WILSON_Assessing organizational culture through the context of diversity – determining the influences that primary dimensions of diversity have on organizational development, 2007

8/13/2019 WILSON_Assessing organizational culture through the context of diversity determining the influences that primar

1/76

ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE THROUGH THE CONTEXT OF

DIVERSITY: DETERMINING THE INFLUENCES THAT PRIMARY DIMENSIONS

OF DIVERSITY HAVE

ON ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

By

Randy Wilson, B.S.

THESIS

Presented to the Faculty of

The University of Houston Clear Lake

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree

MASTER OF ARTS

THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON-CLEAR LAKE

December, 2007


2/76

ii



OF DIVERSITY HAVE


By

Randy Wilson, B.S.

APPROVED BY

__________________________________________

Mike McMullen, Ph.D., Chair

__________________________________________

Deepa Reddy, Ph.D., Committee Member

__________________________________________

Howard Eisner, Ph.D., Associate Dean

__________________________________________

Bruce Palmer, Ph.D., Dean


3/76

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank several people whose thoughtful comments have improved this

thesis. They include Deepa Reddy, PhD., who supported my interests in learning aboutculture and cultures. She taught me how to open my mind to a higher level of thinking

and a broader level of sensitivity to research, especially observation. Kinneil Coltman,

whose passion for workplace and social inclusion has been an inspiration. And a specialthanks to Mike McMullen, PhD., whose interest in learning about social science and

organizations is only surpassed by the kindness and generosity he provides to his

students. I appreciate all that he has done to enable me to complete this research and

satisfy my desire to make this small contribution to the vast library of social science.

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife, Kristin. Without your support and

encouragement, this would not be possible. Thank you for running the family so Icould focus on my education and research. You have sacrificed much more than I for our

family and I love you.

And to my children, Elijah and Zachary may you grow up realizing that life is a never-

ending journey. Always be a student, always try to learn something new, and never

forget how much I love you.


4/76

iv

ABSTRACT



OF DIVERSITY HAVE


Randy Wilson, M.A.The University of Houston Clear Lake, 2007

Thesis Chair: Mike McMullen

This thesis offers a unique model for assessing organizational culture as well as an

application of that methodology to the assessment of diversity initiatives in an

organization. This three-pronged model for assessment provided an appropriate

mechanism, which allowed for the collection of evidence that diversity has little impact

on organizational culture. Quantitative and qualitative measures showed a strong

commitment by members to the organization, however qualitative results also indicate a

range of opinions of organizational culture based on race, ethnicity and position within

the organization. Employee perceptions of multiple organizational indicators related to

diversity indicate a strong need to reinforce themes of inclusion to achieve a common

understanding of the organizational culture.


5/76

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION

Context of the Problem 6

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Limited Research Available . 10

Organizational Culture . 12

Defining Diversity .... 16Organizational Assessment ... 19

III. METHODOLOGY

Three-Pronged Assessment Model .... 25Quantitative Assessment 26

Qualitative Assessment .. 28

Process for Assessment .. 29Sample Survey ... 30

IV. RESULTS

Large Number of No Opinion ..... 34

Management & Organization Questions .... 38Culture Questions ....... 41

Diversity Questions .... 43

Chi Square Analysis ... 45Gender Analysis .. .. 46

Race/Ethnicity Analysis . 48

Job Tenure Analysis ... 49

V. DISCUSSION . 52

VI. CONCLUSION ... 61

BIBLIOGRAPHY... 66

APPENDICES . 70


6/76

1

INTRODUCTION

In response to changing economic conditions, organizations have recently

embraced new structural forms designed to reduce costs while simultaneously

maximizing flexibility and responsiveness to customer demands (Boyette and Conn,

1991; Byrne, 1993; Donnellon, 1996). Within organizations, some research shows that

diverse groups and work teams have the capability to navigate through complex problems

with better outcomes than homogenous work groups (Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale, 1999).

Groups in organizations can be classified into two broad categories: identity groups and

organizational groups (Alderfer, 1986). Identity groups are defined as sharing a common

gender, race and/or historical or social experiences (e.g. ethnicity, ideology), while

organizational groups (e.g. hierarchical, job function) may hold similar positions, conduct

similar tasks, and have similar work experiences and access to organizational resources

(Alderfer, 1986). Organizations have created policies to increase or promote diversity in

effort to enhance the integration of identity groups into organizational groups that have

been dominated by white men (Kossek & Zonia, 1993). Organizational culture should

adapt to reflect the increasing diversity of its workforce. How organizations

accommodate identity diversity into the organization is the essential question of this

research. This assumes that organizations have the following choices: 1) to make a

deliberate effort to incorporate difference into the organization; or 2) to do nothing to

orientate new groups to the company, assuming the organizational culture is adopted by

its newest diverse groups. This study attempts to provide empirical grounding to the

notion that increased representation of diverse identity groups has an impact on the


7/76

2

culture of an organization. Specifically, the research attempts to address the following

questions:

1) Is the culture of an organization affected by the diversity of its employees?

2) How is culture derived, i.e. does it evolve organically, or is it promulgated

from top leadership?

3) Does the organization have the ability to influence, either positively or

negatively, its culture and if so, from where do those influences come?

4) How does an organization define diversity and what influence does diversity

have on the organization?

The answers to these questions will be derived through organizational assessment.

To understand assessment in the context of organizational culture, Lenartowicz and Roth

(1999) suggests that the framework for cultural assessment should have two outcomes: 1)

it should ensure that the cultural groups that do exist within an organization represent that

culture and 2) it should provide measures that will stand up in future studies (see

Lenartowicz and Roth p. 791). A three-pronged model for assessment used in this study

was developed based on the lack of an available comprehensive tool for diversity

assessment. This assessment model utilizes both quantitative and qualitative

organizational culture measures as well as a review of formal organizational documents

and data. The sample used in this study was an operational department within a public

healthcare institution.

Diversity is widely believed to increase productivity within an organization

(Estlund, 2005). Research has shown that visible diversity may contribute to increased

organizational marketability, increased creativity, increased problem-solving ability, and


8/76

3

more flexibility (Richard, Kochan, & McMillan-Capehart, 2002). Most organizations

have developed definitions of diversity that are customized to their specific

organizational culture, or a generic definition that meets government standards for

Affirmative Action or Equal Employment Opportunity. Many organizations have

developed definitions for the purpose of representing those who identify with some

physical dimension of diversity, though they often hire and promote based on dimensions

of diversity that address attitudes, experiences, and creativity, for example.

Defining organizational culture within the context of diversity is an area of research

relevant to todays workplace with great opportunities for future research. Yet,

consultants and managers interested in diversity have had to rely largely on some

combination of common sense and good faith efforts for the rationales they advance

about why and how companies should address the issue (Ely & Thomas, 2001).

Although anthropologists and sociologists have studied culture for over a century, the

organizational culture concept was not adopted by management scholars until the 1980s,

making this a relatively new area of research (Hatch, 1993). Despite its recent relevance

in the business world, little research was found regarding the diversity culture in

organizations or how societal diversity is compelling companies to assess their diversity

management practices and diversity initiatives (Coltman, Wilson, & McMullen, 2006 - in

process). As a result, this work has few comparable studies to reference. This research

was the culmination of research in multiple areas, including: 1) diversity - in visible and

non-visible dimensions, 2) culture - from a holistic perspective or the perspective related

to understanding what culture is; down to the organizational concept, or how companies

create, develop, or evolve behaviors, rituals, artifacts, and values that differentiates them


9/76

4

from other organizations; and 3) models for assessment focusing primarily on the

quantitative and qualitative gathering of data through various levels of an organization.

This work and its outcomes provide a better understanding of the ways in which diversity

affects culture in organizations, as well as a platform for future research in this area.


10/76

5

Literature Review

Limited Research Available

The outcome of this work provides a more effective tool for managing culture to

achieve healthier organizational diversity and better organizational performance. To

construct this model, a thorough review of the available literature on assessments and

organizational cultures was conducted, particularly in the context of diversity.

Unexpectedly, there was limited research on assessing organizational culture. The few

studies that were available frequently assessed organizational culture relative to a specific

need of the organization. For example, OReilly, Chatman, and Caldwell (1991, p. 487)

studied the affects of culture on the person-organization fit. They acknowledged that

researchers seem to agree that culture may be an important factor in determining how

well an individual fits an organizational context. Their research employed methodology

that will be discussed in conjunction with the new model introduced in this study;

however, it contained no insights for methods on studying organizational culture with

respect to diversity.

One of the few articles on organizational assessment introduced an assessment

entitled the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP). This assessment contains a set of

value statements that can be used to idiographically assess both the extent to which

certain values characterize a target organization and an individuals preference for that

particular configuration of values (OReilly et al., 1991, pgs. 495). The step-by-step

procedure included: 1) describing organizational values, 2) assessing characteristics of

firms, 3) assessing individual preferences, and 4) calculating the person-organization fit

score.


11/76

6

While the OCP is one of the few tools for culture assessment, my interest was in

developing a diagnostic model that could open the door for organizational self-

improvement. A study by Milliken and Martins (1996) reviewed the effects of different

types of diversity on group make-up at various levels of an organization. This study is a

helpful resource in several ways. First, it confirmed the findings of this study that there

was limited research available with a specific focus on racioethnic and gender diversity

and organizational culture. Research in diversity is a challenge to review, because it

spans multiple disciplinary boundaries, assesses the effects of various types of diversity,

focuses on many dependent variables, and employs a wide range of types of groups and

settings (1996: pg. 404). Second, it looked at various types of non-physical diversity

(e.g. personality characteristics, values, skills, and knowledge) and found correlates with

physical diversity (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender, and age) that may explain how

organizational culture is developed, which provides additional evidence for our study to

emphasize the impact of culture on diverse groups. Third, it suggests that employees

who are not a part of the in-group may be contributing to organizational productivity at

a level consistent with their perceived value within that group (1996, pg. 419-20).

Milliken and Martins also found a limited number of studies throughout the time

period they examined (1989-1994). Specifically, they were unable to identify research

that explored how gender diversity affects the cognitive functioning of a group (1996, pg.

408). Additionally, while studies on attitudes and personality characteristics as well as

cultural values were abundant, research in these areas specifically related to

organizational diversity were few. There were two studies identified by Milliken and

Martins (1996) that provided some insights into how diversity in values affects outcomes.


12/76

7

The lack of research obscures the comprehensive impact of physical and non-physical

diversity on all levelswithin an organization. In contrast to the literature on observable

types of diversity, most of which is done on lower level organizational groups, most

research on skill-based diversity has been conducted at the top management team or

board of directors level (1996, pg. 412). The model introduced in this thesis endeavors

to rectify this deficiency by examining as many dimensions of diversity as possible at

each organizational level.

Organizational Culture

As mentioned earlier, the intention of this research is to develop a methodology

for assessing organizational culture within the context of diversity. It was more difficult

to find research that defined organizational culture in a manner that provided a clear

methodology for assessment. Certainly, it could be argued that one organization feels

differently from another, but how is that feeling measured or assessed with respect to

performance? Specifically, a plausible answer to whether diversity plays a significant

role in understanding organizational culture was desired. Thus, the research objective

was to determine what should be assessed when looking at an organizations culture

through the lens of diversity.

First, it was necessary to know to what degree organizations were interested in

and able to identify their cultures through assessments. Surprisingly few studies exist,

though, which offer a methodology for analyzing culture. Ouchi & Wilkins (1985)

compiled one of the most comprehensive studies understanding the evolution of research

on organizational culture. In their research, Ouchi & Wilkins (1985) consider various


13/76

8

methodologies to understand organizational culture. They concluded that researchers in

the field approached their work with a preference for studying what was either explicit

about an organization, or what was implicit about it. In other words, there has been a

constant tension between these two factions, one group who focuses on the organizations

ability to create order and rationality and those who find the chaotic and nonrational more

appealing. As a result, the study of organizational culture is an outgrowth of that tension,

and is what Ouchi & Wilkins (1985) believe is the most recent stage of this intellectual

trend.

In the context of diversity, it is quickly apparent that the definitions of

organizational culture are extremely broad and diffuse (e.g. Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck,

1961; Ouchi & Wilkins, 1985; Smircich, 1983). Culture is variously defined as a set of

learned characteristics shared by a particular group of people (Lenartowicz & Roth,

1999), the core of culture is formed by values (Lenartowicz & Roth, 1999; Hofstede,

1980), or microanalytic theories present culture as something that resides within each

individual and can be understood through the cognitive processes of sense-making,

learning, and casual attribution, or by probing the unconscious mind (Ouchi & Wilkins,

1985). According to Scheins Model of Organizational Culture, culture exists

simultaneously on three levels: on the surface are artifacts, underneath artifacts lie values,

and at the core are basic assumptions. He defined culture as:

The pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented,

discovered, or developed in learning to cope with its problems ofexternal adaptation and internal integration, and that have worked

well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore, to be taught to

new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in

relation to these problems (quoted in Hatch, 1993 p. 659).


14/76

9

Hatch (1993) developed her understanding using Scheins (1985) Model of

Organizational Culture. She used the term cultural dynamics (p. 660) to introduce her

theory of organizational culture. Hatch extends the Schein model by focusing on the

ways that cultural elements are related to each other. Her model adds symbols, which

allows it to accommodate the influences of both Scheins theory and symbolic-

interpretive perspectives. Hatch adds relationship links to her model, which is the focus

of her work. Those links are manifestation, realization, symbolization, and interpretation.

In Hatchs (1993) model, these concepts are deliberately positioned in a circular manner

to portray culture in a dynamic rather than linear fashion, as illustrated in the Schein

model. Manifestation is any process in which an essence reveals itself (p. 662). This can

happen through the senses, cognitively, or emotionally. In organizations, manifestation

helps in developing culture by turning intangible assumptions into recognizable values (p.

662). Realization is simply making something real. In the context of culture, realization

is a process where values are made real by changing expectations into social or tangible

reality and by altering existing values through the production of artifacts (p. 662).

Symbolism is similar to artifacts in that artifacts have to be translated into symbols in

order for the symbols to be culturally significant objects, events, or discourses (p.670).

An example provided in the text illustrates the symbolic significance of a large desk in a

corporate office. In other locations the desk has little meaning, but when organizational

members enter into the equation, the desk has a symbolic reality. This artifact becomes a

cultural example of status (p. 672). Thus, symbolism provides the context for the

organization; and its members determine its value. Interpretation contextualizes the

experience of organizational symbols by evoking a broader cultural frame as a reference


15/76


16/76

11

Defining Diversity

The term diversity has taken on a life of its own in contemporary organizations

in the United States. The definition, which literally means variety or difference, has

a contested context, and illustrates how complex the diversity in the workplace issue has

become. Both public and private organizations have committed extensive resources and

millions of dollars toward attempts to implement successful diversity initiatives. Not

surprisingly, with all of the focus on a single ambiguous idea, conceptualizations of

diversity differ from one organization to the next. For the purposes of this paper, we

define diversity broadly as differences in the workplace, but we refer to the Four

Layers of Diversity model offered by Gardenswartz and Rowe (1995) as a typology for

understanding the dimensions of diversity in corporate organizations1.

It is important to utilize the most inclusive definition of diversity for organizations

since the definitions can range from physical diversity, that which can be seen, to

diversity in an Affirmative Action context, which focuses on compliance, to a non-

physical diversity such as cognitive diversity, diversity of thought and creativity, to

diversity of skills. Another related term is cultural or intercultural competence

(Dinges 1983; Landis and Bhagat 1996; Ting-Toomey 1999). It is being used to define an

end-state on the continuum of diversity awareness, sensitivity, and ability to function as

an inclusive organization.

The vast diversity literature assumes the context of diversity of the organization.

Its scope continues to evolve, but a well-known model explaining the dimensions of

1There are many models that seek to capture the essence of diversity within an organizational context. The

wheel of diversity model offered by Loden & Rosener (1996) is very similar in nature to the

Gardenswartz and Rowe (1995) model, however, we have chosen to conceptualize diversity using the lattermodel, because it offers the additional dimension of personality, which we believe to be a critical piece in

determining how individuals are likely to be treated in an organization.


17/76

12

diversity was developed by Loden & Rosener (1996). This wheel of diversity (Figure

1) illustrates dimensions of diversity in three contexts: the primary (also referred to as

physical) dimensions, the secondary (also referred to as non-physical), and the tertiary

dimension (also referred to as the workplace dimensions of diversity) which can be both

physical and non-physical. Less attention is often given to the secondary and tertiary

levels, although organizations often focus their screening and selection efforts on these

dimensions to determine who has the best fit for the organization. The primary

dimensions of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and physical ability are the

ones most often assumed when discussing diversity.

Figure 1 Loden & Roseners Dimensions of Diversity.


18/76

13

Many organizations have developed definitions of diversity that are customized to

their organizational culture, but others have been created for the purpose of representing

everyone. Roosevelt Thomas (1991: p. 3), one of the pioneers in organizational diversity

work, defines diversity as, any collective mixture characterized by similarities and

differences. It can refer to people, organizations, systems, etc. As a consequence,

diversity can be defined as, or limited to, any dimension such as workforce diversity or

functional diversity. Workforce diversity refers to those dimensions of diversity that

make organizational members different. Functional diversity is a broader concept that

refers to the diversity of work within an organization. In other words, functional

diversity refers to departments within an organization such as Finance, Operations,

Information Systems, or Human Resources. He applies another more salient definition

to the workplace, which addresses the objective of appreciating the differences and using

them to improve the productivity and retention of the organization and its employees.

Thomas (1991: p. 3) goes on to say:

The condition of being different or having differences within,among and between people; the essence of diversity is recognizing

and responding to the needs of different cultural and occupational

groups within the workforce so that they will stay with anemployer, be productive and have effective working relationships;

diversity focuses on a broader set of issues than does equal

opportunity or affirmative action; various diversity dimensionsinclude race, gender, national origin, religion, age, ability, veteran

status, ethnicity, real or perceived sexual orientation, educational

background, income, marital status, military experience,

communication style, work style, etc.

While this definition was created to be broad in scope, it appears overly general

and lacks a description of procedures or mechanisms for managing or utilizing an

organizations diversity. The University of Maryland (UM) published an article for the


19/76

14

Issues and Observations Publication (1995) on diversity. They broadly defined diversity

as, otherness and the ways that people in organizations differ. This definition does

not limit itself to a specific dimension, nor does it assume a majority or minority. It

allows for the evolution of the term by being flexible. But this definition, though simple,

does not provide a clear understanding of diversity. The article critiques the broad

definition by stating,

In seeing all differences among people as the same, it makes

diversity a benign, almost meaningless, concept. Yet the effects of

diversity are not benign. Differences of race, ethnicity, and gender

have resulted in many people being given unequal access toopportunities and resources. With this background, how can these

differences be understood in the same way as those of personality,

cognitive style, or function, which may well have organizationaleffects but certainly not of the same magnitude? (Univ. of

Marylyand 1995).

The paper suggests researchers be cognizant of all of the dimensions of diversity

in both Loden & Roseners (1996) model as well as the Gardenswartz and Rowe (1995)

model when conducting an assessment of how well an organizational culture incorporates

and utilizes the diversity of all of its members. The model that has been developed as a

part of this research can potentially identify any of the primary, secondary or tertiary

forms of diversity that challenge a particular organization and help shape its culture.

Organizational Assessment

As was found in the exhaustive review of the relative paucity of organizational

culture literature, there is also a surprising lack of research on methods for conducting

organizational assessment. The most comprehensive work found was the article written

by Van Wart (1995), who wrote about the most prevalent assessments available. These


20/76

15

types of assessments can be utilized to determine just about anything within an

organization including culture. He said that, because so many public sector

organizations are moving from a rigid culture of making no value adjustments, they often

lack the tools to assess current values or lack a perspective to use them in a dynamic

manner (Van Wart, 1995, p. 430). Van Wart offers the following seven types of

assessment strategies (focusing on organizational levels or function) and discussions of

the merits and shortcomings of each:

1. mission, values and planning and vision statement assessments

2.

ethics assessments3. customer and citizen assessments

4. employee assessments5. performance assessments

6. benchmarking, and

7. quality assessments

The article further recommends that executives consider five guidelines before

implementing an assessment strategy. Van Wart (1995, p. 430) suggests: 1) executives

assess their appetite for change; 2) be careful to match the assessments with their demand

for organizational resources; 3) prior to the assessment, a commitment is made that the

data will result in changes, no matter how minor; 4) executives commit to rapid feedback

of the data to those from whom the data were collected or the organization as a whole,

depending on the circumstances; and 5) the assessment strategies used should be selected

for the fresh outlook that they can bring to the analysis. This research is the culmination

of many of the key elements culled from other previously reviewed research.

Another considerable work was developed by Lenartowicz & Roth (1999), which

focuses on the methodology of assessment. Their research was one of the few works


21/76

16

with a focus on the assessment of culture. They recognized one of the primary reasons

for the disregard for organizational culture is the immense time required for social

scientists to properly assess organizational culture, compounded by the lack of

standardized methodology for such assessment. Thus, Lenartowicz & Roth (1999)

developed the assessment or identification of a proper cultural unit (p. 782). Their

work benefits this research by reviewing different cultural assessment models and the

strengths and weaknesses of each. Additionally, they identify two basic approaches to

cultural assessment derived from research conducted by Clark (1990). Lenartowicz and

Roth (1999) identified the two approaches as culture-centered, which employ primarily

qualitative methods, and personality-centered approaches, which use primarily

quantitative methods. They sought to identify the basic elements of organizational

culture in order to understand its impact on individuals and groups.

