The Management of Workforce Diversity:
A Continuing Evolution
R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr.
W e are surrounded by mixed signals con-
cerning the progress of diversity and
diversity management. On one hand, we see
the allegations of gender pay disparities
against Walmart, the divisive, sharp—some
would say, vicious—political debates, reports
that African-Americans are faring least well
under affirmative action, and a growing
sense that the field of diversity and diversity
management is floundering.
On the other hand, we see an African-
American president of the United States;
minorities and women in high corporate
positions; greater representation of minorities
and women throughout corporate America;
the appointment of chief diversity officers
(CDOs), suggesting an evolving permanency
of diversity and diversity management; and
gala celebrations of awards and progress.
This article looks at how the management of
workforce diversity has evolved and is likely
to evolve. It also notes the accomplishments to
date, the status quo, and recommendations for
moving to the next level.
This discussion takes place within the con-
text of two definitions, one for diversity and
the other for diversity management.
Diversity refers to the differences, similar-
ities, and related tensions and complexities
that can characterize a collective mixture like
the workforce. These similarities and differences
can be demographic in nature (for example,
race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation,
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/ert.20349
and age), or they can represent behavioral
variations (for example, thought, problem-
solving approaches, or behavioral traits asso-
ciated with personality). For me, diversity
requires at a minimum behavioral variations.
I refer to the presence of demographic varia-
tions alone as pluralism with respect to a
given variable—such as race, ethnicity, or
gender.1
Diversity management is the capability to
make quality decisions both about and in the
midst of differences, similarities, and related
tensions and complexities. A quality decision
is one congruent with an organization’s over-
all mission, vision, and strategy.
THREE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES
The management of workforce diversity has
evolved over the last six decades to encom-
pass three strategies: managing workforce
representation (1960s), managing workforce
relationships (1960s), and managing diverse
talent (1980s). All diversity and diversity-
management activities can be placed under
one or more of these strategies. (See Exhibit 1
for a summary of the principal aspects of
each strategy.2)
Managing Workforce Representation
This strategy grows out of the civil rights
movement and the civil rights laws and
1
Employment Relations Today

THE MANAGEMENT OF WORKFORCE DIVERSITY: AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE

Managing Workforce
Strategy/ Managing Workforce Demographic Managing Diverse
Variable Representation (1960s) Relationships (1960s) Talent (1980s)
Undergirding • Making amends for • Applying the golden • Maximizing individual
Paradigm past wrongs rule engagement
Focus • Achieving workforce • Pursuing harmony • Full utilization of talent
representation within the workforce (pluralistic and behavioral
(achieving workforce in the midst of variations) however packaged
pluralism) pluralism (creation of an environment
that naturally empowers
everyone to contribute to
their full potential)
Definition of • Individuals other than • Individuals other than • Everyone in workforce
Diversity white males white males
Motives • Corporate social • Corporate social • 100% from 100% of workforce
responsibility/social responsibility/social • From forced pluralism to
justice/civil rights justice/civil rights natural, sustainable, pluralism,
• Forced pluralism • Forced pluralism (treating diversity, and integration
(mainstreaming the the disadvantaged fairly
disadvantaged) and as equals)
Principal • Enforcement AA/EEO • Enforcement AA/EEO • Empowerment management
Driving of diversity SDMP™
Modality
Selected Tools • Civil rights laws • EEO policies • SDMP™
• AA/EEO • Eliminating “isms” • Paradigm shifts
• Strategic community • Sensitivity training • Cultural change
alliances • Valuing differences • Systems and policies changes
• Managerial • Understanding • Empowerment management
accountability differences
• Business case for • Cultural competency
representation • Leveraging differences
• CEO sponsorship • Political correctness
• Acculturation/ • Acculturation/assimilation
assimilation • Employee resource groups
Challenges • Artificial • Artificial • Fear of abandoning unfinished
• Creates backlash • Cyclical benefits AA business
• Cyclical benefits • Realities of historical • Perception that this strategy is
• Minimizing tensions tensions disguised AA
• Revolving door • Revolving door • Doer management
• Glass ceiling/white • Glass ceiling/white ceiling • Difficulty of constructing a
ceiling • Causal factors other than compelling business case
• Require continuous racism and sexism?
intense effort • Viability of AA?
• Effectiveness of
acculturation/assimilation?
• Requires continuous
intense effort

Exhibit 1. A Summary of Principal Aspects of Diversity-Management Strategies


focuses on achieving a numerical workforce
profile that matches the demographic
makeup of society’s general population.
Accordingly, many refer to this as “the num-
bers approach.”
Although considered part of the evolution
of the management of workforce diversity,
technically this strategy was not meant to
address diversity per se, but rather to address
the need to mainstream individuals who had
been inappropriately excluded from the
workforce. The focus initially spotlighted
African-Americans and subsequently
included other racial and ethnic minorities
and women.
Corporate social responsibility, social injus-
tice, and civil rights provided the motivation
for this focus in pursuit of forced pluralism.
However, after a late 1970s court decision
affirming the “benefits of diversity” as legiti-
mate justification for use of affirmative action
in public education, the driving motivation
gradually shifted. As a consequence, the
motive for this strategy moved from main-
streaming in pursuit of social justice and
forced pluralism to creating a diverse work-
force in pursuit of the “benefits of diversity.”
When this occurred, people started to
speak of representation and forced pluralism
as diversity. Although the court order meant
pluralism and behavioral variations, in prac-
tice most who advocated the justification
argument emphasized forced pluralism.
Over the years, organizational leaders have
employed a wide variety of tools in pursuit of
workforce representation. These have
included:
• Civil rights laws,
• Affirmative action/equal employment
opportunity policies and practices,
• Alliances with community organizations,
The Management of Workforce Diversity: A Continuing Evolution
Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Fall 2011
• CEO sponsorship, and
• Acculturation/assimilation.
The accomplishments of this strategy have
been significant. For example, our society and
its organizations now possess an enhanced
awareness and acceptance of the notion that
demographic representation should be pre-
sent in all sectors. Our organizations and
institutions are now much more representa-
tive than ever before.
A critical challenge has been sustaining the
representation progress and avoiding a cycle
of making progress, relaxing, suffering a
decline in the numbers, and starting anew.
A critical challenge has been sustaining the rep-
resentation progress and avoiding a cycle of
making progress, relaxing, suffering a decline
in the numbers, and starting anew.
Because the pluralism has been forced against
the natural and historical experience (grain) of
organizations, any relaxation of efforts will
likely result in a loss of the numbers. This
relaxation challenge led to the revolving-door
phenomenon, where minorities and women
come in one door and exit another.
Upward-mobility progress for minorities
above an imaginary glass ceiling proved diffi-
cult. This glass ceiling also contributed to the
revolving-door phenomenon.
Managing Workforce Relationships
When the strategy of managing workforce
representation first appeared on the scene, ten-
sion came along as well. After all, with respect
to blacks and whites, you typically were talking
about relationships between the descendants of
slaveholders and those of former slaves. These
3
Employment Relations Today
individuals typically had little experience
relating as equals.
The lack of trust presented a problem.
Blacks wondered whether they really could
trust whites, and issues of trust often sim-
mered just below the surface.
One reserved African-American male said
to me, “What you are advocating makes
sense, but I’m not buying in until someone
says I’m sorry for what we did to you and
your people.” A black woman abruptly and
emphatically shouted in an informal discus-
sion, “They still don’t value us!” In another
The continuation of these challenges has caused
some to believe that factors other than “isms”
must be causal, given apparently successful
efforts to eliminate and to foster understanding
and valuing of differences.
setting, one white male declared his intention
not to sit by blacks in the break room.
In the midst of these sentiments and simi-
lar ones, the strategy of managing workforce
relationships emerged and focused on achiev-
ing the harmony required for fruitful work
relationships in pursuit of forced pluralism.
As with managing workforce representation,
the motive initially was not diversity, but
rather corporate social responsibility, social
justice, and civil rights.
Toward this end, a significant number of
tools have been employed. Examples include:
• EEO policies,
• Sensitivity training,
• Understanding and valuing differences,
• Cultural competency, and
• Employee resource groups.
A major accomplishment of this strategy has
been workforce civility. Despite this civility,
4 R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr.
the revolving door, glass ceiling, and cyclical
progress with the numbers have continued.
The continuation of these challenges has
caused some to believe that factors other
than “isms” must be causal, given apparently
successful efforts to eliminate and to foster
understanding and valuing of differences.
Others wondered whether affirmative
action could generate sustainable progress.
One company representative puzzled out
loud, “We believe in affirmative action and
are proud of our awards, but we can never
relax. The minute we do, our numerical
progress begins to unwind.” This individual
doubted that sustainability was in the nature
of affirmative action.
A significant challenge to this strategy has
been a changing attitude toward being differ-
ent. People who see themselves as being
different increasingly have become more com-
fortable with that circumstance. They do not
see being different as making them greater or
less than others, but simply different.
As a result, forced pluralism generated
more behavioral variations, as people com-
fortable being different resisted across-the-
board acculturation/assimilation. If organiza-
tions were not prepared to address this
increase in diversity, tension increased among
individuals and between employees and their
employers. Acculturation/assimilation thus
became less effective in promoting harmo-
nious relationships.
Managing Diverse Talent
Struggling to achieve sustainable progress
with demographic pluralism, organizations in
the 1980s started to explore a new approach to
managing diversity, which was referred to at that
time as managing workforce diversity. Unlike
the first two strategies, this one presumes the
Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert

presence of demographic pluralism and
behavioral diversity.
This third approach to workforce diversity
encompasses everyone in the employee mix-
ture and focuses on creating an environment
that naturally enables all associates to con-
tribute to their full potential. The desire to
obtain maximum contributions from all
workforce members, support naturally sus-
tainable demographic pluralism and behav-
ioral variations, and promote integrated,
cohesive relationships drove this strategy.
To achieve these objectives, I have advo-
cated the use of the Strategic Diversity Man-
agement Process,™ a framework for making
quality decisions with respect to representa-
tion, relationships, and empowerment in a
diverse workforce.
Another critical vehicle for this strategy is
cultural change, where needed. This strategy
alone raises the question, “Now, that we have
a diverse workforce, will our culture (basic
driving assumptions) developed in the midst of
a relatively homogenous group of employees
continue to be appropriate? Or, will we have
to modify our culture?” Modifications would
not be for the purpose of accommodating
those who are different, but rather to ensure
that leaders and managers are equipped to
access talent however it comes packaged.
Similarly, this strategy advocates examin-
ing systems and practices to determine
whether they have the wherewithal to work
for all employees. One company had a devel-
opment program for people identified as
having high managerial potential. African-
Americans in the organization voiced their
observation that no people of color had ever
been selected. In disbelief, the company con-
ducted an audit and determined that the
claim was true. People of color frequently
had come close but never had made it over
The Management of Workforce Diversity: A Continuing Evolution
Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Fall 2011
the top. The company then investigated fur-
ther to determine what actual selection crite-
ria were being used and whether they were
bona fide requirements or nonrequirement
traditions, preferences, and/or conveniences.
This is the type of continuous scrutiny this
strategy requires of all people-management
systems.
This strategy calls for empowerment man-
agement, where managers seek to facilitate
the work of employees, as opposed to doer
management, where managers see them-
selves as doing the work, with associates as
assistants. Once an accountant becomes an
empowerment manager, his or her days of
doing accounting may be over. His or her pri-
mary activity becomes enabling others to do
the work. For those preferring doing account-
ing work, becoming an empowerment
accounting manager can be challenging.
A final vehicle suggested for this strategy
is mind-set shifting. A paradigm (mind-set)
undergirds each strategy and predisposes
individuals toward a given strategic direction.
For example, “making amends for past
wrongs” predisposes toward managing work-
force representation; “apply the Golden Rule”
may be considered the paradigm underlying
efforts in managing workforce relationships;
and, finally, “maximize individual engage-
ment” may be what characterizes managing
diverse talent.
If leaders wish to adopt a strategy that
does not match their organization’s dominant
paradigm, they either have to couch the
desired strategy in the context of the domi-
nant paradigm or change the prevalent mind-
set to support the desired strategic direction.
Failure to exercise one of these options leaves
a mismatch between the strategic aspirations
and the dominant paradigm. This can make
sustained progress difficult.3
5
Employment Relations Today
Very little has been accomplished with this
strategy. Although much is done under the
nomenclature of managing workforce diver-
sity, these efforts typically relate to managing
workforce representation and managing
workforce relationships. The biggest accom-
plishment, indeed, is that it now is at least on
the radar screen of some organizations.
Challenges abound as managers look to
the future with this strategy. Conceptual con-
fusion leads to fears of abandoning unfin-
ished affirmative-action business. For others,
conceptual misperceptions foster the belief
that this strategy is disguised affirmative
action. All of this creates skepticism about
the wisdom of adapting this strategy.
Failure to employ the strategy of managing
diverse talent explains in large part why after
almost 50 years of effort organizations still
struggle with representation regarding African-
Americans.
Further, in many enterprises, empower-
ment management languishes in the shadow
of the preferred doer-management model.
The Strategic Diversity Management Pro-
cess™ requires for most individuals consider-
able effort and discipline to master. Culture
change, analogous to personality change for
individuals, is not something organizations
rush to do. The same is true of changes with
systems, policies, and practices. Finally, shift-
ing mind-sets can demand prolonged atten-
tion and engagement.
STATUS QUO
Most leaders and managers remain comfort-
able with forced pluralism and go back and
forth between managing workforce represen-
6 R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr.
tation and managing workforce relationships.
They are unaware of or confused about man-
aging diverse talent.
One corporate manager approached me
and said, “You know a lot about us and the
work we have done. We pursued the num-
bers hard, and then addressed sensitivity and
relationships. We then relaxed and saw our
workforce representation decline markedly.
Now, we are back doing what we did with
the numbers eight years ago. I guess next we
will work on relationships again. Is this the
way it is supposed to be—cycling continu-
ously?”
This individual had no notion of managing
diverse talent and its stress on natural repre-
sentation, relationships, and engagement.
Without an environment that makes it possi-
ble for all workforce members to thrive natu-
rally, continuous intense efforts will be
required to maintain forced pluralism.
Failure to employ the strategy of managing
diverse talent explains in large part why after
almost 50 years of effort organizations still
struggle with representation regarding African-
Americans. Corporations winning awards for
their “diversity” work often report less than
desired progress with African-Americans. Fur-
ther, with globalism and immigration, multina-
tional corporations can develop a “diverse”
workforce without making the progress they
would like with African-Americans.
Susan B. Reed, author of a book to be pub-
lished this fall entitled The Diversity Index:
The Alarming Truth About Diversity in Corpo-
rate America . . . and What Can Be Done
About It, writes of a “white ceiling” that has
replaced the glass ceiling with respect to
African-Americans. She reports that in large
global US corporations, white males and
women dominate at the top of the pyramid,
with non-US-born minorities and women
Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert

next, and US-born African-American men
and women least represented in the upper
levels.4
So, the pursuit of the creation of a
“diverse” workforce can mean the abandon-
ment of seeking social justice with respect to
African-Americans. Those initially intended to
be the benefactors of affirmative action and
forced pluralism efforts have not kept pace in
terms of proportionate upward mobility.
Premature institutionalization (premature
sense of mastering) also is part of the status
quo. It flows from the existence of various
“best practices” lists and the prevalence of
benchmarking in the diversity arena. If a
company’s leaders are winning awards for
their diversity work, or if they are success-
fully emulating those winning awards, they
can feel good about their “mastering” of
diversity and diversity management.
The reality is that those winning awards
may not be at a level of mastery—they may
simply have met the criteria of the “best-
practices” judges. This is not to say winners
and emulators should not be proud of their
accomplishments, but that they should keep
perspective and avoid a premature sense of
mastery.
THE FUTURE
I think the field’s future direction will be
straightforward: the adoption and use of all
three strategies. The mixed signals mentioned
in the beginning of this article, as well as the
challenges noted earlier, come from not using
all three strategies. The third strategy—
managing diverse talent—is only now gaining
some standing as a legitimate option.
Ultimately, after each strategy has gar-
nered the wherewithal to stand on its own
merit, the three will merge into one—managing
The Management of Workforce Diversity: A Continuing Evolution
Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Fall 2011
diverse talent. I am suggesting that man-
aging diverse talent implicitly includes
managing workforce representation and man-
aging workforce relationships, but that signif-
icant maturation of the field must be realized
before this merging can occur. The following
are recommendations for moving to the next
level.
❏ Develop a diversity-management
model that can guide your efforts. The
model that a corporation develops or iden-
tifies for its cultural setting at a minimum
should contain concepts, principles, and a
decision-making framework. The Strategic
Diversity Management Process™ provides
an example of such a model.
I am suggesting that managing diverse talent
implicitly includes managing workforce repre-
sentation and managing workforce relation-
ships, but that significant maturation of the field
must be realized before this merging can occur.
One reason practitioners rely so heavily
on benchmarking is that most lack a
model as a guide. A model suggests what
your destination should be and also some
possibilities about how to reach that
desired state.
❏ Use the identified model as a context
for developing your mission, vision,
and strategy. Your diversity model and
mission, vision, and strategy should be
congruent with your organization’s overall
mission, vision, and strategy.
❏ Use all three strategies. The three
strategies are like the legs of a three-
legged stool. Absence of one of the legs
can create an unstable situation.
7
Employment Relations Today
Years ago, I encountered a prototypical
example of this imbalance. When I visited
one company’s campus and mentioned
the word diversity, the white males high in
the hierarchy started to talk profusely
with respect, admiration, and appreciation
for a black male low in the hierarchy
named Henry. They credited Henry with
orienting them to the company and
schooling them on the requirements for
upward mobility. Yet, Henry never earned
a promotion. When asked about why
Henry had not been promoted, the white
males stated they did not know he wanted
to move up the ladder.
At first blush, this response may sound
racist. In reality, they may have been
operating on two legs: representation and
relationships. Henry was present in the
mix and enjoying the ultimate relationship
Experimentation is absolutely required for pio-
neering in untrodden territory.
of being a part of the “ole boy” system as
a black male, albeit at the bottom of the
pyramid. He too may have been thinking
in terms of these two legs, as he did not
appear concerned about not being pro-
moted.
❏ Keep social justice on the agenda.
Although this is implicit in the recommen-
dation to use all three strategies, it bears
emphasis. As the Rev. Joseph Lowery, civil
rights icon, stated at a recent meeting, “It
never was about diversity. It always has
been about justice.” Indeed, this is true
about managing workforce representation
and managing workforce relationships.
8 R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr.
Managing diverse talent became neces-
sary as pluralism generated diversity.
Without this capability, sustainable
progress with pluralism and social justice
will be difficult. Nevertheless, diversity
and diversity management does not
replace social justice, but rather comple-
ments it.
❏ Keep the natural environment aspira-
tion front and center. This is the key to
sustainable progress. There appears to be
a belief that if we keep forcing progress
with pluralism and relationships artifi-
cially, it will become natural. If this is
true, it likely will be a longer and more
challenging route than deliberately chang-
ing culture, systems, policies, and prac-
tices in pursuit of an environment that
naturally works for all.
❏ Experiment! Diversity and diversity
management as a field is in an embryonic
state. Few—if any—silver bullets exist, and
concepts and principles are just beginning
to emerge. So, practitioners should work
to legitimize experimentation and avail
themselves of this option.
I recently heard of one experimentation
example. A practitioner reported that his
company was merging its mainstream
leadership-development process with its
developmental program for minorities. His
hope was that the combined program nat-
urally would develop minority and nonmi-
nority individuals. He summed up his
hopes by saying: “We’ll see!” Implicit in
that sentiment is the notion that the prac-
titioner will be closely monitoring the pro-
gram and will be prepared to tweak as
Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
 Fall 2011

