Diversity and Inclusion Drive Improved Outcomes in the Workplace, but Beware of Pitfalls

The terms “diversity” and “inclusion” are used together so often that it’s easy to begin using them interchangeably.

That’s a mistake. Diversity and inclusion are both factors in the ongoing effort to make the workplace welcoming to an ever-more diverse group of professionals. They define two related but different actions.

In the workplace, diversity means that a team or office features representatives from a number of demographics. Inclusion means making that diverse group function as a team that produces positive outcomes and all the members of which treat others with respect and dignity.

“Diversity is the mix of individuals. Inclusion is how to make that mix work,” said Jameel Rush, PHR, SHRM-CP, President of the Philadelphia Chapter of the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM). Rush also is Vice President for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at The Philadelphia Inquirer, and an adjunct professor of human resource development at Villanova University, where he teaches Diversity in a Global Economy.

“Adding diversity to a team isn’t what drives better outcomes,” Rush said. “It’s adding diversity and making sure you can leverage different points of views and different perspectives to work toward a stronger solution.”

Research Shows Positive Impact

There is evidence to back up Rush’s statement. “Why Diversity Matters,” a report prepared by management consultants McKinsey & Company, found that companies in the top 25% for gender or racial and ethnic diversity were more likely to have financial returns greater than the national industry median.

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) Global Diversity and Inclusion survey, 87% of global business respondents say diversity and inclusion is an organizational priority.

There is a “ton of research … that shows that organizations that have gotten diversity and inclusion right outperform their peers on the Fortune 500,” Rush said.

Not every organization gets diversity and inclusion right, however.

The ‘We Got One’ Phenomenon

What Quinetta Roberson, PhD, calls “the ‘We got one’ phenomenon” is an example of diversity without inclusion or, in Roberson’s words, “diversity for the sake of diversity.”   

Dr. Roberson, a former Professor of Management at Villanova now with Michigan State University, was a guest on HR Tea, a human resources-themed podcast on Villanova’s HRD Corner Blog hosted by Bethany Adams, MA, SHRM-SCP, Associate Director of Villanova’s Graduate Programs in Human Resource Development.

Dr. Roberson described a scenario where an organization promotes or hires a person of color for a C-suite position primarily for the optics.

It’s “getting the representation, getting the person that they can now say to the news outlets, ‘We have a COO who’s a person of color,” Dr. Roberson said on the podcast.

The person’s “unique perspective, expertise and resources weren’t being used. They were just there warming a seat at the board table,” she continued.

Dr. Roberson’s observations came from a study she conducted that discovered a decrease in performance at organizations with higher levels of racial diversity in leadership. She found that, eventually, the trend reverses and performance starts to improve. Dr. Roberson believes that this occurs when the executive hired for being part of a group begins to integrate his or her unique resources into the board or leadership team.

In some organizations, belief in negative stereotypes about groups of people can just about eliminate those employees’ chances for promotion and recognition.

Categories Are Easy — and Dangerous

A lecture for the Villanova HRD course “Diversity in a Global Economy,” discusses the brain’s use of categories. Categories allow the brain to recognize that, for example, two different objects both are chairs, even if they look very different from each other. This prevents us from having to encounter objects as brand-new things. It’s a system that works well for objects, far less well for people.

According to the course, exposure to stereotypes – from family or friends, or in the media – about groups, particularly those with whom one has had little interaction, lead to generalizations about individuals who are part of the group. Stereotypes, the course teaches, are both prescriptive and descriptive. That is, they tell us, based on our classification of a person as a member of a group, how that person should behave as well as what that person is like. 

Stereotypes aren’t always negative but even when they aren’t, they generalize, applying the same set of descriptions to a group of people who may share skin color but little else. This thinking can lead to one believe that all members of group act and think the same. It also leads to in-group favoritism (favoring individuals who look and act similarly) and out-group assumptions (thinking based on stereotypes about different groups), the course teaches.

Stereotypes concerning a worker’s race, gender, sexual orientation or other characteristics can cause that worker to be denied workplace opportunities such as networking, mentoring and promotions. Conversely, employees who are viewed as similar to the organization’s staff, meaning they are of the same ethnic background and practice the same religion, for example, often are more likely to enjoy perks and promotions, deserved or not.

Bias Often Is Unconscious

People who hold stereotypical views of others based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation or other factors don’t necessarily consider themselves prejudiced. In many cases, they’ve absorbed others’ opinions about these groups with little or no interaction with a group member to dispel the stereotype.

It’s important to understand that bias “is a natural part of being human,” Rush said.

“We all have unconscious biases that shape the way we deal with the world, and those things are deeply ingrained in us through our upbringing, our cultural heritage and everything about the way that we’ve experienced life,” Rush explained.

This framework is also important as it eliminates the idea that “if you’re biased, you’re bad,” he said. Once a person is aware of their biases, though, it’s vital to first acknowledge them and then “to build processes and procedures to help mitigate” those biases, Rush added.

Families Aren’t All the Same

Christian Thoroughgood, PhD, a former Assistant Professor in the Graduate Programs in HR Development at Villanova now with Georgia State University, explained how stereotypes and bias can create situations where employees feel uncomfortable being open about themselves at work.

In a guest appearance on an HR Tea podcast episode, Thoroughgood explained that while many organizations have taken a positive step by promoting a healthy balance of work and family life for employees, the concept of “family” often is narrow and exclusive, with employees in same-sex relationships sometimes feeling left out of the conversation.

Thoroughgood, together with Katina Sawyer, PhD former Professor of Psychology at Villanova) now with The George Washington University, and Northeastern University Professor Jamie J. Ladge, wrote about this situation for Harvard Business Review in an article titled “How Companies Are Making It Harder for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Employees to Achieve Work-Life Balance.”

According to research cited in the article, LGBTQ professionals experience the same work-life balance conflicts as do their straight counterparts. They, however, also deal with additional concerns, the article said, such as “a sense of tension over whether to take advantage of family-related benefits for fear of revealing their same-sex relationship, feeling conflicted over whether to bring spouses to work events, and feeling uneasy about discussing with a supervisor the family-related challenges that impact their work life.”

Most of the LGBTQ professionals interviewed in the article said their sexual orientation wasn’t a secret in the workplace, but that they still felt uncomfortable being open about their families.

According to the article, some of those interviewed were concerned that openness about their partners and/or families “ran the risk of their coworkers thinking that they were trying to make a political statement or attempting to be too brazen about their sexual orientation in the workplace.”

Thoroughgood explained that these organizations had framed social cues surrounding what a family is in a way that gave the impression of excluding non-hetero couples and non-traditional families.

It seems to be a case of organizations being unaware of an issue existing, and those impacted by it feeling inhibited about addressing it.

As one anonymous person interviewed in the article said, “I don’t think our organizations want to hurt us. They just don’t know that we’re here.”

Making Diversity Work

An organization can hire professionals from different ethnicities, sexual orientations and religions and call itself diverse. However, until those individuals’ perspectives and talents are being tapped, diversity is mere window dressing.

Professionals who have spent their careers handling human resource issues know what works and what doesn’t. Villanova’s online Human Resource Management Certificate program features instruction from industry professionals who have been on the front lines of HR for years and who can impart their experience to students. Students in the program will be taught core HR competencies and focus on developmental, strategic and global HR issues.