable on firm performance, we ad-opted two different testing approaches. One was to use the diversity variable in a given year to predict firm performances the next year; the other used the diversity vari-able in a given year to predict firm perfor-mance in the same year. Because the results from these two tests were highly consis-tent, we only reported the results from the former test in this article.

Finally, the firm’s country of origin was measured by a dummy variable that took the value of 1 if the firm was a Western firm and 0 if the firm was an East Asian firm. As noted, Western culture, including North America and West Europe, is considered individualist, whereas Eastern culture, including China, Japan, and Korea, is considered collectivist (see Hofstede, 1980). According to institu-tional theory, cultural difference should in-fluence the behavior of organizations from a given region (Scott, 2001). We therefore con-sidered the firm’s country of origin because behavior may be influenced by the societal culture of the firm’s home country.

Dependent Variables

The major dependent variable tested was firm performance. To make our research findings fully comparable, we adopted the measurements of performance that past research has adopted. Relevant past re-search has adopted return on assets (ROA) and employee productivity as measures of firm performance (see, e.g., Richard, 2000); thus, we also measured firm performance in terms of these two dimensions. Specifi-cally, ROA was measured by the ratio of total profit to total assets of each firm, and productivity was measured by average sales generated by employees in a firm.

Control Variables

The study controlled for the effect of firm age because the relationship between firm

strategy and the dependent variables, such as firm performance, could be moderated by how long each firm has operated in China. The study also controlled for the effect of organization size, which was measured as the log number of employees in each firm for a given year. This control variable was included because larger firms might have more resources than smaller firms, which could mod-erate the relationship between firm strategy and the dependent variables. When testing the mod-erating effect of geographic diver-sification, the effect of country of origin was controlled; similarly, when testing the moderating ef-fect of country of origin, the effect of geographic market diver-sification was controlled.

Finally, because of the charac-ter of our data, we controlled for the time effects by including year dummies in the regression, an ap-proach adopted by many authors to handle this kind of data (e.g., Chari & Chang, 2009; Hutzschenreuter & Voll, 2008; Madhavan & Iriyama, 2009; Ver-meulen & Barkema, 2001). Spe-cifically, each firm was assigned a year dummy variable: 1 = 2003, 2 = 2004, 3 = 2005, 4 = 2006, and 5 = 2007, leaving 2002 as the refer-ence year. In addition, each firm was given a number, and this in-formation was also entered into the data analyses to control the effect of observations from the same firm over the years.

Data Analysis and Results

Table I shows descriptive statistics for the data, which suggest interesting correlations among some of the variables. For example, there is a significant and positive correlation between country of origin and firm size, which suggests that Asian firms, which mainly consist of local Chinese firms, are generally larger than foreign firms

Finally, the firm’s

country of origin

was measured by

a dummy variable

that took the value

of 1 if the firm was

a Western firm and

0 if the firm was

an East Asian firm.

As noted, Western

culture, including

North America

and West Europe,

is considered

individualist,

whereas Eastern

culture, including

China, Japan, and

Korea, is considered

collectivist.



operating in China. Consistent with this finding, there was a significant and posi-tive correlation between firm size and age diversity, which indicates that larger firms have a higher level of age diversity than do smaller firms.

The mean for age diversity was only 0.53, far lower than was the case for the balanced group (see Case 1, Appendix A). This can be explained, however, by actual age diversity among the sample firms. Upon checking the data, we found that many firms had a very small proportion of older employees (below 10%), while some firms had no employees in this category at all. When some age groups constitute a very small proportion of the workforce or are missing altogether, the H index is very small (see Cases 2 and 3, Appen-dix A). As a result, the mean value for the variable becomes low, which suggests that the age groups in some of our sample firms were far from balanced.

