Building Diversity Competence Through Historical and Demographic Knowledge: Helpful Information For Managers

Building Diversity Competence Through
Historical and Demographic Knowledge:

Helpful Information for Managers
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Rosemary Hays-Thomas
The University of West Florida
With increasing diversity of the workforce, knowledge of cultural back-

grounds of employees should contribute to the diversity competency of
managers. This article outlines several reasons why such information should
contribute to diversity competence. It provides major demographic charac-
teristics and historical highlights of U.S. Census-defined racioethnic groups;
specific workplace issues relevant for various groups are discussed. The
article concludes with several recommendations for effective diversity man-
agement based on these considerations.
Keywords: management of diversity and inclusion, history of U.S. racioethnic groups,
demographic characteristics of U.S. racioethnic groups, workplace issues for U.S. racioethnic
groups, diversity competency
Most psychologist-managers have probably experienced the increasing

ethnic diversity of the U.S. labor force. Comparison of U.S. Census counts
from 2000 to 2010 showed that the population is becoming more ethnically
diverse, with the proportion of non-Hispanic Whites dropping and relative
numbers of Asians and Hispanics increasing (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB],
2011). The proportion of Blacks has remained fairly constant but that of
persons reporting more than one race is increasing. Furthermore, age cohorts
are changing, with the median age rising and larger numbers of workers
reaching retirement age (Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM],
2013). Other differences among workers (e.g., sex, ability, religion, sexual
orientation, gender identity), whether legally protected categories or not, are
receiving increased attention in contemporary organizations through what has
Preparation of this article was supported in part by a SAGES grant from the Society for
the Psychological Study of Social Issues.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rosemary Hays-Thomas,
Department of Psychology, University of West Florida, Building 41 - 11000 University
Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514. E-mail: rlowe@uwf.edu
121
The Psychologist-Manager Journal © 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 18, Nos. 3– 4, 121–152 1088-7156/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000036
122 HAYS-THOMAS
come to be called “management of diversity and inclusion” (hereafter re-

ferred to as D&I). This terminology conveys the view that management of
differences among individuals and groups is needed in order to avoid nega-
tive consequences and capitalize on the benefits that diversity can bring.
Good diversity management should also lead to a sense of inclusion in which
employees feel both accepted and personally valued (e.g., Shore et al., 2011).
MULTICULTURALISM
In the first issue of The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Gottfredson (1997)

reviewed the philosophy of multiculturalism, a social reform that fosters recog-
nition and respect for cultural differences. She identified three versions of this
reform movement and stated that the version called “Western Pluralism” (p. 7),
when applied to the workplace, was referred to as diversity management. It was
said to emphasize nondiscrimination, examination of the definition and measure-
ment of merit, and programs to assure that contributions of diverse groups,
particularly those previously disregarded, would be included.
According to Gottfredson (1997), the other two versions of multiculturalism
were (a) relativism, and (b) racialism. The former was described as holding that
all cultures deserve equal respect, that universal principles and standards of merit
do not exist, and that groups, rather than individuals, are the units of society. In
the workplace, relativism led to “valuing diversity” activities aimed at dispelling
unfavorable stereotypes and leading to acceptance of different beliefs and values.
The latter version, racialism, was also said to deny the existence of universal
principles but to emphasize power differentials as the major factor in group
status. Racialism stressed oppression and inequality in organizations, interpreting
it as deliberate and intentional. In the workplace, this version was found in
multicultural training experiences, according to Gottfredson, and was aimed at
reducing power differences among groups.
Gottfredson (1997) proposed an alternative: “the affirming climate” (p. 15).
Gottfredson described this as an elaboration of the pluralistic view that affirmed
(a) the dignity and participation of the individual, (b) collective and superordinate
goals, and (c) human resource practices that were simultaneously effective, fair,
and realistic. The contemporary version of the management of D&I as described
in scholarly and trade literatures seems in accord with Gottfredson’s affirming
climate. However, it stems from pragmatic rather than philosophical sources,
differs from affirmative action and compliance, and includes practices consistent
with all three versions of multiculturalism as she described them. For example,
mature D&I programs reject unfair discrimination and act broadly to incorporate
members of previously excluded groups, provide educational activities aimed at
reducing misinformation and implicit bias, and examine institutional practices
ETHNIC GROUP INFORMATION FOR MANAGERS 123
and structures to identify and change any aspects that maintain inappropriate
group distinctions and outcomes.
Mor Barak (2014) identified three basic arguments underlying the manage-
ment of D&I: (a) the empirical fact that workforces are increasingly diverse, (b)
the moral and ethical argument that individuals should be treated fairly and
experience equal opportunity, and (c) the “business case” that effective diversity
management will lead to stronger organizations. This article takes the position
that managers who are informed about the historical and cultural background of
coworkers are better prepared to manage diversity effectively and to increase the
sense of inclusion across racioethnic divides. This is consistent with the creation
of Gottfredson’s (1997) “affirming climate.”
PRAGMATIC RATIONALES
There are several reasons for psychologist-managers to take note of the

demographic changes described in the first paragraph. The increased diversity of
the labor force has implications for every human resource and industrial-
organizational psychology function in the contemporary organization. For ex-
ample, recruitment and selection, talent management, succession planning, inter-
and intragroup processes, and leadership are all influenced by demographic
factors. Legal implications of personnel decisions are also becoming more
complex as organizations attempt to increase D&I while avoiding the appearance
or reality of unfair discrimination. Increased globalization, a growing service
sector and more diverse markets, technological change, increased use of teams
and groups—these and other factors are increasing the need for effective man-
agement of an increasingly diverse workforce (Hays-Thomas, 2004).
The concept of diversity competency has been defined by Cox and Beale
(1997) as a learning process that underlies the ability to respond effectively to
situations arising in a diverse environment, both opportunities and challenges. In
their view, this process includes three phases: (a) awareness, (b) knowledge and
understanding, and (c) behavior and action steps. The present article focuses on
the first two phases: increasing awareness and improving knowledge and under-
standing, particularly concerning the historical context of differences among
groups represented in today’s U.S. workforce. In some cases, behavior may also
change as a result of this increased awareness and understanding. The article
assumes that familiarity with the cultural and historical backgrounds of those in
a workplace is an important part of the cognitive foundation for diversity
competence for psychologist-managers and others.
Although some individuals are already well informed by virtue of prior
education, education and training in their organizations, or personal efforts,
evidence suggests that many managers lack this knowledge. Research on orga-
124 HAYS-THOMAS
nizational diversity training, for example, shows that although at least two thirds
of companies provide some form of diversity training, it is more likely to occur
in companies with more than 100 employees and is not always mandatory,
especially for nonmanagerial employees (Esen, 2005; SHRM, 2010). It is also
likely to be brief (1 day or less) and to require only 10% or less of the
organization’s training budget (SHRM, 2010). Contemporary diversity training
is likely to focus on strategy and business success, but in some organizations still
emphasizes prevention of or response to harassment and discrimination, moti-

vated by concerns about grievances and litigation (Anand & Winters, 2008).
Given this information, it seems unlikely that typical diversity training would
address or focus on the diversity of cultural and historical backgrounds presented
in this article.
Research on the knowledges, skills, and abilities needed for effective
management of D&I is in its infancy. Recommendations for what managers
of a diverse workforce should know and be able to do are generally based on
anecdotal evidence, professional opinion, or statements by vendors seeking
candidates for training programs or certifications. The empirical base for
these recommendations is sparse, and appropriate qualifications may vary for
managers at different organizational levels (Hays-Thomas, Bowen, & Bou-
dreaux, 2012). In general, however, managers at all levels should benefit
from knowledge about the general backgrounds of the employees they select,
supervise, and evaluate.
Consistent with the work of Takaki (1993) and Tatum (1997), this article
proposes that to manage D&I well and to interact effectively in a racioethnically
diverse workplace, some understanding of the cultures of various racioethnic
groups represented in the workforce and some historical knowledge of relation-
ships among those groups is important. Without such understanding, we may
inadvertently give offense by making faulty assumptions. For example, someone
may assume that employees with Spanish surnames come from immigrant
families and are fluent in Spanish, that Filipinos are Latinos, or that Sikhs are
Muslims. Furthermore, we mail fail to understand how others perceive events
and communications with cultural subtexts. Objections to affirmative action from
those whose parents benefited from the GI Bill (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act
of 1944) or Veterans Administration (VA) loans sound ignorant and hypocritical
to those whose Black parents were systematically excluded from these mecha-
nisms of socioeconomic advancement for the middle class. Columbus Day
celebrations are offensive to some of Native American heritage.
Though not drawn from the workplace, a current example shows the im-
portance of cultural understanding. Police recruits in Montgomery, Alabama,
now complete a course called “Policing in a Historic City: Civil Rights and
Wrongs in Montgomery.” This training includes visits to the Rosa Parks Mu-
seum and other local sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement; it covers
the role played by law enforcement in the brutal resistance to Civil Rights
protestors. The Public Safety Commissioner stresses that “history can set the
stage for unnecessary conflict today if young officers do not understand the
context in which they are policing” (Elliott, 2015, p. 4). The same could be said
about historical and cultural knowledge of managers and others working in
diverse environments.
SCOPE
This article gives brief descriptive information about the major ethnic groups
represented in the U.S. workforce of the 21st century and presents historical
background that may be known to members of each group but not salient to
others. Its scope is limited to demographic and historical information that may
better prepare psychologist-managers and other managers from inadvertently
giving offense as a result of ignorance or faulty assumptions.
The wide range of other social science research relevant to the management
of D&I (e.g., development of identity, measurement of group differences, effects
of diversity in groups and teams, content and effectiveness of diversity training)
is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, the article presents some limited
recommendations relevant to its review of information about racioethnic groups
that may be helpful for those who wish to improve diversity competence for
today’s workplace.
LEGACY ISSUES
Historical facts about the interaction between and among groups form the
backdrop to contemporary interethnic relations and can be called macrolegacy
issues. For example, many Americans of Mexican ancestry come from families
that have lived in the present U.S. territory since the 1700s, far longer than the
European immigrant waves of the 1800s. In contrast, microlegacy issues develop
from an individual’s personal experiences relevant to other racioethnic groups.
Someone may have had a close childhood interracial friendship or a favorite
teacher of another race; another may be the victim of interracial crime, harass-
ment, or other mistreatment. Though legacy issues may not be discussed openly
at work, they can lead to markedly different understandings of particular work-
place events and relationships. Therefore, one who understands something of
legacy issues should be better prepared to interact effectively with others from
different groups. This article focuses on macrolegacy issues, which concern
members of various ethnic groups collectively, rather than microlegacy issues,
which are, by definition, unique to each individual.
126 HAYS-THOMAS
ETHNIC GROUPS DESIGNATED BY THE U.S. CENSUS
The first Census in 1790 distinguished only between Black and White
females and males; in some years, enslaved Blacks were distinguished from
those who were free (Racebox, n.d.). Since the 1930 Census, response options
have steadily increased, reflecting a more complex and inclusive societal under-
standing of racioethnic distinctions. In the most recent 2010 Census, respondents

were asked to indicate “Race” by choosing options from White; Black/African

American/Negro; American Indian/Alaska Native; 11 categories of Asian; or
Some Other Race, to be named by the respondent. Native Americans were also
asked to provide the name of their tribe. A separate question asked about
“Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin,” which is considered an ethnicity that can
be associated with any race. Options for Latinos included Mexican/Mexican
American/Chicano; Puerto Rican; Cuban; and Another Origin. Those responding
“another” were asked to print country of origin. As in the 2000 Census, respon-
dents in 2010 could indicate more than one race (USCB, 2010), a major change
from previous surveys.
Groups are described in descending order of size in the population and thus
the likelihood that managers will encounter members of those groups. Table 1
presents a summary of comparative demographic data on the six racioethnic
groups from the 2010 Census tabulation (USCB, 2010). Data on numbers,
growth, education, and poverty are drawn from the 2010 U.S. Census and
describe the general population. Information about the population subset of the
labor force comes from the monthly Current Population Survey and represents a
narrower range of working-age adults 20 years or older. Education levels for
those in the labor force are higher than levels for the population in general, but
the relative positions of the groups remain unchanged.
CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT MAJOR

RACIOETHNIC GROUPS
Whites
The U.S. Census definition for Whites includes those who are descended
from the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa
(Hixson, Hepler, & Kim, 2011). The term “Caucasian” came into favor in the
1800s to refer to White people (Painter, 2010), who were thought to be
especially physically beautiful and typical of those from Europe, North
Africa, the Middle East, and even parts of Asia. (The Caucasus region is on
the border between Europe and Asia including modern-day Georgia, Chech-
nya, and other regions formerly part of the USSR.) Arabs are usually
Table 1. Comparative Demographic Information About Racioethnic Categories

Whites
• Largest racioethnic category in 2010, 75% of U.S. population; non-Hispanic Whites
about 64% of population; alone, 72.4%; in combination with one or more other races,
2.4%
• Hispanic Whites increasing faster than non-Hispanic Whites, constituting 75% of 2000–
2010 growth in White population
• Growing in size but more slowly than other racioethnic groups

• In 2012, 80% of labor force; labor force participation (LFP) 64.5%; 73.5% for White
men, 58.7% for White women
• Except for Asians, highest likelihood of high school (88%) and college graduation
(about 30%)
• Poverty rate 2007–2010 similar to Asians (11%–12%) and lower than other racioethnic
groups or multiracials
Hispanics
• Ethnicity rather than race; second in size only to Whites at 13% of population
• Majority of the U.S. population growth between 2000 and 2010
• 16% of the 2012 labor force
• Highest rate of participation in labor force at 66.4% (81% for men and 59.5% for women)
• High school graduation about 63%; college graduation about 14%; lower level of
education than other racioethnic groups
• Poverty rate approximately 23%, varying greatly from Cubans (lowest at 16.2%) to
Dominicans (highest at 26.3%)
Blacks
• Second in size in 2010 Census among racial groups (excluding Hispanic ethnicity);
13% of population (alone), additional 1% in combination with another race
• Growing faster than overall population, with largest numerical increase but at lower rate
than other racioethnic groups except Whites
• In 2012, 12% of labor force
• Participation in labor force 61.5% (men relatively low at 67.7%; women higher than
other female groups at 62.6%)
• High school completion 84%, but only about 20% earned college degrees
• 2007–2011 poverty rate 25.8%; highest rate except for American Indians/Alaska Natives
Asians
• About 5.6% of U.S. population, either alone (4.8%) or in combination with non-Asian
race(s) (.9%)
• Among racial groups, fastest-growing percentagewise between 2000 and 2010, with
increase more than 4 times the rate of the total population; continuing through 2012,
when Asian population grew by 2.9%
• About 5% of labor force; labor force participation about 64% (76% for men and 59%
for women)
• High school graduation about 89%, including Pacific Islanders; about 52% earned
college degrees, highest level among racial groups or Hispanics
• 2007–2011 poverty rate similar to that of Whites at 11%–12%
American Indians and Native Alaskans (AI/NA)
• Very small racial group in 2010; .9% alone and .7% in combination with other race(s),
usually White, for total of 1.7% of population; almost half chose more than one race
• Alone, increased almost 2 times faster than total population
• Only 1% of labor force; participation rates lowest at 59%
• Relatively low education levels, with 77% completing high school and 13% earning at
least college degree
• Poverty rate higher than other groups at 27%
Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (NH/OPI)
• Smallest population group at .4% (.2% alone and .2% in combination)
(table continues)
128 HAYS-THOMAS
Table 1. (continued)
• Increased more than 3 times faster than the overall population, second only to the Asian
population in growth rate 2000–2010
• Only 1% of labor force, but with highest labor force participation rate at 71.4% in 2012
• High school completion rate similar to Asians at about 86%, but college completions
much lower at approximately 16% in 2013
• Poverty rate almost 18%
Note. Sources: Ennis, Rios-Vargas, & Albert, 2011; Hixson, Hepler, & Kim, 2011, 2012;
Hoeffel, Rastogi, Kim, & Shahid, 2012; Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011; Macartney, Bishaw,
& Fontenot, 2013; Norris, Vines, & Hoeffel, 2012; Rastogi, Johnson, Hoeffel, & Drewery,
2011; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011,
2012, 2013a, 2015.
considered to be White; they are an ethnicity of the Middle East and North
Africa, including Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and
Yemen. Many, but not all, Hispanics are White; Latino heritage is considered
ethnic rather than racial.
During periods of increased immigration to the United States, some
impoverished, non-English-speaking, rural, and non-Protestant immigrants
were seen as “non-White” (Painter, 2010). For example, the second-wave
“potato famine” Irish who immigrated after 1840 were caricaturized as
animal-like and racially distinct (Knobel, 1986). Southern and Eastern Eu-
ropean immigrants, particularly those who were Jewish, were not considered
White until they and their descendants had been in the United States for years
and had assimilated with other Whites (Brodkin, 2007). In the 1920s, theories
of eugenics and “scientific racism” were popular in U.S. culture. These ideas
gave justification to drastic limits on Asian and much European immigration
between 1924 and 1927, as well as the deportation of U.S. citizens of
Mexican heritage during the Great Depression. This brief summary shows
that the concept of “Whiteness” was socially constructed and redefined to fit
the economic and political climate of various periods in U.S. history. The first
concept of “American” meant free, White, and wealthy (Painter, 2010).
Whites were the earliest nonindigenous residents of America and de-
signed the new United States based on their social and cultural values; White
male landowners held political and economic control. Although legal rights
were later extended to others, Whites still continue to predominate in posi-
tions of authority and influence. Many institutions and policies that we take
for granted in this country were designed and operated for the benefit of the
initial landed elite and others who, by “race,” have come to be seen as part
of the privileged White group.
Numerous 20th-century policies have disproportionately benefited this
group and led to development of the White middle class. Katznelson (2005)
describes many of these in his book When Affirmative Action was White. For
example, until the 1950s, agricultural and household domestic work were
excluded from postdepression legislation that authorized modern unions,

required a minimum wage, restricted hours of work, and set up Social
Security. As a result, more than 60% of Black workers nationally and almost
75% of Blacks working in the South were excluded from these protections.
Laws providing support for veterans and help for those living in poverty were
set up to be administered locally, which permitted racial bias to operate; there
was no federal oversight assuring that Blacks would also receive benefits. In
social welfare programs (school lunch programs, grants for community

health and hospital construction) established near the end of the Jim Crow era
and prior to the Civil Rights laws, there were no antidiscrimination provi-
sions. Thus, “when a wide array of public policies was providing most white
Americans with valuable tools to advance their social welfare . . . most black
Americans were left behind or left out . . . a massive transfer of quite specific
privileges to white Americans” (p. 23). Later, after World War II (WWII),
veterans’ benefits such as VA home loans and the educational assistance of
the GI Bill were administered largely to the benefit of White veterans,
particularly in the South. These policies reinforced and magnified the con-
sequences of legal segregation.
In understanding contemporary race relations, it is important to recog-
nize that the socioeconomic status of Whites has been advanced by public
policies that did not benefit other racial groups equally, particularly Blacks.
In the contemporary understanding of most Whites, their immigrant ancestors
succeeded in overcoming hardship and advancing socioeconomically through
hard work and ability. With the passage of time, it is more difficult to
recognize the political decisions, public policies, and institutions that have
advantaged the expanded category of Whites over others.
What we think of today as “White culture” is an amalgam of knowledge,
habits, language, foods, music, art, and other artifacts from mostly Anglo-
Saxon and other European sources. Some communities maintain strong
ethnic ties, but these patterns have weakened as generations have become
removed from their immigrant ancestors. Most Whites in America have a
very general and often incomplete or inaccurate sense of ancestry in partic-
ular countries or regions of Europe. Similar skin color and physical features,
along with increasing intermarriage among members of European heritage
groups, have produced a cultural experience that seems to be the background
or norm of “American culture” against which others’ racioethnic cultures are
contrasted. Many White people seldom consider their whiteness unless they
are in an environment in which they are no longer in the majority. Qualifiers
or markers are used to describe “Black authors” or “Asian actors,” but a
senator, businessperson, or doctor is presumed to be White unless stated
otherwise. Unlike other races, Whites are not “marked” and “White is the
race that needn’t bother (to speak its name)” (Grimsley, 2004). The field of
Whiteness Studies has developed to study the racialization of whiteness: the
130 HAYS-THOMAS
practice of assigning race to others by Whites, the often unacknowledged

experience of White privilege, and the experience of White racial identity.
Among Whites, sensitivity and prejudice still exist around some issues of
ethnic difference and region of origin. For example, many Southerners have
found that others consider them less intelligent, educated, or informed based
on speech pattern. Someone’s accent may indicate origin from an area or
neighborhood that is looked down upon, and prejudices based on social class
are still strong within the White population.

