Building a shared understanding and commitment to managing diversity.

This study examined the perspectives of both employees and senior managers in one organization to determine if the communication between advisory panels representing diverse groups of employees and senior managers resulted in a shared understanding and commitment to diversity. An analysis of interview

transcripts revealed a shared agreement among the majority of the participants regarding the advisory role of the panels. In addition, raising the sensitivity of senior managers, increasing career advancements for women and minorities, and improving interpersonal relationships were identified as positive effects, while a small group of participants thought that the panels had led to resentment of diverse groups.

In 1995, a bipartisan Federal Commission, chaired by Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor, issued a final report titled "A solid investment: Making full use of the nation's human capital." The Commission completed its three-year fact-finding study by concluding that minorities and women are still consistently underrepresented at the highest levels of corporate America. Specifically, 97 percent of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white and 95 percent to 97 percent are men (Department of Labor, 1995, p. iii). The Commission noted that "it is against the best interests of business to exclude those Americans who constitute two thirds of the total population, two thirds of the consumer markets, and more than half of the workforce" (Department of Labor, 1995, p.11).

An earlier report issued by the Department of Labor in 1991 identified the barriers that women and minorities face including few career enhancing assignments, lack of acceptance of women and minorities in top management, and low morale resulting from being blocked and isolated. Faced with these barriers, many employees are unable to contribute fully in their jobs and the nation underutilizes a significant resource in the working population. As a result, the call for new ways for managing diversity and maximizing the full contribution of all employees has been raised by women and minorities as well as senior managers.

Given this need to develop strategies to manage diversity more effectively, organizations have been experimenting with a variety of approaches. One common approach is to set up an internal diversity team with representatives from all groups of employees in the organization. Typically, the diversity team is charged with the goal of determining ways to enhance the diversity in the organization in order to respond more effectively to diverse markets and to recruit from a diverse labor pool. With representatives from all groups, the team presumably will be inclusive in their recommendations for managing diversity.

Another approach, internal advisory groups or panels, consists of separate groups for African-American employees, Hispanic employees, or women employees. These internal advisory groups meet periodically with senior level management to have an open dialogue on the obvious, as well as subtle, barriers that prevent these groups from full participation in the organization. Through frequent communication, employees and managers can develop a shared understanding of the challenges and opportunities of successfully managing cultural diversity.

To date, research in business and managerial communication has focused little attention on the link between communication focused on managing diversity and the goal of creating a shared understanding of and commitment to diversity. The primary focus of this study is to examine the perspectives of both employees and senior managers in one organization to determine if the communication generated by advisory panels representing diverse groups of employees resulted in a shared understanding of, and commitment to, diversity.

Review of Literature

A number of books on managing diversity have been written in the last several years. These books begin with the premise that the U.S. workforce is becoming increasingly diverse and the first step in managing diversity is acknowledging and valuing the differences of people in the workforce (Griggs & Louw, 1995; Henderson, 1994; Cox, 1993; Jamieson & O'Mara, 1991; Fernandez, 1991).

Thomas (1991) provides a working definition that goes beyond valuing differences: "Managing diversity is a comprehensive managerial process for developing an environment that works for all employees" (p. 10). This definition has two key features. First, "managing diversity" is a "comprehensive managerial process." It is not enough to provide diversity training in an organization and pat ourselves on the back for raising the level of awareness. Managing diversity implies an ongoing, system-wide process that will tap the potential of all employees. It implies growth and development on the part of the organization and its people -- movement on both sides.

Second, this definition specifies "developing an environment that works for all people." In order to develop this environment that works for all people, we are going to have to change corporate cultures. Thomas (1991) provides an action plan for developing cultural changes in corporations. According to Thomas, we expect people to assimilate into the corporate culture. Today, employees are reluctant to assimilate and are more likely to want to maintain their uniqueness. As a result, we will have to create a culture that both values and manages diversity.