Hierarchical regression analysis was then conducted on the data to test the hy-potheses. The reason we selected this ap-proach was its power to test the relation-ship among dependent and independent variables and its efficiency in making full use of data. Hierarchical regression analysis was adopted in studies on similar topics, later published in top-tier journals (see, e.g., Li, Lam, Sun, & Liu, 2008; Richard, 2000). We first tested the moderating effect of market diversification on the relation-ship between age diversity and ROA by adopting the same approach used in previ-ous research (see, e.g., Richard, 2000), such

that the results would be comparable. Specifically, the data of firm performance one year later (in this case, firm profitabil-ity [ROA] one year later) was first entered as a dependent variable (e.g., if the year was 2006, the ROA from 2007 was thus en-tered), then the year dummies were entered (Model 0). Thereafter, the four control vari-ables—firm number, firm size, country of ori-gin, and firm age were entered (Model 1). Age diversity was entered next (Model 2), then strategy of diversification (Model 3) was added, and finally the interaction between age diversity and the strategy of diversifica-tion was considered (Model 4). The interac-tion term was computed with the standard-ized data.

Table II displays the findings, which gen-erally support the hypotheses. Specifically, Hypothesis 1 is supported by the result generated in Step 2 (see the S-� column in Table II where the values of standardized beta were presented), which showed a significant and positive effect of age diversity on ROA. Hypothesis 2 is supported by the results obtained in Steps 3 and 4, in which the effect of firm strategy is found to be significant and the interaction between age diversity and strategy is found to have a significant effect on ROA.

To interpret this interaction, we plotted the interaction term (see Part A, Figure 2). As Figure 2 suggests, only at a high level of the moderator (i.e., diversification) do we observe a significant and positive relationship between age diversity and firm performance. Moreover, the variable of firm age has a significant and positive effect

T A B L E I Descriptive Statistics

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Firm Age 2003.26 1.36 1

2 Country of Origin 0.49 0.50 0.09 1

3 Firm Size 6.19 2.19 0.05 0.51** 1

4 Age Diversity 0.53 0.33 �0.11 0.31** 0.5** 1

5 Market Diversifi cation 0.99 1.21 0.02 0.67** 0.91*** 0.45*** 1

6 Return on Assets �0.01 0.24 �0.13* 0.08 0.07 0.40** �0.17* 1

7 Sales per employee (million RMB)

1.22 2.39 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.37** 0.05 1

*p <.05; **p < .01; ***p <.001.



on ROA, which suggests that operating experience among the firms, which should have a positive relationship to firm age in China’s insurance industry, has a positive rela-tionship to firm performance.

Using a similar approach, we also tested the moderating effect of firm strategy on the relationship between age diversity and employee productivity, which was another

dimension of firm performance tested in this study. Table III shows the results of these analyses, from which it can be seen that age diversity alone has no significant effect on productivity (Step 2). When firm strategy is entered, the regression model improves significantly (Step 3); indeed, firm strategy has a significant and positive effect on productivity. The entry of the

T A B L E I I Age Diversity and Performance (ROA)

ROA (N = 337)

� Standardized � SE

Step 0 �R2 0.004

Control (Firm Age)

2002 47.882 0.152 90.965

2003 45.924 0.170 90.775

2004 48.466 0.182 90.445

2005 47.856 0.266 90.832

2006 60.396 0.265 90.489

Step 1 �R2 0.249**

Control

Firm Number �0.365 �0.043 0.421

Firm Size �4.231 �0.087 2.430

Firm Age 3.014 0.687* 0.249

Country of Origin 0.009 -0.000 0.371

Step 2 �R2 0.053*

Main Effect

Age Diversity 25.687 0.246* 4.507

Step 3 �R2 0.045*

Moderator

Market Diversifi cation 18.883 0.215* 4.05

Step 4 �R2 0.106**

Interaction

Age Diversity � Market Diversifi cation 52.247 0.381** 0.023

Model F 3.323*

Constant 21.315 18.562

Adjusted R2 0.289Notes: ROA � Return on assets.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



interaction term in Step 4, however, fails to improve the model, and the effect of the interaction remains insignificant. The com-bined results from all the steps indicate that age diversity has no significant effect on productivity. Instead, it is market diver-sification that explains the difference in employee productivity among the firms studied.

