Defining Workforce Diversity

Programs and Practices in

Organizations
By Michael R. Carrell and Everett E. Mann
Michael R. Carrell is Dean of the College of Business Administration
at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Everett E. Mann is a
Professor of Public Policy and Administration at the California State
University in Bakersfield.
© 1993 by Michael R. Carrell and Everett E. Mann

The term diversity is now commonly leading edge of the changing

used in the discussion of organizational
workforce. In the lexicon of human re-
sources management, it seems to be a
broadly conceptual term, but it has not
yet acquired a precise meaning. The term
workforce diversity in particular has been
widely addressed in the literature since
the influential Hudson Institute demo-
graphic studies of the late 1980s, but it
has not acquired a standard definition.
Two reports by the Hudson Institute,
Workforce 2000 and Opportunity 2000:
Creative Affirmative Action Strategies for
a Changing Workforce, were commis-
sioned by the U.S. Department of Labor
and addressed the changing demographics
of the national workforce for the next cen-
tury. A third report. Civil Service 2000,
was commissioned by the Office of Person-
nel Management and addressed both the
skills that will be required and the chang-
ing demographics of the public sector
available workforce in the next century.
While these studies did not address the
term diversity, Civil Service 2000 ob-
served that the Federal Government had
been a leader in employing both women
and minorities, and therefore "is on the
' Civil Service 2000 (1989), p. 7; Opportunity
(1988); Workforce2000(\988).
workforce." '. The Hudson Institute re-
ports appear to imply that affirmative
action is the appropriate policy frame-
work for dealing with the changing nature
of the workforce. They were not primarily
a call to explore novel organizational con-
cepts. However, in published studies and
commentaries responding to the projected
workforce changes, the term diversity has
appeared with increasing frequency in
conjunction with ideas such as organiza-
tional culture.
No specific formulas for the mix of indi-
vidual categories for a diverse workforce
has been proposed. When used in a reflec-
tive term such as cultural diversity, the
general generic meaning of diversity is
fairly plain. However, when the word is
used in a term with proactive implica-
tions, such as managing diversity, diver-
sity program, or diversity policy, it
implies a more specific concept behind it;
e.g., one that can generate goals and
objectives for certain categories of
workforce members.
In the current human resources litera-
ture, the word d/vers/ty takes on a variety
of connotations. Many writers identify di-
2000

Workforce Diversity 755

versity as an affirmative action goal, a
condition resulting from affirmative ac-
tion, or as a program to support affirma-
tive action.^ Diversity is also described as
an ethic that gives meaning to affirma-
tive action.^ It has also been used to im-
ply a nonspecific organizational
multiculturalism.''
In other writing, the diversity goal is to
reflect within the organization the demo-
graphic diversity of a local or national
community.^ A sometimes mentioned the-
oretical foundation for this idea is the
concept of representative bureaucracy.^
In his critical work on this subject, Kris-
lov^ examines the parallel between repre-
sentative democracy and representative
administration, and explores the question
of whether there should be an ideal rela-
tionship between bureaucracy and the
broader social system, such as that pre-
sumed for the legislature. Although Kris-
lov concluded that the bureaucracy was
as representative as was reasonably possi-
ble, and that there were natural and polit-
ical reasons for under-representation of
some groups, more recent writers have
held out the idea that "demographic het-
erogeneity in the workplace fulfills repre-
sentational requirements that are
essential to democratic government." ^
In the literature. Hays and Kearney
found diversity is accorded two theories of
representational value. The passive repre-
sentation view suggests symbolic values
^ T. L. Coleman, "Managing Diversity at Work: The New
American Dilemma." 72 Public Management 2-3 (October,
1990). W. Johnston, Civil Service 2000, The Hudson Insti-
tute (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, USGPO: 1988).
