|
Article Excerpt
The workforce is becoming more diverse (Richard, Fubara, & Castillo, 2000; Rogovsky & Sims, 2002; Tayeb, 2005). For example, Williams and O'Reilly (1998) estimate that in the forthcoming decade in the USA, historically underrepresented groups such as women and ethnic minorities will fill 75% of all newly created jobs. The consequences of increased workplace diversity that includes not only gender and ethnicity or race, but also work group affiliation, life-style, age, level of education, career history, sexuality, religious perspective, cognitive style and so on (Anderson & Metcalf, 2003; Jackson et al., 1991; Triandis, 2003), will be complex to understand and to assess. The challenge for diversity trainers will be to find ways to maximize the benefits of diversity (Anderson & Metcalf, 2003; Gordon, 1995; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993) when it is manifest in so many different forms.
When it comes to strategies for tackling diversity issues, there is something of a divide between theory and practice. A variety of theoretical approaches has been utilized to better to understand stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination. Classic social psychological approaches look at the problem of bias reduction from a generally rigorous, theory-driven perspective (e.g. Allport, 1954; Amir, 1969; Dovidio, Gaertner, Stewart, Esses, & ten Vergert, 2004; Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; Hewstone & Brown, 1986; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Diversity management, a more recent endeavour, is grounded in 'real-world' practices in organizational environments. Via a number of routes (e.g. organizational ethos regarding recruitment and promotion procedures; staff training) the goal of diversity initiatives is to achieve 'full integration of members of minority social categories into the social, structural, and power relationships of an organization or institution' (Brewer, Hippel, & Gooden, 1999, p. 337).
The goals of social psychologists interested in intergroup conflict, stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination and those of diversity trainers are often similar. For example, both approaches were initially inspired by heinous acts of humankind toward those considered 'different'. The social psychology of prejudice became a topic of great interest particularly after the Second World War and Nazi Germany, while diversity issues engendered great interest particularly after the 1960s Black Power movement in the USA. As such, both have an underlying goal of improved intergroup relations. In spite of these similarities, though, they currently operate in a fairly separate fashion with limited dialogue. This article will consider how and why joint ventures between diversity trainers and academics can produce a more functional strategy for tackling stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination.
Our analysis falls into two main sections. First, we briefly set the scene with regards to diversity management. Our introduction to the diversity management literature will concentrate chiefly on one aspect of such management, diversity training (DT). Second, we consider some theoretical issues that can inform practitioners about practical approaches they could take in DT. Recognizing the huge variation in such training programmes, our strategy is to highlight and discuss a few basic, generic approaches that underpin many of the different exercises and programmes that are commonly used. We hope that these illustrations will underscore our case for the benefits of mutual, interdisciplinary learning.
Diversity training: Research status
Residing primarily in organizational and management journals is a small but growing body of literature that considers the effects of DT on reducing workplace inequity. Although DT has many purposes, a primary one is to facilitate the integration of minority groups into the workforce, usually by attempting to confer on the entire workforce the skills, knowledge and motivation to work productively alongside dissimilar others and/or to interact effectively with a diverse customer population. Methods are varied and include a mix of didactic (e.g. education, persuasion, lectures, videos) and interactive (e.g. discussions, role playing, simulation, exercises) approaches. In recent years, many employers have rolled out large-scale DT programmes. In fact, according to recent UK statistics, 69% of organizations have a diversity policy and 60% offer DT (Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development [CIPD], 2003). Moreover, 78% of respondents to the CIPD's 2004 training and development survey think DT is at least 'somewhat' important, with 32% seeing it as 'crucially' important (CIPD, 2004; both reports were based on samples of training managers randomly selected from the CIPD's member database).
Diversity training is promoted both as a resolution to problematic workplace relations (Naff & Kellough, 2003; Rynes & Rosen, 1995; Tan, Morris, & Romero, 1996, 2003) and as a medium with which to unleash the creative potential of diversity, such that organizational effectiveness is enhanced (Naff & Kellough, 2003). However, DT differs from the superordinate concept of diversity management in that it does not necessarily imply any background change in system-level structure, decision making or organization ethos (Richard et al., 2000; Wentling & Palmer-Rivas, 1999), an important point we return to later. Hence, DT might well be defined as any discrete programme, or set of programmes, which aims to influence participants to increase their positive--or decrease their negative--intergroup behaviours, such that less prejudice or discrimination is displayed towards others perceived as different in their group affiliation(s).
The process of developing good practices in diversity management, as with any relatively new endeavour, involves repetition and fine-tuning of both theory and practice. If we are to refine and develop a model or models of best practice, it is desirable to gain feedback as to the effectiveness of those bias reduction initiatives we implement. However, research into the effectiveness of DT is still in its infancy (Noe & Ford, 1992). In fact, DT sessions are often deemed successful even when assessment is missing entirely or limited to participants' ratings of quality directly after attending (Driscoll, Kokini, Katehi, Wright, & Percifield, 2003; Garcia et al., 2001).