We next further considered the effect of country of origin. We started by dividing the sample into two parts based on the firms’ country of origin: Western firms and firms from East Asian societies. The same regres-sion analyses as discussed above were con-ducted on each subsample to test the effect of geographic diversification on the relation-ship between symbiotic resources and firm productivity using similar approaches to those discussed above.

Table IV shows the results of the data analyses on the firms from Western

societies. Consistent with the results in Table II, the data suggest a significant and positive effect of age diversity on firm per-formance. Moreover, the data also suggest a significant and positive interaction effect between age diversity and firm market di-versification on firm profitability. Again, we plotted the interaction to help under-stand the effect of the moderator (see Part B, Figure 2).

Table V shows the results of the data analyses on firms from East Asian societies. Distinct from the results in Table IV, the data in this table suggest no significant effect of age diversity on firm performance. Even the regression models are not significant.

Using the findings in Tables IV and V, we tested the moderating effects of country of origin on the relationship between age diversity and firm profitability. In the re-gression analyses, we first entered the two

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

low high

low high

A

B

FIGURE 2. Interaction Between Age Diversity and Market Diversifi cation. (A) Interaction Term as Presented in Table II. (B) Interaction Term as Presented in Table IV. (_ _ _ _ indicates low level of the moderator; that is, the diversifi cation; _____ indicates high level of the moderator; that is, the diversifi cation)



sets of control variables. The geographic market diversification of the firms was en-tered as a control variable. The interaction between country of origin and age diver-sity was entered at the final stage of the hierarchical regression analyses. Table VI shows the results of these data analyses, which again suggest a significant and posi-tive effect of age diversity on firm perfor-

mance. Moreover, the data also indicate a significant and positive interactive effect for age diversity and country of origin on firm profitability. Hypothesis 3 is thus sup-ported.

Finally, to understand the effect of con-textual variables such as firm strategy fur-ther, an additional two sets of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted. In

T A B L E I I I Age Diversity and Performance (Productivity)

Sales per Employee (N = 337)


Step 0 �R2 0.004

Control (Firm Age)

2002 �7.096 �0.042 2.665

2003 �7.435 �0.049 6.452

2004 �7.351 �0.051 5.923

2005 �6.432 �0.047 6.211

2006 �6.687 �0.061 5.071

Step 1 �R2 0.255**

Control

Firm Number �0.093 �0.023 0.168

Firm Size 65.981 0.735** 3.017

Firm Age 2.998 �0.278* 0.310

Country of Origin 28.034 0.255* 4.621

Step 2 �R2 0.071*

Main Effect

Age Diversity �10.711 �0.081 6.507

Step 3 �R2 0.045*

Moderator


Step 4 �R2 0.081**

Interaction

Age Diversity � Market Diversifi cation �16.890 �0.195 �9.116

Model F 17.034**

Constant �8.012 17.098

Adjusted R2 0.299*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



Analysis A, firm profitability (ROA) was entered first as the dependent variable, fol-lowed by the control variables (Model 0, 1), and finally age diversity (Model 2). In Analysis B, ROA was again entered first as the dependent variable, followed by the same control variables (Model 0,1), the strategy of diversification (Model 2), and finally age diversity (Model 3).

Table VII shows the results of these two sets of analyses. In Part A, the effect of age diversity is tested without the firm strategy of diversification taken into account. These results show age diversity has no signifi-cant effect on firm performance. Even the F-values of the regression models are insig-nificant. Part B of Table VII shows that when firm strategy is entered, the regression

model improves significantly, and age di-versity has a significant and positive effect on return on assets (ROA).

In summary, the results from this study show that contextual variables such as firm strategy have a significant effect on the two dimensions of firm performance. In testing the relationship between age diver-sity and firm performance, the results show that age diversity makes a significant dif-ference whether or not a contextual vari-able, such as firm strategy, is considered. As the data in Table VII suggest, when firm strategy is entered, the regression model changes from insignificant to significant; only when firm strategy is included can one observe a significant effect of age diversity on firm performance.

