In a continuing dialogue on Leadership in Peril, let me turn to a casual factor which will continue to place leadership in peril for the foreseeable future. This research review includes portions from my previous research on this subject which I have completed. There is continuous discussion as to the impact of globalization on America, but there is little discussion as to the globalization of America and whether our leaders have the competencies required to lead. Diversity is a growing reality within the United States. The statistics have been published in numerous studies and articles, but very little narrative has taken place as to the impact of the emerging diversity on leadership. One dynamic is our society’s preparing our future leaders which should be provided by our graduate institutions. However the question is, have our academic institutions kept pace with societal trends in providing a diversity competency to graduate management students to lead diverse organizations? This literature review will examine the growing amount of research focused on diversity in graduate education in management. America’s educational institutions offering graduate level management curriculums are falling short in delivering on the educational requirements set forth by The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International (Bell, Connerley, & Cocchiara, 2009); (Egan & Bendick, Jr., 2008); (Kulik & Roberson, 2008). The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International pronouncement states the requirement “to prepare their students to work in an environment of strong global economic forces, wide differences in organizational and cultural values, and growing cultural diversity among employees and organizations” (Egan & Bendick, Jr., p.387). The ability to interact and lead individuals or organizations different from self is a growing requirement in the U.S. (Johnson, 2008; Bell, Connerley, & Cocchiara, 2009; Egan & Bendick, Jr. 2008; Hurtado, Mayhew, & Engberg 2012; Stewart, Crary, & Humberd, 2008). Societal trends and emerging pressure from both the private sector and professional associations are requiring academic institutions offering graduate management curriculums to prepare their students for a growing diverse population (Kulik & Roberson, 2008; Avery & Thomas, 2004). According to projections of the population in the United States by Passel and Cohn (2008) of the Pew Research Center, “one in five Americans will be an immigrant by 2050” further stating “with the Latino population will triple in size” (p.i). Other key diversity considerations presented by Passel and Cohn is whites will comprise less than 50% with racial/ethnic groups composing 53% of which 19% will be foreign born (p.1). If graduate students are to be successful in society, potentially as society’s future leaders, research shows graduate academic institutions must provide the competency in the realm of diversity as the societal trends of diversity will continue.
The guiding question to this research is; how do students in US organizational leadership programs at the graduate level gain multicultural competencies. This research is important for the following four reasons. First, a review of the literature will show diversity is an emerging field of study within the research community. Second, the literature will highlight current deficiencies in graduate management education in the area of diversity learning. Third, a review of the literature will provide insight into the unanticipated result of current management curriculums on the attending students. Finally, a review of the research will provide a lens into the weaknesses of current research including the gaps future research will need to address.
The results of this literature review will consider several unanswered, currently debated topics within the field of diversity education at the graduate level, and explore why many of our graduate students are not acquiring the competency in the area of leading diverse organizations. Lastly, the results will show that diversity, while heralded by the academic sector, may not be rooted as firm in a commitment to diversity as verbalized. The literature review will culminate with the harsh realities of today’s educational status and recommendations for further research to improve how graduate students in management can acquire diversity learning.
Emerging Field of Interest:
Utilizing published peer reviewed articles as an indicator of research relevance and interest, there is a growing emergence of research and literature by scholars. Coleman (2012) conducted a literature review of all diversity related articles published in Educational Management Administration & Leadership Journal and found from 1972-2012, a span of four decades, there were sixty articles published. A key insight into Coleman’s listing of publications is that while it took 28 years to publish 25 articles, it only took thirteen years to publish 35 or 58% of the total 60 articles published since 1972 confirming her statement describing the growth as captivating. In segmenting Coleman’s research findings further, prior to 2000, 18 of the 25 articles were gender related. Since 2000, gender oriented articles has been reduced to about 50% of total articles published as the growth in articles focused on the broader context of diversity has grown in share of interest and prevalence. In another literature review study, Kulik and Roberson (2008) reviewed research on diversity education segmenting their research into education in academic settings and training in organizational settings. In total identifying “71 published articles containing 74 studies” (p.311). In examining their list of studies which excluded study abroad programs, interracial living arrangements, or peer-led discussion groups, a similar trend appears with 51 of the 74 or 69% of total studies conducted since 2000. This observation is in alignment with Bell and Kravitz (2008), who write in their article that diversity research is doubling every five years (p.301).
