Diversity and Leadership

Jean Lau Chin, Joseph E. Trimble

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781483323633
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Business

Although leadership theories have evolved to reflect changing social contexts, they remain silent on issues of equity, diversity, and social justice. Diversity and Leadership offers a new paradigm for examining leadership by bringing together two domains—research on leadership and research on diversity—to challenge existing notions of leadership and move toward a diverse and global view of society and its institutions. This compelling book delivers an approach to leadership that is inclusive, promotes access for diverse leaders, and addresses barriers that narrowly confine our perceptions and expectations of leaders. Redefining leadership as global and diverse, the authors impart new understanding of who our leaders are, the process of communication, exchange between leaders and their members, criteria for selecting, training, and evaluating leaders in the 21st century, and the organizational and societal contexts in which leadership is exercised.

Culture and Leadership | Joseph Trimble | TEDxWWU Watch here.

1 Leadership for the 21st Century

Notable Quote: On 21st Century Leadership

“Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes” (Rost, 1991, p. 102).

“Besides practical needs, there are important reasons to examine the impact of culture on leadership” (House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman, 2002, p. 3).

Vignette on “How to Become a Great Leader”

… But today’s crises never completely mirror yesterday’s, and it would be better in the first place to build leaders who can prevent crises before they arise. In my view, a great leader is inspiring, uplifting, a uniter of differences, and someone who brings out the best in human aspirations. I named this model “the soul of leadership” and set out to see if leaders with a soul could be trained. Knowing that business, politics, and the military are not spiritual enterprises, I didn’t formulate the training along “soft” or idealistic lines. Instead, I used a “hard” criterion: what groups actually need. If you aspire to be a great leader, the first requirement is that you look and listen so that you can find out the true needs that a situation demands to be fulfilled. (Chopra, 2013, p. 1)

Leadership today is more important than ever as the 21st century brings about rapid and significant change in society and our institutions and challenges the way in which we do business and function in organizational settings. Our future will be different from what our reality is today. Our skills and how we practice them in the future are likely to be unknown to us today. We need to prepare our citizens to serve as leaders during times of uncertainty and equip them with skills that we may not even know exist if they are to be relevant and effective as leaders. What kind of leaders do we prepare and train our citizens to become? The psychology of leadership should add to our understanding of who become our leaders, what the process of communication and exchange is between leaders and their members, how leaders and members develop shared outcomes, and what the nature of the organizations in which leadership occurs is. Answers to these questions will, in turn, have implications for how we select our leaders, how leaders access leadership roles, and how leaders exercise leadership once in these roles.

Schwartz (2010) talks about how humanity has entered three great transformations. The first occurred when human beings moved from a survival strategy of hunting and gathering to a state of civilization based on agriculture. The second began with the Industrial Revolution of the mid-20th century. We are now on the cusp of the third Great Transformation—the revolutionary advance of science and technology. This has also been coined the Digital Age, a time in which the world about us is changing rapidly because of advances in technology, communication, and mobility. Schwartz summarizes how we are seeing dramatic increases in life, new patterns of human migration, a consortium of nations bound together by their common need for lawful collaboration as well as groups able to unleash terror and disruption to the rest of the world.

Changing Population Demographics: Multicultural Perspectives

While nations were presumably homogenous in the racial and ethnic make-up of their populations during the 20th century, researchers could construct profiles of national character and identity. The United States has been no different in creating the image of an American; although uniquely known as a “land of immigrants,” it led the movement toward diversity. It is ironic that its main symbol of the “American dream” as a “land of equal opportunity” ignores its history of having nearly obliterated its indigenous population, the American Indians, enslaved the Black American population, and promoted a melting pot myth based on the expectation of conformity by new immigrants to a White and Westernized image of being American. During the 19th century, the United States saw the end to slavery but not to segregation based on race and gender. Following WWII in the 20th century, the look inward within the United States promoted racial and gender equality in the workforce. With a growing non-White racial and ethnic minority population, demands for attention to diversity escalated. Predictions were that by the year 2050, shifting population demographics would result in non-White racial/ethnic groups becoming 50% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Hence, an attention to diversity was considered good business, quality services, and ethical practice. Questions of equity and representation, typified by the Civil Rights and Women’s movements of the 1960s, framed the debate.

Now in the 21st century, diversity has given way to globalism. The growth of multinational organizations mirrors the increasing diversity of the U.S. population and communities—challenging our notions of effective management strategies while diverse individuals also seek and gain access to leadership roles. We now see our world, our institutions, our communities, and countries throughout the world facing changing population demographics and becoming increasingly more global and diverse. Many countries globally are now more heterogeneous due to ease of migration, changing economic conditions, and the growth of multinational organizations. Ethnic minority groups in the United States and globally share a common experience of oppression and discrimination; they increasingly demand equality and access to society’s resources. Women dare to challenge the masculinized social norm in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Although many societies have evolved to promote greater gender equality, gender access to “simple” things, such as an education or what a woman wears, still gives rise to violence against women.

Malala Yousafzai, a 15-year-old Pakistani schoolgirl, was shot in the head and neck in an assassination attempt by a Taliban gunman while on a school bus in October 2012 because she was campaigning for girls’ education (Ellis, 2013). Since the age of 11, using a pseudonym, she had been writing a blog for the BBC. She has been hailed as an inspiration for her bravery, and will receive the Tipperary International Peace Award. Other women have been gang raped, burned with acid, or beaten for daring to drive in the 21st century. The world now responds with indignation, unlike earlier centuries where women were burned at the stake like Joan of Arc for heresy at the age of 19 and the “witches” of Salem where no one dared to protest. In these contexts, cultural norms and beliefs are so strong about gender role expectations they have led to discrimination and violence.

Countries face intergroup conflicts because of the historical dominance of one or more groups. Civil wars, intergroup tension, and violence arise because of religious, ethnic, or racial differences. Power and privilege are associated with those from dominant groups while prevailing culture norms and beliefs often render these inequities invisible. In the United States, skin color and race dividing Black versus White has been the predominant divider while religion has divided Muslims between Shiite versus Sunni in the Middle East. The Indian caste system, a traditional organization of South Asian, particularly Hindu, society divides people into a hierarchy of hereditary groups called castes, which were traditionally associated with an occupational monopoly such as weaving or barbering. The caste system, currently banned, was increasingly criticized as a discriminatory and unjust system of social stratification in the early 20th century especially in regard to the impoverished untouchables—hence a socioeconomic status (SES) division.

The Indian government has, for decades, implemented affirmative action programs, education, and job reservations for people previously considered untouchables and in lowest castes (now known as the Dalits, or “crushed people”).

Changing Demographics and Ethnic Distributions

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2050, the U.S. population will reach more than 600 million, about 47% larger than in the year 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The primary ethnic minority groups—namely, Latinas and Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders—will constitute over 50% of the population. About 57% of the population younger than age 18 and 34% older than age 65 will be ethnic minorities (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The demographic profile based on the 2010 census indicates that during the past decade (2000), the growth rate of Latinos was eight times faster than that of Whites. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders also had a rapid growth rate in part because of immigration from Southeast Asia and China. For Latinos, increased immigration and high birth rates explain the population increase. Projections for the year 2020 suggest that Latinos will be the largest ethnic group, second only to White Americans, and followed by African Americans.

Currently, Latinos and Latinas number 51 million persons, about 16% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), and comprise a diversity of races and countries of origin (e.g., Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Colombia, Argentina). The largest groups of Latinos and Latinas are Mexican Americans (63%); next are Puerto Ricans (9%), followed by Cubans (4%). Collective countries from Central America (8%) and South Americans (6%) represent higher percentages than Puerto Rico and Cuba though.

The estimates indicate that African Americans number about 35 million people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Among them are notable group differences in terms of socioeconomic levels, urban or rural areas, and within-group cultural variation. Much of the psychological treatment of African Americans has focused on the relation of social conditions, such as poverty and unemployment, to adverse health and mental health outcomes (Rodríguez, Allen, Frongillo, & Chandra, 1999). However, a growing number of African American scholars have demonstrated the need for more examination of cultural strengths such as communalism (Mattis & Jagers, 2001), spirituality, and an interpersonal orientation (emphasis on group over individual) (Randolph & Banks, 1993).

Asian Americans number 14,674,252 and Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians number 540,013 in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). There are 32 different cultural groups with distinct ethnic or national identities and different religions, histories, languages, and traditions that are included within the category of Asian American. The most numerous Asian groups in the United States are Filipinos, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Asian Indians. As with other immigrants, Asian immigrants have migrated to the United States for political and economic reasons and face the stresses of acculturation, racism, and language barriers.

