A longitudinal evaluation of senior managers' perceptions and attitudes of a Workplace Diversity Training program.

Although workplace diversity training has been a staple in US companies for the past 15 years, little systematic assessment has been conducted. Many organizational leaders and HR professionals seem to assume that the training activities had a positive effect. In the current study, a large manufacturing organization was interested in implementing a diversity program company-wide. Before doing so, it conducted a pilot study with a critical layer of senior management to determine whether the training would be effective. The Workplace Diversity Survey was administered: (1) one week prior to the training, (2) the week immediately after the training was completed, and (3) three months later. The instrument measured the overall efficacy of the diversity training as well as five specific dimensions of participant perceptions. The results showed that the program participants significantly increased both their overall and dimensional scores. This improvement was maintained throughout the period of study. Implications for the evaluation of diversity training and the use of senior management as a pilot group were discussed.

Diversity in the workplace is one of the most critical challenges facing US organizations today. Nearly every issue of Fortune, Business Week, or The Wall Street Journal addresses some problem related to workplace diversity. Numerous articles, books, workshops, training programs, and college courses provide an abundance of information on understanding and managing diversity (cf. Bendick, Egan, & Lofhjelm, 2001; Cox, 2001; Miller & Katz, 2002; Kossek, et al., 2003; Thiederman, 2003; Stockdale & Crosby, 2004). A survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in the late 1990s found that over 80 percent of the Fortune 500 companies either had a diversity program or were planning to implement one within the next year ("SHRM releases new survey," 1998). It is generally believed that attaining workforce diversity has many positive social, legal, strategic, and competitive benefits for an organization (Sacco & Schmitt, 2005).

The scholarly literature on diversity contains two main bodies of work. One area focuses on the development of conceptual frameworks for understanding diversity and its impact on organizational behavior and performance (e.g., Mandell & Kohler-Gray, 1990; Thomas, 1990; De Meuse & Hostager, 2001). The other area presents generalized prescriptions for effectively managing diversity (e.g., Piturro & Mahoney, 1992; Cox, 1993; Rynes & Rosen, 1994). Despite the number of publications addressing diversity, relatively little research attention has been devoted to scientifically measuring the effectiveness of diversity training activities (Comer & Soliman, 1996; Robertson, et al., 2001). How do managers, training facilitators, and consultants know that the time and effort spent on diversity programs have made a positive impact on employees? How do administrators, teachers, and employers know that students completing a diversity course have gained an enhanced understanding and appreciation for diversity?

The purpose of the current study was to measure systematically the efficacy of a training diversity pilot program in a large manufacturing company using the Workplace Diversity Survey (WDS). The instrument was administered at three different times:

1. Before the training occurred;

2. One week after the course was completed; and

3. Ninety days later.

Depending upon the success of the pilot program, the diversity training would be extended more deeply into the organization.

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Workplace Diversity

Jackson, et al., define diversity as "the presence of differences among members of a social unit" (1995, p. 217). The terms "managing diversity" and "valuing diversity" are rooted in the management of employees. Academicians, consultants, and HR professionals use these terms when describing attitudes, behaviors, intergroup relations, and the policies and culture of organizations as they relate to differences among people. The conceptual framework specifies that employees are unique, and that differences are (or can be) an asset to the organization (Stockdale & Crosby, 2004). "Managing diversity" is a broad-based term referring to a variety of organizational interventions designed to overcome the potential costs of workforce differences, so that they become a source of strength or asset for the company. In contrast, "valuing diversity" typically refers to a set of activities or programs designed to enhance sensitivity and acceptance of cultural differences among employees.

During the late-1980s and early-1990s, numerous publications described the advent of demographic and social changes in the workplace. The most noted of them was the landmark document by Johnston and Packer (1987) entitled, Workforce 2000. Other scholars outlined an agenda for the Workplace Diversity Movement that emphasized the strategic and competitive advantage for organizations that managed diversity effectively. For example, Cox and Blake (1991) articulated six reasons why workplace diversity is good for both employees and companies. They contended that organizations that managed diversity well:

1. Gained an edge in recruiting talented white women and minorities;

2. Enhanced the potential for creative problem solving and innovation;

3. Reduced turnover;

4. Increased successful marketing efforts to underexploited subpopulations;

5. Improved their ability to adapt to changing market conditions; and

6. Generally increased organizational productivity.

More recently, researchers have examined the effects of aging, obesity, sexual orientation, and disability within the context of workplace diversity factors (see Bell, et al., 2004; Lubensky, et al., 2004).

According to Margaret Stockdale and Faye Crosby (2004), there appear to be five popular myths about the adverse effects of diversity in the workplace:

1. Diversity impairs organizational effectiveness;

2. Women lack commitment for long-term employment;

3. The disabled drive up employment costs;

4. Older employees have little potential for payback; and

5. Diversity is simply the politically correct term for affirmative action.

Many antidiversity arguments appear to rest upon the belief that diversity, particularly because of race, will foster negative interpersonal dynamics among employees and hence threaten productivity. Further, there is a conception that employees of color themselves lack the ability or motivation to contribute meaningfully to organizational productivity. It has been suggested that some companies avoid diversity efforts in order to ensure employees, customers, and other stakeholders remain comfortable with one another. That is, some authors claim that diversity in the workplace can create interpersonal conflict (see Hacker, 1995).

Racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice can foster discrimination within a workplace. Unless well managed, social identity differences can create emotional conflict among employees (Joplin & Daus, 1997). Truly diverse organizations can leverage this conflict by using it as a way to arrive at a clarification of values and foster honest communication (McDaniel & Walls, 1997). Antidiversity sentiments and employee group biases can be addressed through a variety of training programs and educational activities. Such training can develop more favorable attitudes toward diversity. Moreover, top management support for diversity as a learning opportunity rather than a liability is critical to engendering an organizational culture that recruits, retains, and promotes diversity (Thomas, 1998; Chrobot-Mason & Thomas, 2002).

Evaluating the Efficacy of Training Programs

In one of the few studies that measured diversity program success, Rynes and Rosen (1994) simply polled HR managers' opinions. In their research, these authors asked 785 HR managers to report how effective they perceived the diversity training. They found that 50 percent of the HR managers perceived their "programs as having either a mixed effect or a neutral or negligible effect;" another 18 percent reported them either "largely ineffective or extremely ineffective" (pp. 68; 70). In another study, Ellis and Sonnenfeld (1994) surveyed 92 employees who attended a "valuing diversity seminar." They found that only 44 percent of the participants perceived the training enhanced their ability to work with diverse employees, and only 60 percent perceived it improved their awareness of the benefits of diversity. Overall, 59 percent of the employees reported the diversity training was worthwhile.

Such opinions of HR managers and attending employees may provide a quick snapshot of the generalized effectiveness of diversity training, but concrete measures of participant attitudes and perceptions are needed to measure more accurately the efficacy of diversity training efforts. Further, concrete measures can improve understanding of various areas in which diversity training may need to be corrected. Without careful evaluation procedures, the training could backfire and provoke disdain among white male employees.

One of the few studies to present an instrument to measure the effectiveness of diversity training systematically was published by De Meuse and Hostager (2001). Their Workplace Diversity Survey assesses diversity perceptions and attitudes on the following five dimensions:

1. Emotional Reactions: The initial, visceral response to the concept of workplace diversity; a person's "gut feelings" about diversity in general;