An Audit of Attitudes Toward Diversity in a Hospital Setting
John P. Gaze, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Health Science and Business Administration
Touro University International
5665 Plaza Drive
Cypress, CA 90630 USA
Phone: 904-451-4024
Email: JGaze@tourou.edu
Jeffrey C. Bauer, D.B.A.
Associate Professor of Management and Marketing
University of Cincinnati-Clermont
4200 College Drive
Batavia, Ohio 45103 USA
Phone: 513-732-5257
E-mail: jeff.bauer@uc.edu
An Audit of Attitudes Toward Diversity in a Hospital Setting
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which employee
receptivity of diversity and diversity management strategies varied by gender, and
ethnicity. Employee attitudes toward diversity and diversity management were measured
using previously established receptivity to diversity scales (Soni, 2000). The major
findings of this study are: (1) Employees were receptive to diversity and diversity
management; (2) Ethnic groups were found to differ on the measures given with: (2a)
Male Asian Americans reporting significantly more receptivity to both diversity and
diversity management than Caucasians, and (2b) Hispanics reporting more receptivity to
diversity management than Caucasians.
Key Words:
Diversity, Diversity Management, Organizational Design/Development
INTRODUCTION
A recent review (2007) of company web sites revealed that there is movement by
many U.S. organizations of all types (for example, Ford, 3M, IBM, Stanford Hospital and
Clinics, and Duke University Health System) to place more emphasis on valuing
employee differences, and developing diversity management initiatives (policies and
programs that benefit all employees regardless of differences for a common goal). The
benefits of a diverse workforce are the topic of discussion in many organizations in a
variety of industries. At the same time, organizations are faced with understanding the
importance of valuing differences and instituting effective diversity management
initiatives as counter-measures to protect themselves from such negative consequences as
lawsuits, loss of competitive advantage and diminished legitimacy in the eyes of the
customers they serve.
The increase in females and racial minority entrants in the work force, along with
employers’ concerns about motivating and obtaining satisfactory levels of performance
from a diverse group of employees, has created an urgency to understand and recognize
the value of differences (Soni, 2000). Although literature on diversity has increased, few
healthcare management articles have published original research on the subject of racial
and ethnic diversity (Dreachslin, Jimpson, Sprainer & Evans, 2001).
The extant literature suggests mixed corporate attitudes toward the
philosophy of valuing differences. Historically, several companies have implemented a
variety of initiatives for effectively utilizing and managing the current and projected
diverse work force, but there are still some that have shown less interest in diversity
issues. According to Gilbert, Stead, and Ivancevich (1999), the Avon Corporation
implemented awareness training at all levels of the organization. It formed a
multicultural participation council, which included the Chief Executive Officer (CEO),
other high-ranking officials of Avon as well as minority employees. On the other hand, a
survey of 1,406 U.S. companies by the Hay Group (1992) found that more than 60
percent of the respondents reported that they felt diversity was either not very important
or not a high priority for the next two years. In the health care industry specifically,
Dansky, Weech-Maldonado, DeSouza, & Dreachslin (2003) suggest that health care
organizations have been especially slow in implementing diversity management
programs. Nonetheless, several researchers (Gentile, 1994; Loden & Rosener, 1991;
Thomas, 1991) have reported that gender and ethnic differences continue to have a
significant effect on the treatment and experiences of people in the work place.
The basic problem is that diversity management strategies call for attention to
differences; attention that previous initiatives such as affirmative action and equal
opportunity practices have tended to be adopted for symbolic purposes (Konrad &
Linnehan, 1995). Present diversity management strategies require people to recognize,
respect and celebrate a culture’s unique identity, customs and traditions; yet avoid overemphasizing these differences (negative stereotypes) or offering disparate treatment
based on them. As such, diversity management initiatives require a distinction that can
prove more subtle and potentially controversial in practice than in theory.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Diversity Management Movement
Shaped by changes in workforce demographics and legislation (Civil Rights Act,
1964 & Equal Employment Opportunity Act, 1972), U.S. Employment practices have
evolved in response to numerous factors. While these initially involved legal
requirements, moral responsibilities, and responses to internal and external group
pressures (Williams & Bauer, 1994), consultants, scholars, and top executives have
increasingly advocated the “valuing differences” approach to enhance organizational
effectiveness (Cox & Blake, 1991). Valuing differences refers to an appreciation of
differences and the creation of an environment in which everyone feels valued and
accepted (Svehla, 1994).
The motive for diversity management now stems more from the fact that in a
global economy, workforce diversity is a reality requiring proper management to achieve
organizational effectiveness (Williams & Bauer, 1994). Diversity management is
concerned with planning and implementing organizational systems and practices to
manage people so that the potential advantages are maximized (Cox, 1993). Despite the
acclaim such management strategies have received by scholars and managers, whether
employees value differences and support diversity management initiatives remains
unclear.
There has been a great deal of research on the sources of inequality; however,
little has been done on the efficacy of different programs for countering it (Kalev,
Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). What is known is that diversity management has been
considered by mainstream business organizations like the Society for Human Resource
Management to be a legitimate sub-field of human resources management (Kelly &
Dobbin, 1998). This paradigm (Giraldo, 1991,) moves beyond a human resource model
based solely on legal compliance to one that suggests there is an inherent value in
diversity. By the early 1990s, diversity management initiatives were adopted by 70
percent of Fortune 500 companies (Wheeler, 1994). However, the prevalence appeared
to be lower among smaller companies (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998). This management trend
has continued in recent years (Gathers, 2003), and organizations have had ample
guidance in transforming their Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and/or Affirmative
Action (AA) activities into diversity programs in the form of articles, books, videos,
conferences, newsletters and a growing cadre of organizational consultants (Kelly &
Dobbin, 1998). Characteristics of diversity management initiatives were similar to those
of EEO/AA practices.
Practices included mission statements, diversity action plans, accountability for
meeting diversity goals, employee involvement, career development and planning,
diversity education and training, and long-term initiatives directed at cultural change
within the workplace (Wheeler, 1994). The link between diversity and EEO/AA
measures is confirmed by one of the new diversity practices, diversity training. In the
narrow sense, diversity training is about compliance, (e.g., EEO, AA and sexual
harassment). Although there is strong sentiment that diversity moves far beyond
compliance, at this point, practices demonstrate a strong link between the two (Wheeler,
1994).
Councils and advocacy groups have become popular in organizations promoting
diversity management initiatives as well. For example, The IBM Company constituted a
global workforce council to foster and promote diversity management. The council
identified five issues to address, which are cultural awareness and acceptance,
multilingualism, diversity of the management team, the advancement of women and
workplace flexibility and balance. In addition, eight task forces were established to
optimize satisfaction, productivity and creativity. These task forces were made up of
various gender and ethnic groups.
Training has been one of the more popular diversity management tools for
organizations over the last several years. Diversity training includes a wide range of
training sessions both in type and frequency. For example, Johns Hopkins Hospital
conducted training on anti-discrimination law and a more personal cross-cultural
communication class. The frequency of these classes ranges from one to two times each
year.
The most significant diversity tool in practice today is the audit. The audit
utilizes surveys, interviews and focus groups (Thomas, 1991) to measure employee
attitudes. Obtaining employee feedback on top diversity issues remains an important tool
in healthcare organizations today (Gathers, 2003). However, attempts to change culture
are costly long-term projects, especially newly developed initiatives, and therefore are
much less common than repackaged EEO/AA measures (example, more compliance
driven) that comprise the core diversity management (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998). One
reason for this may be too many institutions are overwhelmed by too many healthcare
challenges (Ruthledge & Wesley, 2001).
The intent of diversity management is to create greater inclusion of all individuals
into informal social networks and formal company programs (Sessa, 1992). Moreover,
organizations want to ensure that an increasingly diverse group of employees will work
together to achieve common goals (Eubanks, 1990). At present, diversity training and
EEO/AA practices are performed on a less frequent basis than has been recommended by
government polices.
Benefits of Managing Diversity
Muller and Haase (1994) describe managing diversity in terms of a manager being
aware of the values and biases of his/her conventional management approaches, their
ability and willingness to use employee focused strategies that affirm peoples’
differences while maintaining a high quality of productivity. Everett, Thorne and
Danehower (1996) highlight the importance diversity training in their study of attitudes
of men toward women in executive positions. This approach is a strategically driven
process whose emphasis is on building specific skills and creating policies that bring out
the best in everyone. Its goal is to create a level playing field through the assessment,
identification and modeling of behaviors and policies that are seen as contributing to
organizational goals (Svehla, 1994).
Various benefits have been identified in the diversity literature and include:
group performance, organizational performance, profitability, and employee awareness.
