Diversity training

Last updated

Diversity training is any program designed to facilitate positive intergroup interaction, reduce prejudice and discrimination, and generally teach individuals who are different from others how to work together effectively. [1]

Contents

Diversity training is often aimed to meet objectives such as attracting and retaining customers and productive workers; maintaining high employee morale; and/or fostering understanding and harmony between workers. [2]

Despite purported and intended benefits, systematic studies have not shown benefits to forced diversity training and instead show that they can backfire and lead to reductions in diversity and to discrimination complaints being taken less seriously. [3] [4] [5] As of 2019, more than $8 billion a year is spent on diversity training in the United States. [6]

History

1960s

In the 1960s, the concept of promoting diversity in the workplace was prompted as a result of the societal and legal reforms that followed the civil rights movement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, enacted by the 88th US Congress, made it illegal for employers with more than 15 workers to discriminate in termination, hiring, promotion, compensation, training, or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Since its enactment, Title VII has been supplemented with legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, age, and disability. After the Civil Rights Act came to be, activists protested organizations who refused to hire blacks, planned jobs banks,[ clarification needed ] and filed charges against employers that discriminated against their employees. [7]

1970s

D.C. reinforced civil rights policies in the early 1970s with the Supreme Court extending the definition of discrimination in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Company; the Court overruled employment practices that ostracized black employees without evidence of intent to discriminate. The civil rights movement helped to recreate its momentum for a new round of movements in the 1970s for the rights of women, the disabled, Latinos, and others. [8] With shifts in societal and legal reforms, Federal agencies took the first step towards modern day diversity training, and by the end of 1971, the Social Security Administration had enrolled over 50,000 employees through racial bias training. Corporations followed suit and, over the next five years, began offering anti-bias training to their employees. By 1976, 60 percent of large companies offered equal-opportunity training. [9]

1980s to Present

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan tried to reverse affirmative action regulations put forward by JFK and appointed Clarence Thomas to run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As a result, diversity trainers in the U.S. began calling for diversity training arguing that women and minorities would soon be the backbone of the workforce and that companies needed to determine how to include them amongst their ranks. By 2005, 65 percent of large corporations offered their employees some form of diversity training. [9]

Impact

Findings on diversity trainings are mixed. According to Harvard University sociologist Frank Dobbin, there is no evidence to indicate that anti-bias training leads to increases in the number of women or people of color in management positions. [10] A 2009 Annual Review of Psychology study concluded, "We currently do not know whether a wide range of programs and policies tend to work on average," with the authors of the study stating in 2020 that as the quality of studies increases, the effect size of anti-bias training dwindles. [10]

According to a 2006 study in the American Sociological Review , "diversity training and diversity evaluations are least effective at increasing the share of white women, black women, and black men in management." [11] A meta-analysis suggests that diversity training could have a relatively large effect on cognitive-based and skill-based training outcomes. [12] An analysis of data from over 800 firms over 30 years shows that diversity training and grievance procedures backfire and lead to reductions in the diversity of the firms' workforce. [3] [4] A 2013 study found that the presence of a diversity program in a workplace made high-status subjects less likely to take discrimination complaints seriously. [5] [13]

Alexandra Kalev and Frank Dobbin conducted a comprehensive review of cultural diversity training conducted in 830 midsize to large U.S. workplaces over a thirty one-year period. [14] The results showed that diversity training was followed by a decrease of anywhere from 7.5–10% in the number of women in management. The percentage of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent. Similar effects were shown for Latinos and Asians. The study did not find that all diversity training is ineffective. Mandatory training programs offered to protect against discrimination lawsuits were called into question. Voluntary diversity training participation to advance organization's business goals was associated with increased diversity at the management level; voluntary services resulted in near triple digit increases for black, Hispanic, and Asian men. [15]

A 2021 meta-analysis found a lack of high quality studies on the efficacy of diversity training. [16] The researchers concluded that "while the small number of experimental studies provide encouraging average effects... the effects shrink when the trainings are conducted in real-world workplace settings, when the outcomes are measured at a greater time distance than immediately following the intervention, and, most importantly, when the sample size is large enough to produce reliable results." [16]

