Second Edition
Opportunities and
Challenges of Workplace
Diversity
THEORY, CASES, AND EXERCISES
Kathryn A. Cañas
University of Utah
Harris Sondak
University of Utah
Prentice Hall
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco
Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid
Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo
Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
For Luke, Rhea, and Neah
Editorial Director: Sally Yagan
Editor in Chief: Eric Svendsen
Acquisitions Editor: Jennifer M. Collins
Editorial Project Manager: Susie Abraham
Editorial Assistant: Meg O’Rourke
Director of Marketing: Patrice Lumumba Jones
Marketing Manager: Nikki Jones
Marketing Assistant: Ian Gold
Senior Managing Editor: Judy Leale
Project Manager: Debbie Ryan
Operations Specialist: Clara Bartunek
Creative Art Director: Jayne Conte
Cover Designer: Axell Designs
Manager, Visual Research: Beth Brenzel
Manager, Rights and Permissions: Zina Arabia
Manager, Cover Visual Research & Permissions:
Karen Sanatar
Cover Art: Getty Images, Inc.
Full-Service Project Management: Shiji Shashi/
Integra, Inc.
Composition: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.
Printer/Binder: Bind-Rite
Cover Printer: Bind-Rite
Text Font: 10/12, Times
Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear
on appropriate page within text.
Copyright © 2011, 2008 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey 07458. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is
protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction,
storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to
Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
Many of the designations by manufacturers and seller to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks.
Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations
have been printed in initial caps or all caps.
Cataloging-in-Publication Data for this title can be obtained from the Library of Congress.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN 10:
0-13-612517-4
ISBN 13: 978-0-13-612517-4
CONTENTS
Preface
viii
Part I Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace
Diversity 1
Chapter 1 Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical
and Pedagogical Perspective 3
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Diversity Management 4
Opportunities of Teaching Diversity Management 4
Challenges of Teaching Diversity Management 6
Defining Diversity 7
Society for Human Resource Management 7
Marilyn Loden 8
Anita Rowe and Lee Gardenswartz 9
R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. 10
Myrtle P. Bell 10
David A. Thomas and Robin J. Ely 10
Michàlle E. Mor Barak 11
Four Principles for an Improved Definition of Diversity 11
Understanding Leadership-Based Organizational Paradigms
for Managing Diversity 14
Resistance Paradigm 14
Discrimination-and-Fairness Paradigm 15
Access-and-Legitimacy Paradigm 16
Integration-and-Learning Paradigm 16
Understanding the Business Case for Diversity 18
The Business Case for Diversity 18
Assessing the Business Case for Diversity 19
Chapter 2 Diversity in the Workplace: A Legal Perspective 26
P. Corper James
Administration of the Law 27
Amendments to Title VII 28
The Protected Classes 28
Race 28
iii
iv
Contents
National Origin 29
Color of Skin 30
Religion 30
Age 31
Veterans 31
Disability 32
Sex/Gender 34
Sexual Orientation 37
Advice for Managers 38
Have a Title VII Policy and Procedure 38
Be Clear about the “Legitimate Business Purpose” Concept 38
Develop Objective Job Criteria 39
Do Not Retaliate 39
Advice for Employees 39
Follow Policies and Procedures 39
Behave Reasonably 39
A Word about Affirmative Action 40
The Future of Title VII 40
Chapter 3 Diversity Management as Systemic 44
A Systemic Approach to Managing Diversity 48
Kathryn A. Cañas
Leadership Commitment 50
Communication 51
Recruitment and Retention 52
Incorporation of Diversity into the Main Work of Organization 55
Linkage of Diversity Initiatives to Organizational Outcomes 56
External Relationships 57
왘 CASE STUDY: Diversity as Strategy
David A. Thomas
58
Part II Managing and Mismanaging: Case Studies
on American Businesses 71
Chapter 4 Gender 73
쐽 Obama Signs Equal-Pay Legislation
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
74
Essay: Off-Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women
on the Road to Success 75
Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Carolyn Buck Luce
Contents
왘 CASE STUDY: Augusta National Golf Club: Membership for Women
or Staying the Course? 87
Ray B. Swart, Ashish K. Singh, and Andrew Nelson under the
supervision of James S. O’Rourke
왘 CASE STUDY: Mothers Work Inc.: Brand Image and Accusations
of Employment Discrimination 95
Carolyn E. Billick and Lusiena H. C. Wong under the supervision
of James S. O’Rourke
Chapter 5 Race and National Origin 101
쐽 NFL Looking to Expand Rooney Rule
Associated Press
102
Essay: The Truth about Mentoring Minorities: Race Matters
David A. Thomas
103
왘 CASE STUDY: The Classic Look of Discrimination: Abercrombie & Fitch’s
Struggle to Manage Diversity 109
Kathryn A. Cañas and Jacob K. Sorensen
왘 CASE STUDY: Texaco, Inc.: Racial Discrimination Suit (A) 118
Tanya Goria, DeWayne Reed, and Dan Skendzel under the
supervision of James S. O’Rourke
왘 CASE STUDY: Texaco, Inc.: Racial Discrimination Suit (B) 121
Tanya Goria, DeWayne Reed, and Dan Skendzel under the
supervision of James S. O’Rourke
왘 CASE STUDY: Denny’s Restaurants: Creating a Diverse Corporate
Culture (A) 133
M. Jennifer Abes, W. Brent Chism, and Thomas F. Sheeran under
the supervision of James S. O’Rourke
왘 CASE STUDY: Denny’s Restaurants: Creating a Diverse Corporate
Culture (B) 138
M. Jennifer Abes, W. Brent Chism, and Thomas F. Sheeran under
the supervision of James S. O’Rourke
Chapter 6 Age 141
쐽 Many Workers Ages 50+ Downshift in New Jobs—And Love
the Work 142
AARP Press Center
Essay: It’s Time to Retire Retirement 143
Ken Dychtwald, Tamara Erickson, and Bob Morison
왘 CASE STUDY: Asleep at the Wheel: Ford Motor Company’s Exclusion
of the Older Worker 152
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Chapter 7 Religion and Spirituality 161
쐽 Religion in the Workplace Is Diversity Issue for U.S. Companies: Many Firms
Seek Guidance in Accommodating Employees’ Religious Practices 162
Louise Fenner
v
vi
Contents
Essay: Taking Religion to Work
C. Stone Brown
163
왘 CASE STUDY: Purity of Spirit: Tom’s of Maine 172
Adapted by Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak from a case written
by Edmund R. Gray
Chapter 8 Sexual Orientation and Identity 183
쐽 LGBT Equality at the Fortune 500
Human Rights Campaign
184
Essay: Selections from Straight Talk About Gays in the Workplace:
Creating an Inclusive, Productive Environment for Everyone in Your
Organization 185
Liz Winfeld
왘 CASE STUDY: The Cracker Barrel Restaurants
John Howard
193
왘 CASE STUDY: When Steve Becomes Stephanie
Loren Gary and Brian Elliot
198
Chapter 9 Disabilities 207
쐽 Finding the Right Way to Disclose a Disability
Suzanne Robitaille
208
Essay: Counting on Workers with Disabilities 209
Susan J. Wells
Essay: Selections from the Inclusive Corporation: A Disability Handbook
for Business Professionals 216
Griff Hogan
왘 CASE STUDY: In the Eye of the Perfect Storm: Creating Accessibility—
IBM, GM, and CISCO 221
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Part III Exercises: Developing Three Essential Skills 233
Chapter 10 Analyzing Self 235
Your Pie Chart 235
Taylor Cox and Ruby L. Beale
Diversity Questionnaire 236
William Sonnenschein
First Thoughts 237
Jonamay Lambert and Selma Myers
Masculine and Feminine Speaking Styles 238
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Religion and the Workplace: A Brainstorming Activity 240
Kathryn A. Cañas
Contents
Chapter 11 Understanding Difference 242
Analysis of Mini Diversity Management Cases 242
Carlos Eduardo de Sousa
What Constitutes Sexual Harassment? 247
Kathryn A. Cañas, P. Corper James, and Harris Sondak
Religion and Spirituality: What Could be Happening Here? 248
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: Counting the Costs 249
Amy J. Zuckerman and George F. Simons
The Ten Commandments of Interacting with People with
Disabilities 251
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Cultural Diversity 253
Jonamay Lambert and Selma Myers
Chapter 12 Assessing Organizations 255
Examining Exemplary Leaders in Managing Diversity 255
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Analysis of Diversity Consulting Companies 257
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Analyzing Diversity Commitment on Company
Web sites 258
Kathryn A. Cañas
Diversity and Sports: An Examination of the NFL, NASCAR,
NHL, PGA, and NBA 259
Kathryn A. Cañas and Ruslan Chaplygin
The Diversity Consulting Team 261
Kathryn A. Cañas and Harris Sondak
Nine Symptoms that May Indicate a Need for Diversity
Training 265
Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe
Managing Diversity Questionnaire 265
Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe
Asking Good Questions 267
Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe
Index 270
vii
PREFACE
DIVERSITY AND THE WORKPLACE: CREATING A DIALOGUE
OF OPPORTUNITY
Teaching diversity management—whether to students or managers—is both challenging and
rewarding. The topic of diversity management is engaging and dynamic as significant developments emerge daily from well-known organizations such as Abercrombie & Fitch, Coca Cola, the
National Football League, and Verizon. While diversity management is a thought-provoking
subject, it also poses some challenges for instructors because it is a complex and sometimes paradoxical organizational topic that involves conversations about emotionally charged issues such as
racism, sexism, and ageism. Teaching diversity management is rewarding as the classroom has the
potential to become a place in which knowledge is constructed through dialogue—through active
student engagement, respectful debate, and continuous conversations about both historical and
current diversity management business issues and cases. Essential to our purpose is the notion of
dialogue as it represents the overarching pedagogical philosophy that frames our motivation for
writing this textbook.
