At my current job we had a training season on diversity. The trainer stated that companies that have a diverse workforce and a diverse mangement perform better than companies that don’t because of their diversity. I asked what he was basing this on. He stated that it is proven by numerous studies. I then asked for the names and publishing information on these studies which he didn’t have. So are there really studies that prove diversity improves business performance? Does anyone has a cite for these studies?
I was told the same thing in my diversity training but no evidence was ever given. I believe that any evidence would be highly anecdotal as diversity is subjective and not easily measured. When I asked my instructor if hiring a person of another color from my hometown would add more diversity than hiring a white from another part of the country, I was told, “It depends.” :rolleyes:
Diversity of what:
Diversity of ideas? Diversity of educational background? Diverstiy of skin color?
Most people would never admit it directly, but they usually mean the 3rd option when they say “diversity”. I’d love to see the studies, too.
This is surely headed for GD…
Where I work, “diversity” means “diversity of language and culture”. We have dozens of languages and national backgrounds on hand, and I am sure it’s contributed to the success of the company.
Need someone who knows Thai or Serbian? Ask around. You’ll find someone, and you can check that your fonts are properly-displayed. Need someone who knows the culture of Europe or Asia for the new office? Ask around. What part were you interested in again? Need someone who can communicate with the suppliers in Bangalore, Taipei, or Quebec? No problem! More than half the employees speak at least two languages anyways…
Knowing in your bones that Yours Is Not The Only Way is a definite advantage.
Sunspace: I can see that if you’re involved in an internartional business, the diversity you mentioned would be a benefit.
I too, have attended training sessions where the statement : “Diversity strengthens your company” was made, but no proof of this statement was offered.
I’ve found that if you follow the letter and spirit of the regulations and hire the best prospect “Without regard to race, religion, national origin, etc., etc.”, your business is better off than hiring on the basis of non-qualifying factors for the sole purpose of diversity.
The trainer was referring to diversity of racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. However, he was very vague on almost everything he said.
As employees get increasingly involved in decision making at lower levels of an organization, the more important that the company provide them with diversity training. First it is a forum to familiarize people with the laws that govern the workplace on issues of race, color, religion, gender, national origin and disabilities. If employees are involved in any way in the hiring of others or the promotion of others, it is critical they know these things. What may be common sense to one person is not to another person, and the lack of training on these issues can impact an employer’s liability in law suits or discrimination suits that may be filed against them or employees working for them. Showing government agencies or judges or juries that you have educated employees on these issues is a necessity in any but the smallest of organizations.
Now having said that, and understanding that employees feel diversity is being shoved down their throats in many cases, there is some simple logic in having a diverse workforce. It is the RIGHT thing to do. It’s right because it helps to shape how we go about doing our work in an ever increasing competitive environment. “Like” people often think alike…It is generally referred to as “group think”. People start thinking and doing the same things. They form common languages. They self police thoughts and actions and even language to “fit in”. The less diverse the group, the easier it is to fall into this kind of pattern. If you want to compete and you want to survive in today’s world you need all the differences that people can bring. You want to avoid group think. You want and need step changes in how work gets done. You need openess to the “new”. If we can’t embrace the differences in people, our futures will be bleak sooner than we think. I think diversity in the workplace is a survival issue.
glass, the OP and some other posters are saying the “diversity training courses” seem to be full of vague, unsupported assertions and so those posters are asking for hard evidence supporting those assertions. I cannot see how your post answers the questions posted. It seems precisely like the generalities they already heard in the training sessions. The question asked is where are the studies supporting all those assertions and I cannot find the answer in your post.
Point well made, Sailor. I was merely attempting to state some common sense reasons for people to take diversity training seriously. If that is considered to be “off topic”, I appologize.
I think, if ethnicity has no impact on workplace performance (the argument of those who espouse workplace diversity), then I can see no reason why heterogenaity should be favorable to homogenaity. If you do your job well, white black, or purple, it shouldn’t make a damn bit of difference.
I think a diverse workplace is neat, and I feel lucky to be in one (I’m actually the only caucasian in a group of six…all the rest are all from China!), but, really, if people are people, diversity is moot. I mean, hell, where I work they’re all Asian, and we kick ass. It’s actually a less diverse environment than a lot of other places I’ve worked! We need affirmative action for white guys here, by the look of the office. Doesn’t mean squat, if you ask me. We get the job done, that’s what counts. The only time it matters is when we go out for authentic Chinese, and I don’t want to eat tendon or stomach without knowing about it first (they got two menus in Chinatown, one for the Chinese, and one for whitey).