T A B L E I V Age Diversity and Performance (Western Firms)

Return on Assets (N = 113)


Step 1 �R2 0.153*

Control

Firm Number 0.034 0.012 0.019

Firm Size �0.301 �0.377* 0.238

Firm Age �0.062 �0.076 0.065

Step 2 �R2 0.282*

Main Effect

Age Diversity 1.213 0.368* 0.420

Step 3 �R2 0.244*

Moderator


Step 4 �R2 0.301*

Interaction

Age Diversity � Market Diversifi cation 1.129 0.189* 1.600

Model F 4.199*

Constant 29.987 26.721

Adjusted R2 0.201*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



Discussion and Implications

The foregoing analyses highlight the im-portance of considering specific contextual factors when studying the relationship between demographic diversity and firm performance. By analyzing the data gath-ered from firms competing in China’s in-surance industry, this study identifies three ways in which the contextual factor of firm strategy can influence the relationship be-tween workforce composition and firm performance.

First, entering a contextual factor changes the regression model from insig-nificant to significant (see Table VII). Sec-ond, including such a factor in the regres-sion model changes the standardized beta (in this case the effect of age diversity) from insignificant to significant (see Tables

II and VII). Third, the contextual factor may also interact with a given dimension of demographic diversity. In this study, the interaction between age diversity and firm strategy for geographic market diversifica-tion has a significant and positive effect on firm performance (see Table II).

These findings are consistent with other studies, such as those obtained by Richard (2000) in testing the effect of a growth strategy on the relationship between racial diversity and firm performance. Together, these findings show that contextual vari-ables, such as firm strategy, can moderate the relationship between certain dimen-sions of demographic diversity, on the one hand, and dimensions of firm performance on the other. Moreover, such factors can also influence certain dimensions of firm performance directly, even when a given

T A B L E V Age Diversity and Performance (East Asian Firms)



Step 1 �R2 0.009

Control

Firm Age 0.034 0.120 0.019

Firm Size �5.810 �0.067 4.079

Firm Age 1.007 0.105 0.417

Step 2 �R2 0.018

Main Effect

Age Diversity �12.054 -0.078 10.213

Step 3 �R2 0.071

Moderator


Step 4 �R2 0.029

Interaction

Age Diversity � Market Diversifi cation �23.932 �0.242 14.995

Model F 0.199

Constant 79.555 68.236

Adjusted R2 0.009*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



dimension of organizational demography, such as age diversity, has no significant effect (see Table III).

The data also show that a given dimen-sion of organizational demography, such as age diversity, may influence only certain dimensions of firm performance and have no effect on others. Specifically, the data sug-gest that age diversity does not affect dimen-sions of performance equally. For example, although age diversity may improve firm profitability, it has no effect on sales per employee (i.e., labor productivity). The ex-planation for this result seems to be that productivity is more independent than prof-itability for the quality of human resources

in a firm. If an insurance firm is determined to increase its sales, for example, then it can simply cut the prices of its policies, even if this cut may affect its short-term profits. In-creasing profitability, however, may be much more difficult, especially if the firm lacks unique and difficult-to-copy human re-sources that confer a competitive advantage. This is especially true of firms that adopt a strategy of market diversification, which may put an emphasis only on sales growth in new markets. Given this strategy, it is possi-ble that only firms that manage their human resources well, including maintaining the right balance of age diversity, can achieve a high level of profitability.

