Chapter 20
Realizing the Promise of Diversity
David W. Pitts and Sarah E. Towne
Public organizations around the world are becoming more diverse in a variety of dimensions. Globalization, technology, and increasing mobility have created labor markets that include more women, people of color, and immigrants than ever before. For government and nonprofit organizations tasked with serving the public good, this brings both opportunities and challenges. The opportunities stem from the innovative ideas and approaches to public service that are generated by work groups that include employees from different backgrounds. However, these opportunities come with a set of challenges that tend to be more prevalent in diverse teams and organizations, such as lower trust among employees, less effective communication, and less efficient work flow. To realize the promise that diversity can bring to public organizations, managers should understand the potential pitfalls that diversity can create and address them head-on through effective leadership that builds a culture of inclusion.
Researchers in public administration have only recently begun to take a hard look at the relationship between diversity management strategies and work-related outcomes (Pitts & Wise, 2010). Many in the field have long taken a normative stance that we should promote and celebrate initiatives aiming to improve diversity and inclusion rather than evaluate them using social scientific methods. Through the 1990s and in some cases more recently, much of the research has consisted of descriptive case studies of diversity programs (Kellough & Naff, 2004) or normative arguments about the need for greater inclusion. However, a variety of market-oriented forces have encouraged organizations to make diversity a strategic, performance-oriented issue.
As public and nonprofit organizations are challenged to adopt practices that include heavy emphasis on performance measurement and strategic planning, the emphasis on diversity has shifted increasingly to management strategy (Riccucci, 2002). One can argue that workforce diversity makes organizations more competitive. When an organization is diverse, it is in the best position to respond to various target population needs and formulate creative solutions to complex problems (Riccucci, 2002). Ignored in these arguments, however, is the increased likelihood that these organizations suffer from communication, collaboration, and conflict problems stemming from diversity (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhard, 2003). Just as diversity creates the potential for innovation and creativity, it often leads to decision-making delays, communication struggles, and heightened conflict between employees.
This chapter reviews the state of research on diversity and inclusion initiatives in public-serving organizations, identifying the practices and programs that have been documented to be successful. We begin with a brief discussion of diversity and how it might be defined in teams and organizations, focusing on three lenses often used in thinking about the impact of diversity on work-related outcomes: social categorization theory, similarity-attraction theories, and decision-making/information theory. We then move to a discussion of two additional frameworks that are useful in thinking about diversity and inclusion: representative bureaucracy and the strategic case for diversity. We discuss diversity management initiatives that have been developed by public managers tasked with solving diversity-related problems and take advantage of diversity's benefits, review the empirical research on organizational diversity and diversity management in public organizations, assess the extent to which the field may be confident in its findings, and identify questions for future research.
Defining and Understanding Organizational Diversity
Diversity is a social-psychological phenomenon based in a sense of sameness and otherness. In a group of two or more people, diversity refers to the ways in which the individuals vary on some dimension (McGrath, Berdahl, & Arrow, 1995). Research has established that humans tend to be ethnocentric and that in order to quickly understand and make sense of the information around them, individuals make quick judgments and categorizations as a means of simplifying complex information (Triandis, 1960). People who are entering a group for the first time categorize those around them as similar or different based on surface-level characteristics like race and sex, moving to deeper-level characteristics once they get to know the individuals better. Individuals act differently in the presence of a homogeneous group than they would in the presence of a heterogeneous group, adapting their behavior over time depending on the dynamics of the group (Turner, 1987). In addition to process-oriented changes in behavior, diversity can generate substantive changes in in-group outcomes. The more differences present in a group of people, the more ideas that group will have to solve a problem, create a product, or serve a population of people (Adler, 2008).
Diversity exists on multiple levels. Superficial forms of diversity, such as race and sex, can often be discerned by sight or sound. Deeper forms of diversity, such as education, political ideology, or religious beliefs, may not be apparent on contact. As a concept of likeness or otherness, diversity measures the extent to which a group is composed of individuals who are similar on relevant dimensions, whether based on observable or unobservable attributes (Jackson, Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003).
