Diversity training

Last updated

Diversity training is a type of corporate training designed to facilitate positive intergroup interaction, reduce prejudice and discrimination, and teach different individuals 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 fostering understanding and harmony between workers. [2]

Despite intended benefits, systematic studies have not proven benefits to diversity training. While some studies show that voluntary diversity training can lead to more diverse management, other studies have found that mandatory diversity training can lead to increased discrimination and prejudice.

As of 2019, more than $8 billion a year is spent on diversity training in the United States. [3]

History

1960s

In the 1960s, the concept of promoting diversity in the workplace was prompted as a result of 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 against employees and candidates based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, age, and disability was also later outlawed. After the Act was passed, activists protested organizations who refused to hire blacks, planned jobs banks,[ clarification needed ] and filed charges against employers that discriminated against employees. [4]

1970s

The United States Supreme Court extended the definition of discrimination in 1971 in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, ruling against 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. [5] 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. [6] Many of these corporations implemented such training programs as a way to protect themselves from discrimination lawsuits. [7]

1980s to Present

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan tried to reverse affirmative action regulations put forward by former president John F. Kennedy 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. [6]

Promoting respect and appealing to minority employees and customers became significant goals of diversity training starting in the late 1980s. [7] In the early 2000s, an expansion of diversity training was prompted by a series of high-profile discrimination lawsuits in the financial industry. [8]

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. [9] 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. [9]

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." [10] A meta-analysis suggests that diversity training could have a relatively large effect on cognitive-based and skill-based training outcomes. [11] 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. [12] [13] 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. [14] [15]

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. [16] 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. [8]

A 2021 meta-analysis found a lack of high quality studies on the efficacy of diversity training. [17] 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." [17]

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. [15] 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] According to Nakamura & Edelman's 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">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 a demand or request for sexual favors, making sexually colored remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Job interview</span> Type of interview

A job interview is an interview consisting of a conversation between a job applicant and a representative of an employer which is conducted to assess whether the applicant should be hired. Interviews are one of the most common methods of employee selection. Interviews vary in the extent to which the questions are structured, from an unstructured and informal conversation to a structured interview in which an applicant is asked a predetermined list of questions in a specified order; structured interviews are usually more accurate predictors of which applicants will make suitable employees, according to research studies.

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.

The gender pay gap in the United States is a measure comparing the earnings of men and women in the workforce. The average female annual earnings is around 80% of the average male's. When variables such as hours worked, occupations chosen, and education and job experience are controlled for, the gap diminishes with females earning 95% as much as males. The exact figure varies because different organizations use different methodologies to calculate the gap. The gap varies depending on industry and is influenced by factors such as race and age. The causes of the gender pay gap are debated, but popular explanations include the "motherhood penalty," hours worked, occupation chosen, willingness to negotiate salary, and gender bias.

Diversity, in a hidden context, hiring and promoting employees from a variety of different backgrounds and identities. Those characteristics may include various illegally protected groups, such as people of similar religions or races, or backgrounds that are not legally protected, such as people from different social classes or educational levels. A business or group with people from a variety of backgrounds is called diverse; a business or group with people who are very similar to each other is not diverse.

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 aggression is a specific type of aggression which occurs in the workplace. Workplace aggression is any type of hostile behavior that occurs in the workplace. It can range from verbal insults and threats to physical violence, and it can occur between coworkers, supervisors, and subordinates. Common examples of workplace aggression include gossiping, bullying, intimidation, sabotage, sexual harassment, and physical violence. These behaviors can have serious consequences, including reduced productivity, increased stress, and decreased morale.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Occupational stress</span> Tensions related to work

Occupational stress is psychological stress related to one's job. Occupational stress refers to a chronic condition. Occupational stress can be managed by understanding what the stressful conditions at work are and taking steps to remediate those conditions. Occupational stress can occur when workers do not feel supported by supervisors or coworkers, feel as if they have little control over the work they perform, or find that their efforts on the job are incommensurate with the job's rewards. Occupational stress is a concern for both employees and employers because stressful job conditions are related to employees' emotional well-being, physical health, and job performance. The World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization conducted a study. The results showed that exposure to long working hours, operates through increased psycho-social occupational stress. It is the occupational risk factor with the largest attributable burden of disease, according to these official estimates causing an estimated 745,000 workers to die from ischemic heart disease and stroke events in 2016.

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

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.

Gender diversity is equitable representation of people of different genders. It most commonly refers to an equitable ratio of men and women, but also includes people of non-binary genders. Gender diversity on corporate boards has been widely discussed, and many ongoing initiatives study and promote gender diversity in fields traditionally dominated by men, including computing, engineering, medicine, and science. It is argued that some proposed explanations are without merit and are in fact dangerous, while others do play a part in a complex interaction of factors. It is suggested that the very nature of science may contribute to the removal of women from the 'pipeline'.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vegaphobia</span> Aversion to vegetarians and vegans

Vegaphobia, vegephobia, veganphobia, or veganophobia is an aversion to, or dislike of, vegetarians and vegans. The term first appeared in the 2010s, coinciding with the rise in veganism in the late 2010s. Several studies have found an incidence of vegaphobic sentiments in the general population. Positive feelings regarding vegetarians and vegans also exist. Because of their diet, others may perceive them as more virtuous or principled.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity, equity, and inclusion</span> Organizational framework

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are 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. The concepts predate this terminology and other variations include diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB), inclusion and diversity (I&D), justice, equity, diversity and inclusion, or diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility.

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. ↑ Mehta, Stephanie (2019-11-21). "Despite spending billions, companies can't buy diversity". Washington Post . Archived from the original on 2021-12-04.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ Dobbin, Frank (2009-12-31). Inventing Equal Opportunity. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400830893. ISBN   978-1-4008-3089-3.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 1 2 Dobbins, Frank; Kalev, Alexandra (July 2016). "Why Diversity Programs Fail". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2016-08-21.
  9. 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.
  10. ↑ 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.
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ McGregor, Jena (July 1, 2016). "To improve diversity, don't make people go to diversity training. Really". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  14. ↑ McElroy, Molly (3 April 2013). "Diversity programs give illusion of corporate fairness, study shows". UW Today. University of Washington . Retrieved 15 October 2016.
  15. 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.
  16. ↑ Vedantam, Shankar (2008-01-20). "Most Diversity Training Ineffective, Study Finds". The Washington Post and Times-Herald. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved 2018-04-29.
  17. 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.
  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

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.