Extra

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 1 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

CHAPTER NINE

Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines

Allan H. Church, Christopher T. Rotolo, Amanda C. Shull, and Michael D. Tuller

Introduction Fundamentally, organization development (OD) is the implementation of a process of planned change for the purpose of organizational improvement (Waclawski & Church, 2002). From our perspective, OD reflects a normative or values-based approach to how organizations should function; it is ground- ed in the basics of social systems thinking, action learning, effective consult- ing and intervention skills, a well-rounded toolkit of tried and true practices and processes, and—perhaps most important—the integral use of data, feed- back, or information obtained from employees at all levels to truly drive or- ganizational transformation. While other OD practitioners may have entirely different definitions, and this has been heavily debated in the field (Church, 2001), for the purposes of this chapter our approach to OD is a normative and data-driven one.

It is from this mindset that we approach the discussion of engaging in what could be called inclusive organization development—that is, the full integra- tion of diversity and inclusion (D&I) messages, behaviors, practices, policies, and cultural indicators (that is, what we will collectively call the D&I per- spective) into mainstream OD and related industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology-based efforts in organizations. While many HR organizations, such as the Conference Board and the Human Capital Institute, have fully embraced the D&I perspective and have regular conferences on the subject, this is not the case with many of the more specialized subdisciplines of HR- related practice. Although OD, D&I, and I-O as fields blossomed together culturally (at least in the United States) at essentially the same time during the 1960s, and in many ways they have very similar normative goals at their core (such as striving to create multicultural and inclusive organizations that value diversity and empowerment), they have as yet to fully integrate with each other in organizational practice. From an applied I-O psychology per- spective, the only book to really focus on this area was Jackson and As- sociates (1992), in which the emphasis was primarily on diversity in the workplace, and D&I has only recently begun to enter into the lexicon of I-O conferences and general I-O related textbooks (for example, Levy, 2010). Al- though there have been texts dedicated to the construct of diversity, applica- tion and integration with specific areas of I-O-related practice has been lack- ing. The American Psychologist did run a special issue on diversity and lead- ership recently (Chin, 2010), but this is really only scratching the surface for applied organizational psychologists.

From an OD perspective, more progress has been made. Although many of the great “classic” texts of OD (for example, Burke, 1982; Cummings & Wor- ley, 1993; French & Bell, 1990; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Schein, 1985) make no substantive mention whatsoever of any concepts related to D&I, in more re- cent editions the concepts have started to emerge in the subject index (for example, Cummings & Worley, 2009; McLean, 2006). However, we would argue that this still remains an area gravely lacking in focus in many texts. There have certainly been pockets of highly integrated activity among OD, HR, and D&I, including the work of Jackson and Hardiman (1994), with what they call multicultural organization development (MCOD); that of Holvino, Ferdman, and Merrill-Sands (2004) from a change management framework; that of others in business school contexts (for example, Kanter, 1977; Thomas & Gabarro, 1999); and some very interesting and personal ar- ticles published in the OD Practitioner, including a special issue in the spring of 2010 (Royal & Vogelsang, 2010). However, for the average OD pro- fessional, exposure to D&I-related concepts is likely limited.

Yet when we step back and think about the fundamental nature of a D&I change agenda—which many corporations clearly have taken on over the past decade, given shifting demographic trends and changes in generational differences, technology, and the global workforce (see Hankin, 2005; Karoly

P R E V CHAPTER EIGHT: Inclusive Human Resource Management: Best Practices and the Chang…

⏮ N E X T

CHAPTER TEN: The Development of Inclusive Leadership Practice and Processes ⏭

#$!

% Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 2 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

& Panis, 2004; Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000)—we have to stop and wonder (1) what is the most effec- tive means for practicing inclusive OD, and (2) what might some of the chal- lenges or barriers be to such a seemingly natural integration of two fields that were both in some ways outgrowths of the progressive humanistic and social justice movements of the 1960s (for example, Brazzel, 2007; Jackson & Hardiman, 1994)? Our collective experience with organizational change efforts in general and specifically with the D&I agenda at PepsiCo and other organizations over the last decade indicates to us that practicing inclusive OD means applying a diverse and inclusive mindset and framework to every core HR, I-O, or OD process we are developing and deploying. In short, we believe that the only way to truly drive D&I as a transformational change ef- fort is to fully integrate it into every aspect of one's assessment and develop- ment efforts. It should not be a standalone change effort nor perceived by employees as one (Holvino et al., 2004), but rather incorporated into all as- pects of the organization to ensure a truly sustainable transformation to achieve a diverse and inclusive culture.

The Inclusive OD Paradox As reviewed extensively elsewhere (for example, Church, 2001; Waclawski & Church, 2002), there are almost as many definitions of the field of OD as there are individual practitioners, and unlike in other professions, such as medicine or law, anyone with any type of background or training can decide to call him- or herself an OD practitioner and begin doing OD work. While this has led some practitioners to call for changes in the field to ensure con- sistency of competency and approach, such as more accreditation or certifi- cations, at its core OD remains reflective of one of its basic founding values: by its very nature it is an inclusive field. As a construct, inclusion involves being open to a variety of ideas and approaches; the toolkit of the OD practi- tioner certainly reflects that diversity of practice, background, and approach. That said, and as already noted, OD as a field has not entirely or overwhelm- ingly embraced the concept of creating a diverse and inclusive environment for others.

In fact, in a comprehensive OD values study conducted in the 1990s (Church, Burke, & Van Eynde, 1994) “diversifying the workplace” ranked eighteenth out of nineteen items in the humanistic factor dimension, and promoting business effectiveness as a factor overall was ranked higher as a general cluster of items. Although we suspect that those rankings might be very different today among practitioners, that result clearly indicates the in- herent disconnect between OD as it approaches its own practice and profes- sional membership criteria and what practitioners value regarding the meth- ods and models they use in organizations. This does not mean that OD pro- fessionals do not seek diversity of thought and opinion in their data collec- tion efforts during interventions—far from it—but their ultimate goal is sel- dom tethered to driving an inclusive environment (unless that is the ex- pressed requirement from the client). Clearly this needs to change, and we hope that this chapter will prove useful to practitioners in driving more in- clusive OD (and I-O related) interventions.

The purpose of this chapter, then, is to focus on how best to identify and use some of the key tools and processes available to the OD (and I-O) practition- er and on how to ensure that these integrate with and reinforce the overall D&I perspective at the broadest level. Although there are many areas and as- pects of organizations on which we could focus (for example, the Burke- Litwin model, 1992, has twelve distinct dimensions), we decided to narrow the scope of this discussion to four key data-driven OD processes that most organizations have in place today in some form or fashion:

Organization or employee surveys

360-degree feedback

Performance management

Talent management

Although corporate mission and values statements are critically important, as are training efforts and selection programs, here we emphasize OD inter- ventions and processes that collect data and deliver feedback to drive change —particularly in light of (1) our contention that these are the most powerful tools for ensuring transformation and (2) our belief that shifting an organi- zation's culture to one that is more inclusive requires a systems approach that is mutually reinforcing across multiple types of measurement, reward, and decision-making processes.

In each section we begin by describing the OD process itself and why it is im- portant for driving change; we then provide recent benchmark data from two different sources regarding the current levels of integration between D&I and OD efforts among Fortune 500 companies; and finally, we explore the integration and evo ​lution of the D&I agenda in these four core people pro- cesses as implemented at PepsiCo, a multinational consumer products orga- nization with a long history of highly effective D&I efforts. We then discuss some important observations and challenges associated with practicing in- clusive OD effectively.

Integrating Diversity and Inclusion into Key Organization Development Processes Based on our experience, the organizational survey is one of the most power-

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 3 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

ful tools of the OD practitioner. Although recent articles (for example, Hansen, 2010) have questioned the movement toward what some would consider the softer aspects, such as the internal measurement of employee engagement as it relates to the construct of D&I efforts, rather than focusing solely on the hard metrics of diversity, we believe this is an important evolu- tion. We begin this section with a discussion of survey programs and then move into the related data-driven OD methods of 360-degree feedback, per- formance management, and talent management.

D&I and Organizational or Employee Surveys Employee surveys began in industry primarily as static attitudinal and opin- ion-based measures (for example, focused on job satisfaction). However, over the last twenty to thirty years they have evolved into a far more strategic tool for OD practitioners that, when executed correctly, can produce highly actionable and meaningful diagnostic and predictive analytics (Kraut, 2006). Some of the content areas to which employee surveys have been applied over the years include turnover, likelihood of local unionization efforts, potential for health and safety violations, action planning effectiveness, sales, counter- productive work behavior, confidence in strategic direction, process efficien- cy, manager quality, and bottom-line outcome measures (for example, Church & Waclawski, 2001; Schiemann & Morgan, 2006; Wiley, 2010). Em- ployee surveys have become such a mainstay in the OD practitioner's toolkit that it is hard to imagine an OD intervention without some type of survey in- volved. This is largely because organizational surveys are one of the best methods for (1) communicating key messages to all employees involved (in those cases in which the questions asked are a clear indication of what is im- portant to management), and (2) measuring the attitudes, opinions, and be- haviors of employees both initially at the start of a large scale change effort as well as over time. As a tool for organizational change, the key is the use of the survey data to create meaningful change for the organization by asking the right questions (relative to the change one is trying to drive) and then do- ing something with the responses. Prior research, for example, has shown that just sharing survey data with employees but taking no action as a result yields the same lower levels of satisfaction over time as doing nothing at all (Church & Oliver, 2006). Taking action against priorities is the key to a suc- cessful OD survey-related intervention.

This is why using an organizational survey program to drive culture change in the area of D&I (and particularly the inclusive culture component) is so vital for practitioners. Although for years many organizations have been ana- lyzing their standard survey by comparing results across different groups (such as women of color, men of color, White women, White men) to look for trends, this approach does not leverage the power of an organizational sur- vey for driving an inclusive culture change. Rather, integrating items that specifically address D&I-related aspects of management, organizational cul- ture, training and development processes, senior leadership behaviors, and the like into a standard core organizational survey sends a clear and signifi- cant message regarding the importance of the D&I agenda.

Many companies today are following this approach (which was not the case just ten years ago). For example, a recent benchmark study conducted for the MayflowerGroup (a survey consortium) found that 89 percent of mem- ber companies responding had integrated specific D&I related questions into their primary employee surveys (that is, where the terms diversity and/or inclusion were used in the item wording itself). Although the overall number of items needed might not be that large (for example, this benchmark indi- cated an average 3.6 items or about 6 percent of the total questions asked), it still demonstrates to employees how management views the importance of diversity and inclusion. A similar benchmark study of The Conference Board's Council of Talent Management Executives (I & II) yielded somewhat lower percentages, at 52 percent of companies with integrated D&I items, but the average number of items was slightly higher, at 4.2 or 7 percent over- all (for details regarding these benchmark studies, contact the Mayflower- Group and The Conference Board).

In contrast to this more integrated approach, some companies have elected to develop and administer a special survey focused solely on D&I issues. Al- though this results in more data (because the survey is entirely D&I-related), our recommendation is to ultimately fully integrate that content into the core employee survey programs so that the D&I agenda does not appear to stand on its own. This also makes it more likely that the D&I content will be sustainable; this is less likely when there two separate survey efforts must be managed over time (which can increase administration and response burden).

T H E P E P S I CO O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L H E A LT H S U R V E Y D & I J O U R N E Y

PepsiCo's global employee survey, called the Organizational Health Survey (OHS), is conducted every other year and is administered to all of the organi- zation's three hundred thousand plus employees worldwide. It focuses on employee engagement and the drivers of engagement, capturing attitudes about the company, job and career, compensation and benefits, customer orientation, manager quality, and the work environment. Translated into over forty languages, the OHS survey has become a vital mechanism for dri- ving change throughout the organization.

As the company has transformed the strategy and execution of its D&I initia- tives, so too has the OHS evolved over time to support this agenda. Although surveying at PepsiCo was commonplace within each respective business, it wasn't until the 1990s that a consistent enterprise-wide survey program was

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 4 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

administered. Initial OHS administrations dedicated little attention in the survey to D&I-specific efforts, other than the usual analyses by demographic groups as noted earlier, as the company was going through tremendous change involving divestitures and acquisitions (Thomas & Creary, 2009). However, by the mid- to late 1990s, the D&I journey was beginning to take shape, and by 2000, with Steve Reinemund as the new CEO and highly visi- ble champion of the D&I agenda, the company began to undergo significant change with regard to how it defined, measured, celebrated, and cultivated diversity and inclusion.

After the results from the more generic 2000 OHS were published, senior leaders realized that the data from the survey did not reflect what they were seeing and hearing from employees, albeit anecdotally. PepsiCo's Ethnic Ad- visory Board, a group of leaders from both within and outside the company tasked with providing guidance on D&I matters, suggested that PepsiCo con- duct a more focused research effort rather than wait for the limited informa- tion provided by the current OHS. A series of focus groups and interviews was launched to determine the major issues and barriers toward becoming a more inclusive culture. The output of this research led to a unique sixty-item Inclusion Survey designed specifically to gain a deeper understanding of ex- isting practices, attitudes, and opinions regarding the current state of D&I efforts across the company. What was so unique about this survey at the time was that very few, if any, organizations had embarked on such a highly focused survey program on diversity and inclusion. Exhibit 9.1 provides ex- amples of the questions included in this initial survey.

Exhibit 9.1. Sample Items from the 2001 Diversity and Inclusion Survey at PepsiCo

A business case for focusing on diversity has been communicated to me.

I receive regular and consistent messages about the diversity initiatives being implemented in the company.

I have available to me communication channels where I can openly talk about my diversity related issues and concerns.

The leaders of this company inspire me to embrace the notion of inclusion.

I am comfortable with the idea of being managed by someone who's different from me—physically, socially or culturally.

Everyone in this company is encouraged to develop greater cultural awareness.

I can bring all of myself into this organization—it's a place for me to grow and develop without being unfairly judged by others.

My manager is held accountable in his/her performance review for creating an inclusive work environment.

My manager has the cultural competence (knowledge and skills) to effectively manage a diverse team or workgroup.

This company's commitment to diversity and inclusion are compelling reasons for me to continue working here.

The Inclusion Survey, which was administered to all domestic exempt (that is, salaried) PepsiCo employees in 2001, was intended to provide a baseline regarding the evolution of the D&I agenda for the organization and could be used to identify “hotspots” that needed to be addressed through targeted ac- tion plans in 2002 and beyond. Perhaps more important (and as noted earli- er), at the time administering such a survey was also intended to communi- cate to employees PepsiCo's commitment to developing a more inclusive culture.