In addition to increasing workforce diversity and reducing discrimination, diversity training is often intended to prevent successful discrimination lawsuits: corporate diversity training first became common in the United States after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a way to protect corporations from lawsuits, [17] and although promoting respect and appealing to minority employees and customers became significant goals of diversity training starting in the late 1980s, [17] an expansion of diversity training in the early 2000s was prompted by a series of high-profile discrimination lawsuits in the financial industry. [15] A 2013 study found that white men were less likely to think a complaint of discrimination by an employee was accurate when they were told that the employer used diversity training, even when they were presented with evidence of discrimination, [13] and several studies of the results of discrimination lawsuits in the United States have found that official diversity structures, including diversity training, have increasingly been accepted by judges as evidence of a lack of discrimination regardless of their effectiveness. [18] [19] [20] Indeed, according to Nakamura & Edelman's (2019) summary of corporate diversity policies, "[i]n the twenty-first century, diversity commitments and policies are standard and firms that lack such structures look suspect." [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action</span> Policy of promoting members of groups that suffer from discrimination

Affirmative action, also known as positive action or positive discrimination, involves sets of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups that were historically discriminated against in areas in which such groups are underrepresented, mistreated or suffer from lack of public support—such as education and employment. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has sought to achieve goals such as bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, promoting diversity, and redressing wrongs, harms, or hindrances.

In United States labor law, a hostile work environment exists when one's behavior within a workplace creates an environment that is difficult or uncomfortable for another person to work in, due to illegal discrimination. However, a working environment that is unpleasant and frightening for the victim due to sexual advances that have been denied by the victim, is what constitutes hostile work environment sexual harassment. Common complaints in sexual harassment lawsuits include fondling, suggestive remarks, sexually-suggestive photos displayed in the workplace, use of sexual language, or off-color jokes. Small matters, annoyances, and isolated incidents are usually not considered to be statutory violations of the discrimination laws. For a violation to impose liability, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to a reasonable person. An employer can be held liable for failing to prevent these workplace conditions, unless it can prove that it attempted to prevent the harassment and that the employee failed to take advantage of existing harassment counter-measures or tools provided by the employer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual harassment</span> Unwanted sexual attention or advances

Sexual harassment is a type of harassment involving the use of explicit or implicit sexual overtones, including the unwelcome and inappropriate promises of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual harassment can be physical and/or verbal. Sexual harassment includes a range of actions from verbal transgressions to sexual abuse or assault. Harassment can occur in many different social settings such as the workplace, the home, school, or religious institutions. Harassers or victims can be of any gender.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Glass ceiling</span> Obstacles keeping a population from achievement

A glass ceiling is a metaphor usually applied to people of marginalized genders, used to represent an invisible barrier that prevents an oppressed demographic from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy. No matter how invisible the glass ceiling is expressed, it is actually an obstacle difficult to overcome. The metaphor was first used by feminists in reference to barriers in the careers of high-achieving women. It was coined by Marilyn Loden during a speech in 1978.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</span> United States government agency enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.

Employment discrimination is a form of illegal discrimination in the workplace based on legally protected characteristics. In the U.S., federal anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination by employers against employees based on age, race, gender, sex, religion, national origin, and physical or mental disability. State and local laws often protect additional characteristics such as marital status, veteran status and caregiver/familial status. Earnings differentials or occupational differentiation—where differences in pay come from differences in qualifications or responsibilities—should not be confused with employment discrimination. Discrimination can be intended and involve disparate treatment of a group or be unintended, yet create disparate impact for a group.

The Corporate Equality Index is a report published by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation as a tool to rate American businesses on their treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees, consumers and investors. Its primary source of data are surveys but researchers cross-check business policy and their implications for LGBT workers and public records independently. The index has been published annually since 2002. Additionally, the CEI focuses on the positive associations of equality promoting policies and LGBT supporting businesses which has developed to reflect a positive correlation between the promotion of LGBT equality and successful organizations. Following the top 100 corporations that are publicly ranked under the CEI, participating organizations remain anonymous. For businesses looking to enforce and expand LGBT diverse and inclusive policies, the CEI provides a framework that allows businesses to recognize and address issues and policies that restrict equality for LGBT people in the workplace.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action consists of government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs granting special consideration to historically excluded groups, specifically racial minorities and women. These programs tend to focus on access to education and employment in order to redress the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Another goal of affirmative action policies is to ensure that public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories." The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

Businesses benefit by having diversity in their work force. The business case for diversity stems from the progression of the models of diversity within the workplace since the 1960s. In the United States, the original model for diversity was situated around affirmative action drawing from equal opportunity employment objectives implemented in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Equal employment opportunity was centered around the idea that any individual academically or physically qualified for a specific job could strive for at obtaining the said job without being discriminated against based on identity. These initiatives were met with accusations that tokenism was the reason an individual was hired into a company when they differed from the dominant group. Dissatisfaction from minority groups eventually altered and/or raised the desire to achieve perfect employment opportunities in every job.