Diversity; Embraced or Not by the Academic Community:
Before framing the context of current approaches to diversity education at the graduate level, the determination as to the willingness and commitment of the academic community must be examined. The elephant in the room when it comes to diversity with many universities is the lack of advocacy by its administrative body inclusive of professors. Faculty play a large role in the students’ perception of academic importance (Park & Denson, 2009). A quantitative research study by Park and Denson analyzed over 65 thousand survey responses segmenting the results into low, moderate, and high levels of advocacy of diversity by faculty. The study found various levels of advocacy of diversity within various demographics and behavioral segments in academia. Park and Denson found women “were twenty percentage points more likely to be high scorers than men” (p.422). The science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) male professors scored very low in advocacy of diversity. Professors of color, Black, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Latino are more likely to be advocates of diversity (p.426). While type of institution did not vary in terms of advocacy, institutions which embrace an institutional climate for diversity appears to pressure faculty to more actively embrace diversity. An interesting statistic from a Park and Denson (2009) study is an indicator relative to diversity education. The study showed 90% of faculty stated they support diversity in word, but by segment tabulation according to the study, the actual advocacy levels are much lower.
In another study by Brayboy (2003) found in a qualitative study aligned with Park and Denson’s work is that diversity advocacy, while contained in the literature and language, does not manifest itself in behavior or importance. Brayboy also found that in primarily white academic institutions, diversity is something of a non-integrated effort without inclusion within the university’s structure or culture. Another finding which has implications relative to graduate management students is the apparent absence of diversity in main stream courses. Brayboy also found based on interviews that typically a non-white faculty member will be the instructor for courses of diversity. The implied perceptions by students’ observation of the subtle lack of advocacy by white members of faculty does not go un-noticed. As noted in Talbot’s (1996) research findings, students notice a discrepancy between what is said by the university in relation to diversity and what they observe by the university in relation to diversity. Hurtado, Mayhew, & Engberg (2012) align with Talbot stating in their article a disconnection between word and deed by institutions in the area of diversity continues to exist. The lack of diversity advocacy resident within the academic universe presents a challenge in graduate students’ acquisition of a diversity competence.
Current Academic Approach to Diversity:
In many institutions, the International Business professors are being solicited to teach multicultural courses providing universities the ability not to invest in a domestic and international course and defining culture as single state culture (Egan & Bendick, Jr., 2008). Teaching simple stereotypes or worldviews does not prepare a student to enter a multi-cultural diverse complex society as is developing in the United States. Texts selected are also suspect as pointed out by (Egan & Bendick, Jr., 2008) stating in their article referencing a study (Tipton, 2006) where errors of fact and interpretation relative to cultures were found in a recent review of 16 widely used texts.
Researchers acknowledge there is evidence of success with studied approaches when instructors invest in a stimulating learning environment, not based on prescribed curriculums (Lee, Williams, & Kilaberia, 2012; Avery & Thomas, 2004; Chabon & Lee-Wilkerson, 2006). Structured learning as presented in several universities is identified as necessary, but has proven to fall short of achieving learning outcomes (Lee, Williams, & Kilaberia, 2012). Active learning which provides both content and contact increases diversity learning though requires a higher investment by the instructor (Avery & Thomas, 2004). In addition, as Kulik and Roberson highlight in their research, skills acquisition which is better fostered through active learning are critical as one of the learning outcomes if students’ future ability to work effectively in a diverse world is to be realized. Unfortunately, many universities still embrace a structured pedagogy which limits how students learn to acquire a quality competency in diversity.
