academy of management learning & education a retrospective ... · a retrospective view of...

A Retrospective View ofCorporate Diversity Training

From 1964 to the PresentROHINI ANAND

Sodexo

MARY-FRANCES WINTERSThe Winters Group, Inc.

Although its effectiveness has been questioned, over the past 30 years diversity traininghas become common practice in the corporate arena, as a myriad of workforcedifferences has gained increasing attention. The emphasis of this training has evolvedfrom compliance-oriented content (mid-1960s to early 1980s) to improving workingrelationships (mid-1980s to mid-1990s) to a more recent focus on accepting and leveragingall dimensions of diversity based on the belief that enhanced business performance willresult. Our purpose here is threefold: (1) to provide an historical context for diversitytraining in corporate America; (2) to highlight for illustrative purposes the diversitytraining experiences of two corporations (Sodexo, Inc., and Hewitt Associates) that havetaken comprehensive approaches; and (3) to address current issues in the context of thefuture of the industry.

........................................................................................................................................................................

Diversity is one of the most popular businesstopics of the last 2 decades. It ranks with modernbusiness disciplines such as quality, leadership,and ethics. Despite this popularity, it is also oneof the most controversial and least understoodtopics.

Rooted in social justice philosophy, civil rightslegislation, and more recently, business strat-egy, diversity has evolved into a rather amor-phous field where the very word itself invokes avariety of meanings and emotional responses.A recent survey conducted among human re-sources (HR) and diversity practitioners examinedhow they defined diversity (Society for Human Re-sources Management, 2008). At least eight defini-tions emerged, and 71% of respondents indicatedthat their organization did not have an officialdefinition. That same year, according to a survey of265 HR professionals and diversity specialists fromcompanies with an average of 10,000 employees,55% of respondents had a diversity department,and over 80% reported having either mandatory orvoluntary training for all levels of employees (TheNew York Times, 2007).

As recently as 2003, the diversity business wasestimated to be an 8 billion dollar industry (Han-

sen, 2003). Yet diversity training in the corporatearena has a checkered history and a plethora ofcritics who are convinced that such efforts are awaste of time and money.

As recently as 2003, the diversitybusiness was estimated to be an 8billion dollar industry (Hansen, 2003).Yet diversity training in the corporatearena has a checkered history and aplethora of critics who are convincedthat such efforts are a waste of timeand money.

To address these issues we first, chronicle thehistory of diversity training in corporate America.Second, we draw on our combined 50 years’ expe-rience in the diversity industry to select two corpo-rate diversity case studies—Sodexo, Inc., and He-witt Associates—to give the reader examples ofreal diversity training programs. Finally, we ex-plore several current issues as well as consider thefuture of the industry.

� Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2008, Vol. 7, No. 3, 356–372.

........................................................................................................................................................................

356Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’sexpress written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

Phase 1. Precursor to Diversity:Focus on Compliance

The 1960s and 1970s

To understand the evolution of diversity training, itis useful to trace its roots. There is a tendency togroup any training that is associated with race,gender, ethnicity, or other demographic differenceunder the umbrella of “diversity;” however, thereare specific types of training, some of which pre-date the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that should berecognized as separate and distinct from diversitytraining, including race relations, anti-Semitism,and anti-racism training. Such training, while vitaland an important part of the history that has influ-enced today’s genre of diversity training, is outsidethe focus of this article.

Initial diversity training efforts in the 1960s cen-tered on legislation and compliance. Title VII ofThe Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal foremployers with more than 15 employees to dis-criminate in hiring, termination, promotion, com-pensation, job training, or any other term, condi-tion, or privilege of employment based on race,color, religion, sex, or national origin. Since itsenactment, Title VII has been supplemented withlegislation that prohibits discrimination on the ba-sis of pregnancy, age, and disability. In addition,sexual harassment is also now deemed to be ille-gal under Title VII.

This landmark legislation spawned an era oftraining in the late 1960s and 1970s, largely inresponse to the barrage of discrimination suits thatwere filed with the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC). If the EEOC or state agenciesfound “probable cause” for discrimination, one ofthe remedies was typically a court-ordered man-date for the organization to train all employees inantidiscriminatory behavior. For example, a 1977EEOC consent decree with Duquesne Light Com-pany in response to alleged discrimination againstBlacks and women required Duquesne to provideEEO training to its managers (Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission, 2008).

Obviously companies wanted to avoid costlyand embarrassing lawsuits and negative public-ity, and therefore, many voluntarily implementedtraining focused on imparting information on thelegal requirements to managers and rank-and-fileemployees. However, there were some notable ex-ceptions to strictly employing a compliance-and-litigation-avoidance approach. For example, IBMwas one of the first companies to state that diver-sity was a moral imperative, and it continues toespouse that philosophy today (IBM, 2007). Ivancev-ich and Gilbert (2000) report that Xerox Corporation

also adopted a beyond-compliance, social respon-sibility position in the 1960s. The three underlyingcauses of this position were the personal commit-ment of founder Joseph C. Wilson and concernsmotivated by riots in Rochester in the mid-sixties,and a class action discrimination suit in 1971. Ac-cording to Ivancevich and Gilbert, Xerox top man-agement has maintained a strong support for di-versity, and as a result, the workforce at the timeof their publication was “more diverse than thegeneral population” (2000: 80).

Notwithstanding these and other notable excep-tions, based on our experience, most training dur-ing this era was primarily the imparting of knowl-edge with recitations on the law and companypolicies, a litany of do’s and don’ts and maybe acouple of case studies for the participants to pon-der. The length of training varied widely from 1hour to a full day, with a typical length of 4 hours.For most companies, the training was a one-timeevent, but some required (and many still require)brief periodic refreshers of company policies andsignatures from every employee to acknowledgethat they had read and understood the policies andthe consequences of noncompliance.

Recipients of the early antidiscriminationtraining often left with a variety of emotions, fewof them positive. Because the training focusedprimarily on treating historically underrepre-sented minorities and women fairly and equita-bly in White male-dominated environments andon avoidance of lawsuits, nonmembers of thesegroups resented their exclusion and felt thatpreferential treatment was being afforded to thetargeted groups.

Another reason that the training did not resonatewell with the dominant group is that the contentmade little connection to how the recommendedchanges in behavior would improve business re-sults. Although the late Kaleel Jamison, founder ofthe Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, outlined theneed to transform organizational culture, polices,practices and structures to create work environ-ments that allow all employees to do their bestwork (Jamison, 1978), it would be a full decadebefore companies earnestly considered the role ofinclusive organizational cultures as key drivers forthe success of diversity efforts.

