Does Diversity equal; equality in pay, standards, promotion and hiring
The issue of workplace diversity has become a dominant subject of debate in recent years. In this debate, focus is on the similarities and differences that various people bring into the organization. It encompasses the dimensions beyond those highlighted through legal mechanisms and non-discrimination statues. It also goes beyond issues of equal opportunity laws and measures relating to affirmative action. In other words, diversity is assumed to include all dimensions influencing the perspectives and identities that people bring to the organization. Some of these dimensions include, education, profession, geographic location, gender, social class, sexuality, age, parental status, and disability.
In the ongoing debate, many researchers and practitioners are interested in determining whether diversity influences equal pay, standards, promotion, and hiring practices. In the meantime, these researchers agree that one of the greatest benefits of diversity in the workplace is that it creates opportunities for everyone. In organizations that embrace diversity, there is always a part for everyone to play to contribute to organizational success.
To contribute to this debate, it is imperative for focus to be on aspects of equal pay in terms of how it is influenced by diversity. In the US, the rise in the number of women in the workplace in recent years has brought to the fore the subject of equal pay. Debate has emerged on whether men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. Traditionally, women in the US have been receiving less pay than men for equal work done.[i] This has triggered a clamor for changes in the workplace to prevent gender discrimination and to promote gender equality in areas of recruitment, training, remuneration, and promotions.
Against this backdrop, the US government enacted the Equal Pay Act, which categorically stated that all employers should provide equal pay for male and female employees for the same work done. This paper explores whether diversity as a whole in the workplace influences equal pay, standards, promotion, and hiring practices. The thesis of this paper is that diversity has a massive positive influence on equal pay, standards, promotion, and hiring practices in the US. Diversity is assumed to have a positive influence on the principles adhered to during hiring, appraisal, and promotion procedures. This is simply because every individual is given a fair chance to contribute to the company’s success without reference to physical characteristics that have no impact on his ability to carry out his or her workplace duties.
In the US today, diversity in the workplace tends to influence the adoption of equal pay by employers. The decades-old struggle among human rights groups, feminists, and labor activists to ensure that there is diversity in the workplace is beginning to bear fruits. Today, the American workplace is much more diverse than it was at the beginning of the twentieth century. Many positive changes have occurred either as part of this diversity or because of it. For instance, the values of equality in the workplace have been promoted. Today, most companies pay equal salaries and wages to women for equal work done. This is contrary to what was happening in the early twentieth century, when women used to earn less than men holding similar jobs.
A trend emerged in which many equal pay laws were being enacted. The only major exception was during the 1940s and 1950s when only a few such laws were enacted. This upward trend is largely a reflection of a change of attitude towards equal treatment principles among the public. During the days of the civil rights movement, many milestones were reached in efforts to ensure that equality was promoted. The leaders of this movement were keen to ensure that discrimination ended not just in the public spheres but also within the workplace. The resulting upsurge in organized protests coincided with an increase in congressional action of legislating against various forms of discrimination both in society and at the workplace.
Over the past three decades, globalization has triggered a new wave of rising competition that the world has never witnessed before. This has increased pressure on domestic markets both in the US and in other countries. Many US firms have been compelled to undertake innovative measures within their work systems in order to survive. This turn of events has been necessitated by the move by some countries to adopt new management practices that enabled them to compete successfully against established US firms. In turn, this has forced corporate entities from the US to abandon the structures of organizational production that they had adopted soon after the World War II.
One of alternative approaches included the use of continuous improvement method such as the one adopted by Japanese firms.[ii] Another approach, which is of utmost relevance to this discussion, is the tendency by US firms to increase their capacity for diversity. Many organizations operating in both the public and private sectors started embracing diversity.
The dramatic challenges arising from the inefficiencies in the organization of production in the US workplace came at a time when the US government was starting to feel the heat of fiscal crises as well as the federal debt. These challenges created the need for the policymakers to “reinvent government” (Peppas 124). The government had to recognize that it was necessary to introduce workplace innovation through diversity. This approach would not only enable the government achieve the goal of equality, it would also provide an alternative to the process of privatization.
