Booklet by Antony Jose

THE

IMPACTOF

EMPLOYEE BEHAVIORS

AFTER

CORPORATE

DIVERSITY TRAINING

Anitha L. Johnson, MBA

KOLBERT SEMINARS PUBLISHING KOLBERT SEMINARS, LLC

FOREWORD The complexity of the title “The Impact of Employee Behaviors after Corporate Diversity Training� not only defines the meaning of diversity but deals with the rethinking of individual and collective behavior and the value of diversity. The profundity suggests various levels of perception, interpretation and the consequence connected with cultures and sub-cultures that potentially are sources of profit for corporate America.

The research in this book examined two documents which set the limited stage for equal access for all regardless of biological or cultural background in perspective of fairness and justice. The Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s was the vanguard to the introduction of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) legislation and Affirmative Action (AA) programs. Abraham Lincoln, our sixteenth president, believed in respect for each other and tolerance among people which included equitable treatment and opportunities in spite of dissimilarities. The dimensions addressed in the EEO, AA, and by President Lincoln were age, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, educational background, geographic location, income, and religious beliefs. The author acknowledges the contribution of the above movement, program, and person as they relate to employment practices which are all different but are interrelated. However, the author chose to extend the foundation.

III

The extended foundation was diversity which focused on human qualities. These qualities extended to the work environment, including individual attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. Diversity Training, in context to the workplace, values cultural diversity in creating a workplace that respected and included differences; recognized the unique contributions that individuals from different cultural settings made; and created a work environment that maximized the potential of all employees.

The information in this book advocates diversity training for corporate America as a way to increase cultural awareness, knowledge, and skills for increasing the inclusion of different groups in order to promote better teamwork. Management of diverse teams made up of individuals from different cultures, heterogeneous mixes, and differing demographics requires an understanding of the techniques in diversity training in order for project managers to be efficient and effective. Lack of diversity training for managers affects at least three behaviors of team members: 1) motivation, 2) satisfaction levels, and 3) productivity.

Corporate Diversity training will provide the knowledge, skills and tools to assist managers in encouraging team members to behave differently which will allow people to benefit from diverse work environments. These behaviors are important for creating and sustaining change that fosters a more diverse, inclusive, respectful and productive company.

Diversity training may not be measured specifically in a vacuum because there are many contributing factors related to employee behavior. However, the training could be measured using metrics which test for the success of demonstrated targeted key behaviors. The content of this book will help you grasp that over time, with top leadership invested, old behaviors will be replaced with new behaviors.

The author will stress that the goal of the training is not focused on equal opportunity but an awakening for corporate America’s possibility of using diversity as a resource to make their diverse workforce stronger and better prepared for the future. The Fortune 500 companies have embraced diversity training as an avenue to reject both active and passive discrimination.

Diversity is the one true thing we all have in common; therefore we should celebrate by recognizing and respecting the multitude of differences every day. Without diversity, harmony and productivity cannot exist in our new global economy. It is the hope of the author that some day in the future, our children’s children will be part of a heterogeneous choir of voices and viewpoints, working in a collaborative environment of members with different cultures, ideas, beliefs and backgrounds. Is this not the goal of Corporate Diversity Training with an impact on Employee Behavior?

Reba Jones, M. Ed.

IV

ABSTRACT The intended purpose of this study was to explore and analyze the impact of employee behaviors after corporate diversity training. The heart of the problem for this study involves the identification of tools used to measure the effectiveness of diversity training, in order to determine if the training actually impacted employee behaviors in the workplace. The research question was: What impact does corporate diversity training have on employee behaviors in the workplace? The research sub-questions will attempt to set the stage in answering what tools were used to measure the effectiveness of diversity training that proved the viability of training had impacted employee behaviors. The sub-questions were: what is diversity and diversity training; why do corporations find it imperative to conduct diversity training; what effects does diversity training have on corporate cultures and what tools of diversity training does corporate America use to measure effectiveness.

An electronic survey for managers/directors and employees was used to help validate the purpose for the study. The survey document was comprised of 31 qualitative questions, whereby 50 participants received electronic surveys and 40 participants’ responded.

An analysis of the survey results proved that employee behaviors were impacted after corporate diversity training in the workplace. The most useful tool used to measure the effectiveness of the training resulted from the employees surveys.

V

Fifty percent of the participants selected employee surveys as the best measuring rods to measure the diversity training effectiveness. Eleven percent selected focus groups and four percent selected exit interviews as useful tools. However, thirty-five percent had noted other tools such as course evaluations, emailed questionnaires, company’s Intranet system and interactive workshops as useful tools to measure the effectiveness of diversity training. Thus measuring the effectiveness of the training also resulted in feedback from the participants in relationship to changes in employee behaviors in the following areas: an increase awareness of diversity, decrease in employee conflict, an increase in employee retention/decrease in turnover, and increase in productivity/profit margins. These four areas were substantial enough to prove that employee behaviors are impacted after corporate diversity training. Overall, researchers and diversity consultant firms must continue to pursue different metrics to measure both pre and post behaviors related to participants’ level of knowledge about diversity issues, and periodically initiated follow-up programs to monitor the behavior changes. The corporation’s strategic business goals should make diversity initiatives the core of its operation with a long-term commitment to diversity training efforts for bottom-line sustainability.

VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research project could not have been written without God’s providential oversight.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my family, friends, co-workers and church family who encouraged and prayed for me throughout my pursuit in obtaining a Masters Degree. The tenacity to complete this project came from the encouraging words from my family and friends who desired the best for me. I’m very proud of my accomplishments because of the pattern I have set for my family to pursue education and dreams, even though they require a true sacrifice. I would like to extend special thanks to Dean McGeehan and Dr. Jo Ann Runewicz who encouraged and spent time with me to ensure that this project was a success. May God Bless You!!

Finally, I dedicate this project to two important people in my life. I want to thank my sister Reba Jones who I have admired my entire life for helping me and pushing me to the next level. I also, dedicate this project to my grandson, James Michael Strickland III, with the hope that one day he will read this paper and feel the passion I have for unity among people who are different. My prayer is that God allows everyone who reads this project, to understand the depth of diversity.

VII

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS FOREWORD ............................................................................................ III ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................... VII TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................. IX

CHAPTER

1

INTRODUCTION CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM.................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.............................................................. 2 RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS...................................... 3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY............................................................... 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY............................................ 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY............................................................. 4

IX

CHAPTER

6

LITERAL REVIEW DEFINING AND VALUING DIVERSITY TRAINING................................... 9 BARRIERS TO DIVERSITY TRAINING IMPLEMENTATION...................... 11 THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF A DIVERSE WORKFORCE.............................. 12 BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY TRAINING....................................................... 13 MEASURING THE VALUE OF DIVERSITY TRAINING.............................. 14

CHAPTER

17

WHAT IS DIVERSITY AND DIVERSITY TRAINING? CHAPTER

24

WHY DO CORPORATIONS FIND IT IMPERATIVE TO CONDUCT DIVERSITY TRAINING? ........................................................................... 24 WHY DO CORPORATIONS FIND IT IMPERATIVE TO CONDUCT........... 24 DIVERSITY TRAINING?............................................................................ 24

CHAPTER

34

WHAT EFFECTS DO DIVERSITY TRAINING HAVE ON CORPORATE CULTURES? ....................................................................... 34

CHAPTER

42

WHAT TOOLS OF DIVERSITY TRAINING DOES CORPORATE AMERICA USE TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS? ............................ 42 WORKFORCE DIVERSITY TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES:........................ 44 WORKFORCE DIVERSITY TRAINING...................................................... 48

CHAPTER

50

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 50 SURVEYS METHODOLOGY..................................................................... 50 GENDERS................................................................................................. 51 AGES........................................................................................................ 51 SURVEY RESULTS..................................................................................... 54

X

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM The controversy over Diversity Training and its relative impact on employee behaviors had been questionable, but vital in corporate America, to increase awareness and respect for individual differences. During the last fifteen to twenty years, diversity training had become a thriving business in many corporations, government agencies, schools, and communities. The workforce demographics had changed drastically in the United States (U.S.); therefore, the employee population has grown to be more diverse. Subsequently, this influx of diversity in the workplace had driven the need for a wide range of training and its popularity had sustained its prevalence in today’s working environment (Riccucci, 1997).

The origin of diversity training had been linked to the civil rights movements where education, cultural sensitivity and awareness were the synergy in reducing discrimination. In the early 1960s, the era of segregation, businesses were challenged to comply with the mandates of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The enforcement of this landmark legislation ended the days of disparity among employees in the workplace. Employers were now required to follow the mandates of Title VII that required organizations to focus on achieving demographic variation, in an attempt to comply with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) ruling. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not only prohibited the illegal practice of discrimination by organizations in hiring and terminating but also mandated discriminatory practices concerning employee promoting, compensating, job training, assigning other privileges

Diversity Training

1

of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII, later passed legislation prohibiting the employee discrimination based on pregnancy, age, and disability.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was paramount in enforcing Title VII (SHRM, 2008) Out of these regulatory guidelines, diversity training had evolved as an initiative that head of corporations supported and integrated into strategic planning process. This integration had increased healthier bottom lines, production, growth, attraction and retention in a multicultural skilled workforce. The strategic integration of diversity training increased awareness in the workforce, which enabled employees to embrace all that diversity encompasses (Hastings, 2008). Corporations integrating diversity training as a long-term and an inclusive strategic plan reported that diversity training had been successful in reclassifying most issues from social to business (Profiting from others, 2004).

Prior to the impact of globalization, diversity training was viewed as an awareness initiative; whereby, organizations educated employees about different ethnic cultures.

Diversity in its most comprehensive context extended well beyond mere ethnicity to the notion of “acknowledging, understanding, accepting, valuing, and celebrating of differences among people. These differences could include, but are not limited to, age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual beliefs, and educational background� (Green, Lopez, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002, p.1). The issue of diversity extending beyond ethnicity was compounded because corporate America in the 21st century had to also embrace the variety of generational differences that coexist in the workplace. Diversity training should not be treated as a one size fits all model, but as an inclusive business strategy that demonstrated commitment for change and the enhancement of core values of the corporation (Pigott, 2006).

Vedantam (2008) reported this buy-in from corporate bodies was evident by the fact that U.S. businesses spend approximately $200 million to $300 million dollars a year for diversity training (p.1). Some analysts had sought ways to quantify the impact diversity training had on employee behaviors in the workplace by the millions of dollars spent on training. Diversity critics had declared that, despite the exorbitant budget, diversity training had not been effective, or measurable. However, supporters adamantly disagreed and acknowledged diversity training could not only be measured, but add value to the corporation (Douglas, 2008).

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In today’s work force, corporations take diversity training seriously because of increased globalization. This influx of globalization had been the catalyst for a more diverse work force, one comprised of groups of people with different ages, gender, ethnic backgrounds, religious values, and social status (Swaminathan, 2008). Corporate America had been challenged to recognize these changes and was left to evaluate the effectiveness of diversity training, how it impacted employee behaviors in the workplace, and if it could be measured

2

Diversity Training

for outcomes. Corporations pay millions of dollars annually for the delivery of diversity training and expect a return on investments. Researchers, who studied the impact of diversity training, had mixed opinions as to whether the training was measurable or even influenced employee behaviors.

RESEARCH QUESTION AND SUB-QUESTIONS The question that this research investigated was: What impact does corporate diversity training have on employee behaviors in the workplace?

The following five sub-questions were used to answer the research question:

• What is diversity and diversity training?

• Why do corporations find it imperative to conduct diversity training?

• What effects does diversity training have on corporate cultures? And

• What tools of diversity training does corporate America use to measure the effectiveness of the training?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY This study was intended to investigate the impact of employee behaviors after corporate diversity training. The study was focused on whether diversity training influenced workplace behaviors and if corporations were able to measure the effectiveness of the training. The importance of this study was to provide a clear and sound understanding of diversity training as a vital and inclusive initiative in corporate business strategies. The findings proved that diversity training was effective and measurable in all areas of the workplace and among the diverse employee population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The survey sample was comprised of 31 quantitative questions, which addressed individual’s personal influence by diversity training, corporation’s value of diversity training and the tools used to measure diversity training. The participant answered background questions and questions on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree), 2(somewhat agree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree). A survey cover letter (see Appendix A) and two survey questionnaires (see Appendix B and C) was administered to 50 participants by electronic mail. The response from each participant was collected, recorded and computed upon completion.