Phase 2. Focus on Assimilation

The Early 1980s

Compliance-oriented training continued into theearly 1980s, but there was a period of retreat fromthe intensity of the previous decade. The greatest

2008 357Anand and Winters

increase in racial and gender diversity in the work-place occurred in the 1970s during the period ofmost intense government enforcement of the CivilRights Act of 1964. The rate of change stalled dur-ing the 1980s, with the exception of increases ofwomen entering the workplace (Tomaskovic-Devey, Stainback, Taylor, Zimmer, Robinson, &McTague, 2006). The decreased focus on compli-ance was due at least in part to President Reagan’sderegulation policies, which contended that “in-tensive, fine-grained regulation of business ledfirms to opt out of compliance altogether. Goals,such as . . . reduced discrimination, would be elu-sive under intense regulation” (Kalev & Dobbin,2006: 862). Reagan thought that employers shouldbe more responsible for their own discriminationpolicing. He appointed Clarence Thomas as headof the EEOC, and Thomas disapproved of concili-ation agreements that included goals and timeta-bles for increasing representation of underrepre-sented groups, with the intent of giving employersmore latitude. With less scrutiny from the federalgovernment, many companies turned their atten-tion to other pressing concerns of the day, such asoffshore competition and improving quality. Affir-mative action and equal employment training,while still included in the training catalogs, werescaled back as a cost-cutting effort, perhaps man-datory only for those in managerial positions andin some instances eliminated altogether for therank-and-file employee.

Some organizations that conducted training dur-ing this lull were more likely to present contentwith the objective of helping women and people ofcolor to assimilate into existing corporate culturesby creating special training programs based onthe assumption that these new corporate entrantswere less prepared because they had not yet de-veloped the necessary managerial skills to be ef-fective managers (Fernandez, 1981).

One such program was designed by Dr. JeffHoward based on Albert Bandura’s (1994) originalconcept of self-efficacy. Bandera theorized thatpeople’s beliefs about their capabilities result inperformance that influences events impactingtheir lives. Olson (1993) reports that Howard de-signed programs for minorities and women basedon the assumption that they lacked the self-confi-dence to demonstrate their talents in different andsometimes unwelcoming environments, in contrastto the prevailing belief that these new entrantsinto the corporate world were less qualified.Howard theorized that people of color and womenunderachieved in their careers due to internalizedoppression. His research found that achievementwas based on a combination of effort and confi-

dence (efficacy), that the process of developmentcan be learned, and that effective effort in the faceof adverse conditions results in strong per-formance and greater self-confidence. Still populartoday, J. Howard & Associates (now Novations) wasfounded in the mid-seventies to apply his efficacytheory in the development of people of color andwomen, reinforcing the contention that if they mas-ter their response to negative stimuli, howeversubtle, they stay in control and respond in waysthat increase their likelihood of success.

Phase 3. The Diversity Field is Born

The Late 1980s

In 1987, Workforce 2000, published by the HudsonInstitute, was released and resulted in a startlingrevelation for many businesses (Johnston & Parker,1987). In the preface of the Hudson Institute’s sec-ond book on workforce trends, Workforce 2020, theauthors write: “[A]lthough think tanks seldom pro-duce bestsellers, Workforce 2000 proved to be anexception to the rule” (Judy & D’Amico, 1997: xii). Itshowed that the demographic makeup of the “netadditions” into the workforce would be comprisedof more women and minorities. The report wascommonly misinterpreted in the press as intimat-ing that there would be a total rather than a mar-ginal change in ethnic and gender diversity. Babyboomer retirements, increased immigration, andthe entrance of more women and ethnic minoritiesinto the workforce would have little real impact,since the net new addition is relatively small inabsolute terms versus the total number in the laborforce (Friedman & DiTomaso, 1996). Nonetheless,Workforce 2000 created a major shift in thinkingabout the future composition of the workforce andis credited with putting the term “workforce diver-sity” into the business lexicon and creating animportant rationale for the diversity industry.

These new data shifted the discussion fromhow to comply with legal mandates to how toassimilate what was thought to be additionallarge numbers of women and minorities into ex-isting, homogenous corporate cultures. Evenwith affirmative action, the progress of increasingthe number of women and minorities into the work-force had been slow. Corporations were experienc-ing difficulty meeting their affirmative actiongoals, and, while recruiting underrepresentedgroups posed a significant challenge, retainingwomen and minorities was (and continues to be)an even greater problem.

During the period from 1965 to 1988, the corporatesector paid little attention to how having different

358 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

backgrounds and experiences would impact theability of the dominant group and the “new minor-ity” groups to work together effectively. An unwrit-ten expectation that the new entrants would con-form to the dominant group culture prevailed,which partly explains why the early 1980s trainingwas more focused on helping minorities andwomen assimilate.

But 3 years after the release of Workforce 2000,Roosevelt Thomas shifted the paradigm of diver-sity from compliance to a matter of business sur-vival (R. R. Thomas, 1990). He argued that recruit-ment was not the central problem; rather, the moreserious problems began once someone was hired(Thomas, 1990). Overwhelming data demonstratedthat the careers of minorities and women plateauand few were breaking into higher level positions:

Affirmative action had an essential role toplay and played it very well. In many compa-nies and communities it still plays that role.But affirmative action is an artificial, transi-tional intervention intended to give managersa chance to correct an imbalance, an injus-tice, a mistake. Once the numbers mistakehas been corrected, I don’t think affirmativeaction alone can cope with the remaininglong-term task of creating a work settinggeared to the upward mobility of all kinds ofpeople, including white males (Thomas, 1990:108).

He wrote that the goal should be to create an en-vironment “where we is everyone.” Thomas arguedthat something else besides affirmative action wasneeded. “That something else consists of enablingpeople, in this case minorities and women, to per-form to their potential. This is what we now callmanaging diversity” (Thomas, 1990: 108). The man-aging diversity paradigm paved the way for thenext iteration of diversity training.

Phase 4. A Decade of Fostering Sensitivity

Late 1980s to Late 1990s

The fundamental shift was from compliance, andfocusing only on women and racial ethnic minori-ties, to incorporating everyone, including Whitemen, under the umbrella of diversity. The philoso-phy was to make everyone more aware and sensi-tive to the needs and differences of others. How-ever, it is important to note that during the earlyyears of the inclusive definition of diversity, Whitemen were not viewed as having valid issues abouttheir place in the new more diverse workplace.

They were primarily viewed as the problem and inneed of “fixing.” To compound matters, no consen-sus model emerged among the expert consultantsand practitioners to help companies address theseissues. Some believed that the broad definition ofdiversity diluted the issues of unequal treatmentthat women and racioethnic employees continuedto face. With social justice as their mantra, theywere adamant for the need to keep the focus onthe adversities that historically underrepresentedgroups faced in the corporate arena. Others em-braced the notion that diversity was more thanrace and gender, while outlining the primaryand secondary dimensions of diversity (Loden &Rosener, 1991). Under this model, primary dimen-sions such as race, gender, physical abilities, age,and sexual orientation are distinguished from sec-ondary dimensions because they are more likely tobe visible or mostly unchangeable, whereas thesecondary dimensions such as education, function,geography, thinking and communication stylesmay equally advantage or disadvantage an em-ployee but are not immutable.

Although the new rhetoric proclaimed that affir-mative action and compliance were different fromdiversity, many companies continued to combinecompliance and diversity training. It was not un-common for training content to start with compli-ance topics and then move to diversity contentabout valuing and respecting differences. Thisserved to confuse learners, who mostly left thistype of training believing that diversity was noth-ing more than a new euphemism for affirmativeaction.

