case study draft - Paper Answers

To complete this assignment, pick any private organization/business of your choice, which has a diversity and inclusion statement on its website. Conduct your research, and provide the following information:

Brief background about the organization and its main business (about 1/2-1 page, double spaced).
The reason why the organization is implementing diversity and inclusion practices (major lawsuit, new CEO and her/his vision, or…?) (about 1/2-1 page, double spaced).
Does the organization have clear strategies to promote diversity or inclusion, or does it use general abstract language to describe its diversity and inclusion approach? Provide examples (1/2-1 page).
Is the diversity and inclusion statement/plan of the organization focused on its employees, the community, abiding with anti-discrimination laws, all of them, or…? Why? Explain. (1/2-1 page)
Does this organization’s diversity and inclusion statement address any of the challenges of diversity management discussed in the course’s readings so far? Cite the readings (1/2-1 page).
Based on what you have read in this course so far, make two recommendations to this organization. The recommendations can focus on improving existing programs and policies or creating new ones to meet challenges that you think are important. Cite readings from the course to support your recommendations (1/2-1 page double space)

I have attached the source you can use in the work

From di

ersity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress

file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/201

10:26:40 AM]

The world has become highly diverse, but many companies have not—especially when it comes to combining
diversity with the inclusive culture needed to truly drive value.

WRITTEN BY

Juliet Bourke, Christie Smith, Heather Stockton & Nicky Wakefield

PUBLISHED

March 7, 2014

Share Subscribe

Many organizations promote diversity while struggling to fully leverage the business benefits of a
diverse workforce.

Nearly one-third of respondents to the Human Capital Trends global survey say they are unprepared
in this area, while only 20 percent claim to be fully “ready.”

In a recent study, 61 percent of employees report they are “covering” on some personal dimension
(appearance,

filiation, advocacy, association) to assimilate in their organization.

1 2

From diversity to inclusion

javascript: void(0);

https://subscriptions.deloitte.com/OptIn.aspx?src=dup&sub=a0C300000021TZR+a0Ca000001I62Vq&userselect=1

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#end-notes

http://dupress.com/?icid=duplg

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress

file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

In 2014, promoting diversity is an expected commitment; like workforce safety, it’s now a ticket

to play. And while unwavering support is claimed, far fewer organizations can talk to the

benefits of diversity beyond the attraction of talent and reputation. Why is that? Surely a focus

on diversity is the way to uncover and optimize talent? Is it focus, effort, a failure to move

diversity from the fringe to the center, or level of difficulty?

One clear factor, according to our global survey, is that only one company in five (20 percent)

believes it is fully “ready” to address this issue. The gap between the urgency of this trend and

companies’ readiness to address it is particularly wide in Japan, South Africa, and China (figure

1).

Why are so many companies falling short? One view is that many companies still treat diversity

primarily as a matter of compliance—a regulatory box to be checked. Not enough organizations

take the next essential steps of creating a work environment that promotes inclusion in all its

variations. Taking a step back from individual organizations to a more country-based analysis,

we can see that most countries do not have a strong sense of readiness and most hover around a

medium sense of urgency.

Using this lens, we see two major themes emerging that can help companies transition from

simply meeting minimum regulatory requirements for diversity to building an inclusive

workplace that inspires all employees to perform at their highest level:

Leading companies are working to build not just a diverse workforce, but inclusive workplaces,
enabling them to transform diversity programs from a compliance obligation to a business strategy.

1. Diversity of thinking as a business imperative

2. A focus on inclusion as well as diversity itself

file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom Diversity to Inclusion_files/DUP0681_Figure1

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

Explore the report findings
Launch the interactive trends dashboard

Diversity of thinking as a business imperative
Organizations can start by broadening their understanding of diversity to focus not only on the

visible aspects of diversity, such as race, gender, age, and physical ability, but also diversity of

thinking. This means deriving value from people’s different perspectives on problems and

different ways to address solutions. It’s a complex world, it’s a global world, and maximal

participation is required from every workplace participant from the bottom to the top. Thinking

of diversity in this way helps organizations to see value and to be conscious of the risk

associated with homogeneity, especially in senior decision makers. And this means that diversity

is no longer a “program” to be managed—it is a business imperative.

Uncovering talent: A new model of inclusion
An importance advance in thinking about inclusion is the recent work on “uncovering talent”

from Kenji Yoshino, at NYU Law School, and Christie Smith, the head of Deloitte University’s

Leadership Center for Inclusion. Their research suggests that current inclusion initiatives often

implement formal inclusion (that is, “participation”) without recognizing how that inclusion is

predicated on assimilation. In response to pressures to assimilate, individuals downplay their

differences. This behavior is referred to as “covering” and can include how individuals behave

along four dimensions:

Appearance: Individuals may blend into the mainstream through their self-presentation,

including grooming, attire, and mannerisms.

Affiliation: Individuals may avoid behaviors widely associated with their identity,

culture, or group.

Advocacy: Individuals may avoid engaging in advocacy on behalf of their group.v

http://www.deloitte.com/hcdashboard

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#end-notes

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

Yoshino and Smith’s research reports that covering behaviors are widespread, costly to

individuals and their organizations, and often misaligned with values of inclusion. Organizations

should be interested in covering not because they are “playing defense” against lawsuits, but

because they are “playing offense” to create a more inclusive culture over and above legal

compliance. Most Fortune 500 companies are seeking to create that kind of culture.

Linking diversity of thinking and inclusion
Bringing these two themes together—diversity of thinking and inclusion—we suggest that

organizations consider the importance of diversity when it comes to meeting specific business

objectives:

Association: Individuals may avoid associating with individuals in their own group.v 4

Accessing top talent: Companies should recruit top people from a globally diverse

workforce. The importance of leadership pipelines, the No. 1 priority in our global trends

survey, underscores the importance of broadening leadership pipelines and accelerating

the development of diverse leaders. Given the transparency of the employment “brand”

today, in order to attract the best people, organizations must create a diverse workplace.

When candidates research a prospective employer online, interact as customers, or

interview with the company, they have to feel as if they would “fit” into the work

environment.

Driving performance and innovation: A significant body of research shows that

diverse teams are more innovative and perform at higher levels. Companies that build

diversity and inclusion into their teams reap the benefits of new ideas, more debate and,

ultimately, better business decisions.

Retaining key employees: One reason people leave organizations is that they feel they

no longer “belong.” Or perhaps they feel they will “belong” and thrive in another

organization that appreciates their unique value. A company that fails to create a diverse

and inclusive workplace risks alienating or excluding key employees, who are then more

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#end-notes

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

Diversity is the measure: Inclusion is the mechanism
What this all adds up to is that high-performing organizations recognize that the aim of diversity

is not just meeting compliance targets, but tapping into the diverse perspectives and approaches

each individual employee brings to the workplace. Moving beyond diversity to focus on

inclusion as well requires companies to examine how fully the organization embraces new ideas,

accommodates different styles of thinking (such as whether a person is an introvert or an

extrovert), creates a more flexible work environment, enables people to connect and collaborate,

and encourages different types of leaders.

While nearly one-quarter of executives (23 percent) believe their companies have done an

“excellent” job creating a culture of inclusiveness, and defining what it means (24 percent), the

overwhelming majority rate their effort as “adequate” or “weak.” Clearly, there is much more to

be done to turn the vision of diversity and inclusion into a daily reality (figure 2). Much more

than a focus on programs, this effort needs to focus on cultural change: behaviors, systems and

symbols, and an explicit understanding of the extent and causes of “covering” in organizations.

Research by Deloitte Australia shows that high-performing organizations are characterized by

likely to disengage or eventually leave the organization.

Understanding customers: There’s a thin line between customers and employees, with

current and former employees purchasing their companies’ products and services, acting

as advocates, and sensing customer needs. How better to understand and respond to

diverse customer needs than by tapping into diverse employees? From where we sit, this

is one of the most significant gaps in the diversity story, with the breadth of ideas and

experiences from a more diverse front line falling by the wayside as decisions are made

by more distant, homogenous teams that sometimes fail to fully include diverse

perspectives. In a broad range of industries—including retail, hospitality, food service, oil

and gas, insurance, and even banking—a diverse workforce creates opportunities to

appeal to a more diverse customer base.

v
6

file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom Diversity to Inclusion_files/DUP0681_Figure2

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#end-notes

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

their commitment to diversity and a culture of inclusion. In the areas of customer service,

innovation, safety, and more, the message from employees is the same: Organizations that

support diversity and that also make employees feel included are much more likely to meet

business goals than those organizations that focus on diversity and inclusion in isolation (or

focus on neither). The question is, how do you get there?

One essential component of building a strategy of inclusion is recognizing the biases in the way

each of us receives and processes information and the historical biases in our systems of work.

Addressing these processing biases is critical because leaders—as they themselves feel high

levels of inclusion—often do not understand levels of alienation in an organization. Given the

critical importance of retention in our survey, inclusion becomes a key strategy for success.

LESSONS FROM THE FRONT LINES
ADOPTING DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION TO
SOLVE A DEMOGRAPHIC MISMATCH
BHP Billiton’s marketing division was highly diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity in non-

executive positions, but there was a demographic mismatch between the global talent pool and

the company’s senior team.

Mike Henry, the president of health, safety, environment, and community, marketing, and

technology, observed this misalignment. He concluded that the only reasonable explanation was

an unconscious bias within the organization and a tendency to do things as they had always been

done—particularly the fact that leading talent was primarily sourced from BHP Billiton’s

traditional hiring bases in Australia, the United Kingdom, North America, South Africa, and the

Netherlands.

Following the closure of BHP Billiton’s marketing office in The Hague—a traditional hub for

recruiting and developing marketing executives—Henry decided to take action to prevent

narrowing the leadership pipeline even further.

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#end-notes

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

With strong support from the CEO, Henry began seeking out broad-based leadership engagement

and took steps to understand BHP’s unconscious biases. He led by example, taking the Harvard

Implicit Association Test and sharing the results with his team. He aimed to prove his

commitment to diversity and inclusion and show that he could only mitigate his own

unconscious biases by being aware of them first.

Next, Henry had BHP Billiton’s marketing organization conduct an inclusive leadership program

for its top 150 leaders, which included measuring perceptions on diversity and inclusion. The

program involved interactive workshops, storytelling, videos, self-paced activities, homework,

coaching, and reading, all designed to help leaders shift their mindsets and behaviors. And it

broadened the conversation from one about diversity to one about diversity and inclusion, from

demographics to diversity of thinking, and from compliance to business imperative. To help take

this from a program to a sustained focus of attention, Henry appointed a full-time diversity and

inclusion manager to implement change. During a time of downsizing, this was a potent symbol

of the value he placed on diversity and inclusion.

These steps yielded several notable results. Nine months after the first leadership intervention,

88–94 percent of leaders reported that they understood what they needed to do, that they had

changed their behaviors, and that they knew they were accountable for change. Critically, 72–76

percent of staff agreed that their leaders were behaving differently—that is, more respectfully and

inclusively—and that their teams were now more collaborative. In 2013, the program was

expanded to include all leaders and all staff, which was a huge investment of time and energy.

Mindsets have shifted, and while employee statistics have been slow to change, the 2013 results

of BHP Billiton’s marketing organization’s annual “inclusion index” diagnostic reveal that

representation of women and talent from outside the companies’ traditional hiring bases has

increased at leadership levels—a trend that has continued year on year since the first diagnostic

was run in 201

WHERE COMPANIES CAN START
Many organizations have not put enough effort into understanding what makes people feel

included. Do employees feel they are known and valued as individuals? Are they well-connected

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

to other people in the organization? Are they given a voice in decision making? Is there an

understanding of the types and extent of covering in the organization (appearance, affiliation,

advocacy, association)? In addition to examining these fundamental questions, companies

looking to build a more inclusive workplace should consider the following steps:

BOTTOM LINE

Create inclusion labs to help educate leaders about unconscious bias and covering

behaviors: Encourage leaders to honor other people’s opinions and promote constructive

debate. Understand covering biases and behaviors and approaches to changing them.

Leadership drives inclusion; the process should start at the top.

Embed diversity and inclusion in leadership pipelines and programs: Include the

diversity and inclusion initiative in leadership development programs, new manager

programs, and talent acquisition programs. Give particular focus to supporting diversity

of thinking—for instance, by selecting people from diverse backgrounds for leadership

development.

Conduct a gap analysis of talent systems and processes: How is the principle of merit-

based decision making transparently embedded into systems, from recruitment,

remuneration, and training to career development opportunities and succession? Review

the outputs of these decisions in terms of equity, such as via a pay equity audit.

Develop a diversity and inclusion scorecard and measure business impact: Hold

leaders and managers accountable and identify outliers in the diversity and inclusion

initiative.

Install governance and resource the effort appropriately: Create a council with

representatives from different parts of the business that is properly resourced to be a

change agent.

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#end-notes

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

WRITTEN BY

Juliet Bourke
Deloitte Consulting Pte Ltd

Juliet Bourke leads the Australian Diversity and Inclusion practice and co-leads the Australian Leadership
practice. She has over 20 years’ experience in human capital and is an internationally recognized author and
speaker on the workplace, cultural change, leadership, and diversity. Bourke is a member of the Australian
firm’s diversity council and sits on the Australian School of Business’s HR advisory board.

Christie Smith
Deloitte Consulting LLP

Diversity is not a program or a marketing campaign to recruit staff. Thinking of diversity in this way
relegates it to its compliance-driven origins. A diverse workforce is a company’s lifeblood, and diverse
perspectives and approaches are the only means of solving complex and challenging business issues.
Deriving the value of diversity means uncovering all talent, and that means creating a workplace
characterized by inclusion. Our research shows that most organizations are not there yet, but change is in the
wind, and market leaders are starting to move from compliance to inclusion as a business strategy.

Endnotes

Kenji Yoshino and Christie Smith, Uncovering talent: A new model of inclusion, Deloitte

Development LLC, December 6, 2013, http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-

UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_LLC_Deloitte_UncoveringTalent_121713 . Back to

article

View all endnotes s

mailto:jubourke@deloitte.com.au

mailto:christiesmith@deloitte.com

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_LLC_Deloitte_UncoveringTalent_121713

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#sup-0

http://dupress.com/articles/hc-trends-2014-diversity-to-inclusion/#

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

Christie Smith has spent the last 24 years consulting, focusing on aligning business strategy with
organizational structure, talent, leadership development, and global workforce planning. She recently drove the
formation of Deloitte’s collaboration with the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences (QB3) to spur
bioscience innovation and convert that innovation into a catalyst for jobs, companies, and better health. Smith
is one of Diversity Journal’s 2013 “Women to Watch.”

Heather Stockton
Human Capital leader
Deloitte Canada

Heather Stockton is global Human Capital leader for the financial services industry. She is a member of the
board in Deloitte Canada and chair of the talent and succession committee. Through her work in developing
and executing strategic plans, Stockton has become an advisor to executives who are undertaking business
transformation, merger integration, and changing their operating model. She has extensive experience in talent
strategy and leadership development for leaders and boards.

Nicky Wakefield
Human Capital leader, Deloitte Southeast Asia
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Nicky Wakefield is an experienced leader and advisor working primarily on large-scale, complex
transformation programs. She started her career in consulting in 1995 after completing her MBA in
organizational strategy and change. Educated as an economist, Wakefield transitioned to human capital after
beginning a diploma in psychotherapy and developing a real passion for human performance. She has lived and
worked in Australia, the United States, Singapore, Brunei, Zimbabwe, England, and the Netherlands.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Contributors: Stacia Garr, Jackie Scales

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity
as a business strategy
Published March 7, 2014

Cover Image by Alex Nabaum

mailto:hstockton@deloitte.ca

mailto:nwakefield@deloitte.com.au

http://www.alexnabaum.com/

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

TOPICS

Talent

TAGS

diversity, inclusion

COLLECTIONS

Diversity as an engine of innovation

Written by Alison Paul, Thom McElroy & Tonie Leatherberry

As the retail consumer landscape evolves, diverse communities represent a larger and more important part of
total buying power. Forging connections with those communities effectively and for the long term depends, to a
significant degree, on having…

About Deloitte University Press

http://dupress.com/topics/talent/

http://dupress.com/tag/diversity/

http://dupress.com/tag/inclusion/

http://dupress.com/articles/diversity-as-an-engine-of-innovation/

https://subscriptions.deloitte.com/OptIn.aspx?src=dup&sub=a0C300000021TZR+a0Ca000001I62Vq&userselect=1

http://dupress.com/about-deloitte-university-press/

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

About Deloitte University

Contact

De
Unc

De
Und

De
ony

http://dupress.com/about-deloitte-university/

http://dupress.com/terms-of-use/

http://dupress.com/contact/

https://www.facebook.com/DeloitteUniversity

https://twitter.com/DU_Press

http://www.youtube.com/user/deloittellp

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress
file:///C|/Users/blawrence/Desktop/Fom%20Diversity%20to%20Inclusion.html[01/02/2016 10:26:40 AM]

Local Disk

From diversity to inclusion: Move from compliance to diversity as a business strategy – Dupress

B0byUyMEluY2x1c2lvbi5odG1sAA==:

button0:

Diversity management:
a systematic review
Shatrughan Yadav and Usha Lenka

Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee, India

Abstract

Purpose – Diversity management plays a significant role in the organization’s outcomes. This study seeks to
provide a brief review of the history of diversity management and to identify the articles published on diversity
management since 1991. A systematic review of the literature has been carried out to understand the literature
in more detail to know the future scope of research.
Design/methodology/approach – This study provides a comprehensive systematic review of quantitative,
qualitative and theoretical studies published in leading peer-reviewed management journals from 1991 to 201

and identifies 123 articles that fall within its established search inclusion criteria.
Findings – The literature review highlighted several aspects related to diversity management. The findings of
the study revealed that there is a high concentration of researches in the USA and most number of articles
published in the Academy of Management Journal. Although diversity management is a very emerging topic
across the globe in management literature yet there is a lack of research in developed countries. Furthermore,
most studies are found empirical in nature and the majority of the studies were published during the period of
1996–2000. This finding suggests that age, gender and racial diversity have been repeatedly discussed in
diversity management research while other forms of diversity have given less attention
Originality/value – This study is one of the first systematic studies that describe the in-depth analysis of
diversity management literature. The significant contribution of this study is to propose the integrated model
with contemporary trends and patterns of results reported in diversity research, as well as contextual factors
that have received more attention to date.

Keywords Demographic diversity, Diversity management, Systematic literature review, Workforce diversity

Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
Socio-cultural and economic transformations, along with economic liberalization,
globalization and changing preferences of customers, have substantially increased
workforce diversity, which forces organizations to make their workforce more diverse,
innovative and competitive (Cook and Glass, 2009). Innovative workforce can be ensured by
hiring multiple talents from different backgrounds for providing better products and services
to the customer and clients (Salau et al., 2018). However, challenges of a diverse workforce are
umpteen, which arise due to differences in the workplace. To successfully manage the
challenges of a diverse workforce, organizations have emphasized understanding the root
cause of diversity and found that diversity management can address the problem and
enhance problem-solving and decision-making power (Pelled, 1996). Therefore, organizations
have made a huge investment into managing diversity effectively and also over the past three
decades a plethora of diversity research has examined the positive impact of diversity on
performance, creativity, innovation, problem-solving and decision-making skills (Elsass and
Graves, 1997; Yang and Konrad, 2010), as well as the adverse impact on group cohesion,
conflicts and turnover (Roberson, 2019).

The purpose of diversity management is to enhance the performance of a heterogeneous
workforce and inclusive development of people with differences in gender, ethnicity,
nationality, cultural and educational backgrounds. The reason for heterogeneity in the

Diversity
management: a

systematic
review

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and Editor for their
valuable inputs to publish this article.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 3 July 201

Revised 19 December 2019

27 February 202

Accepted 13 April 2020

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:
An International Journal

Vol. 39 No. 8, 2020
pp. 901-

929

DOI 10.1108/EDI-07-2019-0197

https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2019-019

workforce is the recruitment of ethnic minorities, women, underrepresented groups and the
migration of people in search of job opportunities (Tsui et al., 1992). Each individual has
unique knowledge, which needs to be recognized by organizations for their holistic
development. Conclusively, diversity management plays a massive role in knowledge
sharing and the overall development of organizations. Several studies have discussed the
relationship between diversity and performance of an organization. To understand and
manage the dynamics of workforce diversity researchers have remarkably explored the
outcomes of diversity at an individual level (Chatman and Flynn, 2001), group level
(Schippers et al., 2003; Leslie, 2017) and organization level (Richard and Johnson, 2001;
Armstrong et al., 2010). Individual-level outcomes are such as commitment, absenteeism,
satisfaction and turnover (Tsui et al., 1992). The group-level outcomes are conflict, cohesion,
creativity, group performance and idea generation (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). Finally, the
organizational-level outcomes are financial performance, productivity and firm
competitiveness (Cox and Blake, 1991; Richard, 2000).

Researchers have performed studies and found that diversity management positively
influences organizational effectiveness and firm performance (Watson et al., 1993; Richard
et al., 2004). In contrast, some studies have reported that diversity has negative effects like
social exclusion, miscommunication, conflicts and turnover (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). In a
meta-analysis of 24 studies, Webber and Donahue (2001) found that neither type of diversity
had a relationship with group cohesion and performance. Similarly, Horwitz and Horwitz
(2007) found that job-oriented diversity has a positive impact on team performance, whereas
demographic diversity was not significantly associated with team performance. The
inconsistencies in several studies have led researchers to report diversity as a “double-edged
sword” (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). These mixed findings can
be attributed to different contextual factors, which suggests that diversity research should be
context-specific (Joshi and Roh, 2009). Because of inconsistencies that have widely ignored in
the tradition review paper, there is a need for a systematic review of the literature.

This study has not designed in any particular country context and only summarized the
previous findings of diversity, dimensions of diversity and suggests gaps and new avenues
for research. Moreover, previous studies have only focused on particular areas of diversity
(e.g., cultural and racial diversity) while largely ignoring diversity and its types like
workplace diversity, organizational diversity, informational diversity and relational
demography. Hence, this study includes overall diversity and its dimension to broaden the
scope for future studies. This study intensely reviews a large number of articles in
comparison to other review papers to report a clearer and more comprehensive picture of
diversity. Conclusively, the research in the area of workforce diversity has rapidly increased
in the last two decades. However, there are still certain research questions remain, which our
study intends to address through the following research objectives:

Objective 1: To explore dimensions of diversity from past literature.

Objective 2: To identify the different antecedents, consequences and contextual factors to
propose an integrative model of diversity management.

Objective 3: To identify emerging issues in diversity research and suggest avenues for
future research.

2. Literature review
Thissection presents theevolution ofdiversity management, the conceptualization ofdiversity,
and dimensions of diversity given by several authors in different contexts accordingly.

EDI
39,8

902

2.1 Evolution of diversity management
Diversity management is the business strategy adopted by organizations to recruitment,
retention and inclusive development of individuals from a variety of backgrounds (Thomas,
1991). The concept has become increasingly important due to globalization and the migration
of people across the globe (Al Ariss and Sidani, 2016). Roosevelt Thomas has coined the term
diversity management in the year 1990 in the context of the USA and gradually, it dispersed
over the world (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998). The history behind the theory of diversity
management goes long back when affirmative action (AA) plans and equal employment
opportunities (EEO) act were incorporated through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in
the USA (Kelly and Dobbin, 1998). Prior to the 1990s, studies were conducted on the topic of
affirmative action programs and equal employment opportunity but after the emergence of
diversity management, researchers have gradually moved into cross-cultural diversity
research (Cox, 1991). The issue of diversity was completely ignored in organizations;
however, workplace diversity had become a critical issue in the year 1987 when the Hudson
Institute of USA published the report “Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the
Twenty-First Century” (Johnson and Packer, 1987). To understand the problems of
increasing diversity in the organizations’ researchers have defined diversity in different ways
and conceptualized the diversity with support of different theories, which has discussed in
the following sections.

2.2 Conceptualization of diversity
Different authors have defined diversity, yet there is no single definition accepted globally.
Diversity is all about differences and dissimilarities among people. Although an organization
claims to be relatively homogenous, yet employees vary along with social identity
characteristics such as demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, race and ethnicity), values,
beliefs or cultural backgrounds (Weber et al., 2018). According to Williams and O’Reilly (1998,
p. 81), diversity is defined as “any attributes that people use to tell themselves that another
person is different.” Whereas Jackson et al. (2003) defined diversity as the differences in
personal attributes among individual members in the workgroup.

Diversity has been recognized as an immeasurable number of attributes like age, gender,
race, etc. based on which individuals may differ from each other. The heterogeneity in
diversity research has been explained with the help of underlying theories like social identity
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979), similarity-attraction (Byrne, 1971), and self-categorization (Turner
et al., 1987). These theories have been differentiated based on the perspectives of social and
personal identity of individuals. The social identity of an individual depends on group
membership, while personal identity is less or more independent of group memberships. The
self-categorization theory is referred that an individual engages in a group based on social
comparisons like status, income and education to differentiate between their in-groups and
others into different relevant groups (Turner et al., 1987). Whereas social identity theory states
that individuals’ perceptions classify themselves into social groups based on certain
attributes (e.g., age, race and gender) (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Similarity-attraction theory
highlights that as individuals are likely to be attracted toward those who possess similar
attributes and attitudes, and in contrast, they feel challenging with others who have dissimilar
attitudes, values and experiences (Byrne, 1971). Collectively, these theories offer the
conceptual foundation of relational demography theory (Tsui et al., 1992), which proposes that
demographic attributes within work units will highly influence an individual’s behavior and
attitudes. Conclusively, these theories address the negative perspective of diversity in
workgroups related to diversity such as race, gender, age, nationality. However, these theories
suggest that a homogenous group of people are more productive and have less conflict rather
than diverse teams due to attraction toward in-group members with similar characteristics.

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

903

Accordingly, these mentioned theories suggest that diversity may be negatively associated
with organizational performance and firm effectiveness (Pelled et al., 1999).