The willingness by the government to embrace diversity has reinvigorated the interest of employees as far as participation in the innovation process is concerned. Many employees have expressed willingness to improve the level of their performance as long as their employers are committed to diversity and equality especially in terms of salaries and wages. It is on this basis that the government and trade unions in the US have been supporting equality in pay for men and women.
Equal remuneration legislation in the US should be viewed against this historical backdrop. Incidentally, the enactment of legislation on equal pay for equal work for women and men has been a common trend not just in the US but also across the world. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the first major legislation that President Barack Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Wage Bill. The aim of this bill was to close a crucial loophole in the US legislation to make it easier for employees to sue their employers for wage discrimination.
Over the last three decades, many scholars have discussed the need to replace the notion of affirmative action with that of affirming diversity (Thomas 107).[iii] Thomas highlights the need to turn this unique aspect of the US society into an advantage (107). Today, many things have changed, such that more than half of the entire workforce in the US consists of immigrants, minorities, and women (Thomas 107). To achieve these goals, one of the issues that various stakeholders in the country have had to address is the process of hiring employees.
Managers sometimes fear that workplace standards will be lowered through diversity. On the contrary, competence counts a lot in organizations that embrace diversity. Embracing diversity is one of the preliminary steps of ensuring that a corporation or business enterprise is able to do its best in terms of adaptability and success in issues of labor as well as domestic and foreign markets. Companies that embrace diversity do not encounter any limits to the amount of talent that can they can accommodate into the company.
One of the greatest challenges faced by managers who must embrace diversity in the hiring process is that standards may suffer. They become worried about a situation where “anything goes” (Robinson 26). Meanwhile, it is always the duty of human resource professionals to ensure that standards do not suffer simply because the company has embraced diversity. To ensure that this goal is achieved, the recruiters only need to ensure that the diverse workforce is able to achieve the same level of productivity that would have been achieved by a homogenous workforce.
This realization has led to the emergence of the notion of “managing diversity”. The task of managing diversity does not in any way imply that managers should contain diversity. It simply means that they should endeavor to ensure that every employee is given an opportunity to give out her best potential regardless of his or her background, physical characteristics, or philosophical and religious convictions (Scroggins and Benson 411). For example, some companies have a penchant for employing an aging workforce. Suppose this aging workforce is able to achieve 90 percent of the performance targets set by the company, a diversity manager would need to look for ways of bringing in younger professionals while at the same time ensuring that this performance target is maintained or surpassed. If these younger professionals are able to achieve or surpass the 90 percent performance target, then the goal of diversity would be said to have been achieved.
To succeed in managing diversity, top executives of organizations should first and foremost be aware of the prevailing shortfalls as far as requirements of a diverse workforce are concerned. This awareness will enable dispel the fear of reverse discrimination that managers associate with workplace diversity. Managers who express this fear argue that diversity reverses the gains made through affirmative action. In recent times, this has turned out to be a major debate in the US (Mccormick 28).
Unfortunately, some of the US managers who oppose the introduction of workplace diversity tend to confuse it with affirmative action. In affirmative action, preferential treatment is allowed during the hiring process under limited circumstances. In its purest form, diversity does not allow such preferential treatment. This difference can easily be illustrated through a comparison of diversity and voluntary affirmative action initiatives undertaken during the hiring process. US laws clearly indicate that all organizations and business enterprises must undertake measures aimed at complying with the requirements of affirmative action. However, the law also anticipates scenarios where some employers may be willing to engage in voluntary efforts aimed at achieving the goal of affirmative action.
One major influence of diversity in the hiring process is that it expands the pool of the job candidates while at the same time increasing competition. In its strictest sense, diversity is not aimed at influencing the selection process. The core objective of diversity is to expand the applicant pool while that of affirmative action is to influence the process of selecting from that applicant pool. Through affirmative outreach efforts, employers seek to employ women and minorities as part of the diversity initiative. However, in respect of diversity, an element of neutrality is normally maintained, meaning that no justification or rationalization is required for their implementation like in the case of affirmative action.