Thus, the various training approaches rangedfrom an emphasis on social justice to sensitivityand awareness and appreciation of differences, toRoosevelt Thomas’ connection of diversity to busi-ness outcomes. And the topics ranged from morefocus on race, or gender, and often work–life bal-ance, depending on the emphasis the organizationchose. Issues such as sexual orientation, age, anddisabilities received little if any attention in thetraining at this time. While the approaches obvi-ously overlap somewhat, depending on the under-lying belief system of the designer, the trainingcontent and desired and actual outcomes could bevery different.

The training also took on varying degrees ofintensity. At one extreme, it was an “in your face,”“admit your guilt” session for White men to “con-fess and repent.” This left them feeling defensive,and thus concepts like “backlash” and “reversediscrimination” emerged. Contributing to black-lash ideas during this era was the historic Bakkedecision, where Allan Bakke, twice denied admis-


sion to a California medical school, alleged re-verse discrimination. While the Supreme Court’sdecision was ultimately split in 1978, he was ad-mitted even though the Supreme Court also upheldaffirmative action (Bennett-Alexander 1990).

At the other end of the spectrum, this era’s diver-sity training was so “watered down” that everyoneleft happy but wondering what the problem was.

In an effort to provide more structure to under-stand the various approaches, David Thomas andRobin Ely (1996) postulated that there are threedifferent paradigms as outlined in Table 1: dis-crimination and fairness, access and legitimacy,and learning and effectiveness. These three para-digms roughly correspond with approaches takento training. At the time they argued that most com-panies embraced the first two paradigms and thatthe learning and effectiveness aspect was just be-ginning to emerge and be understood.

There were great expectations for the outcomesof the training. At the very least, behaviors wouldbe altered and there was often an implicit assump-tion that attitudes and mind-sets would also shift.Although it is unrealistic to expect sustainedchange in what was typically no more than a 1-dayexposure, much disappointment was expressedwhen companies observed no real difference in thework environment.

As one possible way to understand why diversitytraining fell short of the desired outcomes, con-sider Robert Hargrove’s (1995) concept of “triple-loop” learning. Based on original work by ChrisArgyris and Donald Schon (1974), Hargrove distin-guishes between single-, double- and triple-looplearning in the context of coaching. Single-loopor incremental learning encourages skill devel-opment; double-loop learning has the goal ofreshaping patterns of thinking; and triple-loop or

transformational learning creates a fundamentalchange in perspective and self-awareness. Har-grove contends that much corporate learning isfocused at the single-loop level.

Even though the stated goal of diversity trainingduring this era was generally couched in terms ofraising awareness (not even single loop at thisjuncture), there was an implicit expectation that atthe very least behaviors would change (singleloop) and a hope that patterns of thinking wouldshift (double loop). When no changes in behavioror patterns of thoughts were observed, the diver-sity training was deemed a failure. The shortcom-ing was likely due to the unavoidable tradeoffbetween designing an educational experience thatwould meet the goals of shifting behaviors andmind-sets and the need to develop cost-effectiveways to train large number of employees. In thevernacular of the field, the latter is known as the“check-off-the-box” approach. Such “check-off” train-ing was evaluated not by its effectiveness, but ratherby the number of people who were trained.

The content of diversity training during this pe-riod was usually a mixture of cognitive and expe-riential learning techniques. One very popular andeffective (albeit controversial) experiential exer-cise designed to show the relationship betweenadverse treatment and performance was dubbed“Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes.” Jane Elliot, an Iowa publicschool teacher, conceived the experiment in theaftermath of the assassination of Martin LutherKing. She separated students by the color of theireyes and told them that one group was superior(Blue Eyes) to the other group (Brown Eyes), andtherefore, was entitled to better treatment. Thegroup that thought it was superior performed bet-ter and the group that was treated poorly per-formed worse (http://www.janeelliott.com). Psy-

TABLE 1Overview of Thomas & Ely’s (1996) Model

Discrimination and Fairness Paradigm Access and Legitimacy Paradigm Learning and Effectiveness Paradigm

--Equal opportunity--Compliance with EEO regulations--Fair treatment--Focus on the numbers--Concern with creating mentoring and

career development programs forwomen and people of color

--Supports assimilation and color andgender-blind conformism

--Acceptance and celebration of differences--Market-based motivation for competitive

advantage--Motivation is to attract multicultural

talent to understand and serve customersand gain legitimacy with them

--Different perspectives and approachesto work are valuable

--Acknowledgment that learning andrelearning are central to leveragingdiversity

--Organization fosters personaldevelopment that brings out people’sfull range of skills

--Recognition that employees oftenmake business choices that draw ontheir cultural backgrounds

--“We are all on the same team, withour differences—not despite them.”


chologists have conducted similar experiments fordecades, helping us to understand the behavioraleffect of our subconscious bias about differenceamong and across people and groups. This oneexercise was probably the most memorable andtransformative for participants during this era ofdiversity training. It continues to be a powerfulapproach to showing the impact of disparate treat-ment.

Another popular exercise during this period wascalled “adjectives” and like the “Blue Eyes/BrownEyes” experiment, often left participants angry andfrustrated. Designed to help participants under-stand the stereotypes that are commonly heldabout various groups, it required them to writedown the first words that came to mind when theythought of different groups such as African Amer-icans, Latinos, Asians, women, people with dis-abilities, and people over 40, and to post themunder the respective labels. Even though facilita-tors were careful to point out that this did notnecessarily reflect participants’ feelings about thegroups, most generally believed that the words,mostly negative, reflected true feelings. For exam-ple, common descriptors for Blacks included lazy,looking for a handout, uneducated, and whiners.Adjectives for women included soft, sensitive, andnot as physically strong as men. In contrast, Whitemen were often described as strong, providers, pro-tectors, and leaders. With insufficient time to ade-quately explore the historical and sociologicalroots of these generalizations about differentgroups, or how to change one’s own perceptions,participants were left needing much more debrief-ing and, in many cases, healing. So controversialwas this exercise that many companies stoppedusing it. As an example of how this exercise back-fired, in 1988, managers at Lucky Stores, a Dublin,California-based grocery chain, attended diversitytraining workshops, during which they identifiedcommon stereotypes for women and minorities.Notes taken by a company official during the train-ing program included such comments as “Blackfemales are aggressive” and “women cry more.”An employee found these notes, read the stereo-types, and speculated that the characteristicslisted were the reasons the company wasn’t pro-moting more women and minorities. Employeessued the company for intentional discrimination.The judge allowed the employees to submit thenotes from the workshops as evidence. Althoughthe judge’s ruling wasn’t based exclusively on thetraining notes, the notes did contribute to theguilty verdict (Caudron, 1993).