[IMHO]The “diversity training” classes I’ve taken are full of PC gobbly-goop. How does a rational person take it seriously?[/IMHO]
“It is proven by numerous studies, but I can’t name even one.”
Those of us in the truth business have a technical description for claims of this sort. It’s a smoking load of crap.
You also must ask yourself what kind of studies could possibly exist that might resemble “proof” that diversity improves performance. Comparing firms performance and diversity wouldn’t do, as at best, it would only show that diversity and higher performance appear in the same companies–that isn’t proof of causation.
And looking at what happens after diversity increases wouldn’t due either, as you can never know if the diversity is what caused improvement or other factors.
Proof of causation would mean the researcher would have to increase and decrease diversity across many firms, industries and situations. This does not seem practical.
Stanford has done some studies. It’d be an understatement to say they are reputable.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/september20/diversity-920.html
You should be able to pick up things to search on further.
Diversity does permeate the biggest companies, especially in the tech field. IBM, Boeing, GE are examples where the diversity would blow your mind.
But check the link and hop to some search terms.
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2000/september20/diversity-920.html
I chopped the link somehow. Corrected above.
About ten years ago I was heavily involved with implementing diversity initiatives in the company where I was employed. I’ll try to find a cite, but there was at least one study where I did see the results.
The specific study had multiple groups of people of varying degrees of diversity: ethnic, cultural, age, gender, etc. The specific tasks that these groups were asked to complete were problem solving tasks. The findings were that the more diverse the team, the more and better were the proposed solutions. Homogenious groups (e.g. – all suburban white males in their 30s) had fewer and poorer suggestions.
Even without a great deal of thought, this makes common sense. The more varied the backgrounds of the team members, the more likely they’d “see” a different way of solving the problem.
Whether or not these types of studies are any indication that this would translate into a corporation’s success, I don’t know. But these are the types of studies that are used to rationalize the need for diversity beyond the ethical position that it is better to have an inclusive corporate culture than it is to have an exclusive culture. Exclusionary behavior and homogenious groups often breed racism, sexism, and lawsuits.
It might make “common sense” to you but to me the opposite makes common sense. People who share common outlooks, culture and backgrounds work together better than people who are very different. If this is not true I’d like to see some proof. Which is what the OP was asking for in the first place.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your statement. My attribution of “common sense” was intended to refer only to the study about brainstorming solutions to problems.
To your point, it tickled my memory. I think the study I saw also noted that homogeneous (spelled it right this time!) groups produced their results faster than the more diverse groups. This would support your conclusion.
Diversity can often create some conflict. Conflict, to the casual observer, would be considered a bad thing. Most companies should embrace conflict and leverage the conflict reolution tho their advantage. Conflict is good. While speed is something, it isn’t always good.
In dealing with worlkplace diversity, this has always been drilled into my head, and the Stanford studies support some of this:
"…Diversity also is based on informational differences, reflecting a person’s education and experience, and on values or goals that can influence what one perceives to be the mission of something as small as a single meeting or as large as a whole company. Diversity among employees can create better performance when it comes to creative tasks such as product development or cracking new markets. Managers have been trying to increase diversity to achieve the benefits of innovation and fresh ideas. Recently, Neale, with Gregory Northcraft of the University of Illinois and Karen Jehn of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, studied the effects of each kind of diversity on group performance.
“…The researchers found that informational diversity stirred constructive conflict, or debate, around the task at hand. That is, people deliberate about the best course of action. This is the type of conflict that absolutely should be engendered in organizations, says Neale.”
By the way, thanks Philster for your link. I haven’t had a chance to examine it yet though.
[off topic]
sailor, I see that you are not subscribed, but I cannot find a post where you’ve said that for whatever reason you won’t. Regardless, I would hate to lose you as a Doper. If indeed you plan on leaving us, this inconspicuous and humble poster would like you to reconsider.
[/off topic]
I think a lot of this discussion is missing one of the major points about diversity and diversity training.
Many companies need to make diversity work because restricting themselves to employing from and selling to one culture would destroy the company
I work in a large, multi-national, successful and which spends a lot of effort promoting and embracing diversity. I need to work with people in 4 different continents with multiple langauages and cultures. If I assume that everybody thinks like me then I am going to screw up