Citation
An examination of the transition from affirmative action to affirming diversity

Material Information

Title:
An examination of the transition from affirmative action to affirming diversity comparative case analyses of best practices workforce diversity in North America
Creator:
Chambers, Larry Norel
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xxiii, 321 leaves : ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Affirmative action programs -- North America ( lcsh )
Diversity in the workplace -- North America ( lcsh )
Minorities -- Employment -- North America ( lcsh )
Affirmative action programs ( fast )
Diversity in the workplace ( fast )
Minorities -- Employment ( fast )
North America ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 308-321).
Thesis:
Public administration
General Note:
School of Public Affairs
Statement of Responsibility:
by Larry Norel Chambers, Sr.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
40283148 ( OCLC )
ocm40283148
Classification:
LD1190.P86 1998d .C43 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
AN EXAMINATION OF THE TRANSITION FROM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
TO AFFIRMING DIVERSITY: COMPARATIVE CASE
ANALYSES OF BEST PRACTICES WORKFORCE
DIVERSITY IN NORTH AMERICA
By
Larry Norel Chambers, Sr.
AA, Penn Valley Community College, 1970
BA, University of Missouri, 1972
MPA, University of Missouri, 1974
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Public Administration
1998


1998 by Larry Norel Chambers, Sr.
All rights reserved.


This Thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Larry N. Chambers
has been approved by
n
/
L
! j
a
l^v-
N^arjorie
B. Lewis
May 6, 1998


Chambers, Larry Norel, Sr. (Ph.D., Public Administration)
An Examination of the Transition from Affirmative Action to Affirming Diversity:
Comparative Case Analyses of Best Practices Workforce Diversity in North
America
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Marjorie Lewis
ABSTRACT
Although commentators, lecturers, trainers and scholars had attempted to
enlighten the public about diversity, there was no consensus on a definition of
diversity. Diversity means different things to different people, causing much
confusion and misplaced energies. To some, diversity was an intangible that included
any perceived differences. Others argued that diversity should be limited to equal
employment opportunity policy parameters such those based on race, ethnicity,
gender, religion and age. Why is affirmative action so unpopular? How should we
account for diversity in the workforce?
The purpose of this study was to expand the base of knowledge on diversity.
The study explored seven general research questions: (a) What is the origin of
diversity? (b) What are the similarities and dissimilarities between diversity and
affirmative action? (c) Why have more organizations increasingly deemed diversity
the preferable choice? (d) How is diversity defined? (e) What are the advantages and
disadvantages of diversity? (f) Can best practices diversity be exported to other
organizations? (g) What are the best implementation strategies and evaluation
measures being employed in the best practices diversity models?
Comparative case analysis was the chosen methodology. Four leading-edge
organizations participated in the case studies. Fifty-five individuals were interviewed.
IV


The study included interviews with corporate officials, technical staff, diversity
managers, personnel executives and other employees.
The methodology employed to answer the questions raised by this study used
best models through expert opinion in this area to identify top diversity
organizations. Organizations define diversity within their organizational context.
Though diversity appears to be an improvement over affirmative action, it also has
drawbacks and limitations as well as advantages.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed.
v


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my parents, the late Mr. Cornelius Chambers, and
especially my mother, the late Mrs. Beneva Chambers for her love and support.
Without them, none of this would have been possible.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The idea for this research surfaced in 1991. I had worked in human
resources management and in affirmative action for many years. I had seen the
frustration by practitioners, consultants and the public about diversity and
affirmative action and debates about where all of this is headed. Additionally, the
1987 Workforce 2000 study heightened concern and awareness that more work
needed to be done to create access and opportunity for minorities and women and to
improve working conditions and understanding among all groups of people.
Affirmative action was coming under increasing criticism. At the time, there was
very little empirical research on diversity. Today a lot of confusion exists as to
what diversity means and where the country is headed. All of these factors
stimulated my interest in diversity research. It seemed that some people did not
understand diversity or the value of diversity research, but I stayed the course.
Diversity research was too important to be dismissed out-of-hand. My study was
intended to add a measure of clarity and understanding and to encourage further
research.
In this pursuit, I would like to give a special note of gratitude to my
dissertation committee. Dr. Maijorie Lewis, chair of my committee, and an expen
in diversity, as well as in public policy, recognized the value of doing research in
diversity from the very start. She saw something in me perhaps others did not see.
She was my confidante. Without her unwavering support, this process would have
been exceedingly arduous, if not impossible. For her support, I will be eternally
grateful. Dr. Richard Stillman, a highly respected public administration scholar,
also showed tremendous insight, understanding and support for this research. He
provided the guidance I needed to move from the conceptual stage to actually doing


the thesis. I would like to thank Dr. John Buechner, the President of the University
of Colorado System, who agreed to lend his support to this research endeavor. Dr.
Evelyn Hu-Dehart is a national expert in history, ethnic studies, diversity, and in
affirmative action. She was instrumental in providing a sounding board to me on
essential points of the research. Her encouragement and guidance is deeply
appreciated. Dr. James Sulton, Senior Academic Officer with the Colorado
Commission on Higher Education, challenged my basic concepts for clarity, focus
and understanding. The work of the dissertation committee to help me get through
this process is very much appreciated.
A special debt of gratitude goes to Dr. Karen Lane who served as my reader
for my dissertation drafts. Her support and constant belief in this project and me
were invaluable.
Oftentimes employees of state organizations do not get enough credit for the
work that they do. I would like to thank Eiko Iwahashi in the financial aid office of
the University of Colorado at Denver for her humor, understanding, assistance and
encouragement.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to my wife, Ruth, for her moral support and
understanding in helping me to realize my dream of completing the Ph.D. She and
my son Darren provided invaluable technical support. My two sons, Larry, Jr. and
Darren were understanding and supportive. For them, it was not always easy to see
certain things deferred until the research could be completed.
In addition, my gratitude is owed to my parents for making all of this
possible, especially my mother, along with encouragement from all of my six
siblings. Dr. Norman Chambers, a professor of psychology at San Diego State
University, one of my brothers, is acknowledged for his encouragement and
unwavering support and his wise counsel. He prodded me to pursue this dream
since completing my masters degree years ago. He is definitely my hero.


My thanks also goes out to my primary and secondary teachers in Kansas
City who encouraged me along the way, including my Boy Scout leaders.
I thank all of the people who agreed to be on the panel of diversity experts
and who shared their knowledge and expertise with me. The experts are authors,
scholars and leading consultants in diversity.
In addition, a debt of gratitude is extended to all four organizations that
showed courage in participating in the research. DuPont Chemicals, Royal Bank of
Canada, City of San Diego and Hughes Electronics contributed immensely to the
research on diversity by allowing access to the data.
A special thank you goes out to the diversity managers who were the contact
persons in each organization. They provided insights into their organizations and
reviewed and commented on my case study drafts. In particular, I want to thank
Mr. David Barclay, former Vice President of Workforce Diversity Hughes
Electronicsnow enjoying retirementfor his insights and wisdom and for being
leader, a believer and a mentor.
I would like to thank all those employees who gave of their time and
participated in the study by being interviewed.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends in Kansas City, Denver, and
elsewhere for their encouragement. I hope that I have not missed anyone. If I
have, thank you.


CONTENTS
Tables........................................................ xxi
Figures ...................................................... xxiii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION............................................... 1
Background............................................. 4
Transition to Diversity................................ 5
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act...................... 7
Penalties for Non-Compliance....................... 8
Definition of Diversity................................ 9
Differences Between Affirmative Action and
Diversity.............................................. 9
Statement of Problem.................................. 12
Diversity Model....................................... 12
Workforce 2000 Study.................................. 13
Organizational Change Requirements.................... 13
Need for Research..................................... 16
Research Questions................................ 17
S ignificance of Study................................ 18
x


Scope of Study.......................................... 19
Limitations of Study............................... 19
Researchers Role....................................... 21
Organization of the Study............................... 23
2. RESEARCH METHODS............................................ 24
Study Design............................................. 24
Case Study Selection Process....................... 24
Interview Questions..................................... 28
Case Study Approach..................................... 31
Selection Criteria...................................... 36
Interviews......................................... 37
Diversity Survey Questionnaire..................... 37
Observations............................................ 38
Documents............................................... 39
3. SURVEY OF THE LITEERATURE................................... 40
Section Summary.......................................... 41
Section 1: Socioeconomic Aspects of Diversity............ 42
Diversity: A Challenge to the Neoclassical
Economic Paradigm........................................ 42
The Transition to Multicultural ism...................... 46
Multiculturalism: Public Policy Implications............. 50
xi


Diversity and Economics: A Reconciliation
53
Section 2: Roots of Affirmative Action and Diversity... 63
Population Demographics.............................. 65
Legal Foundations......................................... 68
Constitution and Equal Employment.................... 68
Civil Rights Act of 1866............................. 68
Federal Statutes..................................... 69
Equal Employment Opportunity......................... 69
Executive Orders.......................................... 71
Equal Employment in the Federal Sector............... 72
Equal Treatment Notion.................................... 73
Start of Affirmative Action............................... 73
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission................................................ 75
Office of Federal Contract Compliance..................... 76
Settlement Agreements................................ 77
Cost of Inattention to Equal
Employment Opportunity............................... 78
Evolution of Affirmative Action
to Affirming Diversity.................................... 79
Controversy Over Affirmative Action....................... 80
Affirmative Action and Stigmatization................ 81
xii


Race and Gender Perceptions................................ 83
Glass Ceiling Commission Report....................... 83
Racial/Ethnic Perceptions............................. 85
Race/Ethnic Relations in the in the U.S.................. 90
Black/White Relations in the United States.......... 90
Views of Whites and Blacks on
Organizational Phenomena.............................. 90
Levels of Satisfaction................................ 94
Notion Progressive Black Tax.......................... 94
Minorities and Womens Views About
Organizational Diversity................................... 97
White Males........................................... 97
Origins of the Melting Pot................................. 98
Melting Pot vs. Salad Bowl Theory..................... 99
Anti-Affirmative Action Legislation....................... 100
Section 3: Workforce Diversity............................ 102
Diversity Strategies...................................... 109
Significant Barriers to Diversity.................... Ill
Poll of the Most Serious Barriers to
Implementing Diversity Initiatives........................ 114
Efforts to Measure Diversity.............................. 115
Diversity Training........................................ 115
xiii


Organizational Development and Diversity................. 116
Barriers to Diversity............................... 118
Characteristics of a True Multicultural
Organization........................................ 120
Diversity Risks..................................... 121
Competitiveness Through Management of Diversity:
Effects on Stock Price Valuation........................ 122
Cultural Diversitys Impact on Interaction Process
and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous
and Diversity Task Groups............................... 124
Section 4: Theories Explaining Racial and Gender
Differentiation......................................... 125
Race and Gender Differentiation Within
Organizations....................................... 125
Human Capital Theories.......................... 126
Discrimination Explanation ..................... 127
Structural Discrimination Theories.............. 128
The Dual Labor Market Theory.................... 128
Notion of Contact Hypothesis
in Race Relations................................... 129
4. RESULTS ..................................................... 131
Introduction............................................ 131
DuPont ................................................. 131
Organizational Profile.............................. 131
xiv


Formulation of Diversity Strategy
132
Leadership.......................................... 133
Accountability................................... 134
Commitment....................................... 134
Employee Diversity Networks......................... 135
Internal Organizational EEO Demographics............ 136
Education and Training.............................. 137
The Core Curriculum.............................. 139
Corporate Diversity Coordinators.................... 141
Evaluation and Assessment .......................... 142
Unique Features..................................... 142
Interview Questions and Answers..................... 145
Royal Bank of Canada.................................... 153
Organizational Profile.............................. 153
Formulation of Diversity Strategy................... 154
Diversity Business Council....................... 155
Definition of Diversity.......................... 156
Affirmative Action vs. Diversity Approach...... 157
Employment Equity Act............................ 158
Leadership.......................................... 160
xv


Core Diversity Values
162
Business Values................................. 163
Internal Organizational EEO Demographics........... 164
Gender Comparisons.............................. 165
Employment Equity Demographics.................. 166
Manager Employment Equity and Diversity....... 167
Education and Training............................. 167
Evaluation and Assessment.......................... 168
Unique Features.................................... 169
Interview Questions and Answers.................... 172
City of San Diego...................................... 185
Organizational Profile............................. 185
Formulation of Diversity Strategy.................. 187
Affirmative Action vs. Diversity Approach.......... 188
Equal Employment Opportunity Program............... 189
Personnel and Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO).................................. 191
Initial Steps...................................... 191
Leadership......................................... 192
Commitment...................................... 194
Measurement..................................... 194
xvi