Lenartowicz and Roth (1999) introduced three concepts that cut to the core in

defining culture. The first is ethnological description, which is an observation of social

structures, artifacts, and collective behavior, which are then used to develop conclusions

about groups. Second is the use of proxies, which include nationality, place of birth and

country of residence. Third is direct values inferences, which measure the values of

subjects in a sample and infers cultural characteristics based on the aggregation of these

values (p. 784). The model developed in this paper exploits all three concepts through

both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Lenartowicz & Roth (1999, p. 787)

conclude that there is, no single methodology [that] is able to address the inclusive set of

criteria relevant to culture assessment in business studies. They developed four types of

research design that address the basic research questions of cross-cultural studies in


22/76

17

business: 1) studies examining a difference in business phenomena due to culture; 2)

studies comparing the effect of cultures on business phenomena; 3) studies relating

business phenomena with cultural characteristics; and 4) studies relating business

phenomena with cultural characteristics across cultures. The new model developed for

this thesis uses the second approach, attempting to measure the effect of the culture of

diversity on individual perceptions and organizational outcomes.

Much of the recognized work studying how culture impacts organizational

outcomes has been performed by Geert Hofstede (1980). He developed two models, the

first of which is not widely utilized (Sondergaard, 1994) called the Value Survey Model.

The second, a more significant contribution in this arena, is known as the four work value

dimensions of culture (Hofstede, 1980), which are: uncertainty avoidance, individualism,

masculinity, and power distance. Each dimension views the culture perspective from an

either/or position on their respective continuum. For example, uncertainty avoidance can

either be weak or strong. With regard to organizational rules, a weak uncertainty

avoidance orientation is consistent with few rules, whereas strong uncertainty avoidance

requires the need for written rules and regulations. Individualism is viewed as either

collectivist or individualist, masculinity is either masculine or feminine and power

distance views the demeanor of people in power (Osland, Kolb, and Rubin, 2001). This

study is limited to learning how a sui generis(Durkhiem 1933), or unique, organizational

culture emerges through the application of a tool used by leaders to successfully manage

diversity and integrate diverse members into the greater organization. This research is not

attempting to understand the effects that specific cultural elements (as studied by

Hofstede 1980) have on organizational processes and functioning. Nor is the research


23/76

18

goal to assess whether a particular organization has a more individualistic or collectivistic

culture. Rather, it is intended to assess whether current organizational processes manage

diversity effectively, which as a byproduct could offer clues regarding the degree to

which an organization is individualistic in nature.

To understand assessment in the context of organizational culture, Lenartowicz

and Roth (1999) suggest, A culture assessment framework should have two main goals.

The first goal is to establish and validate a specific cultural grouping as the unit of

analysis, which means verifying that the culture(s) exists and the subjects being assessed

represent the culture(s). The second is to provide valid measures that are adequate for

each type of study (p. 791). This approach is consistent with another model used to

conduct assessments within an organizationthe Criteria for Performance Excellence

(CPE), which is part of the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award. The CPE are

one of the most widely accepted frameworks for self-assessment in U. S. organizations

and are recognized worldwide for their comprehensiveness (Van Aken, Groesbeck, and

Coleman 2001). The first goal of the CPE is to create a shared view of where an

organization is as a baseline prior to initiating change. Part two is the assessment of

leadership effectiveness, which was taken from the Kouzes and Posner (1997) leadership

inventory.

Lenartowicz & Roth (1999) echo the sentiments of fellow researches with regard

to methodological consistency that is lacking in the field of cross-cultural and diversity

research. In evaluating the body of research that exists in this space, they have concluded

that cross-cultural research has yet to resolve methodological issues related to the

conceptual foundation for research design and hypothesis formulation, equivalence,


24/76

19

sampling, data collection methods, data analysis, effects of confounding variables, and

the difficulty of conceptualizing and assessing culture (pg. 782, see also Cavusgil and

Das 1997, Samiee and Jeong 1994, Auklah and Kotabe 1993, Sekaran 1983, and Adler

1983a).

In summary, there has not been an abundance of research conducted in the area of

assessing the culture of an organization in the context of diversity. Several studies,

however, were able to provide useful information on understanding organizational

culture, defining diversity, and assessing culture in an organization. This research was

helpful in the creation of the model for this study. One group researched person-

organization fit (OReilly, Chatman, and Caldwell, 1991). This tool was called the

Organizational Culture Profile (OCP), which provided useful information on

organizational culture in developing assessment questions for employees to gauge the

culture of their company. Miliken & Martins (1996) provided their perspective on

physical and non-physical diversity. Their study ensured that assessment questions

considered perspectives that may include dimensions of diversity beyond the physical.

These studies and several others provided the framework for the development of a three-

pronged assessment model developed for this thesis, discussed below. This tool was

designed to provide a methodology for measuring organizational culture and the impact

of diversity on that culture.


25/76

20

METHODOLOGY

Three-Pronged Assessment Model

As mentioned, the relative paucity of available research hampered my ability to

utilize a proven model for assessing the diversity culture of organizations. What was

available focused primarily on assessing culture, cultural climate, or diversity climate of

an organization however, virtually nothing was useful for this research. The objective

was to have a tool that revealed the salient components of culture within an organization,

and the possibility for the role of cultural change within that organization. The

methodology used in this thesis was developed as a result of the limitations of any one-

assessment model. Data was collected through several assessment methods, all of which

are components of the new model presented below. The outcome is the development of a

Three-Pronged Model (Figure 1), which provides a tool for assessing organizations from

multiple cultural and diversity variables. It was designed to synthesize three

methodologies vertical sampling throughout the organization, and the quantitative and

qualitative assessments of employee groups, into an assessment of the impact of diversity

on the culture of the organization. Additionally, a diversity potency gauge was added to

the model to illustrate where physical dimensions of diversity were most visible. The

darker color at the lowest level of the organizational pyramid indicates the area where

visible diversity was most prominent. A lighter shade towards the upper portion of the

organizational pyramid suggests less visible diversity among leadership.


26/76

21

Institutional Data

The first prong of the assessment model is divided into two components. The first

component analyzed the organization. This included a review and analysis of mission,

vision, policies, and practices of the organization. The second component reviewed its

initiatives and interests related to the inclusion and promotion of diversity. Examples

included the access, allocation, and utilization of resources as well as the analysis of

employee-related performance data, such as employee engagement, turnover results, and

employee opinions. This data can meet the objective of determining the culture of an

organization, which will be used as the baseline for the second and third prongs in the

model. Information regarding the overarching organizational challenges related to

financial resources, management missteps, and workforce instability laid the foundation

for the quantitative survey.

Quantitative Assessment

The second prong is the quantitative component, which provided empirical

measures of the employees perceptions of the organizational indicators around culture

and diversity. This data was gathered through two formats. The first method was a

survey questionnaire measuring, on a Likert scale, several aspects of culture from the

perspective of the employee. Included were opinions related to the organization, such as

managements influence on employees (especially diverse employees), and questions

about their knowledge of the culture of the organization. Questions in this assessment

covered three broad areas: 1) managements effect on employees and organizational

effectiveness; 2) organizational culture; and 3) diversity. Survey participants were asked


27/76

22

to answer a total of forty-two questions on a seven-point Likert scale. Answers ranged

from positive to negative and included, Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat Agree, No

Opinion, Somewhat Disagree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.

