Research paper on effectiveness of D&I training modules and recommendations on things to take care of when organizing diversity interventions in organization.

1. www.nationalhrd.org
ISSN - 0974 - 1739
1+5' 1HWZRUN -RXUQDOApril 2016 Volume9 Issue2
A Quarterly Publication by National HRD Network
Building
Diverse
Organisations
7 9 1DUHQGUDQ
$QLWD $UMXQGDV
9LYHN *DPEKLU DQG
6XPLW 0LWUD
0D[LQH :LOOLDPV
'HEDEUDW 0LVKUD
1LNKLO .ROXU DQG
'LYD $JJDUZDO
0HHQD 6 :LOVRQ DQG
$PLW + 'HVDL
5LFKD %DNVKL
DVKZDQW 0DKDGLN
'U 'HHSDN 'RJUD
0DQRM 9HUJKHVH
'U 6DXQGDUD 5DMHVK
9DVDQWKL 6ULQLYDVDQ
'U 9LUHQGUD 3 6LQJK
+LPDQVKX 6D[HQD
'KUXY /DNUD
0RKDPPHG $VLI ,TEDO
$EKLMLW %KDGXUL
-XGKDMLW 'DV
6 9 1DWKDQ
.DWDULQD .DUDOLF¶
1LUPDOD 0HQRQ
$PULW -DPL
$QXS . 6LQJK

2. April | 2016 NHRD Network Journal 119
EFFECTIVENESS OF DIVERSITY TRAININGS:
IS IT REALLY WORTH IT?
About the Author
M.A. Psychology, Learning Development
Leader India, Middle East and Africa, Procter Gamble
learning solutions from student organisations and training agencies
to PG sales and corporate teams. She holds a Master degree in
Psychology from University of Zagreb, Croatia. Her experiences
with training across countries make her very passionate about
driving diversity initiatives.
trainings?
Can an organisation really benefit
from diversity training or is it only a
Learning Development-Line HR illusion
and a checklist item to be ‘ticked off’?
Answer to this question will most probably
depend on how much one believes that
behaviours related to understanding
diversity can be trained. Even for the most
optimistic practitioners, it is important to
stay grounded – and understand what
diversity training can and cannot do. This
article will explain the theory on attitudes
and behaviours related to diversity at a
workplace and gives practical implications
for making diversity trainings more
effective.
Based on a well-known framework, the
so-called ABC attitude model (Rosenberg
Abstract
This article argues that trainings have on the diversity practice in the
organisations - mostly on the and , but not as much on changing
attitudes. Further, it suggests that diversity trainings are when using
internal senior leaders as trainers, when content has and when
participants are . Diversity practitioners need to be clear on
the success of an intervention and be aware of the trap of reported conscious or
socially desirable attitudes. If diversity effectiveness is measured by subjective responses, one
should be aware that employees, depending whether they belong to a minority or majority,
might be judging it . Finally, the most effective training interventions will be
paired up with the overall organisational diversity and inclusion practices like leadership
, and at the workplace.

3. 120 April | 2016 NHRD Network Journal
Hovland, 1960), attitudes have three main
components:
a) or related to emotions and
motivation,
b) or related to actions one
takes and
c) or related to knowledge and
skills person have towards the object of
the attitude.
Furthermore, it is important to understand
the construct of attitudes – more precisely,
its and parts. Recent
theory has pointed out that attitudes have
two layers: explicit or visible, conscious
(or sometimes even socially desirable)
layer toward a target object and implicit
component that one might not be able
to report about. are
unconscious evaluations caused by various
Greenwald
Banaji, 1995) and can be .
Some of the causes of implicit components
might be general positive feelings towards
the object as a result of:
– conditioning during socialisation;
– halo-effect (when object has otherwise
irrelevant characteristic that is
favourable) (Thorndike, 1920)
– favouring object because it is similar to
oneself (implicit egotism) (Nuttin, 1985)
– being formed by the culture one belongs
to (Fazio Olson, 2002).
Additionally, let us acknowledge that
human behaviour is
and in its nature is everything but linear.
No behavioural research model can predict
100% of variance (and every reported
metric would have min 3% or 5% margin
for predictability or measurement error).
After taking into consideration the above
theory on attitudes, we should also
be aware that one cannot guarantee a
Figure 1 summarises all the different
of an employee who sits in your diversity
training class.
Diversity trainings seem to have become
one of those organisational myths –
everyone wants to do it, although most
of us are not really sure how to go about
it. The few more courageous among us
might even debate whether if it is
of time and resources?
Studies have agreed that the effectiveness
can be looked at in three different ways
with regards to its outcomes:
– doesitchangeknowledge(doemployees
know about it?)
– skills (do employees know how?)
– and/or attitudes (do employees want
to?)
The following study have been based
on post the 1960's which
have been reviewed on the topic of
effectiveness of diversity trainings on

4. April | 2016 NHRD Network Journal 121
participant’s attitudes (Kalinoski et al, 2013)
and personal experiences in conducting
diversity trainings. The results of this
have been in its
conclusion about effectiveness, but with
certain conditions on when training can
Research so far has been focused on
evaluating the effectiveness of diversity
trainings on explicit parts of attitudes
related to skills and knowledge (mostly via
self- assessments which can be meditated
by socially-desirable answers) vs implicit
attitudes and overall affective parts.
Studies have confirmed that diversity
trainings might have
versus affective-based outcomes (Kalinoski
et al, 2013).
However, the final conclusion is that
diversity training plays an indirect role
especially the , which can
to hire more minority representatives,
promote them more frequently (while
being aware of the biases that might
influence the process), avoid micro-
inequities which may be at play on a day-
to-day basis and nurturing the inclusive
culture in the organisations.
InhisGoogleVenturestalk*onUnconscious
Bias, Brian Welle, Organisational
Psychologist and Google People Analytics
Director points out that “You Cannot
Improve What You Can’t Measure”. Yet,
organisations
of their diversity training
initiatives and when they do, usually it
is at the reaction level (‘How did you like
the training/the trainer?’) vs in-depth
behavioural (‘What has changed in the
organisation because of this training?’).
Although research has proved that
diversity training will have more effect on
cognitive-based and skill-based outcomes
(Kalinoski et al, 2013), diversity related skills
and knowledge are
Theory says that the effect of diversity
interventions might be moderated by
the
threat, meaning the thought process about
the topics of discussion in the class, how
the majority might feel about certain
characteristics a minority representative
or his/her group possesses and how it
fits into his/her self-perception. The
content of diversity trainings can cue
social categorisation (implicit associations
or herself with) which in turn can lead
to intergroup biases when the identity
threat is high (Kalinoski et al, 2013). This
means that it is very important how the
diversity training content is delivered and
by
participants.
It is important for practitioners to
understand how participants construe
diversity: research shows that individuals
perceive diversity as both
(objective
inclusion) as well as
in the group or the perception
of existing micro-inequities they might
be subjected to (psychological inclusion).
Participants belonging to majority group
will rate diversity high even if only
numerical representation is present,
however minority participants will need
both numbers and social acceptance
to evaluate diversity as high (Chen
Hamilton, 2015).
Another aspect of measuring effectiveness
warns us about the starting point in the
amount of change we are trying to evaluate.
If participants have access or exposure to
the training content or the topic before
the intervention, they might come to the
training with already positive or expressing
social desirable attitudes - in that case the
intervention effectiveness on how much
of the attitude change has happened will
bound to be small (Kalinoski et al, 2013).

5. 122 April | 2016 NHRD Network Journal
Trainings are designed as self-study and
face-to-face and we consistently look for
opportunities to improve the design and
its effectiveness.
The most recent systemic diversity training
intervention in the company’s Product
Supply organisation was a workshop on
understanding and leveraging different
working styles. The content was designed
to have a combination of (so
called ‘cultural game’, pls refer to the
Appendix 1.), discussions and theory. We
ran 10 sessions across a period of 2 years
reaching 250 employees and leveraging
business leaders and middle managers
as trainers.
We tracked two types of results –a) post-
workshop evaluation including reaction
and learning effectiveness/job impact level
(Table 2.) b) annual organisational climate
survey (Table 2.).
Both types of results have
on the organisation when
compared to the other classroom sessions
we ran in the same period. Reported overall
summary workshop score is 4.01, and the
other scores range from 3.51 (Support
Tools) to 4.22 (Instructor’s Evaluation).
Finally, we should be aware that
, the
‘smell of the place’ and should be taken
into consideration. Considering this, the
real measure of the effectiveness would be
how all employees feel about the diversity
going beyond self-report (explicit attitude),
but rather via focus-groups or structured
interviews where employees would
be more comfortable to avoid socially
desirable answers. Practitioners might
want to separately account for presence
of psychological inclusion with minority
employees.
Diversity Inclusion in PG helps us
understand our customers better and
drive collaboration with our employees;
hence, it is a deliberate choice to nurture an
organisation that will enable everyone to
perform at their peak. Indian organisation
went through its own DI journey from
topline events like celebrating Women’s
Day to designing interventions which talk
about all kinds of diversities to all levels
of employees. Our employees receive
different types of diversity trainings from
new-hire levels to the top management.
*
Date N
Summary
Score
Business
Results
Course-
ware
Learning
Environ-
ment
Instru-
ctor
Job
Impact
Learning
Effective-
ness
Return
on
Invest-
ment
Support
Tools
27-Aug-13 17 4.5 4.9 4.9 n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.1 4.3
20-Dec-13 14 3.97 3.86 4.22 n/a 4.57 4.07 3.86 3.79 3.47
30-Jan-14 16 4.01 4.13 4.22 4.17 4.19 3.94 3.81 4.19 3.53
5-Mar-14 16 4.2 3.93 4.21 4.16 4.52 4.06 4.07 3.94 3.67
24-Mar-14 12 3.96 3.38 4.1 3.65 4.26 4.15 4 3.54 3.28
2-Apr-14 12 3.66 3.73 3.85 3.71 3.59 3.5 3.08 3.91 3.76
5-Jun-14 7 4.2 3.86 4.5 4.71 4.7 4.5 4.71 4.17 3.32
19-Jun-14 9 4.13 3.78 4.38 4.18 4.3 4.33 4.22 3.78 3.61
6-Aug-14 5 4.01 4 4.1 4.4 4.28 4.2 4 4 3.08
2-Feb-15 12 3.46 3.58 3.46 3.75 3.58 3.5 3.45 3.42 3.06
120 4.01 3.92 4.19 4.09 4.22 4.03 3.91 3.88 3.51
*on a 1-5 scale, where 1 is less favourable and 5 is more favourable

6. April | 2016 NHRD Network Journal 123
awareness or to give guidelines on how
to go about enhancing skills).
Based on the cumulative experience of the
PG team over the last several years of
conducting diversity trainings, these are
the tips on what to pay attention to when
organising diversity training:
1. :
like with every learning solution,
expecting a session to be a remedy
for all the organisational issues is
unrealistic. Successful sessions are
those targeted on a clear learning goal
(which is common and relevant to the
participants).
2.
– e.g. do not make
genderdiversitysessionsonlyforfemale
employees. This will eventually create
distrust and perception of favoritism
in the organisation towards addressed
population and make the minority
group feel even more uncomfortable.
3. (QUROO WKH OHDGHUVKLS – both the research
and the experience show that leadership
involvement is critical. However, one
should be careful that leadership is not
only there to support, but also to role
model the behaviours or culture you are
trying to change. Practitioners should
make sure the message track is included
in organisational addresses and that
leaders develop personal stories to
share on the topic besides just being
trainers in the formal workshops.
Average scores in PG for training
effectiveness metrics range from 3.8-5,
hence this workshop is in the middle range
on how it was evaluated by participants.
Whenlookingintotheannualorganisational
climate survey (diversity indicators –
Table 2.), average diversity results
in the sites who
have not implemented the intervention
(difference of 8 points, M(89) vs M(81)).
These results support the hypothesis that
the on the
increase of the self-reported diversity
scores.
The company is globally now moving
into sensitising senior managers about
and consequences
the unconscious bias might have on their
day-to-day dealings with the employees
and their engagement and business results
delivery. PG has engaged an external
of the internal trainers who are both HR
and business leaders and the strategy is to
drive it from the top and eventually cover
the broader organisation. This course has
high amount of active learning content
design (35% of theory presentation, 25%
of discussion, 15% of team work and 25%
Diversity trainings can fall into two broader
categories: to disseminate information and
to create behavioural change (to create
**
Period Scores of organisations
which received training
Scores of organisations which
did not receive training
Before the training
intervention (Mar, 2013)
88.5 89
After the training
intervention (Mar, 2015)
89 81

7. 124 April | 2016 NHRD Network Journal
4. –
what do employees already know
or feel before the diversity training
intervention? How do they perceive
why they are in the training and what
their leaders feel about it? Is it a Human
Resources driven exercise and what is
the perception of other stakeholders’
roles? If participants feel that stakes
are high and the training is important,
they will be more motivated to change
I see training and education as an integral part of the change process but it is only
one of the several levers that must be moved to drive organisational culture change.
Expecting training alone to deliver results is to ignore the complexity of the process.
It would be pretty much like examining only your liver when there is a medical
the heart and pancreas and respiratory systems are also working well, the problem
will continue. Similarly, training effectiveness cannot be assessed in isolation. Training
effectiveness can be seen only if other dimensions in the eco-system are also enabling
it – policies, practices, mindsets etc.
Having said that, training is vital in helping employees appreciate the value of
diversity and inclusion. People will not change if they don't fully understand why
they should and workshops are great places to have that dialogue. Inclusion is not
just about intellectual appreciation alone but about accepting it at an emotional
level as well. Candid conversations in classes are powerful as inclusion is about the
nature of relationships and honest conversations help us explore biases and push
back on assumptions.
However, in a world that is so caught up on measuring everything, it is hard to build
is inclusion an end in itself. New perspectives, innovation, better engagement and
higher productivity are all by-products of efforts in this area and these don't happen
in a hurry. And this is the inherent danger – when results are not obvious, it is all
too easy to give up as yet another “extra-curricular” initiative that failed. And, here
is where leadership matters. It is only when leaders stay focused and consistent in
their messaging and continue to invest will results actually begin to show!
*Nirmala Menon has spent 15 years in the Indian DI space, working for 5 years as IBM’s
Diversity Leader before she founded her own consulting company Interweave consulting in 2006.
their attitudes including the affective
component. (Kalinoski et al, 2013).
5. ,QFOXGH DFWLYH FRQWHQW - diversity
training that provides opportunity for
social interaction will have stronger
effects on changing attitudes than
the training which is only a one-way
presentation. In other words – do not
makeitjustaboutonewaypresentations
from the slides – practitioners should
Founder CEO of Interweave Consulting
Nirmala is a pioneer in professional diversity management
has over the last 8 years supported over a 120 marquee

8. April | 2016 NHRD Network Journal 125
(online
instrument to detect unconscious bias
towardsdifferentminoritygroupsbased
on reaction times on word-names/
images pairing, report with benchmark
results available immediately, by
Project Implicit, Harvard University):
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
selectatest.html
Unconscious Bias Facebook video
training modules (includes slides used
in the session): https://managingbias.
fb.com
of all employees.
My leadership personally demonstrates
valuing diversity and inclusion to improve
business results.
My work group has a climate in which
diverse perspectives are valued.
Someone like me can succeed at PG.
I feel personally connected to the people I
work with.
strive to include experiential active
content (refer to the examples in the
Appendix).
6. – diversity
trainings can cue social categorisation
and if participant’s perception on the
reaction of the majority is negative,
training might even have the opposite
effects. Research says that social
interdependence might reduce the
potential prejudice and can benefit
affective based training outcomes.
Practitionersshouldincludetaskswhich
require such interaction and social
interdependence of participants while
solving them (refer to the examples in
the Appendix).
(the content was based
on cultural simulations from AIESEC,
the international student organisation
well known for building multicultural
sensitivity among its members):
The Chipmunks and
the Meerkats Simulation flow.docx
(adapted from Lake
Land College, by Tira J. Young):
Classroom_Activity_
Privilege_Walk.pdf
References:
1. Chen, J.M., Hamilton, D.L., (2015), Understanding Diversity: The Importance of Social Acceptance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin: 4(14), 586-598.
2. Fazio, R., Olson, M. (2002), Implicit measures in social cognition research: their meaning and use.Annual Review of Psychology:
54, 297-327.
3. Greenwald, A.G., Banaji, M.R. (1995), Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem and stereotypes. Psychological Review:
102(1), 4-27.
4. Kalinoski, Z.T., Steele-Johnson, D., Peyton, E.J., Leas, K.A., Steinke, J., Bowling, N.A. (2013), A meta-analytic evaluation of
diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organisational Behaviour: 34, 1076-1104.
5. Nuttin, J.M. (1985), Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name-letter effect. European Journal of Social Psychology:
15(3), 353-361.
6. Rosenberg, M.J., Hovland, C.I. (1960), Attitude Organisation and
Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components. New Haven: Yale University Press.
7. Thorndike, E.L. (1920), A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology: 4(1), 25-29.
8. Welle, B. (2014). https://library.gv.com/unconscious-bias-at-work-22e698e9b2d#.dyng3ojue , Google
Ventures talk, 25th Sept, 2014.