Fine (1995) claims that the vast majority of cultural diversity initiatives in the U.S. focus exclusively on valuing differences. Instead, Fine argues, the dominant corporate culture must be transformed into a multicultural organization. Fine defines a multicultural organization as an organization that:

1. Values, encourages, and affirms diverse cultural modes of being and interacting;

2. Creates an organizational dialogue in which no one cultural perspective is presumed to be more valid than other perspectives;

3. Empowers all cultural voices to participate fully in setting goals and making decisions (1995, p.36).

Changing corporate culture and systems to accommodate the diversity of employees involves strategic initiatives that are designed to break down barriers that prevent all people from contributing to their fullest potential. Jackson and Associates (1992) describe examples of corporate diversity initiatives that are "intentionally planned, targeted against business objectives, long-term oriented, and involve the entire organization." For example, Travel Related Services, a subsidiary of American Express, focused their efforts on becoming "the Best Place to Work" by providing benefits that would attract and retain employees from an increasingly diverse labor pool. Child-care subsidies, improved part-time benefits, sabbaticals, and flexible work arrangements were introduced after a systematic diagnosis and planning effort involving input from employees (Morrison & Herlihy, 1992).

Another study of corporate diversity initiatives by Morrison (1992) is based on interviews with over 200 managers in 16 U.S. companies. The research describes the barriers that prevent women and minorities from advancing as well as the processes that facilitate their movement through the ranks. Recruitment, development, and accountability strategies that foster an appreciation for diversity and allow organizations to achieve measurable results are labeled "best practices."

One of the practices Morrison (1992) cites is the use of internal advocacy groups as a means for building commitment to diversity and monitoring the corporation's diversity practices. Advocacy groups were found in 10 of the 16 companies examined in the Morrison study. While the roles and power of these groups vary within corporations, Morrison (1992) acknowledges that much of their negotiating power comes from the information they receive about personnel administration (personnel profiles, promotions, pay records, and advanced notice of personnel policies). According to Morrison, some executives communicate this information in order to share responsibility for identifying diversity problems and developing solutions (1992, p. 90).

Since the 1970's, Xerox Corporation's employees have formed groups called caucuses to manage diversity. The separate caucus groups for African-American, Hispanic, and women employees serve several functions:

(1) They serve as a communication link between the caucus population and

upper management; (2) they are used for personal and professional development;

(3) they are used for networking and support within the caucus population;

(4) members serve as role models to majority employees for managing

diversity; and (5) they are often the vehicle through which the corporation

serves the community. (Sessa, 1992, p. 56)

Avon, Digital Equipment, and U.S. West all have advisory groups. While the groups have various names including "constituency groups" and "resource groups," the benefits, according to Cox (1993), are "the broadening of input for problem solving, and especially for managing the strategy for creating a culturally diverse workforce" (pp. 246-247).

Much of the success of advisory panels seems to come from the common understandings and relationships that are built when the advisory groups communicate with top-level executives who can take responsibility for ensuring that all employees are able to participate fully in the organization. Before an organization can claim to be managing diversity, all levels of employees need to have a shared understanding of the barriers that women and minorities face, the strategies to remove those barriers, and the benchmarks for success.

Not everyone embraces the concept of advisory panels for women and minorities. Morrison (1992) claims few top-level managers in her study were in favor of the formation of internal advocacy groups because of the possibility that the groups may become divisive in their efforts to influence change. Also, Morrison points out that advocacy groups focused on one group -- whether it be women or minorities -- may fragment efforts to manage diversity (1992, p. 91).

One theoretical perspective, the interpretive perspective, which has its roots in symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969; Littlejohn, 1983), provides an explanation for the value of the communication that occurs when advisory panels meet with executives. According to an interpretive perspective, individuals create and shape their own reality through communication (Krone, Jablin, & Putnam, 1987; Putnam, 1983). Through the process of discussing and debating what causes the "glass ceiling" and how it can be shattered, each individual who participates in the group's communication derives meaning from the interaction with others.

Weick (1995) describes this process in organizations as "sense-making" and suggests that through meetings, organizational members "define, represent, and reproduce social entities as well as relationships" (p. 143). Weick argues that participants in group communication are motivated to seek common ground as well as to insist on one's own views, even though they may be in a minority (1995, p.144). Within organizations that have advisory panels for women and minorities, the panels can facilitate communication between participants who represent women and minorities and executives who are often primarily white and male. The panels may provide the mechanism for reaching shared understanding among members of an organization regarding how we can manage diversity successfully and the benefits that will result from the effort to empower all cultural voices.

