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;

2. Behavioral Reactions: What a person does (or intends to do) in response to diversity; a person's verbal as well as nonverbal actions;

3. Judgments: A person's normative evaluation of diversity; a person's value judgment with regard to diversity in principle (i.e., is diversity good or bad);

4. Personal Consequences: A person's views on how diversity will affect him or her personally; one's beliefs regarding the perceived outcomes of diversity on an individual level; and

5. Organizational Outcomes: A person's views on how diversity will affect the organization as a whole; one's beliefs regarding the perceived outcomes of diversity on a company-wide level.

In addition, an overall efficacy score is computed by summing the individual employee's scores on these five dimensions.

The objective of this study was to ascertain whether the Workplace Diversity Survey would provide useful data to ascertain whether a diversity training course should be implemented throughout a company. The course was administered to a critical layer of senior management and evaluations were collected prior to the training, shortly after it, and then again three months later. Such an assessment approach enabled a more protracted measure of whether the training had the positive impact for which it was designed. Further, the feedback obtained from this pilot group helped provide managers of this diversity effort insights on how and where the training could be made more effective to the organization.

Methodology

Participants

Workshop participants consisted of 43 facility general managers and 14 other management professionals at a manufacturing company headquartered in the southeastern United States. These individuals were targeted for the diversity training because of their level of organizational influence and their ability to serve as role models for other employees. Fifty of the participants were men; seven were women. To ensure anonymity, no other demographic data were collected. The participating company is one of North America's leading manufacturers of packaging products, merchandising displays, and bleached and recycled paperboard. At the time of the research project, the company had $1.5 billion in sales and 8,500 employees located at 70 facilities throughout North and South America. Locations in Canada, Mexico, and Chile were not included in the project. In addition, a small group of executive-level managers had previously experienced the workshop and was not included in the data collection. Besides the general managers, individuals who attended the workshop had titles such as vice president, Six Sigma Director, manufacturing information technology manager, and director of employee and organizational effectiveness.

Training Intervention

Workshops were conducted at the following four regional cities in the United States to economize travel costs: Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Lebanon, Tennessee. All workshops were delivered by the same two-person facilitation team, consisting of a white woman and a black man. The facilitators were employed by an outside consulting firm hired by the company to assist in setting direction for the diversity effort. The two facilitators had previously conducted the same workshop for the executive-level group, and had assisted in defining the strategic positioning for the effort.

The workshop served as a way to disseminate strategic diversity decisions made by executive management, and to equip participants with the information and skill to implement the effort at their local level. Specifically, the workshop had four key objectives:

1. Define diversity from the company perspective;

2. Explore and move beyond diversity stereotypes;

3. Discuss diversity within an organizational leadership context and enable the company to maximize contributions from all employees; and

4. Create personal action plans regarding the full utilization of the entire workforce regardless of individual differences.

Case studies, role-plays, and group discussions were employed. A skills practice focused on orientation for new staff members and on performance feedback and development skills. The length of the workshop was a day and a half; group sizes ranged from six to 18 attendees. The training was intended as the primary strategy to support the stated goals of the organization, which were to (a) integrate and embed diversity into the company culture, (b) reflect the diverse nature of the country and the community at all levels, and (c) provide career growth opportunities at all levels. (See the sidebar for additional details regarding the design and goals of the diversity program.)

Survey Instrument

The Workplace Diversity Survey was developed by De Meuse and Hostager in 2001 to measure diversity training effectiveness. The 20-item WDS assesses overall effectiveness, as well as effectiveness on the following five dimensions:

1. Emotional reactions,

2. Judgments,

3. Behavioral reactions,

4. Personal consequences, and

5. Organizational outcomes.

Four items measure each dimension, using two positive and two negative statements for each one. Participants responded on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly disagree" (1) to "strongly agree" (5). For example, employees respond to such positive statements as "Diversity is an asset for organizations," I believe that diversity is good," and "Diversity is rewarding for me." Negative statements include "Diversity is unprofitable for organizations," "Diversity is stressful for me," and "I feel resentful about diversity." The negatively oriented items are reverse scored. See Exhibit 1.

