With the promise of competitive advantage gains in hand, many companies have moved toward capitalizing on the skills that a diverse workforce provides in increasingly competitive global markets. The incumbent challenges of leading a diverse work group are an unexplored side of the diversity movement. Based on interview data from a variety of senior managers and executives, a review of both popular and academic literature, and our own experiences with diverse organizations, we have outlined six preeminent challenges confronting leaders of diverse work groups. We suggest practical solutions that can be adapted for implementation in most organizations. Further, we identify and discuss leader attributes and skills that are required for effective enactment of diversity initiatives.

American companies have increasingly accepted the concept that a diverse workforce not only brings positive benefits, but may actually be fundamental to corporate success. Many corporate leaders have formulated goals concerning the kinds of diversity efforts that will add value to the mission and achievements of their organizations. As companies move toward achieving the goals of broadening their workforce across gender, ethnicity, age, educational background, and skill dimensions, some dilemmas regarding diversity may solve themselves. However, for companies that have experienced sweeping changes in the image of their workforce over the past two decades, previously unconsidered challenges may emerge. New issues in managing people may present leaders with a pressing set of challenges that were not as dominating and perhaps even irrelevant in a more homogeneous workforce. "In times of great transition, leadership becomes critically important. Leaders, in essence, offer us a pathway of confidence and directions as we move through the seeming chaos."' No longer will good leadership skills be sufficient. Excellence across a broader range of skills will be a baseline requirement for successful leadership in a diverse workforce.

Diversity encompasses any characteristic used to differentiate one person from others. Our conception of diversity includes differences across gender, race, age, physical ability, sexual orientation, religion, skills, and tenure in the organization. This listing reflects major sources of contention over diverse characteristics in organizations today.

Organizations differ in their ability to capitalize on the diverse characteristics of their workforce, the result in part of entrenched, long-held attitudes and practices. Bennett proposed that individual attitudes toward diversity are not fixed, but that attitudes shift along a continuum. Baldwin and Hecht built on Bennett's conceptualization by defining conditions of intolerance, tolerance, and appreciation on the continuum.2 We have adapted the individual continuum to the organization level, and in so doing reasoned that organizations can exist at points along the continuum that reflect relative stages of intolerance, tolerance, and appreciation of diversity among organizational members.

In a stage of intolerance, organizations comply, at best, with legal requirements regarding the composition of the workforce. Diversity may be addressed at a surface level, but the organization is not committed to the idea that diversity has advantages. The organization's routines and practices continue much as they always have. In a tolerance stage, diverse members of the organization are actively sought and included in the daily practices and routines of the organization, but the skills and talents of these members may not be fully utilized. Typically, in a tolerant organization, leadership may embark on diversity initiatives for at least two reasons. First, the leadership may believe that a diverse workforce positively affects the bottom line; or second, that potential negative social or moral ramifications exist to justify a diversity initiative. In an appreciation stage, organizations surpass acceptance and actively embrace diversity. Organizations are fully committed and are reflexive in the inclusion of diverse members in routines, practices, utilization, and participation levels. This results from a true valuing of diversity among members rather than real or perceived regulatory pressures.

We believe that diversity, as a relatively new phenomenon in the workforce, is not self-managing. We believe that in most instances, as diversity is introduced into a workplace, leaders must take a more proactive stance toward their own involvement with employees as work practices and routines are reviewed and, if need be, revised. We also view appreciation as the desirable state, but believe that even the most well-intentioned organizations will regress to other stages, even if temporarily, as various diversity-enhancing efforts are undertaken to move the organization to, or retain standing at, an appreciation stage. Before diversification is undertaken, a careful diagnosis of the organization's current stage along the continuum is necessary. Without a proper diagnosis, it is inevitable that misapplication of currently popular tools and techniques will occur, thus inflicting more damage to the organization than it may be able to sustain. As Kanter3 recognized, social change in organizations occurs unevenly and depends on the reform-minded and progressive tendencies of the organization's current membership and its ability to depart from the status quo.

Based on qualitative data and a review of the literature, we outline six challenges that appear prevail in many organizations, and are likely to require the attention of organizational leaders for effective resolution. With each challenge we provide insight into potential responses that skilled leaders can exhibit, thus enabling them to achieve organizational objectives and fulfill organizational missions. These are summarized in Exhibit 1.

Challenge One: Changed Power Dynamics

Constituency management may be the most challenging, yet most unrecognized, difficulty that a leader will encounter with a large shift in the diversity of an organization's workforce. With the infusion of new, diverse individuals who may not fit the traditional organizational mold, traditional constituents may feel an erosion of power. For example, one study of organizational attachment found evidence that as diversity increased, commitment and attachment decreased. White males were more likely to indicate higher levels of detachment as the number of women in the work group increased.4 As power is redistributed, doubts may emerge within the traditional constituencies about how they will fit into the new organization. An uneasiness about how to navigate what was once familiar territory may appear, and with it an increasing tension. Power struggles are natural consequences of competition for scarce resources and control of social structures. Diversity dynamics interact with unstable power structures and can lead to both lowered individual and organizational performance.5 Potential negative outcomes from this instability include poor work attitudes, withdrawal behaviors such as absenteeism and turnover, and perceptions of procedural injustice.

At the intolerant stage, organizations may give the appearance of smooth functioning, because power struggles may not be explicit. This is likely to occur because diverse subgroups wield lower or nonexistant levels of power. If intolerance is accepted, those who violate the norms of the dominant coalition are likely to be sanctioned. The organization is unlikely to experience explicit power struggles because the costs are too high for minorities. For example, untenured professors may suppress their opinions in faculty meetings when they know that the dominant coalition disagrees with them. Minorities may reserve their voices for significant events that blatantly discriminate or offend them, such as a quid-pro-quo case of sexual harassment or extreme violations of equity in workload or monetary distributions.

While gridlock is unlikely to occur at the stage of intolerance since the minority is suppressed and unlikely to express its opinions, gridlock becomes a problem in organizations at a stage of tolerance/acceptance. Tensions run high as minorities gain more voice and express their concerns. Uneasiness and increasing tensions can occur whether the constituencies are internal or external to the organization. Internally, old constituencies with large blocks of power, such as boards of directors and senior management, may be uncomfortable with admitting dissimilar outsiders who are likely to challenge the old guard's perceived power, either explicitly or implicitly. Because of such discomfort, newcomers to senior management ranks may be relegated to tasks and committees, the equivalent of being banished to back offices. This symbolic management goes beyond requiring newcomers to pay their dues, it is an attempt to bolster and retain power within the traditional constituencies. The same scenario is played out at all levels of the organization with senior management setting the tone. Their actions are frequently modeled at lower levels of the organization.6

Many companies have watched developing power struggles with mounting alarm. Anna Marie Buchmann, managing director of RHR International, a group of international management consulting psychologists, noted that these struggles are a dominant problem faced by clients incorporating diversity into corporate cultures. The leader must take care not to show favoritism: "The more a leader represents the interests and goals of a single group or faction, the greater the resistance from other groups."8

Companies facing these dilemmas often send all employees to diversity training. However, companies at the stage of intolerance may not yet be ready for such initiatives. If employees are forced to attend diversity training that they and/or their organizations do not support or believe in, the training can actually make the situation worse. According to reactance theory,9 threatening an individual's freedom to choose an activity may lead to an attitude change in the direction opposite to that being advocated. Employees who are required to attend diversity training against their will, and who already hold extremely negative attitudes and stereotypes regarding minorities, are likely to become even more negative, rather than more positive and accepting.

One company, Lucky Stores, provides a good illustration of how diversity training efforts can backfire.10 Lucky Stores undertook a diversity training program to enable employees to better communicate and interact with others who were different. In an initial exercise designed to raise awareness of stereotypes, employees were asked to list commonly held perceptions and stereotypes of minority groups (e.g., that women are much more emotional than men). The group then discussed the potential negative impact these stereotypes could have and how each individual could identify and prevent his or her own prejudices and stereotypes. An employee who was not present at the diversity training found the notes from this exercise, thought they were used to discriminate in selection and promotion, and used them as evidence in an intentional discrimination lawsuit. The employee won the lawsuit. Another potential problem is the claim of reverse discrimination and the animus it creates; those in the majority group may feel attacked and threatened and may respond with either formal or informal charges. Either situation can lead to litigation, negative public relations, and adverse outcomes for the organization.

While there is always a danger that diversity training may be misdirected and misinterpreted, especially if the qualifications of the trainers are questionable, intolerant organizations court trouble if they implement training too early. Because stereotypes often originate from ignorance or lack of exposure to others who are different, one possible solution for such organizations is diversity pairing. Individuals are paired with others who are dissimilar in cultural background, gender, or ability. Such pairings, used by organizations such as Southwestern Bell in management development programs, may serve to slowly eradicate some entrenched stereotypes. After a time, people may feel comfortable enough to ask questions and learn about the other individual on a truly personal level. Individuals in intolerant organizations must address their personally-held prejudices and stereotypes before the organization can move toward a position of tolerance, where group-level diversity initiatives may be more effective.

