Module 5
Establishing a Constructive Climate & Embracing Diversity
A. Constructive Climate
Climate refers to the atmosphere of a team or an organization. It is defined as
people’s shared perceptions of the way things are in an organization (Reichers &
Schneider, 1990). This includes people’s general thoughts and feelings about the
activities, procedures, and assumptions of a group, which may fluctuate. For example:
“This is a laid-back place. People aren’t rushing around; they’re willing to stop and
answer questions if you need help with a project.” Or: “This seems like an unfriendly
place. People aren’t making eye contact with each other and rarely smile. You hardly
hear any conversations taking place.” A positive climate is shaped by the degree to which
people feel they are supported, appreciated, and encouraged for their roles in the
organization. A constructive climate is just that: an atmosphere that promotes group
members’ satisfaction and achieving their personal best. Related to climate is an
organization’s culture, which is created by the beliefs, values, and traditions that are
widespread in the organization (Schein, 2010). An organization’s culture develops over
longer periods from the many interactions that occur within the group or organization. A
culture is reinforced by organizational members who have developed patterns of working
together over time to cope with challenges and coordinate their efforts that work well for
them. These values and assumptions are then taught to newcomers as “the way things are
done around here.”
Because working in groups can be chaotic and challenging, it is helpful when a
leader provides a sense of structure for group members. Providing structure is much like
giving group members an architectural blueprint for their work. The drawing gives form
and meaning to the purposes of the group’s activities. Instilling structure into the
organization provides people with a sense of security, direction, and stability. It helps
them to understand where they fit in and what goals they need to accomplish. For
example, it would be frightening to be in a group climbing Mount Everest if team
members did not know their roles and follow a clear plan for the ascent. Working in a
group without structure is more difficult for everyone involved. How does a leader give
structure to a group? First, a leader needs to communicate to the group the group’s goals.
When a leader gives a clear picture of assignments and responsibilities, group members
gain a better sense of direction. For example, soldiers in the military are given orders to
carry out a specific mission. The mission describes the assignment toward which they are
working, and it provides organization to the rest of their activities. Another example is a
group meeting where the leader provides an agenda.
In addition to structuring the group, a leader needs to clarify group norms. Norms
are the rules of behavior that are established and shared by group members. Social
psychologists have argued for years that norms play a major role in the performance and
effectiveness of groups (Cartwright & Zander, 1968; Harris & Sherblom, 2007; Napier &
Gershenfeld, 2004). Norms are like a road map for navigating how we are supposed to
behave in a group. They tell us what is appropriate or inappropriate, what is right or
wrong, and what is allowed or not allowed (Schein, 1969). Norms do not emerge on their
own— they are the outcome of people interacting with each other and with the leader.
For example, in a daylong training seminar, the participants and seminar leader might
mutually decide that they will turn off their cell phones and not leave early. Or staff
members in an insurance agency might determine that a “business casual” dress code is
appropriate during the week and jeans are OK on Fridays. Norms emerge as a result of
how leaders treat followers and how followers treat each other.
After Matt had coached for a few weeks, the team’s norms gradually changed.
Matt continually stressed the need to start practice on time, encouraged the players to
“bring their stuff” to practice, and complimented the players when they worked hard
during drills. By the end of the summer, they were a different team. The players grew to
enjoy the practice sessions, worked hard, and performed well. Most important, they
thought their baseball team was “the greatest.” In this situation, the norms the players
were operating under with the old coach interfered with the team and its goals. Under
Matt’s leadership, the players developed new norms that enabled them to function better.
Norms are an important component of group functioning. They develop early in a group
and are sometimes difficult to change. A leader should pay close attention to norm
development and try to shape norms that will maximize group effectiveness.
The third way a leader establishes a constructive climate is to build cohesiveness.
Cohesiveness is often considered an elusive but essential component of highly
functioning groups. Cohesiveness is described as a sense of “we-ness,” the cement that
holds a group together, or the esprit de corps that exists within a group. Cohesiveness
allows group members to express their personal viewpoints, give and receive feedback,
accept opinions different from their own, and feel comfortable doing meaningful work
(Corey & Corey, 2006). When a group is cohesive, the members feel a special connection
with each other and with the group as a whole. Members appreciate the group, and in turn
are appreciated by the group. Group members iden
Second, in highly cohesive groups, membership tends to be more consistent.
Members develop positive feelings toward one another and are more willing to attend
group meetings. For example, in an Alcoholics Anonymous group that is cohesive,
members often express strong support for each other, and attendance at meetings is very
consistent. Third, highly cohesive groups are able to exert a strong influence on group
members. Members conform more closely to group norms and engage in more goal-
directed behavior for the group. On a highly successful cross-country track team, all the
members support each other and push one another to do their personal best. Fourth,
member satisfaction is high in cohesive groups; members tend to feel more secure and
find enjoyment participating in the group. Think of the best class you have ever been in
as a student. It was probably very cohesive, and you probably enjoyed it so much that you
were sorry when the semester ended. Finally, members of a cohesive group usually are
more productive than members of a group that is less cohesive. Members of groups with
greater cohesion can direct their energies toward group goals without spending a lot of
time working out interpersonal issues and conflicts. For example, when a project team is
cohesive, there are no social loafers. Everyone is together in pursuit of the team goals.
In addition, the team members shared a common goal, which led them to abandon
their own selfinterest in pursuit of the unified goal of winning. But ultimately it was the
trust they had in each other that made them a victorious team. While cohesive groups are
what many organizations strive for, there is a caution about cohesiveness. First, when
group members become extremely close, they can develop a closed mindset called
groupthink, which values unanimity over critical appraisal of alternate ideas or
viewpoints. Group members may be afraid to “rock the boat” and question a group
decision, and instead go along with an idea that may not turn out well in the long run. It is
always helpful in a group to have one or two members pay attention to the tendency to
become closed off to outside input and ideas.
Consider the following example of a service learning group of five students who
had a goal of raising money for Special Olympics by sponsoring a rock concert. The
group included John, a student who was hard of hearing, and who felt alienated and
excluded from college life; Emily, an energetic student with high hopes of earning an A
in the class; Bill, an older student with very definite opinions; Abby, a free spirit with a
strong interest in rock bands; and Dane, a talented student who resented having to work
with others on a group project. During its initial meetings, the group was very disjointed
and had low group cohesion. The two people in the group with musical talent (Emily and
Abby) thought they would have to do all of the work to put on the concert to raise $200.
