INTEGRATING WORKFORCE DIVERSITY INTO THE OB CURRICULUM

The version below was resubmitted to the Journal of Management Education in June 1996.

For the published version see: Journal of Management Education, Vol.22, No. 2, April 1998, pp. 122-148.

We appreciate the suggestions of Mala Nani Htun, Jacqueline Hood, and Alistair Preston on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The insightful comments of anonymous JME reviewers and the editor helped to shape the revised manuscript.

Changing U.S. labor force demographics, the gradual ascension of women and people of color into academic positions, and the efforts of private industry to value employee differences are factors driving the adaptation of traditional management and business school curricula to include the theory and practice of workforce diversity. However, obstacles remain, such as faculty resistance, a lack of academic resources, and the inertia of conventional theory and pedagogy. Topics such as workforce diversity, moreover, are frequently emotionally-charged. In this article, we describe and analyze an experiment to integrate the subject of workforce diversity into the business curriculum at a major university in the southwestern United States. We call this experiment the diversity-organizational behavior (DOB) initiative. Students, instructors, and the current administration of the college perceive the DOB initiative to be successful in integrating diversity into the curriculum in a way that is useful and educational for students.

The southwestern United States is a good environment in which to address the issue of workforce diversity in the college curriculum. There are immigrants arriving from countries to the south; it is home to population groups that speak a language other than English; there are many racio-ethnic groups that live in the region including American Indians, Asian Americans, Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites. In one state, non-whites under the age of 18 are the most rapidly growing demographic group (Schwartz & Exter, 1989). This region’s colleges reflect such diversity and more, and its students constitute a heterogeneous group who, potentially, can enhance the classroom learning experience. Moreover, all regions of the country have particular configurations of people who can actively enhance a curriculum that addresses the subject of workforce diversity.

In this article workforce diversity is understood as the presence in organizations of men and women from different cultural and racio-ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, physical abilities and age.¹ The topic of workforce diversity addresses both interpersonal and group dynamics within organizations as well as managerial strategies that value employee differences. Recently, a small group of faculty members (including the authors) began to integrate the subject of workforce diversity into the business curriculum through a required course. This approach contrasts with those that introduce the topic of workforce diversity into the curriculum through elective courses or periodic diversity-teaching modules. Through regular group meetings, instructors designed a DOB course that we used to structure the treatment of diversity in our business curriculum. The teaching challenge we faced was to integrate workforce diversity into a required organizational behavior (OB) course and to create a meaningful learning experience for students that would also be acceptable to the college.

In the first section of this article, we outline the events which inspired us to begin the DOB initiative along with some of the constraints. We explain the design of the DOB course in the second section, including the subject matter, and examples of specific topics and exercises. In the third section, we review the conceptual foundations of the DOB course. The fourth section describes the people, material resources, and planning processes that make up our teaching program. We then summarize the students' reactions to the initiative along with some of the instructor’s reactions. In conclusion we discuss the implications of the experiment for business and management programs.

The diversity-organizational behavior (DOB) initiative evolved in an institutional context that slowly responded to external forces and faculty initiatives. Although we review the events and contributory factors that led to the implementation of the DOB initiative, it would be erroneous to suggest that these constitute a sequence of events that nicely fit some general schema. We share the impression that, historically, the climate of the college was disinclined to confront workplace diversity issues both institutionally and in the curriculum. Before the start of the DOB initiative, senior administrators in the college expressed a verbal interest in broadening the faculty composition, and in discussing diversity awareness in the curriculum, yet, only sporadic progress ensued. For example, a review of the faculty meeting minutes indicates that diversity issues held only minimal attention in the several years prior to and during our initiative.

Aside from the authors’ two brief oral progress reports during the first year of the initiative, the college faculty meetings addressed workforce diversity only when the Director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Office informed the faculty about their obligations to accommodate physically challenged individuals in classes. The filing of a student complaint prompted her invitation to speak. Moreover, the senior administrative positions and the advisory board membership of the college remained almost exclusively white male, reflecting the situation in other U.S. business schools (AACSB, 1992).

At the same time, the racio-ethnicity of the tenure-track faculty was predominantly white (87 percent) (University of New Mexico Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Office, 1993) while the make up of the undergraduate student population was almost 40 percent non-white. These factors and others served to perpetuate a homogeneous organizational culture (Cox, 1991) which made us disinclined to advocate attention to diversity issues too vigorously. The college in general was not actively dealing with diversity (Smith, 1995). Such reluctance to effectively address workforce diversity within business schools mirrors the reluctance exhibited in many other higher education organizations (Smith, 1995). From this perspective, the entire business college, as well as the classroom, can be a learning laboratory around valuing diversity.

At the national, state, and local levels, several events transpired in support of a more active diversity agenda that inspired several faculty members who wanted to introduce the DOB initiative. The American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB, 1993) issued new accreditation standards that required the curricula to cover the "impact of demographic diversity on organizations." In response to this directive, the Dean's office at our college circulated an article on teaching diversity (AACSB, 1992), and suggested that the OB program could look into this issue.

In the metropolitan area of the college, companies such as Digital, U.S. West, Marriott, Ethicon (Johnson and Johnson), and a well-known national laboratory began to implement workforce diversity training programs for managers and employees. These program directors described their successful organizational models for addressing issues of employee diversity in the college’s business classes and inspired both students and faculty.

Other local events took place that served to reinforce the college’s need to embark on the DOB initiative. A statewide public policy action organization held a series of workshops and a major town hall meeting that focused on cultural pluralism. The resulting recommendations in their report (New Mexico First, 1993) received a good deal of press. Moreover, Levi Strauss sponsored a project in the Albuquerque area to reduce institutional racism in the community, and Robert Haas, its chief executive officer, spoke at our college.

Furthermore, The New Mexico State Legislature requested the appointment of a special committee to investigate the University's Human Resources Department after citizens alleged discrimination and workplace harassment (State of New Mexico, 1994). And the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs investigated alleged discriminatory hiring and promotion policies at the University from 1989-91. Many departments had to review their faculty and staff personnel policies. These events forced an environment where people at the University had to deal programmatically with issues of employee and student diversity. Meanwhile, the University began to develop policy guidelines to address issues of cultural pluralism throughout the institution as a priority for the year 2000 (University of New Mexico, 1990).