D. Shavlik. H. Cleveland, P. Mullen, & J. Taborn, Inter-
view, "Affirmative Action: The Ethic of Diversity," Bulletin
of the American Association for Higher Education, 3-7
(March, 1988). L. Copeland, "Valuing Workplace Diver-
sity," Personnel Administration, 33, 38 (November, 1988).
^ Cleveland, supra.
•• B. Edmond. "Managing Cultural Diversity," Connec-
tions, 20-23 (December, 1991).
^ E.g., B. Rosen & K. Lovelace, "Piecing Together the
Diversity Puzzle," HR Magazine, 78-84 (June 1991). L. R.
Wise, "Social Equity in Civil Service Systems," 50 Public
Administration Review 567-575 (September/October 1990).
* J. D. Kingsley, Representative Bureaucracy (New York:
The Antioch Press, 1944).
756
such as providing role models and public
acceptance.^ The active representation
view is that of highly placed minority
members using their influence to promote
the interests of their ascriptive group.'°
Hays and Kearney's recent study ad-
dressing public sector response to the
changing nature of the national labor
force suggest that government organiza-
tions have made considerable progress to-
ward both social equity and
representational requirements. In their
survey of the personnel directors of all 50
States, they found that the directors
themselves reflected the gender and ra-
cial/ethnic makeup of the national
workforce. They also noted the "extent to
which social equity considerations . . . per-
meate the personnel policy agenda." "
The responding state directors expressed
great pride that their states are "perform-
ing extraordinarily well on the social
equity dimension." '^ However, no
formula or criterion for an acceptable pat-
tern of demographic heterogeneity for ei-
ther equity or representational purposes
was a reported component of the ex-
amined studies.
While affirmative action is known to be
a legal duty, in much recent writing di-
versity is described as a desirable condi-
tion to be sought voluntarily for its
internal or external benefit to the organi-
zation. Castelli calls it "better than af-
firmative action," because it includes
' S. Krislov, Representative Bureaucracy, (New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1974).
8 S. W. Hays & R. C. Kearney, "State Personnel Directors
and the Dilemmas of Workforce 2000: a Survey," 52 Public
Administration Review 380 at 381 (July/August 1992).
' N. Dometriiis, "Minorities and Women Among State
Agency Leaders," 65 Social Science Quarterly 333-341
(March 1984).
'"E.g., K. J. Meier & L. Nigro, "Representative Bureau-
cracy and Policy Preferences: A Study in the Attitudes of
Federal Executives," 36 Public Administration Review 458
(July/August 1976).
" Hays and Kearney, p. 386.
'2 Ibid.
December, 1993 Labor Law Journal
everyone (including white males).'^ Cheng
sees it as the result of transforming from
assimilation to organizational accultura-
tion.''*
However diversity is defined in various
organizations, it is clear that it has be-
come a serious subject for human resource
professionals. Reports are routinely pub-
lished which cite the attention given to an
organization's cultural diversity goals,
and even to the problems of managing
diversity.'^ Indeed, highly developed pre-
scriptive literature and materials for the
creation and management of a culturally
diverse workforce have begun to appear
and some are the specialized product of
consultant organizations.'^
This appears to be an appropriate time
to consult with human resource profes-
sionals in both the private and the public
sectors to determine what specific mean-
ings are attached to the concept of
workforce diversity. By identifying the ex-
isting variety of meanings, we can at-
tempt to facilitate communication of
professional experience and also to reduce
the misunderstandings that often occur in
such a politically sensitive area.
The Study
The purposes of this research were: (1)
to determine how organizations define
workforce diversity in terms of individual
categories; (2) to identify to what extent
diversity policies and programs are actu-
ally utilized in organizations; and (3) to
determine the perceived outcomes of di-
versity policies and programs, both posi-
tive and negative.
A two-page survey questionnaire was
developed for human resource profession-
als asking for information concerning the
concept of workforce diversity as under-
'^J. Castelli, "Education Forms Common Bond," HR
Magazine, 46-49 (June 1990).
" L. Cheng, "Recongnizing Diversity: A Need for a Para-
digm Shift," 34 The American Behavioral Scientist 263-78
(Nov/Dec 1990).