The study used a triangular research approach to validate the influence and measurability of diversity training in the workforce. Data was collected from experienced diversity trainers,

Diversity Training

3

30 employees and 10 managers who were exposed to diversity training. Also Internet case studies, peer-reviewed articles from industry magazines and journals were analyzed. Data gathered fromother sources were illustrated in percentages and averages. The percentages and averages were gathered from published surveys of viable research firms, which study diversity-training initiatives for organizations. A qualitative method was used to permit participants to elaborate on answers as needed.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY CHAPTER ONE Chapter one serves as an introduction to the context of the problem by describing the controversy of diversity training. Background information was given about its origin, definition, training, and the reason for the prevalence in the workplace. Chapter one also included the statement of the problem, which introduced the seriousness and challenges that globalization had caused in today’s workforce. This chapter stated the primary research question and sub-questions, the purpose of the study, and the research design and methodologies used in compiling data necessary to validate the final findings.

CHAPTER TWO In Chapter two numerous sources of relevant literature were used to answer the primary research question of the study in relationship to the definition of diversity, the value of diversity training, the barriers to implementing diversity training, the demographics of a diverse workforce, the benefits of diversity training, and the measurement of diversity training effectiveness. The research confirmed diversity training could be measured, added value to corporations, and effected corporate cultures. The literature reviewed thoroughly discussed the definition of diversity training and examined why corporations conduct diversity training. The literature reviewed was an extensive analysis comprised of peer-reviews of scholarly professionals and non-professionals who studied the impact of diversity training and its influence on employee behaviors in diverse workplaces.

The reviews listed the advantages and disadvantages of corporate diversity training and identified the tools used by corporate America to measure the effectiveness and cost of conducting diversity training.

CHAPTER THREE This chapter expounded on the definition of diversity and diversity training, which clarified all that diversity encompasses, beyond the myth of just ethnicity. Chapter three delineated in-depth diversity training, by listing the key guidelines in planning a successful training. It also gave various options for the delivery of training in the corporations.

4

Diversity Training

CHAPTER FOUR This chapter explained why corporations found it imperative to conduct diversity training in corporate America. Chapter four also discussed reasons why corporations conducted diversity training to promote cultural awareness, eliminate prejudices, and enhance communication skills. Additionally, this chapter explained the need for corporations to create a work environment that was sensitive and designed to initiate inclusion among the diverse workforce.

CHAPTER FIVE This chapter gave light to the affects of diversity-training initiatives on the corporate cultures in terms of values, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that assisted in setting standards for the organization. These aspects were explained as organizational norms based upon the values of top management, employee empowerment and teamwork.

CHAPTER SIX This chapter described the different tools corporate America used to measure the effectiveness of diversity training. Chapter six examined various tools of diversity training such as retention, recruitment, productivity, and profit margins to measure effectiveness.

Additionally, some tools used to measure effectiveness were described and included scorecards, benchmarks, and baseline data to prove that diversity training was measurable and influenced employee behaviors.

Diversity Training

5

CHAPTER

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The primary focus of this literature review on diversity training and its impact on employee behaviors in the workforce was to heighten awareness to the complexity and breadth of diversity issues. The review of the literature was intended to provide an insight into trends that had emerged in the field of diversity and how corporate America could develop and utilize different approaches in meeting the corporation’s missions and goals. The literature reviewed was summarized and categorized under the following sections: Defining Diversity, Defining and Valuing Diversity Training, Barriers to Diversity Training Implementation, The Demographics of a Diverse Workforce, Benefits of Diversity Training, and Measuring the Value of Diversity Training.

In corporate America, today’s workforce has become more diverse due to the impact of globalization. The demographics in the United States (U.S.) had rapidly changed causing the employee population to be more diverse and become a rich multicultural society. Therefore, corporations were being driven to respond to the changing demographics and expand the scope of diversity and inclusion programs in the workforce (Hastings, 2008). Many typically view globalization in terms of the expansion of worldwide marketplaces, interacting with distant business cohorts and the potential of the U.S. increasing product sales to foreign countries.

However, globalization also involves the everyday interactions among people from diverse cultures, beliefs, and backgrounds that created challenges for corporate America (Bowes, 2007). Defining Diversity

6

Diversity Training

There are numerous ways to define diversity; therefore, no definition could fully capture all the characteristics that a diverse population might bring to the workplace. In the article “Managing Workplace Diversity is Good for the Bottom Line,” the author quotes “We the people now includes faces from around the globe. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2040, half of all Americans will be classified as minorities” (Benhalim, 2002).

Benhalim (2002) also pointed out that these eye-opening statistics were further proof of the importance of managing diversity and resonated notion that companies were better off to embrace the changing picture of corporate America and the global marketplace it reflected (p.2). Corporations had looked with nostalgia to a more homogeneous workplace that pre-existed, but forward-looking companies benefited from having kept an eye on the future. Diversity is a reality and corporations had sought ways to harness the contributions that a diverse workforce offered in gaining a competitive advantage in the marketplace (Benhalim, 2005).

To gain this competitive advantage Gruer and Osinski (2008) argued that diversity was truly a multifaceted issue and each one of us thinks, works, and acts in different ways.

The authors’ quote that Webster has a word for “the very condition of being different” and it is called Diversity (p. 1). Gruer and Osinski (2008) commented, although there were many articles written about diversity, but the cross-cultural training aspect of diversity was necessary to truly have an impact on corporate America. Therefore, to understand the root of the diversity debate one must travel back in time to explore what is known about America (p.1). Robert Hughes, the author of Culture of Complaint-the Fraying of America, explained what is known about America in terms of diversity. Hughes pressed, “There never was a core America in which everyone looked the same, spoke the same language, worshipped the same gods and believed the same things.” In essence, the American workforce had been in a constant state of change and it is incumbent upon companies to acknowledge, incorporate and educate employees of the different cultures in the workplace (Gruer & Osinski, 2008, p.1).

Researchers and Corporations alike, define diversity in a multitude of ways. Wentling (2008) pointed out the way many had defined diversity varied tremendously ranging from a very narrow to a broad scope. Diversity in its broadest sense was inclusive of all the characteristics that made one individual different from another such as: “sexual orientation, values, personality characteristics, education, language, physical appearance, marital status, lifestyle, beliefs, background, and economic status.” Where as, defining diversity narrowly and more generically, one would tend to focus on diversity as defined and outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity law. EEO law described diversity narrowly as human characteristics in the terms of “race, gender, ethnicity, age, national origin, religion, and disability” (p.1).

Josh Greenberg (2005) author of Diversity in the Workplace: Benefits, Challenges and Solutions, looked at diversity to include a number of important human characteristics that affected individual values and perceptions that people had of themselves and of others.

These perceptions might affect how employees relate and interact with one another.

Diversity Training

7

Corporations must deal effectively with issues of communication, adaptability and change if they expect success in the organization (p.1). The inherent challenges in corporations were due to increasingly diverse employee populations, which were drivers of the need for diversity training. Greenberg further supported the definition of diversity by using a comparative analogy of human characteristics citied by Griggs (1995), which classified diversity into primary and secondary dimensions (Wentling & Rivas, 1997).

Primary dimensions of diversity were those human differences that are inborn and exert an early impact socially, which had a lasting influence throughout our lives. The six primary dimensions included: age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, and sexual/effectual orientation. These primary dimensions, which were narrow, but relative to Wentling’s vision of diversity, are possessed at birth and cannot be changed. In fact, these primary dimensions shape our basic self-image and influence our perceptions of the world. The secondary dimensions of diversity were defined broadly as human preferences, which could be changed. These dimensions included, but were not limited to, educational background, geographic location, income, marital status, military experience, parental status, religious beliefs, and work experience (Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 1997).

Corporations; therefore, were being challenged by the visionaries’ concept of integrating diversity in organization’s mission statements and had taken a philosophical approach not just to learn, but promote diversity in the global workplace. For example, the Microsoft Corporation was committed to promoting and demonstrating diversity initiatives nationwide. The corporation believed that the initiation of diversification had enriched its performance and products. This trickle-down effect was evident in the communities where its employees live and work, and in the employees’ physical lives. The diversity efforts of Microsoft were evident in areas of awards and recognition; whereby, in 2008 the corporation was, selected as the “second Best Companies for Diverse Graduates List award and Family Friendly Society award (Network of Mother Centres in the Czech Republic and the European Social Fund).” Microsoft valued its employees by providing flexible programs, resources, and tools to balance the employee’s work and personal lives (Microsoft, 2008, p.1-3). Microsoft’s efforts in understanding, valuing and incorporating individual differences were increasingly important as the growth of the communities and global marketplace evolved and the promotion of diversity satisfied the corporation’s mission (Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), 2003).

Unlike Microsoft, Texas Instruments (TI) concentrated on valuing diversity as the corporation’s definition of diversity. TI’s personification of diversity was pivotal to the corporation’s success and competitive edge, which hinged upon the talent of people with different backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. “Valuing” diversity was so entrenched within TI’s workforce that the company had embedded the concept within its Values Statement. The promotion of these values had been encouraged throughout the corporation, whereby all employees were motivated to create an environment that promoted diversity.

Diversity Training was such an integral part of the company structure that each TI business was involved in developing diversity strategies and measurements (TCRP, 2003).

8

Diversity Training

DEFINING AND VALUING DIVERSITY TRAINING In spite of the countless ways authors and corporations defined diversity, Nancy Lockwood (2006) had another insight. According to this source, “The Impact of Diversity Initiatives,” corporations utilized diversity training as a strategic tool to manage the trend of the diverse and global demographics in the workplace (p. 5). Experts in 1997 studied the trends of workforce diversity and concurred that managing a diverse workforce properly was challenging because of the following reasons: “globalization had caused corporations to become prone to a more global workforce, marketplace and economy; diverse work teams are prevalent in organizations; diversity has become more of a business concern than a social concern, which has caused a close link to corporation’s competitive strategies; diverse populations have spent more money and have caused an increase in wealth empowering diversity; and senior managers have been more involved in diversity issues because of the need to understand, recognize and utilize the diverse workforce’s ability to remain competitive”(Wentling, 1997, p.2).

The aforementioned trends were an assertion as to why Benhalim and Malcolm (2008) in the article A Blueprint for Successful Diversity Initiatives stated “diversity affects every aspect of corporations and addressing diversity as an integral part of business in today’s global marketplace was critical” (p.1). While, corporate America became increasingly diversified, businesses had to implement diversity-training programs as a channel for overcoming the obstacles of diversity (Gibson & Kimis, 2005).

Corporations discovered diversity initiatives as a remedy for diversity issues. “Diversity training is a strategic initiative designed to make the workplace more inclusive, rather than exclusive” (Gibson & Kimis, 2005, p.2). Diversity initiatives were not another form of Affirmative Action (AA) or an issue of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).

Corporate America must understand that diversity initiatives were not mandated laws or public policies of the EEO/AA. The milieus of EEO/AA was initiated by the government, legally driven, quantitative, are more problem focused, assumes assimilation among its participants, focused strictly on internal issues, and reactive. While on the other hand, diversity initiatives were company driven and voluntary, productivity-driven, qualitative, focused on opportunities, embraced integration, focused both on internal and external issues, and proactive (Velasquez, 2007).

Since diversity training was not a mandated law, the training in corporate America had assisted organizations in capitalizing on the different talents in the workplace and globally.

The training had facilitated notable improvements in communication between diverse workforces and heightened the understanding and appreciation of those differences (Gibson & Kimis, 2005).

Similar to the enormous definitions of diversity, the interpretations and definitions of diversity training also varied among authors and corporations. In the article Deciphering the Difference: Insights into Diversity, Patti Wood (2006), stated diversity training “teaches us to recognize, understand, and accept the differences in opinions, beliefs, and

Diversity Training

9

values each of us brings to the workplace” (p. 1). Accordingly, The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) diversity forum (2008) penned the article What is the Value of Diversity Training and affirmed diversity training “has a fundamental component of a diversity initiative” (p. 1). The opinion of the Diversity Forum conveyed that diversity initiatives allowed corporations an opportunity to inform and educate all levels of management and staff in the workplace (SHRM, 2008). In fact, many corporations recognized that the primary approach of increasing the awareness and knowledge of differences in the workplace was through the implementation of a skill-based diversity training initiative. The article also mentioned that the focus of diversity training had been altered, whereby corporations concentrated on changing employees’ behaviors, instead of attitudes. Some of the training topics that were articulated in changing behaviors included how management handled difficult situations and how communication skills impact an employee’s behavior (SHRM Diversity Forum, 2008).

