Keywords

The Big Picture

Visualize a map of the world, locate the United States on that map, and imagine lines of different thickness that all lead to the United States. The thickness of the lines suggests the size of the group and the lines represent men, women, and children of varying ages all converging in the United States. These vastly different people are bringing with them their own traditions, values, customs, beliefs, to the United states where there are people whose way of life are notably different. We do not have to stretch the imagination to conclude that this is the recipe for conflict and varying other possible outcomes. The extent, severity, and type of outcome is affected by a number of intervening variables and conditions, and the time frame in which all of this is taking place.

The Noel Hypothesis

Social scholars have attempted to isolate the factors that tend to predict a particular outcome when unlike groups meet. In 1968, sociologist Donald Noel advanced, what is now popularly known as the Noel Hypothesis to explain what happens when unlike groups occupy the same geographic area. Noel contends that when ethnocentrism, competition, and power differential are present the result will inevitably be racial and ethnic stratification (Noel, 1968). The first pre-eminent condition is ethnocentrism which defines the situation when a group uses its own cultural ways and values as the measure for judging the way of life of another group. Invariably, in the eyes of the culture doing the judging, the culture being judged never measures up to its standards and there a negative perception of the other culture is established. When ethnocentrism is present, it often times leads to individuals using easily identifiable physical characteristics, such as skin color, to place individuals in a particular group thus setting up a “us vs. them” situation. The second condition of the theory is competition which describes the struggle over valued resources. It was previously believed that competition developed only if the resource is scarce, but it was later found that the groups would compete even when the resource is adequate to sustain all the groups involved. The value placed on a particular resource is what makes it important, hence such things as land, money, labor, housing, ivy league education, governmental position, number of cows owned in a pastoral society, would have to be considered in the context of a given situation. The competition must be such that one group has the capability to subjugate the other group. This reality makes the third condition, power differential between the groups, relevant. Power differential defines the situation when one group exercises control over another group and this control is usually acquired in three ways: (a) larger group size in terms of numbers, (b) better organization, leadership and training, and (c) greater acquisition and accumulation of the valued resources. When combined with another theory, Techniques of Dominance, to create a template, we have a useful tool to study this highly complex phenomenon that exists in the United States today (Keirns et al., 2016).

Techniques of Dominance

The practice of the group that acquires the power to keep the losing group subjugated can be conveniently categorized on a continuum ranging from extreme intolerance to tolerance as Fig. 27.1 demonstrates.

Fig. 27.1
figure 1

Techniques of Dominance

Note: This figure demonstrates techniques that have been used to dominate groups of people. While the direction often reflects progress towards beyond pluralism, regression is also possible

Full size image

Figure 27.1 outlines the stages a society goes through once a group establishes dominance. The practices range from the most extreme form of intolerance to the most tolerant.

  • Genocide: Intentional attempts by the dominant group to exterminate the subordinate group.

  • Expulsion: Deliberate removal of a group from an area they once occupied.

  • Slavery: Subjugating a group to forced labor without compensation.

  • Segregation: Physical separation of the groups usually by confining the subordinate group to designated areas.

  • Assimilation: Requiring a group of people to give up their customs, language, and traditions, and adopt those of the dominant group.

  • Pluralism: Groups co-exist with each retaining its own customs, language, traditions, and practices but operating under a common set of rules, norms, and shared beliefs.

  • Beyond pluralism: Groups coexist, respect and intentionally interact with each because by so doing they enhance their own culture and benefit society as a whole.

The progression is not necessarily a linear one and so, from time to time, a society will regress to a previously intolerant stage. Neither is the rate of progression a uniform one: that rate is affected by such factors as the degree of resistance from minority groups, the demand for changes from within and outside the society, and changes initiated by the dominant group itself. Pluralism, the stage in which the groups coexist, is indeed a desirable stage, but it is not the most preferred. The more excellent stage is Beyond Pluralism when the groups fully respect each other and intentionally interact with each other because by so doing they enhance each other’s culture and benefit the society as a whole (Keirns et al., 2016).

The American Story

When applied to the United States, the template uncovers a pattern of competition, conflict, dominance, subjugation, exploitation, cooperation, and revitalization. Upon reflection, the connection between different types of struggles becomes clear because at their core, they all have in common people who compete for power. To understand the lack of diversity in the workforce, implicit bias, or micro-aggressions, it is essential to take a look at the historical trends that were the major contributors to strained intergroup relations. Groups that were pitted against one another since the years of early immigration, slavery, and segregation, established strategies that are still widely used today, though they manifest themselves in other ways. The following overview highlights US immigration patterns that marked the beginning of tension, discriminatory practices, and ongoing oppression.

Arrival of the British Settlers in the Americas

The arrival of British settlers in the new world set in motion a series of events that were to forever change the landscape of the region. The eventual Declaration of Independence was not merely to celebrate freedom from the tyranny of British rule, but rather to consolidate the fervent intentions of the settlers to create a new England, where the English language, English institutions, English customs, and English cultural norms would form the essential foundation of the new society. It is against this backdrop that their interaction and consequent treatment of the Native Americans can be viewed. It was of no consequence that these indigenous peoples had occupied this land for centuries, establishing distinctive cultural forms including language, societal structures, norms, familial patterns, and a viable means of subsistence (Farley, 2005). There were indeed distinct differences between the two cultures including:

A unifying belief among the various Native American people that humans are to live in concert with nature. As Farley (2005) explained, this view was in direct contrast with the British settlers who held that nature should be subjugated to serve human needs.

  • The concept of ownership of private property was almost foreign to Native American whereas property ownership was a basic tenet of British life.

  • Rugged individualism, embraced by the settlers, was in stark contrast to the group and community orientation of the Native Americans.

  • In Native American communities, women played a central role in the overall function of the tribe but that was not true for the settlers’ women.

When we apply the Noel Hypothesis, we find that except for larger population size initially, the other conditions for dominance were met. The above differences were indeed a source of tension between the two groups, but the central conflict was over land ownership and this eventually led to the genocidal practices carried out by the settlers against the Native Americans. It is estimated that prior to the arrival of the British, the population of Native Americans stood around 10 million but by the time of the last Indian War of 1890, the Native American population had been reduced by 75% through a combination of massacres, diseases, and starvation (Farley, 2005). The practice of genocide, expulsion (population transfer), slavery, and segregation, directed at the Native Americans, were in concert with those used in other British colonial exploits, notably in Australia, New Zealand, Africa, the Caribbean and Asia. In fact, some scholars (Mcdonnell & Moses, 2005) contend that colonization was in itself intrinsically genocidal and frequently occurred as a two-stage process. The first stage defines the deliberate destruction of the indigenous population’s way of life, while in the second stage the newcomers impose their way of life on the remaining indigenous population and on subsequent arriving groups. The underlying genocidal motivations are frequently fueled by the desire to clear territories of their original inhabitants in order to facilitate resource extraction or the establishment of colonial settlements which more often than not included the use of forced labor. It should be said though, that the British Crown did attempt to curb the blatant confiscation of Native American land by issuing a decree in 1763 stating that the various Indian tribes were to be considered sovereign nations and therefore treated as nation states. The decree stipulated that the colonists could not just confiscate land, they had to enter into negotiations with the individual tribes. The outcome of the negotiations would be the signing of a treaty that stipulated the boundaries of Indian land. The treaties were frequently violated by the new American government whenever the settlers felt the need for expanding territory or when a previously designated territory was later found to be valuable. In 1830, President Andrew Jackson, signed the Indian Removal Act which expedited the confiscation of Indian lands by requiring that all Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi move to designated Indian territory west of the Mississippi. As a result of this Act, the Cherokee nation was forced to relocate to a designated Indian territory marching over 1000 miles in the dead of winter. It is estimated that 4000 of the 15,000 tribal members died of hunger, disease, cold, and exhaustion on that march known famously as the “trail of tears” (Farley, 2005).

