Hassan Final Manuscript 14 Dec 09

THE IMPACT OF WORKPLACE DIVERSITY ON THE WORKING
ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE IN ENGINEERING ORGANIZATIONS:
A STUDY OF ETHNICITY, CULTURE, SPIRITUAL BELIEF, AND GENDER
by
Mohamad H. Hassan
CLIFFORD BUTLER, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
GEORGE KALIDONIS, Ph.D., Committee Member
STEPHEN HOBBS, Ed.D., Committee Member
Raja K. Iyer, Ph.D., Dean, School of Business and Technology
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University
December 2009
© Mohamad H. Hassan, 2009
Abstract
Several factors brought into play the heightened awareness of workplace diversity and its
potential benefits at the turn of the century. The globalization of businesses, increased
competition, and changes in workforce and consumer demographics stipulate that
scholars and business leaders evaluate diversity in the workplace in order to respond to
these changes. Taking the approach derived from the change and organizational theories
to introduce, incorporate, and sustain workplace diversity within the organizational
culture is one potential response. A diverse workforce introduces varying skills, ideas,
and perspectives to an organization; promoting these qualities could improve a firm’s
output. Acknowledging the potential benefits, it became crucial for organizations to
create relationships that respect mutual interests and maintain a culture of inclusion,
expressed internally through workplace diversity. The challenge is to equip business
leaders with the tools they need to assess workplace diversity and create diversity
initiatives to leverage the talents of the diverse workforce. This study developed a tool
that was used to assess diversity perceptions in the engineering sector based on ethnicity,
cultural background, spiritual belief, and gender. The findings of the study were (a)
Perceptions of workplace diversity do not significantly differ by employees’ ethnic
backgrounds, (b) Perceptions of workplace diversity do not significantly differ by
employees’ cultural backgrounds, (c) Perceptions of workplace diversity do not
significantly differ by employees’ spiritual beliefs, and (d) Perceptions of workplace
diversity do not significantly differ by employees’ genders.

Dedication
I dedicate this to my family. My lovely wife, Rihab; my amazing daughter, Sonia;
my bright son, Adam; and my little angel, Summer; I could not have done this without
your love, encouragement, and relentless support. To my mother, who did not live to see
this day, I know you are looking down on me with a big smile on your face. To my proud
father, all I am going to say is thank you for your inspiration, and here is the only
doctorate in the family. However, I am confident that I won’t hold this title for long
because my daughter is already working on her doctorate and my son soon to follow . . .
and those would be my proudest moments.
iii
Acknowledgments
First, I want to thank God for granting me the courage to achieve this dream.
Second, my utmost respect and thanks go to my committee chair, Dr. Butler, for his
constant guidance and focused support. And lastly, to my committee members, Dr.
Kalidonis and Dr. Hobbs, for their constructive criticism and deliberate inquisition that
fortified my thought process to produce this dissertation.
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction to the Problem 1
Background of the Study 2
Statement of the Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 4
Rationale 5
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Definition of Terms 7
Assumptions and Limitations 8
Nature of the Study 10
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11
Introduction 11
Definition of Workplace Diversity 11
Theoretical Framework 15
Other Theories 20
The Need for Organizational Diversity 27
The Effects of Diversity 28
v
Implementing Diversity 31
Summary 35
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 37
Research Design 37
Sample 39
Instrumentation 41
Data Collection Procedures 42
Data Analysis 42
Validity and Reliability 44
Ethical Considerations 45
Summary 46
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 47
Introduction 47
The Survey 47
Data Collection 48
Survey Instrument 48
Survey Analysis 49
Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents 49
Overall Diversity Perceptions 54
Hypotheses Analysis 60
Summary 74
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 75
Introduction 75
vi
Discussion 75
Limitations 81
Implications 82
Recommendations for Future Research 84
Summary and Conclusion 85
REFERENCES 87
APPENDIX. SURVEY INSTRUMENT 92
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables 52
Table 2. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by

Gender 57

Position 57

Ethnicity 58

Spiritual Belief 59
Table 6. ANOVA Test for Overall Diversity by Ethnic Background 60
Table 7. ANOVA Test for H1 Workplace Diversity by Ethnic Background 61
Table 8. ANOVA Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Cultural

Background 62
Table 9. ANOVA Test for H2 Workplace Diversity by Cultural Background 62
Table 10. ANOVA Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Spiritual Belief 63
Table 11. ANOVA Test for H3 Workplace Diversity by Spiritual Belief 63
Table 12. T Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Gender 65
Table 13. T Test for H4 Workplace Diversity by Gender 65
Table 14. ANOVA Test for Difference in Overall Workplace Diversity by

Region 66
Table 15. ANOVA Test for Difference in H1 Workplace Diversity by Region 67
Table 19. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Men—H1 69
viii
Table 23. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Women—H1 70
Table 27. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Whites—H1 71
Table 31. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Minority Races—H1 73
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1. Respondents by gender 50
Figure 2. Respondents by position 50
Figure 3. Respondents by ethnic group 51
Figure 4. Respondents by spiritual belief 52
Figure 5. Diversity satisfaction—Overall 55
Figure 6. Diversity satisfaction—Average per question 56
x
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
In recent years, workplace diversity has become a critical issue in the United
States. Factors such as ethnic and racial minorities becoming a majority in little more
than a generation (Dávila, 2008) and the increasing globalization have left firms looking
for a means to gain a competitive edge. Research has theorized that a company’s level of
diversity may be one such area (Allen, Dawson, Wheatley, & White, 2004; Vallario,
2006).
A diverse workforce introduces varying skills, ideas, and perspectives to an
organization; promoting these qualities could improve a firm’s output. Such skills and
perspectives are likely to be valuable, for example, in a business climate affected by the
growth of globalization at the turn of the century, and the 2008 economic downturn,
which have increased the need for effective workplace communication among individuals
from differing backgrounds (Holden, 2006; Johnston & Packer, 1987; Levin, 2004; Soni,
2000). Although many researchers have characterized workplace diversity as an
opportunity to improve business prospects, others have argued that diversity is already
present when viewed through the lens of globalization; the world is already diverse, and
not all businesses require diversity in the workplace to be in the lead of their market.
However, most researchers and business leaders agree that organizations require diversity
1
of thoughts and ideas and environments of inclusion to allow the free flow of
communications to capitalize on the talents of every member of the organization.
Diversity of thoughts and ideas is a key element of diversity in the workplace, and
therefore can be achieved through a diverse workforce. In addition, the consumer base for
many U.S. companies has also grown increasingly diverse, demanding products and
services that meet their unique wants and needs (Dávila, 2008; Flagg, 2002; Francis,
2005; Friday & Friday, 2003; Garfield, 1994; St. Louis Minority Business Council, 2009;
Vallario, 2006). Organizations must respond to these changes, and incorporating or
increasing workplace diversity is one potential response.
Acknowledging this potential benefit, research has supported the importance of
workplace diversity. For example, Vallario (2006) contended, “Ideally, organizations
must create relationships that respect mutual interests and maintain a culture of inclusion,
expressed internally through workplace diversity and externally through partnerships” (p.
50). However, research has not specifically considered the quantifiable results of
diversity by examining whether it consistently affects an organization’s profits and the
quality of work output. This research aimed, by means of a Web-based questionnaire, to
provide current information about developments in workplace diversity from the
perspectives of ethnicity, culture, spiritual belief, and gender, and the potential effects on
performance, profits, productivity, and product quality.
Background of the Study
The term workplace diversity refers to demographic differences among
employees, which can stem from race, gender, age, or physical or mental ability, among
2
other factors (Korac-Kakabadse, Korac-Kakabadse, & Myers, 1998). The term also refers
to an organization’s fundamental acceptance and integration of employees from diverse
backgrounds (Korac-Kakabadse et al., 1998). Diverse employees bring new talents and
ideas, and could positively influence the decision-making process (Soni, 2000).
Acceptance and understanding of workplace diversity has been shifting in U.S.
businesses in the past few decades. During the middle of the 20th century, many
organizations avoided diversity or accepted it begrudgingly (Allen et al., 2004). Human
resources (HR) policies promoted diversity not as a means to improve the organization
but rather as a means to avoid employment discrimination lawsuits. Some companies
have relied on quotas in an effort to meet imposed regulatory requirements (Allen et al.,
2004). Such evident ignorance has overlooked benefits like a diverse and innovative
talent pool, which has suppressed innovation and increasingly created performance
problems. A departure from these views and approaches is taking place as organizations
have begun to recognize the need to embrace diversity to capitalize on the talents of those
different employees (Garfield, 2005).
Moreover, shifting demographics have meant that the workforce as a whole in the
United States is becoming increasingly diverse (Dávila, 2008). People from various
cultures, backgrounds, faiths, age groups, genders, races, rationalities, and life
experiences comprise the modern U.S. workforce. Some research has suggested that only
approximately 15% of those entering the U.S. workforce in coming years will be White
men (Allen & Montgomery, 2001; Garfield, 1994). This growing diversity requires more
research than what is available today to provide business leaders with additional tools to
3
incorporate diversity into the business model and organizational culture (Friday & Friday,
2003).
Statement of the Problem
The limited research in the area of workplace diversity and the lack of tools
available to business leaders are in part the reason many organizations have not
successfully leveraged workplace diversity to possibly improve work outcomes. Instead,
diversity has been seen and studied as a necessity of regulation or of employee
availability, and not as a potential benefit to the bottom line. Diversity in the workplace
represents a tool—not a burden—and many organizations have been slow to devise
programs that capitalize on the talents, ideas, and perspectives of a diverse staff.
Ultimately, organizations conducting business at home and abroad must adopt a
leadership role in developing strategies and executing plans that encourage diversity in
order to retain and improve market position in the 21st century, but most organizations
have failed to seize this opportunity (Soni, 2000). Demonstrating how and to what extent
workplace diversity enhances bottom-line factors such as performance, product quality,
and productivity will increase understanding of the potential benefits of diversity and
encourage further changes in corporate acceptance and strategy.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to provide a more current and comprehensive
understanding of workplace diversity and its influences on bottom-line organizational
outcomes, specifically in the engineering sector. The study was designed to gauge the
4
current state of workplace diversity in the engineering sector, and to explore the
relationship between that diversity and organizational outcomes like productivity,
performance, and quality. The study’s participants were engineering employees from
organizations across the United States. These participants were asked to share their
opinions of workplace diversity through an online survey; analysis of their responses
generated a better understanding of diversity in the engineering services industry. The
study responds to a noted deficiency in the field of diversity studies and provides data
that will advise and inform diversity strategies for the engineering services sector.
Rationale
Although the U.S. workforce is growing increasingly diverse, organizations have
not leveraged that diversity to promote improved work outcomes. Research has suggested
that organizations that successfully navigate diversity in the workplace, bringing
employees from different backgrounds together to work toward a shared goal, usually
benefit the most from diversity (Gale, 2006). Organizations that develop a serious
commitment to diversity can meet the needs of customers and employees from various
cultures and backgrounds (Vallario, 2006). Research has shown that diversity programs
are necessary to harness the talents of an increasingly diverse workforce (Allen &
Montgomery, 2001), but these programs need to be thoughtfully implemented and based
on research such as the current study to maximize institutional benefits and bottom-line
outcomes.
5
Research Questions
This study assessed the state of diversity in engineering services organizations
from the perspective of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, spiritual belief, and gender. It
also investigated the relationship between the state of workplace diversity in the
engineering services sector and factors related to organizational outcomes. People from
various cultures, backgrounds, religions, age groups, gender, races, and experiences
comprise today’s workforce. These dissimilar people bring unique talents, ideas, and
skills to organizations, which, in turn, enhance various organizational imperatives, such
as customer service, innovation, and product quality.
Understanding the perspective of diverse employees will allow managers to gain a
better understanding of the status of workplace diversity in the engineering services
sector and how it affects organizational imperatives and other bottom-line factors. There
are four hypotheses that stemmed from the research question to which this study
responded:
H1: Employees’ ethnic backgrounds do not have a positive impact on their
perception of workplace diversity.
H2: Employees’ cultural backgrounds do not have a positive impact on their
H3: Employees’ spiritual beliefs do not have a positive impact on their perception
of workplace diversity.
H4: Employees’ genders do not have a positive impact on their perception of
workplace diversity.
6
These hypotheses comprised the primary goal of this study. However, other
important issues were explored in this study, including leadership techniques appropriate
for a diverse workplace, how to maintain effective communication in a diverse
workplace, and how to promote an environment of inclusion and employee acceptance of
diversity.
Significance of the Study
The globalization of business, increased competition, and the predicted increase in
diverse employees in today’s workforce mandate new business strategies in order to reap
the benefits from the talents of a diverse workforce (Allen et al., 2004; Garfield, 1994).
Today’s culture is just embarking on new environments, requiring innovative leadership
strategies and genuine acceptance of multiculturalism (Levin, 2004; Society for Human
Resource Management, 1998). The study highlighted diversity concerns, developed an
instrument that can be altered and used periodically to assess the state of diversity in
organizations, and asserted change theory as an approach to affix diversity in the
organizational culture.
Definition of Terms
Culture. Comprises the shared attitudes and perspectives of a group, often
delineated by region, race, age, or other factors. Culture can be exemplified in a number
of ways in the workplace, including, but not limited to, (a) a manner of resolving
conflicts, (b) social protocols, (c) religious beliefs, (d) relations with other cultural
groups, (e) linguistics, and (f) business practices (Moran, Harris, & Moran, 2007).
7
Globalization. Refers to the general cultural, economic, and legal product of
modern technological change. Improvements in technology around the globe have
promoted communication and business associations among individuals and organizations
from diverse international backgrounds. Globalization has promoted the spread of
products and people around the globe. Globalization has increased the need for
workplace diversity, as well as its prevalence.
Workplace climate. Refers to the comprehensive perception of how the workforce
feels about working in an organization, including all the characteristics of the work
environment that affect their work performance.
Workplace diversity. In a general sense, refers to the various demographic
differences of an organization’s employees (Korac-Kakabadse et al., 1998). However, the
term has evolved to also refer to the diversity of ideas and the acceptance of diversity in
the workplace. Green, López, Wysocki, and Kepner (2002) characterized workplace
diversity as “acknowledging, understanding, accepting, valuing, and celebrating
differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and
mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and public assistance status” (p.
1).
Assumptions and Limitations
There are several assumptions that informed this study. First, the study assumed
that the quality of work output can be a function of workplace diversity. Further, the
study assumed that perspectives on diversity can be quantified, and that the survey
instrument accurately assessed the perspectives of the participants toward workplace
8
diversity. The researcher also assumed the engineering services sector maintains diverse
staff to enable unique and innovative design elements to meet the wants and needs of
diverse consumer requirements, and that the participants presented their opinions with
honesty and candor. Finally, the researcher assumed that diverse employees offer
valuable skills, varying ideas, and unique perspectives to organizations, and that
companies, specifically in the engineering services sector, can improve efforts to accept
and harness workplace diversity.
There are also several limitations that applied to this study. First, its findings only
apply to the engineering services sector. While organizational leaders from other sectors
might learn from the findings in this study, employees in other commercial sectors might
respond to diversity differently. The unique knowledge a person gains by being from
certain culture, ethnic background, spiritual belief, or gender is assumed to be
tremendously important in the engineering services sector. The uniqueness of this
knowledge or insight engineering employees possess translates into creative and
innovative design solutions that meet diverse customer requirements. This study also was
limited to the engineering services’ perspectives, which can be unique and may not be
easily generalized to other sectors. Moreover, organizational leaders may offer a
compelling, yet differing view of the role of workplace diversity; this issue was beyond
the scope of this research. Lastly, this study offers an instrument and several suggestions
and recommendations that practitioners and leaders will need to be selective in applying
to their own organizations.
9
Nature of the Study
This study used a quantitative survey to assess the state of diversity within the
engineering services sector. Data were collected from engineering services employees
using a survey conducted on the World Wide Web. The survey provided general
information on whether an organization is diverse, whether individuals feel the
organization is diverse, and whether individuals from diverse backgrounds feel they are
treated equally and are able to find their own values within the organizational climate. It
also provides a tool for management to periodically assess the diversity of the
organization and how that diversity relates to bottom-line issues such as productivity,
quality, and performance. This study design allowed the researcher to examine and
understand perspectives on diversity in the engineering services sector. The methodology
for this study is described in greater depth in chapter 3.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 2 presents a literature review
of relevant articles, books, and theoretical models. In chapter 3, the study’s methodology
is elucidated, the data collection method is explained, the participants are described, and
the survey instrument is examined. Chapter 4 provides an analysis of the survey
responses and examines relationships between the variables. Chapter 5 concludes the
study by providing a discussion of the findings of the study, implication, and limitations,
and concludes with suggestions and recommendations for the engineering services sector.
Moreover, the final chapter offers suggestions for future research.
10
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The goal of this study was to research current perceptions of workplace diversity
and explore the relationship between diversity in the engineering services sector and its
effects on factors related to workplace performance. This chapter considers a number of
topics. First, it focuses on the general topic of workplace diversity—its definition, its role
in the workplace, its relationship to globalization, and new ways to consider how
organizations treat diversity in the 21st century. The chapter also presents an in-depth
review of the theoretical framework for this study, considering research that has analyzed
the theories this study employed. Then, the chapter considers research that has interpreted
diversity from a number of different perspectives—the need for diversity, the effects of
diversity, and how to implement diversity initiatives in organizations successfully.
Definition of Workplace Diversity
Workplace Diversity
The term workplace diversity, in the most general sense, refers to the various
demographic differences that comprise the employees of an organization (Korac-
Kakabadse et al., 1998). Diversity can refer to a number of demographic components,
which typically include factors such as race, gender, age, and physical and mental ability.
11
However, in today’s work environment, diversity can also encompasses much more,
including culture, background, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnic group,
personality, managerial roles, learning style, and other factors (Bogg, Pontin, Gibbons, &
Sartain, 2007). Culture is a particularly difficult term to define. However, according to
Moran et al. (2007), “Cultural behavior is exemplified in many ways; by a culture’s legal
system, which enforces socially acceptable behavior; how it avoids or resolves conflict;
and its social protocols, religious beliefs, international relationships, and business
practices” (p. 186). These qualities, and more, contribute to workplace diversity.
However, many researchers have posited that workplace diversity does not merely
refer to the state of an organization employing individuals from diverse backgrounds; the
term has expanded to refer also to the act of accepting and embracing diversity in the
workplace. Green et al. (2002) characterized workplace diversity as “acknowledging,
understanding, accepting, valuing, and celebrating differences among people with respect
to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation,
spiritual practice, and public assistance status” (p. 1).
Prasad and Mills (1997) applied the term managing diversity to describe the
“systematic and planned commitment on the part of organizations to recruit and retain
employees from diverse demographic backgrounds. . . . Managing diversity also implies
an active recognition and appreciation of the increasingly multicultural nature of
contemporary organizations” (p. 4). Indeed, workplace diversity is a holistic term that
invokes not only the composition of a workplace but also its general attitude and
organizational commitment toward diversity.
12
The evolving and expanding definition of workplace diversity indicates that
research about diversity continues to remain in flux; it also suggests that organizations
have increasingly recognized the importance of promoting diversity in the workplace. In
large part, the realities of globalization have prompted this recognition among
organizational leaders.
Globalization
Globalization herein refers to the process by which local or regional phenomena
are transformed into global ones. It is the process by which people are being unified into
a single society. Globalization is a nebulous term, yet observers have identified and
agreed upon a number of its fundamental qualities. Moran et al. (2007) provided a
nuanced perspective on globalization and, in particular, its effects on diversity. According
to the authors
Advances in telecommunications, mass transportation, and technology and