On the basis of the 2010 census, the U.S. Census Bureau (2013) declared that 2,932,248 citizens are American Indians and Alaska Natives—an 18% difference from the 2000 census, when the figure was 2,475,956. The 2010 count represents less than one tenth of 1% of the total U.S. population of 308,745,538. On the basis of the 1960 census, the Census Bureau reported that 552,000 residents of the United States were American Indians (in 1960, the Census Bureau did not include an Alaska Native category, so this figure may be an undercount). Thus, between 1960 and 2010, the American Indian population apparently grew by over 400%. This rapid population increase is staggering and strains credulity, because such rates of increase are almost unheard of in the field of demography. One explanation for the increase may be that many more individuals chose to identify with their American Indian heritage in 2010 than did so in 1960 and 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

Considering the increasing ethnic and cultural diversity occurring in the United States, attention should be given to the growing Muslim population. According to a recent survey, Muslims represent about 2% of the U.S. populations. A 2011 study conducted by the Pew Foundation found that the majority of Muslims are African Americans, Arabs, and Asians and that overall Muslims come from 77 different countries (Pew Research Center, 2011). The U.S. Census Bureau does not collect information on one’s religious affiliation or preferences; hence, the census tallies on the Muslim populations are estimates. Muslims are immigrant populations and thus their cultural backgrounds contribute to the growing diversity in the United States.

Although there is overlap with the Muslim population, there are also growing numbers of immigrants from Arab speaking countries. According to the Arab American Institute (AAI), countries of origin for Arab Americans include 21 different groups with distinct ethnic or national identities, histories, languages, and traditions; these include the following: Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria. In 2008, there were 3,500,000 Arab Americans, accounting for 1.14% of the American population. The largest subgroup is by far the Lebanese Americans, with 501,907, nearly a third of the Arab American population, followed by Egyptians and Syrians.

In the 2000 and 2010 census, individuals had the option of marking more than one “race” category and so were able to declare identification with more than one group. For example, whereas less than 3% of the total U.S. population chose to do so, more than 5,220,579 individuals who chose to mark multiple categories marked “American Indian and Alaska Native” along with one or more others. The “race alone or in combination” count is much higher than the “race alone” counts of 2,932,248 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). The discrepancy raises the question about which count is more accurate or representative of the “true” Indian population, 2,932,248 or 5,220,579.

Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders listed more “race alone or in combination” (55.9%) than any other race group. American Indians and Alaska Natives followed with 43.8%, Asian were 15.3%, Black or African American were at 74%, and White was at 3.2% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

People with mixed ethnic backgrounds present interesting ethnic identity cases because they have at least two ethnic groups from which to claim and negotiate an ethnic declaration. Based on extensive interviews with people of mixed ethnic background, the clinical psychologist Maria P. Root (1992) identified four basic reasons why a multiethnic person would choose to identify with a particular group regardless of how others may view them. Root maintains that: “(1) One enhances his or her sense of security by understanding a distinct part of his or her ethnic heritage; (2) parental influences stimulated by the encouragement of grandparents promote identity, thereby granting permission to the offspring to make a choice; (3) racism and prejudice associated with certain groups lead to sharing experiences with family, thereby assisting the individual to develop psychological skills and defenses to protect himself or herself (the shared experiences help build self-confidence and create the sense that one can cope with the negative elements often associated with the group); and (4) gender alignment between parents and children may exert influence on ethnic and racial socialization particularly when they have good relationships and are mutually held in esteem” (p. 15). Use of the new multiracial item created contentious debates and problems for all who relied on census outcomes to tabulate and report problems for health care professions, economists, demographers, and social and behavioral scientists (Perlmann & Waters, 2002). Prewitt (2002) believed that the addition of multiracial category represented a “turning point in the measurement of race … and that the arrival of a multiple-race option in the census classification will so blur racial distinctions in the political and legal spheres and in the public consciousness that race classification will gradually disappear” (p. 360). This is unlikely because minority groups will continue to remain and be visible and distinguish themselves from dominant groups because of dimensions of diversity associated with power and privilege.

As more and more people from various countries immigrate to the United States, the complexity and richness of the cultural landscape will change considerably. Immigration is happening elsewhere, and thus, the cultural landscapes are changing there too. On this point, Graeme Hugo (2005) maintains that “Global international migration is increasing exponentially not only in scale but also in the types of mobility and the cultural diversity of groups involved in that movement. As a result, more nations and communities will have to cope with increased levels of social and cultural diversity. Moreover, the nature of the migration itself is changing so that the lessons of the past with respect to coping with that diversity may no longer be appropriate. Experience in some parts of the world suggest that it may be difficult to reconcile the increasing diversity with social harmony and social cohesion” (p. 1).

The changing demographic context, both locally and globally, calls into question the relevance of leadership models that historically have not been inclusive of ethnic...