According to De Meuse and Hostager (2001), development of the WDS began with an open-ended survey of 40 students and 10 faculty to obtain their perceived advantages and disadvantages of diversity in the workplace. Survey responses were content analyzed by these researchers, yielding the five underlying dimensions identified previously. A master list of 218 diversity-related words was then culled from the extant literatures. Next, De Meuse and Hostager enlisted 110 junior- and senior-level business students to sort the words using the five dimensions, identifying a minimum of 12 items per dimension. Items with less than a 40 percent agreement rate were deleted from the pool, paring the list from 218 to 100 words. Subsequently, 143 upper-level business students were used in a second round of Q-sorting, employing the same agreement cutoff and a goal of identifying seven positive and seven negative items for each of the five dimensions. This approach yielded a 70-item Reaction-to-Diversity Inventory (RTDI). De Meuse and Hostager (2001) subsequently developed the 20-item WDS as a more concise measurement tool, incorporating two positive and two negative items from the RTDI for each of the five dimensions.

Procedure

The survey was distributed via email at three different times:

1. One week prior to the workshop,

2. The week immediately following the workshop, and

3. Ninety days after the workshop.

Because participants responded through an electronic link, it was possible to identify respondents. Overall, 40 of the 57 (70%) workshop attendees responded during Time 1, 40 (70%) for Time 2, and 35 (61%) for Time 3.

Results

Initially, a reliability analysis was performed to determine whether the items on the WDS measured the five purported dimensions consistently. Accordingly, a Cronbach's Coefficient Alpha Score was computed for each dimension using the SPSS Version 12.0 for Windows (SPSS FAQ, 2006). If the set of four WDS items actually measured a single unidimensional construct, one would expect a high coefficient alpha score (i.e., one exceeding 0.70). As can be observed in Exhibit 2, reliability scores ranged from a high of 0.89 (emotional reactions dimension) to a low of 0.76 (organizational outcomes dimension). Consequently, these results indicate that the WDS assesses the five dimensions of diversity in an internally consistent manner.

Exhibit 3 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for each of the five WDS dimensions, as well as each of the four items composing that dimension, for each time period. In addition, means and standard deviations for the overall score in each of the three time periods are provided. For example, the overall score for Time 1 (before the diversity workshop) is 79.34, for Time 2 (immediately after the workshop) is 87.37, and for Time 3 (three months later) is 87.06.

Three separate rounds of paired sample t-tests were conducted to determine whether participant perceptions and attitudes increased following the workshop. Statistical tests were carried out at the 0.05 level of significance. The results of these tests are presented in Exhibit 4. These results show significant increases in the mean WDS dimensional scores and the overall score from Time 1 to Time 2 (pretest to immediate posttest). In contrast, the data show no significant declines in the dimensional and overall score means from Time 2 to Time 3 (immediate posttest to delayed posttest). Finally, a comparison of Time 1 and Time 3 scores confirms that the gains in dimensional and overall score means remained statistically significant, persisting three months after the diversity training program. This finding is good news for managers and diversity trainers hoping to achieve an ongoing effect on participants.

Discussion

The results of this study are encouraging. Based on these results, senior management can make a rational, well-informed decision whether to expand this diversity training program throughout the company. Organizational leaders can be confident that this training will positively affect attending employees' emotional reactions, behavioral reactions, judgments, personal consequences, and organizational outcomes. Further, these findings persist well after the workshop ends. This conclusion is not simply based on employee testimonials or promotional material depicted in a consultant's brochure. Rather, it is gleaned from a systematic measure designed to assess how employees perceived and reacted to diversity training. If a goal of the diversity training is to enhance the perceptions and attitudes of workshop participants, the findings of this study suggest that the time and money spent on this intervention may be well worth the investment.

Without such evaluative data, management might delude itself that diversity training is working. Poorly conceived and poorly administered diversity programs can cause more harm than good (Chrobot-Mason & Ruderman, 2004). Even among those employees who liked the training, the effects may not translate into positive organizational results or be sustained (Stockdale & Crosby, 2004).