Many white males in the US have in recent years been complaining that when a diverse hiring environment is established, reverse discrimination occurs. They argue that this occurs simply because of the resulting increase in the applicant pool. However, US courts have already rejected the idea of premising reverse discrimination on various diversity awareness initiatives being undertaken across the country (Mccormick 31)[iv].
The only time when the white population in the US risks being subjected to more rigorous standards is when diversity initiatives are aimed at directing the selection process. Another instance is when the initiatives are not facially neutral. In the US, diversity is credited with enabling many African-American professionals get more employment opportunities in various sectors of the country’s economy.
To avoid the problem of reverse discrimination, it is imperative for managers to undertake certain practical considerations when drafting diversity plans. Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult for planners of diversity programs to limit their efforts to the task of expanding the applicant pool (Smith and Joseph 744). They normally go a step further to seek to influence the process of selecting candidates. At this point, it becomes impossible for one to differentiate between these diversity initiatives and voluntary affirmative action programs.
The drafting stage of diversity plans is extremely crucial to their ultimate effectiveness. Care should be taken to ensure that remedial provisions are clearly stipulated as an integral part of the initiative. Many US companies have been making efforts to adhere to this precaution during the drafting stage. In most cases, they put in place broad-based initiatives that facilitate the achievement of amorphous business benefits that the companies have already set out to achieve from diversity. In other instances, the companies’ intention is simply to ensure that the diversity in the workforce is a reflection of customers’ demographics. In such situations, it may be difficult for certain employment decisions to be justified.
Other than the whites and African-Americans, the Hispanic population has also been at the center of the debate on workplace diversity (Grubb, McMillan-Capehart, and McDowell 29). It may be necessary for researchers to examine the perceptions of this population as far as diversity in the hiring process is concerned. The Hispanic population continues to be of utmost importance in the contemporary US workplace. This is evident in the fact that this minority has in recent years been asserting its relevance within all organizational contexts.
Culture-related differences tend to emerge when people of Hispanic origin are being hired largely because different subcultures value different traits during the hiring process (Grubb, McMillan-Capehart, and McDowell). In many cases, employers put into consideration these culture-related differences when making hiring decisions. In this regard, they seem to be creating a distinction between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. By doing this, they seem to be incorporating elements of diversity in the selection process. Critics of this way of doing things may argue that such a move is similar to the introduction of affirmative action under the guise of managing workplace diversity. Such criticism draws attention to the issue of similarities and differences between the management of workplace diversity and affirmative action.
To promote objectivity in diversity management, it is imperative for employers to consider the changing demographics within the US workplace (Bleijenbergh and Peters 105). This is because in some cases, such changes are a reflection of the gains being made through organizational efforts of increasing diversity. By undertaking research in diversity issues affecting different groups such as the Hispanic population, scholars will be contributing to the crucial debate on how to accommodate everyone in organizations both in the public and private sectors. Such research would provide practitioners, employment consultants, and employers with crucial information regarding which information to focus on in prospective job candidates in order to succeed in their goal of managing workplace diversity.
Moreover, it is imperative for employers to have a better understanding of various US subcultures (Konrad 12). Such knowledge is important not only in the management of cultural diversity but also in efforts to ensure that academicians adequately prepare students for careers in business. This line of thinking presupposes that the matching process between job applicants and hiring organizations needs to be improved.
In most countries, the US included, women cannot claim to have been discriminated against simply because they are unable to fulfill all the reasonable physical requirements highlighted for the job in question. A case in point is that of a US woman who applied for the position of a prison guard only to be turned down for failing to meet the necessary weight and height requirements. The woman went to court to file a lawsuit against the prospective employer for denying her employment simply because of her sex. The United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of a lower court, arguing that minimum weight and height requirements constituted a reasonable physical requirement, and therefore did not constitute a discriminatory act (Barak 29).[v]
One of the institutions that have established a standard framework for ensuring success in the recruitment of a diverse workforce is North Carolina State University. At this university, the search committee is responsible for evaluating the pool of applicants on the basis of the advertised minimum qualifications. The committee is always cautioned to take caution to avoid bias that may inadvertently screen out highly qualified candidates from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), non-traditional career paths and research interests, and minority serving institutions (North Carolina State University 8).
