JITE v38n2 - The Relationship of Selected Variables on Diversity Programs In Fortune 250 Manufacturing Firms

Volume 38, Number 2

Winter 2001

The Relationship of Selected Variables on Diversity Programs in Fortune 250 Manufacturing Firms

Clarence E. Whittenburg
Sealed Air Corporation Melissa H. Marcus
Clemson University

Dennis G. Tesolowski
Clemson University Clinton H. Isbell
Clemson University

Demographers predicted in the late 1980s that by the year 2000 white males would make up only 47% of America's workforce ( Bureau of National Affairs, 1991 ). Corporate managers began to realize that they needed a way to manage multiculturalism, and workforce diversity program initiatives were born. Major corporations became increasingly reliant upon a workforce diverse in its cultural, ethnic, and gender composition. Consequently, the marketplace was redefined along global lines, which added complexities to the successful conduct of business.

Many organizations across the American landscape are creating diversity programs for the purpose of properly responding to changing conditions in order to maintain or gain a competitive advantage ( Beilinson, 1991 ; Cox, 1993 ; Gerber, 1990 ; Lamb, 1991 ; Purnell & Tervalon, 1991 ). In an effort to prepare their employees to meet these challenges, major corporations have instituted workforce diversity programs. Although intended as a solution, workforce diversity programs that are improperly managed can produce undesirable results. Negative results, measured primarily in the form of backlash, may be experienced by white males, females, and/or minorities, who may feel that diversity efforts unjustifiably neglect their needs or portray them in a less than positive light. Some individuals may feel unjustifiably excluded or included in the workforce diversity initiative and may feel that there is a lack of organizational commitment to the diversity effort ( Thomas, 1991 ). A lack of commitment by upper management, resentment by white males, and suspicion of workforce diversity efforts on the part of women and minorities are indicative of many professionals' concerns about backlash ( Gottfredson, 1992 ). Of paramount importance is the challenge of harnessing the human resources potential of the workforce to service the needs of a clientele that increasingly is of equal or greater diversity ( Griggs, 1995 ; Thomas, 1991 , 1996 ). The purpose of this study was to identify variables that are key to the successful implementation of diversity initiatives as culture change programs.

Problem Statement and Theoretical Framework

Past research in the field of corporate diversity programs has yielded several questions relating to the future of such programs and the basis from which they can be guided. The external impact of diversity on the workplace is somewhat clear; however, the research findings are not nearly as conclusive with regard to the effect on employees within these organizations, nor do they delineate how people can work together more effectively in order to cope with changing workplace demographics ( Marshall, 1995 ).

The review of the literature established that demographic changes occurring in the American workplace have profound implications for the way we think, feel, and see the world around us and thus, how we will staff and govern organizations and businesses in both the near and distant future ( O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989 ). Paradigm shifts in the composition of the workforce, emergence of a global marketplace and economy, and technological change, among others, are in combination prompting corporations in America to rethink their conduct of business ( Fine, Johnson, & Ryan, 1990 ). Many programs include EEO/Affirmative Action elements, but one must note that diversity is not a synonym for affirmative action, nor is it a code word for equal employment opportunity ( Thomas, 1991 ). There are sharp differences between affirmative action and diversity programs. Affirmative action is a positive action designed to eliminate the effects of past discrimination, whereas diversity programs recognize that a shift in the demographic composition of the workplace is inevitable ( Atkinson, 1983 ).

This study investigated the success of introducing diversity initiatives as cultural change programs within Fortune 250 companies. More specifically, it was designed for the purpose of establishing the relationship between selected variables on diversity and the implementation of diversity programs for successful culture change. This study appears to be one of the first of its kind of this magnitude, since diversity initiatives are relatively new in the American workplace. The research focused on corporate diversity implementation programs and incorporated a self-reporting questionnaire technique in order to determine the effect of such programs on the stated variables.

Null Hypotheses

Based on the review of literature, what is known about industry practices, and a benchmarking exercise conducted by the research team, the focus of this investigation was formalized through the development of four null hypotheses. The following acronyms, at the core of the four null hypotheses, may be defined as follows: community relations (CR), company image (CI), meet the needs of customers (CUST), enhance employee skills (EHS), increase productivity (PROD), provide access to wider skills and talents in the labor pool (ALP), and substitute for affirmative action (SAA). These variables represent the anticipated benefits to the organization from a fully developed diversity program.

