LDR 6145 Diversity Leadership Journal Report

Running Head: Final Diversity Leadership Journal Report 1

Final Diversity Leadership Journal Report

Ardavan A. Shahroodi

Northeastern University

LDR 6145—Managing a Diverse Workforce

Professor Lauren M. Scott

Saturday, February 14, 2014

Final Diversity Leadership Journal Report 2

Introduction

This Final Diversity Leadership Journal Report, first concentrates on discussing the

knowledge that has been gained related to diversity oriented concepts, theories and analysis. The

second section of this Final Diversity Journal Report discusses two videos and one article

concerning three diversity areas (race, ethnicity, gender) and the lessons that have been learned

from these LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce course presentations and reading

assignment. In the third section of this Diversity Journal Report, the effects of this new

knowledge in combination with my past and present conduct is analyzed in regards to my

interactions with friends/colleagues/classmates/coworkers, etc.

The fourth section of this Diversity Journal Report is devoted to analyzing and reviewing

three LDR 6145 course reading assignments that I believe will help me in developing into a

diversity leader. In the fifth portion of this Diversity Journal Report, ASTD Valuing Diversity

Self-Assessment Worksheet is discussed representing the reading assignment that has had the

most significant impact on me in this course. Finally, the last four sections of this Diversity

Journal Report concentrate on analyzing and reflecting on the various aspects of the LDR 6145

Diversity Group Project Assignment. In the last section of the Final Diversity Leadership

Journal Report, I have offered an appraisal of my strengths as a team leader/team member during

the LDR 6145 Diversity Group Project Assignment and in other organizational environments.

Based Upon What You Knew Previously About Diversity (Prior to this Course), What

Knowledge Have You gained and What Do You Now Know About Diversity

The Master of Science in Leadership Program in Northeastern University’s College of

Professional Studies has been an extremely enriching academic experience for this student. Here,


I must also add that what I have learned in this course on Managing a Diverse Workforce has

been one of the most enlightening aspects of the aforementioned educational journey. In my

occupational background in the Hospitality and Tourism Industries, I have been a strong

proponent of diversity related policies and practices.

In taking into consideration Mor Barak’s (2014) conceptualization of the “inclusion-

exclusion construct as a continuum of the degree to which individuals feel a part of critical

organizational processes, such as access to information, connectedness to coworkers, and ability

to participate in and influence the decision-making process” (pp. 7-8), I continuously endeavored

to promote the above mentioned diversity standards in my places of occupation. Indeed, I felt

that the overarching goals of teamwork and organizational competence and effectiveness will

never reach their intended potential if employees do not genuinely feel a part of critical

organizational processes, do not have access to information or do not feel connected to

coworkers.

Prior to my voluntary departure from the Hospitality and Tourism Industries, I had the

most rewarding work related experiences training numerous employees in matters having to do

with customer service, hospitality, conflict resolution and organizational leadership. In

particular, I believed that employees need to be empowered in regards to their work related

duties and responsibilities in order to exercise competence and effectiveness in the performance

of their job related tasks. I also placed a premium on delivering exceptional or beyond the call of

duty service to our guests and patrons and those who worked in our teams were very well aware

that quality standards must not be sacrificed.

However, those quality standards were not only reserved for our guests but also for our

team members and in that spirit, anti-social, disrespectful, inconsiderate, impolite and


inappropriate language and conduct would not have been tolerated. Here, all team members

were very much aware of how they must conduct themselves in our work environments. On a

volunteer basis, for a number of years, I also taught and trained entering and inexperienced

service providers as part of a municipal program because I felt they needed professional

preparation prior to the start of their careers. These service providers were overwhelmingly

members of underserved, diverse and minority communities. I felt an incredible feeling of

satisfaction for providing that service.

In relation to diversity related intellectual development, from a very young age, I have

intensively studied the fields of history, law, political science, psychology, sociology and social

psychology. In recent years, I have also added the study of organizational behavior and

leadership to the above disciplines. All the same, prior to taking LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse

Workforce class, I had never been enrolled in a course devoted exclusively to diversity studies.

In light of what I have learned in this course, I firmly believe that I will be a more competent

leader and more importantly, I am convinced that I will be a more effective diversity leader.

My educational journey in this course began with the following most crucial definition of

diversity offered by Professor Scott (2015) in LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce Course

Syllabus stating that,

“We define diversity broadly, as an inclusive concept that goes beyond characteristics

such as race, gender, ethnicity, color, religion, age, disability, national origin and sexual

orientation to include an infinite range of individual unique characteristics and experiences,

such as communication style, career path, life experiences, educational background, geographic

location, income level, marital status, military experience, parental status, diversity of thought

and other variables that influence personal perspectives” (Scott, 2015, p. 3).


The above central definition was complemented by the following observation by

Professor Scott (2015) in the LDR 6145 Course Syllabus holding,

“Life experiences and personal perspectives make individuals react and think differently,

approach challenges and solve problems differently, make suggestions and decisions differently,

and see different opportunities. Superior organizational performance requires tapping into these

unique individual and diverse perspectives, and results when individuals who look, talk and think

differently can work productively together” (Scott, 2015, p. 3).

In LDR 6145 Week One Lecture Notes, Professor Scott (2015) also adds that diversity

must not be regarded as a “buzz word” (p. 3) or “something that will fade away” (p. 3) but rather

as a “broad definition” (p. 4), “an inclusive concept” (p. 4), “a term that goes beyond

characteristics, which we can see” (p. 4), “an infinite range of characteristics & experiences” (p.

4) and a “driver of superior organizational performance” (p. 4). Consequently, we are able to

study diversity on the basis of a number of different dimensions.

Here, the primary dimensions of diversity is composed of “numerous personal

characteristics, including race, sex, ethnicity, age, physical and mental abilities, national culture,

religion, socioeconomic status, education, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status”

(Scott, LDR 6145, Week One Lecture Notes, p. 5). In addition, the secondary dimensions of

diversity include “changeable personal characteristics that are acquired and may be modified or

abandoned throughout life (e. g., education, income, marital and parental status, religion,

political affiliation, work experience)” (Scott, LDR 6145, Week One Lecture Notes, p. 5).

As my studies have progressed in this course, the above definitions and observations have

acted as central parameters offering an intellectual reference frame in understanding diversity


related concepts more effectively. Indeed, the adoption of authentic and comprehensive diversity

standards and practices is an extremely challenging endeavor. Mor Barak (2014) observes,

“The problems of managing today’s diverse workforce, however, do not stem from the

heterogeneity of the workforce itself but from the unfortunate ability of corporate managers to

fully comprehend its dynamics, divest themselves of their personal prejudicial attitudes, and

creatively unleash the potential embedded in a multicultural workforce” (p. 2).

However, this managerial inadequacy also exists in organizational, economic and societal

environments that are heavily influenced by “today’s global economy” (Scott, LDR 6145, Week

One Lecture Notes, p. 6), “global demographic trends” (p. 6) and a “growing demand for equal

rights for disenfranchised workers and for other groups such as older workers, workers with

disabilities and sexual orientation minorities” (p. 6). Here, the global demographic trends are

composed of “increased immigration and worker migration” (Scott, LDR 6145, Week One

Lecture Notes, p. 8), “more women in the workforce” (p. 8) and “greater economic disparity” (p.

8). Mor Barak (2014) emphasizes, this growing “heterogeneity in the workforce” (p. 5) around

the world has contributed to “hostile intergroup relations, prejudice, discrimination, and even

violence” (p. 5) leading to “divisions” (p. 5) that perpetuate,

“Exclusion of underprivileged groups such as women members of ethnic, religious,

racial, and sexual orientation minority groups; older workers; and people with disabilities from

positions of power in the workplace and create barriers to job opportunities and promotion. They

also stifle the economic growth that could come from these groups of workers and directly affect

long-term corporate earnings” (pp. 5-6).


Globally, the challenge of “social exclusion” (Mor Barak, 2015, p. 6) and its

manifestations in the “workplace” (p. 6) has led to conditions where,

“Individuals and groups are implicitly or explicitly excluded from job opportunities,

information networks, team membership, human resource investments and the decision making

process because of their actual or employer-perceived membership in a minority or disfavored

identity group” (p. 6).

All this when the research that has been presented in our textbook by Mor Barack (2014)

indicates that,

“Inclusion in organizational networks and in decision making processes has been linked

to better job opportunities and career advancement in work organizations…job satisfaction…

well-being…job performance, and organizational commitment…all of which are related to

employees’ intention to leave and actual turnover” (p. 6).

In pursuit of promoting diversity in organizations, the objective must be in “creating a

comprehensive work environment that welcomes diversity, is inclusive of those who are

different from the main stream, and allows individuals to utilize their talents in a mutually

satisfactory way” (Scott, LDR 6145, Week One Lecture Notes, p. 13). Here, Mor Barak (2014)

has offered the model of an “inclusive workplace” (p. 8) that,

“Values and utilizes individual and intergroup differences within its workforce…Cooperates

with, and contributes to, its surrounding community…Alleviates the needs of disadvantaged

groups in its wider environment…Collaborates with individuals, groups, and organizations

across national and cultural boundaries” (pp. 8-12).

In regards to internal organizational dynamics,


“Whereas an exclusionary workplace is based on the perception that all workers need to

conform to pre-established organizational values and norms (determined by its mainstream), the

inclusive workplace is based on a pluralistic value frame that respects all cultural perspectives

represented among its employees” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 9).

The specific diversity management related policies and practices that emanate from the

above mind set promote a collection of,

“Voluntary organizational actions that are designed to create greater inclusion of

employees from various backgrounds into the formal and informal organizational structures

through deliberate policies and programs” (Scott, LDR 6145, Week Two Lecture Notes, p. 17).

The quality of “cooperating with, and contributing to, local community” (Mor Barak,

2014, p. 9) is related to an “organization’s sense of being an integral part of its surrounding

community” (p. 9) and possessing a “dual focus, simultaneously intrinsic and extrinsic, that

comes from acknowledging its responsibility to the wider community” (p. 9).

In relation to “alleviating the needs of disadvantaged groups in the organization’s wider

environment” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 10), inclusionary diversity related policies and practices

regard “these groups as a potentially stable and upwardly mobile labor force” (p. 10). Lastly, the

inclusionary concept of “collaborating with individuals, groups, and organizations across

national and cultural boundaries…sees value in collaborating across national borders, in being

pluralistic, and in identifying global mutual interests” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 11).

Mor Barak (2014) has emphasized in the very beginning of her book that effective

diversity management policies must possess the essential qualities of “vision, ethics, respect,


creativity, business goal orientation, and striving for excellence” (p. 2). Mor Barak (2014) has

also observed that,

“Diversity programs without the foundation of strong legislation and sound proactive

public policy may be fleeting. Left to the business world’s interpretation of what is good for

business, this trend may disappear—as others have in the past—when business decide that

diversity management no longer benefits their financial goals” (p. 14).

Most importantly, Mor Barak (2014) has argued that “to alleviate both social and

economic tensions in society as a whole, and as reflected within the workforce, work

organizations must learn to not only remove barriers but to actively encourage full participation

of members of diverse groups in society” (p. 14).

One of the most central recommendations of Mor Barak (2014) with respect to the

creation of inclusive workplace environment is the necessity of “managing the diversity of

people’s preconceived notions about those outside their own mainstream culture, especially those

notions acquired when social norms and economic needs were different. In that sense, the

demographics of diversity include managing the demographics of past attitudes as well as future

workforce trends” (p. 117). This important imperative must translate into organizational leaders

being continuously aware that,

“Diversity is about belonging to groups that are visibly or invisibly different from

whatever is considered mainstream in society. In short, it is about being susceptible to

employment consequences as a result of one’s association within or outside certain social

groups” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 122).


Historically, the general definitions of diversity have been expressed corresponding to

three different patterns. These patterns are,

“(A) Narrow category-based definition (e.g., gender, racial, or ethnic differences); (B)

Broad category-based definitions (e.g., a long list of categories including such variables as

marital status and education); and (C) Definitions based on a conceptual rule (e.g., variety of

perspectives, differences in perceptions and actions)”.