Within the college, one program, historically, had responded to issues of diversity. The OB program initiated graduate elective courses on women in management and cross-cultural organizational behavior ten and twenty years ago, respectively. Because students appeared to respond positively to these courses, one of us integrated these subjects into both required and elective undergraduate and graduate OB courses. More recently, and due to the factors discussed above, the OB faculty agreed to systematically integrate workforce diversity into the first of the two required undergraduate OB classes. Following this decision, the faculty obtained a teaching grant for purchasing audiovisual resources on workforce diversity for the classroom. At the same time, the program recruited and hired a uniquely qualified visiting faculty member with significant expertise in experiential learning, OB, and workforce diversity. These events helped to launch the DOB initiative.

As the DOB faculty team began to transform the college’s traditional OB experiential course to incorporate workforce diversity, simultaneously, we initiated an ongoing process of refining the content and delivery of the course within the general parameters of the course. We agreed, early on, about the general goals of the course:

Integration of the "missing" workforce diversity material into the OB framework involved making appropriate choices about the relevant OB topics to include in the course as well as relevant workforce diversity topics. We examined how these respective topics corresponded to one another, and decided where in the course such topics could be covered. Our time constraints involved a one semester course with 40 contact hours.

The DOB course design that evolved intentionally permitted instructors flexibility in conducting their classes. We believe that it is important for each instructor to have as much latitude as possible for constructing an appropriate fit of topics and for developing relevant experiential approaches. Some of us integrated concepts from OB and diversity in each class, while one instructor addressed the topics sequentially (first traditional OB and then workforce diversity), leaving the integration to class discussions and student assignments. For example, one course dealt rigorously with traditional OB content, another course was less rigorous in OB content, while a third course experimented with reframing the OB theory base.

Student course assignments were either self-selected or assigned and could be performed individually or in groups. Learning formats such as fishbowls, role plays, simulations, debates, small group discussions, and group projects complemented the traditional teaching tools such as lectures, case studies, and student presentations. We relied, in part, on experiential OB workbooks that, in varying degrees, include workforce diversity (Lau & Shami, 1992; Kolb, 1991; Lewicki, 1988; Marcic, 1992b; Powell, 1994).

The DOB course framework that we developed is displayed in Table 1: Diversity - Organizational Behavior Course Design. It depicts the range and types of topics and exercises in the course.

The left column in Table 1 identifies four analytical categories (individual, interpersonal, group, and organizational) that form the rows across the table. These categories divide up both the OB and workforce diversity subject matter. The second column from the left illustrates traditional OB topics while the second column from the right identifies workforce diversity topics that correspond to the OB topics in the same category (or row). The right column gives examples of experiential or other exercises that we used and that corresponded to a topic in one or both columns to the left. The topics and exercises are a partial inventory of what we collectively used. Instructors alter the topics or develop their own exercises, or they may adapt one from an experiential text. Thus the course framework is dynamic and adaptable to each instructor and the needs of each class.

The workforce diversity topics (second column from right) in Table 1 correspond to the OB topics (second column from the left) although the relationship may be more apparent or more subtle depending on one’s perspective. For example, the "primary and secondary dimensions of diversity" topic is listed in the individual level category, and it is appropriately placed here in so far as the classroom focus is on how a student views him or herself. However, the moment that the student begins to apply this concept to another person and to think about and have expectations of another student, she begins to deal with issues of group identity. Therefore, this particular topic could more appropriately belong in the group or interpersonal level category.

Similarly we place the topics of stereotyping and prejudice under the interpersonal level category, whereas they could be listed in the individual level category. The exercise "presentations on group dimensions of diversity" is found in the group level category because several instructors invite student group presentations on characteristics and contributions of different identity groups to the workforce. For example, in our classes students have focused on: Women, Hispanics, Anglo Americans, and Native Americans.

Many of the exercises can be placed under several topic categories. The placement depends on the type of analysis or debriefing that the instructor intends. The exercises are meant to be flexible and adaptable to permit meaningful learning experiences. For example, we list the "What I need from others so I can participate" exercise in the individual level category. This is essentially an exercise that develops operating norms for the entire class. Norms usually are group level phenomenon. However, at this point in the course, norms have not been developed for the entire class. Therefore, at the beginning of the course we ask students what they need to effectively participate in the class, and we ask them to write down at least three relevant items. Then students meet in groups to share and discuss their items collectively. Later on in the semester, this data becomes part of the material that develops into class norms. Our reluctance to place topics in exclusive categories is intended to give the instructor discretion; it also illustrates the loose boundaries and multiple perspectives brought to bear on any given topic. Such topic-fuzziness permits instructors to experiment with topic placement and to teach from levels of analysis that are appropriate for them.

To demonstrate how we integrate the material from the four columns in Table 1 and how this becomes operationalized in the classroom, we display one sample exercise from each of the four levels of categories in Tables 2 to 5. These exercises include: Dimensions of Diversity Pie Chart - in the individual level category (see Table 2); Gender and Communication Fishbowl - in the interpersonal level category (see Table 3); Blue - Green Game - in the group level category (see Table 4); and Diversity Audit of An Organization - in the organizational level category (see Table 5). The authors either created new exercises or modified existing ones in Table 2 - 5.

Our experimental course draws upon three conceptual foundations: The field of organizational behavior, the experiential learning approach, and the emerging theory related to workforce diversity (see Figure 1). These foundations are discussed below for the purpose of clarifying their relationships to the DOB course. The original OB course that we redesigned for the experiment drew upon the fields of organizational behavior and experiential learning. Although we believe that our DOB initiative may contribute to a reframing of conventional OB theory, in this article, we are interested in emphasizing the course design and its implementation.

Traditional OB texts only partially address the classroom needs of students in a multicultural society, and students such as ours who represent diverse identities. Organizational behavior texts, for the most part, treat the subject of workforce diversity as supplemental rather than as integral to the study and practice of OB. Current arguments that organizations are gendered (Acker, 1991; Hearn et al, 1989; Mills and Tancred, 1992) and that racioethnic analyses of management and organizations are lacking (Bell, Denton & Nkomo, 1993; Cox 1993; Nkomo 1992) are addressed superficially in most OB texts. The challenge is to reframe such texts to incorporate, rather than merely superficially address workforce diversity.

