The Bottom Line On Diversity (1995)
In cleaning out some old files, we came across an article, published in the Washington Post in 1995, which features Judith Katz & R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. The text from the original article is below for ease of reading.
Image of the original article is displayed above.
By Sheryl Silver
“Workforce Diversity.” “Managing Diversity.” They’re terms that have become increasingly common in the lexicon of corporate America but what precisely do they refer to? And why are more and more US companies placing an emphasis on these issues?
As to what’s encompassed by diversity, Dr. Roosevelt Thomas, president of Georgia-based R. Thomas and Associates and author of the book Beyond Race and Gender says, “Diversity includes everyone. It’s a collective mixture characterized by differences as well as similarities,” in an organization’s workforce.
Although many people think diversity focuses only on women and minorities, diversity consultants and executives are quick to point out the far broader range of differences encompassed by the term. In the printed materials circulated by its Office of Diversity, D.C. headquartered FannieMae explains: “Diversity is not limited to race. gender, age, religion or sexual orientation. It encompasses cultural backgrounds. education level, personality style, lifetyles, and includes exempt and nonexempt and management and non-management delineations.”
Although a 1993 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management of 785 of its members revealed some variation in the way organizations define diversity, those leading the diversity charge say there is increasing agreement on the “why” of today’s growing emphasis on this on this matter: Cultivating a diverse workforce and making the most of the talents of all employees is a business imperative in an increasingly diverse domestic and global economy.
How It Began
What catalyzed this movement? Many in the diversity field point to the 1987 release of the landmark study Workforce 2000, which highlighted the growing diversity efforts in place today.
“Workforce 2000 projected that from 1985 to 2000, minorities, women and immigrants would compose 85 percent of the growth in the workforce,” notes Thomas. Those projections prompted a concern by companies that they be positioned to recruit and retain top talent from that future labor pool, he explains.
Thomas points to two additional trends that converged and contributed to putting diversity on the front burner for many U.S. companies in the last decade.
American companies found themselves entering the 1990s with intensifying competition in the global economy, says Thomas. “As the business environment became less friendly, companies no longer had the luxury of underutilizing people or allowing them to plateau beneath a Glass Ceiling,” he observes.
According to Thomas, the third factor fueling the focus on diversity was a change in the attitudes of individual employees. ‘For a long time, women and minorities were willing to adapt to the culture of an organization,” notes Thomas. “In recent years, we’ve seen both women and minorities less willing to adapt or give up what makes them unique.”
In the last eight years, these factors have combined to prompt the implementation of diversity initiatives in hundreds of companies nationwide. Training programs aimed at valuing differences, at helping employees identify their biases and acquire a greater level of sensitivity to co-workers from different groups, proliferated. The number of diversity consultants multiplied. positions with titles “Director or Vice President of Diversity” began to appear in greater numbers in corporations. Programs aimed at recruiting, retaining and advancing a diverse group of employees, and making organizations “inclusive” environments where all employees felt comfortable and utilized to their full potential, were set in motion.
Any Progress?
Have these efforts helped? Rene Redwood, executive director of the Glass Ceiling Commission, housed in the Department of Labor says “Nationally things are improving, but the pace of change remains painfully slow for both women and men of color at the most senior levels of America’s largest corporations.”
Comments from employers in the metro area—including Lockhead Martin, AT&T, Fannie Mae, Adia Personnel, and the American Red Cross—are more encouraging. They suggest significant progress in terms of a workforce that reflects greater diversity from the entry level up through the management and senior executive ranks. Progress on the intangibles—e.g. more open communication and a greater appreciation of individual differences by employees from varied backgrounds—is also commonly reported.
Despite the progress, those leading the diversity charge say much is left to do. Judith Katz, executive vice president of The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, with offices in the District, comments, “i clearly think there’s been progress made, but we continually raise the bar and every time we make progress we ask “What more is left to do?'“
And what about the current debate over affirmative action? Does that suggest a rollback in the progress made is imminent? Are organizations likely to abandon their diversity programs?
“There are some organizations that were never committed to Affirmative Action and never understood the business benefits of valuing differences and managing diversity,” says Katz. “Those organizations may use the current debate as an excuse to validate their beliefs.”
However, says Katz, that’s not the case for companies that see diversity as a business issue, not a social issue. “These companies are committed for the long term because they see managing diversity as a means of gaining a strategic edge both in recruiting and retaining top talent from a diverse labor pool, and in identifying and exploiting the greatest range of business opportunities in a domestic and global economy that is becoming ever more diverse.”
Thomas agrees. “The real focus today is on putting in place the policies and systems and culture that supports full utilization and contribution of all members of an organization,” he asserts. “Today, if people are underutilized, companies will pay a big price. This isn’t about doing the right thing anymore. This is about optimally utilizing all our human resources to compete in this global economy. “
Judith Katz points to the very tangible costs to companies of creating a culture in which women minorities feel excluded.
“There are countless instances of women and minorities who get hired and invest ten or fifteen years in a company, then, seeing no future advancement potential, decide to leave,” notes Katz. “For one of our clients, we figured out that it cost them $100,000 for every employee who left and they lost 32 people one year. Another client company lost a top performing lesbian sales professional who left she could never bring her significant other to company events because it wasn’t considered acceptable. When you consider the investment in training, the company knowledge and client relationships these situations represent, the losses add up and companies can no longer afford that.”
Nor can companies afford to view market opportunities through a single-faceted prism, says Katz. “If a company is unable to effectively market its products to immigrants because it doesn’t have the necessary language skills amongst its employees, or simply doesn’t realize there are other markets for its products because it doesn’t have anyone from other potential customer groups on its staff to point them out, there are significant costs attached,” says Katz. “In the words of my partner Fred Miller, ‘What diversity provides is 360 degree vision. It eliminates the blind spots.’ It enables companies to see problems and opportunities from all angles.”
Missed marketing opportunities. Difficulty building rapport with a diverse base of customers. The loss of talented employees who feel excluded or limited in a company’s culture or organizational hierarchy. All costs of a culture of exclusion rather than inclusion, costs diversity experts say American companies can no longer afford.
From all indications, these experts are right. A growing number of America’s employers appear to be moving ahead with their diversity initiatives having concluded it’s not only the right thing to do, it’s also smart business to cultivate and celebrate diversity in the workplace.