As a less controversial but very effective ap-proach, some organizations employed (and con-

tinue to employ) theater-based learning, usingprofessional actors to demonstrate workplace en-vironments. It allows participants to vicariouslyexperience the issues, especially the subtle ones,which workers face in multicultural environments.As participants role-play with the actors, they areable to practice skills such as communication,providing feedback, reflective listening, problemsolving, and an array of environmentally saferole-plays. These experiential exercises were anattempt to help participants learn about them-selves and to simulate the experiences of others.The often unstated desire was for the type of per-sonal transformation that Hargrove described as“triple-loop learning.”

With little internal expertise during this era,many Fortune-500 companies hired diversity firmsto train all employees. While a number of diver-sity training programs were well designed, facedwith cost constraints associated with payrolls of100,000� employees, the content was sometimessqueezed into short timeframes or facilitated byinternal trainers who lacked subject matter exper-tise. This led to the failure of participants to reallygrasp the complex and controversial concepts be-ing presented because there was little time fordiscussion or reflection. Some of the unintendedconsequences were that many left confused, angry,or with more animosity toward differences. Withno formal follow-up, employees were left on theirown to interpret and internalize what they hadlearned. Many interpreted the key learning pointas having to walk on egg shells around womenand minorities—choosing words carefully so asnot to offend. Some surmised that it meant Whitemen were villains, still others assumed that theywould lose their jobs to minorities and women,while others concluded that women and minoritieswere simply too sensitive.

Women and people of color did not necessarilyleave with positive feelings about the training ei-ther. As the minority, some felt pressured to speakfor their entire identity group. Feeling misunder-stood, they sometimes left thinking that their co-workers were more biased and prejudiced thanthey had believed them to be prior to the training.When the training event was over, employees wentback to their work environments with incompleteknowledge and little understanding about whatwould be different.

On the positive side, during this era, most cor-porations that were involved with diversity train-ing wanted to do the right thing. They recognizedthat they were losing top talent, not fully engagingthose who chose to stay, and that they had much tolearn about how human differences could have a


profound impact not only in the day-to-day workenvironment, but also in business outcomes. By theend of the 1990s practitioners were more likely tounderstand that diversity could not be relegated toa program, but rather that it had to be viewed as anongoing business process, like quality, and be-come integrated into the core strategy of the orga-nization, and thus, positioning diversity educationas a business driver gained solid footing by 1999.

Phase 5. New Millennium Paradigmsfor Diversity Learning

Diversity and Inclusion for Business Success

As outlined above, the motivation for the earliestdiversity initiatives of the 1970s was compliance. Themajor impetus for the diversity initiatives thatgeared up in the late 1980s and through much of the1990s was to foster sensitivity and respect for differ-ence, primarily to enhance working relationships.While some organizations continue to view diversitytraining as tangential to core business issues, manyof the programs now considered as best practice bythe industry are fueled by the desire to achieve busi-ness success, profitability, and growth. Changingemployee and customer demographics, increasinglymore global business endeavors, and shortages oftechnically trained workers leading to fierce compe-tition for talent compel America’s largest companiesto go beyond awareness of difference to developinginclusive organizations and diversity competentleaders. For example, Chevron has been conductingformal diversity training since the late 1980s and ithas evolved from being affirmative action-basedtraining to becoming a part of the business valuechain to leverage higher performance (C. A. Young,General Manager, Chevron Services Company, July2, 2007, personal communication).

The term “inclusion” (creating organizational en-vironments that work for everyone), gained popu-larity in the late 1990s as a necessary extension tothe concept of diversity (the types of differences inthe workplace). To achieve inclusion, many practi-tioners advocate for both leaders and individualcontributors to become culturally competent. Likeother workplace competencies (e.g., leadership),diversity is increasingly being recognized as aneeded business skill. While there are a number ofdefinitions of cultural competence, Hewitt Associ-ates offers the following: “A continuous learningprocess to develop knowledge, appreciation, ac-ceptance and skills to be able to discern culturalpatterns in your own and other cultures and beable to effectively incorporate several differentworld views into problem solving, decision making

and conflict resolution” (from Hewitt proprietarydiversity training materials).1

Closer to the learning and effectiveness paradigmof Thomas and Ely (1996), the 21st century variety ofdiversity training is focused on building skills andcompetencies that enable learners not only to valuedifferences but also to be able to utilize them inmaking better business decisions. There is consis-tent agreement among practitioners that ongoinglearning is necessary to become diversity competent.Therefore, the type of training curricula that are be-ing developed today by many companies with com-prehensive diversity strategies are fundamentallymore robust than the initiatives of the previous eras.They include more course offerings (e.g., separateclasses on gender, sexual orientation, managingmultiple generations, intercultural communication)and various types of learning modalities (e.g.,e-learning, learning labs, learning communities, in-tact work group sessions).

Positioning diversity as a competency has cre-ated another major paradigm shift; the assumptionis no longer that only certain groups need training(e.g., White men or minorities), but rather that allemployees need to be more cross-culturally com-petent in an increasingly global world. It is just asimportant for an African American male to learnmore about his Chinese coworker or vice versa.

Positioning diversity as a competencyhas created another major paradigmshift; the assumption is no longer thatonly certain groups need training (e.g.,White men or minorities), but rather thatall employees need to be more cross-culturally competent in an increasinglyglobal world.

The authors believe that some key premises un-derlying the new paradigms for diversity learningreflect double- and triple-loop learning and in-clude the ideas that:

• Diversity learning should be integrated, ongo-ing, relevant, applicable, and based on solidneeds assessment.

• Diversity is a competency and as such thelearning should be based on building blocksthat start with elementary concepts and moveon to increasingly more difficult material.

1 From Hewitt Associates LLC propriety materials. © HewittAssociates 2008. Reprinted with permission.


• Diversity learning should not just happen inthe classroom but rather should be integratedinto other business processes and activities.

• Diversity learning is no longer just a U.S. phe-nomenon. Many companies are expandingtheir efforts to include global learning.

For example, a resource tool used by some com-panies called Global Diversity and InclusionBenchmarks (see Table 2), helps them to assessand measure how effective their activities are inproviding comprehensive education to foster inclu-sion (O’Mara & Richter, 2006). The criteria for as-sessing diversity training range from 0% to 100%,the latter representing the best practice.

CASE STUDIES

Sodexo, Inc., and Hewitt Associates were selectedto serve as case studies because they provide ex-amples of major global organizations in differentbusinesses that have embraced very different, yetequally effective, diversity learning strategies.This section briefly chronicles the history of diver-

sity training at the respective companies and howthey leverage the training as a critical componentof systemic culture change to contribute to busi-ness success.

Diversity Learning at Sodexo

Sodexo is the leading food- and facilities-manage-ment services company and one of the largest em-ployers in the United States, with more than 110,000employees and 16,000 managers. Worldwide, So-dexo Alliance employs 324,000 in 76 countries at26,700 sites with total revenues of $14.8 billion, ofwhich $6.3 billion are generated in North America.Sodexo offers innovative outsourcing solutionsin food service, housekeeping, grounds keeping,plant operations and maintenance, asset manage-ment, and laundry services to 6,000 corporations,health care, long-term care and retirement centers,schools, college campuses, government and re-mote sites.

For Sodexo, diversity and inclusion are core el-

TABLE 2Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks Proposed by Julie O’Mara and Alan Richter

0% There is no formal diversity education.Discussions on diversity are not encouraged.

25%Training and resources on diversity are brief and focused on educating employees on policies and meeting legal

requirements.Persons designing and delivering training do not have specific expertise in diversity.A small diversity resource library and some tools are available to managers.

50%Both diversity and intercultural training are provided, but they are treated separately and as stand-alone

courses rather than being integrated with other courses.Programs address difficult and sometimes uncomfortable issues of stereotypes, bias, and “isms,” and include

skill development.Diversity experts or training professionals design and/or conduct the training; line managers and employees are

trained to help conduct or cofacilitate some sessions.Instructor guides or toolkits are provided to supervisors and managers with the expectation that they conduct

training as part of team meetings.The organization’s diversity website, resource library of books, articles, videos/DVDs, e-learning, and other tools

are used to educate employees and managers.

75%

The organization provides diversity training that focuses on knowledge about diversity, specific diversitydimensions, caring and compassion for others to employees at all levels and takes action to achieve thediversity vision; this training has been designed using proven instructional techniques.

Employees in organizational functions critical to diversity management, such as human resources and customerservice, receive additional diversity training.

Diversity is included in other organizational training, such as supervisory training; diverse examples andtechniques are used in training on any topic.

Senior managers visibly endorse and voluntarily attend diversity training.Diversity professionals, managers, and employees help design, conduct, and reinforce the learning from training.

100%

The organization’s diversity learning strategy addresses a broad spectrum of diversity dimensions and issues tomeet the organization’s mission, vision, goals, and performance management system. It includes a learningreinforcement strategy.

Diversity training, including intercultural training, is integrated into the organization’s general educationalcurriculum.

Employees at all levels attend ongoing diversity training, including training for specific roles andresponsibilities (e.g., customer service).

Diversity education resources, including an extensive up-to-date library, are varied and fully supported by theorganization.


ements of their business strategy. They are high-lighted as one of its six strategic imperatives. Rec-ognizing that training by itself cannot change theculture of an organization, Sodexo has taken asystemic approach to ensuring that diversity andinclusion are embedded in its culture in all 6,000geographic locations. Addressing diversity andinclusion systemically involves a top down andbottom up strategy, which includes senior levelcommitment, robust metrics and accountabilitythrough an incentive compensation link, grassroots engagement through their employee affinitygroups, and incorporating diversity and inclusionin all business and HR practices and policies.

Sodexo has explicitly linked diversity competen-cies to profitable business growth. It has setgrowth targets both domestically and internation-ally and determined that diversity learning is abusiness imperative needed to grow in the market-place.

Sodexo proprietary materials2 state that the phil-osophical beliefs underlying diversity learning asa business imperative include:

• Transforming Sodexo into a learning organiza-tion that engages employees at all levels incontinuous understanding and application ofdiversity-related knowledge, awareness, andskills;

• Clarifying what is expected of managers re-garding diversity and inclusion;

• Measuring and establishing accountability forlearning and application; and

• Building diversity competency internally at alllevels.

Anand (2005) reports that the diversity competen-cies at Sodexo include:

• Understanding and internalizing the businesscase for diversity and inclusion;

• Being aware of the diversity “angles” of everybusiness challenge;

• Creating and maintaining a diverse and inclu-sive environment by developing managementpractices that drive hiring and promotion andfoster the retention of talent;

• Building self-awareness and awareness of oth-ers’ diversity dimensions and knowing how toleverage diversity as a competitive advantage;

• Managing an increasingly diverse workforceby developing and leveraging the talents of allemployees and channeling their efforts towardachieving Sodexo’s business goals and objec-tives;

• Engaging in culturally competent relationshipmanagement and customer service to secureand retain diverse clients and customers; and

• Partnering effectively with women and minor-ity businesses to deliver culturally competentfood and facility management services.

Conducting comprehensive diversity trainingsince 2003, Sodexo integrates diversity learninginto every aspect of its business. While still veryimportant, it separates EEO and compliance train-ing from diversity education. Approximately 15,000employees have taken affirmative action and EEOtraining, and every 3 years they are required totake a refresher course. Front-line employees takea shorter version of the training.

Not surprisingly, diversity learning at Sodexostarted with gaining buy-in from its senior leader-ship (see Figure 1). Sodexo’s executive team en-gaged in learning about the business case for di-versity and inclusion and being accountable for itsdiversity and inclusion change agenda. The seniorexecutives’ learning program is ongoing, withquarterly classroom experiences that are rein-forced with supplemental learning through com-munity engagement, sponsoring an affinity groupas well as dialogues with the affinity groups, andmentoring diverse employees (Anand, 2005).

Paralleling the executive team’s diversity learn-ing strategy, all managers engage in continuouslearning based on building blocks that providevarious depths of instruction. Over the past severalyears, the available training has progressed fromawareness to skill building, which continues to-day. Every manager takes a class called Spirit ofDiversity (8 hours) as an introduction to Sodexo’sdiversity and inclusion commitment. Next, there isa portfolio of educational opportunities based onbuilding blocks, including learning labs that aredesigned to continue to raise awareness and buildskills around particular diversity dimensions.Each lab is 3 to 4 hours in duration and topicsinclude cross-cultural communication, sexual ori-entation in the workplace, generations in the work-place, micro-inequities, and gender in the work-place. These are facilitated by a cadre of internaltrainers, who undergo a train-the-trainer experi-ence that includes self-awareness as well as skillsto facilitate the content. Finally, diversity contentis incorporated into all offerings through SodexoUniversity.

Also integral to Sodexo’s strategy is the devel-opment of customized learning solutions for differ-ent functions. For example, a cross-cultural com-munication learning program was developed forrecruiters, and “Selling to a Diverse Client Base” isoffered to the sales force. Additionally, the diver-sity learning and development team responds torequests from internal clients to develop learningsolutions for intact work teams to address their

2 From Sodexo proprietary materials. © Sodexo, Inc., 2008. Re-printed with permission.


specific needs in creating an inclusive culture,such as managing conflict across diversity. Train-ing has been offered to leaders to support theirissues and concerns and to leverage them as “fulldiversity partners” based on concepts developedby Bill Proudman. In 1996, Proudman “pioneered awhite male only diversity workshop in response toseeing white male leaders and executives contin-ually leave diversity change efforts solely towomen and people of color” (Diversity Central,2008). His firm, White Men as Full Diversity Part-ners, assists companies and organizations withcreating new paradigms of diversity partnershipsthat include White men.

Outside the traditional classroom venue, Sodexoconducts diversity education at every senior lead-ership team meeting. Sodexo believes that its di-versity training is making a positive difference.For example, its mentoring program, a componentof the diversity initiative, has led to improved pro-ductivity, engagement, and retention of womenand people of color. In a recent study conducted toassess the effectiveness of the program, there wasan approximate return on investment (ROI) of $19for every dollar spent. In addition to the internal

gains, Sodexo’s leadership in diversity and inclu-sion has generated new business opportunitiesand contributed to retention of clients. Several newbusiness contracts were awarded to Sodexo, inpart, because of their leadership in diversity andinclusion.