The four null hypotheses are:

H ₀₁ : There is no relationship between the period of existence of workforce diversity programs and the level of diversity present in the workforce.

H ₀₂ : No relationship exists between the number of training hours and the extent of reported backlash.

H ₀₃ : No differences exist between the identified variables (CR, CI, CUST, EHS, PROD, ALP, SAA) and their impact on backlash.

H ₀₄ : No relationship exists between the inclusion of diversity management goals in managers' performance evaluation and reported backlash.

Methodology

Research Design

This survey research involved testing hypotheses to identify the relationship of selected variables on diversity and the implementation of diversity programs for successful cultural change. The study was designed to answer four main research questions with the goal of contributing information to the body of knowledge regarding the successful implementation of diversity as cultural change programs.

Sample

The population for this study consisted of Fortune 250 companies. Fortune 250 companies represent the upper half of the 500 largest publicly traded United States firms listed by Forbes Magazine. Companies included on the Fortune 500 list are those companies that are considered to be well-run organizations. Fortune 250 companies were selected due to economic factors and ease of data collection and data processing.

Seventy-four (30%) of the Fortune 250 companies responded to the survey instrument. Fifty-one of these 74 respondents (68%) reported having implemented a workforce diversity (training) program. These 51 companies had an average workforce of 32,467 employees. Most respondents held titles such as Vice President, Human Resources; Director, Human Resources; Manager, Diversity/EEO; Sr. Vice President, Corporate Diversity; or Director, Work Force Diversity.

Research Procedure

The questionnaire developed for this investigation (see Appendix ) was based on the findings of a benchmarking activity conducted by the authors. This benchmarking phase of the investigation included visits to five of the "best-in-class" corporations with regard to diversity initiatives ( Advisory Board, 1994 ) and a preliminary survey with 12 selected corporations. The primary purpose of this phase of the study was to determine if a set of "best-in-class" variables existed and, subsequently, could be further studied and field-tested.

The questionnaire was developed in order to collect demographic information, information regarding components of diversity programs and how they are perceived, and information related to how diversity is being managed. Prior to the distribution of the final questionnaire, a panel of experts analyzed its content, and the instrument was piloted with a group of 14 companies. The pilot study insured that respondents could interpret all items and that the data collected could be suitably analyzed.

Each of the Fortune 250 companies was contacted by telephone in order to stimulate involvement. Next, the questionnaire and an introductory cover letter containing the purpose of the study, a request for cooperation, and a promise of anonymity were mailed to the highest level human resources/diversity company representative. Respondents who chose to identify themselves were also promised a copy of the results of the study.

Pre-stamped, self-addressed envelopes were also provided with each survey. All surveys were mailed to an identified contact person with a request to return the survey within three weeks. Follow-up calls were made two weeks after the initial mailing in order to remind participants to return the completed surveys. All 250 respondents were asked to complete the survey based on knowledge of their organization and its workforce diversity program.

Data Analysis Procedures

Correlation analyses were used to test the first and second null hypotheses using the Pearson product moment correlation. Testing of the third null hypothesis required the use of multiple discriminant analysis with Box's M test and Wilkes' Lamda and univariate F ratios to determine the level of significance of individual variables ( Hair, Anderson, & Black, 1995 ). The fourth null hypothesis was tested using chi-square.

Results and Discussion

The results of this study must be viewed in light of the limitations of this investigation. The study only surveyed Fortune 250 corporations and did not focus on industry type. Furthermore, the study focused primarily on broad variables and had to rely upon self reported data. Finally, the review of the literature indicated that this study is one of the first of its kind of this magnitude, and that diversity initiatives are relatively new in American industries.

Research Analysis

Fifty-one (68%) of the 74 respondents reported having implemented a workforce diversity program. Subsequently, all analyses were based on a sample size of N=51. Instructions included on the survey instrument informed respondents to list the percentage of women and minorities employed in management, professional, and sales positions. Respondents were also instructed to use the standard EEO definitions when responding to the survey.

Correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between period of existence of the workforce diversity program and the amount of diversity present in the organization. Using the Best-Kahn method ( 1986 ) for evaluating the magnitude of a correlation, the null hypothesis (H ₀₁ ) was rejected in favor of the research hypothesis for each workforce position. As indicated in Table 1 , a significant relationship exists between the period of existence of workforce diversity programs and the level of diversity present in the workforce for women and minorities.

Table 1

Correlation Analysis of Workforce Diversity and Period of Existence (N=51)

Workforce
Population Pearson Product
Moment Correlation
Coefficient Strength* Significance Reject H ₀₁

Minorities in
Management 0.62 Moderate 0.00 Yes

Minority
Professionals 0.75 Substantial 0.00 Yes

Minorities in
Sales 0.60 Moderate 0.00 Yes

Women in
Management 0.82 High 0.00 Yes

Women
Professionals 0.66 Substantial 0.00 Yes

Women in
Sales 0.66 Substantial 0.00 Yes

*Best and Kahn ( 1986 )

This evidence suggests two possibilities: 1) given time, workforce diversity programs can be effective tools in influencing a more diverse workforce in terms of the employment of women and minorities in management, professional, and sales positions, or 2) as the workplace becomes more diverse, workforce diversity programs are becoming more prevalent.

With regard to null hypothesis H ₀₂ , respondents were asked to indicate the level of backlash experienced as a result of having implemented a workforce diversity program from "not at all" to "a great extent." Backlash was defined as lack of commitment to the diversity effort, which is most often associated with white males, females, and/or minorities ( Thomas, 1991 ). Respondents were asked to indicate the number of diversity training hours provided to managers, professionals, and sales workers. Specific questions contained in the questionnaire (see Appendix ) reflect the importance of diversity issues and whether the organization incorporates such a program. These factors were measured with a Likert scale and are evidenced as a measure of backlash within the organization. The data reported in Table 2 delineate the relationship between training hours and backlash.

Table 2

Correlation Analysis of Hours of Training and Backlash (N=51)

Workforce
Population Pearson
Product
Moment
Correlation
Coefficient Strength Significance Reject H ₀₂

Managers -.089 Negligible .53 No

Professionals .033 Negligible .82 No

Sales -.133 Negligible .35 No

As indicated by the data in Table 2 , this investigation failed to reject the null hypothesis associated with the relationship between the number of workforce diversity training hours and reported backlash. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no relationship was retained. This is an indication that (for managers, professionals, and sales employees) an increase or decrease in the number of diversity training hours has no significant impact on the amount of reported backlash.

Null hypothesis H ₀₃ relates to items in the survey instrument asking participants to state the importance of seven diversity issues related to the implementation of diversity programs. Participants were asked to rate the importance of the following variables with a rating of "1" being of low importance and a rating of "5" being of high performance: community relations (CR), company image (CI), meet the needs of customers (CUST), substitute for affirmative action (SAA), enhance employee skills (EHS), increase productivity (PROD), and provide access to wider skills and talents in the labor pool (ALP). Since the dependent variable (backlash) was an ordinal variable and the independent variables were interval, discriminant analysis was utilized as the appropriate statistical technique.

Since the objective of this investigation was to determine which of the independent variables are the most efficient at discriminating between more and less backlash, a stepwise procedure was used. The Mahalanobis D2 measure was used with the forward stepwise procedure. The stepwise procedure starts with all of the variables excluded from the model and selects the variable that maximizes the Mahalanobis distance between the groups ( Hair, Anderson, & Black, 1995 ). The Mahalanobis distance is a distance index between groups that takes into consideration group variance-covariance structure. Variables were included in the model based on their discriminating powers. The results indicate that five variables entered the model and were the best discriminators based on their Wilkes' Lamda values.

Since this is a four-group discriminant analysis model, three canonical discriminant functions were calculated to discriminate between the four groups. The data in tables 3 through 5 indicate that function one is the only one with rho < .20. However, function one accounts for 62.89% of the variance.

