“Always remember that you are unique just like everyone else.” – Margaret Mead***
A Dose of Reality
An African American employee complained of unfair treatment and harassment based on race in her nursing department. The diversity leader in the organization was responsible for investigating such allegations. This diversity leader and an associate held multiple focus groups and individual meetings with select staff. In this department there were men and women, African Americans, Latinos and European Americans (White). It may seem a bit over the top to gather this much demographic data but it matters in the scheme of what was being alleged and getting to the core of the matter at hand. There were charge nurses, staff nurses, certified nursing assistants (CNA’s), health unit coordinators (clerical staff) and cleaning staff; there was a wide variety of ages as well. After gathering and analyzing the information, it was clear that there most definitely was inappropriate behaviors that were unfair and intimidating. Interestingly enough, however, Latinos as well as some White employees indicated some of the same concerns brought forth by the African American female employee. When all the data was evaluated the common denominators were not based on typical classifications of diversity, the clear demarcation in the sand was between nurses and those individuals working in lower job levels, i.e. CNA’s, clerical staff and cleaning staff. It just so happens that most of the individuals in the lower job classifications were people of color, were less likely to have any college education and they had less decision-making authority in the department. The preferential, respectful treatment was given from nurses to nurses, not to the lower job classifications, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity.
Defining Diversity
Diversity encapsulates the many ways humans are different from one another. When we talk about or think about diversity many people immediately turn to thoughts of race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. These are primary classifications of diversity that impact inclusion and bias. Such classifications do more than impact inclusion and bias, however, they also influence our identities, our personalities and our behaviors and there are many more that can sway our interactions, behaviors and thought patterns.
Dimensions of Diversity
If you search the internet for classifications of diversity you are quite likely to stumble upon “types of diversity.” You will find varying perspectives on what and how many there are in society or in the workplace. Before making this statement, I of course, searched it myself. I disagreed with some and partially accepted others but few if any stated all of what I thought should have been said. Some articles indicated there were five types, some indicated four types, some six and some seven.
Of course I have a different perspective about it based on experience. When I think about the many “types” of diversity I have to take you a few steps back and clarify a few things. Off the top of my head I can easily come up with a minimum of 11 “types,” but with an unidentifiable number that goes beyond that. I would not, however, call them types because they were historically and professionally referred to as dimensions of diversity. Dimensions have been grouped in layers for ease of discussion and expansion of understanding and utilization.
Diversity experts, Marilyn Loden, who coined the term “glass ceiling,” and Judy Rosener created a widely used model or wheel categorizing the many dimensions that impact one’s identity or personality into more clearly identified levels. These are levels that exist within individuals and organizations. The dimensions are identified as Internal and External. Lee Gardenswartz and Anita Rowe later expanded upon this model, adding organizational and countries of operation as additional levels.
1. The core of this cumulative model is the Personality.
2. The initial level is the Internal Dimensions which are
- Race
- Age
- Ethnicity
- Sexual Orientation
- Gender
- Physical Ability
3. The next outer layer is the External Dimensions category:
- Geographic Location, Income
- Personal Habits
- Recreational Habits
- Religion
- Educational Background
- Work Experience
- Appearance
- Parental Status
- Marital Status
4. The Organizational Dimension includes:
- Functional Level/Classification
- Work Content Field
- Division/Department/Unit/Group
- Seniority
- Work Location
- Union Affiliation
- Management Status
5. The additional and final dimension that has also been added is based on Countries of Origin (as many corporations have business locations all over the world) and it includes:
- Political System
- Economy
- Values
- Business Etiquette
- Social Structure
- Laws
- Languages
How Dimensions of Diversity Affect Interactions
While some models only focus on primary and secondary dimensions (including a 2003 updated version of the diversity wheel by Marilyn Loden) we can see that there are a multitude of dimensions that exist. They don’t only exist but they have a very real impact on how individuals view one another, treat one another and mistreat one another.
Dimensions of diversity can impact individual behavior by generating prejudices, stereotypes, and discrimination in groups and organizations. Those that impact individual behavior the most are race, ethnicity, age, gender and sexual-orientation. The multiple forms or dimensions show the complexity of filters we use to process information and impressions of people and their actions.
Diversity of Thought
Diversity in any organization should be designed to promote acceptance, mutual respect and teamwork in spite of the differences that exist between and among individuals. If we can recognize that the many dimensions of diversity that exist in each of our worlds, have a major impact on how we think it could help build greater insight and capacity for inclusion. Our thoughts impact how we problem solve, how we communicate, how we work and more. Developing an ability to accept and respect differences in thinking could help minimize or eliminate a multitude of biases across the many dimensions of diversity that we face if we proceed with caution.
Diversity of thought, also referred to as cognitive diversity, is generally defined as welcoming and embracing the variations in how individuals think and process information and the power it can bring to the table as problems get solved and greater creativity is released. Diversity of thought, however, should be viewed as a means to an end. It is not the target. Advocates of cognitive diversity feel that this is a better goal for organizations than focusing too heavily on primary dimensions of difference. The belief is that if organizations focus on the value of thinking and harness diversity of thought, they can maximize inclusiveness, improve outcomes, develop better relationships and increase goal attainment.
When the Diversity Message Gets Diluted
There are multiple dimensions, multiple approaches and multiple tools in the well supplied diversity tool chest. The caution must be applied, however, to the application of those approaches and the use of those tools. When looking at the different levels that list the dimensions, we can see some that we might react to with greater passion or opposition. When implementing diversity initiatives and working to create an inclusive environment, reality shows us that we respond differently to differing dimensions. It is never a good idea to lump everything together and tackle it with one tool. For example, it may be easy to address the acceptance of communication styles as they are displayed in meetings and as the team gets to know one another better. You may then be thrilled to see the communication flowing better and accomplishing more as a team. On the other hand, it may not be as effective to get a team of older men from seeing the beautiful, young female college graduate as the intelligent, capable team member who can contribute just as much as they can, when most of them grew up being taught that women are meant to be at home or working in a support role on the job. It’s not right but it exists. A focus on cognitive diversity may not adequately address their need to change not only their thinking but also their behavior.
I have seen organizations who don’t want to keep pushing the message of diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) too hard and too long. Like many business initiatives, some leaders get saturated and they think everyone else is saturated as well. DE&I is an ongoing business imperative just as it is a life imperative for those who want to enjoy the benefits of their own personal goal attainment and lifelong accomplishments; all without hindrances brought on by primary dimensions of diversity or any other dimensional level of difference. Changing the name will change the focus. Calling a DE&I initiative a Respect Initiative, Cognitive Diversity approach or anything else will do nothing other than confuse people, dilute the message and communicate a lack of sincerity and importance in the work needed.
Knowing the dimensions helps shed a little light on problem solving but we cannot zero in on one or two dimensions and think it will solve the entire issue.
Closing Thoughts
The earlier example of the department that struggled with disrespect and inappropriate behaviors, is a perfect illustration of how a perceived issue may actually be brought on by other factors and would be addressed differently. A racial discrimination or harassment issue would be handled differently than poor treatment of individuals based on education or professional position. It is just as important to the people dealing with it as it would be if race were a factor but it is much less convoluted. The situation was a management issue that needed to be addressed. People who cannot exhibit proper leadership ability cannot be placed in leadership positions. Charge nurses cannot harass or intimidate other team members just because they see themselves as superior to the lower ranks. That’s what it boiled down to. It would have been hard to figure that out and address it if the people involved ignored the dimensions of diversity that went beyond race and gender.