Most Whites in today’s work organizations are likely to be unaware of
these historical events or interpretations. Many may assume that racioethnic
discrimination occurred mainly against Blacks and long ago, especially if
they do not understand the history of discrimination, institutional racism, and
the experiences of other racioethnic groups. In the context of diversity
management, this may lead to different interpretations and resistance to
affirmative action and other opportunities targeted at particular demographic
groups in programs for management of D&I. Attempts to correct past
exclusionary practices may seem to be “favoritism” toward minorities. To-
day’s White individuals are not personally responsible for the discrimination
and injustices of the past; however, many of them are the beneficiaries of the
history and systems that have disproportionately benefited those who are
today considered White. Furthermore, the essence of privilege is that those
who benefit do not recognize it because it seems “normal.”
Hispanics or Latinos
The term Hispanic was first used by the USCB in 1960 to refer to those of
Spanish ancestry in the United States (Chong & Baez, 2005). However, some in
the Latino community objected to this term, preferring Latino in reference to
Latin America. This is consistent with the fact that most Latino immigrants in the
United States have come from Central or South America rather than Spain, and
some do not trace their heritage to Spain at all (e.g., Japanese immigrants to
South America). Furthermore, immigrants from Brazil speak Portuguese rather
than Spanish. In response, the U.S. government now uses the terms Hispanic and
Latino interchangeably. About 70% of these individuals surveyed do not express
a preference for either term, but among those who do, Hispanic (19%) is
preferred to Latino (10%; J. M. Jones, 2013). In the workplace, both terms are
used in gathering or reporting information, but in workplace interaction, it is
advisable to use the terms preferred by particular individuals of Hispanic or
Latino ethnicity whenever possible.
The popular stereotype of Latinos vastly underestimates the diversity
within this group. Some have identifiably Latino names or speak Spanish, but
many others do not. They may have been born in Latin America or in the
United States. Those who are immigrants vary in level of acculturation to the
United States, language skills, and immigration status. Chong and Baez
(2005) have listed six contemporary aspects of diversity among Latinos that
are relevant in the workplace: race, country of origin, generation, language,
religion, and educational attainment.
Latinos may be of any race; in the 2010 Census, slightly more than half
of Latinos identified themselves as White alone, and more than one third
chose “some other race.” Only small percentages of Latinos reported Black
alone (2.5%) or American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, or Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander alone (all less than 1.5%; Humes, Jones, & Ramirez, 2011).
About two thirds are of Mexican heritage, the largest single group in the
United States. About 14% have come from other countries in South or
Central America, with smaller percentages from Puerto Rico, Cuba, or other
areas of the Caribbean (Ennis, Rios-Vargas, & Albert, 2011). A large
majority of U.S. Latinos speak English very well and are either bilingual or
English-dominant. About half of Latinos are Spanish-dominant, with about
one quarter each English dominant and bilingual (Chong & Baez, 2005).
Descendants of early Spanish conquistadores or colonists have been in the
United States for many generations and speak English predominantly or
exclusively. Second-generation Latinos are often bilingual, but for third and
later generations, English is usually the primary language. Although the
majority of Latinos are Catholic, many are of Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, or
other faiths. Levels of education are quite variable; some immigrant Latinos
arrive well educated but others do not.
Latinos of Mexican descent are themselves quite diverse. Present-day
Mexico and Southwestern North America were colonized by the Spanish,
many of whom intermarried with indigenous women. Spanish and Mexican
American Indian cultures have blended to produce contemporary Mexican or
Mexican American (Chicano) religious beliefs, customs, and language.
Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, Utah, Nevada, and other areas were
the home of many Mexicans when these lands were ceded to the United
States by the Mexican government in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
(Saenz, 1999). Those who chose to stay gained full U.S. citizenship, even
earlier than many of the waves of immigrants from Europe. As more Anglos
entered the Southwest and pressed to acquire land, Mexican Americans were
drawn to work in agriculture, mining, and the railroads.
During the Great Depression, Mexican Americans were seen as compet-
itors for jobs that should go to Whites and were barred by law from public
employment in some areas. In 1930, the Hoover Administration organized
searches and mass deportations with the idea of reducing the relief rolls and
vacating jobs for Whites (Digital History, 2012). An estimated 400,000
Mexicans and Mexican Americans were “repatriated” to Mexico during this
132 HAYS-THOMAS
period, even though many were U.S. citizens and had never lived in Mexico.
Later, during WWII, many Mexican Americans served honorably in the
Armed Forces, with a disproportionate share earning medals of honor, and
the Bracero program recruited other Mexicans to work in the U.S. war effort.
However, after the war, Mexican Americans were returned to their former
second-class status (Saenz, 1999). Since that time, Mexicans have continued
to come to this country on a legal or illegal basis, and many who entered
illegally have subsequently become U.S. citizens.

Many Latinos from Central and South America entered the United States
as refugees from civil war and political unrest. Some were granted asylum,
others were later naturalized, and some continue in undocumented status.
Many continue to be political exiles. Others have immigrated for economic
or other reasons, and many of them are well educated (Chong & Baez, 2005).
Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since their country became a U.S.
protectorate in 1917. They are able to vote in Puerto Rican, but not federal,
elections (unless residing in one of the 50 states) and have no voting
representation in Congress. Because of their citizenship status, they are able
to move back and forth between Puerto Rico and the mainland with relative
ease. Many are bilingual and bicultural. Cubans have come to the United
States in two major waves. The earlier group consisted largely of educated
and financially secure middle- and upper-class Cubans who were granted
special immigration status when they came to escape the transition to
Communism under Fidel Castro. The later group, called “Marielitos” because
many of them came through the Port of Mariel, were less well educated and
often suffered from health, behavioral, and social problems.
Because of space limitations, this overview omits mention of many other
heritages that are part of the Latino culture in contemporary American
workplaces. It should be clear from this survey that managers, diversity
professionals, and others should avoid relying on stereotypes that can prevent
learning about Latino coworkers as individuals. Awkward interactions and
interpersonal offense can result from inaccurate expectations about Spanish
language skill, religious preference, education, motivation, and many other
things. Chong and Baez (2005) have identified eight values relevant to work,
such as a relaxed orientation toward time, that characterize the overall Latino
culture, but caution that there are individual and generational differences
among Latinos in this regard. These points may help others to understand the
work behavior and attitudes of Latinos, but, as always, interactions should be
guided by knowledge of individuals rather than reliance on stereotypes about
their group memberships.
Language issues may also be of concern to diversity professionals who
work with Latino employees. For example, some workplaces have instituted
English-only policies for the convenience of supervisors or for other reasons
such as safety. However, if many employees speak only Spanish (or another
language) fluently, other more inclusive approaches should be considered.

For example, bilingual supervisors may be selected, workplace communica-
tions may be provided in both languages, or English language lessons may be
provided. Complaints of national origin discrimination have been legally
upheld in some cases when it cannot be shown that English-only policies are
a business necessity (Gevertz & Dowell, 2014).
Another language issue is reliance on bilingual employees to work with

customers or clients who speak only Spanish, which is reasonable when an

organization’s products or services are provided to Spanish speakers. How-
ever, problems can arise if bilingual persons are asked repeatedly to do the
work of English-only coworkers to the detriment of their own work assign-
ments. It is also wise to consider whether skill in a second language should
be a basis for additional compensation, or whether staffing plans should
include competence in communicating with Spanish-language customers.
Blacks
This census category includes persons who are descended from residents
of sub-Saharan Africa. Non-Blacks in the United States often have not
considered that descendants of enslaved persons usually cannot discover their
ancestors’ identities, countries of origin, or tribal affiliations in any detail.
The institution of slavery effectively wiped out specific genealogical infor-
mation, and sub-Saharan Africa encompasses many cultures. Africa is a large
continent, not a country. In “valuing diversity” experiences, what is the
“African” cultural experience?
The term African American, sometimes considered interchangeable with
Black, raises many issues. Some American Blacks prefer to be called Black,
never having been to Africa and feeling no connection with that continent.
Does African American apply to people from South Africa who are White?
In the workplace, it is advisable to use the term that is preferred by particular
individuals of African heritage; a survey by the Gallup organization in 2013
showed that about two thirds of Blacks found either “African American” or
“Black” acceptable, and half of the remaining third preferred each term (J. M.
Jones, 2013).
The first African Blacks who came to the Virginia colony in 1619 were
indentured servants. After passage of the first slave laws in Massachusetts
(1641) and Virginia (1661), at least 500,000, and possibly 650,000, enslaved
Africans were brought to America to (PBS, n.d.-b; History.com, 2013). A
minority of Blacks were freemen as a result of completing indentured
servitude, purchasing their freedom, or being freed by their slave owners. In
1808, the importation of slaves was banned by law but continued illegally
134 HAYS-THOMAS
(Open Collections Program, n.d.). By the time of the Emancipation Procla-