The Diversity Forum (2008) shared with its readers several key guidelines that were extracted from Designing and Implementing Successful Diversity Initiatives by Lawrence Baytos and Ann Delatte. Some key guidelines discussed by Baytos and Delatte (1995) mentioned that corporations should be cognizant of developing or considering diversity training. Those key guidelines suggested were: “corporations should determine the training objectives and have a broad diversity strategy developed and well planned. The training session should not be prematurely performed without a proper needs analysis of the corporation. The diversity training programs should be designed in a manner that employees are allowed to participate. Corporations should test the training program before it’s rolled out for implementation to ensure that the efforts are equally balanced internally and externally. Diversity training should be integrated part of a corporation’s core curriculum” (p. 1).

Baytos and Delatte (1995) also suggested corporations should be conscientious of the diversity training options offered because of the vital role the training had played in the success or failure of the overall diversity initiatives. The options a corporation should consider in delivering the training depend upon the size and resources available. Some of the options the authors listed could be used separately or in cycles. Corporations could use “internal candidates to present and design the training. Independent consultants could be hired to provide the training to staff and line management. The “train the trainer” was another approach corporations could utilize to develop and implement diversity training.

This approach; however, required certain staff members to be selected and trained in diversity management issues. The staff selected would be responsible for training to staff and line management. In summary, diversity training should be integrated into an existing training model and never be a stand-alone initiative” (p.2).

Occasionally, key guidelines and options used in the development and delivery of diversity training did not always change individual’s mindset for many reasons. Conversely, diversity training could be created to heightened awareness and impart knowledge of differences in the employee population. Corporations had to adopt a sense of responsibility in today’s

10

Diversity Training

workforce to become pro-active in informing and educating the workforce (SHRM Diversity Forum, 2008).

BARRIERS TO DIVERSITY TRAINING IMPLEMENTATION Studies had shown that corporations might experience personal and organizational barriers, which could interfere in the proper execution of diversity initiatives. A case study cited from the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) 2003, allowed participants to elaborate on areas of insensitivity caused by barriers in communication and interaction among cross-cultural relationships. Some of the personal barriers identified were language, dress, appearance, identity, age, sexual orientation, and personal style. The organizational barriers acknowledged by participants were in areas of diversity that had not been tied to the synergy of the corporation. Therefore, the absence of diversity not being addressed in the core areas of corporations such as the mission statement, vision statement, rule and regulations, company polices, informal communication networks, and socialization protocol placed the business at a disadvantage. The avoidance of diversity training not addressed in those core areas caused employees to perceive that the company was not serious about diversity initiative (TCRP, 2003). The lack of seriousness about diversity being the core of the corporation was a reflection of how employees were promoted, rewarded and terminated. This portion of the study was instrumental in developing mutual respect in the workplace where sensitivity, patience, and listening skills inhibited the implementation of diversity initiatives (TCRP, 2003).

Several other areas where barriers could formulate and hinder the implementation of diversity initiatives were in top management, communication, unhealthy working environments, and limited funds. Non-commitment of top management enabled diversity initiatives from being implemented. The support from this level was essential if corporations expected success and lasting changes. The commitment from top management sent a clear-cut message to the managers and line-managers about the seriousness of diversity initiatives. Poor communication was also a barrier that hampered effective diversity training. Communication was paramount for corporations from the beginning to the end of diversity initiatives. Open dialogue between managers and employees became vital because this setting was where employees voiced opinions and desired to be heard. An unhealthy or hostile work environment impeded effective implementation of diversity training because employees had to feel safe in the work environment during these transitions. Corporations should not exhibit any behaviors of retaliation; otherwise, employees might become withdrawn from being honest and open when threats are visible (Digh, 2003). Additionally, the lack of properly funding diversity initiatives also hampers the implementation. Studies had shown corporations spent billions of dollars on diversity training annually. Improper funding for implementation of successful diversity training could lead to piecemeal efforts that would be unorganized, inefficient and narrowly scoped, which produces frustration and failure (Santana & Quintana, 2006).

Diversity Training

11

In conclusion, corporations were being challenged in every aspect of diversity. The training initiatives were not comprehensive enough to resolve all the issues in managing diversity.

Diversity training; however, was one of the primary tools in addressing diversity issues and sufficient reason why corporations relied on the strategic design and implementation of the plan.

THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF A DIVERSE WORKFORCE An increasingly diverse work force was a definite trend in the U.S. The U.S. population was growing so rapidly; the entire landscape of employment had changed. According to the 2000 Census Bureau, an estimated 30% of the U.S. population was from ethnic or racial minority groups. The census indicated “12.8% were African Americans, 11.9% were Hispanics, 4.1% were Asian and Pacific, and 1% represented other groups” (Mateo, 2001, p. 1). These staggering statistics implied that demographic compositions were affecting both the makeup of the labor workforce and marketplace. In fact, the demographic composition was a catalyst that would directly affect the labor pool, which impacted the availability of skilled and educated talent significantly (Lockwood, 2005).

Statistically by, “2008, 70% of women and minorities will represent the new labor pool and by 2010, 34% of the U.S. workforce will be non-Caucasian. The aging workforce by 2010, in the U.S. will increase by 29%, which will represent the age groups ranging from 45-64. There will be a 14% increase in age group of 65+ and a 1% decline in the 18-44 age groups. In addition, globalization in the next decade will consist of 75% of new workers migrating from Asia, while North America and Europe will have 3% of the world’s new labor force” (Lockwood, 2005, p.2).

The view of Wentling and Rivas-Palma (1997) was a confirmation that demographic shifts in corporate America had undergone dramatic changes. The demographic change moved away from the traditional European-American male presence into a more diverse and segmented population (p.1). Research indicated several forces that caused diversity concerns in the workplace as more businesses become global. Some of diversity concerns in the labor forces were: an increase in the population of women and minorities, the attraction of younger minorities in the workforce to include gay men, lesbians, bisexual, and people who are disabled (p.2).

Unfortunately, the demographic shifts had caused the U.S. to battle in a “war for talent.”

The demographic shifts had caused a change in the workforce makeup, which included the presence of an aging population, generational mixes and more minorities entering the workplace. Therefore, attracting and recruiting qualified talent had become a high priority in corporations (SHRM, 2008). The concept of diversification added another concern for corporate America because of the generational mixes. The question should be asked: Is corporate America prepared to accommodate the entry of the four generations working side-by-side? More than ever, a variety of generational mixes exists in the workplace.

12

Diversity Training

These generational mixes consisted of Traditionalists, Baby boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. All four generational groups coexisted within the same environment, but each had brought new and different experiences to the workplace (Douglas & Schaffer, 2007). The most critical aspect of the newest generation’s entrance in the workforce was the management and respect for this group. The newest and youngest generation, the millennial, sometimes referred to as Generation Y, was the most ethnically diverse in American history because of lifelong exposure to diversity (Yingst, 2008).

BENEFITS OF DIVERSITY TRAINING In today’s diverse workforce the benefits of diversity training were vitally important due to business strategies of corporate America. The business case for diversity training in the workplace according to Diversity Builder, Inc. had rapidly become noted as a “low cost, high return value for corporations” (p.2). Corporate America’s commitment to diversity training had been beneficial in creating a work environment where employees feel satisfied, safe and meaningful. The implementation of diversity initiatives had generated a positive atmosphere in the workforce that assured employee’s presence was recognized and valued.

In essence, corporations who embraced diversity training were now experiencing changes in the efforts and creativity among its employees (Diversity in Workplace, 2008).

Numerous sources were adamant about diversity training’s benefits and the importance of the training for corporations. Some sources classified the benefits of diversity training as primary, while others classified them as general. Some of the primary benefits of diversity training were evident in increased customer satisfaction, increased workplace productivity and reduced legal exposure. First, the increase in customer satisfaction was relevantly significant because the workforce and customer base had become more diverse.

Diversity training equipped employees and team members to relate with customers who were different. The training had enhanced the awareness and skills of the employees to a point which maximized satisfactory customer interaction. Secondly, diversity training also increased workplace productivity. The training was recognized as being a crucial component to prepare the diverse workforce to be motivated and operate efficiently.

Corporate diversity training had been beneficial in helping employees to conquer conflicts within the workplace. Employees who had mastered interpersonal conflicts were then able to focus on the positive aspects of a diverse workforce that reaped the benefits of being satisfied and productive. Consequently, corporations that did not buy into diversity training were experiencing high levels of employee turnover, low production and employee dissatisfaction. Lastly, corporations reduced the risk of legal exposure when sound diversity training programs were developed parallel to the organization’s business policy. In fact, corporations that integrated zero tolerance policies against harassment or discrimination limited the organization’s exposure to lawsuits (Diversity Training is Important, 2006).

Carter McNamara (2008), another diversity consultant, listed additional reasons for conducting diversity training in corporations. These reasons were noted to be beneficial

Diversity Training

13

in enhancing corporations in various areas. Some general benefits that corporations experienced included: “an increase in employee morale that stimulated job satisfaction, enhanced motivation among employees, an increase in financial gain due to efficiencies in processes, increased opportunities to adopt new technology, a decrease in employee turnover, heightened corporate image, and a reduction in risk management� (p. 2).

In summary, the benefits of diversity training whether different consultants or authors categorized them as primary or general were found to be beneficial within corporate America. Reaping the benefits of diversity training, according to Martin and Ferraro (2008) had been advantageous for corporation. Consequently, any corporation that was not prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities of the changes in the workforce and marketplace would be left out of the competition. More so, Martin and Ferraro suggested that corporate America should increase its efforts to eradicate the barriers that prohibited professional advancement for women and minorities. The acceptance of these efforts had increased corporation’s revenue and leveled the playing field in the marketplace (p.5).

MEASURING THE VALUE OF DIVERSITY TRAINING The importance of measuring the value of diversity training referenced the assessment of changes made in corporations. Assessing the changes caused by diversity training required corporations to utilize metrics and create tools to measure the effectiveness of the efforts.

The tools for measuring the value of diversity training in corporations were designed to ensure that the creating, managing, valuing, and leveraging of a diverse workforce would be effective in sustaining competition in the marketplace (Diversity Practices & Resources Measurement, 2008).

The measurement practices conveyed a foundation for developing a strategic approach to diversity measurements. The highlights of the six measurement tools, according to the source, were based upon experienced researchers who had paved the way for the evolution of diversity training. The measurement tools were established for diversity training initiatives and encompassed six categories: demographics, organizational culture, accountability, productivity, growth and profitability, benchmarking, and programmatic measures (p.1).

Demographics were the most common category of measurement spawned from the EEO/AA. The EEO/AA metrics provided the foundation for the majority of workforce composition. This metric determined what segments or sub-groups existed in the overall population and created a clear and complete picture of the characteristic for a typical workforce member from each of these segments (p.1).

The next measurement tool was organizational culture which presented opportunities for individuals to assess the work environment and how different groups viewed the environment. The most universal way to assess corporate cultures was through culture audits, surveys, focus groups, and networking groups. Some companies measured the

14

Diversity Training

effectiveness of diversity initiatives by integrating diversity-related questions in employee surveys such as: how people feel they are valued; how well are they managed and respected by their supervisors; and how do they feel about the workplace overall? Also, several firms used individual outreach methods or focus groups as measuring rods (Diversity Practices & Resources Measurement, 2008).

Accountability was the third measurement tool and primarily focused on management, but the employees were responsible to shoulder some of the behaviors displayed. Some of the tools created to measure accountability included checklists, 360-degree feedback, peer reviews, employee attitude surveys, and self-evaluations. Another method in which corporations were holding managers accountable for diversity efforts was connected to personal incentives and percentage bonuses. Corporations were serious about managers who successfully enhanced the bottom-line and had the ability to create a positive environment that valued, respected and leveraged all employee talents (p.1).

Another measurement tool that continued to challenge and be difficult for corporations to receive accurate measurements was in the areas of productivity, growth and profitability.