Optimistic researchers have argued that diversity can have a potential advantage to the
organizations. The positive viewpoint was supported by information decision-making
(Willimas and O’Reilly, 1998), upper echelon theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984), and
integration learning perspective (Ely and Thomas, 2001). These theories have argued that
dissimilarity among group members results in the dissemination of knowledge, ideas, skills
and perspective, which enhances creativity, problem-solving capabilities, thereby improving
the quality of group performance, firm effectiveness and organizational performance. The
same concept has been reaffirmed by the upper echelon theory, which states that top
management team diversity has a positive impact on organizational outcomes due to diverse
experience, backgrounds and value systems (Knight et al., 1999; Simons et al., 1999). Diversity
in top management will help in improving the overall performance of all employees. The
performance is measured in terms of financial performance (e.g., return on equity, return on
investment, sales growth and productivity) and nonfinancial performance (e.g., employee
satisfaction, quality and quantity). Conclusively, researchers have found both positive and
negative effects of diversity on organizational outcomes (Milliken and Martins, 1996).

A review of 40 years of extant literature has been carried out to understand the dynamics
of literature on diversity management, which concluded that diversity has dual nature and
inconsistent findings (Willimas and O’Reilly, 1998). However, to overcome the inconsistency
and the inappropriate relationship between workgroup diversity and performance, a
categorization-elaboration model (CEM) was proposed by van Knippenberg et al. (2004). To
understand the combined effects of diversity on group performance, this model integrates
both positive and negative perspectives of theory and reconceptualize the two contradicting
viewpoints of diversity into a unified framework. Therefore, CEM has integrated the social
categorization and information decision-making theory and incorporated mediator and
moderator variables in a single framework to mitigate the negative effects of diversity, which
have typically been ignored in prior studies.

2.3 Exploring dimensions of diversity
To review the dimensions of diversity studied in diversity management, an extensive and
in-depth review of literature has been carried out. Diversity has been categorized into readily
detectable and underlying attributes (Jackson et al., 1995). Another typology categorized
diversity based on observable and underlying attributes (Milliken and Martins, 1996).
Observable attributes are age, gender, race, nationality, while underlying attributes are
personality, education, tenure, etc. Readily-detectable and observable attributes are similar
and highlight the same attributes. Another classification of diversity is categorized as high
visible (age, gender, race) and less visible dimensions like tenure, education and functional
background (Pelled, 1996). Further, in the sequel of studies, diversity has been categorized as
surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity by Harrison et al. (1998). Surface-level
diversity is observable attributes that can be easily identified based on physical features,
whereas deep-level diversity defines underlying attributes that are hidden, such as attitudes,
personality and values, etc. The aforementioned typologies of diversity have been proposed
through a 2 3 2 matrix that categorizes the different dimensions of diversity. Table 1 depicts
the typology of different dimensions of diversity, whereas Figure 1 represents the pictorial
descriptions of the evolution of diversity management and different types of dimensions of
diversity discussed by several researchers.

EDI
39,8

904

3. Research methodology
A systematic review of the extant literature on diversity management was carried out
through relevant search of keywords. The systematic review is a transparent process to
synthesize and disseminate evidence by minimizing the bias through an exhaustive search of
published literature (Tranfield et al., 2003). Specific keywords like “workplace diversity,”
“diversity management,” ”workforce diversity,” “heterogeneous workforce” and “managing
diversity” were searched, followed by certain inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search criteria
included articles written in the English language and published in peer-reviewed journals
from 1991 to 2018. This period was chosen because the term diversity management was
coined in 1990, and a 28-year time span would be sufficient to uncover the early roots of
studies about diversity management. Initially, to access the relevant articles from diversity
research, the authors searched relevant databases (Google Scholar, Emeralds, Scopus, SAGE
and JSTOR). Besides, the reference lists of relevant articles to the area were manually
searched in located additional journals of Wiley, Springer and APA PsycNET. Further, a
chapter by Jackson et al. (1995) is also included, which is most cited and referred to in diversity
research. Through all these processes a total of 1787 articles were identified directly from the
search database, and 68 papers were selected through cross-referencing. Moreover, the total
articles were very large in number and not related to diversity management, and were
excluded. However, the diversity term has been used in numerous fields (e.g., biodiversity,
nursing, social policy, etc.), but this review primarily focuses on being more specific to
research in human resource management, organizational behavior and psychology. The
paper related to diversity management practices, programs, training and policies were also
excluded because our main objective was to identify the antecedents, consequences,
moderators and mediators studied in the previous literature. All research notes, short articles,
book reviews, conference proceedings and news were excluded from this study. A total of 26

articles were retrieved in the Zotero software, where after the screening, 43 articles were
duplicates. Finally, 222 full-text articles were assessed in which 99 articles were not relevant.
Out of 222 papers, 123 articles were included in the final study. The final selection of articles
included in this study was categorized into four different steps: Identification, Screening,
Eligibility and Inclusion. Figure 2 clearly depicts the preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) diagrams of selected articles.

Consequently, each article was placed in a Microsoft Excel file and information like the
publication year, journal’s name, country, study type, antecedents, consequences, mediator
and moderator variables were manually analyzed and entered. The articles were looking for
terms like gender, age, ethnicity, workforce diversity, organizational diversity, team diversity
and diversity management. This study has also examined the type of industry, respondents
and methodology adopted in empirical studies. This process has been repeatedly carried out

Surface-level diversity Deep-level diversity

Job-oriented attributes Organizational tenure Knowledge
Team tenure Skills
Educational background Experience
Functional background Abilities
Occupational background

Relations oriented attributes Sex Values
Age Personality
Race/ethnicity Social status
Nationality Attitude
Religion

Table 1.
Typology of diversity

dimensions

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

905

in all 123 articles and categorized into different themes. This discussion analyzes the
outcomes of diversity at the individual, group and organizational levels to differentiate the
effects of diversity. With this procedure, a complete picture of extant literature has
represented in the findings section, which will help in developing the integrated model of
diversity management.

4. Results
In order to develop a complete conceptual overview, a systematic review of 123 research
articles has been carried out in this section, which depicts a comprehensive analysis of the
included literature.

Managing Diversity 1980

Title VII of Civil Rights Act,

1964 in USA

Affirmative Action Law Equal Employment Opportunity

Hudson report “Workforce 2000”

by (Johnston & Packer, 1987)

Diversity Management (Roosevelt.

Thomas Jr., 1990)

Harrison, Price &

Bell, 1998

Surface Level Diversity
Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity

Deep Level Diversity
Attitudes, Knowledge, Values, Skills

Pelled ,

1996
Dimensions of Diversity

High Visibility
Age, Gender, Race

Low Visibility
Group, Tenure, Educational and

Functional Background

Milliken &

Martins, 1996

Observable

Attributes

Race, Age, Gender, Ethnicity,

Nationality

Underlying Attributes
Personality, Socioeconomic,

Functional, Educational, &

Occupational background, Tenure

Jackson, May, &

Whitney, 1995

Readily Detectable

Attributes

Underlying

Attributes

Task Related
Organization & Team

Tenure, Educationa

Task Related
Knowledge, Skills,

Abilities, Experience

Relations Oriented
Social status, Attitudes,

Values, Personality

Relations Oriented
Age, Sex, Race,

Ethnicity, Nationality

Figure 1.
Flow chart of the
evolution of diversity
management and
dimensions of diversity

EDI
39,8

906

4.1 Journal wise distribution of literature
The final sample consists of a total of 123 articles drawn from 30 peer-reviewed journals
published between 1991 and 2018 and dispersed in a five-year time interval. The last interval
includes only three years of publications (2016–2018). The most frequently published papers
in this discipline were identified in the following orders: Academy of Management Journal
(16), Journal of Organizational Behavior (12), Journal of Management (8) and Academy of
Management Review (7). A maximum of 16 papers was published in the Academy of
Management Journal (AMJ). One of the reasons for the maximum number of publications in
AMJ may be the foundation of diversity as a field of study within the Academy of
Management (AOM) while another reason is the formalization of women in the management

Automatic Search Process

Database: References

Google Scholar- 672

JSTOR- 222

Scopus- 309

Sage- 584

Additional record from Elsevier,

Emeralds, Springer, Annual Reviews,

PsycNET, and Wiley Library

identified through reference section

of included papers

Total number of records identify

database search

(n = 1787)

Total no of records

(n = 68)

Total number of records after

screening on the basis of Title,

Abstract and Keyword (TAK)

(n = 213

)

Articles after screening on

basis of Title, Abstract and

Keyword (TAK) (n = 52)

Excluded: 16
Excluded:

1574

Uploaded all file in Zotero software

Records after removing duplication

n = 265
Duplicates

n = 43

Full articles studies assessed for eligibility

n = 222

Total articles included in review paper

N = 123

Identification

Screening

Eligibility

Full articles

excluded n = 99

Included

Figure 2.
PRISMA flow diagram

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

907

research group and establishment of “Gender and Diversity in Organisations Division” in
AOM in the year 1988 (Nkomo et al., 2019). The following rest publications in other journals
have been depicted in Table 2.

Journal title
1991–
1995

1996–
2000

2001–
2005

2006–
2010

2011–
2015

2016–
2018

Total
articles %

Academy of Management
Journal

3 6 3 2 2 16 13.01

Journal of Organizational
Behavior

1 1 5 3 2 12 9.7

Journal of Management 3 1 3 1 8 6.5
Academy of Management
Review

6 1 7 5.69

Academy of Management
Executive

2 3 1 6 4.88

Administrative Science
Quarterly

1 3 2 6 4.88

Group and Organization
Management

1 1 1 1 2 6 4.88

Journal of Applied
Psychology

1 1 1 2 1 6 4.88

Human Relations

1 2 2 5 4.07

International Journal of
Hospitality Management

3 2 5 4.07

Journal of Managerial Issues 2 1 2 5 4.07
Public Administration
Review

1 2 2 5 4.07

Human Resource
Management

1 2 1 4 3.25

Public Administration
Quarterly

1 3 4 3.25

Public Personnel
Management

3 3 2.4

Academy of Management
Learning and Education

1 1 2 1.6

Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 1 1 2 1.63
Cross-Cultural and Strategic
Management

2 2 1.63

Employee Relations 1 1 2 1.63
Human Resource
Management Review

1 1 2 1.63

Journal of Business Ethics 2 2 1.63
Organizational Science 1 1 2 1.63
Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes

1 1 2 1.63

Personal Review 1 1 2 1.63
Strategic Management
Journal

1 1 2 1.63

Annual Review of
Psychology

1 1 0.81

Public Organization Review 1 1 0.81
Research in Organizational
Behavior

1 1 0.81

Sage Open 1 1 0.81
Team Effectiveness and
Decision making in
Organizations

1 1 0.81

Total 13 29 18 24 25 14 123 100.0

Table 2.
Distribution of papers
based on journal and
time period

EDI
39,8

908

4.2 Distribution based on year of publications
The objective of this section was to categorize the articles according to publication year and
know the year wise trends of published articles. Figure 3 delineates the year-wise publication
of papers that found a maximum of nine papers in the year 1996, and a minimum of 1 article
was published in 2002. Surprisingly, our analysis of results shows that from the year 1991–
2002, there was a huge variation in the published papers because sometimes the number of
papers has decreased and sometimes increased. However, if we leave the exceptional case in
the year 2005, 2008 and 2014, it can be seen an average of four publications per year that
represents the interest in diversity management discipline is gradually increasing,
particularly from 2003 onward. Especially in the last ten years, there has been a
considerable increment in the number of published articles. The increasing interest in
diversity discipline has also been confirmed by a recently published article on diversity in
Annual Reviews by Roberson (2019).

0
1

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1
9

9
1

1
9

9
2

1
9

9
3

1
9

9
4

1
9

9
5

1
9

9
6

1
9

9
7

1
9

9
8

1
9

9
9

2
0

0
0

2
0

0
1

2
0

0
2

2
0

0
3

2
0

0
4

2
0

0
5

2
0

0
6

2
0

0
7

2
0

0
8

2
0

0
9

2
0

1
0

2
0

1
1

2
0

1
2

2
0

1
3

2
0

1
4

2
0

1
5

2
0

1
6

2
0

1
7

2
0

1
8

N
u

m
b

e
r

o
f

P
u

b
li

a
ti

o
n

s
Year Wise Distribution of Articles

Country
1991–
1995

1996–
2000
2001–
2005
2006–
2010
2011–
2015

2016–
2018 Total %

USA 9 26 13 14 12 6 80 65.04
Canada 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 6.5
Netherland 2 2 2 1 7 5.69
United
Kingdom

4 3 7 5.69

Australia 2 1 1 1 5 4.07
India 1 1 1 3 2.44
Ireland 1 1 2 1.63
Germany 1 1 2 1.62
China 1 1 0.81
Cyprus 1 1 0.81
France 1 1 0.81
Hong Kong 1 1 0.81
Japan 1 1 0.81
Korea 1 1 0.81
Malaysia 1 1 0.81
Taiwan 1 1 0.81
Thailand 1 1 0.81
Total 13 29 18 24 25 14 123 100.0

Figure 3.
Number of

publications on
diversity management

Table 3.
Country-wise and time-

period based
distribution of papers

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

909

4.3 Country and time period-based

classification of articles

The purpose of this section was to identify the country, which has published the maximum
number of articles in diversity research and why? It was easy to identify the country in the
empirical paper based on collected data from the respondent’s countries, while in the
conceptual paper, it was identified through the country of affiliation of the corresponding
author. Table 3 represents the segregation of 123 published papers in seventeen countries. 65
% of papers were published from the USA while 35 % of remaining papers have been
published from Canada (6.5 %), Netherland (5.6 %), UK (5.6%), Australia (4.07%) and India
(2.44%). A large number of research papers have been published from the USA due to the
migration of labor forces, ethnic minorities and underrepresented groups in search of job
opportunities, which may not be relevant in other national contexts (Schippers et al., 2003). In
addition, the growing body of research published from the USA is due to the participation of
members and the presence of women in the Academy of Management annual programs
organized in the USA (Nkomo et al., 2019). The year-wise segregation of Table 3 depicts that
at an early stage only five countries USA, Canada, Netherlands, Australia and Ireland have
reviewed the problems of workforce diversity whereas similar problems have been
encountered by the rest of the countries after the year 2005 and gradually they have also
picked up research in this domain. Moreover, this finding is very similar to Joshi and Roh
(2007), who have found 57% of the studies reviewed in the American context. Lesser number
of studies in a country like India and China show that there should more research on diversity
management because these are emerging countries and several MNCs are expanding their
business markets.

4.4 Industry-wise classification of articles
The objective of industry-wise classification of articles was to identify the specific industry,
where the highest number of research problems have been conducted. Diversity research-
related data were collected from 29 industries. The significant industries include academic
university (15.52), public sectors (12.07), hotels and restaurants (6.03), IT industry (6.03),
manufacturing industry (6.03) and mix industry (8.62) respectively depicted in Table 4. The
findings of Table 4 suggest that business schools and universities were the most influential
industry where researchers have conducted the study and examined the effects of diversity in
laboratories and classroom studies. One of the reasons for the maximum number of papers
that have been published in academic universities may be due to the presence of respondents
from diverse backgrounds at one place and knowledge sharing among the students vis-�a-vis
improvement in academic performance. There are several industries where only one or two
studies have been conducted so far, and hence, there is a need to conduct diversity research in
unexplored industries.

4.5 Respondents in diversity research
The analysis of 69 empirical studies depicts that respondents were from the top, middle and
lower levels such as presidents, CEOs, supervisors, team members, subordinates and
coworkers in organizations, as well as students from different grades in the business schools.
The identity of respondents was not disclosed, but out of these studies, several comparative
assessments have revealed that most of the respondents were female and minority
employees. Table 5 highlights that 50.72% of the respondents were employees working at a
lower and middle level, while 15.94% of them were top-level executives. Whereas, 26.1% of
respondents were students from various grades in the academic institutions. Conclusively,
research on diversity management has focused on collecting responses from employees
because it allows researchers to address various issues in managing diversity at the lower
and middle levels of organizations.

EDI
39,8

910

Industry
1991–
1995

1996–
2000
2001–
2005
2006–
2010
2011–
2015
2016–
2018
Total
articles %

Academic university 4 2 5 4 3 18 15.52
Public sector 2 1 1 5 4 1 14 12.07
Mix industry 1 3 1 1 1 3 10 8.62
Bank industry 2 1 3 1 1 8 6.9
Hospitality and
restaurant industry

2 3 2 7 6.03

IT industry 2 2 2 1 7 6.03
Manufacturing
industry

1 1 4 1 7 6.03

Chemical

1 2 1 4 3.45

Food beverage
industry

1 2 1 4 3.45

Electronic
manufacturer

1 3 1 4 3.45

Financial firms 3 1 4 3.45
Energy and transport 2 1 3 2.59
Life insurance
company

1 1 1 3 2.59

Retail 1 2 3 2.59
Consulting firm 1 1 2 1.72
Hospital 1 1 2 1.72
Petroleum company 1 1 2 1.72
Pharmaceutical
industry

2 2 1.72

Agriculture

1 1 0.86

Textile industry 1 1 0.86
Defense industry 1 1 0.86
Forestry 1 1 0.86
Grocery store 1 1 0.86
Household goods
moving industry

1 1 0.86

Law firm 1 1 0.86
Mining, oil and gas 1 1 0.86
Operation division 1 1 0.86
Printing company 1 1 0.86
Shopping mall 1 1 0.86
Travel and tourism 1 1 0.86
Total 116 100.0

Respondents profile n (total number of articles) %

Employees 35 50.72
Executives(HRs, President, CEO) 11 15.94
University graduate students 5 7.25
MBA students 5 7.25
Top management team 5 7.25
Upper-level undergraduate students 3 4.35
Undergraduate and graduate students 2 2.90
Undergraduate business students 2 2.90
Deans of business schools 1 1.45
Total 69 100.0

Table 4.
Industry-wise and
time-period based

classification of articles

Table 5.
Respondents wise

distributions of articles

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

911

4.6 Classification based on the adopted methodology
The literature on diversity management has focused on both quantitative and qualitative
studies. Qualitative studies are subjective assessments of research areas like literature
review, conceptual studies, focus-group interviews and case studies (Tranfield et al., 2003).
Literature reviews analyze multiple articles related to diversity management, whereas
conceptual review deals with the theoretical framework of diversity proposed by researchers
for measuring the performance outcomes of diversity. Quantitative studies are objective
assessments of research problems like meta-analysis and empirical investigation of data
collected through primary surveys and questionnaire methods (Tranfield et al., 2003). Table 6
presents the methodology-based classification of papers. 49.60% (61 out of 123) studies were
quantitative studies and responses were collected through questionnaires, Internet, postage
survey and case study observations. In which, 30.08% of responses were procured through a
questionnaire survey, and 17.88% were Internet surveys. A total of 23.57% of studies were
conceptual, followed by 8.94% of them were literature review, qualitative studies and a
mixed-methods approach. The finding suggests that quantitative studies have frequently
been used in the research because this methodology mostly used to collect a large sample of
individuals’ responses while the interview method and pilot study are conducted in a small
group of the sample, which may not be feasible in diversity research. Although some of the
studies have used a qualitative method approach, it was found only in the top
management team.

4.7 Classification of diversity dimensions and sources
Based on the discussion in the literature review section of this study, dimensions of diversity
have broadly categorized into two parts: relations oriented and job-oriented attributes.
Although previous studies have proposed several dimensions of diversity, yet a total of ten
dimensions have finally surfaced from literature and classified as relations oriented and job-
oriented attributes (Jackson et al., 1995). However, as depicted in Table 2, relation-oriented
and job-oriented are parts of surface-level diversity. The following section discusses
dimensions of surface-level diversity emanating from a systematic review of literature, as
exhibited in Table 7.

A total of 38 studies have been conducted on race and ethnic diversity, followed by 32
articles on gender and 25 on age diversity, respectively. Ethnic diversity has been found to be
one of the interesting topics among researchers and academicians. However, a study

Methods Number of publications %

Quantitative 61 49.60
Questionnaire survey 37
Email/internet survey 16
Postage/mail survey 6
Case study 2
Qualitative 11 8.94
Conceptual review 29 23.57
Literature review 11 8.94
Mixed approach 11 8.94
Survey and interviews 3
Content analyses 2
Meta-analyses 3
Unspecified 3
Total 123 100%

Table 6.
Diversity articles by
the adopted
methodology

EDI
39,8

912

conducted by Jackson et al. (2003) reveals that researchers have more focused on gender and
age rather than ethnic diversity. Moreover, based on these findings, it has been observed that
the focus of researchers is on relations oriented rather than job-oriented diversity.
Conclusively, 70.86% (i.e., 107/151) of the diversity research focused on relations oriented
diversity, while only 29.14% (i.e., 44/151) articles were focused on job-oriented diversity. This
finding represents that researchers have given less attention to job-oriented attributes, which
have confirmed the statement of Webber and Donahue (2001) that job-related diversity is a
much-needed topic in future studies. Therefore, for a productive organization, job-oriented
diversity needs to be given wider attention in future research.

4.8 Antecedents and consequences of diversity
The antecedents of diversity have mostly found at the group and organizational levels.
Group-level antecedents are such as group diversity (Ely, 2004), team diversity (Jackson et al.,
2003) and organizational-level antecedents are diversity management practices (Konrad et al.,
2016), diversity initiatives (Windscheid et al., 2017), diversity perspectives (Ely and Thomas,
2001) and organizational diversity (Guillaume et al., 2015), etc. While the research on age,
gender and race, has mostly evolved independently and most research in this area has been
focused on the effects of age, gender, and race diversity on different levels outcomes rather
than antecedents of diversity (Shore et al., 2009). Hence, this section performs a systematic
review of 123 articles to identify the antecedents and consequences of diversity discussed in
the previously proposed model. Further, due to more interest of researchers in the effects of
diversity on outcomes at different levels, the consequences of diversity have been categorized
into individual, group and organizational levels (see Table 8).

Diversity
attributes

Surface-level
diversity Supporting

references

Total
references %

1. Relations
oriented
attributes

1.1 Age [4] [8] [10] [28] [36] [37] [42] [43] [45] [46] [47]
[50] [57] [64] [66] [67] [74] [80] [81] [87] [89]
[92] [101] [102] [103]

25 16.56

1.2 Gender [4] [7] [8] [9] [10] [13] [14] [20] [23] [26] [28]
[39] [42] [43 [46] [47] [52] [53] [57] [63] [64]
[66] [77] [80] [81] [88] [89] [92] [95] [98] [101]
[103]

32 21.20

1.3 Ethnicity/race [7] [8] [9] [10] [13] [14] [15] [16] [20] [22] [23]
[26] [28] [39] [42] [43] [46] [47] [53] [56] [64]
[66] [63] [67] [69] [72] [73] [74] [75] [77] [88]
[89] [91] [92] [98] [100] [101] [103]

38 25.17

1.4 Religion [1] [47] 2 1.32
1.5 Nationality [7] [13] [18] [23] [45] [53] [64] [68] [100] [101] 10 6.62

2. Job oriented
attributes

2.1 Organizational
tenure

[4] [8] [36] [39] [42] [50] [64] [66] [67] [87] [92]
[102] [103]

13 8.61

2.2 Team tenure [43] [66] [77] [80] [95] [102] 6 3.97
2.3 Educational
background

[4] [16] [36] [43] [45] [47] [50] [66] [80] [81]
[87] [89] [92] [103]

14 9.27

2.4 Functional
background

[4] [43] [50] [64] [66] [67] [87] [95] [103] 9 5.96

2.5 Occupational
background

[16] [103] 2 1.32

Total 151* 100.0

Note(s): *The total number of articles is not equal to total references because authors have considered multiple
attributes in a single study

Table 7.
Classification of

diversity dimensions
with supporting

references
Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

913

1. Antecedents Supporting references
Racial diversity [35] [72] [73] [75]
Cultural diversity [14] [22] [32] [53] [58] [65] [68] [74] [100]
Team diversity [33] [38] [39] [43] [84] [90] [95] [97]
TMT diversity [4] [30] [50] [87] [96] [104]
Relational demography [19] [23] [28] [36] [44] [77] [92]
Demographic fault lines [31] [54] [55] [96]
Discourse of fashion on DM [70]
Diversity training [5] [24] [65]
Organizational diversity [6] [24] [27] [34] [38]
Informational diversity [16] [31] [41] [81]
Organization inclusion [83] [85] [86]
Organizational justice [48] [57]
Diversity perspectives [21] [17] [22] [29]
Diversity initiatives [3] [11] [12] [17] [25] [40] [76] [79] [104]
Diversity management practices [2] [105] [99] [35] [48] [51] [59]
2. Consequences Supporting references

2.1 Individual-level Consequences
Turnover intention [34] [36] [46] [47] [64] [66] [92] [93]
Recruitment [36]
Behavior intention [57]
Absenteeism [36] [64] [92]
Psychological attachment [92] [36]
Promotion [36] [46] [47] [92]
Job satisfaction [4] [7] [23] [60] [78] [88]
Work tension [78]
Organizational citizenship
behavior

[9] [34] [71] [91]

Self-perception [4]
Perceived discrimination [88]
Performance [7] [23] [34] [42] [64]
Individual creativity [84]

2.2 Group-level consequences
Cooperative response [15]
Idea generation [61] [66]
Commitment [9] [77] [80]
Decision making [46] [66]
Communication [53] [100]
Problem-solving [66]
Satisfaction [18] [55] [69] [80]
Team turnover [16] [64] [66] [102] [106]
Group cohesiveness [28] [77] [103] [106]
Conflict and cooperativeness [4] [63]
Strategic consensus [50]
Team effectiveness [7] [16] [49] [104]
Group development [54]
Group performance [4] [18] [19] [31] [39] [41] [43] [45] [55] [56] [64] [67] [68] [69] [77] [80] [82] [94] [95] [100]

[101] [103]
Team creativity [29] [58]

2.3 Organizational-level consequences
Commitment [26] [47] [91] [92]
Organizational performance [10] [51] [52] [62] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [83] [87]
Organizational competitiveness [14] [25] [26] [76]
Organizational innovation [98]
Organizational fairness [48]

Table 8.
Antecedents and
consequences of
diversity management

EDI
39,8

914

4.9 Moderators and mediators in workplace diversity
As discussed in the previous sections about antecedents and consequences, the following
section discusses mediator and moderator variables of diversity management. The objective
of identifying moderator and mediator variables is to explore contextual variables that may
influence organizational performance due to workplace diversity. The contextual variables
help in addressing the number of reasons why diversity research has inconsistent findings
and suggested to enhance the positive effects of diversity and mitigate negative effects (van
Knippneberg et al., 2004). Consideration of contextual variables in diversity research is very
critical, and therefore, a detailed description of these variables is required. Table 9 lists all
identified moderator, mediator variables and their supporting references in diversity
management research.

4.10 Breadth and depth of diversity article
This is one of the unique studies in the context of breadth and depth of diversity management
research, which elaborately discusses diversity dimensions and its outcomes. This section
adopts the conceptual description of diversity dimensions and its related outcomes developed
by Wise and Tschirhart (2000) and further elaborated accordingly. Table 10 summarizes the
dimensions and outcomes of diversity management related research articles published from
the year 1991–2018. Most articles covered more than one diversity dimension and some
covered more than one outcome; hence, the total sum in Table 10 exceeds the number of total
articles procured through a systematic review.

The total values shown in Table 10 draw an idea on how much cumulative research has
been done to connect a diversity dimension to specific outcomes. The diversity dimensions
with most coverage are race/ethnicity with 60 times, gender 49 times and age 41 times. The
table depicts that certain dimensions have been repeatedly used in various studies and
concludes that maximum studies in diversity management research focused on relationship-
oriented diversity. While less research has been conducted on job-oriented attributes such as
functional background 19 times, educational background 27 times, team tenure 11 times and
organizational tenure 28 times. In contrast, diversity outcomes with most coverage are team
performance 44 times, turnover 21 times, firm performance 19 times and less research has
focused on outcomes like cooperative response and OCB only one time, behavior intention,
innovation two times and organizational competitiveness three times. The overall analysis of
this table identifies that the research on diversity dimensions has affected performance at
every level, but the greatest number of studies examined group-level outcomes 126 times
followed by individual-level outcomes 85 times and organizational outcomes 48 times. The
study found that relatively less attention has given on organizational-level outcomes. Thus
there is a requirement to conduct more studies on the organization-level outcome.

5. Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the dimensions, contextual variables,
antecedents, consequences and emerging research trends in diversity management research.
The systematic review of each section has guided different outcomes based on the previous
research findings, which have discussed in this section. First, the major trends about the
growing body of research were published in the Academy of Management Journal due to the
participation of researchers and the presence of women in annual diversity programs
conducted by the Academy of Management (Nkomo et al., 2019). The major theme of the
journal has been identified, such as demographic diversity (i.e. gender, age and race),
relational demography, racial diversity, cultural diversity and team diversity. Next, the
majority of the research has been conducted in western countries like the USA, Canada and

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

915

Moderators Supporting references
Constructive conflict [46]
Creative self-efficacy [84]
Dogmatism [9]
Diversity climate [26]
Diversity beliefs [31] [93]
Group fault line [55]
Employee involvement [97]
Employee status [36]
Entrepreneurial innovation [74]
Ethnic status [34]
Industry type [75]
Organizational culture [10] [32]
Shared objectives [95]
Sociocultural values [102]
Social context [39]
Transformational leadership [45] [84]
Business strategy [72]
Innovation strategy [73]
Communication and coordination [63]
Group longevity [66] [67] [80]
Team interdependence [80] [43]
Goal orientation [68]
Team size [32] [49]
Team leadership [49] [63]
Group process (conflict) [4] [10]
Team type [103]
Team orientation [63]
Task Type [41]
Task interdependence [32] [41] [49] [58] [106]
Task intellectiveness [58]
Task complexity [58]
Task requirements [94]
Task ability [94]
Task motivation [94]
Task routineness [67]
Mediators Supporting references
Cooperative norms [7]
Conflict [41] [49] [50] [66] [67]
Decision comprehensiveness [87]
Diversity equality management system [2]
Team identification [18] [45] [93]
Impression formation [23]
Intercultural obstacles [58]
Job performance [34] [42]
Peers relation (trust and attraction) [8]
Procedural justice and affective commitment [91]
Organization-based self-esteem [8]
Role ambiguity and role conflict [60]
Team efficacy [18]
Team reflexivity [80]
Task relevant information elaboration [27] [29] [31] [45] [68]

Table 9.
Moderator and
mediators

EDI
39,8

916

D
iv

er
si
ty

d
im

si
o

n
s

O
u
t

c
o
m

R
el

a
ti
o
n
s
o

ri
en

te
d
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
s

T
o

ta
l

v
a
lu
es

Jo
b

-o
ri
en
te
d
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
s

T
o
ta
l
v
a
lu
es

A
g
e

G
en
d
er

R
a
ce

N
a
ti
o
n
a
li
ty

F
u

n
ct

io
n

a
l

b
a
ck
g

ro
u

n
d

E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
a
l

b
a
ck
g
ro
u
n
d

T
ea
m

e
n

u
re

O
rg

te
n
u
re

d
iv

id
u
a
l-
le
v
el
to
ta
l

5
9

2
6

A
b
se
n
te
ei
sm

2
2

2
1

7
1

1
2

C
o

m
it

m
en
t

1
1
1
3
1
1

2
B
eh

a
v

io
r

in
te

n
ti
o
n

1
1

C
o
m

p
en
sa
ti
o
n

1
1
1
3

C
o
o
p
er
a

ti
v

e
re
sp
o

n
se

1
1

P
ro

m
o
ti
o
n

2
1
1
4
2
1

3
Jo
b

p
er

o
rm

a
n

1
3

4
2

1
0
1
1

O
C
B

1
1

2
4

1
1

P
a
y

1
1
1
3
1
1

S
a
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n

1
3

3
2

9
1
1
1

3
R
ec
ru
it
m
en
t

1
1
1
1

T
u

o
v

4
3

4
1

1
2

2
3

1
3

G
ro

u
p

-l
ev
el
to
ta
l

8
2

4
4

C
o
o
p
er
a
ti
v
e
re
sp
o
n
se
1
1

G
ro
u
p
in
te
ra
ct
io
n

1
2

2
5

C
o
h
es
iv
en
es
s

2
2

3
7

1
1
1
3
C
o
m
m
it
m
en
t
1
3
2
6
1
2

C
o
n
fl

ic
t

1
2
2
5
1
1
1
3

E
ff
ic
ie
n
cy

a
n
d

ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s

1
2
1
4
1
1

G
ro
u
p
d
ec
is
io
n

m
a
k

in
g

2
3

3
8

1
1
1
1

4
Id
ea

g
en
er
a
ti
o
n

1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1

4
T
ea
m

p
er

fo
rm

a
n
ce

7
8

8
6

2
9

5
4

2
4
1
5

P
ro
b
l

e
m

-s
o
lv
in
g

1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1

4
S
a
ti
sf
a
ct
io
n

1
2
1
1

5
1

1
2
T
ea
m

rn
o

v
er

2
1
2
1

6
1

1
1
2
5

O
rg

a
n
iz

a
ti
o
n
a
l
le
v
el

3
5

1
3

(c
o
n
ti
n
u
ed

)

Table 10.

Number of studies by
work outcomes and

diversity dimensions in
diversity research

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

917

D
iv
er
si
ty
d
im
en
si
o
n
s
O
u
tc
o

m
es

R
el
a
ti
o
n
s
o
ri
en
te
d
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
s
T
o
ta
l
v
a
lu
es
Jo
b
-o
ri
en
te
d
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
s
T
o
ta
l
v
a
lu
es
A
g
e
G
en
d
er
R
a
ce
N
a
ti
o
n
a
li
ty
F
u
n
ct
io
n
a
l
b
a
ck
g
ro
u
n
d
E
d
u
ca
ti
o
n
a
l
b
a
ck
g
ro
u
n
d
T
ea
m
te
n
u
re
O
rg
.
te
n
u
re

In
n

o
v
a
ti
o
n

1
1

2
O
rg
a
n
i

z
a
ti

o
n
a
l

m
p

et
it
iv
en
es
s

1
1
2
C
o
m
m
it
m
en
t
2
3

4
9

2
1

F
ir

p
er
fo
rm
a
n
ce
4
3
6
1
1
4
2
1
2
5
O
C
B
1
1
T
u
rn
o
v
er
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
2

S
el
f-
es
te
em

1
1

2
S
tr

a
te

g
ic
co
n
se
n
su
s

1
1
1
1
1
3

T
o
ta
l
v
a
lu
es

4
1
4
9

6
0

2
0
1
9

2
7

1
1

2
8

Table 10.
EDI
39,8

918

European countries while other countries were underreported, and hence, there is further
need to focus on developing countries like India and China due to lack of study and its
practical pertinence more. Next, most of the research found that diversity is prominent in the
groups that have been studied in the laboratory or classroom, instead of conducting in the
organization among group members. In the classroom, studies results have found that group
diversity can improve the decision-making skills or can generate the idea while research on
intact working groups in the organization depicts a pessimistic view of the diversity on group
performance (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). A similar result has been confirmed in Table 4 of
this study that the maximum number of diversity research has been conducted in classrooms
of business institutions instead of industries. The next finding concluded that 50% of the
research papers were empirical in nature and 32.52% articles conceptual and literature
review paper while systematic review, qualitative studies and meta-analysis papers have
very little representation. None of the studies have conducted a scientometric analysis of
diversity management research. The finding also reveals that diversity as a broad topic has
repeatedly examined only the top three dimensions such as age, gender and race. While other
relationship-oriented dimensions like LGBT, disability, religion, language and job-oriented
dimensions such as functional, education and tenure diversity have been widely ignored in
diversity management research. Antecedents like cultural diversity, racial diversity and
relational demography were studied at the individual level, team diversity, workgroup
diversity at the group level and top management team diversity, and diversity management
practices have performed at an organizational level. Next, the categorization of outcomes at
different levels shows that organizational-level outcomes have relatively less explored in
comparison to individual and group-level outcomes; hence, future research needs to be
focused on organizational-level outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational effectiveness, innovation and fairness.

Conclusively, the majority of the researchers have used three mentioned theories to
explain the effects of diversity on organizational outcomes. Different theories often lead to
contradicting thoughts among researches. A maximum number of researchers have used
similarity attraction (Byrne, 1971), self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987) and social identity
theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) while few optimistic researchers have used information
decision-making (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) and upper echelon theory (Hambrick and
Mason, 1984). Further, the studies based on the aforementioned theories found that increased
diversity in terms of age, gender and race has negative effects on social integration, cohesion,
communication and conflicts (Jehn et al., 1999; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998). While optimistic
researchers have argued that increased diversity in terms of knowledge, skills and ability are
more likely to enhance problem-solving and decision making power in the groups. Few
studies also highlight that top management team diversity at the organizational level is
positively related to organizational performance (van Knippenberg et al., 2011). The findings
also highlight the importance of mediator and moderator variables suggested by van
Knippenberg et al. (2004) in the CEM model, which overcome the negative effects through
integrating the dual aspects of diversity. Several mediators and moderator variables have
been identified, but none of the studies have explored HR practices and diversity
management practices as moderators in workplace diversity to eliminate the negative
aspects of diversity and enhance organizational performance. While leadership, social
context and communication have relatively less explored as moderator variables. Ultimately,
based on the overall findings of the systematic review, an integrative model of diversity
management has developed in Figure 4. The model consolidates dimensions of diversity,
mediator and moderator variables along with outcomes, which emerged from existing
literature. Each aspect of diversity is supported by a distinct theory like the positive aspects
of diversity has addressed by decision-making theory and negative aspects of diversity
addressed by social categorization and similarity-attraction theories. Upper echelon theory is

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

919

In
di

vi
du

al
le

ve
l

an
d

gr
ou

p
le

ve
l
C
o
n
se

q
u

e
n

c
e
s

M
e
d
ia

to
r

D
im

e
n
si
o

n
s

o
f
D
iv

e
rs

it
y

M
o

d
e
ra

to
rs

O
rg

an
iz

at
io

a
l

le
ve

T
o

m
a
n

a
g

e
m
e
n

e
a
m

d
iv

e
rs

U
p

p
e
r

E
c
h
e
lo

R
el
at
io

ns
o

ri
en

te
d

A
g
e
d

iv
e
rs

it
y

G
e
n
d
e
r

d
iv
e
rs
it
y

R
a

c
ia

l
d

iv
e
rs
it
y

Jo
b

or
ie

nt
ed

e
n
u
re

F
u

c
ti

o
n
a
l

E
d
u
c
a
ti

o
n

P
er

fo
rm

an
ce

tc
om

F
ir

e
ff

e
c
ti

v
e
n

e
ss

O
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti

o
n
a
l

In
n
o
v
a
ti
o
n

C
re

a
ti

v
it

Id
e
a
G

e
n
e
ra

ti
o
n

O
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
a
l
c
o
m

p
e
ti

ti
v
e

n
e
ss

F
ir
m

e
rf

o
rm

a
n

F
in

a
n
c
ia

l
p
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e

P
ro

ce
ss

ut
co

m
es

C
o
n
fl

ic
t

C
o
m

m
u

n
ic

a
ti
o
n

Jo
b

s
a
ti

sf
a
c
ti

o
n

Jo
b
p

e
rf
o
rm
a
n
c
e

O
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
m
it

m
e
n
t

O
rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
a
l

c
it

iz
e
n
sh

b
e
h

a
v

io
r

(O
C

B
)

S
o

c
ia
l
in
te

g
ra

ti
o
n

T
u
rn
o

v
e
r

In
te

rv
en

in
g

m
ec

ha
ni

(P
ro

ce
ss

ri
ab

le
s)

C
o
n
fl
ic
t

T
a
sk

r
e
le

v
a
n
t

in
fo

rm
a
ti

o
n

T
e
a
m

r
e
fl

e
x

iv
it

G
ro
u
p

e
n
ti

fi
c
a
ti

o
n

Im
p

re
ss

io
n

fo
rm
a
ti
o
n

R
o

le
a

m
b

ig
u

it
y

R
o

le
c

o
n

fl
ic

t
T
e
a
m

e
ff

ic
a
c
y

S
e
lf

-c
a
te

g
o
ri

z
a
ti

o
n
,

S
im

il
a
ri

ty
a

tt
ra

c
ti
o
n
,

o
c
ia

l
id

e
n
ti

ty
t

e
o

T
a
sk

i
n

te
rd

e
p

e
n

d
e
n

c
e

T
e
a
m

l
e
a
d

e
rs

h
ip

E
th

n
ic

s
ta

tu
s

T
a
sk

r
o

u
ti

n
e
n

e
ss

ra
n

sf
o

rm
a
ti
o
n
a
l

le
a
d

e
rs
h
ip

u
si

n
e
ss

s
tr

a
te

g
y

T
a
sk

c
o

m
p

le
x

it
y

T
e
a
m

s
iz

S
h

a
re

d
o

b
je

c
ti

v
e
s

T
a
sk

a
b
il

it
y

T
e
a
m

o
ri

e
n
ta

ti
o
n

o
c
ia

l
c
o
n
te

x
t

T
a
sk

m
o

ti
v
a
ti
o
n

ro
u

p
l

o
n

g
e
v

it
y

O
rg
a
n

iz
a
ti

o
n
a
l

c
u

lt
u

G
ro
u
p

f
a
u

lt
l

in
e

D
iv
e
rs
it
y

b
e
li

e
fs

D
iv
e
rs
it
y

c
li

m
a
te

In
fo

rm
a
ti
o
n

d
e
c
is

io
n

m
a
k
in
g

t
h

e
o

Figure 4.
Integrative model of
diversity management

EDI
39,8

920

traditionally used to support top management team diversity. The consequences of diversity
have been divided into process and performance outcomes, according to Jackson et al. (2003).

6. Theoretical implications
The findings of this study will benefit researchers in further research because this review
forms the first systematic review of literature on all emerging forms of diversity and provide
access to scholars as a one-stop-shop for the comprehensive solutions of diversity
management literature. It facilitates academicians and researchers by gaining insightful
study and analyze the current status of research on diversity management. The major
contribution of this study is the integration of theories into a single framework, connecting
multiple dimensions of diversity and linking process and performance outcomes with the
intervention of mediator and moderator variables that have lacked in previous studies (van
Knippenberg et al., 2004). The second contribution is the representation of the evolution of
diversity management and dimensions of diversity in a systematic way that will guide future
researchers. Conclusively, the categorization of outcomes of diversity at the individual, group
and organization level and differentiation between contextual variables might help to develop
the conceptual model in future research.

6.1 Practical implications
The practical relevance of the proposed model is primarily improving organizational
performance by diminishing the barriers in the group process. Our findings highlight the
importance of contextual variables, and managers need not worry that diversity negatively
affects team outcomes because the integration of contextual variables and environmental
factors diminish the negative and enhance the positive outcomes. Practitioners can foster
diversity management practices with HR practices as it has witnessed positive outcomes on
workforce diversity (Guillaume et al., 2015). Further diversity management practices like
cross-cultural training and team-building activities increase cooperation, communication and
information sharing.

7. Limitations and future research
Since our focus was to find the dimensions of diversity studied in the previous literature and
identify future avenues, diversity management practices and programs related literature has
been excluded. The filtering process may have omitted some good articles, such as a large
stream of diversity management programs and practices so that future research can merely
focus on different diversity management practices such as diversity training, diversity
programs, diversity policies and initiatives. This study found that surface-level diversity is a
widely discussed topic, and therefore, future researchers could emphasize more on deep-level
diversity attributes such as values, attitudes, personality. However, future research might
also investigate other types of diversity (e.g., separation, variety, disparity) proposed by
Harrison and Klein (2007). The less attention on job-related diversity in the proposed model
highlights that researchers and practitioners should stop thinking that diversity is a generic
concept, and it always has a positive outcome (Webber and Donahue, 2001). Instead,
researchers should go beyond demographic diversity and distinguishes based on task-related
knowledge, skills and perspectives, which reflect more positive outcomes on team
performance (Simons et al., 1999). This study has not discussed the operationalization of
different dimensions of diversity that how previous research has measured diversity so that
future studies could explore the different measurement methods of diversity. Finally, as we
have identified several contextual factors from the existing literature but some of the process
variables (e.g., value congruence, social integration and HR practices) have highly ignored in
the studies, which can be examined in future research.

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

921

8. Conclusion
The abundance of literature on diversity is found in western countries, but a literature review
paper is very limited. Therefore, this study is inspired by the scarcity of literature review
papers on diversity. This study investigates all types of diversity-related papers to get the
insightful impact of diversity and their influence on the work outcomes. By doing so, this
study fills a research gap and describe the holistic understanding of diversity issues and
benefits in organizations. This study concludes with an integrative model of diversity
management where several significant themes were reflected in a single framework such as
dimensions of diversity, contextual factors, process and performance outcomes. Diversity is
categorized at multiple levels, including individual, group and top management teams within
the organization, and these different levels of diversity have been supported with multiple
theories. Overall, this study makes significant contributions by providing a summary of
research in diversity that can help readers to find the antecedents, consequences, moderators
and mediators impart for future research.

References

Al Ariss, A. and Sidani, Y.M. (2016), “Understanding religious diversity: implications from Lebanon
and France”, Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 467-480.

Armstrong, C., Flood, P.C., Guthrie, J.P., Liu, W., MacCurtain, S. and Mkamwa, T. (2010), “The impact
of diversity and equality management on firm performance: beyond high-performance work
systems”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 977-998.

Barry, B. and Bateman, T.S. (1996), “A social trap analysis of the management of diversity”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 757-790.

Barsade, S.G., Ward, A.J., Turner, J.D.F. and Sonnenfeld, J.A. (2000), “To your heart’s content: a model
of affective diversity in top management teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 802-836.

Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K.A. and Spell, C.S. (2012), “Reviewing diversity training: where we have been
and where we should go”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 207-227.

Buttner, E.H., Lowe, K.B. and Harris, L.B.-. (2006), “The influence of organizational diversity
orientation and leader attitude on diversity activities”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 356-371.

Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic, New York.

Chatman, J.A. and Flynn, F.J. (2001), “The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence
and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 956-974.

Chattopadhyay, P. (1999), “Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: the influence of demographic
dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 273-287.

Chattopadhyay, P. (2003), “Can dissimilarity lead to positive outcomes? The influence of open versus
closed minds”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 295-312.

Choi, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2010), “Managing diversity in U.S. federal agencies: effects of diversity and
diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 109-121.

Comer, D.R. and Soliman, C.E. (1996), “Organizational efforts to manage diversity: do they really
work?”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 470-483.

Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2009), “Between a rock and a hard place: managing diversity in a shareholder
society”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 393-412.

EDI
39,8

922

Cooke, F.L. and Saini, D.S. (2010), “Diversity management in India: a study of organizations in
different ownership forms and industrial sectors”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 477-500.

Cox, T.H. and Blake, S. (1991), “Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational
competitiveness”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 45-56.

Cox, T.H., Lobel, S.A. and McLeod, P.L. (1991), “Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on
cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 827-847.

Cox. (1991), “The multicultural organization”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 34-47.

Dass, P. and Parker, B. (1999), “Strategies for managing human resource diversity: from resistance to
learning”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 68-80.

Dixon, M.L. and Hart, L.K. (2010), “The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group
effectiveness and turnover intention”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 52-69.

Earley, P.C. and Mosakowski, E. (2000), “Creating hybrid team cultures: an empirical test of
transnational team functioning”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 26-49.

Elfenbein, H.A. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2007), “Fitting in: the effects of relational demography and person-
culture fit on group process and performance”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 32
No. 1, pp. 109-142.

Elsass, P.M. and Graves, L.M. (1997), “Demographic diversity in decision-making groups: the
experiences of women and people of color”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 946-973.

Ely, R.J. (2004), “A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and
performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 755-780.

Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on
workgroup processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 229-273.

Flynn, F.J., Chatman, J.A. and Spataro, S.E. (2001), “Getting to know you: the influence of personality
on impressions and performance of demographically different people in organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 414-442.

Fujimoto, Y. and H€artel, C.E.J. (2017), “Organizational diversity learning framework: going beyond
diversity training programs”, Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1120-1141.

Gilbert, J.A. and Ivancevich, J.M. (2000), “Valuing diversity: a tale of two organizations”, The Academy
of Management Executive, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 93-105.

Gonzalez, J.A. and Denisi, A.S. (2009), “Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on
organizational attachment and firm effectiveness”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 21-40.

Guillaume, Y.R.F., Dawson, J.F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S.A. and West, M.A. (2015), “Harnessing
demographic differences in organizations: what moderates the effects of workplace diversity?”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 276-303.

Hambrick, D.C. and Mason, P.A. (1984), “Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top
managers”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 193-206.

Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 1199-1228.

Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the effects
of surface- and deep-level diversity on workgroup cohesion”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

923

Hoever, I.J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W.P. and Barkema, H.G. (2012), “Fostering team
creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 982-996.

Homan, A.C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G.A. and De Dreu, C.K.W. (2007), “Bridging faultlines
by valuing diversity: diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse
workgroups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1189-1199.

Homberg, F. and Bui, H.T.M. (2013), “Top management team diversity: a systematic review”, Group
and Organization Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 455-479.

Hopkins, W.E., Hopkins, S.A. and Gross, M.A. (2005), “Cultural diversity recomposition and
effectiveness in monoculture workgroups”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 8,
pp. 949-964.

Horwitz, S.K. and Horwitz, I.B. (2007), “The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-
analytic review of team demography”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 987-1015.

Hsiao, A., Auld, C. and Ma, E. (2015), “Perceived organizational diversity and employee behavior”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 48, pp. 102-112.

Hur, Y. and Strickland, R.A. (2012), “Diversity management practices and understanding their
adoption: examining local governments in North Carolina”, Public Administration Quarterly,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 380-412.

Jackson, S.E. and Joshi, A. (2004), “Diversity in social context: a multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of
team diversity and sales performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 675-702.

Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.I., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A. and Peyronnin, K. (1991), “Some differences
make a difference: individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment,
promotions, and turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 675-689.

Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), “Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-
making teams”, in Guzzo, R.A. and Salas, E. (Eds), Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in
Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 204-261.

Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A. and Erhardt, N.L. (2003), “Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 801-830.

Jayne, M.E.A. and Dipboye, R.L. (2004), “Leveraging diversity to improve business performance:
research findings and recommendations for organizations”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 409-424.

Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field study
of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-763.

Johnson, W.B. and Packer, A.H. (1987), Workforce 2000, Hudson Institute, Indianapolis, IN.

Joshi, A. and Roh, H. (2007), “Context matters: a multilevel framework forwork team diversity
research”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 26, pp. 1-48.

Joshi, A. and Roh, H. (2009), “The role of context in work team diversity research: a meta-analytic
review”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 599-627.

Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Jackson, S.E. (2006), “Cross-level effects of workplace diversity on sales
performance and pay”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 459-481.

Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Roh, H. (2011), “Bridging domains in workplace demography research: a review
and reconceptualization”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 521-552.

Kearney, E. and Gebert, D. (2009), “Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: the promise of
transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 77-89.

Kelly, E. and Dobbin, F. (1998), “How affirmative action became diversity management”, American
Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 960-984.

EDI
39,8

924

Kim, S. and Park, S. (2017), “Diversity management and fairness in public organizations”, Public
Organization Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 179-193.

Kirchmeyer, C. and Cohen, A. (1992), “Multicultural groups: their performance and reactions with
constructive conflict”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 153-170.

Kirchmeyer, C. (1995), “Demographic similarity to the workgroup: a longitudinal study of managers at
the early career stage”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 67-83.

Klein, K.J., Knight, A.P., Ziegert, J.C., Lim, B.C. and Saltz, J.L. (2011), “When team members’ values
differ: the moderating role of team leadership”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 114 No. 1, pp. 25-36.

Knight, D., Pearce, C.L., Smith, K.G. and Flood, P. (1999), “Top management team diversity, group
process, and strategic consensus”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 445-465.

Konrad, A.M., Yang, Y. and Maurer, C.C. (2016), “Antecedents and outcomes of diversity and equality
management systems: an integrated institutional agency and strategic human resource
management approach”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 83-107.

Kundu, S.C. and Mor, A. (2017), “Workforce diversity and organizational performance: a study of IT
industry in India”, Employee Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 160-183.

Larkey, L.K. (1996), “Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse
workgroups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 463-491.

Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (1998), “Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional
dynamics of organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 325-340.

Lau, D.C. and Murnighan, J.K. (2005), “Interactions within groups and subgroups: the effects of
demographic faultlines”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 645-659.

Leck, J.D., Saunders, D.M. and Charbonneau, M. (1996), “Affirmative action programs: an
organizational justice perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 79-89.

Leslie, L.M. (2017), “A status-based multilevel model of ethnic diversity and work unit performance”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 426-454.

Leung, K. and Wang, J. (2015), “Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: a socio-
technical framework: social processes and team creativity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1008-1025.

Madera, J.M., Dawson, M. and Neal, J.A. (2013), “Hotel managers’ perceived diversity climate and job
satisfaction: the mediating effects of role ambiguity and conflict”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 35, pp. 28-34.

Madera, J.M. (2013), “Best practices in diversity management in customer service organizations: an
investigation of top companies cited by diversity Inc”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 124-135.

Marcoulides, G. and Heck, R. (1993), “Organizational culture and performance: proposing and testing a
model”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 209-225.

McLeod, P.L. and Lobel, S.A. (1992), “The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small
groups”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 1992 No. 1, pp. 227-231.

Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 402-433.

Mohammed, S. and Angell, L.C. (2004), “Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: examining
the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 1015-1039.

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

925

Nemetz, P.L. and Christensen, S.L. (1996), “The challenge of cultural diversity: harnessing a diversity
of views to understand multiculturalism”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 434-462.

Nkomo, S.M., Bell, M.P., Roberts, L.M., Joshi, A. and Thatcher, S.M. (2019), “Diversity at a critical
juncture: new theories for a complex phenomenon”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 44
No. 3, pp. 498-517.

Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999), “Exploring the black box: an analysis of
workgroup diversity, conflict, and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 1-28.

Pelled, L.H. (1996), “Demographic diversity, conflict, and workgroup outcomes: an intervening process
theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.

Pieterse, A.N., van Knippenberg, D. and van Dierendonck, D. (2013), “Cultural diversity and team
performance: the role of team member goal orientation”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 782-804.

Pitts, D. (2009), “Diversity management, job satisfaction, and performance: evidence from U.S. federal
agencies”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 328-338.

Prasad, A., Prasad, P. and Mir, R. (2011), “‘One mirror in another’: managing diversity and the
discourse of fashion”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 703-724.

Rabl, T., Del Carmen Triana, M., Byun, S.-Y. and Bosch, L. (2018), “Diversity management efforts as
an ethical responsibility: how employees’ perceptions of an organizational integration and
learning approach to diversity affect employee behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 161
No. 3, pp. 531-550.

Richard, O.C. and Johnson, N.B. (2001), “Understanding the impact of human resource diversity
practices on firm performance”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 177-195.

Richard, O., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K. and Dwyer, S. (2003), “Employing an innovation strategy in
racially diverse workforces: effects on firm performance”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-126.

Richard, O.C., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S. and Chadwick, K. (2004), “Cultural diversity in management, firm
performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 255-266.

Richard, O.C., Murthi, B.P.S. and Ismail, K. (2007), “The impact of racial diversity on intermediate and
long-term performance: the moderating role of environmental context”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 1213-1233.

Richard, O.C. (2000), “Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: a resource-based
view”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 164-177.

Riordan, C.M. and Shore, L.M. (1997), “Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: an empirical
examination of relational demography within work units”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 342-358.

Roberson, Q.M. (2019), “Diversity in the workplace: a review, synthesis, and future research
agenda”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6,
pp. 69-88.

Sabharwal, M. (2014), “Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational inclusion to further
performance”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 197-217.

Salau, O., Osibanjo, A., Adeniji, A., Oludayo, O., Falola, H., Igbinoba, E. and Ogueyungbo, O. (2018),
“Data regarding talent management practices and innovation performance of academic staff in
a technology-driven private university”, Data in Brief, Vol. 19, pp. 1040-1045.

Sanchez, J.I. and Brock, P. (1996), “Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees:
is diversity management a luxury or a necessity?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 3, pp. 704-719.

EDI
39,8

926

Schippers, M.C., Hartog, D.N., Koopman, P.L. and Wienk, J.A. (2003), “Diversity and team outcomes:
the moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating
effect of reflexivity”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 779-802.

Schneider, S.K. and Northcraft, G.B. (1999), “Three social dilemmas of workforce diversity in
organizations: a social identity perspective”, Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1445-1467.

Seong, J.Y. and Choi, J.N. (2014), “Effects of group-level fit on group conflict and performance: The
initiating role of leader positive affect”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 190-212.

Seong, J.Y., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Park, W.-W., Hong, D.-S. and Shin, Y. (2012), “Person-group fit:
diversity antecedents, proximal outcomes, and performance at the group level”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 1184-1213.

Shin, S.J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y. and Bian, L. (2012), “Cognitive team diversity and individual team member
creativity: a cross-level interaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 197-212.

Shore, L.M., Chung-Herrera, B.G, Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., Jung, D.I., Randel, A.E. and Singh, G.
(2009), “Diversity in organizations: where are we now and where are we going?”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 117-133.

Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K. and Singh, G. (2011),
“Inclusion and diversity in workgroups: a review and model for future research”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1262-1289.

Shore, L.M., Cleveland, J.N. and Sanchez, D. (2018), “Inclusive workplaces: a review and model”,
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 176-189.

Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999), “Making use of difference: diversity, debate, and
decision comprehensiveness in top management teams”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 662-673.

Soni, V. (2000), “A twenty-first-century reception for diversity in the public sector: a case study”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 395-408.

Sourouklis, C. and Tsagdis, D. (2013), “Workforce diversity and hotel performance: a systematic
review and synthesis of the international empirical evidence”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 394-403.

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. and
Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks-Cole, Monterey, CA,
pp. 33-47.

Talke, K., Salomo, S. and Rost, K. (2010), “How top management team diversity affects innovativeness
and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields”, Research Policy, Vol. 39
No. 7, pp. 907-918.

Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), “Making differences matter”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74
No. 5, pp. 79-90.

Thomas, R.R. Jr (1991), Beyond, Race, and Gender: Unleashing the Power of Your Total Workforce by
Managing Diversity, AMACOM, New York, NY.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of a systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.

Triana, M.D.C. and Garc�ıa, M.F. (2009), “Valuing diversity: a group-value approach to understanding
the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 7, pp. 941-962.

Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and Iii, C.A.O. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-579.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. and Wetherell, M.S. (1987), Rediscovering the Social
Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review

927

van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., H€agele, S., Guillaume, Y.R.F. and Brodbeck, F.C. (2008), “Group
diversity and group identification: the moderating role of diversity beliefs”, Human Relations,
Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1463-1492.

van Knippenberg, D. and Mell, J.N. (2016), “Past, present, and potential future of team diversity
research: from compositional diversity to emergent diversity”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 136, pp. 135-145.

van Knippenberg, D. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), “Workgroup diversity”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 515-541.

van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W. and Homan, A.C. (2004), “Workgroup diversity and group
performance: an integrative model and research agenda”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89
No. 6, pp. 1008-1022.

van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J.F., West, M.A. and Homan, A.C. (2011), “Diversity faultlines, shared
objectives, and top management team performance”, Human Relations, Vol. 64 No. 3,
pp. 307-336.

Watson, W.E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L.K. (1993), “Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction
process and performance: comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 590-602.

Watson, W.E., Johnson, L. and Merritt, D. (1998), “Team orientation, self-orientation, and diversity in
task groups: their connection to team performance over time”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 161-188.

Webber, S.S. and Donahue, L.M. (2001), “Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on workgroup
cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-162.

Weber, T.J., Sadri, G. and Gentry, W.A. (2018), “Examining diversity beliefs and leader performance
across cultures”, Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 382-400.

Wiersema, M.F. and Bird, A. (1993), “Organizational demography in Japanese firms: group
heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top management team turnover”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 996-1025.

Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40
years of research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140.

Windscheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Mazei, J. and Morner, M. (2017), “The paradox of diversity
initiatives: when organizational needs differ from employee preferences”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 33-48.

Wise, L.R. and Tschirhart, M. (2000), “Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects: how useful is
diversity research for public-sector managers?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 60 No. 5,
pp. 386-394.

Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2010), “Diversity and organizational innovation: the role of employee
involvement”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1062-1083.

Yang, Y. and Konrad, A.M. (2011), “Understanding diversity management practices: implications of
institutional theory and resource-based theory”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 6-38.

EDI
39,8

928

Appendix

Corresponding author
Shatrughan Yadav can be contacted at: yadav.shatrughna82@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

[1] Al Ariss and Sidani (2016) [54] Lau and Murnighan (1998)
[2] Armstrong et al. (2010) [55] Lau and Murnighan (2005)
[3] Barry and Bateman (1996) [56] Leslie (2017)
[4] Barsade et al. (2000) [57] Leck et al. (1996)
[5] Bezrukova et al. (2012) [58] Leung and Wang (2015)
[6] Buttner et al. (2006) [59] Madera (2013)
[7] Chatman and Flynn (2001) [60] Madera et al. (2013)
[8] Chattopadhyay (1999) [61] McLeod and Lobel (1992)
[9] Chattopadhyay (2003) [62] Marcoulides and Heck (1993)
[10] Choi and Rainey (2010) [63] Mohammed and Angell (2004)
[11] Comer and Soliman (1996) [64] Milliken and Martins (1996)
[12] Cooke and Saini (2010) [65] Nemetz and Christensen (1996)
[13] Cox (1991) [66] Pelled (1996)
[14] Cox and Blake (1991) [67] Pelled et al. (1999)
[15] Cox et al. (1991) [68] Pieterse et al. (2013)
[16] Dixon and Hart (2010) [69] Pitts (2009)
[17] Dass and Parker (1999) [70] Prasad et al. (2011)
[18] Earley and Mosakowski (2000) [71] Rabl et al. (2018)
[19] Elfenbein and O’Reilly (2007) [72] Richard (2000)
[20] Elsass and Gaves (1997) [73] Richard et al. (2003)
[21] Thomas and Ely (1996) [74] Richard et al. (2004)
[22] Ely and Thomas (2001) [75] Richard et al. (2007)
[23] Flynn et al. (2001) [76] Richard and Johnson (2001)
[24] Fujimoto and Hartel (2017) [77] Riordan and Shore (1997)
[25] Gilbert and Ivancevich (2000) [78] Sanchez and Brock (1996)
[26] Gonzalez and Denisi (2009) [79] Schneider and Northcraft (1999)
[27] Guillaume et al. (2015) [80] Schippers et al. (2003)
[28] Harrison et al. (1998) [81] Seong et al. (2012)
[29] Hoever et al. (2012) [82] Seong et al. (2014)
[30] Homberg and Bui (2013) [83] Sabharwal (2014)
[31] Homan et al. (2007) [84] Shin et al. (2012)
[32] Hopkins et al. (2005) [85] Shore et al. (2011)
[33] Horwitz and Horwitz (2007) [86] Shore et al. (2018)
[34] Hsiao et al. (2015) [87] Simons et al. (1999)
[35] Hur and Strickland (2012) [88] Soni (2000)
[36] Jackson et al. (1991) [89] Sourouklis and Tsagdis (2013)
[37] Jackson et al. (1995) [90] Talkie et al. (2010)
[38] Jackson et al. (2003) [91] Triana and Garcia (2009)
[39] Jackson and Joshi (2004) [92] Tsui et al. (1992)
[40] Jayne and Dipboye (2004) [93] van Dick et al. (2008)
[41] Jehn et al. (1999) [94] van Knippenberg et al. (2004)
[42] Joshi et al. (2006) [95] van Knippenberg et al. (2011)
[43] Joshi and Roh (2009) [96] van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007)
[44] Joshi et al. (2011) [97] van Knippenberg et al. (2016)
[45] Kearney and Gebert (2009) [98] Yang and Konrad (2010)
[46] Kirchmeyer and Cohen (1992) [99] Yang and Konrad (2011)
[47] Kirchmeyer (1995) [100] Watson et al. (1993)
[48] Kim and Park (2017) [101] Watson et al. (1998)
[49] Klein et al. (2011) [102] Wiersema and Bird (1993)
[50] Knight et al. (1999) [103] Webber and Donahue (2001)
[51] Konrad et al. (2016) [104] Windscheid et al. (2017)
[52] Kundu and Mor (2017) [105] Wise and Tschirhart (2000)
[53] Larkey (1996) [106] Williams and O’Reilly (1998)

Table A1.
Numerical coding of

references (refer Tables
7–9)

Diversity
management: a
systematic
review
929

mailto:yadav.shatrughna82@gmail.com

Diversity management: a systematic review

Introduction
Literature review
Evolution of diversity management
Conceptualization of diversity
Exploring dimensions of diversity
Research methodology
Results
Journal wise distribution of literature
Distribution based on year of publications
Country and time period-based classification of articles
Industry-wise classification of articles
Respondents in diversity research
Classification based on the adopted methodology
Classification of diversity dimensions and sources
Antecedents and consequences of diversity
Moderators and mediators in workplace diversity
Breadth and depth of diversity article
Discussion
Theoretical implications
Practical implications
Limitations and future research
Conclusion
References
Appendix

Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 529

Erica Gabrielle Foldy
New York University

Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration

Public-sector organizations tend to be more racially and ethnically diverse than private-sector
organizations, leading to the challenge of enhancing heterogeneous work group effectiveness.
Recent work suggests that a group’s “diversity perspective,” or set of beliefs about the role of
cultural diversity, moderates diverse group performance. One perspective, the integration and
learning perspective, argues that heterogeneous groups function better when they believe that
cultural identities can be tapped as sources of new ideas and experiences about work. However,
simply holding the integration and learning perspective may not be sufficient. Research on general
group learning has shown that it requires particular behaviors and cognitive frames. This article
integrates recent work on diversity perspectives with long-standing research on team learning to
propose a conceptual model of learning in culturally diverse groups. It suggests that both the
integration and learning perspective and more generic learning frames and skills must be present.

Thinking and talking about diversity is ubiquitous in
today’s organizations. While “diversity” may refer to many
kinds of heterogeneity, one of the most challenging dimen-
sions for many workplaces is cultural diversity, including
racial and ethnic background (Williams and O’Reilly 1998).
While organizations face a variety of difficulties related to
managing cultural diversity, these challenges vary, to some
extent, by sector. Public-sector organizations tend to have
more diverse employee populations than organizations in
the private sector, suggesting they have been more suc-
cessful in recruiting employees of color, though often not
in promoting them to higher levels (Riccucci 2002; Corn-
well and Kellough 1994). However, their very success in
diversifying their workforces poses a new challenge: How
can public organizations ensure that heterogeneous em-
ployees work well together?

This is a pressing question, especially given the ration-
ales for broadening diversity in the public sector. Ospina
(2001), for example, suggests two main reasons. First, cul-
tural diversity enhances organizational performance by con-
tributing to functional diversity, which, in turn, increases
the prevalence of alternative perspectives and new ideas.
Second, it enhances organizational legitimacy by creating
an employee population that roughly mirrors the popula-
tion it serves.

Erica Gabrielle Foldy is an assistant professor of public and nonprofit man-
agement at the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University. Her
research interests include identity and diversity in organizations, organiza-
tional learning and reflective practice, and the interaction of individual, or-
ganizational, and social change. She has published articles in several jour-
nals and edited volumes and co-edited the Reader in Gender, Work, and
Organization (Blackwell, 2003). E-mail: Erica.foldy@nyu.edu.

Articles from the Seventh National Public Management Research Conference

In 1991, an interdisciplinary group of scholars interested in management and organizations convened the first biannual National Public
Management Research Conference. The conference was held at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.
(Subsequent conferences were held at the University of Wisconsin, the University of Kansas, the University of Georgia, Texas A&M University
and Indiana University–Bloomington). The Georgetown Public Policy Institute at Georgetown University hosted the seventh conference October
9–11, 2003. Public Administration Review agreed to publish articles from the conference. We would like to thank Professor William Gormley and
his colleagues for their warm and generous hospitality.

Articles from the conference are published in two installments, the first of which is included in this issue. The second installment will appear
in the November/December issue. We have selected articles that reflect the range and diversity of papers presented at the conference. Consistent
with PAR publication policy, all articles were evaluated by external reviewers. —LDT

530 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5

However, both rationales may be undermined if diverse
groups don’t work together effectively. First, research has
established that simply creating diversity through hiring
does not automatically lead to enhanced organizational per-
formance. Research shows that diverse groups can be both
more creative and effective (Watson, Kumar, and Michael-
son 1993; Cox, Lobel, and McLeod 1991), as well as more
conflictual (Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale 1999; Tsui, Egan,
and Xin 1995). If heterogeneous work groups experience
increased conflict and miscommunication, this may actu-
ally lead to diminished performance. Second, while an
agency’s workforce may represent its service population,
if it doesn’t work together effectively, it will provide less-
than-optimal services, thereby undermining legitimacy
rather than enhancing it. Therefore, public-sector organi-
zations must go beyond creating diversity to consider how
to reap its positive benefits.

Some recent research focused on group diversity could
provide a useful approach. Ely and Thomas propose the
concept of “diversity perspectives” (Ely and Thomas
2001; Thomas and Ely 1996). They argue that diverse
groups who hold the perspective that cultural identity is
a resource for learning and growth are more likely to learn
from difference, resulting in higher performance. But the
authors do not elaborate the components of this perspec-
tive or how such a perspective leads to learning in cultur-
ally diverse groups.

Fortunately, the substantial literature on team or group
learning offers a number of insights that could elaborate
the concept of diversity perspectives and their contribution
to learning (Edmondson 1999; Edmondson, Bohmer, and
Pisano 2001; Argote, Gruenfeld, and Naquin 2001). This
literature has made remarkable progress in delineating what
enables group learning, including particular behaviors as
well as frames or beliefs held by team members. Yet, this
research has largely ignored the particular needs and dy-
namics of culturally diverse work groups (exceptions in-
clude Child and Rodrigues 2003; Taylor and Osland 2003;
Gibson and Vermeulen 2003), despite the broad recogni-
tion that such groups face both opportunities and challenges
that homogeneous groups do not (Williams and O’Reilly
1998; Shaw 1981; Shaw and Barrett-Power 1998).

This article integrates insights from Ely and Thomas’s
work on diversity perspectives with work on group learn-
ing to explore the question: what enables learning in cul-
turally diverse groups? This article proposes a model to
answer this question. It begins by summarizing what we
already know about group learning from the learning lit-
erature. It then investigates culturally diverse groups, how
they are different from homogeneous groups, and why
perspectives about diversity affect their learning capacity.
It then proposes and elaborates a model of learning in cul-
turally diverse groups.

Group Learning
While scholars have identified factors at the organiza-

tional, group, and individual levels that contribute to learn-
ing (Dodgson 1993; Huber 1991; Levitt and March 1988),
some argue that individuals are at the heart of group learn-
ing. As Argyris and Schon point out, “We take individual
practitioners as centrally important to organizational learn-
ing, because it is their thinking and acting that influence
the acquisition of capability for productive learning at the
organizational level” (1996, xxii). Therefore, this article
focuses on the beliefs and behaviors of team members
which enhance team and organizational learning (Argyris,
Putnam, and Smith 1985; Argyris and Schon 1996, 1974).

Argyris and Schon distinguish between Model I behav-
iors and Model II behaviors (Argyris and Schon 1974,
1996). Model I behaviors, which are counterproductive to
learning, include making untested attributions about oth-
ers’ motivations and positions, not inquiring into others’
views, and offering no opportunities to test one’s advoca-
cies. Model II behaviors, which enhance learning, include
suggesting ways to test one’s advocacies and attributions
and inquiring into why others view things the way they do.
Implicit in this work is the individual’s capacity to surface
and reflect on his or her embedded assumptions or mental
models (Rudolph, Taylor, and Foldy 2001; Ayas and Zeniuk
2001). Table 1 compares Model I (low-learning) and Model
II (high-learning) behaviors.

Work from this approach also suggests that particular
beliefs or frames, in addition to skills or behaviors, are
essential to learning. Model II (high-learning) frames in-
clude “errors are puzzles to be engaged” and “role of
learner as agent,” rather than Model I (low-learning) frames
such as “errors are crimes to be covered up” and “role of
learner as recipient” (Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985,
280) (table 2).

Research on these generic learning behaviors and
frames demonstrates they can be quite effective, but little
work has explored whether these approaches are suffi-
cient for learning to occur in culturally diverse groups.
Research on diverse groups suggests they face different
challenges and opportunities than homogeneous ones,
raising the possibility that generic learning approaches
may not be sufficient.

Culturally Diverse Groups
Cultural diversity refers to identities such as race,

ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, and other dimen-
sions of difference derived from membership in groups that
are socioculturally distinct, that is, they “collectively share
certain norms, values or traditions that are different from
those of other groups” (Cox 1994, 5–6). Members of the
same cultural identity group often—though not always—

Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 531

have similarities of background and experience that shape
the way they see the world.

Cultural identity groups also tend to be associated with
power differentials, in that some groups have higher status
and greater access to resources than other groups (Nkomo
1992; Omi and Winant 1994; Ragins 1997; Ridgeway and
Berger 1986). While this is a broad generalization, in West-
ern countries men tend to have more power than women,
whites generally have more resources than people of color,
and so on. When power differentials are roughly contigu-
ous with identity groups, this may reinforce the bound-
aries among the groups, making their group identities more
salient (Lau and Murnighan 1998). Group identity is no
longer based solely on cultural similarity, but on a shared
status or shared interests.

Numerous studies have established that culturally di-
verse work groups have different dynamics than homoge-
neous groups (Williams and O’Reilly 1998). These groups

are broadly seen as having both increased challenges and
opportunities: Diverse groups often experience miscom-
munication and disabling conflict (Tsui, Egan, and Xin
1995; Shaw 1981), yet under the right circumstances, they
can be synergistic and creative (McGrath 1984; Cox, Lobel,
and McLeod 1991).

The factors underlying these different dynamics are nu-
merous and complex, but four reasons stand out. First, a
long tradition of research has demonstrated that individu-
als are generally more comfortable when they are sur-
rounded by people they perceive as more like them
(Schneider 1987; Tsui, Egan, and O’Reilly 1992; Kanter
[1977]1993; Brief 1998). We look for familiarity and simi-
larity; we are reassured when others think, talk, and act like
we do. These simple personal preferences have profound
consequences for organizations and for work groups. “So-
cial similarity, whatever criteria it uses, acts as a mecha-
nism of exclusion or inclusion …” (Ospina 1996a, 141).
Groups include those who feel familiar or safe and exclude
those who don’t. Kanter, among others, has elaborated the
implications of “homosocial reproduction” for organiza-
tional stratification (Kanter [1977]1993). Demographic
groups with power—often white men—tend to stay in power
because they choose others like themselves as colleagues.
Therefore, individuals from demographic groups with less
power—often people of color and white women—continue
to be shut out from the highest levels of the organization.

However, the powerful impulse toward similarity also
has implications for group dynamics. It means that indi-
viduals are inclined to seek groups made up of people like
themselves. When individuals find themselves in diverse
groups, despite their preferences, those groups are likely
to feel less safe and less trusting. Less trust means that
group members are less likely to give others the benefit of
the doubt, leading to more conflict (Child and Rodrigues
2003). Such groups feel less familiar, meaning that group
members are more likely to feel strange or to perceive oth-
ers as strange. That dynamic contributes to less trust, and
often more conflict.

Second, as suggested by the definition of cultural diver-
sity, group members come with different life experiences
that have shaped their values, approaches, and perspec-
tives. Members of culturally diverse groups may be more
likely than those of homogeneous groups to differ in how
they define a problem, structure a discussion, view poten-
tial solutions, or come to a decision. These differences of
opinion represent a mother lode of creativity or a quag-
mire of conflict, depending on how the group handles con-
flict and differences (Chatman and Flynn 2001; Chatman
et al. 1998; Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale 1999).

Third, group membership is associated with differing
representation within the group. Members of groups in the
minority, whatever that means in a particular context, are

Table 1 Comparison of Low-Learning (Model I) and
High-Learning (Model II) Behaviors

Low learning
1. Make attributions about others

without testing them.
2. Advocate positions without

illustrating them or suggesting
a way to test them.

3. Invoke abstract concepts that
are impossible to disagree
with.

4. Construct a situation as a
dilemma or double bind; feel
trapped.

5. Do not inquire into why you
think, feel, or act the way you
do.

6. Do not inquire into why others
think, feel, or act the way they
do.

High learning
1. Make private attributions

about others public; test them.
2. Illustrate and suggest ways to

test one’s advocacies.

3. When invoking abstract
concepts, try to make them
concrete and testable.

4. Make dilemmas public and
discussable.

5. Publicly reflect on why you
are thinking, feeling, or
acting as you are.

6. Inquire into why others are
thinking, feeling, or acting the
way they are.

Table 2 Comparison of Low-Learning (Model I) and
High-Learning (Model II) Frames

Low learning
1. Mistakes are crimes to be

prosecuted.
2. My role as a participant is to

be a recipient.
3. I don’t have anything to learn

from others in this group.
4. If I don’t have a solution, I

shouldn’t raise the problem.
5. If I feel uncomfortable in this

discussion, something must be
wrong.

6. If I speak up, I will be
criticized.

7. I don’t have any power or
authority in this group, so I will
be quiet.

High learning
1. Mistakes are puzzles to be

engaged.
2. I should be an engaged

participant.
3. I don’t know everything.

4. It is helpful to raise problems,
even if I don’t have a solution.

5. Feeling uncomfortable in a
discussion can be a sign that
this is exactly where I should be.

6. I think I have something to
contribute to the conversation,
even though what I say may be
criticized.

7. I can make a contribution here
even though I don’t have any
formal power or authority.

532 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5

more aware of their identity and of being different from
the norm (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Kanter [1977]1993).
Depending on the dynamics of the group, they may feel
less comfortable or less welcome. Members of majority
groups, who share ways of thinking and acting, may un-
wittingly create environments that make it difficult for oth-
ers to feel included.

Finally, diverse groups may also have different dynam-
ics because of the power differences associated with cul-
tural differences. The literature on group decision making
and problem solving has demonstrated that more powerful
members tend to talk more and have more influence on
outcomes, contributing to less powerful members with-
drawing and falling silent (Falk and Falk 1981). In cultur-
ally diverse teams, members of dominant identity groups,
such as whites, are often the more powerful members of
such groups (Levin et al. 2002; Sidanius and Pratto 1999).
Therefore, they may consciously or unconsciously act in
ways that reinforce their dominance in their conversational
styles, decision-making processes, social interaction, and
so on (Ridgeway 1997; Smith-Lovin and Brody 1989;
Elsass and Graves 1997). Like any less powerful group
members, members of nondominant groups may also con-
tribute to dysfunctional dynamics by withdrawing or by
communicating largely with other members of their sub-
group (Konrad 2003).

All of these dynamics suggest that generic learning
frames and behaviors may be harder to establish in cultur-
ally diverse groups. On an individual level, learning means
making oneself vulnerable; it means admitting that one is
dependent on others to grow and develop (Brown and
Starkey 2000). As others have amply demonstrated, this is
difficult enough in homogeneous groups and even more
difficult in heterogeneous groups. For example, making
mistakes may carry greater weight in heterogeneous groups,
which means that admitting them will be all the more dif-
ficult. This is particularly true for members of nondominant
groups, who often feel their capabilities are in question,
and therefore they may feel under greater pressure to per-
form (Steele 1997). Carrying the frame that mistakes are
opportunities to learn rather than crimes to be punished is
more difficult under these circumstances. Maintaining a
stance of inquiry may also be more difficult for all indi-
viduals in diverse groups. The concept of “threat-rigidity”
(Staw, Sandelands, and Dutton 1981) suggests that we are
less open and flexible when we feel threatened or unpro-
tected in some way. Working with others who are different
from us can feel unsafe or unfamiliar, as opposed to the
sense of comfort and fit that comes from homogeneity. For
that reason, group members may be more likely to rigidly
advocate their own positions rather than inquire about those
of others.

Individual feelings of discomfort or threat create diffi-

cult group-level dynamics. Heterogeneous groups are less
likely to achieve a broad sense of psychological safety
(Edmondson 1999). In some cases, the difficult dynamics
associated with cultural diversity may cause most mem-
bers of a team to feel generally unsafe, whether they are
members of majority or minority, dominant or nondominant
groups. If dynamics are characterized by a lot of conflict,
mistrust, and paralysis, then it is less likely that anyone
will feel safe. In other cases, majority or dominant mem-
bers may feel safe, while those in the minority will not
because they feel uncomfortable or unwelcome (Earley and
Mosakowski 2000; Elsass and Graves 1997).

If it is true that a learning stance is more difficult in
diverse groups, then what could make the difference? What
enables learning amid cultural diversity?

Diversity Perspectives
Recent research suggests that a group’s diversity per-

spective is central to learning in culturally diverse groups.
Ely and Thomas (2001; Thomas and Ely 1996) propose
the idea of “diversity perspectives” as the key moderator
of the relationship between diversity and performance.
Diversity perspectives are a work group-level phenomenon;
different work groups within the same organization can
hold different perspectives. A diversity perspective is the
way that group members think about the cultural differ-
ences among them, whether they are important, and how
they might be harnessed to further the group’s work.

A diversity perspective includes “the rationale that
guides people’s efforts to create and respond to cultural
diversity in a work group; normative beliefs about the value
of cultural identity at work; expectations about the kind of
impact, if any, cultural differences can and should have on
the group and its work; and beliefs about what constitutes
progress toward the ideal multicultural work group” (Ely
and Thomas 2001, 234.) Such a perspective might be writ-
ten in mission statements or diversity policies, but more
often such explicit statements refer to the work group’s
espoused theory rather than the theory in use actually held
by group members (Argyris and Schon 1996, 13). A group’s
diversity perspective is the approach, usually implicit, un-
derlying the way it defines its tasks and goals and how
group members interact.

Ely and Thomas (2001) identify three diversity perspec-
tives. The discrimination and fairness perspective is con-
cerned with the recruitment and retention of employees
from protected groups. While its commitment to redress-
ing past inequities is both essential and laudable, the per-
spective presumes that cultural dimensions of diversity,
such as race, nationality, or gender, don’t have important
consequences for work practices, that nothing is to be
gained by surfacing and engaging differences. The access

Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 533

and legitimacy perspective challenges these notions to some
extent. Organizations with this perspective celebrate cul-
tural differences, but in simplistic and narrow ways. They
are likely to bring in employees from nontraditional back-
grounds to reach new clients and constituencies, such as
hiring Hispanic employees to work in Spanish-speaking
communities. There is little further investigation of the
potential of diverse backgrounds and ideas.

Finally, the integration and learning perspective seeks
to build, more deeply and comprehensively, on the varied
skills, experiences, and ways of thinking of a diverse
workforce. It suggests that organizations should “incorpo-
rate employees’ perspectives into the main work of the or-
ganization and to enhance work by rethinking primary tasks
and redefining markets, products, strategies, missions, busi-
ness practices and even cultures” (Thomas and Ely 1996,
85). Differences can be a source of growth, learning, and
insight, but only if they are acknowledged and construc-
tively explored.

To understand learning in culturally diverse groups re-
quires integrating previous research on group learning with
the literature on diversity perspectives.

Learning in Culturally Diverse Groups
Figure 1 suggests a model for enabling learning in cul-

turally diverse groups. In order to learn, groups must have
the integration and learning perspective, whether it is held
implicitly or explicitly. They also must have generic Model
II learning frames and behaviors, as illustrated in the work
of Argyris and colleagues, Edmondson, and others (Ed-
mondson 1999; Argyris, Putnam, and Smith 1985; Argyris
and Schon 1996; Fisher and Torbert 1995). The model sug-
gests that a group’s diversity perspective and learning
frames and behaviors influence each other, resulting in a
set of learning frames and actions that is specifically re-
lated to cultural diversity. These frames and behaviors then
enable learning in culturally diverse groups.

I will now explore each of these relationships in turn:
How do diversity perspectives and learning frames and

behaviors influence each other to create specific learning
frames and behaviors, and how do those specific frames
lead to learning in multicultural groups?

Diversity Perspectives and Learning Frames
and Behaviors

The model suggests that a group’s diversity perspective
and its learning frames and actions influence each other,
creating an overall environment that affects learning. If a
group has both the integration and learning perspective and
reflective learning frames and behaviors, then each will
“activate” the other—that is, each adds an ingredient that
makes the other come alive in a given group setting. The
integration and learning perspective enlarges and
contextualizes a group’s learning beliefs and behaviors; it
allows them to address the particular challenges of learn-
ing in culturally diverse groups. Just as important, the
group’s learning beliefs and actions enable the group to
enact its perspective on diversity: They provide the tools
by which a group can mutually investigate their differences.
I will elaborate each of these claims in turn.

The Integration and Learning Perspective Activates
Generic Learning Frames and Behaviors. Why does this
perspective activate learning in culturally diverse groups?
Most importantly, and most simply, the integration and
learning perspective is the only perspective that suggests
cultural diversity is a source for learning, as indicated by
its name. This approach contradicts the way that diversity
is conceptualized in the other two perspectives.

Both the discrimination and fairness and the access and
legitimacy perspectives share a basic color-blind stance,
though they manifest it a little differently (Ely and Tho-
mas 2001). The discrimination and fairness perspective
argues that, although people may look different physiologi-
cally, in fact people are just people and we are all the same
in what really matters: how we think and what we do.
While emphasizing our common humanity is important,
especially when dealing with explicit racism and ethno-
centrism, refusing to acknowledge cultural differences
glosses over the very different histories of cultural groups
in this country. It diminishes the legacy of slavery for Af-
rican Americans and the impact of immigration and as-
similation on white ethnic groups such as Eastern Euro-
peans and Italians. It ignores the ongoing differences in
experiences among cultural groups: for example, the fact
that people of color are much more likely to experience
discrimination, or that being bilingual allows deeper par-
ticipation in multiple cultures.

Failure to acknowledge cultural differences also makes
it impossible to consider how cultural background influ-
ences our ideas and our contributions. It makes it difficult,
for example, for an African American individual to con-
sider that the way she approaches working with customers

Figure 1 A Model of Learning in Culturally Diverse
Groups

Learning in
culturally
diverse
groups

Integration
and
learning
perspective

Generic
high-
learning
frames and
behaviors

Specific high-
learning frames
and behaviors
related to cultural
diversity

534 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5

might in some way trace back to experiences she had feel-
ing unwelcome in some stores. It means that explicitly ask-
ing about group members’ religious backgrounds as part
of revamping human resource practices would be consid-
ered unseemly or irrelevant, even though religious prac-
tices may be affected by such policies as the holidays the
organization chooses to close.

While the access and legitimacy perspective does sug-
gest that cultural background matters, it limits it to very
narrow spheres. It suggests that cultural background mat-
ters only when members of a group are dealing with other
members of their group: that the heritage of employees of
Latino descent, for example, comes into play only when
they have Hispanic customers. Members of nondominant
groups have a special contribution only when dealing with
other members of the same marginalized group. Therefore,
it only makes sense to be aware of color within the group;
color blindness is still the correct stance across groups.

The alternative—the integration and learning perspec-
tive—conjectures that our cultural heritage brings a valu-
able set of experiences that are broadly applicable to the
way the organization does its work. The integration and
learning perspective is quite explicitly not color blind: It
acknowledges that our group identity says a great deal about
our and our ancestors’ life experiences and informs who
we are. Regarding the impact of cultural identity on work,
this perspective argues that race, ethnicity, nationality, and
other differences are extremely valuable resources because
they often, though certainly not always, imply a different
set of perspectives and cultural teachings. The integration
and learning perspective differs from much of the cultural
sensitivity literature (Adler 1991) in that it does not pre-
sume to know, given a person’s cultural identity, what those
experiences or teachings might be. It simply assumes that
different life experiences are likely to bring different ways
of thinking about work, and leveraging those different ways
of thinking is likely to enhance effectiveness.

Learning Frames and Behaviors Activate the Integra-
tion and Learning Perspective. While the integration and
learning perspective is necessary to activate learning frames
and behaviors, the reverse is also true. Without learning
beliefs and actions, the integration and learning perspec-
tive is simply an espoused perspective that will not mani-
fest itself in the group’s work together. Learning beliefs
and behaviors allow groups to undertake the difficult work
of expressing and working with culturally based beliefs.
Groups with the espoused integration and learning perspec-
tive, but without a learning stance, might believe that cul-
tural groups must be acknowledged and celebrated; that
all groups have wisdom that can be tapped; and that creat-
ing a multicultural rather than an assimilationist environ-
ment is essential. However, they lack the learning tools
necessary to create such an environment: capacities such

Table 3 Low-Learning and High-Learning Frames
Related to Culturally Diverse Groups

Low learning
1. If I say something about race, I

may say something wrong or
culturally insensitive.

2. As a white person, I don’t have
anything to add to discussions
about race.

3. As a person of color, I don’t
have anything to learn from
white people about race.

4. Racial issues are insoluble and
I will make things worse if I say
anything.

5. Talking about race makes me
uncomfortable, so I don’t think
we should do it.

6. People will think I’m too
militant if I speak up.

7. There are no blacks in
positions of power in this
organization, so it’s clear
nobody cares what we think
and we have no authority—so
I won’t say anything.

High learning
1. I should say something, even if

it might come off as prejudiced
or racist, because it is an
opportunity to learn.

2. Even though I’m white, I have
something to contribute to
discussions about race.

3. As a person of color, I could
have something to learn from a
white person about race.

4. Even though this is a racial
issue—with a lot of history and
complexity and no obvious
solution—it still might be helpful
to raise it.

5. Talking about race makes me
uncomfortable—which could
mean that is exactly what I
should do.

6. I think this could be a helpful
contribution, even though I may
be considered too militant for
saying it.

7. Even though there are no blacks
in positions of power in this
organization and I’m not
convinced that anyone cares
what we think, I will take the
risk of speaking my mind.

as being able to surface and reflect on one’s embedded
assumptions or to hold genuine curiosity on someone else’s
point of view. In fact, an espoused integration and learning
perspective could become a rhetorical device, a rigidly held
belief used to promote a particular point of view and way
of behaving, rather than a supple and flexible tool that al-
lows new ways of working to come into being. In fact, any
perspective—on diversity or any other topic—held in the
absence of a learning stance can become an iron cage rather
than an open door.

In summary, both the integration and learning perspec-
tive and generic learning frames and behaviors must be
present in order for learning to occur in culturally diverse
groups. Each element activates the other; in other words,
there is an interaction effect between the two elements.

Specific Learning Frames and Behaviors Related to
Cultural Diversity. The interaction between the integra-
tion and learning perspective and generic learning frames
and behaviors enables the development of specific high-
learning frames and behaviors related to cultural identity,
which are crucial to developing a capacity for learning in
culturally diverse groups. I suggest a number of these spe-
cific high-learning frames and behaviors in tables 3 and 4,
contrasting them with their low-learning equivalents. (I am
not arguing that these specific frames and behaviors must
be present; I am suggesting them only as examples.) I use
race as an example of a cultural identity that may be sa-

Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 535

lient in a given work group, but other dimensions of iden-
tity could be substituted, though the specific content of the
frames might differ.

How Specific High-Learning Frames and
Behaviors Facilitate Learning in Culturally
Diverse Groups

Ample research has demonstrated that particular frames
and behaviors are more likely to enhance learning
(Edmondson, Bohmer, and Pisano 2001; Argyris and Schon
1996; Rudolph, Taylor, and Foldy 2001). Frames such as
“mistakes are opportunities for learning” and behaviors
such as inquiry into others’ perspectives and feelings cre-
ate an atmosphere of curiosity, engagement, and safety.
Such an atmosphere allows individuals to loosen their at-
tachment to particular approaches and try on new ways of
thinking and acting.

I suggest that high-learning frames and behaviors related
to cultural diversity play the same role in culturally diverse
groups. These frames and behaviors make three important
contributions beyond generic high-learning frames and be-
haviors. First, these frames and behaviors manifest the idea,
suggested by the integration and learning perspective, that
cultural differences are an important resource for thinking
about the way work is done. Encouraging people to draw
on their cultural experiences will enrich, deepen, and
broaden a team’s approach to its work. Second, these frames
and behaviors suggest that cultural differences are not only
significant, they must be discussed. Given the charged na-
ture of race, religion, and other identities in American soci-
ety (Nkomo and Cox 1996; Omi and Winant 1994), this is
a big change in most group norms. But it is impossible to
draw on cultural differences if they are kept veiled. Finally,
these frames and behaviors hold everyone in a group re-
sponsible for addressing difference. Everyone has some-
thing to bring to the table, given their background. Every-
one is expected to be open to what others bring and to
consider how it can be incorporated into work practices. A
generic learning stance argues that differences must be dis-
cussed and that individuals are responsible for their own
learning. These specific frames and behaviors explicitly
make charged cultural differences part of the equation.

These frames and behaviors enable learning in two ways.
First, they enable learning from difference—that is, they
encourage explicit discussion of cultural differences and
how those differences affect the way we think about the
group’s work. This broadens the pool of options for struc-
turing work, designing strategy, and carrying out other key
organizational tasks. Second, they also enable learning
across difference, meaning they facilitate learning about a
host of things that may be unrelated to cultural differences.
This is because general learning in culturally diverse groups
may be hampered by the more difficult dynamics often
faced by such teams, as outlined earlier in this article. Given
the heterogeneity of perspectives, the sense of discomfort
and lack of fit felt by employees when working with people
unlike themselves, and the issues of subgroup dominance
and marginalization, diverse groups tend to have more
dysfunctional conflict than homogeneous groups. These
specific learning frames and behaviors help to establish a
sense of safety in a diverse group, allowing everyone to
feel more open to new ways of thinking and acting.

Conclusion
Many public-sector organizations have been relatively

successful at diversifying their workforce, but they are still
struggling to reap the benefits of that heterogeneity (Ospina
1996b). This article suggests one approach to enhancing the
effectiveness of culturally diverse work groups by focusing

Table 4 Low-Learning and High-Learning Behaviors
Related to Culturally Diverse Groups

Low learning
1. Make attributions about others

without testing them: “X is just
saying that because she knows
nothing about the Latino
community.”

2. Advocate positions without
illustrating them or suggesting
a way to test them: “This issue
has everything to do with
race.”

3. Invoke abstract concepts that
are impossible to disagree
with: “People are people.
Everyone is the same under the
skin.”

4. Construct a situation as a
dilemma or double bind; feel
trapped: “If I don’t raise this, I
don’t think we can make any
progress. But if I do raise this,
people will think I’m too
militant. I’m stuck.”

5. Do not inquire into why you
think, feel, or act the way you
do: “Even though X thinks I
can’t deal with racial issues,
this is just the way I feel and
that’s that.”

6. Do not inquire into why others
think, feel or act the way they
do. “Jeez, Y always gets that
scared expression when we
talk about race. What’s his
problem?”

High learning
1. Make private attributions about

others public; test them: “I
realize I’m sitting here thinking
you are saying this because you
are unfamiliar with the Latino
community, but perhaps I am
being unfair to you.”

2. Illustrate and suggest ways to
test one’s advocacies: “I think
this issue is about race because
it relates to our two depart-
ments, one of which is mostly
black and the other is mostly
white. Perhaps we should talk to
several members of each
department …”

3. When invoking abstract
concepts, try to make them
concrete and testable:. “I think
people are people, so I worry
about dividing our constituency
base into different ethnic
markets. So perhaps we should
do some research …”

4. Make dilemmas public and
discussable: “I realize I feel
caught in a bind. I want to raise
an issue, but I’m afraid people
will see me as too militant. But I
think we’re stuck and this might
help us get unstuck. So I want to
take this risk …”

5. Publicly reflect on why you are
thinking, feeling or acting as
you are: “I wonder why I feel so
strongly about this? Perhaps
because I grew up in an all-
white neighborhood and I don’t
have much experience …”

6. Inquire into why others are
thinking, feeling or acting the
way they are: “Y, you have a
worried look on your face. Are
you feeling concerned?

536 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5

on how groups can learn from and across difference. It pro-
poses a model that builds on work on group learning and
diversity perspectives and suggests that two elements must
be present: the integration and learning perspective on di-
versity (Ely and Thomas 2001) and generic, high-learning
frames and behaviors (Argyris and Schon 1974). These two
elements each activate the other—turn them on, so to speak.
The interaction between the elements results in specific high-
learning frames and behaviors related to cultural diversity.
Those frames and behaviors then catalyze learning in cul-
turally heterogeneous groups. In addition to providing this
framework, integrating the broader literature on team learn-
ing with the construct of diversity perspectives enriches our
understanding of both concepts.

Contributions to the Literature on Group
Learning

Recognizing the particular challenges of culturally di-
verse groups forces researchers to consider the social con-
text in which learning takes place. Although the impact of
organizational structure and culture on learning has been
well researched (Popper and Lipshitz 1998; Nevis, DiBella,
and Gould 1995; Levitt and March 1988), the role of the
larger social environment remains largely invisible. But as
embedded intergroup theory (Alderfer and Smith 1982;
Alderfer et al. 1980) reminds us, groups in organizations
are embedded in multiple contexts, not just departmental
and organizational, but also societal. Therefore, group in-
teractions and intergroup relations are not immune from
larger societal dynamics. But most researchers on group
learning conceptualize teams as acting in a social vacuum.

Teasing out the particular dynamics of multicultural
groups requires placing those teams in a larger context and
considering the impact of demography, history, privilege,
and marginalization on their capacity for learning. The
concept of diversity perspectives argues that diverse groups
have a way of thinking about that broader context, even if
their models are usually implicit and unacknowledged.
Groups with a discrimination and fairness perspective be-
lieve that, although societal inequities must be addressed
through equal opportunity and affirmative action, cultural
differences are not significant and should be muted. Groups
with an access and legitimacy perspective believe that cul-
tural background is important only when working with
particular, usually nondominant, populations. Only groups
with an integration and learning perspective believe that
cultural experience is a resource for learning—that our
experiences as members of social-identity groups should
explicitly be brought into the workplace as material to en-
rich our work. Therefore, the concept of diversity perspec-
tives embeds learning in its social context and suggests
that different approaches to that context will affect a group’s
capacity to learn from and across cultural difference.

When we look at the experiences of culturally hetero-
geneous groups, we learn more about the importance of
power as it affects learning. Of course, all groups have to
deal with power dynamics (Ridgeway and Berger 1986;
Ridgeway 1997), and there is a growing recognition that
power dynamics must be addressed in order for learning
to happen. Edmondson (2002), for example, argues that
whether groups are able to learn depends on whether power
differences are exaggerated or minimized. In a study of 12
teams, she found that a subsection of teams were quite
skilled at group reflection, but unable to take action when
it might have threatened the authority of the group’s leader.
This and other work (Contu and Willmott 2003; Lee 1997)
highlight the role of power dynamics associated with or-
ganizational level or position power (Finkelstein 1992).
Consequences of learning that threaten the status of the
superordinate may be suppressed in some way, damaging
the integrity and reputation of the learning process.

However, little work has explored power inequities as-
sociated with different cultural identity groups and their
impact on learning. Multicultural groups will certainly
have power dynamics related to organizational level, as
do homogeneous teams, but they also have culturally as-
sociated power dynamics. Certain subgroups may be rep-
resented in greater numbers. Also, regardless of repre-
sentation, certain subgroups may be dominant in some
way while others are marginalized. Again, the notion of
diversity perspectives provides a foundation for thinking
about these kinds of power issues in groups. The integra-
tion and learning perspective argues that cultural back-
ground is connected to work. But to truly mine that re-
source, groups must address obstacles to fully integrating
the ideas and approaches of all of their members. This
means that a group must somehow deal with power ineq-
uities within the group.

Addressing the particularities of multicultural teams
places learning in a broad social context that considers the
consequences of cultural background and the particular
power dynamics associated with cultural differences. This
begins the process of grounding the concept of learning in
a particular social and historical reality, rather than defin-
ing it as disconnected from its source.

Contributions to the Literature on Diversity
The concept of diversity perspectives is an important

advance in the broader diversity literature because it helps
us understand why some diverse groups are more effective
than others. Identifying the three perspectives provides a
useful tool for work groups to think about their own ratio-
nale for creating heterogeneity. However, as the construct’s
authors themselves point out, “More theoretical and em-
pirical development is needed to understand fully the inte-
gration-and-learning perspective’s potential for connect-

Learning from Diversity: A Theoretical Exploration 537

ing organizations’ cultural diversity to their core work and
work processes” (Ely and Thomas 2001, 270).

The literature on team learning provides a useful start-
ing point for this exploration. What is the mechanism that
connects diversity to work processes? According to the
learning literature, it is learning itself, the process of syn-
thesizing a variety of different perspectives into action-
able ideas. This literature has traditionally focused only
on functional or professional diversity and the expertise
and knowledge they spawn (Edmondson and Moingeon
1998). However, it does suggest specific frames and be-
haviors that enable groups to take advantage of that diver-
sity, rather than being torn apart by it. The stance of curi-
osity and inquiry implicit in those frames and behaviors is
essential to thinking about any kind of difference, and there-
fore is an important starting point for linking cultural di-
versity to organizational processes. Grounding the con-
cept of diversity perspectives in the established learning
literature elaborates and enriches its connection to what
we know about learning.

The increasing diversity of public organizations presents
a challenge: Can heterogeneity be harnessed for increased
organizational effectiveness? This article suggests that
learning from and across difference could be one path to
enhanced performance.

References

Adler, Nancy J. 1991. International Dimensions of Organiza-
tional Behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Alderfer, Clayton P., and Ken K. Smith. 1982. Studying Inter-
group Relations Embedded in Organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly 27(1): 35–65.

Alderfer, Clayton P., Charleen J. Alderfer, Leota Tucker, and
Robert Tucker. 1980. Diagnosing Race Relations in Manage-
ment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 16(2): 135–66.

Argote, Linda, Debroah Gruenfeld, and Charles Naquin. 2001.
Group Learning in Organizations. In Groups at Work: Theory
and Research, edited by M.E. Turner, 369–411. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Argyris, Chris, Robert Putnam, and Diana McLain Smith. 1985.
Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, Chris, and Donald A. Schon. 1974. Theory in Practice:
Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

———. 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and
Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. 1989. Social Identity Theory
and the Organization. Academy of Management Review 14(1):
20–39.

Ayas, Karen, and Nick Zeniuk. 2001. Project-Based Learning:
Building Communities of Reflective Practitioners. Manage-
ment Learning 32(1): 61–76.

Brief, Arthur P. 1998. Attitudes In and Around Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brown, Andrew D., and Ken Starkey. 2000. Organizational Iden-
tity and Learning: A Psychodynamic Perspective. Academy
of Management Review 25(1): 102–20.

Chatman, Jennifer A., and Francis J. Flynn. 2001. The Influence
of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Con-
sequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams. Academy
of Management Journal 44(5): 956–74.

Chatman, Jennifer A., Jeffrey T. Polzer, Sigal G. Barsade, and
Margaret A. Neale. 1998. Being Different Yet Feeling Simi-
lar: The Influence of Demographic Composition and Organi-
zational Culture on Work Processes and Outcomes. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly 43(4): 749–80.

Child, John, and Suzana Rodrigues. 2003. Social Identity and
Organizational Learning. In Blackwell Handbook of Organi-
zational Learning and Knowledge Management, edited by
M. Easterby-Smith and M.A. Lyles, 535–56. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.

Contu, Alessia, and Hugh Willmott. 2003. Re-Embedding
Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learn-
ing Theory. Organization Science 14(3): 283–96.

Cox, Taylor, Jr. 1994. Cultural Diversity in Organizations:
Theory, Research and Practice. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.

Cox, Taylor, Sharon Lobel, and Poppy McLeod. 1991. Effects
of Ethnic Group Cultural Differences on Cooperative and
Competitive Behavior on a Group Task. Academy of Man-
agement Journal 34(4): 827–47.

Dodgson, Mark. 1993. Organization Learning: A Review of Some
Literatures. Organization 14(3): 375–94.

Earley, P. Christopher, and Elaine Mosakowski. 2000. Creating
Hybrid Team Cultures: An Empirical Test of Transnational
Team Functioning. Academy of Management Journal 43(1):
26–49.

Edmondson, Amy. 1999. Psychological Safety and Learning
Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly
44(3): 350–83.

———. 2002. The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in
Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective. Organization Sci-
ence 13(2): 128–46.

Edmondson, Amy C., Richard M. Bohmer, and Gary P. Pisano.
2001. Disrupted Routines: Team Learning and New Technol-
ogy Implementation in Hospitals. Administrative Science
Quarterly 46(4): 685–716.

Edmondson, Amy, and Bertrand Moingeon. 1998. From Orga-
nizational Learning to the Learning Organization. Manage-
ment Learning 29(1): 5–20.

Elsass, Priscilla M., and Laura M. Graves. 1997. Demographic
Diversity in Decision-Making Groups: The Experiences of
Women and People of Color. Academy of Management Re-
view 22(4): 946–73.

Ely, Robin J., and David A. Thomas. 2001. Cultural Diversity at
Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group
Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly
46(2): 229–73.

Falk, Gideon, and Shoshana Falk. 1981. The Impact of Decision
Rules on the Distribution of Power in Problem-Solving Teams
with Unequal Power. Group and Organization Studies 6(2):
211–23.

538 Public Administration Review • September/October 2004, Vol. 64, No. 5

Finkelstein, Sydney. 1992. Power in Top Management Teams:
Dimensions, Measurement and Validation. Academy of Man-
agement Journal 35(3): 505–38.

Fisher, Dalmar, and William R. Torbert. 1995. Personal and
Organizational Transformations. London: McGraw-Hill.

Gibson, Christina, and Freek Vermeulen. 2003. A Healthy Di-
vide: Subgroups as a Stimulus for Team Learning Behavior.
Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 202–39.

Huber, George P. 1991. Organizational Learning: The Contrib-
uting Processes and Literatures. Organization Science 2(1):
88–115.

Jehn, Karen A., Gregory B. Northcraft, and Margaret A. Neale.
1999. Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of
Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly 44(4): 741–63.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. [1977]1993. Men and Women of the
Corporation. 2nd ed. New York: HarperCollins.

Konrad, Alison M. 2003. Defining the Domain of Workplace
Diversity Scholarship. Group and Organization Management
28(1): 4–17.

Lau, Dora C., and J. Keith Murnighan. 1998. Demographic Di-
versity and Faultlines: The Compositional Dynamics of Or-
ganizational Groups. Academy of Management Review 23(2):
325–40.

Lee, Fiona. 1997. When the Going Gets Tough, Do the Tough
Ask for Help? Help Seeking and Power Motivation in Orga-
nizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 72(3): 336–63.

Levin, Shana, Christopher M. Federico, Jim Sidanius, and Joshua
L. Rabinowitz. 2002. Social Dominance Orientation and In-
tergroup Bias: The Legitimation of Favoritism for High-Sta-
tus Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(2):
144–57.

Levitt, Barbara, and James G. March. 1988. Organizational
Learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319–40.

McGrath, Joseph E. 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nevis, Edwin C., Anthony J. DiBella, and Janet M. Gould. 1995.
Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan
Management Review 36(2): 73–80.

Nkomo, Stella. 1992. The Emperor Has No Clothes: Rewriting
“Race In Organizations.” Academy of Management Review
17(3): 487–513.

Nkomo, Stella M., and Taylor Cox, Jr. 1996. Diverse Identities
in Organizations. In Handbook of Organization Studies, ed-
ited by S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord, 338–56. London:
Sage Publications.

Omi, M., and H. Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United
States. New York: Routledge.

Ospina, Sonia. 1996a. Illusions of Opportunity. Ithaca, NY: ILR
Press.

———. 1996b. Realizing the Promise of Diversity. In Hand-
book of Public Administration, edited by J. Perry, 441–59.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

———. 2001. Managing Diversity in the Civil Service: A Con-
ceptual Framework for Public Organizations. In Managing
Diversity in the Civil Service, edited by UNDESA-IIAS, 5–
10. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Popper, Micha, and Raanan Lipshitz. 1998. Organizational Learn-
ing Mechanisms: A Structural and Cultural Approach to Or-
ganizational Learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
34(2): 161–79.

Ragins, Belle Rose. 1997. Diversified Mentoring Relationships
in Organizations: A Power Perspective. Academy of Manage-
ment Review 22(2): 482–521.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. 1997. Interaction and the Conservation of
Gender Inequality: Considering Employment. American So-
ciological Review 62(2): 218–35.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L., and J. Berger. 1986. Expectations, Legiti-
mation, and Dominance Behavior in Task Groups. American
Sociological Review 51(5): 603–17.

Rudolph, J.W., S.S. Taylor, and E.G. Foldy. 2001. Collaborative
Off-Line Reflection: A Way to Develop Skill in Action Sci-
ence and Action Inquiry. In Handbook of Action Research,
edited by P. Reason and H. Bradbury, 405–12. London: Sage
Publications.

Schneider, B. 1987. The People Make the Place. Personnel Psy-
chology 40(3): 437–53.

Shaw, James B., and Elaine Barrett-Power. 1998. The Effects of
Diversity on Small Work Group Processes and Performance.
Human Relations 51(10): 1307–25.

Shaw, M. 1981. Group Dynamics: The Psychology of Group
Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto. 1999. Social Dominance: An
Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Charles Brody. 1989. Interruptions in
Group Discussions: The Effects of Gender and Group Com-
position. American Sociological Review 54(3): 424–35.

Staw, B.M., L.E. Sandelands, and Jane Dutton. 1981. Threat-
Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multi-Level
Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(4): 501–24.

Steele, Claude M. 1997. A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes
Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance. American Psy-
chologist 52(6): 613–29.

Taylor, Sully, and Joyce S. Osland. 2003. The Impact of Inter-
cultural Communication on Global Organizational Learning.
In Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and
Knowledge Management, edited by M. Easterby-Smith and
M.A. Lyles, 212–32. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Thomas, David A., and Robin J. Ely. 1996. Making Differences
Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity. Harvard
Business Review 74(5): 79–90.

Tsui, Anne S., Terri D. Egan, and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1992.
Being Different: Relational Demography and Organizational
Attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly 37(4): 549–
79.

Tsui, Anne S., Terri D. Egan, and K. Xin. 1995. Diversity in
Organizations: Lessons from Demography Research. In Di-
versity in Organizations: New Perspectives from a Changing
Workplace, edited by M. Chemers, S. Okampo, and M.
Costanzo, 191–219. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Williams, Katherine Y., and Charles A. O’Reilly III. 1998. De-
mography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40
Years of Research. Research in Organizational Behavior 20:
77–140.

92 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

P. Edward French is an assistant

professor in the Department of Political

Science and Public Administration at

Mississippi State University. He is the

coauthor of three books and has published

in numerous academic journals. His

teaching and research interests encompass

local government administration, including

human resource issues, budgeting, public

policy, and selected topics in public

management.

E-mail: pef1@msstate.edu

Recent Trends
in Human
Resource
Management

Numerous aspects of the day-to-day operations of local

governments are subject to legal scrutiny; public manag-

ers and offi cials must be keenly aware of the legal rights

and protections that extend to both citizens and employ-

ees of local governments. Th is research evaluates several

areas of concern in the human resource administration of

municipal governments with respect to the management

of public employees within the protections set forth by the

legislative and judicial branches of the federal govern-

ment. Sample cases fi led from 2000 to 2007 against local

governments in Tennessee involving Title VII violations,

retaliation, hostile work environment, Family and Medi-

cal Leave Act violations, and other employee grievances

are detailed. Th e intent of this analysis is to highlight

many of the laws and legal principles that relate to

municipal human resources management and to provide

scholars and practitioners with a brief overview of the li-

abilities that may arise from the employment relationship

between local governments and their employees.

M
any of the laws established in this country,

especially those defi ned by the U.S. Con-

stitution, have been used to protect the

rights of our citizenry from infringement by the gov-

ernment; however, there are times when the actions of

federal, state, and local governments and their em-

ployees violate these protections in the provision of

services, the enforcement of the laws, and the manage-

ment of government employees. Yet the legal account-

ability of the government unit and its staff may

depend on the branch, circumstances, and outcome of

the violation.

Th e federal government has always

possessed sovereign immunity and cannot be sued

unless it has waived this immunity or has consented

to the suit; the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitu-

tion grants similar sovereign

immunity to the states. 1 Local

governments, however, lack

protection from most court pro-

ceedings because of the U.S.

Supreme Court’s interpretation

that only states and arms of the

state possess immunity from suits

authorized by federal law ( Durchslag 2002 ). Th is

Court’s long-standing precedent has established that

political subdivisions of the states (counties, munici-

palities, school districts, and other local entities) are

not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. 2

In 1946, Congress passed the Tort Claims Act, which

allowed citizens to sue their government for injuries

caused by the negligent action of federal employees.

Most state governments followed with similar statutes.

Historically, public employees have been protected as

individuals from constitutional torts by the doctrine

of absolute immunity established under American

common law ( Rosenbloom and Kravchuk 2005 ). Th is

doctrine was reexamined by the courts in the 1970s as

a result of the expansion of both individual constitu-

tional rights and civil liability in the American legal

system ( Riccucci 2006 ). While the Civil Rights Act of

1871 (amended and codifi ed in 42 U.S. Code, section

1983) was enacted after the Civil War to protect African

Americans in the South from abuses by the Ku Klux

Klan, litigation under this statute was fairly uncom-

mon until 1961. In Monroe v. Pape (365 U.S. 167

[1961]), the Supreme Court held that local govern-

ments were wholly immune from suit under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, which imposes civil liability on every

“person” who deprives another of his or her federally

protected rights. Th e Court reasoned that Congress

had not intended the word “person” in this section to

apply to municipalities. Th is case was later overturned

in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the State of

New York (436 U.S. 658 [1978]), in which the Court

determined that local governments, municipal corpo-

rations, and school boards were “persons” subject to

liability under § 1983 and were not wholly immune

from § 1983 suits. Th is decision

also stated that local government

offi cials could be sued in their

offi cial capacity as “persons”

under § 1983 in those cases in

which a local government would

be subject to suit in its own

name. Th is section also allows

P. Edward French
Mississippi State University

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer:

Lessons to Be Learned from a Review of Lawsuits Filed

against Local Governments

. . . the legal accountability of
the government unit and its

staff may depend on the branch,
circumstances, and outcome of

the violation.

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 93

individuals to sue state offi cials in state or federal

court for civil rights violations. Th e doctrine of abso-

lute immunity has been replaced by qualifi ed immu-

nity for many employees of the public sector and still

protects government offi cials performing discretionary

functions as long as their actions do not violate clearly

established law. Qualifi ed immunity protects public

offi cials in all levels of government from civil suits

only if they have acted reasonably and in good faith

( Riccucci 2006 ). However, if a state or local govern-

ment offi cial violates a federally protected right of an

individual, such as those defi ned in the First Amend-

ment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the equal

protection clause of the Constitution, civil action for

the deprivation of rights can be initiated and redress

sought through the court system.

Numerous aspects of the day-to-day operations of

municipalities have attracted legal scrutiny; lawsuits

and judgments against municipalities, municipal

employees, and elected offi cials have increased dra-

matically over the last several years in many functional

areas as a result of the ruling in Monell ( LaBrec and

Foerster 1985 ). Th ird-party liabilities arising from

intentional or unintentional torts, statutory liabilities,

and contractual liabilities present a serious threat.

Also, individuals may fi le a case against the municipal-

ity alleging negligence of its offi cials or employees. In

addition, routine human resource functions such as

recruitment, selection, promotion, performance ap-

praisals, and merit systems have the potential for legal

scrutiny, jury trials, compensa-

tory and punitive damages, and

other burdens imposed under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of

1991, the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act, the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA), the

Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor

Standards Act, the Family and

Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and

tort theories such as defamation,

misrepresentation, and negligence. While these acts

have been implemented to protect employees from

discrimination and arbitrary management decisions

and focus personnel decisions on job qualifi cations

and job related actions, the resulting increase in civil

rights and employment case law has also made it more

diffi cult for employers to take justifi ed action against

their employees ( Woodard 2005 ).

Th is research evaluates several areas of concern in the

human resource administration of municipal govern-

ments with respect to the management of local gov-

ernment employees within the protections set forth

by the legislative and judicial branches of the federal

government. It is inevitable that most local govern-

ments will experience some form of legal scrutiny

regarding their human resource operations. Decisions

in recruitment and selection, promotion, discipline,

and dismissal often fuel discrimination and other

types of lawsuits by disgruntled applicants, current

employees, and former employees. In many cases, the

nature of the employment relationship and the na-

ture of the employment decision are factors in deter-

mining whether a dispute has actual legal merit. An

overview of selected laws and legal principles that

pertain to the nature of the employment relationship

between municipal governments and their employees

is included in this analysis. In addition, select laws

and legal principles that describe the potential liabil-

ity for employment discrimination are discussed.

Sample cases fi led against local governments in Ten-

nessee involving Title VII violations, retaliation,

hostile work environment, Family and Medical Leave

Act violations, and other employee grievances are

detailed in this study to illustrate the liabilities that

may arise for municipalities in the employment law

arena.

Public Sector Employees and Their
Employers
Th e employment relationship between public sector

employees and public entities can be very diff erent

from the employment relationship between private

sector

employees and private entities.

Most individu-

als employed in the private sector are subject to an

at-will employment relationship with their organiza-

tion. Employment at will allows either party to ter-

minate the work relationship at

any time. Th is term is derived

from the court decision in Payne

v. Western and Atlantic RA Com-

pany (82 Tenn. 597 [1884]),

which held that an employer in

the private sector does not have

to provide cause to an employee

who is terminated ( Patton et al.

2002 ). At-will employment

often prevents private sector

employees from claiming a

property right in their positions within the organiza-

tion. Yet the private employer’s discretion regarding

termination is not entirely without limits. Employers

may be found liable by the courts in cases in which

there may be an implied contract or in which the

employer terminates an employee after the individ-

ual complains of harassment or accuses the employer

of some other form of misconduct involving dis-

crimination or retaliation. However, with at-will

employment arrangements, the employee who chal-

lenges an arbitrary discharge shoulders the burden of

proof in the judicial proceeding; even employees

who have legitimate claims may be discouraged from

pursuing legal recourse because of the costs, time

requirements, and justifi cations required ( Gertz

2006 ).

Th e employment relationship
between public sector

employees and public entities
can be very diff erent from the

employment relationship
between private sector

employees and private entities.

94 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

Most public sector employees, however, are privy to a

unique set of legal protections guaranteed by several

federal and state laws. Th e Constitution often pro-

tects the public sector employee’s rights to freedom

of speech and association, privacy, equal protection,

and due process, just as it protects these same rights

of all citizens; the Supreme Court has continued to

rule that public employees have substantive constitu-

tional rights and protections against the actions of

government employers ( Rosenbloom 2007 ). In addi-

tion, a civil service employee is considered to have a

bona fi de property right to his or her position after

he or she has progressed beyond the probationary

term of employment ( Patton et al. 2002 ). Termina-

tion of a civil employee by a federal, state, or local

government requires just cause that in many cases

must be viewed as indisputable if the employee fi les

a wrongful discharge claim against the government

employer. At the present time, only a handful of

states, including Florida, Georgia, and Texas, have

instituted substantial reforms to the civil service

system, such as at-will employment relationships

that aim to increase executive control over public

employees ( Coggburn 2006 ).

Over the past two decades, these at-will employment

initiatives and a wave of other reforms have taken

place, aimed at enhancing the effi ciency of the public

sector and the control that government has over it.

New Public Management and its accompanying

changes have attempted to make public entities func-

tion similar to the private sector. Debureaucratization,

decentralization, and changes in career civil service

have been central themes in this reinventing govern-

ment movement ( Coggburn 2000; Hou et al. 2000;

Kearney and Hays 1998; Kellough 1999; Kellough

and Selden 2003 ). Deregulation of government per-

sonnel administration has been suggested and imple-

mented to alleviate notable concerns in the traditional

civil system, such as undeserved tenure, the rewarding

of seniority rather than merit, and certain diffi culties

associated with employee discipline ( Coggburn 2000 ).

Proponents suggest that at-will employment enhances

governments’ eff orts to make their employees more

accountable for performance and eases legal restraints

on the termination of public employees who are poor

performers or discipline problems. However, concerns

regarding program implementation, job security, work

environment, administrative accountability, and per-

formance of civil service reforms are still being de-

bated as to whether these private sector approaches

off er signifi cant opportunities for government em-

ployers to overcome employee protections under the

civil service system and enhance public sector em-

ployee responsiveness, productivity, and management

( Battaglio and Condrey 2006; Bowman 2002; Bowman

et al. 2003; Condrey 2002; Hays and Sowa 2006;

Kearney and Hays 1998; Kellough 1999; Nigro and

Kellough 2000 ).

Human resource areas of legal concern in the public

sector environment regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are

very similar to those found in the private sector and

often include hiring and promotion processes, disabil-

ity accommodations, and hostile work environment

or retaliation claims. Hiring decisions may subject the

local government employer to allegations of discrimi-

nation based on race, sex, or age. Also, claims of dis-

parate treatment or disparate impact may emerge after

recruitment and selection takes place. Disparate treat-

ment involves intentional discrimination by the em-

ployer that results in improper distinctions among

individuals based on a protected status. Disparate

(adverse) impact is the unintentional discrimination

that arises from employment practices that appear

neutral but adversely aff ect those with protected sta-

tus. Th e overall goal of the local government hiring

process should be to identify and select the applicant

with the most appropriate qualifi cations for the va-

cancy within the municipality. However, just consid-

eration must be given to individuals who fall within

the protected classes established by Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other acts, including the

1967 Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (see table 1 ).

Affi rmative action also requires that federal govern-

ment agencies and contractors not only refrain from

discriminating against minority individuals in their

employment practices but also take steps to actively

recruit minority individuals for employment ( Kellough

2006 ). Both public and private sector employers are

also liable if discrimination occurs in their promotion,

training, pay, benefi ts, discipline, and termination

processes.

Protection from sexual harassment in the workplace

also falls under Title VII. Sexual harassment is defi ned

by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

as “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual

favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sex-

ual nature constitute sexual harassment when this

conduct explicitly or implicitly aff ects an individual’s

employment, unreasonably interferes with an individ-

ual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating,

hostile, or off ensive work environment” ( EEOC

2007 ).

Th is statute applies to employers with 15 or more

employees, including federal, state, and local govern-

ments. Municipalities are expected to encourage and

maintain work environments free of sexual harassment

by implementing no-tolerance policies that are eff ec-

tively communicated to employees, providing sexual

harassment training for employees, establishing a

complaint and grievance process for employees, and

making plans for immediate and appropriate action in

response to employee complaints ( EEOC 2007 ). Both

public and private employers are viewed by the courts

as liable for the sexual harassment actions of their

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 95

employees. In addition to claims

of sexual harassment, allegations of

a hostile work environment may

arise if this conduct interferes with

the employee’s work and creates

an off ensive work

environment.

Retaliation may also be charged if

a government employee is treated

diff erently once he or she has

reported an alleged misconduct or

violation of policy by another

government employee or offi cial. Local government

administrators must be very familiar with these legal

rights and protections, or they put themselves at risk

for allegations of discrimination and misconduct in

their human resource policies and actions. Th e follow-

ing section details actual cases that have been fi led

against local governmental entities in the state of

Tennessee by potential, current, and former employees

who have alleged violations of several of these laws

and legal principles.

Case Studies
Th e federal court cases for this research study were

found through a search of Public Access to Court

Records (PACER, http://www.pacer.psc.uscourts.

gov ), which listed more than 350 court cases that

were fi led from 2000 to 2007 against public entities

in Tennessee within the U.S. district court system

and the U.S. court of appeals. Th e search was limited

to cases that alleged employment discrimination in

hiring, promotion, and fi ring; violations of the Fair

Labor Standards Act; and violations of the Americans

with Disabilities Act. 3 Detailed information for

several of these cases was found in a search of Lexis-

Nexis Academic. Th is informa-

tion included the prior history

of the case, opinion, and dis-

position of the court. Th e

lawsuits that are included in

this discussion distinctly illus-

trate several of the legal issues

that local government entities

may encounter in their daily

personnel operations. Both

court decisions in favor of the

municipality and against the municipality are

presented.

Discrimination in Hiring
Numerous cases found during this time period al-

leged discrimination in the hiring, promotion, and

termination decisions of several municipalities in

Tennessee. One individual brought suit against a

municipality under the Americans with Disabilities

Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973

alleging that the city had refused to hire him as a

police offi cer because he was infected with the human

immunodefi ciency virus (HIV) ( Holiday v. City of

Chattanooga, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit, no. 98-5619, 2000). In this case, the city of

Chattanooga had extended this applicant an employ-

ment off er that was contingent on the passing of a

physical examination required by state statute.

During the physical examination, the potential em-

ployee informed the examining physician that he was

HIV positive. As a result of this disclosure, the

medical examiner concluded that the individual was

not strong enough to withstand the physical require-

ments of the police offi cer position; he advised the

Table 1 Employment Laws and Statues

Laws and Principles Summary

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, and national origin.
Executive Order 10925 (1961) Prohibits federal government and its contractors from employment discrimination because

of race, creed, color, or national origin and requires that these employers take affi rmative
action in employment practices.

Executive Order 11246 (1965) Prohibits the federal government from contracting with any public entity or private entity
found to have personnel policies that discriminate based on race, color, religion, or
national origin.

Executive Order 11375 (1967) Prohibits sex as a basis of discrimination for the federal government and its contractors.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(1967)

Prohibits employment discrimination of individuals age 40 and over.

Equal Employment Opportunity Act
(1972)

Prohibits discrimination and extends affi rmative action policies to state and local
governments and prohibits discrimination by private sector employers with 15 or more
employees.

Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) Prohibits discrimination in employment based on a known physical or mental impairment
against a qualifi ed individual with a disability.

Older Workers Protection Act (1990) Amendment to Age Discrimination in Employment Act that broadened discrimination to
include distinctions that may be made in employee benefi ts based on age and prohibited
such actions.

Civil Rights Act of 1991 Allows jury trials and compensatory and punitive damages in discrimination cases. Also
alters the burden of proof and other technical aspects of some cases.

Family and Medical Leave Act (1993) Individuals who are determined eligible may take up to 12 weeks of unpaid personal leave
per year for certain medical reasons. After this absence, the covered employee is entitled
to return to the same position or another position that has equal pay, benefi ts, and
working conditions.

Retaliation may . . . be charged
if a government employee is
treated diff erently once he or
she has reported an alleged
misconduct or violation of

policy by another government
employee or offi cial.

96 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

municipality that this applicant did not pass the

medical examination.

Th e plaintiff had previously passed a written examina-

tion and completed a physical agility test for the city a

year prior to being invited to interview for the open

position. After receipt of the medical examination

report, the administrator of the city’s Department of

Safety decided to withdraw the off er, and the city’s

personnel director informed the applicant that the

municipality could not hire him because other em-

ployees and the public would be put at risk. Th e po-

tential employee fi led suit in the district court alleging

that the city had violated the Americans with Disabili-

ties Act and the Rehabilitation Act by basing this

hiring decision on his HIV status.

Th e U.S. district court granted summary judgment to

the city, noting that it had withdrawn its conditional

off er of employment only because the plaintiff could

not pass the physical examination mandated by state

law, not because of any disability this individual pos-

sessed. Th e court stated that the city had a right to

reasonably rely on the physician’s report as substantive

evidence that the applicant could not meet the physi-

cal requirements of the police offi cer position.

Th e U.S. court of appeals, however, reversed this

decision. Th e appellate court ruled that the district

court had erred in accepting the physician’s report as

dispositive evidence of the individual’s alleged inabil-

ity to perform as a police offi cer. Th e plaintiff had

presented suffi cient evidence to the appellate court

that this physician had failed to complete the indi-

vidualized determination required by the ADA and

had determined the applicant to be unqualifi ed be-

cause of his HIV status. Th e ADA mandates an indi-

vidualized inquiry in determining whether an

employee’s disability or other condition disqualifi es

him or her from a certain position. Th is inquiry must

evaluate the individual’s actual medical condition and

the impact, if any, that this condition may have on the

individual’s ability to perform the requirements of the

position. Th e court of appeals also stated that a ratio-

nal trier of fact could conclude that the municipal

offi cial had withdrawn the employment off er because

of the fear that this individual would transmit the

human immunodefi ciency virus while employed by

the city. As a result of the evidence presented in this

case, the U.S. court of appeals reversed the district

court’s grant of summary judgment on behalf of the

city.

Another suit involving alleged age and sex discrimina-

tion was brought against the city of Cookeville and its

police chief when the city failed to hire a former em-

ployee who had voluntarily resigned from two posi-

tions previously held with the city ( Andrews v. City of

Cookeville, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Cir-

cuit, no. 01-6413, 2003). Th is individual had resigned

the fi rst time when the municipality requested that

the employee move into the city while he was still

attending school in an adjacent community. Th e

employee had resigned a second time to accept a

position as a criminal investigator in a public defend-

er’s offi ce. When the municipality had an opening for

a police offi cer, the plaintiff applied for the position,

passed the written and agility examinations, and was

interviewed. After these three segments of the applica-

tion process were completed, the individual was

ranked eighth and was not off ered employment.

As a result of this hiring decision, the plaintiff brought

suit against the city and its police chief alleging age

and sex discrimination. Th e age discrimination claim

was fi led as a result of a comment made by the police

chief during the applicant’s agility examination, in

which the chief compared this individual to George

Foreman because he did not know when to quit. Th e

sex discrimination claim resulted when the position

was off ered to a female. Th e police chief had allegedly

informed the plaintiff that the female applicant was

hired because she was a qualifi ed female who ranked

close to the top in the interview process. After this

opening was fi lled, the city also hired three additional

offi cers out of the same applicant pool, one of whom

had allegedly scored lower on the oral interview than

the plaintiff . Th e plaintiff claimed to be more quali-

fi ed because of his education, training, and experi-

ence. After hearing the facts of this case, the federal

district court granted the city’s motion for summary

judgment and dismissed the action.

Th e plaintiff appealed the judgment on rejection of

the age discrimination claim to the U.S. court of

appeals. In its review of the decision, the appellate

court found that the district court appeared to have

accepted that the plaintiff had presented enough

evidence to satisfy a prima facie burden for an age

discrimination claim. Th e city argued that the plaintiff

was not qualifi ed for the police offi cer position be-

cause he had been designated ineligible for rehire after

the second resignation of employment from the city.

Both the district and appellate courts rejected the

city’s contention. Th e court of appeals found fault

with the district court because it had only considered

the city’s hiring of the female applicant in its assess-

ment of the city’s nondiscriminatory reason for not

hiring the plaintiff for the position. Th e district court

did not consider the applicant who had scored lower

on the oral interview than the plaintiff but was still

off ered a position with the city, nor did the district

court off er an explanation as to why consideration of

the facts were limited to the female hire. Th e appellant

found fault with this omission and asked the court of

appeals to consider the hiring of the applicant with

the lower oral interview score, the police chief ’s

reference to George Foreman, and the police chief ’s

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 97

participation in the hiring process as suffi cient evi-

dence for a trier of fact to disbelieve the city’s nondis-

crimination explanation for its actions. Th e appellate

court agreed with the appellant’s contentions, reversed

the district court’s decision, and remanded the case for

further proceedings on the age discrimination claim.

