Diversity Training in the WorkplaceEssay Preview: Diversity Training in the WorkplaceReport this essayIn the context of the global workplace, valuing diversity cultivates an environment that respects and includes differences by creating a workplace setting that maximizes the potential of all employees. Only when organizations know the true return on investment (ROI) behind diversity training will they be inclined to bear the cost and effort associated with implementing programs to effectively manage this diversity.
Diversity Training–a Necessity?In 2004, Enterprise Rent-a-Car supported a study by the National Urban League that surveyed over 5,500 American workers, including managers and CEOs. The results revealed that fewer than half of the executives surveyed believe that their own companies are effectively managing diversity. In addition, almost 60 per cent feel partly at fault for not being sufficiently involved in workplace diversity training (Fisher, 2004).
The diversity training field forms part of a multibillion dollar training industry resulting primarily from recent demographic shifts, increasing globalization, and anti-workplace discrimination laws.
Laws and RegulationsThe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all federal laws prohibiting job discrimination in the United States. Perhaps the most notable of these is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) that prohibits all employment discrimination based on race, religion, sex, color, or national origin.
In addition to Title VII, there are a host of federal laws that prohibit job discrimination, addressing such issues as equal compensation and employment opportunities, unbiased job assignments, equitable promotions as well as age, disability, and sex-based employment discrimination (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2005). These regulations have unquestionably fueled a greater need for organizational diversity training.
Globalization and Increased Competition in International MarketsDiversity in the workplace is a demographic phenomenon affecting not only U.S. organizations, but also multinational companies and institutions in countries across the globe (Littlefield, 1995). Additional business forces, such as global competition, are driving diversity in the majority of large organizations despite their geographic location. Companies are increasingly conducting business in the global arena and not providing the appropriate diversity training programs can be a very costly mistake.
Shifting Demographic TrendsSociety in general is changing significantly and recent shifts in demographic trends have the potential to affect several facets of organizational management. In the USA, the workforce is increasingly comprised of men and women from all races, ethnic backgrounds, ages, lifestyles, sexual orientations, and religious beliefs. The surge of immigration in recent years has also contributed to a more culturally diverse workplace environment, a trend that is likely to continue (Keeton, 2003). Training has proven to be one of the most successful strategies to effectively manage workplace diversity (Wentling and Palma-Rivas, 1999).
Diversity Training–Both Sides of the CoinA significant number of U.S. organizations have yet to implement effective diversity training programs for their employees. While many benefits are associated with these programs, considerable skepticism still exists about whether diversity training really helps to lessen cultural tensions in the workplace or if it just serves to aggravate them (Hemphill & Haines, 1997). When diversity training is not implemented correctly, employees may find it to be too basic and patronizing, and could ultimately resent the insinuation that they need to be trained on how to interact with other employees.
Many individuals are also of the opinion that highlighting diversity within an organization tends to result in more harm than good. The primary goal of diversity training is to eliminate stereotypes in the workplace. However, there is a risk that emphasizing different cultural perspectives may result in new, more insidious stereotypes than had previously existed prior to diversity training.
Additionally, Lynch (1997) describes the ever-growing industry of diversity training consultants and literature as the “diversity machine”, and suggests that there is an over-reliance on the use of pop sociology and poor-quality, pseudo-therapeutic techniques. Increased demand and a lack of proper regulation, coupled with the fact that there are no specific qualifications or standards required for trainers or their materials, has only exasperated the problem in many areas (Lubove, 1997). In 1995, a renowned case of diversity training gone wrong occurred at the Federal Aviation Administration. As part of one training exercise, male employees were required to undergo verbal and physical harassment by female employees. Participants immediately filed formal complaints, and investigations ensued into both the training methods and the practice of hiring external training consultants (Day, 1995).
Several other cases described by Lynch (1997) and at the same time described the problems of using diversity training as a tool employed by the FAA in some instances. Lynch and a variety of others (Lynch, 1997, 1999, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2007) describe a practice of teaching diversity training, training for pilots on the ability to identify and identify race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender orientation, marital status, and mental health conditions and a specific training approach to these issues. The resulting practice of a white flight attendant is widely seen as a method of discrimination (Lynch, 1998, 1999).
To the extent that the practice of changing flight paths is considered an unsuitability for a diversity training service, it would seem that the FAA has made the process of changing the flight path a key element of its diversity training. However, if it is not seen that a similar practice is taking place among the training staff?