Figure 2 Three-Pronged Model for assessment

The sample represented one division of hospital operations. A broad range of

workers were asked to participate. It is important to note that the participants were not

randomly selected. Rather, they attend daily meetings and were informed about the

survey and given the opportunity to participate. This convenience sampling provided a

P O T E N T C Y O F

D I V E R S I T Y

H I G H L E V E L O F

D I V E R S I T Y

L O W L E V E L O F

D I V E R S I T Y


28/76

23

large enough group of workers from a broad range of occupations within the department

that enabled a cross section of opinions to be represented.

Qualitative Assessment

The third prong in the model is the qualitative assessment of data. This

component consisted of two evaluative methods as well. The first component was

interviews with organizational leaders, who provided the opportunity to understand

organizational culture from the perspective of its leadership. These recorded interviews

allowed management to explain their interpretations of organizational culture,

organizational climate, diversity, and other issues that could be compared against the data

collected in the first two prongs of the model. Interviews were conducted with leaders at

the executive, middle management, and front-line management levels. Overall, these

interviews provided insight on organizational issues such as the challenges in running the

business with a change in leadership forthcoming and the negativity towards the

organization that the issue of faculty compensation has caused. When asked how open

the organization is to change, the leader said, This is an unusual time for us now. First

we have a lame duck President and a high level of anxiety among our faculty over faculty

compensation. Additionally, there is a faculty-driven website publishing information on

employee diversity that doesnt put us in the best light. This type of information

provides context for employee interview and survey responses. The second method was

focus group interviews. These interviews included front-line employees and were

conducted in groups of up to eight people per session. These focus groups were voice

recorded as well and took much longer to conduct to allow for all opinions to be heard,


29/76

24

acknowledged, and documented. Responses to the focus group interviews provided

context to the responses provided in the quantitative surveys. For example, one survey

question asked respondents to rate their opinion of whether the speaking of other

languages causes friction. A majority of employees disagreed to some level with that

statement. It was the focus groups remarks that revealed an acceptance of the speaking

of other languages primarily due to necessity (based on changing demographics), rather

than personal preference. And while one member of the focus group felt as though in

the U.S., if theyre coming over, they should learn English, all of the other members of

the focus group were more accepting. For example, when the group was asked what the

signs were that diversity was alive in the hospital, a white male in the focus group said,

The use of other languages is not frowned upon in our area. He went on to say that,

people who are ESL (English as a Second Language) try harder to make themselves

understood. Several minority members of the focus group nodded in agreement with his

statements, apparently validating his comments as examples of what they had

experienced as minority employees in the hospital.

Assessment Process

Conducting a cultural assessment where both qualitative and quantitative data are

primary components of the data collection process creates a wealth of useful data for

analysis. In this case, the quantitative data collected was in the form of a survey,

consisting of forty-two questions which examine three primary components of the

organization: 1) management, 2) culture, and 3) diversity. The questions were developed

as a result of an analysis of the interviews conducted in a vertical sampling of the


30/76

25

organization. Management-related questions were designed to provide insight into

employees perceptions of managements leadership style, commitment to diversity,

influence on the culture, and fairness in decision-making. The questions about culture

probed employee understanding of organizational culture, their perceptions of their own

fit into that culture, employee trust both up and down the organization, and their

individual understanding of cultural norms. The last area asked questions related to

diversity. The survey covered topics such as comfort with otherness, fairness in hiring

and promoting diversity, stereotypes, tolerance for jokes about women and minority

groups, and the acceptance of diverse viewpoints in the organization. Demographic data,

including gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, time in job, and job function was also

gathered.

All questions were scored and analyzed using frequency analysis and Chi-square

analysis, with the statistical software SPSS. From the forty-two questions, fourteen were

selected for further analysis based on the relevance to the research questions (discussed

below). This analysis provides a deeper understanding of the culture of the organization,

the perceptions regarding culture, managements role and influence to that culture, and

the influences of specific dimensions of diversity to the culture.

Survey Sample

The survey sample consisted of 74 employees in one of the Texas state hospital

systems within the healthcare industry in the US. The sample group comprised a cross

section of employees in one division of the hospital. This group was selected based on

their size, access to employees, openness of management to this study, and their


31/76

26

interactions with diverse patients and co-workers. They represented a microcosm of the

larger institution. This hospital has a diverse patient base made up primarily of indigent

patients who have, in many cases, arrived at this facility because of the hospitals

designation as the treatment center where patients will not be turned away based on their

inability to pay. This hospital also houses one of the states largest medical schools.

Faculty (doctors) and staff are accustomed to the constant inflow and outflow of interns,

residents, and medical school students; however, the perpetual variation in personnel

along with the temporary mindset of these medical school students creates unique

challenges in developing a consistent and deliberate culture. This is especially true for

organizational members trying to develop a diverse culture where diversity is appreciated

and inclusion is fostered.

As previously mentioned, participants in the survey represented a cross-section of

the hospital staff, including faculty, hospital administration, surgeons, nurses, surgical

technologists, residents, and hospital aides. Hospital administrators work a standard

business schedule - Monday through Friday, 8 to 5 p.m. Doctors work shifts based on

scheduled surgeries and virtually everyone else works a shift. This environment is

unique in that employees have interactions across all levels of the organization doctors

work with nurses, hospital administrators interact with hospital aides. Overall, the

environment has the size and diversity to provide a robust sample in several area of the

hospital that could provide an understanding of the influence diversity has or could have

on the culture of that organization.


32/76


33/76

28

crafted and delivered to the potential participants based on what was learned about the

culture of the organization during the pre-assessment information-gathering phase.

Indications that the organization had a history of mistrust between the workers and

management came from past reductions in force (RIFs) that resulted in layoffs for staff.

Additionally, the initial surveys were offered through a mass email and accessed through

a web-based database. Since most staff in this area did not have their own workstations

or computers, they had to access the survey through a company computer usually shared

by all of the workers in the area. This limited privacy challenged the confidentiality of

the survey once it was submitted online. It is important to mention that it was necessary

for the survey to provide demographic information on the sample and therefore asked

explicit questions at the end of the survey. This was a possible additional cause for

concern by the participants and that trepidation was evident in the results of the survey

discussed below. One final note, the number of participants in the Internet survey was far

less than was anticipated. Hospital management offered to use hardcopy surveys to be

distributed at the front end of a standing morning meeting. This way, there would be a

captive audience available to take the survey, and with hardcopy submissions, there was

the perception that the survey would go straight to the researchers with no chance of it

being seen by management and thus identified with a particular respondent.

As was mentioned earlier, the assessment process included three steps, 1) the pre-

assessment information gathering, which included interviews with key leadership in the

specific area studied; 2) the survey, which will be the primary data presented in this

section, and 3) the focus group interviews, which provides context and in some cases

validates or rejects presumptions made from the survey responses. The focus groups also


34/76

29

provided context for knowledge of the organization, its policies, and managements

ability to communicate effectively to front line employees.