T A B L E V I The Moderating Effect of Country of Origin on the Relationship Between Age Diversity and Performance (ROA)



Step 1 �R2 0.052*

Control

Firm Name �0.465 �0.033 �0.378

Firm Size 65.981 �0.634*** 0.009

Firm Age 2.988 �0.317** 0.267

Diversifi cation �28.034 �0.156* 4.631

Step 2 �R2 0.044*

Main Effect

Age Diversity 15.670 0.086* 2.087

Step 3 �R2 0.057*

Moderator

Country of Origin 27.976 0.156* 4.604

Step 4 �R2 0.064*

Interaction

Age Diversity � Country of Origin 53.532 0.234** 14.604

Model F 3.421*

Constant 24.111 20.147

Adjusted R2 0.209Notes: ROA = Return on assets*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



The results from this study also show a significant moderating effect of country of origin on the relationship between age diver-

sity and firm performance. This finding suggests a new issue for further study of de-mographic diversity and its effect on firm

T A B L E V I I Regressions With and Without Firm Strategy

(A) Without Firm Strategy


Model 1 Model 2

Standardized � Standardized �

Control Variables

Firm Number �0.043 �0.042

Firm Size �0.634*** �0.619***

Firm Age 0.267* 0.249*

Country of Origin 0.156** 0.156**

Independent Variable

Age Diversity 0.046

Overall Model F 150.466 138.115

Multiple R 0.868 0.869

R2 0.753 0.755

Adjusted R2 0.743 0.750

Standard Error 45.016 44.863

(B) Without Firm Strategy


Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Standardized � Standardized � Standardized �

Control Variables

Firm Number �0.051 �0.043 �0.044

Firm Size 0.634*** 0.594*** 0.585***

Firm Age 0.267** 0.239** 0.226**

Country of Origin 0.156* 0.151* 0.173**

Independent Variables

Market Diversifi cation 0.130* 0.128*

Age Diversity 0.089*

Overall Model F 150.466*** 143.826*** 132.476***

Multiple R2 0.868 0.873 0.874

R2 0.753 0.763 0.764

Adjusted R2 0.748 0.757 0.758

Standard Error 45.016 44.179 44.108*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.



performance, namely, the effect of firm commitment to adequately managing demographic diversity or diversity awareness. As the data in Tables IV, V, and VI suggest, the effect of age diversity on performance for firms from Western societies is much stronger. These results can be explained by assuming that diversity awareness is higher in Western societies than in East Asian societies. As dis-cussed, evidence suggests that firms from a given country or region may have a higher or lower degree of diversity awareness due to the influence of the country or region’s insti-tutional environment, including government policies and the societal value placed on demographic diversity. According to this argument, firms from the West are likely to have a higher level of diversity awareness than are those from East Asia.

Additional evidence supports this con-tention. For example, for the past 50 years, scholars in the West have been making great efforts to study the issue of demo-graphic diversity (see Williams & O’Reilly, 1998, for a review of this tradition), and many Western firms have made similar ef-forts to improve diversity awareness, in-cluding age diversity (see, e.g., Wagner, 2007, and Wong, 2008, for recent exam-ples). Yet the same is not true in Eastern societies. Such developments in the West are likely to lead to institutional changes or differences in social institutions between the West and the East regarding diversity awareness. If this assumption is correct, then the findings from this study suggest that to understand the effects of demographic diversity on firm perfor-mance, one should not merely consider demographic proportions or the value of a certain diversity index. Instead, it is the firms’ commitment and effort to maintain the right balance of age diversity and im-prove diversity awareness that can make a difference in the relationship between the diversity index and firm performance. More empirical evidence related to this issue would be useful for both academic re-searchers and practitioners.

Our results also have other implications for empirical studies across organizations,

such as the diversity of top management teams or ethnic diversity across firms. In such cases, it is more appropriate to con-sider the effects of organizational demogra-phy, together with contextual variables such as firm strategy, because firm perfor-mance can be influenced by both firm strategy and certain dimensions of organi-zational demography, as the data from this study indicate. Because of the direct and indirect effects of contextual factors, such as firm strategy on firm performance, re-searchers should avoid attributing firm performance only to certain parts or di-mensions of organizational demography, such as the diversity of the top manage-ment or ethnic diversity, which are often measured by diversity indexes.

