The organizational literature began emphasizing the “business case” for diversity in the late 1980s (Cox and Blake, 1991; Johnston and Packer, 1987; Robinson and Dechant, 1997). The business case predicted a range of benefits resulting from greater workforce diversity within organizations (Jayne and Dipboye, 2004; Konrad, 2003). Specifically, an organization making maximum use of the talent available in the labor pool would select a diverse group of employees. These diverse employees would be more effective in dealing with a diverse customer base, and the diverse employees would bring a greater range of perspectives to bear on organizational decision making. In sum, “a more diverse workforce, [managers] say, will increase organizational effectiveness. It will lift morale, bring greater access to new segments of the marketplace, and enhance productivity” (Thomas and Ely, 1996: 79). The business case for diversity, and its optimistic expectations of the benefits achieved through employee diversity, has been enthusiastically embraced by managers. In a Catalyst-sponsored study of 15 Fortune 500 companies, every corporate executive interviewed by the researchers cited the business case as the primary rationale for their organizations' diversity efforts (Giscombe and Mattis, 2002). And there is evidence of a trickle-down effect to the employee level: a diversity program accompanied by a “competitive advantage” justification is likely to generate the most positive employee attitudes (Kidder et al., 2004).

Given the widespread acceptance of the business case, it is ironic that the academic literature has documented so many negative outcomes associated with workforce diversity.

Group-based disadvantage in organizations

One of the great challenges contemporary work organizations face, is the increasing diversity of the labor force. It is generally acknowledged that, in addition to a variety of practical issues that may play a role, there are a number of relevant psychological processes that affect the well-being, motivation, and career performance of workers with different ethnic or demographic backgrounds. For instance, in relation to personnel selection, it has been established that the same job application is rated differently, depending on whether or not the person who submitted it uses an ethnic name (Bovenkerk, Gras, and Ramsoedh, 1995; see also Riach and Rich, 2002). Likewise, the same product is evaluated less favorably when people think it is made by a female worker than when they think it is produced by a male (e.g., Bartol, 1999; Davison and Burke, 2000; Graves, 1999). When the quality of a particular work performance is established objectively, people still draw different conclusions about the actual competence of the person, or hold different expectations about future possibilities, depending on their ethnic or gender identity (Deaux, 1976; 1984; Deaux and Emswiller, 1974; Swim et al., 1989). As a result of such psychological biases, individual workers may experience discrimination in employment situations, on the basis of their age (Bendick, Jackson, and Romero, 1996), race and gender (Hitt, Zikmund, and Pickens, 1982; McIntrye, Moberg, and Posner, 1980), physical disabilities (Ravaud, Madiot, and Ville, 1992), or sexual orientation (Weichselbaumer, 2003).

Shifting frames in team-diversity research: From difference to relationships

Organizational research on cultural diversity in teams has tended to focus both theoretically and empirically on differences. In this research stream, diversity is typically defined as the degree of heterogeneity among team members on specified demographic dimensions; theory aims to explain how such heterogeneity affects team processes and performance (for review, see Williams and O'Reilly, 1998). An assumption underlying much of this research has been that difference per se is a source of conflict and hence that teams must minimize members' experience of different-ness from others so as to mitigate diversity's negative effects (Chatman et al., 1998; Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner, 2000; Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale, 1999).

In this chapter, we reframe diversity research from a paradigm that emphasizes difference to one that emphasizes relationships. In our approach, while difference remains a defining feature of diversity, it is no longer the principle feature. Rather, our relational approach highlights the personal, interpersonal, and intergroup dynamics that influence how people interpret and act on their differences. From this perspective, difference can also be a source of creativity and resilience. This reframing has implications for how scholars conceptualize and measure diversity and for how they theorize about the conditions that influence whether diversity becomes an asset or a liability.

We define cultural diversity as differences among team members in race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality, or other dimensions of social identity that are marked by a history of intergroup prejudice, discrimination, or oppression.

John Williams is a black American. On his first day of work at a new job at a mid-size print advertising firm, he arrived early to set up his office, only to find that his “office” was not with the other two new recruits but in the basement, in what was previously a janitor's closet. Displayed prominently on his computer was a noose.

Kevin Nakamoto is a Japanese-American, entry-level market analyst who recently transferred to another office. In deciding where to eat for lunch, one of his new co-workers asked if Kevin would mind if they did not have Chinese food. Later that day, another co-worker came by to introduce herself. As they chatted, she assumed that Kevin would be helpful in computer consulting and she volunteered that no one would mind if he was a social loner.

Mary Carpenter is a white, 22-year-old interested in construction. For the past six months, she has been unsuccessfully searching for a job. Though she has submitted applications to all jobs for which she felt qualified, she has had no luck. In the same time period, she saw her male friends receive offers in the same field, so she knows the demand is definitely there.

McKenzie Wilkes is a married, mother-of-two, successful attorney at a large firm. She is one of the most feared litigators in the courtroom and one of the most referred among her clients. Despite her impressive resumé, she was turned down as a partner at the firm.

From social stratification to workplace discrimination: Six decades of sociological inquiry

Studies of social class, social stratification, and social mobility – inquiries into how aspects of one's social origins facilitate or limit one's career success as an adult – have a long and distinguished history in American sociology, dating back to the 1940s (Davis and Moore, 1945; Warner, Meeker, and Bells, 1949; Gordon, 1949; 1958; Lipset and Bendix, 1959; Blau and Duncan, 1967). However, sociological scholarship on how workplace policies and practices limit or promote equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) is a relatively recent phenomenon, and the discipline all but ignored workplace racial bias prior to the 1970s.

It should be no surprise that American sociologists began to take notice of racial bias in employment around the same time as the rest of the country. The counts in Figure 3.1 are based on 80% or higher relevancy scores in a JSTOR search in the discipline's premier journals, American Sociological Review and American Journal of Sociology for the terms “race or racial” and “discrimination or bias” and “employment or jobs or careers” and “organization or firm or workplace.” Similar patterns to those in Figure 3.1 are evident when I include other journals or somewhat broader search terms. The civil rights and student movements, urban unrest, and landmark legislation of the 1960s motivated sociological inquiry in much the same way it shaped political discourse.

We are pleased to introduce Art Brief's Diversity at Work, as part of the Cambridge Companions to Management series. The series is intended to advance knowledge in the fields of management by presenting the latest scholarship and research on topics of growing importance. Bridging the gap between journal articles and student textbooks, the volumes offer in-depth treatment of selected management topics, exploring the current knowledge base and identifying future opportunities for research. Each topic covered in the series is one with great future promise, and one that also has developed a sufficient body of research to allow informed reviews and debate.

Management scholarship is increasingly international in scope. No longer can scholars read only the work conducted in their own countries, or talk only to their near neighbors. Creative and innovative work in management is now being conducted throughout the world. Each volume is organized by one of our most prominent scholars who brings researchers from several countries together to provide cross-national perspectives and debate. Through this series we hope to introduce readers to scholarship in their field they may not yet know, and open scholarship debate to a wider set of perspectives.

We feel fortunate to be working with Cambridge University Press. Their rigorous independent scholarly reviews and board approval process helps ensure that only the highest-quality scholarship is published. We feel confident that scholars will find these books useful to their own research programs, as well as in their doctoral courses.

Diversity is the industrialized world's perennial underdog. Though decades of research have yet to reveal any consistent main effects of diversity (Webber and Donahue, 2001; Mannix and Neale, 2005), the increasing diversity of schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces presents an unrelenting demand for effective interaction among diverse people (Friedman and DiTomaso, 1996; Johnson and Packer, 1987; Offerman and Gowing, 1990; Triandis, Kurowski, and Gelfand, 1994). In addition, the successful utilization of diversity undergirds core social values of fairness and justice, along with the organizational prospects of greater learning, innovation, problem solving, and performance (Cox, Lobel, and McLeod, 1991; Ely and Thomas, 2001; Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale, 1999; Robinson and Dechant, 1997; Watson, Kumar, and Michaelson, 1993).

The challenge of realizing the potential value in diversity has motivated two popular streams of research. Organizational researchers working in the tradition of self-categorization theory (and social identity theory) have, on the one hand, generally pursued insight into the universal aspects of encounters with diversity – that is, how people view and interact with others who belong to a different social group, regardless of how the group is defined (e.g., by gender, race, nationality, occupation, tenure, or some combination of demographic dimensions, see Chatman et al., 1998; Polzer, Milton, and Swann, 2002). This approach aims to expose those intergroup dynamics that are likely to emerge as the result of any type of difference, making few or no distinctions between the myriad social identities that may differentiate people.

Introduction

In recent years, diversity has come to play a central role in organizational life, due to increased globalization, greater workforce diversity, and the increasing complexity of jobs (Williams and O'Reilly, 1998). Scholars have investigated the impact of diversity on organizational outcomes such as performance or satisfaction, but findings on these effects have been largely inconsistent (for reviews and meta-analyses see Jackson, Joshi, and Erhardt, 2003; Mannix and Neale, 2005; Stewart, 2006; Webber and Donahue, 2001; Williams and O'Reilly, 1998). To better understand how diversity impacts organizational groups, research began to examine the processes underlying the effects of diversity on performance (e.g., Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin, 1999). Conflict has arisen as a primary process in explaining the effects of diversity upon performance (cf. Williams and O'Reilly, 1998; Lau and Murnighan, 1998). This chapter reviews the literature relating diversity, conflict, and performance and then discusses the new directions the field is heading in.