mation and the Civil War, there were about 4 million slaves in the United
States (History.com, 2013), most of whom had been born in this country and
had never lived in Africa. Most U.S. Blacks today are descendants of former
slaves, but others are themselves, or are descended from postslavery, African
immigrants. Others have come to this country from the Caribbean, South or
Central America, or other areas with different cultures. Managers should take
note that common stereotypes about Black people overlook this great variety
in heritage and should be cautious about inappropriate assumptions.
Since the earliest colonial days, there have been individuals of mixed
Black–White race. With the rise of slavery, local legal sanctions began to
restrict cross-race unions (Buck, 2007) but they continued to exist in various
forms. Many slave women were raped by slave owners and other Whites, and
the offspring of these assaults usually lived as slaves. Some Black women
also entered into long-term unions with White men of means. The Southern
planters were among the richest men in the country, but control of wealth
remained among Whites because their mixed-race children were generally
excluded as heirs (Buck, 2007). In one well-known example, most historians
now believe that Thomas Jefferson maintained a long-term relationship and
fathered children with his slave, Sally Hemings. Hemings herself was of
mixed race; her children were fair-skinned and three of them lived as Whites
during adulthood. All of Hemings’s children, but not Sally herself, were freed
by Jefferson during his lifetime or in his will (Monticello.org, n.d.). Another
example comes from south Louisiana, where the Creole culture was accept-
ing of mixed-race unions. The term Creole originally referred to the White
descendants born in the New World of French and Spanish settlers. However,
this label also came to refer to persons of mixed French/Spanish and Black
heritage. In and around New Orleans in South Louisiana, there were many
free Creoles of color who were racially mixed, cultured, and people of means.
Some free women of color entered long-term and comparatively secure
relationships with White men, but these mixed couples were forbidden by
law from marrying (Clark, 2013). Some of these Americans or their descen-
dants were so fair that they could and did “pass for White” (passé blanc).
Nevertheless, in general, the typical formal and informal practice under the
so-called one-drop rule was to consider a person with any Black heritage to
be Black. The range of skin tone among those considered Black—and the
status associated with light skin from the plantation era—also gave rise to the
so-called paper bag test, in which admission to social events was sometimes
restricted to those lighter than the color of a paper bag (Maxwell, 2003).
Managers should be aware of the possibility of workplace effects of colorism
within communities of color as well as between them and Whites. Within-
race differential treatment on the basis of skin tone can be offensive and may
rise to the level of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964.
Before the Civil War on the Southern plantations, most of the back-
breaking labor of raising crops was done by Black slaves. Some worked as
house servants; others learned crafts or trades such as carpentry or performed
most of the work in Southern industries (Foner & Lewis, 1989). Most of the
laborers who built the White House, the U.S. Capitol, and other early
government buildings were Black slaves, along with some freemen (White
House Historical Association, n.d.). In the North, Blacks were technically
free, but many of them experienced great hardship because of employment
discrimination, poor education, and rivalry with White workers for jobs. Race
riots were frequently instigated by Whites, particularly immigrants such as
the Irish, who saw Blacks as competitors for jobs. Nevertheless, some Blacks
found work as servers in hotels, restaurants, and saloons; as seamen or as ship
caulkers; or as porters or barbers (Foner & Lewis, 1989). Excluded from the
labor unions, some formed their own labor associations. Not until 2 years
after the start of the Civil War were Blacks allowed to join the Union army,
but by the end of the war, 200,000 had fought for the North.
Although slavery may have come to an end legally after the Civil War,
Blacks continued to face extreme discrimination, segregation, and danger.
During the period of Reconstruction after the war, some Southern Blacks
remained on the land as sharecroppers or tenant farmers, but former owners
often did not have the means to pay their wages. Many were subjected to
peonage or the industrial slavery of the convict leasing system (Blackmon,
2008). In the 1870s and 1880s, some Blacks moved to the West, seeking
better lives. Some former slaves moved to cities or to the North, where they
competed with Whites for jobs. Excluded from most unions, they were
sometimes hired as strikebreakers; this exacerbated racial discrimination and
violence, which continued into the 20th century (Foner & Lewis, 1989). By
the 1920s, Jim Crow segregation was firmly established in the South, and life
there for Blacks became more restricted and dangerous. The Great Migration
of Blacks from the South to the North in the 1920s occurred in response to
increased opportunity as waves of immigration slowed and the nation geared
up for World War I. Nevertheless, interracial competition for jobs, discrim-
ination, exclusion from Unions, and periodic violence and rioting continued.
Not until 1935, with the founding of the Committee for Industrial Organi-
zation, was there an attempt to unite White and Black labor to improve
working conditions for both. Black and desegregated unions were formed in
the tobacco industry, maritime trades, and the auto and steel industries. The
president of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, A. Philip Randolph,
influenced President Franklin Roosevelt to ban racial discrimination in the
war industries by Executive Order. Roosevelt set up the Fair Employment
Practices Commission to monitor discrimination, and by the end of WWII,
136 HAYS-THOMAS
the percentage of war industry employees who were Black had doubled,
though still only to about 8%. In contrast, during this period of Rosie the
Riveter, White women were actively encouraged to enter the industrial
workforce for the war effort (History.com, 2010).
The employment of American Blacks was also restricted by their limited
access to education. During slavery, in most of the South it was forbidden to
teach Blacks to read in order to maintain their subjugation. When the war
ended, suddenly there was a large labor force of mostly illiterate former
slaves. Religious missionaries and philanthropists responded by founding
schools for the education of Blacks. Cheyney University in Pennsylvania, the
first of the historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), was
founded in 1837 by a Quaker philanthropist for the education of former
slaves (Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, n.d.). In 1862, Congress passed
the First Morrill Act, establishing land grant universities in many states, such
as the University of Illinois, Kansas State University, and Iowa State Uni-
versity. However, in the South, campuses remained segregated and Blacks
were excluded until the Second Morrill Act in 1890 (PBS, n.d.-a) when states
were required to admit Blacks to their land grant institutions or to establish
separate land grant institutions for Black citizens. Many states chose to
maintain segregation and open new schools; these “1890 Universities” in-
cluded 16 Black land grant institutions across the South (PBS, n.d.-a), such
as Florida A&M University, North Carolina A&T University, and Southern
University in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Major public universities across the
South continued to exclude Blacks until, during the 1950s and 1960s, they
were required to desegregate. Today, HBCUs maintain their original mission
of education for Black citizens, but many also enroll significant numbers of
Whites. Even today there remains a pattern of chronic underfunding of public
HBCUs compared with predominantly White schools (Roach, 2013).
The Armed Forces were officially desegregated during WWII by Presi-
dent Truman’s Executive Order, again at the urging of Randolph and other
Civil Rights leaders (Harry S. Truman Library & Museum, n.d.). However,
resistance was strong and separate Black units were the norm. One example
is that of the celebrated Tuskegee Airmen of the “Red Tail Squadron” (“CAF
Red Tail Squadron,” 2013). Not until the Korean War in the 1950s was
integration relatively complete. The military was ahead of civilian society in
this regard and today provides relatively competitive career opportunities for
people of color. However, upon returning to civilian society after WWII,
Black veterans still faced discrimination and segregation that limited their
educational and employment opportunities, as described earlier.
Many of these events are well within the memories of some still in the
workforce. In today’s U.S. employment settings, a few Blacks find them-
selves to be one of a small number in professional or managerial jobs; most
are surrounded by other Blacks in occupationally segregated positions or
departments that are marked by low compensation and authority. Markers

such as “Black faculty” or “Black doctor” are still widely used. In a diverse
work setting, these distinctions will not escape the notice of people of color,
although majority employees easily overlook them. Because of the “white-
ness” of many work settings, many people of color experience a bicultural
shifting or switching of attitudes and behavior between the workplace and
their nonwork social or home environments (C. Jones & Shorter-Gooden,

2003). It may be difficult for them to determine the extent to which positive
and negative workplace decisions are affected by racial factors rather than
actual job performance and credentials. In most work settings, people of color
do not have the privileged status to ignore the degree to which their progress
is affected by their race. One who speaks up, files a grievance or complaint,
or otherwise calls attention to ambiguous situations can easily be labeled
overreactive, whereas not calling attention to racially tinged encounters or
decisions just allows them to continue unchallenged. Sometimes the easier
course of action is to withdraw partially or entirely from a problematic work
environment. Managers should be aware of these special stresses that affect
those of minority status, whether that is based on racioethnicity, sex, disabil-
ity status, or other factors, and should take them into consideration when
making attributions about workplace behavior.
Asians
Asian Americans, like Latinos, are a very diverse group. In the U.S.
Census, the Asian category includes persons with ancestry in the Far East,
Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent; this is a very large area with many
varied nationalities, cultures, languages, and histories. Unlike other racioeth-
nic minorities, Asian Americans’ origins are so varied that they do not share
“a common historical trauma like slavery or colonization” (Shah, 2007, p.
222). There is no single or predominant “Asian” color, language, culture, or
ethnicity. Among Asians in the United States, the largest group is of Chinese
origin (23%), followed by Filipinos (20%) and Asian Indians (18%). Viet-
namese, Korean, and Japanese Americans each constitute 10% or less of
Asian Americans (Pew Research Center [PRC], 2013). On the census,
Chinese and Asian Indians are more likely to report Asian alone, whereas
Filipinos and Japanese are more likely to choose Asian in combination with
another racial group (Hoeffel, Rastogi, Kim, & Shahid, 2012).
The majority of Asian Americans (59%) were born outside the United
States, the largest percentage among the various racial groups (PRC, 2013).
This reflects restrictive U.S. immigration policies in place until 1965, after
which immigration from Asia increased dramatically. Since at least 2009,
138 HAYS-THOMAS
Asian immigration has been larger than that of any other group, including
Hispanics. Immigrants from Asia, especially those from Korea, India, Japan,
and China, are more likely than other immigrant groups to enter this country
with employment visas and permanent resident status. Asian immigrants are
more likely than others to speak English very well or to speak English at
home. They are less likely to leave the United States and more likely to
become naturalized citizens. Of Asian American adults born outside the