New to This Edition
• In Part I, we have updated both of the opening essays and we have added Chapter 3, “Diversity
Management as Systemic,” in which we describe top-ranked organizations for managing
diversity, explicate a best practices integrated model of systemic diversity management, and
include a comprehensive essay that highlights how IBM implements diversity management
initiatives effectively on a comprehensive, systemic organizational level.
• In Part II, we have incorporated new, timely newspaper articles that begin each of the chapters.
• We are included two new case studies on the topics of race/national origin and the workplace,
specifically Abercrombie and Fitch and Denny’s Restaurants; one new case study on the GLBT
issues and the workplace, “When Steve Becomes Stephanie”; and a new essay on people with
disabilities in the workforce, “Counting on Workers with Disabilities.”
• We updated the case on age and the workplace (Ford Motor Co.), as well as disabilities and the
workplace (IBM, GM, and Cisco).
• In Part III, we have added a new section comprised of mini diversity cases that provide students
the opportunity to work in teams and grapple with common yet involved diversity management
workplace situations.
• We have enhanced exercises from our first edition and have added new exercises, specifically
“Religion and the Workplace: A Brainstorming Activity,” “Analyzing Diversity Commitment
on Company Web Sites,” and “Diversity and Sports: An Examination of the NFL, NASCAR,
NHL, PGA, and NBA.”
By writing this textbook, we hope to invite and create a dialogue of opportunity about the topic of
workplace diversity with scholars, managers, consultants, and students. We, along with a number of
diversity practitioners and academics who have contributed to this textbook, engage in dialogue
about the intersection of diversity and the workplace. We believe that the most effective method for
teaching diversity management is to bring together multiple perspectives, narratives, and voices
that unite to cocreate a comprehensive source about the opportunities and challenges of managing
diversity. Having a diverse workplace is indeed a business opportunity, but only when its complexities are managed successfully, which requires that they are both acknowledged and understood.
Without understanding diversity as a complex phenomenon, it is difficult to gain a comprehensive
understanding of what it means to manage a diverse workforce effectively. In essence, we hope to
viii
Preface
contribute a significant and unique perspective to today’s conversation about diversity in the workplace by encouraging and engaging in open dialogue.
As we discuss diversity as an opportunity, we hope to help our readers become more effective
and responsible organizational members. The underlying argument supported throughout our discussion is that organizations that manage their diverse workforce effectively will have a competitive
advantage over organizations that do not. That is, we believe that managing diversity well will lead to
increased organizational performance. A diverse workforce is more likely to gain a competitive
advantage when diversity is implemented systemically; diversity must be understood and valued as an
essential component of every aspect of the organization rather than incorporated sporadically within
it. Organizations that are able to accomplish this will have more opportunity to excel in all areas.
Three-Tiered Structure for Understanding
Our discussion unfolds in three stages: First, we offer a theoretical and pedagogical as well as legal
understanding of diversity; second, we provide detailed case studies of U.S. businesses that have both
managed and mismanaged diversity; third, we incorporate multiple exercises that help students
examine diversity on both personal and organizational levels.
In Part I, “Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity,” our goal is to help explain
the complexities of workplace diversity from both managerial and legal perspectives. Managers in
today’s dynamic workplace need to understand how these two perspectives interact—specifically,
how one informs the other in the context of a complex workplace. In the first of the two opening
chapters in this part, we examine diversity from a managerial and pedagogical point of view and
discuss the following important considerations for understanding diversity in American business:
multiple alternative definitions of diversity and important principles to acknowledge when defining
diversity; four paradigms or approaches for diversity management; and the strengths and weaknesses of the business case for diversity. In the second chapter, P. Corper James outlines the legal aspects
of managing diversity in his explication of the classes of people protected by law, the legal definition
of sexual harassment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (ADEA). In addition, he offers general legal advice for both managers and employers on the topic of diversity management.
In Part II, “Managing and Mismanaging: Case Studies on American Businesses,” we
illustrate organizational successes and mistakes of American businesses. This section reflects our
belief that understanding diversity is facilitated through detailed examination of real case studies.
Our collection of comprehensive case studies focuses on how familiar organizations have grappled
with diversity management. Our examples of organizations include Augusta National, Mothers
Work, Abercrombie and Fitch, Texaco, Denny’s, Ford Motor Company, Tom’s of Maine, Cracker
Barrel Restaurants, IBM, General Motors, and Cisco; we discuss how these organizations have
managed diversity issues related to gender, race and national origin, age, religion and spirituality,
sexual identity, and disabilities in the workplace.
In Part III, “Developing Three Essential Skills,” our goal is to encourage our readers to examine
their own relationship with diversity, assess how organizations manage diversity, and better understand
the intersection of diversity and work. These exercises invite students to engage in energized, intelligent dialogue on the many intricacies of diversity in the workplace.
Terms and Concepts that Frame Our Discussion
DIVERSITY A primary objective of our text is to illuminate the complexities of workforce diversity.
We understand workplace diversity as a constellation of dynamic and interrelated identity group
memberships that operate on both primary and secondary dimensions1 as they continuously interact
and unite to represent a person in his or her entirety at a particular time in his or her life. These identity group memberships reflect personal characteristics—both visible (e.g., race and gender) and less
visible (e.g., religion and marital status)—that differ from whatever is considered the societal norm or
ix
x
Preface
standard; as a member of one of these identity groups, an individual is vulnerable to negative employment consequences such as discrimination.
Primary dimensions—those that most profoundly define us—include gender, race and
national origin, age, religion and spirituality, sexual identity, and disabilities. Secondary
dimensions—often just as important as the primary dimensions but more likely to change—include
military experience, parental status, educational background, and social location/economic status.
While all dimensions are significant when defining oneself, we choose to focus mostly on the
primary dimensions of diversity, although a number of the secondary dimensions are discussed
throughout the articles, essays, cases, and exercises.
In addition to understanding diversity as having two interrelated dimensions, we believe that
the following five principles are critical to understanding the complexities of diversity: Diversity
is expansive but not without boundaries; diversity is fluid; diversity is based on both similarities
and differences; diversity is rooted in nonessentialist thought; and diversity is directly related to
how one approaches work. In our opening essay we offer a detailed explanation of each of these
principles in addition to delineating other definitions of diversity by a variety of diversity scholars.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, VALUING DIVERSITY, DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT Diversity scholars
often articulate three stages to understanding how workplace diversity has changed over time:
affirmative action, valuing diversity, and diversity management (or managing diversity). The phrase
“valuing diversity” is a movement beyond the affirmative action position of amending wrongs done in
the past to those Americans—most specifically African Americans and women—who have been
underrepresented in positions of organizational power. Diversity initiatives that represent the second
stage, valuing diversity, are, according to scholar and consultant R. Roosevelt Thomas, “designed to
enhance the individual’s awareness, understanding and acceptance of differences between people.”
And, by contrast to diversity management, “valuing differences does not involve the changing of
corporate culture and systems.”2
Diversity management, however, represents a movement beyond valuing diversity and a managerial approach in which diversity is viewed as both a competitive advantage and the right thing to
do; diversity is linked to strategic goals and is understood as directly influencing the way employees
approach work. Thomas describes this stage as “a holistic approach to creating a corporate environment that allows all kinds of people to reach their full potential in pursuit of corporate objectives.”3
Further, he explains that diversity management approaches diversity from a management perspective, that is, how best to manage the company’s human resources given the fact that those resources
are now far more diverse than in earlier times. It is not about leveling the playing field to give minorities and women an extra advantage; it is about maximizing the contributions of all employees.4
The focus of our text is primarily on the third stage, managing diversity, because we believe it
is this framework that American businesses should strive toward. We do not ignore the other stages,
however, and we provide discussions of affirmative action and valuing diversity in the opening essays.
Underlying any discussion of diversity in
American business—whether affirmative action, valuing diversity, or diversity management—is the
recognition that some groups have had and continue to have more power than others. Those with
power represent the dominant group and control the construction and dissemination of knowledge,
make decisions, and allocate burdens and rewards and thus hold the more influential positions in
the workplace. White men have historically held most positions of power in the workplace and thus
typically constitute the dominant group in most organizations. In addition, there are groups of people, located on the periphery of power, who have historically been disempowered or nondominant.
These less powerful groups of people include, but are not limited to, women; people with disabilities; older workers; people of color; people of different ethnicities; and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgendered people.
DOMINANT AND NONDOMINANT GROUPS
Preface
Although less powerful, subordinate groups often possess the ability—especially when working together—to negotiate successfully with the dominant group. And although we focus largely on
the nondominant groups of people in our discussion of diversity, we believe white men constitute a
critically important component of managing diversity because, as organizational leaders, they often
have the ability to make decisions that directly affect the role of diversity in the workplace. Moreover,
we often forget that white men are themselves a diverse group—whether, for example, in terms of age,
religion, sexual identity, disability, or parental status. Further, unless both the dominant and nondominant groups work together, it is impossible for diversity to become a competitive advantage in the
workplace.
PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION An important objective of this text is to encourage the readers to reflect on the ways in which diversity affects them. While using this textbook, we hope that
students will gain a better understanding of how they may be prejudiced, often unknowingly, against
groups of people they may view as different, seeing them through preconceived notions as lesser or
deficient in some way. In addition, we hope that students will understand, specifically from the case
study section, that discrimination—denying opportunities, resources, or access to a person because of
his or her group identity—is, unfortunately, often a business reality. The case studies that illustrate
discrimination represent uniquely helpful resources because organizations that have made serious
management errors can provide powerful lessons.
STEREOTYPING AND ESSENTIALIZING Other significant, interrelated concepts that encourage
self-reflection include stereotyping and essentializing. We ask our readers the question: What are the
potential effects of stereotyping and essentializing in the workplace? Stereotypes are particularly
powerful, as they are formed when we ascribe exaggerated beliefs or generalizations to people based
on their group identities rather than seeing each person as an individual (e.g., a professor might
expect all athletes to be irresponsible students). Stereotypes are common and often arise from incomplete or incorrect information and restricted experience with a particular group of people.
Just as serious is assuming that a characteristic or set of characteristics is the essence—the
essential nature—of all members of a group (e.g., people might expect that women are, by nature,
better nurturers than men). Although it may be a human tendency to stereotype or essentialize others,
it is important to remember both the inaccuracy of doing so and the potentially devastating effects of
these generalizations on individuals’ realities in their daily lives.
Instructor’s Manual
Because the majority of our textbook is based on teaching diversity through case studies, we have
dedicated much of the instructor’s manual to the same. To enhance students’ learning, each case study
is accompanied by a detailed Teaching Note and set of PowerPoint slides. The instructor’s manual
also includes example syllabi, responses to discussion questions, comprehensive exercise instructions,
and suggestions for individual and group assignments.
Acknowledgments
We thank many people for their assistance with this project, which would not have succeeded if not
for their contributions. We would like to acknowledge the Pearson/Prentice Hall editorial, production,
and permissions team for their professionalism throughout the project. In addition, we extend our
appreciation to our research assistants: Nicole Cottelier, Kimberly Neves, and Ellen Donovan. Our
deepest appreciation is extended to our families and friends; without them, nothing would have been
possible or worthwhile. Dr. Cañas thanks Servando and Carol Cañas, Lance Pearson, Luke Cañas
Pearson, Rhea Rose Cañas Pearson, and Susan Cañas Gregoire. Dr. Sondak especially thanks his
parents, Fraser Nelson, and Neah Bois.
xi
xii
Preface
About the Authors
Dr. Kathryn A. Cañas is a member of the Management Department in the David Eccles School of
Business at the University of Utah. Her teaching currently includes courses on diversity management,
business communication, and pedagogy; she has taught these subjects to executives, Ph.D. candidates,
M.B.A. students, and undergraduates. Her teaching has included courses on rhetorical criticism and
theory, advanced public speaking and persuasion, interpersonal communication and coaching, gender
communication, managerial writing, and writing for publication.
Dr. Cañas’ research investigates best practices for teaching diversity management; communication strategies and models implemented by women—in particular women of color—in the workforce;
and the role of dominant work metaphors in constructing and influencing women in organizations.
She has presented a number of papers at national and regional conferences; and her professional
association memberships include the Academy of Management, the Management Communication
Association, and the Association for Business Communication.
Dr. Cañas received her B.A. in English and Communication from Boston College, her M.A. in
speech communication from Indiana University, and her Ph.D. in Communication from the University
of Utah. For more information, please visit her Web site at www.business.utah.edu/~mgtkc/.
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Harris Sondak is Professor of Business Administration at the David Eccles School of
Business at the University of Utah and Adjunct Professor of Business Administration at the Fuqua
School of Business at Duke University. His teaching includes courses on groups, negotiations, creating
and maintaining business relationships, managing conflict in organizations, competitive strategy, managing diversity, organizational behavior, consulting to nonprofits, philosophy of social science, and
business ethics and leadership. He has taught these subjects to executives, Ph.D. candidates, M.B.A.
students, and undergraduates from around the world. Dr. Sondak was honored with the Distinguished
Teaching Award by the University of Utah.
Dr. Sondak’s research investigates the psychology of allocation decisions including
two-party and multiparty negotiations, group process and decisions, and procedural justice and
ethics. His research has been published in a number of leading academic journals. Dr. Sondak has
served as a reviewer, a member of the editorial board, and as the associate editor for scholarly
publications.
Dr. Sondak received his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Colorado and his M.S. and
PhD in organizational behavior from Northwestern University. He has been a visiting faculty member
at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland; the
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University; the Indian School of Business in Hyderabad, India;
and the Kellog School of Management, Northwestern University. For more information, please visit his
Web site at www.business.utah.edu/~mgths/.
E-mail: [email protected]
Notes
1. The concepts of primary and second dimensions
of diversity are adapted from Marilyn Loden,
Implementing Diversity (New York: McGrawHill, 1996).
2. R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., Beyond Race and
Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total
Work Force by Managing Diversity (New York:
AMACON, 1991), 169.
3. Ibid., 167.
4. Ibid., 168.
PA R T O N E
Uncovering the Complexities
of Workplace Diversity
In this part, “Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity,” our goal is to
explore the complexities of workplace diversity from both managerial and legal
perspectives. In Chapter 1, “Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical
Perspective,” we examine diversity from a managerial point of view and discuss the
following important considerations for understanding diversity in American business:
the changing U.S. demography; multiple alternative definitions of diversity and
important principles to acknowledge when defining diversity; four paradigms or
approaches for diversity management; and the complexities of the business case for
diversity.
In Chapter 2, “Diversity in the Workplace: A Legal Perspective,” P. Corper James
outlines the legal aspects of managing diversity in his explication of the classes of
people protected by law, the legal definitions of sexual harassment, the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). In
addition, he offers general legal advice for both managers and employers on the topic
of diversity management.
In Chapter 3, we grapple with the question, What constitutes effective diversity
management? In particular, we highlight exemplary organizations for managing
diversity, articulate a systemic approach to managing diversity, and include a case
study, “Diversity as Strategy,” that explicates how IBM manages diversity using an
integrated, systemic approach.
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER
1
Diversity in the Workplace:
A Theoretical and Pedagogical
Perspective
Diversity education is big business. In corporate America and higher education, diversity training has
become a multibillion-dollar industry, with a wide variety of diversity summits, workshops, toolkits,
books, training videos, e-learning programs, executive coaching sessions, and leadership academies.
With what might seem like an excess of diversity management tools, the importance of managing workplace diversity can easily be reduced to an overhyped workplace trend. The belief that
diversity management is nothing more than a transitory phenomenon may in fact represent an organizational ideology that educators are forced to confront when teaching about workplace diversity
in both business and academics. It is this misperception combined with other challenges related to
diversity education that help to underscore the importance of our goal of creating a pedagogical
approach that will allow students and managers to examine more effectively and therefore understand better the complexities of diversity and managing diversity in organizations.
In this essay we examine what it means to teach diversity management, analyze the opportunities and challenges related to teaching diversity management, and present an innovative pedagogical approach that we believe will facilitate the teaching of diversity management. The motivation
behind understanding how to manage workforce diversity is twofold: it is the right and ethical thing
to do and it can enhance an organization’s competitive advantage. The issue is not whether the
workforce is or is not diverse; diversity is a business reality, is here to stay, and ought to be embraced.
The issue, then, is whether organizations lack the knowledge to unleash the power of their diverse
employees through effective diversity management and, if so, how to correct this problem.
Although we illuminate some of the limitations of diversity management education, we
uphold a prodiversity position, support organizations that invest in diversity management initiatives as a way to empower employees, and agree that “[O]rganizations that invest their resources
in taking advantage of the opportunities that diversity offers should outperform those that fail to
make such investments.”1 Our position about diversity in general is that diversity can become an
exciting business opportunity, but only when it is managed effectively at all levels of an organization and understood in terms of both its advantages and disadvantages. To explain this position,
we first define what it means to manage diversity.
Dr. Kathryn A. Cañas and Dr. Harris Sondak, The University of Utah
3
4
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
Diversity management is an organizational commitment and systemic approach that moves beyond
compliance with legal requirements and statements that simply express the organization’s claims to
value diversity. We describe effective diversity management as systemic because its dimensions are
incorporated throughout the inner workings of a business and linked to strategic business goals. As
Michàlle Barak suggests, diversity management is “the voluntary organizational actions that are
designed to create through deliberate policies and programs greater inclusion of employees from
various backgrounds into the formal and informal organizational structures.”2 Diversity management
is distinct from equal opportunity legislation and affirmative action programs because it “is proactive
and aimed at creating an organization in which all members can contribute and achieve to their full
potential.”3 The purpose of such organizational actions and policies is to incorporate diversity into
the main work of the organization so that diverse perspectives influence processes such as decision
making, problem solving, and marketing; company image; methods of communication; and product
design, as well as have a direct impact on the organization’s mission, values, and goals.
A required component of an effective diversity management policy is a steadfast commitment
from organizational leadership. Business leaders play a crucial role in how diversity is perceived
and implemented in their organizations, and without authentic commitment from the executive
ranks, diversity will remain a stagnant or even festering organizational issue. Leaders must be able
to express clearly how diversity is defined and what role diversity plays in their corporate culture;
they must commit themselves to recruiting and retaining diverse employees, incorporating diverse
perspectives into the main work of the organization, implementing supplier diversity initiatives,
linking diversity to financial success, and using some type of metrics for measuring the successes
(or failures) of their diversity initiatives. Further, it is also necessary for leaders to understand
that although diversity challenges may arise, they cannot be ignored but rather recognized and
resolved.
Because of the comprehensive nature of diversity management, teaching its complexities is
no easy task, and it is not surprising that implementing an effective approach to teaching this
topic poses pedagogical challenges for both educators and students. Diversity management is not
all about difficulties, however, as we describe a few of the opportunities related to teaching about
diversity in organizations.
OPPORTUNITIES OF TEACHING DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
The enthusiasm surrounding the issue of diversity in organizations in both business and academia
is palpable. This enthusiasm encourages lively discussion about thought-provoking, progressive
classroom topics as students see familiar businesses embrace diversity and publicly declare their
allegiance to promoting diversity as an organizational strategy.
American Express, for example, maintains that “the connection between the diversity of our
workforce and our overall performance quality is clearly valued.”4 Marriott International enthusiastically describes its commitment to diversity as “absolute” and asserts that diversity “is more
than a goal . . . it’s our business. From our global workforce to our suppliers, owners and franchisees, and customers and communities, we thrive on the differences that give our company its
strength and competitive edge.”5 Boldly claiming that “diversity is who we are,” Starbucks Coffee
Company describes diversity as “a way of life” and “the core of our culture and a foundation for
the way we conduct business.”6 Verizon boasts that “[W]e have made diversity an integral part of
our business, from workforce development and supplier relationships to economic development,
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
marketing, and philanthropy.”7 Businesses such as these do more than just post their diversity missions on posters, pamphlets, and Web sites; by contrast, they are committed to giving diversity a
legitimate voice in executive decision-making processes by creating positions such as Chief
Diversity Officer; Senior Vice President of External Affairs and Global Diversity Officer; and
Vice President of Workplace Culture, Diversity, and Compliance.
Like businesses, many universities value diversity, often promoting diversity as a critical
component of their success and identity as an organization. Reflecting this trend, the University of
North Carolina describes diversity as a “key component” in its “academic plan” and its “pursuit of
excellence.”8 In addition to universities at large, business schools are independently communicating
their value of diversity. The Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University highlights
specific dimensions of diversity in its diversity philosophy, and it works to solidify its commitment
by offering the graduate elective Managing Workforce Diversity. Similarly, Rutgers Business
School offers the graduate elective Managing Organizational Diversity within the concentration of
Management and Global Business. On an undergraduate level, examples include the business
schools at the University of California, the University of Connecticut, the University of Illinois, and
the University of Utah, which all offer diversity management courses. Mirroring corporate
America, universities are also moving toward implementing executive positions such as Chief
Diversity Officer and Associate Vice President for Diversity.
Student enthusiasm for learning about diversity management comes from their own experiences in relation to the reality of today’s diverse workforce. Leaders of businesses and universities
have realized that although there may be differing opinions about diversity management, one
aspect of diversity cannot be disputed: The American workforce and classroom are becoming
increasingly heterogeneous. Students, many of whom are taking classes in addition to working in
either part-time or full-time jobs, see the emergence of diversity issues—such as the prevalence of
older workers in the workforce, employees who want to express themselves spiritually during
work hours, or the formation of employee resource groups—in the organizations in which they
work. Further, students become increasingly engaged as they realize that the dynamic workforce
demographics do not simply represent a more diverse workforce but also highlight some unexpected realities within these demographic trends.
One demographic that students may be familiar with is the record numbers of women and
minorities entering the U.S. workforce. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, women
now account for 46 percent of all full-time and part-time workers. While this fact may be obvious to students, not as obvious is the fact that despite their increased numbers in the workforce,
women and minorities still receive a disproportionately low share of the rewards allocated by
U.S. businesses. For example, women occupy only about 8 percent of executive vice president
positions (and above) at Fortune 500 companies.9 In addition, African Americans and Latinos
represent approximately 25 percent of the U.S. population yet hold fewer than 5 percent of seniormanagement positions.10 In response to these demographics, we ask our students to grapple with
the following question: Why is the increasing profusion of diverse workers not being matched by
similarly expanded opportunities in the executive suites?
Perhaps more interesting for students to discover is that in some cases efforts to increase
opportunities have been associated with actual declines. The number of people with disabilities
entering the workforce, for example, seems to have decreased overall in the last decade, despite the
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, which was supposed to provide
better access for them.11 Furthermore, various minority groups continue to suffer discrimination
beyond restricted access to employment or low pay. In the case of gay and lesbian workers, nearly
two out of five say they consistently face some form of hostility or harassment on the job.12 And
5
6
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
despite the fact that 95 percent of Americans say they believe in God, and 48 percent say they talk
about their religious faith at work, the EEOC reports a 29 percent spike since 1992 in the number of
religion-based discrimination charges.13 In light of statistics such as these, we ask students to
contemplate why these workplace inconsistencies occur.
When teaching students about diversity management, the pedagogical opportunities are
based in the students’ own experiences as they are witnesses to diversity’s dominant presence
and dynamic quality in the workplace and classroom. While diversity represents a significant and
obvious component of today’s workforce, diversity management is a somewhat nascent organizational concept; because of this, teaching about managing diversity can pose some pedagogical
challenges.
CHALLENGES OF TEACHING DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
Although there is a clear movement in corporate America and academia to embrace diversity, not
so clear is the public acknowledgment and dialogue about the challenges associated with diversity
management education. Students need to realize that diversity management is a sometimes
difficult process with often uncertain results; even skilled managers with the best intentions can
fail to anticipate and resolve the problems that managing diversity presents. The diversity paradox
represents the potential challenges or inconsistencies that diversity may raise. An illustration of
such a challenge is that while diversity is a proven source of creativity and innovation in
organizations, it is also a cause of misunderstanding and conflict.14
As students grapple with the idea that sometimes diversity within an organization can be
paradoxical, they begin to understand the complexity of diversity management. An organization
that illuminates a diversity paradox is Xerox. Xerox, a progressive leader in diversity management, has won a long string of diversity-related awards and has been rated as one of the Top 10
companies in hiring minorities, women, people with disabilities, and gay and lesbian employees
by Fortune, Forbes, Working Mother, Latino Style, and Enable Magazine.15 Xerox’s approach to
managing diversity has been clear and consistent; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Anne
M. Mulcahy states: “diversity breeds creativity. Maybe it’s because people with different backgrounds challenge each other’s underlying assumptions, freeing everybody from convention and
orthodoxy.”16 Nonetheless, diversity management at Xerox has had its problems. Not only was
evidence found that suggested the clear lack of promotional opportunity and equal pay for
African Americans, but Xerox employees “fashioned a workplace display of African American
dolls with nooses around their necks, igniting a lawsuit against the company in 2002.”17 Although
Xerox has been a model of diversity management for over 40 years, it represents a diversity paradox as it recently was charged with blatant, systemic discrimination of African Americans.
For the diversity management educator, illuminating problematic aspects of diversity is just as
important as illuminating diversity’s strengths. Another challenge facing the diversity educator is
effectively teaching the business case for diversity. Despite the organizational intricacies of having
and managing a diverse workforce, many business leaders and educators unconditionally embrace
the main premise of the business case for diversity: having a diverse workforce will improve
financial performance. The business case for diversity is, in effect, “a management-focused,
economic argument to promote corporate investments in workforce diversification. The business
case links investments in organizational diversity initiatives to improvements in productivity and
profitability.”18 The business case for diversity asserts that a diverse workforce creates a competitive
advantage by decreasing overall costs while enhancing creativity, problem solving capability,
recruitment and marketing strategies, overall productivity, leadership effectiveness, global relations,
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
and organizational flexibility.19 The business case discourse is powerful and pervasive as it has
spread not only within the United States, but also globally throughout the United Kingdom,
Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Scandinavia.20
Nonetheless, it is the diversity educator’s responsibility to illuminate that although the
business case argument may well be appealing on an ideological level and represents a popular
position on workforce diversity, it fails to take into account the challenges associated with a
diverse workforce such as the potential of more conflict and misunderstanding because of
people’s differences. While some researchers have discussed the flaws of the business case,21 this
cautionary conversation goes mostly unrecognized in diversity training programs and college
courses. Popular books that are used in both training and college courses, for example, often
dedicate very little discussion to the lack of research supporting the business case for diversity.22
We believe that failing to recognize the problematic nature of diversity and taking the business
case for diversity for granted, however, leaves students and managers less well equipped than
necessary to handle the potential challenges, pitfalls, and paradoxes associated with diversity.
We believe that when teaching about diversity management, the pedagogical framework must
take into account real complexities and challenges that diversity may present. We have developed a
three-phase pedagogical framework to help diversity educators navigate diversity’s complexities and
create a more accurate and therefore more useful conversation about diversity and diversity management. The first phase is to grapple with the definition of diversity. As diversity educators and students
alike often ask the question, “What is diversity?” educators should encourage a conversation about
definitions that illuminate diversity’s complexities. The second phase facilitates an understanding of
diversity management from an organizational leadership perspective. In the third phase, diversity
educators should present in detail the arguments of the business case for diversity and encourage an
examination of the validity of the assumptions supporting these arguments.