Moreover, during the hiring procedure, the search committee is often reminded that diverse experiences and research paths can contribute positively to the qualifications of a candidate (North Carolina State University 8). The gist of argument in these strict instructions is that the university must strive to appreciate the value of prospective employees who seem to be “less like us” (North Carolina State University 8). One of these contributions is that such employees are a source of motivation to students who hail from diverse backgrounds (North Carolina State University 8).
Top leaders at the North Carolina State University also acknowledge that during the hiring process, it is sometimes easy for the definition of “merit” to be misinterpreted (North Carolina State University 8). In such a situation, the members of the Search Committee are tempted to rely on stereotypical judgments instead of taking care to assess the achievement as well as the promise of each of the applicants. Similarly, unconscious bias also manifests itself during the hiring process, not just at North Carolina State University but in other workplaces across the US.
In all situations, each of the members of recruitment committee must have gone through a cultural history and various lifetime experiences. These experiences influence their judgment throughout the review process. People with strong egalitarian values may believe that they are not exhibiting bias in their decisions, yet they may inadvertently or unconsciously behave in a discriminatory manner during the selection process (North Carolina State University 8).
Many employers in the US are increasingly becoming aware of such unconscious bias. By putting in place corrective measures, these employers are making significant contributions to ensure that workplace diversity is achieved. In this undertaking, one of steps entails the identification of unconscious attitudes and biases that are not related in any way to the behaviors, personalities, and qualifications of each candidate. By avoiding this unconscious bias, employers can make significant progress in achieving workplace diversity.
In efforts to promote diversity in the workplace as far as pay standards in the US are concerned, focus is mostly on equal remuneration and the fight against wage discrimination. To ensure that the goal or equal remuneration is achieved, appropriate legislation is required. Similarly, legal provisions are of utmost importance in ensuring that employees who feel that they have been subjected to wage discrimination can seek legal recourse.
The objective of equal remuneration legislation is to ensure that women are men are paid equal wages and salaries for equal work done in all sectors of the economy (Joshi 464). This legislation has become a common practice not just in the US but other countries as well. It is aimed at fighting discrimination as well as ensuring that the values of equality in the workplace are promoted. In most cases, focus is on gender issues, which are normally addressed along other related issues such as protection from sexual harassment.
When considering diversity in terms of remuneration, US employers must put into consideration the needs of different groups of employees, including women, persons with disabilities, youth, and the elderly (Bendick and Egan 479). For employees in each of these groups, different considerations are required for the goal of diversity to be said to have been achieved. On this issue, one of the greatest concerns for employers is that standards may be lowered by giving preferential treatment as far as the remuneration is concerned. The employers may be concerned that by putting in place different formulae for salaries and wages, they are in essence promoting divisions and discord among employees.
It may be prudent for an employer to establish different remuneration structures to address the different needs of both young and elderly employees (Jackson and Ruderman 112). Young employees may prefer to have more opportunities for overtime work. They may also be interested in flexibility in terms of working hours to enable them engage other activities such as studies. Therefore, the idea of fixed working hours for a fixed pay may not be attractive to these young people. In contrast, elderly employee approaching retirement may prefer to work fixed hours for a fixed pay. This is largely because they may not have many other critical engagements other than their fulltime jobs.
Employers may derive great achievements in terms of productivity by acknowledging this distinction in the way they design various remuneration packages. Such an approach increases productivity while at the same time promoting creativity and innovation within the workplace. It also reduces turnover since no employee would have to quit his full-time job to pursue a part-time academic course. If a company has put in place a remuneration structure that forces employees to work overtime late into the night to accumulate a reasonable wage, such employees may eventually resign to pursue further studies in order to get better jobs.
Instead of lowering standards, diversity management in respect of remuneration attracts a diverse workforce. In the context of such a workforce, the company benefits from a wider talent pool. According to Oyler and Pryor, flexible benefits in the form of remuneration attract a diverse workforce (441).[vi] Using expectancy theory, Oyler and Pryor argue that flexible benefits attract new workers into the organization in addition to reducing turnover simply because of the value they associate with these benefits (441).
However, it is unfortunate that few empirical studies have been carried out to investigate the relationship between diversity in remuneration and employee retention. Even more unfortunate is the fact that fewer studies have focused on the benefits accruing to women because of preferential treatment through remuneration (Oyler and Pryor 441). Nevertheless, it is imperative that gender differences should be put into consideration through remuneration. This would ensure that women do not feel that they have to do so many things to catch up with men in the workplace, only to receive lower salaries than men.
In empirical research, care should be taken to ensure that the samples used are not dominated by women. In studies aimed at examining the relevance of gender considerations in preferential treatment as far as remuneration is concerned, the results obtained may be reflect gender bias. As long as many studies continue to show this form of bias, it will be difficult to determine how gender preferences for flexibility in wages, salaries, and benefits influences diversity in the workplace.
However, on the basis of the positive attributes associated with diversity, one may confidently conclude that employers are bound to derive many diversity-related benefits by responding to gender preferences. Some of these positive attributes are highlighted in a Wall Street Journal article on how to increase workplace diversity. For example, this article states that it is not reasonable for the employer to relocate minority employees because they may feel disconnected from the organization (Wall Street Journal 1). Instead, the employer should focus on providing benefits such as childcare subsidies, daycare, and flexible schedules.
Incidentally, some of these attributes relate to gender diversity in aspects of remuneration. By adapting pay standards to the needs of specific employees, the employer in essence gives the workers a reason to stay (Wall Street Journal 1). In fact, this may explain why many US companies continue to promote diversity by providing employees from diverse backgrounds with numerous benefits and allowances.
The issue of sub-group differences keeps on emerging in discussion on diversity in the US workplace. These differences should always be put into consideration during recruitment, setting up of pay standards, and promotion. Different sub-groups are predisposed to develop certain attitudes and to engage in different employee behaviors. An understanding of these attitudes and behaviors is necessary in an organization that is pursuing the goal of diversity.
In many instances, employers fail to identify these behaviors and attitudes until it is too late (Copeland 59). For this reason, they are forced to adopt a reactive approach to diversity management. Such an approach is not desirable because the likelihood of turnover may be high. The organization may not succeed in preventing the affected employees from resigning and seeking better employment opportunities elsewhere. At that point, the goal of diversity would be said to have failed to bring about the desired results.
For married people, family-friendly benefits tend to take precedence over everything else they get from the workplace (Oyler and Pryor 441). However, even within the category of married people, perceptions may differ depending on factors such as number of children, social status and number of dependants. Married people without children are likely to overlook the importance of family-friendly benefits. The gist of the argument at this point is that employers should take the time to understand the familial circumstances within which their employees live in. On the basis of this information, the employer can easily make sound remuneration decisions that will have impact positively on both the employees and the organization at large.
In the US workplace, perceptions of unfair practices by human resource departments with regard to promotions are widespread. They are especially common among minorities (U.S. Department of Justice 33). To address this problem, one of the strategies that organizations introduce is that of diversity in promotion. These organizations endeavor to ensure that trends in promotions are a reflection of diversity in the workplace. This is a challenging task, which if not properly undertaken, may lead to the promotion of incompetent employees. It would be imprudent and counterproductive for an organization to promote a person to a higher position simply to fulfill a diversity requirement.
Minorities in the US feel that they have traditionally been discriminated against in promotions. They feel that they have been denied opportunities in careers and jobs that easily lead to a higher position of authority. This has led to the inculcation of a belief that there is a conspiracy within the wider American society to confine them to exclusive informal networks where their access to mentoring, premium job assignments, communication with managers, promotion is limited.