Table 3

Summary of Stepwise Discriminant Analysis (N=51)

Step Variable Entered Wilkes' Lamda Between Groups

1 Increased productivity - PROD .90806 0 1

2 Substitute for affirmative action - SAA .84928 1 2

3 Company image - CI .74361 0 1

4 Meets the needs of customers - CUST .69086 1 2

5 Enhance employee skills - EHS .64551 0 1

Table 4

Canonical Discriminant Functions

Function Percent Variance Canonical Correlation Significance

1 62.89 .4834 .1752

2 24.11 .3235 .4524

3 13.00 .2434 .4268

Table 5

Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

Function 1 Function 2 Function 3

Company image - CI .57 .63 -.02

Meets customer needs - CUST .44 -.60 -.00

Enhance employee skills - EHS -.23 .04 1.14

Increased productivity - PROD .75 -.36 -.44

Substitute for affirmative action - SAA .44 .47 .16

The data indicate that the discriminant function achieves a high degree of classification accuracy with a hit ratio of 45.10% compared to a 25.0% chance ratio (1-4 categories of backlash). The final measure of classification accuracy is the Press's Q, which tests the statistical significance that the classification accuracy is better than chance ( Hair, Anderson, & Black, 1995 ). The calculated Press's Q value for this investigation is:

[51 - (45 x 4)] ²

Press's Q =
= 109

51 (4 - 1)

Since the chi-square critical value at the .001 level of significance is 10.827, the discriminant analysis can confidently be described as significantly predicting group membership.

An examination of the data in tables 3 through 5 provides an indication that two variables (improve productivity and substitute for affirmative action) contribute somewhat in discriminating between groups. A closer look at function one indicates that the variable "to improve productivity" (PROD) impacts heaviest on reported backlash (.75). Based on significant improvements in classification accuracy, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the research hypothesis which states that linking diversity to affirmative action programs (AAP) will have a greater impact than other benefits/issues on the amount of reported backlash experienced in the workplace.

Finally, with regard to H ₀₄ , survey participants were asked to answer "yes" or "no" to the question: Is progress toward meeting workforce diversity goals included in a manager's performance evaluation? They were also asked to indicate the level of backlash resulting from their workforce diversity programs by checking one of the following levels: not at all, to a little extent, to some extent, or to a great extent.

To test this null hypothesis, both of these nominal variables (one with more than two classification levels) had to be taken into consideration. Therefore, a 2 x 4 contingency table was constructed and a chi-square distribution was employed as the statistical measure. Since the chi-square distribution is a non-parametric test, assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were assumed to be adequate for this evaluation ( Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1985 ). The test statistic to be computed for the 2 x 4 contingency table is chi-square = 3 degrees of freedom. Therefore, the critical value of the test statistic is chi-square = 7.815. The calculated statistic was non-significant, chi-square (3) = 4.57, rho > .05. The null hypothesis was retained, and the conclusion is that no relationship exists between inclusion of diversity management goals in a manager's performance evaluation, and reported backlash. The evidence suggests that backlash is unaffected by whether or not diversity goals are included in managers' performance evaluations.

Summary

The scope of workforce diversity is enormous, covering all businesses and industries. The emphasis on managing diversity appears to be expanding as evidenced by the fact that 51 (68%) of the Fortune 250 companies participating in this study have appointed a department (or a portion of a department) to spearhead their workforce diversity initiative.

The results of this investigation indicate that there is a strong relationship between the level of diversity in the workforce and the maturity of workforce diversity programs. These findings indicate that diversity training has little or no impact on the level of reported backlash, which could be attributed to the quality or duration of training.

Secondly, some diversity issues have a greater impact on the level of reported backlash than others, with programs serving as a substitute for affirmative action and those that concentrate on improving productivity being the most likely discriminators. Finally, including diversity management in the managerial performance evaluation process does not increase nor decrease the level of reported backlash. At this point, including diversity in managers' performance evaluations appears to be a non-issue.

The literature indicates that there are three primary reasons why organizations faced with demographic changes undertake cultural diversity programs: to enhance affirmative action, to show that they value diversity; and/or to show that diversity is linked in important ways to organizational performance improvement. This study supports the theory that workforce diversity initiatives closely aligned with affirmative action initiatives are more likely to result in backlash than those that are aligned with managing diversity as a business necessity.

Authors

Whittenburg is Manager of Organizational Development and Human Resources Development for Sealed Air Corporation in Duncan, SC.

Marcus is the Director of Employee Development, Relations, and Assistance Programs in the Office of Human Resources at Clemson University.

Tesolowski is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Technology and Human Resource at Clemson University.

Isbell is Professor in the Department of Technology and Human Resource at Clemson University.

References

Ary , D., Jacobs, L., & Razavieh, A. (1985). Introduction to research in education . New York: CBS College Publishers.

Atkinson , D.R. (1983). Ethics minority representation. Counselor Education and Supervision , 23, 8-18.

