managing diversity differently

UV0418

LEVERAGING DIFFERENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE:

MANAGING DIVERSITY DIFFERENTLY

For the past two decades, managing diversity initiatives in organizations have served to

alter the way we think about human talent in organizations. Business necessity, enlightenment

about differences, and moral fortitude have combined to push many organizations toward hiring

a diverse set of employees and toward seeking ways to include those employees in the culture,

structure, and fabric of the organization. This shift has had many profound and positive effects

on how business is conducted — including enlarging the pool of available, talented labor,

introducing new perspectives on doing business, and serving the social good, as people who

historically have been unfairly excluded from participating in higher management are able to

compete on more equitable terms.

However, nagging problems persist. Differences in treatment between so -called “diverse ”

managers (e.g., in the United States, ethnic minority group members, white women, individuals

from different cultures, gays and lesbians and other members of traditionally underrepresented

groups) and “dominant group ” managers (e.g., white, Anglo or Anglo -American, male,

heterosexual, and U.S. born) continue to shape work experience in most U.S. organizations. 1

This differential treatment manifests in firms in other countries as well, although the

characteristics of “diverse ” and “dominant ” group members may be different. The stories

emerging from recent discrimination lawsuits against Boeing, 2 Ford Motor Company, 3 and

Salomon Smith Barne y, Inc., 4 illustrate the worst outcomes of this differential treatment for

diverse organization members. In addition, resentment simmers among dominant managers, as

they view the influx of diverse managers as a threat to their own job security as well as to the

1 Numerous books and articles support this assertion. Comprehensive treatments include D. Thomas and J.

Gabarro, Breaking Through (Boston, HBS, 1999); E. Bell & S. Nkomo, Our Separate Ways (Boston: HBS, 2000);

and Out at Work: Building a Gay -Labor Alliance , (ed.) K. Krupat and P. McCreery, (University of Minnesota Press,

2001). 2 “Appeals Court Rejects Settlement by Boeing in Class -Action Case, ” Wall Street Journal , November 27,

2002. 3 “Judge Approves $10.5 Million Settlement in Ford Discrimination Case, ” Dow Jones Business News, March

14, 2002. 4 “$3 Million Awarded in Salomon Bias Case, ” New York Times , December 17, 2002.

This technical note was prepared by Associate Professor Martin Davidson, Darden Graduate School of Business

Administration. Copyright ♥ 2002 by the University of Virginia Darden School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA.

organizational status quo. And while many organizations are reaping modest gains from their

newfound diversity, it remains extremely difficult to demonstrate empirically the financial gain

that results from increasing the diversity of the workforce. 5 More often than not, diversity costs

money and yields relatively little financial reward.

In this note, I explore the proposition that the apparent vulnerability of the premise that

“diversity is good for business ” is a function of individuals ’ and organizations ’ inability to fully

capitalize on the impact diversity can have on broad organizational functioning. In an attempt to

bridge this gap, I propose a new diversity model that focuses on what needs to be in place in

order to leverage difference, not merely tolerate, appreciate, or celebrate it .

Leveraging Difference

Leveraging difference is the capacity to use people ’s distinctive competencies and

approaches to the business as vehicles by which to transform business processes. The purpose of

transforming those processes is to create sustainable competitive advantage for the firm. The

leveraging difference approach to engaging diversity differs from the more traditional managing

difference approaches in a number of significant ways. Table 1 illustrates the key differences.

Managing Difference Leveraging Difference

Leadership Diversity is a problem to be Difference is an opportunity to

Perspective solved be capitalized upon

Strategic Focus Focus on effective human Focus on encouraging

resource management sustainable competitive

advantage for the enterprise

Scope of Difference Narrow scope, usually on Broader scope on social -

Engaged salient social -identity identity differences, cognitive

differences diversity, psychological

diversity, etc.

Long -Term Impact of Powerful learning for some Individual learning and

Change Process individuals; staffing changes;

Increase in representation in Positions organization to

staffing of targeted differences engage and leverage other

differences in the future

TABLE 1: Distinguishing Between Managing Difference and Leveraging Difference

5 There are some noteworthy exceptions to this. For example, see Orlando Richard, “Racial Diversity, Business

Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource -Based View, ” Academy of Management Journal 43(2) (2000): 164 -

177; and Peter Wright, Stephen P. Ferris, and colleagues, "Competitiveness Through Management of Diversity:

Effects on Stock Price Valuation," Academy of Management Journal 38(1) (1995): 272 -287. -3- UV0418

First , leaders who only manage difference are stuck in a self -limiting mindset. To them,

differences among employees create problems that must be solved. Leaders who leverage

difference take a fresh stance. They explore and exploit, rather than squelch, the conflicts that

arise from diversity because they know that in discomfort and disagreement lie opportunities for

innovation. For instance, the manager of a business unit in a mining company purposefully

shuffled his leadership team to include a contentious and culturally diverse set of managers. He

believed that their different perspectives, well -managed, would drive success. The unit ’s record -

setting performance over the next two years proved him right.