Although conducting such a targeted survey was seen by some as a potential risk (for example, the mere act of gathering this information would clearly raise expectations in the eyes of employees to do something with the data), there was sufficient energy and support from senior leadership to move ahead with the project regardless of the outcome. In the end, the learnings from the Inclusion Survey results were immense. The insights derived from the analyses led to several vital actions. First, the 2002 OHS was redesigned to fully integrate the items into the core survey going forward. Second, a new corporate-sponsored multitiered training and D&I development curriculum was developed and launched. Third, in 2003 and again in 2005, quarterly inclusion pulse surveys were administered, focusing on the impact of the company's D&I training agenda and serving as both a Level 2 and 3 training evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) and a means to track progress on the numerous initiatives taking place in the organization. Finally, the D&I messages and content began to be integrated into other core HR develop- ment processes as well (there is more on these later in the chapter).

From a survey perspective, the redesigned OHS in 2002 included many more items devoted to D&I than in the past. Questions covered company leadership, culture, career, and manager quality (see Table 9.1 for more ex- amples of the OHS D&I-related items). This allowed senior leaders to better understand the pervasiveness of the issues uncovered in the focus groups and the Inclusion Survey, and allowed the company to track progress regard- ing its cultural change efforts over time. Many of these same items remain in PepsiCo's ongoing OHS program.

Table 9.1. A Sample of Diversity and Inclusion Items Used in PepsiCo's Or- ganizational Health Survey from 2002 to Present

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 5 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

Leadership

Senior management (your senior leadership team) has taken ownership for the company's diversity and inclusion initiatives.

I see diversity reflected in the management of this company.

Culture

Since PepsiCo has implemented the Inclusion Training, I have seen improvements in our culture—it is more inclusive than before.

I believe we will have a competitive advantage with a more diverse workforce.

My work group has a climate in which diverse perspectives are valued.

I am aware of my company's diversity/inclusion initiatives.

I am comfortable being in this company, even when I am seen as different in some way.

Win with diversity and inclusion (Values Item).

Career

There is an equal opportunity for people to have a successful career at my company, regardless of their differences or background.

Promotions and assignments at my company are based on a fair and objective assessment of people's skills and performance.

Career advancement opportunities (for example, vacancies, promotions, project teams, etc.) within the organization are clearly communicated to all employees.

Manager

My manager recognizes diversity as a business imperative and takes specific actions to drive it.

My manager values people with different perspectives and experiences.

My manager or supervisor treats me with respect.

My manager supports and encourages my involvement in diversity- and/or inclusion-related activities.

The inclusion pulse surveys, punctuated by the biennial OHS, enabled Pepsi- Co to track the implementation of the inclusion training as well as to moni- tor the impact that the initiatives were having on the organization. For ex- ample, the item “Since PepsiCo has implemented the Inclusion Training, I have seen improvements in our culture—it is more inclusive than before” gained thirty-nine points over the three years it was tracked. Similarly, the pulse survey item “I receive regular and consistent messages about the diver- sity initiatives being implemented in the company” gained over fourteen points in the same time period.

The D&I journey was challenging and often met with resistance, as Thomas and Creary (2009) describe in their Harvard Business School case on the change effort. Yet PepsiCo met many of its D&I goals. The OHS was a vital tool in this transformation, as both a means to track progress and provide scorecard information as well as a platform for communicating the impor- tance of D&I in everything the company did.

O H S TO D A Y A N D B E Y O N D

Today, the biennial OHS is still a vital part of organization change at Pepsi- Co. The pulse inclusion survey, however, has been replaced by a twenty-five- item Engagement Survey that measures the company's engagement index as well as key items known to drive engagement. Although D&I is still a key area in the Engagement Survey, many of the items on the pulse survey no longer pertain (for example, the initial phases I, II and III of Inclusion train- ing were completed in 2008 and remain in maintenance mode primarily for new employees), or are no longer actionable because they consistently ob- tained a 95 percent favorable or higher response (for example, those items regarding the importance of the business case for D&I). In short, the compa- ny decided it no longer needed to measure some of the basics of the con- struct of D&I.

That said, the OHS remains heavily focused on D&I from a cultural perspec- tive, which is where the company's overall strategy has shifted, particularly with respect to the notion of Talent Sustainability (PepsiCo Inc., 2011). Pro- fessional employees taking the 2011 OHS encountered about 11 percent of the total OHS items dedicated to D&I topics (this is not including the many follow-up questions that are asked if the respondent answers neutrally or unfavorably).

In addition to item content, there are two other ways in which PepsiCo is leveraging OHS to aid in the D&I journey. One is its data analytics. Typically, an insights presentation of one hundred pages or more is created for each ethnic group (analyzed within group and by gender), providing a deep dive into issues specific to the particular subgroup. Within these reports (as well as the main overall report), the company uses various statistical analyses to

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 6 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

illuminate the relationships between items. For example, we have found that the item “My manager supports and encourages my involvement in diversity and/or inclusion related activities” has a strong positive relationship with almost every other item on the survey. More specifically, employees who an- swer favorably to this item are also more likely to give favorable ratings in the other areas measured by the OHS. Conversely, employees who are less than favorable on the item are less favorable on the other areas as well. This strong relationship indicates to us how the success of diversity and inclusion initiatives is often predicated on direct and meaningful support from man- agers and supervisors. This finding has also proven invaluable to other orga- nizations when benchmarking with customers and other business partners in support of their developing or ongoing D&I efforts. Finally, it sends a powerful message to senior leaders and managers about the importance of support for employees in engaging in the D&I agenda.

The second area in which PepsiCo leverages the OHS beyond the typical question set is in the use of Employee Value Propositions or EVPs (Barrow & Mosley, 2005). Although part of OHS, the EVPs do not assess attitudes per se, but rather the relative importance of certain aspects of work based on employee rankings. Employees are asked to examine a list of twenty-three value propositions (such as a relaxed and fun atmosphere, job security, cor- porate social responsibility) and answer questions about which are most and least important to them. The organization then calculates a score for each EVP (the probability of being in the “most important” list). These scores can then be used for employee segmentation to identify pockets of individuals who share the same value propositions. Where this is helpful, for example, is in understanding differences in perceived importance of various facets of the EVP by different subgroups of employees (such as people of color, females, generational cohorts, and so on). In other words, whereas the main OHS items help us understand where employees believe the company is doing well versus not so well, the EVPs allow us to quantitatively get beneath these numbers by examining what's important to the individuals providing the ratings. For example, if a group of Latino executives is unfavorable toward items about career orientation, we might find through the EVP analysis that some are more interested in the pay that goes along with the advancement, whereas others are more interested in the power and influence associated with it. Action planning around these two subgroups might be completely different based on this insight.

It should be clear by now that overall there has been a symbiotic relationship between OHS and the D&I agenda at PepsiCo for the last decade. In general, the OHS survey program continues to innovate so that it remains the main vehicle for driving organization change.

D&I and 360-Degree Feedback Although surveys are extremely important tools, not every individual manag- er can expect to receive a report, nor are their individual behaviors assessed via this method. This is where multisource or 360-degree feedback plays an important part in the OD and D&I change process. Tools such as 360-degree feedback are the primary means by which organizations tie their corporate values and key competencies to individual behaviors of leaders and man- agers (Bracken, Timmreck, & Church, 2001), usually via some type of formal leadership model or framework.

