Search results

Board diversity has been an important topic in corporate governance. Extant literature examines the overall diversity in the boardroom and its impact. However, since important decisions are usually taken by the committees, it is important to also examine diversity in committees. We use the Coca-Cola Company as the case study and examine its diversity in both audit and finance committees. Our goal is to raise the awareness of researchers, board nominating committees, and diverse directors themselves, as to whether diverse directors are placed in the right positions to allow them to contribute their diverse views and experiences.

We conducted a case study of the Coca-Cola Company using its proxy statement in both 2016 and 2018.

While Coca-Cola’s self-reported board diversity stood at 27% in 2016, and increased to 31% by 2018, the critical audit and finance committees showed a distinct lack of diversity. Focusing on gender diversity for the purposes of this chapter, we investigated two possibilities: (1) that the lack of committee diversity is due to the lack of finance and leadership skills of those board members who were from underrepresented groups, but this possibility does not seem likely, (2) that the presence of a female CFO removed the urgency to place board members from underrepresented groups on the audit and finance committees.

We provide a cautionary perspective on the implementation of diversity policies at the highest levels of an organization. The pursuit of diversity, like other admirable corporate goals, can degenerate into a check-the-box mentality. When this happens, diversity can become viewed as a substitute for real competency rather than a complement to existing competencies.

It is suggested that boards revise the recruiting and selecting process to include more female candidates, and be sensitive how and where those diverse directors can best contribute their perspectives and experiences.

Books serve as important information resources and provide space for reflection and identity-building for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) people. Many in this community have experienced reduced feelings of isolation through engagement with the writings of others. Providing a safe space for such engagement is vital. Library and information science (LIS) professionals are in an optimal position to meet such needs, particularly when efforts are made to implement changes based on explicitly expressed concerns.

This chapter provides a case study of the LGBTQ Center of Durham, North Carolina, to illustrate how the organization is integrating the local LGBTQ+ community into its library by using the community’s own vocabulary and interests to inform the center’s practices and policies. The chapter also offers a guide to the locally responsive, LGBTQ+-specific classification system created for the LGBTQ Center of Durham’s library collection. This classification system was designed to represent library materials for its Durham and surrounding-area users in a useful, accessible, and respectful manner – a feat that the library committee did not feel could be accomplished using existing classification systems.

Building on the case study for applicability, the author makes recommendations for how LIS professionals who wish to better serve LGBTQ+ users can incorporate the community into their library and/or collection. The author provides additional suggestions for action, with varying levels of commitment, for library professionals and volunteers. Through resource development, training, collection development, and classification revision, libraries can more closely align their practices with the needs of users of all gender identities and sexual orientations.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how and why personality tests are used in workplace training. This research paper is guided by three research questions that inquire about the role of external and internal stakeholders, the value of psychometric and practical considerations in test selection, and the purpose of personality test use in workplace training.

This research paper uses multiple-case study analysis. Interviews, test reports, product flyers and email correspondence were collected and analyzed from publishers, associations, psychologists and human resource development (HRD) practitioners in Germany, the UK and The Netherlands between 2012 and 2016.

Themes emerge around industry tensions among practitioners and professional associations, psychologists and non-psychologists. Ease of use is a more important factor than psychometrics in the decision-making process. Also, practitioners welcome publishers that offer free coaching support. In the process of using tests for development rather than assessment, re-labeling takes place when practitioners and publishers use positive terms for personality tests as tools for personal stocktaking and development.

Despite extensive data collection and analysis efforts, this study is limited by its focus on a relatively small number of country cases and stakeholders per case.

By combining scientific evidence with practical application, stakeholders can take first steps toward more evidence-based HRD practice around personality testing in workplace training.

Little academic literature exists on the use of personality testing in workplace training. Without a clear understanding of the use of personality testing outside personnel selection, the current practice of personality tests for developmental purposes could raise ethical concerns about the rights and responsibilities of test takers.

Now well into the 21st century, the world’s most powerful organizations’ highest executive levels and boards of directors still fail to represent a diverse collection of people shaped by unique social identity dimensions according to age, class, culture, ethnicity, faith/spirituality, gender, physical/psychological ability, sexual orientation, and more. Offered in this book is an investigation into why a homophily framework, or a similarity-attraction hypothesis, continues to perpetuate leadership by predominantly Caucasian/White males and reinforces barriers that keep qualified people possessing a multiplicity of social identity dimensions from achieving their full human potential.

To understand interactive processes through which discrimination is reproduced in the workplace, social identity theorists explore connections between ways that people create social identity and that organizations become socially constructed. Social identity theory explains how people seek to develop oneness with groups that help them to develop and/or to enhance positive self-esteem – and to better understand how people develop notions of high-status ingroups and low-status outgroups. Both of these frameworks are central to this book’s attention to difference in organizations. Difference is positioned as a positive advance in organizational dynamics; advocating respect and appreciation for multiple and intersecting social identities – not for profitability and other business case reasons – but because it is morally justified to eradicate inequitable and exclusionary practices in organizations. This book offers an introduction to doing difference research by introducing a number of theoretical underpinnings, addressing methodological challenges, and presenting a wide cross-section of numerous bodies of literature which have been attending to difference work. Chapter 1 is divided into subthemes of: applying social identity theory, emphasizing the “center” and the “margin,” managing organizational climate, and avoiding business case thinking and other flawed models by advocating for real diversity.

Situated in the context of India, where women’s representation on corporate boards remains low, this study aims to explore whether and how tokenism impacts the behaviours of female directors.

The boardroom experiences and perceptions of 14 women directors are explored through semi-structured interviews and analysed using an inductive and interpretive process. Also, to get a counter perspective and avoid the social desirability bias from the women participants’ responses, 16 men directors are interviewed.

The study finds that, as gender minorities, women directors' visibility on boards can create performance pressures on these women. To counter gender-based prejudices, women directors consciously alter their behaviours and project both male and female traits consistent with the director role. By doing so, women directors overcome tokenistic stereotypes and are accepted as part of the director in-group, irrespective of their numeric representation on the board.

The research has implications for governments attempting to increase women’s board presence through affirmative actions and for firms aiming to improve the gender diversity of their board composition.

These findings present an alternative perspective on women directors’ board behaviour by exploring the applicability of Western trends on tokenism and critical mass in the context of India, adding to the vast body of literature concerned with minorities on corporate boards.

This chapter uses critical race theory (CRT) and postcolonial lenses to critique the postrace concept and organizational power differentials mirroring an ethnically coded society. CRT reminds us that despite antidiscrimination laws around the globe, employers still normatively pursue workplace homogeneity; not necessarily a racist impulse, but in an effort to promote perceived organizational efficiency. Understanding how organizations have become hard-wired to perpetuate White privilege helps to dismantle systemic barriers which continue to stand between people of color and an ability to reach their full human potential at work.

Understanding of power and difference in organizations requires consistent diligence. Using ethnic diversity primarily as a means for advancing profit generation motives rather than as an opportunity to advance social justice, too many multinational corporations offer mere lip service to ethnic diversity. For example, organizations tend to imagine that they are more ethnically diverse than they really are and enable prejudice, racism and microagressions against people who constitute ethnic minorities. Among social researchers, attention to ethnic difference requires careful and consistent attention as well. Because skin color ranks among the most visible of social identity dimensions, diversity and ethnicity/race erroneously are considered synonymous and skin color becomes some default condition for diversity in social research studies. Chapter 5 explores these important subthemes: interrogating Whiteness and navigating diversity at work; exposing the “requisite variety” concept for its homophily thesis roots; examining effects of “othering,” liminal spaces and tokenism; racism and microaggressions have gone underground; and intersectionality of ethnicity with other social identity dimensions.

Although special education was built upon the foundation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the discrimination that many racialized students receiving special education services experience cannot be denied. Many culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse students receiving special education services encounter labels that perpetuate racism and ableism and lead to inequitable access to services and resources necessary for more positive postsecondary outcomes. By honoring intersectionality and dismantling the singular identity, educators can become change agents and shift the historic oppressive narrative to create a system of empowerment as these individuals transition from transitional kindergarten to age 21 special education programs (TK-21) schools into adulthood.

The sequence of stress, distress and somatization has occupied much of the late twentieth-century psychological research. The anatomy of stress can be viewed from interactional and hybrid theories that suggest that the individual relates with the surroundings by buffering the harmful effects of stressors. These acts or reactions are called coping strategies and are designed as protection from the stressors and adaptation to them. Failure to successfully adapt to stressors results in psychological distress. In some individuals, elevated levels of distress and failed coping are expressed in physical symptoms, rather than through feelings, words, or actions. Such “somatization” defends against the awareness of the psychological distress, as demonstrated in the psychosocial literature. The progression of behavior resulting from somatic distress moves from a private domain into the public arena, involving an elaborate medicalization process, is however less clear in sociological discourse. The invocation of a medical diagnosis to communicate physical discomfort by way of repeated use of health care services poses a major medical, social and economic problem. The goal of this paper is to clarify this connection by investigating the relevant literature in the area of women with breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the relationship of psychological stress, the stress response of distress, and the preoccupation with one’s body, and proposes a new theoretical construct.

The purpose of this paper is to examine identity intersectionalities of age, ethnicity, and gender among US professional women of color working in upper management as they challenge the glass ceiling in order to change organizations from the inside out.

Featured are narratives of 36 midlife‐aged, middle‐class African‐American, Asian‐American, and Hispanic women who have built careers in mediated message industries. Feminism and Foucauldianism provide theoretical underpinning.

The findings illuminate how midlife‐aged women of color paradoxically resist and accept master narratives of “less than” in striving to change organizations and achieve their maximum potential. Organizational glass ceilings remain impenetrable, but women of color are optimistic that benefits of diverse upper‐level managements ultimately will be embraced. Moreover, overlapping public and private spheres continue to further complicate career advancement.

Method‐inherent limitations include recognizing that narratives are not generalizable but serve as a point of departure for future study. Implications for theory building are offered, as well as ongoing research suggestions – such as probing intra‐group differences and expanding dialog to include other unique identity groups.

Of key import for public policy decision making are research participants' voices – how, as beneficiaries of socio‐political movements and legislation spanning nearly five decades, they still seek to negotiate organizational hierarchies and balance public and private work spheres.

Heretofore, little scholarly attention has focused on midlife‐aged women of color and glass ceiling barriers in conjunction with monitoring organizational change. This exploratory study was designed to address the gap; encouraging policymakers and organizational leaders to consider these women's unique identities and experiences.