The second, and perhaps most critical, difference between the two is that managing

difference approaches place the strategic focus solely on managing human resource aspects of

the firm. Managing difference initiatives are deeply rooted in staffing attempts to “put the right

people on the bus ” at all levels of the organization, as well as to insure that the organization is

operating fairly and equitably with regard to employees. With the leveraging difference

approach, firms place their strategic focus on encouraging sustainable competitive advantage for

the enterprise in broader ways. This includes the HR focus of the managing difference approach,

but it also means that leveraging difference is integral to all activities and processes that build

sustainable competitive advantage: innovation, operational design, building learning cultures,

managing customer interfaces, encouraging effective team functioning, and managing change.

A third important differentiator between the two approaches is in the scope of differences

that are engaged. A hallmark of traditional managing difference initiat ives is a focus on a

specific and consistent set of dimensions of differences (usually gender, race, sexual orientation,

able -bodiedness, or religious affiliation, for example). The leveraging difference approach

allows for a focus on these important “surface ” diversity dimensions, but it also opens the way

for exploration of other dimensions of diversity that are less apparent, yet often critical, for

business effectiveness. Examples include cognitive diversity, problem -solving style diversity,

emotional intelligence differences, and values diversity, to name but a few.

Finally, each of the two approaches has different long -term implications for change in the

organization. Managing difference approaches, when carried out effectively, can help some

individuals in a powerful way. People learn about how others are different and can often confront

misconceptions and fears about engaging different others. For some, this becomes a long -lasting

learning experience, for others a more transient set of insights. For the organization as a whole,

managing difference approaches are often effective in changing the demographic representation

in the workforce. A number of organizations have increased their representation of ethnic

minorities and white women as a result of focused, managing difference initiatives.

Leveraging difference initiatives, in contrast, may also produce these results at the

individual and organizational level, but they also produce another critical outcome. Leveraging

difference approaches also position the organization to capitalize on other differences that may

emerge as the competitive environment changes. For example, national culture differences were

much less relevant to U.S. businesses 30 years ago when the economic focus was more heavily

domestic. But with increasing global competition and opportunity, cultural differences now -4- UV0418

matter a great deal more. Companies that learned how to capitalize on differences that were

relevant in 1970 (e.g., gender and race) can now apply some of those lessons as they are

confronted with cross -national differences.

How to Leverage Difference: The Overview

A more compre -

hensive way of capturing Sub -optimal utilization of the dyn amic s of dive rsity in See difference is corrected

organization s is depicted in Difference when leaders and Step 1 organizations … Figure 1. In this view, the

most important outco me of

diversity is how

Leverage Understand differences, wh ateve r they Difference Difference may be, are leveraged to

create sustai n-able

competitive advantage.

However, tha t difference Value Step 2 Step 3 ca nno t be leve raged Difference

opti mall y unless a series of

antecedent s are in place.

First, organi zation s and FIGURE 1: Antecedents of Leveraging Difference

individ uals in the

organization mu st be able

to see differenc e. Wh ile some differen ces such as gender or race are ea sily obse rvab le, othe r r elevant

differences, such as ways of thinking, are not as visible. Once the diffe rence is seen, data must be

gat hered ab out the dif ference to preven t the oversi mpli fication of its valu e. In essence, individ uals

and organization s mu st understand difference . If difference is underst ood, then ind ividuals and

organizations can value the diffe rence. Val uing diff erence is the wil lingness and capac ity to engage

in sustained relationship over time acr oss the bo und ary of differe nce . If the se antece dents are in

place, the orga nizatio ns and the individual are in a positi on to effecti ve ly leverage dif ferenc e for the

be tterment of the organiz ation.

Seeing Difference

Seeing difference is the capacity to notice and attend to differences at a perceptual level.

While many business -relevant differences are obvious, many are not. Differences in how people

solve problems, parse time, or manage ambiguity are not easily seen with casual observation.

