WORKSPAN DAILY |
Analyzing the Most Effective Methods of Diversity Training
SDI Productions / iStock
Editor’s
Note: WorldatWork, in
partnership with the Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa), is proud to announce a new Workspan
Daily series that will utilize research as evidence to inform decision-making
for the benefit of our readers and to encourage further discourse on topics
vital to the total rewards profession. This series will present scientifically
sound research on topics that rewards practitioners deal with as well as
informed opinions that, at times, may actually contradict what sound research
tells us.
Special thanks to Natasha Ouslis, director
and science translator at ScienceForWork, for her consultation and review of
this article.
Diversity (DEI) training has been defined
as “instructional programs
aimed at facilitating positive intergroup
interactions, reducing prejudice and discrimination, and enhancing the skills, knowledge
and motivation of participants to interact with diverse others.” Put
differently, it aims to reduce
people’s bias, prejudice
and discrimination against
others.
Training
can target different types of diversity, such as gender, race, ethnicity, demographic
background, ability, health status (i.e., disability) and sexual orientation.
It can be divided into awareness- and skill-based training. Awareness-based
training makes employees conscious of their biases, prejudices and cultural
assumptions with respect to minorities. This training often uses case studies
and experiential exercises. Skill-based training develops
employees’ proficiency in handling diversity in the workplace. Various tools are
used to improve employees’ interpretations of cross-cultural differences,
communication with people from different cultures and adaptability.
Researchers have grouped outcomes of
training into cognitive, behavioral and attitudinal learning, as well as on trainee reactions. In the case of diversity
training, cognitive learning
refers to the extent
to which trainees acquire knowledge about other cultures
and problems or issues among
different groups. Behavioral learning refers to the development of skills and behaviors. Attitudinal
learning refers to the development of trainees’ attitudes toward diversity.
The following is based on a CEBMa study published in August of 2019.
Is Diversity
Training Effective?
- In general, diversity training elicits strong emotional reactions, and most participants see the training as worthwhile.
A
recent meta-analysis indicates that diversity training elicits intense
emotional responses, and participants see the training as effective and
worthwhile, although there are drawbacks evident in some cases. Training
reaction is an antecedent of learning that leads to the desired behavior in the
short term. However, some people might like the training
for reasons that are not directly related
to its content (e.g., the trainers’
sense of humor), and as a result, their diversity-related attitudes and
behaviors will not change.
- Reactions to diversity training and attitudinal learning appear to decay, whereas cognitive knowledge is maintained over time.
A meta-analysis found that cognitive learning (e.g., knowledge about different cultures) persists in the long run. After training, cues in the workplace or elsewhere reinforce cognitive responses that trainees have learned. In contrast, studies have consistently shown that participants’ attitudes are less subject to change after training than cognitions and behaviors. Attitudes may gravitate back to the original ones after the diversity training ends if negative attitudes that a person had before the training are reinforced. In this sense, environmental prompts can even provoke “backfire effects” that reverse or slow skill development.
Context Influences Effectiveness
- Positive reactions to training are considerably stronger in an educational setting compared with an organizational setting.
A
possible explanation might be that employees in organizations see diversity
training as an “add-on” practice, something that “takes time away from work”
and that it is secondary to the purpose of the organization. Instead, diversity
training in an educational setting is usually part of the mission of such
institutions, so it might be perceived as an opportunity to learn about
diversity and prejudice and apply concepts through experiential learning.
- Training that is part of a larger diversity program tends to have better outcomes for both attitudes and behavior.
Companies rarely
make diversity training
part of a broader institutionalized effort. Yet integrated or embedded training can lead to strong behavioral
learning and moderately strong changes in attitudes. Employees may be more
motivated to learn when managers commit to diversity efforts above and beyond that of a single initiative. In addition, the components of the larger
program could strengthen one another.
- Training with mandatory attendance has stronger positive effects on behavioral learning, whereas voluntary attendance has stronger effects on reactions.
Attendance
requirements do not affect all outcomes, but mandatory diversity training was
found to have a moderate to strong effect on behavioral learning, whereas
participants’ reactions were considerably stronger when attendance was
voluntary. A possible explanation is that people who willingly take training
may already have an interest in the issue and are thus more likely to enjoy the
training. However, a voluntary approach seems not to lead to the strongest effects
in diversity training. One reason for this could be that under the voluntary scenario, people participating in training
already want to be there and are not necessarily the ones who would
benefit most from changes in cognitive, attitudinal, or behavioral outcomes.
