EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplace LeadersandDiversity:ATheoretical andEmpiricalApproach JanC.Visagie Herman Linde Blumer (1962 )regardedthe‘manypossibilities ofuncertaintyas inher- ent to the process of joint action.’ Joint action reflects the efforts of participants to work out the line of action in light of what they ob- serveeachotherdoing.Leadershipappearstobeapproachedfromtwo fundamentalperspectives: an organisational perspective (the influence that is exercised to change the direction of the organisation), and an individual task perspective (the influence that is directed at changing theworkbehaviourofanindividual).Inthisarticle,itissuggestedthat the symbolic interaction of perspective integrates the two fundamen- tal perspectives in that both perspectives require meaningful, reflexive integration and meaning, group membership, organisational role and experience. The evolving role of leaders to attract, retain and connect withadiverseworkforceinachangingenvironmentgivesrisetointer- active leadership competency requirements. This article suggests that managing diversity requires business leaders to adopt an approach to diversity management that is sensitive not only to race and ethnic dif- ferences, but also to the background and values of all individuals at work.Theempiricalstudywasdoneandfourhundredandforty(440 ) leadershipstylesweremeasuredineleven(11)organisations.Thestudy used the Hall and Hawker (1988 ) inventory leadership styles and a di- versityquestionnairetomeasurediversitymanagementexperience. Key Words: discrimination,diversitymanagement,engagingleadership style,experience,heroicleadershipstyle,management, transformationalleadership jel Classification:j5,j53 Introduction An individual is constantly reacting to the organised community in a way of expressing himself. The attitudes involved are gathered from the DrJanC.VisagieisDirectoroftheSchoolforHumanResource Sciences,North-WestUniversity,SouthAfrica. DrHermanLindeisaProgramLeaderLabourRelationintheSchool forHumanResourceSciences,North-WestUniversity,SouthAfrica. ManagingGlobalTransitions8 (4 ):381 –403 382 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde group,buttheindividualinwhomthey(theattitudes)areorganisedhas the opportunity of giving them an expression that perhaps has never taken placebefore(Mead1934 ). Thisarticledealswithleadership within the context of the changing 21 st century and proceeds to analyse diver- sity management, within the context of societal change, as integrated units. Theaimofthisstudyingeneral istodetermine thekindofleadership style organisations need to develop in order to establish a positive expe- rienceofdiversitymanagement,tocontinuetobesuccessful,andtocon- cludewithaleadershipcompetencymodelinclusiveofdiversitymanage- ment competence. Understood through the key principles of symbolic interactive leadership theory, leaders are examined through meaningful, reflexive interaction between leaders and employees in a diverse work environment. The definitions of diversity and diversity management used in this study were briefly defined by Thomas (1990 ,10 ), stating that workplace diversitymanagement‘isaplannedsystematicandcomprehensiveman- agerialprocessfordevelopinganorganisationalenvironmentthatworks forallemployees.’Diversitymanagementwasdefinedastheresultofori- entated organisational actions toharness theinputs ofdifferent individ- uals.‘Managingworkistheorganisationandintegrationofhumaneffort into purposeful, large-scale, long-range activities, in the realm of action –whatman’sconceptualfacultyisintherealmofcognition’(Rand1986 , 280 ). In order to understand leadership as a component of diversity man- agement,leadershipastheindependentvariableisfirstlyanalysed,where- after diversity management as the dependant variable is examined. The questions in this research are how diversity management is experienced intheworkplace,whetheritdiffersbetweenrace,genderandagegroups, andultimatelywhetherleadershipstyleinfluencesthisexperience.Inthis article,themainaimwillbe‘meaning’throughsymbolicinteractionasa socialproduct, created and not inherent in things.The subjective aspect of diversity management may differ between individual managers and employees inorganisations.Diversitymanagementexperienced byindi- viduals in the workplace and explained by symbolic interaction implies that social behaviour acquires meaning through interaction. According to Mead (1934 ),significantchangeoccurswhenforcefulandoriginal‘I’s’ appear,causingcorrespondinglygreattransformationsofthe‘me’s’with whomtheyinteract. ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 383 DevelopmentofLeadershipandManagementasaScience The Towers global workforce study (2006 ) suggested new insights into whatdrivestheglobalworkforceandsignalstheendofmuchofthecon- ventional 20 th century wisdom about workforce management. To take advantage of a diverse workplace in the 21 st century, Kreitz (2007 )pro- posed that organisations should refine management and leadership. Be- cause of the symbolicinteraction view (which suggests interdependence between the past, present and future) that was adopted in examining thehistoricaldevelopmentofdiversity,thedevelopmentofmanagement theory as a science is important in understanding leadership style as a component of diversity management in the 21 st century. The evolving role of leadership and leadership style (inclusive or requisite leadership qualities) demands cognisance of the historical development of leader- shipandmanagement asascience. ClassicModelofManagement Managerial models evolved during the20 th century and can be broadly divided into two phases: The classic theories before 1938 and the con- temporary theories after 1938 . During the first quarter of the century, the industrial revolution management model of Fayol and Taylor re- garded the role of managers as planning, organising, commanding, co- ordinating and control (Reynders 1977 ). During the second quarter of thecentury,thehumanrelationmodelofMayoandRoethlingerwasde- veloped, which included human relations in the managerial role (Leslie et al. 2002 ). The third quarter of the century, after World War ii,saw thesystemsapproachofParsons,whichevaluatedorganisationaldynam- ics, inclusive of contingency theory in studying managerial behaviour (Thomas 2005 ). In the last quarter of the century, the global manage- mentmodelwaspresented.Thomas(2005 )observedthatduringthelate 1940 s, the emphasis shifted from trails and personal characteristics to leadershipstylesandbehaviour. Overthelast25 years,theleadershipfieldsdevelopedinresponsetothe changing requirements of organisations. Hersey and Blanchard (1982 ) assessed that at least three areas of skills are necessary for carrying out theprocessofmanagement,namely technical,humanandconceptual. Koontz, O’Donnell and Weinrich (1984 , 4) defined management as ‘theprocessofdesigningandmaintaininganenvironmentinwhichindi- viduals working together asgroups accomplishefficiently selected aims.’ Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 384 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde Leaders are responsible for aligning and integrating the efforts of em- ployees with the goal expectations of the organisation. House, Hanges, Javidan, DorfmanandGupta(2004 )suggestedthattheleader’sfunction consists of clarifying the goals for subordinates, the paths to these goals and facilitating both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for proper perfor- mance. The theoretical overview of leadership theory indicates that leader- ship involves the function of influence, goal attainment, vision and en- ablement. Management theories deal with a number of variables in the management function, which could be broadly classified as the ‘struc- tured’ side of management, for instance task behaviour (Hersey and Blanchard 1982 ), task orientation (Redding 1970 ), concern for produc- tion(BlakeandMouton1961 )andstrategicresultsorientation.The‘peo- ple’ approach to leadership can be found in the studies of relationship behaviour (Hersey and Blanchart 1960 ), relationship orientation (Red- ding, 1970 ), and concern for people and emotion (Blake and Mouton 1961 )asexperienced inThomas(2005 ). ManagementandLeadership Management is defined as the execution function of coordinating struc- tures and resourcesto ensure optimaldelivery in organisations, whereas the term leadership is defined as obtaining commitment from employ- ees.Acommonunderstandingoftheword‘leader’naturallyimpliesthat there are followers over whom the leader has to exert a degree of influ- ence. Kellerman (2004 , 44 ) points out that the Harvard Business School leadership theorist group under Zelenzink started to draw a distinction between leaders and managers: ‘A leader is an inspirational figure while the manager handles the more administrative tasks and maintains orga- nizational discipline.’ TransactionalandTransformationalLeaders Hernez-Boome and Hughes (2006 ) suggested that twenty years ago the understandingofleadershipinorganisationswasdominatedbytheclas- sic two-factor approach focusing on task and relationship behaviour. Burns (1978 ) addressed the processes or behaviour that leaders used to motivate or influence followers. The start of the transformation of lead- ershipissaidtoresultfromBurn’swork.Heprovidedananalysisanddis- tillation of leadership. In his view, leadership behaviour falls within two ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 385 categoriesofinfluence,namelytransformational andtransactional.Boje (2000 )explainedthatBurns(1978 )basedhistheoryoftransactionaland transformational leadership on Kohlberg’s (1958 ) six stages of moral de- velopment and Max Weber’s (1947 )workoncharismaticleaders.Weber concluded that transactional leaders were like bureaucrats and charis- matic, ‘heroic’ leaders were the transformational ones (Boje2000 ). Boje (2000 ,2) points out that Bass (1985 ) used the definition of Burns (1978 ) of transformational leadership, as the ‘leader who recognizes the trans- actional needs in potential followers but tends to further seek to arouse and satisfy higher needs, to engage the full person of the follower to a higherlevelofneedaccordingtoMaslow’s(1954 )hierarchyofneeds.’ Kellerman (2004 , 42 ) suggested that the definition of Burns referred to earlier, ‘still dominates the field of leadership in its view that leaders createsharedmeaning,haveadistinctivevoiceandhaveintegrity.’ KotteronLeadershipandManagement Kotter (1990 ) viewed leadership and management as parallel processes. He distinguished between leadership and management as follows:Man- agement controls complexity and effective leaders produce change. Kot- ter (1999 ) referred to the interchangeable concept as the ‘management leader.’ He believed that managers maintain the status quo through the pro- cessesandfunctionsofplanningandbudgeting;organisingandstaffing; andcontrollingandproblem-solving.Kotter(1990 )viewedleadershipas provocative and persistent andsuggested thatleaders produce construc- tive and adaptive change through the processes of establishing direction through corporate vision, aligning people through communication and motivating and inspiring workers. Kotter (1999 ) identified three basic levels of leadership, namely executive leaders (ceo s), who are respon- sible for articulating the vision and direction of the organisation, with little impact on the operation of the business; line leaders, who connect the lower levels to the top – they have influence on what is important and act as filters; and the network leaders, who have been identified as the thirdtype of leader –they are the invisible force. Leadership/FollowerView KarkandDijk(2007 ,500 )integratedmotivationaltheoryandleadership. They drew on the self-regulatory focus and on the self-concept-based Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 386 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde theoryofleadership.Theysuggestedthat‘leadersmayinfluencethemo- tivational self-regulatory foci of their followers, which will mediate dif- ferent follower outcomes at the individual and group level.’ Recently, motivationamongfollowershasbeenunderstoodintermsofleadership theoriesthatarefocusedonthefollower’sself-concept.Intheleadership follower view of Kouzes and Posner (1990 ), a leader’s power is derived from the followers. The context is of particular relevance to the leader, as the situational demands prescribe what types of leader behaviour are deemed appropriate. The most important and crucial situation variable is that of the people whom the leader wishes to influence in order to achieve organisationalgoals. MintzbergonLeadershipManagement Mintzbergprovidesthefollowingdescriptionofmanagement:managers perform ten basic roles that fall into three groupings: (1)theinterper- sonalrole,whichdescribesthemanagerasfigurehead,eternalliaisonand leader;(2)theinformationprocessingrole,whichdescribesthemanager asthe‘nervecentre’oftheorganisation’sinformationsystem;and(3)the decision-making role, which suggests that the manager is at the heart of the system by which the allocation, improvement and disturbance deci- sions relating to organisational resources are made. According to Leslie et al. (2002 ), Mintzberg’s earlier job variables dominated the attention of researchers from a hierarchical level, such as Pavett and Lau (1983 ), Sen and Dass (1990 ), and functional areas by McCall and Segrist (1980 ) and Paolillo (1987 ). Leslie et al. (2002 ) noted that Pavett and Lau (1983 ) found significant differences between middle- and lower-level managers oneightofthetenrolesoriginallyidentified byMintzberg(1974 ). Mintzberg (2004 ) concluded that leadership and management are words that could be used interchangeably. ‘Managers predict the future and leaders create it’ (Mintzberg 1974 , 5). In accordance with the view of Mintzberg (2004 ), this article uses the term leadership to include the conceptofmanagement. Thesynopsisofthedevelopmentofleadershiptheorypresentedabove indicates that the role of leadership and management has evolved from institutional to transactional, from transactional to transformational andfinallytointeractive leadership. EvolvingNatureofLeadership The role of line mangers explained through symbolic interaction is es- tablished out of what interacting people have to deal with (Wallace and ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 387 Wolf 2006 ). The nature of the role is established through interaction. ‘When symbolic interactionists speak of role, they do not mean a so- cial role that is specified by culture; rather they mean something more flexible and capable of improvisation’ (Wallice and Wolf 1980 , 242 ). A global survey on people and business challenges, conducted by Deloitte and Tohmatsu and the Economic Intelligence Unit (2006 ), found ‘peo- ple issues’ to be the most important strategic issue for global enter- prises, driven by changing workforce demographics, increased global- isation and a relentless focus on innovation, productivity, growth and customer service. ‘In the past, discussions of people issues tended to fo- cus on the efficiency and effectiveness of human resources operations. Thefocusnowisincreasinglyonleadership,talentmanagement,perfor- mance, culture and how organisations can create more value with the peopletheyalreadyhave’ (Deloitte ToucheTohmatsu2005 ). Research by the Center for Creative Leadership (Martin 2006 )found thatmorethan84 %ofrespondentsbelievethatthedefinitionofeffective leadership has changed in the last five years. Although respondents be- lieved that interdependence is important and that challenges go beyond theirowncapability,theresultsindicatedothershiftsinleadership,lead- ing to these challenges going beyond their own capability. The results indicated other shifts in leadership, leading to this definitional change, suchasworkingacrossfunctions,workingmorecollaboratively,improv- ingworkprocesses,creatingnovelsolutions(newskillsandtechnology), increasing its speed of response, making more effective decisions, and enhancing co-worker relationship. Leadershipasacomponentofdiversitymanagementisregardedasthe ability of a manager to influence the activities of an individual or group towards goal achievement. As such, the inherent function of leadership is to achieve commitment of employees within the complexity of work asinfluenced bycontextual factors. InteractiveRoleofLeaders It is clear that management, as a social process involving interactive re- lationship, is aimed at achieving results through others – by influencing subordinates to pursue organisational objectives. The performance of a manager will thus be measured against the output achieved, individu- ally and collectively, by the individuals for whom the leader is directly responsible.Theaimofthisarticleistodeterminethekindofleadership style organisations need to adopt in order to create a positive experi- ence of diversity management to continue to be successful. It involves Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 388 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde the leader in the role of adapting to contextual, environmental factors, achieving the commitment of diverse followers, and dealing with the complexityinachievinggoals. FromFinancialtoHumanCapitalManagement Nowicki and Summers (2007 , 118 ) expressed the view that ‘dominant leadership philosophy has traditionally been based on the premise that the organization is purely an economic entity.’ Management’s priority was to leverage the capital and the resource in the most effective way. The role of leadership was to get the strategy right, to correct the struc- tureandlinkthestrategytostructurethroughdefinedsystemstodeliver high performance. The new leadership paradigm could be regarded as oneof‘purpose,processandpeople’ (NorwickiandSummers2007 ,18 ). Robertson’sModelofDiversityandInclusion(2004 ) Robertson (2004 ) investigated the meaning of diversity and inclusion in organisations.Shepositedthattheresultsofherstudysupportadistinc- tionbetweentheconceptsofdiversityandinclusion,althoughtheterms may not describe separate types of work environment, but different ap- proachestodiversitymanagement.Inherresults,Robertson(2004 )pro- nouncedthatthemanagementofdiversitymightbemorecomplexthan thetwo-dimensional factorsof‘diversity’and‘inclusion.’Herresultsen- dorsedtheargumentthatdiversityinorganisationsmaybesupportedby setsofpracticestomanagefairtreatmentissues,increasestakeholderdi- versityanddemonstrateleadershipcommitmenttodiversity,whereasin- clusionontheotherhandmaybesupportedbypracticestointegratedi- versityontoorganisationalsystemsandprocesses,andencouragethefull participation and contribution of all employees. The instrument con- structed by Robertson (2004 ) measured the degree to which each of the attributessupportsdiversityandinclusioninorganisations.Theempiri- calinvestigationofthereliabilityandfactorstructureoriginallysupports athree-factormodel.Oneofthefactorswasrepresentedbytheattributes forinclusion.Alltheattributesweredescribedascharacteristicsofanin- clusiveorganisation.Onefactor,Robertson(2004 )found,includeditems relating to employee involvement and fair treatment. Other factors con- sistedoftheorganisational attributes fordiversity. Robertson (2004 , 23 ) commented that scholarly literature on defi- nitions of diversity primarily focused on heterogeneity and the demo- graphic composition of groups or organisations, while definitions of in- ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 389 clusion focus on employee involvement and the integration of diversity intoorganisationalsystemsandprocesses.TheinitialresearchofRobert- sonincluded48 items–24 fordiversityand24 forinclusion.Thefivefac- tors were: Fairness in treatment, Representation, Top management sup- port, Participation and Involvement. Robertson (2004 ) believed that di- versity and inclusion ‘encapsulate’ the discrimination and fairness, and integration and learning diversity paradigms suggested by Thomas and Ely(1996 ).Ontheotherhand,theseconddiversityfactorincludeditems relating to the representation of demographic diversity at all levels and outside of organisations, such as described in the access and legitimacy paradigms of Thomas and Ely. They described the effects of their diver- sity management paradigms on work group functioning in a qualitative studyofthreeprofessionalorganisations,withtheaimoftheorydevelop- ment. They found three underlying perceptions of diversity: integration andlearning,accessandlegitimacy,anddiscriminationandfairnessper- ceptions. These perceptions, they claimed, ‘are governed by how mem- bers of work groups create and respond to diversity’ (Thomas and Ely 1996 ). Cross-EnterpriseLeadership CrossanandOlivera(2006 )advocated‘cross-enterpriseleadership’asthe new approach for the 21 st century leader. Cross-enterprise leadership is a holistic approach that recognises four emergent realities that redefine general management for the 21 st century manager. The contemporary business imperative requires an approach of cross-enterprise leadership roles, which creates, captures and distributes value across a network of businesses, not just in an enterprise. Cross-enterprise leadership differs fromtraditional management in thatittakes cognisanceofmanaging in a complex world, where the boundaries of organisations are fluid and dynamic,cuttingacrossfunctionaldesignations,departments,andbusi- ness units. The evolving role of leaders in organisations was established inanonlinestudybyConcelmanandEilersten(2005 )inaDevelopment DimensionInternational researchproject, among2766 leaders of187 or- ganisations in15 countries.Respondents ratedtheimportanceofleader- shiproles.Thefindings ofthisresearchareshownintable1. DiversityManagementasaFunctionofLeadership GallupOrganisationstudies(2004 ),ledbyConchie,ofmorethan50000 leaders in diverse industries, identified seven demands of leadership: vi- Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 390 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde table 1 Importanceofleadershiprole Role hr Leaders Strategist 61 % 46 % Captivator 59 % 43 % Talent advocate 52 % 41 % Change driver 54 % 41 % Enterpriseguardian 52 % 40 % Navigator 39 % 35 % Mobiliser 37 % 34 % Entrepreneur 40 % 31 % Globalthinker 19 % 14 % notes AdaptedfromConcelmanandEilersten2005 . sion,maximisingvalues,challengingexperience,mentoring,buildingacon- stituency,makingsenseofexperience andknowingoneself.Thomas(1990 ) popularised the term ‘managing diversity’ and argued that diversity tra- ditionallyhasbeenassociatedwithmulticultural,multi-ethnicandmul- tiracial aspectsofthe workforce.Thisstudysuggested that tomeetthese demands within the context of diversity is the ultimate leadership chal- lenge in the near future. There is, however, a defined definite trend to- ward multiplicity of diversity dimensions. The evolving nature of work- place diversity presented above confirms the multiplicity of diversity di- mensions. The managing of diversity becomes a function of diversity. Managingdiversityincorporatesplanning,organisingandleadingofin- dividuals with differences or diversity in the workplace, to achieve the strategic goal of the organisation. Jayne and Dipboye (2004 ) concluded that successful diversity indicatives depend on the perceptions of top management support for diversity. Friday and Friday (2003 , 864 )advo- cated that the execution and evaluation of a corporate diversity strategy usea‘plannedchange’approachtoacknowledgediversityandtosystem- aticallymanageandinculcatethisintoanorganisation’sculture.Dreach- slin(2007 ,151 )quoted the workof Mayo, Paster andMeindl (1996 ), who found that the leaders of diversity teams rated their own performance lowerthanleadersofhomogenousteamsdid.Visconti(2007 )referredto Fosdick, theceo of Nebraska Medical Centre, who said: ‘The successful developmentofdiversity-sensitiveorganizationsissignificantlydifferent from increasing the percentages of minority representations.’ It requires seniorleadershiptoopenlycommittotherecruitment,retention,devel- ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 391 opment, and support of candidates previously under-represented. The leadershipmusteducateandconvinceothersthatthisisofstrategicvalue andisthelong-termdirectionoftheorganisation.Dreachslin(2007 )was oftheviewthatleadersofdiversitygroupsarechallengedtoensurewell- functioning productive teams and to constructively deal with conflict. Parker of PepsiCo boldly stated: ‘You cannot speak about growth and beingamarketsegmentleader,withoutspeakingaboutdiversityandin- clusion’(Cole2007 ,26 ).Rijamampianina,(1996 )advocatedthatdiversity does not directly influence the group and organisational performance, but rather impacts on the management system at the level of four inter- related organisational processes, namely motivation, interactive, vision and learning. Activities undertaken at any one of these four processes have an effect on the other, leading to shifts in the performance of the groupororganisation (Rijamampianina andCarmichael2005 ). Employee commitment exists at three levels, namely obligation, be- longing and ownership. Managing the motivational process is primar- ily to increase each individual employee’s commitment at the owner- ship level, so they will be willing to perform at their highest potential, according to Rijamampianina and Carmichael (2005 ). Cox and Beale (1997 ) examined the factor that motivates leaders to support diversity actively. Similar to the diversity management continuum suggestions of Gardenswartz and Rowe (1999 ), they explained that the process of be- ing an effective leader within the context of diversity management com- menceswithawareness,whichrecognisesthatdiversityhasanimpacton organisational performance. ResearchDesign Theevolvingroleandnatureofworkplaceleadersanddiversitymanage- ment are considered the development variable, and leadership style the independent variable in the research model. Race, gender and genera- tional differences areregardedasexplanatory moderators. ResearchGroup The participants in this study were 2669 respondents from 11 different organisations, and 44 managers were selected from the 11 companies. The companies were geographically distributed across the country and included selected businesses operating in South Africa as subsidiary op- erations in three different industries. To determine the experience of di- versity management, thepopulationismadeupofallthesubjects inthe Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 392 