changes in the global political arena have led to the emergence of a global,
information-oriented culture. . . . Globalization is at both the macro level,
exemplified by the expansion of technology through business, and at the micro
level, exemplified by the individual use of laptops, cellular phones, and the
Internet, greatly increasing interaction. (pp. 185–186)
This excerpt reveals some of the fundamental changes that have been introduced by the
onset of globalization; these changes have rippled through global politics, economy, and
law.
Valenti (1991) explored other examples of globalization pertinent to the
engineering sector. The research focused on engineering projects from industrialized
countries that were developed for the domestic marketplace but transported to and used
for markets in emerging economies. The research found that items like ultralight
13
wheelchairs, clean-water pumps, tree-saving fuels, solar cooking devices (engineered for
the Third World and adopted by industrialized countries later), and redesigned charcoal-
burning stoves could be innovated in industrialized nations and utilized in Third-World
economies or vice versa (Valenti, 1991). Not only did the research identify specific
successful examples of market globalization in the engineering context, it also discussed
the broader issue of cross-culturalization as it relates to the specific industry that was
evaluated in this current study.
Moran et al. (2007) were particularly interested in examining the role that
globalization has played with respect to promoting diversity in a workplace. The authors
noted
With the expansion of globalization, awareness of the global complexities

involved in cross-cultural interactions has been expanding. . . . These wide
ranging forces of differing languages, customs, beliefs, and values are illustrated
through the behavior of individuals or a particular culture and through groups of
individuals working together. . . . The shift in the global workforce from
homogenous to heterogeneous groups causes workers to form coalitions and
alliances on a new basis that moves beyond obvious differences of race, gender,
color or clothing. Diversity initiatives facilitate such integration within the work
environment by counteracting cross cultural conflict, and racism and prejudice.
(p. 186)
Globalization increases the need for better communication across cultures, races,
religions, and national boundaries, both in business and nonbusiness environments
(Johnston & Packer, 1987; Soni, 2000). Moreover, research on workplace diversity has
indicated that organizations conducting business at home and abroad must adopt a
leadership role in developing strategies and executing plans that encourage diversity in
order to retain and improve market position in the 21st century (Soni, 2000).
14
Theoretical Framework
Various theories comprised the theoretical framework of this study. This section
considers three of these primary theories. The first theory is the typology of
organizational diversity (Allen & Montgomery, 2001). The second is the Lewin–Schein
model (Lewin, 1951; Schein, 1992). The third theory is the three paradigms of workforce
diversity (Moran et al., 2007).
Typology of Organizational Diversity
The first theory this study employed is Allen and Montgomery’s (2001) typology
of organizational diversity. Allen and Montgomery defined three general levels of
organization: “monolithic, pluralistic, and multicultural” (p. 150). Monolithic
organizations are those that exert little effort to promote diversity, and generally are not
very diverse. Monolithic organizations often only provide limited awareness training and
occasional information concerning diversity. Even though minorities and women are
present in monolithic organizations, they are expected to conform to the norms and
values of the majority.
In contrast to monolithic organizations, pluralistic organizations exert a greater
amount of effort in creating programs specifically to create diversity (Cox, 1991).
Pluralistic organizations often institute programs that seek to hire and mentor minorities
and women; further, pluralistic organizations typically design and implement extensive
training and awareness programs with regard to diversity. Pluralistic organizations,
however, do not include minorities and women at all levels of management.
Finally, multicultural organizations attempt to create a new organizational culture
in which all employees are treated equally and with respect. Multicultural organizations
15
have truly integrated minorities and women at all levels of management. These
organizations are the best prepared to accept organizational and cultural changes and face
the challenges of the diverse marketplace (Allen & Montgomery, 2001; Cox, 1991).
According to Allen and Montgomery’s framework, multicultural organizations are the
most advanced with respect to implementing diversity.
Planning and executing comprehensive diversity initiatives allows organizations
to move from the monolithic stage to the pluralistic stage, and ultimately to the
multicultural stage. Organizations that remain in the monolithic stage risk losing
credibility and facing consumer rejection. For example, organizations such as Texaco and
Denny’s were found guilty for discriminatory practices against minorities, Mitsubishi and
Astra Pharmaceuticals were convicted for sexual harassment, and State Farm faced a
class-action suit for gender bias. All of these organizations lost credibility and customers,
which resulted in financial difficulties (Allen & Montgomery, 2001). Promoting
diversity, by contrast, can lead to financial success, and places an organization in a better
position in realizing competitive advantage.
The Lewin–Schein Model
Scholars, researchers, and practitioners agree that the broader issue of diversity in
the workplace is a new phenomenon that is just beginning to capture the attention of
researchers and global organizations. Numerous diversity theories and strategies have
been designed and implemented in a haphazard manner, and are often the result of trial-
and-error. None of these theories has sufficiently accounted for all aspects of diversity
(Allen et al., 2004). As a result, a comprehensive theory of workplace diversity has not
yet emerged from the literature, despite much relevant research. Therefore, other more
16
comprehensive theories must be adapted to the issue of diversity. This study largely
relied on effective and dependable theories from the fields of cultural change and
organizational development (Allen & Montgomery, 2001).
Change theory—specifically, the Lewin–Schein model—was included in this
study’s theoretical framework. Lewin (1951) hypothesized a three-stage model of change,
better known as the unfreezing–change–refreezing model. The model provides a
systematic and comprehensive framework for introducing and sustaining change. Schein
(1992) further refined Lewin’s model by contributing the concept of cognitive
redefinition to the theory. The Lewin–Schein model represents the most comprehensive
model for theorizing organizational change, and is appropriate for assessing and
interpreting diversity initiatives.
There are three stages to the Lewin–Schein model. First is the unfreezing stage,
which stems from the concept that human behavior, perception, and attitudes can be
changed if there is sufficient motivation to change. For change to occur, new incentives
must be introduced to motivate individuals to abandon the status quo. With respect to
diversity, the unfreezing stage could take the form of leadership committing to promoting
organizational diversity. This commitment could be a policy that promotes diversity in
organizational management, or a dedicated steering committee to oversee, guide, and
monitor diversity initiatives within an organization (Friday & Friday, 2003). Such
strategies send a clear message about the need to unfreeze the status quo to improve
organizational diversity (Allen & Montgomery, 2001).
While the unfreezing stage of the Lewin–Schein model is concerned with the
commitments of top management, the moving stage is about implementing specific
17
initiatives. The moving stage is based on the social learning theory of motivation,
attention, retention, and reproduction (Bandura, 1977). These four principles represent
the framework for strategy to promote respect for other cultures among an organization’s
members. The moving stage presents an opportunity for organizational leaders to bring
together people of different genders, races, ethnicities, cultures, backgrounds, age groups,
and experiences with the goal of infusing lasting change in attitudes and behaviors
(Friday & Friday, 2003). Allen and Montgomery (2001) advocated for organizations to
implement “such practices as recruiting and outreach programs, co-op and internship
programs, training and educational programs, and mentoring and career development
programs” (p. 156). The moving stage is the end result of a well-planned diversity
initiative.
The refreezing stage occurs when organizations attempt to ossify their
achievements. At this point, organizational culture has truly accepted the change, and the
new behavior has become habitual. Reaching the refreezing stage does not mean that an
organization has completed all of its work. Diversity initiatives must continue to allow
new perceptions and constructive interactions between individuals to become part of an
organization’s culture. In fact, the change achieved during the moving stage requires
unremitting and systematic processes. Policies and procedures must be aligned with the
vision of the desired state, as well as directed to enforce new attitudes and interpersonal
relationships. Sustaining diversity culture takes hard work, good planning, and
persistence; however, the benefits are well worth the effort and are in line with the long-
term organizational goal of sustaining and improving market position (Friday & Friday,
2003).
18
Three Paradigms of Workforce Diversity
Moran et al. (2007) identified three different paradigms that have guided
organizations with respect to diversity. According to the authors, “Companies use two
paradigms, in general, to address workforce diversity. However, they were found to be
counterproductive, creating more problems and inferior employee performance” (p. 190).
As a result, a third paradigm emerged that responded to the failures of previous
paradigms, in which “the organization can actualize its goal of improving organizational
processes for the company and cultivating a high level of productivity at all levels of the
organization” (Moran et al., 2007, p. 190). According to the authors, the three paradigms
include
The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm: Leadership that values the equality of