The most common type of diversity encountered in the organizational setting is workforce diversity, which tends to encompass three distinct elements (Ospina, 2001): occupational diversity, the heterogeneity of occupations that are present in the organization; professional diversity, the certification and education required for the organization's occupations; and social diversity, which reflects the ways that employees are different along racial, ethnic, gender, language, cultural, or other lines. Understanding these characteristics of diversity is important for managing public services. Diversity is simply the number of variations among parts of a whole. When many people hear the word diversity, they think of dyads: majority versus minority, black versus white, or domestic versus foreign. However, diversity is much more nuanced, and the most important differences are often found between minority groups who might otherwise be lumped together as “nonwhite” or “minority.”
Moreover, the diversity that is most salient to one organization may be utterly irrelevant to another. For example, social caste diversity might be highly relevant to the workings of an Indian government agency, whereas language diversity might present the most challenges to a Belgian organization. Research on one dimension of diversity does not necessarily apply to another dimension, so managers must be careful not to generalize too broadly. For example, one cannot use a research finding that racial diversity in a US firm benefits performance to theorize about how gender diversity would affect performance in a government agency in Mexico.
Frameworks for Understanding Organizational Diversity and Work Outcomes
A variety of studies in the generic management and organizational behavior literatures have addressed the relationship between diversity and outcomes, drawing largely from social psychology research. In fact, a large share of the theoretical underpinnings relating organizational diversity to work outcomes stems from basic in-group and out-group psychology (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). Three theories have developed: social identification and categorization theory. similarity-attraction theory, and information and decision-making theory. Much of the research guiding these theories was developing by studying private firms, but scholars have recently applied the theories to the public sector.
Social Categorization and Similarity-Attraction Theories
Social categorization theory predicts that as an organization becomes more diverse, breakdowns in communication, coordination, and cohesion make it harder for members to work together effectively. These process-oriented difficulties prevent the group from producing a final product, solution, or idea that is on par with one that a homogeneous group without these difficulties would produce (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1987). While some might argue that organizational diversity should generate benefits with new ideas and perspectives, social categorization theory suggests that process-oriented drawbacks may outweigh any substantive benefits. As diversity leads to a variety of new ideas and perspectives, it must also lead to different approaches to work and problem solving, which occasionally lead to conflict.
The mechanics of social categorization are straightforward. The first step is social identification, which begins with the assumption that each individual wishes to maximize his or her self-esteem. In order to ensure high self-esteem, individuals engage in a series of social comparisons with others, placing themselves and others into a series of categories along organizational, religious, gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines, among others. This process leads each individual to establish his or her social identity, with that identity defined as membership in a given group of different categories. Given the initial assumption that an individual does all of this in order to maintain a high level of self-esteem, it follows that individuals will deem the categories in which they belong as “good” (often called the in-group) and the categories in which others belong as “bad” (the out-group). Empirical research has shown that individuals often (falsely) attribute negative characteristics to out-group members as part of this process, believing that those in the out-group are less trustworthy, honest, cooperative, or intelligent (Tajfel, 1981).
The process of categorization often involves physical traits such as sex, race, and age (Messick & Mackie, 1989). Given that membership in the out-group is seen as a deficiency, this classification often results in individuals' assuming that those from different racial backgrounds are inherently less capable or trustworthy than they are (Loden & Rosener, 1991). Social categorization theory, then, assumes that individuals quickly stereotype and make judgments about those from other groups. In diverse organizations, there are many more out-groups than in-groups, a pattern that is expected to cause heightened problems with trust, communication, and cooperation. As a result, work processes will be made much more difficult, thus causing the final product, idea, or solution to be weaker. This theory, then, suggests a negative relationship between organizational diversity and work-related outcomes.
Like social categorization theory, similarity-attraction theory suggests that organizational diversity will detract from performance. It is predicated on the notion that similarity in attributes, particularly demographic variables, increases interpersonal attraction and liking. Individuals with similar backgrounds may find that they have more in common with each other than with others from different backgrounds, making it more comfortable for them to work together and collaborate toward producing a product or solving a problem. Similarity allows people to have their own values and ideas reinforced, whereas dissimilarity causes them to question their own values and ideas, a process that is likely to be unsettling. Research has shown that individuals with an opportunity to interact with one of a number of people in a given situation will select someone similar (Burt & Regans, 1997). The dimension on which a person judges another as similar or dissimilar varies by context. In some cases, race or sex may be most important, but in many cases, it is likely to be a hidden dimension of diversity, like educational background, religion, or sexual orientation.
That one is likely to be most attracted to those with similar attributes yields clear predictions for the relationship between organizational diversity and work-related outcomes. Early research using the similarity attraction concept found that dissimilarity led to a lack of attraction to others that manifested itself through decreased communication, message distortion, and communication error (Triandis, 1960). As with social categorization theory, similarity attraction research would predict that high levels of diversity in an organization are likely to lead to faulty work processes that will lead in turn to weaker performance. Pelled (1996) conceives of these faulty work processes as a set of intervening variables that reflect different types of conflict, with interpersonal and task conflicts resulting in the greatest harm to performance.
Information and Decision-Making Theory
The stream of research on information and decision making in groups is predicated on the notion that the composition of the work group will affect how the group processes information and makes decisions (Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams, & Neale, 1996). One might expect, given the orientation of the first two theories, that this theory would also predict a negative relationship between diversity and outcomes. If social categorization and similarity attraction theories tend to argue that diversity will cause breakdowns in collaboration and communication, then it would seem to follow that diversity would specifically cause problems in information generation and decision making.
However, the literature tends to show that for producing information and making decisions, the faulty processes that result from high levels of heterogeneity can be overcome by benefits gained by more creativity, a larger number of ideas, and a larger pool of knowledge (Tziner & Eden, 1985). Research has shown that even in situations where diversity has a clearly negative impact on work processes, the increase in information available to the group that comes from diversity is enough to offset process problems (Jehn, Chadwick, & Thatcher, 1997). The idea that diversity brings a number of new perspectives to the table, making it possible for an organization to be more effective, has served as the basis for claims that diversity is a strength and resource for organizations (Thomas, 1990).
The theory comes with caveats. One is that it is contingent on the type of task when determining whether one might rely on information and decision-making research to predict a positive relationship between diversity and outcomes. For example, a routinized task that involves little discretion or group interaction is likely not to benefit from diversity (Adler, 2008). Since more information, knowledge, and creativity are likely to be of little use for such a task, it seems most probable that these substantive benefits will not be enough to offset the faulty work processes that will result from group heterogeneity. Rather, diversity is most likely to provide positive results when the task is to solve a complex problem, generate a set of creative ideas or innovations, or produce a new product. In these cases, the more information and viewpoints that are present, the more likely the group will be to come to an optimal solution.
A second caveat is that most of the research on information and decision making in groups is based on deep-level dimensions of diversity, such as education and function. Research on surface-level diversity that uses this theoretical framework is sparse. Cox and Blake (1991) use the individualism/collectivism value divide to suggest that racial/ethnic diversity creates a variety of perspectives that will benefit organizations and produce synergies. A handful of other studies use the same framework—differences in values that run along racial/ethnic lines—to test hypotheses related to information and decision making, but the literature is shallow in this area (McLeod & Lobel, 1992). While this theoretical stream does suggest a positive relationship between diversity and performance, it is a weak hypothesis and one that practitioners and researchers alike should approach with caution.
Other Frameworks: Representative Bureaucracy and the Strategic Case for Diversity
Two other frameworks have influenced thought about diversity and inclusion in public organizations: representative bureaucracy and the strategic case for diversity. The first of these, while fundamentally distinct from diversity, has produced an extensive literature with implications for those tasked with managing organizational diversity. Representative bureaucracy research addresses whether a demographic match between bureaucrat and client leads to better client outcomes, finding that clients of color often benefit from working with bureaucrats from the same racial/ethnic background. This differs from diversity research because a demographic match can occur in organizations with high or low levels of employee diversity. For example, if an organization employs all African American caseworkers and that organization serves all African American clients, there is perfect racial representation but no racial diversity. In reality, organizations rarely have such homogeneity among their staffs or clients, with a typical pattern of employing individuals who are less diverse than clients. When this is the case, it is tough to generate the demographic match that representative bureaucracy has found to benefit client outcomes. Practicing managers should understand these benefits of employing individuals who mirror their client population and work to recruit from these groups when positions are open.
The strategic case for diversity and inclusion argues that organizations wishing to maximize their performance should recruit a staff that is as heterogeneous as possible (Jackson et al., 2003). This strategic approach is much more practical than the three theories already described, but it is very common in the public and private management literatures. Also called the “value in diversity” approach (Cox & Blake, 1991), the business case for diversity arose in the early 1990s as managers became increasingly aware of shifting workforce demographics. The core argument of the business case is that organizations must diversify as a means of responding to the overall environmental shift toward greater diversity in the labor market (Konrad, 2003). As white men make up a smaller and smaller percentage of the workforce, organizations must look to other demographic groups in order to ensure that they hire the most talented individuals in the labor market (Rubaii-Barrett & Wise, 2007).
As labor markets shift toward greater diversity, so too do client bases, and diverse organizations are arguably better able to respond to changing customer needs (Richard, 2000). Finally, the theory of a marketplace of ideas suggests that increasing the diversity of perspectives in an organization can lead to creative solutions and better products. The business case for diversity is a politically powerful argument. It assumes that increasing employee diversity will lead to an increase in the perspectives and solutions considered by a group or organization, with these substantive benefits leading to performance gains (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1994). This permits organizations to obtain the buy-in of multiple constituent groups. For example, the business case for diversity satisfies those who are interested in improving social equity, since it speaks to the intrinsic value of the perspectives held by groups that have been historically disadvantaged. It also satisfies those who have a different view of equity and are opposed to affirmative action programs because they constitute reverse discrimination. These employees will accept the business case for diversity because a rational relationship can be demonstrated between diversity and performance, something that ultimately benefits all employees regardless of demographics. For-profit firms are not the only organizations that have used the business case as an argument for diversity. Public sector organizations were quick to adopt this philosophy as well, since it was politically defensible in ways that affirmative action never was, and it also fit in with the performance-based reforms of the 1990s (Kellough & Naff, 2004). Moreover, if government agencies employ individuals who “look like” America, one might expect that their decisions would be favorable to most Americans, which arguably enhances democratic legitimacy via an implied check on bureaucratic discretion (Naff, 2001). Public organizations could thus use diversity strategically but in ways that did not necessarily reflect performance.
Strategies for Managing Organizational Diversity
The three frameworks discussed disagree as to whether diversity creates gains or drawbacks. Social categorization and similarity attraction theories predict a negative relationship, while information/decision-making theory and the business case for diversity suggest a positive relationship. Choi and Rainey (2010) argue that the relationship between diversity and work outcomes is actually contingent on effective management, and a variety of scholars have undertaken research that examines diversity management initiatives in public sector organizations (Pitts, 2009; Kellough & Naff, 2004). If an organization manages its diversity well, it can simultaneously buffer itself from process-oriented drawbacks and exploit the substantive benefits from diversity (Pitts, 2009). Thus, diversity management is inherently a strategic response to diversity.
A number of organizations have initiated such management strategies under the umbrella terms diversity management or managing for diversity. Thomas (1990) was one of the first to bring attention to diversity management, calling on organizations to draw on diversity as a strength and competitive edge. He initiated an expanded notion of what diversity entailed, moving beyond a discussion of diversity as simply race and ethnicity. He argued that managing for diversity meant managing for all differences, whether based in race, ethnicity, gender, education, or function. This meant focusing on making sure all groups of employees had what they needed in order to succeed at work, such that managers could leverage the diversity of perspectives at the core of the business case argument. Diversity management was different from earlier legalistic approaches focused on adhering to antidiscrimination laws in that it was about day-to-day management and the programs that organizations could implement to best serve diverse employees. By 1997, 75 percent of Fortune 500 companies had adopted diversity management programs, and by 1999, the figure for federal agencies was 90 percent (Kellough & Naff, 2004). Today all Fortune 500 companies have a diversity management or inclusion office, and federal agencies all have diversity management or inclusion efforts underway.
For many organizations, diversity management programs are the latest in a long history of diversity-related initiatives. Approaches to diversity were primarily legalistic until the late 1970s and early 1980s, when emphasis started to shift toward more management-oriented approaches (Pitts & Wise, 2010). Researchers began to realize that more progressive employment discrimination protections had made it possible for a wider variety of employees to gain entry into the firm, but the organizational culture often remained the same, preventing nonmajority employees from recognizing their full potential. Prejudices and biases against members of minority groups continue to be pervasive in public organizations, even in the judicial branch (Christensen, Szmer, & Stritch, 2012). Organizations created programs for valuing diversity in response to these assimilation issues in order to modify organizational cultures where one perspective seemed to be entrenched, but research soon found that these initiatives rarely achieved their objectives. The more strategic approach to diversity, diversity management, followed in the footsteps of these values-oriented programs.
While many organizations refer to their initiatives as “diversity management,” the components of their programs often reflect an evolution that includes the earlier focus on compliance. Kellough and Naff (2004) identify seven core components commonly included in diversity management programs: ensuring management accountability; examining organizational structure, culture, and management systems; paying attention to representation; providing training; developing mentoring programs; promoting internal advocacy groups; and emphasizing shared values among stakeholders. Some of these components may not be in place to maximize the value of organizational diversity, but rather to ensure that the organization adheres to legal requirements that protect employees from unlawful discrimination. Others, like mentoring programs and internal advocacy groups, are more strategic in nature. This is a difficult issue on which to collect valid data, since much of it relies on reports by human resource officers who are incentivized to report having sophisticated, comprehensive programs in place.
Organizations have begun to realize that aspects of all phases of this evolution are important parts of a comprehensive diversity strategy. Practitioners might think of such a strategy as having three broad components: (1) strategic recruitment and outreach, (2) normative policies and programs, and (3) strategic policies and programs (Pitts, 2006). The first, recruitment and promotion, considers whether an organization is extending itself to all potential sources of employees. A strategic plan for recruiting from underrepresented groups is a key component of this aspect of diversity management. This does not mean simply adhering to legal guidelines or constraints on recruitment and selection. Rather, it involves seeking out employees from the labor market who may not be found through the typical venues (Rubaii-Barrett & Wise, 2007).
The second, normative policies and programs, assesses whether employees and managers appreciate the different cultural assumptions and biases that employees bring to their work. Despite its name and focus, this aspect of diversity management is actually very strategic. Multicultural understanding is imperative for managers who oversee the work of diverse employees, and programs that aim to bridge cultural gaps improve such understanding. These issues are often the soft and ambiguous areas that many managers like to avoid, but research on multicultural management shows that synergies can develop when different cultural values are combined in creative ways (Adler, 2008). These programs can also work to break down cultural barriers that sometimes prevent employees from different backgrounds from communicating and collaborating effectively at work. Of course, these programs must be carefully constructed and facilitated; anything perceived as sensitivity training is unlikely to generate benefits (Riccucci, 1997).
Finally, strategic programs and policies tend to involve mentoring programs, succession planning, family-friendly programs, alternative work arrangements, and a mix of group-based and individually oriented assignments. For example, inadequate access to mentors often prevents women and people of color from moving up the organizational hierarchy. Formalizing mentoring programs ensures that these groups can move into upper-level positions and become effective leaders. Employees who are unable to work a rigid nine-to-five schedule can take advantage of alternative work arrangements, such as job sharing, telecommuting, flexible scheduling, or seasonal or part-time employment (Mastracci & Thompson, 2005). These programs ensure that organizations retain and develop the best employees, regardless of time- and family-based constraints on coming into a physical office space. Of course, not all of these programs and policies are feasible. For example, some jobs require employees to come into the office during specified times. A comprehensive diversity management program will include as many of these types of policies as is feasible under the constraints in which it operates.
Evolving Research on Diversity and Inclusion
The relationship between diversity and work outcomes is an empirical question that requires data to test nuances, contingencies, and intervening factors. Public organizations typically collect extensive data on employee demographics, making a straightforward test of diversity effects possible for many public agencies, but the confusion comes in figuring out how to measure outcomes. Performance measurement is a persistent problem in public management that is complicated by the political environment and goal ambiguity that many public agencies face. Moreover, as diversity research in the for-profit arena identifies contingencies, interactions, and nonlinearities in relationships between diversity and outcomes, a host of other variables become necessary for empirical tests, and those are typically hard to come by without an original survey (Choi & Rainey, 2010). Bringing diversity management into the equation most certainly requires survey data, archival research, or content analysis (Kellough & Naff, 2004). These concerns are compounded by the problem of organizational access. In order to collect the necessary data, researchers must convince organizations to “let them in,” a proposition that is particularly shaky in an area like diversity that is fraught with such important normative issues. Few organizations want to run the risk of being exposed as having a subpar diversity management program or discriminatory organizational culture. Finally, the culture of government agencies in many countries is anything but transparent, and the quality of data varies widely.