To determine if a shared understanding and commitment to diversity can be achieved among executives and employees representing diverse groups, a qualitative research study was conducted in an organization that had over ten years of experience with advisory panels. Four specific research questions were addressed:

1. What is the shared understanding among executives and advisory group participants of the role advisory groups play in a corporation's efforts to manage diversity?

2. What is the shared understanding of the positive effects, if any, that advisory groups have on a corporation, its management, and its employees?

3. What is the shared understanding of the negative effects, if any, that advisory groups have on a corporation, its management, and its employees?

4. Are there significant differences between the group participants in the advisory panels and executives regarding the effectiveness of advisory panels in managing diversity?

Method

Research Setting

The research was conducted in a service company located in the midwest. At the time the data were gathered, the organization had over 10,000 employees. For over ten years, the company had supported internal advisory groups which they have called Advisory Panels. The panels, the Minority Advisory Panel (African-American male and female managers), the Women's Advisory Panel (representing all women managers), and the Hispanic Advisory Panel (Hispanic male and female managers), meet regularly with the officers of the corporation to discuss issues and policies affecting these groups of employees. The panels appeared to have been successful in influencing the promotions of women and minorities as evidenced by the increased numbers of women and minorities in middle- and upper-level management positions. The panels also appeared to have been successful in influencing policies on merit pay and positioning women and minorities in key positions. While this service-oriented company appeared to be making progress in managing diversity, there was no systematic evaluation to determine the effects on those who serve on the panels, on the executives who meet with the panels, or on the organization.

Subjects

Individuals who had served on the three advisory panels, the Hispanic Advisory Panel, the Minority Advisory Panel, and the Women's Advisory Panel and executives who had interacted with the panels were selected as subjects for the study. Chairs of the panels were asked to provide a list of all members who had been actively involved with the panels during the previous three years. The Vice President of Personnel was asked to provide names of executives, including the president, all vice-presidents, assistant vice presidents, and general managers who had met regularly with the panels during the past three years. All of the individuals who were identified were sent a letter inviting them to participate in the research project. The letter included the list of questions that would be asked. Participants were assured that this was a study conducted by a faculty member for research purposes only. Individuals who did not respond to the first letter of invitation were sent a second letter inviting them to participate.

Eighty percent of those who were identified for this research study agreed to participate. There were no identifiable differences between those who agreed to participate in the study and those who did not respond to the invitation. It should be noted that this organization had announced a major restructuring effort and many executives and employees contacted for this study were actively involved in the planning process at the time the interviews took place. While the increased workload associated with planning the organizational changes may have led some subjects to ignore the letters requesting their participation in the research study, some of those who did not respond were not actively involved in the planning process. The actual reorganization took place several months after all interviews were completed.

Among the executives who responded, 15 were white males and one was a white female. Two of the male executives had been transferred to the organization from the parent company and had less than three years of experience meeting with the panels; all of the other executives had worked with the panels since they were formed over ten years ago.

The minority group was composed of seven African-American males and five females, all of whom had worked with the panels for at least five years. The Hispanic group was composed of nine males and two females. Since the Hispanic group had been formed approximately three years ago, Hispanic employees had less experience with the panels. This lack of experience may have discouraged some Hispanics from participating in the study.

The Women's group was composed of ten white females and two African-American female mid-level managers. Although African-American and Hispanic women were often involved in both the Women's Advisory Panel and the Minority or Hispanic Panels, these two African-American women indicated that they had been more actively involved in leadership roles in the Women's Advisory Panel and focused their interview responses on that panel. Table 1 shows the group composition of the research subjects.

Table 1
Group Composition of the Research Subjects

Group         Total Contacted    Total Interviewed    Percentage
Executives          16                 14                88%
Hispanics           15                 11                73%
Minority            16                 12                75%
Women               14                 12                86%

Totals              61                 49                80%

Data Gathering

Structured telephone interviews were used to gather data for this research. Interviewing "enables the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of other people without predetermining those points of view through prior selection of questionnaire categories" (Patton, 1990, p. 24).

