Preparing Students for Workplace Diversity: Some Research Implications

1. Preparing Students for Workplace Diversity: Some Research Implications David A. Kravitz George Mason University

2. Thanks to • Paul Gorski • Eden King • Hun Lee • Melina Nardi

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

4. Validity of Underlying Assumption • The charge assumes that business will be increasingly global and the workforce increasingly diverse. • Is this true?

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

6. Cultural Dimensions • The U.S. differs from most of the world in our cultural assumptions along a number of dimensions (e.g., locus of control, individualism/collectivism, time orientation). • These differences must be understood when doing business with people in other countries. • These differences also imply that immigration will lead to increased cultural diversity in the U.S. workforce.

7. Immigration to the U.S. • In 2009, 38.5 million people in the U.S. (about 12.5% of the population) were foreign-born. • Many others residents are children of immigrants. Thus, their cultural assumptions are based on both U.S. culture and their parents’ cultures.

8. U.S. Population: Race & Ethnicity

9. U.S. Population: Age & Sex

10. U.S. Religious Affiliations Kosmin & Keysar (2009)

11. U.S. Sexual Orientation • Due to the biological basis of sexual attraction, I assume that the proportion of the population that is not heterosexual is not changing. • Due to cultural changes, individuals who are not heterosexual are increasingly open about their sexual orientation and are demanding the elimination of sexual orientation discrimination.

12. Conclusion • U. S. business is becoming increasingly global and the workforce increasingly diverse. • Why is this a problem?

13. Bias: A Human Weakness • Bias (prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination) toward those who differ from oneself (outgroup members) exists for many reasons. • Automatic preference for the in-group • Evolution-based • Social identity • Perceived realistic and symbolic threats • The need to simplify reality (stereotyping) • Ongoing influence of historical events

14. Implication • Today’s students will need to work successfully with others who differ from them in many ways. • Dealing with different cultures and different people can be challenging. • We need to prepare our students – help them become more culturally competent.

15. Bennett’s Model • The Development Model of Intercultural Sensitivity posits six stages of cultural competence. • Ethnocentric • Denial, Defense, Minimization • Ethnorelative • Acceptance, Adaptation, Integration • The challenge is to help student attain one of the ethnorelative stages.

16. What is cultural competence?Sue’s Model • Sue’s (2001) multidimensional model of cultural competence includes three dimensions of cultural competence • Foci (individual, professional, organizational, societal) • Group-specific attributes (appropriate action depends on the target group) • Components (attitudes, knowledge, skills)

17. Workplace Diversity Research • What can we learn from research on workplace diversity? • Very little. (Bah humbug!) • Wrong level of analysis and criterion • Inability to draw causal conclusions about specific interventions or specific aspects of interventions • Focus on cognitive interventions (e.g., most diversity training)

18. One Useful Research Stream • Diversity climate has positive effects • Diversity climate is employees' shared perceptions that the organization is committed to eliminating discrimination and fostering diversity. • A positive diversity climate is associated with greater organizational commitment and lower turnover among all identity groups. It may eliminate the negative effects sometimes created by diversity. • Buttner et al. (2010); Gonzalez & DeNisi (2009); McKay et al. (2007)

19. So???Should I sit down and shut up? • As the charge was written, I have found relatively little. • However, the behavioral and psychological work that underlies research on workplace diversity has a bit more to offer.

20. Psychological Bases • “Perhaps the most important contributions that social psychologists have made involve the potential for improving intergroup relations. … We have developed excellent models to work from, but know little about how to implement programs that will make a real difference.” Stangor, 2009, p. 10 • Notwithstanding the enormous literature on prejudice … the literature does not reveal whether, when, and why interventions reduce prejudice [bias] in the world. Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 360 • Well, that’s discouraging!

21. Paluck & Green (2009) • Massive review of the bias reduction literature (900 reports) • A reasonably amount of evidence supports the efficacy of cooperation, the common ingroup identity model, and the contact hypothesis.

22. Cooperative Learning • Teams work together and each team member is responsible for learning and helping the others learn. • Of the 107 randomized field experiments found by Paluck and Green (2009), 36 dealt with cooperative learning.