Th e city of Clarksville was named defendant in a case

fi led by a plaintiff who alleged the city had used dis-

crimination in its employment decision not to rehire

him ( Tartt v. City of Clarksville, U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Sixth Circuit no. 04-5925, 2005). Th e plaintiff

had previously been employed by the police depart-

ment and had resigned when disciplinary action to

terminate his employment because of several repri-

mands and a violation of department rules for neglect

of duty was initiated. Th is individual met with the

police chief three months later and requested to be

rehired; however, his request was denied.

In a suit fi led with the U.S. district court, this indi-

vidual argued that the police department was guilty of

race discrimination in its refusal to rehire and that he

had been discriminated against during his tenure with

the department. Mr. Tartt noted that eight Caucasian

offi cers had resigned and been rehired by the city

within a year. Also, the plaintiff claimed that this

discrimination had contributed to a forced resignation

from the police force. Th e district court found that

the plaintiff had put forth enough evidence to make

out a prima facie case of racial discrimination against

the city under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411

U.S. 792, 36 L.Ed. 2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817 [1973]). 4

Th e city did concede that the plaintiff had established

the fi rst three elements required; for the purposes of

summary judgment, the court concluded that the

plaintiff had demonstrated a genuine dispute of mate-

rial fact regarding less favorable treatment in the re-

quest for rehire. However, the court ruled that the

plaintiff had not presented suffi cient evidence to rebut

the city’s claim that rehire was not enacted because of

the nondiscriminatory reason of signifi cant disciplin-

ary and personal problems. Th e eight offi cers previ-

ously rehired were not similarly situated employees

with disciplinary problems. As a result, the district

court granted summary judgment to the city.

Discrimination in Promotion
Other court cases have arisen as a result of the promo-

tion processes utilized by certain municipalities in

Tennessee. Th e Memphis Police Department was sued

over a process that was implemented to promote

several patrol offi cers to the rank of sergeant ( Johnson

et al. v. City of Memphis, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit no. 01-6111, 2003). Th is process ini-

tially consisted of four components: (1) a written test

(20 percent), (2) a practical exercise test (50 percent),

(3) performance evaluations for the previous two years

(20 percent), and (4) seniority points

(10 percent).

Th e city informed candidates that they would be

ranked based on total scores and the promotions

would be based on these rankings. Allegations

emerged that the city had released study materials to a

select group of individuals prior to the administration

of one of the tests. At fi rst, the city denied that any

part of the promotional process had been compro-

mised. However, when the news media produced a

copy of the practical exercise test during its adminis-

tration, the city acknowledged that the validity of this

testing component had been jeopardized. Th is test was

eliminated from the overall assessment, and the

weight of both the written test and the performance

evaluation were increased to 40 percent each.

Several individuals claimed that the city had inten-

tionally discriminated against African American and

Hispanic candidates by increasing the weight of cer-

tain components and eliminating other segments in

the promotional procedure after the city determined

the process had been compromised. Caucasian plain-

tiff s claimed they had been discriminated against

because unauthorized study materials for the practical

exercise component of the test had been released to a

select group of African American candidates. At least

52 individuals brought suit under Title VII against the

municipality over this

process.

Two plaintiff s in this case fi led suit alleging racial

discrimination and violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Th ese plaintiff s requested that (1) any

promotions based on this selection process be perma-

nently suspended, (2) the city be required to create

and implement a new promotional process, (3) an

individual be appointed to oversee the development

and implementation of this process, and (4) all candi-

dates be allowed to review their scores for accuracy

before the promotional list was issued. Th e district

court denied these requests, and immediately the city

ranked the previous candidates according to the re-

vised process and promoted the top 63 candidates to

the rank of sergeant. Two months later, the plaintiff s

amended their complaint and added 50 additional

individuals who had not been selected for promotion

in the previous process. Th ese 52 plaintiff s requested

the same relief but also asked that those individuals

who had been promoted as a result of the fl awed

promotional process be required to compete in a new

promotional process.

After review, the district court declared the city’s pro-

motional process invalid and granted the defendant

leave to begin a new promotional process. Subse-

quently, the 51 sergeants whose promotions were re-

scinded also fi led a complaint against the municipality

requesting that the city be prohibited from demoting

them or reducing their pay. As a result of the indiscre-

tion that occurred in the original promotion process,

the city subjected itself to two major employment

98 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

lawsuits — one alleging the intentional discrimination

against African American and Hispanic plaintiff s by

the elimination and increase in the weights of the

written test and performance evaluation components,

and the other for intentional discrimination against

Caucasian plaintiff s for the advanced release of study

materials to a select group of African American candi-

dates in the promotion process. Consequently, the

sergeants who had been awarded promotions based on

this test were required to compete in a new promo-

tional process, and the individuals who were shown to

have received, used, and benefi ted from the unauthor-

ized study materials were disqualifi ed from this new

process.

Th e city of Memphis was also named defendant in a

lawsuit fi led regarding its promotional process for

sergeants to lieutenants on the police force. Several

African American sergeants brought suit against the

municipality alleging violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case, the district

court ruled that the cutoff score for the city’s written

test, which was used as one criteria for promotion to

lieutenant, discriminated against African American

candidates ( Isabel et al. v. City of Memphis, U.S. Court

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit no. 03-5912, 2005).

In all, 120 sergeants competed for this promotion to

lieutenant, including 63 African American and 57

Caucasian candidates. Th e promotional process con-

sisted of a written test (20 percent), a practical exercise

test (50 percent), performance evaluations from the

previous two years (20 percent), and seniority points

(10 percent).

Th e cutoff score for the written test was originally

established at 70 percent. Th is requirement was a

carryover from a prior agreement the city had with the

police department, which was established in a memo-

randum of understanding and stated that a candidate

must obtain a passing score of 70 on a written job

knowledge test in order to be eligible for promotion

to lieutenant. However, the proportion of minority

candidates to nonminority candidates who passed the

written test in the promotion process actually violated

the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule. Th is rule states that “a

selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which

is less than four-fi fths (or eighty percent) of the rate

for the group with the highest rate will generally be

regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evi-

dence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-

fi fths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal

enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact”

( EEOC 2007 ).

Th e allocation of proof for a prima facie case involving

disparate or adverse impact rests fi rst with the plain-

tiff , who must establish that the employer’s selection

practice or device had a substantial impact on the

protected group. Th e employer has the opportunity to

demonstrate that this practice or testing mechanism

was job related or consistent with business necessity.

Th e burden of proof then shifts back to the plaintiff ,

who must demonstrate that the employer refused to

choose an existing alternative method that did not

have a disparate impact on the protected class ( EEOC

2007 ).

When the cutoff score of 70 was used for this test, the

passing rate of minorities was less than four-fi fths of

the passing rate of nonminorities. A total of 19 of the

64 African Americans who took the exam achieved a

score of 70 or higher (29.7 percent), while 38 of the

56 nonminority candidates who took the test achieved

a passing score (67.9 percent). As a result, the selec-

tion rate for this test was calculated at 43.8 percent,

which was in violation of the four-fi fths rule. An

industrial psychologist who had managed the test

decided to eliminate nine of the test questions because

he felt they were faulty; however, all candidates were

given credit for answering the questions correctly so

that the test would still be scored on a 100-point

scale. Also, the psychologist determined that the cut-

off score should be lowered to 66 in order to avoid

any adverse impact. With these two modifi cations in

the testing process, 98 candidates passed the test,

including 47 African Americans; more importantly,

the test did not violate the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule.

Four individuals who scored below 66 were not al-

lowed to continue in the promotional process. As a

result, these four applicants fi led discrimination

charges against the city. Th e case was based on other

statistical analyses of the written test scores that re-

vealed signifi cant adverse impact on African American

candidates, even though the EEOC’s four-fi fths rule

was not violated. Th e plaintiff s’ expert noted that a

statistically signifi cant diff erence in minority and

nonminority candidates’ scores did exist when the

t -test and z -test were applied. 5 Th e district court con-

curred that the written test unlawfully discriminated

against the African American sergeants and that the

four plaintiff s were also entitled to promotion to

lieutenant. Th is promotion was retroactive to the

same date that the fi rst group of candidates was pro-

moted, and the plaintiff s were compensated for back

pay and overtime, as well as attorneys’ fees. When this

case was appealed by the city to the U.S. court of

appeals, the district court’s judgment was affi rmed in

all respects.

Another group of individuals fi lled a lawsuit against

this same city alleging they had suff ered due process

violations and racial discrimination in violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment during the promotional

process administered to individuals in the city’s fi re

department ( Firefi ghters United for Fairness et al. v.

City of Memphis, U.S. District Court for the Western

District of Tennessee no. 02-2431, 2005). Th e court

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 99

ruled for the city, however, in this case, fi nding that

the plaintiff s’ rights had not been violated. Several

individuals alleged that they had suff ered racial dis-

crimination in their participation in the fi re depart-

ment’s lieutenant and battalion chief promotional

process. Th e promotional process for lieutenant con-

sisted of three weighted components, including a

written job knowledge test (22.5 percent), a practical

video test (70 percent), and a credit for seniority (7.5

percent). Th e promotional process for battalion chief

utilized results from a practical video test (48 percent),

an in-basket exam (27 percent), a group interpersonal

skills exercise (17.5 percent), and a credit for seniority

(7.5 percent). Th ese two processes were developed and

administered by an industrial organizational psychol-

ogy consulting fi rm contracted by the city. In all, 118

candidates for battalion chief and 541 candidates for

lieutenant were involved in the promotional process.

All information related to the promotional process,

the review process, and other relevant issues were

related to the city’s fi re department by the contracted

administrator. Th e fi re department was responsible for

providing this information to the candidates. Before

the fi rst promotional roster was established, all candi-

dates were allowed to review their transcripts, the

answer key, and the videotape of their practical test for

accuracy regarding transcription, scoring, and clerical

errors. Specifi c concerns were addressed by the process

administrator and changes were made if appropriate.

Th e plaintiff s in this case alleged racial discrimination

against the city’s fi re department because several Cau-

casian candidates had been allowed to participate in

the promotional process even though they had not

been employed long enough at the required grade

level at the time of testing. Th e plaintiff s also claimed

that they had been denied procedural due process

because the plaintiff s perceived that the city had not

responded to or given them suffi cient time to review

the testing procedure and determine their correct

scores. In this case, the U.S. district court determined

that the plaintiff s had not suffi ciently established a

prima facie case of racial discrimination and that these

plaintiff s had been aff orded suffi cient due process for

obtaining a fair and accurate score.

Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work
Environment
Sexual harassment and hostile work environment

claims have also been fi led in the federal court system

against numerous local governments. A sheriff ’s de-

partment in western Tennessee was named defendant

in a case alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimi-

nation, and hostile work environment related to a

female’s employment by that department ( Rudd v.

Shelby County, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit no. 04-5939, 2006). Th is individual claimed

that she had been sexually harassed by a male co-

worker when he handcuff ed her to a fi le cabinet,

rubbed against her, draped a belly chain around her

neck, and asked her over the intercom if it was “too

hot in the kitchen” for her. Th e female employee

reported this harassment to a superior offi cer who

referred her to the Internal Aff airs Division, which

began an investigation within fi ve days of the inci-

dent. Th e plaintiff was allowed to work in another

facility so that she would not come in contact with

the coworker. As a result of the investigation, the male

coworker was demoted in rank, suspended for 30 days

without pay, and placed on probation for six months.

Th is male individual appealed the department’s ac-

tions and retired with full rank and pay during this

appeals process. Th e female plaintiff resigned her

position within two weeks of the harassment incident

and fi led suit alleging sexual harassment, gender dis-

crimination, and a hostile work environment in viola-

tion of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the

Tennessee Human Rights Act.

Th e female plaintiff was awarded almost $ 1 million in
compensatory damages, back pay, and lost future

wages by the jury that heard the initial case in district

court. Th is decision was reversed, however, by the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Th e

appellate court examined the fi ve elements set forth

in Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, Inc. (1213 F.3d

868, 872 [1997]), which stated that in order for an

individual to prevail in a sexual harassment case in-

volving a coworker, (1) the employee must be a mem-

ber of a protected class, (2) the employee must have

been subject to unwanted sexual harassment, (3) the

harassment must have been based on the employee’s

sex, (4) the harassment must have unreasonably inter-

fered with the employee’s work environment and

created a hostile work environment, and (5) the em-

ployer must have known or should have known of the

charged sexual harassment and failed to implement

prompt and corrective action. Th e appellate court

concluded that even though the plaintiff satisfi ed the

fi rst four elements of this test, she did not satisfy the

fi fth. She had failed to prove that the department did

not take prompt and eff ective corrective action. Th e

court determined that the local government adminis-

tration had demonstrated a good faith eff ort to safe-

guard the plaintiff when she was referred to the

Internal Aff airs Division and allowed to work in a

separate facility. Th e appellate court concluded that

the trial jury had erred in its decision and remanded

the case for judgment in favor of the local

government.

Th e city of Memphis also prevailed in a case involving

alleged same-sex sexual discrimination. A plaintiff

brought suit against the city’s Housing Authority

alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and retalia-

tion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 ( Terry v. Memphis Housing Authority, U.S.

100 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

no. 05-2283, 2006). Th e male plaintiff had been

employed by the housing authority as a fi eld com-

mander when he was allegedly harassed by a male

supervisor. After the plaintiff rejected the unwelcome

sexual advance, he contended that he was treated

diff erently and subjected to several forms of retaliation

including failure of the housing authority to pay his

overtime wages, a threat of loss of his employment

position, a written reprimand for inappropriate and

unprofessional behavior, and failure to promote him

to an open director’s position. Th is individual fi led a

suit alleging violations of Title VII based on retalia-

tion, failure to promote, and a hostile work

environment.

Th e U.S. district court concluded that the plaintiff

failed to state a valid retaliation claim because almost

one year had passed between the single incidence of

sexual harassment and the earliest alleged act of retali-

ation. 6 Also, evidence of a causal connection between

the incidence of harassment and the adverse employ-

ment action was not established. Because the position

in question pertaining to the failure to promote claim

had not been fi lled, the plaintiff could not claim relief

under Title VII. With regard to the hostile work envi-

ronment claim, the court ruled that the plaintiff had

not satisfi ed requirements for the Title VII discrimina-

tion claim of a hostile work environment. Th e plain-

tiff contended that the acts occurred because of his

rejection of the supervisor’s sexual advances rather

than because of his gender. Th e court ruled that the

acts that the plaintiff complained of did not include a

sexual advance, nor was there any indication that the

actions were related to rejection of the sexual advance

that took place approximately 18 months before. As a

result of these fi ndings, the court ruled for dismissal of

the case.

In another case involving sexual harassment and hos-

tile work environment claims by a former female

employee of a sheriff ’s department, Crockett County’s

motion for summary judgment was denied by the

U.S. district court ( Harbison v. Crockett County, U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Tennessee

no. 01-1373, 2003). Th is individual claimed that she

was sexually harassed during her employment and

then retaliated against after complaining of the alleged

sexual harassment. Th e female plaintiff also stated she

was constructively discharged from employment with

the sheriff ’s department as a result of these allegations.

Th e alleged sexual harassment occurred when the

plaintiff was employed as a reserve deputy and part-

time deputy for the department. A male employee

allegedly began touching her and making sexually

off ensive remarks to her. Th e female employee re-

ported these incidents to her supervisors, including

the sheriff ; however, no actions were taken against the

male employee. Th e plaintiff also reported the

incidents to the county executive, and she was sus-

pended from her duties pending further investigation.

Less than one week later, the female employee re-

signed from the sheriff ’s department. Th e defendants

in this case asked for summary judgment on the hos-

tile work environment claim and contended that the

alleged sexual harassment was not suffi ciently perva-

sive to alter the conditions of her working environ-

ment or to create an abusive and hostile environment.

Conduct of this type is not actionable under Title VII.

Th e defendants also contended that the plaintiff was

not subjected to any retaliation, even though the male

employee was a supervisor to the plaintiff and he had

threatened to make things diffi cult for the plaintiff if

she did not engage in a sexual relationship with him.

Additionally, the sheriff had allegedly threatened to

fi re the plaintiff depending on the results of the inves-

tigation. Th e court denied both of the defendants’

motions because they could not off er a legitimate

nondiscriminatory reason for their actions. Th e court

also rejected the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment on the constructive discharge claim, con-

cluding that a jury could fi nd that a reasonable person

would feel the need to resign from his or her position

after allegedly being subjected to the actions that the

plaintiff had endured. In this case, an order denying

the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was

issued, and the case proceeded through U.S. district

court.

Family and Medical Leave Act
Local government entities in Tennessee have also had

employees or former employees fi le cases against them

alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave

Act. A police offi cer fi led a complaint against his

former employer for alleged violations of his rights

under the FMLA when the employer denied his inter-

mittent leave to care for his infant daughter ( Maynard

v. Town of Monterey, U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Sixth Circuit no. 03-5202, 2003). Th is employee had

been absent from work for a period greater than three

days and had refused to report back to work after

being given two opportunities to do so. Th is indi-

vidual also alleged sexual discrimination under Title

VII, claiming he was fi red because he was a male. Th e

district court granted summary judgment to the de-

fendants, and the plaintiff appealed this decision to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Th e

appellate court determined that the plaintiff did not

fulfi ll the requisites for fi ling a Title VII claim because

this individual had failed to exhaust his administrative

remedies with respect to the Title VII claim. Also, the

plaintiff did not possess a right-to-sue letter from the

EEOC, which was necessary to pursue a Title VII

claim in district court.

Th e appellate court also found that the plaintiff had

not reached an agreement with the employer regard-

ing intermittent leave; therefore, he was not entitled

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 101

to take it in this manner. In addition, the plaintiff ’s

claim that his termination was a violation of his

FMLA rights was rejected because the plaintiff had

been absent for a period of three consecutive work

days, and this absence was unauthorized. Th e plaintiff

had remained out of work additional days consecutive

to this period while the employer advised him repeat-

edly to report to work. As a result of the plaintiff ’s

actions, the employer considered that he had termi-

nated his position voluntarily. Th e court of appeals

agreed that the plaintiff ’s action constituted a volun-

tary resignation and that the former employee was not

eligible to recover under the FMLA for an allegedly

adverse employment action.

A former employee of another sheriff ’s department

fi led suit against this department for fi ring him be-

cause of excessive absenteeism, which was allegedly in

violation of the FMLA, ADA, and Tennessee Human

Rights Act ( Lackey v. Jackson County, U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit no. 03-5193, 2004). Th e

plaintiff was employed by the department as a correc-

tions offi cer and had missed work on several occasions

during 2000. Th e sheriff had informed the plaintiff in

January of 2000 after his fi rst absence of three days

that he would need to furnish a doctor’s statement any

time he missed work because of an illness. Th e plain-

tiff furnished a doctor’s excuse for two other inci-

dences; however, several other absences were not

documented in this manner. Th e sheriff terminated

the plaintiff ’s employment in early August 2000 when

the employee did not report to work on an assigned

Saturday. Th e plaintiff contended that he had com-

plied with the employer’s notifi cation process by noti-

fying the sheriff ’s department prior to the start of his

shift that he would not be in to work and the reason

for his absence. Th is information was given to which-

ever individual had answered the phone.

After the plaintiff was terminated for excessive absen-

teeism, he fi led a claim for unemployment compensa-

tion. In his response to questions regarding this

separation, the plaintiff stated

that he was fi red because of

absenteeism and tardiness and

that the absences were attribut-

able to the plaintiff ’s attendance

at a meeting. In his charge of

discrimination fi led with the

Tennessee Human Rights Com-

mission and the EEOC, however,

the plaintiff claimed that he had

taken periodic medical leave

from work because of several

health problems, including

chronic back pain, migraines,

diabetes, and hypertension. In

examining the facts of the case,

the district court determined that

the plaintiff was an eligible employee entitled to

FMLA protection; however, the plaintiff had failed to

establish that he had a serious health condition under

the FMLA. Th e plaintiff did not submit any evidence

to the court that he had any of the illnesses he

claimed. As a result, the district court granted the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and this

decision was reaffi rmed by the U.S. court of appeals.

Conclusion
Th ese sample cases present a brief glimpse of the legal

proceedings that municipal governments, managers,

and other public offi cials are often subject to regard-

ing the day-to-day human resource functions that

pertain to their employees. While the decisions cited

in this study involve only local governments in Ten-

nessee, the federal laws and their interpretations are

applicable to local government units in all 50 states.

Th e outcome of each case off ers valuable insight into

how the actions of municipal employees, supervisors,

administrators, and elected offi cials across the United

States can infl uence municipal liability in legal pro-

ceedings regarding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,

the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Em-

ployment Act. A recent estimate states that almost 70

percent of Americans qualify under one or more pro-

tected classes defi ned by these antidiscrimination laws

( Malos 2006 ). Local government administrators must

be keenly aware of their current, former, and future

employees’ rights and protections in order to safe-

guard their departments and governments from the

liabilities that can arise in the employment law area.

Th is understanding often comes from both theory and

practice; however, the fi eld is characterized by con-

stant changes in technology, employment laws and

policies, workforce composition, and administrative

ethics.

New Public Management, with its emphases on de-

bureaucratization, decentralization, and civil service

reform, has attempted to make public sector entities

function similar to those in the

private sector; however, the im-

plications for human resource

management at all levels of gov-

ernment are yet to be fully deter-

mined. Th e debate regarding civil

service systems and at-will em-

ployment of public employees

will continue as more state and

local governments choose to

declassify many of the traditional

job positions of civil servants. At-

will employment off ers little or

no job protection and eliminates

the right that civil service em-

ployees have to terminate for just

cause. Th e employment laws that

New Public Management with
its emphases on

debureaucratization,
decentralization, and civil

service reform has attempted to
make public sector entities

function similar to those of the
private sector; however, the

implications for human resource
management at all levels of

government are yet to be fully
determined.

102 Public Administration Review • January | February 2009

have been discussed in this analysis were enacted to

protect all classes of employees from discrimination

and arbitrary management decisions. Future research

is required to objectively evaluate whether New Public

Management and its accompanying changes have

enhanced public sector employee responsiveness,

productivity, and management without precariously

altering public sector employer liabilities and public

employee protections in the human resource policies

and actions of state and local governments.

Notes
1. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (517 U.S.

44 [1996]), the Supreme Court held that Con-

gress lacks the power under Article I of the U.S.

Constitution to abrogate the states’ sovereign

immunity in federal court established under the

Eleventh Amendment. Th e question as to

whether Congress could use its Article I powers

to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from

suits in its own courts was resolved in the Court’s

ruling in Alden v. Maine (527 U.S. 706 [1999]),

which determined that Congress has no such

authority under these circumstances also. Th is

ruling maintained sovereign immunity for the

states and limited congressional authority to pass

legislation that uses state courts as a means of

redress. Th e Supreme Court also held in Kimel

et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al. (528 U.S. 62

[2000]) that the Age Discrimination in Employ-

ment Act’s abrogation of the states’ Eleventh

Amendment immunity exceeded Congress’s

authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment and that suits in federal court by state

employees to recover monetary damages under

Title I of the ADA were barred by the Eleventh

Amendment ( Board of Trustees of University of

Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 [2001]).

2. In Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v.

Garrett (531 U.S. 356 [2001]), the Supreme

Court also noted that Eleventh Amendment

immunity does not extend to local government

units such as cities and counties. In delivering the

opinion of the Court, Chief Justice William H.

Rehnquist noted that local government units do

not possess immunity under the Eleventh

Amendment and therefore are subject to private

claims for violations of the ADA without the

reliance of Congress on § 5 of the Fourteenth

Amendment to assert this liability. Th e case cited

as precedent was Lincoln County v. Luning (133

U.S. 529 [1890]), in which the Court reasoned

that although a county is territorially part of a

state, the county is a corporation created by that

state and both private and municipal corpora-

tions may sue and be sued in all courts just as

individuals. Over time, political subdivisions of

the states have assumed many of the governing

responsibilities exercised previously by the states;

however, the Supreme Court continues to main-

tain a distinction between the state and its local

political subdivisions in its interpretation of the

scope of the Eleventh Amendment. See also Moor

v. County of Alameda (411 U.S. 693, 717 – 21

[1973], Mt. Healthy City School District Board of

Education v. Doyle (429 U.S. 274, 280 [1977]),

and Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman

(465 U.S. 89, 123 n. 34 [1984]).

3. Th e 350 cases identifi ed through PACER are not

considered by the author to be an all-inclusive list

of cases fi led against public entities in Tennessee

during this time period. Of these 350 cases, 277

involved a city, town, or county government. Th e

intent of this research was to illustrate through

case study several of the legal issues that these

local governments encountered. Statistical analy-

sis of a more comprehensive data set is an excel-

lent recommendation for future study.

4. In order to establish a prima facie case of racial

discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff or

complainant must demonstrate (1) that he or she

belongs to a racial minority, (2) that he or she

applied and was qualifi ed for a job or promotion

for which the employer was seeking applicants,

(3) that he or she was considered for and denied

the position despite his or her qualifi cations, and

(4) that the position remained open and indi-

viduals of similar qualifi cations were considered.

Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff has the

initial burden of proving a prima facie case by

preponderance of the evidence. If the plaintiff

does establish a prima facie case, the burden shifts

to the employer to articulate some legitimate

nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Th e

plaintiff must then demonstrate that the proff ered

reason was not the true reason for the employ-

ment decision (see Texas Department of Commu-

nity Aff airs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256

[1981]).

5. Th e t -test evaluated the diff erence in the mean

scores of the minority (69.17) and nonminority

candidates (75.59) and was determined to be

signifi cant by the plaintiff s’ expert. Th e z -test

measured statistical success for each group and

demonstrated that Caucasian candidates had a

passing rate of 90 percent as compared to the

passing rate of 74.6 percent by minority candi-

dates. Th e expert for the plaintiff s also testifi ed

that this diff erence was statistically signifi cant.

6. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) requires that an

aggrieved individual who seeks to fi le a Title VII

claim in federal court fi rst present a charge with

the EEOC within 180 days after the allegedly

unlawful employment practice occurred. If a

discrimination charge is also fi led with a state or

local agency that has authority to grant relief

regarding the employment practice, this time

period is extended to 300 days.