Updates.......................................... 195
Core Diversity Values............................ 195
Norms & Values................................... 196
Employee Diversity Networks.......................... 197
Internal Organizational EEO Demographics............. 198
1996 City-Wide Representation by Occupational
Category......................................... 200
Diversity Management Coordination.................... 201
Organizational Effectiveness Program............. 201
Education and Training............................... 201
Organizational Change Strategies..................... 202
Evaluation and Assessment............................ 203
Organizational Barriers.............................. 207
Unique Features...................................... 209
Interview Questions and Answers...................... 210
Hughes Electronics....................................... 221
Organizational Profile............................... 221
Existing Organizational Structure................ 222
Formulation of Diversity............................. 223
First Corporate VP of Workforce Diversity........ 224
Strategic Diversity.............................. 225
XVII


Innovation and Profits
227
Leadership......................................... 227
Commitment..................................... 228
Communication.................................. 228
Business Values................................ 229
Internal Organization EEO Demographics............. 229
Technical Recruitment.......................... 233
Highest Ranking Minorities..................... 234
Senior African American Technical Staff........ 234
Education and Training............................. 234
Internship Programs............................ 237
Work and Family and Alternative
Dispute Resolution............................. 237
Unique Features.................................... 238
Conflict Resolution............................ 240
Impact of Reorganization on Diversity.......... 240
Interview Question and Answers..................... 241
5. CONCLUSION................................................. 250
Summary................................................ 250
Statement of Problem................................... 254
Research Questions................................. 255
xviii


Assessment and Evaluation of Case Study Reports... 255
Case Study Findings................................... 256
Leadership............................................ 257
Barriers to Diversity................................. 259
Mentorship.............................................. 261
Internal Assessment of Diversity...................... 262
Business Value of Diversity........................... 263
Ratio of Minority and Female Hiring to Non-Minority
and White Male Hiring................................. 263
Treatment of Women and Minorities..................... 266
Performance........................................... 267
Communication......................................... 267
Stereotyping.......................................... 268
Diversity Reflected in Organizational Ethos........... 269
Communication and Socialization....................... 269
Affirmative Action and Diversity...................... 270
Views Among Women and Minority Groups How
They Perceived Diversity.............................. 270
Recommendations as a Place for Women and
Minorities to Work...................................... 271
Findings and Implications............................. 272
Common Features of Managing Diversity Efforts..... 273
xix


Suggestions for Future Research
274
Conclusions and Recommendations............. 276
Further Implications........................ 278
Comparisons and Contrasts................ 281
Distinguishing Characteristics........... 283
Next Step ............................... 287
APPENDIX
A. BEST PRACTICES WORKFORCE DIVERSITY CONSENT
FORM ........................................... 292
B. LETTER TO PANEL OF DIVERSITY EXPERTS............ 294
C. BEST PRACTICES WORKFORCE DIVERSITY
QUESTIONNAIRE................................... 295
D. LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE ORGANIZATIONS............. 297
E. DIVERSITY SURVEY QUESTIONS...................... 300
DEFINITION OF TERMS....................................... 306
BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. 308
xx


TABLES
Page
1 Differences Between EEO/AA Programs and Valuing Diversity
Efforts........................................................... 11
2 Long Term Diversity Advantages.................................... 15
3 The Neoclassical and Sociological Paradigms as Mirror Images of
Each Other........................................................ 44
4 Affirmative Action (1997)......................................... 80
5 Black/White Perceptions of US Population Percentages Compared to
US Census Bureau.................................................. 86
6 Ethnic Images.................................................... 87
7 Ethnic Attitudes................................................. 88
8 Ethnic Perceptions............................................... 89
9 Blacks in Your Community Have as Good a Chance as Whites?
% Saying Blacks Have as Good a Chance (1997)...................... 92
10 Blacks: % Experiencing Discrimination Within the Last 30 Days
(1997)............................................................ 93
11 Levels of Satisfaction % Satisfied (1997)......................... 94
12 What Should Governments Role be in Improving the Conditions For
Blacks and Minorities? (1997)..................................... 97
13 Types of Organizations........................................... 105
14 The Most Serious Barriers to Implementing a Diversity Initiative. 120
xxi


15 Gender Comparisons............................................... 166
16 Royal Bank of Canada Internal Diversity Survey................... 168
17 The City of San Diego Norms & Values............................. 197
XXII


FIGURES
The Changing Faces of the U.S
XXlll


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Evidence abounds about the changing demographics in society and in the
workforce. Traditional notions and failed policies pertaining to the state of race and
gender relations are outmoded and outdated. Minorities, women and others are
demanding more respect, more access and total acceptance in all organizational
phenomena and their manifestations. Minorities and women have determined that the
glass ceiling is just a metaphor, and it will not stand in the way of achieving ultimate
personal career goals and enrichment. They have determined that no position or
opportunity should be beyond their reach.
As the controversy and debate over affirmative action and diversity proceeds.
leading-edge workforce exemplars are moving swiftly ahead to seize the moment and
the opportunity to diversify their organizations not so much as a result of legal
obligations and moral principlesthough these things are importantbut because they
see diversity as being inexorably tied into their long term survival. Jamieson and
O'Mara (1991) succinctly stated the nature of this challenge:
People want, need, and deserve a workplace free of anxiety and stress, where
they each can contribute to the best of their ability and grow in their jobs.
Until now, too many people have been stifled by managers who are unskilled
in working with the changing workforce and by organizations that think they're
still managing only younger, less educated white males. Working under
1


conditions they deem demeaning, inequitable, or foolish, many employees
simply withhold their best efforts (p. xix).
The purpose of this study was to expand the base of knowledge on diversity by
reporting on best practices in leading-edge organizations and their organizational
effects. Specifically, what strategies are being used to achieve diversity? What
obstacles still lie in the way of diversitys achievement? The various meanings and
dimensions of diversity were examined in comparison to how it is realized in best
practices diversity models. The research also investigates how best practices
diversity is manifested in policies, practices and program activities within selected
exemplary organizations.
This is a comparative analysis of the best practices workforce diversity
models. The study examines the emergence of affirmative action into affirming
diversity and related socioeconomic issues forming the framework for diversity'.
Though more organizations are turning away from affirmative action as the primary
policy tool to achieve equal employment opportunity, equal employment opportunity
remains the policy objective of diversity programs. Affirmative action as a tool for
achieving EEO policy objectives has changed; however, the goal of providing equal
employment opportunity remains at all organizational levels. The purpose of diversity
or managing diversity is directly related to Equal Employment Policy.
This research does not explore the affirmative action debate; instead, it
highlights its essential issues in-depth of both pro and con. Affirmative action is one
2


of many approaches to achieving equal employment opportunity. It is being
augmented by diversity as an emerging approach. This study identifies best practices
from among the techniques currently used in attaining equal employment opportunity.
In examining the best practices for the management of diversity of various
organizations, the researcher observed that affirmative action is no longer the
prevalent practice of the day. Determining whether it should be. is not the focus of
this research. Instead, this study identifies and analyzes existing best practices. This
is why the research features a comparative analysis of the four cases presented in this
study.
The researchers definition of the management of diversity suggest that it is the
complete utilization, appreciation and respect of all cultures and management of
human resources in essential aspects of employment and organizational life. We are
striving for this ideal.
The dissertation is separated into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the
research. Chapter 2 covers the research methodology undertaken in the study.
Chapter 3 captures the essence of relevant theories and themes in the literature.
Chapter 4 reports on the case study analyses and findings. Chapter 5 contains the
summary, conclusions and implications. This study examines the progression of equal
employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative action (AA) into workforce diversity.
The research is primarily focused on diversity, not on affirmative action. It examines
3


how diversity is practiced within leading-edge organizations and its organizational
effects. Also, this study explains underlining assumptions about the formulation and
design of the research. It describes the research methodology used: discusses data
collection techniques from several sources (interviews, questionnaires, observations,
and documents); reports on the most relevant literature to the study; and summarizes
findings along with suggestions and implications for further research, policy
formulation and practice.
Background
As this country undergoes a transition from the industrial age to the
information age, and as the greater global village becomes more diverse, public,
private and non-profit work organizations are competing to keep pace with workforce
changes caused by shifts in population demographics. Federal, state, local and private
employers will face ongoing pressures from minority groups, women and other ethnics
relative to increased equal employment opportunity, including jobs at the higher
echelons of their organizations. To stay competitive, leading-edge organizations are
attempting to make fundamental changes to accommodate protected classes of groups
[as defined by the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended] in virtually every facet of
employment Kranz, (1989); Thomas, (1990); Jamieson and OMara, (1991); Jackson
et al. (1992); Cox, (1993); Golembieski (1995); and Morrison (1996). For example,
these employers are moving to make more productive use of all employees. Loden &
4


Rosener (1992) and others (Kranz 1976; Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990; Hanamura,
1989) assert that organizational productivity and effectiveness will be contingent upon
these organizations going beyond affirmative action and their focus on numbers.
Instead, the trend must move towards valuing and managing (a diversified workforce),
removing artificial barriers and allowing disadvantaged groups to reach personal and
organizational objectives. Managing a diversified workforce is viewed by Loden &
Rosener as being crucial to achieving an organizations long-range human resources
objectives.
Transition to Diversity
The literature is replete with words that describe the transformation that is
taking place and that have various meanings and connotations. Some of the words
being used here convey certain meanings and connotations. Words defined here will
be further discussed throughout this study. For example, equal employment
opportunity is based on federal law that forbids employment discrimination.
Affirmative action refers to a federally conceived and management applied tool to
ensure access and fair treatment of minorities and women in all aspects of
employment. It is increasingly being challenged as a management tool because of its
perceived unfairness. Though not altogether new, diversity is perceived by some to
be an extension of affirmative action and goes further by focusing resources on
changing attitudes and undesirable behaviors.
5


Valuing diversity is a rather passive notion that employers use to teach respect
among all employees without really changing organizational infrastructure that makes
diversity possible. Managing diversity is a more comprehensive concept. It includes
elements and is geared toward systemic organizational change as a result of leadership
directives and managers working in partnership with diverse employee focus groups.
The definition of diversity is elusive. There is no consensus as to what it
means or what it exactly contains. Diversity is definitional and will be addressed later
in this study.
There is a transition in government and in business from affirmative action to
diversity to either enhance equal employment through diversity or to de-emphasize
affirmative action because of its controversy. Employers have increasingly decided to
focus on "valuing diversity rather than on numerical goals so often associated with
affirmative action. Some employers have decided to extend existing affirmative action
into the next generation of diversity while still relying on affirmative action to achieve
specific organizational integration objectives. Valuing diversity is increasingly
becoming the approach of choice among such organizations. For example, affirmative
action connotes numbers, targets, quotas or goals as its essential element. Equal
employment opportunity connotes fairness or process steps in personnel functions
taken by employers to assure equal conditions of employment and access to all jobs.
Such reliance is based on the fairness of organizations personnel selection procedures.
6


classifications, promotions, performance evaluations, compensation practices, career
advancement opportunities and retention policies. Workforce diversity is said to
incorporate elements of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action, but it is
also broader. Affirmative actions focus is partially based on quantitative changes
(numbers), and diversity is based on qualitative changes (organizational environment).
A perceived shortcoming of affirmative action is that it has not adequately addressed
organizational climate issues.
In examining workforce diversity, the proposed research will also compare and
contrast the differences between the affirmative action and diversity approaches in
achieving organizational representation. This is done to determine how the two have
worked either in conjunction with or exclusive of one another in being the foundations
upon which the diversity employment concepts are built. Affirmative action and, to
a lessor extent, diversity have a legal foundation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the
landmark federal public policy statute passed by the Congress of the United States to
end employment discrimination. Equal Employment opportunity was the intent of
Title VII. Subsequent Presidential Executive Orders aided in the enforcement of anti-
discrimination laws.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA), as amended in 1972, is the
federal statute that prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, sex,
7


religion, color, or national origin. Most public and private sector employers are
covered by the Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is
responsible for its enforcement. While this Act focuses on equal employment
opportunity, two other federal Executive Orders. 11246 and 11375 mandate that
companies doing business with the Federal Government must comply with the 1964
Civil Rights Act and its subsequent amendments (42 U.S.A 2000e et seq.).
Penalties for Non-Compliance
Failure to comply with provisions of the Tide VII can be cosdy and may result
in significant penalties. Title VII will be discussed in more detail in the literature
review. For example, in the public sector:
The Justice Department, as authorized by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1972, has sued some state and local governments to terminate
discriminatory practices against minorities and has obtained out-of-court
agreements providing not only for remedial rations but also for cash payments
to victims of previous discrimination. In all, the indications are that through
court fiat and agreements of this type, there will be substantially more
compliance with the law in the future (Nigro & Nigro, 1977, p. 319).
It is well established that discriminatory practices by public, private and third
sector employers have thwarted minorities, women and other ethnics in their pursuit of
procuring employment, job promotion and advancement. The workforce (numbers of
women, minorities and other ethnics) in terms of occupational representation is
claimed by some to be less than desirable.
8


Definition of Diversity
What is workforce diversity? To date, the term is definitional. There appear
to be numerous definitions assigned to its meaning. Within the organizational context,
the researchers own definition of diversityand it is tentativecontends that diversity
is the active complete utilization, appreciation, respect and management of all human
resources in all aspects of employment in diversity-friendly environments.
The research study seeks to determine what diversity is by arriving at what the
term functionally connotes. Some claim diversity is only a buzz* word and will not
last. Diversity models adopted and used by government and business were studied and
reported upon in determining the topics worthiness and positive attributes to
organizations. Although commentators, lecturers, trainers and scholars have
attempted to enlighten the public about diversity, there is no consensus on a definition.
Diversity means different things to different people causing much confusion and
misplaced energies. To some, diversity is an intangible that includes any perceived
differences. Others argue that diversity should involve core equal employment
opportunity policy parameters based on race, ethnicity and gender.
Differences Between Affirmative Action and Diversity
Loden and Rosener (1992, pp. 197-198) explain the difference between equal
employment opportunity and affirmative action. The definition used here is consistent
with the literature review:
9


... it is important to emphasize that EEO and affirmative action have
historically focused on quantitative change. In particular, EEO is a legalistic
response to workplace discrimination originally mandated by the federal
government. Affirmative action programs are outgrowths of equal
employment law. Generally, they consist of specific hiring and promotion
goals and timetables that are used to correct imbalances in the makeup of an
organizations workforce resulting from long-term patterns of employment
discrimination.
10


Table 1 further denotes the differences between affirmative action and
diversity.
Table 1
Differences Between EEO/AA Programs
and Valuing Diversity Efforts
EEO/Affirmative Action Valuing Diversity
Government initiated
Legally driven
Quantitative
Problem focused
Assumes assimilation
Reactive
Imposition
Voluntary
Productivity driven
Qualitative
Opportunity focused
Assumes integration
Proactive
Persuasion
Source: Adopted from Loden & Rosener, 1991
Note: Best practice diversity models adopted and used by public, private, and third sector
employers will be analyzed in relation to their impact on work organizations. The literature
review will contain more information on diversity' models and relevant theories that attempt to
explain some of the biggest barriers to the achievement of organizational ambition for
minorities and women.
11


Statement of Problem
Affirmative action has been quite effective in giving minorities and women
access to employment at entry levels and to some mid-range jobs. Kranz (1976) and
Nigro (1977) observed such action has been less successful in achieving the same
success at all organizational levels. Can the effective implementation of workforce
diversity programs further efforts in this regard? The extent to which senior
management positions are held equally by members of advantaged and disadvantaged
groups is the key to understanding the dimensions of equality within public [and
private] sector employment (Wise, 1990).
Diversity Model
Loden and Rosener (1991) address the difference between EEO. affirmative
action and diversity. It is clear from their definition that diversity is more extensive.
According to Loden and Rosener (1991, p. 198):
. . [Diversity builds on the foundation created by equal employment law and
affirmative action efforts to hire and promote others. By focusing on the
quality of the work environment and improved utilization of the skills of all
employees, valuing diversity moves beyond affirmative action. It
acknowledges that hiring and promoting diverse people does not automatically
lead to mutual respect, cooperation, and true integration. To achieve these
goals, organizations must also value the contributions of all employees and
maximize their opportunities to contribute. Unlike EEO, valuing diversity is
driven by the organizational need for increased innovation. It is a voluntary
process that focuses on utilization of the skills of all employees.
12


Workforce 2000 Study
By the year 2000, the majority of net additions to the workforce will be
women, minorities and new immigrants (Workforce 2000, Executive Summary).
Combined, these groups will constitute eighty-seven percent of the new workforce.
As a result of changes in demographics, pioneering public, private, and nonprofit
work organizations appear to be promoting workforce pluralism to deal more
effectively with these challenging new realities.
Diversity now appears as the model to bring about fundamental changes in the
workplace. Diversity programs take on a variety of forms. Organizations are
increasingly turning to diversity programs to cope more effectively with these changes
and to address potential organizational conflicts. Thomas (1990) believes that any
organization that is serious about diversity must change by training most, if not all,
employees to value diversity, self-development, team building, bridging and
mentoring.
Organizational Change Requirements
Nurturing and coaching of underrepresented groups is also key to developing
successful diversity programs. Loden & Rosen (1991, p. 166) believe that diversity
cannot occur without self-analysis and a firm commitment by management to make
changes in the following areas: diversity linked to strategic vision; management
13


responsibility for climate setting; systems and procedures that support diversity;
ongoing monitoring of recruitment, promotion and development trends; organizational
priority; rewards based on results; enhanced benefits; reinforcement of the value of
diversity in hiring and promotions; and, attention to subtle reinforcers of the
heterogeneous ideal. However, Jamieson and O'Mara (1991) suggest that
organizations interested in diversity must revamp their policies, create new structures
and redesign human resource systems to bring about organizational change.
Understanding diversity requires an examination of its multiple dimensions.
Loden and Rosener (1991, pp. 18-20) identified primary and secondary dimensions of
diversity:
. . primary dimensions of diversity [are those defined as] immutable human
differences that are inborn and/or that exert an important impact on our early
socialization and an ongoing impact throughout our lives. These are age,
ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race and sexual/affectional
orientation.
. . secondary dimensions of diversity are those that can be changed. They
are mutable differences that we acquire, discard, and/or modify throughout our
lives. Most are less salient than those of the core. The secondary dimensions
of diversity include but are not limited to educational background, geographic
location, income, marital status, military status, parental status, religious
beliefs, and work experience.
14


Loden and Rosener (1991) specified organizational advantages of a diverse
environment. Table 2 notes these differences:
Table 2
_______________________Long Term Diversity Advantages_________________________________
- The full utilization of the organizations human capital.
- Reduced interpersonal conflict among others as respect for diversity.
- Enhanced work relationships based on mutual respect and increased employee
knowledge of multicultural issues.
- A shared organizational vision and increased commitment among diverse
employees at all organizational levels and across all functions.
- Greater innovation and flexibility as others participate more fully in key decision-
making and problem groups.
- Improved productivity as more employee effort is directed at accomplishing tasks
and less energy is spent managing interpersonal and cultural clash.
Source: Adopted from Loden & Rosener, 1991
Note: These are general criterion for gauging diversity successes. If an organization has
successfully made the transition from affirming action to affirming diversity, these are
expected outcomes.
This research is primarily focused upon diversitys primary dimensions. Up to
this point, diversity has been discussed in terms of what it means to an organizations
profile (characteristics including adoption and implementation, effectiveness,
usefulness and value). Beyond this point, the study and research interest of workforce
diversity, and how it might or might not affect work organizations, will be discussed
15


in terms of the literature review, research model, statement of the problem, examined
issues, methodological considerations and implications.
Why is affirmative so unpopular? How should we account for diversity in the
workforce? Is it true that the best models of diversity come from the business sector?
Does government have noteworthy diversity models? What are the similarities and
dissimilarities among the best examples of diversity? Can prototypical diversity
models be exported to other organizations? If so, what are key features of these
prototypical diversity organizations?
Need For Research
Research on workforce diversity is still relatively new. A search of
dissertation abstracts through 1997 uncovered two studies directly related to the
investigation of workforce diversity. One study focused on the development of a
diversity instrument based on the opinions of employees in several organizations. A
second study examined the diversity practices of fortune 500 corporations
headquartered in Minnesota. Many other studies dealt with multicultural education
and training issues. Literature on diversity has appeared in books, in practitioner-
oriented professional journals, human resources development journals, and in the
mediaand in a variety of other sources.
16


Research Questions
Questions were developed from the literature reviews and contacts with experts
in the field. The theoretical construct suggests that real progress toward achieving
diversity requires a revamping of organizations infrastructures. It is assumed that
some public and private employers have overcome and eradicated longstanding
systemic occupational barriers to affirming diversity in their organizations. However,
public and private institutions have not overcome systemic occupational barriers in
bringing about the effective implementation of workforce diversity. This explains why
they have made so little progress toward achievement of stated diversity goals. Within
the context of these assumptions, the following research questions will be addressed:
1. What are the implications of bureaucratic organizational designs on the
implementation of diversity strategies? Do post-bureaucratic organizational
designs increase the access of underrepresented groups?
2. What models are more effective in the affirmation of diversity goals?
3. What are the implications of strategies that require systemic, organizational
change, that is, change in the removal of barriers to the achievement of full
human potential? This question is applied to the following measures of
organizational success:
Quality of program services as measured through innovation,
creativity, profits and service.
Employee morale as measured by employee tensions and productivity.
The impact of leadership and accountability at the highest
organizational levels.
17


In order to address basic research issues, additional questions were used in the
interviews of senior managers and various employees. The questions dealt with issues
that typically impact organizational change efforts within a cultural context and
responses which were intended to detect the degree of support for diversity.
Significance of Study
This inquiry should increase our knowledge of diversity for both research and
practice. This study should also contribute to our understanding of the dynamics
involved in the transition from affirmative action to diversity and its organizational
effects. The findings of this study may have some implication for both public and
private policy considerations including the socioeconomic benefits of a heterogeneous
workforce. The socioeconomic theoretical construct upon which diversity is based is
covered in the literature review.
This research will address some of the concerns expressed by proponents and
opponents of affirmative action. Apparently affirmative action is in transition to
diversity. It is anticipated that this research will contribute to our understanding of
diversity. Finally, there is no consensus on a definition of diversity. It means
different things to different people. Generally, people understand what it generally
connotes; how it is applied is a different matter. Whether it is possible or even
desirable to define diversity in specific terms may not be germane to this research.
18


Many organizations are turning to education and training either to change
behaviors or to modify attitudes. Training designed to change attitudes may be
suspect. Is it desirable or even possible to change attitudes? Increasingly,
organizations believe that successful implementation of diversity contributes to the
bottom line, company profits or service. Workforce diversity has tremendous
implications on this countrys ability to successfully compete in the marketplace. It is
anticipated that this research will contribute to our understanding in these areas.
Scope of the Study
It is almost impossible to examine all of the parameters of diversity. The
parameters of diversity are constantly evolving. Some organizations base their
diversity program primarily on race and gender; other organizations expand their
scope to include diversitys secondary dimensions such as educational attainment, class
differences, age, veteran status and regional differences. The focus of this study is the
transition from affirmative action to affirming diversity and its organizational effects.
The case study questions are aimed at the treatment of women and minorities in
selected organizations though other diversity issues were considered.
Limitations of Study
The shortcomings of the study were affected by monetary and time constraints.
The researcher traveled to three states and to Canada to collect the data. The average
19


length of time spent at each case study site was three days. The researcher conducted
the case studies including data collection and analysis, interviews, observations and
document investigation. No other researchers were involved. Triangulation of
interviews, documents and observation was employed in a limited fashion. Due to
limited resources, it was not possible to conduct more than four case studies. The
investigator notes that researchers biases can be decreased with more than one
researcher; however, it was not possible to employ this option.
The data collected is based on a snapshot of events occurring at the time the
study was conducted. It is difficult to compare and contrast data collected with other
time periods. Participants were selected for the research based on their interest and
availability. Workforce diversity is controversial. The research was affected by the
nature of the study. Because of the proprietary nature of the businesses in selected
organizations, internal confidentiality requirements dictated the degree of access as
well as limitation to certain data. The interest of some organizations in gaining
positive public relations may slant information given to the researcher. The multiple
case study design minimized this problem.
A panel of diversity experts was selected based on the literature review and
recommendations from other diversity experts. The experts recommended
organizations that they had some prior contact with. Organizations were ranked in
accordance with recommendations from consultants. Most organizations contacted
20


would not agree to participate in the study for a variety of reasons. The researcher
contacted nearly twenty organizations nominated in order to secure the permission of
four organizations who agreed to provide data for the study.
The researcher devised specific questions on workforce diversity and its
organizational affects. Some of the questions were probing; some were not. The
degree to which an organization could respond to the questions being asked varied.
For example, some organizations readily provided data on certain factors; others did
not readily do so.
Interviewees responses may have been affected by the self-serving nature of
their replies and judgmental error. Also the quality of the interviews is affected by the
emotional state of the researcher and respondents and the communication relationship
between them. Age, gender and cultural differences also affected responses. Risks
and trust factors associated with conducting the interview are additional factors. It was
not possible to conduct systemic document analysis because of its variation among the
various cases. Documents collected may contain misleading or inaccurate
information.
Researchers Role
A researchers biases tend to be projected into the study, including
methodology and treatment that shapes the data in terms of what is expected. Yin
(1991. p. 114) offered suggestions to minimize the researchers biases:
21


To represent perspectives adequately, an investigator must seek those
alternatives that most seriously challenge the design of the case study. These
perspectives may be found in alternative cultural views, different theories,
variations among the people or decision makers who are part of the case study,
or some similar contrasts.
The researcher sought contrasting views and perspectives from senior
managers and individual respondents. It is difficult to totally set aside ones values and
biases. In order to provide objective research, as bias-free as possible, certain
guidelines were followed. A report on the researchers training and experience is
included. Also information pertaining to the researchers personal or professional
career that may affect data collection, analysis and interpretation is discussed.
Research procedures have been delineated.
The researchers interest in workforce diversity is based upon his many years
of experience in human resources management and affirmative action. He has seen
considerable confusion and frustration of many people including trainers, managers
and supervisors, diversity consultants and in the popular press. Affirmative action is
coming under increasing attack causing some companies to abandon it in favor of
diversity. And diversity is being criticized in some quarters as being politically
correct. It seems that the socioeconomic well-being of the nation is tied irrevocably
to diversity. How can we avoid the shortcomings that were associated with affirmative
action and not repeat the mistakes of past?
22


This researcher wanted to know what accounts for best practices of
workforce diversity and to expand the base of knowledge on diversity. During the
transitions between the researchers jobs, the study was completed. The only affect it
has had on the study was to allow more time to conduct the research. There were no
additional changes, other than financial, that impacted the outcome of this study.
Additionally, the interview process was not impacted by any special considerations.
The methodological process is described in Chapter 2.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 introduced the diversity dilemma and the researchers approach and
methodology for investigating the issue. The need for additional research in this areas
has been addressed. The research now moves to Chapter 2, research methodology.
This chapter denotes procedures and methods for collecting and organizing the data; it
also addresses specific research questions and expected outcomes.
23


CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODS
Study Design
The methodology used in this research is a comparative analysis of four best
practices case studies. It is based on the opinion of experts in the area of diversity.
Armstrong (1985) said that, "Evidence is available from well over 100 studies on the
value of experts. Expert opinions add a measure of credibility to the research relative
to identification of successful diversity models. The research is a descriptive study of
four diversity models.
Case Study Selection Process
The research involved multiple case studies of best practices workforce
diversity models. The case study selection process was based on the following
sequence:
1) Selection of panel of experts
2) Initial phone contacts with experts
3) Questionnaire mailed to expens for selection of best practices
organization models of diversity.
4) Prioritization of best practices organizations
5) Permission to conduct case studies
6) Signed agreement for case studies
24


Experts were asked to nominate organizations for their best practices reputations in
diversity. The selection of the experts was based on an extensive literature review
and recommendations by other experts and professionals. The researcher contacted
each expert by telephone asking him/her to be on the panel. After telephone
contacts were made, the researcher followed-up with a questionnaire explaining in
more detail, the purpose of the questionnaire, a tentative definition of diversity, and
asking him/her to rank order 10 organizations having the best practices of diversity.
Though four organizations agreed to participate, the researcher initially
considered doing up to 4 to 6 case studies. Most of the expens agreed to participate
on the panel, though some of them declined. Experts contacted were located in all
regions of the country. Some were human resources managers, authors, consultants
and trainers. Seventeen experts were contacted and asked for their views and
suggestions. The researcher sent the experts a formal questionnaire. A tentative
definition of diversity was included on the questionnaire.
The experts were asked to pinpoint the success factors of highly visible
organizations. Three basic questions were posed: (1) What is your definition of
diversity? (2) Name the top, up to 10 in order of rank, organizations that practice
diversity in either the public, business or in not-for-profit sectors. (3) What are the
key success factors that led to their successful diversity strategies? The information
obtained from this questionnaire was tabulated.
25


The questionnaire also permitted the panel of experts to name organizations
based on some other criteria related to diversity. Finally, the last page of the form
asked for the name and address of anyone else they felt would agree to serve on the
panel. Approximately 50% of the experts, who had agreed to participate in this study,
by telephone, actually returned the questionnaires. Most expens did not rank selected
organizations. Several said not enough was really known about the organizations to
rank them. They said none of the organizations they were aware of had progressed to
the point where they could be rank ordered.
Twenty organizations were initially contacted for participation in the case
studies. The contact was usually made with the diversity or human resources
manager. One-third of these managers did not return the researchers telephone calls.
Contacts were made with eleven organizations for the purpose of gaining permission to
do the research. After deliberating, including seeking permission of senior
management, seven diversity managers said their organization declined involvement in
the study. They cited reasons of confidentiality, or their staffs were too busy to take
time out for the research. The researcher visited with several local companies to make
a personal pitch in order to gain permission to do the research. Several locally-based
corporations also declined an invitation to be the focus of the research. They were
fortune 500 companies with a reputation for progress in workforce diversity.
Company contacts said that they had already been involved in previous research, and
26


they were not interested in doing it again. The questionnaire for respondents was
structured in order to gamer similar kinds of information.
There were some similarities in the structure and contents of the case studies.
Because organizations are unique and have varying confidentiality requirements, some
of the information obtained varied. Generally, the same questions were asked each
organization. They had similar diversity challenges and strategies; however, the
approach to dealing with organizational change efforts was different. Some of the
information obtained in one case study was not available in another case study. There
are both similarities and dissimilarities among the case studies. Thus organizational
profiles were structured and presented in accordance with the information that was
made accessible.
Information contained in the cases came from several sources within the
organizations. These sources included interviews with key staff, diversity managers,
human resources professionals and senior management staff (Vice Presidents).
Additional information was obtained from various documents including EEO reports,
company newsletters, annual reports, training materials, popular press news clippings
and company generated reports. The case study approach is also based on
observations of anything that was considered relevant to the study.
27


Interview Questions
Each case study report is followed by 29 questions. The diversity manager
selected candidates for interview. The average number of employees interviewed was
twelve. Most of the employees held positions in management and had been employed
with their organization for 10 or more years. Since the selection decision was left to
the particular organizations, diversity managers tended to select those employees who
were involved, in some way, already on a diversity task force, or diversity focus
groups. The researcher was afforded a limited opportunity to interview senior
management staff. These high profile individuals were not presented with the standard
interview questions out of respect for their status in the organization and time
constraints. They were asked about their experiences with diversity'. Nearly all
persons interviewed agreed to mechanical recording of the interviews. Several
participants asked that their interviews not be recorded; this request was honored.
Generally, participants were asked 29 questions relating to the treatment of
women and minorities. The questions used in this study for respondent interviews
were adapted, in part, from diversity research completed by Heidi Brinkman (1992)
from the University of Denver and also from survey of the literatureand from the
researchers extensive experience in the area. Brinkman developed a diversity
assessment instrument, a series of diversity questions. This instrument was validated.
The questions are deemed appropriate in assessing organizational diversity efforts.
28


Selected quotes from some of the participants have been included in the case study
results. Other verbatim responses were not made a part of this research because the
comments did not offer new information.
Though the list was narrowed to the top diversity models, gaining access
required that nearly all of the organizations listed by the experts had to be contacted in
order to gain permission to develop four case studies. Ultimately, four "best
practices models of diversity in North America were selected for detailed case
analysis. All best practices organizations recommended by the experts were contacted
and asked if they wanted to participate in the research. Four leading-edge
organizations eventually agreed to participate in the case studies. The final stage of
the process involved conducting the case studies. Employers representing diversity
models in business and in government participated in the study.
As stated, the purpose of this study was to examine best practices workforce
diversity initiatives and their organizational effects within the context of the transition
from reliance on affirmative action to diversity. Four case studies were investigated,
three of them were in the private sector and one model came from the public sector.
The study attempted to find out what factors are key to making successful
strategies work and what factors are detrimental to the successful implementation of
diversity. The literature suggests there is no one best way to achieve diversity
success. This study is intended to help sort some of these organizational complexities.
29


While conducting case analyses, the researcher interviewed human resources
directors, diversity managers, organizational development specialists, trainers and rank
and file employees, as needed. Questions were asked of managers and technical staff
in order to ferret out documentation for review. An examination of primary and
secondary information, including managerial processes and archival data, was
undertaken to further ascertain the thoroughness of the implementation of diversity.
Indicators of these dimensions included recruitment, staffing, performance evaluation,
promotions, turnover, layoffs, and employee grievancesand relationships among
employees.
Because of the sensitive nature of diversity, most organizations contacted
declined to take part in the study. Four leading-edge employers agreed to allow access
to the data. The contact person was a diversity manager or vice president for
diversity. The person had considerable latitude and influence in diversity related
matters. Again, on average, twelve employees for each case study site engaged in the
interviews. Interviews also were held with mid-level managers, senior executives and
support staff. Approximately 55 interviews were completed with staffs among the
four case profiles. The researcher made inquiries asking for specific information.
Access to the information varied in accordance with the requirements of each
organization. When access was restricted, the researcher was told that the information
was nonpublic. The researcher asked specific questions about selected organizations
30


diversity practices. Some information was readily available, some of it was not
accessible or the information was deemed confidential.
Case Study Approach
Robert Yin (1988, p. 25) states that: The most important thing is to explain
the causal links in real-life interventions that are too complex for the survey or
experimental strategies. This is especially so . . when the investigator has little
control over events, and when the focus is on contemporary phenomenon within some
real life context (p. 13). Within organizations, diversity is an interactive process.
Schein (1990) suggests that culture could be investigated by qualitative research
methods that combine field work methods from ethnography with interview and
observation methods from clinical and consulting work (p. 118).
The multiple case study approach, a comparative analysis, minimized
reliability concerns. The potential problem of construct validity was handled by using
multiple sources of evidence, establishing a chain of evidence and allowing key
informants to review case study drafts (Yin 1988). Reliability concerns were covered
by documentation of procedures used to conduct the study. The researcher was
mindful of reliability concerns during the data collection, data analysis, and
composition phase of the research (Yin 1988). Yin reveals three strategies for
strengthening the study, reporting research findings and covering reliability issues.
First, using multiple sources of evidence to strengthen the study is covered by the
31


research design: literature review, interviews with experts in the field, a survey and
case analyses. Next, he suggests creating a data base for all research data collected.
This was accomplished using computer technology. Finally, for reliability, he
recommends maintaining a chain of evidence that could be followed by someone
reviewing the process. Multiple case studies, convergence of evidence and a review of
key information by informants minimized reliability problems.
Internal validity was met through the following: Careful use of the literature
and consulting experts in the field, careful questionnaire construction and intensive
fieldwork minimized the problem of internal validity. The initial focus of the case
studies was on identifying outcomes or implemented diversity strategies. It is said that
diversity strategies are unclear and that it is difficult to tell when a particular strategy
has been achieved. Yin (1988. p. 25) said that . case study strategy may be used
to explore these situations in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear single
set of outcomes. Diversity does not have a clear single set of outcomes. It is still
evolving. This is why the case study method was chosen.
The primary research design is an examination of multiple cases. There are
some noted examples of this research strategy. This research follows along something
similar to what was done In Search of Excellence by Thomas Peters and Robert
Waterman (1992) and Unsung Heroes: Federal Executives Making a Difference,
(1995). My research raises the question: What accounts for diversity successes?
32


Although this study is similar in some ways to the above authors approaches, the
proposed research is also different. Riccucci was interested in examining selected
federal executives. Peters and Waterman were interested in finding out the
characteristics of excellent companies. The study explores input, diversity strategies
and outcomes. The identification of these success factors involved an examination of
individual, group and organizational factors. The approach used came from a variety
of sources, including experts in the field, literature reviews and informants in
organizations selected. The research attempted to find out what factors or conditions
underlay diversity successes. Case analysis seem best suited for this purpose. Yin
(1988, p. 12) suggested that case studies may be the most appropriate research method
for . appreciating the complexities of organizational phenomenon.
Procedures used and potential sources of information, including procedures for
data array, were listed, before beginning data collection. Yin (1988) suggested four
levels of questions that seem appropriate to this proposed study. They include (1)
questions asked of individual cases, (3) questions asked of findingshow they relate to
the literature and (4) questions referring to policy or practical implications and
recommendations.
The literature review indicates there will be certain challenges associated with
the research. These challenges are particularly relevant to case studies. Van Maanem
(1983) discussed ways to make sense out of the data being collected. Easterby-Smith
33


and colleagues (1991) covered site selection issues. Marshall and Rossman (1989, p.
112) and Easterby-Smith and colleagues (1991, pp. 108-111) offered recommendations
and discussed validity concerns.
Van Maanem (1983, p. 9) described qualitative methods as an array of
interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate and otherwise come
to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more or less naturally
occurring phenomena in the social world. This study anticipated the use of
interviewing, observation, and the examination of relevant documents (e.g.,
grievances, compensation plans, memoranda of understanding, training plans, policies
and procedures and similar indicators).
Issues considered were site selection, access, trust political sensitivities, and
reciprocity (what the organization stands to gain from the research), Easterby-Smith
and colleagues (1991). The researcher took note of these considerations and
observations. Political sensitivities were ongoing issues that were addressed in the
field.
The methods explained by Marshall and Rossman (1989, p. 112) are a part of
this research. They include data organization; generation of categories, themes and
patterns; testing hypotheses against the data; considering alternative explanations of the
data and interpretation. Easterby-Smith and colleagues (1991, pp. 108-111)
recommended other methods of data analysis: familiarization, reflections,
34


conceptualization, categorizing of concepts, recording, linking and re-evaluation. The
above elements were used in the data analysis. The research design also included the
following methods: interviews with diversity experts, executive staff and trainers and
reviews of diversity plans or strategies, EEO data, personnel policies, organizational
structure, artifacts and glass ceiling issues.
Accessibility and trust issues were dealt with early in the process. Though top
diversity companies were listed, gaining access and cooperation proved difficult in
some cases. The investigator needed to convince potential organizations that both the
researcher and the organization would stand to gain from participation in the study.
Issues of confidentiality also posed a potential problem because of the
proprietary nature of the data being sought. The researcher asked permission to use
names of selected case profiles in the study. If permission was not going to be
granted, an aggregate approach to reporting the findings would be necessary.
Fictitious names would assure anonymity. Permission was sought to use real names
for greater validity of the study. The researcher is grateful to these organizations for
granting permission. Key organizational informants were asked to review portions of
the study relating to their organizations to improve its reliability. Each diversity
manager reviewed the draft case studies.
The study design involves analytical generalization and not sampling logic.
The researcher attempted to generalize potential results to broader theory. According
35


to Yin (1988, p. 44), A theory' must be tested through replications of the findings in a
second or third neighborhood (cases), where the theory has specified that the same
results should occur. The multiple case study approach should minimize reliability
concerns. The potential problem of construct validity was handled by using multiple
sources of evidence, establishing a chain of evidence and allowing key informants to
review the draft case study Yin (1988). Reliability concerns were covered by
documentation of procedures used to conduct the study. The researcher was mindful
of reliability concerns during the data collection, data analysis, and composition phases
of the research (Yin 1988).
Selection Criteria
The participants were selected from among best practices diversity models in
North America. One of the major corporations is located in the Northeast, one is
located in Canada, another corporation is headquartered in Southern California, and
the large city government case is located in Southern California. Organizations were
selected to participate in the study based on several factors:
1. Recommendations by panel of experts
2. References in the literature and popular press
3. Willingness to share information
4. Agreement to participate in the case studies
36


The research methods used a variety of data collection techniques including
interviews, direct observations and document analysis. After the case studies were
drafted, a colleague was asked to review the preliminary findings.
Interviews
When permission was given, respondents interviews were mechanically
recorded. The interviews averaged one hour. Before questionnaires were sent to the
contact person within the organization, some diversity managers decided to send the
questions ahead of time to the respondents and some chose to allow the researcher the
opportunity to present questions on the spot. These participants were unable to think
about the questions before hand. Each respondent was given the same questions.
Questions tended to be open ended. Due to the nature and scope of responsibilities
held by senior managers, the researcher deviated from the standard question format in
order to gain a deeper understanding of the realities and consequences of diversity.
Diversity managers were mailed a copy of a consent form prior to the case
studies: questions were clarified as needed. The form covers both risks and benefits
associated involvement in the case study. See Appendix A.
Diversity Survey Questionnaire
A questionnaire containing 30 questions was developed for each respondent.
The questionnaire was prefaced with the following statements:
37


As you know. I am researching best practices diversity models for my
doctoral dissertation. My interview is about managing diversity and its
organizational effects. Though the main focus of the study is on how women
and minorities are treated within your organization, please share any
information you feel is relevant to diversity. The following questions should
only take 30 to 45 minutes (approximately) of your time, depending on your
position within your organization. Your responses to my questions will be
kept confidential.
The questions dealt with the treatment of women and minorities in the
organizations. The last question asked the respondent to select a number from a
Lickert Scale (from 1 to 10) to indicate how comfortable they would be recommending
their place of employment as a excellent place to work. See Appendix E.
Key staff were asked different questions including rank and file employees.
These questions dealt with broader diversity issues and their organizational impact,
internally, and in the community at large. See Appendix D. Though a broad range of
questions was asked, some of the information requested was not applicable, or it was
deemed proprietary in nature.
Observations
Observations of diversity practices were made with the permission of the
organization under review. Organizational dynamics of diversity task force meetings,
cultural diversity celebrations and office activities were observed.
38


Documents
This process involved collection and review of several basic documents: (a)
annual repons, (b) internal diversity related newsletters and documents and (c) human
resources and equal employment opportunity data. Annual reports were collected for
the most recent years for which they were available. Internal diversity related
documents varied in accordance with the particular organization under review.
Oftentimes these documents included information on internal diversity surveys and
special newsletters devoted to diversity. A third source of evidence was data on
employee demographics. General information on reports, journals and magazine
articles focusing on external diversity issues was also reviewed.
39


CHAPTER 3
SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE
The survey of the literature is not directed toward comprehensive reviews of
management, organizational psychology, organizational theory, organization behavior
or development. The literature review is focused on diversity-related issues though
some consideration is given to these subjects. The review of the literature stems from
practitioner-oriented books, professional journals, newspapers, magazine articles, and
unpublished reports. Much of the available information is related to race and gender
segmentation within organizations. This research narrows the focus to theoretical
constructs and issues more directly related to workforce diversity. Since workforce
diversity is relatively new and is just emerging, available research material on it is
limited (Adams & Eggers, 1996; Camevale & Stone, 1995; Cox, 1993;
Golembiewski. 1995; Jamieson & O'Mara, 1991; Morrison, 1996; Thomas. 1991).
Until fairly recently, diversity has primarily focused on race and gender. It has not
generally included other aspects of diversity (Thomas, 1991).
This chapter is an examination of the literature on diversity and in the
workplace. Though workforce diversity covers many topics from many disciplines,
this literature review has been narrowed to focus on more recent research, workforce
demographics information, popular press articles, theories and related diversity
40


strategies. The review is not intended to be exhaustive. It is a sampling of some of
the most important information currently available driving workforce diversity.
Section Summary
The literature review is divided into four sections. Section 1 addresses the
socioeconomic diversity construct. This study argues that the socioeconomic aspects
of diversity should be examined and included in any serious study of diversity. The
socioeconomics theoretical construct on diversity is explored. The first section also
discusses demographic projections and statistical data. Historical perspectives of
equal employment opportunity and affirmative action are discussed along with its
attendant controversies. This section traces and synthesizes the historical evolution of
affirmative action and workforce diversity including pertinent legislation, executive
orders and legal considerations. Section 2 examines the origins and legal foundations
of equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and diversity. Section 3 discusses
diversity and related literature. It also addresses organizational change and assessment
strategies. Exemplary diversity models are examined along with ideas by various
authors on how to implement successful diversity strategies. Section 4 is a review of
theoretical perspectives on diversity. This section follows a conceptual framework in
assessing, implementing and evaluating diversity initiatives. The section concludes
with a review of affirmative action and its transcendency into diversity.
41


Section 1: Socioeconomic Aspects Of Diversity
As we prepare to enter the twenty-first century, the question of diversity
pervades many aspects of our daily lives. Diversity has deep historical roots, resulting
from legal mandates, ethical considerations, social responsibility and economic
perspectives. The economic aspects of diversity are more fundamental than improving
employment chances of minorities and females. While affirmative action and equal
employment have been covered extensively in the literature, diversity has not. A
review of the literature and anecdotal information suggests that the current emphasis
on diversity is motivated by economics. To get a clearer understanding of how
diversity and economics are related, it is helpful to explore the socio-cultural aspects
of economics (Loden and Rosener, 1991).
Diversity: A Challenge to the
Neoclassical Economic Paradigm
The literature reveals that the newly developing discipline of socioeconomics
provides the framework for diversity as the polar opposite of neoclassical economics.
From a deonotoligical perspective, socioeconomic is more inclusive of other social
values in economic analysis than neoclassical economics (Swelberg, 1990). Swelberg
(1987) in his article The New Battle of Methods, said that it was Max Weber who
suggested that socioeconomics is: . . a solution to the artificial separation between
economics and other social sciences. During the last century, economics was divided
42


into two analyses, historical and analytical. Swelberg, further discussed these
approaches in the following quote:
. . this [struggles of approaches] resulted in a series of studies in which social
topics were analyzed as if they lacked an economic dimension, and economic
topics were analyzed as if they lacked a social dimension. But the alienation
went deeper than that, and in a way economics and sociology now became
distorted mirror images of each other. While economist only saw rational,
self-propelled individuals, sociologist tried to explain everything in terms of
groups, social structures . (p. 10).
Swelberg (1987) went on to establish a table of the neoclassical and
sociological paradigms. Both Homo Economics and Homo Sociologist have tunnel-
vision in their analyses. The Homo Economic view values the individual rather than
aggregate groups. The sub rational side of the individual is not considered. The Homo
Sociologist considers the entire environment while de-emphasizing individuals.
43


Table 3
The Neoclassical and Sociological Paradigms as Mirror Images of Each Other
HOMO ECONOMICS HOMO SOCIOLOGIST
ACTOR individual actor collective actor
PRINCIPLE OF ACTION freedom of action constraint of social structure
MOTIVE OF ACTION exclusively rational motives a mixture of irrational feelings, values, and traditional motives
STEERING PRINCIPLE the market (multiple decentralized decisions) hierarchies (prescription of norms)
TYPE OF CONCEPTS USED analytical and abstract empirical and descriptive
GOAL OF ANALYSIS prediction as explanation description as explanation
IMAGE IN RELATION TO THE OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCES self-sufficient self-sufficient
Source: Richard Swelberg, Economic Sociology, Sage, London, 1987.
Amitai Etzioni (1990), a noted sociologist, also supported the notion that
neoclassical economics lack diversity. He pointed out that in the face of constant
chaos, diversity in economics appears to be a viable alternative:
Criticisms of neoclassical economics and other social sciences that draw on the
same ethical (utilitarian) assumptions are giving way to a constructive effort to
encompass the neoclassical paradigm in a broader framework. A new
paradigm of socioeconomics is emerging from the old models assumptions
about the goals people pursue, the way they pursue them, and whether the
decision made is a solitary' individual or part of a community (p. 21).
44