Yet such differences often factor powerfully into performance. The highly creative manager

who thinks associatively (or “out of the box ”) may spend a good deal of time practicing being

more linear and logical in her conservative management team. As a result, her creativity is not

brought to the table, and challenging problems may not be addressed adequately by the team. -5- UV0418

Moreover, the individual is spending a good deal of energy managing how she is perceived by

others and not attending to the work at hand. In order for the management team to take full

advantage of this manager ’s skill and expertise, they must know she has it. Unfortunately, there

are often cognitive, emotional, visceral, and political barriers to seeing important differences.

Differences escape perception when our world view constrains our capacity to see. In a

classic U.S. novel of the 1950s, Ralph Ellison describes the “invisible man ” as someone who is

present and active in the world, but simply ignored by virtue of the cultural, social, and political

norms of the da y. Ellison was describing the experience of African Americans in the United

States at the time, but the metaphor is also applicable to the woman in the boardroom whose idea

is ignored until a male colleague says the same thing and is applauded for his insight. Often, the

people in the room have no awareness that the woman ever made the point. They will earnestly

claim not to remember her voice or her point. T hey are often not being duplicitous — they simply

do not perceive the woman as a participant in the conversation. She is invisible.

Both individuals and organizations are susceptible to “difference blindness, ” but there are

techniques that help in overcoming the shortfall.

Practices that Encourage Ind ividuals to See Difference

Adopt a “difference matters ” stance. In order to increase the capacity to see difference,

individuals and organizations must “widen ” their perceptual lens when attending to difference.

There are a number of techniques that enable individuals and organizations to see difference

more clearly. Two key approaches help individuals see difference. First, one may attend to

one ’s attitude or stance regarding difference. The capacity to see difference is enhanced when

one adopts the position that relevant differences are ubiquitous and thus potentially relevant in

any relationship. Here, it is assumed that any person one meets is unlike oneself in potentially

important ways. Working to understand how those differences matter is under the purview of

understanding difference. For the purposes of seeing, one need only decide to pay attention to

“that which is not me. ” Such a stance is in direct opposition to approaches that seek to

homogenize people. A classic example of this approach is the credo that “I don ’t even see your

[color/sex/cultural difference]. ” This statement reflects an ethos not to attend to differences that

do indeed exist. (Otherwise, why bother identifying the difference that supposedly makes no

difference?) Unlike the “blindness ” stance, a “seeing ” stance holds that “every person is

different from me. I wonder what makes her or him distinct from me. ”

Attend to points of conflict. A second approach to individual seeing is to actively reduce

barriers that prevent seeing. For example, paying attention to points of tension and conflict —

wherever and whenever they emerge — can be helpful. In many organizations, conflict is

something to be prevented or at least resolved quickly. But conflict emerges when differences of

perspective are ascendant. Therefore, where there is a fight, there is an opportunity to see

difference when it may not have been easily apparent. An African -American male manager was

surprised when he was called into his manager ’s office and told of a complaint by a white female -6- UV0418

colleague that he had touched her inappropriately. He was bewildered by the accusation and

searched his memory to recall what he might have done. He was told that a touch on his

colleague ’s shoulder was the precipitating incident and with that, he became angry. The touch

was innocent and now he stood accused and stigmatized. When the two had a chance to speak

directly to one another, each had a perceptual lens widened. He learned that his colleague was a

survivor of sexual assault and that her tolerance for uninvited touch by strange men (they had

only been working together 3 weeks at the time) was very limited. She learned that in U.S.

organizations, it can be especially stigmatizing for African -American men to be accused of

inappropriate advances toward white women. Each acknowledged that, had their awareness of

the differences between them been keener, both would have behaved differently.

Observe silence. A related tactic for reducing barriers to seeing at the individual level is

to observe silences. That is, when in a setting in which someone is not speaking or not

articulating a perspective, learn what is not being said. Such silence is often acquiescence in the

presence of conflicting ideas or perspective, and revealing what is not being said can often

illuminate difference. Moreover, silence may be an indication of an alternative cultural stance in

which the unsolicited expression of opinion would be seen as rude. Pay attention to who is being

silent. Is there something different about that person that is apparent above and beyond the fact

that he or she may be withholding an opinion?