Hewitt Associates Measures CulturalCompetency Among Leaders

Hewitt Associates is a $3 billion (annual revenues)consulting and human resources outsourcing firmwith over 25,000 employees. Unlike many compa-nies that start their diversity initiatives with amassive training effort only to learn afterward thatthe organizational culture was not ready to ad-dress such complex issues, Hewitt took 2 years tolay a strong foundation of understanding, gainbuy-in, and align its senior leaders around thebusiness case for diversity at Hewitt.

After the 2 years of readying the organization,its first foray into training placed senior leadersin sessions with rank-and-file employees usingtheater-based education, where they learned howdifferent the Hewitt experience could be for asso-

FIGURE 1Sodexo’s Programmatic Development of Diversity Training Opportunities. From Sodexo Proprietary

Materials. © 2008 by Sodexo. Reproduced with permission.


ciates from different backgrounds. After this expe-rience, the CEO made a commitment to create aninclusive culture. He agreed that his senior leadersneeded to be more culturally competent and de-cided they would initially undergo a self-assess-ment using a tool called the Intercultural Develop-ment Inventory (IDI). The IDI was developed byMitch Hammer and Milton Bennett and measuresrespondent’s intercultural sensitivity along a con-tinuum from ethnocentric to ethnorelative (Bennett& Hammer, 1998). It is summarized in Figure 2.

Similar to most people who complete the IDI, themajority of Hewitt leaders fell into the “minimiza-tion” category, a worldview that “people are basi-cally alike and any differences we might have areinconsequential” (Bennett & Hammer, 1998). Withthe goal of moving leaders from “minimization” to“acceptance,” which involves the ability to discerncultural patterns in one’s own and other cultures,the learning for leaders was devised into a year-long experience called Cross-Cultural LearningPartners, which paired a senior leader in the com-pany with an associate (usually lower ranking)different from him- or herself in some way (20pairs). The partners received a lesson monthly and

spent 2 hours per month completing an assignmentthat included reading, watching movies, reflectingwith their partner, and assessing applicability toworkplace situations. Each lesson provided an in-depth coverage of some aspect of diversity andinclusion. It was an effective experiential ap-proach that helped the leaders understand howdifferent worldviews can be. At the end of the year-long experience, the IDI was readministered, andas a group, the leaders moved from minimizationto acceptance, which provided Hewitt with quanti-tative evidence that the learning was effective (He-witt proprietary data).3

CURRENT ISSUES

Diversity training still faces a number of issues asit evolves as an important component of manycompanies’ overall human resource and businessstrategies. Key issues include the absence of effec-tive measurement tools, gaining clarity on desired


FIGURE 2Overview of the Stages of Intercultural Sensitivity Identified by the Developmental Model of

Intercultural Sensitivity. From “The Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity,” by M. Bennettand M. Hammer, 1998. Retrieved from http://www.intercultural.org/pdf/dmis.pdf. © 1998 by M. Bennett

and M. Hammer. Adapted with permission.


outcomes, and assessing the suitability and effec-tiveness of technology-driven methods.

Measuring the Effectiveness of Diversity Training

A number of studies from academicians havequestioned the value of diversity training. For ex-ample, Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly (2006) found thatdiversity training actually led to a decrease inrepresentation of African American women inmanagerial ranks. These researchers analyzedcorporate data from 708 companies dating back tothe 1970s and measured progress based on racialcomposition of the managers group. The negativeeffect of diversity training was obtained after theresearchers controlled many other factors, such asexistence of a diversity staff, an affirmative actionplan, and a formal mentoring program. These re-sults are limited in at least two ways. First, mosttraining in the 1970s was strictly compliance basedand was very different from today’s variety thatlinks learning to business outcomes. It is possiblethat current approaches have a positive effect thatwas not apparent because it was overwhelmed bythe negative effects of previous approaches. Sec-ond, the criterion was limited to representation ofminorities in managerial ranks. Although this isvery important, other outcomes such as retentionand employee engagement are also important andwere not included.

Research reported by practitioner-oriented groupsand by companies tends to be more positive. Forexample, DiversityInc compared the results from 12companies that it deemed to have the best diver-sity training programs (e.g., met criteria such asbeing mandatory, held frequently for at least oneday, tied to business strategy, and having CEOcommitment) with companies that did not measureup and found a correlation between the exemplarycompanies and retention of people of color (but notretention of women; Frankel, 2007).

Although it is difficult for companies to ascertaindirect effects of training, they are increasing thesophistication of their research techniques. A siz-able number of companies now include questionson their employee engagement surveys and trackchanges over time. Citigroup for example, has con-ducted diversity training (separate from compli-ance training) since the mid-nineties, and startingin 2003, it included a diversity index on its em-ployee opinion survey (A. Durante McCarthy, direc-tor of Global Workforce Diversity & College Rela-tions, Citigroup, Inc., personal communication,July 16, 2007). The index measures the extent towhich employees feel included as well as theirperceptions about the level of senior management

commitment to diversity. The responses to the di-versity questions on the survey have improvedmore than other topics on the survey, which Citi-group attributes, in part, to their ongoing trainingcommitment.

Likewise, Deloitte reported that it also uses theemployee engagement survey as one means ofmeasuring the effectiveness of their diversity andinclusion training. There are 13 questions repre-senting support for diversity, and these consis-tently rate as one of the highest ranking indices onthe survey (R. Anderson, former chief diversity of-ficer, Deloitte, personal communication, July 17,2007).

IBM uses the employee engagement surveymethod as a measure of training effectiveness aswell. In addition, it measures changes in behaviorattributed to training interventions. As an example, atraining session was developed to change mind-setsof men who thought it risky to put women in leader-ship positions. It significantly increased the numberof women going into executive roles (R. Glover, VPGlobal Workforce Diversity, IBM Corporation, per-sonal communication July 10, 2007).

Even though there is a prevailing belief amongmany practitioners that diversity training is valu-able, the reality is that many questions remainabout its effectiveness, and there is a dearth ofaccurate tools that make explicit connections tochanges in behaviors and attitudes. But there areopportunities for practitioners and academiciansto come together to develop such tools.

Gaining Clarity on the Desired Outcomes ofDiversity Training

To assess its effectiveness, there must be a clearunderstanding of what diversity training is in-tended to achieve. The Kalev et al. (2006) researchmentioned above found a negative effect of diver-sity training on representation of African Americanwomen in managerial positions, but is increasedrepresentation an explicit goal of diversity train-ing? Perhaps implicitly, diversity training influ-ences the hiring and promotion decisions thatmanagers make as a result of heightened aware-ness and changed attitudes. However, objectivesare typically stated in more concrete and immedi-ate terms. Michael Wheeler reported, “too often theoverall objectives of the program are not clearlyarticulated,” leading to the failure of a number ofdiversity training programs (Wheeler, 1994). Thereare often both micro- and macro-level objectives,the former being focused on imparting knowledgeor changing behavior, and the later encompassingissues such as culture change, greater retention,


and improved productivity. The stated objectivesfor Hewitt’s “Power of World View Training” (He-witt proprietary data) are:

• To better understand ourselves and how ourown worldview shapes our beliefs and behav-iors;

• To better understand the worldviews of others;and

• To begin to understand how to work effectivelyacross cultures to enhance the work we do.4

The full-day “Spirit of Diversity” course at Sodexostrives to: (1) heighten awareness; (2) build skills;and (3) clarify the expectations and responsibili-ties of managers to create and maintain a diverseand inclusive workplace (Anand, 2005).

