Diversity In Workplace
Diversity
Diversity in the Workplace
Western International University
MGT 352
Political, Legal & Ethical Issues in Business
1
Diversity
2
Introduction
Workplace diversity has taken on a new face. Today, workplace diversity is no longer just about anti-discrimination compliance. Diversity in the workplace is not buzzwords for affirmative action or equal employment opportunity. Diversity represents a company 's fundamental attitude that it not only respects and values the individuality of its employees but also understands how to tap the potentially significant contributions inherent in diversity.
The workplace is made up of people from various backgrounds, cultures, sexual orientations, abilities, etc. To be successful, …show more content…
the businessperson of today and tomorrow will have to "get on board" with diversity initiatives or be left behind. The control of the dollar is changing. The demographics of the workplace have changed. There are more minorities, women and older persons in the workplace, and there is an increasing visibility of lesbians and gays.
Today 's supervisor and manager must be aware of the changing demographics and put forth the effort necessary to keep the workplace free or discrimination and harassment. Diversity includes everyone. Or does it?
What is Diversity?
A great deal of confusion exists about what diversity is. Webster 's Dictionary defines diversity as the condition of having distinct or unlike elements. In a workplace, this means the variety among people related to such factors as age, culture, education, employee status, family status, function, gender, national origin, physical appearance, race, regional origin, religion, sexual orientation, and thinking style. Though these differences themselves are undeniable, corporate culture and society at large often deny them by recognizing and valuing only a narrow range of differences. While these differences have often been ignored or devalued in the past, awareness of the role they play in organizational effectiveness has more recently put the spotlight on diversity.
Diversity
3
Managing diversity means promoting inclusion, creating an environment where all differences are valued, and in which an each employee can develop to her or his full potential.
From a business perspective, managing diversity is valuable because it means an organization gets the most from its employees. Companies that effectively manage diversity recognize that it is not enough to hire employees from underrepresented groups; they must also provide an environment where all employees are supported and valued.
Most people would agree that cultural diversity in the workplace utilizes our country 's skills to its fullest, and contributes to our overall growth and prosperity. Yet, despite the growing awareness among corporate leadership of the bottom-line value and economic imperative of including minorities and women in senior corporate management, progress has been disappointingly slow, and barriers persist which stop able people from achieving their full employment potential. Even though we are in the midst of an economic growth, the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" continues to widen.
Is Workplace Diversity Needed?
Examining statistics on who gets promoted into management and, particularly, who gets the top spots in any organization show that even employers with the best general employment diversity records may not fare as well in fostering diversity in the organizational upper atmosphere. The higher the position, in both the private and public sectors, the less likely that women or minorities will fill it. Why? Is it because minorities and women haven 't amassed the same level of education and experience to get those jobs? Or is it because the powers that be are stingier with those who are "different" at levels where real money and power are involved? In fact, the reasons for the “glass ceiling” are much more complex than that.
The term “glass ceiling” first entered America’s public conversation in the 80’s, when
The Wall Street Journal’s “Corporate Woman” column identified a puzzling new phenomenon.
Diversity
4
There seemed to be an invisible—but impenetrable—barrier between women and the executive suite, preventing them from reaching the highest levels of the business world regardless of their accomplishments and merits. The phrase immediately captured the attention of the public as well as business leaders, journalists, and policy makers. The metaphor was quickly extended to refer to obstacles hindering the advancement of minorities.
A number of years back, a federal government commission examined the effects of the glass ceiling by studying the nation 's largest companies. It found that top management positions comprised 95% males and 97% whites. While some of this imbalance has likely improved in the years since, it remains today almost always big news when a woman or a racial minority becomes CEO of a large corporation. Conditions in the government sector are not so different.
Although more women and members of at least some minority groups hold leadership roles in government, there are far fewer than would be available in the labor force, and the under-representation remains pretty pronounced.