Obviously, changes in employee attitudes and perceptions are not sufficient. For training to be of value, there must be corresponding changes in employee behaviors and organizational outcomes (e.g., the inclination and ability to recruit minority candidates, the retention and promotion of a diverse workforce). Sacco and Schmitt (2005) demonstrated clear linkages between a match in racial composition in the organization and the local community as affecting retention. These authors likewise found some support for a negative relationship between racial diversity and changes in a company's profitability. Nevertheless, measures of perceptions can be helpful. Perceptions and attitudes are related to behaviors (see Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). An employee's perceptual world in large measure determines his or her reality. Employees who perceive workplace diversity of value view diversity as having many positive consequences for themselves; their organization is more likely to support diversity with their behavioral and performance outcomes (Stockdale & Crosby, 2004).

When one examines the five dimensional scores more closely, it becomes apparent that the diversity training continued to impact the participants positively 90 days after the workshop. In fact, ratings actually increased from Time 2 (taken one week after the training) to Time 3 (90 days later) on two of the five dimensions: emotional reactions and personal consequences (see Exhibit 4). One of the concerns that organizational leaders and training facilitators have pertains to the sustained effects of learning efforts (Hedge & Pulakos, 2002; Studer, 2003). The findings here suggest that this diversity intervention not only improved participant attitudes immediately after the workshop, but continued several months later.

Although the increase in participant perceptions was fairly uniform across all five dimensions, the initial (pre-workshop) views were substantially higher on two dimensions (see Exhibit 2). Scores on the judgments (M = 17.34) and behavioral reactions (M = 17.11) dimensions were more than two scale points higher than for emotional reactions (M = 15.03), personal consequences (M = 14.91), and organizational outcomes (M = 14.94). This disparity was maintained after the diversity workshop as well. Perhaps, the personal and organizational consequences of diversity were perceived more in a negative light because of job experiences with diversity in their organization (e.g., employees getting hired or promoted based on skin color rather than merit). Likewise, emotionally, the participants may harbor some negative sentiments regarding diversity. On the other hand, the behavioral reactions and judgments the employees expressed are more inner-directed and self-oriented. Hence, employees may be more likely to rate themselves more favorably with regard to diversity. Regardless of the reason, it is reassuring that the employees perceived their behavior to be so positively inclined toward diversity.

An important finding of this study is the discovery that the WDS can be used to evaluate the effect of a diversity training program. For example, are the workshop participants changing their views? Does this change persist? Where specifically is the training making an impact? Are employees' emotions, judgments, perceived individual and/or organizational outcomes being affected? The WDS was easy to administer, easy to score and interpret, and appeared to be well received by the participants (given the high response rate obtained). Psychometrically, the internal consistencies of all five dimensions are good. Overall, this instrument seems to provide an effective, useful, systematic approach to assessing the respondents' attitudes and perceptions of a workplace diversity effort. A pre/ post evaluation approach that solicits employee feedback has wide applicability to those individuals who design, administer, fund, and participate in such diversity learning experiences in both academic and business settings.

Beyond the opportunity to glean data to examine the merits of diversity training, the initial involvement of senior management in diversity training has additional benefits. It visibly demonstrates to employees throughout the company that this training is important. It nurtures an organizational culture that asserts diversity is a worthwhile pursuit for everyone there. One can develop the most stimulating and creative workshop content, select qualified trainers, and deliver the message in an inspiring manner; however, without the perceived support of executive management, such efforts are likely to fail (Studer, 2003). Further, the involvement of facility general managers and professionals equip those participants with the language and skills needed to implement the diversity effort at the local level. Organizational change programs become more effective when implemented from a top-down fashion (Mische, 2001; Thomas, et al., 2004). One of the key reasons for the success of the current diversity training appears to be the willingness of senior management to support it. When the plant manager takes time to attend the training workshop, it sends a powerful message to the rest of the employees. Leadership support for diversity as a learning opportunity rather than a management directive is critical in establishing an organizational context of inclusion and success.

Overall, this study provides support that the Workplace Diversity Survey can help ascertain the efficacy of diversity training. Ultimately, the effects of training need to endure much longer than 90 days. Nevertheless, this instrument represents a significant step in the systematic evaluation of diversity programs. Organizations should not simply assume that such training programs are successful (Bendick, et al., 2001; Hedge & Pulakos, 2002; Hostager & De Meuse, 2002). An instrument such as the WDS can provide both practitioners and scholars a useful tool to measure and monitor the effectiveness of diversity efforts. The time has arrived for organizational leaders to recognize the importance of carefully measuring the effectiveness of various diversity training efforts.