Interviews were conducted over the telephone and tape recorded with prior written permission of each subject. At the end of each interview, each subject was asked three separate questions to rate the effectiveness of the advisory panels in managing diversity. Previous research has suggested that effective strategies for managing diversity should:

1. Provide mechanisms for identifying and resolving problems with managing a diverse workforce (Morrison, 1992).

2. Create a culture where diversity is considered an asset (Thomas, 1991).

3. Create a culture where all employees are valued (Fine, 1996).

Subjects in the study were asked whether advisory panels meet these three standards of effectiveness. Responses were assessed using a seven-point Likert scale and effectiveness scores were calculated for each subject by combining the responses to three statements measuring subjects' agreement or disagreement with the above effects of advisory panels.

Data Analysis

The researcher transcribed each of the 49 tapes which averaged approximately 20 minutes for analysis. Based on the researcher's analysis of key themes that appeared during the transcription process as well as key concepts from the literature on the roles and effects of panels, a coding scheme was devised with definitions of possible roles panels play and effects they can have on the organization, senior management, and middle management. Miles and Huberman (1994) define this approach, which they have labeled "pattern coding," as "a way of grouping summaries into smaller sets, themes, or constructs" (p. 69).

The coding scheme carefully defined each of the roles and the possible effects so that the categories were discreet. Behavioral descriptions were used to differentiate the categories. For example, the role, "advise senior management" was defined as "meeting with senior management and advising on problems/issues of diversity, providing feedback on management policies and decisions related to managing diversity, and advocating for the advancement of women and minorities. A second role, "gather and monitor diversity data," was defined as "gathering and monitoring statistics on diversity of employee groups, promotions, key assignments to be used in problem identification."

Three raters, a white male, an African-American male, and a white female, were trained to code the transcriptions. Using three raters who were not involved in data gathering was a step that was taken to minimize the bias of the researcher and to insure the credibility of the data analysis (Crabtree & Miller, 1992, pp. 234-235).

After the first round of coding, the interrater reliability was calculated and there was 62% agreement among the coders. Areas where there were disagreements were discussed and definitions of terms in the coding scheme were refined. The three coders recoded the areas of disagreement separately and the final interrater reliability was calculated at 85% (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 64).

Results

Roles of the Advisory Panels

Table 2 presents a summary of the roles subjects discussed during the interviews. First, there was a shared understanding that the primary role of the panels is to advise senior management on problems/issues of diversity. This would include providing feedback on management policies and decisions that affect women and minorities. One respondent explained, "The panels helped to identify issues and concerns that were related to the advancement of women and people of color throughout the company." Another interviewee described the role as "making sure that the higher ups or the officers know that we are concerned that everyone is treated fairly and that everyone is given a fair opportunity, an equal opportunity to achieve and to be recognized for performance."

Table 2
Roles of the Advisory Panels

  All Subjects (n = 43)

Advise Senior Management (37)
Gather & Monitor Diversity Data (17)
Act as Conscience of Organization (9)
Relationships with Internal Constituents (7)

  Executives (n = 14)

Advise Senior Management (11)
Gather & Monitor Diversity Data (8)
Relationships with Internal Constituents (7)
Act as Conscience of Organization (3)

   Minorities (n = 12)

Advise Senior Management (9)
Gather & Monitor Diversity Data (3)
Act as Conscience of Organization (3)

   Women (n = 12)

Advise Senior Management (7)
Gather & Monitor Diversity Data (5)
Act as Conscience of Organization (3)

  Hispanics (n = 11)

Advise Senior Management (10)

Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents who mentioned this role.

Many of the interviewees thought that another role of the panels was to monitor data on diversity. A woman interviewee described this monitoring as "bird dogging." She explained this by saying, "Let's bring the facts to light. Let's look at the numbers. Let's emphasize equal treatment, equal pay, and equal opportunities."

Finally, nine of the interviewees specifically stated that the panels were "the conscience of the organization." An executive talked about the panels as a conscience when he said, "In the large sense, the panels have served as a conscience for the corporation and as a gentle prod, always reminding us of the need to examine the diversity issues."

The only real difference among the subgroups was in the executive group where half of the respondents believed that one of the roles of the panels was to build relationships with internal constituents. Members of the panels did acknowledge that the panels provided opportunities for networking, but they did not view building relationships with internal constituents as one of their primary roles.

Positive Effects of Advisory Panels

Interviewees were also asked to describe the effects the panels had on the organization, top level executives, and middle level executives. The majority of effects that were cited were positive effects as presented in Table 3. Sixty-seven percent of the interviewees believed that the panels had raised the sensitivity of top executives to issues of diversity while only 40% believed that the sensitivity of middle-level managers had been raised. One African-American manager described the impact by using an analogy: "My analogy is that we have a lot of people who know the words to the song, sing the song, but who don't dance to the music. The top executives can sing the song and they know the words, but people want to see that they dance. What the panels did was to make it clear to the executives that no longer can you get away with just singing the song."

Table 3
Positive Effects of Advisory Panels

All Subjects           Executives             Minorities
(N= 49)                (N= 14)                (N= 12)

Raised Sensitivity     Raised Sensitivity     Raised Sensitivity
of Top                 of Top                 of Top
Executives (33)        Executives (12)        Executives (9)

Career                 Improved               Career
Advancements (21)      Relationships (7)      Advancements (7)

Raised Sensitivity     Raised Sensitivity     Raised Sensitivity
of Middle of           of Middle              of Middle
Management (20)        Management (6)         Management (6)

Improved               Career                 Improved
Relationships (19)     Advancements (3)       Relationships (5)

Top Executive                                 Top Executive
Support Diverse                               Support Diverse
Groups (11)                                   Groups (5)

Equity in Pay (7)      Empowerment (3)

Women                      Hispanics
(N= 12)                    (N= 11)

Raised Sensitivity        Raised Sensitivity
of Top                    of Top
Executives (7)            Executives (5)

Career                    Raised
Advancements (8)          Sensitivity
                          of Middle
                          Management (4)

Raised Sensitivity        Career
of Middle                 Advancements (3)
Management (4)

Improved                  Improved
Relationships (4)         Relationships (3)

Equity in Pay (4)         Panels had NO
                          effects (3)

Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents who mentioned this effect.

Slightly over 40% of the interviewees (including 8 women and 7 African-Americans) believed that the panels had led to career advancements for women and minorities. One executive took some pride in his profile of women and minority managers. "In my department, I would be willing to guess that my numbers of women and minorities in all levels of management are as high as or higher than anybody else. We have made a concerted effort to move people around and to get them positioned for promotions. I just did a percentage count and women are 42% of my managers and minorities are 16%. You can't do that overnight, but it works."

Significantly fewer Hispanics, 3 of 11, believed that the panels affected career advancements. One of those who saw the positive career effects noted, "The net results have translated into additional opportunities, not only in promotions, but also in increasing the overall number of Hispanics within the company."

Nineteen (39%) interviewees also acknowledged that the panels had led to improved relationships within the organization. One African-American manager said, "People talk about the issues more, in non-threatening kinds of ways." An executive described the change as a "change in culture." He added, "Culture changes the way people think." A woman claimed in her interview that cultural differences seminars sponsored by the minority advisory committee "opened up a level of communication on racial and male/female type issues that would not have existed otherwise."

Negative Effects of Advisory Panels

Some negative effects of the panels were also noted by the interviewees and are presented in Table 4. Specifically, 13 people (27%) claimed that the panels had led to resentment, especially among white males of the panels. One executive believed that "There has been a backlash. I believe that some of the white males, for example, were skeptical, concerned, and didn't see the same treatment for themselves and basically wouldn't admit it openly, but in closed circles would talk about how this is awful." A woman who had served on a panel agreed by saying, "There's some resentment. It is somewhat quiet. Mid-level managers feel that being involved in panels gives women and minorities a power that's not readily available to them." Another 8 people (16%) believed that the panels had created an adversarial relationship which damaged efforts to manage diversity. The competition for promotions and special assignments became more intense as women and minorities were added to the pool of viable candidates. One person explained that "the pie has to be sliced up a little more. Some may feel that they could have gotten a bigger piece of pie if we had excluded African-Americans and women."

Table 4
Negative Effects of Advisory Panels

All Subjects             Executives       Minorities
(N= 49)                  (N= 14)          (N= 12)

Resentment               Resentment       Resentment
of Diverse               of Diverse       of Diverse
Groups (13)              Groups (4)       Groups (4)

Damaged                  Panels had
Relationships (8)        NO Effects (3)

Panels had NO
Effects on Middle
Management (8)

Women                    Hispanics
(N= 12)                  (N= 11)

Resentment               Panels had NO
of Diverse               Effects on Middle
Groups (4)               Management (3)

Damaged
Relationships (4)

Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of respondents who mentioned this effect.

Another 8 people (16%) thought the panels had no effects on middle-level managers and their commitment to diversity. One African-American manager summed up the effects the panels had on middle-level management by saying, "Overall, mid-level managers feel like panels are self-serving and I am not sure that the panels have had much effect on middle management either."

Differences in Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Advisory Panels

The final research question examined the differences in perceptions of the effectiveness of advisory panels. Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the effectiveness scores for executives, minorities, women and Hispanics.

Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for Effectiveness Scores for Each Group

Group          Number of Cases       Mean      Standard Deviation

Executives           14             15.571           1.785
Minorities           12             17.583           2.644
Women                12             15.333           2.270
Hispanics            11             14.454           2.067

Note: Effectiveness scores are based on the combined responses to three questions measuring the subjects' perceptions of advisory panels.

Each response is based on a seven-point scale (1 = very strongly disagree, 7 = very strongly agree).

To measure the differences, t values were computed between the means of each of the possible combination of groups. Three significant differences were found; all of the differences involved comparisons of the three other groups with minorities. There was a significant difference between minorities and Hispanics (t = -3.14, df = 21, p [is less than] .005), between minorities and executives (t = -2.30, df = 24, p [is less than] .05), and between minorities and women (t = 2.24, df = 22, p [is less than] .05).

Discussion

Advisory panels can serve an important role in managing the diversity of an organization. The results of this study support the use of panels as a means for raising senior managers' sensitivity towards diversity. Once awareness is raised, then members of the organization can work together to remove the barriers that prevent women and minorities from fully participating in the organization and from achieving recognition for their contributions.

The common perspectives between executives and minority employees on the roles the panels played as well as the effects they had on the organization are a strong indicator that panels had succeeded in creating a shared understanding and commitment to diversity. With open communication on the barriers facing women and minorities, this company had succeeded in developing a working relationship that was producing visible effects. Clearly, the senior management's raised sensitivity was acknowledged by all the groups involved. The career advancements of women and minorities as well as the raised sensitivity of middle level managers was also cited by nearly half of all of the subjects. When those kinds of effects are mentioned by so many individuals when asked open-ended questions, it seems clear that there is a shared belief that these effects are occurring. Managers also verified that confidential corporate statistics on recent promotions for women and minorities and equity in pay between women and men and minorities and non-minorities supported the perceptions of employees that the organization was managing diversity more successfully.

It was not unanticipated that the Hispanic employees were less positive about the effects that panels had on the organization. The Hispanic Panel had been the last panel to form and had only been in effect for approximately three years while the Minority and Women's Panels had over ten years of experience. This finding underscores the time it takes to develop relationships that lead to observable effects.

Surprisingly, members of the Minority Advisory Panel were significantly more positive compared to other groups regarding the overall effectiveness of panels. Perhaps the panels gave African-American managers, male and female, the opportunity to voice their experiences with the barriers that led to inequities in pay or prevented equal consideration for senior management positions. The panels may have also had positive views because they were able to participate in developing the strategies that led to a greater organizational commitment to cultural diversity. Regardless of the reason, Minority Advisory Panel members clearly agreed that panels had provided a mechanism for addressing problems with managing diversity and created a culture where diversity was considered an asset and all employees were valued.

Implications for Managers

Understanding the role communication plays in building understanding and commitment to diversity is significant to managers in a workforce that will continue to grow increasingly diverse. With leaner staffs and complex challenges facing organizations today, harnessing the creativity and productivity of all employees is imperative. Managers must be able to empower all individuals, regardless of whether they are in a minority or a majority, to contribute the full range of their talents. Employees who believe that their voice or their contribution is not valued will not be motivated to contribute their best.

Through open communication with advisory panels representing women and minorities, managers can learn to understand the barriers, subtle or explicit, that limit the effectiveness of employees. Vice-presidents who were never solely responsible for the care of their children learn what it means when a single mother must leave a late business meeting to pick up her children from a day care provider before the center closes. Executives who successfully climbed the corporate ladder learn to understand what it means to an African-American or a Hispanic employee who is discouraged by the fact that no minority employee has ever achieved executive status. The experience of talking about the problems and working through the difficult task of creating solutions that respect differences builds understanding and commitment to diversity.

Expanding the process throughout the organization with diversity teams that promote understanding among all employees through communication and shared problem solving will build understanding and commitment to a diverse organization that respects all employees.

Future Research

This research is limited by the case-study design that focuses on the experiences of one organization. Future research might examine the perspectives of employees and participants in other organizations that have used advisory panels or caucuses as a mechanism to support diversity. In addition, we need to examine the perspectives of employees who are not included in the advisory panels to determine whether the emphasis on building understanding and acceptance to diversity extended beyond those who actively participated in panels or who met with panels to resolve problems.

Recent research by Watson, Kumar, and Michaelsen (1993) demonstrates that a high degree of cultural diversity appears to constrain a group's process and performance in newly formed groups when compared to groups that are more homogeneous. With time, however, these differences in performance and process disappear and the culturally diverse groups perform better on complex tasks. Future research could measure the process and performance of advisory panels for women or minorities as compared to diversity teams which are composed of employees representing all groups of employees. While participants agreed that many benefits accrued from advisory panels, there are some negatives in that middle-level managers often felt left out and the groups appeared at times to compete with each other. Diversity teams might experience initial difficulties in working through issues, but with time the benefits of communication among culturally diverse employees may yield the same results. Managing diversity takes time and openness to value differences and understand new viewpoints.

Finally, researchers need to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of diversity efforts to determine whether we are building a shared understanding of the barriers that women and minorities experience in the work place. As changes are made by corporations to break down barriers, we need to monitor the effects both on women and minorities and on the employees not represented by advisory panels.

Managers and employees will continue to work together to create diverse organizations where everyone can contribute to their fullest potential. Those who engage in open communication focused on understanding diversity issues and building commitment to a multicultural organization will succeed in making full use of our nation's human capital.

NOTE

Mary Vielhaber Hermon is a Professor of Management at Eastern Michigan University. Questions and comments concerning this article can be addressed to her at the Department of Management, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197.

REFERENCES

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research & practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Department of Labor. (1995). A solid investment: Making full use of the nation's human capital. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Department of Labor. (1991). Report on the glass ceiling initiative. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fernandez, J. P. (1991). Managing a diverse work force: Regaining the competitive edge. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Fine, M. G. (1995). Building successful multicultural organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Griggs, L. G., & Louw, L. L. (1995). Valuing diversity: New tools for a new reality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Henderson, G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the workplace. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Jackson, S. E., & Associates. (1992). Diversity in the workplace: Human resource initiatives. New York: The Guilford Press.

Jamieson, D., & O'Mara, J. (1991). Managing workforce 2000. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Krone, K., Jablin, F., & Putnam, L. (1987). Communication theory and organizational communication: Multiple perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp. 18-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Littlejohn, S. W. (1983). Theories of human communication (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Morrison, A. (1992). The new leaders guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Morrison, E. W., & Herlihy, J. M. (1992). Becoming the best place to work: Managing diversity at American Express Travel Related Services. In S. E. Jackson (Ed.), Diversity in the workplace: Human resource initiatives (pp. 203-226). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA Sage.

Putnam, L. L. (1983). The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations - an interpretive approach (pp. 31-54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Sessa, V. I. (1992). Managing diversity at the Xerox Corporation: Balanced workforce goals and caucus groups. In S. E. Jackson (ed.), Diversity in the workplace: Human resource initiatives (pp. 37-64). New York: The Guilford Press.

Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1991). Beyond race and gender. New York: American Management Association.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse tasks groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.