Publications like Cultural Diversity in Organizations (Cox, 1993) and Culture, Self-Identity, and Work (Erez & Earley, 1993) mark the beginning of such an endeavor. Cox (1993) creates a framework for studying cultural diversity in organizations and reviews some of the substantive research in this area. Erez and Earley (1993) demonstrate how the fields of cross-cultural psychology and OB can work together to create appropriate cultural contexts for OB theory and practice. Moreover, a few recent articles reframe classical OB research from a gender perspective (Acker & Van Hooten, 1992), propose a reevaluation of traditional OB research from a cultural perspective (Kilbourne & O'Leary-Kelly, 1994), and demonstrate that one can be gay and a successful professional (Shallenberger, 1994). Such publications challenge conventional OB analyses to include diversity-variables as an integral part of their studies, and they are relevant for integrative courses such as ours.

The OB field is substantively described in most OB textbooks (for example Gordon, 1993; Nelson & Quick, 1994; Robbins, 1993; Schermerhorn, 1994). The field is organized around individual, interpersonal, group and organizational levels of analysis. The conventional OB teaching curriculum may include the following topics: Foundations of individual behavior (attitudes, personality, perception, and learning), motivation, job design, group behavior, communication, leadership, power (and politics), conflict and negotiation, organizational structure, design, culture, and change and development. Our teaching program in OB has relied on this framework for over two decades. For the present, we continue to rely upon these levels of analysis and topics in our experimental course, although we are beginning to incorporate some of the new literature cited above.

In conventional teaching, intellectual stimulation and the acquisition of knowledge drive the academic curriculum. In experiential learning, alternative rationales underlie teaching designs. The emphasis on intellectual knowledge remains, yet, it is coupled with a focus on personal action that can include changes in behavior, and the re-examination of attitudes, beliefs and values (Marcic, 1992a). Learning experientially is fundamentally an interactive process and can challenge students to increase their awareness of their own motives, behaviors and attitudes, and their relationships with others. In experiential learning, the classroom becomes an environment where the integration of academic material and personal experience takes place.

As a pedagogical approach, experiential learning transforms the traditional teacher-centered learning environment into a more student-centered learning environment. The concept of active learning is an integral part of learning experientially: Students share the responsibility for their learning experience through practical experiences and real problem-solving situations. The instructor, in this type of classroom, is a facilitator and resource person. She provides an environment conducive to personal growth and learning, and the opportunity for students to learn through new experiences. The student can improve her ability to effectively interact with others through learning about the impact of different behaviors, which may inspire her to choose to modify her behavior.

The first of two required undergraduate OB courses at our college has relied on the experiential approach for about 30 years. We restrict the class size to 40 students to increase opportunities for meaningful interpersonal interaction. In our classes, through in and out-of-class assignments, we have attempted to operationalize four interrelated concepts that make up the experiential learning loop: Concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Kolb, 1991).

We believe that the experiential approach is particularly useful for teaching students about effectively interacting and working with people from different backgrounds College students, like other adults, form specific expectations and beliefs about other people who they have been socialized to see as different from themselves. In our classes, we create environments where students can consciously encounter these different "others." In the process, their expectations and beliefs are explicated, explored and often reconsidered. We assume that the presentation of intellectual facts and objective knowledge is insufficient to explore and challenge our subjective beliefs about the behavior of others. Therefore, in our classrooms, the students’ individual points of views and backgrounds constitute the collective data that becomes part of the "knowledge" for experiential learning.

The subject of workforce diversity is slowly gaining attention in the organization and management literature (Chemers, Oskamp and Costanzo, 1995; Cox, 1993; Fagenson, 1993; Fernandez, 1991; Jamieson & O'Mara, 1992; Loden, 1995; Loden and Rosener, 1991; Morrison, 1992; Simons, Vazquez, & Harris, 1993; Thiederman, 1991; Thomas, 1991) and in emerging research on various facets of managing diversity (ADD AMR Journal, Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; Kossek & Zonia, 1993; Muller & Haase, 1994; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993). The fact that issues of workforce diversity have been addressed only recently in the organization and management literature and in the management and business curricula (Ferdman, 1994; Bell, 1990) is not surprising, since management programs and business schools, for the most part, have a relatively homogeneous organizational culture (Dishneau, 1995). Moreover, efforts to change organizations to become more multicultural may adversely affect the current dominant group (Kossek & Zonia, 1993; Smith, 1995).

In reviewing the literature we found three theoretical approaches to workforce diversity: The legal, the anthropological, and the socio-psychological. We review these briefly below.

1. The legal approach - the legal approach is concerned with individuals' and organizations' knowledge of the law (Alvarez, Lutterman & Associates, 1979; Thomas, 1990). The history and content of Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity, Americans with Disabilities and other statutes form the basis for work and study (Higginbotham, 1978). Legal precedents and case studies characterize the learning in this approach. Recently, the validity of some of these policies is being contested by the argument that such laws discriminate against white males (Lynch, 1989).

2. The anthropological approach - the anthropological approach focuses on cultural awareness (Fernandez, 1991; Lamphere, 1993; Locke, 1992). Students are challenged to "walk a mile" in another person's shoes and to develop empathic understanding of others. Understanding why various cultures have adopted the different traditions that support their ways of living are explored. In a classroom relying on this approach, students experience some degree of immersion in a culture or subculture in order to raise awareness and appreciate differences.

3. The Socio-Psychological Approach - The socio-psychological approach is an interactive approach in which people examine their own beliefs and values, knowledge and behavior. They look for the truth or falsity of these and their impact on interactions with others (interpersonal). Skills for dealing with individuals from diverse backgrounds are emphasized as are ways of analyzing group and organizational dynamics (Kavanagh & Kennedy, 1992; Loden & Rosener, 1991; Morrison, 1992; Simons, Vazquez, & Harris, 1993).

These theoretical approaches have different implications for course content and design. Ideally, the approaches would be combined to permit for a broad range of learning opportunities. Some authors attempt to do this (Gardenschwartz & Rowe, 1993; Jackson, 1992; Harvey and Allard, 1995).