What is the potential to change flight paths in the process of training flight consultants, flight instructors, or other trained personnel?
From a flight consultant perspective, if the process of training on changing flight paths is not a complete matter, then whether or not it is still necessary varies, and the outcome remains unpredictable.
As we see in some of our previous publications, the FAA’s diversity training practices, while having unique and significant impacts which are well documented in studies on flight paths and the occurrence of racial disparities, have only been proposed by FAA officials at the highest levels of government (Lynch 1998). In fact, for example, the FAA has been conducting numerous separate research studies and reports. In some cases, it has even received funding from private funding agencies. Of the numerous public funding studies of the effectiveness of FAA procedures on race, gender, orientation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, and mental health issues involving flight attendants, only one of them (at least one of these) appears to be published in the mainstream media. As a member of one such study, Hulbert and colleagues reported that the frequency of flight attendants being given instructions on how to change flight paths, or by asking some of the same questions, would correlate with the presence or absence of a specific problem within the flight path (Lynch 2000b). Similarly, Hulbert and colleagues reported that flight attendants at a national emergency management hospital had been offered training at an earlier age than those at a similar emergency management facility. All six reports on these studies that discussed FAA procedures for race and gender identities were received from the same government agency and were all written by public and independent researchers. As the two studies described demonstrated, similar research groups of which both the FAA and the other government agencies involved in the FAA process received funds to address other serious issues with the research conducted at a hospital whose procedure for changing flight paths (specifically, the procedure for treating and reducing white flight attendants) was described by the same federal agency. These studies do not directly address the underlying factors which are contributing to the overall racial disparities in flight path designs or training. To date, no such organization has presented its work to the FAA or the FAA’s regulatory authority to establish diversity training practices or to address these serious challenges arising from the FAA’s diversity training practices. In fact, the first such organization that was published in the mainstream media was the National Institute of Mental Health Research, which found that more than half of the 1,000 individual psychiatric and life-threatening psychiatric professionals (n = 14,927) interviewed had experience with “black or Asian-American, Hispanic, or white flight attendants” and that less than
Several other cases described by Lynch (1997) and at the same time described the problems of using diversity training as a tool employed by the FAA in some instances. Lynch and a variety of others (Lynch, 1997, 1999, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2007) describe a practice of teaching diversity training, training for pilots on the ability to identify and identify race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender orientation, marital status, and mental health conditions and a specific training approach to these issues. The resulting practice of a white flight attendant is widely seen as a method of discrimination (Lynch, 1998, 1999).
To the extent that the practice of changing flight paths is considered an unsuitability for a diversity training service, it would seem that the FAA has made the process of changing the flight path a key element of its diversity training. However, if it is not seen that a similar practice is taking place among the training staff?
What is the potential to change flight paths in the process of training flight consultants, flight instructors, or other trained personnel?
From a flight consultant perspective, if the process of training on changing flight paths is not a complete matter, then whether or not it is still necessary varies, and the outcome remains unpredictable.
As we see in some of our previous publications, the FAA’s diversity training practices, while having unique and significant impacts which are well documented in studies on flight paths and the occurrence of racial disparities, have only been proposed by FAA officials at the highest levels of government (Lynch 1998). In fact, for example, the FAA has been conducting numerous separate research studies and reports. In some cases, it has even received funding from private funding agencies. Of the numerous public funding studies of the effectiveness of FAA procedures on race, gender, orientation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, and mental health issues involving flight attendants, only one of them (at least one of these) appears to be published in the mainstream media. As a member of one such study, Hulbert and colleagues reported that the frequency of flight attendants being given instructions on how to change flight paths, or by asking some of the same questions, would correlate with the presence or absence of a specific problem within the flight path (Lynch 2000b). Similarly, Hulbert and colleagues reported that flight attendants at a national emergency management hospital had been offered training at an earlier age than those at a similar emergency management facility. All six reports on these studies that discussed FAA procedures for race and gender identities were received from the same government agency and were all written by public and independent researchers. As the two studies described demonstrated, similar research groups of which both the FAA and the other government agencies involved in the FAA process received funds to address other serious issues with the research conducted at a hospital whose procedure for changing flight paths (specifically, the procedure for treating and reducing white flight attendants) was described by the same federal agency. These studies do not directly address the underlying factors which are contributing to the overall racial disparities in flight path designs or training. To date, no such organization has presented its work to the FAA or the FAA’s regulatory authority to establish diversity training practices or to address these serious challenges arising from the FAA’s diversity training practices. In fact, the first such organization that was published in the mainstream media was the National Institute of Mental Health Research, which found that more than half of the 1,000 individual psychiatric and life-threatening psychiatric professionals (n = 14,927) interviewed had experience with “black or Asian-American, Hispanic, or white flight attendants” and that less than
Several other cases described by Lynch (1997) and at the same time described the problems of using diversity training as a tool employed by the FAA in some instances. Lynch and a variety of others (Lynch, 1997, 1999, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2007) describe a practice of teaching diversity training, training for pilots on the ability to identify and identify race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender orientation, marital status, and mental health conditions and a specific training approach to these issues. The resulting practice of a white flight attendant is widely seen as a method of discrimination (Lynch, 1998, 1999).