More specifically, diversity has been linked to an increase in the quality of group
performance, creativity of ideas, cooperation and the number of perspectives and
alternatives considered (Cox, Lobel & McLeod, 1991; Watson, Kumar & Michalesen,
1993).
The synergy model of managing diversity assumes that diverse groups will create
new ways of working together effectively in a pluralistic environment. However,
resistance due to denial of demographic changes and recognition of the need for and the
benefits of a program can quickly derail any efforts to implement and sustain managing
diversity efforts (Svehla, 1994).
Progress Towards Managing Diversity
Diversity has been said to improve tolerance and understanding of differences,
supposedly resulting in positive outcomes including heightened group commitment and
individual employee satisfaction (Wise & Tschirhart, 2000). However, despite changing
demographics of the work force and potential benefits of diversity management, U.S.
organizations have made minimal progress toward promoting friendly, productive
working relationships across cultural differences (Ivanevich & Gilbert, 2000).
It should be noted that despite the increase in diversity literature in the 1990s,
there are still too few empirical research studies in the healthcare management field
(Dreachslin, et al., 2001). Moreover, only a limited number of studies have focused on
the area of receptivity to diversity (employee attitudes toward diversity) and receptivity to
diversity management initiatives (employee support for diversity management initiatives
implemented by the employer) (Soni, 2000).
Among the few studies in this area the focus has primarily been on gender and
ethnicity differences in attitudes toward EEO/AA measures (Aguirre, Martinez &
Hernandez, 1993; Bobo & Kluegel, 1993) rather than diversity management strategies.
In one study, the emphasis on diversity within the organization and the role of AA
programs was found to be a point of considerable disagreement between minority and
majority samples (Triandis, Kurowski, Tecktiel & Chan, 1993). Women and minorities
favored AA programs and favored stronger pro-affirmative action policies than did
Caucasian males (Triandis et al., 1993). According to Weech-Maldonado, Dreachslin and
Dansky (2002), research on diversity management strategies in healthcare organizations
is scarce. Literature is also scare in the military, especially in military medicine.
Although the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) conducts
research and assists the military with climate surveys, their focus is limited to equal
opportunity and equal employment opportunity.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Analysis of the above literature suggests that the available research should be
extended, and the common body of knowledge on diversity and diversity management be
enhanced. In testing a new theoretical model of receptivity to diversity, Soni (2000) did
indeed find significant and meaningful differences in how Caucasian males and females,
and minority males and females view diversity and diversity management initiatives.
However, very little empirical evidence exists about whether or not organizational
members within specific racial groups in fact subscribe to the value of diversity and
employer supported diversity management initiatives.
This study provides an opportunity to better understand Soni’s (2000) findings
and their potential to be generalized in a new setting, by determining the extent to which
employee receptivity to diversity and receptivity to diversity management initiatives
varied by gender and ethnicity. Unlike the Soni (2000) study that collapsed the racial
groups into majority (Caucasian) and minority (African American, Hispanic, etc.), this
study enhanced these categories by treating each racial group as a separate category for
analysis.
Consequently, the research questions at the heart of this study were defined as
follows:
1. To what extent does employee receptivity to diversity vary by gender and
ethnicity?
2. To what extent does employee receptivity to diversity management initiatives
vary by gender and ethnicity?
METHODS
Selection of Subjects
The U.S. Navy Medical Treatment Facility’s (MTF) personnel breakdown is comparable
to the population percentages of males, females, Whites, Blacks, Asians and Hispanics in
the United States Air Force, Army and Navy, and therefore all 100 percent of the MTF
population (894 government civilian employees and military service members) were
chosen as study subjects, Demographically divided to: 510 males (57%), 384 females
(43%); 393 Caucasians (44%), 244 Asian Americans (27%), 176 African American s
(20%) and 80 Hispanics (9%).
Research Instrumentation
The survey instrument used in this study was developed using the receptivity to
diversity factor conclusions drawn from Soni’s (2000) study. The items in each
dimension were additively combined to create indexes reflecting the complex concepts.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the indexes ranged from 0.8 to 0.9. Content validity was
used as the validity criterion for the instrument. The questions relating to receptivity to
diversity and receptivity to diversity management initiatives were rated in the study using
a 1-5 Likert scale format, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.
Data Collection Procedures
An introductory cover letter containing the purpose of the study, a request for
cooperation and promise of anonymity was mailed to each member of the organization.
All surveys were sent to the mailbox of each member of the organization with a request
to return the survey in 20 days. Measures taken to increase the survey response rate
included two email reminders and a pledge by the researcher to donate $1.00 U.S. dollar
to a local orphanage for every completed survey received. All responses were returned on
a voluntary basis, so subjects were not influenced or coerced in any way.
Data Analysis
Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to examine the relationships
between:

Receptivity to diversity and gender/ethnicity, (i.e., whether receptivity scores
varied significantly by gender/ethnicity)

Receptivity to diversity management and gender/ethnicity, (i.e., whether
receptivity scores varied significantly by gender/ethnicity)
RESULTS
Demographic Data
A sound questionnaire response rate of 57% for males and 43% for females
provided for a sample of 328 (224 male and 104 female) subjects broken down into the
following ethnic groups: Caucasian: 140 (42.7%); Asian American: 86 (26.2%); African
American: 67 (20.4%); Hispanic: 35 (10.7%)
Statistical Analysis
Tables 1 and 2 show the descriptive statistics and between-subjects effects for the
dependent variable receptivity to diversity. As can be seen in Table 2 there was no main
effect for gender, [F(1,320) = 2.862 (p = .092)] however, the result approached
significance with males scoring slightly higher than females on receptivity to diversity
(MFemales=3.55; MMales = 3.68).
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Dependent Variable: Diversity
Gender
Ethnicity
Mean
Std. Deviation
N
Male
Caucasian
3.5108
.5752
102
Asian American
4.0000
.5116
59
African American
3.6523
.5437
44
Hispanic
3.6895
.6732
19
Total
3.6826
.5932
224
Caucasian
3.4342
.5625
38
Asian American
3.5481
.5041
27
African American
3.5913
.4274
23
Hispanic
3.8000
.4211
16
Total
3.5548
.5076
104
Caucasian
3.4900
.5708
140
Asian American
3.8581
.5485
86
African American
3.6313
.5043
67
Hispanic
3.7400
.5668
35
Total
3.6421
.5698
328
Female
Total
Table 2
Univariate Analysis of Variance, Tests of Between-Subjects Effects; Dependent Variable:
Receptivity to Diversity
Source
Type III
Df
Mean
Sum of
F
Sig.
Square
Squares
Corrected
11.702 7
1.672
5.664
.000
Intercept
3146.776 1
3146.776
10660.601
.000
GENDER
.845 1
.845
2.862
.092
ETHNICITY
4.708 3
1.569
5.317
.001
GENDER X
2.546
3
.849
2.875
.036
Error
94.457 320
.295
Total
4456.980 328
Corrected
106.159 327
Model
ETHNICITY
Total
As seen in Table 2, the 4 ethnic groups were found to differ significantly in
receptivity to diversity [F(3, 320) = 5.317, P=.001]. A Bonferroni multiple comparisons
procedure was conducted to determine which means were significantly different across
ethnicity. As indicated in Table 3, Asian American employees were found to be
significantly more receptive to diversity than Caucasian employees. The significant main
effect for ethnicity was qualified by an interaction effect between gender and ethnicity
whereby as a group male Asian American employees reported greater receptivity to
diversity than Caucasian employees while female Asian American employees did not
(see Figure 1).
Table 3
Post Hoc (Bonferroni) Comparisons of Receptivity to Diversity by Racial Group
Mean Std. Error
(I) Ethnicity
(J) Ethnicity
Caucasian
Asian
Sig.
95%
Difference
Confidence
(I-J)
Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
-.3681*** 7.444E-02
.000
-.5657
-.1705
-.1413 8.071E-02
.485
-.3556
7.292E-02
-.2500
.093
-.5226
2.258E-02
.065 -8.2355E-03
.4618
American
African
American
Hispanic
Asian
African
American
American
African
.1027
.2268 8.853E-02
Hispanic
.1181
.1089
1.000
-.1710
.4073
Hispanic
-.1087
.1133
1.000
-.4095
.1922
American
*** = Significant at p<.001
Figure 1
Estimated Marginal Means for Receptivity to Diversity by Ethnicity
4.25
4
Caucasian
Asian Am
African Am
Hispanic
3.75
3.5
3.25
Male
Female
Tables 4 and 5 show the descriptive statistics and between-subjects effects for the
dependent variable receptivity to diversity management. As the F-Test and significance
levels presented in Table 5 indicate, there was no significant difference between female
and male employees’ receptivity to diversity management scores (MFemales=3.50; MMales =
3.52), F(1, 320) = .173, P=.678.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics, Dependent Variable: diversity management
Gender
Ethnicity
Mean
Std.