United States, 59% have become citizens; among Vietnamese, 76% are
citizens (PRC, 2013).
As a group, Asian Americans are more highly educated than the general
U.S. population, with 49% attaining at least a college degree compared with
28% in the U.S. population (based on Pew’s analysis of 2010 American
Community Survey data). Approximately half of Korean, Chinese, Filipino,
and Japanese Americans have graduated from college, and for Asian Indians,
the figure is 70%. Many Asians come to the United States to study; over 60%
of U.S. foreign students are from Asia and many of them earn graduate
degrees in the United States (PRC, 2013). In work organizations, Asian
Americans are likely to be employed in management or professional occu-
pations (50%); this is especially true for those whose heritage is Indian,
Chinese, or Japanese. Only about 11% of employed Asian Americans work
in maintenance, transportation, and general labor, compared with 15% of the
general U.S. population. Asians with lower levels of education are less likely
than other groups to be unemployed, although for higher education levels, the
rates are comparable. Median household income for Asian Americans is
higher than that for Americans in general, although this occurs in part
because there tend to be more earners in Asian American households. Asians’
household wealth is likely to be significantly lower than that of non-Hispanic
Whites, but much higher than the household wealth of Hispanics or Blacks.
Asian Americans are less likely to be poor (11.9%) than the U.S. population
(12.8%), but this varies across ethnic groups and is largely a result of the
relative success of Indian, Japanese, and Filipino Americans. Of the largest
Asian groups, those of Korean, Vietnamese, and Chinese ancestry are more
likely to live in poverty than the general U.S. population.
Several workplace issues are of special concern to Asian Americans,
including discrimination on the basis of accented speech, a form of national
origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Because of the distinctive appearance of many Asian Americans, they face
the forever foreigner reaction, with even second-generation U.S. citizens
being perceived as from another country. Like women and other racioethnic
minorities, Asian Americans appear to face a pattern of blocked promotion,
called the Glass Ceiling. Two particularly troubling stereotypes about Asians
are the idea of the model minority, the idea that Asians have overcome
hardship unassisted to reach educational and economic success; and the
expectation of natural competence in math and science (rather than language

and the arts). Both of these contradict the characteristics and experience of
many individual Asian Americans. The U.S. immigration experience for
Asian groups is quite different from those of Blacks and Latinos.
Chinese Americans
Chinese men first came to the United States in the mid-1800s during the
gold rush and the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad. Because
immigration of Chinese women was greatly restricted and intermarriage with
Whites was prohibited, many young Chinese men returned to their homeland
after working for a few years in the mines or on railroad gangs (PRC, 2013).
Those who remained often migrated to urban enclaves, particularly San
Francisco, and worked as laborers. They were often used as strikebreakers
against the Irish and others, which generated a great deal of anti-Chinese
hostility and violence. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited immi-
gration for 10 years as well as naturalization of Chinese immigrants; the 1917
Immigration Act also barred immigration from most Asian countries, includ-
ing China. Although U.S.-born Chinese had been citizens since a Supreme
Court ruling in 1898, the Chinese Exclusion Act remained in place for 60
years until its repeal in 1943! After passage of the Immigration and Nation-
ality Act in 1965, Chinese immigration increased. In 2010, there were
approximately 3 million adults of Chinese descent in the United States, about
24% of the U.S. Asian population (PRC, 2013).
When the Communist revolution took place in China in the late 1940s,
opposition members fled to the island of Formosa and established the
Republic of China, known as Taiwan. Some Chinese and Taiwanese immi-
grated to the United States around this time. After diplomatic relations with
the People’s Republic of China resumed in 1979, immigration from mainland
China increased and now accounts for the majority of Chinese/Taiwanese
immigration (Kwong & Chen, 2010). Although for census purposes in the
United States these two groups are often tabulated together, the countries are
governed separately and tension between Taiwan and the People’s Republic
of China continues. In work organizations, diversity professionals and others
should be aware of possible strongly held identities related to this conflict.
Philippine Americans
The history of immigration from the Philippines is quite different. Spain

occupied the Philippines from 1565 to 1898. Although many Filipinos have
140 HAYS-THOMAS
Spanish-sounding surnames, they are not considered Hispanic. The earliest

U.S. Filipino settlements date to Louisiana in the late 1700s and were
founded by slaves of the Spanish who escaped from Central and South
America. After the Philippine Revolution in 1898, the United States tried to
annex the area; with a Treaty in 1902, the Philippines became an official
protectorate of the United States (along with Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Guam)
until its independence in 1946 (Aquino, 2010). This history had several
consequences for the status of Filipinos in the United States in terms of

favored immigration status and English-language proficiency.
American English became an official language in the Philippines along
with the native Tagalog. Even during periods of Asian exclusion, Filipinos
were recruited to work in Hawaii and Alaska as well as the mainland United
States. College-age Filipinos who agreed to return to their homeland for
employment could enroll in U.S. universities; this was intended to improve
skills and professionalize the country’s labor pool (Aquino, 2010). Many
Filipinos received privileged immigration status and naturalization opportu-
nities after service in the U.S. Armed Forces, particularly in the Navy, during
WWII and afterward. In the early years, Filipinos were recruited for and
restricted to assignments as steward, although other ranks were opened to
them later (U.S. Navy Bureau of Naval Personnel, 1976).
South Asians
The countries of South Asia include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri

Lanka, and Nepal, as well as Bhutan and the Maldives (a small country of
150 to 200 islands off the southwest coast of India). The largest group of
Asian Americans from this area is of Asian Indian descent. In the early
1900s, Indians arrived in the United States as agricultural laborers. Because
at that time they were classified as White, they could become U.S. citizens
and intermarry with Americans. New immigration was prohibited in 1917,
and in 1923, action by the U.S. Supreme Court led to their reclassification as
non-White, which placed restrictions on immigration and ruled out citizen-
ship (PRC, 2013). Since the 1965 Immigration Act, large numbers of edu-
cated professionals from India have come to the United States.
Because of the history of British colonization of the Indian subcontinent,
over 75% of immigrants from this area speak English proficiently. Although
87% of adult Asian Indians in the United States are foreign-born, more than
half of them (56%) are U.S. citizens (PRC, 2013). As a result of immigration
law favoring highly skilled professionals, many South Asians in the United
States are well educated and earn higher levels of income than other immi-
grants. The political history of this region continues to be one of internal and
international conflict, often based in ethnic and religious differences. Indians

of South Asian heritage are most likely to be Muslim, Hindu, or Sikh. They
are sometimes confused with Middle Easterners, which, in the post-9/11
environment, may easily lead to racial profiling or other forms of discrimi-
nation (Purkayastha & Ray, 2010). Diversity-conscious managers should be
aware that political, ethnic, and religious conflict in other countries can
influence contemporary workplace relationships in the United States.

Southeast Asians
Most Asian Americans of Southeast Asian heritage are of Vietnamese,

Cambodian, or Laotian origin and came to the United States during the 1970s
and 1980s as political refugees following the collapse of Western-oriented
governments and the rise of Communist regimes. Many fled from genocide,
imprisonment, and extremely harsh living conditions in this war-torn region.
Between 1975 and 2002, it is estimated that more than 1 million Southeast
Asians were resettled in the United States alone (Um, 2010). Their postim-
migration well-being has been greatly affected by the timing and location of
their resettlement, social class and sex, and generation. Some of the earlier
immigrants (from 1975 to 1976), most of whom were Vietnamese were
privileged, educated, and politically connected, and many sought refugee
status. Cambodians and Laotians were more represented among later immi-
grants; they were more likely to be from rural areas and to have stayed for a
time in refugee camps in Thailand. Many of these Southeast Asian immi-
grants were of limited education and proficiency in English, and had endured
extreme dislocations and disruption of social institutions before coming to the
United States. Many came without financial and other resources that would
aid in their transition to a new home. Compared with Cambodians and
Laotians, Vietnamese were likely to be better educated and more fluent in
other languages because of the earlier French investment in schools during
their occupation of Vietnam (Um, 2010).
Many Southeast Asians in the present-day American workforce were
born in this country or came as young children. Personal and familial
memories of their former lives in Southeast Asia may be more recent and
traumatic than for earlier Asian immigrants who came to the United States for
economic reasons. Although many, particularly some Vietnamese Ameri-
cans, are well educated and relatively prosperous, there are many other
Southeast Asian Americans who experience major challenges related to
employment, language, health, and financial security. Some Southeast Asians
are targets of discrimination as a result of negative feelings in the United
States about the Vietnam War. Those with low levels of education or English
142 HAYS-THOMAS
language skills may experience competition with other racioethnic minorities

for low-paying and low-skill employment. Hmong and Cambodian Ameri-
cans have the lowest median household income and per capita income of all
racioethnic census groups (Um, 2010).
Korean Americans
Officially, Koreans first immigrated to the United States when over 7,000
came as laborers on sugar plantations in the early 1900s to Hawaii, which
was then a U.S. territory. Mostly young, male, and single, they endured
difficult working conditions, low pay, and wage discrimination (Chang &
Kim, 2010). Between 1910 and 1924, young Korean women came to Hawaii
and the mainland as “picture brides,” considerably younger than the Korean
men they joined. The Korean War (1950 –1953) led to increased immigration
as war brides and others came to the United States as a result of complex
military and economic postwar relationships and during Korea’s subsequent
industrialization. As with other Asian groups, Korean immigration increased
after the 1965 Immigration Act.
Almost three quarters of Korean immigrants in the United States speak
Korean, but by the second generation, only a minority speak the language
(Chang & Kim, 2010). Over 40% of Korean Americans work in managerial,
professional, or related professions, and, as a group, Koreans have one of the
highest rates of self-employment and entrepreneurship in the United States.
The best financial opportunities for some Korean Americans have been as
owners of small retail businesses, especially in low-income and minority
neighborhoods where larger stores choose not to locate. In some cases, this
has led to racial tensions with other ethnic minority communities. For
example, after the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, many Korean busi-
nesses were raided and destroyed.
Japanese Americans
Like the Chinese, the Japanese were among the first Asian American
immigrant groups to the United States, coming to work on the Hawaiian
sugar plantations in the 1880s and as agricultural migrant workers on the
West Coast by 1890 (Niiya, 2010). Others in the West moved out of wage
labor and became owners of small farms and businesses catering to an ethnic
economy, which is one adaptation to labor market discrimination, such as
exclusion from labor unions and public employment (Fujiwara & Takagi,
1999). Japanese Americans faced severe discrimination and immigration
restrictions in the early 1900s, and a 1924 law virtually halted immigration
from Japan. However, one aspect of these laws was used to advantage to
bring Japanese women to the United States in arranged marriages. As a result,
by the 1930s, there were more second-generation (Nisei) Japanese Americans
in the United States than immigrants, and they were citizens by reason of
birth. However, naturalization was specifically denied to Japanese and other
Asian immigrants by the Supreme Court in 1922, remaining in effect until