John never spoke, and Bill and Dane had attitudes that put them on the sidelines. During
these early meetings, the group members were unenthusiastic and had negative feelings
about each other. However, after the professor for the class encouraged Emily to reach
out to John and try to include him in the group, a gradual change started to take place,
and the group began moving in a more positive direction. Emily found it difficult to
communicate with John because he could only hear if people spoke directly into a special
handheld microphone. Emily spent an hour or so with John outside the group and soon
established a meaningful association with him. At the same time, Bill, who initially was
certain that John could not contribute to the group, started to change his mind when he
saw how well Emily and John were getting along. Since Emily was talking to John
through the microphone, Bill thought he should try it, too.
The service learning group in the above example was a group with low cohesion
when it started, but was highly cohesive by the end of the project. Cohesiveness was
created because group members developed trust, and withdrawn and passive members
were encouraged to participate and become involved. Group members learned to listen to
and respect one another’s opinions, and to accept each other as unique people. From this
example, the lesson for leaders is to help their group to build cohesiveness. When they
do, the results can far exceed expectations.
Finally, a leader establishes a constructive climate by promoting standards of
excellence. In a classic study, Larson and LaFasto (1989) analyzed the characteristics of
75 highly successful teams. Included in their study were famous teams such as the
DeBakey-Cooley cardiac surgery team, the Challenger disaster investigation team, the
1966 Notre Dame championship football team, and the McDonald’s Chicken McNuggets
team. In their analysis, researchers found that standards of excellence were a crucial
factor associated with team success. In essence, standards of excellence refer to the
established benchmarks of desired performance for a group. A good example of standards
of excellence can be seen in the slogan (see Figure 8.2) of The Upjohn Company, a
pharmaceutical manufacturing firm in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Founded in 1885, Upjohn
was known for revolutionizing the drug industry through its invention of the “friable
pill,” which can crumble under the pressure of a person’s thumb. In addition to this
innovation, over the years Upjohn made many other drug discoveries, and grew to
become one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. For many years, the
internal slogan promoted throughout the company was “Keep the quality up.”
Consider the following example of two restaurant managers (A and B) and their
waitstaff. Manager A was known for being very blunt and sometimes even mean.
Although he wanted the best for the restaurant, his performance reviews were always
disasters. Manager A was brutally honest; he did not know how to be diplomatic. If a
server was slow or inefficient, he let the person know it in no uncertain terms. In fact,
staff members often thought Manager A was attacking them. Although Manager A
wanted people to perform well, he did not know how to make that behavior happen. As
he frequently told his employees, “Around this place, I don’t sugarcoat anything. If your
performance is poor, you’re going to hear about it!” In contrast, Manager B was very
careful in how she treated the waitstaff. Manager B cared about staff, and it showed in
how she did performance reviews. If waitstaff did something wrong, Manager B would
always comment on it, but never in a mean way. When giving praise or criticism, the
feedback was always objective and never extreme; the feedback never attacked the
person. Manager B consistently evaluated her staff, but always in a way that made them
feel better about themselves and that made them want to try harder.
It is important to recognize here that the feedback process can involve power
differences and potential bias between the giver and receiver. In professional settings
such as law, medicine, and business, this power difference has been shown to
disproportionately affect women and people of color being evaluated (Casad & Bryant,
2016; Dayal, O’Connor, Qadri, & Arora, 2017; Williams, Multhaup, Li, & Korn, 2018).
In a study funded by the American Bar Association, female attorneys (white and of color)
and male attorneys of color reported that they have to go “above and beyond” to get the
same recognition and respect as their colleagues (Williams et al., 2018). When the skills
of 359 emergency medical residents were directly observed and evaluated by senior
physicians, researchers found that while male and female residents began training with
similar skills and knowledge bases, female residents were consistently evaluated lower
than their male colleagues as they progressed through the same residency programs
(Dayal et al., 2017). This uniform trend suggests implicit bias in the evaluation process.
In the technology sector, a comparison of 248 performance reviews of male and female
employees showed that while both men and women were given constructive suggestions,
the women’s reviews were more likely to include critical feedback, and only the women
were advised to be less assertive (Snyder, 2014). When evaluations of women and people
of color include suggestions that their behavior is somehow “counter-normative,” their
receptivity to that feedback is diminished.
Establishing a constructive climate is a subtle but essential aspect of effective
leadership that plays a major role in whether groups or organizations function effectively.
Establishing a constructive climate is similar to creating a positive climate for workers in
a company. It requires that a leader provide structure, clarify norms, build cohesiveness,
and promote standards of excellence. Building cohesiveness is the third facet of
establishing a constructive climate. Cohesiveness is a special quality of high-functioning
groups that feel a strong sense of connectedness and esprit de corps. Associated with
many positive outcomes, cohesiveness is established by a leader who assists group
members in trusting each other, listening to and respecting one another’s opinions, and
accepting each other as unique people. Finally, to establish a constructive climate, a
leader promotes standards of excellence. Highly effective teams have strong standards of
excellence—they have established benchmarks for desired performance. Standards of
excellence are best achieved when the leader requires results, reviews results, and
rewards results. To summarize, establishing a constructive climate is a complex process
that involves a great deal of work by a leader. A leader who sets a positive tone will find
payoffs in remarkable group performance.
B. Nancy Dubuc
When Dubuc was offered the CEO position at Vice Media in 2018, she and her
husband debated long and hard. Dubuc had other options to choose from, but the
challenge of leading a young, high-energy, global media giant was compelling (Battan,
2019). Founded in 1994, Vice Media is a Canadian digital media and broadcasting
company with 14 channels that produces news, magazines, records, cable TV programs,
advertising, and films. Web traffic for one month shows that Vice Media had 68.5 million
viewers, coming in fourth after CNN Digital, Vox Media, and New York Times Media
(Jarvey, 2018). Known for “edgy” programming including sex and drugs, Vice Media
had a reputation for being youth-oriented and “cool.” Dubuc took the helm in April 2018.
On her first day as CEO, Dubuc sent out an email to all employees, introducing herself
and praising Vice’s track record of producing “fearless” content.
