The Two Views of Diversity, con't

This is a continuation of the September 9, and September 29, 2007 posts. Here are three more defintions of "diversity" from writers in this field:


“Differences are what diversity is all about. Although many organizations are now offering diversity training for their employees, diversity is not really a skill or something for which you can be trained. Diversity simply means “differences, and in this book it means ‘differences in people.’ Whether diversity becomes an asset or a liability to you and your organization depends on how you use it.” Source: Kay DuPont, CSP (Stands for Certified Speaking Professional) Handling Diversity Issues in the Workplace (West Des Moines: American Media Publishing, 1997), p. 9


“Diversity refers to any mixture of items characterized by differences and similarities.” Source: R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. Redefining Diversity (New York: AMACOM American Management Association, 1996), p. 5

Roosevelt Thomas's definition of diversity is similar, but not identical ten years later:

"Diversity refers to the differences, similarities, and related tension that exist in any mixture. Note especially that the term includes differences and similarities. Diversity is not limited to issues of race and gender, nor is it confined to the workforce." Source: R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. Building on the Promise of Diversity: How We can Move to the Next Level in Our Workplaces, Our Communities and Our Society. (New York, Atlanta, Brussels, Chicago, Mexico city, San Francisco, Shanghai, Tokyo, Toronto, Washington DC: AMACOM American management Association, 2006), p. xi

The Two Views of Diversity, con't

This is a continuation of the September 9, 2007 post. Here are three more defintions of "diversity." All three are from writers in this field:


“Diversity has many definitions. At its core it means embracing differences. For the purposes of this book and addressing diversity in the workplace, diversity is defined in terms of people - measurable human capital, specifically, groups of people who have not traditionally been part of the workplace majority. These groups include: blacks; Latinos; Asian Americans; Native Americans; women in executive roles; individuals with disabilities; gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people.” Source: Gwen Moran, The Business Case for Diversity (Newark: Allegiant Media, 2006), p. 5

“Diversity means that one’s workforce is made up of people from different backgrounds.” Source: William Sonnenschein, The Practical Executive and Workforce Diversity Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books, 1997), p. 17


“…diversity is the mosaic of people who bring a variety of backgrounds, styles, perspectives, beliefs and competencies as assets to the groups and organizations with whom they interact. Source: Tina Rasmussen, Diversity Mosaic Participant Workbook: Developing Cultural Competence (San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, published by Pfieffer, 2007), p. 1

The next post will continue in this vein. The one after that will begin some analysis.

The Two Views of Diversity

Justice Lewis Powell’s decision (See post on August 26, 2007) provided the foundation to expand the definition of diversity.

Powell’s definition of diversity meant, well, about anything: “The file of a particular black applicant may be examined for his potential contribution to diversity without the factor of race being decisive when compared, for example, with that of an applicant identified as an Italian-American if the latter is thought to exhibit qualities more likely to promote beneficial educational pluralism. Such qualities could include exceptional personal talents, unique work or service experience, leadership potential, maturity, demonstrated compassion, a history of overcoming disadvantage, ability to communicate with the poor, or other qualifications deemed important. In short, an admissions program operated in this way is flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements same weight. Indeed, the weight attributed to a particular quality may vary from year to year…”

In the last generation, institutions, writers and employers have developed definitions of diversity. The next two posts will list some these definitions and then conclude with an analysis of what all this means.

Here is one from the University of Nebraska:

“Diversity is the multiplicity of people, cultures and ideas that contribute to the richness and variety of life. Diversity broadly encompasses the mixture of similarities and differences along several dimensions: race, national origin, ability, religion, sexual orientation, age and gender. It includes values, cultures, concepts, learning styles and perceptions that individuals possess. By its very nature, diversity fosters inclusiveness, encourages the exchange of new ideas, improves decision-making, and broadens the scope of problem-solving.”

