Diversity means different things to different agencies, organizations, and people. Federal diversity initiatives have historically focused on equal employment opportunity (EEO) and affirmative employment. The Federal Government must now broaden its view of diversity. It must embrace the business, cultural, and demographic dimensions of diversity as well as the legal dimension. Recognizing the multiple frameworks underpinning diversity is important to shape and pursue the missions and goals of individual agencies and the Federal Government as a whole.

Business Framework

When the Hudson Institute published Workforce 2000⁽¹⁾ in 1987, the subject of diversity emerged as a topic of national interest. This publication outlined impending demographic changes that would alter the image of the typical American worker. The report predicted that minorities would increasingly constitute a larger percentage of the net new entrants into the workforce. It also noted that the labor force participation of women would continue to rise and that the median age of workers would increase due to the aging baby boom generation. In essence, the American workforce was changing on a par with America's demographics. The Hudson Institute's 1997 follow-up report, Workforce 2020,⁽²⁾ discussed many of these same trends and affirmed the need to plan proactively for workforce changes.

In its recent report, Futurework: Trends and Challenges for Work in the 21^st Century,⁽³⁾ the U.S. Department of Labor reinforces the Hudson Institute's predictions for a changing workforce. This report states:

"By 2050, the U.S. population is expected to increase by 50 percent and minority groups will make up nearly half of the population. Immigration will account for almost two-thirds of the nation's population growth. The population of older Americans is expected to more than double. One-quarter of all Americans will be of Hispanic origin. Almost one in ten Americans will be of Asian or Pacific Islander descent. And more women and people with disabilities will be on the job."

Clearly, any organizations -- including Federal agencies -- that want to be successful in today's world must recognize and use diversity to their advantage. Diversity should be an integral part of an agency's business planning and Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) activities.⁽⁴⁾ This means that diversity management programs do not stand alone. Instead, they are recognized as being a critical link in achieving the agency's specific mission or business needs, relative to employees, customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. This is the business case for valuing diversity.

The business case for diversity has two significant elements. First, the labor market has become increasingly competitive. The Federal Government must use every available source of candidates to ensure that each agency has the high-quality workforce that it needs to deliver its mission to the American public. Any agency that fails to take steps to recruit among the full spectrum of the labor market is missing a strategic opportunity.

Second, the changing demographics of America mean that the public served by the Federal Government is also changing. When agencies recruit and retain an inclusive workforce -- one that looks like the America it serves -- and when individual differences are respected, appreciated, and valued, diversity becomes an organizational strength that contributes to achieving results. Diversity offers a variety of views, approaches, and actions for an agency to use in strategic planning, problem solving, and decision making. It also enables an agency to better serve the taxpayer by reflecting the customers and communities it serves.

This conclusion has been supported by specific research⁽⁵⁾ showing that an effective diversity strategy has a positive effect on cost reduction, resource acquisition, creativity, problem solving, and organizational flexibility. Each of these actions has a direct impact on achieving the mission and business of the agency.

Cultural Framework

Another important aspect of diversity derives from different cultural perspectives. As an employer, the Federal Government has made great strides in achieving representational diversity. There is, however, still work to do. Misconceptions and misinformation should be replaced by facts, and stereotypes replaced by awareness.

A 1996 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) study ⁽⁶⁾ found disparities in the perceptions of minority and White employees with respect to how minority employees are treated in the Federal workplace. Although the MSPB study found no evidence of widespread, pervasive discrimination, it found that minorities and non-minorities have significantly different perceptions about the degree to which discrimination may still be present in the workplace. Further, these differences in perception are so large that they suggest many minority and non-minority employees have great difficulty in understanding or accepting the others' perspective. Some of the significant MSPB findings include:

• Many minority employees believe they are not treated fairly in the Federal civil service. Substantial numbers of minorities report that they are subjected to both blatant and subtle discriminatory practices in the Government's workplace. For instance, 55 percent of Black survey respondents believe that Blacks are subjected to "flagrant or obviously discriminatory practices" in the Federal workplace.
• In contrast, non-minorities generally believed that discrimination is minimal. For instance, only 4 percent of White respondents shared the view of 55 percent of Black respondents that Black employees are subjected to flagrant or obvious discriminatory employment practices. Similarly, only 3 percent of White respondents shared the view of 28 percent of Hispanic respondents that Hispanic employees are subject to flagrant or obvious discriminatory employment practices.
• Overall, minority employees have lower average grade levels than White male employees even after controlling for differences in education, experience or other advancement-related factors.
• On average, minorities receive lower performance ratings and fewer cash awards than Whites in professional and administrative positions.
• Fewer minority employees than White employees receive the developmental opportunities to serve as acting supervisors in the absence of incumbent managers.

The MSPB survey revealed the need for Federal agencies to disseminate accurate data about the exact nature of representation within each Federal agency. This will increase the likelihood that employee perceptions would be based on facts, rather than on misinformation or misconceptions.

A diverse workplace may present other challenges in the area of communication across cultures. For instance, the Federal workplace culture sometimes assigns a specific significance to the workplace behavior of employees (e.g., assuming that sustaining eye contact is a sign of directness and honesty) that may be different from the values in an individual employee's culture (e.g., considering it disrespectful and hostile to sustain eye contact).