N
Deviation
Male
Caucasian
3.3765
.4285
102
Asian
3.7356
.4898
59
3.5341
.4759
44
Hispanic
3.6158
.5014
19
Total
3.5223
.4817
224
Caucasian
3.3658
.4634
38
Asian
3.4889
.3886
27
3.5783
.3849
23
Hispanic
3.7313
.4785
16
Total
3.5010
.4434
104
Caucasian
3.3736
.4366
140
Asian
3.6581
.4724
86
3.5493
.4443
67
Hispanic
3.6686
.4874
35
Total
3.5155
.4693
328
American
African
American
Female
American
African
American
Total
American
African
American
Table 5
Univariate Analysis of Variance, Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:
Receptivity to Diversity Management
Source
Type III Sum
df Mean Square
F
Sig.
of Squares
Corrected
6.742
7
.963
4.721
.000
Intercept
2976.850
1
2976.850
14590.477
.000
GENDER
3.520E-02
1
3.520E-02
.173
.678
ETHNICITY
3.966
3
1.322
6.480
.000
GENDER X
1.130
3
.377
1.846
.139
Error
65.289 320
.204
Total
4125.810 328
Model
ETHNICITY
Corrected
72.031 327
Total
The ANOVA results presented in Table 5 indicate that receptivity to diversity
management differed significantly across ethnicity F(3, 320) = 6.480, P<.001. A
Bonferroni multiple comparisons procedure was conducted to determine which means
were significantly different from one another (Table 6). The results revealed, that Asian
Americans reported significantly greater receptivity to diversity management than their
Caucasian co-workers. Statistically significant differences were also found between
Hispanic and Caucasian employees (p = .004) with Hispanics being more receptive to
diversity management. While not as disparate as the groups above, the difference in
means between Caucasian and African American employees approached significance (p
= .056).
Table 6
Post Hoc (Bonferroni) Tests Ethnicity Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable:
Diversity management
Mean
Std.
Difference (I-
Error
Sig.
Confidence
J)
(I) Ethnicity
(J) Ethnicity
Caucasian
Asian
American
African
American
Hispanic
95%
Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
-.2846 *** 6.188E-
.000
-.4489
-.1203
.056
-.3538
2.454E-03
.004
-.5216 -6.8384E-02
02
-.1757 6.710E02
-.2950 ** 8.536E02
Asian
African
American
American
Hispanic
.1089 7.360E-
.840 -8.6516E-02
.3043
02
-1.0432E-02 9.056E- 1.000
-.2509
.2300
-.3694
.1308
02
African
Hispanic
American
-.1193 9.420E- 1.000
02
** = Significant at <.01
*** = Significant at <.001
DISCUSSION
Contrary to similar gender and ethnicity research (Soni, 2000), no significant
difference was found between female and male employees in their receptivity to
diversity. However, gender did mediate the impact of ethnicity on receptivity to diversity
in that male Asian Americans reported significantly greater receptivity to diversity than
Caucasians, while female Asian Americans did not.
The lack of a significant main effect for gender on either dependent variable may
represent a selection effect due to the military environment studied. Females that work in
a male dominated environment such as the military may be those that have less
traditionally feminine identities and thus don’t perceive the personal benefit of treating
gender as a target for diversity management interventions. This lack of differences could
also reflect the success of Navy medicine in promoting the work and value of female
personnel. The absence of a gender finding could also be the leveling result of a rule
oriented and compliance driven environment where mandated equal employment
opportunity training and regular command climate evaluations are the norm.
It is also arguable that recruit training and subsequent operational experiences
provided by the U.S. Navy offer some of the most effective approaches to managing
diversity seen in large organizations. The U.S. Navy builds cohesive units out of diverse
groups of individuals during recruit training, emphasizing the importance of teamwork in
overcoming obstacles. Strong bonds are often forged though overcoming shared
adversity. Moreover, early on in the indoctrination to Navy life, personnel are taught a
set of unified values more commonly referred to as core values (Honor, Courage and
Commitment). It is suggested that these core values may moderate attitudinal differences
based on gender and ethnicity. Such a team-oriented society may engender respect and
appreciation for the unique skills and perspectives brought to bear on shared problems by
team members from diverse backgrounds. As such, there may be a general level of
acceptance and appreciation for diversity that mitigates most between-group differences.
The benefits of these experiences may be limited however, as differences between
racial groups became more amplified when receptivity to diversity management was
examined. In other words the hypothesized respect for diversity inherent to the military
culture may only go as far as leveling people’s openness to diversity but not to diversity
management. When it came to endorsing diversity initiatives in the workplace, Hispanic
and Asian American employees were significantly more receptive to these than
Caucasian employees. A similar though non-statistically significant pattern was seen for
African Americans compared to Caucasians.
Still there is one question that needs to be reconciled. Why was the difference in
receptivity to diversity more pronounced between Caucasian and Asian American
employees as opposed to the other ethnic groups? This is an interesting finding since the
literature (Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Bell, Harrison & McLaughlin, 1997; Bobo, 1998;
Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000) suggests that Asian American employees are generally less
receptive to diversity than Hispanic and African American employees, but more receptive
to diversity than Caucasian employees. Further information that may help explain this
significant difference follows below.
Most of the Asian Americans in the study were born in the Philippines. As a
subpopulation within the category of Asian Americans they are likely to have unique
characteristics, which warrant further study as a separate group. Additionally, a post
survey interview of some of the Asian American employees revealed that some had past
experiences with discrimination and value different cultures and heterogeneous teams.
The location of the institutional setting in Okinawa, Japan also deserves mention. The
embedding of a western-based institution in an eastern culture may have highlighted
cultural differences that were more salient to Asian Americans than to other minorities.
Lastly, qualitative data collected in the form of post survey interviews
underscored the differences in the receptivity to diversity management means between
Caucasian employees and Asian and Hispanic employees. Many Asian Americans and
Hispanics reported that they thought diversity management policies and programs were
necessary in the workplace. Some commented that programs “let people know they need
to treat others fairly” and that “[the organization is] simply open to diversity.” In fact,
some of respondents believed that diversity policies and programs assisted them with
their advancement.
LIMITATIONS
This study expands our knowledge of diversity management in healthcare.
However, there are a few noteworthy limitations. First, the Hispanic population in this
study was small (80 or 9% of the hospital population) as this is part of the makeup of the
organization. This may limit the generalization for that group in a similar setting. Next,
there is some evidence to suggest that individuals can differ in the extent to which their
group membership is central and salient to their self-concept (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992;
Markus & Kunda, 1986). Lastly, this study confined itself to surveying civilian and
military members of an overseas U.S. Navy MTF and while the author believes this
sample to be reasonably representative of other employee populations, caution is
recommended in generalizing these findings to other settings.
IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS
There is a challenge for organizational leaders to influence everyone to want to
work together as an effective and efficient team. As workplace diversity increases in
organizations so will the possibility of problems among different cultures. Leaders who
understand this upfront can help temper the adverse effects on the staff and on the
organization as a whole. Hiring staff who value differences (especially leaders), focusing
on team building, offering diversity training, developing policies and programs that
recognize differences, but share a common goal towards unity, conducting periodic
culture audits and sharing results with staff are all ways to improve receptivity to
diversity and achieve and maintain diversity management.
References
3M. (n.d.). Diversity at 3M. Retrieved on February 20, 2007 from
http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/us-diversity/diversity/
Aguirre, A., Martinez, R. & Hernandez, A. (1993). Majority and minority faculty
perceptions in academia. Research in Higher Education, v34, 371-385.
Bell, M., Harrison, D. & McLaughlin, M. (1997). Asian American attitudes toward
affirmative action in employment: Implications for the model minority myth.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 356-377.
Bobo, L. & Kluegel, J. (1993). Opposition to race – targeting: Self-interest, stratification
ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, v58, 443- 464.
Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action. American
Behavioral Scientist, 41, 985-1003.
Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice, San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cox, T. & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational
competitiveness. The Executive, v5, i3, 45-55.
Cox, T., Lobel, S. & McLeod, P. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on
cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management
Journal, v34, 827-847.
Dansky, K., Weech-Maldonado, R., DeSouza, G., & Dreachslin, J. (2003).
Organizational Strategy and Diversity Management: Diversity-Sensitive
Orientation as a Moderating Influence. Health Care Management Review, v28(3),
243-253.
Dreachslin, J., Jimpson, G, Sprainer, E. & Evans, R. (2001). Race, ethnicity, and careers
in healthcare management/Practitioner response. Journal of Healthcare
Management, v46, i6, 397-410.
Duke University Health System. (n.d.). Diversity at Duke Hospital. Retrieved on
February 20, 2007 from http://diversity.duhs.duke.edu/
Eubanks, P. (1990). Workforce diversity in healthcare: Managing the melting pot.
Hospitals, 48-51.
Everett, L., Thorne, D., & Danehower, C. (1996). Cognitive moral development and
attitudes toward women executives. Journal of Business Ethics, v15, n11.
Ford Motor Company. (n.d.). Valuing Diversity. Retrieved on February 20, 2007 from
http://www.mycareer.ford.com/ONTHETEAM.ASP?CID=15
Gathers, D. (2003). Diversity Management: An Imperative for Healthcare
Organizations. Hospital Topics, v81, i3, 14-21.
Gentile, M. (1994). Differences that work. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Gilbert, J., Stead, B., & Ivancevich, J. (1999). Diversity management: A new
organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, v21, n1.
Giraldo, Z. (1991). Early efforts at achieving a diversified work force: Going beyond
EEO/AA. In Gilbert, J., Stead, A. & Ivancevich, J. (1999). Diversity
management: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, v21, i1,
61-76.
Hay Group Management Consulting Firm. (1992). Tensions keep focus on diversity
issues. Working Together, 1, 10.
IBM. (n.d.). Valuing Diversity. Retrieved on February 20, 2007 from
http://www-03.ibm.com/employment/us/diverse/feature_nafe.shtml
Ivancevich, J. & Gilbert, J. (2000). Diversity management. Public Personnel
Management, v29, i1, 75-93.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the
efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American
Sociological Review, v71.
Kelly, E. & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management.
American Behavioral Scientist, v41, i7, p960-985.
Konrad, A. & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM Structures: Coordinating Equal
Employment Opportunity or Concealing Organizational Practices?
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3
Kravitz, D. & Klineberg, S. (2000). Reactions to two versions of affirmative action
among White, Blacks, and Hispanics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 597-611.
Kravitz, D. & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects
of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
928-938.
Loden, M. & Rosener, J. (1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as
a vital resource. Homewood, IL: Business One-Irwin.
Muller, H. & Haase, B. (1994). Managing diversity in health services organizations.
Hospital & Health Services Administration, v39, i4, 415-424.
Ruthledge, E. & Wesley, N. (2001). The struggle for equality in healthcare continues.
Journal of Healthcare Management, v46, i5, 313-325.
Sessa, V. (1992). Managing diversity at the Xerox corporation: Balanced work force
goals and caucus groups. In Gilbert, J., Stead, A. & Ivancevich, J. (1999).
Diversity management: A new organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics,
v21, i1, 61-76.
Soni, V. (2000). A twenty-first century reception for diversity in the public sector: A
case study. Public Administration Review, v60, i5, 395-403.
Stanford Hospitals and Clinics. (n.d.). Managing and valuing diversity and inclusion.
Retrieved on February 20, 2007 from
http://www.stanfordhospital.com/newsEvents/eventsLectures/2005/1005/ceManage
Div
Svehla, T. (1994). Diversity management: Key to future success. Frontiers of Health
Services Management, v11, no2, 3-34.
Thomas, R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total work
force by managing diversity, New York: AMACOM.
Triandis, H., Kurowski, L., Tecktiel, A. & Chan, D. (1993). Extracting the emics of
diversity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, v17, 217-234.
Watson, W., Kumar, K. & Michaelsen, L. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on
interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task
groups. Academy of Management Journal, v36, 590-602.
Weech-Maldonado, R., Dreachslin, J. & Dansky, K. (2002). Racial/ethnic diversity
management and culture competency: The case of Pennsylvania
hospitals/Practitioner application. Journal of Healthcare Management, v47, i2, 111126.
Wheeler, M. (1994). Diversity training: A research report. New York: The Conference
Board.
Williams, M. & Bauer, T. (1994). The effect of a managing diversity policy on
organizational attractiveness. Group & Organization Management, v19, n3, 295309.
Wise, L. & Tschirhart, M. (2000). Examining empirical evidence on diversity effects:
How useful is diversity research for public-sector managers? Public Administration
Review, v60, n5, 386-395.