Here is one from a writer:

“This book defines diversity simply as significant differences among people, though we will concentrate on race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, age and physical abilities. Some definitions include differences in ethnicity, nation of origin, class, religion, learning and communication styles, where people come from, and occupation as aspects of diversity. Source: William Sonnenschein, The Diversity Toolkit: How you can Build and Benefit From A Diverse Workforce (Lincolnwood, Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1997, 1999), p. 3

The point on both of these is the broadness almost to include anything on what "diversity" means. More examples will follow and then, some analysis.

Diversity and the "Bottom Line", con't

I think most Americans supported and would still support President Johnson’s classic statement on Affirmative Action in 1965:

“You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains, and liberate him and bring him to the starting line of a race and then say 'You are free to compete with all others' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.”

Yet the diversity movement has muddled this type of clear thinking. It has turned diversity into one more HR program. As a consequence, diversity consultants try to show relevance to the business world. Here,in my view, is one example.

Diversity Blues by Gladys Gossett Hankins, PhD published in 2000 makes this statement: “The annual productivity increase in the United States is around three percent a year. Today, some nations are exceeding that rate….What is happening inside American corporations that causes them to produce less than optimally”

This of course is a very soft statement (i.e., “some nations”). Here is a harder statistic:

In the 1980s and '90s the U.S. created about 40 million new jobs; Western Europe created some 10 million, well over half of which were in the public sector. If this divergence in economic performance continues for 40 years, the American worker will be roughly twice as wealthy as his European counterpart.” (Source OpinionJournal.com June 3, 2005 OECD)

Dr. Haskins is not, to my knowledge, an economist. She holds a Ph.D in Organizational Behavior and Development from the Union Institute at Cincinnati, Ohio.

Diversity and the "Bottom Line", con't

I have read several current diversity books. Most promote diversity as good for business. But this claim is dubious.

One author writes: “Diversity is challenging, yes, but it is also richer, livelier, more fun, and ultimately more profitable.”

I wrote this author asking to be directed to research supporting the benefits of diversity for corporations. Her answer: “I wish I could, Jim. I never could find it when I was teaching diversity in corporations either!”

Another author wrote about diversity in business that – “Numerous studies have documented the benefits.”

I wrote asking for research. The author responded by citing the Kochan study (see post on August 29, 2007.) I responded by pointing out that the Kochan study seemed to conclude the opposite. The author responded that Kochan “wound up pretty anti-diversity, but a number of other researchers who co-wrote the paper didn't.” I have read the entire Kochan report and see no evidence for this author's point of view. I can only wonder if the author, associated with the University of California read it.

I wrote other authors who had offered similar points of view about the positive effects of diversity but got no response.

Some of these books are prefaced by Roosevelt Thomas, dedicated to Oprah Winfrey and sometimes published by the American Management Association. Yet they leave one unconvinced that modern diversity programs are particularly good for businesses.

My conclusion is not "anti-diversity." It is that the claims that diversity programs are good for business are glib and unproven.

Diversity and the "Bottom Line", con't

One of the constant claims about "diversity" is that it increases business success. This claim should be looked at carefully.

One entry to this debate is:

The Business Case for Diversity by Gwen Moran (Newark: Allegiant Media, 2006). On page 3 this book states that “Managers who need the cold, hard facts to support a proposal for increased diversity will find them here.”

Here is what I found:

1. A claim that at PepsiCo, affinity groups helped contribute to adding 1 percent to the corporate bottom line by providing input on such products as guacamole-flavored Doritos and soft drinks aimed at black consumers. Occasionally, this claim is presented in soft language (“helped contribute” ) In any event, it is tedious but possibly revealing that in this report this claim is asserted at least three times.
2. DiversityInc, the magazine linked with The Business Case for Diversity compared its list of award-winning companies in 2005 with Standard and Poors. Here is what it found: “All publicly traded companies in The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity have been placed in a stock index, which is calculated by Standard & Poors. When examined over a 10 year period, with dividends reinvested, The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity Index yields a 23.5 percent higher return than the Standard & Poors 500.” To point out the obvious: if there was any proof or even evidence of causality, I missed it.

There is little in this book that I found significant.

None of this is to criticize diversity programs per se. We just need to subject all claims of business improvement to careful scrutiny.