all employees characterizes this paradigm. Organizations that fall into this
paradigm are often bureaucratic, controlled structures that have easily observable
culture. Its benefits are demographic diversity and promotion of fair treatment;
however, the limitations of this paradigm were significant. Disagreements,
wrongly interpreted, often did not generate multiple ways of leading, working, or
viewing the market. The result is a workforce unable to work to its potential or to
be open about ideas, and the inability of the organization to improve its own
strategies, procedures, and performances.
The access-and-legitimacy paradigm: This paradigm emerged between the
1980s and the 1990s and is based on acceptance and honoring of diversity, with
the main push toward a more diverse clientele by matching workplace
demographics. The company matches diversity among its employees with the
diversity of its clientele, thus focusing on difference but without assessing how
those differences affect work. Workers are placed in positions, and often
pigeonholed.
The learning-and-effectiveness paradigm: The third and currently
emerging paradigm is one in which an organization makes the most of its diverse
employee and customer base. This paradigm surpasses the previous paradigms in
promoting equal opportunity and acknowledging cultural differences as a valuable
asset. Organizations that fit within this paradigm tend to incorporate employees’
perspectives into the main work of the organization and to enhance work by
rethinking primary tasks and redefining markets, products, strategies, missions,
business practices, and even cultures. Such companies are using the learning-and-
19
effectiveness paradigm for managing diversity and, by doing so, are tapping
diversity’s true benefits. (pp. 190–191)
Moran et al. (2007) pointed to eight preconditions for making a paradigm shift in
an organization toward diversity:
1. Leaders who appreciate the perspectives and approaches of a diverse

workforce and who value diversity of opinions.
2. Leaders who acknowledge that with this diversity of perspective and
approaches comes conflict and learning opportunities.
3. The organizational culture reflects high standards of performance from
each employee.
4. With high standards of performance comes the need for the organization
to continuously inspire the personal development of all employees, bringing
out each employee’s full potential.
5. The organizational culture must encourage openness through a high
tolerance for differences of opinion. The organization understands the value of
organizational learning that comes out of conflict.
6. All workers must feel valued by the organization. Workers must feel
empowered and committed to the organization to feel comfortable in taking
full advantage of their resourcefulness to enhance their job performance.
7. The mission of the organization must not only be well articulated and
widely understood, but it must also be followed by each individual in the
organization and enforced by all leadership. This organization understands
that hypocrisy has severe negative consequences for employee performance
and retention.
8. The organization must have a structure that is egalitarian and
nonbureaucratic but still gets things done. At the same time, it promotes an
exchange of ideas and welcomes constructive challenges to the status quo.
(pp. 191–192)
Other Theories
There are numerous other theories that should be considered in any discussion of
diversity in the workplace. Though these theories did not comprise the theoretical
framework of this study, they inform some of the discussion that can be found in this
study.
20
Organizational Theory
Various management theories suggest that diversity can be extremely beneficial
for an organization. The primary theory that suggests this is organizational theory
(Landrine, 1995). In general terms, organizational theory attempts to analyze the
structures, goals, and operations of organizations in order to enhance productivity and
satisfaction.
Diversity can be integrated into organizational theory. Researchers can analyze
various sectors and organizations in order to determine how diversity can be implemented
and serve organizational goals. Organizational theory has been applied to the following
sectors to demonstrate, in basic terms, how diversity can contribute to organizational
structure:
1. Strategy and finance. Employees in the fields of strategy and finance should
have the knowledge to acquire cultural aptitude. Group work and
presentations are important in this field; therefore, supervisors should be
aware of culturally sensitive methods of getting desired outcomes from
diverse groups by arranging work in a manner appropriate for a diverse
workforce.
2. Marketing and sales. Individuals in marketing and sales recognize that at the
fundamental core of their business, they give a pledge about a product or
service and then must deliver upon it. Therefore, it is important to understand
cultural perspectives on marketing and sales, and use the knowledge of
diverse employees to reach diverse markets.
3. Information technology (IT). The manner by which information flows

throughout a business is crucial to that business’s success. However,
information technology is judged by its ability to serve the workforce. As a
result, IT professionals must recognize the needs of a particular workforce and
provide IT services that benefit the flow of information.
21
Organizational Change Theory
Organizational change is a deliberate process of altering group behaviors. It notes
that organizations that seek to implement change must pay close attention to individuals’
readiness to change. Each individual reacts to change differently and in accordance with
his or her individual values and beliefs. At the same time, there may be associative
groups with parallel viewpoints and principles; further, some individuals may fall outside
the norm (Wirth, 2004).
Individuals exist at various stages of readiness to change. However, all require
motivation and reasons to advance through the phases of transformation. Each particular
group or subgroup requires a change process tailored to the comfort level of persons
within the group (Prochaska, Prochaska, & Levesque, 2001; Wirth, 2004). If leaders
ignore the group’s readiness to change, then change is likely to fail.
Built on behavioral change theories, Wirth (2004) described a transtheoretical
model of change that helps to guide organizations in identifying and progressing through
the stages of change:
1. Pre-contemplation—In this stage, individuals are usually in denial or do

not recognize their behavior as being the problem. The goal is to encourage
self-analysis, rethink their behavior, and explain the risks involved in
continuing with current behavior. The focal point is to generate an
understanding of the requirement to change. The focus is not to force a change
in behavior, but to implant understanding that such behavior can result in
additional organizational expense or some undesired higher risk.
2. Contemplation—In this stage, individuals are beginning to have
conflicting emotions and have doubt about their own behavior. The focus of
this stage is to encourage their ability to change and foster their rightness
about the change. Moreover, people in the contemplation stage are usually
identifying barriers and weighing the pros and cons of changing their
behavior. In this stage of uncertainty and doubt, people may take a long time
to get past it.
22
3. Preparation—In this stage, individuals begin to gather information about
the change and may initiate small changes. The focus of the Preparation Stage
is to motivate these individuals to write down goal statements and organize a
plan of action.
4. Action—In this stage, individuals take direct action to achieve behavioral
change. The focus of the Action Stage is to reward their successes and
encourage their actions and decisions to act on their goals.
5. Maintenance—In this stage, individuals already are convinced and are
practicing their new behaviors, but need to be frequently reminded of the
benefits in order to sustain the change efforts. The focus of the Maintenance
Stage is to continue the encouragement and rewards process and help them
resist temptations to revert back to their old behavior. (p. 3)
Multicultural Theory
The term multiculturalism refers to the practice of applying an ideology of racial,
ethnic, and gender diversity within the demographics of a specific organization.
Multicultural theory is more than just teaching about heroes and holidays (Lee, Menkart,
& Okazawa-Rey, 1998). Multiculturalism, therefore, goes further than coaching
acceptance of diversity, and it is a great deal more profound than tolerating one another.
Thus, the most important objective of multicultural theory is not simply to encourage
human relationships, to assist individuals to feel superior, or to maintain indigenous
foreign language and civilization; these may be laudable derivative objectives, but the
main objective of multicultural theory is to support the learning and accomplishment of
all individuals (Cumming-McCann, 2003).
In addition, multicultural theory confronts and rejects racial discrimination and
other societal prejudices, especially in the workplace. Research has found that although
multicultural groups are not without conflict, most people support the idea of
multiculturalism in principle, even though they may differ in how to attain it (Phinney,
1996). Multiculturalism thus acknowledges and asserts the diversity of race, traditions,
faith, speech, finances, sexual orientation, gender, and other disparities that individuals in
23
any organization possess (Martin, 1998; Nieto, 1999), and seeks to overcome the
differences (Phinney, 1996). Kallen (as cited in Craig, 1999) had a different approach; he
said, “If the culture of the nation has multifacets, values, etc., it may be termed cultural
pluralism. It is as to allow for some degree of cultural diversity within the confines of a
unified national experience.”
According to Kallen (1924), every racial and intellectual group in America is
significant and each group’s inimitable assistance contributes to the assortment and
affluence of American civilization. The entire subject of multiculturalism elevates the
inquiry of diversity in a manner that runs in opposition to several other theoretical or
societal hypotheses. If multiculturalism, as a societal schema, is to be more than a
standard under which diverse groups follow their prescribed role, then it ought to enhance
diversity of views and thereby enable civilization to embrace all cultures (Martin, 1998).
According to Martin (1998), even as divisions of race, customs, and other
characteristics deviate, most people share the desire to prevail over societal, intellectual,
and biased disagreement and to respect other people’s various dissimilar visions.
Civilizations must have a combined idea of public change to move in the direction of a
true multiculturalism (Martin, 1998).
Organizational Theory of Diversity
Leadership commitment is an important aspect of organizational diversity.
Organizations must have leaders who support diversity by instilling it into all managerial
procedures, and provide assurance that diversity is incorporated into the foundation and
values of the organization. Levin (2004) stated
24
Treating employees and clients as they want to be treated is very different than the
“Golden Rule” of treating them as you want to be treated. You may insult or
demean or not exceed their expectations. In order to treat them as they want to be
treated, you must be willing to get to know their differences. (p. 36)
But Levin (2004) noted that too many administrators, as described by Cecilia
Chavez-Protas, president and CEO of Competitive Edge Consulting, Inc., treat diversity
proposals as a flavor-of-the-month versus an ongoing corporate culture revolution. Levin
therefore emphasized that to effectively increase buy-in from higher administration,
managers must emphasize that a diversity proposal is not just the nice thing to do, but
also is the profitable thing to do.
This can be challenging in an organizational environment that at one time was
comprised only of individuals from quite similar cultures and traditions, but because of
the converging effects of globalization, the workplace has become an environment in
which individuals are markedly different from one another. This difference is fairly
obvious when it comes to spiritual belief. People with different spiritual beliefs are well
entrenched in the workforce today, but very few studies have examined the relationship
between spiritual beliefs and work values. Because people do not leave their spiritual
beliefs at home when they report to work, much more research is needed in this area. A
study involving data from over 44,000 individuals confirmed that all four major religions
—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism—have demonstrated a positive
relationship with intrinsic work values (Parboteeah, Paik, & Cullen, 2009). Much more
research is needed in this area, but as these findings show, these new differences need to
be recognized, esteemed, and, in a few cases, even studied and practiced to optimize
organizational outcomes.
25
This recognition and practice can be difficult in an organization in which many
cultures are represented. Because cultural norms, ideas, and behaviors are entrenched in
people’s beliefs, values, and backgrounds, they carry competing principles, attitudes, and
behaviors to the place of work. In order for these diverse beliefs to become part of the
organizational culture, each person must accept and respect the other represented
cultures, make behavioral adjustments, and learn to accept one another (Fellin, 2000).
Culture can influence an individual’s observations, thoughts, and emotions (Schein,
1992). Cultural associations also influence how individuals involve each other in
teamwork situations. Culture is thus a powerful motivator, and cultural considerations
must be incorporated into organizational strategies and behaviors.
Near the beginning of 1964, studies on cultural diversity, provoked by the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, were not much more than arithmetical calculations of race and
customs; more than a few of these were financed by the armed forces and relied heavily
on information and opinions of White men (Fine, 1991). The validity of these studies
may therefore be questioned. A sequence of studies beginning in the 1970s conveyed
added concerns and observations about gender, race, and customs (Basil, 1972).
However, in a number of the observations, researcher bias probably played a part in
outcomes illustrating that women were less coherent than men, and for that reason were
less competent to run organizations (Fine, 1995). These antiquated ideas and conclusions
must not be carried through to the next generation of business leaders, and business
strategies must be altered to accommodate everyone and respect their contributions.
26
The Need for Organizational Diversity
In the past few decades, many organizations have begun to recognize diversity as
a business imperative; as a result, these organizations have initiated programs with the
goal of promoting diversity in the workplace. Unfortunately, far too many organizations
have approached diversity in a piecemeal manner, which has hindered their ability to
successfully achieve diversity (Stark, 2001). Many companies have implemented
diversity programs in order to avoid lawsuits or to respond to claims of discrimination.
However, adopting a diversity initiative in this manner often proves to be insufficient.
Simple measures, such as annual diversity training, have limited effects and rarely change
organizational culture in a meaningful way.
In fact, many organizations that have implemented diversity programs continue to
face gender and racial discrimination lawsuits. These programs tend to fail because they
are incoherent, lack seriousness, or are imposed on the organization by a consultant to
improve the company’s outside image or publicity (Koonce, 2001). Organizations must
develop holistic diversity programs in order to be successful.
Indeed, workplace diversity is becoming a business strategy rather than just an
HR issue. Organizations must recognize that embracing workplace diversity can help
them improve their market position by enabling them to effectively utilize people skills,
cultural backgrounds, and experiences. Organizations that develop a serious commitment
to diversity can better meet the needs of customers and employers from various cultures
and backgrounds (Vallario, 2006). Embracing diversity as a business strategy allows an
organization to invest in the human capital of its employees and better navigate the
demands of a diverse global market.
27
Diversity is an immediate concern for countless businesses. One reason is that
U.S. consumers have become increasingly diverse in the past few decades (Allen et al.,
2004; Garfield, 1994). In fact, the spending power of ethnic minorities in the United
States—including Blacks, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans—reached over
$424 billion in 1990, and was projected to reach over $650 billion in the first decade of
the 21st century (Garfield, 1994). This rapid growth of diversity in the consumer base has
been mirrored in the U.S. workforce. A study funded by the U.S. Department of Labor
projected that of the 25 million people entering the workforce, over half would be
women, approximately a third would be minorities, and only 15% would be White men
(Allen & Montgomery, 2001; Garfield, 1994).
In the past, many organizations may have been resistant to promoting diversity in
the workplace. However, current financial realities have led the vast majority of
organizations to understand that promoting diversity is critical for improving their bottom
line. Therefore, an increasing number of companies are not only approaching diversity
with an open mind, they are also implementing diversity initiatives into their
organizational strategy. Organizations have sought to take advantage of diversity in order
to promote financial success in today’s increasingly competitive market (Devoe, 1999;
Soni, 2000).
The Effects of Diversity
Diversity is on the rise and organizations are beginning to foresee the benefits of
embracing diversity not only as a matter of equality but also as an effective business
policy. Diversity programs are necessary to harness the talents of an increasingly diverse
28
workforce (Allen & Montgomery, 2001). Today’s workforce is composed of people from
various cultures, backgrounds, faiths, age groups, genders, races, nationalities, and
experiences. Employees from diverse backgrounds bring unique talents and skills to
organizations. According to Allen and Montgomery, organizations that successfully
harness the talents and experiences of a diverse workforce can more effectively respond
to the needs and desires of a diverse consumer base, on both a domestic and international
level.
Garfield (2005) and Levin (2004) conducted a study that considered the effects of
diversity for organizations. They concluded that companies benefit when they
strategically address diversity in the workplace. By promoting a positive and diverse
work environment, organizations can provide for the special needs of different
employees, which enhances employee morale and innovation. Similarly, Allen and
Montgomery (2001) suggested there is a positive relationship between employee
motivation and an organization’s level of diversity. According to these findings, an
organization’s promotion of diversity leads to a more positive work environment, as well
as increased innovation.
Companies that employ a diverse group of employees can successfully offer
services to a more diverse group of consumers. For example, Vallario (2006) described a
bank that offered Muslim-friendly mortgage loans. The loans were interest-free, which
complied with Islamic teachings. This initiative was a success, and directly resulted from
having a diverse workforce (Vallario, 2006). There are other examples of companies
leveraging cultural knowledge to provide population-specific services and products. For
example, some McDonald’s restaurants rearranged their seating to accommodate for
29
larger groups to sit together, which is common in Hispanic culture. Some Walmart stores
ran advertisements in Spanish that offered products specifically for Three Kings Day,
which is celebrated in many Hispanic cultures. These innovative initiatives represent just
a few examples of companies cultivating new ideas from a diverse workforce (Allen &
Montgomery, 2001).
Research has also shown there are numerous benefits for companies that promote
diversity in their management (Durbin, Lovell, & Winters, 2008). Embracing diversity at
all levels of management is a vital part of successful diversity programs, as the decision-
making process improves when diversity is extended to the management team. A diverse
management team possesses the unique ability to absorb new ideas and concepts from
multiple perspectives and then translate them into successful products or services (Gale,
2006). In addition, a diverse group of managers is less likely to impose a monolithic set
of preferences onto the team. This flexibility allows diverse managers to avoid conflicts,
adapt more easily to new cultures, and operate more effectively in new situations. A
diverse management team generally results in a workplace environment in which all
employees are free to perform to their full potential (Gale, 2006).
A harmonious workplace environment is one important result of workplace
diversity. A diverse workplace requires leadership to build diversity programs based on
relationships of trust, mutual respect, and acceptance of various cultures. Such an
environment generally improves communication between employees and their managers,
as well as between employees. Improved communication, another result of a successful
diversity initiative, can promote organizational goals and defuse tension among diverse
groups (Vallario, 2006).
30
In the workplace, numerous barriers often exist that prevent some individuals
from performing to their full potential. Discrimination, harassment, bias, favoritism, and
prejudice are just a few of the forces that inhibit maximal performance. Diversity
initiatives allow companies to successfully expand operations at home and abroad, and
utilize the talents of a diverse workforce to improve products and services. Diversity
should no longer be viewed as a burden, but rather as a resource that needs to be used
strategically (Garfield, 1994).
As much as it is necessary to develop diverse strategies for home operations,
companies that conduct business overseas will find diversity especially beneficial.
Majlergaard (2006) analyzed the unique qualities of international project managers. In the
contemporary global economy, companies are increasingly expanding their operations
overseas. These companies require a diverse group of employees with cross-cultural
skills to aid in dealing with language barriers and cultural differences. Program managers
working on international assignments must possess cross-cultural communication and
leadership skills, qualities that are common to diverse employees. Diverse employees are
able to use their unique skills and knowledge to allow their companies to more effectively
respond to the needs and desires of consumers in other countries.
Implementing Diversity
The National Academy of Engineering Committee on Diversity (2002) compiled
a list of numerous principles that need to be implemented to have a successful diversity
program. Their list was specifically designed for the engineering industry, but the
principles generally apply to all diversity initiatives.
31
1. High-level commitment. The CEO senior management, and board of
directors of the organization must demonstrate their commitment to workforce
diversity, not only by issuing statements and policies, but also by making
appropriate decisions and taking appropriate actions.
2. Clear link to business strategies. Management must show that workforce
diversity helps the organization meet its business goals and is good for the
bottom line.
3. Sustained effort. Changes in workplace cultures and behaviors do not
happen overnight. Diversity programs must take a long-term approach.
4. Training. Managers and employees need training to address workplace
diversity issues.
5. Employee affinity groups. Workshop participants discussed the pros and
cons of affinity groups (e.g., African-American employees, Hispanic
employees, women, etc.). Most felt that affinity groups help organizations
identify issues and communicate more effectively with stakeholders.
6. Outreach to the educational system. To increase the pool of future
engineers, corporations must develop partnerships with engineering schools
and pre-college educational institutions. Young people need a solid grounding
in math and science in their elementary, middle, and high school years to have
the option of pursuing an engineering career. Corporations can invest in the
future by working with the government and universities to strengthen pre-
college education.
7. Accountability. Individuals responsible for implementing diversity
programs must be held accountable for results. In the business world, this
means linking results and compensation.
8. Benchmarking against other organizations. Successful companies keep
track of what the competition is doing in terms of diversity, just as they do in
terms of other business goals.
9. Communication. Frequent and consistent communication about the goals
and programs up, down, and across the organization is important to maintain
focus and ensure common understanding.
10. Expanded pool for recruiting new employees. Companies must sometimes
look beyond traditional sources for new workers to increase diversity.
11. Monitoring progress. Metrics for determining success in managing
diversity can be difficult to define, and companies must consider more than
the numerical mix of demographic groups in the workforce. As a rule, what
gets measured in corporations gets done, so defining metrics and tracking
progress are critical to keeping management attention focused on the issue.
12. Evaluating results and modifying policies when necessary. Like an
engineering design project, a diversity program needs a feedback loop to
ensure that the desired results are being achieved. (pp. 4–5)
Due to the growing acknowledgment of the benefits of organizational diversity,
numerous researchers have attempted to elucidate strategies to promote it. Many
32
researchers consider diversity to be an invaluable advantage that organizations should not
disregard (Green et al., 2002; Robinson, 2002).
It is important for organizations to follow particular principles to promote
diversity. Many organizations claim they promote diversity, but few actually have
implemented a holistic diversity program (Levin, 2004). Further, though many
organizations have hired and/or promoted a diverse group of employees, the vast majority
of organizations have not successfully harnessed their talents and perspectives. As a
result, many organizations fail to gain the full benefits of a diverse workforce.
Managers must successfully promote the interaction of a diverse group of
employees. In general terms, managers should aim to inhibit prejudice. This begins with
the managers themselves; they should be aware of their personal preconceptions and
biases (Koonce, 2001). Further, managers must ensure that a diverse staff works together
efficiently and is not hampered by prejudice. Indeed, both managers and employees
require a heightened level of awareness of individual prejudice to be effective in
producing a diverse, friendly environment (Roosevelt, 2001). One strategy to reduce
prejudice is cultural sensitivity training. This training must be frequent in order to build,
enable, and sustain behavioral change (Koonce, 2001).
Improving communication skills is another general strategy managers can employ
to reap the benefits of diversity. Communication can prove difficult for employees from
different cultural, ethnic, religious, or any number of other diverse backgrounds.
Therefore, it is important for organizations to promote communication in a diverse
workplace. According to Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001), “In this era of global
economy, it is inevitable that employees and customers from dissimilar cultures are in
33
constant contact with one another, whether it is through face-to-face or mediated
contacts” (p. 7).
According to research, there are a number of strategies to promote communication
in a diverse workplace. According to Chrobot-Mason and Ruderman (2004)
Leaders must become proficient in the use of communication strategies that

encourage trust, honesty, and openness. . . . One of the biggest challenges leaders
of diversity face is finding ways to encourage and facilitate the open exchange of
ideas and opinions in order to fully benefit from a diverse workforce. Therefore,
multi-culturally competent leaders will have knowledge and make use of a variety
of strategies for ensuring that minority employees have voice. (p. 119)
Communication represents one of the most fundamental issues that a management
team must tackle in order to promote diversity in the workplace. An organization’s HR
staff also must endeavor to ensure that all employees of a particular company are working
in harmony, irrespective of their diverse backgrounds (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006;
Esty, Griffin, & Schorr-Hirsh, 1995).
Management must also attempt to respond to new trends in organizational culture.
Harshman and Harshman (1999) concluded that the “paradigm of work and the formal
organizations within which people work are changing. Trends in organizations include
less hierarchy, integrated structures, empowered employees, teams and teamwork, labor–
management partnerships, and myriad other changes” (p. 3). Thus, management must
understand these changes to be effective in carrying out their duties. To this end,
coaching and facilitating has become the main strategy for management to promote two-
way communication, teaming efforts, and empowerment among employees to facilitate
new organizational goals, including diversity in the workplace (Easterby-Smith, 1997).
These strategies should emphasize a value-based, employee-driven model (Harshman &
34
Harshman, 1999). Ultimately, research has also suggested that management must depart
from a formal and stratified organizational structure, adopting an informal employee-
based system instead (Engdahl, 2005). These strategies not only promote diversity but
also benefit an organization’s bottom line.
Summary
This chapter reviewed literature that articulated the various characteristics of
diversity and its effect on the way organizations view diversity. The literature discussed
the development of diversity and its importance in today’s business strategy. Today’s
workforce is composed of people from different cultures, races, nationalities, ethnic
groups, genders, and backgrounds. Non-Anglo-Saxon individuals represent 85% of new
entrants into the U.S. workforce. Researchers agree that a diverse workforce brings new
talent to organizations; however, employees in diverse workplaces must be provided with
harmonious environments in which they are valued, respected, and free of conflicts in
order to flourish by innovating products and services capable of competing in today’s
global markets (Garfield, 1994). In addition, the buying power of diverse consumers has
increased, which has introduced additional factors for organizations to consider with the
goal of attracting diverse clientele (Allen et al., 2004; Garfield, 1994).
Given that these factors are influencing their internal and external environments,
organizations are beginning to recognize that diversity is a competitive advantage and
must be embraced as a strategic objective. Many organizations have initiated programs to
introduce diversity, but have failed to align these initiatives with their strategic
35
objectives. The lack of strategic alignment has likely contributed to the failure of such
diversity programs (Stark, 2001).
36
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
The goal of this study was to assess the state of diversity in engineering services
organizations from the perspectives of ethnic and cultural background, spiritual belief,
and gender to provide a current understanding of workplace diversity and its influences
on bottom-line organizational outcomes. The study was based on a Web-based
questionnaire developed by the researcher using a standard Likert-type scale (see
appendix). The questionnaire was tested and reviewed for content by experts and HR
specialists in the field. After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was granted, a
pilot study was conducted to provide reliability and validity data and prove the soundness
of the survey questionnaire. The instrument was composed of 10 demographic
information and 37 Likert-style statements about diversity in the workplace. The survey
featured an array of questions regarding individual perceptions and peer interactions, HR
practices, and leadership policies and procedures. This chapter discusses the research
design, sample, instrumentation, data collection procedure, data analysis, validity and
reliability, and ethical considerations.
Research Design
This quantitative study used a nonexperimental, ex post facto survey design to
assess the state of diversity in engineering services organizations from the perspectives of
37
ethnic and cultural background, spiritual belief, and gender. This design allowed for
correlations and trends in diversity to be determined, and assessed how diversity is
perceived by a diverse workforce. Because this study was a nonexperimental design
using convenient sample, there was no experimental or control group needed to claim
causation in the results. However, the data indicated useful correlations that were not
considered previously. Frequently, however, in sociological or psychological studies,
subjects are chosen by convenience instead of randomly because the interest is frequently
in analyzing the general effects of a certain sociological characteristic, rather than finding
an overly precise relationship that can be extrapolated to the general population (Herek,
2008). The researcher indented to initially conduct a multiple linear regression, which
would have included independent variables on ethnicity, cultural background, spiritual
belief, and gender, with the perception of organizational diversity as the dependent
variable. However, it was later determined that analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests
are more appropriate when there are multiple variables.
The samples were employees of engineering services organizations working in
several locations throughout the United States. These organizations employ people from
different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, spiritual beliefs, and genders. Following are
the research hypotheses:
perception of organizational diversity.
38
of organizational diversity.
organizational diversity.
The survey provided general information on whether an organization is diverse,
whether individuals feel the organization is diverse, and whether individuals from diverse
backgrounds feel they are treated equally. It also provides a tool for management to
periodically assess the diversity of the organization in order to customize diversity
initiatives that are focused and intentional in improving the workplace environment.
Sample
The study utilized a convenient sample in order to quickly complete the research
and still provide valuable insight into the state of workplace diversity in the engineering
sector. The convenient sample used were engineers working for several engineering
services organizations who were panelists among the 2 million survey takers registered
with Zoomerang. Zoomerang (2008) is an inventor and leader of online surveys since
1999, and has registered panelists who are eager to share their opinions about the study.
The Zoomerang sample was profiled among hundreds of data points to accurately
connect the researcher with the correct survey takers. Data points such as occupation,
employment status, and other demographic data were used to preselect only engineering
panelists who were currently working and had experience in diverse work environments.
Zoomerang assembled a panel of experts to validate the survey takers, ensuring that they
were who they said they were and, more importantly, to ensure no one was able to take
39
the survey more than once. Because prospective samples with Zoomerang earn
ZoomPoints that can be redeemed for merchandise and other items, Zoomerang created
an innovative management process to assure sample authenticity, and created digital
fingerprinting technology to prevent survey takers from entering the survey more than
once (Zoomerang, 2008).
The Zoomerang team confirmed having a large number of potential respondents
qualified to participate in the diversity survey prior to signing a contract with the
researcher. At the time the survey was conducted, the samples were employees of
engineering services organizations who came from different ethnicities, cultures, age
groups, religious beliefs, genders, and nationalities. Therefore, it made perfect sense to
study their environments and their perceptions of diversity in the workplace. Although
the results may not be applicable to the general population of all types of engineers due to
voluntary response bias, they provided insight into this sample and form a foundation for
future research in which time is not a major issue. There were other positives to this
model as well, as analyzing the interaction of a group of people working in different
companies may provide more information than analyzing a simple random sample of
people from one company.
Cohen (1992) stated, “Statistical power analysis exploits the relationships among
the four variables involved in statistical inference: sample size (N), significance criterion
(alpha), population effect size (ES), and statistical Power” (p. 156). As in most behavioral
studies, a standard alpha is taken to equal 0.05, the conventional Power to equal 0.08, and
medium Effect Size of 0.3. There were 37 response variables and two groups; a minimum
40
target sample size of 42 participants was needed for use in the independent t test (Cohen,
1992).
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study was developed by the researcher and composed
of 10 demographic information and 37 Likert-style statements about diversity in the
workplace (see appendix). The survey featured an array of questions regarding individual
perceptions and peer interactions, HR practices, and leadership policies and procedures.
The instrument was field tested and reviewed for adequacy and content by experts in the
field and HR specialists. The necessary revisions were made and the experts’ comments
were incorporated. After IRB approval, a pilot test was conducted utilizing 12
engineering participants who were coworkers of the researcher and were not part of the
final target sample. The purpose of the pilot study was to provide reliability and validity
data to validate the soundness of the survey and to obtain feedback to make certain the
questions could be clearly understood in the same manner by all participants. The final
instrument was distributed online through the Zoomerang.com Web site to the final target
samples. Since a Likert-type scale was used in the survey, it was natural to take data that
were arguably normal, albeit categorical, and convert them into continuous data by taking
a sum or average of the responses, which is the optimal way to define scores for
cognitive, behavioral, and occupational characteristics. If 1 is equivalent to strongly
disagree and 5 is equivalent to strongly agree, for instance, then average scores or sums
can summarize a certain type of question if all the questions are in the same direction,
meaning that people would tend to say strongly agree or strongly disagree consistently.
41
Data Collection Procedures
The study surveyed employees of engineering services organizations who were
registered Zoomerang samples and were working in various locations in the United
States. The survey was hosted on the Zoomerang Web site; e-mail invitations to take the
survey were sent out with the appropriate Web link, asking participants to complete the
online survey within 7 days of the e-mail date. Responses were collected on the secure
Zoomerang Web site and then downloaded to the researcher’s personal computer for
analysis. The researcher monitored the progress and had the ability to instantaneously
review reports and observe progress as samples completed the survey. In addition,
follow-up e-mails were sent out to participants who did not complete the survey within
the allotted time frame asking them to find the time to complete the survey within 2 days.
Once the expected number of responses had been met, the data were collected and
analyzed using the software and tools provided by Zoomerang and SPSS for Windows.
Data Analysis
Once the required number of participants had completed the survey, the data were
checked for accuracy and completeness and then codified using SPSS software. An
assessment through descriptive statistics was made to determine the normality of the data,
and what the data showed. Cross-tabulation was completed next to understand what the
data were generally saying, and to quickly compare how different group of respondents
answered the survey questions.
Inferential analysis was the next step in the process. T tests and ANOVA tests
were conducted to analyze the data relative to each of the hypotheses. The dependent
42
variable was the perception of diversity, while the independent variables were ethnicity,
gender, cultural background, and spiritual belief. Following are the null hypotheses:
The researcher used ANOVA, with organizational diversity as the dependent
variable and ethnicity as the independent variable. The data to be used were the specific
variables being used to measure the perception of organizational diversity and ethnic
background.
variable and cultural background as the independent variable. The data to be used were
the specific variables being used to measure the perception of workplace diversity and
cultural background.
of workplace diversity.
variable and spiritual belief as the independent variable. The data to be used were the
specific variables being used to measure the perception of workplace diversity and
spiritual belief.
workplace diversity.
43
The researcher used t tests, with organizational diversity as the dependent variable
and gender as the independent variable. The data to be used were the specific variables
being used to measure the perception of workplace diversity and gender.
The linear model is the standard for determining the relationship between one
dependent variable and a set of quantitative or categorical independent variables. If the p
value for the ANOVA test for the significance of a regression was less than .05, then that
indicated the regression was significant. If, in addition to that, any variables had a p value
of less than .05, this indicated they had a significant impact on the response variable of
perception of diversity.
Validity and Reliability
Because the instrument was created by the researcher, it went through pilot testing
to investigate the reliability and validity of the data, and to obtain a variety of statistics on
these two properties. Cronbach’s alpha was used. Cronbach’s alpha statistic, a measure of
internal consistency, measures how well responses to similar questions on the survey
instrument are correlated (Santos, 1999). Convergent validity, which uses the correlation
coefficients to determine how well a particular survey correlates with other surveys, is
another useful measure of validity the researcher used. In addition, a CFA (confirmatory
factor analysis) goodness of fit was used to measure construct validity in order to verify
that specific factors that were believed to affect the outcome of the survey actually did
(Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). This allows the researcher, as explained by Suhr (1999),
“to test the hypothesis and confirm the existence of a relationship between the observed
variables and their underlying latent construct” (p. 1).
44
Furthermore, the researcher utilized the expertise of five experts and ran a factor
analysis statistics in SPSS. Once approved by the IRB, the researcher calculated the
validity and reliability of the pilot test to find variables that were correlated with a set of
other variables in the study based on answers to the questions. Although it would
probably not be too accurate with such a small sample size, the factors produced in the
factor analysis were then labeled with a description based on the variables that fit in that
factor. The conclusion was that the descriptions came close to matching the principles of
the study, and the validity and reliability of the instrument were confirmed.
Ethical Considerations
The researcher was obligated to protect the identity and privacy of all the
participants and maintained a secure file of the participants’ data to ensure no one outside
the research team had access to the data. Every validated participant in Zoomerang’s
database was given the opportunity to participate on a voluntary basis. The researcher
issued a full disclosure statement informing the participants that their voluntary
participation was totally their choice and their honest and open perceptions of diversity at
their firms were critically important to the study. In return for their participation and in
addition to earning ZoomPoints, the researcher intended to publish the findings and
recommendations for the purpose of furthering the body of knowledge about diversity in
the workplace, and provide valuable tool that management can use to improve diversity
in the engineering services sector.
45
Summary
The instrument used in this study was validated to assess general claims about
diversity in the workplace and its effects on organizational outcomes. For instance, it
included questions covering how diverse a given workplace is; how members of different
ethnicities, cultures, spiritual beliefs, and genders tend to feel about diversity; and
whether there are diversity initiatives deployed in the company. Since the researcher
created a new survey, it was validated prior to deployment; however, the advantage was
that the questions were specifically formulated to address the hypotheses, which have not
been discussed often in previous research. Chapter 4 addresses the analysis of the data
and findings of the study.
46
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
Introduction
This study sought to investigate whether engineering employees’ perceptions of
workplace diversity differ according to demographic factors, namely, gender, ethnic
background, cultural background, and spiritual belief. The analysis included descriptive
statistics for each demographic group and, afterward, each hypothesis was assessed. In
accordance with the method portrayed in chapter 3, the results of the survey analysis are
presented in this chapter.
The Survey
The participants were members of a Zoomerang panel who were registered to
participate in the survey. The participants were composed of engineers employed by
engineering organizations located throughout the United States. The participants were
requested to take the survey via e-mail invitation. The link to the Web-based survey was
provided in the e-mail invitation. The purpose of the survey was explained, along with a
confidentiality statement on the first page of the survey. This convenient sample
voluntarily and freely participated in the survey, and consent was provided in every case.
The Web-based survey, through the use of automatic software, did not allow participants
to enter the questionnaire if consent were not provided. As per the contract between the
47
researcher and Zoomerang, the survey was administered by Zoomerang and returned 210
responses, of which 209 were validated and determined to be fully completed.
Data Collection
The online survey was launched on September 1, 2009, using Zoomerang’s Web
site and closed on September 5, 2009. There were 209 validated and completed responses
over the 5-day period. The raw data were collected using Zoomerang’s online survey
software and then transferred electronically to the researcher in the form of a Microsoft
Office Excel 2007 file.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was developed by the researcher for the purpose of
conducting this study. In order to ensure the validity and reliability of the instrument, a
pilot study was conducted utilizing 10 participant coworkers of the researcher. There
were 7 engineers, 2 experts in the field of research, and 1 HR specialist who participated
in the pilot study. All 10 participants completed and returned the survey within a week,
and then they were interviewed individually by the researcher over the course of 5 days.
At the interviews, the participants provided additional constructive feedback from their
differing perspectives. As a result, there were not any major changes to the structure of
the survey, but several questions were reworded for clarity and consistency, and one
question was eliminated and replaced by a different question. Other general comments
were received, and incorporated where appropriate. Overall, the researcher gained
valuable feedback from the pilot test that contributed toward improving the instrument.
48
Survey Analysis
The Microsoft Excel file received by the researcher was converted to an
SPSS file for statistical analysis using SPSS 13.0 for Windows software. Descriptive
statistics and general observation for each demographic group are included in the
following section. Afterward, each hypothesis is assessed. Due to the categorical nature
of the demographic variables, ANOVAs were run for ethnic background, cultural
background, and spiritual belief (the three variables with at least three categories), and a t
test was run for gender because it only had two categories. Overall workplace diversity
perception was calculated by summing responses to Survey Questions 11 through 47.
Additionally, Questions 11, 12, 13, and 26 were reverse-coded.
Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents
Figures 1–4 display descriptive statistics for the demographic variables in the
survey. The respondents were split rather equally between men (104) and women (106;
see Figure 1). There were more nonmanagers (147) than managers (63; see Figure 2).
There were 169 Whites, 16 Asians, 11 Hispanics, and 10 Blacks who participated in the
survey (see Figure 3). The majority of the participants were Protestants (60) and
Catholics (57; see Figure 4).
Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for the demographic variables in the survey.
There were initially 210 respondents, but one male respondent did not answer Questions
11 through 47 of the survey; therefore, his data were eliminated, leaving 209 valid and
completed responses.
49
Figure 1. Respondents by gender. (N = 210)
Figure 2. Respondents by position. (N = 210)
50
Figure 3. Respondents by ethnic group. (N = 210)
The final 209 respondents were split rather equally between men (49.3%) and
women (50.7%), with more nonmanagers (69.9%) than managers (30.1%). Most
participants in the survey (83.7%) were employed full-time, had been employed between
1 and 10 years (55.5%), were White (81.3%), were from the Americas (39.7%) or Europe
(33.0%), were Catholic (27.3%) or Protestant (28.2%), were from the United States
(95.7%), and spoke English (75.1%).
51
Figure 4. Respondents by spiritual belief. (N = 210)
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables
Variable f % Valid % Cumulative %
Gender Male 103 49.3 49.3 49.3

