In “Strategic Diversity Leadership: The Role of Senior Leaders in Delivering the Diversity Dividend,” Luis Martins proposes a new way of linking diversity and inclusion efforts to an organization’s performance through a framework he calls “strategic diversity leadership.” As a professor and chair of the management department at The University of Texas at Austin, Martins is an expert on innovation, change, and performance. He defines strategic diversity leadership as “the shaping of the meaning of diversity within an organization by the organization’s senior leaders” (Martins 1194). What sets his framework apart from prior studies in this area is the idea that supervisory managers can only do so much if the organization’s top executives do not lead the way. Because of they hold positions of authority, top executives have both the platform and the responsibility for unleashing the benefits of a diverse workforce. He argues that these senior leaders must use the power of communication to establish a vision for diversity and inclusion and articulate that the “current state is unacceptable” (Martins 1198). They must also participate in public activities that promote diversity and inclusion, including rituals and ceremonies. In other words, top executives must symbolize the value of diversity and inclusion through their words and actions. By doing so, their internal and external stakeholders will follow their lead and the organization will realize the diversity dividend.
We’ll be closing out Unit 1 this week, so that means your first Unit assignment deadline is approaching (Sunday, 7/4).
Read on for an overview of how we’ll be moving toward that:
Look for feedback from me in the next couple of days on the summary of your article that you submitted yesterday. You’ll work with that feedback to finalize your summary, which will become part of your Unit 1 blog post (along with your commentary on how this article would enrich our understanding of the specific organizational culture issue/area you’re exploring). Be sure to review the Unit 1 assignment sheet. Consider your purpose carefully.
While you’re waiting for that feedback, start thinking about and looking at your options for a media component (link, video clip, image, etc.) to incorporate into your post. You’ve got a lot of latitude to work with here. I suggest using the assignment’s purpose as your starting point.
Here’s what I mean: while you’ve read this article (probably multiple times by now), your classmates probably haven’t. You’re suggesting that this text ought to be part of our canon, that looking at it would enrich our knowledge and understanding of this important issue. You need to show and tell us how that’s the case. You’ll be offering summary, analysis, and commentary. The media element is there to round that out.
For example, your media component might:
provide some background knowledge that would be crucial to our understanding (i.e. through a link or a video)
contain some visual context for the scope or complexity of the issue (i.e. an infographic) or assist with our understanding of change over time or comparison (i.e. graph, chart)
offer an opportunity to explore this issue further (i.e. through a link) for those who want to learn more
You may incorporate more than 1 element if you would like; just make sure you have at least 1.
Also be sure to attend to the following:
if using a link, make sure it is functional–use the “Add Media” button in the +New Post window to “Insert from url”
if using an image, make sure it is high-resolution so that it’s legible–again you’ll use the “Add Media” button to “Upload files” and “Insert into post”
if using an image, provide a caption that includes the source information (where you found the image–the actual web page, not just “Google search”)
whatever your media component, be sure that you explain its relevance in your post–don’t leave your reader to draw their own conclusions about its significance. Walk us through what you want us to learn from this item.
Here’s the other work on tap for this week:
draft of your blog post (let’s extend the deadline here to the end of the day on Wednesday, 6/30)
a few TED talks to watch (linked from Blackboard) for more perspectives on diversity and organizational culture (and in preparation for this week’s discussion)
I’ll be reading your drafts (due Wednesday) and getting you feedback by the end of the day on Friday. Your final version of the blog post is due by the end of the day on Sunday, 7/4.
In Reproducing inequity: the role of race in the business school faculty search, Grier, a professor of marketing at American University, and Poole, a professor at the University of San Francisco examines diversity in business schools, why groups are underrepresented, and presents a qualitative study using the Critical Race Theory to examine components of race. The scholarly article dives deeper into five components of CRT analyzing why there is not a proportionate number of diverse faculty members to students. This includes: unchanged race and lasting racism, the interconnected nature of race with forms of subordination, the idea of one dominant ideology, experiential knowledge, and commitment to social justice. Grier also speaks about how many business schools only care about the ‘best athlete’ construct, where only outputs matter. Schools often do not take into account extra duties (inputs) of underrepresented minorities including mentoring diverse students and serving as token members in hiring committees. The article also illustrates that in order to be successful in promoting diversity, enthusiasm and promotion of diversity needs to come from everyone. Grier and Poole hope that the conversation on diversity in business schools continues through other scholars evaluating and promoting diversity within their own business schools.
Sonya A. Grier & Sonja Martin Poole (2020) Reproducing inequity: the role of race in the business school faculty search, Journal of Marketing Management, 36:13-14, 1190-1222, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2020.1800796
As you’ve probably noticed, you’re submitting all of your work this week through the blog, including the summaries, rather than through Blackboard. That’s by design. Summary is a crucial skill for research writing, so we’re spending a fair bit of time practicing and reflecting on it. You’ve had a chance to receive some private feedback, and now it’s time to open up your audience a bit–this way you’ll have the opportunity to give and to receive feedback from one another.
You can learn a lot by seeing how others summarize the same text as you–what they prioritize, how they define the source, what works well in their approach that might be different from your own.
Moving forward in the course, much of your writing work will be public in this way–on the blog, with your classmates reading and responding. That will provide valuable experience with writing for an authentic audience, which in turn will help you to improve your rhetorical agility. That’s a key aim of this course–to think about the ways in which writing and research are situational, flexing and adapting our work to our distinct purpose, audience, and context.
Now, obviously, this requires a degree of trust, and in a fully online setting where we don’t see one another’s faces and don’t have those same kinds of human interactions that we’re accustomed to in a classroom setting, we will need to work intentionally to build that trust. Trust will make it easier to put our writing out there, to accept constructive feedback, and to offer up our own valuable insights.
Here, I think that our growing knowledge of organizational culture can be a real asset. We know that cultures are built–they don’t just happen–and that they are manifestations of our shared values. I propose that we take a little time this week to reflect on what values we want to be sure we enact in our class community, in this organization that we’re making.
I’ll go first–one of the features of this section that I really value and that I’d like to build on is your openness about the diversity of your backgrounds and experiences. As a group, we represent different generations, different professional fields, different geographical areas, different ethnic and racial groups, and I really appreciate how you’ve been willing to sharing those differences and the unique perspectives you’ve developed as a result. I hope you’ll continue to do so. I think that communicating from where we are–honoring and acknowledging how we are situated–is really important.
Would you please chime in and comment on this post with your thoughts about the culture you’d like to see us build in this online community? What value do you propose we share? What practices do you propose we try to enact? What would you like to see us do/not do/prioritize/avoid?
The article written by Szumski, Smogorzewska, and Grygiel from the Research in Developmental Disabilities, explores the different attitudes that arise from students and what causes them when it comes to people with disabilities. The authors lay out the different concepts that contribute to these positive and negative thoughts that students are associating with disabled people. They discuss the actual attitudes that students have and the implications of those attitudes; the determinants of when people are aware of the attitudes that they have and how they differ for people with disabilities and people without them; and they put emphasis on how prosocial behaviors are influenced by moral identity. They also include throughout all three concepts the importance of inclusive learning environments and the different effects that come out of them. The two main focuses on the study are the idea of moral identity, what causes it and what it itself causes, and the difference that learning in an inclusive environment can make. The overall results are the study are very important for future education practices because hopefully, it will decrease the negative attitudes towards people with disabilities. Not to mention, starting with younger kids is a good way to hopefully have them thinking positively their entire lives.
Bowen et al.’s scholarly article comes from the Disability and Health Journal and explains the insufficient approaches to people with disabilities in the health care workforce and biased opinions based on the quality or function of their life given by employees. The authors introduce the notion of implementing disability training for healthcare providers while also addressing real organizations and their effort. Two initiatives are proposed in the article: The Disability Competencies and the DCC (Disability Competent Care) model. Both approaches would demonstrate high-quality health care by being more personable and allowing for more access to care, improving responsiveness, and enabling support. The authors use these two initiatives to provide a foundation for a future disability-competent health care workforce. The Disability Competencies consists of objectives that hone in on specific skills and behaviors that would provide quality health care to those with disabilities. At the same time, the DCC model would demonstrate structure to give disability competence training to the health care workforce. The authors stress the urge for systematic change in interprofessional health education and are confident that these initiatives would establish a place to start. Although both initiatives have slightly different objectives, both, when implemented, would improve the health care for people with disabilities by educating the health care workforce.