We believe that the pedagogical framework presented here facilitates a method through which
diversity educators can begin a more accurate and helpful conversation about diversity management
in business and academia. The main goal of this three-phase framework is to make teaching more
effective—to create a more meaningful, honest, and dynamic dialogue about diversity in the workplace. We first begin with a detailed explication of phase one: defining diversity.
DEFINING DIVERSITY
When teaching students and managers about managing diversity, it is important to know what
diversity means. Diversity educators should explain the various ways in which diversity is
defined by scholars, practitioners, and organizations as a way to illuminate the breadth of interpretations and then to encourage students to determine what they view as the most representative
or useful definition. In this section, after we present some of these definitions—by examining
their weaknesses and highlighting their strengths—we present principles that will enhance a
more comprehensive understanding of diversity.
Society for Human Resource Management
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a leading professional association, recognizes that although diversity “is often used to refer to differences based on ethnicity, gender,
age, religion, disability, national origin and sexual orientation,” it also encompasses an “infinite
range” of “unique characteristics and experiences, including communication styles, physical
character such as height and weight, and speed of learning and comprehension.”23
7
8
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
Marilyn Loden
Marilyn Loden, a nationally recognized organizational change consultant, emphasizes the
importance of an all-encompassing definition of diversity, because, as she believes, when any
group—white men, for example—is excluded, managing diversity may create division rather
than inclusion. To “avoid widescale opposition,” corporations should define diversity such that
“everyone’s diversity is valued.”24 Because of this need for widespread endorsement from
organizational members, Loden views diversity as “important human characteristics that impact
individuals’ values, opportunities, and perceptions of self and others at work.”25 Loden’s widely
embraced model of diversity, as represented in Figure 1-1, explicates diversity as having both
primary and secondary dimensions.
Loden’s primary dimensions of diversity are “interlocking segments of a sphere” that represent the core of each individual’s identity while the secondary dimensions are “more mutable,
less visible to others around us, and more variable.”26 Loden explains that because the secondary
dimensions are more dynamic, their power is “less constant” and “more individualized than is
Geographic
Location
Military
Experience
Work
Experience
Education
Age
Work
Style
Family
Status
Gender
Mental/
Physical
Abilities and
Characteristics
Sexual
Orientation
Ethnic
Heritage
Race
Income
Religion
First
Language
Communication
Style
Organizational
Role and Level
Primary Dimensions
Secondary Dimensions
FIGURE 1-1 The Diversity Wheel
Loden Associates designs innovative models such as the diversity wheel to
facilitate understanding of a broad range of primary and secondary
dimensions of diversity. Source: From Implementing Diversity © 1996.
Irwin Professional Publishing.
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
true for the core dimensions.”27 In effect, the dimensions work in tandem to give definition to
people’s lives “by contributing to a synergistic, integrated whole—the diverse person.”28
Anita Rowe and Lee Gardenswartz
Anita Rowe and Lee Gardenswartz, human resource experts on managing workforce diversity,
embrace Loden’s definition of diversity but add two additional dimensions as represented in
Figure 1-2—one, personality, in the center and the other, organizational membership, on the
periphery. According to Rowe and Gardenswartz, at the center of the diversity model is “personality”
which is “the innately unique aspect” that “permeates all other layers” and unites them.29 The next
layer is “internal dimensions” (Loden’s primary dimensions) which is then followed by “external
dimensions” (Loden’s secondary dimensions).30 The outermost layer consists of organizational
characteristics such as union affiliation, management status, and work content or professional field.
In sum, these four layers of diversity come together to form one’s “diversity filter.”31
nal Dimensio
izatio
ns
n
a
g
Functional Level/
Or
Classification
al Dimens
ternGeographic ions
Ex
Management
Appearance
Status
n
ter
In
Parental
Status
Work
Content/
Field
Location
al Dimensio
Age
Race
Recreational
Habits
ns
Gender
Personal
Habits
Sexual
Orientation
Income
PERSONALITY
Union
Affiliation
Marital
Status
Ethnicity
Seniority
Physical
Ability
Work
Experience
Religion
Educational
Background
Work
Location
Division/Department
Unit/Group
FIGURE 1-2 Four Layers of Diversity
Internal Dimension and External Dimensions are adapted from Marilyn Loden and Judy
Rosener, Workforce America! (Business One Irwin., 1991). Source: From Diverse Teams
at Work. Gardenswartz & Rowe (Irwin, 1995).
9
10
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr.
The definition of diversity articulated by R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., CEO of R. Thomas &
Associates, Inc. and founder and president of the American Institute for Managing Diversity,
emphasizes the relationship between diversity and individuals’ similarities rather than their differences. Thomas maintains that diversity is “any mixture of items characterized by differences
and similarities”32 and explains that when business leaders make decisions, they must deal with
both differences and similarities among members of their workforce simultaneously. In addition,
Thomas emphasizes that diversity must be viewed as inclusive insofar as “if you are concerned
about racism, you include all races; if you’re concerned about gender, you include both genders;
or if you’re concerned about age issues, you include all age groups.”33
Some diversity scholars would argue that the strength of these definitions, as presented by
SHRM’s Diversity Forum, Loden, Rowe and Gardenswartz, and Thomas, is their inclusiveness—
the way in which they tend to make room for all members of an organization within the framework of diversity. Diversity, in this sense, becomes broad and all-encompassing. Yet we believe
that by not creating boundaries of what diversity is not in organizations, these definitions imply
that all organizational members are diverse. This assumption creates a situation whereby diversity
management risks losing its special meaning and significance as it becomes simply management
in general. When discussing definitions such as these, diversity educators should encourage a dialogue on the strengths and weaknesses of all-inclusive definitions of diversity. They should also
introduce scholars who, through their definitions of diversity, attempt to put boundaries around
the meaning of diversity in organizations.
Myrtle P. Bell
Myrtle P. Bell directly addresses the issue of the expansion of the notion of diversity. For Bell,
the areas of diversity include only race, ethnicity, sex, religion, age, physical and mental ability,
sexual orientation, work and family status, and weight and appearance. She emphasizes these
specific areas of difference because they “are based on power or dominance relations between
groups, particularly ‘identity groups,’ which are the collectivities people use to categorize themselves and others.”34 In addition, these areas are “often readily apparent, strong sources of personal identity, and stem from historical disparities in treatment, opportunities, and outcomes.”
Further, she explains that while other areas of difference are indeed important because they affect
“people’s organizational experiences,” such as values and attitudes, “they are rarely readily apparent
or strong sources of personal identity and generally do not stem from historical disparities in
treatment, opportunities, or outcomes.”35 The strength of this definition is how Bell creates
meaningful boundaries when defining diversity, specifically in the context of power relations and
historical inequities.
David A. Thomas and Robin J. Ely
David A. Thomas and Robin J. Ely focus on how diversity affects work as they define diversity
as “the varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups
bring.”36 Diversity is thus “not simply a reflection of the cosmetic differences among people,
such as race and gender; rather, it is the various backgrounds and experiences that create people’s
identities and outlooks.”37 Further, the authors explain how diverse groups bring not only their
“insider information” but also “different, important, and competitively relevant knowledge and
perspectives about how to actually do work,” for example, how to set and achieve goals, design
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
organizational processes, frame tasks, communicate, and work effectively in teams.38 If an
organization truly embraces the value of diversity, it will allow diverse employees to challenge
basic assumptions about an organization’s inner workings. This freedom will enable employees
to “identify more fully with the work they do,” thereby “setting in motion a virtuous circle.”39
The significance of this definition is how the authors frame diversity in terms of how it affects the
way that employees approach and do work—that employees’ diversity directly impacts the very
essence of their organizations.
Michàlle E. Mor Barak
Michàlle E. Mor Barak extends the discussion of diversity across national and cultural boundaries. With diversity having different interpretations in different countries, she admits that
“generating a definition of workforce diversity that will be relevant in different countries and
applicable in various cultural and national contexts proves to be a challenge.”40 Thus, she
maintains that workforce diversity refers to “the division of the workforce into distinction
categories that (a) have a perceived commonality within a given cultural or national context,
and that (b) impact potentially harmful or beneficial employment outcomes such as job opportunities, treatment in the workplace, and promotion prospects—irrespective of job-related
skills and qualifications.”41 Barak argues that this definition works in the global context for
two main reasons. First, “it provides a broad umbrella that includes any distinction categories
that may be relevant to specific cultural or national environments” without imposing the categories onto the culture but rather allowing the categories to emerge from within the specific
culture. Second, it works because it highlights the significance of the “consequences of the
distinction categories,” thus overcoming “the limitation of the broad definitions that include
benign and inconsequential characteristics in their diversity categories.”42
Four Principles for an Improved Definition of Diversity
When teaching about diversity, diversity educators should encourage students to reflect on the
usefulness of various definitions and should remind students that an organization’s definition of
diversity represents the beginning, foundational steps for how the organization will manage
diversity. Reflecting on and building upon the various definitions we have reviewed here, we rely
on the following principles when defining and discussing diversity: (1) diversity is expansive but
not without boundaries; (2) diversity is fluid and dynamic; (3) diversity is based on both differences and similarities; (4) diversity is rooted in nonessentialist thought; and (5) diversity is
directly related to how one approaches work.
The principle that diversity is
expansive but has boundaries challenges two commonly held, contrary assumptions about
diversity. Too narrow is the assumption that diversity is limited to one’s obvious demographic
characteristics such as gender and skin color. We include other dimensions of diversity in our
conception, including as diverse, for example, single parents and people who embrace spirituality.
If these less easily observed dimensions are omitted, distinctions among people may be so broad
that important conceptions of core identity are ignored. Too broad, however, is the way in which
some definitions extend diversity to the individual level of personality and organizational
position. When organizations are described as having nearly unlimited layers of diversity—for
example, including an employee’s functional area, formal division, or work location—diversity
gets overextended so that almost any imaginable organizational or social structure and context
DIVERSITY IS EXPANSIVE BUT NOT WITHOUT BOUNDARIES
11
12
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
are considered diverse. We think that understanding an individual’s experience is important, but
that is true for management in general, not just for managing diversity. It seems to us that if the
concept of diversity were to include every characteristic of every individual in any workplace, it
would lack both clarity and usefulness and so we tie the notion of diversity to the people and
groups of people who work in organizations. Our goal is to help students and managers develop
the ability to distinguish between more or less diverse organizations and groups.
DIVERSITY IS FLUID Often overlooked in diversity management education is diversity’s characteristic of fluidity. Although diversity affiliations are often portrayed as absolute and clearly distinct,
they are, we believe, fluid, continuous, and indefinite. Consider race, for example. The Census
Bureau identifies race as a “socio-political” construct rather than a biological one. Thus, it should not
be surprising that people’s conception of race is complex and variable. About six percent of
Americans say that they do not belong to any of the races identified by the Census Bureau, and more
than two percent say they belong to at least two races simultaneously.43 As organizational scholar
Deborah R. Litvin explains, “The categories constructed through the discourse of workforce diversity
as natural and obvious are hard-pressed to accommodate the complexity of real people.”44
In addition, the lines of diversity overlap, as most individuals associate themselves with a
number of social category dimensions. An example we use in class is a disabled woman of
Christian Lebanese descent who might define herself in terms of various constellations of gender, religion, national origin, or disability. Also, we remind students that employees often move
in and out of diversity categories—a single parent may get married, a man assumed to be straight
may come out as gay, an able-bodied employee may have an accident and become disabled, or an
employee may newly require a flexible schedule to care for an ailing parent.
Diversity’s dynamic quality is often ignored because of our tendency to define ourselves in terms of differences. Thus, we
believe that organizations should reconceptualize diversity so that it is understood in terms of
both differences and similarities. In this approach to diversity, affiliations will no longer represent rigid categories; individuals will view themselves as having qualities in common rather than
narrowly defining themselves in terms of how they differ, and the advantages of diversity can be
realized while its potential disadvantages can be avoided or minimized.45
Furthermore, we encourage students and managers to consider that not only do people identify with multiple dimensions of diversity simultaneously, but the combinations of their multiple
demographic categories influence group processes and outcomes. Demographic category memberships may be aligned by individuals or not; when they are, they create deeper divisions within groups
than when they are not. Thus, when a number of dimensions of diversity align they can create strong
“faultlines” in a group.46 For example, consider the workgroup represented in Table 1-1. In Panel A,
the group is divided along categories of sex, race, age, and function, so that a strong faultline separates the men from the women (also the whites from the Asians, the young from the midcareer, and
the finance analysts from the marketers). In Panel B, however, no strong subgroups are likely to
form, because the dimensions of diversity are aligned neither with each other nor with functional
areas. The strength of faultlines, and not just the amount of diversity in a group, may affect group
morale, conflict, and performance.47
DIVERSITY IS BASED ON BOTH DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES
DIVERSITY IS ROOTED IN NONESSENTIALIST THOUGHT When defining diversity in terms of
specific categories like race or age, it is easy to fall into the trap of essentialist thinking.
Categorizing people or inviting them to categorize themselves can lead to essentializing
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
TABLE 1-1 Examples of Strong and Weak Faultlines
A: Strong Faultline
Group Member
1
2
3
4
5
Sex
Race
Age
Functional Expertise
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
White
White
White
Asian
Asian
26
30
27
47
53
Finance
Finance
Finance
Marketing
Marketing
Sex
Race
Age
Functional Expertise
Male
Male
Male
Female
Female
White
White
Asian
White
Asian
53
30
27
47
26
Finance
Marketing
Finance
Marketing
Finance
B: Weak Faultline
Group Member
1
2
3
4
5
them—making the assumption that a characteristic, or set of characteristics, is the essential
nature of all members of a group. Essentialism, as discussed by Litvin, is damaging because it
“encourages individuals to immediately attribute their colleagues’ thoughts and behaviors to
their demographic category membership.”48 Students and managers need to understand this
danger so they can avoid it.
An example of essentialist thinking is presuming that because someone is a woman, it is
in her nature to want children. Although it may be true that most women have at least one
child,49 it is not the case that maternal desires are necessarily part of what it means to be a
woman. Other examples of essentializing members of particular groups include assumptions
such as the following: Asian Americans are strong quantitative thinkers; women use a relationship-based communication style; and men are persuaded by hard facts rather than emotional
appeal. Although it is much easier simply to categorize people as members of groups, a
nonessentialist framework transcends such generalizations while encouraging us to see the
specific character of each individual.
DIVERSITY IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HOW ONE EXPERIENCES WORK In discussions of
workplace diversity, diversity should be examined in the context of how it informs the way
in which one approaches his or her job. Unfortunately, however, diversity is often incorporated superficially in organizations, for instance, being simply mentioned in a mission statement or articulated as a value and pursued only in terms of numbers of diverse employees. It
should, by contrast, be considered in terms of its direct relationship with how employees
perceive and perform their work and interact with both their colleagues and those outside
their organizations. As explained by Thomas and Ely, companies that effectively manage
diversity have developed “an outlook on diversity that enables them to incorporate employees’
perspectives into the main work of the organization and to enhance work by rethinking
primary tasks and redefining markets, products, strategies, missions, business practices, and
even cultures.”50
13
14
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
In sum, these five principles will help students and managers understand the complexities of
diversity and how important it is for an organization’s definition of diversity to capture these complexities. We point out that diversity educators and organizational leaders might struggle not only to
define diversity but also to formulate an approach to direct and shape their philosophy on diversity.
What follows next is a discussion of leadership-based approaches to managing diversity that will
help students to determine the level of effectiveness at which organizations are managing diversity.
UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP-BASED ORGANIZATIONAL
PARADIGMS FOR MANAGING DIVERSITY
Organizational leaders have embraced various paradigms, or approaches, to understanding and
managing diversity.51 These diversity management paradigms can serve as conceptual categories
to help students and managers diagnose the status and effectiveness of an organization in terms
of diversity management. These paradigms include: resistance, discrimination-and-fairness,
access-and-legitimacy, and integration-and-learning. When discussing these paradigms we ask
the students to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each diversity management approach.
We suggest that working in tandem with these paradigms are the rhetorics of resistance, affirmative action, valuing diversity, and diversity management. The rhetoric that represents each of the
approaches is developed primarily by the language used by leaders within organizations and
functions to constitute and reconstitute the characteristics within each of the paradigms.
Although these paradigms developed, in turn, prior to the Civil Rights era (resistance paradigm) to the present day (integration-and-learning paradigm), we make it clear to our students
that their history should not be seen as a continuous trend toward improved diversity management in American business. To assume that one approach has built on another and that progress
has been made through this development does not account for the diversity inconsistencies that
often exist in today’s workplace. For example, paradigms may coexist in organizations (such as
Xerox) so that progressive organizations that incorporate diversity management systemically
(integration-and-learning paradigm) may still contain pockets of serious refusal or defiance
(resistance paradigm) against diversity management. Thus, although we discuss the following
approaches as they appeared chronologically, we take time to explain that their manifestations in
real organizations do not always follow such a clear, progressive trajectory.
Resistance Paradigm
The resistance paradigm is based on the rejection and evasion of diversity and diversity-promoting
initiatives. Although this perspective was more commonly expressed in the United States prior to
the civil rights movement, it continued into the 1970s and beyond. For many years, management in
a number of industries and occupations consisted of largely homogeneous groups of white men;
diversity remained misunderstood and unappreciated.52 Much of the workforce was made up of
immigrants and/or ethnic minorities, but in an effort to maintain privilege, established majorities
both among managers and blue-collar workers resisted changes in workplace demographic
diversity—particularly in terms of color of skin and gender—because of outright prejudice or
because they believed that minority groups might gain power and influence.53
RHETORIC OF RESISTANCE As the resistance paradigm considers diversity as more of a threat
than an opportunity, the discourse of resistance takes the form, for example, of “defiant assertions that changes are inefficient or unacceptable to shareholders because they increase costs
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
and reduce profits.”54 A powerful example of this kind of argument that we use in the classroom
is the case of Cracker Barrel Restaurants and its founder Dan Evins. Cracker Barrel was
accused of blatantly discriminating against gays and lesbians working in its restaurants.
Reflecting the rhetoric of resistance, Cracker Barrel and its leadership maintained that because
Cracker Barrel was “founded upon a concept of traditional American values” it was deemed
“inconsistent with our concept and values and . . . with those of our customer base, to continue
to employ individuals . . . whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual
values which have been the foundation of families in our society.”55 Although this example of
resistance happened in 1991, students are still surprised, and some shocked, that this level of
blatant discrimination was and continues to be legal in some states.