'' L. M. Baytos, "Launching Successful Diversity Initia-
tives," HR Magazine, 91-97 (March 1992). R. Luke. "Man-
Workforce Diversity
stood by decision makers in their organi-
zations. It included both objective and
open-ended items to elicit information
concerning the responding organization's
concept and categories of diversity, cur-
rent policies and programs, their per-
ceived effects, and the relationship of
diversity to equal employment opportu-
nity and affirmative action. Other queries
asked who initiated diversity-related pro-
grams and the nature of the responding
organization. Response alternatives in the
questionnaire's objective items defining
diversity and its effects were drawn from
a broad review of recent articles and re-
ports on the subject.
The survey questionnaire was sent to
the membership of two professional orga-
nizations: the Section on Personnel Ad-
ministration and Labor Relations
(SPALR) of the American Society for
Public Administration (ASPA) and the So-
ciety for Human Resource Management
(SHRM). A total of 477 valid instruments
were returned, 241 from SPLAR members
of ASPA, 236 from SHRM, an encourag-
ing response rate of approximately 30 per-
cent.
Of the entire sample, 44.3 percent iden-
tified their organization as engaged in pri-
vate business and industry; 29.6 percent
as engaged in public administration or
related public sector activities; 19.6 per-
cent engaged in higher education; and ap-
proximately 7.1 percent engaged in health
care, hospital administration, and related
activities.
Responding organizations were evenly
balanced between small employers (less
than 500 employees) and large employers
(greater than 5(X)). Respondents of 46.3
percent of the organizations employed
500 or fewer personnel; 46.1 percent re-
aging the Diversity in Today's Workplace," 4 Supervisory
Management 35 (October 1990). S. Overman, "Managing
the Diverse Workforce," HR Magazine, 32-36 (April 1991).
" Baytos, supra.
757
ported that their organizations employed
from 500 to 10,000 personnel; 7.6 percent
reported over 10,000 personnel and repre-
sented large Federal agencies and private
corporations. Twenty-five respondents en-
closed materials representing diversity
plans, programs, policies, regulations and
instructions from their organizations.
Policies and Programs in Operation
To the question whether their organiza-
tion has a written policy or program that
included the concept of employee diver-
sity, 34 percent responded yes and 66
percent no. However, the public sector
and educational organizations were signif-
icantly more likely to report such a policy
(40.9 percent) than private sector organi-
zations (26.8 percent).
The programs or policies of those re-
sponding yes were reported to have been
implemented for an average of 6 years.
Approximately 70 percent of the respon-
dents qualified a no response to this item
with a report that such a policy or pro-
gram was being implemented. Another 37
percent of the sample qualified a no re-
sponse with the information that such a
program or policy was either in planning
or under discussion.
It was noteworthy that larger organiza-
tions were over twice as likely to report
having a written diversity policy or pro-
gram. That is, while only 24 percent of
organizations with 250 or less employees
responded yes to this item, 47 percent of
the organizations with over 250 employ-
ees did so.
Respondents were then asked to indi-
cate which activities were associated with
diversity policies and programs within
their organizations. The nine listed activi-
ties were taken from Opportunity 2000:
Creative Affirmative Action Strategies for
a Changing Workforce, and a tenth item
was open-ended. The two most frequently
reported diversity activities were recruit-
ment (70 percent) and selection (59 per-
cent). Although reported by less than a
majority of the sample, several others ap-
758
pear to be in common use: awareness
training (37 percent), workshops on issues
(32 percent), sensitivity training (28 per-
cent), and customer services (26 percent).
The least frequently reported programs
were skills enhancement (18 percent), ca-
reer management (17 percent), and lan-
guage training (13 percent). Thus, in
practice, diversity policies are mainly ap-
plied in personnel recruitment and selec-
tion, possibly stemming from traditional
EEO/AA programs.