REFERENCES

Bell MP, McLaughlin ME, & Sequeira JM (2004). "Age, Disability, and Obesity: Similarities, Differences, and Common Threads," in MS Stockdale & FJ Crosby (eds.), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity (pp. 191-205), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Bendick M, Egan ML, & Lofhjelm SM (2001). "Workforce Diversity Training: From Anti-Discrimination Compliance to Organizational Development," Human Resource Planning 24(2): 10-25.

Chrobot-Mason DL & Ruderman MN (2004). "Leadership in a Diverse Workplace," in MS Stockdale & FJ Crosby (eds.), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity (pp. 100-121), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Chrobot-Mason DL & Thomas KM (2002). "Minority Employees in Majority Organizations: The Intersection of Individual and Organizational Racial Identity in the Workplace," Human Resource Management Review 1: 323-344.

Comer DR & Soliman CE (1996). "Organizational Efforts to Manage Diversity: Do They Really Work?" Journal of Managerial Issues 8(4): 470-484.

Cox TH Jr. (1993). Cultural Diversity in Organizations: Theory, Research, and Practice, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Cox TH Jr. (2001). Creating the Multicultural Organization: A Strategy for Capturing the Power of Diversity, San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cox TH Jr. & Blake S (1991). "Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness" Academy of Management Executive 5(3): 45-57.

De Meuse KP & Hostager TJ (2001). "Developing an Instrument for Measuring Attitudes Toward and Perceptions of Workplace Diversity: An Initial Report," Human Resource Development Quarterly 12(1): 33-51.

Ellis C & Sonnenfeld JA (1994). "Diverse Approaches to Managing Diversity," Human Resource Management 33(1): 79-109.

Fishbein M & Ajzen I (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hacker A (1995). Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal, New York: Ballantine Books.

Hedge JW & Pulakos ED (2002). Implementing Organizational Interventions: Steps, Processes, and Best Practices, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hostager TJ & De Meuse KP (2002). "Assessing the Complexity of Diversity Perceptions: Breadth, Depth, and Balance," Journal of Business and Psychology 17(2): 189-206.

Jackson SE, May KE, & Whitney K (1995). "Understanding the Dynamics of Diversity in Decision-Making Teams," in RA Guzzo, E Salas, & Associates (eds.), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations (pp. 204-261), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnston WB & Packer AH (1987). Work force 2000, Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Joplin JRW & Daus S (1997). "Challenges of Leading a Diverse Workforce," Academy of Management Executive 11 (3): 32-47.

Kossek EE, Markel KS, & McHugh PP (2003). "Increasing Diversity as an HRM Strategy," Journal of Organizational Change Management 16(3): 328-344.

Lubensky ME, Holland SL, Wiethoff C, & Crosby FJ (2004). "Diversity and Sexual Orientation: Including and Valuing Sexual Minorities in the Workplace," in MS Stockdale & FJ Crosby (eds.), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity (pp. 206-2231, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Mandell BL & Kohler-Gray S (1990). "Management Development that Values Diversity," Personnel, 67: 41-47.

McDaniel RR & Walls ME (1997). "Diversity," as a Management Strategy for Organizations: A View Through the Lenses of Chaos and Quantum Theories," Journal of Management Inquiry 6: 363-375.

Miller FA & Katz JH (2002). The Inclusion Breakthrough: Unleashing the Real Power of Diversity, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Mische MA (2001). Strategic renewal: Becoming a high-performance organization, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Piturro M & Mahoney SS (1992). "Managing Diversity: The New Multicultural Work Force Requires a Simpatico Style," Adult Learning May, pp. 13-15.

Roberson L, Kulik CT, & Pepper MB (2001). "Designing Effective Diversity Training: Influence of Group Composition and Trainee Experience," Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(8): 871-885.

Rynes S & Rosen B (1994). "What Makes Diversity Programs Work?" HR Magazine 39(10):67-73.

Sacco JM & Schmitt N (2005). "A Dynamic Multilevel Model of Demographic Diversity and Misfit Effects," Journal of Applied Psychology 90:203-231.

"SHRM Releases New Survey of Diversity Programs" (1998). Mosaics 4(4): 1.

SPSS FAQ (2006). SPSS FAQ: What does Cronbach's alpha mean? http://www.ats.ucla.edu/STAT/SPSS/faq/alpha.html.

Stockdale MS & Crosby FJ (eds.) (2004). "The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity," Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Studer Q (2003). Hardwiring Excellence: Purpose, Worthwhile Work, Making a Difference, Gulf Breeze, FL: Fire Starter Publishing.

Thiederman S (2003). Making Diversity Work: Seven Steps for Defeating Bias in the Workplace, Dearborn, MI: Dearborn Trade Publishing.

Thomas KM (1998). "Psychological Readiness for Multicultural Leadership," Management Development Forum 1, 99-112.

Thomas KM, Mack DA, & Montagliani A (2004). "The Arguments Against Diversity: Are They Valid?" in MS Stockdale & FJ Crosby (eds.), The Psychology and Management of Workplace Diversity (pp. 31-51), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Thomas RR (1990). "From Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity," Harvard Business Review 68(2): 107-117.

Diversity Program Design and Goals

In 2000, a new CEO was hired. Two years later, he launched "Leadership 2020." This organizational change effort entailed several major improvement programs, including performance management, compensation management, six sigma, and diversity. Specifically, the diversity strategy composed of five long-term goals:

1. The workforce should reflect the diverse nature of our country and community at all levels.

2. Have diversity acknowledged as a business strength by employees, customers, communities, and peers.

3. Integrate and embed diversity into the organization's culture.

4. Provide career growth opportunities at all levels throughout the company.

5. Be acknowledged for excellence in promoting and managing diversity throughout all levels of the organization.

As a first step to achieve these objectives, a diversity workshop was developed. Initially, the 1.5-day workshop was presented in four regional locations: Tennessee, Texas, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. The goal was to present the necessary information to various plant managers and regional support professionals to educate them on various diversity issues and obtain their buy-in to the company's diversity objectives. Based upon their feedback, the diversity training would be modified before distribution organization-wide.

Kenneth P. De Meuse, Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company; Todd J. Hostager, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire; Kathryn S. O'Neill, Rock-Term Company

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Kenneth P. De Meuse, PhD, is associate vice president of research at Lominger International: A Korn/Ferry Company. Prior to coming to work there, he was on the faculties at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Iowa State University, and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Dr. De Meuse has published numerous articles on employee attitudes and organizational behavior in several leading professional journals. His most recent book, entitled 50 More Things You Need to Know: The Science Behind Best People Practices for Managers & HR Professionals, was published in 2007. He has appeared on ABC News, CNN, AP Radio, and National Public Radio and has been featured in national publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Business Week, Fortune, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, and USA Today for his expertise on the impact organizational change has on the workforce. More than 100 universities and 150 corporations have contacted him regarding his research work in this area.

Todd J. Hostager, PhD, is a professor of management at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire. He received his PhD in strategic management and organization studies from the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Hostager is the assistant director of the entrepreneur program and teaches courses in strategic management, organizational behavior, and creativity. In addition to exploring reactions to diversity, he is currently involved in research focusing on techniques for stimulating creativity, strategic responses by competitors to major organizational change, and jazz as a model for organizational innovation.

Kathryn S. O'Neill, PhD, is senior consultant, organizational effectiveness, at Rock-Tenn Company. With annual net sales of $2.1 billion, the organization has six divisions comprised of more than 90 plants in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Chile. The company manufactures paperboard, paperboard packaging, and point-of-purchase displays.

Dr. O'Neill has worked in human resource development since 1978 in various industry settings, including newspaper publishing, homebuilding, banking, and manufacturing. She is expert at initiating the HRD function, and in her current position has responsibility for diversity, performance management process, succession planning, learning projects, and a Six Sigma Green Belt team. She earned her BA from Texas Tech University, and her MA and PhD from Georgia State University. EXHIBIT 1 Workplace Diversity Survey Directions. Please circle the number that best reflects your view of diversity in the workplace for each of the following 20 items.

1 2 3

Disagree Disagree Neither

Somewhat Agree

Nor

Disagree 1. I believe that diversity

is fair. 1 2 3 2. Diversity is stressful

for me. * 1 2 3 3. I feel 1 2 3

enthusiastic about

diversity. 4. Diversity is expensive for

organizations. * 1 2 3 5. Diversity leads to harmony

in organizations. 1 2 3 6. I feel frustrated

with diversity. * 1 2 3 7. I feel hopeful about

diversity. 1 2 3 8. I believe that diversity

is worthless. * 1 2 3 9. I support diversity

efforts in organizations. 1 2 3 10. I withdraw from

organizational diversity

efforts. 1 2 3 11. Diversity is rewarding

for me. 1 2 3 12. I feel resentful about

diversity. * 1 2 3 13. Diversity is an asset

for organizations. 1 2 3 14. Diversity leads me to make

personal sacrifices. * 1 2 3 15. I participate in

organizational diversity

efforts. 1 2 3 16. I resist organizational

diversity efforts. * 1 2 3 17. I believe that diversity

is good. 1 2 3 18. Diversity is unprofitable

for organizations. 1 2 3 19. Diversity is enriching

for me. 1 2 3 20. I believe that diversity

is unjustified.* 1 2 3

4 5

Agree Agree

Somewhat 1. I believe that diversity

is fair. 4 5 2. Diversity is stressful

for me. * 4 5 3. I feel 4 5

enthusiastic about

diversity. 4. Diversity is expensive for

organizations. * 4 5 5. Diversity leads to harmony

in organizations. 4 5 6. I feel frustrated

with diversity. * 4 5 7. I feel hopeful about

diversity. 4 5 8. I believe that diversity

is worthless. * 4 5 9. I support diversity

efforts in organizations. 4 5 10. I withdraw from

organizational diversity

efforts. 4 5 11. Diversity is rewarding

for me. 4 5 12. I feel resentful about

diversity. * 4 5 13. Diversity is an asset

for organizations. 4 5 14. Diversity leads me to make

personal sacrifices. * 4 5 15. I participate in

organizational diversity

efforts. 4 5 16. I resist organizational

diversity efforts. * 4 5 17. I believe that diversity

is good. 4 5 18. Diversity is unprofitable

for organizations. 4 5 19. Diversity is enriching

for me. 4 5 20. I believe that diversity

is unjustified.* 4 5 Copyright 2001 by Kenneth P. De Meuse and Todd J. Hostager. Note. Asterisk (*) denotes item is reverse scored. EXHIBIT 2 Cronbach Coefficient Alpha Scores Across the Three Time Periods

WDS Scores

Cronbach's WDS Dimension Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Alpha Emotional Reactions 15.03 16.94 17.06 0.89 Judgments 17.34 18.74 18.26 0.87 Behavioral Reactions 17.11 19.17 19.09 0.75 Personal Consequences 14.91 15.94 16.23 0.84 Organizational Outcomes 14.94 16.57 16.43 0.76 Notes: Sample sizes are 40 (Time 1), 40 (Time 2), and 35 (Time 3). There are four WDS items for each of the five dimensions: Emotional Reactions = WDS items #3, 6, 7, and 12. Judgements = WDS items #1, 8, 17, and 20. Behavioral Reactions = WDS items #9, 10, 15, 16. Personal Consequences = WDS items #2, 11, 14, and 19. Organizational Outcomes = WDS items #4, 5, 13, and 18. Each WDS item is worth up to five points, yielding a maximum score of 20 points per dimension. EXHIBIT 3 Descriptive Statistics Across Three Time Periods WDS Dimensions Time 1 Time 2 WDS Items M SD M SD 1. Emotional Reactions: 15.03 3.09 16.94 2.85

Item #3 - Enthusiastic 3.20 0.99 3.91 0.95

Item #6 - Frustrate * 3.86 1.14 4.20 1.05

Item #7 - Hopeful 3.69 1.11 4.14 0.91

Item #12 - Resentful * 4.29 1.02 4.69 0.87 2. Judgments: 17.34 2.95 18.74 1.98

Item #1 - Fair 4.20 0.83 4.54 0.92

Item #8 - Worthless * 4.60 0.77 4.80 0.47

Item #17 - Good 4.37 0.77 4.66 0.48

Item #20 - Unjustified * 4.17 1.10 4.74 0.70 3. Behavioral Reactions: 17.11 2.46 19.17 1.25