Advisory Board (1994). Best practices resource guide: Workforce diversity. HR Effectiveness , 10, 1-35.

Beilinson , J. (1991). How one company invites workforce 2000 to its door. Management Review , 80, 1-3.

Best , J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (1986). Research in education . London: Prentice Hall.

Bureau of National Affairs. (1991). The challenge of diversity, equal employment opportunity and managing differences in the 1990's . Washington, DC: Author.

Cox , T., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practices . San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.

Fine , M.G., Johnson, F. L., & Ryan, M. (1990). Cultural diversity in the workplace. Public Personnel Management , 19, 505-519.

Gerber , B. (1990). Managing diversity. Training , 27 (7), 23-35.

Gottfredson , L.W. (1992). Dilemmas in developing diversity programs . New York: Guilford Press.

Griggs , L.B. (1995). Valuing diversity: Where from …where to go? In L.B. Griggs & L.L. Louw (Eds.), Valuing diversity: New tools for a new reality (pp. 1-14). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hair , J. E., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis . New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Lamb , K. P. (1991). Assessing organizational readiness: Ready, willing and able. In M.A. Smith & S.J. Johnson (Eds.), Valuing differences in the workplace . Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

Marshall , E. M. (1995). Transforming the way we work: The power of the collaborative workplace . New York: American Management Association.

O'Reilly , C. A. III, Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Workgroup demography, social integration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly , 34, 21-37.

Purnell , J. H., & Tervalon, A. (1991). Valuing differences: Springfield experience. In M.A. Smith and S.J. Johnson (Eds.). Valuing differences in the workplace. Alexandria , VA: ASTD Press.

Thomas , R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total workforce by managing diversity . New York: Amacom.

Thomas , R. R. (1996). Redefining diversity. New York: Amacom.

Appendix

Questionnaire Distributed to Human Resources/Diversity Managers

DEMOGRAPHICS

What is your industry category? (Check one)
___ Banking/Financial
___ Chemical/Pharmaceuticals
___ Construction/Building Materials
___ Consumer Products
___ Diversified Services
___ Heavy Manufacturing
___ High Technology
___ Insurance

How many individuals are in your U.S. workforce? (Check one)
___ 5000 or less
___ 5001 to 10,000
___ 10,001 to 15,000
___ 15,001 to 20,000
___ 20,001 to 25,000
___ 25.001 to 30,000
___ 30,001 to 40,000
___ 40,001 or more

How diverse is your workforce today?

0
to
5% 6
to
10% 11
to
15% 16
to
20% 21
to
25% 26
to
30% 31
to
35% 36
to
40% 41
to
50% 51%
+

Women Officials/Mgrs

Minority Officials/Mgrs

Women Professionals

Minority Professionals

Women Sales Workers

Minority Sales Workers

GENERAL

At what rate do you feel the following groups in your workforce will grow between 1996 and 2005?

No
Growth 0
to
5% 6
to
10% 11
to
15% 16
to
20% 21
to
25% 26
to
30% 31
to
35% 36
to
40% 41
to
50% 51%
+

Women Officials/Mgrs

Minority Officials/Mgrs

Women Professionals

Minority Professionals

Women Sales Workers

Minority Sales Workers

RECRUITMENT

Does your recruiting effort target women for managerial position? YES NO

Does your recruiting effort target minorities for managerial position? YES NO

Does your recruiting effort target women for non-managerial position? YES NO

Does your recruiting effort target minorities for non-managerial position? YES NO

Does your company have a diversity-hiring action plan? YES NO

PROGRAM GOALS/OBJECTIVES

Does your company's commitment to diversity include:

Representation on the Board of Directors? YES NO

Targeted groups scholarships/grants? YES NO

A logo, phrase, or catchword that reinforces diversity issues? YES NO

Formal company policy on workforce diversity issues? YES NO

Executive management involvement? YES NO

Fast track advancement program for targeted groups? YES NO

Formal company policy on sexual harassment issues? YES NO

Community outreach program? YES NO

Events highlighting special qualities/histories of a particular culture? YES NO

Flex-time working hours? YES NO

"Core focus groups" that meet periodically? YES NO

Job sharing? YES NO

Telecommuting? YES NO

Internships for women and minorities? YES NO

Sexual harassment workshops? YES NO

Mentoring programs? YES NO

Targeted college recruiting? YES NO

Language acquisition programs? YES NO

Bias workshops? YES NO

Participation in women/minority organizations? YES NO

Employee work/life issues assessment? YES NO

Does your company have a formal Workforce Diversity Program (WDP)? YES NO
(Note: If the answer to question #11 is "No," please Skip to question #25.)

