Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of the process of strategic planning on cohesiveness and performance in cognitively diverse units.

This study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze an original dataset collected from employees working in healthcare organizations in the United Sates.

This study finds the negative effects of cognitive differences among employees on a unit's cohesiveness and performance and the positive moderating effects of the process of strategic planning on such relationships. Consequently, revealing the cohesiveness enhancing function of the process of strategic planning.

The study contributes to past research by revealing that business organizations could use the process of strategic planning to enhance their internal cohesiveness, in turn improving their business performance. This study explains that when the process of planning clearly defines an organization's mission, goals and implementation plans, employees working in highly diverse units will be more likely to better understand, accept and in turn also support their organization as a whole and its critical strategic goals. This should increase internal cohesiveness and lead leading to better performance.

Diversity is a somewhat amorphous concept; however, it is crucial to our growth as a nation, especially the growth and personal development of college and university students. Most college and university campuses are diverse societies, composed of individuals of many ethnicities, religions, ages, sexual identities, and physical abilities. It is not hard to see the diversity on a campus; people of different backgrounds and cultures comprise the vast majority of the campus population. The University Diversity and Inclusion Office commonly has a vice president, an associate provost, or chief diversity officer for diversity who serves as the senior administrative head. This leader has the responsibility to provide educational activities and programs systematically.

This chapter discusses the role that the University Diversity and Inclusion Office plays in educating the campus about global diversity awareness and inclusivity excellence. The chapter outlines a systematic and flexible approach to addressing the demographic shift that is occurring on college and university campuses and how best to deal with campus bias incidents. The components of the University Diversity and Inclusion Office strategic direction are examined with particular attention focused on the role of the office, its leadership, and the mission of the institution. A section on proposed successful campus-wide diversity initiatives is included as examples of an essential endeavor that enhances campus diversity. This organizational structure has won a national (HEED) Higher Education Excellent in Diversity Award.

This chapter proposes a sustainable trajectory for leadership and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) organizational change in higher education. Leadership practices and strategies necessary to construct and implement change and cultivate diverse, equitable, and inclusive educational environments are deliberated, with particular emphasis on transformational leadership theories and practices. These types of organization development practices produce concrete transformation in institutions that have long-established, inert, and deeply entrenched cultures in which discriminatory or even racist practices have been deeply embedded and accepted over time. The complex dynamics of transformation in higher education, brought on, in part, by the rigidity of its organizational structure coupled with its history and foundation in racism and racist practices, makes achieving sustainable change difficult in higher education. Transformational change requires the creation of new mental models through meaning making and perspective sharing that allow individuals in higher education to think differently about how higher education institutions should operate given the rapid shifts in our society. Organizational change leaders must engage in deep, purposeful, and critical reflection and examination of the organization's culture to lay the groundwork for significant change. The chapter explores topics such as leading change through transformational leadership and the styles, practices, and capabilities associated with it, leadership development, strategic diversity leadership, and the Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) as change leader in higher education. The internal and external environmental trends demanding substantive change in higher education continue to intensify over time. The demand for pervasive transformation in higher education is resounding, and institutional leaders must be open to and even drive new and innovative approaches to shifting its very core – its DNA, its culture – to meet those demands.

While academia continuously probes and advocates for a definition of a comprehensive, inclusive ideal, diversity, multiculturalism, and equity are bridging ties elements that must be considered. Currently, liberal arts colleges have the unique opportunity to shape equitable environments for all their members and become role models for other higher educational institutions. If there is an institutional commitment, and people are willing to work for a common goal, small colleges can undoubtedly offer the appropriate academic conditions where all faculty, staff, and students can achieve their highest personal and professional potentials.