As a subgroup, public sector and educa-
tional institutions were significantly more
likely than other respondents to report
recruitment {77 percent) and selection (64
percent) programs expressing diversity
policy, as well as workshops on diversity
issues (40 percent). On the other hand,
respondents from the private business sec-
tor were more likely to report career man-
agement (20 percent) and language
training (15 percent) activities related to
workforce diversity.
A number of additional items of inter-
est were provided in response to an open-
ended continuation of this question. Re-
ported other policies or programs which
included the concept of employee diver-
sity were hate speech policy, sexual ha-
rassment policy, special library section,
total quality management, courses in the
curriculum, literacy program, community
involvement program, ADA in-service
training, and cultural diversity training.
It was noteworthy that the proportions
of respondents reporting recruitment and
selection policies that consider diversity
(70 percent and 59 percent, respectively)
exceeded the proportion reporting the ex-
istence or imminent implementation of a
written policy or program that included
the concept of diversity (41 percent). It
would appear that in the balance of these
cases, diversity was considered implicit as
an EEO/AA principle in recruitment and
selection, even though not a part of a
separate written organizational diversity
program.
December, 1993 Labor Law Journal
 Sources of Diversity cent of the sample responded yes; 40.5
percent responded no; and 13.2 percent
Respondents were not limited to one
were uncertain. This single result raises
response in answering the question: "In
substantial questions as to the extent to
your organization, who has initiated di-
which diversity has been embraced in
versity policies, programs or discussions?"
practice by human resource practitioners.
Human Resources/Personnel Depart-
However, among the public sector and
ments were cited most frequently (63.9
higher education portion of the sample,
percent), and next in order were Chief
43.5 percent responded yes; 40.8 percent
Executive Officer (33.4 percent), EEO/
responded no; and 15.2 percent were un-
AA Departments (25.5 percent), and
certain. Thus, they are somewhat more
Boards of Directors (7.3 percent).
evenly divided on whether they consider
An open-ended continuation of the diversity to mean anything broader than
question Other drew responses from 23.7 existing EEO/AA policies. The private
percent of the sample and identified a business respondents were slightly more
wide variety of those active in originating likely to report a difference between di-
diversity discussion or programs. Gener- versity and EEO/AA: 48.8 percent re-
ally, they included entities such as train- sponded yes; 40.1 percent responded no;
ing departments, department heads, and and 11.2 percent were uncertain.
managers, mid-level managers, employee
sounding board, ombudsman, employee It is notable that for the entire sample
assistance program, police chief, police as- and both subgroups, the percentage per-
sociation, an hoc task force, special com- ceiving no difference in the two concepts
mittees, etc. In educational institutions, was very close to 40.5 percent. The lack of
they included faculty, students, academic a majority view and the relatively small
deans, department chairs, academic de- number of uncertain responses on this key
partments, student government, the stu- distinction indicates a clear line of disa-
dent affairs department, and the dean of greement about the precise meaning of
students. In private businesses they also the term diversity among responding
included a TQM consultant, labor unions, human resource professionals generally.
corporate headquarters, and a task force. About half of the respondents (other than
the uncertains) see diversity only as an-
Thus, while diversity initiatives sprang other term for EEO/AA, while the other
from almost every organizational compo- half see it as something substantially dif-
nent, with no uniform or orthodox pat- ferent.
