Exploring Leaders’ Discriminatory,Passive-Aggressive Behavior Toward Protected Class Employees using Diversity Intelligence

Abstract

The Problem

As there is diversity in many workplaces, diversity intelligence (DQ) needs to be integrated alongside intellectual, emotional, and cultural intelligences to be effective. DQ requires leaders to have knowledge to understand protected class employees and the legal mandates and executive orders established to protect those employees from discriminatory practices at work. Irrespective of the billions of dollars invested in diversity or antidiscriminatory practices training, many protected class workers remain underutilized or marginalized due to leaders’ unfamiliarity with these groups of workers and/or incompetence to harness their talents to achieve organizational goals. DQ deficiencies trigger some leaders to apply passive-aggressive behaviors as a coping mechanism. These passive-aggressive behaviors can lead to a toxic and hostile work environment as evidenced through high attrition, unrealized productivity, feelings of frustration, fear, disappointment, resentment, among other adverse responses from both leaders and employees.

The Solution

To efficiently and effectively integrate protected class employees to contribute at their optimum levels, leaders need to possess DQ. Leaders in this study need to be educated or reeducated so that they understand who protected class employees are in the workplace.

The Stakeholders

Implications for human resource development professionals and researchers are offered. Opportunities for workplace leaders and protected class employees are presented.

Keywords

diversity intelligence passive-aggressive behavior protected classes

Introduction

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’s (2014) Labor Force By Race and Ethnicity Report, 2013, today’s workplaces have diverse employees but not to the extent that is representative of the diversity of the United States as a whole. Historically (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) and today, employment data reveal that the employment rate of Blacks and Hispanics are much lower than White Americans (Chua & Rubenfeld, 2014; Sum & Khatiwada, 2010; Taylor, Kochhar, Fry, Velasco, & Motel, 2011) and that the disabled, women, and veterans are also disproportionately underrepresented in the American workplace (Brault, 2012; Hoynes, Miller, & Schaller, 2012; Mattingly & Smith, 2010; Sodano & Baler, 1983). All these groups of employee types are protected under federal laws (Gutman, Koppes, & Vodanovich, 2011; Performance and Accountability Report, 2013); yet, their members are often the last hired and the first to be fired during layoffs, recessions, and general dismissals from the workplace (Cummings, 1987; Mong & Roscigno, 2010; Naff, Riccucci, & Freyss, 2017; Roberts, 1981; Sheeran, 1975). The problem within organizations is that many protected class employees do not feel protected, despite federal laws that support their protection and whistle-blowing policies designed to safeguard their anonymity (Crenshaw, 1989; Day & Schoenrade, 2000; Locke, 1997; Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Near, Dworkin, & Miceli, 1993; North et al., 2014).

Research Problem

Diversity intelligence (DQ) is the capability of individuals to recognize the value of workplace diversity and to use this information to guide thinking and behavior. DQ needs to be integrated alongside intellectual, emotional, and cultural intelligences to be effective. DQ is the knowledge to understand protected class employees and the legal mandates and executive orders that established their protection (Hughes, 2014a, 2015a&b, 2016). DQ requires an understanding of manifest destiny, the origin of and improvements to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Affirmative Action (Thomas, 1990). DQ requires leaders to act positively and use their cognitive knowledge of diversity. There should be a change in their behavior when interacting with protected class followers after they have gained DQ. Knowing what to do and not doing it to protect employees is inexcusable (Buckley et al., 2001; Sternberg, 1999).

Problem Statement and Purpose

DQ requires both cognitive and behavioral actions on the part of the individual to be effective. This study examines leaders’ perceptions of DQ and their understanding of protected class groups in the workplace. The purpose of this article is to (a) identify the deficiency and ill-application of DQ in the workplace, which impedes organizations efforts to utilize the talent of protected class employees; and (b) analyze the passive-aggressive behaviors leaders intentionally or unintentionally exhibit toward protected class employees who are deemed different.

Review of Framework

The theoretical underpinnings for this article are DQ (Hughes, 2016), intellectual intelligence (IQ; Schmidt & Hunter, 2000), emotional intelligence (EQ; Salovey & Mayer, 1990), cultural intelligence (CQ; Earley & Ang, 2003; Konyu-Fogel, 2011, 2015).

Protected Classes and Intelligences

Organization leaders are taught to be intellectually intelligent, emotionally intelligent, and culturally intelligent; yet, they are routinely failing to achieve diversity goals as is evidenced by the continued lawsuits and EEOC cases filed and/or won by protected class groups within many workplaces (Deitch & Hegewisch, 2013; Hemphill & Haines, 1997; James & Wooten, 2006). Having the knowledge and ability to harness the talent of protected groups and integrate them in the workplace so each employee maximizes productivity level requires a distinct intelligence, DQ.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent laws identify protected class based upon race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, and family medical history and genetic information (Performance and Accountability Report, 2013). Based upon this definition, Hughes (2015a) suggested that very few individuals within the workplace are excluded from protected classes, mainly, nondisabled, nonmilitary veteran, non-LGBTQ, nonreligious, White males below the age of 40. Thus, organizations, in most cases, are more highly inclusive of protected class White males than believed and must address the problem of acceptance of diversity of thought and behavior within the individuals, despite their class affiliation. DQ to accept diversity of thought and behavior can be taught to leaders so that leaders of protected class employees can develop better methods of interacting with these employees. Technically, all employees are protected because employee pay is also protected by federal law.

Although every group has its own definition of diversity, for workplace purposes, the federal government has provided another definition known as protected class groups of employees. These are groups of people the government deemed at risk for marginalization. Therefore, Hughes (2014a, 2014b) used the protected class groups to frame diversity within the workplace context and the construct of DQ (Hughes, 2015b). This article is suggesting that any time the term diversity is used, it must be framed within a specific context; otherwise, it is meaningless.

Thus, the construct of DQ requires leaders to obtain and exemplify the knowledge to understand protected class employees plus the legal mandates and executive orders that were established for their protection (Hughes, 2015b, 2016). DQ is established through an understanding of manifest destiny (Hughes, 2016; Pratt, 1927), the history and reasoning for the existence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC, Affirmative Action (Thomas, 1990), and other adaptations to limit or eliminate discriminatory practices in the workplace.

Connection of DQ to IQ, EQ, and CQ

Empirical studies must be conducted to develop measures for examining a leader’s DQ, similar to methods used to measure IQ, EQ, and CQ. Most of the diversity research as presented theoretically has been on diversity of groups and teams in the workplace (Byrd & Scott, 2014; Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Each individual contributes independently to the work group and to their protected class group as described and explained in Hughes (2012) concept of interpersonnel diversity; thus, DQ will examine individual diversity, exclusive of group. Hughes defined interpersonnel diversity as the differences between employees based upon uniquely different individual characteristics of location, use, maintenance, modification, and time value and is the precursor to the concept of DQ. Location value aligns with the personal characteristics that the employer assesses prior to hiring the individual (Hughes, 2012). However, location value must also be considered by examining the context within which the employee is asked to work (Hughes, 2010).

The physical placement of the employee affects their career progression within the organization. There are dead-end jobs, and many protected class employees have been tracked into these career ending jobs or prevented from entering jobs with potential through the use of assessment barriers (Hughes, 2015, p. 3).

Use value is expressed in the cover letter, resume, and interview responses provided by the individual, but is manifested on the job through their performance of assigned activities and responsibilities. Maintenance value represents the alignment of employee knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) with organization needs expressed in the job analysis and job description.

Modification value is acknowledged through the drive and ambition that the employee expressed with regard to their goals and aspiration for wanting the offered job and experience working for the organization. Time value is seen through the quality of work produced, presence at work, and the amount of work done when presented with work to perform.

Leaders are taught to be intellectually intelligent (IQ), emotionally intelligent (EQ), and culturally intelligent (CQ) (Bielaszka-DuVernay, 2014; Chemers, Rice, Sundstrom, & Butler, 1975; Dearborn, 2002; Earley & Mosakowski, 2004; Goleman, 1996; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004); yet, fail to achieve diversity goals as is evidenced by lawsuits and EEOC cases filed by protected class group members. DQ is distinctly different from CQ because CQ does not account for the variances found within cultures and culturally similar group have within group differences (Hughes, 2016; Neisser et al., 1996; Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993).

DQ Theory

DQ theory relates to leaders’ development of DQ competencies to the IQ, EQ, and CQ competencies currently used by leaders (Hughes, 2016). Leaders’ cognitive and behavioral perspectives have been researched (Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Cappelli & Singh, 1992; Huselid, 1995; Latham, Fay, & Saari, 1979; Sternberg & Vroom, 2002; Vroom, 2003; Walton, 1985) as have the needs and feelings of employees along with their cognitive and rational thoughts (March & Simon, 1958; Vroom & Maier, 1961). DQ theory requires leaders to consider not only the historical perspectives of diversity, through their cognitive and behavioral views, but also understand human relations. The theory also explores the benefits to organizations if leaders integrate DQ with IQ, EQ, and CQ (Hughes, 2016).

The Hughes DQ conceptual model as shown in Figure 1 depicts the DQ theory concepts.

Figure 1.

Hughes’s diversity intelligence conceptual model.

The units of the DQ theory are leaders and employees. The laws of interaction are the relationship between DQ, IQ, EQ, and CQ; the boundaries are the organizations and the global society; and the system states within which this theory works are from the leaders’ cognitive and behavioral perspectives (Dubin, 1976; Hughes, 2016).

Leaders must use DQ to examine employees’ individual contributions without, consciously or unconsciously, allowing personal biases to taint assessments (Hughes, 2014a, 2015, 2016). Using DQ, leaders can help improve employees’ thoughts and actions, better include protected class groups into the organization, and apply diversity knowledge when obtained from diversity training.

Intellectual Intelligence (IQ)

IQ is a gauge of one’s cognitive ability to analyze and assess information to produce knowledge and understanding and is used to determine occupations (Binet & Simon, 1905; Neisser et al., 1996; Sternberg, 1999; Sternberg & Kaufman, 2011). Schmidt and Hunter (2000) defined general intelligence as “the ability to grasp and reason correctly with abstractions (concepts) and solve problems” (p. 3). IQ has been evaluated through an individual’s ability to manage uncertainty, recognize patterns, think globally, and differentiate and integrate complex information (Konyu-Fogel, 2011; Neisser et al., 1996). Intellectualism is a concept that educational institutions have used that do not directly address diversity (Neisser et al., 1996). They note that some diverse groups do not score as well on some IQ assessments as others (Hernstein & Murray, 1994). IQ is not a valid assessment because there is not a generalizable definition of diversity in a specific context and IQ tests do not account for all differences (Neisser et al., 1996).

Emotional Intelligence (EQ)

Salovey and Mayer (1990) described EQ as the ability to recognize the meaning of emotions and the ability to reason and solve problems using emotions. EQ consists of three mental processes: appraising and expressing emotions in the self and others, regulating emotion in the self and others, and using emotions in adaptive ways. EQ is also

the ability to perceive accurately, appraise, and express emotion; . . . to access and/or generate feelings when they facilitate thought; . . . to understand emotion and emotional knowledge; and . . . to regulate emotions to promote emotional and intellectual growth. (Mayer & Salovey, 1997, p. 10)

Goleman (1995) defined EQ as one’s ability to “motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustration; to control impulses and delay gratification; to regulate one’s moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to empathize and to hope” (p. 34). He also described EQ as representing one’s character based on self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills.

Self-awareness is knowing what we are feeling in the moment and using those preferences to guide our decision making, having a realistic assessment of our own abilities and a well-grounded sense of self-confidence (Goleman, 1998a). Self-regulation is handling our emotions so that they facilitate rather than interfere with the task at hand, being conscientious and delaying gratification to pursue goals, and recovering well from emotional distress (Goleman, 1998a). Motivation is using our deepest preferences to move and guide us toward our goals, help us take initiative and strive to improve, and persevere in the face setbacks and frustrations (Goleman, 1998a). Empathy is sensing what people are feeling, being able to take their perspective, and cultivating rapport and attunement with a broad diversity of people (Goleman, 1998a). Social skills is handling emotions in relationships well and accurately reading social situations and networks, interacting smoothly, using these skills to persuade and lead, negotiate, and settle disputes for cooperation and teamwork (Goleman, 1998a). Goleman (1998a, 1998b) also described EQ as a learnable construct that improves with age. Bielaszka-DuVernay (2013) suggested that organizations hire for EQ. Thus, the EQ of the interviewer evident so that the interviewer exhibits the competency of leveraging diversity (Goleman, 1998a). DQ is needed to be able to use EQ to manage and leverage diversity from an individual, team, and organizational perspective (Gardenswartz, Cherbosque, & Rowe, 2010; Hughes, 2016).

Cultural Intelligence

CQ is the desire to understand differences in political, social, cultural, and ethical issues, and to experience diversity in human relations, work environments, and personal adventures (Mendenhall et al., 2013) and can be measured through an openness to learning, emotional sensitivity, behavioral flexibility, and cross-cultural understanding (Konyu-Fogel, 2011). CQ involves self-management and cultural acumen (Konyu-Fogel, 2011). Some scholars consider cultural acumen synonymous with diversity acumen; yet, culture and diversity are not the same because diversity exists within cultural groups.

Earley and Ang (2003) developed CQ scale based on Sternberg’s (1986) theory of intelligence. “CQ is a multidimensional construct targeted at situations involving cross-cultural interactions arising from differences in race, ethnicity and nationality” (Ang et al., 2007, p. 336). The CQ Scale contains four subscales: motivational, cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral, and measures an individuals’ capability to function effectively in culturally diverse settings. Ang et al. (2007) enhanced the precision of the CQ scale by developing and testing a model that posits differential relationships between the four CQ dimensions and three intercultural effectiveness outcomes (cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation, and task performance in culturally diverse settings). Their CQ scale does not measure direct diversity knowledge beyond cultural differences and is limited in its ability to assess DQ. Traditional cultural attitude scales measure culture diversity from broad perspectives of environmental factors and group heritage. The limitation of this approach is that individuals must be held accountable for individual decisions that they make, and the individual does not reflect the ideals of a specific cultural group.

DQ, IQ, EQ, and CQ together have the potential to enhance the role of HRD in diversity efforts within organizations. One key area of influence is leaders who tend to become passive-aggressive toward protected class employees. Passive-aggressive behavior and workplace incivility is present in many workplaces.

Passive-Aggressive Behavior and Workplace Incivility

As organizations continue to adapt to global changes, diversity continues to be a buzzword, often with indecisive definitions and no measurable evidence of success. Incivility has become commonplace within many organizations (Baruch & Jenkins, 2007; Clark, Olender, Kenski, & Cardoni, 2013; O’Leary-Kelly & Newman, 2004; Phillips & Smith, 2003; Wilson, Diedrich, Phelps, & Choi, 2011) and is often expressed through passive-aggressive behavior of leaders. Leaders who employ passive-aggressive strategies can provoke angry responses in employees, while not overtly behaving aggressively. Behaviors such as resenting useful suggestions is the kind of oppositional attitude observed in leaders high in passive-aggressive behaviors (Fine & Overholser, 1992). Overtly aggressive behavior is usually not tolerated, and passive-aggressive behavior is very difficult to detect (Coombs & Holladay, 2004; Malone & Hayes, 2012; Whitson, 2013). There are inconsistencies in the psychological literature on the definition of passive-aggressiveness; however, indirectly expressed hostility appears to be the core feature of passive-aggressiveness (Allport, 1954; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). Rigidity, resistance, resentment, reactance, and reversed reinforcement are five interrelated psychological factors offered in Fine and Overholser’s (1992) model of passive-aggressiveness. The literature suggests that rigidity and resentment lay the foundation for the emotional and attitudinal foundation for more specific passive-aggressive behaviors in the workplace (Cuddy et al., 2007). Persons with these tendencies exhibit a persistent pattern of resistance to demands for adequate social and occupational performance in various situations (Baron & Neuman, 1996; Fine & Overholser, 1992; Harris & Fiske, 2006). Ethnic and racial minority groups continue to face aggression and stereotypes (Amodio, 2009; J. A. Banks, 2008; Pred, 2004; Wheeler, Jarvis, & Petty, 2001). Racism, both covert and overt, remains problematic (Carmargo, 2017; Fox & Stallworth, 2005; Katz & Moore, 2004; Light, Roscigno, & Kalev, 2011; Paradies, 2006). Sexism, especially against women, continues to prevent individuals from advancing to executive leadership positions (Hughes, 2014a; Karsten, 2006; Swim & Cohen, 1997). Depending on the industry, men also experience sexism (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001) and some leaders show unconscious and conscious bias against employees (Van Laer & Janssens, 2011). Organizations have spent billions of dollars on diversity training to avoid many of these issues, yet lawsuits and settlements with the EEOC and the Department of Labor continues (Hughes, 2014b). Diversity, in the context of the age of America, is a relatively new term in many workplaces, but can be traced to the concept of manifest destiny (Hughes, 2016; Pratt, 1927).