In addition, a mandatory
attendance policy might signal that the organization is truly committed to
facilitating positive intergroup relationships, thus enhancing trainees’
motivation to learn.
Design Influences Effectiveness
- Diversity training has stronger positive effects when it provides longer and distributed opportunities to learn.
The advantage of longer training interventions does seem to transfer to more positive reactions and better diversity knowledge, attitudes and skills. It seems the longer participants spend together, the better they get along, which makes intergroup encounters comfortable and feel right. Training that provides (distributed) practice, yields better attitudinal outcomes. The finding that one-time practice fares worse than distributed learning was confirmed by a recent systematic review of studies in educational settings.
- Diversity training that provides greater opportunities for cooperative contact and social interaction within the training pool yields mixed findings.
Diversity training can either focus on one group (e.g. race) or target multiple groups (e.g. race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.). The group-specific approach (i.e. involving only one minority/majority group) has been criticized as leading to intergroup differentiation and polarized attitudes. In several studies, training that targets multiple groups and where trainees interact with members of other groups has greater effects on attitudes compared with training that focuses on one group. Yet an equal number of studies found no differences.
- Diversity training has stronger positive effects when it emphasizes both awareness and behavioral components.
Most effective
types of diversity
training programs were primarily designed
to increase both diversity
awareness and skills. Awareness training
focuses on getting
participants to be more aware
of their own and other cultural assumptions, values and biases. Skill-building
(behavioral) training educates participants on monitoring their own actions and
appropriate responses to specific differences, such as identifying and
overcoming interracial communication barriers. Overall, several studies show
that combining both awareness and behavioral components enables people to better
understand their behavior.
- Diversity training that combines multiple instructional methods does not seem to have stronger effects.
Diversity
training can use several different instructional methods or just one. It is
reasonable to assume that training that “touches all the bases,” combining
multiple methods (e.g., lectures, simulation exercises, group activities and
discussions, etc.) leads to better outcomes. However, studies find this has an effect only on how much people
like training and it does not
affect cognitive, attitudinal or behavioral learning. Active methods
and face-to-face methods seem to lead to more positive attitudes than
passive ones and online training.
- Diversity training that focuses on one single aspect of demographic diversity has a stronger positive effect than aiming at multiple aspects.
While focusing on multiple aspects of diversity training (e.g., generic diversity training, multicultural or sexual harassment) yielded moderate effects on cognitive learning, it was found that dealing with one aspect of demographic diversity (e.g., race) at a time leads to considerably stronger effects on cognitive learning. However, it should be noted that there is a lack of empirically validated research studies that focus on disability. Therefore, it is possible that the evidence for diversity-specific interventions may be missing.
Trainee and Trainer Characteristics Influence Effectiveness
- A larger proportion of women in the training group leads to stronger reactions, whereas a more diverse training group might have greater effects on cognitive learning.
Since
women have a history of experiencing discrimination, the finding that they tend
to be more receptive and welcoming of diversity training makes sense. Findings regarding the race composition of the training pool are, however, mixed.
- Characteristics of the trainer affects outcomes at the effective and cognitive levels.
It
was found that trainees’ motivation is higher and effects on attitudes are
stronger when a direct manager/supervisor delivers the training, as opposed to
an internal trainer belonging to a minority group, a diversity and inclusion
manager, or by an HR generalist. However, it was also found that cognitive
learning was more affected when the trainer belonged to a minority group.
- Studies on the effects of de-biasing training are almost absent.
Simply being aware that human judgment
is subject to cognitive biases does not prevent them from
occurring. Yet studies on the effect of de-biasing training are scarce. A
recent study found that a single training intervention (i.e., playing
a computer game or watching
an instructional video)
has sparked de-biasing effects that persist across
a variety of contexts affected
by the same bias (e.g.,
blind spot bias,
confirmation bias,
fundamental attribution error, anchoring, social projection and representativeness).
Here,
games that incorporated personalized feedback and practice yielded the
strongest effect. This type of simple intervention can be used alongside
improved incentives, information presentation, and nudges to reduce costly
errors associated with biased judgments and decisions. It should be noted, however,
that no single study can be considered strong evidence — it is merely indicative.
About the Authors
Robert J. Greene is the CEO of Reward Systems Inc.
Eric Barends is managing director at the Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa).