In recent years, there has been some debate about the benefits of emphasizing diversity rather than inclusiveness, which some see as a way of bringing people together. Although the difference between the two might be one of semantics, it often means that the management of diversity is highly charged and politicized. As recently noted by a leading diversity expert:

Organizations have expended significant resources in this area in an effort to improve the bottom line, to become an employer of choice, to avoid lawsuits, and to do the right thing. Diversity is also one of the most difficult initiatives to implement in organizations because there are such diverse views on what diversity is and how deeply it should be woven into an organization’s culture. Diversity can be difficult also because the dimensions of diversity are closely tied to an individual’s personal beliefs, perceptions, and life experiences. These personal beliefs often present barriers to full inclusion and participation in the workforce.35

The extent to which a universal concept of management , which leads to standardized management practices, should be replaced by a cultural relativity concept of management , which calls for molding management practices to the workforce’s different sets of values, beliefs, attitudes, and patterns of behaviors, is an extraordinarily complex question. The proponents of universalism believe that fitting management practices to a diverse workforce sows the seeds for a permanent culture clash in which perceived inequities lead to intense workplace conflict. For instance, when the Lotus software company extended benefits coverage to homosexual couples, unmarried heterosexual employees living with a partner felt that they had been unfairly left out. Conversely, the proponents of relativity argue that failure to adapt HR practices to the needs of a diverse population may alienate much of the workforce and reduce their potential contributions .

Although employee diversity is a fact of life, the dominant groups in organizations are still composed of white men. Some argue that a long-established corporate culture is very resistant to change and that this resistance is a major roadblock for women and minorities seeking to survive and prosper in a corporate setting.

Although employee diversity can lead to greater creativity and better problem solving, it can also lead to open conflict and chaos if there is mistrust and lack of respect among groups. This means that as organizations become more diverse, they face greater risks that employees will not work together effectively. Interpersonal friction rather than cooperation may become the norm.

Shared experiences are often strongly reinforced by segmented communication channels in the workplace. One study found that most communication within organizations occurs between members of the same sex and race. This was found to be true across all professional categories, even at the top, where the number of women and minorities is very small.36

The presence of segmented communication poses three major problems to businesses. First, the organization cannot fully capitalize on the perspectives of diverse employees if they remain confined to their own groups. Second, segmented communication makes it more difficult to establish common ground across various groups.37 Third, women and minorities often miss opportunities or are unintentionally penalized for not being part of the mainstream communication networks. The case at the end of this chapter “Hiring Who You Know as a Threat to Diversity” suggests that heavy reliance on employee referrals and the use of social media to identify prospective employees may inadvertently reinforce segmented communication networks and limit an organization’s diversity efforts .

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) was imposed by government in the 1960s rather than self-initiated. In the vast majority of U.S. organizations, it was a forced change rather than a voluntary one. One side effect of forced compliance has been the reinforcement of a belief among some managers and mainstream employees that organizations have to compromise their standards to comply with EEO laws. Some have seen EEO laws as legislation of a “forced diversity” that favors political solutions over performance and/or competence.

Given this background, it is perhaps not surprising that twice as many white men as women and minorities feel that promotions received by the latter groups can be attributed to affirmative action.38 This belief presents two problems. First, women and minorities in positions of authority and responsibility may not be taken as seriously as white men are. Second, the belief that white men are getting the short end of the stick may provoke some of them to vent their frustration against those employees (women and minorities) whom they believe are getting an unfair advantage.

It is important that managers deal with these issues, because affirmative action is here to stay, even though political and legal support for this type of program may be waning as it nears its 50th birthday. Most current polls confirm that big business’s commitment to affirmative action continues to be strong, even though most firms now prefer to use the term “diversity” and recently the term “inclusiveness” is generally paired with diversity.39

At many large companies, CEOs regularly meet with top managers to ensure that diversity goals are being met. These include firms such as Bank of America (187,000 employees), IBM (387,000 employees), Marriott (151,000 employees), JPMorgan Chase (183,000 employees), Ernst & Young (121,000 employees), AT&T (302,000 employees), and Xerox (54,000 employees).40

The main complaint among female and minority employees is that they lack career growth opportunities. The perception that their upward mobility is thwarted grows stronger at higher levels as women and minorities bump up against the glass ceiling , an invisible barrier in the organization that prevents them from rising to any higher position. Lower job satisfaction translates into higher resignation rates, with a resulting loss of valuable talent and greater training costs because of high turnover.

As minorities grow both proportionately and absolutely in the U.S. population, competition for jobs and opportunities is likely to become much stronger. Already there are rising tensions among minorities jockeying for advancement. Employers are being put into the uncomfortable position of having to decide which minority is most deserving.41 Consider these examples:

• ▪ “Blacks have been too successful at the expense of everyone else,” grumbles Peter Rogbal, a Mexican American captain in the San Francisco Fire Department. “Other groups have been ignored to placate the black community.”

• ▪ African Americans fear that newly arrived blacks from places such as Nigeria, Ethiopia, Somalia, Ghana, and Kenya will take away job opportunities from U.S.-born blacks. In the words of Columbia University historian Eric Foner, “Historically, every immigrant group has jumped over American-born blacks. The final irony would be if African immigrants did, too.”42

There are no fail-proof techniques for effectively handling these challenges. There is, however, one principle that managers should always keep in mind: Treat employees as individuals, not as members of a group. Many of these challenges then become much more manageable.