Focusing on communication strategy to enhance diversity climates

The Authors

Vickie Cox Edmondson, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Gouri Gupte, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Rexford H. Draman, University of Texas at Brownsville, Fort Brown, Texas, USA

Nathan Oliver, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to discuss the importance of organisations paying closer attention to their corporate language policies as a strategy for embracing diversity in their workforce.

Design/methodology/approach – An exploratory study of the web sites of companies recognized for their diversity efforts is conducted to highlight their communication strategy, in particular the terminology used to refer to non-whites.

Findings – This research found that the language used in corporate communications to refer to non-whites varies even among companies that have been highly recognized for their diversity efforts. While the web sites clearly revealed the companies' commitment to diversity, the difficulty associated with this controversial issue can also be seen. An argument is made that organisations should eliminate the use of the term “minority” from their communications in an effort to enhance their diversity climate and more accurately reflect their commitment to diversity.

Research limitations/implications – This research relied on web site content analysis and only the sites of companies that have been highly recognized for their diversity efforts were considered.

Practical implications – The paper shows that as the debate about the use of the term “minorities” continues, companies that embrace diversity should pay close attention to the language used in their corporate communications to ensure that the messages and signals they send consistently mirror their beliefs and perceptions of various stakeholders.

Originality/value – This research may be of special interest to communication strategists and persons within the organisation that are interested in improving their corporate image and addressing the behaviours and attitudes of the organisation's stakeholders.

Article Type:

Conceptual paper

Keyword(s):

Language; Corporate communications; Corporate strategy; Communication; Equal opportunities.

Journal:

Journal of Communication Management

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2009

pp:

6-20

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

1363-254X

Introduction

Imagine sitting in a room full of colleagues and executives, having the ability to count the number of people who look like you on one hand and the person addressing the group refers to people who look like you as “minorities”. Imagine receiving recognition for your accomplishments and then in the communication to the organisation, your manager commended your work and stressed that you are a model “minority”. While some would argue that these scenarios would not create feelings of discomfort for them, others have anecdotally expressed concern that the use of the term “minority” to refer to a person's race or ethnicity personally offends them.

Many organisations purport to value or embrace diversity. Three strategies often used which demonstrate an organisation's commitment to diversity are, affirmative action, valuing diversity (Jackson and Alavarez, 1992), and managing diversity (Gardenswartz and Rowe, 1994; Sadri and Tran, 2002). Common tactics are communicating to employees that their workplace embraces diversity through the mere recruitment of a diverse workforce (affirmative action) (Morrison, 1992), adding diversity as a component of the organisation's code of ethics or values statement (Sadri and Tran, 2002), requiring mandatory diversity training (valuing diversity) (Kundu, 2003), and conducting employee surveys on diversity to improve the diversity climate (managing diversity). While these and other diversity initiatives enhance an organisation's corporate responsibility report, this paper argues that organisations should also pay closer attention to their corporate language policies to ensure that all members of the organisation feel like they belong and are valued by the organisation. In addition, the strategic use of language lays the communication foundation for organisational changes (Witherspoon and Wohlert, 1996) and development. Our stance is consistent with academics and consultants who believe that organizations should aim to actively manage its diversity efforts and initiatives rather than simply value it or rely on affirmative action policies (Gardenswartz and Rowe, 1994). Moreover, the messages the organisation sends to external stakeholders should always mirror the messages conveyed to internal stakeholders.

Organisational leaders depend on communication strategists to make them better communicators (Murray and White, 2005). While communication strategies often address what should be communicated, when it should be communicated, and how it should be communicated (Adler et al., 2001; Dillard et al., 1999), one important component, language, continues to be a barrier for some stakeholders. Dawkins (2004) alleged that many organisations have not been able to capitalize on the potential “reputational” benefits of corporate responsibility because of these communication barriers. Dawkins called for an alignment of corporate responsibility communications with stakeholders' concerns to break through these barriers.

Exploring the role that communication strategy can play in avoiding negative feelings and perceptions about an organisation's commitment to diversity is a worthwhile endeavour. Long ago, feminists recognized the importance of labelling and have adamantly addressed their concerns in the feminist literature (Hacker, 1951), far less has been done to focus our attention on communication problems posed by race/ethnicity. We believe the leaders and mangers in organisations that purport to embrace diversity, should consider the terminology that is used to refer to diverse groups.

The first section of the paper provides a background and a theoretical explanation of why language matters. The second section addresses the methodology for selecting, evaluating, and categorizing organisations and their strategies to address diversity through communication strategies. The next section discusses the results. Finally, conclusions and suggestions of areas for future research are presented.

Why language matters

Dhir and Goke-Pariola (2002) define language as the principal means by which an organisation acquires and communicates its culture to members within the society in which it operates. While most organisations understand the need for better communications and have policies against offensive language in the workplace, race and ethnicity continue to be sensitive topics (Ashcraft and Allen, 2003; Horne, 2003; Kennedy, 2005; Sigelman et al., 2005), people attach value to social identities (Mor Barak et al., 1998) and when employees perceive they are not valued they may not be fully committed and engaged in an organisation (Ibarra, 1993; Mowday et al., 1979).

Thus, when corporate language policy decisions are made, the decision makers guide future decisions that may affect the culture of the organisation (Riordan et al., 1997). Implementing or rather not implementing adequate language strategies for the diverse work force results in half-hearted attempts to create a diversity conclusive culture. This impact may be seen both in organisational performance and in perceptions of organisational effectiveness (Combs, 2002; Wright et al., 1995; Gilbert and Ivancevich, 2000; Richards, 2000).

Corporate language strategy and the word “minority”

Patterson (1990) defined diversity as the “state of being diverse, that is, different, unlike, various”. While Thomas (1996) suggests that diversity relates to everybody and is multidimensional, we are concerned about the increasing diversity in the workforce (Kundu, 2003) and corporate language strategies to manage this phenomenon effectively. In particular, we are concerned about the ongoing debate over using the term “minority” to label people who are non-whites. For Sue (1991), the term minority group carries the connotation of unequal relationships among groups within society, in which some groups inadvertently are subjected to greater prejudice and discrimination.

At the centre of this debate is the meaning of the word “minority”. The base of word of minority is “minor”. Some dictionaries define minor as: “inferior in dignity, rank, or importance … inferior in number, quantity, or extent … ” While minority is defined in Webster's New Students Dictionary as, “the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole … a part of a population differing from other groups in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment”. But in the context of culture the word “minority” has a more sociological connotation (Gleason, 1991) than the intended linguistic meaning.

Use of the term “minority” to identify non-whites became popular in the US during a time when the country was segregated based on race and race mattered greatly. The term minority was intended to represent racial proportionality of the US population. While many objections to this term exist, the following are often cited:

Terms like “minorities”, “minority business enterprises”, or “minority suppliers” are often used in organisational communication to refer to an individual's or a group's race and ethnicity when proportionality has no salience (Cox Edmondson et al., 2008).
The term “minority” is often considered offensive and denotes lack of power to whites (Pettigrew, 1991; Dewey, 1965; Sue, 1991).
The term has been broadened to include factors beyond race such as sex, sexual orientation, and religion. Therefore we see examples where women and people of color are often excluded from organisational networks (Ferris et al., 1996).
The term minority is not statistically valid as non-whites are becoming the majority in many places throughout the US (Dewey, 1965).

Advocates for change have challenged people and governments to stop perpetuating terms such as “minorities” in all matters of race. Many officials in the US Census Bureau, a government agency which is required to deal with matters of race, avoid using the term “minority” in favour of more specific racial and ethnic labels (Texeira, 2005). The term “minority” has been criticized because it is not timeless and may not be very useful to researchers in the future (Cox Edmondson, 1997).

While this debate is occurring more in government and in academia, researchers have not adequately addressed the use of the term “minority” in the workplace or prescribed something for use by those who are involved in corporate communications. Language policies typically arise from a process of language planning (Dhir and Goke-Pariola, 2002; Witherspoon and Wohlert, 1996). Thomas (1993) argued that the type of strategy used to manage racial differences in the workplace is unanimously the strategy preferred by the superior in superior/subordinate relationships. People and organisations in these exchange relationships often try to deflect and to mitigate social friction fearing that they may harm the relationship (Morand, 2000) or may be labelled as “too sensitive”. This may also be relevant in supplier-buyer relationships given the Government (the nation's biggest supplier and buyer) uses the term “minority” in its executive orders and communications regarding special programs and initiatives geared toward helping non-whites and women.

Mor Barak et al. (1998) defined diversity climate as how workers perceive opportunities (for workers who are non-white and women) within their work organisation. While Lewis et al. (2000) asserted that many whites believe that the racial/ethnic climates of organisations are fine and they are not aware of the ways in which their behaviours directly and negatively affect other groups, organisational leaders and managers have a duty to recognize discontent and misconceptions in the workplace which could negatively affect the work climate and/or the diversity climate (Ekanem and Wyer, 2007).

Communication that involves race/ethnicity poses two problems: when to communicate about matters regarding race/ethnicity (Muir, 2007) and how to refer to people who are non-white. Determining when race/ethnicity has salience does not appear to pose the same challenges as does the latter. While these discussions can be sensitive, organisational leaders and managers are obliged to address phenomena that deal with race/ethnicity when it is important to the organisation's performance. Researchers and diversity consultants contend that these discussions can become less sensitive as they become embedded in the organisation's culture.

On the other hand, determining how to refer to non-whites can be a daunting task, particularly when determining how to refer to multiple groups of non-whites. When a single group is relevant, individual and ethnic groups are often identified by color metaphors for race (Whites and Blacks), ethnicity (Latinos, Hispanics) or point of origin (Asian Americans, Japanese Americans, African Americans).

Theory and communication strategy

A number of theories can support our argument of developing appropriate corporate communication strategies to address diversity. For example, the stigma theory that supports equality, inclusion, and empowerment (Goffman, 1963) could be considered. But we reasoned that social cognitive theory was the most appropriate.

Social cognitive theory provides a framework for understanding, predicting, and changing human behaviour (Bandura, 1977, 1986). The theory identifies human behaviour as an interaction of personal factors, behaviour, and the environment (Bandura, 1977, 1986). It explains if people are persuaded that they have what it takes to succeed they exert more effort and avoid focusing more on their doubts when problems arise (Bandura, 2001). We use this theory to support our argument about the effect of inadequate communication strategies on the reduction of diversity in organisations.

The social cognitive model helps us understand the workings of the corporate language strategy. The diverse workforce is influenced by the culture and strategies of the organisation. Inadequate policies to address appropriate diversity communication affect the individuals, and their attitudes and behaviour in the organisation (Riordan et al., 1997). Use of the word “minority” by the company will make the employee less motivated, feel the pressure of less power and thus have a lower morale, and thus may have a direct influence on an employee's thoughts and actions. According to Jones (1989) “the fact that behaviour varies from situation to situation may not necessarily mean that behaviour is controlled by situations but rather that the person is construing the situations differently and thus the same set of stimuli may provoke different responses from different people or from the same person at different times”. It has been more specifically proposed that the construct of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) or the individual's judgment of ability to perform a certain task can positively affect motivation and behaviour with respect to diversity and diversity training effectiveness (Combs, 2002).

Social cognitive theory is helpful for understanding and predicting both individual and group behaviour, and identifying methods in which behaviour can be modified or changed (Bandura, 2001). Figure 1 shows a conceptual framework of the same.

Thus, we argue that corporate communication strategies that include language policies that include diversity components can help convey messages about the organisations' beliefs and practices and can help enhance an organization's diversity climate. The following study of corporate diversity webpages reveals how some companies who have been recognized for their diversity efforts have addressed the issue of labelling persons who are non-whites.

Research approach

Qualitative content analysis is a common technique in organisational communications. It allows the researcher to study large amounts of textual information and systematically identify its properties. Thus, findings generated by content analysis provide researchers with tangible evidence from which they can interpret messages communicated by an organisation. Given the purpose and scope of this research, content analysis was selected as the preferred method of determining how organisations use the term “minority”.

Selection criteria

Decision criteria for selection of the sample were based on an organisation's inclusion on DiversityInc. Magazine's Top 50 companies for diversity list. An assumption underlying this decision is that firms on this voluntary list have a genuine interest in embracing diversity and enhancing their corporate identity/reputation. Most organizations would agree that diversity is a reality but may disagree over how to deal with such diversity (Sadri and Tran, 2002). While there are other magazines that examine the diversity efforts of US companies, DiversityInc.'s mission is to bring education and clarity to the business benefits of diversity and has published this list for six years (as opposed to Black Enterprise's 40 Best Companies for Diversity list which has been published for only two years). The Top 50 Companies on Diversity list recognize businesses with a commitment to diversity as indicated by factors such as employee recruitment and retention, regular and consistent diversity training, and communications programs.

Organisations are included on DiversityInc. list based on their responses to more than 200 detailed questions on human capital, CEO commitment, corporate communications and supplier diversity. Based on the results of their responses, organisations could make the list in ten specialty areas: overall recruitment and retention, supplier diversity, top companies for African Americans, executive women, Latino's, Asian Americans, gays, lesbian employees, people with disabilities, and 25 noteworthy companies.

In the corporate communications area, DiversityInc. examined diversity training, employee-resource groups, mentoring and multicultural marketing. Although DiversityInc.'s editorial policy prohibits the use of the term “minority” in its communications, no reference was made to points awarded for internal communications and how the company referred to stakeholders who were non-whites.

Six companies from the aforementioned list were examined for this study:

Verizon Communications.
Consolidated Edison Co. of NY.
The Coca-Cola Company.
Health Care Service Corp.
HBO.
AT&T Inc.

The first five were chosen because they were the top five companies on the DiversityInc. List. AT&T was chosen because it received the highest number of honours by any US company (six).

Procedure

For this study, the communication strategy for the use of the term “minority” was evaluated. The procedure for examining each organisation's use of the term “minority” to refer to people entailed going to the organisations' web site and examining their diversity component. While an examination of the organisation's intranet web site would provide greater insights into its internal communications, an assumption underlying this decision is that web sites communicate key messages to stakeholders and provide them with an opportunity to learn about organisation and its diversity climate. Five factors were of interest in this study:

Communications about the importance of diversity to the organisation.
Did the web site specifically refer to multiple race-based groups of non-whites?
What terminology was used to refer to multiple race-based groups of non-whites?
In what circumstances was the terminology used (to refer to people or to businesses)?
What alternative terms were used?

Findings

After a brief statement defining each organization, excerpts from the organisation's web site, which provides insights into the five factors of interest are presented.

Verizon Communications

Verizon Communications is a leader in delivering broadband and other communication innovations to wireline and wireless customers. The following are some excerpts taken from the company's web site (Verizon Communications, 2008a):

Diversity isn't just a concept at Verizon. It's an integral part of our business.

Recognized by a number of organisations for its diversity achievements.

Verizon has a long history of commitment to integrity and respect.

The following statement appeared in the company's Press Kit: Work Force Development (Verizon Communications, 2008b):

Women and minorities make up 59 percent and 35 percent, respectively, of the company's work force and hold 30 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of Verizon's top management positions.

Consolidated Edison Co. of NY

Consolidated Edison Company of New York (ConEdison), a subsidiary of Consolidated Edison, Inc. a regulated utility, provides electric service in New York City (except for a small area of Queens), and most of Westchester County. It also provides natural gas service in Manhattan, the Bronx, and parts of Queens and Westchester. The following are some excerpts taken from the company's web site (ConEdison, 2008):

At Con Edison, we have long supported the principles of Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action.

Industry analysts have consistently recognized us for an outstanding EEO/diversity record.

ConEdison's commitment to these principles is reflected in our diverse workforce, which is one of our greatest strengths.

Managing diversity in the workplace affects every aspect of our business – from customer service and strategic partnerships to the bottom line. Our unwavering drive to embrace diversity is embedded in our culture. We celebrate and honour diversity!

Additionally, the following statement appeared about the company's diversity awards:

Con Edison was saluted for its outstanding corporate citizenship, and for its fairness to women and minorities in hiring, contracting with vendors, and philanthropic practices.

The term “minorities” was also used to refer to people in the company's Diversity Annual Report.

The Coca-Cola Company

The Coca-Cola Company is the world's largest non-alcoholic beverage company. The following are some excerpts taken from the company's web site (The Coca-Cola Company, 2008a):

At The Coca-Cola Company, we strive for an inclusive culture that is defined by our seven core values: leadership, passion, integrity, collaboration, innovation, quality, and accountability. Each day we work to bring these values to life through our diversity workplace strategy.

As CEO of The Coca-Cola Company, I am committed to leading our organization in doing whatever it takes to ensure a successful diversity strategy. I know the commitment starts with me. I am committed.

