Introduction
The under-representation of particular population groups in the public sector workforce diminishes the opportunities for a diverse society to develop according to the values of inclusion, equity, and diversity. Due to globalization trends, contemporary societies have become more diverse economically, racially, and ethnically. Moreover, the liberalization of demographic representation in the workplace induced by legislative decision-making motivates equality of representation of such marginalized minority communities as women, people with disabilities, the elderly, and others. Some of the policies enacted in the USA and aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in governmental institutions are the Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce of 2021 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. The identified problem addressed in this paper is the inconsistency and ineffectiveness of implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and practices. This problem is manifested through the under-representation of these populations in the public sector workforce and their unmet needs in the work setting, triggering continuous inequality. It is recommended to improve academic training, reduce the majority’s opposition to the policies, eliminate a race-neutral narrative, enhance accountability, and launch mentoring programs.
Background Information
Diversity, equity, and inclusion have become pivotal issues pursued by organizations, states, and the global community today. The ongoing trend of globalization dominates multiple spheres of human life, ranging from economy, technology, trade, and politics to healthcare, traveling, entertainment, and other substantial areas (Martin et al., 2018; Rao & Neely, 2019). Due to the intensification of the globalization processes, states’ populations have become more diverse, which validates the need for representation of the demographics given inclusion and equal opportunity for all. Moreover, according to Martin et al. (2018), globalization has induced an “acceleration of the agglomeration-driven inequality within almost every country on the planet” (p. 6). However, with the increasingly ethnically and economically diversified society induced by globalization, social inequality is related to the underrepresentation of other disadvantaged groups. They include minority populations, such as women, the elderly, low socioeconomic status individuals, people with disabilities, and others.
When managing the life of society in a manner that prioritizes diversity and inclusion, the elimination of social inequalities is essential. This issue is particularly relevant in contemporary American society, where the needs of all communities are encouraged to be tolerated. Indeed, according to Casellas Connors (2021), “embracing and fostering diversity encompasses a level of tolerance and respect, without judgment, for a multiplicity of traditions and cultures” (p. 9). It is most important in government organizations where employees are expected to represent the whole demographics of the country. However, the implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in the public sector is hindered.
Problem Description
Given the outlined context of the issue with the implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, the scope of the problem and its implications for the impacted communities and individuals should be discussed. Although scholars and policy-makers have articulated the concerns about the problems with diversity in the workplace in governmental institutions, the implementation of some pivotal policies in practice remains inconsistent. There are significant gaps between the prescribed state of affairs as presented in the policies and the real outcomes that public sector organizations and governmental institutions face daily (Iyer, 2022). These gaps are mostly related to the inconsistent implementation of the prescriptions of the Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce of 2021 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 as some of the major diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in the USA.
Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce of 2021 is a legislative policy that encourages and regulates workforce diversity. In particular, in the document, President holds that “it is the policy of my Administration to cultivate a workforce that draws from the full diversity of the Nation” (The White House, 2021, para. 2). This policy promotes the treatment of employees with dignity and respect to “remove barriers to equal opportunity” (The White House, 2021, para. 3). It is intertwined with the provisions of another important policy, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which makes it illegal to deny or obstruct employment due to discriminatory concerns (“Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,” n. d.). Although these policies aim to eliminate workplace discrimination and enhance diverse society’s representation, their implementation is inconsistent, harming the communities and individuals of minority groups who are disproportionately marginalized in the public sector workplace.
Overall, inequality of vulnerable populations in an organizational setting has economic implications. According to Amis et al. (2020), “organizations, far from being neutral entities, constitute bounded, rationalized, and formalized spaces in which economic opportunities intersect with structures of exclusion and disadvantage” (p. 195). However, in government organizations, the scope of the problem becomes even more significant due to the expansion of the issue of inequality beyond economic outcomes and reaching social and political spheres. Indeed, with the underrepresentation of disadvantaged groups, such as ethnic or racial minorities, women, the elderly, and others, their agendas are not promoted, and their needs are not pursued on the governmental level (Iyer, 2022).
One of the reasons for the inconsistency of diversity-based policies is the resistance of the advantaged populations. Iyer (2022) stated that advantaged groups with the status quo do not perceive the necessity of implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion policies due to their advantageous position. Since they are in a powerful position, “their opposition can undermine the successful implementation of DEI policies, thus resulting in continued inequality, wasted resources, and potential for tension in the organization” (Iyer, 2022, p. 1). Thus, the problem is in the ineffectiveness of policy implementation due to the constraining factors within the society and organizations.