Now that we’re getting our feet under us in terms of what organizational culture is, why diversity and inclusion are part of the conversation, and how thinking about rhetorical situation can help us to engage with complex texts, it’s time for us to build on that.
As a group, we’ve all been working with the same set of texts, and that gives us a shared foundation of knowledge. What I’ve tried to assemble here is a set of texts that function as a canon–works that are essential to an understanding of the subject matter, important and influential works. But there’s so much more out there to explore, and that will be your primary work for the week–looking around to locate an additional text that you think should be part of the canon.
Canonical works are substantive–building on careful and thoughtful research. They provide new insights and ideas, and don’t simply re-present known information. They work well for their audience, so that they can contribute to the world of knowledge.
Chances are you’ll need to look at several articles to find one that does all this and that meets the particular criteria that are set forth on the
The SU libraries’ website is a good starting point. You can use the Advanced Search functions there to help filter the results so they meet some of the basic criteria to start with (i.e. adjusting the publication dates, limiting the types of publications, etc.). You’ll find a number of useful tutorials on the library site if you’re not already familiar with using it. This search tips page is a good place to start.
(A quick note on using SU libraries vs. Google Scholar–you’ve already paid for the SU services and won’t ever bump into a paywall; on Google Scholar, you often will. The library also provides free research support, which you can’t get on Google.)
So, where to begin? Here’s an overview of your tasks for the week:
Reading assignments:
chapters 2 and 3 of TSIS
chapter 1 of Rewriting by Joe Harris (PDF on Blackboard)
“Understanding key D&I concepts” (PDF on Blackboard)
your selected article (that you plan to contribute to the canon)–to write an effective summary, you will need to read this carefully and probably more than once. Be sure to consult the close reading handout and the handout on summary.
Discussion/writing assignments:
write a 100-200 word summary of either the Kaplan and Donovan article from this week OR the Austin and Pisano article from last week, and submit this on the blog (categorize as “Discussions/Homework”; tag with “K&D” or “A&P” as appropriate, along with “weekof6/21,” and [your name] (due Weds., 6/23)
respond to at least 2 of your classmates’ discussion posts on the blog (due Sat., 6/26) write a 200 word summary of your selected article. Include a link to or PDF of the article you’re working with, and reference the author and title of the text you are summarizing. Categorize this as “Expanding the Canon”; tag it with “summary,” “weekof6/21,” and [your name]. (due Sun., 6/27)
Now that we’ve gotten to know each other a bit and have gotten our feet wet, so to speak, in what organizational culture and diversity & inclusion efforts are all about, we’re going to spend this week deepening our knowledge of those topics AND beginning to think about some writerly concerns.
In this post, I’ll lay out a little more info about the week’s assignments and point you toward some additional resources that will help you to complete those tasks. Please read on for more.
Reading assignments
“The impact of organizational diversity policies on minority employees’ leadership self-perceptions and goals” by Gundemir et al (you will use SUMMON on the library website to locate and download this article)
“Neurodiversity as a competitive advantage” by Austin & Pisano (on Blackboard)
chapter 1 “They Say” of They Say/I Say
Writing/discussion assignments
100-200 word summary of Gundemir et al (working with the guidance from the handout on summary, on Bb and in the blog post linked below) [due Weds., 6/16 through Bb]
200-300 word comparison of Gundemir and Austin & Pisano article, focusing on how the pieces differ in author, audience, purpose, and approach [due Sunday, 6/20 through Bb]
discussion posts in response to this week’s prompts [due Saturday, 6/19]. See this post for details
Check out these additional resources
read through thisblog post (and check out the embedded links) for some more background on genre and summary
read over the Close Reading handout linked below and also available on Blackboard (click on the Handouts tab there)
Summary is a task that you’ll encounter often in research-based writing–as an author, you’ll need to explain the essence of a text that you have worked with in developing your own ideas. Writing an effective summary means offering your reader a genuine understanding of the text, not just a list of its greatest hits. Your reader needs a little context–
what is this text?
what is the author doing in it?
what are the key ideas we should take from it?
and then what are you going to do with it?
Because you’ll need this skill regularly, we’re going to practice and use it regularly–we develop writing skills just like any other kind of competency, through examining models, trying it out, and repeating the drill.
You’ll find a handout on Blackboard that offers some more explanation of writing effective summaries. It’s also linked here: Handout on summary
Let’s think about this in terms of the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies article we’re reading this week. If you were going to explain this article to someone else, it wouldn’t be enough to say that Gundemir and her colleagues talk about some of the pros and cons of workplace diversity. We wouldn’t know anything about who Gundemir is and why we should take her word for it. We wouldn’t know whether this article was grounded in good research. We wouldn’t know whether the idea that there are more fruitful and less fruitful ways to frame diversity is central to her argument, or a kind of tertiary point that she mentions. We wouldn’t understand what the article is.
A summary like this, however, would offer us a lot more value: In her article…. from the Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Seval Gundemir, an organizational psychologist at the University of Amsterdam, examines how companies’ diversity policies affect the way that minority employees view their own leadership potential within their companies. She reports data from 2 different studies that she and her colleagues conducted. She finds that…..
Notice what that summary does–it offers a quick biographical blurb about the author (which tells us that she’s an academic), lets us know that this is a scholarly article (written by a scholar for other scholars in the field), gives us a window into her data set and methods, and then lets us know what she’s arguing. If we know all that, then anything else that you share with us from the article will be a lot more meaningful. We’ll get why it matters and what evidence there is to back it up.
Because effective summary is so essential to writing about research, we’ll be practicing this skill quite a bit in the weeks to come.
Why it’s important to think about genre
This is a term we’ll use quite a bit throughout the course, so it’s worth taking some time to discuss what it means. We often think about genre in relation to music or movies, where we’re accustomed to using it to refer to different ‘types’ of media. These genre labels communicate something to consumers, shape expectations for what that media will be like, and serve as handy sorting mechanisms for us (what we like, what we don’t, what we’re in the mood for, how we would describe something to another person, etc.)
When it comes to genres of writing, that same sort of understanding applies, but it’s worth pushing beyond this simplistic idea of ‘categories’ (as though they’re just sorting buckets) to understand how and why genres take shape.
crayons sorted into buckets
For starters, genres tend to responses to recurring writing situations–in other words, the same kind of need keeps popping up and we can use the same sort of text to meet that need. Let’s think about applying for a job. That’s a recurring situation, right? Lots of people find themselves having to do that. And there are ways that writing can help to make that situation work.
Now, job application materials–resumes and cover letters–didn’t just emerge spontaneously. They took shape because readers and writers found them to be useful ways of meeting that situational need–front-loaded documents that quickly communicate a job seeker’s qualifications, skills, and experiences. AND they’ve taken the fairly standard form that they do (consistent across many decades) because that pretty standard approach to organizing and formatting makes it possible for the reader to plow through a whole bunch of these documents pretty quickly, while still finding what they need.
Thus, we can think about genres as responsive and organic–developed to meet the needs of writers and readers and changeable depending upon circumstances. They’re not fixed, not static, and not simply interchangeable. We need to match genre to situation–thinking about our readers, about our purposes, about our publication/delivery venues.
Everything you do as a writer is a choice. And our choices are shaped by the situations in/for which we write. This rhetorical situation consists of a few key components, illustrated in the diagram below:
Diagram showing rhetorical triangle of a text–subject, reader, writer
Understanding the rhetorical situation of texts helps us as readers understand what to expect from them and how to read them. And for us as writers, understanding our audience and purpose will help us to craft texts that work for our readers, meeting their needs and expectations and providing them a clear path to understanding.
The texts that you’re reading this week come from 2 rather different genres–Gundemir’s article is a fairly typical scholarly text, written by academics for an audience of other academics in their field and providing the sort of intensive research and analysis those readers demand. The other text by Austin & Pisano is from the Harvard Business Review, a publication with a much broader audience of professionals. They turn to HBR for quick insights into topics they might be interested in and are generally not looking for the same kind of deep-dive. When you know what you’re looking at, it’s much easier to navigate through it.
Now, because most of us are not organizational psychologists (I presume), Gundemir’s text isn’t really designed for us. We have to make our own path through it. There’s a handout on Blackboard (also linked here: Handout on Reading Scholarly Articles ) on how to wade through sometimes dense scholarly articles like this one.