Organizations at a stage of tolerance or acceptance will experience explicit power struggles, which may undermine the effective functioning of the organizations if not addressed. One solution is for tolerant organizations to conduct teambuilding with a sharper focus on integrating traditional powerholders with emerging powerbrokers (e.g., long-time employees and new employees). Leaders must have the human and interpersonal skills necessary tc integrate individuals from different constituencies in all vital aspects of the daily functioning of the organization. They must acknowledge the benefits of creative tension between constituencies, and make the integration of constituencies a subtle exercise. Leaders must walk a fine line between acknowledging potential benefits from creative tension and overemphasizing the process of diversity integration, which creates skeptics among employees and can be self-defeating for the organization. The best tactic for leaders is a daily, deliberate, and continuous active emphasis on the key role that each employee has in the organization's success.

In organizations at the appreciation stage, power struggles and dynamics will not be as much of a concern as at the other stages. However, organizational leaders must understand that power struggles are never totally eliminated and may escalate if not monitored. Organizations at the appreciation stage may be prone to more subtle power struggles, such as alliance development within subgroups or departments. Alliances can be very powerful forces and are, by definition, exclusionary. Once again, leaders must be aware of such alliances and monitor their growth. Group and team level incentives may be appropriate at this stage, and may serve as a boost that is needed to keep individuals motivated to work together, rather than against each other.

Organizations at the appreciation stage may be in particular danger in times of scarcity or economic crisis. It is during these times where organizations may revert back to the tolerant stage as a part of the process of ensuring more organizational stability. Organizations that are new to the appreciation stage may feel more comfortable with old patterns of behaviors that are more familiar and take less time and energy.

There are perceptual concerns outside the organization as well. Public relations firms that built strong reputations representing traditional organizations may question their ability to portray accurately the image of the new diversity-oriented organization. Financiers may be concerned that the move to a more diverse workforce within an organization will bring inadequate skills and long learning curves, ultimately affecting the bottom line in a negative manner.

An organization's current stage will predict how effectively it handles external perceptions and fears. Intolerant organizations run the risk of feeding into clients' and customers' fears, while tolerant organizations may send mixed messages regarding their internal support of diversity initiatives, thus adding to confusion. Organizations that truly appreciate diverse individuals are in a position not only to gain competitive advantage, but also to shape the perceptions of external constituents regarding the capabilities of a diverse organization. The key is for senior management to send the message loud and clear that they are working toward a stage of appreciation of diversity. Otherwise, newcomers with diverse characteristics may not become equal partners in the organization, negating the competitive advantage of the initial investment in diverse human talents.

A constant focus in maintaining and gaining ground toward integration of constituencies and shared power will be necessary. The state an organization may have achieved toward integration is fragile. At the first sign of friction, skeptics may be all too ready to abandon the initiative. Constituency integration takes time, yet it is a key skill required of leaders of diverse organizations. And, more than ever, patience and perseverance are critical leader attributes.

Challenge Two: Diversity of Opinions

As the face of an organization's workforce changes, the number and range of perspectives increase exponentially and leaders must synthesize a diversity of opinions from individuals' unique values, cultural grounding, and the resulting accepted behaviors. Two people can view the same event with very different interpretations and formulate opinions on the basis of those perceptions and interpretations. For managers, getting to the crux of critical issues while respecting and maintaining the core integrity and dignity of participants is essential. Even in the best of circumstances, miscommunication will almost inevitably occur, because each employee has a unique social frame of reference. The challenge for the leader will be to identify and recognize, at least implicitly, the different frames of reference that are represented and to extract common denominators that may serve as a foundation for issue resolution.

In traditional homogenous organizational settings, agreement on important topics may have been readily achieved, at least in part because the participants had similar demographic, educational and cultural characteristics.

Synthesizing diverse opinions, finding the shared ground, and reaching agreement may be one of the most time-consuming, emotionally-wrenching, and energy-draining activities a leader undertakes. Each differing perspective is likely to reflect the emotional attachments of the bearer. Leaders must separate substance from rhetoric and determine the true content of the message, rather than get lost in the manner of delivery, or the particular characteristics of the delivery person.

Organizations where relative intolerance exists will be characterized by an explicit disrespect for other members who differ from the majority of organizational members (e.g., women, Hispanics, etc.). This lack of respect may be translated into visible disdain. Meetings and decision-making situations may often be characterized by my-way-or-no-way attitudes designed to intimidate minority members. Once again, members of diverse subgroups may choose not to engage in conflict and may fail to voice their concerns for fear of sanctions. This will result in less manifest conflict and present the illusion of agreement and cooperation. If conflict does emerge, it will do so when there is a punctuation mark or triggering event, and it is likely to be more pronounced. In contrast, in the company moving toward tolerance, acceptance, and on to appreciation, there will be more continual conflict as differences are aired, discussed, and remedies tried and modified. At the appreciation stage, the conflict will tend to lose the venomous tones of previous stages, but will still openly manifest itself. Without solid conflict resolution skills and mechanisms in place, organizations may experience decreased commitment and productivity.

