The diversity debate

Workforce, June, 2003

In the article "Diversity's Business Case Doesn't Add Up" (April 2003), the author cites a study that found the impact of diversity on the bottom line could not be quantified. The article suggests, therefore, that resources for diversity efforts may be misspent.

Diversity is a dynamic societal issue, and a narrow look at a single study cannot discount its widespread impact. As a concept, diversity should not solely be framed in dollars. Yes, human resources activities should be tied to the bottom line to prove the value of effective people management. But the value of a commitment to diversity also needs be evaluated by image, trust, culture, and a host of other important factors.

SHRM believes that to engage employees and boost productivity, organizations must create a climate of respect and empowerment. At a basic level, this is what diversity is meant to accomplish, even if the results aren't always measured in terms of profit and loss.

Debra Cohen, Ph.D., SPHR Vice President, Knowledge Development Society for Human Resource Management

I am not surprised that the "respected" Thomas A. Kochan did not find a good business case for diversity as practiced in U.S. firms. Why? The respected professor competes in the larger "marketplace" just as everyone else does. And doing initial "research" with 20 large firms, on an issue that is closely connected with a social flash point, had a Supreme Court case coming up (the University of Michigan case was on the horizon when the research was geared up, I am sure), and had lots of Fortune 500 money tied up in it, is almost a guaranteed "best-selling" research report, a book, a few NPR and PBS interviews, and a load of paid seminar and conference appearances for the professor.

I saw him in action at labor/management conferences when he was still interested in the automotive sector of the economy. Most of those he interacted with and did "background" research with were about as closely connected with reality on the work floor as the CEOs of Enron, WorldCom, and Andersen were with ethics and sound business judgment. That being said, I don't need to add that Workforce competes in the same world that Dr. Kochan does. Does diversity pay among the Fortune 500 or in the small company of 10 to 25 people? Of course it does and it doesn't. It does pay: How many more lawsuits, or better yet, boycotts and bad press, would the companies that Professor Kochan interviewed have had if they had not changed their hiring and promotional practices at all over the past 38 years (since the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed)? How much would that have cost the firms directly? Did we avoid, as a society, another couple of urban riots because there had been no change in hiring and promotional practices dire cted toward Black Americans?

So, how about some folks getting real--Professor Kochan, Workforce, the writer of the story? Diversity became diversity so that people could be more comfortable and not have to talk about how they had treated Black Americans in the past, present, and future. Using the word diversity also enabled other groups who had been discriminated against in the workplace (but never enslaved, owned, and traded as commodities) to take advantage of the opening in the law that Black Americans struggled and died for. It also paid handsomely for consultants, the big accounting firms, publishing companies, and associations such as SURM and ASTD.

I am not saying that all consultants and accounting firms just lined up for the cash without any intent to deliver anything of value. But there were and still are many that do just that. When doesn't diversity pay? It does not pay for firms that thought they could buy "peace" and get "credit" for being progressive by throwing money at programs they did not believe in. You can supply your own list of examples of how executives in the private and public sectors have done the same with dozens of other types of "programs." So, does it pay to not discriminate against, exclude, or exploit Black Americans and Native Americans? When you use the myopic measures that are cited in the article, it seems not. Does it pay not to discriminate because of race--legally and morally? You bet it does. Does it pay to have some firsthand, working knowledge of other races when designing and marketing products/services? The rational person would say yes. Oh, sorry. Getting real is not what this whole issue is about, is it? It's abo ut reinforcing prejudices, circulation, money--right?

Ned Hamson

Team Leader

Elan institute: Grupo Elan and Global Innovation Section

Cincinnati, Ohio

I am amazed (and more than a little appalled) that an article with supposedly so much thought failed to focus on true diversity initiatives but instead focused on superficial attempts by high-profile corporations to appear "with it" and "inclusive" to a diverse world. I would hope that when a company decides to invest in initiatives centered on diversity, it is not to merely distribute pins and have a "trophy" program to sit in a showcase because, yes, that would be ineffective.