Female 106 50.7 50.7 100.0
Current position Management 63 30.1 30.1 30.1
Nonmanagement 146 69.9 69.9 100.0
52
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables (continued)
Current Part time 12 5.7 5.7 5.7

employment Full time 175 83.7 83.7 89.5
status
Temporary 2 1.0 1.0 90.4
Term or contract 3 1.4 1.4 91.9
Not employed 17 8.1 8.1 100.0
Length of Less than 1 year 27 12.9 12.9 12.9
employment 1–4 years 53 25.4 25.4 38.3
5–10 years 63 30.1 30.1 68.4
11–15 years 30 14.4 14.4 82.8
Greater than 15 years 36 17.2 17.2 100.0
Ethnic group American Indian 1 .5 .5 5.3
Asian 17 8.1 8.1 13.4
Black 10 4.8 4.8 4.8
Hispanic/Latino 11 5.3 5.3 100.0
White 170 81.3 81.3 94.7
Culture African 5 2.4 2.4 2.4
Americas 83 39.7 39.7 42.1
Asian 14 6.7 6.7 48.8
Eastern 2 1.0 1.0 49.8
European 69 33.0 33.0 82.8
Hispanic 11 5.3 5.3 88.0
Middle Eastern 2 1.0 1.0 89.0
Western 22 10.5 10.5 99.5
Other 1 0.5 0.5 100.0
Spiritual belief Agnostic 15 7.2 7.2 7.2
Atheist 5 2.4 2.4 9.6
Buddhist 1 .5 .5 10.0
Catholic 57 27.3 27.3 37.3
Hindu 2 1.0 1.0 38.3
Jewish 5 2.4 2.4 40.7
Muslim 3 1.4 1.4 42.1
Protestant 59 28.2 28.2 70.3
Prefer not to answer 36 17.2 17.2 87.6
Other 26 12.4 12.4 100.0
53
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables (continued)
Native country/ USA 200 95.7 95.7 95.7

continent Asia 4 1.9 1.9 97.6
India/Pakistan 2 1.0 1.0 98.6
Other 3 1.4 1.4 100.0
Languages Arabic 2 1.0 1.0 1.0
spoken English 157 75.1 75.1 76.1
English/Chinese 8 3.8 3.8 79.9
English/Chinese/Spanish 1 .5 .5 80.4
English/Czech 1 .5 .5 80.9
English/French 2 1.0 1.0 81.8
English/French/Portuguese/Spanish/Thai 1 .5 .5 82.3
English/French/Spanish 4 1.9 1.9 84.2
English/German 1 .5 .5 84.7
English/German/Polish 1 .5 .5 85.2
English/German/Turkish 1 .5 .5 85.6
English/Hindi 1 .5 .5 86.1
English/Italian 1 .5 .5 86.6
English/Japanese 1 .5 .5 87.1
English/Polish 1 .5 .5 87.6
English/Russian 2 1.0 1.0 88.5
English/Russian/Spanish/German 1 .5 .5 89.0
English/Spanish 18 8.6 8.6 97.6
English/Spanish/German 1 .5 .5 98.1
English/Spanish/German/Dutch 1 .5 .5 98.6
English/Spanish/Korean 1 .5 .5 99.0
Gujarati 1 .5 .5 99.5
Spanish 1 .5 .5 100.0
Overall Diversity Perceptions
Figures 5 and 6 and Tables 2–5 display the normal distribution and cross-
tabulation of different groups’ levels of overall satisfaction with workplace diversity as
perceived by the respondents.
54
An overall diversity satisfaction variable was created by summing up the
responses for each of the 37 survey questions. This variable allowed for an accumulated
score for each respondent with a minimum possible value of 37 and a maximum possible
value of 185. The mean for this variable was 137.95 and the standard deviation was 18.05
(see Figure 5).
30
25
20
Frequency
15
10
Mean = 137.9522
Std. Dev. = 18.04928
N = 209
0
80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
Diversity Satisfaction Score
Figure 5. Diversity satisfaction—Overall.
An average per-question diversity satisfaction variable was created by summing
up the responses for each survey question and then dividing by 37, the number of
55
questions. This variable allowed for an average score for each respondent with a
minimum possible value of 1 and a maximum possible value of 5—1 being strongly
disagree (least satisfied with workplace diversity) and 5 being strongly agree (most
satisfied with workplace diversity). The mean for this variable was 3.73 and the standard
deviation was 0.49 (see Figure 6).
40
30
Frequency
20
10
Mean = 3.7284
Std. Dev. = 0.48802
N = 209
0
2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Diversity Satisfaction - Average per Question
Figure 6. Diversity satisfaction—Average per question.
Table 2 displays the satisfaction level perceived by gender. There were almost an
equal number of male (103) and female (106) respondents who were also almost equally
56
satisfied with the level of diversity perceived in their workplaces. The level of
satisfaction for both groups was high, but it was interesting to observe that the female
respondents were as satisfied with the workplace diversity as the male respondents.
Table 2. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by Gender
Gender N Average score all questions Average score per question Satisfaction level
Female 106 137.48 3.72 74.4%

