Diverse approaches to managing diversity

Diverse Approaches to Managing Diversity

Caf!h&e Ellis and Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld

Against a bnckdrap Ofphilosopkhl and plitical delmte, this article trrtiaos the emerg- ing pitfalls of new cwpolate diversity ppms. Three piomwing corpwate p ~ ~ g r a m ~ are examined closels and a disncssion of the putpose, the process, and the impact of these programs is offered. original survg, data reported here suggest that exposure to d i m i t y issues affects workplace attitudes. Lessons are drawn that d r e s s the role o f top leadership, participant mix, instructor quality, and corporate culture. @ 1m by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Hau efectiue are the many ruidrly publicized corporate efforts to address work force d h i t y ? Cottsider the ercerpts below, which are samples ofm*ften comments offered at the end of a survey OfempZoyee attitudes toward race and gender relations in a large US ootporation known for its commitment to valuing cultural diversity:

. . . I have found racial and cultural tolerance has increased. I personally have been exposed (on the job) to great cultural and racial diversity. This exposure has been rewarding and esperially gratifying because I don't get this diversity in my off the job Me. I hope this continues. -white male manager

Minorities are treated with no respect. Sometimes it gets so bad here I don't even feel like coming to work. -Afrian-American female craft m&r

Positions should be a w d d on qualifications, not on race, religion, sex, or what have you. It only buiids resentment towards the "minority group" if their position is not earned. There is reverse discrimbation. It does exist, and don't let anyone tell you differently. -white male manager

I personally feel that enough cannot be said or done to encourage respect and an understanding of cultural diversity. Bigotry, racism, and sexism are a fact of life that we should all reeogniae and try to come to terms with through dialogue and various other forms of cultural awareness. - Afrian-Amerian male manager

The company spokesperhns say the "right wosds," but the internal politics from the top filtering down to lower level management negates all

Human Resource Management, Spring 1994, Vol. 33, Number 1, Pp. 79-109 0 1994 by John Wdey L Sons, Inc. CCC 0090-4848/94/01031

your pronouncements. When your board of directors consists of women and minorities (and top management), then we might believe you. -white female craft worker

This subject [of managing diversity] does not interest me in the least bit! As a matter of fact, it makes me sick! If you do a good job, great! If not, don’t blame it on your color! -race, sex and occupational identity not offered

I believe we unify by looking at what we have in common. If you want to segregate, then look at “Diversity.” -white male craft worker

Amidst a sea of political discord, many corporations have navigated pragmatic, nonideological approaches to growing workforce diversity. The programs which have developed are justified by generic statistics and broad strategic missions. They are positive in tone, yet often lack systemic, firm-wide integration into other human resource policies and do not tap the passionate disagreement that often rages beneath a plat- itudinous facade.

While one often reads about the plethora of corporate responses to demographic changes in the workplace, which range from sensitivity training workshops to broadly publicized credos about the value of cultural diversity, the readers remain largely uninformed about the impact of these programs on the individual firm and its employees. The director of Equal Employment Opportunity at one major transportation firm explains, “Companies are spending millions of dollars on Managing Diversity programs, but have no idea how well they’re working.” Most companies are not only uninformed as to how well these programs are working, but seem unaware of the problems that could result from ones that are poorly developed and executed.

Our purpose is to critically examine the content and potential out- comes of several Managing Diversity programs in order to identrfy key considerations for managers attempting to enhance the management of diversity in their firms. The rationale behind the management of diversity as it has evolved in relation to the last thwty years of race- and gender-related policies in the workplace and as a result of demographic changes in the population is examined; the types of initiatives commonly found in corporations and the specific programs in three Fortune 500 firms that we will call National Transportation Systems (NTS), General Computer, Inc. (GCI) and United Communications Cor- poration (UCC) are discussed; the programs in these high-profile corporations are then analyzed in terms of lessons which can be drawn from both the shortcomings and merits of each one. Next, findings from a large survey we conducted at UCC will be presented; it assessed the effects of participation in that firm’s cross-cultural training program on employees’ attitudes toward race- and gender-relations in the firm. The article closes with some specific recommendations for program design.

80 I Human Resource Management, Spring 1994

THE RISE OF DIVERSm FROM RESISTANCE To AFFIRMATION

While debate about the fairness, benefits, and costs of affirmative action has raged on for over two decades, a transformation has taken place in the workplace. In the 19709 women and minorities began to join the workforce in unprecedented numbers, partially as a result of affirmative action legislation, and their presence continues to grow. (Foster, 1988; Leonard, 1985). Not only have these traditionally underrepre- sented groups benefited from affirmative action policies, but many corporations contend that living up to the affirmative action mandate has enhanced their human resources practices. They have found affirmative action practices to be an effective means of tracking the productivity of workers and idenhfying talented employees. (Landers, 1989; Moore, 1989). Consequently, despite repeated attempts by the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush to soften affirmative action initiatives in the 1980s, large corporations have chosen to xnaintain their programs because they have proven to be valuable human resource tools, and they reduce the risk of discrimination lawsuits. As the Nation- al Journal (1989) reports, "Affirmative action has succeeded in the corporate world with less rancor than other areas in large part because affirmative action has become a good business strategy."

Given the changing demographics of the workforce, a new era of race and gender relations in the workplace has begun. While there are still debates over how to best approach the management of diversity in the workforce (see Table I), companies feel they must compete more effectively for skilled labor by drawing on employees from an array of cultural backgrounds. It is no longer a matter of corporations putting up bar riers that keep women and minorities out of the finn but is one of removing these blocks so that women and minorities not only enter the firm, but land on tracks carrying those with talent up through the firm. An unprecedented number of corporations espouse the idea that nurtur- ing, promoting, and ensuring the fair treatment of women and minorities goes as far to advance the firm's competitive edge as it does to advance the careers of these employees. As R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. (1990) states:

The problem is not getting them [minorities and women] in at the entry level; the problem is ntakhg better use of their potentiai at every level, especially in middle-management and leadership positions. This is no longer simply a question of common decency, it is a question of business survival (p. 108).

Badi Foster (1988), President of the Aetna Institute, agrees: "The future of American industry will rely on our human resource potential, and

Ellis and Sonnenfeld Managing Diversity I 81

Table I. Philosophical Debates on Diversity: Colorblind vs. Competitive

Colorblind Some scholars (Shelby Steele, 1990; Thomas Sowell, 1990; Dinesh DSouza,

1991; Walter Williams, 1991)call for “color-blind” employment practices and policies-that is, ones that ignore differences associated with race, gender, age, or individual lifestyle. They decry the ill-effects of affirmative adion, not only on individual companies and whites who they believe may lose out on job opportunities, but on the people who are supposed to benefit from special consideration or training. Sowell strongly opposes making business leaders responsible for proportionate representation of ethnic groups in their firms, arguing that skewed participation in various industries and echelons of power is not a reflection of job discrimination, but of common- place variation in the work force. (WaZZ Street Journal, March 6, 1990 p. A20) Other critics of affirmative action argue that it amounts to “reverse discrimination,” or that it lowers standards of performance and productivity.

Competitive By contrast, other scholars (Taylor Cox, 1991; Clayton Alderfer, 1991; R. Roose-

velt Thomas, 1990; Donna Thompson and Nancy DiTomaso, 1988) argue that businesses should acknowledge cultural differences among employees, not simply to ensure numerical representation in the firm, but to benefit from them in the workplace. Affirmative Action may ultimately go by the wayside, but if companies do not learn how to manage an inexorably changing workforce, they will lose their competitive edge. The message many managers are now receiving from business consultants and corporate executives is that their performance will be evaluated partially in light of their ability to manage work groups through consideration of employees‘ cultural differences rather than according to a “color-blind” policy. (Washington Post, January 1, 1991, p. A14)

businesses will have no choice but to learn how to use workforce diversity constructively” (p. 39).