Only a handful of studies have attempted to test relationships between organizational diversity, diversity management, and performance in the public sector. Public management research has historically been more attentive to the normative and legal issues associated with members of underrepresented groups, an approach that is tangential but does not delve into performance-related consequences. The roots of public management research on workforce diversity are in representative bureaucracy. As scholars began to reject the politics-administration dichotomy in the wake of World War II, worries about the misuse of bureaucratic discretion led to arguments for a public service that was representative of society (Kingsley, 1944). Early research examined whether the social class origins of bureaucrats were representative of the population as a whole, but by the 1970s, emphasis was much more firmly on racial/ethnic representation (Meier, 1975). In the late 1970s and 1980s, increases in the number of women entering the workforce led to research on representation by gender, and representative bureaucracy research continues to demonstrate a strong emphasis on race/ethnicity and gender today.
Critical to representation has been the evolution of laws designed to protect it. Legal protections have evolved from an early focus on reactive, individual-based policies against discrimination to a later emphasis on proactive, group-based policies that promote representation (Riccucci, 2002), although recent years have seen a tightening in employer ability to pursue representation too strongly (Kellough, 2006). This is a time line that tends to apply worldwide, although some countries are further along than others. These policies typically have their legal basis in a national constitution or charter, with implementation changing over time in common law countries as court decisions modify interpretation. For example, a series of landmark cases have worked to both expand and contract affirmative action programs in the United States, notably Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), Adarand v. Pena (1995), Gratz v. Bolliner (2003), and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). While many of these cases and the research that results from them focus on women and people of color, legal changes that affect other dimensions of diversity have been examined as well, most notably as they relate to age, disability status, and sexual orientation.
While research on normative and legal issues continues, emphasis is moving more firmly toward management and performance issues. A cluster of more recent studies has examined racial/ethnic diversity and its impacts on organizational performance, finding support for the social categorization and similarity attraction theories. In their study of public schools, Pitts and Jarry (2009) find that increasing racial/ethnic diversity among teachers corresponds to more students dropping out of school, fewer students passing a standardized graduation exam, and fewer students being college bound. Andrews, Boyne, Meier, O'Toole, and Walker (2005) examined racial/ethnic diversity in English local government agencies, finding that agencies with large percentages of nonwhite employees were more likely than others to have low citizen satisfaction score averages. They attribute their finding to the potential for discriminatory attitudes among citizens, which is a slightly different explanation but not inconsistent with social categorization and similarity attraction theories.
Other research has added diversity management to the equation, finding that organizations with strong diversity management programs may be able to guard against some of the negative consequences that diversity can create. Using data from US federal government agencies, Choi and Rainey (2010) find that diversity management mediates the negative relationships of racial/ethnic diversity, organizational performance, and job satisfaction. Using data from the same sample of agencies, Pitts (2009) found that job satisfaction and employee perceptions of performance were lower among people of color than among whites, a relationship that was mitigated by the extent to which the employees reported diversity management. Naff and Kellough (2003), in a well-designed program evaluation of diversity management programs in US federal agencies, found no relationship between diversity management and employee work outcomes for women and people of color.
Research on gender and sex has been limited in developing connections to performance. For example, research on emotional labor has demonstrated that men and women tend to segregate into specific types of jobs, leading to a number of management implications that are important but not directly related to performance (Guy, Newman & Mastracci, 2008). More common has been research predicting the representation of women in government, with most of the research set in the United States. Untouched by researchers has been the relationship between the presence of women in public agencies and the performance of those organizations. Representative bureaucracy research has demonstrated that female service recipients can benefit from female representation among agency employees (Keiser, Wilkins, Meier, & Holland, 2002; Wilkins, 2007), but that does not mean that gender diversity among employees will lead to benefits for overall organizational performance. Aside from race and ethnicity, there has been practically no empirical research on the relationship between diversity along any other dimension and organizational performance in the public sector. In their analysis of public sector diversity research, Pitts and Wise (2010) identify only eight studies published since 2000 that examine empirical links between diversity and performance. Much work remains to be done in order to more fully understand the impact of workforce diversity on organizational performance.
Future Directions for Research and Practice
Theory suggests that diversity is likely to affect performance in public organizations, with mostly negative consequences that can be mitigated by strong diversity management programs and good leadership that minimizes conflict among employees. The following four recommendations for research and practice expand on this general state of the field.
First, we must make greater efforts to engage in empirical research. Whether organizational diversity affects performance is an empirical question on which little evidence has been brought to bear. There are several theoretical explanations for how diversity might influence performance, but they must be tested in greater detail using original data from public agencies. Those data do not have to be quantitative. Qualitative data would push the field just as far as quantitative data, and maybe further. Well-designed case studies of organizations, both homogeneous and diverse, would assist public management researchers in better understanding the causal mechanisms linking diversity and performance. Those results may not be generalizable to a broad variety of organizations, but neither are the results from a number of quantitative projects with large numbers. For example, much of the research on diversity uses data from the United States, where racial and ethnic diversity has predominated the literature for some time. Whether and how those studies can be generalized to countries where racial/ethnic diversity is minimal is an important question in research. Nonetheless, we argue that the impetus for now is in generating empirical research, whatever the context.
Second, researchers and practitioners must consider how diversity is linked to other public management processes. If public management is an applied field of study that seeks to provide prescriptions for practicing managers, then it must link organizational diversity to processes over which managers have some discretion. Many public organizations identify diversity goals as stand-alone parts of agency strategy and do not integrate them into broader objectives. This ignores the many ways in which diversity affects and is affected by other organizational activities. For example, how do diversity management programs play a role in the larger human resource management context? Do agencies include diversity in their missions and strategic plans, and if they do, what of it? Can diversity competencies be included in performance appraisal systems, such that employees who demonstrate an ability to manage diverse groups effectively are rewarded? Should governments incentivize their agencies to diversify, and if they should, then how would progress be evaluated?
Third, as we make progress, public management researchers and practitioners must turn their attention to dimensions of diversity other than race and ethnicity. The impacts of a range of other types of diversity—gender and sex, language, educational background, and sexual orientation—remain underexplored in research and underrepresented in the programs implemented by public organizations. Public managers should think about the ways in which their employees are similar and different, noting how differences in particular seem to affect group processes. In doing so, managers should keep in mind that the differences with the most impact may not be the ones they are used to thinking about, like race or sex, but rather function, education, or personality type. In many settings, creating programs or training opportunities about race and sex may be unnecessary and less effective than similar initiatives about other dimensions of diversity.
Finally, researchers and practitioners must think about whether organizational diversity is likely to affect different performance outcomes in different ways. It seems likely that it would detract from efficiency, but it is possible that it would benefit innovativeness and creativity. If diversity's impact on performance is contingent on the task at hand, then that means that it is also very likely to be contingent on the type of performance being measured. Where possible, diversity research should use multiple measures of performance as dependent variables in order to sort out differential impacts. Public managers should think about how diversity might need to be managed in order to mitigate some of these negative process problems. Keeping a diverse team on schedule, for example, might be important in managing a group that is working through innovative and creative solutions to a complex problem.
Summary
As the diversity of public employees and the clients they serve continues to increase, it becomes more and more crucial for researchers and practicing managers to think about diversity and inclusion. At its core, diversity is about the extent to which individuals are similar or different, and this chapter reviewed several frameworks that researchers have used to understand the consequences of those similarities and differences. Similarity attraction and social categorization theories suggest that organizational diversity is likely to generate negative work-related outcomes because differences make it tough for employees to work together effectively. Information and decision-making theory is more optimistic, suggesting potential benefits to diversity when it is leveraged on tasks that require innovation and creativity.
These three theoretical streams suggest that strong diversity management is necessary to overcome the process difficulties that employee diversity can generate. Diversity management programs often include a mix of three approaches: recruitment and retention programs that seek to bring diverse talent into the organization, valuing diversity programs that seek to expand the mind-sets of those with limited exposure to those from different backgrounds, and strategic policies and programs that are tailored to the needs of diverse employees as a way to improve performance.
Moving forward, research needs to engage in more and better empirical research about diversity and how it operates in public organizations. Diversity should be connected to multiple aspects of an organization's strategy, with goals that go beyond legalistic requirements categorized only under the umbrella of human capital. Both researchers and practicing managers need to think about how diversity can be considered along dimensions other than race and ethnicity, ensuring that diversity management programs do not neglect important types of diversity in favor of others that have historically received more attention. Diversity is also likely to affect different types of performance in different ways, so managers should think about each performance outcome, how diversity might influence it, and how that should be managed. Taking these steps will move the field's research forward and assist managers as they work to realize the promise of diversity in their day-to-day work.