There is little debate over the atrocious treatment that was meted out to the Native America population, and so today the reservations carry the scars of substandard life experiences such as high rates of poverty, unemployment, violence, suicide, poor quality of housing, limited educational opportunities, and inadequate health care. Once the British settlers established dominance in the region, all the social, political, economic, and other key institutions were set up to provide advantages for the dominant group while denying benefits to the subordinate group. This dominance has been exerted over all the succeeding groups entering the United States.

Immigrant Groups

The immigrants who now make up the population of the United States are different from one another in a variety of ways and they have followed varied pathways to get here. Their experiences during their sojourn here are shaped by their race, gender, culture, class characteristics, their countries of origin, and the timing of their arrival in the U.S. (History.com Editors, 2019). The significant takeaway from the contact between the Native Americans and the British settlers was that the settlers won the conflict and therefore became the dominant group, and that allowed them to install their way of life, control the social institutions and dictate the terms of interaction with all the other groups arriving in the United States.

White Ethnics

Northern and Western European immigrants were primarily English, Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, Welsh, French, Dutch, and Danes. These groups shared many similarities with the dominant Anglo-Saxon group including racial and religious characteristics along with cultural and ideological values. These similarities played a major role in the overall positive reception they were afforded by the dominant group. Assimilation for them therefore was far less painful than for other incoming groups. The second wave of immigrants came from Southern and Eastern Europe and included the Irish, Italians, Poles Russians, Hungarians, Greeks, and Serbs. The relative ease of assimilation experienced for Northern and Western Europeans was not extended to the immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe who were non-protestant, less educated and less skilled. They were the product of rural life and had not yet experienced the industrialized wave that had swept through Northern Europe. They settled in the cities and found work in plants, mills, mines and factories. The group experienced a high level of rejection and discrimination (Thompson et al., 2017). It should be noted that this wave of immigrants also included Jews who were specifically escaping religious persecution in Europe. Because of this they came as intact family units with the purpose of becoming citizens of the United States.

Latinos

With an estimated 16.3 percent of the total United States population, the Latino population is currently the largest minority group in the United States having surpassed the African American group for that distinction (Census Bureau, 2011). Latinos influence on United States culture dates back to the early days of colorization when a large portion of Mexico became part of the United States territory. However, the greatest impact has come from recent migration of various ethnic groups with diverse histories and cultures including Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans and other groups from South and Central America. Members of these groups do not want to be categorized as one homogeneous group; instead they prefer to use their national identity such as Colombian, Venezuelan, or Nicaraguan (Lopez, 2013).

African Americans

Contrary to popular belief, all ancestors of African Americans did not come to the United States as slaves; instead the first set of Africans started as indentured servants just like many White settlers at the time. The change of status to slaves was precipitated by the high demand for labor required by the plantation system at the time. White indentured servants had a contract that stipulated that at the end of the contracted time they would be free to start their own homestead with some help from their former owners. This high turnover of labor proved rather unprofitable for the plantation owners, so slavery was legalized, and all incoming Africans became the property of the plantation owners. The institution of slavery in the United States is well documented and the stain of this legacy has continued to haunt this nation until today (Equal Justice Initiative, 2018).

Asian Americans

As explained by Thompson et al. (2017), “the Asian American label lumps together more than a dozen ethnic groups with diverse histories, national origins, languages, religions and customs” (p. 269). Included in the label, Asian American, are over a dozen ethnic groups with diverse histories, national origins, languages, religions and customs. This group includes, Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Koreans, Indians, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese, and Cambodian. The astounding success of the Asians is widely recognized, particularly in business and education and they have been described as the “model immigrants”.