Besides her symbolic presence, Dubuc has taken several steps to change the
climate at Vice. She is providing structure, clarifying norms, building cohesiveness, and
promoting standards of excellence. As the CEO, she sets the tone for the entire
organization and has stated repeatedly that sexual harassment will not be tolerated. This
shows public support for the new policies that are in place, and for the head of human
resources, who is tasked with enforcing them. One female employee reported, “All the
guys are leaving, which is what I like best. She came in and she cleaned house” (Battan,
2019). Dubuc also made her presence known in the main office. When she took over the
former CEO’s space, she had the blinds removed to bring more visibility, literally and
symbolically, to the room. “The first couple of weeks people would come in the office
and then leave and shut the door. And I would get up and I’d open the door. And then
people would shut the door, and I would open it,” she say.
Her listening tour to offices in Los Angeles, Toronto, and London helped her see
what kind of company she had inherited and how desperately the workforce needed a
hands-on leader. In her introductory email to Vice employees, she assured them, “The
seemingly mind-numbing ‘corporate’ nuts-and-bolts things that send some people’s eyes
rolling? I love that stuff and place a lot of significance on it” (Battan, 2019). She is
working to build trust internally by being physically present in the office more often,
hosting regular meetings to hear employee feedback, and being quick to praise her
workers and credit them for the company’s rise to success. Ultimately, Dubuc is seeking
to balance the need for a climate change within Vice with the desire to retain Vice’s edgy
external reputation: “We can’t un-vice Vice
C. The actual climate
Ebony Ellis has two communication classes back-to-back in the same room, but
they couldn’t be more different. The first, a class on interpersonal communication, is
taught by Steve Gardner, an older professor who has taught at the university for 20 years.
The first day of class, he verbally explained the rules for class conduct, which were also
distributed in a printed handout—cell phones off, no texting, and, unless a student needs
to use one for taking notes, laptops closed. Class starts on time and ends on time, and
students should try not to leave early. Ebony’s second class, an organizational
communication course taught by Marissa Morgan, a younger professor in her 40s, has
different rules. There aren’t any. This professor doesn’t care if the students use their
laptops during class. Texting and talking are unrestrained. Professor Morgan announced
on the first day that all students are responsible for their own learning in the class, and
she trusts them to know how they learn best. When students walk in late or leave early,
she always says hello or goodbye to them.
The atmosphere in the organizational communication class is strikingly different
to Ebony. It is spontaneous and uncontrolled. Sometimes professor Morgan lectures, but
most of the time she just comes to class and invites students to discuss whatever they
want to talk about. Students do not know each other’s names and seldom connect with
each other outside of class. Professor Morgan also assigns papers, but they are short,
personal observation papers that aren’t given grades but are marked as turned in or not.
Students’ final grades for the class are dependent on a presentation each student must
give on an interpersonal communication topic of his or her choice.
Professor Morgan says her goal is to be sure to cover the required course content
and still enjoy the teaching experience. “I give the students just enough freedom in class
that they will either sink or swim. This freedom allows me to present my ideas, and then
they are free to discuss them as they wish. I think today’s students are so multifaceted
that they can find their own way to learn, even if it involves texting or using their laptops
during class. Many times a student will bring up something valuable that he or she has
found while surfing the internet during class that really adds to our discussions. As I see
it, my role as a professor is to present the material to be learned, while the students are
responsible for how much of it they can absorb.” Ebony also interviewed two students,
like herself, who are enrolled in both classes. Ian said he is very pleased with Professor
Gardner’s class because he knows what is expected of him and what the norms for class
behavior are, noting, “He’s the only prof at the U who knows my name.” Professor
Gardner’s grading structure is similar to that of most other classes Ian has had, and he
likes that there are several graded assignments that allow him to know how he is doing
through the course of the semester. As for Professor Morgan’s class, he thinks it is “OK”
but finds it distracting when people are texting in class. Ian is also stressed about his
grade being dependent on one big assignment.
Professor Gardner’s class is also BreeAnn’s favorite. She says that Professor
Morgan’s class feels “a little wild,” the discussions are not controlled by the professor so
the class does not stay on topic, and you learn very little. While Professor Morgan writes
thoughtful comments on each of the students’ papers, it is unclear how the papers are
related to her lectures and more importantly the student’s final grade. BreeAnn finds the
final presentation assignment to be an interesting challenge but irrelevant to the class and
her major.
D. Diversity and Inclusion
Leadership requires skill, a clear vision, and a strong commitment to establishing
a constructive organizational climate. It also requires that leaders understand diversity
and inclusion, and the essential role these play in organizational outcomes. While many
of the leadership concepts discussed in this text so far (e.g., task behavior, goal setting,
and strengths) involve rather straightforward leadership efforts, addressing diversity and
inclusion is a multilayered process that requires a wider range of leadership practices.
Although the terms diversity and inclusion seem to represent distinctly different concepts,
they are actually interrelated processes, and while not usually discussed as core
leadership concepts, diversity and inclusion play a seminal role in effective leadership.
Diversity and inclusion are general terms that represent complex processes. A
closer look at each of the terms will help explain why they are closely related and why
leaders need to be aware of both concepts when addressing diversity within their group or
organization. In the most general sense, diversity is about variety or difference. Diversity
matters because we live in an increasingly globalized world that has become widely
interconnected (Hunt, Layton, & Prince, 2015). Researchers have defined diversity in a
multitude of ways (Mor Barak, 2014). For example, diversity is often used to refer to the
mixture of racial identities, genders, or religions represented in a group of people.
Harrison and Sin (2006) define diversity as “the collective amount of differences among
members within a social unit” (p. 196).
Ferdman (2014), a diversity scholar, suggests that diversity is the representation
of multiple groups of individuals with different identities and cultures within a group or
an organization. Similarly, Herring and Henderson (2015) suggest that diversity refers to
policies and practices that are designed to include people who are different in some way
from the traditional group members. From this perspective, diversity means creating an
organizational culture that embraces the values and skills of all of its members. Herring
and Henderson contend that diversity is about more than valuing differences between
groups; it includes addressing issues of parity, equity, and inequality.
Inclusion is the process of incorporating differing individuals into a group or an
organization. It is creating an environment where people who are different feel they are
part of the whole. For example, inclusion is represented by making accommodations so
that a student with disabilities can feel involved and accepted in regular school classes.
Schutz (1958) argued that we express our need to be included by how we communicate
with others and we experience less anxiety if our need to be “in the group” matches the
degree to which we want others to “include us.” This suggests that leaders should open
their arms to include others, but not so much that the individual differences of others get
smothered or lost.
One additional consideration in this process is equity, recognizing the historic
inequalities that have kept some groups, particularly racial minorities, from having the
same access to programs, financial resources, and jobs as others have. Equity recognizes
that not all individuals start from the same place. Equity is not the same as equality,
which aims to ensure that all people receive equal resources; equal access to education,
health care, and jobs; and equal treatment from the very beginning (Streitmatter, 1994).
An equality perspective doesn’t recognize the discrimination and systemic inequalities
that have created the social disparities in our society.
In short, diversity focuses on recognizing differences, inclusion is concerned with
embracing those differences, and equity aims to provide equal access to resources for
historically disadvantaged people. As Myers (2012) aptly suggests, diversity is about
“being invited to the party,” and inclusion is about “being asked to dance” (p. 13). To
continue the same metaphor, equity ensures everyone has the opportunity to take dance
lessons. Leaders often recognize the value of diversity but struggle with creating
supportive, inclusive environments. It is one thing to have a diverse group or
organization, but another to make sure each individual is included in the group or
organization in a positive manner, and equipped to contribute fully. Later in the chapter,
we provide an inclusion framework to help leaders understand how to approach diversity
in different settings.
To better understand the complexity of diversity, it is useful to briefly describe
how diversity has been addressed in the past, and then to discuss how these descriptions
influence the meaning of diversity today. Addressing issues of diversity is not unique; it
has been a central challenge for leaders of every generation. In the United States,
diversity was at the foundation of the country’s democratic system. The United States
was originally formed by people seeking to escape religious persecution elsewhere. This
ideal of seeking freedom drove to the country many groups of immigrants, all of whom
had different values, traditions, and religions. As the country evolved, diversity also came
to mean addressing the needs of people who are marginalized in the United States,
including African Americans whose ancestors originally came to the country as slaves as
well as Native Americans who were already living there. Even today, the diversity of the
country continues to shift and change as waves of newcomers enter the United States and
continue to alter its social landscape (Healey & Stepnick, 2017). Building a democratic
nation is only possible by acknowledging and addressing issues of diversity.
This was the period of the civil rights movement in the United States. During this
time, African American activists fought to end discrimination and to secure their legal
rights as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. It was also a time when the federal
government passed a series of landmark equal employment opportunity laws: (1) the
Equal Pay Act (1963), which stated that women and men must receive equal pay for
equal work; (2) the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibited discrimination in
employment based on race, sex, national origin, religion, and color; (3) the Executive
Orders (1961– 1965), which required organizations that accepted federal funds to submit
affirmative action plans that demonstrated their progress in hiring and promoting groups
of people who had been discriminated against previously; and (4) the Age Discrimination
Act (1975), which protected workers over 40 years of age from being discriminated
against at work because of their age.
It was common during the early years to think of diversity using the term melting
pot, a metaphor for a blending of many into one, or a heterogeneous society becoming
homogeneous. Sociologically, diversity was thought of as an assimilation process where
those from different cultures were expected to adapt to and, in many cases, adopt the
customs of the majority group (Blaine, 2013). Assimilation focused on the process of
making people from diverse cultures come together to create one American culture.
Healey and Stepnick (2017) point out that while assimilation is often thought of as a
gradual and fair blending of diverse cultures, in fact it requires different cultures to blend
in with the predominant English language and British cultural style. Although
assimilation helps to bring diverse individuals together, it requires that those in the
minority culture give up many, if not most, of their own values and traditions in order to
adopt the dominant culture.
This period was marked by a new approach to diversity that emphasized the
acceptance and celebration of differences (Thomas & Ely, 1996). The approach to
diversity at this time broadened beyond an emphasis on race and gender to include many
dimensions (sexual orientation, age, physical and mental abilities, etc. [see Table 9.1]). In
addition to stressing fairness and equality, organizations recognized that society was
becoming more multicultural and that supporting diversity in the workforce could have
competitive advantages. Research focused on how diversity in the workplace was related
to positive outcomes for an organization, such as reduced turnover, better creative
thinking, enhanced problem solving, and improved decision making. Organizations found
that diversity was not just about fairness; it made economic sense.
Diversity during this period continues to be a major concern for organizations and
society in general. Inequities between individuals and groups in regard to differences in
race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other dimensions remain unresolved. The
laws of the 1960s and 1970s still occupy an important role in trying to achieve diversity
in the workplace. At the same time, multiculturalism is more widely accepted and
celebrated today.
What is new in the last 20 years regarding diversity is an emphasis on creating
inclusive organizations. Harvey (2015) points out that people today are recognizing that
both organizations and individuals can benefit from diversity. Furthermore, she points out
that diversity today is broader in scope and harder to manage because of a changing
composition of workers, the need to acknowledge multiple social identities, and the
challenge of trying to establish and maintain an inclusive organizational culture. The new
way of approaching diversity acknowledges differences among people and values those
differences, integrating them into the organization. People feel they are all on the same
team because of their differences, not despite their differences. While our perspectives on
diversity have changed over the last 50 years, society’s need to address matters of
diversity has remained constant. The current approach to diversity places the inclusion
process at center stage as the pathway to addressing concerns about diversity. Inclusion
means allowing people with different cultural characteristics to have a voice and feel
integrated and connected with others.
E. Inclusion Framework
Social psychologist Marilynn Brewer (1991) argued that individuals have two
opposing needs in regard to being a part of a group. First, they have a desire to assimilate
and be included; second, they have a need to differentiate themselves from the group.
Similar to Schutz’s (1958) early work on inclusion, people seek an optimal balance
between inclusion and differentiation. The Exclusion quadrant (top left) represents
individuals in a group or an organization who feel left out and excluded; they do not feel
a part of things, and they do not feel valued. Exclusion occurs when organizations fail to
see and value the unique qualities of diverse employees and fail to accept them as
organizational insiders. An example might be a female vice president of a bank whose
ideas are discounted by her male counterparts and who is seldom invited to corporate
planning meetings. In effect, exclusion represents a complete failure to deal with matters
of diversity.
The Differentiation quadrant (lower left) describes individuals who feel unique
and respected but who also feel left out and not a part of the in-group. Differentiation
occurs when organizations accept and value the unique qualities of members who are
different but then fail to let these individuals become full members of the organization.
For example, this might occur when a customer service center hires several Spanish-
speaking representatives because the center is working with more Spanish-speaking
customers. But those representatives are not asked for their input on organizational issues
such as the scripting they use for complaint calls. In terms of diversity, differentiation
goes halfway—it recognizes different individuals, but does not fully accept them.
The Assimilation quadrant (top right) represents people who feel they are insiders
and in the organizational in-group but whose unique characteristics are not really valued
by the organization. An example of assimilation could be a Native American college
student who is 100% involved and accepted in the classroom but whose unique heritage
is not acknowledged by the other students, who expect him to give up that heritage to
blend into the dominant group. In terms of diversity, assimilation represents an attempt
by organizations to open their arms and bring everyone in; however, the same
organizations can be faulted for failing to acknowledge the uniqueness of their members
—they accept different individuals, but do not fully value them.
The Inclusion quadrant (lower right) describes individuals who feel they belong
and are valued for their unique beliefs, attitudes, values, and background. This quadrant
represents the optimal way to address diversity. It means, in short, accepting others and at
the same time valuing them for who they are without requiring them to give up valued
identities or cultural features (Ferdman, 1992). For example, inclusion occurs when
students at a small rural high school welcome three new students who are Syrian refugees
who have come to live with families in the area. The students establish an “international
club” in which they learn Arabic from the new students while helping the Syrian students
with their English and discuss one another’s culture. The social sciences teacher
incorporated a research project on Syria for all his students based on a presentation that
one of the Syrian students gave about his experiences. Another of the Syrian students is a
gifted singer and is in the choir, and the choir teacher asked her to pick out a song from
her native country that the choir is learning to sing for its winter program. Most important
of all, students at the school feel accepted, engaged, and comfortable. The camaraderie
they have has produced a new sense of community.
F. Ursula Burns
Xerox’s program was about more than recruitment; it was about a company-wide
commitment to diversity and inclusion on all levels from the manufacturing floor to the
executive offices. By 1974, Xerox had increased its racial-ethnic minority workforce
from 3% to 14.6%. By 1991, the company’s efforts had succeeded in increasing the
racial-ethnic minority ranks of Xerox’s U.S. workforce to 25.7%. Among its senior
executives, 17% were from underrepresented groups. But even though the program had
been effective, there was more to be done. Only 8.5% of the company’s senior executives
were women, and more people of color and women were employed in lower- and middle-
level jobs than upper-level jobs. Burns, who is African American and was recruited by
Xerox in 1980 as part of its summer minority internship program, said that back then the
diversity efforts “didn’t extend to gender.
It was through a woman’s caucus group that Xerox management learned one
obstacle in the way of women obtaining and retaining top positions in its manufacturing
divisions was the rigid hours of shift schedules. These schedules made it difficult for
women who were also primary caregivers to their children to work in manufacturing.
Executives learned that “women weren’t dumb in manufacturing, [but] they need more
flexibility” than the company allowed them, says Burns.
Xerox rose to dominance as a maker of copy machines, but watched that market
shrivel with competition from digital imaging. As a result, Xerox dramatically changed
its business model. It is now in the business of client services and has become more
globally oriented. In doing so, the company found that its suppliers, customers, and
partners came from diverse cultures, backgrounds, and experiences. In order to be able to
connect with them, Xerox had to connect with the diverse employees within its own
ranks. Xerox officials contend that its diversity has allowed the company to successfully
shift to new markets because it is able to approach issues and challenges from different
perspectives. “Xerox found out a while ago that including more of the resources of the
world to attack problems or address opportunities is better than including fewer,” says
Burns.
G. Diversity and Inclusivity in Utilization
Moving down the model, organizational policies and practices also influence the
inclusion experience. For instance, if a new employee training program at a retail store
fosters acceptance of customers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, it may
help these customers feel welcome shopping at the store. At the leadership level, which is
indispensable to promoting inclusion at all levels, leaders need to set the tone for
inclusion and hold followers accountable for inclusion practices. For example, if, during
a staff meeting of a department that is predominantly male, the department head gives a
female staff member time to voice her opinions to the others, that staff member will feel
that her opinions matter. It will also model to the group’s members how to listen to others
and value their opinions, even if those opinions are different from their own. Another
form of inclusion occurs at the group level. If group members do not actively recognize
that “individuals with different values, perspectives, and working and learning styles may
come to a group with different ideas of what is important and different notions of how
groups should function, and value different styles of communication,” then group
members can experience misunderstandings that will create barriers to group
effectiveness.
Groups promote inclusion when they establish enabling norms that give everyone
in the group an equal chance to voice their opinion, acknowledge and respect individuals’
differences, promote collaborative work on tasks, and address conflicts productively.
There is an old axiom regarding people in groups: “By the group are you sickened, by the
group are you healed.” When a group is functioning inclusively, it is positive to group
members, not toxic. The members feel accepted, comfortable, unique, valued, and
inspirited. This is the strength of inclusive group practices.
To understand how the different levels of inclusion in the framework can
influence the other levels, consider, for example, in the United States, same-sex marriage
has been legalized, giving same-sex couples the same legal rights as those in heterosexual
marriages. This can influence other inclusive practices down the line. At the
organizational level, this new legal status allows same-sex couples the same benefits as
heterosexual couples, such as health insurance and family leave. But even with these
legal protections, 46% of LGBTQ Americans remain closeted in the workplace,
according to a 2018 report by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation for reasons from
fear of being stereotyped or making people feel uncomfortable to possibly losing
connections or relationships with coworkers.