If your company has a WDP, how long has it been in existence? (Check One)
___ less than 1 year     ___ 1 year     ___ 2 years     ___ 3 years     ___ 4 years     ___ 5 years or more

How would you describe your WDP? (Check One)

___ Affirmative action plan only
___ Formal diversity
initiative only
___ Combination affirmative action and formal diversity initiative

___ Other (specify) ____________________________________________________

Which are today's targeted "core groups" of your WDP? (Check top three groups.)

___ Race ___ Gender

___ Ethnicity ___ Age

___ Cultural differences ___ Alternative lifestyles

___ Language ___ Personal differences

___ Handicapped/disabled ___ Management styles

Rate the importance of the following diversity issues and indicate whether your WDP includes a component that specifically addresses the issue.

Importance Component
Included In
WDP

Low High

Community relations 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Enhance employee skills/knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Improve employees' and customer communication among differing cultural backgrounds 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Increase productivity, creativity, and problem solving 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Substitute for affirmative action plan 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Create competitive advantages 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Engage and utilize the full talent and skills of the workforce 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Access to wider skills and talent in the labor pool 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Strategic business initiative 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Company image 1 2 3 4 5 YES NO

Has your WDP been perceived as confrontational? (Check One)
___ Not at all     ___ To a little extent     ___ To some extent     ___ To a great extent

Has your WDP resulted in "backlash?" (Check One)
___ Not at all     ___ To a little extent     ___ To some extent     ___ To a great extent

TRAINING

Annually, how many hours of diversity issues training do the following groups in your workforce receive?

None 1
to
2 3
to
4 5
to
8 17
to
24 25
to
32 33
to
40 41
+

Officials and Managers

Professionals

Sales Workers

All Other Exempt Employees

Non-Exempt Employees

Is participation in diversity training mandatory for the following? NO

Officials and Managers YES NO

Professionals YES NO

Sales Workers YES NO

All Other Exempt Employees YES NO

Non-Exempt Employees YES NO

Is diversity training included in your new hire orientation for the following?

Officials and Managers YES NO

Professionals YES NO

Sales Workers YES NO

All Other Exempt Employees YES NO

Non-Exempt Employees YES NO

MEASUREMENT

What tools are used to evaluate the effectiveness of your WDP (Check all that apply)?

_____ Surveys conducted periodically to
measuree mployee attitude/bias How often measured? ______________

_____ Employee-related lawsuit trends How often measured? ______________

_____ Employee internal complaint trends How often measured? ______________

_____ Workforce demographic trends How often measured? ______________

_____ Workforce retention statistics How often measured? ______________

_____ Upward mobility tracking How often measured? ______________

_____ Other (specify) ______________ How often measured? ______________

Is progress toward meeting WDP goals included in a manager's performance evaluation?      YES     NO

GLOBAL

Does your WDP extend to foreign operations?      YES     NO

Are WDP policies and procedures applied uniformly to both domestic and international locations?    YES     NO

OTHER

We are very interested in any other thoughts or feelings you have pertaining to the questions in this survey or to employee diversity in the workplace. Please use the space below to write any comments.

If you wish to remain anonymous, do not complete the following; however, please complete and return this survey. Thank you for your time and input.

Company Name: _________________________________________

By: _________________________________________

Title: _________________________________________

	0 to 5%	6 to 10%	11 to 15%	16 to 20%	21 to 25%	26 to 30%	31 to 35%	36 to 40%	41 to 50%	51% +
Women Officials/Mgrs
Minority Officials/Mgrs
Women Professionals
Minority Professionals
Women Sales Workers
Minority Sales Workers

	No Growth	0 to 5%	6 to 10%	11 to 15%	16 to 20%	21 to 25%	26 to 30%	31 to 35%	36 to 40%	41 to 50%	51% +
Women Officials/Mgrs
Minority Officials/Mgrs
Women Professionals
Minority Professionals
Women Sales Workers
Minority Sales Workers

Table 1
Correlation Analysis of Workforce Diversity and Period of Existence (N=51)