Frequently these areas were measured and connected to employee morale, retention, turnover, and absenteeism. Productivity was often related to less concrete measures such as problem-solving capabilities of the diverse workforce. Additionally, the productivity, growth, and profitability measures were progressively applied to global operations and to expanding markets (p.2).

In addition, benchmarking was another measurement tool that divulged information about what other companies did. This measurement focused on discoveries which corporations recognized during the process, and then assessed the progress of other corporations comparatively to one another. Conversely, the benchmark-measuring tool had some restraints because similar practices could not be replicated in a timely fashion, coupled with barriers of different corporate cultures and organizational structures (p. 2).

Finally, programmatic measurements were widely used in evaluating and monitoring the effectiveness of diversity training. Various other measurement techniques that could be used in monitoring diversity initiatives were flexible working arrangements and referral services. Mentoring also could be used a barometer to measure the success rate in terms of mentorship (Diversity Practices & Resources Measurement, 2008).

According to Gray (1998) measuring the value of diversity training had become the most arduous area of diversity and inclusion efforts. The importance of being able to measure diversity initiatives was essential in determining the value and effectiveness of the efforts.

The different and complex organizational needs that diversity initiatives respond to included: legal, social, economic, productivity, and the balance of work life (p.1).

There were key steps for which corporations could measure diversity training, said Gray.

Those steps were: “corporations must identify the goals of diversity training efforts; establish clear performance indicators and benchmarks; and monitor progress periodically�

Diversity Training

15

(Gray, 1998, p.1). According to the source, corporations that used this step-by-step criterion increased the likelihood that diversity efforts were measured effectively.

Step one: Corporations must identify the goals of diversity training efforts. Corporations identifying the forces that compelled corporations to invest resources in diversity training tended to fall into one of the following areas and could be measured specifically by category. The areas that propelled corporations’ financial support were noted in attracting and retaining, managing, valuing, and leveraging a diverse workforce. These areas overlapped, but impacted each other notably in fulfilling diversity efforts (p.1).

Step two: Corporations should establish clear performance indicators and benchmarks.

Corporations must develop explicit benchmarks or indicators for the outcome goals to gauge increments of change. Comprehensive diversity initiatives, noted by Gray, involved multiple complementary activities. Each activity should be linked to a goal and connected to specific indicators or benchmarks. This particular step assisted in eliminating arguments about the progress of diversity initiatives because the activities were measured incrementally based upon a timeline and changes were noticeable. The incremental changes could be measured every quarter, semi-annually or yearly. The indicators were set specifically to show the progress of diversity efforts (p.1).

Step three: Corporations must monitor the progress periodically. This step reverts back to step two in establishing benchmarks. The frequency in which the succession of changes occurred could easily be modified earlier in the diversity efforts rather than later when changes were not evident (Gray, pp. 1-2).

In conclusion, measuring the value of diversity training had become a critical requirement for the future due to globalization, support from top management in regards to returnon-investment, and meeting the strategic business objectives of corporations. Corporate America could no longer accept “business as usual� with the increase in methodologies that could be used to measure the effectiveness of diversity training such as diversity metrics, scorecards, baseline data, and employee satisfaction surveys (Hubbard, 2008).

16

Diversity Training

CHAPTER

3 WHAT IS DIVERSITY AND DIVERSITY TRAINING?

Diversity can be defined in vast ways and mean different things to different people in various settings or environments. There had been countless discussions about diversity and how diversity had been defined; however, diversity in the workforce stemmed from traditional policies, programs, or legal mandated ramifications of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and Affirmative Action (AA) Laws. Diversity in the broadest sense goes beyond the concept of ethnicity, race and gender, but is immeasurable with regards to the inclusiveness of all groups of people (Diversity, 2008).

Diversity had been defined broadly and narrowly and further categorized into primary and secondary dimensions that could be used to differentiate groups and people from one another. These dimensions could be visible and invisible, according to Giovannini (2004), and encompass human characteristics such as “gender, age, race, sexual orientation, martial status, educational background, and work experience” (p. 3). However, those common characteristics had expanded the definitions of diversity and provided dissimilarity between the traits of visible and invisible diversity (Mor-Barak, 2005). Mor-Barak stated visible diversity traits were easily observed and detected such as race, gender, and physical disability. Invisible diversity was comprised of traits that could not be easily observed.

These attributes were traits, which are underlined and characteristic of individual’s culture, religion, education, and tenure with corporations (p.128).

Diversity defined either narrowly, broadly or dimensional creates a diverse workforce, according to Johnson (2003), which could

Diversity Training

17

be the right thing to do and a very optimal opportunity, for corporations; even though, the inclusion of the diverse workforce was problematic. Johnson used Gardenswartz’s and Rowes’ (1995) four layers of diversity circle to explain the intrinsically challenges of a diverse workforce to clarify the four dimensions of diversity factors and why these challenges could occur. Each dimension had characteristics that intersected in a diverse workforce, which enabled corporations to identify the differences and similarities among individuals. The four dimensional circle used by Johnson (2003) articulated the following: “inner circle (one’s personality), 2nd circle (internal dimensions), 3rd circle (external dimensions), and the outer circle (organizational dimensions)” (p.1). These dimensions are depicted and illustrated in Figure one.

Figure one shows the four dimensions of diversity: personality, internal dimensions, external dimensions, and organizational dimensions. Personality, the inner dimension constitutes the core of the model and could be classified as one’s personal style, but covers all aspects of an individual. The 2nd circle was internal dimensions that focused on human genetics, which were not easily changed or altered by individuals. The 3rd circle, external dimensions was characterized by individual preferences that influence our lives, value systems and contribute to the development of one’s personality. The 4th circle was the organizational dimensions that could be defined by corporations and affect one’s experience and work status. This particular dimension had been known to create an inferior and superior culture among the diverse work environment. Moreover, diversity was not limited to any set of human characteristics; the traits noted in the diversity figure identified different dimensions that defined individual uniqueness. The four unified layers of diversity such as one’s personality, internal, external, and organizational dimensions are distinctive characteristics. These characteristics in fact, are endless when a diverse workforce had been brought together in the workplace (Johnson, 2003).

Even so, Webster’s Dictionary defined diversity “as the condition of having distinct or unlike elements.” Those elements varied among people, but were also classified as “age, culture, education, employee status, family status, gender, national origin, physical appearance, race, regional origin, sexual orientation, religion, and thinking style” (Workforce Diversity, 2006, p.1). Those differences and dimensions of diversity were ignored and devalued in the past. However, studies had shown the significances and the role diversity played in the effectiveness of business strategies. Corporations, which embraced and valued workforce diversity, acknowledged that other people, races, voices, and cultures had as much integrity as the prior homogeneous workforces (Workforce Diversity, 2006).

18

Diversity Training

FIGURE 1: LAYERS OF DIVERSITY: THE FOUR DIMENSIONS ADAPTED FROM GARDENSWARTZ, L. ROWE, A. 1995, DIVERSE TEAMS AT WORK

There were incalculable ways corporations had defined diversity, which ranged from narrow to very broad. Diversity in its broadest sense should be inclusive of all the different characteristics that make one individual different from another; where as, defining diversity narrowly focused on Equal Employment Opportunity law (EEO). Diversity narrowly defined tended to reflect (EEO) laws that described diversity as human characteristics.

Wentling (2008) mentioned those characteristics as one’s race, gender, ethnicity, age, national origin, religion, and disability. However, the broad definition of diversity should be inclusive and categorized as an individual’s “sexual orientation, values, personality characteristics, education, language, physical appearance, martial status, lifestyle, beliefs, background, and economic status” (Wentling, 2008, p.1). Thus, the term “inclusive” used in defining diversity broadly, actually expounded on why corporations had incorporated “inclusion” as a part of the meaning for diversity, which “is a state of being valued, respected and supported” (Giovannini, 2004, p. 3).

Diversity as stated earlier could be defined narrowly, which focused on the EEO/AA laws, while the broad definition of diversity included the totality of human characteristics. The narrow and broad definitions of diversity continued to be challenged by scholars who studied diversity to be another version of EEO/AA laws. The EEO laws and AA efforts unified diversity, which gave everyone, equal access to employment opportunities because minorities and women were discriminated against in the workplace (Diversity Matters, 2007).

Diversity Training

19

Therefore, the dispute that “Diversity” was another version of the “Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action” has been illustrated below to show the major differences.

Table one has been formatted to give a contrasted view of why EEO/AA laws should not be considered another version of diversity.

TABLE 1: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EEO/AA

DIVERSITY

GOVERNMENT INITIATED

VOLUNTARY (COMPANY DRIVEN)

LEGALLY DRIVEN

PRODUCTIVITY DRIVEN

QUANTITATIVE

QUALITATIVE

PROBLEM FOCUSED

OPPORTUNITY FOCUSED

ASSUMES ASSIMILATION

ASSUMES INTEGRATION

INTERNALLY FOCUSED REACTIVE

INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY FOCUSED PROACTIVE

Table 1 - Comparison of EEO/AA versus Diversity *Adapted from Workforce America! Managing Employee Diversity as a Vital Resource by Marilyn Loden & Judy Rosener, 1991, Irwin Professional Publishing

Subsequently, the layers, dimensions and differences of diversity catapulted the need for corporations to conduct diversity training, which was aimed to bring awareness to the differences and similarities of individuals’ in the workforce. Diversity training immersed in the workforce during the 1980’s and focused on how the influx of women, people of color and new immigrants entering into the workforce should be understood, respected and valued. In the early 1990’s, corporations recognized that diversity training was necessary and began to stress the importance of creating an inclusive workplace where human differences were recognized (PACT Training, 2006).

Diversity training, according to SHRM (2008) could be defined as a fundamental component used to increase the awareness and understanding of different cultures in the workplace (p.1). Doyle (2004) used a more explicit definition of diversity training, quoted

by Westfield and Stahlhut (1999). According to the source, diversity training was a process

20

Diversity Training

introduced in a workforce to educate individuals about cultural, socio-economic, racial, and religious differences. This foreknowledge of diversity training could be also used as a tool to indoctrinate how those differences are embraced to create and maintain an effective work environment (p.50). Diversity training in the view of another source reiterated training could be used to teach individuals to recognize, understand, and accept the differences others brought to the workplace (Wood, 2006).

Ultimately, diversity training initiatives had been used to develop concrete skills throughout corporations that primarily focused on helping employees to understand differences among people. Corporate America reacted to the influx of diverse workforces and utilized diversity training strategies to manage the trend (SHRM, 2008). Corporations recognized that diversity training was instrumental in the enhancement of productivity and communication among employees. The benefits of a multicultural workforce were recognized as profitability to corporations were increased productivity, improved language skills, global perspectives, skilled negotiations, new ideas, and creative problem solvers. All of those benefits stemmed from and attributed to corporations that sought out people from diverse cultures to survive when the challenge of increased competition existed (Kahn, 2004).

In fact, corporations had experienced some benefits of diversity training. Pigott (2006) published in Business Law Today, (vol.16), that diversity training had a broad meaning and it should not be modeled as a one size fit all initiative, but according to the needs and goals of corporations. Thus, corporations should consider the different factors of how diversity training was defined within the environment of the workplace, in order to reap the benefits. Corporations had to question its motives for diversity training. Corporation must first ask whether diversity was defined as racial or as the number of ethnic minorities in the company. Then second, whether corporations defined diversity narrowly or very broadly, according to the aforementioned definitions. All in all, the manner in which corporate America facilitates diversity training had been shown to directly affect how employees received and accepted the training (pp.1-2).

The statement above had been an important factor to the birth of diversity training and how corporations should decide to define diversity in its work environment. When defining diversity in the workplace, corporations should be mindful of one critical element. That critical element was to ensure that employees and customers were able to see themselves in the definition. According to SHRM Diversity Forum, when employees and customers relate to the definition one’s acceptance of diversity training initiatives were more welcomed and invested in, even though opportunities for resistance were possible (SHRM, 2008).

Some corporations that defined diversity as it related to employees and customers were the following: Society for Human Resources Management: “To celebrate diversity is to appreciate and value individual differences. SHRM strives to be leaders in promoting workplace diversity.

Although the term is often used to refer to differences based on ethnicity, gender, age,

Diversity Training

21

religion, disability, national origin, and sexual orientation, diversity encompasses an infinite range of individuals’ unique characteristics and experiences, including communication styles, physical characteristics such as height and weight, and speed of learning and comprehension” (SHRM Forum, 2008, pp.1-2).