Teaching about workforce diversity means more to us than lecturing about demographics and cultural characteristics or about legal precedents and current debates on their appropriateness. Furthermore, it is different from recognizing individual biases and value-laden behaviors. Teaching about workforce diversity means addressing each of the three theoretical approaches in a way that promotes a synthesis of knowledge and experience in these areas and that allows a student’s level of awareness to be raised. She or he is then positioned to make conscious choices about attitudes and behaviors based on an understanding of the potential organizational, group, and individual implications. Such a multifaceted approach is particularly important and timely because of the changing realities in the debates over affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. We believe that relying on only one approach to the treatment of workforce diversity in a course does not adequately cover the broad treatment of subject matter. All students need to be able to express their points of view as well as have the opportunity to examine them within the collective of fellow students.

Because of the experimental nature of the DOB initiative we believed that close monitoring of all aspects of the initiative was essential to diagnosis problems and assess progress. In addition we felt that a demographically diverse group of instructors would help us to develop greater sensitivity to the topics that would be addressed in the classroom, as well as to have contrasting role models for students. We designed the teaching program so that it would be a learning laboratory for the students, faculty and college. In the following paragraphs we explain the components of the teaching program.

1. Ongoing planning and feedback. At monthly meetings, instructors assessed the merits of their classroom experiences, deliberated their successes and problems, and discussed students’ experiences and reactions. Instructors, together, developed and revised course syllabi, selected books and articles, discussed pedagogical approaches, and shared relevant resources. Each instructor was encouraged to use his/her expertise to create an appropriate and unique learning environment. The process of feedback and dialogue helped instructors to improve classes as the semesters progressed and permitted the DOB courses to be refined and improved over time. This was especially important because we embarked on uncharted territory with regard to integrating diversity into the OB course.

2) A diverse teaching team. Selection of a competent group of instructors to teach the four or five required undergraduate classes per semester was crucial for reasons stated above. Moreover, we found that a faculty team with a broad background and diverse experiences enhanced the processes of planning and feedback by bringing real life perspectives to the academic and pedogogical discussions. The team’s initial composition was a Black woman, a Black man, and a White woman. In subsequent semesters, a Hispanic woman, a Hispanic man joined the group.

3) Teaching resources. Because of the scarcity of resource books, and the lack of experience in integrating traditional OB theory and workforce diversity, it was a challenge to adapt the existing literature, to integrate topics effectively, and to find appropriate texts. The first semester we used an experiential OB text that included several diversity exercises (Marcic, 1993), accompanied by a cross-cultural book (Simons, Vazquez, & Harris, 1993). We quickly realized that we had significant limitations in not having an OB text. We chose a primer on OB for the subsequent semesters (Robbins, 1992, 1994) along with either an experientially-oriented diversity resource book or a workforce diversity tradebook.² In addition, we relied on a broad spectrum of speakers from the local community,³ various commercially available videotapes on managing diversity, and our own experiential exercises.

4) DOB topics and exercises. At the start of the initiative, we agreed, in principle, upon the major OB and workforce diversity topics that we wanted to address in the course and on some examples of relevant exercises. A more indepth treatment of OB theory would occur in the second required OB course. The DOB topics and exercises are discussed in the preceding section. This basic course design remains today. The next major section of the article discusses the conceptual foundations of the course.

5) Teacher and student evaluations. We used a variety of evaluative instruments to obtain both quantitative and qualitative data about the DOB initiative. In these instruments, we focused questions on workforce diversity because we wanted feedback on the new material in the course. Mid-term and end-of-semester instructor teaching evaluations ascertained the strengths and weaknesses of each instructor's pedagogical approach. In the initial semester, a post semester survey provided information about students’ learning experiences and opinions. Subsequently, we designed a pre and post-semester survey to assess changes in student’s perceptions about diversity.⁴ Such instruments gave us formal, substantive feedback that we used to plan the next classes. Furthermore, we interviewed instructors who taught in the initiative at the end of the first year, and, collectively in a focus group at the end of the second year. A summary of the early student and instructor findings is presented in a later section of the article.

6) Undergraduate students. One hundred and sixty eight students participated in five sections of the course during the first semester of the initiative. Women made up 46 percent of students, Hispanics made up 32 percent of the students, Native Americans made up 8.5 percent of students, Asian Americans made up 3 percent of the students, and Blacks made up 1 percent of the students. These proportions remained about the same in subsequent enrollments.

Our students work and live in environments that vary in their degree of heterogeneity. For example, some of our students grew up on isolated Native American reservations or in Spanish speaking homes, or in small racially homogenous towns. Some students work in organizations that are occupationally differentiated by racioethnicity or gender. Some students are multilingual and have lived in several countries, while others are physically challenged and prefer same sex partners. We expect our students to bring their unique experiences and perspectives to the classroom and to draw upon their backgrounds through discussion, exercises, and papers. In our classes where there is a mix of students with high-context cultural backgrounds; such as Hispanic, Native American, Black and Asian, and low-context cultural backgrounds (Hall, 1976), such as Euro-Americans (or Anglo)⁵ (also see Stewart and Bennett, 1991), the dialogue around cultural values has been enriching. Even without such racio-ethnic diversity in a class, the collective experiences and backgrounds of any student group can be facilitated by a competent instructor to enrich the classroom learning experience and add reality to the textbook examples and exercises.

It is helpful to the classroom experience when students come from diverse cultural backgrounds, because there are numerous social stereotypes in U.S. society that serve to delineate these groups. However, we believe that even in phenotypically "homogeneous" groups (Cox, 1993) (i.e. a classroom of all white students), salient social stereotypes are operative. For example, racially homogeneous students may be differentiated along the lines of class, gender, physical ability, sexual orientation, age, religion, and other dimensions. Such cleavages are always present. It is the role of the instructor to draw out these stereotypes and dimensions so that they become the focal point of some of the class discussion. In short, diversity education is applicable not just to visibly multicultural or multiracial groups, but to any collective of persons.

In this section, we summarize the results of the first student post-semester surveys and instructor interviews. These results helped to make the decision to continue the DOB initiative after its first year and facilitated the college administration’s decision to highlight the initiative in its re-accreditation application. Overall the students supported the DOB initiative, and most of them felt more comfortable discussing issues of workforce diversity after taking the course. The instructors felt enthusiastic about their experiences during the first year of the experiment. While they expressed some apprehensions about the personal nature of the material, they believed they benefited from teaching the course.