But how do the stated objectives of diversitytraining connect with the desired longer term out-comes? As discussed earlier, the unstated goalsoften include changes in mind-sets, which implyaltered beliefs and values. Some are optimisticenough to think that diversity training will lead toepiphanies (“triple loop”) and when they don’t hap-pen wonder why employees don’t “get it.” Is itrealistic to achieve these higher levels of transfor-mation from diversity training or is diversity train-ing just one input among a number of experiencesthat are required to change one’s way of thinkingand being? Should diversity training attempt toaddress this level of change?

Much more discussion is warranted to clarifywhat practitioners really expect diversity trainingto accomplish. With greater clarity, it will be easierto establish the appropriate measures.

Technology-Driven Methods

Many more companies are turning to e-learningsolutions for diversity training. IBM has developeda number of offerings, including topics rangingfrom generations in the workplace to people withdisabilities. As one measure of effectiveness, theytrack the number of people who have accessed thewebsites. They have also built in follow up to de-termine how much of the material is being re-tained (Glover, personal communication, 2007).

Webinars have gained popularity, as they allowreal-time interaction among participants in a dis-tance-learning mode. It is cost effective to trainpeople from around the globe using this method-ology.

Critics of e-learning solutions point to the factthat the format doesn’t allow for conducting group

experiential exercises, and some companies aretherefore combining e-learning with classroomtraining. For example, Hewitt developed a 1-houre-learning program as a prerequisite to its in-classcourse. The e-learning class focuses on the busi-ness case for Hewitt with facts and statistics andcase studies relevant to the business.

Sodexo recently developed some specializedtraining for their affinity groups and has incorpo-rated both classroom and e-learning methods.

And, as the technology of Web 2.0 becomes moresophisticated, the ability to conduct experientialtraining “on-line” becomes more feasible. The Fu-tureWork Institute is using SecondLife technologyto simulate diversity experiences. SecondLife is animmersive, 3-dimensional social interaction envi-ronment, which allows “residents” to own space inthe virtual world, develop Avatars (one’s personain the virtual world), and experience differentworlds and cultures (M. Regan, president, FutureWork Institute, personal communication July 17,2007).

The issue of evaluating the effectiveness of thetraining is just as much a challenge for e-learningsolutions as it is for non-electronic training. An-other challenge for e-learning solutions is present-ing complex, sometimes controversial materialin a format that typically limits interaction anddiscussion.

THE FUTURE OF DIVERSITY EDUCATION:INTEGRATION, GOING BROADER AND DEEPER

Integration

Integrating diversity and inclusion principles intothe core fabric of the business strategy is a keydistinction from previous diversity efforts. Eventhough Roosevelt Thomas made the business con-nection as early as 1990, it took most of the decadefor companies to really understand what it meantto attempt to integrate diversity into the businessstrategy and then to actually execute it. Manymore companies, even today, avow diversity as acore business strategy, but in reality have not yetfully implemented a process for actualizing thisgoal.

There are increasing visual markers that indi-cate more companies are moving in the direction ofelevating diversity as a core business strategy,which include the proliferation of the chief diver-sity officer positions and the increase in the num-ber who report to the C-Suite. According to the NewYork Times Survey referenced above, 42% of chiefdiversity officers report to the C-Suite, and 67%said that one of their major responsibilities is link-



ing diversity strategy with the company’s overallbusiness strategy (The New York Times, 2007). Moreand more companies are integrating diversity con-tent into other courses, such as leadership devel-opment, sales training, and conflict resolution.

As mentioned above, diversity and inclusion arecompletely integrated into both Sodexo’s and He-witt’s overall business strategies, as shown in Fig-ures 3 and 4. Both companies link their strategy tothe corporate vision; for Hewitt, “Making the worlda better place to work” and for Sodexo, “Improvingthe quality of daily life.” Both connect diversityand inclusion to their stakeholders.

Going Broader

Corporations are beginning to explore global di-versity issues. Based on interviews with represen-tatives from Chevron, IBM, Sodexo, Citigroup,Campbell Soup, and Merck, they are starting toconduct training globally (Personal communica-tion with C. A. Young, Chevron; R. Glover, IBM,G. Houston, Campbell Soup Company, D. Dagit,Merck & Company, July 2007). Some companiessuch as Hewitt have already incorporated domes-tic diversity content with global issues in theirtraining, adapting the content from country tocountry. Each firm tailors the training to meet theneeds of the specific geographic region. For exam-ple, Merck has gender-based training in Japan anda program focusing on people with disabilities inSpain. Chevron’s office of diversity works with op-

erating units worldwide to show them how diver-sity is aligned with the overall business strategy.Campbell Soup uses a tool to assess global lead-ership styles based on cultural differences (e.g.,How Australian leadership styles might differ fromU.S. ones).

The term “diversity” is not well accepted or un-derstood outside the United States and often meetsresistance, as it is deemed a U.S. export. Given thatU.S. companies were the first to appoint chief di-versity officers (CDO), most CDOs recognize thereis a risk of putting a U.S. lens on global issues andnot fully understanding the complexity or the vast-ness of these multifaceted concerns. For example,concepts such as castes, tribes, and other culturaland socioeconomic systems that also include edu-cation, religion, language, and ability, increaseexponentially in complexity in a global context.Currently many people charged with developingdiversity training reside in the United States andmay lack a depth of global acumen. In the nearfuture, we will likely see an increasing trend ofmore individuals with strong global expertise as-signed to diversity and inclusion responsibilitiesand many more CEO counterparts outside theUnited States.

Going Deeper

Initial diversity training typically packed manytopics into one course, yet was only able to address

FIGURE 3Hewitt’s Integrated Diversity Strategy: The Stakeholder Value Chain. From Hewitt Proprietary Materials.

Hewitt 2008. Reprinted with permission.


each topic in a cursory way. In an effort to buildskills and competencies, more companies are nowseparating the topics into individual courses toallow more in-depth learning and practice. As inSodexo, topics such as gender, people with disabil-ities, sexual orientation, race, “White men as fulldiversity partners,” selling to a multicultural envi-ronment, work–life issues, and generational differ-ences, may be part of a suite of courses. Some firmsalso use a matriculation model, requiring prereq-uisites before moving on to more difficult material.Companies that are leaders in diversity and inclu-sion are also developing different learning strate-gies for the various levels in their organization,such as executives, midmanagement, and func-tional groups. Furthermore, some organizations,like Sodexo and Chevron, customize topics for in-

tact work teams, recognizing that the one-size-fits-all approach cannot yield the desired outcomes.