Large Number of No Opinion

The initial review of the data analyzed the responses of the overall group without

regard for demographics. The data was studied to see what the opinions of the sample

were as it related to the question asked. A review of the highest and lowest scores as well

as the largest and smallest responses in each of the categorical choices in the Likert

model was conducted. The question with the highest response in one category was: In

this organization there is high turnover among women and people of color. The Likert

scale used 1-7 and ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree (see survey in

Appendix). This question received 54.8% of the respondents selecting No Opinion as

their response, which represented the highest single category rating for a question. The

category No Opinion was a frequently used response in this survey. Where a majority

of employees chose to answer No Opinion, one of the following could be assumed: the

employee did not have an opinion; the employee had an opinion, but was afraid to speak

out; or the employee did not understand the question. Typically, the questions with a

high number of No Opinion responses addressed the following issues: management

practices and group interactions related to issues of diversity. For example, when asked

whether the organization had effective strategies for conflict management when one

group would not work with another, most respondents (28.8%) did not have an opinion.

When asked whether their manager gives feedback that is respectful, almost half (46.5%)

Agreed or Somewhat Agreed, but almost twenty percent (19.2%) would not provide an


35/76


36/76

31

numbers 1,2,4,11,14,16,18,21,25,28,30,33, and 35 were related to Management and

Organization. Questions related to Culture were, 3,7,9,13,22,32,40, and 41. Diversity

had the most questions, twenty-two in all.

Demographic Questions

The sample used in this survey was relatively diverse, and the gender distribution

was ideal at 49% male and 51% female. Race and ethnicity was measured based on the

US governments five recognized racial/ethnic categories 1) White (47%), 2) Black

(11%), 3) Hispanic (16%), 4) Asian/Pacific Islander (7%), 5) Native American/Alaskan

Native (1%), and 6) Other (12%). By job function, 30% were Nurses, 18% Residents,

14% Surgery Technicians, and 20% other. Professional degrees were held by 35% of the

participants and 41% had some college or an Associates degree. The largest groups by

age were the 26-35 year olds (33%) and the 36-45 year olds (37%). Related to job tenure

32% had 3-5 years experience, 41% 6-20 years, and 20% had less than 2 years

experience. Tables 1-6 chart the survey participant profiles in full detail.

Table 1 Hospital profile by Gender

Hospital Profile

Gender Percentage Valid %

Male 49% 49.3

Female 51% 50.7


37/76


38/76


39/76

34

responses. Over 75% Agreed at some level that they should do so. In another question,

participants were asked if they believed that leadership does not share critical

information with front-line employees. Most employees (56.1%) Agreed at some level

with this statement. These two questions provide insight into the culture of the

organization, but do not at this level of analysis provide an explanation of which

employees believe these statements to be true (See Table 7 for Management &

Organization questions).

When reviewing questions related to Management and Organization that would be

included in the survey, the intention was to measure the impact leadership has on the

culture of the organization. Questions that were selected for the survey were chosen

based on their ability to provoke answers on one end of the Likert scale or the other.

Surprisingly, only a few questions prompted such a direct response. Many of the

management and organization questions (as was explained earlier) were answered with

No Opinion. Questions that were answered by either No Opinion or with a definitive

response agreeing or disagreeing were spread across the Likert scale. For example,

respondents did not agree or disagree on whether management practices what they

preach. Nearly 33% (32.8%) Agree or Somewhat Agree while 42.4% Disagree or

Somewhat Disagree. When asked if leadership works hard to foster harmonious working

relationships between managers and employees, 24.7 % Somewhat Agree, 17.8% had No

Opinion, 12.3% Somewhat Disagreed, and 23.3% Disagreed. Based on the type of

questions asked and the responses provided, insights into the culture of the organization

can be seen. For example, participants were asked ifpeople in the organization do not

feel comfortable disagreeing with leadership. Greater than 65% (65.7%) of the


40/76

35

Table 7 Management and Organization questions with response numbers and

percentages

MANAGEMENT & ORGANIZATION AGREE NO OPINION DISAGREE

QUESTIONS Number/Percent Number/Percent Number/Percent

1 Management practices what they preach 26/35.5% 8/11% 39/53.4%

2 The organization has effective strategies touse when one group refuses to work with

another group.

20/27.5% 21/28.8% 32/43.8%

4 Rules get in the way of providing the bestpossible patient care

42/59.9% 7/10% 21/29.9%

11 The organization is flexible enough toprovide the best patient care possible

38/52% 8/11% 27/36.9%

14 My manager gives me feedback that isrespectful

40/55.5% 14/19.4% 18/25%

16 I believe employees should work above the

call of duty when asked

55/75.4% 6/8.2% 12/16.4%

18 Employees go out of their way to help their

co-workers

44/74% 10/13.7% 9/12.3%

21 Employees feel comfortable sharing theiropinions even when the opinions are

unpopular

37/50.6% 6/8.2% 30/41%

25 The right people are brought to the table to

make decisions in this organization

20/28.2% 12/16.9% 39/54.9%

28 Leadership works hard to foster harmonious

working relationships between managers

and employees

27/37.5% 13/18.1% 32/44.4%

30 There are opportunities for advancement

here

38/52.7% 18/25% 16/22.2%

33 People do not feel comfortable disagreeingwith leadership

48/65.7% 7/9.6% 18/24.6%

35 Leadership willingly shares critical

information with front-line employees

19/26.4% 12/16.7% 41/57%

respondents Agreed with the statement to some degree (26% Somewhat Agreed, and

13.7% Strongly Agreed). Just fewer than 10% had No Opinion. Overall, the responses

in this section strongly suggested a culture where management influences behavior,

which has a direct impact on the culture. A more comprehensive explanation will be

provided in the next section.


41/76

36

Culture Questions

The next grouping was Culture, which covered a broad range of questions related

to organizational culture and cultural understanding of the organization. The difference

is small but distinct. Organizational culture addresses the norms that make the

organization unique compared to other organizations. It is the things employees do that

define whether someone fits into the organization. A sample question in this area was I

believe I fit into the culture of the organization. Most respondents (71.2%) Agreed with

this statement at some level. This is an example of a question that indirectly asks if

participants actually know what the culture of the organization is. It also sets up

subsequent responses to questions inquiring about specific aspect of culture. If a

respondent claims to fit into the culture, it should be presumed that they understand what

that culture is. And if that is true, they should be able to respond to specific aspects of

that culture. This, however, was not always the case. For example, while a slight

majority of respondents (35.6%) describe the culture as one in which people are

motivated by relationships built on trust, tradition, and commitment to the organization,

over twenty percent (20.5%) had No Opinion. Cultural understanding of the organization

is related to the participants awareness of culture in their organization. In the example I

fit into the culture of the organization, the difference is in ones ability to recognize an

action or practice, as part of the culture and the other is the ability to embrace it. Most

respondents opinion that they fit into the culture could be addressing the issue of fitting

with other people rather than fitting into the culture (See Table 8 for Culture questions).

As was explained earlier, culture related questions addressed two aspects of

culture, 1) organizational culture and 2) cultural understanding. Based on the opinion of


42/76

37

Table 8 Culture questions with response numbers and percentages

CULTURE AGREE NO OPINION DISAGREE

QUESTION Number/Percent Number/Percent Number/Percent

3 I know the cultural norms of different

groups

42/57.5% 20/27.4% 11/15.1%

7 I fit into the culture of this organization 52/71.2% 10/13.7% 11/15%9 Our culture is best described as one in

which individuals are motivated by the

importance of the task being undertaken

31/42.5% 9/12.3% 33/45.3%

13 Top management has a positive influence

on the culture

24/33.3% 8/11.1% 40/55.5%

22 Our culture is best described as one inwhich individuals are motivated by

relationships based on trust, tradition, and

commitment to the organization

33/45.2% 15/20.5% 25/34.3%

32 Our UTMB culture is best described as one

in which individuals are motivated by rules,

regulations, and fear of punishment

39/53.4% 12/16.4% 22/30.2%

40 The organization does a good job ofhonoring the cultural values and norms of

patients

45/61.6% 21/28.8% 7/9.6%

41 The bureaucracy does not interfere with the

ability of diverse perspectives to be heard

32/43.8% 21/28.8% 20/27.3%

the respondents, it was apparent they felt their understanding of culture - related to both

themselves and others, as well as organizational culture, was relatively high. Over fifty

percent (53.4%) believe they know the cultural norms of different groupsand 71.2% feel

as though they fit the culture of the organization. More than fifty five percent (54.8%) of

respondents do not believe top management had a positive influence on the culture of the

organization. Over forty percent (42.4%) either Somewhat Agreed or Agreed that the

culture is one where people are motivated by rules, regulations, and fear of punishment.

And as was the case in the questions regarding management and organization, the culture

questions had a sizable number of respondents who expressed No Opinion. In two

questions almost thirty percent (28.8% in both questions) had No Opinion on whether the

organization does a good job of honoring the cultural values and norms of its patients or

whether the bureaucracy interferes with the ability of diverse perspectives to be heard.


43/76

38

These responses raise several questions about the sample and the organization the will be

addressed later in this thesis.

Diversity Questions

The last grouping was Diversity. Questions in the survey related to diversity

asked participants to express their opinions about diversity related to three specific issues.

They were: 1) inclusion (e.g.,Management is most comfortable managing people who

are similar in background to themselves); 2) difference (e.g., The speaking of other

languages in the workplace causes friction); and 3) equity (e.g.,Managers hold all

people equally accountable). From these three categories, questions pertinent to

understanding the influences diverse employees have on the culture of the organization

was the goal. Additionally, questions related to the potential to evoke varied responses

were selected for their likelihood of providing salient examples of culture and openness

to diversity. For example, when asked if all employees are made to feel as though they

are a vital part of the organization regardless of their position, almost 25% Disagreed,

but nearly 22% Somewhat Agreed. These questions would be further analyzed to

understand the response rate by gender, by race, and by job tenure (See Table 9 for

Diversity questions).

Most of the survey questions were related to diversity. In some cases, questions

could have fallen into one of the other categories, but it was decided to place them in the

diversity category since the core component of the question sought to gain a better

understanding about certain aspects of diversity. However, responses to diversity-related

questions did not provide a clear delineation between the diversity related questions and


44/76

39

Table 9 Diversity questions with response numbers and percentages

DIVERSITY AGREE NO OPINION DISAGREE

QUESTION Number/Percent Number/Percent Number/Percent

5 People in this organization are

accommodating to patients and visitors who

speak limited English

60/82.2% 3/4.1% 10/13.7%

6 Management is approachable to help in

handling cultural misunderstandings that

may arise in the workplace

32/43.8% 21/28.8% 20/27.5%

8 Informal mentoring relationships happen

naturally and occur often

48/69.6% 11/15.9% 10/14.5%

10 Management is most comfortable managing

people who are similar in background to

themselves

33/45.2% 22/30.1% 18/24.7%

12 All employees are made to feel as though

they are a vital part of the organization

regardless of their position

27/37.5% 10/13.9% 35/48.6%

15 The speaking of other languages in the

workplace causes friction

20/27.4% 14/19.2% 39/53.4%

17 Multicultural work teams function well 54/74% 10/13.7% 9/12.3%

19 Managers have a track record of hiring and

promoting diverse employees

34/47.2% 22/30.6% 16/22.2%

20 Staff members spend their lunch hour and

breaks in mixed groups

39/54.2% 22/30.6% 11/15.3%

23 Managers hold all people equally

accountable

21/29.1% 13/18.1% 38/52.8%

24 Assumptions and stereotypes impact the

effectiveness of my organization

32/44.4% 22/30.6% 18/25%

26 Managers are empowered to applyincentives and rules in a way that works for

everyone

28/38.4% 15/20.5% 30/41.1%

27 Policies are flexible enough toaccommodate everyone

26/35.6% 9/12.3% 38/52.1%

29 Racial, ethnic, and gender jokes aretolerated in the informal environment

29/39.7% 19/26% 25/34.3%

31 Members of non-dominant groups feel theydo not belong

19/26.7% 23/32.4% 29/39.6%

34 I think that diverse viewpoints make for a

productive work environment

56/76.7% 10/13.7% 7/9.6%

36 The people who are promoted are the ones

who deserve it

20/27.4% 15/20.5% 38/52%

37 There is high turnover among women and

people of color here

9/12.3% 40/54.8% 24/32.9%

38 Our culture is best described as one in

which competent performance will berewarded

21/29.2% 11/15.3% 40/55.5%

39 I am afraid to disagree with members of

other groups for fear of being called

prejudiced

19/26.8% 22/31% 30/42.2%

42 Ambitious people of all backgrounds are

afforded opportunities to excel and be

promoted

43/58.9% 12/16.4% 18/24.6%


45/76

40

the demographics of the collective group of respondents. This made it more difficult to

draw conclusions based on certain demographic groups. For example, almost 25%

(24.7%) disagreed and almost 22% (21.9%) Somewhat Agreed that all employees are

made to feel as though they are a vital part of the organization regardless of their

position. In another example, the collective group Somewhat Agreed, Agreed, or

Strongly Agreed to a total of 53.4% that staff members spent their lunch breaks in mixed

groups. Surprisingly, 30.1% had No Opinion to the same question. Yet 76.7% of the

respondents Somewhat Agreed, Agreed, and Strongly Agreed that diverse viewpoints

make for a productive work environment. As was the case in the previous two groupings,

the respondents did not collectively indicate strong opinions on issues of diversity. Very

few responses had as clear an opinion as the last example provided above. For example,

almost 55% (54.8%) of respondents had No Opinion as to the turnover of women and

people of color. Or even more opinionated, 26% Somewhat Disagreed and 20.5%

Disagreed that the organizational culture is best described as one in which competent

performance will be rewarded. In another opposite response, 26% Agreed and 23.3%

Somewhat Agreed that ambitious people of all backgrounds are afforded opportunities to

excel and be promoted.

Chi Square Analysis

It was determined that the data should be analyzed further to review responses by:

gender, race/ethnicity, and job tenure. It was presumed that by comparing the data within

these demographic categories would provide salient indications of impact on the culture

the diverse employees had on the organization. Reviewing the data at the demographic


46/76


47/76


48/76


49/76


50/76

45

relatively even in their distribution across the Likert scale. However, when reviewing the

responses by job tenure, opinions were more apparent. Consider, 57.1% of respondent

with 0-2 years of employment Somewhat Agreed, Agreed, or Strongly Agreed, 39.1% of

3-5 year employees had No Opinion, and 54.9% of employees with 11-15 years Strongly

Disagreed, Disagreed, or Somewhat Disagreed. In comparing the responses by years of

employment to each other, certain job tenure categories often aligned with each other and

in other cases certain groups more often did not align. For example, respondents with 0-2

year and 16-20 year employee responses often aligned with each other. In the following

questions, managers hold all employees equally accountable, racial, ethnic, and gender

jokes are tolerated in the informal environment, and our culture is best described as one

in which individuals are motivated by rules, regulations, and fear of punishment, a

majority of both 0-2 year and 16-20 year respondents had the same responses. In many

examples, the 3-5 year employee responses did not align with other tenured groups. In

fact, in most cases, this group showed no clear opinion - for many of the questions No

Opinion and/or a relatively even distribution of responses across the Likert scale was

observed.

