 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Introduction The purpose of this lesson is to define diversity, identify the benefits of taking advantage of a diverse population, and then identify strategies that capitalize on CAP’s diverse membership. According to Webster’s diversity is simply, "the fact or quality of being diverse: difference." The Civil Air Patrol has one of the most diverse compositions imaginable with differences in age, religion, sex, income, intellect, etc. Although this may seem a challenge to some (finding common ground for communications for example is often a challenge) more and more experts in the field are claiming that there is an opportunity to grasp new and better ways of accomplishing our businesses by not just affording "equal opportunity" but going a step further by understanding. David Thomas and Robin Ely claim, "diversity should be understood as the varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups bring." They go on to claim that these identity groups do more than just bring their "insider information" to the table—they bring fresh ways to accomplish a task. Now that you know what diversity is (or at least one definition of it) you may wonder why it important to us. 
Benefits of Diversity Almost everyone would agree that we have a legal and moral obligation to work against discrimination. Today, however, leaders everywhere are proclaiming that a more diverse workforce tends to be more effective. DiversityInc.com (an online magazine [subsidiary of Forbes] dedicated to spreading the word on diversity) claims that one of the most compelling reasons to promote a diverse workforce is the diversity of ideas and increased creativity attributable to diverse workforce. Furthermore, this effectiveness is reported to have less to do with the fact that the minorities have the inside track in an untapped market and more to do with creative processes, framing of task, and different communication tools. Finally, diversity works against those that do not recognize the significance and allow diversity to work for them. Today’s composite squadron could easily consist of everyone from WWII generation professional retiree to a Generation Y middle school student—what motivates one certainly may not the other! Perry M. Smith (Major General, USAF retired), a prominent leader and writer proclaimed the need for diversity initiatives in both the military and the corporate world. He claimed, "A program such as this is not only the right thing to do, but also is functionally sound, for no organization can maximize the vital feedback mechanism if only men from one race around the corporate and organizational boardrooms across the globe" (Smith 50). This type of thinking is actually representative of the first paradigm of three as described by Thomas and Ely (identifying three perspectives in dealing with discrimination.) The "discrimination-and- fairness" paradigm and the "access-and-legitimacy" paradigms are the basis of most initiatives to diversity to this point. The third and still emerging paradigm, "learning-and-effectiveness," is the closest to optimum approach and should be the goal of today’s organizations. 
Discrimination and Fairness This paradigm is the most prevalent to date. Organization’s that subscribe to this paradigm concentrate on equal opportunity. Thomas and Ely describe the underlying logic as: Prejudice has kept members of certain demographic groups out of organizations such as ours. As a matter of fairness and to comply with federal mandates, we need to work toward restructuring the makeup of our organization to let it more closely reflect that of society. We need managerial processes that ensure that all our employees are treated equally and with respect and that some are not given unfair advantage over others. This paradigm equates to a diverse population, but does very little about the way business is done. Although it increases the demographic diversity of the organization, it does very little to change the culture into one that maximizes the advantages of having a diverse workforce. This is not a neutral effect—it has the potential of being very stifling. For example, this paradigm enforces that all people are equal, and in doing so may deter a creative person from ever presenting his or her ideas for fear of being considered biased. 
Access and Legitimacy The 1980’s and 1990’s brought a new paradigm into being. Thomas and Ely summarize the access-and-legitimacy paradigm with the following statement: We are living in an increasingly multicultural country, and new ethnic groups are quickly gaining consumer power. Our company needs a demographically more diverse workforce to help us gain access to these differentiated segments. We need employees with multilingual skills in order to understand and serve our customers better and to gain legitimacy with them. Diversity isn’t just fair; it makes business sense. Where the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm focused on a color- and gender-blind workforce, this paradigm is based on not only the acceptance, but also the celebration of differences. The strength of this initiative rests mostly in the commercial sectors that have a market they are trying to get to and the fact that it is again easily understandable by all. However, where the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm may have been too quick to avoid differences, the access-and-legitimacy paradigm may be too quick to note the differences—pushing for diverse solutions without much analysis just because they are diverse. This paradigm remains only partially adequate. 
Connecting Diversity to Work Perspectives Recently, the evolution of diversity has begun to finally place credit for new ways of doing business on the shoulders of a diverse population. Thomas and Ely’s research has led them to some shining examples where organizations have, "developed an outlook on diversity that enables them 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." First, discrimination-and-fairness attempted to assimilate by treating everyone exactly the same. Then access-and-legitimacy attempted to coalesce by celebrating the differences and assigning people where they most likely will fit the demographics of the task. Finally, this emerging paradigm seems just right—fairness for all, acknowledging differences, but internalizing and learning from the different perspectives as they are appropriate for the task at hand. This research has very real applicability for any organization, not just those where the mission is market oriented. Most of us would agree that this last paradigm is where we would like our organizations to be, but how we get there is another subject. Strategy 
Changing a culture, as we are discussing in this instance, is no simple task and not one that will be completed in a weekend. The cultural climate of your organization contains three elements:
Embedding mechanisms (like policy or just your member’s perception of the policy) can be used to slowly shift paradigms. Thomas and Ely claim that there are eight preconditions that existed in organizations that were successful in shifting to this emerging paradigm:
Conclusion It is a natural tendency for us to socialize with like-minded individuals. The problem with this is that if we think alike, we are not very likely to learn anything new! Diversity is everything you, as a squadron leader, make it to be. Your actions and reactions are embedding mechanisms in your organizations culture (whether you intend them to be or not). Shifting your organization’s paradigm to one where everyone is, "…on the same team, with our differences—not despite them," is a logical step in the social evolution of today’s organizations (92). It is also a quest that will require persistence by leaders like you—but not one without its rewards.
Last Revised 03/22/00 |