Whereas early diversity training did not explic-itly seek changes in behaviors but rather was de-signed to raise awareness, today it is very clearthat the expected outcome is demonstrated behav-ioral competencies in diversity and inclusion.

To effectively go deeper, many companies real-ize that they have to dedicate resources to diversitylearning. To insure content expertise many “best inclass” companies now have diversity learning as apart of the diversity and inclusion function or astrong dotted line from the training organization tothe diversity office. These functions also provideinternal content consulting to ensure that diversityand inclusion are integrated, wherever possible,into all training offerings.

FIGURE 4Sodexo’s Integrated Diversity Strategy. From Sodexo Proprietary Materials. © 2008 by Sodexo.

Reproduced with permission.


SUMMARY

Diversity and inclusion training has survived arange of critiques that have developed over timeand at each phase of this nascent field as thedifferent philosophies and approaches emerged.Some early training was ill-conceived, as compa-nies hurriedly tried to put something together inresponse to court orders or public pressures, andthe adage that bad news travels faster than goodis apropos.

However what does seem to be clear from thisretrospective is that the companies willing to ex-perience trials and errors in the name of continu-ous improvement have emerged today on solidfooting, with effective curricula that make a dis-tinct link to business outcomes. Although conclu-sive data on the effectiveness of modern day diver-sity training is still lacking and very much needed,many major corporations believe that such train-ing is an essential component to the success oftheir human resource strategies as well as to theiroverall business outcomes.

REFERENCES

Anand, R. 2005. Sodexho’s building blocks for success. Profilesin Diversity Journal, 7(1): 27–34.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. 1974. Theory in practice: Increasingprofessional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bandura, A. 1994. Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.),Encyclopedia of human behavior, Vol. 4: 71–81. New York:Academic Press.

Bennett, M., & Hammer, M. 1998. The Developmental Model ofIntercultural Sensitivity. Retrieved from http://www.intercultural.org/pdf/dmis.pdf.

Bennett-Alexander, D. D. 1990. The state of affirmative action inemployment: A post-Stotts retrospective. American Busi-ness Law Journal, 27: 565–597.

Caudron, S. 1993. Employees use diversity-training exerciseagainst Lucky Stores in intentional-discrimination suit. Per-sonnel Journal, 72(4): 52.

Diversity Central. 2008. Consultant profile: White men as full di-versity partners. Downloaded from http://www.diversitycentral.com/jobs_contracts/consultant_profiles/wmfdp.html on June25, 2008.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2008. Down-loaded from http://www.eeoc.gov/abouteeoc/35th/1970s/focusing.html on June 25, 2008.

Fernandez, J. P. 1981. Racism and sexism in corporate life. Lex-ington, MA: Lexington Books.

Frankel, B. 2007. Diversity training: Why you need it, how to doit right. DiversityInc, Vol. 6: 45–46.

Friedman, J. J., & DiTomaso, N. 1996. Myths about diversity:What managers need to know about changes in the U.S.labor force. California Management Review, 38(4): 54–77.

Hansen, F. 2003. Diversity’s business case: Doesn’t add up.Workforce, 82(4): 28–32.

Hargrove, R. 1995. Masterful coaching: Extraordinary results byimpacting people and the way they think and work to-gether. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeffer.

IBM. 2007. Corporate Responsibility Report. Downloaded athttp://www.ibm.com/ibm/responsibility/2007_report.shtml.

Ivancevich, J. M., & Gilbert, J. A. 2000. Diversity management:Time for a new approach. Public Personnel Management,29(1): 75–92.

Jamison, K. 1978. Affirmative Action program: Springboard for atotal organizational change effort. OD Practitioner, 10(4):1–6.

Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. E. 1987. Workforce 2000: Work andworkers for the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Insti-tute.

Judy, R. W., & D’Amico, C. 1997. Workforce 2020: Work and work-ers in the 21st century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.

Kalev, A., & Dobbin, F. 2006. Enforcement of civil rights law inprivate workplaces: The effects of compliance reviews andlawsuits over time. Law & Social Inquiry, 31(4): 855–903.

Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. 2006. Best practices or bestguesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmativeaction and diversity policies. American Sociological Re-view, 71(4): 589–617.

Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. 1991. Workforce America! Managingemployee diversity as a vital resource. Homewood, IL: Busi-ness One Irwin.

Olson, L. 1993. Howard’s third movement. Education Week,13(14): 18–21, 23.

O’Mara, J., & Richter, A. 2006. Global diversity and inclusion bench-marks. New York: QUD Consulting. Downloaded at http://www.qedconsulting.com/files/GDIBenchmarksOct06.pdf.

Society for Human Resource Management. 2008. 2007 state ofworkplace diversity management. Alexandria, VA: Societyfor Human Resource Management.

The New York Times. 2007. Looking around the corner: The viewfrom the front line. New York: The New York Times Com-pany.

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. 1996. Making differences matter: Anew paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard BusinessReview, 74(5): 79–90.

Thomas, R. R., Jr. 1990. From affirmative action to affirmingdiversity. Harvard Business Review, 90(2): 107–117.

Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Stainback, K., Taylor, T., Zimmer, C.,Robinson, C., & McTague, T. 2006. Documenting desegrega-tion: Segregation in American workplaces by race, ethnic-ity, and sex, 1966–2003. American Sociological Review,71(4): 565–588.

Wheeler, M. L. 1994. Diversity training: A research report (ReportNo. 1083-94R). New York: Conference Board.


Dr. Rohini Anand is senior vicepresident and global chief diver-sity officer for Sodexo, a leadingprovider of food and facilitiesmanagement services. Dr. Anandleads Sodexo’s integrated globaldiversity initiatives, includingsustainable development andcorporate citizenship. Widelyconsidered a leading expert onorganizational change and diver-sity and inclusion, Dr. Anand re-ceived her PhD from the Univer-sity of Michigan. Her worksinclude texts on cultural compe-tency and diversity training such

as Customizing Diversity Training Using Case Vignettes (2001),Multicultural Case Studies: Tools for Training (1999), TeachingSkills and Cultural Competence: A Guide for Trainers (1997) andCultural Competency in Health Care: A Guide for Trainers(1997).

Mary-Frances Winters is presi-dent and founder of The WintersGroup, a 24-year-old organiza-tion development and diversity-consulting firm, specializing inresearch, strategic planning,training, and public speakingwith an emphasis in ethnic andmulticultural issues. Prior tofounding The Winters Group in1984, she was affirmative actionofficer and senior market analystat Eastman Kodak Company.Winters is a graduate of the Uni-versity of Rochester and holdsundergraduate degrees in En-

glish and psychology, and a master’s degree in business ad-ministration from the William E. Simon School of Business. Shereceived an honorary doctorate from Roberts Wesleyan Collegein 1997.


academy of management learning & education a retrospective ... · a retrospective view of...

Documents