One noted cause of such disparities in management has been traced back to the hiring processes, and to the existing managers who enact them. Although it is sadly more present than I would have hoped for at this point in our history, outright executive prejudice -- not wanting to allow minorities and women in authority -- is probably rare. However, entrenched stereotypes and biases natural to us all are more pernicious and less conscious than overt prejudice. Their impact is far more powerful in creating the glass ceiling …show more content…
phenomenon.
The more subjective the criteria used in the hiring or promotions process, the more likely it will be that one 's assumptions and stereotypes affect the decision. The evaluator 's personal background, experiences, and internal assumptions as well as the evaluator 's own past leadership role models may help form a mental image of what kind of person can be envisioned in the position. Diversity
5
Change through Corporate Diversity Training
Corporate diversity training has changed dramatically in recent years.
Diversity programs look more carefully at how they train people and what they train them in, and assure that this training is effective and meaningful in a measurable way. Training programs focus on behavior skills and empathy for example, not on valuing diversity or making you think you’re experiencing an inclusion breakthrough. Training is also being conducted using trainers from diverse backgrounds.
For instance, the company I work for, Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (APCI), is an international corporation with operations in over 30 countries, and nearly 20,000 employees around the globe. In Feb. 2005 we went through a 2 day Diversity Training Program which was taught by persons not only of dissimilar ethnicities and cultures but they came from different organizations within the company. Due to the number of employees, the training was broken into two sessions. The attendees of each session consisted of a diverse number of managers, supervisors and production staff.
Diversity training at APCI
Air Products defines diversity as; “All the ways in which we are different that makes
a difference at work”. Four key concepts are deeply rooted in the diversity awareness and education process at APCI and are considered extremely valuable in helping employees engage in the topic of diversity.
The first concept is Group Membership. This concept refers to the dynamics of dominant and subordinate members, also referred to as insiders and outsiders. Dominant here means those exercising the most control or influence not those in the majority or most prevalent. Subordinate refers to those subject to the control or authority of another. The combination of these two definitions shapes the meaning of this concept.
Diversity
6
Some people have mostly dominant or mostly subordinate memberships in the groups in which they belong. It is also true that a person may be a dominate member in some groups while being subordinate in other groups. For example, men being primarily dominant can be subordinate in certain situations while the opposite applies to women. Training within this concept was geared toward having us see and understand the behavior of each membership and discussing these issues.
The second concept is Personal Prejudice and Organizational Preference. The personal prejudice side of training was to have people examine and challenge themselves and their learned behavior. The organizational preference learning objective was to explain how preferences influence behavior based on past practices. If the upper management has always consisted of white male, then it stands to reason a comfort zone is established and the result is intended and unintended exclusion. This made it clear that leaders of an organization need be aware of this concept in order to be conscience and deliberate about needed changes. The need is to shift from systematic exclusion to a model of inclusion based on competence and potential and not based on image.
The third concept is called the Principle of Mixing Cultures. This concept deals not only with having a worldwide employee base and how to include those differences but also how to deal with the mixing of cultures when an acquisition or merger is involved.
This was most important to us since we were acquired by APCI in Sept. 2003. We learned soon thereafter what it was like to be the new kid on the block. Promises came late, communication with corporate was poor and we had no visibility to an actual person from HR.
We had one phone number to the Employee Help Line to seek resolve for personnel related issues. Needless to say much time was spent on this concept.
Diversity
7
The last concept deals with the Accumulation Effect. This concept is defined as; “One person’s collection of ostensibly isolated incidents of disrespect or exclusion perpetrated by different individuals that happen because of one’s difference”. It was explained how the subordinate group members are usually aware of this effect but not of the accumulation’s impact on behavior, attitude motivation and self-esteem. Although dominant group members may say this happens to them, dominants do not usually incur that treatment over and over again as do the subordinates. It is this distinction that makes this concept powerful and important but also occasionally difficult for some to comprehend. The training consisted of role playing to relay awareness of the emotions involved and the subsequent impacts. This concept was primarily focused toward the dominant group members because they are usually aware of only the individual act and may be unconscious or unaware of the intended or unintended pattern of disrespect or disregard.
Did the Training Have an Effect?
In my opinion the training was more of a cover than an attempt at real change. To this day the upper management in our facility consists of no women or minorities even though positions had come open since the training and subordinate group members have applied. Very little change has also been seen at the corporate level. I believe this training took on such importance in order to ward off possible lawsuits.
Avoiding litigation costs and lawsuits is a powerful motivator for companies in providing diversity programs to meet compliance objectives. It is part of sound fiscal management.
Lawsuits against major corporations have brought to the public 's attention allegedly illegal corporate behavior, i.e. allegations that corporations were or are engaging in widespread race discrimination in the areas of pay, performance evaluations, and promotions. These cases, when considered as a set, provide clear information about (1) areas of weaknesses many companies
Diversity
8
demonstrate in the employment discrimination/diversity arena, (2) the kinds of information proactive companies should gather and report for the benefit of all stakeholders, and (3) concrete action steps companies can take to remedy problems and avoid the costs of litigation.
• Roberts vs. Texaco Inc. was one of the first glass ceiling cases alleging systemic race discrimination at a Fortune 500 company. In this case, the plaintiffs uncovered a secret highpotential list, which served as the basis for promotion decisions. Texaco paid $176 million to settle the discrimination suit after senior executives were caught on tape making what were thought to be racist remarks about black employees.
• Pilot Accuses Mesa Air Group of Discrimination
Source: Associated Press, Arizona Republic
Status: lawsuit filed: national origin and religious discrimination
Date: December 10, 2003
A graduate of the San Juan College-Mesa Airlines flight school has filed a lawsuit against Mesa Air
Group alleging discrimination. Frank Nickman said Mesa refused to hire him as a commercial pilot because of his Iranian heritage. "It was a decision based on fear," Nickman said Tuesday
• Berge Ford pays $70,000 in discrimination suit
Source: John Yantis, East Valley Tribune
Status: Fired woman wins pregnancy discrimination lawsuit.
Date: June 16, 2004
Berge Ford has paid $70,000 to a Mesa woman and agreed to provide employees with more training in pregnancy discrimination to settle a federal lawsuit, the Phoenix office of the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission announced Tuesday. The commission filed the suit after 23year-old Marilyn Pickler was fired in December 2000. The EEOC argued that Pickler was terminated because the company feared it might be liable if she became ill while driving company vehicles. "That 's the kind of stereotyping and ignorance we 're talking about," EEOC regional attorney Mary Jo O 'Neill said. "Sometimes, when times get hard economically, we see an increase in certain kinds of discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination."
The shift in purchasing power in the United States provides further evidence for the business case for workplace diversity. According to the Selig Center for Economic Growth, the purchasing power of minorities in the United States will quickly outpace that of whites in the next five years. In 2009, for example, the combined buying power of African-Americans,
Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Native Americans is expected to exceed $1.5 trillion, more than triple the 1990 level by a gain of $1.1 trillion or 242%. In contrast, the buying power of whites will increase by 140%. As minority groups grow in size and spending power, they will spend their dollars rewarding companies that demonstrate sensitivity and a keen understanding of what customers need.
Diversity
9
Conclusion
As Justice Sandra Day O 'Connor reminded us in her majority opinion in Grutier v.
Bollinger, "[e]ffective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized." American citizens of all gender, racial and ethnic groups are more likely to participate in society as corporate stakeholders when they have the information they need to assess the extent to which a particular corporation 's human resources system have eliminated conscious and unconscious bias.” Workplace diversity now focuses on inclusion and the impact on the bottom line.
Leveraging workplace diversity is increasingly seen as a vital strategic resource for competitive advantage. More companies are linking workplace diversity to their strategic goals and objectives--and holding management accountable for results.
So I say, the glass ceiling is not healthy for anyone. It suppresses the diversity that is
America 's most unique and powerful advantage. Breaking the glass ceiling requires addressing it head on. If a corporation is serious about a diverse team, they need to understand why they don 't have one and how they will assess efforts to get one. It 's clear that companies must not only make diversity a priority in their workplace, they also must communicate, through action, the effectiveness of their diversity programs to the workforce.
Those of us at APCI Gilbert Facility would prefer to work for an organization that makes diversity a priority, unfortunately a substantial number of people still believes our organization is not committed to workplace diversity.
Diversity
10
REFERENCES
Tong, Clifford M. (2005). Strategic planning for diversity. Retrieved 08 Oct 2005, from http://www.diversestrategies.com/Diversity_strategic_planning.htm Ethnic Majority. (2004). Corporate Culture and Diversity. Retrieved 08 Oct 2005, from http://www.ethnicmajority.com/corporate_diversity.htm Holmes, Tamara E. (2005). The Changing Language of Business. Retrieved 08 Oct 2005, from http://bostonworks.boston.com/diversityworks/diversity_language.shtml Holmes, Tamara E. (2005). Diversity Training Programs Changing With the Times. Retrieved 08
Oct 2005, from http://bostonworks.boston.com/diversityworks/ diversity_training.shtml
PPC Online. (2005). What is Workplace Diversity? Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from http://www.professionalpractice.asme.org/communications/diversity/index.htm CarreerJournal, WSJ.com. (2005). Various articles within this page. Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/diversity Lora, Francis. (2005, August). Diversity in the workplace: how much have things really changed? Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_ m0PCH/is_4_6/ai_n15379600 Bell, H. (2003, August). Global Diversity Learning Concepts. Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from https://my.airproducts.com/whalecom89215154a35bf2bf5da7697e3ce2/whalecom0/Secur eemployeeportalPortalHomePage/
Diversity in the Workplace
Western International University
MGT 352
Political, Legal & Ethical Issues in Business
1
Diversity
2
Introduction
Workplace diversity has taken on a new face. Today, workplace diversity is no longer just about anti-discrimination compliance. Diversity in the workplace is not buzzwords for affirmative action or equal employment opportunity. Diversity represents a company 's fundamental attitude that it not only respects and values the individuality of its employees but also understands how to tap the potentially significant contributions inherent in diversity.
The workplace is made up of people from various backgrounds, cultures, sexual orientations, abilities, etc. To be successful, …show more content…
the businessperson of today and tomorrow will have to "get on board" with diversity initiatives or be left behind. The control of the dollar is changing. The demographics of the workplace have changed. There are more minorities, women and older persons in the workplace, and there is an increasing visibility of lesbians and gays.
Today 's supervisor and manager must be aware of the changing demographics and put forth the effort necessary to keep the workplace free or discrimination and harassment. Diversity includes everyone. Or does it?
What is Diversity?
A great deal of confusion exists about what diversity is. Webster 's Dictionary defines diversity as the condition of having distinct or unlike elements. In a workplace, this means the variety among people related to such factors as age, culture, education, employee status, family status, function, gender, national origin, physical appearance, race, regional origin, religion, sexual orientation, and thinking style. Though these differences themselves are undeniable, corporate culture and society at large often deny them by recognizing and valuing only a narrow range of differences. While these differences have often been ignored or devalued in the past, awareness of the role they play in organizational effectiveness has more recently put the spotlight on diversity.
Diversity
3
Managing diversity means promoting inclusion, creating an environment where all differences are valued, and in which an each employee can develop to her or his full potential.
From a business perspective, managing diversity is valuable because it means an organization gets the most from its employees. Companies that effectively manage diversity recognize that it is not enough to hire employees from underrepresented groups; they must also provide an environment where all employees are supported and valued.
Most people would agree that cultural diversity in the workplace utilizes our country 's skills to its fullest, and contributes to our overall growth and prosperity. Yet, despite the growing awareness among corporate leadership of the bottom-line value and economic imperative of including minorities and women in senior corporate management, progress has been disappointingly slow, and barriers persist which stop able people from achieving their full employment potential. Even though we are in the midst of an economic growth, the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" continues to widen.
Is Workplace Diversity Needed?
Examining statistics on who gets promoted into management and, particularly, who gets the top spots in any organization show that even employers with the best general employment diversity records may not fare as well in fostering diversity in the organizational upper atmosphere. The higher the position, in both the private and public sectors, the less likely that women or minorities will fill it. Why? Is it because minorities and women haven 't amassed the same level of education and experience to get those jobs? Or is it because the powers that be are stingier with those who are "different" at levels where real money and power are involved? In fact, the reasons for the “glass ceiling” are much more complex than that.
The term “glass ceiling” first entered America’s public conversation in the 80’s, when
The Wall Street Journal’s “Corporate Woman” column identified a puzzling new phenomenon.
Diversity
4
There seemed to be an invisible—but impenetrable—barrier between women and the executive suite, preventing them from reaching the highest levels of the business world regardless of their accomplishments and merits. The phrase immediately captured the attention of the public as well as business leaders, journalists, and policy makers. The metaphor was quickly extended to refer to obstacles hindering the advancement of minorities.
A number of years back, a federal government commission examined the effects of the glass ceiling by studying the nation 's largest companies. It found that top management positions comprised 95% males and 97% whites. While some of this imbalance has likely improved in the years since, it remains today almost always big news when a woman or a racial minority becomes CEO of a large corporation. Conditions in the government sector are not so different.
Although more women and members of at least some minority groups hold leadership roles in government, there are far fewer than would be available in the labor force, and the under-representation remains pretty pronounced.
One noted cause of such disparities in management has been traced back to the hiring processes, and to the existing managers who enact them. Although it is sadly more present than I would have hoped for at this point in our history, outright executive prejudice -- not wanting to allow minorities and women in authority -- is probably rare. However, entrenched stereotypes and biases natural to us all are more pernicious and less conscious than overt prejudice. Their impact is far more powerful in creating the glass ceiling …show more content…
phenomenon.
The more subjective the criteria used in the hiring or promotions process, the more likely it will be that one 's assumptions and stereotypes affect the decision. The evaluator 's personal background, experiences, and internal assumptions as well as the evaluator 's own past leadership role models may help form a mental image of what kind of person can be envisioned in the position. Diversity
5
Change through Corporate Diversity Training
Corporate diversity training has changed dramatically in recent years.
Diversity programs look more carefully at how they train people and what they train them in, and assure that this training is effective and meaningful in a measurable way. Training programs focus on behavior skills and empathy for example, not on valuing diversity or making you think you’re experiencing an inclusion breakthrough. Training is also being conducted using trainers from diverse backgrounds.
For instance, the company I work for, Air Products and Chemicals Inc. (APCI), is an international corporation with operations in over 30 countries, and nearly 20,000 employees around the globe. In Feb. 2005 we went through a 2 day Diversity Training Program which was taught by persons not only of dissimilar ethnicities and cultures but they came from different organizations within the company. Due to the number of employees, the training was broken into two sessions. The attendees of each session consisted of a diverse number of managers, supervisors and production staff.
Diversity training at APCI
Air Products defines diversity as; “All the ways in which we are different that makes
a difference at work”. Four key concepts are deeply rooted in the diversity awareness and education process at APCI and are considered extremely valuable in helping employees engage in the topic of diversity.
The first concept is Group Membership. This concept refers to the dynamics of dominant and subordinate members, also referred to as insiders and outsiders. Dominant here means those exercising the most control or influence not those in the majority or most prevalent. Subordinate refers to those subject to the control or authority of another. The combination of these two definitions shapes the meaning of this concept.