The process is similar to a survey program, but the focal target is an individ- ual rather than a group or business unit. One of the strengths of a 360-de- gree feedback process is that it provides a robust behavioral assessment gathered from a number of different sources with various perspectives on behaviors associated with a given leadership model. The key assumption of 360-degree feedback from an OD perspective is that feedback from multiple sources will enhance self-awareness, which in turn will lead to a change in specific behaviors relative to what is being measured. Research (for example, Church, 1997) has shown that managers with higher self-awareness of what is being measured tend to be better performers. This is where the content of the competency model that forms the basis of a 360-degree feedback pro- gram becomes critical, however, because if diversity and in​​clusion (that is, inclusive behaviors and competencies) are not integrated into the 360-de- gree feedback process, then they are essentially set apart from what is con- sidered “effective leadership” for a given organization. This disconnect can send an unintended message to employees that leadership means one thing and inclusive behaviors are something else. Moreover, although D&I items may or may not necessarily be determined through statistical analysis to be predictors of specific performance outcomes of interest today, from an OD normative perspective and based on current and future trends in the work- place (for example, Meister & Willyerd, 2010), we believe that D&I-related behaviors should be part of any formal feedback program. Whether real or aspirational in nature, if diversity and inclusion are important to an organi- zation's business and/or people development strategy they should be part of the formal leadership competency model and the subsequent 360-degree feedback process.

In the MayflowerGroup benchmark study noted earlier, about 52 percent of companies responding had currently incorporated specific D&I competen- cies into their leadership frameworks, and 68 percent of the Conference Board's Council of Talent Management Executives (I & II) reported doing the same. In both studies, many companies indicated that they were heading in this direction but had not yet achieved the goal. It is important to remem- ber that it takes significant time and resources to change something as fun- damental to an organization as its leadership competency model. Surveys are far easier to modify within a given year or two than leadership models be- cause the latter tend to become very integrated into other elements of a

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 7 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

broader leadership development program (for example, career resources, toolkits, training programs, interview guides, and talent management processes).

However, it is also important to note that simply collecting behavioral infor- mation about someone does not necessarily lead to successful change (re- gardless of the intent of that change). Although it communicates, just as a survey does, what is important to management, from an OD perspective there are several other factors to consider in terms of ensuring that a 360- degree feedback program provides the maximum value to an organization.

First, the feedback itself is critical. Individuals need to be informed about their strengths and development opportunities to understand how to im- prove their performance in a manner that is easily interpreted and under- stood. This means that feedback should be provided in a format that increas- es the individual's ability to interpret and accept it despite potential negative elements. It is also helpful if the feedback is organized around a core set of competencies or key attributes. In the context of driving a D&I agenda, for example, it is far more meaningful and impactful to recipients if the feedback is provided against “creating an inclusive culture” rather than just a generic inclusion dimension (that is, a single average score), or rather than just pro- viding a handful of items that combine into some broader concept, such as interpersonal skills or emotional intelligence. The targeted nature of having a specific D&I competency greatly reinforces the importance of that dimen- sion. In contrast, not having D&I-specific competencies highlighted in a leadership model or 360-degree feedback process may communicate the message that these practices are not all that important.

Second, when driving a D&I agenda in particular (or any focused organiza- tional change effort more generally), it is far better to have a customized leadership model than one supplied from a feedback vendor as the basis for the 360-degree feedback process. Although off-the-shelf competency assess- ments can add value at the individual level, the most constructive and valid 360-degree feedback tools for driving D&I-related change are based on an organization-specific leadership model and reflect the unique values and competencies of that model rather than generic leadership behaviors, for several reasons. First, the model itself, like a survey, communicates what is important and is typically connected to and/or embedded in many different development processes beyond the 360-degree feedback process alone. Sec- ond, the diagnostic assessment of a behavior gives it significance, because by linking specific behavioral assessments back to corporate values creates indi- vidual accountability and reinforcement for positive performance against those stated ideals. Moreover, when implementing a large-scale 360-degree feedback program involving thousands of leaders and managers, the imple- mentation must be considered from an OD systems perspective, because one is now operating at the meso or even macro levels of the organization to drive behavior change (Church, Walker, & Brockner, 2002).

D&I and 360-Degree Feedback at PepsiCo. The effort to include D&I behav- iors as part of PepsiCo's 360-degree feedback process has significantly evolved over time in two primary ways to reflect the increased organizational emphasis on diversity and inclusion. The first change focused on the empha- sis or weight placed on D&I behaviors relative to the overall assessment framework. The leadership model in place in the 1990s did not include any specific behaviors related to D&I efforts; rather, the items were more generic and focused on building trusting relationships and related concepts. This changed in 2001, when the organization redesigned the model, included three specific items related to D&I, and added Inclusion as one of seventeen key competencies of leadership behavior under one of seven Success Factors called People Development. Although this was a positive first step, it still placed only marginal emphasis on diversity and inclusion relative to the overall model, which comprised fifty-eight items (that is, only 5 percent fo- cused on D&I).

This changed further in 2006, when the model was redesigned again (using input collected from interviews and focus groups conducted with multiple stakeholders throughout the organization, from senior leaders to individual contributors and including a wide range of subject-matter experts or SMEs) to better align to PepsiCo's newly stated corporate values and the increasing laser-like focus on the D&I agenda. This new Leadership and Individual Ef- fectiveness Model now included “Creating an Inclusive Culture” as one of its nine key dimensions rather than one of seventeen. In addition, the increased emphasis on D&I both in the leadership model and the subsequent 360-de- gree feedback process was also reflected in the greater representation of items designed to assess D&I related behaviors. The new version of the mod- el included eleven key D&I behaviors (see Table 9.2) under the heading of “Creating an Inclusive Culture” dimension. These behaviors reflect what is expected in this area of all employees, leaders (that is, middle management), and senior leaders.

Table 9.2. “Creating an Inclusive Culture” Items from PepsiCo's Leadership and Individual Effectiveness Model, by Level

All Employees

Treats all people with respect and fairness

Demonstrates sensitivity to differences when dealing with people from different cultural backgrounds and/or other differences

Demonstrates openness to and respect for others’ opinions and points of view

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 8 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

Leaders

Demonstrates a personal commitment to creating a more inclusive work environment

Values and leverages people with different perspectives and experiences

Creates a work environment that helps people achieve a healthy balance between work and personal life

Fosters a positive and inclusive work environment where all people feel respected and valued for their contributions

Senior Leaders

Champions diversity of thought, style, and perspective

Demonstrates sensitivity and awareness of cross-cultural implications when conducting business or executing initiatives

Creates a work environment that helps people achieve a healthy balance between work and personal life

Fosters a positive and inclusive work environment where all people feel respected and valued for their contributions

The second area of change in PepsiCo's approach to linking D&I to its leader- ship model and 360-degree feedback process was also related to the newly revised model in 2006 and centered around the importance and level of inte- gration of the D&I perspective for all employees. Although inclusion was in- corporated into the 2001 model, the primary target audience for this frame- work was executives, which suggested that D&I-related behaviors might not be as relevant for a majority of the organization. This changed with the 2006 redesign, when the model was recast as not only a leadership model but also as a “Leadership & Individual Effectiveness Model.” Now there was a set of D&I-specific behaviors that applied to all employees at all levels, in addition to those for more senior-level executives.