Here, narrow category-based definitions of diversity are “determined by discrimination

legislation and include gender, racial and ethnic groups, national origin, disability, and age.

These U.S. based definitions are not often transferable to other cultures or applicable in other

countries” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 125). In the broad-category based definitions of diversity, “the

term has expanded to include differences in race, gender, ethnicity, age, cultural background,

social class, disability, and sexual orientation. An expanded definition of diversity may also

include such variables as marital status and education as well as skills and years in the

organization” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 133).

This particular definition accounts for a “distinction” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 132) among

“visible” (p. 132) and “invisible” (p. 132) forms of diversity. A visible type of diversity “refers

to characteristics that are observable or readily detectable attributes such as race, gender, or

physical ability. Simply put, these are the characteristics you would notice on people walking

down the hall, even if you knew nothing else about them” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 132). On the

other hand, an invisible form of diversity alludes to “underlying attributes such as religion,

education, and tenure with the organization. To be aware of a person’s invisible diversity, you

would need additional information from other sources” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 132).


Diversity definitions based on the conceptual rule recognize “(a) differences in

worldviews or subjective culture, resulting in potential behavioral differences among cultural

groups; and (b) differences in identity among group members in relation to other groups” (Mor

Barak, 2014, p. 133). An important expression of the conceptual rule definition offered by

Roosevelt Thomas (1991) emphasizes that,

“Diversity includes everyone; it is not something that is defined by race or gender. It

extends to age, personal and corporate background, education, function and personality. It

includes life-style, sexual preference, geographic origin, tenure with the organizations…and

management or non-management (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 134).

In reflecting on the aforementioned definitions of diversity, Mor Bar (2014) observes

that,

“Against the backdrop of the broad definitions, on the one hand, and the narrow ones, on

the other, generating a definition of workforce diversity that will be relevant in different

countries and applicable in various cultural and national contexts proves to be a challenge.

Trying to name specific diversity categories that can be relevant across cultures and nations is a

futile effort” (p. 135).

In order to address this dilemma, Mor Barak (2014) has proposed a “global definition of

diversity that can be relevant in different cultural and national contexts” (p. 136). This globally

relevant definition of diversity is characterized by “distinction categories” (Mor Barak, 2014, p.

136) that identify the “specific national or cultural context” (p. 136) and the “consequences of

belonging to these groups—the potential harmful or beneficial impact on employment and job

prospects” (p. 136). Accordingly, the definition of “workforce diversity—in the global context”


(Mor Barak, 2014, p. 136) that Mor Barak (2014) has utilized in her analysis and in her book

states that,

“Workforce diversity refers to the division of the workforce into distinction categories

that (a) have a perceived commonality within a given cultural or national context and that (b)

impact potentially harmful or beneficial employment outcomes such as job opportunities,

treatment in the workplace, and promotion prospects—irrespective of job-related skills and

qualifications” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 136).

Here, the potentially harmful or “adverse consequences” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 136) that

negatively affect those belonging to distinction categories may be rooted in “stereotypes[ing],

prejudice, discrimination, oppression, and exclusion” (p. 136). These dynamics “affect the

distribution of resources and privileges in society that are based on group membership rather

than on employment-related characteristics such as level of education, commitment, and job

related skills” (p. 136). The human characteristic of stereotyping is defined by Mor Barak

(2014) as a “standard, oversimplified mental picture that is held in common by members of a

group” (p. 139). An additional definition of a stereotype offered by Jack Brigham (1971) holds

that such an interpretation is a “generalization made about an ethnic group, concerning a trait

attribution, which is considered to be unjustified by an observer” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p.

139). In general, stereotypes,

“Were originally considered undesirable because they were thought to be either (a) the

result of an inferior cognitive process—that is, a process that utilizes overgeneralization or

oversimplification—or (b) were morally wrong because they categorized people who had no

desire to be categorized” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 139).


Hofstede, Hofstede & Minkov (2010) propose that there are two types of stereotypes, one

being “heterostereotypes—perceptions about members of the other group—and the second are

autostereotypes—perceptions about one’s own groups” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 143).

Mor Barak (2014) adds that “people will incorporate generally positive and favorable

characteristics into their autostereotypes and generally negative and unfavorable characteristics

into the way they perceive groups other than their own” (p. 143).

A different undesirable dimension in human relations is identified by the word prejudice

that is,

“Derived from the verb to prejudge and refers to a preconceived judgment or opinion

held by members of as group. Most commonly, a prejudice is perceived as an irrational attitude

of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics”

(Mor Barak, 2014, p. 139).

In a classic definition, Gordon Allport (1954, 1979) observes that prejudice is,

“An antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalizations. It may be felt or expressed.

It may be directed toward a group as a whole or toward an individual because he is a member of

that group” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 143).

Allport (1954, 1979) also contends that the “two important elements in understanding

prejudice are that it involves passing judgment on the other without sufficient warrant and that it

involves negative feelings” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 143). Significantly, similar to the

dynamic that exits in stereotyping, in conditions of prejudice, “negative attributes are associated

with members of other groups, or out-groups, and positive characteristics are associated with

members of one’s own group, or in-group” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 143).


In certain cases, stereotypical and prejudicial attitudes and notions that are held with

respect to other humans lead to what is referred to as dehumanization and potentially even

oppression. In temperament and practice, dehumanization involves “relating to out-group

members as less human, inferior, or fundamentally different in ways that make them undeserving

of equal treatment” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 145). Frequently, in human history, dehumanization

has resulted in conditions of oppression that is the “unjust or cruel exercise of authority and

power—most often used by one group to dominate another” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 145). Mor

Barak (2014) observes that “two extreme forms of dehumanization and oppression are the

enslavement and genocide of the African people by the colonizing nations and the enslavement

and genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis” (p. 146).

Overwhelmingly, the existence of both stereotyping and prejudice results in endemic

patterns of discrimination in employment or in society for that matter. In an 8 year study, Littrell

& Nkomo (2005) observed that “having entered careers traditionally dominated by White males,

Black women have been subjected to a particular form of sexism shaped by racism and racial

stereotyping” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 141).

An additional example of stereotyping and its influence in generating discrimination in

employment may be found in the U.S. based Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case where an

extremely competent employee “was denied a promotion to partner in the accounting firm

because her interpersonal skills were considered too abrasive although the partners strongly

praised her skills and abilities to secure major contracts” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 142). Eventually,

in light of repeated failures in not having been promoted to partnership and pursuant to being

told that she may be able to “improve her chances by walking, talking, and dressing more

femininely” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 142), Ann Branigar Hopkins “filed a lawsuit charging gender


discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (p. 142). In the end, this gender

discrimination case was decided in her favor in a major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.N. International Labor Organization Discrimination Convention of 1958 has

defined discrimination as,

“Any distinction, exclusion or preference…which has the effect of nullifying or

impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be

determined. In this convention the grounds for non-discrimination include race, color, sex,

religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p.

147).

Mor Barak (2014) states that “gender has been one of the most commonly used criteria

for discrimination in the workplace. Here, the justification that has been utilized to rationalize

“women’s discrimination has relied on perceptions of a difference in their destiny in life, often

citing religious justification” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 147).

Nevertheless, in recent years, Mor Barak (2014) observes that “in response to the

growing diversity in the workforce around the world, many companies have instituted specific

policies and programs to enhance recruitment, inclusion, promotion, and retention of employees

who are different from the privileged echelons of society” (p. 217). These organizational

approaches that are collectively referred to as diversity management are defined by Olsen and

Martins (2012) as,

“The utilization of human resource (HR) management practices to (i) increase or

maintain the variation in human capital on some given dimension (s), and/or (ii) ensure that

variation in human capital on some given dimension (s) does not hinder the achievement of


organizational objectives, and/or (iii) ensure that variation in human capital on some given

dimension (s) facilitates the achievement of organizational objectives” (as cited in Mor Barak,

2014, p. 218).

Here, as stated previously, Mor Barak (2014) has defined diversity management as,

“The voluntary organizational actions that are designed to create greater inclusion of

employees from various backgrounds into the formal and informal organizational structures

through deliberate policies and programs (p. 218).

In pursuit of promoting diversity, Cox (2001) argues that “the challenge of diversity is

not simply to have it but to create conditions in which its potential to be a performance barrier is

minimized and its potential to enhance performance is maximized” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014,

p. 219). Additionally, Thomas (2005) contends that diversity management “refers not only to

those groups that have been discriminated against or that are different from the dominant or

privileged groups but to the mixture of differences, similarities and tensions that can exist among

the elements of a pluralistic mixture” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 219).

Increasingly, there is a realization that diversity management “can create a competitive

advantage in areas such as recruitment, retention, marketing, problem solving, and resource

acquisition” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 219). This concentration on the business related beneficial

attributes of diversity “is quite different from equal rights legislation and from

affirmative/positive action programs” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 220) that endeavor “to achieve

equality of opportunities by focusing on specific groups and righting past wrongs” (p. 220). In

taking these three separate efforts into consideration, it is important to note that,


“Equal employment opportunity (EEO) legislation means that it is against the law to

discriminate, affirmative action programs mean that companies need to take positive steps to

ensure equal opportunities, and diversity management is proactive and aimed at promoting a

diverse and heterogeneous workforce. The business of the latter is on the business advantage

that it can provide to organizations. More and more companies are realizing that there can be a

business benefit for having diversity management programs or, at the very least, to including

language about it in their public relations material” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 220).

All the same, it is crucial to emphasize that “equal rights legislation and

affirmative/positive action policies are prerequisites for the development of diversity

management because they create the social, legal, and organizational environment on which

diversity management initiatives can be based” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 222).

In describing the traditional organizational human resources approaches and tendencies,

Mor Barak (2014) observes that,

“Conventional HR practices tend to produce and perpetuate homogeneity in the

workforce as a result of the A-S-A (attraction-selection-attrition) cycle...Typically, Individuals

are attracted to organizations that appear to have members with values similar to their own. In

turn, organizations select new members that are similar to their existing members because their

hiring continues to make everyone feel comfortable…Recruiting practices often emphasize hiring

people from sources that have historically been reliable and selecting candidates whose

characteristics are similar to those employees that have been successful in the past. As a result,

employees who do not fit in well with the dominant organizational culture eventually leave or

are fired, creating a selective attrition process that supports and maintains a workforce that is

homogeneous” (p. 223).


This extremely important analysis also contends that “in the long run, this trend is

unhealthy for organizations in that it limits talent pool, their long-term growth and renewal, and

their ability to adapt to environmental changes and tap into new markets” (Mor Barak, 2014, p.

223). In attempting to address the inadequacies and the inequities that are inherent in an

attraction-selection-attrition (A-S-A) paradigm/cycle, Kossek and Lobel (1996) have observed

that organizations have usually adopted and implemented three separate HR approaches (as cited

in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 223). Kossek and Lobel (1996) have labeled the first approach as

“diversity enlargement” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 223) where attention is concentrated on,

“increasing the representation of individuals of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds

in the organization. The goal is to change the organizational culture by changing the

demographic composition of the workforce…The mere presence of increasing numbers of

employees from different backgrounds will result in a culture change that will bring the desired

results. Often this approach is motivated by compliance to laws and public expectations of

political correctness rather than a deep understanding of the business need for diversity” (as cited

in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 223).

A second approach labeled by Kossek and Lobel (1996) as “diversity sensitivity” (as

cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 224),

“Recognizes the potential difficulties introduced by bringing together individuals from

diverse backgrounds and cultures in the workplace. It attempts to overcome these difficulties

through diversity training that is aimed at sensitizing employees to stereotyping and

discrimination while also promoting communication collaboration. The assumption embedded

in this approach is that increased sensitivity to differences will improve performance” (as cited in

Mor Barak, 2014, p. 224).


Kossek and Lobel (1996) refer to the third diversity approach as “cultural audit” (1996)

that,

“Aims at identifying the obstacles that limit the progress of employees from diverse

backgrounds and that block collaboration among groups in the organization. The audit is usually

performed by outside consultants who obtain data from surveys and focus groups and then

identify areas in which employees who are different from the dominant group feel that they are

blocked from performing to the best of their ability” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 225).

In contrast to the aforementioned HR diversity policies and practices, Kossek and Lobel

(1996) have proposed a fourth approach labeled as “strategy for achieving organizational

outcomes” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 226) that ,

“Focuses on diversity management as a means for achieving organizational ends, not as

an end in itself. Using this strategy, managers have to identify the link between diversity

management objectives and desired individual and organizational outcomes. Organizational

strategic choices are viewed in the context of environmental drivers such as the changing labor

market composition, the global economy, the shift to a service economy, and the legal and

governmental pressures” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 226).

A further analysis of diversity management offered by Cox (1994, 2001) describes a

“paradigm” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 226) that is composed of the “(a) monolithic

organization, (b) the plural organization, and (c) the multicultural organization” (as cited in Mor

Barak, 2014, p. 226). Cox (1994, 2001) argues that diversity management “should strive to

create multicultural organizations in which members of all sociocultural backgrounds can

contribute and achieve their full potential” (p. 226).


Here, Cox (1994, 2001) observes that a monolithic organization is “demographically and

culturally homogeneous” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 226), possesses a “culture that will

perpetuate the homogeneity of its workforce through its hiring and promotion practices” (p. 227)

and there is an “expectation that members of diverse groups will assimilate into the culture of the

majority with minimal degrees of structural and formal integration” (p. 227). In this light, in a

monolithic organization, Cox (1994, 2001) holds that “one cultural group manages the

organization almost exclusively” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 227) and “intergroup conflict

is expected to be minimal” (p. 227). Cox (1994, 2001) maintains that a monolithic organization

in the present global economy “will be at a competitive disadvantage, and its homogeneity will

become more difficult to maintain given the influx of women and members of minority groups

into the workforce around the world” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 227).

An additional organizational type in Cox’s (1994, 2001) paradigm labeled as the plural

organization attempts to possess a “heterogeneous workforce” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p.

227), “typically makes efforts to conform to laws and public policies that demand and expect

workplace equality” (p. 227) and “will take active steps to prevent discrimination in the

workplace such as audits that assure equality of compensation systems and manager trainings on

equal opportunity issues and sexual harassment” (p. 227).

Nevertheless, Cox (1994, 2001) holds that in the plural organization, as much as “women

and members of minority groups are represented in larger numbers, they make up only a small

percentage of the management, particularly top management, and are still expected to assimilate

into the majority culture” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 227). Cox (1994, 2001) also adds that

in spite of “greater structural and formal integration in the plural organization, institutional bias

is rather prevalent and intergroup conflict is significant, primarily because the increased presence


of women and members of ethnic and racial minority groups is not accompanied by serious

efforts to make them a truly integral part of the organization” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p.

227).

Cox (1994, 2001) recommends that organizations must focus their energies in order to

create a “culture that fosters and values cultural differences [and] truly and equally incorporates

all members of the organization via pluralism as an acculturation process, rather than as an end

resulting in assimilation” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 227). This multicultural organization,

Cox (1994, 2001) proposes, “has full integration, structurally and informally; is free of bias and

favoritism toward one group as compared with others; and has only a minimal intergroup

conflict, thanks to the previously stated characteristics that result from effective management of

diversity” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, pp. 227-228). Importantly, it must be understood that

Cox’s (1994, 2001) model of a multicultural organization must be regarded as the ideal zenith of

his paradigm that is “rarely found in reality but…useful from an analytic standpoint” (as cited in

Mor Barak, 2014, p. 228).

Mor Barak (2014) observes that on the organizational and societal levels, the “motivation

for implementing diversity management” (p. 229) may be rooted in “three types of arguments”

(p. 228). In the first perspective, there is an acceptance that “diversity is a reality here to stay”

(Mor Barak, 2014, p. 229) on the basis of the very fact that “the pool of current and future

employees is becoming more diverse, and businesses have no choice but to adapt to this new

reality” (p. 229). The second rationale argues that “diversity management is the right thing to

do” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 229) and consequently “companies have an obligation to promote

social justice and implement principles of compensatory justice through their policies and

programs” (p. 229). Finally, the third observation proposes that “diversity makes good business


sense” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 229) and indeed “diversity management can give companies a

competitive advantage in the global economy” (p. 229).

Mor Barak (2014) proposes that the ultimate purpose of diversity management must be to

“transform the organizational culture from a majority-oriented to a heterogeneous-pluralistic

culture in which different value systems are heard and thus equally affect the work environment”

(p. 230). In this light, diversity management concentrates on achieving two simultaneous

objectives in first “enhancing social justice by creating an organizational environment in which

no one is privileged or disadvantaged due to characteristics such as race or gender … [while

also] increasing productivity and profitability through organizational transformation” (Mor

Barak, 2014, p. 230). Consequently, diversity management must be essentially considered as a

“voluntary” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 230) organizational endeavor/strategy that utilizes a “broad

definition of diversity” (p. 230) in order to “make diversity programs inclusive and reduce

potential objections from members of the majority group” (p. 230).

Importantly, the aim of diversity management is to generate “tangible benefits to the

company…tapping into the full potential of all employees in the company in order to give the

company a competitive advantage whereas in the past, employees of different backgrounds…

were labeled as unqualified by managers if they did not conform to values and norms of the

majority” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 231). Critically, Mor Barak (2014) emphasizes that “in the long

run” (p. 231), the voluntary character of diversity management may potentially “mean…that it

may not survive during difficult economic times” (p. 231), its broad definitions “mean that the

most vulnerable groups in society…may not receive the protection they deserve because

resources will be spread across many groups” (p. 231) and its focus on “practical benefits” (p.

231) may generate conditions where it is considered as transitory when “is no longer perceived


as beneficial to companies” (p. 231). This is precisely why diversity management must be

continuously rationalized in the basis of a “strong moral and ethical” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 231)

foundation.

Mor Barak (2014) argues that leaders must be uniquely cognizant that “cultural

awareness and competence are essential for effective leadership in the context of diversity” (p.

232). Here, Blasco, Feldt and Jakobsen (2012) state that “cultural intelligence is the ability to

behave appropriately in cross-cultural settings, an ability that encompasses cognitive

(knowledge), emotional (motivational, mindfulness), and behavioral dimensions” (as cited in

Mor Barak, 2014, p. 232). Importantly, Thomas et al. (2008) have observed that cultural

intelligence is a “system of interacting knowledge and skills, linked by cultural metacognition

that allows people to adapt to, select, and shape the cultural aspects of their environment” (as

cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 232). Additionally, Thomas et al. (2008) hold that cultural

intelligence is also “linked to effective intercultural interactions, including interpersonal

relationships and task performance” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 232).

Mor Barak (2014) contends that,

“In order to provide vision and inspire their organizations, effective leaders need to

understand the multiplicity of values, perspectives, and worldviews that individuals and groups

may hold dear and use their cultural intelligence in different settings to create an inclusive and

effective work environment” (p. 232).

Nevertheless, as she has repeatedly stated in her book, Mor Barak (2014) emphasizes

that leaders must realize,


“Ensuring diversity representation in the workforce is only the initial step toward

workplace inclusion. Workplace inclusion reflects the extent to which employees perceive that

they are part of the communication systems, informal networks, and decision-making processes

of the organization” (p. 233).

Did You Learn Anything New or Revolutionary About a Certain Diversity Area (From the

Diversity Wheel) Based on Our Readings/Discussions/Activities?

Two extremely illuminating videos and one article provided valuable new information,

analysis and commentary on specific diversity areas in this course.

A Class Divided Video

Race and Ethnicity Based Diversity Areas

An incredibly insightful and intelligent although nonetheless tragic analysis of racial

relations and race discrimination was presented in the A Class Divided (ssnidero1, 2013) video

where Jane Elliot, an inspirational American educator conducts a landmark experiment in order

to teach her grade school students in Riceville, Iowa a “daring lesson in the meaning of

discrimination. She wanted to show her pupils what discrimination feels like, and what it can do

to people” (Scott, LDR 6145, Week Two Discussion Board Assignment Instructions, A Class

Divided Video, 2015, p. 1).

In this pursuit, Jane Elliot divides/separates her class into blue-eyed and brown-eyed students

where,

“The blue-eyed children were told they were smarter, nicer, neater, and better that those with

brown eyes. Throughout the day, Elliot praised them and allowed them privileges such as taking


a longer recess and being first in the lunch line. In contrast, the brown-eyed children had to

wear collars around their necks and their behavior and performance were criticized and

ridiculed by Elliot” (Scott, LDR 6145, Week Two Discussion Board Assignment Instructions, A

Class Divided Video, 2015, p. 1).

In the very beginning of the exercise, Jane Elliot asks a crucial question from her students

concerning how racial and ethnic minorities such as African Americans and Native Americans

are treated in society. Here, in line with the terminology mostly used in the late 1960s, she refers

to these two population groups as black people and Indians respectively. In response, an

incredibly perceptive student observes,

“Like they’re not part of this world. They don’t get anything in this world” (ssnidero1,

2013).

Ms. Elliot also asks,

“Do you think you know how it feels to be judged by the color of your skin?” (ssnidero1,

2013).

In responding to her own question, she emphasizes that,

“No, I don’t think you’d know how that felt unless you had been through it, would you?”

(ssnidero1, 2013).

The aforementioned affirmation and question will become the principle that guide the

two-day experiment intended to teach the students the nature and consequences of prejudice, bias

and discrimination. Moreover, in this particular exercise, Ms. Elliot informs her students that


they are going to be judged “by the color of their eyes” (ssnidero1, 2013). Most importantly,

Ms. Elliot declares to her students that,

“Since I’m the teacher and I have blue eyes I think maybe the blue eyed people should be

on top the first day…I mean the blue eyed people are the better people in this room” (ssnidero1,

2013).

This crucial element plays a central role during the first day of the experiment since Ms.

Elliot as the class teacher is the ultimate authority figure that is utilizing her considerable

position oriented powers in order to favor only those students who resemble her in relation to a

specific physical characteristic. Whereas in this particular case, the commonality of the

leader/teacher and the favored in-group students is in the color of their eyes, the fact remains that

such a trait may be replaced by other features such as the color of one’s skin and/or other race or

ethnicity related physical characteristics. Importantly, as Ms. Elliot divides the class in between

the favored in-group blue-eyed students and the disfavored out-group brown-eyed students, she

repeatedly emphasizes the inherent superiority of the former over the latter collection of

individuals.

Mrs. Elliot also informs her students that the favored blue-eyed students will begin

receiving certain privileges in line with belonging to the in-group category such as “5 extra

minutes at recess...While the brown-eyed people have to stay in/The-brown eyed people do not

get to use the drinking fountain…have to use paper cups…Brown-eyed people are not to play

with blue-eyed people on the playground because… [they] are not as good as blue-eyed

people/Brown-eyed people…are going to wear collars so that… [others] can tell from a distance

what colors [their] eyes are” (ssnidero1, 2013). Here, the prevention of brown-eyed student from


utilizing the drinking fountain possesses strong symbolic significance indicating implicitly that

they are considered inadequately clean to be allowed to use public facilities.

In addition, Ms. Elliot also begins to individually and as a group criticizing and

admonishing brown-eyed students in regards to their academic performance and competence.

When Ms. Elliot informs her class that during the Lunch period, “Blue-eyed people may go back

for seconds. Brown-eyed people do not” (ssnidero1, 2013), she also adds that such a rule is

necessary due to the reality that brown-eyed people “…might take too much” (ssnidero1, 2013).

Such a disrespectful stereotyping of brown-eyed students is intended to indicate that as a group

or collection of people they do not play by the rules.

As students return to their class from the Recess/Playground period, where the brown-

eyed students were observed as being incredibly demoralized and depressed, Ms. Elliot asks

from a brown-eyed and a blue-eyed student as to the cause of their schoolyard altercation. Here,

the brown-eyed student reveals that he had been called “Brown-eyes” by the blue-eyed class

mate (ssnidero1, 2013) in a derogatory/sarcastic fashion and this resulted in him hitting the other

individual in the stomach. This conflictual incident indeed is an important stage in the

interactions of blue-eyed and brown-eyed students where one is ridiculing the physical

characteristics of the other in a pejorative manner intending to inflict emotional harm.

The conversation that ensues between Ms. Elliot and the brown-eyed student is extremely

poignant during which she asks from this individual if the act of hitting the blue-eyed student had

helped him, or “Did it stop him?” (ssnidero1, 2013) and for that matter “Did it make you feel

better inside?” (ssnidero1, 2013). Interestingly, by despondingly shaking his head this brown-

eyed student indicates that hitting his friend had not solved his own personal anguish and

dilemma.


In the second day of the experiment, Ms. Elliot announces to the class that her

declarations that “brown-eyed people aren’t as good as blue-eyed people…wasn’t true

(ssnidero1, 2013) and actually the “truth is that brown-eyed people are better than blue-eyed

people” (ssnidero1, 2013). Here, once more, Ms. Elliot initiates a pattern of relentlessly

belittling, admonishing, criticizing and disrespecting a group of her students, this time the blue-

eyed individuals, on the basis of their physical characteristics while simultaneously

complimenting the brown-eyed students on their intelligence and learning abilities. In addition,

she instructs her brown-eyed students to remove their collars and subsequently place them on the

shoulders of the blue-eyed individuals.

In regards to privileges that are offered to the favored in-group and deprived of

disfavored out-group, in the second day, Ms. Elliot mandates that, “The brown-eyed people get

five extra minutes of recess…Blue-eyed people are not allowed to be on the playground

equipment at any time…Blue eyed people are not to play with the brown-eyed people…Brown-

eyed people are better than the blue-eyed people…They’re smarter than blue-eyed people”

(ssnidero1, 2013).

A crucial aspect of the experiment is illustrated when the brown-eyed students needed on

average 5 ½ minutes to complete the Orton-Gillian card pack when they were designated as the

disfavored out-group. However, in the second day, when the brown-eyed students are declared

the favored in-group, they only need on average 2 ½ minutes to complete the Orton-Gillian card

pack. In regards to blue-eyed students, when they were identified as the favored in-group their

performance time in completing the Orton-Gillian card pack stood at 3 minutes while when they

were considered as the disfavored out-group they needed 4 minutes and 18 seconds to complete

the same exercise. When, Ms. Elliot asks her brown-eyed students as to the reasoning they


believed their performance had improved so dramatically, they respond that during the previous

day,

“We were brown eyes…We had collars on…We kept thinking about the collars…My

eyes kept rolling around” (ssnidero1, 2013).

In the end of the two day experiment, Jane Elliot shares and reflects with her students that

their shared experience was aimed at illustrating the deleterious ramifications of a,

“Filthy nasty word called discrimination…We’re treating people a certain way because

they are different from the rest of us…Is that fair…Nothing fair about it…We didn’t say this was

going to be a fair day did we…And it isn’t…It is a hard day” (ssnidero1, 2013).

Finally, in one of the most important moments in the A Class Divided video, Jane Elliot

ask her students,

“Should the color of some other person’s eyes have anything to do with how you treat

them…Should the color of their skin”? (ssnidero1, 2013)

Here, the students firmly respond in the negative. A Class Divided video is a powerful

educational journey that disturbingly and masterfully portrays the negative consequences of

racial or ethnic discrimination. Whereas in this experiment, brown-eyed or blue-eyed students

were discriminated against, ridiculed, criticized, belittled, disrespected and deprived of normal

everyday privileges on the basis of the color of their eyes, the objective is to give life to the

meaning and consequences of being a member of a disfavored out-group. This landmark

experiment and its accompanying recorded documentation illustrate the debilitating

manifestations of racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination where the disfavored outgroups


are systematically deprived of basic privileges and additionally continuously demoralized

through repeated derogatory defamations that are based on false and illusory stereotypes.

Sheryl Sandberg: Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders Video

Gender Based Diversity Area

In “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders” video, Sheryl Sandberg (Ted Talks, 2010),

a highly intelligent women leader, offers her perspectives on some of the causes that are

undermining the aspirations of women to become leaders in organizations and society. Sandberg

also offers a number of reflections and solutions that aspiring women leaders may utilize in

order to achieve their leadership related goals. Sandberg states that too many women leaders are

“dropping out” (Ted Talks, 2010) from the leadership path under pressures from “hard choices

between professional success and personal fulfilment” (Ted talks, 2010).

Sandberg adds that U.S. based statistics of married senior managers reveal that “2/3 of

the married men had children while only 1/3 of married women had children” (Ted Talks, 2010).

As opposed to conditions in the past, Sandberg observes that presently in the U.S., “women have

basic civil rights” (Ted Talks, 2010), although “women are not making it to the top of any

profession anywhere in the world” (Ted Talks, 2010). Here, Sandberg asks, “How do we change

this? How do we change the numbers at the top? How do we make this different? (Ted Talks,

2010). The solution, Sandberg argues, is in “keeping women in the workforce” (Ted Talks,

2010) in order to prevent their departure prior to arriving at the “higher income part of our

workforce/the people who end up at the top of Fortune 500 CEO jobs” (Ted Talks, 2010).

Sandberg does admit that “flextime…mentoring…programs companies should have to

train women” (Ted Talks, 2010) are “all really important” (Ted Talks, 2010). However in her


speech Sandberg is concentrating on what “women can do as individuals” (Ted Talks, 2010),

“what messages” (Ted Talks, 2010) women must tell themselves, what may be the “messages

that…[they] tell women who work with or for… [them] (Ted Talks, 2010) and what messages

women must tell their “daughters” (Ted Talks, 2010).

Sandberg emphasizes that she is not passing “judgment” (Ted Talks, 2010) on anyone

and she does not “have the right answer” (Ted Talks, 2010); even for herself. In addition,

Sandberg holds that “staying in the workforce” (Ted Talks, 2010) may not be the “right thing for

everyone” (Ted Talks, 2010). However, with respect to women who “do want to stay in the

workforce” (Ted talks, 2010), Sandberg proposes the consideration/adoption of three distinct

strategies that she labels as “Seat at the table” (Ted Talks, 2010), “Make your partner a real

partner” (Ted talks, 2010) and “Don’t leave before you leave” (Ted Talks, 2010).

In relation to the strategy or message that is titled as “Seat at the table” (Ted Talks,

2010), Sandberg contends that “women systematically underestimate their own abilities” (Ted

Talks, 2010), “women do not negotiate for themselves in the workforce” (Ted Talks, 2010) and

“men attribute success to themselves [while]women attribute success to external factors” (Ted

Talks, 2010). Sandberg reminds her audience that “no one gets to the corner office by sitting on

the side of the table…no one gets the promotion when they do not think they deserve their

success…where they do not even understand their own success” (Ted Talks, 2010).

Sandberg adds that “success and likability are positively correlated for men and

negatively correlated for women” (Ted Talks, 2010). Here, Sandberg argues that women

“should reach for the permission to seat at the table…where for them there are sacrifices they

will make…even though for their brothers there will not” (Ted Talks, 2010). In the end of this


section, Sandberg asserts that “men are reaching for opportunities more than women…we have

got to get women to seat at the table” (Ted Talks, 2010).

In regards to her second recommendation and message, Sandberg emphasizes that women

must “make… [their] partner a real partner” (Ted Talks, 2010). The realization of this message

involves men helping more in childcare and “housework” (Ted Talks, 2010). Sandberg observes

that with two working parents, “the woman does twice the amount of housework that man does

and the woman does three times the amount of childcare that the man does…so she has got three

jobs or two jobs and he has got one…so who do you think is going to drop out if someone needs

to be home” (Ted Talks, 2010). Sandberg believes that in society we “place more pressure on

our boys to succeed than we do on our girls” (Ted Talks, 2010), however “we have to make it as

important a job…to work inside the home for people of both genders” (Ted Talks, 2010).

With respect to the message labeled as “Don’t leave before you leave” (Ted Talks, 2010),

Sandberg places emphasis on the “actions women are taking with the objective of staying in the

workforce [that] actually lead to their eventually leaving” (Ted Talks, 2010). Sandberg

maintains that when women begin thinking about having a family and childcare responsibilities,

they also stop raising their “hands” (Ted Talks, 2010) and looking for “permission” (Ted Talks,

2010). Eventually, this pattern leads to women not taking “on a new project” (Ted Talks, 2010)

and “leaning back” (Ted Talks, 2010) at their workplaces.

Sandberg recommends that women must pursue their leadership aspirations by accepting

“promotions” (Ted Talks, 2010) and career “opportunities…until the very day… [they] need to

leave to take a break for a child” (Ted Talks, 2010). Consequently, Sandberg argues, women

must not “make decisions too far in advance…particularly ones… [they] are not conscious…

[they] are making” (Ted Talks, 2010). Finally, Sandberg observes, “the numbers at the top…


they are just not moving…there will not be fifty percent of people at the top with any industry”

(Ted Talks, 2010). Nevertheless, Sandberg believes that a “world that was run where half of

countries and half of companies were run by women would be a better world” (Ted Talks, 2010).

Sandberg’s message and recommendations for women is intended to enhance the

confidence of women to pursue leadership opportunities. Sandberg emphasizes that women

must encourage their male partners to contribute more equitably in child rearing, familial and

house work responsibilities. She also reminds women not to thwart their leadership oriented

career paths on the basis of some future emergence of probable familial obligations. In essence,

Sandberg’s thought process is in convincing women that they must believe in their abilities and

competence and adjust factors in their environment in order to fulfill their leadership aspirations.

Week 3 Journal Entry and Reading Assignments: Write a Journal Entry on How the

Statements in the Article Undermine Women as Leaders in Organizations (Scott, LDR

6145 Week Three Assignments, Journal Entry Week Three, 2015).

Things Never to Say to Women Executives

The article titled “Things Never to Say to Women Executives” (Diversity Inc., Things

Never to Say to Women Executives, n. d.) delineates a number of comments that must never be

communicated to women executives. Indeed, one may justly and rationally argue that the

comments in question must never be told or communicated to any female professional and

woman worker regardless of their rank with in an organization. In addition, standards of

etiquette, politeness and respectfulness mandate that such comments must not be uttered in any

social encounter or interaction.


One of the women executives interviewed in the article states that, “We all come to the

table with biases and histories and upbringings in life that give us a perspective that may have

20, 30 years behind it” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). Consequently, in order to “make sure there aren’t

some unconscious biases informing that harmless comment you are about to make to the woman

in the next office, take a look at eight things you should never say to a woman executive or

coworker”(Diversity Inc., n. d.).

The first type of insensitive, discouraging and practically disgusting comments, the

article argues, are statements that denigrate a woman’s professional standing in the organization

by equating her worth as being an object of pleasure for the male species. These types of

offensive remarks, an executive woman interviewee holds, “…create an environment where

people struggle and therefore lack the freedom to be innovative and comfortable… [On the other

hand] When you remove those barriers and create a culture that allows people to flourish, you

get better engagement, better retention and better results” (Diversity Inc., n. d.).

The second type of inappropriate comments resemble the following statement declaring

to an aspiring woman leader that, “You don’t really want that promotion. You’ll never see your

kids” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). All statements of similar orientation, a woman executive contends,

reinforce a “preconceived notion that a woman cannot work more than the 40 hours per week,

especially if she has a family” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). Indeed, this woman executive observes,

“She may in fact want that promotion just as much as her male counterparts, but she’s balancing

family life and at the same time balancing leading a team” (Diversity Inc., n. d.).

A third type of biased comments are similar in nature to the following observations that,

“You’ll get the job because you’re a woman…or…You must be the token woman” (Diversity

Inc., n. d.). These forms of statements are intended to communicate to a woman leader that “she


is where she is because of gender” ((Diversity Inc., n. d.). In addition, such comments are

“nothing short of disrespectful. It diminishes that woman’s experience in the field and expertise

as a leader. It also indicates, to a woman from an underrepresented group, that she was selected

not only because she is a female but also because she is Black, Latina or Asian” (Diversity Inc.,

n. d.).

A fourth kind of disrespectful comments are frankly despicable utterings that ridicule and

demean a woman on the basis of her physiology and biological orientation. In this manner,

“when a female executive is forceful or aggressive, she is often received in a negative way, while

a man in the same position is perceived as doing his job” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). In truth, these

types of dishonorable statements are “never appropriate to” (Diversity Inc., n. d.) communicate

to a woman professional or a woman worker.

The fifth types of inappropriate comments are expressed in such a fashion so as to state to

a female leader or a professional woman that they are “very attractive [or pretty, or beautiful,

etc.]” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). The article emphasizes that “Although women as well as men may

enjoy a compliment on their looks, saying this to a female coworker or executive can leave the

coworker felling marginalized—as if her looks are more important than her skills or what she has

to say” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). Here, a woman executive observes, “It is that feeling to the

receiver that the listener isn’t paying attention to what she has to say, [and] therefore, it doesn’t

matter how crisp, robust and powerful her message is; the impact to the listener is diminished

because they’re focused on the external” (Diversity Inc., n. d.) factors.

A sixth form of comments is misguidedly intended to compliment a woman by stating,

“You look great for your age…or…Do you use Botox?” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). Here, the article

argues, “especially inappropriate in the workplace, a woman’s age should never be discussed


unless she brings it up first. And if you suspect…a surgical procedure, keep it to yourself, unless

your coworker volunteers that information to you” (Diversity Inc., n. d.).

A seventh kind of comments are “demeaning” (Diversity Inc., n. d.) to a woman leader

or a female worker by declaring, “You do that so well for a girl” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). These

types of statements are intended to indicate that “women are inferior to men, and the recipient

may not receive it with the best of humor” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). Here a woman executive

maintains, such comments emphasize that “You’re less than the fellows because you are a

woman. Any conversation that implies you are less than is inappropriate” (Diversity In., n. d.).

An eight type of “inappropriate” (Diversity Inc., n. d.) statements inquire if a woman

leader or female worker is “expecting” (Diversity Inc., n. d.). A woman executive contends that

“I think it’s inappropriate to say anything unless you get into a conversation about family…For

example, I may say something about my family, children or something and then ask if they have

children. They may say, No, I don’t have children, but I’m expecting. I think it’s very

dangerous to get into personal kinds [of] things like that without someone letting you know it’s

OK first” (Diversity Inc., n. d.).

The aforementioned inappropriate and inconsiderate comments intentionally or

unintentionally demean the value that women bring to an organization or a workplace

environment. These insensitive statements are inherently stereotypical, biased and prejudicial

with respect to the abilities and capabilities of women and are based on false notions associated

with the superiority of men. As cited earlier in this paper, Jack Brigham (1971) holds that a

stereotype is a “generalization made about an ethnic [gender] group, concerning a trait

attribution, which is considered to be unjustified by an observer” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p.

139). Mor Barak (20140 observes that stereotypes,


“Were originally considered undesirable because they were thought to be either (a) the

result of an inferior cognitive process—that is, a process that utilizes overgeneralization or

oversimplification—or (b) were morally wrong because they categorized people who had no

desire to be categorized” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 139).

Here, prejudice is defined,

“Derived from the verb to prejudge and refers to a preconceived judgment or opinion

held by members of as group. Most commonly, a prejudice is perceived as an irrational attitude

of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics”

(Mor Barak, 2014, p. 139).

In addition, Gordon Allport (1954, 1979) observes that prejudice is,

“An antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalizations. It may be felt or expressed.

It may be directed toward a group as a whole or toward an individual because he is a member of

that group” (as cited in Mor Barak, 2014, p. 143).

The key words and phrases in the above definitions are unjustified, inferior cognitive

process, oversimplification, morally wrong, they categorized people who had no desire to be

categorized, prejudge, irrational attitude, directed toward a group as a whole or toward an

individual because he [she] is a member of that group. An unbiased appraisal of the

aforementioned demeaning statements that falsely and untruthfully evaluate the professional

capabilities of women leaders and female workers reveal that they are indeed morally repugnant

and irrational rooted in false presuppositions and inferior cognitive processes.


How Will Your New Knowledge Affect You Going Forward in Your Daily Interactions

with Friends/Colleagues/Classmates/Coworkers, Etc.?

As stated previously in this Final Diversity Leadership Journal Report, my occupational

background is in the Hospitality and Tourism Industries. These industries by their very nature

benefit from the employment of many diverse associates from various races, genders, ethnicities,

nationalities, religions, etc. backgrounds. In addition, one of the unique qualities of being

employed in the Hospitality and Tourism Industries is the ability of interacting with guests and

patron from all over the world. Prior to my voluntary departure from these industries in order to

address a personal matter, I had the privilege of being exposed to this incredibly rich diverse

occupational environment on a daily basis.

I also had the pleasure of offering my services on a volunteer basis as an instructor in a

municipal school training entering service providers for a period of many years (I am no longer

able to perform this volunteer service due to my other responsibilities). The overwhelming

majority of the students in this municipal school originated from underserved communities with

a large contingent of racial or ethnic minority representation in addition to those who originated

from many different nationalities. Crucially, as one of the founders of the school, as an

individual who spoke fervently on the rationale for having such an school and as an instructor

who taught the students from the very beginning, my motivation for such involvement emanated

from a deep belief in citizenship through service and a desire to contribute however marginally

to the welfare of the community.

As I studied Mor Barak’s (2014) inclusive workplace model, I realized how my

insignificant endeavors and the passion that I exerted in helping the out-groups in employment

environments or through my volunteer service resemble the characteristics of the aforementioned


model. Here, within the confines of my extremely limited organizational power and authority, I

consistently focused on promoting a “pluralistic value frame that respects all cultural

perspectives” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 9), contributed to the “surrounding community” (p. 9),

addressed “the needs of disadvantaged groups” (p. 9) (the need to be empowered through proper

education on professional matters related to the Hospitality and Tourism Industries) and

collaborated with individuals from diverse backgrounds in order to make the above described

school a reality.

As I reflect on my work related experiences, encounters and contributions or my

relationship with family and friends, I observe numerous parallels with the arguments, analysis,

ideas and concepts presented in our reading assignments. Most importantly and on a

fundamental level, I genuinely feel that the inclusion-exclusion continuum presented by Mor

Barak (2014) has been the standard that I have always depended upon to introspectively judge

my actions with respect to colleagues, classmates and coworkers. Here, Mor Barak (2014) states

that,

“The concept of inclusion-exclusion in the workplace refers to the individual’s sense of

being a part of the organizational system in both the formal processes, such as access to

information and decision making channels, and the informal processes, such as water cooler and

lunch meetings where information and decisions informally take place” (p. 155).

Earlier in her book, Mor Barak (2014) describes the inclusion-exclusion continuum in a

slightly different syntax as the,


“Degree to which individuals feel a part of critical organizational processes, such as

access to information, connected to coworkers, and ability to participate in and influence the

decision-making process” (p. 8).

In the future these central principles must be present in my leadership related actions,

behavior and temperament ever more strongly enhancing my potential to “inspire organizations

to become more inclusive with respect to their diverse workforce” (Mor Barak, 2014, p. 233). In

addition, as indicated previously during my Discussion Board Posts and the ASTD Self-

Assessment Assignment, I must place particular emphasis in aligning my conduct and thought

patterns with the diversity oriented standards annunciated in the Valuing Diversity Self-

Assessment Worksheet. As important are all the standards in the Diversity Self-Assessment

Worksheet, here I am specifically referring to items # 15, # 21 and # 27 due to their particularly

relevant relationship to Mor Barak’s (2014) description of the inclusion-exclusion continuum.

In the Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet, standard # 15 states, “I help others

succeed by sharing unwritten rules and showing them how to function better” (ASTD Diversity

Self-Assessment Worksheet, LDR 6145, n. d., p. 2), standard # 21 emphasizes, “I include people

different from me in informal networks and events” (p. 2) and standard # 27 holds, “I say that’s

inappropriate when I think someone is making a derogatory comment or joke” (p. 2). These

three diversity standards are unique leadership characteristics that attempt to expand, improve

and elevate the inclusion of associates in formal and informal organizational processes.

In addition, item # 27 illustrates how the standards of diversity and inclusion are

inherently based on the principles of human integrity, morality and ethics. This is precisely the

foundation envisioned by Mor Barak (2014) proposing that,


“It is, therefore, essential that diversity management will be based not only on the

principle of providing tangible benefits to companies but also on a strong moral and ethical

commitment to diversity” (p. 231).

In relation to item # 27, indeed this would be the ethical and moral principle of always

speaking honestly in the face of environmental factors that may compel or induce individuals to

neglect basic elements of fairness, truthfulness and decency. Moreover, the 28 diversity

standards in the Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet and specifically the 3

aforementioned standards (# 15, # 21 and #27) are pertinent in regards to all human relationships

either personal or occupational for that matter.

In relation to the knowledge that I have garnered with respect to certain diversity areas

discussed in the previous question (race, ethnicity and gender) and how that insight may affect

my daily interactions with friends/colleagues/classmates/coworkers, I must place emphasis on

the importance of being “mindful of… [my] unconscious biases” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh,

2003, p. 7) that are indeed “contrary to… [my] consciously held, explicit beliefs” (p. 3). Banaji,

Bazerman & Chugh (2003) argue that “even the most well-meaning person unwittingly allows

unconscious thoughts and feelings to influence seemingly objective decisions” (p. 3) that in turn

may potentially “undermine managers’ fundamental work—to recruit and retain superior talent,

boost the performance of individuals and teams, and collaborate effectively with partners” (p. 3).

Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh (2003) observe that these “related sources of unintentional

unethical decision making [are] implicit forms of prejudice, bias that favors one’s own group,

conflict of interest, and a tendency to over-claim credit” (p. 3). Here, implicit prejudice is the

“bias that emerges from unconscious beliefs” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 4), in-group

favoritism is the “bias that favors your group” (p. 5), over-claiming credit is the “bias that favors


you” (p. 6) and conflict of interest is the “bias that favors those who can benefit you” (p. 7).

Similar to my posture with respect to the ASTD Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet

stated in the LDR 6145 Assignment # 1 that promoted seriousness, truthfulness and consistency,

I must remain forever vigilant that unconscious bias does not alter in any shape, manner or form

my full dedication to the creation of an authentic inclusive workplace whose characteristics were

delineated earlier in this Final Diversity Leadership Journal Report.

In regards to implicit prejudice, it is essential that I remind myself that such an

unconscious bias “arises from the ordinary and unconscious tendency to make associations, it is

distinct from conscious forms of prejudice, such as overt racism and sexism” (Banaji, Bazerman

& Chugh, 2003, p. 4). In addition, in relation to in-group favoritism, it is important to keep in

mind that,

“When those in the majority or those in power allocate scarce resources (such as jobs,

promotions, and mortgages) to people just like them, they effectively discriminate against those

who are different from them. Such in-group favoritism amounts to giving extra credit for group

membership. Yet while discriminating against those who are different is considered unethical,

helping people close to us is often viewed favorably” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 6).

Consequently, specifically in relation to “hiring, firing and promoting” (Banaji,

Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 6), I must ensure that “qualified minority candidates are [not]

subtly and unconsciously discriminated against…simply because they are in the minority” (p. 6).

Furthermore, in regards to over-claiming credit, I must remember that,

“We tend to over-rate our individual contributions to groups, which, bluntly put, tends to

lead to an overblown sense of entitlement. We become the unabashed, repeated beneficiaries of


this unconscious bias, and the more we think only of our own contributions, the less fairly we

judge others with whom we work” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 6).

In organizational and business relationships, this pattern of over-claiming credit may also

potentially,

“Destabilize alliances. When each party in a strategic partnership claims too much credit

for its own contribution and becomes skeptical about whether the other is doing its fair share,

they both tend to reduce their contributions to compensate” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003,

p. 6).

In essence, unconscious over-claiming, “reduce the performance and longevity of groups

within organizations” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 6), “take a toll on employee

commitment” (p. 6) and enhance mutual “resentment” (p. 7). Finally and crucially, I must

remain uniquely aware that potential conflict of interest may “lead honest, ethical professionals

to unconsciously make unsound and unethical recommendations” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh,

2003, p. 6).

In pursuit of rectifying the deleterious consequences of unconscious bias, I must

consistently engage in “collecting data, shaping the environment, and broadening the decision-

making process” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 7). Here, the discipline of collecting

data may involve the “strategy of unpacking” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 8) where we

“estimate…other members’ contributions…before claiming… [our] own” (p. 8). The strategy of

unpacking must also be applied when “team members or subordinates” (Banaji, Bazerman &

Chugh, 2003, p. 8) are engaged in “over-claiming” (p. 8). Most importantly, I must continuously


remind myself that the “pervasiveness of bias is not a mark of its appropriateness” (Banaji,

Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 8).

With respect to shaping the environment, I must “audit” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh,

2003, p. 8) my environment either personal or organizational and evaluate if it “may be

promoting unconscious biased or unethical behavior [and] consider creating countervailing

experiences” (p. 9). Lastly, in regards to broadening my decision making, “instead of relying on

a mental short list when making personnel decisions” (Banaji, Bazerman & Chugh, 2003, p. 9), I

must “start with a list of names of employees [especially many women and minorities] who have

relevant qualifications” (p. 9).

How Have the Readings/Discussions/Activities Helped to Develop You Into a Diversity

Leader?

In addition to Professor Scott’s observations cited in this paper or communicated in the

LDR 6145 course Web site, Mor Barak’s (2014) textbook, “A Class Divided” (ssnidero1, 2013)

video, Sheryl Sandberg’s “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders” (Ted Talks, 2010) video and

ASTD Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet (ASTD Valuing Diversity Self-

Assessment Worksheet, LDR 6145, n. d.), three other reading assignments/articles have

significantly contributed towards my development into a diversity leader.

Making Differences Matter: A New Paradigm for Managing Diversity

The first article by Thomas and Ely (1996/2002) titled “Making Differences Matter: A

New Paradigm for Managing Diversity” (pp. 1-15) proposes an innovative approach that is

intended to “incorporate employees’ perspectives into the main work of the organization and to

enhance work by rethinking primary tasks and redefining markets, products, strategies, missions,


business practices, and even cultures” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 9). The authors call such

an organizational philosophy, the learning-and-effectiveness paradigm for managing diversity”

(Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 9).

The learning-and-effectiveness approach is distinct from a “discrimination-and-fairness

paradigm [that] is organized around the theme of assimilation—in which the aim is to achieve a

demographically representative workforce whose members treat one another exactly the same”

(Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 10). The learning-and-effectiveness model also differs from an

“access-and-legitimacy paradigm…coalescing around an almost opposite concept:

differentiation, in which the objective is to place different people where their demographic

characteristics match those of important constituents and markets” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002,

p. 10).

In essence, the leaning-and-effectiveness paradigm “organizes itself around the

overarching theme of integration. Assimilation goes too far in pursuing sameness.

Differentiation…overshoots in the other direction” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 10).

Importantly, the learning-and-effectiveness approach “like the fairness paradigm…promotes

equal opportunity for all individuals… [and also] like the access paradigm…acknowledges

cultural differences among people and recognizes the value in those differences” (Thomas & Ely,

1996/2002, p. 10). Nevertheless, due to the integrative characteristic of the learning-and-

effectiveness model, “members of the organization can say, we are all on the same team, with our

differences—not despite them” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 10).

Diversity leaders must be cognizant of “eight preconditions” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002,

p. 10) that facilitate a learning-and-effectiveness cultural environment helping “to position

organizations to use identity-group differences in the service of organizational learning, growth,


and renewal” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 10). As a result, in order to actualize a learning-

and-effectiveness paradigm, “the leadership must understand that a diverse workforce will

embody different perspectives and approaches to work, and must truly value variety of opinion

and insight” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 10) and “recognize both the learning opportunities

and the challenges that the expression of different perspectives presents for an organization” (p.

10).

In addition, in bringing to fruition a learning-and-effectiveness environment, the

organizational culture “must create an expectation of high standards of performance…must

stimulate personal development…must encourage openness… [and] must make workers feel

valued” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 10). Furthermore, a learning-and-effectiveness

organization requires a “well-articulated and widely understood mission… [and] a relatively

egalitarian, non-bureaucratic structure” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 11).

In a learning-and-effectiveness organizations, “leaders and managers… [and]

employees…are actively seeking opportunities to explore how identity-group differences affect

relationships among workers and affect the way works gets done” (this is initially adopted by

leaders and emulated at a later stage by other lower ranking associates) (Thomas & Ely,

1996/2002, p. 12). This type of “proactive” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 12) knowledge

gathering endeavor allows leaders to identify “how identity group membership take on social

meanings in the organization and how those meanings manifest themselves in the way work is

defined, assigned and accomplished” (p. 12).

Secondly, in a learning-and-effectiveness organization, diversity leaders “are legitimating

open discussion…about how identity group memberships inform and influence an employee’s

experience and organization’s behavior” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 13). Here, diversity


leaders are “encouraging people to make explicit use of background cultural experience and the

pools of knowledge gained outside the organization to inform and enhance their work” (Thomas

& Ely, 1996/2002, p. 13).

Thirdly, in a learning-and-effectiveness organization, diversity leaders “actively work

against forms of dominance and subordination that inhibit full contribution… [and] take

responsibility for removing the barriers that block employees from using the full range of their

competencies, cultural and otherwise” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 13). Here, examples of

“dominance” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 13) are patterns such as “racism, homophobia,

sexism, and sexual harassment…that decrease individual and organizational effectiveness” (p.

13). In addition, in numerous instances, “organizations can create their own unique patterns of

dominance and subordination based on the presumed superiority and entitlement of some groups

over others” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 13).

Fourth, in a learning-and-effectiveness organization, diversity leaders make certain that

“organizational trust stays intact… [and] make sure their organizations remain safe places for

employees to be themselves” (Thomas & Ely, 1996/2002, p. 13). In this light, these diversity

leaders bring about organizational transformation by “setting a tone of honest discourse, by

acknowledging tensions, and by resolving them sensitively and swiftly” (Thomas & Ely,

1996/2002, p. 13).

A Framework for Pursuing Diversity in the Workplace

In relation to my development as a diversity leaders, the significance of Professor Thomas

Delong’s (2007) “A Framework for Pursuing Diversity in the Workplace” (pp. 1-10) article is in

the emphasis that the document places on describing the potential “biases” (p. 7) and “barriers”


(p. 7) that diversity oriented efforts may encounter in organizations. Additionally, the article

discusses a number of actions and strategies that diversity leaders must embark on in order to

solidify the transformational qualities and characteristics of diversity related policies.

Delong (2007) argues that in pursuing diversity strategies in organizations, “failures can

be attributed to explicit and implicit biases on the part of employees and to the presence of

significant barriers to change” (p. 7). Here, it is significant to be cognizant of the reality that

“the mere conscious desire not to be biased does not eliminate implicit bias” (Delong, 2007, p.

8). In addition, in relation to organizational barriers, Delong (2007) states that “women and

minorities often face explicit barriers as well as bias in the workplace” (p. 8).

In regards to workplace barriers for female employees, Delong (2007) cites a “Harris

Interactive study of highly qualified women… [that] found…almost 4 in 10 of the sample had

left work voluntarily at some point during their careers” (p. 8). Interestingly, from the above

group of women employees “only 40%...will return to full-time professional jobs” (Delong,

2007, p. 8). In addition, Delong (2007) contends,

“Many of these women might not have left the workplace at all if they had had suitable

alternative work arrangements. Options are limited for women with young children at

companies without telecommuting, flexible hours, and reduced work hours. And companies of

all types and sizes generally do a poor job of offering career flexibility. Once women step off the

conventional promotion track in favor of a part-time job or time away from work, it can be

difficult to climb back on” (p. 8).

Moreover, “even at companies that do offer alternative work arrangements, female

employees often expect to be stigmatized for taking advantage of them” (Delong, 2007, p. 8).


With respect to the barriers faced by minorities, Delong (2007) cites a particular study

that found “promising white professionals tend to enter a fast track early in their careers, whereas

high-potential minorities take off much later” (p. 9). Furthermore, those minorities that did enter

the higher echelons of organizations, “had had strong networks of mentors who recognized their

high potential and the longer timeline they needed to succeed” (Delong, 2007, p. 9).

Delong (2007) states that,

“Diversity requires a significant commitment for change to occur. Setting hiring targets

and posting a list of discriminatory acts that will not be tolerated are not enough. Diversity

training alone rarely leads to change in attitudes and behavior. Moreover, the gains associated

with diversity rarely materialize until a company reaches a sufficient threshold” (p. 9).

In relation to group dynamics, Delong (2007) observes that

“Teams work best when they are either extremely diverse or completely homogeneous;

they function less well when they are stuck in the middle. More importantly, teams do not do

well when they do not have the skills to discuss differences among group members. Thus even

leaders who want to develop the right policies face a dilemma: if they move too quickly, the

organization will resist change; if they move too slowly, the organization may not reap any

benefits in the ramp-up period” (p. 9).

Delong (2007) does introduce Thomas & Ely’s (1996/2002) learning-and-effectiveness

model discussed in the previous section as a viable integrative diversity approach that depends

on “empowering workers to contribute the varied perspectives that arise from their different

backgrounds” (p. 10) and the willingness of organizational leaders “to introduce those

approaches to the wider organization” (p. 10). As discussed previously, these organizational


approaches and strategies, it is believed, “could create a higher-performing and more committed

workforce” (Delong, 1996/2002, p. 10).

Delong (2007) also emphasizes that,

“Organizations must…address job design, as it pertains to women…a company cannot

learn from women’s perspectives if they exit the workforce. Work arrangements like

telecommuting, flex-time, and part-time are a start, but women must be convinced that they will

not be penalized for making use of these options. Furthermore, women who are pulled from the

workforce by children and family members in need also cite push factors like lack of opportunity

as equally influential in their decisions to leave” (p. 19).

Finally, Delong (2007) observes that the success of diversity efforts also depend on

“accountability” (p. 10) and “careful monitoring” (p. 10).

Leveraging Difference for Organizational Excellence: Managing Diversity Differently

Professor Martin Davidson’s (2002) “Leveraging Difference for Organizational

Excellence: Managing Diversity Differently” (pp. 1-12) also made an important contribution in

my understanding of the characteristics and conduct of diversity leadership. Davidson (2002)

argues that leveraging differences correctly in an organization may lead to “sustainable

competitive advantage” (p. 4). However, the act of leveraging must be based on the existence of

“a series of antecedents” (Davidson, 2002, p. 4) within the culture, policies and processes of the

organization namely seeing the difference, understanding the difference and valuing the

difference.

Davidson (2002) describes seeing the difference as the “capacity to notice and attend to

differences at a perceptual level” (p. 4) that involves the knowledge associated with “how people


solve problems, parse time, or manage ambiguity…not easily seen with casual observation” (p.

4) that “often factor powerfully into performance” (p. 4). On the individual level, seeing the

difference includes “working to understand how…differences matter” (Davidson, 2002, p. 5) as

opposed to “approaches that seek to homogenize people” (p. 5). Here, the individual asks, “I

wonder what makes her or him distinct from me” (Davidson, 2002, p. 5)?

On the individual level, seeing the difference also involves “actively reduce barriers that

prevent seeing” (Davidson, 2002, p. 5) through “paying attention to points of tension and conflict

—wherever and whenever they emerge” (p. 5). In addition, seeing the difference on the

individual level includes observing why “someone is not speaking or not articulating a

perspective” (Davidson, 2002, p. 5) and learning “what is not being said” (p. 5). On the

organizational level, seeing the difference translates into the capacity to “attend to intergroup

tensions” (Davidson, 2002, p. 6) by “paying attention to points of intergroup and

interdepartmental tensions” (p. 6) and “altering climates that encourage hiding and secrecy” (p.

6). Specifically, in relation to “reduce [ing] climates of secrecy” (Davidson, 2002, p. 7)

Davidson observes that “organizations that can eliminate inequitable consequences for revealing

difference can enhance the extent to which those differences may be revealed” (p. 7).

Davidson (2002) contends the next step in leveraging the difference involves actions and

a temperament that promotes understanding. Davidson (2002) defines understanding as

“building a knowledge base about difference” (p. 7) that is based “upon the individual and the

organization to cultivate a stance of inquisitiveness or curiosity, utilize questioning and listening

skills, and cultivate any other techniques that serve to compile information about the dimensions

of difference in question” (p. 7). Here, in regards to the discipline of understanding, individuals

and organizations must “be curious…cultivate sources of information about difference…build


skills in acquiring difference data… [and] include people who are different into the inner

circle/network” (Davidson, 2002, p. 8).

Davidson (2002) proposes that the antecedent of valuing the difference, “results from

sustained engagement with difference in ways that promote fundamental change in the person or

in the organization” (Davidson, 2002, p. 9). On the individual level, when valuing the

difference, individuals may “reduce excessive carefulness in relationships” (Davidson, 2002, p.

9), “be persistent amidst conflict” (p. 9) and “incorporate new data” (p. 9). Particularly, in

regards to the dynamic of conflict, “it is critical to persist in working to deal with the conflict

and, if necessary, repair broken trust or hard feelings” (Davidson, 2002, p. 10).

In relation to organizations, valuing the difference involves “reward [ing] and hold [ing]

accountable for difference-related activities” (Davidson, 2002, p. 10) and “recruit [ing] and

develop [ing] people who add diversity” (p. 10). Here, in order to “maintain sustained presence

of diverse people” (Davidson, 2002, p. 10) organizations must practice “the development,

mentoring, and hence promotion of diverse subordinates” (p. 10).

What Specific Reading/Discussion/Activities Had the Most Significant Impact for You

within this Course? Why/How Did it Make Such a Significant Impact for You?

I came to regard the ASTD Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet and the

corresponding Assignment as extremely enlightening and important learning instruments in this

course. The Self-Assessment that is composed of 28 items, asks the student or trainee to

evaluate themselves “openly and honestly” (ASTD Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment

Worksheet, LDR 6145, n. d., p. 1) with respect to the diversity oriented standards delineated in

the Worksheet. In order to be effective, the standards in the Worksheet must be taken seriously


as parameters of thought, temperament and conduct that elevate organizational leaders to become

competent and effective diversity leaders.

On the individual level, the imperative of seriously engaging oneself to uphold the 28

standards annunciated in the Diversity Self-Assessment mandates a deeper introspection of

personal behavior. As an example, I initially gave myself the highest rating with respect to items

2-6, 10, 14-22 and 25-26. These ratings were not done lightly; rather I evaluated myself

accordingly on the basis of a genuine understanding of my thoughts and conduct in relation to

the aforementioned standards. As an example, in both my personal and professional life, I have

always worked very hard in “respecting all co-workers, customers, and vendors” (ASTD

Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet, LDR 6145, n. d., p. 1) and working “willingly and

cooperatively with people different from me” (p. 1).

In addition, specifically in regards to standards 19 and 20, I take special pride in never

“repeating rumors that reinforce prejudice and bias” (ASTD Diversity Self-Assessment

Worksheet, LDR 6145, n. d., p. 2) and “recognize and avoid using language that reinforce

stereotypes” (p. 2). However, upon further deliberation and self-examination, I proceeded to

lower my ratings in relation to a number of diversity standards and eventually automatically

decreased all my rankings in line with my particular understanding of diversity leadership.

In essence, leaders or those that aspire to become effective diversity leaders must avoid

assuming a cavalier or self-congratulatory posture in relation to all matters having to do with

stereotyping, bias and prejudice. These debilitating dynamics and other more subtle

exclusionary patterns in human behavior restrict and constrain a leader’s potential in making a

constructive difference in the lives of others. Here, only through such a serious and deliberate

discipline of self-examination, one is able to “gain a deeper level of knowledge about leading in


a diverse world and managing a diverse workforce” (Scott, LDR 6145 ASTD Diversity Self-

Assessment Assignment Instructions, 2015).

In addition to the temperament of seriousness, in evaluating oneself in accordance to the

standards named in Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet, aspiring diversity leaders

must exercise a sincere characteristic of truthfulness. As an example, items 2, 7, 8, 12, 15 and 21

are extremely sophisticated and subtle standards that are nonetheless crucial if one is focused on

elevating the awareness of diversity related matters to a whole new enlightened level. Here, in

particular, standards 7, 15 and 21 place an added obligation on diversity leaders to do all that is

in their power and authority to “include people different” (ASTD Diversity Self-Assessment

Worksheet, LDR 6145, n. d., p. 2) from themselves “in informal networks and events” (p. 2) and

“sharing unwritten rules and showing them how to function better” (p.2).

As a result, the quality of truthfulness compels organizational leaders to genuinely and in

a transparent fashion begin a process of self-inquiry that would offer them a clairvoyant analysis

of their diversity oriented leadership conduct and capabilities. A further example of the trait of

truthfulness in diversity leadership is very much evident in item 27 that states, “I say I think

that’s inappropriate when I think someone is making a derogatory comment or joke” (ASTD

Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet, LDR 6145, n. d., p. 2). This standard specifically equates

diversity leadership with courage and determination in the face of adversity and potential

hostility in conditions where ones self-interest may be to turn a blind eye towards stereotyping,

bias and prejudice.

I also learned form studying and evaluating myself on the basis of the Valuing Diversity

Self-Assessment Worksheet that in transforming oneself into a competent diversity leader one’s

efforts must be consistent, continuous and ceaseless. In this light, I made a commitment to


myself to regard the 28 standards of the Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment Worksheet as a

collection of moral and ethical parameters that I must strive to fulfill and uphold on a daily basis.

Here, only such a consistent and meticulous adherence to diversity standards will transform me

into a competent and effective diversity leader.

In general, I take great pride in leading my life according to a very strict observance of

legal, moral and ethical codes and beliefs. I continuously self-evaluate myself and inquire if my

actions and conduct are making a difference in improving the life of others. Some may interpret

this as a sign of being naïve, unrealistic or even gullible. However, this is how I understand my

responsibility to my Creator. This is indeed were I receive the energy and the motivation of my

life. I have found the 28 standards expressed in the Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment

Worksheet as very much in line with the letter and spirit of who I am as a human being, what I

am able to do as a leader in order to make a positive difference in this world and how I am able

to serve my Creator.

LDR 6145 Group Project Reflection: What Were the Strengths and Weaknesses of Your

Team

Similar to all other performance oriented groups, our team also possessed a number of

strengths and weaknesses. In relation to strengths, as illustrated in their Discussion Board

writing, all three of my team members are extremely intelligent and perceptive individuals. This

level of intelligence and perceptiveness allows our team members to feel comfortable discussing

and analyzing academically oriented material. Unfortunately, one team member due to familial

obligations was unable to submit his Diversity Case with our final document, however, the case

contributions of my other two team members is illustrative of their intelligence and

insightfulness.


Secondly, as observed in their Discussion Board writing, our team members are very

effective writes who are able to convey their thoughts and feelings comfortably. In this light,

frequently my team members’ writing in the Discussion Board possessed a high level of

eloquence and clarity. Indeed, one member of our team has an extremely powerful writing style

that with proper education, training and experience, this individual will be able to be published.

In regards to this particular team strength, I am unable to confirm that the Diversity Team Project

document was truly reflective of the strong writing style that our team members exhibited in the

Discussion Board. In addition, as stated previously, one team member was unable to contribute

to the final document.

Thirdly, our team benefited from a complete absence of conflict or other tensions among

the group members. Here, the team members were extremely polite and respectful towards each

other and complimented each other on our respective ideas and work. Conflict, especially in a

Web based platform, may lead to misunderstanding, however our team did not experience any

disputes or disagreements. In addition, team members did not attempt to impose their individual

preferences, choices and inclinations on each other that also contributed to the existence of a

cooperative environment in our team. Furthermore, our team members congratulated each other

upon the completion of individual cases helping the tension-free atmosphere prevalent in our

team.

Fourth, in line with the Diversity Team Project instructions provided by Professor Scott,

each team member’s individual case explored a different diversity area (from the Diversity

Wheel) that added depth and variety to the final document. In this light, individual members

were able to bring their diverse and different thoughts, analysis, reflections, experiences and


interpretations to the final document enriching its dimensions. Here, again, team members did

not attempt to impose their individual preferences on each other.

Fifth, Professor Scott’s intervention in certain sensitive points and intervals contributed

greatly to the completion of the final project. With Professor Scott’s permission, team members

were able to write on or base their respective cases on different organizational settings that saved

our team valuable time. This allowed team members to attribute more attention to the

completion of their individual cases rather than devote valuable time in coordinating the

selection of a common organizational environment. In addition, Professor Scott’s supervision

motivated team members to complete their cases earlier than expected that helped greatly in the

writing of the Introduction section of the final document.

Furthermore, Professor Scott’s permission to move forward and not be interrupted by the

lack of a case submission by a team member allowed our team to coordinate, complete and

submit our document in line with the designated assignment timeline. Moreover, Professor

Scott’s written instructions explaining the nature of the Diversity Team Project assignment were

relied upon frequently in order to provide information, direction and motivation in pursuit of

completing the final document. These instructions were indeed indispensable in the course of

completing the Diversity Team Project assignment.

In regards to team weaknesses, as stated previously, one team member’s familial

obligations resulted in a lack of case submission by this individual. Accordingly, this team

member became unable to contribute to the completion of the final document. This situation was

brought to the attention of Professor Scott and her intervention and instructions were invaluable

in resolving the matter in a constructive manner. Unfortunately, as illustrated in our team’s


Discussion Board communication patterns, this individual, due to familial obligations also

became unable to communicate frequently and effectively with other team members.

LDR 6145 Group Project Reflection: Who Contributed the Most? The Least?

As Professor Scott is aware of the issues that presented themselves while our team

endeavored to complete our Diversity Team Project, it is important to emphasize that the final

document is representative and reflective of our cumulative efforts. As indicated earlier one

team member due to familial obligations was unable to submit a case to our final document. In

all probability, this team member, although to no fault of his own, contributed the least to the

completion of our Diversity Team Project.

However, the completed project is comprised of the equal contributions of team members

that were exercised in the writing of individual cases. I feel strongly that all our remaining team

members contributed equally to the completion of the Diversity Team Project. In all probability,

it remains true that individual team members may have contributed in a different manner towards

the completion of the project. However one must not regard the contributions of one member as

more valuable than the other due to the existence of this difference (Davidson, 2002). Indeed

this difference was leveraged in our team through the presentation of distinct and different

individual perspectives, analysis, thoughts and reflections in pursuit of completing a more

substantive and meaningful final document.

LDR 6145 Group Project Reflection: Who Had the Most Influence? Over Which Issues?

How Did the Various Members Gain Influence?

As stated previously, unfortunately due to family obligations, one team member did not

contribute to the completion of the final project. However, all the remaining team members had


an equal influence in regards to the actual composition of the final Diversity Team Project

document. Professor Scott is aware of the challenges that were present in the performance of

our team related tasks. However, the very nature of the Diversity Team Project paper presented

an equal opportunity to every team member to have an equal influence in the formation of the

final manuscript.

As I have had performance related experiences in my occupational background, I

concentrated on ensuring that all team members felt equally influential in the completion and

composition of the final document. This was done through repeated acknowledgements and

recognition of team member’s view points and perspectives. This was also done through respect

and deference that was extended to all individual members in our team. In essence, the ultimate

goal was to make certain that the remaining individuals genuinely feel that they are valued

members of the team.

Accordingly, frequent Discussion Board communications became the methodology that

was utilized in order to ensure that team members felt fully influential in the completion of our

Diversity Team Project. The instructions that were provided by Professor Scott were one of the

most important elements that helped our team in the completion of the Diversity Team Project.

Those instructions proved invaluable in providing accurate guidance and proper direction for our

team. I repeatedly relied on those instructions in order to correctly direct my own and other

members’ progress in our team.


What Do You See as Your Strengths as A Team Leader/Team Member? What Areas Do

You Still Need to Work on and How Do You Plan to Accomplish This?

As stated in LDR 6145 Week Six Initial Discussion Board Primary Post, I consider my

willingness and capacity to communicate openly with other team members as one of my most

important strengths. In my occupational background, I always made certain that people are

aware of my thoughts, feelings and opinions regarding workplace matters. I specifically, made

sure that my superiors are aware of what would be reasonable to expect from me and what they

must not be able to expect from me. In relation to those whose performance I was responsible

for, I made every effort in order to provide these individuals with all available work related

information so that they may be able to perform their tasks effectively and competently. An

important aspect of these very frequent communication encounters was my insistence that

interpersonal or work related exchanges must be conducted with politeness, consideration and

extreme deference, especially in relation to those who possess less power in a relationship.

I felt deeply that an inherent aspect of respecting others is to be transparent regarding my

views and offering team members and superiors quality information that may be utilized in order

to judge my actions/conduct. I also felt that those whose performance I was responsible for had

a basic and fundamental right to be informed of all the pertinent factors that effected their work

related environment. In essence, I have always believed that providing transparent and correct

information to superiors and team members is essential in maintaining leadership credibility. As

it is evident in our team’s Discussion Board communications, I will do my outmost to provide

for team members all the information that they need in order to be successful in their endeavors

and the performance of their tasks. Here, I receive great satisfaction in seeing others succeed and

perform effectively through the catalyst of an open and enriching communication environment.


I believe my second strength as a team leader/team member is an overwhelming

emphasis that I place on ethical and moral conduct that principally translates into truthfulness

and honesty. Indeed my most important motivation in life is to act in an ethical and moral

fashion with respect to other individuals, my employers and society in general. In this light, I

have declined occupational opportunities that I determined would have compromised and sullied

my ethical disposition. As an extension of this ethical and moral disposition, I believe that I

have an inherent duty and obligation to play by the rules in any and all environments and obey

and honor the laws and regulations of our society. Additionally, those who have worked with me

in the past would testify that I would also insist that ethical standards be applied to the behavior,

performance and personal conduct of all team members.

My third strength as a team leader/team member is the importance that I place on

superior performance and the completion of work related responsibilities. Here, this focus is

both qualitative and quantitative in nature and I will always endeavor to the best of my abilities

to complete the mission at hand. Crucially, I also understand fully that team based performance

must be based on the conduct of all the members and not on the work-related habits of a single

individual or for that matter a certain clique or faction within the group. Accordingly, as evident

in the Discussion Board communications of our Diversity Team Project assignment, I will do all

that I am able to do in order to motivate and encourage other team members to also perform

effectively and complete their responsibilities.

My fourth strength as a team leader/team member is my insistence that certain qualities

of empathy, kindness, compassion and potentially forgiveness be present in interpersonal and

work related encounters. In essence, I would not accept meanness among those whose

performance I was responsible for and everyone was very aware of this particular standard. I


also would insist that guests/patrons/customers who were elderly, disabled or families be treated

with the outmost deference and respect in our establishments. In this spirit, anti-social or

inappropriate behavior would not have been tolerated. As an extension of the aforementioned

temperament, I have always worked very hard to resolve or defuse conflicts among team

members and believe in the uplifting and motivating quality of conflict de-escalation.

My fifth strength as a team member is the great importance that I place in being fair and

equitable in my actions. This tendency is a constant focus and preoccupation in all my

interpersonal relationships and work related encounters. In this spirit, I strongly disapprove of

those who abuse their power for personal gain in organizational environments or team related

situations. This again is a characteristic that I am known for and is very much in line with the

ethical and moral aspects of my personality.

My sixth strength as a team leader/team member is the uplifting motivation that I receive

in helping others succeed in life or work related environments. This is precisely why I

volunteered for many years to teach inexperienced and entering service providers the elements of

Hospitality, Customer Service, Conflict Resolution, and other subject matters. The

overwhelming majority of these prospective service providers were from underserved, minority

and immigrant communities. As strange as this may sound, I also frequently shared my own

work related compensation with those whose performance I was responsible for in order to offer

them hope and convince them that I care for their welfare.

As a team leader/team member, the areas that I need to work on have to do with more

professional and academic education in the field of strategic leadership having with to do with

Human Resources or Diversity related disciplines. I will continue on the path that I have

established for myself and together with my Northeastern University education concentrate on


completing Human Resources oriented professional certifications. I will leverage my extensive

experience in leading teams in addition to training and teaching others on workplace

performance in order to make a positive difference in the lives of individuals, organizations,

communities and society.

Conclusion

This Final Diversity Leadership Journal Report has attempted to present all the respective

reading assignments and presentations that have impacted the knowledge and understanding of

this student in LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce course. At the most fundamental

level, this course has emphasized that the inclusion of underrepresented groups in organizations

or for that matter the discipline of diversity management is based on moral and ethical principles

of equity, fairness, civility and respectfulness. However, the LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse

Workforce course has also brought to light that diversity management and diversity leadership,

competently implemented and exercised may lead to innumerable dividends for improving

organizational effectiveness.


References

Allport, G. W. (1954, 1979). The nature of prejudice. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing

diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 143). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugh, D. (2003, December). How Unethical are you?

Harvard Business School. Retrieved February 2, 2015 from Northeastern University

College of Professional Studies Web site:

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.JSP?

course_id=_2252621_1&content_id=_7845354_1 .

Blasco, M., Feldt, L. E., & Jakobsen, M. (2012). If only cultural chameleons could fly too: A

critical discussion of the concept of cultural intelligence. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing

diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 232). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Brigham, J. C. (1971). Ethnic Stereotypes. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a

globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,

Inc.

Brigham, J. C. (1971). Ethnic Stereotypes. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a


Inc.

Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. In M. E.

Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (pp.

226-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.JSP?course_id=_2252621_1&content_id=_7845354_1

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.JSP?course_id=_2252621_1&content_id=_7845354_1


Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization: A strategy for capturing the power of

diversity. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive

workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Davidson, M. (2002). Leveraging difference for organizational excellence: Managing diversity

differently. Darden Business Publishing. University of Virginia. Retrieved January 26,

2015 from Northeastern University College of Professional Studies Website:

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?


Diversity Inc. (n. d.). Things never to say to women executives. Retrieved January 19, 2015

from Diversity Inc. Web site: http://www.diversityinc.com/things-not-to-say/things-

never-to-say-to-women-executives/ .

Delong, T. (2007). A framework for pursuing diversity in the workplace. Harvard Business

School. LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce. Retrieved January 19, 2015 from

Northeastern University College of Professional Studies Lecture Notes Online Web site:



Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkoov, M. (2010). Cultures and organization: Software of

the mind (3rd ed.). In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a globally

inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kossek, E. E., & Lobel, S. A. (1996). Managing diversity: Human resource strategies for

transforming the workplace (Eds.). In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_2252621_1&content_id=_7845334_1


http://www.diversityinc.com/things-not-to-say/things-never-to-say-to-women-executives/

http://www.diversityinc.com/things-not-to-say/things-never-to-say-to-women-executives/




globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (pp. 223-226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Littrell, R. F. & Nkomo, S. M. (2005). Gender and race differences in leader behavior

preferences in South Africa. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a


Inc.

Mor Barak, M. E. (2014). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Olson, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2012). Understanding organizational diversity management

programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research. In M. E. Mor

Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 218).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Scott, L. M. (2015). LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce ASTD Diversity Self-

Assessment Assignment. [PDF document]. Retrieved January 5, 2015 from

Northeastern University College of Professional Studies Lecture Notes Online Web site:

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/discussionboard/do/conference?

toggle_mode=read&action=list_forums&course_id=_2252621_1&nav=discussion_board

_entry&mode=view .

Scott, L. M. (2015). LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce Course Syllabus [PDF

document]. Retrieved January 5, 2015 from Northeastern University College of

Professional Studies Lecture Notes Online Web site:

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/discussionboard/do/conference?toggle_mode=read&action=list_forums&course_id=_2252621_1&nav=discussion_board_entry&mode=view




https://nuonline.neu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-7845376-dt-content-rid-10372921_1/courses/

LDR6145.21070.201525/LDR6145_Winter_2015_Section%201%20-%20NEW.pdf .

Scott, L. M. (2015). LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce, Week One Lecture Notes

[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved January 5, 2015 from Northeastern University College of


https://nuonline.edu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?


Scott, L. M. (2015). LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce, Week Two Discussion Board

Assignment Instructions, A Class Divided Video. [PDF document]. Retrieved January

12, 2015 from Northeastern University College of Professional Studies Lecture Notes

Online Web site: https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?

content_id_2252621_1&content_id=_7845324_1 .

Scott, L. M. (2015). LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce, Week Two Lecture Notes

[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from Northeastern University College

of Professional Studies Lecture Notes Online Web site:

https://nuonline.edu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?


Ssnidero1 (2013, March 7). A Class Divided [Video file]. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onKVeZaDzWg .

Ted Talks (2010, December 21). Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders?

[Video file]. Retrieved January 19, 2015 from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=18uDutylDa4 .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uDutylDa4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18uDutylDa4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onKVeZaDzWg

https://nuonline.edu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_2252621_1&content_id=_7845325_1


https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?content_id_2252621_1&content_id=_7845324_1

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?content_id_2252621_1&content_id=_7845324_1



https://nuonline.neu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-7845376-dt-content-rid-10372921_1/courses/LDR6145.21070.201525/LDR6145_Winter_2015_Section%201%20-%20NEW.pdf

https://nuonline.neu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-7845376-dt-content-rid-10372921_1/courses/LDR6145.21070.201525/LDR6145_Winter_2015_Section%201%20-%20NEW.pdf


The American Society for Training and Development (n. d.). Valuing Diversity Self-Assessment

Worksheet [PDF document]. LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse Workforce. Retrieved

January 5, 2015 from Northeastern University College of Professional Studies Lecture

Notes Online Web site: https://nuonline.neu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-7845319-dt-content-

rid-10264472_1/courses/LDR6145.21070.2015251/

LDR6145.21286.201425_ImportedContent_20131207011413/011413/diversityself-

assess.pdf .

Thomas, D. A. & Ely, R. J. (1996/2002). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for

managing diversity. Harvard Business Review. LDR 6145 Managing a Diverse

Workforce. Retrieved January 19, 2015 from Northeastern University College of




Thomas, D. C., Elron, E., Stahl, G., Ekelund, B. Z., Ravlin, E. C., Cerdin, J. L., et al. (2008).

Cultural intelligence: Domain and assessment. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity:

Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total

workforce by managing diversity. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a


Inc.



https://nuonline.neu.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-7845319-dt-content-rid-10264472_1/courses/LDR6145.21070.2015251/LDR6145.21286.201425_ImportedContent_20131207011413/011413/diversityself-assess.pdf




Thomas, R. R., Jr. (2005). Building on the promise of diversity: How we can move to the next

level in our workplaces, our communities, and our society. In M. E. Mor Barak,

Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 219). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

United Nations International Labor Organization Discrimination Convention (1958). Definition

of Discrimination. In M. E. Mor Barak, Managing diversity: Toward a globally

inclusive workplace (3rd ed.) (p. 147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Documents

LDR 6145 Diversity Leadership Journal Report