We will begin by briefly reviewing the theory and findings on diversity's effect on group processes and performance. We will identify the trends found in these studies as well as identify areas of diversity research that have not received as much attention in recent reviews and meta-analyses. We will then expand on recent developments in the diversity field. Then, we will move to the conflict literature. We will describe the intra-group conflict literature as it now stands and then specify the new directions within that field.

Since 2000, 19% and 14% of the work published in peer-reviewed psychology and sociology journals (respectively) dealt with race or gender or diversity. Much of this work is based on a deep theoretical foundation and demonstrates innovative social science methods. It is rigorous, empirical, and exciting.

Having established that these topics were receiving significant research attention in the social sciences, we did a similar search in the Academy of Management journals. Since 2000, only 5% of organizational research tackled these topics. What does this small percentage imply about the other 95% of organizational scholarship? What assumptions rest in most organizational work about the composition of the workforce, particularly the racial composition?

In fact, most of organizational scholarship looks as if no people of color work in organizations, else we would see more attention paid to research topics such as race and racism, as well as those often entwined with race – social class, immigration status, and coping with discrimination. As of now, all of these topics remain neglected in the management literature. In this chapter, we introduce this volume about diversity at work with a focused look at the topic we see most lacking in organizational research: race. We believe this narrow focus is required, given the infrequent attention the topic is receiving in our top journals and the serious racial inequalities that exist in organizations.

At its heart, this is a book about social inequalities. I have been an academic long enough not to set terribly high expectations for my work. But with this book, more than any other project in which I have been involved, I will not expect, but do hope and pray it matters, matters to scholars and, through their efforts, to those who have been treated unjustly because of their race and/or sex.

Editing this book, relatively speaking, has been a breeze. This is so largely due to the immensely talented and highly reliable contributors. To all of you, a big, big thanks for crafting thoughtful, insightful, and provocative chapters in a timely fashion. I am especially grateful to my co-author of two of the chapters, Dolly Chugh and to Max Bazerman for introducing us. Dolly has been a joy to work with and learn from. Administratively, the book would not have happened without the terrific support of Ethel Matshiya at Tulane University and Amanda Bailey at the University of Utah. Finally, the folks at Cambridge University Press were simply wonderful to work with.

The anonymity of much medieval literature has encouraged and facilitated scholarly studies which posit the notional or actual existence of genres in the minds of medieval authors, audiences, and readers on the one hand, and of modern readers on the other. This chapter will not offer a survey of medieval narrative types but rather consider the validity and usefulness of the concept of genre by looking at a number of individual texts from a generic perspective and by weighing certain kinds of evidence regarding the medieval and modern perceptions of generic form. I will concentrate here on verse literature of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that is to say, the period traditionally considered Old, as opposed to Middle, French.

There is little doubt that the near-universality of reference to medieval narratives as, for example, epics, romances, lais, or fabliaux, corresponds both to a modern need to categorize as a means of accessing texts and to shared features that appear to signal generic distinctions. One question that has therefore received much attention is whether the modern perception of genres corresponds to a conscious effort on the part of medieval authors to compose texts their audiences would recognize as belonging to a category, and if so, how strictly defined those categories were. Without actually being a red herring, this question has sometimes proven as obstructive as constructive, and efforts to define genres have often obscured and even sacrificed the qualities of individual texts by attempting to impose conformity on a motley corpus. That said, the very existence of terms such as geste, roman, lai, fablel (fabliau), dit, conte, and so on, attests to an awareness on the part of medieval authors and audiences of both similarity and difference between types of narrative.

The literary corpus of Christine de Pizan (c.1363-c.1431) enacts all aspects of authorship as a performance of gender: not only does Christine self-consciously construct a gendered voice within the rhetorical structures of late medieval literary cultures, but this construct changed and evolved during Christine’s long and prolific career as a writer. Over the course of almost four decades, Christine produced more than twenty texts in verse and prose in a variety of literary genres, including ballade cycles, debate poetry, allegory, epistolary treatises and political tracts, as well as texts such as the Epistre Othea that defy generic classification. Her oeuvre thus demonstrates not only her mastery but also her transformation of literary forms and traditions. In addition, Christine was extensively involved in the production of manuscripts of her texts, even to the extent of supervising the layout and visual programmes (illustration, decoration) of her work. In the course of such intensive textual activity, Christine frequently invokes her personal circumstances in order to situate her literary performances: in autobiographical vignettes and authorial intrusions inserted throughout her work, Christine connects her emergence as a poet in the 1390s to her widowhood. Such comments contextualize her performance as a writer in relation to her experiences as a woman. The Christine corpus is consequently animated by a discourse of life-writing that provides a link between her texts and through which she exposes the gendered structures of literary history. In addition, Christine’s narrators repeatedly refer to the activities of reading and writing that enable as well as authorize literary production. In several of her longer works, as we shall see, she emphasizes the rhetorical foundations of authorship in order to claim for herself, a late medieval woman, the identity of author.