The following statement appeared on the company's Supplier Diversity web page (The Coca-Cola Company, 2008b):

Minorities are the fastest-growing segment of the US population, and women make most purchasing decisions involving consumer goods, including our products. Including minorities and women as our partners is a business imperative at The Coca-Cola Company.Furthermore, Coca-Cola is required to submit a comprehensive assessment of their progress against diversity initiatives the organization implemented as part of a discrimination lawsuit settlement in 2000. In that report non-whites are referred to as “minorities”.

Health Care Service Corp

Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC), the largest privately owned health insurer in the USA, operates the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. The following are some excerpts taken from the company's web site:

The mission of Corporate Diversity is to foster a diverse work environment where all employees are valued, enabled to positively contribute to Health Care Service Corporation's business objectives and are recognized and rewarded accordingly.

Diversity focuses on how employees are managed and how employees interact with each other, customers, vendors and the community.

On its web site, HCSC did not use the term “minority” to refer to people. However, on the Supplier Diversity web page, the organisation used the term “minority-owned businesses” to refer to businesses owned by non-whites.

Home Box Office

Home Box Office (HBO) a premium television company, is a division of Time Warner Inc., a global media and entertainment company with businesses in filmed entertainment, interactive services, television networks, cable systems and publishing. To gain insights into HBO's commitment to diversity and diversity communication strategy, an examination of Time Warner's web site was necessary given the site for HBO was limited in this area. The following are some excerpts taken from Time Warner's web site (Time Warner, 2008):

Diversity is a major objective and core value at every stage of our business.

At Time Warner, more than 87,000 men and women in 60 countries bring expertise and dedication to work each day. In this section we outline the ways we value our employees and their contributions, promote open dialogue in the company and strive to make diversity one of our strengths.

We listen to our employees' opinions in an organized and consistent way. Employee opinion surveys help identify areas for improvement. We administer company-wide employee [surveys] to ask employees about topics related to leadership, innovation, collaboration, and diversity.

Time Warner used no deliberate strategy to refer to multiple groups of non-whites (Time Warner, 2008):

At Time Warner, we strive to increase the representation of women and people of color through hiring, promotions and retention efforts in areas where they are underrepresented.

We recognize that the greatest potential for customer acquisition and retention lies in the fastest-growing customer segments – minorities and women – many of whom also have or will create businesses with the potential to serve our needs.

AT&T

AT&T Inc. is a communications holding company with 302,000 employees in the US and worldwide. While AT&T did not make the top five of DiversityInc.'s list, it was included in our study because it appears on more of the specialty lists than any other organisation:

Fourth on the Top 10 Companies for Recruitment and Retention list.
Fifth on the Top 10 Companies for Supplier Diversity list.
Second on the Top 10 Companies for African Americans list.
Fourth in the Top 10 Companies for Latinos.
Fourth on the Top 10 Companies for executive women.
Third on the Top 10 Companies for GLBT employees list.

The following are some excerpts taken from the company's web site (AT&T, 2008a):

For AT&T, diversity and inclusion will always be top priorities.

We recognize that our success is directly related to understanding and leveraging the many facets of diversity – in our workplace, the marketplace and our communities.

To refer to people who are non-whites, the term people of color is used throughout (AT&T, 2008b):

People of color comprise 26 percent of the company's managers, while nationally people of color only comprise 22 percent of managers, professionals and related occupations, according to the US Census.

Today, AT&T's 50-state workforce is 44 percent female and 39 percent people of color.

Discussion and managerial implications

While not everyone is offended by the use of the term “minority” to refer to people, it behoves organisational leaders and managers to consider how the term is used in their communication strategy and to establish a well-throughout plan to accomplish the organisation's goals in regards to diversity. The general statements found on the web sites of the organisation under review indicate that these firms are committed to diversity. These organisations would definitely be considered role models for others given their awards and inclusion on lists such as the DiversityInc.'s Top 50.

Additionally, as evidenced by AT&T's use of the term “people of colour” and Time Warner's usage of both the terms “minority” and “people of colour”, companies are considering how this widely used term (“minority”) may be perceived by employees and other stakeholders. Based on our observations, AT&T has a planned and deliberate policy which calls for organisational leaders and manager to use “people of colour” to refer to people in their communication strategy. The terminology “people of colour” is considered an affinity term and thus, has been perceived more positively than “minority”. There has been a push for using “people of colour” in practice and in academia. Thus, “people of colour” and similar terms should be considered by communication strategists within organisations.