Nonetheless, this category yielded more statistically significant responses than the

other two categories, race/ethnicity or gender. Two questions, the people who are

promoted are the ones who deserve itand ambitious people of all backgrounds are

afforded opportunities to excel and be promoted, had Chi square scores of significance,

.013 and .027, respectively. In the case of the promotion question, the longer the

respondent has been at the organization, the more likely they are to agree that people who

are promoted are the ones who deserve it. An in the case of the opportunities question, it


51/76

46

is also the case that the longer tenure one has had at the organization, the more likely one

is to agree that people of all backgrounds are afforded opportunities to be promoted.

The outcomes from the survey provided an abundance of quantifiable data that

provided interesting insight, especially when combined with the qualitative data and the

pre-assessment data. The three-pronged assessment model has proven to be a valuable

tool providing a comprehensive method for gathering data to enable the complete

assessment of an organization, particularly in assessing the organizations culture and

effectiveness in allowing certain factors, in this case diversity, to have an impact on its

culture. In the next section, a research based opinion of the ability for the diversity

within this institution to affect its culture is offered.


52/76

47

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this thesis was to assess an organization to determine if the

diversity within that organization has an impact on its culture. More specifically, the

intention of the research was to answer the following questions:

1) Is the culture of an organization affected by the diversity of its employees?

2) How is culture derived, i.e. does it evolve organically, or is it promulgated

from top leadership?

3) Does the organization have the ability to influence, either positively or

negatively, its culture and if so, from where do those influences come?

4) How does an organization define diversity, and what influence does diversity

have on the organization?

An assessment process similar to the one used in this research was probably never

before conducted in this organization. Therefore, it would be fair to assume many of the

participants had little or no experience reflecting on and/or providing commentary on the

subjects of culture and diversity. Inducing employee participation in the survey required

multiple attempts and data collection methods. And in reviewing answers to the survey

questions, most answers appeared to be guarded. In other words, the survey did not offer

definitive opinions to the all of questions asked. This notion was based primarily on the

high number of No Opinion responses on the survey, and the generally middle-of-the-

road answers of the focus groups. Given the financial instability that has dogged this

particular organization for several years, and the constant change that has been


53/76

48

implemented in effort to combat the newest financial challenges, employees remain

generally committed to their jobs particularly those working directly with patients. In

this research, evidence of the impact of culture related to diverse employees was more

difficult to ascertain, while questions related to management and organization provided

more salient references to the influence leadership has on the culture of the organization.

For example, on the question Top management has a positive influence on the culture of

the organization;respondents were almost evenly split in their opinions. While only

8.2% of respondents Agreed, over 20% (20.5%) of the respondents Somewhat Agreed,

21.9% Somewhat Disagreed, 23.3% Disagreed, and 11% had No Opinion. When broken

down by demographic categories, ethnicity and job tenure became important. In this

case, white, Asian, and some black men and women, with anywhere from 0-15 years of

experience generally Disagreed with the statement. Hispanics with 3-5 years of

experience tended to be more positive.

In tying the data results to the research questions, specifically, understanding how

the organization defines diversity and determining the influence diversity has on the

organization, survey questions, leadership interviews, and focus groups provided data

that illustrated salient organizational issues, which gives an opportunity to go back to the

organizations leadership and make recommendations for improvement. Based on the

survey and interview results, it was determined that an organizational definition of

diversity was not developed, though the organization and specifically its administrative

leadership spoke of the importance of diversity and the benefits and challenges of hiring

and retaining talent that reflects their community. When an administrative leader was


54/76

49

asked to identify the issues that concern him most, his response was, raising the level of

awareness on diversity issues. He went on to say that most people in the hospital do not

think on that level with their co-workers. He also mentioned that he was aware that

diversity existed at the lower levels and that keeping that diversity has been a real

challenge. His reports indicated high turnover among his minority and women nurses.

He indicated that while he was aware of the importance of diversity, he and his peer

group at the leadership level have done little to set expectations and/or institutionalize

diversity. If employees do not think on that level, the awareness has not been raised as to

the expectations management has towards employees who are different. This example

suggests that the current culture is a result of an inability or unwillingness to define or

reinforce a more productive and inclusive culture. Therefore, it could be concluded that

the culture of an organization does not necessarily need to be developed by its leadership.

If no explicit efforts are made to consciously develop an inclusive organizational culture,

and if the culture is developed (or evolves) outside the organizations leadership, there is

a greater risk that the culture may not align with organizational goals and objectives. As

an example of inattention to issues of diversity, when survey participants were asked

whether assumptions and stereotypes impact the effectiveness of my organization, the

plurality had No Opinion (30.1%). Despite the real possibility that a No Opinion

response could mean something other than they did not have an opinion on the question,

it does suggest that in the absence of a diversity message or set of expectations from

leadership, many employees would not have the appropriate tools to be more aware of

issues or attuned to specific assumptions and stereotypes in this organization. In one of

the focus groups, a young white female offered her opinion that she was usually offended


55/76

50

and sometimes made to feel insecure with people who speak other languages around her.

She openly and willingly offered her opinion that all foreigners should speak English

before being allowed to work in the United States. A black female offered her opinion

that the Spanish-speaking groups do not speak English as a way to exclude others from

their conversation.

At the leadership level, it would appear that there is a chasm with respect to the

impressions of how well developed diversity initiatives are in the organization, between

leaders who represent some visible dimension of diversity and those who are white,

including females. A black male Department Chair, who happens to also be an MD, feels

as though the institution should put privileged groups in areas of discomfort. He felt as

though the issue of diversity was understood from an intellectual perspective or based on

knowing that a diverse organization is better than a homogenous one, for example. But,

he said, some people in this organization have never dealt with diversity experientially

such as individual learning that comes from the sometimes awkward interactions that

occur when majority people must deal with differences for the first time. He went on to

say that the greatest barrier at his organization is getting the leadership to want to

change.

Another leader provided her perspectives on diversity. She is white and a nurse

supervisor. When asked what was the greatest concern is for her, she said, having

enough information to know how others want to be treated. She expressed sensitivity to

others, but acknowledged slipping up because she and other she managed were not

aware of appropriate ways to interact with other groups. She felt as though her work

group was open with each other based on a high level of trust that existed between them.


56/76

51

She also mentioned that one of the barriers to diversity was that there is a lack of

evidence-based information on diversity. Surprisingly, she said that the employee

population was absolutely reflective of the patient population.

These interviews, along with the survey responses, suggest the organization has

not been deliberate in developing a definition for diversity, nor clearly communicated a

position on diversity that resonates throughout the organization. This lack of a

communicated stance on diversity in an organization that has considerable visible

diversity seems t

Documents

WILSON_Assessing organizational culture through the context of diversity – determining the influences that primary dimensions of diversity have on organizational development, 2007