The Two Views of Diversity , conclusion and transition

What we have seen is that the definitions of diversity, when developed in organizations, all tend to mean something very ordinary – that people are different in different dimensions. This is a concept that people can readily accept and, in fact, enjoy. It has been taught in human resource circles long before the modern diversity movement. Here is a typical statement from a personnel book in the early 1960s:

“Effective personnel management is to a great extent based on the premise that people differ significantly from one another in many respects.” Source: Wendell L French, The Personnel Management Process: Human Resource Administration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964), p. 22

Here is another from a section in a personnel book on communications:“(In addition to other factors having to do with organizational level and role), there may be overlapping of political, racial, religious, color, and job groupings. It is unwise to group all employees as being under the political influence of Democrats, Republicans or labor unions. To address communications in terms of one grouping alone will certainly antagonize the others. And similarly, it is unwise to assume that all employees hold the same views on race, color, and creed – even those of the same race, color, and creed.” Source: Michael J Jucius, Personnel Management (Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc, 1977, seventh edition, 1971) p. 316)

But the modern diversity movement means something different.

First, some differences are far more important than others: One major book on diversity reports without irony that “Bailey Jackson was one of the first people to identify that some differences matter more than others. Those that make the biggest difference are ethnicity, gender, marital status (and children), race, sexual orientation, language, physical ability, socioeconomic status, religion and mental ability.” Source: Frederick A. Miller and Judith H. Katz, The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 2002), pp. 3-4)

Really. Read the first sentence in the previous paragraph again and ask how anyone could believe that in some recent time someone was the first to make this “discovery.”

Second, the focus should be on change. Here is Fredrick Miller in 1994: “There is a belief that diversity should be about individual differences. We might call this the Individual Differences perspective. But there is also the belief that diversity should be about correcting the injustices visited upon people and groups. We might call this the Social Justice perspective.” (Source: Ellie Y. Cross, Judith H. Katz, Frederick A. Miller and Edith W. Seashore, eds. The Promise of Diversity (New York: Irwin 1994)

We will next cover the broad view of diversity – the Individual Differences perspective. We have previously questioned the claim that somehow “diversity” is good for business. Now we will ask:
1. Is it trite?
2. Does it lead to sterotyping?
3. Is it polarizing?
4. Is it good for Blacks?
5. Does it leave out issues?