Today’s Student Population’s Experience and Outcomes
Students arrive at undergraduate college many times with little or no significant exposure to diversity and consequently have no understanding of group differences except through the lens of the media (Avery & Thomas, 2008, p.384). However, the student population, like the general population, is shifting toward a more diverse composition from a historical white middle class male orientation” (Talbot, 1996, p.163). Stewart, Crary, and Humbred (2008) write the homogeneity of students’ homes results in a limited understanding and exposure to individuals or groups different from them causing the individual to default to a worldview (p.377). Students entering college may indeed be limited in their understanding and exposure, however diversity is viewed as a subject of interest for them as reflected in Talbot’s study. This study showed “78.2% of students indicated diversity training was very important to them individually” (p.167). Students who are exposed to a diversity or cultural activity such as a workshop or taking a class “increases student’s openness to diversity and sensitivity and decreases stereotypes” (Avery & Thomas, p.384). Studies have shown that values may change throughout the experience a student has at university dependent on their curriculum which will be the focus of the next paragraph.
Based on research conducted, it appears students in current management curriculums are not developing relative to the educational goals set forth by The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International referenced in the introduction section. Krishnan (2008) conducted two longitudinal studies examining students’ personal values. The two longitudinal studies conducted provided the opportunity to gather data over a 7 year period. The results demonstrated that “self-oriented values become more important and others-oriented values become less important” for students completing a management program of two years in length (p.245). The desired outcome is for students graduating to be prepared to perform in an environment consisting of global economic forces, organizations that do not reflect self, and growing cultural diversity among employees and organizations, a shift to self-oriented values versus other-oriented values in the current curriculum is not achieving the stated objective (Egan & Bendick, Jr., 2008). Hurtado, Mayhew, and Engberg (2012), in a quantitative study, measuring the degree moral reasoning was impacted with students attending diversity courses versus a traditional management curriculum found significant effect on moral reasoning and openness to diversity. Moral reasoning was “significantly improved” with students enrolling in a diversity course versus a management course. This extension into student profiles may implications for further research for management students in graduate school.
A Critical Lens:
Mature areas of investigation have established definitions and theories resulting from what Kuhn (2012) describes as “to be those non-cumulative developmental episodes in which an older paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one” (p.92). This is the status of the field of inquiry into the broader definition of diversity today, specifically within the context of graduate education in the subject of diversity. The emerging lack of discipline by scholars has generated chaos at the most elementary level as echoed by Thomas (2008), a renowned thought leader in diversity education, who acknowledges he would be grateful if there was at least an agreement in defining diversity. Kulik and Robinson (2008) in another article focused on the goals of diversity including establishing a common knowledge base in the area of diversity education allowing the sharing of research. Embrick (2011) opens his article with a dedicated definition of diversity as a subhead in his introduction before starting his narrative. Other scholars may have it buried in their narrative while some others do not identify their investigative definition at all. This fundamental lack of discipline by many of the field’s most renowned researchers inserts a lack of confusion and value elevating the difficulty to assess research and further the inquiry when many scholars are operating from a different center of reference.
The growth of diversity as, Thomas recognizes, has resulted in “major gaps” and the field is still, “building and discovering concepts” (p.407). Kulik and Robinson (2008) in another article echoes Thomas discussing the emerging amount of unanswered questions providing a research agenda for the years to come in the area of diversity education. Diversity, based on this review of literature, coupled with the narrative of key opinion leaders, is in an environment where an apparent haste to publish, is resulting in poorly executing the discipline required of good research. In absence of a disciplined approach, studies have taken the liberty to justify diversity inclusion thereby diluting the relevancy of diversity in the United States. An example is Egan & Bendick, Jr.’s (2008) proposal for a combined course consolidating multicultural studies within the internal business curriculum with a domestic diversity program to solve the absence of a dedicated domestic course. While Egan & Bendick, Jr. offered several quality insights in their research, this recommendation would dilute diversity, not resolve the issue of universities not recognizing the need for a separate domestic course. Egan & Bendick, Jr. self-admit that the curriculum would have to be allocated out to other courses to allow for the full breadth of the subject to be covered resulting in a dilutive, non-concentrated approach to an emerging area of interest.
Some Recommendations for the Road Forward
The continued investigation of diversity or multicultural education and the acquisition of the competency to lead diverse organizations will not come without its challenges. It would be naïve to move forward without recognizing the topic of diversity will not receive resistance given the existence of biases and views even though we hail America as the global beacon of equality and justice (Embrick, 2011). As such, according to research our universities are comprised of individuals who are apparently comfortable in the meritocracy eminent today (Park & Denson, 2009). The reality of continued growth in diversity and society’s moral compass requires scholars continuing research and recommended improvements to diversity education understanding the anticipated pushback.
There are several recommendations based on this review of current literature which can be researched to determine if students gain a greater competency in diversity learning in the graduate management programs. A simple improvement based on literature would be the selection of appropriate and current text books on diversity (Egan & Bendick, Jr., 2008). As simple as this recommendation is, it is critical that students have the ability to learn the latest accurate perspectives on diversity and is a recommendation which would be expected to not receive tremendous pushback.
If graduate universities are to excel in providing students acquiring diversity competency, it has to avail itself to innovative pedagogy approaches with a focus on active learning. Diversity, unlike math or science, is a reflexive area of study as meaning and ethics come to bear in the pedagogical process (Nelson, Poms, & Wolf, 2012). Chabon & Lee-Wilkerson, (2006) conducted a study of 18 graduate students to research the learning impact of journal writing stating, “journal writing is a teaching/learning exercise in which students express in writing their comprehension of, response to, or analysis of an event, experience or concept” (p.146). Realizing journal writing has been endorsed as an instructional strategy, the evaluation of the learning measure has received challenges, however Chabon & Lee-Wilkerson’s study showed positive results across all dimensions of learning outcomes (p.152). The benefits of this approach was also seen in a study by Lee, Williams, & Kilaberia (2012) where they did a qualitative study on first year college students at the University of Minnesota. The university mandates a course on inquiry for all incoming freshman. The course is not diversity dedicated, but is a major focus. What they found, similar to Chabon & Lee-Wilkerson, was active learning including collaborative projects and biographical stories with student interactions resulted in a higher appreciation, understanding, and sensitivity to diversity with students who were different than themselves (p.210).
Bell, Connerley, & Cocchiara (2009) put forth a recommendation which is worthy of further research. Making diversity programs mandatory in all curriculums. While endorsed, given the complexity of diversity, the learning process, and the scope of social content, it would be recommended that not only is a diversity course mandatory, but diversity would follow other social science courses. It comes down to the issue of importance. If Economics I & II can be required with business schools, or Philosophy can be segmented based on subject, there remains absent a reason given all the insights from research why graduate universities should not move in this direction with not only diversity education being mandatory, but requiring a progressive learning experience across multiple courses (Lee, Williams & Kilaberia, 2012).
Diversity as suggested in the findings of current environments is a topic of differences in stated versus behaved characteristics. This is an important consideration when designing research to explore aspects of diversity including educational efforts. Research which draws conclusions and recommendations on self-reported behavior can lead to erroneous findings as research demonstrates there is a gap in stated versus actual behavior. Thus if research findings, of which several reviewed for this literature review contained, formulate recommendations or insights on self-defined stated behavior, there is a risk of providing misrepresented actual behavior.
Finally, while it appears obvious, universities must begin to expand their own diversity composition as Park & Denson (2009) recommend from their research. Universities must communicate through their actions to their graduate students who want to gain a competency in diversity, but are at cognitive conflict as they view their universities behavior which does not align, that diversity is not only important given the societal trends, but beneficial in many areas of leadership.
It is critical as the field of exploration into diversity and multicultural education is pursued, disciplined, specifically targeted research is executed. The recommendations listed above were framed with further research in mind. Each recommendation sets forth a researchable proposition where key insights could be garnished to improve how graduate students in management programs acquire a competency in diversity.
Summary
The summation of insight would strongly suggest in terms of the guiding question to this research of how do students in U.S. organizational leadership programs at the Master’s level gain multicultural competencies learn must be currently answered in many programs they don’t. The ability of students at the graduate level to learn diversity is obstructed by environmental factors, pedagogy approaches, or the absence of a presence in the curriculum at some institutions. The ability of students to have the comfort, skill, and knowledge to perform in a multicultural society will be critical based on demographic trends. Based on the research, many institutions of higher learning are simply not offering, or doing their students a dis-service by not providing them with quality multicultural education.
The process will be a lengthy one as research shows there are more dynamics at play than strictly an altering of approach, it also requires an attitudinal and cognitive shift in how the university community, inclusive of its professors, embrace and become advocates of diversity. While the journey may be long with numerous hurdles to overcome, the student and societal value is worth the journey if we want leaders who can lead diverse organizations. It is clear, based on research to date and demographic trends in the U.S., graduate students and a core of our future leaders, if they are to be successful and contribute to society, must have a learning experience which provides the ability to be comfortable, knowledgeable and skilled in a multicultural America in the 21st century.
References
Avery, D. R., & Thomas, K. M. (2004). Blending Content and Contact: The Roles of Diversity Curriculum and Campus Heterogeneity in Fostering Diversity Management Competency. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 380-396. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2004.15112544
Bell, M. P., Connerley, M. L., & Cocchiara, F. K. (2009). The Case for Mandatory Diversity Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(4), 597-609.
Bell, M. P., & Kravitz, D. A. (2008). From the Guest Co-Editors: What Do We Know and Need to Learn About Diversity Education and Training? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 301-308. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251669
Brayboy, B. M. J. (2003). The implementation of diversity in predominantly white colleges and universities. Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 72-86.
Chabon, S. S., & Lee-Wilkerson, D. (2006). Use of journal writing in the assessment of CSD students' learning about diversity: a method worthy of reflection. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 27(3), 146.
Egan, M. L., & Bendick, J. M. (2008). Combining Multicultural Management and Diversity Into One Course on Cultural Competence. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 387-393. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251675
Embrick, D. G. (2011). The Diversity Ideology in the Business World: A New Oppression for a New Age. Critical Sociology (Sage Publications, Ltd.), 37(5), 541-556. doi: 10.1177/0896920510380076
Hurtado, S., Mayhew, M. J., & Engberg, M. E. (2012). Diversity Courses and Students' Moral Reasoning: A Model of Predispositions and Change. Journal of Moral Education, 41(2), 201-224.
Johnson, C. D. (2008). It's More Than the Five To Do's: Insights on Diversity Education and Training From Roosevelt Thomas, a Pioneer and Thought Leader in the Field. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 406-417. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251677
Krishnan, V. (2008). Impact of MBA Education on Students’ Values: Two Longitudinal Studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2), 233-246. doi: 10.1007/s10551-007-9614-y
Kuhn, Thomas S. & Hacking, I (2012-04-18), the Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. University of Chicago Press, [Kindle DX version}. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Kulik, C. T., & Roberson, L. (2008). Common Goals and Golden Opportunities: Evaluations of Diversity Education in Academic and Organizational Settings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 309-331. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251670
Lee, A. a. u. e., Williams, R., & Kilaberia, R. (2012). Engaging Diversity in First-Year College Classrooms. Innovative Higher Education, 37(3), 199-213. doi: 10.1007/s10755-011-9195-7
Nelson, J. K., Poms, L. W., & Wolf, P. P. (2012). Developing Efficacy Beliefs for Ethics and Diversity Management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(1), 49-68. doi: 10.5465/amle.2009.00115
Park, J. J., & Denson, N. (2009). Attitudes and Advocacy: Understanding Faculty Views on Racial/Ethnic Diversity. Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 415-438.
Passel, Jeffrey S. & Cohn, D’Vera. (2008) U.S. Population Projections: 2005–2050. Pew Research Center, Sociological & Demographic Trends, Washington, D.C.
Stewart, M. M., Crary, M., & Humberd, B. K. (2008). Teaching Value in Diversity: On the Folly of Espousing Inclusion, While Practicing Exclusion. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 374-386. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251674
Talbot, D. M. (1996). Master's students' perspectives on their graduate education regarding issues of diversity. Naspa Journal., 33, 163-178.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367.