Abstract
While the legal motive focuses on legal compliance and the branding motive emphasizes making the workplace representative of the consumer market to gain a bigger share, the value-in-diversity motive focuses exclusively on the value that is attributed to the workplace as a result of increased diversity. The value of diversity purported by this motive transcends the visible aspects of diversity, which organizations might obtain when motivated by legal compliance or branding, and features both the detectable aspects of diversity as well as those not as easily detectable. Hence, the purpose of this chapter is to clearly define and address the original intended usage of terms among academicians, the law, and businesses regarding diversity: modern diversity (visual diversity vs. innovative diversity). Upon having a clearly defined understanding of visual diversity and innovative diversity, implementation of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) within diversity will be addressed.
TopDiversity
Research over the past 50 years has shown little consensus about what constitutes diversity or how it affects organizational processes and outcomes (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). A common definition of diversity refers to the degree to which a workgroup or organization is heterogeneous with respect to personal and functional attributes (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). The extant literature on organizational diversity has produced inconsistent results on effects of diversity, with some researchers finding beneficial effects, such as increased creativity, productivity, and quality (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000; Ely & Thomas, 2001; Polzer, Milton, & Swann, 2002; Swann, Kwan, Polzer, & Milton, 2003; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993), and others finding a detrimental influence on organizational outcomes—particularly through process losses, increases in conflict, decreases in social integration, and inhibition of decision-making and change processes (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998; Jehn et al., 1999; Mannix & Neale, 2006; Morrison & Miliken, 2000; Westphal & Milton, 2000). Following from such inconsistencies, diversity has been dubbed a double-edge sword for organizations (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
Key Terms in this Chapter
Workforce Diversity: The systematic and planned commitment by the organization to recruit, retain, reward, and promote a heterogeneous mix of employees.
Cultural Diversity: Refers to the diversity that results from the presence of a variety of cultures, given individuals from the same culture will “share basic values and beliefs” and form an identity based on their culture.
Social Category Diversity: Refers to explicit differences among group members in social category membership, such as race, gender, and ethnicity.
Informational Diversity: Will likely exist in a group of members with varied educational backgrounds.
Diversity: Refers to the degree to which a workgroup or organization is heterogeneous with respect to personal and functional attributes.
Diversity (Academicians): Refers to the co-existence of employees from various socio-cultural backgrounds within an organization, such that diversity includes, but not limited to cultural factors such as race, gender, age, color, physical ability, and ethnicity.
Value Diversity: Occurs when members of a workgroup differ in terms of what they think the group’s real task, goal, target, or mission should be.
Visual Diversity: Due to legality, is often viewed in terms of surface-level social categorizations, commonly known as visual diversity, such as race, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender. Visual diversity is also commonly referred to as the colorblind approach.
Global Diversity: Defined as addressing issues of difference on a global scale to capitalize on the diversity of all employees.