D&I and Performance Management Although 360-degree feedback is a valuable OD tool for individual develop- ment and broad scale culture change, there is considerable debate in the field as to whether it should be used for development only or for other ad- ministrative purposes. While some organizations use 360-degree feedback as an input into succession planning and even performance management, oth- ers prefer to keep the 360-degree feedback as an independent process, leav- ing accountability for changing behavior up to the individual's own interest in self-awareness and development—a characteristic that can vary consider- ably among different types of people (see, for example, Church & Rotolo, 2010). This is why many models of organizational change and OD practition- ers who apply them have long placed an emphasis on reward systems in a given intervention or social system (see, for example, Burke, 1982; Cum- mings & Worley, 2009; Lawler, 1981, 1990); doing this is a way to ensure that the right behaviors—and of more importance, in many cases the out- comes—are being measured and rewarded appropriately against some key set of objectives or competencies. Although we assume that the “right” be- haviors will indeed lead to the desired outcomes, this may not always be the case and requires validation. Consequently, in many organizational settings it is important to ensure that the performance management process is influ- encing both behavior and outcome.

In general, an organization's reward systems (also known as the perfor- mance management process or PMP) are vital in defining and shaping its culture, because they convey what is important to employees and their per- formance against critical organizational goals. Performance management processes are by definition tied to compensation and internal movement de- cisions. This increases the need and desire for the process to effectively dif- ferentiate among various levels of performance. This is true both in terms of dividing a finite number of resources in the most equitable manner and also for helping employees understand what is important for success in their roles. Clearly, then, it is critical from a D&I perspective to include some form of formal diversity or inclusion objective or goal (or one of each) as part of performance management, if the transformation is to be truly effective.

Despite the value of the PMP in making administrative decisions, it is an OD and HR process that is, unfortunately, less focused on emphasizing diversity and inclusion efforts than perhaps it should be. In the recent Mayflower- Group benchmark study, about 59 percent of member organizations re- sponding indicated using formal D&I metrics in their PMPs. Similarly, 61 percent of The Conference Board's Council of Talent Management Execu- tives (I & II) reported the same, suggesting that 39 percent are not leverag- ing their PMP at all to support their D&I efforts.

Interestingly, the approach to using D&I measures also varied considerably across the two studies, ranging from focusing on individual metrics regard- ing representation goals relative to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, to incorpo- rating organizational survey results as goals reflective of having an inclusive culture. Other companies were more activity-based in their approach, citing leadership involvement in employee networks or resource groups as their primary method of measurement. Moreover, in many instances it was evi- dent that D&I goals were only a portion of a broader set of performance tar- gets and often included in the “how” category of work gets done versus the actual outcomes being measured.

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 9 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

D&I and PMP at PepsiCo. In many ways PepsiCo's approach to PMP has evolved in a similar manner and is very reflective of the benchmark data just reported. In general, the company's current version of PMP, a version of which was first implemented in 2001 (also in support of the enhanced focus in the D&I agenda), has the common theme of increased emphasis being placed on diversity and inclusion over time. PepsiCo's previous conceptual- ization of PMP in the late 1990s used a single assessment of performance, based solely on business outcomes, and did not include any assessment of D&I in the evaluation of performance. In 2001, the PMP was divided into two separate categories—business ratings and people ratings—with business objectives weighted more heavily and accounting for 67 percent of the over- all evaluation. The people objectives included “creating an inclusive environ- ment” as a specific component, but represented only one of eight possible elements in the overall people ratings (and all were provided initially as sug- gestions rather than requirements). Over time, the use of people ratings re- quired the need for a more streamlined and defined process for the people objectives. There was also organizational pressure (given the stated values and the increasing emphasis on diversity and inclusion) to enhance the value of people objectives relative to the business objectives. This led to another change in the PMP in 2008, which truly reflected a cultural shift in empha- sis, to weight the two categories equally in a noncompensatory design, such that both now represented 50 percent of an employee's individual perfor- mance contribution.

Moreover, to ensure further consistency and integrate diversity and inclu- sion deeper into the process, another change included greater emphasis on D&I initiatives in the people objectives. “Creating an inclusive environment” became one of four areas of accountability that all employees using this PMP were required to address on an annual basis in their objectives. This change in the PepsiCo process increased the accountability and value associated with D&I efforts in the performance evaluation and no doubt contributed to the OHS scores reported earlier regarding manager support for employees engaging in D&I-related activities (as these were now on managers' individ- ual objectives). In addition, the OHS data collected in 2009 indicated that employees had a favorable impression of the performance management process, with 80 percent of employees reporting that managers are held ac- countable for both their business and people ratings. This strongly suggests that employees see people ratings, and therefore the company's D&I efforts, as measures to which managers are truly held accountable. It also highlights the importance of taking an OD systems perspective with these data-driven tools, whereby the organization links the survey work to its leadership devel- opment and performance management agendas—all in synch to support or- ganizational transformation.

Talent Management The final OD and HR process we discuss—how an organization approaches talent management—is critical to consider in terms of organizational change initiatives and their linkage to D&I efforts. Performance evaluations are crit- ical to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of individual employees; talent management, in contrast, is the process of identifying, assessing, de- veloping, planning, and moving talent throughout the entire employee lifecy- cle to satisfy critical and strategic business objectives. Although many as- pects of talent management as we know it today have been part of the OD and I-O practitioner's toolkit for years (such as succession planning, work- place assessment, selection, development, and an emphasis on learning through experiences), only in recent years has the term talent management taken hold (see, for example, Silzer & Dowell, 2010), largely in response to the evident war for talent and other ongoing changes in the demographics of the workplace, including the values that the next generation of employees are perceived to have (Avedon & Scholes, 2010).

Although some might argue that talent management is out ​side the purview of the OD practitioner (rather, residing with HR generalists or other types of specialists), we contend (as would Jackson & Hardiman, 1994) that it is in- deed or should be part of the systems approach for driving organizational change, particularly with respect to enhancing diversity and inclusion. This is because, at its core, talent management uses workforce planning and ana- lytics to identify potential talent gaps, which are addressed through (1) inter- nal development or external hiring and (2) the manner and method with which talent—whether internal or external—is discussed, reviewed, planned for, and ultimately deployed in an organization. Most talent management processes involve some form of organizational review of the current and fu- ture capabilities needed, an analysis of the current talent base, a review of what is called a “slate” of potential candidates for given roles (open now or in the future), and reviews and plans for unique individuals that will ultimately build leadership bench and succession pipelines for the organization (for ex- ample, Silzer & Dowell, 2010).

If the D&I agenda is not inextricably linked to the talent management review process, it is possible (depending on the culture of the organization, for ex- ample) that decisions will be made about capabilities that may reflect future needs of the business, and that specific groups or types of employees may not be reviewed because of inherent biases or blind spots. Thomas and Gabarro's (1999) research clearly indicated that different groups may indeed take different paths in the succession process, and therefore it is critical to keep an emphasis on diversity and inclusion throughout the entire talent management process.

The role of D&I in the talent management process can be conceptualized in two ways. First, organizations can use an individual's degree of D&I capabili- ty when making decisions related to talent management, such as providing

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 10 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

developmental opportunities, creating slates, or deciding on promotions. The basic argument is that managers who are better at managing in an inclu- sive manner will be more effective overall. Doing this relies heavily on D&I- related measures and the other OD tools and processes discussed in this chapter (surveys, 360-degree feedback results, performance management ratings), so these need to be in place and working properly for this approach to be effective.

The second role of D&I in talent management is the targeted measurement and tracking of various groups of employees' progression in the organization relative to others. This is critical for two purposes. First, legal considerations based on concerns of adverse impact related to the OD and HR tools or to selection decisions need to be addressed to avoid litigation from protected groups (Cascio & Aguinis, 2008). Second, demographic differences are asso- ciated with diversity in experience, knowledge, and abilities that can be criti- cal in creating an adaptive organization that can respond to the needs of a more diverse customer and consumer base. Enhancing the diversity of per- spectives, styles, and thinking—if managed effectively and in an inclusive en- vironment—is likely to lead to greater innovation and business success.

Interestingly, the two benchmarking studies (cited earlier) differed some- what in this regard; 59 percent of the companies responding on the MayflowerGroup study indicated that they incorporated D&I as an explicit part of their talent management process, whereas 82 percent of The Confer- ence Board's Council of Talent Management Executives (I & II) indicated the same. This difference is probably due more than anything else to the fact that the MayflowerGroup is primarily a survey-based consortium, while the Conference Board benchmark is based on individuals who are particularly focused on the talent management process. The key points are that (1) many organizations are indeed integrating D&I efforts into their talent manage- ment processes, and (2) this is an important part of completing the systemic framework for integrating the D&I agenda into their OD and organizational transformational efforts.

D&I and Talent Management at PepsiCo. As with many organizations, di- versity and inclusion is a critical component of PepsiCo's talent management process. Details of the organization's use of scorecards and the overall people planning process can be found in other published sources (for example, Church & Waclawski, 2010; Thomas & Creary, 2009) and need not be re- peated here. It is important to note, however, that the organization has taken a truly integrated and systemic approach to driving inclusive OD across the enterprise, ensuring that the D&I perspective remains linked to each of its core development processes. This was not easy to accomplish, nor did it hap- pen overnight, but it remains at the core of PepsiCo's strategic OD agenda: ensuring that the company has a diverse population and an inclusive culture to support their varied thinking and contributions.

The Challenges of Doing Inclusive Organization Development Based on the discussion and benchmark data reported here, it is apparent that practitioners have made significant strides in the integration of D&I ef- forts into their core organization development toolkits (with organizational surveys and talent management being the most common processes). But there is still room to improve in this area as well. Although it might sound easy enough to simply add an inclusion dimension to a leadership model or to include some diversity metrics in a performance management process, many organizations and practitioners are only just starting on this journey. As noted earlier, aside from OD, other fields fully devoted to organizational change and improvement, such as I-O psychology, have only recently begun to embrace diversity and inclusion as a core construct at meetings and in publications. The reason for this is simple: organizational change is never quick or easy, and there are various challenges associated with moving any organization in a given direction, including toward creating a more inclusive culture.

Some of these challenges are part of any change effort; others are perhaps more unique to diversity and inclusion. More specifically, these include inte- grating D&I into everything we do, including core OD processes and busi- ness models (as described earlier—that is, doing inclusive OD); gaining true senior leadership and management support; educating people about D&I for one's specific organization; and, perhaps most important, helping people to think more broadly about diversity and inclusion beyond the standard U.S.- based demographic trends and groups. After all, from an international per- spective, diversity and inclusion vary from country to country and even in some cases from region to region. Perhaps the only universal dimension of diversity is gender, but even that varies cross-culturally (Ferdman, 1999). Beyond that, each country outside of the United States must be examined for its unique aspects from a D&I standpoint (culture, class, caste, heritage, and so on). This requires a more global mindset than many practitioners have to- day and is reflective of what we consider new territory in practice as it relates to D&I. In any case, all of these factors must be addressed by OD practition- ers to see successful integration of D&I initiatives into an organization. The rest of this section discusses several of these challenges in more detail, as well as ways in which the practitioner can move the figurative integration needle in the right direction toward an inclusive OD approach.

The Importance of Senior Leadership Support Many OD professionals and change experts would agree that any transfor- mational change effort requires senior leadership support to be successful.

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 11 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

Some have even embedded this as a key component in their models (for ex- ample, Burke & Litwin, 1992; Kotter, 1996). Jack Welch's transformation of GE is a perfect example of this (Welch & Byrne, 2001). Driving an organiza- tional change effort towards a D&I agenda is no exception, as in Jackson and Hardiman's (1994) model of MCOD. Clearly, fully integrating D&I into an organization's management and OD practices and processes is a type of true organizational transformation and requires visible senior leadership support.

A good example of senior leadership successfully leading a D&I change agen- da (including the concept of shifting from a focus on just diversity to one on inclusion as well) is the former CEO of PepsiCo, Steve Reinemund. From the beginning of Reinemund's presence in PepsiCo's senior leadership team as president and chief operating officer, he ensured that diversity and inclusion were one of the company's primary strategic priorities (as is fully detailed in Thomas & Creary, 2009). Other senior leaders at PepsiCo had tried to make the workforce more inclusive by creating opportunities for diverse groups and developing leaders, but Reinemund was the first PepsiCo senior leader to make efforts to fully integrate D&I into the culture of the organization (Thomas & Creary, 2009). After being promoted to CEO of PepsiCo, one of the first things that he did was to partner with the senior vice presidents of HR and diversity and community affairs and to establish a team of advisors to support him in driving diversity into PepsiCo's culture and performance. Reinemund first added diversity as a business strategy to help stay ahead of shifting demographics in the U.S. markets in 2000. He believed that by seek- ing new opportunities in ethnic populations where the business had low market penetration, the company could become more competitive. He be- lieved that, to create products and marketing strategies targeted to those populations, the company needed a diversified employee base that reflected its consumer base. PepsiCo formed a new ethnic marketing group in re- sponse to Reinemund's strategy.

In PepsiCo's results-oriented culture, Reinemund realized that measuring the progress of his diversity efforts was critical to the success of the overall strategy. He then held senior leaders accountable (through the performance management process noted previously) for achieving their diversity goals (Thomas & Creary, 2009). This is a perfect OD example of senior leadership truly supporting a change agenda, as it is easy to reward people when they meet a goal but much harder to enforce a negative outcome even if it has been communicated that this would occur.

After several years of driving this approach, Reinemund found that he had been successful in achieving his diversity strategy. There were new products and selling strategies for ethnic populations as well as a more diverse work- force at PepsiCo (reflected both in real numbers and in improved employee perceptions via the OHS measure). He realized, however, that he had not yet fully shifted the culture to be more inclusive and engaging of diverse popula- tions. In short, if you just focus on the diversity of your workforce but not on ensuring that you have a culture that is supportive or inclusive of that diver- sity, it is unlikely that the diverse talent will remain long with the organiza- tion, as others have also noted (for example, Holvino et al., 2004). Thus he decided to move the company into a new phase of the D&I agenda by trans- forming the culture into both a results-oriented and an inclusive company (Thomas & Creary, 2009).

From an OD perspective, culturally transforming the company into a more diverse and inclusive one could not have occurred without Reinemund's commitment to the issue. Reinemund himself describes the type of senior leadership commitment that was necessary to accomplish the culture change: “For nearly all of the meetings I attended inside and outside of Pep- siCo, I always spoke about diversity as one of the company's three priorities. I was intentional in this because I knew that affecting the culture would be more difficult if I did not deliver a consistent message” (quoted in Thomas & Creary, 2009, p. 10). Reinemund's successor, Indra Nooyi, has continued to drive a diverse and inclusive culture (see, for example, Frankel, 2008; Mur- ray, 2011), and has further integrated the D&I agenda into her overall sus- tainability strategy (PepsiCo Inc., 2011). The key message here for OD practi- tioners already engaged in or planning to move toward a more focused D&I- related strategy is to ensure that the senior-most leaders are not only 100 percent behind the initiative, but that they are truly sponsors and advocates, not simply figureheads for that cause. Otherwise it simply will not ring true to people.

The Importance of Training in D&I E!orts Although we have not discussed formal training and development efforts as a major OD lever for change (as from our perspective OD is a data-driven methodology, and training design and implementation are the purview of other types of HR professionals), it is important to note that training efforts are an important means for sending key messages, learning new behaviors, and reinforcing a change agenda. In short, training is a necessary component of any D&I change agenda, but not sufficient in and of itself. Given changes in technology over the last few years, training delivery methods can also vary widely compared with just a decade ago, when everything required a more resource-intensive face-to-face approach. For example, if funding for cen- tralized training is not available, programs can be cascaded throughout the organization using train-the-trainer techniques (that is, building internally certified resources to deliver the training), or delivered via webinars, cell phone and hand-held device applications, virtual conference rooms, and the like.

Interestingly, from a D&I perspective, the most common type of diversity

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 12 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

management program is indeed training (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004; Society for Human Resource Management, 2010), which may include efforts to in- crease awareness of discrimination and prejudice and to improve skills of employees in relating to members of other cultural groups. Diversity-related training programs have gained increased prominence over the years, yet there are still important issues to consider. According to a recent study by the Society for Human Resource Management (2010), 71 percent of organi- zations have some form of diversity-related training programs, but there was considerable variability between organizations regarding the areas of focus. For example, organizations differed in terms of who participated in diversity training. Based on that study, roughly 70 percent of executive- or manageri- al-level employees participated in mandatory diversity-related training, whereas only 58 percent of nonmanagerial employees participated in mandatory D&I-related training. From an OD and culture change perspec- tive this is worrisome, because the majority of staff at any organization other than perhaps a professional services organization will be significantly more nonmanagerial employees than executives or managers. Supporting a cul- ture change through a training agenda needs to reach all levels of employees to be truly effective and take hold.

In sum, although training can help people understand diversity and what it means to have an inclusive culture, it should not be considered the end solu- tion in itself. Because the impact of the training may eventually wear off (particularly if it is not fully sustained over time as employees exit the orga- nization and new ones enter), organizations should not treat training as a stand-alone solution to integrating diversity into a company's culture. Train- ing can solve a necessary educational need, but in order for diversity and in- clusion to be effectively integrated into an organization's culture, their im- portance must continue to be communicated from the senior leaders of the organization as a business priority and embedded into all OD core processes.

The Next Big Thing in D&I Few would disagree with the statement that globalization has increased the complexity of understanding how organizations in general, and diversity and inclusion in particular, function across different parts of the world. Techno- logical advances, the interconnectedness of global markets, adoption of new recruiting practices, and other changes have shifted the way people around the world interact with one another and will continue to do so in the future (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Accordingly, OD practitioners will also need to change the ways they approach diversity and inclusion. This globalization is especially important for large multinational companies to consider. Societal culture is changing as well, and it is important that companies adapt to re- flect the social environments in which they operate.

Similarly, D&I as a field is slowly moving away from an emphasis on primar- ily ethnic differences (such as counting members of different racial and gen- der groups) to more of an inclusive approach to viewing diverse cultures and ways of thinking in general (Hansen, 2010; Holvino et al., 2004). The focus has also shifted to support and reflect a more international perspective on D&I. This shift, however, requires that companies have what Plummer and Jordan (2007) refer to as “cultural competence” (also see Bennett, Chapter 5, this volume), or creating an environment in which diverse groups can learn from each other's differences and leverage those differences for busi- ness effectiveness. As a result of this shift in focus from racial or gender di- versity to cultural diversity, D&I initiatives must be customized to fit the or- ganizational culture and mission and strategy of each organization. Effective D&I programs must be adapted by OD practitioners to meet the needs of a global workforce.

We offer a few examples of HR and OD programs designed to meet the unique needs of an international employee population. Before executives leave for international assignments, for example, many companies often ask assignees to take preassignment cultural training programs so that they can better integrate with the host country's culture upon arrival. Some organiza- tions are also expressing an interest in measuring how adept their employees are at adapting to and learning about other cultures. Assessments like the Hogan Personality Inventory (Hogan, Hogan, & Warrenfeltz, 2007) and the Prospector survey (Spreitzer, McCall, & Mahoney, 1997) include subscales on learning about other cultures. Spreitzer and colleagues (1997) found that managers who are better at adapting to change may display higher perfor- mance and more executive potential than those who do not adapt well to transitions. In addition, Plummer and Jordan (2007) describe a McKinsey study that characterized high-potential talent as including such key compe- tencies as communicating across differences, practicing cross-cultural adapt- ability, and solving problems collaboratively, to name a few. The concept of learning ability also fits well here and has been incorporated into recent con- ceptualizations of high potentials (for example, Silzer & Church, 2009).

Upon reflection, two key points for the practitioner are clear: (1) individuals who are more culturally aware and focused on learning are more inclusive than others and may well make better leaders, and (2) the concept of inclu- sion is indeed broader than just a D&I functional agenda and represents one of the basic fundamentals of organization development and change. Clearly, this is an area in which OD practitioners can add value by incorporating cul- tural awareness and learning frameworks and measures into OD processes and practices in organizations. In addition, to advance the integration of D&I and OD in the future, practitioners need to pull diverse perspectives into their own work and look at broader cultural dynamics and issues than what traditional OD efforts might have addressed in the past. Some great work has been started in this area already through various outlets, including the OD Practitioner in particular, but the journey is far from over.

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 13 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

Conclusion The purpose of this chapter has been to help OD and related practitioners think about the ways in which they can significantly influence the organiza- tions with which they work (either internally or externally) to drive a more diverse and inclusive environment in everything they do, or, to put it another way, to practice Inclusive OD. We have discussed four key data-driven pro- cesses that currently exist in many organizations of any scale, the impor- tance of each of those tools for driving cultural transformation, and some ex- amples of how these have been applied and/or reapplied over the last decade at PepsiCo. Although there are many approaches to doing OD, we contend that data-based feedback tools and processes are the only true way to drive something as deep and systemic as a full-scale D&I agenda. We have also discussed some key challenges and observations related to achieving this in- tegration between the two disciplines—an integration that seems entirely natural but has not yet occurred in many organizations, as shown by some of the benchmark data and anecdotes from colleagues.

The final point we would like to make is also a classic OD and D&I value or construct: the notion of the role of the self in driving an intervention or be- having inclusively toward others. Whether in the form of process consulta- tion (for example, Schein, 1987, 1988) or from the perspective of having dif- ferent diversity and inclusion lenses (for example, Williams, 2001), it is criti- cal that OD practitioners engaged in this work consider their own identities and what they bring implicitly to diversity and inclusion. This might mean partnering with different types of practitioners to drive a particular change effort or becoming familiar with other perspectives, volunteering, or even getting in touch with one's own unique aspects (see, for example, the work of Bill Proudman on White males, 2001, 2008), but in the end it reflects back to the notion of learning. As OD professionals we need to continue to learn and embrace the D&I perspective, including how it applies across different groups, organizations, and cultures.