This perception continues to exist despite efforts by various organizations to promote workplace diversity. This is an indication that the task of managing this diversity has not succeeded as far as the issue of promotion is concerned. This may partly be because it is easier to achieve diversity in hiring and pay than in promotion. During promotion, many managers may be unwilling to adhere to the tenets of diversity in its strictest sense for fear of serious consequences. Most managers and top executives may be unwilling to compromise on positions of authority where loyalty matters as much as professional competence. For example, leaders of a company that was founded on the Christian philosophy may refuse to promote a Muslim for the position of Chief Executive Officer even if the person is qualified. Similarly, a non-governmental organization that is bitterly opposed to gays and lesbians may not promote a gay or lesbian employee to the position of public relations officer.
One of the best ways of determining whether a company has embraced diversity with regard to promotion is to carry out a study on job-grade representation on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, social class, age, disability status, gender, and sexuality. One such study was carried on the US Department of Justice by KPMG Consulting. The study found out that the level of diversity in the attorney’s Department is greater than that of the US legal workforce (U.S. Department of Justice 77). The workforce diversity in this department was also found to be almost similar to that of the legal workforce at the level of the federal government (U.S. Department of Justice 77).
In terms of job grades, the study found out that Asians hold significantly lower job grades than blacks, whites, and Hispanics (U.S. Department of Justice 77). Moreover, white men were found to hold higher grades compared to white women as well as minority women(U.S. Department of Justice 77). Minority men also occupied higher current grades than minority women(U.S. Department of Justice 77). Another crucial finding was that blacks and whites tended to have higher starting grades compared to Asians (U.S. Department of Justice 77). A study such as this one sheds a lot of light on the reality in the workplace as far as diversity in promotion is concerned. In this case, it is evident that that Asians have been sidelined in terms of promotions. For this reason, any US organization that promotes an Asian employee to the position of CEO may be said to have made a great step ahead in efforts to achieve diversity in promotions.
In August 2011, President Obama acknowledged the relevance of workplace diversity not just in recruitment and pay but also in promotion through an executive order. In this executive order, government agencies were required to come up with plans that would improve workplace diversity at the federal level. The President directed a committee of high-ranking federal officials to come up with a government-wide plan for promoting diversity with regard to promotion to positions of authority (.S. Office of Personnel Management Office of Diversity and Inclusion 3). In recent years, many people in the US have been awaiting the action that the president would take to address the lack of diversity in senior government positions, where 81 percent of all senior positions at the federal level are occupied by whites (The Washington Post, August 18, 2011).
This move presents the country with a unique opportunity in which top management leads by example. In reality, it is difficult to expect the human resources officers to adhere to the goals of diversity if the top management is dominated by people from the same race. Such a top management may be unconsciously opposed to efforts aimed at welcoming people from diverse races to work at the organization.
One of the most serious challenges in the US workplace is the lack of a framework governing promotions in a manner that reflects workplace diversity. Such frameworks have been created at the levels of recruitment and remuneration but not in the realm of promotions. By providing a mechanism for ensuring that minority and other disadvantaged groups ascend to the top management level, the US government is setting the right standards for organizations to emulate. In the meantime, however, it is up to various organizations to design their own criteria for ensuring that the senior management is a representation of diversity of lower-level workforce.
In summary, some of the best ways of achieving workplace diversity in the US include equality in pay standards, promotion, and hiring. In the US, more milestones have been achieved through diversity in hiring and pay but not in promotion. Organizations must embrace diversity in respect of race and gender not just in low-grade positions but also in senior management positions.
With regard to hiring and pay, the greatest fear among managers is that diversity may lower standards in the workplace. This discussion presented in this paper shows that if implemented in the right way, workplace diversity does not lower these standards. In essence, competence matters a great deal in the realm of diversity. One major influence of diversity in the hiring process is that it expands the pool of the job candidates while at the same time increasing competition. Moreover, contrary to what some scholars and practitioners think, diversity does not lead to reverse discrimination. Therefore, diversity as a whole in the workplace influences equal pay, standards, promotion, and hiring practices in a positive manner.
This paper provides the following recommendations:
- To promote objectivity in diversity management, employers need to consider changing demographics within the US workplace. Such changes are a reflection of the gains being made through organizational efforts of increasing diversity. Moreover, employers must understand the importance of various subcultures within the US corporate environment. Such knowledge will enable them manage cultural diversity.