23. Cooperative Learning - Results • Ginsburg-Block, Rohrbeck & Fantuzzo (2006) • Meta-analysis of 30 studies of the effects of peer-assisted learning (PAL) on social outcomes among elementary school students. • Significant effect: d = 0.28. • Effect was stronger when the group had interdependent group reward contingencies, opportunities for student autonomy, and structured peer interactions in which students were provided with roles.

24. Cooperative Learning - Results • Roseth, Johnson & Johnson (2008). • Meta-analysis of the effect of goal structures on quality of peer relationships among early adolescents. Included 148 studies. • “Cooperative goal structures were associated with 0.48 standard deviation increase in positive peer relationships over competitive goal structures … [and] 0.42 standard deviation increase … over individualistic goal structures.”

25. Contact • Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) meta-analysis of the relation between contact and prejudice (713 samples) • Significant relation (-0.21) • Stronger effect in rigorous research • Stronger effect when contact conditions were optimal (a la Allport), but still significant under non-optimal conditions

26. Contact – Secondary Transfer • Tausch et al. (2010) • Four field studies using different targets, respondents, and methodologies found that contact with one outgroup leads to more positive attitudes toward a secondary outgroup. • For example, Black and White Texas college students who had more contact with the other group were less biased against Vietnamese and Asian Indians.

27. Contact – Potential Danger • Paolini, Harwood & Rubin (2010) • Research has shown that high salience of an outgroup’s category leads to negative interactions, presumably due to anxiety. • Paolini et al. found that negative interactions stimulated greater awareness of the category. • Combined, this implies that contact has a negative bias.

28. Contact - Conclusion • Positive contact can decrease prejudice toward the partner’s group and even toward other outgroups. • This effect is particularly strong when there is equal status between the groups in the situation, they have a common goal, they cooperate, and the positive relationship has the support of authorities, law, or custom (Allport’s optimal conditions).

29. Common Ingroup Identity Model • Gaertner & Dovidio (2000) • Biases toward out-group members can be decreased when the individual creates a superordinate group that includes both the original in-group and the out-group. • I have not found a meta-analysis, but a number of studies have been supportive.

30. Timely Example • The Pentagon recently released their survey of troop opinions about the impact of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” • The report includes tables that show how responses vary depending on whether the respondent is aware that s/he is currently working with a gay or lesbian colleague. • I presume this combines contact, cooperation, and a common in-group identity.

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

32. Summary • Research suggests that bias will be decreased by • A positive diversity climate • Positive cooperative contact • Creation of a common in-group identity • Given this, what are some programmatic non-cognitive interventions school systems or other organizations could create to prepare high school students for the increased diversity of their work lives?

33. Your Turn • Please take a couple of minutes to write down possible approaches on the note card you have been given. This can include actual programs with which you are familiar. • Then talk with your colleagues to flesh-out your ideas. • We’ll take a few minutes to report out and I’ll ask you to turn in the cards at the end.

34. Questions or Comments?

35. Print References • Bennett, J. M., & Bennett, M. J. (2004). Developing intercultural sensitivity: An integrative approach to global and domestic diversity. In D. Landis, J. M. Bennett & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed., pp. 147-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. • Buttner, E. H., Lowe, K. B., & Billings-Harris, L. (2010). Diversity climate impact on employee of color outcomes: does justice matter? Career Development International, 15(3), 239-258. • Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. • Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 732-749. • Gonzalez, J. A., & DeNisi, A. S. (2009). Cross-level effects of demography and diversity climate on organizational attachment and firm effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 21-40. • Kosmin, B. A. & Keysar, A. (2009). American religious identification survey (ARIS) 2008. Hartford, CT: Trinity College. • Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-368. • Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(12), 1723-1738. • Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783. • Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246. • Stangor, C. (2009). The study of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination within social psychology: A quick history of theory and research. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 1-22). New York: Psychology Press. • Sue, D. W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling Psychologist, 29(6), 790-821. • Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., et al. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 282-302.

36. Internet References • U.S. International Trade: • http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm • U.S. Foreign born • http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr09-15.pdf • U.S. Population Race & Ethnicity • http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html • U.S. Population Age & Sex • http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/regdivpyramid.html • U.S. Department of Defense: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell • http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2010/0610_gatesdadt/