tern, the most common initiators of
discussions, programs, or policies address- This question also contained an open-
ing workforce diversity were the human ended item that requested respondents to
resource professionals and the CEO. explain how workforce diversity substan-
tially differs from EEO/AA in scope. A
The Meaning of Workforce Diversity qualitative analysis was made of their re-
sponses, and five representative categories
The principal focus of the study was to' were identified. A brief descriptive com-
determine whether the term diversity has posite of each, reflecting their gist, fol-
acquired a special meaning in human re- lows. (1) EEO/AA are limited by a
sources management. Is it simply a name narrow set of legal definitions, while di-
for the desired effects of EEO/AA poli- versity is much broader in scope and has
cies, or is it a defined broader concept more categories. (2) EEO/AA principles
embracing more categories and organiza- are mandated by public policy, while di-
tional goals? versity polices are voluntary and based on
Is workforce diversity substantially dif- ethics and the interests of the organiza-
ferent from EEO/AA in scope? 46.1 per- tion. (3) EEO/AA deal with entry activi-
Workforce Diversity 759
ties such as recruitment and hiring, and
with promotion, while diversity policies
address the day-to-day managing of a di-
verse workgroup. (4) EEO/AA address
the correction of prior discrimination and
other inequity, while diversity policies
aim at representation with respect to gen-
eral or local population or seek multicul-
turalism as an end in itself. (5) EEO/AA
address only workforce demographics,
while diversity policies aim at the organi-
zational culture, (i.e., diversity policies
should foster an acculturating process,
and respect for and utilization of the posi-
tive aspects of individual differences.
They should also facilitate the handling of
conflicts and address the general treat-
ment of employees.)
The Components of Diversity
Exactly what categories of individuals
are included in the concept of workforce
diversity is neither defined by public pol-
icy nor in any other common source. The
question was central to this research, and
was addressed with an objective item list-
ing eight general characteristics of indi-
viduals and an open-ended item.
Table I shows, in order of the yes fre-
quency, the percentages of the sample re-
sponding yes, no, or uncertain to whether
each of eight characteristics is part of
what is meant by diversity to decision
makers in their organizations. Over 50
percent of the sample responded yes to
seven of the characteristics, in descending
order: race, culture, gender, national ori-
gin, handicap, age, and religion. Only re-
gional origin (36.9 percent) was not
selected as a component of diversity by a
majority of the respondents. The most fre-
quently chosen characteristic, race (94.1
percent), had a significantly higher per-
centage of yes responses than the all the
others listed (p = 0.001). Religion (57
percent, seventh ranked) and regional ori-
gin (36.9 percent, eighth ranked) were
significantly below age (70.6 percent,
sixth ranked, p = 0.001). Other than these
instances, there was no significant differ-
760
ence in the proportion of yes responses for
any other two consecutive categories of
the top seven.
Again, there were some significant dif-
ferences between the private business sec-
tor (SHRM) and the public-higher
education (ASPA) sector. The entire sam-
ple ranked the four most frequently se-
lected characteristics as shown in Table
II: race (94.1 percent), culture (86.3 per-
cent), gender (84.5 percent), and national
origin (83.6 percent).
However only 81.6 percent of ASPA
respondents said yes to culture, while 90.9
percent of SHRM respondents did (p =
0.0001), making it their second ranked
category. Also, only 76.8 percent of ASPA
respondents said yes to national origin,
while 89.7 percent of the SHRM respon-
dents did (p = 0.0001), making it their
third ranked category.
Respondents suggested a number of
other diversity categories in an open-en-
ded item. Language differences and sex-
ual preference were the only two proposed
by several respondents, but by less than
one percent in each case.
Effects of Diversity Programs
Respondents were asked to rate the
likelihood of certain effects occurring
within their organizations as a result of
workforce diversity. Table II combines
the responses to two questions: (1) To
what extent do you believe that workforce
diversity has the following negative ef-
fects within your organization? (2) To
what extent do you believe that workforce
diversity has had the following positive
effects within your organization? Each
question was followed by six objective
items, and the open-ended item other. Ta-
ble II shows all twelve of the objective
items in rank order of a Likert Likelihood
Index score, which is the arithmetic mean
of the ratings assigned by respondents.
A notable result for the whole sample
was that no listed effect was rated any
more likely than a score equivalent to just
more than possibly true. No mean likeli-
December, 1993 Labor Law Journal
hood score was even halfway to probably
true. Also notable was that positive ef-
fects for the most part were rated as more
likely than the negative effects. The ex-
ception was communication problems,
which was ranked fourth out of the twelve
by the entire sample with a mean likeli-
hood score equivalent to less than possibly
true. However, among respondents from
private business organizations, communi-
cations problems was ranked third most
likely, with a mean likelihood score of
better than possibly true.