Male 103 138.44 3.74 74.8%
Total 209
Table 3 displays the satisfaction level perceived by position. There were 63
respondents holding management positions and 146 holding nonmanagement positions.
Both groups were almost equally satisfied with the level of workplace diversity perceived
in their workplaces.
Table 3. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by Position
Position N Average score all questions Average score per question Satisfaction level
Nonmanagement 146 137.94 3.73 74.6%

Management 63 140.17 3.79 75.8%
Total 209
Table 4 displays the satisfaction level perceived by ethnic background. American
Indians, although there was only 1 respondent, were most satisfied (84.4%), followed by
respondents from the Hispanic/Latino background (77.8%), Asians (75.4%), White
respondents (74.8%), and, lastly, Black respondents at 72.2%. The level of satisfaction
57
for all groups was high, but it was interesting to observe that the 39 respondents of the
minority groups were generally more satisfied with the level of diversity than the 170
respondents of the majority group.
Table 4. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Average score all questions Average score per question Satisfaction level
American Indian 1 156.00 4.22 84.4%

Asian 17 139.35 3.77 75.4%
Black 10 133.40 3.61 72.2%
White 170 138.41 3.74 74.8%
Hispanic/Latino 11 143.82 3.89 77.8%
Total 209
Table 5 displays the satisfaction level perceived by spiritual belief. The level of
satisfaction for all groups was high, but it was interesting to observe that not even 1 of the
19 groups perceived workplace diversity to be less than satisfactory.
Table 5. Cross-Tabulation Test for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by Spiritual

Belief
Spiritual belief N Average score all questions Average score per question Satisfaction level
Agnostic 15 144.53 3.91 78.2%

Atheist 5 148.20 4.01 80.2%
Baptist 1 167.00 4.51 90.2%
Buddhist 1 139.00 3.76 75.2%
Catholic 57 141.56 3.83 76.6%
Christian 15 139.27 3.76 75.2%
Hindu 2 146.00 3.95 79.0%
Humanity 1 120.00 3.24 64.8%
Jewish 5 138.00 3.73 74.6%
Lutheran 1 146.00 3.95 79.0%
58
Methodist 1 130.00 3.51 70.2%
Mormon 1 144.00 3.89 77.8%
Muslim 3 132.33 3.58 71.6%
New Testament 1 137.00 3.70 74.0%
No association 2 138.50 3.74 74.8%
Pagan 2 137.00 3.70 74.0%
Pentecostal 1 161.00 4.35 87.0%
No answer 36 135.78 3.67 73.4%
Protestant 59 132.25 3.57 71.4%
Total 209
Hypotheses Analysis
H1 stated, “Employees’ ethnic backgrounds do not have a positive impact on their
perception of workplace diversity.” ANOVA was conducted to test for diversity
perceptions based on ethnic background.
Table 6 displays whether perceptions of overall workplace diversity differed
according to ethnic background for each of the ethnic groups in the study as stated in the
descriptive statistics in Table 1. However, the p value of .637 indicated that perceptions
of workplace diversity did not differ according to ethnic groups, as a p value of less than .
05 was necessary to detect a significant difference between the ethnic groups.
Table 6. ANOVA Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Ethnic Background
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 1263.383 4 315.846 .637 .637

Within groups 101165.717 204 495.910
Total 102429.100 208
59
Table 7 displays whether perceptions of overall workplace diversity as defined by
Hypothesis 1 differed according to ethnic background for each of the ethnic groups in the
study as stated in the descriptive statistics in Table 1. However, the p value of .465
indicated that perceptions of workplace diversity did not differ according to ethnic groups
using the subset of workplace diversity questions that comprised Hypothesis 1, as a p
value of less than .05 was necessary to detect a significant difference between the ethnic
groups.
Table 7. ANOVA Test for H1 Workplace Diversity by Ethnic Background
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 787.193 4 196.798 .900 .465

Within groups 43064.455 197 218.601
Total 43851.649 201
H2 stated, “Employees’ cultural backgrounds do not have a positive impact on
their perception of organizational diversity.” ANOVA was conducted to test for diversity
perceptions based on cultural background.
according to cultural background for each of the groups in the study as stated in the
of workplace diversity did not differ according to cultural groups, as a p value of less
than .05 was necessary to detect a significant difference between the cultural groups.
Table 9 displays whether perceptions of overall workplace diversity as defined by
Hypothesis 1 differed according to cultural background for each of the groups in the
60
study as stated in the descriptive statistics in Table 1. However, the p value of .376
indicated that perceptions of workplace diversity did not differ according to ethnic groups
using the subset of workplace diversity questions that comprised Hypothesis 2, as a p
value of less than .05 was necessary to detect a significant difference between the ethnic
groups.
Table 8. ANOVA Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Cultural Background
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 4755.472 8 594.434 1.217 .291

Within groups 97673.629 200 488.368
Total 102429.100 208
Table 9. ANOVA Test for H2 Workplace Diversity by Cultural Background
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 2025.923 8 253.240 1.083 .376

Within groups 45118.973 193 233.777
Total 47144.896 201
H3 stated, “Employees’ spiritual beliefs do not have a positive impact on their
perception of organizational diversity.” ANOVA was conducted to test for diversity
perceptions based on spiritual beliefs.
according to spiritual beliefs for each of the groups in the study as stated in the
61
of workplace diversity did not differ according to religious groups, as a p value of less
than .05 was necessary to detect a significant difference between the religious groups.
Table 10. ANOVA Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Spiritual Belief
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 3367.324 9 374.147 .752 .661

Within groups 99061.776 199 497.798
Total 102429.100 208
Table 11 displays whether perceptions of overall workplace diversity as defined
by Hypothesis 1 differed according to spiritual beliefs for each of the groups in the study
as stated in the descriptive statistics in Table 1. However, the p value of .759 indicated
that perceptions of workplace diversity did not differ according to ethnic groups using the
subset of workplace diversity questions that comprised Hypothesis 3, as a p value of less
than .05 was necessary to detect a significant difference between the ethnic groups.
Table 11. ANOVA Test for H3 Workplace Diversity by Spiritual Belief
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 1153.406 9 128.156 .643 .759

Within groups 38244.064 192 199.188
Total 39397.470 201
H4 stated, “Employees’ genders do not have a positive impact on their perception
of organizational diversity.” Since gender only has two categories, a t test (which
determines differences between two categories within one variable) was deemed more
appropriate than an ANOVA test to detect differences in overall perceptions of workplace

62
diversity. The p value for the t test was .419, greater than .05, so this hypothesis was not
supported. These results are displayed in Table 12.
Since gender only has two categories, a t test was deemed more appropriate than
an ANOVA test to detect differences in overall perceptions of workplace diversity for the
subset of workplace diversity questions that comprised Hypothesis 4. The p value for the
t test was .419, greater than .05, so this hypothesis was not supported. These results are
displayed in Table 13.
Additionally, respondents were grouped into 10 regions based on the zip code of
their workplaces, and an ANOVA test was run to determine whether these regions
differed in their perceptions of workplace diversity. Regions were defined based on the
first digit of the zip code from 0 to 9; 0 (New England) consists of Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont; 1 (North
Atlantic) consists of Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania; 2 (Mid-Atlantic) consists
of the District of Columbia, Maryland, North and South Carolina, Virginia, and West
Virginia; 3 (Southeast) consists of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and
Tennessee; 4 (Midwest) consists of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio; 5 (North
Central) consists of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Wisconsin;
6 (Great Plains) consists of Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska; 7 (Mid-South)
consists of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.
63
Table 12. T Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Gender
Levene’s test for

equality of variances T test for equality of means
Sig. Mean Std. error

F Sig. t df (2-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper
Perception of Equal variances assumed .856 .356 –.809 207 .419 –2.486 3.073 –8.544 3.572
organizational diversity Equal variances not assumed –.808 205.292 .420 –2.486 3.076 –8.550 3.578
65
Table 13. T Test for H4 Workplace Diversity by Gender
Levene’s test for

equality of variances T test for equality of means
Sig. Mean Std. error

F Sig. t df (2-tailed) difference difference Lower Upper
Perception of Equal variances assumed .403 .527 –.407 200 .684 –.835 2.052 –4.881 3.211
organizational diversity Equal variances not assumed –.407 198.053 .685 –.835 2.054 –4.885 3.214
Zip codes beginning with 8 (Mountain) consist of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; and 9 (Pacific) consists of Alaska,
California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. As indicated in Table 14, these 10 groups
did not significantly differ in their perceptions of workplace diversity, as the p value of .
916 was not close to the level of .05 necessary for significance.
Table 14. ANOVA Test for Difference in Overall Workplace Diversity by Region
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 1974.724 9 219.414 .434 .916

Within groups 100075.199 198 505.430
Total 102049.923 207
Additionally, respondents were grouped into 10 regions based on the zip code of
their workplace, and an ANOVA test was run to determine whether these regions differed
in their perceptions of workplace diversity for the subsets of workplace diversity that
constituted each hypothesis. As indicated in Tables 15–18, there was no significant
relationship between region and perceptions of workplace diversity, as all four p values
exceeded .05.
Additionally, testing was undertaken to determine whether majority and minority
gender and racial groups perceived workplace diversity or not to determine if one gender
or race perceived diversity and the other did not. That was inherently unlikely, since none
of the prior tests were significant.
66
Table 15. ANOVA Test for Difference in H1 Workplace Diversity by Region
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 984.222 9 109.358 .489 .881

Within groups 42681.032 191 223.461
Total 43665.254 200
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 963.831 9 107.092 .444 .909

Within groups 46021.791 191 240.952
Total 46985.622 200
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 1070.888 9 118.988 .596 .799

Within groups 38124.137 191 199.603
Total 39195.025 200
67
SS df MS F Sig.
Between groups 1081.317 9 120.146 .556 .832