Employment Laws and the Public Sector Employer 103

References
Battaglio , R. Paul , and Stephen E. Condrey . 2006 .

Civil Service Reform: Examining State and Local

Government Cases . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 26 ( 2 ): 118 – 38 .

Bowman , James S . 2002 . At-Will Employment in

Florida Government: A Naked Formula to Corrupt

Public Service . Working USA 6 ( 2 ): 90 – 102 .

Bowman , James S. , Marc G. Gertz , Sally C. Gertz ,

and Russell L. Williams . 2003 . Civil Service

Reform in Florida State Government: Employee

Attitudes 1 Year Later . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 23 ( 4 ): 286 – 304 .

Coggburn , Jerrell D . 2000 . Th e Eff ects of

Deregulation on State Government Personnel

Administration . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 20 ( 4 ): 24 – 39 .

— — — . 2006 . At-Will Employment in Government:

Insights from the State of Texas . Review of Public

Personnel Administration 26 ( 2 ): 158 – 77 .

Condrey , Stephen E . 2002 . Reinventing State Civil

Service Systems: Th e Georgia Experience . Review of

Public Personnel Administration 22 ( 2 ): 114 – 24 .

Durchslag , Melvyn R . 2002 . State Sovereign Immunity:

A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution .

Westport, CT : Praeger .

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) .

2007 . Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection

Procedures, Section 4: Information on Impact .

http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniguideprint.

html#12 [accessed

September 29,

2008] .

— — — . 2008 . Sexual Harassment . http://www.eeoc.

gov/types/sexual_harassment.html [accessed

September 29, 2008] .

Gertz , Sally . 2006 . At-Will Employment: Origins,

Applications, Exceptions and Expansions in the

Public Service. Social Science Research Network .

http://ssrn.com/abstract=946481 [accessed

September 29, 2008] .

Hays , Steven W. , and Jessica E. Sowa . 2006 . A Broader

Look at the “Accountability” Movement: Some

Grim Realities in State Civil Service Systems . Review

of Public Personnel Administration 26 ( 2 ): 102 – 17 .

Hou , Yilin , Patricia Ingraham , Stuart Bretschneider ,

and Sally Coleman Selden . 2000 . Decentralization

of Human Resource Management: Driving Forces

and Implications . Review of Public Personnel

Administration 20 ( 4 ): 9 – 23 .

Kearney , Richard C. , and Steven W. Hays . 1998 .

Reinventing Government, Th e New Public

Management and Civil Service Systems in

International Perspective . Review of Public

Personnel Administration 18 ( 4 ): 38 – 54 .

Kellough , J. Edward . 1999 . Reinventing Public

Personnel Management: Ethical Implications for

Managers and Public Personnel Systems . Public

Personnel Management 28 ( 4 ): 655 – 71 .

— — — . 2006 . Understanding Affi rmative Action:

Politics, Discrimination, and the Search for Justice .

Washington, DC : Georgetown University Press .

Kellough , J. Edward , and Sally Coleman Selden .

2003 . Th e Reinvention of Public Personnel

Administration: An Analysis of the Diff usion of

Personnel Management Reforms in the States .

Public Administration Review 63 ( 2 ): 165 – 76 .

LeBrec , David J. , and Kurt Foerster . 1985 . Public

Offi cials Liability: Th e Loss Exposure . In Risk

Management Today: A How to Guide for Local

Government , edited by Natalie Wasserman and

Dean G. Phelus , 77 – 87 . Washington, DC :

International City/County Management

Association .

Malos , Stanley B . 2006 . Current Legal Issues in

Performance Appraisal . http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/

malos_s/bookchap.htm [accessed September 29,

2008] .

Nigro , Lloyd G. , and J. Edward Kellough . 2000 . Civil

Service Reform in Georgia: Going to the Edge?

Review of Public Personnel Administration 20 ( 4 ):

41 – 54 .

Patton , W. David , Stephanie L. Witt , Nicholas P.

Lovrich , and Patricia J. Fredericksen . 2002 .

Human Resource Management: Th e Public Service

Perspective . Boston : Houghton Miffl in .

Riccucci , Norma M . 2006 . Public Personnel

Management: Current Concerns, Future Challenges .

New York : Longman .

Rosenbloom , David H . 2007 . Th e Public

Employment Relationship and the Supreme Court

in the 1980s . In Public Personnel Administration

and Labor Relations , edited by Norma M. Riccucci ,

201 – 16 . Armonk , NY : M.E. Sharpe .

Rosenbloom , David H. , and Robert S. Kravchuk .

2005 . Public Administration: Understanding

Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector .

Boston : McGraw-Hill .

Woodard , Colleen A . 2005 . Merit by Any Other

Name — Reframing the Civil Service First

Principle . Public Administration Review 65 ( 1 ):

109 – 16 .

Point: Rethinking Affirmative Action

Author(s): Christina F. Jeffrey

Source: Public Productivity & Management Review , Mar., 1997, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Mar.,
1997), pp. 228-236

Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/3380973

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Public Productivity & Management Review

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

http://www.jstor.com/stable/3380973

POINT

Rethinking Affirmative Action

CHRISTINA F. JEFFREY
Kennesaw State University

T his article will deal with affirmative action as practiced in late-20th-century United

States. The topic is interesting because, in spite of the fact that this practice is contrary

to federal law and to American traditions, affirmative action is now assumed by most

governmental, academic, and big business elites to be an unqualified good.
The most cursory review of founding and statutory authorities provides a wealth

of documents that contradict the practice of affirmative action:

1. The Declaration of Independence affirms equal natural rights for all.
2. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees all persons equal protection of the

law.
3. Section 703(h) of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended protects the civil

rights of all Americans by making it unlawful “to give and to act upon the results of any
professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action
upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race”; or,
in other words, exactly the kind of discrimination that many colleges and universities
have practiced for years is illegal.

4. Section 703(j) of the same Civil Rights Act also provides that nothing in the statute is
to be interpreted to require preferential treatment for any individual or group on account
of racial imbalance between the number of minorities in the workforce and the number
in the local population. Or. in other words, quotas are illegal.

I intend to draw on examples, the hallowed case-study approach so favored by
teachers of public administration, but will also advance arguments thematically as
well. I will begin at the micro level, with the effects of affirmative action on individuals,

and move to the macro, with the effects on society as a whole.
Making the case for affirmative action in the 1960s, when Jim Crow was in full

reign, was easy. But public policy comes with unintended consequences, and today all
women and minorities, despite efforts to avoid the pernicious effects of affirmative

Author’s Note. I gratefully ackowledge the research assistance of Laurel Preler in the preparation of this
article. I also wish to thank Dorothy Olshfski for her helpful remarks and the editors of the symposium for

including me.

Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, March 1997 228-236
? 1997 Sage Publications, Inc.

228

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 229

action programs, and in spite of apparent gains, are actually being hurt. One of these

consequences is the loss of personal reputation. Shelby Steele (1990) gives an excellent

account of this phenomenon-that is, the negative effect that affirmative action

programs have on the self-understanding of minorities who are “privileged” by it-in

his controversial book The Content of Our Character.

The Case of Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas is the prototype of a man damaged by the unintended conse-

quences of this system. Recall that President George Bush nominated him to replace

the seat vacated by Justice Thurgood Marshall. Almost immediately, pundits began

calling Thomas Bush’s affirmative action nominee. Thomas’s principled opposition

to affirmative action was ridiculed for being hypocritical. Because affirmative action

exists, Thomas was accused of benefiting from it. In other words, in some quarters he

commanded no respect, even though he had quite an impressive record for such a

young man.

Critics declared that Clarence Thomas was not the best qualified man for the job.

But George Bush had the foresight to realize that Thomas’s legal intellect and judicial

potential were more important considerations than experience on the bench. (Our great

first Chief Justice, John Marshall, had very little judicial experience.) Although some

claim he did little his first year, he learned the job and is now exhibiting signs of

becoming the preeminent conservative justice. Unless Bush had chosen Reagan’s

failed nominee, Robert Bork, it is difficult to imagine how he could have found anyone

more acceptable to conservatives. And Clarence Thomas’s recent opinions not only

reflect the conservative views of the electorate who supported Bush but have even

impressed some of his harshest critics.

But to this day, Judge Thomas’s friends feel the need to defend him on the charge

of benefitting from affirmative action. For example, on July 8, 1996, John Doggett,

Thomas’s classmate from Yale Law School, wrote the following in The Washington

Times:

The bad news is that Democrats will continue to demonize Clarence Thomas and other
black conservatives in a desperate attempt to maintain political power. The good news is
that we black conservatives will ultimately succeed in our war to liberate our people from
the liberals’ plantation. (p. A19)

The Case of Lani Guinier

There are many examples of women being treated by the Washington establishment
in a less than respectful manner, but Lani Guinier’s case stands out as particularly

demeaning. A personal friend of President and Mrs. Clinton, she was nominated to be
assistant attorney general for civil rights. That nomination ended in ruin, when Clinton,

calling her “antidemocratic” before a national audience, withdrew her nomination. She

told George magazine that she was “humiliated in sort of a grand style” (Burleigh,
1995/1996, p. 253).

The reason I wanted a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee was the need I felt
for an honest and forthright discussion of what the last 12 years of Civil Rights

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

230 PPMR / March 1997

Enforcement has meant for the very real people that the Congress has intended to protect
and empower. (Hernandez, 1994, p. 101)

Her views on proportional representation caused her demise. Proportional repre-

sentation is used in many democratic countries and, as early as John C. Calhoun

(Jeffrey, 1995), has been proposed for this one. Although I oppose this form of

affirmative action, a kind of electoral, guaranteed diversity, I believe that a vigorous

debate on the subject would have been healthy. Instead, Ms. Guinier was humiliated

in a “grand” way.

The Case of Colin Powell

In a recent “Dear Colleague” letter from Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.),

Frank (1996) implies that Colin Powell benefited from affirmative action. The letter
was written in opposition to the Canady-Dole Equal Opportunity Act of 1995 (H.R.

2128), which does away with preferences and quotas, and clearly implies that Powell

owes his success to affirmative action. But many people believe he rose through the

ranks on his own merits in a system designed to promote the best. It is obviously

harmful to General Powell and to society’s interest in fairness to imply that General

Powell would not have made it without affirmative action, a charge that now means

quota or preference. Certainly, the military insists that theirs is a strictly merit-based

system.

According to President Clinton’s own review of affirmative action, “the Pentagon

tends not to use ‘diversity’ and rarely uses ‘affirmative action.’ ” The preferred term

is “equal opportunity” (Affirmative Action Review, 1996, p. 4). Unfortunately, most
affirmative action programs are not merit based but rather are quota and preference

based. Such programs do not contribute to equal opportunity but instead seek equal

results. If all affirmative action programs were merit based, then a Colin Powell or a

Clarence Thomas, men of achievement and distinction, could enjoy the accolades that

are rightfully theirs. As Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield (1991) puts it, affirmative

action deprives people of their pride-the one indispensable ingredient for personal
satisfaction in one’s success.

Affirmative Action and the Loss of Self-Esteem

The founders of the American political regime believed in a moral universe and

universal moral laws. Ours is a government designed to reflect that moral universe.
The success of the civil rights movement is a good example of the fact that there is
much sympathy in our society for moral truth and justice. It is that sympathy that makes

the individual powerful in America. The Bill of Rights, absent a morally sympathetic
majority, would be as worthless as the constitution of the now defunct Soviet Union.
And morality combined with a system that reins in power empowers individuals. This
is the message we used to teach our children, and the loss of this message, the
replacement message that because you are a woman or a minority, you cannot make
it in America without government help, is a very damaging message.

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 231

Contributing to the damaging message and betraying elite thinking is Rutgers

President Frances Lawrence, who said that we must “deal with a disadvantaged

population that doesn’t have the genetic hereditary background” to score well on the

Scholastic Aptitude Test (“Riled at Rutgers,” 1995, p. A 14).

Lawrence may have said it more boldly, but the underlying conclusion of Richard
Hemstein and Charles Murray’s (1994) The Bell Curve is an implied acceptance of

the inevitability of White superiority. Many affirmative action programs contain the
same flaw at their core-that is, the basic premise that Blacks as a class cannot succeed

in an equal opportunity society. The argument is that they have been too wounded,

have been oppressed too long, and are too far behind to catch up in only a generation

or two.

The biggest problem with this argument, that Blacks cannot succeed, is the danger

that it can become, although untrue, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ajournalist friend sees

that happening in his own family. Recently, he told of a trip home to Detroit where he

found his young nephews, all bright eyed and eager but trapped in homes in which the
adults call each other “nigger” as they sit drinking beer, smoking marijuana, and going

nowhere. He said, “these are the boys who in 10 or 15 years will be stabbing you and
me in the back.” He is angry because he sees his relatives acting in a way that actually
reinforces the worst racial stereotypes.

Contrast this with the story of Jaime Escalante, the mathematics teacher in an

inner-city Los Angeles school who challenged his students to greatness and succeeded.
As the story is dramatized in the movie Stand and Deliver, the wonderful potential
that is latent and waiting to be tapped, the wonderful potential that. the journalist sees

in his nephews, justifies the kind of affirmative equal opportunity that many expected

with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, a young woman of Native
American descent, who had gone to high school on the reservation, when offered a
minority scholarship to college turned it down because it was not merit based.
Eventually, she got that merit scholarship. Her principles may have cost her some time
and some money, but her self-esteem benefited (W. B. Allen [chairman of the U.S.
Commision on Civil Rights], personal communication, February 11, 1996). Stories
like these are not uncommon.

What Is Equality?

What does equality require? Does it require quotas and timetables? Or is equal
opportunity enough? In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville (1966) dis-
cusses these two differing views of equality and concludes that an insistence on
equality of results will lead, inevitably, to tyranny because that kind of equality saps
liberty. He also points out that an equal opportunity society puts obstacles in the way
of everyone. Thus even the children of the wealthy have a disadvantage: Their privilege
makes them softer than their poorer competitors. What is important for success in
America, according to Tocqueville, is a “manly passion [for excellence] which rouses
in all men a desire to be strong and respected. This passion tends to elevate the little
man to the rank of the great” (p. 57).

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

232 PPMR / March 1997

Equality of opportunity is consistent with the Declaration of Independence. The

phrase “all men are created equal” is a frontal attack on the principle of privilege. In

place of privilege, the founders envisioned a society of merit. As the author of the

Declaration himself put it in a letter to John Adams (1813):

For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this
are virtue and talents…. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of
nature…. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides
the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi in the offices of
government? (Cappon, 1959, p. 388)

Now, what does this mean? It means that you can come from the “wrong” side of

the tracks and not face legal discrimination. It does not mean you cannot face other

kinds of discrimination-because a free society must allow for advancement on merit.

The whole argument of natural rights on which the Declaration is based rests on merit.

If one does not believe in natural rights as the basis for government, then one is left

with raw power, the power of whatever privileged class is in control. The exchange of

natural rights for pure power is a bad bargain for women and minorities.

Affirmative action is an issue that is bubbling in the electorate because it is now

perceived as unfair by men and women, Black and White alike. And because affirm-

ative action as it is now practiced is at odds with the principles of the Declaration of

Independence as well as the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, it will not long

be accepted by ordinary Americans. No matter how hard politicians run from it, this

issue is not going away. The Declaration of Independence, for example, does not say

that because of past discrimination some are more equal than others. It does not say

that for some the pursuit of happiness needs to be constrained because of past

privileges; no, it insists, boldly, that here in America, we are all equal under the law.

The mainstream civil rights movement that culminated in the Civil Rights Act of

1964 was a fundamentally democratic movement. It called on Americans to live up to

the principles of the Declaration of Independence. But almost immediately after

passing a law that forbade discrimination, quotas, and preferences, the Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) proceeded to “encourage” race-based prefer-

ences, quotas, and reverse discrimination. The courts upheld the EEOC as following
the logical intent of the law. The problem with this is the basic assumption that Blacks

could not make it in an equal opportunity world. The principle of equal opportunity
was never even tried.

How Equal Opportunity Became the Search for Equal Results

The movement toward results-based affirmative action law was predictable. Begin-
ning in 1961, the Kennedy administration pursued a policy of race-conscious affirm-

ative action, pressuring government contractors to hire members of favored minority
groups. Until 1965, this pressure was moderate. After 1965 pressure became so strong
that it basically amounted to coercion. Not everyone supporting the civil rights
movement shared Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society, and the
Kennedy administration and later administrations actually rejected this view in their

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 233

policies. One spokesman for the new view expressed it this way to a congressional

committee in 1961:

I am sick and tired of people saying they are color-blind so they do not have to give up
any information … I think the time has come where the problem is so great that being
color-blind for an official of government is no longer a virtue. What we need to be is
positively color conscious and go to work on this job of color and know what we are
doing. (Belz, 1991, p. 20)

But after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, even a sloppy reading of Title VII had

to be interpreted as forbidding race-based programs, and so the Comptroller General

Elmer B. Staats issued an opinion that the government’s contracting regulations, the

so-called Philadelphia Plan, were in violation of the Civil Rights Act. This plan

embraced the new vision of affirmative action, one that was directed at helping

minorities achieve what they would have achieved if there had never been discrimi-

nation. It advocated the disparate impact concept, which demanded race-conscious

affirmative action and the removal of standards and job qualifications that had a

disproportionately negative effect on protected minorities. Begun in the Department

of Labor, the program required contractors to develop specific goals for hiring
minorities (Belz, 1991, pp. 30-48).

The Nixon administration insisted that there was no intention to cause discrimina-

tion against any qualified individual because of race. Instead, they argued, they were

permitted to go beyond Title VII to fulfill the spirit of the law. They plainly made a
political decision, contrary to congressional mandates, that the color-blind, equal

opportunity principle would be insufficient to secure civil rights and achieve racial

equality. Congressional efforts to eliminate the Philadelphia Plan subsequently failed

(Belz, 1991, pp. 36-41).

Fraud, Cronyism, and Abuse

It should not go unremarked that at least some of the support for affirmative action

by the various presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, was a desire

to have pots of money to reward loyal political supporters. This is called political pork,

and it is the same on the local, state, and federal level whenever taxpayer money is
used for cronyism and favoritism (Belz, 1991).

Fraud is a big problem because it cannot be prosecuted. To do so, the courts would

have to define the term minority. This has not been done and is not something any
American court is likely to do because to do so would be to cross the line into

definitions of racial purity a la the old segregation and even the Nuremberg Laws. Law
Professor Christo Lassiter (1996) says more is involved:

Government programs stemming from liberal compassion are not tailored to minimize
fraud…. It is hard to credit this happenstance as sloppy thinking, since it is repeated ad
infinitwn…. One need look no further than the cases which came before the Court in
the 1994-95 term, to see examples of liberal programs designed without a care to
minimize fraud. (p. 444)

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

234 PPMR / March 1997

The Prior Tire Case in Atlanta, Georgia

The minority set-aside program of Richmond, Virginia, was successfully chal-

lenged in the Supreme Court case of City of Richmond v. Croson (1989). Congress

then passed the Civil Rights Restoration Act designed to protect minority set-aside
programs. Nevertheless, a similar case to Croson is being brought by Leon Goldstein,

president of Prior Tire Company in Atlanta. He is challenging an affirmative action

policy of the city of Atlanta’s school board that allows the board to subtract 15% from

minority bids. The winning contractor is then paid according to his original bid.

Without a challenge to this unfair practice, Prior Tire would be frozen out of doing

business with the school board, but more important to Mr. Goldstein, once competitive

companies like Prior drop out, costs inevitably rise. This is money going to contractors

in the form of unearned profits, money, he says, that could go to teachers’ salaries or
books.

Mr. Goldstein’s business was founded by his father, Abe Goldstein. It can survive
without government contracts, but the Goldsteins are activists. Abe Goldstein was a

prominent civil rights advocate. His original program to hire minorities was well

known, and today the Anti-Defamation League gives an annual award for human rights

named after Abe Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein says he will take his case all the way to the

Supreme Court because of the human rights principle involved-that is, equality
before the law.

Prior Tire’s self-imposed affirmative action program actually worked and actually

benefited those individuals who had been damaged by segregation, real working
people. There is little evidence Atlanta’s set-aside program works., and in fact, there

are serious questions associated with these kinds of state and federal programs,

questions of fraud and abuse.1

Future Trends in Affirmative Action

Signs of future changes to come include the recent Supreme Court decision of

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995) and the California Civil Rights Initiative
(CCRI). The ruling of Adarand now subjects all federal affirmative action programs
to strict scrutiny by the courts and mandates that they be narrowly tailored to pass

judicial muster. As a direct result of Adarand the Department of Justice has initiated
a review of all federal affirmative action programs. It is conducting this review to verify

that each program meets the new requirements issued by Adarand. The president has

conducted his own review of federal affirmative action programs.

The CCRI, which calls for an end to all race- and gender-based affirmative action
programs, is on the ballot in the state of California. If the CCRI passes, it may well
ignite the move in Congress to pass a law, similar to CCRI, Canady-Dole, which was
introduced in the 104th Congress (H.R. 2128). Furthermore, laws pending in other
states, such as in Georgia and Texas, are gaining support. Unequal treatment appears
to be ending.

What can be put in the place of affirmative action? This is the question that
Congressman J. C. Watts and his Minority Issues Taskforce in the U.S. House are
trying to answer. Their solution is various training and empowerment programs aimed

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Jeffrey / RETHINKING AFFIRMATIVE ACrION 235

at the inner city. This cannot be a substitute for eliminating discrimination. Just as
modem affirmative action is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, so also is

discrimination. Illegal discrimination should be seriously and resolutely opposed and
prosecuted.

Conclusions

The problem with group rights as opposed to individual rights can be seen through
representation. When one represents a group, one represents the passions and interests

of the group. On the other hand, representing a wide assortment of individuals requires

a search for a common good that transcends any one faction.2 When interest-group
spokesmen speak for their groups, they inevitably flatter the passions of the group and

become demagogues. Statesmen, on the other hand, must plead for reason and call on
their supporters to understand the need to promote a common good. As James Madison
makes clear in Federalist 10 and 51 (Cooke, 1961), a nation of factions cannot be
unified on any other basis than the common good. The affirmative action society, if
allowed to persist, could lead us further down the road to balkanization, schism, and
eventually civil war, the object of which would be, this time, not liberating slaves but
enslaving freemen. This would be the cost of turning the principles of the Declaration

of Independence on their head.3
Thus it is imperative that Americans of good will, Democrats and Republicans,

liberals and conservatives, put their minds to solving this problem, a problem created
by slavery but perpetuated by government policies like Jim Crow and modern
affirmative action. If we keep our eyes on the principles of the Declaration, it may be
possible to find solutions that guarantee the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness for all, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity.

Notes

1. Research on Prior lire was conducted at the offices of the Southeastem Legal Foundation, which is
handling Mr. Goldstein’s case. I also had a chance to interview Mr. Goldstein on the telephone, on January

25, 1996, and in person, on January 26, 1996, when he attended the first reading of this paper at an academic

forum at Kennesaw State College.
2. For a good, general discussion of what he calls the problems of tribalism created by the current

approach to affirmative action, see Lassiter (1996).
3. For a discussion of the problems associated with celebrating diversity over unity, see especially

Schlesinger (1990).

References

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 115 S. Ct. 2097 (1995).
Affirmative action review: Report to the president. (1996). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Belz, H. (1991). Equality transformed: A quarter-century of affirmative action. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.

Burleigh, N. (1995, December/1996, January). Was it worth it? George, pp. 252-253.
Cappon, L. J. (Ed.). (1959). The Adams-Jefferson Letters. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989).

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

236 PPMR / March 1997

Cooke, J. E. (1961). The Federalist. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

Doggett, J. (1996, July 8). Justice Thomas and Black opinion. The Washington 7imes, p. A19.

Frank, B. (1996, January 23). Dear colleague letter. (The Honorable Barney Frank, 2210 Rayburn House
Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515)

Hernandez, G. H. (1994, April 23). “Gotcha Journalism” takes no prisioners. Editor and Publisher

Magazine, pp. 100-102.

Hernstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New

York: Free Press.

Jeffrey, R. (1995). John C. Calhoun’s critique of American constitutionalism: The original argument for

multicultural democracy. Unpublished manuscript.
Lassiter, C. (1996). The new race cases and the politics of public policy. The Journal of Law & Politics, 12,

411-458.

Mansfield, H. C. (1991). America’s constitutional soul. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Riled at Rutgers. (1995, February 13). The Wall Street Journal, p. A14.

Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. (1990). The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New

York: W. W. Norton.

Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character. New York: St. Martin’s.

Tocqueville, A. de. (1966). Democracy in America (J. P. Mayer, Ed., G. Lawrence, Trans.). New York:

Harper & Row.

Christina F. Jeffrey is an associate professor of political science and public administra-
tion at Kennesaw State University and is the immediate past president of the Georgia

chapter of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) and a member of

ASPA’s Policy Issues Committee. She holds M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the University

of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.

This content downloaded from
��96.19.242.181 on Wed, 09 Jun 2021 18:41:28 UTC��
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Contents

p. 228
p. 229
p. 230
p. 231
p. 232
p. 233
p. 234
p. 235
p. 236

Issue Table of Contents

Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Mar., 1997) pp. 221-348
Front Matter
Abstracts [pp. 221-223]
Featured Topic: Productivity and Affirmative Action
Productivity and Affirmative Action: [Introduction] [pp. 224-227]
Point: Rethinking Affirmative Action [pp. 228-236]
Counterpoint: By Thine Own Voice, Shall Thou Be Known [pp. 237-242]
Racism, Community, and Democracy: The Ethics of Affirmative Action [pp. 243-257]
Affirmative Action and Economics: A Framework for Analysis [pp. 258-271]
Looking like America: The Continuing Importance of Affirmative Action in Federal Employment [pp. 272-287]
Government Reinvention and Affirmative Action: Implications for Women and Minorities [pp. 288-294]
Sex, Race, and Affirmative Action: An Uneasy Alliance [pp. 295-307]
Productivity in Review
On the Folly of Rewarding A, while Hoping for B: Measuring and Rewarding Agency Performance in Public-Sector Strategy [pp. 308-322]
Explaining Managerial Acceptance of Expert Systems [pp. 323-335]
Book Reviews
Leadership for the Public Interest [pp. 336-345]
Pragmatic Performance Improvement [pp. 345-348]
Back Matter

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ case study draft ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order