Etzioni, quoting Robert Solow, sites a major shortcoming of the "neoclassicists
approach, Robert Solow puts it, [neoclassicists] underplays the significance of ethical
judgements both in its approach to policy and its account of individual and
organizational behavior.
According to Etzioni, socioeconomics has developed an elementary model that
can be used to predict social patterns and can separate enduring functions from those
that are transient. He believes that it [the model] can be used to understand the
functions that drive changes in taste, such as social movements, ethnic assimilation,
and fads.
My purpose is to examine the socioeconomic aspects of diversity. In part, this
will be accomplished by re-examining the dominant paradigm for what is considered
rational behavior as presented in neoclassical economics. This review will re-explore
the notion that the operationalizing of neoclassical economic models has excluded
considerations of heterogeneity or diversity.
Moreover, the above is further based on the observation that people, lost or out
of necessity or conventionalism, assumed away all heterogeneity or all diversity.
Another name for this heterogeneity is diversity. In assuming away all diversity,
behavior identified outside the homogeneous model has been interpreted as deviant
or different (Ziller, 1972; Weisskopf, 1971).
45


The Transition to Multiculturalism
It is speculated that this exclusion is what induced the (multicultural)
movement. Though the issue of cultural diversity is considered peripheral as a
discipline, many organizations are attempting to get a belter handle on how to make
diversity work. They also attempted to effectively carry out policies that adapted to
multicultural diversity (Jamieson and OMara, 1990; Kranz, 1989; Thomas, 1990).
Workforce diversity is explored as an analytical model to determine its level of
inclusiveness or exclusiveness of multiculturalism. This is done to identify approaches
that can be used to define diversity as well as understand its models. Diversity cuts
across many parameters including race, class, gender, age, to name a few'.
For example, in Morris Masseys (1986) model of intergenerational cultural
conflict, Massey demonstrated that significant events cause values to change. Social
acceptance of change may come about resulting from historical events such as the
youth rebellion of the 1960s which was caused, in part, by the protest against the
Vietnam War.
Lewis (1995) asserted that this countrys approach to economic analysis is still
exclusionary.
Our approach to defining the enfranchised members of this countrys culture
(consumers of public goods and services) imposes presuppositions that exclude
the existence of high levels of diversity in the population. Our current
approach to economic analysis bears this out (p. 49).
46


The assumption made is that the one-best-way economic approach is no longer
effective in todays society. Public policy initiatives and corresponding private
corporate mandates imposed onto the general population, are no longer viable.
This review asks are the three economic models (preclassical, classical,
neoclassical) inclusive or exclusive of diversity or heterogeneity? In finding this out,
theoretical constructs, including rational choice models, and organizational
development implications will be reviewed.
Operationally, another important issue is understanding diversity and how to
manage it in the workplace. The fact that the demographics of the workforce
population are dramatically changing makes this a very important and controversial
issue (Jamieson and OMara, 1991).
As noticed previously, Workforce 2000. the seminal study in this area, was
published by the Employment and Training Division of the United States Department
of Labor. The primary emphases of the Workforce 2000 study focus on changing
national demographic patterns concerning new workers entering the workforce by the
year 2000. It identifies reasons why people should be more acquainted with and
responsive to the evolving, diverse demographics in this country (Workforce 2000,
Executive Summary).
The report projects that total percentage of white males in the workforce will
decline. And, women, racioethnic minorities, and immigrants will make up the
47


largest percentage (87 %) of the new additions to the workforce. The report further
predicts that changes in the economy will be matched by significant shifts in the
population. Between now and the year 2000 women will comprise nearly two-thirds
of the new entrants into the workforce. Non-whites will make up to 29 percent of new
workers for the same period. The study specified that upwards of 600,000 immigrants
will enter the country annually, and two-thirds of this number will be job seekers.
More than five-sixths of the net addition to the labor force by the year 2000 will be
non-whites and women. Nevertheless, the report suggests white males will still
represent a significant percentage of the labor force. This is based on their
maintaining economic and organizational advantages that come with occupying
important managerial, technical and professional positions (Workforce 2000,
Executive Summary).
In response to the Workforce 2000 study, many employers are taking proactive
steps to hire and advance employees that are more representative of the general
population. Their underlying motive is economics, basing their aim on dominant
market representation. Marketshare diversity is actively being pursued by many
firms. It seems that their drive to achieve measurable marketplace representativeness
is grounded in the precept that it is time to dispense with the notion of doing business
as usual, and adapt to the rapidly changing society (Jamieson and OMara, 1991).
48


Culturally, economically, politically and socially society is undergoing rap'd
change. The Workforce 2000 report addresses some of these dynamic, diverse,
changes. In terms of the social aspects of these changes, analyses in the literature have
primarily focused on culture, gender, and social context of organizational diversity.
However, the literature, basically, has not dealt with the socioeconomic context of
diversity or multiculturalism (Cox, 1993. p. 261). Organizational diversity or
multiculturalism is emerging as a subfield of Organizational Development (OD) (Cox,
1993, p. 261).
Can organizational diversity or multiculturalism make substantial contributions
in the development of theoretical constructs in the organizational behavior and theory
field and help guide practice? The answer to this question is yes. We can begin this
search for an answer by looking at aspects of classical economics.
The primary incentive causing a keen interest in diversity is attributable to
global economics and a need to encourage representativeness, innovation, creativity
and increased productivity (Thomas, 1990; Jamieson and OMara, 1991). Even public
sector organizations are looking for new ways to improve efficiency and productivity
with hopes of improving the publics perception of multicultural representation and
effective and efficient government. Some of these same themes were also addressed in
the Workforce 2000 report, thus making the public aware of these new developments.
49


Multiculturalism: Public Policy Implications
With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, affirmative action (AA) became
the primary tool used to operationalize equal employment opportunity (EEO).
Particularly in the workplace, socioethnic and gender differences were not openly
emphasized. Assimilation into the dominant ethos was considered by many to be the
prime recipe to success (Cox, 1993). This review is not exclusively focused on the
history of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. Though that may be
the case, one cannot overlook the relationship between the civil rights movement,
affirmative action, equal opportunity and diversity or multiculturalism. Assimilation is
still a key element of affirmative action and equal employment opportunity. The point
is that some affirmative action and diversity models today still emphasize assimilation
(Cox, 1993. p. 166). More advanced diversity models no longer advocate
assimilation; however, cultural relevance is advocated.
Furthermore, organizationally, the same seems to apply in that cultural and
social assimilation are predominant in relation to prescribing homogeneous as opposed
to heterogeneous behavior. Today, one would like to think that many of those same
precepts are being reassessed and challengedwhy? Organizational values are
undergoing dramatic change (Cox, 1993, p. 166). It appears necessary that
organizations must adapt to a new social order if they are to survivethe new social
order of diversity or multiculturalism.
50


Organizational diversity or multiculturalism is now being encouraged in public
and private sector organizations as a means to cope more effectively with expected
gender and racioethnic changes in organizations. Special training programs to
sensitize all employees to the rapidly occurring demographic changes in society are
being conducted in many organizations across the country (Thomas, 1990; Jamieson
and OMara, 1991). In paraphrasing Cox, the multicultural organization of the future
not only will recognize cultural differences, but will appreciate the differences in
contributions that diverse or multicultural individuals make to the organization in
achieving overall organizational goals (Cox, 1993). Any worthwhile achievement of
organizational diversity programs will also require changing the perspectives of those
individuals within the organization. Therefore, it further appears that more
collaborative efforts will be required to lessen resentment and to increase the
understanding of all individuals affected by changes in the organizational culture.
Lessening individual resentment and fostering a greater understanding of diversity or
multiculturalism, it seems, will require a workable definition of what it is. and how
effectively it is operationalized.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, deontology' is the theory or
study of moral obligation or commitment. Diversity takes the perspective of
deontology as does socioeconomics. Similarly, much of the thinking on neoclassical
51


economics relies on utilitarianism or the belief that considers utility as the basis of
action.
The diversity term is definitional. There appears to be little or no consensus as
to what it connotes, or how it really should be defined. Cox (1991) attempts to offer
insight into what, in his viewpoint, constituted organizational diversity. However, in
trying to truly understand what the term means, things become further complicated
because other terms like pluralism and even multiculturalism have been linked with
diversity and used interchangeably with EEO/AA. Diversity, if indeed it is to be a
newly emerging field of OD, at this point in time, lacks adequate definitions and the
development of theoretical constructs. Scholars know that if research is not
undertaken and thoroughly investigated, not only in this area of inquiry, but also in
others as well, then any study field will have a hard time gaining respectability.
From a review of the literature over the last couple of years, several definitions
of diversity appear feasible. These definitions should not be considered all-
encompassing because diversity is a relatively new concept. Edwin Nichols, of
Nichols and Associates, describes diversity as the full utilization of all human resource
potential. The American Heritage Dictionary defines diversity as: The fact of quality
of being diverse, a point of respect at which things differ. Because diversity and
multiculturalism are so complex and encompassing, most writers build models or
describe diversity from a paradigmatic perspective.
52


Diversity and Economics: A Reconciliation
Since both the diversity and the multicultural terms are expansive reaching for
contextuality, among other things, business must shed outdated notions and capitalize
on its increasing acceptability. Loden and Rosener (1991) observed that in order to be
competitive, businesses must change and accept a more heterogenic business model:
To understand and respond appropriately to diverse consumers, businesses
must speak the multicultural language of the marketplace. This often means
discarding the mass market appeals of the past and, instead, learning to
communicate to a mass of diverse markets [emphasis added] each with
differing needs, tastes, and desires. How do organizations learn to diversify
their appeals? One way is by listening to their own employees. By hiring
employees who represent the spectrum of American society and then by
tapping their ideas, organizations can communicate more effectively with
diverse [emphasis added] customers (p. 10).
Again, economic motivations are the main reasons why many organizations,
both public and private, are advocating diversity and multiculturalism.
Fundamentally, economics is the aspect of the social sciences that deals with the
production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The reasons given
by many companies for adopting diversity strategies are competition, marketshare,
innovation and profits (Thomas, 1990; Loden & Rosener, 1992). Concerning
diversity and multiculturalism, economics comes into play with respect to the
consumption of goods and services by racioethnic groups. President Clinton stated
there is a new economic reality and the United States is part of it. Many firms have
already recognized the new reality Clinton discussed. These firms have come to the
53


conclusion that it is no longer possible to have a thriving business while at the same
time remain isolated from the greater global village of the world community. Diverse,
multicultural, groups are an integral part of global consumerism. This appears to be a
fact that can no longer be ignored (Kanter, 1989). Universally, multiethnics are also
the economic producers, distributors, and consumers of goods and services, and
businesses are as economically driven to make profits from the sale of goods and
services to them.
Concerning diversity, or multiculturalism, and economics, research reveals
that little is devoted to the two in the literature. Nevertheless, in order to get better
understanding of the socioeconomic aspects of diversity, this review includes an
analysis of the fundamental economic assumptions upon which the Workforce
2000study is based. Appropriately, then, the question is: Is it extremely difficult to
incorporate diversity, multiculturalism or heterogeneity, when it appears that the three
have previously been excluded from the inclusion in rational choice economic models?
From a historical perspective, logically, an individual can deduce that both the
social and economic aspects of diversity or multiculturalism impact politics and
political cultures. Karl Marx examined these social dynamics in his treatment of the
subject, economic determinism. Relative to socioeconomic aspects influencing
political cultures over time, Marx believed that the class of people that controlled
the greatest economic power also possess the greatest political power. As a result, he
54


further observed that groups that did not possess political strength cannot gain
political power without changing the economic system (Weisskopf, 1971).
Weisskopf (1971) noted that oppression over a period of time will be met by
opposite desires to break from the status quo; consequently, the movement toward
multiculturalism is a prime example.
Every given historical reality is a thesis which creates an antithesis. This is so
because social existence never encompasses the totality of human nature. Every
society permits only certain human propensities to be realized and suppresses
others. It bottles up certain drives, inclinations and capabilities which that,
then, like the forces as unconscious, clamor for realization and bring about
social change (p. 12).
Weisskopf (1971, p. 46) explained the philosophical premise upon which world
capitalism is based. It has long been thought that minorities and others have not
benefited from capitalism as much as their counterparts because homogeneous
organizations tended to exclude them. Furthermore, behavior that was not considered
conducive to the homogeneous ideal was considered deviant and unacceptable:
The goal of acquisition and of economic success, whether for religious or other
reasons, provided the rationalization and legitimization of all repression
involved in worldly asceticism. This is a clear illustration of the principle
previously discussed: repression has to be legitimized by a belief system which
is rooted in a central world outlook in order to be tolerable and acceptable.
What Weisskopf is saying about the repressive applications of economic rationalism
merits a closer examination. This theory can be scrutinized relative to the impact
rationalism had on the preclassical, classical and neoclassical economic models.
Taking a look in the distant past, one finds that the preclassical economic period was
55


defined by old magic, traditionalism, and a value-attitude system. The classical
period of economics was based on a foundation and an alliance between impulse-
control and rationalism. Classical economics was premised upon minimal
governmental interference by allowing entities to produce and supply what the market
demanded relative to the economic self-interest of consumption. Arguably, Adam
Smith represented the most well known of the classical economists. It is also said that
classical economics consists of an element of social Darwinism, that being applied
economically to mean during that era the survival of the fittest (Weisskopf, 1971).
Neoclassical economics, whose founder was Alfred Marshall, was established
upon models of maximization derived from rational choice and homogeneity. It
encompassed maximizing the production, distribution, and the consumption of goods
and services. Economics, structured upon maximization principles and rational
choice, is not without its critics. In this sense, based on rational choice, economic
maximization has been criticized for being indiscriminate and explicitly lacking a
definition of the process for subrational decision-making, among other things. Choi
(1993 p. 4-5) criticized the orthodox application of maximization models:
... the orthodox application of maximization models [is] [work and emphasis
added] indiscriminately [omitted] [emphasis added] to all entities, be they
individuals, firms, and industries . Only individuals make decisions. Even
with micro-foundations, these macro models rarely if ever make explicit the
process by which individuals decision making translates into group action.
Accordingly, maximization in macroeconomic models lacks the methodological
justification it has as the model of the logic of individual choice.
56


He further observes that:
. . but this logic of choice alone is insufficient to describe human behavior.
We can and must also understand how the way in which perceptions and the
very process of acquiring them influence our actions. Believing that the logic
of choice is sufficient to understand human behavior is like believing that a dog
is wagged by his tail (p. 6).
The failure of neoclassical economics to include diversity in its model is also
questioned by Baxter, 1993, (p. 237):
The practice in economics has frequently been to start with the rationality
assumption, defined as utility and profit maximization, but then to add
supplementary hypothesis, such as homogeneity across individual agents,
additively and separability original hypothesis have been shown to be
inadequate. The process continues until the theoretician obtains the observed
end results. Such procedures seem to emphasize just how weak the rationality
hypothesis is on its own. They also raise serious questions about where
economics is heading. Some of the supplementary hypothesis such as
homogeneity, are designed to shut out the real world Arrow (1987) regards
the homogeneity assumption as particularly dangerous since it denies the
fundamental assumption underlying the economy that free trade arising from
individual differences are to be exploited (p. 237).
At this juncture, it is important to put forth the consideration of whether the
orthodoxy of the neoclassical economic maximization model, upon which is based the
rationalizing man, has to be discarded altogether? In attempting to develop a much
more broadly based economic science which integrates more closely with advances
made in other social sciences, Baxter (1993, p. 3) wanted economists to consider a
number of questions, namely:
1. What are the key personal characteristics which help determine economic
behavior, and do these require a broader approach, than that currently
adopted in economics?
57


2. Which features of the general environment surrounding the activities of
individuals and organizations does economics currently neglect, to the
detriment of its analysis?
3. How do 1 and 2 above impinge on individual decision-making, and do they
even alter the nature of much decision-making?
While Baxter challenged one to think more broadly about neoclassical
economics, he states that what is good about its features should be maintained and
further efforts should be directed at developing new economic paradigms.
At this point, it is appropriate to summarize the analyses of the three economic
models and to provide the foundation for discussing why heterogeneous behavior is
considered deviant when attempting to understand it socially. Based upon the
preclassical model and the social characteristics and phenomena associated with
choice and economic activities, one can logically conclude that decisions were not
based upon rationality. As recognized today, science played little or no role
concerning the economic choices made by individuals and entities to produce,
distribute and consume goods and services. What one finds is that these economic
determinations were based on mysticism and conventionality. Nevertheless, for those
times, decisions and behaviors in this regard were considered rational (Weisskopf.
1971).
Relative to the classical economic model, many of the same decisions and
behaviors were considered to have been grounded more from a scientific
58


perspective even though such may not have been the case. Economic decisions to
manufacture goods, provide services and to distribute and consume them were
structured upon the tenets of laws and the natural order of what dictated economic
events and their consequence, and such included little or no interference by
government. Hence, was rationality considered to be an integral part of these
economic decisions and processes? Again, given that time frame, arguably, it
probably was.
Next, came the inception of the neoclassical economic model. Its arrivals
signaled a radical departure from the classical economic era. Combined, it took into
consideration not only the macro as of the production and distribution of goods and
services, but also the aggregate consumption by consumers, aggregate government
spending, and the aggregate income of national economies. Here, again, can one
conclude that the decisions concerning these economic activities were based upon
homogeneity and rational choice? Without question, traditional economists have
adhered to the position that homogeneity' and rational choice govern these economic
activities, and to believe to the contrary is viewed by them as something that has yet to
be explained by, acceptable, conventional social behavior. Conventional
occurrences and what can be considered to be rational social behavior cannot
explain everything, especially when it comes to rational choice and economic activity.
59


Gary Becker, Nobel Laureate and University of Chicago economist, expanded
the frontiers of economic reasoning as far back as the 1950s. Though Becker teaches
classes in both economics and history, little could be found to suggest that he is a
socioeconomist. Becker expanded economic reasoning in addressing complex social
problems that were becoming mainstream. Apparently, Becker's influence spread to
sociology, demography and other social sciences. After extensive publishing Becker
gained a following. Some political scientists and sociologists have taken up his
methods. Becker is acknowledged to be a guiding spirit in the use of economics to
address difficult social problems. An example of Beckers analysis shows in his study
of employment. After probing discrimination in employment, he concluded that the
victim and the perpetrator will be harmed and both pay a cost. A colleague of his
economist, James Heckman, recounted that Becker not only established a new
direction, but also provided the framework for exploring these new challenges
(Moffat, 1992).
Another intent of this review directs the reader to divorce" himself/herself
from what is considered to be traditional thinking in terms of what has heretofore been
adjudged to be rational behavior in attempting to explain and further understand
social behavior. In this respect, in almost all instances, homogenous and rational"
social behavior are predictable. In paraphrasing Heckman, much in the same vein
Becker has followed, people need to be stimulated to look at things that are considered
60


off-limits. Moreover, as individuals, they must reorganize their thinking not only
insofar as examining the many complex social issues confronting todays society, but
also in dealing with them (Moffat, 1992).
Beckers rethinking of the way the world had been ordered started nearly five
decades ago. As revolutionary as his thinking was then, some would consider it
revolutionary now. The secular context of the socioeconomic aspects of diversity or
multiculturalism, the role of rational choice, and traditional thinking about social
phenomena that is believed to be known and understood mandate a re-examination of
where society has been and where it is going. Perhaps, it is time to break the mold
of thinking rationally and homogeneously about these new social issues and,
conversely, began to think unconventionally, or heterogeneously about them in
attempting to foster a better understanding of ourselves and the society in which we
live.
The whole multicultural movement is a broad area encompassing the concept
of pluralism and diversity. It should be fairly obvious by now that there is no
consensus on what is precisely meant by diversity and multiculturalism because the
field is still in the early stages of development. Most of the recent books and articles
on diversity appear to have been written in the last few years. Additionally, diversity
still lacks exposure as a result of the conceptual underdevelopment of models about it
as well as what it truly represents.
61


Thomas Kuhn (1970) discussed changing paradigms. Organizationally, it
appears that the time has come to scrutinize, and change if needed, many of the
paradigms that promoted homogeneity based upon rational choice. Many emerging
models of organizational diversity still rely on rational choice logic. Unfortunately, as
it has been treated, rational choice logic and rational decision-making have limitations.
Herbert Simon and Charles Lindbloom achieved considerable recognition for
criticizing the limitations of rational decision making. Because knowledge is limited,
people are not equipped to necessarily make true rational decisions. The rational
choice of neoclassical economics focused almost exclusively on homogeneous
behavior. Consequently, both past and present organizations have emphasized
homogeneity.
Diversity and multiculturalism are new paradigms relying on heterogeneity.
The Workforce 2000 study addressed the rapidly changing demographics in the United
States. The report also raised concerns about the lack of sufficient training for future
technical jobs.
None of the authors reviewed in the literature suggested abandoning
neoclassical economics and rational choice altogether. Rational choice, it seems, can
be strengthened by including heterogeneity or alternative modes of analyses. Many
well-meaning people are venturing into the multicultural movement and into the
workforce diversity arena without considering the implications of systemic change.
62


For scholars, multiculturalism and diversity potentially are exciting fields to research.
The opportunity is ripe for the development of new theoretical constructs. This whole
area offers learning opportunity for scholars, practitioners. OD specialists, and
Human Resources professionals and others. What is most important, it appears, is
that the future economic viability of the United States, and for most of the rest of the
world, can be enhanced as a result of the new emphases generated from the inclusion
rather than exclusion, and the total social acceptance, of heterogeneous behavior based
on diversity and multiculturalism.
Section 2: Roots of Affirmative Action and Diversity
The roots of affirmative action and diversity are multifaceted. Together they
provide a theoretical and legal foundation. Among the roots are the legal foundations:
including the Constitution and Equal Employment, Civil Rights Act of 1866, federal
legislation and federal executive orders. The 1987 Hudson Institutes report was
credited for giving impetus to the newly found interest in workforce diversity. As
noted earlier the study projected demographic changes from 1987 through the year
2000. The study reported that only 15 percent of the new entrants to the workforce
would be native white males, compared to 47 percent in the category in 1987. The
thesis of the report suggested, among other things, if this country were going to
prosper, policy makers had to seek ways to reconcile the needs of women, work and
families.
63


As noted earlier, the report sounded alarm bells because of the shrinking
numbers of available young people, the rapid growth of industrial change and, the
increasing skill requirements. These expected changes made the task of preparing and
utilizing minority workers more urgent. The report said there was a need for cultural
changes as well as education and training to create real equal employment
opportunity (p. xiv). Though almost two-thirds of the new entrants into the
workforce from 1987 through 2000 would be women, minorities and new immigrants,
women were expected to remain concentrated in lower level jobs than those jobs held
by men. Because more women are entering the workplace, there will be increasing
demands for different leave arrangements including flex-time and part-time jobs. The
need for more stay-at-home jobs would rise according to the report. Minorities would
be making up increasing percentages of the workforce. Of the total group, non-whites
were estimated to account for 29 percent of the new entrants to the workforce.
Approximately 600.000 immigrants were projected to enter the United States annually.
Most of the incoming immigrants would be concentrated in the south and west thus
reshaping local economies. These workers would be much different than the
workers in the workforce of 1987, the report predicted.
64


At the time this report was published, a startling statistic resonated. Non-
whites, women and immigrants would make up more than five-sixths of the net
additions to the workforce compared to 50% of their share in 1987. The report
predicted a shortage of skilled workers for the expanding American economy. Since
women and minorities would be making up the largest share of these new workers,
they would need more training and education. The report concluded,
Now is the time to begin investing in education, training, and other assistance.
These investments will be needed, not only to insure that employers have
qualified workforce in the after 2000, but to finally deliver the equality of
opportunity that has been Americas great unfulfilled promise (xxvi).
Population Demographics
According to the Census Bureau, the U.S. population demographics are
changing relative to whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Data collected in 1980 and
projected through (2030 and 2050) shows the changing face of this country. In 1980
whites made up 80% of the U.S. population. Projections indicate the percentage will
decline to 52.8% in the next 50 years. In 1980 blacks comprised 11.5% of the
population; Hispanics made up 6.4%; and Asians constituted 1.5% of the total.
Because of immigration patterns and birth rates trends, Hispanics will, within a
decade, represent the largest single minority group. By the year 2050, if current
trends continue, Hispanics will comprise nearly 25% of the total population of the
United States. Growth in the Asian American population is expected to increase from
65


3.3% in 1995 to 8.2% in 2050. While the overall white share of the population is
expected to decline significantly over the next 50 years, there is no expected decline in
their relative economic status. The following figure illustrates these demographic
shifts.
66


Figure 1
The Changing Face of the U.S.
ww
Black
Hspanfc H
Aslan
* Projection
Source: Census Bureau
67


Legal Foundations
Constitution and Equal Employment
This research will not go into state and local laws enacted for fair employment
practices. The Constitution of the United States has a bearing on the question of equal
employment opportunity. The First Amendment asserts freedom of religion.
According to the Fifth Amendment no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
pursuit of happiness without due process of law. The Thirteenth Amendment outlaws
slavery. And the Fourteenth Amendment is supreme over any potential actions by
states to abridge federally conferred rights (Sedmunk and Levin Epstein 1991).
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Frequently used in employment discrimination before the courts, but perhaps,
a relatively unknown Act, outside of legal circles, is the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Section 1981 of this Act gives the same rights to all persons to make and enforce
contracts, including blacks. Since employment is considered a contractual
relationship, it is deemed by some to prohibit employment discrimination. The Act
covers all persons, both whites and non-whites. This Act has limited application
because it does not cover religion or sex discrimination (Sedmak and Levin-Epstein,
1991).
68


Federal Statutes
Sedmak and Levin-Epstein (1991) discussed federal Equal Employment
Opportunity as the law of the land. Enforcement of (EEO) is covered by various
federal state, local statutes and executive orders. Federal laws usually carry more
weight than local or state laws and these statutes are more uniform in application.
However, the most significant federal law covering discrimination is the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Generally, Title VTI forbids discrimination in employment because of
race, color, religion sex, or national origin. Title VII has been amended to include
other elements. Sedmak and Levin-Epstein enumerated a series of statutes that have
acted in concert to provide the legal foundations for EEO.
Equal Employment Opportunity
Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (401 FEP Manual 250) provides
criminal penalties for interference with an individuals employment
rights on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Attorneys Fees Awards Act of 1976 (401 FEP Manual 511) deals with
the provision of attorneys fees under various civil rights statutes.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (401 FEP Manual 291)
prohibits sex discrimination in education programs or activities that
receive federal financial assistance.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. as amended (401
FEP Manual 207), prohibits, in general, discrimination against
employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years old,
subject to exceptions for employees covered by collective bargaining
contracts and for bona fide executives or high policy makers.
69


The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (401 FEP Manual
413), prohibits unreasonable discrimination on the basis of age by
recipients of federal financial assistance, including revenue-snaring
funds.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (401 FEP Manual 175) makes it unlawful to
pay wages to members of one sex at a rate lower than that paid
members of the other sex for equal work on jobs that require equal
skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions in the
same establishment.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (401 FEP Manual 325).
under Section 503 requires federal contractors to take affirmative action
to employ and promote qualified handicapped persons, and under
Section 504 prohibits discrimination against handicapped persons in any
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (401 FEP Manual 735)
prohibits discrimination against qualified people with disabilities in
employment, public services, transportation, public accommodations,
and telecommunication services.
The Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as
amended (401 FEP 379), requires employers w'ith government
contracts of $10,000 or more to take affirmative action to employ and
advance disabled veterans and qualified veterans of the Vietnam era.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (401 FEP Manual
607) makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against legal aliens
merely because they are aliens or look foreign. The provision is
enforced by a special counsels office. The law does not amend Title
VII and also bars the filing of duplicate charges with the EEO and the
special counsel.
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (401 FEP Manual 5) has
been used in actions to redress employment discrimination based on
race, alienage, and national origin. It gives all persons the same
70


contractual rights as white citizens. Section 1981 does not apply to
discrimination based on sex.
Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (401 FEP Manual 5), a
Reconstruction Era law, applies to persons acting under color of state
law to deprive others of federal rights, including employment
opportunity (p. 4).
Executive Orders
Sedmak and Levin-Epsteins (1991) list does not exhaust all the statutes and
regulations covering equal employment opportunity, but these are some of the most
relevant to employment discrimination. Presidents have issued several executive
orders to give substance to EEO enforcement. Of the most significant of these orders
is Executive Order 11246. It was amended by subsequent Executive Orders 11375
and 120866. Essentially, this frequently cited order, forbids employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by first-and
second-tier government contractors whose contracts are in amounts exceeding
$10,000 (Sedmak and Epstein, 1991). A critical element of this Executive Order
requires contractors to take positive steps such as developing affirmative action plans
to eliminate employment discrimination if they have government contracts of $50,000
or more annually and have 50 or more employees. Additionally, Executive Order
11141 (401 FEP Manual 4001) forbids employment discrimination because of age by
federal contractors.
71


Equal Employment in the Federal Sector
In addition to statutes and executive orders, the EEOC, charged with the
enforcement of the law, issues guidelines in many areas including employee selection
and sexual harassment. Various federal agencies are involved in the enforcement of
the EEO laws (Sedmak and Levin-Epstein, 1991). Under President Carters
reorganization plan in 1979, responsibility for managing equal employment
opportunity in the federal government was transferred from the U.S. Civil Service
Commission (CSC) to the EEOC. The CSC was eventually replaced by the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM). It has responsibility for personnel management in the
federal sector. In its efforts to eliminate underutilization of women and minorities in
federal civil service employment, it issued the Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment
Programs regulations. According to Sedmak and Levin-Epstein (1991) federal
agencies are required to implement affirmative action. The federal government is
thought to be a model for other governmental agencies and the private sector.
Federal agencies and their components are required to establish targeted
recruitment programs to remedy any underrepresentation of minorities and
women in their employment ranks, under OPMs Federal Equal Recruitment
Opportunity Program. Federal agencies and components must make
underrepresentation determinations by comparing their own employment
percentages for particular minority/sex groups with the groups civilian labor
force figures percentages. In most cases, local civilian labor force figures will
be those for the standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) in which the
agency is located (p. 182).
72


Equal Treatment Notion
Recent efforts to establish female and minority group representation in public
and private employment occurred in the 1960s. The civil rights movement garnered
support for civil rights for minorities and women. Wise (1990) believed that despite
strategies used to increase the percentage of minorities in power elite job positions.
equity of results has not been a goal of public policy in the United States:
In fact. U.S. employment policy can be characterized as largely symbolic,
giving the appearance of responsiveness without changing the position of those
on the periphery of the labor market. Equal treatment may not be sufficient to
produce equitable results between members of advantaged and disadvantaged
groups (p. 569).
Equal employment opportunity in terms of equal access may not be the issue for
minorities in the 1990s, but some employers, public and privatelarge, medium and
smallrecognize equal access to jobs at the upper end of organizational hierarchy
remains a problem for minorities and women.
Start of Affirmative Action
According to Roberts & Stratton (1995) President Johnson supported a shift
from the color-blind ideal. The authors cited President Johnsons speech at a June
4, 1965 Howard University commencement. President Johnson felt that simply
outlawing segregation was not enough. Johnson sought not just equality as a right and
theory', but as a fact and results.
73


You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and
liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, You are
free to compete with all the others, and still justly believe that you have been
completely fair.
Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens
must have the ability to walk through those gates.
This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We
seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but
human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact
and equality as a result.
According to Roberts & Stratton, President Johnson backed up his words with
Executive Order 11246. Roberts & Stratton argue that since affirmative action has
come, whites can be legally discriminated against in university admissions,
employment, and the allocation of government contracts (p. 113).
The current controversy surrounding affirmative action is not new. Roberts
and Stratton (1995) said the debates leading up to the passage of the landmark 1964
Civil Rights Act were debates about quotas. According to them, the Civil Rights Act
never would have passed without the statutory language and amendments expressly
prohibiting quotas (p. 66).
Turner (1990) said President Kennedy was the first to use the language of
affirmative action in Executive Order 10925. It was used within the context of race,
creed, color, or national origin (p. 6). Turner (1990) reported that James Farmer,
former President of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), said that President
Johnson coined the phrase affirmative action in response to Farmers request in 1962
74


for a policy of compensatory preferential treatment for blacks (p. 18). The term
affirmative action" was first used in connection with the Wager Act of 1935
(Graham, 1992).
Commenting on the hotly contested issue of affirmative action. Turner (1990)
concluded that both sides have valid views on affirmative action, a reality that makes
resolution of the debate and an appropriate balancing of competing concerns all the
more difficult (p. xiii) .
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Various federal agencies are involved in the enforcement of the EEO laws
(Sedmak and Levin-Epstein, 1991). Among these agencies are the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
(OFCCP): National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); Justice Department; Office of
Personnel Management (OPM); Office of Management and Budget; and certain
federal regulatory agencies. Though various agencies are involved with the
administration and enforcement of EEO laws, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs are more
directly involved in its enforcement.
The EEOC is charged with the enforcement and administration of Title VU of
the Civil Rights Act. The EEOC investigates charges of discrimination against
employers and employment agencies. Additionally the EEOC has the responsibility
75


for administering several other provisions: Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
the Equal Pay Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yet, the EEOC has been
understaffed for many years, creating a backlog of cases. A person who feels he/she
has been discriminated against can file discrimination charges with State Civil Rights
agencies. To avoid duplication, State Civil Rights Organizations will work
collaboratively with the EEOC by referring some cases to them.
Office of Federal Contract Compliance
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) has
responsibility for administering Executive Order 11246 that prohibits discrimination on
the account of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by federal contractors or
subcontractors (Sedmak and Levin-Epstein, 1991). Bergman noted that the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) is too understaffed to properly do its
job: Unfortunately, the OFCCP, the main government agency pushing affirmative
action in the workplace, is understaffed, has few effective ways of encouraging
compliance, lacks vigor, and has probably been poorly managed (p. 53). One has to
wonder whether the OFCCP has redefined its mission to one of being perceived as less
intrusive to employers.
76


Settlement Agreements
Failure to adhere to equal employment opportunity can be expensive. The
road to diversity has been difficult. It is an evolutionary process. Sedmak and Levin-
Epstein (1991) outlined settlement agreements by the EEOC, the OFCCP, and the
Justice Department. To avoid time-consuming, costly proceedings or possible
disbarment proceedings, employers both public and private have agreed to:
The first settlement agreement was reached in January 1973 with the
American Telephone and Telegraph Company and its then 24 operating
companies. Without admitting any violations, the companies agreed to
pay about $15 million to 13,000 women and 2,000 men who were
members of minority groups who had been denied pay and promotion
opportunities. In addition, the companies agreed to develop goals for
increasing the utilization of women and minorities in each job
classification in all 700 establishments within the Bell System.
A second settlement of national significance was reached the following
year between the governmentthe EEOC and the Justice Department
and nine major steel companies and the United Steelworkers Union. In
addition to providing back pay for 40,000 employees, the agreement set
goals and timetables for filling openings in trade and craft jobs with
women and minority group employees. The settlement was upheld in
United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries.
A third settlement of a major action was signed in June 1978 between
General Electric and the EEOC. The conciliation agreement, which
GE said would cost up to $32 million over five years, resolved a 1973
action charging it with systematic employment discrimination against
women and members of minority groups.
Also in 1983, the EEOC and General Motors Corporation (GMC)
signed a record-setting $42 million agreement that settled a decade-old
bias charge against the auto maker. The cornerstone of the accord calls
for a program providing $15 million in grants and endowments for
77


Full Text

PAGE 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 13

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 16

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 20

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 21

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 22

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 23

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 24

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 27

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 28

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 29

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 30

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 31

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 32

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 34

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 35

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 39

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 42

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 43

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 44

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 45

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 46

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 47

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 48

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 49

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 50

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 51

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 52

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 53

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 54

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 55

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 56

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 57

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 59

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 60

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 61

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 62

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 63

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 64

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 65

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 66

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 67

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 68

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 69

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 70

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 71

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 72

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 73

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 76

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 77

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 78

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 79

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 80

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 81

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 82

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 83

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 84

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 85

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 86

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 87

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 88

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 89

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 90

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 91

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 92

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 93

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 94

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 95

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 96

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 97

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 98

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 99

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 231

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 233

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 234

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 235

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 236

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 237

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 238

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 239

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 240

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 241

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 242

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 243

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 244

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 245

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 246

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 247

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 248

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 249

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 250

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 251

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 252

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 253

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 254

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 255

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 256

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 257

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 258

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 259

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 260

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 261

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 262

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 263

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 264

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 265

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 266

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 267

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 268

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 269

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 270

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 271

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 272

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 273

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 274

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 275

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 276

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 277

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 278

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 279

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 280

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 281

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 282

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 283

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 284

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 285

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 286

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 287

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 288

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 289

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 290

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 291

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 292

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 293

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 294

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 295

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 296

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 297

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 298

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 299

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 300

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 301

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 302

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 303

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 304

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 305

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 306

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 307

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 308

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 309

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 310

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 311

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 312

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 313

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 314

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 315

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 316

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 317

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 318

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 319

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 320

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 321

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 322

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 323

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 324

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 325

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 326

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 327

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 328

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 329

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 330

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 331

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 332

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 333

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 334

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 335

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 336

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 337

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 338

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 339

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 340

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 341

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 342

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 343

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 344

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.