Implications for Practitioners

Practitioners may also find it useful to learn more about the relationship among firm strategy, age diversity, and firm perfor-mance. Consistent with the results of pre-vious research, this study’s findings suggest that demographic diversity, of which age diversity is a part, may provide a firm with better or more diverse resources with which to meet the demands of geographic market diversification, which in turn improves firm profitability. This finding is very rele-vant to certain overseas firms, particularly Japanese firms that discriminate against older employees when operating in emerg-ing economies (Li et al., 2008). Although governments in emerging economies nor-mally pay little attention to the issue of age discrimination, employing only young people may not be in the best interests of firms because, as the data here suggest, age diversity can actually have a positive effect on profitability, at least in the finance and insurance industries.

The data also highlight the importance of diversity awareness for improving firm performance. As suggested, age diversity awareness both allows older employees to contribute and gives full play to the initiative and creativity of young people. This combi-nation is more likely to lead to better overall



firm performance, as is the case with Western insurance firms in China. Without this awareness, however, age diversity may not have a significant and positive effect on firm performance, as the data in Table V suggest.

Because certain contextual variables, such as firm strategy, do moderate the rela-tionship between a given dimension of demographic diversity and firm perfor-mance, firm management should consider this moderating effect when implementing certain strategies. For example, when as-sessing the pros and cons of a given strat-egy, management should take into account the possible short-term and long-term ef-fects of that strategy on the relationship between demographic diversity and firm performance. With such an understanding, managers will develop better human re-source management policies that maintain the right balance of demographic diversity and improve firm performance in the future.

Limitations

Finally, some findings from this study should be interpreted with caution because they reflect a specific industry in a specific country, namely, the insurance industry in China. In China, the insurance industry was previously underdeveloped with only a few firms operating with a very small num-ber of professional employees. After China opened its insurance markets in the 1990s, more than 70 new insurance firms, many overseas-funded, were established. All these firms needed experienced local profession-als with local experience and an under-standing of the market environment. As a result, experienced local professionals, many of whom had reached middle or old age, suddenly became a rare resource and one difficult to replicate. This situation may have been distinct from that in the developed countries where older insurance professionals might be easier to source. Be-cause of this industry characteristic in China, however, one should avoid overly generalizing the findings from this research to other areas or settings, such as other

industries in Western societies. Because no data was gathered to allow a comparison with other industries or other countries, the external validity of the find-ings here remain somewhat un-clear. Future studies, and espe-cially studies using cross-national empirical data, will be necessary to address this issue.

For firms competing in emerging economies, the lack of experienced local professionals will be a persistent difficulty in the coming decades. Because of this difficulty, in fast-growing overseas markets, firms that can more easily attract older and more experienced professionals to their workforces will hold a competitive edge over their ri-vals. In this sense, the findings from this study will still be rele-vant and particularly interesting for future studies.

In conclusion, this study suggests that age diversity and its management are likely to become increasingly important in countries throughout the world. In the presence of certain contextual factors or under cer-tain conditions, such as when firms adopt a certain strategy or compete in industries with cer-tain characteristics, age diver-sity can improve performance, including financial perfor-mance. Future studies should make further efforts to identify the precise contextual factors relevant to the effect of age di-versity and test the influence of these factors on the ongoing re-lationship between age diversity and firm performance. The find-ings from this research enrich the theory of organizational diversity and provide useful knowledge for firm managers to improve the quality of human resource management.

In the presence of

certain contextual

factors or under

certain conditions,

such as when firms

adopt a certain

strategy or compete

in industries

with certain

characteristics, age

diversity can improve

performance,

including financial

performance. Future

studies should make

further efforts to

identify the precise

contextual factors

relevant to the effect

of age diversity and

test the influence

of these factors

on the ongoing

relationship between

age diversity and firm

performance.



JI LI is a professor of Management in the School of Business Administration in Hong Kong Baptist University. He obtained his Ph.D. from the Rotman’s School of Management at the University of Toronto. His research areas include international HRM and strategy.