To assess the impact of diversity programs, it is first important to broadly define, “managing diversity.” Managing diversity refers to the challenge of meeting the needs of a culturally diverse workforce and of sensitizing workers and managers to differences associated with gender, race, age, and nationality in an attempt to maximize the potential productivity of all employees. Numerous companies, with these goals in mind, have developed programs and corporate philosophies with head- ings such as “Managing Diversity,” “Valuing Differences,” or ”Valuing Diversity.” The rationale behind these efforts is that prejudice, conflict, and miscommunication in the firm inhibit productivity, hinder the up- ward mobility and job satisfaction of minorities and women, and contribute to high turnover of these groups, all of which affect the financial performance of the firm. In other words, there are real costs associated with managers‘ inability to work with and lead a culturally diverse work group (Cox & Blake, 1991; Thompson & DiTomaso, 1988).

82 1 Human Resource Management, Spring 1994

At the same time, scholars, executives, and consultants point out the specific benefits of successfully managing a multicultural workforce that will increase an organization's competitive advantage in the market- place. Taylor Cox (1991) identifies some of these as: "Better decision making, greater creativity and innovation, and more successful market- ing to different types of customers." Likewise, Donna Thompson and Nancy DiTomaso (1988) explain that a:

Multicultural management perspective fosters more innovative and cre- ative decision making, satisfying work environments, and better products because all people who have a contribution to make are encouraged to be involved in a meanin@ way . . . More information, more points of view, more ideas and reservations are better than fewer (p. 366).

These scholars argue that individuals from nontraditional backgrounds, that is, cultural backgrounds that have been largely unrepresented in white collar businesses, bring unique perspectives to the workplace which add wisdom and insight to the collective knowledge of the firm. Thus, for many managers, the competitive advantage that may emerge from effective management of diverse employees is a compelling reason to implement a Managing Diversity program.

While this reasoning may be sound, the design and implementation of some programs is not. In practice, many programs (designed to make managers and workers more sensitive to differences among various ethnic groups and to eradicate negative stereotypes) take place in only one day. These program seem to be based on the premise that contact with members of different ethnic groups-if only for a few hours-or propa- ganda announcing the benefits of diversity, will dear up any mispercep tions or ill will that some employees feel toward certain ethnic groups. Evidence often shows the contrary; simply pointins out differences among various groups, if not handled sensitively, can increase hostility and misunderstanding. Miles Hewstone and Rupert Brown (1986), experts in studies of interradal contact, point out, "There is a very real danger that m y p u p differences will be interpreted as implying that one group is inferior to another" @. 10). They argue that any attempt to discuss cultural differences, in order to foster c r o s s - c u l ~ understanding and tolerance, must, be done carefully, over time, and on successive occasions. Thomas Pettigrew (19E%), a prominent social psychologist spedalizing in race relations, also argues that positive effects of interra- cial contact will only occur on a cumulative basis over time, not as a result of "one-shot contact situations" @. 184). Similarly, Thompson and DiTomaso (1988) warn of the dangers of implementing "bandaid" programs:

As we have seen in far too many organizations, you cannot attempt to "open up'' critical and controversial issues in a one-shot sensitivity training session where you encourage managem to change and get results. . . You cannot just take a program or intervention and "plug it in" and expect

EEis and Sonnenfeld Managing Diversity I 83

it to be successful without changing the supporting organizational culture in any way (p. 367).

Other studies question the competence of diversity trainers. For instance, one poll conducted by the newsletter, Cultural Diversity at Work, suggests that as many as fifty percent of the trainers do not know what they are doing (The New Republic, July 5,1993). With these admonitions in mind, we turn to a review and critical analysis of corporate initiatives designed to improve management of diversity.

DIVERSE APPROACHES TO MANAGING DIVERSITY: A CATALOG OF OPTIONS

Numerous firms are joining the ranks of corporations responding to the challenge of ”Workforce 2000,” and many have won accolades for pio- neering work in the area of managing diversity. Their initiatives fall into one or more of the following categories: (a) multicultural workshops; @) multicultural “core groups” that meet on a monthly basis to confront stereotypes and personal biases; (c) female and minority support groups and net- works, as well as udvismy councils that report directly to upper management; (d) managerial reward systems that are based partially on managers’ ability to train and promote women and minorities; (e) fast-track programs and targeted training for women and minorities who demonstrate exceptional talent and potential; (f) mentoring programs that pair women and minorities with senior managers; and (g) a range of corporate communications announcing appreciation of cultural pluralism and top-level commitment to creating an environment where members of diverse groups can thrive.

While a good deal of information is available on the strategies firms employ to cultivate an organization that values and capitalizes on diversity, information on whether these programs are effective in meeting their goals is sparse. For instance, do these diversity programs enhance communication and cooperation among culturally diverse employees? Do they promote sensitivity to differences without reinforcing stereotypes? Do they increase the chances of women and people of color moving toward the top of the organization instead of moving laterally across departments? Do they enhance productivity in a measurable way? These questions and others related to measuring the programs’ success and impact on the performance of the organization and individual employees have for the most part remained unaddressed in the literature on managing diversity. (See Cox Blake, 1991, for a notable exception.) They are the questions that managers may want to consider when implementing a diversity program in their own firms. Therefore, high profile programs in three major US corporations will be examined here; their identities and those of their employees are disguised to ensure candor: National Transportation Systems (NTS), General Computer Inc. (GCI), and United Communications Corporation (UCC).

84 t Human Resource Management, Spring 1994

TEACHING THE VAWE OF DIVERSITY AT NAWNAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

National Transportation Systems has made participation in its one- day "Diversity" workshop mandatory for all full-time managers and supervisors nationwide. The workshop, which is held for 25 participants at a time, is intended to increase managers' awareness of the growing diversity of the workforce, to teach them the necessity of learning how to manage that diversity, and to help them identdy personal biases that may interfere with their ability to manage cultural diversity. The Director of Affirmative Action at NTS, Peter Betz, who had primary respon- sibility for the program's design, acknowledges that measuring the success of the "Diversity" workshop may be difficult. While participant evaluations of the workshop show that employees benefited from the program, they do not indicate how these benefits affect the firm's performance. Betz hopes that advantages to the firm will be reflected in a decline in complaints of discrimina tion, in a more positive outlook among employees as indicated by random surveys distriiuted in the company and, ultimately, by lower turnover. Following an introductory video, which features the CEO explaining

the importance of the workshop and linking the goals of the workshop with effective response to the firm's customer base, a discussion of each participant's race and gender biases ensues. This is an essential component of the "Diversity" workshop because, if successful, it begins the process of undermining stereotypes. For this to happen participants must feel safe enough to reveal sensitive information about themselves and to confront fear, anger, and resentment. The potential for safety and honesty in the group is primarily determined by two factors: (1) the quality of the facilitator, who is a trained NTS manager, and (2) the cultural mix of the participants.

Facilitator Quality

The quality of the faditator is reflected in his or her ability to encourage and mediate candid discussions of race and gender issues and to resolve the tension and conflict h t may erupt among participants. The primary advantage of having NTS managers facilitate the workshops is that they share with the participants the common culture of the firm which may enhance the partiapants' tntst in the leader and the leaders' understanding of the participants. These leaders have business mdibili- ty, and they are less likely to use faddish jargon.

