**Diversity**

**Introduction**

The purpose of this lesson is to define diversity, identify the benefits
of taking advantage of a diverse population, and then identify
strategies that capitalize on CAP's diverse membership. According to
Webster's diversity is simply, "the fact or quality of being diverse:
difference." The Civil Air Patrol has one of the most diverse
compositions imaginable with differences in age, religion, sex, income,
intellect, etc. Although this may seem a challenge to some (finding
common ground for communications for example is often a challenge) more
and more experts in the field are claiming that there is an opportunity
to grasp new and better ways of accomplishing our businesses by not just
affording "equal opportunity" but going a step further by understanding.
David Thomas and Robin Ely claim, "diversity should be understood as
*the varied perspectives and approaches to work* that members of
different identity groups bring." They go on to claim that these
identity groups do more than just bring their "insider information" to
the table---they bring fresh ways to accomplish a task. Now that you
know what diversity is (or at least one definition of it) you may wonder
why it important to us.

**Benefits of Diversity**

Almost everyone would agree that we have a legal and moral obligation to
work against discrimination. Today, however, leaders everywhere are
proclaiming that a more diverse workforce tends to be more effective.
DiversityInc.com (an online magazine \[subsidiary of Forbes\] dedicated
to spreading the word on diversity) claims that one of the most
compelling reasons to promote a diverse workforce is the diversity of
ideas and increased creativity attributable to diverse workforce.
Furthermore, this effectiveness is reported to have less to do with the
fact that the minorities have the inside track in an untapped market and
more to do with creative processes, framing of task, and different
communication tools. Finally, diversity works against those that do not
recognize the significance and allow diversity to work for them. Today's
composite squadron could easily consist of everyone from WWII generation
professional retiree to a Generation Y middle school student---what
motivates one certainly may not the other! Perry M. Smith (Major
General, USAF retired), a prominent leader and writer proclaimed the
need for diversity initiatives in both the military and the corporate
world. He claimed, "A program such as this is not only the right thing
to do, but also is functionally sound, for no organization can maximize
the vital feedback mechanism if only men from one race around the
corporate and organizational boardrooms across the globe" (Smith 50).
This type of thinking is actually representative of the first paradigm
of three as described by Thomas and Ely (identifying three perspectives
in dealing with discrimination.) The "discrimination-and- fairness"
paradigm and the "access-and-legitimacy" paradigms are the basis of most
initiatives to diversity to this point. The third and still emerging
paradigm, "learning-and-effectiveness," is the closest to optimum
approach and should be the goal of today's organizations.

# 

# **Discrimination and Fairness**

This paradigm is the most prevalent to date. Organization's that
subscribe to this paradigm

concentrate on equal opportunity. Thomas and Ely describe the underlying
logic as:

Prejudice has kept members of certain demographic groups out of
organizations such as ours. As a matter of fairness and to comply with
federal mandates, we need to work toward restructuring the makeup of our
organization to let it more closely reflect that of society. We need
managerial processes that ensure that all our employees are treated
equally and with respect and that some are not given unfair advantage
over others.

This paradigm equates to a diverse population, but does very little
about the way business is done. Although it increases the demographic
diversity of the organization, it does very little to change the culture
into one that maximizes the advantages of having a diverse workforce.
This is not a neutral effect---it has the potential of being very
stifling. For example, this paradigm enforces that all people are equal,
and in doing so may deter a creative person from ever presenting his or
her ideas for fear of being considered biased.

## 

## **Access and Legitimacy**

The 1980's and 1990's brought a new paradigm into being. Thomas and Ely
summarize the access-and-legitimacy paradigm with the following
statement:

We are living in an increasingly multicultural country, and new ethnic
groups are quickly gaining consumer power. Our company needs a
demographically more diverse workforce to help us gain access to these
differentiated segments. We need employees with multilingual skills in
order to understand and serve our customers better and to gain
legitimacy with them. Diversity isn't just fair; it makes business
sense.

Where the discrimination-and-fairness paradigm focused on a color- and
gender-blind workforce, this paradigm is based on not only the
acceptance, but also the celebration of differences. The strength of
this initiative rests mostly in the commercial sectors that have a
market they are trying to get to and the fact that it is again easily
understandable by all. However, where the discrimination-and-fairness
paradigm may have been too quick to avoid differences, the
access-and-legitimacy paradigm may be too quick to note the
differences---pushing for diverse solutions without much analysis just
because they are diverse. This paradigm remains only partially adequate.

**Connecting Diversity to Work Perspectives**

Recently, the evolution of diversity has begun to finally place credit
for new ways of doing business on the shoulders of a diverse population.
Thomas and Ely's research has led them to some shining examples where
organizations have, "developed an outlook on diversity that enables them
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." First, discrimination-and-fairness attempted to
assimilate by treating everyone exactly the same. Then
access-and-legitimacy attempted to coalesce by celebrating the
differences and assigning people where they most likely will fit the
demographics of the task. Finally, this emerging paradigm seems just
right---fairness for all, acknowledging differences, but internalizing
and learning from the different perspectives as they are appropriate for
the task at hand. This research has very real applicability for any
organization, not just those where the mission is market oriented. Most
of us would agree that this last paradigm is where we would like our
organizations to be, but how we get there is another subject.

**Strategy**

Changing a culture, as we are discussing in this instance, is no simple
task and not one that will be completed in a weekend. The cultural
climate of your organization contains three elements:

1)  Artifacts (readily observable indicators like your written guidance
    on diversity).

2)  Values and beliefs (not directly observable, but easily distilled
    like someone's explanation for why they decided to go with a certain
    decision).

3)  Underlying assumptions (widely shared beliefs that have become a
    mind-set).

(Bounds 102)

Embedding mechanisms (like policy or just your member's perception of
the policy) can be used to slowly shift paradigms. Thomas and Ely claim
that there are eight preconditions that existed in organizations that
were successful in shifting to this emerging paradigm:

1)  Leadership must understand that a diverse workforce will embody
    different perspectives and approaches to work, and must truly value
    variety of opinion and insight.

2)  The leadership must recognize both the learning opportunities and
    the challenges that the expression of different perspectives
    presents for an organization.

3)  The organizational culture must create an expectation of high
    standards of performance from everyone.

4)  The organizational culture must stimulate personal development.

5)  The organizational culture must encourage openness.

6)  The culture must make workers feel valued.

7)  The organization must have a well-articulated and widely understood
    mission.

8)  The organization must have a relatively egalitarian, nonbureaucratic
    structure.

**Conclusion**

It is a natural tendency for us to socialize with like-minded
individuals. The problem with this is that if we think alike, we are not
very likely to learn anything new! Diversity is everything you, as a
squadron leader, make it to be. Your actions and reactions are embedding
mechanisms in your organizations culture (whether you intend them to be
or not). Shifting your organization's paradigm to one where everyone is,
"...on the same team, with our differences---not despite them," is a
logical step in the social evolution of today's organizations (92). It
is also a quest that will require persistence by leaders like you---but
not one without its rewards.