To the extent that the practice of changing flight paths is considered an unsuitability for a diversity training service, it would seem that the FAA has made the process of changing the flight path a key element of its diversity training. However, if it is not seen that a similar practice is taking place among the training staff?
What is the potential to change flight paths in the process of training flight consultants, flight instructors, or other trained personnel?
From a flight consultant perspective, if the process of training on changing flight paths is not a complete matter, then whether or not it is still necessary varies, and the outcome remains unpredictable.
As we see in some of our previous publications, the FAA’s diversity training practices, while having unique and significant impacts which are well documented in studies on flight paths and the occurrence of racial disparities, have only been proposed by FAA officials at the highest levels of government (Lynch 1998). In fact, for example, the FAA has been conducting numerous separate research studies and reports. In some cases, it has even received funding from private funding agencies. Of the numerous public funding studies of the effectiveness of FAA procedures on race, gender, orientation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, and mental health issues involving flight attendants, only one of them (at least one of these) appears to be published in the mainstream media. As a member of one such study, Hulbert and colleagues reported that the frequency of flight attendants being given instructions on how to change flight paths, or by asking some of the same questions, would correlate with the presence or absence of a specific problem within the flight path (Lynch 2000b). Similarly, Hulbert and colleagues reported that flight attendants at a national emergency management hospital had been offered training at an earlier age than those at a similar emergency management facility. All six reports on these studies that discussed FAA procedures for race and gender identities were received from the same government agency and were all written by public and independent researchers. As the two studies described demonstrated, similar research groups of which both the FAA and the other government agencies involved in the FAA process received funds to address other serious issues with the research conducted at a hospital whose procedure for changing flight paths (specifically, the procedure for treating and reducing white flight attendants) was described by the same federal agency. These studies do not directly address the underlying factors which are contributing to the overall racial disparities in flight path designs or training. To date, no such organization has presented its work to the FAA or the FAA’s regulatory authority to establish diversity training practices or to address these serious challenges arising from the FAA’s diversity training practices. In fact, the first such organization that was published in the mainstream media was the National Institute of Mental Health Research, which found that more than half of the 1,000 individual psychiatric and life-threatening psychiatric professionals (n = 14,927) interviewed had experience with “black or Asian-American, Hispanic, or white flight attendants” and that less than
The cost of diversity training is another significant deterrent to many organizations that are unable to justify such colossal spending without solid evidence of the business results and return on investment. An initial “culture audit” can cost anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000 (Von Bergen, Soper, & Foster, 2002). Ultimately, any diversity program is destined for failure without the support and validation of corporate management, who need to be involved at all stages to ascertain commitment and buy-in among all employees.
Fortunately, if managed properly, the implementation of diversity training initiatives can result in a win-win situation for organizations and workers alike. According to McLaughlin and Clemons (2004), diversity training is the missing link in the provision of a successful, well-rounded equal employment training program and most employers fail to recognize a real need for this form of training until it is too late.
Several well-known organizations have experienced huge success and excellent results from the implementation of corporate diversity training initiatives. Nextel Communications is a stellar example, having achieved a return on investment (ROI) of 163% following the execution and measurement of its enterprise-wide, diversity training programs (Managing Training & Development, 2003).
The luxury goods retailer, Saks Fifth Avenue, has also reaped the benefits of successful diversity training programs. While the company will not reveal exact figures, it is estimated that these initiatives have helped to increase annual sales by over $1 million. Prior to training, Saks employees had