Recent Immigrants

Regardless of their country of origin, all recent immigrants share one important characteristic: they were not demanded to give up their native language and unique customs in order to live in the United States. They did not feel the burden of assimilation or, more precisely, Anglo Conformity. A major contributing factor is that these immigrants were able to consolidate the creation of ethnic enclaves which became self-contained communities where individuals who share a common heritage, language, and background elect to live together in the same neighborhood. Such enclaves are found all over the United States; from China-towns in New York and San Francisco, Little Italy in New York, Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, Middle Eastern community in Detroit, Little Havana in Miami, Jamaica Hill in Lauderhill, the Venezuelans and Colombians in Weston, Florida. These enclaves are among the forces pushing the society to a more inclusive existence (Harvard Political Review, 2012).

The preceding historical account attempts to explain the diverse mix of groups that now call the United States home and traces the pathways the groups have followed to get here. It briefly outlines the patterns of relationships that existed among the groups and highlights the challenges the society now faces in its desire to have these diverse groups coexist to the extent where they can maximize the benefits of their unique cultural attributes. With the historical background and the universal principles as a firm foundation, it is easier to understand the social issues that remain in businesses after years of growth and setbacks. Attempts to uphold power continue on a political level, and evidence of such control in the economic social institution is widespread. The common notion of not being able to fix what you don’t understand rings true in this situation, as ignorance about these significant patterns of control leaves room for misguided practices in every social institution. As we shift our focus to the business world, we find ongoing struggles for dominance through patriarchy and superiority in largely homogeneous workplaces where leadership positions continue to be disproportionately held by the same group that dominates the rest of society. In order to achieve any measure of success, concerted efforts must be made to: (a) reduce ingrained racial, ethnic, religious, gender prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination, (b) assist individuals in moving away from an ethnocentric orientation to a cultural relativistic one, (c) dismantle structural racism that has sought to use the social institutions to generate benefits for the dominant group while at the same time denying those same benefits to minority groups, (d) provide viable educational and economic opportunities for individuals from disadvantaged groups, (e) ensure equal justice for all members of the society. These are some of the challenges that any worthwhile DEI initiatives must address. Through deliberate attempts, steps have been taken to help change the landscape and make businesses environments more diverse. While DEI training programs continue to be offered, they often miss the mark of having a lasting impact, because they typically serve as a band-aid that covers up the depths of the historical wounds. A comprehensive approach of personal and professional development deepens understanding and only then will proverbial bridges between people who in a diverse workforce stand strong. Embracing people of many different backgrounds, cultivates shifts from ethnocentrism to cultural relativism and White privilege to a racially and ethnically diverse shared existence. The next section will illustrate how businesses in the US have dealt with societal demands to become more diverse, equitable, and inclusive.

DEI in the Context of Employment

The focus on diversity in the workforce has shifted in recent years as awareness of its contribution to the workforce on different levels is spreading, and companies continue to abide by regulatory obligations which prohibit discrimination. Increased awareness about diversity should be no surprise because of changes in the population that result in an elevation of feelings of social responsibility, but also the pressure to abide by corporate and federal mandates (Katz, 2011). Historical efforts to define discrimination go back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when Congress created the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which was tasked with evaluating and defining what it actually entailed (Clouatre, 2019). The result was an Affirmative Action mandate in the US, which required employers to hire minorities, but the initial focus on race slowly shifted when the Americans with Disabilities Act was introduced in 1990 (Clouatre, 2019). The mandates resulted in work environments with people of diverse backgrounds which include, for example, categories of age, sexual orientation, and educational background.

When companies suffer financial hits because of lawsuits, they are quick to implement changes to prevent future repetition. New hires might have to sign arbitration documents that prevent them from joining class action suits which can cost the companies millions (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016). While companies in the US have diversified their workforce, widespread misunderstandings about equity and inclusion have resulted in a lag of the last two. Educating employees on diversity is often to abide by government regulations and avoid costly litigation. Companies usually offer training modules that cover a basic overview of language and case studies as examples, but they only scratch the surface. While diversity training is important and a diverse workforce is a step in the direction of higher productivity, researchers point to the critical nature of a shift in focus to equity and inclusion. Companies need to go beyond diversity efforts to recruit and hire a more diverse looking workforce (Banham, 2018; Pullinger, 2020; Pleasant, 2017). Banham (2018) points at the benefits of more inclusive companies, that includes a more confident group of employees who increasingly share ideas that contribute to the success of the business. According to Banham, many companies have failed to create inclusive environments, despite becoming more diverse. Men are still 30% more likely to be promoted, regardless of the superior qualifications of their female counterparts. The reputation of the company can greatly suffer if lawsuits are filed and won, which is why companies often settle outside of court. According to Anand (2020) and Banham (2018), a proactive approach will also help the company prevent legal issues that could arise from discrimination lawsuits.