Practices that Encourage Organizations to See Difference

Attend to intergroup tensions. Organizations can also build competency in seeing

difference rather than glossing over it. Two ways of doing so are: (1) paying attention to points

of intergroup and interdepartmental tension; and (2) altering climates that encourage hiding and

secrecy. Analogous to the attending to conflict at the individual and interpersonal level,

organizations also reveal significant difference at points of intergroup tension. When

manufacturing and sales are constantly at odds and exhibiting divisive behaviors, an opportunity

for seeing relevant difference may be present. In one organization, there was constant tension

between two business units. As it turned out, a primary cause of the conflict was that one unit

actively diversified its leadership team by race and gender while the other unit chose to maintain

a homogeneous leadership team. The conflicts that emerged were directly linked to group -based,

diversity loyalties of the respective leadership teams.

Reduce climates of secrecy. Altering climates of fear and secrecy are relevant to

organizational seeing — many controversial differences are hidden when organization members

believe it is risky to reveal them. In many organizations, intolerance and ignorance make

revealing diversity in sexual orientation dangerous to the well -being of an individual who is not

heterosexual. Therefore, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people often mask their sexual orientation,

even though perspectives derived from their experiences may be extremely important to the

performance of the organization. Similarly, socio -economic status is often hidden if one does

not feel congruent with the environment in which she or he is working. For example, people in

elite educational institutions often hide their family SES if it is lower class for fear of being seen -7- UV0418

as “less than ” their colleagues from more wealthy families and thus being eliminated from

advancement possibilities. Organizations that can eliminate inequitable consequences for

revealing difference can enhance the extent to which those differences may be revealed.

Understanding Difference

Once difference is seen, building a knowledge base about difference is the next step

along the path to leveraging difference effectively. As differences appear, it is incumbent upon

the individual and the organization to cultivate a stance of inquisitiveness or curiosity, utilize

questioning and listening skills, and cultivate any other techniques that serve to compile

information about the dimension of difference in question

All too often, leaders and organizations see difference and proceed to attempt to leverage

it. For example, in the 1970s, white women, traditionally underrepresented in the management

ranks, were developed and recruited to many organizations. However, these organizations often

experienced a series of problems related to this increase in diversity because business leadership

had failed to think strategically about why women in the workforce were important to the

business. This lack of thoughtfulness produced two fundamental problems in the face of

increased diversity. First, the women who entered the organization were subjected to

professional and personal hardships that resulted from the organization ’s lack of preparedness in

tackling the overt and subtle sexism that already existed in their systems. Second, all

organization members, old and new, were often left to figure out why this new influx of talent

would add value above and beyond the people already in the organization. In the absence of a

clear articulation of this rationale, fantasies arose about how women were displacing men and

how they were unqualified to do so.

Xerox CEO Joe Wilson and President Peter McColough saw the inclusion of blacks at

Xerox in 1968 as the right thing to do — a laudable motivation given the civil rights era

dynamics. In an open letter to the Xerox Corporation, they wrote:

We at Xerox are among those who are compelled to accept the indictment: “What

white Americans have never fully understood — and what the Negro can never

forget — is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. ” White

institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.

We, like all other Americans, share the responsibility for a color -divided nation;

and in all honesty, we need not look beyond our own doorstep to find out why. 6

But the Xerox leadership, like many of their contemporaries, never articulated what being

black added to making Xerox a more effective firm. Indeed, it was left to their new employees

to demonstrate how the collective cultural norms of blacks in the United States created a core

6 Raymond Friedman, “Black Caucus Groups at Xerox Corporation (A), ” HBS 9 -491 -047. -8- UV0418

competence in teamwork and mutual support and how this competence could be utilized to

Xerox ’s (and the African -America employees ’) benefit.

The problem is that, in the absence of understanding the nature of a difference, one can

only engage simple stereotypes — a category of ethnicity or gender or sexual orientation — and

that stereotype is often inaccurate by virtue of its oversimplification. In order to increase the

capacity to leverage difference effectively, perceptions of difference must be enhanced with data

about the difference.

Practices that Encourage Individuals and Organizations to Understand Difference

Be curious. As was the case in building competency to see difference, one ’s stance or

approach matters in building competency to understand difference. Here, learning the habit of

being curious provides a helpful first step in being able to gather information about difference. At

the individual level, it is often as simple as cultivating a habit of asking people (especially people

different from oneself) to talk about the mselves. Being curious may not co me naturally — nor be

comfortable for some people — but it is an acquired skill and most can cultivate it.

Cultivate sources of information about difference. Understanding difference becomes

easier for both individuals and organizations that engage in several practices. First, cultivate

sources of information about specific differences. These may come in the form of books and

magazines, films, and other cultural artifacts. In addition people may serve as sources of data

about difference. If individual and organizations can include people who are different in their

networks and inner circles, this creates a ripe opportunity to be exposed to a variety of differing

perspectives that may contribute to a “database ” of knowledge about difference.