Occupational inequality is the unequal treatment of people based on gender, sexuality, age, disability, socioeconomic status, religion, height, weight, accent, or ethnicity in the workplace. When researchers study trends in occupational inequality they usually focus on distribution or allocation pattern of groups across occupations, for example, the distribution of men compared to women in a certain occupation. Secondly, they focus on the link between occupation and income, for example, comparing the income of whites with blacks in the same occupation.

Occupational segregation is the distribution of workers across and within occupations, based upon demographic characteristics, most often gender. Other types of occupational segregation include racial and ethnicity segregation, and sexual orientation segregation. These demographic characteristics often intersect. While a job refers to an actual position in a firm or industry, an occupation represents a group of similar jobs that require similar skill requirements and duties. Many occupations are segregated within themselves because of the differing jobs, but this is difficult to detect in terms of occupational data. Occupational segregation compares different groups and their occupations within the context of the entire labor force. The value or prestige of the jobs are typically not factored into the measurements.

Workplace harassment is the belittling or threatening behavior directed at an individual worker or a group of workers.

The concept of multicultural and diversity management encompasses acceptance and respect, recognition and valuing of individual differences. Diversity is defined as differences between people, that can include dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies. Multiculturalism refers to the existence of linguistically, culturally and ethnically diverse segments in an organisation.

The term "bamboo ceiling" was coined and popularized in 2005 by Jane Hyun in Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling: Career Strategies for Asians, where she addresses the barriers faced by many Asian Americans in the professional arena, such as stereotypes and racism, while also providing solutions to overcome these barriers. The bamboo ceiling, as defined by Jane Hyun, is a combination of individual, cultural, and organizational factors that impede Asian Americans' career progress inside organizations.

The maternal wall is a term referring to stereotypes and various forms of discrimination encountered by working mothers and mothers seeking employment. Women hit the maternal wall when they encounter workplace discrimination because of past, present, or future pregnancies or because they have taken one or more maternity leaves. Women may also be discriminated against when they opt for part-time or flexible work schedules. Maternal wall discrimination is not limited to childcare responsibilities. Both men and women with caregiving responsibilities, such as taking care of a sick parents or spouse, may also result in maternal wall discrimination. As such, maternal wall discrimination is also described as family responsibilities discrimination. Research suggests that the maternal wall is cemented by employer stereotypes and gender expectations.

Second-generation gender bias refers to practices that may appear neutral or non-sexist, in that they apply to everyone, but which discriminate against women because they reflect the values of the men who created or developed the setting, usually a workplace. It is contrasted with first-generation bias, which is deliberate, usually involving intentional exclusion.

Marc Bendick, Jr. is a United States economist and interdisciplinary social scientist who conducts and applies research concerning public policy issues of employment, discrimination, poverty, and social and economic inequality.

Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations is a well-established and ubiquitous phenomenon that may be characterized by thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that undermine the success of diversity-related organizational change initiatives to recruit or retain diverse personnel. The use of such initiatives may be referred to as diversity management. Scholars note the presence of resistance to diversity before and after the civil rights movement; as pressures for diversity and social change increased in the 1960s, dominant group members faced workplace concerns over displacement by minorities.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion refers to organizational frameworks which seek to promote "the fair treatment and full participation of all people", particularly groups "who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination" on the basis of identity or disability. These three notions together represent "three closely linked values" which organizations seek to institutionalize through DEI frameworks. Some frameworks, primarily in Britain, substitute the notion of "equity" with equality: equality, diversity, inclusion (EDI). Other variations include diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB), justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, or diversity, equity, inclusion and access.