1965.
The Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese in 1941 had serious conse-
quences for Japanese Americans, many of whom were arrested and held
without charges. In 1942, by Executive Order under President Roosevelt, all
Japanese Americans in California, Oregon, and Washington were taken from
their homes, lands, and businesses, and interned for the duration of the war,
though never charged with crimes. Two thirds of these 110,000 Japanese
Americans were U.S. citizens by birth. Despite this oppression, Nisei men
served honorably in the U.S. forces, most in segregated units, some drafted
directly from internment camps (Fujiwara & Takagi, 1999; Niiya, 2010).
After the war, as racial politics focused on Blacks, treatment of Japanese
improved, and, as a group, in the postwar economic boom, they seemed to
progress to middle-class status without need of government assistance (Fu-
jiwara & Takagi, 1999). This progress led to the “model minority” stereotype
that attaches to Asian Americans. However, there remained problems within
Japanese American communities for many individuals and families, partly as
a result of wartime imprisonment, loss of property, and destruction of
community institutions, as well as low levels of immigration after WWII.
Under terms of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, the U.S. government apol-
ogized to Japanese Americans, and surviving victims were eligible for
$20,000 in reparations. In today’s society, among Asian American groups,
the Japanese show the highest levels of proficiency in English and the highest
percentage of mixed-race individuals. They also have the highest median age
and constitute about 60% of the Asian populations of California and Hawaii.
Native Americans
America’s indigenous people, unlike the immigrant groups described above,

became a racial minority in their own land as a result of conquest, genocide,
domination, and assimilation by European settlers (Rombough & Keithly, 2005).
Between 1600 and 1850, the population of American Indians is estimated to have
declined tenfold as a result of susceptibility to deadly diseases introduced by
Europeans, warfare, slaughter, and forced relocations. This is unique among the
racioethnic groups in the history of the United States.
144 HAYS-THOMAS
Contact between Native Americans and Europeans has been described in

six periods, beginning with an initial phase (1532–1828) in which European
colonists believed that Indians were the “owners” of the new land and that
their consent would be needed for this ownership to be transferred (Deloria
& Lytle, 1983, as cited in Green, 1999). As the United States grew as a young
country, the second phase (1828 –1887) included removal and relocation of
the Indians under the philosophy that “discovery” of Indian land implied
ownership by non-Indians. It was believed that Indian and non-Indian soci-

eties could not exist together, and that Native Americans were dependent and
required so-called protection by the U.S. government. In reality, this philos-
ophy served to justify acquisition by Whites of nearly all the lands that had
been the homes of the Indian tribes. One low point of this period was the
Trail of Tears in 1838 to 1839, the forced removal of approximately 16,000
Cherokees from their homelands in Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama to
what is now eastern Oklahoma. The land that was considered Indian country
shrank from about 80% of today’s 48 contiguous states to less than 5% of this
amount between 1800 and 1900 (Cornell, 1988, as cited in Green, 1999).
A third phase (1887–1928) of allotment and assimilation occurred as
federal legislation allocated communal Indian lands to individuals based on
the rationale that Native Americans would benefit from becoming “civilized”
by destruction of their culture (Green, 1999). This contradicted ancestral
traditions and led to subdivision and loss of Indian lands as Native Americans
who did not understand White men’s laws were exploited. During this period,
the infamous Dawes Act of 1887 reallocated land and led to the forced
residence of Indian children in boarding schools, where they were separated
from their culture and forbidden to speak ancestral languages (Gilio-
Whitaker, n.d.-a, n.d.-b). Finally, in 1924, Native Americans were “granted”
citizenship in the United States, the land of their ancestors.
The next two periods were characterized by attempts to reform tribal
governments in an “American” model (1928 –1945), and by further attempts
at assimilation (1945–1961) through transfer of some tribal authority to state
or federal agencies (Green, 1999). During this period, like other racioethnic
minorities, Native Americans participated valiantly in WWII. The Navajo
“code talkers” were especially noted for their ability to transmit messages in
a code that could not be broken by the Axis powers (Rosenberg, n.d.;
Wilsont, 2006).
Finally, in the sixth phase, from 1961 to the present, these policies have
been replaced by attempts to transfer decision making and control back to
tribal governments and to strengthen economic development on some tribal
lands (Green, 1999). The 2009 Cobell v. Salazar case resulted in what is
believed to be the largest class action lawsuit against the United States over
the federal government’s mismanagement of Indian trust lands. A settlement
of about $3.4 billion will provide retribution to many individuals, purchase
fractionated Indian lands, and fund college and vocational school scholar-
ships for Native Americans (Smith, 2013).
This history sheds light on reasons for the small size of the Native
American population and its invisibility in many workplaces in the “lower
48.” The history of indigenous peoples of Alaska was quite different because
of distance and because Alaska entered the Union only in 1959 as the 49th
state. However, for census purposes, in 2000 and 2010, American Indians and
Alaska Natives (AI/AN) were categorized together. One reason for the rapid
growth of this category is that some individuals have begun to acknowledge
their heritage because of the growing acceptance and political influence of
Indian societies, and out of a desire to participate in the contemporary
rejuvenation of Indian culture (Green, 1999). American Indians and Alaska
Natives tend to live in the U.S. West and are particularly concentrated in
California (13.9%), Oklahoma (9.2%), Arizona (6.8%), and Texas (6%). The
largest tribes are the Cherokee, Navajo, Choctaw, Mexican American Indi-
ans, Chippewa, Sioux, Apache, and Blackfeet. Among Alaska Natives, the
largest tribal groups are the Yup’ik and Inupiat (formerly called Eskimos;
Norris, Vines, & Hoeffel, 2012).
In 2012, 325 Native American reservations were recognized by the
federal government. Other areas, such as trust lands, Alaska Native Villages,
or other statistical areas exist outside the federal reservations, for a total of
618 areas (excluding Hawaii) for which the U.S. Census collects data.
Approximately 22% of American Indians and Alaska Natives reside on these
lands (USCB, 2013b). In 2012, American Indians or Alaska Natives were
predominantly employed in management, business, sciences, or the arts
(26.1%); service occupations (25.1%); or sales and office work (22.8%).
American Indians, compared with other racioethnic minority groups, gener-
ally fare poorly in terms of socioeconomic indicators of well-being. For
example, the poverty rate in 2012 was the highest of these groups at 29.1%.
Median household income was only $35,210 compared with $51,371 for the
United States as a whole. The American Community Survey found that
78.8% of single-race Native Americans and Alaska Natives over 25 years of
age held a high school degree or the equivalent. However, only 13.5% had
earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (USCB, 2013b). Native Americans
living on reservations fare even worse in terms of socioeconomic indicators,
largely because of lower labor force participation and higher rates of unem-
ployment (Evans & Topoleski, 2002), with some living in extreme poverty.
Some tribes have attempted to address employment and living conditions on
reservations by opening casinos on their land. In 2002, over one third of
tribes operated more than 300 gaming operations on Native American lands.
In general, these operations have significant positive effects on employment
levels, tribal populations, poverty levels, and health indicators, although these
146 HAYS-THOMAS
effects are more likely for larger tribes located in or near more heavily
populated areas rather than remote locations.
Hawaiian Natives and Asian Pacific Islanders