Build skill in acquiring difference data. Building this database is facilitated by a few

other practices. For example, listening to information from multiple sources can help. Whether

one is practicing interpersonal listening skills or an organization is being responsive to different

interest groups within the organization, listening creates data. Similarly, asking questions also

produces relevant information critical for understanding difference. Individuals can adopt a

stance of curiosity and inquisitiveness as a way of interacting in relationships across difference.

Organizations can utilize research tools such as surveys to ask relevant questions to

organizatio n members and parties outside the boundaries of the organization. In addition,

learning and sharing personal stories about the nature and source of one ’s own differences can

often be a catalyst for eliciting such stories and information from those who are different.

Include people who are different into the inner circle/network. Individuals and

organizations can proactively include people of dif fering perspectives into the parts of the network

that matter most. At the individual level, this could mean inviting a diverse set of individuals into

the social and political arenas in which real work is accomplished. On a more personal level, it

may mean seeking out friendships with diverse people, creating social events that include diverse

people, or even undertaking religious or spiritual worship. One Anglo -American manager moved -9- UV0418

himself and his family fro m their predo minantly Anglo -American suburban neighborhood into a

colleague ’s urban Hispanic community as a means of broadening his inner circle (the move would

have even more powerful consequences, as will be discussed below).

Organizationally, inclusion of diverse people is most effective when those individuals are

incorporated in systematic ways into important (and appropriate) business and decision -making

processes in the organization. One Fortune 500 corporation insisted on staffing its board with

particular proportions of whites, African Americans, white women, and non -U.S. members. The

organization argued that they were not concerned about quotas and tokenism because there were

more than enough highly qualified individuals of each respective background to serve. Rather,

they argued that they were concerned about composing the board in a way they felt would

benefit the operation of the corporation.

Valuing Difference

But the compilation of data about a given difference, while helpful, is not sufficient to

position the organization to leverage the difference effectively. The third antecedent to

leveraging is valuing the difference , the capacity for individuals and organizations to be

transformed by the difference. Valuing difference results from sustained engagement with

difference in ways that promote fundamental change in the person or in the organization. At the

individual level, valuing difference is best illustrated in the development of a long -term

relationship across difference. In such relationships, an individual often learns a great deal about

the other ’s difference, comes to care about issues the other cares about, and finds oneself

personally offended when people derogate the members of the other ’s group, etc. The

organizational analogue is the successful alliances or partnership across difference in which two

firms interact as partners and collaborators — and begin to share the best practices, processes, and

values of each with the other.

Practices that Encourag e Individual Valuing of Difference

Reduce excessive carefulness in relationships. Individuals can begin to value difference

by engaging three basic practices once a relationship across difference is sought. First, one must

work to lower levels of unnecessary carefulness when dealing with difference. Often, we are

conservative and extra careful not to do or say anything that would be offensive to the other

person or that would demonstrate our ignorance of the other ’s difference. In fact, the very nature

of engaging what is different from our norm means we will be ignorant and in learning mode. At

times, we will make mistakes, but it is important to thoughtfully take risks.

Be persistent amidst conflict. A relat ed practice is the willingness to persist in the midst

of conflict and accompanying discomfort in the relationship. For many, conflict and the angry

feelings that can accompany it, is a signal to disengage from the relationship (often

permanently). Valuing difference requires that we do the opposite. Although we may need to -10 - UV0418

step back at times, it is critical to persist in working to deal with the conflict and, if necessary,

repair broken trust or hard feelings. The key takeaway is to remain persistent.

Incorporate new data. A third helpful practice is to incorporate new data drawn from the

relationship into your world view. In interpersonal relationships where the difference between

individuals is across lines of discrimination or oppression (e.g., indigenous groups and

settlers/invaders or racial groups in the United States), a person from the more powerful group is

often confronted with the legitimate grievances from the person in the less powerful group. The

common reaction from the first person is to discount the grievance, sometimes by saying it is

untrue, but more commonly by saying “It may have been true once, but no longer, ” or by saying

“My experience says that just doesn ’t happen everywhere. ” In contrast, a “valuing difference ”

question for the first person to consider is “suppose everything the second person said is true.

What would that mean about how I see the world? ” Such inquiry and thoughtfulness can be

helpful in bridging differences of opini on and emotion in more highly charged relationships.

Practices that Encourage Organizational Valuing of Difference

Reward and hold accountable for difference -related activities. Organization leaders and

policy makers can do a great deal to encourage valuing of difference within the system. For

example, the organization can reward behaviors and practices that link attention to difference to

business success. If people know that individual and organizational relationships across

difference are important, they will work to cultivate them. A corollary (often disregarded) is to

attach accountability to difference -related activities. If difference really is valued, people should

not only be rewarded for cultivating connections, but they should also be held accountable when

they do not.

Recruit and develop people who add diversity . A second set of practices focuses on

incorporating people who represent difference into the organization. By doing so, the

organization encourages the kind of sustained engagement across difference that characterizes

valuing difference. There are a number of recruitment and selection practices that help,

including recruiting from nontraditional labor markets and well -administered affirmative action

programs. There are also key developmental practices that maintain sustained presence of

diverse people in the organization, including the development, mentoring, and hence promotion

of diverse subordinates.

An overview of the practices associated with seeing, understanding, and leveraging

difference is included in Table 2 below. -11 - UV0418

The Path to Leveraging Difference — Myer Chemicals

The organization where the individuals actively practice seeing, understanding, and

valuing difference is best prepared to leverage difference. Many organizations, having worked

on this process, either by design or by trial -and -error, are reaping the benefits of diversity.

Key Individual Practices Key Organizational Practices

Seeing Adopt stance that relevant Attend to inter -group te nsion.

differences are ubiquitous. Reduce climate of secrecy.

Attend to points of conflict.

Observe silence.

Understanding Cultivate sources of information about difference

Build skill in acquiring the data. Acquire information via survey and

Listen. other data gathering.

Ask questions. Create and institutionalize inclusive

Learn and share your own structures.

story.

Include people who are different

in your inner circle/network.

Valuing Lower the levels of unnecessary Reward and hold accountable

carefulness when dealing with difference -related activities.

difference. Recruit and develop people who

be willing to persist in the midst add diversity to the organization.

of conflict and accompanying

discomfort.

Incorporate data into your

worldview.

TABLE 2: Summary of Practices for Enhancing Seeing, Understanding, and Valuing

Myer Chemicals 7 began its approach to difference by instituting diversity training in

response to dissatisfaction and the threat of lawsuits by female employees who felt victimized by

unfair treatment. The realization that a possible class -action suit was possible was shocking to

Myer ’s leadership. Until a local news story broke, detailing sustained harassment of women by

male plant workers, the leadership team had assumed that conditions within the plant in question

were fair and equitable and conducive to productivity.

7 Instit ution name is disguised.

-12 - UV0418

In an attempt to understand how these conditions could have emerged (and in an attempt

to stave off liability) the Myer ’s leadership team contracted with consultants to undergo training

on the experiences of women in the U.S. workplace. Impressed with the initial training, the

leadership team instituted mandatory training by the consulting group for all members of the

plant. This training process ebbed and flowed for over 10 years. Although there was some

enthusiasm for the training at the start, there was also substantial resistance from workers and

middle managers over the requirement to take sensitivity training courses. Nevertheless, the

training was well -received by several organization members.

As a result of the training, the subset of workers and managers who found the training

stimulating began to seek out other opportunities to engage these issues. The men reported

initiating conversations with female colleagues, friends, and partners about the issues of

treatment for women at Myer and in other companies. The women also began to talk more

openly about women ’s realities at work with each other as well as with male colleagues. Eight

months after the training started, several women established a women ’s network group,

sanctioned by Myer, for the purpose of professional development and advocacy for women in the

company. Over time, Myer became known as a preferred place of employment for women in

manufacturing industries. Myers ’s pool of trained labor increased and the overall quality of its

employees (as measured by test scores and industry experience) increased.

Myer ’s story is a common leveraging story among U.S. firms. Difference was

imperceptible until a crisis made it clear. At that point, opportunities for understanding the

difference were created using outside help, and over time, employees of Myer would say that

gender differences became valued in the organization as women became less objectified and more

visible a s skilled and included members of the organization. At that point, Myer established a clear

competitive advantage in attracting female plant workers, supervisors, and some middle managers,

because their reputation spread as a progressive corporation for women to work.

Though ubiquitous and ultimately encouraging, stories such as Myer ’s may be merely the

tip of the iceberg when it comes to the impact leveraging difference approaches may hav e. With

a strong foundation of seeing, understanding, and valuing difference, what other ways might

organizations leverage their differences?