Another reason is the belief that all the social injustices in the workplace are already resolved as articulated by the majority representatives. According to Kraus et al. (2022), the persistence of the narrative about the achieved racial equality does not reflect the reality of the American society and hinders the implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in organizations. Indeed, “the assumption of the race-neutral organization is fairly common in organizations, but this assumption has never been a reality, as historically underrepresented minoritized workers tend to face exclusion in all facets of the organizational process, including in hiring, promotion, voice, and exit” (Kraus et al., 2022, p. 7). Thus, the inconsistency of diversity, equity, and inclusion policy implementation is manifested through the under-representation of racial minorities, marginalized aged populations, and women (Card et al., 2020). Due to the persistence of the problem in the government institutions and the negative outcomes in the form of unmet needs and workplace discrimination of the marginalized populations, specific solutions need to be implemented.
Recommended Alternative Policy Solutions
The problem specified in this white paper is broad and multifaceted and requires specifically developed solutions to ensure that the multiple levels of the issue manifestation are properly addressed. The importance of tackling the identified problematic issues is validated by the proven benefit for organizations and sectors of having a diverse workforce. Indeed, according to the research conducted by Moon and Christensen (2020), biodemographic workforce diversity provides performance benefits to organizations. Scholars have proven that workforce diversity achieved through equity and inclusion practices improves outcomes of organizational performance, allows for the development of more effective strategies, and yields better results in organizational functioning across multiple sectors (Gomez & Bernet, 2019). It is significantly relevant to the governmental institutions where the representation of the diverse population of societies allows for proper delegation of all community’s interests on the governing level. Indeed, with greater diversity in the public sector, organizations can reach a higher level of trust from the people they serve (Moon & Christensen, 2020). Therefore, the recommendations for policy implementation improvements are pivotal due to their contribution to achieving workforce diversity, equity, and inclusion for the benefit of the whole society.
For organizations in the public sector and governmental institutions, the management of a heterogeneous workforce should be aligned with specifically designed strategies both at policy and organizational levels (Riccucci, 2021). The proposed solutions incorporate recommendations to the multiple stakeholders in the government field. Such an approach allows for regulating the diversity training, representation, management, workforce recruitment, and anti-discrimination agenda. Implementing these recommendations for policy improvement is anticipated to significantly influence the outcomes of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the public sector, which will ultimately have long-term benefits for society in the future.
Firstly, the problem of under-addressed and under-discussed concerns related to the representation of society’s diversity in the public sector should be tackled at an academic level. Thus, one of the recommended solutions to the identified problem is initiating professional and academic training programs to advance the overall discussion of race and social justice as an essential element of diversity and equity in the public sector (Lopez-Littleton et al., 2018). Indeed, through such an effort, the individuals preparing to be employed in governmental institutions will be acknowledged with the social request for improved diversity. Since these individuals are likely to influence the continued policy-making process, their awareness of the problem and the availability of skills to solve it will potentially contribute to policy improvement.
Secondly, it is essential to address the reasons for the failure to implement diversity, equity, and inclusion policies to practice to find a proper solution. As stated in the problem description, the resistance of the advantaged majority of the population to policies aimed at achieving social equality has been one of the major causes of the issue. According to Iyer (2022), “encouraging a broader focus on the disadvantaged outgroup can draw attention to the inequality that requires intervention, with less emphasis on the advantaged group’s own position or the associated negative responses” (p. 8). In other words, government institutions should incorporate practices that raise awareness about real workplace concerns that minority groups face, focusing on shifting advantaged groups’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion policy implementation. If the resistance within organizations is properly eliminated, the implementation of policies will not be obstructed, and diversity goals will be achieved more effectively. Therefore, it is recommended to initiate practices for advancing the issues of inequality to disseminate the need for diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in government organizations across the advantaged workforce.
Thirdly, the reshaping of a race-neutral narrative within organizations is required to ensure that the issues are objectively identified and tackled with precision. The achievement of a workforce that represents different segments of demographics, including racial, ethnic, gender, and age minorities, with the acknowledgment of their needs is the goal of this recommendation. To achieve this goal, the entities in the government sector might implement a track record practice to ensure that their diversity, equity, and inclusion aims are achieved. According to Kraus et al. (2022), a “careful review of the history of failure to create DEI gains will help firms recalibrate to all the processes and changes that have been tried (and failed) over the history of the organization and its leadership” (p. 10). Thus, since the problem with diversity, equity, and inclusion in government institutions is related to inconsistency and ineffectiveness at the stage of intervention implementation, history tracking will allow for more consistency at an organizational level.
Fourthly, it is recommended to ensure that the plans for achieving diversity, equity, and inclusion goals are not only introduced to institutions but are followed, and the results are reported. For that matter, “at the state level, DEI policy should be coupled with progress and accountability” (Casellas Connors, 2021, p. 12). Indeed, institutions should be held accountable for their progress across the policy implementation process. Such efforts will be helpful in organizations’ workforce management for its compliance with the policy provisions. For example, diversity, equity, and inclusion officers might be appointed in organizations to control and oversee the implementation process and be responsible and accountable individuals. The appointment of an officer implies deliberate work on improving diversity in the workplace, including identifying current issues in the underrepresented needs of marginalized populations and implementing specifically customized interventions capable of meeting the diversity, equity, and inclusion needs of the specific institution. In such a manner, the precision of policy implementation would be achieved with results indicative of the performance of the accountable professionals.