Demographic Framework

The Federal Government has made progress regarding the representation of women and minorities in its workforce. Nevertheless, there is more to do to increase representation of individual minority groups, women, and people with disabilities.

Despite an overall reduction in the total size of the Federal workforce between 1990 and 1998, OPM's Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) data reflect an increase in the representation of minorities (27.6 to 29.4 percent) and of women (42.3 to 42.9 percent). To better understand how the Federal Government is doing, OPM compared these trends to those in the Civilian Labor Force (CLF). In 1990, minorities comprised 21.8 percent of the CLF, rising to 26.4 percent in 1998, while the representation of women went from 45.3 to 46.3 percent.

In 1998, only Hispanics and women remained underrepresented relative to the CLF. Hispanics made up 6.4 percent of the Federal workforce in 1998 versus 10.8 percent of the CLF. Women made up 42.9 percent of the Federal workforce compared to 46.3 percent of the CLF. In addition, the percent of Federal workers that had targeted (severe) disabilities remained at 1.2 percent during the same time period, below the estimated 6 percent availability of Americans with similar types of disabilities who were seeking employment.

Although the above statistics represent aggregate-level snapshots of representation in the entire Federal Government, workforce composition varies considerably by agency. CPDF data show wide differences in the representation of minority groups among executive departments and independent agencies with 500 or more employees.

• Blacks were employed at or above their level of availability in the CLF in 16 of 17 executive departments and all 22 independent agencies.
• Asian/Pacific Islanders were employed at or above their level of availability in the CLF in 14 of 17 executive departments and 12 of 22 independent agencies.
• American Indians were employed at or above their level of availability in the CLF in 14 of 17 executive departments and 12 of 22 independent agencies.
• Hispanics, however, were employed at or above their level of availability in the CLF in only 6 of 17 executive departments and only 5 of 22 independent agencies.
• Similarly, women were employed at or above their level of availability in the CLF in only 7 of 17 executive departments and 10 of 22 independent agencies.

Of the 14,109 senior pay positions (Senior Executive Service, Senior Foreign Service, and others above General Schedule grade 15) in the Federal Government in 1998, 12.1 percent were occupied by minorities (up from 7.7 percent in 1990). Women occupied 21.7 percent of senior pay positions in 1998 (up from 11.1 percent in 1990). In the so called "feeder grades" to senior pay positions, General Schedule grades 13 to 15, minorities comprised 17.4 percent in 1998 compared to 12.7 percent in 1990, while women comprised 27.5 percent in 1998 compared to 18.7 percent in 1997.

Legal Framework

The United States has passed many laws guaranteeing the rights of citizens to equal protection and due process of law. The landmark legislation outlawing discrimination based on race, color, creed, or national origin is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, ⁽⁷⁾ as amended. Since then, a number of significant statutes and Executive orders have established the legal foundation for Federal agencies in the areas of EEO and affirmative employment.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits discrimination with regard to any personnel action, or a term, condition, or privilege of employment based upon race, color, sex, national origin, or religion. The Civil Rights Act of 1991⁽⁸⁾ amended the 1964 law to, among other things, expand the types of damages available in Federal EEO cases for intentional discrimination and to clarify the burden of proof in adverse impact cases. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978⁽⁹⁾ further amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit employment decisions based upon an employee's pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition.

Executive Order 11478,⁽¹⁰⁾ issued in 1969, prohibits discrimination in the executive branch of the Federal Government on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disabilities, or age. In 1998, the President amended this Executive Order to also prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.⁽¹¹⁾ While these Executive Orders do not create additional enforcement rights, they firmly establish the policy regarding equal employment in the executive branch.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973,⁽¹²⁾ as amended, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of their disabling conditions. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),⁽¹³⁾ which also prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, applies to the Federal Government through the Rehabilitation Act.⁽¹⁴⁾ Drug and alcohol abuse are covered by the Rehabilitation Act as well as the Miscellaneous Provisions Relating to Substance Abuse and Mental Health.⁽¹⁵⁾

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)⁽¹⁶⁾ provides protection to persons who are age 40 or over. It does not prohibit, however, all discrimination on the basis of age, such as maximum entry level ages for initial appointment as a law enforcement officer.

The passage of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995⁽¹⁷⁾ extended the Federal protections under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and ADEA to legislative branch employees.

The Equal Pay Act⁽¹⁸⁾ prohibits discrimination based upon sex in the payment of wages and fringe benefits for equal work in jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Claims of wage discrimination based upon sex can be brought either under the Equal Pay Act, or Title VII, or both.

In addition to the laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race color, sex, national origin, religion, age, or sexual orientation, the Federal Government acts proactively in the area of affirmative employment. Federal agencies report to OPM the results of their Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) activities. FEORP was established under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.⁽¹⁹⁾ It requires agencies to maintain equal opportunity recruitment programs for minorities and women. Federal agencies also submit annual reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regarding their Affirmative Employment Program (AEP). The AEP addresses efforts and accomplishments in recruitment, promotions, training, hiring, and other advancement opportunities for women and minorities.⁽²⁰⁾ In addition, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, also requires Federal agencies to develop Affirmative Action Plans for the hiring, placement, and advancement of people with disabilities.

Three executive branch agencies -- EEOC, OPM, and MSPB -- have responsibility for establishing, overseeing, and enforcing the civil rights laws and affirmative employment programs.