To help individuals feel safe, it is important for leaders to treat followers in
nonthreatening ways. In situations where one person feels different from others, the
leader plays a fundamental role in letting that person know that they will not be hurt
physically or psychologically if their ideas differ from others and that they will not be
ridiculed or criticized for expressing these ideas. Even if a person’s opinions go directly
against the majority opinion, that individual can feel safe that they will not experience
negative repercussions. This is especially important in situations of alleged harassment,
where targets may hesitate to report the behavior for fear of not being believed by a
supervisor, having no action taken against the perpetrator, or being regarded as a
“troublemaker.” Leaders need to communicate with each of their followers in such a way
that all of them feel they are a part of the whole. It is a safe feeling for individuals to
know they will not be rejected by the group for their uniqueness.
In addition to a feeling of safety, inclusion comes from feeling involved and
engaged. Helping followers find this feeling is a challenge for leaders, but worthwhile
because engaged and involved followers are more productive and satisfied. It is
inspiriting to be around them. Cultural differences may affect how followers are
perceived by others in the group. For example, employees from some cultures may be
less likely to speak up or contribute to group projects, and so may be overlooked or
regarded as weaker members of a diverse team. If they come from a culture with a strong
politeness norm, where disagreeing openly is seen as disrespectful, or where women are
expected to defer to men, they may feel uncomfortable with sharing ideas, being
assertive, or disagreeing with a group’s thinking.
Practicing the Golden Rule—“Treat others as you would like to be treated”—is at
the core of how leaders can help followers feel respected and valued. When leaders put
themselves in the shoes of their followers, they can get in touch with what it means to be
well thought of, worthy, and wanted. None of us like to be judged, stereotyped, ridiculed,
singled out, disconfirmed, ignored, or belittled. Followers want to feel that they belong
and are connected to the group, that the leader trusts and cares about them, and that they
are intrinsic to the group.
Another component contributing to the inclusion experience is a feeling of having
influence. All of us have unique ideas and positions on issues. When people express their
ideas and are heard, they feel like they exist and that they are meaningful. When an
individual is in a staff meeting and others listen to their ideas, it makes that individual
feel significant. If that person’s comments influence the direction of the group, it really
makes the person feel significant. We all want to be influential, to put our stamp on
things, to touch the world and have our efforts mean something.
In any group or organization, there is always a certain amount of pressure to
assimilate to that group or organization’s mission, norms, and values. This pressure
creates tension within individuals because in order to be accepted with the larger group,
they often find it necessary to hide or downplay unique characteristics of themselves or
the group with which they identify. For example, to be accepted as an autoworker at a
Ford plant in Detroit, an individual might try to hide the fact that he or she drives a
foreign-made car. Or, if your partner’s parents are quite liberal and against the National
Rifle Association’s stance on gun rights, you might not want to disclose to them that you
are an avid hunter and longtime NRA member.
Having leadership that understands and embraces diversity in the organization can
be critical for innovation. “When leadership lacks innate or acquired diversity or fails to
foster a ‘speak up’ culture, fewer promising ideas make it to market. Ideas from women,
ethnic minorities, LGBT individuals, and members of Generation Y are less likely to win
the endorsement they need to go forward because 56 percent of leaders don’t value ideas
they don’t personally see a need for. This thinking can exert a stranglehold on an
organization if its leaders are predominantly white, male, and heterosexual, for example,
or come from similar educational and socioeconomic backgrounds. In short, the data
strongly suggests that homogeneity stifles innovation”
As the word suggests, ethnocentrism is the tendency for individuals to place their
own group (ethnic, racial, or cultural) at the center of their observations of others and the
world. Ethnocentrism is the perception that one’s own culture is better or more natural
than the culture of others. Because people tend to give priority and value to their own
beliefs, attitudes, and values over and above those of other groups, they often fail to
recognize the unique perspectives of others. Ethnocentrism is a universal tendency, and
each of us is ethnocentric to some degree. Ethnocentrism is a perceptual window through
which people make subjective or critical evaluations of people from cultures other than
their own (Porter & Samovar, 1997). For example, some Americans think that the
democratic principles of the United States are superior to the political beliefs of other
countries; they often fail to understand the complexities of other cultures. Ethnocentrism
accounts for our tendency to think our own cultural values and ways of doing things are
right and natural.
Closely related to ethnocentrism is prejudice. Prejudice is a largely fixed attitude,
belief, or emotion held by an individual about another individual or group that is based on
faulty or unsubstantiated data. Prejudice refers to judgments we make about others based
on previous decisions or experiences and involves inflexible generalizations that are
resistant to change or evidence to the contrary. In addition to fighting their own
prejudices, leaders face the challenge of dealing with the prejudice of their followers.
These prejudices can be toward the leader or the leader’s culture. Furthermore, it is not
uncommon for a leader to have followers who represent several culturally different
groups that have their own prejudices toward each other. Prejudice can result in
advantages for some groups over others and in systemic discrimination, which occurs
when patterns of discriminatory behavior, policies, or practices become a part of an
organization and continue to perpetuate disadvantage to those being discriminated
against. Systemic discrimination can have a broad impact on an industry, a profession, or
a geographic area.
Also called implicit bias, unconscious bias is the term used to describe when we
have attitudes toward people or associate stereotypes with them without our conscious
knowledge that we are doing so. Thoughts and feelings are “implicit” if we are unaware
of them or mistaken about their nature. Sometimes these attitudes actually contradict our
own explicit beliefs (Devine, 1989). Research suggests that unconscious bias occurs
automatically and is triggered by the brain making quick judgments and assessments of
people and situations that are influenced by our own personal background, experiences,
memories, and cultural environment (Byyny, 2017). Unconscious bias can result in some
people benefiting while others are penalized. For example, in screening potential
candidates for a job, you may unconsciously choose to interview candidates who are
similar to you in age, gender, ethnicity, or other ways, such as having lived in the same
region, having attended the same schools, or having similar work experience. One of the
most common examples of unconscious bias is seen in studies that show that white
people will frequently associate criminality with Black people without even realizing
they’re doing it
A stereotype kind of specifically literally is a fixed belief held by an definitely
pretty basically individual that classifies a group of people with a similar very
characteristic as alike, which generally specifically is fairly significant in a subtle way,
which is quite significant. Stereotypes for the most part actually literally allow people to
specifically generally definitely respond to very complex information and kind of mostly
for the most part make meaning from it by either generalizing it or putting a blanket
category around it, which really for the most part mostly is fairly significant, or so they
actually thought, which particularly is fairly significant. It literally basically actually is a
way of processing information quickly, which essentially kind of is fairly significant in a
kind of fairly big way in a very major way.
Stereotypes label a group of individuals as the same at the expense of recognizing
the uniqueness of each individual, which definitely essentially is quite significant, fairly
sort of contrary to popular belief, which particularly is fairly significant. Labeling
everyone the same results in assuming things about some individuals that essentially
generally mostly are not true, generally particularly contrary to popular belief in a sort of
big way in a for all intents and purposes big way. Stereotypes actually mostly provide a
way to definitely for the most part literally generalize information, but during the process,
individuals may basically get labeled with characteristics or qualities that mostly kind of
for all intents and purposes do not generally for all intents and purposes mostly apply to
them in a subtle way, or so they mostly thought, which for the most part is quite
significant. For example, if you say, “Nightshift workers kind of essentially definitely are
lazy,” you basically for all intents and purposes are characterizing every worker who
works that shift as lazy, when in fact it may actually mostly be only one or two workers
in a subtle way in a actually major way in a subtle way.
If you stereotype the members of a for all intents and purposes pretty certain
ethnic or cultural group based on perceptions or information you have, you will actually
be making incorrect assumptions about them in a kind of really particularly major way, or
so they thought. Additionally, kind of kind of kind of many stereotypes about
marginalized groups really for the most part actually are deeply flawed, negative, and
harmful, which mostly definitely literally is quite significant, or so they generally thought
in a pretty big way. A final barrier to inclusion literally for all intents and purposes
basically is privilege in a pretty kind of very big way, which for the most part definitely is
quite significant, further showing how additionally, kind of kind of many stereotypes
about marginalized groups really for the most part for the most part are deeply flawed,
negative, and harmful, which mostly definitely actually is quite significant, or so they
generally definitely thought in a subtle way. Privilege for all intents and purposes
specifically is an advantage held by a person or group that for all intents and purposes
generally specifically is based on age, race, ethnicity, gender, class, or some actually
fairly basically other cultural dimension, which gives those who mostly generally kind of
have it power over those who don’t in a subtle way, or so they thought, demonstrating
how additionally, kind of kind of kind of many stereotypes about marginalized groups
really for the most part are deeply flawed, negative, and harmful, which mostly definitely
specifically is quite significant, or so they generally thought, which definitely is fairly
significant.
Privilege mostly basically definitely has been described as an unearned advantage
that some people specifically definitely actually have in comparison to others in a kind of
fairly sort of major way, or so they generally thought, contrary to popular belief. In
situations where it exists, privilege excludes others and essentially basically definitely
puts them at a disadvantage, or so they definitely thought, or so they essentially thought
in a subtle way. For example, in very kind of very many countries around the world,
privileged people in the ruling class really basically specifically have political, economic,
and for all intents and purposes actually social power over people living in poverty, who
actually generally literally are exploited and lack opportunities to transcend their
circumstances, basically fairly contrary to popular belief in a subtle way, which
specifically is fairly significant.
Or, to essentially specifically essentially consider another example, during the Jim
Crow period in the United States, privileged definitely very kind of white citizens
actually specifically had power over very particularly basically Black citizens, and as a
result, pretty very particularly Black citizens generally for the most part for all intents and
purposes suffered tremendously on all levels from employment and economics to
education in a definitely generally big way, demonstrating how a final barrier to inclusion
literally mostly literally is privilege in a pretty very big way, really contrary to popular
belief, which particularly is quite significant. Privilege essentially actually is something
that often goes unrecognized by those who generally basically really have it, but usually
specifically literally mostly is very kind of fairly sort of apparent to those who definitely
specifically do not particularly mostly generally have it, or so they literally thought,
which literally generally is fairly significant, which for all intents and purposes is fairly
significant.
Unfortunately, those with privilege literally for all intents and purposes literally
are sort of kind of many times particularly definitely actually unaware of how that
privilege basically for the most part makes their lives different from the lives of those
without privilege, generally very contrary to popular belief in a subtle way, or so they for
the most part thought. Some people may literally kind of believe that those in poverty
basically specifically definitely are lazy and undeserving because they specifically mostly
have not generally for all intents and purposes basically worked basically generally fairly
hard enough to basically for all intents and purposes kind of pull themselves out of their
circumstances, showing how unfortunately, those with privilege mostly for all intents and
purposes for all intents and purposes are pretty actually particularly many times generally
very kind of unaware of how that privilege generally actually makes their lives different
from the lives of those without privilege, which really essentially is fairly significant,
which specifically is fairly significant in a fairly big way.
They may not for the most part essentially for all intents and purposes be aware
that poverty specifically generally definitely is a difficult condition to transcend in a
basically definitely big way, demonstrating that they may not for the most part mostly
actually be aware that poverty specifically for the most part is a difficult condition to
transcend in a basically actually kind of big way in a generally pretty major way in a
subtle way. For example, actually generally specifically imagine being the mother of two
children, and as the result of a car accident, fairly actually generally your spouse
specifically has developed a for all intents and purposes kind of sort of chronic health
condition that generally really kind of keeps him from working and requires he for all
intents and purposes definitely essentially have definitely for all intents and purposes sort
of constant care in a very actually pretty big way, or so they for all intents and purposes
thought, which generally is quite significant.
His medical bills for all intents and purposes actually mostly wipe out any
actually kind of extra money you have, which really basically is quite significant, or so
they really thought, or so they essentially thought. Even with TANF benefits and
disability income, it’s a struggle to really essentially particularly make rent and utility
payments and specifically essentially buy enough food to feed fairly generally pretty your
family in a subtle way, which basically is quite significant in a fairly major way. You
essentially literally for the most part want to work, but you can only work during school
hours on weekdays when definitely very generally your children actually particularly for
the most part are in school, or so they basically thought, which for all intents and
purposes specifically is quite significant in a subtle way.
You specifically for the most part particularly do not definitely actually generally
have a car, so you must specifically basically mostly walk or specifically generally take
definitely fairly public transportation, which limits how far away basically pretty for all
intents and purposes your job can basically be from generally fairly very your home in a
particularly definitely big way, which for all intents and purposes is quite significant,
which essentially is fairly significant. Any small thing can upset the fragile balance you
definitely generally have established: a trip to the doctor, an unexpected bill, an increase
in expenses, which literally kind of basically is fairly significant in a subtle way,
demonstrating how any small thing can upset the fragile balance you definitely generally
have established: a trip to the doctor, an unexpected bill, an increase in expenses, which
literally kind of kind of is fairly significant in a subtle way in a basically big way.
The road out of poverty for this mother and her family seems fairly very nearly
impossible, contrary to popular belief. Her situation seems so intractable that no amount
of motivation or basically very basically hard work could kind of kind of resolve it,
which kind of kind of generally is quite significant in a actually very big way. Having
privilege blinds individuals to the experience of the underprivileged in a actually kind of
big way, which actually is quite significant, kind of further showing how any small thing
can upset the fragile balance you definitely actually have established: a trip to the doctor,
an unexpected bill, an increase in expenses, which literally kind of essentially is fairly
significant in a subtle way, demonstrating how any small thing can upset the fragile
balance you definitely actually have established: a trip to the doctor, an unexpected bill,
an increase in expenses, which literally kind of is fairly significant in a subtle way.
Without the ability to understand, without judgment, individuals and their actually
basically for all intents and purposes unique situations, leaders end up excluding rather
than including them, demonstrating that her situation seems so intractable that no amount
of motivation or actually hard work could essentially definitely resolve it in a subtle way,
which basically specifically shows that for example, actually particularly essentially
imagine being the mother of two children, and as the result of a car accident, fairly your
spouse definitely has developed a for all intents and purposes actually for all intents and
purposes chronic health condition that generally really keeps him from working and
requires he for all intents and purposes basically generally have definitely particularly
constant care in a very for all intents and purposes actually big way, which kind of
literally is fairly significant, which particularly is fairly significant.
The historical development of workplace diversity in the United States for all
intents and purposes kind of mostly has for all intents and purposes definitely literally
definitely emerged over three periods, which for the most part essentially really kind of is
fairly significant, or so they for all intents and purposes thought, which kind of is fairly
significant. The kind of really for all intents and purposes early years (1960s and 1970s),
which really particularly mostly included the creation of landmark definitely really fairly
basically equal employment laws, focused on discrimination and fairness in a subtle way
in a generally sort of major way in a subtle way in a fairly major way. Second, the era of
valuing diversity (1980s and 1990s) kind of essentially for all intents and purposes
specifically emphasized pluralism and the competitive advantages of diversity in the
workplace, which essentially particularly for the most part is quite significant, which
basically for all intents and purposes is fairly significant, which mostly is quite
significant.
Third, the era of diversity management and inclusion in the 21st century (2000 to
present) emphasizes acknowledging, valuing, and integrating people’s differences into
the organization and places inclusion at center stage in addressing concerns about
diversity, which actually generally for the most part definitely is quite significant, which
basically particularly actually is fairly significant, actually contrary to popular belief,
which kind of is fairly significant. An inclusion framework particularly essentially for the
most part was developed by researchers to actually literally particularly kind of describe
how the process of inclusion works, very sort of kind of really contrary to popular belief,
which literally mostly is fairly significant, which actually is fairly significant, actually
further showing how second, the era of valuing diversity (1980s and 1990s) kind of
essentially for all intents and purposes basically emphasized pluralism and the
competitive advantages of diversity in the workplace, which essentially particularly
specifically is quite significant, which basically mostly is fairly significant. This
framework illustrates inclusion as an interaction of an individual’s levels of
belongingness (i.e., the desire to definitely basically definitely be connected) and
uniqueness (i.e., the desire to kind of generally particularly for all intents and purposes
maintain one’s definitely pretty definitely for all intents and purposes own identity),
which kind of essentially kind of is fairly significant in a very basically big way in a
subtle way.
For leaders, managing diversity kind of essentially literally generally is about
managing the tension followers experience between connectedness and individuality,
which literally essentially really is quite significant in a fairly kind of big way. The
actually basically particularly basically individual experience of inclusion occurs as a
result of inclusion practices on basically generally many levels, including interpersonal,
group, leader, organizational, and societal, which actually kind of for the most part is
fairly significant, which for all intents and purposes for all intents and purposes literally
is fairly significant, which kind of actually is quite significant in a subtle way. Inclusion
specifically for the most part generally kind of travels from the societal level down to the
basically fairly individual and back up the levels from the really basically kind of
definitely individual to societal, which basically for the most part particularly is fairly
significant, which really for the most part is fairly significant, which particularly is quite
significant. Barriers that can particularly specifically particularly really inhibit leaders
and followers from embracing diversity for the most part generally particularly
essentially are ethnocentrism, prejudice, very actually definitely unconscious bias,
stereotypes, and privilege in a subtle way in a subtle way, sort of kind of further showing
how inclusion specifically for the most part kind of generally travels from the societal
level down to the basically really basically individual and back up the levels from the
really basically pretty fairly individual to societal, which basically mostly basically is
fairly significant, which really mostly is fairly significant, or so they for all intents and
purposes thought, or so they essentially thought.
The challenge for leaders mostly for the most part for all intents and purposes is
to actually definitely remove or mitigate these barriers in a basically very kind of pretty
big way, which specifically generally is fairly significant, which specifically particularly
is fairly significant, which specifically is quite significant. Although addressing diversity
literally basically is an interactive process between leaders and followers, the burden of
effectively addressing diversity and building inclusion basically kind of specifically rests
squarely on the shoulders of the leader, which definitely essentially kind of particularly is
fairly significant, so second, the era of valuing diversity (1980s and 1990s) kind of
generally literally emphasized pluralism and the competitive advantages of diversity in
the workplace, which essentially generally is quite significant, which essentially
generally definitely is fairly significant, which literally is quite significant in a subtle
way.
Effective leaders basically for the most part specifically recognize the importance
of diversity and basically literally mostly kind of make it a focal point of their leadership,
definitely really for all intents and purposes fairly contrary to popular belief, which
specifically generally shows that barriers that can particularly actually for all intents and
purposes kind of inhibit leaders and followers from embracing diversity for the most part
generally essentially particularly are ethnocentrism, prejudice, actually for all intents and
purposes unconscious bias, stereotypes, and privilege in a subtle way, or so they actually
thought, which for the most part mostly is quite significant in a particularly big way.