We administered the survey on the final day of class and after final course assignments. Of the 168 enrolled students, we obtained 154 completed surveys, a return rate of 91.7 percent. The results of the survey indicate that when students learned that the first of the two required OB courses would include workforce diversity issues they had the following responses: Over half became curious (54 percent), one-sixth (16 percent) became excited, a quarter (27 percent) reserved judgment, and five (3 percent) wanted to drop immediately. Many students (57 percent) lacked awareness of workforce diversity as a business issue and they did not consider its impact on organizations.

At the conclusion of the course, 70 percent of the students felt more aware and open to issues of workforce diversity. Only 12 percent perceived that their attitude towards diversity did not change during the semester. Most students (84 percent) perceived moderate to great awareness of their own stereotypes and assumptions. Virtually all students (94 percent) felt comfortable discussing issues of workforce diversity, and 88 percent felt moderately to very comfortable with people from diverse backgrounds.

Only a few students resisted addressing issues of workforce diversity and believed that the classroom was politicized. Eighty four percent of the students, however, reported that they had acquired skills to work with people from diverse backgrounds. Thirty three percent of the students indicated that the communication skills they learned in class will help them work more effectively. Other students reported that the class increased their patience, open-mindedness, and respect for others.

Though the instructors varied in their approaches to OB and diversity material, most of the students (85 percent) felt that the emphasis on workforce diversity in the DOB course was about right. Most of the remaining students (13 percent) felt that too much emphasis was placed on diversity. Moreover, 85 percent of the students wanted to continue to explore workforce diversity issues in the subsequent OB course.

We believe that the degree and type of learning by these students depended, in part, on their developmental stage (Gallos, 1990) and on their degree of intercultural awareness (ranging from ethnocentric to multicultural) (Cox, 1993; Pusch, 1979). It became apparent over the semester that our students varied a great deal in this respect. This was subsequently verified by several administrations of the Cross Cultural Adaptability Inventory (CCAI) inventory in later classes (cite).

At the end of the first year of the DOB initiative, one of us spoke with the instructors about their teaching expectations and experiences. All the instructors expected their students to become more exposed to people’s differences, leading to consciousness raising and increased acceptance of others. They wanted students to become more aware of their own biases, attitudes, and cultural values. Other personal expectations included the desire for students to understand the impact of their behaviors on themselves and others, and the desire for students to develop skills to work with people from diverse backgrounds. All the instructors relied on one or more traditional assessment tools as the basis for evaluating students, including tests, papers, case study analyses and group project reports.

The format of a required, experiential course made it more likely that instructors had to deal with personal, subjective issues in class with students who would not necessarily elect to take such a course. Three instructors expressed some apprehension that they might be perceived as politicizing the classroom. Other instructors expressed some concern about the exposure of their own biases. Another dilemma concerned the grading of student work that reflected beliefs and values with which the instructor disagreed. In these cases and others, instructors attempted (and learned) to be as objective as possible in offering different points of view, and in setting aside their own personal opinions (or stating that they too had biases). The major challenge to the instructors with including workforce diversity in the OB course was managing the range of responses and behaviors the material evokes from student participants, and finding the right balance of topics and perspectives.

The instructors believed that the course expanded their personal awareness of diversity issues, and they identified at least one peak learning experience. All instructors wanted the college to continue the experiment of integrating workforce diversity into the required OB course, as well as to continue with the regular team meetings. Overall, the instructors felt energized about the first year experience with the DOB initiative, and they attributed their enthusiasm to their students.

Introducing and integrating the topic of workforce diversity in required business and management classes is certain to provoke a variety of learning situations.⁶ We found the ongoing process of planning and feedback among instructors to be critical to their development as competent facilitators of this subject. The peer support that emerged from the ongoing dialogues permitted us to learn from one another’s mistakes and to obtain advice from those who successfully negotiated particular classroom techniques and controversies. We suggest that such a process may be helpful to others who are experimenting with this topic.

Our group of DOB instructors evolved to be a dynamic enclave within the college. We generated the potential to educate others and to promote change in the organizational culture of our college. Our colleagues in the business program now teach undergraduates who are conversant in the general subject of workforce diversity. Furthermore, most students in our classes indicated that they want to continue the dialogue about diversity, and many of them may have skills to assess the degree to which organizations are diversity-friendly.

Students' increased awareness and comfortableness with diversity as an issue of business organizations may have important benefits and implications. One benefit is its usefulness because the region’s and world’s workforces consist of people with many different backgrounds and orientations. On the other hand, some dilemmas for the educational institution can result because students can be positioned to assess and the extent to which it is a multicultural organization and to assess its degree of structural integration (Cox, 1993). Integrating or introducing the topic of workforce diversity into required classes could be counterproductive, even precipitating a "backlash" effect among some people. In our experiment, a small group of such students felt that the topic was unimportant at the end of the course. Additional data is needed to determine if there are alternative pedagogical strategies of working with such students.

The reframing of conventional OB theory to include characteristics of diversity will be particularly relevant as our communities become increasingly composed of people with different backgrounds. To culturally sensitive people who already teach such groups of students, it is apparent that workplace diversity and its dimensions are, for the most part, superficially dealt with in the OB literature. The integration of workforce diversity into required OB or other business and management classes is new and largely experimental. Our initiative is but one model of teaching this emerging area of interest. The particular course design that we develop tried to use an integrative approach with regard to the different theoretical approaches to workforce diversity. However, because of our particular academic goals and experiential focus, we emphasized the social-psychological approach more than the others. This appeared to work well because we wanted students’ awareness around issues of diversity to be raised and we wanted them to be able to be more comfortable working with diverse people.

For other course goals where legal issues are integrated into a class or where greater knowledge about cultural traits are desired, other pedagogical approaches may be more appropriate. For example, instead of integrating workforce diversity into an OB course, it cold be infused systematically into a human resource management class. In this context, legal issues may dominate the content of diversity if the goal of the course is to increase student’s knowledge of the policy and legal issues that confront the workplace.