The risk of using NTS managers to lead the workshops is that some who partiapate in the threeday fadlitator training program may remain unprepared to lead the wmhhop. Because of their own UNesOIved

Ellis and Sonnenfeld Managing Diversity / 85

biases and prejudices, or because they lack the skill or sensitivity required to handle the interpersonal dynamics of the group, some managers may be unable to effectively mediate sensitive discussions about racism and sexism. They are also subject to the political and career constraints of being a part of the internal hierarchy. If the struggles that emerge in the group are handled skillfully, tremendous learning is possible. On the other hand, if conflicts spiral out of control, remain unre- solved, or under the surface, the workshop may do more harm than good. Participants may leave confused, resentful, or misinformed.

Participant Mix

Safety and honesty in the group are also more likely to develop if there is an adequate cultural mix of participants. The optimal group would have roughly an equal representation of men, women, whites, and people of color, so that no individual would feel isolated. When there are only one or two women in a workshop with twenty participants, for example, NTS has found that the women often feel pressure to act as spokespersons for all women and are uncomfortable describing their perceptions and experiences of sexism. Unfortunately, this ideal mix is difficult to achieve at NTS because in most regions white males hold the majority of managerial positions. NTS has continued to offer these programs in local settings to capture representatives of the actual work teams. While there is no immediate remedy for the underrepresen- tation of women and people of color in the workshops, workshop leaders should be aware of it and take steps to protect members of an under- represented group who may feel like "tokens." Three other potential pitfalls of the workshop should be noted, namely, reinforced stereotypes, backlash, and compulsory or voluntary participation.

Reinforced Stereotypes

It is possible that attempts to enhance appreciation of diversity may inadvertently reinforce stereotypes. In other words, illuminating differences between people may result in further generalizations about members of the opposite sex or various ethnic groups. As Betz says:

Part of the risk of diversity programs is that people understand the material on a range of levels: Some really understand it; some are awakened; and some are very uncomfortable and confused by the message. The question is whether the masses of NTS employees will understand the message clearly.

The confusion and discomfort Betz describes are more likely to occur among participants who, historically, have had little exposure to the

86 I Human Resource Mrmagemenf, Spring 1994

different groups represented in the workshop than among those who have had greater contact. Again, how the discussion of these differences is facilitated, and the degree of cultural awareness which participants already possess, go a long way in determining the level of insight each one reaches.

Besides the possibility of reinforcing old stereotypes, it is important to guard against creating new stereotypes that predetermine behavior toward and expectations of a group. The New Republic (July 5,1993) chron- icled such stereotypes fostered in programs at firms such as Texas In- struments (minorities are more nimble, entrepreneurial, and innovative) and Wang Laboratories (blacks and Hispanics approach situations in a "man-to-man" or "feeling, caring" manner, whereas white males function primarily on a "man-to-object" style based on power). Other exam- ples cited introduced the stereotype of blacks responding quickly by projecting the prowess of basketball and football athletes onto the entire race.

Anticipating Backlash

An increase in resentment on the part of white males may result from poorly executed workshops. White males are apt to voice resentment when they perceive that they, as a group and as individuals, are going to be squeezed out of the organization so that NTS can make way for women and minorities. Betz explains that diversity issues are threaten- ing to some white males at NTS: ''They wonder what they have to sacrifice. They're thinking, 'you're really not telling me what we need to do."' This is not an uncommon reaction. The Washington Post (January 1, 1991) reports:

. . . Authorities in crosscultural relations say [there] is a growing anxiety, even defensiveness and sometimes anger among white men, who are faced with a shifting cultural and racial landscape, especially in the workplace, in which other group are increasing in number and more aggres- sively asserting their identities and rights. . . Among white males there is a growing feeling of being threatened by these changes. If women and rninorities,gain in influence and stature, so this thinking goes, then white men lose. (p. 1).

To counter these responses, the information in the NTS workshop is worded to address lifestyle changes in the workforce as a whole rather than presented solely in terms of race and gender. The facilitator needs to be sensitive to the reactions of white males in the group, and to encourage them to express their reservations during the workshop so that they do not erupt later on in the workplace.

Ellis and Sonndeld Managing Diversity / 87

Compulsory or Voluntary Participation

Whether diversity workshops should be mandatory for employees has been debated. Yale Professor Clayton Alderfer (lWl), an expert on race relations in the workplace, believes that coercing employees to participate in multicultural workshops is an ineffective means of modifymg their attitudes and behavior. He contends that reluctant and resentful participants will find a way to sabotage the workshop. This argument may be valid in some corporate settings. Nevertheless, in the case of NTS, which has a conservative culture, acceptance of strong managerial control, and enthusiasm for uniformity of company-wide policy, a mandatory workshop may be the best way to indicate its importance in the firm and its support from top management. Mandating participation may bolster managers' willingness to embrace the training, particularly if the need for such a program is couched in terms of fairness to employees and profitability for the organization. This is not to say there will be no resistance to the workshops. According to Betz, even a number of NTS human resource managers do not recognize the need for such a program. Nonetheless, the culture of NTS may foster greater acceptance of mandatory multicultural training programs than would a corporate culture that scorns rigid requirements of any nature.

Setting an Example

NTS is making great strides in enhancing its ability to manage diversity and promulgating the message that the firm values cultural differences, but its biggest hurdle in this area may be the cultural homogeneity of top level management; virtually all of the corporate leaders are white males. This homogeneity leaves subordinates of diverse backgrounds with few top level role models and inadvertently sends out the message that to make it to the top of the firm, one needs to be a white male.

DISCOURSE ON DIFFERENCES AT GENERAL COMPUTER INC.

Diversity initiatives at General Computer Inc. span more than one program; they involve a philosophical orientation and a range of opportunities to discuss and learn about cultural differences. Martha Webster, who helped design and manage GCI's "Diversity" program, explains that GCI has developed a series of programs that enable employees to explore cultural differences in a safe setting, and a corporatewide ideolo- gy that places value on those differences.


At GCI, employees have the opportunity to begm exploring race- and gender-related topics in an introductory ,'Diversity" workAop, and then to move on to participate in more in-depth training and personal cross- cultural interaction throughout their tenure in t€te firm. The initial workshop, designed to introduce employees to GCI's "Diversity" philosophy, is led by an internal management education group; if participants are inspired by the program, they may join or form a "discussion group." Roughly ten male and female employees from vaned cultural backgrounds comprise a discussion group, and they meet approximately once a month to explore their own differences and stereotypes. Webster explains, "The groups were established to ask all the dvty questions about race and gender." She says the personal cross-cultural interaction and exploration that takes place in these groups is a potentially powerful form of self-exploration and enhances the participanH ability to communicate effectively with a diverse range of employees. In reference to the reinforced stereotyping issues raised in the NTS discussion, Webster points out that the program groups typically realize that what they have in common as human beings and as members of a firm supersede differences associated with their genetic and cultural heritage. She explains that the commonality among the participants naturally becomes evident as they learn more about one another.

In order to become a member of a discussion group, employees must attend a two-day training program designed not only to increase participants' knowledge of and sensitivity to race and gender issues, but to teach them about basic group dymimics and to maintain confidentiality. This program was implemented in response to conflicts that erupted in early discussion groups which hurt individual members and were destructive to the p u p . Webster estimates that 200 discussion gm.qx are currently in place at GCI and speculates that 3040% of G U S employees have Participated in one at some time. The groups tend to last from 12 to 18 months; they dissolve as members either work through issues or transfer to other positions in the company.