There was an even more notable differ-
ence among responses from higher educa-
tion and public sector organizations: all
six of the positive effects items were
ranked as more likely than any of the
negative effects items. Also, for these or-
ganizations, positive effects received
mean ratings that fell at the middle point
or above on the likelihood rating scale,
while all listed negative effects received
mean likelihood ratings that fell below the
scale's midpoint.
Open-ended items in both the positive
and negative effect questions drew writ-
ten responses from 15 percent of the sam-
ple, in about equal proportion. A
qualitative analysis was done, and these
responses were summarized into the fol-
lowing composite statements, represent-
ing the range of ideas provided.
(1) Positive Effects (6 percent): (a) bet-
ter role models for minority and female
students or employees; (b) hiring and re-
tention of skilled workers; (c) a better
reflection of reality and more ideas for
solutions to problems; (d) personal growth,
enhanced understanding and sensitivity,
broader horizons, expanded empathy, for
everyone in the organization; (e) en-
hanced organizational culture.
(2) Negative Effects (7 percent): (a)
more employee relations issues, e.g., in-
creased costs, conflicts, grievances, work
stoppages, law suits, complaints, and dis-
cipline problems; (b) complaints about
Workforce Diversity
needs for special treatment; (c) lower mo-
rale and resentment by non-favored
groups who feel under-valued and discrim-
inated against; (d) management reluc-
tance to make unfavorable or unpopular
personnel decisions concerning f^avored
groups, inappropriate influence on deci-
sions, hinders team building.
Finally, a concluding open-ended item
on the survey instrument asked respon-
dents to provide words or phrases that
best define or describe workforce diver-
sity; 84.3 percent of the sample re-
sponded. Through a qualitative analysis,
the responses were divided into three cate-
gories.
Comments judged to be neutral in tone
(e.g., multiculturalism, EEO/AA, reflec-
tive of community, inclusiveness, non-
Eurocentric, heterogeneity, melting pot,
variety. Workforce 2000, minorities, and
mosaic) accounted for 44.4 percent.
Comments judged to be positive or opti-
mistic in tone (e.g., enrichment, synergy,
enhancement of creativity, stimulating
productivity, better morale, human dig-
nity, good business, strength, valuing cul-
tural difference, opportunity for all)
accounted for 32.1 percent.
Comments judged to be negative in
tone (e.g., misguided, intrusion upon
rights, protects inept performance delete-
rious, mediocrity, conflict and tension, po-
litical correctness, begets organizational
resistance, a necessary evil) accounted for
7.8 percent.
Among the neutral category statements
were those that reflected objectivity and,
in many cases, implied acceptance of
greater personnel diversity within an or-
ganization. Most of these responses could
be regarded as implying knowledgeable
and non-negative attitudes. Those re-
sponses classified as positive were clearly
optimistic or implied a distinct benefit to
individuals or organizations resulting
from diversity.
761
 Conclusions
First, it is clear that the concept of
workforce diversity is in widespread use
throughout both public and private sector
organizations. Seventy-eight percent of
the responses included a report of the exis-
tence, planning, consideration, or discus-
sion of a written policy or program that
includes the concept of employee diver-
sity.
Many organizations have well-devel-
oped concepts and active diversity pro-
grams. Submitted materials ranged from
broad proactive programs to resolutions
and statements of principles. About half
were largely EEO/AA related. For exam-
ple, a life insurance company provided a
workforce diversification program that in-
cluded representation objectives for five
ethnic, racial or disability categories of
potential employees based on census data
concerning the local community. It also
expressed recruiting objectives by job po-
sition, implementation strategies, and
evaluation methods. A similar, broad pro-
gram was received from a public power
organization. A number of local govern-
ment organizations provided similar EEO
and AA policies and resolutions.