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde 11 participatingworkplaces.Theexperiencesofemployeeswhoarefunc- tionally illiterate and could not complete a written or electronic ques- tionnaire are excluded from the empirical data. The unit of analysis is the respondents and managers involved in this study from whom the datawereobtained. ResearchInstruments The empirical study includes two main components, namely leadership style and experience of diversity management. The research question is studied through an intensive focus examination of the empirical con- textforthepurposeofanalysis, inaccordancewithsymbolicinteraction methodology. Robertson’s (2004 ) final five-factor model indicated factors compa- rable and inclusive of the three paradigms of Thomas and Ely (1996 )– Robertson’s Factor 1 (the fairness factor) aligns with Thomas and Ely’s discrimination andfairnessparadigm; Robertson’sFactor2 (representa- tion of diverse groups) aligns with the access and legitimacy paradigm; andRobertson’sFactor3 (leadership’scommitment)wasthesameasthe learning and effectiveness paradigm. These three factors that Robertson found were conceptually distinct. The remaining two factors (4 and 5) (employee involvement in work systems and diversity-related outcomes such as learning, growth and flexibility) are indicators of inclusion as defined at the outset of the theoretical study. The last two factors, al- though similar, were separated. The results of Robertson’s study suggest thatFactor4 characterisesorganisationsthatarediverseandFactor5 or- ganisationsthatareinclusive. The questionnaires were designed as assessment tools for measuring the degree to which employees experience attributes for diversity man- agement, ranging from practices to increase the representation of des- ignated groups to the broader people management initiatives intended to facilitate employee participation and engagement, learning and de- velopment in the organisation. The three main sections of the instru- ment include Robertson’s factors (2004 ) and Thomas and Ely’s (1996 ) paradigms. Questions were grouped in terms of Robertson’s three fac- tors. The remaining factors (4 and 5) were incorporated into the three sections ofthequestionnaire. Sampling Random sampling was not feasible in this study. Employees and man- agers wereinvited toparticipate voluntarily intheresearch,froma‘cap- ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 393 tive audience’ of managers present at the time of research, to obtain quantitativedataonleadershipstyles,asamatterofconvenience.Conve- nience sampling was used to establish an approximation of reality. This non-probability research does not depend upon the rationale of proba- bility theory(Trochim2006 ). Tocomment onthepractical significance ofgroups,standardiseddif- ferencesbetweenthemeansofthepopulationareused.Cohen(1988 ),as referred to by Ellis and Steyn (2003 ), provided guidelines for the inter- pretation of effect size as: small effect: d = 0 .2,mediume ffect: d = 0 .5 andlargeeffect:d≥ 0 .8.Inthisarticle,datawithdlargerthanandequal to0 ,8 are considered practically significant. It is furthermore important toknowwhetherarelationshipbetweenage,genderandraceandthefac- torondiversitymanagementispracticallysignificant.Thearticleseeksto determinewhethertherelationshipislargeenoughtobeimportant.The guidelineofCohen(1988 ),asreferredtobyEllisandSteyn(2003 ),isused inthisstudyasfollows:smalleffect:w= 0 .1,mediumeffect:w= 0 .3 and large effect: w = 0 .5. The Spearman rank order correlation coefficient is used, and also serves as an effect size to indicate the strength of the re- lationship. Steyn (2005 ) provides guidelines for the interpretation of the correlation coefficients’ practical significance as r = 0 .1:small,r = 0 .3: medium and r = 0 .5: large. A parallel between the results of the diver- sity audit and leadership styles obtained from the pmi ,aspresentedon the typology of leadership, is drawn using these guidelines. The unit of analysis for the correlation between leadership style and the experience of diversity management is the 11 organisations. The analysis includes data presented in frequencies and means, using the sas system (2007 ) and spss system (2005 ). The data is analysed by means of various ap- propriate statistical analyses to infer meaning. Construct reliability and validationofthediversitymanagementquestionnairewereoriginallyas- sessed and confirmed in pilot studies in a South African beverage enter- prise from 2004 to 2006 . The questionnaire was found suitable for this study. The Cronbach alpha values were determined for each of the sub- scales,includinginthediversitymanagementquestionnaireusedforthis article.Theaverageinterim correlationwiththetotalwasdetermined to establish the strength of factor items. The ideal value between 0 .15 and 0 .5 was used. The Cronbach alpha values of all subscales were found to fallwithintherequiredcriteria (between0 .65 and0 .87 ). The general reliability and validation of leadership style pmi (Hall and Hawker 1988 ) were assessed and confirmed with the motivational scalesoftheEdwardsPreferenceSchedule(eps ).Thereportreliabilityof Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 394 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde table 2 FactorpatternforSection2:Leadershipcommitmenttostrategicalignment ofdiversity Section2:Leadershipcommitment Factor1* Seniormanagersarecommittedtoracialequality 0 .80 Seniormanagersarecommittedtogenderequality 0 .76 Communicationondiversityissuesiseffective 0 .72 Diversityisregardedasastrategicissue 0 .72 Seniormanagersarecommittedtoemployingmorepeoplewithdisabilities 0 .64 Diversitydoesnotclashwithotherobjectives 0 .41 notes *RotationwasnotpossiblewithFactor1. this inventory was assessedbycoefficient alphasof0 .77 ,for personalised power(heroicleadershipstyle),0 .67 forsocialisedpower(engaginglead- ership style) and 0 .74 for affiliative power. All questions in the second section(table2)ofthequestionnaire(strategicalignment)wereretained as one factor, and all the percentage variance explained by the factor is 48 .46 %. Most of the mean scores for the experience of diversity management for all three main factors were somewhat neutral, with a tendency to- wards the negative for Factor 1 (table3) and Factor 2 (table4). Respon- dents tended more towards the positive for Factor 3. An interesting as- pectisthemeanscore(table5)forFactor3 (diversitytreatmentfairness), which was visibly more positive (m = 3.19)comparedtothemeanscore for Factor 1 (leadership commitment to diversity strategic alignment) – m = 2.85 (d = 0 .41 ) and Factor 2 (representation of diverse groups – staffing and people management) – m = 2.85 (d = 0 .47 ). This implies that employees are visibly less positive in stating that leaders are gen- uinely committed to the strategic alignment of diversity management and the people management process than about social interaction be- tween race, genderandagegroups,andthatworkprocessesarefair. Themeanscoresforeachitemincludedinthethreemainfactorswere regarded as significant in understanding the specific diversity manage- ment experience. Of the total number of respondents to the diversity management sur- vey, 19%(table6 ) were senior management, 42 .2% middle, junior and supervisory management and the balance of 39 % were employees. The proportionalrepresentationofsupervisory,juniorandmiddlemanagers inrelationtoemployeeswasexpectedinviewofthefactthatalargepro- ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 395 table 3 MeanscoresforFactor1 items:Leadershipcommitmenttodiversitystrategic alignment Items ms d Seniormanagerscommittedtoracialequality 3.06 1 .20 Seniormanagerscommittedtogenderequality 3.20 1 .10 Seniormanagerscommittedtoemployingdisabledpeople 2.47 0 .96 Diversityregardedasastrategicissue 3.19 1 .11 Diversitycommunicationiseffective 2.67 1 .12 Managers have diversityobjectives in performance appraisals 2.99 1 .40 table 4 MeanscoreforFactor2 items:Experienceofrepresentation–staffingand peoplemanagement Items ms d Clearlydefinedtoimprovediversity 3.07 1 .27 Individualcareerplansareinplace 2.94 1 .24 Recruitmentandselectionpoliciesarefair 2.83 1 .26 Peoplewhodeservepromotionsusuallygetthem 2.71 1 .24 Itisnotwhoyouknowbutwhatyouknowandhowyouperformthat getsyoupromotion 2.96 1 .38 Increasingdiversitydoesnotlowerstandards 3.83 1 .16 Satisfied withthewaypotentialhasbeenassessed 2.86 1 .24 Managershavetheskillstodevelopthediversityofstaff2 .75 1 .21 Enoughpressureisexertedonmanagerstodevelopsubordinates 2.71 1 .20 Receiveopenandhonestfeedback 3.01 1 .26 Performanceisappraisedregularly 2.98 1 .23 Trainingisbasedonindividualneeds 2.93 1 .21 Employeesareregularlyconsultedaboutdiversity 2.30 1 .14 portion of functionally illiterate employees did not complete the ques- tionnaire. Becausethe majority of theorganisations werein the production sec- tor, by far the largest number of respondents (63 %) was designated in terms of the eea , being black, coloured and Indian, while 37%were white respondents. The majority of the respondents were traditionally male(78 .7%),whileonly21 .3% were females. Considered generally, respondents indicated a somewhat negative ex- perience for Factor 2 (table 4). While respondents were neutral about Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 396 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde table 5 MeanscoresforFactor3 items:Diversityfairnesstreatment Items ms d Sexistcommentsaregenerallymade 2.68 1 .08 Racistcommentsaregenerallymade 2.99 1 .20 Mixatsocialfunctions 3.08 1 .20 Peoplegreetoneregardlessofrace 3.41 1 .20 Willingandopentolearnaboutcultures 3.06 1 .09 Blackpeopleaccusewhitepeopleofracismwhenwhitepeople criticisethem 3.46 1 .13 Womendonotaccusemenofsexismwhencriticised 2.81 1 .01 Mymanagertreatsmewithdignityandrespect 3.66 1 .17 Whitepeoplebelievereversediscriminationexists 3.48 1 .12 Blackpeoplehavethesameresponsibilitiesandaccountabilities 3.52 1 .01 Generationissues 3.55 1 .02 table 6 Levelofemployees Grade (1)( 2)( 3)( 4) Top/seniormanagement 475 18 ,72 % 475 18 ,72 % Middle&junior,supervisorymanagement 1070 42 ,18 % 1545 60 ,90 % Employees 992 39 ,10 % 2537 100 ,0 % notes Column headings are as follows: (1)frequency,( 2) percentage, (3) cumulative frequency,(4)cumulativepercentage. whether clearly-defined targets exist, they tend to be somewhat more negativeintheirresponsethatpeoplemanagementandstaffingpractices arefair. Respondents disagreed (m = 2.9 ) that individual career plans are in place,orthatrecruitmentandselectionpracticesarefair(m = 2.8).Sim- ilarly, they did not experience promotion practices as fair (m = 2.7). Respondentswerealsonegativeintheirresponseto‘itiswhoyouknow’ ratherthan‘whatyouknowandhowyouperform’thatresultinpromo- tions(m = 2.9 ). While respondents were neutral (m = 3.0 ) in their view that they re- ceive open and honest feedback, they were more negative aboutthe skill of managers to develop subordinates (m = 2.7)orthatenoughpres- sure is put on managers to develop subordinates (m = 2.7). Moreover, respondents tended to be negative about regular performance appraisal ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 397 occurrence (m = 2.9 ) or that training is based on individual needs. The question could be asked: Is the experience of diversity management re- lated to leadership style? And does an engaging leadership style relate to amorepositiveexperience ofdiversitymanagement? spearmanrankordercorrelationsbetween experienceofdiversitymanagementandleadership style For the purpose of analysing the relationship between the experience of diversity management and leadership style, the respondent leaders were considered asaproportion of theleaders in eachworkplace withcertain leadership styles.Mintzberg’sleadership stylesare comparablewithMc- Clellandand Burnham’s(1976 ) leadership motives and arereferred toas atypologyoftheleadershipstyles,rangingfrompredominantly‘person- alised’(heroic)atoneextreme,engagingatmidpoint,tohighlyaffiliative at the other, with two ‘outliers,’ namely fight/flight leadership style and even leadership. The results of the Spearman rank order (table7) correlations are pre- sented next to determine the relationship between the experience of di- versitymanagement andleadershipstyle,andmorespecificallytoestab- lish whether an engaging leadership style yields a more positive expe- rience of diversity management, as suggested by the theoretical study. As explained earlier, the Spearman rank order coefficient r = 0 .3 is re- garded as a medium practical or visible relationship and r = 0 .5 as large and a relationship important in practice, to determine the relationship betweenthetwovariables.TheSpearmanrankordercorrelationisindi- cated using the symbol ‘sr .’ Spearman rank order correlations (sr )be- tween leadership styles and the three main factors were determined. For the purpose of these correlations, three specific questions about leader- ship style from Factors 1 and 3 were included. These were ‘Senior man- agers are genuinely committed to racial equality’ (Question1,Section1, hereafter referred to asq1 .1),‘Senior managersaregenuinely committed to gender equality’ (Question 2,Section1, hereafter referred to as q2 .1) and‘Mymanagergenerallytreatsmewithdignityandrespect’(Question 8,Section3, hereafter referred to asq8 .3;seetable7). In addition, Spearman rank order correlations were determined for Dd2,‘People generally make racist comments.’Largesignificant correla- tions are indicated in table 7. The results for medium and large corre- lations for each factor are discussed. Table 5 indicates the results of the Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 398 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde table 7 Correlationbetweenleadershipstyleanddiversitymanagementfactors Variable (1)( 2)( 3)( 4)( 5)( 6)( 7) Factor1 –0 .35 0 .15 0 .35 –0 .17 0 .10 –0 .47 0 .02 Factor2 –0 .41 0 .04 0 .44 –0 .05 0 .19 –0 .36 0 .19 Factor3 –0 .06 0 .09 0 .22 –0 .01 –0 .09 –0 .38 –0 .01 q1 .1 –0 .26 0 .10 0 .33 –0 .08 –0 .10 –0 .51 –0 .11 q2 .1 –0 .20 0 .05 0 .38 –0 .11 0 .05 –0 .55 –0 .07 q8 .3 –0 .58 0 .17 0 .47 –0 .15 0 .31 –0 .12 0 .38 Dd20 .63*– 0 .03 –0 .69 * 002 –0 .03 0 .24 –0 .07 notes Spearman rank order correlations, md pair wise deleted, *p< 0 .05 .Column headingsareasfollows:(1)heroic,(2)heroictendencies,(3)engaging,(4)affiliativeten- dencies,(5)affiliative,(6 )fight/flight,(7)even. leadership style typography correlated with the experience of diversity management. Table 7 shows that heroic leadership style correlates visibly negatively with Factor 1 and Factor 2, as well as being practically significant with q8 .3 (‘My manager generally treats me with dignity and respect’). Con- sistent with the Mintzberg model (2004 ), and McClelland and Burn- ham’s theory (1976 ), the engaging leadership style correlates visibly pos- itively with Factor1,Factor2,q1 .1 andq2 .1 and is practically significant withq8 .3.Thefight/flightleadershipstyleshowsapracticallysignificant negative correlation with Factor 1, q1 .1 and q2 .1 and a visibly negative correlation with Factors 2 and 3. It is interesting to note that no prac- tically significant positive correlations were established for leaders with heroic tendency leadershipstyles. Ontheotherhand,theengagingleadershipstyleresultedinamedium positive practically significant correlation with most of the dimensions measured in this study. As could be expected, the affiliative and even styles appear to correlate positively with the experience of being treated with dignity and respect by the manager, whereas the fight/flight style correlates negatively withFactors1,2 and3. Quite significant in these specific results is the strong positive cor- relation (sr = 0 .63 ) between the heroic style and Dd2 (‘racist com- ments generally made’), whereas a negative correlation exists between such comments and engaging leaders (sr = −0 .69 ). The theoretical explanationofbehaviourassociatedwiththeheroicleadershipstylesug- gested that the heroic leadership style could lead to communication, ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 399 which could be perceived as undignified and not ‘race and gender free.’ From table7 it is clear that the predominant leadership styleis affilia- tive tendency and affiliative (43 % for the combined percentage). Heroic and heroic tendencies measure 36 % (for the combined percentages) as the alternative styles in the 11 workplaces. Mintzberg’s (2004 )preferred engaging leadership style is less commonly found in the workplaces (12 %). Conclusion Thisarticledealtwithleadershipanddiversityaskeyconstructs.Itintro- duced the evolution of leadership as a science and studied the evolving roleofleaderstoadapttoacomplexworldofwork.Thearticleevaluated thenatureofdiversitymanagementandsoughttoestablishleadershipas a component of diversity management. The results confirmed the sug- gestionsofJayneandDipboye(2004 ),thatperceptionsofdiversityman- agementarenotseparablefromperceptionsofleadershipstyleandtraits. Tomeettheroleexpectations ofleaders,managersneed todisplayinter- active competencies towards effectively managing a diverse workforce. Symbolic interactionists support the understanding of diversity man- agement, using the model of Roberson (2004 ). The evolving nature of leadership and diversity contextualises interactive leadership styles. The studyreliesontheleadershipcompetencymodel,explainedinMintzberg (2004 ),McClelland(1975 )andBurnham(1976 ;2003 ). As is seen from the analysis of leadership theory, leadership appears to beapproached fromtwo fundamental perspectives: an organisational perspective (the influence that is experienced to change the direction of the organisation), and an individual task perspective (the influence that is directed at changing the work behaviour of an individual). It is suggested that the symbolicinteractionist perspective integrates the two fundamentalperspectives–inthatbothperspectivesrequiremeaningful, reflexive interaction and meaning, group members, organisational role and experience. Directional, strategic, visionary and interactive leader- shiphasbeen the focusofmorecontemporary work. Thespecificobjectivesofthisarticleweretodeterminediversityman- agement experience in the workplace; whether the experience of diver- sitydifferedbetweenrace,gender andgenerational groups;andwhether this experience related to leadership style. All research questions posed were answered. The results support the propositions of the research. The selected workplaces included in this research appear to have made Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 400 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde progressfromahistoricallyassumed,outrightnegativeexperienceofdi- versity management towards a more neutral experience, tending, how- ever, towards the negative. Although the respondents exhibited a more positiveexperience ofdiversity fairness(factor3), significant differences in experience between race and gender groups were found for Factor 1 (leadership commitment and strategic alignment of diversity manage- ment)aswellasforFactor2 (representationofdiversity,peoplemanage- ment). Most respondents favour the engaging leadership style for lead- ershipcommitmentandstrategicalignmentofdiversity,aswellasinthe case of staffing and people management and performance management policies, other than woman, who correlate positively with heroic leader- ship styles (Factors 1 and 2). There is a positive correlation between the heroic leadership style and the statement ‘racist comments made.’ En- gaging leadership, however, correlates negatively with this item. Domi- nant group respondents are somewhat more likely to believe that senior managers are committed to racial and gender equality, and diversity is regarded as astrategic issue. Employees believe that people mix atsocial functionsregardlessofrace,greeteachotherandareopentolearnabout each other’s cultures, which could indicate that social action is on so- cial identity conscious practices. This article suggests that managing di- versity requires business leaders to adopt an approach to diversity man- agement that is sensitive not to race and ethnic differences, but to the backgroundandvaluesofallindividualsatwork.Diversitymanagement involvesanunderstandingofandcompetenceinmanagingandmotivat- ing a diverse group of employees within the complex of societal change (Human2005 ).Havingconcludedthatleadershipstyleinfluencestheex- perienceofdiversitymanagement,itisrecommendedthatorganisations adopt ThomasandEly’s(1996 )integration andlearningparadigm. References Blake, R. T. R., and J. S. Mouton. 1961 .Howpowera ffects employee ap- praisal.InGroupdynamics:Keytodecision-making.Houston: Gulf. Blumer, H. 1962 . Society as symbolic interaction. In Human behaviour and social process: An international approach,ed.A.M.Rose,179 –92 . Boston:Houghton-Mifflin. Boje, D. M.2000 . Transformational leadership. Http://www.leadingtoday .org?onmag/jan03 /transactionsal2003 .html. Burns,J. M.1978 . Leadership.New York: Harper & Row. Burnham,D.2003 .Primemotives:Averageperformerscanbeturnedinto stars.PeopleManagement,April3. ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 401 Cohan, J.1988 . Statisticalpoweranalysisfor thebehavioursciences.2nded. Hillsdale,nj :Erlbaum. Cole,Y.2007 .10 Top 50ceo stellthetruthaboutdiversity.Http:// Diversityinc.com/public/2288 print.cfm. Commissionof EmploymentEquity.2005 . Annual report 2004 –2005 . Pre- toria:CommissionofEmploymentEquity. Concelman,D.J.,andJ.Eilersten.2005 .Realisingasustainableadvantage: Developingextraordinaryleaders.Http://www.ddiworld.com/ locations. Crossan,M.,andF.Oliviera.2006 .Cross-enterpriseleadership:Anewap- proachforthe21 stcentury.IveyBusinessJournal,70 (5):1–6 . Cox.,T.,andR.L.Beale.1997 . Developingcompetency to managediversity: Readings,casesandactivities.SanFrancisco:Berret-Koehler. DeloitteToucheTohmatsu.2005 .Connectingacrossthegenerationinthe workplace:Whatbusinessleadersneedtoknowtobenefitfromgener- ationaldifference.TalentMarket Series1,DeloitteToucheTohmatsu. Dreachslin,J.L.(2007 ). The role of leadershipin creating a diversity sen- sitiveorganization.JournalofHealthcareManagement 52 (3):151 –5. Ellis,S.M.,andH.S.Steyn.2003 .Practicalsignificance(effectsizes)versus or in combination with statistical significance (p value). Management Dynamics,12 (4 ):51 –3. Hall, J., and J. Hawker. 1988 . Power management inventory. The Wood- lands,tx :TeleometricsInternational. Harris, C. D. 2005 . Symbolic interaction as defined by Herbert Blumer. Http://www.cdharris.net/text/blumer.html. Hernez-Broome, G., and R. L. Hughes. 2006 . Leadership development: Past,presentandfuture.HumanResourcesPlanning 50 :25 –31 . Hersey,P .,andK.H.Blanchard.1982 . Management of organizational be- haviour: Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, nj:P r entic e Hall. House, R., P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. Dorfman and V. Gupta.2004 . Cul- tural leadership and organisations: The globe study of 62 Societies. ThousandOaks,ca :Sage. Human, L. 2005 .Currentissuesand practical realities forglobaldiversity. Paperdeliveredatastd2005 Conference,CapeTown. Janyne,M.E.,andR.L.Dipboye.2004 . Leveraging diversity to improve businessperformance:Research resultsand recommendationsforor- ganisations.HumanResourceManagement43 (4 ):409 –24 . Kark, R., and D. Van Dijk. 2007 . Motivation to lead, motivation to fol- low: The role of the self-regulatory focuses in leadership processes. AcademyofManagementReview32 (2):500 –28 . Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 402 JanC.VisagieandHermanLinde Kellerman, B.2004 .Leadership:Wartsandall.HarvardBusinessReview82 (1):40 –5. Koontz,H.,C.O’Donnell,andH.Weinrich.1984 .Management.NewYork: McGraw Hill. Kotter, J. P. 1990 . A force for change: How leadership differs from manage- ment.NewYork:FreePress. Kouzes,J.M.,andB.Z.Posner.1990 .Thecredibilityfactor:Whatfollowers expectfromtheirleaders.ManagementReview,January. Kretz,P.A.2007 .Bestpracticeformanagingorganisationaldiversity.Http: //www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-12874 .pdf. Leslie,J.B.,D.Dalton,C.Ernst,andJ.Deal.2002 .Managerialeffectiveness in a global context. Greensboro, nc : Centre for Creative Leadership Report. Martin, A.2006 .Thechangingnatureofleadership.Http://www .urbanlibraries.org/emergingleaders.htm. McCleland, D.1975 .Power:Theinnerexperience.NewYork:Irvington. McClelland, D., and D. H. Burnham. 1976 . Power is the great motivator. HarvardBusinessReview54 (2):100 –10 . Mead, G. H. 1934 . Mind, self, and society. Ed. by C. W. Morris. Chicago: UniversityofChicagoPress. Mintzberg, H. 1974 . The rise and fall of strategic planning: Preconceiving rolesforplanning,plans,planners.NewYork:FreePress. Mintzberg,H.2004 .Managersnotmba s.London:PrenticeHall. Nowicki, M., and J. Summers. 2007 . Changing leadership style, the new leadership philosophy emphasises purposes, process and people. He- althcareFinancialManagement,February. Rand,A.1986 .Theobjectivistethics. New York: Meridian. Reynders, H. J.1977 .Dietaakvandiebedryfsleier.Pretoria:VanSchaik Rijamampianina, R., and T. Carmichael. 2005 . A pragmatic and holistic approachtomanagingdiversity.ProblemsandPerspectivesinManage- ment 3(1):109 –17. Rijamampianina,R.1996 .Effectivemanagementinmulticultureorganisa- tions:Creatinglearning-basedorderwithasharingprinciple.Academy ofManagementReview21 (2):404 –33 . Robertson, Q. M. 2004 . Disentangling the meanings of diversity and in- clusion. Working Paper 04 -05 Cornell, Centre for Advanced Human ResourceStudies. Steyn,H.S.2005 .Handleidingvirdiebepalingvaneffekgrootteindekseen praktiesebetekenisvolheid.Http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteit/natuur/ skd/index.html. Thomas,M.A.2005 . Gurus on leadership.London:Thorogood. ManagingGlobalTransitions EvolvingRoleandNatureofWorkplaceLeadersandDiversity 403 Thomas,D.A.,R.J.Ely.1996 .Learningforthefuture:Makingthecasefor teachingdiversity.HarvardBusinessReview74 (5):79 –90 . Thomas,R. R.1990 .Fromaffirmative actiontoaffirmative diversity. Har- vardBusinessReview68 (2)107 –17. Trochim, W. M. K. 2006 . Research methods knowledgebase: Non-proba- bilitysampling.Http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/samnon .php. Towersglobalworkforcestudy.2006 .Http://www.towersperrin.com. Visconti, L.2007 .Usingdiversitytodrivebusiness.Http:www.diversityinc .com/public/1956 print.cfm. Wallece,R.A.,andA.Wolf.2006 .Contemporarysociologicaltheory.Engle- woodCliffs,ny :PrenticeHall. Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010