This chapter discusses the role of chief diversity officer (CDO) on liberal arts campuses and how the CDO should take the lead as equity advocator and conveyor and help set the desired dialogue conditions. Among the topics examined is the institutional inclusion process which includes innovative and supportive new ideas and programs for equity among all members of the academic community. Also the hiring of underrepresented faculty members is crucial and can support the growth of enrollment and retention of diverse groups of students. Diversity and inclusion create common goals, and liberal arts colleges should rapidly move to allow the best hiring practices during the recruitment of new faculty members. Equitable learning conditions for all are as crucial as the creation of faculty evaluation systems that promote equitable opportunities. Liberal arts colleges have a historic opportunity to lead the way and become exemplary role models in practicing diversity and inclusion on campus.

The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate that history has much to teach leaders in understanding resistance to affirmative action and how a greater commitment to diversity can be fostered.

This narrative review provides a timeline of a case for resolution‐by‐agreement in the wake of the landmark Knight v. Alabama case.

There have been dramatic increases in the enrollment of students of color and the presence of African‐American faculty in the three major public universities that comprise the University of Alabama System, as well as others in the state.

The present review does not contend that historic and fundamental inequities no longer exist in business and society. Moreover, the authors recognize that present inequities in the realms of diversity have important and historical roots. Likewise, there is no attempt to suggest that affirmative action is no longer a necessary or desired program in some areas. Neither do the authors deny the potential for inordinate management influence in the implementation and practice of some programs that focus on “diversity” instead of “affirmative action.”

The numbers are not optimal. But future studies, along with this paper, should make a significant contribution to the affirmative action literature in the hope that organizations of all types may exceed their goals in the area of “diversity” as part of a larger quest for genuine advancements in the realm of diversity and fairness throughout society.

The paper provides an additional lens through which to examine diversity initiatives. Organizations can learn from the resolution‐by‐agreement process used to settle this desegregation dispute.

Workforce analytics is an evolving measurement approach in human resource (HR) planning and strategy implementation. Workforce analytics can help organizations manage one of their most important resources: their human capital. The purpose of this paper is to propose a diversity metric, called the D-Metric, as a new tool for HR planning. The D-Metric can be used to assess the demographic representativeness of employees across skill categories of an organization’s workforce compared to its relevant labor markets.

The authors present a real example and discuss possible applications of the D-Metric in HRM strategic planning and diversity research.

The D-Metric is a statistic useful in assessing demographic representativeness in the occupational categories of an organization’s workforce compared to the demographics of its relevant labor markets. The methodology could be implemented to assess an organization’s work force representativeness on dimensions such as race, sex, age and pay levels. When the labor market is unitary, without measurable variance, a substitute metric, the U-Metric also presented in this paper, can be used.

Use of the D-Metric requires publicly available labor market data with variance across labor market segments.

There currently is no published metric that evaluates the representativeness of an organization’s work force relative to its relevant labor markets. Many organizations seek a demographically representative workforce to better understand their diverse customer segments. Monitoring the representativeness of an organization’s work force, as captured in Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO-1) forms in the USA, for example, is an important component of HR management strategy. From a legal perspective, the D-Metric or the alternative U-Metric, could be useful in showing progress toward a demographically representative work force.

Diversity education and training have been a standard in higher education for decades now. While it is widely accepted that they can have significant value and impact, there is much uncertainty in how to build programs that deliver in positive ways for increasingly diverse college campuses. The need for contextual application of diversity education makes it difficult to develop a general framework for building such a program. Still, research shows essential theoretical components of diversity education programs that can be critical to the success of these initiatives. How do we take these larger theoretical concepts and ground them within unique higher education environments in ways that meet specific campus needs – needs that exist in the context of the campus, as well as within the larger social, cultural, and political landscape? The model has to be agile enough to respond to both the internal and external factors that shape the campus climate while being true to its theoretical roots. This chapter presents a programmatic framework for building a diversity education certificate program to enhance progress toward achieving institutional change goals, as well as a case study snapshot that demonstrates the practical implications of implementing the framework. The program can drive campus change supporting diversity and inclusion – change that may have been dormant, not supported, or not articulated in ways that result in effective outcomes.