Microsoft Corporation: “At Microsoft, we believe that diversity enriches our performance and products, the communities in which we live and work, and lives of our employees.

As our workforce evolves to reflect the growing diversity of our communities and global marketplace, our efforts to understand value, and incorporate differences become increasingly important. At Microsoft, we have established a number of initiatives to promote diversity within our organization and to demonstrate this commitment in communities nationwide” (p.2).

Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare: “Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare is committed to increasing the diversity of staff at levels while paying special attention to improving the representation of women and minorities in key positions; to creating an inclusive, respectful and equitable environment; to serve our diverse members with culturally sensitive services; and to change the organizational culture through leadership, polices and practices” (p. 2).

The intended purpose of diversity training was to heighten the awareness of differences among individuals in the workplace. The art of implementation and proper introduction of diversity training had been noted to create diverse environments whereby, people become exceptionally skilled and learn areas of differences or similarities from one another (Beyond Diversity, 2008). Researchers still acknowledged that diversity training normally has three objectives. The three objectives were meant to be “educational and enhance the knowledge and awareness about diversity issues; minimize biases and stereotypes; and alter behaviors of individuals” (Regan, Swisher, Barnett, Luzar & Mastrodicasa, 2007, p.1).

According to Lockwood (2006), SHRM’s 2005 survey reported nine areas corporations addressed in diversity training. Those areas were gender, ethnicity, race, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, and language. The ninth area, other was viewed as complex and time-consuming. Corporations had undergone great efforts in the implementation of diversity training (pp. 2-3). The aforementioned list of areas corporations had addressed in the workplace only mentioned some of the dimensions of diversity. Diversity initiatives do inherent more areas of differences among individuals. Nonetheless, corporations had recognized diversity initiatives were hard to manage and facilitate due to the multifaceted process of implementation (p.3).

SHRM surveyed 305 corporations to determine what areas of diversity management and diversity training were linked to the success of the initiatives. The areas graphed below as percentages are significant because of the broadly defined definition of diversity and how it had impacted corporations. The areas that could influence the success of diversity management and diversity training initiatives are described in Figure two.

22

Diversity Training

FIGURE 2: AREAS OF DIVERSITY COVERED BY CORPORATIONS

Note: Percentages do not total 100% due to multiple response options Source: SHRM 2005 Workplace Diversity Practice Survey Report.

In conclusion, diversity training had been used in corporations for a long time. The concept was not as new as it seemed; however, the training programs had been utilized at different corporations under different names such as race relations training, cross-cultural training, and multicultural education. The birth of diversity training was to heighten the awareness of differences among diverse individuals. Diversity training was designed to expose individuals to diverse cultures and all that diversity encompassed. Nevertheless, the diversification of the workforce was a catalyst for the implementation of diversity training initiatives. Corporations that properly manage diverse workforces could experience growth when the expansion of different personalities, racial backgrounds and genders are present in the workforce (Diversity Training, 2008).

Diversity Training

23

CHAPTER

4 WHY DO CORPORATIONS FIND IT IMPERATIVE TO CONDUCT DIVERSITY TRAINING?

Corporations found that diversity training had become necessary because of the multicultural composition of our society. The multitudinous of diverse workforces with regards to gender, race, age, sexual orientation, and physical disabilities are precursors as to why diversity training had become imperative (Thomas, 2008). In fact, as cultural differences emerged in the workforce, organizations had recognized that the diverse demographics are potentially affecting every aspect of management (Bernier & Rocco, 2003). Previously, corporate America viewed diversity training as a means to avoid discrimination and harassment lawsuits.

However, the necessity for diversity training had altered executives’ minds because more corporations were doing business globally, demographical shifts had changed and technology had improved (Kahn, 2004).

Corporate America had finally accepted that today’s diversity training initiatives could take many forms and produce different outcomes, yet the training had been paramount in remaining competitive. Diversity experts attest to the fact that employees became emotional when diversity training initiatives were introduced in the workforce, but corporations had not ignored the inevitable. These emotions are demonstrated through reactions of apathy, discomfort and rages of hostility, according to Hastings (2007) (p.2). Emotional conflicts could be avoided if corporations aligned the training parallel to the mission, vision and goals of its organization. The alignment would substantiate diversity training programs as long-term initiatives. The nuances of conducting diversity training could be received positively or negatively;

24

Diversity Training

therefore, corporations should assess thoroughly the reason for implementation. When assessments of the workplace were performed, studies had shown that corporations could determine reasons for the training and expected outcomes. Once these assessments are performed, corporations should develop a step-by-step plan for implementation (Hastings, 2007).

According to Lockwood (2005), diversity in the workplace had caused an evolution, which was predicted in a landmark study performed by Workforce 2020. The evolution resulted from several changes in the components of the homogenous employment landscape.

Corporate America’s employment landscape was altered as technology rapidly changed, globalization increased, the demand for skills and education diminished, aging workforce population existed, and a diverse ethnic labor market increased (p.1). According to the source, the traditional concept of diversity training evolved in the U.S. around 1960 and was based upon assimilation and differentiation. The assimilation approach “we are all the same,” promoted the equal opportunity law. The differentiation approach was taken from the philosophy that “we celebrate differences” (Lockwood, 2005, p. 2). However, today’s research has shown that workplace diversity had emerged in a paradigm were integration and learning are key components to managing diversity. Those five key components above had taught leaders to promote equal opportunity and value culture differences, in order to gain talented employees (p. 2).

The demographical trends were another driver that transformed the workforce and had caused diversity training initiatives to become vital. Those demographical shifts had directly affected the labor pool and available talent in the workforce (see Figure three).

According to Lockwood (2005), the demographical changes had been significant because of the value that human capital and workforce relationships contribute to the success of corporations. The enhancement of workplace diversity and diversity training had been known to produce enormous success factors. Those factors had helped corporations to remain competitive in today’s marketplace. Figure three is a snapshot of how the demographical trends were being projected for the future (p.2).

Diversity Training

25

FIGURE 3: DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS TRANSFORMING DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS TRANSFORMING THE WORKFORCE GREATER DIVERSITY IN THE LABOR POOL: BY 2008, WOMEN AND MINORITIES WILL REPRESENT 70% OF THE NEW LABOR ENTRANT, AND BY 2010, 24% OF THE U.S. WORKFORCE WILL BE NON-CAUCASIAN. AN AGING WORKFORCE: BY 2010, THE U.S. WORKFORCE WILL HAVE AN INCREASE OF 29% IN THE 45-64 AGE GROUPS, A 14% INCREASE IN THE 65+ AGE GROUP AND A 1% DECLINE IN THE 18-44 AGE GROUPS. GLOBALIZATION: IN THE NEXT DECADE, 75% OF NEW WORKERS WILL HAVE LIKELY MIGRATED FROM ASIA, WHILE NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE WILL HAVE 3% OF THE WORLD’S NEW LABOR FORCE. SOURCE: HEWITT ASSOCIATES. (2004, FEBRUARY). PREPARING THE WORKFORCE OF TOMORROW. RETRIEVED MARCH 21, 2005 FROM WWW.HEWITT.COM Corporations are not oblivious to the fact that conducting diversity training initiatives had been crucial in the following areas: “growth, adaptability and flexibility in the marketplace, attraction and retention of best talent, cost reductions in turnover, absenteeism and low productivity, return on investments, acceptability to gaining and retaining greater/new market shares, and increased sales and profits” (Lockwood, 2005, p.2). All of the areas above are advantageous to diversity training. Essentially, workforce diversity had been connected to the corporation’s bottom line both directly and indirectly (p.2).

Corporations therefore, understood the effects that diversity initiatives have had on an organization’s bottom line, according to a study performed by SHRM. Fortune’s 100 companies had acknowledged that diversity training initiatives do provide corporations with competitive advantages. Those competitive advantages were shown as improvements in corporate culture, employee morale, retention, and recruitment. In conjunction, all of the competitive advantages were pioneered through the implementation of diversity training, whereby 40 percent of the companies vowed to make the development programs accessible to all employees, 34 percent tapped into the talent of all employees with different backgrounds to increase innovation, and 31 percent of the companies strategically used the experience of the diverse workforce for special projects and assignments. Figure four, showed a graphic representation of how organizations had actively leveraged the playing field for employees, in order to remain competitive (Lockwood, 2005).

26

Diversity Training

FIGURE 4: DIVERSITY AND COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES

Source: Society for Human Resources Management (2004, August 3). SHRM/Fortune Diversity Weekly Survey. Retrieved March 25, 2005 from wwww.shrm.org

As mentioned earlier, the introduction of diversity training in the workplace should be an ongoing initiative due to the astounding demographical shifts that were projected by the U.S. Census Bureau. Aizenman (2008), a writer for the Washington Post, reported by mid-century that the nation’s population would be viewed differently in the future due to a more racially and ethnically diverse population. The U.S. Censes Bureau had estimated by 2050, that the demographic shift of the diverse population should increase from about “302 million to 439 million” (p.1).

In addition, an independent demographer published that about one-third of the minorities within the U.S. population are expected to become a majority by 2042. The published analyses according to the source, mentioned that one-third of those minorities are expected to be a majority, and 54 percent are estimated to become U.S. residents by 2050 (Aizenman, 2008). Aizenman reported numerous detailed statistics of the potential demographical shifts that could be reasons why diversity training should be continuously introduced in the workplace and the rationale for the article stating “U.S. to Grow Grayer, More Diverse” (p.1).

Diversity Training

27

Studies had shown that Hispanics, including the immigrants and their descendants are going to be the largest population among all minorities and are expected to triple by 2050.

In addition, the Africa American and Asia populations each are predicted to increase 60 percent. The underlying results would be that the Africa Americans population could increase from 14 to 15 percent by 2050 and the Asians population rising from five to nine percent. Furthermore, people who identify themselves as being from two or more races are likely to triple to 16.2 million, which would be four percent of the population. The overall population of non-Hispanics and single white race were projected to grow only two percent, and projected to decline as members of that group die. The baby boomers are expected to be 65 or older by 2030, but only account for one in five residencies, opposed to one in eight today. The older population at age 85 and older could triple, but would only account for four percent of the U.S. residency (Aizenman, 2008).

Therefore, the above demographic statistics support and justify the reason why corporations should conduct diversity training. Aizenman also noted children were a part of the demographic shifts, which represented 44 percent of minorities. The analyses proposed that more than half of those children by 2023 are expected to be minorities. However, by 2050 those 44 percent of children are projected to escalate to 62 percent. Figure five is a projected graph of the diverse population of children by 2050 (p.1).

FIGURE 5: THE DIVERSE POPULATION OF CHILDREN BY 2050

The facts shared about the demographic shifts by 2050 are astounding and support why diversity training had to be a long-range initiative for corporations. Corporations should be prepared, to embrace the working-age population given the statistics in demographics of the

28

Diversity Training

diverse children and the shifts in the population. Children are expected to become workingage by 2050 and more of a majority-minority workforce (Aizenman, 2008). Figure six is a graphic view of the working-age population becoming a majority-minority by 2050 with the projected workforce being 30 percent Hispanic, 15 percent Black and 10 percent Asian (p.1).

FIGURE 6: PROJECTED 2050 WORKING-AGE POPULATION

In addition, diversity training in the workplace had become a powerful tool to bring about the awareness of different cultures and backgrounds in various industrial areas. ABC 7 News ran an article, (2008, February12), “District of Columbia (D.C.) Firefighters to Get More Ethics, Diversity Training” (ABC News, 2008, p.1). Rubin, the fire chief in D.C. had recognized and embraced the value of educating the firefighters and emergency medical workers about ethics, diversity and equity training. These training sessions were important to Rubin, due to several allegations of misconduct of the employees during the last six years. The four-month trainings were mandatory and required for all managers. Afterwards, these managers were held responsible for training the remaining fire department employees (ABC News, 2008).

Similarly, survey question 10 (see Appendix B) supported the decision made by the D.C. fire chief who made diversity training mandatory. The survey results indicated that diversity training had helped with communications, attitudes, behaviors, and interactions in teams and among others. The responses of 10 participants from the “Workforce Diversity Training for Directors/Managers” survey are shown in Figure seven.

Diversity Training

29

FIGURE 7: COMMUNICATING RESPECTFULLY SUPPORTS ATTITUDES

Another reason why corporations are conducting diversity trainings was due to more ethnic minorities and women entering the workplace. Market studies had shown greater eyeopeners at a time when ethnic minorities and women were more visible in the workplace.

While this is true, ethnic minorities and women had grown to be the fastest customer segments, as well as in wealth building. Reports had shown that this diverse population segment earns more than $100,000 per year, with investment assets calculated to be in the six figures. The U.S. Department of labor reported that 80 percent of women and minorities had entered the workforce for the first time. The entrance of women and minorities had a significant impact because 13.2 percent of the 80 percent were comprised of AfricanAmericans, Asian-Americans and Hispanics. Corporations that viewed these statistics should have been inclined to make diversity a core business initiative for advancement (Diversity Markets, 2008).

Even though overtones of criticism about diversity training had existed within the corporations, studies which were enumerated in this chapter still supported the need for diversity training. In spite of why corporations had found it imperative to conduct diversity training initiatives the implementation of these trainings did not take place without support and oppositions. The aforementioned facts had shown that diversity was inevitable and the tools used to welcome all of what diversity encompassed was “diversity training.�

Therefore according to Kahn (2004), diversity training initiatives had been present in 70 percent of large corporations (employ 5,000 or more employees), and 25 percent in midsize corporations (under 5,000 employees). The other 5 percent were unaccounted for as to whether or not any type of training was performed in its organization (p.1). The pie chart in Figure eight depicted workplace initiatives.

30

Diversity Training

FIGURE 8: COMPANY DIVERSITY INITIATIVES

Some corporations had broadened diversity efforts, according to survey results released by a Boston Consulting firm in April 2008. Hasting (2008) reported 40 percent of corporations had expanded the scope of diversity efforts to encompass diversity and inclusion initiatives.

On the other hand, Hastings reported 35 percent of organizations had not globalized its diversity and inclusion programs, and were not expected to implement the programs in the near future. These findings were obtained from the participants of 2,500 senior Human Resources representatives (p. 1). Hastings concluded corporations who do not expand its diversity and inclusion initiatives were taking risks that would affect the organizations’ bottom line and the ability to attract, grow and retain good talent. These risks were looked upon as disadvantages for corporations when diversity and inclusion initiatives are not conducted in the workforce (p.1).

Accordingly, in question six (see Appendix C) the survey results from 30 participants came from the “Workforce Diversity Training for Employees” are illustrated in Figure nine. The survey results indicated 23 percent of companies are still reluctant in offering diversity for its employees. Sixty-seven percent of the participants indicated diversity training was offered in the company.

FIGURE 9: COMPANIES OFFERING DIVERSITY TRAINING

Diversity Training

31

However, the expansions of the diversity and inclusion initiatives in other corporations were implemented due to globalization, according to the Boston consulting firm (Hastings, 2008). Those initiatives were reported to have increased “15 percent in 2005 and expected to increase another 24 percent in the future” (Hastings, 2008, p.1). The influx of globalization had not only impacted the workforce, researchers noted diversity efforts had influenced corporation’s suppliers, customers and stakeholders. So, corporations should address the areas necessary to remain competitive which where depicted in Figure four in the wake of culture shifts, increased competition, and the terrorist attack of September 11th.

According to the source, the surge for diversity training initiatives were prompted by the three reasons stated above, in addition, to corporate law-suits and the development of antiharassment policies (Kahn, 2004). Figure 10 depicts workplace diversity issues discussed in 70 percent of large organizations and 25 percent of mid-size organizations supporting diversity training initiatives (p. 1).

FIGURE 10: ISSUES OF WORKPLACE DIVERSITY PROGRAMS

Gibson and Baker (2005), another source recapped two reasons why organizations conducted diversity training. First, diversity training affects the corporation’s bottom line, and secondly, diversity training helped to avert corporations from illegal discrimination in regards to the equal opportunity laws. More importantly, corporations had acknowledged that diversity training was the right thing to do and it makes good business sense (p. 2).

In essence, the catalysts for corporations to conduct diversity training in the workplace were due to rapid technology change, globalization, the lack of skilled and educated employees, and aging population. Since the demographical shifts changed drastically, corporations had to develop, implement and conduct diversity training initiatives. The evolution of diversity had greatly changed the landscape of the workforce environment

32

Diversity Training

and caused diversity training to become an important entity of corporation’s business strategies. There were aspects of diversity training that justified why corporations found it imperative to conduct the training in the workplace. Those aspects could include, but were not limited to, the expansion of the global economy, ethnic minorities and women visible in the workplace, corporation’s suppliers, customers, and stakeholders. Additionally, the noticeable benefits of conducting diversity training should not be ignored when the efforts of the initiatives had resulted in the following: an increase in corporation’s financial growth, the ability to attract and retain the best employee talent, the reductions in turnovers and absenteeism, a return on investments, and remaining competitive in the marketplace. These were some of the benefits achieved when corporations integrated diversity training as a core initiative in the workplace. The bottom line, there were more advantages when corporations chose to conduct diversity training initiatives in the workplace than disadvantages.

Diversity Training

33

CHAPTER

5 WHAT EFFECTS DO DIVERSITY TRAINING HAVE ON CORPORATE CULTURES?

Diversity, the precursor for diversity training had drastically affected corporate cultures. Researches, who studied diversity, noted the most valuable tool in managing a diverse workforce was through the application of diversity training. Therefore, the defining diversity training and culture should assist in understanding why diversity training initiatives were deemed to affect corporate cultures. Diversity training had been defined as a fundamental component used to increase the awareness and understanding of different cultures in the workplace (SHRM, 2008). The fundamental component of diversity training focused on building awareness about an individual’s own and others diversity in terms of culture, values, beliefs, and biases. Also, the focus included how diversity training impacted an individual’s behavior and perception of the world in a diverse workforce (Kaminsky, 2005). According to the source, knowledge and awareness were the cornerstones from which respect and inclusion in the workplace were built upon (p.

1). Diversity training echoed by another source, declared training teaches individuals to recognize, understand, and accept the differences others brought to the workplace (Wood, 2006).

Culture in reality was broad and multifaceted as diversity. However, the definitions of culture were crafted in a certain manner. Culture could be defined as the total commonality of what human beings learn about each other as members of a group (Lakanwal, 2008).

Additionally, culture could also be defined as the “complex whole that included one’s knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, law, customs and habits acquired by an individual as a member of a society” (Lakanwal, 2008, p.1). According to the source, cultures had

34

Diversity Training

included “elements of behavior patterns, values, language, symbols, and expressions of creativity within corporations in a given society” (p.1). Thus, corporate cultures are a combination of attitudes, beliefs and values of a corporation’s environment that influences how organizations operate. The culture in organizations established the day-to-day interactions among employees in the workforce (Taylor, 2005). One’ culture; therefore, could be influenced on a personal level, as well as, in the workplace. Culture is everywhere and constantly shapes one’s character as individuals, in our families, communities, professions, corporations, and nations (SHRM, 2008). Researchers defined culture as a “set of values and beliefs that are learned behaviors shared within a particular society and provides a sense of identity and belonging” (SHRM, 2008, p. 1). Corporations, which were forward thinkers, had approached diversity training initiatives as business strategies that mold a more respectful and inclusive work environment. The cultures were inclusive in these cohesive work environments, whereby everyone was engaged and contributed to the success of the corporation (Kaminsky, 2005).

Diversity training; therefore, does affect corporate cultures by creating an environment where people were more receptive of others with different backgrounds. Some common goals of diversity training and its affects on corporate cultures could be summarized in the following manner. First, diversity training goals were developed to encourage and perfect the interactions employees had among colleagues and customers from all different backgrounds. Secondly, diversity training goals were meant to educate one another, and assist corporations in capitalizing on the unique contributions inherent from each individual’s culture. Third, diversity training initiatives should make corporations aware of the impact cultural biases had on business relationships and processes. Finally, diversity training was designed to eliminate or diminish obstacles that hindered equity and inclusion among individuals (Brown, 2008).

Question six (see Appendix B) speaks to the management’s knowledge level of diversity and the effects of the training afterwards. The responses from 10 participants resulted in 60 percent of the managers agreeing to (some awareness), while 40 percent of the participants answered (very knowledgeable) declaring the training was an enhancement. Figure 11, represents a graphic view of the enhancements of the managers knowledge after diversity training.

Diversity Training

35

FIGURE 11: DIVERSITY TRAINING ENHANCEMENTS

The assertion that top management establishes corporate cultures and diversity training initiatives were both factual (Knes, 2007). However, without long-term commitment from top officials’ diversity training initiatives would not succeed. Organizational leaders must be open to expanding and accepting the world’s view of the trends in culture, in order for corporations to remain sustainable. SHRM’s 2008 Workplace Forecast had highlighted some cultural trends that could have a major impact on the workplace: 1) “heightened awareness of cultural differences in the workplace domestic and globally; 2) managing talent globally; 3) increased need for cross-cultural understanding in a business setting; and 4)increased use of virtual global teams” (SHRM, 2008, p.1).

The preconditions for a culture to embrace diversity management were stimulus conditions inherited from the application and value of diversity training initiatives in the workplace.

Diversity training initiatives should prepare the workforce to be receptive enough to accept the insight of different leadership opinions and approaches that demonstrated the appreciation, respect and value of all employees (Corporate Cultures, 2004). Diversity training programs were connected to the organization’s success; therefore, diversity strategies should be integrated in the fabric of a corporation’s core business plans (p. 2).

Corporate cultures had been pressured to be more flexible, due to changes in the economic labor markets, globalization, technology, demographical shifts, aging population, women, and minorities entering in the workforce. Additionally, the new corporate cultures were a challenge for organizations due to the rising percentages of dual income families, increased percentages of working women, increased number of part time workers, and changes in values and attitudes of employees. The cultures of corporations had to change and become more flexible because of the trends and composition of the diverse workforces. Hence, the intended purposes of the diversity training were to educate, embrace and respect others

36

Diversity Training

with different backgrounds. Therefore, corporate America cultures were being influenced by diversity and the effects of diversity training, which created an environment that was conducive for all sectors of people (Corporate Cultures, 2004).

Studies had shown that the importance of culture diversity had been accepted in corporate America. The evidence of corporate America’s acceptance had been reported in data results from various diversity studies, consultants, organizations, and leaders in the field.

Corporations knew in order to succeed, in the 21st century, understanding the present trends in the workforce were just as important, as the projected workplace trends. According to the studies, corporate America’s understanding and acceptance of the workplace trends were segways for discussing the affects of minorities, women, generational mixes, and LGBTs as part of the corporate cultures (Wegner and Wegner, 2008).

As mentioned earlier, researchers had studied the demographical shifts projected to emerge into the U.S. by 2050. These studies reported alarming growth patterns for Hispanics, immigrants and dependents. Statistics had shown the Hispanic population to be the fastest growing group and by 2050 could triple from “47 million to 133 million” (Meyers, 2008, p.1). Figure 12 graphs the actual and projected census of the U.S. population by race and ethnicity in spans of 45 years. This graphical data was supplied by Pew Research Center. The race data did not take in consideration “non-Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska natives” but where included and modified as parts of the data class presented. The graph had been segmented to show the growth of Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in the1960s. However, in 2050 the data indicated a decline of Whites, but an increase of Hispanics and Asians with the Black population remaining the same (SHRM, 2008).

FIGURE 12: U.S. POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY

Source: Pew Research Center (2008). Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org

Diversity Training

37

According to the projected demographical shift, corporations became more optimistic about growth, and realized ethnicity and cultures add value to the organization. So, according to the multicultural experts, every ethnic culture had its own identifiable characteristics and demographic distinctions. In fact, there were common qualities and cultural values that every culture possesses. These values and qualities had influenced corporate policy, recruitment, retention, career program develop, and benefits for all its employees. For example, Hispanics have strong family ties and cultural identification with regards to heritage. Therefore, corporations should be fully aware of the inherited traits of the Hispanic population (Wells, 2008).

Women entering into the workforce were another cultural upheaval for many corporations.

