Triple Impact (1992)

A comparative study of

Outreach strategies and training and sensitivity to diversity

Strategies of Human Resources Policy Driven

A thesis submitted by: Doris Lena Butterfly

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of

Master of Human Resources and Organizational Development

The University of San Francisco, March, 2000

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

Background problem

Cultural diversity has become the watchword for 1990. We hear less and less about equal opportunities for employment and promotion measures and programs, but learning about multiculturalism, the management of cultural diversity, and diversity training. The importance of cultural diversity movement is largely a result of predicted demographic changes are already underway in the workforce of America. In 1987, the Hudson Institute published a report on the redevelopment of 2000 which provides for sweeping changes in the demographic composition of the U.S. workforce (Ricucci, 1997, pp. 1).

Now, some eight years after the various population projections have been, human resources specialists, policy makers and researchers are beginning to address the effectiveness of training programs for diversity (Ricucci, 1997, p. 2).

progressive managers are more aware of the current demographic trends and social. In short, these managers have a conscience "intellectual" diversity. They know the facts about the workforce and changing demographics have begun to examine the impact on their respective organizations (Stoner and Russell-Chapin, 1997, p. 1).

Unfortunately, many contemporary organizations have not progressed beyond this preliminary analysis "intellectual awareness" stage. Therefore, these organizations are languishing in the initial phases of the diversity movement. Many know about diversity, but failure to truly manage (Stoner et al., 1997, p. 2). While managers have an "intellectual" awareness and understanding of the response of recent and emerging issues, the organization - the adoption "a process of diversity of meaning - has been limited and fragmented (Stoner et al., 1997, p. 3).

Perhaps the most critical failure on the organizations' efforts to prepare the workforce of 2000 is that many employers have not integrated their diversity initiatives throughout the long-term goals and missions organization. They tend to make "one shot" deal. Managing diversity is not just a simple program, but an initiative that will take many years (Ricucci, 1997, p. 4).

While organizations recognize the need to work more accepting differences, they place too much emphasis on changing people's attitudes in society rather than to change the corporate culture itself. They do this by focusing solely on diversity training included (Caudron & Haynes, 1997, p.2).

Some aspects of diversity management are necessary, or at least strongly advised, as a matter of law. In the U.S., the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) collectively prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, color, race, religion, pregnancy, national origin, age or physical ability.

The large number of workers covered by these laws suggests that employers have every incentive to invest in these activities of diversity management that employee training and organizational research to uncover evidence of unfair treatment of workers related to group membership various issues addressed in the legislation (Cox, 1994, p. 12).

In addition.