At the intolerant stage, leaders must be sensitive to the underlying cues of latent conflict, and able to handle the explosions and diffuse them when they occur. At this and all other stages, leaders must have the skills to productively channel conflict. A core requirement of leaders confronted with a diversity of opinions is that they be role models and teachers, and that they possess the ability to effectively demonstrate facilitation and reconciliation processes.

Organizations at a stage of tolerance pay lip service to valuing the broad diversity of opinions and experience conflict that is apparent and that may create gridlock. Perceived or real lip service can be seen in documents emanating from top executive and managerial offices touting the benefits of capitalizing on diverse opinions to both internal operations and external stakeholders, such as customers. At the tolerant stage, however, these varied perspectives may be actively sought and aired, but dismissed without real consideration. The organization spends valuable resources to gain access to a potential competitive advantage, yet sabotages its own efforts when it does not synthesize and utilize the perspectives. Dismissing ideas and perspectives is the easier, less time-consuming route, yet it reflects a half-implementation of a plan that ultimately results in larger losses of time and monetary resources. Individuals see that their ideas are aired yet not acted upon, and conflict may turn into gridlock. Leaders in organizations at the tolerant stage must demonstrate the will to act on and implement the ideas of minority members of the organization. The leader as a model will thus send a message that the diversity of opinions is valued, and will move the organization to higher levels of performance.

Focused communication, political intelligence, and conflict resolution are the critical elements of modeling that lead to the development of an open, trusting atmosphere. The leader must help members remain focused by reiterating goals and summarizing the relevant contributions of group members. Without goal reiteration, participants will be distracted by individual attributes as each person speaks and brings his or her frame of reference, stake, and stand to the issue discussion.ll Likewise, summarizing relevant contributions minimizes distraction, reduces the likelihood of being mired in redundant points, and lends direction to future steps in resolving a particular issue.

Political intelligence requires some knowledge and understanding of the organization's authority structure, both formal and informal. Without knowledge of the varying factions within the organization and past divisions over contentious issues, a leader may not be able to effectively forge a common ground and achieve effective facilitation and reconciliation processes. A skilled facilitator will draw out the more reticent, perhaps newer, members, while balancing the interests of the traditional powerholders. The leader lacking these critical skills risks losing control over the meeting and agenda and creating ill will between members and toward the leader. For these reasons, organizational tenure may be advantageous when appointing individuals to leadership positions.

During the formation of Saturn, it was precisely this type of knowledge regarding the United Auto Workers' past problems with General Motors that enabled both union leaders and the senior management of GM to coordinate effectively their efforts and build the successful new division. Reid Rundell, a former GM and later, Saturn executive, and Don Ephlin, then vice president of the UAW, discussed developing a partnership of labor and management rather than an adversarial relationship. The Group of 99, talented people from throughout the union and corporation, was formed and given carte blanche to study leading edge technology and people issues by visiting companies and universities. The group members' business cards did not distinguish between union and management and the group became so cohesive that it was virtually impossible for outsiders to identify who was who. Prior knowledge and political intelligence informed Rundell and Ephlin that a clean break from the past was necessary and what had often been an adversarial gulf emerged as a unitary cohesiveness.12

Leaders of diverse groups must be involved with, and understand, the varied members and factions, and must be respected by all. Excellent conflict resolution skills enable the leader to recognize conflict at its earliest stages and effectively use earned respect to confront and resolve thorny issues, while maintaining an objective orientation. The leader must clarify arguments and prevent high emotional involvement from derailing the focus of the group. These emotional elements give validity to the dispute and leaders need to manage the emotions and move beyond them without suppressing them.l3 Reason most often prevails when the objective elements of the issue are carefully adhered to. Straying into subjective territory creates adversarial situations that lead to negative outcomes. Leaders should have training in conflict resolution and be exposed to organizational conflict and its resolution before being appointed, especially when the organization does not have the resources to absorb the failure of the group.

At a stage of appreciation, viewing all members of the organization as valuable and as having opinions that count will be automatic and second nature to the organization's decision and operational processes. In organizations where appreciation of diverse members is the standard, conflict will most often take on constructive and collaborative tones. Leaders of organizations at an appreciation stage need to monitor organizational processes and actively use the positive returns as intrinsic rewards for employees. Successful utilization of the varied perspectives should have such visible dividends as increased customer confidence, improved organizational performance indices, and well-oiled work group processes that can all be used to spur employee commitment and performance.