Wells (2008) wrote the last influx of women entering the workforce was after World War II. The percentage of women entering the labor force after the war increased from “15 percent to 50 percent” (SHRM, 2008, p. 2). According to the U.S. Department of Labor, “46 percent of the labor force in 2007 would be women. The labor department projected that between 2006 and 2016 women in the workforce could increase to 49 percent. Labor records for 2007 had shown there were 68 million women employed in the U.S. and 75 percent worked full-time jobs, while 25 percent worked part time” (Women Labor Force, 2008, p.1).

Corporations, that were advocates in supporting the advancement of women in the workforce where chosen to be recipients of the 2008 Catalyst Award. Two of the organizations were ING (U.S. Financial Services) and Nissan Motor Co. LTD. Each of the organizations were selected based upon the representation of women and people of color in executive, managerial and board positions. Hasting 2008, reported ING in 2003 increased the representation of women on senior management teams from “25 percent to 50 percent” (p.1). ING Financial Services motto was “Beyond Diversity: Building One ING Culture” and “initiatives focused on diversity and inclusion . . . increased representation of female managers at the top” (Hastings, 2008, p.1). Nissan Motor Co., LTD was the second company rewarded for its support and advancement of women in the workforce. According to the source, Nissan reported an increase of female managers from 36 percent to 101 percent in the areas of design, planning and production. The percentage of female sales people who owned Nissan dealerships had doubled since 2004 (p.1). The focus of Nissan Motor’s initiative in Japan was “Women in the Driver’s Seat: Gender Diversity as a Lever in Japan” (Hastings, 2008, p.1). Nissan was adamant in its strategy for diversity initiatives that focused on engagement, education and advancement of women (p.1).

The next effect of diversity training on corporate cultures was the acceptance and support of generational mixes that existed in the workforce. Recent literature captured an interesting trend for which five books were published and addressed “creative individuals.” Creative individuals were classified as knowledge workers who were caretakers of information and knowledge. These knowledge workers also were individuals with the innate ability to invert change through careers in healthcare, social work, education, and other occupations (Leuenberger, 2008). The two of five books, which addressed and communicated the

38

Diversity Training

cultural trends are expound upon below: When Generations Collide: Explored the methods of communication corporations used to address employees born in five generations and the related outcomes reflected in employee productivity and satisfaction. Leuenberger, suggested people who were born during certain historical periods tend to share performance and communication characteristics differently based upon social and normative orientations. The five generational mixes include the traditionalists, baby boomers, generation Xers, millennia’s, and cuspers. Corporate America would be challenged in communicating between the five generational mixes because of differences in values and attitudes from one culture to another (p. 2).

The Rise of the Creative Class: The author suggested as the society continues to shift from a labor and service market, towards a new era based on knowledge and creativity, these creative class of individuals are needed. The creative class, referred to as “knowledge workers” was recognized to add economic value to the community. According to the source, there were two subgroups: “super creative core (scientists, engineers, professors, poets, and artists) and the creative professionals (high technology, financial services, legal, and health industries)” (p.2). The creative classes were also innovators and excellent problem solvers who required a balance of freedom and flexibility in term of personal lifestyles, as well as, work agreements (Leuenberger, 2008).

Appendix B, question seven addressed the impact of diversity training and how its intended purpose was to make the environment more cohesive in the workplace because of the cultural/generational differences. The responses of 10 managers indicated diversity had impacted performance. The distribution of the results was as follows: 20 percent of the managers performance (remained the same), 70 percent (changed somewhat) and 10 percent (changed drastically). Figure 13 shows the graphic distributions of diversity training on cultural/generational differences in the workplace.

FIGURE 13: IMPACT OF DIVERSITY TRAINING

Diversity Training

39

Generational mixes in the workforce were advantageous to corporate cultures because of different experiences and perspectives each generation could bring to the workforce. Table Two displays the collaboration of generational characteristics that corporations inherit by embracing diversity “age.”

TABLE 2: GENERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS GENERATIONS

YEARS OF BIRTH

TRADITIONALISTS 1900 – 1945

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS •

LOYALTY TO AND FAITH IN

INSTITUTIONS

BABY BOOMERS

GENERATION X

1946 – 1964

1965 – 1980

•

BELIEF IN A TOP-DOWN APPROACH

•

STRESS ON THE REWARD OF

RETIREMENT • ECONOMICALLY OPTIMISTIC •

DRIVEN BY COMPETITION AND

BY MATERIALS REWARDS

•

HARD WORKING

• •

FOCUSED ON THE “BIG PICTURE” SKEPTICAL ABOUT THE SAFETY AND

THE PREDICTABILITY OF THE WORLD

MILLENNIA’S

1981 – 2002

•

INDEPENDENT

•

RESOURCEFUL

• •

MEDIA SAVVY REALISTIC

•

SELF-CONTROLLED

•

COLLABORATIVE

•

DRIVEN BY MEANING IN THEIR

WORK • 40

Diversity Training

EXPERT IN THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY

Corporate America must embrace the generational gaps in corporate cultures. These classes were a part of the diverse workforce that diversity training had educated employers to embrace and support. Multigenerational workforces could present challenges and opportunities for leaders; however, the knowledge, skills and workplace attributes brought to the workforce were vital. Additionally, an intergenerational workforce had become a business imperative, as the U.S. labor force aged and more cultural generations were entering the workforce. Some corporations had realized that the keys to growth and stability in an increasing and competitive market were to recruit and manage talent from workers of all ages (SHRM, 2008).

Finally, as corporate America becomes increasingly diverse the ability to foster cultural diversity in the workforce and in the marketplace was paramount. In the last decade, the growth of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBT) were seen as a challenge for employers in establishing an adaptable work environment. However, LGBT employees and families were valued in the U.S. workplace and inclusive in corporate cultures.

Thus according to source, SHRM in (2006) reported 76 percent of Human Resource professionals noted organizations held training on diversity issues on a massive level because of the LGBTs entering the workforce. The diversity training initiatives were conducted in separate arenas to address: anti-discrimination, diversity awareness, diversity management/leadership, cultural awareness, and diversity knowledge and skills. The survey results were extensive in dividing, which employees took the training from top-level executives to non-managerial employees (Sexual Orientation, 2008). The presences of LGBTs in corporate cultures were more prevalent today than ever before and are essential for U.S. corporations as the “war for talent� and customer base expands (p. 1). The Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, indicated more companies provided workplace protection for LGBT employees (Cole, 2008). Seven of the ten most notable companies for employing LGBTs were: IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Deloitte, PepsiCo, Merrill Lynch & Co., Wachovia, and Toyota Motor North America (DiversityInc, 2008).

These companies were nationally recognized in the support for LGBTs in offering many lifestyle benefits for its employees, as well as partners (Cole, 2008).

In summation, the influx of different groups of individuals working together whether its minorities, women, generational mixes, or LGBTs, corporate America had to become equipped to manage the challenges. These sub-groups listed above also consisted of dual income families, and working women. Thus diversity training had proven to be a tool that influenced corporate cultures, whereby, the acceptance of sex, age, nation origin, sexual orientation, and all of the other aspects beyond diversity were taught. Corporations realized and embraced diversity management in the turbulence of culture changes in the workforce.

Therefore, corporations were prepared to face the modern cultures and accommodate the different needs of the labor force. Corporate America should be prepared as the diverse employee population demands work-life balance programs, such as flexible work schedules, flexible benefits, job rotation, financial planning, wellness programs, elder care, and mentoring (Corporate Cultures, 2004).

Diversity Training

41

CHAPTER

6 WHAT TOOLS OF DIVERSITY TRAINING DOES CORPORATE AMERICA USE TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS?

Corporate America had made great efforts in expanding its diversity training initiatives throughout the workplace. In order to measure the success of diversity training initiatives there must be goals established for the original intent for these initiatives. In determining a corporation’s success, measuring the effectiveness of diversity training initiatives were required while strategically managing a diverse workforce (Choi, 2008). In fact, the U.S. corporations spent approximately $200 million to $300 million dollars a year for diversity training initiatives (Vedantam, 2008). Therefore, diversity training executives, professionals and managers knew the importance of being able to directly link the training to the success of the corporation’s bottom-line. Otherwise, the financial and physical support for the initiative would have been difficult to receive for the continuation of diversity training (Hubbard, 2008).

Researchers who studied the impact of diversity training had mixed opinions as to whether diversity training was measurable or even influenced the behaviors of employees in organizations.

Some experts declared diversity training was not measurable; however, others proclaim using tools such as diversity scorecards, benchmarking, employee satisfaction surveys, focus groups, baseline data, and retention /absenteeism statistics could enable organizations to measure the effectiveness of diversity training (Hubbard, 2004).

According to Wheeler, a studier of diversity metrics, the above tools were too traditional and corporations might not obtain adequate measurements of the effectiveness of diversity training. Wheeler advocated a comprehensive and integrated system of new metrics that focused on precise areas to produce more effective outcomes for

42

Diversity Training

corporations. Those six areas were demographics, organizational cultures, accountability, productivity/profitability, benchmarking, and programmatic measures. Since corporations measure different aspects of diversity training, the new metric tools could be uniquely geared for the organization. Corporations should know its culture, business focus and core values.

In reply, companies and consultants had already begun to develop measurement tools in response to the need for better diversity training results. These tools were to assist corporations in quantifying the business rationale for diversity training and show the impact diversity initiatives had on the organization. The three diversity tools developed were: the SMG Index, the Diversity High Impact Mapping Method and the Intangible Asset model.

SMG Index was created to address the need of disseminating EEO and AA plan data connected to the bottom-line and required an explanation of diversity data. The SMG calculation was expressed as numbers that represent a percentage of the workforce. A low SMG Index means a lower percentage of hires, promotions and/or retentions occurred in the workforce. This indicated the company needed to take corrective action to avoid disparity among the job group. The most desired score was “Zero.” SMG Index used three EEO reports, the Utilization Analysis report, the Promotion Adverse Impact report and the Separation Adverse report. The Utilization Analysis report identified the problem areas, which were positive among each job group. The Promotion Adverse Impact report was used to gauge the disparities within each job group with regards to the promotion of the protected class “women and minorities.” Separation Adverse reports were indicators used to determine the separation rate of the protected group “women and minorities” that were affected from the total percentage of separations in the workforce. Separately, each report calculated the index for women and minorities that were represented in the workforce. The SMG index, as a benchmark had the capability to measure the success and failure of specific diversity initiatives over a period of time and quantify its effects on the corporations (Stutz & Massengle, 2004).

The Diversity High Impact Mapping Methods were developed for practitioners in measuring diversity training outcomes which were unique to the organization. This method used simple monetary values that translated diversity information into monetary values.

For example, the success of diversity training initiatives could be measured by examining absenteeism rates and cost, gender-base pay differentials or the number of times policies were changed due to diversity efforts. This system had the capability to measure any aspect of diversity studied. The primary goal of this system was to help corporations develop a measurement technique for diversity that connected to productivity, financial performance and return-on-investment (Digh, 2008).

The Intangible Assets Model measured assets linked to human capital, innovation capital, customer capital, and process capital that could be captured in financial accounting systems.

The connections between the various capitals were shown to be areas in which diversity impacted the return-on-investment (ROI) metrics.

Diversity Training

43

Therefore, the ability to measure the effectiveness of diversity training initiatives was important to corporate America. Diversity leaders internally and externally were being pressured due to large expenditures allocated to diversity initiatives with insignificant evidence of the ROI. The traditional tools used and recent methods developed to measure diversity training effectiveness supported the rationale that diversity training efforts could be measured.

Additionally, the survey results reported from the “Workforce Diversity Training for Employees” and “Workforce Diversity Training for Directors/Managers” addressed more details concerning the effectiveness of, measurement tools for, and behaviors after diversity training. The surveys were sent to 50 people and 40 responses were received: 30 from the employees’ survey and 10 from the directors/managers survey. The results from the participants will be addressed separately.

WORKFORCE DIVERSITY TRAINING FOR EMPLOYEES: The discussions in this sub-topic came from the results of the survey “Workforce Diversity Training for Employees” referenced in (Appendix C). Question six extracted from “Workforce Diversity Training for Employees” asked “Does your company offer Diversity Training to its employees?” The survey results from 30 participants indicated that 23 percent of companies were still reluctant in offering diversity for its employees.

Sixty-seven percent of the participants indicated that diversity training was offered in the company. However, 10 percent was unsure because some organizations used different names for diversity training, for example “teaching that is multicultural.”