However, it is obvious that, among the
organizations represented in the survey,
there is no general consensus of the mean-
ing of workforce diversity. The most sig-
nificant evidence on this point may be the
finding regarding the relationship be-
tween the scope of workforce diversity
and EEO/AA. The lack of a majority view
and the similarity between the proportion
of respondents who believed they were the
same and those who believed they were
not, together with the small proportion of
uncertain respondents (13.2 percent), sug-
gests there is disagreement rather than
confusion on this matter. Thus, most of
the respondents indicated they know the
meaning of workforce diversity; however,
there is no consensus among organizations
on what that meaning really is.
762
The forty percent who reported that
there was no substantial difference have
effectively rejected the idea that
workforce diversity is anything more than
the new buzzword related to existing
EEO/AA mandates. Those who believed
that there is a substantial difference went
on to identify five separate directions in
which to seek meanings for workforce di-
versity: (1) breadth of groups included;
(2) the source of its mandate (3) its con-
tinuing, day-to-day implications for man-
agement; (4) its general purpose; and (5)
its profound effect on organizational be-
havior and culture.
It appears that at this point that
workforce diversity describes some char-
acteristic of employee demographics.
However, in various organizations, its
connection to agency policies, programs,
and activities range from the results of
EEO/AA compliance on the one hand to
the goals of a variety of proactive and
innovative ideas about organizational
make-up and culture on the other.
Further evidence of the diversity of
viewpoints on the nature of workforce di-
versity can be seen in the respondents
selection of individual characteristics
which are its components (reported in Ta-
ble I). The one, most nearly unanimous
selection, race (94.90.percent), is the orig-
inal protected category of modern equal
employment opportunity policies.
The next most supported characteristic
was gender (85.1 percent), followed in de-
scending order by gender, culture, na-
tional origin, handicap, and age,
progressively less supported by a factor of
about 40 percent (but all were selected by
at least two thirds of the respondents). It
is noteworthy that each of these charac-
teristics was also rejected by from 11 per-
cent to 28 percent of the respondents. The
wide variation in support of these com-
mon individual variables is another indi-
cation of the lack of a consensus on the
components of workforce diversity.
December, 1993 Labor Law Journal
 The American Institute for Managing
Diversity, Inc., has proposed that current
organizational approaches to diversity
programs can be categorized as (1) tradi-
tional - the objective is simply EEO/AA;
(2) understanding diversity - the objective
is to enhance employees' abilities to ac-
cept, understand, and appreciate differ-
ences among individuals; and (3)
managing diversity - the objective is to
create an environment that fully taps the
potential of all individuals, in pursuit of
corporate objectives.'^ The findings of this
research indicate that, in practice, there
is an approximately even split between
organizations which can be categorized as
traditional and those that can be catego-
rized as understanding or managing di-
versity.
A second general conclusion is that,
among the organizations represented by
this study's respondents, those diversity
programs that do exist have had signifi-
cantly more positive than negative ef-
fects. Table II shows that the six positive
effects were generally ranked as more
likely than any of the six negative effects,
except communications problems, which
was ranked fourth.
However, there appears to be consider-
able uncertainty about any of the twelve
listed possible effects of workforce diver-
sity. Even the top-ranked two effects
(both positive) had mean scale values
equivalent to just over possibly true, and
the next lower rated seven effects (both
positive and negative) received mean rat-
ings equivalent to points between don't
know if true and possibly true. And, the
two effects ranked least likely (both nega-
tive) had mean ratings equivalent to
points close to halfway between probably
not true and don't know if true.
Thus, Table II, demonstrates both a
general uncertainty regarding any of the
effects and also lower likelihood ratings
for most of the negative effects. That is, it
is believed that while workforce diversity
'^ Baytos. supra.
Woritforce Diversity
may not bring either the extent of the
benefits or problems predicted by some, it
is also believed that proposed negative
effects may be significantly less likely.
