Why We Need an Integrated Diversity Program

In 1936, American novelist Tom Robbins said, “Equality is not in regarding different things similarly; equality is in regarding different things differently.” Perhaps wisdom well beyond his years, Tom Robbins has almost accurately described a notion of equality that has taken several decades to craft in business and society. The idea that equality isn’t about changing those that are different to be more like the majority, but to embrace and celebrate those differences as fundamental fibers of our society is truly a shift in traditional American paradigm. Accepting those that are different from us will help facilitate an understanding that can eventually lead to a harmonious cross-cultural existence.

In business, recognizing diversity and implementing diversity training programs are relatively new concepts to the business world. Ten years into the 21st century, long gone are the days of the proverbial “boys club” that previously ruled the upper echelons of the business world. Today, as companies expand into global markets and play in a worldwide economy, a new breed of business has emerged -- one that is much more heterogeneous than predecessors.

Savvy business people know the advantages a fully integrated diversity program can do for their business. However, not all businesses have realized the importance of diversity in the workplace; for those that succeed there are even more that fail. Within the scope of our paper, we will explore what diversity is within an organization and why it is so important to have. We will also identify the different kinds of diversity and then review the common mistakes companies who fail at corporate diversity initiatives make – the ‘what not to do’ for companies implementing a diversity strategy. A brief review of best-in-class diversity-driven companies follows. Finally, we’ll provide comprehensive recommendations that will help ensure future success of any business looking to integrate diversity within their work culture.

There have been great strides made toward the advancement of equality in American society today, but contemporary business scholars could argue that a latent disregard for fully accepting diverse American workforces still exists today. ‘Diversity’ might be a word casually thrown around in nearly every business today, but some companies do not exercise the time, resources or funding to accept differences in their workforces and harness those differences as a productive extension of the business model. Industries across the board have incorporated diversity programs within their respective businesses, but few of them have achieved integrated success. There are many that may commend these companies for making an effort to promote such an important issue, but just as many may argue that not enough is being done to actually incorporate a diverse work culture. The problem doesn’t lie within the content that is being delivered through these programs, but the follow-through, measurement and continuous improvement essential to shaping an integrated business culture

Although the term “diversity” might be a familiar term, its true definition may not be as clear. To most, diversity is an abstract concept used to describe an environment that consists of people who are of different cultural backgrounds. From a business standpoint, diversity is more of the various skills, talents, backgrounds, experiences and cultures each employee brings to the team to deliver business goals. This definition isn’t limited to race and ethnicity, but also includes sexual orientation, gender, age, prior work experience, education, religion and more. All of these factors contribute to a unique work group. “Diverse workforces can help their business build sales by matching the demographic of their customers with that of their own frontline staff and sales force (Graham, p.16).”

Diversity in the workplace is generally accepted from top down as being an important issue that needs to be addressed but the problem arises when diversity is seen as something leaders should do rather than something they must do to maximize their business model. Many diversity programs fail because they try to shape and mold the differences in their organization into one unified working environment. This poses a problem because minorities subjected to this kind of working environment are stripped of their individuality and consequently, may experience poor job performance, low satisfaction and higher employee turnover because they feel as if their individual characteristics are not being recognized.

The operative concept some companies aren’t considering with respect to diversity is inclusion. “Inclusion is the process that transforms the organization from a mono-cultural view that values and supports sameness in style and approach, to a culture of inclusion that leverages diversity in all its many dimensions (Miller and Katz, p. 7).” Inclusion leverages diversity instead of replacing it; a diversity program should use the concept of inclusion as a building block for its strategy. Diversity programs build around inclusion focus on the identification of employee differences in work culture and leveraging those differences in a way that will help the business grow. “Inclusion is a way of joining in a positive manner in the interest of a positive outcome, not a strategy for avoiding conflict, settling for the lowest common denominator, or assimilation. Inclusion creates a sense of belonging and when each person realizes a sense of belonging to the organizational community, motivation and morale soar (Miller and Katz, p. 17).”

When everyone feels that they fit into a group or organization, employees are more likely to offer insight and share ideas that could help the business achieve higher success. Likewise, when an organization views those differences as a valuable asset rather than a problem, it facilitates a sense of pride among employees. When people take pride in their jobs, they perform much better and ultimately the business prospers.

Another aspect of diversity within an organization are the kinds mandated by law like affirmative action. According to the organization NOW (National Organization for Women), affirmative action is “the set of public policies and initiatives designed to help eliminate past and present discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is under attack.” The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery, gave equal protection under law, and forbid racial discrimination in access to voting, set the stage for affirmative action in business. However, it wasn’t until 1964-1965 that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were put into place that affirmative action really took shape. Because of the Civil Rights act, businesses could not use discriminatory hiring practices identified and classified by the government when hiring, promoting, disciplining and firing employees. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also forbid racial discrimination in public accommodations as well as race and sex discrimination in employment.

Today the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) maintains justice for minorities that have been unfairly treated in the workforce. The EEOC manages potential violations to the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), equal pay and charges related to unfair harassment and discrimination based on nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, sexism, sexual harassment and country of origin, among others. With the EEOC backing the rights of minorities and enforcing the legislative mandates of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action has certainly helped evolve the concept of diversity in business into what it is today.

What most of these companies fail to understand is that diversity is a very powerful business tool. It can gain insight into markets the company never thought they could reach before, as well as facilitate a higher level of “brain power” or synergy. Having a diverse workforce breaks down the groupthink mentality and offers ideas that perhaps were never thought of before. From a marketing standpoint, diversity can provide a powerful competitive advantage over other firms within the industry by finding ways to appeal to a segment of a population that

To best understand diversity and inclusion in the context of corporate culture, one must understand the types of issues facing companies today. Organizations have strived to solve numerous diversity issues. While a great deal has been accomplished, the increase in globalization is presenting additional challenges. Prior to planning a domestic or multinational diversity strategy, companies should complete the necessary steps to implement new diversity programs so they are successful.

Kreitner and Kinicki illustrate corporate diversity into four layers: internal, external, organizational, and personality (36). The model, conveyed in a multi-layer circle shape, demonstrates how each dimension is segmented and that an individual’s personality is encompassed by the internal, external, and organizational dimensions that surround him or her. Overall, the personality makes up the center due to a person being born and raised with specific traits, ideals, core values, and morals which shape how the world is viewed. Establishing and maintaining an organization based solely on individual personality is virtually impossible. However, analyzing each dimensional aspect will allow companies to implement easier and more comprehensive diversity programs. Indicated below is an explanation of each form of diversity broken down by its respective layer:

Internal Dimension- This dimension encompasses traits over which individuals have no control. Most can argue that these characteristics are the most important since these facets significantly define a human being. These individualities, except for sexual orientation, are considered protected classes by the EEOC. Basically, companies cannot fire an employee due to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, or military status (Fisher Schoenfeldt and Shaw 181).  Due to these elements being legally binding, organizations must completely respect and do whatever possible to uphold standards to fulfill a non-hostile work environment for everyone under this layer.

Age – As the average life expectancy continues to increase and the youth become educated at an earlier age, that range is expanding to an even greater extent. Kreitner and Kinicki divided the current ages into four groups: Traditionalists 1925-1945 (ages 65-85), Baby Boomers 1946-1964 (ages 46-64), Gen Xers 1965-1979 (ages 31-45), and Millennials or Gen Ys 1980-2001 (ages 9-30) (47). The main reason why these age groups are so vital for businesses to understand is that individuals born within these time periods have different conceptual understandings which make up their values, morals, and work patterns.

Gender – This category is made up of only two groups: males and females. Undoubtedly, each gender has different needs and desires as to how problems should be solved. Gender diversity is one a subject that is most debated in terms of equal rights. Much research has been done illustrating how women are treated unfairly, most often in terms of compensation, promotion, and opportunity. Fully conceptualizing these differences will benefit all businesses. Additionally, more women are entering the workforce during the last fifty years, which has drastically altered social norms.

Race & Ethnicity – Many studies have exhibited discrimination in the workforce by an individual’s skin color even though this is unacceptable by EEOC. More importantly, time has proven to use that this factor is irrelevant and that an individual’s skills and performance are what should be judged. This facet of diversity will only grow as immigration rates to the United States increase.

Ethnicity concentrates more heavily on an individual’s cultural background. Most often, people analyze one another and make generalizations about a person’s ethnicity by their skin color. While organizations should treat this category the same as race, businesses see added value by employing people with different ethnic backgrounds, especially due to the increase of corporate globalization.

Physical Ability – The needs of people classified as disabled by the ADA are important for businesses to understand. Building infrastructures should all be wheelchair accessible and most people in this category are able to work in most jobs just as well as nonphysical disabled individuals. This is still an evolving topic as the protection status was established when the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was signed. (Fisher Schoenfeldt and Shaw 190)

Sexual Orientation – This is a newer, but still absolutely important component that needs to be recognized and should also be treated as every other category under this layer. This is still not considered a protected class, but may become one in the near future. People in this category are usually defined as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or straight.

External Dimension –The external dimension is more controlled but is equal in importance to the internal dimension in terms of individual expression and differences. These categories are more influenced by a person’s external surroundings and experiences that shape his or her behavior. In addition, religion is the only external dimension considered a protected class by the EEOC. Regardless of the variability and controllable outcomes by an individual, the diversities which exist are equally as important to recognize as internal dimensions.

Geographic Location – The primary area where individuals were raised can significantly define their behavior and perspective. More notably, the location generally dictates the person’s culture, beliefs, religion, values, ideas, and the majority of their internal and external factors.

Income & Appearance – This often plays a huge role in how people conduct themselves. These behaviors may lead to an individual striving for status or superiority due to their amount of income. Furthermore, people can feel depressed if their income is not significant, especially when their ability to utilize discretionary spending is limited. Social status also is often involved when discussing income association. In addition, an employee’s appearance can be dependant on their income.

Personal & Recreational Habits –A person can have tendencies that are as simple as having an organized desk to him or her not being able to sit at a desk for eight hours a day. Identifying these individual traits is important and difficult when looking for employees, as the goal for all organizations is to look for candidates that have personal habits that do not conflict with business norms. Furthermore, social groups are often created by those who share common recreational habits. These commonalities are usually defined as sub-groups which establish further diversity.

Religion – The United States specifically has a considerable amount of diverse religious backgrounds inhabiting this country due to the freedom of religion. As an EEOC- protected class, businesses must fully understand religious freedom, tenets of religions practiced by employees in their organization, including customs, holidays and dress.

Educational Background – Education is significantly dependant on the job/profession an individual is striving to achieve. Each year, more students are entering the workforce upon graduating from high school or college. Each group is generally defined by their knowledge, skills, and abilities. While each academic achievement group is segmented, most are able to assume what is expected and how diverse each individual is by their educational backgrounds.

Work Experience – Undoubtedly, this dimension is of interest to employers. Similar to academic background, individuals become even more diverse by their work background and their experiences also shape their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Parental Status – Fathers and mothers develop considerable differences in perspective than people who do not have children. Working parents must fulfill certain needs, including caring for sick children and adjusting work schedules to adhere to school and daycare schedules. Expectant mothers are recognized by the EEOC as a protected class and job security must be guaranteed during pregnancy, childbirth and maternity leave. According to the EEOC Web site, “Employers cannot refuse to hire a pregnant woman because of her pregnancy, because of a pregnancy-related condition, or because of the prejudices of co-workers, clients, or customers."

Marital Status – Many meet their significant other in the workplace. This message is common because singles often create additional sub-groups by creating activities that segment married people.

Organizational Dimension – This is the most controllable layer in the whole diagram. Businesses are able to change to tailor diversity in their business and employees are able to adapt accordingly.

Division/Department/Unit/Group & Union Affiliation – After being hired and placed in a department, a person’s professional conceptualization is motivated mostly towards the goals of their division. Ideologies used to solve issues are generally similar and differ from those who are from different departments. For example, union members generally observe the organization differently than non union-affiliated employees.

Work Location – Naturally, location creates natural segmentation due to individuals being able to share common experiences with internal and external factors that are associated with the physical location.

Management Status, Functional Level, & Seniority – Status creates significant segmentation. The extent to which employees are managed and the amount of work that a person is responsible for completing differentiates him or her from their subordinates and superiors. Seniority often exhibits diversity due to being perceived as people who understand an organization better than those who have had less work experience.

Now that the types and dimensions of workplace diversity have been established, one can apply those dimensions directly to the workplace. Businesses embracing diversity can result in increased growth in revenues, product line breadth, employee satisfaction and global operations. Their business succeed with diversity because by embracing diversity, leaders are more likely to encourage employee adaptability, broader service range, a variety of viewpoints and more effective execution of strategies. However, some challenges of diversity such as communication, resistance to change, implementation of diversity in the workplace policies, and management of diversity may slow down the business or even cause failure. Overall, all businesses can benefit from a diverse body of talent that brings fresh ideas, perspectives, and views to the workplace in the long term. As a result, diversity training program is becoming more and more popular.

Diversity training is training for the purpose of increasing participants' cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills, which is based on the assumption that the training will benefit an organization by protecting against civil rights violations, increasing the inclusion of different identity groups, and promoting better teamwork. However, diversity training can be a controversial issue because of moral considerations and perceived workplace inefficiency. In order to solve or avoid these problems of being diverse and to take advantage of it, experts suggest three steps for being successful: 1) Assessing diversity in the workplace; 2) Developing a comprehensive diversity plan; and 3) Implementing, measuring and continuously improving the plan. Basically, the purposes of these steps are to ward off change resistance with inclusion, foster an attitude of organizational transparency, promote diversity in leadership positions and make it easier in the future to implement and refine new programs and initiatives in companies just like the project assumption.

Having a diverse workforce and training an organization to appreciate and embrace diversity can help set a business apart from its competition. Moreover, the consequences for organizations that lag behind in addressing issues of diversity could include missed opportunities, customer and client complaints, service delivery problems, etc. Experts argue if diversity programs are the panacea to employee satisfaction and retention, as well as business growth. Business leaders considering the implementation of a diversity program must ask themselves: Can a diversity program work in my company, industry and culture? It’s the responsibility of that leader to position and lead his / her workplace to embed diversity as a critical business element. If the company or industry is not ‘ready’ for a traditional diversity program, leaders must work with their management team to change the culture so diversity becomes important.

Despite the best efforts of well-intentioned leaders, some diversity training programs do fail. Failure could exist for several reasons:

• Programs are only executed because of EEOC requirements;
• Diversity training is being done because it is the "right" thing or "moral" thing to do, which means the organization does not understand the connection between diversity and the bottom line;
• Programs are implemented without reviewing a company’s hiring, promotion, leadership development, and business practices;
• Training initiatives have the support of management (they will provide the resources) but not the commitment (management or senior management in particular, do not attend or enforce the training);
• Participants are not engaged or do not find the training practical, pertinent and compelling
• Diversity classes are developed and led solely by external diversity consultants and trainers, which could mean the company’s unique culture, nomenclature, goals and colloquialisms are not used;
•  Programs were designed and developed without a formal needs analysis or diagnoses of the organization;

Clearly, applying a diversity program without careful research and company analysis will not help a company to grow.

Companies who have failed at implementing diversity programs exist in American business today – but those companies take special care not to have their shortcomings publicized, and if diversity shortcomings were publicized, companies used different terms and crisis-management tactics to hide their mistakes from the public. Companies singled out as failing in the diversity space will not use the term “fail” but will instead employ words and phrases like “ineffective,” “room for improvement,” “not the company’s strength.”  It’s easy to see why a company would want to downplay weakness from consumers and competitors as it could result in business loss.

An article in The Washington Post titled “Most Diversity Training Ineffective, Study Finds,” covered a 31-year comprehensive review of the diversity and inclusion efforts of more than 800 mid-size to large American companies. The focus of the study was to measure the effectiveness of government-mandated versus employee-driven diversity initiatives. The result of the study showed that successful implementation of diversity programs must begin with employees. After completing government-mandated trainings, most firms noticed a 7.5 percent drop in women in management, the number of black female managers fell by 10 percent and the number of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent. Similar trends were seen in other ethnic backgrounds as well.  The reasoning behind the trends was that since the trainings were forced because of government regulations the staff and management wasn’t really behind the program. Because most companies just execute the training to avoid government penalties, their employees are disengaged and may not see the inherent benefits a diversity strategy can provide. When a company involves all employees in its diversity efforts and treat it like an important business initiative, diversity programs will gain popularity and the amount of diverse employees at all levels will increase greater than if the program was forced. (Vedantam)

One well-known American-based company has been highlighted for its areas of opportunity in improving its employee diversity and inclusion efforts -- retail giant Walmart. Walmart currently employs more than 2 million employees and had sales of over $400 billion last year according to Walmart’s 2009 Annual report. (Walmart)Reports have shown that Walmart has shown discrimination and a lack of cultural understanding to their employee community. The company has been sued a number of times for everything from age to race discrimination, with one notable case recently making headlines.

Dukes vs. Wal-Mart (2001) stems from accused sexual discrimination and could result in the company having to pay out billions of dollars to nearly 1.6 million female employees that had worked in 3,400 different stores since 1998, according to the Washington Post. This is the single largest case of its kind in American history. In its defense arguments, Walmart’s lawyers pointed out that the company has shown documented improvement since the suit was filed in 1998 and was even ranked as a top employer for females according to Pink Magazine. The judges didn’t think the changes they have made is enough for the way they treated some female employees.(Mui)This is just an example of a single lawsuit brought against the company.

Because most companies are not this size or have their kind of money it is easy to see how one diversity lawsuit could result in financial downfall for a business. Businesses really need to see that building a diversity program from the inside and getting the full support of everyone can really grow their business and keep them from being in the spot light like Walmart.

Not all businesses are like Walmart, however. Some businesses who embed a comprehensive diversity strategy into their day-to-day business models, rely on leaders at all levels to implement programs, suggest continuous improvement and role-model the mission and ideals of the diversity strategy do exist in the American corporate landscape.

Companies are regularly ranked and rated on their commitment to employee diversity and the power of their diversity strategies. Several companies in many different industries, sizes and disciplines have consistently been recognized as being best-in-class when considering corporate diversity. To develop a recommendation for an outstanding diversity program, one must study the strategies and methods of those who have proven successful at integrating diversity and inclusion into many aspects of their business.

Aon is an insurance and risk-management company headquartered in Chicago, IL. The company employs more than 36,000 people in 120 countries, according to its Web site (http://aon.com) . In a Diversity Spotlight in Business Insurance (2008) Aon President and CEO Greg Case notes the elements of Aon’s diversity program, including the appointment of a Chief Diversity Officer and robust in-office cultural diversity awareness programs. Aon’s diversity strategy is focused on four goals:

• Talent supply and development
• Cultural competence
• Strengthening the business
• Connecting with the community (Commitment to Diversity Fosters Excellence, p. 12, 2008)

Case speaks extensively about the talent supply and development section of Aon’s diversity strategy, noting that the company focuses on recruiting, developing and retaining employees from many educational and career paths and disciplines to bring the most diverse and inclusive approach to Aon’s business. The responsibility of developing this desired workforce lies beyond the management team – Aon encourages their employees to take their careers into their own hands.

Case described the creation of an employee-driven program to help develop and measure cultural and professional diversity. “We want to create a world-class magnet that nurtures the unique background, skills and creativity of our colleagues. To achieve this goal, we established a global advisory board consisting of colleagues in each of our four geographies: the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and the Middle East, and Asia Pacific. They have two goals in mind: putting more women in the senior ranks of our company and enhancing cultural competence, as measured by the number of colleagues we rotate to other countries.” (Commitment to Diversity Fosters Excellence, p. 12, 2008)

For Case and for Aon, diversity is more than making sure that all races and nationalities are receiving equal treatment – it’s about making sure every employee, regardless of personal traits or professional background, are given every opportunity to succeed.

For food and facilities management provider Sodexho, diversity is more than a feel-good employee initiative – it is a way to capitalize on employee talents to increase profits and raise the bottom line.

Sodexho, named as Diversity, Inc.’s top diversity company in its annual “Top 50 Best Diversity Companies”, conducts regular measurements and resulting improvement programs to drive continuous improvement to its diversity and inclusion efforts. (Diversity, Inc. Magazine, March 19, 2010, www.diversityinc.com )

According to the company’s Diversity, Inc. profile, the company regularly measures diversity programs and concepts, including employee participation and teamwork, and uses the results as part of its diversity metrics reporting program. The diversity metric reporting program is regarded as one of the company’s key metrics and is regularly monitored by top leaders. They also demonstrate their commitment to diversity by asking both employees and clients for feedback and diversity performance measurement. Sodexho boasts a strong internal diversity program, including mandatory training for all employees, the creation of a Chief Diversity Officer position and active employee affinity groups.

Diversity, Inc. ranked Sodexho highly in several diversity sub-categories, including:

• Number 1 in Top Companies for Executive Women
• Number 1 in Top Companies for Recruitment and Retention
• Number 2 in Top Companies for Latinos
• Number 3 in Top Companies for Blacks

Sodexho Chief Diversity Officer Dr. Rohini Anand told Diversity, Inc. that the company knows it cannot fiscally succeed without an engaged and diverse workforce. “When employees feel respected and valued, their production, innovation and creativity thrive, resulting in superior business performance.” (Diversity, Inc. Magazine, March 19, 2010, www.diversityinc.com )

Pharmaceutical and consumer products giant Johnson & Johnson is so passionate about diversity, they feature it prominently on their company Web site and ask all customers, employees, suppliers and investors to be aware of its diversity credo: “To maximize the global power of diversity and inclusion to drive superior business results and sustainable competitive advantage.” (www.jnj.com) The company was ranked second in Diversity, Inc.’s Top Fifty Best Diversity Companies (Diversity, Inc. Magazine, March 19, 2010, www.diversityinc.com ).

Johnson & Johnson looks at diversity in terms of developing employees from each culture and providing them with a competitive work-life balance and personal benefits to help them succeed with their varied backgrounds, including retirement transition, benefits for volunteering, flexible work hours, and elder and daycare. Johnson & Johnson also sponsors nine active employee affinity groups, including a Veteran’s Leadership Council and a South Asian Professional Network. (Diversity, Inc. Magazine, March 19, 2010, www.diversityinc.com ).

The company’s diversity vision is focused on four critical areas: 1) credos to develop inclusive cultures, drive innovation and accelerate growth; 2) achieving a skilled workforce that is reflective of a diverse global marketplace; 3) working with business leaders to establish targeted market opportunities for consumers across many spectrums; 4) cultivating external relationships with local government, civic and volunteer organizations. Through a clearly-defined diversity strategy and strong leadership support, Johnson & Johnson is a best-in-class diversity company.

Now that the best and the worst of American corporate diversity strategies have been examined, a straegy for researching, developing an embedding a corporate diversity program can be recommended.

The traditional approach to hiring and team building has been based around constructing the most homogeneous team.  In the past, the thought has been that the more similar a team is; the better a team is going to function as a cohesive unit.  The more a team has in common — with each other and with the leader — the less likely there is going to be internal strife and conflict.  Research has shown that when a team first forms with a high homogeneous culture, the team is able to hit the ground running and be effective more quickly than a team with a high heterogeneous culture, “teams with unified cultures are likely to perform better than other teams.  A unified team culture facilitates internal communication, coordination and strategic action, cohesiveness and team efficacy (Earley 29).  However, with the increase of women entering the workforce and the growth of minorities over the past 20 years leaders have to adapt to leading cultures with a higher heterogeneous mix of staff.  “This focus on diversity has increased over the last two decades owing to the following realities: (a) Women no comprise 46% of the work force, and (b) between now and 2050, racial/ethnic minorities will grow from 28% to 50% of the U.S. population.  In addition, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered individuals are increasingly open with regard to their sexual orientation (Chin 608).

In order to create a climate in a company that welcomes and celebrates diversity, leaders need to move away from certain theories of leadership that do not allow for diversity to be considered. The biggest theory of leadership that is guilty of not considering diversity is the “great man” theory of leadership. “Historically, ‘great man’ theories of leadership were developed by drawing only from case histories of those already in positions of leadership, who were generally White men. As a result, successful leadership became associated with masculine traits.  The ‘great man’ leadership theories have become cultural stereotypes in the general population that shape perceptions and pressure diverse men and women to adhere to the leadership styles exhibited by majority males” (Chin 609). Using theories such as the contingency theory and situational theory allows for leaders to incorporate leading heterogeneous teams (Chin 609).

When considering diversity in the team building phase of leadership, as was discussed earlier, it is easier for a leader to build a homogeneous team related around his/her characteristics, race and ethnicity. Research has shown that the homogeneous teams are able to have a common identity right form the very beginning and are able to achieve strong results quickly. Diversity is shown to have a detrimental impact to teams at the beginning but as they work together, that detrimental impact fades and turns into a strength for the team, as Earley and Mosakowski explain:

During the initial interaction phases of the teams studied here, heterogeneity had a detrimental impact on team functioning.  This disadvantage was not a monotonically decreasing function; rather, the impact was consistent, with both split and heterogeneous teams inferior to a homogeneous team.  Over time, however, the impact of heterogeneity on team performance and other team outcome variables became curvilinear.  After forming ways to interact and communicate, highly heterogeneous teams appeared to create a common identity (45).

Through shared experiences, experiencing shared wins and strong leadership heterogeneous teams are able to create a shared identity that allows for the teamwork and shared identification that homogeneous teams have while still having the diversity of experiences, ideas and perspectives that come from a diverse work place.

Just as leaders have a tendency to hire homogeneous teams, companies have a tendency to create homogeneous teams through company culture. Companies and leaders, while hiring diverse people can—through the leadership—eliminate the subcultures that form by having a diverse team. People tend to relate to people with similar backgrounds whether it is similarities in ethnicity, age or sexual identification. The employees that identify with their leader form the in-group and the rest of the team forms the out-group. Leaders that struggle to make diversity considerations a top focus, spend most of their time with the in-group and when they do spend time with the team members in the out-group, the leader tries to shrink the qualities that makes that particular subgroup unique while trying to enlarge the characteristics that relate to the in-group and the leader in particular. The marginalization of the different subcultures in the quest for a homogenous team while having a diverse staff causes cognitive dissonance in the members of the out-group. This cognitive dissonance creates an environment of distrust, alienation and a drop in job performance; “when followers belong to a different subgroup than their leader’s, they show decreases in several characteristics: satisfaction, identification with the organization, support of and trust in their leaders, perception of leader’s fairness, and concern for the larger group. Therefore, diversity calls for intergroup leadership—leadership that seeks to bring subgroups together” (Pittinski 194). In order to successfully lead teams that have in-groups and out-groups and subcultures within the company’s culture a two-dimensional model of intergroup leadership is needed.

The Two-Dimensional Model of Intergroup Leadership has four main tenets: leadership of a diverse collective involves uniting the subgroups as well as the individuals; positive and negative intergroup attitudes are independent dimensions of intergroup relations; the outcomes of positive intergroup attitudes are distinct from the outcomes of a lack or low level of negative intergroup attitudes and vice versa; positive and negative intergroup attitudes have different antecedents (Pittinski 195-196). The primary goal for a leader of a diverse team is to unite the different subgroups and individual around a shared goal while maintaining the different subgroups’ individuality. “Uniting diverse subgroups for leadership can be accomplished by promoting positive relations among subgroups, even as their distinctive group identities (their senses of ‘us’ and ‘them’) are retained” (Pittinzki 195). This is also accomplished by the leader’s awareness if they belong to the in-group or out-group. If the leader is a female with a team that is comprised of mostly males, the female leader needs to ensure they she is not favoring the out-group (the females) because she will be perceived as untrustworthy and not looking out for the best interest of the company. If the leader is a member of the in-group, then the leader can favor the out-group without having to worry about the loss of trust and the other issues that arise (Duck 397).

Positive and negative intergroup attitudes in the past have been treated in a similar fashion as hygiene factors, “Leadership texts are similarly limited, calling for the reduction of negative intergroup attitudes and relations but saying little or nothing about positive attitudes beyond neutrality” (Pittinzki 195). Leaders, when dealing with intergroup attitudes, must understand that positive and negative attitudes act independently of each other. They are not connected or on polar ends of a spectrum. People can hold both negative and positive attitudes about an object at the same time (Pittinzki 195). Once a leader understands that positive and negative emotions/attitudes are independent, it is important that the leader understands that positive intergroup emotions are more closely linked to positive intergroup behaviors, however, positive intergroup behaviors are not closely associated to the absence of negative intergroup emotions (Pittinzki 195). A leader cannot foster positive intergroup behaviors through the lack of negative emotions. “Positive relations among subgroups that must be brought together to achieve a joint goal therefore require not only the absence of negative attitudes among subgroups but also the presence of positive attitudes (Pittinzki 195). Finally, leaders need to remember that while some leadership behaviors that reduce negative emotions among subgroups can also increase positive emotions, promoting positive emotions usually calls for a different set of actions than what is required to reduce negative emotions (Pittinzki 196).

In sum, for an organization to have a successful team that is also diverse, the organization needs to first make a commitment to creating a highly heterogeneous team understanding that there will be some growing pains at first and that in the short term the team might not be as successful as a highly homogeneous team. Secondly, the organization needs leaders that do not try to create a homogeneous company culture by reducing the individuality of the subgroups while bringing out the traits and qualities that are most closely identifiable with the in-group. The leaders also need to understand if they belong to the in-group or out-group and perform accordingly—if they are a member of the out-group, the leader needs to make sure they are not favoring the out-group as that will cause a number of issues that will reduce the quality of performance of their team. Finally, leaders within an organization should apply a two-dimensional model of intergroup leadership that will allow them to unite diverse subgroups through shared goals and using positive emotions and attitudes to reinforce positive behaviors rather than relying on the absence of negative emotions to reinforce positive behaviors while allowing the subgroups within the organization to remain unique and hold onto their individual identity.

In order for an organization to be successful, leaders have begun to understand the importance of diversity and the advantages a fully integrated diversity program can do for their business.  By looking at examples of companies that have succeeded along with companies that have been successful a few characteristics become apparent.  Companies cannot pay lip-service to diversity any more.  Companies must have programs in place that celebrate diversity rather than have employees conforming to a mono-culture.  If companies can identify the variety of types of diversity, learn from companies like Wal-Mart that have failed to consider diversity a priority, look to companies such as Aon and Sodexho that have embraced diversity and consider implementing some of the features  of the Two-Dimensional Model of Intergroup Leadership, they will find themselves in a place for their company to lead in the twenty-first century.

Works Cited

Affirmative Action and Diversity Page. 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 08 Mar. 2010. <http://aad.english.ucsb.edu/>.

Chin, Jean Lau, and Janis Sanchez-Hucles.  “Diversity and Leadership.”  American Psychologist 62.6 (2007): 608-609.  Print.

Case, Greg.  “Commitment to Diversity Fosters Excellence,” Business Insurance Magazine  (2008): 12.  Print.

Diversity, Inc. Magazine, March 19, 2010, www.diversityinc.com ).

Duck, Julie M., and Kelly S. Fielding.  “Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group.”  European Journal of Social Psychology 33 (2003): 387-401. Print.

Earley, P. Christopher, and Elaine Mosakowski.  “Creating Hybrid Team Cultures: An Empirical Test of Transnational Team Functioning.  Academy of Management Journal 43.1 (2000): 26-49. Print.

"Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination." US EEOC Home Page. Web. 20 July 2010. <http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html>.

Fisher, Cynthia D., Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, and James B. Shaw. Human Resource Management. 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 181. Print.

Fisher, Cynthia D., Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, and James B. Shaw. Human Resource Management. 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 190. Print.

"40th Anniversary Panel." US EEOC Home Page. 13 Aug. 2004. Web. 08 Mar. 2010. <http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/40th/panel/index.html>.

Graham, Stedman. Diversity leaders not labels. New York: Free, 2006. Print

Johnson & Johnson Company Web site: www.jnj.com)

Kreitner, Robert, and Angelo Kinicki. Organizational Behavior. 9th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2010. 36. Print.

Kreitner, Robert, and Angelo Kinicki. Organizational Behavior. 9th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2010. 47. Print.

Miller, Frederick A. Inclusion breakthrough unleashing the real power of diversity. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2002. Print.

Mui, Ylan Q. "Appeals Court Upholds Women's Right to Sue Wal-Mart for Alleged Discrimination." Washingtonpost.com - Nation, World, Technology and Washington Area News and Headlines. Web. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042602515.html>.

Pittinsky, Todd L.  “A Two-Dimensional Model of Intergroup Leadership.”  American Psychologist 65.3 (2010): 194-200.  Print.

R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr., Beyond race and gender: unleashing the power of your total work force by managing diversity. New York: AMACOM, 1991. Print.

Vedantam, Shankar. "Most Diversity Training Ineffective, Study Finds." Washingtonpost.com - Nation, World, Technology and Washington Area News and Headlines. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/01/19/AR2008011901899_pf.html>.

Velásquez, Mauricio, “Diversity Training: Making it Work, Making it Effective.” Franchising World  (2008): 40-43. Print.

Velásquez, Mauricio "Top 10 Reasons Diversity Training Fails | Just Say Ouch!" OUCH! That Stereotype Hurts and Ouch! Your Silence Hurts ::: For Your Diversity & Inclusion Training ::: Bestselling Training Video. <http://www.ouch-video.com/blog/?p=4>.

Walmart "2009 Annual Report." www.walmartstores.com. Web. <http://walmartstores.com/download/3661.pdf>.

Wei-Wen Chang, “Is the Group Activity Food or Poison in a Multicultural Classroom?” T+D (2010): 34-37. Print.