Challenge Three: Perceived Lack of Empathy

The challenge of integrating diverse viewpoints and opinions is integrally linked with the third challenge, overcoming a perceived lack of empathy. The ability to establish an emotional identification with followers from a variety of cultures is an attribute that distinguishes leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Mahatma Ghandi, who recognized the needs of their followers and incorporated those needs into their convictions.l4

Perceptions that the leader does not have the capacity for empathy with the followers may be most disruptive in organizations characterized as intolerant. In some intolerant organizations, there may actually be a lack of empathy with minority subgroups. Appearing empathetic will not be a priority.

Less extreme organizations face the dilemma that one group may preempt empathy from other groups. For example, some males may feel that an organization that espouses concerns for women's issues is not concerned with them. The competition between factions can place the leader in the middle of a political battle. Much like children of divorced families who learn to play one parent against the other, individuals within the factions may learn to capitalize on the leader's dual loyalties by trying to invoke feelings of guilt within the leader. If not aware of the process, leaders can become enmeshed in a social war between these diverse factions.

Leaders in mildly intolerant organizations need to confront the feuding factions head on and refuse to be put in the middle. Further, they must tackle the real issues through open, honest communication with each of the parties. The leader must make it clear in words and deeds that the needs and concerns of all diverse groups are appreciated and respected. Sticking to the issues at hand sends the message that favoritism is not to be tolerated.

Claims of favoritism and lack of empathy occasionally exist in tolerant, accepting organizations. If not kept in check, they can lead to slippage in an organization's progression toward appreciation. Leaders can prevent the development of such feelings by advocating and expressing the position that empathy need not be mutually exclusive. Leaders must be masters at perception and anticipate when such misperceptions are likely to arise. By being keenly aware of the climate of the diverse groups, leaders can forestall problems and prevent them from escalating. Once this critical skill is developed, the leader can begin to move the organization toward a stage of true appreciation of diversity where individuals are not personally threatened when a leader exercises empathy with another diverse group member.

Perceptions of lack of empathy are not solely the domain of followers. Just as followers believe leaders don't understand them, leaders often believe that followers don't understand what it's like to lead. As individuals assume leadership roles, work tasks become differentiated from other group members' tasks, leading to feelings of isolation that may further distort the perceptual process. Misperceptions also occur between groups of constituents and can contribute to the volatility of communication in a diverse work group.

Leaders must be masters at perceiving the feelings, stances, and approaches to issues of others and must be able to anticipate the varied reactions that any proposal or issue of substance is likely to draw. With this foresight, leaders can anticipate reactions and potentially disarm hostilities before they break out. Leaders must learn how to listen with empathy in a way that inspires openness and trust, attempting to understand where others are coming from, what they have been through, and where they are going. Leaders must step out of, and see beyond, their own life histories and frames of reference if they are to express and fairly distribute empathy.

A leader's success will, in part, be determined by ability to motivate through words.l5 Leaders must also have the ability to read nonverbal communications and to interpret the hidden meanings in verbal communications. Many dynamics-in particular, gender-influence conversational styles and can be the basis for misunderstanding. 16 Women, for example, may overuse apologies to convey social grace, not realizing that men may interpret apologies as indicating a lack of confidence in ability.

Leaders with broad educational backgrounds can be more effective in expressing empathy. Exposure to the humanities, arts, classics, history, and diverse cultures helps them understand varied perspectives and uncover common ground upon which to build an integration of constituents.

Challenge Four Tokenism, Real and Perceived

A traditional barrier faced in the early stages of a more diverse workforce is that of real or perceived tokenism. Real tokenism occurs when an employee is hired over other clearly more qualified candidates in an effort to address stakeholder concerns, or simply to fulfill numbers. Quota systems, which often communicate tokenism, are rarely in the best interests of an organization. In intolerant organizations, however, quota systems may be the only method to ensure that diverse individuals are included in recruitment and selection processes. Yet it is at the intolerant stage where organizational members are likely to feel the most resentment toward members hired under a quota system and where tensions between individuals are likely to be exaggerated.

Tolerant organizations and organizations that appreciate diversity are not as likely to need quota systems to ensure the selection of a diverse workforce. We advocate that all organizations phase out quota systems and replace them with active recruitment across diverse categories. Organizations that continue to use quota systems to fulfill numbers will find it difficult to move beyond the stage of intolerance because of the resentment created by the system.

Increasing the diversity of an organization often carries with it a perception that less qualified individuals are being hired. Hiring less qualified individuals is poor business practice, is questionable on legal grounds, and is likely to develop negative attitudes and feelings throughout the organization. Employees hired under any system other than merit may react defensively, feel vulnerable, and question their own value and capabilities.

Employees who are aware of the hiring process may resent new employees hired under a quota system and see them as threats to their own perceived value. The new employees may not receive fair hearings from longer-term employees, and may be excluded from informal or formal work groups. Finally, those who make the hiring decisions may unconsciously affect how the new individuals are treated, the responsibilities and assignments they are given, and the messages that are broadcast about their abilities.

While real tokenism can be avoided by not using quota systems, perceived tokenism presents a different situation. Perceived tokenism occurs when an individual is hired based on merit and ability, yet is perceived by others, to have been hired based on gender or ethnic criteria. Where tokenism is perceived, there is a tendency to attribute failures to the individual's gender or age or race and to attribute successes to happenstance or to the benevolence of the organization. These beliefs can damage the employee's self-esteem and self-identity and can eventually lead to poor performance.l7 Diverse members in intolerant organizations will face these issues more intensely than members in tolerant or accepting organizations.

As an organization's members move along the continuum from intolerance to appreciation, the problem of perceived tokenism is incrementally reduced. However, other problems can arise as an organization moves along the tolerance continuum. Minority workers will be called on more and more often to represent their minority groups. As committees and task groups are formed, an organization's or group's only African-American female is frequently asked to join-or is assigned-because of a benevolent attempt to ensure that her voice is represented. But these committees and task forces take away from real job time and can impede successful job performance. In such cases, the leader has to find a way of balancing the need for voice against the additional duties of the committee or task force.

At all stages along the tolerance continuum, advocacy is an important potential tool for the leader. 18 Leaders are in a unique position to effect changes in attitudes and perceptions toward diverse individuals by actively promoting, defending, or expressing their interests. Managers can directly encourage and inspire minority subordinates; support individual goals of minority subordinates; assign work among subordinates in ways that counter stereotypes (e.g., ask the male staff members to get coffee and doughnuts for meetings, or to organize birthday parties) push for pay parity for their minority subordinates; and mentor minority subordinates. A leader can express disapproval at racist jokes or actively and openly challenge employees' use of sexist language or stereotypes.

An example of clear and consistent communication of standards can be seen at the Financial Services Division of Electronic Data Systems. Jody Grant, the chief financial officer at EDS, has made diversity in the Financial Services Division workforce a top priority; 40 percent of recent recruits are minorities. To avoid perceptions of tokenism, Grant had two criteria: 1) create an atmosphere where minorities and women are accepted in leadership roles by their peers and subordinates, and 2) value talent. Because EDS operates in over 40 countries, Grant's division was already flexible and accustomed to absorbing new cultures and adjusting to standards of clients in foreign countries. Caucasians from headquarters have frequently been in the minority in other countries, helping them build sensitivity for others.19

Setting standards and adhering to them communicates that the leader is serious on the issue of diversity. The leader must also have the skills to draw out the best from individuals who may be considered tokens. Capitalizing on, even showcasing the skills and talents of an individual who is different on some dimension, clearly communicates that the individual is a fully participating, valued member of the organization. It is also critical that the leader dispel rumors as soon as he or she is aware of them, countering them with facts regarding selection and promotion decisions, before they become embedded in the organization's climate.

By combating the perils of perceived tokenism, the whole organization will see the positive effects realized in heightened conscientiousness, job satisfaction, job involvement, and greater innovativeness from employees. The organization's bottom line can be directly affected and its performance will be reflected in higher product quality, greater productivity, and lower turnover.

Challenge Five: Participation

In a diverse workforce setting, employee participation in critical organizational processes is necessary to enable the organization to capitalize on new, different, and creative ways of thinking.20 Such participation can ease the tension resulting from the issue of power sharing and changed power dynamics; the expression and gathering of different perspectives and opinions; the building of perceptions of empathy; and the reduction of real or perceived tokenism. Without participation of all members to arrive at plausible, workable solutions to these challenges, the goals of capturing the best that diversity brings will not be achieved. Ensuring that everyone has a voice is a critical first step toward a full appreciation of diverse organizational members.

At an intolerant stage, however, organizations often misuse employee participation to dispel rumors that diverse employees are not being accepted as fully participating organizational members. Meetings are called to gather employee input on issues, but the input is promptly dismissed by those ultimately responsible for the decision. Employees learn that their input is not used, experience a lack of empowerment, and subsequently retreat from full participation. They come to believe that future participation is futile, and an atmosphere of learned helplessness is created. Often the only way for a leader to turn this situation around is to make a concerted effort to gather representative input on an important issue, and then take strong action. However, managers must not think that acting in one or two particular circumstances will capitalize on the richness of diversity or turn around a tide of learned helplessness.

