HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC~4ADMINISTRATIONSecond EditionJames L. Perry, EditorJossey-Bass PublishersSan FranciscoCHAPTER TWENTY-FIVEREALIZING THE PROMISE OF DIVERSITYSonia M. OspinaThis chapter discusses the benefits of work force diversity for public sector organizations. Itproposes an approach to diversity that takes into account the difficulties managers may face asorganizations develop their work force. It also discusses some practical strategies for achievingdiversity dilemmas related to meeting the diversity challenge, and lessons drawn from previousexperiences in public sector organizations.The promise of diversity in the workplace is to create an environment in which employees’different identities and abilities are not only respected but also appreciated. Such anenvironment is conducive to motivating and rewarding high performance in all employees,regardless of social background. The approach proposed in this chapter invites managers toengage in four developmental tasks—considering, pursuing, managing, and maximizingdiversity—to promote a shift from homogeneous to diverse organizations. This approach resem-bles an engineering project, where activities at each stage are meant to establish the foundationupon which future building blocks will rest. The particular conditions that exist in eachorganization define the types of strategies that will best fit each developmental task.The chapter has four main sections. The first one defines work force diversity and discusses the mixed results of previous diversity efforts in the public sector (which point to the need to work harder on achieving this goal). The second section introduces and explains a proposed framework for moving toward diversity. The third section suggests strategies for developing each of the tasks in the framework, drawing illustrations from public sector experiences. The fourth section provides practical suggestions for change efforts centered on achieving diversityWork Force Diversity: The RealityThe work force of any organization can be characterized by the degree of its individual, professional, and social diversity (Jackson and Hardiman, 1990). Individual diversity refers to variations in the internal predispositions of an organization’s employees. Professional diversity concerns various work-related attributes within an organization, such as occupations, organizational rank, and job functions. Both influence work relationships.Nevertheless, work force diversity efforts in organizations focus primarily on social diversity This refers to variations in the characteristics that identify a person with a given “cultural” community Such a social identity typically stems from attributes such as age, race, ethnicity, gender, physical ability sexual orientation nationality and class. Secondary attributes that mayalso affect this identity include income, education, religious beliefs, lifestyle, marital status, military experience, geographical location, functional background, union status, and others (Loden and Rosener, 1991). Social identity involves both self-definition and attributes perceivedby others (Cox, 1993).The infinite combinations of these primary and secondary social attributes produce the particular “social types” that make up a given work force. In theory each employee is a unique individual worker that managers must attempt to optimize. In practice, however, some categories have become more relevant than others in defining who gets hired and who gets ahead. For historical reasons beyond the scope of this discussion, attributes like ethnicity race, and gender, among others, have become social “marks” that play a critical role in determining the place experience of entire groups in our society (Williams, 1990). For example many organizations entire job clusters are occupied by individuals with similar social traits that are unrelated to the job. This is what experts call occupation and job segregation. Job segregation often results in the assignment of posit, negative social value to particular jobs, which in turn affects their associated wards and working conditions (Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993; Ospina, forthcoming). For example, jobs occupied by a large proportion of white males tend to havebetter salaries and promotion prospects than jobs occupied by women of color The resultinginequality creates obstacles to realizing the promise of diversity.These practices are not the result of conspiracies against certain groups; they are the product ofthe fact that American workplaces were constructed around traditional values and theexpectations of a homogeneous work force. Attitudinal, organizational and institutional changesare thus required to incorporate the needs and values of the wide variety of types of employeesthat makes up the contemporary work force (Gottfredson, 1992). This may also requiredeveloping strategies to eliminate situations that contribute to maintaining format or informalconditions of exclusion in identifiable organizational areas.The most common social groups discussed in the diversity literature include women, people ofcolor, individuals from ethnic or national groups (Gottfredson, 1992), gay men and lesbians(Gentile, 1994), older workers (Mayrand, 1992), physically challenged individuals (EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission, 1992), employees with HIM or AIDS (Stone, 1994),and individuals with particular needs in areas as varied as family obligations (Merit SystemsProtection Board, 1991) and religious mandates that affect their appearance or require dietaryrestrictions (Schachtei 1993).The barriers encountered by these groups can be illustrated with metaphors that have becomepart of the everyday vocabulary of the workplace in both the public and private sectors: womenmay encounter the “glass ceiling” and people of color may face “career plateauing” as theyapproach the upper echelons of an organizational hierarchy; employees may experience “stickyfloors” as they try to leave entry-level jobs. “Glass walls” may impede their movement betweenfunctional areas. Other images convey practices that affect individuals who face particulardemands outside the workplace. An example is the so-called maternal wall and the muchdebated “mommy track,” which may also affect “modern” fathers who want