CHRIS W. L. CHU is an doctoral candidate at Aston University. He is currently working in the China Economic Research Center at the Stockholm School of Economics. His research interests include work-family interface, employee-organization relationship, strategic hu-man resource management, and organizational behavior issues in China.

KEVIN C. K. LAM is an associate professor in the Faculty of Business Administration in the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He obtained his Ph.D. from the Rotman’s School of Management at the University of Toronto. His research areas include international management, fi nance, and accounting.

STACY LIAO is an HR manager at China State Construction International Holdings Ltd. She received her M.Phil. in the Department of Management from the Hong Kong Baptist University and B.Phil. in the Department of Philosophy from Renmin University of China. Her research covers strategic management and human resources management.

REFERENCES

Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.

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

Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expec-tations, luck and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.

Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 31–46.

Beaver, G., & Hutchings, K. (2005). Training and devel-oping an age diverse workforce in SMEs: The need for strategic approach. Education and Training, 47(8/9), 592–604.

Branch-Brioso, K. (2001, May 15). Census refl ects the graying of America; age group of 45-to-54 is the fastest growing, followed by those over 85. St. Louis Post Dispatch, p. A-I.

Caldwell, S. D., Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2008). The infl uence of age on volunteer contributions in a nonprofi t organization. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 311–333.

Center, S. (1996). Guiding a diversity initiative. Execu-tive Excellence, 13, 19–20.

Chari, M. D. R., & Chang, K. Y. (2009). Determinants of the share of equity sought in cross-border acquisi-tions. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1277–1297.

Chatman, J., Polzer, J. T., Barsade, S. G., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Being different yet feeling similar: The infl uence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 749–780.

Christian Science Monitor. (1993, July 13). Promot-ing, retaining women at the top more managers are learning how to distinguish between perform-ance and work-force diversity issues. Boston, MA: Author.

Cleveland, J. N., & Shore, L. (1992). Self-and super-visory perspectives in age and work attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 469–484.

Colbert, B. A. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and practice in strategic human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 341–358.

Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diver-sity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45–56.

Ely, R. J. (2004). A fi eld study of group diversity, participation in diversity education problems, and



performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(6), 755–780.

Hatfi eld, S. (2002). Understanding the four genera-tions to enhance workplace management. AFP Exchange, 22, 72–74.

Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., & Kim, H. (1997). International diversifi cation: Effects on innova-tion and fi rm performance in product-diversifi ed fi rms. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 767–798.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Interna-tional differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hutzschenreuter, T., & Voll, J. C. (2008). Performance effects of “added cultural distance” in the path of international expansion: The case of German multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(1), 53–70.

Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leverag-ing diversity to improve business performance: Research fi ndings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 409–424.

Kidwell, R., Jr. (2003). Helping older workers cope with continuous quality improvement. Journal of Management Development, 22(10), 890–905.

Kor, Y. Y., & Leblebici, H. (2005). How do interdepend-encies among human-capital deployment, develop-ment, and diversifi cation strategies affect fi rms’ fi nancial performance? Strategic Management Journal, 26(10), 967–985.

Kotha, S., & Orne, D. (1989). Generic manufacturing strategies: A conceptual synthesis. Strategic Man-agement Journal, 10(3), 211–231.

Li, J., Fu, P. P., Liu, Z. Q., & Chen, Y. Y. (2008). The malle-ability of culture and leadership style in East Asia: A perspective of institutional symbiosis. Journal of Organization and Management Development, 1(1), 59–84.

Li, J., Lam, K., & Qian, G. (2001). Does culture affect behaviour and performance of fi rms: The case of joint venture in China’, Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 115–131.

Li, J., Lam, K., Sun, J., & Liu, S. X. Y. (2008). Strategic human resource management, institutionaliza-tion, and employment modes – An empirical study in China. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 337–355.

Madhavan, R., & Iriyama, A. (2009). Understanding global fl ows of venture capital: Human networks as the “carrier wave” of globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(8), 1241–1259.

Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the fi rm in two environments: The Holly-wood fi lm studio from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519–543.

Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for com-mon threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.

Morrison, A. M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ntatsopoulos, J. (2001). Managing a blended workforce. In Australian Master Human Resources Guide 2002 (pp. 1055–1069). Sydney, Australia: CCH Limited.

Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.

Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive ad-vantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Manage-ment Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

Peterson, S. J., & Spiker, B. K. (2005). Establishing the positive contributory value of older workers: A positive psychology perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 153–167.

Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through peo-ple. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Pollitt, D. (2006). Bradford and Bingley audits age di-versity in the workplace. Human Resource Interna-tional Digest, 14(6), 27–28.

Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strat-egy, and fi rm performance: A resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 164–177.

Scott, R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Lon-don, England: Sage.

Teachman, J. D. (1980). Analysis of population diversity. Sociological Methods and Research, 8(3), 341 –362.

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–534.

Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversi-ty, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592–606.

Tsui, A. S., Porter, L. W., & Egan, T. D. (2002). When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: Extend-ing the concept of relational demography. Human Relations, 55(8), 899–925.

Van Yoder, S. (2002). Coping with the graying work-force. Financial Executive, 18(1), 26–29.

Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 457–476.



Wagner, D. (2007). Managing an age-diverse work force. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 9–10.

Wang, J. Y. (2006). Labour force participative rate and future labour force supply in China [in Chinese]. Journal of Population, 4, 19–24.

Wang, Y. (1999, November 21). Local insurance fi rms can compete [in China Daily]. Business Weekly, North American Ed., 3.

Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

Wong, S. (2008). Diversity-making space for everyone at NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center using dia-logue to break through barriers. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 389–399.



A P P E N D I X A Simulation Using the Diversity Index Recommended by Teachman (1980)

Assuming that an organization has four age groups—under 25; 26–35; 36–50; and over 50—we considered the proportion of those aged 36–50 in three cases: (1) when the propor-tion is at a “balanced” level, (2) when the proportion is very small or at a “token” level, and (3) when the proportion is very large so that the age group is overrepresented in the orga-nization. By applying the diversity index formula

H�1

i�1�Σ Pi(lnPi)

we obtain the following results.1) Balanced Proportion

Lnp plnp*�1 H� Sum of plnp* �1

Over 50 0.25 �1.38629 0.346574

36–50 0.25 �1.38629 0.346574

26–35 0.25 �1.38629 0.346574

Under 25 0.25 �1.38629 0.346574

Diversity H�1.386294

2) Small Proportion


Over 50 0.01 �4.60517 0.046052

36–50 0.01 �4.60517 0.046052

26–35 0.97 �0.03046 0.029545

Under 25 0.01 �4.60517 0.046052


3) Large Proportion


Over 50 0.00 0 0

36–50 0.98 �4.60517 0.046052

26–35 0.01 0.0202 0.019799

Under 25 0.01 �4.60517 0.046052


As a result of this simulation, one can see that when the proportions of employee age groups are at a “balanced” level, the diversity index reaches almost the highest level. In contrast, when a given group, such as the 36–50 group, has a very small or very large pro-portion, the index is at its lowest.



A P P E N D I X B Firms Sampled

Company Foreign Country Involved License

AIA U.S. Shanghai, 1992

Manulife Sinochem Canada Shanghai, 1996

China Pacifi c-Aetna U.S. Shanghai, 1997

Allianz Dazhong Germany Shanghai, 1998

AXA-minmetal France Shanghai, 1999

China Life Colonial Mutual Australia Shanghai, 2000

John Hancock - Tian An U.S. Shanghai, 2001

Prudential CITIC U.K. Guangzhou, 2000

Sun Life Financial Everbright Canada Tianjin, 2002

The Ming An Insurance Co. (China) Ltd. Hong Kong Shenzhen, 1982

Yokio Marine Nichido China Japan Shanghai, 1994

Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance (China) Co. Ltd. Japan Shanghai, 2001

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Korea Shanghai, 2001

Documents

Age diversity and firm performance in an emerging economy: Implications for cross-cultural human resource management