Discrimination-and-Fairness Paradigm
The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm, often adopted in the late 1960s and 1970s, is based
on accommodating the legal responsibilities of diversity, often in terms of federal mandates. The
underlying philosophy of this paradigm is described by Thomas and Ely as follows: “Prejudice
has kept members of certain demographic groups out of organizations” and “[a]s a matter of fairness and to comply with federal mandates, we need to work toward restructuring the makeup of
our organizations to let it more closely reflect that of society.”56 The appeal of this approach is
that it makes efforts to recruit and, to some extent, to retain diverse employees, but this approach
treats all people within a given social demographic category as the same. In other words, the
paradigm’s weakness is that it does not “allow employees to draw on their personal assets and
perspectives to do their work more effectively.”57 Unsurprisingly, organizations that embrace this
paradigm have no real strategy for managing diversity, since they believe that the minority view
should “conform to the expectations of the organization’s existing culture.”58
Because the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm is
reflected in the rhetoric of affirmative action, we use this discussion to teach about this emotionally charged, often misunderstood topic. We explain that the intentions behind affirmative action
were sound as it was grounded in moral and social responsibility, with the goal of amending
wrongs done in the past to those Americans—minorities and women in particular—who were
underrepresented in positions of organizational and political power. The phrase “affirmative
action” was first used in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925
which created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity and mandated that federal
funds be used to take affirmative action to ensure that hiring and employment practices were free
of racial bias. Then, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 requiring
federal contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. In 1967 Johnson expanded the
Order to include affirmative action requirements to benefit women.
Although affirmative action was created as a temporary remedy to equalize discrimination
that had persisted despite constitutional promises, it became, for many, synonymous with language such as “preferential treatment” and “quotas,” which worked quickly to dishonor the
policy’s fundamental purpose. Affirmative action has been strongly challenged in both political
and judicial contexts. An example is the historic 2003 case involving the University of
Michigan’s admissions policies, whereby the Supreme Court upheld the University’s law school
affirmative action policy—to continue to consider race as one element when selecting their
students. In this situation, the Court found that “diversity is a compelling interest in higher
RHETORIC OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
15
16
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
education, and that race is one of a number of factors that can be taken into account to achieve
the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.”59 This groundbreaking decision
was negated in 2005, however, when the state of Michigan passed an initiative prohibiting preferential treatment based on skin color or gender in public contracting, public employment, and
public education.
Access-and-Legitimacy Paradigm
Companies operating from the access-and-legitimacy paradigm, common in the 1980s and early
1990s, emphasize bottom-line reasons for incorporating diversity. In this approach, companies
“accept and celebrate differences so they can better serve their diverse pool of customers.”60 The
underlying philosophy of this paradigm is that because of diverse demographics in various markets, “new ethnic groups are quickly gaining consumer power” so organizations need “a demographically more diverse workforce to help . . . gain access to these differentiated segments.”61
Employees who are multilingual, for example, will help organizations to understand and serve
customers better, thereby gaining legitimacy with them.
This model creates opportunities for people from less-represented groups to enter new
positions in business because their diversity is, at least on some levels, valued by the organization. The paradigm’s most serious limitation is clear: When a business regards employees’ experience as useful only to gain access to narrow markets, those employees are, and are likely to
feel, marginalized. In effect, the diverse employees and their work are pigeonholed rather than
integrated systemically throughout the organization.
The rhetoric of valuing diversity, as used in the accessand-legitimacy paradigm, extends beyond the discourse of affirmative action by embracing
“awareness, education, and positive recognition of the differences among people in the workforce.”62 Leaders who use this rhetoric are not just trying to satisfy federal guidelines under antidiscrimination law but rather claim to value the contributions that diverse employees make in an
effort to create a profitable or effective organization.
We point to Avon’s CEO, Andrea Jung, illustrating how organizations can leverage diversity
as a competitive advantage. The once-struggling Avon boasts not only increased profits and innovations but also having more women in management positions than any other Fortune 500 company;
in addition, people of color make up a third of Avon’s workforce.63 The company’s famous directselling method now has a corps of 3.9 million independent sales representatives worldwide, many
of whom are women of color selling products to a diverse clientele. Furthermore, Avon has been
actively developing Latina-geared cosmetics called Avon Eres Tu (Avon Is You) and has launched
ad campaigns featuring women of color, including tennis champions Venus and Serena Williams
and actress Salma Hayek. John Fleming, regional vice president for Avon West, sums up Avon’s
diversity philosophy: “Avon is committed to diversity. The marketplace is becoming more and
more diverse each year, thus the diversity we see in the marketplace must be reflected in our representative ranks and in our management ranks.”64
RHETORIC OF VALUING DIVERSITY
Integration-and-Learning Paradigm
The fourth paradigm, the integration-and-learning paradigm, which largely emerged in the
1990s, reflects characteristics of both the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm and the accessand-legitimacy paradigm but goes beyond them by embracing the business case for diversity and
“by concretely connecting diversity to approaches to work.”65 Leaders who adopt this approach
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
recognize that employees frequently make decisions and choices at work that draw upon their
identity-group affiliations.66 Executives actively recruit and retain their diverse workforce, invest
in diversity training, and expect that having a diverse workforce and management team will lead
to better decisions and an enhanced bottom line.
Organizational leaders who adopt this paradigm are proactive about learning from diversity,
encourage people to use their cultural experience at work, fight forms of dominance and subordination based on demographic categories, and ensure that conflicts related to diversity are acknowledged
and resolved with sensitivity.67 When using this approach, leadership “must recognize both the learning opportunities and the challenges that the expression of different perspectives presents for an
organization.”68 Not only should leaders understand the challenges, but they must be able to communicate easily and clearly their message about diversity and diversity management within their
company. Employees within these organizations should have a clear understanding of the critical and
integrative role that diversity plays within the organization.
RHETORIC OF DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT The integration-and-learning paradigm is reflected
in the rhetoric of diversity management. This rhetoric is different from both the rhetoric of affirmative action and the rhetoric of valuing diversity, specifically because it maintains that effective
diversity management creates not only a competitive advantage in consumer markets but an
environment in which differences are “valued and allowed to influence positively [organizational
members’] experience in and contribution to the work of the organization.”69 Diversity management seeks to align the skills and personal experiences of the individual members of the
organization with its mission and strategy.
A business example that is representative of this approach is IBM. Former CEO of IBM
Louis V. Gerstner’s rhetoric of diversity management was the catalyst for IBM’s philosophical
shift from “minimizing differences to amplifying them and to seizing on the business opportunities they present.”70 Gerstner and IBM’s vice president of Global Workforce Diversity, Ted
Childs, created eight diversity task forces made up of the following demographic executive-led
constituencies: Asians, African Americans, gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transgender (GLBT) individuals, Hispanics, white men, Native Americans, people with disabilities, and women. After
receiving feedback from these constituencies, Gerstner allowed diversity perspectives to influence the main work of IBM; by doing this, he encouraged diversity to have systematic influence
throughout IBM. IBM indeed looks different today than it did in 1995 at the beginning of
Gerstner’s tenure, with, for example, a 370 percent increase in the number of female executives
worldwide, a 733 percent increase of GLBT executives, and a tripling of the number of executives with disabilities. According to Thomas, IBM succeeded in managing diversity because it
had put in place four “pillars of change”: IBM demonstrated leadership support, engaged
employees as partners, integrated diversity with management practices, and linked diversity
goals to business goals.71
Although the diversity management model presents a progressive way of understanding
diversity in the workplace, one of its underlying assumptions is the validity of the business case for
diversity. We believe that the diversity educator should lead an open discussion on why this assumption is potentially problematic. For the past decade, many proponents of the business case for diversity have maintained that a diverse workforce yields a competitive advantage to organizations. The
business case is unclear, however, as shown in the academic literature,72 even though we believe that
it is often taught without presenting many qualifications to students. Because of the emotion often
associated with diversity issues, this critically important discussion of the weaknesses of the business
case for diversity has been inadvertently avoided or actively silenced in diversity education.
17
18
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
UNDERSTANDING THE BUSINESS CASE FOR DIVERSITY
The Business Case for Diversity
Even though there are questions about the soundness of some of the arguments in favor of the
business case for diversity, it is important for students to understand the assertions of the
case, specifically because organizations are making significant diversity-related decisions
(i.e., management, training, and recruiting) based on assumptions about its validity. Those
who support the business case for diversity argue that diverse organizations will realize cost
savings, recruit the best talent, and have high rates of growth.
COST SAVINGS The business case suggests that by embracing the value of diversity and diversity management, an organization will reduce costs and create a competitive advantage.73 For
example, if employees believe they are respected, they will stay with the company longer while
maintaining strong accountability and productivity. The Society for Human Resource
Management (SHRM) reminds us of the commonsense argument that a company’s return on
investment “is reduced when commitment and productivity are lost because employees feel disregarded, time is wasted with conflicts and misunderstandings, and money is spent on legal fees
and settlements.”74 The business case for diversity assumes that managing diversity will lead to
lower turnover among women and minorities, higher commitment from them, and fewer lawsuits. Lowering these factors should reduce costs to the company and, in turn, raise profits.