Fifthly, better policy implementation consistency and effectiveness in government institutions’ workforce diversity might be achieved by initiating mentoring groups. According to Foy (2021), the initiation of mentoring programs to resolve particular issues for improved inclusive practices provides significant benefits for organizations. Such mentoring programs might be lengthy in time due to the multifaceted and complex plans for achieving proper workforce diversity (Foy, 2021). Using an example of the mentoring programs for the inclusion of people of color in the business workplace, governmental institutions are recommended to launch mentoring programs for marginalized populations. For instance, the discrimination against people of color in the tax sector institutions might be minimized by means of systematic interventions within the framework of mentoring programs. The components of such programs, as introduced by Foy (2021), should include “one-on-one and group mentoring, access to a mentoring coordinator, and ongoing training and evaluation” (p. 679). Thus, mentorship is one of the institution-based recommendations that might improve policy implementation.
Conclusion
To summarize, the public sector workforce demographics in general and the managerial positions, in particular, are indicative of the overall demographics of society. Although diversity, equity, and inclusion are relevant to all spheres of contemporary society, government institutions, and the overall public sector, diversity is imperative. It is validated by the representation of the demographics, needs, and agendas of all population groups in this sector, allowing for promoting these community’s concerns at state and federal decision-making levels. The lack of diversity in the workforce of this field will result in continuous inequality and under addressing of marginalized populations’ needs. The policies enacted by the US government in relation to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion adequately outline the steps for increasing workforce diversity for better societal outcomes. However, it has been identified that the implementation of the policies is inconsistent and insufficiently effective due to such factors as race-neutral institutional narratives, the majority’s resistance to diversity, and the lack of well-planned intervention progress tracking.
As a result of this problem, marginalized groups, including women, racial and ethnic minorities, seniors, and people with disabilities, continue suffering from bias and discrimination in government institutions. Therefore, to resolve the identified problem, the following policy improvement recommendations have been suggested. First, academic training for employees in the public sector should be intensified. Second, organizational interventions for minimizing the majority’s opposition to diversity policies should be implemented. Third, it is important to eliminate race-neutral narratives within organizations to achieve recognition of the particularities of racial minorities and their needs in the workplace. Fourth, it has been recommended to increase accountability for diversity, equity, and inclusion plan accomplishment. Finally, the initiation of mentorship programs at the institutional level has been encouraged. Ultimately, proper adherence to these recommendations is expected to yield positive diversity, equity, and inclusion policy implementation for public sector institutions.
References
Amis, J. M., Mair, J., & Munir, K. A. (2020). The organizational reproduction of inequality. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 195-230.
Card, D., Lemieux, T., & Riddell, W. C. (2020). Unions and wage inequality: The roles of gender, skill and public sector employment. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D’économique, 53(1), 140-173.
Casellas Connors, I. (2021). Constructing a monolith: State policy, institutional DEI Plans, and the flattening of Latinx identity at Hispanic-serving institutions. AERA Open, 7(1), 1-16.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n. d.). Web.
Foy, C. M. (2021). Successful applications of diversity, equity, and inclusion programming in various professional settings: Strategies to increase DEI in libraries. Journal of Library Administration, 61(6), 676-685.
Gomez, L. E., & Bernet, P. (2019). Diversity improves performance and outcomes. Journal of the National Medical Association, 111(4), 383-392.
Iyer, A. (2022). Understanding advantaged groups’ opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12666. Web.
Kraus, M. W., Torrez, B., & Hollie, L. (2022). How narratives of racial progress create barriers to diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 108-113.
Lopez-Littleton, V., Blessett, B., & Burr, J. (2018). Advancing social justice and racial equity in the public sector. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 24(4), 449-468.
Martin, R., Tyler, P., Storper, M., Evenhuis, E., & Glasmeier, A. (2018). Globalization at a critical conjuncture? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 3-16.
Moon, K. K., & Christensen, R. K. (2020). Realizing the performance benefits of workforce diversity in the US federal government: The moderating role of diversity climate. Public Personnel Management, 49(1), 141-165.
Rao, A. H., & Neely, M. T. (2019). What’s love got to do with it? Passion and inequality in white‐collar work. Sociology Compass, 13(12), 1-17.
Riccucci, N. M. (2021). Managing diversity in public sector workforces. Routledge.
The White House. (2021). Executive Order on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce. Web.