- In respect of diversity in pay, more focus should be on preferential treatment for benefits for women. This is simply because they have to work harder in difficult circumstances to catch up with their male colleagues in the workplace. Similar strategies should be adopted depending on the dynamics of sub-group differences.
- Regarding diversity in promotion, a framework for governing promotions should be established. In conclusion, aspects of equality in hiring, pay, and promotion play a critical role in enabling organizations achieve the goal of workplace diversity.
[i] See Treiman and Hartmann p. 6 for insights into the ongoing debate on the principle of equal pay.
[ii] Schroeder and Robinson provide a closer look at Japanese continuous improvement programs in Henry and Mayle (p. 230.
[iii] Thomas highlights the five premises that formed the basis of the introduction of affirmative action (See Thomas p. 107).
[iv] See Taxman v. Board of Educ., 91 F.3d 1547
[v] See Barack p. 29 for explanations for changes made to equality law in recent times
[vi]Focus in this article is on Drucker’s (1975; 1988; 1992; 1994; 1999; 2007; 2009) arguments.
Barak, Michalle. Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2011.
Bendick, Marc and Egan, Mary. The business case for diversity and the perverse practice of matching employees to customers. Personnel Review, 39.4, (2010): 468 – 486.
Bleijenbergh, Inge and Peters, Pascale. Diversity management beyond the business case. New York: Emerald Publishing, 2010.
Copeland, Lennie. Valuing Diversity, Part 1: Making the Most of Cultural Differences at the Workplace. Personnel, 65.6, (1988): 52-60.
Grubb, Lee., McMillan-Capehart, Amy., and McDowell, William. Why Didn’t I Get The Job? White Non-beneficiaries’ Reactions to Affirmative Action and Diversity Programs. Journal of Diversity Management, 4.2, (2009): 25-34.
Jackson, Susan and Ruderman, Marian. (Eds.) Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association, 1995.
Joshi, Aparna. Cross-Level Effects of Workplace Diversity on Sales Performance and Pay. Academy of management perspectives, 49.3, (2006): 459-481.
Konrad, Alison. Special Issue Introduction: Defining The Domain Of Workplace Diversity Scholarship. Group Organization Management, 28.1, (2003): 28.1, 4-17.
Mccormick, Kate. The evolution of workplace diversity. State Bar of Texas, 15th Annual Advanced Employment Law Course, February 1-2, 2007, Dallas, Chapter 16.1.
North Carolina State University. Guidelines for Recruiting a Diverse Workforce. Raleigh, NC: Office for Institutional Equity and Diversity, 2011.
Oyler, Jennifer and Pryor, Mildred. Workplace diversity in the United States: The perspective of Peter Drucker. Journal of Management History, 15.4, (2009): 420-451.
Peppas, Spero. Diversity in the workplace: Hispanic perceptions of the hiring decision. Employee Relations, 28.2, (2006): 119 – 129.
Robinson, Gail. Building a business case for diversity. Academy of management perspectives, 11.3, (1997): 21-31.
Scroggins, Wesley and Benson, Philip. International human resource management: Diversity, issues and challenges. Personnel Review, 39.4, (2010): 409 – 413.
Smith, Janice and Joseph, Witt. Workplace challenges in corporate America: Differences in black and white. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 29.8, (2010): 743 – 765.
The Washington Post, August 18, 2011. Obama orders improved workforce-diversity effort. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-18/local/35270139_1_workplace-diversity-obama-orders-workforce on April 29, 2013.
Thomas, Roosevelt. From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Revie, March-April 1990, pp. 107-117.
U.S. Department of Justice. Support for the Department in Conducting an Analysis of Diversity in the Attorney Workforce Final Report June 14, 2002. Washington D.C.: KPMG Consulting, 2002.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management Office of Diversity and Inclusion. Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2011. President Obama Executive Order 13583.
Wall Street Journal. How to Increase Workplace Diversity. 2 February 2013. Retrieved from http://guides.wsj.com/management/building-a-workplace-culture/how-to-increase-workplace-diversity/ on April 25, 2013.
Use the following coupon code :