Formulating the goals of any course that integrates workforce diversity is an important curriculum issue. Can a program be content to raise diversity awareness and increase comfort in interactions with different others, and can this really be accomplished in one semester? There are few citations in the literature with regard to changing students’ attitudes and perceptions about diverse people as a result of being exposed to either a workforce diversity or cross-cultural course. Although several studies (DeGenova, 1995; Milhouse & Henderson, 1993; Tran, Young & Di Lella, 1984) find that students are less inclined to use pejorative language, and engage in less stereotyping toward ethnic groups, long term change as a result of such a class is essentially unexamined. Only one study studied student exposure over several semesters and the conclusions suggested that exposure to only a one semester course was ineffective in changing bias toward culturally different groups ( Grottkau & Nicholai-Mays, 1989).

Several authors suggest that for diversity management to be effective the total organization must construct a valuing diversity approach (Loden, 1995, Cox, 1993). It may be that integrating only one course in the curriculum that focuses on diversity may be an approach that has merit but that fails to effective change toward valuing diversity among students in the long term.

Workforce diversity is an important topic in all aspects of management education, not only in the OB curricula. In the United States today, employee diversity is an irreversible fact of daily management and organizational life. Business schools need to make concerted efforts to change their organizational cultures by articulating the value of diversity and by practicing it. The experiment that we embarked upon is but one model for incorporating the study and practice of workforce diversity into the core of the business school curricula. We believe that it represents only one part of an institutional change effort to value people’s differences. We hope that our experiences provoke debate about relevant approaches for teaching our future organizational leaders and managers.

Acker, J. (1991). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. In J. Lorber and S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 162-179). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Acker, J. & Van Houten, D. R. (1993). Differential recruitment and control: The sex structuring of organizations. In A. J. Mills and P. Tancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 15-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alvarez, R., Lutterman, K. G. & Associates. (1979). Discrimination in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. (1992). Teaching diversity: Business schools search for model approaches. Newsline, 23 (1), 1-4.

American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. (1993). Achieving quality and continuous improvement through self-evaluation and peer peview: Standards for accreditation business administration and accounting. St. Louis, MO: Author.

Bell, E. (1990). Teaching diversity in organization behavior. Organization Behavior Teaching Review.13 (4), 56-67.

Bell, E. L., Denton, T. C., & Nkomo, S. (1993). "Women of Color in Management: Toward an Inclusive Analysis." In E. A. Fagenson (Ed.), Women in management: Trends, issues, and challenges in managerial diversity (pp. 105-130). Newbury Park: Sage.

Chemers, M. M.,Oskamp, S., & Costanzo, M.A. (1995). Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cox, T. (1991). The multicultural organization. Academy of Management Executive, 5 (2), 34-47.

Cox, T., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (4), 827-847.

Cox. T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

DeGenova, M.K. 1995. Changing racist behaviour through multicultural education. Multicultural Teaching. 13(2): 21-23.

Dishneau, David. (1995). Ph.D. project would add color to faculties. Albuquerque Journal. November 11, p. C4 & C7.

Erez, M. & Earley, P.C. (1993). Culture, self-identity, and work. New York: Oxford University.

Fernandez, J. P. (1991). Managing a diverse work force. New York: Lexington Books.

Ferdman, B. M. (Ed.). (1994). A resource guide for teaching and research on diversity. St. Louis, MO: American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business.

Gallos, Joan V. (1990). Developmental diversity and the OB classroom: Implications for teaching and learning. Journal of management education, 33-47.

Gardenswartz, L. & Rowe, A. (1993). Managing diversity: A complete reference and planning guide. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.

Gordon, J.R. (1991). A diagnostic approach to organization behavior. 3rd ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Grottkau, G.J. & Nickolai-Mays, S. 1989 An empirical analysis of a multicultural education paradigm for preservice teachers. Educational Research Quarterly. 13(4): 27-33.

Harvey, C. & M.J. Allard. (1995).. Understanding diversity: Readings, cases, and exercises. New York: Harper Collins.

Hearn, J., Sheppard, D. L., Tancred-Sheriff, P. & G. Burrell (1989). The sexuality of organization. London: Sage.

Higginbotham, A.L. (1978). In the matter of color. New York: Oxford University.

Jamieson, D. & O'Mara, J. (1991). Managing workforce 2000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kavanagh, K. H., & Kennedy, P. H. (1992). Promoting cultural diversity: Strategies for health care professionals. Newbury Park: Sage.

Kilbourne, L. M., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1994). A reevaluation of equity theory: The influence of culture. Journal Of Managment Inquiry, 3, 177-188.

Kolb, D. A., Rubin, I. M. & J. M. Osland. (1991). Organizational behavior: An experiential approach. 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. (1993). Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to employer efforts to promote diversity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 61-81.

Lamphere, L. (Ed.), (1993). Structuring diversity. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Lau, J. B. & Shami, A. B. (1992). Behavior in organizations: An experiential approach. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Lewicki, R. J., Bowen, D. D., Hall, D. T., & F. S. Hall. (1988). Experiences in management and organizational behavior. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley.

Lynch, F.R. (1989). Invisible victims: White males and the crisis of affirmative action. New York: Greenwood.

Marcic, D. (1992a). Instructor’s manual to accompany organizational behavior: Experiences and cases (3rd ed.). St. Paul: West.

Marcic, D. (1992b). Organizational behavior: Experiences and cases. 3rd ed. Saint Paul: West.

Milhouse, V.J. & Henderson, G. 1993. Infusing a multicultural perspective into the basic communication course: An investigation. In M.J. O’Hair & S.J. Odell (Eds.), Diversity and teaching: Teacher education yearbook I: 193-211. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Mills, A. J., & Tancred, P. (Eds.), (1993). Gendering organizational analysis. Newbury Park: Sage.

Morrison, A. M. (1992). The new leaders: Guidelines on leadership diversity in America. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Muller, H. J. & Haase, B. (1994). Managing diversity in health services organizations. Hospital and Health Services Administration, 14, 415-434.

Nelson, D. L. & Quick, J. C. (1994). Organizational behavior: Foundations, realities, and challenges. Minneapolis: West.

New Mexico First. (1993). Breaking down the barriers: Cultural Sensitivity in New Mexico. Albuquerque: Author.