WINNING THE COMPETITION FOR TALENT An organization with a strong reputation for managing its diverse workforce will be more likely to attract and recruit the most talented workers. It
is, therefore, a competitive advantage to be ranked in one of the “top diversity lists”—such as
Fortune’s “Best Companies for Minorities,” DiversityInc’s “Top Companies for Diversity,” or
Working Mother’s “The 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers List.” In addition, it is now
common for talented recruits to “ask about an organization’s diversity initiative and factor that
into their employment decision.”75
DRIVING BUSINESS GROWTH The business case for diversity frames business growth in terms
of marketing, creativity and problem solving, and flexibility and global relations. In light of the
increasingly global and diverse consumer market, one commonly heard business case argument
is that the “cultural understanding” needed to market to specific demographic niches “resides
most naturally in marketers with the same cultural background.”76 In fact, some scholars suggest
that “[i]n some cases, people from a minority culture are more likely to give patronage to a representative of their own group” and “[f]or at least some products and services, a multicultural
sales force may facilitate sales to members of minority culture groups.”77
The argument of the business case is that when employees feel that their diverse backgrounds and perspectives are recognized and appreciated, the quality of problem solving and
creativity is likely to improve. There is evidence to suggest that heterogeneous groups perform
well in terms of making well-considered decisions.78 Researchers have suggested that “minority
views can stimulate consideration of nonobvious alternatives in task groups” and that “persistent
exposure to minority viewpoints stimulates creative thought processes.”79 According to the business case, diverse workforces have the potential to solve problems better because of several
factors: a greater variety of perspectives brought to bear on the issue; a higher level of critical
analysis of alternatives; and, because there is a lower probability of groupthink, a higher probability of generating creative solutions.80
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
According to the business case, the skills of flexibility and adaptability that are learned in
a diverse workplace will extend generally and enhance the employee’s ability to communicate
across national and organizational cultures. Thus, diverse companies should be able to compete
more successfully in a complex and global economy. Research suggests, for example, that companies with greater diversity make better business partners and merge more smoothly with other
companies. The transition is less difficult for diverse companies because they are familiar with
accepting the differences among people and within cultures.81 Scholars argue that this characteristic of adaptability will enhance a company’s ability to communicate more effectively when
faced with developing and maintaining relations internationally.82
Assessing the Business Case for Diversity
We believe that the business case for diversity represents an important yet incomplete step
toward understanding the intersection of diversity and the workplace. In an effort to advance the
understanding of the principles of diversity management and the integration-and-learning paradigm, we illuminate several assumptions underlying the business case and pose some questions
about them. Because organizations are basing their diversity-related decisions on the business
case, it is important for diversity educators to review carefully the strengths and weaknesses of
the business case for diversity.
A DIVERSE WORKFORCE AND PRODUCTIVITY Thomas A. Kochan, codirector of the Institute
for Work and Employment Research at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and his colleagues
maintain that “The diversity industry is built on sand . . . The business case rhetoric for diversity
is simply naïve and overdone. There are no strong positive or negative effects of gender or racial
diversity on business performance.”83 This statement is based on the findings of a five-year
research project led by the Diversity Research Network and published in the journal Human
Resource Management.84
Unfortunately, perhaps, one cannot assume that a diversity program will benefit an organization; in fact, “[p]oorly managed diversity programs can be as harmful as well-run ones can be
beneficial.”85 And, adding even more complexity, “[e]ven when diversity is managed well, the
results are mixed. The best organizations can overcome the negative consequences of diversity,
such as higher turnover and greater conflict in the workplace, but that still does not mean that
there are positive outcomes.”86
Human resources executives often do not
demand documented evidence proving the bottom-line value of diversity initiatives because, in
many cases, it is both difficult and costly to obtain. Kochan and his colleagues advise that
“[h]uman resource managers and other professionals in charge of diversity efforts should take a
more analytical approach in performing their roles. Sophisticated data collection and analyses
are needed to understand the consequences of diversity within organizations, and to monitor an
organization’s process in managing diversity.”87 According to Laura Liswood, senior advisor to
Goldman Sachs on diversity issues and a scholar at the University of Maryland’s Academy of
Leadership, it is difficult to create valid measures of increased organizational performance
because of diversity: “There is a connection between diversity and financial success, but typical
profit-and-loss systems don’t capture the benefits that diversity creates.”88 It is one thing to
measure diversity in terms of recruitment, promotion, or turnover rates; but it is entirely different
to measure the full strategic or financial impact of diversity initiatives.
MEASURING THE RESULTS OF DIVERSITY EFFORTS
19
20
Part I • Uncovering the Complexities of Workplace Diversity
Because one of the goals of
diversity initiatives is to empower diverse employees, a discussion of resistance by diverse
employees is often omitted from discussion of the business case for diversity. It is important to
have this discussion nonetheless because, as one study found, “[m]any employees, even women
and other minority groups, think corporate diversity programs benefit only black employees.”89
Also intriguing is that, in the same study, African American employees were also critical of corporate diversity efforts.90 Given these findings, organizations should keep in mind that just
because employees may fall into a group affiliation that is considered diverse, they may not support the initiatives that are implemented in support of the business case for diversity.
SUPPORT OF DIVERSITY INITIATIVES BY DIVERSE EMPLOYEES
DIVERSITY TRAINING AND ADDED VALUE Diversity training programs are sometimes questioned and have even been charged with hampering an organization’s efforts to understand diversity
and use diversity management as a business advantage.91 Some diversity training efforts can indeed
be counterproductive, specifically with the result being a decrease in the number of women and
minorities in managerial positions.92 According to David Tulin of Tulin and Associates, a diversityconsulting firm in New York City, diversity training may raise expectations by increasing “the
minorities’ anger and frustration” while increasing “the white males’ isolation and exclusionary
behavior.”93 Training programs aimed at addressing subtle forms of discrimination and exclusion
often do not lead to long-term changes in behaviors.94 Instead, “group members and leaders must be
trained to deal with group process issues, with a focus on communicating and problem-solving in
diverse teams.”95
Despite large investments in diversity training (it is an estimated 8 billion dollar industry),
the total number of discrimination charges filed with the EEOC have increased steadily since
1996—hitting a seven-year high in 2002—within the categories of race, sex, national origin,
religion, age, and disability.96 This trend may represent increased dissatisfaction because of
organizational failures despite the efforts of managers and consultants, or increased expectations;
alternatively, increased awareness of these issues may simply have made it easier to recognize
problems and enter complaints. In other words, factors leading to the increase of filings with the
EEOC may include real failure, higher expectations, or increased awareness.
One of the most frequently made business
case arguments is that by hiring diverse employees, organizations will be able to capitalize on
diverse markets. This claim rests on the assumption that customers desire to be served by those
who physically resemble themselves. Evidence to support this argument, however, is lacking.
The Diversity Research Network, for example, “finds no consistent evidence that most customers care whether the salespeople who serve them are of the same race or gender.”97 In short,
there is no clear proof that diversity causes better market performance. Indeed, the causal relationship between diversity and performance may be the reverse: Better-performing companies
may simply attract the best talent among all groups of workers.98
DIVERSE EMPLOYEES AND DIVERSE MARKETS
WHITE MEN AND DIVERSITY Some diversity scholars use an expansive definition of diversity
so that members of no group—in particular, white men—feel excluded, whereas other scholars
fail even to address the relationship between the dominant group (typically, white men) and diversity. Sondra Thiederman, president of Cross-Cultural Communications, a San Diego-based
consulting firm for workplace diversity and cross-cultural business practices, believes that one
common mistake that diversity advocates make is failing to incorporate white men in their strategies.99 According to DiversityInc.com, one important role of the diversity manager/trainer is to
Chapter 1 • Diversity in the Workplace: A Theoretical and Pedagogical Perspective
help the white-male employee understand and embrace the diversity movement by reassuring
him that he is not targeted as the enemy; helping him to see his position of privilege; and
explaining how diversity is not only a societal value but also a competitive advantage. 100
Another approach is to invite white-male employees to become part of the organization’s
diverse culture by, for example, participating in a diversity-strategy group, mentoring and
coaching people from nondominant groups, or organizing the minority development programs
or minority recruitment.101
Most discussions of diversity neglect any recognition of the diversity within the “white
male” category. When looked at from a nonessentialist perspective, white-male employees might
affiliate themselves just as strongly with their religion, sexual identity, parental status, or age, as
with their race. For example, a white man may experience discrimination because he is Jewish,
gay, a single parent, or an older worker. Lost in the business case rhetoric is a discussion of the
multiple layers of diversity within the category “white male,” a clear method for making the
white male voice legitimate in the conversation about managing diversity, and acknowledgment
that white males also represent a protected class under the categories “color of skin” and “race”
as defined by the federal government.
CONCLUSION
We believe that a learning opportunity is represented in the pedagogical framework that we
have presented in this essay. The first phase—crafting a definition of diversity—invites students
and/or managers to grapple with a definition that is inclusive enough to account for diversity’s
complexities while not being so expansive as to imply that each individual is uniquely
“diverse.” This phase forces students and/or managers to reflect on the process of defining
diversity so that a more representative, meaningful definition can be crafted. The second phase—
examining leadership-based paradigms of diversity and the paradigms that support them—helps
to create a framework for diagnosing and examining stages of diversity management in organizations. One of the assignments in our class is for the students to write a detailed analysis of a
national organization known for its effective or ineffective diversity-management practices
through the lens of the diversity-management paradigms. Through this assignment, students
discover that many organizations are in the process of transitioning between paradigms, are
stuck in a less effective paradigm, or are taking diversity management seriously as they strive
toward the integration-and-learning paradigm. After the students examine the organization
through the lens of the diversity management paradigms, they are able to diagnose strategies for
the organization to implement in order to make diversity management a systemic force and
competitive advantage.
The third phase�…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment