case study draft
To complete this assignment, pick any private organization/business of your choice, which has a diversity and inclusion statement on its website. Conduct your research, and provide the following information:
- Brief background about the organization and its main business (about 1/2-1 page, double spaced).
- The reason why the organization is implementing diversity and inclusion practices (major lawsuit, new CEO and her/his vision, or…?) (about 1/2-1 page, double spaced).
- Does the organization have clear strategies to promote diversity or inclusion, or does it use general abstract language to describe its diversity and inclusion approach? Provide examples (1/2-1 page).
- Is the diversity and inclusion statement/plan of the organization focused on its employees, the community, abiding with anti-discrimination laws, all of them, or…? Why? Explain. (1/2-1 page)
- Does this organization’s diversity and inclusion statement address any of the challenges of diversity management discussed in the course’s readings so far? Cite the readings (1/2-1 page).
- Based on what you have read in this course so far, make two recommendations to this organization. The recommendations can focus on improving existing programs and policies or creating new ones to meet challenges that you think are important. Cite readings from the course to support your recommendations (1/2-1 page double space)
I have attached the source you can use in the work
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
The world has become highly diverse, but many companies have not—especially when it comes to combining diversity with the inclusive culture needed to truly drive value.
WRITTEN BY
Juliet Bourke, Christie Smith, Heather Stockton & Nicky Wakefield
PUBLISHED
March 7, 2014
Share Subscribe
Many organizations promote diversity while struggling to fully leverage the business benefits of a diverse workforce.
v
Nearly one-third of respondents to the Human Capital Trends global survey say they are unprepared in this area, while only 20 percent claim to be fully “ready.”
v
In a recent study, 61 percent of employees report they are “covering” on some personal dimension (appearance, affiliation, advocacy, association) to assimilate in their organization.
v
1 2
From diversity to inclusion
af
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
In 2014, promoting diversity is an expected commitment; like workforce safety, it’s now a ticket
to play. And while unwavering support is claimed, far fewer organizations can talk to the
benefits of diversity beyond the attraction of talent and reputation. Why is that? Surely a focus
on diversity is the way to uncover and optimize talent? Is it focus, effort, a failure to move
diversity from the fringe to the center, or level of difficulty?
One clear factor, according to our global survey, is that only one company in five (20 percent)
believes it is fully “ready” to address this issue. The gap between the urgency of this trend and
companies’ readiness to address it is particularly wide in Japan, South Africa, and China (figure
1).
Why are so many companies falling short? One view is that many companies still treat diversity
primarily as a matter of compliance—a regulatory box to be checked. Not enough organizations
take the next essential steps of creating a work environment that promotes inclusion in all its
variations. Taking a step back from individual organizations to a more country-based analysis,
we can see that most countries do not have a strong sense of readiness and most hover around a
medium sense of urgency.
Using this lens, we see two major themes emerging that can help companies transition from
simply meeting minimum regulatory requirements for diversity to building an inclusive
workplace that inspires all employees to perform at their highest level:
Leading companies are working to build not just a diverse workforce, but inclusive workplaces, enabling them to transform diversity programs from a compliance obligation to a business strategy.
v
1. Diversity of thinking as a business imperative
2. A focus on inclusion as well as diversity itself
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
Explore the report findings Launch the interactive trends dashboard
Diversity of thinking as a business imperative Organizations can start by broadening their understanding of diversity to focus not only on the
visible aspects of diversity, such as race, gender, age, and physical ability, but also diversity of
thinking. This means deriving value from people’s different perspectives on problems and
different ways to address solutions. It’s a complex world, it’s a global world, and maximal
participation is required from every workplace participant from the bottom to the top. Thinking
of diversity in this way helps organizations to see value and to be conscious of the risk
associated with homogeneity, especially in senior decision makers. And this means that diversity
is no longer a “program” to be managed—it is a business imperative.
Uncovering talent: A new model of inclusion An importance advance in thinking about inclusion is the recent work on “uncovering talent”
from Kenji Yoshino, at NYU Law School, and Christie Smith, the head of Deloitte University’s
Leadership Center for Inclusion. Their research suggests that current inclusion initiatives often
implement formal inclusion (that is, “participation”) without recognizing how that inclusion is
predicated on assimilation. In response to pressures to assimilate, individuals downplay their
differences. This behavior is referred to as “covering” and can include how individuals behave
along four dimensions:
3
Appearance: Individuals may blend into the mainstream through their self-presentation,
including grooming, attire, and mannerisms.
v
Affiliation: Individuals may avoid behaviors widely associated with their identity,
culture, or group.
v
Advocacy: Individuals may avoid engaging in advocacy on behalf of their group.v
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
Yoshino and Smith’s research reports that covering behaviors are widespread, costly to
individuals and their organizations, and often misaligned with values of inclusion. Organizations
should be interested in covering not because they are “playing defense” against lawsuits, but
because they are “playing offense” to create a more inclusive culture over and above legal
compliance. Most Fortune 500 companies are seeking to create that kind of culture.
Linking diversity of thinking and inclusion Bringing these two themes together—diversity of thinking and inclusion—we suggest that
organizations consider the importance of diversity when it comes to meeting specific business
objectives:
Association: Individuals may avoid associating with individuals in their own group.v 4
Accessing top talent: Companies should recruit top people from a globally diverse
workforce. The importance of leadership pipelines, the No. 1 priority in our global trends
survey, underscores the importance of broadening leadership pipelines and accelerating
the development of diverse leaders. Given the transparency of the employment “brand”
today, in order to attract the best people, organizations must create a diverse workplace.
When candidates research a prospective employer online, interact as customers, or
interview with the company, they have to feel as if they would “fit” into the work
environment.
v
Driving performance and innovation: A significant body of research shows that
diverse teams are more innovative and perform at higher levels. Companies that build
diversity and inclusion into their teams reap the benefits of new ideas, more debate and,
ultimately, better business decisions.
v
5
Retaining key employees: One reason people leave organizations is that they feel they
no longer “belong.” Or perhaps they feel they will “belong” and thrive in another
organization that appreciates their unique value. A company that fails to create a diverse
and inclusive workplace risks alienating or excluding key employees, who are then more
v
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
Diversity is the measure: Inclusion is the mechanism What this all adds up to is that high-performing organizations recognize that the aim of diversity
is not just meeting compliance targets, but tapping into the diverse perspectives and approaches
each individual employee brings to the workplace. Moving beyond diversity to focus on
inclusion as well requires companies to examine how fully the organization embraces new ideas,
accommodates different styles of thinking (such as whether a person is an introvert or an
extrovert), creates a more flexible work environment, enables people to connect and collaborate,
and encourages different types of leaders.
While nearly one-quarter of executives (23 percent) believe their companies have done an
“excellent” job creating a culture of inclusiveness, and defining what it means (24 percent), the
overwhelming majority rate their effort as “adequate” or “weak.” Clearly, there is much more to
be done to turn the vision of diversity and inclusion into a daily reality (figure 2). Much more
than a focus on programs, this effort needs to focus on cultural change: behaviors, systems and
symbols, and an explicit understanding of the extent and causes of “covering” in organizations.
Research by Deloitte Australia shows that high-performing organizations are characterized by
likely to disengage or eventually leave the organization.
Understanding customers: There’s a thin line between customers and employees, with
current and former employees purchasing their companies’ products and services, acting
as advocates, and sensing customer needs. How better to understand and respond to
diverse customer needs than by tapping into diverse employees? From where we sit, this
is one of the most significant gaps in the diversity story, with the breadth of ideas and
experiences from a more diverse front line falling by the wayside as decisions are made
by more distant, homogenous teams that sometimes fail to fully include diverse
perspectives. In a broad range of industries—including retail, hospitality, food service, oil
and gas, insurance, and even banking—a diverse workforce creates opportunities to
appeal to a more diverse customer base.
v
6
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
their commitment to diversity and a culture of inclusion. In the areas of customer service,
innovation, safety, and more, the message from employees is the same: Organizations that
support diversity and that also make employees feel included are much more likely to meet
business goals than those organizations that focus on diversity and inclusion in isolation (or
focus on neither). The question is, how do you get there?
One essential component of building a strategy of inclusion is recognizing the biases in the way
each of us receives and processes information and the historical biases in our systems of work.
Addressing these processing biases is critical because leaders—as they themselves feel high
levels of inclusion—often do not understand levels of alienation in an organization. Given the
critical importance of retention in our survey, inclusion becomes a key strategy for success.
LESSONS FROM THE FRONT LINES ADOPTING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION TO SOLVE A DEMOGRAPHIC MISMATCH BHP Billiton’s marketing division was highly diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity in non-
executive positions, but there was a demographic mismatch between the global talent pool and
the company’s senior team.
Mike Henry, the president of health, safety, environment, and community, marketing, and
technology, observed this misalignment. He concluded that the only reasonable explanation was
an unconscious bias within the organization and a tendency to do things as they had always been
done—particularly the fact that leading talent was primarily sourced from BHP Billiton’s
traditional hiring bases in Australia, the United Kingdom, North America, South Africa, and the
Netherlands.
Following the closure of BHP Billiton’s marketing office in The Hague—a traditional hub for
recruiting and developing marketing executives—Henry decided to take action to prevent
narrowing the leadership pipeline even further.
7
8
9
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
With strong support from the CEO, Henry began seeking out broad-based leadership engagement
and took steps to understand BHP’s unconscious biases. He led by example, taking the Harvard
Implicit Association Test and sharing the results with his team. He aimed to prove his
commitment to diversity and inclusion and show that he could only mitigate his own
unconscious biases by being aware of them first.
Next, Henry had BHP Billiton’s marketing organization conduct an inclusive leadership program
for its top 150 leaders, which included measuring perceptions on diversity and inclusion. The
program involved interactive workshops, storytelling, videos, self-paced activities, homework,
coaching, and reading, all designed to help leaders shift their mindsets and behaviors. And it
broadened the conversation from one about diversity to one about diversity and inclusion, from
demographics to diversity of thinking, and from compliance to business imperative. To help take
this from a program to a sustained focus of attention, Henry appointed a full-time diversity and
inclusion manager to implement change. During a time of downsizing, this was a potent symbol
of the value he placed on diversity and inclusion.
These steps yielded several notable results. Nine months after the first leadership intervention,
88–94 percent of leaders reported that they understood what they needed to do, that they had
changed their behaviors, and that they knew they were accountable for change. Critically, 72–76
percent of staff agreed that their leaders were behaving differently—that is, more respectfully and
inclusively—and that their teams were now more collaborative. In 2013, the program was
expanded to include all leaders and all staff, which was a huge investment of time and energy.
Mindsets have shifted, and while employee statistics have been slow to change, the 2013 results
of BHP Billiton’s marketing organization’s annual “inclusion index” diagnostic reveal that
representation of women and talent from outside the companies’ traditional hiring bases has
increased at leadership levels—a trend that has continued year on year since the first diagnostic
was run in 2011.
WHERE COMPANIES CAN START Many organizations have not put enough effort into understanding what makes people feel
included. Do employees feel they are known and valued as individuals? Are they well-connected
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
to other people in the organization? Are they given a voice in decision making? Is there an
understanding of the types and extent of covering in the organization (appearance, affiliation,
advocacy, association)? In addition to examining these fundamental questions, companies
looking to build a more inclusive workplace should consider the following steps:
BOTTOM LINE
10
Create inclusion labs to help educate leaders about unconscious bias and covering
behaviors: Encourage leaders to honor other people’s opinions and promote constructive
debate. Understand covering biases and behaviors and approaches to changing them.
Leadership drives inclusion; the process should start at the top.
v
Embed diversity and inclusion in leadership pipelines and programs: Include the
diversity and inclusion initiative in leadership development programs, new manager
programs, and talent acquisition programs. Give particular focus to supporting diversity
of thinking—for instance, by selecting people from diverse backgrounds for leadership
development.
v
Conduct a gap analysis of talent systems and processes: How is the principle of merit-
based decision making transparently embedded into systems, from recruitment,
remuneration, and training to career development opportunities and succession? Review
the outputs of these decisions in terms of equity, such as via a pay equity audit.
v
Develop a diversity and inclusion scorecard and measure business impact: Hold
leaders and managers accountable and identify outliers in the diversity and inclusion
initiative.
v
Install governance and resource the effort appropriately: Create a council with
representatives from different parts of the business that is properly resourced to be a
change agent.
v
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
WRITTEN BY
Juliet Bourke Deloitte Consulting Pte Ltd
Juliet Bourke leads the Australian Diversity and Inclusion practice and co-leads the Australian Leadership practice. She has over 20 years’ experience in human capital and is an internationally recognized author and speaker on the workplace, cultural change, leadership, and diversity. Bourke is a member of the Australian firm’s diversity council and sits on the Australian School of Business’s HR advisory board.
Christie Smith Deloitte Consulting LLP
Diversity is not a program or a marketing campaign to recruit staff. Thinking of diversity in this way relegates it to its compliance-driven origins. A diverse workforce is a company’s lifeblood, and diverse perspectives and approaches are the only means of solving complex and challenging business issues. Deriving the value of diversity means uncovering all talent, and that means creating a workplace characterized by inclusion. Our research shows that most organizations are not there yet, but change is in the wind, and market leaders are starting to move from compliance to inclusion as a business strategy.
Endnotes
Kenji Yoshino and Christie Smith, Uncovering talent: A new model of inclusion, Deloitte
Development LLC, December 6, 2013, http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-
UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_LLC_Deloitte_UncoveringTalent_121713.pdf. Back to
article
1.
View all endnotes s
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
Christie Smith has spent the last 24 years consulting, focusing on aligning business strategy with organizational structure, talent, leadership development, and global workforce planning. She recently drove the formation of Deloitte’s collaboration with the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3) to spur bioscience innovation and convert that innovation into a catalyst for jobs, companies, and better health. Smith is one of Diversity Journal’s 2013 “Women to Watch.”
Heather Stockton Human Capital leader Deloitte Canada
Heather Stockton is global Human Capital leader for the financial services industry. She is a member of the board in Deloitte Canada and chair of the talent and succession committee. Through her work in developing and executing strategic plans, Stockton has become an advisor to executives who are undertaking business transformation, merger integration, and changing their operating model. She has extensive experience in talent strategy and leadership development for leaders and boards.
Nicky Wakefield Human Capital leader, Deloitte Southeast Asia Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Nicky Wakefield is an experienced leader and advisor working primarily on large-scale, complex transformation programs. She started her career in consulting in 1995 after completing her MBA in organizational strategy and change. Educated as an economist, Wakefield transitioned to human capital after beginning a diploma in psychotherapy and developing a real passion for human performance. She has lived and worked in Australia, the United States, Singapore, Brunei, Zimbabwe, England, and the Netherlands.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Contributors: Stacia Garr, Jackie Scales
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy Published March 7, 2014
Cover Image by Alex Nabaum
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
TOPICS
Talent
TAGS
diversity, inclusion
COLLECTIONS
Related Article
Diversity as an engine of innovation
Written by Alison Paul, Thom McElroy & Tonie Leatherberry
As the retail consumer landscape evolves, diverse communities represent a larger and more important part of total buying power. Forging connections with those communities effectively and for the long term depends, to a significant degree, on having…
Sign up for Deloitte University Press updates Sign Up
About Deloitte University Press
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
Copyright © 20162016 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved.
About Deloitte University
Terms of Use
Contact
De Unc
De Und
De ony
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]
- Local Disk
- From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
- B0byUyMEluY2x1c2lvbi5odG1sAA==:
- button0:
,
Diversity management: a systematic review Shatrughan Yadav and Usha Lenka
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
Abstract
Purpose – Diversity management plays a significant role in the organization’s outcomes. This study seeks to provide a brief review of the history of diversity management and to identify the articles published on diversity management since 1991. A systematic review of the literature has been carried out to understand the literature in more detail to know the future scope of research. Design/methodology/approach – This study provides a comprehensive systematic review of quantitative, qualitative and theoretical studies published in leading peer-reviewed management journals from 1991 to 2018 and identifies 123 articles that fall within its established search inclusion criteria. Findings – The literature review highlighted several aspects related to diversity management. The findings of the study revealed that there is a high concentration of researches in the USA and most number of articles published in the Academy of Management Journal. Although diversity management is a very emerging topic across the globe in management literature yet there is a lack of research in developed countries. Furthermore, most studies are found empirical in nature and the majority of the studies were published during the period of 1996–2000. This finding suggests that age, gender and racial diversity have been repeatedly discussed in diversity management research while other forms of diversity have given less attention Originality/value – This study is one of the first systematic studies that describe the in-depth analysis of diversity management literature. The significant contribution of this study is to propose the integrated model with contemporary trends and patterns of results reported in diversity research, as well as contextual factors that have received more attention to date.
Keywords Demographic diversity, Diversity management, Systematic literature review, Workforce diversity
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction Socio-cultural and economic transformations, along with economic liberalization, globalization and changing preferences of customers, have substantially increased workforce diversity, which forces organizations to make their workforce more diverse, innovative and competitive (Cook and Glass, 2009). Innovative workforce can be ensured by hiring multiple talents from different backgrounds for providing better products and services to the customer and clients (Salau et al., 2018). However, challenges of a diverse workforce are umpteen, which arise due to differences in the workplace. To successfully manage the challenges of a diverse workforce, organizations have emphasized understanding the root cause of diversity and found that diversity management can address the problem and enhance problem-solving and decision-making power (Pelled, 1996). Therefore, organizations have made a huge investment into managing diversity effectively and also over the past three decades a plethora of diversity research has examined the positive impact of diversity on performance, creativity, innovation, problem-solving and decision-making skills (Elsass and Graves, 1997; Yang and Konrad, 2010), as well as the adverse impact on group cohesion, conflicts and turnover (Roberson, 2019).
The purpose of diversity management is to enhance the performance of a heterogeneous workforce and inclusive development of people with differences in gender, ethnicity, nationality, cultural and educational backgrounds. The reason for heterogeneity in the
Diversity management: a
systematic review
901
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and Editor for their valuable inputs to publish this article.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm
Received 3 July 2019 Revised 19 December 2019
27 February 2020 Accepted 13 April 2020
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal
Vol. 39 No. 8, 2020 pp. 901-929
© Emerald Publishing Limited 2040-7149
DOI 10.1108/EDI-07-2019-0197
workforce is the recruitment of ethnic minorities, women, underrepresented groups and the migration of people in search of job opportunities (Tsui et al., 1992). Each individual has unique knowledge, which needs to be recognized by organizations for their holistic development. Conclusively, diversity management plays a massive role in knowledge sharing and the overall development of organizations. Several studies have discussed the relationship between diversity and performance of an organization. To understand and manage the dynamics of workforce diversity researchers have remarkably explored the outcomes of diversity at an individual level (Chatman and Flynn, 2001), group level (Schippers et al., 2003; Leslie, 2017) and organization level (Richard and Johnson, 2001; Armstrong et al., 2010). Individual-level outcomes are such as commitment, absenteeism, satisfaction and turnover (Tsui et al., 1992). The group-level outcomes are conflict, cohesion, creativity, group performance and idea generation (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Finally, the organizational-level outcomes are financial performance, productivity and firm competitiveness (Cox and Blake, 1991; Richard, 2000).
Researchers have performed studies and found that diversity management positively influences organizational effectiveness and firm performance (Watson et al., 1993; Richard et al., 2004). In contrast, some studies have reported that diversity has negative effects like social exclusion, miscommunication, conflicts and turnover (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). In a meta-analysis of 24 studies, Webber and Donahue (2001) found that neither type of diversity had a relationship with group cohesion and performance. Similarly, Horwitz and Horwitz (2007) found that job-oriented diversity has a positive impact on team performance, whereas demographic diversity was not significantly associated with team performance. The inconsistencies in several studies have led researchers to report diversity as a “double-edged sword” (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). These mixed findings can be attributed to different contextual factors, which suggests that diversity research should be context-specific (Joshi and Roh, 2009). Because of inconsistencies that have widely ignored in the tradition review paper, there is a need for a systematic review of the literature.
This study has not designed in any particular country context and only summarized the previous findings of diversity, dimensions of diversity and suggests gaps and new avenues for research. Moreover, previous studies have only focused on particular areas of diversity (e.g., cultural and racial diversity) while largely ignoring diversity and its types like workplace diversity, organizational diversity, informational diversity and relational demography. Hence, this study includes overall diversity and its dimension to broaden the scope for future studies. This study intensely reviews a large number of articles in comparison to other review papers to report a clearer and more comprehensive picture of diversity. Conclusively, the research in the area of workforce diversity has rapidly increased in the last two decades. However, there are still certain research questions remain, which our study intends to address through the following research objectives:
Objective 1: To explore dimensions of diversity from past literature.
Objective 2: To identify the different antecedents, consequences and contextual factors to propose an integrative model of diversity management.
Objective 3: To identify emerging issues in diversity research and suggest avenues for future research.
2. Literature review Thissection presents theevolution ofdiversity management, the conceptualization ofdiversity, and dimensions of diversity given by several authors in different contexts accordingly.
EDI 39,8
902
2.1 Evolution of diversity management Diversity management is the business strategy adopted by organizations to recruitment, retention and inclusive development of individuals from a variety of backgrounds (Thomas, 1991). The concept has become increasingly important due to globalization and the migration of people across the globe (Al Ariss and Sidani, 2016). Roosevelt Thomas has coined the term diversity management in the year 1990 in the context of the USA and gradually, it dispersed over the world (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998). The history behind the theory of diversity management goes long back when affirmative action (AA) plans and equal employment opportunities (EEO) act were incorporated through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the USA (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998). Prior to the 1990s, studies were conducted on the topic of affirmative action programs and equal employment opportunity but after the emergence of diversity management, researchers have gradually moved into cross-cultural diversity research (Cox, 1991). The issue of diversity was completely ignored in organizations; however, workplace diversity had become a critical issue in the year 1987 when the Hudson Institute of USA published the report “Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the Twenty-First Century” (Johnson and Packer, 1987). To understand the problems of increasing diversity in the organizations’ researchers have defined diversity in different ways and conceptualized the diversity with support of different theories, which has discussed in the following sections.
2.2 Conceptualization of diversity Different authors have defined diversity, yet there is no single definition accepted globally. Diversity is all about differences and dissimilarities among people. Although an organization claims to be relatively homogenous, yet employees vary along with social identity characteristics such as demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, race and ethnicity), values, beliefs or cultural backgrounds (Weber et al., 2018). According to Williams and O’Reilly (1998, p. 81), diversity is defined as “any attributes that people use to tell themselves that another person is different.” Whereas Jackson et al. (2003) defined diversity as the differences in personal attributes among individual members in the workgroup.
Diversity has been recognized as an immeasurable number of attributes like age, gender, race, etc. based on which individuals may differ from each other. The heterogeneity in diversity research has been explained with the help of underlying theories like social identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), similarity-attraction (Byrne, 1971), and self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987). These theories have been differentiated based on the perspectives of social and personal identity of individuals. The social identity of an individual depends on group membership, while personal identity is less or more independent of group memberships. The self-categorization theory is referred that an individual engages in a group based on social comparisons like status, income and education to differentiate between their in-groups and others into different relevant groups (Turner et al., 1987). Whereas social identity theory states that individuals’ perceptions classify themselves into social groups based on certain attributes (e.g., age, race and gender) (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Similarity-attraction theory highlights that as individuals are likely to be attracted toward those who possess similar attributes and attitudes, and in contrast, they feel challenging with others who have dissimilar attitudes, values and experiences (Byrne, 1971). Collectively, these theories offer the conceptual foundation of relational demography theory (Tsui et al., 1992), which proposes that demographic attributes within work units will highly influence an individual’s behavior and attitudes. Conclusively, these theories address the negative perspective of diversity in workgroups related to diversity such as race, gender, age, nationality. However, these theories suggest that a homogenous group of people are more productive and have less conflict rather than diverse teams due to attraction toward in-group members with similar characteristics.
Diversity management: a
systematic review
903
Accordingly, these mentioned theories suggest that diversity may be negatively associated with organizational performance and firm effectiveness (Pelled et al., 1999).
Optimistic researchers have argued that diversity can have a potential advantage to the organizations. The positive viewpoint was supported by information decision-making (Willimas and O’Reilly, 1998), upper echelon theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984), and integration learning perspective (Ely and Thomas, 2001). These theories have argued that dissimilarity among group members results in the dissemination of knowledge, ideas, skills and perspective, which enhances creativity, problem-solving capabilities, thereby improving the quality of group performance, firm effectiveness and organizational performance. The same concept has been reaffirmed by the upper echelon theory, which states that top management team diversity has a positive impact on organizational outcomes due to diverse experience, backgrounds and value systems (Knight et al., 1999; Simons et al., 1999). Diversity in top management will help in improving the overall performance of all employees. The performance is measured in terms of financial performance (e.g., return on equity, return on investment, sales growth and productivity) and nonfinancial performance (e.g., employee satisfaction, quality and quantity). Conclusively, researchers have found both positive and negative effects of diversity on organizational outcomes (Milliken and Martins, 1996).
A review of 40 years of extant literature has been carried out to understand the dynamics of literature on diversity management, which concluded that diversity has dual nature and inconsistent findings (Willimas and O’Reilly, 1998). However, to overcome the inconsistency and the inappropriate relationship between workgroup diversity and performance, a categorization-elaboration model (CEM) was proposed by van Knippenberg et al. (2004). To understand the combined effects of diversity on group performance, this model integrates both positive and negative perspectives of theory and reconceptualize the two contradicting viewpoints of diversity into a unified framework. Therefore, CEM has integrated the social categorization and information decision-making theory and incorporated mediator and moderator variables in a single framework to mitigate the negative effects of diversity, which have typically been ignored in prior studies.
2.3 Exploring dimensions of diversity To review the dimensions of diversity studied in diversity management, an extensive and in-depth review of literature has been carried out. Diversity has been categorized into readily detectable and underlying attributes (Jackson et al., 1995). Another typology categorized diversity based on observable and underlying attributes (Milliken and Martins, 1996). Observable attributes are age, gender, race, nationality, while underlying attributes are personality, education, tenure, etc. Readily-detectable and observable attributes are similar and highlight the same attributes. Another classification of diversity is categorized as high visible (age, gender, race) and less visible dimensions like tenure, education and functional background (Pelled, 1996). Further, in the sequel of studies, diversity has been categorized as surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity by Harrison et al. (1998). Surface-level diversity is observable attributes that can be easily identified based on physical features, whereas deep-level diversity defines underlying attributes that are hidden, such as attitudes, personality and values, etc. The aforementioned typologies of diversity have been proposed through a 2 3 2 matrix that categorizes the different dimensions of diversity. Table 1 depicts the typology of different dimensions of diversity, whereas Figure 1 represents the pictorial descriptions of the evolution of diversity management and different types of dimensions of diversity discussed by several researchers.
EDI 39,8
904
3. Research methodology A systematic review of the extant literature on diversity management was carried out through relevant search of keywords. The systematic review is a transparent process to synthesize and disseminate evidence by minimizing the bias through an exhaustive search of published literature (Tranfield et al., 2003). Specific keywords like “workplace diversity,” “diversity management,” ”workforce diversity,” “heterogeneous workforce” and “managing diversity” were searched, followed by certain inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search criteria included articles written in the English language and published in peer-reviewed journals from 1991 to 2018. This period was chosen because the term diversity management was coined in 1990, and a 28-year time span would be sufficient to uncover the early roots of studies about diversity management. Initially, to access the relevant articles from diversity research, the authors searched relevant databases (Google Scholar, Emeralds, Scopus, SAGE and JSTOR). Besides, the reference lists of relevant articles to the area were manually searched in located additional journals of Wiley, Springer and APA PsycNET. Further, a chapter by Jackson et al. (1995) is also included, which is most cited and referred to in diversity research. Through all these processes a total of 1787 articles were identified directly from the search database, and 68 papers were selected through cross-referencing. Moreover, the total articles were very large in number and not related to diversity management, and were excluded. However, the diversity term has been used in numerous fields (e.g., biodiversity, nursing, social policy, etc.), but this review primarily focuses on being more specific to research in human resource management, organizational behavior and psychology. The paper related to diversity management practices, programs, training and policies were also excluded because our main objective was to identify the antecedents, consequences, moderators and mediators studied in the previous literature. All research notes, short articles, book reviews, conference proceedings and news were excluded from this study. A total of 265 articles were retrieved in the Zotero software, where after the screening, 43 articles were duplicates. Finally, 222 full-text articles were assessed in which 99 articles were not relevant. Out of 222 papers, 123 articles were included in the final study. The final selection of articles included in this study was categorized into four different steps: Identification, Screening, Eligibility and Inclusion. Figure 2 clearly depicts the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) diagrams of selected articles.
Consequently, each article was placed in a Microsoft Excel file and information like the publication year, journal’s name, country, study type, antecedents, consequences, mediator and moderator variables were manually analyzed and entered. The articles were looking for terms like gender, age, ethnicity, workforce diversity, organizational diversity, team diversity and diversity management. This study has also examined the type of industry, respondents and methodology adopted in empirical studies. This process has been repeatedly carried out
Surface-level diversity Deep-level diversity
Job-oriented attributes Organizational tenure Knowledge Team tenure Skills Educational background Experience Functional background Abilities Occupational background
Relations oriented attributes Sex Values Age Personality Race/ethnicity Social status Nationality Attitude Religion
Table 1. Typology of diversity
dimensions
Diversity management: a
systematic review
905
in all 123 articles and categorized into different themes. This discussion analyzes the outcomes of diversity at the individual, group and organizational levels to differentiate the effects of diversity. With this procedure, a complete picture of extant literature has represented in the findings section, which will help in developing the integrated model of diversity management.
4. Results In order to develop a complete conceptual overview, a systematic review of 123 research articles has been carried out in this section, which depicts a comprehensive analysis of the included literature.
Managing Diversity 1980
Title VII of Civil Rights Act,
1964 in USA
Affirmative Action Law Equal Employment Opportunity
Hudson report “Workforce 2000”
by (Johnston & Packer, 1987)
Diversity Management (Roosevelt.
Thomas Jr., 1990)
Harrison, Price &
Bell, 1998
Surface Level Diversity Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity
Deep Level Diversity Attitudes, Knowledge, Values, Skills
Pelled ,
1996 Dimensions of Diversity
High Visibility Age, Gender, Race
Low Visibility Group, Tenure, Educational and
Functional Background
Milliken &
Martins, 1996
Observable Attributes Race, Age, Gender, Ethnicity,
Nationality
Underlying Attributes Personality, Socioeconomic,
Functional, Educational, &
Occupational background, Tenure
Jackson, May, &
Whitney, 1995
Readily Detectable
Attributes
Underlying
Attributes
Task Related Organization & Team
Tenure, Educational
Task Related Knowledge, Skills,
Abilities, Experience
Relations Oriented Social status, Attitudes,
Values, Personality
Relations Oriented Age, Sex, Race,
Ethnicity, Nationality
Figure 1. Flow chart of the evolution of diversity management and dimensions of diversity
EDI 39,8
906
4.1 Journal wise distribution of literature The final sample consists of a total of 123 articles drawn from 30 peer-reviewed journals published between 1991 and 2018 and dispersed in a five-year time interval. The last interval includes only three years of publications (2016–2018). The most frequently published papers in this discipline were identified in the following orders: Academy of Management Journal (16), Journal of Organizational Behavior (12), Journal of Management (8) and Academy of Management Review (7). A maximum of 16 papers was published in the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). One of the reasons for the maximum number of publications in AMJ may be the foundation of diversity as a field of study within the Academy of Management (AOM) while another reason is the formalization of women in the management
Automatic Search Process
Database: References
Google Scholar- 672
JSTOR- 222
Scopus- 309
Sage- 584
Additional record from Elsevier,
Emeralds, Springer, Annual Reviews,
PsycNET, and Wiley Library
identified through reference section
of included papers
Total number of records identify
database search
(n = 1787)
Total no of records
(n = 68)
Total number of records after
screening on the basis of Title,
Abstract and Keyword (TAK)
(n = 213)
Articles after screening on
basis of Title, Abstract and
Keyword (TAK) (n = 52)
Excluded: 16 Excluded:
1574
Uploaded all file in Zotero software
Records after removing duplication
n = 265 Duplicates
n = 43
Full articles studies assessed for eligibility
n = 222
Total articles included in review paper
N = 123
Identification
Screening
Eligibility
Full articles
excluded n = 99
Included
Figure 2. PRISMA flow diagram
Diversity management: a
systematic review
907
research group and establishment of “Gender and Diversity in Organisations Division” in AOM in the year 1988 (Nkomo et al., 2019). The following rest publications in other journals have been depicted in Table 2.
Journal title 1991– 1995
1996– 2000
2001– 2005
2006– 2010
2011– 2015
2016– 2018
Total articles %
Academy of Management Journal
3 6 3 2 2 16 13.01
Journal of Organizational Behavior
1 1 5 3 2 12 9.76
Journal of Management 3 1 3 1 8 6.5 Academy of Management Review
6 1 7 5.69
Academy of Management Executive
2 3 1 6 4.88
Administrative Science Quarterly
1 3 2 6 4.88
Group and Organization Management
1 1 1 1 2 6 4.88
Journal of Applied Psychology
1 1 1 2 1 6 4.88
Human Relations 1 2 2 5 4.07 International Journal of Hospitality Management
3 2 5 4.07
Journal of Managerial Issues 2 1 2 5 4.07 Public Administration Review
1 2 2 5 4.07
Human Resource Management
1 2 1 4 3.25
Public Administration Quarterly
1 3 4 3.25
Public Personnel Management
3 3 2.44
Academy of Management Learning and Education
1 1 2 1.63
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 1 1 2 1.63 Cross-Cultural and Strategic Management
2 2 1.63
Employee Relations 1 1 2 1.63 Human Resource Management Review
1 1 2 1.63
Journal of Business Ethics 2 2 1.63 Organizational Science 1 1 2 1.63 Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
1 1 2 1.63
Personal Review 1 1 2 1.63 Strategic Management Journal
1 1 2 1.63
Annual Review of Psychology
1 1 0.81
Public Organization Review 1 1 0.81 Research in Organizational Behavior
1 1 0.81
Sage Open 1 1 0.81 Team Effectiveness and Decision making in Organizations
1 1 0.81
Total 13 29 18 24 25 14 123 100.0
Table 2. Distribution of papers based on journal and time period
EDI 39,8
908
4.2 Distribution based on year of publications The objective of this section was to categorize the articles according to publication year and know the year wise trends of published articles. Figure 3 delineates the year-wise publication of papers that found a maximum of nine papers in the year 1996, and a minimum of 1 article was published in 2002. Surprisingly, our analysis of results shows that from the year 1991– 2002, there was a huge variation in the published papers because sometimes the number of papers has decreased and sometimes increased. However, if we leave the exceptional case in the year 2005, 2008 and 2014, it can be seen an average of four publications per year that represents the interest in diversity management discipline is gradually increasing, particularly from 2003 onward. Especially in the last ten years, there has been a considerable increment in the number of published articles. The increasing interest in diversity discipline has also been confirmed by a recently published article on diversity in Annual Reviews by Roberson (2019).
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 1 9
9 1
1 9
9 2
1 9
9 3
1 9
9 4
1 9
9 5
1 9
9 6
1 9
9 7
1 9
9 8
1 9
9 9
2 0
0 0
2 0
0 1
2 0
0 2
2 0
0 3
2 0
0 4
2 0
0 5
2 0
0 6
2 0
0 7
2 0
0 8
2 0
0 9
2 0
1 0
2 0
1 1
2 0
1 2
2 0
1 3
2 0
1 4
2 0
1 5
2 0
1 6
2 0
1 7
2 0
1 8
N u
m b
e r
o f
P u
b li
c a ti
o n
s Year Wise Distribution of Articles
Country 1991– 1995
1996– 2000
2001– 2005
2006– 2010
2011– 2015
2016– 2018 Total %
USA 9 26 13 14 12 6 80 65.04 Canada 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 6.5 Netherland 2 2 2 1 7 5.69 United Kingdom
4 3 7 5.69
Australia 2 1 1 1 5 4.07 India 1 1 1 3 2.44 Ireland 1 1 2 1.63 Germany 1 1 2 1.62 China 1 1 0.81 Cyprus 1 1 0.81 France 1 1 0.81 Hong Kong 1 1 0.81 Japan 1 1 0.81 Korea 1 1 0.81 Malaysia 1 1 0.81 Taiwan 1 1 0.81 Thailand 1 1 0.81 Total 13 29 18 24 25 14 123 100.0
Figure 3. Number of
publications on diversity management
Table 3. Country-wise and time-
period based distribution of papers
Diversity management: a
systematic review
909
4.3 Country and time period-based classification of articles The purpose of this section was to identify the country, which has published the maximum number of articles in diversity research and why? It was easy to identify the country in the empirical paper based on collected data from the respondent’s countries, while in the conceptual paper, it was identified through the country of affiliation of the corresponding author. Table 3 represents the segregation of 123 published papers in seventeen countries. 65 % of papers were published from the USA while 35 % of remaining papers have been published from Canada (6.5 %), Netherland (5.6 %), UK (5.6%), Australia (4.07%) and India (2.44%). A large number of research papers have been published from the USA due to the migration of labor forces, ethnic minorities and underrepresented groups in search of job opportunities, which may not be relevant in other national contexts (Schippers et al., 2003). In addition, the growing body of research published from the USA is due to the participation of members and the presence of women in the Academy of Management annual programs organized in the USA (Nkomo et al., 2019). The year-wise segregation of Table 3 depicts that at an early stage only five countries USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia and Ireland have reviewed the problems of workforce diversity whereas similar problems have been encountered by the rest of the countries after the year 2005 and gradually they have also picked up research in this domain. Moreover, this finding is very similar to Joshi and Roh (2007), who have found 57% of the studies reviewed in the American context. Lesser number of studies in a country like India and China show that there should more research on diversity management because these are emerging countries and several MNCs are expanding their business markets.
4.4 Industry-wise classification of articles The objective of industry-wise classification of articles was to identify the specific industry, where the highest number of research problems have been conducted. Diversity research- related data were collected from 29 industries. The significant industries include academic university (15.52), public sectors (12.07), hotels and restaurants (6.03), IT industry (6.03), manufacturing industry (6.03) and mix industry (8.62) respectively depicted in Table 4. The findings of Table 4 suggest that business schools and universities were the most influential industry where researchers have conducted the study and examined the effects of diversity in laboratories and classroom studies. One of the reasons for the maximum number of papers that have been published in academic universities may be due to the presence of respondents from diverse backgrounds at one place and knowledge sharing among the students vis-�a-vis improvement in academic performance. There are several industries where only one or two studies have been conducted so far, and hence, there is a need to conduct diversity research in unexplored industries.
4.5 Respondents in diversity research The analysis of 69 empirical studies depicts that respondents were from the top, middle and lower levels such as presidents, CEOs, supervisors, team members, subordinates and coworkers in organizations, as well as students from different grades in the business schools. The identity of respondents was not disclosed, but out of these studies, several comparative assessments have revealed that most of the respondents were female and minority employees. Table 5 highlights that 50.72% of the respondents were employees working at a lower and middle level, while 15.94% of them were top-level executives. Whereas, 26.1% of respondents were students from various grades in the academic institutions. Conclusively, research on diversity management has focused on collecting responses from employees because it allows researchers to address various issues in managing diversity at the lower and middle levels of organizations.
EDI 39,8
910
Industry 1991– 1995
1996– 2000
2001– 2005
2006– 2010
2011– 2015
2016– 2018
Total articles %
Academic university 4 2 5 4 3 18 15.52 Public sector 2 1 1 5 4 1 14 12.07 Mix industry 1 3 1 1 1 3 10 8.62 Bank industry 2 1 3 1 1 8 6.9 Hospitality and restaurant industry
2 3 2 7 6.03
IT industry 2 2 2 1 7 6.03 Manufacturing industry
1 1 4 1 7 6.03
Chemical 1 2 1 4 3.45 Food beverage industry
1 2 1 4 3.45
Electronic manufacturer
1 3 1 4 3.45
Financial firms 3 1 4 3.45 Energy and transport 2 1 3 2.59 Life insurance company
1 1 1 3 2.59
Retail 1 2 3 2.59 Consulting firm 1 1 2 1.72 Hospital 1 1 2 1.72 Petroleum company 1 1 2 1.72 Pharmaceutical industry
2 2 1.72
Agriculture 1 1 0.86 Textile industry 1 1 0.86 Defense industry 1 1 0.86 Forestry 1 1 0.86 Grocery store 1 1 0.86 Household goods moving industry
1 1 0.86
Law firm 1 1 0.86 Mining, oil and gas 1 1 0.86 Operation division 1 1 0.86 Printing company 1 1 0.86 Shopping mall 1 1 0.86 Travel and tourism 1 1 0.86 Total 116 100.0
Respondents profile n (total number of articles) %
Employees 35 50.72 Executives(HRs, President, CEO) 11 15.94 University graduate students 5 7.25 MBA students 5 7.25 Top management team 5 7.25 Upper-level undergraduate students 3 4.35 Undergraduate and graduate students 2 2.90 Undergraduate business students 2 2.90 Deans of business schools 1 1.45 Total 69 100.0
Table 4. Industry-wise and time-period based
classification of articles
Table 5. Respondents wise
distributions of articles
Diversity management: a
systematic review
911
4.6 Classification based on the adopted methodology The literature on diversity management has focused on both quantitative and qualitative studies. Qualitative studies are subjective assessments of research areas like literature review, conceptual studies, focus-group interviews and case studies (Tranfield et al., 2003). Literature reviews analyze multiple articles related to diversity management, whereas conceptual review deals with the theoretical framework of diversity proposed by researchers for measuring the performance outcomes of diversity. Quantitative studies are objective assessments of research problems like meta-analysis and empirical investigation of data collected through primary surveys and questionnaire methods (Tranfield et al., 2003). Table 6 presents the methodology-based classification of papers. 49.60% (61 out of 123) studies were quantitative studies and responses were collected through questionnaires, Internet, postage survey and case study observations. In which, 30.08% of responses were procured through a questionnaire survey, and 17.88% were Internet surveys. A total of 23.57% of studies were conceptual, followed by 8.94% of them were literature review, qualitative studies and a mixed-methods approach. The finding suggests that quantitative studies have frequently been used in the research because this methodology mostly used to collect a large sample of individuals’ responses while the interview method and pilot study are conducted in a small group of the sample, which may not be feasible in diversity research. Although some of the studies have used a qualitative method approach, it was found only in the top management team.
4.7 Classification of diversity dimensions and sources Based on the discussion in the literature review section of this study, dimensions of diversity have broadly categorized into two parts: relations oriented and job-oriented attributes. Although previous studies have proposed several dimensions of diversity, yet a total of ten dimensions have finally surfaced from literature and classified as relations oriented and job- oriented attributes (Jackson et al., 1995). However, as depicted in Table 2, relation-oriented and job-oriented are parts of surface-level diversity. The following section discusses dimensions of surface-level diversity emanating from a systematic review of literature, as exhibited in Table 7.
A total of 38 studies have been conducted on race and ethnic diversity, followed by 32 articles on gender and 25 on age diversity, respectively. Ethnic diversity has been found to be one of the interesting topics among researchers and academicians. However, a study
Methods Number of publications %
Quantitative 61 49.60 Questionnaire survey 37 Email/internet survey 16 Postage/mail survey 6 Case study 2 Qualitative 11 8.94 Conceptual review 29 23.57 Literature review 11 8.94 Mixed approach 11 8.94 Survey and interviews 3 Content analyses 2 Meta-analyses 3 Unspecified 3 Total 123 100%
Table 6. Diversity articles by the adopted methodology
EDI 39,8
912
conducted by Jackson et al. (2003) reveals that researchers have more focused on gender and age rather than ethnic diversity. Moreover, based on these findings, it has been observed that the focus of researchers is on relations oriented rather than job-oriented diversity. Conclusively, 70.86% (i.e., 107/151) of the diversity research focused on relations oriented diversity, while only 29.14% (i.e., 44/151) articles were focused on job-oriented diversity. This finding represents that researchers have given less attention to job-oriented attributes, which have confirmed the statement of Webber and Donahue (2001) that job-related diversity is a much-needed topic in future studies. Therefore, for a productive organization, job-oriented diversity needs to be given wider attention in future research.
4.8 Antecedents and consequences of diversity The antecedents of diversity have mostly found at the group and organizational levels. Group-level antecedents are such as group diversity (Ely, 2004), team diversity (Jackson et al., 2003) and organizational-level antecedents are diversity management practices (Konrad et al., 2016), diversity initiatives (Windscheid et al., 2017), diversity perspectives (Ely and Thomas, 2001) and organizational diversity (Guillaume et al., 2015), etc. While the research on age, gender and race, has mostly evolved independently and most research in this area has been focused on the effects of age, gender, and race diversity on different levels outcomes rather than antecedents of diversity (Shore et al., 2009). Hence, this section performs a systematic review of 123 articles to identify the antecedents and consequences of diversity discussed in the previously proposed model. Further, due to more interest of researchers in the effects of diversity on outcomes at different levels, the consequences of diversity have been categorized into individual, group and organizational levels (see Table 8).
Diversity attributes
Surface-level diversity Supporting references
Total references %
1. Relations oriented attributes
1.1 Age [4] [8] [10] [28] [36] [37] [42] [43] [45] [46] [47] [50] [57] [64] [66] [67] [74] [80] [81] [87] [89] [92] [101] [102] [103]
25 16.56
1.2 Gender [4] [7] [8] [9] [10] [13] [14] [20] [23] [26] [28] [39] [42] [43 [46] [47] [52] [53] [57] [63] [64] [66] [77] [80] [81] [88] [89] [92] [95] [98] [101] [103]
32 21.20
1.3 Ethnicity/race [7] [8] [9] [10] [13] [14] [15] [16] [20] [22] [23] [26] [28] [39] [42] [43] [46] [47] [53] [56] [64] [66] [63] [67] [69] [72] [73] [74] [75] [77] [88] [89] [91] [92] [98] [100] [101] [103]
38 25.17
1.4 Religion [1] [47] 2 1.32 1.5 Nationality [7] [13] [18] [23] [45] [53] [64] [68] [100] [101] 10 6.62
2. Job oriented attributes
2.1 Organizational tenure
[4] [8] [36] [39] [42] [50] [64] [66] [67] [87] [92] [102] [103]
13 8.61
2.2 Team tenure [43] [66] [77] [80] [95] [102] 6 3.97 2.3 Educational background
[4] [16] [36] [43] [45] [47] [50] [66] [80] [81] [87] [89] [92] [103]
14 9.27
2.4 Functional background
[4] [43] [50] [64] [66] [67] [87] [95] [103] 9 5.96
2.5 Occupational background
[16] [103] 2 1.32
Total 151* 100.0
Note(s): *The total number of articles is not equal to total references because authors have considered multiple attributes in a single study
Table 7. Classification of
diversity dimensions with supporting
references
Diversity management: a
systematic review
913
1. Antecedents Supporting references Racial diversity [35] [72] [73] [75] Cultural diversity [14] [22] [32] [53] [58] [65] [68] [74] [100] Team diversity [33] [38] [39] [43] [84] [90] [95] [97] TMT diversity [4] [30] [50] [87] [96] [104] Relational demography [19] [23] [28] [36] [44] [77] [92] Demographic fault lines [31] [54] [55] [96] Discourse of fashion on DM [70] Diversity training [5] [24] [65] Organizational diversity [6] [24] [27] [34] [38] Informational diversity [16] [31] [41] [81] Organization inclusion [83] [85] [86] Organizational justice [48] [57] Diversity perspectives [21] [17] [22] [29] Diversity initiatives [3] [11] [12] [17] [25] [40] [76] [79] [104] Diversity management practices [2] [105] [99] [35] [48] [51] [59] 2. Consequences Supporting references
2.1 Individual-level Consequences Turnover intention [34] [36] [46] [47] [64] [66] [92] [93] Recruitment [36] Behavior intention [57] Absenteeism [36] [64] [92] Psychological attachment [92] [36] Promotion [36] [46] [47] [92] Job satisfaction [4] [7] [23] [60] [78] [88] Work tension [78] Organizational citizenship behavior
[9] [34] [71] [91]
Self-perception [4] Perceived discrimination [88] Performance [7] [23] [34] [42] [64] Individual creativity [84]
2.2 Group-level consequences Cooperative response [15] Idea generation [61] [66] Commitment [9] [77] [80] Decision making [46] [66] Communication [53] [100] Problem-solving [66] Satisfaction [18] [55] [69] [80] Team turnover [16] [64] [66] [102] [106] Group cohesiveness [28] [77] [103] [106] Conflict and cooperativeness [4] [63] Strategic consensus [50] Team effectiveness [7] [16] [49] [104] Group development [54] Group performance [4] [18] [19] [31] [39] [41] [43] [45] [55] [56] [64] [67] [68] [69] [77] [80] [82] [94] [95] [100]
[101] [103] Team creativity [29] [58]
2.3 Organizational-level consequences Commitment [26] [47] [91] [92] Organizational performance [10] [51] [52] [62] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [83] [87] Organizational competitiveness [14] [25] [26] [76] Organizational innovation [98] Organizational fairness [48]
Table 8. Antecedents and consequences of diversity management
EDI 39,8
914
4.9 Moderators and mediators in workplace diversity As discussed in the previous sections about antecedents and consequences, the following section discusses mediator and moderator variables of diversity management. The objective of identifying moderator and mediator variables is to explore contextual variables that may influence organizational performance due to workplace diversity. The contextual variables help in addressing the number of reasons why diversity research has inconsistent findings and suggested to enhance the positive effects of diversity and mitigate negative effects (van Knippneberg et al., 2004). Consideration of contextual variables in diversity research is very critical, and therefore, a detailed description of these variables is required. Table 9 lists all identified moderator, mediator variables and their supporting references in diversity management research.
4.10 Breadth and depth of diversity article This is one of the unique studies in the context of breadth and depth of diversity management research, which elaborately discusses diversity dimensions and its outcomes. This section adopts the conceptual description of diversity dimensions and its related outcomes developed by Wise and Tschirhart (2000) and further elaborated accordingly. Table 10 summarizes the dimensions and outcomes of diversity management related research articles published from the year 1991–2018. Most articles covered more than one diversity dimension and some covered more than one outcome; hence, the total sum in Table 10 exceeds the number of total articles procured through a systematic review.
The total values shown in Table 10 draw an idea on how much cumulative research has been done to connect a diversity dimension to specific outcomes. The diversity dimensions with most coverage are race/ethnicity with 60 times, gender 49 times and age 41 times. The table depicts that certain dimensions have been repeatedly used in various studies and concludes that maximum studies in diversity management research focused on relationship- oriented diversity. While less research has been conducted on job-oriented attributes such as functional background 19 times, educational background 27 times, team tenure 11 times and organizational tenure 28 times. In contrast, diversity outcomes with most coverage are team performance 44 times, turnover 21 times, firm performance 19 times and less research has focused on outcomes like cooperative response and OCB only one time, behavior intention, innovation two times and organizational competitiveness three times. The overall analysis of this table identifies that the research on diversity dimensions has affected performance at every level, but the greatest number of studies examined group-level outcomes 126 times followed by individual-level outcomes 85 times and organizational outcomes 48 times. The study found that relatively less attention has given on organizational-level outcomes. Thus there is a requirement to conduct more studies on the organization-level outcome.
5. Discussion The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the dimensions, contextual variables, antecedents, consequences and emerging research trends in diversity management research. The systematic review of each section has guided different outcomes based on the previous research findings, which have discussed in this section. First, the major trends about the growing body of research were published in the Academy of Management Journal due to the participation of researchers and the presence of women in annual diversity programs conducted by the Academy of Management (Nkomo et al., 2019). The major theme of the journal has been identified, such as demographic diversity (i.e. gender, age and race), relational demography, racial diversity, cultural diversity and team diversity. Next, the majority of the research has been conducted in western countries like the USA, Canada and
Diversity management: a
systematic review
915
Moderators Supporting references Constructive conflict [46] Creative self-efficacy [84] Dogmatism [9] Diversity climate [26] Diversity beliefs [31] [93] Group fault line [55] Employee involvement [97] Employee status [36] Entrepreneurial innovation [74] Ethnic status [34] Industry type [75] Organizational culture [10] [32] Shared objectives [95] Sociocultural values [102] Social context [39] Transformational leadership [45] [84] Business strategy [72] Innovation strategy [73] Communication and coordination [63] Group longevity [66] [67] [80] Team interdependence [80] [43] Goal orientation [68] Team size [32] [49] Team leadership [49] [63] Group process (conflict) [4] [10] Team type [103] Team orientation [63] Task Type [41] Task interdependence [32] [41] [49] [58] [106] Task intellectiveness [58] Task complexity [58] Task requirements [94] Task ability [94] Task motivation [94] Task routineness [67] Mediators Supporting references Cooperative norms [7] Conflict [41] [49] [50] [66] [67] Decision comprehensiveness [87] Diversity equality management system [2] Team identification [18] [45] [93] Impression formation [23] Intercultural obstacles [58] Job performance [34] [42] Peers relation (trust and attraction) [8] Procedural justice and affective commitment [91] Organization-based self-esteem [8] Role ambiguity and role conflict [60] Team efficacy [18] Team reflexivity [80] Task relevant information elaboration [27] [29] [31] [45] [68]
Table 9. Moderator and mediators
EDI 39,8
916
D iv er si ty
d im
en si o n s
O u tc o m es
R el a ti o n s o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s
T o ta l
v a lu es
Jo b -o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s
T o ta l
v a lu es
A g e
G en d er
R a ce
N a ti o n a li ty
F u n ct io n a l
b a ck g ro u n d
E d u ca ti o n a l
b a ck g ro u n d
T ea m
te n u re
O rg .
te n u re
In d iv id u a l- le v el to ta l
5 9
2 6
A b se n te ei sm
2 2
2 1
7 1
1 2
4 C o m m it m en t
1 1
1 3
1 1
2 B eh a v io r in te n ti o n
1 1
2 C o m p en sa ti o n
1 1
1 3
C o o p er a ti v e re sp o n se
1 1
P ro m o ti o n
2 1
1 4
2 1
3 Jo b p er fo rm
a n ce
1 3
4 2
1 0
1 1
O C B
1 1
2 4
1 1
P a y
1 1
1 3
1 1
S a ti sf a ct io n
1 3
3 2
9 1
1 1
3 R ec ru it m en t
1 1
1 1
2 T u rn o v er
4 3
4 1
1 2
2 3
1 3
9 G ro u p -l ev el to ta l
8 2
4 4
C o o p er a ti v e re sp o n se
1 1
G ro u p in te ra ct io n
1 2
2 5
C o h es iv en es s
2 2
3 7
1 1
1 3
C o m m it m en t
1 3
2 6
1 2
3 C o n fl ic t
1 2
2 5
1 1
1 3
E ff ic ie n cy
a n d
ef fe ct iv en es s
1 2
1 4
1 1
G ro u p d ec is io n m a k in g
2 3
3 8
1 1
1 1
4 Id ea
g en er a ti o n
1 1
1 3
1 1
1 1
4 T ea m
p er fo rm
a n ce
7 8
8 6
2 9
5 4
2 4
1 5
P ro b le m -s o lv in g
1 1
1 3
1 1
1 1
4 S a ti sf a ct io n
1 2
1 1
5 1
1 2
T ea m
tu rn o v er
2 1
2 1
6 1
1 1
2 5
O rg a n iz a ti o n a l le v el
3 5
1 3
(c o n ti n u ed
)
Table 10. Number of studies by work outcomes and
diversity dimensions in diversity research
Diversity management: a
systematic review
917
D iv er si ty
d im
en si o n s
O u tc o m es
R el a ti o n s o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s
T o ta l
v a lu es
Jo b -o ri en te d a tt ri b u te s
T o ta l
v a lu es
A g e
G en d er
R a ce
N a ti o n a li ty
F u n ct io n a l
b a ck g ro u n d
E d u ca ti o n a l
b a ck g ro u n d
T ea m
te n u re
O rg .
te n u re
In n o v a ti o n
1 1
2 O rg a n iz a ti o n a l
co m p et it iv en es s
1 1
2
C o m m it m en t
2 3
4 9
2 1
3 F ir m
p er fo rm
a n ce
4 3
6 1
1 4
2 1
2 5
O C B
1 1
T u rn o v er
1 1
1 1
4 1
1 2
S el f- es te em
1 1
2 S tr a te g ic co n se n su s
1 1
1 1
1 3
T o ta l v a lu es
4 1
4 9
6 0
2 0
1 9
2 7
1 1
2 8
Table 10.
EDI 39,8
918
European countries while other countries were underreported, and hence, there is further need to focus on developing countries like India and China due to lack of study and its practical pertinence more. Next, most of the research found that diversity is prominent in the groups that have been studied in the laboratory or classroom, instead of conducting in the organization among group members. In the classroom, studies results have found that group diversity can improve the decision-making skills or can generate the idea while research on intact working groups in the organization depicts a pessimistic view of the diversity on group performance (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). A similar result has been confirmed in Table 4 of this study that the maximum number of diversity research has been conducted in classrooms of business institutions instead of industries. The next finding concluded that 50% of the research papers were empirical in nature and 32.52% articles conceptual and literature review paper while systematic review, qualitative studies and meta-analysis papers have very little representation. None of the studies have conducted a scientometric analysis of diversity management research. The finding also reveals that diversity as a broad topic has repeatedly examined only the top three dimensions such as age, gender and race. While other relationship-oriented dimensions like LGBT, disability, religion, language and job-oriented dimensions such as functional, education and tenure diversity have been widely ignored in diversity management research. Antecedents like cultural diversity, racial diversity and relational demography were studied at the individual level, team diversity, workgroup diversity at the group level and top management team diversity, and diversity management practices have performed at an organizational level. Next, the categorization of outcomes at different levels shows that organizational-level outcomes have relatively less explored in comparison to individual and group-level outcomes; hence, future research needs to be focused on organizational-level outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior, organizational effectiveness, innovation and fairness.
Conclusively, the majority of the researchers have used three mentioned theories to explain the effects of diversity on organizational outcomes. Different theories often lead to contradicting thoughts among researches. A maximum number of researchers have used similarity attraction (Byrne, 1971), self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987) and social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) while few optimistic researchers have used information decision-making (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) and upper echelon theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Further, the studies based on the aforementioned theories found that increased diversity in terms of age, gender and race has negative effects on social integration, cohesion, communication and conflicts (Jehn et al., 1999; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). While optimistic researchers have argued that increased diversity in terms of knowledge, skills and ability are more likely to enhance problem-solving and decision making power in the groups. Few studies also highlight that top management team diversity at the organizational level is positively related to organizational performance (van Knippenberg et al., 2011). The findings also highlight the importance of mediator and moderator variables suggested by van Knippenberg et al. (2004) in the CEM model, which overcome the negative effects through integrating the dual aspects of diversity. Several mediators and moderator variables have been identified, but none of the studies have explored HR practices and diversity management practices as moderators in workplace diversity to eliminate the negative aspects of diversity and enhance organizational performance. While leadership, social context and communication have relatively less explored as moderator variables. Ultimately, based on the overall findings of the systematic review, an integrative model of diversity management has developed in Figure 4. The model consolidates dimensions of diversity, mediator and moderator variables along with outcomes, which emerged from existing literature. Each aspect of diversity is supported by a distinct theory like the positive aspects of diversity has addressed by decision-making theory and negative aspects of diversity addressed by social categorization and similarity-attraction theories. Upper echelon theory is
Diversity management: a
systematic review
919
In di
vi du
al le
ve l
an d
gr ou
p le
ve l
C o
n se
q u
e n
c e s
M e d ia
to r
D im
e n
si o
n s
o f
D iv
e rs
it y
M o
d e ra
to rs
O rg
an iz
at io
na l
le ve
l
T o
p
m a n
a g
e m
e n
t
te a m
d iv
e rs
it y
U p
p e r
E c h e lo
n
R el
at io
ns o
ri en
te d
A g e d
iv e rs
it y
G e n d e r
d iv
e rs
it y
R a c ia
l d
iv e rs
it y
Jo b
or ie
nt ed
T
e n
u re
F u
n c ti
o n
a l
E d u c a ti
o n
P er
fo rm
an ce
ou
tc om
es
F ir
m
e ff
e c ti
v e n e ss
O rg
a n iz
a ti
o n a l
In n
o v
a ti
o n
C re
a ti
v it
y
Id e a G
e n e ra
ti o n
O rg
a n iz
a ti
o n a l
c o m
p e ti
ti v e n e ss
F ir
m
p e rf
o rm
a n c e
F in
a n c ia
l
p e rf
o rm
a n c e
P ro
ce ss
O
ut co
m es
C o n fl
ic t
C o m
m u n ic
a ti
o n
Jo b
s a ti
sf a c ti
o n
Jo b p
e rf
o rm
a n c e
O rg
a n iz
a ti
o n a l
c o m
m it
m e n t
O rg
a n iz
a ti
o n a l
c it
iz e n sh
ip
b e h
a v
io r
(O C
B )
S o
c ia
l
in te
g ra
ti o n
T u
rn o
v e r
In te
rv en
in g
m ec
ha ni
sm
(P ro
ce ss
va
ri ab
le s)
C o n fl
ic t
T a sk
r e le
v a n t
in fo
rm a ti
o n
T e a m
r e fl
e x
iv it
y
G ro
u p
id e n ti
fi c a ti
o n
Im p
re ss
io n
fo rm
a ti
o n
R o
le a
m b
ig u
it y
R o
le c
o n
fl ic
t
T e a m
e ff
ic a c y
S e lf
-c a te
g o ri
z a ti
o n ,
S im
il a ri
ty a
tt ra
c ti
o n ,
S o c ia
l id
e n ti
ty t
h e o ry
T a sk
i n
te rd
e p
e n
d e n
c e
T e a m
l e a d
e rs
h ip
E th
n ic
s ta
tu s
T a sk
r o
u ti
n e n
e ss
T
ra n
sf o
rm a ti
o n
a l
le a d
e rs
h ip
B
u si
n e ss
s tr
a te
g y
T a sk
c o
m p
le x
it y
T
e a m
s iz
e
S h
a re
d o
b je
c ti
v e s
T a sk
a b il
it y
T
e a m
o ri
e n ta
ti o n
S
o c ia
l c o n te
x t
T a sk
m o
ti v
a ti
o n
G
ro u
p l
o n
g e v
it y
O rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a l
c u
lt u
re
G ro
u p
f a u
lt l
in e
D iv
e rs
it y
b e li
e fs
D iv
e rs
it y
c li
m a te
In fo
rm a ti
o n
d e c is
io n
m a k
in g
t h
e o
ry
Figure 4. Integrative model of diversity management
EDI 39,8
920
traditionally used to support top management team diversity. The consequences of diversity have been divided into process and performance outcomes, according to Jackson et al. (2003).
6. Theoretical implications The findings of this study will benefit researchers in further research because this review forms the first systematic review of literature on all emerging forms of diversity and provide access to scholars as a one-stop-shop for the comprehensive solutions of diversity management literature. It facilitates academicians and researchers by gaining insightful study and analyze the current status of research on diversity management. The major contribution of this study is the integration of theories into a single framework, connecting multiple dimensions of diversity and linking process and performance outcomes with the intervention of mediator and moderator variables that have lacked in previous studies (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The second contribution is the representation of the evolution of diversity management and dimensions of diversity in a systematic way that will guide future researchers. Conclusively, the categorization of outcomes of diversity at the individual, group and organization level and differentiation between contextual variables might help to develop the conceptual model in future research.
6.1 Practical implications The practical relevance of the proposed model is primarily improving organizational performance by diminishing the barriers in the group process. Our findings highlight the importance of contextual variables, and managers need not worry that diversity negatively affects team outcomes because the integration of contextual variables and environmental factors diminish the negative and enhance the positive outcomes. Practitioners can foster diversity management practices with HR practices as it has witnessed positive outcomes on workforce diversity (Guillaume et al., 2015). Further diversity management practices like cross-cultural training and team-building activities increase cooperation, communication and information sharing.
7. Limitations and future research Since our focus was to find the dimensions of diversity studied in the previous literature and identify future avenues, diversity management practices and programs related literature has been excluded. The filtering process may have omitted some good articles, such as a large stream of diversity management programs and practices so that future research can merely focus on different diversity management practices such as diversity training, diversity programs, diversity policies and initiatives. This study found that surface-level diversity is a widely discussed topic, and therefore, future researchers could emphasize more on deep-level diversity attributes such as values, attitudes, personality. However, future research might also investigate other types of diversity (e.g., separation, variety, disparity) proposed by Harrison and Klein (2007). The less attention on job-related diversity in the proposed model highlights that researchers and practitioners should stop thinking that diversity is a generic concept, and it always has a positive outcome (Webber and Donahue, 2001). Instead, researchers should go beyond demographic diversity and distinguishes based on task-related knowledge, skills and perspectives, which reflect more positive outcomes on team performance (Simons et al., 1999). This study has not discussed the operationalization of different dimensions of diversity that how previous research has measured diversity so that future studies could explore the different measurement methods of diversity. Finally, as we have identified several contextual factors from the existing literature but some of the process variables (e.g., value congruence, social integration and HR practices) have highly ignored in the studies, which can be examined in future research.
Diversity management: a
systematic review
921
8. Conclusion The abundance of literature on diversity is found in western countries, but a literature review paper is very limited. Therefore, this study is inspired by the scarcity of literature review papers on diversity. This study investigates all types of diversity-related papers to get the insightful impact of diversity and their influence on the work outcomes. By doing so, this study fills a research gap and describe the holistic understanding of diversity issues and benefits in organizations. This study concludes with an integrative model of diversity management where several significant themes were reflected in a single framework such as dimensions of diversity, contextual factors, process and performance outcomes. Diversity is categorized at multiple levels, including individual, group and top management teams within the organization, and these different levels of diversity have been supported with multiple theories. Overall, this study makes significant contributions by providing a summary of research in diversity that can help readers to find the antecedents, consequences, moderators and mediators impart for future research.
References
Al Ariss, A. and Sidani, Y.M. (2016), “Understanding religious diversity: implications from Lebanon and France”, Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 467-480.
Armstrong, C., Flood, P.C., Guthrie, J.P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S. and Mkamwa, T. (2010), “The impact of diversity and equality management on firm performance: beyond high-performance work systems”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 977-998.
Barry, B. and Bateman, T.S. (1996), “A social trap analysis of the management of diversity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 757-790.
Barsade, S.G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (2000), “To your heart’s content: a model of affective diversity in top management teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 802-836.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K.A. and Spell, C.S. (2012), “Reviewing diversity training: where we have been and where we should go”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 207-227.
Buttner, E.H., Lowe, K.B. and Harris, L.B.-. (2006), “The influence of organizational diversity orientation and leader attitude on diversity activities”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 356-371.
Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic, New York.
Chatman, J.A. and Flynn, F.J. (2001), “The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 956-974.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999), “Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the influence of demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 273-287.
Chattopadhyay, P. (2003), “Can dissimilarity lead to positive outcomes? The influence of open versus closed minds”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 295-312.
Choi, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2010), “Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: effects of diversity and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 109-121.
Comer, D.R. and Soliman, C.E. (1996), “Organizational efforts to manage diversity: do they really work?”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 470-483.
Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2009), “Between a rock and a hard place: managing diversity in a shareholder society”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 393-412.
EDI 39,8
922
Cooke, F.L. and Saini, D.S. (2010), “Diversity management in India: a study of organizations in different ownership forms and industrial sectors”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 477-500.
Cox, T.H. and Blake, S. (1991), “Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational competitiveness”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 45-56.
Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. (1991), “Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 827-847.
Cox. (1991), “The multicultural organization”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 34-47.
Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1999), “Strategies for managing human resource diversity: from resistance to learning”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 68-80.
Dixon, M.L. and Hart, L.K. (2010), “The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group effectiveness and turnover intention”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 52-69.
Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2000), “Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of transnational team functioning”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-49.
Elfenbein, H.A. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2007), “Fitting in: the effects of relational demography and person- culture fit on group process and performance”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 109-142.
Elsass, P.M. and Graves, L.M. (1997), “Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the experiences of women and people of color”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 946-973.
Ely, R.J. (2004), “A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 755-780.
Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on workgroup processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 229-273.
Flynn, F.J., Chatman, J.A. and Spataro, S.E. (2001), “Getting to know you: the influence of personality on impressions and performance of demographically different people in organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 414-442.
Fujimoto, Y. and H€artel, C.E.J. (2017), “Organizational diversity learning framework: going beyond diversity training programs”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1120-1141.
Gilbert, J.A. and Ivancevich, J.M. (2000), “Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-105.
Gonzalez, J.A. and Denisi, A.S. (2009), “Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 21-40.
Guillaume, Y.R.F., Dawson, J.F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S.A. and West, M.A. (2015), “Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: what moderates the effects of workplace diversity?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 276-303.
Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1199-1228.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on workgroup cohesion”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Diversity management: a
systematic review
923
Hoever, I.J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W.P. and Barkema, H.G. (2012), “Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 982-996.
Homan, A.C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007), “Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse workgroups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1189-1199.
Homberg, F. and Bui, H.T.M. (2013), “Top management team diversity: a systematic review”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 455-479.
Hopkins, W.E., Hopkins, S.A. and Gross, M.A. (2005), “Cultural diversity recomposition and effectiveness in monoculture workgroups”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 949-964.
Horwitz, S.K. and Horwitz, I.B. (2007), “The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta- analytic review of team demography”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 987-1015.
Hsiao, A., Auld, C. and Ma, E. (2015), “Perceived organizational diversity and employee behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 48, pp. 102-112.
Hur, Y. and Strickland, R.A. (2012), “Diversity management practices and understanding their adoption: examining local governments in North Carolina”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 380-412.
Jackson, S.E. and Joshi, A. (2004), “Diversity in social context: a multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 675-702.
Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A. and Peyronnin, K. (1991), “Some differences make a difference: individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 675-689.
Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), “Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision- making teams”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 204-261.
Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A. and Erhardt, N.L. (2003), “Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 801-830.
Jayne, M.E.A. and Dipboye, R.L. (2004), “Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: research findings and recommendations for organizations”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 409-424.
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-763.
Johnson, W.B. and Packer, A.H. (1987), Workforce 2000, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN.
Joshi, A. and Roh, H. (2007), “Context matters: a multilevel framework forwork team diversity research”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 26, pp. 1-48.
Joshi, A. and Roh, H. (2009), “The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic review”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 599-627.
Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Jackson, S.E. (2006), “Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales performance and pay”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 459-481.
Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Roh, H. (2011), “Bridging domains in workplace demography research: a review and reconceptualization”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 521-552.
Kearney, E. and Gebert, D. (2009), “Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Kelly, E. and Dobbin, F. (1998), “How affirmative action became diversity management”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 960-984.
EDI 39,8
924
Kim, S. and Park, S. (2017), “Diversity management and fairness in public organizations”, Public Organization Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-193.
Kirchmeyer, C. and Cohen, A. (1992), “Multicultural groups: their performance and reactions with constructive conflict”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 153-170.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995), “Demographic similarity to the workgroup: a longitudinal study of managers at the early career stage”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Klein, K.J., Knight, A.P., Ziegert, J.C., Lim, B.C. and Saltz, J.L. (2011), “When team members’ values differ: the moderating role of team leadership”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 25-36.
Knight, D., Pearce, C.L., Smith, K.G. and Flood, P. (1999), “Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-465.
Konrad, A.M., Yang, Y. and Maurer, C.C. (2016), “Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and equality management systems: an integrated institutional agency and strategic human resource management approach”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 83-107.
Kundu, S.C. and Mor, A. (2017), “Workforce diversity and organizational performance: a study of IT industry in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 160-183.
Larkey, L.K. (1996), “Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse workgroups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 463-491.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (1998), “Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional dynamics of organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 325-340.
Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (2005), “Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of demographic faultlines”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 645-659.
Leck, J.D., Saunders, D.M. and Charbonneau, M. (1996), “Affirmative action programs: an organizational justice perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 79-89.
Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on case study draft completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW
Leslie, L.M. (2017), “A status-based multilevel model of ethnic diversity and work unit performance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 426-454.
Leung, K. and Wang, J. (2015), “Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: a socio- technical framework: social processes and team creativity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1008-1025.
Madera, J.M., Dawson, M. and Neal, J.A. (2013), “Hotel managers’ perceived diversity climate and job satisfaction: the mediating effects of role ambiguity and conflict”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 35, pp. 28-34.
Madera, J.M. (2013), “Best practices in diversity management in customer service organizations: an investigation of top companies cited by diversity Inc”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 124-135.
Marcoulides, G. and Heck, R. (1993), “Organizational culture and performance: proposing and testing a model”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 209-225.
McLeod, P.L. and Lobel, S.A. (1992), “The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small groups”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 1992 No. 1, pp. 227-231.
Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 402-433.
Mohammed, S. and Angell, L.C. (2004), “Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1015-1039.
Diversity management: a
systematic review
925
Nemetz, P.L. and Christensen, S.L. (1996), “The challenge of cultural diversity: harnessing a diversity of views to understand multiculturalism”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 434-462.
Nkomo, S.M., Bell, M.P., Roberts, L.M., Joshi, A. and Thatcher, S.M. (2019), “Diversity at a critical juncture: new theories for a complex phenomenon”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 498-517.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of workgroup diversity, conflict, and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-28.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), “Demographic diversity, conflict, and workgroup outcomes: an intervening process theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.
Pieterse, A.N., van Knippenberg, D. and van Dierendonck, D. (2013), “Cultural diversity and team performance: the role of team member goal orientation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 782-804.
Pitts, D. (2009), “Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: evidence from U.S. federal agencies”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 328-338.
Prasad, A., Prasad, P. and Mir, R. (2011), “‘One mirror in another’: managing diversity and the discourse of fashion”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 703-724.
Rabl, T., Del Carmen Triana, M., Byun, S.-Y. and Bosch, L. (2018), “Diversity management efforts as an ethical responsibility: how employees’ perceptions of an organizational integration and learning approach to diversity affect employee behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 161 No. 3, pp. 531-550.
Richard, O.C. and Johnson, N.B. (2001), “Understanding the impact of human resource diversity practices on firm performance”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 177-195.
Richard, O., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K. and Dwyer, S. (2003), “Employing an innovation strategy in racially diverse workforces: effects on firm performance”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-126.
Richard, O.C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S. and Chadwick, K. (2004), “Cultural diversity in management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 255-266.
Richard, O.C., Murthi, B.P.S. and Ismail, K. (2007), “The impact of racial diversity on intermediate and long-term performance: the moderating role of environmental context”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1213-1233.
Richard, O.C. (2000), “Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: a resource-based view”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 164-177.
Riordan, C.M. and Shore, L.M. (1997), “Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: an empirical examination of relational demography within work units”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 342-358.
Roberson, Q.M. (2019), “Diversity in the workplace: a review, synthesis, and future research agenda”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, pp. 69-88.
Sabharwal, M. (2014), “Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further performance”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 197-217.
Salau, O., Osibanjo, A., Adeniji, A., Oludayo, O., Falola, H., Igbinoba, E. and Ogueyungbo, O. (2018), “Data regarding talent management practices and innovation performance of academic staff in a technology-driven private university”, Data in Brief, Vol. 19, pp. 1040-1045.
Sanchez, J.I. and Brock, P. (1996), “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 704-719.
EDI 39,8
926
Schippers, M.C., Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L. and Wienk, J.A. (2003), “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, pp. 779-802.
Schneider, S.K. and Northcraft, G.B. (1999), “Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity in organizations: a social identity perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1445-1467.
Seong, J.Y. and Choi, J.N. (2014), “Effects of group-level fit on group conflict and performance: The initiating role of leader positive affect”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 190-212.
Seong, J.Y., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Park, W.-W., Hong, D.-S. and Shin, Y. (2012), “Person-group fit: diversity antecedents, proximal outcomes, and performance at the group level”, Journal of Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1184-1213.
Shin, S.J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y. and Bian, L. (2012), “Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: a cross-level interaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 197-212.
Shore, L.M., Chung-Herrera, B.G, Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., Jung, D.I., Randel, A.E. and Singh, G. (2009), “Diversity in organizations: where are we now and where are we going?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 117-133.
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K. and Singh, G. (2011), “Inclusion and diversity in workgroups: a review and model for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1262-1289.
Shore, L.M., Cleveland, J.N. and Sanchez, D. (2018), “Inclusive workplaces: a review and model”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 176-189.
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-673.
Soni, V. (2000), “A twenty-first-century reception for diversity in the public sector: a case study”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 395-408.
Sourouklis, C. and Tsagdis, D. (2013), “Workforce diversity and hotel performance: a systematic review and synthesis of the international empirical evidence”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 394-403.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks-Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 33-47.
Talke, K., Salomo, S. and Rost, K. (2010), “How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields”, Research Policy, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 907-918.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), “Making differences matter”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 79-90.
Thomas, R.R. Jr (1991), Beyond, Race, and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Workforce by Managing Diversity, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence- informed management knowledge by means of a systematic review”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Triana, M.D.C. and Garc�ıa, M.F. (2009), “Valuing diversity: a group-value approach to understanding the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 941-962.
Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and Iii, C.A.O. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-579.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Diversity management: a
systematic review
927
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., H€agele, S., Guillaume, Y.R.F. and Brodbeck, F.C. (2008), “Group diversity and group identification: the moderating role of diversity beliefs”, Human Relations, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1463-1492.
van Knippenberg, D. and Mell, J.N. (2016), “Past, present, and potential future of team diversity research: from compositional diversity to emergent diversity”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 136, pp. 135-145.
van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), “Workgroup diversity”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 515-541.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A.C. (2004), “Workgroup diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 6, pp. 1008-1022.
van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J.F., West, M.A. and Homan, A.C. (2011), “Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 307-336.
Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. (1993), “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 590-602.
Watson, W.E., Johnson, L. and Merritt, D. (1998), “Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in task groups: their connection to team performance over time”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 161-188.
Webber, S.S. and Donahue, L.M. (2001), “Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on workgroup cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-162.
Weber, T.J., Sadri, G. and Gentry, W.A. (2018), “Examining diversity beliefs and leader performance across cultures”, Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 382-400.
Wiersema, M.F. and Bird, A. (1993), “Organizational demography in Japanese firms: group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 996-1025.
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140.
Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J. and Morner, M. (2017), “The paradox of diversity initiatives: when organizational needs differ from employee preferences”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Wise, L.R. and Tschirhart, M. (2000), “Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: how useful is diversity research for public-sector managers?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 386-394.
Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2010), “Diversity and organizational innovation: the role of employee involvement”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1062-1083.
Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2011), “Understanding diversity management practices: implications of institutional theory and resource-based theory”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 6-38.
EDI 39,8
928
Appendix
Corresponding author Shatrughan Yadav can be contacted at: [email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
[1] Al Ariss and Sidani (2016) [54] Lau and Murnighan (1998) [2] Armstrong et al. (2010) [55] Lau and Murnighan (2005) [3] Barry and Bateman (1996) [56] Leslie (2017) [4] Barsade et al. (2000) [57] Leck et al. (1996) [5] Bezrukova et al. (2012) [58] Leung and Wang (2015) [6] Buttner et al. (2006) [59] Madera (2013) [7] Chatman and Flynn (2001) [60] Madera et al. (2013) [8] Chattopadhyay (1999) [61] McLeod and Lobel (1992) [9] Chattopadhyay (2003) [62] Marcoulides and Heck (1993) [10] Choi and Rainey (2010) [63] Mohammed and Angell (2004) [11] Comer and Soliman (1996) [64] Milliken and Martins (1996) [12] Cooke and Saini (2010) [65] Nemetz and Christensen (1996) [13] Cox (1991) [66] Pelled (1996) [14] Cox and Blake (1991) [67] Pelled et al. (1999) [15] Cox et al. (1991) [68] Pieterse et al. (2013) [16] Dixon and Hart (2010) [69] Pitts (2009) [17] Dass and Parker (1999) [70] Prasad et al. (2011) [18] Earley and Mosakowski (2000) [71] Rabl et al. (2018) [19] Elfenbein and O’Reilly (2007) [72] Richard (2000) [20] Elsass and Gaves (1997) [73] Richard et al. (2003) [21] Thomas and Ely (1996) [74] Richard et al. (2004) [22] Ely and Thomas (2001) [75] Richard et al. (2007) [23] Flynn et al. (2001) [76] Richard and Johnson (2001) [24] Fujimoto and Hartel (2017) [77] Riordan and Shore (1997) [25] Gilbert and Ivancevich (2000) [78] Sanchez and Brock (1996) [26] Gonzalez and Denisi (2009) [79] Schneider and Northcraft (1999) [27] Guillaume et al. (2015) [80] Schippers et al. (2003) [28] Harrison et al. (1998) [81] Seong et al. (2012) [29] Hoever et al. (2012) [82] Seong et al. (2014) [30] Homberg and Bui (2013) [83] Sabharwal (2014) [31] Homan et al. (2007) [84] Shin et al. (2012) [32] Hopkins et al. (2005) [85] Shore et al. (2011) [33] Horwitz and Horwitz (2007) [86] Shore et al. (2018) [34] Hsiao et al. (2015) [87] Simons et al. (1999) [35] Hur and Strickland (2012) [88] Soni (2000) [36] Jackson et al. (1991) [89] Sourouklis and Tsagdis (2013) [37] Jackson et al. (1995) [90] Talkie et al. (2010) [38] Jackson et al. (2003) [91] Triana and Garcia (2009) [39] Jackson and Joshi (2004) [92] Tsui et al. (1992) [40] Jayne and Dipboye (2004) [93] van Dick et al. (2008) [41] Jehn et al. (1999) [94] van Knippenberg et al. (2004) [42] Joshi et al. (2006) [95] van Knippenberg et al. (2011) [43] Joshi and Roh (2009) [96] van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) [44] Joshi et al. (2011) [97] van Knippenberg et al. (2016) [45] Kearney and Gebert (2009) [98] Yang and Konrad (2010) [46] Kirchmeyer and Cohen (1992) [99] Yang and Konrad (2011) [47] Kirchmeyer (1995) [100] Watson et al. (1993) [48] Kim and Park (2017) [101] Watson et al. (1998) [49] Klein et al. (2011) [102] Wiersema and Bird (1993) [50] Knight et al. (1999) [103] Webber and Donahue (2001) [51] Konrad et al. (2016) [104] Windscheid et al. (2017) [52] Kundu and Mor (2017) [105] Wise and Tschirhart (2000) [53] Larkey (1996) [106] Williams and O’Reilly (1998)
Table A1. Numerical coding of
references (refer Tables 7–9)
Diversity management: a
systematic review
929
- Diversity management: a systematic review
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Evolution of diversity management
- Conceptualization of diversity
- Exploring dimensions of diversity
- Research methodology
- Results
- Journal wise distribution of literature
- Distribution based on year of publications
- Country and time period-based classification of articles
- Industry-wise classification of articles
- Respondents in diversity research
- Classification based on the adopted methodology
- Classification of diversity dimensions and sources
- Antecedents and consequences of diversity
- Moderators and mediators in workplace diversity
- Breadth and depth of diversity article
- Discussion
- Theoretical implications
- Practical implications
- Limitations and future research
- Conclusion
- References
- Appendix
,
Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 529
Erica Gabrielle Foldy New York University
Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration
Public-sector organizations tend to be more racially and ethnically diverse than private-sector organizations, leading to the challenge of enhancing heterogeneous work group effectiveness. Recent work suggests that a group’s “diversity perspective,” or set of beliefs about the role of cultural diversity, moderates diverse group performance. One perspective, the integration and learning perspective, argues that heterogeneous groups function better when they believe that cultural identities can be tapped as sources of new ideas and experiences about work. However, simply holding the integration and learning perspective may not be sufficient. Research on general group learning has shown that it requires particular behaviors and cognitive frames. This article integrates recent work on diversity perspectives with long-standing research on team learning to propose a conceptual model of learning in culturally diverse groups. It suggests that both the integration and learning perspective and more generic learning frames and skills must be present.
Thinking and talking about diversity is ubiquitous in today’s organizations. While “diversity” may refer to many kinds of heterogeneity, one of the most challenging dimen- sions for many workplaces is cultural diversity, including racial and ethnic background (Williams and O’Reilly 1998). While organizations face a variety of difficulties related to managing cultural diversity, these challenges vary, to some extent, by sector. Public-sector organizations tend to have more diverse employee populations than organizations in the private sector, suggesting they have been more suc- cessful in recruiting employees of color, though often not in promoting them to higher levels (Riccucci 2002; Corn- well and Kellough 1994). However, their very success in diversifying their workforces poses a new challenge: How can public organizations ensure that heterogeneous em- ployees work well together?
This is a pressing question, especially given the ration- ales for broadening diversity in the public sector. Ospina (2001), for example, suggests two main reasons. First, cul- tural diversity enhances organizational performance by con- tributing to functional diversity, which, in turn, increases the prevalence of alternative perspectives and new ideas. Second, it enhances organizational legitimacy by creating an employee population that roughly mirrors the popula- tion it serves.
Erica Gabrielle Foldy is an assistant professor of public and nonprofit man- agement at the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University. Her research interests include identity and diversity in organizations, organiza- tional learning and reflective practice, and the interaction of individual, or- ganizational, and social change. She has published articles in several jour- nals and edited volumes and co-edited the Reader in Gender, Work, and Organization (Blackwell, 2003). E-mail: [email protected].
Articles from the Seventh National Public Management Research Conference
In 1991, an interdisciplinary group of scholars interested in management and organizations convened the first biannual National Public Management Research Conference. The conference was held at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. (Subsequent conferences were held at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Kansas, the University of Georgia, Texas A&M University and Indiana University–Bloomington). The Georgetown Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University hosted the seventh conference October 9–11, 2003. Public Administration Review agreed to publish articles from the conference. We would like to thank Professor William Gormley and his colleagues for their warm and generous hospitality.
Articles from the conference are published in two installments, the first of which is included in this issue. The second installment will appear in the November/December issue. We have selected articles that reflect the range and diversity of papers presented at the conference. Consistent with PAR publication policy, all articles were evaluated by external reviewers. —LDT
530 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5
However, both rationales may be undermined if diverse groups don’t work together effectively. First, research has established that simply creating diversity through hiring does not automatically lead to enhanced organizational per- formance. Research shows that diverse groups can be both more creative and effective (Watson, Kumar, and Michael- son 1993; Cox, Lobel, and McLeod 1991), as well as more conflictual (Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale 1999; Tsui, Egan, and Xin 1995). If heterogeneous work groups experience increased conflict and miscommunication, this may actu- ally lead to diminished performance. Second, while an agency’s workforce may represent its service population, if it doesn’t work together effectively, it will provide less- than-optimal services, thereby undermining legitimacy rather than enhancing it. Therefore, public-sector organi- zations must go beyond creating diversity to consider how to reap its positive benefits.
Some recent research focused on group diversity could provide a useful approach. Ely and Thomas propose the concept of “diversity perspectives” (Ely and Thomas 2001; Thomas and Ely 1996). They argue that diverse groups who hold the perspective that cultural identity is a resource for learning and growth are more likely to learn from difference, resulting in higher performance. But the authors do not elaborate the components of this perspec- tive or how such a perspective leads to learning in cultur- ally diverse groups.
Fortunately, the substantial literature on team or group learning offers a number of insights that could elaborate the concept of diversity perspectives and their contribution to learning (Edmondson 1999; Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano 2001; Argote, Gruenfeld, and Naquin 2001). This literature has made remarkable progress in delineating what enables group learning, including particular behaviors as well as frames or beliefs held by team members. Yet, this research has largely ignored the particular needs and dy- namics of culturally diverse work groups (exceptions in- clude Child and Rodrigues 2003; Taylor and Osland 2003; Gibson and Vermeulen 2003), despite the broad recogni- tion that such groups face both opportunities and challenges that homogeneous groups do not (Williams and O’Reilly 1998; Shaw 1981; Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998).
This article integrates insights from Ely and Thomas’s work on diversity perspectives with work on group learn- ing to explore the question: what enables learning in cul- turally diverse groups? This article proposes a model to answer this question. It begins by summarizing what we already know about group learning from the learning lit- erature. It then investigates culturally diverse groups, how they are different from homogeneous groups, and why perspectives about diversity affect their learning capacity. It then proposes and elaborates a model of learning in cul- turally diverse groups.
Group Learning While scholars have identified factors at the organiza-
tional, group, and individual levels that contribute to learn- ing (Dodgson 1993; Huber 1991; Levitt and March 1988), some argue that individuals are at the heart of group learn- ing. As Argyris and Schon point out, “We take individual practitioners as centrally important to organizational learn- ing, because it is their thinking and acting that influence the acquisition of capability for productive learning at the organizational level” (1996, xxii). Therefore, this article focuses on the beliefs and behaviors of team members which enhance team and organizational learning (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985; Argyris and Schon 1996, 1974).
Argyris and Schon distinguish between Model I behav- iors and Model II behaviors (Argyris and Schon 1974, 1996). Model I behaviors, which are counterproductive to learning, include making untested attributions about oth- ers’ motivations and positions, not inquiring into others’ views, and offering no opportunities to test one’s advoca- cies. Model II behaviors, which enhance learning, include suggesting ways to test one’s advocacies and attributions and inquiring into why others view things the way they do. Implicit in this work is the individual’s capacity to surface and reflect on his or her embedded assumptions or mental models (Rudolph, Taylor, and Foldy 2001; Ayas and Zeniuk 2001). Table 1 compares Model I (low-learning) and Model II (high-learning) behaviors.
Work from this approach also suggests that particular beliefs or frames, in addition to skills or behaviors, are essential to learning. Model II (high-learning) frames in- clude “errors are puzzles to be engaged” and “role of learner as agent,” rather than Model I (low-learning) frames such as “errors are crimes to be covered up” and “role of learner as recipient” (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985, 280) (table 2).
Research on these generic learning behaviors and frames demonstrates they can be quite effective, but little work has explored whether these approaches are suffi- cient for learning to occur in culturally diverse groups. Research on diverse groups suggests they face different challenges and opportunities than homogeneous ones, raising the possibility that generic learning approaches may not be sufficient.
Culturally Diverse Groups Cultural diversity refers to identities such as race,
ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, and other dimen- sions of difference derived from membership in groups that are socioculturally distinct, that is, they “collectively share certain norms, values or traditions that are different from those of other groups” (Cox 1994, 5–6). Members of the same cultural identity group often—though not always—
Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 531
have similarities of background and experience that shape the way they see the world.
Cultural identity groups also tend to be associated with power differentials, in that some groups have higher status and greater access to resources than other groups (Nkomo 1992; Omi and Winant 1994; Ragins 1997; Ridgeway and Berger 1986). While this is a broad generalization, in West- ern countries men tend to have more power than women, whites generally have more resources than people of color, and so on. When power differentials are roughly contigu- ous with identity groups, this may reinforce the bound- aries among the groups, making their group identities more salient (Lau and Murnighan 1998). Group identity is no longer based solely on cultural similarity, but on a shared status or shared interests.
Numerous studies have established that culturally di- verse work groups have different dynamics than homoge- neous groups (Williams and O’Reilly 1998). These groups
are broadly seen as having both increased challenges and opportunities: Diverse groups often experience miscom- munication and disabling conflict (Tsui, Egan, and Xin 1995; Shaw 1981), yet under the right circumstances, they can be synergistic and creative (McGrath 1984; Cox, Lobel, and McLeod 1991).
The factors underlying these different dynamics are nu- merous and complex, but four reasons stand out. First, a long tradition of research has demonstrated that individu- als are generally more comfortable when they are sur- rounded by people they perceive as more like them (Schneider 1987; Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly 1992; Kanter [1977]1993; Brief 1998). We look for familiarity and simi- larity; we are reassured when others think, talk, and act like we do. These simple personal preferences have profound consequences for organizations and for work groups. “So- cial similarity, whatever criteria it uses, acts as a mecha- nism of exclusion or inclusion …” (Ospina 1996a, 141). Groups include those who feel familiar or safe and exclude those who don’t. Kanter, among others, has elaborated the implications of “homosocial reproduction” for organiza- tional stratification (Kanter [1977]1993). Demographic groups with power—often white men—tend to stay in power because they choose others like themselves as colleagues. Therefore, individuals from demographic groups with less power—often people of color and white women—continue to be shut out from the highest levels of the organization.
However, the powerful impulse toward similarity also has implications for group dynamics. It means that indi- viduals are inclined to seek groups made up of people like themselves. When individuals find themselves in diverse groups, despite their preferences, those groups are likely to feel less safe and less trusting. Less trust means that group members are less likely to give others the benefit of the doubt, leading to more conflict (Child and Rodrigues 2003). Such groups feel less familiar, meaning that group members are more likely to feel strange or to perceive oth- ers as strange. That dynamic contributes to less trust, and often more conflict.
Second, as suggested by the definition of cultural diver- sity, group members come with different life experiences that have shaped their values, approaches, and perspec- tives. Members of culturally diverse groups may be more likely than those of homogeneous groups to differ in how they define a problem, structure a discussion, view poten- tial solutions, or come to a decision. These differences of opinion represent a mother lode of creativity or a quag- mire of conflict, depending on how the group handles con- flict and differences (Chatman and Flynn 2001; Chatman et al. 1998; Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale 1999).
Third, group membership is associated with differing representation within the group. Members of groups in the minority, whatever that means in a particular context, are
Table 1 Comparison of Low-Learning (Model I) and High-Learning (Model II) Behaviors
Low learning 1. Make attributions about others
without testing them. 2. Advocate positions without
illustrating them or suggesting a way to test them.
3. Invoke abstract concepts that are impossible to disagree with.
4. Construct a situation as a dilemma or double bind; feel trapped.
5. Do not inquire into why you think, feel, or act the way you do.
6. Do not inquire into why others think, feel, or act the way they do.
High learning 1. Make private attributions
about others public; test them. 2. Illustrate and suggest ways to
test one’s advocacies.
3. When invoking abstract concepts, try to make them concrete and testable.
4. Make dilemmas public and discussable.
5. Publicly reflect on why you are thinking, feeling, or acting as you are.
6. Inquire into why others are thinking, feeling, or acting the way they are.
Table 2 Comparison of Low-Learning (Model I) and High-Learning (Model II) Frames
Low learning 1. Mistakes are crimes to be
prosecuted. 2. My role as a participant is to
be a recipient. 3. I don’t have anything to learn
from others in this group. 4. If I don’t have a solution, I
shouldn’t raise the problem. 5. If I feel uncomfortable in this
discussion, something must be wrong.
6. If I speak up, I will be criticized.
7. I don’t have any power or authority in this group, so I will be quiet.
High learning 1. Mistakes are puzzles to be
engaged. 2. I should be an engaged
participant. 3. I don’t know everything.
4. It is helpful to raise problems, even if I don’t have a solution.
5. Feeling uncomfortable in a discussion can be a sign that this is exactly where I should be.
6. I think I have something to contribute to the conversation, even though what I say may be criticized.
7. I can make a contribution here even though I don’t have any formal power or authority.
532 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5
more aware of their identity and of being different from the norm (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Kanter [1977]1993). Depending on the dynamics of the group, they may feel less comfortable or less welcome. Members of majority groups, who share ways of thinking and acting, may un- wittingly create environments that make it difficult for oth- ers to feel included.
Finally, diverse groups may also have different dynam- ics because of the power differences associated with cul- tural differences. The literature on group decision making and problem solving has demonstrated that more powerful members tend to talk more and have more influence on outcomes, contributing to less powerful members with- drawing and falling silent (Falk and Falk 1981). In cultur- ally diverse teams, members of dominant identity groups, such as whites, are often the more powerful members of such groups (Levin et al. 2002; Sidanius and Pratto 1999). Therefore, they may consciously or unconsciously act in ways that reinforce their dominance in their conversational styles, decision-making processes, social interaction, and so on (Ridgeway 1997; Smith-Lovin and Brody 1989; Elsass and Graves 1997). Like any less powerful group members, members of nondominant groups may also con- tribute to dysfunctional dynamics by withdrawing or by communicating largely with other members of their sub- group (Konrad 2003).
All of these dynamics suggest that generic learning frames and behaviors may be harder to establish in cultur- ally diverse groups. On an individual level, learning means making oneself vulnerable; it means admitting that one is dependent on others to grow and develop (Brown and Starkey 2000). As others have amply demonstrated, this is difficult enough in homogeneous groups and even more difficult in heterogeneous groups. For example, making mistakes may carry greater weight in heterogeneous groups, which means that admitting them will be all the more dif- ficult. This is particularly true for members of nondominant groups, who often feel their capabilities are in question, and therefore they may feel under greater pressure to per- form (Steele 1997). Carrying the frame that mistakes are opportunities to learn rather than crimes to be punished is more difficult under these circumstances. Maintaining a stance of inquiry may also be more difficult for all indi- viduals in diverse groups. The concept of “threat-rigidity” (Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton 1981) suggests that we are less open and flexible when we feel threatened or unpro- tected in some way. Working with others who are different from us can feel unsafe or unfamiliar, as opposed to the sense of comfort and fit that comes from homogeneity. For that reason, group members may be more likely to rigidly advocate their own positions rather than inquire about those of others.
Individual feelings of discomfort or threat create diffi-
cult group-level dynamics. Heterogeneous groups are less likely to achieve a broad sense of psychological safety (Edmondson 1999). In some cases, the difficult dynamics associated with cultural diversity may cause most mem- bers of a team to feel generally unsafe, whether they are members of majority or minority, dominant or nondominant groups. If dynamics are characterized by a lot of conflict, mistrust, and paralysis, then it is less likely that anyone will feel safe. In other cases, majority or dominant mem- bers may feel safe, while those in the minority will not because they feel uncomfortable or unwelcome (Earley and Mosakowski 2000; Elsass and Graves 1997).
If it is true that a learning stance is more difficult in diverse groups, then what could make the difference? What enables learning amid cultural diversity?
Diversity Perspectives Recent research suggests that a group’s diversity per-
spective is central to learning in culturally diverse groups. Ely and Thomas (2001; Thomas and Ely 1996) propose the idea of “diversity perspectives” as the key moderator of the relationship between diversity and performance. Diversity perspectives are a work group-level phenomenon; different work groups within the same organization can hold different perspectives. A diversity perspective is the way that group members think about the cultural differ- ences among them, whether they are important, and how they might be harnessed to further the group’s work.
A diversity perspective includes “the rationale that guides people’s efforts to create and respond to cultural diversity in a work group; normative beliefs about the value of cultural identity at work; expectations about the kind of impact, if any, cultural differences can and should have on the group and its work; and beliefs about what constitutes progress toward the ideal multicultural work group” (Ely and Thomas 2001, 234.) Such a perspective might be writ- ten in mission statements or diversity policies, but more often such explicit statements refer to the work group’s espoused theory rather than the theory in use actually held by group members (Argyris and Schon 1996, 13). A group’s diversity perspective is the approach, usually implicit, un- derlying the way it defines its tasks and goals and how group members interact.
Ely and Thomas (2001) identify three diversity perspec- tives. The discrimination and fairness perspective is con- cerned with the recruitment and retention of employees from protected groups. While its commitment to redress- ing past inequities is both essential and laudable, the per- spective presumes that cultural dimensions of diversity, such as race, nationality, or gender, don’t have important consequences for work practices, that nothing is to be gained by surfacing and engaging differences. The access
Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 533
and legitimacy perspective challenges these notions to some extent. Organizations with this perspective celebrate cul- tural differences, but in simplistic and narrow ways. They are likely to bring in employees from nontraditional back- grounds to reach new clients and constituencies, such as hiring Hispanic employees to work in Spanish-speaking communities. There is little further investigation of the potential of diverse backgrounds and ideas.
Finally, the integration and learning perspective seeks to build, more deeply and comprehensively, on the varied skills, experiences, and ways of thinking of a diverse workforce. It suggests that organizations should “incorpo- rate employees’ perspectives into the main work of the or- ganization and to enhance work by rethinking primary tasks and redefining markets, products, strategies, missions, busi- ness practices and even cultures” (Thomas and Ely 1996, 85). Differences can be a source of growth, learning, and insight, but only if they are acknowledged and construc- tively explored.
To understand learning in culturally diverse groups re- quires integrating previous research on group learning with the literature on diversity perspectives.
Learning in Culturally Diverse Groups Figure 1 suggests a model for enabling learning in cul-
turally diverse groups. In order to learn, groups must have the integration and learning perspective, whether it is held implicitly or explicitly. They also must have generic Model II learning frames and behaviors, as illustrated in the work of Argyris and colleagues, Edmondson, and others (Ed- mondson 1999; Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985; Argyris and Schon 1996; Fisher and Torbert 1995). The model sug- gests that a group’s diversity perspective and learning frames and behaviors influence each other, resulting in a set of learning frames and actions that is specifically re- lated to cultural diversity. These frames and behaviors then enable learning in culturally diverse groups.
I will now explore each of these relationships in turn: How do diversity perspectives and learning frames and
behaviors influence each other to create specific learning frames and behaviors, and how do those specific frames lead to learning in multicultural groups?
Diversity Perspectives and Learning Frames and Behaviors
The model suggests that a group’s diversity perspective and its learning frames and actions influence each other, creating an overall environment that affects learning. If a group has both the integration and learning perspective and reflective learning frames and behaviors, then each will “activate” the other—that is, each adds an ingredient that makes the other come alive in a given group setting. The integration and learning perspective enlarges and contextualizes a group’s learning beliefs and behaviors; it allows them to address the particular challenges of learn- ing in culturally diverse groups. Just as important, the group’s learning beliefs and actions enable the group to enact its perspective on diversity: They provide the tools by which a group can mutually investigate their differences. I will elaborate each of these claims in turn.
The Integration and Learning Perspective Activates Generic Learning Frames and Behaviors. Why does this perspective activate learning in culturally diverse groups? Most importantly, and most simply, the integration and learning perspective is the only perspective that suggests cultural diversity is a source for learning, as indicated by its name. This approach contradicts the way that diversity is conceptualized in the other two perspectives.
Both the discrimination and fairness and the access and legitimacy perspectives share a basic color-blind stance, though they manifest it a little differently (Ely and Tho- mas 2001). The discrimination and fairness perspective argues that, although people may look different physiologi- cally, in fact people are just people and we are all the same in what really matters: how we think and what we do. While emphasizing our common humanity is important, especially when dealing with explicit racism and ethno- centrism, refusing to acknowledge cultural differences glosses over the very different histories of cultural groups in this country. It diminishes the legacy of slavery for Af- rican Americans and the impact of immigration and as- similation on white ethnic groups such as Eastern Euro- peans and Italians. It ignores the ongoing differences in experiences among cultural groups: for example, the fact that people of color are much more likely to experience discrimination, or that being bilingual allows deeper par- ticipation in multiple cultures.
Failure to acknowledge cultural differences also makes it impossible to consider how cultural background influ- ences our ideas and our contributions. It makes it difficult, for example, for an African American individual to con- sider that the way she approaches working with customers
Figure 1 A Model of Learning in Culturally Diverse Groups
Learning in culturally diverse groups
Integration and learning perspective
Generic high- learning frames and behaviors
Specific high- learning frames and behaviors related to cultural diversity
534 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5
might in some way trace back to experiences she had feel- ing unwelcome in some stores. It means that explicitly ask- ing about group members’ religious backgrounds as part of revamping human resource practices would be consid- ered unseemly or irrelevant, even though religious prac- tices may be affected by such policies as the holidays the organization chooses to close.
While the access and legitimacy perspective does sug- gest that cultural background matters, it limits it to very narrow spheres. It suggests that cultural background mat- ters only when members of a group are dealing with other members of their group: that the heritage of employees of Latino descent, for example, comes into play only when they have Hispanic customers. Members of nondominant groups have a special contribution only when dealing with other members of the same marginalized group. Therefore, it only makes sense to be aware of color within the group; color blindness is still the correct stance across groups.
The alternative—the integration and learning perspec- tive—conjectures that our cultural heritage brings a valu- able set of experiences that are broadly applicable to the way the organization does its work. The integration and learning perspective is quite explicitly not color blind: It acknowledges that our group identity says a great deal about our and our ancestors’ life experiences and informs who we are. Regarding the impact of cultural identity on work, this perspective argues that race, ethnicity, nationality, and other differences are extremely valuable resources because they often, though certainly not always, imply a different set of perspectives and cultural teachings. The integration and learning perspective differs from much of the cultural sensitivity literature (Adler 1991) in that it does not pre- sume to know, given a person’s cultural identity, what those experiences or teachings might be. It simply assumes that different life experiences are likely to bring different ways of thinking about work, and leveraging those different ways of thinking is likely to enhance effectiveness.
Learning Frames and Behaviors Activate the Integra- tion and Learning Perspective. While the integration and learning perspective is necessary to activate learning frames and behaviors, the reverse is also true. Without learning beliefs and actions, the integration and learning perspec- tive is simply an espoused perspective that will not mani- fest itself in the group’s work together. Learning beliefs and behaviors allow groups to undertake the difficult work of expressing and working with culturally based beliefs. Groups with the espoused integration and learning perspec- tive, but without a learning stance, might believe that cul- tural groups must be acknowledged and celebrated; that all groups have wisdom that can be tapped; and that creat- ing a multicultural rather than an assimilationist environ- ment is essential. However, they lack the learning tools necessary to create such an environment: capacities such
Table 3 Low-Learning and High-Learning Frames Related to Culturally Diverse Groups
Low learning 1. If I say something about race, I
may say something wrong or culturally insensitive.
2. As a white person, I don’t have anything to add to discussions about race.
3. As a person of color, I don’t have anything to learn from white people about race.
4. Racial issues are insoluble and I will make things worse if I say anything.
5. Talking about race makes me uncomfortable, so I don’t think we should do it.
6. People will think I’m too militant if I speak up.
7. There are no blacks in positions of power in this organization, so it’s clear nobody cares what we think and we have no authority—so I won’t say anything.
High learning 1. I should say something, even if
it might come off as prejudiced or racist, because it is an opportunity to learn.
2. Even though I’m white, I have something to contribute to discussions about race.
3. As a person of color, I could have something to learn from a white person about race.
4. Even though this is a racial issue—with a lot of history and complexity and no obvious solution—it still might be helpful to raise it.
5. Talking about race makes me uncomfortable—which could mean that is exactly what I should do.
6. I think this could be a helpful contribution, even though I may be considered too militant for saying it.
7. Even though there are no blacks in positions of power in this organization and I’m not convinced that anyone cares what we think, I will take the risk of speaking my mind.
as being able to surface and reflect on one’s embedded assumptions or to hold genuine curiosity on someone else’s point of view. In fact, an espoused integration and learning perspective could become a rhetorical device, a rigidly held belief used to promote a particular point of view and way of behaving, rather than a supple and flexible tool that al- lows new ways of working to come into being. In fact, any perspective—on diversity or any other topic—held in the absence of a learning stance can become an iron cage rather than an open door.
In summary, both the integration and learning perspec- tive and generic learning frames and behaviors must be present in order for learning to occur in culturally diverse groups. Each element activates the other; in other words, there is an interaction effect between the two elements.
Specific Learning Frames and Behaviors Related to Cultural Diversity. The interaction between the integra- tion and learning perspective and generic learning frames and behaviors enables the development of specific high- learning frames and behaviors related to cultural identity, which are crucial to developing a capacity for learning in culturally diverse groups. I suggest a number of these spe- cific high-learning frames and behaviors in tables 3 and 4, contrasting them with their low-learning equivalents. (I am not arguing that these specific frames and behaviors must be present; I am suggesting them only as examples.) I use race as an example of a cultural identity that may be sa-
Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 535
lient in a given work group, but other dimensions of iden- tity could be substituted, though the specific content of the frames might differ.
How Specific High-Learning Frames and Behaviors Facilitate Learning in Culturally Diverse Groups
Ample research has demonstrated that particular frames and behaviors are more likely to enhance learning (Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano 2001; Argyris and Schon 1996; Rudolph, Taylor, and Foldy 2001). Frames such as “mistakes are opportunities for learning” and behaviors such as inquiry into others’ perspectives and feelings cre- ate an atmosphere of curiosity, engagement, and safety. Such an atmosphere allows individuals to loosen their at- tachment to particular approaches and try on new ways of thinking and acting.
I suggest that high-learning frames and behaviors related to cultural diversity play the same role in culturally diverse groups. These frames and behaviors make three important contributions beyond generic high-learning frames and be- haviors. First, these frames and behaviors manifest the idea, suggested by the integration and learning perspective, that cultural differences are an important resource for thinking about the way work is done. Encouraging people to draw on their cultural experiences will enrich, deepen, and broaden a team’s approach to its work. Second, these frames and behaviors suggest that cultural differences are not only significant, they must be discussed. Given the charged na- ture of race, religion, and other identities in American soci- ety (Nkomo and Cox 1996; Omi and Winant 1994), this is a big change in most group norms. But it is impossible to draw on cultural differences if they are kept veiled. Finally, these frames and behaviors hold everyone in a group re- sponsible for addressing difference. Everyone has some- thing to bring to the table, given their background. Every- one is expected to be open to what others bring and to consider how it can be incorporated into work practices. A generic learning stance argues that differences must be dis- cussed and that individuals are responsible for their own learning. These specific frames and behaviors explicitly make charged cultural differences part of the equation.
These frames and behaviors enable learning in two ways. First, they enable learning from difference—that is, they encourage explicit discussion of cultural differences and how those differences affect the way we think about the group’s work. This broadens the pool of options for struc- turing work, designing strategy, and carrying out other key organizational tasks. Second, they also enable learning across difference, meaning they facilitate learning about a host of things that may be unrelated to cultural differences. This is because general learning in culturally diverse groups may be hampered by the more difficult dynamics often faced by such teams, as outlined earlier in this article. Given the heterogeneity of perspectives, the sense of discomfort and lack of fit felt by employees when working with people unlike themselves, and the issues of subgroup dominance and marginalization, diverse groups tend to have more dysfunctional conflict than homogeneous groups. These specific learning frames and behaviors help to establish a sense of safety in a diverse group, allowing everyone to feel more open to new ways of thinking and acting.
Conclusion Many public-sector organizations have been relatively
successful at diversifying their workforce, but they are still struggling to reap the benefits of that heterogeneity (Ospina 1996b). This article suggests one approach to enhancing the effectiveness of culturally diverse work groups by focusing
Table 4 Low-Learning and High-Learning Behaviors Related to Culturally Diverse Groups
Low learning 1. Make attributions about others
without testing them: “X is just saying that because she knows nothing about the Latino community.”
2. Advocate positions without illustrating them or suggesting a way to test them: “This issue has everything to do with race.”
3. Invoke abstract concepts that are impossible to disagree with: “People are people. Everyone is the same under the skin.”
4. Construct a situation as a dilemma or double bind; feel trapped: “If I don’t raise this, I don’t think we can make any progress. But if I do raise this, people will think I’m too militant. I’m stuck.”
5. Do not inquire into why you think, feel, or act the way you do: “Even though X thinks I can’t deal with racial issues, this is just the way I feel and that’s that.”
6. Do not inquire into why others think, feel or act the way they do. “Jeez, Y always gets that scared expression when we talk about race. What’s his problem?”
High learning 1. Make private attributions about
others public; test them: “I realize I’m sitting here thinking you are saying this because you are unfamiliar with the Latino community, but perhaps I am being unfair to you.”
2. Illustrate and suggest ways to test one’s advocacies: “I think this issue is about race because it relates to our two depart- ments, one of which is mostly black and the other is mostly white. Perhaps we should talk to several members of each department …”
3. When invoking abstract concepts, try to make them concrete and testable:. “I think people are people, so I worry about dividing our constituency base into different ethnic markets. So perhaps we should do some research …”
4. Make dilemmas public and discussable: “I realize I feel caught in a bind. I want to raise an issue, but I’m afraid people will see me as too militant. But I think we’re stuck and this might help us get unstuck. So I want to take this risk …”
5. Publicly reflect on why you are thinking, feeling or acting as you are: “I wonder why I feel so strongly about this? Perhaps because I grew up in an all- white neighborhood and I don’t have much experience …”
6. Inquire into why others are thinking, feeling or acting the way they are: “Y, you have a worried look on your face. Are you feeling concerned?
536 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5
on how groups can learn from and across difference. It pro- poses a model that builds on work on group learning and diversity perspectives and suggests that two elements must be present: the integration and learning perspective on di- versity (Ely and Thomas 2001) and generic, high-learning frames and behaviors (Argyris and Schon 1974). These two elements each activate the other—turn them on, so to speak. The interaction between the elements results in specific high- learning frames and behaviors related to cultural diversity. Those frames and behaviors then catalyze learning in cul- turally heterogeneous groups. In addition to providing this framework, integrating the broader literature on team learn- ing with the construct of diversity perspectives enriches our understanding of both concepts.
Contributions to the Literature on Group Learning
Recognizing the particular challenges of culturally di- verse groups forces researchers to consider the social con- text in which learning takes place. Although the impact of organizational structure and culture on learning has been well researched (Popper and Lipshitz 1998; Nevis, DiBella, and Gould 1995; Levitt and March 1988), the role of the larger social environment remains largely invisible. But as embedded intergroup theory (Alderfer and Smith 1982; Alderfer et al. 1980) reminds us, groups in organizations are embedded in multiple contexts, not just departmental and organizational, but also societal. Therefore, group in- teractions and intergroup relations are not immune from larger societal dynamics. But most researchers on group learning conceptualize teams as acting in a social vacuum.
Teasing out the particular dynamics of multicultural groups requires placing those teams in a larger context and considering the impact of demography, history, privilege, and marginalization on their capacity for learning. The concept of diversity perspectives argues that diverse groups have a way of thinking about that broader context, even if their models are usually implicit and unacknowledged. Groups with a discrimination and fairness perspective be- lieve that, although societal inequities must be addressed through equal opportunity and affirmative action, cultural differences are not significant and should be muted. Groups with an access and legitimacy perspective believe that cul- tural background is important only when working with particular, usually nondominant, populations. Only groups with an integration and learning perspective believe that cultural experience is a resource for learning—that our experiences as members of social-identity groups should explicitly be brought into the workplace as material to en- rich our work. Therefore, the concept of diversity perspec- tives embeds learning in its social context and suggests that different approaches to that context will affect a group’s capacity to learn from and across cultural difference.
When we look at the experiences of culturally hetero- geneous groups, we learn more about the importance of power as it affects learning. Of course, all groups have to deal with power dynamics (Ridgeway and Berger 1986; Ridgeway 1997), and there is a growing recognition that power dynamics must be addressed in order for learning to happen. Edmondson (2002), for example, argues that whether groups are able to learn depends on whether power differences are exaggerated or minimized. In a study of 12 teams, she found that a subsection of teams were quite skilled at group reflection, but unable to take action when it might have threatened the authority of the group’s leader. This and other work (Contu and Willmott 2003; Lee 1997) highlight the role of power dynamics associated with or- ganizational level or position power (Finkelstein 1992). Consequences of learning that threaten the status of the superordinate may be suppressed in some way, damaging the integrity and reputation of the learning process.
However, little work has explored power inequities as- sociated with different cultural identity groups and their impact on learning. Multicultural groups will certainly have power dynamics related to organizational level, as do homogeneous teams, but they also have culturally as- sociated power dynamics. Certain subgroups may be rep- resented in greater numbers. Also, regardless of repre- sentation, certain subgroups may be dominant in some way while others are marginalized. Again, the notion of diversity perspectives provides a foundation for thinking about these kinds of power issues in groups. The integra- tion and learning perspective argues that cultural back- ground is connected to work. But to truly mine that re- source, groups must address obstacles to fully integrating the ideas and approaches of all of their members. This means that a group must somehow deal with power ineq- uities within the group.
Addressing the particularities of multicultural teams places learning in a broad social context that considers the consequences of cultural background and the particular power dynamics associated with cultural differences. This begins the process of grounding the concept of learning in a particular social and historical reality, rather than defin- ing it as disconnected from its source.
Contributions to the Literature on Diversity The concept of diversity perspectives is an important
advance in the broader diversity literature because it helps us understand why some diverse groups are more effective than others. Identifying the three perspectives provides a useful tool for work groups to think about their own ratio- nale for creating heterogeneity. However, as the construct’s authors themselves point out, “More theoretical and em- pirical development is needed to understand fully the inte- gration-and-learning perspective’s potential for connect-
Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 537
ing organizations’ cultural diversity to their core work and work processes” (Ely and Thomas 2001, 270).
The literature on team learning provides a useful start- ing point for this exploration. What is the mechanism that connects diversity to work processes? According to the learning literature, it is learning itself, the process of syn- thesizing a variety of different perspectives into action- able ideas. This literature has traditionally focused only on functional or professional diversity and the expertise and knowledge they spawn (Edmondson and Moingeon 1998). However, it does suggest specific frames and be- haviors that enable groups to take advantage of that diver- sity, rather than being torn apart by it. The stance of curi- osity and inquiry implicit in those frames and behaviors is essential to thinking about any kind of difference, and there- fore is an important starting point for linking cultural di- versity to organizational processes. Grounding the con- cept of diversity perspectives in the established learning literature elaborates and enriches its connection to what we know about learning.
The increasing diversity of public organizations presents a challenge: Can heterogeneity be harnessed for increased organizational effectiveness? This article suggests that learning from and across difference could be one path to enhanced performance.
References
Adler, Nancy J. 1991. International Dimensions of Organiza- tional Behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Alderfer, Clayton P., and Ken K. Smith. 1982. Studying Inter- group Relations Embedded in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 27(1): 35–65.
Alderfer, Clayton P., Charleen J. Alderfer, Leota Tucker, and Robert Tucker. 1980. Diagnosing Race Relations in Manage- ment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 16(2): 135–66.
Argote, Linda, Debroah Gruenfeld, and Charles Naquin. 2001. Group Learning in Organizations. In Groups at Work: Theory and Research, edited by M.E. Turner, 369–411. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Argyris, Chris, Robert Putnam, and Diana McLain Smith. 1985. Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schon. 1974. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
———. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. 1989. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of Management Review 14(1): 20–39.
Ayas, Karen, and Nick Zeniuk. 2001. Project-Based Learning: Building Communities of Reflective Practitioners. Manage- ment Learning 32(1): 61–76.
Brief, Arthur P. 1998. Attitudes In and Around Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Brown, Andrew D., and Ken Starkey. 2000. Organizational Iden- tity and Learning: A Psychodynamic Perspective. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 102–20.
Chatman, Jennifer A., and Francis J. Flynn. 2001. The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Con- sequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams. Academy of Management Journal 44(5): 956–74.
Chatman, Jennifer A., Jeffrey T. Polzer, Sigal G. Barsade, and Margaret A. Neale. 1998. Being Different Yet Feeling Simi- lar: The Influence of Demographic Composition and Organi- zational Culture on Work Processes and Outcomes. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly 43(4): 749–80.
Child, John, and Suzana Rodrigues. 2003. Social Identity and Organizational Learning. In Blackwell Handbook of Organi- zational Learning and Knowledge Management, edited by M. Easterby-Smith and M.A. Lyles, 535–56. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Contu, Alessia, and Hugh Willmott. 2003. Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learn- ing Theory. Organization Science 14(3): 283–96.
Cox, Taylor, Jr. 1994. Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett- Koehler.
Cox, Taylor, Sharon Lobel, and Poppy McLeod. 1991. Effects of Ethnic Group Cultural Differences on Cooperative and Competitive Behavior on a Group Task. Academy of Man- agement Journal 34(4): 827–47.
Dodgson, Mark. 1993. Organization Learning: A Review of Some Literatures. Organization 14(3): 375–94.
Earley, P. Christopher, and Elaine Mosakowski. 2000. Creating Hybrid Team Cultures: An Empirical Test of Transnational Team Functioning. Academy of Management Journal 43(1): 26–49.
Edmondson, Amy. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(3): 350–83.
———. 2002. The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective. Organization Sci- ence 13(2): 128–46.
Edmondson, Amy C., Richard M. Bohmer, and Gary P. Pisano. 2001. Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technol- ogy Implementation in Hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(4): 685–716.
Edmondson, Amy, and Bertrand Moingeon. 1998. From Orga- nizational Learning to the Learning Organization. Manage- ment Learning 29(1): 5–20.
Elsass, Priscilla M., and Laura M. Graves. 1997. Demographic Diversity in Decision-Making Groups: The Experiences of Women and People of Color. Academy of Management Re- view 22(4): 946–73.
Ely, Robin J., and David A. Thomas. 2001. Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 46(2): 229–73.
Falk, Gideon, and Shoshana Falk. 1981. The Impact of Decision Rules on the Distribution of Power in Problem-Solving Teams with Unequal Power. Group and Organization Studies 6(2): 211–23.
538 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5
Finkelstein, Sydney. 1992. Power in Top Management Teams: Dimensions, Measurement and Validation. Academy of Man- agement Journal 35(3): 505–38.
Fisher, Dalmar, and William R. Torbert. 1995. Personal and Organizational Transformations. London: McGraw-Hill.
Gibson, Christina, and Freek Vermeulen. 2003. A Healthy Di- vide: Subgroups as a Stimulus for Team Learning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 202–39.
Huber, George P. 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contrib- uting Processes and Literatures. Organization Science 2(1): 88–115.
Jehn, Karen A., Gregory B. Northcraft, and Margaret A. Neale. 1999. Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups. Admin- istrative Science Quarterly 44(4): 741–63.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. [1977]1993. Men and Women of the Corporation. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins.
Konrad, Alison M. 2003. Defining the Domain of Workplace Diversity Scholarship. Group and Organization Management 28(1): 4–17.
Lau, Dora C., and J. Keith Murnighan. 1998. Demographic Di- versity and Faultlines: The Compositional Dynamics of Or- ganizational Groups. Academy of Management Review 23(2): 325–40.
Lee, Fiona. 1997. When the Going Gets Tough, Do the Tough Ask for Help? Help Seeking and Power Motivation in Orga- nizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72(3): 336–63.
Levin, Shana, Christopher M. Federico, Jim Sidanius, and Joshua L. Rabinowitz. 2002. Social Dominance Orientation and In- tergroup Bias: The Legitimation of Favoritism for High-Sta- tus Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(2): 144–57.
Levitt, Barbara, and James G. March. 1988. Organizational Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319–40.
McGrath, Joseph E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nevis, Edwin C., Anthony J. DiBella, and Janet M. Gould. 1995. Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review 36(2): 73–80.
Nkomo, Stella. 1992. The Emperor Has No Clothes: Rewriting “Race In Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 17(3): 487–513.
Nkomo, Stella M., and Taylor Cox, Jr. 1996. Diverse Identities in Organizations. In Handbook of Organization Studies, ed- ited by S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord, 338–56. London: Sage Publications.
Omi, M., and H. Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.
Ospina, Sonia. 1996a. Illusions of Opportunity. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
———. 1996b. Realizing the Promise of Diversity. In Hand- book of Public Administration, edited by J. Perry, 441–59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
———. 2001. Managing Diversity in the Civil Service: A Con- ceptual Framework for Public Organizations. In Managing Diversity in the Civil Service, edited by UNDESA-IIAS, 5– 10. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Popper, Micha, and Raanan Lipshitz. 1998. Organizational Learn- ing Mechanisms: A Structural and Cultural Approach to Or- ganizational Learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 34(2): 161–79.
Ragins, Belle Rose. 1997. Diversified Mentoring Relationships in Organizations: A Power Perspective. Academy of Manage- ment Review 22(2): 482–521.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1997. Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment. American So- ciological Review 62(2): 218–35.
Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and J. Berger. 1986. Expectations, Legiti- mation, and Dominance Behavior in Task Groups. American Sociological Review 51(5): 603–17.
Rudolph, J.W., S.S. Taylor, and E.G. Foldy. 2001. Collaborative Off-Line Reflection: A Way to Develop Skill in Action Sci- ence and Action Inquiry. In Handbook of Action Research, edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 405–12. London: Sage Publications.
Schneider, B. 1987. The People Make the Place. Personnel Psy- chology 40(3): 437–53.
Shaw, James B., and Elaine Barrett-Power. 1998. The Effects of Diversity on Small Work Group Processes and Performance. Human Relations 51(10): 1307–25.
Shaw, M. 1981. Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Group Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto. 1999. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Charles Brody. 1989. Interruptions in Group Discussions: The Effects of Gender and Group Com- position. American Sociological Review 54(3): 424–35.
Staw, B.M., L.E. Sandelands, and Jane Dutton. 1981. Threat- Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multi-Level Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(4): 501–24.
Steele, Claude M. 1997. A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psy- chologist 52(6): 613–29.
Taylor, Sully, and Joyce S. Osland. 2003. The Impact of Inter- cultural Communication on Global Organizational Learning. In Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management, edited by M. Easterby-Smith and M.A. Lyles, 212–32. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Thomas, David A., and Robin J. Ely. 1996. Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard Business Review 74(5): 79–90.
Tsui, Anne S., Terri D. Egan, and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1992. Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizational Attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(4): 549– 79.
Tsui, Anne S., Terri D. Egan, and K. Xin. 1995. Diversity in Organizations: Lessons from Demography Research. In Di- versity in Organizations: New Perspectives from a Changing Workplace, edited by M. Chemers, S. Okampo, and M. Costanzo, 191–219. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Williams, Katherine Y., and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1998. De- mography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. Research in Organizational Behavior 20: 77–140.
,
92 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009
P. Edward French is an assistant
professor in the Department of Political
Science and Public Administration at
Mississippi State University. He is the
coauthor of three books and has published
in numerous academic journals. His
teaching and research interests encompass
local government administration, including
human resource issues, budgeting, public
policy, and selected topics in public
management.
E-mail: [email protected]
Recent Trends in Human Resource Management
Numerous aspects of the day-to-day operations of local
governments are subject to legal scrutiny; public manag-
ers and offi cials must be keenly aware of the legal rights
and protections that extend to both citizens and employ-
ees of local governments. Th is research evaluates several
areas of concern in the human resource administration of
municipal governments with respect to the management
of public employees within the protections set forth by the
legislative and judicial branches of the federal govern-
ment. Sample cases fi led from 2000 to 2007 against local
governments in Tennessee involving Title VII violations,
retaliation, hostile work environment, Family and Medi-
cal Leave Act violations, and other employee grievances
are detailed. Th e intent of this analysis is to highlight
many of the laws and legal principles that relate to
municipal human resources management and to provide
scholars and practitioners with a brief overview of the li-
abilities that may arise from the employment relationship
between local governments and their employees.
M any of the laws established in this country,
especially those defi ned by the U.S. Con-
stitution, have been used to protect the
rights of our citizenry from infringement by the gov-
ernment; however, there are times when the actions of
federal, state, and local governments and their em-
ployees violate these protections in the provision of
services, the enforcement of the laws, and the manage-
ment of government employees. Yet the legal account-
ability of the government unit and its staff may
depend on the branch, circumstances, and outcome of
the violation. Th e federal government has always
possessed sovereign immunity and cannot be sued
unless it has waived this immunity or has consented
to the suit; the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitu-
tion grants similar sovereign
immunity to the states. 1 Local
governments, however, lack
protection from most court pro-
ceedings because of the U.S.
Supreme Court’s interpretation
that only states and arms of the
state possess immunity from suits
authorized by federal law ( Durchslag 2002 ). Th is
Court’s long-standing precedent has established that
political subdivisions of the states (counties, munici-
palities, school districts, and other local entities) are
not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 2
In 1946, Congress passed the Tort Claims Act, which
allowed citizens to sue their government for injuries
caused by the negligent action of federal employees.
Most state governments followed with similar statutes.
Historically, public employees have been protected as
individuals from constitutional torts by the doctrine
of absolute immunity established under American
common law ( Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2005 ). Th is
doctrine was reexamined by the courts in the 1970s as
a result of the expansion of both individual constitu-
tional rights and civil liability in the American legal
system ( Riccucci 2006 ). While the Civil Rights Act of
1871 (amended and codifi ed in 42 U.S. Code, section
1983) was enacted after the Civil War to protect African
Americans in the South from abuses by the Ku Klux
Klan, litigation under this statute was fairly uncom-
mon until 1961. In Monroe v. Pape (365 U.S. 167
[1961]), the Supreme Court held that local govern-
ments were wholly immune from suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, which imposes civil liability on every
“person” who deprives another of his or her federally
protected rights. Th e Court reasoned that Congress
had not intended the word “person” in this section to
apply to municipalities. Th is case was later overturned
in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the State of
New York (436 U.S. 658 [1978]), in which the Court
determined that local governments, municipal corpo-
rations, and school boards were “persons” subject to
liability under § 1983 and were not wholly immune
from § 1983 suits. Th is decision
also stated that local government
offi cials could be sued in their
offi cial capacity as “persons”
under § 1983 in those cases in
which a local government would
be subject to suit in its own
name. Th is section also allows
P. Edward French Mississippi State University
Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer:
Lessons to Be Learned from a Review of Lawsuits Filed
against Local Governments
. . . the legal accountability of the government unit and its
staff may depend on the branch, circumstances, and outcome of
the violation.
Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 93
individuals to sue state offi cials in state or federal
court for civil rights violations. Th e doctrine of abso-
lute immunity has been replaced by qualifi ed immu-
nity for many employees of the public sector and still
protects government offi cials performing discretionary
functions as long as their actions do not violate clearly
established law. Qualifi ed immunity protects public
offi cials in all levels of government from civil suits
only if they have acted reasonably and in good faith
( Riccucci 2006 ). However, if a state or local govern-
ment offi cial violates a federally protected right of an
individual, such as those defi ned in the First Amend-
ment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the equal
protection clause of the Constitution, civil action for
the deprivation of rights can be initiated and redress
sought through the court system.
Numerous aspects of the day-to-day operations of
municipalities have attracted legal scrutiny; lawsuits
and judgments against municipalities, municipal
employees, and elected offi cials have increased dra-
matically over the last several years in many functional
areas as a result of the ruling in Monell ( LaBrec and
Foerster 1985 ). Th ird-party liabilities arising from
intentional or unintentional torts, statutory liabilities,
and contractual liabilities present a serious threat.
Also, individuals may fi le a case against the municipal-
ity alleging negligence of its offi cials or employees. In
addition, routine human resource functions such as
recruitment, selection, promotion, performance ap-
praisals, and merit systems have the potential for legal
scrutiny, jury trials, compensa-
tory and punitive damages, and
other burdens imposed under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of
1991, the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and
tort theories such as defamation,
misrepresentation, and negligence. While these acts
have been implemented to protect employees from
discrimination and arbitrary management decisions
and focus personnel decisions on job qualifi cations
and job related actions, the resulting increase in civil
rights and employment case law has also made it more
diffi cult for employers to take justifi ed action against
their employees ( Woodard 2005 ).
Th is research evaluates several areas of concern in the
human resource administration of municipal govern-
ments with respect to the management of local gov-
ernment employees within the protections set forth
by the legislative and judicial branches of the federal
government. It is inevitable that most local govern-
ments will experience some form of legal scrutiny
regarding their human resource operations. Decisions
in recruitment and selection, promotion, discipline,
and dismissal often fuel discrimination and other
types of lawsuits by disgruntled applicants, current
employees, and former employees. In many cases, the
nature of the employment relationship and the na-
ture of the employment decision are factors in deter-
mining whether a dispute has actual legal merit. An
overview of selected laws and legal principles that
pertain to the nature of the employment relationship
between municipal governments and their employees
is included in this analysis. In addition, select laws
and legal principles that describe the potential liabil-
ity for employment discrimination are discussed.
Sample cases fi led against local governments in Ten-
nessee involving Title VII violations, retaliation,
hostile work environment, Family and Medical Leave
Act violations, and other employee grievances are
detailed in this study to illustrate the liabilities that
may arise for municipalities in the employment law
arena.
Public Sector Employees and Their Employers Th e employment relationship between public sector
employees and public entities can be very diff erent
from the employment relationship between private
sector employees and private entities. Most individu-
als employed in the private sector are subject to an
at-will employment relationship with their organiza-
tion. Employment at will allows either party to ter-
minate the work relationship at
any time. Th is term is derived
from the court decision in Payne
v. Western and Atlantic RA Com-
pany (82 Tenn. 597 [1884]),
which held that an employer in
the private sector does not have
to provide cause to an employee
who is terminated ( Patton et al.
2002 ). At-will employment
often prevents private sector
employees from claiming a
property right in their positions within the organiza-
tion. Yet the private employer’s discretion regarding
termination is not entirely without limits. Employers
may be found liable by the courts in cases in which
there may be an implied contract or in which the
employer terminates an employee after the individ-
ual complains of harassment or accuses the employer
of some other form of misconduct involving dis-
crimination or retaliation. However, with at-will
employment arrangements, the employee who chal-
lenges an arbitrary discharge shoulders the burden of
proof in the judicial proceeding; even employees
who have legitimate claims may be discouraged from
pursuing legal recourse because of the costs, time
requirements, and justifi cations required ( Gertz
2006 ).
Th e employment relationship between public sector
employees and public entities can be very diff erent from the
employment relationship between private sector
employees and private entities.
94 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009
Most public sector employees, however, are privy to a
unique set of legal protections guaranteed by several
federal and state laws. Th e Constitution often pro-
tects the public sector employee’s rights to freedom
of speech and association, privacy, equal protection,
and due process, just as it protects these same rights
of all citizens; the Supreme Court has continued to
rule that public employees have substantive constitu-
tional rights and protections against the actions of
government employers ( Rosenbloom 2007 ). In addi-
tion, a civil service employee is considered to have a
bona fi de property right to his or her position after
he or she has progressed beyond the probationary
term of employment ( Patton et al. 2002 ). Termina-
tion of a civil employee by a federal, state, or local
government requires just cause that in many cases
must be viewed as indisputable if the employee fi les
a wrongful discharge claim against the government
employer. At the present time, only a handful of
states, including Florida, Georgia, and Texas, have
instituted substantial reforms to the civil service
system, such as at-will employment relationships
that aim to increase executive control over public
employees ( Coggburn 2006 ).
Over the past two decades, these at-will employment
initiatives and a wave of other reforms have taken
place, aimed at enhancing the effi ciency of the public
sector and the control that government has over it.
New Public Management and its accompanying
changes have attempted to make public entities func-
tion similar to the private sector. Debureaucratization,
decentralization, and changes in career civil service
have been central themes in this reinventing govern-
ment movement ( Coggburn 2000; Hou et al. 2000;
Kearney and Hays 1998; Kellough 1999; Kellough
and Selden 2003 ). Deregulation of government per-
sonnel administration has been suggested and imple-
mented to alleviate notable concerns in the traditional
civil system, such as undeserved tenure, the rewarding
of seniority rather than merit, and certain diffi culties
associated with employee discipline ( Coggburn 2000 ).
Proponents suggest that at-will employment enhances
governments’ eff orts to make their employees more
accountable for performance and eases legal restraints
on the termination of public employees who are poor
performers or discipline problems. However, concerns
regarding program implementation, job security, work
environment, administrative accountability, and per-
formance of civil service reforms are still being de-
bated as to whether these private sector approaches
off er signifi cant opportunities for government em-
ployers to overcome employee protections under the
civil service system and enhance public sector em-
ployee responsiveness, productivity, and management
( Battaglio and Condrey 2006; Bowman 2002; Bowman
et al. 2003; Condrey 2002; Hays and Sowa 2006;
Kearney and Hays 1998; Kellough 1999; Nigro and
Kellough 2000 ).
Human resource areas of legal concern in the public
sector environment regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are
very similar to those found in the private sector and
often include hiring and promotion processes, disabil-
ity accommodations, and hostile work environment
or retaliation claims. Hiring decisions may subject the
local government employer to allegations of discrimi-
nation based on race, sex, or age. Also, claims of dis-
parate treatment or disparate impact may emerge after
recruitment and selection takes place. Disparate treat-
ment involves intentional discrimination by the em-
ployer that results in improper distinctions among
individuals based on a protected status. Disparate
(adverse) impact is the unintentional discrimination
that arises from employment practices that appear
neutral but adversely aff ect those with protected sta-
tus. Th e overall goal of the local government hiring
process should be to identify and select the applicant
with the most appropriate qualifi cations for the va-
cancy within the municipality. However, just consid-
eration must be given to individuals who fall within
the protected classes established by Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other acts, including the
1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (see table 1 ).
Affi rmative action also requires that federal govern-
ment agencies and contractors not only refrain from
discriminating against minority individuals in their
employment practices but also take steps to actively
recruit minority individuals for employment ( Kellough
2006 ). Both public and private sector employers are
also liable if discrimination occurs in their promotion,
training, pay, benefi ts, discipline, and termination
processes.
Protection from sexual harassment in the workplace
also falls under Title VII. Sexual harassment is defi ned
by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
as “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sex-
ual nature constitute sexual harassment when this
conduct explicitly or implicitly aff ects an individual’s
employment, unreasonably interferes with an individ-
ual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating,
hostile, or off ensive work environment” ( EEOC
2007 ).
Th is statute applies to employers with 15 or more
employees, including federal, state, and local govern-
ments. Municipalities are expected to encourage and
maintain work environments free of sexual harassment
by implementing no-tolerance policies that are eff ec-
tively communicated to employees, providing sexual
harassment training for employees, establishing a
complaint and grievance process for employees, and
making plans for immediate and appropriate action in
response to employee complaints ( EEOC 2007 ). Both
public and private employers are viewed by the courts
as liable for the sexual harassment actions of their
Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 95
employees. In addition to claims
of sexual harassment, allegations of
a hostile work environment may
arise if this conduct interferes with
the employee’s work and creates
an off ensive work environment.
Retaliation may also be charged if
a government employee is treated
diff erently once he or she has
reported an alleged misconduct or
violation of policy by another
government employee or offi cial. Local government
administrators must be very familiar with these legal
rights and protections, or they put themselves at risk
for allegations of discrimination and misconduct in
their human resource policies and actions. Th e follow-
ing section details actual cases that have been fi led
against local governmental entities in the state of
Tennessee by potential, current, and former employees
who have alleged violations of several of these laws
and legal principles.
Case Studies Th e federal court cases for this research study were
found through a search of Public Access to Court
Records (PACER, http://www.pacer.psc.uscourts.
gov ), which listed more than 350 court cases that
were fi led from 2000 to 2007 against public entities
in Tennessee within the U.S. district court system
and the U.S. court of appeals. Th e search was limited
to cases that alleged employment discrimination in
hiring, promotion, and fi ring; violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act; and violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. 3 Detailed information for
several of these cases was found in a search of Lexis-
Nexis Academic. Th is informa-
tion included the prior history
of the case, opinion, and dis-
position of the court. Th e
lawsuits that are included in
this discussion distinctly illus-
trate several of the legal issues
that local government entities
may encounter in their daily
personnel operations. Both
court decisions in favor of the
municipality and against the municipality are
presented.
Discrimination in Hiring Numerous cases found during this time period al-
leged discrimination in the hiring, promotion, and
termination decisions of several municipalities in
Tennessee. One individual brought suit against a
municipality under the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973
alleging that the city had refused to hire him as a
police offi cer because he was infected with the human
immunodefi ciency virus (HIV) ( Holiday v. City of
Chattanooga, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit, no. 98-5619, 2000). In this case, the city of
Chattanooga had extended this applicant an employ-
ment off er that was contingent on the passing of a
physical examination required by state statute.
During the physical examination, the potential em-
ployee informed the examining physician that he was
HIV positive. As a result of this disclosure, the
medical examiner concluded that the individual was
not strong enough to withstand the physical require-
ments of the police offi cer position; he advised the
Table 1 Employment Laws and Statues
Laws and Principles Summary
Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin. Executive Order 10925 (1961) Prohibits federal government and its contractors from employment discrimination because
of race, creed, color, or national origin and requires that these employers take affi rmative action in employment practices.
Executive Order 11246 (1965) Prohibits the federal government from contracting with any public entity or private entity found to have personnel policies that discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
Executive Order 11375 (1967) Prohibits sex as a basis of discrimination for the federal government and its contractors. Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967)
Prohibits employment discrimination of individuals age 40 and over.
Equal Employment Opportunity Act (1972)
Prohibits discrimination and extends affi rmative action policies to state and local governments and prohibits discrimination by private sector employers with 15 or more employees.
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) Prohibits discrimination in employment based on a known physical or mental impairment against a qualifi ed individual with a disability.
Older Workers Protection Act (1990) Amendment to Age Discrimination in Employment Act that broadened discrimination to include distinctions that may be made in employee benefi ts based on age and prohibited such actions.
Civil Rights Act of 1991 Allows jury trials and compensatory and punitive damages in discrimination cases. Also alters the burden of proof and other technical aspects of some cases.
Family and Medical Leave Act (1993) Individuals who are determined eligible may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid personal leave per year for certain medical reasons. After this absence, the covered employee is entitled to return to the same position or another position that has equal pay, benefi ts, and working conditions.
Retaliation may . . . be charged if a government employee is treated diff erently once he or she has reported an alleged misconduct or violation of
policy by another government employee or offi cial.
96 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009
municipality that this applicant did not pass the
medical examination.
Th e plaintiff had previously passed a written examina-
tion and completed a physical agility test for the city a
year prior to being invited to interview for the open
position. After receipt of the medical examination
report, the administrator of the city’s Department of
Safety decided to withdraw the off er, and the city’s
personnel director informed the applicant that the
municipality could not hire him because other em-
ployees and the public would be put at risk. Th e po-
tential employee fi led suit in the district court alleging
that the city had violated the Americans with Disabili-
ties Act and the Rehabilitation Act by basing this
hiring decision on his HIV status.
Th e U.S. district court granted summary judgment to
the city, noting that it had withdrawn its conditional
off er of employment only because the plaintiff could
not pass the physical examination mandated by state
law, not because of any disability this individual pos-
sessed. Th e court stated that the city had a right to
reasonably rely on the physician’s report as substantive
evidence that the applicant could not meet the physi-
cal requirements of the police offi cer position.
Th e U.S. court of appeals, however, reversed this
decision. Th e appellate court ruled that the district
court had erred in accepting the physician’s report as
dispositive evidence of the individual’s alleged inabil-
ity to perform as a police offi cer. Th e plaintiff had
presented suffi cient evidence to the appellate court
that this physician had failed to complete the indi-
vidualized determination required by the ADA and
had determined the applicant to be unqualifi ed be-
cause of his HIV status. Th e ADA mandates an indi-
vidualized inquiry in determining whether an
employee’s disability or other condition disqualifi es
him or her from a certain position. Th is inquiry must
evaluate the individual’s actual medical condition and
the impact, if any, that this condition may have on the
individual’s ability to perform the requirements of the
position. Th e court of appeals also stated that a ratio-
nal trier of fact could conclude that the municipal
offi cial had withdrawn the employment off er because
of the fear that this individual would transmit the
human immunodefi ciency virus while employed by
the city. As a result of the evidence presented in this
case, the U.S. court of appeals reversed the district
court’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of the
city.
Another suit involving alleged age and sex discrimina-
tion was brought against the city of Cookeville and its
police chief when the city failed to hire a former em-
ployee who had voluntarily resigned from two posi-
tions previously held with the city ( Andrews v. City of
Cookeville, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-
cuit, no. 01-6413, 2003). Th is individual had resigned
the fi rst time when the municipality requested that
the employee move into the city while he was still
attending school in an adjacent community. Th e
employee had resigned a second time to accept a
position as a criminal investigator in a public defend-
er’s offi ce. When the municipality had an opening for
a police offi cer, the plaintiff applied for the position,
passed the written and agility examinations, and was
interviewed. After these three segments of the applica-
tion process were completed, the individual was
ranked eighth and was not off ered employment.
As a result of this hiring decision, the plaintiff brought
suit against the city and its police chief alleging age
and sex discrimination. Th e age discrimination claim
was fi led as a result of a comment made by the police
chief during the applicant’s agility examination, in
which the chief compared this individual to George
Foreman because he did not know when to quit. Th e
sex discrimination claim resulted when the position
was off ered to a female. Th e police chief had allegedly
informed the plaintiff that the female applicant was
hired because she was a qualifi ed female who ranked
close to the top in the interview process. After this
opening was fi lled, the city also hired three additional
offi cers out of the same applicant pool, one of whom
had allegedly scored lower on the oral interview than
the plaintiff . Th e plaintiff claimed to be more quali-
fi ed because of his education, training, and experi-
ence. After hearing the facts of this case, the federal
district court granted the city’s motion for summary
judgment and dismissed the action.
Th e plaintiff appealed the judgment on rejection of
the age discrimination claim to the U.S. court of
appeals. In its review of the decision, the appellate
court found that the district court appeared to have
accepted that the plaintiff had presented enough
evidence to satisfy a prima facie burden for an age
discrimination claim. Th e city argued that the plaintiff
was not qualifi ed for the police offi cer position be-
cause he had been designated ineligible for rehire after
the second resignation of employment from the city.
Both the district and appellate courts rejected the
city’s contention. Th e court of appeals found fault
with the district court because it had only considered
the city’s hiring of the female applicant in its assess-
ment of the city’s nondiscriminatory reason for not
hiring the plaintiff for the position. Th e district court
did not consider the applicant who had scored lower
on the oral interview than the plaintiff but was still
off ered a position with the city, nor did the district
court off er an explanation as to why consideration of
the facts were limited to the female hire. Th e appellant
found fault with this omission and asked the court of
appeals to consider the hiring of the applicant with
the lower oral interview score, the police chief ’s
reference to George Foreman, and the police chief ’s
Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 97
participation in the hiring process as suffi cient evi-
dence for a trier of fact to disbelieve the city’s nondis-
crimination explanation for its actions. Th e appellate
court agreed with the appellant’s contentions, reversed
the district court’s decision, and remanded the case for
further proceedings on the age discrimination claim.
Th e city of Clarksville was named defendant in a case
fi led by a plaintiff who alleged the city had used dis-
crimination in its employment decision not to rehire
him ( Tartt v. City of Clarksville, U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit no. 04-5925, 2005). Th e plaintiff
had previously been employed by the police depart-
ment and had resigned when disciplinary action to
terminate his employment because of several repri-
mands and a violation of department rules for neglect
of duty was initiated. Th is individual met with the
police chief three months later and requested to be
rehired; however, his request was denied.
In a suit fi led with the U.S. district court, this indi-
vidual argued that the police department was guilty of
race discrimination in its refusal to rehire and that he
had been discriminated against during his tenure with
the department. Mr. Tartt noted that eight Caucasian
offi cers had resigned and been rehired by the city
within a year. Also, the plaintiff claimed that this
discrimination had contributed to a forced resignation
from the police force. Th e district court found that
the plaintiff had put forth enough evidence to make
out a prima facie case of racial discrimination against
the city under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411
U.S. 792, 36 L.Ed. 2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817 [1973]). 4
Th e city did concede that the plaintiff had established
the fi rst three elements required; for the purposes of
summary judgment, the court concluded that the
plaintiff had demonstrated a genuine dispute of mate-
rial fact regarding less favorable treatment in the re-
quest for rehire. However, the court ruled that the
plaintiff had not presented suffi cient evidence to rebut
the city’s claim that rehire was not enacted because of
the nondiscriminatory reason of signifi cant disciplin-
ary and personal problems. Th e eight offi cers previ-
ously rehired were not similarly situated employees
with disciplinary problems. As a result, the district
court granted summary judgment to the city.
Discrimination in Promotion Other court cases have arisen as a result of the promo-
tion processes utilized by certain municipalities in
Tennessee. Th e Memphis Police Department was sued
over a process that was implemented to promote
several patrol offi cers to the rank of sergeant ( Johnson
et al. v. City of Memphis, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit no. 01-6111, 2003). Th is process ini-
tially consisted of four components: (1) a written test
(20 percent), (2) a practical exercise test (50 percent),
(3) performance evaluations for the previous two years
(20 percent), and (4) seniority points (10 percent).
Th e city informed candidates that they would be
ranked based on total scores and the promotions
would be based on these rankings. Allegations
emerged that the city had released study materials to a
select group of individuals prior to the administration
of one of the tests. At fi rst, the city denied that any
part of the promotional process had been compro-
mised. However, when the news media produced a
copy of the practical exercise test during its adminis-
tration, the city acknowledged that the validity of this
testing component had been jeopardized. Th is test was
eliminated from the overall assessment, and the
weight of both the written test and the performance
evaluation were increased to 40 percent each.
Several individuals claimed that the city had inten-
tionally discriminated against African American and
Hispanic candidates by increasing the weight of cer-
tain components and eliminating other segments in
the promotional procedure after the city determined
the process had been compromised. Caucasian plain-
tiff s claimed they had been discriminated against
because unauthorized study materials for the practical
exercise component of the test had been released to a
select group of African American candidates. At least
52 individuals brought suit under Title VII against the
municipality over this process.
Two plaintiff s in this case fi led suit alleging racial
discrimination and violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Th ese plaintiff s requested that (1) any
promotions based on this selection process be perma-
nently suspended, (2) the city be required to create
and implement a new promotional process, (3) an
individual be appointed to oversee the development
and implementation of this process, and (4) all candi-
dates be allowed to review their scores for accuracy
before the promotional list was issued. Th e district
court denied these requests, and immediately the city
ranked the previous candidates according to the re-
vised process and promoted the top 63 candidates to
the rank of sergeant. Two months later, the plaintiff s
amended their complaint and added 50 additional
individuals who had not been selected for promotion
in the previous process. Th ese 52 plaintiff s requested
the same relief but also asked that those individuals
who had been promoted as a result of the fl awed
promotional process be required to compete in a new
promotional process.
After review, the district court declared the city’s pro-
motional process invalid and granted the defendant
leave to begin a new promotional process. Subse-
quently, the 51 sergeants whose promotions were re-
scinded also fi led a complaint against the municipality
requesting that the city be prohibited from demoting
them or reducing their pay. As a result of the indiscre-
tion that occurred in the original promotion process,
the city subjected itself to two major employment
98 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009
lawsuits — one alleging the intentional discrimination
against African American and Hispanic plaintiff s by
the elimination and increase in the weights of the
written test and performance evaluation components,
and the other for intentional discrimination against
Caucasian plaintiff s for the advanced release of study
materials to a select group of African American candi-
dates in the promotion process. Consequently, the
sergeants who had been awarded promotions based on
this test were required to compete in a new promo-
tional process, and the individuals who were shown to
have received, used, and benefi ted from the unauthor-
ized study materials were disqualifi ed from this new
process.
Th e city of Memphis was also named defendant in a
lawsuit fi led regarding its promotional process for
sergeants to lieutenants on the police force. Several
African American sergeants brought suit against the
municipality alleging violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case, the district
court ruled that the cutoff score for the city’s written
test, which was used as one criteria for promotion to
lieutenant, discriminated against African American
candidates ( Isabel et al. v. City of Memphis, U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit no. 03-5912, 2005).
In all, 120 sergeants competed for this promotion to
lieutenant, including 63 African American and 57
Caucasian candidates. Th e promotional process con-
sisted of a written test (20 percent), a practical exercise
test (50 percent), performance evaluations from the
previous two years (20 percent), and seniority points
(10 percent).
Th e cutoff score for the written test was originally
established at 70 percent. Th is requirement was a
carryover from a prior agreement the city had with the
police department, which was established in a memo-
randum of understanding and stated that a candidate
must obtain a passing score of 70 on a written job
knowledge test in order to be eligible for promotion
to lieutenant. However, the proportion of minority
candidates to nonminority candidates who passed the
written test in the promotion process actually violated
the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule. Th is rule states that “a
selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which
is less than four-fi fths (or eighty percent) of the rate
for the group with the highest rate will generally be
regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evi-
dence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-
fi fths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal
enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact”
( EEOC 2007 ).
Th e allocation of proof for a prima facie case involving
disparate or adverse impact rests fi rst with the plain-
tiff , who must establish that the employer’s selection
practice or device had a substantial impact on the
protected group. Th e employer has the opportunity to
demonstrate that this practice or testing mechanism
was job related or consistent with business necessity.
Th e burden of proof then shifts back to the plaintiff ,
who must demonstrate that the employer refused to
choose an existing alternative method that did not
have a disparate impact on the protected class ( EEOC
2007 ).
When the cutoff score of 70 was used for this test, the
passing rate of minorities was less than four-fi fths of
the passing rate of nonminorities. A total of 19 of the
64 African Americans who took the exam achieved a
score of 70 or higher (29.7 percent), while 38 of the
56 nonminority candidates who took the test achieved
a passing score (67.9 percent). As a result, the selec-
tion rate for this test was calculated at 43.8 percent,
which was in violation of the four-fi fths rule. An
industrial psychologist who had managed the test
decided to eliminate nine of the test questions because
he felt they were faulty; however, all candidates were
given credit for answering the questions correctly so
that the test would still be scored on a 100-point
scale. Also, the psychologist determined that the cut-
off score should be lowered to 66 in order to avoid
any adverse impact. With these two modifi cations in
the testing process, 98 candidates passed the test,
including 47 African Americans; more importantly,
the test did not violate the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule.
Four individuals who scored below 66 were not al-
lowed to continue in the promotional process. As a
result, these four applicants fi led discrimination
charges against the city. Th e case was based on other
statistical analyses of the written test scores that re-
vealed signifi cant adverse impact on African American
candidates, even though the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule
was not violated. Th e plaintiff s’ expert noted that a
statistically signifi cant diff erence in minority and
nonminority candidates’ scores did exist when the
t -test and z -test were applied. 5 Th e district court con-
curred that the written test unlawfully discriminated
against the African American sergeants and that the
four plaintiff s were also entitled to promotion to
lieutenant. Th is promotion was retroactive to the
same date that the fi rst group of candidates was pro-
moted, and the plaintiff s were compensated for back
pay and overtime, as well as attorneys’ fees. When this
case was appealed by the city to the U.S. court of
appeals, the district court’s judgment was affi rmed in
all respects.
Another group of individuals fi lled a lawsuit against
this same city alleging they had suff ered due process
violations and racial discrimination in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment during the promotional
process administered to individuals in the city’s fi re
department ( Firefi ghters United for Fairness et al. v.
City of Memphis, U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee no. 02-2431, 2005). Th e court
Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 99
ruled for the city, however, in this case, fi nding that
the plaintiff s’ rights had not been violated. Several
individuals alleged that they had suff ered racial dis-
crimination in their participation in the fi re depart-
ment’s lieutenant and battalion chief promotional
process. Th e promotional process for lieutenant con-
sisted of three weighted components, including a
written job knowledge test (22.5 percent), a practical
video test (70 percent), and a credit for seniority (7.5
percent). Th e promotional process for battalion chief
utilized results from a practical video test (48 percent),
an in-basket exam (27 percent), a group interpersonal
skills exercise (17.5 percent), and a credit for seniority
(7.5 percent). Th ese two processes were developed and
administered by an industrial organizational psychol-
ogy consulting fi rm contracted by the city. In all, 118
candidates for battalion chief and 541 candidates for
lieutenant were involved in the promotional process.
All information related to the promotional process,
the review process, and other relevant issues were
related to the city’s fi re department by the contracted
administrator. Th e fi re department was responsible for
providing this information to the candidates. Before
the fi rst promotional roster was established, all candi-
dates were allowed to review their transcripts, the
answer key, and the videotape of their practical test for
accuracy regarding transcription, scoring, and clerical
errors. Specifi c concerns were addressed by the process
administrator and changes were made if appropriate.
Th e plaintiff s in this case alleged racial discrimination
against the city’s fi re department because several Cau-
casian candidates had been allowed to participate in
the promotional process even though they had not
been employed long enough at the required grade
level at the time of testing. Th e plaintiff s also claimed
that they had been denied procedural due process
because the plaintiff s perceived that the city had not
responded to or given them suffi cient time to review
the testing procedure and determine their correct
scores. In this case, the U.S. district court determined
that the plaintiff s had not suffi ciently established a
prima facie case of racial discrimination and that these
plaintiff s had been aff orded suffi cient due process for
obtaining a fair and accurate score.
Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Sexual harassment and hostile work environment
claims have also been fi led in the federal court system
against numerous local governments. A sheriff ’s de-
partment in western Tennessee was named defendant
in a case alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimi-
nation, and hostile work environment related to a
female’s employment by that department ( Rudd v.
Shelby County, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit no. 04-5939, 2006). Th is individual claimed
that she had been sexually harassed by a male co-
worker when he handcuff ed her to a fi le cabinet,
rubbed against her, draped a belly chain around her
neck, and asked her over the intercom if it was “too
hot in the kitchen” for her. Th e female employee
reported this harassment to a superior offi cer who
referred her to the Internal Aff airs Division, which
began an investigation within fi ve days of the inci-
dent. Th e plaintiff was allowed to work in another
facility so that she would not come in contact with
the coworker. As a result of the investigation, the male
coworker was demoted in rank, suspended for 30 days
without pay, and placed on probation for six months.
Th is male individual appealed the department’s ac-
tions and retired with full rank and pay during this
appeals process. Th e female plaintiff resigned her
position within two weeks of the harassment incident
and fi led suit alleging sexual harassment, gender dis-
crimination, and a hostile work environment in viola-
tion of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the
Tennessee Human Rights Act.
Th e female plaintiff was awarded almost $ 1 million in compensatory damages, back pay, and lost future
wages by the jury that heard the initial case in district
court. Th is decision was reversed, however, by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Th e
appellate court examined the fi ve elements set forth
in Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, Inc. (1213 F.3d
868, 872 [1997]), which stated that in order for an
individual to prevail in a sexual harassment case in-
volving a coworker, (1) the employee must be a mem-
ber of a protected class, (2) the employee must have
been subject to unwanted sexual harassment, (3) the
harassment must have been based on the employee’s
sex, (4) the harassment must have unreasonably inter-
fered with the employee’s work environment and
created a hostile work environment, and (5) the em-
ployer must have known or should have known of the
charged sexual harassment and failed to implement
prompt and corrective action. Th e appellate court
concluded that even though the plaintiff satisfi ed the
fi rst four elements of this test, she did not satisfy the
fi fth. She had failed to prove that the department did
not take prompt and eff ective corrective action. Th e
court determined that the local government adminis-
tration had demonstrated a good faith eff ort to safe-
guard the plaintiff when she was referred to the
Internal Aff airs Division and allowed to work in a
separate facility. Th e appellate court concluded that
the trial jury had erred in its decision and remanded
the case for judgment in favor of the local
government.
Th e city of Memphis also prevailed in a case involving
alleged same-sex sexual discrimination. A plaintiff
brought suit against the city’s Housing Authority
alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and retalia-
tion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 ( Terry v. Memphis Housing Authority, U.S.
100 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
no. 05-2283, 2006). Th e male plaintiff had been
employed by the housing authority as a fi eld com-
mander when he was allegedly harassed by a male
supervisor. After the plaintiff rejected the unwelcome
sexual advance, he contended that he was treated
diff erently and subjected to several forms of retaliation
including failure of the housing authority to pay his
overtime wages, a threat of loss of his employment
position, a written reprimand for inappropriate and
unprofessional behavior, and failure to promote him
to an open director’s position. Th is individual fi led a
suit alleging violations of Title VII based on retalia-
tion, failure to promote, and a hostile work
environment.
Th e U.S. district court concluded that the plaintiff
failed to state a valid retaliation claim because almost
one year had passed between the single incidence of
sexual harassment and the earliest alleged act of retali-
ation. 6 Also, evidence of a causal connection between
the incidence of harassment and the adverse employ-
ment action was not established. Because the position
in question pertaining to the failure to promote claim
had not been fi lled, the plaintiff could not claim relief
under Title VII. With regard to the hostile work envi-
ronment claim, the court ruled that the plaintiff had
not satisfi ed requirements for the Title VII discrimina-
tion claim of a hostile work environment. Th e plain-
tiff contended that the acts occurred because of his
rejection of the supervisor’s sexual advances rather
than because of his gender. Th e court ruled that the
acts that the plaintiff complained of did not include a
sexual advance, nor was there any indication that the
actions were related to rejection of the sexual advance
that took place approximately 18 months before. As a
result of these fi ndings, the court ruled for dismissal of
the case.
In another case involving sexual harassment and hos-
tile work environment claims by a former female
employee of a sheriff ’s department, Crockett County’s
motion for summary judgment was denied by the
U.S. district court ( Harbison v. Crockett County, U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
no. 01-1373, 2003). Th is individual claimed that she
was sexually harassed during her employment and
then retaliated against after complaining of the alleged
sexual harassment. Th e female plaintiff also stated she
was constructively discharged from employment with
the sheriff ’s department as a result of these allegations.
Th e alleged sexual harassment occurred when the
plaintiff was employed as a reserve deputy and part-
time deputy for the department. A male employee
allegedly began touching her and making sexually
off ensive remarks to her. Th e female employee re-
ported these incidents to her supervisors, including
the sheriff ; however, no actions were taken against the
male employee. Th e plaintiff also reported the
incidents to the county executive, and she was sus-
pended from her duties pending further investigation.
Less than one week later, the female employee re-
signed from the sheriff ’s department. Th e defendants
in this case asked for summary judgment on the hos-
tile work environment claim and contended that the
alleged sexual harassment was not suffi ciently perva-
sive to alter the conditions of her working environ-
ment or to create an abusive and hostile environment.
Conduct of this type is not actionable under Title VII.
Th e defendants also contended that the plaintiff was
not subjected to any retaliation, even though the male
employee was a supervisor to the plaintiff and he had
threatened to make things diffi cult for the plaintiff if
she did not engage in a sexual relationship with him.
Additionally, the sheriff had allegedly threatened to
fi re the plaintiff depending on the results of the inves-
tigation. Th e court denied both of the defendants’
motions because they could not off er a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. Th e court
also rejected the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment on the constructive discharge claim, con-
cluding that a jury could fi nd that a reasonable person
would feel the need to resign from his or her position
after allegedly being subjected to the actions that the
plaintiff had endured. In this case, an order denying
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was
issued, and the case proceeded through U.S. district
court.
Family and Medical Leave Act Local government entities in Tennessee have also had
employees or former employees fi le cases against them
alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave
Act. A police offi cer fi led a complaint against his
former employer for alleged violations of his rights
under the FMLA when the employer denied his inter-
mittent leave to care for his infant daughter ( Maynard
v. Town of Monterey, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit no. 03-5202, 2003). Th is employee had
been absent from work for a period greater than three
days and had refused to report back to work after
being given two opportunities to do so. Th is indi-
vidual also alleged sexual discrimination under Title
VII, claiming he was fi red because he was a male. Th e
district court granted summary judgment to the de-
fendants, and the plaintiff appealed this decision to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Th e
appellate court determined that the plaintiff did not
fulfi ll the requisites for fi ling a Title VII claim because
this individual had failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies with respect to the Title VII claim. Also, the
plaintiff did not possess a right-to-sue letter from the
EEOC, which was necessary to pursue a Title VII
claim in district court.
Th e appellate court also found that the plaintiff had
not reached an agreement with the employer regard-
ing intermittent leave; therefore, he was not entitled
Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 101
to take it in this manner. In addition, the plaintiff ’s
claim that his termination was a violation of his
FMLA rights was rejected because the plaintiff had
been absent for a period of three consecutive work
days, and this absence was unauthorized. Th e plaintiff
had remained out of work additional days consecutive
to this period while the employer advised him repeat-
edly to report to work. As a result of the plaintiff ’s
actions, the employer considered that he had termi-
nated his position voluntarily. Th e court of appeals
agreed that the plaintiff ’s action constituted a volun-
tary resignation and that the former employee was not
eligible to recover under the FMLA for an allegedly
adverse employment action.
A former employee of another sheriff ’s department
fi led suit against this department for fi ring him be-
cause of excessive absenteeism, which was allegedly in
violation of the FMLA, ADA, and Tennessee Human
Rights Act ( Lackey v. Jackson County, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit no. 03-5193, 2004). Th e
plaintiff was employed by the department as a correc-
tions offi cer and had missed work on several occasions
during 2000. Th e sheriff had informed the plaintiff in
January of 2000 after his fi rst absence of three days
that he would need to furnish a doctor’s statement any
time he missed work because of an illness. Th e plain-
tiff furnished a doctor’s excuse for two other inci-
dences; however, several other absences were not
documented in this manner. Th e sheriff terminated
the plaintiff ’s employment in early August 2000 when
the employee did not report to work on an assigned
Saturday. Th e plaintiff contended that he had com-
plied with the employer’s notifi cation process by noti-
fying the sheriff ’s department prior to the start of his
shift that he would not be in to work and the reason
for his absence. Th is information was given to which-
ever individual had answered the phone.
After the plaintiff was terminated for excessive absen-
teeism, he fi led a claim for unemployment compensa-
tion. In his response to questions regarding this
separation, the plaintiff stated
that he was fi red because of
absenteeism and tardiness and
that the absences were attribut-
able to the plaintiff ’s attendance
at a meeting. In his charge of
discrimination fi led with the
Tennessee Human Rights Com-
mission and the EEOC, however,
the plaintiff claimed that he had
taken periodic medical leave
from work because of several
health problems, including
chronic back pain, migraines,
diabetes, and hypertension. In
examining the facts of the case,
the district court determined that
the plaintiff was an eligible employee entitled to
FMLA protection; however, the plaintiff had failed to
establish that he had a serious health condition under
the FMLA. Th e plaintiff did not submit any evidence
to the court that he had any of the illnesses he
claimed. As a result, the district court granted the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and this
decision was reaffi rmed by the U.S. court of appeals.
Conclusion Th ese sample cases present a brief glimpse of the legal
proceedings that municipal governments, managers,
and other public offi cials are often subject to regard-
ing the day-to-day human resource functions that
pertain to their employees. While the decisions cited
in this study involve only local governments in Ten-
nessee, the federal laws and their interpretations are
applicable to local government units in all 50 states.
Th e outcome of each case off ers valuable insight into
how the actions of municipal employees, supervisors,
administrators, and elected offi cials across the United
States can infl uence municipal liability in legal pro-
ceedings regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Em-
ployment Act. A recent estimate states that almost 70
percent of Americans qualify under one or more pro-
tected classes defi ned by these antidiscrimination laws
( Malos 2006 ). Local government administrators must
be keenly aware of their current, former, and future
employees’ rights and protections in order to safe-
guard their departments and governments from the
liabilities that can arise in the employment law area.
Th is understanding often comes from both theory and
practice; however, the fi eld is characterized by con-
stant changes in technology, employment laws and
policies, workforce composition, and administrative
ethics.
New Public Management, with its emphases on de-
bureaucratization, decentralization, and civil service
reform, has attempted to make public sector entities
function similar to those in the
private sector; however, the im-
plications for human resource
management at all levels of gov-
ernment are yet to be fully deter-
mined. Th e debate regarding civil
service systems and at-will em-
ployment of public employees
will continue as more state and
local governments choose to
declassify many of the traditional
job positions of civil servants. At-
will employment off ers little or
no job protection and eliminates
the right that civil service em-
ployees have to terminate for just
cause. Th e employment laws that
New Public Management with its emphases on
debureaucratization, decentralization, and civil
service reform has attempted to make public sector entities
function similar to those of the private sector; however, the
implications for human resource management at all levels of
government are yet to be fully determined.
102 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009
have been discussed in this analysis were enacted to
protect all classes of employees from discrimination
and arbitrary management decisions. Future research
is required to objectively evaluate whether New Public
Management and its accompanying changes have
enhanced public sector employee responsiveness,
productivity, and management without precariously
altering public sector employer liabilities and public
employee protections in the human resource policies
and actions of state and local governments.
Notes 1. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (517 U.S.
44 [1996]), the Supreme Court held that Con-
gress lacks the power under Article I of the U.S.
Constitution to abrogate the states’ sovereign
immunity in federal court established under the
Eleventh Amendment. Th e question as to
whether Congress could use its Article I powers
to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from
suits in its own courts was resolved in the Court’s
ruling in Alden v. Maine (527 U.S. 706 [1999]),
which determined that Congress has no such
authority under these circumstances also. Th is
ruling maintained sovereign immunity for the
states and limited congressional authority to pass
legislation that uses state courts as a means of
redress. Th e Supreme Court also held in Kimel
et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al. (528 U.S. 62
[2000]) that the Age Discrimination in Employ-
ment Act’s abrogation of the states’ Eleventh
Amendment immunity exceeded Congress’s
authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amend-
ment and that suits in federal court by state
employees to recover monetary damages under
Title I of the ADA were barred by the Eleventh
Amendment ( Board of Trustees of University of
Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 [2001]).
2. In Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v.
Garrett (531 U.S. 356 [2001]), the Supreme
Court also noted that Eleventh Amendment
immunity does not extend to local government
units such as cities and counties. In delivering the
opinion of the Court, Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist noted that local government units do
not possess immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment and therefore are subject to private
claims for violations of the ADA without the
reliance of Congress on § 5 of the Fourteenth
Amendment to assert this liability. Th e case cited
as precedent was Lincoln County v. Luning (133
U.S. 529 [1890]), in which the Court reasoned
that although a county is territorially part of a
state, the county is a corporation created by that
state and both private and municipal corpora-
tions may sue and be sued in all courts just as
individuals. Over time, political subdivisions of
the states have assumed many of the governing
responsibilities exercised previously by the states;
however, the Supreme Court continues to main-
tain a distinction between the state and its local
political subdivisions in its interpretation of the
scope of the Eleventh Amendment. See also Moor
v. County of Alameda (411 U.S. 693, 717 – 21
[1973], Mt. Healthy City School District Board of
Education v. Doyle (429 U.S. 274, 280 [1977]),
and Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
(465 U.S. 89, 123 n. 34 [1984]).
3. Th e 350 cases identifi ed through PACER are not
considered by the author to be an all-inclusive list
of cases fi led against public entities in Tennessee
during this time period. Of these 350 cases, 277
involved a city, town, or county government. Th e
intent of this research was to illustrate through
case study several of the legal issues that these
local governments encountered. Statistical analy-
sis of a more comprehensive data set is an excel-
lent recommendation for future study.
4. In order to establish a prima facie case of racial
discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff or
complainant must demonstrate (1) that he or she
belongs to a racial minority, (2) that he or she
applied and was qualifi ed for a job or promotion
for which the employer was seeking applicants,
(3) that he or she was considered for and denied
the position despite his or her qualifi cations, and
(4) that the position remained open and indi-
viduals of similar qualifi cations were considered.
Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff has the
initial burden of proving a prima facie case by
preponderance of the evidence. If the plaintiff
does establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts
to the employer to articulate some legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Th e
plaintiff must then demonstrate that the proff ered
reason was not the true reason for the employ-
ment decision (see Texas Department of Commu-
nity Aff airs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256
[1981]).
5. Th e t -test evaluated the diff erence in the mean
scores of the minority (69.17) and nonminority
candidates (75.59) and was determined to be
signifi cant by the plaintiff s’ expert. Th e z -test
measured statistical success for each group and
demonstrated that Caucasian candidates had a
passing rate of 90 percent as compared to the
passing rate of 74.6 percent by minority candi-
dates. Th e expert for the plaintiff s also testifi ed
that this diff erence was statistically signifi cant.
6. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) requires that an
aggrieved individual who seeks to fi le a Title VII
claim in federal court fi rst present a charge with
the EEOC within 180 days after the allegedly
unlawful employment practice occurred. If a
discrimination charge is also fi led with a state or
local agency that has authority to grant relief
regarding the employment practice, this time
period is extended to 300 days.
Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 103
References Battaglio , R. Paul , and Stephen E. Condrey . 2006 .
Civil Service Reform: Examining State and Local
Government Cases . Review of Public Personnel
Administration 26 ( 2 ): 118 – 38 .
Bowman , James S . 2002 . At-Will Employment in
Florida Government: A Naked Formula to Corrupt
Public Service . Working USA 6 ( 2 ): 90 – 102 .
Bowman , James S. , Marc G. Gertz , Sally C. Gertz ,
and Russell L. Williams . 2003 . Civil Service
Reform in Florida State Government: Employee
Attitudes 1 Year Later . Review of Public Personnel
Administration 23 ( 4 ): 286 – 304 .
Coggburn , Jerrell D . 2000 . Th e Eff ects of
Deregulation on State Government Personnel
Administration . Review of Public Personnel
Administration 20 ( 4 ): 24 – 39 .
— — — . 2006 . At-Will Employment in Government:
Insights from the State of Texas . Review of Public
Personnel Administration 26 ( 2 ): 158 – 77 .
Condrey , Stephen E . 2002 . Reinventing State Civil
Service Systems: Th e Georgia Experience . Review of
Public Personnel Administration 22 ( 2 ): 114 – 24 .
Durchslag , Melvyn R . 2002 . State Sovereign Immunity:
A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution .
Westport, CT : Praeger .
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) .
2007 . Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
Procedures, Section 4: Information on Impact .
http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniguideprint.
html#12 [accessed September 29, 2008] .
— — — . 2008 . Sexual Harassment . http://www.eeoc.
gov/types/sexual_harassment.html [accessed
September 29, 2008] .
Gertz , Sally . 2006 . At-Will Employment: Origins,
Applications, Exceptions and Expansions in the
Public Service. Social Science Research Network .
http://ssrn.com/abstract=946481 [accessed
September 29, 2008] .
Hays , Steven W. , and Jessica E. Sowa . 2006 . A Broader
Look at the “Accountability” Movement: Some
Grim Realities in State Civil Service Systems . Review
of Public Personnel Administration 26 ( 2 ): 102 – 17 .
Hou , Yilin , Patricia Ingraham , Stuart Bretschneider ,
and Sally Coleman Selden . 2000 . Decentralization
of Human Resource Management: Driving Forces
and Implications . Review of Public Personnel
Administration 20 ( 4 ): 9 – 23 .
Kearney , Richard C. , and Steven W. Hays . 1998 .
Reinventing Government, Th e New Public
Management and Civil Service Systems in
International Perspective . Review of Public
Personnel Administration 18 ( 4 ): 38 – 54 .
Kellough , J. Edward . 1999 . Reinventing Public
Personnel Management: Ethical Implications for
Managers and Public Personnel Systems . Public
Personnel Management 28 ( 4 ): 655 – 71 .
— — — . 2006 . Understanding Affi rmative Action:
Politics, Discrimination, and the Search for Justice .
Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press .
Kellough , J. Edward , and Sally Coleman Selden .
2003 . Th e Reinvention of Public Personnel
Administration: An Analysis of the Diff usion of
Personnel Management Reforms in the States .
Public Administration Review 63 ( 2 ): 165 – 76 .
LeBrec , David J. , and Kurt Foerster . 1985 . Public
Offi cials Liability: Th e Loss Exposure . In Risk
Management Today: A How to Guide for Local
Government , edited by Natalie Wasserman and
Dean G. Phelus , 77 – 87 . Washington, DC :
International City/County Management
Association .
Malos , Stanley B . 2006 . Current Legal Issues in
Performance Appraisal . http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/
malos_s/bookchap.htm [accessed September 29,
2008] .
Nigro , Lloyd G. , and J. Edward Kellough . 2000 . Civil
Service Reform in Georgia: Going to the Edge?
Review of Public Personnel Administration 20 ( 4 ):
41 – 54 .
Patton , W. David , Stephanie L. Witt , Nicholas P.
Lovrich , and Patricia J. Fredericksen . 2002 .
Human Resource Management: Th e Public Service
Perspective . Boston : Houghton Miffl in .
Riccucci , Norma M . 2006 . Public Personnel
Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges .
New York : Longman .
Rosenbloom , David H . 2007 . Th e Public
Employment Relationship and the Supreme Court
in the 1980s . In Public Personnel Administration
and Labor Relations , edited by Norma M. Riccucci ,
201 – 16 . Armonk , NY : M.E. Sharpe .
Rosenbloom , David H. , and Robert S. Kravchuk .
2005 . Public Administration: Understanding
Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector .
Boston : McGraw-Hill .
Woodard , Colleen A . 2005 . Merit by Any Other
Name — Reframing the Civil Service First
Principle . Public Administration Review 65 ( 1 ):
109 – 16 .
,
Point: Rethinking Affirmative Action
Author(s): Christina F. Jeffrey
Source: Public Productivity & Management Review , Mar., 1997, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Mar., 1997), pp. 228-236
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/3380973
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Productivity & Management Review
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
POINT
Rethinking Affirmative Action
CHRISTINA F. JEFFREY Kennesaw State University
T his article will deal with affirmative action as practiced in late-20th-century United
States. The topic is interesting because, in spite of the fact that this practice is contrary
to federal law and to American traditions, affirmative action is now assumed by most
governmental, academic, and big business elites to be an unqualified good. The most cursory review of founding and statutory authorities provides a wealth
of documents that contradict the practice of affirmative action:
1. The Declaration of Independence affirms equal natural rights for all. 2. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all persons equal protection of the
law. 3. Section 703(h) of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended protects the civil
rights of all Americans by making it unlawful "to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race"; or, in other words, exactly the kind of discrimination that many colleges and universities have practiced for years is illegal.
4. Section 703(j) of the same Civil Rights Act also provides that nothing in the statute is to be interpreted to require preferential treatment for any individual or group on account of racial imbalance between the number of minorities in the workforce and the number in the local population. Or. in other words, quotas are illegal.
I intend to draw on examples, the hallowed case-study approach so favored by teachers of public administration, but will also advance arguments thematically as well. I will begin at the micro level, with the effects of affirmative action on individuals,
and move to the macro, with the effects on society as a whole. Making the case for affirmative action in the 1960s, when Jim Crow was in full
reign, was easy. But public policy comes with unintended consequences, and today all women and minorities, despite efforts to avoid the pernicious effects of affirmative
Author's Note. I gratefully ackowledge the research assistance of Laurel Preler in the preparation of this article. I also wish to thank Dorothy Olshfski for her helpful remarks and the editors of the symposium for
including me.
Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, March 1997 228-236 ? 1997 Sage Publications, Inc.
228
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 229
action programs, and in spite of apparent gains, are actually being hurt. One of these
consequences is the loss of personal reputation. Shelby Steele (1990) gives an excellent
account of this phenomenon-that is, the negative effect that affirmative action
programs have on the self-understanding of minorities who are "privileged" by it-in
his controversial book The Content of Our Character.
The Case of Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas is the prototype of a man damaged by the unintended conse-
quences of this system. Recall that President George Bush nominated him to replace
the seat vacated by Justice Thurgood Marshall. Almost immediately, pundits began
calling Thomas Bush's affirmative action nominee. Thomas's principled opposition
to affirmative action was ridiculed for being hypocritical. Because affirmative action
exists, Thomas was accused of benefiting from it. In other words, in some quarters he
commanded no respect, even though he had quite an impressive record for such a
young man.
Critics declared that Clarence Thomas was not the best qualified man for the job.
But George Bush had the foresight to realize that Thomas's legal intellect and judicial
potential were more important considerations than experience on the bench. (Our great
first Chief Justice, John Marshall, had very little judicial experience.) Although some
claim he did little his first year, he learned the job and is now exhibiting signs of
becoming the preeminent conservative justice. Unless Bush had chosen Reagan's
failed nominee, Robert Bork, it is difficult to imagine how he could have found anyone
more acceptable to conservatives. And Clarence Thomas's recent opinions not only
reflect the conservative views of the electorate who supported Bush but have even
impressed some of his harshest critics.
But to this day, Judge Thomas's friends feel the need to defend him on the charge
of benefitting from affirmative action. For example, on July 8, 1996, John Doggett,
Thomas's classmate from Yale Law School, wrote the following in The Washington
Times:
The bad news is that Democrats will continue to demonize Clarence Thomas and other black conservatives in a desperate attempt to maintain political power. The good news is that we black conservatives will ultimately succeed in our war to liberate our people from the liberals' plantation. (p. A19)
The Case of Lani Guinier
There are many examples of women being treated by the Washington establishment in a less than respectful manner, but Lani Guinier's case stands out as particularly
demeaning. A personal friend of President and Mrs. Clinton, she was nominated to be assistant attorney general for civil rights. That nomination ended in ruin, when Clinton,
calling her "antidemocratic" before a national audience, withdrew her nomination. She
told George magazine that she was "humiliated in sort of a grand style" (Burleigh, 1995/1996, p. 253).
The reason I wanted a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee was the need I felt for an honest and forthright discussion of what the last 12 years of Civil Rights
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
230 PPMR / March 1997
Enforcement has meant for the very real people that the Congress has intended to protect and empower. (Hernandez, 1994, p. 101)
Her views on proportional representation caused her demise. Proportional repre-
sentation is used in many democratic countries and, as early as John C. Calhoun
(Jeffrey, 1995), has been proposed for this one. Although I oppose this form of
affirmative action, a kind of electoral, guaranteed diversity, I believe that a vigorous
debate on the subject would have been healthy. Instead, Ms. Guinier was humiliated
in a "grand" way.
The Case of Colin Powell
In a recent "Dear Colleague" letter from Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.),
Frank (1996) implies that Colin Powell benefited from affirmative action. The letter was written in opposition to the Canady-Dole Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 (H.R.
2128), which does away with preferences and quotas, and clearly implies that Powell
owes his success to affirmative action. But many people believe he rose through the
ranks on his own merits in a system designed to promote the best. It is obviously
harmful to General Powell and to society's interest in fairness to imply that General
Powell would not have made it without affirmative action, a charge that now means
quota or preference. Certainly, the military insists that theirs is a strictly merit-based
system.
According to President Clinton's own review of affirmative action, "the Pentagon
tends not to use 'diversity' and rarely uses 'affirmative action.' " The preferred term
is "equal opportunity" (Affirmative Action Review, 1996, p. 4). Unfortunately, most affirmative action programs are not merit based but rather are quota and preference
based. Such programs do not contribute to equal opportunity but instead seek equal
results. If all affirmative action programs were merit based, then a Colin Powell or a
Clarence Thomas, men of achievement and distinction, could enjoy the accolades that
are rightfully theirs. As Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield (1991) puts it, affirmative
action deprives people of their pride-the one indispensable ingredient for personal satisfaction in one's success.
Affirmative Action and the Loss of Self-Esteem
The founders of the American political regime believed in a moral universe and
universal moral laws. Ours is a government designed to reflect that moral universe. The success of the civil rights movement is a good example of the fact that there is much sympathy in our society for moral truth and justice. It is that sympathy that makes
the individual powerful in America. The Bill of Rights, absent a morally sympathetic majority, would be as worthless as the constitution of the now defunct Soviet Union. And morality combined with a system that reins in power empowers individuals. This is the message we used to teach our children, and the loss of this message, the replacement message that because you are a woman or a minority, you cannot make it in America without government help, is a very damaging message.
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 231
Contributing to the damaging message and betraying elite thinking is Rutgers
President Frances Lawrence, who said that we must "deal with a disadvantaged
population that doesn't have the genetic hereditary background" to score well on the
Scholastic Aptitude Test ("Riled at Rutgers," 1995, p. A 14).
Lawrence may have said it more boldly, but the underlying conclusion of Richard Hemstein and Charles Murray's (1994) The Bell Curve is an implied acceptance of
the inevitability of White superiority. Many affirmative action programs contain the same flaw at their core-that is, the basic premise that Blacks as a class cannot succeed
in an equal opportunity society. The argument is that they have been too wounded,
have been oppressed too long, and are too far behind to catch up in only a generation
or two.
The biggest problem with this argument, that Blacks cannot succeed, is the danger
that it can become, although untrue, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ajournalist friend sees
that happening in his own family. Recently, he told of a trip home to Detroit where he
found his young nephews, all bright eyed and eager but trapped in homes in which the adults call each other "nigger" as they sit drinking beer, smoking marijuana, and going
nowhere. He said, "these are the boys who in 10 or 15 years will be stabbing you and me in the back." He is angry because he sees his relatives acting in a way that actually reinforces the worst racial stereotypes.
Contrast this with the story of Jaime Escalante, the mathematics teacher in an
inner-city Los Angeles school who challenged his students to greatness and succeeded. As the story is dramatized in the movie Stand and Deliver, the wonderful potential that is latent and waiting to be tapped, the wonderful potential that. the journalist sees
in his nephews, justifies the kind of affirmative equal opportunity that many expected
with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, a young woman of Native American descent, who had gone to high school on the reservation, when offered a minority scholarship to college turned it down because it was not merit based. Eventually, she got that merit scholarship. Her principles may have cost her some time and some money, but her self-esteem benefited (W. B. Allen [chairman of the U.S. Commision on Civil Rights], personal communication, February 11, 1996). Stories like these are not uncommon.
What Is Equality?
What does equality require? Does it require quotas and timetables? Or is equal opportunity enough? In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville (1966) dis- cusses these two differing views of equality and concludes that an insistence on equality of results will lead, inevitably, to tyranny because that kind of equality saps liberty. He also points out that an equal opportunity society puts obstacles in the way of everyone. Thus even the children of the wealthy have a disadvantage: Their privilege makes them softer than their poorer competitors. What is important for success in America, according to Tocqueville, is a "manly passion [for excellence] which rouses in all men a desire to be strong and respected. This passion tends to elevate the little man to the rank of the great" (p. 57).
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
232 PPMR / March 1997
Equality of opportunity is consistent with the Declaration of Independence. The
phrase "all men are created equal" is a frontal attack on the principle of privilege. In
place of privilege, the founders envisioned a society of merit. As the author of the
Declaration himself put it in a letter to John Adams (1813):
For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents…. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature…. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi in the offices of government? (Cappon, 1959, p. 388)
Now, what does this mean? It means that you can come from the "wrong" side of
the tracks and not face legal discrimination. It does not mean you cannot face other
kinds of discrimination-because a free society must allow for advancement on merit.
The whole argument of natural rights on which the Declaration is based rests on merit.
If one does not believe in natural rights as the basis for government, then one is left
with raw power, the power of whatever privileged class is in control. The exchange of
natural rights for pure power is a bad bargain for women and minorities.
Affirmative action is an issue that is bubbling in the electorate because it is now
perceived as unfair by men and women, Black and White alike. And because affirm-
ative action as it is now practiced is at odds with the principles of the Declaration of
Independence as well as the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, it will not long
be accepted by ordinary Americans. No matter how hard politicians run from it, this
issue is not going away. The Declaration of Independence, for example, does not say
that because of past discrimination some are more equal than others. It does not say
that for some the pursuit of happiness needs to be constrained because of past
privileges; no, it insists, boldly, that here in America, we are all equal under the law.
The mainstream civil rights movement that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of
1964 was a fundamentally democratic movement. It called on Americans to live up to
the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But almost immediately after
passing a law that forbade discrimination, quotas, and preferences, the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proceeded to "encourage" race-based prefer-
ences, quotas, and reverse discrimination. The courts upheld the EEOC as following the logical intent of the law. The problem with this is the basic assumption that Blacks
could not make it in an equal opportunity world. The principle of equal opportunity was never even tried.
How Equal Opportunity Became the Search for Equal Results
The movement toward results-based affirmative action law was predictable. Begin- ning in 1961, the Kennedy administration pursued a policy of race-conscious affirm-
ative action, pressuring government contractors to hire members of favored minority groups. Until 1965, this pressure was moderate. After 1965 pressure became so strong that it basically amounted to coercion. Not everyone supporting the civil rights movement shared Martin Luther King's dream of a color-blind society, and the Kennedy administration and later administrations actually rejected this view in their
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 233
policies. One spokesman for the new view expressed it this way to a congressional
committee in 1961:
I am sick and tired of people saying they are color-blind so they do not have to give up any information … I think the time has come where the problem is so great that being color-blind for an official of government is no longer a virtue. What we need to be is positively color conscious and go to work on this job of color and know what we are doing. (Belz, 1991, p. 20)
But after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, even a sloppy reading of Title VII had
to be interpreted as forbidding race-based programs, and so the Comptroller General
Elmer B. Staats issued an opinion that the government's contracting regulations, the
so-called Philadelphia Plan, were in violation of the Civil Rights Act. This plan
embraced the new vision of affirmative action, one that was directed at helping
minorities achieve what they would have achieved if there had never been discrimi-
nation. It advocated the disparate impact concept, which demanded race-conscious
affirmative action and the removal of standards and job qualifications that had a
disproportionately negative effect on protected minorities. Begun in the Department
of Labor, the program required contractors to develop specific goals for hiring minorities (Belz, 1991, pp. 30-48).
The Nixon administration insisted that there was no intention to cause discrimina-
tion against any qualified individual because of race. Instead, they argued, they were
permitted to go beyond Title VII to fulfill the spirit of the law. They plainly made a political decision, contrary to congressional mandates, that the color-blind, equal
opportunity principle would be insufficient to secure civil rights and achieve racial
equality. Congressional efforts to eliminate the Philadelphia Plan subsequently failed
(Belz, 1991, pp. 36-41).
Fraud, Cronyism, and Abuse
It should not go unremarked that at least some of the support for affirmative action
by the various presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, was a desire
to have pots of money to reward loyal political supporters. This is called political pork,
and it is the same on the local, state, and federal level whenever taxpayer money is used for cronyism and favoritism (Belz, 1991).
Fraud is a big problem because it cannot be prosecuted. To do so, the courts would
have to define the term minority. This has not been done and is not something any American court is likely to do because to do so would be to cross the line into
definitions of racial purity a la the old segregation and even the Nuremberg Laws. Law Professor Christo Lassiter (1996) says more is involved:
Government programs stemming from liberal compassion are not tailored to minimize fraud…. It is hard to credit this happenstance as sloppy thinking, since it is repeated ad infinitwn…. One need look no further than the cases which came before the Court in the 1994-95 term, to see examples of liberal programs designed without a care to minimize fraud. (p. 444)
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
234 PPMR / March 1997
The Prior Tire Case in Atlanta, Georgia
The minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, was successfully chal-
lenged in the Supreme Court case of City of Richmond v. Croson (1989). Congress
then passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act designed to protect minority set-aside programs. Nevertheless, a similar case to Croson is being brought by Leon Goldstein,
president of Prior Tire Company in Atlanta. He is challenging an affirmative action
policy of the city of Atlanta's school board that allows the board to subtract 15% from
minority bids. The winning contractor is then paid according to his original bid.
Without a challenge to this unfair practice, Prior Tire would be frozen out of doing
business with the school board, but more important to Mr. Goldstein, once competitive
companies like Prior drop out, costs inevitably rise. This is money going to contractors
in the form of unearned profits, money, he says, that could go to teachers' salaries or books.
Mr. Goldstein's business was founded by his father, Abe Goldstein. It can survive without government contracts, but the Goldsteins are activists. Abe Goldstein was a
prominent civil rights advocate. His original program to hire minorities was well
known, and today the Anti-Defamation League gives an annual award for human rights
named after Abe Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein says he will take his case all the way to the
Supreme Court because of the human rights principle involved-that is, equality before the law.
Prior Tire's self-imposed affirmative action program actually worked and actually
benefited those individuals who had been damaged by segregation, real working people. There is little evidence Atlanta's set-aside program works., and in fact, there
are serious questions associated with these kinds of state and federal programs,
questions of fraud and abuse.1
Future Trends in Affirmative Action
Signs of future changes to come include the recent Supreme Court decision of
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995) and the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). The ruling of Adarand now subjects all federal affirmative action programs to strict scrutiny by the courts and mandates that they be narrowly tailored to pass
judicial muster. As a direct result of Adarand the Department of Justice has initiated a review of all federal affirmative action programs. It is conducting this review to verify
that each program meets the new requirements issued by Adarand. The president has
conducted his own review of federal affirmative action programs.
The CCRI, which calls for an end to all race- and gender-based affirmative action programs, is on the ballot in the state of California. If the CCRI passes, it may well ignite the move in Congress to pass a law, similar to CCRI, Canady-Dole, which was introduced in the 104th Congress (H.R. 2128). Furthermore, laws pending in other states, such as in Georgia and Texas, are gaining support. Unequal treatment appears to be ending.
What can be put in the place of affirmative action? This is the question that Congressman J. C. Watts and his Minority Issues Taskforce in the U.S. House are trying to answer. Their solution is various training and empowerment programs aimed
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACrION 235
at the inner city. This cannot be a substitute for eliminating discrimination. Just as modem affirmative action is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, so also is
discrimination. Illegal discrimination should be seriously and resolutely opposed and prosecuted.
Conclusions
The problem with group rights as opposed to individual rights can be seen through representation. When one represents a group, one represents the passions and interests
of the group. On the other hand, representing a wide assortment of individuals requires
a search for a common good that transcends any one faction.2 When interest-group spokesmen speak for their groups, they inevitably flatter the passions of the group and
become demagogues. Statesmen, on the other hand, must plead for reason and call on their supporters to understand the need to promote a common good. As James Madison makes clear in Federalist 10 and 51 (Cooke, 1961), a nation of factions cannot be unified on any other basis than the common good. The affirmative action society, if allowed to persist, could lead us further down the road to balkanization, schism, and eventually civil war, the object of which would be, this time, not liberating slaves but enslaving freemen. This would be the cost of turning the principles of the Declaration
of Independence on their head.3 Thus it is imperative that Americans of good will, Democrats and Republicans,
liberals and conservatives, put their minds to solving this problem, a problem created by slavery but perpetuated by government policies like Jim Crow and modern affirmative action. If we keep our eyes on the principles of the Declaration, it may be possible to find solutions that guarantee the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity.
Notes
1. Research on Prior lire was conducted at the offices of the Southeastem Legal Foundation, which is handling Mr. Goldstein's case. I also had a chance to interview Mr. Goldstein on the telephone, on January
25, 1996, and in person, on January 26, 1996, when he attended the first reading of this paper at an academic
forum at Kennesaw State College. 2. For a good, general discussion of what he calls the problems of tribalism created by the current
approach to affirmative action, see Lassiter (1996). 3. For a discussion of the problems associated with celebrating diversity over unity, see especially
Schlesinger (1990).
References
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995). Affirmative action review: Report to the president. (1996). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Belz, H. (1991). Equality transformed: A quarter-century of affirmative action. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Burleigh, N. (1995, December/1996, January). Was it worth it? George, pp. 252-253. Cappon, L. J. (Ed.). (1959). The Adams-Jefferson Letters. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989).
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
236 PPMR / March 1997
Cooke, J. E. (1961). The Federalist. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Doggett, J. (1996, July 8). Justice Thomas and Black opinion. The Washington 7imes, p. A19.
Frank, B. (1996, January 23). Dear colleague letter. (The Honorable Barney Frank, 2210 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515)
Hernandez, G. H. (1994, April 23). "Gotcha Journalism" takes no prisioners. Editor and Publisher
Magazine, pp. 100-102.
Hernstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New
York: Free Press.
Jeffrey, R. (1995). John C. Calhoun's critique of American constitutionalism: The original argument for
multicultural democracy. Unpublished manuscript. Lassiter, C. (1996). The new race cases and the politics of public policy. The Journal of Law & Politics, 12,
411-458.
Mansfield, H. C. (1991). America's constitutional soul. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Riled at Rutgers. (1995, February 13). The Wall Street Journal, p. A14.
Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. (1990). The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character. New York: St. Martin's.
Tocqueville, A. de. (1966). Democracy in America (J. P. Mayer, Ed., G. Lawrence, Trans.). New York:
Harper & Row.
Christina F. Jeffrey is an associate professor of political science and public administra- tion at Kennesaw State University and is the immediate past president of the Georgia
chapter of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) and a member of
ASPA's Policy Issues Committee. She holds M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University
of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.
This content downloaded from �������������96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC�������������
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
- Contents
- p. 228
- p. 229
- p. 230
- p. 231
- p. 232
- p. 233
- p. 234
- p. 235
- p. 236
- Issue Table of Contents
- Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Mar., 1997) pp. 221-348
- Front Matter
- Abstracts [pp. 221-223]
- Featured Topic: Productivity and Affirmative Action
- Productivity and Affirmative Action: [Introduction] [pp. 224-227]
- Point: Rethinking Affirmative Action [pp. 228-236]
- Counterpoint: By Thine Own Voice, Shall Thou Be Known [pp. 237-242]
- Racism, Community, and Democracy: The Ethics of Affirmative Action [pp. 243-257]
- Affirmative Action and Economics: A Framework for Analysis [pp. 258-271]
- Looking like America: The Continuing Importance of Affirmative Action in Federal Employment [pp. 272-287]
- Government Reinvention and Affirmative Action: Implications for Women and Minorities [pp. 288-294]
- Sex, Race, and Affirmative Action: An Uneasy Alliance [pp. 295-307]
- Productivity in Review
- On the Folly of Rewarding A, while Hoping for B: Measuring and Rewarding Agency Performance in Public-Sector Strategy [pp. 308-322]
- Explaining Managerial Acceptance of Expert Systems [pp. 323-335]
- Book Reviews
- Leadership for the Public Interest [pp. 336-345]
- Pragmatic Performance Improvement [pp. 345-348]
- Back Matter
