Content provided in partnership with

DIVERSITY TRAINING: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why? - Brief Article

Civil Rights Journal, Fall, 1999 by Katrina Jordan

American businesses, educational institutions, and governmental agencies have spent untold millions on multi-cultural awareness and diversity training. The intended outcome: organizations that value and celebrate differences as well as similarities, thereby creating a more harmonious and productive work/study environment. The goal is both laudable and self-interested. Enlightened managers know that diversity within the American and global workforce will continue to grow into the 21st century and that this reality must be harnessed effectively in order for organizations to compete, survive, and thrive in the world market place. And yet--after affirmative action programming, Equal Employment Opportunity legislation, thousands of hours of diversity training, community-based initiatives, and endless dialogue, what evidence do we have that these efforts have made a difference? What have we learned about fostering change, and how do we go about measuring it?

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

The U.S. census and other Federal tracking devices can provide broad measures of social inequality, and national surveys can measure racial opinions and attitudes, but neither can capture the fine-grain changes that take place within individuals and organizations as a result of specific education programs. The challenge is especially great because these programs aim to change the way people think and feel--and on such matters, self-reported change is notoriously unreliable.

Some organizations focus on the number of EEO complaints and pending lawsuits on such matters as sexual harassment. While these provide "objective," easily measurable ways to determine the cost effectiveness and the "return on investment" of diversity training programs, they take the organization into a reactive, defensive mindset. A more proactive and far-reaching approach is called for.

Fortunately, human resource managers and corporate researchers have been developing criteria to help determine what works and what doesn't. One approach is to "take the pulse" of an organization before, during, and after training, through such objective elements as the number of lawsuits, retention and turnover rates, absenteeism (which generally decreases when people feel valued), and affirmative action hiring and promotion figures. Other, harder to measure elements that should be monitored include changes in staff behavior; increased staff sensitivity; increased recognition of diversity as a business imperative; less blaming or attacking of white males for problems; recognition that diversity is not just a matter of affirmative action; and stronger emphasis on multi-culturalism. These can be measured using attitude surveys and exit interviews as well as direct observation, particularly if respondents can be made to feel comfortable about speaking truthfully.

In general, the studies that have been undertaken using these criteria are revealing several "lessons learned." According to a Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) study regarding the effects of diversity training, training typically has a markedly positive short-term impact on the attitude of attendees, but long-term assessments were decidedly less positive. This position is supported by other studies that show that almost three-quarters of the respondents judged their diversity training to be effective immediately after implementation. But among organizations that conducted some kind of long-term evaluation, the after-glow of the training faded rapidly. About 50 percent described their programs as having mixed or negligible effects and another 18 percent admitted their programs were largely ineffective.

These are sobering results, and it is worth examining the small number of organizations in which diversity training continued to receive high marks to understand how and why their training succeeded where others failed. If one factor unites them, it is, perhaps surprisingly, not the type or quality of the training that was received, but that the organizations in which these positive experiences occurred all shared a deep commitment to practicing equality. They did not view diversity training simply as an add-on but as an integral part of their corporate culture. Little behavior and attitude change is likely to occur when the organization's diversity goals are not perceived as serious. As one human resources expert noted, "We need to practice what we are preaching. What is the most effective I believe is something that uses several different kinds of delivery systems and is not a one-shot deal. It's got to be continuous, on-going, [with] all kinds of reinforcement."

Those that indicated that their organizations have made a commitment to diversity stated that cultural change can be evidenced by:

* the types of employees they hire;

* internal and external recognition for diversity efforts;

* willingness to allow minority groups to form support groups;

* support for diversity efforts tied to compensation;

* alignment of diversity efforts with systems, procedures, policies, philosophies, norms, and values;

DIVERSITY TRAINING: What Works, What Doesn't, and Why? - Brief Article

Civil Rights Journal, Fall, 1999 by Katrina Jordan

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Health

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference