By Oria Wilson-Iguade, Undergraduate Research Assistant

Diversity training has become an impactful tool in managing the workplace environment. In fact, studies have proven such a sentiment, showing that diversity training can lead to increased employee retention rates, better intergroup interactions, awareness of cultural bias, reduction of workplace harassment, and increased fairness and equality in the workplace as noted in the review “Challenging diversity training myths: Changing the conversation about diversity training to shape science and practice.” This review, written by a collaboration of researchers at Rice University’s Department of Psychological Sciences, discusses the factors that play a hand in effective diversity training in the form of highlighting then debunking the overarching myths surrounding the topic.

Within the review, the main question asked is “what is getting in the way of effective diversity training?” As a question that the researchers found to be overlooked by many others studying this same topic, the present study sought to devise new perspectives for understanding the issue through addressing the main obstacles in diversity training. Additionally, the researchers were motivated in their pursuits, because they noted issues in consistency and data in the current methods of studying. To start their research, the team located nineteen myths and misconceptions through two mechanisms with the first being from major online agencies and the second being through popular media reviews that encouraged such information. Then the findings were divided into three categories: effectiveness and evaluation, content, and design and delivery. Here where the myths and misconceptions were broken down, and counterarguments based in evidence were provided to debunk each of the nineteen initial arguments.

Some myths found by the scientists were, “if people did not like the diversity training, it did not work,” “diversity is just common sense,” and “one session is all that is needed.” The idea that “if people did not like the diversity training, it did not work” is erred, because it is more an assessment not of the actual training but instead of the satisfaction of the participants. Where this is utility based, it should instead be performance based, which is why the research team recommends diversity training be evaluated over time and on more nomological evidence. In addition, “diversity is just common sense” is a naive perspective, because everyone has natural biases; moreover, diversity training in necessary in order to not only bring those natural implicit and explicit biases to light but also provide ways in combating them. Lastly, “one session is all that is needed” is proven untrue by meta-analysis studies from Bezrukova and his colleagues as they show that multiple session over extended periods of time encourage greater retention and higher application in the recipients of the training. In lieu of this information, the research team recommends multiple sessions of diversity training for organizations.

The research done by the team of Rice I/O Psychologists in this area opens new avenues for other researchers to explore in the topic, and because it is projected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that Americans will be continue to become more diverse, the topic of diversity training will become more relevant. Furthermore, implications for this particular research can be seen in new perspectives people will have in considering diversity training as well as the new methods they may enact in making it more effective. While this review debunked many misconceptions of  diversity training, more research can be done by delving into what other obstacles are getting into the way of effective diversity training; this would continue to help organizations stay effective and workplaces grow to be more accepting.

 

Cheng, S., Corrington, A., Dinh, J., Hebl, M., King, E., Ng, L., Reyes, D., Salas, E., & Traylor, A. (In Press). Challenging diversity training myths: Changing the conversation about diversity training to shape science and practice. Organizational Dynamics, 9(1). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.09.001.