Search results

During a typical diversity program, participants are encouraged to recognize, evaluate, and appreciate differences. The purpose of this paper is to explore the rationale for “Conversity^®”: an alternative approach to diversity training that is based on connections.

The paper is based on a review of the literature on “traditional” diversity training paradigms, the impact of diversity on the brain, and basic social psychology concepts such as categorization and social affiliation. The authors relate literature review findings to their experiences conducting “connections‐based” (“Conversity”) diversity training.

The human brain is already wired to perceive differences. Further, human beings tend to prefer others who share their group affiliations. Possible consequences of “typical” diversity training programs may include a “backlash” against diversity, an increase in participants' fears, and a reinforcement of inter‐group divisions.

This paper offers practitioners an alternative paradigm for diversity training design including alternative categorization (i.e. emphasis on non‐traditional diversity categories such as personality or team color) and an intentional search for connections between participants.

Historically, diversity training programs have focused on the value of differences rather than on the power of common ground.

The purpose of the paper is to help leaders gain awareness of areas that can lead to problems in ethical decision making. Instead of simple “black and white” decisions, leaders face a myriad “grey” situations that cannot be addressed via blind application of company policy. The areas of focus are time, proximity, competitiveness, and personality.

The reader will learn about the “Urgency&Proximity Model” (U&PM); which describes how the urgency of an ethical decision and the proximity between the moral agent and the people involved in the situation impact the moral agent's decision‐making process. The authors incorporate the “Five Factor Model” of personality into the U&PM, raising possible connections between personality and moral reasoning.

The findings indicate that company policies lend themselves only to the simplest decisions, not ethical dilemmas. Thus keeping in mind the U&PM model, organizational competition, and one's own personality (from the WorkPlace Big Five Profile™) can form an ethical basis for moral decisions.

Additional research is needed to connect the aspects of personality to the U&PM.

Leaders are advised to increase self‐awareness, consider their personality traits, and position the moral dilemma being addressed in the U&PM.

This paper is only an introductory examination of ethical decision making based on urgency, proximity, competition, and personality. The concept should be further investigated because of the impact these factors can have on leadership decision making.