Diversity
6
Some people have mostly dominant or mostly subordinate memberships in the groups in which they belong. It is also true that a person may be a dominate member in some groups while being subordinate in other groups. For example, men being primarily dominant can be subordinate in certain situations while the opposite applies to women. Training within this concept was geared toward having us see and understand the behavior of each membership and discussing these issues.
The second concept is Personal Prejudice and Organizational Preference. The personal prejudice side of training was to have people examine and challenge themselves and their learned behavior. The organizational preference learning objective was to explain how preferences influence behavior based on past practices. If the upper management has always consisted of white male, then it stands to reason a comfort zone is established and the result is intended and unintended exclusion. This made it clear that leaders of an organization need be aware of this concept in order to be conscience and deliberate about needed changes. The need is to shift from systematic exclusion to a model of inclusion based on competence and potential and not based on image.
The third concept is called the Principle of Mixing Cultures. This concept deals not only with having a worldwide employee base and how to include those differences but also how to deal with the mixing of cultures when an acquisition or merger is involved.
This was most important to us since we were acquired by APCI in Sept. 2003. We learned soon thereafter what it was like to be the new kid on the block. Promises came late, communication with corporate was poor and we had no visibility to an actual person from HR.
We had one phone number to the Employee Help Line to seek resolve for personnel related issues. Needless to say much time was spent on this concept.
Diversity
7
The last concept deals with the Accumulation Effect. This concept is defined as; “One person’s collection of ostensibly isolated incidents of disrespect or exclusion perpetrated by different individuals that happen because of one’s difference”. It was explained how the subordinate group members are usually aware of this effect but not of the accumulation’s impact on behavior, attitude motivation and self-esteem. Although dominant group members may say this happens to them, dominants do not usually incur that treatment over and over again as do the subordinates. It is this distinction that makes this concept powerful and important but also occasionally difficult for some to comprehend. The training consisted of role playing to relay awareness of the emotions involved and the subsequent impacts. This concept was primarily focused toward the dominant group members because they are usually aware of only the individual act and may be unconscious or unaware of the intended or unintended pattern of disrespect or disregard.
Did the Training Have an Effect?
In my opinion the training was more of a cover than an attempt at real change. To this day the upper management in our facility consists of no women or minorities even though positions had come open since the training and subordinate group members have applied. Very little change has also been seen at the corporate level. I believe this training took on such importance in order to ward off possible lawsuits.
Avoiding litigation costs and lawsuits is a powerful motivator for companies in providing diversity programs to meet compliance objectives. It is part of sound fiscal management.
Lawsuits against major corporations have brought to the public 's attention allegedly illegal corporate behavior, i.e. allegations that corporations were or are engaging in widespread race discrimination in the areas of pay, performance evaluations, and promotions. These cases, when considered as a set, provide clear information about (1) areas of weaknesses many companies
Diversity
8
demonstrate in the employment discrimination/diversity arena, (2) the kinds of information proactive companies should gather and report for the benefit of all stakeholders, and (3) concrete action steps companies can take to remedy problems and avoid the costs of litigation.
• Roberts vs. Texaco Inc. was one of the first glass ceiling cases alleging systemic race discrimination at a Fortune 500 company. In this case, the plaintiffs uncovered a secret highpotential list, which served as the basis for promotion decisions. Texaco paid $176 million to settle the discrimination suit after senior executives were caught on tape making what were thought to be racist remarks about black employees.
• Pilot Accuses Mesa Air Group of Discrimination
Source: Associated Press, Arizona Republic
Status: lawsuit filed: national origin and religious discrimination
Date: December 10, 2003
A graduate of the San Juan College-Mesa Airlines flight school has filed a lawsuit against Mesa Air
Group alleging discrimination. Frank Nickman said Mesa refused to hire him as a commercial pilot because of his Iranian heritage. "It was a decision based on fear," Nickman said Tuesday
• Berge Ford pays $70,000 in discrimination suit
Source: John Yantis, East Valley Tribune
Status: Fired woman wins pregnancy discrimination lawsuit.