This conclusion is also supported by the
open-ended comments of respondents,
which were judged to be 44.4 percent neu-
tral, 32.1 percent positive and 7. 8 per-
cent negative in tone.
The validity of the above conclusions is
probably enhanced by the fact that public
sector organizations have experienced
workforce diversity efforts for a considera-
ble period of time. Thus, this study may
have some special significance for private
sector organizations now contemplating
diversity policies.
The majority of the written responses
to an open-ended item supported the idea
of some kind of workforce diversity policy
on ethical or pragmatic grounds and as-
serted several kinds of benefits would re-
sult. For example, the organization would
come to reflect its clientele more closely
and provide services delivered in a more
sensitive or responsive manner. It was
also asserted that organizations may also
benefit from the strengths and talents
available from a more diverse selection of
employees. In addition, appropriate poli-
cies would enhance productivity and har-
mony by providing an organizational
culture that is more comfortable to the
diverse workforce of the immediate fu-
ture.
A smaller proportion (7 percent) of re-
spondents reported that diversity will re-
sult in unfair preference for under-
represented groups at the expense of
members of the non-preferred group. This
was termed a form of reverse discrimina-
tion by one respondent and cynically le-
gitimated racism by another.
Private sector, public sector, and higher
education organizations provided a very
similar variety of responses. There were
only a few significant differences between
these groups. The private business sector
763
was significantly less likely to have a di-
versity policy or program in place and
was more likely to perceive a difference
between diversity and EEO/AA, more
likely to perceive communications
problems in a diverse workforce, and
ranked culture and national origin well
ahead of gender as categories of a diverse
workforce. The public and higher educa-
tion sector ranked gender second after
race as diversity category, ranked all posi-
tive effects of diversity as more likely
than the negative, and were most evenly
divided on whether there is a difference
between EEO/AA and diversity. Since
this latter group was also more likely to
already have a diversity or EEO/AA pro-
gram in place, their responses as to effects
could be given more weight.
In summary, first we believe that a
useful approach to diversity would be
based on traditional core EEO/AA cate-
gories, enhanced by a reflection of the
specific races and cultures represented in
the organization's client and local hiring
populations. Second, as more understand-
ing and managing diversity programs are
undertaken and more experience gath-
ered, consistent patterns of successful
principles may emerge. Separate princi-
ples should be developed with respect to:
recruitment, hiring, and training from a
more diverse population; management of
a more diverse organization; and service
delivery to a more diverse clientele. Each
organization, through its own voluntary
initiative, must identify its own focus and
formula for what the emerging workforce
and population diversity requires of it.
One principle identified that goes be-
yond traditional EEO/AA policies is that
of representation. Studies of the ecology of
administration and of marketing alike
have demonstrated the value of reflecting
the cultural makeup of the organization's
clientele appropriately in its workforce.
Perhaps the most useful workforce di-
versity concept that goes beyond the
EEO/AA base is that of attention to the
specific needs and concerns of unalike in-
dividuals in the daily, internal manage-
ment of the workforce. Making the
organizational culture support good mo-
rale and group cohesiveness not only sup-
ports the idea of equity but can
contribute to the productivity of the or-
ganization as well.
(The End]

New Administrator Promises Revitalized OSHA

More effective enforcement, streamlined promulgation of standards, and
promotion of successful safety and health programs will be the hallmarks of a
"revitalized OSHA" that will bring a new commitment to the "fundamental
mission of saving lives, preventing serious injuries, and protecting the health of
American workers," stated Joseph A. Dear, the new assistant Secretary of
Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Dear described his vision for the
agency in a statement released after his Senate confirmation on November 8,
1993. "We are going to focus our efforts on the most serious threats to health
and safety—we will redirect enforcement efforts and standard-setting where
they can do the most to protect workers. Every day in America, 17 people die
on the job and more than 16,000 workers are injured. Workplace accidents and
illnesses cost American businesses an estimated $80-$115 billion each year.
This is unacceptable," said Dear.

764 December, 1993 Labor Law Journal