Voluntary Participation

In contrast to NTS, Gcl 's corporate culture scorns rigid requirements of any kind and so participation in the diversity programs is voluntary. While nearly half the employees have participated in a diversity program, one may question whether there should be a mandatory cultural awareness program for all employees. It seems likely that only offering sensitivity training on a voluntary basis results. in "preaching to the converted," missing the employees who need the training most. Despite this reservation, Wbster feels that requidq participation in the initial workshop, or any other diversity program, would be counterproductive


because it would generate resentment among employees. This reaction seems especially likely in a corporate culture such as GCI's, which is progressive and informal. Regardless of the workshop material, requir- ing employees to participate in the program may generate more resistance than acceptance.

Recognition or Trivialization?

Another component of GCI's diversity initiatives involves a series of corporate presentations and events that highlight the special qualities and/or history of a particular ethnic group. For example, the series may include a day in which authentic Polish food is served in the cafeteria and information about the Polish culture is publicized. While designed to enhance appreciation of ethnic differences, some of these presentations may appear superficial and patronizing. These presentations reinforce the corporatewide diversity philosophy, but they may also offend some employees and mislead others by perpetuating certain cultural cliches.

Webster says that the goal of GCI's programs is to create a corporate climate that embraces cultural differences; she wants all members of the organization to share a work life situated in a multicultural milieu. Nev- ertheless, the success of these programs may be somewhat ephemeral and hard to track. In fact, GCI does not formally monitor the programs' impact on the firm. Traditionally, the number of discrimination charges has been low, but this is partly because GCI, until recently, was steadily growing. Webster claims that GCI has benefited from its diversity programs because the government has awarded it contracts based on the com- prehensive initiatives. She says that the company also has won a great deal of praise in the media for its diversity programs, which has prompted other major companies to seek GCI's advice on how to implement similar programs. Finally, according to Webster, some manufacturing plants claim they can link the diversity programs to higher productivity.

Given that the race and gender make-up of the highest executive ranks at GCI also is predominantly white and male, the programs may lack the impact necessary to shift that cultural composition. Webster explains that this homogeneity exists partly because people in the top positions of the firm have been there for years. Therefore, the challenge of integrating management has more to do with replacing older executives with younger ones.

One of the strengths of GCI's diversity program is that its support comes from top management, which Webster feels is beneficial because it shows employees that participation in the program is important. How- ever, Webster says that GCI has not yet figured out how to reward employees for doing so and therefore, "it's effectiveness will only go so far until it's incorporated into management of the company."


MANAGING DIVERSITY AT UNITED COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

Of the three programs described in this paper, UCC‘s is the least structured and conceptualized. The primary vehicle available in the company for addressing how to effectively manage cultural diversity is the popular Griggs ”Valuing Diversity” video series. These videos are available for use by any department in the company, so managers have the opportunity to plan workshops of any length mound them. For example, a manager wishing to address cultural differences among employees in the department may plan a day in which s/he presents a few of the videos and facilitates discussion of the material afterward.

Shelby Dickson, Vice President of Human Resources at UCC, says that his department helps groups or departments in the organization come to terms with issues related to managing diversity, understanding diversity, and developing appropriate interventions. However, there is no formal mandate from the Chief Executive to implement a corporatewide cross-cultural training program, nor are these efforts remune- rated or rewarded with promotional opportunities. The corporate training department offers some workshops that address the challenges of managing cultural diversity, but the cost of these workshops is high and has proven to be prohibitive for some departments that have had to cut their training budget in recent years.

Dickson argues that what inhibits UCC from increasing their efforts to learn and teach how to manage diversity is their record for recruiting and hiring women and minorities, which is very good. He explains that their affirmative action record is so good, and their commitment to these efforts so strong, that they still talk about diversity only in terms of numbers, and not in terms of quality of work experience or utilization of diverse skills and perspectives. As a result, Dickson says, “We don’t take the time to understand diversity.”

Process Management

A diversity task force, founded in the late 198Os, is devoted to advanc- ing the issues of cultural diversity in the firm. The task force acts as a self-interest p u p and is made up of diverse volunteers. Once the task force formed, members met with the CEO to encourage him to take up the cause of valuing cultural diversity publicly at UCC and to suggest that he appoint a diversity leader who would be accountable to him. They also suggested that he establish a committee to oversee progress in the management of diversity. As a result, a senior vice president of human resou~~es is now the diversity steward, and a eomnitee-made up of a leading c o d k m t in the area of diversity management and


leaders of separate “resource groups” for Asian-Americans, African- Americans, Lesbian and Gay employees, Hispanics, and other minority groups-is in place. Dickson explains that the work of the committee involves process management, that is, thinking of cultural diversity as a process at UCC. Their mission is to identify gaps in the company’s diversity initiatives and to make recommendations for change.

While concerted efforts to teach managers how to manage diversity seem a bit weak, Dickson believes white males in the organization should be encouraged to look deeply within themselves to try to i d e n w with the experience of feeling like an outsider and to empathize with women and minorities who may experience discrimination. He argues that it is hard for many white men to see the importance of these issues because they have never faced such hurdles. Nonetheless, Dickson is confident that UCC will come to be known as the company that values diversity, simply because they do things well, and they are famous for successfully, shaping a vision for the future.

Assessing the Impact

In an effort to evaluate the impact of the ”Valuing Diversity’’ videos and accompanying seminars at UCC, we conducted a survey of employees in one department of the firm. This department is located in corporate offices nationwide, so respondents were from the West Coast, the Northeast, and the South. Surveys were distributed to every member of the department, and respondents returned them to central collection boxes in their buildings. In total, 1716 surveys were distributed and 922 were received back, giving us a 54% response rate. This sample is not representative of all employees in the firm, but is representative of those in the department surveyed. (See Appendix for sample survey.)

Some of the respondents had attended a voluntary, one-day Valuing Diversity program; others indicated exposure to the managing diversity topic through sources outside of work such as the media or other cross- cultural workshops, and some of the employees were entirely unfamiliar with the topic. Only 92 respondents had actually participated in UCC‘s Valuing Diversity workshop; most of them had done so within the last year. To reiterate, the seminar featured videos produced by Griggs that explain why companies need to enhance their ability to manage diverse employees, and that dramatize interactions involving culturally insensi- tive behavior between whites, people of color, men, and women. Fol- lowing the videos, seminar participants had the opportunity to discuss their reactions.

The first half of the survey asked all of the respondents to indicate their perspective on race and gender relations in the firm. The questions probed whether the respondents believe leaders of the corporation support cultural diversity, whether they believe cultural diversity among employees will enhance the firm’s competitiveness, whether too much


or too little attention is given to the needs of women and minorities in the firm, and whether they believe racism or sexism occurs in the firm. The second half of the survey asked only those respondents who had attended the firm’s Valuing Diversity workshop questions pertaining to the benefits of the program: whether they considered it worthwhile; whether it enhanced their ability to communicate with employees of differing cultural Ldcgrounds; whether there were aspects or effects of the seminar they considered negative; and whether they believed certain ethnic and/or gender groups lost, gained, or retained the same level of stature in the firm as a result of the workshops.

Exposure Matters

We compared responses to the first section of the survey (respondents‘ perspectives on race and gender relations in the firm) among four groups of respondents: those who had no exposure to the topic of managing a diverse workforce, those who had attended the Valuing Diver- sity seminar, those who indicated familiarity with the topic through other sources, and those who had both attended the Valuing Diversity seminar and had been exposed to the issues outside of work. There were virtually no significant differences in responses among employees in the latter three groups, that is, between any respondents who had some familiarity with the issues assodated with cultural diversity in the workplace. However, results show significant differences between the responses of employees with no exposure to the topic of diversity in the workplace and those who had either attended the Valuing Diversity seminar and/or who had been exposed to the topic through other sources.

Tables 11 and III present results of the first half of the survey. Respon-

Table 11. Percentage of Respondents Who Believe UCC Supports Employee Diversity Based on Presence or Absence of Exposure to Managing Diversity Topic.

No Exposure to Exposureto Managing Diversity Topic Managing Diversity Topic

~ ~~

R’s supervisor

Middle management

Top managers

CEO

Agree 56.8%

Agree 37.6%

Agree 27.2%

Agree 23.8%

72.4%

57.1%

40.990

38.3% ~~

*Pearson chi-square significant below the .001 level.


Table 111. Percentage of Respondents Who Agree with the Following Statements Based on Exposure to Managing Diversity Topic.

Survey Statement

a. Too much attention is focused on helping minorities get ahead.

b. UCC is concerned about my growth as an individual employee.

c.1 People are treated with respect at UCC regardless of race.

c.2 People are treated with respect at UCC regardless of gender.

d. By valuing diversity, our organization will enhance its competitiveness.

e. It’s important to accommodate cultural differences at UCC.

f. In daily interactions in my group, we should be more sensitive to cultural differences.

g. People in my group make me feel like I belong.

No Exposure Exposure

34.8% 27.2%

7.2% 13.5%

37.2 50.0%

36.0% 46.9%

53.3% 69.6%

64.4% 76.1%

40.2% 50.6%

64.4% 72.1%

Pearson’s Chi-square

Level

0.05

0.001

0.001

0.01

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.05

dents who were exposed to workplace diversity issues were far more likely to perceive that leaders of the firm (as well as middle managers and their own supervisors), valued cultural diversity among employees, than were those in the ’no exposure’ group.

Refemng to Table 111, Statement 3a shows that respondents in the exposure group were less likely to agree that minorities receive too much attention in the firm, while Statement 3b indicates that they were more likely to believe the company is Concerned with their individual growth.’ As Statement 3c shows, those in the exposure group are more likely to believe that UCC treats employees with respect regardless of their race or sex. Statement 3d indicates that respondents exposed to workplace diversity issues are more likely than those lacking this exposure to believe valuing cultural diversity in the workforce would enhance the firm’s competitiveness. As can be seen from Statements 3e and 3f, respondents in the exposure category are more likely than those in the no exposure group to believe it is important to accommodate cultural differences among employees in the firm and to be more sensitive to them. Finally, Statement 3g indicates that those familiar with workforce diversity issues are more likely to experience a sense of belonging in their work group than those unfamiliar with this topic.


Overall, respondents who either attended the Vahzing Diversity seminar or who were f d a r with the topic through sou~ces outside of work were more likely to believe their supervisors as well as top managers and leaders of the finn value cultural diversity. In addition, they ex- pressed a sense of belonging in the firm and gave a more positive eval- uation of the relationships among workers and managers in their department. Furthermore, they believed that cultural differences among employees should be respected and accommodated in the firm. All of these findings are statistically significant.2

Table IV indicates results of the second portion of the survey, which asked respondents who had participated in UCC's Valuing Diversity workshop questions pertaining to their attitudes toward the program and whether their participation dfeded their interactions with employees from different cultural backgrounds.

Table IV shows the majority of respondents found the workshop worthwhile and relevant to current challenges at UCC. It also indicates a smaller majority believe the Valuin~ Diversity seminar enhanced their awareness of race and gender issues in the firm, as well as their awareness of the benefits of cultural diversity in the workforce. This table

Table IV. Reactions of Employee Participants to UCC's Valuing Diversity Seminar.

Statement Agree Neutral Disagree n ~~~~~~ ~

Seminar was worthwhile. 58.7% 22.8% 18.5% 90 Would recommend seminar to others. 60.4% 25.3% 14.3% 90 Should be offered more often. 58.7% 27.2% 14.1% 90 Was relevant to challenges at UCC. 57.3% 25.8% 16.9% 90 Seminar enhanced awareness of race 46.7% 30.0% 23.3% 90

Seminar enhanced awareness of gender 46.7% 28.9% 24.4% 90

Seminar enhanced awareness of benefits 60.0% 26.7% 13.3% 90

Seminar improved ability to communi- 43.8% 33.7% 2.5% 89

Seminar improved ability to work 42.7% 33.7% 23.6% 89

Seminar improved relations among 32.6% 46.1% 21.3% 09

Seminarhadnegatiwiinpaetonsome 30.7% 47.7% 21.6% 88

Seminar reinforced stereotypes about cer- 23.9% 37.5% 38.6% 88

Seminar reinforced stereotypes about 20.5% 42.0% 37.5% 88

issues in UCC.

issues in UCC.

of diverse viewpoints in UCC.

cate wldiverse employees.

w/diverse employees.

workers in department.

employees.

tain ethnic groups.

men and/or women.

Blis and Sonnenfeld Managing Diversity I 95

shows that respondents were most likely to indicate that the seminar improved their ability to communicate and work with diverse employees, although a majority were unsure of whether it improved relations among other workers in their department. Furthermore, it indicates that about 30% of respondents believe the seminar had a negative impact on employees at UCC, and close to 25% believe it reinforced stereotypes about racial and/or gender groups.

In sum, the majority of respondents who attended the Valuing Diver- sity seminar considered it a worthwhile experience and one that enhanced their working relationships with individuals whom they consider culturally different from themselves. At the same time, a minority of respondents disliked the seminar. Notably, one third of the respondents felt the workshop actually affected the level of stature certain groups have in the firm, a majority indicating that white males lost stature while nearly all of the other groups gained. In written comments at the end of the survey, some respondents said that white males were vilified in the videos depicting bias and miscommunication in their interactions with women and minorities. One white male wrote, "In today's workplace, especially with the varied workforce of UCC, I think this presentation unfairly depicted one group of people [white males] and fosters a stereotype that is unacceptable."

Benefits of Valuing Diversity programs, or simply exposure to workplace diversity issues, seem evident in the results of the United Commu- nications Corporation survey. Among employees with such exposure, these benefits include a greater degree of stated tolerance for cultural differences, a greater sense of belonging in the firm, and a stronger belief in their supervisors' and managers' support for cultural diversity. Among those who participated in a Valuing Diversity seminar, benefits include a heightened sensitivity to race and gender issues in the workplace and a belief that their ability to communicate and work with diverse colleagues improved.

Voices in a Different Key

Despite these positive signs, our findings indicate that corporate leaders and managers need to continually monitor the impact of managing diversity initiatives on individual employees and employee relations in general, because the message of the workshops is not accepted by all participants. In particular, managers should look out for signs of resentment among white males who fear being pushed out of the firm to make way for women and minorities, and potential backlash that may result from these feelings. A number of comments written by white males at the end of the UCC survey indicate that this fear is not uncommon. For example, one wrote simply, "White males don't stand a Chance." Anoth- er explained, "The sexism I see in the workplace is everyone trying to


cater to women, and the men are left to feel they are no longer a part of the company. More men are being pushed out of the door, and more women are being placed in their positions. The racism I see is everyone trying to cater to the minorities."

The opposite side of these attitudes was reflected in written comments of many women and people of color who charged the company with sexism and racism. One African American woman wrote, "The racial issues going on in my work location are unbelievable, blatant racism. I don't feel that seminars on diversity change preconceived ideas. Changes need to be made immediately!" It appears that under the facade of company- and nationwide exhortations to capitalize on the talents of an increasingly diverse workforce, there remain long-standing tensions among some members of different ethnic and gender groups. If poorly addressed in cross-cultural forums and encounter groups, these tensions may erupt into conflict destructive to employees and the firm.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HR

Our central argument is that investing in corporate diversity programs is potentially rewarding but, like all investments, is accompanied by risks. Analyzing three different approaches to managing diversity, which are highlighted in Table V, we have identified several of these risks and will now point out ways to reduce them when designing corporate diversity programs. Failure to learn from this accumulated wisdom can not only lead to costly reinventions of the wheel, but can result in the even costlier outcome of aggravating underlying workforce tensions which managers are seeking to alleviate.

Benefits

Five sipficant benefits of cross-cultural training programs deserve elaboration. The first is the enhanced provision of voice to historically un- derrepresented segments of our workforce. Complex union politics, deeply held seniority driven priorities, and old habits have often muf- fled the voices of women and minority group members, just as their disparate interests dilute their collective strengths in our pluralistic society (Freeman & Medoff, 1984). Even well-meaning managers who do not understand the cultural backgrounds of their employees can sometimes misconstrue their requests and behaviors. Likewise, over a decade ago, a path-breakjng study of personnel practices in leading non-union firms found that minorities often did not respond positively to traditional personnel practices (Foulkes, 1980). Now, with the advent of new workforce diversity programs, it is legitimate for employees to voice cultural

Ellis and Sonnenfeld Managing J3ivemity I 97

Tab

le V.

Thr

ee A

ppro

ache

s to

Man

agin

g D

iver

sity

.

Cas

es

Dec

isio

n Po

ints

N

TS

GC

I uc

c Sc

ope

of p

rogr

am

Con

tent

of

sem

inar

@)

Dur

atio

n of

sem

inar

(s)

Who

atte

nds

sem

inar

(s)

Who

faci

litat

es

Who sp

onso

rs s

emin

ar(s

)

How p

rogr

am e

ffec

tiven

ess

is m

easu

red

Effe

ct of

pro

gram

One

sem

inar

Vid

eos,

disc

ussi

ons,

not

eboo

k pr

ovid

ed e

ach

part

icip

ant

high

light

ing

sem

inar

info

r-

mat

ion

and

guid

ing

brea

k-

out g

roup

exe

rcis

es

One

day

Man

dato

ry fo

r all

full-

time

man

ager

s an

d su

perv

isor

s

Tra

ined

loca

l NTS

man

ager

s

CEO

and

HR

man

ager

s

Sem

inar

eva

luat

ions

but

no

form

al m

easu

res

of e

ffec

- tiv

enes

s

Not

mea

sure

d

Seri

es of

sem

inar

s; o

ngoi

ng

disc

ussi

on g

roup

s; c

orpo

- ra

te p

rese

ntat

ions

Intr

oduc

tion

to a

nd in

-dep

th

expl

orat

ion

of c

ultu

ral d

if-

fere

nces

am

ong

parti

ci-

pant

s; t

rain

ing

for

part

icip

atio

n in

dis

cuss

ion

grou

p

One

to th

ree

days

; dis

cuss

ion

grou

ps m

eet o

nce

a m

onth

Ava

ilabl

e to

all

empl

oyee

s on

a

volu

ntar

y ba

sis

Inte

rnal

man

agem

ent e

duca

- tio

n gr

oups

; tra

ined

em

- pl

oyee

s

Top

lead

ers

of t

he fi

rm a

nd

inte

rnal

man

agem

ent e

du-

catio

n gr

oup

No

form

al m

easu

res

of e

ffec

- tiv

enes

s

Som

e m

anuf

actu

ring

pla

nts

repo

rted

hig

her

prod

uc-

tivity

One

sem

inar

; Cor

pora

te c

om-

mitt

ee o

n di

vers

ity

Vid

eo a

nd f

ollo

w-u

p di

scus

- si

on

One

-hal

f to

one

day

Ava

ilabl

e to

em

ploy

ees

unde

r su

perv

isio

n of

man

ager

le

adin

g se

min

ar. M

anda

tory

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

vari

es

Man

ager

spo

nsor

ing

prog

ram

Wor

k un

it m

anag

er w

ho r

e-

ques

ts th

e pr

ogra

m

Aut

hors

sur

veye

d on

e de

part

- m

ent i

n fir

m, b

ut n

o fo

rmal

m

easu

res

of ef

fect

iven

ess

No

disc

erni

ble d

iffe

renc

e be

- tw

een

prog

ram

par

ticip

ants

an

d ot

hers

exp

osur

ed to

di-

vers

ity to

pic

needs and for m a n a p to be educated in advance of needless conflict between corporate practices and employee expectations.

Second, these programs introduce knarvledge and facts to substitute for myths and stereotypes among coworkers. In the aftermath of affirmative action programs, various dysfunctional byproducts have included: feelings of injustice reflected in the charge of reverse dkrhination and perceived as white d e baddash; women and people of color being held to higher standards of performance; token representative employees being hired to f3l narrow quotas; and a general lack of appreciation for the magnitude of change in the underlying nature of the workforce. Rather than simply filling jobs, these new diversity programs promote understanding and teamwork.

Third, cross-cul~d training programs signify an important shift in corporate philosophy, which is both symbolic and substantive. This shift involves movement among corporations to a third stage in their thinking about cultural diversity in the workforce. Adversarial corporate challenges to civil rights legislation yielded to anticipatory, active corporate programs to ensure equal opportunity, or affirmative action. This approach has, in turn, evolved into an even more positive embrace of the strategic advantages of uhe multicultural work orgadt ion in which individuals are encouraged to contribute their unique talents to the collective enterprise.

Fourth, my exposure to the complexity of workforce dhersity is better than ignorance of these ismes. Through discussion, parties begm to examine their own possale biases and to antiapate the legitimacy of the different perspectives of coworkers. Fifth, the discussion of diversity issues within the mrpomtion ele-

vates the mnce~a’fization of cultural tensions to om whkh is larger than individual villains and is a challenge to the zuhk f h n AS u Social community.

Pitfalls

These programs, however, are not panaceas. They can &srupt workforce relations if they are caught in pitfalls that W e many idealistic program designers. Baseel on our earlier discussion of recommendations by experts on carporate race relations and based MI our three case studies, the following suggestions are offered to avoid some of these problems.

First, cross-cultural trajning programs should be phibsophically ori- ented toward fostering respect for employees as indfetidual actors rather than toward treatment of employees as members of pups with easily categorized differences. Dangerous and misleading stereotypes are pm- jeded when progmm me created that collapse a dozen p b u n d l y different Asian eoxnm~* into a common set of behaviors and beliefs,


or when blacks who hail from cities or rural areas in the United States, the Caribbean, or Africa are presented simplistically in a composite por- trait, or when third generation Polish Americans are supposed to exhibit current behaviors which are consistent with practices of immigrant an- cestors.

Second, designers should not deliver a one-shot information blizzard, but rather offer an orchestrated seminar series. The diversity topic is too charged for a single blitz to be effective; it requires thoughtful discussion rather than jargon-based platitudes. The workshops and the planned follow-up sessions should enable participants to vent frustrations and leaders to address both misperceptions of inequity as well as legitimate concerns about persistent injustice. Offering the diversity seminars as a series will also enable seminar leaders to build trust in the group as participants' initial defensiveness wears off. Furthermore, material may be more thoughtfully digested as questions that grow out of later rumi- nation are addressed in the follow-up sessions.

Third, given the emotion-laded quality of the topic, discussion leaders must be carefully selected. They should not be randomly chosen, unprepared line managers who may use the opportunity to address groups, or corporate trainers who lack line credibility and an understanding of the cultural barriers that exist in their own corporation. The leaders must be nonpunitive and able to draw out all parties. They must simulta- neously avoid putting the spotlight on individuals who are sometimes expected to speak for their entire ethnic or gender group. Finally, they must be prepared with facts and the courage to dissolve biases and mistrust that may linger as a result of a forceful participant's tone.

Fourth, diversity programs should be tailored to fit each firm's individual corporate culture. For example, the mandatory nature of the NTS program made sense in this firm because it commonly institutes compa- nywide training requirements in order to ensure consistent management practices and the maintenance of core values. By contrast, at a firm such as GCI, where freedom of choice, individual self-expression, and nearly chaotic management practices are highly valued techniques for fostering continued creativity, mandatory programs would be resented and considered uncomfortable restraints. To ensure further diffusion of the spirit of these programs, various aspects of a firm's career system- the hiring, the assignments and training, and the exit policies-must demonstrate visible support for the message of the program. Otherwise, given the imposed, modular nature of many cross-culttiral training programs, they will fail to change the most fundamental belief systems of the corporate culture.

Fifth, any cross-cultural training intervention should be curefully mon- itored. Special attention should be given to reactions of white males who may feel particularly threatened by the workshop material and to the reactions of women and people of color, who may feel like tokens in the group and burdened by participants, undue expectation for them to

100 / Human Resource Management, Spring 1994

serve as spokespersons for their racial or gender p p . As a sounding board, these sessions should not only be educational for partiapants, but also for top management. Participants and discussion leaders should be encouraged to offer recommendations for breaking down structural, procedural, and cultural barriers that stand in the way of the firm em- bracing a multicultural workforce. The appropriate managers, grievance officers, or corporate leaders should welcome these recommendations and respond either with explanations disseminated throughout the firm or with constructive adion. The positive dialogue opened at these workshops should continue on after the close of a seminar series.

SUGGESTIONS FOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

With consideration given to the pitfalls and suggestions above, we present some suggestions for human resource executives interested in designing and implementing a program on managing a diverse workforce.

1. Make sure that you have visible commitment from top Iden of the firm to support and champion your program. More than ceremonial lip service is required. Have the chief executive address sessions in person or on videotape explaining why the company genuinely cares about the cultural r i h e s s of your work force. 2. Do not merely provide one-shot information blizzards, but mganize ongoing seminar series or discussion groups. These efforts should be consistent with other culturally sensitive human resource practices. 3. Carefully select trained facilitators who can knowledgeably address issues of ethnidty, raee, gender, Westyle, demography, etc. without assigning positive languages to old bigoted stereotypes or inventing new ones.

4. Tailor the structure and message of the program to fit the nuances of your corporate culture. 5. Conduct these sessions in a candid, lively, applied fashion that ad- dresses realistic on-the-job situations to avoid the recitation of disin- genuous golden-rule platitudes. At the same time, anticipate the es- cape mechanisms and debriefings needed to ensure that a group can stiZl function after tense exchanges and that the dignity of individuals is protected. 6. Try to recruit a mix Ofparticipnts that minimizes the likelihood that individual participants will be obligated to assume token roles as un- willing wpresentatives of their racial, gender, or other such group. 7 . Prepare your seminnr muterials and direct the discussion towards fostering respect for employees as individuals. Do not reinforce pre-


sumed positive stereotypes of ascribed groups as labels to define the behavioral qualities of a coworker.

CONCLUSION

Discussions of cultural differences and attempts to eliminate negative stereotypes are often beneficial to employees and may enhance their communication and morale as evidenced by our survey results. It makes sense that such benefits might translate into higher productivity and lower turnover for many of the reasons offered by proponents of managing diversity programs. On a basic level, employees who feel positive about their work relationships and feel the firm is invested in their well- being and unique contributions are more likely to feel invested in the firm and motivated to contribute to the firm than those who resent other employees or feel unappreciated by the firm. Studies of the effects of managing diversity programs, however, which might bear these results are seldom conducted. The impact is measured at the level of the individual employee through workshop evaluations, but usually is neither formally measured at the level of the firm (e.g., through surveys of employee attitudes, observations of modified behavior, or evaluations of company productivity), nor by examining the rate at which talented women and minorities move up through the organization. This point is not meant as an argument against offering managing diversity programs, but as an argument against doing so without implementing a system to measure and ensure their success. Future research should study the transfer of these educational interventions into actual changes in human resource practices such as recruiting, management development, and promotion, and into the well-being of employees and productivity of the firm.

Corporate executives, managers, and consultants need to monitor the effects of their social interventions so that their initiatives strengthen the cooperative ties among employees and ultimately enhance productivity, rather than subtly tear at the social fabric of the firm by exacerbating conflict. As Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (1991) writes:

The question America confronts as a pluralistic society is how to vindi- cate cherished cultures and traditions without breaking the bonds of cohesion-common ideals, common political institutions, common lan- guage, common culture, common fate-that hold the republic together. (P. 92).

APPENDIX: SURVEY ON CULTURAL DIVERSITY

PLEASE NOTE: When we use the terms “employee diversity” or “cultural diversity” in this survey, we are referring to the cultural mix of

102 1 Human Resource Management, Spring 1994

employees that includes differences in race, religion, national origin, gender, age, and/or physical ability. When choosing your responses to questions that refer to “employee diversity,” please keep in mind this definition.

Section One:

Please use the scale below to circle your answers to the questions that follow. Circle the middle category, ”Neither Agree nor Disagree,” if you cannot really choose Agree or Disagree, or if you sometimes feel one way and just as often feel the other. Try to answer all of the questions. If a question does not apply to your situation, leave it blank, and go on to the next one.

Scale:

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree, Disagree Strongly Disagree

nor Disagree

1. In my opinion, the following groups or individuals support employee diversity at -

(a) my immediatesupervisor ormanager 1 2 3 4 5 (b) middle management (district or

division) 1 2 3 4 5 (c) top managers of my business unit

(Director or Vice President) 1 2 3 4 5 (d) the CEO 1 2 3 4 5

2. Overall, the top managers of - believe that valuing diversity makes good business sense 1 2 3 4 5

their appreciation for cultural differences

4. The leaders of - should do more to

3. The leaders of - clearly demonstrate

among employees 1 2 3 4 5

company 1 2 3 4 5

the company 1 2 3 4 5

minorities get ahead in the organization

women get ahead in the organization

ensure that women reach top positions in the

5. The leaders of - should do more to ensure that minorities reach top positions in

6. Too much attention is focused on helping

7. Too much attention is focused on helping 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5


The following questions pertain to your reaction to -Is ”Valuing Diversity” seminar. Using the scale below, please circle your answers:

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly agree Agree Neither Agree, Disagree Strongly disagree

nor Disagree

The seminar:

29. Was a worthwhile use of my time 30. Is one I would recommend to people I work with 31. Should be offered more often at - 32. Was relevant to challenges we face at - 33. Increased my awareness of racial issues that may exist at - 34. Increased my awareness of gender issues that may exist at - 35. Increased my awareness of age issues that may exist at - 36. Increased my awareness of the benefits of having different view-

37. Convinced me that valuing diversity within our organization is criti-

38. Inspired me to learn more about how to understand and work with

39. Helped me to improve my ability to communicate with people I

40. Helped me to improve my ability to work on projects with people I

41. Improved relations among workers in my department 42. Improved personnel hiring and promotion practices 43. Had a negative impact on some employees at __ 44. Reinforced stereotypes some people hold about certain ethnic

45. Reinforced stereotypes some people hold about men and/or women

points in the workplace

cal to our success

culturally diverse employees

consider different from myself

consider different from myself

groups

46. At -, do you think some groups have gained or lost stature (i.e., prestige or influence) as a result of the “Valuing Diversity” seminar? (check one) Yes - No - Don’t know -

47. If you answered “Yes“ to the last question (#&), please indicate which groups have gained, which have remained the same, and which have lost, using the chart below:

(a) African-American Males @) Asian Males


8. Everyone has an equal chance to get ahead at

9. - is concerned about my growth as an individual employee

10. People are treated with respect at ___ regardless of their race

11. People are treated with respect at - regardless of their gender

12. People are treated with respect at - regardless of their age

13. Employees are evaluated solely on the basis of their merits at -

14. Members of different race, gender, and age groups work well together at ~

15. By valuing diversity, our organization will enhance its competitiveness

16. It’s important to accommodate cultural differences at -

17. My manager works well with people who differ by race, gender, or age

18. In daily interactions in my group, we should be more sensitive to cultural differences

19. It is better to ignore cultural differences in my group rather than bring attention to them

20. People in my group make me feel like I belong 21. I seek out relationships with members of

different race, gender, and age groups at

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Please use the scale below to circle your answers to the following questions:

1 2 3 4 5 Almost Never Seldom Sometimes Often Almost always

22. Some people believe that racism exists at all

At -, do you feel incidents of racism

23. Some people believe that sexism exists at all

At -, do you feel incidents of sexism

major US corporations.

occur. . . 1 2 3 4 5

major US corporations.

occur.. . 1 2 3 4 5

104 f Human Resource Management, Spring 1994

Section Two:

24. Have you had any exposure to the topic of employee diversity in the workplace? (check one)

Yes __ No-

25. If you answered "yes" to the last question (#24), please put a check by all of the sources of information regarding employee diversity in the workplace to which you have been exposed. (a) Participated in ' s "Valuing Diversity" seminar - (b) Newspaper, magazine and/or journal articles - (c) Discussions with colleagues and/or friends - (d) Other type of Valuing or Managing Diversity seminar outside of

(e) Other (please specify here):

If you have not participated in one of -3 "Valuing Diversity" seminars, please answer the following question (#26) and then skip Section Three and proceed to answer the questions in Section Four.

26. I did not partiapate in ' s "Valuing Diversity" seminar because: (a) the seminar was offered at an inconvenient time - (b) the seminar was not offered in my district - (c) I was unaware that - had a "Valuing Diversity" seminar

(d) I am not interested in this issue - (e) other (please specify here):

Section Three:

27. How often have you partiapated in -'s "Valuing Diversity" seminar? (check one): (a) Once - @) 2-4 times - (c) 5 or more times -

28. When did you last partiapate in -'s "Valuing Diversity" seminar? (check one): (a) Within the last month - (b) 1 to 6 months ago - (c) 7 to 12 months ago - (d) Over a year ago -


(c) Hispanic Males (d) Native American Males (e) White Males (f) African-American Females (g) Asian Females (h) Hispanic Females (i) Native American Females (j) White Females

Section Four:

Your answers to the following questions will be used for analytical purposes only. The idormation you provide will remain mnfiden- tial and will not be used to identify you in any way. However, if you are uncomfortable answering any of these questions, please leave them blank.

48. Sex: (check one) (a) Female - (b) Male __

49. Ethnic group: (check one) (a) African-American __ (b) Asian- (c) Hispanic - (d) Native American - (e) White -

50. Age: (check one) (a) less than 30 years - (b) 31-45 years - (c) over 45 years -

(a) Centeal - (b) Northeast -

(d) West -

51. Geographic Location: (check one)

(c) south -

52. Type of position in company: (check one) (a) Occupational - (b) Management -

We are very interested in any other thoughts or feelings you have pertaining to any of the questions in this survey. Please use the back of this page to write any additional comments.

Thank You!


Catherine Ellis is a senior research associate at the Center for Leadership and Career Studies at the E m o y Business School. She is also a doctoral student in the department of anthropology at Columbia University studying race relations in the US. She received her M A in Sociology from Emory University in 1992, and her BA in Social Psychologyfrom the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1987.

Jefiey A. Sonnenfeld is a professor of organization and management and the director of the Center for Leadership and Career Studies at the Emory Business School. Sonnenfeld was a professor at the Harvard Business School for a decade before joining the E m o y faculty, where he specializes in human resource management, interpersonal behavior, and career management and executive development. He received his AB, MBA, and doctorate from Haroard University. Son- nenfeld has been the recipient of the Irwin Award for Social Research in Industry, AT&T’s Hawthorne Fellowship for Social Research in Indusfry, and the John P. Whitehead Faculty Fellowship.

Sonnenfeld has published five books and numerous articles in the areas of career management, executive training and development, and the management of corporate social performance.

REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. (1991, August). Remarks presented at the annual Academy of Man- agement conference.

CoxrT. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive. 5 INo. 2).

Cox, k., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive. 5 (No. 3).

D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York Free Press.

Foster, 8. G. (April, 1988). Workforce diversity and business. Training and Dmel- opment Journal. Leonard, J. S . (1985, March 6-7). What was affirmative action? Selected affirmative action topics in employment and business set-asides. A consultationlheuring on the United States commission on civil rights, 296.

Foulkes, F. K. (1980). Personnel policies in large non-union companies. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Freeman, R. B., & Medoff, J. L. (1984). What do unions do? New York: Basic Books. Griggs Productions, Inc. Valuing diversity [video]. San Francisco, CA. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough An intergroup per-

spective on the ‘contact hypothesis.’ In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (p. 10). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Landers, R. K. (1989). Is affirmative action still the answer? Editorial Research

Moore, J. W. (1989). The action’s affirmative. National Journal, 2. Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In M.

Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.) Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (p. 184). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Schlesinger, A. L. Jr., (1991). The disuniting of America: Rejlections on a multicultural society (p. 92). Whittle Communications.

~ e p o r t s , I , 198-211.

108 I Human Resource Munagment, Spring 1994

Sowell, T. (1990, March 6). Affirmative action: From bad to worse. The Wll Street

Steele, S . (1990). The Content of Our Chnructer: A New Vision of Race in America.

The New Republic. "The Diversity Industry" (1993, July 5), p. 23. The Washington Post. "Cultural Shifts Bring Anxiety for White Men" (1991, Janu-

Thomas, R. R. (1990, March-April). From affirmative action to affirming diver-

Thompson, D. E., & DiTomaso, N. (1988). Ensuring minorify success in wrporufe

Williams, W. (1991, Sept. 23). Black conservatives articulate alternative view of

Journal, P. A2Q.

New York St. Martins Press.

ary I), p. 1.

sity. Hanmrd Business Review, 108.

munugement. New York: Plenum Press.

civil rights. The Christian Science Monitor, p. 9.

ENDNOTES

1. It may be noted that the percentage of individuals who believe the firm is concerned with their individual growth is quite low (7.2% for those without exposure, versus 13.5% for those with exposure). Furthermore (in Table 11), as the level of management gets higher, the percentage of respondents who believe managers at that level are committed to valuing cultural diversity in the firm gets lower. Thus, of the four levels of management the respondents assessed in terms of commitment to supporting cultural diversity, the CEO received the lowest votes of confidence. These two findings, coupled with the range of written remarks offered at the end of the surveys, indicate a significant lack of faith among respondents in the firm's genuine commitment to the welfare of individual employees. Lacking this sense of security and trust in the firm, respondents may be more likely to experience a sense of competi- tion with members of groups they consider different from their own, and to attribute missed promotional opportunities to cynical and unjust employment practices in the firm.

2. It is important to note that these results may be due to heightened cultural sensitivity resulting from either form of exposure (the Valuing Diversity seminar, or a source outside of the company), or alternatively, to self-selection bias whereby more culturally sensitive employees seek greater exposure to the topic. Future research should address this question in greater depth.

Ellis and %nnenfeld: Managing Diversity / 109

Diverse approaches to managing diversity

Documents

Transcript of Diverse approaches to managing diversity