As an organization moves toward stages of tolerance and appreciation, participation becomes the norm. Sound input is acted on and implemented in the organization as a means of improving organizational processes and performance outcomes. The danger in organizations at an appreciation stage is that participation will come to be seen as unnecessary because of the organization's past achievements. As a result, organizations may reduce participation over time. This can lead to a gradual movement back toward a tolerant, but stagnant organization, or, worse, to a stage of intolerance.

Time management is one of the major dilemmas a leader will face with a fully participating, diverse work force. Participation processes and diversity initiatives both take a lot of time. Setting priorities and developing work agendas around them are essential to effectively managing diversity.

To combat the sometimes chaotic nature of the participation process, Saturn devised a system known as RASI. Tasks and training are managed by breaking them into steps and identifying people who will bear responsibility, give needed authorization, serve in support roles, and inform others. These roles are rotated so that individuals get experience in different roles and the opportunity to participate at different levels.21

Participation must be actively advocated and implemented across the organization and the results must be incorporated daily into organizational decision making and functioning. Organizational reward systems also need to be reviewed to ensure that managing diversity is a part of the reward structure.22 Incorporating diversity management into the organization's reward system sends the crucial message to all organizational members that diversity issues are not just another fad.

Challenge Six: Overcoming Inertia

As the daily management of diversity consumes more time than originally calculated and leaders feel serious time pressures, a feeling of inertia can set in-especially for leaders accustomed to rapidly agreed on solutions and implementations. Inertia will be especially problematic for leaders in organizations in the tolerant stage, because an inordinate amount of time will be spent on the previous five challenges and solutions are sought for both major and minor diversity issues.

To tackle the challenge of inertia, a leader must change his or her mindset and have very strong and clearly communicated organizational vision and goals. As Rosabeth Moss Kanter 23 suggests, leaders will need to "become passionately dedicated to vision, and fanatically committed to carrying them out . . ." The strength of the vision and goals unifies the organization and allows all organizational members to know where they are going.

Leaders need excellent conceptual, analytical, and interpersonal skills to devise these visions and goals. They must have the ability to communicate their visions in ways that maximize their significance, generate great intrinsic appeal, and inspire.24 This communication may include the use of metaphor, analogies, and organizational stories.

USAA, an insurance company of over 9,000 employees that is consistently rated as one of the top ten companies to work for, uses service to customers as its superordinate theme. The theme is prominent in weekly sales unit pep rallies that serve both motivational and goal achievement purposes by keeping employees' eyes on the larger mission of the organization.25

An organization's stage in its intolerance or appreciation of diversity should dictate a leader's use of different styles of communication. For example, a first step with intolerant employees is getting them to listen to the message regarding the potential advantages that diversity offers, whereas the same language with employees who are at an appreciation stage would give the appearance of preaching to the choir and leave employees wondering whom the leader was trying to address.

Leaders must also have the ability to gather input on organizational issues and integrate them into action plans. This requires keen timing skills to know when to set the wheels in motion. Without action that leads to implementation, an atomosphere of malingering develops and inertia overtakes the organization.

Conclusion

Diversity initiatives and training seminars should not be used to fit all organizations or organizational units. Some units may be farther along in appreciation of diverse members, and subjecting those members to diversity initiatives that are more appropriate for an intolerant or tolerant unit can incur ill will. We recommend that leaders carefully consider the following questions and activities before embarking on diversity initiatives. (1) What stage is my organization currently at on the intolerance-appreciation continuum? Do organizational units differ in their stages of intolerance-appreciation? An organizational diagnosis should be conducted before moving forward with any diversity initiative to avoid creating more harm than good.

(2) What methods or initiatives should be used in my organization? Careful consideration should be given to the available training initiatives and various methods used in each initiative. Leaders should question potential trainers about techniques that will be used so as to prevent damaging effects, such as occurred with Lucky Stores and Texaco.26 Consultation with legal counsel may be advised.

(3) How should implementation occur? Leaders need to carefully consider the modes of delivery-whether it is mass delivery or small-group; across the organizational hierarchy with top management taking an active role, or targeted at specific levels without the presence of superiors or at specific units. Should the approach be one-shot or sequenced? A critical factor for successful implementation is that top management actively and verbally supports the diversity initiative.