Item #9 - Support 4.23 0.94 4.74 0.51

Item #10 - Withdraw * 4.37 0.91 4.91 0.28

Item #15 - Participate 3.97 0.98 4.57 0.70

Item #16 - Resist * 4.54 0.92 4.94 0.24 4. Personal Consequences: 14.91 2.89 15.94 2.93

Item #2 - Stressful * 4.06 0.83 3.94 1.30

Item #11 - Rewarding 3.17 0.98 3.60 1.09

Item #14 - Sacrifices * 4.11 1.05 4.31 0.99

Item #19 - Enriching 3.57 1.09 4.09 1.01 5. Organizational Outcomes: 14.94 2.65 16.57 2.91

Item #4 - Expensive * 3.49 0.89 3.89 1.18

Item #5 - Harmony 3.09 1.09 3.40 1.12

Item #13 - Asset 4.26 0.85 4.71 0.62

Item #18 - Unprofitable * 4.11 1.05 4.57 0.95 OVERALL SCORE 79.34 11.98 87.37 10.00 WDS Dimensions Time 3 WDS Items M SD 1. Emotional Reactions: 17.06 2.58

Item #3 - Enthusiastic 3.86 0.88

Item #6 - Frustrate * 4.43 1.01

Item #7 - Hopeful 4.09 0.85

Item #12 - Resentful * 4.69 0.83 2. Judgments: 18.26 2.47

Item #1 - Fair 4.40 0.81

Item #8 - Worthless * 4.83 0.45

Item #17 - Good 4.46 0.74

Item #20 - Unjustified * 4.57 0.88 3. Behavioral Reactions: 19.09 1.70

Item #9 - Support 4.74 0.51

Item #10 - Withdraw * 4.89 0.32

Item #15 - Participate 4.63 0.65

Item #16 - Resist * 4.83 0.62 4. Personal Consequences: 16.23 2.93

Item #2 - Stressful * 4.34 0.81

Item #11 - Rewarding 3.57 1.04

Item #14 - Sacrifices * 4.51 0.82

Item #19 - Enriching 3.80 1.11 5. Organizational Outcomes: 16.43 2.45

Item #4 - Expensive * 4.17 0.98

Item #5 - Harmony 3.31 0.93

Item #13 - Asset 4.37 0.69

Item #18 - Unprofitable * 4.57 0.78 OVERALL SCORE 87.06 10.32 Notes. Asterisk (*) denotes that these WDS items were reverse-scored. All item scores ranged from one to five, yielding a minimum dimensional score of five and a maximum dimensional score of 20. The minimum and maximum overall score was 25 and 100, respectively. EXHIBIT 4 Paired Sample t-Tests Across Three Time Periods

Mean Change in WDS Scores--

Time 1 to Time 2 WDS Dimensions M SD df t Emotional Reactions 1.91 2.23 34 5.08 *** Judgments 1.40 2.40 34 3.45 ** Behavioral Reactions 2.06 2.01 34 6.04 *** Personal Consequences 1.03 2.68 34 2.23 * Organizational Outcomes 1.63 3.15 34 3.06 **

OVERALL SCORE 8.03 8.34 34 5.69 ***

Mean Change in WDS Scores--

Time 2 to Time 3 WDS Dimensions M SD df t Emotional Reactions 0.11 1.64 34 0.41 Judgments -0.49 1.50 34 -1.91 Behavioral Reactions -0.09 1.42 34 -0.36 Personal Consequences 0.29 2.36 34 0.72 Organizational Outcomes -0.14 1.73 34 -0.49

OVERALL SCORE -0.31 4.51 34 -0.41

Mean Change in WDS Scores--

Time 1 to Time 3 WDS Dimensions M SD df t Emotional Reactions 2.03 2.41 34 4.99 *** Judgments 0.91 1.84 34 2.94 ** Behavioral Reactions 1.97 2.08 34 5.61 *** Personal Consequences 1.31 2.51 34 3.1 ** Organizational Outcomes 1.49 2.83 34 3.1 **

OVERALL SCORE 7.71 8.05 34 5.67 *** Note. Sample size is 35 for all three time periods. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** P < .001.