Hawaii and the Asian Pacific Islands are located in the middle of the
Pacific Ocean, west of Central America. The largest collection of islands,
Hawaii, was ruled by a native kingdom and came under Western influence in
the 1800s, becoming a center for the whaling industry and agriculture. In
1893, American colonists, who had become powerful in the area’s economy,
overthrew the royal government. Hawaii became a U.S. territory in 1898 and
the 50th State of the Union in 1959 (Hawaii Tourism Authority, 2015).
Hawaii was the site of the event that triggered U.S. entrance into WWII when
the U.S. fleet in Pearl Harbor was bombed; the entire Asian Pacific region
was subsequently engulfed in fighting. Among the other Pacific Islands,
Guam and American Samoa are presently U.S. territories. The residents of
these areas became U.S. citizens, not through immigration and naturalization
but when their lands became part of the United States.
The U.S. Census designation of this group has changed repeatedly since
1970 when the term “Hawaiian” first appeared on the forms for all states
except Alaska. Those of Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Island (NH/OPI)
ethnicities were considered as part of the Asian category and not classified
separately until 1997, when options were included for them. In 2010, only
0.4% of respondents chose this category, with half of them identifying as
NH/OPI along with another race, usually White or Asian. One half of
NH/OPI individuals live in Hawaii or California (Hixson, Hepler, & Kim,
2012). Median household income for single-race NH/OPIs is just over
$52,776, but almost one fifth live in poverty. Median age, almost 29, is
slightly lower than the general population. Of civilian employees, 26% work
in management, business, and professional jobs, and a similar percentage in
sales and office work. About one quarter are employed in service occupations
and 14% in production, transport, and material moving (Hixson et al., 2012).
In contemporary U.S. workplaces, those whose heritage is in the Pacific
Islands are most likely to be seen by others as Asian or mixed race.
Compared with other racioethnic groups, their numbers are relatively small
and they are less likely to live in parts of the United States other than the
West. Special workplace issues for Pacific Islanders include discrimination
on the basis of race, color, or national origin, particularly for those employed
in low-wage work.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Often, ethnic diversity is portrayed as an issue that can lead to problems

of communication, productivity, intergroup conflict, or litigation. However,
ethnic diversity can also be seen as an opportunity for learning and increased
innovation as entrenched assumptions are challenged and relationships are
altered by the incorporation of people with a wider range of experience and

background. This article proposes that psychologist-managers will be better
prepared to interact effectively in an ethnically diverse workplace if they are
familiar with historical and cultural factors relevant to various ethnicities.
This knowledge may lead to more effective relationships for several
reasons. The quality of relationships and interactions is likely to be more
positive when participants believe that others are interested in and have taken
the time to become informed about their backgrounds. Further, this knowl-
edge may lessen reliance on contemporary stereotypes when perceiving
others and will highlight the diversity that occurs even within a group that
may appear homogeneous to those from different backgrounds. In addition,
whether accurately or not, some ethnicities are seen as associated with certain
religious traditions. With limited knowledge, we are likely to confuse reli-
gious belief with national origin or ethnicity, which may lead to inaccurate
assumptions and expectations of others. In addition, improved intercultural
understanding should lessen the likelihood of inadvertent and unintentional
comments or behaviors that are seen as offensive by others.
Strength of ethnic identification varies across people even within the
same group. Those with strong ethnic identities are likely to experience
workplace events through this filter and may be likely to attribute workplace
events and outcomes to ethnic factors when others do not share this perspec-
tive. The interethnic conflicts of other times and places may also have
contemporary influence on work expectations and relationships, and well-
informed managers are likely to be more successful in avoiding and respond-
ing to problems of this type.
Many Americans have experienced relatively homogenous residential,
academic, social, and work environments. Furthermore, those from privi-
leged backgrounds are likely to overestimate the degree to which “typical”
experiences are shared by others and are also unlikely to appreciate fully the
challenges facing those from different backgrounds. In many cases, improved
cultural and historical knowledge will lead to more effective interactions and
better outcomes in the increasingly diverse workplaces of the future.
A large body of social science research, too much to summarize ade-
quately here, is relevant to improved intergroup relations. A few examples
are the recommendations of the well-known contact hypothesis that is the
basis for most recommendations for improving intergroup relations: interac-
148 HAYS-THOMAS
tion with shared goals, equal status contact, cooperative relations, support
from authorities, and “friendship potential” (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005;
Tropp & Mallett, 2011). The jigsaw classroom intervention (Aronson &
Patnoe, 2011) was developed in the environment of desegregating schools
and involved giving each individual student responsibility for learning and
communicating a subset of information that was needed for the group to
succeed. The jigsaw classroom demonstrated that relations are most cooper-
ative and successful when needed resources are distributed among group
members and everyone’s contributions are required for success. Gaertner and
Dovidio’s (2000) common group identity model has emphasized the impor-
tance of cognitive factors when subgroups must work together. Group bound-
aries must be conceptualized at a higher and more inclusive level: Members
retain their individuality but recognize that they are part of a larger whole.
These strategies all emphasize the importance of group structure in main-
taining or altering relations between groups. In contrast, purely educational
strategies are generally not as effective in reducing intergroup bias (Ashmore,
1970).
However, as argued earlier, a subset of interpersonal and intergroup
problems does arise from lack of information, misinformation, or stereotypic
assumptions. This article is intended to address that subset of situations by
providing background information about the major racioethnic groups iden-
tified in the U.S. Census. These categories are also salient in most workplaces
because they are relevant to required data collection, publicly available
reports, and the contemporary understanding of these categories in U.S.
society.
Even the best informed and most well-intentioned individuals are chal-
lenged by interactions in racioethnically diverse environments. Sometimes
problems can be avoided by asking for information or by checking under-
standings through active listening or other techniques. In other cases, a type
of “service recovery” can be useful. For example, the LEAP model (Gilbert-
Jamison, n.d.) lists “listen,” “empathize,” “ask,” and “produce” as four steps
in this process: listen to understand the situation as the other sees it;
empathize by acknowledging the other’s feelings and apologize; ask how the
problem can be addressed; and produce or develop a solution, if possible.
Diversity competency, as defined by Cox and Beale (1997), is a learning
process supporting ability to respond effectively in a diverse environment.
This article began by proposing that knowledge of the heritages of current
and potential employees is one aspect of diversity competency. Contempo-
rary understandings of diversity competency (e.g., Chrobot-Mason, 2003)
suggest that it is a continuing developmental process rather than a specific
end state. Ideally, this article will encourage readers to explore this area
further, particularly with respect to the racioethnic groups most likely to be
represented in their workplaces.
REFERENCES
Anand, R., & Winters, M.-F. (2008). A retrospective view of corporate diversity training from
1964 to the present. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7, 356 –372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251673
Aquino, A. (2010). Filipino Americans. In E. W. C. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Asian American issues today (pp. 25–32). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (2011). Cooperation in the classroom: The jigsaw method. London,
UK: Pinter & Martin.

Ashmore, R. D. (1970). Solving the problem of prejudice. In B. F. Collins (Ed.), Social
psychology: Social influence, attitude change, group processes, and prejudice (pp. 297–
339). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Blackmon, D. A. (2008). Slavery by another name: The re-enslavement of Black Americans
from the Civil War to WWII. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Brodkin, K. (2007). How Jews became white folks and what that says about race in America.
In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the United States (pp. 38 –53). New
York, NY: Worth.
Buck, P. D. (2007). Constructing race, creating white privilege. In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race,
class, and gender in the United States (pp. 32–38). New York, NY: Worth.
CAF Red Tail Squadron. (2013). The Tuskegee Airmen. Retrieved from http://www.redtail
.org/the-tuskegee-airmen/
Chang, E. T., & Kim, B. W. (2010). Korean Americans. In E. W. C. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Asian American Issues today (pp. 41–50). Santa Barbara, CA: Green-
wood Press.
Cheyney University of Pennsylvania. (n.d.). About CU. Retrieved from http://www.cheyney
.edu/about-cheyney-university/
Chong, N., & Baez, F. (2005). Latino culture: A dynamic force in the changing American
workplace. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Chrobot-Mason, D. (2003). Developing multicultural competence for managers: Same old
leadership skills or something new? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 6, 5–20. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0095923
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241).
Clark, E. (2013). The strange history of the American quadroon: Free women of color in the
Revolutionary Atlantic world. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Cobell v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 808 (D. C. Cir. 2009).
Cornell, S. (1988). The return of the Native: American Indian political resurgence. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Cox, T., Jr., & Beale, R. L. (1997). Developing competency to manage diversity. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Deloria, V., Jr., & Lytle, C. M. (1983). American Indians, American justice. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Digital History. (2012). Repatriation during the Great Depression. Retrieved from http://www
.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid⫽3&psid⫽3699
Elliott, D. (2015, November 30). In Montgomery, Rosa Parks’ story offers a history lesson for
police. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2015/11/30/457533368/in-montgomery-rosa-
parks-story-offers-a-history-lesson-for-police
Ennis, S. R., Rios-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. G. (2011, May). The Hispanic population: 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf
Esen, E. (2005, October). 2005 Workplace diversity practices: Survey report. Alexandria, VA:
Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/Research/
SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/05-0509WkplcDivPrcSR_FINAL_rev.pdf
Evans, W. N., & Topoleski, J. H. (2002, September). The social and economic impact of Native
American casinos (Working Paper 9198). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9198
Foner, P. S., & Lewis, R. L. (Eds.). (1989). Black workers: A documentary history from
colonial times to the present. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
150 HAYS-THOMAS
Fujiwara, L. H., & Takagi, D. Y. (1999). Japanese Americans: Stories about race in America.
In A. G. Dworkin & R. J. Dworkin (Eds.), The minority report: An introduction to racial,
ethnic, and gender relations (pp. 297–320). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup
identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Gevertz, D. E., & Dowell, A. C. (2014, March). Are English-only policies in the workplace
discriminatory of national origin? Retrieved from http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/
committees/civil/articles/spring2014-0514-are-english-only-policies-workplace-
discriminatory-national-origin.html
Gilbert-Jamison, T. (n.d.). The 4-step service recovery process. Retrieved from http://www
.psbydesign.com/the-4-step-service-recovery-process-2/
Gilio-Whitaker, D. (n.d.-a). The deplorable legacy of the Dawes Act. Retrieved from http://
nativeamericanhistory.about.com/od/Policies/a/The-Deplorable-Legacy-Of-The-Dawes-
Act.htm
Gilio-Whitaker, D. (n.d.-b). The Indian Child Welfare Act: What is it? Retrieved from
http://nativeamericanhistory.about.com/od/Law/a/The-Indian-Child-Welfare-Act-What-
Is-It.htm
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Multiculturalism in the workplace. The Psychologist-Manager
Journal, 1, 7–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0095820
Green, D. E. (1999). Native Americans. In A. G. Dworkin & R. J. Dworkin (Eds.), The minority
report: An introduction to racial, ethnic, and gender relations (pp. 255–277). Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace.
Grimsley, M. (2004, January). Warfare and the construction of White identity in the United States,
1675–1865. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association,
Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx⫽vx&list⫽h-
war&month⫽0401&week⫽c&msg⫽qfGphKLjR5oZ6PaPMZxYTA&user⫽&pw⫽
Hawaii Tourism Authority. (2015). Hawaii history. Retrieved from http://www.gohawaii.com/
statewide/travel-tips/history
Harry S. Truman Library & Museum. (n.d.). This day in Truman history. July 26, 1948:
President Truman issues Executive Order No. 9981 desegregating the military. Retrieved
from http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/desegblurb.htm
Hays-Thomas, R. (2004). Why now? The contemporary focus on managing diversity. In M. S.
Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity
(pp. 3–30). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hays-Thomas, R., Bowen, A., & Boudreaux, M. (2012). Skills for diversity and inclusion in
organizations: A review and preliminary investigation. The Psychologist-Manager Jour-
nal, 15, 128 –141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887156.2012.676861
History.com. (2013). United States immigration before 1965. Retrieved from http://www
.history.com/topics/u-s-immigration-before-1965
History.com. (2010). Rosie the Riveter. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/world-
war-ii/rosie-the-riveter
Hixson, L., Hepler, B. B., & Kim, M. O. (2011, September). The White population: 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf
Hixson, L., Hepler, B. B., & Kim, M. O. (2012, May). The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/
c2010br-12.pdf
Hoeffel, E. M., Rastogi, S., Kim, M. O., & Shahid, H. (2012, March). The Asian population:
2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011, March). Overview of race and Hispanic
origin: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/
briefs/c2010br-02.pdf
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911). Enacted June 30, 1968.
Jones, C., & Shorter-Gooden, K. (2003). Shifting: The double lives of Black women in America.
New York, NY: Harper-Collins.
Jones, J. M. (2013, July). U.S. Blacks, Hispanics have no preferences on group labels.
Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/163706/blacks-hispanics-no-preferences-
group-labels.aspx
Katznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was White. New York, NY: Norton.
Knobel, D. T. (1986). Paddy and the Republic: Ethnicity and nationality in antebellum
America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Kwong, P., & Chen, E. W. C. (2010). Chinese Americans. In E. W. C. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Asian American issues today (pp. 15–23). Santa Barbara, CA: Green-
wood Press.
Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., & Fontenot, K. (2013, February). Poverty rates for selected detailed
race and Hispanic groups by state and place: 2007–2011. Retrieved from http://www
.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
Maxwell, B. (2003, August 31). The paper bag test. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved from
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/08/31/Columns/The_paper_bag_test.shtml
Monticello.org. (n.d.). Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A brief account. Retrieved from
http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-
hemings-brief-account
Mor Barak, M. E. (2014). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Niiya, B. (2010). Japanese Americans. In E. W. C. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
Asian American issues today (pp. 33– 40). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
Norris, T., Vines, P. L., & Hoeffel, E. M. (2012, January). The American Indian and Alaska
Native population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/
c2010br-10.pdf
Open Collections Program. (n.d.). Immigration to the U.S., Timeline. Retrieved from http://
ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/timeline.html
Painter, N. I. (2010). The history of White people. New York, NY: Norton.
PBS. (n.d. a). Historically Black college and universities. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/
itvs/fromswastikatojimcrow/blackcolleges.html
PBS. (n.d. b). Indentured servants in the U.S. History Detectives. Retrieved from http://www
.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/indentured-servants-in-the-us/
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2005). Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its history
and influence. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of
prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 262–292). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pew Research Center. (2013, April). The rise of Asian Americans. Retrieved from http://www
.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/2/
Purkayastha, B., & Ray, R. (2010). South Asian Americans. In E. W. C. Chen & G. J. Yoo
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Asian American issues today (pp. 51– 63). Santa Barbara, CA:
Greenwood Press.
Racebox. (n.d.) The census since 1790. Retrieved from http://racebox.org
Rastogi, S., Johnson, T. D., Hoeffel, E. M., & Drewery, M. P., Jr. (2011, September). The Black
population: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-
06.pdf
Roach, R. (2013, September 12). Report: State-based land grant funding falls short for HBCUs.
Retrieved from http://diverseeducation.com/article/55963
Rombough, S., & Keithly, D. C. (2005). Native Americans, the feudal system, and the
Protestant Work Ethic: A unique view of the reservation. Race, Gender, & Class, 12,
104 –120.
Rosenberg, J. (n.d.) Navajo code talkers. Retrieved from http://history1900s.about.com/od/
worldwarii/a/navajacode.htm
Saenz, R. (1999). Mexican Americans. In A. G. Dworkin & R. J. Dworkin (Eds.), The minority
report: An introduction to racial, ethnic, and gender relations (pp. 209 –229). Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace.
Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (P.L. 346, 58 Stat 1944).
Shah, S. (2007). Asian American? In P. S. Rothenberg (Ed.), Race, class, and gender in the
United States (pp. 221–223). New York, NY: Worth.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011).
Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal
of Management, 37, 1262–1289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943
152 HAYS-THOMAS
Smith, N. L. (2013, December). Checks for Cobell settlement expected in early 2014. Retrieved
from http://www.daily-times.com/four_corners-news/ci_24648856/checks-cobell-
settlement-expected-early-2014
Society for Human Resource Management. (2010, October 12). Workplace diversity practices:
How has diversity and inclusion changed over time? A comparative examination: 2010
and 2005. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/
workplacediversitypractices.aspx
Society for Human Resource Management. (2013, May). SHRM workplace forecast. Retrieved
from http://www.shrm.org/Research/FutureWorkplaceTrends/Documents/13-01
46%20Workplace_Forecast_FULL_FNL.pdf
Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and other
conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Tropp, L. R., & Mallett, R. K. (Eds.). (2011). Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways
to positive intergroup relations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12319-000
Um, K. (2010). Southeast Asian Americans. In E. W. C. Chen & G. J. Yoo (Eds.), Encyclopedia
of Asian American issues today (pp. 65– 80). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). United States Census 2010 informational copy. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/schools/pdf/2010form_info.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Profile America facts for features: American Indian and Alaska Native
Heritage Month: November 2011. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/
archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb11-ff22.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical abstract of the United States. Table 229. Educational
attainment by race and Hispanic origin: 1970 to 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census
.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0229.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013a, June 13). Asians fastest-growing race or ethnic group in 2012,
Census Bureau reports. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/
2013/cb13-112.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013b, October 31). Profile America facts for features: American Indian
and Alaska Native Heritage Month: November 2013. Retrieved from http://www.census.
gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/cb13ff-26_aian.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015, April 29). Asian/Pacific American Heritage Month: May 2015.
Retrieved from http://www.wkrg.com/story/28930760/us-census-bureau-facts-for-
features-asianpacific-american-heritage-month-may-2015
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, October). Labor force charac-
teristics by race and ethnicity, 2012. Report 1044. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/
cps/cpsrace2012.pdf
U.S. Navy Bureau of Naval Personnel. (1976, October). Filipinos in the United States Navy.
Retrieved from http://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/diversity/asians-and-
pacific-islanders-in-the-navy/filipinos-in-the-united-states-navy.html
White House Historical Association. (n.d.). White House history timelines: African Americans:
1790s–1840s. Retrieved from http://www.whitehousehistory.org/history/white-house-
timelines/african-americans-1790s-1840s.html
Wilsont, W. R. (2006, June 12). World War II: Navajo code talkers. Retrieved from http://
www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-navajo-code-talkers.htm

Building Diversity Competence Through Historical and Demographic Knowledge: Helpful Information For Managers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Diversity Competence Through Historical and Demographic Knowledge: Helpful Information For Managers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Building Diversity Competence Through

Historical and Demographic Knowledge:

With increasing diversity of the workforce, knowledge of cultural back-

Most psychologist-managers have probably experienced the increasing

come to be called “management of diversity and inclusion” (hereafter re-

In the first issue of The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Gottfredson (1997)

There are several reasons for psychologist-managers to take note of the

emphasizes prevention of or response to harassment and discrimination, moti-

ETHNIC GROUPS DESIGNATED BY THE U.S. CENSUS

standing of racioethnic distinctions. In the most recent 2010 Census, respondents

were asked to indicate “Race” by choosing options from White; Black/African

CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT MAJOR

Table 1. Comparative Demographic Information About Racioethnic Categories

• Growing in size but more slowly than other racioethnic groups

excluded from postdepression legislation that authorized modern unions,

social welfare programs (school lunch programs, grants for community

practice of assigning race to others by Whites, the often unacknowledged

are still strong within the White population.

illegally have subsequently become U.S. citizens.

language) fluently, other more inclusive approaches should be considered.

Another language issue is reliance on bilingual employees to work with

customers or clients who speak only Spanish, which is reasonable when an

(Open Collections Program, n.d.). By the time of the Emancipation Procla-

departments that are marked by low compensation and authority. Markers

their nonwork social or home environments (C. Jones & Shorter-Gooden,

become naturalized citizens. Of Asian American adults born outside the

expectation of natural competence in math and science (rather than language

The history of immigration from the Philippines is quite different. Spain

Spanish-sounding surnames, they are not considered Hispanic. The earliest

consequences for the status of Filipinos in the United States in terms of

The countries of South Asia include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri

international conflict, often based in ethnic and religious differences. Indians

influence contemporary workplace relationships in the United States.

Most Asian Americans of Southeast Asian heritage are of Vietnamese,

language skills may experience competition with other racioethnic minorities

Asian immigrants by the Supreme Court in 1922, remaining in effect until

America’s indigenous people, unlike the immigrant groups described above,

Contact between Native Americans and Europeans has been described in

ownership by non-Indians. It was believed that Indian and non-Indian soci-

Hawaiian Natives and Asian Pacific Islanders

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Often, ethnic diversity is portrayed as an issue that can lead to problems

altered by the incorporation of people with a wider range of experience and

UK: Pinter & Martin.

You might also like