necessary, and, indeed if merited, to
return to the separate arrangements. That
captures the essence of experimentation.
Experimentation is absolutely required
for pioneering in untrodden territory. Be
clear: going forth with the three strategies
will be a pioneering process.
❏ Be prepared for pioneering. In the
diversity and diversity management
arena, too few organizations possess a
readiness for pioneering. As one manager
preparing me for a presentation at his
company advised, “Don’t mention pio-
neering! We don’t pioneer. We emulate
pioneers and then execute better than
they do.” Yet, this misses the point: The
greater the recognition for the need for
pioneering, the greater the acceptance of
experimentation. The greater the accep-
tance of pioneering and experimentation,
the greater the likelihood of evolutionary
gains.
NOTES
1. Thomas, R. R., Jr. (2010). World class diversity manage-
ment: A strategic approach. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler; p. 2.
2. Ibid., pp. 25–123.
3. Ibid,, pp. 205–220.
4. Reed, S. B. (in press). The diversity index: The alarming
truth about diversity in corporate America . . . and what
can be done about it? New York: AMACOM.

R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr., DBA, is CEO of Roosevelt Thomas Consulting & Training,
founder of the American Institute for Managing Diversity, and author of World Class
Diversity Management: A Strategic Approach. For over 25 years, he has served as a
consultant and speaker for numerous Fortune 500 companies, government agencies, and
other organizations. Dr. Thomas may be contacted at rthomas@rthomasconsulting.com,
or visit www.rthomasconsulting.com.

The Management of Workforce Diversity: A Continuing Evolution 9

Employment Relations Today DOI 10.1002/ert
Copyright of Employment Relations Today (Wiley) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.