Anand (2020) stresses the importance of companies taking their efforts to the next level by not stopping at adjusting hiring practices to become more diverse, but by ensuring they also focus on inclusivity. Women should not just be hired, but they should be included in the decision-making process. Once the company embraces both, they will reap the benefits from the added creativity and innovation from the workers. In fact, Anand (2020) listed “productivity, quality, revenue, market share, absenteeism rates, employee retention and safety” as positive impacts of inclusion (p. 18). While there have been expanded efforts by companies to change policies, Anand warns that these are only effective if concerted efforts are made to implement them and when workers have an increased sense of belonging experienced.

Management Training for Effective Results

To successfully change the culture of the company, those in leadership positions should be trained (Banham, 2018) and structures of oppression within the company need to be dismantled (Chandler, 2020). Understanding ethnic and gender nuances within the organization will help leaders determine what they can put in place for improvement. Coaching might help to empower employees to bring their authentic selves to work, instead of attempting to conform to the “dominant paradigm” (p. 34). But as Bartlett (2017) and Chandler (2020) point out, single training sessions on implicit bias, which are sometimes offered to check off the box for diversity training, don’t seem to have a lasting effect on participants. Some dispute the effectiveness of measuring implicit bias, even though the IAT on the Harvard’s Project Implicit website is commonly used to provide evidence to respondents of their unconscious bias. The point is that these tests offer a great conversation starter, but they may not be a definitive source on how to measure it (Bartlett, 2017). Effective programs focus on management training first, to equip them with the tools to improve morale among employees. This, in turn, will boost their motivation and at the same time ensure that the training programs are well received and don’t evoke defensiveness and resentment (Chavez & Weisinger, 2008). Chavez and Weisinger strongly suggest that training should not only focus on physical identity differences, but they should include interpersonal variants like values, culture, behavioral or cognitive differences. In addition, Chandler (2020) cautions that race and gender tend to be the common metrics addressed in trainings that could be misconstrued as being tied into affirmative action requirements, but that it’s essential to explore all the talent that employees bring to the table because of their differences.

Overall Benefits and Pitfalls of DEI Training

There are many benefits of DEI training, but Bezrukova et al. (2016) compared various types of diversity training over a span of 40 years and identified several factors that need to be in place in order for them to truly be effective.

  • Simply offering one training has a short-term effect on the participants, and it is therefore critical that workshops combine discussions with lectures, and activities and are offered continuously for long term benefits. Such an integrated approach appears to be effective because it underlines managerial commitment which serves as motivation for the participants.

  • Third-party contractors are better able to offer a non-biased approach to their training, but they need to conduct a preliminary investigation into the company to ensure that they will successfully target the relevant elements of diversity for that organization.

  • Diversity training contributes to long term cognitive gains and may even get stronger over time when participants are exposed to cues.

  • Behavioral and attitudinal changes are short lived and must therefore be refreshed over time.

  • The length of training makes a difference in its effectiveness, and longer training allows for a more comprehensive approach as it allows the participants opportunity to practice and develop necessary skills and awareness.

An internal focus of companies on DEI is frequently highlighted, but the importance of who companies do business with can not be overlooked. Companies should expand their efforts to working with diverse vendors, such as minority-owned businesses. Katz (2011) highlighted a successful model of working with small businesses, which are not only easier to work with because there is less red tape, but they can also offer fresh innovative approaches that could increase the company’s bottom line. The holistic approach of dealing with employees and seeking out diverse suppliers is the winning combination of social responsibility that boosts the image of the corporation, improves their bottom line, while at the same time creating a supportive employee base (Katz, 2011).