Date: June 16, 2004
Berge Ford has paid $70,000 to a Mesa woman and agreed to provide employees with more training in pregnancy discrimination to settle a federal lawsuit, the Phoenix office of the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission announced Tuesday. The commission filed the suit after 23year-old Marilyn Pickler was fired in December 2000. The EEOC argued that Pickler was terminated because the company feared it might be liable if she became ill while driving company vehicles. "That 's the kind of stereotyping and ignorance we 're talking about," EEOC regional attorney Mary Jo O 'Neill said. "Sometimes, when times get hard economically, we see an increase in certain kinds of discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination."
The shift in purchasing power in the United States provides further evidence for the business case for workplace diversity. According to the Selig Center for Economic Growth, the purchasing power of minorities in the United States will quickly outpace that of whites in the next five years. In 2009, for example, the combined buying power of African-Americans,
Hispanics, Asian-Americans and Native Americans is expected to exceed $1.5 trillion, more than triple the 1990 level by a gain of $1.1 trillion or 242%. In contrast, the buying power of whites will increase by 140%. As minority groups grow in size and spending power, they will spend their dollars rewarding companies that demonstrate sensitivity and a keen understanding of what customers need.
Diversity
9
Conclusion
As Justice Sandra Day O 'Connor reminded us in her majority opinion in Grutier v.
Bollinger, "[e]ffective participation by members of all racial and ethnic groups in the civic life of our Nation is essential if the dream of one Nation, indivisible, is to be realized." American citizens of all gender, racial and ethnic groups are more likely to participate in society as corporate stakeholders when they have the information they need to assess the extent to which a particular corporation 's human resources system have eliminated conscious and unconscious bias.” Workplace diversity now focuses on inclusion and the impact on the bottom line.
Leveraging workplace diversity is increasingly seen as a vital strategic resource for competitive advantage. More companies are linking workplace diversity to their strategic goals and objectives--and holding management accountable for results.
So I say, the glass ceiling is not healthy for anyone. It suppresses the diversity that is
America 's most unique and powerful advantage. Breaking the glass ceiling requires addressing it head on. If a corporation is serious about a diverse team, they need to understand why they don 't have one and how they will assess efforts to get one. It 's clear that companies must not only make diversity a priority in their workplace, they also must communicate, through action, the effectiveness of their diversity programs to the workforce.
Those of us at APCI Gilbert Facility would prefer to work for an organization that makes diversity a priority, unfortunately a substantial number of people still believes our organization is not committed to workplace diversity.
Diversity
10
REFERENCES
Tong, Clifford M. (2005). Strategic planning for diversity. Retrieved 08 Oct 2005, from http://www.diversestrategies.com/Diversity_strategic_planning.htm Ethnic Majority. (2004). Corporate Culture and Diversity. Retrieved 08 Oct 2005, from http://www.ethnicmajority.com/corporate_diversity.htm Holmes, Tamara E. (2005). The Changing Language of Business. Retrieved 08 Oct 2005, from http://bostonworks.boston.com/diversityworks/diversity_language.shtml Holmes, Tamara E. (2005). Diversity Training Programs Changing With the Times. Retrieved 08
Oct 2005, from http://bostonworks.boston.com/diversityworks/ diversity_training.shtml
PPC Online. (2005). What is Workplace Diversity? Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from http://www.professionalpractice.asme.org/communications/diversity/index.htm CarreerJournal, WSJ.com. (2005). Various articles within this page. Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/diversity Lora, Francis. (2005, August). Diversity in the workplace: how much have things really changed? Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_ m0PCH/is_4_6/ai_n15379600 Bell, H. (2003, August). Global Diversity Learning Concepts. Retrieved 09 Oct 2005, from https://my.airproducts.com/whalecom89215154a35bf2bf5da7697e3ce2/whalecom0/Secur eemployeeportalPortalHomePage/