Workforce Population	Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient	Strength*	Significance	Reject H ₀₁

Minorities in Management	0.62	Moderate	0.00	Yes
Minority Professionals	0.75	Substantial	0.00	Yes
Minorities in Sales	0.60	Moderate	0.00	Yes
Women in Management	0.82	High	0.00	Yes
Women Professionals	0.66	Substantial	0.00	Yes
Women in Sales	0.66	Substantial	0.00	Yes

*Best and Kahn ( 1986 )

Table 2
Correlation Analysis of Hours of Training and Backlash (N=51)

Workforce Population	Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient	Strength	Significance	Reject H ₀₂

Managers	-.089	Negligible	.53	No
Professionals	.033	Negligible	.82	No
Sales	-.133	Negligible	.35	No

Table 3
Summary of Stepwise Discriminant Analysis (N=51)

Step	Variable Entered	Wilkes' Lamda	Between	Groups

1	Increased productivity - PROD	.90806	0	1
2	Substitute for affirmative action - SAA	.84928	1	2
3	Company image - CI	.74361	0	1
4	Meets the needs of customers - CUST	.69086	1	2
5	Enhance employee skills - EHS	.64551	0	1

Table 4
Canonical Discriminant Functions

Function	Percent Variance	Canonical Correlation	Significance

1	62.89	.4834	.1752
2	24.11	.3235	.4524
3	13.00	.2434	.4268

Table 5
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients

	Function 1	Function 2	Function 3

Company image - CI	.57	.63	-.02
Meets customer needs - CUST	.44	-.60	-.00
Enhance employee skills - EHS	-.23	.04	1.14
Increased productivity - PROD	.75	-.36	-.44
Substitute for affirmative action - SAA	.44	.47	.16

Representation on the Board of Directors?	YES	NO
Targeted groups scholarships/grants?	YES	NO
A logo, phrase, or catchword that reinforces diversity issues?	YES	NO
Formal company policy on workforce diversity issues?	YES	NO
Executive management involvement?	YES	NO
Fast track advancement program for targeted groups?	YES	NO
Formal company policy on sexual harassment issues?	YES	NO
Community outreach program?	YES	NO
Events highlighting special qualities/histories of a particular culture?	YES	NO
Flex-time working hours?	YES	NO
"Core focus groups" that meet periodically?	YES	NO
Job sharing?	YES	NO
Telecommuting?	YES	NO
Internships for women and minorities?	YES	NO
Sexual harassment workshops?	YES	NO
Mentoring programs?	YES	NO
Targeted college recruiting?	YES	NO
Language acquisition programs?	YES	NO
Bias workshops?	YES	NO
Participation in women/minority organizations?	YES	NO
Employee work/life issues assessment?	YES	NO

___ Affirmative action plan only	___ Formal diversity initiative only	___ Combination affirmative action and formal diversity initiative
___ Other (specify) ____________________________________________________

___ Race	___ Gender
___ Ethnicity	___ Age
___ Cultural differences	___ Alternative lifestyles
___ Language	___ Personal differences
___ Handicapped/disabled	___ Management styles

	Importance					Component Included In WDP
	Low			High		Component Included In WDP
Community relations	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Enhance employee skills/knowledge	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Improve employees' and customer communication among differing cultural backgrounds	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Increase productivity, creativity, and problem solving	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Substitute for affirmative action plan	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Create competitive advantages	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Engage and utilize the full talent and skills of the workforce	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Access to wider skills and talent in the labor pool	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Strategic business initiative	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO
Company image	1	2	3	4	5	YES	NO

	None	1 to 2	3 to 4	5 to 8	17 to 24	25 to 32	33 to 40	41 +
Officials and Managers
Professionals
Sales Workers
All Other Exempt Employees
Non-Exempt Employees

_____	Surveys conducted periodically to measuree mployee attitude/bias	How often measured? ______________
_____	Employee-related lawsuit trends	How often measured? ______________
_____	Employee internal complaint trends	How often measured? ______________
_____	Workforce demographic trends	How often measured? ______________
_____	Workforce retention statistics	How often measured? ______________
_____	Upward mobility tracking	How often measured? ______________
_____	Other (specify) ______________	How often measured? ______________

Company Name:	_________________________________________
By:	_________________________________________
Title:	_________________________________________