The pitfalls of DEI programs could come from rebellion by managers who feel that they are being forced to comply with corporate and federal mandates, and Dobbin and Kalev (2016) explained that this resistance could have adverse effects. They suggest that managers are more likely to buy in if they are not blamed for failed practices, but instead their social accountability is promoted, and they are included in the development of successful programs. Dobbin and Kalev (2016) suggest that companies should relinquish some of their control and shift that to the managers, rather than follow old standards that mandate diversity trainings and enforce punitive action if such trainings are not taken. The result of a punitive approach is resentment and defensiveness that only makes the problem worse. Dobbin and Kalev (2016) mentioned that voluntary participation in the trainings yield more positive results as participants don’t feel singled out or forced, but instead they feel motivated especially if they attribute their participation to personal values.

McKinsey (2020) outlined best practices from companies that have financially outperformed others in the field. The areas they had in common were that they all ensured that they had diverse talent on their teams; they didn’t tolerate discriminatory behavior; their advancement opportunities were fair and transparent; leadership presence in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts; and they promote a culture of inclusivity.

Personal, Organizational, and Societal Benefits of DEI Training

Personal

The surprising benefit from DEI training, according to Chang et al. (2019), is that the exact focus on a particular metric for the training might not be the most critical aspect, but that employees who belong to these disadvantaged groups feel more empowered to seek out ways to get mentored and trained in order to prepare for the next advancement. Their research on the impact of DEI training showed significant attitudinal changes overall, and that marginalized groups were more empathetic towards other marginalized groups after going through training. For DEI training to be effective, Taylor (2017) suggests that a significant shift is required, which she calls “transformational diversity” training (p. 5). It is a mental shift whereby one becomes culturally competent and starts to rely on filters, which recognizes people as complex in their differences and contributions but doesn’t qualify them as good or bad. Once this shift is widespread, Taylor explained that there will be rapid changes in benefits. When the work environment is perceived as non-hostile, employees are more likely to show up with their whole selves are more likely to share their creative ideas, be more innovative, feel more appreciated, which leads to higher retention (Banham, 2018).

Organizational

The 2020 McKinsey and Company Report on diversity and inclusion addresses the importance of companies taking steps towards more inclusion and diversity. Especially during times of societal crises, such as the global pandemic that started in 2019, the success and recovery from downturns of businesses are enhanced in companies that prioritize DEI. This is because diverse teams are better equipped to come up with radical innovation during unpredictable shifts in the company. The benefit of creating a work environment where minorities’ feelings of being marginalized aren’t perpetuated is critical, said Pleasant (2017). For this to be done successfully, companies should identify prejudicial practices of power and privilege, like racism and xenophobia, and implement ways to eliminate them. The result for the organization will be increased performance if all employees are engaged and feel included (Pleasant, 2017). Additionally, companies avoid lawsuits and a tarnished reputation by not enhancing their DEI practices, but more importantly, true gains come from having an inclusive environment that encourages unique ideas which ultimately contributes to business growth (Banham, 2018).

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts should be measured, and companies be clear about their commitment in their recruitment (Pullinger, 2020). A successful DEI program puts in place a written plan, implements strategies to achieve stated goals, and institutes monitoring mechanisms to measure and maintain goal achievement. Not only will the company’s reputation benefit and be more profitable, they will also notice increased employee retention, engagement, innovation and decision-making. Tesla’s (Tesla, 2020) approach to attract diverse talent is achieved by their intentional hiring efforts that include recruitment at, for example, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, as well as offering training through an internship program designed to enhance technical and professional skills. Banham (2018) warns though, that the long-term benefit of being more inclusive might be difficult to measure but keeping track of original ideas offered by the diverse workforce might create a good written record to evaluate frequently. While many organizations have adopted policies for change, the managers have to model change in their behavior and internal audits should be done to evaluate the success of DEI programs (Chandler, 2020).

Societal

Unjust treatment of individuals that make news headlines serve as reminders that societies have a long way to go. Organizations in the United States tend to have knee jerk reactions by offering racial sensitivity and implicit bias workshops. But as Weissmark (2020) explained, participating in cancel culture and finger pointing only leads to posturing and shame, but doesn’t make the culture more inclusive. Her solution is to encourage conversations by people who hold different views, and to engage in scientific reasoning by exploring both sides and researching facts. This can create a more inclusive culture, where finding the truth through scientific reasoning leads to better understanding. As McKinsey pointed out in their 2020 report, a time of crisis offers an incredible opportunity for companies to enhance their dedication to diversity and inclusion by supporting minority employees that might be disproportionately affected by the risks caused by the pandemic.

Recommendations for Successful DEI Programs

After the initial DEI process is set in motion, follow-up activities are required to implement the remaining steps.

  1. 1.

    Because the primary social institutions play such a critical role in systemic (structural) racism, further discussion is warranted especially in the implementation of staff development programs.

  2. 2.

    The company should continue its efforts to integrate DEI policies in its day to day business practices, so the process remains holistic.

  3. 3.

    Any staff development training should be preceded by a comprehensive survey to establish baseline measures both in terms of diversity characteristics and inclusive profile.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, a perfect conclusive DEI training program will never exist, because of the evolutionary volatility of its components. The geopolitical climate and characteristics of the business environment should dictate the focus of such programs, but success can only be achieved with a long-term, customized approach that gets adjusted along the way as shifts happen. Sustainable, transformational workplace changes require intentional and consistent efforts that move beyond diversity to equity and ultimately inclusion.

Key Chapter Takeaways

  • The Noel Hypothesis explains what happens when unlike groups occupy the same geographic area. Noel contends that when ethnocentrism, competition, and power differential are present the result will inevitably be racial and ethnic stratification.

  • Societies go through various stages once a group establishes dominance. The practices can range from genocide, expulsion, and slavery, to segregation, assimilation, pluralism, and beyond pluralism. In the last mentioned stage, groups coexist, respect and intentionally interact with each because by so doing they enhance their own culture and benefit society as a whole.

  • In the business world, we also find ongoing struggles for dominance through patriarchy and superiority in largely homogeneous workplaces where leadership positions continue to be disproportionately held by the same group that dominates the rest of society. In order to achieve any measure of success, concerted efforts must be made to: (a) reduce ingrained racial, ethnic, religious, gender prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination, (b) assist individuals in moving away from an ethnocentric orientation to a cultural relativistic one, (c) dismantle structural racism that has sought to use the social institutions to generate benefits for the dominant group while at the same time denying those same benefits to minority groups, (d) provide viable educational and economic opportunities for individuals from disadvantaged groups, (e) ensure equal justice for all members of the society.

  • Understanding ethnic and gender nuances within the organization will help leaders determine what they can put in place for improvement. Yet, single training sessions on implicit bias, which are sometimes offered to check off the box for diversity training, don’t seem to have a lasting effect on participants.

Reflective Questions

  1. 1.

    The life chances, as reflected by such indicators as; poor housing, high rates of unemployment, limited educational opportunities and inadequate health care, are clearly quite dismal for Native Americans. What can be done to improve conditions on the reservations and in the larger society?

  2. 2.

    Given the history of race relations in the United States, what are your expectations that organizations can provide a productive, fair, and equitable work experience for all their workers?

  3. 3.

    What key indicators would you use to measure the effectiveness of an organization’s DEI program. Explain why you have chosen those indicators?

  4. 4.

    How should a manager respond to comments that are perceived as micro aggressions? How can micro aggressions impede inclusion efforts?

  5. 5.

    To what extent have you (or others) attempted to hide your true self in order to be accepted by colleagues?

  6. 6.

    What is your commitment to supporting DEI efforts on a personal, professional, and societal level?