Note

The authors would like to extend their thanks to Ja- nine Waclawski for her input on the initial outline and for providing feedback on the manuscript for this chapter, Leslie Golay for her assistance in com- piling the MayflowerGroup benchmark results, and Elona Pira and Jean McNulty of The Conference Board for their support in obtaining benchmark data from the Council of Talent Management Executives I and II.

References

Avedon, M. J., & Scholes, G. (2010). Building competitive advantage through integrated talent management. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy- driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 73–122). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barrow, S., & Mosely, R. (2005) The employer brand: Bringing the best of brand management to people at work. London: Wiley.

Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., & Church, A. H. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brazzel, M. (2007). Diversity and social justice practices for OD practition- ers. OD Practitioner, 39(3), 15–21.

Burke, W. W. (1982). Organization development: Principles and practices. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational per- formance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523–545.

Cascio, W. E., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Staffing twenty-first-century organiza- tions. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 133–165.

Chin, J. L. (2010). Introduction to the special issue on diversity and leader- ship. American Psychologist, 65(3), 150–156.

Church, A. H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high performing individ- uals in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 281–292.

Church, A. H. (2001). The professionalization of organization development: The next step in an evolving field. In W. A. Pasmore and R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 13, pp. 1– 42). Greenwich CT: JAI Press.

Church, A. H., Burke, W. W., & Van Eynde, D. F. (1994). Values, motives, and interventions of organization development practitioners. Group & Orga- nization Management, 19, 5–50.

Church, A. H., & Oliver, D. H. (2006), The importance of taking action, not just sharing survey feedback. In A. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organi- zational surveys: New concepts, technologies, and applications (pp. 102– 130). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2010). The role of the individual in self-as-

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 14 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

sessment for leadership development. In M. G. Rothstein & R. J Burke (Eds.), Self-management and leadership development (pp. 25–61). Chel- tenham, Glasgow, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Church, A. H., & Waclawski J. (2001). Designing and using organizational surveys: A seven step process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (2010). Take the Pepsi Challenge: Talent de- velopment at PepsiCo. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy-driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 617–640). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Church, A. H., Walker, A. G., & Brockner, J. (2002). Multisource feedback for organization development and change. In J. Waclawski & A. H. Church (Eds.), Organization development: A data-driven approach to organiza- tional change (pp. 27–54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (1993). Organization development and change (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization development and change (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender in organizations: At- tending to race and ethnicity. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 17–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frankel, B. (2008, May). PepsiCo's Indra Nooyi: “I am a walking example of diversity.” DiversityInc, 38–43.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. Jr. (1990). Organization development: Behav- ioral science interventions for organization improvement (4th ed.). Engle- wood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hankin, H. (2005). The new workforce: Five sweeping trends that will shape your company's future. New York: AMACOM.

Hansen, F. (2010). Diversity of a different color. Workforce Management, 89(6), 22–26.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2007). The Hogan guide: Interpre- tation and use of Hogan inventories. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Press.

Holvino, E., Ferdman, B. M., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sus- taining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M. S. Stockdale & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245–276). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jackson, B. W., & Hardiman, R. (1994). Multicultural organization de ​​velop- ment. In E. Cross, J. H. Katz, F. A. Miller, & E. W. Seashore (Eds.). The promise of diversity: Over 40 voices discuss strategies for eliminating dis- crimination in organizations (pp. 221–239). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Jackson, S. E., & Associates (Eds.). (1992). Diversity in the workplace: Hu- man resources initiatives. New York: Guilford Press.

Jayne, M. E. A., & Dipboye, R. L. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recom​mendations for organi- zations. Human Resource Management, 43, 409–424.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2004). The 21st century at work: Forces shaping the future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, P. (2006). Evaluating training programs (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kraut, A. I. (2006). Getting action from organizational surveys: New con- cepts, technologies, and applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E. E. (1981). Pay and organization development. Reading, MA: Ad- dison-Wesley.

Lawler, E. E. (1990). Strategic pay: Aligning organizational strategies and pay systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levy, P. E. (2010). Industrial/organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development: Principles, processes, and performance. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop, and keep tomorrow's employees today. New York: HarperCollins.

Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

11/6/19, 9'28 PMCHAPTER NINE: Inclusive Organization Development: An Integration of Two Disciplines - Diversity at Work: The Practice of Inclusion

Page 15 of 15https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/diversity-at-work/9781118415153/c09.xhtml

Settings / Support / Sign Out © 2019 O'Reilly Media, Inc. Terms of Service / Privacy Policy

Murray, A. (2011, April). View from the top: PepsiCo's Indra Nooyi on the trade-offs she made—and why she hopes her daughters won't have to. Wall Street Journal Online, interview transcript obtained at http://online.wsj.- com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576247630655985522.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013604576247630655985522.html)

PepsiCo Inc. (2011). Performance with purpose: The promise of PepsiCo (2010 annual report). Purchase, NY: author.

Plummer, D., & Jordan, C. G. (2007). Going plaid: Integrating diversity into business strategy, structure and systems. OD Practitioner, 39(2), 35–40.

Proudman, B. (2001). Understanding American White male culture. Un- published manuscript.

Proudman, B. (2008). White men and diversity: An oxymoron? Natural Gas & Electricity, 24(12), 11–15.

Royal, C., & Vogelsang, J. (2010). From the editors. Special issue: In our own voices: The contributions and challenges of OD practitioners of color. OD Practitioner, 42(2), 1.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1987). Process consultation (Vol. 2). Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.

Schein, E. H. (1988). Process consultation (Vol. 1, rev. ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schiemann, W. A., & Morgan, B. S. (2006). Strategic surveys: Linking people to business strategy. In A. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies, and applications (pp. 76–101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2009). The pearls and perils of identifying poten- tial. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 377–412.

Silzer, R., & Dowell, B. E. (Eds.). (2010). Strategy-driven talent manage- ment: A leadership imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2010). Workplace di- versity practices: How has diversity and inclusion changed over time? A comparative examination: 2010 and 2005. Retrieved from http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/Work- placeDiversityPractices.aspx (http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/WorkplaceDiversityPractices.as-

px)

Spreitzer, G. M., McCall, M. W., & Mahoney, J. D. (1997). Early identifica- tion of international executive potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 6–29.

Thomas, D. A., & Creary, S. J. (2009). Meeting the diversity challenge at PepsiCo: The Steve Reinemund era (Case: 9–410–024). Boston, MA: Har- vard Business School Publishing.

Thomas, D. A., & Gabarro, J. J. (1999). Breaking through: The making of minority executives in corporate America. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Waclawski, J., & Church, A. H. (2002). Introduction and overview of organi- zation development as a data-driven approach for organizational change. In J. Waclawski & A. H. Church, (Eds.), Organization development: A data- driven approach to organizational change (pp. 3–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Welch, J., & Byrne, J. A. (2001). Jack: Straight from the gut. New York: Warner Business.

Wiley, J. (2010). Strategic employee surveys: Evidence-based guidelines for driving organizational success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Williams, M. A. (2001). The 10 lenses: Your guide to working in a multicul- tural world. Herndon, VA: Capital Books.

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Manag- ing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers, and nexters in your workplace. New York: American Management Association.

P R E V CHAPTER EIGHT: Inclusive Human Resource Management: Best Practices and the Chang…

⏮ N E X T

CHAPTER TEN: The Development of Inclusive Leadership Practice and Processes ⏭