Nkomo, S. M. (1992). The emperor has no closthes: Rewriting 'Race in Organizations.’ Academy of Management Review, 17, 487-513.

Powell, G. (1994). Gender and diversity in the workplace. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pusch, M. D. (1979). Multicultural education: A cross cultural training approach. LaGrange Park, Il.: Intercultural Network.

Robbins, S. P. (1992). Essentials of organizational behavior, 3th edition. New York: Prentice Hall.

Robbins, S. P. (1993). Organizational behavior: Concepts, controversies, and applications, 6th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Robbins, S. P. (1994). Essentials of organizational behavior, 4th edition. New York: Prentice Hall.

Sanchez, C. (1990). FBI story. The Washington Post Magazine (Nov. 11), 21-26, 54-57.

Shallenberger, D. (1994). Professional and openly gay: A narrative study of the experience. Journal of Management Inquiry 3 (4), 119-143.

Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt J. G., & R. N. Osborn. (1994). Managing organizational behavior 5th ed., New York: John Wiley.

Schwartz, J. & Exter, T. (1989). All our children. American Demographics, 11(5),34-37.

Simons, G.F., Vazquez, C., & Harris, P.R. (1993). Transcultural leadership: Empowering the diverse workforce. Houston: Gulf.

Smith, D. (1995). Organizational implications of diversity in higher education. In Chemers, M.M., Oskamp, S., & Costanzo, M.A. Diversity in organizations.(pp. 220 -244).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stewart, E.C. & Bennett, M.J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective. Revised edition. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural.

State of New Mexico. (1994). House Appropriations and Finance Committee Substitute for House Bills 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9. 41st Legislature, Second Session.

Thiederman, S. (1991). Profiting in America’s multlicultural marketplace. New York: Lexington.

Thomas, R. R. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68, (March-April), 107-17.

Thomas, R. R. (1991). Beyond race and gender: Unleashing the power of your total workforce by managing diversity. New York: AMACOM.

Tran, M.T., Young, R.L., & J.D. Di Lella, 1994. Multicultural education courses and the student teacher: Eliminating stereotypical attitudes in our ethnically diverse classroom. Journal of Teacher Education. 45(3): 183-89.

University of New Mexico (1990). UNM 2000 Plan. (November 8). Albuquerque, NM: Author.

University of New Mexico Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Office. (1993). April 2, 1993 - April 1, 1994 University of New Mexico Affirmative Action Plan for Minorities and Females. Albuquerque: Author.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L.K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.

Table 2

Dimensions of Diversity Pie Chart: Most Important Dimensions To Me

Introduced early in the semester, students describe which primary and secondary dimensions of diversity are most important to their identities. Each student draws a pie chart containing the most important dimensions of his identity, and then assigns a percent (totaling 100%) to each dimension selected. A class discussion of individual differences ensues that focus on the following: ask students to identify their most important dimensions and what makes each important; ask students to raise their hand if they shared a top dimension; tell students to look around at the hands that are up; have these students share a sentence or two about what their characteristics means to them. Repeat this process for a couple of different diversity dimensions. Students are instructed to use the pie chart in their first project group meeting to establish some focus on human relations issues, as well as on their initial group task, exploring topics for the group project.

Placed in the individual level of organizational behavior, this exercise allows the students to more objectively characterize their self-perceptions. They begin to answer the question, who am I? From these dimensions of diversity flow the values, beliefs and attitudes that are discussed in traditional OB. Students begin to see why they hold certain positions and opinions. Some begin to get in touch with what motivates them. There is little explicit mention of group level identities at this point, except in general terms. For example, being female is very important to me because in my family it is the females who have historically been to college (from a black student).

The workforce diversity issues addressed in this exercise, in addition to the dimensions of diversity (Loden and Rosener, 1991), are cultural values, and phenotypical versus cultural identity (Cox, 1993). Students’ awarenesses of intragroup variations in beliefs and values often begin to emerge in the discussion. These may surface as cultural differences, sometimes rooted in religious beliefs. Moreover, students begin to challenge their assumptions about one another that are frequently based on the more visible dimensions of diversity.

The expected student outcomes of this exercise include: a) Increased self-awareness of the source of some beliefs and values, b) identification of the relative importance of beliefs, values and attitudes within a personal belief system, and c) increased awareness of intragroup variations in beliefs and values of people who may phenotypically appear to belong to a particular cultural group, especially in regard to the first impression and initial assumptions that people make.

Table 3

Gender & Communication Fishbowl

This exercise is nonintrusive in design to permit single sex groups of men and women to communicate within their group about intergender issues that they have experienced, and, at the same time, to permit the opposite sex to listen to the dialogue and suggestions. One or two groups of same sex persons sit in a circle while the opposite sex seats themselves around the circle and listens in silence (they may not talk or make visible gestures). The inside group dialogues for approximately 15 minutes to discuss the following issue: What do I need from the men/women at work to make my job environment more compatible for me? Then for the next approximately 15 minutes they discuss the following question: What constructive suggestions do we have for making this a reality? Afterwards the two groups switch places and the other sex group responds to the two sets of questions for the same amount of time. After both same sex groups have discussed the issues in fishbowl fashion, an interactive discussion takes place around the following questions: What new did you learn from listening to the opposite sex group? What observations do you have about the process of interaction within the observed group? What listening skills did you use during the observation? Comment on the group dynamics - were there differences between the two groups?

This exercise is place at the interpersonal level because the focus, while also on the group, is primarily about gender relations and interaction patterns among men and women. It generates a lot of interpersonal dynamics issues that arise in the work situation and often at home, and permits same sex groups to dialogue with potentially sympathetic members of their own sex group. I have found that both groups share a lot of personal information and permits the listening group a deeper hearing of the issues than were such a discussion to take place in a large group. Also it permits the group to delve into the topics that they feel comfortable discussing without the intrusion of “well-meaning” or “I have advice for you” folks.

Several OB and diversity topics are dealt with in this exercise; they include verbal and nonverbal communication, listening, gender relations, cultural styles, sexual harassment, discrimination, power, and conflict. We usually have a discussion prior to this exercise about communication, including a discussion on Deborah Tannen’s work (students read her book or article) and students see her on videotape discussing her work. We also talk about Tannen’s point that gender can be viewed as a “cultural group.”