Within groups 41296.415 191 216.212
Total 42377.731 200
However, t tests were run for each of the first three hypotheses for gender, and
each of the four hypotheses for White and non-White races to determine whether
respondents on average picked significantly above-average answers to questions on the
survey. An average score per question of greater than 3 (the moderate answer on the
Likert-type scale) was deemed necessary to be significant. If answers were significantly
above average, one could conclude that respondents in that group did believe workplace
diversity exists.
Tables 19–22 indicate whether male respondents believed there is workplace
diversity within their companies. All four t statistics are very high, between 11.812 and
12.842, with p values of less than .001 for each hypothesis’s set of questions, indicating
that men strongly believed workplace diversity exists.
Tables 23–26 display the corresponding results for women, who had a t statistic
range from 13.519 to 14.741, and were even slightly more likely to agree regarding the
existence of workplace diversity, although both genders had highly significant results in
this direction.
68
Table 19. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Men—H1
95% confidence interval of the difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean difference Lower Upper
H1 12.387 99 .000 19.170 16.10 22.24
Note. Test value = 69.
H2 12.554 99 .000 20.120 16.94 23.30
H3 12.842 99 .000 18.710 15.82 21.60
69
H4 11.812 99 .000 17.900 14.89 20.91
Table 23. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Women—H1
H1 14.360 101 .000 20.059 17.29 22.83
H2 14.512 101 .000 21.049 18.17 23.93
70
H3 14.741 101 .000 19.667 17.02 22.31
H4 13.519 101 .000 18.735 15.99 21.48
Tables 27–30 display the results for Whites, who had even higher yet t statistics,
from 16.146 to 17.644, indicating the strongest belief in workplace diversity.
Table 27. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Whites—H1
H1 16.977 162 .000 19.785 17.48 22.09
H2 17.283 162 .000 20.810 18.43 23.19
71
H3 17.644 162 .000 19.423 17.25 21.60
H4 16.146 162 .000 18.546 16.28 20.81
Minority races, as indicated in Tables 31–34, showed somewhat less belief in
workplace diversity than men, women, or Whites, but the lowest t statistic of 7.640 for
the fourth hypothesis was still highly significant, indicating that belief in workplace
diversity existed in all main subsets of the sample.
Table 31. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Minority Races—H1
H1 8.163 38 .000 18.923 14.23 23.62
72
Table 32. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Minority Races—Hypothesis 2
H2 8.060 38 .000 19.667 14.73 24.61
H3 8.185 38 .000 18.231 13.72 22.74
H4 7.640 38 .000 17.385 12.78 21.99
Summary
Despite the expectation that perceptions of workplace diversity would differ
according to demographic group, none of the four hypotheses was proven true, and the
data supported all four null hypotheses. Perceptions of workplace diversity came closest
to differing by cultural background, but they did not differ significantly for this variable
or ethnic background, spiritual background, or gender. Although other studies with much
73
smaller sample sizes presented the same results, this study is more credible because it
represented the views of a much larger sample size. Ergo, the results provide a solid basis
that perceptions of workplace diversity in the engineering services are consistent and
satisfactory.
74
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter presents and examines the study’s findings and provides discussion
and conclusions about the research hypotheses. Derived from the analysis of the raw data
imparted in chapter 4, the findings of the four specific research hypotheses are discussed
in sequence to evaluate perceptions of engineering services participants from the
perspectives of ethnicity, cultural background, spiritual belief, and gender. Next, the
limitations and implications of the study are presented. Also, recommendations for future
research are suggested. The chapter concludes with a summary and conclusion.
Discussion
The study sought to assess the current state of workplace diversity in the
engineering sector from the perspectives of 209 participants employed by engineering
services organizations. A nonexperimental, ex post factor survey design was chosen, and
convenience sampling was used to survey employees of engineering services
organizations. The participants were registered Zoomerang samples employed by several
firms located throughout the United States. The survey instrument employed in this study
was developed by the researcher. The instrument was field tested and reviewed for
adequacy and content by experts in the field and HR specialists. The instrument was
75
further pilot tested to ensure validity and reliability before deployment. All the
appropriate comments received from the field and pilot tests were incorporated and the
final version deployed via the Zoomerang site on the World Wide Web.
The study measured and compared the perceptions of organizational diversity
from participants of engineering organizations based on different ethnic and cultural
backgrounds, spiritual beliefs, and genders. The following discussion specifically
addresses the research questions and hypotheses through the analysis of raw data
imparted in chapter 4. The analysis was also based on the existing conceptual frameworks
discussed in the literature review. The following hypotheses are presented and discussed
in the sequence in which they were introduced.
H1 stated, “Employees’ ethnic backgrounds do not have a positive impact on their
perception of workplace diversity.” ANOVA and t tests revealed that perceptions of
workplace diversity did not differ among ethnic groups; the significance level was greater
than 0.05 based on the overall workplace diversity and the subset of workplace diversity
questions.
In other words, the study accepted the null hypothesis. This hypothesis focused on
whether the perceptions of workplace diversity differed based on ethnic background.
According to Stark (2001), far too many organizations have approached diversity in a
piecemeal manner, which hinders their ability to achieve diversity. Cox and Blake’s
(2001) study suggested that organizations have not been successful in stimulating the
performance of ethnic minority employees. Numerous barriers exist in the workplace that
prevent some individuals from performing to their full potential. Ethnic discrimination,
harassment, bias, favoritism, and prejudice are just a few of the forces that inhibit
76
maximal performance. However, the results of this study provided a different perspective
than that of Cox and Blake (2001) and Stark (2001). The engineering services
organizations involved in this study appeared to have realized the importance of
organizational diversity and successfully reduced or eliminated ethnic barriers, and
initiated programs intended to promote a culture of inclusion, including respect of all
ethnic groups.
H2 stated, “Employees’ cultural backgrounds do not have a positive impact on
their perception of organizational diversity.” ANOVA and t tests revealed that
perceptions of workplace diversity did not differ among cultural groups; the significance
level was greater than 0.05 based on the overall workplace diversity and the subset of
workplace diversity questions.
The study failed to reject this null hypothesis, meaning the findings of the second
research hypothesis indicated that perceptions of organizational diversity did not differ
among employees with different cultural backgrounds. This does not mean the
opportunity to increase cultural diversity has been exhausted. Multicultural organizations
will continue to be challenged with traditional cultural views that would disturb the
organizational culture unless they insist on devising continuous initiatives aimed to bury
cultural differences among the workforce (Cox, 1991; “Managing a Multicultural
Workforce,” 2001). The study findings suggest concurrence with Cox and “Managing a
Multicultural Workforce,” as the studied organizations seem to have successfully
diminished cultural differences and provided an organizational culture that is agreeable
with the cultures of the samples.
77
H3 stated, “Employees’ spiritual beliefs do not have a positive impact on their
perception of organizational diversity.” ANOVA test revealed that perceptions of
workplace diversity did not differ among spiritual beliefs; the significance level was
greater than 0.05 based on the overall workplace diversity and the subset of workplace
diversity questions.
The study failed to reject the third null hypothesis. In other words, engineering
services employees’ perceptions of organization diversity did not differ based on spiritual
beliefs. People with different spiritual beliefs are well entrenched in the workforce today,
but very few studies have examined the relationship between spiritual beliefs and work
values. A study involving more than 40,000 people confirmed that all four major
religions—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism—have demonstrated a positive
relationship with intrinsic work values (Parboteeah et al., 2009). Employees do not leave
their spiritual beliefs at home when they report to work; thus, it is important to examine
the relationship between spiritual beliefs and work values. In this study, the overall
perceptions of organizational diversity and subset of organization diversity were
compared among employees with different spiritual beliefs and revealed no significant
issues. The perceptions of the samples in this study seemed to suggest that organizational
values agreed with the spiritual beliefs of the participants.
H4 stated, “Employees’ genders do not have a positive impact on their perception
of organizational diversity.” A t test revealed that perceptions of workplace diversity did
not differ among gender groups; the significance level was greater than 0.05 based on the
overall workplace diversity and the subset of workplace diversity questions.
78
The study failed to reject this null hypothesis. The fourth research hypothesis
focused on the perceptions of organizational diversity among engineering employees
based on participants’ genders. Significant gender issues were not detected among the
participating organizations even with an equal number of male and female participants.
This must be due to the deliberate initiatives employed by the studied organizations.
In addition, the perceptions of workplace diversity were compared among
employees from 10 different working regions based on the first digit of the zip code. As
revealed in the results, the perceptions of workplace diversity did not differ among
employees from 10 working regions based on both overall perception of workplace
diversity and subset of workplace diversity questions.
Additional analysis was completed to further compare perceptions of majority and
minority groups, men and women, racial groups, and various spiritual beliefs to
determine whether any particular group’s perceptions were significantly different. The
relevant answers to the survey questions were scored and an average score was calculated
for each of the various groups. An average score per question of greater than 3 (the
moderate answer on the Likert-type scale) was deemed necessary to be significant. If the
answers were significantly above average, one could conclude that respondents in that
group did believe workplace diversity exists. The results indicated that men strongly
believed workplace diversity exists and women were even slightly more likely to agree
regarding the existence of workplace diversity. Whites reported the strongest belief in
workplace diversity. Minority races reported a somewhat lower belief in workplace
diversity. The various spiritual belief groups reported similar satisfactions with
79
workplace diversity. The overall results suggested that belief in workplace diversity
existed in all main subsets of the sample.
This study revealed that perceptions of workplace diversity in engineering
services organizations did not differ among employees based on their cultural
background, ethnic background, spiritual belief, or gender. The perceptions of workplace
diversity did not differ among employees from different working regions either. The
findings of this research are consistent with previous studies, although many previous
studies reported insignificant difference regarding the previous demographic factors due
to a too-small sample size. This did not appear to be an issue with this study as the
sample consisted of 209 respondents.
In summary, due to increased globalization and the changing workforce and
consumer demographics, it is vitally important to know the status and be aware of the
state of diversity in an organization. The findings of this study are important because it
gauged the level of diversity in organizations and provided the input leaders need to
understand their organizational cultures, and the perceptions that exist in order to devise
programs focused on improving performance, loyalty, and a sense of belonging in a
workplace climate that agrees with employees’ values and beliefs. It also assists leaders
in developing policies, procedures, training, and initiatives to leverage the diverse talents,
and use them to improve market share and the bottom line (McCuiston, Wooldridge, &
Pierce, 2004).
Diversity is an immediate concern for countless businesses. In the past, many
organizations may have been resistant to promoting diversity in the workplace. However,
current financial realities have led the vast majority of organizations to understand that
80
promoting diversity is critical for improving the bottom line. Therefore, an increasing
number of companies not only are approaching diversity with an open mind but are
incorporating diversity initiatives into their organizational strategy. Organizations have
sought to take advantage of diversity in order to promote financial success in today’s
increasingly competitive market (Devoe, 1999; McCuiston et al., 2004; Soni, 2000). The
findings of the current study also revealed that perceptions of workplace diversity may be
universal. The analysis yielded valuable insight on this topic. The information has
important implications for theory as well as future research; this is discussed in the
following sections.
Limitations
This study was limited because it relied exclusively on a self-report questionnaire
to evaluate the perceptions of organizational diversity from participants of the
engineering sector. Whenever participants are asked to self-report, it is possible the
participants’ perceptions could be distorted and their recall limited. Moreover, in order to
present a more favorable image, social desirability bias can occur, which could affect the
participants’ responses by answering items with what they thought the correct answers
were, irrespective of demographic groups (Razavi, 2001).
Another limitation was the sampling frame. This study used a convenient sample
of working engineers registered as survey takers with Zoomerang. Selecting participants
from a pool of current employees may have excluded perceptions of individuals who
were laid off or left the workplace due to certain reasons that may have included
discrimination or other issues. However, due to the large number of participants who
81
responded to this study, it was deemed acceptable and representative of the target
population (Kalton, 1983).
In addition, because the target population was limited to engineering employees,
the findings of the current study only apply to the engineering services sector. While
organizational leaders from other sectors might learn from the findings in this study,
employees in other sectors might respond to diversity differently. Although the study
offers numerous suggestions and recommendations, organizational leaders will need to be
selective in applying the findings to their own businesses. Other organizations may not
consider diversity as an essential part of their organizational structure.
Because of the limitations described herein, the generalizability of the study is not
anticipated to extend beyond engineering services. Generalization outside of engineering
services may not be appropriate because not every industry requires the same level of
diversity initiatives, or even requires diversity at all to prosper (Pomeroy, 2005).
Implications
The broader issue of diversity in the workplace is a new phenomenon that is just
beginning to capture the attention of researchers and global organizations. Numerous
theories and strategies have been designed and implemented in a haphazard manner, and
are often the result of trial-and-error. None of these theories has sufficiently accounted
for all aspects of diversity (Allen et al., 2004). A comprehensive theory of workplace
diversity has not yet emerged from the literature, despite much relevant research (Allen &
Montgomery, 2001). Therefore, other more comprehensive theories must be adapted to
the issue of diversity. Change theory—specifically, the Lewin–Schein model—was
82
included in this study’s theoretical framework. Lewin (1951) hypothesized a three-stage
model of change, better known as the unfreezing–change–refreezing model. The model
provides a systematic and comprehensive framework for introducing and sustaining
change. Schein (1992) further refined Lewin’s model by contributing the concept of
cognitive redefinition to the theory. The Lewin–Schein model represents the most
comprehensive model for theorizing organizational change. The implication this research
made is the assertion that workplace diversity is an organizational change, and change
theory (Lewin–Schein model) is appropriate for introducing and sustaining diversity
initiatives.
In addition, the findings of the study offer important implications that researchers,
scholars, employees, employers, and consumers should note. Researchers, for the first
time, have a baseline by which to gauge diversity perceptions in the engineering sector.
They can capitalize on these findings to further study workplace diversity in other
sectors, or expand on this study to include other aspects of diversity.
Theorists need to expand the theoretical framework affecting diversity. Available
behavioral theories do not cover every aspect of a person’s behavior and offer a small
example of why individuals behave the way they do. Ethnicity, culture, spiritual belief,
and gender are among the many factors that make up individual personality (Mathews,
2006). The findings provide awareness and knowledge of the state of diversity in the
workplace, and when coupled with diversity training, a channel is created for people to
express their opinions and be heard by other people who would have never thought about
it in the first place.
83
Employees need to know the organizational environment and whether their values
are accepted. They want to work in an environment of inclusion, feel valued and part of
the team, free of discrimination, open to accepting varying ideas, and respect varying
groups.
Employers need to know the state of diversity in their workplaces to enable sound
policies and procedures, and devise diversity initiatives to avoid lawsuits and create
harmonious teams able to create and innovate products and services capable of competing
in today’s market. Understanding the perspectives of diverse employees will allow
managers to gain a better understanding of the status of workplace diversity and its effect
on organizational imperative and other bottom-line factors (McCuiston et al., 2004).
The consumer base is becoming increasingly diverse. The spending power of
ethnic minorities has grown by a third since the 1990s (Garfield, 2005), and that requires
major investments on the part of product and service providers. Investments in HR,
market research, and consumer wants and needs, because diverse consumers are reluctant
to buy products and services from firms that discriminate, do not conform to social
norms, or do not respond to the their wants and needs (Koonce, 2001).
Recommendations for Future Research
Further research into this topic may contribute to the body of knowledge by
conducting a case study in which perceptions of workplace diversity are taken from
current and previous employees. Including employees who left the firm for various
reasons may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of workplace diversity.
84
Further research is suggested to study workplace diversity in different types of
organizations and different employee demographics. Such a study may include
heterogeneous, homogeneous, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations to explore the
relationships between employee perceptions of workplace diversity and the type of
business.
Further studies may also be conducted on whether the perceptions of
organizational diversity are different among organizational types and other demographic
characteristics such as age, educational background, disability, sexual orientation,
hierarchy, class, and so forth. This could be done by using quasi-experimental design.
Differences in perceptions of organizational diversity relative to certain demographic
factors may be derived from such a study.
Further research efforts should include qualitative approaches, which could
provide more detailed and nuanced information that was not possible with a quantitative
approach. Research into the perceptions of the target population might yield valuable
findings about how the perceptions of organizational diversity affect work values. A
phenomenological study may be useful for such an approach, and an ethnographic case
study could be conducted to better understand the connection between cultural factors
and perceptions. The findings from such studies may help future researchers and firm
leaders address the problems in promoting organizational diversity.
Summary and Conclusion
This quantitative study investigated whether engineering employees’ perceptions
of workplace diversity differed according to demographic factors, namely, gender, ethnic
85
background, cultural background, and spiritual belief. The study also evaluated the
differences in the perceptions of workplace diversity among employees from different
working regions, and between minority and majority groups. The findings of this study
revealed that perceptions of workplace diversity did not differ among engineering
employees based on ethnicity, cultural background, spiritual belief, or gender. The
perceptions of workplace diversity did not differ among employees from different
working regions either. These findings are consistent with previous studies, which
suggests that, irrespective of the type of business, perceptions of workplace diversity
have common rudiments of certain psychological, social, and behavioral characteristics.
86
REFERENCES
Allen, R. S., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K., & White, C. (2004). Diversity practices.
Development and Learning in Organization, 18(6), 13–15.
Allen, R. S., & Montgomery, K. A. (2001). Applying an organizational development

approach to creating diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 149–161.
Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-factor model
of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100–123.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Basil, D. C. (1972). Women in management. Cambridge, MA: Dunnellen.
Bogg, J., Pontin, E., Gibbons, C., & Sartain, S. (2007). Physiotherapists’ perceptions of
equity and career progression in the NHS. Physiotherapy, 93(2), 137–143.
Chrobot-Mason, D., & Ruderman, M. (2004). Leadership in a diverse workplace.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Cox, T. H. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive,

5(2), 34–47.
Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (2001). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for
organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45–56.
Craig, R. (1999). Philosophical and educational foundations in a multicultural society.

Waterbury, CT: Emancipation Press.
Cumming-McCann, A. (2003). Multicultural education: Connecting theory to practice.

Focus on the Basics, 6(B), 9–12.
Dávila, S. (2008). Minorities, diversity and the 2008 presidential election. Financial
Executive, 24(8), 64.
Devoe, D. (1999). Managing a diverse workforce. San Mateo, CA: InfoWorld.
87
Durbin, S., Lovell, L., & Winters, J. (2008). Diversities in an organizational context.
Equal Opportunities International, 27(4), 396, 398–400.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and

critiques. Human Relations, 50(9), 1085–1113.
Engdahl, R. A. (2005). Organization evolution: The natural change model for

organizational structure. Organization Development Journal, 23(2), 50–61.
Esty, K., Griffin, R., & Schorr-Hirsh, M. (1995). Workplace diversity. A manager’s guide
to solving problems and turning diversity into a competitive advantage. Avon,
MA: Adams.
Fellin, P. (2000). Revisiting multiculturalism in social work. Journal of Social Work

Education, 36, 261–278.
Fine, M. (1991). New voices in the workplace: Research directions in multicultural

communication. Journal of Business Communication, 28(3), 259–275.
Flagg, A. (2002). Managing diverse workgroups successfully. Retrieved September 15,

2008, from http://www.ubhnet.com
Francis, L. (2005). Diversity in the workplace: How much have things really changed?
Latino Leaders. Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.accessmylibrary.com/
coms2/summary_0286-9604550_ITM
Friday, E., & Friday, S. (2003). Managing diversity using a strategic planned change
approach. The Journal of Management Development, 22(9), 863–880.
Gale, S. (2006). Common ground. PM Network, 20(7), 46–52.
Garfield, C. A. (1994). Embracing diversity. Executive Excellence, 11(10), 8–9.
Garfield, C. A. (2005). Diversity as an asset. Leadership Excellence, 22(4), 19.
Green, K. A., López, M., Wysocki A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Diversity in the workplace:
Benefits, challenges, and the required managerial tools. Retrieved July 15, 2008,
from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/HR/HR02200.pdf
Harshman, E., & Harshman, C. (1999). Communicating with employees: Building on an

ethical foundation. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(1), 3–19.
Herek G.M. (2008). Understanding sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United
States: A conceptual framework. New York, NY: Springer.
88
Holden, D. (2006). Diversity unravelled. Industrial Management, 48(4), 8–13.
Johnston, W. B., & Packer, A. E. (1987). Workforce 2000: Work and worker for the 21st
century. Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute.
Kallen, H. (1924). Culture and democracy in the United States: Essays in the group
psychology of the American peoples. New York, NY: Boni and Liveright.
Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Koonce, R. (2001). Redefining diversity: It’s not just the right thing to do. It also makes
good business sense. Training & Development, 12(12), 22–32.
Korac-Kakabadse, A., Korac-Kakabadse, N., & Myers, A. (1998). Demographics and

leadership philosophy: Exploring gender differences. Journal of Management
Development, 17(5), 351–388.
Landrine, H. (1995). Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology: Theory,

research, and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lee, E., Menkart, D., & Okazawa-Rey, M. (1998). Beyond heroes and holidays: A
practical guide to K12 anti racist, multicultural education and staff development.
Washington, DC: Network of Educators on the Americas.
Levin, G. (2004). Diversity: Celebrate difference, strengthen performance. Connections

Magazine, 13(3), 34–36.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row.
Majlergaard, F. (2006). Release the power of cultural diversity in international business.

Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.clubofamesterdam.com/summit2006
Managing a multicultural workforce. (2001, July). Black Enterprise Magazine.
Martin, B. (1998). Multiculturalism: Consumerist or transformational. In C. Willett (Ed.),

Theorizing multiculturalism: A guide to the current debate. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Mathews, M. (2006). Diversity: Society and individual behavior. Retrieved September

15, 2009, from http://www.associatedcontent.com
McCuiston, V., Wooldridge, B., & Pierce, C. (2004). Leading the diverse workforce:
Profit, prospects and progress. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
25(1/2), 73–92.
89
Moran, R. T., Harris, P. R., & Moran, S. V. (2007). Managing cultural differences.
Burlington, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
National Academy of Engineering Committee on Diversity. (2002). Diversity in

engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nieto, S. (1999). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural

education (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Parboteeah, K. P., Paik, Y., & Cullen, J. (2009). Religious groups and work values: A
focus on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam. International Journal of
Cross Cultural Management, 9(1), 51.
Phinney, J. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean?
American Psychologist, 51, 918–927.
Pomeroy, A. (2005, November). Diversity needs differ by country. HRMagazine, 50(11),

14.
Prasad, P., & Mills, A. J. (1997). From showcase to shadow: Understanding the dilemmas
of managing workplace diversity. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, & A. Prasad (Eds.),
Managing the organizational melting pot (pp. 3–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Prochaska, J. M., Prochaska, J. O., & Levesque, D. A. (2001). A transtheoretical

approach to changing organizations. Administration and Policy in Mental Health,
28(4), 247–261.
Razavi, T. (2001). Self-report measures: An overview of concerns and limitations of

questionnaire use in occupational stress research. Retrieved November 2, 2009,
from http://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/sotoam/01-175.html
Robinson, K.-S. (2002). U.S. must focus on diversity or face decline in competitiveness.
Retrieved December 15, 2007, from http://www.shrm.org
Roosevelt, T. R., Jr. (2001). Elements of a successful “diversity” process. Retrieved

September 2, 2008, from http://www.aimd.org/articles/elements.html
Santos, J. (1999). Cronbach’s alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal
of Extension, 37(2), Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999
april/tt3.php
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
90
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation
modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Society for Human Resource Management. (1998). SHRM survey explores the best in
diversity practices. Retrieved August 17, 2008, from http://www.shrm.org/press/
releases/980803.htm
Soni, V. A. (2000). A twenty-first century reception for diversity in the public sector: A
case study. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 395–408.
Stark, E. (2001). Valuing diversity: Strategic business imperative or HR agenda. Institute

of Behavioral and Applied Management Proceedings, 34–39.
St. Louis Minority Business Council. (2009). Supplier diversity: A business imperative.
Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.slmbc.org/PDFs/whitePapers/Supplier
Diveristy.pdf
Suhr, D. D. (1999). Exploratory or confirmatory factor? Retrieved February 8, 2009,

from http://www2.sas.com/proceedings/sugi31/200-31.pdf
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Valenti, M. (1991). Appropriate technology: Designing to fit local culture. Mechanical

Engineering, 11, 64–69.
Vallario, C. W. (2006). Creating an environment for global diversity. Financial

Executive, 22(3), 50–52.
Wirth, R. A. (2004). Organizational change through influencing individual change: A

behavior centric approach to change. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://
www.entarga.com/orgchange/InfluencingIndividualChange.pdf
Zoomerang. (2008). Online surveys by Zoomerang; The best solution for fast, easy
feedback. Retrieved March 11, 2009, from http://www.zoomerang.com/
91
APPENDIX. SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Section I: Demographic Information
Directions: Please check the box that best describes your societal or check the “other”
box and specify your answer in the space provided.
1. Select your gender 2. Describe your current position

□ Male □ Management
□ Female □ Nonmanagement
3. Select your current employment 4. Length of your employment with

status this company
□ Part time □ Less than 1 year
□ Full time □ 1–4 years
□ Temporary □ 5–10 years
□ Term or contract □ 11–15 years
□ Not employed □ Greater than 15 years
6. Select the culture most

5. Select your ethnic group associated with your
□ American Indian or Alaska Native background
□ Asian □ African
□ Black □ Americas
□ Hispanic/Latino □ Asian
□ Middle Eastern □ Eastern
□ Native Hawaiian or pacific Islander □ European
□ White □ Hispanic
□ Other, please specify:__________ □ Middle Eastern
□ Western
□ Other. please specify:_________
7. Select your spiritual belief 8. Enter the zip code where you
□ Agnostic currently work
□ Atheist □ Midwest USA, Zip Code:_______
□ Buddhist □ Northeast USA, Zip Code:_______
□ Catholic □ South USA, Zip Code:_______
92
□ Hindu □ West USA, Zip Code:_______
□ Jewish □ Other Country, please
□ Muslim specify:________
□ Protestant
□ Prefer not to answer
□ Other, please specify:_________
9. Select the country/continent where 10. Select all of the languages you
you grew up speak
□ USA □ Arabic
□ Europe □ Chinese
□ Africa □ English
□ Asia □ French
□ Middle Eastern □ Hindi
□ India/Pakistan □ Japanese
□ Mexico □ Portuguese
□ South America □ Russian
□ Other, please specify:____________ □ Spanish
□ Other, please specify:__________
Section II: Peer Interactions
Directions: As you formulate your responses to the following statements, please think
about instances that you perceive to have occurred in the last 30 days with the people you
work with on a regular basis. Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the
following statements.
11. My perception is that some employees are “talked down to” by coworkers because of
their different ethnic groups.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Neutral Disagree
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
12. My perception is that employees have a hard time accepting engineering design ideas
from coworkers of different cultural backgrounds.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
13. My perception is that engineering design ideas are not taken seriously when
presented by employees of different gender.
93
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
14. My perception is that differences in diverse employees are valued in my
organization.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
15. My perception is that different cultures are welcomed in my organization.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
16. My perception is that most employees are treated fairly by coworkers regardless of
their gender.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
their cultural background.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
their ethnic background.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Section III: My Behavior
94
19. I treat all my coworkers with respect.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
20. I am comfortable working with coworkers whose background is different from mine.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
21. I respect engineering opinions that are different than mine because it improves the
quality of the design.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
22. I feel like learning about other cultures improves my job performance.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
23. I feel like coworkers of different ethnic backgrounds contribute to advancing the
company’s engineering products and services.
Strongly
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree
Disagree
Agree
5 4 3 2 1
24. I feel like listening to engineering ideas from coworkers help me produce
engineering products and services that are better accepted by diverse customers.
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
5 4 3 2 1
25. I feel like I must work harder than others to advance my career.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
95
26. I feel that my spiritual belief stands in the way of advancing my career.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
27. I feel like my coworkers do not discriminate against me with regard to my ethnicity.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
28. I feel like my coworkers do not discriminate against me with regard to my gender.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
29. I feel like my coworkers do not discriminate against me with regard to my cultural
background.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
30. I feel like my coworkers do not discriminate against me with regard to my spiritual
belief.
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
5 4 3 2 1
Section IV: Hiring, Promotions, & Reward Practices
31. I believe that employees at my company are hired based on their skills and ability
regardless of their gender, ethnic, culture, or spiritual belief.
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
5 4 3 2 1
32. I believe that employees at my company are promoted based on their skills and
experience regardless of their gender, ethnic, culture, or spiritual belief.
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
96
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
5 4 3 2 1
33. I believe that all employees at my company are encouraged to apply for positions
based on their skills, experience, and abilities.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
34. I believe that women and minorities at my company have the same opportunities to
get ahead as others.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
35. I believe that employees at my company are hired not because of their talents but
because of their minority status.
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
5 4 3 2 1
36. I believe that all employees at my company have the same opportunities for career
development and training.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
37. I believe that my organization actively recruits people from different genders, ethnic
backgrounds, and cultures.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
97
38. I believe that new employees at my company are made to feel welcome regardless of
their ethnic, cultural backgrounds, genders, or spiritual beliefs.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
Section V: Leadership, Policies, and Procedures
39. My perception is that all employees’ different opinions are valued and encouraged by
the leadership.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
40. My perception is that all employees are encouraged by the leadership to openly
express their concerns about the work environment.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
41. My perception is that my organization has clear policies regarding acceptable

employee behavior.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
42. My perception is that my organization appreciates and respects individual

differences.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
98
43. My perception is that reports of disrespectful behavior are dealt with immediately
and fairly.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
44. My perception is that employees are rewarded for a job well done regardless of their
gender, ethnicity, culture, or spiritual belief.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
45. My perception is that workplace diversity is well established in the organization.

Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
46. My perception is that discrimination is not tolerated in the workplace.

Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
47. My perception is that employees are assessed by what they produce, not by their
demographics.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1
99

Hassan Final Manuscript 14 Dec 09

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hassan Final Manuscript 14 Dec 09

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE IMPACT OF WORKPLACE DIVERSITY ON THE WORKING

ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE IN ENGINEERING ORGANIZATIONS:

A STUDY OF ETHNICITY, CULTURE, SPIRITUAL BELIEF, AND GENDER

CLIFFORD BUTLER, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

GEORGE KALIDONIS, Ph.D., Committee Member

STEPHEN HOBBS, Ed.D., Committee Member

Raja K. Iyer, Ph.D., Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

competition, and changes in workforce and consumer demographics stipulate that

to introduce, incorporate, and sustain workplace diversity within the organizational

and perspectives to an organization; promoting these qualities could improve a firm’s

output. Acknowledging the potential benefits, it became crucial for organizations to

expressed internally through workplace diversity. The challenge is to equip business

Perceptions of workplace diversity do not significantly differ by employees’ ethnic

backgrounds, (b) Perceptions of workplace diversity do not significantly differ by

employees’ cultural backgrounds, (c) Perceptions of workplace diversity do not

significantly differ by employees’ spiritual beliefs, and (d) Perceptions of workplace

diversity do not significantly differ by employees’ genders.

I dedicate this to my family. My lovely wife, Rihab; my amazing daughter, Sonia;

and those would be my proudest moments.

fortified my thought process to produce this dissertation.

List of Tables viii

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 4

Purpose of the Study 4

Significance of the Study 7

Assumptions and Limitations 8

Nature of the Study 10

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 10

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 11

Definition of Workplace Diversity 11

The Need for Organizational Diversity 27

The Effects of Diversity 28

Data Collection Procedures 42

Validity and Reliability 44

Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents 49

Overall Diversity Perceptions 54

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 75

Recommendations for Future Research 84

Summary and Conclusion 85

APPENDIX. SURVEY INSTRUMENT 92

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Demographic Variables 52

Table 2. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by

Table 3. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by

Table 4. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by

Table 5. Cross-Tabulation for Overall Workplace Diversity Satisfaction by

Table 6. ANOVA Test for Overall Diversity by Ethnic Background 60

Table 7. ANOVA Test for H1 Workplace Diversity by Ethnic Background 61

Table 8. ANOVA Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Cultural

Table 9. ANOVA Test for H2 Workplace Diversity by Cultural Background 62

Table 11. ANOVA Test for H3 Workplace Diversity by Spiritual Belief 63

Table 12. T Test for Overall Workplace Diversity by Gender 65

Table 13. T Test for H4 Workplace Diversity by Gender 65

Table 14. ANOVA Test for Difference in Overall Workplace Diversity by

Table 15. ANOVA Test for Difference in H1 Workplace Diversity by Region 67

Table 16. ANOVA Test for Difference in H2 Workplace Diversity by Region 67

Table 17. ANOVA Test for Difference in H3 Workplace Diversity by Region 67

Table 18. ANOVA Test for Difference in H4 Workplace Diversity by Region 68

Table 19. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Men—H1 69

Table 21. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Men—H3 69

Table 22. T Test for Belief in Workplace Diversity for Men—H4 70