Question seven allowed the participants to state who provided the diversity training program in the company. The results in Table three indicated whether diversity training initiatives were facilitated by internal candidates such as (Human Resources, Diversity Committees, or Training and Development Departments), or outsourced (to Consultants or Office of EEOC). The third row (N/A) was the responses of employees who were not sure or the company did not offer training to its employees.

44

Diversity Training

TABLE 3: FACILITATORS OF THE COMPANY’S DIVERSITY FACILITATORS

RESPONSES

COMPANY (INTERNAL CANDIDATES)

15

OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS

5

N/A

10

Question 8 (see Appendix C) asked “Does your company measure the effectiveness of Diversity Training?” Twenty-eight of participants out of thirty answered the question: 36 percent of the participants replied (yes), 18 percent answered (no) and 46 percent was (unsure) if diversity training was measured in the company. Figure 14, a cylindrical view, which indicated participants’ feedback and awareness about companies’ measurement for the effectiveness of Diversity Training.

FIGURE 14: MEASURING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF DIVERSITY

Question nine responses were a back-drop to the survey responses from question eight.

Question nine asked the participants “What tools are used in your company to measure the effectiveness of diversity training?” The bar graph in Figure 15 displayed the usage of tools used by companies to measure the effectiveness of Diversity Training. Employee Surveys were the most useful tool according to twenty-eight out of thirty participants to question nine. The usages for each measurement tool were as follows: 50 percent for

Diversity Training

45

employee surveys, 4 percent for exit interviews, 11 percent for focus groups, and 35 percent for other. The other category comprised of qualitative responses from question 10 such as: company’s Intranet system, course evaluations, questionnaire via-emails, interactive workshops, classroom setting-material viewed and feedback based on the comprehension and expectation from employees, and the employee “unsure” due to lack of feedback from facilitators.

FIGURE 15: TOOLS USED TO MEASURE THE EFFECTIVENESS

Questions 6-10, focused on the companies offering diversity training, the internal and external facilitators, companies measuring the effectiveness diversity training, and the tools to measure diversity initiatives. According to researchers of diversity initiatives, corporations were interested in the outcomes of employee behaviors in a diverse workforce after training. The responses for question 11 were the views of employees’ perceptions on how the implementation of diversity training impacted employee behaviors. According to the participants for question 11, the perceptions of change were as follows: 21 percent ratio of increase in employee retention/decrease in turnover, 12 percent ratio of increase productivity/profit margin, 28 percent decrease in employee conflicts, and 39 percent increase in diversity awareness. These changes were reflections of the success/failure of corporations and the influence of the training parallel to employee retention/turnover, productivity/profit margins, employee conflicts, and diversity awareness (see Figure sixteen).

46

Diversity Training

FIGURE 16: IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE BEHAVIORS

Survey question fourteen, results indicated 28 participants out of the 30 surveyed believed that the company supported diversity training initiatives in the workplace. The results showed 32 percent (strongly agree), 25 percent (agree), 25 percent responded (neutral), 14 percent (disagree), and 4 percent (strongly disagree). Some of the comments from the participants were:

• The company promotes diversity within the workplace and in our communities.

• Diversity training is a part of the company policy.

• The company met the needs of different cultures by amending patient’s schedules and providing cultural foods during ethnic events.

• The company has company wide conferences.

• The company provides opportunities for people with mental health issues, gender issues, no matter what race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

• The company has mandatory on-line diversity courses.

• The company has diversity training workshops.

Diversity Training

47

The responses to question 14 and the feedback above from question 15 speak to how employees believed the company supported diversity training initiatives. Question 16 (see Appendix C) asked “Who in your company demonstrates ACTIVE support of Diversity Training?” The nine responses received from the participants revealed that 13 percent of the companies received support from the CEO, 10 percent from managers, 40 percent from Human Resources Department, 15 percent from employee committees and 22 percent from other sources. Question 17 was the elaboration of the “other” related to how the company supported diversity training using the avenues of employee crisis hot-lines, diversity banners, group meetings, or diversity training was not offered in the company.

WORKFORCE DIVERSITY TRAINING The discussions in this sub-topic came from the results of the survey “Workforce Diversity Training for Directors/Managers” referenced in (Appendix B). The Workforce Diversity Training for Directors/Managers survey reported 10 participants out of 50 surveyed were in authoritative positions in the company. Measuring the impact of diversity training in the management survey consisted of three questions related directly to employee’s behavior and productivity was discussed in Chapters four and five. The remaining portion of the paragraph will be a brief recap of the findings. Question 10 (see Appendix B) supported the fact that diversity training helped with communications, attitudes, behaviors, and interactions in teams and among others. The responses of 10 participants from the “Workforce Diversity Training for Directors/Managers” survey resulted in 10 percent of the managers responding “no” to the question, 20 percent responded “somewhat” and 70 percent responded “yes.” Likewise, in question 11 (see Appendix B), the participants believed that communication, relationships and productivity could be improved by diversity training. The responses resulted in 70 percent of the participants answering “yes” and 30 percent responding “maybe.”

Next, question 13 asked the participants “Can the information obtained during the training be applied and measured?” Figure 17, displayed the choices for the question which, were strongly agree, somewhat agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. There were no responses for disagree or strongly disagree.

48

Diversity Training

FIGURE 17: DIVERSITY TRAINING APPLIED AND MEASURED

Overall, 60 percent of the directors/managers believed that there were tools to measure the effectiveness of diversity training initiatives. According to Wheeler, some of the traditional diversity tools might not produce adequate results in specific areas of diversity.

In response to the needs of companies several researchers had developed precise methods for measuring diversity training initiatives. Some of the precise tools were the SMG Index, The Diversity High Impact Mapping Method and The Intangible Asset Model. The new measurement tools had the ability to allow corporations to target areas of diversity training initiatives that needed to be improved when the results negatively impacted the organization. According to the source, corporations should link the new metric tools to the business strategy of organizations because the measurement capabilities had shown that a diverse workforce adds value to the bottom-line. In turn, the two surveys conducted using the Workforce Diversity Training for Employee and Directors/Managers yielded rich results. Both surveys were graphed and scripted to show that diversity training can be measured using the “traditional methods� and influence employees and managers behaviors after implementation.

Diversity Training

49

CHAPTER

7 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS DISCUSSION This systematic study was conducted to validate the impact diversity training had on employee behaviors in corporate America. The categorical approach to this study permitted an exhaustive view of the multitudinous of diversity, a precursor to diversity training and how the training influenced employee behaviors.

SURVEYS METHODOLOGY Two surveys were designed to obtain responses that would provide evidence to support the impact diversity training had on employee behaviors in the workplace. The surveys were also designed to extract the views of employees and directors/managers with regards to the effectiveness of diversity training. The “Workforce Diversity Training Survey for Employees” was comprised of 17 questions and the “Workforce Diversity Training Survey for Directors/Managers” consisted of 14 questions. The surveys were setup and distributed using an Internet-based survey hosted by “freeonlinesurveys. com.” The survey questionnaires were designed in such a way that recipients had to respond to all of the questions, but had the option to opt out at anytime during the survey. The surveys can be viewed in (Appendix B and C).

The surveys were emailed to 50 recipients and 40 participants responded. There were 30 participants for “The Workforce Diversity Training for Employees” and 10 participants of “The Workforce Diversity Training for Directors/Managers.” The survey

50

Diversity Training

questions incorporated some of the human characteristics of diversity such as: gender, age, educational level, job position, and tenure ship in their profession, in order to receive a comprehensive sample for a diverse population. The graphs and tables below have been collated comparatively to participants’ gender, age, educational level, job position and tenure for both surveys.

GENDERS Question one (see Appendix B and C) asked for the gender of the each recipient. On average 72 percent of women responded to the survey, opposed to the 28 percent of male participants. According to the survey, there were about a 3/1 ratio of women to men. The 40 participants’ from both surveys showed responses from 11males and 29 females. The graphic view of the percentage of men to women in the workforce is shown below in Figure eighteen.

FIGURE 18: GENDERS OF A DIVERSE WORKFORCE

AGES Question two in both surveys asked the age of each participant, which was another human characteristic of diversity and greatly expounded on in Chapter 5’s discussion about the effects diversity training had on the corporate cultures. The five generational mixes in the workforce were noted to be a challenge for corporations because of the balance between work and family, and communication barriers in the workforce due to values and attitudes of one’s culture to another. According to the range of ages exhibited in the survey, the data has substantiated that the five generational mixes presently co-exist in the workforce. Table four below has tabulated responses for each age group.

Diversity Training

51

TABLE 4: NUMBERS OF RESPONSES IN EACH AGE GROUP AGES

20-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

OVER 60

EMPLOYEE RESPONSES

5

12

7

5

1

0

2

5

2

1

DIRECTORS/MANAGERS RESPONSES

The survey sample supported the reviewed literature that various generational mixes existed in the workforce. The percentages of responses from the employee surveys in various age groups are as follows: (20-30) 17 percent, (31-40) 40 percent, (41-50) 23 percent, (51-60) 17 percent, and (over 60) three percent. The percentages responses from the directors/managers surveys were: (20-30) zero percent, (31-40) 20 percent, (41-50) 50 percent, (51-60) 20 percent, and (over 60) 10 percent. Figure 19 a graphic view of the percentages of employees in 40 companies that fell in the different age groups.

FIGURE 19: AGE GROUPS OF THE PARTICIPANTS

52

Diversity Training

Question three (see Appendix B and C) asked the each participant to identify educational level, which was an invisible trait of diversity. The selections were: High School Diploma/ GED, Associates Degree, Masters Degree, Some College, Bachelors Degree and Doctorate/ Ph.D. The responses from Question three varied, as well, but indicated that each participant was educated at some capacity. Figure 20 represented the educational levels of the participants. The highest percent of participants had Masters Degrees. The educational levels of the employees’ responses are shown in blue “series one” and the directors/ managers responses are represented in purple “series two.”

FIGURE 20: EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF PARTICIPANTS EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF RESPONDENTS

Questions four and five (see Appendix B and C) asked each participant about the current position held in the organization and the number of years of professional experience.

The current positions from both surveys included non-managers, managers, directors, supervisors, executive officers, consultants, data entry and administrators. The participants’ responses to the number of years of professional experience ranged from 1-5 to over 20 years of tenure ship.

The participants answering the first five questions of the surveys were vital in gathering data about genders, ages, educational levels, job positions, and the number of years of professional experience. The results gathered from the participants assisted in validating the research because of the vast composition of human characteristics that addressed the visible and invisible traits of diversity. Additionally, the survey results were comprised of a broad range of participants from different sectors of the population. The disaggregation of data from the surveys could be used as conclusive support for the literature reviewed in reference to the definitions of diversity.

Diversity Training

53

The Directors/Managers survey in (Appendix B), concentrated on the knowledge level of diversity before the training and the impact on performance of managers in the workplace after the training. Other topics addressed in Appendix B were whether communication, relationships and productivity in the workforce could be improved by diversity training and if the information learned could be applied and measured.

The remaining questions in (Appendix C) of the employees’ survey, focused on: whether or not companies offered diversity training, whether or not companies measured the effectiveness of the training and the tools used by companies to measure the effectiveness.

The survey also focused on the influence of diversity training on employee behaviors and who in the company actively supported diversity training.

SURVEY RESULTS The findings after the completion of the surveys had indicated the enormousness of diversity with regards to layers of diversity and the four dimensions, which intersect a diverse workforce (Johnson, 2003). The six primary dimensions that are visible and can not be changed such as gender, age… were part of the survey and conveyed the vastness of diversity in the workforce. The secondary dimension, which can be changed such as educational background, income and work experience were essential in proving that diversity in the workforce constituted many differences in work environment (Wentling & Palma-Rivas, 1997). Microsoft Corporation and Texas Instruments both believed in promoting and valuing diverse workforces as a part of the corporation’s business strategies (TCRP, 2003).

Overall, the survey results revealed 67 percent of participants’ companies offered diversity training, while the other 23 percent of companies were reluctant in the pursuit of diversity training initiatives. These findings correlated to Kahn’s (2004) research that indicated 70 percent of the large and 25 percent of mid-size companies offered diversity training to its employees. The other five percent in Kahn’s study were unaccounted for, similar to the10 percent of the participants that were unsure of its company offering diversity training in the “Workforce Diversity Training for Employees” survey.

54

Diversity Training