Such situations arise because DT practitioners are, by necessity, pragmatic with regards to the level of rigour achievable in workplace-based research. Many DT practitioners do not have the background expertise in assessment and/or evaluation, (1) or if they do, do not have the time or money for it. Despite, or perhaps because of such constraints, it is rare to find DT practitioners or evaluators who have aligned themselves with an established theoretical framework (Roberson, Kulik, & Pepper, 2003; Triandis, Kurowski, & Gelfand, 1994); as a result, most evaluative studies to date have been exploratory in nature, and/or limited in scope. In this paper we demonstrate how DT practitioners might improve the product they deliver through a deeper appreciation of social psychological theory and research at the design and (to a lesser extent) evaluation stages.
Some social psychologists studying stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination have neglected real-world phenomena in favour of doing laboratory experiments. Dubious generalizations made from laboratory studies to the real world by social psychologists have, at times, alienated DT practitioners attempting to apply social psychological research and theory to DT situations. What works well in theory does not always work well in practice. To give an example (to be expanded upon later in this article), consider the Implicit Attitude Test (IAT; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). This on-line test assesses individuals' 'hidden' or implicit bias (e.g. in terms of race, age or gender). The assumption is that by informing IAT takers that they may not always act in as fair and unprejudiced a way as their self-concept maintains, dissonance (discomfort) will result, and they will be prompted to monitor their behaviour and, over time, express less day-to-day bias (e.g. Monteith, Voils, & Ashburn-Nardo, 2001). Although such effects are found to some extent in the laboratory, a far more varied pattern of results are obtained when used in DT settings (Driscoll, Pendry, & Field, 2004). In other words, under controlled laboratory conditions where stimuli are carefully presented and information often restricted, and where those taking the test are a relatively homogenous group, certain theoretical effects have been found that may not have been found under natural conditions where perceivers are a more heterogenous group and/or often have access to varied and complex stimulus information (see Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2006). Different, more powerful effects either mask the effect, or the effect does not obtain because of element(s) in the natural conditions that are not, as yet, incorporated into the theory.
Thus, for the collaboration between DT practitioners and academics to work, academics need to be more cognizant of real-world complications before generalizing laboratory phenomena, pay more attention to the successful innovations of DT practitioners in training sessions, and then follow up by considering their utility for social psychological theory and research.
How social psychological theory can help: Programme design
There are many different strategies and techniques in the diversity trainer's toolkit, but which methods work best and for which population? Social psychology researchers have noted that it is about time we began to provide answers to such questions (Dovidio et al., 2004; Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Our goal here is to highlight a few approaches that are commonly used by diversity trainers, suggest some new approaches that capitalize on the social cognition approach to stereotyping (Driscoll, 1999), and seek a preliminary evaluation of their likelihood of success based upon our knowledge of the extant social psychological literature and their initial success in DT sessions. We have grouped approaches as follows: classic approaches (informative/enlightenment; dissonance and guilt-inducing; social identity) and newer approaches (use of cognitive tasks to create awareness of own bias).
Informative/englightenment
This first example is more a category of initiatives, rather than any one in particular. These programmes aim to inform participants, raising awareness of the continuing existence of societal or workplace bias and on occasion emphasizing particular groups' historic misdemeanours in this respect. There may be an emphasis upon highlighting social norms of equality. Enlightenment may be used to encourage participants to take the perspective of members of other groups, in an attempt to create emotional empathy (Dovidio et al., 2004). Many of these types of programmes also detail the benefits of having a more diverse workforce and employees' legal responsibilities under the latest anti-discrimination laws. In this way, such programmes aim to persuade participants to welcome or 'value' diversity, encourage more positive group relations and adherence to anti-discrimination laws, and ultimately, decrease the risk of organizations facing legal action over employee bias.
These are admirable objectives, but a social psychological analysis of the informative approach would not be very optimistic about achieving all the aforementioned outcomes. It is not easy to persuade members of traditionally advantaged or disproportionately represented groups to change biased behaviour. Prejudice is often based on incorrect information, but the idea that it can be stopped merely by providing the prejudiced with accurate information has been shown to be naive. Prejudice is underpinned by positive or negative emotional reactions (i.e. a strong affective component) and biased interpretation of information and experience (Dovidio et al., 2004; Milton, 1972; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000), both of which serve to maintain or strengthen entrenched stereotypical beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Within the attitudes literature, merely providing factual information has been shown to be often ineffectual as a means of evoking attitude change, especially where the attitudes concerned are affectively based (Shavitt, 1990).
Moreover, it may be difficult to evoke trainees' sense of personal responsibility for bias via informational means alone. For example, claims with regard to the traditional advantage of Whites may be decried by Whites themselves, who explain in-group advantages by favourably evaluating their own group, or by recharacterizing their self-concept in terms of a different identity, thus averting negative impact on their self-esteem (see Doosje, Spears, Ellemers, & Koomen, 1999; Mussweiler, Gabriel, & Bodenhausen, 2000). Thus, information alone--even information that clearly demonstrates bias--is unlikely to be useful for correcting discriminatory behaviour or prompting more socially equitable behaviour. What is often simultaneously needed is an impetus to accept and be motivated to change one's biased behaviour. In a practical sense, this finding suggests that DT programmes utilizing information/enlightenment might usefully add components to the training that evoke personal responsibility.
Another result of confronting historically advantaged groups with their bias is that it can incite their anger, contempt or feelings of persecution (Driscoll, Pendry, & Field, 2006; Mollica, 2003), leading to backlash against diversity programmes to the detriment of intergroup relations...
|
