Is Diversity Dead?

And is doing the “Right Thing” Incentive Enough?

By: Susan M. Diehl, MS, JD

Abstract:   People are running back to their identity corners. In this world of "isms", I hear people wanting to revert their safe place of sameness. There have been many studies that have tried to quantify the influence of having a work setting that has gender, racial and cultural diversity. By building a “business case” for diversity, so the theory goes, businesses will have greater incentive to increase the number of diverse employees in management and top executive roles. The links between diversity and economic performance have been attenuated. One wonders if we at a point where diversity is not worth the effort. A better focus on how to optimize diversity in the organization is to develop a model in an organizational setting that will provide a positive experience for group members, and seek a sustainable and inclusive organization. Engagement reduces friction and speeds up results. And that is good for business.

Introduction:

   For the past forty years, researchers have struggled to validate the notion that inclusion of persons of diverse race, gender and ethnicity into work groups is a worthy objective, aside from it being the “right thing to do” following centuries of exclusionary practices and structures that preserved a homogeneous environment.   While developing a “business case” for diversity is a worthy objective, and from an organizational perspective one would like to reach for the silver bullet study that shows a direct linkage between workforce diversity and business results, there are other more worthy outcomes to be gained from identifying the success criteria of an inclusive work groups. Since the workplace is an environment where people may not be able to opt-out of a diverse work group, it provides an excellent opportunity to help build mutual understanding and provide tools that employees can apply within their communities and to other conflict processes. Further, if the right environment is created and maintained, then there is also a demonstrated positive effect in terms of business growth and performance, which provides credibility for broader reaching areas for inclusion.

   This article will first delve into the current research on diversity and the workplace, and examine the studies in which positive effects have emerged. In the second part, I will explore a model of behavior that promotes inclusiveness and connectedness through 1. reflection and self awareness; 2. the development of a shared vision and common principles; 3. interdependent outcomes and rewards; and, 4. a system for conflict engagement and management. I conclude that, despite the superficiality of the treatment of diversity in existing research, it remains an important area of study since success gained in the business environment could provide prominence to the importance of diverse and inclusive communities and provide a model for success.

One wonders if we are at a point where diversity is not worth the effort.

Part I--A Business Case for Diversity

   The nebulous effects of a racially, ethnically and gender diverse environment fall into three general categories: 1. The cost of turnover, absenteeism and litigation occasioned by the unwelcome atmosphere towards employees in a "protected class"; 2. The loss of these historically underrepresented constituencies in the “talent pool”, which reduces the number of workers available businesses to win the “war on talent”; and 3. Driving business growth through diversity of thought in decision making, marketplace understanding, creativity and leadership effectiveness. (Robinson and Dechant: 1997: 23-35) Many of these areas have been studied, and the results have been mostly inconclusive relative to the linkage to a diverse work force, although some positive effects are shown to exist when diversity is accompanied by effective group process and longevity. Robinson and Dechant pay little attention to the meaning of “diversity” and summarily conclude that organizations tend to adopt broad definitions of diversity, which in and of itself is not a bad thing, however, they do little to explore the historical underpinnings of the non-diverse work force. Instead, they urge businesses to seek to quantify the effects of diversity with (essentially) a cost benefit approach linked to achievement of business objectives. (Robinson and Dechant: 29) The effect of this article in my view further marginalized those groups that it was intended to support, by reductionist thinking that equated people’s value with other corporate assets. It further limited the scope of inquiry to a pure dollar and cents analysis. The narrowness of their focus is underscored when they state: “The bottom-line focus of today’s business environment requires that diversity initiatives be treated like any other business investment, e.g. technology or advertising.” (Robinson and Dechant: 30) This short term thinking, even if it leads to organizational adoption of diversity initiatives, does not truly advance inclusiveness in organizations or society.

   As researchers struggled to establish the link between “diversity” and performance, there have been some interesting hypotheses that have been tested. In order to review this research thoroughly, I must step back and discuss the theoretical frameworks for assessment of the impact of diversity on group process and performance. The first is social categorization, which is also referred to as surface diversity, and leads to stereotyping and the focus on salient features such as gender, race, ethnicity. The second is similarity/attraction theory, which holds that people who share the same attributes or values tend to like one another, characterized by the saying “birds of a feather”. The third is decision making theory, which reviews the distribution of information and group process and how diversity might drive better outcomes. (Schippers, Hartog, Koopman, Wienk: 2003: 780). The authors note: “As stated, research has yielded mixed results . . . . Williams and O'Reilly (1998) indicate that most diversity research focused on the direct effects of diversity on team process and outcomes. Far less research assesses when diversity has an effect on team process.” (Schippers: 780) The authors conclude that there are positive moderated effects of factors, such as longevity and outcome interdependence, on group performance. Further, reflexivity is identified as an important element of group process.  Diversity tends to become secondary to the outcome, and again is categorized narrowly. Less time is spent assessing what diversity “looks like” in a team setting and how historical norms shape the view point of those who are members of the group. I believe that this is an obvious omission in the research that I reviewed, which did little to evaluate the effect of “environment” beyond group process. 

   One study did grapple with the different types of diversity, categorizing them by whether the defining characteristics were surface or deep level. (Harrison, Price & Gavin: 2002: 1030). The surface level was defined as “differences among team members in overt demographic characteristics . . . . [including] age, sex, and race/ethnicity.” (Harrison: 1030) The deep-level referred to psychological characteristics such as values, attitudes and personalities. The study did establish some association between actual and perceived diversity, but was unable to go further and directly link to group performance. Nevertheless, it did reinforce the finding that time serves the purpose of helping teams reach a level of understanding about thoughts, values and attitudes. “[C]ollaborating or getting together frequently to perform tasks can reduce the impact of demographic differences. . . .” (Harrison: 1042); however, the authors sound a warning bell around the “deep-level differences that might erupt into negative affect and relationship conflict”. (Id.) Other than providing us some evidence that time can be an enabling factor when it comes to creating group cohesion among diverse workers, the research is of limited value, especially since it was conducted in an academic setting.

   Research by Miller, Burke and Glick led to similar results in higher echelon teams, but the emphasis was on “cognitive diversity” and its effect on key strategic processes; interestingly, this research undermined the theory that demographic diversity equates to cognitive diversity, a link which is commonly presumed to exist. Another notable suggestion was the negative effect that cognitive diversity could have on group cohesion: “[d]iversity often implies disagreement over strongly held preferences and beliefs that will not be compromised. Thus, extensive decision-making may lead to head-butting rather than to issue resolution.” (Miller: 42)

   Considering the global economy, the historical effects of discrimination and the power imbalances that exist, the research on diversity in a work setting is lacking in many ways. First, the research does not adequately define what diversity means in the context of a work setting and the historical structures that have perpetuated non-diverse environments. Second, while pragmatic, the economic focus of the link between “diversity” and team outcomes is too narrow. By looking primarily on how to “convince” those in the majority that it makes economic sense to hire a diverse work force further marginalizes those who seek inclusion in the mainstream economy and the upper echelons of organizations. Third, by not discussing power imbalances that may exist between the majority and minority group members, the research overlooks a key element in discerning how groups can work towards greater inclusion. Finally, there is little in the way of research in the work place setting that sets forth a comprehensive model for developing a culture of inclusion.  Some models do exist that lay out a framework and a vision for inclusive organizations and I will explore these in the next section.

Part II--A Model for Diverse and Inclusive Organizations

   In the end, our workplaces cannot be like pictures or television shows, where there is perfect harmony among team members. Working in a diverse group, whether it is geographically, demographically, or economically, can be messy and hard. This mostly is because we tend to see the world through our own eyes. Pless and Maak set out a model for creating an environment that is inclusive in nature for all people.  (Pless and Maak: 2004: 129-147) The authors frame their work in terms of an ethical challenge, rather than cost avoidance or competitive advantage. Pless and Maak want to capture those advantages, but also they strive to construct a framework that “embraces diversity and fosters humanity.” (emphasis added) (Pless and Maak: 130)

   Indeed, although only scratching the surface, Pless and Maak start to get to the root cause of the failure of most organizations’ attempts to build an inclusive space for their employees through assimilation rather than inclusion: “The assimilation approach simply ignores differences, and thus, no integrational efforts are made. Instead, women, expatriates and minorities are more or less expected to assimilate into a pre-defined and dominant corporate culture.” (Pless and Maak: 130) The authors go on to suggest that the organizational model must take into account several principles: recognition from the perspective of emotions, solidarity and politics; it must also include reciprocal understanding and mutual enabling (Pless and Maak: 131-133). All of these elements, along with trust, integrity and an “intercultural moral point of view” (Pless and Maak: 134) are intended to promote discourse among those in the organization: “This means for the organizational context that diverse groups with different ‘local realities’ need to be enabled to come together and create their organizational story and shared cultural identity in an ongoing process of common discursive action, built on mutual recognition.” (Pless and Maak: 133)

   To embed these principles and cause them to live within any organization is a different matter. Thus, the authors set out a four-phased approach. First, there must be awareness and reflection on the part of the dominant culture that there are those who are being excluded by the organization’s practices. Second, the organization must create a shared vision of inclusion that includes many legal and moral principles of inclusion such as communication, equal rights, and promoting work life-balance. Third, leadership must model behaviors that are consistent with the vision and engage others in discourse around inclusion. Finally, systems and structures within the organization, such as recruitment, performance appraisal and salary structures, must change to reflect the new organizational norms and new members of the organization must reflect those norms. (Pless and Maak: 135-143).

   This four-phased approach, while appealing and logical, requires a high degree of commitment by an organization’s leadership to implement. It must be executed well during all four phases and there must be authenticity in terms of the underlying motivations. There are two issues with the approach that are immediately apparent: 1. Why would an organization go through the time, effort and expense to put in place such a comprehensive approach? 2. How would an organization measure its success following the realization of this approach? Pless and Maak acknowledge these challenges, along with the need to address power structures and discourse methodologies. (Pless and Maak: 144)

   As to these questions, it is important to go back to where this paper started, which is an a call for a well-reasoned and broad economic justification for a diverse workplace. Even under the best conditions, there would be few quantitatively measurable effects that would support a long term investment in diversity. And, there are few studies that track and measure an organization that has imbued a diverse and inclusive culture over a sustained period of time. A dollars and cents analysis is insufficient; it is important to continue to strive for financial benefits without marginalizing those whom we seek to include. While there is the risk of objectifying the people for whom we seek inclusion, if done thoughtfully, there are great benefits to an economic model. If we can demonstrate a sustainable model within an economic context, it will encourage those in power to endorse the notion of change. Therefore, it is critical that we look for examples of quantitative and qualitative success that can be a catalyst for change.

   There are further elements that can enhance the success of an engagement process among diverse individuals. In addition to a shared vision and objectives, creating outcome interdependence helps to improve the workings of the group. “diverse teams might benefit most in terms of reflexivity and team outcomes if they are outcome interdependent, and that this effect becomes more pronounced over time. . . . more diverse teams are more reflexive at first, exploring whether members' viewpoints differ.” (Schippers: 798). Jehn discusses the outcome interdependence in the context of a people-oriented culture, a concept that is admittedly simplistic. Nevertheless, Jehn Bezrukova’s research “suggests that people-oriented workgroup environments emphasizing collectivity and group work can actually facilitate the alignment of actions of diverse employees with desired performance outcomes.” (Jehn & Bezrukova: 2004: 720)

   Next, focusing on the conflict management within the group and having a robust system for navigating conflict and guiding it towards productive use, rather than interpersonal animus, is a critical step towards creating a holistic approach towards inclusion and openness within the group. Several studies discuss the interrelatedness of diversity and conflict. On one hand, the different perspectives that result from cognitive diversity help to improve the quality of substantive decision making, as multiple points of view lead to greater option generation, more analytical comprehensiveness and qualitatively better decisions. (Miller: 51) (Amason: 1996) In contrast, there are problems that “high levels of diversity cause with respect to communication, integration, and political behavior”. (Miller: 51) see also (Pelled: 1996: 625) Such negative affect can then lead to lower levels of satisfaction and commitment to the group. 

   There is no optimal group composition or methodology that predicts positive effects on group function. Nevertheless, the models set forth above, along with other factors such as group longevity, reflexivity and conflict management can sometimes moderate the potentially negative effects of surface level diversity. (Pelled: 1996) (Miller: 1998) (Cox, Lobel & McLeod: 1991)

Conclusion

   Despite the imperfect research and the inability of many social scientists to really delve into the norms and assumptions that exist in the workplace, it is worthwhile for research to continue to focus on the positive effects of “demographic diversity” in the workplace.  At the risk of oversimplifying, it is because the ability to work together and harness the perspectives of a diverse culture will enhance the quality of decisions made and satisfaction gained by those involved. (Amason: 1996: 126) By creating positive affect, there is a greater chance that people will gain greater insight into the power of diversity. “[G]roup culture as a social control system can moderate the impact of diversity on performance by reinforcing positive views of diversity and rewarding its presence and successful management . . . .” (Jehn: 706). There needs to be further study to help highlight positive successes and provide a framework that will serve as a model for both organizations and communities. I believe that diversity is worth the effort and building a positive diverse culture can be a model that we can export to all areas of our life and work.

References:

1.   Amason, Allen C.

   Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic   Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams

   The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Feb., 1996), pp. 123-148

2.   Cox, T., Lobel, S., & McLeod, P.

   Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive   behavior on a group task.

   The Academy of Management Journal, 34, (1991) 827-847

3.   Harrison, David A., Price, Kenneth H., Gavin, Joanne H. & Florey, Anna T.

   Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface- and Deep   Level Diversity on Group Functioning

   The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 5 (Oct., 2002), pp.   1029-1045   

4.   Jehn, Karen A. and Bezrukova, Katerina

   A Field Study of Group Diversity, Workgroup Context, and Performance

   Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, No. 6, Special Issue: Diversity and   the Workplace (Sep., 2004), pp. 703-729

5.   Jordan, Ann

   Women and Conflict Transformation: Influences, Roles, and Experiences

   Development in Practice, Vol. 13, No. 2/3 (May, 2003), pp. 239-251

 Miller, C. Chet, Burke, Linda M., & Glick, William H.

   Cognitive Diversity among Upper-Echelon Executives: Implications for Strategic   Decision Processes

   Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Jan, 1998), pp. 39-58

 Pelled, Linda Hope

   Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening   Process Theory

   Organizational Science, Vol. 7, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1996), pp. 615-631

 Pless, Nicola M. & Maak, Thomas

   Building an Inclusive Diversity Culture: Principles, Processes and Practice

   Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 54, No.2 (Oct., 2004), pp. 129-147

 Robinson, Gail & Dechant, Kathleen

   Building a Business Case for Diversity

   The Academy of Management Executive , Vol. 11, No. 3 (Aug., 1997), pp.   21-31

10.   Schippers, Michaéla C., Den Hartog, Deanne N., Koopman, Paul L., Wienk,   Janique A.

      Diversity and Team Outcomes: The Moderating Effects of Outcome   Interdependence and Group Longevity and the Mediating Effect of Reflexivity 

   Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 6 (Sep., 2003), pp. 779-8022