References

  1. Lindsey, Alex; King, Eden; Hebl, Michelle; Levine, Noah (September 2015). "The Impact of Method, Motivation, and Empathy on Diversity Training Effectiveness". Journal of Business and Psychology . 30 (3): 605–617. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9384-3. S2CID   144447133.
  2. Chavez, Carolyn I.; Weisinger, Judith Y. (Summer 2008). "Beyond diversity training: a social infusion for cultural inclusion". Human Resource Management. 47 (2): 331–350. doi:10.1002/hrm.20215.
  3. 1 2 Dobbin, Frank; Kalev, Alexandra. "Why Diversity Management Backfires (And How Firms Can Make it Work)". ethics.harvard.edu. Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University. Retrieved 2016-10-15.
  4. 1 2 McGregor, Jena (July 1, 2016). "To improve diversity, don't make people go to diversity training. Really". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  5. 1 2 McElroy, Molly (3 April 2013). "Diversity programs give illusion of corporate fairness, study shows". UW Today. University of Washington . Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  6. Mehta, Stephanie (2019-11-21). "Despite spending billions, companies can't buy diversity". Washington Post . Archived from the original on 2021-12-04.
  7. Anand, Rohini; Winters, Mary-Frances (2008). "A Retrospective View of Corporate Diversity Training From 1964 to the Present" (PDF). Academy of Management Learning & Education. 7 (3): 356–372. doi:10.5465/amle.2008.34251673. ISSN   1537-260X. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-11-29.
  8. Dobbin, Frank (2009-12-31). Inventing Equal Opportunity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400830893. ISBN   978-1-4008-3089-3.
  9. 1 2 Dobbin, Frank; Kalev, Alexandra (2018-05-04). "Why Doesn't Diversity Training Work? The Challenge for Industry and Academia". Anthropology Now. 10 (2): 48–55. doi:10.1080/19428200.2018.1493182. ISSN   1942-8200. S2CID   158262607.
  10. 1 2 Bergner, Daniel (2020-07-15). "'White Fragility' Is Everywhere. But Does Antiracism Training Work?". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2023-01-17.
  11. Kalev, Alexandra; Dobbin, Frank; Kelly, Erin (August 2006). "Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies" (PDF). American Sociological Review . 71 (4): 589–617. doi:10.1177/000312240607100404. S2CID   10327121. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-11.
  12. Kalinoski, Zachary T.; Steele‐Johnson, Debra; Peyton, Elizabeth J.; Leas, Keith A.; Steinke, Julie; Bowling, Nathan A. (2013). "A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 34 (8): 1076–1104. doi:10.1002/job.1839.
  13. 1 2 Kaiser, Cheryl R.; Major, Brenda; Jurcevic, Ines; Dover, Tessa L.; Brady, Laura M.; Shapiro, Jenessa R. (2013). "Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 104 (3): 504–519. doi:10.1037/a0030838. PMID   23163748. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-07-07.
  14. Vedantam, Shankar (2008-01-20). "Most Diversity Training Ineffective, Study Finds". The Washington Post and Times-Herald. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2018-04-29.
  15. 1 2 Dobbins, Frank; Kalev, Alexandra (July 2016). "Why Diversity Programs Fail". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21.
  16. 1 2 Paluck, Elizabeth Levy; Porat, Roni; Clark, Chelsey S.; Green, Donald P. (2021-01-04). "Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges". Annual Review of Psychology. 72 (1): 533–560. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619 . ISSN   0066-4308. PMID   32928061. S2CID   221722150.
  17. 1 2 Read, Bridget (2021-05-26). "Doing the Work at Work: What are companies desperate for diversity consultants actually buying?". New York . Archived from the original on 2021-12-17.
  18. Edelman, Lauren B.; Krieger, Linda H.; Eliason, Scott R.; Albiston, Catherine R.; Mellema, Virginia (November 2011). "When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures" (PDF). American Journal of Sociology. 117 (117 #3): 888–954. doi:10.1086/661984. S2CID   31192421. Archived from the original on 2021-12-17.
  19. Krieger, Linda Hamilton; Best, Rachel Kahn; Edelman, Lauren B. (2015). "When "Best Practices" Win, Employees Lose: Symbolic Compliance and Judicial Inference in Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Cases". Law & Social Inquiry . 40 (4): 843–879. doi:10.1111/lsi.12116. hdl: 10125/66112 . S2CID   153033615. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-12-17.
  20. 1 2 Nakamura, Brent K.; Edelman, Lauren B. (2019). "Bakke at 40: How Diversity Matters in the Employment Context" (PDF). UC Davis Law Review (52): 2627–2679. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-12-17.

Further reading