Article summary of Diversity initiative effectiveness: What organizations can (and cannot) expect from diversity recruitment, diversity training, and formal mentoring programs by Kulik & Roberson - Chapter

What organizations can/cannot expect from diversity recruitment, diversity training and formal mentoring programs

Around 1980 attention was paid in the literature for the first time to the business case of diversity. This business case predicts a large number of benefits of diversity for companies. The various employees can deal better with the various customers and provide a broader perspective when making decisions. In addition, it is good for the image of the company. Managers are positive about this business case, but quite a few negative outcomes with diversity are found in the literature. The literature shows that there are more conflicts and that there is more dismissal and less satisfaction among employees. The conclusion is that diversity can lead to better performance, but only if it is managed well. The diversity can be filled in in many different ways and companies often do not know what to choose. They often have no insight into the result of an intervention, so that the goals are not achieved. The problem is also that there is little research that shows the results of interventions.

What do companies want to achieve with diversity? The main reason is the threat that the government will legally record the degree of diversity within a company (if companies themselves do not do enough to promote diversity). Companies are usually pushed more towards diversity by external factors than they are attracted to by internal factors. As a result, companies usually do not evaluate their efforts fairly. If the success of diversity is already measured, this is usually a quantitative analysis. For example how many employees from minorities are employed. It is not examined whether the existing employees handle diversity well and whether the diversity also yields results. No internal structure is being developed where minorities are an added value. Dipboye indicates that companies must first develop a diversity strategy before they start recruiting people from minorities.

The recruitment of minorities

Research shows that 79% of HR professionals have developed a strategy to increase diversity within the company. The second popular measure is allowing unpaid leave for employees to take a cultural or religious holiday. First, companies must be open to minorities so that they see the company as a pleasant place to work. By promoting diversity and training, you make your company more attractive to minorities. That is why informal recruitment should not be used, because the employees then nominate people who are like them.

In this context, it is wiser to use advertisements that clearly show that you promote diversity or that you use special intermediaries that are specialized in recruiting minorities. When you show that the current employees are diverse, it is easier for minorities to join the company. This works especially well when you place a photo of a person from a minority group with the advertisement. This is in line with the social identity theory that says you are looking for people who are most like you.

In addition, it is important that the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) is communicated. In affirmative action, people are selected without the recruiter knowing which group the person comes from or that he consciously uses this knowledge. This is intended to encourage employees to be selected based on their qualities and not on their group membership.

Employees and recruiters (both black and white) are positive about identity blind recruiting. If the identity is known, but the recruiter consciously deals with this, skepticism may still exist, or it may be thought that minorities are being discriminated. Affirmative action only includes aspects such as gender and race, while EEO also includes other factors such as awareness and dealing with minorities. This is a more proactive attitude.

Goldberg discovered that a recruiter of the same race is found more attractive by the employees, but that it does not make the job more attractive. Gender and age of the recruiter make no difference.

Although there are indications that certain advertisements can attract minorities, the results are still too weak and not enough to prove that minorities actually choose a job faster when they see a "diverse" advertisement. In addition, the manipulations of diversity in the advertisements were very clear. Little attention has been paid to more subtle manipulations. Minorities themselves also vary widely, making it difficult to form a clear picture of how they will respond to various expressions of EEO. In addition, recruiting minorities is much easier than ensuring that the person from the minority group actually feels comfortable at his workplace. When the efforts of the company are exaggerated in the recruitment phase, potential employees may be disappointed when they actually come into contact with the company.

Diversity training

Diversity training is often seen as the foundation of diversity strategy. Researchers say that training is a necessary ingredient for a successful strategy. Training is used to inform employees about the diversity strategy of the company.

This is used to communicate what is required of employees in relation to minorities. In addition, training is intended to change the behavior of employees in order to promote the relationships between all employees. The skills required for this are taught. The opinions of researchers are divided on the results of these training courses. There is evidence that informing employees about diversity and promoting openness to newcomers has an effect. Another form of training is the training of skills.

It is essential that it is first investigated which skills are needed, and are still missing. This also provides insight into the motivation of employees to learn about diversity. When employees see for themselves that they have a lack of knowledge in this area, they will be motivated to participate in these training courses. Employees who do not find it necessary will not appear in voluntary training and will benefit little from involuntary training. People who are not aware of their low competence are also unaware of their lack of understanding of diversity and will therefore be less likely to participate in training.

Another form of training is the training of awareness of the existence of bias in perception, such as stereotyping. A reduction in the use of stereotypes will immediately lead to a better climate for minorities. The assumption of this intervention is that processes such as discrimination and stereotyping are largely unintentional. Researchers question the results of this training. If the training already leads to better awareness, the question remains whether it actually changes the behavior of employees. If employees change all their stereotypes, this comes from an inner motivation and not from being familiar with stereotypes.

Mentor programs

With mentoring programs, new employees walk along with an experienced employee to see the art, or new employees can go to a person for questions. The use of mentoring programs can mainly be found in professional and management positions. A goal of these programs is to develop the career and professionalization of the employee. Research shows that employees who have followed such a program are promoted faster, are more satisfied with their work, and earn more. A second goal is to prevent the employee from leaving the company soon.

A program with a formal mentor works less well than a program with an informal mentor. One reason for this may be that formal mentors have a kind of compulsory character, which means that employees are less motivated than if they are allowed to choose a mentor themselves or if a mentor arises spontaneously.

If the mentor resembles the protégé, the usefulness of the program is facilitated. Mentor programs work especially well when it changes the stereotypes of the decision maker. Those are the people who determine who gets what information and who gets promotion. Because the employee does not receive certain information, he can also perform less well. If the employee knows that there are stereotypes about him, he will also attribute failure to the negative sides of the stereotype, making it affirmative. As a result, the potential of the employee does not come into its own. Although many studies show the benefits of mentoring programs, there are also factors that increase the chance of dismissal.

The reason that many new employees resign quickly is that the job does not meet expectations. Similarly, the mentor cannot meet expectations, so that socialization does not go as it should. The problem is that people from minority groups have fewer colleagues with whom they have a relationship, because they don't look so much like them. Mentoring can also be taken up by a whole group instead of by one person. This works even better than when a new employee has one mentor. The newcomer immediately builds a network.

From the treatment of the above three methods to promote diversity, you can conclude that these three elements can work, if they meet reality.

Managers are the ones who hire and give opportunities, so it is especially important for managers that they are good at dealing with diversity.

Thomas and Ely identified three perspectives on diversity:

1. Discrimination and fairness: the company does its best to hire various employees, who must then adapt to the prevailing culture. Various employees do not get equal opportunities in this structure. Because only recruiters are engaged in promoting diversity, the various employees do not integrate into the existing, homogeneous group.
2. Access-and-legitimacy: the company hires various employees to connect with the various customers, but afterwards gives them few opportunities for growth. In this structure, the dominant group gets better opportunities.
3. Integration and learning: the company realizes that various employees have added value. This structure often leads to discussion.

Research shows that a combination of the above perspectives works best, but that companies usually start with a narrow focus and then expand. Research also shows that reducing stereotypes is one of the best ways to make diversity work, but that this has no place in the aforementioned perspectives.

The suggestion from Bendick is to provide awareness training, but there is little evidence that this works. It only works with people who want to avoid their stereotypes, but these people are often already aware of their stereotypes. Awareness training only has a lasting effect when there is a common goal of working together. When a company wants to promote the situation of minorities across the board, it makes sense to set explicit standards on how to deal with minorities.