Also, in analyzing the web sites for this study, it became clear that most of the organisations did not use a term to explicitly refer to multiple race-based groups, highlighting the daunting task that these leaders have before them. Although the term “diverse groups” was used by some organisations, this term often include groups that are not based on race/ethnicity.

However, when referring to businesses or supplier diversity, all of the firms (including AT&T) used the term “minority”. This phenomenon may be explained by the fact that many of these programs started as part of a government mandate requiring businesses to work with businesses owned by non-whites. Thus, it may be fair to say that the Government's use of the term perpetuates its use in organisational settings. As more governments consider the issue and strike “minority” from official usage (i.e. San Diego, Chicago) this too may be remedied.

However, organisational leaders and managers are in a position to elevate the debate by initiating this change within their organisational communications. Companies can succeed at creating a valued diverse workforce when it has the full support of the top management (Kundu, 2003; Hayes, 1999; Jackson et al., 1992). The barriers must be removed, not just moved (Jones, 1994). Having a high level of commitment/single minded focus, or something approaching that, is the best way to demonstrate a commitment to diversity. For example, Robert W. Galvin, the former chairman of Motorola is well known for changing the order of meetings he attended. He required that quality reports were presented first. After those reports were presented, he routinely left the meeting (Harari, 1991). Through his actions, he was telling his subordinates that as long as their quality initiatives were moving forward, he was satisfied, and that they could take care of the other items and actions. While diversity initiatives may not be at the top of the list of things that organizational leaders want to be informed about, they should clearly be on the list. We argue that not only would updates regarding these initiatives be on the list, but the reports would be written using language that had been approved by the CEO. Additionally, incorporating the use of specific diversity language into the set of performance measures for managers should change their behaviour and communications to stakeholders.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

While this paper addresses an important management concern, it has several notable limitations. First, we have relied on the review and analysis of the content contained within the web sites of selected organizations. We chose this approach because we strongly believe that organizations design and develop their web sites for a wide variety of reasons, one is the effective communications of their values and closely held beliefs to all their stakeholders. That said, we found it interesting that none of the web sites we reviewed explicitly addressed the issue of how the company addresses non-whites. Thus, we based our analysis on terms they used and not actual statements made about their views. Since web sites are only one tool of organisational communications, further research should expand the search by including other communications tools such as: internal documents, standard contacts, SOP's, etc. to obtain a more thorough understanding of the organizations diversity beliefs and practices.

Another limitation is the small number (five) of companies analyzed in this study. We suggest that follow-up research should expand the number of organizations evaluated to provide a more substantial foundation to these findings. Additionally, our sample was selected because of these companies were recognized for their diversity efforts. What results would be obtained if the selected sample came from a wide cross-section of the organisational spectrum? Finally, while we advocate these changes to enhance diversity climates, empirical research, which can measure the success of these changes within the workforce and outside audiences should be conducted to determine best practices.

Conclusion

Throughout this paper, we have argued that organizations that are truly committed to enhancing their diversity climate should consistently seek out ways to more effectively communicate their diversity message so that their stakeholders can sense this commitment and the value that is placed on each stakeholder. Of major concern in this paper, was the use of the term “minority” and its derivatives to refer to people of color. As this study revealed, organizations that are deemed to be forerunners in the area of diversity have difficulty communicating consistently in this regards. While we acknowledge that this is not an easy feat, we maintain that a communication strategy that stresses consistent language to reinforce equality, inclusion, and empowerment from dedicated and committed organisational leaders, particularly the CEO and others who are in diversity related positions can reduce the tensions that some people of color and other diverse groups feel when group differences are highlighted.

We are not suggesting that merely eliminating the word “minority” from an organisation's communication strategy will improve its reputation or that that people will be more inclined to seek employment or business opportunities with an organisation based on its use of the term “people of colour” or another alternative as opposed to “minority”. However, we are suggesting that in addition to the many diversity initiatives already in place, the elimination of the use of the term “minority” in communications will demonstrate that the organisation really understands the negative feelings that the term espouses for some people. We are also suggesting that such an effort will better reflect the organisation's commitment to improving its diversity climate. Ultimately, the aim is to create, develop, and retain a diverse workforce by connecting to all the organization's stakeholders.

Figure 1Social cognitive theory used to explain communication strategy

References

Adler, R.B., Rosenfeld, L.B., Proctor, R.F. II (2001), Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communication, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, .