preparing students for workplace diversity: some research implications

Preparing Students for Workplace Diversity: Some Research Implications

David A. KravitzGeorge Mason University

Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved.

Thanks to

• Paul Gorski• Eden King• Hun Lee• Melina Nardi

12/9/2010 2


My Charge

• Explore the implications of diversity management research for developing programmatic non-cognitive interventions to prepare high school students for the increased globalization and diversity of the business world.

12/9/2010 3


Validity of Underlying Assumption

• The charge assumes that business will be increasingly global and the workforce increasingly diverse.

• Is this true?

12/9/2010 4


Globalization of Business

Year Exports Imports Total

1993 642,863 713,174 1,356,037

1998 933,174 1,099,314 2,032,488

2003 1,019,897 1,514,080 2,533,977

2008 1,839,012 2,537,814 4,376,826

12/9/2010 5

U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services(Millions of dollars)


Cultural Dimensions

• The U.S. differs from most of the world in our cultural assumptions along a number of dimensions (e.g., locus of control, individualism/collectivism, time orientation).– These differences must be understood when

doing business with people in other countries.– These differences also imply that immigration

will lead to increased cultural diversity in the U.S. workforce.

12/9/2010 6


Immigration to the U.S.

• In 2009, 38.5 million people in the U.S. (about 12.5% of the population) were foreign-born.

• Many others residents are children of immigrants. Thus, their cultural assumptions are based on both U.S. culture and their parents’ cultures.

12/9/2010 7


U.S. Population: Race & Ethnicity

Group 2010 2030 2050

Non-Hispanic

White alone 64.7 55.5 46.3

Black alone 12.2 12.2 11.8

Asian alone 4.5 6.2 7.6

All other races 2.4 3.2 4.0

Hispanic (any/all races)

16.0 23.0 30.2

12/9/2010 8


U.S. Population: Age & Sex

12/9/2010 9


U.S. Religious Affiliations

Religion 1990 2008

Catholic 26.2 25.1

Other Christian 60.0 50.9

No Religion 8.2 15.0

Other Religions 3.3 3.9

No Response 2.3 5.2

12/9/2010 10

Kosmin & Keysar (2009)


U.S. Sexual Orientation

• Due to the biological basis of sexual attraction, I assume that the proportion of the population that is not heterosexual is not changing.

• Due to cultural changes, individuals who are not heterosexual are increasingly open about their sexual orientation and are demanding the elimination of sexual orientation discrimination.

12/9/2010 11


Conclusion

• U. S. business is becoming increasingly global and the workforce increasingly diverse.

• Why is this a problem?

12/9/2010 12


Bias: A Human Weakness

• Bias (prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination) toward those who differ from oneself (outgroup members) exists for many reasons.– Automatic preference for the in-group

• Evolution-based• Social identity

– Perceived realistic and symbolic threats– The need to simplify reality (stereotyping)– Ongoing influence of historical events

12/9/2010 13


Implication

• Today’s students will need to work successfully with others who differ from them in many ways.

• Dealing with different cultures and different people can be challenging.

• We need to prepare our students – help them become more culturally competent.

12/9/2010 14


Bennett’s Model

• The Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity posits six stages of cultural competence.– Ethnocentric

• Denial, Defense, Minimization

– Ethnorelative• Acceptance, Adaptation, Integration

• The challenge is to help student attain one of the ethnorelative stages.

12/9/2010 15


What is cultural competence?Sue’s Model

• Sue’s (2001) multidimensional model of cultural competence includes three dimensions of cultural competence– Foci (individual, professional,

organizational, societal)– Group-specific attributes (appropriate

action depends on the target group)– Components (attitudes, knowledge,

skills)

12/9/2010 16


Workplace Diversity Research

• What can we learn from research on workplace diversity?

• Very little. (Bah humbug!)– Wrong level of analysis and criterion– Inability to draw causal conclusions

about specific interventions or specific aspects of interventions

– Focus on cognitive interventions (e.g., most diversity training)

12/9/2010 17


One Useful Research Stream

• Diversity climate has positive effects– Diversity climate is employees' shared

perceptions that the organization is committed to eliminating discrimination and fostering diversity.

– A positive diversity climate is associated with greater organizational commitment and lower turnover among all identity groups. It may eliminate the negative effects sometimes created by diversity.

• Buttner et al. (2010); Gonzalez & DeNisi (2009); McKay et al. (2007)

12/9/2010 18


So???Should I sit down and shut up?

• As the charge was written, I have found relatively little.

• However, the behavioral and psychological work that underlies research on workplace diversity has a bit more to offer.

12/9/2010 19


Psychological Bases

• “Perhaps the most important contributions that social psychologists have made involve the potential for improving intergroup relations. … We have developed excellent models to work from, but know little about how to implement programs that will make a real difference.” Stangor, 2009, p. 10

• Notwithstanding the enormous literature on prejudice … the literature does not reveal whether, when, and why interventions reduce prejudice [bias] in the world. Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 360

• Well, that’s discouraging!

12/9/2010 20


Paluck & Green (2009)

• Massive review of the bias reduction literature (900 reports)

• A reasonably amount of evidence supports the efficacy of cooperation, the common ingroup identity model, and the contact hypothesis.

12/9/2010 21


Cooperative Learning

• Teams work together and each team member is responsible for learning and helping the others learn.

• Of the 107 randomized field experiments found by Paluck and Green (2009), 36 dealt with cooperative learning.

12/9/2010 22


Cooperative Learning - Results

• Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck & Fantuzzo (2006)• Meta-analysis of 30 studies of the effects of peer-

assisted learning (PAL) on social outcomes among elementary school students.

• Significant effect: d = 0.28.• Effect was stronger when the group had

interdependent group reward contingencies, opportunities for student autonomy, and structured peer interactions in which students were provided with roles.

12/9/2010 23


Cooperative Learning - Results

• Roseth, Johnson & Johnson (2008).• Meta-analysis of the effect of goal structures

on quality of peer relationships among early adolescents. Included 148 studies.

• “Cooperative goal structures were associated with 0.48 standard deviation increase in positive peer relationships over competitive goal structures … [and] 0.42 standard deviation increase … over individualistic goal structures.”

12/9/2010 24


Contact

• Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) meta-analysis of the relation between contact and prejudice (713 samples)– Significant relation (-0.21)– Stronger effect in rigorous research– Stronger effect when contact conditions

were optimal (a la Allport), but still significant under non-optimal conditions

12/9/2010 25


Contact – Secondary Transfer

• Tausch et al. (2010)• Four field studies using different targets,

respondents, and methodologies found that contact with one outgroup leads to more positive attitudes toward a secondary outgroup. – For example, Black and White Texas college

students who had more contact with the other group were less biased against Vietnamese and Asian Indians.

12/9/2010 26


Contact – Potential Danger

• Paolini, Harwood & Rubin (2010)• Research has shown that high salience of

an outgroup’s category leads to negative interactions, presumably due to anxiety.

• Paolini et al. found that negative interactions stimulated greater awareness of the category.

• Combined, this implies that contact has a negative bias.

12/9/2010 27


Contact - Conclusion

• Positive contact can decrease prejudice toward the partner’s group and even toward other outgroups.

• This effect is particularly strong when there is equal status between the groups in the situation, they have a common goal, they cooperate, and the positive relationship has the support of authorities, law, or custom (Allport’s optimal conditions).

12/9/2010 28


Common Ingroup Identity Model

• Gaertner & Dovidio (2000)• Biases toward out-group members can

be decreased when the individual creates a superordinate group that includes both the original in-group and the out-group.

• I have not found a meta-analysis, but a number of studies have been supportive.

12/9/2010 29


Timely Example

• The Pentagon recently released their survey of troop opinions about the impact of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

• The report includes tables that show how responses vary depending on whether the respondent is aware that s/he is currently working with a gay or lesbian colleague.– I presume this combines contact, cooperation,

and a common in-group identity.

12/9/2010 30


Troop Prediction of Impact of DADT Repeal on Performance

Effect Currently serve with

Never served with

Very positive or positive 16.0 11.5

Equally P&N + no effect 57.9 52.5

Negative or very negative 26.0 35.9

12/9/2010 31

Q71c. If DADT is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect your immediate unit's effectiveness at completing its mission... In an intense combat situation?


Summary

• Research suggests that bias will be decreased by– A positive diversity climate– Positive cooperative contact– Creation of a common in-group identity

• Given this, what are some programmatic non-cognitive interventions school systems or other organizations could create to prepare high school students for the increased diversity of their work lives?

12/9/2010 32


Your Turn

• Please take a couple of minutes to write down possible approaches on the note card you have been given. This can include actual programs with which you are familiar.

• Then talk with your colleagues to flesh-out your ideas.

• We’ll take a few minutes to report out and I’ll ask you to turn in the cards at the end.

12/9/2010 33


Questions or Comments?

34


Print References• Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity.

In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2010). Diversity climate impact on employee of color outcomes: does justice matter?

Career Development International, 15(3), 239-258.• Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology

Press.• Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral

outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732-749.• Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm

effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 21-40.• Kosmin, B. A. & Keysar, A. (2009). American religious identification survey (ARIS) 2008. Hartford, CT: Trinity College.• Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual

Review of Psychology, 60, 339-368.• Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why

intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723-1738.• Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

90(5), 751-783.• Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of

cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246.• Stangor, C. (2009). The study of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination within social psychology: A quick history of theory and

research. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 1-22). New York: Psychology Press.• Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(6), 790-821.• Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., et al. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup

contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 282-302.

12/9/2010 35


Internet References

• U.S. International Trade:– http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm

• U.S. Foreign born– http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-15.pdf

• U.S. Population Race & Ethnicity– http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html

• U.S. Population Age & Sex– http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/regdivpyramid.html

• U.S. Department of Defense: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell– http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/

12/9/2010 36

preparing students for workplace diversity: some research implications

Documents

increased cultural diversity

cultural assumptions

business world

cultural changes

cultural dimensionsthe

workplace diversity

sexual orientationdue

increased globalization