(4) How should monitoring and evaluation of organizational operations be conducted? Leaders need to determine who should be conducting monitoring and evaluation activities and how those activities will be undertaken within the organization. This includes determination of appropriate measures and methods to use in monitoring and evaluation. Further, we believe that leaders in diverse organizations must possess attributes and sharpen skills that were not as critical for survival and success in organizations with traditional, homogeneous constituents. Current informal methods for choosing team or group project leaders and the formal selection and promotion criteria should be revised. Otherwise, organizations will continue to do business as usual, failing to capitalize on the competitive edge diversity offers. Organizations should actively address leader selection process issues, rather than being pressured reactively as a result of grievances or litigation. Each organization will have a unique blend of constituencies that should, in part, determine organizational criteria for leader effectiveness. Forethought should be given to matching group needs with leader skills and attributes.

1 Conger, J. 1993. The brave new world of leadership training. Organizational Dynamics, 21: 46.

2 Baldwin, J.R., & Hecht, M.L. 1995. The layered perspective of cultural intolerance(s): The roots of a multidisciplinary approach. In Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: 59-91, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

3 Kanter, R.M. 1986. The new work force meets the changing workplace. Human Resource Management: Winter.

4 Tsui, A., Egan, T., & O'Reilly III, C. 1992. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 549-579.

5 Cox, T. 1993. Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

6 Bilimoria, D. & Piderit, S.K. 1994. Board committee membership. Effects of sex-based bias. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1453-1477.

7 Buchmann, A.M. 1995. Managing Director of RHR International. Author interview. 8 Conger, J. 1993. The brave new world of leadership training. Organizational Dynamics, 21: 53.

8Mackie, D.M., & Hamilton, D.L. 1993. Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

9 Brehm, J. 1966. A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press. 10 Caudron, S. 1993. Training can damage diversity efforts. Personnel Journal, April: 51-62.

10 Allison, G. 1971. Essence of decision. Harper Collins.

12 Working together: Saturn and the UAW, 1992. Hohokus, NJ: Merrimack Films.

13 Lewicki, R., Hiam, A., & Olander, K.W. 1996. Think before you speak: A complete guide to strategic negotiation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

14 Conger, J. 1993. The brave new world of leadership training. Organizational Dynamics, 21. " Conger, J. 1993. The brave new world of leadership training. Organizational Dynamics, 21. LS Tannen, D. 1994. Talking from 9 to 5. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

18 Harquail, C. 1995. Group advocacy: Organizational voice on behalf of a constituency. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, Vancouver, BC.

'9 Grant, J. 1995. Chief Financial Officer, Electronic Data Systems. Author interview. 20 Levine, J.M. 1989. Reaction to opinion deviance in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence, 2nd Edition, Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21 Samuels, D. 1995. Saturn Sales, Service, & Marketing Team Member. Author interview. 22 Cox, T. 1993. Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

23 Kanter, R.M. 1989. When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenge of Strategy, Management, and Careers in the 1990s. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

24 Conger, J. 1991. Inspiring others: The language of leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 5: 31-45.

25 Anderson, M. 1996. Vice President-Diversity, USAA. Author interview. 26 Eichenwald, K. 1996. Texaco punishes executives for racial comments and plans to destroy papers. The New York Times, Thursday, November 7: C2. Also, Eichenwald, K. 1996. The two faces of Texaco. The New York Times, Sunday, November 10.

Janice R.W. Joplin is assistant professor of management at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, and coordinates the required leadership component of the university's MBA program. She graduated from the University of Texas at Arlington in 1994 with a PhD in organizational behavior. Her research interests and publications are in the areas of leadership skill development, self-reliance, and cross-cultural analyses of aggressive workplace behaviors.

Catherine Daus is an assistant professor at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville and teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in industrial/organizational psychology, statistics, work attitudes, stress management, and groups. She received both her master of science degree and her doctorate in industrial/organizational psychology from Purdue University. Research interests include mood and emotion at work; stress and coping at work; and diversity and cross-cultural issues. She also does stress management consulting and organizational attitude/survey development.

Our discussions with executives centered around five major questions that were used to guide the direction of the interviews. Our purpose was to prompt open discussion of diversity initiatives within their companies and to gain insights into challenges each executive had experienced in planning and implementation processes. Interview Questions:

Are there challenging or pressing issues in managing a diverse workforce? If so, which do you find to be most challenging?

What are specific things you have done personally to ease those challenges? What are specific things your company has done to ease those challenges? What are your (or your company's) future plans for diversity? Do you have specific plans that will be implemented in the near future? If so, what?

In regards to diversity and the way it has been managed in your company, are there things you wish had been done differently? If so, what? And how would you have handled those things differently?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.