Method

Qualitative content analysis is one of numerous research methods used to analyze text data and “focuses on the characteristics of language as communication with attention to the content or contextual meaning of the text” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278). Qualitative content analysis is “a research method for the subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278). According to Kondracki and Wellman (2002) text data can be in verbal, print, or electronic form and obtained from narrative responses, open-ended survey questions, interviews, focus groups, observations, or print media such as articles, books, or manuals. Content analysis provides “knowledge and understanding of the phenomenon under study” (Downe-Wamboldt, 1992, p. 314).

Sample

For this article, qualitative data were collected using private LinkedIn focus groups, Facebook groups, email, and a Qualtrics open-ended instrument for leaders who did not want to participate within a focus group because of the sensitivity of the information. Each of the 16 open-ended survey question responses was searched to identify leaders’ self-perception of their own DQ and their understanding and treatment of protected class employees, as well as any issues of bias or other emergent issues important to understanding the contribution of leaders to protected class employees’ workplace experiences. The self-perception responses are supported by self-perception theory, which is supported by two postulates:

Individuals come to “know” their own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own overt behavior and/or the circumstances in which this behavior occurs; and

The extent internal cues are weak, ambiguous, or uninterpretable, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer who must necessarily rely upon those same external cues to infer the individuals’ inner states (C. H. Banks, 2002; Bem, 1972).

Self-perception is also used to explain individual behavior by noting the conditions under which the behavior occurs (C. H. Banks, 2002; Irving & Meyer, 1995).

The demographics of participants were not directly requested but were determined from within the responses to the open-ended questions. Because of the sensitivity of the information requested, the researchers wanted the participants to focus on the questions and not be overly concerned about demographics. There were Black men, White men, White women, Black women, and international participants represented in the sample. The participants represented higher education institutions and business and industry corporations.

Data Collection

A combination of unstructured interviews, in focus groups, through email, and Qualtrics, using 16 open-ended survey questions, were used to collect data from participants. The questions were provided to participants in private LinkedIn groups that participants opted into after being provided the informed consent letter. The Qualtrics link was provided to participants who requested the link or who had not responded to the LinkedIn or Facebook private focus groups after having opted-in to participate. One participant was sent the questionnaire through email as requested.

The 16 open-ended survey questions (see the appendix) were designed to determine, (a) participants’ perception of their own level of DQ, (b) knowledge of protected class employees described by federal law, (c) negative or positive types of interactions with and attitudes toward protected class employees, and (d) deficient leadership practices and inappropriate application of the law when leading protected employees in the workplace. The questionnaire also sought to collect information on practiced or observed discriminatory practices against protected class employees in the workplace who are deemed different.

Data Analysis

Using a qualitative method of content analysis, the responses were tagged by code names. Codes were empirical and not preconceived. Each new code marked a distinct idea. NVivo, a computer software program allowed for codes and their associated text passages to be expeditiously linked; thereby, assembling a data set of codes and their frequency of use. Similar codes were grouped together to define themes; “parent” categories or grouped themes describe both the range and relative weighting of issues in participants’ collective report.

Analysis of the participants’ 14 written responses produced a total of 209 discrete statements across the data set. Statements were sorted by question and according to textual content into distinct categories using a stacked matrix. These parent categories broadly divided into three groups: statements on DQ, understanding of protected class groups, and treatment of protected class employees. Broadly, analysis of the 16 open-ended survey questions identified leaders understanding of DQ, perceptions of protected class employees, passive-aggressive behavior toward protected class employees, and the purpose of the study which was to (a) identify the deficiency and ill-application of DQ in the workplace, which impedes organizations efforts to utilize the talent of protected class employees; and (b) analyze the passive-aggressive behaviors leaders intentionally or unintentionally exhibit toward protected class employees who are deemed different.

Integrity Measures

Fourteen leaders provided responses to the 16 open-ended questions. Thirteen of the leaders’ responses were used because one respondent stated that although she was in a leadership position she did not have any direct reports and one respondent did not proceed after question 2. This study focused on leaders with direct reports. The response numbers are in alignment with typical qualitative studies and were not unexpected due to the nature of the questions. There is confidentiality and anonymity sensitivity related to LinkedIn and Facebook being social media platforms and all content cannot be protected from hacking. The use of email and Qualtrics was needed to provide requested personal security for participants. Multiple methods of data were analyzed separately and compared with each other. Member checking was achieved within the focus group responses and in email correspondence with participants as needed.

Results and Discussion

This study examined leaders’ perception of DQ and their understanding of protected class groups in the workplace. The purpose of this article was to (a) identify the deficiency and ill-application of DQ in the workplace, which impedes organizations efforts to utilize the talent of protected class employees; and (b) analyze the passive-aggressive behaviors leaders intentionally or unintentionally exhibit toward protected class employees who are deemed different.

Leaders’ Perception of DQ and Understanding of Protected Class Groups

In response to the following question, DQ provides an opportunity for leaders to reflect on their actions and behaviors toward all employees to effectively implement new strategies. DQ values the differences in employees without attempting to make everyone alike. DQ is needed so that organization leaders can better interact with the changing demographics in America and the global economy by embracing differences as strengths rather than weaknesses. Leaders with DQ have a clear understanding of diversity in the context of the American workplace based on federal laws and executive orders. Based on the description of DQ provided, would you describe yourself as diversity intelligent? Why or why not? Eleven of the leaders stated yes, they were diversity intelligent, while two of them were unsure or felt that they were somewhat diversity intelligent. Specific comments were as follows:

Participant 3: I would describe myself as somewhat diversity intelligent. I worked as a supervisor for 10 years and this is something I have to be aware of in my current position. Also I would say I fall into one of the protected classes.

Participant 9: I think I have some abilities in this area, but I suspect that I have blind spots as well. I have been exposed to some forms of diversity, but not to others, and my experience as a manager has seen only limited opportunities (though not none) to learn first-hand about diversity and its benefits. I feel that I don’t have as much of this quality as I would like to.

DQ has the potential to reduce or eliminate the uncertainty that leaders feel when interacting with protected class employees. Open discussion of DQ alongside IQ, EQ, and CQ may increase awareness and understanding of leaders’ own protective class status alongside their employees. They will also be able to broaden their employees’ thoughts and actions toward their protected class peers.

Understanding of Protected Class Groups

When asked to “Please describe your knowledge of protected class employees,” only three of the leaders were able to describe the federal definition of protected class groups with one not knowing who protected class groups were. One participant dropped out of the survey after this question because the participant felt that his understanding of protected class groups was limited.

When asked, “Do you know who the protected class employees are, as described by federal law, which you are required to lead in the workplace? If so, please describe,” four of the participants did not know based on the federal definition. Yet, eight of them stated that they led protected class employees in the workplace.

There is a lack of understanding of all the protected class groups in the workplace among these particular leaders, despite them believing that they are diversity intelligent. In fact, the only protected class group that everyone, who responded that they knew who the protected class groups was, listed was religion.

DQ provides organizations, through HRD professionals, the opportunity to expand leaders’ understanding about protected employees to all of the protected groups in addition to religion. DQ knowledge can be applied to improve organization goals and efforts of integrating all protected class groups into diversity efforts.

Identify the Deficiency and Ill-Application of DQ

Treatment of protected class employees

When asked, “Are you as a leader being recklessly stubborn against application of laws and orders protecting employees in the workplace? If so, please describe,” all participants responded no. However, when asked, “Have you witnessed other leaders being recklessly stubborn against application of laws and orders protecting employees in the workplace? If so, please describe,” seven of the participants described instances where they had witnessed other leaders being recklessly stubborn against application of laws and orders protecting employees in the workplace. Two of them had witnessed other leaders being carelessly stupid or letting things pass.

When asked, “Do you as a leader of protected class employees have assumptions and stereotypes about protected class employees? If so, please describe,” two of the participants said yes. Three said no. Others were unsure or deflected and did not answer the question.

When asked, “Can leaders be compelled to protect their employees from other leaders and/or coworkers who are not obeying the rules? Why or why not?” ten of the participants said yes while one was unsure. They did not agree on the reasoning of why but generally it related to liability and risk to the organization, productivity, and the feeling that it was the leader’s job to protect their employees.

DQ provides the awareness for leaders to change their thoughts and actions and those of their leader peers. Witnessing inappropriate behavior and ignoring it may be lessened as all leaders increase their DQ and begin to apply it alongside IQ, EQ, and CQ.

Passive-Aggressive Behaviors Leaders Exhibit Toward Protected Class Employees

When asked, “Is your behavior toward protected class group members passive-aggressive and discriminatory? How would you describe your behavior toward protected class group members in your workplace?” 11 respondents said no and suggested that they treated employees with dignity and respect. Yet, when asked, “Is your reaction to the protected class issues encountered by your employees appropriate or inappropriate?” there was no consistency of participants with regard to what was the appropriate response to issues encountered by their protected class employees. Participant 4 stated that

. . . diversity work is difficult. Everyone has a different idea about how issues should be addressed and the proper measures to be taken. Issues are often complex and solutions are varied. It is a constant learning process to holistically understand the situation and devise the proper response/action.

Participant 9 was the only one of the leaders to address the issue from the perspective of a diverse employee:

I haven’t had enough of these kinds of situations to make a blanket statement. For the most part, my staff (including those in protected classes) have been treated well. In cases where, for example, someone is rude to a woman in my office and asks to speak to me (as a male), I often try to turn the inquiry back to help the person with the issue understand that women are often the source of authoritative answers, and that the answer does not become better just because I am saying it instead of my employee.

DQ will inform these leaders’ situations by ensuring that all leaders are educated or reeducated as needed to understand how to respond to scenarios that occur with protected class employees. As leaders understanding of DQ increases alongside IQ, EQ, and CQ their thoughts and actions should also change as noted in Hughes’s DQ model (See Figure 1). Having leaders think about the severity of their behavior toward protected groups led to them responding that they want employees to be treated with dignity and respect.

Implications for HRD Research and Practice

An expectation of leaders is to embrace continuous change within the workplace. Addressing diversity issues in the workplace is a change effort and leaders must have DQ along with IQ, EQ, and CQ to be effective. Leaders must use DQ to eradicate feelings of inferiority and unsubstantiated positions of superiority displayed against protected class employees. Leaders who remain ignorant about protected class of employees, perhaps resist acquiring this knowledge because of the ill-informed belief that these classes of employees are given an unfair advantage. Embracing DQ perhaps is the real advantage, because it promotes optimum contribution among all employees, which in turn could intensify productivity, which ultimately benefit everyone. Leaders must value all employees.

One third of the respondents in this study did not know the full definition of protected class employees. We had to ask tough questions to find this out, especially when constantly told that DQ is covered in EQ and CQ. Because respondents knew some of the definition, they were allowed to complete the questionnaire and respond to the remaining protected class questions in the context of the portion of the definition that they knew. The results confirmed the need for DQ and the need for some leaders to be educated or reeducated by HRD professionals about who protected class employees are in the workplace.

Additional DQ measures can be developed by HRD scholars to empirically assess the role it has on leader effectiveness, similar to EQ (Bar-On, 2004; Wong & Law, 2002), CQ (Ang et al., 2007), and IQ (Judge et al., 2004) measures. However, any scale that measures diversity attitudes and behaviors should be a clearly distinct, multidimensional scale. Areas of consideration would be unconscious bias, hate, legal/cognitive issues, frame of reference, conscious and cognitive bias, and generational DQ.

The results from this qualitative study will be used to build factors in the development of a quantitative DQ scale. Researchers will synthesize information from the qualitative survey and develop a Likert-type scale measuring leaders’ knowledge and behaviors on protected class employees. This measurement scale will be developed based on Hughes’s (2016) DQ model constructs and conceptual theory, as well as information obtained from the qualitative data. The scale is hypothesized to consist of two subscales: leaders’ DQ knowledge and leaders’ behaviors toward protected class employees. These subscales cannot be directly observed and thus are considered as latent factors measured by a set of survey items. At the stage of data analysis, first, an exploratory factor analysis will be employed to validate the factor structure of the proposed scale. The quality of individual items will be examined where poor fitting items will be rewritten or removed. Reliability of the scale will be examined. Second, a confirmatory factor analysis will be applied to verify the factor structure of the scale. Upon validation, the casual relationship between leaders’ DQ knowledge and behaviors will be further examined. The proposed models will be analyzed using the Mplus software. Developing an objective, empirical instrument is a subject for future research as the workplace becomes more and more diverse.

The current research can be easily expanded by HRD scholars to include a different population through additional sampling including followers or nonleaders in the workplace and validate the newly developed instrument across different populations. The data for nonleaders have been collected and are awaiting analysis.

Perhaps HRD professionals who provide DQ training will attune leaders to be able to recognize previously unknown cultural, class, and age subtleties, and DQ instruction may help them realize and use the vast, positive potential that exists in the workplace. DQ training may produce leaders who understand or at least appreciate the real differences that unite us in society as well as in diverse organizations.

Perhaps DQ theorization will sensitize HRD scholars to the multiplicity of possible intelligences. More philosophically, at least according to an American pragmatist point of view, perhaps the meaning of DQ cannot be understood until its consequences have also been understood. The results in this article provides some idea of the consequences of the lack of DQ. The meaning of a word is its use in the language, as Wittgenstein (2001) famously said. Perhaps American pragmatism might serve as an underlying theory and partner sibling to manifest destiny, in that manifest destiny is an American version of the global problem, just as pragmatism, which seeks to understand why and how this theory will be put into practice, could also be an American philosophical approach and justification of DQ solutions.

HRD practitioners can use DQ as a solution to the ignorance that is prevalent in the mistreatment of protected class groups in the workplace. Leaders who are expected to protect individuals who endure sexual harassment, racism, and religious intolerance, for example, can stop overlooking or ignoring inappropriate behavior. Employees can be confident that their leaders know and accept who they are.

Conclusion

Organizations are seeking diversity programming that promotes operational growth. This study provides insight on DQ and a new way of thinking about the value of diversity in the workplace. DQ (Hughes, 2014a, 2016) is relevant to leadership functionality and success when operating among a diverse group of employees. The reduction of leader aggression within workplaces that employ protected class groups of employees is needed and can ultimately be presented to the broader society through changes in leaders’ and employees’ behaviors.

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Claretha Hughes, is a professor of human resource and workforce development at the University of Arkansas. Hughes has more than 27 years of diverse management, supervisory, and administrative experience and has published numerous articles in both scholarly and professional journals. She has published seven books including Diversity Intelligence: Integrating Diversity Intelligence alongside Intellectual, Emotional, and Cultural Intelligence for Leadership and Career Development and Valuing People and Technology in the Workplace: A Competitive Advantage Framework which won the R. Wayne Pace Book of the Year award in 2012. She received her PhD from Virginia Tech and an MBA from the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas.

Lucy M. Brown, is a clinical assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Strategic Media, University of Arkansas, where she teaches account planning and creative strategy. After receiving her doctorate from Stan Richards School of Advertising & Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin, Brown pursued a career in advertising and marketing research for organizations such as DDB, Synovate (Ipsos), and T-Mobile. Her research interests are in advertising aesthetics, race, class, and gender.

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Amodio

D. M.

(2009). Intergroup anxiety effects on the control of racial stereotypes: A psychoneuroendocrine analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 60-67.

Ang

Van Dyne

Koh

K. Y.

Templer

K. J.

Tay

Chandrasekar

N. A.

(2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335-371.

Banks

C. H.

(2002). A descriptive analysis of the perceived effectiveness of Virginia Tech’s Faculty Development Institute. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(8), 1-146.

Banks

J. A.

(2008). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age. Educational Researcher, 37, 129-139.

Bar-On

(2004). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: A measure of emotional intelligence (Technical manual). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: MHS Systems Inc.

Baron

R. A.

Neuman

J. H.

(1996). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence on their relative frequency and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 161-173.

Baruch

Jenkins

(2007). Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: When anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 492-507.

Bem

D. J.

(1972). Self-perception theory. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York, NY: Academic Press.

10.

Bielaszka-DuVernay

(2014, Summer). Hiring for emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Review Onpoint, pp. 12-16.

11.

Binet

Simon

. (1905). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. L’annee Psychologique, 12, 191-244.

12.

Brault

M. W.

(2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

13.

Buckley

M. R.

Beu

D. S.

Frink

D. D.

Howard

J. L.

Berkson

Mobbs

T. A.

Ferris

G. R.

, 2001. Ethical issues in human resources systems. Human Resource Management Review, 11(1), 11-29.

14.

Burkhardt

M. E.

Brass

D. J.

(1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change in technology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 104-127.

15.

Byrd

M. Y.

Scott

C. L.

(Eds.). (2014). Diversity in the workforce: Current issues and emerging trends. New York, NY: Routledge.

16.

Camargo

(2017). Faculty perspectives on diversity and inclusion at a highly diverse institution: A study of organizational culture (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

17.

Cappelli

Singh

(1992). Integrating strategic human resources and strategic Management. In Lewin

Mitchell

O. S.

Sherer

P. D.

(Eds.), Research frontiers in industrial relations and human resources (pp. 165-192). Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.

18.

Chemers

M. M.

Rice

R. W.

Sundstrom

Butler

W. M.

(1975). Leader esteem for the least preferred co-worker score, training, and effectiveness: An experimental examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 401-409.

19.

Chua

Rubenfeld

(2014). The triple package: How three unlikely traits explain the rise and fall of cultural groups in America. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.

20.

Clark

C. M.

Olender

Kenski

Cardoni

(2013). Exploring and addressing faculty-to-faculty incivility: A national perspective and literature review. Journal of Nursing Education, 52, 211-218.

21.

Coombs

T. W.

Holladay

S. J.

(2004). Understanding the aggressive workplace: Development of the Workplace Aggression Tolerance Questionnaire. Communication Studies, 55, 481-497.

22.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139-167.

23.

Cuddy

A. J.

Fiske

S. T.

Glick

(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648.

24.

Cummings

(1987). Vulnerability to the effects of recession: Minority and female workers. Social Forces, 65, 834-857.

25.

Day

N. E.

Schoenrade

(2000). The relationship among reported disclosure of sexual orientation, anti-discrimination policies, top management support and work attitudes of gay and lesbian employees. Personnel Review, 29, 346-363.

26.

Dearborn

(2002). Studies in emotional intelligence redefine our approach to leadership development. Public Personnel Management, 31, 523-530.

27.

Deitch

Hegewisch

(2013). VII sex and race discrimination litigation settlements as opportunities for organizational change. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 425-438.

28.

Downe-Wamboldt

(1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13, 313-321.

29.

Dubin

(1976). Theory building in applied areas. In Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 17-39.

30.

Earley

P. C.

Ang

(2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

31.

Earley

P. C.

Mosakowski

(2004, October). Cultural intelligence. Harvard Business Review, 82(10), 139-146.

32.

Fine

M. A.

Overholser

J. C.

(1992). Diagnostic validity of the passive-aggressive personality disorder: Suggestions for reform. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 46, 470-484.

33.

Fox

Stallworth

L. E.

(2005). Racial/ethnic bullying: Exploring links between bullying and racism in the US workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 438-456.

34.

Gardenswartz

Cherbosque

Rowe

(2010). Emotional intelligence and diversity: A model for differences in the workplace. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 1(1), 74-84.

35.

Goleman

. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

36.

Goleman

(1996). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24(6), 49-50.

37.

Goleman

. (1998a). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

38.

Goleman

. (1998b). What Makes a Leader? Harvard Business Review 76, 93-102.

39.

Gutman

Koppes

Vodanovich

(2011). EEO law and personnel practices (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

40.

Harris

L. T.

Fiske

S. T.

(2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17, 847-853.

41.

Harrison

D. A.

Price

K. H.

Bell

M. P.

(1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.

42.

Harrison

D. A.

Price

K. H.

Gavin

J. H.

Florey

A. T.

(2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045.

43.

Hemphill

Haines

(1997). Discrimination, harassment, and the failure of diversity training: What to do now. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

44.

Hernstein

R. J.

Murray

. (1994). The bell curve: The reshaping of American life by difference in intelligence. New York, NY: The Free Press.

45.

Hoynes

Miller

D. L.

Schaller

. (2012). Who suffers during recessions? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(3), 27-48.

46.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288.

47.

Hughes

(2010). “People as technology” conceptual model: Towards a new value creation paradigm for strategic human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 48-71.

48.

Hughes

(2012). Valuing people and technology in the workplace: A competitive advantage framework. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

49.

Hughes

(2014a). American Black women and interpersonal leadership styles. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

50.

Hughes

(March, 2014b). Valuing diversity through a career development paradigm shift. Paper presented at the Spring 2014 Academy of Business Research International Conference, New Orleans, LA.

51.

Hughes

(Ed.). (2015a). The impact of diversity on organization and career development. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

52.

Hughes

(June, 2015b). Introducing and integrating diversity intelligence with emotional, cultural, and intellectual intelligence. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice across Europe, Cork, Ireland.

53.

Hughes

(2016). Diversity intelligence: Integrating diversity intelligence alongside intellectual, emotional, and cultural intelligence for leadership and career development. London, England: Palgrave MacMillan.

54.

Huselid

M. A.

(1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-872.

55.

Irving

P. G.

Meyer

J. P.

(1995). On using direct measures of met expectations: A methological note. Journal of Management, 21, 1159-1176.

56.

James

E. H.

Wooten

L. P.

(2006). Diversity crises: How firms manage discrimination lawsuits. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1103-1118.

57.

Judge

T. A.

Colbert

A. E.

Ilies

(2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542-552.

58.

Karsten

M. F.

(Ed.). (2006). Gender, race, and ethnicity in the workplace: Management, gender, and ethnicity in the United States (Vol. 1). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

59.

Katz

J. H.

Moore

K. R.

(2004). Racism in the workplace: OD practitioners’ role in change. OD Practitioner, 36(1), 13-16.

60.

Kondracki

N. L.

Wellman

N. S.

(2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34, 224-230.

61.

Konyu-Fogel

(2011). Exploring the effect of global mindset on leadership behavior: An empirical study of business leaders in global organizations. Saarbrucken, Germany: Lap Lambert Academic Publishing GMBH.

62.

Konyu-Fogel

(2015). Career management and human resource development of a global, Diverse workforce. In Hughes

(Ed.), The impact of diversity on organization and career development (pp. 80-104). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

63.

Latham

G. P.

Fay

C. H.

Saari

L. M.

(1979). The development of behavioral observation scales for appraising the performance of foremen. Personnel Psychology, 32, 299-311.

64.

Light

Roscigno

V. J.

Kalev

(2011). Racial discrimination, interpretation, and legitimation at work. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 634(1), 39-59.

65.

Locke

S. S.

(1997). Incredible shrinking protected class: Redefining the scope of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The University of Colorado Law Review, 68, 107-127.

66.

Malone

Hayes

(2012). Backstabbing in organizations: Employees’ perceptions of incidents, motives, and communicative responses. Communication Studies, 63, 194-219.

67.

March

J. G.

Simon

H. A.

(1958). Organizations. New York, NY: John Wiley.

68.

Mattingly

M. J.

Smith

K. E.

(2010). Changes in wives’ employment when husbands stop working: A recession-prosperity comparison. Family Relations, 59, 343-357.

69.

Mayer

J. D.

Salovey

(1997). What is emotional intelligence? In Salovey

Sluyter

(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Basic Books.

70.

Mendenhall

M. E.

Osland

J. S.

Bird

Oddou

Maznevski

Stevens

Stahl

G. K

. (2013). Global leadership: Research, practice and development, (2nd ed.). Routledge Global Human Resource Management Series, New York: NY: Taylor & Francis Publishing.

71.

Milliken

F. J.

Morrison

E. W.

Hewlin

P. F.

(2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.

72.

Mong

S. N.

Roscigno

V. J.

(2010). African American men and the experience of employment discrimination. Qualitative Sociology, 33, 1-21.

73.

Naff

K. C.

Riccucci

N. M.

Freyss

S. F.

(2017). Personnel management in government: Politics and process. Boca Raton, FL: Routledge.

74.

Near

J. P.

Dworkin

T. M.

Miceli

M. P.

(1993). Explaining the whistle-blowing process: Suggestions from power theory and justice theory. Organization Science, 4, 393-411.

75.

Neisser

Boodoo

Bouchard

T. J.

Jr. Boykin

A.W.

Brody

Ceci

S. J.

Halpern

D. F.

Loehlin

J. C.

PeriofF

Sternberg

R. J.

Urbina

. (1996). Intelligence: Known and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

76.

North

C. S.

Gordon

Kim

Y. S.

Wallace

N. E.

Smith

R. P.

Pfefferbaum

. . . Pollio

D. E.

(2014). Expression of ethnic prejudice in focus groups from agencies affected by the 9/11 attacks on the world trade center. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 23, 93-109.

77.

O’Leary-Kelly

A. M.

Newman

J. L.

(2004). The implications of performance feedback research for understanding antisocial work behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 605-629.

78.

Paradies

(2006). A systematic review of empirical research on self-reported racism and health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 888-901.

79.

Phillips

Smith

(2003). Everyday incivility: Towards a benchmark. The Sociological Review, 51, 85-108.

80.

Pratt

J. W.

(1927). The origin of “manifest destiny.” The American Historical Review, 32, 795-798.

81.

Pred

A. R.

(2004). The past is not dead: Facts, fictions, and enduring racial stereotypes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

82.

Roberts

R. N.

(1981). “Last hired, first fired” and public employee layoffs: The equal employment opportunity dilemma. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 2(1), 29-48.

83.

Salovey

Mayer

J. D.

(1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-211.

84.

Schmidt

F. L.

Hunter

J. E.

(2000). Select on intelligence. In Locke

E. A.

(Ed.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational principles (pp. 3-14). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

85.

Sheeran

T. J.

(1975). Title VII and layoffs under the last hired, first fired seniority rule: The preservation of equal employment. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 26, 409-482.

86.

Sodano

A. G.

Baler

S. G.

(1983). Accommodation to contrast: Being different in the organization. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 20, 25-36.

87.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1986). A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence. In Sternberg

R. J.

Detterman

D. K.

(Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 3-15). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

88.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1999). Intelligence as developing expertise. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 359-375.

89.

Sternberg

R. J.

Kaufman

S. B.

(Eds.). (2011). The Cambridge handbook of intelligence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

90.

Sternberg

R. J.

Vroom

V. H.

(2002). The person versus the situation in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 301-323.

91.

Sum

Khatiwada

(2010). The nation’s underemployed in the “Great Recession” of 2007-09. Monthly Labor Review, 133(11), 3-15.

92.

Swim

J. K.

Cohen

L. L.

(1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103-118.

93.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

Cohen

L. L.

Ferguson

M. J.

(2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31-53.

94.

Taylor

Kochhar

Fry

Velasco

Motel

(2011). Wealth gaps rise to record highs between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics (Vol. 26). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

95.

Thomas

R. R.

(1990, March-April). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 107-117.

96.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2013 (Report 1050). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

97.

U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2013. Fiscal year 2013: Performance and Accountability Report. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/plan/upload/2013par.pdf

98.

Van Laer

Janssens

. (2011). Ethnic minority professionals’ experiences with subtle discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 64, 1203-1227.

99.

Vroom

V. H.

(2003). Educating managers for decision making and leadership. Management Decision, 41, 968-978.

100.

Vroom

V. H.

Maier

N. R. F.

(1961). Industrial social psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 413-446.

101.

Walton

R. A.

(1985, March). From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, 63(2), 77-84.

102.

Watson

W. E.

Kumar

Michaelsen

L. K.

(1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.

103.

Wheeler

S. C.

Jarvis

W. B. G.

Petty

R. E.

(2001). Think unto others: The self-destructive impact of negative racial stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 173-180.

104.

Whitson

(2013). The passive aggressive conflict cycle. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 22(3), 24-27.

105.

Williams

K. Y.

O’Reilly

C. A.

(1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.

106.

Wilson

B. L.

Diedrich

Phelps

C. L.

Choi

(2011). Bullies at work: The impact of horizontal hostility in the hospital setting and intent to leave. Journal of Nursing Administration, 41, 453-458.

107.

Wittgenstein

(2001). Philosophical investigations. London, England: Wiley-Blackwell.

108.

Wong

Law

(2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243-274.