The purpose of this chapter is to provide diversity intelligent strategies that can be used by leaders to eliminate ineffective diversity efforts, enhance effective diversity efforts, and provide new diversity intelligent strategies in organizations. Integrating DQ alongside emotional, cultural, and intellectual intelligences in the workplace can strengthen the effectiveness of leaders' people management efforts. Most employees enter organizations with the expectation of having positive experiences with their leaders and achieving success towards their career goals. Yet, many are marginalized or limited in their opportunities for advancement for reasons of which they have no control. The eradication of ineffective training and development of diversity must occur for effective change to occur. Credible DQ, ethical and legal issues, and workforce inter-personnel diversity training programs must be launched by HRD professionals and organization leaders so that leaders are developed to provide employees with fair and just treatment and successful career development will ensue.
TopIntroduction
After the election of the 44th President of the United States of America in 2008, the Honorable Barack Hussein Obama, an American Black man, some individuals in America began to speak of a post-racial America. However, since the 2016 election, many Americans are speaking of the regression of diversity achievements throughout the country. They have begun to accept that it was indeed premature to think that one election could change the hearts of individuals who refuse to accept and embrace diversity changes. The world continues to witness resistance, acceptance, and infinite ways in which non-diverse and diverse individuals in America experience diversity.
There is no definitive definition of diversity within society; however, the United States’ federal government has provided a definitive definition for organizations. The federal government’s definition originated from the 1964 Civil Rights Act legislation, but has evolved through Presidential, Executive Orders to provide protection for individuals who are discriminated against within the workplace. The following list contains the classification by which groups of employees are currently protected within organizations that have federal contracts and are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC):
- 1.
Age - Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;
- 2.
Disability - Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;
- 3.
National Origin - Civil Rights Act of 1964;
- 4.
Race/Color - Civil Rights Act of 1964;
- 5.
Religion - Civil Rights Act of 1964;
- 6.
Sex - Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964; and
- 7.
Sexual orientation – Executive Order 11478. (2014, ¶ 1)
Having federal contracts requires organizations to adhere to federal laws and allows employees to be protected by the EEOC. They are protected from discrimination based on equal pay/compensation (Equal Pay Act of 1963); harassment (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA); and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA)); pregnancy (Pregnancy Discrimination Act); retaliation; sexual harassment; genetic information (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008); and veteran status (Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act).
This chapter reveals that, across a spectrum of situations and issues, there is a need to clearly delineate the difference between legal, mandated diversity, and diversity of thought. Organization leaders have permitted and perpetuated the mudding of the waters by allowing the word to, in essence, simply represent difference. This choice has benefitted neither the organization nor the individual. It has resulted in over $8-10 billion spent on ineffective diversity training without evidential, positive change as reflected in the continuous claims, lawsuits, and settlements made through the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) and the United States Department of Labor as a result of discriminatory workplace practices. U.S. EEOC Chair Berrien noted that the EEOC had filed 21 systemic lawsuits in Fiscal Year 2013 securing “a record $372.1 million in monetary relief for victims of employment discrimination in private sector and state and local government workplaces” (Performance and Accountability Report, 2013, vi).