Expected outcomes of this exercise include: a) practice with listening skills, b) identification of intergender dynamics at work and suggestions for problem resolution, c) increased insight by opposite sex groups of perceptions of the opposite sex with regard to one’s own gender, d) awareness of one’s own reaction to the perceptions and problems raised by opposite sex group, and e) opportunity to create linkage between what Tannen discusses and how this may be played out in the work environment (and sometimes personal place).

Table 4

The Blue Green Game

The Blue-Green Game places four student groups in competition for rewards within a company through a series of transactions. The receipt of rewards is dependent upon the actions of the other group with which a group is engaged and not solely upon the actions of one’s reference group. In a transaction, a group sends either the word “blue” or “green” to another group without knowing what word it is receiving from the other group. The combination of these words in an exchange determines the number of points which accrue to each team. The objective of the game is to accumulate the maximum possible points which is done through eight transactions with another group. After the third transaction takes place, one person from each group may negotiate, once, for two minutes after each subsequent transaction. Doubling and squaring points in the final three transactions increases the tension of the game.

Groups are formed, if possible, to include a white male group, a white female group, a group comprised of people of color, and a mixed group. Process questions include: 1) What strategy did you use to try to “win” the game? How did you define winning? How well did it work for you? What made it not work? 2) What decision making process did your group use? Was everyone heard? Did everyone agree with decisions as they were made? 3) How did you handle the negotiations. Who negotiated? Why? Did you tell the truth? 4) What type of power did you use in the game? Was it different in your group than in the negotiations? How well did it work? 5) What differences were there in the approaches of the four groups? To what do you attribute the differences?

Played near the end of the semester, the Blue-Green Game pulls together many concepts covered in class. Group behavior is the main focus. The process questions focus the debriefing on power, conflict management, negotiation strategies, decision making styles and orientation, and intergroup relations. All of these topics have been covered by this time in the course and thus this simulation is integrative in nature.

This is traditionally an OB exercise that is altered and made even more dynamic by introducing diversity issues. Varying the composition of the groups by race and gender gives the students a graphic example of the ways in which people may, or may not behave in expected and/or stereotypical ways.

From this simulation students learn: a) knowledge of OB and diversity concepts cannot translate into actual behavior without a conscious effort, b) that everyone loses in inter-departmental rivalries and turf battles, c) about themselves and their own level of integrity, vis a vis values around “win-win,” honesty and cheating, inclusion, and the lengths to which they will go to exercise power, and d) the value of building trust in intergroup relations, that trust requires interaction, and until trust is built, negotiations are likely to be ineffective.

Table 5

Diversity Audit of An Organization

This exercise is the culmination of the semester’s work and requires that students form teams, chose an organization (or an organizational subunit) to study, obtain permission from the organization and carry out the audit, and present their findings to the class near the end of the semester. The audit addresses the following factors: A description of the organization’s culture; the racioethnic composition of the workforce in total and in management and board members; the policies and programs that pertain to workforce diversity; the philosophy and degree of support in management toward workforce diversity; and the overall type of organizational ranging from homogeneous to multicultural (Cox, 1991). Students form teams about mid-point in the semester and work on group process issues in preparation for effectively working together. They are given 20 minutes to present their findings and are expected to develop a creative presentation on which they are evaluated and receive a group grade. Organizations that have been audited include: The author’s college, an emergency unit at a local hospital. a Spanish-speaking TV station, the local utility company, the local office of the FBI, and a local MCI marketing office.

This exercise develops over the second half of the semester and integrates material from throughout the semester, especially the units on group dynamics, organizational culture, and type of organizational approach toward diversity management.. Because this audit requires the efforts of a team, the students use some classroom time to work in groups on team issues: Specifically they take a team effectiveness assessment near the formation of their group and halfway through the second half of the semester to identify issues that they collectively need to work on to be effective, and they must write a two page individual assessment of this team experience to be handed in upon completion of the team audit presentation.

The exercise ties in well with OB related material on organizational culture and workforce diversity material on organizational type and approaches to managing diversity. Specifically the audit draws upon the analytical framework developed by one of the authors (Muller and Haase, 1994) that is used for the organizational audit analysis. Students must interact with employees in their study organization and develop a series of questions to ask these people. They must learn how to divide up their tasks in order to conduct the audit and they must learn to pool their data and decide what is most important to present.

Expected outcomes of this exercise include: a) Students have increased their knowledge about organizational culture and the types of organizational approaches toward managing diversity, b) students have increased their skills about being an effective group participant, c)students have learned to jointly plan a mini-organizational audit and the criteria around which data must be gathered and analyzed, and d) students have learned some skills for interviewing employees and engaging them in a discussion about workforce diversity.

1 The term "racioethnic" in this article follows the suggestion of Cox (1993). Because race and ethnicity are sometimes confused or used interchangeably, the combined term is inclusive of both categories. Our useage of the term “diversity” generally follows the definition of primary diversity characteristics (Loden and Rosener, 1991) which are those traits which cannot be changed by the individual.

2 For the first semester of the second year we used an OB primer (Robbins, 1994) and a diversity text (Loden and Rosener, 1991). We supplement these texts with experiential exercises. We could not find an experientially oriented text that had the right fit of diversity related OB exercises.

3 These speakers included: An Hispanic FBI agent (Sanchez, 1990) who successfully fought a class action suit against his superiors for discrimination; a Pueblo Indian woman manager who advises tribes on developing constitutions; a Hispanic human resources manager for a large local corporation; a white male organizational development consultant, a disabled veteran who manages a network of group homes, and others.

4 In the second semester, we conducted pre- and post-semester student attitude surveys. The survey results are in the process of being written up.

5 Hall (1976), who conducted his seminal work in the southwest, differentiates between low context cultures where information is explicitly communicated, and high context cultures where information also is embedded in the physical aspects of communication such as body language, or is internalized in the person or culture.

6 We are now experimenting with introducing and integrating the subject of workforce diversity into the college’s graduate and executive program OB required classes. The racioethnicity of these student groups is not as diverse as our undergraduates, and the proportion of women in these classes is less than in the undergraduate classes. Our preliminary experience in these classes indicates that somewhat different issues arise than in the undergraduate program.