The workplace today is more diverse than ever in terms of both visible and invisible differences—age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, veteran status, gender, sexual orientation, and disability to name a few categories. And that diversity is going to continue to increase. Increasing diversity complicates things like onboarding and career advancement. Women and minorities entering mostly or traditionally white, male organizations face even more of a disadvantage than white males when onboarding is neglected; they are more isolated, less likely to be included, and less likely to be mentored. Organizations that fail to optimize the talents of all their people will lose competitive advantage.
Talent management professionals already know that. So how can we address the diversity and inclusion challenge effectively, when there is a gap in the research we might turn to for guidance in this area? In an article to be published in the Organization Development Journal next fall, I criticize academic research on onboarding (“newcomer socialization”) for diversity and inclusion. The problems I found can be grouped into three categories: not looking, can’t see it, or don't care.
Not Looking
Current research on onboarding or socialization is looking at individual differences such as human capital, personality, or how proactive a person is, but not gender, ethnicity, or any other of those unique differences that shape our life experiences and are often the first thing people notice about us. Another problem is that researchers usually assume that an organization has the same onboarding practices top to bottom, and that new hires all experience and respond to onboarding in the same way. Finally, when designing experiments to test hypotheses, they often use homogenous (and convenient) sample groups, such as 200 graduating seniors in business administration from a large midwestern university.Can't See It
When the gender or ethnicity data for participants were collected in research studies, they were ignored in the results. In one case, a study reported that women made up about 15 percent of first-line managers and less than 1 percent of top managers. This was reported without any comment and the authors seemed to think it was irrelevant. In another case, new hires who were white reported significantly more social onboarding activities (versus just getting information) than non-white new hires. Again, this was not considered important by the study's authors.Don't Care
Studies like the ones already mentioned could partially redeem themselves if they acknowledged as limitations that they did not consider demographic differences at all, used a homogenous group of subjects, or did not take a closer look when those differences came up among the participants, but in all the cases I reviewed, they did not.Despite the lack of research-based models, here's what we can do to help make sure onboarding truly gets women and minorities off to a good start:
- Be aware that women and minorities pay penalties for being different. Look for unconscious bias in how these new hires are onboarded.
- Check the climate: Is your organization valuing diversity, merely tolerating it, or downright chilly for those who are different?
- Learn more: Books like Whistling Vivaldi by Claude Steel and Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office by Lois P. Frankel can illustrate the problems and suggest solutions.
- Check out the research journals for other disciplines like diversity and critical studies, and seek international authors and perspectives.
Until research catches up with the real world, talent management professionals may have to take the lead in driving the diversity and inclusion agenda. Maybe it will trickle up to the social scientists.
