ASA Press Releases
Contact: Jackie Cooper or Lee Herring
E-mail: pubinfo@asanet.org
Phone: (202) 247-9871
ASA Annual Meeting Press Room (Aug. 7-11):
Hilton San Francisco, Union Square Rooms 1 & 2
(415) 923-7558 or (415) 923-7561
![]()
Subscribe to ASA News Updates
Follow us on Twitter
March 31, 2009
Sociological research confirms the business case for diversity
WASHINGTON, DC —
Workplace diversity is among the most important predictors of a
business’ sales revenue, customer numbers and profitability, according
to research to be published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.
In one of only a few studies to empirically examine the implications of
organizational diversity, sociologist Cedric Herring found that a
workforce comprised of employees of both genders and varying racial
backgrounds resulted in positive business outcomes.
“Although previous research on diversity in the workforce has suggested
diversity’s negative impact on group dynamics and communication, this
study makes the case for diversity in clear financial terms,” said
Herring, the interim head of the sociology department at the University
of Illinois at Chicago and a professor of sociology and public policy
at the University of Illinois’ Institute of Government and Public
Affairs.
Herring found that companies reporting the highest levels of racial
diversity brought in nearly 15 times more sales revenue on average than
those with the lowest levels of racial diversity. Gender diversity
accounted for a difference of $599.1 million in average sales revenue:
organizations with the lowest rates of gender diversity had average
sales revenues of $45.2 million, compared with averages of $644.3
million for businesses with the most gender diversity.
For every percentage increase in the rate of racial or gender diversity
up to the rate represented in the relevant population, there was an
increase in sales revenues of approximately 9 and 3 percent,
respectively. Herring found racial diversity to be a better determinant
of sales revenue and customer numbers than company size, the company’s
age and the number of employees at any given work location.
Companies with a more diverse workforce consistently reported higher
customer numbers than those organizations with less diversity among
staff. In terms of racial diversity, companies with the highest rates
reported an average of 35,000 customers compared to 22,700 average
customers among those companies with the lowest rates of racial
diversity. The difference is even larger for gender diversity rates.
That is, companies with the highest levels of gender diversity reported
an average of 15,000 more customers than organizations with the lowest
levels of gender diversity. Herring also found that the smallest
incremental increase in levels of racial or gender diversity resulted
in more than 400 and 200 additional customers, respectively.
Although a corporate workforce’s gender composition did not have a
significant impact on a company’s relative market share, Herring found
that racial diversity was among the most important predictors of a
company’s competitive positioning relative to other firms in its
industry.
According to the research, as racial and gender diversity levels
increased in a company’s workforce, its profits relative to those of
its competitors also increased.
Herring analyzed data from the National Organizations Survey (NOS),
reviewing a subset of 506 United States-based for-profit businesses
that provided information about workforce diversity, sales revenue,
customer numbers, market share and profitability between 1996 and 1997.
The NOS contains information from a sample of the 15 million
organizations in Dun and Bradstreet’s Information Services’ data file.
Herring’s work in the April issue of the American Sociological Review
is accompanied by two other studies relevant to race in the workplace;
one is on equal employment opportunity and the other examines race
discrimination lawsuits. On the topic of equal employment opportunity,
sociologist C. Elizabeth Hirsh of Cornell University analyzed the
direct impact of discrimination charges on workplace segregation, as
well as indirect pressures presented by legal and organizational
environments. She found that companies do not desegregate in the wake
of sexual discrimination charges filed directly against them, but they
do respond to Equal Employment Opportunity enforcement in their
industries and in the broader legal environment.
Hirsh’s findings also suggest that organizational factors are more
pivotal to race desegregation than legal intervention. For example,
larger companies and those with more females in management were found
more likely to promote workplace integration. Hirsh concludes that by
making an example of employers found in violation of the law, Equal
Employment Opportunity enforcement creates a legal environment that
encourages policy compliance among other employers.
Race discrimination lawsuits increase access to managerial jobs for
African Americans, according to research from sociologist Sheryl Skaggs
of the University of Texas at Dallas. Skaggs examined data on the
supermarket industry from 1983 to 1998 and found that African Americans
were more likely to enter management in the year following a lawsuit
filing against a particular supermarket. Importantly, the initial
increase in African American managers resulting from a lawsuit filing
was shown to produce long-term benefits by bringing representation up
to the industry average. Legal pressures from federal courts were also
important. When circuit courts were made up predominantly of white
males, they were less likely to create a legal climate signaling
intolerance of workplace racial discrimination.
Members of the media may request complimentary copies of these articles or others from the April issue of the American Sociological Review. Contact ASA Media Relations Officer Jackie Cooper at jcooper@asanet.org or (202) 247-9871.